Customer Reviews

Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, I can attest to the scholarliness and challenge of this book written from a Socinian viewpoint. It is a sequel to a prior work entitled The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound. In the author's own words,'JESUS WAS NOT A TRINTARIAN represents a Socinian view of the Son of God(after Faustus Socinus, 1539-1604)' (page 327). It 'represents that 'marginalized' strand of Christianity which struggles to retain the words of Jesus himself' (page 378).

The book is a tour de force. It is a masterpiece. What the author does with two passages from the Bible (Mark 12:29 [the Shema] and Psalm 110:1) is absolutely amazing. He in effect dismantles the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian edifice of Trinitarianism which has prevailed in all branches of Christianity since the fourth century and shows persuasively why this is an error of Gentile Christianity unsubstantiatable from the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament and why Judaism and Islam are right to reject it.

Equally breathtaking is his laying of the axe to the root of Augustine's theological tree (page 276). 'In one fell swoop', as it were, he shows how Augustine's commentary on John 17:3 in his HOMILIES ON JOHN is an unwarranted re-writing,--an eisegesis, not an exegesis. The implication is that the rest of his magnificent and towering writings (ON THE TRINITY, THE CITY OF GOD, CONFESSIONS and so on) are seriously flawed, being built on this faulty and feeble foundation. 'It is at this verse that one of the most startling manipulations of the text of Scripture has occurred. The celebrated Augustine, unable to find his beloved Trinity in Jesus'words, decided to rewrite the utterance of Jesus to accommodate a creed about which Jesus knew nothing. Here is how he deals with John 17:3 in his HOMILIES ON JOHN:'And this,' He [Jesus] adds,'is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.' The proper order of the words is, 'That they may know you and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent, as the only true God.''

The book is divided into seventeen sections: between the introduction (pages 1-6) and the epilogue ('A Future for Monotheism', pages 380-384)there are twelve chapters, some of them work which previously appeared
in non-book form (chapters 6, 7 and 12):

1. Foundations for Belief in God and His Son
2. Who Was the God of Jesus and His Followers?
3. Biblical Fact and History Against Dogma
4. The Titanic Struggle of Scholars to Find the Triune God in the Bible
5. The Son of God: Protestant Loss of Jesus' Teaching and His Promotion to Deity [Apotheosis]
6. Jesus as 'My Lord' Messiah: The Golden Key of Psalm 110:1
7. If Only We Had Listened to Gabriel
8. Church Councils, The Da Vinci Code and Modern Scholarship
9. Detective Work and Word Tricks
10. Mathematical Marvels and the Obstruction of Monotheism
11. And Introduction to Dissident Heroes
12. Does Everyone Believe in the Trinity?

Then follow three appendices: On John 20:28, Where Jewish Opposition Breaks Down, and Hebrews 1:10. -- The strongest chapters are six and 12, in which there is massive documentation of the author's point.

'Defining God and His Son biblically remains part of the unfinished work of the Reformation,' says the back cover of the book. It is towards this end that the author writes.

The author dialogues with the finest scholars writing today and deftly employs concessions from them to make his case. If you know of anyone who is struggling with the difficulty posed by the doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend that you buy them a copy of this book. This is definitely one of the most valuable gifts you could ever give to a soul seeking enlightenment.

In this 424 page book, Anthony Buzzard repeats and expands upon the anti-trinitarian arguments of his earlier work, "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" (co-authored with Charles F. Hunting). Buzzard points out that there are few Biblical passages (only about six in the New Testament) that plausibly refer to the divinity of Jesus, and that these few are far outnumbered by passages which either distinguish Jesus from God, put Jesus in a subordinate position to the Father, or which attribute human limitations to Jesus. Indeed, many of these anti-Trinitarian passages are attributed to Jesus himself.

Buzzard points out that virtually all of the so-called trinitarian passages in the New Testament are either grammatically ambiguous or subject to plausable, alternatve interpretations. When evaluating the trinitarian passages, Buzzard's premise is that it makes more sense to interpret those few passages in terms of the more numerous non-trinitarian passages, rather than the other way around. Buzzard also emphasizes the unitarian background of Judaism as a reason for doubting the trinitarian interpretation of the gospels; he sees little if any reason to suppose that a radical switch from unitarianism to trinitarianism would have been handled in such an ambiguous manner if it were really intended.

Buzzard's arguments are generally sound, if not air-tight, and elaboration of some points would have been welcome. For example, how does Buzzard explain the trinitarian form of blessing ("In the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit"), found in early Jewish-Christian documents such as The Didache? This formulation would seem to imply the personhhood of the holy spirit, which Buzzard denies. Then there is the early Christian belief - which Buzzard accepts - that Jesus will be the judge of the living and the dead at the end of time. Would not this function imply a divine omniscience incompatible with the idea that Jesus is NOT divine? Or would Buzzard say that the Father somehow transfers or bestows this omniscience onto the Son?

There is one other major point that Buzzard sidesteps: in what way is the death and resurrection of Jesus the cause of our salvation. Or was it necessary for salvation? If so, why - why was the death of Jesus necessary for the forgiveness of sin?

Buzzard also touches upon a couple of other points, without developing them. He suggests that the doctrine of the trinity may have arisen as the Gentile church became increasingly estranged from its Jewish origins and sought to distance itself in every way from Judaism. But why was nascent Rabbinic Judaism so hostile to JEWISH Christianity, particularly if some factions of Jewish Christianity remained Torah-observant? Does this suggeest that even Jewish Christinaity was trinitarian at an early date?

Buzzard also mentions the possibility that the later devotion to Mary the mother of Jesus arose to fill the void created by elevating the mediator Jesus to the status of divinity. An interesting point, but it remains undeveloped.

If this book has a flaw, it is its length and repetitiveness. Had I been an editor, I would have sent it back and said, "Cut it in half." It often reads as a collection of essays that were originally written as separate pieces, and then combined without editing or revision. Some points are repeated ad nauseum, fifteen or twenty times throughout the book. Some quotations are repated, in differing forms, within a few pages of each other. The repetition is maddening at times. If the trinitarian passages in the New Testament can be reduced to a mere handful, it would have been much more clear to devote a chapter to each of those passages, or to devote a chapter to each separate book of the New Testament where trinitarian passages occur, rather than to have everything mixed up, thrown together, and repeated over and over.

Anthony Buzzard has provided a thorough presentation that escapes the paralyzing bondage of the 4th and following centuries' faux-orthodox interpretations of Jesus the Christ. This book exposes the intellectual distortions and rut that has entombed Christology for centuries, because such scholarly honesty would probably have cost "traditional" theologians their jobs, even their lives. Readers are provided with a Jesus truly grounded in the New Testament. In the current post-Christian period, Buzzard's candor may well assist with a resurrection of a genuinely orthodox Christianity, if there is ever to be one. In my roles as a former philosophy professor and retired Episcopal cathedral canon, I heartily recommend "Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian."

This scholarly effort reaches back into the Dead Sea Scrolls and bases its context on the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the LORD, (Yahweh) our God, (Elohim), the LORD, is ONE, (Echad). Many wish to ignore the fact that this same basic monotheistic creed was recited and affirmed by Jesus himself. However, as Buzzard aptly cites, this is clearly not the creed of many today who claim to be Christ's followers. The general belief is that God is three, not one. In fact, you can not hold membership in the World Council of Churches unless you confess God as a triune being.
Quite a sad commentary on how far we have strayed from the Head of the Church, that is Christ's own declaration on who God is and that Yahweh is indeed one, unitary personage.

This book is very well written and brings in blatant re-writings of scripture by translators and commentators wishing the Bible to conform to their own trinitarian theology. This was done in spite of the fact that the word "trinity", "triune" and the pseudo-title "God the Son" is absent from scripture. Jews to this day refuse to believe that God is more than one as affirmed by the Lord Jesus himself in Matthew 19:17, "There is only ONE who is good." Jesus also declared: "Now this is eternal life; that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3) Notice Jesus is referring to someone other than himself, the Father, as the ONLY true God. The word "only" excludes the possibility of anyone else sharing or being in the Godhead.

The only caveat I would recommend is what I say to everyone. Be a Berean. Buzzard is brilliant but not infallible. He was formally with the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong who among other mind control techniques, bilked his members of a triple tithe of 30% of their income. Research this man for yourself. Offshoot organizations of Armstrong will retain his tyrant spirit of error in other areas if they do not see him as the false teacher and con artist he was. That having been said, I would avoid dogmatic groups of any kind. Restoration Fellowship, an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, included. They are cessationalists and ignore Paul's clear directives in Corinthians regarding desiring and using gifts of the spirit. They have concluded that God no longer gives healing, speaking in tongues or prophecy when Paul wrote extensively on their proper use and clearly said, "do not forbid speaking in tongues." (1 Corn 14:39) So like many whom they critique, they too ignore scripture which does not fit their personal tastes. Read this book but read the WHOLE Bible for yourself. Do not let any man or organization control your mind. Remember he whom the Son sets free is free indeed so follow the man Christ Jesus.

My comments get a little long, but bear with me. Many paradigm shifts have to be made to accommodate a lesser Christ as the author has portrayed.

Anthony's book shatters concepts held by most Christian groups and major denominations about Jesus. Just as N.T. Wrght, E. P. Sanders, John Meier and other recent Jesus Biblical scholars have rewritten traditional beliefs about the historical Jesus, this book completely alters beliefs concerning whether Jesus was preexistent God and whether there was an incarnation. He says no as does John Hick and others. Anthony explains that the belief for a pre-existent Christ is not supported by the accounts we have in the New Testament and that Jesus was the Jewish human being Wright and others state he was. He goes further to state that he was fully human, and not divine.

Anyone interested in the subject of a pre-existent Christ would be greatly helped by reading a couple of N.T. Wrights books, E.P. Sanders, John Meier, and several other books on the so called third quest for the historical Jesus. Those books by highly acclaimed historical Biblical scholars establish the humanity of Christ. Anthony refers to their works throughout his book.

Even though I agree with most of his conclusions based upon the scriptural account, I get vertigo attempting to rearrange my lifelong mental furniture relative to my inherent beliefs of a preexistent God who became Jesus. I am 70 years of age. Habits of thought are strong.

Embracing the belief for all of us will present other challenges. If we accept a diminished Christ as Anthony has portrayed him (not God nor now God) concepts which have been held by the majority of all Christians will have to be dramatically altered.

Just exactly who and what substance is Jesus now? What specific powers does he hold and possess as contrasted to God? Is Jesus actual God, or a lesser created spirit as the angels are created spirits? What role does Jesus have in prayer and how can he be reached instantly, as we perceive God in our lives? The universe is billions of light years across in size. Christ spoke of returning to the father. Where? At what speed? Is Jesus now somewhat a powerful angelic creature as the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormon's believe him to be?

Sanders and Wright and Meiers have all graphically pointed out that Jesus was a Jewish human being with ideas and beliefs and world views of his day. He would have believed the scientific knowledge of his day (the world is flat or round, the sun moves around the earth, epilepsy is demon possession) and theological beliefs and interpretations by in large taught him from a child. He believed in the temple, ritual sacrifices, adhering to the priesthood and its guidance and directions for the community, and all that was Jewish religion in his day. He proposed no changes in the Sabbath to Sunday, he didn't eat pork nor declare it to be clean, and most likely did not at all see himself founding a church to go forward for 2000 years preaching the gospel. He didn't see a visonary "new covenant" and know all the changes to occur in the next 100 years in "the church". He believed his death would usher in the kingdom of God in his day, not some time in the future. Here I believe Anthony veers from the humanity of Christ which he has so strongly argued for (see his footnotes bottom of page 12) and gives him supernatural understanding of prophecy. The parables are quoted as containing visionary references to the end of the age being in our time today. Anthony seems to imply in his emphasis of Matt 16:18 and the "founding" of the church, that Christ saw the future and was aware centuries of time would pass. (See page 416) Scholars have suggested the Matthew 16:18 statements were redacted comments added to the gospel of Matthew years after originally written.

Jesus apparently didn't know that his kingdom was afar off when he is attributed to have referred to the establishment of the church. It is on this subject that Anthony seems to give Christ visionary understanding of the future for his mission of the day, in several statements Anthony makes in the book. Anthony argues strongly for listening to Jesus statements for the creed, and diverts to Paul for doctrine and understanding of Christian theology. He references this relative to unclean food and Sabbath keeping and for a "true" understanding of the gospel message for theology (see his footnotes on page 89). Jesus, without being God incarnate, would have been wearing blinders himself when speaking of the times and seasons for the future. Anthony refers to a six week course Christ gave after the resurrection concerning the kingdom of God. According to the Biblical record, after that course, Christ still hadn't made clear the times or seasons to his followers. Christ never invisioned a "new covenant" in the sense that he foresaw any changes in his religious outlooks or beliefs, other than those of his Jewish heritage. Raymond Brown, in his book THE CHURCHES THE APOSTLES LEFT BEHIND, shows that in early Christianity right after Christ's death there were churches with differing outlooks and beliefs, each of them still churches following Christ with different concepts of belief and worship. The apostle James and Paul's "churches" are two contrasting examples. There was another church or group who followed John.

Wright, Sanders, Meier and other historical Biblical scholars all take the position that Jesus, acting as the messiah of his day, felt he was bringing about the kingdom in his lifetime, including the building of an actual temple. Christ made no statements indicating he had knowledge of years of time to occur before his return and the church was to be built and go forward to fill the time. Peter spoke of how Jesus had spoken "now" in the "last days". The book of Revelation was written by an author proclaiming "things which must shortly come to pass". The Apostle Paul obviously felt Christ was to return in his day as Thessalonians and Corinthians details. C.S. Lewis asked the question in his essay The Worlds Last Night:: "Where did his followers get the idea of an immediate return?" His answer was that they got it from their master.

If Jesus is not God in the sense of being actual God now, does Jesus now possess omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotent power as we believe God to hold and have? What is Jesus like now? Historical Christianity has believed and always taught that God is spirit and does not contain corporality? Where did the body go of Jesus? In the appearance to the 12 the Bible account seems to indicate he showed them a body with scars and a hole in his side. He speaks of having no blood in his body. He ate and drank with his disciples after his resurrection. What of the various bodily forms he took after the resurrection? In one case he was touched and actually invited Thomas to touch him. In another case he instructed Mary to not touch him. In the case of the appearance to Mary in bodily form, he instructed Mary to not touch him and said that he had not yet "ascended" to his father. What are all the references to up and down and around if Christ became God with omnipresence and omnipotence, or at the least we could say, capable of mental telepathy with God with even diminished spirit powers? Where was the journey to be taken that Christ hadn't taken yet? Passing from this very limited physical body to the powers of God as we understand them would have blown Jesus mind. He still continues to speak after the resurrection in terms strictly of the physical. In some cases he appears in bodily form but a different bodily form from what he had prior to the resurrection.. In other cases he appears in vision. It is said that he appeared to James and Peter, but we have no record in the gospels of how he appeared, whether in vision or in person. Paul said he appeared to him in vision.

Accepting no incarnation and the complete humanity of Christ, Christians today find themselves dealing with a much diminished Christology. With what Anthony has presented, we can only perceive Christ to be one like angels described in the Bible. Anthony references that Christ was given immortality and then likens Christians to be recipients of the same gift at the resurrection, which would seem to make resurrected Christians co equal to Christ in the future.

If we think of Christ as a powerful spirit being with immortality, in what way does he differ from Michael or Gabriel and angelic hosts? The Bible indicates in the story in Daniel that angels are limited in their scope and power to the time and space constraints of the universe. Is Christ limited as powerful angels are implied to be limited, and does Christ have far lesser power than an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, God? These questions all become questions that are logical when we speak of the diminished Christ Anthony is suggesting. We have to look to all the stories in the Bible for answers in trying to frame who and what Christ is. Any way we approach the subject of God and Christ and an infinite intelligence, we find in the end with all we think we know, we know very little of the one who is God.

All is not simple, as Anthony proposes. The more I read and study, the less confident I feel in my answers and realize I don't understand about the vast subject of God. I congratulate those who can search and seek God and go though life confidently in their understanding. Anthony makes a valuable contribution in a subject vital to us all. It creates lots of questions when we search for a true understanding of God.

This book was a light in a dark world of confusion for me. I've always felt funny about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and wondered how this had gotten into the orthodox church when it seemed so obviously wrong. If Jesus is God, who was He praying to in the Garden of Gethsemeny? If God left heaven to become a baby, who was keeping the planets and moons spinning and all the atoms in the universe from flying apart? This book is slanted toward the Jehovah's Witness beliefs but it is not hard to see where those views come into play. The author makes an honest effort to keep his own religious faith out of the text. I definately recommend this book to anyone who is neither a trinitarian nor "Oneness" believer. There is an alternative!

Having long struggled with the concept of the Trinity, and having suspected that much of that doctrine stemmed from the influence of Greek philosophy and culture, I considered many Amazon book reviews before selecting Anthony Buzzard's "Jesus was not a Trinitarian." The author comes across as a dedicated Christian but one who believes in the Shema, the creed as Jesus taught it, i.e., "the Lord our God is one God." This, as opposed to the Triune God of the second century and beyond, by which God is held to be three Persons but one essence. Buzzard considers this later belief to be an unnecessary and even ill-founded complication of the content of the Bible. Indeed, he attributes much of the issue to a confused reading of the Hebrew text "Adonai," as opposed to "adoni." He says that early theologians therefore conflated God and Jesus to be Lord in the same sense, which he rather convincingly establishes to be false. Furthermore, another conflation involved believing God the Son and the Son of God to mean essentially the same thing and therefore to establish two Persons of the Trinity. Almost two thousand years of worship have been built on these latter premises and make it difficult to reestablish the original meaning of the Bible.

This work is extensively footnoted and followed by a detailed bibliography. Where it is weakest is in the first four or five chapters, where the author is unnecessarily repetitive. All in all, working with this text was enormously informative and inspires me to seek out denominations or liturgies that may have found their faith in the same path -- which will not likely be an easy task.

This book is very well researched and written.
It is footnoted heavily and is definitely very scholarly.

Anthony Buzzard is a very educated theologian.
He does a great job showing that Jesus is not God, but rather the son of God, the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed one.

This is a must read to anyone who is serious about studying the subject of the trinity!

Jesus told Mary, I go to my Father and to your Father and to my God and to your God. That pretty much sums up the relationship between God and Christ. Paul the Apostle includes the truth that the Father is the God of Christ at the beginning of nearly every letter. Unless you accept that truth, Paul reasons we have nothing to say to each other because you do not even know the relationship of God and his Son. The only ones in scripture that accuse Jesus of making himself God are those who wanted to crucify him for it. He said the son of man 87 times. He never said I am God because God is not the author of confusion. The truth of the Godhead is a great mystery. We should treat the Godhead like all other doctrines and teach what Jesus said. Every time you say Jesus is God you are accusing Christ of negligence. You assert your declaration as being more conclusive then Christ. God help you.

I applaud Mr. Buzzard for having the courage to question the orthodox position of Christianity in regards to the Trinity.

The Trinity is not explicitly given as a creed in the Bible, but often hinted at in "types and shadows". For example, Abraham is the father, Isaac is the son, and a third person, the servant of Abraham, went to fetch a bride for the son and marked her with jewels! This is symbolic of God the Father, his Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit preparing the church through gifts to be joined to her groom.

In Genesis 1, the Spirit of God is hovering over the water while God says, "Let us make man in our image." Trinitarians have no doubt this is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit cooperating under one name in creation. In Genesis 1:1, God has created time "in the beginning", space "heavens", and matter "earth" showing a three-in-one creation. Time, space, and matter agree as one to make reality.

The Bible says that Jesus raised the temple of his own body from the dead (John 2:19), that God the Father raised him up (Galatians 1:1), and the Holy Spirit also did (Romans 8:11). There is no contradiction here for Trinitarians, just as at the Lord's baptism the Father, Son and Holy Spirit always operate in harmony in ever major theological event. Christ is the teamwork of the commanding Father, the obedient Son in human flesh, and the miraculous Holy Spirit all working together as one. With any person of the Godhead missing, there is no effective Christ. Christ is said to be incarnation of the entire Godhead, not just the Son, "for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The Father is all knowing "no man knows the day or the hour, neither the son of man nor the angels, but the Father knows", the Son is all powerful "all power in heaven and earth is given unto me", and the Spirit is all present "whither shall I go from your Spirit". Each person provides a key attribute of God.

The menorah has three branches, which share seven lights, and yet it is made of one single beaten piece of gold. This is symbolic of the Father, Son, and Spirit sharing one essence that is pure and all three equally sharing the seven spirits or perfect qualities of God (Isaiah 11:1-2).

This is the orthodox position that Anthony Buzzard comes to attack, which is brave considering it's almost overpowering Biblical presence in types and shadows. He does this going backwards into Judaism and ignoring the supernatural, New Testament revelation of God's nature.

Jesus is inferior to the Father by choice, because he emptied himself of his equal status as God and came in "likeliness of sinful flesh". Therefore, God the Father has exalted him with a name that is above all names. Prior to this, as a member of the Godhead Jesus was "in the form of God" (Phillipians 2:6-11).

Mr. Buzzard makes his attacks using a non-existent version of the Bible which he loves to quote, but which he never cites. For example, in John 17:3, Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" which does not contradict the Trinity at all. The Father is Jehovah, the only true God. Jesus emptied himself of that privilege, and instead submitted to God and operated via the Holy Spirit's power.

Mr. Buzzard simply changes this verse to say that the Father is "the only ONE who is truly God" which is a fanciful, made-up translation. The word "only" appears in the Greek, but the word "one" is a total fabrication to disqualify the Trinity. A most subtle argument, but no major commercial translation anywhere seems to support it, demanding that he explain the insertion of an entire word without the courtesy of an explanation.

Mr. Buzzard then goes on to use his new sword, a conveniently customized John 17:3, on nearly every page as he continues his unabated attack on the Trinity.
He seems to do this with other, oddly tweaked Scriptures also.

I respect Mr. Buzzard but I find he fails to explain the orthodox Christian position at all before he begins to attack it, whereas in this short review I have done a much better job of it. It is easy to attack what you do not first fairly explain.

"And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you." - Zech 2:11

"Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit." - Is. 48:16

In Psalm 2, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each take turns speaking. The Father says, "I have set my king on his holy hill", and the Son says, "Jehovah said to me, you are my Son forever", and the Holy Spirit is the neutral, third party narrator who "does not speak of his own" in the first person. The Apostles taught that this was a supernatural revelation of the throne room of God, and they rejected the secular, orthodox Jewish interpretation!