EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME I

EL SHADDAI

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume I--EL SHADDAI

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume I--EL SHADDAI

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

- Prologue 6

Part A--Setting the Stage

1 Introduction 27

2 Proving The CREATOR 29

3 Evolution 38

Part B--YESHUA

4 The Genealogy of YESHUA 46

5 The Birth of YESHUA 57

6 The Death of YESHUA 60

7 The Cross 66

8 The Reality of Shame 71

9 The Sign of YESHUA 75

Part C--YHWH

10 YESHUA--Who Was He? 83

11 YESHUA Was/Is YHWH 95

12 Christian Polytheism 103

Part D--Spirits or Angels?

13 The Nature of Spirit 106

14 Flying Angels? 115

Part E--YHWH’s Sovereignty

15 A SOVEREIGN RULER I 118

16 A SOVEREIGN RULER II 134

17 Christian Views on Sovereignty 142

Part F--What Matters?

18 YHWH’s Purpose 150

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume one of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one.

Anyone trying to read the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Sukkot 2005 CE

Prologue

The Problem

At a first reading of this study, the reader may find it somewhat technical and a little complicated. At least, this conclusion can be reached from the general public at large who lack a background in Scriptural study. Strangely enough, this situation will also be true with many Christians who are Scripturally illiterate and who know little or nothing about what the Book really says.

Yet, this writer could not, in all fairness and honesty, avoid this ultimate reality. The many little, intricate facts, histories and background findings have to be presented in order to cover the subject in a fashion which hopefully will preclude the critics and doubting Thomases from having ammunition to use in their deceitful and dishonest methods of attempting to shoot truth down.

It Is For Students of the Word!

Thus, this work may seem a little difficult to some. However, this writing and publishing effort has not been undertaken to convince any Scripturally illiterate person of the need to become Scripturally literate, with some familiarity with the Word and what it says.

It is predicated upon an assumption that it will be read by, analyzed by and contemplated by people who do study the Word and study to be approved by The MOST HIGH.

On May 14, 2001, National Public Radio (NPR) had Professor Michael Brown of Emory University on to discuss his recent research and a new book he has out on the strange and unique paradox Christian Americans face on the question of Scriptural study, knowledge and understanding.

Michael Brown is a Professor of New Testament (NT) at Emory. He has undertaken an effort to determine what the typical Christian American knows about the Book. His findings were both sickening and pathetic because most Christian Americans know almost nothing about the Book.

Many or most of them have some vague idea about the creation account with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and some more have some confused thinking about Noah’s flood. Although not mentioned by Brown, it also seems clear that many Christians have some further unclear ideas about a character named “Jesus,” who supposedly came and died for their sins.

However, beyond these two or three basic themes, the typical Christian American knows virtually nothing about the Scriptures. Even on the few topics of which Americans may have heard, most Christian people are grossly ignorant and uninformed. They really don’t know and don’t want to know.

Now, the Paradox

Despite this gross state of ignorance and lack of information, the “Christian Bible” is and has historically been a best seller in the United States. As Brown correctly perceived, The MOST HIGH’s Word is the world’s best selling work. But it is seldom read by the people who buy it. The professor said that Christians buy the Book in order to use it as a talisman or good luck charm of some sort.

In other words, Christian Americans are anxious to have a “Bible” in their homes, and they will even spend some money to buy one. The dilemma surfaces because they rarely read the Book they own and possess. They have the Word either for magic purposes (as suggested by Brown); or alternatively, many Christians like to have the Book for pride and show off purposes (which will be discussed later).

Since the typical Christian knows nothing and doesn’t want to know anything, he or she almost never studies. Yet, the production of this study of some 6,000 pages is predicated upon being read and addressed by people who do have some familiarity with the Word. In fact, some basic familiarity is essential for a comprehension of what is to follow.

The Christian Attitude

Christians, in particular, have a tendency of supposing that little or nothing from the Word is of any importance in their lives because they tend to believe that they presently are in possession of salvation. Hence, nothing else matters spiritually. From their perspective, they don’t need to study and be approved since they (incorrectly) believe that they are now approved and saved.

When this belief in now possessing salvation is coupled with the common attitude and obsession of most people over their vain idols, loves and gods (which they serve with their hearts, minds and money), it is virtually an impossible task to break through to the essence of persons out in society at this time. It’s too bad, but most Christians are precisely like secular individuals in their focus upon useless idolatry.

But what if all of this exhibited pride, vanity, self righteousness and idolatry is all empty and wrong? What if all of these proud, vain Christians are not currently in possession of grace and salvation? What if they have been misinformed by their Christian Church leaders? What if the subject of this work offers new light on this theme? Is it not then worth a little study and contemplation? Therefore, is it not important?

But A Few Christians Will

While the typical and general Christian knows very little about the Book, and will never spend any real time, effort or money to study and learn about the Book; there are a minority few who will seem to express some interest, concern and study. America is a Christian land and some 60% to 90% of her people in almost any context are alleged to be Christians in some form (though they are largely Scripturally illiterate).

In any particular setting of these reported Christians, one might introduce them to this study and evoke some interest/fascination (perhaps one to five percent of them would at least address some part of this work, if sufficiently motivated and intrigued). Surely, these few Christians might read a few of the words here in volume one (but not much more, as it is a rare individual who would ever read 6,000 pages of anything).

But the vast bulk of these few people will never expend any genuine effort in study to really get something from this work (certainly, 6,000 pages are out of the question). Consequently, it will be a waste of time for them to put any labor into it. The problem is that most Christians who will do some study fit into one of four primary categories.

The Few Who Will

Of the few Christians who will at least entertain some new and/or different thinking on the Word (from what they have been told by their denominational preachers and teachers), most are already convinced in their minds and mental mind sets that they are “saved” right now and are in need of nothing really further in a spiritual vein.

As noted above, and as will be covered later herein, they are now filled with pride, self righteousness and vain idolatry.

Since they don’t need anything further (beyond their present idols), they are hard to motivate to take a fresh, new, Scriptural look at their real condition (which is that they are not presently saved and that the subject of salvation is considerably different from what they have been told by their Christian leaders).

Any study on their part is usually directed at hearing smooth things about how great and how wonderful that they are because of having Christian salvation (like Isaiah 30:10 prophesied). Or alternatively, they simply love to have their ears tickled with fantasies, lies and deception (as the New Testament says at II Tim 4:3-4).

Because of this prevailing attitude of many Christians, most of those who will at least look at this work will do so in order to build up their own pride, ego, self righteousness and vanity. They are looking for ways to further enhance their present belief of having Christian salvation. They want to feel good about the Christian salvation which they suppose they now possess (but they are wrong on this, as will be proven later herein).

The second major type of interested Christians includes a few out there who simply love to find out something new and overlooked by their preachers and denominations which they can brag and boast about having discovered to their religious colleagues and contemporaries. These Christians may read or study a little on the side in hopes of finding out something to shine/glow over in front of their Sunday School classes.

“Religious hobbyists” are a third primary category of Christians who may demonstrate a little interest in a production like this one. Just as many people have hobbies, which take of their time, interest and money (like with sports, daily TV programs, antique cars, stamp and coin collections, etc), there are some Christians who become dedicated religious hobbyists. They like religion as a hobby to pursue in their spare time.

The Fourth and Worst Type of All

There is still one more commonly found major type of Christian who may address material like this study at hand. They are the professional religionists (the “preachers, pastors, teachers, elders, priests, evangelists, bishops, reverends, fathers, and leaders,” who either make money or receive status/pride from religion). They sometimes can be motivated and impressed to look at a work like this one.

Usually, the interest of the professional religionists is in finding material which they can plagiarize/steal/use in their own leadership roles over their Christian followers/sheep. Though some of these big shots may carry some motivation to deal with some ideas, words and thinking from others, they are very careful about how they present this material to their followers, if at all. That’s why they may plagiarize from others.

Most of them are extremely jealous of their flocks of Christian followers. They are in no mood to do anything which can jeopardize their position in terms of their sheep followers (which most denominations look upon and treat as the “dumb sheep”).

Since the Christian leaders are types of parasites, who draw blood from their sheep (either in the form of money and substance and/or in the form of receiving power, prestige and adulation from their sheep--to fuel their personal pride and vanity, as will be addressed in later chapters herein), they are very reluctant to ever let on that they would dare have to obtain knowledge and understanding from other people.

In other words, they don’t want their sheep to ever grasp how inadequate that they are in terms of the Book. That’s why they will sometimes plagiarize and steal from someone else (by never giving any credit or recognition where information comes from). Most Christian preachers are very deceptive and evil when it comes to ever allowing anyone else to have any credit for knowing anything about the Book.

It’s too bad, but most preachers are quite happy to keep their sheep in perpetual ignorance, rather than risk losing their sheep to someone else or some other source which may have more Scriptural understanding than they do. In other words, they don’t care one whit about the sheep. They only care about themselves and perpetuating their power and rule over the sheep (see Jer 23-50 and Ezek 13 and 34).

It is indeed sad and tragic. But some of the worse people of all to reach with any form of serious truth, to cause obedience and change (beyond the fairy tales and pathetic nonsense, normally dispensed by Christian denominations), are Christian preachers, leaders, and big shots (particularly to include all those who like and use fancy, big shot titles to supposedly set them apart from the dumb sheep, whom they lord over and dominate, in the Nicolaitane sense--Rev 2:6, 15).

These big shot Christian leaders, and especially those who use fancy titles (like “pope, pastor, father, reverend, apostle, evangelist, bishop, priest, elder, etc”), are absolute frauds and enemies of truth. By the way, in the Word, no one seems to have used fancy titles. In the NT, believers (including those who did have authority and offices) called/referred to each other as brother and brethren--never using any titles.

Today, virtually all of the Christian leaders and big shots think so highly of themselves that it is almost impossible to break through their exaltation, their high state of supposed being, and their blatant pride and vanity. Not only do they have barriers that keep truth from breaking through to themselves, but they are absolutely committed to keeping the sheep in perpetual ignorance. They are categorically enemies of truth!

Therefore

In all four of the categories of Christians delineated above, their hearts are simply not in the truth/righteousness found in the Book. Their lives are built on pretense and pretending to be righteous and good; when, in fact, their hearts aren’t in it (yes, their actions and deeds are not in conformity with the real message in the Word). They are not going to study to be approved (as the “King James Version” [KJV] puts II Tim 2:15).

Like Isaiah (Yeshayahu in the Hebrew) wrote, all of the above described persons draw near to The MOST HIGH with their lips and words, but their hearts are far removed from Him (Isa 29:13).

While the above stated four primary categories of Christians (who will do some study) represent a number of Christian believers out in the world today, it goes without saying that there probably are still a few other Christians in some other category not cited above. But these four definitions take in most of the Christian world in terms of study.

Still One More Category

Clearly, there is still one more category of people--who may or may not presently be Christians. They are individuals who are genuinely interested in studying to grow in grace, faith, repentance and obedience. There aren’t many around like this in the modern world--perhaps one in a million, one in a hundred thousand, or one in some other huge number (small percentage). For sure, there are very few out there like this.

Of course, many Christians love the words grace and faith. But their hang-up happens whenever they have to be told about repentance and obedience (after all, their “Jesus” died so that they don’t have to change or obey much of anything--all they have to do is to believe and affirm some faith and belief in the Christian suppositions and ideas about this person whom they call “Christ”).

In any case, it is these rare, unique, few individuals which this publication hopes to reach (yes, those who do care and will study to grow in repentance and obedience).

More on the Audience

Consequently, this publication will not mean much to people who have never studied, do not study and see no need to study for approval. In short, it wasn’t written for them or their edification in the first place. They will never get it anyway, regardless of how well it is written and how important and profound the topic and its many sub-parts could be in order to understand truth.

And as the reader will discover in a later chapter in this work, maybe such individuals shouldn’t get it anyway. Maybe this whole topic is just not for them. While it is doubtful that many individuals in this category can ever begin to understand it, it’s highly possible that they just weren’t supposed to comprehend material like this.

Probably, most persons in this category have something else to do with their valuable time rather than merely waste it on Scriptural study, which they either don’t need or don’t want because they believe and suppose that they already know everything they need to know from the Word (because of pride and vanity).

Instead, it was written for people who either have some basic knowledge and understanding of what the Book does say; or at least, they are interested and are trying, presently, to obtain some basic knowledge and understanding in order to be approved. In other words, some persons can be interested and might be able to get it.

Therefore, attitude will have a lot to do with whether you, the reader, get anything out of this production or not. If you come to it with apathy, indifference and lack of care, then you’re wasting your time. But if you approach it with zeal, dedication, purpose and a love and appreciation for truth, then you likely will be rewarded in your quest.

The Theme

While it may seem a little difficult and complicated, the basic theme of this effort is really quite simple. For the last two millennium, the Christian world has talked at length about the “what,” as associated with the New Testament. While many people could never even grasp this “what,” some others have done so.

Some know and understand that The Hebrew MESSIAH, born in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago, came with a message about the Good News of the coming Kingdom of YHWH (YHWH is the Tetragrammaton--the four letters of the personal name of The MOST HIGH). Although most Christians know little or nothing beyond this basic “what,” they do apparently recognize it as the so-called “Gospel” message.

(Note: the word “Gospel” has been used in this instance and herein for purposes of communication. But it may not be the most descriptive or best choice of a word since it perhaps also has a meaning of “Godspell” with all of its ramifications, as one may later discover herein).

And while this “what” is important, it is also useful to look at the other half of this equation--the “who” this Good News message was intended for and/or directed at in the general population. Thus, does this mention of “who” have any significance or pertinence otherwise?

To reduce it to its basics--Who was The Hebrew MESSIAH YESHUA (called “Jesus,” by many Christians) sent to? Was He sent to the whole world and all of its peoples or was He sent to a more select, elect, limited group of persons?

Thus, the question may be defined as--who are the people of the Good News? And do these people of the Good News have a relationship to the prophet Ezekiel (Yechezkel in the Hebrew) of the Old Testament and YHWH’s Words of judgment for man? These are the issues in this study.

Use of Hebrew and Greek Words

From the very beginning and throughout this publication, the reader will find Hebrew words taken by this writer from the Hebrew Old Testament (Tanakh, in the Hebrew). The reason for turning to Hebrew words (and also Greek words, as applicable in the Greek New Testament) is because the Scriptures were not written in English. This may be quite a shock to some people, but it is the truth!

Yes, as good as the “King James Version” (KJV) may seem, it is not the inspired original. It is a translation from other writings!

The need for this is not to confuse the reader; but rather, to conform to truth and appeal to the individual who is in pursuit of truth. The body of the text will usually explain these words and the need for their presentation as shown (as the reader proceeds through the study effort).

In particular, this writer will commonly use Hebrew names and titles in association with The MOST HIGH--for example, The Tetragrammaton YHWH and its contracted form YAH (which the “King James” translates as “LORD”); EL, ELOAH and ELOHIM (which the “King James” renders as “God”); and YESHUA (in lieu of the KJV “Jesus”).

Moreover, this writer often uses the Hebrew names of some of the Old Testament personalities; although in direct references to books by those persons, the names are usually left as found in English translations.

Hence, the prophet Ezekiel’s name is correctly Yechezkel in Hebrew (which is used herein to refer to the man). But in references to the book of Ezekiel, the word Ezekiel is left as it appears in the English translations.

For the English transliteration of Hebrew names, this publication has generally called upon the excellent work of Dr David Stern in his “Complete Jewish Bible.” His pronunciation and correct spelling of the OT Hebrew names are likely some of the best in existence in the early 21st century.

More on Words

Otherwise, in some instances, some Hebrew and Greek words, on occasion, are used with a minimum of explanation and without attempting any special offers of expanded descriptions. The reason for this brevity is the constraints of space.

Some Hebrew, and Greek words as well, are quite complex and pregnant with enormous and far reaching meaning. In those instances, where such words are used, the writer of this book is giving the reader some credit in being willing to engage in some constructive study to determine the purpose and role of the involved word in its usage.

Such an effort can sometimes require something beyond just a superficial check. Perhaps this is another important reason why this work has been prepared for persons who have studied the Word or at least do study the Word.

People, who have passed the Scripturally illiterate stage and have progressed to the point of having some familiarity with what the Book says, will, of course, be right at home with this writer’s presentations of and discussions on the various Hebrew and Greek words found in the Old and New Testaments.

Study for Approval

Here, the essence of what is involved concerns the powerful word “study.” Or as the writer Shaul (the Christian “Paul”) perceptively put it, the real called out ones/the elect are to “study” to show themselves approved (as the KJV has it--II Tim 2:15). Now, any reader of this production unwilling to devote the necessary time, resources and effort to study will never be approved or ever find Truth--no way, Hose (the Spanish Jose)!

The prophet Daniel had some interesting words on this idea when he wrote about the explosion of knowledge in the age end (Dan 12:4). The “King James Version” and others as well offer words along the lines that “many shall run to and fro” (Hebrew “shut,” per “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 828) and “knowledge shall be increased.”

In “Come Out of Her My People” (p. iv), C. J. Koster points out that the Hebrew “shut” more correctly means “push forth,” in the context of “do research,” which is how the German, Dutch and Afrikaan translations handle that word. In other words, many will push and do involved research and study (requiring hard work, time and effort), causing knowledge (of YHWH’s truth) to be increased in the age end.

Study to Obey

In Second Temple days, when YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly were on earth, the study of the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy, known as the law to most Christians) was a commandment (per Shmuel Safrai, in an article on “Master and Disciple” in the Nov/Dec 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 3). Safrai notes that the idea involves study to not only learn, but to put what is learned into practice (Mishnah, Avot 4:5; 6:6).

This is a most important concept to grasp. It is a tragic reality that there are people around even today who do some study--but having the acquired knowledge, they never seem to want to put it into effect. It goes without saying that with the acquisition of knowledge of YAH’s will, one should be putting that knowledge into effect through obedience.

The reader will find extraordinary citations of the Scriptures to support and justify the points being made. By all means, the student of truth should spend some time and effort to go to the Word and check out these references to be sure that they communicate the message or interpretation which this study is outlining.

In suggesting this type of research, this writer is not so naive as to imply that the “King James Version,” or any other translation for that matter, necessarily has it right. That’s why real critical and involved research and study often necessitates the use of several translations to English.

Of course, in all situations, the reader must be prepared to go back to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts in any attempt to determine verity. As noted above, this publication is substantially predicated on the premise that the reader is a person who knows something about studying, how to do it, and is willing to do it.

Some Specific Remarks On How To Study

There are two primary approaches to productive study. First, the reader can turn to various Hebrew and Greek lexicons and dictionaries to try to determine reality for particular Hebrew and Greek words. But tragically, even most Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of use to English speaking individuals have their own limitations.

Specifically, they have been prepared by limited men, just as the various translations have been made by limited men. Therefore, even these lexicons and dictionaries may not have the right slant on a word or text--despite the sincerity, competence and ability of the compilers.

A better way, always, to define a particular Hebrew and Greek word, is to let other Scriptures do it. Of course, this involves the use of a good, comprehensive and exhaustive concordance. Strong’s and Young’s are fair examples in this case for English speakers.

However, the absolutely best approach is to routinely use a Hebrew concordance for the Old Testament and a Greek concordance for the New Testament.

Strangely enough, such Hebrew and Greek concordances are readily available on the market for English language speakers and readers. Here, mention might be directed to the “Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance” and “The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament.”

Additionally, many students of truth are quite cognizant of the need to use a good concordance in many, many, other situations to try to find other related Scriptures which will provide an overview of the theme at hand.

In other words, let the Scriptures define and interpret themselves. This method is one of the best and most efficient methods of Scriptural study followed by real students of the Book. With such a background study of the variously linked verses, one can better approach truth, which should be the objective of all of us.

It almost goes without saying that in reading the Hebrew and Greek words and their English counterparts, the student of truth should always first read them literally or try to apply a literal meaning to the words, before turning to other interpretations.

This was the position of Hebrew scholars in Second Temple days and also many Christian scholars, as well, today. Once a determination can be made of what a text says “literally,” then other possible interpretations can be explored (involving symbolism, allegory, etc.).

Obviously, too, some texts will just not allow a literal interpretation and must be addressed from another perspective. The book of Revelation is an example of this, as there is a lot of symbolism present in it which does not seem to have much meaning literally.

Some Research May Be Required!

This writer has spent an enormous amount of time and effort to record, edit and check the applicable Scriptural citations herein correctly without any errors or mistakes. But the sheer quantity and number of these references (literally in the thousands) have made the task extremely difficult and subject to human error in transcription.

Please keep this possibility in mind as the texts are checked for verification (plus, the reader should be aware of the fact that the Septuagint and Jewish translations use a slightly different numbering system for chapters and verses in the Old Testament than what is used in Christian “Bibles.” This reality can also cause problems in checking references).

If a particular verse surfaces that does not seem to fit properly, perhaps because a reference number has been transposed incorrectly in this publication or some other mistake has been made in the citation, then possibly a little research with a good concordance may turn up the correct Scripture.

Generally, this writer has used the popular and fairly good “King James Version” or translation, in most instances, without any reference being made to that version. However, if other translations apply in particular cases, that reality is usually pointed out for the reader’s reference and benefit.

Effect of Personality and Temperament on Study

While this Prologue has emphasized the importance of study, there is an interesting piece of truth that needs some mention here. This feature needing attention concerns the reality that human beings are influenced greatly by their temperament, character and personality types.

Some psychologists would argue that human beings are largely a product of these factors (unless otherwise defined, human is used in this study in its broadest possible context--to include both so-called humans and humanoids who will be later defined).

On any discussion of personality types, it is well to observe that the issue concerns qualities and attributes which are primarily affected by genetics and questions of ancestry and not so much by environmental and experience considerations, although these issues do have some application. Thus, people are largely fixed in temperament at birth or very early in life.

Back in the 1920s, psychologist Carl Jung led the way in the study of personality. He was followed in the 1950s by Isabel Myers and her mother Katheryn Briggs, who worked to identify some 16 different patterns of personality and temperament reflections in the general population.

As administered in some contemporary schools and employment job centers, the Myers-Briggs work has produced a “Type Indicator Test” to allow some ideas of how a particular person may fit into one of the 16 different categories, as established by Jung, Myers and Briggs and as described by writers Keirsey and Bates in their book on “Please Understand Me.”

Some Specifics

For these classifications, the first indicator is that people can be categorized as extrovert (75% of the population) or introvert (25%). Next, humans may function through intuition (dealing with abstracts and the unseen--25% of the population) or sensation (historically fixed--75%).

The third category is thinkers (who decide things based on objectivity and logic--50%) as opposed to feelers (who act and decide things on feelings and emotions--50%). The final issue is judging (liking closure--50%) versus perceiving (opposed to closure--50%).

It’s not to say that a particular person falls 100% into any one of these categories. The truth is that Adamites generally are mixtures of all eight types, which can be defined into some 16 different categories, as just noted. Some of these points of concern can play an enormous role on the question of Scriptural study or rather the willingness of specific people to study.

For example, the thinker tends to make decisions on the basis of objective study, analysis, logic and mental reasoning; whereas the feeler tends to make decisions based on how he or she “feels” about a person or thing (hence, emotions). Obviously, the thinker would likely be more reserved and careful about jumping to conclusions while the feeler would tend to decide based just on feelings.

The situation with introverts versus extroverts is interesting. In the first place, extroverts are big talkers while introverts are quieter and more reserved. Also, extroverts are active, impulsive and changeable while introverts are more careful, thoughtful and reliable (“Race, Evolution, and Behavior,” p. 269). Obviously, these attributes will affect study and understanding.

Judgmental Versus Perceiving

The other area of special importance is whether one is judgmental or perceiving. The judgmental individuals are organized, attentive to detail, decisive, responsible and having things settled and closed (often good with their minds)--while the perceiving types are indecisive, fluid, unsettled, open ended and often quite confused and sometimes irresponsible (but frequently good with their hands).

With this background, it is easy to see that the thinkers and the judgmental persons would be far more likely to sit down and study a book (to include the Scriptures), while the feelers and perceiving types usually would not. The perceiving individual (particularly if also sensation) generally just doesn’t have it in his/her heart to spend much time on study.

Whatever truth the perceiver may get from the Scriptures often has to be dug out of the Word by a judgmental individual and told or explained orally to a perceiving person. The perceiver would tend to talk and discuss things (especially if also an extrovert), but would typically never get around to actual Scriptural study (never “get a round tuit,” so to speak).

In short, the perceiver (especially if also sensation) is just not bookish, and it is a very difficult thing to do, to ever make him/her sit down and engage in lengthy study. In fact, it would be a rare perceiver who would ever “get a round tuit” to even read this huge production, much less do any critical study of it.

Also, even when some perceivers do study, they are often so highly unorganized that the resulting study is limited in value because of the presence of confusion and disorganization. Too, rules and laws which represent finality and conclusion are just not popular with the perceiver, who likes things undecided and unsettled.

Conversely, the judgmental person can and will study and spend large amounts of time with a book (any book--to include the Scriptures, if the judgmental person is religious). Being focused on closure and having things decided and settled, the judgmental person can sometimes better appreciate YHWH’s laws and edicts which establish verity.

When the alarm clock goes off on a typical morning, the judgmental person is apt to get up immediately and start the day instantly. Conversely, the perceiving individual would tend to reach over and cut the alarm off and go back to sleep for a few more winks before tackling the day’s business and needs.

Judgmental persons are typically very prompt and punctual. They make good administrators, teachers and supervisors since they are responsible and attentive to their needs. On the other hand, the perceiving type of person is apt to run late on appointments and work requirements and sometimes completely forget and ignore commitments.

When a person loans something to a perceiving individual, chances are that it may never be returned (without a reminder or intervention from the loaner). Perceivers are notorious for not returning borrowed books. They intend to someday read borrowed books, but they never “get a round tuit.”

It’s not that a perceiver is an outright thief; but rather, it is that he is careless and irresponsible about duties and standards (providing closure). Perceiving individuals are often good with their hands, however, and make splendid barbers, beauticians, craftsmen, builders, etc. If the perceiving types are also intuitive, then they can be very creative (to become inventors, architects, engineers, artists, etc).

With this background on closure, it is manifest that the judgmental person wants things settled, decided and closed. The perceiving individual wants things to remain fluid, undecided and unsettled. Therefore, the perceiving person likes a changy changy environment. He is not at all upset over changing his position on most anything.

Manifestations in the Book

With some understanding and appreciation of these different personality and temperament types and how they manifest themselves in so-called humanity, it is possible to study them in relation to various historical people in the Book, and arrive at some ideas on how different people thought or would think/act in various situations.

Take the great man Moshe (Moses in the KJV). Moshe was certainly a strong introvert. Probably, he was a mixture of sensation, as opposed to intuition; although he could have leaned a little in the direction of intuition. He clearly was a thinker. And of enormous importance to him, he was very judgmental.

The evidence from the Word is that possibly Adam leaned a little in the direction of being an introvert, though he could socially talk a little and probably had some balance in speech. The behemah (a Hebrew word of importance, to be described later in this study) was a big talking extrovert, just as he is today. Since the behemah talks good (convincingly), he fools people into believing that he is Adamic in origin.

Adam would likely have been a mixture of intuition and sensation and the behemah would likely have been sensation only. Of course, man’s creativity is often linked to the intuition personality. Yet, his appreciation for history and the historical position is closer to sensation. Adamites have been the great inventors, architects and scientists.

Assuredly, Adam was a strong thinker, as opposed to the behemah, who was a strong feeler. Finally, Adam would have been a strong judgmental person while the behemah would have been a strong perceiving type. It seems likely that these various qualities have occurred in some mix in the Adam kind over the last 6,000 years.

The point of this discussion is that all of us are to some extent a product of our personality and temperament types, which we are largely fixed with at birth. This reality is predetermined and it is difficult to go against these powerful motivations--though it can be done.

The bottom line on this is that some persons, by temperament, are just not very studious or bookish. With such genetic limitations, it is a hard process for such people to undertake any particular effort of study.

But in order to be approved on judgment day, it is crucial that each of us work to overcome our inherent limitations and do some study, even if it requires forcing ourselves to go against our basic will and choice.

The US Problem

Former president Bill Clinton deserves some mention next. For some years now, this writer has believed that Clinton would not leave the US presidency on January 20, 2001.

Frankly, it seemed very doubtful that the 2000 elections would even take place. However, developing hindsight seems to suggest that this writer has had it wrong. George W. Bush is now in the presidency and Clinton seems gone. But is he gone?

Later presentations herein will disclose that Clinton has not really left Washington. He is still there and still pulling the strings on not only the Democrat party, but even over the nation somewhat.

Therefore, is it possible that Clinton still has a US future? Well, this writer believes so and accordingly has prepared this study on the premise that Clinton will probably be the ultimate man to impose marital law and a US dictatorship.

The Bush Problem

While Bush seems snugly in the White House, presidents every 20 years (starting in 1840, except for Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980) have a mysterious problem in living out their terms (as will be described in some detail in a later appendix). Poor Bush does not have a good future. History does repeat itself.

Add this in with the election debacle in 2000, the heart problems of Cheney, a failing economy, the terrorism dilemma, the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and calls for a constitutional convention (with the possibilities of a new constitution, which could really change things) and Bush has been in trouble almost from the very start. Perhaps this reality was subtly and discreetly present to allow the US to elect Bush.

While it might be true that the fat cats elected GWB for several reasons (as will be broached in later commentary herein on why Bush was elected), it is quite clear that the likelihood of a complete meltdown of the US economic and monetary systems have to be primary reasons.

If the plutocrats wanted a fall guy to blame for the assuredly coming financial collapse (which is manifestly waiting right now on the wings), surely a person with the IQ level of GWB would be selected.

If Bush takes the fall for the US trouble, it will also mean a perfect opportunity to likewise blame the Republican party and the so-called US conservatives (so-called because it is doubtful that any true conservatives remain in America) and whatever remains of the US Eastern Establishment (as will be described in later chapters herein).

But Clinton is Waiting

With things looking so bad, maybe somebody, waiting in the wings (like Clinton), could come into power very quickly.

Therefore, here is a possible scenario with some hypothetical thinking. Here, let us suppose that the whole economy does soon come apart for Bush--over the Iraqi war or something else. Let us next suppose that a constitutional convention meets.

Let us furthermore suppose that a constitutional convention drafts a new constitution in a time frame parallel in some fashion with the unexpected death of Bush and/or a resulting political crisis in the US. Would such a convention choose Bill Clinton to return to the presidency? Likely yes!

Beyond a new constitution, the student of truth must be ever watchful of Hillary Clinton and her possibilities for the presidency (or vice-presidency) in the 2004 or 2008 elections.

It is inconceivable that the American people would elect Hillary, but it must not be ruled out (after all, the voting public is capable of anything). If she should come into power, it will mean a revival for Bill Clinton. He and Hillary will be even more ruthless and diabolical than they were in the 1990s.

There is still another possible way for Clinton to regain power over America. It is in the form of him ascending to the UN as UN Supreme Governor or Secretary General. He has had his eyes set upon the UN for some time, as will be addressed in a later appendix. Actually, the UN is his ultimate quest--even beyond the US. For sure, he has long had a goal of world government or dictatorship (to be later addressed).

Frankly, this writer cannot envision the end of Clinton’s power over America. Right now, for sure, he is jockeying into posture to return to the presidency or to the UN as a dictator. My guess is that he will somehow worm his way back to the presidency first and immediately impose martial law and a dictatorship under some pretext (as suggested in this study at hand) with a plan of graduating later to a UN dictatorship.

Since this writer believes that Clinton is coming back, many of the comments herein about him are made in the present tense. After all, he is still a US national leader and still pulling strings nationally over America. This man is not about to fade into the background, as other former presidents have done.

More on the Dangerous George Walker Bush

And on George W. Bush, it must be said that he, too, can be extremely dangerous in the presidency and particularly so with his love of war and with the use of executive orders to impose a dictatorship (by 2003, GWB has already shown his penchant for dictatorial and tyrannical measures).

The difference is that Bush’s potential for wickedness/tyranny is child’s play compared to Clinton’s proven record of deceit, treachery and evil. Regardless of who it comes from, this writer does anticipate enormous US difficulties and a coming dictatorship--as will be covered hereafter in this study.

Certainly, George W. Bush is fully capable of imposing tyranny and especially so since many of today’s problems go back to the administration of his father--George H. W. Bush. The Bush clan members are not exactly “saints,” to use a popular, Christian word. It’s just that Clinton can easily return and be the man of the hour.

But unless and until Clinton is able to maneuver events to come back into power over the American people, it must be allowed that Bush or whomever (or certainly Colin Powell, if he gets to be president with the death and removal of Bush and Cheney), might likewise take some very provocative and dangerous steps.

Therefore, what is outlined and described hereafter, in the context of tyranny coming from Bill Clinton, must be allowed also in the vein of George W. Bush, Colin Powell or some other Republican.

As an after-fact, the imposition of very tyrannical laws came into being in the United States, following the Sep 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington (to be described in later chapters).

Thus, the possibilities for tyranny are not simply limited to Bill “Slick” Clinton. Many people in both the Democrat and Republican parties are fully capable of this eventuality. Any of the persons just named can and probably would write and implement executive orders to promote tyranny, given the opportunity.

The Amalekites

Next--from time to time, herein, mention is made to the Amalekites, in the context of their great evil and wretchedness. This racial group of people has played both tragic and profound roles in world history for the last four millenniums. In particular, they have had a major impact upon America in modern times, good Jewish Israelites in the first centuries BCE and CE, and various other nations and peoples over the years.

In Second Temple days (from the Jewish return from Babylon, c484 BCE, to the fall of Jerusalem to Rome, 70 CE), many leading and highly respected Jewish Israelite sages believed and taught that the racial Amalekites were the most evil and depraved people in all of history. Since there is much Scriptural support for these ancient Jewish beliefs, they must be taken seriously.

Many persons suppose that the racial Amalekites passed from history 3,000 years ago in the time of David. But this supposition is all wrong, as will be proven in a later presentation herein. Those evil people (actually their descendants) are still around and have been around ever since the time of David.

There are several identifying features or attributes of a racial Amalekite. These points of identification will be covered in some detail in subsequent chapters. Suffice to say, the main clue or quality is one mentioned in the New Testament--indicating that one can identify a tree (which symbolically applies to men) by its fruits (works, deeds and actions). Yes, a bad tree produces bad fruit. Thus, the Amalekites can be known.

Some History

Historically, perhaps the most famous Amalekites of all were Haman in the days of Esther (who tried to kill all of the good Israelite Jews in the fifth century BCE in the Persian empire), and Herod the Great in Judea in the first century BCE.

The evil Herod, his immediate descendants, and his Amalekite Herodian colleagues persecuted, oppressed and murdered the Jewish Israelites generally in Judea (they not only murdered the babies in Bethlehem, but also a number of leading Jewish “rabbis” and sages). These evil Amalekites brought much hurt upon true, good Jews.

In 30 CE, the Amalekites played the primary role in the murder of YESHUA The MESSIAH (which was blamed on innocent Jews who had little or nothing directly to do with His death).

These racial/ethnic/genetic Amalekites in the first century CE were correctly Judeans in the NT because many of them resided and ruled with great power in the Judea province and particularly in Jerusalem. Yet, most English translations mistakenly refer to them as Jews, as if they were racial or religious Jews which they were not, in fact.

By 42 CE, some racial Amalekites in Rome organized and founded the Roman Catholic Church and introduced many of the eventual Catholic doctrines. The Roman Church has been led off and on by Amalekite popes for her entire history. These Amalekite popes provided much of the leadership in the Christian persecution of true Jews and true followers of YESHUA for the last 2,000 years.

An Amalekite named Shabbetai Zevi commenced the Sabbatian movement in the 17th century CE, which has had an extraordinary influence in promoting much of the depravity and evil that has surfaced in the Western Christian civilization in the past 200 years (this story of evil has been told by “Rabbi” Marvin S. Antelman, in his work “To Eliminate the Opiate.” It is also addressed in later chapters herein).

Perhaps Adolf Schicklgruber is the most famous Amalekite in the 20th century (he went by the alias Adolf Hitler to better fool the gullible public). Former US presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were clear Amalekites, as well as numbers of other leading American government officials.

In more recent years, the list of evil Amalekites must include US Congressman Barney “the Fag” Frank (who pretends to be a Jew), the Christian Bill “Slick” Clinton, and the Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat (a Muslim).

Many Amalekites

While many Ashkenazi secular/atheist Jews in the United States seem to be Amalekites (and at least, one “alleged” Orthodox Jew, named Joseph Lieberman, must be an Amalekite--though most Orthodox [observant] Jews are fairly good people, far removed from Amalekite evil), few students of the Scriptures have any perception at all of the huge number of persons of other faiths/ethnicities who also are evil Amalekites.

Interestingly, a number of Palestinian Muslims (besides Yasser Arafat) have Amalekite genes (some persons have even suggested that the Saudi royal family are Amalekites; but the better view is that they probably are just generic Edomites. For sure, the Saudi royals are not Ishmaelite Arabs).

And by all means, one cannot ignore the fantastic number of Christians (besides Bill Clinton)--and especially, Christian Americans and Christian Britons--who are racial Amalekites; or as a minimum, persons with significant Amalekite genes (because the Christian goyim [gentiles] have historically always intermarried and sexually crossed with the evil Amalekites, without any real restraint or restriction at all).

Though they are grossly ignorant and wrong, many Christian Jew haters easily accept a belief that Jews are evil people (as, for example, with the above mentioned Barney “the Fag” Frank who is profoundly evil).

Christian Amalekites

But few of these Jew haters are ever able to grasp the fact that there are also Amalekite Christians (supposed Christian goyim with significant Amalekite genes) out in the world who are as bad or worse--like the above cited Bill “Slick” Clinton and his evil wife Hillary, who both seem to have Amalekite genes and probably are as depraved and wicked as any of the worst Jews alive today in the year 2003.

This same condition is reportedly present in a number of the historically prominent families in America--including the Rockefellers and Roosevelts. Even the George W. Bush family faces some similar reports (while all Bushes may not have Amalekite genes, the George W. Bush family reportedly does qualify--as will be further addressed in later commentary herein).

Interestingly, allegations also persist which define some of the prominent Protestant and Catholic Christian theologians as being racial/ethnic Amalekites (or at least, in having significant Amalekite genes)--like Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker (and his former wife Tammy Faye), Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, T. D. Jakes, Creflo Dollar, James Dobson, and others.

It is clear that “the reverend” Jesse Jackson and “the reverend” Al Sharpton both are recognized as Negroes. But there are reasons to believe that they too have significant Amalekite genes in their genealogy (obviously, they are not full-blooded Negroes, but are Negro persons with the presence of so-called White genes).

Yes, Amalekites and/or people with Amalekite genes have a tendency to be doctors, lawyers (i.e., both Bill and Hillary Clinton are lawyers) and religious leaders in the modern world (all three of whom were frequently condemned by YESHUA in the NT).

The point here is that there are a number of very evil people out in the world who are supposed Christians and Muslims; but who are, in fact, very depraved, evil Amalekites in racial genealogy. It is not always easy to define and recognize these workers of evil--except that their deeds, works and fruits usually identify them in time.

The Christian Hatred Problem

One of the great tragedies in broaching the evil of the genetic Amalekites is that most Christians are locked in a gross state of ignorance, confusion and prejudice against Judaism particularly and sometimes against Jews in general. This ignorance and prejudice often translates into great hatred which is difficult to overcome.

However, this study at hand attempts to dispel this hatred and prejudice with a lengthy study about both Jews and Judaism. The truth is that there are a lot of good Jews out in the world. And Judaism, as a religion, is perhaps one of the better religions on much of the global scene.

Because Christians especially have so much prejudice, ignorance, and hatred on this theme, it is hard to get them to sit down and really examine the issues involved. Most Christians have already made up their minds--and even while they are in a gross state of ignorance, misinformation and confusion.

In any case, the study at hand will address the question of the Jews and Judaism in some detail in subsequent chapters herein.

Suffice to say, any persons wanting to hate other people should pull their heads out of the sand and become intellectually informed on the subject and not persist in a pathetic state of ignorance and prejudice as Christians do on the matter of the Jews and Judaism.

Commentary hereafter will address all of the above cited problems and persons mentioned--as well as the Jews, Judaism and the Amalekites in general. There is no need to attempt to cover this far reaching material here in the Prologue. If the reader will be patient, all of the above statements will be brought out and established in later chapters.

The Calendar Problem

Next, some remarks are needed on a potential difficulty which readers may have with this work. This study will cover a host of sub-topics which in some way or some how have some linkage to its primary focus.

Accordingly, there is much discussion on prophetic material in later chapters herein. This writer tried to be as precise as possible on the dates offered. However, this has proven to be a question for 2000 CE.

Per the Jewish calculated calendar, the religious new year started in early April 2000. Though the Orthodox Jews have enormous authority for some things (per Matthew 23:2, in that the Pharisees sit in Moshe’s seat), this writer did not subscribe to the Jewish calculated calendar for 2000 (as will be discussed here in a later chapter).

Therefore, in checking the actual astronomical signs in the heavens in 2000, this writer has considered and acted upon the premise that the Scriptural new year started on March 7, 2000 (which is a moon earlier than the Jewish position). This effort created some difficulties herein in trying to refer to Scriptural dates, as opposed to Julian-Gregory dates during the year of 2000.

Thus, the reader of this work must understand that in a representation of Scriptural dates in the year 2000, there is always the possibility that the presented dates could be in question by one month, per the Julian-Gregory solar calendar (whenever those dates are suggested herein). Frankly, in early 2003, things appear to have been correct with the early date in 2000. Hindsight is always better than foresight!

As a matter of information, the same type of problem will occur in 2005 where this writer starts the Scriptural new year on March 11, 2005 (as Aviv one). Yet, the Jewish calculated calendar will slip Aviv one into April. Therefore, the dates shown in this study (as linking to Julian-Gregory dates) can be off one month from the supposed dates of the Jewish calculated calendar.

Two or Four?

On another matter of relevance, the coming work of two age ending witnesses is well documented in the Word. These extraordinary men will have a unique role to play in preparing for the return of YESHUA and the establishment of His government over earth.

While these coming two witnesses are well acknowledged, few people have any perception at all about possibly two earlier prophets.

As this writer has looked at the subject, there are manifest reasons to believe that before the two great witnesses arrive from YHWH, He will also raise up two more prophets to do some profoundly important work. The study at hand addresses the work of both pairs of these individuals.

In order to avoid absolute confusion in discussing these two efforts, this writer refers to the final two witnesses as such--witnesses or final witnesses--and the preceding two as two prophets or the first two prophets.

A Word of Caution

Throughout this production, the reader will find, from time to time, attempts on the part of the writer to interpret prophecy, sometimes in ways that appear to be very dogmatic and assertive. Of course, interpreting prophecy is a very difficult process--because prophecy in the Book is extremely complicated. Therefore, a word of caution is needed at the start.

Many of these interpretations must be addressed in the vein of possibilities. This writer is merely sharing his understanding of these possibilities.

Having been wrong on so much in life, some of these interpretations by this writer can be incorrect (particularly so since hindsight is much better than foresight). Students of truth must do their own study of the Word to know and understand reality.

A Final Word

Finally, one more remark is needed to set the record straight. This study was completed by Hanukkah 2003. Since much of the material herein is dated material, in the vein of the situation in the world at that completion date in 2003, this writer has felt compelled to use that date for the study.

Yet, it must be acknowledged that, as time has progressed, this writer has found and corrected some grammatical errors and mistakes in the presentation; reorganized some of the material; and added a few clarifying remarks and a few new chapters (plus a new volume at Sukkot 2005--volume IX on Yisrael).

Otherwise, the study remains basically as originally composed and first distributed by Hanukkah 2003.

Chapter 1--Introduction

Background

The subject at hand focuses upon the people of the New Testament (NT) Good News and their relationship to the Old Testament (OT, known in Hebrew as the Tanakh) book of Ezekiel.

Strangely enough, these people of the Good News have a fascinating and incredible connection to the book of Ezekiel that will have a profound effect upon themselves nationally in the age end (because Yechezkel was a key prophet who delivered many of YHWH’s prophesied judgments for various nations in the age end).

In the context of the Scriptures, this group of people has had an extraordinary story of about 3,800 years. And as of this moment in time, it is not over. Consequently, this production will assess these individuals from the standpoint of their past, present and future histories. It will be an exhaustive presentation--including aspects about these persons not commonly known or understood in modern times.

It will focus upon these people, individually and collectively. Of great importance, it will answer such concerns as to who these people are that were designated to be the recipients of the NT Good News message, why there has been so much confusion about them, whether or not they have been reached in the last 2,000 years and where they can be found today in a contemporary list of nations.

The Christian Position

Christianity, with strong links to secular humanism, believes that the so-called Gospel (Good News of the coming Kingdom of YHWH) was to be preached to every living human kind in all countries throughout the world for the past 1,970 years.

All of us have heard that message many times over from the Christians of Churchianity. Global evangelism, internationalism, proselytes, wealth, money, and numbers have been the names of their games for ages and ages.

But because Christendom has belabored this theme for the prior 40 Jubilees doesn't make it Scriptural, despite the fact that most English Bible translations seem to promote the idea of granting them a hoped for "divine commission" to "go ye (Christians) therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..."

Unquestionably, the person who loves, respects and appreciates verity wants more than just vain and empty talk from people, including Christians, regardless of how sincere and well meaning that talk may seem to listeners. Reality can be approached and realized in an absolute sense, as it may affect a topic, only from the viewpoint of Scriptural proofs.

Accordingly, the work at hand pursues the matter on the basis of precisely what the Word does say and not on the premise of what people, including Christians, suppose the Word says. Surely, this method in attempting to approach truth would have the approval and support of any honest, fair, objective student of the Book.

The Question

The question at hand is therefore whether Christendom has had the right slant on this enormously important subject over the years, or whether there is something that has not been put upon the table and discussed from an objective, honest and unbiased viewpoint.

If Christendom is right, then it is manifest that global evangelism, money, wealth, buildings, numbers of converts, church members, preachers, seminaries and churches should be the backbone of the entire Scriptures, especially in terms of the Good News message in the New Testament. But is that what it’s all about?

Alternatively, is there something missing in terms of modern comprehension about the so-called great commission and the people in the Word who were destined to be its recipients? Finally, what is the connection of these people to Yechezkel and Yechezkel’s delivery of YHWH’s judgment on various nations because of sin?

Chapter 2--Proving The CREATOR

The Greatest Personal Concern of All

Perhaps the greatest subject of all, affecting every honest person alive today (and certainly, the people of the Good News), has to be the one of settling the reality of A Great CREATOR on the basis of objective and logical thought and analysis. Obviously, in the context of the people of the NT Good News message, this has to be their greatest focus of all.

Of course, many persons (especially Christians) claim that they have settled this question on the basis of faith. But claiming and reality are often not the same thing. Thus, is it possible to go beyond faith into some concrete knowledge and more substantive proof?

To this most profoundly important question, a follow up must be that if He does exist, has He, in fact, revealed Himself to man? The answer here is so fantastic that it not only leads one to believe--but to know (which is substantially better than just believing).

Though these issues are fairly straightforward and should not be too difficult, it is interesting that multitudes of people really never have a clue as to the answers during their entire lives on this planet. From the standpoint of religionists, numerous books have been written attempting to answer these concerns.

Actually, the solutions to these questions are fairly easy. Yet, there seems to be no end to the mass of written works attempting to focus on these questions. But tragically, too many of them never really get to the heart of the matter with objective and ascertainable proofs.

Proving A CREATOR

While there are a host of proofs of A CREATOR or First Great CAUSE, a few will be briefly highlighted to conclusively establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The Apostle Shaul effectively laid it out by suggesting that the creation proves The CREATOR (Rom 1:19-32). And that essentially sums up the whole dilemma. The presence and existence of the creation proves A Great CREATOR and First CAUSE.

From this basic theme, it is possible to graduate to more technical proofs, like the presence of natural, physical laws in the creation (like the law of gravity, the law of mass and energy conservation, etc)--obviously, as established and ordained by A Great CREATOR. The presence of law demands A LAWGIVER (Job 38:33; Isa 33:22; 51:4; Jas 4:12).

In the “Evolution of Physics,” Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote “All the laws of nature are the same in all co-ordinate systems moving uniformly, relative to each other.” While these two so-called “great human minds” were likely evolutionists, their words actually spelled out a creation by A CREATOR.

Incidentally, the wonderful book of Job has these fantastic questions-- “Do you know the laws of the heavens? Or do you make ordinances for the earth?” (Job 38:33, per the Lamsa translation).

The Laws of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics, the just mentioned law of mass and energy conservation, was formulated in 1841 by Julius Robert von Mayer. It is thought to be the most important and basic law of all physical science. This law says that the sum total of all energy in the universe remains constant, but may be converted from one form to another.

A companion law is the law of mass conservation. It provides that although energy can be changed in size, shape, form, etc, the total mass cannot be changed. The essence of these two fundamental laws is that the overall content of mass and energy came into being or existence in a precise moment in time, and has never been altered in total since the beginning of its existence, whenever and however that occurred.

In other words, there is no evolution in the context of the continuous fixed quantity of mass and energy. The creation came into being in one motion and has never been altered in terms of its totality. These basic laws of thermodynamics prove the creation and back up and support the powerful words of the Apostle Shaul in Romans 1, cited above.

The second law of thermodynamics is also very interesting and should be commented upon at this time. This second law states that all energy (matter in the universe) “flows inexorably from the orderly to the disorderly and from the usable to the unusable.” Much of the scholarly world has come to understand this second law as the “entropy” law.

This writer felt compelled to mention it because it shows the incredible foolishness of the modern liberals, humanists and others ruling the United States. They operate under the delusion that things are getting better under man’s government and that man can solve all problems.

According to the entropy law, this is impossible. Significantly, any reasonable check of Western civilization proves that the entropy law is in full force since things get worse over time. Any person trying to argue that things are getting better under man’s rule has lost touch with reality. The entropy law is in full force, as things get worse under man’s misgovernment of planet earth.

More Proofs of Creation

Another most persuasive proof of creation has to be the presence of design, order and organization in the entire creation. It is extremely significant that the smallest molecule or fragment of matter known to man, offering a recognized element, consists of a nucleus of one or more protons and neutrons with one or more orbiting electrons.

This interesting presentation is called an atom. It is indeed fascinating that all elements or correctly atoms of elements are effectively made up of the same building blocks of nature--electrons, protons and neutrons. The basic elements (gold, lead, iron, oxygen, hydrogen, uranium, etc) differ largely in their content and distribution of these basic electrical components.

While the atom is made up essentially of these basic building blocks of electrons, protons and neutrons, it must be acknowledged that there seems to be several sub-atomic particles in certain atoms (apparently, particles called neutrinos are now known to exist). Per “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 589-590), these neutrinos appear to be emitted during the decay of other particles.

The Jul 31, 2000, “Newsweek” (p. 59) had a report on the isolation and possible proof of one of these neutrinos called the “Tau.” With this new identification, physicists now believe that there are actually “12 basic building blocks of matter,” per “Newsweek.” Presumably, there would seem to be the basic building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons plus these sub-atomic particles.

The discovery of the atom some years ago, coupled with an understanding of the presence of energy in the mass of its particles (primarily in its core), led to the development of methods of splitting or altering (by fusion or fission) uranium and hydrogen atoms in ways to release this energy in an atomic reaction. This process produces both nuclear bombs and power at nuclear power plants.

Mass and Empty Space?

Another interesting feature of an atom is that the actual mass-energy portion (in the form of the particles) is really quite small, and most of the atom is nothing but supposedly space (at least, as can be first measured and ascertained).

James Reid, in “God, the Atom and the Universe,” estimates that the actual mass of an average six foot tall human is so small that it would be lost on the head of a pin--assuming it was possible to squeeze out all of the space to leave only the mass.

Reid went on to imply that the actual mass of one human is something like a fraction of a billionth part of a cubic inch. For the six plus billion humans alive today, this means that the total of the mass for all human beings is in the neighborhood of one cubic inch. But per Reid, this one cubic inch of mass would be enormously heavy, weighing over one billion pounds.

Moreover, it is absolutely amazing and beyond explanation that solar systems are organized in the same fashion as simple atoms (a nucleus of a sun and orbiting planets). Astronomers now believe that galaxies, and perhaps the universe at large, have the same extraordinary organization--a nucleus and other orbiting systems.

Just as a simple atom is made up of a very small quantity of mass-energy, as opposed to much space (at least visibly), the same reality can be found in a solar system, a galaxy or the entire universe. In other words, the universe, in terms of void and space, is too awesome to even try to conceptualize.

In “Why Not Creation,” Walter E. Lammerts mentioned the work of physicists George Lemaitre and George Gamov in theorizing that the real mass of the total universe is something about the size of the earth’s orbit around the sun. Gamov calls this mass “Ylem” and estimates that its density is one hundred trillion times the density of water.

The Dilemma

In returning to the discussion on the atom, there are some interesting laws in nature suggesting that an atom’s unlike electrical particles attract each other while the like particles repel each other (with neutrons being neutral in this regard). Consequently, the like electron and proton particles theoretically should be repelling each other while the unlike particles should be fusing together.

In that vein, an atom should be literally blowing itself apart (from the simultaneous pulls of the attracting and repelling of particles). Yet, in the real world of the creation, atoms do not implode, explode and/or come apart in any fashion. Something mysteriously holds them together like glue (in the vein of the nucleus of protons and neutrons and stable orbiting electrons).

While this writer does not have much factual data on solar systems, galaxies and the universe at large, it does appear that these various heavenly bodies also should be coming apart in some fashion (as suggested by Professor Mishio Kaku, a physicist, on the Coast to Coast AM radio program in May 2001).

It appears that all heavenly bodies (stars, planets, etc) individually and in their collective systems (i.e. those in orbit around other bodies--like our solar system, other solar systems, galaxies and so forth) should be literally disintegrating and coming apart (either imploding or exploding). Astrophysicist Michael Turner at the University of Chicago has said “We live in an absurd universe” (Jun 4, 2001, “USA Today”).

Obviously, some power or force in nature holds all of these bodies and systems together and binds them in predictable orbits. Historically, the scientific explanation for this phenomenon has been laid to the power of gravity. Too, there is the question of the magnetic fields of various heavenly bodies (like the sun and the planets), which must impact upon this issue.

Hence, even today, many persons would argue that it is the power of gravity or magnetism that holds everything together in fixed systems--but evidently, not completely so (according to Professor Kaku). There is still something else at work on this issue.

To add to the problem, man today still does not understand gravity, the laws of gravity or astronomical magnetism. So it is no wonder that there are so many complications when trying to comprehend why heavenly bodies can stay organized in fixed, precise and stable orbits around a nucleus for vast ages.

Thus, just as there are attracting and repelling features in an atom, the same seems to be true of the more complex heavenly bodies with a definable nucleus and orbiting system. Per the scientific view, there is then this theory that gravity or magnetism should be compressing (or collapsing inward) certain orbiting systems (“The force is with us,” in the Apr 16, 2001, “US News & World Report”--USNWR, p. 46).

Therefore, it appears that gravity and/or magnetism should be attracting some heavenly bodies and pulling them or collapsing them into the nucleus, while other systems (not affected by sufficient gravity or magnetism to implode them) should be literally blowing everything apart at the seams. Of course, the same difficulty surfaces in connection with a simple atom--which should be coming apart at the seams.

However, in fact, there is an awesome power or force which holds simple atoms together (to keep them from literally blowing apart), as well as the much larger heavenly bodies and configurations--solar systems, galaxies and the universe at large. The question must be asked--what is it?

Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Since the 1980s, scientists have posited that there is a presence in space of something they call “Dark Matter” (making up 95% of the universe). And now, starting in 2001, some astrophysicists have stipulated that this invisible dark force in space is actually composed of a gravitational substance (now called Dark Matter), which is to be contrasted with an anti-gravitational force (now called Dark Energy).

Reportedly, “Dark Energy” (also called “quintessence” or the “God particle”) was first postulated by Albert Einstein in 1917. It is found internally even in simple atoms, inhabiting the space between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons. Although not mentioned by Kaku, it would seem that the Dark Matter also inhabits an atom in some way to bind and keep the different particles together in an organized pattern.

Apparently, this dark power holds all heavenly bodies together in organized, discernible systems, to keep them from literally coming apart into a disorganized mass of confusion (as discussed by the just cited Professor Kaku on the Coast to Coast program and presented in an article on “Dark Matter” in the Jun 4, 2001, “USA Today”).

The Dark Matter seems to be pressuring the galaxies and systems together (imploding them?), while the Dark Energy seems to be separating or forcing the different systems apart (thus, in the atom, such forces keep the particles from imploding or exploding). From Professor Kaku’s comments and the “USA Today” article, it would appear that the two contrasting powers combine to hold the whole system together in place.

Though, in 2003, there is this thinking of two separate powers (in the form of Dark Matter and Dark Energy), many scientists still discuss both powers in the vein of one force (simply called Dark Matter, since the 1980s). As will shortly be seen from the Scriptures, possibly this force or power is singular, but with the two separate features or powers of gravity and anti-gravity combined into its one presence.

Scientific laboratories have been trying to measure this force for years and may now be close to defining it. A “US News & World Report” article of Apr 16, 2001 (p. 46), suggested that this force (Dark Energy) is actually pushing the overall cosmos outward into space (expanding it, as has been believed for ages, with the theory of the expanding universe)--obviously, in some organized and coherent fashion.

The present view of science seems to be that the totality of the universe was once in one big mass which blew apart in a big bang (called the Big Bang theory). From there, the various blocks of material have formed into stars (suns), planets, etc and have been expanding outward into space (away from the nucleus).

The Apr 16, 2001, USNWR story said that the universe is “careening toward emptiness and infinity.” However, based upon the probable presence of gravity in the universe’s nucleus, one must wonder how the various galaxies can be expanding or careening away from the beginning nucleus. Thus, the USNWR article notes that something (some force) must be pushing the cosmos outward.

Modern astrophysicists are still unable to fully understand this dark power. But they say that it is present--presumably inhabiting all of space (including the earth’s atmosphere--to include all of the atmosphere around each and every one of us). Therefore, it isn’t only that the universe has bodies made up of mass and energy (simple atomic particles)--there is also present a mysterious force or power in space.

Could this dark power be what Shaul referred to in Colossians 1:17--when he wrote and said that The Great EL holds all things together (per the J. B. Rotherham “Emphasized Bible”)?

Is it conceivable that The Fantastic EL (Who is omnipresent [Jer 23:24], omniscient, omnipotent and invisible and Who represents absolute infinity and inhabits all of space and time) holds the entire creation together? No wonder the Hebrew word EL means “strength, power, might” and the Hebrew EL SHADDAI means “The EL of ALL STRENGTH.”

More Strange Phenomena

Before proceeding on from here, a few words must be said about something which may or may not be related to the present discussion. Modern sophisticated cameras (to include infrared) have been used in the past few years to take pictures of what appear to be electrical/electromagnetic balls, bulbs, orbs, bolts or rods of energy which are present in the earth’s atmosphere, both day and night.

Essentially, all of them seem to be invisible to the human eye and are small (though some of the rods [which are different from the orbs and balls] can be up to four or five feet long). They can move very fast and are present almost everywhere, traveling in various directions without any discernible reference as to why (both in the atmosphere and even into water). These phenomena will be addressed in chapters hereafter.

More Design in the Creation

Over the years, a number of Christian opponents of evolutionary theory have written books and articles on the incredible design in nature, and particularly in animal and plant life. Thousands of specific species could easily be addressed and commented upon since there seems to have been something in the neighborhood of at least 30 million different species of life on earth in the past (May 10, 2002, “The Week,” p. 14).

The best estimates presently are that some 25 million species have become extinct over the centuries; and that today, there only remains some four to six million species of life left (ibid, p. 14).

Regardless, so many utterly different and unique forms of life have existed and still do exist that it completely boggles the mind when trying to understand and appreciate them and their incredible design and variety.

The fantastic designs and functions of such life forms as wasps, bees, spiders (and their webs), archer fish, salmon, penguins, duck-bill platypuses, venus flytrap plants and so forth completely stagger the most creative and brilliant minds in the world--because all of these species have been perfectly designed to do what they do for survival.

Every time one sees a bird fly in the air, he or she should take note of the fantastic design for flight. The wings of birds automatically adjust to every slight change in airflow and pressure while in flight. They are perfectly designed and constructed to fly as they do.

The December 1998 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 81) had some fascinating remarks on geese. As each goose flies, its wings create an “uplift” for the birds flying the V shaped formation. In this configuration, the whole flock can add 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew alone.

Any time a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag and resistance of flying alone. It quickly tries to move back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the birds in front. When a lead goose tires, it rotates back into formation and another goose takes over the point position.

The geese in the formation honk to encourage those up front to keep up the speed. Whenever a goose becomes sick, injured or goes down (from gunshot or for whatever), two geese drop out of formation and follow it down to help and protect it. They stay with it until it dies or can fly again. Then they launch out with a new formation or try to catch up with the flock.

Many people looking at a simple flight of geese could never begin to appreciate the incredible design and functioning of each bird in a marvelous and perfect construction demanding A Great CREATOR. Ridiculous evolutionary theory can never explain the perfection of even the simplest forms of life as visible in the created order.

Moreover, one should take a moment and consider the impact of the wonderful cotton plant. It was designed perfectly to provide cloth for human beings. And by all means, how about the wonderful watermelon plant? It too was perfectly designed by A Totally Wise CREATOR--perhaps with little children in mind. Therefore, is there anyone alive in today’s world who can account for cotton or watermelons apart from A CREATOR?

Law of Biogenesis

One more awesome proof of creation lies in the fact that there is a law in existence called the law of biogenesis.

This law effectively says that life can come only from life. Scientists have spent gobs of money and lifetimes in the best controlled laboratory situations in an effort to create life. They have always utterly failed (despite the vast expenditures of human intelligence, money, energy and resources).

It is true that the US, Russia and other states have all been actively engaged in biological research, cloning and DNA alterations. A classic case surfaced a few years ago when a group of UFO buffs purchased, for one million dollars, a dead body of a humanoid like being which had been developed by the Soviets from DNA alterations (per Dr Rod Lewis, in his video, “The Shackles of the New World Order”).

This alleged “alien” was subjected to an autopsy by so-called experts, who could not explain what it was. A film was shown on this “Alien Autopsy” and videos were sold of it all over the world. The original investors made a pile of money.

Besides this peculiar person with the altered genes, the same conclusion can be applied to the whole subject of cloning, which is popular right now, and especially as man is busy trying to clone various forms of life (cloning problems will be noted in later comments). But the truth remains. Life can come only from life. Neither the Russians, the US or whoever else have yet created life. Even cloning involves life from life.

Radioactive Decay

For years, radio preacher Herbert W. Armstrong (who will be further addressed in later chapters herein) had a small tract out which was designed to prove The CREATOR. While Armstrong’s effort was limited, he did use the issue over the decay of radioactive substances as a cardinal proof of The CREATOR.

Radioactive material decays to essentially lead over a very slow process. Accordingly, its decay process is measured in a half-life presentation. Since radioactive substances are found on earth in various stages of decay, the conclusion has to be that there was an original start date on the decay process. Obviously, radioactive materials have not always existed in time or they would have totally decayed by now.

The Design of Earth

The unique design of planet earth to sustain life is another extraordinary proof. The production of periodic rainfall, the rainfall cycle, and the circular earth orbiting the sun (for heat) are just a few samples of the fantastic variables which are precisely designed and mixed to allow life to exist on earth (see the book of Job for a discussion of many of these created qualities on earth).

Earth is specifically arranged to sustain life in terms of its surface temperature, tilt and rotation, atmosphere, oceans, crust, etc. And yet, these few proofs are only the tip of the iceberg. A student of truth can find a whole host of things which can only be logically and intelligently understood in the context of a creation totally made by the hands of A GREAT CREATOR.

Chapter 3--Evolution

The Stupidity of Evolution

Having discussed the creation made by A CREATOR, the focus must shift to evolution (the attempt of atheists to explain life and the physical creation). A few words will now be offered to debunk this “theory” which has captured the imagination and thinking of modern man--so much so that now evolution is taught as truth routinely in science classes in schools and colleges around the world.

Few people who promote this stuff or receive it in the form of learning actually understand the reality of what all is behind the subject of evolution. The truth is that there is absolutely nothing behind it from the standpoint of factual, true information. There is no proof of evolution. Consequently, evolution is entirely a supposition and a theory--which is still lacking scientific proof, as of today in the 2000s.

The background on evolution is that, hundreds of years ago, certain people began looking at the creation and trying to understand why and how it came into being. But they could not comprehend that the presence of the creation (which they beheld) conclusively proved the existence of A CREATOR of that creation. Surely, they were atheists out to disprove YHWH’s Word!

Yet, the message of the Scriptures and reality is that A CREATOR created the creation, as indicated in the previous comments in this presentation. The existence and presence of the creation prove absolutely and unequivocally the presence and existence of A CREATOR. The two ideas are inordinately linked together.

The person who could accept this basic premise found that the explanation for the creation was actually rather simple. The CREATOR created the creation. Now, some would argue that the acceptance of this idea requires an act of faith and belief (which, of course, automatically opens the door to religious ideology). This concept can be argued pro and con--despite the presence of the proof of creation by A CREATOR.

In any case, as some supposedly “intelligent” and “thinking” minds looked at the creation, they refused to accept the simplicity of the solution on creation. Being atheists, they rejected the idea that the creation demands A CREATOR. They decided that they would attempt to explain the presence and existence of the creation in a human devised effort, in the form of a man-conceived discipline of science.

In their rejection of the simplicity of understanding the creation, these supposedly “scientific” minds began formulating unproven theories and ideas which could be used to support the presence of the creation, apart from the existence of A CREATOR. The answer to this search has come to be called evolution (technically evolutionary theory, since it has always been theoretical only and lacking real proof).

The Promoters

Perhaps some of the earliest persons who tried to find an alternative approach to explain the creation (apart from A CREATOR) were the early Greek philosophers in ancient, sun worshipping Greece.

According to Malcolm Bowden, in “The Rise of the Evolution Fraud,” the first true evolutionist was the fifth century BCE Greek philosopher Empedocies--who is thought to be the “father of the evolution idea.” He theorized that the different parts of the human body (the head, arms, neck, legs, etc) were formed independently of each other and brought together into a random arrangement by the “love” force.

Furthermore, there were other early Greek sun worshippers--who likewise toyed with the idea of evolution. On this, Malcolm Bowden suggests that Greek philosophers like Thales (c600 BCE), Democritus (c400 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) were also people who expressed evolutionary ideas in very early times.

Moreover, per Bowden, other persons over the centuries similarly offered their contributions in formulating the basic evolutionary theory now accepted as modern science--like philosopher Robert Mathus (1766-1834), writer Robert Chambers (1802-1871), botanist Charles Linnaeus (1707-1778), botanist Erasmus Darwin (1731-1788), botanist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), geologist James Hutton (1726-1797), geologist Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), geologist Roderick Murchison (1792-1871) and geologist Charles Lyell (1830).

But the man who really put it all together was a British botanist named Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), a grandson of the earlier Erasmus Darwin. Young Charles was born and raised a Christian. He went to Cambridge to study religion and natural history with a view of becoming a Christian theologian.

In 1831, Charles sailed as a naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle, a Royal Navy ship doing a geographical survey along the coasts of Patogonia, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, Peru and some islands in the South Pacific. Darwin left England as a Christian and returned as an atheist. His work on the Beagle laid the foundation for his famous book “On the Origin of the Species,” first published on November 24, 1859.

The gist of Darwin’s theory was that processes called “natural selection” and/or “survival of the fittest” explained an evolutionary development of the different forms of life. For example, he theorized that the reason that the giraffe had a long neck was that in ancient times in the past, giraffes developed long necks to more easily reach food which was higher in the trees.

Darwin also theorized that the reason man is not covered with thick hair (as is true with other mammals) is that in the early days females sought out and found males with less hair to copulate with. Supposedly, this constant breeding of hominoids with less and less hair changed man over the vast ages of time to get rid of much of his former mammalian hair. Persons with less and less hair actually were reproduced.

In any case, Darwin’s book and his ideas took off with a blast. Soon atheists and agnostics around the world, wanting to find some excuse to grab hold of to explain the creation (apart from A CREATOR), immediately bought into Darwin’s theories, which were called “science.” Quickly, colleges, universities and even schools at all levels began teaching the same ideas on the level of science.

This boom in popularity of evolutionary theory set the stage for the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1922. A local teacher there decided to teach evolutionary theory as scientific fact. Some of the local people raised up in rebellion over it. The well known political orator Williams Jennings Bryan went to court to stop it (and won). But his victory was short lived. After WWII, evolutionary beliefs were adopted across the US.

A Closer Look At Evolution

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 278) describes evolution as the “...concept embodying the belief that existing organisms descend from a common ancestor. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution deals with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter.”

This theory goes on to suggest that “Organic evolution conceives of life as having begun as a simple, primordial protoplasmic mass from which arose, through time, all subsequent living forms.” In other words, the basis of life is not the law of biogenesis (mentioned earlier). Instead, life supposedly sprang from a mass of primordial soup (in a process of spontaneous generation).

This first, simple, single-celled life (the amoebae, which came out of the bowl of soup) supposedly evolved into all of the vast varieties of life that one can behold today.

Please note the use of the words theory, concept and belief, in this definition from a respected modern encyclopedia. The interesting thing is that a theory, concept or belief is not necessary a proven fact. A theory is nothing but a theory. To believe it, one must accept it primarily based on faith or belief and not particularly on facts and reality. Thus, it becomes and is a religion to its adherents.

The basis of evolutionary thinking hangs essentially upon four ideas: spontaneous generation of life, mutation, natural selection and uniformitarianism. The spontaneous generation concept was just outlined above from the “Columbia Encyclopedia.” In other words, life simply started in a mess of soup (by some miracle?).

Mutations are changes in the composition of the genes (which determine heredity factors). The idea is that events happening on earth and to different life forms produce mutations, which become heredity, to affect and change succeeding generations.

Next, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is that different species breed and reproduce in a pattern, to perpetuate differences needed or useful for the survival of the fittest of the various species. The cases of the giraffe and hairless mammals were cited above.

Finally, uniformitarianism hangs on the idea that the present is a key to the past in terms of natural forces at work in nature to change things. Since changes supposedly occur very slowly in nature, uniformitarianism theorizes that evolutionary change also occurred imperceptibly slow over vast ages (millions or billions of years).

Evolutionists use this slow process to justify why no one has seen, or can see, any evidence of evolution in nature. Theoretically, evolutionary change would be visible and ascertainable in nature if man could just visualize it or watch it over the billions of years required to achieve change. Man’s life is simply too short to see evolution.

All of these different facets of evolution have been or will be assessed in some detail throughout this publication. Later discussions on evolutionary problems will focus particularly upon the issues of mutations and natural selection. There is no intent to address these topics presently because they are too vast to discuss in any detail.

Explaining Creation Without a Creator

Suffice to say, the creation proves A CREATOR. Conversely, some people, unhappy with that explanation, have offered their atheistic theories and speculations (all of which remain unproven, even in our time) to try to explain creation apart from A CREATOR. All of these theories hang only on faith and belief. Thus, they represent a religion in modern thought.

For instance, as just noted above, no one has ever seen evolutionary change in progress. Furthermore, no fossil remains have ever been found or produced for analysis and study, which prove or establish any intermediate life forms in the evolutionary process for any specie now in existence or present in past ages. In other words, no one has ever found any evidence of ancient life forms undergoing evolution.

All present and prehistoric life was complete in itself to function properly in its environment. All known life forms came into existence immediately at one point in time in a perfectly developed form to allow survival and perpetuation. No record or evidence of life changes have ever been found. Yet, evolutionary teachers demand that modern man accept the evolutionary idea simply because scientists say it’s true.

Michael Crimo

Writer Michael Crimo was on the Coast to Coast AM radio program on June 14, 2000, to talk about some of the fallacies promoted by evolutionary teachers. He illustrated the problem by comparing it to a history of man or life in a thousand page book. Suppose that someone took this book and extracted fifty pages at random and threw the rest away.

Of this fifty pages, suppose someone else took the pages and tore them up into tiny pieces and dumped them upon a table or the floor. From this mass of very tiny pieces, suppose another person came along and took a few or several of them from the stack at random. In terms of the fossil record of life, this is what science is attempting to do in formulating its theories about life.

With the very meager amount of evidence that scientists have about life, they “theorize” an evolutionary process. Since they cannot prove the presence of evolution from the meager amount of surviving evidence they possess, they become dishonest by “editing” and “manipulating” it to communicate their theories about evolution. They do this by ignoring or throwing out anything which won’t conform to their model.

For example, on the alleged evolutionary development of man, scientists take the fossil record and select different forms of life, alleged for the last two billion years or so, and claim that these different life forms are the evolutionary ancestors of man (arbitrarily and capriciously without regard to truth). They then take their selections and place them on a chart in a so-called chronological sequence.

On their chart, they will arbitrarily show a simple single cell of life as step one. Next, they show something bigger (made up of several molecules), as a step two. Perhaps for their next item, they may show a simple life form found in water. Maybe a reptile on land is selected next and then a mammal on land is depicted. Next, an ape surfaces. And then, arbitrarily, they show man last, as the final product of this alleged evolution.

The Problem

As Crimo points out, the only trouble with this “scientific” effort is that man himself and/or hominoids and other forms of life are common throughout all of the past ages without any semblance of an evolutionary progression in life (in the context of simple life forms to more complex forms).

In other words, the earliest fossil evidence presents all forms of life as being existent from the beginning. The different life forms have co-existed throughout the ages. The life forms which science claims to be connecting do not, in fact, connect at all. Single cell amoebae and different life forms in water or on land (to include reptiles, mammals, birds, hominids/man, etc) have always existed side by side in the fossil record.

Therefore, many of the scientists trying to prove an evolutionary cycle become dishonest, and fraudulently “edit out” all forms of life which have existed and which would disprove their attempt to show an evolutionary cycle. By editing out all of the different life forms in a certain geologic age, and showing only what is perceived as being present, the scientists become dishonest.

After selecting their theorized life forms for the different ages and then depicting them on a chart, as if they actually existed in a connecting process, the scientists have fraudulently presented an outline of something which cannot be proven from the available fossil evidence (because it never happened in nature). Simply stated, there is no fossil record demonstrating any form of evolution historically.

Michael Crimo (if this is the correct spelling of his last name) has been a successful writer who has spent years appearing on college campuses and at educational forums to discuss, argue or dialogue the issues of life with teachers of evolution. He says that while many or most of them are hanging onto their pet (unproven) theories presently, there is hope of truth surfacing, especially as younger scientists look at the record.

More Complications in Forming Life

Evolutionists have spent lifetimes and ages trying to explain a bowl of primordial soup which one day produced life (contrary to the law of biogenesis). But they always fail because a spontaneous development of life is too stupid to be believed by honest and informed persons. The only answer has to be an extraordinary “creation.”

Incidentally, the whole idea of the conception of life (however The MOST HIGH miraculously accomplished it) is absolutely astounding. It clearly demonstrates the utter futility and stupidity of the theory of evolution.

However, there is another feature of this issue that is almost as staggering. Virtually all life forms (especially all higher life forms) reproduce male and female offspring, although some minute forms of life (only some very limited and simple forms of amoebae and bacteria) reproduce asexually.

Not only do most higher forms of life require both a male and female component for reproduction, but there is an incredible similarity in their reproduction processes (in the context of birds, mammals and even vegetation). Now comes an amazing point which should debunk the stupid theories of evolutionists forever.

For all of those species that require both a male and female for reproduction (which is almost all of the creation), there isn’t only the problem of the first life, but there is additionally a need for that life to become manifested in both a male and female representation to allow reproduction. The production of only a single male or a single female would have spelled out the end of that specie.

So, if life started with a simple one celled specie, like an asexual amoebae, why was it or how was it that higher forms developed the requirement for males and females in a sexual contact to reproduce? Obviously, there had to be another miracle in the process which simply cannot be explained by evolution.

By evolutionary theory, there would be no need for the issue of sex and the several different methods of reproduction. Logically, by evolutionary theory, life would have never progressed beyond the simple asexual bacteria and amoebae.

Finally, things get complicated because many plants reproduce through a pollination process (from one plant to another) while birds and most fish reproduce through eggs and mammals reproduce by mothers carrying their young internally. Why is it that these different forms of reproduction came into being if life was formed by evolution?

Obviously, life itself is enormously complicated and the reproduction of life is just as complicated. Evolution is too stupid to be discussed by intelligent people! Yet, it is routinely taught as science and truth in modern times.

Some Numbers

The Jun-Jul 1999 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 60) had an interesting quotation from Christian writer Dave Hunt on some facets of biology. Hunt indicates that one cell, the smallest living unit, can have 100,000 molecules (of two or more atoms) and 10,000 intricately interrelated chemical reactions going on at any one time.

Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins adds that every cell contains in its nucleus a digitally coded database larger than the 30 volumes of the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” How conceivable is it that a process like evolution could ever produce, by chance, a 30 volume edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica?”

Going on, Hunt quoted Britain’s famous astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle who calculated that the odds against producing the basic enzymes of life at 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. By comparison, the odds of plucking a given atom out of the universe is 1 over 1 with 80 zeros.

The point is that statistics themselves disprove evolutionary theory; which, in turn, must take the student of truth to a creation by A CREATOR.

The wonderful bottom line on the creation was well stated by Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe, an evolutionist and atheist, who co-authored several books with Fred Hoyle. Wickramasinghe has said that the probability of an evolutionary origin of life on earth was essentially zero.

He added that it was no more probable than a tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747 airplane out of the junk (March 1982 “Impact”). The essence of Wickramasinghe’s comments is that it is statistically out of the question to try to account for life apart from creation. The “Impact” quotation did not reflect whether Chandra had changed any of his evolutionary thinking after making the comment.

Manifestly, the limited, frail, inadequate minds of little humans cannot begin to fathom the greatness of The CREATOR. This writer is usually speechless even trying to contemplate or understand Him. However, the Hebrew Scriptures, used in the Judeo-Christian religions, do offer some “perspective” of His greatness. A subsequent chapter herein will assess several of the proofs which validate the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Foundation of Truth

Chapters hereafter also will address the Torah which is the foundation of all knowledge and truth (Genesis to Deuteronomy, the books of Moshe, called the Pentateuch in the Greek).

As will be subsequently highlighted, the Torah outlines and defines the reality of righteousness. It and the rest of the OT and the NT give the student of truth some perception of the mentality, character and personality of The CREATOR.

Suffice to say, the Scriptures reveal Him in the sense of being completely and totally A PERSONALITY of great character, honor, morality, justice, loyalty, righteousness, and truth. He represents the epitome of these ideas. No human being can or has ever begun to approach the awesome, wonderful and righteous nature of His person.

The writer of this study has wondered on occasion how life on earth would be and what the future would hold for man and the entire creation if The CREATOR was as evil and limited as man. Isn’t it fantastic and amazing that The CREATOR (with all of His power and strength) represents the perfection of character, morality and integrity, as is revealed in the Scriptures (the OT and NT)? It boggles the mind!

Chapter 4--The Genealogy of YESHUA

The Presence of YESHUA?

In the fall of 2002, an ossuary (a burial box) was found in Israel with Aramaic words which read-- “Ya’acov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua” (in reference to Yakov, son of Yosef and brother of YESHUA). Some experts date it to about 63 CE--but others claim that it is a recent fraud.

Commenting upon this find, Hershel Shanks, editor of the “Biblical Archaeology Review,” said: “What we want to announce today is the first archaeological attestation of Jesus. This is a startling, mind-boggling inscription” (israelinsider.com, Oct 25, 2002, as quoted in the Dec 2002 “Maoz Israel”). Whether Shanks is right or wrong, the idea is intriguing!

The Genealogy of YESHUA

YESHUA’s fleshly genealogy is laid out in the books of Matthew and Luke. While these compilations seem straight forward enough, some questions inevitably surface over them to cause some concern over how they should be interpreted or understood.

A Virgin Birth

One of the hotly debated religious issues has been the question of whether YESHUA was born of a virgin named Mary (Miryam in the Hebrew) or not. Was her husband, Joseph (Yosef in the Hebrew), the biological father or was He miraculously conceived?

Of course, the Jews have for centuries argued that His birth was not miraculous. Historic Christianity has accepted the virgin birth belief, although questions have surfaced in modern times.

Manifestly, the book of Matthew powerfully teaches the virgin birth idea (Matt 1:18-25). If Matthew (correctly Mattityahu in the Hebrew) has any authority whatsoever, the virgin birth of YESHUA is true. It is also clear from Luke 1:34 that Miryam categorically declared herself to be a virgin. If Mattityahu was wrong, then Miryam was also wrong and likely even a deliberate liar.

But to make a contrary argument, many scholars go back and pick up on Isaiah 7:14 and try to insist that the word virgin there in the KJV is correctly a young, unmarried woman, from the Hebrew “almah” (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 1026). This writer would not argue that point, but would note that the contextual uses of almah in the Hebrew Tanakh seem to always imply a young, unmarried, virgin girl or woman.

The student of the Word must accept the fact that culturally there is a considerable difference today, as opposed to how things were in ancient Israel (technically, Yisrael in the Hebrew).

Today’s modern Israelites are about as promiscuous as a bunch of alley cats. Young children start experimenting with sex as teenagers. Therefore, there would be some questions today about the virginity of a young woman, but not in ancient Yisrael.

In old Yisrael, it was commonly accepted that young, unmarried girls with good reputations were virgins. Because, according to the law, their lives could otherwise be in serious jeopardy and death could await them. Culturally, such young girls, like Miryam, were virgins, or assumed to be virgins--which agrees with Mattityahu’s remarks.

This writer accepts and believes Mattityahu’s words (when correctly restored to their original Hebrew format). Accordingly, the virgin idea appears to be valid. And while some individuals may suppose that the truth on this question somehow impacts upon the rest of the Scriptures, this writer disagrees.

Does It Matter?

In other words, it is possibly irrelevant and immaterial whether His birth was from a virgin or not (despite the fact that Christendom has made a big issue out of this question in modern times).

In fact, in an argument against the virgin birth, subsequent chapters herein will focus on the old sun cults as existent in the ancient world--most of which believed and taught a virgin birth for the sun god. Thus, some could argue that this is a questionable doctrine at best.

Both the OT and NT clearly attest to “Who He was,” as will be addressed and elaborated upon in succeeding chapters herein.

As will be discussed later, YESHUA was either directly conceived by The RUACH HA KODESH (the actual Hebrew, but English translations give it as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, as at Matt 1:18); or quickly, He was immersed spiritually in The RUACH HA KODESH at His baptism (Matt 3:16). In either case, The RUACH HA KODESH dwelt in Him as His spirit.

The Priest Connection

While YESHUA was obviously a descendant of Judah (Yehudah in the Hebrew) and David, there is another interesting point brought out by Luke (Lu 1:36). Luke made mention of the fact that Miryam, the mother of YESHUA, was a cousin of Elizabeth (Elisheva in the Hebrew), the mother of John (in Hebrew, the name John is correctly Yohanan or Yochanan) the Baptist.

Thus, it would be easy to believe that Elisheva was of Yehudah, along with Miryam.

However, Luke 1:5 reported that Elisheva was a descendant of Aaron, which can be proven. Elisheva was married to the priest Zechariah (Zekharyah in the Hebrew, Lu 1:5). According to YHWH’s Torah, a priest could only marry a woman of his own people (Lev 21:14). Now, through the years, Judaism and Christianity, as well, have accepted the interpretation here as being an Israelite woman from any of the tribes.

But the “Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 514), edited by Dr J. H. Hertz, offers an interesting observation that likely did impact upon this question in the first century CE. Hertz gives this text (Lev 21:14) as “lit. of his kinsfolk.” His commentary notes that the Septuagint and Philo (of the first century CE, elsewhere discussed herein) both limit this choice of marriage to the priestly families.

“If” there was a first century CE requirement for priests to take a wife from their own priestly families, then the case can be built that Elisheva was of a priestly (cohen) family, along with Zekharyah. And if Elisheva was a cohen, it would seem that Miryam on her maternal side was also of a cohen family of the tribe of Levi.

In the sense that YESHUA was a priest, this possibility is plausible. In bringing up this option, this writer is not trying to be dogmatic. It is just something to whet the appetite of the student of truth.

A final note is due on this possibility. The word cousin is often used very liberally and not necessarily in a limited restriction to a first cousin. In other words, Miryam and Elisheva could be second, third or fourth cousins and thus somewhat removed genetically. Elisheva could have been of cohen lineage and Miryam’s cohen link could be quite insignificant.

How About Rahab and Ruth?

Subsequent chapters will focus upon the questions of race and miscegenation in the context of YHWH’s Torah. There is no intent presently to commence an examination of these issues since they are quite enormous and complex. However, Mattityahu’s mention of Rahab and Ruth in YESHUA’s genealogy deserves some comment (Matt 1:5).

The succeeding presentation on the themes of racial and ethnic identifications of people will note that a person of one racial classification can live in a geographical territory of people of another racial classification.

In the case of Ruth, there are Scriptural reasons suggesting that she was actually an Israelite of one of the tribes living East of the Jordan River in the former land of Moab. She was a Moabitess because of her residency (Ruth 1:4; 2:2-7). But the classic proof that she was not a Moabitess racially comes from YHWH’s Torah.

Deuteronomy 23:2-4 says that Moabites cannot enter the Congregation of The ELOHIM until the tenth generation. This mitzwah (the Hebrew for “commandment”) will be described in later chapters. But for now, the point must be made that David was in the congregation; and he was assuredly her great grandson (of the third generation). If Ruth was a bloodline Moabite, David could never have been king over Yisrael.

Actually, the same reasoning applies to Rahab.

If she would have been a Canaanite (with mixed behemah genes, requiring a ten generation exclusion--Deut 23:2, to be later described), it seems impossible that David could have come along in less than ten generations to be king over Yisrael (although if she was only a Hamite, the exclusion would have been three generations--Deut 23:7-8). These texts will be broached in the later chapters.

This is not to say that Rahab was an Israelite. Probably, she was not. But she could have been only a Hamite subject to the three generation rule--or perhaps, she was a “ger” alien which would have made it legally proper for Salmon to marry her. The ger word will be addressed in the future chapters as well.

But there is a larger issue with Rahab. While she was living in Canaan (Josh 6:17-25), this reality is not sufficient alone to demand that she be a Canaanite racially, as just noted. Maybe she was. But maybe she wasn’t. Regardless of what she was genetically, it is important to realize that this woman was a harlot and YHWH YESHUA thought to include her in His genealogy.

This is just one more of the great proofs of the Scriptures that A MAN of the stature, caliber and authority of YESHUA would choose to be a descendant of a harlot and would then allow this fact of reality to become a permanently written record for all of history to contemplate and behold. Assuredly, His mind is far superior to the lacking minds of limited human beings.

Moshe

Incidentally, this mention of Rahab and Ruth necessitates an acknowledgment of the case with the wife of Moshe--whom Aaron and Miryam seem to have defined as a Cushite woman (Num 12:1). Many persons automatically assume that she was a Negro. But this is unlikely (especially since the original Cushites were not Negroes). Instead, this remark probably is a geographical reference and not a racial definition.

The only real record of Moshe’s wife is that she was Zipporah, the daughter of Reuel (Jethro), who was a Midianite, living in the Sinai (Ex 2:21). Thus, is it not probable that the remark in Numbers 12 was in reference to Zipporah? The dilemma here was explained in the Sep-Oct 2000 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 7) which quoted the “Companion Bible” --in noting that Arabia was in the land of Cush.

Actually, the lands of Cush started in Babylon (Gen 10:8-10; “The Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 145) and extended to the Arabian peninsula (surely including the Southern Sinai) and the land South of Egypt (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 161).

As Dr J. H. Hertz notes for Habbakuk 3:7, Midian is a synonym of Cushan (“Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 618)--meaning a geographical reference (per “Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 161). Zipporah’s family either lived in this territory historically, or near it sufficiently that Aaron and Miryam would identify her as a Cushite--from the geographical standpoint; and evidently, in derision.

Later comments will further assess Zipporah and her family. As will be noted, her father Jethro was also referred to as the Kenite (Jud 1:16), in terms of a geographical reference to the Sinai. Both the Cushites and Kenites were descendants of Kain to allow this geographical linkage to persist.

If Zipporah was the subject, as is almost a certainty, the Scriptures themselves prove that she was of the same race as Moshe to allow their two sons to be kind after kind (per the proscription of Gen 1, to be later discussed). Her sons were circumcised and became members of the congregation of Yisrael. This would have been totally impossible if she was a racial Cushite (Ex 12:43-49; Deut 23:2-9).

While it is almost a certainty that the remarks of Aaron and Miryam were directed at Zipporah, it must be acknowledged that there is some possibility that Moshe married a racial Cushite when he was a young man in Egypt (before the Exodus). There is some tradition that he conquered Ethiopia. Conceivably, he married an Ethiopian woman whom he separated from--for sure, when he was cast out of Egypt.

Some Problems in YESHUA’s Genealogy

There remains three basic problems in assessing YESHUA’s genealogy, as outlined in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. First, Mattityahu’s outlined lineage is decidedly different from Luke’s presentation, although they mysteriously “seem” to come together briefly with Salathiel (Shealtiel in the Hebrew) and Zerubbabel (Zerubavel in the Hebrew, who will shortly be commented upon).

To account for these two dramatically different genealogies, most Christian scholars have concluded that Mattityahu’s presentation was of the line of Yosef while Luke’s outline focused on Miryam’s lineage (in the sense that Luke 3:23 supposedly refers to Yosef in the vein of him being the husband of Miryam).

Though this explanation can readily be true, it is also plausible that Luke’s record is of Yosef’s line while Mattityahu’s focus is on Miryam’s lineage, and especially in view of Matthew 1:16 where Mattityahu specifically ties Yosef to Miryam. Frankly, this writer would lean to this latter explanation, but would not argue the point either way.

Regardless of which way a student of truth may lean, there is a good explanation to account for the two different genealogies.

The next problem arising is that there is an unexplained loss of three names between Joram (Yoram in the Hebrew) and Ozias (Uziyahu in the Hebrew) in Mattityahu’s outline (Matt 1:8). These three kings--Ahaziah (Achazyah in the Hebrew), Joash (Yoash in the Hebrew--he was one-eight Edomite, as will be established in a later chapter) and Amaziah (Amatzyahu in the Hebrew)--were certainly present in that line in the Tanakh. Why the NT loss?

The best explanation seems to be that the three kings were deleted because they introduced idolatry into Yehudah (II Chron 22:3, 9; 24:17, 25; 25:15, 27; Jer 22:1-7); and according to the Torah (Deut 29:18-20), their names were blotted out by YHWH (“Concordant Commentary on the New Testament,” p. 11).

Salathiel (the Hebrew Shealtiel) and Zerubbabel (the Hebrew Zerubavel)

The last important issue on YESHUA’s genealogy concerns the just mentioned Shealtiel and Zerubavel being in both lineages. While someone may try to make the case that both lines had men named Shealtiel, who had sons named Zerubavel, this seems highly unlikely. So another explanation is needed.

Shealtiel was a son of Jehoiachin (I Chron 3:17-18). Jehoiachin’s (Yehoyakhin in the Hebrew) name was shortened to Coniah (Koniyahu in the Hebrew) when YAH turned against him for his evil ways (Jer 22:24-30). He thus was placed under a curse which was limited to the third or fourth generation, as will be described in later chapters (Ex 20:5). Zerubavel was reportedly a son of Shealtiel --evidently born in Babylon (Ezra 3:2).

However, there is a complication here in that I Chronicles 3:17-19 says that Yehoyakhin had several sons which included Shealtiel and a younger brother named Pedaiah (Pedayah in the Hebrew). This text notes that Zerubavel was a son of Pedayah. The “Soncino Books of the Bible” (Haggai, p. 255) suggest that Zerubavel was actually a son of Pedayah, but that he was raised by his uncle Shealtiel and referred to as his son.

But in going on, why is it then in the NT that Shealtiel (or Pedayah) and Zerubavel surface as descendants of Neri in a lineage from Nathan (Natan in the Hebrew), son of David, on down to YESHUA (Lu 3:27)?

In this case, the “Expositor’s Greek Testament” (v. I, p. 486) suggests that adoption could be the answer. Hence, some might argue that Koniyahu adopted Neri’s son Shealtiel or that Neri adopted Koniyahu’s son Shealtiel (and maybe Pedayah as well).

This adoption prospect by Neri seems to have some merit when one recognizes that Shealtiel’s father, Koniyahu, was placed in a Babylonian prison when he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar at about age 18 or 19 (II Kg 24:8). He was in prison 37 years (II Kg 25:27). So other Jewish Israelites must have raised his children.

Although not mentioned by commentators, there is also a possibility that Neri had a daughter who married Shealtiel (or Pedayah) and produced Zerubavel. Luke’s remarks on YESHUA’s genealogy take one back to Shealtiel; but does not go further back to Koniyahu, as happened with Mattityahu. Why would it be possible that Luke would shift to Neri rather than Koniyahu?

Well again, the shift may have happened because of the sins of Koniyahu. If this last explanation holds up, it would verify that regardless of which way the student accepts the two genealogies (in terms of which one was of Miryam and which one was of Yosef), both options manifestly prove that YESHUA had a legal and legitimate right to the throne of David from both the ancestry of Yosef and Miryam.

The Reality

The essence of this short presentation is that correctly, in His flesh, YESHUA was A Son of Adam, A Son of Noah (Noach in the Hebrew), A Son of Abraham (Avraham in the Hebrew), A Son of Isaac (Yitzhak in the Hebrew), A Son of Israel (perhaps the best transliteration of this name from the Hebrew is Yisrael, but Israel is so close that this study will sometimes use that presentation), A Son of Yehudah, A Son of David, A Son of Solomon (Shlomo in the Hebrew), A Son of Coniah (Koniyahu in the Hebrew) and A Son of Zerubbabel (Zerubavel in the Hebrew).

Per the flesh, He is assuredly entitled to the throne of David. And amazingly, in the flesh, He was and is An ADAMITE.

Thus, in the context of numerous New Testament uses, He was The SON OF ADAM and not just a son of man. This genealogical reality is brought out in the Greek NT where the Greek word “anthropos” is used to describe Him in the vein of being The SON OF ADAM. Tragically, the KJV renders these texts as the son of man (Matt 8:20 etc). But manifestly, He was The SON OF ADAM--in the flesh (I Cor 15:45).

By the way, this expression the “son of Adam” (Hebrew “ben Adham”) is used some 93 times in the book of Ezekiel where the KJV translates it as the son of man (“Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,” v. 1, p. 81). With this Hebrew background, there is no doubt but that the NT should reflect SON OF ADAM, rather than the son of man for YESHUA.

This distinction between man and Adam will be discussed at some length in succeeding chapters. The difficulty arises because in the pagan sun worship cultures, there was no distinction between Adam and man. As will be pointed out later, Adam is a proper noun name of a particular male person out of the overall, generic classification of man.

Yet, for the OT, the KJV and most English translations render Adam as man. This causes enormous confusion and especially in addressing YESHUA--Who was not a son of man (by an identifying title); but was, in fact, The SON OF ADAM. The Greek NT causes confusion here as well because the Greek uses the word “anthropos,” which is the general Greek word used to translate the Hebrew Adam.

The Greek anthropos could conceivably have (and probably does have) a broader meaning even beyond Adam (like possibly with the Hebrew enosh), but its primary focus and use seems to be upon Adam. Thus, the reality is that YESHUA was The SON OF ADAM and not just a son of man.

This is an important distinction because in subsequent chapters, the point will be established that in the worship of virtually all of the old sun cults, the mythological sun god was worshipped as “a son of man.” Assuredly, there is no reason to confuse and attempt to blend YESHUA (as The SON OF ADAM) in with the sun god, who was worshipped as a son of man.

Finally, as conclusively established in the Scriptures, YESHUA was The SON OF EL (Isa 9:6; Matt 1:23; 12:18; Lu 4:18). He was conceived by The SPIRIT OF EL--The RUACH HA KODESH (Matt 1:23; Lu 1:32, 35, 42; Jo 1:12-14).

Thus, Spiritually and in His Spirit, He was The SON OF EL and EL in the flesh with us, as will be discussed and conclusively proven in chapters hereafter (Ps 50:3; Isa 7:14; 25:8-9; 35:4; 40:9; Jo 3:13; 6:38; 8:23; I Cor 15:47; I Tim 3:16).

His Physical Appearance and Evident Genes

While YESHUA’s physical appearance in the flesh is somewhat unimportant since His followers categorically should not be attempting to make and worship images of Him (per Ex 20:4), there are some genetic facts worth mentioning here in the context of His genealogy. Actually, Shlomo’s Song of Songs gives a most vivid description of YESHUA as the lover of the Shulamite, who was symbolic of His coming bride.

Of most significance, YESHUA assuredly had black hair (SofS 5:11) which will prove to be interesting in later chapters herein in discussions on race and the genetic origin of black hair in humans. The rest of the Song gives still more relevant details of His physical appearance. Otherwise, John 8:57 offers a curious little remark about Him.

The MESSIAH was born about 5 BCE; was baptized in about 26 CE; and was impaled in about 30 CE; as will be established in a later chapter on chronology. When the Judeans in John 8:57 approached YESHUA, they noted that He was not yet 50 years old. Since He was in fact only a little over 30, this remark suggests that He appeared to be older than He was to induce the Judeans to make this observation.

The European Connection

As will be described in later comments, there have been various accounts by enemies of truth to deny YESHUA’s life story, as essentially taught by Christendom for the last 2,000 years. These persons have tried to destroy or at least raise questions about the legitimacy of the NT writings and particularly of the several records which describe YESHUA’s death and resurrection to life and later ascendancy to heaven.

In modern times, one of the theories advanced by these enemies of truth and the NT writings is that YESHUA did exist and that with His impalement, He swooned or faked death and was rescued by His disciples and restored to health.

Thereupon, He supposedly left Palestine and relocated to France where he married some woman (evidently Miryam Magdalene or one of the other NT women) and sired a line of kings (per one modern theory floating around in some circles).

Of course, this explanation just does not hold any water--at least, from the viewpoint of the Scriptures--both the OT and the NT. Manifestly, He had a profoundly more important role to play than merely siring a line of kings in Europe. In short, this supposition is all bunk and can be discounted.

Some Siblings

But the mention of this theory opens the door to a related belief which could have some merit and deserves at least a measure of consideration. To broach this interesting idea, it is necessary to recognize that YESHUA had some brothers and sisters--in the flesh (Matt 13:55-56; Mk 6:3; Acts 1:14).

Specifically, four brothers are named in the NT, plus some “sisters” in the plural (suggesting at least two or more of them).

The famous Yakov (Jacob in OT English translations or James in NT English translations), one of the leaders of the NT Apostolic Assembly and writer of the book of James (Acts 15:13, discussed formerly), and Yehudah, the writer of the book of Jude, are both accepted in Christianity as being fleshly brothers of The MESSIAH (I Cor 15:7; Jas 1:1; Jude 1:1).

Of course, the Scriptural record suggests that these physical brethren were technically half brothers and not full brothers, in the strict sense. Assuredly, they were born of Yosef and Miryam sometime after the birth of YESHUA (Who was Miryam’s first-born). As noted in the preceding commentary, Yakov’s burial ossuary was supposedly found in Palestine in the fall of 2002--allowing that he may have died there in about 63 CE.

While it is clear that Yakov and Yehudah both probably had major roles to play in the developing Apostolic Assembly and can be accounted for in that context, it is unclear what happened to the other siblings.

In any case, this NT reality creates the background for a discussion by well known Israeli author Barry Chamish. He was on the “Dreamland” radio program on February 4, 2001, when he was interviewed by Whitley Strieber. Barry offered his belief on the future of these brothers and sisters of YESHUA (which supposedly has some documentary support).

Chamish said that there were five brothers (YESHUA only had four brothers, but Chamish might have included YESHUA in this configuration as well) and two sisters and that they relocated to France and commenced or intermarried with French royalty.

This Israeli author then went on to say that this lineage of the French kings (called the Merovingians by some scholars) laid the groundwork for the later, so-called, “divine” rights of the kings (which came to permeate the mentality of European royalty for ages).

Subsequent chapters herein will address the monarchy of Europe and the throne of David in some detail. There is no intent to cover those themes here in this discussion.

Per the research of the writer of this study at hand, the best option would be that “some” (possibly not all, since Yakov and Yehudah seem accounted for in the work of the Apostolic Assembly in Palestine) of YESHUA’s fleshly brethren may have relocated to Britain or Europe and may have intermarried with European royalty. This option is not totally out of the question. It will be more fully explored in later chapters.

Importantly, Barry Chamish offered some more of his research on this family which is most fascinating. He claims that these brethren or some of their later colleagues brought with them some valuable scrolls to France about the time of the Roman wars.

The scrolls covered two main points--some history of the true Apostolic Assembly and the separate Roman Catholic Church (to be assessed in later chapters on Christian history), and some duplication or clarification of the stored treasures outlined in the copper scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will also be covered in a later chapter herein). The history of these valuable scrolls will be covered in the later chapters.

Back to the Shulamite

Returning to the Shulamite, noted above, there is some interesting background on this beautiful young woman--who King Solomon (Shlomo in the Hebrew) wanted, but could not have.

She is first mentioned in I Kings as Abishag (Avishag in the Hebrew), the Shunammite (both the Shulamites and Shunammites were female inhabitants of Shunem [“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 883], and thus, would appear to be the same persons, but with some question over the spelling).

It seems that when David became ill, just before dying at age 70, his helpers decided that a most beautiful and enticing young virgin girl would be the solution to improve his health and give him a new lease on life (I Kg 1:3-15).

But David died without knowing the girl. With his death, David’s son Adonijah (Adoniyah in the Hebrew) concluded that he wanted her. So he asked Bathsheba (Bat-Sheva in the Hebrew) to be his emissary to approach Shlomo with his wish (I Kg 2:17).

Shlomo became very angry with his brother’s request. Hence, he ordered Adoniyah slain that day (I Kg 2:24)--ostensibly because Adoniyah’s desire suggested that he had his eyes set upon taking over David’s throne. Obviously, Adoniyah’s request badly upset Sholomo.

But another profound reason for Shlomo’s anger is brought out in the Song. Shlomo evidently wanted the girl himself--but could not have her since she had been pledged to his father David (and allegorically to David’s Son YESHUA).

Finally, some Christians wish to believe that she was a Black woman (in view of SofS 1:5). Black, in that instance (in the KJV), comes from the Hebrew shacor--meaning that she was not a natural black; but rather, dark and swarthy from the sun (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” p. 2). Actually, she was a white woman in race, as outlined in SofS 1:5 and 7:6 (where fair comes from the Hebrew yaphah, meaning white).

Chapter 5--The Birth of YESHUA

Christmas and New Year’s Day

A succeeding chapter herein will address the question of the Christian obsession over Christmas and New Year’s Day. There is no intent to begin to cover this theme at this stage of discussing the background on YESHUA.

As will be described in some detail in the later chapter, there is an enormous amount of depravity associated with the popular Christian holidays of Christmas and New Years. If the reader has never broached this condition before, then by all means, the coming discussion on Christmas and New Year’s Day will establish the great evil associated with these occasions.

Suffice to say, both of these Christian festivals are totally and completely sun worship holidays (known as the Saturnalia festival in ancient Rome). Yes, they came from the ancient sun worship cults and were merely carried forward into Christendom. Manifestly, neither of these days or festive times has anything whatsoever to do with the birth of The MESSIAH, as adequately described in the New Testament.

The Birth of YESHUA

Therefore, the next question at hand needing attention must be on a determination of the birth of The MESSIAH--since Christendom is so obsessed with the heathen Christmas occasion That question is easy to answer!

Just before the Passover event in Jerusalem one year, Luke said that YESHUA "turned or became" twelve years old (as pointed out to me by Jacob Hawkins of Odessa, Texas, years ago)--or entered into His 12th year, per the Greek word "egeneto" in Luke 2:42 (see the “Concordant Literal New Testament translation” on this for a good rendition).

This Greek word "egeneto" means "to come into existence, to be born, to arise, come on, to take place, come to pass, happen, occur, to be done, to be fulfilled, to come into a particular state, etc" (per "The Analytical Greek Lexicon"). Thus, it might be that He completed 11 years and commenced or entered His 12th year (which would be consistent with the chronology of those years, as will be covered in later chapters).

Clearly, His birthday must have happened as His family was going up to Jerusalem to observe the annual, spring, Passover celebration (Lu 2:41), a religious festival prescribed by The HIGHEST (Ex 12; Lev 23); rather than being pagan in nature, as is true with both the winter Saturnalia and spring Easter festivals (Easter will be described in later chapters).

The Passover festival occurs on Aviv 14. So Yosef, Miryam and the family were probably in transit to Jerusalem around Aviv 10th (Lu 2:41-42)--which likely is when YESHUA was born--since that day was the day when the Passover lamb was selected for killing (Ex 12:3).

The Sixth Month

There is mention of a sixth month in Luke 1:26, in terms of Miryam’s pregnancy. But it is not totally clear what this means with some thought and analysis. This sixth month remark could be to the then applicable luni-solar calendar; thus suggesting that YESHUA was born following an intercalcary year; or it could have relevance in terms of the cycle of the priesthood as some students of the Book have alleged.

If Miryam’s pregnancy occurred in the sixth month of a regular year, a normal nine-month pregnancy would allow YESHUA’s birth in the third month of the next year. Or if in an intercalcary year, the birth should have been in the second month, unless it was a premature birth at eight months--which would then allow Him to have been born at Passover, as happened.

If the pregnancy was full term in an intercalcary year, then it stands to reason that Miryam became pregnant in the fifth month of the year for her delivery nine months later at Passover. If the visit of the messenger from the EL happened on the first day of the sixth month, then she must have already been pregnant. But that is not the implication in Luke. Luke seems to say that she became pregnant in the sixth month.

If she did become pregnant in the sixth month of an intercalcary year, it means that His birth was premature. Thus, the sixth month idea possibly may not be the sixth month of the then luni-solar calendar. Indeed, it may refer to the priestly cycle in the Temple.

Sardis Confusion and Misinformation

Over the years, a number of Sardis people (who will be defined and identified in later chapters herein) have taken the sixth month to indeed mean the priestly cycle in the Temple (which was a rotational cycle of which group of priests would work in the Temple during the year).

In terms of the priest Zekharyah, his cycle was of the house or order of Abijah (Aviyah in the Hebrew, Lu 1:5-23) which was supposedly six months before Miryam’s pregnancy (Lu 1:36-56).

From this alleged priestly cycle determination, these misinformed Sardis people concluded years ago that YESHUA was born in the fall at or near Sukkot. But this calculation is predicated upon a regular occurring of the priestly cycles in a normal luni-calendar year of twelve months.

Obviously, when the intercalcary year of thirteen months occurred (which usually came about every third year) it threw the cycle out of balance. So, during an intercalcary year, the priests seem to have continued their rotational turns in the Temple. But “when” they performed their duties would have changed periodically during the intercalcary years.

What this means is that over the 480 plus years following the Babylonian exile, the priestly cycle in the Temple had been changed considerably to allow a given priestly group to work at a number of different times in the Temple during the various years involved in their work.

Incidentally, while it is possible to calculate the actual cycle with a determination of the intercalcary years involved, the Sardis people never attempt this process with their misinformed and incorrect assumptions. Thus, Sardis might could have calculated this thing out to determine truth. But they are ignorant of the process and how it worked. So they never attempt to reconcile the cycles to truth.

Regardless of when Miryam did become pregnant, and the length of her pregnancy, it does not dispute the near Passover birth for YESHUA. And in fact, it may well support it, depending upon all of the factors associated with Miryam’s pregnancy and whether she was pregnant before the sixth month and whether she carried her baby for a full nine months or what.

Winter is Out

This whole event was sufficiently described elsewhere by Luke (2:1-8) to completely rule the winter out. For example, the shepherds were out in the fields, watching their flocks at night at His birth. In the dead of winter, at the winter solstice (Dec 22d), the sheep are largely penned up in Palestine. They are taken to the fields for pasturage with the arrival of spring.

Also, at spring time, the shepherds stay out all night with their flocks, watching them carefully because this was the time of the birthing of the lambs. Manifestly, this prevailing condition in Palestine completely rules Christmas out for YESHUA’s birth. Moreover, see Luke 3:21-23 where YESHUA became 30 years old at Passover time, which likewise goes on to establish His birth near Passover time.

Chapter 6--The Death of YESHUA

When YESHUA Died

The preceding chapter outlined the birth of YESHUA just before Passover one year--probably on Aviv 10. As will be calculated in a later chapter on the Sign of YESHUA, it is a very easy procedure to determine that He died on Aviv 14, the day when the Passover lambs were slain. Since the Word outlines at least six of the Passovers in His life, it is an ascertainable process to determine the years of His birth and death.

YESHUA’s first Passover happened when he turned or became twelve years of age, as discussed in the former chapter (Lu 2:41-42). Although the Word does not define it precisely at Passover, the next one in the Book had to occur when YESHUA was baptized by Yohanan in his 30th year (Lu 2:23).

But YESHUA’s public ministry did not commence until He underwent the 40 days fast and trial in the desert, selected some of His disciples and returned to the Galilee, where there was still some more delay before His ministry commenced (per His comments, at the marriage in Cana of Galilee--Jo 2:4).

The next mention of a Passover happened in John 2:13, which must have the Passover one year later, after His baptism. Since YESHUA’s ministry was destined to last a total of three and one-half years (per Dan 9:26-27), this suggests that YESHUA’s public ministry started in the fall (surely at Sukkot), following His baptism.

Thus, He was baptized at Passover one year. Next, He underwent the fast of 40 days and did the several things as cited above. Like He told His mother at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, His time (surely for His public ministry) had not yet arrived (Jo 2:4).

And when did His public ministry start? Well, Luke seems to have recorded it when He went into the synagogue at Nazareth and stood up to read the Word (Lu 4:16). This event must have happened at Sukkot, as the context in Luke suggests. It kicked off YESHUA’s public ministry which was to last three and one-half years.

Yohanan cites two more Passovers in YESHUA’s life (Jo 6:4; 11:55). The one at John 11:55 became His last one--when He ate of the Passover the night before His execution (Matt 26:2-19; Mk 14:1-16; Lu 22:1-125; Jo 12:1-13:1).

30 CE

While the exact year of YESHUA’s birth is more complicated, the year of His death can more easily be established. Most Christian chronologists and students of the Word have placed His death in 30 CE. A few groups, and this includes the confused Sardis people, have tried to argue for His death in 31 CE to 33 CE. But these efforts all lack scholarly support. Thus, they are mere guesses.

Subsequent chapters herein will offer a full explanation of why astronomically YESHUA did die in 30 CE (because modern man has calculated the actual astronomical conditions and even the Jewish calendar in existence in the first century CE). In the period of 26 to 34 CE, only 30 CE fits all of the needs for the year of YESHUA’s death.

Obviously, if He died in 30 CE, and if His baptism happened four years earlier, it puts His baptism in 26 CE and His birth thirty years earlier in about 5 BCE. These dates will be further tied to Daniel’s prediction of a 483-year cut-off in a later chapter. Suffice to say, they seem to have sufficient support to now be accepted. At least, His death date is firm while some questions may remain on His birth.

How YESHUA Died

Many students of the Word have read the various descriptions of the death of The MESSIAH and how horribly He suffered in His foreordained destiny. But since it is so important in the scheme of things, a brief review of its basics will be outlined at this time.

In the first place, He stayed up all night (after the Passover supper on Aviv 14th) and was never allowed any opportunity for sleep or rest during the next several hours of His trial all that night until He was impaled the following morning at around 9 AM on Passover day.

Too, it might be said that while He was in the garden praying that night (just before His arrest), He was under great duress, agony and torment.

From the point of His arrest, He was regularly mocked, ridiculed, spit upon, accused, beat, struck with rods while blindfolded and suffered emotional and mental distress and sorrow during the night and while being separately tried by Yosef Caiaphas (who was high priest 18-36 CE and who died around the age of 60), the Sanhedrin, Herod Antipas and the Roman Governor Pilate.

The Intermediate Death

With Pilate’s pronouncements of judgment on two separate occasions, YESHUA’s punishment was to intensify under the Roman soldiers. As a preliminary, He was scoured (stripped naked and bound and then lashed severely with a flagellum--a device with a small round wooden handle which had attached several strips of leather cords or thongs with pieces of metal or bone in the ends of the leather strips).

These beatings were called “the intermediate death” because the suffering was so intense with the victim being cut and lacerated severely with the bits of metal and bone.

J. D. Davis, in his “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 278), mentions that “The Christian martyrs at Smyrna about A. D. 155 were so torn with the scourges that their veins were laid bare, and the inner muscles and sinews and even the bowels, were exposed.”

The ANOINTED ONE was next taken into the praetorian for more abuse. There, a purple robe was put on His body and a crown of thorns was shoved or mashed upon His head to further cut, perforate and lacerate His skull. At some point in time, His beard was forcibly pulled out (as will be described in a following chapter).

Golgotha

With the final sentence of death, He left the Antonio Fortress on foot, carrying His Own death stake up the sharp ascent (growing weak as He struggled--Ps 109:24) for the rest of the Mount Moriah complex to reach His destiny at Golgotha (Aramaic, meaning the “Place of the Skull”). By the time that He arrived, just before 9 AM or so, He must have been a bloody mess from all of the torture and punishment.

The soldiers divided His clothes by lot, and at about 9 AM, they carried out their instructions and nailed Him to the stake between two robbers also executed that morning. Words cannot begin to express the incredible horror, agony, pain and suffering which a person would go through when executed by impalement (nailed to a stake or pole).

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” (v. II. p.761) says that “The suffering... was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated by the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained position of the body and insufferable thirst.

“The wounds swelled about the rough nails and the torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific, throbbing headache ensued... The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths.

“Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death.”

While hanging in agony and great suffering on the death instrument, people came by to see Him and to join in with the soldiers to sneer, ridicule, curse and torment Him. Near noon, that Passover day, darkness came on the land. By 3 PM, He died as a soldier thrust a spear into Him from which blood and water came forth.

The Cause of Death

So, how did YESHUA die? Many scholars have debated the precise reason with some even suggesting that He died of a broken or ruptured heart--perhaps from His agony of prayer in the garden on the Mount of Olives when He actually sweated blood.

However, the Scriptural evidence is most convincing. He literally bled to death! He was The PASSOVER LAMB (Jo 1:29; I Cor 5:7) and the Passover lamb had to die by being bled to death (Ex 12:6-13).

Life is in the blood and it takes a shedding of blood to pay for sin (Lev 17:11). Matthew 27:49, in part, suggested a final shedding of blood before YESHUA died (see Isa 53:7, 12; Matt 26:26-28; Acts 20:28; I Cor 15:3; I Pet 1:19; Rev 1:5; 5:9). Matthew 27:49 (with the blood citation) is in many English translations; but apparently, left out of and missing from the KJV.

Why YESHUA Died?

Along with the horrible implications of the physical death of YESHUA The MESSIAH, there are some fantastic elements of truth associated with why He died and the conspiracy of several different people and factions in producing His murder or execution.

Yes, strangely enough, there was a conspiracy among a host of important Judeans in the Jerusalem area to demand His murder. The Word broaches this conspiracy with some profound revelations (Ps 2:2; 22:15-20). The murderers are identified and the details of this conspiracy will be described in subsequent chapters herein on the Murderers of YESHUA.

Moreover, there are likewise some profound revelations associated with why YESHUA really had to die. As in the case of the murderers and the conspiracy to kill Him, this issue of “why” will be elaborated upon in these future chapters herein. The why is absolutely astounding.

The Christian Ideas

The torture and death of YESHUA The MESSIAH is horrible beyond description. Certainly, this writer is too limited to ever begin to address its reality and implications.

Of course, the collective Christian Church has made enormous use of this event as the cardinal point of its theology, in the sense that The MESSIAH died so that Christians can be forgiven of their sins without any trial, trouble or effort--beyond experiencing Christian baptism or accomplishing some act of work like standing up in a meeting, running down a church aisle or merely saying the words “I believe.”

The first important Christian belief is the idea that the Christian “Jesus” died on a cross of two boards--which will be addressed at some length in the following chapter. Paintings, crucifixes, signs and images have been used in Christendom for ages to depict this Christian theology.

Beyond the presence of the cross, there are substantially more ideas predominant in Christian circles about how the Christian “Jesus” physically appeared on that Christian cross.

For example, the Christian “Jesus” is typically shown as being clothed with only a simple, white-colored, loin cloth about his hips and private parts. He likewise is almost always shown with long hair (usually in an auburn or brown color) on his head and with the crown of thorns, as is described in the above commentary.

Of course, the Christian concept also involves a very White man (in skin color) with a beard. The Christian figure almost always seems extremely effeminate and indeed weak and lacking in terms of physical physique and appearance.

These Christian ideas have come to be fetish idols as many Christians pray to and worship their images, pictures and figurines prepared over the ages to depict this personage.

Yes, you can go into almost any Catholic Church and find crucifixes and images of the Christian “Jesus” hanging on a cross. Many of the worshippers come to the Christian Churches where they pray to and worship these images, pictures, statues, signs, etc., as will be addressed in later chapters hereafter.

But Questions Arise

First, it’s hard to associate the appearance of the Christian “Jesus” with the New Testament YESHUA, as described in some detail throughout this publication. For example, He appeared to be almost fifty years old; when, in fact, He was only in His early thirties.

He was raised as a carpenter in the sun. He had been exposed to much hard physical work out of doors. Though He was assuredly a White man (as is proven in chapters hereafter), He had Black hair and manifestly had some sun burn or sun tanning and coloring of His skin--particularly in terms of His face, arms and hands.

Truly, He had had a beard in life because the Torah which He lived and existed under required men to wear a beard (as will be proven and addressed in later chapters herein). Yes, it was and indeed is presently a sin for a man to shave and destroy his beard.

YESHUA obeyed the Torah in all of His life. But this reality was unwillingly altered on the day of His execution, as will be proven in the following chapters.

But importantly, He did not have long hair. His hair was polled or cut because it is a shame and sin for a man to have long hair (as will also be addressed and proven in subsequent chapters hereafter). The question of His clothing and dress will likewise be addressed at some length in a following chapter.

Suffice to say, His appearance on the stake that day in history was not at all like Christianity has theorized, painted and depicted over the centuries.

Developing Christian Myth

What has happened over the ages is that the Christian Church has developed and perpetuated a series of myths about The New Testament MESSIAH which simply are false and lack Scriptural support. These myths have been transformed into Christian ideology and beliefs which are extremely strong and pervasive within the Christian community.

It isn’t only that these myths exist within Catholicism; but it is also factual that they are just as prevalent within the Protestant world.

The following chapters will prove the existence of these myths and the tragedy that has ensued because Christianity has so ferociously taught them to the masses of people.