One God Report

In this episode I interviewed students and staff at the youth conference of the Church of God General Conference. The conference, called Fuel is held once a year and occurred July 17-22 at the campus of North Manchester University in North Manchester, Indiana. It is a fun, exciting time when One God believing students from various US States meet, are encouraged and challenged by each other and by the conference staff. Maybe you know someone who should attend next year? I hope you will be blessed by listening in to the excitement in the voices of the students and staff as the next generation learns that Yahweh is our God. He is out God forever and ever. - Resources: Original music: Tony Joe White Polk Salad Annie Church of God General Conference https://coggc.org/ Turning Point Youth Ministries (of Church of God General Conference) http://tpym18wp.abc-coggc.org/?fbclid=IwAR1lSMy68c2qhWZxGyRQq0dqU0BvjDOHtADkbpM4_vTwo4R9LtDVneBW4KE Atlanta Bible College https://www.atlantabiblecollege.com/?fbclid=IwAR3PJ5SqX_4xJEm_d9Q1oVm_M8oB9dy5mvJq1nZNzOwPH_WtL47p2e0QvJo Unitarian Christian Alliance Podcast (Mark Cain) https://podcast.unitarianchristianalliance.org/ Restitutio Podcast (Sean Finnegan) https://restitutio.org/ #Christianyouthcamp, #trinity, #deityofchrist, #fuel

As a former teacher in a Trinitarian Christian University, I did not know how and when Trinitarian scholars think the Trinity was revealed. But I wasn’t alone. Most Christians, including pastors and Bible teachers, don’t know either. In this podcast: 1. According to Trinitarian scholars, the Trinity is not revealed and not verbally described in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. See also One God Report podcast #72 “Is the Trinity Revealed in the Bible? If so, Where”. 2. How and When the Trinity was Revealed (according to Trinitarian scholars). 3. The Trinitarian theory of the Trinity’s revelation directly contradicts the Book of Acts. 4. Why is there no opposition recorded in the New Testament to the new Trinitarian understanding of who God is? 5. The “new revelation” idea contradicts the work of God’s spirit throughout Old Testament times. 6. The “new revelation” idea presents a low view of Scriptural authority, and a low view of Jesus and the apostles as communicators of who God is. The Trinitarian tradition is elevated above the Word of God. 7. The coming of Jesus and the holy spirit does not mean that God is a triune being. A triad is not a trinity. 8. The Trinitarian claim is an effort to explain why the Triune God is not revealed or described in the Scriptures; but, the effort fails miserably and is a mis-interpretation of the coming of the Messiah Jesus and the sending of God’s spirit at Pentecost. James White, "Look in the gutter between Malachi and Matthew": https://youtu.be/C-2nYJHXj60?t=226 #jameswhite, #fredsanders, #trinity, #deityofchrist, #bible

Trinitarian theologians have insisted that God is one by claiming that the Trinity is three persons in one essence (White, The Forgotten Trinity, 24; Sanders, The Triune God, 121). This is supposedly how three can be one. James White, a modern Trinitarian apologist, says that the Trinity is three whos (persons) in one what (essence). But this description of the Trinity given by Trinitarians directly contradicts and testifies against their other core belief drawn that God became flesh. If God, or any person of the one God, became flesh, then God has two natures. Trinitarianism has created a contradiction between its two core doctrines: 1. God is one because they (or it) are one essence. 2. God became a second essence. Trinitarians insist their god has only one nature, while insisting their god has two natures. Which is it? Are we to believe that God has one nature or two natures? Biblical theology and Christology should not be a magic trick. “Look! One nature. Now look, two natures! See, one essence! Now two essences!” If God the Son took on flesh, how many natures does the Trinity have? I’m not asking about how many natures “God the Son” has, but how many natures does the tri-personal god have? The standard explanation for 1600 years has been that the Trinitarian god is three persons in one essence? That definition rejects the idea that God became flesh. That definition also denies the humanity of Jesus. When talking about God, the tendency for Trinitarianism is to forget about or remove the human nature from God. If the Trinity is “three persons in one essence”, Jesus is no longer flesh. Even the abstract “humanity” of Jesus is eliminated. By its very own definition of who or what the Trinity is, Trinitarianism eliminates the “humanity”, the “flesh” of Jesus the Messiah. If  one member of a godhead became flesh, then God has two natures and the Trinitarian claim that God is one essence fails. Trinitarianism is also an attack on the personal-ness of God, an attack on the Fatherhood of God. The claim "three persons in one essence" means the one God is not a personal Father, but is rather an "it" and "essence", or a "force". The one God of Trinitarianism is not a person, but an it. #trinity, #deityofchrist, #jameswhite

We continue our discussion with Troy Salinger about the deity of Christ apologists claim that the “memra” of the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament (Targums) is evidence that there was more than one person in Israel’s God. In this episode Salinger looks at Old Testament passages which are deity of Christ apologists like Dr. Michael Heiser say is evidence that the “word of God” coming to people in the Old Testament was as second divine being. Salinger shows why the claim to be faulty. The word “memra” is not the Aramaic substitute for the Hebrew word “davar” (word). Salinger explains that the phrase “the word of God came to…” is a not a second divine figure coming to a human, but denotes God speaking to or communicating information to a person. Synonymous phrases like “and Yahweh said to me”, “this is the word that came to Jeremiah from Yawheh”, “the word of Yahweh concerning…” in the biblical text show that the “word of Yahweh came to” Based on Numbers 12:2, Salinger describes the normal way in which God communicated to the prophets was through visions and dreams. Timestamps: 02:00 Genesis 15:1 considered 03:38 How God normally spoke to his prophets, through dreams and visions 10:30  1 Samuel 3 11:20  1 Samuel 4 12:30  “The word came to” means verbal communication (often through dream or vision), not a personal being or entity (a “second Yahweh”). 15:26  The word of Yahweh coming to Jeremiah Related links: Salinger Article on the Memra https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/pre-incarnate-appearances-of-the-son-of-god-in-the-ot-truth-or-myth-part-2/ Bill Schlegel recorded sessions on John 1:1-13: Jesus is the beginning of God’s New Creation https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUqWXumvcp5qE1_DibQN8NJ0sUd4BuAPY

We welcome Troy Salinger back to the podcast. Troy is a theological blogger (Let the Truth Come Out) and house painter. In a series of previous One God Report podcast episodes (#54-59) Troy discussed the supposed “Pre-incarnate Appearances of the Son of God in the Old Testament: Truth or Myth". Troy systematically showed the claim that Jesus the Son of God literally appeared to people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, etc., is a myth - the claim is untrue. - In the next couple of episodes Troy examines the claim that an Aramaic word, “memra”, which means a “saying, statement, word, declaration, command” which appears in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament) is evidence that there was a second god-figure appearing to people in the Old Testament, and that this second god is the pre-incarnate Jesus. The “memra” claim goes hand-in hand with the claim that the Jews during the time of Jesus believed there were “two powers in heaven”, and that these two powers were both somehow literally God. People like Michael Heiser have popularized this theory today. Heiser says Jews believed in “two “Yahwehs”, one unseen and one seen. The seen Yahweh was supposedly the memra in the Aramaic Targums. Troy has examined these claims and shows them to be completely false. - 2:00 Trinitarian impetus for claiming "memra" is a 2nd divine figure - trying to find a Jewish religious cultural background for a multi-person God. 05:28 – the meaning of “memra” 09:00 – misinformation about memra from apologists 16:58 – how memra is NOT used in the Targums. It is not a substitute for the Hebrew word “davar” (word). Neither is memra used to denote a second divine being. 19:30 – the Aramaic word for davar (word) is not memra, but “pitgama” 22:57 – Dr. Michael Heiser is a main popular source for misconceptions about memra 25:04 – How memra IS used in the Targums. Memra is always an addition to the Hebrew text, and it is a substitute way of saying God himself. 27:20 – Targum experts explain what memra is and is not. - Troy Salinger blog: Let the Truth Come Out https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/author/troysal/ Salinger Article on the Memra https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/pre-incarnate-appearances-of-the-son-of-god-in-the-ot-truth-or-myth-part-2/ #michaelheiser, #two powers in heaven, #memra, #preincarnate Christ Time stamps: 2:00 Trinitarian impetus for claiming "memra" is a 2nd divine figure - trying to find a Jewish religious cultural background for a multi-person God.

This episode exposes the progressive liberalism, indeed “woke-ism” of Trinitarian thought and language. While Trinitarians insist that God is three persons, Trinitarians insist on referring to God with the singular pronouns “He/Him.” But if God is three persons, they should be referred to with the plural pronouns “They/Them.” The “one-ness” of God, according to Trinitarians, is not a one-ness of a person, but a one-ness of an essence or a “what”. An “essence” or a “what” is not a person and should not be referred to as a person. The Trinitarian one-ness of God is an “it”. James White in his book The Forgotten Trinity says “We dare not mix up the what and the who’s regarding the Trinity” (p. 24). But white does exactly that. He refers to the three persons of his god with the singular pronoun “he”. White mixes up the what and who of his Trinitarian god. Links for this episode: MN Churches of God Spring 2022 Conference, June 10-12 “New Creation in the Gospel of John”, Guest Speaker: Bill Schlegel https://mncogconference.org/?fbclid=IwAR26LHq58LcVpT93ErxriNpxmY1GcrNhLxMqMj3mMoOQZ6LTajMw6OhzYJs Schedule: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5464e6b5e4b0e15e60967771/t/628019ded8316c4d2f2844ab/1652562398856/2022+Spring+Conference+Schedule.pdf #JamesWhite, #TheForgottenTrinity, #FredSanders, #TheTriune God 

Evangelical Christian scholars, experts on the Trinity, explain that God as a Trinity is not explicitly described in the Bible. In this episode we begin to take a look at two books written by evangelical apologists: "The Forgotten Trinity" by Dr. James White, and, "The Triune God" by Dr. Fred Sanders. We see that in neither case do these experts on the Trinity simply open the Bible and go to passages that describe that God is a Trinity. - Instead, as Dr. Sanders says, "The doctrine of the Trinity emerges from fitting the pieces together as each part determines (p. 84). The doctrine of the Trinity "is not not directly proposed in words of Scripture and presented to us in a formulated state" (p. 39). "The Triunity of God is not verbally formulated for us...some assembly is required (p. 40). - "We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the New Testament...(Dr. Fred Sanders quoting Dr. B.B. Warfield (p. 89). - For evangelical Christians, such statements should be waving red flags. - If the Bible is right, God is not a Trinity. #jameswhite, #the forgotten Trinity, #fredsanders, #the Triune God

See full text of this episode here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2022/04/john-11-is-parallel-to-man-moses.html Also see Dr. Andrew Perry's book: John 1:1-18, A Socinian Approach https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/andrew-perry/john-11-18/hardcover/product-1n7j2zgj.html?page=1&pageSize=4 - 1. The literary and thematic parallels to the phrases “was with God” and “was God” of John 1:1 are to be found in the Greek version of the Old Testament, not in extra-biblical literature, and these phrases particularly refer to the man Moses. Greek-speaking Israelites familiar with the Greek Old Testament could recognize that Moses “was with God pros ton Theon“ and even “was God” in a representative sense, and understand that the author was introducing the coming of the “prophet like unto Moses…about whom Moses wrote”. On the hand, Gentiles of the second century and later misunderstood John’s opening statement and instead claimed John was introducing a second God figure who was related to God in an ontological way, in nature or essence. These interpreters either ignored or missed the Moses typology and instead assimilated Greek philosophical speculations onto John’s writing. Likewise, the Greek mind failed to recognize the Hebrew parallel of Logos to Torah, and “in the beginning” to Israel’s beginning at Sinai. To put it another way, John 1:1 is introducing a prophet like unto Moses, not a second God figure, and not an abstract plan. - 2. References in the Gospel of John that directly compare Jesus to Moses are evidence that John’s opening statement is doing the same thing, just as other New Testament comparisons of Jesus to Moses. John’s Gospel is not presenting a different Christ than the rest of the New Testament.

In this episode I give reasons to understand that the “Greeks” mentioned in two places in the Gospel of John (7:35 and 12:21) were not Gentiles but were Greek-speaking Israelites who grew up in Greek culture outside of the land of Israel. The Gospel of John is using the word “Greeks/Hellenes” in a cultural and linguistic sense, not in an ethnic sense. Understanding that the Greeks/Hellenes mentioned in the Gospel of John are Greek-speaking Israelites helps us interpret the Gospel of John better, and illuminates another evidence that the author gives to show that Jesus is the Messiah. As the Messiah, Jesus is the facilitator of the "gathering of the exiles of Israel". As the Gospel of John says it, "the gathering of the children of God who are scattered abroad" (John 11:52).  Gentiles are not in the picture that the Gospel of John paints. The "door of hope" through the Messiah for Gentiles was not opened by God until a decade or more after the events in the Gospel of John took place. The Gospel of John was written by a Jew, for Jews. Gentiles can read it and benefit by it in much the same way we can benefit by reading the Book of Exodus. We see that God has done great things for Israel and proclaim "Yahweh (the Father) is God and Jesus is His Messiah". For full written text click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-greeks-hellenists-in-gospel-of-john.html  

This episode proposes that one of the main original audiences, perhaps even the main audience, of the Gospel of John were Greek speaking Hebrews. A first step in understanding that a main target audience of John’s Gospel were Greek speaking Hebrews is to understand that in the Gospel of John the word often translated as “Jews” can and does mean “Judeans”. Jesus is received by Hebrews (Jews or Israelites) in all regions outside of Judea. But the "Judeans", particularly the Jewish religious establishment in Jerusalem, did not receive him. If “Jews” means “Judeans” then the Gospel of John is addressing an internal Jewish controversy. John was not writing to Gentile audiences to declare “the Jews rejected and killed Jesus”. Rather, the author is writing to other Hebrews giving reasons to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, even though he was rejected in his own city Jerusalem, in his own region, by his own people, Judeans. Judeans rejected Jesus, not all Jews. For the full written text see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2022/02/in-gospel-of-john-jews-are-judeans-not.html