A Few Fundamentals
The New Commandment of Love

The Ten Teachings

The Bible teaches us:

  1. That Almighty God made man in his own image but that man fell from his exalted position by choosing lies and disobedience of his own free will. It was no fault of the Creator that man decided to exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of the image of corruptible man.
  2. That the need for a Messiah arose from issues that began with the Garden of Eden. Defined biblically, these issues may be considered as the eternal conflict between the Truth and the Lie - "because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." (Romans 1:25) 
  3. That the Messiah, the 'anointed' one of Israel, was Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by the Romans on a charge made by the Jerusalem priests, of whose unscriptural teachings he warned the people to beware.
  4. That this Jesus of Nazareth, a man "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," would one day sit upon the earthly throne of his father David, rule the world in righteousness, and judge the living and the dead.
  5. That God 'anointed' Jesus with his Holy Spirit and endowed him with full power and authority to speak and act as his representative on earth. (Acts 10:37-38)
  6. That Jesus was the son of God by human parentage (John 1:34, 45, 49) though not the son of Joseph as commonly supposed at the time (Matthew 1:25).
  7. That his 'sonship' of God is of a purely 'ethical' and 'spiritual' reciprocal nature.
  8. That Jesus was a 'god' in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man "unto whom the word of God came." (John 10:34) On his testimony there were a number of 'gods' among whom were: Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:9), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:7), Shemaiah, Elijah, and Moses (1 Kings 12:22, 17:24, 8:53).
  9. That he was the 'only-begotten' of God because he was the first-born from the dead, not because he was born to a virgin. (Acts 13:33-34)
  10. That by subordinating the will of his own flesh, and by choosing the truth of God instead of lies, and obedience to God instead of disobedience, Jesus thereby balanced the account books and restored humanity's potential for godliness - the position as it existed in the beginning. By this 'atonement' he has made it possible for men and women to emulate him and also attain godliness - to become children of God.


Jonas Lundström

I have a few questions:
1) How do you interpret the texts that are normally used to promote pre-existence? (Kol 1, Joh 1/8, Hebr 1)
2) What about the virgin-birth friendly texts in Matt and Luke? I can understand and like the main thrust of your theology, but don´t understand why it is necessary to get rid of the virgin conception.
3) Do you belong to some kind of church that accepts your view and/or are living a life in line with your teachings?
4) Do spell out the theology in "ten thesis" seems to me to be a mistake, if that is what you are trying to do. The scriptures contains a story that should be accepted and promoted in its fullness. For example, I miss the ekklesia and the Spirit in your thesis, and also the come-back of Jesus and the coming of God´s kingdom.
/Jonas Lundström, Sweden


Jonas, thanks for your comment.

To answer your questions -

1) I have posted a four-part series on Pre-existence under the category "Divinity on Trial." It begins here - http://raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/pre-existence-p.html

2) You ask why it is necessary to "get rid of the virgin conception?" The answer is that it is unscriptural. The virgin conception distorts the New Testament view that Jesus was a man with whom we can all identify, with whom we can share suffering, with whom we can empathise. Who can identify with the remoteness of a God-man, born of a virgin? Who could be expected to?

You can find an exhaustive analysis of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke under the category "Virgin Birth on Trial."

Unfortunately, the limitations of Typepad mean that the oldest post is found at the bottom of each category index page - one must read from bottom to top.

If you go here - http://raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/virgin_birth_on_trial/index.html
- you will find the first post in the series at the bottom of the page.

3) You asked: "Do you belong to some kind of church that accepts your view and/or are living a life in line with your teachings?"

I have a group of friends, like-minded individuals with whom I am in contact. But neither geography, nor time, should limit our view of 'ekklesia,' which is the Septuagint term for the Old Testament's 'congregation of the Lord.' I consider that every like-minded individual, living or dead, who aspired/aspires to the same goals as did Jesus, belongs to the same 'congregation.'

It is evident that Jesus of Nazareth saw his role as the pursuit of truth, as is evidenced by his words to Pilate in John 18:38. I consider the pursuit of truth the primary goal for would-be followers of Jesus and established this blog to expose the many unscriptural lies told about the man who lived and died for truth. So, yes, I hope I live a life in line with my teachings.

4) The "ten teachings" are the propositions which form the foundation of my "theology" as you call it. Before building up a total and truthful view of scripture, its 'fullness,' we must first lay down a firm and sure foundation. You will notice that in "teaching" number 4, I briefly referred to the Kingdom of God and the return of Jesus when I said: "That this Jesus of Nazareth...would one day sit upon the earthly throne of his father David..."

Subjects such as the "ekklesia and the Spirit...and also the come-back of Jesus and the coming of God´s kingdom" will be explored more fully in future posts.

Jonas Lundström

I have now read mosts of the texts you referred to.

-As to pre-existence, I am roughly on your side.

-As to the virgin birth, I have to look into this again. But I think you put a lot of energy into proving something that has, at the best, a very weak scriptural basis. It is acceptable to me to not believe in the virgin birth, but I must admit (even being a "free thinker"), that I get a little offended by your proposal. It seems that you might have some alternative christian groups on your side though, like maybe the ebionites and some 1600-century italian "rationalists"/anabaptists.

-I think you might have to "spiritual" a view of ekklesia. An ekklesia is just people gathering, body and all.

-I also mistrust your view of knowledge, which to me seems to me too modern. I always become a little frustrated when people speak as if there is only one "obvious" view out there, and when people seems to believe that it is possible to have an exact picture of "reality". I am too post (or late-)-modern for this.


Interesting beliefs. Very similar to Islam, yet very different. Anyways I was just wondering what sect of Christanity you adhere to, since this is my first time to this blog (via BlogRush).




Thanks for your comment.

Most, if not all, the denominations and sects of Christendom are united in proclaiming the 'divinity' of Jesus of Nazareth. I, therefore, belong to none of them, as I am a 'heretic' in their view.


I find it interesting that people are concerned about what "sect" Vynette belongs. It would seem to me that the important thing is what Vynette has to say.
Maybe Vynette is just a very intelligent person who can actually read and write, think for herself and make judgments in these matters based upon her own dilligent reasearch and not rely on the collective thinking of a "sect".

The comments to this entry are closed.