Christians Mired in Trumpgate

October 23, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

I use the word Trumpgate, reminiscent of Watergate, for the apparent scandal of President Trump’s tenure in office. He is now under investigation for impeachment by the congressional House of Representatives. It increasingly appears that some of his closest presidential advisors, some of whom are professing Christians, could be implicated and thereby face legal jeopardy.

First, there is the staunchly evangelical Vice-President Mike Pence. He is very vocal about his Christian commitment. His possible legal liability appears to be less than that of some others at this point. And if President Trump is impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate, Pence automatically would become president if he is not found guilty of crimes.

Second, there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He has held this office for nearly twenty months. He has refused to provide any of the many documents under subpoena by House committees investigating impeachment. And he has been refusing to answer some important questions regarding Trumpgate. When Bill Taylor–the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine who testified ten hours yesterday before Congress–strongly objected in an email to Mike Pompeo months ago concerning the legality of President Trump withholding $391 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless its president publicly declared Ukraine would undertake an investigation in Ukraine concerning past activities there of Trump’s political rivals here at home–Pompeo did not respond. That is suspicious.

Twelve days ago, Secretary Pompeo gave a keynote speech to the American Association of Christian Leaders who were gathered in Nashville. His speech was entitled “Being a Christian Leader.” Mr. Pompeo said he has a Bible on his desk at all times and that he starts his work every day by reading some of it. He also said that God’s people serve “a perfect God who constantly forgives us each and every day.” I wondered if this reflected a guilty conscience regarding his part in Trumpgate.

Third, there is Jay Sekulow. He is one of President Trump’s main lawyers, perhaps second only to Rudy Giuliani. Sekulow is a Messianic Jew. Over the years, he has appeared often on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Sekulow also hosts a weekly telecast on Trinity Broadcasting Network entitled “ACLJ This Week,” which refers to American Center for Law and Justice and is a call-in show.

If Trump gets impeached, could Sekulow prove to have legal liability as a result of working for Trump? Trump’s previous “personal lawyer,” Michael Cohen, is now serving three years in prison, partly for political campaign violations directed at the behest of his boss. But, of course, Sekulow has a history of far more integrity than Cohen had.

If Donald Trump is impeached by the House, and even if the Senate does not remove him from office, it will result in some of these people who worked as close advisors to the president having a tarnished reputation.

Charles Darwin’s Beliefs About Religion

July 7, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

I was just reading the last chapter of Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. Published in 1859, it is regarded as the foundation of evolutionary biology. He teaches in it that natural selection is the cause of the development of the species. This book became a focus of many public debates between religion and science in the English-speaking world during the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. It is one of the most important books published in modernity since it has had such a profound effect on the comparison of science and religion.

It has been thought that Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was an atheist. Actually, he began with a strong Unitarian background, though he attended Anglican schools. He received a BA (bachelor of arts degree) at Cambridge University which included studying Anglican theology. In those college years, Charles Darwin was very involved in theological issues. He later admitted that the book which most affected him was William Paleys’ Natural Theology. Paley also wrote, which Darwin read, Evidences of Christianity. But Charles Lyell’s book on geology, Uniformitarianism, affected Darwin’s work the most. This and Darwins’ Origin of Species supported each other.

Charles Darwin had intended to be an Anglican clergyman. His mother and wife Emma were devout Unitarians. Emma seems to have had a genuine love for Jesus. One of her favorite Bible texts was John 13-17. During their courtship, she asked Charles to read this text and discuss with her. She worried that she and Charles were far apart about some religious matters, and she expressed this in a letter. Emma was also a Bible student. She and Charles had much discussion about theology for many years.

Charles Darwin wrote about “God,” but not much. In his early years, he identified himself as a “theist.” Many years later he said, “my belief in what is called a personal God was . . . firm.” That was contrary to many famous Deists previous to him, who were also interested in natural science. They believed that an impersonal God created the universe but that he left it on its own, called “the clockwork universe.” For a long time, Darwin believed God acted upon the universe through his natural laws.

Darwin’s background was very anti-Trinitarian. The wikipedia article, “Religious views of Charles Darwin,” says of Charles’ wife Emma, “In Downe [London suburb] Emma attended the Anglican village church, but as a Unitarian had the family turn round in silence when the Trinitarian Nicene Creed was recited.” She did that on other occasions.

Unitarians were known mostly for two beliefs: (1) advocating religious tolerance, which was most important to them, and (2) rejecting the institutional church doctrine of the Trinity. Regular readers of my blog know that I was a Trinitarian for twenty-two years, then entered into a deep study of the subject, almost entirely as it regards the Bible, and wrote a 600-page book about it entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008). In this book I cite over 400 scholars to show that the Bible does not teach that God is a trinity of persons or that Jesus is God. Yet I affirm in it every other major teaching about the identity and work of Jesus that the institutional church has taught. I don’t identify as a Unitarian because I think that could create some confusion about me. I merely refer to myself as “a one-God Christian.”

But Darwin had become intensely interested in natural history and natural theology. The latter was quite popular among some scientists of that time and before. This means there is a divine design in nature that reveals there is a God who established natural laws. Thus, Darwin believed God was a “lawgiver.” But due to his studies of nature, which reveals so much pain and suffering, Charles Darwin struggled with some religious concepts, especially those involving theodicy. He later began to wrestle with the concept of the existence of God.

Charles Darwin says he began to have serious doubts about the Bible and the existence of God in the late 1830s, which would have been in his early twenties. Some of it was caused by ridicule from classmates and colleagues when he quoted the Bible as an authority on moral issues. But he also began to distrust some of the history recorded in the Old Testament, such as the building of the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis. (I’m writing a book that involves this record in Genesis 6-11.)

In the first ten years of their marriage, Charles accompanied his wife Emma and family to their local Anglican church (Church of England). In about 1849, Charles stopped attending church while his family continued. He developed a pattern of escorting his family to church on Sundays and then going out for a walk.

Emma–obviously an intelligent woman judging from her letters–believed passionately in an afterlife. In 1879, twenty years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s famous book, he admitted to being an agnostic. He explained, “Science has nothing to do with Christ, . . . I do not believe that there ever has been any [divine] revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”

By this time, Charles Darwin claimed that he had never attacked religion in either his writings or his public speeches. He admitted that this probably was due largely to the emotional pain it would have caused his family. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, published posthumously, his wife Emma and their son Francis excised quotes by Charles about Christianity because they deemed them detrimental to his reputation.

In 1958, Charles Darwin’s granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version of this book which included the following deleted quotes:

“The [New Testament] Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, – that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; – by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation” (p. 86).

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (p. 87).

“At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. . . . This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists” (p. 91).

Charles Darwin remains one the most towering figures of the modern western world. But he was never knighted to become Sir Charles in his native land because he originally embraced Christian Faith and then fell away to become an agnostic the remainder of his life. Yet his wife held steadfastly to her Christian convictions.

The marriage of Charles and Emma Darwin seems like a microcosm of something Jesus predicted in his Olivet Discourse. He said, “many will fall away” from the faith; “but the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24.10, 13 NRSV).

What is “the end”?–Jesus comin’ back! Are you ready, like Emma was? Or has Charles Darwin and others convinced you otherwise?

The Missing Link in the Bible

May 17, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

When I first meet a Christian, occasionally the first thing that person will ask me is, “You believe in the Trinity don’t you?” They never ask me, “You believe that Jesus arose from the dead, don’t you?” Why is this?

The book of Acts tells us mostly about the early Christians preaching the gospel, which means “good news.” That good news is that Jesus arose from the dead. The book of Acts tells us over twenty times what their evangelistic messages were. It was mostly that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, he died for the sins of others, and God raised him from the dead. But there isn’t anything in those messages about God being a Trinity, that is, three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is the Missing Link in the Bible.

Why do I say this? The Catholic Church decided at its First Ecumenical Council–held at Nicaea in present Turkey in 325 CE–that Jesus was “very God of very God.” This means that Jesus was just as much God as the Father is God. These 316 bishops, supposedly (two didn’t sign it), even drafted a creed, called the Nicene Creed, which says that. And the last third of this Creed repeatedly declares “anathema” (cursed to hell) upon all those who disagree with this axiom, that Jesus is “very God of very God.”

The Nicene Council never even discussed the constitution of the Holy Spirit. And, contrary to much teaching on this, there was no official church doctrine of the Trinity at that time or anytime before it. It was not until the 370s that the Three Cappadocians (three church fathers) began writing papers about the constitution of the Holy Spirit.

Then the Second Ecumenical Council–held at Calchedon in present Turkey in 381–made the doctrine of the Trinity official. It did so by amending the Nicene Creed and making it the Chalcedonian Creed. Yet the Church was careful not to include the word “trinity” (Gr. trias; L. trinitas) because that word was not in those documents the church generally held as sacred, which later became the New Testament. The Roman emperor thereupon declared that everyone must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or be extricated from the empire.

When the Protestant Reformation came along, in the sixteenth century, those early Reformers accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity without serious scrutiny of it. Yet the mantra of Protestantism was sola scriptura, a Latin expression meaning “only scripture.” Protestants meant by it that if any serious theological teaching is not in the Bible, it ought not to be believed. They differed in this from the Roman Catholic Church, which said “scripture plus tradition,” that is, the teaching of the Catholic Church. But regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, that is exactly what the Protestant Church did–it accepted a Catholic Church tradition that was not in the Bible.

So, no matter how hard you search the Bible, you will not find the word Trinity in there or any statement that comes anywhere close to saying God is three persons or God is three in one. Even many leading evangelical scholars now admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught explicitly in the Bible. Rather, they claim it is a legitimate deduction from the Bible. Regardless, the doctrine of the Trinity is the Missing Link in the Bible because both the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church has made it so.

(Kermit Zarley was a Trinitarian Christian for twenty-two years before reading himself out of it in the Bible. See his book about this subject, which is biblically in-depth, entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. It cites over 400 scholars. This 600-page printed book is available right now only at his website kermitzarley.com. To see a list of over 130 posts of two-three pages in length, which are mostly condensations of this book, at Kermit Zarley Blog click on Christology in the menu.)

Jeff Bezos Says Changing Your Mind Reveals High Intelligence

May 7, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

Tommy Mello writes about the business world on Inc., saying, “Keep Changing Your Mind? According to Jeff Bezos, That’s a Sign of High Intelligence.” In case you’ve been living like Kermit the Hermit in a cave the past few years, Jeff Bezos is now the world’s wealthiest man and the founder of the behemoth internet retailer amazon.com.

Mello says that according to Jason Fried, co-founder of Basecamp, Bezos said in a 2012 Q&A that people who tend to be right are those who change their minds “a lot.” Fried has further written concerning Bezos, “He’s observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.”

Mello says, “On the flip said, Bezos says that people who tend to be obsessed with details that only support one point of view are the ones who get it wrong.”

Mellow says Fried also says of Bezos’ approach, “If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angels, they’re often wrong most of the time.”

Mello explains, “The way I see it, what we’re really talking about here is humility. If you’re humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has a different opinion might be right, then this allows you to learn and grow more quickly, while improving your decision-making skills.”

Mello continues, “If you find it difficult to consider other points of view, then you’ve probably grown too attached to your ideas. In my work, I see this all the time. People forget what the goal is, and they fight to ‘be right’ instead of fighting to do what’s best for the customers.

Now, the simplest way of training yourself to be more open to other points of view is to read widely, and interact with people from all walks of life.”

I think these words of wisdom can be applied to most if not all of life, including theology and Bible study. It is called critical thinking. Just because you were taught something, or you believe what most everybody else believes, or you came up with some idea, does not rationally mean it is right or the best way to think. As a Texan friend of mine once said, “We all need to eat a little humble pie once in a while.” We do this by listening, reading, and learning from others and trying to subject what we think to an unbiased, critical examination as much as lieth in us.

To learn of my foremost experience at thinking critically about theology and the Bible, read “At Forty Years Old I Best Saw the Light; Trinity Doctrine No Longer Seemed Right.”

Dr. Daniel I. Block Tells How the Bible Defines “Worship”?

April 29, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

Daniel I. Block is a renowned Old Testament professor at Wheaton College, arguably the foremost evangelical college in the U.S. Dr. Block has written many books and journal articles and received numerous awards. This month’s Christianity Today has an article by him entitled “Worship God At All Times. If Necessary, Use Music.” It is one of the best articles on worship and ecclesiology that I have ever read. It is based on his book, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Baker, 2014).

The main thrust of this article is that the larger American churches refer to the several minutes of music in their Sunday services as “worship,” whereas the Bible has quite a different viewpoint about what “worship” is. He says we should rethink our language such as “praise and worship,” “worship time,” and “worship leaders,” all referring only to music. Block calls it “a restricted notion of worship.”

Block then examines the mention of “worship” in our English Bible. He says in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), kara means “to bow low,” and barak means to “to kneel,” all before the Lord God. He says these are the main words in the Hebrew Bible which are translated “worship” in the Old Testament of most English Bibles. Dr. Block then says there is no difference between the two testaments, that worship in both involves a physical act. He says of the Greek New Testament that proskuneo, the main word translated “worship” in the New Testament of English Bibles, means “to lie prostrate” and that pipto is sometimes associated with it, which means “to fall down.” Also, proskuneo can mean “to bow the knee,” usually understood as touching one or two knees to the ground.

Thus, Dr. Block’s main point is that the words translated “worship” in English Bibles refer to a physical act, which is not what most people think when they read the Bible. (I have to say at this point that Muslims do this, actually five times per day at the five scheduled times for prayer, whereas Christians pretty much never do it.) Thus Block says, “We cannot speak of biblical worship without starting with this physical gesture of submission and homage to God the Father and Jesus the Son.” A main biblical text he cites is Psalm 95.6, “Come, let us bow down in worship.”

However, church buildings and their seating are not constructed in such a way as to permit lying prostrate or even bowing the knee. But the Jews’ temple at Jerusalem was did enable people to do these physical acts. In fact, scholars and historians tell us about ancient Israel that at the several annual festivals at Jerusalem’s temple, whenever priests conducted some ritual and uttered God’s name, YaHWeH, Jews had to immediately bow down or lie prostrate to signify both their submission to God and reverence for his name. This concept is drastically missing in Christian worship. However, some of us elderly folks may find it difficult to bow an arthritic knee or one with a knee replacement!

Thus, Block concludes that we should reorient our thinking about worship being mostly the music at church by realizing that worship involves much more. He says of acts of worship, “In the New Testament, these would have included meeting for instruction by the apostles, fellowship, ‘breaking bread,’ and prayer (Acts 2:42), as well as the ordinances of baptism (Matt. 28:19) and the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–30). Remarkably, although we know these were sometimes accompanied with song (e.g., Matt. 26:30), this is never formally prescribed. Paul’s instructions concerning ‘speaking to/admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:15–21, Col 3:12–17) occur in the context of appeals to let all of life—rather than just worship services—be the context of worshipful living.”

I only disagree with one point in Dr. Block’s article, but I don’t want to harp on it here. He says, “While biblical worship is Trinitarian, strikingly, the New Testament never speaks of anyone addressing or praying to or praising the Holy Spirit. Nor does it ever portray people worshiping the Spirit with this physical gesture.” That is correct, and I believe it is because the Bible does not teach the post-apostolic doctrine of the Trinity. (For more information about this subject, click “Christology” in the menu on my blog.)

I highly recommend this article by Dr. Block. And I’d like to read his book.

(In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ [available at kermitzarley.com], I address “worship” in multiple sections and mention these Greek words translated “worship.”)

Discovering the God of the Bible with First Principles Thinking

March 21, 2019 By Kermit Zarley

Chris Anderson is the curator of TED, a non-profit organization that promotes innovative thinking and entrepreneurship. He recently interviewed Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and Space X. Musk told Anderson he attributes his success to mostly two things: hard work (1oo hours per week the past 15 years, which he recently scaled back to 85 hours) and First Principles Thinking. (This info is taken from an online article today by Business Insider.)

“the practice of actively questioning every assumption you think you know about a given problem or scenario, and then creating new knowledge and solutions from scratch.” It is the opposite of the most common principle of “building knowledge and solving problems based on prior assumptions, beliefs and widely-held ‘best practices’ approved by (sic) majority of people.”

That’s what happened to me nearly forty years ago regarding my beliefs about God and Jesus. I was sitting in my study one day, reading Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in the Gospel of Matthew in the New American Standard Bible. I came to text wherein Jesus said of his yet future second coming, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” I knew this verse well. But suddenly, I saw it like I had never seen it before.

Jesus said in this saying that he did not know when he would return, yet he said God the Father knows. I had been a Trinitarian Christian for twenty-two years and a serious student of the Bible. (See “At Forty Years Old I Best Saw the Light–Trinity Doctrine No Long Seemed Right.”) I had never questioned the church teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. I had also been taught its corollary–the Hypostatic Union of Christ. That means that Jesus had two natures, divine and human, and that whenever he said or did anything, it was always from the perspective of one of these two natures. In this case, I had been taught that Jesus said that from the perspective of his human nature. Thus, he knew the time of his return in divine nature, but he did not know it in his human nature.

For the first time in my life, I actually blurted out to myself audibly, “that makes Jesus look like a liar. He said he didn’t know the time of his return, yet he really did know it.” I quickly concluded that I needed to look into this matter. And I did, seriously.

I first did so by buying a red-letter New Testament (Jesus’ saying in red) and reading only Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament gospels. I was looking for only one thing–did Jesus ever say straight out that he was God. I was astonished to discover that he never did.

Now I began to employ this First Principles Thinking that Elon Musk talks about. I had always assumed that Jesus said in the Bible that he was God. Moreover, I had been taught that he did. But when you look at what scholars cite in Jesus’ sayings to prove that he said he was God, it is just about zero.

After about two years into this study, I decided that, according to the Bible, Jesus never said he was God, and it is questionable if anything else in the Bible says he was/is God. Eventually, I became certain that it doesn’t. In so concluding, I was using First Principles Thinking by questioning assumptions and establishing new knowledge for me.

But it didn’t take me long to learn that it wasn’t really new knowledge. There never was a church doctrine of the Trinity until it was developed by three theologians in the 370s and made official by the Catholic Church in 381. Thus, for hundreds of years Christians had never heard of the idea that God is three co-equal and co-eternal persons, who are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

And it appears from all literature available to us that Christians never began thinking Jesus is God until the early second century CE, thus at least seventy years after Jesus lived here. Moreover, even when it became common for Christians to think Jesus was God, during the second and third centuries, they all believed he was not God to the same degree as the Father. For they understood Jesus’ statement literally, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14.28), so that Jesus was not as great as God was.

Actually, I was going back to the first principles of Christian Faith. They were that God is one, a single person, The Almighty, the Most High, and Jesus was his agent whom he sent, like he sent prophets before him, to preach salvation, heal people, and die on the cross for our sins. That is the New Testament gospel, not that God is three persons. For Jesus had prayed to the Father, saying, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 173). This is the First Principle of knowing the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

“Our Favorite Heresies”?

December 4, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

This month’s issue of Christianity Today magazine has a small piece entitled “Our Favorite Heresies.” It shows the results of a survey conducted by LifeWay Research and Ligonier Ministries. The survey questioned “Americans with evangelical beliefs (using the four-part definition endorsed by the National Association of Evangelical).” The results of the survey show “12 areas where today’s believers have most gone astray.” No definition is provided for the word heresy. I have blogged before that evangelicals use this word often without defining it. Most people want to know whether being guilty of heresy refers to a non-Christian or just a misinformed Christian.

Each of the so-called heresies are stated and the percentages given of the people surveyed who believe them. The first supposed heresy is, “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.” A whopping 73% of apparent evangelicals surveyed said they believed this statement. And 4% said they “somewhat agree.” The second heresy is, “The Holy Spirit is a force, not a personal being.” Nearly half, 46%, of those surveyed said they believed this statement. And 11% said they “somewhat agree.” According to the two organizations who conducted this survey, I’m a heretic regarding both statements. But, of course, I believe they are wrong and that I am not a heretic.

To evaluate these two survey statements, we need to consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Evangelicals think you must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or you are not a Christian. So, evangelicals would also say non-Trinitarians are heretics. The Trinity doctrine is that God is three co-equal and co-eternal Persons: Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Son, Jesus, preexisted throughout all eternity past, and the Holy Spirit is a Person. The article further informs correctly that the first heresy was “ruled out by First Council of Nicaea (325).” And the article rightly says the second heresy was “ruled out by First Council of Constantinople (381).” Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity, established at the latter council, renders all those people who subscribed to the first two so-called “heresies” as non-Christians.

However, a footnote to this article supplies an abbreviated four-part definition of an evangelical by the NAE which LifeWay Research and Ligonier Ministries apparently endorse. It says, “Evangelicals are defined by the NAE as those who strongly agree that the Bible is the highest authority, evangelism is very important, sin can only removed by Jesus’ death, and salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus as Savior.”

I most heartedly believe all four of these precepts. However, as stated above, I also subscribe to the first two statements asked in the survey. I do so because, as a former Trinitarian for 22 years, I have believed for the past 36 years that that is what the Bible teaches. That is, Jesus did not preexist, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and thus not a separate, individual person from a supposed Godhead. As I have repeatedly stated on my blog, if God is three Persons then man would have to be three persons since man in made in the image of God. Likewise, God’s Spirit is to God what man’s spirit is to man because man was made in God’s image. Since man’s spirit is not a separate person from himself, neither is God’s Spirit a separate person from himself. Most biblical texts which seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a Person are merely personifications, just as wisdom is personified in the Proverbs 8.

I have posted before on my blog about this subject and the NAE’s definition of an evangelical. To learn more, click on any of the following posts:

8/11/16: “I Am Not a Heretic.”

1/13/16: “Am I an Evangelical or Not?”

1/16/14: “What Must Christians Believe?“

A List of Christology Posts in Header Bar

November 13, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

Here at my Kermit Zarley Blog, you can now click “Christology” in the header bar to see a list of all of my posts, since I started this blog in mid-2013, on Jesus not being God in the Bible. This list is now up to 132 posts. Most of them are 2-3 pages in length. A few are about the Bible not saying God is three Persons. Called The Trinity, the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. Most of these posts represent condensations of my 600-page book entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. It is available at my website kermitzarley.com. This book interacts with the academy by citing over 400 authors, nearly all of them biblical scholars. But these references are not in the blog posts.