Who is Your God?

It is amazing how many there are who don’t believe that Yahweh came as Yahshua Christ in the flesh as our Redeemer; that somehow Yahshua is a distinct and separate entity from the Father. Yet we are manifestly informed by Christ Himself at John 14:7-10:

“⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ⁸ Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. ⁹ Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? ¹⁰ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. ¹¹ Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (KJV) Yet, many dualists and trinitarians will declare that Christ didn’t mean what He said here; that Christ and the Father make up a duality or a trinity of persons! So, according to them, evidently Christ lied to Philip!

There are many passages in both the New and Old Testaments referring to the “Holy One”, all translated into the English in the singular tense. Reference is never made to a “Holy Two”! Two passages identically related are Acts 2:22-27, 29-30 and Psalm 16:8-10:

By William Finck, © 2006 

The purpose of this discussion is to show how the name Jesus came into existence. I am certainly not advocating that one should call upon the name of Yahshua Christ, the Redeemer of Israel, using the name Jesus, however there are serious misconceptions concerning the origin of this name which I am compelled to address.

In order to simplify the presentation here, it shall be taken for granted that the proper English representations of the names of our God are Yahweh and Yahshua, as they are transliterated from the Hebrew. I am aware of the Masoretic spellings found in Strong’s Hebrew lexicon (i.e. Yehowshua, see #3091), yet I would dispute them. For yeho- names from the Old Testament became Ἰω- (Iô-) names in the Septuagint translation, and such is not the case with this name. For more information on this topic, see the recent pamphlet from this ministry entitled Which Is It, “Lord” or “Yahweh”? Furthermore, I am not going to make lengthy quotes from lexicons here, but shall be concise or even only paraphrase them where needed in my illustrations. Yet of course I shall cite my sources.

Many in Israel Identity purport that the corruption of Yahshua into Jesus was part of some overt conspiracy by a wicked ‘church’ to somehow replace Yahweh with the Greek Zeus. These people then claim in support of this contention that Jesus (gee-zus) and Zeus (actually pronounced zooce) are sound-alike words, yet actually they don’t sound alike at all. There is no evidence that in ancient times, the first s in Jesus was ever pronounced like a z. Actually, the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans all had a letter z, and could have easily have used it if they so desired. Also, the Roman supreme god was not called Zeus but Jupiter (or also Jove), so for them any supposed connection is less likely. Romans always preferred their own names for the gods over the Greek names (Mars for Ares, Diana for Artemis, Mercury for Hermes, Juno for Hera, ad nauseum), and may even have been offended if compelled to use any form of the name of Zeus. Here I hope to demonstrate just how the name Jesus truly came into being.

This is going to be a critical review of a subject debated over the centuries, and sadly misunderstood by a majority of Christianity. What is going to be presented here is evidence for which many are not aware. Because this is a critical review, all sides of the theme will be given reflection. Reflection, for some might not like what they see in the mirror. As a critical review, we will attempt to determine the validity of the evidence. Our goal here is to evaluate the criterion and hold the claimant’s feet to the fire.

I found such a critical discussion on the Internet and it will serve our purpose here. It involves a Michael S. Heiser, PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic studies, University of Wisconsin - Madison, in his endeavor to show that the bad-fig-jew, Zecharia Sitchin, doesn’t understand Hebrew, let alone Sumerian script. Erik Parker is Sitchin’s webmaster and answers all his electronic correspondence.

Heiser to reader: “As many visitors to Rense.com know by now, I have an academic bone to pick with Zecharia Sitchin. In the wide field of research into the anomalous, I am something of an anomaly myself: a credentialed scholar of Ancient Hebrew and Semitic Languages who takes these issues seriously (as opposed to just laughing at them). I have publicly stated I think Sitchin’s theories are hopelessly flawed, and have tried to put the evidence for this claim into the public forum of the internet, as well as through radio shows like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell, and Jeff Rense’s show. Disagreement with me on the part of Sitchin followers was inevitable, and so here we are.

In the first chapter of Matthew, the first 17 verses, we have what is called, in the KJV, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” It starts with Abraham and continues naming all the descendants of Judah through David down to a Jacob who begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. The first impression one gets from this is: What does Joseph, the husband of Mary, have to do with Yahshua the Messiah as He was supposed to be born of a Virgin birth.

JUST BECAUSE THE TERM “YA” WAS FOUND AT EBLA & UGARIT IS NO SIGN THAT YAHWEH IS CANAANITE IN ORIGIN!

The “Jesus only” people are busy in an attempt to prop-up their faulty premise that the names “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” have a Canaanite origin. Check any good dictionary or encyclopedia and one will find that the letter “J” never existed in any language before the Middle Ages. It was the Medieval scribes that began the usage in the 1600s. While “J” is the 10^th letter of the English alphabet, it was the last letter (or 24^th) to be added by the scribes. Therefore, if “Jesus” is the correct name, the English “J” must be dropped (or “esus”). Neither Paul nor any of Christ’s disciples ever used the term “Jesus” with an English “J”! And, because there is no equivalent in the Greek for the English letter “J”, no early New Testament writer ever wrote the name “Jesus”. That brings up another question: Because the Greek alphabet has both a long and a short “e” ((1) epsilon & (2) eta), which of these two “e’s” do we use? Surely these experts on the name “Jesus” should be able to explain this! So, that leaves us with only the letters (“sus”) to enunciate His Name. And what kind of a name is that? It sounds a little like a hissing snake!

Probably one of the most difficult subjects to understand in all Scripture is the Incarnation. When we speak of the “Word”, naturally we are speaking of Yahweh. Many are somehow under the delusion, that in some way, Yahweh the Father had a son similar to the way a natural fleshly father would have a son. This is not at all what happened when the Word became flesh. John 1:14 says the following concerning all of this:

“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us ... full of grace (favor) and truth.”

If you will notice very carefully, the words, “(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)” are enclosed in parentheses. Immediately this should sound a warning signal, as the writer is referring to Isaiah 40:5 and quoting it out of context. Actually, someone only succeeded in causing confusion on the matter by adding these words in parentheses, for Yahshua was not the “only begotten of the Father”, at least, if what Luke 3:38 says is true, “Adam, which was the son of Yahweh.” As a matter of fact, Yahshua is rightly referred to as “the second Adam”, (Romans 5:14). While Yahshua is referred to as a second Adam, and both Adam and Yahshua were sons of Yahweh, with Yahshua it was in a different sense, for Yahshua was actually Yahweh Himself in the flesh and Adam wasn’t. It is important to see this difference between Yahshua and Adam, for Adam was not Yahweh in the flesh. It is very necessary we understand these important basic truths.

Many today are struggling with this very question. What other subject could be of more importance than the very name of our Creator? Maybe the following article will solve some of your uncertainties. If one wishes to find information on the term “Yahweh” it is somewhat hard to find. One reason is because in most encyclopedias it is listed under “Jehovah.” Also, in later up-to-date encyclopedias the information is rather suppressed.