One God Report

The key error of the "pre-incarnate" Christ understanding of John 8:58 is in translating Jesus’ statement about Abraham in the past when it refers to Abraham coming to be in the future. In all other occurrences in John of the word under consideration (γενέσθαι genesthai) does not communicate something in the past tense but rather denotes someone or something that potentially could be or will be in the future. This is strong evidence that the word in John 8:58 relates to Abraham coming to be in a future context. In John 8:58 Jesus is making a Messianic claim to be the channel through whom God’s promises to Abraham will be fulfilled. Jesus’ claim is not a claim to be God, but to be the Messiah Light through whom God is at work to fulfill God’s promises to Abraham. Abraham is dead and buried in Hebron, yet to become, yet to experience the fulfillment of God’s promises to him, including resurrection from the dead. The “I am” statement of Jesus in John 8:58 is not about what Jesus was in the past before Abraham was born around 2000 BC. Rather, the “I am” statement in John 8:58 is about what Jesus is at the time he was on the earth before Abraham comes to be in the future: “I am (he, the Messiah-Light of world) before Abraham comes to be.” For full text, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2024/12/before-abraham-comes-to-be-in-future-i.html Additional podcasts on John 8:58: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUqWXumvcp5paG9pWFkJ8wLhx1ouqMbpj

Christians often say, “Jesus paid the penalty for my sin”.   But we will be hard pressed to find that declaration in the Bible. Is such a declaration biblical, or does it stem from the traditions of men?   In this episode Kevin George, author of Atonement and Reconciliation: A Search for the Original Meaning, Contrasted with Penal Substitutionary Atonement, explains what Penal Substitution Atonement is and then some of the problems with Penal Substitutionary Atonement.   https://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Reconciliation-contrasted-Substitutionary-Atonement/dp/B0CHDKFWCC   George explains how the focus of atonement is a restored relationship between God and humans based on a covenant made by God through Jesus, not on a legal substitutionary payment. The covenant is a blood covenant (proving loyalty to death) for the release of sins, not a “blood payment”.   If salvation is a gift of God, why did Jesus or anyone else have to pay for it?  Did God clear the guilty by accepting a payment from someone else? Is that a bribe?   One God Report Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/1fJjk0QUhsyr8r9hVCgoFk   Bill Schlegel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@billschlegel1   Bill Schlegel blog: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/

A description of the mosaic inscription "to God Jesus Christ" found at Megiddo/Legio and on display at the Bible Museum in Washington D.C. Presentation on what Christians meant when they called Jesus G/god in the early A.D. 3rd century. Video version of this podcast: https://youtu.be/Hg6Dm4mx_SU Sources and Resources: One God Report Podcast, Bill Schlegel YouTube Channel. Episodes 10-11 The Evolution of the Trinity, with Dr. Dale Tuggy. Rollston, Christopher. “A Stunning Trio of Early Christian (3rd Century) Inscriptions from Biblical Armageddon: ‘God Jesus Christ,’ Five Prominent Named Women, a Named Centurion, a Eucharist Table, and Two Fish.” Rollston Epigraphy: Ancient Inscriptions from the Levantine World, July 4, 2024. http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=1004. Rubenstein, R. When Jesus Became God. Harcourt, Inc., 1999. Tepper, Yotam, and Leah Di Segni. A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio): Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005. With contribution by Guy Stiebel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006. Academia Link Yotam Tepper Tuggy, Dale. History of Trinity Doctrines. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#TertulTertullian, On the First Principles. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm Tzaferis, Vassilios. “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’,” BAR 33-02, Mar-Apr 2007. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/inscribed-to-god-jesus-christ/ Smith, Dustin, Biblical Unitarian Podcast 357 https://biblicalunitarianpodcast.podbean.com/e/357-the-megiddo-mosaic-and-its-christology/

Glen Kay tells his faith journey, describing how he came to understand and believe that the God of the Bible is not a triune being, but is one, the Father, and that Jesus is a human Son of God, the Messiah/Christ. Resources for people and websites mentioned in this episode. Gary Steven Simons (Brother-in-law to Joel Osteen) How A Sunday Mega-Church Pastor Came To Torah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tu7wh9QMio Who is Yah? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbcadAKHrZE Biblical Unitarian Webpage: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/ Revised English Version https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Gen/1/1

PART 2 What if John 1:3 is translated as "all happened through him, and without him nothing happened. That which happened (came to be) in him was life, and the life was the light of men"? Compare the Literal Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation. Would you think John 1 was describing the Genesis creation? Probably not. Almost all deity-of-Christ and Arian readers of the Bible understand John 1:3-4 to be a statement about the involvement of the Logos of John 1:1 in the Genesis creation of the physical universe. The Logos of John 1:1 is taken to be a pre-incarnate divine person or being distinct from the God of John 1:1b, either one member of a co-equal “godhead” (Trinitarianism), or a subordinate god/angel (Arianism) who eventually became incarnated as Jesus. Some Biblical Unitarians also interpret John 1:3-4 in a Genesis creation context, but maintain that the Logos of John 1:1 is not a literal person, only a personification of God’s Wisdom or Plan involved in the Genesis creation. In contrast, this presentation interprets the Prologue of John, focusing on verses 3-4, as introducing a new beginning in the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, and not directly describing the Genesis creation of the physical universe. For full text, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-non-genesis-creation-interpretation.html #john1 #biblicalunitarian #billschlegel #deityofchrist, #trinity

What if John 1:3 is translated as "all happened through him, and without him nothing happened" (compare the literal translations: the Literal Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation)? Would you think John 1 was describing the Genesis creation? Probably not. Almost all deity-of-Christ and Arian readers of the Bible understand John 1:3-4 to be a statement about the involvement of the Logos of John 1:1 in the Genesis creation of the physical universe. The Logos of John 1:1 is taken to be a pre-incarnate divine person or being distinct from the God of John 1:1b, either one member of a co-equal “godhead” (Trinitarianism), or a subordinate god/angel (Arianism) who eventually became incarnated as Jesus. Some Biblical Unitarians also interpret John 1:3-4 in a Genesis creation context, but maintain that the Logos of John 1:1 is not a literal person, only a personification of God’s Wisdom or Plan involved in the Genesis creation. In contrast, this presentation interprets the Prologue of John, focusing on verses 3-4, as introducing a new beginning in the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, and not directly describing the Genesis creation of the physical universe. For full text, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-non-genesis-creation-interpretation.html #john1 #biblicalunitarian #billschlegel #deityofchrist, #trinity

Stories of how former Trinitarians, Atheists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are coming to know and believe that God is the Father, and that Jesus is God’s human Son, the Messiah.   Book available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Cost-Truth-Biblical-Unitarian-Christians/dp/1736918052   #biblicalunitarian, #bible, #Jesus, #countthecost, #billschlegel, #walkaway

Who is the Servant described in Isaiah 53? Israel? Jesus Christ? Someone else? Whoever the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is, it is clear that the Servant is NOT God. The servant of Isaiah 53 is the Servant of God. #isaiah53, #michaelbrown, #toviahSinger, #benshapiro, #bible, #sufferingservant, #Jesus

Dr. Tim Mackie appeared on the Transfiguration Podcast, describing some of his recent thoughts about the Trinity. In this video/podcast I review and point out some errors in Dr. Mackie’s claims.   0:00 Intro: Dr. Mackie’s search: How are Trinitarian expressions of God derived from the Bible?   02:20 Definition: What is the Trinity. Confusion between God as the Father alone, Trinitarianism, and Modalism. How many persons/selves is God?   08:03 Partial Knowledge. “Our knowledge of God will always be partial. The Trinity is a mystery.”   14:27 Progressive Revelation “Our knowledge of how many persons God is, was revealed progressively.”   24:00 Agency: the agent (one sent) of the sender is considered to legally be the presence of the sender.   26:14 How and When was the Trinity revealed? A couple New Testament references that supposedly hint that “Jesus is God”. Do Jesus’ miracles prove Jesus is literally God?   37:00 Any common ground between One-God-the-Father believers, and Trinitarians?  Different narratives.   40:41 A thank you and challenge to Dr. Mackie.   Resources: Transfigured Interview: Tim Mackie - The Trinity, Hermeneutics & Doctrinal Development https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyCqhMDudYU&t=1561s   Is the Trinity in the Bible? If So, Where? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POVaZX3urdc   How and When was the Trinity Revealed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HaqhjicWv8   My Lord and My God, Trinitarians Get it Wrong, John 20:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxYp4n52P8Q Text: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html   One God Report Podcast:   Land and Bible blog (Bill Schlegel) https://landandbible.blogspot.com/

1.      The claim is non-biblical, philosophical speculation.  This claim is not something argued or presented in the Bible. 2.      The Bible says exactly the opposite. The Bible says that Jesus had to be a man, a human being, not just a human nature, to bring about God’s plan of redemption for humanity. God was at work in and through the man Jesus of Nazareth. Who the man Jesus was and is, and what he did, was necessary, sufficient and acceptable to God. Problems: The claim that Jesus had to be God to atone for sins is not only non-biblical, but it also leads to other, non-biblical, philosophical dead ends. What deity of Christ folks are claiming is a penal substitution theory of atonement: somebody, or something else, a substitute, had to bear the penalty for my sin.   And that penalty is death. The claim is that instead of me, somebody else had to die for my sin. My sin is worthy of death, so, unless someone pays the death penalty, I will die. If someone else pays the penalty, then I don’t have to die. My sin is worthy of death, so that’s why a death is required for justice. Someone had to pay the death penalty – so instead of me, Jesus, who had to be God, paid that death penalty.   Now again, this is not a biblical claim. It is man’s philosophical speculation. And, I think that we can see that the Bible says something quite the opposite.   But even from a human or philosophical aspect, I think most people, if we think about it a little bit, can see the serious, non-biblical, theological, philosophical dead ends and inconsistencies with the claim.   Let’s say I murder someone. The biblical penalty for murder is death. I deserve death. I’ve been convicted in a court of law by jurors and a judge and sentenced to death. But my friend, Mike, right as the judge is about to strike the gavel down and send me off to execution, Mike stands up in the courtroom and shouts “Wait! Stop!”.  I’ll pay the penalty for Bill. Kill me instead!”   So, the judge says, “OK, the penalty for this crime is death. If you are willing to pay the penalty, come on over here. Executioners, take the handcuffs off Bill and put them on Mike. Mike, off to the electric chair. Bill, you are free to go!”  And everyone in the courtroom nods their head in agreement. That’s fair. The penalty was paid. The judge kept the ancient laws of justice.    Nope. People realize such a tactic is perversion of justice, not a maintenance of justice.   For the “Jesus must be God to pay for sin” folks there is another step in their philosophical, non-biblical speculation. They start thinking: well, maybe one person could give his life to pay the penalty for another (even though they know that biblically – “the person who sins, he shall die” Eze. 18:20, even a father can’t be penalized for the iniquity of his son). But our situation is not just one person for one person. The deity of Christ philosopher thinks, “Whoa, to pay the penalty for all sinners, for millions and billions of sinners, Jesus would have to be eternal God to be enough to do that”.   God died (again, in direct contradiction to the Scriptures). In the Bible God is immortal and does not die. Well, not all of God died. Only one person of God died. So God did but God did not die.   “And death is only the separation of the soul from the body. One person of God, or the soul/spirit of that one person, had taken on a human nature. So the spirit didn’t die, just the human nature.”   Some comments: 1.      A person-less human nature (whatever that is) was enough to redeem all the multitude, millions, billion from their sin?   Resources: Jesus had to be a “Mere” Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtQXFuOXBaA   "Jesus had to be God to atone for our sins." Really? Got a Scripture for that? https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/01/jesus-had-to-be-god-to-atone-for-our.html   Book: Atonement and Reconciliation: https://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Reconciliation-contrasted-Substitutionary-Atonement/dp/B0CHDKFWCC