It is interesting that satan, who usually tries the mimic the things of YHWH, has not really tried to copy the trinity concept, Probably because the trinity is not worth copying, it is doing a really good job of confusing people as it is.

I would surmise that the concept of the trinity arose out of a desire amongst the 'great' and the 'good' to increase the distance between christianity and Judaism (and possibly islam well) with a doctrine which was/is so obscure that it defies real definition and thus cannot be readily attacked. This, of course, develops a further dependance upon the 'intellectual' powers of the priests, vicars etc. and a situation which parallels 'the Emperor’s new clothes'.

If it was of importance to YHWH it would have been directly mentioned in the old covenant and updated in the new, as it is, any references in the scriptures are very indirect.

The trinity confirms the status of jesus as part of the godhead, which in turn justifies salvation as coming from jesus. If you are building a religion around 'salvation' by 'belief' in jesus then there is a need to bolster his status, he thus gets 'promoted' after the 'cross' and now sits at the right hand of god the father. Believers now have no need to follow torah, or do anything else, they have a short cut, they 'know' the bosses' son.

Sorry if this is all a bit confused - I always have had difficulty with this one :-$

Here's ex-mormon and now evangelical minister Jim Spencer's audio page: http://www.mazeministry.com/audio/hespeaks.htm
If you check out the files on his discussion of the trinitarian concept I think you'll agree it's a very well done presentation of the concept.

As for my own thoughts on the trinity, to quote Dr. Scott: 'the trinity is a philosophical construct created by the early church to avoid the accusation of polytheism'. I think Yada's comparison to the ocean of YHWH, the man-sized icicle of Yahshua and the warm steam of the Set-Apart spirit are as good a definition as anyone has come up with. I've always thought of YHWH as a big swiss army knife, one single unit, but having several tools in various shapes in forms for whatever task needed to be done. I think it's almost blasphemous to try to define YHWH in such formulas and we should wait till we get home before trying to figure Him out beyond what the Scriptures tell us, but as Jim says 'the heretics force us to formulate'.

Imagine it another way, let's think of YHWH as being so big-He can support the entire cosmos on His little finger, and so intelligent he can know all 6 billion of us like the closest of family and friends if we would all only allow Him to, and all at the same time! When you get that image in your head, a single, triune, or even 1000 fold manifestation of Himself yet being one is easy to get your mind around.

Shema Yisra'el YHWH Eloheinu YHWH echad.

Hear O Yisrael YHWH our Elohim YHWH is ONE


He is not Yachid...He is Echad

Edited by user Friday, December 28, 2007 10:30:11 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

When asked if I believe in the trinity I reply it depends on what you mean by trinity please define it. The respones are usually fun, then I explain that I believe in seperate and set apart manifestations, i.e. Yahushua and the Set Apart Spirit, of one God Yahweh

Shabbat Shalom All,

Good point made by KP and all the Qodeshim here. Yahweh is One, and He manifests Himself in as many ways as He wants to interact with us. The trinity concept is a simplistic way to recognise the Creator's saving grace but really is too limiting, and too much like the other trinitarian concepts found in other religions. Observing Torah, we cannot allow for this in our own hearts and minds, but it may be wise to be gentle and firm when communicating with others around us regarding this. Those schooled in traditional Christianity shall find this rather hard to swallow at first, but if the Truth can sink in, then people would also realise that if a man can be a father, a son and a friend all at the same time as he is also a husband, a brother, tennis player, snooker player, webmaster, blogger... then the Creator is also not limited in His capacity to deal with His creation. Some Hindus recognise this but many pray to just about every manifestation instead of just The Creator, and they do not have the real and proper name. While we are blessed with this name and understanding, knowing the name is not knowing a magic formula. Knowing His identity is not going to save us either if we do not believe Him and do what He says.

The main problem with today's world is that too many people claim that they are the ones who know what The Creator says and what His Will is, and they put themselves in His position in their churches, mosques, and temples and try to subjugate the spirit of man. Woe shall befall them for leading others astray! On the other hand, those whom He has called should hear His voice and seek Him accordingly. In leaving their current herd, whom shall they follow? They will always look for a shepherd and may be beguiled by false prophets. How do they find Truth?!

Relating my personal experience I applied some logic. Scores of religions to choose from. How many gods are there? Is one enough? Let's start with only one first. If more are revealed then we shall deal with it later if necessary. How many apparently monotheistic religions are there? Three main groups: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Of these, did the Creator reveal Himself directly through them? Judaism claims they had interacted with the Creator but that He will only come sometime later to reveal Himself. Islam makes similar claims but it seems that they take their beliefs from the Hebrews and modified it. Christianity claims that the Creator actually came in person and interacted with men 2,000 years ago and shall come again! Let's move on with the Christians then.

Wheee! There are hundreds of Christian churches speaking different things! Whom do I follow? Read their basic Scripture. There is a checklist called the 10 Commandments. Which church actually preaches and follows all 10? Amazingly, this distills it to only a few denominations with scores of congregations spread around the world. How? Very few actually preach the real Sabbath! All others ignore the Sabbath and keep Sunday as their off-day. Going forward, after more research, how many of these Sabbath-keepers keep His other appointed Sabbaths and instructions? Even fewer! But wait! The Jews are keeping it! So we have "half-and-half", so to speak. The "older" guys don't believe the faith and practices of the "newer" guys and vice versa, but both groups have many similarities! This calls for even more research.

If they both claim to know Him, how do they identify Him? What is His name? Some groups do not dare mention His name! Others do not even know His name! Let's exclude those. Having been introduced to Yahweh, as that is the Creator's name, what does He want, more so from me? He wants me to know Him! And He said that He has followers throughout the past two millenia! So I set about seeking more information about Yahweh from His current followers. I came across this site and other Messianic sites. Still some differences in beliefs and practices between these groups. What are the major differences? Nothing really significant! But I look at those willing to share freely for it is said, "Freely you have received, freely you shall give." This Yada Yahweh site gives much spiritual food to its readers and asks for nothing back. I search other sites. Many ask for money to support their efforts. But these few also have followers who all believe the same Yahweh, praise Him as The Creator, acknowledge His Sacrifice, observe His Word and His Feasts and await His arrival as Messiah Yahushua. Some are in a position to fellowship in person as a congregation and some are not. But here we are! All touched and moved to seek Him and finding His voice through His servants. Would I tell others to seek information from other sites? Of course! Truth is bigger than one website! There is so much information out there now. Eventually it will all "disappear" when the world's rulers declare truth shall be in their hands alone again.

It seems rather simplistic and it is obvious that I omitted many details but the whole process took me many years. For some it may come faster, for others perhaps even longer. But in the end, it boils down to what each of us does with the little that is given. Now it is incumbent upon me to help others find The Creator. It is my turn to give freely just as I receive. And if this requires that I put aside some energy and expense, so be it, for everything that I have comes from Him anyway. And if it means helping others understand the folly of trinitarian religions, false religions and the beauty of true relationship with the Creator, then I shall engage. From affirming that Yahweh is One, to sharing Messiah Yahushua coming soon to save us from ourselves. And I give thanks to Yahweh for His mercy upon me as I turn to walk in His Way, and for the fellowship of His followers who have encouraged me thus far.

Shalom Aleichem!

Peace greetings ALL,

I do not espouse to any of the diverse so called "Holy Trinity" doctrines. I also do not believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth and that he is his Father Yahweh. Nowhere in Scripture are we asked to believe or confess such doctrines. We are only asked to confess and believe that Yahshua is the Messiah the son of the living Yahweh. I believe that many give Yahshua an esteem that he is not worthy of. Yahshua was a humble servant of Father Yahweh. Yahshua gave all esteem to Father Yahweh and I believe that we are to follow his righteous example.



To Believe "Jesus God" Is To Be Deceived!

Even though I maybe a little late here:

Jon B. wrote:

Jon, I couldn't agree with you more if I wanted to. For the entire trinity concept; if it was not around before, was certainly very much in evidence in the pagan theology of ancient Egypt with the Theban Triad, and there were also many other sources - all of pagan origin.

I personally found it a most freeing thing in my life - to have my focus on - THE ONE AND ONLY, , indeed the FATHER of all creation, and no other.

In accordance with HIS one and only GLORY, I can now learn from the footsteps of a couple of amazing (fully human) big brothers in Yahshua, and Moses. Everything other than this, to me - is as pagan generated blasphemy.

"So knowledge isn't the main measure, love of Yah and of each other is."

Edited by user Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:59:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

There's also the little matter of the OC scriptures being peppered with things the Messiah is prophesied to do that are presented in Yahweh's voice. Case in point, Zechariah 12:10, where Yahweh (see verse 1) says, "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn." This happens so often, there's no getting around it.

kp

Actually my good friend, it is my option as to whom I learn from, and whom I follow, as it is yours - and believe it or not, the same goes for everyone else on the planet.

I guess it's fair to say that being called "out of Babylon" is a journey not unlike so many others. As with all journeys; anyone who chooses to embark upon it, will proceed at his own pace; and most will balk at various places along that journey, and ultimately, some (maybe most) will reach a point where they, for whatever reason will refuse to take any more steps, and remain as partly called out - setting up their tent so to speak; somewhere along the way. Please understand, I am NOT suggesting this of anyone here, for if nothing else, I have no concept as to anyone, other than I have been feeling very blessed by the undoubted warmth of most since joining. In any case, I hardly understand my own heart, so I'm not about to start judging anyone else's.

As for John 1:1-3; whilst a Christian, I could only read this as being all about 'Jesus' - through the eyes of Christian understanding, and it was quite frankly a hopeless task for anyone to convince me otherwise, as my eyesight was set in stone - the same stone of my heart, actually. I have to admit that it did take much de-programming to eventually soften my heart of stone in this regard, and truly - it was quite scary a process at that.

Nowadays, I simply cannot read it as being about Yahshua creating the heavens and the earth in any way. Even if I tried, I just cannot swallow it any longer, as the entire concept is as blasphemous to me now as it can be - to see religious people place their honor in a man (a creation) rather than the CREATOR ETERNAL YAH, is plainly abhorrent from where I sit, and it comes from out of a most basic misunderstanding.

Therefore this really has far less to do with 'paganism paranoia', but - much more to do with a purified perception.

So in the interest of John 1:1-3 now being "taken seriously"; I would suggest that we read it again, BUT this time with 'the word' references being according the account of Creation Week - as directly from Genesis. So 'the word' is (now) what issues from the mouth of YAH, as in - Yah SAID "let there be light", which indeed must be 'word' (albeit not the physical variety that we are so familiar with). Also, please consider for this exercise; "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that issues from the mouth of YAH" - lest I should be reading this as; "but by every Jesus that issues from the mouth of YAH". This really isn't rocket science, so now - with 'the word' in accordance with Genesis - since I expect we all agree this text as referencing;

John 1-3 "In the beginning was the word (the actioning of thought - as from 'heaven'/YAH), and the word (actioning) was with Elohim (cannot exist without Him - YAH), and the word (actioning) was Elohim (once spoken, the action and YAH - the Actioner - are as one). He (it) was in the beginning with ('with' - not 'as') Elohim. All came to be through Him (YAH - for without HIS action, there would exist nothing physical), and without Him (YAH) not even one came to be that came to be (nothing physical can exist without actioning - indeed from the word of YAH)."

Truly though, I now find little in scripture that cannot be clarified in a similar manner - through purified perception.

Ultimately though, as a result of our undoubted freedom; we will all choose to believe what is our choice to do so - as based upon what we deem to be the essential elements in what we are looking at and through the eyes of our choosing. Therefore, as with everything else human, it is a perception thing, and I guess it is reasonably obvious to note that in the end, I cannot even hope to change anyone's mind on what they have chosen to believe, and it really isn't my job to do so in any case.

Finally, it matters not one iota who agrees with whom, and how the scriptures or even common sense may seem to me or anyone else, because the bottom line is; THE TRUTH will always be the truth - even if no-one ever believes a word of it - ever.

So I have shared my story, and leave it at that, for the sheep of the GOOD SHEPHERD know HIS voice, and will follow when HE calls - all the way out of Babylon.

Thank you Frank4YAHWEH.

"So knowledge isn't the main measure, love of Yah and of each other is"

Edited by user Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:14:47 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Peace greetings Matthew,

Yahchanan 1:1-3 does not "clearly TELL US that it was Yahushua that created the heavens and earth and that He is Elohim." If it SAID anywhere in the Scripture, and I QUOTE YOU and not Scripture, "... Yahushua ... created the heavens and earth ... and He is Elohim." then I would believe Scripture SAYS this but, nowhere in Scripture will you find such a QUOTE. Such a QUOTE only comes from the mouths of false teachers and not from the mouth of Yahweh Whose word we are to live by. Note that Yahchanan 1:1 in any translation that I am aware of does not say "...and the word was Jesus." Note also the emphesis in capitalization placed on the "Word" in this passage by Trititarian translators and that in the Greek the word 'logos' is not capitalized.

It is not taught by anyone in Scripture that Yahshua created. Nor is it taught by anyone in Scripture that Yahshua is co-equal, co-eternal or an "Eternal Son". Yahshua himself never once proclaimed to be the creator or a co-creator with Father Yahweh. In fact, Yahshua credited Father Yahweh with the creation of the heavens and the earth and all things in them (Mattithyah [Matthew] 19:4-6; Yahchanan Mark 10:5-6; & 13:19; also cf. Mattithyah [Matthew] 11:25).

Here is Revelation 1:11 in its entirety from several respected translations. Note that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" does not appear in these translations.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
saying, "Write on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

American Standard Version
saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Bible in Basic English
Saying, What you see, put in a book, and send it to the seven churches; to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Saying: What thou seest, write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.

Darby Bible Translation
saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven assemblies: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.

English Revised Version
saying, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Weymouth New Testament
It said, "Write forthwith in a roll an account of what you see, and send it to the seven Churches--to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyateira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

World English Bible
saying, " What you see, write in a book and send to the seven assemblies : to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

I would also like to inform the moderator of this forum that I have received spam in my inbox on this forum. The message reads as follows:

"FROM; MR. FRANK ZIWOS, PRIVATE PHONE 00225-0821-7850
COTE D IVOIRE, WEST AFRICA.
Dear One,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into long time relatioship and financial transaction for our mutual benefits.
I am MR. FRANK ZIWOS and I inheritated an important sum from my late father who died in recent crisis in Cote d'Ivoire. I wish to request for your assistance in investing this sum in lucrative venture or manufacturing and real estate management in your country.
I have FOUR million, five hundred thousand United State Dollars. USD($4.500,000)to invest in this transaction and I will require your assistance in receiving the fund in your account in your country. I will gladly give you some reasonable percent from the total sum for your assistance. Please it is important you contact me immediately on this email address of: frank_002z@yahoo.com for
more clearification on the next step for smooth conclusion.
Awaiting your immediate response and God bless you.
Thanks for your understanding
Yours Sincerely,
MR.FRANK ZIWOS,"

END MESSAGE QUOTE

I would advise anyone who receives such messages to ignore them and report them to the moderator.

Edited by user Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:24:38 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I can say that "I AM" here on Yada Yahweh Forum. AM I saying that I AM Yahweh? Most definately not! The "I AM" that I AM speaking is in reference to myself as it also was to Yahshua. There are also many others in Scripture that said "I AM" in reference to themselves. AM I supposed to believe that they were proclaiming to be Father Yahweh also? I most certainly would not believe such foolishness!

As to what you are supposed to think, you think what you like! I AM simply stating what it is that I believe. I do not believe that Yahshuia IS the word of Yahweh but, I believe that Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN) in the flesh THROUGH (By way of) His son Yahshua just as Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN) THROUGH (By way of) the prophets of old.

Yahweh, who at various times and in different manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Has in this last time period spoken unto us by [His] son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, for whom He also made the world; ... (Hebrews 1:1-2; cf. 2 Kepha [Peter] 1:21). Yahshua is now our medaitor, advocate, and intercessor with Father Yahweh. Yahshua is most certainly not Yahweh our Heavenly Father and Creator. Yahshua is most certainly the Messiah the son of the living Yahweh.

I also do not believe that Yahshua ... raised (resurrected) himself from the dead, appointed and anointed himself as King to reign for 1,000 years, picked his own students (disciples), was his own Father, communicated (prayed) to himself in heaven, gave himself his name, and all the many other foolish doctrines that the Trinitarian Christian religions teach.

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Luke 1:19, the malak Gabryl said, "Ego eimi Gabryl." In Yahchanan [John] 9:9 the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Kepha said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom you seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" A.K.J.V translation of Ex.3:14. The Yahdahim did not stone Yahshua for saying Ego eimi. Read the context! You and your Trinitarian campers are the ones who are unnecessarily giving stressed emphasis where none is due.

Sorry, but shalom82 isn't being Trinitarian in the slightest.

This isn't an argument whether the Trinity doctrine is true or not - think you'll find that The books of Yada Yahweh/FH, or TOM do not promote the trinitarian concepts - That God is one in three persons - Rather that God is and exists as One, but He has several manifestations - Yahushua being his four-dimensional manifestation, the Set-Apart Spirit being His invisible manifestation that in whom all true believers are immersed.

He's also not giving unessessary stress to the phrase εγω ειμι - for Yahushua to say ,"Αμεν, αμεν, λεγω υμιν, πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι, εγω ειμι", which, a literal translation should translate as "Truly (Αμεν), truly (αμεν), I say (λεγω) to you (υμιν) - before (πριν) Abraham (Αβρααμ) came into existence (γενεσθαι) - I (εγω) Am/I existed (ειμι)." Shows that Yahushua certainly said that He existed before Abraham was born, which means He must have pre-existed His "birth" for the fact that if He didn't pre-exist His "birth" then He is a liar when He says that "Before Abraham came into existence - I existed" - because Αbraham lived 2000 years before Yahushua's birth in 2 BCE.

The verses you've quoted there aren't anything like this, and to the Messiah's usage of εγω ειμι here. His hearers knew exactly what He was refering to when He said this, as He was refering to Exodus 3:14 - και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Ἐγω ειμι ο ων, και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υἱοις Ισραηλ Ὁ ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας

And no one has yet to answer kp's quoted verse, ZakarYah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.". Looking back to ZakarYah v1, the constant usage of the first person by Yahweh means that He is talking about Himself in verse 10 - So, when exactly was Yahweh "pierced"?

Your main mistake is thinking that this site promotes the Trinity - It doesn't, and no one on this forum here does.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way Greek wise to prove your "corrected" version. The Greek is based on it's case endings, and γενεσθαι - verb, aroist, middle, infinitive - cannot modify the εγω ειμι coming after it.

Even if it could (and it can't), the whole thing would change to "Truly, truly, I am to come into existence before Abraham," which still doesn't support your point about Yahushua.

All I can say is, ignore English translations word usage - "was" is not an ample word to translate γενεσθαι (from γινομαι).

Your corrected version also not only ignores the Greek usage of the γινομαι verb in it's aorist, middle and infinitive form, it also ignores John/Yahuchanon's usage of it elsewhere in His eye-witness account:

John 1:12: But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, the gave the right to become children of God - γενεσθαι is the last word in the Greek of verse 12 - therefore the Greek literally says, "he gave to them authority children of God to become" - γενεσθαι comes after the noun it is modifying.

3:9: Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” - γενεσθαι is again the last word in the Greek of verse 12 - therefore the Greek literally says, "how are able these to become" - γενεσθαι is modifying the Greek word for "these" (ταυτα), the word γενεσθαι comes after.

5:6: When Yahushua saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” - γενεσθαι, is once again, the last word in the sentence, modifying the Greek word for "healthy" (υγιης), which γενεσθαι, again, comes after.

9:27: Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” - surprisingly, γενεσθαι is the last word in the sentence again! Coming after the Greek word for disciples, μαθεται

13:19: I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place... - γενεσθαι again comes after the word it modifies - the Greek "before" (προ) (γενεσθαι is translated as "it takes place" in this verse - It would be better to translate it as "before it comes into existence")

14:29: And now I have told you before it takes place... (takes place = γενεσθαι) - this is more or less exactly the same as the verse quoted above - only this verse it has a different introduction before πριν γενεσθαι.

Therefore, in the Greek of John, γενεσθαι comes after the word/noun it is modifying.

In the John 8:58 verse "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I am" γενεσθαι comes after the Greek for Abraham - αβρααμ - for the Greek to even imply "before abraham, was I am," γενεσθαι would have to come after εγω ειμι, not before it.



Because English requires the usage of spacers to indicate what the words are supposed to be saying - we could use a , ; ' . / if we wanted - the problem is that the Greek doesn't in any way, shape or form provide any basis for not sticking the , - where they currently are in the English translation. The Greek does however provide foundation for the comma's to be exactly where they are now - after the word was, and before the I am.

Greek wise, there is only one way to translate that passage:

Truly, truly, I say to you; before Abraham came into existence, I Am"

YAH is my FATHER, when you say Hebrew do you mean Aramaic?

I'm no expert in languages and etymology but here is a quote from the Skia chapter in YY.



Edit:

Also, Andrew Gabriel Roth (a specialist in the Aramaic Peshitta) has clearly stated that "the Original Aramaic leaves no doubt that Yahshua is Elohim."

I do not believe that Yahshua said "[I] was in a continual state of existance before Abraham was born." This is purely an adding on to what Yahshua said.

I do not believe that Yahshua is Yahweh for the simple fact that he never said that he was and no one in Scripture ever said that he was. It is obvious from taking the entire context of Scripture into consideration that he most certainly was the son of his (he refered to Yahweh on many occasions as "My Father") Father. No matter how you may twist a number of choice passages to your own private interpretation, the entire context of Father Yahweh's inspired word wins out over your foolish belief that one can be their own father.

There is certainly nothing wrong with believing, confessing and professing that Yahshua is the Messiah the son of the living Yahweh. That is my stance in accordance with the inspired word that proceeds out of the mouth of Father Yahweh that we are to live by. "Jesus is God", "God the Son", "pre-existent Son", "Eternal Son", "co-creator", and etc. (*all Trinitarian concepts) are not words or word phrases that have proceeded from the mouth of Father Yahweh, the mouth of His son Yahshua, any of his disciples, or any of the apostles. These unsound words and word phrases I believe to be dead wrong in accordance with Father Yahweh's inspired word. If you can not understand the simplicity of what it is that I believe, I really don't know what else to tell you that can convince you why it is that I believe what I believe. If you are trying to convince me that Yahshua is Yahweh, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. There is not on single passage in Scripture that asks me to profess or confess "Yahshua is Yahweh."



(*all Trinitarian concepts)

Without the Trinitarian belief "Jesus pre-existed his birth" thier "triune God" doctrine would soon fall apart. The doctrine "Jesus pre-existed his birth" most certainly has its origin from the Trinitarian campsite.

Did Yahshua Pre-exist His Birth? Did Yahshua Create The Heavens And The Earth? Is Yahshua Yahweh?

There you go again! Embellishing on the words that were spoken!

The Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees (Jews) were constantly confused about the words that Yahshua spoke and they were constantly trying to entrap him in his words deceptively. NO! They did not get it! Sorry! I do not takes sides with those of the Jewish sects.

"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 Savior's 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, one being the absence of this passage as it appeared in John's original writing, 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," hewrites, "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."

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)."

In conclusion, 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."

By John Cordaro
SOURCE LINK

Also see the reciprocal links at: "Before Abraham Was, I Am"?

*Do I see a change of your mind here or a contradiction of your own beliefs that you have previously stated? Well, is Yahshua created, or is he not? To say "Yahshua is Yahweh" and then to say that they are "a seperate entity" is most definately a contradiction as I see it.




Scripture does not teach this. You are embellishing adding words of your own "private interpretation". Yahshua is most certainly the FIRST born of all creation. Father Yahweh's creative process is still in the making. Yahshua being the FIRST born of all creation is not in reference to Father Yahweh's creating from the beginning of the heavens and the earth but, it is to his being the FIRST fruits of many sons. Yahshua's existence started at birth (born). Yahshua was "born again" just as the many other sons (children, daughters) must be born again.

Your understanding of the word 'manifestation' is of a Trintitarin perspective. Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN) in the flesh THROUGH his son Yahshua. Yahshua only was a plan of Father Yahweh from the beginning. He did not literally pre-exist as a seperate being from the beginning.



I have read the context. It is you that needs to look and SEE the CONTEXT. I am not speaking of the context of the verse or passages that you continue to harp on. I am speaking of the ENTIRE context of Scripture as a whole.



Yahshua did not say this! You are embellishing!



READ THE ENTIRE CONTEXT from where he was appoached by the so called "Jews" from Jump Street. Your focus has been that they were offended by the supposed blashemous use to the words "ego eimi" ("I am"). They were not! Note that from Jump Street that Yahshua had spoken these words several times and that they did not snap.



NOT INTERESTED! It is not easy for you to defend the false, deceptive and demonic doctrine "Yahshua pre-existed his birth" simply because Father Yahweh's inspired word does not support such foolishness.

To Believe "Jesus Is God" Is To Be Deceived!

Did Yahshua Pre-exist His Birth? Did Yahshua Create The Heavens And The Earth? Is Yahshua Yahweh?

Also see the reciprocal links at: "Before Abraham Was, I Am"?

Edited by user Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:16:24 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given. Supreme Authority shall always exist on His shoulders. His name is called out, summoned and read aloud Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Eternal Father, Patron of Redemption (Isaiah 9:6 as amplified by Yada)

Just trying to add a little continuity Matt, the eyes skip a bit and lose their place in the full version. But great reference.

BTW Frank, it would seem to me that we are being forced to dwell on this verse because you will not move on. There have been many of other verses that have been cited and are waiting your exegesis.

In all sincerity if you could be so kind as to start with the verse first offered by Matthew.

Then in all sincerity, many of us are waiting for you to explain to us our foolishness as it applies to Zech. 12:10.

You are against "Pagan Greek Thought", and then when I give you the chance to discuss the Aramaic version of the Besorim and Letters, and classical proof texts on Hebraic thought and expectations (the Targumim)...which both should be free of written-in Paganish corruptions...you proclaim NOT INTERESTED!...rather odd to me.

That doesn't help - As the γινομαι word is used in it's aorist tense - not it's present tense.

Matt 3:10b - Bullinger is refering to the word εκκπτω - which is used in it's present tense.

Mark 9:31 - Bullinger is refering to the word παραδιδωμι - which is used in it's present tense.

In fact, all the examples listed by Bullinger are refering to the words being used in their present tense - not in any other tense.

The Key is in the title of the subheading: The Present [tense] for the Future [tense]

So, Bullinger isn't refering to ginomai in his reference to John 8:58 - because that would have to come under "aorist for the future."

Suprisingly - there is no subheading "The Aorist for the Future" - Because the aorist tense is never used to denote something that will happen in the future! It is only used for something either that happens presently, or has happened in the past.

If the Greek had wanted to state that "before Abraham comes to be" - it would have to use γινομαι in it's future tense - not it's past or present tense.



Never is εγω ειμι used to denote "I will." No Greek writer ever uses the present tense of εγω ειμι to mean "I will" - if they want to say "I will" - they put it into the future tense. Consistently

Seeing as though the present can be used for past, present, and future, the usage of εγω ειμι is denoting it's timelessness - "I am, was, and always shall be"



What has that got to do with it? There are two main Greek tenses used to refer to the past - The Aorist and the Imperfect. The perfect, as stated by Jeremy Duff in his The Elements of New Testament Greek, pg178, "The present tense communicates a past action with a present effect...denoting completion, but continuing to have an effect on the present."

So, whether it's Aorist, imperfect or perfect - all three can denote a past action. There's just differences in their meaning of the past action.

Perfect - completed past action
Aorist - an Undefinied past action
Imperfect - a continuous past action



Actually, just because it's in the infinitive, doesn't mean it can't have an indicative meaning - Seeing as though, from the previously referenced source ("Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" by E.W. Bullinger) there is the aptly named sub-heading, "The infinitive for the indicative."

In another book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament by Daniel. B. Wallace, has this to say about the aorist:

In the indicative, the aorist usually indicates past time with reference to the time of speaking (thus, “absolute time”). Aorist participles usually suggest antecedent time to that of the main verb (i.e., past time in a relative sense). There are exceptions to this general principle, of course, but they are due to intrusions from other linguistic features vying for control (see section below). Outside the indicative and participle, time is not a feature of the aorist. Indirect discourse aorist infinitives are an exception to this rule. But this is because such aorists represent an indicative of the direct discourse.

Also, if Yahushua had wanted to say "before abraham comes, I will" - He'd have to say and be recorded in Greek as, πριν αβρααμ γενησεται, εγω εσομαι

Peace greetings Matthew,

This is a most revealing AND PROPHETIC study of Isaiah 9:6. I would like to submit the following study to this that is relative.

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.

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

ISAIAH 9:6 THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE

LINK TWO For The Above

Prince of Peace B. R. Burton

Isaiah 9:6 by K.N. Stovra

END STUDIES

I have taken this from my Xanga Blog.

Edited by user Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:03:47 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Peace greetings bitnet,

I am very adamant about Yahweh being "one" (not to be confused with the so called "Oneness" doctrine) for this is what Scripture teaches. I do believe that Yahweh can MANIFEST HIMSELF (MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN) through diverse means. Many are confused by the Trinitarin concept of the word 'manifest' as if Yahweh IS the "form" that he reveals Himself THROUGH (BY WAY OF). Father Yahweh is not the "form" that he reveals Himself through but, He simply makes Himself and His word known by way of it. For example Yahweh revealed Himself through a "burning bush" to Moshe but, He most certainly is not that burning bush. He was simply transmitting His word by way of the "burning bush". The same is true in relation to His son Yahshua and the prophets of old. Hebrews 1:1-2 makes this very clear.

NOTE: The Hebrew word used in the narrative, that is translated into English as bush, is seneh (סנה), which refers in particular to brambles; seneh is a biblical dis legomenon, only appearing in two places, both of which describe the burning bush. It is possible that the reference to a burning bush is based on a mistaken interpretation of Sinai (סיני), a mountain described by the Bible as being on fire, and scholars think that the reference to the burning bush in Deuteronomy, in particular, is a copyist's error, and was originally a reference to Sinai.
SOURCE

As to "[Yahshua] who [created] everything", this is not true. Nowhere in Scripture does it say "Yahshua created everything". In fact, Yahshua himself credited his and our Father Yahweh with the creation of all things. There are 107 passages that reveal Yahweh as Creator and not one single passage proclaiming Yahshua as a creator or a co-creator.

The reason why it is only THROUGH Yahshua that sins (transgressions against Yahweh instruction (torah, teaching, law, commandment) can be forgiving is because Father Yahweh has GIVEN HIM power to do so because of his strict (being unblemished, without sin and a perfect sacrifice) obedience to his Father Yahweh. It had nothing to do with him being Yahweh Himself or his pre-existing his birth. Father Yahweh certainly did not sacrifice Himself. Yahshua was executed by mislead men that did not know what they were doing and because of Father Yahweh's righteousness.



I do deny Yahshua is Yahweh for the simple fact that he is not, and nowhere in Scripture am I asked to believe, profess or confess such a foolish, demonic, deceptive, and false doctrine. It is only by the words from the mouths of false teachers that such a foolish, demonic, deceptive, and false doctrine is taught. No such teaching has ever proceeded from the mouth of Yahweh that we are to live by.

I do not deny Yahshua as a might one like unto Moshe. What I deny is that Yahshua is ALLmighty Yahweh. As to your reasoning that Yahshua is Yahweh because they are in each other, you fail to see that Yahweh can also be in us and we in Him. This does not make us Yahweh just as it does not make Yahshua Yahweh.

YHWH declaired Himself to be ECHAD. Not Yachid.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Shema Yisra'El - YHWH Elohenu YHWH ECHAD.

Echad is not absolute singular, but a compound unity (not triune). When a man and woman are married they become Basar Echad (we say "one flesh").

Even the title Elohim is a plural word (yet always used in the singular tense when referring to YHWH).

"Let US create man in OUR image".

YHWH is always described as ECHAD (compound unity) but never Yachid (absolute singular).

He says He will save us with His Right Arm:

Yeshayahu 52:10, " YHWH hath made bare His holy arm in the eye’s of all the goyim; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of Elohenu (YAH-shua)."

Yeshayahu 59:16," And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His Arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness it sustained Him."

Yeshayahu 63:5," And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore MINE OWN ARM brought salvation unto me (YAH-shua); and my fury, it upheld me."

Psalm 98:1," O sing unto YHWH a new song; for he hath done marvelous things: His Right Hand, and His Holy Arm, hath gotten Him the Victory".

Yeshayahu 40:10," Behold, YHWH Elohenu will come with strong hand, and His Arm shall rule for Him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him."

Who else said that... "My reward is with me"

Sh'mot 15:6," Thy right hand , YHWH, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, YHWH, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.

Yeshayahu 51:5," My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on Mine Arm shall they trust."

Yeshayahu 53:1," Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of YHWH been revealed?"

Psalm 110:1 YHWH said to Adonehu (my master), "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Mattityahu 26:64 YAHshua said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

My question is this: If Yahsua nd Moshe are equals, where is Moshe? Shouldn't he be seated at the left hand? Why wasn't he exalted? Why didn't he forgive sin?


So who is THE RIGHT ARM OF YHWH?

Yahshua is clearly that Right Arm. Not another "god" or "sub-God"... but an extension of YAH. My right arm is still me... its an exstension of me.


The fact is that you have been provided with more scriptural evidence than is necessary for anyone with the ability to reason. You refuse to trust YHWH and His Word. The things of YHWH are spiritually discerned.

I'm curios, are you an Ebionite or a JW?

I am neither an Ebionite or a JW. FTI, JWs believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth. They also can provide twisted Scriptural passages to support their beliefs. If you would have just done the slightest bit of research, you would have known that I am quite aware of the chioce Scriptural passages used by those who espouse to the "Jesus is God." and the "deity of Messiah" doctrines. If you would have had the slightest understanding of what I have posted in this forum and the beliefs of other religions, you would have known that I most definately am not a JW or and Ebionite.

I have yet to be provided with one single passage of Scripture that supports "Yahshua is Yahweh", "deity of Messiah" or "Yahshua pre-existed his birth". When you find such Scripture, let me know! The fact is, you will never fine any Scriptural evidence to support such foolish, deceptive, and demonic doctrines.

The Hebrew Word 'Echad' - Is It Singular Or Plural ("Compound Unity")?

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." SOURCE

And Yahweh turned a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not a single (Echad) locust was left in all the country of Egypt (Exodus 10:19).

For the Yahweh had said to Moshe, "Say to the people of Yisryl, `You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment (Echad) I should go up among you, I would consume you.” (Exodus 36:5).

... and her two sons, of whom the name of the one (Echad) was Gershom.” (Exodus 18:3).

"…..Take one (Echad) young bull and two rams without blemish” (Exodus 29:1).

"Then you shall take one (Echad) of the rams, and Aaron and his sons shall…” (Exodus 29:15).

One (Echad) lamb you shall offer in the morning, and…” (Exodus 29:39).

one (Echad) young bull, one (Echad) ram, one (Echad) male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 16: one (Echad) male goat for a sin offering; (Numbers 7:15).

"A single (Echad) witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime…” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

So Yahweh caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one (Echad) of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; (Genesis 2:21).

And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one (Eahad) was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah (Genesis 4:19).

To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one (Echad) was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan (Genesis 10:25).

We are all sons of one (Echad) man, we are honest men, your servants are not spies." (Genesis 42:11).

And they said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one (Echad) man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one (Echad) is no more." (Genesis 42:13).

... if you are honest men, let one (Echad) of your brothers (Genesis 42:19).

... we are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one (Echad) is no more, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.' (Genesis 42:32).

And the priest shall take one (Echad) of the male lambs, and offer it for a guilt offering (Leviticaus 14:12).

… then he shall take one (Echad) male lamb for a guilt offering to be waved (Leviticus 14:21).

... also two turtledoves or two young pigeons,..the one (Echad) shall be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering (Leviticus 14:22).

And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one (Echad) ram for a burnt offering (Leviticus 16:5).

And you shall offer one (Echad) male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings Leviticus 23:19).

... and he shall offer his gift to Yahweh, one (Echad) male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one (Echad) ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one (Echad) ram without blemish as a peace offering, (Numbers 6:14).


For Yahweh had said to Moshe, "Say to the people of Yisryl,`You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment (Echad) I should go up among you, I would consume you.” (Exodus 33:5).

"A single (Echad) witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime…” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

"Echad" does not mean "a compound unity", it means "one", one of anything either simple or composed of parts. In context it means "alone" or "only" and is so translated by the new JPS, a scholarly translation in the Jewish tradition. It is supported by the great medieval Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra.

Any Jewish person who has studied Hebrew knows that "echad" does not mean "a compound unity". According to the context it can correspond to the English "one", "first", "a certain", "only", or "alone". Persons using this argument simply lose credibility with those who know better.

The Shema is not a statement about the nature of Yahweh; therefore it is neither an argument for or against the doctrine of the Trinity or the Twinity (Duality). The Shema rather is a command to love and obey Yahweh and not the Gods of the land.


Elohim - Singular Or Plural?

Edited by user Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:57:27 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Father Yahweh did not die! His son Yahshua died by means of execution. This fact in itself proves that Yahshua is not his Father Yahweh. It is quite impossible for mere men to execute Father Yahweh!