The Danger of Blind Belief

Years ago, a man who was visiting a friend for the first time asked a stranger for directions. He confidently told him to keep driving straight on. It was a wrong direction; he only needed to turn to the right. The man reached the outskirts of town before he realised he had been misled.

Following a wrong direction and trusting a deceiver can be very distressing, but there is a lesson: we cannot face the wrong direction and reach the right destination. Putting blind trust in a dubious religious figure or authority is even more terribly perilous and has grave eternal consequences.

When Muslims are confronted with evidence showing that Muhammad was a false prophet, they console themselves by appeal to population in Islam and knowing the truth in the afterlife. Even in day-to-day situations, it’s dangerous to have such blind faith in claims.

If someone offers you a medicine and said “This may kill you, I’m not sure, just have faith,” would you accept it? If a driver told you “I don’t know my way around, I’m just following what I heard,” would you let him drive you? If an unidentified stranger smoking marijuana tells you he’s a policeman, would you believe him? What if he says “Just have faith in me; I am one,” you would wonder if he’s mentally okay.

We don’t rely on blind belief when it comes to our physical health and safety. We investigate matters, scrutinise people and question claims. Why then should we throw away investigation, facts-finding and reason when it comes to religion? God said to His people, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). He doesn’t compel us to believe anything but rather wants us to apply our reason in arriving at truth. We are not just to follow a faith with our hearts, but also with our minds.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to Islam. Muhammad said in the Quran:
“I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the apostles, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear” (Q 46:9).

But how can we verify that he didn’t come with a new-fangled doctrine different from what the Apostles of the Bible brought? By accepting what he said just because he says he’s a prophet? No, that’s unreasonable. A way to verify this is to compare the teachings of the Quran with what the prophets and apostles in the Bible taught, and when we find discrepancies, we reject the lies and cleave to the truth. Unless a Muslim has done this, he has no valid criteria to determine whether Islam is true or false.

Muhammad said “nor do I know what would be done to me.” We must not gloss over this statement. When a person you put your faith in as the way to heaven is expressing doubts or uncertainty, don’t ignore it. In the hadith, He said: “By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me” (Bukhari 5:266).

If the man you are following says he doesn’t know his or his followers’ fate in eternity, what do you do? Do you say “It doesn’t matter, we will still follow him because we love him. We were born in this religion and we must remain it?” That would be a display of foolishness. If you find out eventually that all your life you had been deceived by fangled doctrines in the name of Islam, who will you blame? Certainly not God or Muhammad or anybody. Muhammad already gave you the warning signs. He said: “If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss. If I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me…” (Q 34:50).

Does this even make sense? Imagine the pilot of an aircraft carrying passenger saying “If I take a wrong route and crash into a lake, it’s to my own loss.” Is that true? Muhammad was a founder and an “excellent example” to Muslims, if he was deceived, it means all who have followed his teachings and practices in the last 14 centuries have gone into eternal perdition. It means he has succeeded in keeping over a billion people worldwide in spiritual and mental bondage. It implies that those fighting and dying for him today are dying for nothing. If he was astray, it wasn’t to his own loss alone, but to the loss of all his followers. It’s a scary but blunt truth.

Abu Huraira said shortly before Muhammad’s death, he summoned his tribesmen and called out specific people: “B. Abd Shams, deliver yourself from hell; Fatima [his favourite daughter] deliver yourselves from hell, for I have nothing which can avail you against God’s punishment…” (Mishkat al-Masabih, 118).

If the man you follow told his closest and most devoted followers that he had nothing to avail them of God’s wrath, then you have no business following him – unless you want to knowingly go into eternal perdition.

Jesus asked “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” Jesus is the true Saviour. He is “the light of the world” and those who follow Him “will never walk in darkness” (Lk. 6:39; Jn. 8:12)

Advertisements

The Integrity Challenged Warriors

I first came across Rebecca Brown’s book, Prepare for War, when I was 8 years old. My mother had a copy, so I would often sneak to where she kept it to view the illustrations in its pages.

Fast forward to 2006, I had read her first 5 books: He Came to Set the Captives Free (1986), Prepare for War (1987), Becoming a Vessel of Honor (1990), Unbroken Curses (1995) and Standing on the Rock (2002).

For a number of years, I enjoyed frequently reading Rebecca and Daniel’s newsletters on their Harvest Warriors website. No doubt, Rebecca Brown’s teachings influenced my early Christian walk; I was her dedicated fan.

Their website describes Rebecca as a woman who “has a deep understanding of the tactics and weapons of Satan’s kingdom which only a few possess” and has “vast experience” which gives much credibility to her teaching.

Daniel Yoder, her husband, is described as a “powerfully anointed” prophet and evangelist such that people who attend his meetings admit seeing “fire fall from heaven” during his ministry.

When I first came across some articles by some Christian ministers on the Internet debunking Rebecca and Daniel’s claims as spurious and heretical, I dismissed them as ravings of Satanists posing as Christians – after all, that’s how most people who digest Rebecca’s books would view them. But later, I started to have a rethink.

Her first two books for example, omit names of places and organizations and dates of events which makes it a bit difficult for one to follow the chronology of the stories, whereas the Christians who researched her books carefully documented her birth name, dates, and locations, and they interviewed several people who knew her.

In her first book, she claimed to have “had ten years experience as a R.N.” but investigations by these ministers revealed that she had a 7 year experience. Then in her fifth book, she re-casts this statement to say: “I also had years of experience as an R.N.”

Though Rebecca Brown brushed off the findings exposing her as “gossip” or “slander,” she couldn’t refute them.

I know God uses us in spite of our faults, but I thought, if these investigators were really Satanists, they were the ones who should be lying and re-casting their statements, not the other way round. After all, Rebecca herself wrote in Becoming a Vessel:

“[God] always demand honesty” (p. 141).

“The world of Satanism is also a world of lies. Satanists are accomplished liars and actors … Lying is ANY deliberate deception … ALL lies are sin” (pp. 245, 295).

As I critically re-read the writings of Rebecca and Daniel Yoder, I began to find more problems with their claims and teachings.

Now, I am not going to impose my conclusions, but I want my readers to make up their own minds about this pair as I highlight my observations here and elsewhere:

1. In Prepare for War, Rebecca wrote: “In His perfect will, the Lord allowed the satanists to be the instrument of my mother’s death … She died suddenly one Christmas” (p. 228).

Investigations however revealed that based on her death certificate, her mother died of a heart attack (see Gerard Fisher, Kurt Goedelman and Paul Blizzard, Personal Freedom Outreach Quarterly Journal, Oct-Dec., Vol. 9 No. 4, 1989).

In her book, Standing on the Rock, she gives a very different account of her mother’s demise:

One night the Lord spoke to me and told me that Satan was petitioning Him for my mother’s life.” He then said “I will take her home in two weeks” (p. 102).

So her mother’s death wasn’t “suddenly” as she had earlier claimed: “I dared not speak to my mother or anyone else of her impending death because the Lord had forbidden me to do so” (ibid).

2. She wrote: “The satanists swept in, and in one night, while Elaine and I were out of her house … destroyed everything we had. They axed everything in our home, even killing our precious pets. They also destroyed my office and everything we had. Elaine and I escaped with our lives and the clothes on our back” (Prepare, p. 229).

But investigations revealed that this scenario was untrue. She lost her practice when the Indiana Medical Licensing Board found out she was misdiagnosing patients, prescribing wrong doses, falsifying patient charts and abusing drugs (Demerol and Phenobarbital) and subsequently revoked her medical license.

This was why she and Elaine fled to Michigan – not as a result of satanist invasion. At no point in her books did she inform her readers the truth of what really happened.

She later wrote: “I was set up and framed and accused of all sorts of horrible things I had not done” (Standing, p. 52). Yet she provided no details of what the “frame-up” was about and hasn’t disproved the accusations since then.

3. She claimed to have brought “close to a thousand people out of hard-core Satanism” during her medical practice (Prepare, p. 228). This implies that between April 1982 to May 1984 when she was in practice, she was leading about 3 Satanists to the Lord per day.

But when you examine the depth and quality of information in her first 2 books – if you are very conversant with the occult – they don’t reflect the works of someone who has led close to a thousand people out of hard-core Satanism.

4. In her second book, she quotes Jesus saying to her:

You see, I Jesus, know how you feel because I have experienced weakness. Father has never experienced weakness, so He usually gets angry when His people are weak” (Prepare, p. 230).

This heresy was pointed out by her critics, so in her fifth book, she re-tells the story and alters the words of Jesus: “You see, I know what it is like to be weak, I myself learned obedience through suffering” (Standing, p. 54).

In a post dated April 19, 2016 on her Facebook page, she insists again that God does not understand human weakness.

5. In her second book, she said God entered into a covenant with her:

I was to move to CaliforniaI was also to understand that I would eventually lay down my life out here for the Lord” (Prepare p. 35). This is probably why she wrote in the Introduction that: “Our race is almost run, we know that the Lord will be calling us home soon” (p. 10).

But in her third book, the covenant changed: “He [God] told Rebecca she would have many battles and some ‘close calls’ but in the end, their lives would be saved” (Becoming p. 15).

6. In her fifth book, she tells of meeting a “beautifully dressed lady” at a grocery store whom Daniel exposed as “Madena … one of the top international assassins” who had men working with her (Standing p. 92).

This supposedly happened in November 1989, some weeks before Daniel married Rebecca.

But in her third book she said that “one of Satan’s top assassins, and her associates” wanted to kill her and Elaine in December 1988 – before she ever met Daniel at all! (p. 16)

While in her fifth book, they all escaped to Arizona because Madena was so powerful (p. 97), in her third book, they all stayed at home to watch how God would fight for them (p. 17).

Either the first or second account appears to be fabricated.

6. Some parts of Rebecca’s third book sound like she brought a fictitious character (or alter ego) into her story to say things that would corroborate her claims.

The conversations she had with “Joyce” in Chapter 3 (covering 20 pages) appears to be mini-apology responses to the criticisms levied at her around that time.

It’s very unlikely that a person would remember word-for-word, a conversation which they had “a little more than two years” ago – unless the discussion was recorded.

I bring this up because in her second book, which was written close to the time she talked with “Joyce,” Rebecca admits: “Because of a recent physical illness, my brain just doesn’t function as well as it used to be. I have great difficulty remembering things” (Prepare p. 93).

7. In Unbroken Curses, Daniel narrated an experience he had at age 6: “When the rabbis found him, they locked him into the chamber, removed the lid from the top, and dumped thousands of spiders down on top of him, many of them poisonous” (p. 153)

If this is not an embellished story, it’s pure fiction. It is an established fact that spiders are solitary creatures that tend to kill or chase off one another. Where did these rabbis get thousands of spiders and how were they kept?

How did a 6 year old locked in a small, dark room count the spiders up to a thousand? The story says “a brilliant shaft of light” with “two arms reaching out of the light” took Daniel and cradled him to sleep.

It’s very unlikely that a 6 year old locked in a dark room of spiders would cuddle up to two unknown arms from a light (Please ask any 6 year old you know). No matter how sensational a legend is, it always flies in the face of facts.

8. The account of the murder of Daniel’s first wife (Kai) narrated in Unbroken Curses (pp. 159-160) and Standing on the Rock (p. 73) also leaves much to be desired.

A comparison of both accounts shows the latter is laced with details not present in the former:

“Not only was Kai killed, but their baby was cut out and killed as well. Probably the only thing that kept Daniel from totally losing his mind, was that the Lord permitted him to see angels come to lift Kai’s spiritual body out of her mangled physical body. She had their baby son in her arms and they escorted her into heaven.”

You see, in the time frame between their fourth and fifth book, Daniel and Rebecca had graduated to telling stories of frequent visits to God’s throne, flying with angels in the air, seeing the dead at Jesus’ arm in heaven and many visions similar to those of Rick Joyner. So, as they re-tell their old stories, they read these supernatural details back into them.

It wasn’t a surprise when the pair later offered their unflinching support to Rick Joyner (who is a member of the Order of the Knights of Malta), Norman Vincent Peale (who was a 33 degree Mason), the Pensacola revival and some other questionable figures like John Todd (see Official Rebecca Brown Facebook Page, 17-12-13).

10. The “testimony” in their April 2002 newsletter is another example of a poorly crafted fiction:

One sister worked on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center buildings. This was the floor the jet crashed into. When the jet hit, she was thrown out of her seat across the room behind a door. This saved her from being set on fire. When she collected her wits from the shock of being thrown, she realized that she was in the doorway to a stairwell. Jesus appeared to her and instructed her to follow Him out of the building. He led her all the way down 105 stories to safety. She got out of the building unhurt.”

This story contradicts established facts and details of the September 11 attack. The first hijacked jet crashed into the North Tower, between the 93rd and 98th floor instantly killing scores of people on those floors and the plane.

The impact of the aircraft ignited a fire which engulfed the stairwell exits and the 930 people above the North Tower were trapped and couldn’t get out of the building.

The second jet hit the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors destroying 2 out of 3 stairways. Out of the 500 people trapped above the impact zone, only 18 people could escape through the stairwell exit.

That a person would fabricate a “testimony” about such a well-documented incident reveals an abdication of integrity.

11. In that newsletter, Daniel complains about the Christians who exposed their wild claims and calls on “Christians everywhere to pray regularly asking our God to deal with these people and put them out of business.

I can’t find a Biblical warrant for such prayers. Rebecca herself hinted in her second book that this is a form of satanic attack (p. 51). Her views must have changed over the years.

It seems the pair have had their invitations to some churches cancelled due to the Internet articles on them, thus, Daniel wrote a book, Talebearers: God’s Answer to Investigative Reporting.

While God’s answer to discernment has not changed – because of false teachers deceiving people with false teachings and stories – let no one try to conflate “investigation” with “tale bearing.” They are miles apart.

God hates “a lying tongue” and a person who loves and practices falsehood will not be in heaven (Prov. 6:17).

12. This was posted on their Facebook page (Sept. 16, 2013):

Daniel had a vision from the Lord of a special bridge between earth and heaven called the Rainbow Bridge. The Lord told Daniel that every person entering into heaven would first meet his/her pets, especially if they had no family members who had been saved. These beloved animals comforted and ministered to the people, once again, especially those who did not have any saved family members to meet them.

This is precisely the reason why Christians need to be discerning. Animals weren’t made in God’s image and they don’t have spirits like humans do (Eccl. 3:21). Aside that, the “rainbow bridge” idea is a New Age code for the bridge linking the physical plane with the spiritual dimension.

In February 26, 2016, Rebecca told her Facebook fans that her cat, Chico, curled around Jesus and worshipped Him. How an animal is capable of doing this was not explained. Rebecca and her husband have a track record of using preposterous tales to peddle their heresies.

13. Rebecca posted a photo of a beautiful forest in their Facebook group (December, 14, 2013) with a post saying:

“This picture was taken by Daniel this fall on our land. We live in a valley with mountains on three sides. This picture was taken across the valley as the sun was setting, of the mountain on the opposite side. You can see our driveway at the bottom of the picture. God has greatly blessed us by allowing us to live in such a beautiful place.”

But this picture has been in the public domain such as Wikipedia Commons since 2011, and wasn’t obviously taken by her husband as she claimed.

How can a Christian take a picture from the Internet and lie that it’s a picture of his/her residence? Such a person doesn’t seem to have it going for him/her in the truth department.

If Rebecca and her husband cannot be trusted on such a trivial matter, why should they be trusted with their grand visions, constant visits to heaven and other spooky stories they narrate?

14. When a Christian website owner pointed out this lie to Rebecca on her page, she replied the next day:

YES!!!! I see we have had some of SATAN’S DISCIPLES RELIGIOUS BULLIES on here posting. They love to sow discord, gossip, backbiting, slander. They are called tale-bearers in the Bible. The Bible says God despises them. They have a father but it’s not God and they don’t serve Jesus … BE careful you don’t fall into their snare and become a gossip monger, backbiting Satanist.

This sounds familiar. This was the same response she gave to those investigating her books in the late 80s. Rather than admit her lies and repent of misleading her followers, she resorts to attacking and labelling those exposing her as “Satanists.”

Has she forgotten her own charge, that God always demands honesty and that all lies are sin?

These are not issues that should be swept under the rug. I’m not that bothered if a person is feeding his flock with fabricated stories and heresies. If the listeners refuse to search the Scriptures and use their God-given discernment to eat the hay and leave the sticks behind, that’s their choice.

But when people put their lies and errors in a book or the media, they are poisoning the public, and they have to be publicly exposed.

When a warrior’s belt of truth is absent, his breastplate of righteousness will also fall off, and his “battle” will become a big joke to the enemy. You can’t be fighting the Father of lies with lies!

The Biblical vs The Watchtower Jesus

In this piece, I will be responding to the false teachings and fallacious arguments against the Deity of Christ presented in the booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Read the others one/ two/ three)

Between pages 24-27, five Biblical proof texts which support the Deity of Christ were astutely wrenched and distorted to fit into Watchtower Christology:

1. “I and the Father Are One” (John 10:30)

“Jesus himself showed what he meant by ‘one’ with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples ‘may be one’… obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.” (Page 24)

What Jesus implied in John 10:30 is seen by the immediate reaction of the unbelieving Jews: “[they] picked up stones to stone him” (v. 31). This was “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (v. 32).

They understood that He was referred to His Divinity. They knew what He meant was beyond unity in thought and purpose.

On a side note, the JW New World bible has misrendered John 17:21, by replacing “in” with “union”: “that they may all be one, just as you Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they may be in union with us…”

But the Greek word for “in” (en) means “wholly joined” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) and “in, one with, joined closely to” (Louw and Nida Greek Lexicon). Jesus enjoyed a perfect intimacy with His Father, not just a “union.”

In John 10:28 Jesus said: “And I give unto them [My sheep] eternal life; and they shall never perish neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

He reveals Himself as the Giver of Life and preserver of the Believer which only God can do. While Jesus is not the same person as God the Father, He clearly equates Himself with Him in the context of divine salvation. It’s in this context that “I and my Father are one” should be understood. This is why B. F. Westcott wrote:

“It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an attribute of God” (The Gospel According to St. John, Grand Rapids, 1971, 158).

The booklet also appealed to 1Cor. 3:8 where Paul says “He that plants and he that waters are one” and adds:

The Greek word that Paul used here for ‘one’ (hen) is neuter, literally ‘one (thing)’ indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father … he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.” (Ibid)

While the Greek word “hen” is a neuter specifying “unity” in general, it means “to be united most closely” (Thayer). It is used to specify different types of unions depending on its context.

For example, in John 10:28-29, the “one” Jesus spoke of wasn’t unity of purpose, but unity with God in His power to preserve and give eternal life to His sheep (divine attributes).

In 1 Corinthians 3:6, the “one” means one in purpose of saving souls. In John 17:21, “one” conveys a complete unity or intimacy among believers as Christ and God has. In Matthew 19:5, “one” stands for spiritual union of a man and woman.

That “one in fellowship” is implied in John 17:21 or “one in purpose” in 1Cor. 3:6 does not have any relevance to its usage in John 10:30. Context decides the usage of “hen.” Thus, a scholar noted:

“The context [of John 10:30] suggests that this adjective be translated as ‘equal to’ or ‘on a par with.’ Jesus claims far more than mere unity with God, which was the aim of every Israelite; such moral unity would never mean that mortals had become ‘god’ as Jesus’ remark is understood in 10:31-33. The very argument in John, then, understands hen to mean more than moral unity, that is, ‘equality with God'” (Jerome Neyrey, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1989, 108, 647).

To bolster its claims, the brochure quotes John Calvin saying:

The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is … of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, 24).

Apparently, the “ancients” Calvin was referring to were the Nicene fathers and the whole of his exegesis flies in the face of Watchtower Christology. In the same work, he stated that Jesus declared His Deity through His miracles:

“They [the Jews] argue therefore that Christ is a blasphemer and a sacrilegious person … They err in this, that they do not deign to contemplate His Divinity, which was conspicuous in His miracles … Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited Him to us” (pp. 416-23).

In the same page, the Watchtower says: “Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God.”

Forcefully argued? No one who reads that passage would draw such a conclusion. In fact, Jesus repeats His original declaration in a slightly different manner.

He cites Psalm 82:6 to establish that if Scripture was not in error for calling mortals “gods,” then there is no error in calling the One whom God consecrated and sent into the world ‘the Son of God’ (v 35-36). He said: “the Father is in me and I in him” (vv. 37-39).

2. “Making Himself Equal to God” (John 5:18)

Knowing the grammar and context of this verse is crucial. The Greek word for equal, “ison” means being “equal, equivalent, same” like “in number, size, quality or characteristics” (Louw and Nida). It also means “nature, rank, authority which belong to God” (Thayer) and means “similarly” (Bauer, Danker and Arndlt). So, when Jesus said “My Father works and I work” (v. 17), the Jews knew what He meant.

The Watchtower dismisses this verse by claiming it was a mistaken idea of the unbelieving Jews. This is false. Apostle John clarified this verse based on 1st century Jewish understanding. If the Jews were wrong here, he would have corrected their idea as he did in John 2:21.

Some JWs may quote a Greek reference work saying that only “a rebellious son” would make himself equal to his father, so the Jews saw Jesus this way. But this passage clearly shows the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy.

Under the Law, it wasn’t blasphemy to be guilty of rebellion (or haughtiness), rather it was to worship another god or insult God (see Neh. 9:18, Isa. 37:6), and the penalty was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16). They wanted to stone Jesus because they understood He was claiming deity at that point.

Pg. 24 says: “Jesus defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19):…’the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father doing.’ – JB. By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative.”

To grasp the meaning of John 5:18-19, we need to look in the Gospel of John for more information on Jesus’ position. In it, He says He has life in Himself (5:26); He has the power to raise the dead and to judge them (5:25, 28-29); He gives eternal life (5:25); He sets men free from slavery to sin (8:36); He receives honour equal to the Father (5:23).

Jesus is the object of faith (6:40); He is the object of prayer (14:13-14) and He has power to answer prayer (14:13). These are all divine prerogatives showing that Jesus is equal with God (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Pub. Chicago, 2008, 140).

Fittingly, Jesus’ statement that He could “do nothing by himself” must be understood in the context of His humanity – as the incarnate Christ. No, the Jews like Trinitarians, are not “drawing wrong conclusions,” rather, the Watchtower Society is watering down this passage because it doesn’t support their belief.

It’s also inconsistent for them to say the Jews “misunderstood” Jesus as being equal to God and still appeal to the Jews as believing Jesus to be a demi-god.

3. “Equal With God”? (Phil. 2:6)

The booklet cites 6 different renderings of this verse and draws two conclusions: “(1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it” (p. 25).

Interestingly, they conveniently ignore the first conclusion while they attack the second in 3 paragraphs. This is a classic “shell” game where the real issue is buried with prose. Both conclusions are linked.

In the 6 renderings of Phil. 2:6 quoted in the magazine, the terms “form of God,” “divine nature” and “nature of God” are applied to Christ. Jesus had eternally existed as God.

The Greek word for “form” is morphe which “includes the whole nature and essence of Deity” (E. W. Vine, An Expository of New Testament Words, 1940, “form”).

Thus, the first conclusion is valid. Jesus Christ is equal with God in essence. He wasn’t archangel Michael or a demi-god in any way.

Go to Part 2