Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 29 Feb 2004 13:34:07
Message:

An addition, which I had not thought of before.


Understanding what has just been said and simple logic considering their own laws about not saying the name, the Pharisees or Sadducees would not have called HaMashiach by His given name "Yahshuah," but instead would use the traditional name "Yeshua." This traditional name was common and has the simple meaning of save.

* OT:3442 Yeshua ` (yay-shoo'-ah); for OT391 he will save; Jeshua,
the name of ten Israelites, also of a place in Palestine:


The name Yeshua is the altered/shorter (lesser) form of Yahushua (son of nun) which was first altered to Yehoshua.

* OT:3091 Yehowshuwa` (yeh-ho-shoo'-ah); ["Yahuah-saved;} Jehoshua
(i.e. Joshua), the Jewish leader: -Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua.
Compare OT:1954, OT:3442.


Yahushua son of Nun was used to save Yisrael from the earthly enemies when they entered into the promise land. Therefore, this name means what Yahuah did through this person, (I.E.) save Yisrael from their enemies, but it was not a Yahushua's given name -- a name not given at birth..

According to the scripture, when important names were given at birth, the meaning of a name was also given.

* Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will
comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because
of the ground which Yahuah has cursed."

* Gen 25:25 And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment
all over; so they called his name Esau.

* Gen 29:32 So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his
name Reuben; for she said, "Yahuah has surely looked on my
affliction. Now therefore, my husband will love me.

* Gen 29:35 And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Now I
will praise Yahuah." Therefore she called his name Yahudah. Then
she stopped bearing.

* Gen 30:18 Leah said, "Elohim has given me my wages, because I have
given my maid to my husband." So she called his name Issachar.

* Gen 30:19-20 Then Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son.
And Leah said, "Elohim has endowed me with a good endowment; now
my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons."
So she called his name Zebulun.

* Gen 30:24 So she called his name Joseph, and said, "Yahuah shall
add to me another son."

* Ex 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh's
daughter, and he became her son. So she called his name Moses,
saying, "Because I drew him out of the water."


When the name of the Mashiach was first given, the meaning of His name was also given. The Name was given with the meaning of "He shall save His people from their sins."

* Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Yahshuah: for he shall save his people from their sins.

No other name has the meaing of "He shall save His people from their sins," but it is a unique name like no other. The name Yahushua, Yeshua or Jesus does not not have the meaning of "Save me from my sins," but the Name Yahshuah does, because He (I.E.) Yahshuah is the forgiveness of sins, which is the Salvation of Yahuah. Therefore, this name (I.E.) Yahshuah means what Yahuah did through this Person, (I.E.) save Yisrael from their Sins, and was His given name -- a name given at birth.

With that being said, if you thought that that the person in front of you was a false Mashiach, it would be absurd to address him by the name of the True Mashiach. If you in fact did, then the people around you would think you believed the person you addressed was in fact Mashiach, because you used the meaning of "save me from my sins." Therefore, to a Pharisee or Sadducee, it would have been absurd, mockery and blasphemy and be against their own laws to call Him Yahshuah. For them to address Mashiach by His real name, would be like saying "Save me from My Sins," which would actually be addressing Him in the manner as the Salvation of Yahuah. They did not believe He was the Salvation of Yahuah, so they sure not going to address Him by the name that represents the same, then in turn be condemned to death by other Pharisees or Sadducees for speaking the forbidden Name.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Mar 2004 18:01:37
Message:

Greetings 2-elect,
Peace be unto the house.
What do you make of these verses of the Scripture?
Exodus 33:11 And Yahweh [#H3068] spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Yahushua [#H3091], the son of Nun [Perpetuity], a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Mattith’yahu [Matthew] 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Why did Yahushua not come out of the tabernacle? Why is he never heard from again in the following seven chapters of Exodus?
I Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was the Messiah [Christ].
Who was the Rock that was with them in the wilderness? What was his name?
Why is Yahushua referred to as the son of Nun 30 times in the Scripture?
H5126#1468;
nûn nôn
noon, nohn
From H5125; perpetuity…
H5125
nûn
noon
A primitive root; to resprout, that is, propagate by shoots; figuratively, to be perpetual
Perpetual?
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of American English
PERPET'UAL, a. [L. perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.] 1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal…
Why is the Messiah referred to as “the BRANCH”, #H6780?
H6780
tsemach
tseh'-makh
From H6779; a sprout (usually concretely), literally or figuratively…
Shouldn’t that verse have referred to him as the “Sprout”? Wonder why they changed it to “the BRANCH” [all caps], particularly since there are Hebrew words for branch?
H6779
tsâmach
tsaw-makh'
A primitive root; to sprout (transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively)
Do you perceive there to be any connection between “re-sprout” and “a sprout” or “to sprout”?
The next Yahushua we see is receiving a crown…
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Yahushua [#H3091] the son of Josedech [#H3087 – Yahweh righted], the high priest; And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Yahweh [#H3068] of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Sprout [#H6780]; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh [#H3068]: Even he shall build the temple of Yahweh [#H3068]; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Yahu'chanan [John] 2:19
An interesting thing we find concerning Josedech [Yahweh-tsâdaq]…
3087
yehôtsâdâq
yeh-ho-tsaw-dawk'
From H3068 and H6663; Yahweh-righted
With little doubt we all know that H3068 is the sacred name but let us take a closer look at H6663, tsâdaq .
H6663
tsâdaq
tsaw-dak'
A primitive root; to be (causatively make) right (in a moral or forensic sense)
What exactly does this mean Yahweh makes right “in a forensic sense”?
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of American English
FOREN'SIC, a. [from L. forensis, from forum, a court.] Belonging to courts of judicature; used in courts or legal proceeding…
Evidently Yahweh was making it "right" in the sense that it would hold up in court.
We were just wondering, could any of this have to do with the Yahushua, the Messiah, King and High Priest?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Mar 2004 18:45:46
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be upon the house.
Is anyone familiar with this concerning the name "Yeshu(a)"?
"Yeshu(a)...an acronym for “Yemach Shemow W-zikhrow”, meaning, “May His name and memory be erased”, and it was used in the “Toldoth Yeshu”, a very old rabbinical Judaist document that scorned the Anointed."

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 10:17:55
Message:

Shalom One Isrealite

My reply is within ---yours----

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings 2-elect,
Peace be unto the house.
What do you make of these verses of the Scripture?
Exodus 33:11 And Yahweh [#H3068] spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Yahushua [#H3091], the son of Nun [Perpetuity], a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Mattith?yahu [Matthew] 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

-----His servant Moses, his servant David, his servant Ahiyah, his servant Eliyahu, his servant Jonah and be found in the tanak. It does not mean any of His servants would have the same name as the Mashiach. Was Moses greater than Yahushua son of Nun?----


Why did Yahushua not come out of the tabernacle? Why is he never heard from again in the following seven chapters of Exodus?

-----I guess, if it was important the scriptures would have said so. Did they?------


I Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was the Messiah [Christ].

----That Rock was not son of Nun. Son of Nun went before Yisrael----

Who was the Rock that was with them in the wilderness? What was his name?

----It was not Yahushua son of Nun, because he went before them and the Rock followed them.----

Why is Yahushua referred to as the son of Nun 30 times in the Scripture?

----because he was the son of Nun and Not Son of Elohim.----

H5126#1468;
nûn nôn
noon, nohn
From H5125; perpetuity?
H5125
nûn
noon
A primitive root; to resprout, that is, propagate by shoots; figuratively, to be perpetual
Perpetual?
Webster?s 1828 Dictionary of American English
PERPET'UAL, a. [L. perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.] 1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal?
Why is the Messiah referred to as ?the BRANCH?, #H6780?
H6780
tsemach
tseh'-makh
From H6779; a sprout (usually concretely), literally or figuratively?
Shouldn?t that verse have referred to him as the ?Sprout?? Wonder why they changed it to ?the BRANCH? [all caps], particularly since there are Hebrew words for branch?
H6779
tsâmach
tsaw-makh'
A primitive root; to sprout (transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively)
Do you perceive there to be any connection between ?re-sprout? and ?a sprout? or ?to sprout??
The next Yahushua we see is receiving a crown?
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Yahushua [#H3091] the son of Josedech [#H3087 ? Yahweh righted], the high priest; And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Yahweh [#H3068] of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Sprout [#H6780]; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh [#H3068]: Even he shall build the temple of Yahweh [#H3068]; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Yahu'chanan [John] 2:19
An interesting thing we find concerning Josedech [Yahweh-tsâdaq]?
3087
yehôtsâdâq
yeh-ho-tsaw-dawk'
From H3068 and H6663; Yahweh-righted
With little doubt we all know that H3068 is the sacred name but let us take a closer look at H6663, tsâdaq .
H6663
tsâdaq
tsaw-dak'
A primitive root; to be (causatively make) right (in a moral or forensic sense)
What exactly does this mean Yahweh makes right ?in a forensic sense??
Webster?s 1828 Dictionary of American English
FOREN'SIC, a. [from L. forensis, from forum, a court.] Belonging to courts of judicature; used in courts or legal proceeding?
Evidently Yahweh was making it "right" in the sense that it would hold up in court.

-----It is taught that Mashiach?s name is foretold in Zecharyahu 6:9-13. But this is a very poor attempt at teaching a name for the Mashiach.

* Zech 6:9-13 Then the word of Yahuah came to me, saying: "Receive the gift from the captives--from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have come from Babylon--and go the same day and enter the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah. Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Yahushua the son of Yahuzadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, 'Thus says Yahuah of hosts, saying: "Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of Yahuah; Yes, He shall build the temple of Yahuah, He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both."

They teach that since it says "Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH" and since the one being prophesied over, whose name is Yahushua, the Mashiach's name would also be Yahushua. However, there are no scriptures that teach Yahushua, son of Zecharyahu, was called the BRANCH. The prophecy is in fact speaking of one whose name is the BRANCH (Mashiach) and this same person would branch out into a priesthood and build the (living) Temple. There had already been prophecy about the BRANCH of which they were aware of, so they knew the prophecy was not about Yahushua son of Yahuzadak.


The prophecy is as simple as the following: Yahushua, son of Yahuzadak, was a high preist, but he was not a good enough high priest to atone for sins. So the prophecy speaks of the Man to come whose name is the BRANCH and He will be the true High Priest. The entire prophecy is about the one whose name is the BRANCH. Behold, lo, see (this prophecy, see who it speaks of) the Man whose name is BRANCH, he shall build the temple . Simple as that. The belief of the name Yahushua to be used in calling on salvation contradicts what many other scriptures teach. Therefore, this teaching is not sound according to the Scripture. We will show you why. But first you must consider the following questions.------

We were just wondering, could any of this have to do with the Yahushua, the Messiah, King and High Priest?

-----It appears that you believe the Mashiach is not Deity. Is this correct? If so, I can understand why you would want to use the name of a regular man for the Mashiach instead of the Name that is spoken about in Joel 2:32. As you know it is not Yahushua.-----


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

---

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 15:32:01
Message:

Shalom All,

There will be some who will say I can't find "Yod Hey Shin Waw Ayin Hey" in the Tanak. They make a good point. However, YHWH's full name was not given for salvation until Joel's prophecy was fulfilled. So we are not going to find YHWH's full Name spelled with the meaning of salvation in the Tanak.

What I can show you from the Tanak is that the Father's name in fact contains shin and ayin from the names of His servants that have His name with meanings of save and safe.

OT:3470 Yesha` yahu (yesh-ah-yaw-oo'); Yah has saved;

The Above name Yeshayahu is Yahuah's name (for His earthly servant) with the meaning of "Save." It is spelled in Hebrew as Yod Shin Ayin Yod Hey Waw. As you see it contains three letters of the Tetragrammaton and also has Shin and Ayin within the name.

OT:3091 Yahushua` (Yah-oo-sh'-ah) Yah-saved;

The Above name Yahushua is Yahuah?s name (for His earthly servant) with the meaning of "Save." It is spelled in Hebrew as Yod Hey waw Shin Ayin. As you see it also contains three letters of the Tetragrammaton and also has Shin and Ayin within the name.

So in fact the Father's name is proven to have the letters shin and ayin in His Name from references in the Tanak. It is just the matter of the order of shin and ayin. However, H-3444 settles this matter because it is the salvation only Yahuah can fulfill, and only needs a hey after Yod to be the Tetra with the meaning of salvation.

Yahuah----Yod-Hey---------Waw-----------Hey--------(Tetragrammaton)
Yehshuah----Yod----Shin---Waw--Ayin----Hey-------(Complete salvation H-3444)

Bringing the two together in their order gives the Tetra the meaning of salvation. Shin and Ayin is already in His name for His earthly servants that have His name, therefore the Tetra with shin and ayin, is no different.

Yahuah gave the middle form of His name with Shin and Ayin for the names of His earthly servants. Yahuah gave His full name YHWH with shin and ayin to the one who was the Salvation of Yahuah, (I.E.) Yahshuah HaMashiach.

All of this is by far, more sound than using and teaching the incorrect names of Yahushua, Yahoshua, Y'hoshua, Yeshua, Y'shua, Iesous, and Jesus for the Tetra with the meaning of salvation.

It is a shame that one who has only been in the faith for about 4 years has to correct all the leaders who have been in the faith for a great number of years.

Yahuah please help us and bless us with your name, for truth and our salvation depends on it!

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 17:24:25
Message:

2-elect said: It is a shame that one who has only been in the faith for about 4 years has to correct all the leaders who have been in the faith for a great number of years.


BatKol: Mel Gibson could have used you on 'the Passion' instead of the
team of Aramaic experts he employed for his movie. The name Yeshua was used though out the whole movie. Where did you study Hebrew?

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 19:15:35
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
Actually, dear brother, it is none of the choices, which you have given us. The last one is a syncopated version of the original.
Here is the Lawful Counsellor’s name in full: yôd-hê’-vâv-shiyn-vâv-‘ayin, Yahu'shua. Now, if we divide this into the two Hebrew words that make it up, we find the first half to be yôd-hê’-vâv and the second half is shiyn-vâv-‘ayin. Now, yôd-hê’-vâv, as you no doubt know is the true shortened version of YaHuWeH’s name, or YaHu. The second half of our Wonderful Counsellor’s name, shiyn-vâv-‘ayin, is the Hebrew word shûa’, which of course means to cry to, or halloo.
A primitive root; properly to be free; but used only causatively and reflexively to halloo (for help, that is, freedom from some trouble): - cry (aloud, out), shout.
The reason the disciples were told not to teach in this name is because the Father’s Set-Apart name had been forbidden since the Babylonian captivity [a Babylonian religious doctrine which made their state religion "catholic", i.e. universal], and here were these people running around and basically saying, "Halloo Yahweh" or "Call Upon [the Name of] Yahweh" for freedom, which of course is the deliverance spoken of in Yahu'el [Joel] 2:32 and reiterated in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to Rome. This is akin to saying "Hail Yahweh", and again, as you no doubt know, there were those in Judæa that were saying they had no king but caesar, "Hail Caesar", just as we have people today who believe that only George is king [or president, if you prefer] and hence reject the Supreme Sovereign once more, or perhaps we should say, STILL! His name was a major part of the Good Tidings [gospel], which of course means literally, Lawful Counsel or Lawful Advice if you prefer.
Hope this is helpful.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 20:07:25
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneisraelite

[font=Comic Sans MS]Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
Actually, dear brother, it is none of the choices, which you have given us. The last one is a syncopated version of the original.
Here is the Lawful Counsellor's name in full: yôd-hê?-vâv-shiyn-vâv-?ayin, Yahu'shua.

---

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 20:16:03
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

2-elect said: It is a shame that one who has only been in the faith for about 4 years has to correct all the leaders who have been in the faith for a great number of years.


BatKol: Mel Gibson could have used you on 'the Passion' instead of the
team of Aramaic experts he employed for his movie. The name Yeshua was used though out the whole movie. Where did you study Hebrew?

---

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 21:54:07
Message:

Greetings All,
2-elect...if I get the name perfectly correct, then will I not have to file 1040 forms, not need license from Baal to travel or marry, or preach, or to live or die? If I can say the Name properly, can I then own Father's Land, without paying property taxes? Can I travel to Cuba without a passport issued by the govt? Since I know the father of creation's personal Name, can I now, get out of jail, without passing Go, and still collect? Can I know the sacred calendar perfectly, by just saying the name properly?
Since you must have the power to do all these things, tell us again, just how to spell this name in American-English. For I have only seen the name in paleo-hebrew...and I stand agape...or is that a-gape, in His Love.

May I stand corrected;
do you posess a LICENSE to move about ...in His Name.
do you file 1040 forms...tithe to caesar.
do you have business with Baal's temple's...Banks.
do care if they ALL CAP your name dad gave you.
do you work for an EMPLOYER
do you carry a license that baal issued for you to have permission to lay with your chosen woman
do you have a RELIGIOUS spirit
do you know that all, all the covenants are given to the House of Israel/Judah only

When I was four years old, in spirit and truth, I was still sucking milk, and spitting out falsehoods.
Neo has a message for you.
Yes, I admit I am abrasive, but not for effect, but for practical purposes. One must annoint {paint} a clean surface, else "it" will not stick long.

I admit to the world that I spell the question given in proverbs 30:4...
Father...YaHuWeH. Son...YaHuSHuaH. Why the U? Cause you better be in the midst of His name.
I really believe, after twenty years of trying to understand the Name YHWH, and raising a family of children within that name, that it will all get 'personal' when we qualify for the baptism. By the Way, baptism is of Fire, not water.

In paleo-hebrew the tetragram has four figures representing the Understanding of His Name-authority. Two of the figures, have men standing with hands held high, eyes agape...the letter H. When We see our Father's authority, we do indeed, Stand agape, at His.............Wonderment. And this experience will produce that agape Love, so spoken of by the early rain disciples...they owned all things in common. Agape burned out the greed from the inner man. All else is mere semantics.
By the Way, at this moment, at this hour, the message is, get out of BABYLON. Love the brethern, keep the Faith.
Lose the ss# and that ALL CAP name, time to wonder how to spell your name. ELECT or elect. Check your own paperwork, as you present your SELF-self, to the worldly.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 02 Mar 2004 22:21:14
Message:

You: "If it is, then I will use it to teach this is the Name spoken about in the Prophecy of Joel, which is the same as Peter and Paul quoted when they taught HaMashiach.
If it is not the Name spoken about through the prophecy, then why would you use it for the name to call on for salvation?"
Us: The name we are told to call on in Yahu'el 2:32, by Peter and Paul, and by the name of the Messiah, Yahu'shua is Yahweh. Translated the name of the Messiah TELLS us to call on YaHuWeH; that is what Yahu'shua means...call on the name of YaHuWeH.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 03 Mar 2004 00:54:15
Message:

Progressive revelations fine tune the cords of truth. We must continue to change our tune as truth becomes more clear.

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 04 Mar 2004 21:23:56
Message:

Shalom All,

Question for scholars and questions all should consider.

Please show me from the Tanak that the name Yahushua (yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin) is the Scriptural name for people to use and call on for salvation. I want to see it spelled exactly as "yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin" from the Tanak with the context of scripture saying this will be the name to call on for salvation. If it is there I will repent and conform to scripture. I can find Yod-hey waw-hey, but I can't find yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin.

When you find it please let me know why it does not have YHWH's full Name in it.

Also, please tell me according to the scripture why you use two names for salvation when the scriptures specifically teach of only one Name. YHWH and Yahushua are clearly two different names. No one can say otherwise. The name yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin was the name for other Yisraelites.

We know from scripture YHWH"s name will be used to call on for salvation, and we know from Scripture that the name of HaMashiach is the only name given for salvation and that all will bow under this name.

Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Phil 2:10 that at the name of Yahshuah every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.

How can the name YHWH (only name given to call on for Salvation) and the name Yahushua be the same name people will bow under according to Phil 2:10 and Isa 45:23, when they are obviously two different names, and the name YHWH is not heard when the name Yahushua is spoke?

Will the name being bowed to be the same name as the other Yisraelites who had the name Yahushua? Were they worthy to have such a name?

According to Yahshuah a singular name was to be used for immersion.

Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ruwach HaKodesh,

Understanding that the name of the Father and Son's name was going to be used in immersion and it be a singular name used for immersion, how would this name be spelled in Hebrew and English as one name, so that the full form of the Father's and Sons Name was carried forth? How would the Father and Son's name be pronounced in just one name and not two? A fulfillment of one calling on the singular name for salvation in immersion is as follows, which is a fulfillment of Yoel:2:32

Acts 22:15-16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of Yahshuah.

Please show us how scriptural sound the name Yahushua is for the name of the Mashiach, not from copies of texts which could have been written by those who followed traditions, but from points in scripture.

Thank you. I wait for your reply,

Yahuah bless us all with the truth of His name in His Mashiach

Shalom

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 04 Mar 2004 22:42:48
Message:

2-Elect, I finally see where you are! I have a four year old daughter, and if I even heard the word-name, daddy, my heart would melt with pleasure...she is really talking to me, even just me!
Daniel Jacob travels about, risking jail time, for his belief that Jesus Christ gives Him the freedom to do so. Daniel will not ask Caesar's minions permission to travel. He has asked Jesus the Christ, and was given permission to be about Father's business. John Bunyon {Pilgrim's Progress} asked his "Jesus the Christ" permission to set up ecclesia's without LICENSE from the king-pope crowd. John was given permission to do so. Protest-ants, when the word meant something! John spend twelve years in prison for not bowing the knee to the ceasar's of the time, called king-pope. {gubberment}
Now, I agree with you in that in this Third Day We must come into perfection {Luke 13:32}, and to finally call upon the Right Name is of importance.
But this religious thing about being dunked into a water pool, with the correct vowels and consonants, in the proper order is redundant, to the extreme. So says me.
You evaded my questions on your own walk, and the questions I earnstly asked. By a no answer, you admitted that you do all those things I listed.
You serve Caesar-government, and have not chosen the Messiah of Israel, Yahushuah-Jesus-yahushua, you pick the word...by your very own walk. Think Daniel Jacob and many others here, care to hear the matter, if you walk not according to the Commandments? So have we right to say: if we say verbally Yahshua help me then we can continue to file 1040 forms, to support the murder of Iraqi peoples? With 1040 form tithes support fags in office and the MARRIAGE of such called fags-sodomites and 4,000 children butchered in their dumb mommies womb every day PLEASE...not to mention USURY, which has a death sentence attached to it, so says the tanach...which word is also redundant. Try prophets and psalms...and His-story. A Zionist Jew taught me one thing...to understand Revelations 2:9 and 3:9. For ha-stan always has to show his cards, and so few care to look.
I have raised a family of many with the sacred names of the Father and Son being on their lips, but to put the name unto their hearts is above a mere father's pay grade. Name, does many times, not always, mean, authority...obedience.
Keep up the good works, on His name, for thou shall be rewarded, but, and, this Name turned Caesar's world upside down! The POLITICAL world. Brother Robert {oneisraelite} turns the worldly right side up, every time he is jailed for witnessing Messiah Yahushuah gives him permission to travel about in the Power of the Name.
Get my drift? You seem correct in the semantics, just put some feet to the process. IF the Name IS so Powerful, why ye seek the blessings of gubberment? A dollar to a donut that you are known by a PRETEND name, i.e. MR. ALL CAP...though your earthly Dad named you All Cap. Comprende?
Help us out here, BATKOL is proud to be a PERSON, are you also? Or, is my talk gibberish, and you need Daniel Jacob to interrupt? {or Neo}
What say ye? You have fallen into the midst of the called out.
Thanks for your stance on calling Truth by its right name, I mean that. But what about you?
I shall stick to the thought form that there better be a "u" in the midst of the Name. You.
Psalm 110 and proverbs 30:4 list two. Go figure. 351 or 352. Or in American 153-152. Benyamin's name equals 152. Sharpen thy pencil, for a great Test is coming upon all. And my prayer and hope is that 2-elect prevails!
Praise YaHuWeH and the redeemed said so. So. HalleluYah.
Too bad we can not sing on ecclesia.org

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 05 Mar 2004 17:54:30
Message:

Robert-James said: Help us out here, BATKOL is proud to be a PERSON, are you also?

Steve: You don't speak for me so let me correct you: I Am proud be scripted into YHWH's master plan, doing His pleasure at all times however He sees fit... moment to moment to moment to moment!

Reply author: Caleb
Replied on: 07 Mar 2004 19:35:38
Message:

Most of this discussion is well above my pay grade, but I have learned that there are indeed scriptures within the scriptures once you learn the meanings of the names.

2 Elect, it is clear to me that oneisraelite answered your question. Yahweh and "call upon Yahweh" are the same name. There has only, always and ever been one King.

In that vein, I was contemplating out loud the pronunciation of YHVH rendered Yah-oo-ah, as I had never considered that both heys should be pronounced the same. My six year old daughter overheard me say "Yah-oo-ah" and she replied, "That's Yahshua!"

Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 08 Mar 2004 01:20:09
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb

Most of this discussion is well above my pay grade, but I have learned that there are indeed scriptures within the scriptures once you learn the meanings of the names.

2 Elect, it is clear to me that oneisraelite answered your question. Yahweh and "call upon Yahweh" are the same name. There has only, always and ever been one King.

In that vein, I was contemplating out loud the pronunciation of YHVH rendered Yah-oo-ah, as I had never considered that both heys should be pronounced the same. My six year old daughter overheard me say "Yah-oo-ah" and she replied, "That's Yahshua!"

Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

---

Reply author: Caleb
Replied on: 08 Mar 2004 04:22:32
Message:

Dear 2 Elect,

I thought you would be pleased.

I don't disagree with a thing you said above. I simply give the rest of the forum members credit for being able to see the child-like simplicity of it and make up their own mind. Thus I saw no need to spell it out in detail.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

Reply author: 2-elect
Replied on: 08 Mar 2004 13:20:19
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb

Dear 2 Elect,

I thought you would be pleased.

I don't disagree with a thing you said above. I simply give the rest of the forum members credit for being able to see the child-like simplicity of it and make up their own mind. Thus I saw no need to spell it out in detail.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

---

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 10 Mar 2004 20:23:01
Message:

I'm working on collecting information on the derivation of our current (Roman) alphabet from its ancient roots. Here's one link to a chart taken from the Academic American Encyclopedia: http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/HIB/Language/AlphabetChart1.gif
For those not familar with the mapping of modern, square Hebrew characters to the original, "paleo-" ones, here is a chart showing the mapping: http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/HIB/HIB_Pics/HebChart.gif Be aware that there are varying forms of the early letters.

What these show is that our modern vowel characters (a,e,i,o,u) and some consonants derive from early paleo forms; specifically, a from aleph; e from he; i, j, and y from yod; o from oyin; and u and v from vau or waw. One can also see that the Greek vowels derived from the same root. There is disagreement, as we know, over just what those particular paleo letters meant.
>> The Semitic letter aleph, representing a smooth breathing, became Greek alpha, representing the vowel "a"; he became epsilon, "e"; yodh became iota, "i"; ayin became omicron, "o"; and waw became upsilon, "u". - Writing Systems, Evolution of; AAE, Vol W, p. 293.<<
I find it obvious that the Greek adoption of the early Hebrew/Aramaic shows that the early Hebrew alphabet had the same vowels as did the corresponding letters in the Greek alphabet.

On another chart of the tree of evolution of Near East writing, not yet available to link, is shown the Early Hebrew on the left Canaanite Branch, while the Square Hebrew is on the Aramaic branch on the right, derived from the Aramaic. Aramaic, was the principal commercial alphabet of the ancient Near East. While various other scripts are shown to have derived from this Aramaic script, it should be noted that both the commercial Aramiac and the Square Hebrew were in the hands of the same stock of people; ergo I conclude that Square Hebrew is the alphabet of a commercial language. The Early Hebrew was supplanted by the Square Hebrew, it is said after about 500 B.C.

The conclusion is obvious to me, but I'll admit it must be open to debate, that the Early Hebrew alphabet had vowels similar to the Greek, and that the Square Hebrew changed those symbols to mean something else - their modernly known consonants, which require "pointings" - for "commercial usage." Thus I boldly will warn my brothers and sisters in Christ that their adoption and usage of their "modernly" assigned sounds may be joining in the commercial exploitation of "God's" (I say IAUE, but I won't press on that just now) word and in making commerce of "God's" and our Savior's name. I see the obvious adoption above of the "modern" interpretation (of what may be vowels) as consonants in the various names attributed to "God" and "Jesus." The correct names may (as I believe) require interpreting some of the aforementioned Hebrew characters in those names as vowels. All disputation over what vowel sounds are understood to be added to the names is really wasted energy until this matter is investigated, wouldn't you all agree? Hit the books guys!

Please correct me if you can prove me wrong. I hope to collect some other materials and make a web page of them sometime soon.

I pray IAUE bless all who search out the truth in this matter.

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 13 Mar 2004 19:30:50
Message:

Are there any Greek (Hellenic) language scholars here? I've been wondering about the Septuagint. Put yourself in their sandals: if you were a Hebrew of old called upon to translate your holy scriptures into Greek, how would you write your God's holy name in the Greek? Why didn't you transliterate Yahweh, Yahuah, Jehovah, YHWH, YHVH or whatever other name you believe "God's" name is? Why did you (they) make up the name Theos?

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Mar 2004 20:40:31
Message:

Walter said: if you were a Hebrew of old called upon to translate your holy scriptures into Greek, how would you write your God's holy name in the Greek? Why didn't you transliterate Yahweh, Yahuah, Jehovah, YHWH, YHVH or whatever other name you believe "God's" name is? Why did you (they) make up the name Theos?

Steve: My speculation is that, considering the GREEK overlords wanted a copy of the Torah to understand those they RULED over, the 72 elders did not want YHWH's name available for vanity. Greek was considered a pagan language and we are talking about a people who have been in exile since Babylon. Many, many generations.

If you want access to some scholars check out:

www.theologyweb.com. Excellent site with students, scholars, and serious studiers debating and discussng a very wide-range of topics.

Just my two cents.

Steve

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 19 Mar 2004 02:09:13
Message:

(BatKol, that really is blind speculation. I may seek help from them someday - but can you ask for me??!!)

Some resources:

"For the first time in two thousand years, in a public national establishment in Jerusalem, at the Residence of the Presidents of Israel, a speech was made in ancient Hebrew, in an accent, which the greatest linguist of Samaritan-Hebrew an Aramaic languages, Professor Zeev ben Hayeem, may he enjoy longevity, calls The Hebrew of the Second Temple Period."
http://www.mystae.com/reflections/messiah/scripts/honor.html

"The Samaritan script is the original ancient script of the Hebrews, unlike the modern Hebrew script of today that originated from Babylon. The Samaritan script is the Palaeo-Hebrew script. Still today the Samaritan script can be found on inscriptions, seals, coins, ancient manuscripts (even from Qumran), etc."
http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm

From a chart copied/scanned from Collier's Encyclopedia (1996):
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/HIB/Language/LangChart.jpg
one sees that Samartian is derivative of the original Early Hebrew. It appears that the Samaritans held onto the original script, or at least something close to it.

One cannot miss or ignore the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35), who, after (one) had fallen "among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded" (him), and departed, leaving (him) half dead, had been passed by by a certain priest and the passed by by a Levite, was saved by a Samaritan who "had compassion (on him), [a]nd went to (him), and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him." And payed for all the costs of caring for (him).

Surely these Samaritans have held onto the original script, keepng it alive, as it were, for us.
Surely Jesus' parables do not fail in their extension to real world events!!!

How appropriate that the Samaritans have kept the (script), that was stripped and wounded, from dying and have payed for (its) recovery to this day. A script that was passed by by priests and Levites - who adopted the Square Hebrew - is still available today. They still use the original pronunciation, according to the website. Maybe we should look towards them?

Reply author: DanielJacob
Replied on: 19 Mar 2004 09:56:28
Message:

Greetings Brothers,

Peace unto all here.

quote:

---

"For the first time in two thousand years, in a public national establishment in Jerusalem, at the Residence of the Presidents of Israel, a speech was made in ancient Hebrew, in an accent, which the greatest linguist of Samaritan-Hebrew an Aramaic languages, Professor Zeev ben Hayeem, may he enjoy longevity, calls The Hebrew of the Second Temple Period."

---

quote:

---

Surely these Samaritans have held onto the original script, keeping it alive, as it were, for us. Surely Jesus' parables do not fail in their extension to real world events!!!

---

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 19 Mar 2004 11:08:06
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielJacob
The same Samaritans that made unto themselves priests of the lowest of men among them and "feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence."?

---

Reply author: DanielJacob
Replied on: 19 Mar 2004 20:13:04
Message:

Brother Walter,

I thought that my point was obvious. Your post made the point that "for the first time in two thousand years" a speech was made, by the "greatest linguist" of Samaritan-Hebrew, purportedly from this group of imposters. "The Samaritan script is the original ancient script of the Hebrews, unlike the modern Hebrew script of today that originated from Babylon." These people originated from Babylon, therefore the previous statement doesn't stand up to historical criticism. That was my point. I didn't see that you were trying to verify that assumption with the illustration that one of those imposters was capable of simple acts of kindness that should be embraced by those that profess their devotion to the Father and His Son. Many today claim to be atheists and still give a helping hand to his fellow man.

Peace be unto you.

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 20 Mar 2004 00:02:44
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielJacob
... These people originated from Babylon, therefore the previous statement doesn't stand up to historical criticism. ...

---

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 20 Mar 2004 03:12:32
Message:

Greetings to: todos mis hermanos (all my brothers),

Interesting enough, It is good that I did a little research and found the following which I think sheds light on this topic of discussion:

TONGUES AT CORINTH: LANGUAGES NOT ECSTASIES!
by Dr. N. Lee
The Character of the Corinthian Tongues

Scripture itself suggests that these Corinthian tongues -- just like those on Pentecost Sunday -- were not incommunicable ecstatic utterances. They were clearly linguistic -- that is, spoken in translatable and recognised human languages. Compare I Cor. 14:21f and Isa. 28:11f with Acts 2:4-11. As Dr. W.B. Godby rightly observes in his Commentary, cosmopolitan ancient Corinth was "really a mammoth mongrel of all nationalities."

The international ancient trading city of Corinth had a very unusual location -- on the slender isthmus in Central Greece, between the two much larger land-masses of Northern Greece and Southern Greece, and also between the Adriatic and Ionian Seas to the west and the Aegean Sea to the east. Corinth's location there was thus similar to that of Panama City in the new world --on the thin waist of Central America, between the two great continents of North America and South America, and also between the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.

In the international trading centre of Panama City today, at least twenty different languages are regularly spoken. So too in ancient Corinth. There, none of those various foreign languages was to be spoken during worship in the Corinthian Church --unless translated. If so used, those foreign languages were always to be translated into the Corinthian dialect -- so that all present could understand the message concerned.

In its entirety at:
http://www.nccg.org/469Art-Corinth.html

I am,
Manuel

Reply author: DanielJacob
Replied on: 20 Mar 2004 09:56:41
Message:

Brother Walter,

Your right, I would agree that there is the possibility to learn something from the scripts. I guess I am always skeptical when something is presented as being a significant find and the underlying evidence doesn't support the overall assumptions. I see those events as having the fingerprints of Satan. His presentations always have just enough that sounds possible to draw the elect.

I have read that ancient Hebrew, along with Aramaic writings developed from the Phoenician alphabet. Did Abram speak Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, or Akkadian that was spoken in what is now Iraq about 2000 B.C.? This is why I have such a hard time when other brothers want to espouse the idea that there is only one way to pronounce the Name of the Eternal or His Son. Languages change over time. It should be most evident even in this modern day. We are said to speak English, but those on the Island would disagree. Many words are not pronounced phonetically. Just too many questions that have no answers.

Peace to you brother.

Reply author: berkano
Replied on: 08 Apr 2004 01:44:34
Message:

quote:

---

Hi one israelite

Why do you have a "u" after Yah in Yahushua, and in Yashayahu, yet have a "w" after Yah in Yahweh?

What you are really saying is the Fathers name is pronounced differently in the names of His people. But in reality this can not be. If you are going to call Him Yahweh, don't you think you should be consistant and call the Son Yahweshua and Isaiah Yashayahwe?

2-elect

---

Reply author: Tiza
Replied on: 19 Apr 2004 11:43:22
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2-elect

His Name Is Not Yahushua Or From Yahushua

His name is YHWH with the meaning of complete Salvation YAHSHUAH.

http://www.yaih.com/nun.htm

Joshua son of Nun was not given the name above all names!

Shalom
Daron

---

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jul 2004 19:26:16
Message:

Dear Readers;

Sorry to drop in on six pages of convincing argument. I just feel that simplifying may be the most edifying.

There is a great treatise on this subject by a renouned author at Hebrew University in Chattanooga, Tennessee. "Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu; Which One is the Name of Jesus in Hebrew?" by James D. Price. I discussed this with Dr. Price and he elaborated the accent, though slight, is on "shu". The name of the Messiah is Yehoshuah; just like we find in Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html

So when I read Price's paper I went to the federal repository and checked out his sources, mainly the Babylonian Talmud and everything was there. But I was able to cross-check through various esoterics about the Tetragrammaton too. I have several journal pages but will send only one to Bondservant for him to link:

72-fold name image link

The simplicity is very comprehensive. YOD - HEH - VAW - HEH are the letters. But the vowel sounds are also critical. Yihowah is probably the better way to pronounce Jehovah. Strong's says to pronounce it yeh-ho-vaw. But that first “e” sound is almost like a ‘short’ “i” sound. The next vowel is clearly a long “o” sounded after the first HEH. Then there is the VAW sound followed by an ending HEH which always has an “aw” vowel sound, ending the word.

So the ineffable name spoken only by priests and by the cohen gadol (high priest) on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement – Leviticus 23) is simply fully expounding the consonants with the same vowel sounds. Nothing fancy:

YOD e HEHEH WAV o HEY aH

YODIHEHEHWAVOHEYAH

The mathematics is really quite eloquent as you can see.

Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. As to the “u” sound argument. I have never bought into it but Encyclopedia Judaica expounds clearly under NAME that YEHU in a prefix like Yehudah (Judah) is “definitely not theophoric”. So it makes no sense to apply this convention to either the Name or the Messiah.

P.P.S. I recall the rabbi in the synagogue teaching this pronunciation one Sabbath:

http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Respecting_God_in_Speech.asp

Reply author: God is Love
Replied on: 06 Jul 2004 21:22:50
Message:

Greetings all,

Some verses related to the Name:

1 Corinthians chapter 8 verses 5 and 6: "For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him."

It is this one God the Father whom we are out of, and one Lord whom we are through, regardless of their names.

Matthew chapter 6 verses 9 and 10: ""YOU must pray, then, this way: "'Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place as in heaven, also upon earth."

We pray for His name to be sanctified. So, obviously His name is of importance.

Psalms chapter 83 verse 18: "That people may know that you, whose name is YHWH, You alone are the Most High over all the earth."

Exodus chapter 6 verses 2 and 3: "And YHWH went on to speak to Moses and to say to him: "I am YHWH. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them."

Exodus chapter 3 verse 15: "Then YHWH said once more to Moses: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, "YHWH the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to YOU.' This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation."

His name is a memorial. Does that mean it is to be remembered?

Isaiah chapter 42 verse 8: ""I am YHWH. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images."

Cannot a name be made into a graven image? It is our Father we worship, not His name. Though we should "remember" it. In order to "remember" it, we should have known it at some point in time. There is a lot of argument regarding the name. I was raised to believe the name of our Father is Jehovah. When I learned it was a Latin translation of YHWH, I then began to merely use YHWH, as I honestly do not know the true pronunciation, though I would love to know for certain.

Isaiah chapter 12 verse 2: "Look! YHWH is my salvation. I shall trust and be in no dread; for Jah Jehovah is my strength and [my] might, and he came to be the salvation of me.""

Does anyone know the original letters for Jah? The original letters for Jehovah are YHWH, true?

Isaiah chapter 26 verse 4: "Trust in YHWH, YOU people, for all times, for in Jah Jehovah is the Rock of times indefinite."

John chapter 17 verse 6: ""I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word."

verse 26: "And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.""

We see Jesus made God's name known. Noted also here:

John chapter 5 verse 43: "I have come in the name of my Father, but YOU do not receive me; if someone else arrived in his own name, YOU would receive that one."

chapter 12 verses 12 and 13: "The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival, on hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. And they began to shout: "Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in YHWH's name, even the king of Israel!""

verse 28: "Father, glorify your name." Therefore a voice came out of heaven: "I both glorified [it] and will glorify [it] again.""

I have also seen the letters rendered: JHVH rather than YHWH. I have understood it to mean "He Causes to Become"

His name as found in various translations:

The New English Bible: Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3; See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35.

Revised Standard Version: Footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: "The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH."


Today's English Version: Footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: "THE LORD:...Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions."

King James Version: Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; Note also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.

American Standard Version: Starting with Genesis 2:4, the name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew.

Douay Version: Footnote on Exodus 6:3 says "My name Adonai." It also talks about how the Jews out of reverence never pronounce His name. Instead they would read Adonai (signifying Lord). This footnote claims the vowels to be Jod, He, Vau, He. Jehovah is a fairly modern version of the name. The ancient Jews and Christians did not use Jehovah. This footnote claims the true pronunciation is lost. It also notes chapter 3 and 14.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329) states: "Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name."

The Holy Bible: Yahweh is in the footnotes of Exodus 3:14; 6:3. Translated by Ronald A. Knox.

The New American Bible: Footnote favors Yahweh in Exodus 3:14. It is not in the main text, however.

The Jerusalem Bible: Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with Genesis 2:4.

New World Translation: Jehovah is used in the Hebrew and Greek 7,210 times.

An American Translation: Yahweh is used at Exodus 3:15; 6:3, followed by LORD in brackets.

The Bible in Living English: Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew. Done by S. T. Byington.

The 'Holy Scriptures': Matthew 1:20 begins with use of Jehovah in the footnotes (Greek). The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew. Translated by J. N. Darby.

The Emphatic Diaglott: Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and 17 other places, in the Greek. Benjamin Wilson did this translation.

The Holy Scriptures According to Masoretic Text----A New Translation: Exodus 6:3, Hebrew tetragrammaton appears in English text. This was done by the Jewish Publication society of America. Max Margolis was the editor-in-chief.

The Holy Bible: Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew scriptures. This translation was done by Robert Young.

When I see how often the word LORD replaces the name of our Father, I can't help but think how our names on various presentments also appear in all capitals, what they call the nom de guerre, is it? War name? Are there earlier instances of an all capital name replacing another name? When did the use of this LORD begin? I'm curious.

Some other interesting points:

Preface of the Revised Standard Version: "For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

Despite our Father's name appearing more than any other name or any title in the original Hebrew, this particular translation felt it appropriate to remove it based on the above mentioned beliefs.

Matthew chapter 15 verse 6: "he must not honor his father at all.' And so YOU have made the word of YHWH invalid because of YOUR tradition."

As in Judaism before the Christian era, they decided to discontinue the use of God's Name in their translations.

William Tyndale was the first in 1530 to break the practice of leaving the name out altogether when he published the Pentateuch. Others after him followed his example by using the name at least once and up to a few times in the majority of translations.

Jerome in the fourth century wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed."--------De viris inlustribus,
chapter III.

Matthew's gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew where the Tetragrammaton is found. No information that I am aware of would prove that Matthew did not quote what was written as it was written.

Hundreds of passages were quoted from the Septuagint (translated from Hebrew to Greek). Many of these passages included the Tetragrammaton, written in Hebrew right in the Greek text (in the earlier copies of the Septuagint).

As His Son desired, so His Son's follower's obeyed by retaining that name.

John chapter 17 verse 6: ""I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word."

verse 26: "And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.""

From Journal of Biblical Literature, by George Howard of GSU: "We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write (the Hebrew lettering for YHWH) within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself....Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text....But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments."----------Volume 96, No.1, March 1977, pages 76 and 77.

From what I understand, Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was used every day, those reading the language automatically knew which vowels to provide. Over time, superstition led the Jews to stop pronouncing God's name aloud, so they substituted titles. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points indicating which vowels to use when reading old Hebrew. They placed the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the name. This is how the original pronunciation was lost.

Some of the scholars favor Yahweh. Others use Jehovah, due to it's being readily recognized by many. Jehovah has been in use for centuries in the English language and also preserves the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton.

The Emphasized Bible, by J. B. Rotherham, uses Yahweh throughout the Hebrew. Later in Studies in the Psalms, he used Jehovah.

He wrote: "JEHOVAH-------The employment of this English form of the Memorial name...in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahweh; but solely from the practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended."--------London, 1911, page 29.

German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler wrote: "From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted."----------Grammaire de l'hebreu biblique, Rome, 1923, footnote on page 49.

Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye-shu'a', Greek form of the name being I-e-sous'. Now he is known widespread as Jesus. With each language, the pronunciation changes slightly. There is a common thread though, in all languages, by which the Father and the Son are known, their commonly used names. So we have three schools of usage. Those who never use the name. Those who are striving to use the specific and original name, likely lost. And those who use the commonly known names. While the name is important, I believe our conduct and how we worship our Father is just as important.

Knowing and using God's name is for us a way to draw close to Him. Thus for some, including me, the topic is of great interest and concern. Naming our Father makes Him more personal to us. It also distinguishes our Father from other gods.

Note Matthew 28:19,20; 1 Corinthians 8:5,6; Exodus 3:15; Isaiah 12:4; Ezekiel 38:17,23; Malachi 3:16; John 17:26; Acts 15:14.

Does anyone on the forum actually know the "lost language" as it was passed down through the Jewish scholars? As I noted above, the vowels that were substituted were those of the Title, not of the actual original name. Most believe the name was lost in time. It would be a true blessing to find that it wasn't. And more people should know about it if that were the case.

Freedom, Love, and Peace to all of you!



Mount Fuji----"without equal"

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 11 Jul 2004 11:28:22
Message:

Dear God is Love;

You ask:

quote:

---

Does anyone on the forum actually know the "lost language" as it was passed down through the Jewish scholars? As I noted above, the vowels that were substituted were those of the Title, not of the actual original name. Most believe the name was lost in time. It would be a true blessing to find that it wasn't. And more people should know about it if that were the case.

---

quote:

---

1. A belief or conceit of private revelation; the vain confidence or opinion of a person, that he has special divine communications from the Supreme Being, or familiar intercourse with him.

---

Reply author: Inactive Member
Replied on: 11 Jul 2004 23:46:32
Message:

greetings all...
i have not read all 6 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. In this search for the sacred name one must remember that we are being conformed to the image of Christ, from glory to glory. when one has say a daughter, the baby's first name for the male parent is daddy or abba or something similar. Isnt that the most precious.. later the child may learn in fact that daddy's name is Joe Dirte or fill in your name. But the real intimacy is in getting to know what daddy is really like, what's his character? If our heavenly father is perfect and we are to go on... leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, not laying the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, ...etc. (hebrews 6) ... unto perfection, we should seek out to know Him. And with diligence be willing to let him transform us and renew our minds and be conformed into the same character. Remember how a seed brings after its own kind? Well, we could all eat an olive and call it something different, but even without the gift of speech or hearing (say a deaf/mute) we could recognize that fruit having once tasted it. And father even bears witness that the fruit of the holy spirit is from Him. So, taste and see that the Lord is good. Seeing the glory of God in another brother or in a brother from the scriptures, especially the firstborn Son, is the revelation of who our Father is, the Lord of hosts is his name. So whats in a name? strongs # 3686 mentions authority, character. I always like 2nd peter as well, i dont think he mentions correct pronunciation or spelling in his directions on assuring an entrance into the kingdom of heaven...
However, there is important meanings and things to be learned and revealed through the sacred name(s), and all language, names and laws and creations, etc. I am just convinced that the seed planted whether wheat or tare is known by its fruit. in love, Beza

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 12 Jul 2004 02:10:14
Message:

Hello Folks,

I have a short addition to the conversation. I hope
you appreciate its simplicity and directness. If you
take the time to actually say the variants of the name,
and pay attention to how you feel after each utterance,
it should become clear to you which is the one to be used
when appropriate. At least that has been my experience.

Love & Blessings!,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 12 Jul 2004 08:56:23
Message:

Dear Bezaleel;

I feel that the Old Covenant is the foundation of understanding the New Covenant. "Name" by Hebrew/Aramaic definition is Strong's #8034. So add to authority and character; position and honor. Now we are getting somewhere! Standing in Judicio - position*. Court of Competent Jurisdiction - honor. What you Christians call Power of Prayer. Properly, Christian Qaballah as Christianity is properly a new(er) sect of Judaism.

From your perspective I presume adherence to Romans 13 and that seems to be a conundrum among many of the "Christians" here in this forum. Many of these people dabble in some of the pieces that do not fit; inner conflicts about subjecting to what feels like a commercial antichrist of international banking - METRO 1313's global municipality home rule etc. [Essentially Revelation 18:4.] But if it is any consolation, your faith has always kept the Bloodline safe. Imagine the Christian witchhunts through history for the descendants of your Saviour?

So I am with Ishmael Aylwin on the simple points integrated into his short message. He knows his name and therefore I deem him a sound contractor. He is quite masterful at relationship (contracts) and scientifically experiments with different utterances, allowing the Holy Spirit of God to produce a resonant or dampening effect (against the truth in his name) in his solar plexus (gut reaction). He has noticed that judgments occur and prayers are answered and simply notices the effect (empirical datum) without having to know who-called-who or where such-and-such intermediate process is filed.

But one thing he seems to believe is that God wishes Ishmael Aylwin to know His Name.

Regards,

David Merrill

* For this position in the counterfeit estate of fiat money, legal names and real estate one must dichotomize into MPD to re-present themselves pro se (Multiple Personality Disorder = schizophrenia). To attorn back the re-venue, one must endure capital integration.

From "Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law" by Joseph Vining; footnote at the bottom of p. 22

quote:

---

It would be interesting to discover the degree to which a person in early society was "born again' when he was made an official. A postulant was born again when he became a monk, a squire when he entered knighthood, or a woman when she married. Each took a new name. It may be that only as the notion of the double personality of officials grew did the new name not replace the old, but was rather added to the old, so that an official had both a "private" name and a "title." It is the phenomenon of two names, of course, that has made possible the practice of filing suits for judicial review against "named individuals."

---

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 13 Jul 2004 02:06:00
Message:

Dear David Merrill,

Do I really believe "that God wishes [me] to know His Name." ? Anyone who reads through this
entire thread has been exposed to several variations of His Name. If a person has read with
awaremess of their internal experience it does not matter wether or not he believes he should
know the name, he knows it. I am still working on my capital integration, but I do believe it
best to not argue with immediate experience. I must admit that a person must be able to separate
their immediate experience from their re-presentation of it before they can discern the experience
from their idea of it. A person learns to do this through practice. A simple but not neccessarily
easy first step to discovering truth; consciously discriminate between the map and the territory.

Take Care & God Bless!,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 13 Jul 2004 05:42:23
Message:

Dear Ishmael Aylwin;

I said:

quote:

---

But one thing he seems to believe is that God wishes Ishmael Aylwin to know His Name.

---

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 13 Jul 2004 09:55:27
Message:

Yes, let us study this terrain before we land.
Many of us argue on what words we should pronounce when calling/naming that which is to be clearly understood. His-story calls and names many.

One example is "as a white sepulcher, but full of dead mens bones and everything unclean."
Another are the words and scathing damning as "hypocrites, dens of thieves, vipers etc."
I know what those pronounciations mean and stand against.

Now, there are those which say they are of God, Jesus, Yehoshuah, Jehova etc., but noticing where they stand and what they teach, and keep from teaching, a "gut feeling" tells me they couldn't possibly stand with His Truth. They are neither cold nor hot.

I am,
Manuel

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 13 Jul 2004 13:05:39
Message:

Dear Manuel,

I awoke this morning with the word Jehovah (yi-ho-vah) repeating itself on my lips.
I don't remember what I was dreaming about, but as I came to full consciousness I realized
that there is one spelling of His Name above that was different than what the text about it
suggested it should be. It also occured to me that not everyone subvocalizes as they read,
although many do.

I am curious, will you please tell me the names consonant with the meanings you have given above.
More explicitly, what name means, "as a white sepulcher, but full of dead mens bones and
everything unclean" ? What name means, " scathing damning as 'hypocrites, dens of thieves,
vipers etc.'" ? And, to whom did each of these names, mean what you state ?

I know that for myself, there can be no single word for His Name, because He is not that limited,
and I will not mistake the map for the territory. If one speaks to create in His Name, than it
behooves one to use the name appropriate to what one has been called to create.

Blessings to you and yours.

I AM,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 13 Jul 2004 16:47:53
Message:

Greetings iammai,
"hypocrites, dens of thieves, vipers etc.," I can see that those words where used appropiately then, as well as now, to reveal the doctors of the law (attornies) and their appointed judges (attornies.)
"as a white sepulcher, but full of dead mens bones and everything unclean" I can see that those words clearly described then, as well as now, the so-called doctors of the law, the "judges" they appoint, and the plush "law offices" and JUDICIAL COURTHOUSES, LEGISLATIVE HALLS, and EXECUTIVE HALLS they rule from.

The many buildings and symbols they have raised show the following:
Moses holding the Ten Commandments, two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door, Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.,Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher,
whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1789.

I am,
Manuel

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 14 Jul 2004 01:26:39
Message:

Dear Manuel,

Thank you for your explanation.
I see now that I mistunderstood
the import of your statement.

I AM,

Ishmael Aylwin [McIntosh]

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 14 Jul 2004 11:33:47
Message:

Greetings Ishmael,
I should explain more what I mean and to whom/what I direct my comments.

On another "note," years ago I had a stereo system with a brand name McIntosh. Have not heard much now a days, but it was considered one of the best sound systems of those days.

His Grace and Light be upon you and your love ones,
I am,
Manuel

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 21 Jul 2004 20:44:24
Message:

The most famous man in history, and we wonder what his name is. Amazing!
{Just erase Jesus, being the verbal name he was called when he walked about}"They" called him:
Yahushua son of Yoseph.
Yahushua of Nazareth.
Paul call's him...Messiah Yahushuah and Yahushuah messiah. On purpose.
I think Yahushuah in the loneliness of his earthly walk,
disected his given name: Yahu=I Will Be. Shuah= Salvation.
He believed so strongly in this, that he laid down his life here, and sealed that belief in his own blood.
And Paul revealed that Yahushuah was the Firstborn among many more brethern who would have that same confession of faith. Wow.
Yahuweh stated that He called His son...out of Egypt. A many membered son.
The mystical Messiah.
Paul was so very well pleased when Yahuweh revealed His son...in him, i.e. Paul's mind-heart.Paul travailed with the younger brethern, till Messiah be formed in them, also.
Paul was a custodian of the Mysteries. Janitor-door opener. For years he "kicked against the prick's".
{Fought against the Divine revelation}
When the Light came, it was so bright, he went blind. Wow again.
To be baptised into the Name, has nothing to do with water...physical water.
The book of Acts explain's that many were baptised into John's baptism {water} and had as yet, not received the Baptism of the Name. hmmm, such cryptic stuff. It surely must seem that the Mystery was kept from those who would not...what? sacrifice? Sacrifice what?
The Word was made flesh. Way past Moses and his given revelations. But Moses knew "it" was going to come.
The new covenant is hidden in the old covenant.
{Though few there be that find it}
KJV language: God said to Moses: I am That I Am, that is my name.
Now when reading the new covenant red letter's, watch for; Yahushuah saying..."That I Am". Which is the second part of the sacred name...I Am... That I Am.

Eyah Asher Eyah...I Will Be What I Will to Be.
He willed to be Saviour in Yahushuah of Nazareth. And Yahushua said, "let's do it".
Now it is our turn.
KJV...Christ in you, is the hope of your glory.
Where?
Or we could argue, i before c except after an e.
And to you that look for him, shall He appear....
Blessings and salutations to those who look foreward to the next age, the age of the pouring out of the Living water's. For this is the age of the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
And no NEW AGE nut shall hijack eternal Truth.
"Follow the man carrying the pitcher of water, for he shall lead you to an upper room...fully furnished".
The next level.
Since man went to great expense to hide the sacred names of the Father and Son, will you ask yourself, why?
I mean to say, that if it is as simple as "saying" Yahshua vs. Jesus...Yahuweh vs. God, one has missed the Revelation.
Here in the new testament writings we have Yahushuah saying to Phillip, [paraphrased} Phil, ya wanna see YHWH? Look into my face".
YaHuWeH is Spirit. Looking for tabernacle's that will invite Him in, at whatever cost.
Brought to you by; Robert of IOWA.

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 22 Jul 2004 01:37:15
Message:

Hello Robert,

You make excellent points, and I agree with you wholly.
I also know that there is real power in the Word correctly
used, and everything is vibration which we create most
consciously through our speech.

God Bless!,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 04:09:37
Message:

Dear Robert James;

His name is no more Yehushauh than yours is "Robert-James". And no more Yehuwah than yours is "Robert of IOWA". Check the standards. Listen to the experts.

The point being your parents did not hyphenate "Robert-James" and therefore it is not your name. It is a nickname or whatever. "Robert of IOWA" sounds more like an epithet. You have three names here on this Page, presuming your parents named you "Robert James". On a premise you can have more than one true name, you may make up anything you want and we should believe that any one, even "Robert of IOWA" is your name.

But that is a faulty premise. At least I believe that it allows for falsity. Should we believe your name is "Micky Mouse" too? Just because you say so. When one, "feigns self to be another" that is NAKAR Strong's #5234 - foreigner of Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and stranger of Deuteronomy 23:20. Of course! Who would trust a man who introduces himself by different names at different times? Alienate - estrange. In just two verses you subject yourself to usury and cannot claim the Seven Year Release from debt. So in a Zionist (Khazarian/Ashkenazim) oriented banking system you are really messed up financially [in the original estate; not the debt currency systems of the world]. Evidence of criminal activity, your many names, will cause forfeiture. Before you can make peaceable reentry into the original estate, you will have to properly identify yourself.

So try not to boil the confusion over onto sacred theophoric names like the Father Yehovah and Messiah Yehoshuah.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 14:30:55
Message:

Dear David Merrill,

Although I in no way disagree with the specifics of your statements against
Robert James, it seems to me you missed the real thrust of what he was stating.
Or, maybe you've chosen to ignore it because you recognize the value of names used
well. Or, maybe I've read more into his writing than he intended. In any case,
I read his message to be claiming that it is more important that we embrace the
living spirit, the Holy Ghost, than argue over the spelling and pronounciation of
names. From the __Gospel of Thomas__:

    Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, 
    and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever 
    blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth 
    or in heaven."

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 18:46:22
Message:

Dear Readers;

I did not repeat myself from a page back but I was seriously mislead by a minister a few years back who adhered to the "Yehu" prefix. So my statement is not against Robert James but the doctrine that he persists with here. Also a page back I was fairly determined to let the thread go about its way, having said what I had to say. But "Robert-James" or "Robert of IOWA" made an opening for me to clarify why it is amazing that we could still be discussing the validity of proven standards.

About the gist of what Robert James was saying; it missed me altogether. I would not allow somebody who insists on the falsity of the "Yehu" prefix teach me word one. But I will examine what you are saying Ishmael Aylwin and just say that I would never be one to underestimate God's grace. However, I think that is a Futuristic Christian concept that is oriented about an eternal afterlife, irrelevant to a kingdom of heaven on earth. And you agree that here is where process can be properly handled to manage property and rights thereto.

You bring up a wonderful point about Yehoshuah and how he would have referred to the Father in heaven. Of course being post John Hercanus (125 BC) in Jewish company Yehoshuah would have used titles like "Adonia" and "Elohim" verbally. I linked an article with Aish.com about the reverence a page back, "A comprehensive guide to the philosophy and laws of pronouncing the Name of God."

www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Respecting_God_in_Speech.asp

So let's say that is correct that advanced and Torah literate students were taught the sacred ineffible name. So let us say that Yehoshuah would have had the Name YHVH properly in his thoughts and muttered prayers.

So upon some Bible studies it has been speculated about the writing in the sand, you know, when Jesus was convincing the ad hoc jury to spare the harlot, "Let him among you who has not sinned throw the first stone." That event:

1) Yehoshuah was spelling out the prescription for testing adultery. There is an Old Covenant test for adultery where the priest writes a passage on paper and steeps the paper in tea and the woman drinks it. If she survives the ink poisoning, she is innocent. Problem is, Yehoshuah was writing in the sand; he probably would have gone full with the prescribed test if at all.

2) Yehoshuah was writing the full ineffible Name. A display of authority in being right with God. This would probably be with expressed or implied admission by the posse of entrapment. If the woman were caught "in the very act" then which man set her up? Adultery is an action that takes two. Only the woman was threatened with a stoning. So it is implied that the men had seduced her into the weakness with a male for bait.

So I believe that the latter may be the case. It is pretty clear from the scripture that Yehoshuah was writing something in the sand. I believe it was likely the 72-Fold Name.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif

Regards,

David Merrill

P.S. I have not forgotten the title of this Topic is, "His name is not Yehushuah" so I am right in the subject matter to attack the "Yehu" doctrine. But it would be interesting if that is what 2-elect meant when he titled the Topic? Is this the intended debate?

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 19:26:34
Message:

Dear David,
I do think you presume too much.
Yahushuah was known by many names, one of which he mentioned about his Being was; Son of man. Peter called him the Messiah, without any rebuke.
Isaiah 9:6...and his name shall be called, 1] Wonderful, 2] Counsellor, 3] El-Elyon {the mighty God}, 4] The Everlasting Father, 5] The Prince of Peace.
A name is only part of the description of a living Being.
Since I am born a second time, quiz you on your reference to my parents: water or spirit parents?
YaHuWeH as Father, mother being New Yerusalem.
See, I was born in a sack of water, baptised into this world. My Dad pronounced the name upon this natural born being. Then again We have a new name. Not necessarily a "re-newed" name. {Robert James vs. Robert James}.
Yes, I could call myself "Mickey Mouse" if I cared too, as long as fraud is notinvolved. Consider "Madonna".
You really need to consider John 3rd chapter...word by word.
I am an Israelite, and don't pay much attention to your perverted concept's via Khazar's are legitimate Judah. {You still BELIEVE German's gassed 6,000,000 Jew's} {Care to cry a tear, or propagate 50,000,000 white Russian's died at the hand of communism?}
BTW, I repented of any involvement with the IRS and usury borrowing back in '1983'.
Don't think yu could make me boil over, under any circumstances.
A high I.Q. can, and usually is, a great hinderance to entering into the Kingdom. For a self elevated man to humble himself, and believe as a child does, makes no sense to the egoist.
Jefferson an egoist, and very intelligent man, gifted in fact, thought the book of the Revelation of Yahushuah, was the "ravings of a mad man".
We have noticed that certain one's, will never spell Yahushuah, with the Yah, or, Yahu, attached. THEY alway's must put an e in there. They esoterically are stating that Yahu-Shuah did not come here, in his Father's name. Even Jew's today in Palestine, are using the given name Y{E}hushua. As do you....hummm.
HalleluYah, or do you say, "HalleluYeh?
I have friend's who call me, Bob. When I played baseball, till age 50, on the field it was Bobby.
Depending on who say's what and for what purpose, I may, or may not, answer to the name they call out.
As a judge once stated to a man at bar, THEY, i.e. the Persecutor, i.e. the D.A. can call you anything he likes. You can answer to the name or not.
I have walked through the fire in the dungeon, for not having a LAST NAME.
Maybe it is time for you to admit that you aren't the only ONE who know's?
Or, am I wasting the ecclesia's time and space? Aren't you on record stating Yahushuah didn't die, i.e. he faked his death. I read "Holy Blood holy Grail many year's ago, and it gee...was written by one of your Khazar mentor's? Yep.
Since I live more east than you, I get up earlier than you do...usually.

If I wanted to call myself Micha-El, the only way you could talk to me was to call me by the name I introduce myself to you.
I minded not one whit you wrote Robert James, vs. Robert-James. For your court is not my court, and we have no arguement, albiet, I'd rather be called most anything except a usurious man. But I forgive you in your mere presumptions, ok?
As a side bar to your heart's health, who want's their first estate? You? The only one's I know of who have lost their first ESTATE, are those in chain's awaiting the "final judgement day". I pray you are confused of sort's and not one of THOSE. As a reference, consider Hebrew's 11: 14-15-16. We want a better "estate". The state of Zion, a state of Being.
But then Abraham was taught by the father's, that resurrection is real.
"They" were NAKED in the old garden. At law, you must know 'naked' means...incomplete.
I do not want to Stand "naked"..."in that Day", which is today.
Put on the whole armour, Ephesian's 6:11-24.
To you west of the great divider, {Mississippi} Peace.

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 21:04:03
Message:

Dear Readers;

Robert James said:

quote:

---

Dear David,
I do think you presume too much.
Yahushuah was known by many names...

---

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 21:14:50
Message:

Brother David,
re-search your thought's on the woman caught in the act of adultry and the "writings in sand". Is this versage in Ferrah Fenton's translation? It was not in the earliest translations. As, thinking and reading at the same time, one will conclude, this

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 26 Jul 2004 21:42:23
Message:

I am so sorry folk's that i pushed thewrong button-key and delivered an incomplete thought.
David, I think you can't even read. You are the one who protect's the YEHU rather than Strong's Yahu, not me, crazy guy.
You are loosing credulance daily, neighbor.
Wonder why many will not respond to your or Batkol's posts? Ever give it a thought?
How can I not offend you yet correct you? That episode with Yahushuah and the woman caught sexing with one not of the tribe's of Israel, well, sir fellow, this verse is NOT in the earliest rendention's. It was an add on. The add on, defies the Law. Check Ferrah Fenton.

David, you spell Yahushuah everytime...as...YEhushua. Shall we call you the yo-to boy? I think not, but your own word's make us suppose so.
Could I receive an appology for your accusal of me being a man involved in usury? I quit the Babylonian system way before you, friend. It takes a real man to say, "sorry". Girly boy's admit to forget the obvious.
Yahushuah said the even He, He Himself, was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. {James 1:1}

I just re-read your latest post, and nowhere did I defend the Jehu concept. I think you must be an idiot savant. This is by no mean's meant to be a slur, but brilliant in respect's, beyond most, yet unable to tie the shoe lace's. Hi John, ya wiling to loose your head?
We are not here to win an Arguement, so much as to boost a fellow brother unto Overcomership.
Get with the program Brother.

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 04:33:27
Message:

Dear David Merril,

You said,

quote:

---

You bring up a wonderful point about Yehoshuah and how he would have referred to the Father in heaven. Of course being post John Hercanus (125 BC) in Jewish company Yehoshuah would have used titles like "Adonia" and "Elohim" verbally. I linked an article with Aish.com about the reverence a page back, "A comprehensive guide to the philosophy and laws of pronouncing the Name of God."

---

    www.atour.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi 

quote:

---

Jehovah = "the existing One"

---

quote:

---

... I would never be one to underestimate God's grace. However, I think that is a Futuristic Christian concept that is oriented about an eternal afterlife, irrelevant to a kingdom of heaven on earth.

---

quote:

---

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

---

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 08:22:21
Message:

Dear Readers;

The thread exists. So that is why I expressed my opinions on the matter. I have studied this extensively and I believe equipped myself with authenticated texts. Point being that Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances all answer the questions about the Name of the Father and the Messiah.

If you have been familiarizing yourself with my opinions on the matter of kingdom then you know that it is a matter of establishing proper claim in the image of God. This is the acquisition or appropriation of designated portion. Property rights.

quote:

---

And, if you have found the Kingdom, how can it matter what name you use ?

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 08:30:03
Message:

Robert-James said: have walked through the fire in the dungeon, for not having a LAST NAME.

BatKol: Nonsense. I was there. You got 'thrown into the dungeoun' for no tag, no license. You were in jail for three days and then plead GUILTY and PAID the penalty. Then you were REPEATEDLY made to jump through HOOPS like a circus poodle, driving back and forth from NC to TN until YOU came up with some STATE DOC with ALL CAPS to get your van out of IMPOUND which cost you the 'upmost farthling'.

Robert-James: Wonder why many will not respond to your or Batkol's posts?

BatKol: You need to learn how to read. I have pages and pages of folks reponding to my posts including debates taken down to the root (remember the elohim debate with brother Robert where ultimately NO proof could be brought forth showing the word elohim being used for a non-Israelite ruler?) I have challanged you repeatedly to a 'once and for all' debate but you consistently bow out. If you had the gonads I'd Love to go a few rounds and dismantle your "black folk have not the breath of life" theory you liked to spout (I notice you never did have that 'conversation' for the edification of the 'body of messiah'.. were you defeated that easily?). There are other pork-chop doctrines you like to spout that I'd love to publicly debate you on but you have not the attention span to handle such a task OR you just strait up know they don't hold up to close examination? Making short work of me should be no problem for a self appointed priest with a self proclaimed 'unadultrated walk'....

P.S. - Many people read my posts who are not members of this forum. People you know very well. I have received personal messages of 'well done' concerning my dealings with some of your pet doctrines. As for the haters, well, hate the game not the Player....


"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 13:56:13
Message:

Dear David Merrill,

You may consider it to be due to a lack in my capital integration, or you have misunderstood my question. Where my heart is confident that there is not only one name for Him, is that there were men before and after Yehoshuah who reputedly found the Kingdom. Some of these men, because of their culture, are very unlikely to have used the Hebrew name for Him.

Are you really claiming that only the inheritors of Hebraic culture have keys to the Kingdom? There are many who would make such a claim, but my heart knows that He would not be so exclusive. It is even possible that from our limited perspective in this time that the Hebraic name seems to create the "best" world for men today that we can imagine. However, if that were so, I doubt that we would be like a cancer upon our Mother, the earth, and flirting with the possiblity of destroying most of the life, as we know it, upon her.

I have an extraordinary appreciation for what I think you are trying to do, and I support it. However, I have a stronger allegiance to truth. Hence, I express my knowledge that there is not a single name for Him, but that it is relative to time, person, place and intention. I would never be so bold as to limit Him in anyway. Especially not by the choice of vibration that I use to address Him, or to express His beingness.

Shalom,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 14:35:29
Message:

Dear Ishmael Aylwin;


I am sure my claim is much simpler. If you want to know the Name of the Father or Messiah just open a good concordance and/or lexicon. That's all. But you give me some insight into why there would be such debate about it.

I took a look at Batkol's Reply above. There was mention of why so few people respond to my posts. I do not read Robert-James' posts so I had no seen that.

The sight is a medium. Several people have thanked me for sharing my experiences. I believe it more a chronicle and as it develops I find it a good resource for hashing through things, spotting correlations and timing; like a journal. Criticism or even synicism helps me to pick apart the flaws in the attack and then share the strength of my gist. Like with Lewis and Dan.

Let's face it. These correlations and concidences, verifiable timelines and so on; a bill of exchange for $3.6q, they are really extraordinary. Lewis said something about 'getting a life'. Well that gets me chuckling. [I would not trade the one I have for all the money in the world.] These events are not delusions of grandeur. They certainly feel like it sometimes but the psychotherapist and medical doctor suitors assure me I am passing every reality check. I actually pull them out of the psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania and they are quite grateful about that. One told me that I am a psychotherapist. Well!

But something else Lewis said, about me spinning this all up as I go. I forget how he put it. Now for all the readers who do not respond with a Reply, I suspect you are getting some entertainment value out of this Internet yarn.

I had not noticed how few people make responses. In fact, if I do not like the response, I consider it a nuisance. But like I have said, you may attack and if you hold any credibility I may explain or even put up a defense. As for James Robert, nope. He insists on falsity so I am smart to steer clear of his arguments.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Without further research, I am certain that "Allehu" is a deviation (probably Aramaic like you say) of Elohim. Hebrew has plenty of suffixes and prefixes. You can say an entire sentence in two words if you know suffixes and prefixes. Almost all the word roots are only three consonants long. So the vowels, while they have significance are lost in transliteration to English. Allehu and Elohim are nearly the same word; Elohim being plural "gods".

Reply author: berkano
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 18:00:55
Message:

How about this: if any of you know his Name as He Speaks it of Himself, can any one of you truthfully tell me that Yahu'w'veh Himself did stand before you, smile at you, and tell you verbally His Name so you can hear it?

Quibble, Quabble, a strife and envy over words, of which not a one out of millions invented by men, no, not a word invented, can carry the connotation of truth untainted by self-interpretation.

His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.

You may call Me Berkano, but that is not My Name: "unto him will be given a white stone whereupon a New Name is written, which no man knows save he that receiveth it . . ."

He, the Creator of All, the Almighty Father, writes his own unspeakable Name on your heart, in your hand, and on your forhead and marks you, seals you, as his, if you will let Him. Is His Name written on your heart and mind? Or do you seek a name that you can write onto a physical stone that you see with eyes, rather than the heart of stone softened by spirit? Hmmm?

Peace be with you,

-- Berkano

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 20:16:39
Message:

Dear Readers;

quote:

---

Ishmael Aylwin said:
Are you really claiming that only the inheritors of Hebraic culture have keys to the Kingdom?

---

quote:

---

His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.

---

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 27 Jul 2004 20:54:22
Message:

Greetings,
Are you insinuating that the rocket, nuclear, atomic, biology scientists, etc... are all experts In Law? I mean... there are millions of experts on all "fields," not to mention the millions "learning" on their educational institutions by these towering intellects and look to what has been happening. Surely, many have dropped the ball, wouldn't you say? Or simply these physics experts look the other way?
Would you say that The Christ, knew well when He told the pharisee hypocrites that their outward appearance looked clean, but the inside was filthy? I would. No Thing new... no thing.

I am,
Manuel

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 03:11:47
Message:

Dear David Merrill,

You too have piqued my curiosity. When I asked, "And, if you have found the Kingdom, how can it matter what name you use?" I assumed that one can enter the Kingdom without knowing a specific name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Merrill

I think you are delineating that a man must become a suitor, or a Hebrew scholar and I reject those boundaries. I am saying a man must acquire a firm sense of identity and identifying the Creator for a sound relationship to ensue. But here on this Topic people say things like:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Merrill


Doesn't it make sense that God would reveal His Name through reliable sources like Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances? Which, by the way, all agree. Did two plagierize the first?

---

quote:

---

His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Merrill

And that, to me is the biggest cop-out ever. That leaves as many Names for God as people who think they are having a back-door conversation with Him. That is the food-for-thought you gave with the question Ishmael Aylwin. That kind of recklessness is akin to Christian Qabbalah, this charismatic hypnosis and finger-pointing about who is demon possessed.

---

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 05:57:46
Message:

Dear Ishmael Aylwin;

Please forgive me for my sluggish and vague Replies. You said it plainly in your latest Reply:

quote:

---

All scientific theories aside, I would need to see real evidence before I could even consider that their is only one absolute true name for Him. I can not conceive of limiting Him in that way.

---

quote:

---

A form of insanity characterized by a morbid propensity for lying.

---

quote:

---

Hear O' Israel. The Lord our God is One Lord.

---

Reply author: iammai
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 12:30:18
Message:

Dear David Merrill,

There are elements of epistemology that you ignore.
Granted they are all artifacts of mind, but that is
what we have to use to discuss the issue at all. I
won't try and argue with your faith, but to put a name
to Him as His only true name, is to limit the truth of
his omnipresence and Unity. In Unity there is no
separation, not even for a name. To say there is only
one name is not the same as saying there is only one
God. So, I think your arguement that monotheism requires
a single name is a bit specious. The Shema is an excellent
basis for monotheism, but not in its interpretation as a
name, but in its interpretation as a light/vibration that
is co-extant with all of creation. It is exactly the belief
in a singel name for God, and all that goes with it, that
has led men to miss the truth of Unity, and needlessly
damage each other. A man who relates to a name, but has
not felt the truth of Unity is not in the fullness of
Kingdom.

I fully appreciate your sharings. I feel we have much in
common, yet are on different sides of a looking glass, or
the field of parallel universes. (Yes, more poetry. :)

I think for me that is enough said for this topic.

Take Care & God Bless!,

Ishmael Aylwin

-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 12:45:26
Message:

Dear Ishmael Aylwin;


I think you overlook the simple definition of NAME. See EPITHET, NICKNAME, TITLE, SURNAME, SLANG, SHINGLE, INFERENCE, CORPORATE SOLE, LEGAL NAME etc. etc. Of course there is only one true name for God. It is inconceivable to me that this somehow limits Him. I suppose that is because God is in my mind unlimited and unlimitable. The concept of monotheism is in my opinion stengthened by the fact He only has one name.

I apologize that this premise has been the source of my contention. That there could be so much confusion about the true name of God and the Messiah. I thought we were debating what that true name is. Now, if representative of others I have been arguing with, it turns out that many people here think there can be many names.

It defies logic (to me, anyway) that we have been debating which of many different names is the true name for Yehoshuah. I thought we were trying to select the one true name. So therefore I was suggesting authentic sources like concordances and respected lexicons. So I said contentious things to people for not doing it the way we do it in the "real world".

So I am sorry for my presumption about Christianity or whatever being monotheistic. But by definition, I think you will find with things, especially proper nouns like names are clearly called by one true name.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 18:45:27
Message:

I know a brother who calls the Master Teacher, "Immanuel", which I find no fault with.
Paul heard the name, on the road to Damascus, when he asked, "who art thou"? in the hebrew tongue. Yahushuah was the word he heard. Then again the Father-Son are Spirit. Proverb's 30:4.

To Darling David, neighbor I never use the prefix yehu.
You do, not me. Read slower, it may help. HalleluYah.
Like in i-o-w-a. Yahuwah. Vibrations. Ejaculations from the ADAM'S apple.
You never read my post's...liar, liar, pant's on fire?
Lighten up pal.
Iammai,
Allah is certainly interesting...as a word name.
Melchisedec [english rendition] was the Priest of El Elyon. {Our Arab friend's can not comprehend how the Most High could have a son, i.e. that would mean the Most High was 'married'. And He was, to Wisdom. This concept still is the stumblingstone that trip's them up.They seem to want to defend the honor of "Allah" as ONE, rather than understand that Father want's to produce a family...which is the whole purpose of being here. One Family, Yahushuah being the Firstborn son, among many.}
The Creator of the universe can be compared to nothing, but, we preceive Him as a diamond, many faces cut to perfection, each face reflecting His Glory.
Our ancestor's, at times, are and were accused of worshipping the sun. The sun is but a symbol of...in the natural...the lifegiver.
I also know a brother who call's him, Jesus. This same brother travel's about daily without tag's and license plate's...for five year's now, nary a pullover. {Daniel-Jacob}. He pray's for Jesus to blind the AGENT'S eyes.
Who am I to judge my brother?
We are here to help one another to come into the full redemption that has already been provided.
Unles one believes as a child.
Certainly Yahushuah called His Father...abba. And he was hated by the Jew's of his day, for using the tetragram casually. Yahuweh is The covenant God of scripture fame. YHWH is the symbol of this.
Name sake...a fine study.
Most people call me Bob, a pet name. Now, if I go play in a COURT, this is another matter.
Question: do you folk's tithe into a treasury of Israel your 10% to care for widow's and the helpless? For brethern coming out of Babylon. Don't answer me, answer El Elyon.
Wisdom from above is first Peaceable...

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 18:45:27
Message:

Dear Readers,


It is new and under trial but quite a fully functional mental construction you have delivered to me - reciprocal confirmation between legal name/true name and Father/Messiah; even multiple names for both Yehovah and Yehoshuah. Dualities can be blended together in confusion or become distinct in lucidity. This answers why abatements for misnomer fail sometimes. After a few days amid the confusion of jail or threatening letters from the IMFIRS, the former dichotomy (legal name/true name) seems not to matter. To many, the latter (Father/Messiah) never did and many are willing to die for the belief that Jesus is God. So if a man can have more than one name, why not Yehovah? Or Yehoshuah?

But anything other than true name is misnomer. Misnomer is a fatal error in any court.

I truly am grateful and also apologize about all the stuff I said, all the while presuming that you saw this concept the same way I do. Something brought me back here curious how pages could be filling with such a two-minute no-brainer in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Reply author: berkano
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 19:37:50
Message:

Oh, Oh, Oh . . . .

Thoughts and miscellany . . .

So much strife over a word. Words are the imperfect inventions of men who try to convey that which transcends speech. With God Almighty, His words are not spoken with the mouth but with the whole heart and soul. His are words of love. He is not in the business of restricting the freedom of others to get lost in inane human thought. He is above that. Go to Him, and He will go to you. Call on his Name with your heart, and with your actions, not with your mouth . . . "in that day, they will call me Lord, Lord, but I will say, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. . ." Do his will, seek to enoble others instead of yourself, and only then will he inspire others to love and care for you in your time of need.

Some insecure men may use this kind of forum to show others how smart they are. Let each man instead testify of his own ignorance and of the greatness of God's mind, for God comprehends it all.

Without His Almighty Mind moving Me, I know nothing worthy of notice.

I love you all even if I think so much talk can be a waste of time when you could just get together and work for each other in building up your dreams of peace and plenty. Some of you are my brothers and friends and to see you verbally cut each other apart like monsters pains me. It pains me worse to see the most courageous slandered by one who does not understand him and his heart.

Seek to know yourselves better instead of being so ready to instruct everyone else. Know yourself, know who you are and whom you serve, and you will find Salvation.

BTW, Robert-James is correct, eeya-ou-wa (i-o-w-a) is closest to His name as it was spoken by those who saw Him face-to-face. Another name He answered to is Ah-men (Amen), or Aumen. Do not limit Him where he has not limited Himself or you. He does have more than one *spoken* name, but only One Real Name.

I answer to over a half-dozen pet names that assorted people have given me as tokens of our bonds to each other. Does that make me "schizo" as was suggested earlier? A name is a note, mark, token, given to one in subjection by one in authority over him. To make a friend is to delegate authority to him or her over you, even the authority to command your attention when he or she calls your name.

When you play court, you've gotta be careful of what name you answer to, and you've got to explain it to preserve honor on both sides.

Peace be with you,

-- Berkano

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 20:08:30
Message:

Greetings Robert-James and all,
It is my belief that the reason we are here is to absorb the good and separate from that which is evil. Many here have felt the wrath of the criminaly insane possesive tricks of their trade... therefore to visit here and teach ways to come out, is of vital im-portance between Life and death.
Some have had their seeds torn from them via the wretched middle-men/women, along with much labours and patience and love for His Truth along the way.

It is my belief that those whom critisize what we learn and condemn the "not so popular" ways to keep away, have evil sentiments and even be of that same mob whom screamed "crusify Him... crusify Him!" for it was those which by their mistaken believes thought they could hide behing the rocks. Little did they know yesterday as well as today, that "quick fixes" are like blowing The Breath of Life Into a fire to at-tempt to extinguish.

We are witnessing a world where the evil ones think they can "kick ass and take names" (pardon my English), but fail to realize that The Truth cannot be hidden, and will come right back to haunt them and bite them on their glutimus maximus.

I ask myself... what logic is there for seeing this way? Well... simply because I am a sinner, and everytime I over indulged myself with that which was toxic, I ended up throwing it back out. But then, understanding that dogs return to their own vomit, then and only then did I see and felt the difference between being a man created In His image versus an actors inventions.

I am,
Manuel

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 20:21:21
Message:

Dear Berkano;

You said:

quote:

---

When you play court, you've gotta be careful of what name you answer to, and you've got to explain it to preserve honor on both sides.

---

quote:

---

Whenever you put your family's name behind your true name you have formed a legal name, a new creation that is a benefit of the social compact. You sign the social compact by using the legal name. No problem. Eustace Mullins is wrong. That is the purpose of Rule E(8). Limit the assumpsit to only the ink on the contract that proper notification has been served. We, that is the men and women (what is your name?) have always had the God-given unalienable right to contract honestly with others, be it Social Security or whatever.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 21:01:05
Message:

David said: If you look closely though, "Daniel" was subject to that municipal and police powers jurisdiction lock-stock-and barrel.

Steve: EXACTLY!!!

"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 21:48:29
Message:

"And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said."

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 28 Jul 2004 22:46:04
Message:

" And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."


"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a

Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 29 Jul 2004 10:32:36
Message:

http://musalman.com/islamnews/musalman.com-boyvstank.html


"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 10 Nov 2004 10:17:27
Message:

I call Him Father. What other need have a son to call his father? I do not call my earthly father by his proper name, simply out of respect and consideration. If I respect my father of this earth, how much more so shall I respect my father in Heaven? Let those who do not know Him as father worry over what name to address him by.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 13 Nov 2004 08:36:15
Message:

Greetings Solace, and welcome to the Ecclesia.
Calling Yahowah, "Father" is fine, Solace, as long as one knows that all kings are called “sire”, i.e. father, and that by calling Him such one is merely acknowledging and honouring Him as the Head of their government. (1Corinthians 11:3) Rightly divide abba in the New Covenant [Testament]; it says "Of Chaldean origin [H2]" and when we go to H2 it says "corresponding to H1", and when we go to H1 in Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions we see this as the very last entry "9) ruler or chief (specifically)". [Emphasis added]
And to give one’s allegiance to someone or something that does not acknowledge Yahowah as the Higher Power by being obedient to Him, one is giving his allegiance to the Adversary of Yahowah.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Father A name applied
(2.) as a title of respect to a chief, ruler...
The Adversary of Yahowah is easily recognizable for those with eyes that perceive and ears that understand, for we shall see those running for OFFICE in the Adversary's government lying like their father [chief], we shall see them rewarding evil and punishing good; we shall see them shedding innocent blood in the land with no remorse; we shall see them devouring widows’ houses for a pretense; we shall see them committing adultery not only against their own country and wives, but even against the King of kings Himself; we shall see them and their agents bearing false witness against their neighbors; and we shall see them coveting and confiscating their neighbors’ possessions, land, homes, cars, and yes, even their children, under a myriad of pretexts [feigned words].
But let us have the Scripture be the last word on what we should call Him. We see this verse of the Scripture at Act 2:21 and Romans 10:13 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Where did Luke and Paul get these words and what are theses words, exactly? We can get a clue by looking at these verses of the Scripture in the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.
Act 2:21 "And it shall be that everyone who shall call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:28-32
Romans 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32
We see from this that they both have a common verse as their reference Joel 2:32, so let us now look at that verse of the Scripture in the King James Version with Strong’s numbers attached to know, in truth, what they were saying to us.
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass,[1961] that whosoever[3605], [834] shall call[7121] on the name[8034] of the LORD[3068] shall be delivered:[4422]
Now, if “churchianity” is telling us the truth of the matter, number 3068 [H3068 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] should say JESUS, right? So let us look and see if this is the case.
H3068 - yehovah, yeh-ho-vaw'; From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.
Strange, we don't seem to see any mention of the name JESUS in the verse that Luke and Paul are quoting. So next, you might want to “search out the matter” [instructions from the Scripture] concerning the names JESUS and JEHOVAH. This could be an important “matter” since we now have the above three witnesses to it.
Or are we to remain like the men of Athens?
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Should we listen to the prophets who prophesy lies?
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal [Lord].
Look forward to your response to these seemingly important matters.
And we should all remember…
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause Yahowah shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
…since a love of the truth seems to be an important matter in the eyes of the Creator.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 15 Nov 2004 07:20:23
Message:

Thank you for the kind greeting oneisraelite.

Please understand, I have no argument for or against the contents of your posts, insomuch as how the name of God should or should not be pronounced. The truth is I am an uneducated, and yes, even foolish, man. And for the sake of gaining a little education I have eagerly read the posts in this thread.

Yet I must remonstrate with this one point; I do not do as you said I do, which was: "by calling Him such one is merely acknowledging and honouring Him as the Head of their government." For me I acknowledge him simply and literally as my father. God has no place in the governments of men, I understand little, but that I do understand.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 15 Nov 2004 18:54:44
Message:

Greetings and salutations once more, Solace:
Peace be unto the house.

quote:

---

The truth is I am an uneducated, and yes, even foolish, man. And for the sake of gaining a little education I have eagerly read the posts in this thread.

---

quote:

---

God has no place in the governments of men, I understand little, but that I do understand.

---

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 15 Nov 2004 19:35:31
Message:

Peace be unto you and your house as well, oneisraelite;

I will explain my comment of my previous post first, then say what I can of the scriptures you presented. As for my education, I graduated from high school. I have not studied doctrine or theology, or any other professional field for that matter. As I have a high school education I can manage to string a few words together to make a sentence that is, for the most part at least, grammatically correct. As for the foolish comment, I would say that I am most certainly that. I mean that in no self-depreciating manner; I would be gladly foolish in the things of this world, but if God be willing, wise in the things of the Word.

On to the scripture. I can only say as the verses you presented say; that our kingdom is in Heaven. Christ is the head of that kingdom/government. He rules us (the children of God) absolutely. There is no opposition to his rule, for he does not accept "no" for an answer, in the same way that a father will not accept disobedience of a stubborn child. The child is reprimanded and forced to do his father's will. Thus God rules his kingdom as a father rules his family, for he is the father and we are the children.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 15 Nov 2004 21:31:10
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Solace:

Peace be unto the house.

As far as the lack of formal education goes, you show a distinct advantage...less to "unlearn".

Good Tidings of Thomas (113) His disciples said to him, “When will the Kingdom come?” Yahu’shua said, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”

Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 15 Nov 2004 22:43:00
Message:

Kind regards once more, oneisraelite;

I do not know the "Good Tidings of Thomas", but I cannot argue with the context of what you posted. It is similar to what was written in the book of Luke.

Luke 19:11 ...and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

As for the parable that Christ spoke in this chapter, we must consider the exact context of how he presented it, and what we know it must mean. The nobleman that Christ referred to was himself. The kingdom that he went into a far country to receive was the kingdom of Heaven. The servants that he left behind were not the citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, for that kingdom was not yet come. They were rather the citizens of the old covenant, whose oath was to the law, and to the letter of the law.

These men hated Christ and the blessing that he represented. By the law they were required to work diligently on the Lord's behalf. For them that did great work much reward was given, as was the precept of the law. For them that did not, no reward was given, and moreover, what that they had was taken away. This was the government that was by law.

When Christ fulfilled the law, he brought to the new kingdom a new law, which was the law of grace. By grace the children of the new kingdom knew and understood who their father was, that he was the ruler of their lives. Where grace did abound, the law did no more abound, so that the letter of the law and the punishment of sin did no more apply to the children of the new kingdom.

Therefore the old covenant did, by its very nature, foster resentment from the citizens of the old kingdom, which is after all what it was meant to do. But the new covenant, the covenant of grace, allowed the children of the new kingdom to know their father, so that there was no rebellion in their hearts. Thus the true design of salvation was revealled, which was the purpose of both covenants, old and new.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 16 Nov 2004 06:27:26
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Solace:
Peace be unto the house.
First, "kingdom of heaven" is a term used only by Mattith'yahu [Matthew], but that aside. We ask what is a "kingdom"? Strong's tells us that it is (concretely) a realm. So what is a realm? According to Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language it is:
REALM, n. relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.] 1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government...
Which agrees with what a "kingdom" is from the same source.
KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.]
So our next question to you is, where exactly is this "jurisdiction" that we may be translated [transferred] into it without seeing physical death?
TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.] 2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.
green]Luke 9:27[/green] But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of Yahowah.
Since it is written that Yahowah is NOT the 'Elohiym [Ruler] of dead, but of the living, contrary to what "churchianity" tells us, dying physically does not appear to be an option. In fact, Luke [assuming it is he who wrote Acts of the Apostles] tells us that David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day, which again seems to indicate that dying physically is not an option. So, how do you perceive that we leave the jurisdiction of the creature [man] and enter into the jurisdiction of the Creator [Yahowah], for it seems obvious that we cannot be in both at the same time, in that they are contradistinct [have opposite qualities], since one is based on the Everlasting Moral Law of Yahowah and the other outlaws them, both in their schools and in their courts [morality, i.e. right and wrong, is not allowed here]?
We anxiously await your answer to these two pressing questions, and thank you for your time.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
P.S. We cannot seem to find the phrase "law of grace" in the versions of Scripture that we have.

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 16 Nov 2004 09:05:29
Message:

Let us reason together oneisraelite;

Romans 3:27 ...By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

We know that we are saved by grace through faith, therefore the law of faith and the law of grace are indeed one and the same, for the one leads only to the other.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

If then grace justifies, grace is the law by which we live. Whether or not you find the phrase "law of grace" within the scripture is irrelevant to the context in which I use it. By grace are we saved, and that is a law that has been spoken by God, for truly whatsoever the Lord sayeth is truth and the law which is to be obeyed.

To answer both your questions, we must therefore understand grace and the gospel.

Roman 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in the he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul explains it here in a better way than I could ever hope to. We leave the jurisdiction of the law (which was given to man) and do by Christ's death, and our own death with him, enter into the jurisdiction of God, by means of grace. You are therefore incorrect; dying physically is the only option. It is through Christ's physical death, and our own with him, for truly the scripture tells us we are of one flesh with Christ, so that if it was his flesh that died upon the cross it must be our flesh also, that we enter into the kingdom of God. As verse seven says above: he that is dead is freed from sin. And we know that no sin can enter Heaven. Therefore by death (ours with Christ) are we freed from sin and we enter into the kingdom. This is what it means to let the old man of sin die.

This is the very simplicity of the gospel. As you pointed out in Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of Yahowah." The kingdom of Heaven came to them even then, so that when they died with Christ they entered into Heaven. This is why the kingdom is not a thing that can be seen, because we walk on streets of gold already.

I am curious to know two things of you as well. First, you address yourself as we, so I can only assume that you speak for more than just yourself. If it is a matter that you would willingly divulge, whom others do you speak for? A spouse, a family, a church?

Second, and more importantly, what would your own answers to your questions in your previous post have been?

Submitted with all sincerity; Solace.

Reply author: berkano
Replied on: 16 Nov 2004 19:12:42
Message:

Solace,

Your stance on the order and proper place of death is wrong. I don't have too much time, so I'll just touch on the major issues.

You said that we have to die, then we go to heaven. This is completely wrong. Jesus taught, "Whosover liveth and believeth on me shall never die," right after he rose Lazarus' dead body to life again. He was clearly talking about the death of the body, not some arcane, "spiritual death." The death of the body to the grave is part and parcel of spiritual death.

There is not a heaven that you go to when you die. You are commanded to create heaven with the will, power, and spirit that God has given you dominion over. And you are to create this heaven not only for yourself, but for all whom you can include according to the Law.

Jesus was not subject to death. That is why he "laid down his life" because he could live forever in the same body he was born with, without growing old and grey. And why? Because of his faith in the Father. The Greek Diaglot rendering of the scripture is, "And at that time, they who believe will live unto the end of the age." The end of an age is a LONG, LONG time.

What do you think ministering "angels" of old were? They were men from past eons who obeyed the gospel, and became so perfectly obedient to God that they are given power over everything, including the ability to reform the elements at will. This is why Jesus was able to turn water into wine--the power of the Father flowed through him, unobstructed by the impurity of religious delusion.

You are not meant to die. Man is the only known being that meditates on and fears death precisely because our instincts tell us it is not our designed end, yet so many of us don't know how to escape it.

You do not have to lay in the grave to be saved. You do have to pass through a change equivalent to death, but this does not mean the rotting of the body in the grave. You can keep your body, if you want it.

In the beginning Adam and Eve were immortal. Period. They were not subject to death. Right there in Genesis. No getting around it. Man was created immortal to begin with, so to say he now must die, contradicts God's original design.

Death entered by way of sin. Sin is delusion. You can never hit the mark if you continue walking around blinded by your own concepts and the deceit of your own half-sleeping mind.

Death entered man by way of sin. If a man trains to become no longer capable of sin, by becoming awake to the truth, then death has no hold on that man.

We do not have to die. Death is NOT part of the natural order of things in the realm of mankind. Men only think it is and perpetuate this delusion.

-- Berkano

Reply author: Solace
Replied on: 16 Nov 2004 21:18:20
Message:

Then by what you say Paul is a liar.

Did you even read the verses in Romans that I posted above? We were crucified with Christ, therefore we died. Did I or Paul say it ended there? No; once crucified we were resurrected with Christ also. Thus we live anew.

Sin died with the old man on the cross. This is the truth of the gospel, for so it is written in the scripture. The law of God has been fulfilled, and we are no longer subject to it. If no longer subject to the law, then we are no longer subject to sin, for without the law sin is dead. (Romans 7:8)

Sin is NOT delusion. Sin is the transgression of the law. Sin is disobedience to God, pure and simple. That is not delusion, that is something very real that everyone except for the elect do everyday.

Evidently you are a man who believes in works and not faith. You have said that you must create Heaven. What architect are you to create only that which God can create? Know you not what the scripture says;

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Would you then make God your debtor, that you by your work have created Heaven?

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 20 Nov 2004 14:12:41
Message:

I don't know whether those people are the same or not; they might be. But the point is the same, these people called Samaritans are keeping the original script while those who should have done kept it have instead preferred a corruption. The parable of the Good Samaritan applies in two ways: being a neighbor to ones fellow man and being a caretaker of God's business.

Another way to say this could be that God will appoint those who we dispise to do our jobs when we don't.

I wanted all to know that I recently discovered this forum and I am really enjoying the discourse. My first post here has to do with some revelation I got recently on Samaritans out of the woman of the well story in John 4:

I start at verse 4:

4 It was necessary for Him to go through Samaria.

When I write Jahshuwah I use a “J” to reach the Yah sound because historically it derived from the Yod, the first letter of Jahowah’s name that looks like a finger pointing, looking more like an “i” than a “y.” Apparently, in the 1500’s, in English, the “i” that had the Yah sound was extended below the line becoming a “j.” If you ask me at legalbear at legalbears.com, I will send you a comprehensive article explaining my use of the “j.”

Anyway, we know from John 5:19 that Jahshuwah only did what he saw the Father doing. From this fact I deduced that the reason it was necessary for Jahshuwah to “go through Samaria” was because He saw the Father doing that very thing.

In verse 8 I saw something of note:

8 For His disciples had gone off into the town to buy food—

My imagination ran wild on this one. The disciples are excited about finding the Messiah. They are enthralled and hanging on His every Word. They are like children that love to be with their parents. It must have taken Him some convincing to get them to go into town and leave Him there by Himself. Jahshuwah needs to get rid of them because He has seen that He has an appointment at this well with what is considered by those disciples to be a member of an unsavory race; at that time one of the lower stratums of that race; a woman.

5 And in doing so, He arrived at a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the tract of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 And Jacob's well was there.

Well look at that! This place has some history that is worth taking note of.

So Jahshuwah, tired as He was from His journey, sat down [to rest] by the well. It was then about the sixth hour (about noon).

He’s seen His Father sitting on the well; He has also seen that He has an appointment. Prophets do this sort of thing. In 1 Samuel 10 Samuel tells Saul, “3 Then you will go on from there and you will come to the oak of Tabor, and three men going up to Jahuwah at Bethel will meet you there, one carrying three kids, another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a skin bottle of wine. 4 They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you shall accept from their hand.” Another example is 1 Kings 17; Jahuwah tells Elijah, “9 Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to provide for you.” Another example is 1 Kings 20; the prophet had a message for the king, “38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. 39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king…” Getting an audience with a king is not difficult when Jahuwah shows you where to wait. Getting a convenient audience with a Samaritan woman is not difficult either when Jahuwah shows you to wait at the well. I’ve had this happen to me personally. I was sitting in one restaurant studying the scriptures when the Father spoke to me, “I want you to leave this restaurant and go to [a different restaurant]. When you get there [a certain man] will be there. I want you to talk to him about the baptism in the Set Apart Spirit.” I went to the other restaurant and it happened exactly as I was told. Another time the Father told me to go to the park and study and it turned out that I had an appointment with a 16 year old woman. The short story is that she got born again, delivered of numerous evil spirits, and baptized in the Set Apart Spirit. It was quite a memorable day for both of us.

7 Presently, when a woman of Samaria came along to draw water, Jahshuwah said to her, Give Me a drink--9The Samaritan woman said to Him, How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan [and a] woman, for a drink?--For the Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans—

Oh, there’s the one He has an appointment with. I think I found the answer to the Samaritan woman’s question in John 12:50, “So whatever I speak, I am saying [exactly] what My Father has told Me to say and in accordance with His instructions.” Jahshuwah heard the Father start the conversation by asking for a drink.

10 Jahshuwah answered her, If you had only known and had recognized Jahuwah's gift and Who this is that is saying to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him [instead] and He would have given you living water.

So, Jahshuwah is saying that she didn’t know and recognize Jahuwah’s gift, or, who was talking to her. I think most people would get offended by being told that they “failed” at anything; let alone failed to recognize a gift from Jahuwah or who it was that was speaking to them. If Jahshuwah has to tell her that she missed it, then it would also seem likely that His reasonable expectation is that people would recognize who He was and what Jahuwah’s gift was. See John 1:11, “He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own--His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him.”

11She said to Him, Sir, You have nothing to draw with [no drawing bucket] and the well is deep; how then can You provide living water? [Where do You get Your living water?]

That is one inquisitive Samaritan woman. I wonder if her inquisitiveness is part of the reason she had an appointment with the Anointed One? It seems to me that she, as part of her nature, was continuously asking childlike questions. We know from Malachi 3:6 that Jahuwah doesn’t change. Jahshuwah expressed eternal principles in Mat. 7 when He said, “7 Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and [the door] will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who keeps on asking receives; and he who keeps on seeking finds; and to him who keeps on knocking, [the door] will be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, if his son asks him for a loaf of bread, will hand him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent? 11 If you then, evil as you are, know how to give good and advantageous gifts to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven [perfect as He is] give good and advantageous things to those who keep on asking Him!” This woman must have already been asking the Father all kinds of questions. In keeping with His eternal principles, he’s sending the answer and a Gift this day at the well. It is written in John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of Jahuwah. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”

12Are You greater than and superior to our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well and who used to drink from it himself, and his sons and his cattle also?

Look what this woman has been thinking about; her ancestry! She’s proud to be a descendant of Jacob and Jahshuwah doesn’t disagree with her on that point! Jahshuwah eventually explained further a general principle of why He waited at the well that day in Matthew 15:24, “…I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

13 Jahshuwah answered her, All who drink of this water will be thirsty again. 14 But whoever takes a drink of the water that I will give him shall never, no never, be thirsty any more. But the water that I will give him shall become a spring of water welling up (flowing, bubbling) [continually] within him unto (into, for) eternal life. 15 The woman said to Him, Sir, give me this water, so that I may never get thirsty nor have to come [continually all the way] here to draw.

This woman is ready to go; whatever He has for her, she’s up for it! She doesn’t know how it works, but, she’s ready for supernatural water.

16At this, Jahshuwah said to her, Go, call your husband and come back here. 17The woman answered, I have no husband.

This woman is interested in truth even at the cost of her own reputation. This is a Way that we should all be; ready to die for the truth! Philippians 2 says it this way, “5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Jahshuwah HaMashaich: 6 Who, being in the form of Jahuwah, thought it not robbery to be equal with Jahuwah: 7 But made himself of no reputation,…”

Jahshuwah said to her, You have spoken truly in saying, I have no husband. 18 For you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. In this you have spoken truly. 19 The woman said to Him, Sir, I see and understand that You are a prophet.

Amazing! How did this woman come to the conclusion so quickly that He was a prophet? How about this? Do you think she may have had said a prayer asking that a prophet be sent with the answers to her questions? If she had been expectantly believing that her prayer would be answered it would explain her quick conclusion.

20Our forefathers worshiped on this mountain, but you [Jews] say that Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary and proper to worship.

See how she keeps her balance and is not caught off guard? She has been rehearsing this moment and has her questions all lined up. Here’s the answer to her prayer and she’s seizing the moment. What is the number one issue on her mind; getting to the truth! She wants to know about the “necessary and proper” way to worship. What her forefathers said carries some weight with her. Isn’t it just like religious people? They assert the truth and then erect barriers to keep what they consider the social outcasts from obtaining or accomplishing it. They must have said something like, ‘You’re supposed to worship in Jerusalem, but we don’t want you here.’

21Jahshuwah said to her, Woman, believe Me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither [merely] in this mountain nor [merely] in Jerusalem.

Oh man, this has to be music to her ears; the prophet says that she is not an outcast and that she “will worship the Father.”

22 You [Samaritans] do not know what you are worshiping [you worship what you do not comprehend]. We do know what we are worshiping [we worship what we have knowledge of and understand], for [after all] salvation comes from [among] the Jews.

To me it is very offensive to be told that not only are you wrong, but you’ve been wrong to the point of not even comprehending or suspecting how wrong you are. To be told that you don’t even know what you have been worshipping; ouch! Jahshuwah didn’t candy coat the truth and neither should we. People who use the pagan names “God” and “Jesus” to describe the Father and the Son are in much the same position; wrong and not even understanding how wrong they are.

Skipping to verse 25:

25 The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming, He Who is called the the Anointed One; and when He arrives, He will tell us everything we need to know and make it clear to us. 26 Jahshuwah said to her, I Who now speak with you am He.

Wow! This Samaritan woman believes in and is waiting for the Messiah! She is excited about His coming and clearing up everything. Look what she gets! I can’t think of many other places, if there are any that exist at all, where Jahshuwah comes right out and says straight up, I am the Anointed One. To me, this happening to this woman makes her special.

27 Just then His disciples came and they wondered (were surprised, astonished) to find Him talking with a woman. However, not one of them asked Him, What are You inquiring about? or What do You want? or, Why do You speak with her? 28 Then the woman left her water jar and went away to the town.

Now this is a woman that you can tell is going to bear some fruit. She left her water jar behind. The cares of this world described in Mark 4:18-19 do not enter in, allowing the word that she just heard to become fruitful.

And she began telling the people, 29 Come, see a Man Who has told me everything that I ever did! Can this be [is not this] the Messiah, the Anointed One? 30 So the people left the town and set out to go to Him.

So, she becomes an effective evangelist for Jahshuwah in this Samaritan town; of all places.

31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged Him saying, Rabbi, eat something. 32 But He assured them, I have food (nourishment) to eat of which you know nothing and have no idea. 33 So the disciples said one to another, Has someone brought Him something to eat? 34 Jahshuwah said to them, My food (nourishment) is to do the will (pleasure) of Him Who sent Me and to accomplish and completely finish His work.

Yeah, like waiting at a well for an appointment with a truth seeker to answer some questions and start a revival.

Skipping to verse 39:

39Now numerous Samaritans from that town believed in and trusted in Him because of what the woman said when she declared and testified, He told me everything that I ever did. 40So when the Samaritans arrived, they asked Him to remain with them, and He did stay there two days. 41Then many more believed in and adhered to and relied on Him because of His personal message [what He Himself said]. 42And they told the woman, Now we no longer believe (trust, have faith) just because of what you said; for we have heard Him ourselves [personally], and we know that He truly is the Savior of the world, the Anointed One.

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 20 Nov 2004 15:36:55
Message:

[/quote]Greetings, Daron:

The messiah's name is indeed now Yahweh.

From Deborajah Taylor's article "Hallowed be Thy Name" which I will send you if you request by email at legalbear at legalbears.com:

What About Yahveh or Yahweh?

For centuries the Jews have insisted that the Sacred HaShem be substituted and hidden in order that it not be proclaimed aloud. As stated previously in this article, YHWH openly charged the Jews of profaning and altering his Shem. Now suddenly their records state the true pronunciation of the HaShem is Yahweh.

Since the Scriptures openly tell us the Scribes have falsified the Torah44, can we indeed trust these records or is it just another big cover-up? Does this name of Yahweh have anything to do with the Sacred Hebdomad and the worship of the Seven Planets? Has that “old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” once again deceived us? Let’s find out.

It is a well-known fact that the Samaritans were transplanted to the land of Israel from ancient Babylonia, as related in 2 Kings 17. What is not well known is their connection with the ancient Amorites and their mutual god Yahweh. The Samaritans were descendants of the ancient Amorites and remained in the region of Babylonia after the collapse of Dynasty I of Babylon. Mari was the name of their kingdom before Dynasty I of Babylon. The god of the ancient Amorites was Yawi, also spelled Yawe, Yahwi, or Yahweh.

Nimrod, as god of the Mysteries, was worshipped under many different names. Yahweh was just one of the numerous names of Nimrod. The Amorites worshipped Nimrod as Yawi and Semiramis as Mari.

The Biblical Amorites were Hamitic, not Semitic.45 Prominent gods of the Amorites were Dagon, Hadad and Anat.

Dagon – a fish god, who was just another image of Nimrod.

Hadad – also known as Baal-Hadad. The Hebrew word D-D means “uncle.” One such Baal worshipped in our land is better known to us as “Uncle Sam.”

Anath – a goddess portrayed as having an intense love for Baal/Lord and is usually paired with him as his consort and ally. Victories over certain enemies,

44 Jeremiah 8:8

45 Insight on the Scriptures – Volume 1

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 20 Nov 2004 18:07:50
Message:

Dear LegalBear;


I have done some research and the Father's name is pronounced Yehovah - with a long "o" sound after the first h. B and V are hybrid half-way between the two sounds as we know them. When used in a prefix, like for God is (my) salvation the long O sound stays: Yehoshuah.

Some Jewish books reveal the simplicity of the ineffible name to simply be the same vowel sounds and fully expressing each letter. "Yodi-Heheh-Wavoh-Heyah". This is the name that the letters add up to 72; the "72-Fold Name" allegedly spoken only by the high priest on Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 23.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 21 Nov 2004 08:48:50
Message:

Greetings and salutations:
Peace be unto the house.

quote:

---

Nimrod, as god of the Mysteries, was worshipped under many different names. Yahweh was just one of the numerous names of Nimrod. The Amorites worshipped Nimrod as Yawi and Semiramis as Mari.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 21 Nov 2004 09:15:46
Message:

Greetings Solace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solace

Then by what you say Paul is a liar.

---

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 21 Nov 2004 11:25:18
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by legalbear

My first post here has to do with some revelation I got recently on Samaritans out of the woman of the well story in John 4:
...

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 21 Nov 2004 17:34:16
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Walter:
Peace be unto the house.
Your take on the “lukewarm” verse from Revelations is quite interesting and brought to mind something I once read in a book entitled “Uncommon Sense”. In this book the author explains that prior to the war with King George, 2% were in favor of independence from England, 2% were dead-set against it, and 96% were undecided and went with whichever side happened to have the upper hold at any given moment.
The 2% for, and the 2% against, though bitter enemies, had respect for each other, but neither of them had one iota of respect for the 96% that went wherever the wind blew; they could not be trusted by either side, it seems.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Walter
Replied on: 22 Nov 2004 10:35:04
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneisraelite

The 2% for, and the 2% against, though bitter enemies, had respect for each other, but neither of them had one iota of respect for the 96% that went wherever the wind blew; they could not be trusted by either side, it seems.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Nov 2004 19:20:54
Message:

Go ahead and rant, brother Walter, we'll listen. Well said, by the way.
-brother Robert: & sister Kathleen:
Kathleen: said, "maybe a few more will hear, you never know".

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: True North
Replied on: 28 Nov 2004 23:49:14
Message:

Recently, these excepted paragraphs were posted to another group. These words from these paragraphs have set heavy on me since. Walter gave an admonition about ravening wolves that scatter the flock and, although I am ignorant of some of the process of creation, some of the following does not set well.

We of the Kingdom have our identity through the King. The preaching of His Kingdom and making disciples of Him is foremost. Law and legal issues are an aside that need consideration to be able to correctly decipher the Kingdom, how the Kingdom works and how to deal with those who don't take on the government of that Kingdom. They also help me to understand how to love my neighbor as myself but foremost is the Kings' Kingdom and the government of that Kingdom.

(Excepted paragraphs) ... "As we are told that the scriptures are given for our edification we need to understand that the world was/is full of scriptures. The most ancient of man’s scriptures are, to my knowledge, those of The Hermetic Order of Luxor, Egypt.

Within them are the teachings that in the beginning there was only the Spirit. And in order for that Infinite Spirit to become matter, an equal portion (how could a fraction of infinity not be infinite?) of said Spirit, say a “Son” had to “die” to the ultra high frequency off the mass-less energy that is Spirit, in order to become the lower “frequency” of the Infinite that is matter.

Six thousand years ago, it is recorded that a group of these Creationist missionaries went out into the world in order to teach of the Creations of the Infinite Spirit. Via the available understanding of the Man, it was taught that a equal Son of God “died” and spent three cyclic periods/days of creation in/as the bowels of the earth in order that we [might] live, and move, and have our being [in him]; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28.

As the facts are that there are 16 “world” saviors that have been recorded as having been crucified on the cross through-out the world, we would do best to know that archeologists have proven that the ancient Mesopotamians used the cross at least 4,000 years ago in their “spring equinox” festivities. We can know that the very first “Easter eggs,” as a symbol of the re-birth of the world, had crosses painted on them. The ‘cross’ was a symbol for the Earth long before the life of Jesus on the Earth ... (end Excepted paragraphs).

This identity of the King of the Kingdom is from 1 Corinthians 15:45 ... "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" ...

By translating the Hebrew word "adam" as a proper name and not an adjective enhancing the definition of to two particular and peculiar entities, I can easily jump the gap to ... a group of these Creationist missionaries ... and ... 16 “world” saviors ...

On the other hand, if I translate the Hebrew word "adam" as an adjective peculiar to two entities only, I can come up with the Lawful basis for a King of a Kingdom instead of just one of the sixteen ... "world" saviors ...

The historicity of the cross (tav or tau - the last letter of the Hebrew alef-bet) and the fertility festival with its egg symbol cannot be argued. What can be debated is where it came from. Did the legends of the fertility goddess come from the first adam or did the "virgin" birth come from the myths?

These are important questions of identity of Kingdom people. The "virgin" birth deals with identity of a King. (an aside - she cannot have been a "virgin" in a semantic sense because once the head of the baby breaches the matrix, she is no longer a virgin, so, no "virgin" birth is possible but inception of a virgin woman is entirely possible, did you ever A.I. a cow to induce pregnancy? ).

There are no contradictions only wrong premises. Have we a wrong premise concerning the "virgin" birth or is the "virgin" birth to be relegated to the "mystery" religions?

quote:

---

man being the blood of Him ties into the whole blood shed on the cross and the why of it. It also touches this whole mythology of the 'virgin' birth, giving it a notorious beginning outside of Christian adoption of the 'mysteries' so adapted to Catholicism and religion.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 29 Nov 2004 07:19:15
Message:

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 29 Nov 2004 09:17:13
Message:

oneisraelite, for what it's worth, I also came up with the same conclusion concerning virgin vs. young woman a while back. Also, when reading the whole story in Isaiah it is plain to see that the young woman of the prophecy was Isaiah's own wife or concubine and it was the promise of the birth of her boy that was being offered to King Ahaz as a sign that YHWH would protect his kingdom from it's enemies. By the time the boy was able to know good from evil the problem would be solved. The seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah begins by outlining the crisis that was confronting the Kingdom of Judah. Around the year 732 B.C.E., the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the Kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King Retsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah states that the House of David and King Ahaz were deeply afraid. Isaiah reassured King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to defeat Jerusalem. 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated.

BK

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Nov 2004 09:06:30
Message:

Some random thoughts for all to consider.
We find it interesting that the two accounts of this “virgin” birth do not, apparently, match. In Mattith’yahu [Matthew] we see it recounted that the angel [messenger] came to Yahu’caph [Joseph]:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of Yahowah appeared unto him in a dream…
…while in Luke this messenger of Yahowah came to Meriyam [Mary]: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, Yahowah is with thee: blessed [spoken of highly] art thou among women.
Also there seems to be only one witness that Yahu’caph [Joseph] and Meriyam [Mary] went to Bethlehem to be enrolled [not taxed], though admittedly this enrollment was, in all probability, for the purpose of taxation, since the caesar had put out a decree, apparently for the first time, that “all the world should be taxed [H583]”.
G583 apographo
Thayer Definition:
1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)
2) to enter in a register or records
2a) spec. to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2b) to enroll
ENROLL, v.t.
1. To write in a roll or register; to insert a name or enter in a list or catalogue; as, men are enrolled for service.
2. To record; to insert in records; to leave in writing.
3. To wrap; to involve
We see from this that these two people, Yahu’caph and Meriyam may have not yet been “enrolled” as citizens, i.e. taxable entities. This might, in an allegorical sense, make them both “virgins”, that is to say they had not yet been screwed, as it were, by the Roman empire. Further, there is no evidence that they ever actually did enroll!
Also, if we look at this “virgin” in a Scriptural sense, rather than a secular sense, perhaps we may find something altogether different. For example:
1Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord…
We see here that a virgin is defined, by Shaul, as unmarried…which of course agrees with the prophesy found at Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 7:14, since the word used in that verse is ‘almah, which is the feminine of ‘elem, which simply means, “young man”. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions tells us that this can be a “maid” [or maiden] and Dr Strong tells us that it is a “lass (as veiled or private)”.
MA'IDEN, n. 1. An unmarried woman, or a young unmarried woman…
L'ASS, n. A young woman; a girl.
The things we see in common between bethulah and ‘almah [See previous post] are the common denominator, private/privacy. Being “private” can mean…
PRI'VATE, a. [L. privatus, from privo, to bereave, properly to strip or separate; privus, singular, several, peculiar to one's self, that is, separate; rapio, diripio, eripio; privo for perivo or berivo.] 4. Not publicly known... 5. Not invested with public office... 6. Individual; personal; in contradistinction from public or national...
CONTRADISTINCT, a. Distinguished by opposite qualities.
This, of course, takes us back to the possibility that they were both “virgins” to the STATE, i.e. they were not "married" [unmarried] by the STATE, neither were they "married" to the STATE and hence were “not invested with [the] public office” of PERSON.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 30 Nov 2004 13:38:01
Message:

quote:

---

Some random thoughts for all to consider.
We find it interesting that the two accounts of this “virgin” birth do not, apparently, match.

---

quote:

---

Also there seems to be only one witness that Yahu’caph [Joseph] and Meriyam [Mary] went to Bethlehem to be enrolled [not taxed], though admittedly this enrollment was, in all probability, for the purpose of taxation, since the caesar had put out a decree, apparently for the first time, that “all the world should be taxed [H583]”.

We see from this that these two people, Yahu’caph and Meriyam may have not yet been “enrolled” as citizens, i.e. taxable entities.

---

quote:

---

This might, in an allegorical sense, make them both “virgins”, that is to say they had not yet been screwed, as it were, by the Roman empire.

---

quote:

---

Also, if we look at this “virgin” in a Scriptural sense, rather than a secular sense, perhaps we may find something altogether different. For example:
1Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord…
We see here that a virgin is defined, by Shaul, as unmarried…which of course agrees with the prophesy found at Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 7:14, since the word used in that verse is ‘almah, which is the feminine of ‘elem, which simply means, “young man”. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions tells us that this can be a “maid” [or maiden] and Dr Strong tells us that it is a “lass (as veiled or private)”.
MA'IDEN, n. 1. An unmarried woman, or a young unmarried woman…
L'ASS, n. A young woman; a girl.
The things we see in common between bethulah and ‘almah [See previous post] are the common denominator, private/privacy. Being “private” can mean…
PRI'VATE, a. [L. privatus, from privo, to bereave, properly to strip or separate; privus, singular, several, peculiar to one's self, that is, separate; rapio, diripio, eripio; privo for perivo or berivo.] 4. Not publicly known... 5. Not invested with public office... 6. Individual; personal; in contradistinction from public or national...
CONTRADISTINCT, a. Distinguished by opposite qualities.
This, of course, takes us back to the possibility that they were both “virgins” to the STATE, i.e. they were not "married" [unmarried] by the STATE, neither were they "married" to the STATE and hence were “not invested with [the] public office” of PERSON.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Dec 2004 05:15:56
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
And of course, with your last remark, that takes us right back to this: H430 'elohiym el-o-heem'; ...gods in the ordinary sense... Without a true understanding of this word, as we have said before, all conversation falls flat on the floor.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For Yahowah[#H3068] your 'Elohiym[#H430] is 'Elohiym[#H430] of 'elohiym[#H430], and Lord[#H113] of lords[#H113], a great 'El[#H410 shortend from #H352], powerful, and awsome...
H430 'elohiym, 1a) ruler(s)... Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Defintions
H113 adon, ...BDB/Strong’s Number: from an unused root (meaning to rule)
H352 'ayil, ...specifically a chief (politically)... - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible

Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate[#G1413], the King of kings, and Lord of lords...
G1413 dunastes, a ruler or officer... - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
RU'LER, n. 1. One that governs, whether emperor, king, pope or governor...2. One that makes or executes laws in a limited or free government. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Ye cannot drink the cup of Yahowah, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of Yahowah's table, and of the table of devils.

...as for me and my house, we will serve YaHoWaH[#H3068].

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 02 Dec 2004 07:35:24
Message:

Then again, they could have been going to Bethlehem for an entirely different enrollment...
“The year 2 BC marked the 25th anniversary of Caesar Augustus’s rule and the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Huge celebrations were planned. The whole empire was at peace. The doors of the temple of Janus were closed for only the third time in Roman history. To honor their emperor, the people were to rise as one and name him pater patriae, or Father of the Country. This enrollment, described in the Book of Luke, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, has always been a mystery since no regular census occurred at this time. But the pater patriae enrollment fits perfectly.” – The Star of Bethlehem by Crag Chester, Imprimis D/96 Hillsdale College
[Thanks go to Gregory of His Holy Church for finding this one.]

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 06 Dec 2004 10:33:56
Message:

quote:

---

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
And of course, with your last remark, that takes us right back to this: H430 'elohiym el-o-heem'; ...gods in the ordinary sense... Without a true understanding of this word, as we have said before, all conversation falls flat on the floor.

---

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 06 Dec 2004 14:32:21
Message:

Try the word 'gods', #430 in Strongs. Way too many to list here.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 06 Dec 2004 15:45:34
Message:

quote:

---

Robert-James said: Try the word 'gods', #430 in Strongs. Way too many to list here.

---

Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 06 Dec 2004 16:53:47
Message:

Those who live in the past, live with shadows.
Try gods, as there are many examples where #430 in plural form, describes what you say dosen't exist in scripture.
If one is sincere in questioning, #430 plural has numerous examples to accenctuate oneisraelite's point of viewing the word 'elohim'.
Comprende?
When one ARGUES in a modern COURT, one loses his standing and gives up his Peace and jurisdiction.
Same thing happens in relationships.
Without arguement, the paleo-hebrew word elohim in the plural especially, translated into American-English as used in the KJV...many times re-presents gods, and these gods have nothing and are nothing, but figments of one's imagination.
Your question to the ecclesia was, "show me once". I only hoped to point out that many times "gods" in Strongs Concordance has nothing to do with Israelite judges. This is a given, for those who care to look.
As a point of fact, I mentioned two times elohim references Israelites. Did someone ASSUME I meant the word 'gods'?
That is not my problem.
Rather than compete with El-Elyon's Spirit offspring, take the competitive spirit to those judges keeping score...or is that JUDGES?
At that time, one will learn not to ARGUE.
BTW, Yahushuah, son of Yoseph, is his name. Place your own vowels.
Now, the son of David is another story. Yediadiah.
The son of Yoseph was sold unto slavery by his brethern, as was Yahushuah. And they both learned how to forgive. Yoseph's Egyptian name meant, 'saviour of the world'. What a paradox?
Yahushuah would not accept the title-name...son of David, in his earthly walk. He knew better.
Psalm 110.
In the septuagint, the prophetic name Nathan gave David's son was Jedi. Cute eh?
Sol-Om-On never wore that name, never.
So what are we looking for? Scoring points within the ecclesia or Truth?

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 06 Dec 2004 19:06:29
Message:

quote:

---

Robert-James said: If one is sincere in questioning, #430 plural has numerous examples to accenctuate oneisraelite's point of viewing the word 'elohim'. Comprende?

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 02:39:22
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Steven:
Peace be unto the house.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
Conjecture and opinion aside. The challenge still stands. Show me one example where the word Elohim H430 is used in scripture to address a flesh and blood non-Israelite ruler.... Comprende?

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 07:28:47
Message:

Greetings brother Robert and family,
Peace be to you all as well.

quote:

---

You state, "show me one example"; if I can find for you an example, then what?

---

quote:

---

Comprende? Does the example have to be in Spanish? LOL

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 08:27:46
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
karath lo' beriyth 'elohiym
Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant [H1285] with them, nor with their ‘elohiym. [H430]
There are a lot of blanks filled in "for our understanding" in that translation of those four Hebrew words. I see it as “make no covenant [with their] ‘elohiym", but either way...
H1285 beriyth
BDB Definition:
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
1a) between men
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man)…
COVENANT, n. [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.] 1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation.
This, at least, shows that the "non-Yisra’elite ‘elohiym", translated “gods”, are flesh and blood and not “carved images”, for there can be no “meeting or agreement of the minds” with totem poles and such.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:32:20
Message:

Greetings!

quote:

---

You Said: Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Steven:
Peace be unto the house. karath lo' beriyth 'elohiym

Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant [H1285] with them, nor with their ‘elohiym. [H430]

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:41:58
Message:

Good morning, Steven:
That in no way responds to what I posted for you. How would you make a contract with the "cash cow" as we see in Exodus 23:32?

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:50:09
Message:

brother Robert said: Good morning, Steven:
That in no way responds to what I posted for you.

Steve: Good morning. It most certainly does. You posted Exodus 23 which gave the commandment. I posted Exodus 32 which shows the commandment being broken. Point blank.

brother Robert: How would you make a contract with the "cash cow"?

Steve: How would you make a golden calf fashioned from jewelry out in the desert into a GOVT ruler?

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:52:26
Message:

H430
'elohiym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges… plural of H433
And where on earth did Brown, Driver and Briggs, presumably three people who studied the Hebrew language a bit longer than us, get this as the very first definition of 'elohiym, a word only tranlsated as God, god(s) and goddess(es)?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:56:54
Message:

The same way that the "scupted idol", the bald eagle represents the 'elohiym [mighty ones] behind it. Now, how would you make a covenant/contract/meeting of the minds with the "cash cow" as it forbids us to do at Exodus 23:32?

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 09:57:44
Message:

If you look at psalms 83(?) and a few other places in the OT you will see that the word H430, when speaking of rulers and judges, is used ONLY concerning appointed Israelites in the community context. Exactly how Jesus/Yahushua used it when speaking to the community Pharisees who ran the synagogue. As you know this organization was dismantled when the second temple was destroyed by the 4th kingdom.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Dec 2004 10:12:12
Message:

Now let us set that "cash cow" out in the desert all by itself, how would you "serve it" [thou shalt not serve them], how could it be "a snare unto you" when it cannot give you commands? In and of itself it is nothing; it is an inanimate object! It is those flesh and blood creatures that stand behind it that are the 'elohiym not the statue itself.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 09 Dec 2004 13:25:49
Message:

Greetings brother Robert and family,
Been out of pocket for a few days so I could not respond until today.....

quote:

---

Now let us set that "cash cow" out in the desert all by itself, how would you "serve it" [thou shalt not serve them], how could it be "a snare unto you" when it cannot give you commands?

---

quote:

---

In and of itself it is nothing; it is an inanimate object! It is those flesh and blood creatures that stand behind it that are the 'elohiym not the statue itself.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 10 Dec 2004 06:39:32
Message:

Greetings and salutations, Steven:

Peace be unto the house.

quote:

---

There is much history and archaeology which proves that people in the Middle East believed in and worshipped various cosmic deities.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 11 Dec 2004 05:17:47
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be upon the house.
I believe that anyone who has read the Scriptures with understanding will agree that the Eternal Moral Law of Yahowah is reiterated in the new covenant [testament], though not collectively as in Exodus; this being truth, where is the First Commandment restated? It is our humble opinion that this is the verse that covers that...We ought to obey Yahowah rather than men and, for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahowah thy 'Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 11 Dec 2004 07:59:13
Message:

We must understand that adam [mankind] wants to be the ‘Elohiym, they [we] want “to rule as God” [Israel]. Why do you think they [we] are taking a “rib” and trying to create “hawwah” [INTENTIONALLY MISTRANSLATED “EVE”], which means, “lit. life, living being”, the ultimate proof that they [we] are God. And in an attempt to hide this transgression [usurpation] they [we] use “feigned words”, as it is written, “genetic engineering” and “cloning”. They [we] do everything contradistinct [having opposite qualities] to the instructions of the Creator…look about you, my brothers and sisters, we must open our eyes and see the destruction caused by this desire to govern ourselves!! How far must we take it before we realize “it is not working”???
As it is written ["Pogo"]: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 11 Dec 2004 08:03:38
Message:

quote:

---

COSMICAL, a. s as z. [Gr., order, the world.] 1. Relating to the world…

There’s much evidence that people all over the earth worship various “cosmic” deities, and one does not have to dig very deep to find it.

---

quote:

---

Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant [H1285] with them, nor with their ‘elohiym. [H430]

…how would you make a covenant/contract/meeting of the minds with the "cash cow" as it forbids us to do here at Exodus 23:32?

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 11 Dec 2004 10:48:38
Message:

Greetings brother Robert you said:

quote:

---

I believe that anyone who has read the Scriptures with understanding will agree that the Eternal Moral Law of Yahowah is reiterated in the new covenant [testament], though not collectively as in Exodus; this being truth, where is the First Commandment restated? It is our humble opinion that this is the verse that covers that...We ought to obey Yahowah rather than men and, for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahowah thy 'Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 12 Dec 2004 07:39:16
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
To think that Yahowshua [JESUS] doesn’t exist is to go against the Talmud; by their very act of trying so desperately to discredit him, they admit his existence.
Nihil facit error nominis cum de corpore constat. An error in the name is nothing when there is certainty as to the person. 11 Co. 21.
Jesus, Yashua, Yahushua, Yahowshua, Yehoshua..."a rose by any other name, is still a rose".
Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a deliverer, which is Anoinited5547 the Lord [or Controller].2962
This is his “person”, the mask that he wears, or to be more correct, the office that he holds.
DELIVERER, n. 1. One who delivers; one who releases or rescues; a preserver. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
LORD, n. 1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor. [Ibid.]
CONTROLLER, n. 1. …one that has the…authority to govern... [Ibid.]
GOV'ERNOR, n. He that governs, rules or directs… 4. One possessing delegated authority. [Ibid.]
Yahowshua was anointed high priest of the Kingdom of Yahowah, of the order of Melchizedek, with the "delegated authority" of the Supreme Suveran Himself.
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the called out ones [the ekklesia]
Psalm 110:4 Yahowah hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest 3548 for ever [perpetually] after the order of Melchizedek.
BDB Definition:
H3548
kohen
1) priest, principal officer or chief ruler
PRIEST, n. [L. proestes, a chief, one that presides...] 1. To be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
PRESI'DE, v.i. s as z. [L. proesideo; proe, before, and sedeo, to sit.] 1. To be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer. [Ibid.]
If some can believe that George Bush "presides" over them, you and I can certainly believe that Yahowshua "presides", with “delegated authority”, over us, wouldn’t you agree?
Here from Easton’s Bible Dictionary is an understanding of the order of Melchizedek.
Melchizedek ...his priesthood can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death. (That eliminates both the "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF" [earthly lord of hosts] and the "POPE" [earthly Father]!)
Another way to say that, now that we comprehend what a priest is, is this way, “…his Presidency can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death”. So what we are trying to say to you here is, if you "accepted" him, a living Yisra’elite 'elohiym [ruler], as your President, under a mistranslated name (whether mistranslated intentionally or unintentionally), because of the maxim of law quoted near the outset, we feel you are safe.
We hope that this has helped to set your mind at ease, dear brother; rejoice, say Hallelu'Yah, that he "presides" over you and yours, that he is your President, for his Executive Orders are set in stone, and they are the "perfect Law of liberty".

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 12 Dec 2004 12:41:36
Message:

quote:

---

To think that Yahowshua [JESUS] doesn’t exist is to go against the Talmud; by their very act of trying so desperately to discredit him, they admit his existence.

---

Reply author: source
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 14:39:44
Message:

Blessings upon us all in the ecclesia and those in the darkness of confusion.

"This is his “person”, the mask that he wears, or to be more correct, the office that he holds."


If you go to Deuteronomy 10:17 Acts 10:34 ;Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 you will see that God is no respector of persons which as you say is a reference to a mask. Christ need no mask and I think it would be prudent to reflect upon our usage of that word as it does not appear in the orginal writings as referenced to Christ.

It is quite clearly a fiction a phony and a pretense.

To refer to Christ as a person could be percieved as blasphemy..
I hope no one takes offense

Blessings upn our diligense in grasping the real meanings of the words we have been accustomed to but keep in mind 2 Peter 2:3 and Jeremiah 8:8

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 17:41:31
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
Greetings brother Robert and family,
Been out of pocket for a few days so I could not respond until today.....

Now let us set that "cash cow" out in the desert all by itself, how would you "serve it" [thou shalt not serve them], how could it be "a snare unto you" when it cannot give you commands?

You said 'cash cow'. I asked how could you make the golden calf spoken of in Exodus into what is known today as a 'cash cow'.

In and of itself it is nothing; it is an inanimate object! It is those flesh and blood creatures that stand behind it that are the 'elohiym not the statue itself.

The Israelites in Exodus did not request the calf to be made in honor of a government man, but rather to represent the deity who they claim brought them out of Egypt. There is much history and archaeology which proves that people in the Middle East believed in and worshipped various cosmic deities. Deities which they believed performed miracles, created the universe, etc. Even built temples to them... The golden calf incident in Exodus 32 was the first ever breach of the covenant wherein the Israelites clearly violated the first and second commands.

Peace,
Steve

---

quote:

---

That which has already been, will be yet again. That which has already been done, it what will yet be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 19:20:25
Message:

Greetings Marty,

You said: Those who twist Romans 13 and related Scripture to justify there actions in support of 501 (c) (3) activities and in allegience to the the FEDERAL god, the STATE gods, the COUNTY gods and the CITY gods appear to be engaging in an activity that is analogous to the "requesting a calf to be made to represent the deity.

Me: Do you think the golden calf incident was a literal event as it is scripted in the Bible?

Reply author: source
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 19:52:08
Message:

Praises to YHWH on high as we exchange in learning and brother hood

Have you noticed Romans 13 refers to them as ministers of God?
1 Peter 2:13 apears to be promoting the false assumption if taken out of context.. refer to Deuteronomy 4:2 as posted before to be clear as to what is being said..

Would God's ministers add to his law??
Did Yeshua bow to Caesar a self proclaimed god by paying the tax?
Did Danial eat of the Kings Dainties?
Did Shadrach Meshak and Abednigo bow?

I think you have your answer as to whether we are to obey false de facto governments when their laws violate God's command..

The laws of man in addition to or in derogation to God's law do not apply to men of following God YHWH's word.

Praise Jah and may his light shine eternally

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 12:31:20
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

Greetings Marty,

You said: Those who twist Romans 13 and related Scripture to justify their actions in support of 501 (c) (3) activities and in allegience to the the FEDERAL god, the STATE gods, the COUNTY gods and the CITY gods appear to be engaging in an activity that is analogous to the "requesting a calf to be made to represent the deity.

Me: Do you think the golden calf incident was a literal event as it is scripted in the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Exodus 32:1-5:
Verse 1...
When the people saw Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together around Aaron, and said to him; Come, make us a god (el) who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.

Verse 2....
Then Aaron said to them; Break off the golden earrings in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.

Verse 3....
So all the people took off their earrings, and brought them to Aaron.

Verse 4....
He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with an engraving tool. Then they said; This is your god (el), O Israyl, that brought you out of land of Egypt!

Verse 5....
When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the (calf), and announced; Tomorrow is a feast to Yahweh.

---

quote:

---

Notice that at the very beginning of their marriage, Israyl turned to Baal worship. When they broke the First Commandmnent , it constituted a violation of their marriage vows. Did they see themselves as Baal worshippers? If you would have asked them whom they worshipped, they would have said they worshipped Yahweh. Look at verse 5.

After they set up [this other god], they then allotted a day to feast unto [Yahweh]. Notice they did not consider themselves Baal worshippers. They did not acknowledge breaking any of [Yahweh's] Laws, or having done anything wrong. Brothers and sisters in [Messiah], we must learn to see things as [Yahweh] sees them. How did [Yahweh see this whole situation? If we would but put on the mind of [Messiah], we would begin to see things as [Yahweh] does. Look at verses 9 and 10:

And [Yahweh] said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."

In His anger and jealousy, [Yahweh] wanted to destroy them because His wife was seeking other masters. If we can learn to think along these lines, then we can begin to understand how [Yahweh] feels about our submission and homage to other gods.

You are familar with the golden calf story. However, there is another perspective of this golden calf I want you to consider. Look at verses 2 through 4a again.

It is easy to visualize a big golden calf. However, do you think that they bowed down to a calf and said this is our god now because it brought us out of Egypt? No, they did not do that. Look at the context from verse 4.....

The calf simply represented the organization that they had formed. They were not worshipping the calf any more than [today's society] worships the donkey or the elephant that represents [its] political parties.

If archaeologists were to dig up that temple or shrine, and they found that exact golden calf, the archaeologists could say that evidence shows that the Israylites built temples and worshipped calves. The archaeologists would assume that this practice was their downfall because it was the Canaanite god.

Let us go forward a thousand years from now, and we see that archaeologists have unearthed some artifacts from this era. They come across a large convention hall in the capitol of our nation, and they determine from carbon dating that they are looking at items from the 20th century. They find a huge idol of an elephant, and they conclude that the reason this civilization was destroyed was because they worshipped the elephants. [This society] does not worship the elephant, or the donkey, they merely represent [the gods of this society].

The day following the celebration for [this society's] newly elected gods, people call up the preachers and ask them to prepare prayer and solemn assembly for Yahweh. Even though [they] pray to the one true [Yahweh], [they] have set up [their] own gods right beside Him. [They] elect rulers who become elohims so that [they] can bow down to them and follow them. [This society] is no different from those Israylites under Moses when they set up their own gods. The golden calf was just a symbol of man's new government that was to run alongside [Yahweh's] government. [Today's society] wants it both ways just as early Israyl wanted it both ways.....

....I am sure you get the idea. In Sinai, following the marriage ceremony, the people held a political convention, they set up their gods, and they decided how they were going to govern themselves. They did not view themselves as Baal worshippers. [Yahweh] had already taught them to govern themselves. He had already taught them that He was their Lawgiver, their Judge, and their King. He repeatedly reminded them that He was their husband, and it would be He who would save them. Even though He had displayed His miraculous might and declared His undying love for them, they did not hesitate to set up that golden calf.

We have no evidence of exactly how they formed this new government. The [Scriptures] omit the details, but maybe they got together under that golden calf and wrote a proclamation similar to this:

We the people of Israyl, in order to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and security, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain or erect this sacred calf as a symbol of our new government, etc., etc.

Am I pulling down someone's sacred calf? We have many sacred calves out there because we have been Baal worshippers without recognizing it. At least the Israylites of old had only one political party. Some say that we must unify these political parties, or unify the different denominations and merge with these other religions. There is only one Unifier and that is [Yahshua Messiah], the King of kings, and the [Master of masters]. If you want to join His party and live under His Laws, you must register by being baptized.

However, our United States Constitution does not require that the citizens of this nation believe in [Yahshua Messiah], and it does not prevent you from practicing witchcraft.

Do we have sacred calves? Yes we do, and we must begin tearing them down.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 12:53:56
Message:

No, things have not changed. Graven images are still being worshiped. There are Jesus on the cross statutes everwhere this time of the year not to mention the billions hanging around people's necks every day.

I not only believe it, I can prove it.

Best,
Steve

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 13:23:36
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
No, things have not changed. Graven images are still being worshiped. There are Jesus on the cross statutes everwhere this time of the year not to mention the billions hanging around people's necks every day.

I not only believe it, I can prove it.

Best,
Steve

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 13:52:51
Message:

Marty said: but do you recognize and acknowledge that the FEDERAL gods, STATE gods, COUNTY gods, and CITY gods are "in Yahweh's face" or "in opposition to Yahweh"?

Me: No. They get their day in the sun for a specific purpose until Daniel 11:34 - 12:1 happen.. After the 4th Kingdom is destoyed, then the people will be free. The Bible says it's all part of the plan. No GOVT does anything what-so-ever without YHWH's 'permission'. "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. . . . He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding (Daniel 2)...Even Jesus told Pilate that he has NO power unless it is given to him by his Father. Nebuchadnezzer had to learn this fact the hard way, "They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses" (Daniel 4).

Peace,
Steve

Reply author: source
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 17:00:42
Message:

Yes praise Jah as he has given us the gift of choice. His law or ours.

Men have for thousands of years for greedy and covetous purposes decieved the minds of other men to get them to bow to the rules of their own covetous design. 100% of the laws of the world in addition to God's laws are written by false god's.

We as of God's first command are not to bow. This in light may lead us to conclusion as to why the holy name of God and his son were and are obscured from the sight of men in search of his spirit and energy.
We know Satan will appear as an angel of light or the proverbial Wolf in sheeps clothing.

The best cloth of all to deceive the multitudes is the word of God itself that has indeed been altered and disgraced with the removal of his sacred name by those of avarice as a source of their power.

The book "Hidden messages in Water" dispenses with all the argument, rhetoric and bloated speculations of men and addresses the source of all power in our lives if we choose to accept the offer of it's undeniable revelations.

But upon such discovery and awakening then the social type bonding of the hageling and pride related exchanges would cease and the ego of man would have to step down in humble awe of such a universal truth...

Some of the posters on this forum are in all appearance of the truth being revealed , quite opposed to such a panacea for confusion as that confusion is their one and driving force.

Blessings upon our collective ability to shed the scales of deceit darkness and falsehood to gain his everlasting light of truth.
Praise YHWH Psalms 118:8; 2Peter 2:3

Reply author: True North
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 21:46:06
Message:

In the book entitled Baal Worship the author Peter J. Peters writes...

Thanks for that quote and expounding ... Exodus 32:24 ... "And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf" ...

Did the calf leap out of the fire, a god with power? Or is this an analogy of a mindset that leaped into the people so willing to trust in themselves but not HaShem?

It would seem that if the calf actually leaped out of the fire and later verse 4 ... "(Aaron) fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made (06213 asah = made from existing not 01254 bara = created out of nothing) it a molten calf" ... then something metaphysical is happening which could allow for people trusting it as a god by observation. Something metaphysical that would allow worship of stone, metal and wood as god. Other places in the TaNaK indicate that the metaphysical was/is possible (Exodus 7:11-12) but not from the Source.

A possibility but this could mean that that this "something metaphysical" changed and we no longer experience this by observation, only by mindset. So perhaps this gold (calf) represents the mindset of the people trusting in gold and their collective power as a people to deliver them? Perhaps this passage reflects much the same mindset that exists in trusting in silver and gold or the mindset of trust in the fiat banking system of today for provision instead of Hashem.

This may be a very real experience that changed the mindset of the people to trust and defend their wealth represented in this gold. A very real analogy represented today in the trust of the people in the governments of men and their money system.



TN

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 22:23:19
Message:

quote:

---

so willing to trust in themselves but not HaShem?

---

quote:

---

the fiat banking system of today for provision instead of Hashem.

---

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 01:22:30
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.

quote:

---

Marty said: but do you recognize and acknowledge that the FEDERAL gods, STATE gods, COUNTY gods, and CITY gods are "in Yahweh's face" or "in opposition to Yahweh"?
Me: No.

---

Reply author: source
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 03:01:53
Message:

God is not the author of confusion we are. The tetra grammaton is four letters. The true pronunciation is unknown. Haggling like Children over who has got it right is fruitless..

One thing is known he wants love to prevail! Any argument ? Take it up with the frozen crystals of water that tell it all .

"Hidden messages in water" by Masoru Emoto ends the rhetoric and argument nicely. Will any look before they continue to digress from the Love???

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 08:06:32
Message:

Greetings everyone,

TN said: Perhaps this passage reflects much the same mindset that exists in trusting in silver and gold or the mindset of trust in the fiat banking system of today for provision instead of Hashem.

Steve: Not only the fiat banking system but also the fiat money system. When we discharge at the various CORPS this strengthens the fiat money system and also strengthens the SYSTEM by collecting a TAX on the goods we want.

brother Robert said: Then you are of the opinion that those who are "against Yahowah and his anointed", as it is written [Psalm 2:2; Act 4:26], are cognizant that they are being obedient to the will of Yahowah by hating Him and being in opposition to His Authority

Steve: "THEY" need not be cognizant of their hating YHWH. "THEY" were created for an express purpose which is the will of YHWH, be it for good or evil.

Prov 16:4 YHWH hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old: for I am Elohim, and there is none else; I am Elohim, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:


brother Robert: , and we should join them in their efforts?

Steve: If we use FRN's we join "THEM" in their SCHEME, like it or not. In for a penny, in for a pound.. can't be only a little pregnant, etc.. The FRN is the sum total of "THEIR" game and I am guilty of using the luxury of their CONSUMER system and guilty of paying the TAXES at the point of purchase which strengthens THEM. When Daniel 12:1 happens we will (hopefully) no longer have the option.

Peace,
Steve

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 09:23:16
Message:

brother Robert said: What was it that Dawid, a man whom Yahowah apparently called, "a man after mine own heart [mental disposition]", said? Oh, yeah, now I remember...
Do not I hate them, O Yahowah, that hate thee? and am not I grieved [cut off] with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

Steve: This is the same David that joined the Philistines and sought to go against Israel in
battle. He was a shifty charecter, yet YHWH still said he was a man after His own heart.

brother Robert: And what was it that Yahowah said about confederacies and following a multitude to do evil?

Steve: Apply that phrase to the FRN and CORP consumer purchases and TAX to boot. Imagine what would happen if even a small group decided to 'just say no'.

brother Robert: And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yahowah, choose you this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahowah.

Steve: When the Joshua and the Israelites all agreed to this in Joshua 24 it did not take them long to breach this same agreement after Joshua died in Judges 2:11. The Israelites were punished in verse 14 but then redeemed in verse 16. They broke the agreement again in verse 17, were punished and redeemed AGAIN in verse 18. In verse 19 they broke the agreement yet again and YHWH punished them again in verse 20, etc, etc, etc, etc. This pattern of the Israelites is why the series of exiles has been put upon them.
The last exile, the subjection to the Roman 4th kingdom, is still upon the planet until Daniel 12:1. The weapons have not been turned to plowshares yet, everybody from the least to the greatest does not know YHWH yet, and the 4th kingdom KING still apportions land at a price. Moshiach ben David has not yet come.

Peace,
Steve

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 10:01:05
Message:

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Steven:

Peace be unto the house.

Though we agree that the Kingdom has yet to be fully manifested, you seem to be of the opinion that it doesn't even exist [and for those who only believe in the governments of the creature [man] it doesn’t]. Is this correct reasoning on our part?

Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of Dawid, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahowah of hosts will perform this.

Henceforth; minney attah, from this time

HENCEFORTH, adv. hens'forth. From this time forward.

When was that written? Was it before our beloved Dani’el, or after?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 10:07:14
Message:

quote:

---

Steve: This is the same David that joined the Philistines and sought to go against Israel in battle. He was a shifty charecter, yet YHWH still said he was a man after His own heart.

---

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 11:09:06
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

brother Robert: And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yahowah, choose you this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahowah.

Steve: When the Joshua and the Israelites all agreed to this in Joshua 24 it did not take them long to breach this same agreement after Joshua died in Judges 2:11. The Israelites were punished in verse 14 but then redeemed in verse 16. They broke the agreement again in verse 17, were punished and redeemed AGAIN in verse 18. In verse 19 they broke the agreement yet again and YHWH punished them again in verse 20, etc, etc, etc, etc. This pattern of the Israelites is why the series of exiles has been put upon them.
The last exile, the subjection to the Roman 4th kingdom, is still upon the planet until Daniel 12:1. The weapons have not been turned to plowshares yet, everybody from the least to the greatest does not know YHWH yet, and the 4th kingdom KING still apportions land at a price. Moshiach ben David has not yet come.

Peace,
Steve

---

quote:

---

Revelation 17:17 states...

But Yahweh has put in their hearts to perform His will; and to agree, and give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of Yahweh will be fulfilled.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 18:7 states...

Woe to the world because of temptations to sin! It is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man through whom the temptations come!

Matthew 18:6 warns....

But whoever causes one of these little ones, who believe in Me, to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

---

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 11:32:12
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
brother Robert: And what was it that Yahowah said about confederacies and following a multitude to do evil?

Steve: Apply that phrase to the FRN and CORP consumer purchases and TAX to boot. Imagine what would happen if even a small group decided to 'just say no'.
Peace,
Steve

---

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:01:02
Message:

quote:

---

The tetra grammaton is four letters. The true pronunciation is unknown.

One thing is known he wants love to prevail!

Will any look before they continue to digress from the Love???

---

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:13:31
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
Greetings everyone,

TN said: Perhaps this passage reflects much the same mindset that exists in trusting in silver and gold or the mindset of trust in the fiat banking system of today for provision instead of Hashem.

Steve: Not only the fiat banking system but also the fiat money system. When we discharge at the various CORPS this strengthens the fiat money system and also strengthens the SYSTEM by collecting a TAX on the goods we want.

brother Robert: , and we should join them in their efforts?

Steve: If we use FRN's we join "THEM" in their SCHEME, like it or not. In for a penny, in for a pound.. can't be only a little pregnant, etc.. The FRN is the sum total of "THEIR" game and I am guilty of using the luxury of their CONSUMER system and guilty of paying the TAXES at the point of purchase which strengthens THEM. When Daniel 12:1 happens we will (hopefully) no longer have the option.

Peace,
Steve

---

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:43:48
Message:

between him who serves God and him who does not serve Him

I reread my post and am holding my head in anguish. Please, all who read the above post, strike this reference to G-- in my post and replace it with Jahuwah. Thank you. I feel like I'm a judge talking to the jury.

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:59:30
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol
Greetings everyone,


Prov 16:4 YHWH hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old: for I am Elohim, and there is none else; I am Elohim, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:


brother Robert: , and we should join them in their efforts?

Steve: If we use FRN's we join "THEM" in their SCHEME, like it or not. In for a penny, in for a pound.. can't be only a little pregnant, etc.. The FRN is the sum total of "THEIR" game and I am guilty of using the luxury of their CONSUMER system and guilty of paying the TAXES at the point of purchase which strengthens THEM. When Daniel 12:1 happens we will (hopefully) no longer have the option.

Peace,
Steve

---

quote:

---

Luke 16:8-13.....

From the Book of Yahweh....

Then the ruler commended the dishonest manager for having looked to his own interests. For the children of this world are wiser in dealing with their generation than the children of light.

But I say to you; Remember your brothers willingly through your diligent giving of your tithes and offerings from the riches of this world, so that when the end comes, you will be received into Yahweh Shammah.

He who is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much; and who is unjust in the least, is also unjust in much.

Therefore, if you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

And if you have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who will give you that which is your own?

No servant can serve two rulers; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both Yahweh and mammon.

Now the Pharisees, who were also lovers of money, heard all these things; and they sneered at Him.

But [Yahshua] said to [the Pharisees]: You are those who justify yourselves before men but Yahweh knows your heart, for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of Yahweh.

Luke 16:9 in the KJV is rendered:

And I {Yahshua} say to you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 17:56:17
Message:

quote:

---

Marty said: Steven,

Do we in fact "join THEM in their SCHEME if we use federal reserve notes"?

---

quote:

---

Steve,

Please correct us if we are inferring something different than what you are intentionally implying or rationalizing by your statements above and related statements in other posts by you...

It seems to us that you are saying that just because one is participating in the "Babylonian system" in any degree...he or she may as well participate to a greater degree.........in for a penny ...in for a pound, can't be only a little pregnant.

---

quote:

---

Questions:

1. In which way will a man or woman be promoting and aiding and abetting an unholy system to a greater degree:

a.)if he or she receives federal reserve notes and exchanges them for groceries.

b.)if he or she receives federal reserve notes, deposits them in a bank that is participating in the federal reserve system so that those funds can promote the usury system in true Israyl and then withdraws some from time to time to exchange for groceries.

---

quote:

---

2. Is it important to either be totally out of the Babylonian System...or would you say if one is participating in any way he or she would be no worse off if they were participating in and promoting the Babylonian System to a very significant degree?

---

quote:

---

These are issues we are working through ourselves. We welcome any input and/or guidance that you or others in the Ecclesia can give us in this regard.

---

quote:

---

If there is any hypocrisy in our walk and in our service for Yahweh's Kingdom purposes it is certainly appropriate for you to point that out to us and expose it to us and perhaps to others

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 20:40:49
Message:

Greetings,
It seems I missed this post addressed to me:

quote:

---

brother Robert: So, rather than answer to the statement, we seek instead to discredit the speaker's credibility. Where have we seen this type of subterfuge before? Oh yes, we remember, from the government you apparently defend as being "ordained by Yahowah".

---

quote:

---

brother Robert: And you are still clinging desperately to the misconception that if an embassador uses foreign currency and pays sales tax while doing his Master's work in a foreign nation that he has committed High Treason against his Master [President or whatever!] and should be executed? The world would soon be out of embassadors!

---

quote:

---

brother Robert: And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Was Yahowshua a traitor to his King for giving these orders?

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 20:48:42
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Steven:

Peace be unto the house.

Though we agree that the Kingdom has yet to be fully manifested, you seem to be of the opinion that it doesn't even exist [and for those who only believe in the governments of the creature [man] it doesn’t]. Is this correct reasoning on our part?

Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of Dawid, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahowah of hosts will perform this.

Henceforth; minney attah, from this time

HENCEFORTH, adv. hens'forth. From this time forward.

When was that written? Was it before our beloved Dani’el, or after?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 21:00:13
Message:

Greetings Marty,
You said:

quote:

---

Questions:

1. Has Yahweh put it in your heart, Steven, to promote the kingdom of the beast?

---

quote:

---

2. Do you recommend that we promote the kingdom of the beast?

---

quote:

---

3. Should you encourage your children to....

..........a.)promote the kingdom of the beast or

......... b.) to withdraw from the kingdom of the beast and promote the Kingdom of Yahweh?

---

Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 03 Jan 2005 01:48:14
Message:

Cornerstone Foundation asked these three questions to Steven:

Questions:

1. Has Yahweh put it in your heart, Steven, to promote the kingdom of the beast?

Steve replied: I am not promoting the kingdom of the beast. I am pointing out that it will be here until Daniel 12:1 and until the Moshiach ben David comes. Plain and simple. I have many scriptures to back this up.

It seems to us that your answer to question number 1 is No.

2. Do you recommend that we promote the kingdom of the beast?

Steven replied: No. They are doing a fine job on their own, per YHWH's instructions. They have their set time to perform their duty.

You answered question number 2, No. Thank you

3. Should you encourage your children to....

..........a.)promote the kingdom of the beast or

......... b.) to withdraw from the kingdom of the beast and promote the Kingdom of Yahweh?

Steven replied: You and I will not agree on what it means to withdraw from the kingdom of the beast. If you are going to say the SS# is the MARK, I will show you by the same standards that the FRN qualifies even more. This is why I feel dismayed over the whole situation. It is very difficult to live with out the FRN. I would take nothing short of a regathering to overcome the FRN, which is what the scriptures seem to say will happen... in the promised land sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you look at the dimensions given in both Torah and Ezekiel, it is easy to see that America is not what is being described.

Peace,

Steve

Cornerstone Foundation wrote:

Your reply to question number three is Non-responsive. Please answer the question if you care to. If you would rather not answer here...we respect your privacy...but...please think about what your answer is .... and .... what the consequences of your decision are.

Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 03 Jan 2005 09:44:25
Message:

quote:

---

I would take nothing short of a regathering to overcome the FRN, which is what the scriptures seem to say will happen... in the promised land sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

---

Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 03 Jan 2005 22:54:38
Message:

Marty,
Of course I would promote that my children live in the kind of world defined by the Messianic prophecies. Who would not want to live in a world where the weapons are turned to plowshares, etc (minus the Torah statutes which allow for the selling of my daughters for a set amount of sheckles). However, I 'speculate' you are asking the question based on your understanding of the Kingdom and I have a feeling we might not agree since I don't find Christ, as he is painted in the NT, to be the Moshiach ben David defined in the Tanakh. I hope that answers the question to your satisfaction.

David,
Thanks for the links! I will check them out.

Peace to all,
Steve

Reply author: legalbear
Replied on: 25 Jan 2005 14:30:36
Message:

I sent this to Jim Searcy. Jim has a Yahoo Group I subscribed to for awhile. He is the only one that can post to his list and he always uses the pagan names to describe the Father and Son. Please remember, I use “J” when I write the Father and Son’s Name because it looks more like a Yod (finger pointing) than a “Y” and that I use it to reach the Yah sound as in hallelujah; not the hard “J” sound:

Jim: I noticed that you always get your name right, but, you never get the heavenly Father’s correct. You keep calling Him the name of a Babylonian deity; G-o-d. Aren’t you trying to come out of Babylon?

I’ve also noticed that you have started calling Jahuwah’s Son Yeshua. Jim, I shouldn’t have to be telling you that is the Hebrew word for salvation. The Son’s name is not merely “Salvation,” it is “Jah is salvation” or, “Jah is my salvation,” or, “Jah is our salvation;” a complete sentence derived from the meaning of each of the Hebrew letters comprising His Name. [Now, I have some additional thoughts on this. The word salvation by itself is a common noun; or, in some usages, I believe it could even be an adverb. Why would the Father name His Son a common noun or adverb and then say that it is the Name above every name;? I think the answer is that He wouldn’t and He didn’t. I did some internet research on this and most of the writers I look at agreed that Yeshua was a contracted version of Yehoshuah; Moses’ successor Joshua’s Hebrew name. I checked dictionary.com for the definition of contracted; it meant, “To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink. To pull together; wrinkle.” In light of the fact that we’re not supposed to neither add to nor take away from Jah’s Word, under severe penalty, why would anyone want to “shrink” or “wrinkle” the Son’s Name?! Anyway, continuing what I wrote Jim]:

There is a group the Father Jahuwah and I would like you to join. This group is described in Malachi 3:16:

quote:

---

16Then those who feared Jahuwah talked often one to another; and Jahuwah listened and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him of those who reverenced and worshipfully feared Jahuwah and who thought on His name.

---

Reply author: Exile
Replied on: 08 Feb 2005 05:27:43
Message: