Did God Destroy Sodom from God in Heaven? Rabbi Singer Destroys the Trinity Claim

Yahweh on earth reigns down from Yahweh in heaven. This is one God more than one person. This isn't modalism and it's not confusion. This this is the God of the Bible. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. >> She said she's going to prove this and she does not only fails to prove it, she proves the exact opposite. And she said there's a Holy Ghost in there and there's no Holy Ghost in there. mouth. Holy Ghost got kicked off the team. So this is a a nagging problem for Christians. And the nagging problem is is that the doctrine of the trinity, the notion that God is one but in three distinct persons is a later Christian invention. It developed in the let's say in the 3rd century and was established as Christian orthodoxy in the 4th century at the council non. The problem Christians have is that when you go back to the Hebrew Bible, you don't find the doctrine of the trinity. In fact, let's not gerine to our conversation. You don't find doctrine of the trinity in the Christian Bible. This was such a profound problem for Christians incidentally that somewhere along the line Christians wanted a trinitarian passage in the New Testament and inserted just such a passage in the first epistle of John 5:7. However, that's not germaine for our topic today because we have a Christian who insists that you can prove the doctrine of the trinity, the orthodox doctrine of the trinity from the Torah itself. >> Here's a verse that completely flips the script on people who say the trinity is not in the Bible. Genesis 19:24 says, "Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Hold on. What? The Lord rains down fire and brimstone from the Lord. This is not a copying air. The Hebrew says, "Yahweh rain down fire from Yahweh out of heaven." Yahweh from Yahweh. So, we've got Yahweh on earth who had just finished speaking with Abraham earlier in the chapter. And now, this same Yahweh reigns down judgment from a different Yahweh in heaven. Yahweh on earth reigns down from Yahweh in heaven. This is one God more than one person. This isn't modalism and it's not confusion. This this is the God of the Bible. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As it turns out, in the beginning of this very same chapter, using her words, we're actually told explicitly that it's two angels that come down to Saddam and encounter lot. And the story continues here. But what she's doing is she's forcing trying to somehow force a Torah which is completely unitarian. I mean, there's one god and there's no one else besides him. and she's seeking to pry it in some way to make it express the doctrine of trinity which means she's taking the five books of Moses and she's trying to add a voice to it that emerges from the council of Nika which is the fourth century. How does she do that? She does that by stripping a passage of all of its grammar. Let's take a look at this passage. she believes is so convincing of the doctrine of the trinity. The text in Genesis 19, this is verse 24. The context is that these two angels arrive in Sudom for the purpose of rescuing lot and destroying Saddam. Now if we look at this passage and God rained down on Sodom and Gomorra sulfur and fire. Now she keeps going as though there's no grammar here at all. Hashem who's from the Lord from heaven. What has she done? She's put up the text, but the text has there's no grammar there. And without grammar, you can get into trouble. Like the famous book that the panda eats, shoots, and leaves. It's a famous title because wherever you place the grammar uh will convey what is going on here. either of being told that a panda bear walks into a restaurant, has dinner, and then he shoots up the place and he walks out. Well, that's one way of inserting the grammar. Or this sentence could be conveying the diet of a very famous bear. It just you just play with the grammar and you have something. In fact, that's the point of this very famous book. So commas and in this case you have an esna is an unambiguous grammatical device that tells there's a separation here. So the text reads, "And the Lord rained down on Sodom and Amora, sulfur and fire." And under the word voes, there's a grammatical device called anak. Now that was always there, but it became it was recorded in the system we have today. Let's say 8th 9th century when our system of writing was there. She doesn't point to that, ignores it completely and she has to in order to come up with I don't mean this disrespectfully but it's a completely convoluted point. So there's a stop there and then the text goes on to say and it's from the Lord from heaven. Now in the Torah, this is would not be done typically in laabdul English writing. If you write write books, you you you're more you don't restate something. I know what happened here. She saw this on pastor Google and she decided that she's going to repeat it. And I'm sure that she is completely illiterate in Hebrew. It has to be. It has to be that she's illiterate in Hebrew because she acted with so much confidence that if she was knew the truth and lying I presume that she would fumble a little bit but she was fooled into believing this. Now I want to be very clear that there are many many Christians who know this and this is reflected in many Christian translations not all of them. A lot of them play this game as though there's no grammar in the text. There's no poison text. Many of them do. For instance, the original King James version, the KJV, did not have a grammar to distinguish these two points. But the New King James at least puts a comma there. So you know that there's some device. Now here the esto really should be in English grammar what's called an m dash or a semicolon. An m dash really shows that there's really a pause here. And the second part when you have an m dash which is wider than a hyphen. It's telling you that there's it's not just a link between the first and the second which would be like a semicolon. You could use a semicolon there as well, but the amish is really the ideal device to represent this as nakta. And if you look at the new international version, which is not a fan of Judaism, the NIV is a very famous translation. is probably one of the most wellused does put an M dash there to convey to its readers that there's a pause and there's a link between the last part of Genesis 19:4 and the first part but you have to take a big pause. The Burian Bible which again just like the NIV is a evangelical translation. These are not done by liberals. This is not a these uh the Buran Bible was is recent I think it was only translated like it's only created I think three or four years ago they also have the M dash that is the correct punctuation the English language to convey that there's a pause and that the last part of the verse is emphasizing or restating but with emphasis the first part of the verse that they're linked. You could use a semicolon, too, but a semicolon here would be a little strong, but it doesn't matter. But if you take a sentence, of course, and you strip it of its grammar, of all the punctuation marks, of course, you're going to misread the text. And she makes believe that, oh, there's just no grammar there at all. And it's kind of a game. Now she does not help her cause because she said this is not modalism. If we take what she said on face value. So then it very much is modalism because in this text in in this text it literally says in in Hashem the shame hashem is used v the tetrogrammaton is used. The inevitable name of God is used. It says from yud vauv from the tetrogrammatin from from heaven which means it really does use the same name of god with no distinction of persons. What she said is completely untrue and it is modalism. I'll explain what that means in a moment. And then she just stuck in and this is where she was she was being inappropriate. Meaning she then said this is the Holy Spirit is there too. Well, there is no three. There's just two. Even if we corrupt the text the way she has it and ignore the so there's only two and there is no distinction of persons as she claims. This would be complete modalism. Just briefly in 30 seconds what is sebellionism mean? What does modalism mean? This is a heresy of the church. The church tries to solve a problem and I write about this in volume one of let's get let's get biblical in more details and that is that if God is clearly one in Tanakh and there's no one else besides him he alone is Lord chapter 9 verse 6. So Christians struggled and fought over this doctrine of the trinity. The word was develop was coined by a co a church let's say we he's technically not a church father but we'll call him a church father a theologian let's say at the very beginning of the 3 century tertullian he was a Christian thinker from Carthage North Africa he didn't even believe in it which means he believed that there was a point in time that the father existed the did not exist. So his he didn't believe in the doctrine of the trinity as hammered out at the council of Nya. This is a this the doctrine of the trinity is developed over time. But the problem the church is struggling with is in the Hebrew Bible there's only one God and there's nothing else besides him. So how could Jesus be God and the father be God? And saying that the father is God is not a statement of predication but a statement of identity. Means the father equals God. The son equals God but the father doesn't equal the that doesn't make sense. The father doesn't equal the son. It's illogical. So modalism states as an example let's say I am one person to I am also a son right. I'm also a brother and I'm also I'm a father but I'm the same thing. That's modalism means three modes but the same thing and there's no distinction between them. There's no distinction of each one possessing a hyperstatic entity. Now that's what I like to avoid is unconventional language. The church loves unconventional language when discussing a doctrine of the trinity because they have to hide behind it. They have to use terms like persons. What does that even mean? You understand? Now this not this idea of modalism which she said she's dodging. She's not dodging. She's slapped in the face with it because she's saying that there's a god on earth, heaven forbid, and a god in heaven. It's the exact same name. There is no distinct. So she she said she's going to prove this and she does not only fails to prove it, she proves the exact opposite. and she said there's a Holy Ghost in there and there's no Holy Ghost in this amount. Holy Ghost got kicked off the team. So it's all nonsense. As I said, I encourage people the NIV does an exceptional job here by placing the M dash. That's the dash that's as wide as the letter M. And that that really is the ideal I can think of the ideal grammatical device to convey the linkage between the two. But there's there's a pause there. I just want to explain why do the Torah repeat it. So there's a very good reason. Those of you who are familiar with this chapter, Genesis 19, which is the story of the destruction of Sudom, would immediately recognize why the Torah goes out of its way to restate that you should know that this sulfur and fire comes from God. Why the Torah reemphasizes? So this is something that does require a little bit of a look. Why the Torah restate it and our sages are always dealing with this? Because this grammatical device meaning repeating something over again which those of you are Hebrew readers of the of the Torah know that this is all over the place where the same topic is repeated and all commentaries of course want to assist us and explain why there could be no passage in anywhere in Tanakh where it's more clear than Genesis 19:4. for our passage which this trinitarian Christian marshaled and abused. And I'll show you why. The reason why the Torah goes out of its way to know this comes from God. Because if you go to the Torah in the same chapter, but rewind a little bit, you can very well conclude that God did not destroy Saddam, but rather the angels destroyed Sudom. So I want to ask you to do this with me. If you go to, as an example, Genesis 19, but we're going to go 11 passages earlier, not verse 24. We're going to back up to Genesis 19:13. And you'll see very clearly there why one would think that the angels who are messengers of God destroyed Sudum. And the Torah says literally the angels are speaking here in verse 13, for we are about to destroy this place because the outcry against its people has become great before God and the God sent us to destroy it. Can there be a more explicit verse than this? That the angels which were told in Genesis 19:1 are the ones who are speaking. They're the ones who come. It openly says that God sent the angels to destroy it. That locks up the whole thing. I always hope, my dear brothers and sisters, that anytime you're confronted with a passage by those who are hostile to the Unitarian absolute oneness of God, always read the context. If you read the context, you're you're fine. And I iso Jesus is the best friend of a trinitarian. Meaning reading a passage out of context is buddies for the church. They love that. Why do they love it? Because they have to explain away all the iniquities of the church. And namely it's polytheism. It's trinitarian beliefs. It's not modalism. They believe Christians trinitarians insist that the father has unique properties that the son does not have. Moreover, they hold that the father literally generated the son. What does that even mean? He generated the son. What do you mean he? What does that mean? He generated the son. The orthodox church holds that the father alone spirated the holy spirit and not the son. Son had no part of that. I'm not. And you ask what is spirate? That's another word that should be thrown in prison cuz that's a word. It's a criminal word that's designed that's unconventional, designed to mask the truth. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church holds that the Catholic Church is heretical because the Catholic Church in its Nyian creed says that the father and the son, meaning the filio, spirated the Holy Spirit. I'm really not making this up. Even though I don't have a favor of the Christian religion. So you may think he's incentivized to not be flattering towards the Christian faith. I'm telling the truth. The Orthodox Church, which is the second largest Christian denomination in the world, holds that the Roman Catholic Church is heretical for reciting the filioqua in the Nian creed. Could you imagine? But you have to ask the question, what does that mean? The father and the son spirated. What does that mean? They spirate. If the holy spirit is eternal, then why does it have to be spirated? If the son is eternal, very light or very light in the language of nika. If he is, then why is he generated? Why doesn't the son generate the father? Why is he even called the son and not the father? That means if you I'm talking to you, there's a point in time that you, my viewer, your father existed and you did not exist, right? And at some point your biological father contributed to you coming into existence. There's a point in time where your father exists and you didn't exist and then you came into existence. So this is very simple. So why are you calling the father the father and the son the son? Why the son the father? The father son. It's all now Christians really the reason why it's idolatry is because the Christians hold that the sun has a unique property a hyperstatic entity again that's their weird language I'm using weird and it's unflattering I mean it to be derisive because idolatry that the son alone is the logos and the father is not the logos not the word the father is the monarch the son is not the monarch believe me there's so something very unpleasant and if you love Hashem very very much this should repel you repulse you none of what I'm telling you now which is orthodox Christianity every Catholic Orthodox unless they don't know anything and many don't but everyone who's has even a prefuncter knowledge of these two so-called apostolic denominations know that everything I'm presenting to you is right down the line I'm straw manning. I'm not I'm steelmanning the whole deal. So the key point is if you look as an example at Genesis um 19:13 it's very clear that the angels were sent to destroy Saddam because of this in verse 24 the text has to emphasize that you should know that Saddam was destroyed by God from God that's all and what the church must do is they have to strip the text of any grammar with this woman did. Again, where did she learn to do this? From somebody on Google who told her to do this. But if you look at the Hebrew text and you look at the punctuation marks, the written version of it called the Meseratic text, let's say 8th century, it's very clear that under the word, there's an es and is the could be the equivalent in some cases of a new sense. It's definitely a stop. It's either a in some cases could be a period which means end of sentence. It could be sometimes an is a semicolon or it's an mdash but it it means oh it's a huge red flag that's out the text reading that is proving nothing. It's all and it's all an effort to find idolatry in the and most germaine does is these Christians who are trinitarians are trying to read back a fourth century Christian doctrine into the holy Torah and that's not possible because there could be no enemy of the doctrine of the trinity greater than Tanakh where Tanakh says that God the Lord alone is God and there is no one else beside him. He alone is Lord. When Hezekiah prayed to God so that Jerusalem be delivered, he said openly that you alone are Lord. And therefore, nobody knew about the doctrine and trinity. It was a later Christian invention. And what the church had to do is go back to all of Tanakh, nearly 24,000 verses, scour it in order to find anything that could be altered, that could be abused so that it could appear to be expressing a fourth century Christian doctrine. Hashem alone is God and there is no one else besides him and no one should be playing with the Torah in hope to find later heresies insconced in it. There's no greater opponent of the doctrine of the Trinity than the prophets of Israel. Shalom. If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe. Share my love.