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]

Alright, here we go.

Your first proof-text is 1Corinthians 1-5.

I've already deal with the cloud, rock issue:
http://hebrewisraelites.ning.com/forum/topics/the-order-of-melchize...

shut that down and included links showing that Christians scholars agree with me.

I suggest you read my entire post but here are the highlights which should be enough for this thread:

John 6
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Yeshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of G-d is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Yeshua said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst


Hold on.... WHO gave the bread from Heaven? The bread of WHO? I want you to take this slow, read it a few times, let it marinate and all that, and really understand what is being said. "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert"... Clearly this is a reference to the children of Yisra'el when they were leaving Egypt. "As it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat". Who gave them the bread? Yeshua says in verse 32 that Moses did NOT give you that bread. HIS FATHER gives you the true bread from heaven. So here, the same being Yeshua calls "my Father" (who is in heaven) is the same being he claims is responsible for giving the true bread from heaven. Clearly "my Father" is being cast into the position of YHWH. Do you not see?

...

he people drank from a rock, but the rock they drank from wasn't YHWH and it didn't follow them. Also, when YHWH is called a "rock" he is not called a spiritual rock. He is called a rock by David as a reference to security. However, the rock Paul is talking about is the actual rock (at Horeb) that water came out of. Both Yeshua and Paul could make spiritual references all day but that doesn't make him the manna, the water, or the literal rock in the Desert. Paul's reference to spiritual meat in 1 Cor 10 and the drink was the idea that they were all experiencing symbols that represented the coming messiah. Paul is not trying to create doctrine here saying that "Christ" was G-d. He's talking about an EXAMPLE. "Now these things were our examples". In other words, those things they experienced were all SYMBOLS of the messiah. It's just like how Yeshua spoke about the bronze serpent. THAT was Yeshua (figuratively). It doesn't mean he was there. And it DOESN'T mean he was a snake. It means the things they experienced were symbolic of him. Verse 9 even makes another reference to the serpents. The messiah was symbolized by the things they experienced.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Even Christian sources agree with me that these things Paul is talking about were REPRESENTATIONS of the messiah. They weren't him. So it doesn't mean he was there. It just means he was symbolically represented.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=010
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=drby&b=46&c=10

[Zealot X]

Your next proof-text is Acts 7:36-39


Acts 7:36-39 He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

This is not saying that Yeshua was there. Read with comprehension. Take it slow. He says this is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, a PROPHET LIKE UNTO ME shall YHWH your elohim(G-d) raise up unto you OF YOUR BRETHREN. You are absolutely murdering your own case with this. You hear me? This is a one many army-a massacre against your case. You are conveniently ignoring what it says in between what you underlined. Why is Paul talking about Moses? Why is he talking about a prophecy that Moses said would come to pass? Who is the "prophet like unto me" and who was responsible for raising him up and where would he come from?

According to the writer of Acts this prophecy is a reference to Yeshua. THAT is why it is quoted. When it says "He brought them out" this He is a reference to MOSES. That is why it says right after that, "this is THAT Moses" referencing the one it called "he". You are confused because we all know that YHWH brought the people out. That's true. But it is also true that Moses led them out. This is why you are confused.

25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that G-d by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.

And it continues to talk about Moses when it says "This is he," and it says that Moses spoke to an angel. But the reason this is quoted at all is because Moses said that YHWH would raise up a prophet like himself from among the brethren. And by law, a king had to come from Yisra'el. They could not lawfully have a foreign-born king. The point is being made that there is a direct correlation between Yeshua and Moses. Moses (who was not a traditional "king") tells of someone just like him so Acts 7 explains how he was just like him.

look at verse 25. Can you not say the same thing about Yeshua? G-d by his (Yeshua's) hand would deliver them but they didn't understand.

now look at verse 27

27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Was Yeshua accepted by the Sanhedrin as a ruler and a judge?

Now read John 8:1-7. There is no Christian alive who will deny that the pharisees didn't put him in a match against Moses. Why? Clearly, they didn't accept him. But they brought a case before him just as cases were brought before Moses. They wanted to expose him as a fraud but he wasn't.

Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did G-d send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Is there a similarity here? Of course. Mark 9:37, Luke 10:16, John 4:34

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.

So clearly, Yeshua was sent just as Moses was sent. The similarities continue.

Acts 7:39-40 Moses (YHWH's representative) is rejected as leader and YHWH is rejected at the same time through their rejection of him.

Luke 9:48, Luke 10:16

Likewise, those who rejected Yeshua as Yah's representative were also rejecting YHWH. (of course this you should disagree with since you think they're the same person)

Moses was away receiving the law 40 days. How long was Yeshua in the wilderness? Mark 1:13,

Acts 7:41-43
Do you believe the U.S. is Babylon? Do Christians not celebrate the winter solstice, the birth of the sun god? (Moloch was the sun-god also known as Baal.) Molech is on the US Dollar bill. Molech is part of the street layout around the white house in Washington D.C. MOLECH has a huge statue in the Bohemian Grove out in California. Molech is an owl who sees in the dark, meaning that he sees "hidden things", mysteries, esoteric knowledge that one becomes initiated in and rises through "degrees". Do not even pretend you don't see this.

All this is going to show that Yeshua was the one that Moshe spoke of, a prophet like unto me. And if this is true (and it is obviously what Acts is trying to say) then it must also be true that he would be raised up from among Israel, by YHWH elohim(G-d).

Deuteronomy 18:15 YHWH thy elohim(G-d) will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

But unfortunately you do not believe this. How could you? You believe that Jesus is YHWH not the one whom YHWH sent from among the brethren of Israel who was like Moses.

ref:
http://ncbible.org/resources/ActsComm07.html

[Zealot X]

Last one.

Your proof-text is 1Corinthians 10:6-10

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

The problem is that this text does not say they tempted Christ in the desert. You are reading it wrong. It doesn't say "Neither let us tempt Christ, WHO some of them also tempted," If it did say that then I would agree with you. Instead it says "as some of them also tempted". The whole chapter is built around making a parallel between the Israelites coming out of Egypt and current/future believers coming out of sin. Moses was the man (of G-d) who led them in the wilderness and Moses is the one (remember similar to Yeshua) who advocated on behalf of the people. It got to the point where Moses even offered his own life in the place of the people and YHWH didn't take it. But when Moses came down and saw what the people had done, MOSES (not G-d) threw down the law and broke it in pieces. And basically Yeshua is the one who is in Moses's position. Yeshua is the man (of G-d) who leads the congregation out of sin. And we are warned not to tempt him by continuing in sin and turning away from YHWH to other gods.

Also, there were serpents before the physical serpents came. The real serpents were the people who were stirring up trouble in the form of a rebellion against Moses. The people were constantly trying to usurp his authority and steer people back into Egypt. This is why they were bitten by serpents. And who made the bronze serpent? Moses. Moses (as directed by YHWH) created the means by which they could be saved. And the means was belief. They did NOT believe in Moses before. That was their problem. Because they did not believe in him (as a leader/savior) they tried to rebel against him and go back into sin.

Critical Thinking:
Now here is some critical thinking for you. Do you really think that those who have elevated "jesus" to god status are actually believing in him? And if so, has this belief kept them from returning to Egypt?



shalom

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Everybody post your views. What do you believe. Read both these posts. Read what he writes, and then read all of these scriptures, and pay attention to the highlighted parts.

You make your decision. Remember, I am here to warn the people, not convince you to believe.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

So, you want commentary?

Why? Are they not plain?

I will if you want.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Bro. Watson and Zealot,

That's what I really like about you, and a few others. You take the time to explain where you are coming from rather than post pages of scriptures with no explanation or interpretation. Entering into a dialog with Bro. Hezekiah and others like him is like playing a tennis match - you're just hitting scriptures back & forth until you exhaust yourself; and unfortunately, there is no winner in this match.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Again, I am not trying to fight, just stand up for the scriptures.For example, A person says, we are under grace, so we don't have to keep the commandments. I send them scriptures, that clearly say, we are to keep the commandments, and we don't make void the law through Grace, and people come back with scripture that is not even in the correct context. I post the scripture. How I feel, and what I think is irrelevant. The scriptures are rejected, when plainly, sin is the transgression of the Law or commandments. No we are under grace, but Romans says that we don't break the law that grace may abound, then it is character assasinations. I keep putting up the same scriptures because if anyone get's it that we are to keep the commandments, my job is done. I came at Zealot when he came on the scene because we had an issue with the Godhead. He is standing on his interpretation, and I am standing on what I have learned. So, no room there, but the one thing that we do that makes him my Brother is he keeps the commandments of his Elohim. If you want me to start to comment on the scriptures, I will.

[Zealot X]

But you can't just post opposing scriptures. You have to try and help them see how their interpretation is wrong. The bible doesn't contradict itself. But just because you show a text that, to you, is in contradiction with their interpretation, doesn't mean that they will see their interpretation as wrong and yours as correct; especially if they have to guess at how you interpreted it.

It's basically like how you learned math and had to write out the problem. The math teacher doesn't want to just see a bunch of answers. They want you to "show your work" so they can see how you arrived at that answer. Same thing here. I know you feel like the scriptures should speak for themselves. But obviously people have different interpretations. This is the reason why things need to be explained so that people will know exactly why what you are saying is correct. If they didn't understand the texts before they're not going to understand just because you posted them. You have to explain it to people. That's how you teach. Yeshua didn't just quote scriptures at people and walk away. He explained it and created parables to explain it in terms people could understand. It helps people digest it.


shalom

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

These are Preachers, they are Pastors. They should know better. If this was a forum of people who were off the street, they would hear the word by the scripture. They would not question because they are not tainted by tradition. My style of learning and teaching is going hard. My reason is that they should know better if they are claiming to be heads of congregations. These are people's lives they have in their hands, and they don't know the severity. I hear you on your points, and will incorporate more explanation.

[Zealot X]

Saying they 'should' know better is esteeming them to a level that their members make the mistake of assuming. Being a pastor does not mean you automatically understand all scripture. Members tend to assume their pastor knows everything and can teach them everything (or why would he be a pastor?) and so they don't question or look for knowledge outside of "thus saith my pastor".

The pastors I've dealt with know more than the average person, of course (well..... the pastors I'm more familiar with are slightly more educated, have to go through seminary and such) but they don't necessarily know more than I do from studying on the same level (and I mean personal study not going to an institution and being told by someone else what things mean). And even if they read the same texts I read that doesn't gurantee their understanding is correct.

Interpretation can be vastly different than what the text actually says. Perfect example. The pharisees. They knew what the law said but did they understand it? They did not. And people aren't always logical, aren't always analytical, aren't always wise, don't always make connections. Pastors are elevated in this society to a place where, in reality, they're really not at. Most of them are just people who wanted to help other people. We can't make assumptions about what they know. If they all knew what I believe they should know in order to be a leader of a congregation I would think that they were all wicked. Because only a wicked man could know the truth about this pagan sun-worship system and not tell their flock.

This is the Matrix, Hezekiah. And those who are not unplugged can be used by this system. The best way to control people is through ignorance (control of knowledge). Most of them don't teach the truth because they themselves weren't taught it. They don't understand and thus they can only teach misunderstandings. To save human beings from the system one has to free their own minds from it. You can't expect them to be able to bend the spoon.

shalom

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

AMEN! Bro. Zealot X.

If a person is not able to explain/interpret the scriptures they post, this tells me that teaching may not be their gift.

A lot of people may know scripture, but not everyone is given the gift to teach.

[BruthaPharoah]

SISTA Harris,
completely correct ,and some can be full of knowledge and not posses the wisdom to teach it (((TRUTH)))

1corin.12:7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;