Articles, Research, Teachings, etc

I have much in the way of artictles and teachings to put together here, however being in the world as we are, I also have to pay bills, and being currently unemployed, this is very difficult, because I do this all for free. So for the time being, I will be adding things quite slowly, and continuing to pray Yahweh will provide the means for my to devote myself to this full time. If you would pray along the same lines for me, that would be much appreciated.

Until that economic equation gets worked out, and just to keep you on your toes, please be aware that my studies are subject to change/update at anytime. I will try to add dates or version numbers to help. This is because new insight is becoming apparant to me more often now, and I want to get things out as soon as I can. So, if I waited until I have all the information and insight to publish, I probably would never print or publish anything.

The Number 666 is a good example. It is 100+ pages, and very quickly after publishing, I found many additional supporting references and one additional fundamental proof/type. In this case, the book will stand as it is, but the additional information will be in a second expanded version, under a different title. Most of my studies are shorter, and not published as books, per se, thus I will update them and give a version number based on the date or something like that.

Now then... on to the articles...



New Study!!! Signs of the end, chapter 1

April 2, 2014
  • Differential Study "The Anti-Christ" as a stand-alone study. This is the differential study of The false prophet vs. the Beast of 666. The companion study for "The Number 666

  • Christmas

  • The Image of the Beast This is an old study, very short. It will be updated, expanded, polished, and added to the eventual complete book on Revelation, Daniel etc.,


Exercise in Logic

April 3, 2014

There are many people in the Messianic movement that use terms/names other than the sacred name. There are other people who are strict about using only the sacred name Yahweh, and his son's name Yahshua.

In the past, although I haven't seen this position in a long time, there were a number of groups who insisted that calling on the name is the only thing required for salvation. I don't agree, because clearly there are many requirements to enter the Kingdom. Keeping the Shabbat, for example. Some of these people argue as if calling on the name carries the power of a mystical incantation. I don't know about that, but the result of taking this position, is that most people in the Messianic movement have a reasonable and sound argument that entering the Kingdom requires more than just calling on his name, and I agree with that much.

The problem however, is that the argument is taken a step too far. Most Messianics have a reasonable and scripturally supported argument that "No, calling on the name alone will not save you..." but that gets extended to "... so we don't have to use it, we can just use the terms everyone knows."

My response to this is "Keeping the Shabbat will not save you either, so why don't we just keep whatever day is more convenient, like Sunday for instance. OK?

Keeping the Shabbat does not have the power to grant you acces to the Kingdom, but you keep that set-apart, do you not? Why then do you argue that keeping the name does not have the power to grant you access to the Kingdom, and therefore we don't have to keep it?

It is illogical. We need to be doing everything in our power to move as close to Yahweh as possible. Keeping Torah is part of that, so we should keep Torah. Keeping Shabbat is part of that, so we keep Shabbat. Keeping his name set-apart is part of that also. So we should keep that.

His name is NOT GOD and you already know that.
His name is NOT The Lord, and you already know that.
His name is NOT JEHOVAH and you already know that.
His name is not Jesus or Christ or any other thing except what he himself declared it to be.

You may argue we don't know the exact precise pronunciation, but that is not a valid reason to abandon trying. It is not a reason to willingly choose to call him something we know positively to be in error.

If you must choose between

A) definitely wrong (God, Lord, Jehovah, etc.,)
B) Maybe right, possibly not, but defintely closer than "A" (Yahweh, Yahshua)

How on earth does following the truth with all your heart soul mind and strength lead you to choose "A"?



Yahshua vs. J-S-S

May 31, 2011

This is how we say it in English?

I don't think so...

- How do you say "Chevrolet" in Japanese?

- How do you say "Coca-Cola" in Russian?

- How do you say "Yamaha" or "Mitsubishi" in English?

Proper names do not change sounds when moving from language to language. There may be some inflection here and there, but the name itself should be recognizable no matter what language you are speaking.

Listen carefully to foriegn language speakers. No matter what the language and whether or not you speak that language, you will be able to distinguish proper names.

Therefore, in the discussion of Yahshua vs. J-S there is no justification in substituting J-S for Yahshua. If you pronounce "J-S" it is NOT audibly recognizable as Yahshua at all.

It has nothing to do with what language you are speaking. Furthermore, even if it did, the only potential argument would have to do with a failed transliteration of Yahshua in Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek, but this ignores the fact that if you can say "J-S" without speaking or knowing Greek, then you can certainly say Yahshua without speaking Hebrew.

Yahshua, Yahushua, Yeshua, etc...

May 31, 2011

This is a finer point of pronunciation and I am not sure how exact we need to be about it. These are all very similar in pronunciation, enough so that they are audibly recognizably sim.

This is an entirely different debate from the Yahshua vs. J-S argument, and much less critical. The differences between these forms are essentialy dialectal variations, and not an obvious outright substitution.

Yes I am aware of the linguistic arguments regarding how Yeshua is transliterated into "J-S", but these arguments are entirely invalid. It is the same as arguing how proper a bread recipe, when it bakes wheat into carbon. You see, no matter how exactly the recipe is designed, if it renders the ingredients into a pile of charcoal, then it is not edible, and it is not food. The end result is not bread. Not even if the recipe was developed by Wolfgang Puck.

For the same reason, no matter what the linguistic argument is for J-S as a Greek transliteration, the end result is not audibly recognizable as Yahshua in any way. The argument is therefore invalid. At best, it serves as an explanation as to how the translators got it wrong.