{"id":96738,"date":"2025-08-31T08:00:48","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T16:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/?p=96738"},"modified":"2025-08-31T06:19:51","modified_gmt":"2025-08-31T14:19:51","slug":"italian-report-confirms-that-the-old-testament-taught-a-binitarian-godhead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/doctrine\/italian-report-confirms-that-the-old-testament-taught-a-binitarian-godhead\/","title":{"rendered":"Italian report asserts that the Old Testament taught a binitarian Godhead"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n

A reader from Italy sent me a link today to an article in Italian (https:\/\/firmamentum.altervista.org\/tag\/binitarismo-ebraico\/<\/a>) that I machine-translated into English. Here are some excerpts:<\/p>\n

\n

The Two Heavenly Powers in Old Testament Cosmology<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

10 August 2025<\/p>\n

One of the most fascinating and least explored themes in biblical theology is the presence, already in the Old Testament, of a distinction within the divinity of Israel. The idea that the <\/span><\/span>one<\/span><\/span><\/strong> biblical God manifests himself in more than one “person” does not emerge suddenly in the New Testament, but has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. A careful analysis of the Hebrew text reveals passages in which something unusual occurs that cannot be reduced to a mere literary or poetic device: YHWH acts on behalf of YHWH, prefiguring what Christian theology will understand as the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, many modern translations blur this distinction.<\/span><\/span> … Only by returning to the original text can we grasp how the cosmology of the Hebrew Bible already attests to a “binary” model, to use Hurtado’s words, with an invisible and a visible celestial power, both identified as YHWH.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 19,24: YHWH by YHWH<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The verse in Genesis 19:24, if read in the original Hebrew, is surprising for its seemingly redundant construction. We are in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by YHWH, and the text states with surprising clarity:<\/span><\/p>\n

And YHWH<\/span><\/strong> rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire <\/span>from YHWH<\/span><\/strong> out of heaven.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The repetition of the Divine Name is not a stylistic accident, but a theological signal of primary importance. The text is not content to attribute the action to YHWH: it feels the need to specify that it occurred <\/span><\/span>me’et YHWH<\/span><\/span><\/em> , “on the part of YHWH.” In other words, the act of judgment comes personally from YHWH “from heaven,” even though it is carried out by <\/span><\/span>another YHWH present on the scene<\/span><\/span> ! This linguistic choice suggests an intentional distinction: a YHWH who acts visibly, in direct interaction with the world, and a YHWH who remains in the heavens, invisible but the ultimate source of the judging action.<\/span><\/span> …<\/p>\n

Abraham receives the visit of three men; one of them speaks and acts as YHWH himself, while the other two reveal themselves to be <\/span><\/span>mal’akhim<\/span><\/span><\/em> , that is, messengers. This visible YHWH discusses Abraham face to face, accepts hospitality, and announces the impending judgment. In Gen. 19, the scene shifts to Sodom, where the punitive intervention is described with the double formula “YHWH made it rain [\u2026] from YHWH,” as if to underline the simultaneity of two divine Powers: one directly involved in the event that invokes fire <\/span><\/span>from<\/span><\/span><\/em> heaven (cf. Lk. 9:54; 17:29), the other that sanctions and originates its execution <\/span><\/span>from<\/span><\/span><\/em> heaven.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ancient Jewish tradition did not ignore this peculiarity. The Targum Onqelos faithfully preserves the double mention, without attempting to smooth it over.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Some midrashic commentaries, such as the <\/span><\/span>Bereshit Rabbah<\/span><\/span><\/em> , interpret the episode as an act of justice exercised “by the heavenly judge through the earthly judge,” thus maintaining the idea of \u200b\u200ba dual and distinct operation. In certain circles of Second Temple Judaism, similar texts were used to support the doctrine of the <\/span><\/span>Second Power in Heaven<\/span><\/span> : a celestial figure distinct from but fully identified with YHWH. This doctrine was later rejected by rabbinic Judaism not because it was considered obsolete, but solely because of the “Christocentric” peculiarities that followers of Jesus had seen in it since the first century.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

From a Christological perspective, this verse appears as a natural prefiguration of the Father-Son relationship. <\/span><\/span>\u00a0… The cases of Gen. 19:24 and Zech. 2:9-11 are perhaps the most striking in showing a YHWH acting in relation to another YHWH. …<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It is not a question of reading the New Testament “backwards” into the Tanakh, but of recognizing that the Tanakh itself, in its original language, offers patterns and formulations that prepare the ground for a <\/span><\/span>binitarian understanding of divinity<\/span><\/span><\/strong> .<\/span><\/span> …<\/p>\n

Hosea 1.7: Salvation \u201cthrough YHWH\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The prophet Hosea, transmitting a divine oracle, records a startling statement:<\/span><\/p>\n

I will save [it is YHWH who speaks] the house of Judah <\/span>by the hand of YHWH<\/span><\/strong> their God.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The speaker is clearly YHWH, but the expression <\/span><\/span>ba-YHWH Elohehem<\/span><\/span><\/em> (through YHWH, their God) implies a mediator who bears the same Divine Name. The sentence structure cannot simply be reduced to a generic self-reference: <\/span><\/span>it is a YHWH who saves through YHWH<\/span><\/span> .<\/span><\/span> …<\/p>\n

Visible power and invisible power<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The analysis of the texts examined thus far leads us to a fundamental distinction in the representation of YHWH in the Tanakh: that between an <\/span>invisible presence<\/span><\/strong> , dwelling in the heavens, and a <\/span>visible presence<\/span><\/strong> , capable of interacting directly and tangibly with humanity. This distinction is neither marginal nor the product of later theological elaboration: it is a recurring feature of the biblical narrative, deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of Israel.<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span><\/span>invisible YHWH<\/span><\/span><\/strong> is the One whom, as Exodus 33:20 states, “no one can see and live” (cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). …<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Alongside this transcendent presence, the Tanakh testifies to the action of a <\/span><\/span>visible power of YHWH<\/span><\/span><\/strong> : a personal and tangible manifestation of the God of Israel who appears, speaks, guides, protects, and sometimes fights for His people.<\/span><\/span> …<\/p>\n

This dual manifestation\u2014an invisible, transcendent God and His visible, immanent manifestation\u2014is not an idea foreign to ancient Judaism. Some Second Temple Jewish circles (Targumim and Qurmran) elaborated this concept in what later rabbinic literature would call <\/span><\/span>the Second Power in Heaven<\/span><\/span><\/strong> .<\/span><\/span> …<\/p>\n

This concept, far from being a Christian invention, offers fertile ground for understanding the New Testament, where the Son, visible and incarnate, reveals the invisible Father. The apostolic authors did not introduce something new foreign to Old Testament revelation, nor was this idea introduced by subsequent ecumenical councils: rather, they recognized that the Messiah Jesus was the full manifestation of that visible power of YHWH who, since ancient times, had walked alongside humanity.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While I would have cited other scriptures that the above writer did not, yes, the Hebrew scriptures, commonly referred to as the Old Testament, support binitarianism.<\/p>\n

And, of course, so does the New Testament and early church writings.<\/p>\n

Scholars on Binitarian Formulas<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regarding the New Testament statements on the components of the Godhead, a trinitarian scholar, William Rusch has admitted:<\/p>\n

The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:3 \u2026 No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament \u2026<\/p>\n

There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers<\/strong> \u2026 (Rusch WG. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).<\/p>\n

Thus, a trinitarian scholar admits that the New Testament uses what he calls binitarian formulas and no doctrine of the Nicene trinity was found in the writings of those called \u201cApostolic Fathers.\u201d Trinitarianism was simply not part of the original Christian faith.<\/p>\n

Notice also:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe term \u2018Trinity\u2019 is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine\u201d (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article \u201cTrinity,\u201d p. 3012).<\/p>\n

Not only is the word \u201cTrinity\u201d never found in the Bible, there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.<\/p>\n

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been \u201c…embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly<\/em> present a doctrine of the \u2018imminent\u2019 Trinity (even John\u2019s prologue is no such doctrine)\u201d (The Trinity<\/em>, p. 22). (Author\u2019s emphasis.)<\/p>\n

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of John\u2019s Gospel \u2014 the prologue \u2014 clearly shows the pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John\u2019s prologue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes: \u201cThere is no Trinity in this<\/em>; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to the possibility of an incarnation\u201d (Outline of Christian Theology<\/em>, P. 167).<\/p>\n

The first chapter of John\u2019s Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God. (Johnson G. Is God a Trinity? Ambassador College Press, 1973, p. 9)<\/p>\n

Here is something from a Roman Catholic scholar:<\/p>\n

\u2026 nowhere does the Bible normally and explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity<\/strong>, … the doctrine<\/strong> is clearly a development<\/strong> \u2026 (Sungenis RA. NOT BY SCRIPTURE ALONE A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura<\/em>, 2nd<\/sup> ed. NIHIL OBSTAT Monsignor Carroll E. Satterfield Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR Monsignor W. Francis Malooly Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, 1997. Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013, pp. 76-77)<\/p>\n

Notice also:<\/p>\n

According to Harnack, the Christian concept of the trinity developed \u2026 At first, only the duplex formula \u201cGod and Christ\u201d existed \u2026 later, the Holy Ghost was added. (Ott L. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th<\/sup> edition 1960. Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah O\u2019Sullivan. Imprimatur: +Cornelius, Ep. Corgagienis et Ap. Adm. Roseensis, 7 October 1954. TanBooks reprint 1974, p. 52)<\/p>\n

Notice the scholarly admission (Dr. Harnack was a Protestant scholar) that, \u201cAt first, only the duplex formula \u201cGod and Christ\u201d existed<\/strong>.\u201d The word \u201cduplex\u201d comes from the Latin word meaning \u201cdouble\u201d or \u201ctwofold.\u201d In other words, we are seeing another admission that some version of binitarianism, NOT trinitarianism, was how the Godhead was viewed by early Christians.<\/p>\n

What has been called \u201cthe oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived\u201d (Holmes MW. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004, p. 102)–outside those in the Bible–sometimes erroneously referred to as Second Letter of Clement<\/em>, is support for binitarianism. This sermon was given perhaps within a year or so of the Apostle John\u2019s death (though others have suggested that perhaps the Roman Bishop Soter wrote or gave it c. 170; Holmes, p. 103), has the following:<\/p>\n

Brothers, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as \u201cJudge of the living and the dead (An Ancient Christian Sermon (2 Clement), 1:1. In Holmes MW, p. 107).<\/p>\n

So then, brothers, if we do the will of God our Father … (Ibid, p. 121).<\/p>\n

Now the church, being spiritual was revealed in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and do not corrupt her, he will receive her back again in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is a copy of the Spirit. No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy, will share in the original. This, therefore, is what he means, brothers: guard the flesh, in order that you may receive of the Spirit. Now if we say that the flesh is the church and the Spirit is Christ, then the one who abuses the flesh hath abuses the church. Consequently such a person will not receive the Spirit, which is Christ. So great is the life and immortality which this flesh is able to receive, if the Holy Spirit is closely joined with it, that no one is able to proclaim or to tell \u201cwhat things the Lord hath prepared\u201d for his chosen ones (Ibid, p. 121).<\/p>\n

Thus, what may be the oldest preserved sermon says to think of Jesus as God and that the Father is God, but it never indicates that the Holy Spirit is God. This is consistent with the binitarian view.<\/p>\n

Consider that, Bishop\/Overseer Ignatius of Antioch, who is the first known leader to use the term \u201ccatholic church,\u201d wrote the following around 110-135 A.D.:<\/p>\n

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God\u2019s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2–note this is translated the same by at least three separate translations as done by Dr. Lightfoot, J.H. Srawley, and Roberts & Donaldson)<\/p>\n

Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 6,3)<\/p>\n

Hence, Ignatius clearly recognized Jesus as God, and thus could not have been a traditional unitarian. Nor was he trinitarian.<\/p>\n

Ignatius further wrote to the Ephesians:<\/p>\n

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy. (Ignatius\u2019 Letter to the Ephesians, Verse 0. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)<\/p>\n

He wrote something similar to the Smyrnaeans:<\/p>\n

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the Beloved, which hath been mercifully endowed with every grace, being filled with faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend and bearing holy treasures; to the church which is in Smyrna of Asia, in a blameless spirit and in the word of God abundant greeting. I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you.\u201d (Ignatius\u2019 Letter to the Symrnaeans, Verses 0-1.1. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)<\/p>\n

Professor Hurtado notes that:<\/p>\n

there are numerous places where Ignatius refers to Jesus as \u201cGod\u201d (theos<\/em>) … Yet Ignatius refers to Jesus as theos<\/em> while still portraying him as subordinate to the \u201c\u201cFather\u201d. (Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2003, pp. 637, 638)<\/p>\n

That is a binitarian view. Early Christians were careful about avoiding the charge of ditheism, likely because they were reinforcing the binitarian position that God is one family<\/em>, currently consisting of the Father and the Son. That is a family relationship, in which the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28)–but remember the true saints will become part of that family. …<\/p>\n

Gender of the Holy Spirit?<\/strong> …<\/p>\n

While most translations of the New Testament into the English language use the pronoun \u201che\u201d related to the Holy Spirit as well as the relative pronoun \u201cwho,\u201d neither of those pronouns are supported by the Greek text.<\/p>\n

Many languages, including koine Greek\u2013the language that the New Testament was written in\u2013use what is know as grammatical gender.<\/p>\n

The Greek word for \u201cspirit\u201d is pneuma. It is a neuter gender. It is not masculine, nor should it be considered so. The Greek word for \u201choly\u201d (\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) when used \u00a0in \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; e.g. Luke 1:35) is also neuter as Greek adjectives must match the gender of the related noun.<\/p>\n

And what about the Old Testament word for spirit, is that masculine?<\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

In the Hebrew scriptures, the terms used for \u201cSpirit\u201d\u00a0is either ruwach <\/em>or ruah,\u00a0<\/em>which are feminine. …<\/p>\n

Holy Spirit in the Old Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n

As mentioned before, in the Old Testament, the Hebrew terms used for \u201cSpirit\u201d\u00a0are either ruwach <\/em>or ruah<\/em>,\u00a0both of which are feminine.<\/p>\n

So, obviously the Old Testament does not show the Holy Spirit as a male person and member of a trinity.<\/p>\n

Notice what the New Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> teaches (bolding<\/strong> in original):<\/p>\n

Spirit of God in the Old Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n

The specific implications of the phrase \u2018\u2018Spirit of God\u2019\u2019 must be deduced from the operations ascribed to it in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s Spirit as a Power. \u2018\u2018Spirit of God\u2019\u2019 is used in the Old Testament to signify \u2018\u2018God\u2019s breath\u2019\u2019 (Jb33.4). \u2026<\/p>\n

According to the Old Testament, the chief characteristic of the future new covenant would be a religious and moral transformation of all mankind. So the Prophets, particularly Isaiah (61.1\u20134; 32.15\u201320), frequently spoke of God\u2019s spirit accomplishing this work in the coming new age. \u2026<\/p>\n

God\u2019s Spirit Not Presented as a Person.<\/strong> The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God\u2019s spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God\u2019s spirit is simply God\u2019s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the Old Testament writers attribute to God\u2019s spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3\u20137). When such expressions are used, they are mere figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the r\u00fbah: was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feelings (Gn 41.8). \u2026<\/p>\n

In Judaism God\u2019s spirit was generally called \u2018\u2018the holy spirit\u2019\u2019 (without capital letters because no personification is indicated). It was regarded primarily as the divine power that gave the Prophets insight into the future and knowledge of hidden things (Sir 48.24\u201325) and inspired the writers of sacred books (4 Esdras 14.22\u201348). (Spirit of God. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13. Thomson Gale, 2003, pp. 426-427).<\/p>\n

According to Roman Catholic scholar Dr. Ludwig Ott:<\/p>\n

Elohim and Jahweh. By this it is indicated that there are Two Persons, who are God: One, who sends, and One who is sent. Cf. Gn. 16, 7-13; Ex. 3, 2-14. \u2026<\/p>\n

The Old Testament frequently speaks of the \u201cSpirit of God,\u2019\u2019 or of the \u201cHoly Ghost.\u201d By this is to be understood not a Divine Person, but \u2018a power proceeding from God, which gives life, bestows strength, illuminates and impels towards the good\u201d (P. Heinisch). (Ott L. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th<\/sup> edition 1960. Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah O\u2019Sullivan. Imprimatur: +Cornelius, Ep. Corgagienis et Ap. Adm. Roseensis, 7 October 1954. TanBooks reprint 1974, p. 54).<\/p>\n

Notice something from Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn:<\/p>\n

Spirit in OT Literature<\/em>. \u2026 Spirit of God denotes effective divine power <\/em>\u2026 Spirit of God<\/em> is in no sense distinct from God, <\/em>but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men<\/em>. \u2026 When \u2026 the talk is of the Spirit of God the understanding is not merely of a power from <\/em>God, but of the power of <\/em>God, of God himself putting forth efficacious energy. (Dunn JDG. Christology in the Making, <\/em>1980, 1989, p. 133).<\/p>\n

So, we see that Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars admit that the Old Testament does not point to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Godhead.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Bible and early church history clearly supports a binitarian view of the Godhead.<\/p>\n

Yet most have not accepted the truth on that and have chosen the broad way which leads to destruction that Jesus warned against (Matthew 7:13).<\/p>\n

Hopefully, you are one who will accepts AND act upon the truth.<\/p>\n

Some items of possibly related interest may include:<\/em><\/p>\n

Mysteries of God. What is God?<\/a> Is God omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? Does the Godhead consist of a closed trinity or an expanding family? This is a free e-book. Here are links to related sermons: Mysteries: Is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and <\/a>Omniscient?<\/a> and\u00a0Where Did God Come From? What Does God Look Like?<\/a> and How is God One? Creeds?<\/a>\u00a0and Jesus and Trinitarian Mythology<\/a> and Mysteries: The Holy Spirit<\/a> and God’s Names and Kingdom<\/a> and Mysteries of the Gospel and Deification<\/a>.
\nWhat is Your Destiny? Deification? Did the Early Church Teach That Christians Would Become God? <\/a><\/span>What is your ultimate destiny? What does the Bible teach? Is deification only a weird or cultic idea? Are you to rule the universe? Here is a link to the video sermon What is Your Destiny?<\/a>
\nDid Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?<\/a> Or did they have a different view? A related sermon is available: Truth about the Holy Spirit: What THEY do not want you to know!<\/a><\/em><\/span>
\nDid the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?<\/a> Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD<\/a>. Two related sermons are available: Trinity: Fundamental to Christianity or Something Else?<\/a> and The Godhead and the Trinity<\/a>. A brief video is also available: Three trinitarian scriptures?<\/a>
\nWas Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church?<\/a> Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses<\/a>, claim it was, but was it? Here is a link to a related sermon: Unitarianism? How is God One?<\/a>
\nBinitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a> This is a longer article than the Binitarian View<\/a> article, and has a little more information on binitarianism, and less about unitarianism. A related sermon is also available: Binitarian view of the Godhead<\/a>. Here is a sermon in Spanish: La Identidad de Dios es Binitaria<\/a>.
\nThe MYSTERY of GOD\u2019s PLAN: Why Did God Create Anything? Why did God make you? <\/a>This free online book helps answers some of the biggest questions that human have, including the biblical meaning of life. Here is a link to three related sermons: Mysteries of God\u2019s Plan<\/a>, Mysteries of Truth, Sin, Rest, Suffering, and God\u2019s Plan<\/a>, and The Mystery of YOU<\/a>.<\/span>
\nBeliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?<\/a> Did the original \u201ccatholic church\u201d have doctrines held by the Continuing<\/em> Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term \u201ccatholic church\u201d to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?<\/a>, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover<\/a>, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?<\/a>, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy<\/a>, Early Heresies and Heretics<\/a>, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats<\/a>, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more<\/a>, Saturday or Sunday?<\/a>, The Godhead<\/a>, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession<\/a>, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List<\/a>, Holy Mother Church and Heresies<\/a>, and\u00a0Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs<\/a>. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language:\u00a0Creencias de la iglesia Cat\u00f3lica original<\/a>.
\nHope of Salvation: How the Continuing<\/em> Church of God Differs from Protestantism<\/a> The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real <\/em>Church of God differs from mainstream\/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History<\/a>; The First Protestant, God\u2019s Command, Grace, & Character<\/a>; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon<\/a>; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter<\/a>; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism<\/a>; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday<\/a>; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God\u2019s Plan<\/a>; Seventh Day Baptists\/Adventists\/Messianics: Protestant or COG?<\/a>; Millennial Kingdom of God and God\u2019s Plan of Salvation<\/a>; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats<\/a>; The Godhead and the Trinity<\/a>; Fleeing or Rapture?<\/a>; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences<\/a>.
\nWhere is the True Christian Church Today?<\/a> This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? <\/a>Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: \u00bfD\u00f3nde est\u00e1 la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy?<\/a> Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE?<\/a> Here is a link in the French language: O\u00f9 est la vraie \u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne aujourd\u2019hui?<\/a>
\n<\/strong>Continuing History of the Church of God<\/a> This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D<\/a>. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries<\/a>. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuaci\u00f3n de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios<\/a>, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes<\/a>, and Ekegusii Omogano Bw\u2019ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

COGwriter A reader from Italy sent me a link today to an article in Italian (https:\/\/firmamentum.altervista.org\/tag\/binitarismo-ebraico\/) that I machine-translated into English. Here are some excerpts: The Two Heavenly Powers in Old Testament Cosmology 10 August 2025 One of the most fascinating and least explored themes in biblical theology is the presence, already in the Old […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doctrine","category-old-testament-history"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96738"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":96742,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96738\/revisions\/96742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

Notice also the following which is in my free ebook Mysteries of God. What is God?<\/a>:<\/p>\n