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.
