Franklin4YAHWEH's Xanga

All Newer Entries Will Be Made After This Section

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:38:41 GMT

VerveEarth is mapping the internet's content onto a global map. Discover the voices of your world. Get started by exploring the map or registering to add your blog.

DISCLAIMER: As mentioned on my other web sites and pages, I do not
espouse to all of the beliefs expressed on the reciprocal links I have
provided here. My web sites are a venture into the pros and cons of
diverse aspects of religious beliefs. I leave it completely up to each
individual to decide what is truth and what is not. I am also not
responsible for any cost or donational purchases that are made through
these links. These reciprocal links are purely for educational and
research purpose only. Please view these links at your own discretion.

CLICK HERE to enter my "KNOW YAHWEH FORUM" (Yahchanan 17:3)

‘Come, and let us turn back to YHWH. For He has torn [us] but He does heal us, He has stricken but He binds us up. ‘After two days He shall revive us, on the third day He shall raise us up, so that we live before Him. ‘So let us know, let us pursue to know YHWH. His going forth is as certain as the morning. And He comes to us like the rain, like the latter rain watering the earth.’
(Hos 6:1-3 The Scriptures '98)
NEW! CLICK HERE to browse or join my "YAHWEH NISSI" Goggle Group
Peace greetings ALL,
I believe when one gives our Heavenly Father and Creator the esteem (glory) due unto His Name (Psalm 29:2, 96:8; 1 Chronicles 16:29) and when one KNOWS Him and who his anointed son truely was and is, that this will greatly increase their knowledge of the Scriptures and bring them out of the darkness of the false teachings that they were formally taught.
Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh (I John 5:5)?
Note that the above passages does NOT say '... he who believes Yahshua is Father Yahweh?', but "... the son of Father Yahweh?"
I have never believed the false doctrine "Jesus is God" ever since I was baptised at the age of 12 and I never will to my last breath of life. I am 52 now. It was not until shortly after I was baptised that I fully understood what the church I attended then taught. The very first thing that they taught me that caused me confusion was "Jesus is God". If our Heavenly Father and Creator and His son are not the authors of confusion, surely it must be Satan and those who follow him who are! I remember asking myself when they told me this bold-faced lie "Now wait a minute, was not the SON praying to the FATHER '... which art in heaven ...'? Was not His SON here on planet earth at the time of his communicating with the FATHER Yahweh?" I quickly dismissed this pastor that had just previously baptised me as not very knowledgable of what is taught in accordance with Scripture.
What really bothered me is that I thought that this is what all religions who taught from the Bible taught, because after questioning other congregations on this matter, they told me the same thing. I would hear such foolish things as "God came to earth in human form and died for our sins." Well, from what I had read in Scripture it was our Heavenly FATHER and Creator Who sent His SON, and it was he that died, not "God". Then to make matters even worse they tryed to drill that confusing trinity docrtrine into my head, and they called that "leading one to Christ". Well, I was being lead away, and being lead away I was! I bagan to see the Scripture as contradictory. I later stopped going to church all together and even refered to myself as an atheist. Following are links that are prime examples of where this false teaching will lead. I found these links by entering 'Jesus is God' into the Xanga search query. The URLs are: 'http://www.isjesuschristgod.com' and 'http://www.godishuman.com'. This guy also has a MySpace blog: 'http://www.myspace.com/godishuman'.
Yes, Jesus Christ is God
God Is Human
God Is Human - MySpace Blog
"The UONYC (UNION OF NAZARENE YISRAELITE CONGREGATIONS) holds a firm belief in the deity of Moshiach Yahshua, as the virgin born Son, having come in the flesh as our Emanuel. That in Him dwells all the fullness of omnipotence, and that Yahweh and His Moshiach/Savior are both Yahweh." (Colossians 2:9)
I myself could never come into "UNION" and agreement (covenant) with such a doctrine.
I praise Father Yahweh for bringing me back into the fold of truthful teachers! These truthful teachers are but few and far between. The "Jesus Christ is God" doctrine is widely taught among the Christian religions and many other religions.
To those who read this and espouse to the "Holy Trinity" doctrine, please do not even bother to write and tell me that I have never truely understood the teaching concerning the trinity and that you do not believe that your God Jesus is God the Father. I have since studied every aspect of what is taught by the proponents of these diverse doctrines and the Scripture passages that are used to promote the "Holy Trinity" and "Jesus is God" doctrines, and I do not espouse to any of these diverse teachings. See my Trinity Links web page if you are interested in the diverse doctrines on the trinity. Or, go to the following link.
Jesus Christ Is God
The link above states the following: "Who Is Jesus Christ? Probably one of the most detailed documented teachings in the New Testament, except for the Resurrection, is that Jesus Christ was and always claimed to be God incarnate."
Note that this guy goes so far as to say that the Messiah "ALWAYS claimed" and that there is "detailed documented teachings" in the so called "New Testament ... that Jesus Christ was and always claimed to be God incarnate." Nowhere in any so called "Holy Bible" translation will you find Father Yahweh's son Yahshua ever or even once stating or claiming to be "God" or "God incarnate", nor will you find this "teaching" taught, explained, or "documented" in any translation of Scripture.
I would also like to inform you of some studies compiled and written by Voy Wilks on the "Trinity", "Jesus is God" and the "pre-existence" doctrines. I have been greatly blessed in my understanding of Father Yahweh's word because of these studies. They are avialable free of charge with no obligation on your part by e-mailing: info@halleluyah.org and specifically asking for the '70+ studies compiled by Voy Wilks on the Trinity, Jesus is God, and pe-existence doctrines'. This groups web site is at: http://www.halleluyah.org . When I received these studies, they came in two seperate mailings because there were so many. A few of these articles are available online at: http://halleluyah.org/Articles.htm . Also there are some online studies at: http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro by John Cordaro.
CLICK HERE For More Articles by Voy Wilks
In Search Of The True Savior
I would like to annouce a few more new web site entrances that I have created. I would like to also make it known that as with all of my web sites and pages, I do not espouse to all of the views expressed on the reciprocal links that I have provided. They are purely for research and educational purpose only. Also please note the hyperlinks within my posts. You might also enter "Yahweh" into the Xanga search engine query for more links.
Blog City
"ALL Nations ...!"
Earthquake Info
Scriptural Research Tools
YAHWEH NISSI And How I Came To Know The Name Yahweh
THE NAME POLL What Is The Name Of Our Heavenly Father?
SIGN or VIEW my guest book with questionaire.
LINKS OF INTEREST
Again, I would like to emphasise that I do not espouse to all of the beliefs expressed by the reciprocol links that I provide. They are purely for research and educational purpose only. The following are from a more "Christian" point of view.
Was / Is Yahshua Human?

IS YAHSHUA THE SON OF GOD
OR IS HE NOT?
Was Jesus Divine? Introduction to the Series
Is Jesus the Eternal Son? By ROBERT FIGUEROA
Is Jesus God? Yahoo Answers
Unitarian Christ (Man, God, Both?)
Reasons That Jesus Was Not God
By Br. Mikael Lyngvig (Denmark) - Belgian Christadelphians
THE SUPPOSED PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST
The fact that we refer to this subject is brought on by two teachings. The first is that Jesus Christ was , (supposedly) the eternal Son of God, who has existed with the Father since time began, or, secondly, that the Lord Jesus is supposedly ‘god the Son’, the alleged second person of the Trinity. It is important to know the truth, for our salvation depends on it.
Jesus Did Not Pre-Exist "This is life eternal to know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" -- John 17:3.
Jesus Christ Did Not Pre-exist! Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not "God the Son, " a phrase not found in Scripture), begotten of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit
"There is One God..." by John M. Bland
Did Jesus Pre-exist DID JESUS PRE-EXIST HIS BIRTH?
Who Is Jesus? A Plea for a Return to Belief in Jesus, the Messiah A study booklet to further the restoration of biblical faith by Anthony F. Buzzard, MA (Oxon.), MA Th.
The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament by Anthony Buzzard
Jesus is NOT God Xanga Site
Is Jesus Christ the Same as God? No, Jesus is the son of the living God. Free biblical research articles.
Is the Jesus the God? By Douglas Rustad
DOES THE BIBLE ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS WAS GOD?
WHO IS GOD?
Jesus Islam Answers Back
MORE LINKS OF INTEREST
The Age to Come Media Ministry
Atlanta Bible College/Church of God General Conference, Morrow, GA, USA
Christ Fellowship Ministries
Godfellas
The Harvest Herald
Higher Ground Online
"Jesus the Messiah and His Kingdom" by Juan Baixeras Miami, FL, USA. Pulsa Aqui Para Escritos en Español.
A Journal from the Radical Reformation. Back issues now available online.
Light of Christ Ministries
Marian Hillar's "Center for Socinian Studies"
Allon Maxwell's home page, incorporating "Bible Digest" and "Peacemakers for Jesus," Australia
The Newton Project, Canada
Out of the Box Ministries, Eddie Garrett, II
"Reflections of a Generic Christian" by Robert Hach
“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’”

Does Yahweh Create Evil?

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:37:52 GMT

Translated passages that seem to suggest that Yahweh creates evil. Note that these are from diverse translations. Click on the hyperlinks to note how these passages are translated in other translations.

After going over these passages, please study the links that follow.

Isaiah 45:7
KJV: "I form the light, and create DARKNESS: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things."

LAMENTATIONS 3:38
RSV: "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and EVIL come?"

Jeremiah 26:3
KJV: "If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the EVIL, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings."

Jeremiah 36:3
"It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the EVIL which I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."

Jeremiah 32:42
"For thus says Yahweh: Just as I have brought all this great EVIL upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them."

Amos 3:6
"Does EVIL befall a city, unless Yahweh has done it?"

Jeremiah 11:11
"Therefore, thus says Yahweh, Behold, I am bringing EVIL upon them which they cannot escape; though they cry to me, I will not listen to them."

Jeremiah 14:16 And the people to whom they are prophesying, Are cast into out-places of Jerusalem, Because of the famine, and of the sword, And they have none burying them, Them, their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, And I have poured out upon them this EVIL. (YLT)

Jeremiah 18:11
"Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 'Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I am shaping EVIL against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings."

Jeremiah 19:3
"You shall say, 'Hear the word of Yahweh, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such EVIL upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle."

Jeremiah 19:15
"Thus says Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel, Behold, I am bringing upon this city and upon all its towns all the EVIL that I have pronounced against it, because they have stiffened their neck, refusing to hear my words."

Jeremiah 23:12
"Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall; for I will bring EVIL upon them in the year of their punishment, says Yahweh."

Jeremiah 26:13
"Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of Yahweh your Elohim, and Yahweh will repent of the EVIL which he has pronounced against you."

Jeremiah 35:17
"Therefore, thus says Yahweh, the Elohim of hosts, the Elohim of Israel: Behold, I am bringing on Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the EVIL that I have pronounced against them; because I have spoken to them and they have not listened, I have called to them and they have not answered."

Jeremiah 36:31
"And I will punish him and his offspring and his servants for their iniquity; I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the EVIL that I have pronounced against them, but they would not hear"

Jeremiah 40:2
"The captain of the guard took Jeremiah and said to him, "Yahweh your Elohim pronounced this EVIL against this place;"

Jeremiah 42:10
"If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I repent of the EVIL which I did to you."

Jeremiah 42:17
"All the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to live there shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; they shall have no remnant or survivor from the EVIL which I will bring upon them."

Jeremiah 44:2
"Thus says Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel: You have seen all the EVIL that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them,.."

Jeremiah 45:5
"And do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not; for, behold, I am bringing EVIL upon all flesh, says Yahweh; but I will give you your life as a prize of war in all places to which you may go."

Jeremiah 49:37
"I will terrify Elam before their enemies, and before those who seek their life; I will bring EVIL upon them, my fierce anger, says Yahweh. I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them;"

Jeremiah 51:64
"and say, 'Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the EVIL that I am bringing upon her.'" Thus far are the words of Jeremiah."

Ezekiel 6:10
"And they shall know that I am Yahweh; I have not said in vain that I would do this EVIL to them."

Micah 2:3
"Therefore thus says Yahweh: Behold, against this family I am devising EVIL, from which you cannot remove your necks; and you shall not walk haughtily, for it will be an evil time."

1 Kings 21:29
"Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the EVIL in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the EVIL upon his house."

2 Chronicles 34:24
"Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring EVIL upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which was read before the king of Judah."

2 Chronicles 34:28
"Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the EVIL which I will bring upon this place and its inhabitants.'" And they brought back word to the king."

1 Samuel 16:23
"And whenever the EVIL spirit from [the] Elohim was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand; so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the EVIL spirit departed from him."

1 Samuel 18:10
"And on the morrow an EVIL spirit from [the] Elohim rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand;"

1 Samuel 19:9
"Then an EVIL spirit from Yahweh came upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand; and David was playing the lyre."

1 Samuel 16:15
"And Saul's servants said to him, "Behold now, an EVIL spirit from [the] Elohim is tormenting you."

1 Samuel 16:14
"Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an EVIL spirit from Yahweh tormented him."

Micah 1:12
"For the inhabitants of Maroth wait anxiously for good, because EVIL has come down from Yahweh to the gate of Jerusalem."

2 Samuel 12:11-12
"Thus says Yahweh, 'Behold, I will raise up EVIL against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun."
Judges 9:23
"And [the] Elohim sent an EVIL spirit between Abim'elech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abim'elech;..."

1 Kings 14:10
"therefore behold, I will bring EVIL upon the house of Jerobo'am, and will cut off from Jerobo'am every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will utterly consume the house of Jerobo'am, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone."

2 Kings 21:12
"Therefore thus says Yahweh, the Elohim of Israel, Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such EVIL that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle."

Isaiah 31:2
"And He also [is] wise, and bringeth in EVIL, And His words He hath not turned aside, And He hath risen against a house of evil doers, And against the help of workers of iniquity." (YLT)

Did Yahweh Harden Pharaoh's Heart?

[PDF] An Exegetical and Theologcial Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart In Exodus 4-14 And Romans 9 G. K. Beale Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Did God Create Evil?

YHWH (Yahweh) and Satan, (the Adversary) Or....YHWH (Yahweh) (as) Satan, (an Adversary)

Did YHVH create evil?

Did Yahweh Create Evil?

Good Vs. Evil

Did God Create Evil? - Do the Scriptures Say So?

Did God Create "Evil"? By Wayne Jackson

...on what is "evil", and did God make evil?

Does Isaiah 45:7 teach that God created metaphysical moral evil?

Also see the dictionary definition of the word 'evil'.

What does Yahweh Hate?

From: The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:36:26 GMT

History of the Trinity
[Emphasis and brackets throughout are added]

Trinity Definition: Within the nature of the One True God, there simultaneously exists three eternal Persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three Persons are co-equals in all the attributes of the Divine Nature.

This definition defines God, not as a family, but as a committee. But how did this doctrine come to exist in modern Christianity? In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, it reads:

If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians … was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.

Most theologians know that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural.

Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.

But nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. In the book, A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:

We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy … The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.

Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament.

There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity.

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.

Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices.

Pages 205, 206

When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian [meaning, they believe in one deity, not two or three]. On the other hand, we must honestly ADMIT that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message, nor has it been a central article of faith in the religious life of the Christian Church as a whole at any period of its history. Thus we are forced to ask: Is this truth the center of Christian Theology, but not the center of the Christian faith? Or is it due to erroneous development in the formation of the doctrine of the Church as a whole? Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but ,b.even the EXPLICIT IDEA of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith; it is equally certain and uncontestable that the best theological tradition, with one accord, certainly points to the Trinity as its center. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine.

Since the doctrine is unscriptural, it took an emperor to make Christianity start embracing the concept.

It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance"). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata had been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor had spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position.

There is only one passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible used by Trinitarians to support their view.

I John 5:7-8, For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. AV

Editors added the bracketed words in the early fourth century to the Latin Vulgate translation. They are not in the older Greek manuscripts. For this reason, modern translations omit them. Bible commentaries explain that these words were never in the apostle John's manuscript or any existing early copies of it.

The only trinitarian passage which is found in some ancient versions of the Bible (1 John 5:7) is not regarded as genuine. However, there is a third point to be noted, namely, that the rediscovery of the New Testament at the Reformation did not revialize this particaular theological doctrine; the fact is, the Reformers did not touch, or alter this fundamental DOGMA of the ANCIENT [Roman Catholic] Church, but rather, by-passed it, than make it the subject of their own theological reflections.

The staement of Melanchton ... is characteristic of this attitude. Calvin expresses hmself in the same way; he regards the doctrine of the Trinity from the following point of view; namely, that through its conceptions, WHICH DIFFER FROM THOSE OF THE BIBLE, the opponent of the divinty of Christ - who is the enemy of the Christian faith - is forced to throw off his disguise, and fight in the open, instead of his concealing his hostility under a cloak of Christianity.

How are we to explain this strange situation? Here I anticipate the result of the following inquiry, and state it in the form of a thesis: The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, established by the DOGMA of the ANCIENT Church, is not a Biblical kerygma, therefore it is not a kerygma of the Church, but it is a theological doctrine which defends the central faith of the Bible and of the Church. Hense it dose not belong to the sphere of the Church's message, but it belongs to the sphere of theology; in this sphere it is the work of the Church to test and examine its message, in light of the word of God given to the Church.

From Page 220

This doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, developed out of the process of defending the truth against certain doctrines ...

From Page 222

Thus, after a conflict against heresy, lasting two hundred years, in which the church had defended the possitions fo the full dinity of Christ and the unity of God, she herself had to make the effort to express the central mystery of the Christian faith in doctrinal form so she created the doctrine of the Trinity ...

It was not until the Athanasian [of the Roman Catholic Church] was formulated a century later * that the final step was taken, and the standard formula for the Triune God was formulated ... Hense from this was the orthodox ecclesiastical idea of God of the Roman Ctholic Church, which was also adopted by the Churches of the Reformation.

From Page 266

It was never the intention of the original witnesses to Christ in the New Testament to set forth before us an intellectual problem - that of the Three Divine Persons - and then to tell us to silently worship this mystery of the 'Three-in-one.' There is NO TRACE of such an idea in the New Testament. This 'mysterium loicum,' ... that God is Three and yet One, lies wholy OUTSIDE THE MESSAGE of the Bible. It is a mystery which the church places before their faith in her theology., by which she hampers and hinders their faith with a heteronomy whaich is in harmony, it is true, with a false claim of authority, but which HAS NO CONNECTION with the message of Jesus and the Apostles.

No Apostle would have dreamt that there are the Three Divine Persons, whose mutual realtions and paradoxical unity are beyond our understanding. No 'mysterium logicum,' no inteliectual paradox, NO antimony of Trinity and Unity, has any place IN THEIR TESTIMONY, but ... that the Lord God for our sakes became man and endured the cross. The mystery of the Trinity, proclaimed by the [Roman] Church, and enshrined in her liturgy, from the fifth or the sixth century onward is a psueudo-mystery which spank out of an aberration of theological thought from lines laid down in the Bible, and not from Biblical doctrine itself.

In so far as the Church has made [the Trinity] part of its 'kerygma,' it has given a false direction to faith. This was what the Reformers meant when they warned peple against indulging in TRINITARIAN SPECULATIONS, and urged them to return to the simplicity of the Bible.

From Page 239

To put it in other terms, WHAT WAS AT STAKE was whether Christianity should become either Paganism or Judaism, or whether it should remain Christianity.

From Page 237

Speaking of Barth's views about the importance of the doctrine of the trinity, Brunner says,

"This high esteem of the doctrine of the Trinity is a legacy FROM CATHOLIISM, and certainly can not be derived from the Reformation."

From: The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner

* NOTE: Athanasius [of the 4th century] never knew of the "Athanasian Creed," as it was not formulated until the 8th century C.E. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Edition, Vol. 6, page 497). The doctrine of the Trinity, however, was firmly established by Constantine and others at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. It was at this council also, that the Roman Emperor advised the assembled bishops not to "follow the blindness of the Jews" by observing the seventh day Sabbath.

The Johannine Comma

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:40:03 GMT

For there are three that that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

This verse is found in no ancient manuscript, and can be proved to have been inserted, perhaps in the fifth century, to support the doctrine of the Trinity. It is the one verse in the New Testament which is entirely spurious, and has now been struck out from every good text. The Literature of the New Testament By Ernest Findlay Scott, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, pgs. 267-268. See the proof on 'Bible Researcher' by clicking on the following hyperlink.

The Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8

More Informative Links On The Johannine Comma

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 By Daniel B. Wallace

Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma By Josheph M. Levine

Wikipedia

Theopedia

'"Proving" The Trinity'

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:40:25 GMT

"The study of ancient writing scripts and habits, called "paleography," shows that none of the surviving manuscripts of the New Testament is early enough to be an original, that is, directly from the hand of its author. Only copies, and copies of copies, survive. These manuscripts were produced by hand for hundreds of years, down to the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century. They contain many copying errors. While most of them are minor, some are very important and significantly alter the meaning of the texts. In addition, some intentional changes were made for doctrinal reasons, for example, "proving" the Trinity. The phenomena posed by these manuscripts and their variants has given rise to another kind of analysis, textual criticism. It has two aims: to classify the surviving manuscripts and to evaluate them in order to reconstruct hypothetically what the authors originally wrote. Only then is there a Greek "New Testament text" to translate." - [Third Edition] The New Testament - Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History - Dennis C. Duling / Norman Perrin, pg 5 .

In The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval):

".......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought ... it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development" (emphasis added).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia Volume XIV, p. 295.

'Jesus' twelve apostles lived and died never having heard of any "Trinity" !

Top Harpur writes in his book For Christ's Sake:

"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three.."

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states under the heading "Trinity":

"in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament,… The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is 'of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,' even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."

"God in three persons, blessed Trinity" is hymnal and not Scriptural!

Can A Spirit Being Die?

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:07:19 GMT

Can A Spirit Being Die?

By Voy Wilks

Can a spirit being die? More exactly: Can deity (a divine personage) die? If Yahshua the Messiah pre-existed as Deity, or as a Spiritual Being before the world was created, was it possible for him to die (on the tree [or a Pagan Cross])? Let the Scriptures answer.

"And Yahshua answering said unto them, The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to the angels; and are sons of Yahweh, being sons of the resurrection." (Lu.20:34-36, RSV).

We see that angels of Yahweh cannot die. Once resurrected we will be "equal to the angels" in that we cannot die either. Why is this? It is because we are sons of Yahweh, being sons of the resurrection. But when do we become spirit beings? Is this the same as becoming "sons of Yahweh?"

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." (1Cor.15:35, 42-44).

It is at the (first) resurrection that we become a spirit being - that we obtain a spiritual body. Please notice the following things that happen at the (first) resurrection:

1) We are raised in power

2) We are raised in glory

3) We are raised in incorruption

4) We are raised to immortality (1 Cor.15:52)

5) We are raised equal to the angels

6) We are raised to become sons of Yahweh, being sons of the resurrection

7) We are raised with a spiritual body

8) We are raised to immortality so we cannot die any more

Luke says those of the first resurrection cannot die. Synonyms of "cannot die" are "incorruption" and "immortal." Paul says those of the first resurrection come forth as spiritual bodies and are incorruptible and put on immortality. Accepting the statements of both Luke and Paul, we find that spirit beings cannot die. When did Yahshua become a spirit being? Again, the Scriptures have the answer.

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Yahshua] was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Co.15:44-46).

This indicates the Messiah was not a spirit being before he was born physically. The physical (body) comes, then the spiritual (body). When was Yahshua declared to be the son of Yahweh? Just as we will be sons of Yahweh by our resurrection from the dead, so Yahshua was declared to be the son of Yahweh "by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom.1:4).

Conclusion? Once mortal man receives immortality (a spiritual body) he cannot die. Is Deity any less? We must conclude, then, that Deity cannot die - in the past, the present, or in the future. Therefore, Yahshua was not Deity nor did he exist as a spiritual being before the world existed - except in the plans of the Father - plans made from the beginning.

"Who verily was foreordained [in the plans] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," (1Pe.1:20).

* "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit" (Jn.3:6). It is one or the other. No person can be both at the same time.

SOURCES:

http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/CanaSpiritbeingDie.html

http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Can_Spirit_Die%3F.html

For those who believe in the "Jesus is God" doctrine: Do you actually expect me to believe that is is possible for mere men to execute Yahweh our Heavenly Father and Creatior by nailing Him to a Pagan Cross?

Articles By Voy Wilks

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:20:32 GMT

"The Esteem I Had With You Before The World Was" Yahchanan [John] 17:5

Do these words mean that Messiah was personally with the Father from the very beginning? or are they expressive of the fact that Yahweh, as a wise Architect (Hebrews 11:10), foresaw the esteem of His completed plan?

The latter without doubt! This is shown beyond question because of the use of similar language in the same manner.

So, Kepha [Peter] taught that Yahshua was "foreordained before the foundation of the world but was made known in these last times for you" (1 Kepha [Peter] 1:20). Yahchanan [John] describes him as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).

Was Yahshua "slain from the foundation of the world"? Typically, yes, in the sacrifices provided; but literally, no.

In like manner, Yahweh, who knows the end from the beginning, foresaw the esteem of the son and proclaimed it through the prophets. The ultimate esteem of Yahshua was in the mind and purpose of the Father from the very beginning.

He also provided for the ultimate glory of Messiah's followers, so that Yahshua communicated ["prayed"]:

"The esteem which You gave me, I have given them" (Yahchanan [John] 17:22).

Do Messiah's followers possess his esteem now? They do not, they are merely "in hope" of it (cf. Romans 5:2).

How can Messiah then claim to have given it to them? Only in the sense that he has provisionally bestowed it, foreknowing that they to whom it is given in promise will fulfil the conditions to ultimately receive it in reality.

Thus, an accepted follower at Messiah's coming could well speak to Yahweh as Yahshua communicated to Him:

"Esteem You me with the esteem that I had [in promise] with You before [this millenial] world began!"

Yahweh foreknows the completed purpose, and knowing that He will bring it to consummation, is able to "call those things which be not as though they are" (Rom. 4:17). Shaul taught:

"Yahweh chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be set apart, without blame before Him" (Eph. 1:4).

If Yahchanan 17:5 proves the pre-existence of Yahshua, Ephesians 1:4 must prove the pre-existence of all who are followers of him!

The same language is used of other men whom Yahweh has used in a special way. Of Yeremiah it is written:

"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations" (Yeremiah 1:5).

Does that prove the pre-existence of Yeremiah? If not, why should Yahchanan 17:5 be used to teach the pre-existence of Yahshua, and so be made to conflict with many other references which speak of him as the son of David born 1900 years ago? Similar language is used of Shaul (Gal. 1: 15) and others. When Messiah returns, his accepted followers will be granted an esteem similar to that bestowed upon the son. They will be "conformed to the image of Yahweh's son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).

Father Yahweh ALONE Created!

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:07:27 GMT

This says Yahweh, your redeemer, and He that formed you from the womb, I am Yahweh that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens ALONE; that spreads abroad the earth BY MYSELF; ... (Isayah 44:24)

You, even You, are Yahweh ALONE; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and You preserve them all; and the host of heaven worships You (Nehemyah 9:6).

ONE LONE YAHWEH

Was Yahweh Alone
When He Created The World?

Christianity

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:22:12 GMT

To begin a start in learning certain truths about Christianity I am suggesting that you order the 3 FREE DVDs available at: vision Insights and New Horizons You may also view them online at the http://www.vision.org web site.

The titles of these 3 free DVDs are:

Message of the Seven Churches

Quest for the Real Paul

Cheating God Out of Christianity

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:20:28 GMT

Does Isaiah 9:6 Claim That "Jesus is God"?

JPS version, done in 1917. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America reads as follows:

"For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor (See END NOTE) -Abi-ad-sar-shalom."

The 1985, and the revised e-edition of 1997, render Is. 9:5b as:

"... he has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace (d);
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler."

(d) = as in 25:1

Many question why the the JPS 1917 transliterate this portion of the passage as opposed to translating it. The reason is quite obvious. Christian translations have traditionally understood this prophecy to refer to "Jesus", and then used this quite complicated name as a series of messianic titles. The JPS wanted to avoid
this, and to emphasize that this is a (real or symbolic) personal name. Just
like "Jonathan" is not translated "Yahweh-has-given" in the A.K.J.V. of the Bible. The A.K.J.V.does not translate "Immanuel" in 7:14 and etc. as "God-is-with-us".

For not having a better explaination of this passage, I have on a number of occasions in the past explained that the A.K.J.V. reads "... his name shall be CALLED ...", not that his name IS all of these names. This passage is worded in a future tense. Understanding this passage as a future prophecy concerning Yahshua, would this not stand true? Is he not given all of these attributive names/titles at this time? None of these are his GIVEN name (singular) though. There was only one name ("... for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven GIVEN among men ..." Acts 4:12) GIVEN to him at birth. The Messiah's GIVEN NAME is Yahshua or Joshua as transliterated into the English language. His [and our] Father Yahweh gave him this name.

A messenger ("malak, angel") of Yahweh conveyed to Yahseph [Joseph] that he was to call his name Yahshua and he did as the messenger of Yahweh had told him.

"And [Yahseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name YAHSHUA. (Matthew 1:25)

The name Yahshua was GIVEN to him by Father Yahweh which was conveyed through His messenger.

"Wherefore Yahweh also has highly exalted him, and GIVEN him a name which is above every name: ..." (Philippians 2:9)

Father Yahweh Is Our Supreme Redeemer

The Name YAHshua means 'YAHweh Is Redeemer'. Yahshua came in the Name of our Heavenly Father and Creator (Yahchanan [John] 5:43). Father Yahweh is our Supreme Redeemer THROUGH his son Yahshua. Yahshua said "No man comes unto the Father, but by me." (Yahchanan [John] 14:6). Yahshua is our advocate with Father Yahweh (1 John 2:1). He is our mediator with Father Yahweh (I Timothy 2:5).

END NOTE

The Hebrew for "mighty god" in Isaiah 6:9 is gibbor el, which is nearly the same Hebrew as the name of the angel Gabriel.

The Net Bible has this interesting note on the title gibbor el ("mighty God"):

"probably an attributive adjective ("mighty God"), though one might translate "God is a warrior" or "God is mighty." Since this title is apparently used later (10:21, but cf. Hos. 3:5) for God, some have understood it as pointing to the king's deity. Others argue that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). The latter sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. Having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as "God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Ramses II as follows: "No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique." (See M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67) Isa. 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself."

Notice that the NetBible scholars are Trinitarians, yet they are realistic and fair minded enough to recognize that gibbor el is not a title of deity. Other scholars agree.

Actually, the passage is not a particularly good one for Trinitarians. It would help the Oneness folks a lot more. The Trinitarian does not regard Jesus as the Father, yet the passage says he shall be called "everlasting father." The Trinitarian has to do all sorts of twisting to insist that "gibbor el" should be taken as telling us that Jesus is God, but then the next phrase they have to explain away to tell us that he is not the Father.

ALSO SEE THE FOLLOWING LINKS

The Correct Hebrew Name Understandings The Nature of His Anointed Messiah, “His Arm of Salvation;”

Isaiah 9:5-6 – Historic Events or Messianic Prophecy?

ISAIAH 9 MANIPULATED Hugh Fogelman

OTHER LINKS TO CONSIDER

The Problem of Isaiah 7:14 Rev. William G. Most

Prince of Peace B. R. Burton

Isaiah 9:6 by K.N. Stovra

Objections to Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6-7

ISAIAH 9:6 THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE

LINK TWO For The Above

Isaiah 9 - Not Jesus, but Hezekiah

Isaiah 9:6-7 Shomrai HaBrit-Keepers of the Covenant

See Commentary In Jewish Study Bible

Yahshua the Messiah is Not Almighty Yahweh

Modern day Christians believe that Yahshua the Messiah pre-existed in some form or another. Some say he was Melchizedek, some say he was "the captain of the host of Yahweh" (Josh.5:14), some say he was the archangel Michael, others say he was the "angel of Yahweh". Perhaps the most erroneous view is that Yahshua was the "Yahweh" (LORD) of the Old Testament. This study is written in the hopes that all who read it will finally understand that Yahweh is the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that Yahshua the Messiah is His Son, as it is written.

For some reason people feel they have to magnify the Savior into the position of the Almighty when, in fact, scripture makes it quite clear that the Father is greatest of all and the "head of Messiah" (1 Cor.11:3). Consider Yahshua's own words in Jn. 14:28, "...for my Father is greater than I."; Jn.10:29, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all..."; and Jn. 13:16, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant [Yahshua] is not greater than his lord [Yahweh]; neither he that is sent [Yahshua] greater than he that sent him [Yahweh]." These verses teach us Yahshua's view of his relationship to his Father. Notice he didn't claim to be the Father but instead, made a clear distinction between the two.

Who is Yahshua's Father?

Who does scripture say is the Father? Is.63:16 says, "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Yahweh, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting." Yahweh is the Father. Yet, some might claim that this scripture says Yahweh is the Father of Israel, not of Yahshua. In that case we need to note two other verses. The first is Heb.1:5; "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Who said these things? All would agree that Yahshua's Father said them since He is referring to Yahshua as His Son. Heb.1:5 is a direct quote from Ps.2:7; "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The first "I" here refers to Yahshua speaking through prophecy in which he declares that Yahweh is his Father!

We also previously saw that Yahshua said, "My Father is greater than I." In reality he was also saying, "Yahweh is greater than I", thereby teaching us that he is not Yahweh. Anyone who believes Yahshua is Yahweh must also believe Yahshua is the Heavenly Father. That is even more absurd and more difficult to prove in the light of scripture.

Who is the Elohim of Israel?

Who does scripture say is the Elohim (God) of Israel? Is. 45:3 says, "And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, Yahweh, which call thee by thy name, am the Elohim of Israel." Yahweh is the Elohim of Israel. Since we already learned that Yahshua is not Yahweh, Yahshua cannot be the Elohim of Israel. This is confirmed in Acts 3:13, "The Elohim of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the Elohim of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yahshua;..." The Elohim of Jacob (Jacob being Israel) glorified His Son.

Since the scriptures reveal the Elohim of Israel and the Father are both called Yahweh, some will go so far as to teach that there are two separate beings called Yahweh in order to support their erroneous belief that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh, Elohim of Israel. They use Gen.19:24 as proof of this; "Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven;" At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah. This is merely a figure of speech peculiar to the Hebrew language, an idiom. Similar idioms are seen in Eze.11:24 (two Spirits), Zech.10:12 ( two Yahwehs), Ex.24:1 (Yahweh used as idiom for "me"), Gen.17:23 (two Abrahams), and 1 Kgs.8:1 (two Solomons).

It is impossible to harmonize the two Yahweh doctrine with verses that teach there is only one Yahweh. Consider Nehemiah's prayer;

"Thou, even thou, art Yahweh alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Neh 9:6

Ps 83:18 says;

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth."

Is 45:6 says;

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else."

Zech 14:9 reads;

"And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one."

A second God cannot be named "Yahweh."

Is.42:1 teaches us that Yahshua is Yahweh's servant. "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." And again in Is.49:6, "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Ps.2:2 reads, "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed." His "anointed" is Yahshua, making a clear distinction between the two. Peter applied this prophecy to Yahshua in Acts 4:26; "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahweh, and against His Messiah." Peter never claimed that the Messiah pre-existed as Yahweh.

Ps.110:1 also distinguishes the two; "Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." In Mt.22:41-46, Yahshua reveals this "lord" to be himself, the Messiah. Is Yahweh talking to His Son the Messiah or is He talking to Himself?

Ps.110 makes another intersesting statement in verse 5. This is one of the verses in which the Sopherim removed Yahweh's name and replaced it with "Adonai". The text would have originally read, "Yahweh at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath." It is then wrongly deduced that since Yahshua was invited to sit on Yahweh's right hand (Heb.1:13), he, Yahshua, must also be called "Yahweh". There is no doubt that Yahweh invited Yahshua to sit at His right hand. But what does verse 5 mean? It must be understood in the same way Ps.16:8 and Ps.109:6 are to be understood. When someone is "at thy right hand" it means their power and strength are derived from that source. David derived his power from Yahweh and so it is said that Yahweh is "at my right hand." A wicked person would derive his power from Satan and so it is said, "Let Satan stand at his right hand." When Yahshua comes to carry out Yahweh's wrath upon the wicked, Yahweh will be his strength. See, also, Mic.5:4.

Who is the Prophet like unto Moses?

In Acts 3:22,23 Peter quotes from Deut.18:15,19 proving that Yahshua is the "prophet like unto Moses." Placing the name "Yahshua" in brackets clearly shows him not to be Yahweh. "Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet [Yahshua] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him [Yahshua] ye shall hearken.. . .I [Yahweh] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my [Yahweh's] words in his [Yahshua's] mouth; and he [Yahshua] shall speak unto them all that I [Yahweh] shall command him [Yahshua]. . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my [Yahweh's] words which he [Yahshua] shall speak in my [Yahweh's] name, I [Yahweh] will require it of him." Jn.12:49 is a direct fulfillment of Deut.18:18; "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."

Let's treat Is.53:6, 10 ,12 similarly; "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him [Yahshua] the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him [Yahshua]; he [Yahweh] hath put him [Yahshua] to grief: when thou [Yahweh] shalt make his [Yahshua's] soul an offering for sin, he [Yahshua] shall see his seed, he [Yahshua] shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his [Yahshua's] hand."

Zech.12:10 is often misunderstood due to an apparent error in the text. It reads, "And I [Yahweh] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." The word "me" obviously does not harmonize with the pronouns "him" and "his" that follow. The same verse is quoted in Jn.19:37; "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." John gives us the correct understanding of this verse.

Another possible error occurs in Acts 20:28; "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (KJV)." The great majority of Greek MSS have kurios (Lord) here instead of theos (God). In that case, Lord would refer to Yahshua whose blood was shed. Even if we were to accept the KJV rendering, it would have to be understood in the sense that parents often refer to their children as their "own flesh and blood." In that sense the blood of Yahshua was the "blood of Yahweh's own."

YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Jer.23:6 is often used to prove Yahshua is Yahweh. "In his [Yahshua's] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his [ Yahshua's] name whereby he [Yahshua] shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." If this verse teaches that Yahshua is Yahweh because he is called "Yahweh Our Righteousness, then Jer.33:16 teaches that Jerusalem is also Yahweh. It reads, "In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness." The translators did not use the same capitalization because they undoubtedly feared that it would suggest Jerusalem is Yahweh.

A difficult passage to understand is found in Jn.12:37-41. A superficial reading leads one to believe that the "his" and "him" of verse 41 refers to Yahshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be printed out with [brackets] designating the speaker. Jn.12:37,38, "But though he [Yahshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yahshua]: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spake, Lord, 'who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Yahweh been revealed?' (The underlined is a quote from Is.53:1. The "arm of Yahweh" is Isaiah's reference to the Messiah). The passage continues with verses 39-41; "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 'He [Yahweh] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [Yahweh] should heal them.' These things said Esaias, when he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory, and spake of him [Yahweh]." Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Is.6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yahshua; because Yahweh blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Is.6:10, not Is.53:1. In Is.6:1-3 Yahweh is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yahshua's glory.

Since John the Baptist preceeded Yahshua, Is.40:3 and Mt.3:3 are often used to prove Yahweh is Yahshua. Is.40:3 reads, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim." Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Lu.3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Is.40:4 & 5. It says, "As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of Yahweh." "Prepare ye the way of Yahweh" does not mean, "Move out of the way because Yahweh is coming." And so when Yahshua comes they believe he is Yahweh.

How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? Jn.4:34 says, "Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work." Almighty Yahweh appointed His Son Yahshua to finish His work. Yahshua was Yahweh's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yahshua is the "Messenger of the Covenant," "the servant of Yahweh," and "the salvation of Yahweh." Jn.14:6 calls Yahshua "the way." He is "the way of Yahweh;" the means through which Yahweh will finish His work.

Two Creators?

Gen.1:26 is often used to show Yahshua's hand in Creation. It reads, "And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." They say the Father is talking to the Son in this verse based on the pronouns used. Notice, however, that verse 27 says, "So Elohim created man in his own image, . . ." Why isn't the phrase "in their own image" used? Again, in Gen.11:7,8, "us" is used and yet Yahweh alone scattered them abroad. According to Job 38:4-7, "the sons of Elohim shouted for joy" when Yahweh created the earth. This doubtless refers to the angels who were also present at the creation of man. Yahweh could be speaking to them, in Gen.1:26, using the plural of majesty. An example of this is found in Ezr. 4:18; "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." In this case, a letter was written strictly to King Artaxerxes and no one else (vs. 11). Yet the King speaks as though it was written to others as well. Another example would be the Queen of England saying, "We, the Queen of England, . . ." It can also be understood in the sense of someone saying, "Let us drive to the lake for a picnic," and yet, only the speaker does the driving. To believe Yahweh is talking to Yahshua is an assumption. It is reading into the text something that it does not say.

If we do not try to force the scriptures to conform to our own doctrines, they are so simple to understand. Instead men try to support "Holy Trinities", "Incarnations", "Transubstantiations", and the like. The Bible does not use terms like "Father" and "Son" to try and trick us. They are used to express a relationship that we can relate to. If Yahshua is Father Yahweh, the scriptures would state it in plain language. Instead, it says that Yahshua is the Son of Father Yahweh.

An article in "Israel Today" tried to explain this relationship by saying Yahweh manifested himself in the fleshly form of Yahshua. The author calls this the incarnation. This same author rightfully puts down the trinity because the word is not found in the Bible and yet, he exalts another unscriptural term, "incarnation." Perhaps he was misled by the erroneous translation of 1 Tim.3:16 in the KJV. It says, "God was manifest in the flesh." A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage." Even if the incarnation theory was true, would Yahweh continue to manifest himself as Yahshua even after the Millennium? 1 Cor.15:24-28 and Rev.22:1 show both as separate beings after the Millennium. The truth is, they are not parts of one being but two separate and distinct beings. That is why Yahshua could say what he did in Jn.8:17,18, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Yahweh and Yahshua are two separate beings, not two manifestations of one being.

When the scriptures are accepted at face value, without reading into the text more than it says, the relationship between the two becomes quite clear. In spite of this, many people are not satisfied with Yahshua's rank in the hierarchy of heaven. They feel a need to exalt him into the number one position, that of Yahweh Almighty, and they will twist scripture in a variety of ways to accomplish this.

Yahweh is One

Concerning the "Shema" (Deut.6:4) it reads, "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh:" or "Yahweh is one." It is believed by many that the word "echad," translated "one," means "a united one" or a "compound unity," not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Nu.7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Gen.2:1 - one rib and Dan.9:27 - one week.

Historic Judaism does not give echad the meaning of unity or plurality as is seen in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p.1373: "Perhaps from earliest times, but certainly from later, the word echad (one) was understood also to mean unique. God is not only one and not many, but He is totally other than what paganism means by gods." Note also The Jewish Commentary, Soncino Edition, p.770: "He is one because there is no other Elohim than He; but He is also one, because He is wholly unlike anything else in existence. He is therefore not only one, but the Sole and Unique, Elohim."

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mk.12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yahshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yahshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yahshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's. What utter nonsense!

Yahshua said, "I and my Father are one." (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yahshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"
Here again, Yahshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh's.

Elohim - Plural or singular?

The word "Elohim," translated "God," is often attacked as well. It is believed that it denotes a plurality or a god consisting of more than one being or more than one manifestation of a being. This, too, is a false concept based on the philosophy of men. Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Ex.12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Sam.5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god (elohim)" and 2 Kgs.1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god (elohim) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings who can "incarnate" themselves as Yahweh "supposedly" did?

The word "God" (elohim) is properly applied to Yahshua in Heb.1:9 and Jn.20:28. Both words are from the Greek word "theos" which was also used in reference to Satan (2 Cor.4:4) and Herod (Acts 12:22). It has the same meaning as the Hebrew word "elohim" and can be applied to men, angels, and the Almighty. Ps.82:6 applies it to any child of the Most High; "I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High." It simply means "a mighty one among his people." It is not wrong to call Yahshua an elohim or a god. The problem lies in believing he is the one true "God," Yahweh Almighty. Yahshua made it clear that he was not, in Jn.17:3; "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Yahweh] the only true Elohim, and Yahshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent." The Apostle Paul declared the same thing in 1 Cor.8:6; "But to us there is but one Elohim, the Father [Yahweh], of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Master Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Oneness proponents wrongly interpret 1 Jn.5:20 to mean that Yahshua is the one true "God." It reads, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life" (KJV). When it says, "his Son Jesus Christ," it means Yahweh's Son. That being the case, the previous use of the pronoun "him" in the two phrases "him that is true" must also refer to Yahweh. The "his" and "him" refer to the same person. To say that "This is the true God" refers to the Son is grammatically incorrect.

Not only is Yahweh the one true Elohim, but He is also Yahshua's Elohim. If Yahshua is an elohim or god and he himself has a god, then surely his god must be a greater god. This is what scripture teaches in Mt.27:46; Jn.17:3; 20:17; Eph.1:17; Heb. 1:9; and Rev.3:12. Rev.3:12 says, "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my Elohim, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my Elohim [Yahweh], and the name of the city of my Elohim, New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my Elohim: and I will write upon him my new name." Yahshua is saying this after he ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of Yahweh (Heb 8:1). If he was the Yahweh Almighty of the Old Testament, who is his Elohim and who is he sitting next to? Two scriptures answer that question. The first is Ps.110:1; "Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." The second is Mic.5:4; "And he [Yahshua] shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth."

The Image of Yahweh

What about Jn.14:9? "Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Is Yahshua declaring that he is Father Yahweh? Heb.1:3 and Col.1:15 both state that Yahshua is the "image" of Yahweh. An image is something that resembles something else. Yahshua resembles Yahweh in that their characters are almost identical. "Not that any man has seen the Father" (Jn. 6:46) bodily, but we have seen His character through His Son.

Man (specifically Adam) was made in the "image of Elohim" (Gen 1:26,27; 5:3; 9:6). Messiah Yahshua is also in the "image of Elohim" (2 Co 4:4; Col 1:15). "Elohim" in these verses, when understood in the context of pure monotheism, is a reference to Yahweh the Creator. Adam's inner man resembled Elohim, but he himself is not Elohim. Yahshua's inner man resembles Yahweh, but he himself is not Elohim.

Col 3:10 tells us that after a person's conversion, after he has put on the new man, he is "renewed in knowledge after the image of Him [Yahweh] that created him." Rom 8:29, 30 echoes this in that those that have been justified (through conversion unto Messiah) have been predestined to be "conformed to the image of His [Yahweh's] Son." Since the Son is in the image of Elohim, to be conformed to the image of the Son is to be conformed to the image of Elohim or Yahweh the Creator. 2 Co 3:18 says that we "are changed into the same image" as the Master. This also happens upon conversion.

From this info, I deduce the following;

Adam was made in the image of Yahweh. Upon his fall, that image was lost. It can only be restored through conversion unto the Master Yahshua. Yahshua, being sinless, never lost the image of Yahweh. The image of Yahweh has nothing to do with the physical appearance as far as the above references are concerned. It has to do with the inner man.

Look at Ps 73:20. Yahweh despises the image of the wicked. Why? Because they have put off Yahweh's image through sin and have created their own new image. The same is true of all men for all have sinned. We all have fallen away from the image of Yahweh and need to have that image restored through the indwelling Spirit of Messiah.

When Yahweh looks upon a believer, He sees the righteousness of His Son clothing us. He also sees the image of His Son clothing us. Our physical appearance has not changed, but our inner man has.

Yahshua is from everlasting?

What about Mic.5:2; "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This is undoubtedly a Messianic prophecy. The question is, what does "goings forth" mean? Does it mean Yahshua has existed as long as Yahweh? Some say yes thereby giving more weight to their argument that Yahshua is Yahweh. According to Strong's Concordance, "Goings forth" comes from one Hebrew word, "mowtsaah". It means, "a family descent." Since Yahweh is Yahshua's Father, Yahshua's family descent would go back as far as Yahweh's existence. Since Yahweh has always existed, Yahshua's family descent or goings forth must be from everlasting. The New English Bible, the Phillips translation, and Todays English Bible render it similarly. Yahshua himself is not from everlasting. His family descent, or his family tree, is.

There are those who believe that Yahshua was not only Yahweh, but Melchizedek as well. They site Heb.7:4 to prove this. In Gen.14:18 we read that Melchizedek, king of Salem, "was the priest of the most high God." The "most high God" is shown to be Yahweh three verses later; "...I have lift up mine hand unto Yahweh, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth." Therefore, Melchizedek is the priest of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself. If Yahshua is Melchizedek, he cannot be Yahweh. If Yahshua is Yahweh, he cannot be Melchizedek. The fact is, Yahshua is neither one of these beings. He is Yahweh's Son and Yahweh made him a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps.110:4, Heb. 7:21).

Receiving Worship and Forgiving Sins

Many people believe that only Almighty Yahweh can forgive sins and receive worship. Since Yahshua did both they believe he must be the Almighty. Yahshua indeed is worthy of our worship and honor, but only as Yahweh's representative, not as Yahweh Himself. Yahweh commanded even the angels of heaven to worship Yahshua (Heb.1:6). Rev.5:12 ,13 show both Yahweh and the Lamb [Yahshua] receiving worship. Eventually, those believers comprising the Philadelphia assembly will receive worship as well (Rev. 3:9). The worship they receive however, is not directed at them as though they were Yahweh.

A study of the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated "worship" will show that the Almighty is not always the recipient. Of the 170 occurrences only about half refer to the worship of Yahweh. This is hidden from the reader of scripture because half of those occurrences were translated 'to bow, bow down, do reverence, do obeisance,' as can be seen in the following verses: Gen.18:2; 19:1: 23:7,12; 27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 25:23,41; 2 Sam.9:6; 14:4,22.

Yahshua said to a man with palsy, "thy sins be forgiven thee" (Mt.9:2). The account continues, "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified Yahweh, which had given such power unto men." Were they correct? Had Yahweh given Yahshua the power to forgive sins? Yahshua said, "I can of my own self do nothing," "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (Jn.5:30a; 8:28b; 14:10b). Yahweh gave Yahshua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is Yahweh's Representative with the power to act in His name. The word "power" in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated "authority" in Jn.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of Yahweh in Ex.23:20-21, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him."

While we are on the subject of sin, many believe Yahshua was the one true "God" because "only the death of God could atone for man's sins. The death of a man wouldn't suffice." This is another example of the philosophy of men contrary to scripture. Heb.9:22 says, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins)." One requirement was shed blood. The other requirement was that the sacrifice had to be "without blemish" which, regarding Messiah, meant sinless. Yahweh Almighty did not have to die. Only the blood of a sinless man was required. Yahshua was that only sinless man (1 Jn.3:5).

The Attributes of Yahweh

The terms "omniscient" (all knowing), and "omnipotent" (all powerful) are often applied to Yahshua to prove he is the Almighty. In Jn.5:30 Yahshua said, "I can of mine own self do nothing" therefore, he cannot be omnipotent as Yahweh is. Mt. 24:36 proves Yahshua is not omniscient; "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father." In order to explain such verses "Oneness" proponents must turn Yahshua into the "God-Man." This unscriptural idea claims that Yahshua's divine half is omniscient and omnipotent but that he suppressed his powers during his life in the flesh. Nowhere in scripture is the Messiah called a God-Man or shown to have two such natures at the same time. He is repeatedly referred to as a man in such verses as 1 Tim.2:5. When he is called "God" it is in the sense of a mighty one among his people as was shown earlier. This is not to say that Yahshua was a mere man. Scripture is clear that Yahshua's birth was a miracle in that he was not made from the seed or sperm of man. He is Yahweh's only begotten Son; the only being ever to be "Fathered" by Yahweh.

Titles in Common

Should we refer to Yahshua as the Almighty, a title only applied to Yahweh? Nowhere in scripture is this ever the case. One scripture that seemingly supports such an application is Rev. 1:8; "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith [the Lord]*, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (KJV). *The Greek has "kurios o theos" ("the Lord the God" or "Yahweh Elohim"). The phrase "Lord God" is never used of Yahshua in the New Testament. Aside from that, John is giving a greeting starting in verse four and ending in verse seven. Verse four is a greeting from the Father "which is, and which was, and which is to come." Verse five is a greeting from Yahshua the Messiah. Verse eight is spoken by the Father which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Scripture makes a clear distinction between the Almighty and Yahshua in Rev.21:22; "And I saw no temple therein: for Yahweh Elohim Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." Yahshua is not Yahweh Almighty.

This misapplication of titles is often the cause of making these two beings into one. For example, Acts 3:14 reads, "But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;" Here the title "Holy One" is applied to Yahshua the Messiah. In Is.43:3 it says, "For I am Yahweh thy Elohim, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:. . . " Here the title "Holy One" is applied to Yahweh. Without further study one would conclude these two references are to the same person. However, we are not to study scripture superficially. In what way is Yahshua the Holy One? The answer is found in Mk.1:24; "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yahshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of Yahweh." Yahweh is the Holy One of Israel and Yahshua is the Holy One of Yahweh, not of Israel. Ps.16:10 confirms this understanding; "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." This is a Messianic prophecy. "My soul" refers to Yahshua's soul and "thine Holy One" refers to Yahweh's Holy One. Scripture reveals two Holy ones that are separate beings.

Another shared title is "Savior." Is.43:11 says, "I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour." That seems quite clear. Since Yahweh is the only Savior and Yahshua is called our Savior, the two must be one and the same being. This is true only in the minds of men who do not study deeply. Is.19:20b reads, "for they shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them." It was prophesied that Yahweh would send someone other than Himself to be a savior to Egypt. Yahweh is the one true Savior who works through Yahshua the Messiah, His appointed Savior.

A few other shared titles, all basically equal in meaning, are "Alpha and Omega," "the first and the last," and "the beginning and the end." Each of these titles are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua (Is.41:4;44:6;48:12; Rev.1:8,17;2:8;22:13) and have the meaning of uniqueness. Each is the first and last of his peculiar, unique kind. Yahweh is unique in that He is the only being that was not created and Yahshua is unique in that he is the only being ever to be directly begotten by Yahweh the Father (Jn.1:14). (Adam was created, all others were begotten by men).Titles that Yahweh and Yahshua have in common do not supply a firm foundation for a "Oneness" doctrine. If that were true, Cyrus, the king of Persia, would have been the pre-existent Yahshua since both are called "Messiah." In Is.45:1a it reads, "Thus saith Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;" The Hebrew for "anointed" is the same word that was translated "Messiah" in Dan. 9:25,26 and "anointed" in Ps.2:2.

The scriptures tell us Yahshua would also be called Emmanuel, meaning "God with us," or more correctly, "El with us." As a result, people teach that Yahshua is "God." This name is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How Yahweh anointed Yahshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for Yahweh (El) was with him." Not that Yahshua was El, but that El was with and in Yahshua. If you choose to use the logic of those in error, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means "He is Yah" or "Yah is He." Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, Yahweh?

Is.9:6 reads, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Is this prophecy declaring Yahshua the Messiah to be the Heavenly Father? There are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the "father of (something)." For example, Abishua means "father of plenty." Instead of translating the phrase in Is.9:6 as "Father of eternity," the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yahshua is the Father of Eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Heb.5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

One last title that confuses people is "Rock." 1 Cor.10:4 says, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah." Since Yahweh is called a "Rock" in several Old Testament verses, the two beings are made into one. This verse must be understood with Ex.17:6 in mind; "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." 1 Cor. 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Ex.17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To "smite the rock" is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yahshua could not give forth "rivers of living water" until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). Jn.7:39 shows this "living water" to be the Holy Spirit. Yahshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says "spiritual drink" and "spiritual Rock." The word "them" in the phrase "that followed them" is not in the Greek. Reading the verse without that misleading word gives the meaning that Yahshua followed in time as in 1 Pe.1:11, "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Messiah which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Messiah, and the glory that should follow." Even if one were to believe Yahshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was Yahweh since Yahweh was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh's representative, followed them (Ex.14:19).

I AM

"Before Abraham was, I am." These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14.

The phrase "I am" is "ego eimi" in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using "ego eimi" many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, "The I Am's of Jesus." It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the "I AM"?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Therefore, the "I AM" is identified as "Yahweh."

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the "I AM." But let's look into the matter a little farther.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Ex 3:14 reads,

In Septuagint English it reads, "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

In KJV English it reads, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

In John 8:58, "I am" is "" in Greek. As you can see, "" in Ex 3:14 is just the prelude to what the Almighty really wanted the Israelites to know, that is, that He was the "" or "the Being" or "the Existing One".

If Yahshua truly wanted to tell the Jews he was the great "I am" of Ex 3:14, he would have said, "Before Abraham was I am the Being" or "I am the Existing One".

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (Jn.8:58). Yahshua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd, in Jn.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51 & 52.

In Jn.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."

After Yahshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8:58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth.

This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what Yahshua meant due to a variety of reasons, I offer the following explanation.

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." "Was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, ... to arise." What Yahshua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," he writes, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present." He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, "therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;" and Mk.9:31a, "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."

Yahshua was telling them that Abraham will be one of those people who will be granted eternal life, but before that takes place, Yahshua will receive that same eternal life. This statement of fact must be since Yahshua is to have the preeminence in all things. He must be the firstborn from the dead, the first to receive eternal life.

Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."

Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh. And Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He is the Son of Yahweh and the Son of the great "I Am."

The Word was God?

In Jn.1:1-3 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (KJV). As mentioned previously, it is not wrong to address Yahshua as god or elohim as long as we don't address him as the "one true Elohim." According to the common understanding of verse 1, there are two beings, the Word and God, Yahshua and Yahweh. Therefore, the phrase "the Word was God" would lead one to believe that Yahshua (the Word) was Yahweh (God). However, if we know that Yahweh called Yahshua "God" or "elohim" in Heb.1:9 and Ps.45:7, there is no problem with the phrase "the Word was God." Yahshua is obviously an elohim in Hebrew or a god in English. This, of course, is based on the common understanding of the "Word" being Yahshua. That, however, is not what John intended when he wrote these verses.

Nor did John intend to teach us that the Son preexisted "with" God from the very beginning of creation. De 32:39 says, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other "elohim" or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, " . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." If the "Word" is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.

Since Yahshua is called "The Word of God" in Rev.19:13, the translators of the KJV assumed the "Word" of Jn.1:1 was also Yahshua and therefore, capitalized the word "word" and used the pronoun "him" in reference to the "word." The Greek for "Word" is "logos." It appears in the text written with a small letter l. Logos means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. The great English translator William Tyndale renders it that way in his 1525 version as does the Matthew's Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the Bishop's Bible of 1568. (Click here for more info.) Verse 3 should read, "All things were made through it; and without it was not anything made that was made." In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14, 20, and 24 all of which begin, "And Elohim said." Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, "By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; "And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the "Word of Yahweh" until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.

How then should we translate verse 1? "In the beginning was the word; and the word was with Yahweh, and the word was Yahweh's" is one suggestion. The Greek word translated "God" is "theos." The Greek does not have a different word to show possession. Therefore, theos can be translated "Yahweh" or "Yahweh's." The possessive form makes this verse so clear and in harmony with the phrase "the word was with Yahweh."

A second possible translation would be, "and the word was mighty." Theos is equivalent to the Hebrew word elohim. Elohim has the meaning of great or mighty in such verses as Gen.30:8, "And Rachel said, With great [elohim] wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali" and 1 Sam 14:15, "And there was trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people: the garrison, and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very great [elohim] trembling." Since the word theos in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 & 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun.

Who is the Creator?

Getting back to the issue of creation, many believe Yahshua created all things. A thorough study of the Old Testament scriptures shows Yahweh to be the Creator and that He acted alone to accomplish this. Note Is.44:24; "Thus saith Yahweh, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am Yahweh that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" Where is Yahshua in this verse? It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahshua is not Yahweh, therefore, Yahshua did not have a hand in creation. This is confirmed in Job 9:8; "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea." Consider also Prov.30:4; "Who hath ascended up into heaven? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?" This verse teaches us that the Creator, whoever He is, has a Son. Does Yahshua have a son? No. Father Yahweh is the Creator and He has a Son who is not given credit for creation in this verse.

There are several New Testament scriptures used to prove he did create all things. They are Jn 1:3, which we already looked at; Jn.1:10; 1 Cor.8:6; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; and Heb.1:2. All these verses use the same basic phrase, "by him" or "by Yahshua Messiah." The phrase "by Yahshua Messiah" in Eph.3:9 is not found in any Greek MSS. Without the added words this verse teaches us that Yahweh is the Creator. The remaining four verses imply that Yahshua is the Creator. Thus far, it has been conclusively proven that Yahshua is not Yahweh. Since the scriptures emphatically state over 100 times that Yahweh is the Creator (Ex.20:11) and that He acted alone (Is.44:24), should we discard that wealth of evidence and accept Yahshua as the Creator without question? A careful examination of the Greek of those four verses will yield a different picture.

The Greek word for "by" is "di." It can be translated "by," "through," "on account of," "for," etc., based on the context or message of the sentence. These four verses in question will not allow the translation "by" because it does not agree or harmonize with over 100 other verses stating that Yahweh is the Creator. An example of the importance of context is Mk.2:27; "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." Both words "for" in this verse are from the Greek word "dia." It would be incorrect to translate "dia" as "by" in this verse: The Sabbath was made by man. If you will notice the Greek of Jn.1:10 you will see it is the exact same construction as Mk.2:27 yet one verse says "for" and the other says "by." Also, in the case of Heb 1:2, it is revealed that Yahshua is the heir of all things that have been created by Yahweh. He is not the Creator Himself.

1 Pe.1:20 says, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." Before creation, Yahshua existed in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8). Even before creation Yahweh knew that Yahshua had to be slain. Even before creation Yahweh knew that He would create all things on account of and for His Son. And so it is written and correctly translated in Col.1:16, "For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created on account of him, and for him:" Without Yahshua in Yahweh's plan, creation would never have occurred. The remaining three scriptures using "by" should be translated similarly.

One other Scripture often used to prove Yahshua's hand in creation is Heb.1:10-12. These verses are indeed very difficult to understand. It appears as though the writer of Hebrews is including verses 10-12 as additional statements that Yahweh has made to His Son. The use of "And" in verse 10 and "but" in verse 13 suggest this. But if we look a little deeper we will find several discrepancies. Verses 10-12 are direct quotes from Ps.102:25-27. They are not a quote from the Hebrew Text, however, but from the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew Text does not have "Lord" in it. Therefore, to say that "Lord" in Heb.1:10 proves that Yahshua is Yahweh is unscriptural. The LXX has "Kurie" in Ps.102:25, but that is an addition since it is not found in the Hebrew Text. The LXX also omits "O my el" in verse 24.

In reading the Hebrew of Ps.102, it is clear the subject is Yahweh. They are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh. They are not the words of Yahweh as He speaks to His Son.

Notice each of the other Old Testament quotes in Hebrew 1;

Ps.2:7 - "...Thou art my Son; this day I (Yahweh) have begotten thee."

2 Sam.7:14 - "I (Yahweh) will be to him a Father..."

Deut.32:43 (LXX) - "And let all the angels of God (Yahweh) worship him."

Ps.45:6,7 - "Thy throne O elohim...therefore elohim, thy Elohim (Yahweh) hath anointed thee."

Ps.110:1 - "Sit on my right hand, until I (Yahweh) make thine enemies thy footstool."

In each of these quotes it can be seen that either Yahweh is talking to His Son or about His Son. Yet, in Ps.102:25-27 it is the Psalmist talking to Yahweh. Therefore, to include Heb.1:10-12 among those things that Yahweh said to or about His Son is incorrect.

The writer of Hebrews had written verses 1-9 to show how Yahweh exalted His Son, even above the angels. It appears as though the writer was then moved to exalt Yahweh as well by including verses 10-12 as a parenthesis. He then resumes by showing Yahshua's exaltation in verse 13 which is a continuation of verse 9. There are an abundance of Scriptures proving that Yahshua is not Yahweh. To make that assumption here is to reject the weightier evidence.

Know the Scriptures

There has been a very sharp attack centered on using Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament that are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua to prove the two are one and the same. It is important to fully understand these verses correctly.

The first is found in Rom.14:10,11. It reads, "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God" (KJV). Paul was quoting Is.45:23 in which the speaker is Yahweh. So when verse 23 says, "That unto me," "me" refers to Yahweh. Every knee will bow and every tongue will swear to Yahweh. Therefore, in Rom.14:11, "Lord" must mean Yahweh, as does "me" and "God". There is no mention of Messiah in this verse; not even in verse 10. Concerning the phrase "judgment seat of Christ," the Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary says, "All the most ancient and best MSS. read here, "judgment seat of God."

Paul does, however, apply portions of Is.45:23 to Yahshua in Ph.2:10,11. That does not mean he is also applying the Name "Yahweh" to him as well. Jn.5:23 helps us to understand this. If you don't honor the Son, by extension, you don't honor the Father. And Jn.15:23; if you hate the Son, by extension, you hate the Father. If you bow your knees to the Son, by extension, you bow your knees to the Father. Notice Is.45:23 does not say what will be sworn; Ph.2:11 does - every tongue shall confess or swear that Yahshua is "Lord," "kurios". That same word was applied to men in several other verses such as Jn.12:21. It is only a reference to Yahweh when it is a direct quote of an Old Testament verse containing the Tetragrammaton which Is.45:23 does not.

The next reference is 1 Pe.2:8, "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." Peter is here applying Is.8:14 to Messiah. It is to be understood in the sense that, since Yahshua is Yahweh's representative or agent, whatever Yahshua does is credited to Yahweh or is as though Yahweh did it. Isayah says Yahweh will be a stumbling stone. Yahweh then causes Israel to stumble over Yahshua which makes them both stumbling stones. "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is Yahweh's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps.118:22,23).

Consider Ex.7:17 when understanding this verse.

"Thus saith Yahweh, In this thou shalt know that I am Yahweh: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river. And Yahweh spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as Yahweh commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood."

Yahweh says He Himself will smite the waters with the rod in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron that held the rod (Ex.7:19,20). Are we to believe that Aaron is also Yahweh? Neither should we believe that Yahshua is Yahweh in this verse.

Consider Zech 14:4 in this light as well.

"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Most people believe "his feet" refers to Yahweh's feet. Yet, they realize that it is Yahshua who is returning to set up the Kingdom on earth. So they jump to the erroneous conclusion that Yahshua is Yahweh. As Messiah's feet land on the Mount of Olives, Yahweh the Father will cause it to cleave in two. Yet, as Yahweh's representative, Yahshua's feet are spoken of as Yahweh's feet just as Aaron's hand is spoken of as Yahweh's hand.

Yahshua is not the only one "coming" on judgment day. Yahweh will come as well, but not in the physical sense that Yahshua will.

Isa 40:10 - "Behold, the Sovereign Yahweh will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him."

The phrase "his arm" is a reference to Messiah (Jn 12:38), but "the Sovereign Yahweh" is a reference to the Father.

Isa 66:15 - "For, behold, Yahweh will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire."

This is the language of 2 Peter 3:10-13 when it talks about "the Day of Yahweh." Yahweh the Father will come bringing judgment upon the world. He will do so through His Son Yahshua and the saints which will be riding on the "chariots" of Yahweh the Father. "All the saints" of Zech 14:5 would include Yahshua.

Ex.7:17 is also the key to understanding Zec.11:13 which reads, "And Yahweh said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of Yahweh." Since Yahshua was priced at 30 pieces of silver, and since Yahweh here says, "I was prised at of them," some conclude that Yahshua is also called Yahweh. Using that same logic, who cast the silver down? Mt.27:5 says of Judas, "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple..." Are we to believe that Judas is also called Yahweh?

The next attack on Scripture comes in 1 Pe.3:14,15, "But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" (KJV) Several commentaries and Greek manuscripts read "Christ" instead of "God" in these verses. They imply it should read, "But sanctify Yahweh who is Christ." According to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, there are 6 Mss. that have "Christos" or "Messiah" in the text and 8 MSS. that do not. Since the Hebrew Text clearly says, "Yahweh of hosts" (Is.8:13), the Greek would say either theos or kurios, not Christos. The Greek text was obviously tampered with by those who tried to prove that Yahshua was the YHWH of the Old Testament.

The last attack comes in 1 Pe.2:3,4, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious," (KJV). In verse 3, Peter is quoting Ps.34:8 which is speaking about Yahweh. Some people would have us believe that Peter is applying the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, to the Messiah in verse 4. The words "as unto" in the KJV, however, are added words not found in the Greek that change Peter's meaning. Delete these words and the Greek text reads, "To whom coming toward" or "To whom drawing near, as living stone..." In other words, the living stone (Yahshua) was drawing near or coming toward Yahweh as will all living stones in the future (vs.5). The "whom" in verse 4 refers to the "Lord" YHWH of verse 3; "To [Yahweh] coming, a living stone."

No Man Has Seen God?

This study would not be complete without addressing the issue concerning the following statements; (Jn.5:37), "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."
And again in 1 Jn.4:12, "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us" (KJV). Since Yahweh (God) was never seen, or heard for that matter, then who was it that men saw in such passages as Deut.4:12, Ex.24:9-11, etc.? It is assumed that the pre-existant Messiah is the one they saw and that he is referred to as Yahweh.

To understand this we need to look at a few other examples. Consider the following;

Gen.22:11-12 - "And the angel of Yahweh called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest Elohim, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

Ex.3:2-6 - "And the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush:... And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, ... he said, I am the Elohim of thy father, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon Elohim."

In these two passages, and many others involving the Angel of Yahweh, the angel speaks as though he was Yahweh. That is because Yahweh was speaking through the angel. Ex.23:20-22 reads, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." As Yahweh's chosen representative, the Angel speaks whatever he is told to speak by Yahweh. The same was true of Yahshua (Jn.12:49,50), and the prophets (Heb.1:1).

How does this relate to the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai? Wasn't it Yahweh's own voice they heard? That is what Deut.4:12 would suggest. Yet, several New Testament Scriptures reveal the speaker to be an angel. Acts 7:38,53 read, "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:...Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. " Also in Gal.3:19, "...and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses)."

So what can we conclude about this? It is true that Yahweh's voice has never been heard nor His shape seen. It was an angel that appeared to men. Yet, this angel, as Yahweh's chosen representative, could speak with the authority of Yahweh as though he were Yahweh. The prophets do the same thing quite often. Therefore, Malachi can say, "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me..." (Mal.3:1), yet, no one would dare say Malachi was Yahweh.

The Jewish understanding of this is important to note here. It is called the law of agency. "The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion," Adama Books, New York, 1986, pg.15 reads, "The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Almighty Yahweh appointed both Yahshua the Messiah, His Son, and the Angel of Yahweh, as His agents. As such, anything they did was regarded as though the Almighty Himself did it.

A wealth of scriptural truth has been presented in this study. An honest seeker of truth should now know that Yahshua is not Yahweh, the Mighty One of Israel. He is Yahweh's only begotten Son. That is what we must believe. "Whosoever shall confess that Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh, Yahweh dwelleth in him, and he in Yahweh" (1 Jn.4:15). If you believe that Yahshua is Yahweh instead of the Son of Yahweh, the truth is not in you. Peter knew this truth and responded correctly; "Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim" (Mt.16:16). How will you now respond?

Appendix A

There are several passages in which Yahweh is spoken of as "God" and yet, they are mistakenly applied to Yahshua. The first is Jude 1:24,25. It reads, "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Who is it that is able to keep us from falling? Jn.10:29 and Rom.16:25-27 teach us that it is the Father (Yahweh) who keeps us. He is "God only wise" or "the only wise God."

The second passage is 1 Tim.1:17. It reads, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen." We just saw who the "only wise God" is in Rom.16:25-27.

The third passage is Titus 2:13; "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" Does this mean Paul is saying Yahshua is the great God? In his opening (Titus 1:4) he greets Titus from "God [Yahweh] the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [Yahshua]. In Paul's mind there are two individuals, not two manifestations of one being. Some commentators believe the word "and" in Titus 2:13 should be translated "even" since the Greek word "kai" can carry that meaning. Most lexicons will show that kai means "and" in the overwhelming majority of uses and, in comparison, rarely means "even." If we change "and" to "even" anytime we want, then we can say things like Prisca and Aquila are the same person (2 Tim.4:19), etc.

Franklin4YAHWEH's Xanga

All Newer Entries Will Be Made After This Section

Is Jesus the Eternal Son? By ROBERT FIGUEROA

Unitarian Christ (Man, God, Both?)

Reasons That Jesus Was Not GodBy Br. Mikael Lyngvig (Denmark) - Belgian Christadelphians

Jesus Islam Answers Back

“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’”