Editor’s comment: This article is being reprinted with the permission of George Gabler, author.
Why Believe? What difference does it make?
Is believing a religion the same as believing the bible? Not really! Religions can teach nearly anything and say it comes from the bible, or maintain that it is their 'tradition', and must be accepted. But most religions do not actually encourage their members to actually believe what the bible says. If you think your beliefs come from the bible, then you won't mind a simple challenge, will you?
In today's society, most people do not believe what the bible says, but rather, that it is a matter of interpretation, therefore to their way of thinking, "truth", meaning biblical truth, is not verifiable. This makes religion (i.e. the bible) entirely subjective, dependent on the individual's feelings and personal point of view.
This is easily seen in the oft repeated phrase, "what difference does it make!?" Of course that may depend on what "it" is! However, whatever "it" is, it ought to be supported by factual and accurate information, which is what we usually determine as truth, otherwise why believe anything? Anyone who actually understands what the bible says would not say what difference does it make!
The phrase what difference does it make, is itself highly subjective, because the presumption that it doesn't make any difference to the individual is also a presumption that it doesn't make any difference to anyone else...not even The Almighty! That is a dangerous assumption, in my opinion, because if the bible is not even read...how would you know if it makes a difference or not? Maybe it does make a difference!
Yet insistence upon adhering to any particular point of view shows that it does make all the difference...to someone! The inherent claim that it doesn't make any difference is just a clever trick to divide their opponent's defenses, to get them to admit defeat by acquiescence. It does make a difference or they would not be so adamant! That is when their truthbecomes "the truth". Everyone has an opinion, don't they! But, can opinions be substantiated with verifiable data and sound reasoning? If so, why act like such verifiable information simply doesn't exist?
The problem is compounded by societal language usage. The 21st century is witnessing a crisis in communication, because the meanings of words are no longer universally understood or applied. The uninformed, who don't think it makes any difference (or just don't care), become easily manipulated through the power of language...which they don't understand. So those who use the power of language to lead masses of people are necessarily counting on apathy and indifference to maintain their control over the masses...and their position of power! The use of the term story, for instance, is a case in point (see Assumption:a below).
Do you believe that it is important to be truthful...specially regarding the bible? For those who would at least like to counter the friendly and over zealous proselytes that periodically intrude into our lives, the question really is... WHAT doesn't make any difference...and to WHOM?
Those in positions of power and control don't want people to actually "think" or question anything, so those that actually question their suppositions or religious dogma are made to feel insignificant and small. But let's do some questioning anyway!
How accurate is your bible?
This is not meant to be a treatise on the subject, but everyone should be aware that some translations have an axe to grind. Rather than simply translate the words, attempts are often made to render passages according to 20th century doctrinal views. In addition, this is also true regarding how the phonetic rendering of proper nouns, particularly names, are written. Sometimes names are changed to hide something, and you need to know that. While most bibles stay relatively close to standard orthodoxy on the majority of names, there are a few exceptions. One should always be aware that even "standard orthodoxy" can be misleading, so great care should be given. One helpful 'rule-of-thumb is that the closer the phonetic representation to an original name, the more accurate it is likely to be.
Accuracy should be preferred to readability, because readability is often influenced by someone's personal preference of interpretation, which may not genuinely reflect the original intent. Plus, one outstanding feature in using accuracy as a guide is the ability to do research and verify the accuracy of the translation. Greater understanding may be gleaned through study, without being led by the nose to a specific predetermined conclusion by the author who says they are simply "correcting errors". Even my own writings reflect a certain amount of bias in this direction. Even though I am persuaded of it's justification, it is up to each individual to come to their own prayerful conclusions. But know this: I am acutely aware of the terrible judgment of Yahweh for knowingly or unknowingly leading others in a wrong direction, and have no desire whatsoever to suffer any horrible fate, and I do not take that lightly. Neither should you!
There is a growing controversy that will eventually shake modern religion to its foundation. This great controversy will center around the names of the Father and the Son, and whether modern religion has accurately represented both. The explosion will be when every major denomination suddenly shifts back to our Jewish roots. You can be prepared in advance!
Is the name of the biblical Messiah rendered correctly?
This is the central theme of this writing, and hopefully an important one to everyone, including you. It should make a difference! Why? Because if you are putting your trust in someone, you want it to be THE RIGHT person. Misidentifying someone means you could be putting your trust in the wrong person! And if you are looking for any type of reward in the "after life", then IDENTITY is everything!
Yahshua or Jesus? Which one is the original and authentic, and which one isn't?
Here's an example of identity confusion through names.
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles... [KJV Acts 7:45a]
How about this verse:
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. [KJV Heb 8:4]
Both of the above verses are referring to Joshua [Heb Yahshua], successor to Moses. Why is "Yahshua" mistranslated "Jesus" in these two passages? Because both had the same name and the original translators overlooked these two passages! It gets better...!
Here is an example of how two different bibles may translate the same verse.
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, while Satan stood at his right hand to accuse him. [Zechariah 3:1 -New American Standard]
And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord: and Satan stood on his right hand to be his adversary. [Zechariah 3:1 -Douay-Rheims]
Both the American Standard and the Douay-Rheims versions are considered Catholic, yet each uses different names, Joshua vs Jesus. There is only ONE name in the original language, but these are obviously two different names. The ASV is actually closer to the Hebrew articulation that would have been the common pronunciation.
Not only does the Douay-Rheims diverge from the Hebrew, and most other translations, it also shows a huge inconsistency in it's own standards! Notice this verse in Joshua 1:1 where the same name appears.
Now it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord spoke to Josue, the son of Nun, the minister of Moses, and said to him: [Joshua 1:1 - Douay-Rheims]
In one place the name is "Josue", but in another place it is "Jesus". We immediately note that Joshua 1:1 is a huge step closer to the original Hebrew, but the question is...why wasn't Zechariah rendered that way also?
Let's look at what passes for an explanation.
"This Book is called JOSUE, because it contains the history of what passed under him, and according to the common opinion was written by him.
The Greeks call him Jesus:
for Josue and Jesus in the Hebrew, are the same name, and have the same signification, viz., A SAVIOUR. And it was not without a mystery that he who was to bring the people into the land of promise should have his name changed from OSEE (for so he was called before, Num. 13.17,) to JOSUE or JESUS, to give us to understand, that Moses by his law could only bring the people within sight of the promised inheritance, but that our Saviour JESUS was to bring us into it." -Douay-Rheims, online: http://www.scriptours.com/bible/bible.cgi?book=6
An in-depth study regarding the phonetic rendering of names would reveal that the Greek translation of the bible (the Septuagint) actually approximated the Hebrew with all biblical names. Consideration should be given to the fact that the first Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures was actually done by Jews, so it would be expected to have Hebrew names sound the same even though they were written in Greek. The statement that "The Greeks call him [Yahshua, son of Nun] Jesus;" is an unqualified 20th century interpretation of the Jewish work, the Greek (language) translation of the Hebrew scriptures. In short, the "Greek" bible wasn't done by Greeks, it was done by Jews.
Consider what the Douay-Rheims explanation admits, namely that the underlying Hebrew is the correct name on which the "translation" is based, that the Hebrew name is the only name (i.e there weren't two or more names), that the Hebrew name is the correct name of Messiah (the Savior), and that it was changed by "The Greeks"!
The question of who those Greeks were (that called Yahshua the, son of Nun, "Jesus") is something of a mystery. It wasn't the writers of the Greek Old Testament, because they were Jews. The New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, and James...all "Jews". Moreover the supposition that the masses understood and accepted Greek is a false one, because even though the Apostle Paul could speak Greek, the people either did not speak it or would not accept it, and were abhorrent and offended that a Greek would enter the Jerusalem Temple. When Paul was thought to be a Greek, a mob tried to kill him! When he was permitted to speak to the mob, he spoke in Hebrew! (Acts 21:28-40). Clearly the general public possessed an antipathy toward Greeks!
Who were these "Greeks" that changed the name of "Yahshua" to "Jesus"?!!!
We will briefly explore the issues of authority and origin later, but first we need to ask...If the name of Yah'shua, son of Nun, is the same name as Messiah... we must ask what name was actually given to Hebrew parents giving birth to a Hebrew son?
Moses called Hoshayah (Heb phonetic articulation:meaning "salvation") Yah'shua (Heb phonetic articulation: meaning "Yahweh is salvation"), thus the meanings are not exactly identical.
It may seem insignificant that the meaning given is "a saviour", but the truth is, it is very significant, as we shall soon see.
The "Catholic" explanation in the Douay-Rheims bible already indicates that the Hebrew name "Joshua" (i.e Yah'shua), is correct, however, there is one important factor, which must be recognized, namely, He was born of devout Jewish parents, who would have been very cognizant of this:
Surely the Sovereign YAHWEH will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. [Amos 3:7]
Thus the coming of the promised Messiah...and naming Him...is no insignificant event to be sprung at the last minute. So if YAHWEH was revealing something prophetically to Yoseph and Miriam (aka Joseph & Mary), they would have understood, or been made to understand, the prophetic passage, and this:
... man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of YAHWEH doth man live. [Deuteronomy 8:3]
In other words, they would want to see proof in the Word of Yahweh so they would not be under any deception from a lying spirit! This is not an unreasonable request, because we see that Jacob [Genesis 32] and Manoah [Judges 13] demanded proof also! Was there "proof" for Yoseph and Miriam? Yes!
Is religious tradition in harmony with The Word? Is the image portrayed of the biblical savior a true image, or is the image portrayed of someone different? Let's ask a few simple questions to find out.
Who were "His own"? Wasn't He a Jew of "the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David"? The answer is "yes".
Isn't it "evident that our Master sprang out of Juda"? Absolutely!
Wasn't He called "king of the Jews"? Of course!
In fact, He was like them. All the evidence, if honestly examined, shows He was a Hebrew, an Israelite, a Jew, and a Rabbi. But is that the image you have been presented? Doubtful! Religions may give lip-service to His Jewishness, but certainly do not encourage anyone to be like THE Savior & Jewish Rabbi that He was. Instead, religion portrays the Greek universalistic concept of "A SAVIOUR". Remember this was the inaccurate definition given of the name "Yahshua", which really means, Yahweh Saves.
This raises the question regarding Who the real savior is, and to whom did He come. Therefore, we must ask, were the promises of the coming Messiah given to the Greeks or to the Israelites? That is not an irrelevant question, because it has a great bearing on His true identity.
By Who's Authority?
Doesn't scripture clearly say that Messiah was the "minister of the circumcision for the truth of Yahweh, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers"? You bet it does! The real messiah was the minister of the circumcision, i.e. the bloodline Israelites, and to CONFIRM the promises to them! Another of which was a messianic prophecy regarding the promise of His coming (Deu 18:15-19).
If that is true, then you should also realize that one of those prophetic promises was that His name would be "Yah'shua", because Zechariah is clearly a Messianic book, and six times the name of the future high priest and king is given as "Yah'shua"! (Zech 3:1-9; 6:11)
For those still inclined to ask...what difference does it make, here is the bottom line. Who has the authority to "name" the son of Yahweh? Was it the Greeks, or isn't that the exclusive right of The Father? And if Almighty Yahweh gave His only begotten Son the same name as Yah'shua, son of Nun, who has greater authority than Yahweh? Do "the Greeks" have the authority to change the name of the Son of Yahweh? Of course not! So, why change it? Is there a hidden agenda behind the use a Greek name, rather than His prophetic Hebrew name?
There is a very strange inconsistency in translating the name Yah'shua (i.e. Joshua) in some modern English bibles. Even though the Hebrew name is consistently "Yah'shua", certain translators vary the rendering to suit their own preference, as in the Zechariah passages regarding the Messianic High Priest to come.
If the word of Yahweh was given to the Hebrew Israelites for safekeeping, shouldn't tampering with something as important as the name of Messiah raise several severe warning flags?
If Hoshayah's (Hosea's) name was changed to Yah'shua, from "salvation" to "Yahweh is salvation", might we not be concerned when someone else undoes it? Convincing everyone that a name which isn't even His (i.e Hosea -remember the definition -"A SAVIOR"!) is more important than the original prophetic name, Yah'shua, would certainly point away from Almighty YAHWEH, because, removing YAHWEH from His name opens the door to any other claimant, including Satan! Anyone can claim a title or an attribute. That is, saying you worship "The Almighty", or "The Father", may not be enough to actually identify the actual one worshipped unless a name is attached. While Yah'shua came in His Father's name, maintaining a linguistic link to the Father, there is no linguistic link between Jesus and "God"...thus not in his name! Is that why it doesn't make any difference?
In addition, if Moses' changing Hoshayah's name to Yah'shua was done prophetically to point to the coming Messiah ... who has the right to change His name again? (i.e. Yah'shua to Jesus) The Greeks? There is nothing scriptural in making a second change!
The question is, did the ancient pagan Greeks replace Moses, the friend of the Almighty (Jms 2:23)? Doesn't the word of Yahweh say that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of Yahweh? Romans 3:1-2 clearly says that it is the Jews, which were to preserve the oracles of Yahweh...NOT the Greeks!
If, then, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of Yahweh, which the Apostle Paul confirms in Romans the 3rd chapter, that would include the prophetic book of Zechariah, which NAMES Messiah! His name, according to the prophetic word of Yahweh, is "Yah'shua"! No human has the authority to change that! Why rely on the Greeks for your salvation?
Have we been conned?
Assumption : The Name of the Son is "Jesus": a) Did you realize that the name "Jesus" has only been around for the last few hundred years! Before the invention of movable type, the name "Jesus" was not known! Fact: the early bibles did not even contain the name "Jesus", as we have today. That means, of course, that there is no possible way for the Savior to have ever been called "Jesus" and no possible way for any of His disciples to have used that name. There was a name used in the early Greek manuscripts, but you are about to discover that THAT NAME was replaced with a counterfeit! This is a huge problem that religionists simply ignore or use highly inaccurate "proof", then say it doesn't make any difference, and expect you to 'believe' their story. By the way, do you know what a story is? It's a fable (legend, tale, allegory...check your thesaurus)! When someone is telling you a story about the bible, they are telling you that it isn't actually true, only a fable! How do you feel about putting your trust in .. well, half-truths, fables, legends and lies?
b) The common approach to the bible is subjective and based on personal experience, or the experience of those in a particular organization. Questioning organizational dogma is nearly always met with disdain and ridicule...or worse! This (reliance on fear) conveniently does away with the need for "proving" anything, even though the bible itself requires you to do so! The subjective approach also puts the personal experiences of others in a inferior position. That, of course, is quite natural. We all do that to some extent. But when intentional, it becomes a tool of domination.
c) "Jesus" is from the bible. That is true, as long as you are restricted to most English and a few other bibles after 1700 CE. However, if you are relying on the original texts, and accurate translations, for truth, then the name "Jesus" cannot be found. [See if you can find the name "Jesus" in this ancient Latin manuscript in appendix a, or visit http://www.bible-researcher.com/bobbiensis.html] Surprise! It isn't there, even though the "translators" still spell out the name "Ihesus"! Is there a hidden agenda for doing so? Probably, but no one is suppose to understand, that is why it is hidden! So where does the name "Jesus" come from...really?
d) The rather modern incarnation (barely three hundred years old) of the name "Jesus" is from the Latin IESU(S), but incorrectly reported as being from the biblical Greek manuscripts!
Hint: There is no "S" script in Greek, but there is in Latin! The monogram IHS is the pre-third century Latin [rustica] script for the iconography of the real name, and not IESU as commonly believed (which is about to be explained). You have probably seen this ancient "IHS" icon displayed as a religious symbol in your own church! Chances are that not even the priests, pastors or ministers even know what language it is from, or what it is. Yet anyone with a 6th grade education can easily prove that it is in a public library or from online computer reference material!
e) However, and this may shock you, the Latin IESU(S) is from a Greek name...just not a biblical one. Are you ready? This should be remembered when considering the absolute insistence for the use of the name "Jesus"...
f) ...the Latin IESU(S) is from the Greek name, IESIU(S) [Yeh-se-us (Yeh-seus)]... the name of one of the sons of Zeus! Zeus of the mighty thunderbolt was well known among the Greeks...and there is a bible connection!
It is known that in the Greek culture that extraordinary acts of men were attributed to the immortals, i.e. their deities. Acts 14:12 attributes the work of Barnabus and Paul to, the original text says, "Zeus" and "Hermes". So when those ancient Greeks are seeking identification with a deity, that is the direction they are looking. Who did the Greeks think Messiah was?
An incident during Messiah's ministry provides an invaluable clue. There were "certain Greeks" that came to Jerusalem looking for someone they thought might be the son of Zeus. In this amazing section of the evangel of John we can't help but ask...were the Greeks seeking IESIUS, son of ZEUS?
John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks [among them that came up to worship at the feast]: 21 The same [the "certain Greeks] came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see [IESIUS? or] Ihsou(Yah'shua: see "Prove all things" below). ...[the word "see", ivdei/n, connotes to know or not know, thus indicating clarity or a request for clarification. These Greeks had undoubtedly heard of Messiah's ministry, and traveled to Jerusalem during a major pilgrimage festival, which would be the best time and place to track down the one they were looking for, so they were probably requesting clarification of Messiah's identity! This is further indicated in vs 27-28 where that clarification is given.]
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people (the Greeks that were seeking Him) therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered (- a reference to Zeus speaking): others said, An angel spake to him.[note that the reference to "it thundered" is connected to "the people" which a few verses previous were identified as "certain Greeks", thus is likely that this is a reference to the commonly known attribute of Zeus as in Acts 14:12].
g) But you see, Truth doesn't matter! Everyone worships the "Father" (ZEUS -aka "God" see Isa 65:11) and his Son (IESIUS [Gk] -aka IESUS [Latin]...aka "Jesus" [Eng]), and you are expected to quietly tag along for the ride, go to church and not question anything. Everyone is perfectly content with this system, it's been around for several hundred years, so it doesn't matter what you call Him, as long as you believe! But just who or what are you actually believing in? ...what difference does it make, right?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good!a) Interestingly, the word 'good' also connotes 'honest' and something genuine, something the Greek counterfeit IESIU(S) is not! So, what can you "prove"? Can you prove who is the real savior? Yes! You can easily prove that the authentic name of the True Messiah is Yah'shua! (like "Joshua" with a "Y"). Not only can you prove His name is "Yah'shua", if you stick to the scriptures, you can prove it in the Greek!
b) What is the biblical Greek rendering of the True Savior's name? It is IHSOU(S), but you must remember, this is NOT a Greek name. IESIUS, son of Zeus, IS a Greek name, but IHSOU(S) is the phonetic rendering(transliteration) of the Hebrew name "Yah'shua". Can this be proven? Absolutely!
b) It was prophesied! The true prophetic human name of the Biblical Messiah is Yah'shua. Prophesied six times in Zech 3:1-9, and 6:11,
...and is confirmed more than 260 times by the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) transliteration of "Yah'shua" as IHSOU, exactly as in the Greek N.T! That means the Savior's prophetic human Hebrew name, 972 times in the Greek writings, i.e. the "New Testament", is vocalized "Yah'shua"!
No man has the authority to replace the name prophesied by the holy men of old and delivered by angels ... (with the name of the pagan deity, IESIUS)! ...but what difference does it make? Just believe!Do you like this ancient hymn?Most glorious of the Immortals, many named, Almighty forever.[Lord], ruler of Nature, that governest all things with law.
Hail! for lawful it is that all mortals should address Thee.
For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice,
as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth.
Therefore I will hymn Thee, and sing Thy might forever.
For Thee doth all this universe that circles round the earth obey, moving
whithtersoever Thou leadest, and is gladly swayed by Thee.
Such a minister hast Thou in Thine invincible hands;
-the two-edged blazing, imperishable tthunderbolt.
For under its stroke all Nature shuddereth, and by it thou guidest aright the Universal Reason, that roams throught all things, mingling itself with the greater and the lesser lights, till it have grown so great, and become supreme king over all.
Nor is aught done on the earth without Thee, O God,
nor in the divine sphere of the heavens, not in the sea,
Save the works that eveil men do in their folly -
Yea, but Thou knowest even to find a place for the superfluous things, and to order that which is disorderly, and things not dear to men are dear to Thee.
Thus dost Thou harmonize into One all good and evil things, that there should be one
everlasting Reason of them all.
And this the evil among mortal men avoid and heed not;
wretched ever desiring to possess the good, yet they nei'er see nor hear the universal law of God,
which obeying with all their heart, their life would be well.
But they rush graceless each to his aim,
Some cherish lust for fame, the nurse of evil strife,
Some bent on monstrous gain,
Some turned to folly and the sweet works of the flesh,
Hastening, indeed, to bring the very contrary of these things to pass.
But Thou, O [Lord], the All-giver, Dweller in the darkeness of cloud,
Lord of thunder, save Thou men from their unhappy folly,
Which do Thou, O Father, scatter from their souls; and give them discover the wisdom,
in whose assurance Thou governest all things with justice;
So that being honored, they may pay Thee honer,
Hymning Thy works continually, as it beseems a mortal man.
Since there can be no greater glory for men of Gods than this,
Duly to praise forever the Universal Law.
Hymn of Cleanthes, Translated by.....T.W. Rolleston
Well, did you like it? Is it something you might consider saying "Amen" to? Well, before you do, let me add one bit of information. Where you read [Lord], the original Greek manuscript reads "Zeus"! So the "Lord"..."God"..."Father", etc., is none other than the Greek Zeus! But...what difference does it make? Just which "almighty father" is being presented to you? Are you sure you aren't worshipping "Zeus" ["he of many names] by mistake? Which savior has been presented to you [2Cor 11:4], the Redeemer of Israel, or the Greek Iesius, son of Zeus? Is it a mistake? Or doesn't truth make a difference?
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Master shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause Yahweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2Thes 2:8-12 ]
Why Not Jesus?Because of TRUTH!
If you wish to comment or submit a question, please email our Elder at john12e4567@gmail.com.