Practical theologian, Biblical Unitarian, Fellowship starter.
Ithilien
Joined February 2023
- Tweets59.1K
- Following593
- Followers1.4K
- Likes62.3K
The intellectual pedigree of Unitarianism is off the charts: Locke, Newton, Milton, Priestley - just off the top of my head.
This is why people saying 'Unitarians are so stupid!' doesn't work for me.
And all of these developed their Unitarian beliefs in the teeth of severe potential persecution. It was not opportunism, received opinion, or go-along-to-get-along.
Trinitarians: "Nothing to see here! Move along!"
The only reason Isaac Newton requested that John Locke not publish Newton's 'Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture' paper was that he feared prosecution and loss of livelihood - even with it being published by someone else, the author anonymous, in another language.
Alas, my dear Trinitarians - this tactic to intimidate Biblical Unitarian Christians doesn't work as well anymore!
It's true that there's no major textual variant at 2 Peter 1:1. But that's because the 'God' variant is so obviously not authentic. ;)
Anthony Burgoyne retweeted
Cautioning people against trying to "earn their salvation" through good works is counterproductive.
I've never met a believer who thinks they are justified by works. However, the sad results of anti-works preaching and leadership are all around us.
Is it any wonder that the world isn't beating down the doors of the churches to join the Kingdom?
If people can't visually see the church doing good in the world, what is the draw? To go sit in an expensive room for an hour every week with a bunch of self righteous, boring, judgmental, sectarian, people?
Trinitarians: "It's the HARDER READING, and so must be authentic!"
Also Trinitarians: <fight tooth and nail for the 'harder reading', exile/imprison/kill people who question it>
YMMV
It’s denial. You can’t claim corruption without evidence. An author can change up their pattern when they want. Corruption TOWARDS a phrase suggesting Jesus being God is much less likely than corruption AWAY from a phrase suggesting Jesus being God. The evidence is stacked against you.
If the possibility tree branch doesn’t have evidence then we shouldn’t linger on it.
Anthony Burgoyne retweeted
In this week’s episode, we look at the various ways biblical authors expressed worship, particularly the objects of their worship. We will see how the Father is worshiped, how the Son is worshiped, and how worship can be rightly given to qualified human beings. We even consider whether the Holy Spirit is worshiped and whether all three (Father, Son, and Spirit) appear as a single object of worship.
youtu.be/Xov8A6_RkAM
Wise words, imo.
Orthopraxy > Orthodoxy
Don't waste your life trying to figure out every single theological detail at the expense of doing the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do:
Be honest, generous, merciful, peaceful, patient and kind.
Look after the poor, the orphan, the widow and the foreigner among you.
Visit the sick and imprisoned.
Love other believers as brothers and sisters and help bear their burdens.
Love and pray for enemies.
Earn an honest living and obey laws that don't contradict the word of God.
2 Peter uses the phrase 'Lord and Saviour' for Jesus ***4*** other times in the short letter:
1:11
2:20
3:2
3:18 <- last verse in letter, pairs with 1:1, first verse in the letter
Yet the phrase 'God and Saviour' is used 0 other times.
Peter uses 'Lord' of Jesus many times, including in 1 Peter and his speeches in Acts. But nowhere else does Peter apply 'God' to Jesus.
Gosh, what are the chances - could the standard rendering of 2 Peter 1:1 just maybe be a corruption? 🤔
Not only does Sinaiticus - generally considered one of the most important early Greek manuscripts - have 'Lord and Saviour' at 2 Peter 1:1 - not 'God and Saviour' - but the standard Aramaic version of the NT (the Peshitta) also has 'Lord and Saviour' there.
Your nearest MDiv making arguments relying on 2 Peter 1:1 having 'theou':
Not only does Sinaiticus - generally considered one of the most important early Greek manuscripts - have 'Lord and Saviour' at 2 Peter 1:1 - not 'God and Saviour' - but the standard Aramaic version of the NT (the Peshitta) also has 'Lord and Saviour' there.
Your nearest MDiv making arguments relying on 2 Peter 1:1 having 'theou':
FYI on 2 Peter 1:1, one of Trinitarians' favourite proof-texts:
Codex Sinaiticus contains a major variant:
'Lord and Saviour'
not
'God and Saviour'
(along with a bunch of other manuscripts that follow this pattern)
which would bring this verse into line with the broad pattern we see in the NT. Jesus is 'Lord' but not 'God'.
It is not wise to base an argument on a major textual variant. Is this favourite proof-text actually another Trinitarian poof-text? 🤔
Anthony Burgoyne retweeted
Finally, you can send them this playlist of basic educational videos about unitarian Christianity. youtube.com/playlist?list=PL…
