Частина перша. У липні торік почав читати Біблію, і ба, звіряюся з оригіналом. І чим більше читаю - тим більше помічаю, як нам промивають мізки, ставлячи знак = поміж християнством і пацифізмом. На допис мене наштовхнув ютуб-канал, де розповідали, що тре здатися, терпіти, бути слухняними рабами, мовляв Ісус терпів. Процитую вірші Біблії (Танаху), котрі показують, що християнство не = пацифізму. Вірші, залежно від перекладу можуть різнитися, тому раджу орієнтуватися на оригінал, якщо кортить перевірити чи не перекручую я.

1. Слова Іісуса в Матвія 10: 34-35 і Луки 12: 51-53 Не думайте, що я прийшов мир принести на землю; не мир прийшов я принести, а меч. Я прийшов розлучити сина з батьком ... свекруху з невісткою.
2. Луки 22: 36, 38 Хто має гамана, хай візьме ще торбу, а хто немає, хай продасть і купить меча. Учні: Господе, ось тут два мечі. Він: достатньо.
3. Римлян 13:4 і 1 послання Петра 2: 13-14 ... якщо зло робиш - бійся, бо недаремно він (правитель) носить меча. Він є Божим слугою, який відплачує покаранням тому, хто коїть зло.
4. Вихід 15: 3 Господь - муж війни.
5. Псалми 144: 1 Благословімо Господа - мою скелю, який навчає мої руки готуватися до бою, а пальці до борні.
6. Дії Апостолів 10 (переказ) Корнилій - прозваний набожним військовий, якому приходить видіння від Бога із похвалою за праведні вчинки й віру.
7. Матвія 8 (переказ) Ісус хвалить сотника за віру.
8. Луки 3: 14 Прийшли воїни до нього (Івана Хреститиля) і запитали, що і їм робити? Їм він також відповів: " ні з кого не беріть гроші силою чи кривдою - будьте вдоволені платнею. Скласти зброю Іван Хреститель їм не наказав - прим.
9. Об'явлення (Одкровення) 19: 11-20 Явлення Ісуса Христа на білому коні Я побачив відкрите небо, і ось там був білий кінь, і на ньому був Вершник, Якого називають Вірним і Правдивим. Він справедливо судить і воює. ..... Слідом за ним верхи їдуть небесні війська ... З його вуст виходить гострий меч, аби ним уражати народи. Він правитиме ними залізним жезлом і розчавить у давильні вино люті й гніву Бога Вседержателя ... І я побачив янгола, що стояв на сонці й волав гучним голосом до всіх птахів, що літали серед неба: " Прийдіть, зберіться разом на велику вечерю Божу, щоб їсти тіла царів, повководців і могутніх, тіла коней та їхніх вершників і тіла всіх вільних і рабів, тіла великих та малих. Тоді я побачив звіра, земних царів та їхні війська, що зібралися разом, щоб вести війну проти Вершника на коні та Його війська. Але звіра було схоплено, а разом з ним і лжепророка, що робив перед ним знамення, якими оманював тих. хто отримав знак звіра і поклонявся його образу. Обох живими кинули у вогняне озеро, що горить сіркою. А, інші були вбиті мечем, що виходив з уст Вершника на коні, і всі птахи наїлися їхніми тілами. Загалом, книга Об'явлення має чимало покарань і пророцтв такого змісту, але всі перелічувати - задовго (прим.).
10. Неемія 4: 16-18 Половина моїх людей працювали над відбудовою муру, а половина тримала напоготові списи, луки, щити й обладунки. Хто носив колоду, той однією рукою тримав колоду, а в іншій руці тримав зброю. У кожного будівельника з боку висів меч.
11. Еклезіаста 3: 1, 8 Для всього свій час, для кожного діла є пора під небом. ... Є час війни, а є час миру.

Натомість прихильники пацифізму свідомо чи несвідомо оминають ці вірші та зосереджуються на Нагірній Проповіді, яку я збираюся розібрати в другій або, пак, третій частині.

Післямова. Сенс цього допису не у виправданні всіх форм агресії та звірств, насильства, а показати, що Біблія чи Танах намагаються навчити нас Божої справедливості, котру частина з нас розуміє та застосовує на свій лад, замість сенсу, який закладав Бог і ті, хто писав або був сучасником Біблії. Недаремно в книгах Вихід (21: 24-25) і Повторення закону міститься така настанова: життя за життя, око за око, зуб за зуб, рука за руку, нога за ногу, опік за опік, синець за синець.

A common objection is: "If God's sacred name is so important, why isn't YHWH found in the Greek New Testament?"

One important reason is language.

The Greek alphabet simply could not accurately represent several Hebrew consonants found in the divine name יהוה (YHWH). Koine Greek lacked equivalents for certain Hebrew sounds (including the Hebrew he and waw, and it also lacked the sh sound used in other Hebrew words). As a result, Hebrew names were routinely adapted into Greek rather than reproduced exactly.

Consider these examples:

* Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) → Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς) → Jesus

* Yoseph (יוֹסֵף) → Iōsēph (Ἰωσήφ) → Joseph

* Yaʿaqov (יַעֲקֹב) → Iakōbos (Ἰάκωβος) → Jacob / James

* Yeshayahu (יְשַׁעְיָהוּ) → Ēsaias (Ἠσαΐας) → Isaiah

None of these names retain their original Hebrew pronunciation perfectly because they were adapted to the Greek alphabet.

The same principle applies to Hebrew expressions.

The New Testament preserves "Hallelujah" in Greek as Ἁλληλουϊά (Alleluia) (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6). This is simply the Hebrew הַלְלוּ־יָהּ (Hallelu-Yah) transliterated into Greek.

Notice that "Yah"—the short form of the divine name—is preserved within Hallelujah, even though the full Tetragrammaton (יהוה) is not written.

History also shows that some of the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint preserved the divine name in Hebrew letters within an otherwise Greek text. Later Greek manuscripts generally replaced it with Kyrios ("Lord"), following the long-established Jewish practice of reading Adonai instead of pronouncing the divine name.

The absence of YHWH in the Greek New Testament is therefore best understood as a combination of linguistic limitations and translation tradition, not evidence that God's name was unimportant.

I'm in this dilemma where I believe YHWH is Almighty God alone and Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God but not literally the Almighty God himself. So I'm basically a Unitarian, I wish I could be a Jehovah's Witness but I don't agree with their doctrines on blood and shunning so unfortunately I can't go there either, almost everything else is Trinitarian, where do I go? NYC doesn't have a Biblical Unitarian Church.

I just saw a video of someone talking about YHWH or Yahuah i’m curious to know who that is? because in the video the person was replacing God with Yahuah so is that still christianity but calling him differently? i’m lost in general, i’ve been trying to find the right religion to follow and a lot of theories make sense and not at the same time and im really confused, but im 100% sure there is a creator, i just wanna know who he is. Thank you guys in advance

In the endowment ceremony, we see names such as Elohim, Jehovah, and Lucifer.

Elohim is the Only Name in the endowment that isn't Anglicized or Latinized. Lucifer comes from Latin, Jehovah comes from the Tetragrammaton and the vowels from the Title of ADONAI. The vowels from the Title of ADONAI were thrown next to the Divine Name to remind readers to not use the Divine Name and to use the Title instead.

It's strange how Joseph Smith really incorporated a Latin term as he made up the pre-mortal existence. I highly doubt they were speaking Latin before it was a thing. Same with the Anglicized Divine Name.

I nerded out and have some friends that are scholars and find myself in Jewish spaces. Elohim is a type, not a Personal Name.

If you’ve spent any time debating New Testament Greek or looking into the translation of Colossians 1:15-17, you already know it’s a theological battlefield. The text calls Jesus the "firstborn of all creation" (v. 15), and then says that "all things" were created through him (v. 16).

A lot of people get incredibly heated over translations that render verse 16 as "all other things were created through him". The immediate criticism is usually: "The word 'other' isn't in the Greek text! You're adding to the Bible to fit a theological bias!".

But if we put theology aside for a second and look strictly at 1st-century Greek grammar, we find a fascinating "domino effect." There is a direct, unbreakable connection between the grammar of verse 15 and the vocabulary of verse 16. It all starts with something called the partitive genitive.

Let’s break down how this works and why the two concepts are perfectly connected.

The Trigger: Prōtotokos and the Plural Genitive Rule

In verse 15, the Greek phrase is prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs (firstborn of all creation). When a noun like "firstborn" is modified by a group in the genitive case ("of all creation"), it triggers a very specific grammatical classification: the partitive genitive.

Daniel Wallace, in his highly respected Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, explains that a partitive genitive denotes the whole of which the head noun is a part. But Wallace adds a strict rule: for a construction to be a partitive genitive, the main noun must have a "lexical nuance indicating a portion". The word prōtotokos absolutely has this lexical nuance. The word includes prōtos (first), which is an ordinal number denoting the first in a sequence. You can't be "first" without being part of a sequence.

https://preview.redd.it/ed242wlpg2ah1.png?width=3780&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a07da20b0183a9033a7ea36c4c1cd30811a578e

But here is the most crucial, unbreakable rule of Greek syntax when it comes to this specific word: Whenever prōtotokos is attached to a genitive noun that represents a group, the firstborn is ALWAYS part of that group. There are zero exceptions to this rule in the Scriptures or surrounding ancient Greek literature.

In Greek, the genitive group modifying the firstborn can take two forms, but the rule applies identically to both:

1. Morphologically Plural: The word itself is plural.
2. Semantically Plural (Collective): The word is grammatically singular but represents a collective group of many individuals or things.

Let's look at how this plays out perfectly in the Greek Septuagint (the Bible of the early Christians):

• Genesis 4:4: Abel brings the "firstborn of his sheep" (tōn prōtotokōn tōn probatōn). "Sheep" is morphologically plural. The firstborn is part of the sheep.
• Exodus 22:29 (LXX 22:28): God commands the Israelites to give him the "firstborn of your sons" (prōtotoka tōn huiōn sou). "Sons" is morphologically plural. The firstborn is a member of the sons.
• Exodus 11:5 & 12:29: Here we see a semantically plural noun. The text speaks of the "firstborn of the flock/cattle" (prōtotokou pantos ktēnous). The word "flock" (ktēnous) is grammatically singular, but it collectively represents many animals. The firstborn is obviously a part of that flock.

Now, apply this strict grammatical reality to Colossians 1:15. Jesus is the prōtotokos of "all creation" (ktiseōs). Just like "flock", the word "creation" is morphologically singular but semantically plural—it represents the massive collective group of all created things. Therefore, grammatically speaking, the firstborn must be a part of the creation group. He is the preeminent, first member, but a member nonetheless.

The Domino Effect: The Grammatical Ellipsis in Verse 16

Here is where the grammatical domino falls. If verse 15 establishes that Jesus is part of the creation group, what do we do with verse 16, which says that "all things" (ta panta) were created through him? If he is part of creation, he couldn't have created himself.

This is exactly where the Greek idiom of ellipsis naturally kicks in.

An ellipsis is simply the omission of a word that is grammatically expected but left out because the context makes it obvious. Robert Funk’s translation of the renowned Greek Grammar of the New Testament specifically addresses this. It explicitly states that the omission of the notion of "other" (such as the Greek word allos) is a specifically and notoriously Greek idiom.

https://preview.redd.it/8iws5tfqg2ah1.png?width=3780&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad3e733d68146895edbaf503ff3da0b7f6bc359c

Because the structure of Greek is different from English, translators have to fill in these elliptical gaps all the time so the text makes sense in the target language. And mainstream Bible translators do this with the word "other" constantly without anyone complaining. Let’s look at a few examples:

• Luke 13:2: Jesus asks if the Galileans who suffered were worse sinners than "all the Galileans" (pantas tous Galilaious). Since the victims were Galileans themselves, almost all English Bibles naturally translate this as "all the other Galileans".
• Luke 21:29: Jesus says, "Look at the fig tree and all the trees". A fig tree is a tree. So, translators routinely render it as "the fig tree and all the other trees".
• Acts 5:29: The literal Greek reads, "Peter and the apostles answered". Since Peter is obviously an apostle, nearly every translation renders it "Peter and the other Apostles".

In all these verses, the Greek word for "other" (allos) is completely absent from the manuscript. Yet, translators insert it because the context dictates that the subject is already part of the group being discussed.

Tying it all together

When you connect these two grammatical realities, the controversy around Colossians 1:16 vanishes.

1. The word prōtotokos followed by a semantic plural (creation) functions strictly as a partitive genitive, placing the firstborn inside the category of creation.
2. Because he is already established as part of that group, the phrase "all things" in verse 16 triggers the standard Greek ellipsis of the word "other".

Translating it as "by means of him all other things were created" isn't a theological conspiracy or a dishonest insertion. It is the natural, inevitable grammatical consequence of the partitive genitive in the previous sentence. Paul was just speaking normal, 1st-century Greek.

Hey everyone, I’ve been digging deep into the Greek grammar behind John 1:1a recently, and I want to share some fascinating stuff about a very common theological argument.

If you've ever discussed whether the Logos (the Word/the Son) is eternal and uncreated, you've probably heard the classic grammatical argument from John 1:1a: "In the beginning was the Word...".

The standard Trinitarian argument leans heavily on the Greek verb for "was", which is ēn (an imperfect tense form of eimi, to be).

The claim goes like this: because the imperfect tense generally indicates a continuous, durative, or linear action in the past, John is intentionally pointing our minds backwards, before the beginning of space and time, into the eternal past. Famous grammarians, like A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, argue that this specific imperfect tense proves the Logos has no origin and extends into eternity.

It sounds like a bulletproof argument, right? Well, let's break down the actual Greek syntax, because it turns out there is a massive contradiction in this popular talking point.

1. The "Defective" Verb and Robertson's Own Contradiction

Here is where it gets incredibly interesting. A.T. Robertson, the very same giant of Greek grammar who claimed John 1:1 points to eternity in his commentary, actually contradicts this in his own massive academic grammar book.

When analyzing grammar strictly (without theological bias), Robertson notes that the verb eimi (to be) is a "defective verb". What does that mean? It means it completely lacks an aorist tense (which is the tense used to describe an action as a simple, complete point in time rather than a continuous process).

Because eimi doesn't have an aorist form, Robertson admits that its imperfect form (ēn) is sometimes forced to act as an "aoristic imperfect". In other words, even though the word looks like a continuous imperfect verb, its actual function (its aspect) in certain contexts is aoristic—a single, restricted point in time. Robertson explicitly states that we do not need to insist that the imperfect ēn is always strictly durative or continuous.

https://preview.redd.it/nbkjruw8m99h1.png?width=3742&format=png&auto=webp&s=e69dd6fc576630f681b1b02889f6a57bc17ea025

So, if the verb can either be a continuous line (eternal past) OR a single point in time, how do we know which one John meant?

2. The Dative of Time ("en archē")

This is the nail in the coffin for the "eternal past" grammatical argument.

The phrase "in the beginning" in Greek is en archē. This specific grammatical construction (the preposition en + the noun archē in the dative case) functions as a Dative of Time.

According to Daniel Wallace, another heavy-hitting Greek grammarian, a Dative of Time answers the question "when?". More importantly, the Dative of Time routinely denotes a specific point in time. It does not focus on duration. If John had wanted to emphasize a continuous stretch of time or an ongoing eternal state, Greek has a specific tool for that: the Genitive of Time (which expresses the kind of time or the duration during which an event happens).

https://preview.redd.it/5o5ogpl2m99h1.png?width=1923&format=png&auto=webp&s=df70945c8f49bc62dda0fd6171de364aacbf4b44

https://preview.redd.it/fq1uleo4m99h1.png?width=1914&format=png&auto=webp&s=58db254d28fe3ad41ffbe1182963ebf5059bb2c4

But John didn't use the Genitive; he used the Dative.

3. The "Parentheses" Effect

So, what happens when you combine an imperfect verb (ēn) with a Dative of Time (en archē)?

The Dative of Time acts like a pair of parentheses around the verb. It completely restricts and limits the action of that verb to that precise point in time. It grabs that continuous aspect of the imperfect verb and forcibly converts it into an aoristic (punctiliar) aspect.

Think of it this way: if I say, "On the third day, he was raised," the phrase "on the third day" restricts the action exactly to that day. It doesn't mean the raising was continuously happening before that day.

Similarly, the grammatical boundaries of en archē contain the verb ēn. The syntax restricts the existence of the Logos strictly to the exact moment of creation.

TL;DR / Conclusion

When we actually look at the Greek mechanics—specifically the restrictive nature of the Dative of Time—the popular argument that the imperfect verb in John 1:1 proves the eternal pre-existence of the Logos completely collapses.

John is not trying to take our minds into the eternal past. He is making a much more focused point: precisely at the moment God began to create the physical universe, the Logos was already there with Him, acting as the instrument (dia) of creation. The grammar tells us he was present at "the beginning", but it is not taking us to a supposed eternity in the past.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

If you've spent any time in theological debates, you know the standard apologetic argument for John 8:58. It goes like this: Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews instantly pick up stones to kill him. Why? Because by saying "I am" (ego eimi in Greek), he was dropping the divine name from Exodus 3:14 ("I am that I am") and claiming to be Yahweh.

Case closed, right?

Well, not quite. When we actually dig into 1st-century Greek grammar, the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament used by the early church), and how the earliest Christians translated this verse, the "Exodus 3:14 connection" starts to fall apart.

Here is a deep dive into what was actually going on grammatically and historically in John 8.

1. The Grammar of "Extension from the Past"

In English, "Before Abraham was born, I am" sounds deliberately weird. The clash of tenses makes it feel like a profound metaphysical statement about existing outside of time. But in ancient Greek, it wasn't weird at all.

There is a documented Greek idiom known as the "Extension from Past" (or Present of Past Action still in progress). As grammarian Kenneth L. McKay explains, when you use a present tense verb alongside an expression of past time, it signals an activity that began in the past and continues right up into the present.

We actually see this exact same grammatical structure elsewhere in the New Testament:

• Luke 15:29: "I am slaving for you so many years" = I have been slaving for you all these years.
• John 14:9: "Am I with you so much time" = Have I been with you so long?.

So, when Jesus says prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi ("Before Abraham came to be, I am"), the most natural grammatical translation is simply: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born". He didn't use the imperfect tense ("I was" / emen) because that would merely imply a past existence that might have already stopped. The present tense eimi was syntactically required to show that his existence continued uninterrupted from the past right up to the exact moment he was speaking to the crowd.

2. But what about Exodus 3:14?

The biggest hole in the popular apologetic is the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Exodus 3:14. If Jesus was trying to invoke the divine name from the burning bush, ego eimi was the wrong phrase to use.

In the LXX, Exodus 3:14 reads: Ego eimi Ho On ("I am The Being" or "I am The Existing One").

In that sentence, ego eimi is just a standard grammatical copula (the introductory verb "to be"). The actual Divine Name—the title God gives himself—is Ho On. If Jesus wanted to definitively claim the title of Exodus 3:14, he would have said, "Before Abraham was born, Ho On". He didn't. He just used the auxiliary verb.

To put it in perspective, the blind man who is healed in John 9:9 uses the exact same phrase (ego eimi) to identify himself to the crowd ("I am the man"). No one accused the blind man of claiming to be Yahweh, because ego eimi was just everyday language for "It's me" or "I am he".

3. The "I am the Messiah" connection

So if it wasn't a claim to be Yahweh, what was he claiming? In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus frequently uses ego eimi as a predicateless phrase to claim the title of Messiah. In Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, Jesus warns that imposters will come saying ego eimi ("I am he"). Are they going to come claiming to be the God of the burning bush? No. Matthew 24:5 clears it up by filling in the implied predicate: "Many will come in my name saying, 'I am the Christ'".

Throughout John 8, the entire debate is about Jesus' legitimacy and authority as the one sent by the Father. In John 8:24 and 8:28, the context strongly implies he is saying "I am [the Messiah]" or "I am [the Son of Man]".

4. Okay, then why did the Jews try to stone him?

This is the ultimate gotcha question: If he wasn't claiming to be God, why did they react with lethal violence?.

We often project our own theology backwards and assume that 1st-century Jews only stoned people for claiming to be the Almighty. This is historically inaccurate. For the religious leaders of the time, claiming a supreme, pre-existent messianic dignity that preceded their revered founding patriarch (Abraham) was an intolerable arrogance and a usurpation of their national identity.

We see this exact same dynamic at Jesus' trial before the High Priest in Mark 14:61-64. The High Priest asks if he is the Messiah. Jesus says "I am," and adds that they will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power. The High Priest immediately tears his clothes and declares him guilty of blasphemy, condemning him to death.

Notice what happened there: Jesus didn't claim to be Yahweh (he said he would sit beside Power). But claiming that level of exalted, apocalyptic messianic authority was legally considered blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. The reaction in John 8:58 is the same: the claim of having lived before Abraham and holding superior authority was enough to spark a riot.

5. How the earliest Christians understood it

Perhaps the strongest evidence against the Exodus 3:14 reading is the fact that the earliest translations of the Gospel of John completely ignored it.

When the Gospel of John was translated into Syriac (the Curetonian and Peshitta versions in the 4th/5th century), Georgian (5th century), and Ethiopic (6th century), the translators rendered John 8:58 as "Before Abraham came to be, I was" or "I have been". They treated it strictly as a chronological statement of pre-existence, recognizing the underlying grammar.

Even early Greek-speaking Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, and Novatian used this verse to argue that Christ had an origin prior to Abraham, not that he was doing a grammatical callback to the burning bush.

TL;DR: Translating John 8:58 as a mystical "I AM" that quotes Exodus 3:14 ignores basic 1st-century Greek syntax. It's a standard idiom called the "Extension from Past" which simply means "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born". Furthermore, the Septuagint used Ho On for God's name, not ego eimi. The crowd wanted to stone him not because he claimed to be Yahweh, but because claiming a pre-existent messianic authority greater than the father of their nation was considered outright blasphemy.

https://preview.redd.it/ia0ebqjnj29h1.png?width=3780&format=png&auto=webp&s=b05be93d0b0ced28ce31c9a72fb4cbbe772934a1

If all Christians believe in the Bible why don't you just refer to yourself as a unitarian? Or does 'biblical' simply mean conservative?

1000000000% convinced now that the trinity is absolute bollocks

In the book 1984 by George Orwell, the main character attempts to join the resistance, but this resistance was actually led by the evil central governing figure known as "big brother"

We see this today, as the many nontrinitarian sects we have today are just controlled opposition to the "big brother" that is the trinity. Universalists, Modalists/Oneness, Arians, JW, Paulicians, Judaizers/Natsarim, Integrity Syndicate, Socianians. these "Unitarian" groups are controlled opposition made to be a stumbling block. actual biblical Christianity is pretty much dying, and these controlled opposition groups are heavily contributing.

the "Unitarian" label has become far too tainted to use, as it was assimilated into controlled opposition. there must be a new label, and you have rejected "True Christian" as a label, but a new label is desperately needed to separate ourselves from the controlled opposition.

Does God have the capacity to sin? According to both Catholic and Protestant alike, the resonating answer seems to be that he does not.

Does Jesus have the capacity to sin? This is where it gets a bit more complicated. Catholics seem to believe that Jesus is impeccable, meaning he does not have the capacity to sin. Many protestants appear to share this belief, but do not make it as official as Catholics do.

The problem with Jesus' impeccability is this: If Jesus was impeccable, was his life free of sin really an accomplishment? In Philippians 2:8 we read that Jesus became obedient to the point of death and in in Philippians 2:9 we read that God exalted him because of it. How can you be obedient if you do not have the capacity to be disobedient? And what is so special about this obedience that he should be exalted because of it, if he was incapable of being disobedient to begin with? It is precisely because he had the capacity to be disobedient that his obedience is something noteworthy and commendable. It was an accomplishment and why he was rewarded because of it.

So here is the real dilemma. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. Is the human nature greater than the divine nature or is it the other way around? If the divine nature is greater the human nature (which it is), how could he have the capacity to sin given that God does not? I believe this is the reason why trinitarians must say that Jesus is impeccable, because the only other option is that Jesus is either not human or not God.

But Jesus being impeccable is not a solution, it's just an attempt to obfuscate one problem by creating another. By being so adamant in their belief that Jesus is God, they nullify his accomplishment of living a life free of sin.