Navigation: Home | Order Books | Calendar | Contact | Articles | Beliefs | Youtube Videos | Rumble Videos
Truths We Hold To Be Faithful:
1. "Hear Yisra'el, Yahweh is our Almighty, Yahweh [is] the one," or "Yahweh alone." We reject translations or interpretations trying to communicate "YHWH is one [person]," and also the "one being" theology of the Church and Judaism, which is the result of philosophical speculation into the nature of God. Rather we believe that Deut. 6:4 teaches that YHWH is the only Almighty. We understand YHWH echad to mean "Yahweh is the one," i.e. "Yahweh is the Almighty." This means the same as "...Yahweh alone" or "...Yahweh only." The statement is meant to exclude foreign claims to be Almighty
1.01 The divine name means "he who makes become."2 Messiah makes be as does his Father, and he has independently the same divine nature. He shares the divine name with the Father.
1.02 In Exodus 3:15, the Most High states his name is "my memorial from generation to generation." For this reason, the meaning of the name is of paramount importance, and secondarily how it should be pronounced since how it is pronounced indicates its meaning. The norm for Hebrew names is that they all have a meaning. English names seldem have a plain sense in English. But I can think of some, Cyrstal, Grace, Prudence, Hunter, Archer, Royal, Maverick, Sky. It is almost unheard of for a Hebrew name to not have a meaning in Hebrew. In Exodus 3:14 we have a statement that gives the etymology of the divine name,
1.03 Since what I stated is most nearly correct, nothing else is more correct. Doubters can just write the consonants. But let us suppose that my followers do what I do and put Yahweh, and that this somehow turns out to be incorrect. Then in that case, my followers would never be more in error than using a meaningful substitution for the name like Adonai, HaShem, or The Everlasting One. "He makes Be" (Yahweh) is just a good are any of the others if that is the case. I also rule that even if Yahweh incorrect (I don't believe it is), but just for the sake closing the logical gates, that nothing else has a good probability of being correct, and that those who teach anything else are at best simply ignorant, and at worst very divisive. What I said can correct the ignorant. If it does not, then have nothing to do with them. Anyone who doubts may put just YHWH. I have no judgment against doubters. But I do not accept any teachers who say the name is anything other than Yahweh, or teachers promoting anything else. The substition Adonai is acceptable for anyone having a conscience about not saying the same. I don't agree, but I overlook it so long as the person is only protecting their conscience. But the teachers who say the name is anything else are divisive. The old word for this is heretical, meaning causing division. Nothing is more divisive than going around teaching error in the way of saying Gods name and then trying to introduce this divsion into worship. Some assemblies may insist in using Adonai. I disagree, but you should go along with them if you are in their assembly and they won't permit the name. I don't judge this as heretical. But it is breaking the commandment to remember his name.
1.1 While the respectful use of the sacred names of our Almighty is permitted to us, we do not hold that accurate use is essential to forgiveness or deliverance from sin. We oppose those who teach as if it were so. And likewise, we do not hold that doctrinal beliefs, baptism, circumcision, or any other ritual or creed is a replacement for the necessity of repentance and good works, and the pledge of and holding faithful to Messiah Yeshua by keeping his commandments.
1.04 The MT spells "Yeshua" as
It is unlikely that "Yah-" fails to appear at the beginning of names because the Jews were plotting to suppress it because of a doctrine that it would be profane. One can easily ask why they left it at the end of names? We should not dismiss the MT vowel pointing and restore all these names to "Yah-" names. When the Greek Evangelists transliterate theophoric names from Hebrew, they actually do reflect the MT vowel pointing with the Greek vowels. And so also the LXX vowels. So the Evangelists are a contemporary witness from the time of Messiah that theophoric names actually did take the form reflected by the MT 600 or 700 years later.
For example Yotham Ἰωαθάμ is the spelling of
So there is solid witness from the Evangelists contemporary with Messiah that the first vowel in his name is correctly rendered as in the later MT with a tsere. If "Yah-" been meant then it would have been spelled with an alpha, and not an eta.
That being said, there are some Messianic communties that have a custom of pronouncing "Yahshua," and "Yahushua." I will give my opinion. My opinion is that the "Yah-" theophoric element at the start of names was mostly avoided due to modesty, and not because of name suppression. Since there is actually no law against a variation on Messiah's name, I do not forbid it, and indeed, there is no law against the shorter theophoric elements that the MT actually uses.
I would caution those who take forms other than the standard form to task in the sense of disapproving of their private usage, or usage in the communities with another custom not to dismiss those communoties just because they use their own variation. While Yahshua or Yahushua is not in evidence at the time of Messiah, both mean Yahweh is Salvation in Hebrew. One could make a case that Yahshua means "he being saved" (in the passive participle), but this is not problematic since Messiah was saved from the grave by being resurrected.
There are some forms without this meaning in the Hebrew they represent to be, and those forms, not mentioned here I do disapprove of.
I do recommend the use of the forms for which I made a first century case.
1.2 When God is not taking some physical form, his necessary nature is Spirit. Scripture describes God as having seven Spirits. Even the Lamb, representing Messiah, is described as having seven eyes. Since humans do not perceive the spiritual realm directly, we do not comprehend it. Most of its nature remains a mystery to us.
1.2.5 Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as equally divine as the Father and the Son, yet the Spirit is treated as a separate spiritual identity from the Father or Son by Scripture.
1.3 The term Trinity was invented to try to generalize what Scripture teaches. Trinity goes beyond Scripture in asserting that God is "three persons." Elohim, is certainly at least three persons in a way that humans might perceive persons as separate from one another, but we cannot really say what qualifies as a person except in the case of Messiah, because he was human. It is acceptable to reject the use of the word "Trinity" so long as one does not deny either the deity of the Son or the Holy Spirit or the Father. Scripture certainly teaches this much.
2. The union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be spoken of as "one Almighty." As there is one body, the congregation of Israel, so there is one Spirit, and one Adonai Yeshua, and one Almighty and Father. See Eph. 4. As Ephesians 4 would prove, "one" does not define a number of persons, but a union, as in "one body."
2.1 Hellenistic Theism strives to reduce God to a perfect unity, called the Monad. This idea has corrupted both Jewish and Christian views of God, in what is known as classical theism. Scripture does not teach that God is one being. Divine unity does not consist in the structure of God's being BEING indivisible or simple vs. complex. This Greek view of God is idolatry.
3. Yeshua of Nazareth is the Almighty Son, the Messiah of Israel. He is Yahweh the Son who was with Yahweh the Father from the beginning. He is from everlasting to everlasting, *brought forth, but not created. He is co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, co-Creator, and co-Sustainer of all things. He is everlasting Life.
3.1 The Son is not eternally generated. This gnostic view crept into the Church at the council of Nicea. The Son is in his own right Almighty without the need to be generated by the Father. To say the Son is generated is a subordination of the Son to the Father that goes beyond that of the Son volunteering to take a subordinate role in the divine plan to resue man.
4. The Most High is not one person in three modes or manifestations. He is the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who are one Almighty (cf. no. 2). The persons are united as one, but acting individually and separately within the mystery of the oneness of the Most High. The Son existing as a man is one person in the sense that we humans can understand person.
5. The Son became fully human, setting aside His glory, yet remaining Yahweh Elohim in his identity. Part of his nature dealing with abilities was suppressed in some way not known to us down to the level of a man, even a babe. Suppression of divine ability is also evident in the Father and the Spirit in various passages, and is not imcompatible with the nature of God. He was brought forth by the virgin to grow and live as a man. He is the person of the Almighty who died on the tree and rose again on the third day. He ascended to resume His glory with the Father.
5.1 The term "Open Theism" describes the nature of God. But Open Theism needs to be qualifed as there are different kings of Open Theists. Firstly, we do not approach God's knowledge from a philosophical point of view, even though there may be good philosophical reasons. Rather we establish the truth upon the basis of how Scripture represents God's knowledge. Passages in Genesis 6, and 18-22, and Deut. 8:1-4 demonstrate that God knows the future in two ways. Firstly, like his creatures on the basis of being able to predict with probabilities, and secondly absolutely, based on certain intention to cause what he has promised to happen to come to pass.
5.1 Statements in Genesis also show that God does not know all things in the present. The reason is that he does not care or will to exercise his divine power that way. He certainly could if he wanted to. That is not the question. The quesion is what Scripture teaches. Scripture taught us that God didn't care to know what was happening in Sodom until bad reports came to him. So it is quite clear that God does not choose to retain exhaustive knowledge of the present. Yet, at the same time, he wills to be aware to a sufficient extent the present reality to exercise his love and justice and preserve his Sovereign position as the Most High.
5.2 Another view of the divine that has to be rejected is the doctrine of omnipresence in the sense that God is at every point in space and is fully aware of all things going on at all points. Genesis 18-19 makes it clear this is not so. But the power of God's word, being definitional to reality, serves to hold all things together in such a way that all physics have to follow the rules he established. Rather then being personally at every point in space, God owns automatic control mechanisms that obey his word.
5.3 Classical theism, which is just a revised Greek Gnostic world view, defines God as simple, unchangeable in his state of mind, without emotion, everywhere present to the same infinite conscious degree, and also having decreed in a timeless eternity all that will ever come to pass including the heretical thoughts that heretics will think. This view is blasphemous heresy. There is nothing biblical about it. It severely limits God, and it makes God into the author of evil, and totally contradicts his love.
5.4 What passes for theism in the reformed tradition leads back to Augustine, a former Gnostic, who did not at the end repent of all of his gnostic doctrines. He is one of the main sources of heresy in the Church. Today we call it Calvinism. But it is not limited to those who call themselves Calvinists. These Gnostic views have poisoned almost all of the Church, and its teachers will be rejected by Messiah at the end. They will say, "Lord, Lord..." and he will say "I never knew you who practice lawlessness."
5.4 Much of the reformed heresies still circulate among those seeking to observe Torah. It should be noticed that Torah stands for obeying the divine instruction. And that many who rightly seek to do so often fail to realize there is much false doctrine that came about due to a rejection of the Torah. In particular, the Scripture directive to repent and hold faithful to Messiah by keeping his commandments is hated by an enormous swath of Christainity. They hate even more the idea that holding faithful in such a way is an essential part and condition of being forgiven, and being raised in the resurrection of the righteous. The highest heresy of these Augustinian, Calvinistic Christians is that man is required to originate in his own heart by his own will loyalty to God resulting in obeying his commandments. All their doctrines are a direct attack on the truth that man is repsonbile to repent, to hold faithful, and to keep the commandments. And such is essential to the Good News taught by Messiah Yeshua and Paul.
5.5 Christians who say on the one hand that they are saved by grace, but by some means make obedience to Messiah an optional matter are misunderstanding certain statements in Scripture and not reading the whole context of Yeshua, the other emissaries, or John. Christian who do not include a return to doing good vs. doing evil as necessary for salvation are reading only part of Scripture filtered by their Theologians and Pastors, and are not paying attention that the vast bulk of Scripture contradicts this narrow interpretation, based on mistranslations of Paul, including many statements by Paul himself.
If a person has been deceived on this most fundamental matter, they are not fit to be teacher, Pastor, or Theologian. I must also note that the false Church is quickest to call what I just said heresy. And because of this many who are learning more fully to obey Torah are liable to accomodate them either out of fear or ignorance by making some concilliatory statement so that they will remain in their favor. I realize many Torah observant faithful are caught in this web of lies, and wish to assure their their anti-Torah Christian friends that they are not invovled in works heresy. But Paul opposed a certain kind of works for earning merits against demerit. See points below. He did not oppose the requirement to turn away from evil deeds to righteousness.
5.6 This is an apologetical note for Torah observers who acknowledge that repentance through faithfulness is necessary for salvation. The first estimate of most of us come up with when we first consider how to defend ourselves against Pauline statements taken out of context is to suppose that "under law" means not under judgment or condemnation as opposed to the opinion of lawlessness which maintains this means there is no obligation to keep God's Law in obedience. So there are two main opinions.
Condemnation or judgment, however, is not the explanation. Paul would say that if one wants to continue unfaithfully knowningly breaking the law with a high hand, then no amount of grace is going to overcome it. John would say the same. There is sin that leads to death and judgment. And there are sins of ignorance and circumstance that do not.
If "under law" simply means condemnation, then one could ask why anyone would want to be under that? How does that help? In fact, Gnostics would fully agree. They would say they are not under condemnation, and not under any obligation also.
So Paul's meaning is more complicated, and we have to resort to a knowledge of Judaism to understand it. I recently listened to a One For Israel broadcast on the reactionary measures Judaism took against the Evangelists. They managed to prove from Israeli scholars that a good deal of the oral law tradition, and reading schedule of Judaism was designed with a reaction to Messianic Jews and Christianity in mind! They have a whole video on Targum Onkelos.
What existed in Judaism in Paul's day, going back to the first century BC, and extending to the 4th century in increasing measure was the teaching that one can perform extra works of the law to earn merits that would balance out demerits. The earned merits were used to appease God or propitiate him, that is, to make him favorable to the case or circumstance of the Jew who had earned a demerit through sin. This doctrine even has a name in Judaism. It is called Zechut, which means "merit," but it is a technical term for this whole system of propitiating God with what are called supererogatory deeds. That is deeds done beyond the call of Torah observance. This is why you see Jews performing specific deeds of prayer or charity that seem to be ritualistic practices. The historical background of this is Zechut.
So Paul's meaning of "ye are not under law," includes forgiveness of sin, includes no condemnation for the repentant one who walks in faithfulness, and also includes the idea that we are not under the system of Zechut. Those who want to be "under law" are those who want to be under Zechut, a system of merit for propitiating God. The "under law" phrases are simply gotcha statements when the audience reacts the wrong way, and then Paul explains the Jewish doctrine of Merit. Paul means we are not under a specific code of the oral law taught in Judaism.
It has been argued extensively by Christians retaining some part of God's Law that Paul's negative statements on the Law refer to the "ceremonial law," which is actually written in Torah. But this distinction made in obligation to the moral law vs. none to the ceremonial law is an illusion. I prove in the GNM that it is refuted by the logic of Paul's arguments aimed at forgiveness of sin for breaking any part of God's law, and not just the ceremonial law. But this erring opinion shows that it is easy to misinterpret Paul's negative statements on the Law.
And my point is that they interpret the negative statements to refer to a certain part of the law. They have set this precedent, and indeed this opinion was shared in increasing degree by ignorant Christians farther back in history, including the Reformers, and the wide swath of Christianity before them. So Paul's negative statements were never considered to be an absolute rejection of Law by them, except by Gnostics.
If they may in err say it means the ceremonial law, then I correctly say it means the oral law that teaches God is propitiated by meritorious deeds. This doctrine replaces God's forgiveness and the purging blood of Yeshua, who makes us being purged from all sin.
It is the system of zechut, and any philosophic equivalent to it that Paul is condimning in his anti-law statements. It is the abuse of law under the color of law that he teaches against.
This is why I translate nomos more literally when Paul has this meaning, e.g. "custom," "what is customary." He means this zechut custom.
Now to change direction. This doctrine also made its way into Christianity under the name of "penance" and the creation of "purgatory." The penances and time in purgatory are claimed to propitiate God as a kind of partial payment for sin.
Later, at the time of the reformation, so called, this doctrine morphed into a philosophic or theological doctrine of double imputation, whereby the Zechut and Penance systems were replaced by a system claiming that the punishment of Christ propitiates God and that the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to the sinners legal account so that he sees only righteouenss in the sinner, and thereby is propitiated that way.
By all means the reader should continue reading on this topic the PSA document, which shows that the Father is not propitiated by the illegal punishment of his Son. The meaning of "atonement" is explained there also, and is entirely different from what most Christians would say today. All of this misunderstanding comes from not understanding Paul, and doing the exact errors that he preached against. The misunderstanding of what Paul meant by "under law" has resulted in all this error.
6. We hold a person is saved when they confess their sins and become faithful to Messiah Yeshua, trusting that Messiah suffered giving his life as a ransom for Israel, and that the Most High forgives and cancels the strict judicial penalty of our sins
6.5 We don't agree with those who use their own merit, or assign to themselves the merit of another as a means of obtaining an acquittal of sin. Merits do not pay for demerits. But our Almighty forgives whoever will repent and pledge faithfulness to him. The dispute over legal works in Galatians had only to do with the use of good deeds (customary works) as a tool to buy forgiveness or to compensate for bad deeds so that the bad deeds would be overlooked. The false doctrine has a name in Judaism. It is called Zechut, and also claims that the righteousness of Abraham is transferred to his offpsring supposedly making God more propitious toward them.
7. We hold that the Law of the Almighty is just as valid today as it was during Messiah’s ministry, and that the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to instruct us and bring us into conformity with His will.
8. We don’t hold that all violations of the Law put a person’s salvation in jeopardy, but only those violations that can be classed as mortal sins or outright rebellion. Israel was never able to keep the Law perfectly, but the Almighty has always shown loving-kindness to those who love Him and keep his commandments.
9. We hold that those who have fallen asleep in Messiah will be raised to everlasting life with a new immortal body, and the unsaved will be raised to face everlasting death, in which they will cease to exist. The Scripture does not teach Eternal Conscious Tormet for the unsaved. This is just another doctrine of demons to smear the character of God. Rather, the Most High will destroy that which has become courrupt, because he must in order to preserve moral authority and those who receive everlasting life.
10. We hold to the Torah and Prophets received by Messiah, and given by Messiah, and to all the writings of the Emissaries of Messiah.
11. We don’t hold to the theological system of Augustine or John Calvin, but hold that the unfaithful have free will (genuine man originated choice), and are capable of responding to the message of the good news, either against or for it, when the Spirit makes it plain to them. We hold that the Almighty tests the faithfulness of the faithful to know what is in their hearts, whether they would keep His commandments or not (Deut. 8:1-3).
12a. We hold the Sabbaths are to be observed a night and a day, but that days are otherwise reckoned from dawn to dawn. 12b. We hold that the new moon was determined according to its first visibility, and so should accordingly be witnessed or calculated according to first visibility criteria for the place of the name. We hold that the year begins when the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We hold that the first day of Passover must occur no earlier than the day when the year renews itself. We hold to a continuous weekly cycle from creation independent of the sun or moon. We hold that the new moon determines the appointed times and feasts.
12b. Due to the complexities of the calendar and circumstances, we hold that local new moon observation is sometimes permitted. We do not consider it a mortal sin if we find a brother observing a feast day or the fast one or two days out of the time we regard as most proper. But we do not associate with or permit the teaching of those who claim the Sabbath to be any other day than the seventh day as historically observed. We specifically oppose lunar Sabbath teaching. We also oppose the Qumran cult and its teachings on the determination of the year and seasons.
12b.5. It has come to my attention that Monte Judah and Eddie Chumney are teaching the Zadok Calendar Heresy (aka Qumran Calendar). Before this lesser names were doing so. The most prominent being Avi-Ben Mordecai. In the Jan 1, 2024 Yavoh Magazine Monte Judah makes the Deluge Chronology is first argument for 30 day months. Summary: 17th day 2nd month to 17th day 7th month is 5 months and 150 days. Therefore each month is 30 days. However, the Feast Calendar for 2024 that Monte presents takes 152 days to get from the 17th of the 2nd month to the 17th of the 7th month. This is by exclusive counting. The 17th of the 7th month is not counted. On inclusive counting it takes 153 days. Monte has the 14th of the 1st month on April 2, 2024, and the 15th of the 7th month on October 2. Since most of you are not math adepts like me, I suggest you get a blank wall calendar for 2024. Mark April 2 as the 14th of the 1st month. Number the boxes going forward using 30 days for each month, and you will discover when you get to month 7 that the 15th and 17th days come TWO days before Monte says they do.
Why does this happen? Because in the Qumran (aka Zadok) Calendar, there is an extra day at the end of month 3 and an extra day at the end of month 6. The extra day is also at the end of month 9 and month 12. This makes this calendar 364 days in a year and not 360 as might be supposed from Genesis. Since the Zadoq Calendar is short 1 1/4 days from 365 1/4, the calendar looses a week with respect to the seasons every 6 years. Between the 17th of the 2nd month and the 17th of the 7th month, there are always exactly 2 extra days in addition to the 30 day months. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible for the Zadoq Calendar to agree with Genesis.
Proponents of the Zadoq Calendar engage in special pleading to rescue their calendar from this contradiction. They say that the extra 2 days are not counted because they are seasonal and don't belong to any month. But this assumption depends an believing the Zadoq calendar is the true one in the first place. So the rescuing assumption amounts to circular reasoning.
Now what about the Genesis deluge texts? It is well known by astronomers that visual observation of the new moon produces patterns of FOUR 30 day months and 1 29 day month in stretches of 5 months. That would be 149 days. For the Genesis account, we have 150 days, and this is by inclusive counting, counting both the 17th of the 2nd month and the 17th of the 7th month in the 150 days. So the Deluge chronology is completely explained by knowing this. Furthermore, such a pattern does occur in the year of the Deluge, 2483 BC. You wil find more detail on this in my books.
One more proof that the Zadok (aka Qumran Calendar) is heresy. This calendar cannot sustain the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Yeshua. The Zadoq Calendar places the 15th day of the 1st month on Wednesday, which makes this day an Annual Sabbath. They always have it on a Wednesday. Now the day after the crucifixion was an Annual Sabbath, and Messiah was crucified on the 14th day of the month. According the the Scripture Calendar this fell on Wednesday March 24 in AD 34, and the annual Sabbath began at sunset that day. But according the Qumran the crucifixion would have to fall on Tuesday in order for an annual Sabbath to commence at sundown. The third night would expire at the end of Thursday night (tue night, wed night, thur night). But the Evangelists state that the resurrection occurred just before dawn on the first of the Sabbaths after Passover. Even if you mistranslate them "first day of the week" the Qumran calendar cannot sustain the testimony the Evangelists concerning Messiah. I conclude then that the spirit of anti-Christ is behind these calendar deceptions. Daniel 7:25.
12c. Even though errors may be made in regard the current calendar due to mistaken observations, we hold that all things should be done to uphold the historic testiminy of Messiah concerning his death and resurrection, regarding the third day, regarding the Resurrection Sabbath, and regarding the Sabbatical years of Daniel 9. We hold and regard accurate chronology as essential to the restoration of Israel, and as essential to building confidence in the truth. But we do not censure or hold as unfaithful to the Most High anyone who hold doubts about the chronology. With this provision in mind, we outline these dates as pivotal: Messiah's death and resurrection in AD 34. His birth in 2 BC. The commencement of the Daniel 9 prophecy in 445 BC with Nehemiah's work, and the Exodus in 1632 BC.
13. We hold that Messiah died on the 4th day of the week, and rose from the dead just before dawn on the Sabbath, and that this was the first Sabbath in the counting of Sabbaths in the Torah. We hold that the Exodus chronology places the 50th day on the weekly Sabbath, and that the Sabbath after which 50 days, seven Sabbaths, and seven weeks, are counted was the annual Passover rest day, Nisan 15.
14. We hold to biblical food laws, and that forbidden fat should not be consumed (that of the organ cavity of the cow). We also hold that no one should poison their body by means of sorcery or alter their genetic code away from the design that the Most High Created. We also hold that no person should attempt to change their gender or act like the opposite gender, but like the men and women the Creator designed us to be.
15.We reject attributing any moral authority to a central human judicial system beyond the trying of capital crimes as defined in Torah, property disputes, and personal injury disputes. But we do ascribe authority to Torah observant judges to advise on all matters and that should anyone illegitimately go against such advice or Torah instruction, it will be up to the Most High to chastise that person, and it will not be allowed to deprive that person of life, property, nor to injure them physically.
16. We agree that breaking Sabbath with a high hand is worthy of death, but that in the exile, this is unenforceable, as many other capital sins are unenforceable. We view the exile as an opportunity for those under moral sentence to repent and be forgiven. We also view worshiping any other god, especially the fallen sons of God, as morally requiring the death penalty. In the exile we look to the Most High to protect us from their enmity.
17. We hold that the house of Israel and the house of Judah became civilly and politically separated when the kingdom was divided, and that the two houses will be reunited in the land under one Shepherd, Messiah. We therefore hold that Messianic Judaism does not hold a superior position over the non-Jewish faithful, and further that traditions outside the Torah, which are Rabbinic only, are not binding on the house of Israel. However, we do acknowledge that priests and Levites have the special rights accorded to them in Torah, and that Jews have the right to their own tribal territory. We reject the necessity of anyone from the house of Israel to become Jewish, but we uphold the law of circumcision in any case for a son of eight days.
17.5 We regard secular Zionism as fundamentally misguided insofar as it falls short of the required repentance that Torah demands for a return to the land of Israel. However, we acknowledge that the Most High has used it for the good of the house of Israel and Judah. We mourn the fact that Zionism is falling prey to modern woke ideology and anti Torah values and pluralistic accommodation of false gods and ideologies, and fear what the Most High will do to correct this situation. But we will have no part in making the correction until the Most High first restores the place and sovereignty of the house of Israel over its territory, and the house of Judah will have to exercise judgment over itself. The house of Israel reserves the right to fight against the parties that fight against it, by way of self defense, either in exile, or after the exile is ended, first spiritually, then by flight, and then by finding refuge with any party that opposes our persecution as the Most High may direct and provide.
17.6 We do not fundamentally hold that our deliverance from exile will be by force of arms, but by the manner described in Isaiah 49:5-26. Nor do we hold that our liberties are secured by human law or constitution, but only by the Most High. Nor do we hold that justice is achieved by human elections, but only by the Most High. While liberties may be gained and lost depending on who governs, we depend on the Most High for the liberties he regards as essential. We hold that liberties are granted by the Most High, and that their use will only be successful by a people who obey the commandments of the Most High. Therefore, we do not suppose any union with people wishing to defend their liberty to disobey the Most High will be successful, and consider that those trying to take it away from them may be permitted to do so by the Most High.
18. We hold that the Temple will be restored in an age of peace and prosperity for Israel, and that it will again function righteously and justly, and that all Israel will bring their offerings to the Most High in the place of the name.
19. We hold that the fundamental meaning of a sacrifice concerning sin is to teach the cost of sin and the cost of cleansing it. We hold that sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing God or satisfying a penalty of wrath. Rather the offering represents the ransom cost for the person’s deliverance. We therefore hold that all sin sacrifice illustrates the price of deliverance in the spiritual realm, and that this cost is exacted by lawlessness and evil. It is therefore a ransom cost.
20. We regard "justification by faith" as a heresy, and corruption of the original concept, "the administration of justice based on faithfulness." See the Good News of Messiah. We regard holding faithful to Messiah by keeping his commandments as essential for anyone who is seeking everlasting life.
21. We do not hold that the Almighty has established a need for perfection while we are in a mortal body. Rather he only requires wholehearted faithfulness. And if we fail, he still does forgive, not on the basis of imputed merit or penal substitution, but on the basis of his love and mercy.
22. We hold that as long as Christinaity or the Church teaches false doctrines, denying the Sabbath, and promoting the theology of acquittal, and the theology of wrath satisfaction schemes, that it lacks moral authority and sufficient spiritual insight to even advise us. We hold that as long as it promotes false traditions and false translation, we are under no obligation to heed anything it says.
23. We hold besides charging the Church with false translations, also charging them with including false passages and false books in the Scripture. And what they say isn't the last word.
24. We hold that only a few essential points are necesary for a person enter life, and not that they realize everything we have discovered. Among them are repentance from sin to receive forgiveness of sin, and living a life of faithfulness, holding faithful to Messiah from the heart, which includes keeping his commandments.
25. We identify two main heretical gospels taught by Christianity. One is the gospel of sacraments, and the other is the gospel of Gnostic doctrine, namely that only belief or faith alone is necessary for getting rescued by Messiah.
26. We maintain the right of everyone to think and believe as they wish concerning everything, without fear of civil punishment, but not the right to do or behave as one desires contrary to the commandments. The Most High truly will punish those holding false beliefs if they are unwilling to change them, but it is not up to us or in our jurisdiction to punish false beliefs.
26.01 I am pointing out these applications of Torah so that the faithful may co-exist together peacefully. False teaching or beliefs may be censored, or otherwise not permitted, or restrained, in a private domain or organization, which is not to exceed the physical domain under an administrator or owned by a person. If the administrator asserts their right in his domain, then he is to be respected even if his views are wrong, or considered wrong.
26.01b I apologize for the length of this statement, but despite the fact that we cannot punish false metaphysical beliefs in the civil realm, it is nevertheless necessary to teach all Israel to suppress the teacing of (not belief in) philosophical determinism and its logical results in their own private domains. This amounts to shunning what his false. The false doctrines of the Calvinists have made it necessary to take a stand against them. Faithful assemblies will seek to make sure their domains are "de-nazified," so to speak of Calvinist doctrines.
26.02 Exhaustive or total theological determinism is the belief that God has determined all things which will occur and including all thoughts that will occur, and including all false thoughts that will occur in his creatures. This includes false beliefs also. This belief is incompatible with the Scriptural picture of reality, because it makes God the first cause of all evil. This belief is one of the deep things of Satan, that is what Satan wants those he deceives to believe. There is no scripture which teaches such a doctrine unless it be mistranslated or misinterpreted.
26.03 Exhaustive foreknowledge is the belief that God knows everything that will occur and everything that will be believed or disbelieved in his creatures, including everything that will be thought in the future by his creatures. This view is the logical consequence of the false doctrine described in 26.02, because God necessarily knows what he determines will occur. Exhaustive foreknowledge based on exhaustive determinism is therefore a heresy equivalent to exhaustive determinism.
26.04 The Most High exercises limited determinism based on his love and the need to create a blessed environment for his creation and creatures. Limited determinism also means creating his creatures also with an ability of limited determinism. Obviously this is extremely more limited than the Almighty's will to determine. The power to determine exists only in the spiritual realm, that is in the mind of God and the spirits of his creatures. Since God loves his creation, and desires to be loved by his creatures, he gives limited power of determinism to them. If his creatures misuse their power to determine, God retains the right to restrain it, or constrain it for a better outcome.
26.05 In the physical realm there exists both determinism based on the laws of physics and indeterminism based on a probability function. Only the logically predictable can be absolutely known with certainty. Whatever is properly indetermined cannot be known because it does not exist in the domain of knowability. By the same measure that which is not yet determined in the spiritual realm does not exist in the domain of knowabiltiy. Therefore, the belief in exhaustive divine omniscience, as a logical result of total determinism is a false doctrine.
26.06 Even if something is in the domain of knowabiltiy, the Most High may decide not to look at it. Despite these gaps in divine knowledge, God has already observed the trajectories and has a plan to contain it based on his love. However, God is always observing those among men who are still able to cry out to God and be saved. So he probably only ignores things which are terminally corrupt for which he has planned a day of judgment.
26.07 Since the Most High can limit among knowable things what he pays attention to, it is obvious that there must be a decided upon division among the Almighties as to who will be responsible for watching over things and from which point of view, whether the Father, or the Spirit, or the Son, and the Son has considered things from a limited human point of view since he is the God-man. And the Spirit is specifically said to be the one who searches the hearts and minds the faithful, and of men.
27. There is a logical connection between philosophic determinism and the false western view of paying a penalty to satisfy justice. Justice in philosophic determinism is exactly what God willed to happen. Those not chosen are justly treated the same as those who are chosen. Philosophic determinism corrupts the biblical concept of justice, and substitutes this corrupted view of justice for forgiveness. But whether one will repent and seek forgiveness and cleansing is inderminate before it happens. And justice is not based on a legal decree that a penalty has been satisfied, and a legal decree that righteousness is imputed. The same false logic through which men can accept the injustice of exhaustive divine determinism also lays the foundation of misunderstanding the atonement in terms of achieving equity on the divine scales, since these scales are governed by the doctrine of exhaustive determinism.
28. "Atonement" in Biblical Hebrew means purging or cleansing. It has to do with purging impurity and sinful corruption. It has nothing to do with paying a judicial penalty to pay off justice. So then the necessity of Messiah's sacrifice is related to the necessity of cleansing us from all sin. The cross is meant to point to the extension of Messiah's death to the concept of continuing divine longsuffering to cleanse us from all sin. We are to crucify our flesh with Messiah and let the Spirit put to death our sinful self so that we may be raised to life. Teaching this lesson to the hearts of the faithful is in every bit necessary for their cleansing from sin. For this reason Messiah's sacrifice of divine nature for our cleansing is necessary. We must realize the divine cost is real and hurtful to God, something that he would not will except for redemption. And for this reason, the doctrine of exhaustive divine determinism (predestination) is fatal to a correct understanding of kippurim. Messiah is taking from his resurrection life that which is necessary to heal us.
29. Yeshua said, "The scribes and the Perushim [Pharisees] have sat down upon the seat of Moshe. All, accordingly, whatsoever they should have said to you, do and be observing, but do not be doing according to their deeds, because they [only] say [so], and they do not do [so]." Yeshua is holding up the Pharisees here as having correct teaching on the one hand, and on the other hand, not faithfully practicing the correct teaching. The Pharisees, however, were not perfect teachers either, and they did have disagreements among themselves. But the importance of this statement by Yeshua will be seen by placing it in context. In his day there were factions among the Jewish people which professed to hold to the Torah, but differed on what it taught, and how it should be observed. While criticizing the Pharisees for hypocrisy, he is at the same time holding them up as the party most definitive of the correct positions on matters. Certain matters are corrected in his own teaching, which was published in the writings of his chosen emissaries. Yeshua did not command to follow the teachings of the Essenes, Qumran, or various parties of Hellenistic Jews, like the Sadducees.[3]
30.1 For this reason, if anyone finds a brother or sister advocating a manner of observance that is not most in line with the Pharisees, and indeed in align with one of those other parties that Yeshua did not favor, then he or she is disobeying the implication of what he commanded. These other sects made a career out of attacking the most fundamental teachings of the Pharisees, especially on the calendar, and matters of tradition, which if not mandatory, were certainly permitted. Among these other sects also appears an insidious, almost anti-semitic, hatred of the proper observances of Israel, and also a spirit of division, and condemnation of things that should not be condemned.
30.2 The positions of the Pharisees are best represented in the Mishnah, and not the opinions given by the Gemara or the Talmud (the Talmud has some very unsavory opinions). Josephus also represents the positions of the Pharisees, since this is the party he finally adopted, and also Paul of Tarsus. The positions of the Pharisees are also not the additional positions of Maimonides or the Rabbis that came after them. The only positions of the Pharisees that we can be said to be strongly vetoed by Messiah are those disputes recorded by the Evangelists where a differing position was taken. And often in these cases there was a faction within the Pharisees themselves that actually agreed.
30.3 Dissenters from sound teaching are often driven by post-modernist methods seeking for power or to upset what should be the status quo of Jewish observance. This divisiveness is often rooted in the real and eternal hatred of Satan and his allies against Israel. These factions, outside what Yeshua recommended, are perfidius promoters of wreckless interpretations that are promoted on the back of false interpretive paradigmns often unwittingly believed by those professing the faith, who are expoited by these teachers.
31.1 Differences with modern Judaism that actually agree with the Apostles writings or with the ancient position of the Pharisees cannot be included under the judgment of divisiveness. For example, the sighting of the new moon was a teaching of the Pharisees, as well as regulating the first month by the spring equinox. But the lunar Sabbath theory, Qumran, Enoch, "Zadok" calendar, and Sadducean opinion lies outside of the shelter of sound teaching that was the Pharisees' teaching.
32.0 The Apostle Paul gets a lot of hate mail on social media. So this teaching point is designed especially to rebuke you who engage in it. The question is, do you hate false Paul more than you love the truth. There is a false Paul. Christianity, and especially the Church of Gnoticism promotes him. Do you hate him more than you love the truth? I have asked this two times. Yes, it is possible to hate what is false more than you love the good news, that Yeshua came and died to purge our sin, teaching us that he forgives our sins, and to repent and hold faithful to him. If your message is against false Paul, and not for the good news of Messiah, then you love to atack what is false more than the good news. And that my friend is idolatry. If you hang onto bitterness against false Paul, then you may fail to understand original Paul.
By all means the sin of false Paul must be purged in order to better understand the good news. But this is not to be by attacking the original true Paul. But as Peter said, men have misinterpreted Paul because of their lawlessness. If that is true, then by now men have falsely translated Paul into false Paul. Don't be deceived by false Paul translations. If you love the truth more than you hate false Paul, then consider original Paul.
Did you know that "faith" should really be translated "faithfulness," and that "believe in" should really be translated "hold faithful to"? Did you know that "law" should be correctly translated "custom" in many cases? Did you know that Paul wasn't making an argument against obeying Torah in "not under law" statements, but only against trying to pay for forgiveness with good works? And these phrases would better be translated "you are not under what is customary?" Did you know that Judaism had oral law that taught paying for demerits (sin) with merits (extra good deeds)? Did you know that original Paul hated this system of appeasing God with works because it was against the true good news that teaches us that Yeshua forgives our sin, and doesn't ask us to pay for forgiveness?
I could go on and on here, but I'd be wasting your time and mine, since it would be better to let you know that original Paul is restored in The Good News of Messiah Scripture Translation. The question is do you love the good news more than you hate false Paul? Do you love the truth more than chewing on little hatreds? Will you let Messiah cleanse you from sin?
33.0 Are you a member of the Church of Gnosticism? Test yourself. Do you hold faithful to the true good news or believe in the gnostic gospel? Now of course a lot of Christian denominations don't call themselves the Church of Gnosticism, but that is what they are! But if you read from mistranslations by false Paul and not faithful translations by original Paul...if you read only Paul, and not what Yeshua said, or what John says, or what Yeshua says in Revelation...if your are constantly arguing against God's law, ...if you condemn the covenant of old as an "old testament," then it is likely that you have believed in a false gospel.
The true good news is to repent from sin (lawbreaking), accept Messiah's forgiveness, and to allow him to bear your sin away, and to purge it from you. But if you hang on to lawlessness, then you have believed in a false gospel.
Now, I don't have time to argue this with everyone in person. That is why I explain the true good news, and correct the errors of the Church of Gnosticism in the Good News of Messiah translation. In the transation, notes, and appendicies, it is explained there how the Church of Gnosticism has corrupted the good news. In the GNM the cultic terms of the Church of Gnosticism are restored to their true meanings. In the GNM, I preach the true good news, which means rescue from sin, and the restoration of the Torah to the life of the faithful.
*Although eternally existing, he entered the status of sonship to the Father at some point in time. The doctrine of eternal generation of the Son is here specifically denied since this would mean eternal subordination and make the Son’s existence dependent on the Father. The words “only begotten Son/God” are a mistaken rendering of John 3:16, 18, etc, and are properly translated “only kindred Son/Almighty.” See The Good News of Messiah for further commentary.
2. The term Jehovah appears in the King James Bible. But there is no English "J" in Hebrew, and the vowels placed into the Hebrew text by the scribes are selected vowels of Adonai or Elohim. The "e" in Jehovah comes from the reduced vowel under the first gutteral letter of Adonai. Often the "o" and "i" of Adonai are left out. The purpose of this device is so that the reader will say (or subvocalize) Adonai (or sometimes Elohim) whenever reading the divine name in the text. The "v" is a late European pronunciation of the ancient waw, which is represented by the English "w" or "u". The first part of the divine name appears as Yah independently with a maqqeph in the heh, to preserve the consonant. This form of the name appears at the end of halleluYah, and at the end of theophoric names. Sometimes it is "-yahu" at the end of theophoric names, adding the waw in addition to -yah. At the beginning of theophoric names the divine name component is reduced to "Yeho-" "Yo-" or sometimes "Yey" (yod+tsere), and this is borne out by the Ιω- Greek spellings (which include vowels) in the Septuagint and the New Testament. This shortening at the beginning of theophoric names may be for reasons of accent or rapid speech, or a preference for reduced vowels at the beginning of theophoric names, probably motivated by modesty. There is nothing in Hebrew, however, to prevent someone from making the vowels to their own preference in a personal name, such as Yahu- or Yaho-, but the Greek texts handed down to us from the time of Messiah indicate that the custom was the aforementioned reduced forms. Dissention and disunity come about whenever someone argues that the name must be perfectly pronounced to their own specifications or be condemned as a "commandment breaker," or worse as "unsaved." They are entitled to their own version, and not to be condemned for it, but may be disagreed with, but as soon as this subject becomes a soap-box for dissension, disunity, and clickism, it becomes divisive. Often these people are mistaken about their facts and assumptions. They may be disagreed with, but are not to be censured unless they become accusatory.
The verbal argument in Exodus 3, where the Most High speaks is "Ehayeh asher Ehayeh", meaning "I make be what I make be." The late Hebrew text has this "Ehyeh asher ehyeh," (I am what I am), and is transcribed similarly in the LXX. This is a tautologis argument, whereas the Hiphil is what makes sense, "I make be what I make be," which is to say the Most High creates whatever he wills, or he makes "become." It is the same as calling God "Creator." The LXX version clearly seems to be influenced by the name-suppression scheme of the Rabbis, who wish to make a commandment against the utterance of the name, when in fact, the Scripture only pronounced judgment upon one who profanes the name directly (One can profane the name of God by not saying the name and giving false theology concerning his nature, and this is not what is meant by blaspheming the name.)
The theophoric namings leave it without a doubt that the divine name was pronounced "YaHw-h" with only the vowel to be placed at the hyphen location underivable based on only theophoric names. But the verbal argument in Exodus 3 settles this, because all third heh verbs end with "-eh", including both Hiphal and Qal forms. So putting these together yields "Yahweh" and this form is that of the Hiphil, and means "he makes be." The only tweak that is not evident in the English transcription is that the heh "h" in the middle of the name is not truly silent. The Hiphil has a hatef vowel, and the reason for this is to make the consonant sound plain. So don't just say "Yaweh"*. Say "Yahweh" making the h sound. The vowels of the verb patterns are fixed as a matter of verb paradigmns and are the same for every verb. Because of this Hebrew is much more conservative over time of verbal pronunciations. But there is some scholarly disagreement over the exact quality of the segol heh combination. The majority prefer a long "ey" quality. The verbal argument is also backed up by the fact that almost no Hebrew names do not have a plain meaning in Hebrew. This is hard for English speakers to grasp because our naming in English places emphasis on the sound, and neglects the meaning. Hebrew is more like some Indian naming customs such as "swift-runner" or "sky-cloud," etc. For this reason, it is plain that forms such as Yehovah, Jehovah, etc actually have no obvious meaning in Hebrew. In the Scripture, the Most High often says, "I am Yahweh." In most of the contexts this is more than simple self identification. Rather it is an assurance of his power, "I am he makes be." One other point I should mention is that there are two forms of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, which are "hayah" and "hawah." It is this second form of "to be", viz "to make be" upon which the divine name is based.
[3] text