ChildofYahweh

I thank everyone who respond to my post if I missed anyone

ChildofYahweh

Also as I read The Book of Jeremiyah in chapter 23, I believe our Father says we replaced his name,with Baal. Upon researching the meaning of the name Baal its relevant to the titles lord and God? I'm ask others to research this name Baal its very surprising, please send me feedback on this. I offend no one by what I'm writing next, its just common sense to me. If Halleluyah is a hebrew word that means praise be unto Yah...not lord, not god, not Allah, not Jehovah, Buddha or no other name but Yah. This was the word I was taught that makes hell shake n demons tremble. Then why is this word screamed in churches by pasters and followers but not taught its true meaning. Also spoke and glorified in churches who says they were called by him to preach. But yet, not taught to his followers by these so called leader to glorify. The word is powerful, its truth with that being said. Yah is the only name not titles that I am to glorify when praising him. Again this is what I'm getting from the scripture and words I've researched.

ChildofYahweh

He also said by one name shall man be saved, that also tells me to call upon him by the name he said call himself, and our messiah, not names man has taught to us to call him. If yehshua our messiahs true names if I spelled correctly, still learning and researching, means Yah is salvation. Why do we call upon other names he never said he or his son are. Just asking as I've said I follow what our creator says not man.

ChildofYahweh

There is no letter J in the hebrew alpahbet. The letter J, only came into existence in the english alphabet only 500 or 600 years ago purposely as I have read doing my research. Had the letter J, not been created purposely, we would still pronounce our heavenly Father and our messiah name the same as pronounced in hebrew, but the vowels in the english alphabet would be pronounced differently only, regarding their true names. So that tells me, those new today names were not the name told to Joseph by the angel to name our messiah, those were the true names people spoke back then when seeking him. As I watch news how other names in yisreal are pronounced, they arent translated but spoken the same in english. So why would I believe a lie to tanslate my heavenly Father or messiahs name to a name that means nothing. Please research as I have, its deep. Please give me feed back on whats found. We all have the free will and authority to test anyone or anything claiming to be of the Father, thats all I'm doing

ChildofYahweh

I Am not here to cause and uproar or piss anyone off, I just do alot of research and work out my own salvation with tremble. And what I've found upon my research blew me back. I'm no prophet, not perfect , I'm just Brenda who seeks Yahs truth not man's.

amvaap

Very interesting. I too realize that lots of what we are taught is traditional and not truly Biblical for example, I think we underplay or forget that we Gentiles are grafted into the vine so that we benefit from the promises made to Abraham, Jacob & Issac..

ChildofYahweh

......,You are so true Ive read in older bibles but the newer bibles removed this. The desiples asked our messiah if they were hebrew as him. I kid you not i read where our messiah said if we believe in him we are. So even though I wasnt born in his truth, because I and many others who didnt reject him are Hebrews by his word. Its deep. I nees to find an older bible to read this because, I honestly read that verse growing up. It stayed stuck in my head till this day.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

To begin, there are two Testaments, because the covenant with Abraham has two parts. The covenant with Abraham was also a covenant with Christ.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."[Gal 3:16]

God makes covenants with men, not with Gods. God told Moses "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."[Deut 18:18]

Messiah was to be raised from among men, not lowered from among Gods. Man changed that. And I can prove it, but not in this post. It would make it too long, and you might not be interested. Let me know.

But in the meantime, you ask some very good questions, which to me, says you may be interested in learning the truth beyond what MAN has changed. Correct me if I am wrong.

It helps to understand that the old testament law of Moses was never for all men of the world, but was to the Nation of Israel - "These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses."[Leviticus 26:46]

"And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." [Deuteronomy 5:1-3]

"Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: 13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; 15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.[Deuteronomy 29:10-15]

It goes on to include the progeny of those who covenanted that day, but it was made clear "3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." [Deuteronomy 5:3]

So the Covenant of laws God made with Moses (The Mosaic Covenant) was not the same as the seed covenant God made with Abraham (The Abrahamic Covenant) concerning Messiah.



Because Satan tempted the leaders in Paul's own day, to make changes in how they taught new converts to Christ, by beginning with "The life of Christ" (i.e., Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) followed by the history of the development of the church (Acts of the Apostles). The problem with that is simple; God demanded that his people do things in their proper order, even to the point some died for failing so to do. But Satan convinced Men that their own methodology was at least as good as the inspiration by the Holy spirit, by appealing to their egos.

One of the first changes it made, was it established Peter as the first Pope, by doctrinal fiat. If the books had been presented in their proper order, the saints would have already learned that Peter was relieved of his position as Preacher to the Gentile nations, and was replaced by Paul, because Peter failed so miserably at Galatia. Galatians by the way, was the second book written, James being the first. Mathew was seventh. John's gospel was last, written in 96 a.d. But it was placed fourth so they could develop Jesus as pre-existent God, incarnating into Humanity.

Another thing they did was eliminate the old testament as irrelevant, done away with, which was never done. Only the law, which was the covenant with Moses, was changed, because of the change of priesthood, when Christ became our high priest.

It was all made up, and fought over for over four hundred years, until in 451 at the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon, the Bishop (later called "Pope") pronounced trinity doctrine as "Orthodox." When one year later, that same Bishop turned the discipline of the church over to the emperor Marcion, to take the problem of disagreeing clerics, (called Heresy) off his hands, God showed the world his displeasure, by establishing a 1000 year judgment we know today as "The Dark Ages." It lasted until 1452 when the first bible came off the printing presses and was given to the people, instead of to the clergy, who until then controlled it all by murder or inquisition. To show that inquisition was never a Christian practice, look at what John wrote about it - "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."[John 16:2-3]

Men determined early on, that the best way to control other men was to teach that only "Orthodox doctrine" was to be studied, and only under the clergy. I was raised Catholic, and remember well, being told we cannot read the bible and should only study our doctrines under the auspices of the clergy, lest we be led into error.

I was kicked out of Catechism class in the eighth grade for asking a question about the inquisition, following world war 2; and was given permission by the Bishop of Seattle, to read my bible at home, because I moved out of Seattle, into the country, at the end of that year. I studied my way out of Catholicism over the next eight years. That was over sixty years ago.



More to follow if you want to know.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

You should check out the Halleluyah (correct spelling) Scriptures.

ChildofYahweh

[quote=mwdegutis]You should check out the Halleluyah (correct spelling) Scriptures.[/quote,....,thankyou I will ]

ChildofYahweh

Yes I understand all your saying that's why I'm asking the questions so other can do their research and undertand also. Plus If we read Jeremiyah 23 our father also states we replaced his name with Baal, now I've researched the meaning of bal, I find the meaning is lord, master, god. As i see all if not most churches teaching this Bal worship. That's my point everything man teaches is opposite our what Our father said. Our father states in Isiah he wants his name glorified, so that with Jeremiyah tell me not to baal worship. I'm new to this research, but from what Ive read our father said we are not to do this .....I believe in our messiah whom the father sent, but I use his Hebrew name instead of the new man made names ......The name Jesus was not put in bibles till after 1916. This is a fact Ive researched. Man has done so much rebellion against our father. As I've studied the name Jesus is translated from greek meaning hail zuess, to latin pronounced he'or de`zuess but spelled Jesus. That's why when you hear latin name their children Jesus the pronounce he' or de`zuess and in my opnion from research that was zuess name deceitful taught to us to call our messiah. No I do not deny our savior. But it says by one name shall man be saved, not all these names man says we should call him. Even if our messiah name was translated in english it should spell Joshua. So what authority did man have to change to Jesus meaning zuess as i have said I only seek the fathers truth not mans. He also tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and tremble. Also to test anyone claiming to be sent to teach. Thats all I'm doing.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

That's fair. So test me.

James wrote the 1st book of the New Testament, in 45 a.d. Paul wrote the 2nd in 48 a.d., and begins tutoring us as to the mysterious "Logos Of God." In fact, it was Paul who said "The Logos Of God" was a mystery from the beginning of creation, hidden from men until revealed to and in the saints. Paul explained it this way...

When a saint submits his life to Jesus, Paul says,(in 48 a.d.) "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:..." [Gal 2:20]

Again, Paul told us in that same letter - "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," [Gal 4:19]

So Paul introduces a concept to the saints, of "Christ living in you;" but does not make any further defining remarks to the saints in Galatia. Then, in In 55 a.d. paul, writing to the saints in Corinth, said this -"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" [II Cor 13:5]

Paul begins to introduce some finer points of definition when in 60 a.d. he said he had "fully preached the Logos Of God" to the whole world, and explained what it is - "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;"

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fully preach the logos of God ; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles;which is Christ in you, the hope of glory]:" [Col 1:23,25-27]

Paul expresses his exposition of a theme with - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." [Gal 4:4-7]

But the personification of the logos of God takes place, according to Paul, everytime some saint or other, so lives his life that he can say "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." [Gal 2:20]

When this saint acknowledges "Christ Jesus" in his life, the logos of God is personified in the life of that saint. And "we behold the glory as of an only begotten son of God" all over again, in that saint, through Christ living in him.

Paul spent a lifetime convincing the saints about this subject of "Jesus Christ living in me" and said, "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," [Gal 4:19]

And John did not change a thing paul already said.


In 69 a.d., we find a reference to "The logos of God;" but it seems to be in a far different theme or context; it is found in one of the writings of John, in a book called "apokolypse of John" more popularly referenced as "The Revelation of John."

In this book, John speaks to us of a "new name" that Jesus is going to write upon his saints; "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." [Rev 3:12]

The use of the Greek word "kainon" (translated new) tells us this is not a name that has been around since creation and before; nor has it previously been applied to Jesus, or to anyone else as a name; though it has been defined by Paul, at this time,(69 a.d.) for over thirty-three years.

Then John tells us again "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called "The logos of God."[Rev 19:12-13]

Finally It is John's turn to talk about the saints in whom the spirit of Christ has been sent by God to dwell in the saints; (that "Logos Of God" which was introduced by Paul - "Christ living in me) - John speaks of it this way: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his (the one who received Christ) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." [John 1:11-14]

John does not say "as many as received him, them he made sons of God." No, John says "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become(no article in the Greek) sons of God." John is telling us there is something required beyond believing, to qualify one for being a son of God. And that requirement has been being spelled out by Paul the Apostle since Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father, so many years ago.

Why does John fail to say "We beheld the glory of the only begotten son?" Instead, he says "We beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten son."

'Os' is what is called a "particle of comparison." Why would John be comparing the glory of Jesus to the glory of Jesus? The truth is, he is not. He is comparing The glory of the saint in whom the logos of God is personified, with the glory of the only begotten son of God dwelling in that saint.

Jesus did not "become a man" in John 1:14. The only reason there is even a mention of Jesus at all in John's first chapter, is because in 96 a.d., John tied his gospel to the person of Christ and to "the logos of God" referenced in Rev 3:12 and in 19:12-13 with reference to the new name he is to be given, as "the logos of God."

Jesus was not "the logos of God" in 30 a.d; He was not "The logos of God" in 33 a.d. when he was ascended, and he was not "the Logos of God" when John prophecied about his gift-name, as of 69 a.d. it was still a future event.

In 96 a.d. John is speaking in 1:14 about an event in the life of a saint, a personification, and recalling his remarks he wrote in 69 a.d, about Jesus, here ties the two events together.

Jesus was born, at which time he received a name, "Jesus," which served to identify him while he grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men, and when he was fully grown, and had died, had been resurrected, and had ascended by 33 a.d., received a name, "The logos of God" between the time when it was published in 69 a.d., and 96 a.d. when John ties the personification in the saints, to Jesus, who received the name; but it was not who and what he was; it was a name recieved. Jesus was never "the logos of God" but was given the name after he successfully completed his mission and was extolled and made very high [Isa 52:13], and given a name above every name.[Phil 2:9-11][Eph 1:19-23]

People have him already pre-existing as "the logos of God" and recognized as the personification of "the logos of God" at his birth when in fact, the terminology did not even exist until 69 a.d.

When I look at a saint in whom Christ lives, I see the logos of God personified, and "behold the glory as of glory of an only begotten son of God."

When John in his epistles [1st and 2nd John] speaks of "Jesus Christ came in flesh," he is not speaking of the birth of Jesus, he is speaking of "Christ living in me, in my flesh" spoken of by Paul - "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."[Gal 2:20]

There is no way you can find a place to separate Paul's life in the flesh after his conversion to Christ, from Jesus Christ living in Paul.

Furthermore, John himself said "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."[II Jn 7]

John did not use the article, and neither should we if we are going to understand exactly what John is saying. He is not speaking of Jesus' own body of his flesh, for then he would have said "Jesus came in the flesh," and everybody would be in agreement. But John did not say that he said "Jesus Christ (is coming) in flesh," which he did when he lived in Paul "in the flesh."

And to show it is no mistake of language, John repeats in II John 7
John does not use either the aorist tense, the perfect, nor the imperfect verbs, which would be necessary if he was speaking of the life of Jesus in his flesh; but John used a perfect active participle when he said - "... Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:"

The significance of the "perfect active" is that Jesus has accomplished to the fullest, the fact of "com["-ing"] in flesh" as he lives in the lives of the saints. It is not a reference to his having been born "in the flesh."

The present participle in II Jn 7, which if you know anything about Greek participles, they are "-ing" words, and being present tense, means that in 85 - 90 a.d., John is saying Jesus is still com["-ing"] in flesh.

John and Paul tell the same story in different words.

ChildofYahweh

...Your telling me about a king James version of a bible that king James bought bible scolars together, The same people who replaced his name with these baal titles, changes his sabbath, feast days, took most of the books and hide from Our fathers people because the true books speaks of them and their baal lies. Lied and said they werent relevant, and telling me I have to believe these are the same words his prophets and so forth said when in fact they said Yeshua not Jesus. No letter J in Hebrew so no way could they have spoken such a name or Baal lord god titles because its command we dont use in Jeremiyah 23. So I'm more than sure those were not the words they spoke when calling upon our Creator or our messiah. Even with the letter J being purposely added to the english language only 500 or 600 years ago, translated correctly it would be Joshua, not Jesus. And yes the name Jesus only apappeared in the bible was 1916. Before it was spelled ieous or something close to that name. Not Jesus. If I researched the meaning of the name Baal, which means lord,master,god, and my father command me not to forget or replace his name with those pagan titles or follow king James and their baal teachings. So Why would I believe anyone, other than the creator. That's my point I'm makeing, man teaches other than what Our father says. And if you research in the correct language his words was first written before it was we written in the baal language. You would see the words for its true meaning. The english word roots have been twisted, so if you look up meanings of these words in english I'm sure I would get the same research you get. But if you look these meaning in the true language , most will be shocked. But even in english some words meaning tells its truth, like baal so their is no excuse to baal worship as the father said and replace his name and our messiah name with pagan titles and names. He said it not me. Its not hard to research Baal in english or the true meaning of the name Jesus. We used internet to get to this site. Thats the same way you research the meaning of these name and titles man has lied to us to call upon. I know where i get my research from the same bible. The same internet etc.as everyone else. No one spoke the letter J in the language of our messiah so no John, peter, our messiahs mother, apostles, deciples, angels etc did not call him by that name jesus, that name come from the baal teachings which means hail zuess. King james and many others keep the greeks happy to convert to Christianity a pagan group who broke away from the catholics. The same people who hid yaweh name and said it was to holy and sacred to say when our father told us to glorify his name. Man Baal pagan ways is why I created my post Man has changed everything to baal worship.

ChildofYahweh

Whats hard to undertand I will not deny my fathers words to claim another's thats commom sense, I know what name my knee will bow to and tounge will confess Yeshua Messiah, not Zuess the christ........When he does return the mouths of Baal followers will confess the truth also, by his authority .....He said it not me nor man.....t