The Holy Spirit

When it comes to your life and your salvation, I am sure that you will agree that knowing and following the truth instead of a lie is very important. Unfortunately, there are many lies and scams out there that have made it somewhat difficult to find the truth in its completeness without being mixed (perverted) with non-truths. Is it not then the responsibility of each one of us to make sure that what we follow is absolute truth. But how do we do this? Well... we have the written Word of the Almighty (the Hebrew Scriptures of course). The Scriptures are perfect and complete, which means that we do not need any supernatural revelations, especially when it is non-existent in the Scriptures, and especially when it is contradictory to the Scriptures.

But unfortunately this "supernatural revelation" happens all the time in churches and Messianic congregations, in the guise of the "Holy Spirit", to brainwash their followers into believing their own, made up, doctrines which is non-existent in the Scriptures, and make lots of money in the process. If it was written in the Scriptures, then such "Revelation" is certainly NOT necessary. Another thing to ask yourself is, how can it be tested, as the Bereans did with Sha'ul (Paul) (Acts 17:10-12) if it cannot be found in Scripture? If the Bereans could not find what Sha'ul said to them in the Scriptures, then they would not have believed a word he said. Just like the Bereans, we should not believe any "Supernatural revelation" if it cannot be confirmed by the Scriptures (Hebrew Tanakh).

It is a very common misconception that many Christians and Messianics have, that the "Holy Spirit" only came into existence after the Messiah ascended into the heavens. There are also many twisted beliefs and ideas that exist because of this misunderstanding. If we want to stick only to what the Scriptures teach, then we need to read the entire Scriptures and then analyze it as a whole.

One of the biggest problems that arises from this misconception is that religious leaders make big claims and create many doctrines that are non-existent in the Scriptures at all. They then claim it to be true because, "the 'Holy Spirit' revealed it to them." This creates a huge problem. People make up whatever doctrines they feel like and require their followers to accept these doctrines under the authority of them "being filled with the 'Holy Spirit". These doctrines are usually non-existent in the Scriptures.

There are just too many false doctrines going around to cover all of them. I am only going to write about two major topics concerning the "Holy Spirit." Let us get into the first topic.

Who is the "Holy Spirit" and when did he appear onto the scene?

As mentioned above, Many people believe that the "Holy Spirit" only appeared after the ascension of the Messiah. But is this true? If not, then when do we first read of him? We have to go to the very first place that he is mentioned and then study who he is from that point on to understand who/what he is.

We first see the Spirit of the Almighty in Genesis 1:2 which is in the very beginning of the Scriptures and before the creation started and everything was still formless and empty. We read of the Spirit of the Almighty throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) long before any "New Testament" ever existed.

We also find MANY places where people become filled with the Spirit in order to achieve certain tasks. But in EVERY instance, they are guided by the Spirit in the instruction of what is already written. There is nothing ever revealed to them through the Spirit that is not found in Scripture and certainly nothing that ever contradicts the written Word of the Almighty. This is because the Spirit of the Almighty can NEVER teach anything contrary to His written Word. In fact, the Spirit of the Almighty is mentioned many more times in the Tanakh (Known as the Old Testament by the Catholics) than in the B'rit Chadashah (known as the New Testament by the Catholics)

One thing that we always need to keep in mind is the fact that the Almighty is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Spirit is an 'extension' of the Almighty (but not part of any Trinity) and too is the same yesterday, today and forever. Neither the Almighty, His Word or His Spirit can ever change or contradict the other.

So if some Pastor or religious leader ever creates a doctrine of some sorts that is non-existent in the Scriptures and claims that the Spirit revealed it to them, then you can be sure that the Spirit that they are referring to is a demonic spirit and NOT the Spirit of the Almighty.

Let us now look at the title, "Holy Spirit"

The title, "Holy Spirit," is it really the correct translation from the original text? The Hebrew word from which it is translated is, "Ruach haKodesh" which is literally translated as, "the Set Apart Spirit/wind/breath"

The problem comes in with the translation of the Hebrew word, "Kodesh" which is usually translated as "holy" in the English bibles. This translation is absolutely incorrect and does not hold the same meaning at all. The word "holy" does not come from, or mean, "Kodesh" or "Set Apart" at all. The word holy comes from the Greek word, "helios" which means, "Sun's glow". Another word coming from the same source and which is related to the word, "holy" is "halo" which is a Sun disk around the head's of saints in the Catholic religion. The word "holy" is directly related to Sun-worship.

How can it ever be acceptable to use idolatrous terms and names to refer to the Almighty? Do you think that He approves of this idolatry, especially when referring to Him? I do not think so because of what He says about idolatry and how much He hates it and how He told us not to learn the ways of the other nations (religions) and use that to worship Him. He calls it an abomination.

So if you want to follow the truth and only the truth, then you will have to start learning Scriptural Hebrew and then test everything by what is written in the Hebrew Tanakh which is the Word of the Almighty. Anything that does not fall in line with what is written in the Hebrew Tanakh is simply falsehood and should be thrown out the window immediately.

May we all be filled with the Ruach haKodesh which guides us in the Words of the Torah.

Shalom Aleichem

Is The KJV Bible the Word of the Almighty?

 When it comes to a belief system that is based on the writings of a Higher Power, the Almighty Himself, we desire to follow His writings alone. But are the writings of the Almighty still His writings when it has been edited and changed by men? Certainly not, in fact, it then becomes the writings of man instead and cannot be trusted as the writings or Word of the Almighty at all any more.

Many Churches and Christians all claim that the King James Bible is the authoritative Scriptures and the Word of the Almighty. They claim that it is by far the best and most accurate English translation of the original Scriptures and that it can be trusted and used as a reference for sound Scriptural doctrine. But is this true? Is the KJV an accurate account or translation of the original Scriptures?

The only way to answer these questions is to actually compare it to the original, or oldest manuscripts in existence today. For the “Old Testament” this is quite easy as the Hebrew text has been preserved from generation to generation and is 100% perfect (this is discussed below). Anyone who can read Hebrew, can therefore, easily compare the KJV or any other translation to the Hebrew text.

The “New Testament” is however a little harder, as the original Scriptures were destroyed or are being kept hidden. The Church claims that the “New Testament” was originally written in Greek, whereas all the facts and evidence point to a Hebrew original (but denied by the Church). This is however a topic on its own which I have covered in a previous post. There are however, ways to identify errors in translation. We do have the very early Greek manuscripts, the Aramaic text and we can compare the teachings to the Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament) and we know that the Creator is not a liar that He should give instructions to last for 4,000 years and then change His mind.

Let us start with comparing the KJV with the Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament)

The “Old Testament” of the KJV Bible is admittedly more accurate than the “New Testament” of the KJV Bible. This is because the “Old Testament” is somewhat based on the Hebrew Tanakh, where the “New Testament” is based on the Greek manuscripts which are not very reliable at all (I will explain this in more detail below). There are however still major errors in the KJV’s “Old Testament.”

Firstly, the term “Old Testament” is an incorrect term and is NOT at all Scriptural. Marcion, who is one of the early church fathers, coined the terms Old and New Testament. BUT: It is written that YHWH would bring a Renewed Covenant to His people and therefore the duty was on His people to extend the invitation of the Kingdom of Elohim to the rest of the world. By replacing the word “Covenant” with “Testament” Marcion and other pagan theologians wrestled Jeremiah 31:31-34 away from the foundational teachings of Y’hoshua and the Schlichim (taught ones). Most Christians had no access to the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) and would not have know that Brit Chadashah means “RENEWED Covenant” and that Mashiyach would come to write Torah (Law) upon the hearts of his followers. By replacing the word “covenant” with “testament” and the word “renewed” with the word “new”, Marcion theologically divided the Messiah and his followers away from YHWH the Father and turned him into a self sustained deity that opposed the “Old Testament.” Everyone whoever used the terms “Old and New Testament” can thank Marcion the heretic for implanting such contrary values against the Unified and Eternal Word of the Living Almighty.

Polycarp, referred to Marcion as “the firstborn of the devil.” But, Marcion’s “judenrein” (Jew-free, also a well known phrase of Hitler) all-Gentile churches became very popular among early Gentile Christians, and one of the largest Christian denominations on Earth. Marcion was the inventor and/or the major contributor to dispensationalism, supercessionism, and replacement theology – all of which are altogether unscriptural and extremely popular among the vast majority of Christians today, preached in nearly every church.

The Name of the Almighty

The entire Scripture is full of how important and Set-Apart the Name of the Almighty is. It even goes as far as to say that there is no other name by which we can be saved. The Hebrew Tanakh has the Name of the Almighty written more than 6,000 times.

Now if the King James Translation, or any other translation, is truthful and correct, then it too must have the Name, or at least a transliteration (you can never translate a name) of the Name of the Almighty in the same places as those of the original Hebrew Tanakh. If it does not, then it is not the Word of the Almighty any more but rather the word of evil and corrupt men. The Word of the Almighty says that we are not allowed to add to or remove from what is originally written (Deut 4:2). It is also one of the Ten Commandments that we are not to bring His Name to naught.

Now if you have a look at the Hebrew Tanakh, you will not have to look very far to find the Name of the Almighty. The Name of the Almighty looks like this, “יהוה“, but the first thing you notice when you see His Name, is that it is not an English Name, but rather a Hebrew Name.

Now when you do a comparison between the Hebrew Scriptures and the KJV translation, you will see that almost every place that the Name of the Almighty is written, the KJV translation uses the word “LORD.” Now is the Name of the Almighty in English, “LORD”? Is the word “LORD” even a name at all? A little research will tell you that it is not a name at all, but a title that is also given to many men too and has a very dodgy pagan origin, where it actually originates from the name of a pagan deity.

So we can already see that the KJV translation has taken the most important Name in the existence of the Universe, the only Name by which we can be saved, out of its translation and replaced it with something that is hated by the Almighty. Is this not taking away from the Word which is forbidden by the Almighty Himself?

God

And what about the name “God”? Once again, the word “God” was not a name at all, but is rather a term used by other pagan beliefs to refer to their own deity. It later on became a name given to a specific pagan deity. Now ask yourself the following question, “can the Almighty be referred to by the same title that originated from the title for pagan deities?”

The Hebrew Scriptures have the word “Elohim” (Mighty One) in the places where the KJV translation has the word “God.” Once again, the KJV is not a correct translation here, where the translators placed their own words that do not mean the same.

In fact, there is a mention of “God” or “Gawd” in the Hebrew Scriptures, “But you are those who forsake יהוה (YHWH), who forget My set-apart mountain, who prepare a table for Gad (Gawd, God), and who fill a drink offering for Meni” (Isaiah 65:11).

Wow, the Scriptures actually say that those who follow after “God” (who is the pagan deity of good fortune) are those who forsake the Almighty. This is not just a translation error, but rather a direct contradiction of the Word of the Almighty. It is also written, “And in all that I have said to you take heed. And make no mention of the name of other mighty ones, let it not be heard from your mouth” (Exodus 23:13).

Let us look at some more errors

There are some more errors in the KJV’s “Old Testament” but none that are as critical as the errors spoken of above but, they are however still errors and are not Scriptural and changes the meaning of the Almighty's Word.

Eze 20:25 (KJV) Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;”

Eze 20:25 (Original) “And I also gave them up to laws that were not good, and right-rulings by which they would not live”

Here the KJV suggests that the Almighty gave the evil statutes to the people, where the original text says that He gave them up to the laws that the people turned to on there own.

There are many more differences between the KJV and the Hebrew text, but I am not going to post every single one of them here as we get the idea and it would be a lot of reading.

Now what about the Brit Chadashah (Renewed Covenant) (New Testament)

Every single scholar of the “KJV New Testament” agrees that it is based on the Greek manuscripts which they ignorantly believe to be the original manuscripts.

The KJV “New Testament” translation has MANY more differences and errors in it compared to its “Old Testament” translation. This is because its “Old Testament” is based, somewhat, on the original Hebrew, where the “New Testament” is based on many many Greek manuscripts (about 13,000) that all differ from one another. The problem with this is that the Greek is not the original as the Renewed Covenant was not originally written in Greek, but rather in Hebrew.

Let us have a closer look at these Greek manuscripts:

Both the Hebrew Torah and the “New Testament” contain approximately the same number of words. Which would you expect to be more successful in preserving the accuracy of a text?... The Christian New Testament, for several reasons of course.

Firstly, the Christian “New Testament” is about 1700 (or even more) years younger than the Torah. Secondly, the Christians haven’t gone through nearly as much exile and dislocation as the Jews. Thirdly, Christianity has always had a central authority (the Vatican) to ensure the "accuracy" of their text.

What are the results? The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: “A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30 000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform.”

Other scholars report there are some 200 000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, representing about 400 variant readings, which cause doubt about textual meaning; 50 of these are of great significance which have contradictory meanings to one another.

So how can we know which one, if any, is the correct one? Which one, if any, can we rely on to be the truth?

The Renewed Covenant is where the testimony and fulfillment of the prophecy of the Messiah is recorded. Let us have a look at the verse which speaks of the giving of the Name of the Messiah when He was born, “And she shall give birth to a Son, and you shall call His Name יהושע (Y’hoshua) for He shall save His people from their sins” (Mat 1:21). Now the KJV has the same statement but has the name “Jesus” as the name of the Messiah.

The question we need to ask ourselves, if we want to be honest, is if the KJV and all the other English Bibles that have the name of the Messiah as “Jesus” is correct. If so, then the name “Jesus” has to mean something like “for He shall save His people from their sins” as the verse implies.

In order to determine the meaning of the name “Jesus”, we need to go to its origin and find its meaning. Every single scholar admits the fact that the name “Jesus” comes from the Greek “Iesous” which once again originates from paganism, and NOT from the Hebrew Y’hoshua. I have covered this topic in much more detail in a previous post.

The Name Y’hoshua means “YHWH is our salvation” which fits one hundred percent with what is written in Matthew 1:21.

This difference is a major error that is absolutely the opposite of the Will and the Word of the Almighty. 

What about the name “Christ”?

Here is another example of a word being substituted by another that has the total opposite meaning as to what it should be. The Greek text has the word “Messias” for the word “anointed one” in John 1:41 and John 4:25. Why then does the KJV and other English translations have the Greek word “Christos” all the other times where the word “anointed one” appears?

Why does the KJV Bible use the Greek word “Messias” which is a valid Greek word that means “anointed one” in only a very few places, and the Greek word “Christos”, which does not have the exact same meaning, in the rest of the places? One must once again look for the origin of the word “Christos” from which the title “Christian originates from. If you start investigating the origin of the word “Christos” you will quickly find that it comes from “Chrestos” (the Sun-deity Osiris). Read here to learn more on this topic.

Other Errors

There are many other major errors and additions into the Christian Bible that do not even exist in the oldest Greek manuscripts, never mind the original writings. Some of these are, for example, John 7: 53 – 8:11 where it speaks of a woman caught in adultery that was brought to the Messiah. This event never happened and does not appear in the Aramaic text which is much, much older than the Greek, it is not even found in the earliest Greek manuscripts either. This portion was inserted many years later after the original writing of John. And yet, a large portion of the Christian faith is based on this small piece of writing.

How many times have you heard or even yourself quoted the phrase, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”? This section is NOT Scriptural at all and cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture. Why was it added? In order to justify that adultery is okay and easily forgivable… do yourself a favor and go see what the Almighty thinks of adultery, and then see if the Messiah agrees with His Father on this point in this section.

Another major error in the KJV Bible that is not found in any other English Bible, even though they are also based on the Greek manuscripts, is found in Acts 12:4.

KJV Bible: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people"

Better Translation: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people"

Here is a major error that does not even match any of the Greek manuscripts at all. The Greek word used for “Passover” is “pascha”. Every other English translation of the Bible has the word “Passover” here. It is only the KJV that has perverted it and used the word “Easter” instead of “Passover”. Now why did the translators do that? And is it correct? If not, then it is not an accurate translation and NOT the Word of the Almighty, but rather the word of men instead.

Easter is the Saxon's fertility deity called “Eostre”. Now the Passover is a testimony of the Messiah Himself. It is by His blood that we are passed over by the Messenger of death. To substitute this wonderful testimony of our Beloved Messiah, with the celebrations of an evil pagan deity that the Almighty hates, is pure evil. I would have no problem with burning a book that does such a thing.

If you would like to know more about Easter… then click here

Another major addition is that of Mark 16:9-20. If you compare it with that of the oldest Greek manuscripts, you will notice that it does not exist until the more modern Greek manuscripts.

Here is another example of a translation error proving that the translator did not have any knowledge of the Scriptures at all.

Hebrews 4:8-9

KJV Bible: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God"

Better Translation: "For if Joshua (or rather Y’hoshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of Elohim"

But even the Greek word for this "rest" is "sabbatismos", which means "Sabbath keeping".

This verse above actually proves two very important points. Firstly, the translator was not very well versed in the Scriptures at all. He did not know of the second point which is that “Joshua’s”  name in the Hebrew Tanakh is actually spelled as “יהושע” which is the exact same spelling and pronunciation of the Name as that of the Messiah, which is pronounced as Y’hoshua. The above verse is speaking of Y’hoshua son of Nun, where the translator ignorantly put in what he believed to be “Jesus”.

There are so many other errors in the KJV “New Testament” that it would take a very long time to record them here.

There are also many words that have been changed that originate from paganism rather than from the original writings, some of these words and names are, “Christ, holy, grace, glory, church and even the cross” which are all an abomination to the Almighty.

How many errors can be found in the Hebrew Torah?

 

Now for interest sake, we had a look at how many Greek variations existed in the “New Testament” above. Now if we are to compare the Greek “New Testament” with that of the Hebrew Torah, we can start to see which one is the most accurate of the two. Keeping in mind that the Greek “New Testament” contains over 200 000 different variations.

The Hebrew Torah contains approximately the same number of words as the “New Testament.” How many letters are there in the Hebrew Torah? There are 304 805 letters (or approximately 79 000 words).

If you were to guess, how many letters of these 304 805 do you think are in question (or questionable)? (most people guess anywhere from 25 to 1 000 letters.)

Maintaining the accuracy of any document as ancient and as large as the Torah is very challenging even under the best of circumstances.

But, consider that throughout history, Jewish communities were subject to widespread persecutions and exile. Over the last 2000 years, Jews have been spread to the four corners of the world, from Yemen to Poland, from Australia to Alaska.

Other historical factors make the accurate transmission of the Torah all the more difficult. For example, the destruction of the Temple 1900 years ago saw the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish central authority which traditionally would unify the Jewish people in the case of any disagreements.

Let’s investigate the facts as we have them today. If we collect the oldest Torah scrolls and compare them, we can see if any garbling exist, and if so, how much.

The fact is, that after all the trials and tribulations, communal dislocations and persecutions, only the Yemenite Torah scrolls contain any difference from the rest of world Jewry. For hundreds of years, the Yemenite community was not part of the global checking system, and a total of nine letter-differences are found in their scrolls.

These are all spelling differences. In no case do they change the meaning of the word. For example, how would you spell the word “colour”? in America, it’s spelled C-O-L-O-R. But in England (and South Africa), it’s spelled with a “u”, C-O-L-O-U-R.

Such is the nature of the few spelling differences between Torah scrolls today. The results over thousands of years are remarkable. And these differences are only found in the Yemenite Torah Scrolls.

The Torah has nine spelling variants – with absolutely no effect on the meaning of the words. The Christian Bible has over 200 000 variants and in 400 instances the variants change the meaning of the TEXT.

These letters of the Hebrew Torah were employed by the Almighty in creating the world, and it is through them that He sustains it. The deletion of even one letter of this sustaining force therefore threatens the existence of the world.

Carefully guarding the words of the Torah has been a Jewish priority throughout the centuries.

Writing a Torah Scroll

To eliminate any chance of human error, the Talmud enumerates more than 20 factors mandatory for a Torah scroll to be considered “kosher”. This is the Torah’s built-in security system. Should any one of these factors be lacking, it does not possess the sanctity of a Torah scroll, and is not to be used for a public Torah reading.

The meticulous process of hand-copying a scroll takes about 2000 hours (a full-time job for one year). Throughout the centuries, Jewish scribes have adhered to the following guidelines:

• A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is added.
• A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is deleted.
• The scribe must be a learned, pious Jew, who has undergone special training and certification.
• All materials (parchment, ink, quill) must conform to strict specifications, and be prepared specifically for the purpose of writing a Torah scroll.
• The scribe may not write even one letter into a Torah scroll by heart. Rather, he must have a second, kosher scroll opened before him at all times.
• The scribe must pronounce every word out loud before copying it from the correct text.
• Every letter must have sufficient white space surrounding it. If one letter touched another in any spot, it invalidates the entire scroll.
• If a single letter was so marred that it cannot be read at all, or resembles another letter (whether the defect is in the writing, or is due to a hole, tear or smudge), this invalidates the entire scroll. Each letter must be sufficiently legible so that even an ordinary schoolchild could distinguish it from other, similar letters.
• The scribe must put precise spaces between words, so that one word will not look like two words, or two words look like one word.
• The scribe must not alter the design of the sections, and must conform to particular line-lengths and paragraph configurations.

A Torah scroll in which any mistake has been found, cannot be used, and must be fixed within 30 days, or buried.

Which one can then be considered the Word of the Almighty?

Now the Christian church is based mostly on the supposed teachings of “Paul”. The Church claims that Paul taught that the “Gentile Believers” do not have to keep the Torah of the Almighty anymore. They claim that the Torah of the Almighty was nailed to the “cross” which is a gross perversion and is proof that they are totally ignorant of the Scriptures and the writings of Paul.

So let us see what “Paul” considers to be Scripture and what he teaches about it, “and that from a babe you have known the Set-apart Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for deliverance through belief in Messiah יהושע (Y’hoshua). All Scripture is breathed by Elohim and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for setting straight, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of Elohim might be fitted, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17)

Now what are these Set-apart Scriptures that he is speaking of in this verse? Did the “New Testament” exist when he wrote this letter? Is it even possible that he could be referring to the “New Testament” or even any of his own letters, which make up the majority of the “New Testament” as Scripture? Absolutely not!

Paul stated above to the people that from when they were very young, they have known the Set-apart Scriptures. He is referring to the Hebrew Tanakh which is the only book that can ever be considered as the Word of the Almighty. Let us have a look at another letter that Paul wrote, “For whatever was written before was written for our instruction, that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have the expectation” (Rom 15:4).

Paul is once again making it very clear that the Hebrew Tanakh are the Scriptures and is there for our instruction. The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures (Hebrew Tanakh) teaches us how to love the Almighty, it also teaches us how to love one another. The Hebrew Tanakh teaches us who the Messiah is and also what His role and duty is, “יהושע (Y’hoshua) said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner-stone. This was from יהוה (YHWH), and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Mat 21:42). It teaches us everything we need to know in regards to Salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

Notice above how the Messiah Himself refers to the Hebrew Tanakh as “the Scriptures” and how it refers to Him. Here is another verse that shows the Messiah referring to the Hebrew Tanakh as the Scriptures, “And יהושע (Y’hoshua) answering, said to them, “You go astray, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of Elohim”” (Mat 22:29).

I could go on and quote all the places in the “New Testament” and all the people therein who testify that the Hebrew Tanakh is the Scriptures, but that would take too much time and space here.

The fact of the matter is that the “New Testament” is not considered to be Scripture at all, but is rather just a testimony of the fulfillment of prophecy and letters of encouragement to fellow believers, who have been scattered, for them to stay in the study of the Scriptures.

Therefore, the Word of the Almighty is the Hebrew Tanakh and the Hebrew Tanakh alone. Anyone who speaks otherwise is speaking evil and denying the Word of the Almighty.

And anyone who does not subject themselves to the Instruction of the Hebrew Tanakh does not love the Almighty and there is no truth in them.

Romans 2 – Judging, practice what you preach and circumcision

Romans chapter 2 has a couple of teachings that are misquoted so many times and used for so many false doctrines. The one that is the most evident is that of, ‘Don’t judge me, because if you judge me, then you will also be judged.’ Another one is that of, if one subjects themselves to follow the Torah, then that person is under the law. This chapter is also one of the most used verses used to justify that one does not need to be circumcised in the flesh. All of these points are totally false and I will show you why in this article, by using what Shaul wrote here in Romans 2.

One key point that we do not always remember about the letters that Shaul wrote is that they did not originally have chapters or verses, but were written as a continual piece of writing as they were letters sent to the Gentile believers living in Rome.

There are many valuable lessons that can be learnt from Shaul’s letters and even in this chapter in Romans. But in order to learn from these lessons, we need to understand what is being taught in the correct context. If we do not read it in its correct context, we stand the chance of failing to learn what Shaul was teaching, and even worse, we could learn the total opposite of what is being taught, like millions of people around the world because they follow the people who incorrectly interpret Shaul's teachings.

Now let us break this chapter into sections, and I will point out the things that Shaul was really trying to say. 

“Therefore, O man, you are without excuse, everyone who judges, for in which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you who judge practice the same wrongs. And we know that the judgment of Elohim is according to truth against those who practice such wrongs” (Rom 2:1-2). This verse is so wrongly used by millions of people to try and hide or justify their sinful behavior. As soon as someone tries to point out their error(s), the first reaction to this is a very defensive reaction with the phrase, something like this, “don’t judge me, for you will also be judged if you do!”

People only judge when they deviate from the ‘Judgment’ of YHWH. Quoting His Judgment and staying within His Judgment is not being judgmental! Only when one deviates from the Judgment of YHWH, then that person elevates himself above YHWH and will then be judged by YHWH accordingly.

The church has taught us all to be too thin skinned, so that we are incapable of accepting correction for our sinful actions, which is a very dangerous matter, and can lead us into destruction. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the time, when someone points out errors, it is done out of love, in order to help that person become aware of the problem and to fix the problem. Even if the rebuke seems harsh, it is not to be met with a defensive reaction, but rather a personal soul searching on the matter to see if the matter is true. Then we can repent of the error and continue to grow in faith.

“And do you think, O man, you who judge those practicing such wrongs, and doing the same, that you shall escape the judgment of Elohim? Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of Elohim leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of Elohim, who “shall render to each one according to his works”: everlasting life to those who by persistence in good work seek for esteem, and respect, and incorruptibility; but wrath and displeasure to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” (Rom 2:3-8). Here Shaul is speaking to those who are hypocrites, who judge other people while, they themselves, do the same evils. He is also clarifying that a person only judges if he judges outside the judgment of YHWH (as stated above).

Notice how Shaul points out that those who practice the same wrongs by which they judge others are hard and unrepentant and that these people will be met with the wrath of YHWH in the day of wrath.  These people will be judged by Elohim through His Torah (righteous judgment of Elohim) according to their works.

Also notice how clear Shaul is making the distinction between the righteous and the unrepentant sinners. He shows us here that only those who persist in good works (the Torah of YHWH) and seek for esteem and respect and incorruptibility, will inherit everlasting life. And those that do not obey the Torah (truth) but rather obey unrighteousness (anti-Torah) will receive the wrath and displeasure of YHWH.

“affliction and distress on every human being working what is evil, of the Yehuḏite first, and also of the Aramean” (Rom 2:9). Aramean, as apposed to “Greek” or “Gentile” who have no ancestral ties to Israel. Almost all our English translations of the Bible have the word “Greek” instead of “Aramean” here, which is again a twisting of Scripture. Shaul is extremely clear throughout his epistle to make proper distinction between these two, although the point of the message is clear that YHWH is no respecter of persons.  

“but esteem, respect, and peace to everyone working what is good, to the Yehuḏite first and also to the Aramean. For there is no partiality with Elohim” (Rom 2:10-11). Now do not think that a Greek or any other nationality cannot be saved because the verse reads “Aramean” instead of “Greek”, that is not what Shaul is teaching. Shaul is teaching that esteem, respect, and Shalom (peace) to everyone that obeys the Torah of YHWH, whether it be Jews or anyone else as Elohim accepts everyone who submits themselves to Him. If a person submits to YHWH, then he has to follow YHWH’s instruction which is His Torah (instruction in righteousness).

“For as many as sinned without Torah shall also perish without Torah, and as many as sinned in the Torah shall be judged by the Torah. For not the hearers of the Torah are righteous in the sight of Elohim, but the doers of Torah (the law) shall be declared right” (Rom 2:12-13)

So those who sin, not knowing the Torah, will perish without the Torah. In order to gain everlasting life, one needs to have the Torah and subject themselves to it. Also notice how those “under Torah” and those “doers of Torah” are put in opposition to one another; therefore, both cannot simultaneously be in error. This is clarified with the phrase “for the doers of Torah will be made righteous.” So, if Torah-doers are made righteous, it stands to reason Torah itself is NOT passing away! The fact that such deep pro-Torah statements are being sent to Gentiles in Rome speak volumes of how mainstream Christianity is perverting Shaul’s teachings. “Under Torah” means to look to its rituals as a form of magic; a power that needs no purity of intent to bring about blessing, but merely fixed repetition. Torah in itself provides no authority of magic. Rather, Torah has authority because it is YHWH’s instruction to man! So “under Torah” is a false teaching that has never been true according to the Tanakh: YHWH blesses man for Torah observance, which is obedience to His Commandments and obedience to Him. Notice in Matthew 15 how Yehoshua rebukes the Pharisees on this very issue, how they set aside YHWH’s Torah (instructions) in favor of their traditions.

“For when gentiles, who do not have the Torah, by nature do what is in the Torah, although not having the Torah, they are a Torah to themselves, who show the work of the Torah written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or even excusing” (Rom 2:14-15)

Shaul does not suggest that Gentiles are spontaneously Mastering Torah. Even common logic will prove this to be true. The point is that they should learn the written Torah without the distraction from Pharisaic or any other man-made traditions which are not rooted in the plain understanding of the Torah.

“in the day when Elohim shall judge the secrets of men through  יהושע (Yehoshua) Messiah, according to my Good News” (Rom 2:16). Here is a scary thought for many people, that in the end on the return of the Messiah, those that have sinned but have not been “caught out”, will be judged for all the sins that they committed in secret. YHWH knows your thoughts and even the intentions of your thoughts too. "According to my Good News" is that of the Messiah who also lifted up and magnified the Torah of His Father. So everyone will be judged according to the Torah of YHWH.

“See, you are called a Yehuḏite, and rest on the Torah, and make your boast in Elohim, and know the desire of Elohim, and approve what is superior, being instructed out of the Torah, and are trusting that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of foolish ones, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Torah” (Rom 2:17-20). Wow, Shaul makes it VERY clear in this piece that we are all to learn and conduct ourselves according to the Torah! It is very clear through out the entire Scriptures, and stated here again by Shaul, that in order to know the desire of the Almighty, then you must study the Torah. The Torah is a very beautiful Word, however, many false teachers try and claim that it is a curse and that all that subject themselves to it are under a curse.

Is that really what Shaul is teaching? Can that statement or idea be found anywhere in Scripture? Certainly not! The Torah is the Living Word of YHWH, it is the marriage contract between the bride and the bridegroom, it teaches us how to love the Almighty and also to love each other. One can only start reading the Torah and see for themselves that if the world was governed by the Torah (which it will be with the return of the Messiah), then there would not be any hunger or poverty or theft or murders or unrighteousness in any way.

“You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who proclaim that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abominate idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the Torah, through the transgression of the Torah do you disrespect Elohim? For “The Name of Elohim is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you,” as it has been written” (Rom 2:21-24)

Now here Shaul is once again addressing the hypocrites, or is at least warning the readers to not be hypocrites. He shows us that if we claim to be followers of the Almighty and we have any influence on other people, even if it is by being observed by how we live our lives, then we are to live our lives totally according to the Torah of YHWH. If we do not do this, then we are guilty of blaspheming the Name of Elohim.

What Shaul is also saying here is one of the most important keys to deciphering all his letters (which is the majority of the Renewed Covenant). He is saying here that one has to practice what you preach. Now that is a very important statement! Let me explain why, it is taught by all of Christianity that Shaul taught that it is not any more necessary to follow the Torah, because of the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This false doctrine is never supported anywhere in Scripture nor anywhere in Shaul’s letters.

You see, if Shaul taught that we are to practice what we preach, then he himself would also have to practice what he taught, or else he would also be a hypocrite! So if it was not necessary to follow the Torah anymore, then why did Shaul subject himself to following the Torah till the day he died? He did not deviate one bit from the Torah, in fact, he went out of his way to keep the Torah even when he was in captivity.

“For circumcision indeed profits if you practice the Torah, but if you are a transgressor of the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if an uncircumcised one watches over the righteousness of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision? And the uncircumcised by nature, who perfects the Torah, shall judge you who notwithstanding letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the Torah! For he is not a Yehuḏite who is so outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But a Yehuḏite is he who is so inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in Spirit, not literally, whose praise is not from men but from Elohim” (Rom 2:25-29)

Once again, here is a small piece of Shaul’s letter that is grossly mistranslated and many false doctrines are based on these few verses. The false teachers use this piece to teach that it is not necessary to be circumcised in the flesh. This of course is a totally false teaching.

Once again, we need a key to understanding what Shaul really meant here. Why do we need a key? Because Shaul wrote with a Hebrew mindset as he himself was a Hebrew and used Hebrew idioms. We, who are English speaking, are not Hebrews and do not read the Scriptures with a Hebrew mindset. In order to understand these Hebrew idioms we have to actually learn them and that is what the key is and not some magic formula that was “revealed in a divine way” to a single person, like many false teachers claim when they try and teach a new false doctrine to the people.

Now the key to this section is that of the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Shaul is not necessarily classifying the physical circumcision here, but is rather speaking of two different groups of people. Whenever he talks of the circumcision, he is referring to the Hebrews or Jews as that is how they were known, and the uncircumcision are the Gentiles or those that are not native to Israel.

Now with this point clear, you can read the section in the correct context. Those who are of the ‘circumcision’ who transgress the Torah, will become ‘uncircumcision’. If you do not use the key in this instance, you can try and imagine what people might believe, that those who are circumcised must be uncircumcised…. ? Who is going to have their foreskin sewn back on? OUCH!

No, what is being taught is that the Jews who transgress the Torah, will be cut off from YHWH’s people as stated in Romans 11.

Also, because a person could be physically circumcised and be a thief, liar, murderer, etc.

On the flip side, those who are of the uncircumcision (Gentiles), who keep the Torah of YHWH, will be reckoned as the circumcision (grafted into the good olive tree) again explained in Romans 11. You see, the true faith of YHWH and His Son the Messiah is to love Him and to watch over the righteousness of the Torah and to become righteous by doing the Torah of YHWH.

So are we to be circumcised in the flesh too? Well…. What does the Torah (the Living Word of YHWH) teach us on this subject? I am sure you can look it up for yourself!

So if you read Shaul’s letters in the correct context, it makes so much more sense and dismisses all the false teachings that stem from them. Shaul NEVER taught that it was not necessary to keep the Torah, but rather that it was absolutely necessary to keep the Torah of YHWH in order to inherit everlasting life.

Paul not fluent in Greek

“And as Sha’ul was about to be led into the barracks, he said to the commander, “Am I allowed to say somewhat to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek?” (Act 21:37)

Mainstream Christianity twist this verse to make Shaul (Paul) appear as a great Greek orator. The Chief Captain, they say, was very surprised that Shaul could speak Greek with such precision. There are many problems with this, one being that Paul had already become a well-known personality. The reality was that in Paul’s day, a common saying among the Pharisees (Orthodox) was that it is better to feed swine to your children than allow them to learn the Greek language!

Observant Jews were and still are vigilant against becoming Hellenized. Paul was speaking in Hebrew, but being asked to speak Greek, there is no evidence to suggest that he was fluent in Greek. It is not likely that Paul was as proficient in Greek as Yoseph ben Mattityahu (Yosephus) who wrote, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language (Hebrew), that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations”

A prohibition in Exodus 23:13 “Make no mention of the name of other mighty ones, neither let it be heard out of your mouth” is also a deterrent for Observant Jews to embrace Greek polytheistic language or culture. The Greek language esteems Pagan deities for days and months, etc. Romans as Greek speaking “occupiers” enslaved Israel, opposed monotheistic Torah principles and made war against Jews. Paul’s background as a zealous Pharisee demanded that he not invest his time learning the Greek culture and language.

So as we can see, although Paul had Greek citizenship, he was not Greek. He was Jewish by blood and a learned Pharisee until his conversion. Paul was not a scholar of Greek and could not have written his letters in Greek either. This is contrary to what the Christian Church teaches. Evidence clearly is pointing to a Hebrew Renewed Covenant.

Why “Christ” and not “Messiah”?

Similar to the foregoing component of Sun-worship which had been adopted into the Church, we have yet another proof of the adoption of a pagan word or name, although less convincing of its absolute solar origin. However, we can clearly see that, with the Greeks using both the Greek words Messias (a transliteration) and Christos (a translation) for the Hebrew Mashiach (Anointed), the word Christos was far more acceptable to the pagans who were worshipping Chreston, Chrestos, and perhaps also those worshipping Krista. But we will come to that later.

The Hebrew word Mashiach has been translated in the Old Testament of the King James Version as “Anointed” in most places, but as “Messiah” in two places, namely Dan 9:25 and 26. This word is a title, although it was used as an appellative (name) later on. Thus, this word was faithfully translated as “Anointed” in the Old Testament and only in Dan 9:25 and 26 was its Hebrew character retained in the transliterated “Messiah.”

Likewise, we find that the Greeks also admitted their transliterated form Messias in the Greek New Testament in John 1:41 and John 4:25. Why then did they introduce or use the Greek word Christos in the rest of the Greek New Testament? Even if they had preferred Christos to Messias, why did our translators transliterate the word as “Christ”? Why did they not transliterate the word , as was done in Dan 9:25 and 26, as “Messiah,” seeing that the Greeks had also accepted their transliteration of the word, namely Messias in John 1:41 and John 4:25?

Ferrar Fenton’s translation, The Complete Bible in Modern English, uses “Messiah” instead of “Christ” in most places where the word is used alone, except when used as the combination “Jesus Christ.” In a similar way the New English Bible has used “Messiah” in its New Testament in many places. The Good News Bible has restored the word “Messiah” in no less than 70 places in its New Testament. The New International Version gives the alternative “Messiah” in almost all places, by means of a footnote. Dr Bullinger in The Companion Bible, appendix 98 IX, says, “Hense, the Noun [Christos] is used of and for the Messiah, and in the Gospels should always be translated ‘Messiah’.” Also, Benjamin Wilson in his Emphatic Diaglott has restored the words “Anointed” and “Messiah” in many places.

Our Saviour Himself said in John 4:22, “For salvation is from the Jews” (NASB). Not only was our Messiah born from a Hebrew maiden, but also all of His Saving Message, the teachings, “the root and fatness” (Romans 11:17), the Glad Tidings, “spiritual things” (Romans 15:27), “the citizenship of Israel” (Ephesians  2:12), “covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12), “the spiritual blessings” (Romans 15:27, NIV and TEV) – are all from the Jews! The Good News Bible, in its rendering of Romans 9:4-5 added the word “True” to the word “Worship” to make it clearer. Speaking of literal Israel, it reads, “They are Elohim’s people; He made them His sons and revealed His esteem to them; He made His covenants with them and gave them the Law; they have the True Worship; they have received Elohim’s promises; they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Messiah, as a human Being, belongs to the race.” Read this passage in the NIV and NEB too.

These New Testament texts irrefutably prove the Jewishness of the Messianic Belief and the Jewishness of our Messiah. That well-known scholar of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, Prof Julius Wellhausen, who in all his works expressed his hatred towards Pharisaical Judaism, nevertheless wrote the following bold words, “Jesus… was a Jew. He proclaimed no new faith, but He taught that the Will of God must be done. The Will of God stands for Him, as for the Jews, in the Law, and in the other holy Scriptures that are classed with it.”

Our Saviour could not have been known as Christos among His people. His title was known as Mashiach in Hebrew, and Mesiha in Aramaic – to those who accepted Him as such (Matthew 16:16, John 6:69 etc). This title is easily transliterated as “Messiah,” and is generally accepted, and has been accepted, just like the Greek Messias. Why then have they not persisted with it? Even if they wanted to translate it, why have they not translated it as “Anointed,” as was done in the English translation of the King James Version’s Old Testament?

Our research into this matter has produced some revealing similarities between Christos and certain pagan names and titles. F.D. Gearly, writing in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol 1,pp 571-572, says, “the word Christos… was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning ‘good’.” He also quotes a French theological dictionary which says, “It is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries of our era.” He continues, “in Greek, ‘e’ and ‘i’ were similarly pronounced and often confused, the original spelling of the word could be determined only if we could fix its provenance [origin]… The problem is further complicated by the fact that the word Christianos is a Latinism… and was contributed neither by Jews nor by the Christians themselves.” He quotes various scholars to support his proposition that the word Christianos was introduced from one of three origins: (a) The Roman police (b) The Roman populace (c) Unspecified pagan providence [origin].

Gearly then proceeds, “The three occurrences of ‘Christian’ in the NT suggests that the term was at this time primarily used as a pagan designation. Its infrequent use in the NT indicates not so much lateness of origin as pagan provenance [origin].”

This almost sensational admission as to the confusion and uncertainty between Christos and Chrestos, Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, as well as by the Early Fathers: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius and others.

This confusion and uncertainty can only encourage and exhort us to return to the only Source of Truth, the Word, the Scriptures, before it was translated into the languages of the pagans. Only then can we find peace in the truth of our Saviour being the Messiah, the Anointed, the One promised to Israel.

Who was this Chrestos or Chreston with which Christos became confused with?

we have already seen that Chrestos was a common Greek proper name, meaning “good.” Further, we see in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopaedie, under “Chrestos,” that the inscription Chrestos is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican. We also read in J.M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology, pg 331, that Osiris, the Sun-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. We also read of the heretic Gnostics who used the name Chreistos.

The confusion, and syncretism, is further evidenced by the oldest Christian building known, the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mt. Hermon, built in the 3^rd century, where the Messiah’s title or appellation is spelt Chrestos. Justin Martyr (about 150 C.E.) said that Christians were Chrestoi or “good.” Tertullian and Lactantius inform us that “the common people usually called Christ Chrestos.” Clement of Alexandria, in the same age, said, “all who believe in Christ are called Chrestoi, that is ‘good men.’”

The word Christos could even have been more acceptable to the Krishna-worshippers, because the name of Krishna was pronounced, and still is to the present day, as Krista, in many parts of India. Thus, we can readily see that the word Christos was easier to convert the pagans with, than with the word “Messiah,” especially because of the anti-Judaism that prevailed among the pagans.

The syncretism between Christos and Chrestos (the Sun-deity Osiris), is further elucidated by the fact of Emperor Hadrian’s report, who wrote, “There are there (in Egypt) Christians who worship Serapis; and devoted to Serapis, are those who call themselves ‘Bishops of Christ’.” Serapis was another Sun-deity who superseded Osiris in Alexandria.

Once again, we must not falter nor stumble over this confusion among the Gentiles. Rather, we must seek the truth, primarily from the faithfully preserved Old Testament Scriptures – see 2 Tim 3:16, John 17:17, Psalm 119:105, Isaiah 40:8. We must worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth, as well as His Son, Yehoshua the Messiah, who is sitting at His right hand. We do accept the entire message of the New Testament, but we truly desire to return to the original Messianic Scriptures, as far back as we possibly can.

As previously mentioned, the Greeks changed Ěliyahu (Elijah) into Helias in the Greek New Testament, and the Helios-worshipers must have been overjoyed because of their Sun-deity being assimilated to the Ěliyahu (Elijah) of the Scriptures. To avoid the confusion between Helias and Helios, we should abide by the Hebrew “Ěliyahu (Elijah).” Likewise, to avoid confusion between Christos and Chrestos, we should abide by the word Messiah, or Anointed – remembering that Osiris the Sun-deity, amongst others, was called Chrestos. Mithras too, was possibly called Chrestos (see above).

Word Survey: Jesus

There is not a single authoritative reference source which gives the name Jesus or Iesous as the original name of our Saviour! All of them admit that the original form of the Name was Jehoshua or Yehoshua. Why then, was it changed from Yehoshua to Jesus?

Many Hebrew names of the Old Testament prophets have been “Hellenized” when these names were rewritten in the Greek New Testament. Thus, Yesha'Yahu (Isaiah) became Isaias, Elisha became Elissaios or Elisseus (Eliseus), and Ěliyahu (Elijah) became Helias in the Greek New Testament. The King James Version has retained some of these Hellenized names. Since the King James Version was published, the newer English versions have ignored these Hellenized names of the Greek New Testament, and have preferred, quite correctly, to render them as they are found in the Hebrew Old Testament, namely: Yesha'Yahu (Isaiah), Elisha and Ěliyahu (Elijah).

Incidentally, the similarity between the Hellenized Helias (instead of Ěliyahu) and the Greek Sun-deity Helios, gave rise to the well-known assimilation of these two by the Church. Dr. A.B. Cook, in his book, Zeus -- A Study in Ancient Religion, Vol. I, pp. 178-179, elaborates on this, quoting the comments of a 5^th century Christian poet and others, on this. Imagine it, Ěliyahu identified with Helios, the Greek Sun-deity!

Returning to our discussion on the reluctance of the translators to persist with all of the Hellenized name in the Greek of the New Testament, one could very well ask: but why did they persist with the Hellenized Iesous of our Saviour’s Name, and its further Latinized form Iesus? It is accepted by all, that our Saviour’s Hebrew Name was Yehoshua. So why did the translators of the Scriptures not retain or restore it, as they did with the names of the Hebrew prophets?

It is generally agreed that our Saviour’s Name is identical (or very similar) to that of the successor to Moses, Joshua. But “Joshua” was not the name of the man who led Israel into the Promised Land. The Greeks substituted the Old Testament “Yehoshua” with Iesous, the same word they used for our Saviour in the New Testament. Subsequently the Latins came and substituted it with Josue (Iosue) in the Old Testament (which became Josua in German and Joshua in English), but used Iesus in the New Testament.

In the Hebrew Scriptures we do not find the word “Joshua.” In every place it is written: Yehoshua. However, after the Babylonian captivity we find the shortened form “Yeshua” in a few places – shortened, because they then omitted the second and third letters, namely: WH. Everyone who sees the names Yehoshua and Iesous will agree there is no resemblance between the names Yehoshua and Iesous or Jesus.

Before we continue with our study of the words Iesous and Iesus, we would like to point out that we have been led to believe that our Saviour’s correct Name is: Yehoshua (It is actually Yahu-shua, but in a conjunction word, the suffix (begining) always shortens its syllables, thus we get “Yehoshua) . Our Saviour said in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name.” Again, in John 17:11 He prayed to His Father, “Keep them through Your Name which You have given Me” – according to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the United Bible Societies’ Third Edition, and the Majority Text. Therefore, in John 17:11 our Saviour states That His Father’s Name had been given to him. Again he repeats this irrefutable fact in the next verse, John 17:12, “in your Name which You gave Me. And I guarded them (or it).” Read John 17:11-12 in any of the modern English versions.

So, we have our Saviour’s clear words, in three texts, that His Father’s Name was given to Him. Paul also testified to this in Eph 3:14-15 as well as in Phil 2:9. What then is His Father’s Name? Although most scholars accept YHWH as being “Yahweh,” and many still cling to the older form “Yehowah” (or Jehovah) (Yehowah means: Yah is my calamity or my destruction), we are convinced that the correct form is Yahueh (which is 100% provable)

Two factors contributed greatly to the substitution and distortion of our Saviour’s Name. The first was the un-Scriptural superstitious teaching of the Jews that the Father’s Name is not to be uttered, that it is ineffable, that others will profane it when they use it, and that the Name must be “disguised” outside of the temple of Jerusalem.

Because of the Father’s Name being in His Son’s Name, this same disastrous suppression of the Name resulted in them (? The Greeks) giving a Hellenized, in fact a surrogate name for our Saviour. He did warn us in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name… if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”

The second factor was the strong anti-Judaism that prevailed amongst the Gentiles, as we have already pointed out. The Gentiles wanted a saviour, but not a Jewish one. They loathed the Jews, they even loathed the Elohim of the Old Testament. Thus, a Hellenized saviour was preferred. The Hellenized theological school at Alexandria, led by the syncretizing, allegorizing, philosophying, Gnostic-indoctrinated Clement and Origen, was the place where everything started to become distorted and adapted to suit the Gentiles. The Messianic Belief, and its Saviour, had to become Hellenized to be acceptable to the Gentiles.

Where did Iesous and Iesus come from? In Bux and Schöne, Wörterbuch der Antike, under “Jesus,” we read, “JESUS: really named Jehoshua. Iesous (Greek), Iesus (Latin) is adapted from the Greek, possibly from the name of a Greek healing goddess Ieso (Iaso).”

Like all authoritative sources, this dictionary admits to the real true Name of our Saviour: Jehoshua (or as we believe: Yehoshua). It then states, as most others, that the commonly known substitute, non-original, non-real name “Jesus” was adapted from the Greek. We must remember that our Saviour was born from a Hebrew maiden, not from a Greek one. His stepfather, His half-brothers and half-sisters, in fact all His people, were Hebrews (Jews). Furthermore, this dictionary then traces the substitute name back to the Latin Iesus, and the Greek Iesous. It then traces the origin of the name Iesous back as being possibly adapted from the Greek healing goddess Ieso (Iaso).

To the uninformed I would like to point out that Iaso is the usual Greek form, while Ieso is from the Ionic dialect of the Greeks.

This startling discovery of the connection between Ieso (Iaso) and Iesous, is also revealed to us by the highly respected and authoritative unabridged edition of Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, p.816. under “Iaso.”

The third witness comes to us in a scholarly article by Hans Lamer in Philologische Wochenschrift, No. 25, 21 June 1930, pp. 763-765. In this article the author recalls the fact of Ieso being the Ionic Greek goddess of healing. Hans Lamer then postulates, because of all the evidence, that “next to Ieso man shaped a proper masculine Iesous. This was even more welcome to the Greeks who converted to Christianity.” He then continues, “If the above is true, then the name of our Lord which we commonly use goes back to a long lost form of the name of a Greek goddess of healing. But to Greeks who venerated a healing goddess Ieso, a saviour Iesous must have been most acceptable. The Hellenization was thus rather clever.”

This then is the evidence of three sources who, like us, do not hide the fact of the Greek name Iesous being related to Ieso, the Greek goddess of healing. The Hellenization of our Saviour’s Name was indeed most cleverly done. To repeat our Saviour’s words of warning in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name, and you do not receive Me, if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”

There is no resemblance or identifiability between our Saviour’s Name, Yehoshua, and the Greek substitute for it, Iesous. The Father’s Name, Yah- or Yahu-, cannot be seen in the Greek Iesous or in the Latin Iesus, neither in the English or German Jesus.

In spite of attempts made to justify the “translating” of the Father’s Name and His Son’s Name, the fact remains: A personal name cannot be translated! It is simply not done. The name of every single person on this earth remains the same in all languages. Nobody would make a fool of himself by calling Giuseppe Verdi by another name, Joseph Green, even though Giuseppe means Joseph and Verdi means Green. Satan’s name is the same in all languages. He has seen to it that his name has been left unmolested!

However, let us further investigate the names Ieso (Iaso) and Iesous. According to ancient Greek religion, Apollo, their great Sun-deity, had a son by the name of Asclepius, the deity of healing, but also identified with the Sun. This Asclepius had daughters, and one of them was Ieso (Iaso), the Greek goddess of healing. Because of her father’s and grandfather’s identities as Sun-deities, she too is in the same family of Sun-deities. Therefore, the name Iesous, which is derived from Ieso, can be traced back to Sun-worship.

We find other related names, all of them variants of the same name, Iasus, Iasion, Iasius, in ancient Greek religion, as being sons of Zeus. Even in India we find a similar name Issa or Issi, as surnames for their deity Shiva. Quite a few scholars have remarked on the similarity between the names of the Indian Issa or Issi, the Egyptian Isis and the Greek Iaso.

In our research on the deity Isis we made two startling discoveries. The one was that the son of Isis was called Isu by some. However, the second discovery yielded even further light: the learned scholar of Egyptian religion, Hans Bonnet, reveals to us in his Reallexikon der agyptischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 326, that the name of Isis appears in the hieroglyphic inscriptions as ESU or ES. No wonder it has been remarked, “Between Isis and Jesus as names confusion could arise. This Isis also had a child, which was called Isu by some. This Isu or Esu sound exactly like the “Jesu” that we find the Saviour called in the translated Scriptures of many languages, eg. many African languages.

Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, p. 164, also remarked on the similarity of Jesus and Isis, “IHS – Iesus Hominum Salvator – But let a Roman worshipper of Isis (for in the age of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them, of course according to his own well-known system of idolatry: Isis, Horus, Seb.” He then continues with a similar example of “skilful planning” by “the very same spirit, that converted the festival of the Pagan Oannes into the feast of the Christian Johannes.” (The Hebrew name of the baptizer, and that of the apostle as well, was Yochanan or Yehochanan).

Thus, by supplanting the Name of our Saviour Yehoshua with that of the Hellenized Iesous (IHSOUS), which became the Latinized Iesus, it was easy to make the pagans feel welcome – those pagans who worshipped the Greek Ieso (Iaso), of which the masculine counterpart is Iesous (in capitals: IHSOUS), as well as those who worshipped the Egyptian Esu (Isis).

Further evidence of syncretism with the Isis-system is found in A Kircher, Oedipus Aegypticus, wherein the name of the son of Isis is revealed to us as “Iessus, which signifies Issa, whom they also call Christ in Greek.”

Another pagan group of worshippers could also be made to feel at home with the introduction of this surrogate name Iesous (IHSOUS) or Iesus, namely the worshippers of Esus. Jan de Vries holds that Esus was a Gallic deity comparable to the Scandinavian Odin. Odin, of course, was the Scandinavian Sky-deity. This Gallic or Celtic deity, Esus, has also been identified with Mars, and by others with Mercury, and was regarded to be the special deity of Paris.

Just as Iaso, Ieso, Iesous are derived from the Greek word for healing, iasis, we similarly find Isis (more correctly; Esu) and her son Horus (more correctly; Her), regarded as deities of healing as well as cosmic deities, or Sun-deities, by others.

The most disturbing evidence is yet to follow. The abbreviated form of the name Iesous is: Ies or in capitals: IHS, for in Greek the capital for “e” is “H.” This is to be found on many inscriptions made by the Church during the Dark Middle Ages. This fact is also well documented and is generally admitted by scholarly sources and ordinary English dictionaries. These dictionaries bear witness to the fact of IHS (Ies) being an abbreviated form of IHSOUS (Iesous).

Furthermore, the shocking fact has also been recorded for us that IHS was a mystery surname of Bacchus, and was afterwards taken as initials for Iesous, capitals: IHSOUS. We discovered this in a dictionary of mythology and in an encyclopedia of religion.

This revelation was confirmed by a third witness, Dr. E.W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, footnote p. 396, “Whatever meanings of… IHS may be given, the fact remains that it was part of the name of Bacchus…” We then realized most painfully, that our beloved Messiah was identified with the Greek deity Bacchus, by giving our Saviour the surname or other name of Bacchus, namely: IHS or Ies! Bacchus was well known to be a Sun-deity. Bacchus was also a commonly known name for Tammuz among classical writers. Tammuz, as you will remember, was known to be the young returning Sun-deity, returning in spring. Bacchus, also known as Dionysus, was expressly identified with the Egyptian Osiris, the well known Egyptian Sun-deity. Bacchus was also called Ichthus, the Fish.

So, yet another group, the worshippers of Bacchus, the Sun-deity, alias Ies (IHS), were conciliated, were made welcome, with the foreign-to-the-Hebrew name of Iesous (IHSOUS) or Iesus. The most appalling revelation startled us, indeed. After being enlightened about the solar origin of the word IHS and its fuller form IHSOUS (Iesous), we are no longer surprised to find the ecclesiastical emblem, IHS, encircled by sunrays, commonly displayed on church windows:

No wonder that we read the testimony of the learned Christian advocate, M. Turretin, in describing the state of Christianity in the 4^th century, saying “that it was not so much the [Roman] Empire that was brought over to the Faith, as the Faith that was brought over to the Empire; not the Pagans who were converted to Christianity, but Christianity that was converted to Paganism.”

A further witness to this paganization of the Messianic Belief is that of Emperor Hadrian, who, in a letter to the Consul Serianus, wrote, “There are there (in Egypt) Christians who worship Serapis; and devote to Serapis are those who call themselves ‘Bishops of Christ.’”

Another testimony comes to us from the letter of Faustus, writing to Augustine, “You have substituted your love-feasts for the sacrifice of the Pagans; for their idols your martyrs, whom you serve with the very same honours. You appease the shades of the dead with wine and feasts; you celebrate the solemn festivals of the Gentiles, their calends, and their solctices; and as to their manners, those you have retained without any alteration. Nothing distinguishes you from the Pagans, except that you hold your assemblies apart from them.

Our Saviour Yehoshua, in His final message to us, the book of Revelation, has warned us of this in Rev 17, Rev 18, Rev 19, and also in Rev 13, Rev 14, and Rev 16 – Babylon, Mystery Babylon. The Great Harlot has made “the inhabitants of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication,” out of the “golden cup” in her hand, “full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication” (Rev 17:1-5). She is also described as “sitting on a scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy” (verse 3).

Tammuz, alias Bacchus, has a surname: Ies or IHS. He was also known as the Fish (Ichthus), and had the Tau, the cross, as his sign. These three (Ies, the Fish, and the cross) have survived, and are still with us!

In Acts 4:12 we read, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse clearly tells us that there is only one Name whereby we can be saved – there is none other. It cannot be Yehoshua as well as Jesus, Iesous, Iesus, or Ies (Bacchus). There is no resemblance between the names Yehoshua and Jesus. The one is correct and the other one a substitute. The one contains our Father’s Name and the other one not. Yehoshua has said that He came in His Father’s Name (John 5:43). In the newer translations of the Scriptures, we read in two places (John 17:11 and 12), that Yehoshua said that His Father’s Name was given to Him. If we believe the Scriptures, if we believe our Messiah, if we believe what is written in Acts 4:12, we cannot be satisfied with any substitute name. We must believe, accept, and be baptized into the only saving Name: Yehoshua.

In the end-time, according to Joel 2:32, calling on the Name of Yahueh will be necessary for salvation and deliverance. By believing in, calling on, and being baptized in the Name of Yehoshua, we do “call on the Name of Yahueh,” through His Son, who had His Father’s Name given to Him, by His Father. “I have come in My Father’s Name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43).

The writer of Proverbs challenges us in Prov 30:4, “What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name, if thou canst tell?” KJV. A very interesting alternate rendering for Psalm 72:17 is given to us in the centre column of the Reference King James Version, speaking about the promised Messiah. “His Name shall be as a Son to continue His Father’s Name for ever.”

As I have stated, there is no resemblance between the Name Yehoshua abd the name Jesus. Neither is there any resemblance between their meanings. Yehoshua means: “the Salvation of Yah or Yahu.” “Jesus” is derived from Iesus, derived from Iesous (IHSOUS), obviously derived from the Greek goddess of healing, Ieso or Iaso. Her name was derived from iasis, which means “healing.” Further, the short form, or original source of the name Iesous (IHSOUS) is Ies (IHS), the very surname of Bacchus, the Sun-deity.

Therefore, the two names differ completely in their origin, and in their meaning. And more important: Our Saviour’s Name contains the Name of His Father, which the substitute name does not. Further proof of the Father’s Name being in the Son’s Name is found in Eph 3:14-15, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father… from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” Surely, if His family receives His Name, His only begotten Son will also have His Name.

Another proof is Rev 14:1, which in the Textus Receptus based translations read somewhat differently to what is found in the newer versions. Rev 14:1-5, in Green’s Interlinear Translation reads, “And I saw, and behold, a Lamb standing on the Mount Zion! And with Him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having the Name of His Father written upon their foreheads… These are those who were not defiled… These are those following the Lamb wherever He may go. These were redeemed… first-fruit to Elohim… And no guile was found in their mouth, for they are without blemish before the throne of Elohim.”

The Nestle-Aland test reads, “having His Name and the Name of His Father written on their foreheads.” Do we wish to be part of this first-fruit company? Then we are to make quite certain that we have the Father’s Name and the Lamb’s Name on (or in) our foreheads. The similarity between their Names is obvious. Whether it will be just one Name, Yah, or whether it will be both Yahueh and Yehoshua, is not clearly indicated, and is less important – as long as we have the essential part of the Name, Yah, which transmits its etymological concept of life, ever-lasting life. Verses 4-5 warn us against defilement – spiritual defilement – the lies that we have inherited, including the lies about the Names, “O Yahueh,… the Gentiles shall come to you from the ends of the earth and say, ‘Surely our fathers have inherited lies…’ Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know…; and they shall know My Name is Yahueh” (Jer 16 19-21), a prophecy for the end-time.

“Therefore My people shall know My Name” (Isa 52:6). “I will bring the one-third through the fire, will refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My Name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; and each one will say, ‘Yahueh is my Mighty One’” (Zech 13:9). “For then will I restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the Name of Yahueh, to serve Him with one accord” (Zeph 3:9). “And Yahueh shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be – ‘Yahueh is one,’ and His Name one” (Zech 14:9). He will no longer be called by all those hundreds of names, by which He is known today. His Name will be “one.” And His Son, in whose Name the Father’s Name is contained, will subject Himself to His Father in that day (1 Cor 15:28).

(This is an excerpt from the book "Come out of her my people" by Dr. Chris Koster)