What is the Relationship Between the Messiah and God?

There is a big differences between Christianity's messiah and Judaism's messiah. Islam's version of a messiah / Mahdi - the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, is so far out into left-field that other than having to deal with the Iranian president and nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who thinks he was chosen to hasten his Mahdi's return with nuclear war, it can't be taken seriously.

Judaism's concept of the End of Days messiah (meshiah in Hebrew) is strictly Hebrew in origin, including the relationship between the End of Days messiah and the God of Israel.
Christianity's concept of the End of Days messiah is also Hebrew in origin being that its very foundational concept is directly based upon the Hebrew Scriptures. However, Christianity's concept of the relationship between the End of Days messiah and the God of Israel is Hellenistic /Roman in origin rather than Hebraic.

There is a growing movement within the American churches to "discover" the Church's Hebrew roots of Christianity. When I hear of this, I want to say, "You ought to discover the Church's "Hellenistic roots" of Christianity"! Other than Jesus not fulfilling the prophesied accomplishments of the End of Days messiah,1 what splits Christianity from Judaism is the god-man (demigod) concept that originated in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.2

Christianity's make-up consists of Greek and Roman mythology being blended into the Hebrew scriptures, and the evidence of this can be found in today's Christmas Day (December 25 - Mithraism) Christmas Tree (see Jeremiah 10:2-4) and Easter Bunny (Oestre' - the goddess of fertility).3 Notice, there is a very deep spiritual reason as to why there are no Gentile pagan-based nor pagan-influenced 'Jewish' holidays within Judaism!

No where within the Hebrew scriptures does it even come close as depicting the End of Days messiah as holding the status of a demigod, or where God personally fathers a son through a mortal woman. These concepts are foreign to the Hebrew prophets, and could only be included into the text by additions and going outside the prophecy context from what the Hebrew prophets intended to convey to the Hebrew people. For example, why does the Hebrew Bible need to warn the Son of God (the Word made flesh)?:
"And 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. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." - 2 Samuel 7:12-14

Notice in the prophesy above that there are three elements concerning the everlasting kingdom of God that is to be ruled by David's seed:

1. It is seed from David's loins (not God's - see also Psalms 132:11) that God's everlasting kingdom will be based.
2. The seed of David will have (as David himself had) a "father and son" relationship with God, but not in a Hellenistic-type relationship consisting of human-divinity.
3. The seed of David is very special to God, but they are not infallible. They can (as did David) suffer from their own sin. Therefore, there is a necessity within the Hebrew Bible concept, for them to be warned even though the prophesy is that their kingdom will be everlasting.
   

One particular method that the Gentile Christian Bible translators did to help the blending effect between God and the messiah was to avoid translating the very personal name of God throughout the Hebrew Bible while placing great emphasis on the pronunciation of the name of Jesus (see Luke 1:31 / Philippians 2:10). By translating the very name of God (YHVH - pronounced Jehovah in English) as "The Lord" instead of His actual name,4 it becomes easier for Christianity to insert "Jesus" into the position of "The Lord".

There is a huge difference between God's declaration (spoken hundreds of times throughout the Hebrew Bible) "I am the Lord" verses "I am YHVH (Jehovah)". As James Tabor puts it in his book entitled "Restoring Abrahamic Faith" "The later is personal and direct. It immediately calls for a unique and singular understanding of the ONE GOD -identifying the ETERNAL ONE by Name".5 Also, which is more of a "pure" translation of Amos 9:6: "The LORD is His name." which taken literally, doesn't make sense, or "YHVH (Jehovah) is His name"?

Notice how the "Judaism is the correct religion" effect becomes more potent when the Hebrew Bible texts properly includes the very proper name of the God of Israel within prophecy texts:

• O YHVH, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto THEE from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is YHVH! - Jeremiah 16:19-21

• Behold, the "Day of YHVH" cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. - Zechariah 14:1

• I am YHVH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. - Isaiah 42:8

• Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to YHVH, to serve HIM, and to love the name of YHVH, to be His servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant. - Isaiah 56:6

• ...they shall call on MY Name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, YHVH is my God. - Zechariah 13:9
  

What is amazing to me is that the Christian Bible, be it a Greek translation (including the Septuagint) or the standard 1611 King James Version, does not (not even in one single place) carry this very special and personal name of YHVH throughout their entire New Testament! κυριος (pronounced "Kurios" meaning "Lord") is used in its place. It is like they believed that the God of the Hebrew Bible didn't convey His personal-proper name to His Hebrew chosen people, giving them only a reference-title of Himself, even though the text of Exodus 3:15 along with Exodus 6:3 are quite clear in spelling out His distinct and personal Name.6

Given this fact, is becomes easy to see (through a translation compared to an original) the different doctrines of salvation between the Greek Christians and the Hebrew Jews:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of "the Lord" shall be saved" - Romans 10:13
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on "the name of YHVH" (Jehovah) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as YHVH (Jehovah) hath said, and in the remnant whom shall call." - Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 in the Hebrew Bible)

When the Name of God is recognized as being God's Name forever, as God Himself declared (Exodus 3:15) then it becomes much easier to distinguish the relationship between the End of Days Hebrew messiah and YHVH:
"And he (the meshiach) shall stand and feed in the strength of YHVH, in the majesty of the Name of YHVH his God" - Micah 5:4
"And the Spirit of YHVH shall rest upon him (the meshiach) the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHVH. And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of YHVH." -Isaiah 11:2-3

It is from the Nicean Council of 325c.e. that the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to merge the End of Days messiah into the same substance of God as the "second person of the Godhead" even though the Hebrew "meshiach" - as the scriptures clearly indicates above - is separate from God and will fear his God. Given this Hebrew scripture fact, how then, could it be possible for the second god-person of the Godhead to fear the first god-person of the Godhead - as God, when the second god-person of the Godhead is supposed to be of the same god-substance as the first god-person in the Godhead to begin with? To ask it another way, how can the one true God (in the singular) fear Himself?

The New Testament describes Jesus' divinity as the following:
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:9-11

Notice, that the Hebrew name of God is not mentioned within this and all New Testament context! Notice also, that it implies that Jesus now takes the position of "Lord" - the very title that the KJV replaced the Name YHVH with throughout its translation. This was done in order to glorify Christianity's foundational God while at the same time kept His personal name out of every context throughout the Christian Bible! How anti-Hebrew Bible can the Christian text get? Perhaps, having His proper Name placed within their text would create too many theological problems and therefore the ambiguous no-named title of "God the Father" was used instead?7

The Hebrew scripture from where the Christian text in Philippians quotes from tells a very different story in a very different context:
"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YHVH? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in YHVH have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In YHVH shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Isaiah 45:21-25

From the Hebrew text above I always like to ask contain questions:

• Which person of the Godhead used all nine of those personal pronouns in YHVH's declaration?"
  
• Why is it, that Philippians describes a second Godhead-person sharing glory with the first Godhead person, when YHVH wanted to make it very clear by repeating Himself, that there are no other god(s) besides Him who was speaking and using those personal pronouns nine different times?

It also should be stated that unlike the Philippians context of every knee bowing to the second-person of the Godhead, YHVH makes it very clear His glory is not to be shared or given to another god: "I am YHVH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another" - Isaiah 42:8
Also according to the Philippians text, it is the name of Jesus that is exalted and not the Name of YHVH. This is not the case according to the Hebrew scriptures:
" And YHVH shall be king over all the earth: in that day YHVH shall be one, and His name one" - Zechariah 14:9
This means that there will be no other gods worshiped by another name than that of YHVH, and that YHVH will be the only one worshiped with that Name throughout the whole earth! Oh, Christian, can you look directly into this holy Hebrew scripture that you claim as the Word of God, and say with a hardy Amen - SO BE IT?

Since Jesus clearly didn't fulfill the most prominent and vindicating messianic prophesies,1 Christianity does one of two things (sometimes both based on convenience):

1. Look for a "Son of David" heavenly-angelic form of Jesus to fulfill the messianic prophesies that he didn't accomplish in his human "Son of David" form 2,000 years earlier.
2. Apply all, or most all messianic prophesies as being fulfilled "spiritually"8 through the virgin-born Jesus, giving birth to Christian Preterism that denies all, or most all, aspects of physical Israel and the everlasting covenant.9

Whether Christianity views the fulfillment of the messianic prophesies through "human-form" as stressed by Christianity's proof text of Zechariah 13:6, or more of an angelic form as seen in Zechariah 14:4, Christians seem to take the physical "seed of David" requirement as just a mere reference rather than a very physical key-element of the "YHVH to physical Israel - everlasting covenant" (Psalms 105:8-11).

The context of Zechariah 13:6 (of which this one verse missionaries use to for Jewish conversion) reveals that the one with wounds between his arms (not in the hands) is indeed a false prophet, and was beaten by his own relatives for being a false prophet at the unfolding of the Messianic Age. (see verses 1-5 of the same chapter)

All Christians view Zechariah 14:4 as Jesus setting his feet upon the Mount of Olives. However, this text does NOT include the mention of the End of Days messiah. It is describing the Spirit of YHVH as referred in Ezekiel 43:1-7 descending just to the east of the Temple Mount - literally returning in the same manner and fashion as His spirit left in Ezekiel 11:23-24. This descending of YHVH Himself (not the human 'seed of David' His messiah) is in correlation with YHVH entering His Temple in Ezekiel 37:26-28. David, YHVH's meshiach, (mentioned in Ezekiel 37:24) is noted separate from YHVH in the Ezekiel 37:2-28 text and is the same "nasi" meaning "prince-president" that is found in the temple description text - Ezekiel: chapters 44-48 (see Ezekiel 44:3 as a start reference).

In order to stay with the true Hebrew prophecy text as it was given to the Hebrew people, a Christian must first be willing to give up their Gentile-influenced New Testament preconceived idea that the End of Days messiah is YHVH Himself in the form of virgin born Sonship. According to the Hebrew Bible, YHVH is not the messiah, and the messiah (physical offspring of David) is Not YHVH.

NOTES:
1. The End of Days Hebrew messiah will fulfill the following prophecies:
A. In-Gathering of the House of Israel exiles - Jeremiah 16:15 / Ezekiel 37:24-25
During Jesus' time, there was a Jewish diaspora - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
B. Building of the third and final temple - Ezekiel 37:26-28 / Ezekiel chapters 40-48 / Isaiah 33:20 / Amos 9:11. During Jesus' time, the Jewish temple was torn down - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
C. Universal knowledge of the God of Israel - Isaiah 11:9 / Jeremiah 31:33 / Zechariah 14:9. During Jesus' time, a very small percentage of the world's population knew anything about him, or about the Torah and God of Israel - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
D. World Peace - Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-8
During Jesus' time, the Jewish nation was being subjugated by Rome which led to the greatest Jewish tragedies in 70CE and 132 CE. - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
E. Resurrection of the Dead - Isaiah 26:19 / Daniel 12:2 / Ezekiel 37:12-13
Though the New Testament claims that some graves of the saints were opened (Matthew 27:52-53) the Hebrew prophecy is that "all" the graves are to be opened, and not just "all" the saints, but "all" the wicked as well, unto everlasting shame and abhorrence - Daniel 12:2
F. From the Tribe of Judah - Number 1:18-44 / Numbers 34:14 / Leviticus 23:10
Bible based "tribal affiliation" came directly from the father, not the mother. In order for Jesus to even be considered a Dividical king-messiah, he would have to be a "seed" from the Judean tribe - not a virgin born demigod, who of such origin, would be bypassing the Biblical requirement and prophecy of Genesis 49:10.

2. A. "The "sky gods," patriarchal male figures who resided on mountaintops such as Olympus, often came down to Earth to take human wives. "Virgin births" were common-a union of the "Father god" with a human maiden." - Answers.com > http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-gods-and-goddessess

B. The mythical story of the foundation of Rome (7 1/2 centuries before Jesus) starts with the god of Mars fathering the human female (Vestal) Virgin Rhea Silvia with two human males Romulus and Remus.

C. "The Ancient Egyptians believed that their Pharaoh was the god Horus, son of Re, the sun god. When a pharaoh died he was believed to be united with the sun and then a new Horus ruled on earth." > http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/egypt/pharaoh.htm

D. Alexander the Great, though having an earthly father named Phillip, believed as did his own mother to be fathered by a god, and called himself the "son of god"!

3. Web-sites regarding Christmas Day, Christmas tree, and that egg-laying Easter Bunny:
A. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm
B. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm
C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre 

4. The name YHVH (Jehovah) has no grammatical connection nor translational link to the Hebrew meaning of the word Lord (Adon). YHVH is a compound name taken from the Hebrew root-verb "hayah" meaning "to be" connecting and linking His proper revealed name (His eternal being) to the past, present, and future.

5. "Restoring Abrahamic Faith" by James D. Tabor - page 17 > http://genesis2000.org/

6. "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHVH (Jehovah) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: THIS IS MY NAME FOREVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - Exodus 3:15
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddi, but by my name YHVH (Jehovah) was I not known to them." - Exodus 6:3

7. The Early Church baptized in the "personal" name of "Jesus" that according to traditional Christian doctrine, more-less replaced the Name of YHVH. See Acts 2:38 / Acts 8:12,16 / Acts 19:5.
Today's modern Trintarians baptize using the "office-titles" name - (singular) of Father - Son - Holy Ghost. See Matthew 28:19

8. One example: "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old" -Amos 9:11
Compared to the "New Testament" text:
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" - Acts 15: 14-16

Of course, such an interpretation of spiritual "fulfillment" negates the entire Ezekiel vision of the very physical third and final temple as depicted in chapters 40-48 and Ezekiel 37:27-28. It also negates the very words of the prophecy that the book of Acts referred to. In Amos 9:11 YHVH states, ''I will build it (the tabernacle) as in the days of old". A "spiritual" tabernacle that the book of Acts referred to, could certainly "not" be described "as it was in the days of old"! Notice, it was these "exact words" from the book of Amos 9:11 that the Acts 15:14-16 quote leaves out! I wonder why?

9. Christian Perterism and other forms of Christian "replacement theology" attempts to change every fundamental basis and concept of the Hebrew scriptures, in the name of "fulfillment". Their changes include the following:

1. The one true God of Israel YHVH (Isaiah 45:21) - changing His proper and personal Name to the non-Hebrew title "The Lord" via Christian translations, then changing His very nature of oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4) to a three god-person Trinity (1 John 5:7).
2. The Physical and covenant land of Israel (Ezekiel 37:25 / Joel 3:2 ) - changing it to an angelic-heavenly land (Galatians 4:25-26 / Revelations 21:2,10)
3. Israel, YHVH's chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6) - changing them to a "new" (Gentile) Israel (Romans 2:28-29 / Galatians 6:16).

Notice, all three changes, change the whole spiritual DNA system and foundational base of the Hebrew scriptures in order to reflect and fit the Gentile concept of Gentile God(s) the Gentile spiritual dwelling, and the Gentiles as a specially selected people. Christianity is certainly a religion fitted and designed "for" it biggest base - the Gentiles!

Is God a Man?

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." - Numbers 23:19
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. " - I Samuel 15:29

Christian Missionaries use the advent of the three angel-messengers (malachim in Hebrew) that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 as a "proof text" that God can and does appear as a "man" thereby pointing to Jesus the man as a god-man / demigod. Missionaries are very quick to point out that these "men" eat and drank like normal men which is nothing more than an attempt to portray these angels as a Jesus-type who eat and drank as well.

With this Genesis 18 mindset the standard missionary argument goes something like this:
1. Christian don't worship God as a man, but the one unseen God who came in the form of man (Word made flesh - St. John 1:14).
2. God / Jesus appeared to Abraham in the form of man just like He did with the man Jesus.
3. Jesus never lied (as God don't) thereby nullifying to "Jewish attempt" of applying Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 against Christianity.

While it is true that the one man-angel that stayed with and communicated with Abraham using God's words, was in effect God appearing and talking with Abraham in the form of a man, that is not Judaism's objection with the Christian proof text of Genesis 18. Judaism realizes that whether it's a man-angel, whirlwind, burning bush, or donkey, God can use any form He wants to express a message. However, His message source is NEVER His true identifying form. God is simply not limited to earthly forms - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built" - I Kings 8:27

There are a three of things that should be addressed in understanding the events of Genesis 18.
1. All three messengers first came to Abraham - all three had a primary message to Abraham alone. Genesis 18: 5, 8 states "they said" meaning the conversation to Abraham was from all three - not just a certain one of them spoke to Abraham.
2. All three messengers - not just one - "eat" with Abraham (verse 8). I have to make a point of this because of the Christian emphasis on this part of the text that tries to make the angels more human like thereby tying to tie these angel(s) in with human Jesus.
3. There angels came with two messages. One angel was to announce that Sarah would have a child by Abraham, and two angels were sent for the destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot and his family.

The trinitarians who try tying their doctrine into the text using the three messenger angels as depicting the God of Israel does themselves a great disfavor. They show the heart of the trinitarian movement which is the worship of three god "persons" thereby the worship of three gods. Being that the angels that appeared to Abraham were indeed separate from each other, only adds to the realization that the Trinity is indeed a worship of three separate gods in personhood when they attempt connecting Genesis 18 with a the Trinity doctrine.

When Judaism uses Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 as a proof text against Christianity, it's not talking about a message coming from God that came in a form of man's image. Not only angels but the very prophets who carried the word of God have the appearance of a man. However, can any Christian or otherwise state that any of the three "men" that appeared to Abraham were human beings or in a true sense merely "men"? I would think not. Therefore, when the Bible tells us that God is not a man, its specific message is that the essence of God is not that of "humankind". It's message is that from humankind lies can be produced, but from God who remains outside of humankind lies cannot be produced. This is also why idols that were made with human hands were so offensive to God - men would worship a human creation as a god as if it was indeed God! (See Isaiah 44:8-18)

With this in mind can we say Jesus who was born of human woman was of humankind? If Jesus was indeed a "created" person (i.e. the entire human aspect of Jesus) then he can, for all tense and purposes, become a human idol. Thus, we have "the crucifix" with the human Jesus on it hanging all over the Catholicism world and human pictures of Jesus hanging all over protestant Christianity world. The essence of Christianity is that in order for one to be saved, one "must" go through and enter the "human door" of Jesus. That is, the first baseline foundation of the Christian belief system is centered on the belief that God came to earth as a human-man. Every further belief of the one unseen God of Israel in Christianity evolves around this baseline concept.

As a human Jesus states: " I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." - St. John 10:9
Paul states that the Law of Moses is dead thorough the human body of Jesus: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ" - Romans 7:4
The Holy Christian Communion's main focus evolves around the human body of Jesus: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ" - I Corinthians 10:16

I don't mean to say that every Christian is nothing more than a idol worshiper (although the majority of world Christianity indeed are). There are some (I call them the Christian Zionist-remnant) who worship the true of Israel though through gentile blindness or ignorance - yes it is the gentile Christians who are the blind ones when it comes to Hebrew Bible truths. [see Isaiah 25:7] I am saying however, that according to Hebrew Bible the purest form in worshiping and communicating with the God of Israel - Jehovah - is not through human sacrifices, vicarious atonement, polytheism that is called monotheistic, wise-men astrology, or anything that has its foundation or doorway-entrance into humanhood!

Jesus spoke many times of himself as "son of man"1 meaning being apart of humanhood - the "revelation" of "the Son of God" was to come after his humanhood after the "son of man" ministry was completed. However, it was the "son of man" concept that the Hebrews scriptures warns us about - even going to the extent of saying that no salvation can come out of a "son of man" venue: "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. {help: or, salvation} " -Psalms 146:3
Again, the Hebrew scriptures are not stating that a human can't be anointed to speak God's words - even the words of salvation (as with the Hebrew prophet Isaiah whose name means salvation) but it is against connecting God with humanhood as we see in New Testament text doing in John 1:1 connecting with John 1:14.

The usual Christian response to Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 is that, "Jesus never lied - so it couldn't been talking about him". Even though the main subject of the text is concerning "humanhood" - "lying" being the sub-subject, there is New Testament issues to be taken up with the Christians over textual falsehoods coming from the words of Jesus.
" Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:28
This Matthew 16:28 text is inline with an earlier one: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another; for truly I say to you, In no way shall you have finished the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes" - Matthew 10:23
Jesus proclaimed that there were people standing there hearing him speak that would not die a physical death until after they had seen him "coming" in his kingdom. So the question I ask Christians is, when did this "coming" occur during the first century that allowed some of the people that heard Jesus speak of his coming indeed seen that "coming" he was talking about? Unless you are perterist, you will find this very hard to answer. If you are perterist, you'll have a hard time explaining "this coming" itself.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Jesus had just finished listing the horrible events that were to befall the earth including the words "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." It's from this scripture that the "great tribulation" doctrine in Christianity is based. However in truth seeking, can we say that the first century (the generation of Jesus' time) saw such a great tribulation that there has not been anything like it seen with such magnitude on the earth since the generation of Jesus' time? Notice, everything mentioned in Matthew 24 Jesus declared it to be fulfilled during the generation in which he was earthly living!

It must be noted that the writers of the Gospels (who wrote the gospels after Paul's letters) had already seen the destruction of the temple that had stood for hundreds of years, and from that point of view it would seem like destruction like no other. As far as the temple destruction it had been a time of tribulation like no other. Also Paul was of the impression that world redemption was just around the corner during his time: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand" - Romans 13:12
And even the writer of the book of Revelations has Jesus stating: " I come quickly" - Revelations 3:11 / 22:7,12,20

It is clear the New Testament writers didn't expect Christianity the last more than 2000 years.
So when Christians state that Jesus never lied (or given false statements) in regards to Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 a call for a response regarding these New Testament texts should be requested of them. This is all in addition to the fact that if Jesus is not the true messiah (Mashiach ben David) that is to come at the "End of Days" for the redemption of Israel, then the whole Christian concept is based upon a false foundation. Thus, the scriptures Jeremiah 16:19 and Zachariah 8:23 would included all gentiles involved with Christianity as well as those of Islam.

Notes:
1. Just from the book of Matthew alone the phrase "son of man" is stated by Jesus several times in reference to himself:
Matthew 8:20 / 9:6 / 10:23 / 11:19 / 12:8, 32, 40, / 13:37, 41, / 16:13, 16:27-28 / 17:9, 12, 22 / 18:11 / 19:28 / 20:18,28 / 24:30, 37, 39, 44 / 25:13, 31, / 26:2, 24, 45, 64,

Predestination and Eternal Security

Disclaimer: Though my religion of faith is Judaism this blog reflects my own spiritual journey and study and may not reflect "traditional Judaism" in all statements throughout this blog.

As with Albert Einstein's "theory of relativity" predestination and eternal security are relative depending which side a the spectrum (time - Genesis 1:1 or eternity - Isaiah 57:15) one views from. While eternal security and predestination are compatible with each other in the eternal realm they are not compatible with time. With time comes "the choice" that is between good and evil. That choice then brings forth the eternal element of each person.

Where people get into trouble is by placing eternal security / the eternal acknowledgment of every person and eternal predestination inside of - and thereby effected by time - when it has nothing to do with time. Where time ends eternity begins. It is only in the eternal state of being (i.e. God) that no soul never has been or ever can be lost. There is no need of redemption in that state of God's mind. The salvation and redemption of God that we see in the Bible only brings us into that spiritual habitation. Therefore, there is in a sense two expressions of eternal security. The first being of the eternal mind of God that is beyond all elements of past, present, and future. The second being one that is indeed effected by time and choice.

The Hebrew scriptures are very clear on what man should be spiritually aware of concerning his eternal security in time:
"If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live." Ezekiel 18:21-22
"When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." - Ezekiel 18:24

When I hear Fundamental Independent Baptist preachers actually make the statement that as long as one has accepted the Christian messiah he / she can actually live everyday of their lives for the devil and still be "saved" I can't help but think of the above biblical standard for salvation and how the God of Israel states "For I am the LORD, I change not" - Malachi. 3:6.

These same Baptist preachers will no doubt be one of the first ones to claim that the Jews who prescribe to the above biblical principle of eternal security have been "spiritually blinded"! But from my spiritual perception their doctrine has blinded them of the original standard truth insomuch that their souls are in danger of dying in their "devil-teaching" sin, where the above biblical standard that they have rejected will be applied to their very souls! In a sense, by placing God's eternal security where nothing is lost into the element of time, they are in effect making their sin an eternal part of God as well - now that's deep spiritual blindness!

Judaism's eternal security is in the Torah itself for it is a marriage contract between God and His Bride Israel - Isaiah 62:4-5. A man who is true in his heart towards his communion with God has eternal security just as a man who is true in his heart when making wedding vows to his bride has "marriage security" - a new term I just coined. God wants a whole and perfect heart: "Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day." - I Kings 8:61
"Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart." - Psalms 119:2

For those who don't think that a prefect heart and perfect will are possible (which shows spiritual blindness towards the Jewish scriptures) I give you the following scriptures to ponder:
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." - Ecclesiastes 12:13
" I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart." Psalms 101:2
"I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law." -Psalms 119:55
"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father." - I Kings 15:11
"And he (Jehoshaphat) walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" - I kings 22:43

It is when one has that biblical "perfect will" of the heart and "complete desire" in his mind towards God that one has obtained perfect "security" in salvation with God. One's security is only as strong as one's love and will towards God. Any other doctrine is not biblical and is simply a false (eternal) security concept. Just as a relationship is based upon the lest heart compassion between two people (i.e. a love / like relationship becomes nothing more than a "like relationship" - not a mutual "love" relationship) it is the heart of man that will determine the relationship he and God will have.

Notice the eternal security principle in the following scripture: "Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts" - Zechariah 1:3 The principle here being, if one then turns away from God, then he also turns away from the eternal security he had with God. Only whole-heart repentance will return unto him eternal security, that being eternal security "in time". Every man will sin (Hebrew "chat" meaning "to miss the target") as I Kings 8:46 informs us, but the righteous will repeat - adjust, repair, and overcome - their sin (maintaining a perfect heart 'goal' towards God) while the ungodly will embrace their sins (because their love for sin is greater than their love for God) and be overcome by sin.

There is a predestination with the Jewish scriptures, however it has become an almost dirty word due to Calvinism's historical five-point (hyper) 'TULIP'1 abuse. The Calvinism doctrine mixes time and eternity in proclaiming that everything including the souls of man (and even babies that die as babies) are predetermined to salvation and damnation even though the Jewish scriptures state otherwise: "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." - Ezekiel 18: 31-32 (see also Deuteronomy 30:19)

Some Calvinist doctrines have it in their minds that warning of God's wrath to come upon the wicked soul is a waste of time since all souls are already predetermined and nothing can be changed anyway. This doctrine goes right against all that the Hebrew prophets taught and how they expressed their message:
"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." - Ezekiel 3:18

The nation of Israel is indeed predestination with an eternal predestination. Without fail God has promised literally to Himself (II Samuel 7:24) that Israel will be His chosen people forever. However, that eternal promise doesn't give every Jew of Israel a free pass to salvation. Only those who keep the commandments with a perfect heart can they be apart of Israel-redeemed.

It is God's word of promise for an eternal purpose is what is predestined. An individual's choice must become one with that eternal purpose in order to obtain that eternal life. But with eternal life come eternal perseverance. As with nature it is the sperm that perseveres unto the egg that obtains life, while all the others die - See Proverbs 18:10

I do believe all people has a certain spiritual genetic makeup as Jeremiah was called to be a spiritual prophet, even unto the nations before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). However, every soul that comes into life has a duty to overcome sin by embracing God with a pure heart - see Genesis 4:7. The eternal element that causes some to love God with a deeper love more than others - as with the story of Cain and Abel - cannot be related in time. I do believe it relates back to the serpent (spiritual) seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15. However, God's eternal election can only be truly seen in the realm of eternal life where there is no beginning and no end, and where nothing is ever lost.

Notes:
1. TULIP: an abbreviation standing for:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin - but can some how muster up enough of spiritual gumption to accept Jesus as his personal savior)
Unconditional Election (no inward calling or conviction needed)
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace (one can't resist God saving him)
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Is Human Blood Kosher for Sin Atonement?

One of the three main reasons for my conversion to Judaism was over the human sacrifice of Christianity in [light] of the Jewish scriptures (the other two being vicarious-atonement and astrology veneration). Simply put, the Jewish scriptures utterly detest the worship of Jehovah God of Israel through the form of human sacrifice.

.
"...for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." - Deuteronomy 12:31 (see also Leviticus 18:21 / Leviticus 20:2-4)

"But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - Jeremiah 32:34-35
.
Human sacrifice which was a common practice of worship among the Canaanites, caused the Jewish temple (a place for atonement) to be defiled. In order to convey just how bad the worship of other gods can be Deuteronomy states: "even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods". According to the prophet Jeremiah, God wants Israel to know that human sacrifice is the furthermost concept from His method of thought - notice the words in red from the book of Jeremiah above.
.
The question then becomes why would Jehovah-God of Israel who hates human sacrifices send Himself as one, for Himself to be accepted as an vicarious atonement? Notice the prophet Ezekiel's exact wording that would reflect upon vicarious atonement: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." - Ezekiel 18:20
This Hebrew scripture from the prophet Ezekiel is in direct conflict with the later New Testament teaching: "(Jesus) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree..." -I Peter 2:24
Why would the God of Israel forbid the Jews for nearly two millenniums not to human sacrifice and punish them severely when they did, then turn right around and demand that Israel worship Himself as the very thing (a human sacrifice) that he was so against?

.

It seems that Christianity had a Gentile-based subconscious goal of retaining a form of pagan worship of human sacrifices while trying to connect with the God of Israel. In order to accomplish this they would make the animal sacrifices that was pleasing to God, only a type and a shadow (Hebrews 10:1) even though the Jewish scriptures never indicate in the slightest of suggestions that the sacrificial system is only a type of a human sacrifice to come. In fact, according to the Jewish prophecy of scripture, it is even after the Meshiach (messiah) ben David has come that the animal sacrificial system is fully restored to the Jewish people who have been gathered from the corners of the earth back to their ancient homeland in Israel! See Ezekiel 37:24-28 and Ezekiel chapters 40-48.

.

In the Christian view Jesus' human sacrifice is a death-penalty sacrifice for all types of sin. However, there never was a death-penalty sacrifice within the Jewish scripture, just the death penalty period. There was no type or shadow animal requirement that the sinner could sacrifice under the death-penalty that he / she might be resolved from such sin. So the question then becomes, how is Jesus' human sacrifice a death-penalty antitype when there was no death-penalty type or shadow animal sacrifice to begin with that would allow him to become the antitype?

.

Christianity's "type and shadow" doctrine doesn't work with the Jewish scriptures when one considers that the blood sacrifice was only required for unintentional sins ( Leviticus 4:27-29 / Numbers15:27-28) and even then if one wishes to get down to the fine specifics of types and shadows, this particular sacrifice of unintentional sin had to be a she-goat and not a male-lamb blood sacrifice as the book of Saint John paints Jesus. So if we run the type and shadow doctrine to its full potential, the Christian human sacrifice (the antitype) could only be applied to unintentional sins and not every type of sins.

.

The Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) once-a-year offering that Paul refers to in Hebrews 9:7 applied only to Israel as a community and not to the entire Gentile world. How then is Jesus' sacrifice the antitype to such a Israel-only sacrificial-type system (see St. John 1:29) especially when Paul negates Moses' command concerning this ritual to Israel: " And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year." - Leviticus 16:34.

.

As it turns out, even this holy Yom Kippur sacrifice didn't take away death-penalty sins. If it could have David who murdered Uriah the Hittite by proxy wouldn't have wrote of his blood-guilt the following: "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God... for thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. - Psalms 51:14, 16-17. Under the Christian blood-sacrifice view David could have just waited until the next Yom Kippur offering to become guilt / sin-free. Killing a man because you got his wife pregant? No sweat, just keep it under the wraps until the next holiest day of the year, then your home free? - I think not. The sacrificial system was not a "out of jail free-card".

.

Since the Yom Kippur sacrifice was for Israel only are we to understand that according to the Christian view, all the souls of the Gentile world would have continued to be (since the very first Yom Kippur sacrifice) eternally damned if indeed the Jewish nation would have accepted their Christian messiah? Perhaps then, instead of the Church persecuting the Jewish nations for nearly two thousand years as "Christ-killers" they should have been bowing down in thankfulness to the Jews for getting their fellow-Gentile Romans to kill (sacrificed) Jesus?
.
Speaking of which, the Yom Kippur sacrifice was to be carried out by using animal blood sprinkled by the Jewish High Priest of Aaron's clan, on the only provided place - the temple's altar inside the city of Jerusalem. In contrast, the Christian atonement was carried out using human blood, shed by Gentile Roman soldiers, outside the city nowhere near the only provided place -the temple's altar.1 With this in mind, it's easier to spiritually understand why the Christian atonement consisting of human sacrifice carried out by Gentile Romans, outside the Jewish spiritual headquarter, was predisposed to be the foundation of a Gentile religion called Christianity. Paul, being the foundation writer of the New Testament, changing his Jewish name of Saul to Gentile Paul only added to the inevitable.
.
Following the teaching of Gentile-named Paul (see Hebrews 9:22) the Christian proof-text of Leviticus 17:11 is used to falsely determine that blood was absolutely required for atonement. However, the context of Leviticus 17:10-12 is not at all addressing the issue of atonement for sin. It is addressing the prohibition of blood consumption, period. There is a doctrinal revealing reason why Christian apologists will NEVER quote verses 10 and 12 with Leviticus 17:11.2 To do so would yank the carpet out from under their proof-text. The context of all three verses would be too revealing, therefore the context is purposely hidden by quoting only verse 11 by itself.
.
The text of Leviticus 17:10-12 is stating the following:
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood [subject of context] I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood [subject of context] and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul [not the bones or the meat of the animal that the priest can eat but the blood that no man can consume because the blood is for an atonement]. Therefore [this word "therefore" - "Kee" in the Hebrew, connects the previous two verses with the following statement staying inline with the context] I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood [subject of context], neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood [subject of entire context]."
.

Taking into consideration the Torah's explicit and strict prohibition of blood consumption, doesn't Jesus' words, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" sound a little anti-Torah? especially since blood consumption was forbidden long before the Law of Moses was given to the Jewish nation (see Genesis 9:4). Yet the New Testament records no one questioning as to why Jehovah of the Torah who was so anti-consumption of blood in giving Moses His laws, would be just the opposite - being very pro-blood consumption - in using spiritual analogies?

.
There are plenty of situations where non-blood atonement was made in the pre-Jesus Hebrew Bible. When Paul states in Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood" can be taken that not all things in the Law of Moses are purged by blood especially when it comes to atonement for the souls.

• Leviticus 5:11 "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering." This was a non-blood sacrifice that allowed the very poor to offer a sin-offering. Note, if it was blood that was absolutely required for sin and God is no respecter of persons, how then did the very poor get off without typing Jesus with a blood sacrifice of sin? I have yet to get a clear-cut answer from a Christian apologist.
  
• Numbers 31:50 "We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD." Gold is not blood, yet gold was used in this one incident for the Israeli army to make an atonement for their souls. This is along the same line as the charity-atonement. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3
• Numbers 16:46 "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun." Here incense (not blood) on the altar was used for what the Bible calls an "atonement".
• II Samuel 12:13 "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." As Psalms 51:16-17 indicates David did not have to blood-sacrifice in order to get his sins removed, in fact a "Song of David" states in the psalms "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us ." (Psalms 103:12)
• I Kings 8:44-50 Solomon's temple prayer-prophecy that was purposely placed in holy script, allowed the Jews in exile (far away from the temple place of blood atonement) to pray towards Jerusalem and the temple when repenting of sins that God would forgive, "all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against"God.
• Jonah 3:5-10 The people of Nineveh repeated at the words of Jonah and the Bible goes as far as telling us of their reactions of repentance. They covered themselves in sackcloth and sat in ashes and the king even proclaimed a fast. But in all of their expression of repentance guess what was missing in their very deep and sincere outward expression of repentance? - BLOOD! The Bible tells us that God saw their (non-blood) works of repentance and turned his anger from them. The question then becomes, "why would a blood-demanding God turn His anger from them without them blood sacrificing? Notice how this scripture in Jonah correlates in principle with I Kings 8:44-50 above.
  
• Daniel 9:3-19 The Prophet Daniel confessed Israel's sins while in Babylon and asked God to forgive their sins without ever offering any blood sacrifices to God.
• The Prophet Hosea prophesied that for "many days" the children of Israel would be without the sacrificial system (Hosea 3:4) pressed Israel to approach God with words (not animal blood) asking God to forgive their sins, and that bulls (for sacrifice) be traded for prayer-confession of the lips! (Hosea 14:1-2) Of this, the prophet Hosea noted that mercy and the knowledge of God is greater in God's eyes than any blood sacrifice offered to Him (Hosea 6:6)!
• For 70 years the Jewish people were in Babylon where they could not blood-sacrifice at the temple mount in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:11-12). Using the actions and prophesies of King Solomon, Prophet Hosea, and Prophet Daniel (listed above) it becomes evident that the entire generation of Jewish people that included the prophet Daniel and the prophet Ezekiel living in Babylon and the prophet Jeremiah living in Egypt, was not without the possibility of having their sins forgiven and atoned for. Not only that particular 70 year Jewish generation but considering the generations that followed that stayed in Babylon and in Egypt for 500 plus years before Jesus' time (St. John 7:35) also was not without a way to have their sins forgiven and atoned for according to Hosea's "many days" prophecy (Hosea3:4 / 14:1-2). Are we to understand that because a Jew was living in exile away from Jerusalem and the temple that he was just out of luck, and would go to hell because he wasn't able to rid his sins by blood-sacrificing an animal as sin-offering in Jerusalem? Of course not!

For Paul or anyone else to suggest that it was or took literal blood that made the atonement possible is dead wrong! Any and all sacrifices (including the blood ones) were only as good as the human heart that brought it (Proverbs 21:27 /Isaiah 1:11-15 / Micah 6:7-8)! Regardless of how bloody the sacrifice was it could be rendered null and void if the human heart was not pure in bringing the sacrifice before the Lord, which is the basis behind any and all sacrifices, not the blood itself!
.
This reality is not what is conveyed in Hebrews 9:22, just the opposite is! Christian apologists will give lip-service to the "Proverbs 21:27 Jewish Bible reality" but continue in the mindset and concept of Hebrews 9:22 that it was the "literal blood" and only the "literal blood" that atones and allows forgiveness of sins. By doing this they place the state of the human-heart and mind towards God (what should be first and foremost) as only "secondary" to the "literal blood" of the sacrifice!
.
The fact remains that no Jewish scripture even comes close to indicating a human sacrifice of the coming end-of-days messiah. That theology has to be read into the text using pagan mythology as a guide. Osiris-Dionysus was a mythical god that died and rose on the third day after which a ritual celebration meal of bread and wine symbolized his body and blood.3
.
The "Price" Factor and the True Meaning of the Word "Atonement":

Because the New Testament doctrine involves a vicarious atonement through human sacrifice (Hebrews 9:28) the very meaning of "atonement" and "price" seem to merge in the Christian view. The Hebrew word "Kafar" as in "Yom Kipper" (Day of Atonement) means "to atone". Like the the definition in English it means "to reconcile" and to make amends through reparation. What it doesn't mean is "to pay an owed price" or "payment". Likewise the Hebrew word for "repentance" (teshuvah) comes from the root word "shuv" meaning "to return" and not "to pay for something owed"! Both "atonement" and "repentance" in the Hebrew Bible has to do with reconciling and returning to God and not paying some sort of debt prices in order to obtain favor with God!
.
The sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible was a method of showing God ones earnest devotion in repentance, thankfulness, and praise (blessing towards God by an offering) and not a method by which to pay God an owed debt. The Hebrew Bible never indicates that the sin offerings were a debt payment but rather a way to express a reconciling with God. The view that the sacrificial system was a price-debt payment for ones sins was created to coincide with the "types and shadows of sacrifices" doctrine of the New Testament, something also foreign to the Hebrew Bible.

.

The Christian "price-required" view of the Law of Moses has helped in giving the Hebrew Bible a bad "justice with no mercy" rap in their own minds. The question I like to ask is, if your spouse or child offends or angers you, do you demand a "price" to be paid before your fellowship with that spouse or child can be returned back to normal? or do you simply demand a change in their behavior that caused their offense in the first place, allowing their natural love for you cause them to be repentant of their offense? When we read God's most famous call to repentance within the Hebrew Bible we see no demand for a "price" to be paid in order for Israel (God's bride / son) to obtain a restored fellowship with God:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." - II Chronicles 7:14

.

There are several scriptures within the pre-Jesus Hebrew Bible that should help those who have trouble getting passed the "price-blood required-atonement" issue that comes with the standard Christian view. But one must be willing to accept what the Hebrew Bible states on its own revealed word of God foundation without first running it through a New Testament filter for an interpretation.

" Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." - Palms 40:6

"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." - Psalms 51:16-17

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats." - Isaiah 1:11

"Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" - Micah 6:7-8

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." - Hosea 6:6

" To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3

.

One must wonder that if Jehovah God of the Hebrew Bible was so dead-set on blood-sacrifices (pun not intended) first and foremost, why would such scriptures above appear even in the slightest of fashions that would indicate that there is something more meaningful to God of the Hebrew Bible than blood sacrifices in how man fellowships with Him and is reconciled to Him after sin?4

.

One Final Note:

Referring to the New Covenant found in Jeremiah 31:31-36, the New Testament states, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:16-18) However, the prophet Ezekiel has a different view. In his future vision of the temple, "sin offerings" are very present (Ezekiel 40:39 / 42:13 / 43:22 / 45:19-20).
.
The same prophet Ezekiel scriptures that tell us of the "physical" return of the children of Israel back into the "physical" land of their "physical" forefathers are the same scriptures that tell us of the "physical" return of the Jewish temple (Ezekiel 37:21-28). And that "physical temple" is detailed extensively in chapters 40 through 48 of the same book. The covenant along with the temple are to be restored among the people of Israel at the "End of days". The question then becomes, why doesn't the Gentile-named Paul agree with Jewish named Ezekiel pertaining to the restoration and presence of sin-offerings during the Messianic Age or anytime after Jesus' time?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received e-mail - May 30, 2009
I just glanced through your post on the blood atonement and the following paragraph stood out to me:

"This reality is not what is conveyed in Hebrews 9:22, just the opposite is! Christian apologists will give lip-service to the "Proverbs 21:27 Jewish Bible reality" but continue in the mindset and concept of Hebrews 9:22 that it was the "literal blood" and only the "literal blood" that atones and allows forgiveness of sins. By doing this they place the state of the human-heart and mind towards God (what should be first and foremost) as only "secondary" to the "literal blood" of the sacrifice!"

Before I forgot I wanted to chime in: Christians don't treat the heart and mind towards God as secondary. It is central to man's salvation. A quick reference on this is Romans 10:9-10. I don't have time to read your whole post right now or even offer any more details beyond what I've given you. But I at least wanted to pass this one before I forgot. Maybe you should take that statement out of your post or at least reword it.

My response: May 31, 2009
"Actually, your NT scripture reference proves my point. According to that scripture, before one can believe Jesus rose from the dead that he / she might be saved as Romans 10:9-10 states, one must "FIRST" believe he shed his blood and that his blood is the only source and price for sin remission. I'm sure you don't think that if Jesus died of a heart attack without shedding his blood and then rose from the dead, Romans 10:9-10 would still be in effect?
One must ask, if the heart and mind are pure before God was the "primary goal" of the Christian believer, why is there a need for Christian Communion? The fact is the Christian Communion is a symbolic ritual patterned after the Hebrew sacrificial system. Not only was it to be done often, but one was considered guilty of the body and "blood" of Jesus if participating in it unworthily (I Corinthians 11: 27).
To the Christians, it is unquestionable that a pure heart and mind can only be obtained through the Christian blood covenant first and foremost. My post comment not only reflects many, many books of Christian commentary on the "Blood Covenant" but the mindset of Hebrews 9:22 itself.
The only difference between Christianity and Judaism in obtaining a pure heart and mind before God is that one believes there must first (primarily) be blood present, and as you'll see in my post, the other one doesn't."
- Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
1. There are two New Testament verses that makes an attempt to spiritualize and explain away why Jesus was "sacrificed" outside the provided place for sacrificial atonement.
Hebrews 9:24 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us".
.
Paul wants to downplay the temple because it was constructed by human hands even though the tabernacle and temple was commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 25:8 / I Kings 9:3) and was the very place unto which exiled Jews would pray towards when repenting to God of their sins (I Kings 8:44-50) and of which God Himself calls "My temple" (Zechariah 1:16). Also, Jesus' body has more of a human connection to it (besides being human "son of man" itself) coming through Human-sinful Mary than does the commissioned holy temple. Perhaps seeing this became the foundational reason why the Catholic Church wants to venerate Mary as being sinless and co-redeemer.

Hebrews 13:11-12 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate".
.
First of all, the sacrificial animals didn't "suffered" outside the gate as Paul suggested Jesus' suffering types, for they had already been slaughtered "within" the gate that their blood might be used in the temple (within the gate) on the altar. It would be impossible to "suffer outside the gate" being brought outside the gate already slaughtered and dead. What we see here is a "stretch" by the book of Hebrews to make an allegory that really doesn't match quite well while at the same time trying to explain away a fundamental reality concerning the only established place for sacrifice.
.
Secondly, according to Jewish kosher slaughter rituals (see Deuteronomy 12:21) the animal being slaughtered was not to "suffer" or as little as possible from the ordeal.>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Shechitah Jewish animal sacrifice was certainly not for the purpose to cause the animal to suffer as much as possible as compared to the Roman method of crucifixion which indeed was designed to cause as much human suffering as possible. In either aspect, how could Jesus' suffering outside the temple be spiritually typed with the animals sacrificed within the temple as Paul conveys?
.
2. Taking a single text outside its context is a common technique used by Christian apologists. For example, like Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 7:14 is "always" quoted by itself among Christians. To add the next two verses (15 and 16) to the context would challenge the Christian viewpoint by its obvious historical setting and placement within the time of Isaiah.
.
3. "Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus" by Asher Norman, page 197, "Israel and the Endtimes" by Professor Eugene Narrett, page xii of introduction.

.

4. One has to wonder how Jesus as "the son of man" forgave sins [before] the blood-required antitype Calvary-atonement was made? After all, all sin in the Christian view required "blood"?

See Matthew 9:2-5 / Luke 7:47 compared with Hebrews 9:22.
Concerning such a Christian response as "Jesus was God, therefore he could forgive sins" then such a one must be reminded that it was the same "God" that "required blood" all through the "Old Testament" and required His son's blood (Jesus) in the New Testament, according to Christian doctrine. Therefore, again, how did Jesus forgive sins between the time of animal blood-sacrifices and Jesus' blood sacrifice, when it took blood (Roman 9:22) to forgive sins?

The Trinity - Part Three - Psalms 110:1

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. -Psalms 110:1 [KJV]
.
The New Testament take on this particular verse is as follows:
"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." - St. Matthew 22:41-46
.
This verse help create the Jewish-Christian debate that has lasted to the present day. The writers of the New Testament wants their reader to believe that their demigod overwhelmingly won a great theological debate against the very best theologians (the Pharisees) the Jews could offer. According to the New Testament (the most bias work in favor towards Christianity ever written) showed up those bad O Pharisee Jews, and even doing it with their own Jewish scriptures. It is New Testament texts such as this that causes many Christians to be very hardened towards the Jews who insisted on sticking with their scriptures, for by doing so, they (not the Gentile Romans) murdered their Gentile-approved demigod.
.
The New Testament paints the Jews as being ignorant of their own scriptures, therefore, this is precisely how the Jew (even the non-religious ones) are casts in the minds of Christian theologians. Even in politics such as the Israel-Palestinian "physical" conflict, the Palestinian side is whole-hearted received by the non-Christian Zionists due to New Testament "spiritual" doctrine.
.
Armed with the above New Testament understanding of Psalms 110:1, a minister-friend challenged me on the Jewish-take of it. I informed him that unlike Matthew's claim that "no one (Jew) was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone (any Jew) dare question Him anymore" there was a Jewish answer to Jesus' question. His response was, "Oh, they had time to think about it?"
.
What he and so many Christians don't realize is that the Jewish answer that had always been there from the very second it was first asked, "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" cannot be granted without a Hebrew biblical background knowledge of the Psalms - the knowledge that the New Testament purposely avoids for the benefit of its Gentile readers. Without a background knowledge of the scripture one wishes to debate, even child-like questions can seem problematic. For example, "If Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (The Torah / Pentateuch ) how did he write of his own death? (See Deuteronomy 34:5)1
.
To answer Jesus' question outright, David did not write the psalm for himself to sing but rather for himself (his testimony) to be sung about. Therefore, David is not the one in Judaism's eyes stating, "The Lord said unto my lord"2. Therefore, we must first look at who would sing a song concerning David's testimony, and then compare this knowledge with other scriptures (namely within the Psalms) to see if other scriptures will back this knowledge up, making it clear as day.
.
As I lay out the clear Jewish response of their own Hebrew scriptures, keep in mind that the New Testament records " no one (Jew) was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone (any Jew) dare question Him anymore". If this New Testament statement is true then at what time in history did the Jews supposedly come up with the following clear-cut answer? And during the nine-hundred years between David and Jesus, what was the common understanding of Psalms 110:1 among the religious Jews who poured over the scriptures day and night? And since there was undoubtedly a common knowledge understanding of Psalms 110:1, why didn't the New Testament record that very common-knowledge Pharisee response in answering Jesus?
.
In all actuality the New Testament book of Acts (supposedly written by Luke - a Gentile) does hint at the Jewish understanding of Psalms 110:1. Acts 2:34-35 makes sure it addresses the "David understanding element" of the Jewish people concerning Psalms 110:1 by stating "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool."
.
Two things in response to Acts 2:34-35:
First, whether David wrote Psalms 110 in the third-person sense (similar to Paul speaking in the first-person historical-presence in Romans 7) or if as the Jewish sage Ibn Ezra Radak suggested, that one of David's soldiers may have written the psalm about his king, the fact remains it was given in past tense about something that already occurred and was in process during the time the Psalm was written. The New Testament doctrine is based largely on making many of the Psalms and events in David's life "prophecy" when the text and David's experiences was never originally intended to be prophecy.
Secondly, if rising from the dead was Psalms 110 clear-cut message as the author of Acts 2:34-35 indicates, why were the Jewish disciples and different ones so oblivious to such an event as described in Luke 24:23-27 (also see Matthew 16:21-22 / Mark 8:31).
.
When we look at Psalms 110:1 in the English we see two identical key words, "Lord and Lord". Both of them are capitalized and both of them are portrayed to be taking about God. The Christian-Trinity take on this is, God the Father (Lord) said to God the Son (Lord) "sit at My right hand" but is that how the original Hebrew has it? The answer is no!
.
First of all, unlike Greek and English there are no capital letters in Biblical Hebrew, therefore to imply that there are two identical words with a deity reference within Psalms 110:1 is false.3 Most of the Christian-English Bible versions has the words "The Lord" taking the place of the Hebrew name of God, "Jehovah".4 There is only "one" reference for "Jehovah" in Psalms 110:1 causing there to be only "one" reference to a "lord" in the same verse. That "lord" is not deified as in the name "Adoni" which would make it one of the other four main names connected to Jehovah - the same "God the Father" God-person within the Trinity doctrine. Rather, it's referring to an earthly lordship (a person in charge). The same word that appears as second "Lord" word in the English versions are used in the Hebrew Bible to describe earthly non-deity masters / lords 5. See Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4.
.
Like the Hebrew alphabet contained throughout Psalms 119 (every eight verses) most people when reading the Book of Psalms don't catch the heading that is present on most of the Psalms at the beginning of each chapter, such as:
To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm of David - Psalms 4:1
To the chief Musician upon Nehiloth, A Psalm of David - Psalms 5:1
To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David - Psalms 8:1
A Song or Psalm for the sons of Korah, to the chief Musician upon Mahalath Leannoth, Maschil of Heman the Ezrahite - Psalms 88:1
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David -Psalms 109
.
These are not just mere footnotes created by biblical commentators for historical purposes, but they are indeed found within the Hebrew as part of the holy text. So who are these "Chief Musicians" that the psalms are referred to, and do they play any role in understanding Psalms 110:1?
.
It's interesting to know that David though unable to build the first temple in Jerusalem did arrange and prepare the temple service (See Samuel 7 / I Chronicles 14-17 / 22-26). Most, if not all of David's psalms were song by the temple choir. Even during the 1st. century the Levitical Choir stood at the south-west corner of Herod's temple between the Beautiful Gate and Nicanor Gate and sang Psalms 24 on the first day of the week, Psalms 48 on the second day of the week, Psalms 82 on the third day of the week, and so on. David, being a poet, musician, and temple organizer that he was, wrote Psalms 110 for the temple singers (who along with the temple were to last forever) to testify of the mighty works God had done in David's life. Therefore, the temple singers were to sing a song concerning David (see the heading of Psalms 110)
" Jehovah said (past tense) onto my lord (David) Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
.
In order to make it crystal clear of the meaning of the Psalms 1110 text, one needs to ask, did Jehovah place David at His right hand in order to make David's enemies his footstool as dictated by other verses through the Psalms?
"Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath held me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great. Thou hast enlarged my steps under me, that my feet did not slip. I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet." -Psalms 18:35-38
.
"My soul follows hard after thee: thy right hand upholds me. But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth." - Psalms 63:8-9
.
"Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me." - Psalms 138:7
.
'Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the LORD his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet." - I KINGS 5:3
.
It's worth noting how the Hebrew Bible equates God's right hand with the downfall of David's enemies in the book of Psalms, and how the verse above in I Kings matches almost word for word Psalms 110:1. What is for certain is that Psalms 110:1 that was written by David or at lest by one of David's companions whom David was a commander (lord) over, it was written during David's lifetime, and it follows the same mindset of other scriptures concerning David and his enemies. What Psalms 110:1 does not do is call a man (given in the past tense) "Lord" as in Jehovah-Lord, nine-hundred years after David's time and testimony.
.
It goes to figure that if during David's lifetime he wasn't the one placed at Jehovah's right hand as Psalms 110:1 indicates some sort of "lord / master" has been placed, how then could David being the very author of Psalms 110, write " "in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." (Psalms 16:6) The question for the Trinitarians is how many other individuals like David does the Bible name as being so close to Jehovah's that they are placed at His right hand insomuch that it caused their enemies to placed under their feet? If David was the only one named, maybe that's why the temple singers were to sing about it forever?
.
Notes
1. Though the entire and complete "Law of Moses" is fully contained within the Torah, Moses himself did not pen the Biblical text we have today, i.e. the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 24:7) that Moses read to the people was a complete contract between God and Israel, but Moses did not read to them Exodus 24:7 when Exodus 24:7 was taking place. The contract that Moses read to the people and what we read today that records Moses' acts has to be from two different writers. Also, it is clear that is was an inspired Israelite historian who wrote Deuteronomy 34:10 (the last verse in the Torah) as well most, if not all of the Book of Deuteronomy. The higher-criticism scholarly idiots, refer to him as the D-source.
.
2. Misapplying (changing) the speaker of scriptural words is technique the New Testament uses in other places such as Isaiah 53 in changing the Gentiles voice for that of the Jewish nation, (see my blogs on Isaiah 53). Such willful misapplying of holy text probably made it easier on the consciences of the KJV translators who found it easy to take out of context, change the meaning of words, and capitalize key christological words throughout the KJV.
.
3. Daniel 9:25 also contains a capitalization for christological purposes. See my blog on Daniel Seventy Weeks.
.
4."Jehovah" is actually the "English" pronunciation of the original Hebrew name of "YHWH".
.
5. The Christian "Revised Standard Version" translates the Hebrew of Psalms 110:1 correctly into English using all upper case letters for the word Jehovah, and all lower case letters for the word meaning lord / master: ¶ A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." (RSV)

The Trinity - Part Two - "The Shema and Echad"

It must be noted that Jehovah declares Himself as being alone and without other deities more times than the rest of the Bible describes Him as being "one". This is important to keep this fact in mind when attempting to gain a complete understanding of the Shema. 1 The Shema (an imperative command to listen up) is a signature-scripture to the Hebrew Bible and is comparable to what John 3:16 is to the New Testament. Its opening line states: "Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one".
.
Because the Shema is part of the foundational concept of Judaism, and because of the need to proof-text their doctrine, the Trinitarians twist the Shema totally out of its context of how it was originally given to the Jewish people by the hand of Moses. They wish to inject into the Shema the idea of a three-person Godhead, even though the Shema along with its complete original meaning and context out dates Christianity by more than a thousand years!
.
The Trinity within the Shema is a mindset that reasons; if Adam and Eve can be considered "one" flesh2 and evening and morning can be "one" day3 so too could three God-persons of the Trinity be called "one" in the Shema. The Trinitarians then take it a step further in suggesting (even to the point of outright lying) that the Hebrew word, echad (meaning 'one') has only the meaning to "categorize things in number into a single unit". In other words, the word echad within the Shema is a sure signal that there is something plural within Jehovah whom the Shema described as one. It's almost laughable how these willful Trinitarian twisters of the Hebrew scriptures attempt to make the Shema say the exact opposite of what its true message is. I don't mean to stereotype, but perhaps its their Gentile nature (desire to worship multiple gods) coming out in them that causes them to do this?
.
What they will willfully withhold and avoid is that echad, like out English word "one" is an adjective and is subject to the noun(s) it's describing. In English, as well as in Biblical Hebrew "one/echad" can be used to describe one set of eyes, as well as one nose on a face. Example:
"There is one [echad] alone, and there is not a second.." - Ecclesiastes 4:8
.
There are not multiple subjects in the opening declaration of the Shema to be united with the adjective, echad. "God" is the single subject and "one" is that single subject's adjective. Again, there are no two or three subjects in the opening statement of the Shema to united under the adjective "one"! Multiple subjects such as three God-persons within the Shema are only a figment of a Trinitarian's imagination. It's simply not in the text. A Trinity can only be injected into the text outside the confine structures of the Biblical Hebrew and English languages. The Trinitarians not only try to superimpose three subjects unto one original subject but try also to alter the concept of written and spoken languages to meet their own superimposation. This is the lengths of which they will go in their desperate need to worship multiple god-persons while trying to hang unto the vindicated one true God of Israel.
.
The correct doctrine of the Shema, "Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one/echad" can only be a description of its single subject (in this case God Himself) without the blinding of another subject to Him in set-descriptions. The Shema is clearly a declaration that their God (the God of Israel) is one in nature and that He is one in being. But don't take my word for it, let the very words of God Himself declare this truth of the Shema:
"I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" - Isaiah 45:5
Just a thought, but this Jehovah that was using the personal pronoun "I" and "me" in the above scripture doesn't sound much like He's in favor of Trinitarianism Himself!
.
The bottom line is that the Trinity doctrine undermines God's very nature and being as "one" as well as disregarding His own declaration of Himself being alone and knowing no other deities. One of the greatest rebukes to God is to call Him three, after He Himself has declares Himself is "one"!
.
Scriptures regarding Jehovah's declared oneness:
.
"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God; there is none else beside him." -Deuteronomy 4:35
.
"Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that Jehovah he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." - Deuteronomy 4:39
.
The Shema: "Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one/echad - Deuteronomy 6:4
.
"That all the people of the earth [including Trintarians] may know that Jehovah is God, and that there is none else. - I Kings 8:60
.
"I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" - Isaiah 45:5
.
"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Jehovah, and there is none else." - Isaiah 45:6
.
"For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else." - Isaiah 45:18
.
"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I Jehovah? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." - Isaiah 45:21
.
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am El (not "Elohim" - see part 1) and there is none else." - Isaiah 45:22
.
"Remember the former things of old: for I am El (not "Elohim" - see part 1), and there is none else; I am El, and there is none like me." - Isaiah 46:9
.
"And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Jehovah your God, and none else" - Joel 2:27
.
Notes:
1. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is the full text of the Shema.
2. Genesis 2:12
3. Genesis 1:5

The Trinity - Part One

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply a confederation of three different god-persons united in a Godhead call a single God (Colossians 2:9 / I John 5:7-8). Though the official Nicaea Council of 325 CE has the three god persons as part of the same substance, the god-persons themselves are completely separate from one another in "personhood" nonetheless. The Trinity is in a sense polytheistic in nature but operating under a monotheistic title.
.
The Trinity and its god-persons can be broken down in the following way:

• God the Father - god person #1 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
• God the Son - god-person #2 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Father and God the Holy Ghost.
• God the Holy Ghost - god-person #3 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Father and God the Son.

To the Trinitarians who insists that they believe in one God and one God only, let me ask you a simple question: What is his [one] name? (See Zachariah 14:9) The last time I asked a Trinitarian this I got a long pause because the person knew where I was going with such a question. If you say the name of your one god is "Jesus" then who is the one god person Jehovah? Isn't Jehovah a different "person" in the Trinity with of different name than your one-god Jesus? If the name of your one god in indeed Jehovah as in the Jehovah Witness doctrine, then isn't Jesus "another" god in person form apart from Jehovah, making all that is to be consider God multiple and polytheistic via more than one persons with different names?
.
Another question would be, what is the actual name of the third person in the Godhead? Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is not a name but a title or office position. If the other god-persons known as God the Father and God the Son both have specific names, why doesn't the person of the Holy Ghost have one. According to Matthew 28:19 and the Trinitarian mindset he is suppose to have one.
.
Though falling short of its goal it was the Oneness Pentecostal movements that have tried to fix these "Trinitarian multiple god-person problems" within the Christian faith by simply making Jesus and his father the same "person" which goes against Revelation 3:5,21. But to truly fix the Trinity multi-god person problem, I believe one has to travel back to the original Bible - the Hebrew scriptures. There in the Hebrew scriptures (though the Trinintarians go to great lengths to try to prove otherwise) you won't find Trinity (multiple-person gods) issues. Though I have never received an answer, I love to ask Trinitarians, which person of the Trinity Godhead made the following statement:
"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else." - Isaiah 45:5-6
.
Check out all those singular personal pronouns. Just in the short statement above I counted three I's and another three me's along with four declarations of the personal pronoun speaker (God) of being alone. All three god-persons of the Trinity could not have made the singular personal pronouns at the same time without being the exact same in personhood. So, again to all Trinitarians, feel free to post a comment telling me what god-person in the Trinity made the above statement. If it was God the Father (as the original Hebrew states: "I am Jehovah") tell me why He didn't consider the other god-persons when He stated, "there is no God beside me".
.
Also concerning the Hebrew scriptures, you won't find a need of a second-person in a Godhead Trinity to be your savior.
"...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." -Isaiah 45:21-22
.
Christian Proof Text of the Trinity
One of the main arguments that pro-Trinity Christian groups use is that the Hebrew name "Elohim" (actually a title taken from the Canaanites' god El) is given in plural form revealing the Trinity Godhead plural nature within the one true God of Israel. 1 This shows their willingness to use a very limited knowledge of Hebrew while disregarding the rest. The Trinity scholars who know better still use this lie to convince their listeners.
.
Out of the four main names of God used in the Hebrew Bible (Jehovah, Adoni, Shaddai, and Elohim) Elohim is the lest personal. It simply means "God" as in the title of an object of worship. Elohim is not a personal name just like the title "husband" is not my personal name though I carry that title and office. The title "Elohim" is also used throughout the Hebrew scriptures in reference to false gods 2 which definitely can't be said concerning the personal names of God: Jehovah, Adoni, Shaddai! Not only were false gods referred to as "Elohim" but also judges, angels, and even an altar were referred to as "Elohim"3 again, something the names Jehovah, Adoni, and Shaddai could not have been used for. Why don't the Trinity scholars point this out? They simply know that such information undermines their Trinitarian doctrine.
.
The Canaanites who lived among the Israelites, had a pantheon of gods with the head of that pantheon called "El" who was the mythological father of Baal. The proper name of El meant "power" or "powerful". For the Israelite to take off the plural ending of Elohim when referring to their one God of Israel without tying it to personality trait of their God in such usage as in "El Shaddai" (God Almighty) in Genesis 28:3 (notice the singularity of Elohim in such a title)4 would seem to be referring to the Canaanite god of El or one of the gods under El. In other words, for an Israelite to refer to "El" by itself would seem to be referring to one of the many Canaanite gods (elohim), or El, the father of Baal. The Israelites therefore referred to their one God as "Elohim" (of which no one Canaanite god including the head of the pantheon is named) as all-powerful to imply that their God takes the place of the entire Pantheon of Canaanite gods in power and uniqueness. For the Israelites of the day, the one Hebrew God makes up and was the very source of all the many powers that the El-Canaanites gods represented (i.e. god of lightning, god of grain, god of rain, ect.) rolled into one by saying that He is "Elohim"!
.
God explains His true non-truine name to his one-person "Elohim" named Moses. Did you caught that? God said unto the "one person" Moses: "I have made thee an "Elohim" to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1) Why didn't God say to the one person Moses, I have made thee an El (singular) to Pharaoh? Again, why isn't this made mention of by the Trinitarian Hebrew scholars, for they avoid expounding on that particular scripture like one of the ten plagues (pun intended)?
.
The one true non-truine God explains His name to His personal Elohim (Moses) on earth this way:
"And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (singular form) but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." - Exodus 6:2-3

It must be noted that the name Jehovah derives from the meaning "I am" (see Exodus 3:14) to "He is". Both personal pronouns in these most personalized names are singular in nature. God was telling Moses His "mystery" name of which He didn't even reveal to "His friend" Abraham! (II Chronicles 20:7 / Isaiah 41:8)! O ye Trinitarians, let me ask again, what Godhead "person" of the Trinity spoke unto Moses and used the personal pronoun "I" for His name when He said, "ahyeh-ahshear-ahyeh" I Am that I AM? For it is through this singular personal pronoun natured name that He stated the following: "this is "my" name for ever, and this is "my" memorial unto all generations." (Exodus 3:15). Moreover, the prophet Zechariah states that during the Messianic Age: "And Jehovah shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Jehovah, and his name one. (Zechariah 14:9) So how is it that you can come up with a three-person Godhead based Trinity when comparing and considering Exodus 3:15 and Zechariah 14:9 together? Why have countless Jews been murdered down through the ages in the shadows of your Trinity crosses, while no Jewish movements ever killed or even sought to kill Christians based upon their trinitarian beliefs?5
.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." - Genesis 1:26
.
Most serious trinitarians understand that Genesis 1:26 is a royal majestic decree made before a heavenly court (see Isaiah 6:1-2, 8). However, I don't think that they fully understand the significance of the statement "our image". The "creation of man" of which this scripture is concerning, is the very last of the creation events and is the very climax of all creation, and is given dominion over all that already had been up until that point, created (Genesis 1:26). The sum of all creation i.e. image of all creation is reflected in Adam. Even the adomah (land / ground / earth) is reflected in Adam (man / mankind) from which the first man is so named. It becomes easy to see that the original Hebrew gives even New Testament texts such as I Corinthians 15:47 a deeper meaning. Does the "Us" and "Our" image that God uses in Genesis 1:26 mean, "God and the earth" as in Jeremiah 22:29? Does it mean "God and the angels" (not to be confused with winged seraphims as in Isaiah 6:2) that appeared in the exact same "image" and even called "man" in the Bible as with Abraham (Genesis 18:2) and to Jacob (Genesis 32:24). Does it mean "God and all of creation" where God being the King makes a decree to His creation being His willing subjects as when a president making a State of the Union address states "Let us" do such and such. The answer to all these questions is "yes". What it doesn't refer to is the Father-person of the Trinity speaking to the others (Son-person and Holy Spirit-person) urging them of the same God-person status to following His leading idea. My question to the Trinitarians is why isn't man "three persons" like the image of the Trinity when man was made in the same image? 6
.
...and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. - Isaiah 48:16
.
I heard one woman a few years ago who had called into a Hal Lindsey's radio show really complaining and wanting to know why the Christian non-trinitarians (also including those bad O Jews) can't plainly see the Trinity all through the above verse. She probably wouldn't like me telling her that, that very verse she was holding so dear to her trinitarian heart, was not only translated by Christan Trinitarians but that it by itself actually proves the Trinity doctrine wrong. When reading the text word for word in the Hebrew it goes (flows) like this: "And now, Adoni Jehovah has sent me and His Spirit". Right away one can see the context meaning change from a Trinity proof text to a sort of "Oneness" proof text. Of course questions should now be raised.
1. Why wasn't the text translated in the same manner and method as the Hebrew gave it?
2. Does the Hebrew reading imply that Jehovah's Spirit is a whole other person, separated in personhood from that of Jehovah?
3. Why didn't the second Son-God person have anything to do with the sending of Isaiah? I mean Isaiah according to the KJV text, took time to specifically name the first and third persons of the Trinity, so why not included the Son-God person too?
4. Is the "spirit" of Elijah different in personhood than Elijah himself? (See II Kings 2:15)
5. Can we determine by continuing in the text what the proper name of "the Spirit" is that sent Isaiah? I mean, the Trinitarians really don't have a proper personal name for Him, just the title of "Holy Spirit"?
.
Actually, the very next verse (Isaiah 48:17) reads: "Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am Jehovah thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go." So if we place together the two verses (16 and 17) along with following the context through, a complete picture emerges. It is not that God and His other-person Spirit is sending out Isaiah to declare something on his own as the KJV might indicate in the minds of Trinitarians, but God places His very person in Spirit form on Isaiah (anointing Isaiah) for a declaration to the people of Israel. And with that anointing the "Spirit of the "one" God of Israel" upon Isaiah, the anointing-causing Spirit speaks of "Himself" giving His proper name while stating in the Hebrew: "I am Jehovah your God"! Come on Trinitarians, learn some Hebrew and get Hebrew real! It's absolutely asinine to willfully believe in twisted translated scriptures while stretching to denying the easy to understand text of what the Hebrew Bible clearly states and its contextual meaning!
.
Notes:
1. The plural masculine noun suffix in the Hebrew is generally (but not always) given and pronounced "eem" or "im" at the end of the noun. It has the same effect as adding the letter "s" at the end of a noun in English. "Elohim" can be translated as "gods" in the Hebrew Bible. For example, the words "God" and "gods" are spelled the same in the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 8:19
2. Even though the KJV and other Christian translation carry it, there are no term "false gods" as in "false Elohim" in the Hebrew Bible, just Elohim. Example: "Thou shalt have no other gods (Elohim) before me" - Exodus 20:3
3. Judges are called Elohim: Exodus 21:6 / Exodus 22:8.
An altar is called Elohim: Genesis 33:20.
Angels are called Elohim: Psalms 8:6
4. To the Trinitarians; if the name "Elohim" denotes the triune nature of God, why doesn't the truine God refer to Himself as Elohim or Elyai Shaddai instead of the singular "El Shaddai"? Isn't it ironic that Elohim states: "I am the El Shaddai; walk before me, and be thou perfect." - Genesis 17:1 (Also see Genesis 35:11).
5. Though the later writings of the New Testament gave hints of a Trinity (I John 5:7) the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't ratified by Christianity until the Nicene Council in 325 CE. The picture at the top is taking from the Nicene Council decree. Paul (the New Testament chief overseer) never implies that Jesus was one of three "persons" making up the Trinity (I Corinthians 11:3) but rather the "Godhead" was a system that God (singular) used for revealing Himself (Romans 1:20 / Colossians 1:15).
6. Some will use the male and female of mankind (Genesis 5:2) as a type of the Trinity. However, there is a reason why out of all the creation Adam was originally alone and without a mate. If God had created two separate individuals as He did with the animal kingdom in an original creation that was to be after His image then we could say God was indeed multiple in personhood. The reality is that man in singular form is an attribute of God, and woman (also in singular form) is the image of man. The New Testament scriptures of Ephesians 1:4 and I Corinthians 11: 7-8 should confirm this to the Trinitarians. Besides, giving man is both male and female doesn't add up to there being "three" as to somehow reflect a truine Trinity Godhead called God.