Sermon Video: We are made in God's image - Genesis 1:26-31

At the culmination of Genesis' Creation account, God pauses to explain that his creation of humanity will differ from all the other living things that have come before, for this living thing will be made in the very image of God.  What does this mean?  The implications are plentiful but they include: (1) We are intimately connected to God, (2) equal to every other human who has ever lived, (3) and qualitatively more important than all the other living things that we have been tasked with stewardship over.  In addition, we owe our creativity, delight in beauty, logic, and ethics to the way in which God created us.

Torah Club lesson #8 leans into the mysticism of Kabbalah

Note the terms: World of Concealment and World of Truth

Note Lancaster's description of demons and angels contending over the souls of the dead

One of the things that jumps out if you read The Beginning of Wisdom Torah Club series one after another (as I've done in order to point out the concrete examples of extra-biblical and unorthodox teachings they contain) is how much Daniel Lancaster relies upon the Wisdom of Solomon.  The Wisdom of Solomon was likely written by someone in the Alexandrian Jewish community in the generations leading up to the birth of Jesus, and it was subsequently included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures known as the Septuagint (or LXX).  As a text, it contains ideas derived both from Jewish thought and Greek Platonic philosophy, which isn't surprising given that Alexandria was a renowned center of Greek philosophical thought for centuries.  In addition to this influence, which is something the Early Church would have been very familiar with, for it both embraced Greek philosophy on some matters, and contended against it in others {Gnostic Dualism being the most famous antagonist}, Lancaster also weaves into the Torah Club materials medieval Jewish mysticism in the form of Kabbalah.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you that Jewish medieval mysticism is not a topic that has ever been on my list of things that I need to study as a disciple of Jesus, then again, neither has Islamic Sufism or the various forms of mysticism that have operated under the guise of Christianity.  The idea that the path to divine knowledge is through mystical experience is foreign to those of us who embrace the Reformation's proclamation of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).  Why?  Because it cannot be replicated, it cannot be evaluated, and it cannot be questioned.  If someone tells you they had a mystical experience where God told them that the human soul is protected from demons trying to take it to hell after death by an angelic force {as Lancaster does in this Torah Club lesson}, what is the rebuttal?  Mystical knowledge is, by definition, only available to those who experience it, and at the same time due to its dream-like nature, open to broad interpretation.

In this case Daniel Lancaster is teaching that the "insights" of Jewish mysticism are in fact true, more than that, that these ideas can be used as the rubric that explains holy scripture.  Therein lies the growing danger, "because the Jewish mystics say so" is not any safer a path to follow for a disciple of Jesus than, "because the Christian mystics say so."  In the end, God's Word has never required mystical experience to be understood.  Whenever people, well meaning or otherwise, have tried to impose upon it allegorical interpretation or mystical knowledge, the results have been to take those who listen to them away from the plain meaning of the text.  If the plain meaning of the text, that available to the educated and uneducated alike, to the novice as well as to the veteran, was what this path desired, there would be no need for arbitrary allegorical or mystical insights.  Where does it stop?  If the "sages" that Lancaster likes to cite (but never seems to actually quote) deny the resurrection of Jesus, is that out-of-bounds?  Is that a bride-too-far, or are these supposed wise men to be followed wherever they lead?  We've already seen a willingness from Lancaster and FFOZ to abandon the Trinity because it doesn't fit their new "gospel," is there reason to believe that any of the truths that our ancestors in the faith were willing to die for aren't also up for grabs?

In case you are wondering, if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, someone who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and given the new birth of the Holy Spirit, NOTHING can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8), so there is a zero percent chance that demonic forces would need to be thwarted by angels to allow your soul to ascend to heaven.  That's utter nonsense because Jesus has already conquered sin and death, therefore the spiritual forces of evil do not contend with Jesus, they flee from him.

Note: This entire premise of Lancaster is once again built upon the assumption of a pre-existent human soul, an idea repeated as if it were fact in this Torah Club lesson as well, and an idea that was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople AD 553.

A House of Card: Going full-on mysticism Daniel Lancaster imagines the conversations your preexistent soul had with God (Lesson 7)

 

If you had any doubt that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) following Daniel Lancaster's teachings are purposefully subverting, more than that, outright jettisoning, the sole authority of God's Word, the proof is there to be seen in the actual Torah Club materials.  Now, you could also look at Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic, a book that FFOZ is publishing and selling to see just how antagonistic this organization is to scriptural authority.

Here in The Beginning of Wisdom lesson 7, the Jewish mystical teaching of a pre-existent soul, a concept not found anywhere in scripture, is fully embraced to the extent that this idea becomes the very rationale for our time here on earth, "That's why we came to this place." (p. 6) We came here, according to FFOZ, to learn things that our souls in heaven couldn't because they were already in God's presence.  In other words, God needed us to disconnect from him so we'd learn to want to come back though life's "innumerable difficulties, trials, and temptations." (p. 6)  Thus FFOZ is not only imagining our purpose, but God's intention as well, both dependent upon the notion that we don't remember our time spent with God before birth.

Once you have this extra-biblical idea firmly in place, FFOZ will teach you that Jacob's journey out of the Promised Land and back (necessary because of how thoroughly he had cheated his brother) is an analogy for our journey from heaven, to earth, and back again.  Why on earth (no pun intended) would Bible believing Christians sit under this teaching?  Are you going to strain this filth out of the food they're serving?

Lancaster isn't finished, he's cheeky enough to invent God's dialogue with your pre-existent soul, of course we can't remember that warning because our memory was wiped clean when we slipped on our bodies "like clothing."  {see: Torah Club lesson #6 takes a bizarre turn toward Gnostic Dualism in support of an anti-Trinitarian view of Jesus}

The Group Discussion question in section 3 of lesson 7 is this, "What do you think of the Jewish idea of the preexistent soul?"

*FYI, it isn't a Jewish idea, it is one form of Jewish mysticism.  FFOZ wants you to view Judaism and Jewish thinkers as some sort of monolith that they can represent to you and teach you about, it is as pathetic as saying, "What do you think of the Christian idea of Calvinism?" or "What do you think of the Church's idea of priestly celibacy?"  Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Christianity and the Church knows that some Christians adhere to Calvinism but many do not, and a portion of the Church has embraced priestly celibacy, for a portion of that segment's history, but most do not and never have.  Note: Torah Club/FFOZ materials rarely, if ever, cite sources for what they define as "Jewish thought" or when they say, "Judaism teaches."*

What do I think about the idea?  (1) It is extra biblical, (2) more akin to the ideas of Eastern religions about reincarnation than to anything Jesus taught, and (3) a dangerous wedge to begin teaching people to embrace an authority beyond, and ultimately against, the Word of God.

My daughter turns 9 this week, what that makes this dad think about

It was in the fall of 2014 that I put Nicole's first sonogram into our Sunday worship PowerPoint and told the congregation that I had a picture to share with them.  There were gasps right away from the ladies who knew what they were looking at, everyone else needed an explanation.  Clara Marie was born in 2015, changing my wife Nicole's and my own life for good, and changing it for the good.

I spent a lot of time dealing with unpleasant ideas and people, that isn't an indictment of my congregation or this town, as they have been stupendous in their support of myself and my family, but a reality that reflects the human condition.  I research, write, and speak about racism, nationalism, sexism, corruption, abuses of power, heresy, greed, lust, and all the rest.  I also get to talk about love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (the Fruit of the Spirit), but my own nature as a communicator and my personality often draw me toward those people and causes who need to be defended against evil.  What does any of that have to do with Clara?  Clara is a ray of sunshine and a breath of fresh air.  She hugs her dad with clinging arms and gives far too moist kisses.  She laughs with gusto, believes the best is possible, and doesn't know yet that life and people can really kick you when you're down.  I know that some day Clara will change, somebody will disappoint her, break her heart, but I'll appreciate every day that she has remaining with her youthful optimism, and pray that they continue.

That Clara is about to be 9 already also reminds me of our need to make the most of the time we have in this life, to borrow from Dead Poets Society, we need to "seize the day."  Clara being 9 reminds me that I came to Franklin more than 12 years ago, that now more than half of our married life has been spent here in PA.  Until 2023, the longest tenure of my career had been teaching at Portland Adult and Community Education, now it is being here at First Baptist of Franklin.  Unless God has plans for me that I don't know about, this will be the longest and most impactful chapter of my life; that it also happens to coincide with the years that I have been blessed to be called "Daddy" by my little girl only amplifies that thought.  

I also think at times of reflection like this about the men and women who haven't been blessed with the role of parenthood, and those who have become estranged from, or have mourned their lost children.  It was at a funeral a few years ago when a church member about my own age asked me to read a poem about her dad that I realized that being a dad had changed my emotional make-up.  Funerals can be hard for me, other peoples' grief can hit me hard (that's inherited from my mom) but this wasn't that, it was the thought that popped into my head of Clara having to grieve me some day that choked me up so thoroughly that day.  That being said about a child mourning his/her parent, I can't imagine what those of you who have carried the scars of a child who was only in your hopes, or who was with you for far too short a time, have been through.  May God grant you peace, that you still function each day with that pain is a testament to the strength you must have.

Lastly, being Clara's dad is one of the top three things I've ever had a hand in.  I say top 3 because I'm not counting being a child of God who was redeemed by Jesus as something I had a hand in, that was 100% God's grace, the Spirit's calling, and my parents' faithfulness; I don't take any credit on that one.  Those three things are, then, being the pastor of a congregation, Nicole's husband, and Clara's dad.  God has been good to me, I'm blessed with all three of those right now, and the knowledge that the one that was all grace (my salvation) will remain even if/when the others have come to a close.

If you read this someday, Clara, know that your dad is amazed by his Silly Pants* and loves you more than the words he's typing can ever express.

*The nickname Nicole gave her, appropriately she has embraced this accurate description and refuses to have any other nickname.

Why Boaz Michael thinks the Franklin Christian Ministerium chose to oppose the work of the First Fruits of Zion

“I mean, we have a Torah club group in Oil City, Pennsylvania that is now multiplied to 10 different Torah clubs in that area. So you see like a spiritual renewal taking place, which is incredible. But yet the pastors that have 25 people in their church are coming against the work of the Torah club because it's something that is not in alignment with their historical doctrines of their particular denominations." -Boaz Michael on Messiah Podcast #29, 05/13/23, starting at the 32:30 mark

Until a fellow Christian church leaders pointed it out to me, I didn't know that the First Fruits of Zion had responded at all in 2023 to the Franklin Christian Ministerium's effort to warn the Christian community about their unorthodox teachings.  There are several interesting things in this short statement: 

(1) The assumption that numeric success equals spiritual renewal.  Just because people are participating in something, it doesn't mean that God is or is not behind that effort.  For example: the Prosperity Gospel, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation movements are all growing rapidly in the world today, does that mean they're advancing the Kingdom of God?  Are they proof of spiritual renewal?  Popularity is not a measure of true discipleship.

(2) The sneering shot at the health of churches in Franklin based upon a numeric valuation.  Its an insult, but it isn't even a true one.  Truth be told, the pastors who signed our original statement serve churches that range from 25 to 350.  Some of them, like myself, serve as a solo pastor, others have multiple staff members.  Some have one service, again like us, and others have multiple services every Sunday to accommodate the crowd size.  But, and hear this clearly, church size is not proof of faithfulness (or unfaithfulness).  Church size is not proof of righteousness (or unrighteousness).  Church size is not proof of God's approval (or disapproval).  

(3) The assumption that a pastor of a small church doesn't need to be listened to.  This is a problem that affects the Church in America on many levels.  Almost all of the popular books, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. are focused on pastors of mega-churches, that is, on "successful" pastors.  Those of us serving faithfully in the 98% of churches that are under 250 people rarely have our voices heard.  The results of this popularity-based leadership have been disastrous as popular pastor after popular pastor who had been lifted up crash and burn one after another because too many of them lacked either the moral qualifications of pastoral leadership, or the wisdom to teach biblically.  But they were popular, so people listened to them, they were popular, so people followed them.  If a pastor who has 9 people in his/her congregation is speaking God's Word prophetically, working within the parameters of the historic/apostolic/biblical orthodoxy of the Church, that man or woman should be listened to far more than the pastor who has 15,000 people in his/her congregation and bestselling books galore, but is perverting the Gospel with materialism, nationalism, or any number of false teachings that will not stand the test of time.

(4) The assumption that our opposition is based upon denominational doctrines.  This couldn't be further from the truth, the pastors who signed represent in no particular order: Anglican, Methodist, Episcopal, non-denominational, Lutheran, Church of God, Presbyterian, and of course Baptist churches.  There is nothing "particular" about our united opposition because we represent a broad spectrum of historic Christianity.  What does unite us in opposition is our common defense of the historic Gospel, the kind of teaching affirmed by the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed.  This is a basic, fundamental, and historic defense of the Gospel.  It has nothing to do with the secondary issues that differentiate a Baptist from a Lutheran, and a Lutheran from a Methodist.  In fact, the objections we have stated are equally at the heart of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as well, they are teachings that precede by 1,000 years the Great Schism and the Reformation by 1,500 years.  Why?  Because we object to FFOZ based upon the New Testament where God has preserved the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.  

Read the original letter that started all of this for yourself if you haven't, look at what we are objecting to: The Franklin Christian Ministerium's warning about the First Fruits of Zion 

{Note: Our objections would have been even stronger if we knew in Feb of 23 what we know about FFOZ in April of 24, what we knew then was enough to convince us all to reject it.}

The Trinity is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."

Jesus' fulfillment of the Law as the ultimate and last sacrifice for humanity's sins is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."

The Fruit of the Spirit as the test of true discipleship, not the keeping of the Law of Moses, is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."

These teachings, and others like them, are what our ancestors in the faith believed, it was the Gospel they preached, and it was the truth they were willing to be martyred while believing rather than betray.

We didn't unite to oppose you, Boaz, over petty differences but over the core of the Gospel as it has been preached, received, and celebrated for 2,000 years.  

We didn't unite to oppose your organization, First Fruits of Zion, to protect our own turf, but the sheep that God has given us to shepherd and the spotless Bride of Jesus Christ, his Church.

Leaving The First Fruits of Zion and the Hebrew Roots Movement behind: One Christian's journey

Pastor Randy Powell interviews Michael Spivey, a man who for more than a decade while trying to navigate connections within his family to the Hebrew Roots Movement, had wrongly thought that the First Fruits of Zion were an orthodox alternative.  Michael became a fervent supporter of FFOZ, only to realize that they were leading him away from historic and orthodox Christianity.

Note: This is the first interview of an ex-supporter of FFOZ that I've been able to publish, but it is one story among the many who have contacted me to share their encouragement for my efforts to counter this organization's influence, many of whom thought they were alone in being concerned about its unorthodox teachings and impact upon families and churches.  The mantra, "Torah Club changed my life!" that its supporters share when confronted with FFOZ's false teachings, is more true, and more painful, than they realize.

Torah Club lesson #6 takes a bizarre turn toward Gnostic Dualism in support of an anti-Trinitarian view of Jesus

 

I'll admit, I didn't see this one coming.  It would never have occurred to me to use the story of Jacob and Esau to redefine the Apostle Paul's use of "flesh" (Greek: sark) in the purely physical dualistic terms of Gnosticism.  There is a reason for that, of course: The Apostle Paul isn't talking about our physical bodies (in opposition to our soul/spirit) when he writes about wrestling with the "flesh," which is why the NIV has chosen to translate Paul's intention "sinful nature" rather than a more literal English word like "flesh" which has a physical connotation that's hard to let go of.  

And here we have Daniel Lancaster's Torah Club material stating that the cause of Paul's inner wrestling was his "flesh" is connected to the Hebrew idiom "flesh and blood" and therefore dovetails nicely with the idea that Lancaster has embraced of pre-existing souls that only wear a physical body like clothing.  There are several problems with this whole line of thinking, including that these ideas were troubling enough to the Early Church to have been condemned as heresy at the Council of Constantinople.  This path leads toward the Gnostic Dualism that so troubled the Apostle John in his first letter {1 John 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.} and went on to cause enormous trouble for multiple generations within the Church before that idea of a divide in humanity between flesh/bad and spirit/good inspired by Greek philosophy died out.

When I fail to live up to my calling as a disciple of Jesus, it isn't my material body that's to blame (as if my spirit/soul is a helpless victim unable to stop that nasty body), it is me, all of me.  I'm a whole person, not a collection of competing parts.  Jesus Christ died to save all of me, not just my soul, and the Holy Spirit works to transform all of me, not just a corrupted flesh, so that on the day of Resurrection I will be fully renewed, body, spirit, and soul; one person made new by the power of God's grace.

The previous post from lesson #1 of The Beginning of Wisdom {The very first Torah Club lesson (covering Genesis 1:1-6:8) undermines the Trinity} presents, along with Daniel Lancaster's disturbing The Only Begotten Son {The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words}, a picture of the Word of God as an avatar of God (not a person) who simply indwells the human man Jesus of Nazareth {who presumably had his own preexistent human soul}, with that same idea, "The spiritual aspect of a human being dwells within the body like a man living in a tent." (p. 10)  

If Jesus Christ was a human being indwelt by an avatar of God, "like a body wearing clothing," as FFOZ is apparently teaching its followers, then that same dualism makes sense for the rest of us as well.  "The word of God then divested himself, like took off his outer garment so to speak and clothed himself in a human body.  Kind of like the word would dwell in the Tabernacle or would dwell in the temple." - Daniel Lancaster, The Only Begotten Son

But of course that's not the nature of Jesus described in the scriptures or accepted by the Church throughout its history at all, not even close.  The spirit and body of Jesus Christ was made one (the hypostatic union) at the Incarnation when the eternal Word (2nd person of the Trinity) permanently took upon himself humanity, including a human body, that same body that was resurrected on Easter Sunday.

It can be difficult to wrap your mind around such concepts that are so far removed from the orthodoxy of the Church, but that's the rabbit trail of dangerous error that Daniel Lancaster and FFOZ is leading countless people along.

Sermon Video: Creation is God's Temple - Genesis 1:3-25

The Creation narrative in Genesis 1 accomplishes two primary things, both for ancient Israel and for the Church today, it tells us who is responsible for everything, and why what was made was made.  The who is simple, the answer is God, nobody else is involved in the Creation account.  The why has a two-fold answer: (1) to be God's temple: his kingdom, abode, and resting place, and (2) to foster the relationship between God and man.  The second task is accomplished thanks to the wonder and awe associated with what God has made, a variety with purpose and beauty that causes us to ask, "Who was it that made it thus?"

The very first Torah Club lesson (covering Genesis 1:1-6:8) undermines the Trinity

The comment section of my YouTube channel's videos on the First Fruits of Zion over and over contain a variation on this complaint, "I'm in a Torah Club and it isn't anything like what you've described."  This is often followed by a polite, or not so polite, accusation that I'm a fool or a liar for claiming that the First Fruits of Zion teaches unorthodox things like denying the Trinity.  Those seminar videos that are being commented upon contain primary source quote after quote, but perhaps that isn't enough.  Having already shown two powerful examples of anti-Trinitarian statements from Daniel Lancaster {The original audio version of Daniel Lancaster's Only Begotten Son is even more heretical. and The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words}, now the task becomes demonstrating that these ideas are contained within the Torah Club materials themselves.  We don't have to look far, Lesson #1 of The Beginning of Wisdom, copyright 2022, contains ideas that undermine the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus was fully God and fully Man, and that he pre-existed with the Father and the Spirit as the Word of God as part of the holy Trinity (John 1).

Page 21 of Lesson 1 follows after a long discussion of the personification of Wisdom (setting up what is to come) drawn in part from the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, as well as the assertion of the pre-existence of the human soul before our conception (p. 13-14), "To become a human being, the spirit must leave its abode in the heavens and inhabit an earthly body."  As well as, "The spirit within you longs to return to the communion with God that it enjoyed before leaving heaven, entering a human conception, and becoming you."  

Another comment that I find about Torah Clubs is this, "The Church never taught me that!"  It is typically used with a sense of wonder at what the Torah Clubs are teaching, and/or scorn at the supposed laxity of the Church's educational efforts.  In this case, the Church certainly hasn't taught you that because the preexistence of the human soul was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) {For further explanation see: Could a person’s spirit have existed before their soul was created?} with this statement, "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."  This discussion about pre-existent souls ought to raise a red flag among Bible believing Christians who are invited to participate in a Torah Club, but given that this is a secondary theological issue, perhaps for many it went unnoticed.  But what about the Trinity, surely playing fast and loose with the Trinity would send them running for the exits?

"The pre-existent, supernal wisdom of God through whom all things were created ultimately tabernacled among us in the person of the Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth.  He is God's wisdom made flesh...Yeshua embodies God's wisdom in physical form." In the midst of this quote the Torah Club lesson cites 1 Corinthians 1:24 and 2:7, neither of which is saying that Jesus was God's personified wisdom, that's not what Paul was talking about there in either verse.  This is a oft-repeated pattern with FFOZ.  When the scriptures are quoted the citations often do not connect with how they're being used, and/or the verses are paraphrased or given with word-substitutions that change the meaning.  As to the quote itself, do you see one God with multiple modes/facets (heresy), or one God with three persons (orthodoxy)?  Wisdom isn't capitalized as it would be in English if they were writing about a person.  Also, "in the person" hints back at Lancaster's teaching (see the links above) that the man Jesus is only "indwelt" by God, he isn't directly spoken of as God.  "Yeshua embodies God's wisdom" is short of saying, "Jesus is God."  Hair-splitting?  Not at all.  Who Jesus is is a vital question.

"This concept helps us understand the prologue of the Gospel of John.  If we think of God's supernal word as the expression of His divine wisdom, we could understand the first few verses of the Gospel of John like this:

In the beginning was the Wisdom,

And the Wisdom was with God,

And the Wisdom was God.

It was in the beginning with God.

Everything was made to exist through Wisdom,

And nothing that was made to exist was made to exist except by it.

And the Wisdom became flesh,

And dwelt among us,

And we saw Wisdom's glory,

Glory as of the only begotten from the Father,

Full of grace and truth.

(Paraphrase of John 1:1-3, 14)"

I didn't know the followers of Jesus needed to paraphrase John 1 to understand the Apostle.  In John's actual text, it is clear that the Word has the agency of a person, in this paraphrase, however, the Wisdom is an "it," it is an "expression" not (really or fully) a person.  This is in keeping with the unorthodox views taught by FFOZ about the nature of God that most resembles the ancient heresy of Modalism.  

Either Jesus Christ is fully God, and fully human, or he is something less.

Either the Word of God is the 2nd person of the Trinity, with full personhood and eternal preexistence, or he is something less.

The very first Torah Club lesson is undermining the traditional and orthodox understanding of the Church about Jesus Christ.

The original audio version of Daniel Lancaster's Only Begotten Son is even more heretical.

I have already responded to the outrageous heresy contained in the transcript of Daniel Lancaster's The Only Begotten Son in this post: The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words.  However, multiple people who have listened to the audio file from Beth Immanuel's website have noticed differences in the audio (i.e. the transcript edited them out) that point even harder at a denial from Lancaster of the orthodox nature of Jesus Christ.  Below, then, are these more damaging statements with the timestamp so that anyone can hear for themselves what the creator of the Torah Club materials for the First Fruits of Zion believes about the nature and person of Jesus Christ.  Commentary in bold below follows each quote.

6:14  We already learned that God is the first cause that he created the whole universe and that he did it through his paintbrush, which is his word when he said, "Let there be."  And so he created a version of himself.  Like when you create a version of yourself online, what do you call that?  Yeah, an avatar, right? That's it. He created an avatar. Oh, that's the word. OK, he created an avatar of himself to enter the world. And and we called that the word, and this avatar is the is God as we know him in the world.

The additional heretical material here includes, "he created a version of himself" and "He created an avatar."  In the transcript the notion that the Word is an avatar of God that was created by God is edited out.  What we end up with here are two heretical ideas: (1) That the Word is created by God, this is the heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that Jesus is the highest being created by God, and (2) that when we see God interacting in the world it is only a "version" of God, leaving humanity/creation without any actual connection to God. 

7:25 The word of God then divested himself, like took off his outer garment so to speak and clothed himself in a human body.  Kind of like the word would dwell in the Tabernacle or would dwell in the temple. But this time he came to dwell in a person named Yeshua Ben Yosef from Nazareth. Yes. {An audience member asks a difficult to hear question, "Is that like all of himself, or did he take a part of himself?"} Great question. No, this is still the avatar. This is still the avatar is the one divesting. So it's just like this, it's this finite version of God as we know him within the universe. 

In the transcript this reads, "the Word came to dwell within the human being named Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazarth."  The spoken version above is similar, but worse in that it clarifies that Lancaster believes that Yeshua Ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) was a created human being with a separate life/spirit from that of the Word of God...The spoken question from the audience is extremely hard to hear, but as best I can tell the student wants to know if the Word is all of God (HaShem) or just a part of God?  To which Lancaster replies, incredibly, "No, this is still the avatar."  This again solidifies the charge against Lancaster of Modalism because neither the Word nor Jesus is truly God, only an avatar that God created of himself.

9:55 The human body of Yeshua is not God.  Nor is it the word of God, the avatar of God.

What then is Jesus??  To Lancaster, Jesus is NOT God, then again, neither is the Word of God, that is only an "avatar of God."  There is no hint of the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity into the one person Jesus Christ.  Athanasius would have recognized this ancient heresy about Jesus, one that was rejected at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

13:15 For example, when Yeshua is praying in the garden of Gethsemane, he says he prays. He's praying. You know, "Take this cup from me if you can." But he says, "Not my will but your will be done." So I mean, what does that imply? That implies that he has his own will, which is a separate will from the will of God.  Isn't that interesting? OK. And also, I mean, just the fact that he's praying is also sort of a hint, because otherwise he'd be talking to himself. {Laughter from the audience.}

The part not retained in the transcript is, "So I mean, what does that imply?  That implies that he has his own will, which is a separate will from the will of God?  Isn't that interesting."  This, then, is an even stronger indicator that Lancaster believes that the will of Jesus of Nazareth is separate from the will of God, that they can be distinguished, even in opposition.  How is this possible? (1) Lancaster believes that the Word is not God, it is his created avatar, (2) that Jesus of Nazareth is a human being that was indwelt by the Word, not that Jesus IS the Word, and (3) ultimately he is a unitarian monotheist which requires that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all lose their personhood and become instead modalistic "roles" that God plays...As it did during the Malchut conference videos, the laughter of the audience is telling, they evidently find the joke that Lancaster makes about Jesus talking to himself during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane to be funny. 

15:41 The Word that became flesh in the person of Yeshua did something similar by divesting its identity to indwell, a man, a real human being and lived through the life of Yeshua of Nazareth. 

The transcript has, "and live a real human life through Yeshua of Nazareth."  The difference is subtle, in the audio Lancaster says, "and lived through the life of Yeshua of Nazareth."  It may be subtle, but it is significant, because it gives further weight to the charge against Lancaster that he's teaching the heresy that Jesus of Nazareth's life is a thing of its own apart from the Word of God.  He doesn't mention the Virgin Birth, but why would it be necessary if the "human body of Yeshua is not God."?

16:57  I mean, how can God be tempted? It says, "God is not tempted."  Right in the Torah. So how could, how could he have been tempted? You know, if he was aware, if he was God on an aware level?

This explosive comment is left out of the transcript altogether, and for good reason.  Lancaster is hinting here at the notion that Jesus is not aware of his own deity (an absurd claim in light of the Gospel of John).  While we do not fully understand the mystery of the Incarnation, nor are the Gospels attempting to be a theology textbook, this is yet another example of a lesser version of Jesus put forth by FFOZ or one of their teachers.

17:18  And and another thing, it wouldn't be any great accomplishment for him to be righteous. I mean, of course, HaShem isn't going to commit a sin. Of course, Hashem doesn't get points for being righteous. He is righteous. There's no, you see what I'm saying? But Yeshua on the other hand, earned God's merit and favor by doing so, by passing temptations and trials.

The change in the transcript is to largely omit this section.  The simple comment, "But Yeshua on the other hand." is Lancaster's way of reinforcing the distinction between God and the avatar/Word/Jesus that unlike HaShem is evidently capable of sin.

Conclusion: The transcript of The Only Begotten Son that Beth Immanuel (where Lancaster serves as "pastor") is bad enough, as my previous post (link at the top of this post) demonstrated, it was full of boldly heretical statements.  The original audio is worse as these seven examples show.  The notion that Daniel Lancaster is "wise" or "learned" in the scriptures is laughable given the presence of these ancient heresies, and the idea that Christians would allow this man to become their teacher by becoming a part of a Torah Club is terrifying.

6 months since October 7, there are no winners here: A response to the essay by Frida Ghitis (CNN, 4/5/24)

 

{“In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.” - Neville Chamberlain     That quote would probably be better remembered if it wasn’t from Neville Chamberlain.  The former British Prime Ministers is best remembered for appeasing the maniac Adolf Hitler before WWII started.  But Chamberlain wasn’t wrong.  He was about Hitler in particular, there was no bargaining with that evil man, but he was right about war.  Even when it is necessary, even when it could be deemed a righteous act of defending the weak against the strong, one doesn’t “win” a war, one survives it, and hopefully limits the damage.  That’s the situation that Israel has been facing since October 7^th of 2023: it can’t win, the only question is how costly will survival be both to the Israelites themselves and to the Palestinians.  The essay below is attempting to reason through to that conclusion.}

Almost exactly six months ago, Israelis awoke to a nightmare. Civilians in the southern part of the country, areas near the border with Gaza, were under a brutal, ongoing attack. It would become the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust and a prelude to unspeakable suffering on both sides of the border.

{To think and talk about the costs of the war against Hamas that followed after October 7^th is not to minimize the horror of that day.  The same is true for the tragedies of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.  In each case an act of sudden evil caught a people off-guard and led to a forceful and far greater response.  In each case, moral questions were raised by how the aggrieved party responded and by the unintended consequences of those responses.  The original moral evil in all four instances has no excuse, no justification, no sympathy.}

Six months after Hamas launched that deadly rampage, knowing that Israel’s response would be ferocious, there are only losers in this terrible war.

It’s hard now to find many winners with the death toll mounting among Gazans and hunger growing in the strip. And with Israeli hostages still held captive, perhaps in dank Hamas tunnels.

{As it was with WWI, WWII, and the War on Terror, so it has been in Israel and Gaza.  War takes on a life of its own, one action leads to another, one cost justifies another.  WWI left an entire generation decimated and cynical, it weakened institutions that were necessary for civilization leaving them unable to stop the march toward WWII.  WWII gave us not only the firebombing of entire cities, but the atomic bomb and the Holocaust as well.  The scale of the War on Terror was much smaller than WWI and WWII, but it still left us with the Patriot Act, drone strikes across the globe, seemingly endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the shame of Abu Ghraib.  Looking back upon history, each response appears solidly unavoidable, each war a product of choices made at the time that felt reasonable, but if that is indeed true and such death and destruction was the inevitable result of what had preceded it, we still must count the cost to both the innocent who suffered alongside the perpetrators and how fighting those wars changed us as well.  It is in this vein that All Quiet on the Western Front and Slaughterhouse Five were written, among many others.  And so, it is entirely reasonable to look at the Israel/Hamas War after six months and count the cost, to remind ourselves that history teaches us that we should not expect to find any winners.}

For Hamas, the fact that war continues may count as a victory, but thousands of Hamas’ fighters — the exact number is disputed — have been killed. Hamas may be decimated, perhaps unable to hold on to power, but that’s no victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is under growing global pressure and besieged by protesters at home, and whose legacy will be forever darkened.

Even US President Joe Biden has paid a price, caught in an election-year political vise between those who think he is too supportive of Israel and those who think he has been too critical.

The strife has also detonated a worldwide explosion of antisemitism, reviving a hatred that had lain lightly dormant. It’s causing anxiety across Europe, and leading some American Jews to conclude that one country where they had felt safe is no longer a haven, as they face antisemitism from the left and the right. Anti-Muslim bigotry has also increased.

This awful chapter started on October 7 last year, when Hamas terrorists breached what was supposed to be a secure border and slaughtered Israelis in their beds, in their living rooms, in their cars, at an outdoor music festival and bus shelters and parks.

They raped countless women with horrifying brutality.

Israeli security forces were nowhere to be found for hours. Hamas — the Iran-allied group that rules Gaza — killed more than 1,200 Israelis and dragged back hundreds more as hostages. The area lay in ruins. Israelis’ sense of security had been shattered.

Today, it is Gaza that lies in ruins, tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel in its quest to uproot and destroy Hamas. As Israel crushes Gaza, its global reputation is getting shattered. But still the IDF believes around 100 Israeli hostages remain captive of Hamas and other militants in conditions that one shudders to imagine.

This week’s Israeli strike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) convoy, killing seven aid workers, adds to the calamity of this convulsion in the perennially unstable crossroads of the Middle East. Amid the outrage and heartbreak, WCK’s founder, celebrity chef José Andrés, accuses Israel of targeting his staff. Israel has apologized, saying the convoy was misidentified. Israel has fired two officers and reprimanded senior commanders after an inquiry into the strike.

{The cost has been high.  Evil like that unleashed on October 7^th against innocent men, women, and children always leads to a ripple effect of costs, nearly always spirals out of control.  Inevitable?  Perhaps, but still horrific, still worthy of lament.}

There was never any question that Israel would respond to October 7. It had been attacked by a group that promised it would repeat the massacre of Israelis and is backed by Iran, a country whose leaders have vowed to destroy Israel. The attack led some there to conclude that whatever price Israel should pay for absolute victory — including in global public opinion — it is worth paying. Besides, the attackers kidnapped hundreds of its citizens, including women, children and the elderly. Israel needed to save them.

{I remember the days after 9/11.  There was never any doubt that wherever these terrorists were hiding, American bombs and bullets would find them.  That day’s shock and horror gave rise quickly to songs and slogans about stomping on terrorists, and to a sudden rise in anti-Islamic sentiment among a people who previously had spent little time thinking about Islam.  Likewise, Israel was going to respond, and with much greater force than Hamas had employed (because of the limits of Hamas’ resources, not a limit on its hatred, they’ve stated many times their desire to kill all Jews).

This is not the response envisioned by Jesus when he commanded us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.  Even if a government needs to respond with war to protect its citizens, the hatred that war gives birth to in the hearts of the people who were attacked is a tragedy.  Few times in Church history has the response to evil been forgiveness and mercy.  Individuals have responded to their own suffering, even martyrdom, with Christ-like forgiveness, but rarely has this translated to a whole people.  Sadly, when our nation experienced tragedy similar to what Israel has just lived through, the Church in America wasn’t able (much of it wasn't willing) to be a voice of reconciliation after 9/11, myself included.  The desire for justice, even messy justice that says, “Kill them all, let God sort them out” is a powerful enticement.  The path of peace after injustice is brutally hard, for this reason we are in awe of those like Nelson Mandela who choose it instead of vengeance.}

In the immediate aftermath, world leaders expressed support for Israel. But when the death toll in Gaza starting climbing, as Hamas knew it would, international support for Israel turned to withering criticism. In the most painful irony of all, Israel — the country that became home to Holocaust survivors, under attack by a group whose original charter outlined a genocidal ideology and a vow to destroy Israel — was itself perversely accused of genocide.

{Entirely predictable.  The initial support followed by eventual criticism as the death and destruction continued is the exact same pattern that America experienced after 9/11.  The primary difference between the two stories is that the reality of global antisemitism gave Israel a shorter runway between sympathy and criticism, i.e. a much briefer window to respond to terrorism before criticism, justifiable or not, began to mount.}

As always, the greatest suffering, the biggest losers, have been civilians on both sides. Palestinians in Gaza are enduring a living nightmare. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says more than 30,000 have been killed in the conflict. The figures don’t distinguish between combatants and civilians, but there’s little doubt that horrifyingly large numbers of them, including children, have been killed. The territory is a wasteland.

Gazans are caught between the cynicism of Hamas, the geopolitical concerns of their Arab neighbors and Israel’s determination to win at any cost. Hamas leaders, comfortable in exile, proclaimed early on that they are “proud to sacrifice martyrs.” Hamas fighters embedded themselves in Gaza’s population, including in hospitals, essentially daring Israel to kill civilians to get to them.

In most wars, civilians would have been allowed to flee the fighting, but the people of Gaza were not allowed to leave the territory whether they wanted to or not. Hamas urged them to stay. Egypt, worried about whether Israel would allow the people to return and concerned about instability on its soil, closed its border to all but a small number of Palestinian civilians.

The cruel fact is that the lives of Palestinians have not been the highest priority for anyone in this war.

{It has always been this way in human history, innocent civilians always pay the highest price in war.  It has also always been true that the evil men who sow the seeds of war rarely are the ones who pay the consequences, that’s one of the reasons why they’re willing to start down that path in the first place.}

Complicating the situation is the political crisis in Israel, which preceded the October 7 attack. Netanyahu — a political survivor who faces corruption charges — already presided over the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Before the war, tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets in nearly 10 months of weekly protests against a plan that would have severely weakened Israeli democracy by stripping the Supreme Court of much of its power.

Netanyahu was, in my view and others’, already the worst prime minister in Israel’s history even before October 7.

Polls have found that most Israelis want him gone. Now Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet but also the leading opposition figure before the war, has called for new elections in September. Recent polling says say he’s Netanyahu’s most likely successor.

Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas

The fact that Netanyahu is heading the government during one of the most dangerous, most damaging times in Israel’s history only adds to the disturbing nature of this conflict. Israel is not in good hands.

Would another leader, a different government, have been able to conduct the war with fewer civilian deaths, with less damage to Israel’s global standing, without eroding the vital relationship between Israel and the United States? I suspect the answer is yes.

{Few leaders are up to the task of shepherding their people through a time of war and at the same time minimizing the cost that it exacts from both their own people and the civilians on the other side.  While it is true that Netanyahu has numerous critics both in Israel and beyond, I think the essay strays in this section away from the salient and necessary conversation about the cost of war itself.}

If there’s any glimmer of hope in this dispiriting landscape it is that the young Abraham Accords — which normalized relations between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors — have survived the toughest of stress tests. That augurs well for the long run, for more stability of the region, eventually.

{What lies on the other side of this war?  None know for certain.  If there is a path to a wider peace between Israel and its neighbors, it will feel like a miracle.  We can hope that the horrors of this war will make it harder to start the next one.}

It opens the door to the possibility that once this war is over, once the post-war phase — whatever that looks like — also comes to an end, there could be a new architecture that leads to peace. For that to happen, however, two of the many losing protagonists in this conflict, Hamas and Netanyahu, cannot remain in power.

{We have set aside time in our worship services each Sunday since October 7^th to pray for Israel and Gaza, for the Jews and the Palestinians, for Christians, Muslims, and followers of Judaism in the Holy Land.  As I lead these prayers, my focus is primarily upon those suffering from the war, on both sides, pleading to God to protect them.  I also pray for a just and lasting peace, admitting in my prayers that I don’t know how we get from here to there.  Which leaders would it require and what choices would they need to make?  That answer is in God’s hands alone.  I don’t know if peace is possible with Netanyahu as the Prime Minister of Israel, because nobody really knows the answer to that question.  And so, rather than calling for specific steps, my prayers leave the “how” in the hands of God, and focus instead on the ordinary people whose lives have been forever changed by this violence, may they be protected, comforted, and healed, and may peace prevail even after the horrors of war.}

{Lastly, talking to my Bible Study group and leading FB Live prayers just after October 7^th, I said, “There are no good choices left.”  I then explained that whatever the government of Israel did next, the choices would all be bad, and the cost high.  The same calculus existed for the Palestinians, they would only have bad choices left to them after what Hamas had done.  That wasn’t prophecy, simply an awareness of history because humanity has seen this cycle play out over and over again.  Unfortunately, this time hasn’t been an exception to the rule, this war has been like so many others that preceded it.  Whatever happens next, let us pray for those in need, let us hope for justice and peace.}

Sermon Video: In the beginning God - Genesis 1:1-2

Why did Moses write Genesis 1-3, and why did the Holy Spirit inspire him to do so?  The answer to that question isn't to satisfy modern Western reader's desires to know how and when God created, but rather to speak to the Ancient Near Eastern culture's thirst for the answer to the questions of who and why.  In the end, that's what Genesis will give us because it is about the relationship between God and humanity, and ultimately between God and his chosen people.  For them, the who was the same God who had led them up out of Egypt to Sinai, and the why they already were experiencing as God laid forth his covenant with them, building on the covenant with Abraham.

Is the earth 6,000 years old or 6 billion?  That's not a question Genesis is trying to answer.  Did God use evolutionary processes or not?  That's not on its radar either.  What we do find in Genesis 1-3 is the foundation to answer the most important questions of life: Who am I?  Why am I here?

Sermon Video: With Jesus on the road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-35

What did Jesus do on the afternoon of Easter Sunday?  As it turns out, he took a walk with two of his disciples and spent a few hours explaining to them how the Hebrew prophets of old had predicted everything that would happen to the Messiah, including his suffering and death.  As we celebrate Easter, let us remember our need to share this Good News with those who need it most.

Our video feed wasn't ended as usual when the sermon concluded, so this video also includes my prayer for Israel and Gaza and our final hymn.