Why the Confusion?&#33;

http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_27.htm

Participant

Even Muslims have a better understanding of how Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth than most Christians.

Before Abraham was, I am
John 8:58 is one of the most misused verses of the Bible. Because Jesus in that verse says “Before Abraham was, I am,” two implications, one unnecessary, and the other false, are drawn from that verse. The unnecessary implication is that since Jesus existed before Abraham that means he existed always. This is a preconceived notion that people force into the text. “Before Abraham” does not mean “always”. Melchezidek in the Bible is shown to have existed before Abraham (Hebrews 7:3). Does that mean that Melchezidek is God? Obviously, we cannot take a created being as God.
The false implication is that Jesus by saying “I am” was uttering God’s name which God declared to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15.
The Bible is confusing on this point because it gives three versions of God’s calling Moses, and the three versions do not agree with each other. The best that can be said is that the name of God announced there is Yahweh. Compare the three versions below:

1. The Yahwist version (Exod 6:28 – 7:7) says nothing about the name of God being revealed because for the Yahwist editors the name Yahweh was already known among the Israelites. They say that this name was being used since the time of Enosh, the grandson of Adam (Genesis 4:26).

2. The priestly version (Exod 6:2-13) contradicts this by saying that this name was not known before (Exod 6:2). God’s command to Moses here is

So say to the Israelites, “I am Yahweh . . .” (Exod 6:6),

and Moses repeated this to them (6:9).

3. But in the Elohist version (Exod 3:13-22) God’s instruction to Moses is different:

This is what you are to say to the Israelites. “I am has sent me to you” (Exod 3:15).

It would appear from this that God’s name is “I am,” but it is clear upon careful study that in this passage the Elohist scribes substituted “I am” for “Yahweh” in the same instruction given in (Exod 6:6).
Even if God really did announce his name to be “I am” as in Exodus, chapter 3, verse 15, this still does not prove that Jesus applied the name “I am” to himself. Jesus never said his name is “I am”. He is quoted as saying “Before Abraham was I am” (John 8:58). If “I am” is Jesus’ name, then we should be able to replace the “I am” in this passage with “Jesus,” since these are both names of Jesus. The passage would then read as follows: “Before Abraham was, Jesus.” This, of course, makes no sense because the idea that Jesus called himself “I am” is not there in the text, but it is someone’s own interpretation forced into the text. Notice that we would have no difficulty replacing the “I am” in Exodus 3:15 with either “God” or “Yahweh”, as follows:

This is what you are to say to the Israelites. “God has sent me to you” (Exod 3:15).
This is what you are to say to the Israelites. “Yahweh has sent me to you” (Exod 3:15).

Another point worth paying attention to is this: the writer of the fourth gospel never believed Jesus to be God. This proves that Jesus never said he is God. Otherwise, how could it be possible that the author of the fourth gospel never knew it? He believed that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus is the Christ and messenger of God (see John 17:3).
Furthermore, a distinction which is present in the Greek version of the Bible is lost from the English versions. In the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, the phrase translated “I am” is “ho on” in the Greek. If the author of the fourth Gospel wanted to show his readers that Jesus repeated the phrase, he would no doubt have quoted Jesus as saying, “Before Abraham was, ho on.” But he did not. Instead, he quoted Jesus as saying, “Before Abraham was, ego eimi.” Readers of his Greek manuscript, then, would have seen that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 is different from God’s statement in Exodus 3:15. And this, of course, is what the author of the fourth Gospel intended.
Furthermore, the Syriac Peshitta version of the Bible, one of the old versions of the Bible, reads in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I was.” Was this changed from what the author wrote? How can we know? Suppose this was the original phrase, then those who rest their case on the common rendering will be disappointed on the Day of Judgement. Why not rest our case on a much more plain verse of the Bible — one in which Jesus clearly differentiates between himself and God? Take this one for example, where Jesus says to his enemies:

You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:31).

Who is Jesus then? A man who told the truth which he heard from God. In other words, he was a messenger of God. When a clear statement like this is issued from the lips of Jesus, why wrangle with the passages that are not so clear, and try to twist them to mean the opposite of what Jesus has been saying in other clear verses all along?
Anyone who wishes to convince himself/herself that Jesus is God should look for clear evidence in the Bible to show that Jesus is God. But the clear evidence is to the contrary. The Bible teaches again and again that Jesus is not God, but a Servant of God (e.g. Matthew 12:18).
In the very next chapter of John, chapter 9, v.35, Jesus declares that he is the son of man (RSV). And anyone who knows the Bible as the Israelites to whom Jesus spoke will know that a son of man cannot be God. The Bible declares that God is neither a man nor a son of man (Numbers 23:19).

How can he be called clean that is born of a woman? Behold even the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? (Job 25:4-6)

August 22, 2006 at 7:17 pm#25276

Participant

Hi Frank,
Thank you.
The Father is God and Jesus is not that God but the Son of that God.
Just because he was before Abraham does not state he had no origins.

But the monogenes Son is also the Word,
who was with God in the beginning
and who emptied himself and came as a man.

August 22, 2006 at 8:23 pm#25287

Participant

I do not believe Yahshua is the word of Yahweh but the spokesman of Father Yahweh's word (Hebrews 1:1-2; also cf. Yahchanan [John] 3:34). Yahchanan 1: 1 does not say the word was Yahshua, but Yahweh. 1:1 which has been traditionally translated as “God”. He did exist in Yahweh's glorious PLAN from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:5,9-11; John 17:24 RSV).

August 22, 2006 at 8:34 pm#25288

Participant

Scriptures tell us Yahshua was flesh as we are flesh (2 Jn. 7). He had the
same origin as his brethern (Heb 2:12 RSV). He really and truely died – ceased to live (Heb. 2:14; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:20).

This is powerful evidence that Yahshua did not pre-exist; that he did not live in a former life.” To accept the pre-existence of Yahshua is to accept reincarnation; a superstition of the heathen which is unacceptable to our heavenly Father.

I do not believe Yahshua is the word {PLAN} of Yahweh but the spokesman of Father Yahweh's word {PLAN} in this last time period (Hebrews 1:1-2; also cf. Yahchanan [John] 3:34). Yahchanan 1:1 does not say the word was Yahshua, but that it was Yahweh which has been traditionally translated as “God”. He did exist in Yahweh's glorious PLAN from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:5,9-11; Yahchanan [John] 17:24 RSV).

August 22, 2006 at 8:43 pm#25289

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 22 2006,21:23)

Hi Frank,
Then who was the Word that was with God in the beginning?

August 22, 2006 at 8:50 pm#25290

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 22 2006,21:34)

Scriptures tell us Yahshua was flesh as we are flesh (2 Jn. 7). He had the
same origin as his brethern (Heb 2:12 RSV). He really and truely died – ceased to live (Heb. 2:14; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:20).

Hi Frank,
REincarnation is the REtaking of flesh after fleshly life has ceased.
The soul of Jesus did not live in one human body and then move to another. But he was with God as a spirit being in the beginning and then emptied himself partook of flesh.

Demons indeed move from man to man throughout history as Jesus spoke about, and it is such things that have led to natural men thinking about reincarnation, believing the lying spirits who have lived in many men.

August 22, 2006 at 10:54 pm#25309

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 23 2006,14:08)

Even Muslims have a better understanding of how Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth than most Christians.

Even Muslims deny that he was the son, the rock that the Church sits on.

So of course they deny that, as they consider him as one of the prophets and we know that they didn't pre-exist.

August 23, 2006 at 8:18 pm#25377

Participant

Nowhere in Scripture is it explained, taught, nor does it say … “he (Yahshua) with God (Yahweh) as a spirit being in the beginning and then emptied himself partook of flesh.”

August 23, 2006 at 8:20 pm#25378

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 22 2006,23:54)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 23 2006,14:08)

Even Muslims have a better understanding of how Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth than most Christians.

Even Muslims deny that he was the son, the rock that the Church sits on.

So of course they deny that, as they consider him as one of the prophets and we know that they didn't pre-exist.

I did not say that Muslims taught all truth of Yahweh's word. If they did I would become a Muslim. Read what I posted again.

August 23, 2006 at 8:27 pm#25379

Participant

Quote

REincarnation is the REtaking of flesh after fleshly life has ceased.

There are diverse definitions of what reincarnation is. You have given only one definition.

reincarnation

Also cf. incarnate

August 23, 2006 at 8:43 pm#25384

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 23 2006,21:18)

Nowhere in Scripture is it explained, taught, nor does it say … “he (Yahshua) with God (Yahweh) as a spirit being in the beginning and then emptied himself partook of flesh.”

Hi Frank,
There are many things the bible does not say.
There are many things the bible does not say all together in one place.

Who said it would be easy?

But what it does say in Phil 2 is
” 1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any (A)fellowship of the Spirit, if any (B)affection and compassion,
2Âmake my joy complete by (D)being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

3Do nothing from (E)selfishness or (F)empty conceit, but with humility of mind (G)regard one another as more important than yourselves;

4(H)do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

5(I)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (J)Christ Jesus,

6who, although He (K)existed in the (L)form of God, (M)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7but [a](N)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (O)bond-servant, and (P)being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, (Q)He humbled Himself by becoming Âobedient to the point of death, even (S)death on a cross.”

August 24, 2006 at 3:33 pm#25496

Participant

Nick,

In Phillippians 2 when it says that Yahshua was “in the form of Yahweh”, it does not say that he was in the form of Yahweh in a pre-existence with Father Yahweh in the beginning.

In the context of the passage it is speaking of being in unity with the Messiah. It is not explaining that he pre-exististed as a being with Father Yahweh. Note that in verse 7 it says that Yahshua was MADE LIKE MEN, (or “MADE LIKE THE LIKENESS OF MEN: 8 And BEING FOUND IN THE FASHION AS MAN, … [K.J.V.]).

Yahshua came into existence in Miriam's womb and was born a child and grew into a man just as we are born and grow into men. He was not a deity in a pre-existent state with Father Yahweh in the beginning.

There is nothing is Scripture saying that I must believe that Yahshua pre-existed with Father Yahweh, was Father Yahweh, that he was a third of a so called “Holy Trinity”, that he was an “Eternal Son”, that he was a co-creator with Father Yahweh in the beginning, that Yahshua was “God incarnate”, or that he was “God the Son”.

I believe the pre-extent son doctrine was divised by Trinitarians and that in Scripture there is no such doctrine taught or explained.

The following is an excerpt from: Did Our Savior Pre-exist?
From The Everlasting Good News of Yahweh website. (http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/index.html)

The Form of Elohim

This brings us to the most difficult passage of Scripture to understand. The key to understanding it lies in your stand concerning the pre-existence doctrine as a whole. If you reject what has been written up to this point and continue to hold unto a belief in the pre-existence, you will most likely fail to comprehend this last passage as well. Those that are not locked into a preconceived idea will grasp its meaning much easier.The passage in question, Ph.2:5-9, reads as follows; “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Messiah Yahshua: Who, being in the form of Elohim, thought it not robbery to be equal with Yahweh: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore Yahweh also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” (KJV)

To begin with, what does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua before or after his earthly birth? Paul is telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua . If Yahshua pre-existed, he certainly did not carry the name Messiah Yahshua. That name can only be applied to the historical Yahshua, not the being who supposedly pre-existed as “the Word.” Yahshua did not officially become “the Anointed” or “the Messiah” until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).

As a child, Yahshua “waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him” (Lu.2:40). Even at that time Yahshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Lu.2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was “in the form (or likeness) of Elohim.” Yet, Yahshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself Yahweh's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (Jn.10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Ph.2:6 as follows; “Who, though he was in the form of [Elohim], did not count equality with [Yahweh] a thing to be grasped.”

Yahshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

In addition to not exalting himself in the eyes of man, he further humbled himself by becoming totally obedient to the laws and will of His Father Yahweh. As a reward for his obedience, Yahweh has highly exalted him. A future exaltation will be the reward of all true believers if they, too, will humble themselves as Yahshua did.

This study has only touched upon certain aspects of the pre-existence doctrine. For additional information, please see the study entitled “[/URL]Yahshua Is Not Yahweh Part 1 and 2.” That study will explain many other verses used to support the pre-existence. Among the verses discussed are; Ge.1:26; 19:24; Ps.110:5; Ze.12:10; Mi.5:2; Jn.1:1,10; 8:58; 12:37-41; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor.8:6; 10:4; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; 1 Tim.3:16; and Heb.1:2. The study also explains such terms as Elohim and echad.

To believe “Jesus Is God” Is To Be Deceived!
Yahweh Is Our Heavenly Father And Creator!

August 24, 2006 at 3:51 pm#25498

Participant

Did Our Savior Pre-exist?

For thousands of years, from the days of ancient Babylon, men have believed in a triune god. This concept of a triad of deities is a universally recognized doctrine. Whether speaking of Hindooism, Taoism, Buddhism or Christianity, all believe in a trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity states that all three “persons” of the “Godhead” are co-eternal. In order for Christianity to continue to support such a belief they had to show that the Messiah, who in their mind is the second person of the trinity (“God the Son”), always existed. Since there could never be a time when one of the three persons (“God the Father”, “God the Son”, “God the Holy Spirit”) existed without the other two, the doctrine of the Savior's pre-existence came about.

Almighty Yahweh has been calling many people out of Babylon, out of false Babylonian teachings, into the true faith. Many of His people have started out the door, however their foot seems to be caught on the pre-existence doctrine. The purpose of this study is to open the door of truth wider by revealing the correct understanding and translation of those scriptures used to support the pre-existence.

Yahweh Sent His Son

The New Testament uses several phrases that would suggest that our Savior existed as a being in heaven prior to his earthly birth. Among those phrases are; “sent His Son,” “sent into the world,” “not of this world,” “came into the world,” and “came down from heaven.” Let's examine “sent His Son” and “sent into the world” first, since both phrases appear in 1 Jn.4:9,10; “In this was manifested the love of Yahweh toward us, because that Yahweh sent his only begotten Son into the world , that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved Yahweh, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” A superficial reading would lead one to believe that Yahshua was at Yahweh's side somewhere out of this world and eventually was commanded by Yahweh to come to our planet which he obediently did.

In Ps.78:45 it says Yahweh sent flies upon the Egyptians prior to the exodus of Israel. Are we to believe that these flies were living in heaven prior to their arrival in Egypt? Jn.1:6 tells us that John the Baptist was also “sent from Yahweh.” Surely none believe that John pre-existed at Yahweh's side. Notice this verse does not say “sent by Yahweh,” but “from Yahweh.” A word study of how “sent” was used in Scripture will reveal how Yahweh sent many earthly messengers and prophets to do His will. None of them, however, pre-existed in heaven.

Jn.17:18 helps us to understand the phrase “sent into the world.” It reads, “As thou hast sent me into the world , even so have I also sent them into the world. ” Obviously, the disciples were not living outside of this world prior to Yahshua sending them into the world. Neither should we believe that Yahshua existed in some other world before being sent by Yahweh into this world.

“Came into the world” is used in 1 Tim.1:15; “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Messiah Yahshua came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” The same phrase is used of all men when they are born. Jn.1:9 reads, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. ” And again in 1 Tim.6:7; “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” So when Heb. 1:6 says, “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of [Yahweh] worship him,” it is talking about the Messiah's earthly birth.

In Jn.8:23, Yahshua said, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” This certainly seems to indicate an existence in another world before coming to this world. This verse is to be understood the same way we are to understand Jn.15:19; “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world , but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” Yahshua chose his disciples out of the world, therefore, they were not of this world. Yahshua said similar words in Jn.17:14; “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world , even as I am not of the world.” Yahshua is not of this world because Yahweh chose Him out of the world.

Yahshua Came Down From Heaven

The phrase “came down from heaven” is difficult for many to understand. The Jews did not understand either as we read in Jn. 6:42; “And they said, Is not this Yahshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” There is no doubt that Yahshua was emphasizing his heavenly and paternal origin, but in what sense was he declaring this? We have already seen that the phrase “sent from [Yahweh]” does not necessarily mean to exist side by side with and then leave Yahweh's presence. Neither does “came down from” mean something similar.

Was Yahshua a pre-existent spirit being living side by side with Yahweh that was transformed into an embryo placed in Miriam's womb or was he actually “inside” Yahweh? Jn.17:8 teaches the latter. It reads, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee , and they have believed that thou didst send me.” The Greek word “exerchomai” translated “came out” specifically means to go out of something that you were inside of. In this case, Yahshua existed “inside” of Yahweh in a similar sense that Levi existed inside the “loins of his father” before he was born (Heb. 7:5-10). In that passage, Levi was not born yet, nor was his father Jacob. Yet, Levi was said to be in Abraham's loins (in the sense of future lineage). (The lineage of Messiah is spoken of in Mic 5:2 and it traces all the way back to his Father Yahweh). While it is difficult to perceive of the Almighty having an “inside,” that is what the text is saying. Yet, this, too, is figurative and equates with the mind of Yahweh.

There will be those who will totally misunderstand my words, so let me clarify this. I am not suggesting the Almighty has “loins.” Nor am I suggesting Yahshua was conceived in any manner similar to the manner in which all men are conceived (through procreation/copulation). Yahweh is Spirit. His Holy Spirit “came upon” Miriam and miraculously caused her egg to receive the necessary DNA to create a 100% male child in her womb.

Lu 1:35 says, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Yahshua declared this truth in Jn.16:27-30 as well. “For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from [Yahweh] . I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from [Yahweh].” Yahshua could not come from Yahweh's side and from inside of Yahweh at the same time. Only one can be true.

A verse that goes hand in hand with the phrase “came down from heaven” is Jn.6:62; “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Yahshua's origin is not in question here. Those who reject the pre-existence doctrine should not reject Yahshua's heavenly origin or that his father was Yahweh. Yahshua was, at one time, in heaven. He existed in the loins of His Father Yahweh (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth. Through Yahweh's miraculous Holy Spirit power He then created in Miriam's egg a 100% man. The belief that Yahshua wa
s a spirit being that was miniaturized and placed directly into Miriam's womb without her egg being involved is unscriptural. If that were true, Miriam would merely be a surrogate mother and Yahshua would not be from the blood line of David.

John's Predecessor?

Jn.1:15 certainly suggests a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” First, the idea of preference is not found in the Greek. The word translated “preferred” is the Greek “ginomai”. Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated “preferred” three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated “come to be”; “He that cometh after me has come to be before me.” As for the latter part of the verse, the word “before” is from the Greek “protos”. Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated “before”. The most common rendering is “first,” however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, “for he is my Superior.” “Protos” was also translated “chief” nine times in the New Testament.

Yahweh's Foreordained Plan

A favorite verse of pre-existence proponents is Jn.17:24. It reads, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world .” It would seem that the Father and the Son had a loving relationship before the earth was created. Understanding this verse in that way leads to complications in understanding Eph. 1:3,4. Paul says, “Blessed be the Mighty One and Father of our Master Yahshua Messiah, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Messiah: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world , that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” Using the same line of thinking as in Jn.17:24 we would be led to believe that all believers were chosen back in the days when they pre-existed before the earth was created. Both of these verses pertain to Yahweh's foreordained plan, not to pre-existent beings. 1Pe.1:20 says, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world , but was manifest in these last times for you.” Why wasn't the “pre-existent Yahshua” made manifest back in Old Testament times? Because he didn't exist at that time except in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. Other references such as Rev.13:8 and 17:8 reveal Yahweh's plan as well.

Old Glory

The following section in blue was revised as of 1/16/06

Following on the heels of the above, John 17:5 states, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Was this glory as the second person of the “Trinity” or is there something here that many people miss?

Yahshua is said to be the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), yet we have the Bible also saying, “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:25-26) Clearly, the Hebrews passage states that Yahshua was not literally slain from the foundation of the world, but rather was slain in the mind or plan of Almighty Yahweh. This is akin to John 1:1 which speaks of the very word of Elohim being with Elohim in the beginning. This spoken word or plan of Yahweh existed throughout the ions of time. From the beginning of time, Yahweh had Yahshua's sacrifice in His plan for all humankind. For it was through Yahshua that we would receive our justification (Romans 4:25). 1 Peter 1:18-20 continues to explain this by saying:

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

Notice the use of the word foreordained. Yahshua was foreordained from the foundation of the world, but was made manifest or revealed in these last times. He did not exist as a person or being in former times, but in these last times Yahweh allowed him to be born of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and speaks through him (Hebrews 1:1-2).

It is especially intriguing to find Yahshua praying to the Father, that He would let the disciples share in this glory (John 17:24) and then he in turn mentions the foundation of the world. The disciples would indeed share in the glory of the crucifixion by having their sins washed away, but they definitely did not share Yahshua's glory by themselves being involved in a trinitarian being.

The glory that Yahshua had was as the slain lamb of Yahweh, in the mind of Yahweh, and Yahshua was praying for that glory to be brought about literally, so as to give unto all those who would accept, eternal life. This is why Yahshua began in John 17:1-2 by saying, “These words spake Yahshua, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.' ” Yahshua wanted to bring about the fruition of eternal life by Yahweh glorifying him as the ultimate sacrifice, and Yahshua in turn glorifying the Father.

Seeing The Father

Jn.6:46 states Yahshua saw his Father Yahweh. He said, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of Yahweh, he hath seen the Father .” Does this mean Yahshua physically saw Yahweh with his eyes or can it be understood a different way? Yahshua spoke the following words to two disciples, Thomas and Philip, in Jn.14:7-9; “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him . Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

The disciples saw Father Yahweh because they saw Yahshua who is one with Yahweh (not a oneness of being, but a oneness of character, will, Spirit). They had only to look upon Yahshua and see his character to have it said of them, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Yahshua had only to look at himself, his character, his determination to carry out Yahweh's will, etc., to see his Father in himself. The disciples did not have to pre-exist in order to see the Father and neither did Yahshua.

The Greek word translated “seen” in Jn.6:46 is #3708 in Strong's Concordance, meaning “to discern clearly (physically or mentally ).” In both of these cases, it was not a physical sighting of the Father, but a mental perception of His character that they were seeing.

Several names and titles have been used in reference to the being that spoke to men in the Old Testament. Among them are Spokesman, Dabar, and Metatron. We are led to believe that they are all references to the pre-existent Son of Yahweh. This, of course, is only an assumption since the Scriptures only identify that being as “the Angel of Yahweh.” If the Angel of Yahweh was Yahshua, then Yahshua pre-existed as an angel. This would contradict Heb. 1:1,2,5,7,8,13. Heb.1:1,2 implies that the Son did not speak “in times past unto the fathers.” The remaining verses imply that none of the angels were exalted as Yahshua was. Verses 7 & 8 make a clear distinction between Yahshua and angels; the angels were made ministering spirits, but the
Son was made King of Yahweh's Kingdom. It is interesting to note all the different ideas as to who Yahshua pre-existed as in times past. Pre-existence proponents have a hard time deciding between the Angel of Yahweh, the Captain of the Host, a second Yahweh, Michael, Melchizidek, and even the Heavenly Father Himself!

What about Daniel's account of the sighting of “the Son of God” in Dan.3:25 (KJV)? It reads, “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” The Revised Version rightfully translates the Hebrew “a son of the Gods.” The article “the” is not in the Hebrew. This was an angel sent by Yahweh as revealed in verse 28. What knowledge would this pagan king have of the “form” of Yahweh's Son even if he did pre-exist? In his mind it could only be the form of any divine being.

The Wisdom of Yahweh

Prov.8:22-36 have been used quite often to prove the pre-existence. One need only read verses 1-12 to realize that a pre-existent Son is not speaking in verses 22-36. The Scriptures declare the speaker to be wisdom. The glorious wisdom Yahweh possessed before He created all things is personified in these verses. Notice, also, that wisdom is personified as a female, not a male. Pr.8:1 reads, “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?” And Pr.9:1 says, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars.” If Yahshua pre-existed as the epitomy of wisdom, why does Rev.5:12 say he is worthy to receive wisdom? Surely an all-wise pre-existent being has no need of further wisdom.

1 Cor.1:30 says, “But of him are ye in Messiah Yahshua, who of [Yahweh] is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:” This verse declares that Yahshua was “made unto us wisdom.” It does not say he existed as wisdom in the past. Ps.104:24 says, “O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” Yahweh used His great wisdom in the creation of all things. It was like a workman at His side.

Yahweh's Firstborn

Two scriptures are often used to show that Yahshua was the very first act of creation by Yahweh. Everything else is said to have been created by, or with the help of, Yahshua. Those scriptures are Col.1:15 and Rev.3:14. Let's look at Col.1:15 first. “Who is the image of the invisible Elohim, the firstborn of every creature :” What does the latter part of this verse mean? Does “every creature” include the angels that rejoiced at creation?

To understand this verse, you must first understand that Yahweh is in the process of creating a new world; “the world to come” as Heb.2:5 puts it. Is.65:17,18 speaks of “new heavens and a new earth.” Those that will rule in the new earth are those that will be resurrected or “born from above” (Jn.3:7). Ps.102:18-20 puts it very clearly; “This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise Yahweh. For He hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did Yahweh behold the earth; To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;” These people will be created , or born, at the resurrection.

To clarify even further, we read the following in Ps.104:29,30; “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth.” Yahweh will resurrect the dead through the power of His Holy Spirit. It is said of those that are resurrected that they are “created .”

The first person to be created, or born again from above, was Yahshua. Therefore, he is called the “firstborn.” Since there are many that will be born again at the resurrection, he is the “firstborn of every creature (that will be resurrected).” Col. 1:18 elaborates further by telling us what Yahshua is the firstborn of; the dead. This takes place at the resurrection. It is also said of Yahshua that he is “the beginning” (Col.1:18). This is the same term used in Rev.3:14 which reads, “And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of [Yahweh]; ” Does this beginning refer to a time before the angels were created or does it refer to the new creation? Some would argue that the word “new” is not in the text. Yahweh has shown us, however, that He does not always use the word “new” in describing this new creation. Notice Is.65:17,18; “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” This is speaking of New Jerusalem, yet the word “New” is not used by Yahweh.

Continuing in Colossians to verse 17 we read, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” As a result of this translation, we are led to believe that Yahshua existed prior to anything else, including the angels. The same Greek phrase, “before all things,” is also found in Ja.5:12 and 1 Pe.4:8. Both of those texts read “above all things.” That is because the Greek word “pro,” translated “before,” also carries the meaning of superiority or pre-eminence. Since Col.1:15-18 proclaims the pre-eminence of Yahshua in all things (vs.18), translating verse 17 as “above all things” would fit the context.

It is said that the phrase “according to the flesh,” in Rom.1:3, proves Yahshua's pre-existence. It reads, “Concerning his Son Yahshua Messiah our Master, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” It is implied from this that Yahshua existed as a spirit being before he was born according to the flesh, for why else would Paul say this? The simple reason is because Yahshua did not have an earthly father. Therefore, whether he was true flesh and blood and David's seed would come into question. Paul adds “according to the flesh” for the same reason he adds “was made of the seed of David.” Even though Yahshua did not have a flesh and blood father, he is still flesh through Miriam. He is not a spirit being or an angel that appeared in the flesh as did those who appeared to Abraham in Gen.18:2; 19:1.

Yahweh's Son

The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?

“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)

Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.

The Root of David

Rev 5:5 reads, “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep n
ot: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” A brother recently asked me what “the root of David” meant. He believed Yahshua (the root) preceded David thereby confirming his preexistence. Rev 22:16 says something similar; “I Yahshua have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Isa 11:10 uses the concept of a root as follows “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.” This is a messianic prophecy in which Yahshua is the “root of Jesse,” Jesse being David's father.

To understand how Yahshua can be the root of both these men and yet not preexist, we need only to look at nature. What comes first, the seed or the root? Obviously the seed. Jesse is the seed out of which comes forth a root (or offspring). In this case it is David. David, then, is the seed out of which comes forth another root or offspring. In this case it is Messiah Yahshua.

When John calls Yahshua the “root and the offspring of David”, both terms mean the same thing, a root is an offspring. That is why Messiah is called “the Son of David” in such verses as Mt.1:1and 22:42. Mt 1:20 tells us that Joseph is also a “son of David”. Joseph is also a root of David and an offspring of David. The root always follows the seed in time and the seed always precedes the root. David preceded Messiah.

The Form of Elohim

As a child, Yahshua “waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him” (Lu.2:40). Even at that time Yahshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Lu.2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was “in the form (or likeness) of Elohim.” It does not say he “was Elohim.” Yet, Yahshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself Yahweh's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (Jn.10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Ph.2:6 as follows; “Who, though he was in the form of [Elohim], did not count equality with [Yahweh] a thing to be grasped.”

This study has only touched upon certain aspects of the pre-existence doctrine. For additional information, please see the study entitled “Yahshua the Messiah is not Almighty Yahweh.” That study will explain many other verses used to support the pre-existence. Among the verses discussed are; Ge.1:26; 19:24; Ps.110:5; Ze.12:10; Mi.5:2; Jn.1:1,10; 8:58; 12:37-41; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor.8:6; 10:4; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; 1 Tim.3:16; and Heb.1:2. The study also explains such terms as elohim and echad.

August 24, 2006 at 3:51 pm#25499

Participant

Yahshua the Messiah is Not Almighty Yahweh

Modern day Christians believe that Yahshua the Messiah pre-existed in some form or another. Some say he was Melchizedek, some say he was “the captain of the host of Yahweh” (Josh.5:14), some say he was the archangel Michael, others say he was the “angel of Yahweh”. Perhaps the most erroneous view is that Yahshua was the “Yahweh” (LORD) of the Old Testament. This study is written in the hopes that all who read it will finally understand that Yahweh is the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that Yahshua the Messiah is His Son, as it is written.

For some reason people feel they have to magnify the Savior into the position of the Almighty when, in fact, scripture makes it quite clear that the Father is greatest of all and the “head of Messiah” (1 Cor.11:3). Consider Yahshua's own words in Jn. 14:28, “…for my Father is greater than I.”; Jn.10:29, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all…”; and Jn. 13:16, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant [Yahshua] is not greater than his lord [Yahweh]; neither he that is sent [Yahshua] greater than he that sent him [Yahweh].” These verses teach us Yahshua's view of his relationship to his Father. Notice he didn't claim to be the Father but instead, made a clear distinction between the two.

Who is Yahshua's Father?

Who does scripture say is the Father? Is.63:16 says, “Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Yahweh, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.” Yahweh is the Father. Yet, some might claim that this scripture says Yahweh is the Father of Israel, not of Yahshua. In that case we need to note two other verses. The first is Heb.1:5; “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Who said these things? All would agree that Yahshua's Father said them since He is referring to Yahshua as His Son. Heb.1:5 is a direct quote from Ps.2:7; “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The first “I” here refers to Yahshua speaking through prophecy in which he declares that Yahweh is his Father!

We also previously saw that Yahshua said, “My Father is greater than I.” In reality he was also saying, “[Yahweh] is greater than I”, thereby teaching us that he is not Yahweh. Anyone who believes Yahshua is Yahweh must also believe Yahshua is the Heavenly Father. That is even more absurd and more difficult to prove in the light of scripture.

Who is the Elohim of Israel?

Who does scripture say is the Elohim (God) of Israel? Is. 45:3 says, “And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, Yahweh, which call thee by thy name, am the Elohim of Israel.” Yahweh is the Elohim of Israel. Since we already learned that Yahshua is not Yahweh, Yahshua cannot be the Elohim of Israel. This is confirmed in Acts 3:13, “The Elohim of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the Elohim of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yahshua;…” The Elohim of Jacob (Jacob being Israel) glorified His Son.

Since the scriptures reveal the Elohim of Israel and the Father are both called Yahweh, some will go so far as to teach that there are two separate beings called Yahweh in order to support their erroneous belief that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh, Elohim of Israel. They use Gen.19:24 as proof of this; “Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven;” At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah. This is merely a figure of speech peculiar to the Hebrew language, an idiom. Similar idioms are seen in Eze.11:24 (two Spirits), Zech.10:12 ( two Yahwehs), Ex.24:1 (Yahweh used as idiom for “me”), Gen.17:23 (two Abrahams), and 1 Kgs.8:1 (two Solomons).

It is impossible to harmonize the two Yahweh doctrine with verses that teach there is only one Yahweh. Consider Nehemiah's prayer;

“Thou, even thou, art Yahweh alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Neh 9:6

Ps 83:18 says;

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth.”

Is 45:6 says;

“That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else.”

Zech 14:9 reads;

“And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one.”

A second God cannot be named “Yahweh.”

Is.42:1 teaches us that Yahshua is Yahweh's servant. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” And again in Is.49:6, “And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

Ps.2:2 reads, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed.” His “anointed” is Yahshua, making a clear distinction between the two. Peter applied this prophecy to Yahshua in Acts 4:26; “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahweh, and against His Messiah.” Peter never claimed that the Messiah pre-existed as Yahweh.

Ps.110:1 also distinguishes the two; “Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” In Mt.22:41-46, Yahshua reveals this “lord” to be himself, the Messiah. Is Yahweh talking to His Son the Messiah or is He talking to Himself?

Ps.110 makes another intersesting statement in verse 5. This is one of the verses in which the Sopherim removed Yahweh's name and replaced it with “Adonai”. The text would have originally read, “Yahweh at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath.” It is then wrongly deduced that since Yahshua was invited to sit on Yahweh's right hand (Heb.1:13), he, Yahshua, must also be called “Yahweh”. There is no doubt that Yahweh invited Yahshua to sit at His right hand. But what does verse 5 mean? It must be understood in the same way Ps.16:8 and Ps.109:6 are to be understood. When someone is “at thy right hand” it means their power and strength are derived from that source. David derived his power from Yahweh and so it is said that Yahweh is “at my right hand.” A wicked person would derive his power from Satan and so it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand.” When Yahshua comes to carry out Yahweh's wrath upon the wicked, Yahweh will be his strength. See, also, Mic.5:4.

Who is the Prophet like unto Moses?

In Acts 3:22,23 Peter quotes from Deut.18:15,19 proving that Yahshua is the “prophet like unto Moses.” Placing the name “Yahshua” in brackets clearly shows him not to be Yahweh. “Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet [Yahshua] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him [Yahshua] ye shall hearken.. . .I [Yahweh] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my [Yahweh's] words in his [Yahshua's] mouth; and he [Yahshua] shall speak unto them all that I [Yahweh] shall command him [Yahshua]. . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my [Yahweh's] words which he [Yahshua] shall speak in my [Yahweh's] name, I [Yahweh] will require it of him.” Jn.12:49 is a direct fulfillment of Deut.18:18; “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father wh
ich sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”

Let's treat Is.53:6, 10 ,12 similarly; “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him [Yahshua] the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him [Yahshua]; he [Yahweh] hath put him [Yahshua] to grief: when thou [Yahweh] shalt make his [Yahshua's] soul an offering for sin, he [Yahshua] shall see his seed, he [Yahshua] shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his [Yahshua's] hand.”

Zech.12:10 is often misunderstood due to an apparent error in the text. It reads, “And I [Yahweh] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” The word “me” obviously does not harmonize with the pronouns “him” and “his” that follow. The same verse is quoted in Jn.19:37; “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” John gives us the correct understanding of this verse.

Another possible error occurs in Acts 20:28; “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (KJV).” The great majority of Greek MSS have kurios (Lord) here instead of theos (God). In that case, Lord would refer to Yahshua whose blood was shed. Even if we were to accept the KJV rendering, it would have to be understood in the sense that parents often refer to their children as their “own flesh and blood.” In that sense the blood of Yahshua was the “blood of [Yahweh]'s own.”

YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Jer.23:6 is often used to prove Yahshua is Yahweh. “In his [Yahshua's] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his [ Yahshua's] name whereby he [Yahshua] shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” If this verse teaches that Yahshua is Yahweh because he is called “Yahweh Our Righteousness, then Jer.33:16 teaches that Jerusalem is also Yahweh. It reads, “In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness.” The translators did not use the same capitalization because they undoubtedly feared that it would suggest Jerusalem is Yahweh.

A difficult passage to understand is found in Jn.12:37-41. A superficial reading leads one to believe that the “his” and “him” of verse 41 refers to Yahshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be printed out with [brackets] designating the speaker. Jn.12:37,38, “But though he [Yahshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yahshua]: That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spake, Lord, 'who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Yahweh been revealed?' (The underlined is a quote from Is.53:1. The “arm of Yahweh” is Isaiah's reference to the Messiah). The passage continues with verses 39-41; “Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, 'He [Yahweh] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [Yahweh] should heal them.' These things said Isaiah, when he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory, and spake of him [Yahweh].” Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Is.6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yahshua; because Yahweh blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Is.6:10, not Is.53:1. In Is.6:1-3 Yahweh is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yahshua's glory.

Since John the Baptist preceeded Yahshua, Is.40:3 and Mt.3:3 are often used to prove Yahweh is Yahshua. Is.40:3 reads, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim.” Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Lu.3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Is.40:4 & 5. It says, “As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of Yahweh.” “Prepare ye the way of Yahweh” does not mean, “Move out of the way because Yahweh is coming.” And so when Yahshua comes they believe he is Yahweh.

How was “the way” to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? Jn.4:34 says, “Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work.” Almighty Yahweh appointed His Son Yahshua to finish His work. Yahshua was Yahweh's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yahshua is the “Messenger of the Covenant,” “the servant of Yahweh,” and “the salvation of Yahweh.” Jn.14:6 calls Yahshua “the way.” He is “the way of Yahweh;” the means through which Yahweh will finish His work.

Two Creators?

Gen.1:26 is often used to show Yahshua's hand in Creation. It reads, “And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” They say the Father is talking to the Son in this verse based on the pronouns used. Notice, however, that verse 27 says, “So Elohim created man in his own image, . . .” Why isn't the phrase “in their own image” used? Again, in Gen.11:7,8, “us” is used and yet Yahweh alone scattered them abroad. According to Job 38:4-7, “the sons of Elohim shouted for joy” when Yahweh created the earth. This doubtless refers to the angels who were also present at the creation of man. Yahweh could be speaking to them, in Gen.1:26, using the plural of majesty. An example of this is found in Ezr. 4:18; “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.” In this case, a letter was written strictly to King Artaxerxes and no one else (vs. 11). Yet the King speaks as though it was written to others as well. Another example would be the Queen of England saying, “We, the Queen of England, . . .” It can also be understood in the sense of someone saying, “Let us drive to the lake for a picnic,” and yet, only the speaker does the driving. To believe Yahweh is talking to Yahshua is an assumption. It is reading into the text something that it does not say.

If we do not try to force the scriptures to conform to our own doctrines, they are so simple to understand. Instead men try to support “Holy Trinities”, “Incarnations”, “Transubstantiations”, and the like. The Bible does not use terms like “Father” and “Son” to try and trick us. They are used to express a relationship that we can relate to. If Yahshua is Father Yahweh, the scriptures would state it in plain language. Instead, it says that Yahshua is the Son of Father Yahweh.

An article in “Israel Today” tried to explain this relationship by saying Yahweh manifested himself in the fleshly form of Yahshua. The author calls this the incarnation. This same author rightfully puts down the trinity because the word is not found in the Bible and yet, he exalts another unscriptural term, “incarnation.” Perhaps he was misled by the erroneous translation of 1 Tim.3:16 in the KJV. It says, “God was manifest in the flesh.” A footnote in the Empha
tic Diaglott reads, “Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have “He who,” instead of “God,” in this passage.” Even if the incarnation theory was true, would Yahweh continue to manifest himself as Yahshua even after the Millennium? 1 Cor.15:24-28 and Rev.22:1 show both as separate beings after the Millennium. The truth is, they are not parts of one being but two separate and distinct beings. That is why Yahshua could say what he did in Jn.8:17,18, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” Yahweh and Yahshua are two separate beings, not two manifestations of one being.

When the scriptures are accepted at face value, without reading into the text more than it says, the relationship between the two becomes quite clear. In spite of this, many people are not satisfied with Yahshua's rank in the hierarchy of heaven. They feel a need to exalt him into the number one position, that of Yahweh Almighty, and they will twist scripture in a variety of ways to accomplish this.

Yahweh is One

Concerning the “Shema” (Deut.6:4) it reads, “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh:” or “Yahweh is one.” It is believed by many that the word “echad,” translated “one,” means “a united one” or a “compound unity,” not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Nu.7:13-82 where “echad” is translated “one” 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Gen.2:1 – one rib and Dan.9:27 – one week.

Historic Judaism does not give echad the meaning of unity or plurality as is seen in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p.1373: “Perhaps from earliest times, but certainly from later, the word echad (one) was understood also to mean unique. God is not only one and not many, but He is totally other than what paganism means by gods.” Note also The Jewish Commentary, Soncino Edition, p.770: “He is one because there is no other Elohim than He; but He is also one, because He is wholly unlike anything else in existence. He is therefore not only one, but the Sole and Unique, Elohim.”

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mk.12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yahshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, “You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him.” Although Yahshua did not specifically say “there is no other but Him” the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yahshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, “And the two Yahweh's became one.” In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's.

Yahshua said, “I and my Father are one.” (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yahshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”
Here again, Yahshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh's.

Elohim – Plural or singular?

The word “Elohim,” translated “God,” is often attacked as well. It is believed that it denotes a plurality or a god consisting of more than one being or more than one manifestation of a being. This, too, is a false concept based on the philosophy of men. Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Ex.12:12, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh.” Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Sam.5:7, “. . . and upon Dagon our god (elohim)” and 2 Kgs.1:2, “. . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god (elohim) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.” Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings who can “incarnate” themselves as Yahweh “supposedly” did?

The word “God” (elohim) is properly applied to Yahshua in Heb.1:9 and Jn.20:28. Both words are from the Greek word “theos” which was also used in reference to Satan (2 Cor.4:4) and Herod (Acts 12:22). It has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “elohim” and can be applied to men, angels, and the Almighty. Ps.82:6 applies it to any child of the Most High; “I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High.” It simply means “a mighty one among his people.” It is not wrong to call Yahshua an elohim or a god. The problem lies in believing he is the one true “God,” Yahweh Almighty. Yahshua made it clear that he was not, in Jn.17:3; “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Yahweh] the only true Elohim, and Yahshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.” The Apostle Paul declared the same thing in 1 Cor.8:6; “But to us there is but one Elohim, the Father [Yahweh], of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Master Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Oneness proponents wrongly interpret 1 Jn.5:20 to mean that Yahshua is the one true “God.” It reads, “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (KJV). When it says, “his Son Jesus Christ,” it means Yahweh's Son. That being the case, the previous use of the pronoun “him” in the two phrases “him that is true” must also refer to Yahweh. The “his” and “him” refer to the same person. To say that “This is the true God” refers to the Son is grammatically incorrect.

Not only is Yahweh the one true Elohim, but He is also Yahshua's Elohim. If Yahshua is an elohim or god and he himself has a god, then surely his god must be a greater god. This is what scripture teaches in Mt.27:46; Jn.17:3; 20:17; Eph.1:17; Heb. 1:9; and Rev.3:12. Rev.3:12 says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my Elohim, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my Elohim [Yahweh], and the name of the city of my Elohim, New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my Elohim: and I will write upon him my new name.” Yahshua is saying this after he ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of Yahweh (Heb 8:1). If he was the Yahweh Almighty of the Old Testament, who is his Elohim and who is he sitting next to? Two scriptures answer that question. The first is Ps.110:1; “Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The second is Mic.5:4; “And he [Yahshua] shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.”

The Image of Yahweh

What about Jn.14:9? “Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” Is Yahshua declaring that he is Father Yahweh? Heb.1:3 and Col.1:15 both state that Yahshua is the “image” of Yahweh. An image is something that resembles something else. Yahsh
ua resembles Yahweh in that their characters are almost identical. “Not that any man has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46) bodily, but we have seen His character through His Son.

Man (specifically Adam) was made in the “image of Elohim” (Gen 1:26,27; 5:3; 9:6). Messiah Yahshua is also in the “image of Elohim” (2 Co 4:4; Col 1:15). “Elohim” in these verses, when understood in the context of pure monotheism, is a reference to Yahweh the Creator. Adam's inner man resembled Elohim, but he himself is not Elohim. Yahshua's inner man resembles Yahweh, but he himself is not Elohim.

Col 3:10 tells us that after a person's conversion, after he has put on the new man, he is “renewed in knowledge after the image of Him [Yahweh] that created him.” Rom 8:29, 30 echoes this in that those that have been justified (through conversion unto Messiah) have been predestined to be “conformed to the image of His [Yahweh's] Son.” Since the Son is in the image of Elohim, to be conformed to the image of the Son is to be conformed to the image of Elohim or Yahweh the Creator. 2 Co 3:18 says that we “are changed into the same image” as the Master. This also happens upon conversion.

From this info, I deduce the following;

Adam was made in the image of Yahweh. Upon his fall, that image was lost. It can only be restored through conversion unto the Master Yahshua. Yahshua, being sinless, never lost the image of Yahweh. The image of Yahweh has nothing to do with the physical appearance as far as the above references are concerned. It has to do with the inner man.

Look at Ps 73:20. Yahweh despises the image of the wicked. Why? Because they have put off Yahweh's image through sin and have created their own new image. The same is true of all men for all have sinned. We all have fallen away from the image of Yahweh and need to have that image restored through the indwelling Spirit of Messiah.

When Yahweh looks upon a believer, He sees the righteousness of His Son clothing us. He also sees the image of His Son clothing us. Our physical appearance has not changed, but our inner man has.

Yahshua is from everlasting?

What about Mic.5:2; “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” This is undoubtedly a Messianic prophecy. The question is, what does “goings forth” mean? Does it mean Yahshua has existed as long as Yahweh? Some say yes thereby giving more weight to their argument that Yahshua is Yahweh. According to Strong's Concordance, “Goings forth” comes from one Hebrew word, “mowtsaah”. It means, “a family descent.” Since Yahweh is Yahshua's Father, Yahshua's family descent would go back as far as Yahweh's existence. Since Yahweh has always existed, Yahshua's family descent or goings forth must be from everlasting. The New English Bible, the Phillips translation, and Todays English Bible render it similarly. Yahshua himself is not from everlasting. His family descent, or his family tree, is.

There are those who believe that Yahshua was not only Yahweh, but Melchizedek as well. They site Heb.7:4 to prove this. In Gen.14:18 we read that Melchizedek, king of Salem, “was the priest of the most high God.” The “most high God” is shown to be Yahweh three verses later; “…I have lift up mine hand unto Yahweh, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” Therefore, Melchizedek is the priest of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself. If Yahshua is Melchizedek, he cannot be Yahweh. If Yahshua is Yahweh, he cannot be Melchizedek. The fact is, Yahshua is neither one of these beings. He is Yahweh's Son and Yahweh made him a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps.110:4, Heb. 7:21).

Receiving Worship and Forgiving Sins

Many people believe that only Almighty Yahweh can forgive sins and receive worship. Since Yahshua did both they believe he must be the Almighty. Yahshua indeed is worthy of our worship and honor, but only as Yahweh's representative, not as Yahweh Himself. Yahweh commanded even the angels of heaven to worship Yahshua (Heb.1:6). Rev.5:12 ,13 show both Yahweh and the Lamb [Yahshua] receiving worship. Eventually, those believers comprising the Philadelphia assembly will receive worship as well (Rev. 3:9). The worship they receive however, is not directed at them as though they were Yahweh.

A study of the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated “worship” will show that the Almighty is not always the recipient. Of the 170 occurrences only about half refer to the worship of Yahweh. This is hidden from the reader of scripture because half of those occurrences were translated 'to bow, bow down, do reverence, do obeisance,' as can be seen in the following verses: Gen.18:2; 19:1: 23:7,12; 27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 25:23,41; 2 Sam.9:6; 14:4,22.

Yahshua said to a man with palsy, “thy sins be forgiven thee” (Mt.9:2). The account continues, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified Yahweh, which had given such power unto men.” Were they correct? Had Yahweh given Yahshua the power to forgive sins? Yahshua said, “I can of my own self do nothing,” “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” “the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (Jn.5:30a; 8:28b; 14:10b). Yahweh gave Yahshua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is Yahweh's Representative with the power to act in His name. The word “power” in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated “authority” in Jn.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of Yahweh in Ex.23:20-21, “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”

While we are on the subject of sin, many believe Yahshua was the one true “God” because “only the death of God could atone for man's sins. The death of a man wouldn't suffice.” This is another example of the philosophy of men contrary to scripture. Heb.9:22 says, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins).” One requirement was shed blood. The other requirement was that the sacrifice had to be “without blemish” which, regarding Messiah, meant sinless. Yahweh Almighty did not have to die. Only the blood of a sinless man was required. Yahshua was that only sinless man (1 Jn.3:5).

The Attributes of Yahweh

The terms “omniscient” (all knowing), and “omnipotent” (all powerful) are often applied to Yahshua to prove he is the Almighty. In Jn.5:30 Yahshua said, “I can of mine own self do nothing” therefore, he cannot be omnipotent as Yahweh is. Mt. 24:36 proves Yahshua is not omniscient; “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father.” In order to explain such verses “Oneness” proponents must turn Yahshua into the “God-Man.” This unscriptural idea claims that Yahshua's divine half is omniscient and omnipotent but that he suppressed his powers during his life in the flesh. Nowhere in scripture is the Messiah called a God-Man or shown to have two such natures at the same time. He is repeatedly referred to as a man in such verses as 1 Tim.2:5. When he is called “God” it is in the sense of a mighty one among his people as was shown earlier. This is not to say that Yahshua was a mere man. Scripture is clear that Yahshua's birth was a miracle in that he was not made from the seed or sperm of man. He is Yahweh's only begotten Son; the o
nly being ever to be “Fathered” by Yahweh.

Titles in Common

Should we refer to Yahshua as the Almighty, a title only applied to Yahweh? Nowhere in scripture is this ever the case. One scripture that seemingly supports such an application is Rev. 1:8; “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith [the Lord]*, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (KJV). *The Greek has “kurios o theos” (“the Lord the God” or “[Yahweh] Elohim”). The phrase “Lord God” is never used of Yahshua in the New Testament. Aside from that, John is giving a greeting starting in verse four and ending in verse seven. Verse four is a greeting from the Father “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” Verse five is a greeting from Yahshua the Messiah. Verse eight is spoken by the Father which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Scripture makes a clear distinction between the Almighty and Yahshua in Rev.21:22; “And I saw no temple therein: for [Yahweh] Elohim Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” Yahshua is not Yahweh Almighty.

This misapplication of titles is often the cause of making these two beings into one. For example, Acts 3:14 reads, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;” Here the title “Holy One” is applied to Yahshua the Messiah. In Is.43:3 it says, “For I am Yahweh thy Elohim, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:. . . ” Here the title “Holy One” is applied to Yahweh. Without further study one would conclude these two references are to the same person. However, we are not to study scripture superficially. In what way is Yahshua the Holy One? The answer is found in Mk.1:24; “Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yahshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of Yahweh.” Yahweh is the Holy One of Israel and Yahshua is the Holy One of Yahweh, not of Israel. Ps.16:10 confirms this understanding; “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” This is a Messianic prophecy. “My soul” refers to Yahshua's soul and “thine Holy One” refers to Yahweh's Holy One. Scripture reveals two Holy ones that are separate beings.

Another shared title is “Savior.” Is.43:11 says, “I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour.” That seems quite clear. Since Yahweh is the only Savior and Yahshua is called our Savior, the two must be one and the same being. This is true only in the minds of men who do not study deeply. Is.19:20b reads, “for they shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.” It was prophesied that Yahweh would send someone other than Himself to be a savior to Egypt. Yahweh is the one true Savior who works through Yahshua the Messiah, His appointed Savior.

A few other shared titles, all basically equal in meaning, are “Alpha and Omega,” “the first and the last,” and “the beginning and the end.” Each of these titles are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua (Is.41:4;44:6;48:12; Rev.1:8,17;2:8;22:13) and have the meaning of uniqueness. Each is the first and last of his peculiar, unique kind. Yahweh is unique in that He is the only being that was not created and Yahshua is unique in that he is the only being ever to be directly begotten by Yahweh the Father (Jn.1:14). (Adam was created, all others were begotten by men).Titles that Yahweh and Yahshua have in common do not supply a firm foundation for a “Oneness” doctrine. If that were true, Cyrus, the king of Persia, would have been the pre-existent Yahshua since both are called “Messiah.” In Is.45:1a it reads, “Thus saith Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;” The Hebrew for “anointed” is the same word that was translated “Messiah” in Dan. 9:25,26 and “anointed” in Ps.2:2.

The scriptures tell us Yahshua would also be called Emmanuel, meaning “God with us,” or more correctly, “El with us.” As a result, people teach that Yahshua is “God.” This name is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; “How [Yahweh] anointed Yahshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for [Yahweh] (El) was with him.” Not that Yahshua was El, but that El was with and in Yahshua. If you choose to use the logic of those in error, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means “He is Yah” or “Yah is He.” Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, Yahweh?

Is.9:6 reads, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Is this prophecy declaring Yahshua the Messiah to be the Heavenly Father? There are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the “father of (something).” For example, Abishua means “father of plenty.” Instead of translating the phrase in Is.9:6 as “Father of eternity,” the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yahshua is the Father of Eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Heb.5:9, “And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;”

One last title that confuses people is “Rock.” 1 Cor.10:4 says, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah.” Since Yahweh is called a “Rock” in several Old Testament verses, the two beings are made into one. This verse must be understood with Ex.17:6 in mind; “Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.” 1 Cor. 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Ex.17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To “smite the rock” is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yahshua could not give forth “rivers of living water” until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). Jn.7:39 shows this “living water” to be the Holy Spirit. Yahshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says “spiritual drink” and “spiritual Rock.” The word “them” in the phrase “that followed them” is not in the Greek. Reading the verse without that misleading word gives the meaning that Yahshua followed in time as in 1 Pe.1:11, “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Messiah which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Messiah, and the glory that should follow.” Even if one were to believe Yahshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was Yahweh since Yahweh was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh's representative, followed them (Ex.14:19).

I AM

“Before Abraham was, I am.” These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14.

The phrase “I am” is “ego eimi” in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using “ego eimi” many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, “The I Am's of Jesus.” It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Can thi
s be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the “I AM”?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, “And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Therefore, the “I AM” is identified as “Yahweh.”

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the “I AM.” But let's look into the matter a little farther.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Ex 3:14 reads,

In Septuagint English it reads, “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.”

In KJV English it reads, “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

In John 8:58, “I am” is “” in Greek. As you can see, “” in Ex 3:14 is just the prelude to what the Almighty really wanted the Israelites to know, that is, that He was the “” or “the Being” or “the Existing One”.

If Yahshua truly wanted to tell the Jews he was the great “I am” of Ex 3:14, he would have said, “Before Abraham was I am the Being” or “I am the Existing One”.

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the “I AM.” Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used “ego eimi” as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In Jn.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (Jn.8:58). Yahshua said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in Jn.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52.

In Jn.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, “…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, “Ego eimi.” At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the “I AM.”

After Yahshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8:58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth.

This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Jews of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what Yahshua meant due to a variety of reasons, I offer the following explanation.

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” “Was” is from the Greek “ginomai” meaning, “to come into being, … to arise.” What Yahshua actually meant was, “Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will.” Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading “Heterosis (Of Tenses),” subheading “The Present for the Future,” he writes, “This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present.” He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, “therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;” and Mk.9:31a, “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill
him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.” Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes to be, I am,” with “I am” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be, I will.”

Yahshua was telling them that Abraham will be one of those people who will be granted eternal life, but before that takes place, Yahshua will receive that same eternal life. This statement of fact must be since Yahshua is to have the preeminence in all things. He must be the firstborn from the dead, the first to receive eternal life.

Some people believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). “Was” is in the aorist tense and “am” is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be” not “Before Abraham was (or existed).”

Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh. And Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He is the Son of Yahweh and the Son of the great “I Am.”

The Word was God?

In Jn.1:1-3 we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (KJV). As mentioned previously, it is not wrong to address Yahshua as god or elohim as long as we don't address him as the “one true Elohim.” According to the common understanding of verse 1, there are two beings, the Word and God, Yahshua and Yahweh. Therefore, the phrase “the Word was God” would lead one to believe that Yahshua (the Word) was Yahweh (God). However, if we know that Yahweh called Yahshua “God” or “elohim” in Heb.1:9 and Ps.45:7, there is no problem with the phrase “the Word was God.” Yahshua is obviously an elohim in Hebrew or a god in English. This, of course, is based on the common understanding of the “Word” being Yahshua. That, however, is not what John intended when he wrote these verses.

Nor did John intend to teach us that the Son preexisted “with” God from the very beginning of creation. De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.

Since Yahshua is called “The Word of God” in Rev.19:13, the translators of the KJV assumed the “Word” of Jn.1:1 was also Yahshua and therefore, capitalized the word “word” and used the pronoun “him” in reference to the “word.” The Greek for “Word” is “logos.” It appears in the text written with a small letter l. Logos means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. The great English translator William Tyndale renders it that way in his 1525 version as does the Matthew's Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the Bishop's Bible of 1568. (Click here for more info.) Verse 3 should read, “All things were made through it; and without it was not anything made that was made.” In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14, 20, and 24 all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of [Yahweh]” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.

How then should we translate verse 1? “In the beginning was the word; and the word was with [Yahweh], and the word was [Yahweh]'s” is one suggestion. The Greek word translated “God” is “theos.” The Greek does not have a different word to show possession. Therefore, theos can be translated “Yahweh” or “Yahweh's.” The possessive form makes this verse so clear and in harmony with the phrase “the word was with Yahweh.”

Who is the Creator?

Getting back to the issue of creation, many believe Yahshua created all things. A thorough study of the Old Testament scriptures shows Yahweh to be the Creator and that He acted alone to accomplish this. Note Is.44:24; “Thus saith Yahweh, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am Yahweh that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Where is Yahshua in this verse? It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahshua is not Yahweh, therefore, Yahshua did not have a hand in creation. This is confirmed in Job 9:8; “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.” Consider also Prov.30:4; “Who hath ascended up into heaven? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?” This verse teaches us that the Creator, whoever He is, has a Son. Does Yahshua have a son? No. Father Yahweh is the Creator and He has a Son who is not given credit for creation in this verse.

There are several New Testament scriptures used to prove he did create all things. They are Jn 1:3, which we already looked at; Jn.1:10; 1 Cor.8:6; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; and Heb.1:2. All these verses use the same basic phrase, “by him” or “by Yahshua Messiah.” The phrase “by Yahshua Messiah” in Eph.3:9 is not found in any Greek MSS. Without the added words this verse teaches us that Yahweh is the Creator. The remaining four verses imply that Yahshua is the Creator. Thus far, it has been conclusively proven that Yahshua is not Yahweh. Since the scriptures emphatically state over 100 times that Yahweh is the Creator (Ex.20:11) and that He acted alone (Is.44:24), should we discard that wealth of evidence and accept Yahshua as the Creator without question? A careful examination of the Greek of those four verses will yield a different picture.

The Greek word for “by” is “di.” It can be translated “by,” “through,” “on account of,” “for,” etc., based on the context or message of the sentence. These four verses in question will not allow the translation “by” because it does not agree or harmonize with over 100 other verses stating that Yahweh is the Creator. An example of the importance of context is Mk.2:27; “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Both words “for” in this verse are from the Greek word “dia.” It would be incorrect to translate “dia” as “by” in this verse: The Sabbath was made by man. If you will notice the Greek of Jn.1:10 you will see it is the exact same construction as Mk.2:27 yet one verse says “for” and the other says “by.” Also, in the case of Heb 1:2, it is revealed that Yahshua is the heir of all things th
at have been created by Yahweh. He is not the Creator Himself.

1 Pe.1:20 says, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” Before creation, Yahshua existed in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev.13:8). Even before creation Yahweh knew that Yahshua had to be slain. Even before creation Yahweh knew that He would create all things through and for His Son. And so it is written and correctly translated in Col.1:16, “For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:” Without Yahshua in Yahweh's plan, creation would never have occurred. The remaining three scriptures using “by” should be translated similarly.

One other Scripture often used to prove Yahshua's hand in creation is Heb.1:10-12. These verses are indeed very difficult to understand. It appears as though the writer of Hebrews is including verses 10-12 as additional statements that Yahweh has made to His Son. The use of “And” in verse 10 and “but” in verse 13 suggest this. But if we look a little deeper we will find several discrepancies. Verses 10-12 are direct quotes from Ps.102:25-27. They are not a quote from the Hebrew Text, however, but from the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew Text does not have “Lord” in it. Therefore, to say that “Lord” in Heb.1:10 proves that Yahshua is Yahweh is unscriptural. The LXX has “Kurie” in Ps.102:25, but that is an addition since it is not found in the Hebrew Text. The LXX also omits “O my el” in verse 24.

In reading the Hebrew of Ps.102, it is clear the subject is Yahweh. They are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh. They are not the words of Yahweh as He speaks to His Son.

Notice each of the other Old Testament quotes in Hebrew 1;

Ps.2:7 – “…Thou art my Son; this day I (Yahweh) have begotten thee.”

2 Sam.7:14 – “I (Yahweh) will be to him a Father…”

Deut.32:43 (LXX) – “And let all the angels of God (Yahweh) worship him.”

Ps.45:6,7 – “Thy throne O elohim…therefore elohim, thy Elohim (Yahweh) hath anointed thee.”

Ps.110:1 – “Sit on my right hand, until I (Yahweh) make thine enemies thy footstool.”

In each of these quotes it can be seen that either Yahweh is talking to His Son or about His Son. Yet, in Ps.102:25-27 it is the Psalmist talking to Yahweh. Therefore, to include Heb.1:10-12 among those things that Yahweh said to or about His Son is incorrect.

The writer of Hebrews had written verses 1-9 to show how Yahweh exalted His Son, even above the angels. It appears as though the writer was then moved to exalt Yahweh as well by including verses 10-12 as a parenthesis. He then resumes by showing Yahshua's exaltation in verse 13 which is a continuation of verse 9. There are an abundance of Scriptures proving that Yahshua is not Yahweh. To make that assumption here is to reject the weightier evidence.

Know the Scriptures

There has been a very sharp attack centered on using Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament that are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua to prove the two are one and the same. It is important to fully understand these verses correctly.

The first is found in Rom.14:10,11. It reads, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (KJV). Paul was quoting Is.45:23 in which the speaker is Yahweh. So when verse 23 says, “That unto me,” “me” refers to Yahweh. Every knee will bow and every tongue will swear to Yahweh. Therefore, in Rom.14:11, “Lord” must mean Yahweh, as does “me” and “God”. There is no mention of Messiah in this verse; not even in verse 10. Concerning the phrase “judgment seat of Christ,” the Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary says, “All the most ancient and best MSS. read here, “judgment seat of God.”

Paul does, however, apply portions of Isa.45:23 to Yahshua in Ph.2:10,11. That does not mean he is also applying the Name “Yahweh” to him as well. Jn.5:23 helps us to understand this. If you don't honor the Son, by extension, you don't honor the Father. And Jn.15:23; if you hate the Son, by extension, you hate the Father. If you bow your knees to the Son, by extension, you bow your knees to the Father. Notice that what is sworn in Isa.45:23,24 is not what is sworn in Ph.2:11. (every tongue shall confess or swear that Yahshua is “Master” [kurios]). That same word (kurios) was applied to men in several other verses such as Jn.12:21. It is only a reference to Yahweh when it is a direct quote of an Old Testament verse containing the Tetragrammaton which Is.45:23 does not.

The next reference is 1 Pe.2:8, “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” Peter is here applying Is.8:14 to Messiah. It is to be understood in the sense that, since Yahshua is Yahweh's representative or agent, whatever Yahshua does is credited to Yahweh or is as though Yahweh did it. Isaiah says Yahweh will be a stumbling stone. Yahweh then causes Israel to stumble over Yahshua which makes them both stumbling stones. “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is Yahweh's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps.118:22,23).

Consider Ex.7:17 when understanding this verse.

“Thus saith Yahweh, In this thou shalt know that I am Yahweh: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river. And Yahweh spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as Yahweh commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.”

Yahweh says He Himself will smite the waters with the rod in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron that held the rod (Ex.7:19,20). Are we to believe that Aaron is also Yahweh? Neither should we believe that Yahshua is Yahweh in this verse.

Consider Zech 14:4 in this light as well.

“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

Most people believe “his feet” refers to Yahweh's feet. Yet, they realize that it is Yahshua who is returning to set up the Kingdom on earth. So they jump to the erroneous conclusion that Yahshua is Yahweh. As Messiah's feet land on the Mount of Olives, Yahweh the Father will cause it to cleave in two. Yet, as Yahweh's representative, Yahshua's feet are spoken of as Yahweh's feet just as Aaron's hand is spoken of as Yahweh's hand.

Yahshua is not the only one “coming” on judgment day. Yahweh will come as well, but not in the physical sense that Yahshua will.

Isa 40:10 – “Behold, the Sovereign Yahweh will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.”

The phrase “his arm” is a reference to Messiah (Jn 12:38), but “the Sovereign Yahweh
” is a reference to the Father.
<

August 24, 2006 at 4:41 pm#25500

Participant

Hi Frank,
If your doctrinal base does not accept Jesus Christ is the monogenes Son of God then of course Phil 2 will be a stumbling block and become one of the most difficult group of verses in the bible to grasp. If ever there was a clear view of the heavenly Son of God it is here. His obedience and emptying all are written as before he came as man, and then he humbled himself as a human son.

Using KJV here, which is manifestly different to other versions due to embarrassingly bad translation or olde worlde word usage here is not helpful and any other version but KJV versions give far more light. Any further discussion should not be according to the aberrant KJV here, in my view.

Your patent refusal to accept what is plain to the eye for those who know the Word was with God as the Son expresses only how much your doctrinal base rules in the viewing of scripture. You must not just work from a doctrinal overview here but look at each word in it's context.

You have tried to paint Jesus as greater than ordinary men from birth or before, when we know he was like to us in all ways but sin, is not pure truth. Yes he was aware of his parentage by God and became aware of his prophetic and priestly role in God by his love and fervent study of scripture. The prophet John also predicted his role as Lamb of God and his anointing in the Jordan confirmed he was the Messiah.

August 24, 2006 at 8:50 pm#25512

Yahsuua Did Not Pre-exist His Birth

Participant

“Your patent refusal to accept what is plain to the eye for those who know the Word was with God as the Son.

Like I pointed out previously, Yahchanan (John) 1:1 does not say “the [W]ord was with God as the Son.”

It is plain to my eyes that it does not say this. You have twisted and added words that are inherent of your Trinitarian brethern.

Quoteing the Trinitarian KJV translation it says:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Note that the word 'logos' is not capitalized in the Greek. Your Trinitarian brethern capitalzed on this word in their translation to personify Father Yahweh's word and in turn deceiving you to come into partial agreement with their Triune God. Father Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth as the prophets of old and Yahshua himself proclaimed.

August 24, 2006 at 9:10 pm#25514

Participant

Hi F4Y,
Can you then expound these verses for us?
1Jn 4.9f

“9By this the love of God was manifested (M)in us, that (N)God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

10In this is love, (O)not that we loved God, but that (P)He loved us and sent His Son to be (Q)the propitiation for our sins”

August 25, 2006 at 2:41 pm#25568

Participant

Nick,

Why would you want me to expound on such simply stated verses? They seem to be self explanitory to me. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or what? If not, maybe you could expound on them or give a reason why you would have a problem with them in accordance with what it is that I believe.

August 25, 2006 at 7:05 pm#25597

epistemaniac

Participant

Frank, it is pretty clear to me that Jesus was the one who created all that is, and, it is by Him and through Him that the very creation is itself sustained….

Col 1:15-17 ESV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

blessings, from one of the decieved Trinitarians lol….. and… from a fellow Hoosier… hey… Hoosier mommy and hoosier daddy..? right? lol

August 25, 2006 at 7:14 pm#25600