You all are welcome to discuss the origin of Christ doctrine at another location, let me suggest this relevant post on As Bereans Did.

Regarding my last post.

If I’ve removed Jesus and the Holy Spirit from the ‘trinity’, then by my logic that leaves me as ‘unitarian’ not ‘binitarian’. Without question I believe Jesus is divine, but as William’s post said: “Someone being divine does not mean that they are God”.

By the way, I did read your web link relating to PKG Feast of Trumpets 2005.

I don’t think it is possible to completely and categorically say Ron Weinland is wrong in stating that Jesus Christ did not pre-date His birth.

Quoting from William’s post again, I also do not find any of the following clearly stated in Scripture:

“Jesus is God who became man, Jesus was God of the Old Covenant, You must believe that Jesus is God who became man, God is made up of God the Father and Jesus, Jesus pre-existed as God before His Human birth or the God of our Fathers became a man”.

For sure, assumptions have been made such as:

(John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.

(John 1:14) “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”.

So most of Christianity says ‘Ah yes, that must mean Jesus was the Word in John 1:1, and so Jesus pre-existed.’ But does it definitely mean that? Yes, God’s Word was made flesh in Jesus Christ, but does it necessarily mean that Jesus Christ was literally ‘the Word’ in John 1:1?

Clearly, there are many definite references to Christ in the Old Testament, but I see those as prophetic of the Christ to come.

I would suggest there is room to question what the majority of Christianity assumes about Christ pre-dating His birth, and that it cannot be ruled out that RW is correct.

I don’t they disagree with the deification of Jesus. Deification does not mean being God. CoG-PKG teaching that Jesus was a man and not God who became a man would not mean that they do think Jesus is divine as being divine does not mean that a person is God.

“The Bible is an interesting book, William, as Mike has pointed out often enough: It can be made to say anything you want it to. (And has been, for three thousand years.) Mal is essentially referring to the same scriptures long-used by Armstrongist groups to promote binitarianism; you might also look up Arius or semi-Arianism (I’m not going to bother linking anything if no one’s going to read it).”

Well I think it is pretty clear on major issue like who is God, who Jesus is, what happens when a person dies and salvation. The why people can make it say anything is by reading ideas into it and ignoring the context and culture od the time. As in the case of the scripture Mal quoted which WoG used to prove Jesus is God (the same that are used to prove the trinity or onesness doctrine) they have ideas read into them. If we looked at scripture there is no scripture that plainly says “Jesus is God who became man, Jesus was God of the Old Covenant, You must believe that Jesus is God who became man, God is a made up of God he Father and Jesus, Jesus preexisted as God before His Human birth or the God of our Fathers became a man.

If any of these things was stated in scripture then you could say that it plainly teaches that Jesus is God and the Binitarian doctrine has scriptural support (or the trinity or oneness) yet it doesn’t. So people read things into scriptures to support their ideas, like what happen with the scriptures Mal posted. None of them say any of the things I posted above.

Yet when we see simple scriptures that clearly and plainly say who Jesus is, we see time and time again that it says He was a man, who was dies and was resurrected by God, is the Son of God, the Messiah and Saviour. We see this clearly said many times in Acts yet they never once say that Jesus is God who became man.

Also I have looked up Arius, semi-Arianism , the trinity, onceness, unitarianism adoptionism and other views abpout Jesus and God.

“Interesting you should say that “some of the explanations in the 2005 FoT sermons seem to be wrong”. If Weinland is an ordained Witness/Prophet/Elijah/Apostle, he can’t be. Not ever. Not even once. Never mind twice! But now he’s wrong THREE TIMES?”

Well it defends what you mean wrong about. By scriptural standards if He claimed He is a prophet and that God gave Him or told Him that “so so will happen” and it doesn’t, it would make Him a false prophet. If He gave sonthing wrong about who God is or who how God did things then this would not make Him false as the scriptures never tell us a prophet must know all things about God.

So going by the scriptural definition of a prophet and the standards of a true prophet I would have to say that Ronald Winland isn’t one.

The deification of Jesus.

“Someone being divine does not mean that they are God. And while there are things that are wrong with CoG-PKG, their unitarian position agrees with the scriptures, though some of the explanations given in the 2005 FoT sersoms seen to be wrong.”

The Bible is an interesting book, William, as Mike has pointed out often enough: It can be made to say anything you want it to. (And has been, for three thousand years.) Mal is essentially referring to the same scriptures long-used by Armstrongist groups to promote binitarianism; you might also look up Arius or semi-Arianism (I’m not going to bother linking anything if no one’s going to read it).

Interesting you should say that “some of the explanations in the 2005 FoT sermons seem to be wrong”. If Weinland is an ordained Witness/Prophet/Elijah/Apostle, he can’t be. Not ever. Not even once. Never mind twice! But now he’s wrong THREE TIMES?

And for the record, I find unitarianism as incomprehensible as trinitarianism. Oh, sure, they’re both “in the Bible” (so is binitarianism), but that doesn’t make any one of those theologies any more true than the other.