Michael Young Comments

%user:name Comments

Michael Young 3 years ago in "When God Became Man so Man Could Become God"

What I cannot get my mind around is how the accounts of the Virgin Birth in Matthew and Luke can be squared with the belief that Jesus Christ already existed in heaven in some form. The verses quoted (Matt 1:20, Luke 1:31) both contain the word “conceive” which surely means to bring into existence, and not to somehow change from being God to Man. This would then explain Luke 1:35, which says that it was the Holy Spirit who came down from the Highest (God the Father) in heaven, and caused Mary to become pregnant. There is no mention of the 2nd person of the trinity (or binity) being involved in the process. The miracle that occurred was that Christ was conceived without a human father. God was His true Father and Mary was His true biological mother.

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Three Keys to Knowing God"

Hello David, and thank you for your comment. Although I understand how God and Christ are one in purpose and nature, that does not prove to me that Christ is a second God being. Even though John 17:3 does not contain the word "one", I Cor.8:6 does include "one", which must therefore have a similar meaning to "only" in John. I believe the word for "only" also means "alone", that is, there is no other (God). This is also confirmed in Mark 12:32 where the scribe says that there is no other but the one God, and Christ confirmed his response to verse 29 in verse 34.

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Three Keys to Knowing God"

As John 17:3 says that the Father is the only true God, does that not preclude Jesus Christ from being another true God?

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Two Things You Don't Know About Jesus"

I believe that the word "Word" or "logos" in Greek does not refer to a being or person, and is defined in Strong's concordance as "speech" "reason" "account" "cause" "communication" etc. So it refers to what was spoken (by God) and not to the one doing the speaking. So God spoke the Word when he created everything in Genesis 1, and there was not a separate being involved in the creation. The Word was only considered to be a "He" by the time of the King James version of the Bible. Earlier English translations e.g. Tyndale's, refer to the Word as "it" and it was only because the King James translators were required to conform to the Trinity that they changed it to "He". Hebrews 1:1-2 says the Word was spoken by God "at various times and ways", but that the Son only spoke the Word "in these last days" when the Word became flesh (John 1:14).

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Two Things You Don't Know About Jesus"

I find it hard to believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had two Gods. Acts 3:25-26 says that the God who raised up Jesus Christ (verse 26), the Father, was the same God who spoke to Abraham (verse 25), and was therefore the One who interacted with Abraham directly. By implication He was also the One who must have spoken to others in the Old Testament.

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Two Things You Don't Know About Jesus"

Jesus Christ is never referred to as "God the Son" in the Bible but only as the Son of God, which is not really the same thing. I believe "God the Son" is a trinitarian term, and should not be used to describe Jesus Christ if the trinity doctrine has been rejected. As far as I can ascertain, the only times that Christ is called God in the New Testament are in verses such as John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8, which only apply to Christ after His resurrection, when He would be in heaven at God's right hand as a spirit Being and only then be a member of the God family (Elohim). I am not convinced that "YHVH" can refer to more than one God Being, as the term means "the Eternal One" and not "the Eternal Two"?

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Two Things You Don't Know About Jesus"

Yes, I am aware that the word for one in Hebrew (echad) does not necessarily mean arithmetically one, but all the other proposed meanings do not mean two!

Michael Young 4 years ago in "Two Things You Don't Know About Jesus"

You started in John 17:3 by quoting Jesus as saying that God the Father (verse1) is the only true God, yet then go on to try to prove that there was another "true God" in the Old Testament, namely Jesus Christ Himself. There is clearly some contradition here, as they can't both be the only true God. In the Old Testament, God nearly always refers to Himself in the first person "I" rather than "we". Even the first commandment says that "you shall have no other Gods before "me", (and not before "us"). So I find this whole concept quite confusing. Also Acts 3:13 says that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the One who "glorified His Servant Jesus", so this God, the Father, must have been the God of the Old Testament, and not Christ Himself, who was not glorified as God before the Father sent Him. I would be grateful if someone could clear up this confusion.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "God’s Challenge to Trinitarianism"

I never implied that there were 3 Beings in the God Family, or even 2! The word “God” occurs twice in John 1:1, and it is not logical to assume that these two instances refer to 2 different Beings, but that they both refer to the One True God (John 17:3). If we define “logos” as God’s “revelatory thought” as Mr. Armstrong states in “Mystery of the Ages” (page 41), then this could have been both “with God” in terms of what was in His mind, and also “was God” in terms of who He is. It is our minds that makes us what we are! So John 1:1 cannot be used to prove that there were two distinct Beings in the God Family, without further evidence, at least not in the beginning.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "God’s Challenge to Trinitarianism"

Thank you for replying to my comments. I thought your article was excellent in explaining the errors involved in the Trinity. "Eternal generation" is a completely illogical idea. However, I feel that we need to study the meaning of the word “logos” in the Bible before we jump to conclusions about John 1:1. Herbert Armstrong stated in “Mystery of the Ages” (page 41 hardback edition) that logos meant “spokesman”, “word” or “revelatory thought”. He then assumed in the next sentence without any further explanation or proof that it is the name there used for an individual Personage. Does “revelatory thought” not mean everything in the mind of God? Strong’s (3056) also defines it as “reasoning of the mental faculty, divine expression, communication, speech (i.e. what is spoken), etc., so the primary meaning of logos is “what is spoken or communicated” and not just the name for an individual Personage.

I never intimated or implied that the Father became flesh, but just that God’s "revelatory thoughts" were originally with the Father. Hebrews 1:1 implies that it was God (the Father) who was the Spokesman “in times past”, then Christ became the Spokesman “in these last days”.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "God’s Challenge to Trinitarianism"

The nature of God is a hot topic, and probably always will be. Whilst rejecting the trinity, the problem has always been what to replace it with.
It appears to me that one word which has not always been fully defined and explored before conclusions are reached is the Greek word “logos” as it appears throughout the New Testament, and not just in John 1:1. This word is hardly ever used to refer to a personal being, but rather to what God spoke. It has also been defined in the past as God’s “revelatory thought or plan” (see Mystery of the Ages by Herbert Armstrong), and also to the “mind of God”. I John: 1-3 calls it “the Word of life”, and implies that it was originally manifested with the Father, but was then manifested to John through Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1 also says that the word was spoken in times past through “God” (the Father), and only in “these last days” by His Son. As John 1:1 refers to “the beginning”, the conclusion is now that “Logos” in John 1:1 is only referring to the Father in both uses of the word “God”, but the same Logos was then manifested as Jesus Christ when it “became flesh” in verse 14.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "Is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God?"

I appreciate your comments. I was in no way implying that we no longer believe that God is a family, only that this did not seem to be mentioned in the article. When answering questions on the nature of God, especially the one posed in the article, saying that God is a family is the only real explanation that avoids confusion.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "Is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God?"

I believe some of the confusion over this subject can be clarified if we remember that we used to believe that God is a family. So the word "God" can be used either to designate the only true God, when referring to the Father, as in John 17:3, or when referring to Jesus Christ, it denotes Christ as being a member of the God family. All the scriptures quoted where Jesus Christ is explicitly called "God" , such as John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8 refer to His post resurrection state, when he would have been a full Spirit Being in the family of God. So during His earthly life, He would still be a potential God Being as the Son of God, but He then became fully God at His resurrection.

Michael Young 6 years ago in "Is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God?"

If Jesus and God both existed before Christ was born but were not Father and Son until after Christ's birth, what was their relationship before Christ was born?

Michael Young 6 years ago in "Jesus: God of the Old Testament?"

Hi Steven Thanks for putting me right in connection with the Greek analysis of John 1:1 which I had not fully appreciated. I have checked this on a Greek lexicon and found it to read exactly as Mr. Myers stated. However, I believe that if the definite article (the) is missing, as in the second use of the word "God" in this verse, it does not necessarily mean that one should read it as though an indefinite article exists, as there is no indefinite article in Greek. It is up to the writer to explain things in a manner to reflect any difference. Also, John 1:18 does not include the definite article before the word "God", but obviously refers to the one true God (the Father). John could have clarifed his intent better if the last part of verse 1 had read the same in Greek as in the English translation "the Word was God". However the Greek actually reads "God was the word" which does not make much sense if the indefinite article is added i.e. "a God was the Word", but does make some sense in the King James translation "the Word was a God." Sorry to be technical, but Mr. Myers said it was a technical point, which even though technical, is still quite critical to the meaning.