Here is what the apostles preached (openly proclaimed) about Christ in a nutshell:
What does the Bible say about preaching a different gospel
Here is the complete text of what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost:
This preaching, this open proclamation of who Jesus was, and what was to be believed on for salvation, does not say anything about believing on Jesus in either a Trinitarian or Modalistic Monarchian (Onenessian) fashion; in fact, it refutes both.
Do Trinitarians or Modalistic Monarchians (or any other Incarnationalists) sincerely believe verse 2:22:
According to Incarnationists, Jesus wasn’t a man approved by God, rather, he was God himself incarnate as a man. Recall that we already saw that Jesus himself refuted the idea that he was an incarnation. Being “a man approved of God” and being “an incarnation of God” are two totally incompatible concepts. Which one did Peter preach that isn’t to be perverted?
In point of fact, Acts 2:22 is the “Hear O Israel” verse of the New Testament! Deut. 6:4, was the “Hear O Israel” verse of the OT. It was quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29, and began, “Hear O Israel” with the word akuio/hear. Likewise, Peter begins to preach Christ with the same Greek word used by Jesus: hear/akuio!
Peter said, Hear: “a man approved of God” which is both accurate and proficient. If Peter was Modalistic Monarchian, why didn’t he declare Jesus was God like Modalistic Monarchians preach him to be? Why didn’t he talk like a modalist, let alone emphasize the things modalists emphasize? Could it be because Modalists preach a different Jesus than Peter preached on that monumental occasion!
Do modalists believe, let alone preach, Acts 2:23:
This doesn’t say “his human nature” was delivered up and killed. It says he was. It is talking about the person of Jesus the Anointed One: “him”. It was this man who was approved of God that was put to death and whom we are to believe on for salvation!
Do Incarnationists, and modalists in particular, sincerely believe what Peter preached in verse 2:24:
“ whom God raised up , having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.”
This does not say, “Jesus raised himself”, not at all! Twice in this chapter it is God who raised Jesus the man approved of God! Jesus is preached as a different “whom” than God, not a distinct nature in a two-natured individual personality.
Could it be that Jesus clearly explained himself in other passages in a way that runs completely contrary to the conclusion that he “raised himself” from the dead:
In what way did Jesus explain himself to be the very person of God incarnate who was operating through his own impersonal human nature? In no way!
Rather, he clearly explained the exact opposite:
So in one, sole passage Jesus claimed that he would raise his body up [John 2.19], by which some folks conclude he could only mean he was God incarnate; but in many subsequent explanations he clarified, explicitly to the contrary, that he could actually do nothing of himself and that the Father gave him the authority by commandment to rise from the dead. As for the bulk of the Scriptures on the subject, the rest all teach that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, was personally distinct from the one whom God raised from the dead. Here are some of those passages:
In all the occurrences of the apostles “preaching” Christ in the book of Acts, not once did they ever preach that Jesus was God himself who rose himself from the dead and the body that was raised was just God’s human nature. Nor did any of the epistles ever teach, or explain in detail, that Christ rose himself from the dead as pertaining to his human nature.
Saving faith here, according to Paul’s explicit teaching, means to believe that “God raised him” indicating in the clearest terms they were two distinct personal entities, not mere natures of one entity. Paul strongly implies that this is a salvational issue: “if” you believe this, “that God raised him”, “then” you shall be saved!
The context for 1 Corinthians 15:12–15 is the apostle’s certainty of the resurrection of Jesus the Anointed One. And part of that established truth is the element about God: “that He raised up the Anointed One.” These very terms indicate in the strongest manner that, in raising Christ, God did not raise Himself up from the dead. This, nor any other verse, says Jesus’s deific nature raised his human nature [or his “human mode of existence,” or any other such modalistic verbage].
Those who claim to the contrary, saying that Jesus, as God, raised himself from the dead, either don’t believe that Jesus himself was truly dead, or they must redefine death. For the Scripture says, “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave” (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
Thus, to be honest with the scriptures, we must conclude that the Modalistic Monarchian faith is a dead faith according to Paul’s explicit wording. Modalistic Monarchians have to modify, that is, pervert, Paul’s words in order to make their position sound feasible.
Many other verses could be added to the list of the scriptures that teach that God didn’t raise himself up, rather, he rose up a different personality, a different who, which is Jesus the Anointed One, but lets get back to the Jesus whom the apostles preached....
Do Modalistic Monarchians sincerely believe Acts 2:34-35:
It is nothing but a lie for anyone to claim that Psalm 110:1 is referring to God’s deific nature in contrast to his human nature. This passage in the Hebrew is very, very clear that two individual personalities are being spoken of, not two natures of one personality.
So, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter was not openly proclaiming a view of “God coming to earth in the form of a hybrid man-God”. Rather, Peter proclaimed the good news of a man who was foreordained by God, was made lord (king) and Christ (anointed one) (therefore was not personally inherently either) and this man, approved by God, was taken up to God and has been personally exalted by God!
Therefore, we must also ask whether Modalistic Monarchians accept or reject Acts 2:36:
God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. If “lord” is a reference to deity in Psalm 110:1 (which Peter quoted), then God made someone else to be God. No!
(For point of reference, in Mark 10:37, James and John asked Jesus to grant that they be seated at his right and left hand).
Therefore, any contention that Psalm 110:1 is speaking of Jesus’ deific nature in contrast to his human nature isn’t to be excused as merely shoddy, highly biased, scholarship. Instead, it needs to be understood in the terms Jesus gave of those who don’t hear Jesus’ word, and it was Jesus who commissioned and sent Peter to preach the foundational saving gospel.
Therefore, it is legitimate to question whether Modalistic Monarchians even believe in the truth that is openly stated in one of their own favorite verses: Acts 2:38:
Why is it legitimate to say that this verse is lost to Modalistic Monarchians, even though it is by far one of their favorite verses? Because to divorce this verse from the context of what Peter preached and declared in the preceding 15 verses is to disconnect it from the clearly stated, absolutely concrete, immutable concepts of salvation that Peter was actually establishing (which equate to being the keys of the kingdom that were given to Peter!). How shall we obey from the heart words we don’t really understand? And do we really believe and obey if we must first redefine and explain Peter’s words to mean something he never actually said? So what did he say?
If turning to this Jesus is the true repentance, just as Peter defined and declared it, then isn’t this the same repentance we should be preaching today? Some of us do, we call ourselves by various names: “son of God” or “one God” or my least favorite “biblical unitarians.”
Secondly, Peter preached, it is into the name of this man that we are to be baptized into. Peter directs us to be immersed into the very one the Jews rejected: a man approved of God whom God made lord and Christ and raised from the dead!
Thirdly, it is into the title of the man; and that title is where all the explanation of who we are talking about comes from.
Christ didn’t glorify himself. This echoes the words of Jesus who said he did not come out from himself, and so forth that we covered earlier.
Peter clearly openly proclaimed to be baptized into Jesus “the anointed one” not Jesus “God incarnated.”
The other apostles were just as consistent as Peter was in preaching that Jesus was a man anointed by God who was personally separate and distinct from God:
Notice that Jesus was given his name, not that his name proves he is the person of God that gave it to him.
Let us now summarize the key points of Paul’s first fully recorded preaching in Acts 13. These are the important points that this man who encountered Jesus himself felt was his duty to preach:
v.17 God chose our fathers and exalted people…
v.20 He gave judges…
v.21 God gave Saul…
v.22 removed him and raised David…
v.23 Of this man’s [David’s] seed has God raised unto Israel a Savior Jesus…
v.30 God raised him from the dead…
v.33 God has fulfilled…in that he has raised Jesus…Thou art my Son this day have I begotten you…
v.34 [God said] I will give you the sure mercies of David [the Davidic covenant]…
v.37 He whom God raised…
v.38 Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things.
Paul preached Christ as a man; not as God incarnate! Paul, like Jesus explained of himself, and like Peter also did, preached Jesus in the terminology of “agency,” rather than “identity.” These terms of agency are the elements of the “preached” Jesus that Paul warned us not to be moved away from. In none of these is the Trinity or Oneness doctrine set forth or even implied. Thus yet again, the true, preached, Son of God doctrine that we have been pointing to is the true saving view of Jesus Christ.
Being that this is the “Good News”, that “Jesus of Nazareth” is “a man approved by God”, why is it so evil to you
Notes: Following, for your reference, are all the passages in which Christ is “preached” without ever once being preached as an incarnation of the Father or as the second person in a mythological Trinity: Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 7:2–53; 8:32–37; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:22–31; 18:4–5; 26:2–23.
This same Jesus that the apostles consistently and clearly preached on for salvation, is the Jesus that I am preaching to you today. If I am wrong or insufficient, then so were the apostles.
What will you preach when it is your turn? You have heard the true “good news of Jesus the Anointed One” in regard to who he personally was and is. Will you continue to pervert it, or will you hear what Peter proclaimed?
When anyone preaches Jesus to be someone other than whom the apostles preached him to be, they are saying that Paul lied and was confused when he said that anyone who preached any other gospel than they preached was to be accursed.
I have preached unto you, and taught, the gospel of Jesus the anointed one instead.
Will you now debate over whether the word of God that the apostles preached is true and accurate, or hopelessly deficient without the greater insight of your learned scholars? Do the apostles, if they were raised to life today, need to become disciples to your “scholars” also so they [the apostles] may know what words and phrases to use to more perfectly expound what Jesus and the apostles meant to say but fell woefully short on? Or are the apostles words true: if any man preach any other gospel, let them be accursed? We ought to obey God rather than man, and Christ, who spoke the words of God, said for us to believe on the words of the apostles.
It is quite apparent that many people who claim to be “preaching the gospel of Jesus the Anointed” simply cannot do as I have done, and go through the book of Acts and include every single event where the gospel was preached and show anywhere at all where they used Trinitarian or Onenessian language like dual natures, incarnation, Christ is God, etc.
Since others can’t preach the same gospel that the apostles preached regarding Christ, how are they not sinning against Galatians Chapter one which says not to preach any other gospel? Since others can’t teach their “gospel” without adding doctrines like incarnation, dual natures and saying “Jesus is God the Father in human form” how are they not sinning against the commandment in 1 Tim. 1:3 to “teach no other doctrine”?
Is it comely to have to sin against commandments in the NT in order to preach the “true” gospel which is a “gospel” the apostles never preached the way your “preachers” do?
It is precisely this that Peter calls you to repent of: to change your mind, and believe on Jesus Christ of Nazareth, a man approved of God.
What will you do now, repent or resist and refute the very words of the apostles and even of Jesus himself?
For further study into the biblical teaching of the son of God doctrine, here are links to my book:
These may be freely shared as long as they are kept intact.
The book is available at Amazon if anyone wants a paperback copy.
In Christ,
Tom Raddatz
Here’s a very good video from a new-found friend of mine, Andy Denny:
Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology - Finding Our Views in History, Volume 2, Incarnation Origins
Here are some pertinent videos from my friend J. Dan Gill that cover some of these:
Oneness and Trinity Myths - Myths 1-3 - J. Dan Gill
Oneness and Trinity Myths - Myths 4-6 - J. Dan Gill
The above article was taken from:
The Gospel Preached
- 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him… 36 … God has made him both Lord [King] and Christ [the Anointed One], this Jesus whom you crucified.”
(Acts 2:22–23, 36; see also Acts 3:13–26, 5:29–32, 7:37, 7:54–56, 13:16–41, etc.)
What does the Bible say about preaching a different gospel
- 6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another good news: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the good news of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other good news unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6–9, KJV)
- “…I fear, lest somehow… he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached …you may well put up with it!” (2 Corinthians 11:2–4, NKJV)
Here is the complete text of what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost:
- 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know, 23 him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; 24 whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it. 25 For David… 30…being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this, which you now see and hear. 34 For David didn’t ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, ‘The Lord [YHWH = God] said to my Lord [adoni = sovereign, most frequent usage is of a human lord], ‘Sit by my right hand, 35Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has MADE him both Lord [sovereign] and Anointed One, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:22–36)
This preaching, this open proclamation of who Jesus was, and what was to be believed on for salvation, does not say anything about believing on Jesus in either a Trinitarian or Modalistic Monarchian (Onenessian) fashion; in fact, it refutes both.
Do Trinitarians or Modalistic Monarchians (or any other Incarnationalists) sincerely believe verse 2:22:
- "Men of Israel, hear these words ! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know”
According to Incarnationists, Jesus wasn’t a man approved by God, rather, he was God himself incarnate as a man. Recall that we already saw that Jesus himself refuted the idea that he was an incarnation. Being “a man approved of God” and being “an incarnation of God” are two totally incompatible concepts. Which one did Peter preach that isn’t to be perverted?
In point of fact, Acts 2:22 is the “Hear O Israel” verse of the New Testament! Deut. 6:4, was the “Hear O Israel” verse of the OT. It was quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29, and began, “Hear O Israel” with the word akuio/hear. Likewise, Peter begins to preach Christ with the same Greek word used by Jesus: hear/akuio!
Peter said, Hear: “a man approved of God” which is both accurate and proficient. If Peter was Modalistic Monarchian, why didn’t he declare Jesus was God like Modalistic Monarchians preach him to be? Why didn’t he talk like a modalist, let alone emphasize the things modalists emphasize? Could it be because Modalists preach a different Jesus than Peter preached on that monumental occasion!
Do modalists believe, let alone preach, Acts 2:23:
- “ him , being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed ”
This doesn’t say “his human nature” was delivered up and killed. It says he was. It is talking about the person of Jesus the Anointed One: “him”. It was this man who was approved of God that was put to death and whom we are to believe on for salvation!
Do Incarnationists, and modalists in particular, sincerely believe what Peter preached in verse 2:24:
“ whom God raised up , having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.”
This does not say, “Jesus raised himself”, not at all! Twice in this chapter it is God who raised Jesus the man approved of God! Jesus is preached as a different “whom” than God, not a distinct nature in a two-natured individual personality.
Could it be that Jesus clearly explained himself in other passages in a way that runs completely contrary to the conclusion that he “raised himself” from the dead:
- 19 “Jesus therefore answered them, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires. 22 For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son… 26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself . 27 He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man…30 I can of myself do nothing.” (John 5:19–30)
- 17 “Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)
In what way did Jesus explain himself to be the very person of God incarnate who was operating through his own impersonal human nature? In no way!
Rather, he clearly explained the exact opposite:
- The son can do nothing of himself
- The Father gave to his son authority and to have life in himself (therefore, the Father’s life is inherent, but the son’s life was not inherent—it was given to him)
- Jesus received the power to take up his life again by commandment from the Father
So in one, sole passage Jesus claimed that he would raise his body up [John 2.19], by which some folks conclude he could only mean he was God incarnate; but in many subsequent explanations he clarified, explicitly to the contrary, that he could actually do nothing of himself and that the Father gave him the authority by commandment to rise from the dead. As for the bulk of the Scriptures on the subject, the rest all teach that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, was personally distinct from the one whom God raised from the dead. Here are some of those passages:
- 14 “But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, to which we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:14–15)
- 10 “Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus the Anointed One of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand here before you whole. 11 He is ‘the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.’ 12 There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!” (Acts 4:10–12)
- ... 34 Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’” (Acts 13:34)
In all the occurrences of the apostles “preaching” Christ in the book of Acts, not once did they ever preach that Jesus was God himself who rose himself from the dead and the body that was raised was just God’s human nature. Nor did any of the epistles ever teach, or explain in detail, that Christ rose himself from the dead as pertaining to his human nature.
- 6 “But the righteousness which is of faith... 8...that is, the word of faith, which we preach: 9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:6–9)
Saving faith here, according to Paul’s explicit teaching, means to believe that “God raised him” indicating in the clearest terms they were two distinct personal entities, not mere natures of one entity. Paul strongly implies that this is a salvational issue: “if” you believe this, “that God raised him”, “then” you shall be saved!
- 12 “Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead , how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. 14 If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain . 15 Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised.
(1 Corinthians 15:12–15)
The context for 1 Corinthians 15:12–15 is the apostle’s certainty of the resurrection of Jesus the Anointed One. And part of that established truth is the element about God: “that He raised up the Anointed One.” These very terms indicate in the strongest manner that, in raising Christ, God did not raise Himself up from the dead. This, nor any other verse, says Jesus’s deific nature raised his human nature [or his “human mode of existence,” or any other such modalistic verbage].
Those who claim to the contrary, saying that Jesus, as God, raised himself from the dead, either don’t believe that Jesus himself was truly dead, or they must redefine death. For the Scripture says, “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave” (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
Thus, to be honest with the scriptures, we must conclude that the Modalistic Monarchian faith is a dead faith according to Paul’s explicit wording. Modalistic Monarchians have to modify, that is, pervert, Paul’s words in order to make their position sound feasible.
Many other verses could be added to the list of the scriptures that teach that God didn’t raise himself up, rather, he rose up a different personality, a different who, which is Jesus the Anointed One, but lets get back to the Jesus whom the apostles preached....
Do Modalistic Monarchians sincerely believe Acts 2:34-35:
- “34 For David didn't ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 'The Lord (YHVH) said to my lord (adoni - human ruler), "Sit by my right hand, 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
It is nothing but a lie for anyone to claim that Psalm 110:1 is referring to God’s deific nature in contrast to his human nature. This passage in the Hebrew is very, very clear that two individual personalities are being spoken of, not two natures of one personality.
So, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter was not openly proclaiming a view of “God coming to earth in the form of a hybrid man-God”. Rather, Peter proclaimed the good news of a man who was foreordained by God, was made lord (king) and Christ (anointed one) (therefore was not personally inherently either) and this man, approved by God, was taken up to God and has been personally exalted by God!
Therefore, we must also ask whether Modalistic Monarchians accept or reject Acts 2:36:
- "Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. If “lord” is a reference to deity in Psalm 110:1 (which Peter quoted), then God made someone else to be God. No!
The lower-case word “lord” comes from the Hebrew word adoni ("adonee"), which occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and is never once the title of Deity!Everyone reading the Hebrew knew that adoni ("my lord," not "my Lord") announced the amazing truth that a human person was to be exalted to be the right-hand MAN, next to the One God, YHVH.
(For point of reference, in Mark 10:37, James and John asked Jesus to grant that they be seated at his right and left hand).
Therefore, any contention that Psalm 110:1 is speaking of Jesus’ deific nature in contrast to his human nature isn’t to be excused as merely shoddy, highly biased, scholarship. Instead, it needs to be understood in the terms Jesus gave of those who don’t hear Jesus’ word, and it was Jesus who commissioned and sent Peter to preach the foundational saving gospel.
Therefore, it is legitimate to question whether Modalistic Monarchians even believe in the truth that is openly stated in one of their own favorite verses: Acts 2:38:
- “Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Anointed for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Why is it legitimate to say that this verse is lost to Modalistic Monarchians, even though it is by far one of their favorite verses? Because to divorce this verse from the context of what Peter preached and declared in the preceding 15 verses is to disconnect it from the clearly stated, absolutely concrete, immutable concepts of salvation that Peter was actually establishing (which equate to being the keys of the kingdom that were given to Peter!). How shall we obey from the heart words we don’t really understand? And do we really believe and obey if we must first redefine and explain Peter’s words to mean something he never actually said? So what did he say?
First, repent: change your mind. He is telling people to change their mind, in particular, regarding Jesus of Nazareth! The whole matter regarding Jesus being the Messiah is what Peter was telling the Jews: they had rejected Jesus as a man approved by God. So, Peter had just clearly explained to them who Jesus truly is, and what they were to believe regarding him: a man approved of God and set at God’s right hand, and that God has made him lord, and that God has made him Messiah!
If turning to this Jesus is the true repentance, just as Peter defined and declared it, then isn’t this the same repentance we should be preaching today? Some of us do, we call ourselves by various names: “son of God” or “one God” or my least favorite “biblical unitarians.”
Secondly, Peter preached, it is into the name of this man that we are to be baptized into. Peter directs us to be immersed into the very one the Jews rejected: a man approved of God whom God made lord and Christ and raised from the dead!
Thirdly, it is into the title of the man; and that title is where all the explanation of who we are talking about comes from.
- Heb. 5:1 For every high priest, being taken from among men , is appointed for men in things pertaining to God... 4 Nobody takes this honor on himself , but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. 5 So also Christ didn't glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, "You are my Son. Today I have become your father."
- For emphasis: 4 Nobody takes this honor on himself , but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. 5 So also Christ didn't glorify himself
Christ didn’t glorify himself. This echoes the words of Jesus who said he did not come out from himself, and so forth that we covered earlier.
Peter clearly openly proclaimed to be baptized into Jesus “the anointed one” not Jesus “God incarnated.”
The other apostles were just as consistent as Peter was in preaching that Jesus was a man anointed by God who was personally separate and distinct from God:
- 13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up, and denied…15 whom God raised from the dead, to which we are witnesses…
- 18 “…the things which God announced by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled…22 For Moses indeed said to the fathers, “The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. 23 It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.”…
- 26 God, having raised up His servant, Jesus, sent him to you first, to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from your wickedness.” (Acts 3:13–26)
- 10 “be it known to you all…the name of Jesus the Anointed One of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead... 11 He is 'the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.' 12 There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men , by which we must be saved!” (Acts 4:10-12).
Notice that Jesus was given his name, not that his name proves he is the person of God that gave it to him.
- 29 “But Peter and the apostles answered... 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
(Acts 5:29–32) - 37 “This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me…’ 54 Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:37, 7:54–56)
- 20 “Immediately in the synagogues he proclaimed the Anointed One, that he is the Son of God. 21 All who heard him were amazed… 22 But Saul increased more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived at Damascus, proving that this is the Anointed One. ” (Acts 9:20–22)
- 16 “Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen. 17 The God of this people chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they stayed as aliens in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm, he led them out of it…20 After these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. 21 Afterward they asked for a king, and God gave to them Saul...22 When he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, to whom he also testified…23 From this man’s seed, God has brought salvation to Israel according to his promise…26 Brothers…the word of this salvation is sent out to you.27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem… 28 Though they found no cause for death, they still asked Pilate to have him killed…30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and he was seen for many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people. 32 We bring you good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father.’ 34 Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ 35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘You will not allow your Holy One to see decay.’ 36 For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw decay. 37 But he whom God raised up saw no decay. 38 Be it known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man is proclaimed to you remission of sins, 39 and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40 Beware therefore, lest that come on you which is spoken in the prophets: 41 ‘Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which you will in no way believe, if one declares it to you.’” (Acts 13:16–41)
Let us now summarize the key points of Paul’s first fully recorded preaching in Acts 13. These are the important points that this man who encountered Jesus himself felt was his duty to preach:
v.17 God chose our fathers and exalted people…
v.20 He gave judges…
v.21 God gave Saul…
v.22 removed him and raised David…
v.23 Of this man’s [David’s] seed has God raised unto Israel a Savior Jesus…
v.30 God raised him from the dead…
v.33 God has fulfilled…in that he has raised Jesus…Thou art my Son this day have I begotten you…
v.34 [God said] I will give you the sure mercies of David [the Davidic covenant]…
v.37 He whom God raised…
v.38 Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things.
Paul preached Christ as a man; not as God incarnate! Paul, like Jesus explained of himself, and like Peter also did, preached Jesus in the terminology of “agency,” rather than “identity.” These terms of agency are the elements of the “preached” Jesus that Paul warned us not to be moved away from. In none of these is the Trinity or Oneness doctrine set forth or even implied. Thus yet again, the true, preached, Son of God doctrine that we have been pointing to is the true saving view of Jesus Christ.
Being that this is the “Good News”, that “Jesus of Nazareth” is “a man approved by God”, why is it so evil to you
Notes: Following, for your reference, are all the passages in which Christ is “preached” without ever once being preached as an incarnation of the Father or as the second person in a mythological Trinity: Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 7:2–53; 8:32–37; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:22–31; 18:4–5; 26:2–23.
This same Jesus that the apostles consistently and clearly preached on for salvation, is the Jesus that I am preaching to you today. If I am wrong or insufficient, then so were the apostles.
What will you preach when it is your turn? You have heard the true “good news of Jesus the Anointed One” in regard to who he personally was and is. Will you continue to pervert it, or will you hear what Peter proclaimed?
When anyone preaches Jesus to be someone other than whom the apostles preached him to be, they are saying that Paul lied and was confused when he said that anyone who preached any other gospel than they preached was to be accursed.
I have preached unto you, and taught, the gospel of Jesus the anointed one instead.
Will you now debate over whether the word of God that the apostles preached is true and accurate, or hopelessly deficient without the greater insight of your learned scholars? Do the apostles, if they were raised to life today, need to become disciples to your “scholars” also so they [the apostles] may know what words and phrases to use to more perfectly expound what Jesus and the apostles meant to say but fell woefully short on? Or are the apostles words true: if any man preach any other gospel, let them be accursed? We ought to obey God rather than man, and Christ, who spoke the words of God, said for us to believe on the words of the apostles.
It is quite apparent that many people who claim to be “preaching the gospel of Jesus the Anointed” simply cannot do as I have done, and go through the book of Acts and include every single event where the gospel was preached and show anywhere at all where they used Trinitarian or Onenessian language like dual natures, incarnation, Christ is God, etc.
Since others can’t preach the same gospel that the apostles preached regarding Christ, how are they not sinning against Galatians Chapter one which says not to preach any other gospel? Since others can’t teach their “gospel” without adding doctrines like incarnation, dual natures and saying “Jesus is God the Father in human form” how are they not sinning against the commandment in 1 Tim. 1:3 to “teach no other doctrine”?
Is it comely to have to sin against commandments in the NT in order to preach the “true” gospel which is a “gospel” the apostles never preached the way your “preachers” do?
It is precisely this that Peter calls you to repent of: to change your mind, and believe on Jesus Christ of Nazareth, a man approved of God.
- 1 “Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 2 even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:1-3).
What will you do now, repent or resist and refute the very words of the apostles and even of Jesus himself?
- “Jesus answered and said to him, 'If any one may love me, MY WORD he will keep, and my Father will love him, and unto him we will come, and abode with him we will make”
(John 14:23, Young’s Literal Translation) - “22 ‘For Moses, indeed, unto the fathers said — A prophet to you shall the Lord your God raise up out of your brethren, like to me; him shall ye hear in all things, as many as he may speak unto you; 23 and it shall be, every soul that may not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed out of the people;” (Acts 3:22-23)
- “Jesus then said to them, 'If [the] God were your father, ye were loving me, for I came forth from [the] God, and am come; for neither have I come of myself, but He sent me;”
[John 8:42] (Young’s Literal Translation)
For further study into the biblical teaching of the son of God doctrine, here are links to my book:
- “I Am Not Alone; A Study on the Son of God Doctrine by an Ex-Oneness Advocate”
{Editor: Currently unavailable - and my PowerPoint slide introduction of the book’s material:
- http://1lord1faith.org/IANA/IANA_Intro.pdf
- http://1lord1faith.org/IANA/IANA.pdf
}
These may be freely shared as long as they are kept intact.
The book is available at Amazon if anyone wants a paperback copy.
In Christ,
Tom Raddatz
Here’s a very good video from a new-found friend of mine, Andy Denny:
Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology - Finding Our Views in History, Volume 2, Incarnation Origins
Here are some pertinent videos from my friend J. Dan Gill that cover some of these:
Oneness and Trinity Myths - Myths 1-3 - J. Dan Gill
Oneness and Trinity Myths - Myths 4-6 - J. Dan Gill
The above article was taken from:
The Gospel Preached
