Skip to main content
One God Report

One God Report

By William Schlegel, Preston Macy
Discussion of biblical topics and texts that show that the God revealed in the Bible is One, and not a Trinity. Jesus, who was put to death and raised from the dead by God, is the Messiah (the Christ, the Anointed) of the One God.
Listen on
Where to listen
Apple Podcasts Logo

Apple Podcasts

Breaker Logo

Breaker

Google Podcasts Logo

Google Podcasts

Overcast Logo

Overcast

Pocket Casts Logo

Pocket Casts

RadioPublic Logo

RadioPublic

Spotify Logo

Spotify

43) Where does the Bible Say We Go When We Die? (Hint: Not to heaven), Interview with Pastor Sean Finnegan
“Where do we go when we die? Or, What has the Greek Philosopher Plato got to do with Christianity?” Interview with Pastor Sean Finnegan Sean Finnegan is pastor at Living Hope Community Church in Latham, New York. He also serves as an adjunct professor at Atlanta Bible College where he teaches courses in Church History, Apologetics, and Basic Bible Doctrine, and he is the host of the Restitutio Podcast. Website: https://restitutio.org/ https://www.lathamchurch.org/ Additional Resources on the topic “Christians don’t go to heaven, but await the resurrection to the kingdom of God”: http://www.onegodreport.com/christians_dont_go_to_heaven_but_await_the_resurrection_to_the_kingdom_of_god Restitutio podcast: Conditional Immortality https://restitutio.org/2019/02/14/164-theology-3-conditional-immortality/ Restitutio podcast: Challenging Conditional Immortality https://restitutio.org/2019/02/21/165-theology-4-challenging-conditional-immortality/ Topics and questions addressed in this episode: 1. Most Christians today think that those who believe in Jesus, when they die, their soul or self separates and goes to heaven. Is this biblical and if not, where did Christians get this idea from? - 2. Explanation of  the Greek philosophical view of Plato that "death is the separation of the soul from the body". Most Christians think Plato’s       description of death is in the Bible. - 3. If people don’t “go to heaven” when they die, what is the biblical view of what happens to a  person when they die? - 4. Is the human soul or self immortal? What is meant by “conditional immortality”? - 5. As examples, two main passages that Christians point to as evidence that “when you die you go to heaven”     Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Punctuate  differently: “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise”     2 Corinthians 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. -  6. If people’s souls don’t separate from their bodies at death and go to heaven, that is a lie, no? How does this lie deflect from what is real? A different hope. What is the biblical hope for a believer in God and Jesus?
50:01
April 2, 2021
42) Is God Flesh? A better way to understand John 1:14 (part 2)
We continue our discussion of what John 1:14 "the Word became flesh" really means. - As described in earlier podcasts (#39 and #41) "the Word became flesh" does not mean that God became man/flesh. - So, what does the "Word became flesh mean?  - Why does John use the word "flesh"? - How has the Greek philosophical concept popularized by Plato, that the soul lives separately from the body of flesh, influenced Christian interpretation of John 1:14? Does the Bible say that man's soul is alive separate from his body of flesh? - What is the biblical view of flesh? How is flesh alive? Can the God of the Bible ever be flesh? - For the full written text of the podcast see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2021/03/is-god-flesh-better-way-to-understand.html
36:46
March 18, 2021
41) Is God Flesh? A Better Way to Understand John 1:14 (part 1)
In this episode we continue thinking about what John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh" means, and we ask deity of Christ believers who appeal to John 1:1 and John 1:14, “So you believe that God became flesh?” Do you think that “God is flesh?” - We give reasons why a better way to understand John 1:14 is that “the Logos, the Word was flesh”. In other words, the Logos, the Word - God’s communication to us - was the human being, the man Christ Jesus from Nazareth. - Our discussion continues in the next podcast episode. For full written text of these two episodes "Is God Flesh", click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2021/03/is-god-flesh-better-way-to-understand.html
20:05
March 12, 2021
40) Interview with Sir Anthony Buzzard: Witnessing about the One God, and Did Jesus "Pre-exist"?
This episode is an interview with Sir Anthony Buzzard, one of the most active One God believers of our time. Most listeners to this podcast will know about Sir Anthony. If by chance you don’t, you will want to become familiar with him and his work. - Anthony taught for decades at the Church of God, Abrahamic Faith Bible college, now called Atlanta Bible College. He is the author of a number of books, including The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, Jesus was Not a Trinitarian, The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah, Our Fathers who Aren’t in Heaven, Who is Jesus, and more. Some of them are available for free pdf download. See the links to his books and webpage. - I wanted to ask Sir Anthony about some of the changes he has seen in the One God faith movement, and what he has thought have been, and should continue to be effective witnessing tools. - One emphasis in the podcast that I would like listeners to note is the excitement and persistence that Sir Anthony has and continues to have in sharing about the One God and His human Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Apart from programs that may or may not be effective, I think every one of us can learn from Anthony about being excited and persistent in our sharing about the God of the Bible and His anointed, the Messiah Jesus. Be this face to face with our neighbors and others we meet, or through the modern media of the internet. - Another emphasis that Anthony makes is that we should gain experience, practice in witnessing about our faith in the one God, and this experience is gained by doing it. - We also discuss the “deity of Christ” and Jehovah’s Witness claim that “Jesus pre-existed”. - At the end of the interview, I take the liberty of sharing one other element that I believe is, or could be, essential for an effective witness to God and His Messiah. - Books: The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound (and more) https://focusonthekingdom.org/books/ - Website: Restoration Fellowship, Focus on the Kingdom https://focusonthekingdom.org/
36:60
February 19, 2021
39) The Word became flesh? Why John 1:14 does NOT say that "God became man"
For many people who believe in the “deity of Christ”, a few words from John 1:1 combined with a few words from John 1:14 forms the #1 evidence that Jesus is God, and that therefor somehow God is a Trinity. In this podcast we focus on the problems with the “deity of Christ” and Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:14, the claim that “God became man.” There is no Trinity in John 1:1 or John 1:14 or anywhere else in John’s Gospel. The incarnation, or “God became man” interpretation plucks a few words from the Gospel of John and creates its most important, essential, seminal doctrine, while ignoring nearly the entirety of the rest of the Gospel of John, and the Bible as a whole. Jesus’ own words in the Gospel of John, and the author’s own purpose statement are ignored. Does the Greek word (egeneto) translated in most English Bibles in John 1:14 as “became” mean that one member of a multi-person godhead transformed into flesh? Did one member a godhead “become” man like the fairy tale prince became frog? Many “diety of Christ” believers seem to believe that one member of a godhead inhabited a human body like the human prince inhabited a frog body. If God became man by taking on another nature, human nature (flesh), then why has the Trinitarian god been defined for hundreds of years as having only one nature? Deity of Christ interpreters are like magicians who claim one moment that there God has one nature, but then the next moment insist that their god has two natures. Why is the conception and birth of Jesus the Messiah not described at all in the Gospel of John, if the author wanted to communicate that God becameman? We call the incarnation “the Greatest Story Never Told”. We explain why “deity of Christ” belief in a “trans-nature” god is similar to, and in some ways even worse, than the modern trans-gender claims. Christians who believe in a trans-natured god and condemn transgenders and homosexuals are being hypocritical. We note how history is against the “God became man” interpretation of John 1:14, and see how the interpretation was developed in Greco-Roman-Byzantine philosophical speculation in lands outside of Israel. The Gospel of John must be understood from a 1st century Hebraic background, not from a 2-5thcentury Gentile viewpoint. The worst aspect of the “God became man” interpretation is that it denies that Jesus of Nazareth is a human person. In the end, it tends to eliminate even the abstract “human nature” from Jesus. There is a better way to interpret John 1:14 which does not deny that Jesus is a human person. We plan to make a suggestion in a podcast to come. Full text of the episode is available here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-word-became-flesh-why-john-114-does.html Links for other sources mentioned in the podcast: Evolution of the Trinity, Interview with Dr. Dale Tuggy (part 1) https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podcast/episodes/10-Evolution-of-the-Trinity--Interview-with-Dr--Dale-Tuggy--part-1-ebro54 “Jesus is Not a Human Person” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qKrogW3MUM&ab_channel=BillSchlegel
48:48
January 29, 2021
38) Miracles in the Bible (especially the miracles of Jesus)
In this episode we make some comments on miracles in the Bible. The Bible says that God occasionally breaks forth into human history with miracles as evidence and confirmation that indeed, the God of the Bible is involved in the affairs of humankind. Humankind is to know that “this is Yahweh God” by the miraculous event. = Sometimes the miracles are confirmation and evidence that Yahweh, through a messenger or prophet has spoken. See Exo. 7:5, 17; 10:2, Deut. 4, etc. - In Deuteronomy 13, however, Israel was warned that sometimes a person may come performing miracles, but he is a false prophet. How was Israel to know? If the person doing the miracle was trying to draw Israel away from the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then Israel would know he was a false prophet. Yahweh allowed the false prophet and the miracles only to test Israel, to see if Israel wholly loved and followed Yahweh his God- There were three pairs of historical periods when God broke through into humankinds affairs with the miraculous: 1. a) Exodus (Moses) and, b) Conquest (Joshua) 2. b) Elijah and, b) Elisha 3. a) Jesus and, b) the apostles. - The miracles of Jesus were unique, but also consistent with the way the God of the Hebrew Scriptures worked and promised to work: 1. The overall purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed was the same as previously in Israel’s history: the miracles confirmed and were evidence that Jesus spoke for God, was authorized by God and sent by God. Jesus did not perform miracles because he was God, but because God was with him and Jesus was empowered by God (John 10:24-25, 14:10; Acts 2:22, 10:38). 2. Some of the miracles that Jesus did were unique, reserved for the Messiah and the messianic age. The miracles are evidence that the one performing the miracle is the Messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matt. 11:5). - We discuss how there were efforts to discredit Jesus and the miracles he did during the time that Jesus was on earth. But in general these efforts failed because there were so many eyewitnesses and evidences that the miracles happened. - For different reasons, efforts to discredit the miracles of Jesus in modern times also fail. In the end, we are left with real good reasons to believe that the miraculous deeds of Jesus occurred, and that these miraculous deeds are evidence that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.
34:26
January 5, 2021
37) "I came down from heaven": Discussion with Kermit Zarley on Metaphors in the Gospel of John, and if Jesus "Pre-existed"
This episode is a discussion with Kermit Zarley, retired professional golfer, and now author of a number of books, including The Restitution of Jesus Christ (see links below). Formerly a Trinitarian Christian, Zarley briefly describes how he came to understand that the God of the Bible is one, and that Jesus is God’s human Messiah. Then, we discuss the following topics: · Did Jesus pre-exist as a person before he was a human being? · What did Jesus mean when Jesus said that he “came down from heaven” and was “sent from God”? · The use of figures of speech or metaphorical language in the Gospel of John, and the literary theme that many of Jesus’s listeners did not understand the metaphors. · The Christological motif in the Gospel of John is not “Incarnational Christology”, i.e., that God became man or took on human flesh) but “Agency Christology”, i.e., that Jesus is God’s human representative agent, who speaks and acts empowered by God and representing God). · At the end of the discussion, Zarley gives the most important tip for budding, amateur golfers. Links: Kermit Zarley Webpage: http://kermitzarley.com/ Zarley’s Books on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Kermit-Zarley/e/B001JOUID0?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1608329122&sr=8-1 Book: The Restitution of Jesus Christ http://kermitzarley.com/product/the-restitution-of-jesus-christ/ Reviewof The Restitution of Jesus Christ by Bill Schlegel https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-restitution-of-jesus-christ-signs.html “My Lord and My God: Trinitarians Get it Wrong” Commentary on John 20:28 https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html
38:24
December 18, 2020
36) The Eternal Deity of the Messiah? Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:5-6
"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, being little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם׃ A passage often remembered around Christmas time, Micah 5:2 is quoted in Matthew 2:5-6 to describe that Israel’s ruler would be born in Bethlehem. Some Christian expositors and laypersons see the “eternal pre-existence” of the Messiah and therefore Messiah’s deity in the words of Micah 5:2 (in Hebrew, Micah 5:1): “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” However, even just a comparison of English translations reveals that “eternality” in this passage is not so cut-and-dry. Some English translations of the use a word like “everlasting”, while others translate the same phrase as “from ancient days”. A word study and the context of the passages shows that neither Micah nor Matthew were declaring the “eternal pre-existence” of Messiah. Rather, the passages refer to the promise of God given to David centuries before. The “eternal pre-existence” and “deity of Christ” claims from Micah 5 are based on presuppositions that force a wrong understanding of Hebrew words. The words miqedem "from before" and mimei olam "from ancient days" do not mean “eternal pre-existence” but refer to events in Israel’s past. Specifically, Micah 5:2 refers to the promise God made to David long ago, centuries before Micah’s day. The “eternality” interpretation also ignores both the literary and historical context of the passage which speaks of a descendant of David who was to rule for Yahweh by the strength of Yahweh his God when the Assyrians came into the land. The “eternality” interpretation also misses the meaning of the passage. Micah is trusting completely on God’s promise of peace and salvation through a king who would descend from David. There was an amazing, observable sample of that promised victorious peace in David’s descendant Hezekiah (see Isaiah 37:15-38), a sample which gives us concrete evidence and confidence that Yawheh our God fulfills His promises. The ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to David is in Jesus. In an even greater fashion than in the days of David or Hezekiah, Jesus the descendant of David will shepherd and rule God’s people for God  in the strength of Yahweh his God, and in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his God. The Gospel of Matthew mentions nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in quoting Micah’s passage. Neither Jesus nor any New Testament author ever appealed to the Old Testament to reveal the eternal pre-existence or deity of Messiah. Jesus and the New Testament authors did appeal to the Old Testament to show the suffering, death and subsequent glory of Messiah. For a full written text of the podcast see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/02/micah-52-matthew-26-eternal-deity-of.html
28:35
December 6, 2020
35) Homeschooling Family Finds the One God and His Messiah
Jon and Heather Kidwell come from a traditional, conservative Christian background. Heather grew up on the mission field. In this podcast the Kidwells tell their story about how they came to understand that God is one, and that Jesus is God’s human Messiah, who died and was raised from the dead by God. While homeschooling her kids (Camden, Cate and Cara - we hear from them toward the end of the podcast), Heather was bothered by an emphasis even in Christian homeschooling curriculum on the study of Greek philosophy and culture. Why are we so fascinated with Greek history and philosophy? She began to wonder if she was looking at life, and interpreting the Scriptures, through a Greek philosophical lens rather than through a Hebraic, biblical mindset. Was she teaching her children biblical truth? Or had some traditional Christian dogmas been formed by interpreting the Scriptures from Greek ways of thinking which she knew would twist the truth? The questions set the family on a quest to find the truth. They began to discover that church teachings like the immortality of the human soul, going to heaven in a dis-embodied state, and eternal conscious torment in hell were all non-biblical ideas. Rather, the Scriptures teach that man is mortal, our hope is in the resurrection from death to new immortal life on earth, and that the wages of sin is death, perishing. They were first introduced to the biblical idea that Jesus the Messiah is a real human person who was put to death and raised from the dead by God, in a book by Kegan Chandler called The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma. https://www.amazon.com/God-Jesus-Light-Christian-Dogma/dp/0967324939 The Kidwells are an example of more and more sincere Christians who are realizing the ideas of a three-persons-in-one god, and a dual natured god-man are not the best way to understand who the God of the Bible and His Messiah are. Bill and Stephanie Schlegel Testimony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LA9Uq-8xMc&ab_channel=21stCenturyReformation
37:24
November 24, 2020
34) Jesus Did Not Create Planet Earth, A Commentary on John 1:9-13, PART 2
John 1:10 does not say that Jesus created planet earth.  This episode is part 2 of our commentary on John 1:9-13. For a full written text of this episode, click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/11/jesus-did-not-create-planet-earth.html - The word translated "world" in John 1:9-10, the Greek word kosmos, does not mean planet earth. - We can understand better what the author meant by kosmos, world, in John 1:10 by seeing the parallels in the next verse. Kosmos of verse 10 is parallel to “his own” in John 1:11, meaning the Jewish people and perhaps even specifically Jews who lived in the geographical region of Judea. The “kosmos that knew him not” in verse 10 is parallel to “his own people who received him not” in verse 11. - The word “create” is nowhere in John’s Prologue. The kosmos was not created by Jesus, but rather it came to be through the man Jesus. The kosmos that came to be through Jesus is the new people of God, specifically those who are born of God and are the children of God as described in verses 12-13. - The deity of Christ interpretation of John 1, and specifically of John 1:3 and 1:10, which claims that Jesus was the creator of all things and of the earth, is a direct contradiction to many other Scriptures that state clearly that the Creator of all things is the one God, Yahweh the God of Israel. See Gen. 1:1, Isaiah 37:16, 40:28, 42:5, 45:12, 45:18; Jer. 10:12, 27:5, Mal. 2:10; Psa. 8:3, 100:3, 102:25; Neh. 9:6; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Acts 17:24; Rev. 4:11, 10:6. - The interpretation offered in this podcast episode is in complete agreement with other biblical revelation, that the One God, Yahweh, the God of Israel, the Father, is the Creator, and that as He, He alone, created the heavens and the earth and brought about human civilization through one individual human being (Adam, Noah, Abraham). Likewise, He, Yahweh, brings about the community known as the “children of God” which comes to be in the next age through the one man Jesus the Messiah. 1 Cor. 8:6: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all and through whom we exist. - We can refer to the body of the Gospel of John to understand what the author means in the Prologue. The Prologue uses much metaphorical language, and the exact same metaphors, themes and language the author introduces in the Prologue he reiterates again in the Gospel, associating the language and themes of the Prologue to the man Jesus and his ministry. These parallels are evidence that John’s Prologue is not a commentary on the Genesis creation, but rather is an introduction to the new beginning in the man Jesus of Nazareth. It does the author of John’s Gospel great injustice to claim that his Prologue is not an introduction to the man Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. - For a full written text of this episode, click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/11/jesus-did-not-create-planet-earth.html
34:07
November 12, 2020
33) Jesus Did NOT Create Planet Earth, Commentary on John 1:9-13
This episode is part 1 of a two part commentary on the Gospel of John 1:9-13. - This episode focuses on John 1:9, where we take a close look at what 'the world" (the Greek word "kosmos") means in the Bible in general and in the Gospel of John specifically. We also investigate what the Gospel of John means by the phrase "coming into the world". - We must understand the figures of speech, idioms and metaphors in the Gospel of John if we are to understand the Gospel correctly. It was those in opposition to Jesus that especially misunderstood his figures of speech. John 10:6, “This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” - The Greek word kosmos, although translated as “world” in John 1:9-10, does not mean planet earth. Rather kosmos means human society, or a segment of human society, specifically Jewish society. - To go or “come into the kosmos, into the world” does not mean a person came from some heavenly or planetary realm into planet earth. To “come into the world” means to be a part of human society, to exist and be alive at a certain time and place. Everyone “comes into the world.” As fulfillment of God’s promise the Prophet of Deut. 18:15 “comes into the world” and the Messiah “comes into the world” (John 7:31, 11:27). - The man Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah is the light who “came into the world.” This is made clear by the author both in the Prologue (the Baptizer was not the light) and in the body of the Gospel. Jesus said, “I have come as light into the world” (John 12:46, 3:19). - For a full written text of this episode, click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/11/jesus-did-not-create-planet-earth.html
26:56
November 6, 2020
32) Jesus and John the Baptist: John Chapter 1 is Not about the Genesis Creation
This episode is a commentary on the Gospel of John 1:4-8. John the Baptist was a prophet sent by God to testify about the man Jesus Christ, not about a pre-incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity, nor about an abstract pre-Genesis plan of God. The life and light in the darkness introduced in John 1:4-5 refer to the man Jesus Christ and his ministry in the darkness which mankind finds himself in, not to the Genesis creation. The man and ministry of Jesus the Messiah is life in which is lightthat still shines. The darkness tried to overcome the light, by putting Jesus Christ to death on a cross. But the darkness was not able to overcome the light, as Jesus’s death led to resurrection into eternal life. “the darkness did not overcome the light” is a reference already in John 1:5 to the death and resurrection of the man Jesus Christ from Nazareth, not to some pre-Genesis event. The reiteration in the body of the Gospel of terms used in the Prologue, like word, life, light, and darkness, is evidence that the Prologue is introducing the man and ministry of Jesus the Messiah from Nazareth. The man Jesus Christ from Nazareth is the light of the world. Whoever follows him will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Interpreting John 1 as describing the Genesis creation doesn’t work, or ends up being confusion and contradiction since somewhere between verse 3 and verse 4 the author supposedly switched from the describing the Genesis creation to introducing the life of light in the person he is about to describe, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Also, the deity of Christ interpretation is confusing as it must postulate that that the ministries of Jesus and John the Baptizer being described in verses 3-13 are described before the supposed incarnation described in John 1:14. A much better way to understand all of the Prologue of the Gospel of John is to interpret it as an introduction to the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is the main topic of the book. The testimony ministry of John the Baptizer has no business being introduced in 1:6-8, 1:15 and 1:19-34 if “the beginning” of John 1:1 refers directly to the Genesis creation as the Greek philosophers understood it, referring to some pre-human “Logos”, some pre-human “Word”. Rather, the ministry of John the Baptizer, his testimony to the light, and the contrast statement that John was not the light, is evidence that the prologue is about the man Jesus and his ministry, and that “the beginning” of John 1:1 is the new beginning of God in the life of the Messiah Jesus. For the full written text of this podcast, see here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/10/jesus-and-john-baptist-john-chapter-1.html
38:03
October 17, 2020
31) From Pre-existent Christ to the Man, the Lord Jesus Christ: William Gilmore interview part 2
In this episode we continue our interview with Mr. William Gilmore. William and his wife Cathy and their seven children live in Colorado. In part 1 of our interview William explained how for a number of years he believed that the Bible declared that the one true God was the Father, but that Jesus had pre-existed as a created being prior to taking on a human nature. This belief is called “Arianism” after the 4th century church leader Arius who had a similar view. By the way, the term “Arian” in a theological context has nothing to do with the term used by the Nazis in a racial context, Aryan. The two words sound the same, but are spelled differently and have totally different meanings. William explains how the Apostles’ Creed, also called the Old Roman Symbol, and certain Scriptures, first from Peter (1 Peter 1:20 ) and then from Paul (1 Timothy 2:5), and then also communication with One God believer Anthony Buzzard, helped him understand that the so-called pre-existence of the Messiah Jesus was not literal. In contrast to a literal pre-human existence, the human person Jesus Christ was pre-known by God in the plan and purpose of God. That is, Jesus Christ is a human being, a human person, not a pre-existent divine person who took on flesh.
32:14
October 2, 2020
30) Testimony of William Gilmore, from "Christianity", to "Arianism" to faith in the One God of the Bible and His Messiah Jesus
This is the first of two episodes where we hear the testimony of William Gilmore. Mr. Gilmore’s parents were medical missionaries, but already as a youth he became disillusioned with Christianity.  Gilmore describes the circumstances and biblical passages that eventually led him to faith in the one God of the Scriptures, the Father, and in the one God’s Messiah, the man Jesus Christ. William lives with his wife Cathy and their seven children in Colorado.
28:24
September 26, 2020
29) No, John 1:3 Does Not Say Jesus Created the Universe
This episode is commentary on the Gospel of John 1:2-3. Many traditional Christians claim that John 1:3, "all things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be" declares that Jesus created all things in the universe.  - We look at key words in the original Greek of this verse and discover that the author of the Gospel of John is not declaring that Jesus created all the material universe. Theologically biased translations have given the wrong understanding of this verse. We suggest a much better way of understanding John 1:3. - John 1:3 is not saying that Jesus was involved in the creation of all the material universe. “All things” never means the entire universe in the Gospel of John. Neither are the words “create” or “make” in this verse or anywhere else in John’s prologue. Rather, John 1:3 is introducing all the things that came about, everything that happened through the life and ministry of Jesus. And the main “everything” is the resurrection life of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, and the promise of life in the next age his resurrection holds for all. - We also take a look at John 1:2 and see that already in John 1:2, “This one was in the beginning with God” begins the contrast between Jesus, the Word, and John the Baptist. The author of the Gospel of John early and often contrasts or compares John the Baptizer with Jesus and the titles used for Jesus (Word, light). This is evidence that Baptizer is being contrasted with the human person Jesus, not a pre-incarnate god-figure or abstract Logos. “This one”, Jesus, the Word was the light. But “this one” John the Baptizer was not the light. “This one”, said the Baptizer, “is whom I spoke about. He is greater than I”. “This one baptizes with the holy spirit”.  “This one is the Son of God”. - For full written text of this podcast, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/09/no-john-13-does-not-say-jesus-created.html
37:24
September 18, 2020
28) In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Messiah, not God
The biblical autumn festivals are coming up, including the of Festival of Tabernacles. John 7 describes how Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Tabernacles festival, only six months before he was crucified, buried and raised from the dead. - In reading over John chapter 7, I’m struck by how the question on the people’s minds in Jerusalem at the Festival was not“Is this man God?”. Rather, the question people were asking themselves was “Is this man the Messiah?” For centuries, deity of Christ and Trinitarian theology have claimed that the Gospel of John is the book that presents Jesus as God. But to make that claim a person has to bring his own presuppositions to a few verses in John’s Gospel, while at the same time ignore the many times that John is really presenting Jesus as the Messiah. - To proclaim “Jesus is God” and that the Gospel of John says so, is to proclaim a different Jesus, a different Messiah than the one the Gospel of John is proclaiming. “Jesus is God” is an anti-messiah claim, a claim that exchanges the real human Christ of the Gospel of John for another. It is a claim that is against the real human Messiah Jesus of the Gospel of John. As presented in John’s Gospel, and indeed all of the New Testament, those that believe in Jesus do not believe that Jesus is God. Rather, those that believe in Jesus believe that Jesus is the Messiah. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born of God” (1 John 5:1). It is a misrepresentation and perversion of Scripture to insist that “everyone who believes that Jesus is God has been born of God”. - For full texts of this podcast see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/10/in-gospel-of-john-jesus-is-messiah-not.html
18:20
September 3, 2020
27) Did the Trinity "So Love the World?" In the Gospel of John, God is not a Trinity
In the Gospel of John, “God” is never the Trinity. For instance, in one of the most well known verses of the Bible, whose reference is written out on posters at football games: John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” - Try substituting “God” in this verse with “the Trinity”. “For the Trinity so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…” It doesn’t make sense. - Many Christians think that the Gospel of John is the main New Testament book where Jesus is proclaimed as God, and that God is then somehow a Trinity. However, in not one occurrence of the 83 occurrences of the word "God" in the Gospel of John is God a Trinity. - Rather, in the Gospel of John, the only true God, Jesus's God and our God, is the Father. For full written notes for this episode, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/10/did-trinity-so-love-world-in-gospel-of.html
16:56
August 28, 2020
26) Constantine and the Divine Mind, Interview with Kegan Chandler, Part 2
In this episode we continue our discussion with Kegan Chandler, author of the recently published book Constantine and the Divine Mind, the Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism. - We left off our last episode with Mr. Chandler describing how Constantine was associated with events that led to the important Church Council of Nicea in AD 325. Now we re-join the conversation with Mr. Chandler about to describe the significance of the Greek word homousias, which means something like “same substance” or “same essence”. Christians theologians to this very day describe Jesus as being the “same essence” with God the Father. - However, the idea does not come from the Bible. So where does it come from?  - Was Constantine an agent of God, or a representative of Jesus the Messiah? Or, was Constantine and his ideas about homousias, that the Father God and Jesus were the same substance, a proclamation of different Christ, a replacement Christ, an anti-Christ? - Resource links for this episode: Constantine and the Divine Mind, the Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism https://wipfandstock.com/constantine-and-the-divine-mind.html - “Revisiting Homoousios: Origins, Intentions, and Aftermath” (Kegan Chandler Presentation) https://burieddeepblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/presentation-revisiting-homoousios-origins-intentions-and-aftermath/ - The Corpus Hermeticum, Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men http://gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html - Hermeticsim https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hermeticism - Lanctantius (advisor to Constantine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius
40:40
August 20, 2020
25) Constantine and the Divine Mind, Interview with Kegan Chandler, part 1
This episode is part 1 of a two part interview with Kegan Chandler, who discusses his recently published book, Constantine and the Divine Mind, the Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism (also available on Amazon). Published by Wipf and Stock. https://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Divine-Mind-Primitive-Monotheism/dp/1532689926- - Chandler describes for us who Constantine was and why he was and is significant for Christianity. - Chandler explains that Constantine’s background in pagan monotheism caused Constantine to view the polytheism of the Roman Empire of the AD 3rd century as a main cause of many of Rome’s political, social and military difficulties.  Constantine’s pagan monotheism, expressed in the veneration of the sun god Sol Invictus, laid the foundation for Constantine’s Imperial quest for a monotheism that would set his empire on a solid foundation. Chandler reviews historical developments that led to Constantine’s promotion of Christianity as the, or an, expression of the supreme monotheistic god. Chandler explains the circumstances that led up to Constantine’s convening of the non-Trinitarian Council of Nicaea in AD 325. - Also by Kegan Chandler: The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma https://www.amazon.com/God-Jesus-Light-Christian-Dogma/dp/0967324939 - Chandler’s web page: https://burieddeepblog.wordpress.com/
38:50
August 14, 2020
24) "Jesus is not a human person" (Deity of Christ claim)
Trinitarian theologians claim that since God the Son “took on” humanity, Jesus was not a human person. Otherwise Jesus Christ would be two persons (one divine person and one human person). Trinitarian theologians call the non-human personhood of Jesus Christ the anhypostasis (“without personhood”), and the divine personalizing of the human nature the enhypostasis. Schlegel examines the anhypostasis theory from a biblical perspective and finds the theory to be anti-Messiah. This presentation was given at the Theological Conference of Restoration Fellowship on 7/31/2020. To view a video of the presentation, click here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZb9Pm3iu9Q&feature=youtu.be - To see notes for the presentation, including links to articles referred to in the presentation, click here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/08/jesus-christ-is-not-human-person.html
30:54
August 8, 2020
23) In the Book of Revelation, God is not the Lamb, and the Lamb is not God.
The Book of Revelation is “the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him” (1:1). From the very first verse we are told that Jesus is not God. God is differentiated from Jesus. The God of Jesus Christ gave Jesus Christ this revelation. _ In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called the Lamb of God.  In this episode we examine how, in the Book of Revelation, God is distinguished from the Lamb, and the Lamb is distinguished from God. Jesus Christ the Lamb of God is not God. For a full written text of this episode, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/01/in-book-of-revelation-god-is-not-lamb.html
09:17
July 28, 2020
22) Interview with Forrest Maready, Author of Red Pill Gospel: Christianity, before it was ruined by Christians
In this episode I interview Forrest Maready, author of the recently published book called Red Pill Gospel: Christianity, before it was ruined by Christians. - Forrest has some notoriety in the vaccination and pharmaceutical world, having previously written seven books on vaccinations (see website below). - Forrest and his wife have  come to see that the Scriptures reveal that God is one, and that Jesus is God’s designated human Messiah. - Red Pill is a movie reference that has taken hold in modern culture to mean a willingness to step outside one's normal, comfortable circumstances and take an objective look at reality, even though doing so may be painful. In the case of Red Pill Gospel, this means taking a look at non-biblical doctrines like the Trinity. Calvinism, which claims that God desires to consign most people to eternal conscious torment, also comes under scrutiny. - I recommend Red Pill Gospel as a book that One God believers can give to family and friends to help them begin to see that much of popular Christianity is un-biblical. - Toward the end of the interview we mention recent discussions by one God believers concerning what Forrest calls “Amish 2”, or “geographical clustering” – the potential for establishing a neighborhoods or communities of like-minded believers and families. - Relevant websites for this podcast: Red Pill Gospel http://forrestmaready.com/red-pill-gospel/ Red Pill Gospel on Amazon Forrest Maready http://forrestmaready.com/ My Incredible Opinion (video) http://forrestmaready.com/videos/
36:36
July 16, 2020
21) Obstacles and Reactions to Faith in the One God of the Scriptures
In this episode we consider reasons why many Christians react negatively when hearing about faith in the One God of the Scriptures and in His human Messiah Jesus. We break down the reasons for these negative reactions into two main categories: 1. Fear 2. Pride After hearing this podcast we recommend this article for more analysis of peoples' reactions to faith in the One God revealed in Scripture: 5 Cognitive Biases that Can Affect Our Theology https://onegodworship.com/5-cognitive-biases-that-can-affect-our-theology/
34:41
July 9, 2020
20) "And the Word was God": A Commentary on John 1:1c
For many Christians this phrase “and the Word was God” is the main biblical evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ. But is it? There are many problems with the “deity of Christ” interpretation of John 1:1. I currently have a growing list of 12 major problems with the deity of Christ take on John 1:1. It will take a separate podcast to describe all those problems. In the current podcast we mention a couple. For instance: 1. The deity of Christ claim breaks a main rule of biblical interpretation. That rule is: “we must interpret a less clear passage in light of clear passages”. The language in John 1:1 is concise and somewhat obscure. How could it be, after the author distinguished the Word from God in his previous statement, “the Word was with God”, that in the next breath he said “and the Word was God”? In so many other places in Scripture the person Jesus Christ is distinguished entirely from God, but the deity of Christ interpretation must ignore all these other Scriptures and claim that this statement, 1/3 of a verse in John 1:1, combined with another half a verse in John 1:14, is proof that Jesus is God and that God is more than one person. No other Old Testament prophet described such thing, no other Gospel writer made such a claim, but then, the writer of the Gospel of John comes along and says in a verse or two, “Surprise!  God is not really one person, he, or really they, are two.” Rather than break what Jesus called the greatest commandment, that “Yahweh your God is one” it would be much better to explore other possible meanings for “and the Word was God”. - 2. Further, the deity of Christ interpretation of John 1:1 contradicts itself. Deity of Christ interpreters want to say that the word “Word”, Logos in the Greek of John 1:1, is the eternal second person of the Godhead, the “eternal Son”. And like John 1:1b says, the Word was with God means that the eternal Son was distinct from but at the same time with God the Father forever. Let’s see if John 1:1 makes sense by substituting eternal Son for “Word” in John 1:1. “In the beginning was the eternal Son, and the eternal Son was with the Father, and the eternal Son was the Father.” Even from a deity of Christ perspective, you can’t say that the eternal Son was the Father”. Another way to state this problem is, if the word for God, theos, in both John 1:1b and John 1:1c refer to the Father, then deity of Christ theology is wrong. And, we mention a couple very good reasons why the word “God” in John 1:1c “and the Word was God” refers to the Father. - 3. Another problem with deity of Christ interpretation of John 1:1 that we mention is that it does not deal adequately with the past tense of John 1:1. Why did John say “and the Word wasGod.” If the Word is the eternal Son, the second person of a Trinity godhead, why didn’t John write “and the Word is God”? Was the Word only God in the past? Did the Word cease to be God? These are only samples of serious problems with the deity of Christ interpretation of John 1:1. We continue in the podcast by suggesting a couple other ways in which the phrase “and the Word was God” is better understood. To see fuller notes to this podcast click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/07/and-word-was-god-commentary-on-john-11c.html
37:41
July 2, 2020
19) …and the Word was with God: A Commentary on John 1:1b
In this episode we continue a discussion interpreting the first verse of the Gospel of John. Today’s episode is called “… and the word was with God”, a Commentary on the Gospel of John 1:1b. We look at how the phrase “with God” is used in the Gospel of John and in other biblical literature to determine what the author meant by the phrase. Even though John 1:1 is a favorite proof text for Trinitarians, there is no Trinity described in John 1:1. The word or title “God” in John 1:1, does not mean the Trinity. In fact, nowhere in John’s Gospel does the word “God” mean a Trinity. This is very strange for the book that is often appealed to as the main text as evidence that God is a Trinity. “God” in the Gospel of John is never a Trinity. It will benefit the listener to know these two phrases in Greek. “with God” in Greek is pros ton theon. “with the Father” is pros ton patera. Rivers explains why the Greek preposition pros, which normally means “toward” is best understood and translated in John 1:1 as “with” – “and the word was with God.” A main point of our discussion is that the phrase “the Word was with God” refers to a human person, and not to either an abstract attribute, or to a 2nd deity along with God. The phrase occurs over 100 times in the Bible and in each case involves a person on earth relating to God in heaven. Another point Rivers makes is that pros ton theon is not the language that is used of something that is in God’s mind, like wisdom, that is then personified as “with God”. In other words, pros ton theon does not describe something or someone that is “within God”. The grammar of “personified wisdom” in Proverbs 8 and other literature (biblical and non-biblical) is different than what we have here in John 1. We suggest two options for understanding the phrase “and the word was with God”, and a third option that somewhat overlaps the first two. Rivers suggests seeing the phrase “and the word was with God” as resurrection or ascension text, parallel to John 1:18, which describes the unique one who “is in the bosom of the Father.” He refers to the occurrences of pros ton theon in the Gospel of John (13:1-3, 3; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17) which in each case describe the person of Jesus going “to the Father”. Bill suggests another possibility, focusing on the past tense of John 1:1b “the word was with God”. The author introduces his Gospel by declaring that in a parallel way to Moses, the one he describes in his Gospel, Jesus, was with God in a unique way. Jesus is directly compared to Moses in John 1:17. Jesus, like Moses, gained knowledge by being uniquely “with God”. How did Jesus get his great understanding? How did he know his unique calling as the Messiah? Like Moses, who was with God at the burning bush and on Mt. Sinai, the human Jesus was with God. Jesus said in John 8:38 “I speak of what I have seen with my Father”. In this interpretation, “the Word was with God” refers to the unique relationship Jesus had with God while he was on earth, before his death and resurrection. The two options mentioned above are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, the third option we suggest somewhat overlaps the previous two. We suggest John may have had in mind the mediatorial role that Jesus had and has, as a priest who is said to be in God’s presence, “with God”. The similar language in the First Epistle of John 1:1-3 shows that the eternal life which was with the Father is not an abstract idea, but is a description of the real human person, Jesus the Messiah, who the author saw, heard and touched.
50:53
June 25, 2020
18) Who, or What, is the Word of John 1:1?, Exegesis of John 1:1, Part 2, with Rivers O Feden
Fuller written summary to this episode, click here. 1. In this podcast we consider how to best understand what or who John meant by the word “word” in the phrase: “In the beginning was the W/word”. The Greek word for “word” is logos. We will often refer to the word, “word” using this Greek term, logos. 2. As with the phrase “in the beginning” the meaning of logos, “word” in John’s prologue is best understood and defined first and foremost by other uses of the same word in John’s Gospel. We shouldn’t ignore or dismiss how the author himself uses logos and go looking for its meaning in other extra-biblical literature.  Logos and in its various forms occur nearly 40 times in the Gospel of John, and in the vast majority of occurrences logos means: a word, a verbal expression, a statement, a teaching, a saying, something spoken. 3. Jesus is the Logos in John’s Prologue because through and in Jesus, God is speaking. Jesus said more than once “And the word (logos) that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me”. John 1:18 states that no one has seen God, but the unique son who is in the bosom of the Father has explained Him”. Likewise, the author of Hebrews says that in these last days God has spoken by a son”, and Revelation 19:13 says the name by which Jesus is called is “the Word of God”. 4. Rivers places a bit of a different emphasis on how Jesus is the logos, stating that in the Gospel of John, logos is primarily the verbal utterance or teaching of Jesus, that is, things that Jesus said during his public ministry, and that it is difficult to separate the verbal utterance from the speaker Jesus. 5. We address the question: “If Jesus is the Logos of John’s Prologue, why isn’t he called the Logos again in John’s Gospel outside of the Prologue? 6. We analyze how both deity of Christ theologians and One God believers who see John’s prologue as commentary on the Genesis creation have gone outside the Gospel of John to define what John’s logos means. Rivers outlines the steps that One God believers (so-called Biblical Unitarians) have taken in an attempt to make logos of John’s Gospel synonymous with personified wisdom of Proverbs 8 and other extra-biblical literature. It’s a fairly twisted path that Biblical Unitarians of this persuasion have had to take. 9. The same kind of thing happened with “deity of Christ” interpretations of John 1:1, but from a different direction. “Deity of Christ” interpretations of logos in John 1 adapted into Christianity non-biblical, Greek philosophical ideas of what or who logos was. To some Greek philosophers the logos was some kind of a secondary or intermediary divine being. 2nd century Gentile church fathers, influenced heavily by Greek philosophy, jumped on these Hellenistic concepts of logos, and imposed these ideas on to their interpretation of John 1 by stating that the logos was a pre-existent divine figure who then “took on flesh” as Jesus. 11.  The adaptions of the Greek logos ideas into Christianity in the centuries following Jesus did not originate in Jerusalem. The prophets say, “For out of Zion shall go the teaching, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” Rather, these church fathers’ ideas about the logos originated and developed in places like Athens Greece, Alexandria Egypt, and Cappadocia and Constantinople in modern Turkey. 12. Contrary to claims that John’s definition of logos can be informed by Hellenized conceptions of the word, John have used logos as a polemic, that is, as a direct attack or contrast to Greek ideas.
50:20
June 17, 2020
17) In the beginning was, or, John 1:1 is not describing the Genesis Creation, Exegesis of John 1:1 (Part 1), with Rivers O Feden
Bill Schlegel with Rivers O Feden We begin an exegesis of the Prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18). In this podcast we give more evidence for why the Prologue should be understood as an introduction to the ministry of Jesus the Messiah, and not as a direct reference to the Genesis creation. Since "In the beginning" of John 1:1 is not a direct reference or commentary on the creation account of Genesis, "deity of Christ" and Trinitarian interpretations of John's introduction are wrong.  Written notes for this podcast can be found here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/06/in-beginning-was.html
44:39
June 11, 2020
16) The Gospel of John in the Historical Context of New Creation, and in New Testament Agreement
In this podcast we take a closer look at the historical context in which 1st century readers of John’s Gospel would have understood this Gospel to be about a new beginning.  We will also see how other New Testament authors saw in Jesus a new beginning, the beginning of God’s new creation.  Finally, we will note one big problem with the typical “deity of Christ” interpretation of John 1:1. For full written text of this podcast click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-gospel-of-john-historical-context.html Previous podcasts referred to in this podcast: - #7) "What about John 1:1?" (Part 2) - Jesus is the Beginning of God's New Creation  https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podcast/episodes/7-What-about-John-11--Part-2---Jesus-is-the-Beginning-of-Gods-New-Creation-eaqlk5 - 15) More New Creation in the Gospel of John: Why John's Prologue Should be Interpreted in the Context of New Creation https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podcast/episodes/15-More-New-Creation-in-the-Gospel-of-John-Why-Johns-Prologue-Should-be-Interpreted-in-the-Context-of-New-Creation-edv8kr
36:23
May 21, 2020
15) More New Creation in the Gospel of John: Why John's Prologue Should be Interpreted in the Context of New Creation
In a previous podcast, episode #7, we saw that the phrase “In the beginning” of the Gospel of John 1:1 relates to the new beginning that God began with Jesus the Messiah. “In the beginning” of John 1:1, while being an intentional allusion to the Genesis creation, introduces a new beginning or new creation that begins with Jesus the Messiah. In this podcast we will examine further the New Creation theme that runs through the Gospel of John, in John's language, recorded events, and especially in the sign miracles that John records. All are evidence that through Jesus the Messiah, God is bringing about the New Creation. For the full text of this podcast see link below: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-new-creation-in-gospel-of-john-why.html
37:55
May 12, 2020
14) Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead? John 2:18-22 and John 10:17-18
There are two places in Scripture, both in the book of John, to which people go to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead. The claim is that if Jesus could raise himself from the dead, he must be God. Or, because Jesus is God, he could raise himself from the dead. - There are big problems with the interpretation that Jesus raised himself from the dead.  In this podcast I break the problems into two categories: 1. Biblical interpretation methodology (hermeneutics). The biggest problem from the perspective of biblical interpretation methodology is that the claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead contradicts a multitude of other Scriptures. The claim breaks one of the main rules of good biblical interpretation: “Interpret a less clear passage from the clear passage(s)”. 2. Theological problems – besides directly contradicting a multitude of other Scriptures, the claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead does not theologically align with the Bible. God doesn’t die and the dead don’t raise themselves to life. - For full written text of the podcast, see https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/did-jesus-raise-himself-from-dead-john.html
27:21
April 27, 2020
13) Hebrews 1:8-14, Is the Son called God? Did Jesus create the heavens?
This episode is a continuation of our two-part study on chapter 1 of the Book of Hebrews. In the first episode we examined Hebrews 1:1-7. In this episode we examine Hebrews 1:8-14. For full summary notes to this podcast, click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-18-14-is-son-called-god-did.html - We note that the word “saying”, or “he says” which appears in English translations in Hebrews 1:8 is not in the Greek original text. The speaker of the words quoted from Psalm 45 is not God, but the Psalmist. Adding “he says” or “saying” to Hebrews 1:8 makes it sound, incorrectly, that God is calling the Son, “God”. But the speaker at this point is not God. - Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quote from Psalm 45, a marriage hymn of a king descended from David (perhaps Solomon?) to a what appears to be a foreign princess. The Davidic king has a God who has blessed him (45:2) and anointed him (45:7). The Davidic king is lauded for his strength and just rule (45:2-6). Part of the reason for lauding the king is to convince the princess that it will be worthwhile and a blessing to marry him. - Most English translations translate the word “God” in the first part of the quote from Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:8, as: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”, that is, taking the word “God” as a vocative, or as a direct address, understanding that in some way the king in Psalm 45 was called “God”, and by extension, that Jesus the Son was called God. But the “O” of “O God” is only interpretation. Grammatically it is possible, I think preferable, to translate Hebrews 1:8a as: “Your throne is God forever and ever”, or, “God is your throne for ever and ever.” That is, the word “God/Elohim” in the verse does not have to be understood as a vocative. - For the rest of the summary notes to this podcast, click here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-18-14-is-son-called-god-did.html
23:51
April 13, 2020
12) Hebrews 1: Is Jesus God? Is Jesus the Creator?
Part 1 of a two part series examining chapter 1 of the Book of Hebrews. In this episode we discuss Hebrews 1:1-7.  Part to looks at Hebrews 1:8-14. For a summary text of this podcast, see this link: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-11-7-is-jesus-creator-or-god-in.html We suggest that an overall point that the author is making in Hebrews chapter 1 is not that Jesus is God, but rather that God has appointed the human being Jesus, as the representative of humanity, to be God’s vice-regent ruler, to “sit at God’s right hand.” This privilege was not granted to an angel or angels. This theme, that God has granted a human being to be at His right hand, fits the overall theme of the book of Hebrews that Messiah, Jesus, is greater than Moses, is a better high priest than Aaron, gives a better rest than Joshua, brings into effect and mediates a better covenant with a better sacrifice compared to what Israel experienced through the earlier covenant.
33:22
April 6, 2020
11) Evolution of the Trinity, Part 2, Interview with Dr. Dale Tuggy
This episode of the One God Report podcast is the second part of our two-part interview with Christian philosopher, Dr. Dale Tuggy, examining the historical development of the Trinity in the centuries following Jesus. If you haven’t heard part 1, you may want to listen to that episode first in which Dr. Tuggy surveyed major historical and theological developments of the 100s and 200s AD. - We saw in the first episode that at least into the mid-AD 200s, none of the church fathers were Trinitarian in the sense that none of them believed in a tri-personal, co-equal, co-eternal god. - In the current episode, Dr. Tuggy has us look at major developments leading up to and including the Council of Nicea in AD 325. - Then we will hear about the three Cappadocian fathers (Cappadocian was a region in what is now central modern Turkey). The Cappadocian fathers laid the ground work for what led to the so-called 2nd Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople of AD 381. - Before the AD 381 Council of Constantinople, even though some church fathers believed in a second, lesser god they called the Logos, they insisted on their monotheism by emphasizing the One True God, the Father. - However, after the 381 Constantinople Council, the title “God” began to be considered the Trinity, that is, one god in three persons. Dr. Tuggy explains that the first Christian Trinitarians - those who believed in three persons in one God - did not show up historically until the late AD 300s. In other words, no Christian believed in a three-persons-in-one-God until some 350 years after Jesus lived on earth. - Dr. Dale Tuggy served as Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia for 18 years. His PhD is from Brown University. He has authored about two dozen peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relating to the Trinity and other topics in analytic theology and philosophy of religion; for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity, and his book called What is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since 2013 he has hosted “The Trinities” podcast which explores theories about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His podcast and articles can be found on the webpage  https://trinities.org - Additional articles, books, podcasts and videos relating to the development of Christian theology in the centuries following Jesus Christ can be found on the One God Report resource page http://www.onegodreport.com/evolution_of_trinitarian_doctrine
40:18
March 28, 2020
10) Evolution of the Trinity, Interview with Dr. Dale Tuggy, part 1
In Part 1 of this two part series, Dr. Dale Tuggy leads us through the development of Christian theology of the AD 100s and into the AD 200s.  - Dr. Dale Tuggy served as Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia for 18 years. His PhD is from Brown University. He has authored about two dozen peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relating to the Trinity and other topics in analytic theology and philosophy of religion; for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity, and his book called What is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since 2013 he has hosted “The Trinities” podcast which explores theories about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His podcast and articles can be found on the webpage  https://trinities.org - In Part 1, Dr. Tuggy describes some main features of Christian theology and Christology of the AD 2nd century (AD 100s), including the centralization of authority in bishops, development of Logos theories from Hellenistic views of creation, presenting Christ as a kind of pre-existent yet "second, lesser, derived god", that is, not the One God, the Father. This is the view of Justin Martyr. Then later, as promoted by the "church father" Origin, Christ was said to have been eternally generated. As much as Christ became "god", his humanity became less and less significant.  - Dr. Tuggy maintains that none of the  "church fathers" of the AD 100s and 200s were Trinitarians, that is, none believed that the One God was the Trinity. All of them still referred to the One God as the Father. - In Part 2, Dr. Tuggy will take us into the AD 4th century (AD 300s), including discussion about the Councils of Nicea (AD 325), the Cappadocia -Fathers, and the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) - Additional articles, books, podcasts and videos relating to the development of Christian theology in the centuries following Jesus Christ can be found on the One God Report resource page http://www.onegodreport.com/evolution_of_trinitarian_doctrine
35:03
March 24, 2020
9) My Lord, and my God: Trinitarians get it wrong
Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). To Trinitarians and those who believe in the “deity of Christ”, this verse is slam-dunk evidence that Jesus is God. But is it? This podcast examines how the "deity of Christ" interpretation ignores and contradicts the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of John. The Trinitarian "deity of Christ" interpretation fails to recognize the God that Thomas acknowledged in the resurrected Jesus, and fails to credit God the Father for raising Jesus from the dead. Full written text for this podcast is available here:https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html Here are summary points: Thomas’s statement in John 20:28 is touted as one of the chief evidences in the Bible for the “deity of Christ” and for the Trinity. But the “deity of Christ” interpretation gets it very wrong. 1.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the biblical, Hebraic cultural background of Thomas’s declaration. Pagans may have believed in a deity resurrected from the dead, but biblically thinking Jews believed that God does not die, nor does He rise from the dead. Rather, God raises humans from the dead. - 2.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the reaction of all the other apostles to the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles never react to the resurrection of Jesus by declaring “Jesus is God”, but rather, “God raised Jesus from the dead”. The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores tens of other clear biblical statements that “God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead.” - 3.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation directly contradicts the Gospel of John’s statement that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Our interpretation of Thomas’s declaration agrees that “no one has ever seen God.” The Father figuratively was “seen”, i.e., percieved in the totality of the life of Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection. - 4.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the literary context of Thomas’s statement in the Gospel of John. Thomas initially doubted and eventually believed in the resurrection of Jesus, not the deity of Jesus. Further, not long before Thomas made his declaration, the resurrected Jesus declared “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Jesus’s God and Father are the same God and Father as the apostles. And then, only two verses after Thomas’s declaration, John gave the reason he recorded the sign miracles that Jesus did. That purpose was not to show that Jesus is God. The “deity of Christ” interpretation doesn’t accept the author of the Gospel of John’s own purpose statement. - 5.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation fails to understand the consistent biblical theme that the one God (Yehovah, the Father) is perceived, seen and made known in His acts among humankind. “To you it was shown, that you might know that Yehovah is God; there is none other than Him (Deut. 4:35. Isa. 43:10). - 6.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation mis-identifies the God in Jesus.  This is a serious error, since it ignores and contradicts what Jesus told Thomas, fails to see the One God (the Father) at work in Jesus, and fails to give credit to the One God (the Father) for raising the dead. - Trinitarianism claims it was “God the Son” in Jesus. But Jesus said that it was God the Father, the only God, who was in him (John 8:40, 10:38, 14:9-10, 17:3). Should we believe Trinitarianism or Jesus?
45:12
March 8, 2020
8) Is Jesus the Creator in Colossians 1:15-19? No, but Jesus is the beginning of God's new creation.
To see written notes for this episode, including additional biblical references, see here. https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/02/colossians-115-19-jesus-is-not-creator.html
41:20
February 21, 2020
7) "What about John 1:1?" (Part 2) - Jesus is the Beginning of God's New Creation
This episode is part 2 "What about John 1:1?"  - Jesus is the Beginning of God's New Creation. We recommend before listening to this podcast, first listen to our previous podcast, #6) "What about John 1:1, Part 1". - In this current episode we ask the question "What beginning does John 1:1 mean in the statement "In the beginning was the Word..."? We see that while John is echoing Genesis creation language, he is not directly describing the Genesis creation, but rather the renewal or new creation work of God in and through Jesus the Messiah. Therefore, contrary to the "deity of Christ" interpretation of John 1:1,  Jesus, the Word of John 1:1 was not literally present or involved in the Genesis creation. Rather, Jesus, the Word of John 1:1, is God's channel of the New Creation. The entire text of this episode is available here. The following is a summary: 1. “In the beginning” of John 1:1 is a new beginning. While intentionally echoing some of the language of the Genesis creation, “in the beginning” of John 1:1 directly refers to the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah, not to the Genesis creation of earth, plants and animals. - 2. In the rest of the Gospel of John “the beginning” never means eternity past or the time of the creation of the universe. In the Gospel of John “the beginning” refers to the life and ministry of Jesus. - 3. In the Epistles of John, “the beginning” never refers to eternity past or the time of the creation of the universe, but rather to events associated in the 1st century when people saw, touched and heard Jesus. - 4.  In the Book of Revelation (another book attributed to John), Jesus Christ is presented as the “first-born from the dead, the beginning of God’s creation”.  Jesus being the  “first-born from the dead" and "the beginning of God’s creation” agrees with, and is evidence that “the beginning” in the Gospel John 1:1 is the beginning of God’s new creation in the life of Jesus. - 5.  The other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke also associate words like “the beginning” and “word” with the life and ministry of Jesus. Like the Gospel of John, the Gospels  - 6. We see other places in the New Testament where the phrase “in the beginning” does not refer to the Genesis creation. Context is necessary to determine what beginning is meant. - 7. Finally, we note that the literary context of John’s Prologue (John 1:1-18) is an introduction to and a summary of his entire Gospel, which describes the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah. The Gospel of John is not a record of the Genesis creation of seas, dry land, plants, animals, moon and stars. Rather, the context of “in the beginning” in the Gospel of John is the life of Jesus.
28:09
February 13, 2020
6) What about John 1:1? (part 1)
Ever since I came to understand from the Bible that God (Yehovah, YHVH) is one, and that Jesus is God’s human Messiah (Christ) whom God raised from the dead, people say to me: “What about John 1:1?”. For my friends who believe in the “deity of Christ”, John 1:1 is biblical evidence that Jesus is God. But is it? In this podcast we begin to take a look at the Gospel of John and see that the Trinitarian or "deity of Christ" interpretation of John 1:1 is found wanting. We show four "broader view" observations about the Gospel of John to see there is something wrong with the Trinitarian interpretation: 1.  The purpose for writing The author of the Gospel of John tells us the purpose he wrote his book, or at least why he recorded the signs that Jesus did. “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are recorded so that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). The Trinitarian "deity of Christ" interpretation of John 1:1 is contradictory to the author's own purpose statement. We present what it means to be the "Son of God", describing biblical examples and characteristics, rejecting the definition of the Hellenized "church fathers" of later centuries. - 2.  No Trinity in John’s Gospel In the Gospel of John, “God” is never the Trinity. Trinitarians should at least acknowledge that there is no Trinity described in John 1:1 (or anywhere else in John’s Gospel). Try replacing the word "Trinity" for the word "God" in the Gospel of John, and see if that makes sense. For instance, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity"  How about John 3:16: "For the Trinity so loved the word, that he (it?) sent his (its) unique Son...." It is strange that for the biblical book that is supposedly the main book that presents Jesus as God and that God is a Trinity, nowhere in the book does "God" mean "the Trinity. More details here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/10/did-trinity-so-love-world-in-gospel-of.html - 3. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Messiah, not God The question that the Gospel of John addresses and answers is: "Is Jesus the Messiah", not "Is Jesus God" or "Is the Messiah God". We see being "the Messiah" is the question from the beginning of the book to the end: John 1:17, 1:20, 1:41, 4:25-26, 7:26, 7:41, 9:22, 10:24, 17:3, 20:31. - 4. Jesus in the Gospel of John distinguishes himself from God In John 8:40 Jesus says he is a "man who heard the truth from God".  Jesus distinguished himself from God, from all of God, not just from "one person of the Godhead".  Likewise Jesus distinguishes himself from God in John 17:1-3 when he says that the Father is the "only true God" and that he, Jesus, is the Messiah sent by God.  - Finally, we ask the question, and leave open for later examination, what beginning is intended by the words of John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word..." Is this beginning a direct reference to the Genesis creation, or does the author of the Gospel of John have in mind a new beginning? How is "the beginning" used in other places in John's Gospel, in John's Epistles, and in the Book of Revelation?
28:57
January 31, 2020
5) Philippians 2: Did God become human?
Does Philippians 2:5-11 describe the eternal God the Son humbling himself to become man? We think not. - In this podcast we explain some problems and contradictions with the "deity of Christ" interpretation of Philippians 2, and suggest a better way to understand this section of Scripture: When Christ Jesus "emptied" and "humbled" himself, he was already a human being. The acts of emptying and humbling himself relate to his obedience to die on the cross, not "to become a human being". - 1. The context of the Letter to the  Philippians shows that Paul is talking about the human being, Jesus Christ. - 2.  Paul is describing the mind of Christ Jesus, the title (Christ/Messiah) and name (Jesus) of the human being, not of an assumed pre-existent "Second Person of the Godhead". - 3. Paul expects his readers to have the same mind of Christ Jesus, which would be impossible if he was referring to an eternally pre-existent God who became a man. - 4.  As in many other places in his writings, in this passage Paul differentiates three times between God and Jesus Christ. God is someone other than Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is someone other than God. - 5. Being in "the form of God" means Jesus is not God. The word for "form" does not have reference to the metaphysical nature of Jesus. - 6. Jesus has a certain representative, functional equality with God that Jesus knows is given to him by God, so Jesus knows he does not have to seize or hold on to that equality. He has it because God has given it to him. - 7.  Jesus "being/being made in the likeness of men, in the fashion of men" (2:7-8) means that Jesus is a human being. - 5. Christ Jesus "emptied himself", taking on the form of a servant, that is, as a human being. Paul does not say that Christ Jesus "emptied himself" of his deity to become a man, but that he "emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant". - 6. Jesus Christ is obedient to God, to the extant of death on a cross.  This means that Jesus is not God - he is obedient to God, and God does not die. - 7.  God exalted Jesus Christ and gave him a name above all names. This means that Jesus is not God, since God exalted Jesus, and gave Jesus a name. - 8. Jesus Christ's exaltation and glory is never described as something he "gave up" and then "received back" again. Rather, his exaltation and glory is something he had and received only after his death. - 9. Will you and I bow the knee to God's designated human Messiah Jesus, or will we continue to insist that Jesus must be "God become man" before we bow the knee to him, refusing God's Messiah and God's will for us?
49:32
January 22, 2020
4) Preston Macy Testimony: F-18 Pilot
One God Report correspondent Preston Macy, a former F-18 pilot in the US Navy, who still serves as a Navy Reserves flight  instructor, shares his testimony. Preston breaks his testimony into three parts: 1.  Being introduced to God, Jesus and the Bible. 2. Coming to a better understanding of the One God and His Messiah Jesus. In addition to be challenged by non-Trinitarian Christians, Preston shares how understanding from the Scriptures that the man Jesus has a God, helped him to see that Jesus is a human being distinct from God. 3. Coming to a better  understanding of Scriptural hope of the resurrection from the dead into the Kingdom of God, as opposed to a dis-embodied "going to to heaven." You can see Bill and Stephanie's testimony here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LA9Uq-8xMc&t=228s
29:42
January 14, 2020
3) LORD or Lord: Does calling Jesus "Lord" mean Jesus is God?
Contrary to some overly zealous Trinitarian preaching, to be “Lord” does not mean you are God. Otherwise the upper house of the British parliament would be the House of Gods. Sometimes LORD/Lord in the Bible does mean God, but there are many lords/Lords in the Bible who are not God. “Jesus is Lord” is not a claim to deity (Act 2:36, Rom. 10:9). The confusion over LORD/Lord/lord stems from the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. The title “Lord” kurios (“master, sir, prince, ruler”), an honorific title acknowledging authority, was substituted for God’s personal name, Yehovah יהוה . English translations of the Old Testament usually indicate Yehovah’s personal name with all capitals LORD. But God’s name Yehovah is very different from the replacement title “Lord”. Yehovah/Yahweh is God’s personal name but the title Lord is adon in Hebrew and kurios in Greek). Abigail distinguished between her Lord (David) and her God (LORD/Yehovah): “for the LORD will certainly make for my Lord an enduring house, because my Lord is fighting the battles of the LORD” (1 Sam. 25:28, Abigail called David “Lord” 13x in this chapter). In the Hebrew text there is no confusing Abigail’s LORD from her Lord, because they are two very different words. In the Greek text the words are exactly the same, and therefor confusing. Sometimes God is called “Lord” in the New Testament, using the Greek practice of substituting the title Lord/kurios for Yehovah’s personal name. Context can most often determine if kurios/Lord in the New Testament means God, or the Lord Messiah, or some other lord. Lord/kurios in the Gospel of John, for example, refers to God only in direct Old Testament quotations. Scriptures referred to in this podcast: Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... Ephesians 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 1 Samuel 25:28 Please forgive the trespass of your servant. For the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the LORD, and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live. Matthew 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here...." Mark 9:5 And Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here..." Luke 9:33 ...Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here..." Matthew 27:63 and said, "Sir (Lord/kurios), we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' Acts 25:26 But I have nothing definite to write to my Lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa... Psalm 110:1 A psalm of David. The LORD (Yehovah) says to my Lord (adoni): "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." Revelation 11:15 …"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever."
28:43
January 5, 2020
2) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit a three-in-one-God? Matthew 28:18-19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). - Trinitarians have said that this verse, like 2 Corinthians 13:14, is evidence that God is a Trinity. But are these verses evidence that God is a three-in-one-God? We think not. - Rather, in these verses the Son of God, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, is distinguished from God. - Other Scriptures referred to in our discussion of the Spirit of God, and how Jesus is differentiated from God: - In Matthew 12:28, Jesus was able to cast out demons by the "Spirit of God" , which is parallel to  the "the finger of God" in Luke 11:20. - Acts 10:38, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him."  Jesus of Nazareth is differentiated from God. It was God's Spirit and power which enabled Jesus to heal and cast out demons. God was with Jesus, which means Jesus was not God.  - Acts 2:32-33 "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.  Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. " - Again, Jesus is differentiated from God. Jesus was dead, but God raised him from the dead and exalted Jesus to the right hand of God, which shows that Jesus is not God. Jesus received the Holy Spirit from God, and poured it out on others. - Acts 2:36, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Again Jesus is differentiated from God. God made Jesus Lord and Messiah (Christ). Jesus had been crucified. God was not crucified. - 2 Corinthians 1:2-3, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort..." 2 Corinthians 11:31,  "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. " - These verses, also from 2 Corinthians, show the distinction in the Apostle Paul's mind between God (the Father) and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus the Messiah is not God.  The Lord Jesus has a God, the Father. Jesus is not God if he has a God. - The challenge: Where in the Scriptures is God described as three persons in one God, or three persons in one God essence?
21:46
December 24, 2019
1) Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image"
In Genesis 1:26, before the creation of man, God said, "Let us make man in our image".  The plural verb and pronoun ("let us make", "our image") is claimed by some Trinitarians to be evidence that God spoke to other members of a three-person "godhead".   But is this claim correct? We think there is a much better way to understand Genesis 1:26. So does modern Trinitarian scholarship. One Trinitarian scholar, G. Wenham who wrote the evangelical Word Biblical Commentary Genesis writes: "It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author." But pastors and popular apologists don't appear to have gotten that memo since one still hears Genesis 1:26 proclaimed as evidence for the Trinity. This podcasts explores the problems with the Trinitarian interpretation, and suggests a more biblically consistent way to understand Genesis 1:26. We also recommend: this podcast which examines the same verse: https://biblicalunitarianpodcast.podbean.com/e/032-%e2%80%9clet-us-make-man%e2%80%9d-and-other-passages-with-plural-pronouns/ and this article http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/genesis1_26.html
28:26
December 12, 2019