Jesus is Yah myth debunked and refuted

[Zealot X]

This thread is designed to show that the doctrine of Hezekiah and others that YHWH and Yeshua (The Messiah) are the same person is false. Hezekiah has consistently railed against me for not believing what he believes (even though he is in the minority of Israelites) but he has a tendency to cry foul every time I invite him to debate it out fairly. I have even advised him that he can take some time to study first before beginning the debate. I believed I was being fair. He attacked me further and then ignored my posts. Now he is accusing me again and posting texts at me. So I would like for Hezekiah and any one else who agree with this false doctrine to step up and have a reasonable and rational debate. No argumentum ad hominem. No immature games. Just text and commentary.

And for Hezekiah.... I know you detest commentary but without supplying it I have to GUESS what your interpretation is. Stop assuming that what you read can only say one thing; what YOU think it says. Explain why you believe it says what you believe it says.

[Zealot X]

Trevor is actually correct about the word "understanding". The reason that Rastas (and this is where "overstanding" came from) use this word is because they're not big on English. They are not beholden at all to the English language which means they never cared enough to really "overstand" the meaning of understanding and thought that "under" was simply inferior to "over" and thus made the replacement. But it is "under" for a good reason. And I think those of us in America repeat their mistake because we like the way it sounds.

shalom

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Where on Earth did you get that silly idea??? "Overstand" makes absolutely no sense. Its a term that was made up so that some people could actually try to sound educated. I heard that before from black men who wanted to be smarted than "da white man thats holdin me down"! Funniest thing was, that was IN PRISON!!!

Then again, what can you expect from a guy who think that the Bible says "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the the Son, and of Gabriel"

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Rev 1:8 is not Yahushua speaking. No where has Yahushua EVER been called "The Lord God." or "The Almighty." Obviously, it is Yah Himself speaking. Where do you get "my angel" from? I never said that. It is just that Thomas was not calling Yahushua, Yahuah. In the Hebrew New Testament for John 20:28, you have Adonai & Elohim in those places. You do not have YHWH.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Technically speaking, you don't have YHWH in the NT period, if I'm not mistaken. So whats your point?

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Yup, therefore, being that there are no YHWH when referring to Yahushua, then no one can say that Yahushua is YHWH in the sense of Christianity. Thanks for proving my point.

[Zealot X]

I would hope that you would be aware that much of the NT was QUOTED from the OT. If the OT quote said YHWH then what do you think the quote in the NT should be?

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Amen Bro. Trevor

[Zealot X]

@ Trevor
Explanation of Thomas's confession in John 20.

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Yeshua came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

"I will not believe what"? The premise if flawed. If they had told Thomas "Jesus is also God" and he said "except I shall see..." and then responded then you'd have something concrete. But look at your premise. They're saying "we have seen the master (which the translators incorrectly put in all caps as LORD). Here is the thing that is in question. Whether or not they had actually seen this SAME Yeshua alive again. And he says "I will not believe" to the premise of Yeshua being ALIVE again. This is what he did not believe. And for this he is commonly referred to as doubting Thomas. His belief has everything to do with Yeshua being alive and nothing to do with a doctrine that is obvious at this moment he does not believe. How could Thomas believe that "Jesus is God" when he doesn't even believe he is alive. And sidenote: did Yeshua bring himself back to life? Or did the Father bring him back to life?

What is certain and clear is that there is no way Yeshua would be alive again outside the will of G-d. And if he is alive again by the will of G-d then what does that mean? Look at the end of this chapter and its conclusion.

30 And many other signs truly did Yeshua in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of G-d; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

THESE THINGS (including what just occurred in v28) are written so that you might believe 3 things:
1) Yeshua is the messiah
2) Yeshua is the Son of G-d
3) that we can have life through his authority

I believe all 3 of these things. But I do not believe the son of G-d IS G-d. If he was he wouldn't even be called the son of G-d. He would be called G-d. And at that point YHWH would deny him because he already said that he doesn't know of any other G-d beside himself. This position people claim these people are talking about simply doesn't and cannot exist. The only way it could exist is if YHWH is a liar. Is Thomas saying that YHWH is a liar? And if he was, is his word above YHWH? But he's not saying that. That's not even the premise of why he poked his wounds. He didn't poke his wounds as proof that he was a god. He poked his wounds as proof that he was alive and not a SPIRIT.

Christians use this argument of "well he was answering him" to show that whatever he was saying he was calling Yeshua because he was responding to him. But if that's the case then I am a god too because he said:

John 10:34 - Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

And this is why we have to understand what these words, kurios, and theos, mean. I've already showed you what was on the table for Thomas to respond to.

"and be not faithless, but believing"

So before he tested him that meant he HAD NO FAITH. By touching his wounds he wasn't proving himself to be a god but showing that he was a human. It was his human flesh that he was touching. Thomas didn't believe this was possible before. He doubted him.

8 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My kurios(Lord) and my (theos)God.

http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.php?b=john&c=20&v=0&d...

Kurios
"is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants salute their master"

Theos
4 "whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
A God's representative or viceregent
a. of magistrates and judges"

You jumped to judge in your response to James. Why did you skip the most obvious application? "God's representative" or "viceregent". It would be completely logical that many people, including Thomas, has doubted whether Yeshua was in fact the messiah after he died because they did not know that his death was in the plan. Whatever prophecies said, they didn't understand. And so they're gathered together but many of them were just broken down (hence their need for comfort and strength). Thomas may have been one who did not believe after Yeshua died, even though he had said that in 3 days he would rebuild the temple (again, not everyone understood). Yeshua had basically set himself up as Moses. Everyone was looking to him to save them as G-d's representative on Earth. The gospels even use the name Emmanuel even though he isn't really called this. His presence and his ability to teach and perform miracles simply let people know that G-d was with Israel his people. To now doubt Yeshua was to doubt his relationship with the Father. So that's why he exclaims these titles because his belief in Yeshua as his master and as YHWH's representative is now restored.

But let me make this clear also. It would not have been impossible for a disciple of Yeshua to have been mistaken. At one point a few of the disciples were talking about building a temple to him and two others (who were MEN) because of the sight they had seen and possibly being confused in that moment. Angels in the OT were also called "sons of G-d" and may have been mistaken at times for G-d by people who didn't know any better. That is why G-d's messengers sometimes have to rebuke people or admonish them. Ex:

Revelation 19:10 - And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship G-d: for the testimony of Yeshua is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 22:9 - Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship G-d.

See how the prophet John has to be stopped from angel worship? Basing a doctrine on a human reaction like these would be silly at best. If you want to know the truth you must ask YHWH. Period. Everyone else is fallible.

who was other thy brethren the prophets? Yeshua.

Acts 3:22 - For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall YHWH your G-d raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

So believe 3 things. Believe that Yeshua is the messiah. Believe that Yeshua is the son of G-d. Believe that you can follow in his footsteps. This is why these gospels were written.

shalom

[Zealot X]

@Trevor

Explanation of John 1

I hope you enjoyed my explanation of Thomas. This was not an easy one to deal with in my early study and research but having the scriptures as my foundation it was easier (not easy) to keep probing, keep asking questions, keep digging until what comes out doesn't contradict scripture or its context.

Now let's turn our attention to John 1. What can I say about this chapter first as a whole? John 1 is an introduction to the messiah. It is meant to show its audience that this is the man. It gives us reasons to believe him, but as we're about to see it does not set about creating a new doctrine.

And come now... let's be logical. The gospels are a testimony to the fulfillment of prophecy. It is not the time to reinvent G-d. John is trying to show how Yeshua fits into a open position. He's not trying to first create that position. John's gospel opens up as ALL gospels and all epistles should. That is by talking about YHWH because he is the foundation for ALL OF THIS and a man should first honor his maker.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Traditionally Christians read this BACKWARDS. Why? Because THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT "the Word" means and so they keep reading for clues (since the bible is a big crossword puzzle) until they get to v14. But that is a backward understanding. Rather than letting your belief in Yeshua influence verse 1, why not have verse 1 influence your belief in Yeshua? After all, verse 1 is first for a reason. John is setting Yeshua up. How does he do this? How is the messiah actually established? It is by prophecy! Anybody can come out and say "hey, my nigga right here is da massiah! ya herd?" You cannot do that. John can't be like "my cousin is the messiah. That's all the proof you need." John himself doesn't have credibility without the one source in Yisra'el that has absolute credibility.

YHWH. The source of prophecy is YHWH. Period. John 1:1-2 can be taken a couple different ways at least (had 3 before but can only remember 2); none of which actually equates to Yeshua being G-d. Keep in mind that John uses the word LOGOS relative to the word G-d. Even when he says "with G-d", if you think "G-d" can mean one of 3 different suspects then really it begs the question why the word G-d would be used here. The title G-d is used without distinction. BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHO G-D IS! If I was John I would be asking why are you reading my book when you haven't read the Scriptures. GO READ THE SCRIPTURES. You're supposed to know who G-d is. And its NOT plural. In English "God" is a SINGULAR word. To make it plural you must add an "s". And for now I'll skip "why doesn't John say in the beginning was G-d"? The Word (singular) is with G-d (singular) in the beginning. This should already sound strange. If the word is Jesus and he is with the Father then why isn't the Father's title used and where is the holy spirit? Not with them? In another dimension? Who says that word has to be a person at all? This is the problem those who take everything literal and don't understand figurative language.

2 possibilities:
1) The word is simply "God's word"
http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.php?b=john&c=1&v=0&d=...
"a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea"

Looking back on Genesis 1 how was the earth created? I'm not asking who but how. Didn't G-d SPEAK? G-d spoke it and it was done. His word embodied concepts, ideas, that came into existence; that came to life. Is it any coincidence that the seen in the parable of the sower is "the word of G-d"? Rhetorical. There is no coincidence. The word of G-d creates. Period. When you sow the seed of the word of G-d in you.... he CREATES in you a clean heart and renews a right spirit within you. And how can we understand... SPIRITUALLY.... understand his word? Well.... since you believe Yeshua is this "Word" then what did Yeshua do as the word? Didn't he shew the Father? Didn't he compare himself to the Father saying I and my Father are one? (Don't get happy. He also prayed that we would have that same oneness) The word is G-d. The seed is G-d. The Torah is G-d. These things are a reflection of himself that capture his nature. What happens when the word of G-d changes you and perfects you? What happens when that seed grows? 1 John 3 tells you. Don't you become the sons of G-d?? What was Yeshua? THE SON OF G-D! Make the connection.

"the sayings of God"
"Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets"

also ways LOGOS can be rendered. And the fact is that I don't have to jumpt through metaphysical hoops to believe what John is saying. It makes perfect sense to me. There is an absolutely certainty that John will refer you back to the prophets which essentially is a reference to the sayings of G-d.

cont'd

[Zealot X]

2) LOGOS can also mean divine plan. This also fits in perfectly with the creation account. And it has to because verse 3 rolls right into creation. We were created according to the divine plan.

"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1." - Strong's

In other words, G-d had a plan from the very beginning. Verse 3 isn't talking about the "Word" but G-d who was the word... who was the plan... who is also revealed through his word, both the written word and the LIVING WORD. But G-d is the one who all things were made by. In him was life and the life was the light of men. Now the light seems to be a reference to Yeshua. But the light is said to be the life and the life is said to be "in him". Who is him? In verse 4, "him" is the creator in verse 3. Hope I'm not losing you. Unless you're saying that "in him is himself" the creator has to be someone other than the person who is called the light. But then in verse 10 it seems to suggest that the light IS the "He" that was "in the world". But this "he" is again the creator so something is a little off with the current paradigm. Unless.... neither G-d, nor life, nor light is anyone, person place or thing, other than G-d (YHWH). And instead of assuming that John is speaking of Yeshua because you know that he made the way for him, consider the fact that John actually preached about YHWH for the entirety of his ministry and THAT WAS paving the way for Yeshua. Do you understand? Because Yeshua also spoke about who? About YHWH. One prophet doesn't preach his whole career about the next prophet who preaches about the next until finally the last one preaches about YHWH. That would be absurd. John's career was not to teach Yeshua. He did say that someone else was coming but even after he appeared John did not cease from having his own following.

Another reason we can know that John is talking about is in v 12. As many as received him... Sounds like Yeshua, doesn't it? However, what did Yeshua say about receiving him? He was only a proxy.

Matthew 10:40 - He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Mark says it a different way.

Mark 9:37 - Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

See the difference? When you receive Yeshua you're NOT receiving Yeshua but the FATHER. And if you receive him and believe on him then you can be his child.

John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

NOT HIS WILL but the Father's. What John 1 say again?

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of G-d.


Yeshua is someone YHWH hand-picked before he was born in order to do his will. People believe the word being made flesh in verse 14 is a divine person becoming a human because they have assumed that the word before verse 14 is a person BASED on verse 14. It makes a whole lot more sense if you don't make this assumption. Whether the word is the divine plan of G-d becomes realized at the point of his selection (or he's creating a person for this reason) or it is the sum total of all of his sayings that he taught us coming to life in order to teach us how YHWH would behave in our shoes, there is nothing that forces us to make the conclusion that the word is a person prior to John's saying so. That's why if you read in the scriptures:

1 Kings 12:22 - But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of G-d, saying,

or...

1 Chronicles 17:3 - And it came to pass the same night, that the word of G-d came to Nathan, saying,


It never produces the idea of another god. And this is all that John is saying. The word of G-d has been here from the beginning. From ancient times YHWH has been sending us messages and messengers.


1 Samuel 9:27 - And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on), but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of G-d.

But it wasn't a person. There is no "word of G-d" position in any "trinity" in the Scriptures. That is post-NT. You may think the "formula" exists because that's what your interpretation is but I am telling you that your interpretation is flawed and as such the formula isn't biblical. Clement also disproves such a thing in his epistle. And the only person who REALLY TRULY KNEW this doctrine would come is the same one who did the best job defending against it.

Isaiah 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a G-d beside me? yea, there is no G-d; I know not any.

Nothing you can put up from your interpretation can stand up to these words wich need no interpretation. But I have shown you how the "word" (LOGOS) doesn't have to be a person and in the Scriptures ISN'T one (which John was fully aware of). So when the message of G-d actually BECOMES a human messenger it doesn't mean that the "son of man" messenger is also G-d and that suddenly we have to rethink our entire belief system before we can hear this messenger...of himself...who claims to be a messenger of G-d.

And before you think that there has to be some otherworldy reason for people to think someone might be the messiah you should probably read verse 20.

20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Messiah.

Why would John even be asked? It's because no one was expecting the messiah to be anything more than a man. Not only this but I can keep going at this for at least another hour. The fact that John doesn't recognize the messiah is his own cousin for 30 years?? 30 YEARS??? Come on.... And even in his testimony John calls him a man.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

ultimately, John went on record as saying this about Yeshua. It's the same thing Peter said. It's the same thing that I say.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of G-d.

This is what John 1 is all about. You can't take a piece of John's argument out of context and ignore his ultimate conclusion. This is the same conclusion in John 20. He is the SON of G-d. Period. Learn to love him for who he is, not what you make him.


Shalom

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

In the beginning was the Divine plan; and the divine plan was with GOD, and GOD was the Divine plan. The same Divine plan was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by Him, and without...........


Even with that thought, that STILL says that the Logos was GOD!!!!!!!

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

It does make Yahushua a mighty one indeed, but it does not make Him YHWH.