They Shalt Call His Name, Immanuel, God With Us, Not Jesus!

In The Name Of Jesus?

Copyright 2012 VVeasey Publishing

07/11/12

If you've never studied the history of the Bible, not the history in the Bible, but the history of how the Bible came into existence, who wrote it, when and why and for what purpose and you believe that everything you read in the Bible is absolutely true. You probably don't want to examine your beliefs to see if they are true, but defend and protect them from what may be true. They're not to be examined or analyzed, but swallowed whole-hog and passed down to the next generation and kept alive.

I don't mean any harm by that...that's just the way I see it.

Sooooo...if you don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes to the Bible. You might want to change the channel, no...please change the channel, because this hub is probably not for you.

That said

Now! I'm just a country boy who when he sees something that looks kinda funny or out of place, that's supposed to fit together like a puzzle but doesn't. Makes me want to take a closer look at it. Yeah...yeah...I know...curiosity killed the cat! I ain't no cat! So I ain't worried...at least...not much! So don't get your boy wrong! I don't have nothing against the Bible or my boy, Jesus.

I just like shining the light on some of the things I've been told all my life were true, to see if they are true, or just ingrained beliefs or non-sense, that we've all learned to believe as starry-eyed little kids! I'm bout ta shine my light on one of those things below right now.

A Scripture That's Puzzling

Here's a scripture that kinda puzzles me. "But while he (Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us". Matt 1:20-23

This is the verse that Christian clergy, theologians and emperors have used over the centuries to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah and born of a virgin. The quote is from the Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah, who is said to be referring to Jesus' birth hundreds of years later.

Issiah's Scripture

Now lets take a look at Issiah's actual scripture to see what he said: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah" 7:14. (Immanuel or Emmanuel are different spellings of the same name, are interchangeable, and mean the same thing)

Now I'm a country boy and all that and a simple-minded fellow, but I can see a couple a two thangs wrong with this scenario.

First... The Hebrew word "almah." translated as virgin, means a young woman of marriageable age, maiden or newly married." When Hebrew scholars, translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek Bible called the Septuagint ,in 200 BC. They translated the Hebrew word "almah" using the Greek word "parthenos meaning virgin.This meaning was eventually translated into Latin and English bibles.

Jesus' mother, Mary, was obviously a virgin before she became pregnant, but she probably became pregnant before she was married, and this virgin birth story was created as a cover story to hide the fact that she was pregnant and not married, which was not a cool thing for a unmarried "woman" to be (she was probably 13 or 14 yrs old) back in those days, in that culture. That's why the writer has the angel say "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". because she was already pregnant! And Joseph wasn't the father. So the writer has to hide it by having, Mary, being impregnated by a ghost, by a spirit! Can't have the "Son Of God" or contradictorily "God In The Flesh" being born out of wedlock now can we?

Don't mean any harm, but all the kinder gardeners who believe Mary was impregnated by a ghost (spirit)...even a "holy" ghost.. raise your hands!


Impregnated By A Ghost?

Now here's the second problem that this ole country boy's simple mind sees with this dang story. The writer of Matthew shoots himself in the foot!

First he says "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS". But then he quotes Isaiah who says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

Wait! Did cha get that?

The angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, and tells him to name the child Jesus; but Isaiah says the Lord himself will give a sign and the child's name shall be Emmanuel which means God with us! (This is where the idea that Jesus is God in the flesh comes from)

Wow!

Now I may be stupid but I ain't crazy! How in tar-nation can this prophecy be referring to the Jesus we all know and love? If it was...shouldn't his name be Emmanuel (God with us) "God In the flesh" instead of Jesus? Jesus (Yeshua) means God (Yahweh) saves, not "God with us.

See the difference?

Joseph was told by the angel of the lord to name the child, Jesus. But Isaiah said the Lord himself says the child shall be named Emmanuel! I ain't too bright but I do know this! If the Lord himself tells you to do something, that trumps anything an angel of lord is telling you to do in a dream, don't you agree?

Aaaah...but true believers probably won't have a problem with these contradictory versions of what the Lord and an angel of lord said and will find a way to excuse it. Because their beliefs are more important to them than the truth!


Trying To Match Up Two Different Stories

Isaiah was written hundreds of years before Matthew and was held in great esteem. That why newly converted pagan Roman Catholic priests wrote this verse, in an attempt to convince the Jewish clergy and intellectual elites, that their newly created god-man, Jesus, was the prophesied Messiah, referred to in Isaiah. That's why Matthew says "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" He's blatantly telling you why he's writing that. But this was hundreds of years after the prophet wrote his scripture.

They were trying to match it up with what Isaiah wrote to legitimize their writings about Jesus being the Messiah. And from the looks of all those who believe it...they did a bang-up job!
But the Jews didn't accept Jesus then and don't accept him now and with good reason.Their Messiah' name is Emmanuel, God with us! Not Jesus.

Let's take a slight detour. Here's another interesting thing you may not know. There was more than one Christ.


Many Messiahs!

"Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: Isaiah 45:1 (English Standard Version) Isaiah said that the Persian King, Cyrus, is the Lord's anointed, that he is the Lord's Christ! Gaaaalee! Did cha know that?

Here's the meaning of Christ "Christ: learned respelling of Middle English, Old English Crīst fromLatin, Chrīstus from Greek, chrīstos anointed, translation of Hebrew māshīaḥ anointed, Messiah" (Dictionary.com), Christ and Messiah mean the something: the anointed of God or anointed by God.

This is kindaaaaa looking like the Messiah, doesn't have to be Jewish to be a Messiah, as long as he's anointed by God, doesn't it? All the ancient kings of Israel were Messiahs or Christs.They were the anointed of God.During their coronation their heads were anointed with holy oil by the high priest to signify that they were chosen by God, the ultimate authority, to be Kings.

So you see, Jesus wasn't the first or only Christ or Messiah as we've all been mislead to believe. To the Jews, he wasn't a Messiah or a Christ at all. He was only the Messiah of the Roman Christian clergy, who tried to pass him off to the Jewish clergy as the Messiah they expected to come, but they weren't buying it.

The expected Messiah was to be a Warrior-King who would free them from Roman bondage, the way the Messiah, Persian King, Cyrus, freed the Jews before them, from Babylonian captivity. Or like Moses, the Messiah, who although not a king was chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery. Or like Moses' right hand man, Joshua, (Yeshua/Jesus) who was the first Jesus, who led the Israelites into the promised land of Canaan.

The concept of the Messiah originated in the Old Testament, and the later concept of Christ was derived from it. That's why during the Roman period, the fledgling Christian cult, had to be shored up by the Roman Christian clergy by connecting it to the much older and more established Israelite/Jewish religious book,The Hebrew Bible.The Christian clergy renamed it and turned it into the Old Testament when they added it to their newly created New Testament writings, to create the, Latin Vulgate, the first Christian Bible.

So who is the Messiah? Emmanuel or Jesus? Isaiah says the very Lord himself said his name shall be called Emmanuel!






Son Of the fish

But First, before we continue, let me say this,

If you don't like the smell or taste of what I’m cooking

Pleeeease change the channel…Because this hub is not for You!

When the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament" was translated in to Greek in 200 BC and renamed, The Septuagint. Yeshua (Joshua) the son of Nun (Mose's right hand man, who actually led the Children of Israel into, Canaan, the promised land) name was transliterated to Ieous.This was the first time that the name that would eventually end up in English as, Jesus, appears in history. Yeshua (Hebrew) to Ieous (Greek) to Iesus (Latin) to Jesus (English)

The Septuagint was the Bible of the Greek speaking Orthodox Jews in Egypt and Early Christians, among whom many were Jews.When the early Christians read the name, Ieous the son of Nun, they knew that this was referring to Joshua the son of Nun, who led the Children of Israel into the promised land of Canaan.

When the New Testament was written it was written in Greek...and the name used to refer to Jesus was…you guessed it, Ieous! Now, when these early Christians saw the name, Ieous, who do you think they immediately thought of ?

Here’s another interesting thing about Yeshua. Nun means fish!

Yeshua son of the fish or in English, Jesus son of the fish!

Now, don’t everybody raise your hands at the same time. But what was the sign of the early Christians? The fish! Right again! You get the Golden cookie!

The first disciples were fisherman. Jesus said he’d make them fishers of men. Can't cha see how all of this ties in with the first Jesus, Yeshua the son of Nun? If you can’t…what’s wrong with your eyes?




Yeshua The Savior

But wait! There’s more!

Yeshua means Yahweh saves, Yahweh is salvation.Hummmm…anybody seeing what I’m seeing? Yep that’s right! Salvation, savior...Yeshua the son of Nun was the original Biblical, Savior! Yeshua lived a thousand years or more before the Jesus of the New Testament was supposedly born (or as some historians say, was created).

Don’t cha think that when the early Greek speaking Christians saw the name Ieous in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, they thought this was referring to Yeshua the son of the Nun?

The King James Bible

The reason, many of you, probably don’t know this or want to believe it, or even consider it, is because when the King James Bible version of the Bible, was created in1600 Ad. The Latin name for the savior,Iesus, (used in the Latin Vulgate Catholic Bible ) was translated into English as Jesus.That's why, the only accepted and recognized name for the English speaking Christians for Yeshua, is Jesus.

The King James translators, wanted to keep a clear distinction between Jesus and Yeshua. That's another reason, you may not know that Yeshua was the original Jesus.They didn’t want people to start thinking…getting any funny ideas…that there was a connection between their Jesus and the Hebrew Yeshua. Because people might start putting two and two together…we can’t have that now can we!


Emmanuel/Immanuel

How does all of this tie into Emmanuel?

Yeshua was the original model for Jesus. He was the original savior, as his name in Hebrew shows. Yeshua, meaning Yahweh saves or Yahweh is salvation.Yahweh means God. God saves or is salvation, implies that Yeshua is intimately connected to God, and is a part of God.Yeshua is the savior, God in the flesh, God with us.

This is what the later Roman Christians would imply about Jesus. Yeshua is connected to Emmanuel and they appear to be the same, both of them are, God with us in the flesh. So there you have it. Love it, lump it, like it, or hate it...do what you want with it.

I'm just stating how it, looks to me, and exercising my freedom of thought, and freedom of speech about it. But there’s no room, for freedom of speech or freedom of thinking, for die hard religious believers, whether they be Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists etc., when it comes to anything that may impinge on their religious beliefs. If they profess to believe in freedom of speech and thought, they quickly draw the line at the Bible, and definitely, draw the line at any free thought, or critical speech about Jesus (I think Jesus can take care of himself)

If your freedom of speech or thought, goes against their cherished beliefs.They will angrily and or hostilely attack you, and try to convince you, that you’re wrong and only they are right.

If you don't like the smell or taste of what I’m cooking. Pleeeease Turn the channel…Because this hub is not for You!

I mean that in a kind way!


Is Jesus The Real Messiah?

More by this Author


Comments 13 comments

Amethystraven profile image

Amethystraven 4 years ago from California

It's sounding like Emmanuel was the Messiah. Why did the writer not notice that? The way the Bible is interpreted is quite interesting. I am still reading Ezekiel. I wish I could go back in time and watch how the Bible was created. Understanding Hebrew would be necessary. When writings are interpreted into different languages, words and sometimes even whole phrases left out. Weather it's to cover up something, or certain words don't translate from one language to another, a lot gets lost in translation.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Amethystraven

Yep certain words don't translate well, that's why you can check words with a bible dictionary or concordance. Or even a collegiate level dictionary.

For instance, from the hebrew, Yeshua, was transliterated into the Greek, Ieous in the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible in Greek (the old testament).

When the Roman Catholic Christians took over Christianity in 4th century AD, Ieous, was translated into the latin, Iesus, in the first Christian Bible, the Latin Vulgate. And last but not least, in 1600 AD, when King James had the Bible translated into English , the I in lesus was changed to a J, and became Jesus.

It was 500 years before the name Jesus was created and spoken in English.

So what's name was Jesus called by when he was alive? Since he supposedly lived hundreds of years before the English Bible was created, I don't think he was called by or answered to the name Jesus

So when Christians say Jesus is the only name you can be saved by they don't know it but they have a problem.


Bruce A. Beaudet profile image

Bruce A. Beaudet 4 years ago from Canada

I'm not a country boy and I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack but I know speculation when it smacks me in the face - "but she probably became pregnant before she was married."

"This is where the idea that Jesus is God in the flesh comes from" - Actually, John's Gospel puts the idea of "God in the flesh" more forcefully i.e., the logos became sarx (flesh) and made his dwelling among us.

"To the Jews, he wasn't a Messiah or a Christ at all." - The first followers of Christ were very much Jewish of which, Peter proclaimed: "You are the Christ."

"Yep certain words don't translate well, that's why you can check words with a bible dictionary or concordance. Or even a collegiate level dictionary." Or you could just check the language itself and follow the widely excepted standard process of translation.

Here's another interesting set of verses from Isaiah 53:

Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,

a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.

Like one from whom people hide their faces

he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain

and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to our own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.

Yet who of his generation protested?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered,

he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];

by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Bruce A. Beaudet

you make some good points!

You say" I'm not a country boy and I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack but I know speculation when it smacks me in the face - "but she probably became pregnant before she was married."

You state the obvious, that's why I said probably.

You say "This is where the idea that Jesus is God in the flesh comes from" - Actually, John's Gospel puts the idea of "God in the flesh" more forcefully i.e., the logos became sarx (flesh) and made his dwelling among us"

That's your opinion that, that's more forceful. But I wasn't addressing which was more forceful. I was addressing where the idea may have originated. Since Isaiah was written hundreds of years before John, I think my view is more valid than the one you put forth. I think "God with us "is forceful enough.

You say "

"Yep certain words don't translate well, that's why you can check words with a bible dictionary or concordance. Or even a collegiate level dictionary." Or you could just check the language itself and follow the widely excepted standard process of translation."

"The widely excepted standard process of translation."

Is what's in bible dictionaries, concordances etc.

Thanks for you comments


Rodney Johnson 3 years ago

The deception of the last days is darkening the truth that is Jesus. Jesus the Father Jesus the son and Jesus the Holy Spirit and all are one with in the chosen ministry given each. One that is the all powerful Godhead. You propagate a false teaching. One that contradicts all the History of the Israel old and new covenant. Every Apostle Knew Jesus and only used that One name JESUS. That was current History with Him walking the ground teaching them. The followers of the Apostles used the same names in all their writings. All one has to do is study the Apostolic fathers. So how come in this age of dark deception do one think he has found a new truth that contradicts all of scripture and History of the early Church. Even the very elect can be deceived and such as these false teachings is the living proof of it.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Rodney I appreciate where you're coming from but you don't know the history of the bible only the history in the bible.

If u think what I wrote about Jesus' name is false than you must think these bible verses are false

"But while he (Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us'". Matt 1:20-23

This scripture was written to prove Jesus was the messiah that's why Isaiah's scripture is quoted but even a blind man can see that Isaiah says the child's name shall be Emmanuel not Jesus.

This is the origin of the name Jesus

"Origin of JESUS Late Latin, from Greek Iēsous, from Hebrew Yēshūaʽ

First Known Use: before 12th century" Merriam Webster online dictionary.

If Jesus' parents spoke Greek he would have been called "Iesous" if they spoke Hebrew he would have been called "Yeshua" in English this would be "Joshua" not Jesus and comes from the translation of the Hebrew Yeshua into the various languages the bible was translated into.

When it was translated into Greek it became "Iesous" then into Latin it became Iesus. When it was translated into English it became Jesus.

The I was changed to a J that's how you get Jesus. Neither Jesus' parents or his people spoke English so his name wasn't Jesus.

Do yourself a favor get a bible concordance and look up the origin of the name Jesus also look it up in a good dictionary before you start critiquing people you disagree with because you don't know the history of Jesus' name or the bible.


Goober 3 years ago

Did ya read Isaiah just two more chapters, where he is to be named Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)... what he is to be named was many names. "She will call him" and "what name a person in the 21st century would put on a birth certificate" are not the same thing... Jesus was all the things he was "to be called" - God with Us, Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace - that his 'given name' was "Jesus" is not a contradiction to any of those.


MOE 2 years ago

GOOBER-IT SAYS HIS NAME {IMMANU EL} WILL BE CALLED...WONDERFUL,COUNSLER, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER-HIS NAME WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ISAIAH 7:14 AS IMMANU EL. IT DOES NOT SAY HE IS TO BE NAMED WONDERFUL, COUNSELER ETC. QUOTE IT CORRECTLY PLEASE.


Nibiru60 2 years ago

The etymology of the the name 'Jesus', by vveasey is completely on point and supported by many researchers in both the Christian and Judaic realms. SO, I'm not going to repeat it. However, I'd like to illuminate this issue further.

Those who serve deception will always hide their antics in 'plain sight'. This is an ancient play that has been used over and over for centuries, and to this day, because it is highly effective. The best way to sow confusion is to conceal it right under the noses of the masses. The religious leaders of that time were quite aware of Isaiah's prophesy. The Pharisees and Sadducees were NOT willing to relinquish their power within Roman politics or control of the synagogues and Hebrew people. They were threatened by the teachings of Emannu El and the best way to vilify a person is to tarnish their name.

'Yeshu' means 'may his name be blotted out/forgotten' which serves to illustrate just how far those scoundrels and thugs went to make sure the Truth would be buried under a mountain of half-Truths. That's much more effective than lying because it's that kernel of Truth which keeps the madness firmly anchored in the historical record.


Nibiru60 2 years ago

I apologise -- forgot to mention another interesting tidbit: the fact that Is ra 'el means 'slave of El'! Why would any 'god', that is THE ONE-ness of Universe and all things in Creation be interested in having any sentient beings as slaves?


keyenhancer profile image

keyenhancer 10 months ago from United States

I'm not here to argue, I'm pretty well out of my debating days, just thought I'd point out a hole or two that no one else is noticing. Though clearly, I'm not saying no one can argue with my comment. I think that is part of the beauty of our God, He is so mysterious that we cannot make sense of all His ways. The wording of the passage Mathew 1: 20 "...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Notice the word, "of" is not the same as "is". The Godhead has a hierarchy that when studied we find that God the Father sends God the Son (which is also the Angel of Lord and Jesus, the prophesied One in Isaiah) and both send God the Spirit. We know of God through the persons of God, but all are equally God. Just my wife might send me to pick up something from the store, but we're still one and equally human.

We know from Mathew 1:20 that the Holy Ghost caused Marry to conceive, what we do not know is when that child became God the Son, or Jesus. Was it at the moment the Holy Spirit made Marry conceive of child or later during the pregnancy? There are indicators that God was the child within Marry relatively quick as we see a reaction from the unborn child, John the Baptist.

Another interesting hole in this argument ignores King Nebuchadnezzar's reaction at the sight of four men within his fiery furnace.

Daniel 3: 24-25

24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?”

They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.”

25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

What's so interesting is this heathen of a man recognized the four person as the Son of God. It makes little sense for Him to be the Son of God unless we understand that God transcends time. This very strongly indicates that in the terms of the Godhead, Christ's birth was guaranteed. If this is so, then wouldn't it be well recorded for all to know? Then why is it the only major source that gives us the account is questioned? I believe the comments above do good on giving us the answer.

We also see vivid details of Jesus birth, life, death, and Resurrection in Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel, and other old Testament books. All of which link back to Emanuel (God with us). Jesus certainly fulfilled every prophecy of the old Testament, making him the only likely candidate to be God with us. He also leaves no doubt that He was either crazy or really is God.

While I certainly know much of the history of the Bible, I also know the history within the Bible. So I can say with great confidence that the Bible is self-testifying, and we really only need to know the history within the Bible to confirm the history of the Bible. Don't take my word for it, study it and learn.

Also consider this: The Apostles were ridiculed, stoned, hung, beat, nailed to a cross, imprisoned, and more for simply preaching and writing about the works of Jesus. If this was all a ploy, a trick, why not go back to your home? Why not go back to your family, your jobs, your friends, your comfort? It made little sense for them to continue down a path that led to certain death for many. And for what? To cover a birth? Again, makes little sense.

I also find it interesting how you claim to be simple-minded and yet can see this hole clearly. This almost drifts into the Ad Hominem fallacy, among others. I'm sorry but your argument is really based on the reading of a couple of passages, which is common. Too many read small bits of the Bible, believe they gained a revelation and run with it. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it does appear so from this small piece.

As a whole we need to stop trying to find approval for the things we think is right but trust in God to guide us through prayer and His word.

As a last note, simply because in English we call Him the Holy Ghost, does not mean He is a literal ghost of which we might see in a horror movie. This Ghost is God Himself but is simply identified as God the Spirit, just as God the Son and God the Father are identified as such. He is known as the Spirit most likely because it is Him the dwells in God's people, to guide and direct and move. To teach and fill us with His love. Yet He is still equally God as Jesus rightfully claims in the New Testament and as we see in various book of the old Testament. Jesus actually intertwines His Godhood so much so with that of the Holy Spirit and God the Father that He claims that by seeing Him (Jesus) we have also seen the Father.

Remember, God is not meant to be fully understood by us mortals. Just because we fail to understand something of God (such as the Trinity or His transcendence of time), does not make it any less true. In fact it should make Him more God-like, simply because in order to understand God in all His ways, we would likewise need to be all-knowing and thus gods ourselves.

(oops this was suppose to be short and only cover one thing. My bad.)


MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 5 months ago

How much was lost in translation and how much was intentionally mistranslated is the question of the day. This was a time when Rome saw the chance to build up the cult of Jesus followers and use their “bible” as a means of controlling these non-Romans.

I’m not sure that the concept of the messiah originated in the Old Testament. I believe the concept of a messiah or holy spirit was in the Kaballah, which is older than the OT; as old as dirt. The god of the OT is written by many much more learned than I as beings from the planet Niburu. (Zechariah Sitchin the Jewish scholar, for one, Von Daniken, for another) If the Romans had not used Saul/Paul as a shill, the small cult following of Jesus probably would have died out.

Of course, Mary may have been a pregnant virgin (virgin by today’s definition). Did not any woman that “God” wanted pregnant be put into a deep sleep. An "angel of the Lord” appears and tells them that they are going to have a baby. Then a cloud forms around them which puts them to sleep, and she wakes up pregnant. (Remember Elizabeth, the old woman/new mother?) We have that power, in fact, many people use in vitro fertilization to have babies today, but I don't think they are gassed before the egg is harvested, fertilized and placed back into the woman.

I have often told people that to understand the bible, one must go outside the bible. I'm glad we agree, and I hope you take my statements as an addition "outside the bible" to substantiate your points inside the bible.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 5 months ago from Detroit,MI Author

Yes! I do take your statements in that spirit!

I'm, also, very familiar with, a lot of other outside of the orthodox, biblical

researchers works, as well as, my own, outside of bible, extra biblical research.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working