Mark 12:29-34 REFUTES the Trinity

An Examination of Mark 12:29-34

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc. (Hons.), MCollT

There are quite a number of verses and passages throughout the New Testament that teach and propagate the absolute Oneness of God the Creator and Jesus’ subservience to Him as a servant and worshipper. We will not be scrutinising all those verses here. What we will do is focus on just one passage which to my understanding as I will prove in due course succinctly refutes the Trinity and shows Jesus’ admission to absolute numerical monotheism. Before we proceed it is noteworthy that Muslim apologists in general like to quote Mark 12:29 in particular whenever arguing for Jesus’ monotheistic belief, but, they almost never discuss the immediate verses that follow. The immediate context of the verse would indeed strengthen their case as we shall see. Let us begin by reading the text.

Mark 12:28-34(NAB)

28 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?”29 Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!30 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”32 The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’33 And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”34 And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

A scribe(a learned Jewish man) approached Jesus and asked him what’s the first commandment of all. Jesus replied with the famous Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 without a change of a dot. Thus the number one i.e. the most important commandent of all is that God is One. The scribe further detailed,”there is no other than he”. So, after Jesus’ response the scribe affirmed Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 6:4 and emphatically established that God is absolutely one.

Here is a million dollar question. When the scribe affirmed Jesus’ testimony concerning God being One(heis) what concept or notion did he have in his mind? Was he thinking of some sort of a triune Godhead wherein Jesus is also God together with the Father and Holy Spirit? The answer to that question should be a definite no. The reason is quite simple. If the scribe thought that Jesus was God, he would not have attested to what Jesus said in the third person. He should have instead said, “You are right in saying,”You are One and there is no other than You.” But, he did not say that, did he? Nope. He said, God, HE is One. Secondly, if he had believed Jesus was God, he should have worshipped him as God right there and then. At no place in time did any scribe among the Jews in the Gospels ever worshipped Jesus as God. Thirdly, we know for a fact that the Trinity is something that took over three hundred years to develop. There was no established Trinity prior to that.[1] How then can anyone claim that the scribe believed in the Trinity? The only reasonable position to take is that the scribe believed as any other Orthodox Jew would believe concerning God namely, that God is absolutely and numerically one having no partners or associates in His divinity, not even in the least bit. At times God is addressed as the Father, but only in a metaphorical/figurative sense. God does not sire children! Thus, it is safe to conclude that when the scribe confirmed what Jesus said he had in his mind the concept of absolute and strict  monotheism. It is that the Father and only He is God.

Now that we have answered the million dollar question let us ask another. Was Jesus aware of the Jewish concept of God which the scribe had in his mind? The answer to this question ought to be yes. This is because according to Christian authorities and the texts themselves Jesus was himself a Rabbi learned in the Jewish traditions and teachings. In verse 32 we find the scribe addressing Jesus as didaskalos in Greek or teacher, master in English which is equivalent to Rabbi in Hebrew. As a teacher who was grounded in the Jewish tradition it’s only natural that he was thoroughly appraised of the concept of God that they held. In case there is still any lingering doubts let us consider Jesus’ own words,

“Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God‘ ” (John 8:54)

The above is clear proof that Jesus was very much aware of the fact that they regarded God as One and that He is called the Father(and no other persons). So far we have established that the scribe was thinking about the Father and only Him when attesting Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 6:4 and also Jesus’ thorough awareness of that concept which the scribe had in mind. Here comes the third question. Did Jesus correct his concept? The answer to that is an obvious no. According to the Christian Trinitarian theology the only concept of God that is accepted and true which is necessary for salvation is the Trinity which includes Jesus as deity or God. If that is so then the concept which the scribe had along with his attestation of Jesus’ testimony was absolutely wrong! If that is the case Jesus being a teacher of truth, nay the embodiment of truth should have corrected him on the spot and said something like,”Yes, good scribe God is One, but what you are thinking is wrong. God is One in the sense that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one.” Do we find anything like that offered as correction for the scribe’s “erronuous” belief? NO! Christians usually argue that because Jesus did not correct the disciples for worshipping him that must mean he accepted it and that makes him God. They’re talking about what is called tacit(silent) approval or qui tacit consentit in Latin. If we went by this premise then in Mark 12:29-32 Jesus is clearly attesting to the scribe’s belief since he is silent about any correction! As a matter of fact he was not silent at all. He actually affirmed the scribe’s statement and position as we read explicitly stated in verse 34,

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And no one dared to ask him any more questions.”

The verse mentions that the scribe answered with understanding. What was the understanding? The understanding was concerning Jesus’ statements regarding whatever comprehension that the scribe had regarding them. We have established that what the scribe comprehended from the Shema was that the Father and only He is God. That is indeed the understanding which Jesus AFFIRMED! We read the following attestations from Bible commentaries on Jesus’ validation for the scribe’s words and beliefs(understanding),

“…Jesus commends the scribe(34)…’he is near the kingdom in the sense that he recognises the sovereignty and has the right moral and spiritual disposition…” [2] (emphasis added)

“34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discretely – rather, ‘intelligently’ , or “sensibly”; not only in a good spirit but with a promising measure of insight into spiritual things.” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown) [3]

“1. He owned that he understood well, as far as he went, so far, so good… He answered as one that had a mind; as one that had his wits about him…” [4]

The final quotation is quite clear in saying that the scribe was not simply regurgitating mechanical responses, but that he uttered them as a person who had a mind(i.e. with understanding). How can someone be close to the Kingdom of God if he does not recognise the deity of Jesus according to Christian Trinitarian theology? He will be in hell which is hardly “close” to God’s Kingdom(eternal bliss).

In conclusion, a scribe asked Jesus about the first commandment, Jesus answered and gave the Shema, the scribe attested it with the thinking that God is the Father and only Him and Jesus knew this concept well and recognised it without discrimination nor correction. To bring it home let us put together what we have gathered so far with John 17:3,

This is eternal life, that they may know You(the Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

Finally, to really put the record straight once and for all let us add  the following into our equation:

“Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.” (John 4:21-23)

  • Take serious note of what Jesus says,” we worship what we know“. He uses we which obviously includes himself! Worship what? GOD the Father! And the true worshippers are those who worship HIM(no one else) in spirit and truth.

Mark 12:29-34 + John 8:54 + John 4:21-23 = Destruction of the Trinity

The Trinity is a lie upon God and should be rejected as the instigation of falsehood.

References:

[1] The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume XIV. p. 295

[2] R. Mcl. Wilson (1987). Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Routledge. p. 812-813.

[3] The Bethany Parallel Commentary on the New Testament. Menneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers. p. 317

[4] Ibid.

Incoming search terms:

  • refuting the trinity
  • unveiling-christianity net
  • refuting trinity
  • how to refute the trinity
  • mark 12 :29 30 answer to muslim
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “Mark 12:29-34 REFUTES the Trinity”

  1. Ali Hodroje says:

    Salam Brother Anwar,
    Very good article highlighting one of the main points against the belief of the Trinitarians. If we take this article and apply the knowledge of your previous article (Is john the Baptist the last prophet) of Jesus being called a prophet the facts jump in the favour for those who believe that ‘’there is no god but he, and Jesus is but only a messenger from god.’’ I hope that a Christian will respond to this article. It’s always interesting to see there response. Due to my eagerness in regards to Mark 12:29-30 I went and I asked VenomFangX and told him what he thought in-regards to this verse. He claimed that the Greek word used (He didn’t give me a specific word) here implied Duplicity and or a couple and then he compared the word to that of a marriage. Now maybe im a complete fool and if I am inshallah brother Anwar you can correct me, but poor Holy Spirit where is he in this marriage? Why do Trinitarians tend to leave the Holy Spirit out of this, now if I am miss-understanding the concept of the Holy Spirit then brother Anwar please correct me, but this actually worsens Venomfangs answer by implying that the Greek used in Mark 12:29-30 proves the trinity. Though not only is that a scary response, but lets not forget that the scribe shows no sign of understanding Jesus’ secret message of a trinity or part there of. So not only has Venomfangs answer left out the Holy Spirit, but I challenge anyone to prove that the scribe understood the secret message of Jesus‘. If we read further into the verse it proves to us, that the scribe had no idea of the hidden message of the Greek word. The scribe affirms my statement of his lack of knowledge when he speaks in Mark 12:32-33.
    This also proves more to the readers as to what the followers of Christ (alive with him!!) actually believed. Which reminded me of Sami Zaataris debate with Dr. James White. Dr. James white starts showing all this proof that Jesus is god by going to Paul, and Paul’s disciple’s, and there disciples. In response to this Sami is stunned and he says I have what the followers of Jesus are saying!! you have to go to those AFTER Jesus to prove his divinity!!! (Im paraphrasing Sami’s Statement, which is why i encourage you to all watch this great debate between him and James white)

    I wish Christian would be more honest in there approach towards Jesus especially when dealing with the issue of his divinity. This article is great in articulating that the scribe who believed that there was ‘’ No God But He’’ was closer to the kingdom of GOD. Tawheed is what Islam emphasized and from what we see in this article so did Jesus. To those who believe in the Trinity I ask you to hold true your book when it says “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In respect to the topic that is being dealt with today I leave with the following Surah from the Glorious Quran
    112:001] Say: He is God, the One and Only;
    [112:002] God, the Eternal, Absolute;
    [112:003] He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
    [112:004] And there is none like unto Him.
    Walikum Salam Wr Wb

  2. cowofdoom says:

    Well Ali Hodroje, you got your wish. A Christian is going to examine this article.

    First, thank you Ibn Anwar for your permission to have a discussion with you on these topics. I realize it has been weeks since that e-mail but with school starting back up I found it difficult to get time to respond. I now have that time.

    To begin, you assert total monotheism, a belief I am not surprised you hold because of how it permeates Islamic belief. Allah is only god, no other god, etc. Christians do not differ with Muslims on this point. I believe God is one, but in three persons, which I will address after I comment on your article.

    There is a big problem with your article and how it is written. When debating topics like this you have to pick a point of authority and in this passage you picked the scribe. Jesus, the Son of God (or a prophet in your view), is not the authority based on how you’ve written this article. That is foolish. Jesus’ words are the authority here, not the words of the scribe. What Jesus says counts and the agreement of the scribe reflects on himself, not on Christ. The scribe answered wisely on Jesus’ terms, not the other way around.

    Just to be a little nitpicky, but giving Jesus the title of “Rabbi” by translating the Greek to English and then equating the English with Hebrew is poor form. Proper translations start with the most relevant version closest to the time of occurrence. My Qur’an in English on my dresser is not the source I would start with if I wanted to translate the Qur’an into Spanish or Chinese. I would start with the Arabic version. Same here. Start with the Greek and then translate it into Hebrew. The meaning may be the same, but the point needs to be made, in part because Jesus was raised in Nazareth. John 1:46: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Hardly the reputation a rabbi would wish to pick up from one of his students. Jesus was trained as a carpenter, not as a rabbi.

    You also mention John 8:54 where Jesus says “Father” glorifies him. But did you look at John 8:55 and 56? Jesus claims much more.
    Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

    Same with quoting John 17:2. Check out John 17:1-5.
    When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

    The justification for the trinity is found throughout the Bible. I’ll just give you a couple:
    Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission.
    Luke 1:35, where the Father (Most High) and Holy Spirit are mentioned distinctly.
    John 14:16, where another “counselor” will be given, the Spirit of Truth.
    Acts 2:1-5; 2:33, the list goes on.

    In closing, Mark 12:28-34 does not refute the Trinity, it in fact lays groundwork to support all other biblical scriptures about the Trinity by refuting the idea of a polytheistic Christian God. The Christian God is one and Christianity is a monotheistic belief, but one in which God, in a way which defies human comprehension, is three persons, each doing their role in the salvation of the world.

  3. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    Firstly, I would like to thank you Cowofdoom for your thoughts. I’ve been waiting for your reply for quite sometime. I am glad that you have finally kept your word in wanting to rebut my articles. Let us not delay further with formalities and get straight to the points made in your comment.

    You said,
    “To begin, you assert total monotheism, a belief I am not surprised you hold because of how it permeates Islamic belief. Allah is only god, no other god, etc. Christians do not differ with Muslims on this point. I believe God is one, but in three persons, which I will address after I comment on your article.”

    Yes, I do assert absolute and total numerical monotheism or God’s oneness(unitarian monotheism if you like). I do not believe CHristians agree with Muslims on this point. It is quite evident that Christians have an image of three distinct individuals that are called “persons” in the “Godhead”. Neither Muslim nor Jew blieve in any such concept. The Hindus also believe in One God. Learned Hindus will identify themselves as monotheists instead of polytheists as is the common perception. Their stance is basically that God is one namely, Brahma. However, this one God manifests Himself in numerous different forms. Nevertheless, it is still one God according to them. Basically, their ideology have much similarity with the CHristians’. The only real difference is that the Trinitarian Christian limits it to three whilst the Hindus provides no limit. Jews and Muslims are the only ancient movements that succinctly and strictly declare God’s absolute oneness without any kind of plurality. This in a nutshell was the whole point of the article which you seem to have missed. Was Jesus a Jew? The answer to that question ought to be a yes according to your ow tradition. What is the common and everlasting concept of God Jews have had since the time of Moses? The answer was already discussed at length in the article. I feel disappointed that you conveniently ignored that when that is precisely th whole point.

    You then said,
    “There is a big problem with your article and how it is written. When debating topics like this you have to pick a point of authority and in this passage you picked the scribe. Jesus, the Son of God (or a prophet in your view), is not the authority based on how you’ve written this article. That is foolish. Jesus’ words are the authority here, not the words of the scribe. What Jesus says counts and the agreement of the scribe reflects on himself, not on Christ. The scribe answered wisely on Jesus’ terms, not the other way around.”

    I do not think I favoured either scribe or teacher who was Jesus in the article. The purpose of the article was not to show who’s superior or who’s lesser in any shape or form. It was to show a common denominator between the two individuals, both scribe and teacher in their belief concerning God. The similitude cannot be missed or denied by any reasonable person. Nonetheless, I believe I did in a way show the authority of Jesus. The fact that I mentioned and placed emphasis on Jesus being addressed as teacher by the scribe totally refutes your claim that I had it the other way around. I spoke on how Jesus approved what the scribe said and substantiated it further with the Christian commentary at the end. At this point in time I must ask if you have actually truly read the article? It would seem as if you hav not.

    You then said,
    “Just to be a little nitpicky, but giving Jesus the title of “Rabbi” by translating the Greek to English and then equating the English with Hebrew is poor form. Proper translations start with the most relevant version closest to the time of occurrence. My Qur’an in English on my dresser is not the source I would start with if I wanted to translate the Qur’an into Spanish or Chinese. I would start with the Arabic version. Same here. Start with the Greek and then translate it into Hebrew. The meaning may be the same, but the point needs to be made, in part because Jesus was raised in Nazareth. John 1:46: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Hardly the reputation a rabbi would wish to pick up from one of his students. Jesus was trained as a carpenter, not as a rabbi.”

    I will wager that you have no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew as languages. The word in question which I mentioned in the article is didaskalos which is spelled with delta iota delta alpha sigma kappa lambda and epsilon which is fully equivalent to the Hebrew resh bet yud(RBY) or RABBI which means teacher or master. In the Latin vulgate the word is maestro which also means RABBI. In fact, the Hebrew New Testament reads
    ויענו מן הסופרים והפרושים ויאמרו רבי חפצנו לראות אות מידך
    The word is רבי(Resh Bet Yud) which is properly pronounced as RABBI.

    We read in ‘Is the Title ‘Rabbi’ Anachronistic in the Gospels?’ by Hershel Shanks published in the Jewish Quarterly Review that, “The title ‘Rabbi’ is used frequently in the Gospels, especially as a form of address for Jesus.”

    We read in Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary the following:
    “38. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master-“Teacher,” equivalent to “Rabbi.”

    Here’s a little suggestion, sir. Do some homework before you plan to debate Unveiling Christianity.

    You said,
    “You also mention John 8:54 where Jesus says “Father” glorifies him. But did you look at John 8:55 and 56? Jesus claims much more.
    Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

    Thanks, but I am more than familiar with that text which is one of many used by Trinitarians to prove Jesus’ deity. The reason why I quoted John 8:54 should be clear to anyone who has really read the article. It was to show that Jesus recognised and knew very well the concept of God the Jews had i.e. the Father is God(and no one else). It was mentioned in case some jokers comes along the way and say Jesus neither recognised nor knew any such concept. In any case, the passage is quite an interesting one, but,in no way does it promote Jesus to godhood.

    You then said,
    “Same with quoting John 17:2. Check out John 17:1-5.
    When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

    What’s the point of all that? To show the divinity of Jesus because he had glory with God before the world existed? How does that make him God? What exactly did he mean by glory? The fact that John 17:3 is emphatic in God being singled out as the only true God or in the Greek ho monos aleithenos theos verse 5 should not have any interpretation that does not correlate with that verse. Glory does not make someone God. If it did, then the disciples must be God too because the same Glory is given to them later in the same passage. So, do you have 15 persons in the “Godhead” now?

    You said,
    “The justification for the trinity is found throughout the Bible. I’ll just give you a couple:
    Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission.
    Luke 1:35, where the Father (Most High) and Holy Spirit are mentioned distinctly.
    John 14:16, where another “counselor” will be given, the Spirit of Truth.
    Acts 2:1-5; 2:33, the list goes on.”

    Matthew 28:18-20 is already discussed here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....thew-2819/
    Luke 1:35 says,”The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

    Notice, that it says kai dunamis hupsistos which means “and the power of the supreme” or “most high” as it is usually renedered after “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”. Clearly, there are two involved here. If the Holy Spirit is God who according to Trinitarians empower believers with miracles and great feats of wonder surely the verse should have mentioned in the second part that “his power shall overshadow you”. However, it carefully identifies two beings. Could it be that they’re two separate entities? It is the Muslim point of view that that Holy Spirit was actually the Angel Gabriel, the same being who gave Mary the glad tidings of an upcoming baby prior to this incident. Angels speak and act on behalf of God. As such they convey the message and power of God. But, they themselves do not have their own power without God’s specific discretion, hence “and the power of the Most High”. The verse is hardly clear in proving any trinitarian concept. Even if your interpretation on it is true i.e. that the Holy Spirit is really God according to the verse then like John 1:1, John 10:30 we have what I would call a “duinity” and not a Trinity. I do not say this as a concession, but rather as an argument based on the principle of “for the sake of argument”.

    The same is true with the other two verses you mentioned. Neither teach the Trinity as you hold it. Over 12 000 times the word elohim and adonai occur in the Old Testament. About 1325 times the word theos occurs in the New Testament. Thus, there are thousands of opportunities for one to say God and impart the concept of God. Yet, out of all those thousands of times, there is not a single that learly teach the Trinity. And the one and only that happens to be clear and explicit i.e. 1 John 5:7 is found to be nothing more than an interpolation which is a very beautiful and scholastic word for corruption lol.

    You’ve raised some interesting points, but as I mentioned earlier you have totally missed the entire purpose and point of the article. You left out the crucial discussion on the context of Mark 12:29-34 and the arguments put forth to say that Jesus consented the understanding that the scribe had of God. In short, you have failed to disprove anything I argued for and have allowed me to provide further refutations to strengthen ou case that the Trinity is a heresy and is not in line with the teachings of Jesus. And Allah knows best.

  4. Issam says:

    Even if our friend cowofdoom succeeded in showing that other passages in New Testament talk about trinity, it still would not refute the fact that Mark 12:29-34 teaches monotheism. If one passages teaches monotheism, and another teaches trinity, then there is a contradiction which would refute Christianity and its claim that the Bible is inspired.

  5. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    I don’t think he will be able to show any Trinity passages in the Old or New Testaments, Issam. The reason is quite simple, that is, there is just not a single passage that teaches it.

  6. anthony buzzard says:

    Anwaar’s point is convincingly right! Jesus, it is obvious, was not a Trinitarian, and it is shocking to discover that his claimed followers do not in fact follow his view of God.
    Christians should be urged to affirm the creed which Jesus affirmed. I have documented your good point in two full length books: The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound and Jesus was not a Trinitarian (both at Amazon).
    Anthony Buzzard

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Greetings Sir Anthony Buzzard. I feel very honoured that a person of your calibre took the time to share his words on my site. It is indeed a pleasure. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to your interview on a documentary concerning Jesus’ alleged deity. I also enjoyed the debates you had with Shabir Ally, though being a Muslim I have to say that Shabir Ally won both rounds :p. Please feel free to share with us your thoughts on any of the other articles on the site. I thank you again. Wassalam.

  7. Muslim says:

    Bro the term “rabbi” used for Jesus (as) is an anachronism .. check out the JewishEncyclopedia and credit me in an article LOL

  8. Veronica says:

    I am a Christian and was born and raised a Southern Baptist. I personally have NEVER believed that Jesus is God. I only believe that God is God and Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is just exactly that the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself never claimed anywhere in the Bible that he himself is God. The trinity doctrine was made up by Constantine almost 300 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Now all you trinity believers I have a question for you and YOU MUST answer: IF Jesus were supposedly God Almighty then why does Jesus not know the day or the hour when the end is coming? Read Matthew 24. Only God the Father knows, not the angels and not even the Son knows when that will be 🙂 God Almighty is ALL knowing. Jesus did and said ONLY what the Father told him to THROUGH the Holy Spirit.

  9. semsav12 says:

    What I find particularly revealing about Mark 12:29-34 is the scribes interpretation of what Jesus said, and that Jesus had affirmed it. The scribes interpretation included the unitarian creed ‘He is One and there is no other than he” with the specific pronouns indicating one person and excluding others, and well as the statement “with all your understanding” refuting the “incomprehensible mystery” response that trinitarians state when you point out the logical flaws in their position.

Leave a Reply