HOW SELF-SERVING! This is an obvious attempt at intimidation by trying to imply a case for the charge of “antichrist” (antichristos)
against true monotheists by admitted multi-God worshipers, but the effort fails. It is a calculated twist on the passages 1Jn.2:22
and 4:2-3. I think the writer is out of touch with reality.
The truth of the matter is that the name “Jesus Christ” is not even
the true name of the Messiah. The word Christ means “anointed” and the word “Jesus” is a Latinized form of Greek Iesous that
is transliterated from the Hebrew “Yahshua” his true name, which means “Yahweh is salvation,” “Yahweh saves,” or “Yahweh delivers.”
To not know the name of the Messiah is to be in danger of not knowing his Father, Yahweh, the one Jesus stood for and represented. The name Yahshua in turn points to Yahweh as the foundation of salvation. It points away from Yahshua, something Yahshua wanted
all along. Jesus said clearly that he could do nothing without Yahweh, his father and his name testifies that salvation comes
from the Father, not the Son. Perhaps one of the reasons that Iesous Christos was selected as the “name” of the Messiah was
the trinitarian Roman Church hatred of Judaism, the Jews, and all they stood for. To create an additional “God” out of Yahshua
who saves by his own power and authority, they had to remove the New Testament reference to Yahweh through Yahshua’s name as the true
savior of believers. Yahweh saves through Yahshua. That is what is being said here. When you use “Jesus” exclusively,
you may well lose sight of the fact that Yahweh is the savior and Yahshua is his unique agent, high priest, and mediator, and wind
up unbalanced, putting greater emphasis on the messenger than should be done. And when you use “God” or Lord” exclusively, you
could easily lose sight of the direct connection between Yahweh and Yahshua, his only begotten Son.
Exactly how is God in Jesus and
Jesus in God? We have to speculate here. “If I do not do the works of my father, do not believe me; but if I do, though
you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him” (Jn.10:37-38). “He who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does
the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves”
(Jn.14:9-11).
If we are to take this passage at face value, then Jesus was possessed by a supernatural being. And conversely,
the Father was possessed by an earthly human. But we know otherwise. They are one in mind and purpose and, of course,
they are one in the sense of being father and son. This is the same way that we, as saved persons, are to spiritually be in
Christ and he in us. “Now he who keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by
the spirit whom he has given us” (1Jn.3:24). But we struggle for a clear meaning in John’s passages above. How can two
persons be mutually one in the other? Binitarians would suggest they are “one God family” of Gods while trinitarians might suggest
they are one being composed of some sort of mysterious persons. By realizing that the names of Yahweh and Yahshua are complementary
and have terms in common, we may begin to see a divine connection. Yahshua pointed to Yahweh in every facet of his earthly walk. Even the name “Yahshua” points upwards to Yahweh in testimony suggesting that Yahweh is salvation. Jesus, or Yahshua, represented
and had his being in Yahweh. They were inseparable. And they were intimate.
Some have implied that the 3rd Commandment
(do not take God’s name in vain) references to the uttering of his correct name, rather than the use of his name in a flippant manner. I disagree. This implication would make it mandatory that a particular mouthing of a particular language be law. Since
nobody knows the absolute correct sounding of YHWH, the idea fails the biblical test. Titles for God are permissible. Titles are not disrespectful. Using a title is not a “pagan” practice. We use titles today in combination with a name,
such as President George Bush. You might properly address the man as “Mr. President” but this would be a formal address. An intimate address would be “George” and if you really know the man, “Bushy” might be OK.
Using the title “Father” rather than “Yahweh”
is certainly in line with Jesus’ thoughts. He suggested we could pray, “Our Father…” in the same manner he used the title. He even used “Abba” once. “Father” is an intimate title and one that only God’s children are free to use (the title “Daddy”
is appropriate). When leading a prayer before a crowd of mixed people where many may not be God’s children, the title “Father”
is best not used. One should address the Lord as “Yahweh,” or perhaps, “Lord.”
After the resurrection, each child of Yahweh will be given a new name. Nobody knows what this name will be except the giver and the receiver of the name. “To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rev. 2:17b). Names mean things and describe a person. We have in the main lost this distinctive in the modern world. Our current modern names are generally meaningless. Maybe our new names have already been selected based on God’s desire for our future. See you next time.
——F. Paul Haney (END) [Article
from the FC#2004-1]
