These two articles deal with the subject of a controversy some time ago which I intend to address.
Most are aware of my response to Itzhak Shapira AKA Ahavat Ammi Ministries on the subject of the Trinity and my concerns expressed regarding what his Christology is and thanks to Sam Shamoun and Edward Dalcour it has been confirmed that Shapira teaches a false Christology, namely his teaching of Synonmous Modalism and yes I am aware that Shapira doesn't hold to successive Modalism, but that doesn't let him off the hook just because he denies a form a Modalism, rather than Modalism as a whole.
Shapira 4 months ago actually took the time to respond and though he posted his lectures to me, others have placed them under spam. I say this because I don't want the accusation that I reported the comments myself, which I rarely did.
Anyway, here are Shapira's comments to me:
Let me deal with a few issues here, Me not being able to understand or read Hebrew is NOT a relevant point to the videos I posted in question. My contention throughout the entire videos was whether or not Shapira held to biblically orthodox beliefs.
I did bring up in my videos the subject of the Jewish sources and I would need to read those sources as well as read what the counter-missionaries have said about them. My whole point regarding them was even if I grant the sources saying what Shapira is trying to make them say, this doesn't change the fact that Shapira is holding to a form of Modalistic teaching and despite him quoting a source telling us what Modalism is, he doesn't inform his audience that he is rejecting ONE form of Modalism rather than all. Eduard Dalcour made this observation on Shapira's videos and I have his quotations here in this article, courtesy of Sam Shamoun posting them on his Facebook: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/video-examination-of-itzhak-shapiras.html
One quotation by Dalcour proves the point in this article:
"In 18:27, he asks the question: “Am I a Modalist?” Then he reads a definition of early Modalism. However, he equivocates. The Modalism that he says he rejects is Successive Modalism (where the manifestations are successive, i.e., first, God was Father in creation, the, Son in redemption, then, Holy Spirit in regeneration). While most Oneness today (e.g., UPCI, T. D. Jakes) oppose this early form of Modalism and embrace what is known as Synonymous (static) Modalism, where the so-called modes (or manifestations) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist synonymously.
This seems to be to what Mr. Shapira believes in which rejects early Successive Modalism. But to this, I say, “So what.” The point is, he says nothing about (Synonymous) Oneness-Modalism today and in all of his statements, he affirms a Oneness, not a Trinitarian, notion of God (viz. three S’efirot/“manifestations”).
In conclusion, although Mr. Shapira says that the Messiah existed before time, he nowhere indicates as to in which sense the Messiah existed before time. Oneness advocates say the same in that they point out that the Messiah existed before time only as a thought or plan in the Father’s mind, thus, not as a distinct person eternally existing. In 23:25, Mr. Shapira summarized his Oneness view: “Before time was created, God Himself chose to manifest Himself in different ways, yet it [sic] represents the same entity.”
And in 22:40, we see his clear rejection of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity: “I for one don’t believe in the term three persona [persons]."
I may have displayed some ignorance in the past of Shapira's position and others have TRIED assuring me that Shapira is biblically orthodox, however, in light of the fact that Shamoun and Dalcour caught onto something I didn't, it only concludes that they are right and Shapira was wrong. In light of this information, no one can come to me and accuse me of being ignorant in light of the information I have picked up.
To those who are wondering, No I haven't picked up "The Return of the Kosher Pig" and I have said I am willing to look at the book to Shapira in the comments, but the thing is, Yisroel Blumenthal has already written a paper looking at the book and I'd much rather look at the sources for myself.
Perhaps there are points Shapira makes I am ignorant of but does not reading the ROTKP detract from what Shamoun and Dalcour have said? NO!
To be fair there hasn't been a response to my videos by Shapira and he still hasn't retracted his statement in his video Objection 3 In the Line of Fire:
"The Zohar explains that God is truly a compound unity, ok, and to argue that this is not is arguing against Judaism. That is why when a man approached Yeshua and asked him what is the greatest commandment, Yeshua replied in Mark 12:29 Shema Yisrael Adonai Eleheinu Adonai Echad. Christianity on the other hand misunderstood it's compound unity and understood that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all three different personas, well that is not true either. That is not the point in my book and that's not what I believe. I believe that God is a compound God, he is ONE and he is absolute, without beginning and end, but at the same time he can manifest himself in anyway he chooses for"
To those who keep insisting that Shapira is a Trinitarian, WHY, does he say this in his video.
A lie that has been propagated about Shamoun is that he holds to a Nestorian heresy, or rather a caricature of what the Nestorians believed.
The caricature essentially is that Christ is two persons with two natures, thus there is a divine Jesus and a human Jesus. Shamoun doesn't hold to such a caricature and I have had the pleasure last year to have Shamoun explain his position as well as dealing with the subject of what death means in a Christian context.
The videos below will explain his position on the person of Christ and the two natures of Christ united in one person:
DoctorTauheed's painful exposure by Sam Shamoun
This dispels the notion of the idea that Sam Shamoun holds to an aberrant Christology.
Also, Read the following post by Sam Shamoun in response to an individual who claims that Shamoun holds to some weird aberrant belief about Christ. The response also clears up some misunderstandings on what the Nestorians ACTUALLY taught: https://www.facebook.com/notes/sam-shamoun/my-conversation-with-jacob-apologist/824477634235855
I know this is late but I need to deal with these points once and for all and dispel the confusion. Hope this helps.