Monday, June 20, 2011

The Many Historical Blunders of Lew White’s Fossilized Customs

I was recently given a book entitled Fossilized Customs: The Pagan Origins of Popular Customs (Seventh Edition) by a friend who asked my opinion of it. I certainly don't intend an exhaustive criticism of Mr. White's book here, but I have labored to refute those portions of his research which intersect with my own. The following should be enough to reveal the poor credibility of his claims (which characterizes the messianic movement) for readers. Most of Mr. White's research is composed of pernicious internet staples, and if you are looking for sources you will find next to none in his book (what rare sources he does give are themselves mostly worthless)—unfortunate considering the gravitas of his claims. It would be nice to see him at least correct these mentioned indictments in future editions, but I'm not holding my breath. White's many typographical mistakes have been preserved in this response.

Lew flaunts an incessant
barrage of claims with respect to Mithraism throughout his entire book. They are all based on an anachronistic assumption that the mystery religion existed in the West before the rise of Christianity: a position which is universally rejected by modern Mithraic and Hellenistic scholarship. Giving no sources, he states, "Mithraism was the primary religion of the Roman Empire from BCE 222 through the 4th century CE." (55, bold emphasis his) On the same page, Lew then goes on to claim that Christianity heavily borrowed pagan ideas from the religion.
Edwin M. Yamauchi, author of Persia and the Bible, is a primary authority in this field and is professor emeritus in ancient history at Miami
University. In 1975 he was invited by the empress of Iran to deliver a paper at the Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies in Tehran. Yamauchi rejects the notion that Mithraism had expanded to Rome before the start of the first century, much less that it was "the primary religion of the Roman Empire" before Christ (as R.W. Glenn and others have noted, in the second-half of the second Temple period Ceaser veneration was actually the main religion, with most Roman citizens viewing the gods as antiquated myths). Yamauchi states:

The first public recognition of the Mithras in Rome was the state visit of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, in AD 66...The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in AD 101...The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century...That's basically what's wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity.(1)

Richard Gordon, senior fellow at the University of East Anglia, states in his work that the religion did not exist in a developed sense until the mid-second century and places the establishment of the mysteries approximately between 117-161 AD.(2) As quoted by Yamauchi, Dr. Ronald Nash states, "The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late to have influenced the development of first century Christianity."(3)

So then, we have no evidence for Mithraism in Rome until decades after the establishment of Christianity, in fact, as Yamauchi notes, it is not until the middle of the second and third and fourth centuries that the religion became meaningfully established in the West (it's at this period that most mithraium and inscriptions appear with the earliest mithraium dating to the second century) much less was the religion "the primary religion" of the empire in 222 BC as White claims. As a mystery religion Mithraism was quite diminutive even at its height. Leif E. Vaage (B.A., M.Div., PhD) notes, "Unlike Isism or the cult of the Magna Mater, Mithraism had no public presence or persona, and appears rigorously to have denied itself all opportunities for self-promotion and display which might win it adherents or at least the acquaintance and passive admiration of the masses."(4)

As mentioned already, Lew goes on to state and highly emphasize in his book the following claim, "Other historians have put it this way: 'Christianity didn't conquer Mithraic Paganism. Mithraism blended in, and changed names.'" (55)

The only place I can find this quote is on internet sources leading back to White and he gives no source. In his book The Roman Cult of Mithras, Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at Free University in Berlin rejects Mithraism as a Christian "fore-runner."(5) Leonard Patterson in his book Mithraism and Christianity published by Cambridge states that there is "no direct connection between the two religions either in origin or development."(6) Yamauchi also lists Adolf von Harnak (University of Geissen), Arthur Darby Nock (University of Frothingham), S. G. F Bradon (University of Manchester), William R. Halliday and Ernst Benz (University of Marburg) as having come to the agreement that there is "little evidence to support claims of such influence and mutual borrowing" between the two religions.(7)

He also cites renowned Munich professor Gary Lease, who states:

After almost 100 years of unremitting labor, the conclusion appears inescapable that neither Mithraism nor Christianity proved to be an obvious and direct influence upon the other in the development and demise or survival of either religion. Their beliefs and practices are well accounted for by their most obvious origins and there is no need to explain one in terms of the other.(8)

On the same page White quotes another conveniently unnamed "historian" in another conveniently unnamed work: "The entire European continent and New World would be Mithraic today, if Christianity hadn't come along."(55)

He appears to be quoting a translation of Vie de Jesus by the anti-Catholic Frenchman Ernest Renan (or perhaps someone borrowing from Renan): "If Christianity had been checked...the world would have become Mithraic." Renan words are hot off the press—in 1863. Yamauchi calls him a "sensationalist" and notes that Albert Schweitzer criticized him in his famous work. He states, "Renan's work, published nearly 150 years ago, has no value as a source. He knew very little about Mithraism, and besides, we know a lot more about it today. Yet this is a quote that's commonly used by people who don't understand the context. It's simply far-fetched."(9)

It's common to find these types of inane claims in works related to the mystery religions dating before the Second World War, but this is only because our understanding of the mystery religions at the time was extremely deficient. White's reoccurring claim that Mithraism was a large competing religion is unfounded speculation as we have previously charged via Leif E. Vaage.

In point ten of his list on the same page White claims an ancient pagan ritual called the taurobolium, in which a live bull is slaughtered above a grate-drenching an initiate in the pit bellow with the bull's blood--influenced the Christian practice of "Easter-time baptisms."

I'm not sure what White's views on baptism are or why he would feel the need to connect a practice commanded by Jesus in the earliest synoptic with paganism. The taurobolium itself is only reported in the second century and is only found in Mithraism in exceptional cases as it almost always associated with the separate cult of Attis. Quoting the Swiss scholar Günter Wagner (whose works are still a prized foundation in this area), Yamauchi again rebukes this claim as an obdurate anachronism. "Again, the dating of practices like this are the Achilles' heel of these comparative studies...there's no way this rite could have influenced Christianity's theology about redemption.(10) We are also told by White that "the center of the Mithraic sun-cult was at Rome." But, Mithraism is a Persian religion...which is why the name of the god is itself a Persian word.


White wants us to believe that Constantine was responsible for forcing Christianity on pagans through political means:

"Constantine made Christianity the Roman State religion, but its form was far from anything known to the first Nazarenes. Constantine had to MERGE the multitudes of Pagans—who were mostly his own soldiers—with the Nazarene faith, in order to control his vast empire. This…produced what we see today as "Christianity". The main issue at his Nicene Council in 325 CE centered on the date of "EASTER", again the most important point in the Pagan mind when the sun 'crossed' the Zodiac at Taurus."(11)

Let's take this one step at a time. Did Constantine "make Christianity" the "Roman state religion"? No. All the edict of Milan did was make Christianity legal. Did Constantine force Christianity on the pagan masses for political control? No. Dr. Chris Forbes from Macquarie University is a Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, and Deputy Chairman of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity. When he was presented with this idea in an interview he responded:

Constantine didn't use [Christianity] for social control. Constantine didn't make Christianity compulsory. All he did was make it legal whereas beforehand being a Christian had been an offense punishable by death. All Constantine had done was make it legal to be a Christian. He certainly never made it compulsory...Most people were [pagans]. Christians were still a minority under Constantine.(12)

As for the claim that "[t]he main issue at his Nicene Council in 325 CE centered on the date of 'EASTER'" and his other claim that this was all some conspiracy to introduce pagan astrology into Christianity: Nicaea was convened to deal foremost with the Arian heresy. That's church history 101. As for the pagan conspiracy, many of the members of Nicaea still bore the scars from the last Roman persecutions. Does White seriously want us to believe they would just hand over the religion they were recently being murdered for to be transmogrified into pagan sun worship? Diocletian had just issued an Empire-wide persecution attempting to wipe out Christianity for good. Why did Nicaea set the date of Easter on the Sunday following the paschal full moon? Because that was the date of Passover in the Jewish calendar. No pagan conspiracy needed.

Miracle Cancer Cure?
On pages 69-70 White has a commercial for a natural miracle cure for cancer he wants you to buy composed of Flore-Essence Tea, Cansema and black salve. "For some reason, the mutant cells respond to it, and the 'message' to self-destruct begins to work. Canerous tentacles recede, and the 'tumors' shrink away. Skin cancers fade away to nothing."

The above quote appears under the entry "Backpfeifengesicht" in the German dictionary.

Jesus means "hail Zuess"?

On pages 17-8 White has much to say about the "real pronunciation" of the name of Jesus. He says it is proper to pronounce it "Yahushua" and that the "esus" at the end of the name Jesus derives from the same root as that in the word Zeus. On page 145 he writes:

The fake name of the Mashiach, "JESUS", is a Greco-Romanism, and means absolutely nothing in Hebrew. If it were a "translation", then it could be "re-translated" back into Hebrew. When taken back into the Greek it means "hey-Zues", or "hail Zues". The closest word to sus in Hebrew is "soos", and means "horse." So "he-soos" means "the horse". Zeus is depicted as a Centaur…Sus in Latin means PIG.

The etymology of the word Jesus is quite innocent. In Aramaic his name was Yeshua (Yahusua is the longer form of the same name). The New Testament writers themselves amended Yeshua to Iesous as any of the 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament will relate then a "J" was exchanged for the "I" as it went through modern English. It was not a pagan act. By implication, White has therefore succeeded in accusing the New Testament writers of calling Jesus Zeus and a pig because they were the ones who changed his name to Iesous. Why didn't the New Testament authors use the same Aramaic term Yeshua when they were composing their books of the Bible? Because there are no letters yod and shin in Greek and as a proper name the Greek grammar exchanges the ending of the word. This is an innocent process called transliteration; you take the alphabets of two different languages and try the best you can to make a word speakable in the other.

White commonly says that it is through the Hebrew name "Yahushua" alone that we are saved (hmmm…that's strange. White is quoting Acts 4:12 where Luke always uses the Greek Iesous and never the Aramaic Yeshua or Yahushua or anything like it.)(13) We have no issue pronouncing Yeshua in English; but imagine if you were Roman and I demanded you start making sounds that don't exist in your language and that you neglect the necessity of your own grammar. White's teachings smack of ridiculous, superstition. As if "Yahusua" is some magical conglomeration of sounds that saves or sanctifies you rather than the meaning or person behind the word. It's hardly worth even having to point this out, but Acts isn't talking about a series of vocalizations that saves you (or else Luke wouldn't have transliterated Yeshua to Iesous). He is talking about the authority represented by the name.

What of all this Zeus business?

The Jewish-Christian scholar Dr. Michael Brown (who actually holds a PhD in Semitic languages) describes this popular internet claim as "bizarre," "amazing" "psuedo-scholarship" in the "fringe" and charitably describes it as harboring, "as much evidence as the latest Elvis sighting." He explains why Semitic linguist don't give it the light of day in his article in the Q and A on his website.(14)

Jack-o-Lanterns of Human Fat?

White repeats the whole "Druids used human fat to fuel Jack-o-lanterns" spiel that has been popularized by sensationalists like Scott A. Johnson and Jack Chick's popular Gospel tracks. His Halloween track entitled "The Trick" is a comedic spectacle:

It states, "They would leave a jack-o'-lantern with a lighted candle made of human fat to prevent those inside from being killed by demons in the night."

Lew, in his book states:

"The Pre-Christian Druids had the barbarians doing ghastly things…[They] chose certain children to be burned alive on "bone-fires", as offerings to the sun…The fat left over from the child was fashioned into a candle, and placed into a carved-out pumpkin, or a hollowed out vegetable with a "round" (sun-shaped) design. The victim was called Jack-of-the-lantern."(15)

The reasons why this is completely impossible pile up immediately, and for that reason Lew gives no source, and there exists no academic source which supports his claim. Consider as an example that pumpkins were only introduced to Europe 500 years ago. This is a big deal. Explorers to the New World like Jacques Cartier were the first to describe them and later led to their introduction to the Old World.(16) Besides those World of War Craft nerds that still like to flaunt their desperate insipidness at Stonehenge annually, the Druids ceased to enjoy any substantial existence nearly one thousand five hundred years prior due to persecution under such Roman emperors as Tiberius and Claudius. This renders Johnson, Chick, and Lew's claim--that in the Old World they were carving out pumpkins native only to the New World in the first century—-anachronistic. The practice of carving Jack-o'-Lanterns originates from the Middle Ages with the ancient Druids and their religion having little to do with the matter (besides on the sensationalist websites Lew is taking his information from). The tradition derives from an overtly Christian themed myth called Stingy Jack and the medieval practice of commemorating souls in purgatory with candles cradled in turnips.(17) 18th century Irish-American immigrants switched to pumpkins because they were far more practical.(18)

White's animadversion against the Trinity:
On page 104 it's claimed that the Christian Trinity is pagan (how original!). Some of his evidence being two images of the Egyptian gods Horus, Isis and Osiris (White misidentifies Horus as Ra. I have a copy of the same image and can verify that it is not Ra).

The doctrine of the Trinity is so inextricable with the gospel that the church has always historically recognized that a denial of the doctrine necessarily compromises the gospel (thus the Athenasian, Nicene, and Constantinopolitan creeds). White is unable to offer any exegesis in his denial of who the Bible teaches God is (for those looking for an exegetical defense of the doctrine I highly recommend James White's book The Forgotten Trinity). He simply repeats pitiful Jehovah's Witness party lines and speculatively asserts that the Trinity is a later pagan idea introduced by those naughty Romans and other exotic and absurdly geographically unrelated pagan cultures. (Those stupid early Christians--couldn't define or defend any of their own doctrines without their Arian nanny Constantine.....Errrr, never mind Tertullian).

He may get away with fooling many of his impressionable readers that the Trinity is not Jewish in its roots, but that sort of unfounded fantasizing doesn't fly in inter-testamental studies and is immediately dispelled by any brief study of the New Testament. The notion of a divine plurality in the Godhead is well documented in post-Christian second temple Judaism and served as the historical backdrop for the Christian doctrine; it was a mainstream Jewish view in the time period during and leading up to Jesus' ministry. The Jewish scholar Alan Segal and specialist Michael S. Heiser as two leading authorities demonstrate as much in their work.(19)

Like I said, White uses bad Jehovah's Witness arguments rather than giving any exegesis. Does he discuss the New Testament's emphatic claims to the unity and deity of Christ with the Father as in John 1:1, John 10, John 8:58, 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13?(20) Does he even try to explain why the Son in His high priestly prayer differentiates His own will from the Father? Does he deal with passages like John 14:26 which refers to the Holy Spirit in personal pronouns and distinguishes Him from the Son and Father or passages like the opening of Acts 5 which affirm Him to be God? What are we to make of the earliest synoptic material which records Jesus commanding to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Warfield has so brilliantly detailed in his classic treatment? White has set to flight the Holy Spirit, indicted the Son as a maniacal schizophrenic and crucified the Father. He is, by all indications, a Sabellian heretic--confounding the Persons of God into one Person--a single person of God who obnoxiously enjoys dressing up as the Father, the Spirit and Jesus then confusing all of his doxa followers by praying to Himself with different wills and functions, referring to Himself in triads of personhood incessantly in personal and distinguished pronouns and while dressed up in His Jesus mask demands that men baptize in the name of the other two masks of Himself. Theeeeennnnn White's Sabellian version of god tells us whoppers like those found in John 16:7ff:

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I
do not go away, the Helper [the Spirit] will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world
concerning sin and righteousness and judgment...because I go to the Father
and you no longer see Me.

According to White we should understand this passage to mean:

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do
not go away, I will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Myself to you.
And when Myself, comes, He [that is, Myself] will convict the world
concerning sin and righteousness and judgment...because I go to Myself and
you no longer see Me.

Or how about Jesus' dying words on the cross:

Myself, Myself, why have I forsaken Me? Myself, into you I commend
the spirit of Myself.

Then there's that perspicacious theological gem in John 5:30:

I can do nothing on my own…because I seek not my own will but the will of myself
who sent me.

Yep. The Jesus of Sabellianism is a babbling idiot...or He just enjoys deceiving all His followers with intractable anfractuosities that look an awful lot like historical Trinitarianism. 
None were, but even if it be the case that every ancient pagan religion was Trinitarian, Christians would still be bound by scripture to believe the doctrine whether they like it or not.

In attempting to attribute the Jewish doctrine with paganism White demonstrates that he either has 1) no idea what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches or 2) what pagan religions teach. On page 104 for example, he shows us two images of the Egyptian gods Horus, Isis and Osiris. The following abuse of Egyptian religion is indicative of his anachronistic and hysterical misuse of other religions like Zoroastrianism and Hinduism:
Did the Egyptians believe in a god, three in eternal, persons yet one in substance as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches?

The Egyptians were, of course, polytheists. They believed the gods Nut and Geb sexually begat the twins Isis and Osiris as two separate, corporeal individuals who individually taught the Egyptian people various disciplines such as agriculture and art. Osiris has a brother named Seth who kills him and chops his body into fourteen pieces and scatters them across Egypt. Isis finds the pieces, reassembles them then has sex with his corpse in the form of a bird whereby she becomes pregnant with Horus. (Don't judge you Necrophobes! After all no one gets hurt right…) Horus then avenges Osiris by defeating Seth and taking back the throne. The three are often paired together as an archetypal representation of the family. They are not "one substance" as the Trinity teaches. Not one of them is eternal as the Bible teaches of the Trinity. Unlike the Trinity they represent a literal, corporal family (when Jesus uses the terms "Son" and "Father" in relation to the Christian Trinity He means them only in the Jewish sense for function and likeness of beingness. Not that He was begotten by the Father in His existence as such passages as John 1:1 deny.) All the aforementioned about the Osirian cycle is related in Plutarch.

Nephilim:On pages 131 and 203, a common internet image of a "nephilim" from an "archeological dig" is shown. White also has a lot to say about the Nephilim on page 126.
First and foremost, for the doubters, I ran White's image through a program called JEPGsnoop(21) which identifies doctored photos and retrieves a wealth of information about a given image. The original was taken on a Sony Cybershot U camera. It is classified as a class one photograph-meaning it has been edited--parts of the image contain completely different compression signatures than the original image itself. Not only that, but the program reveals that the image has been run through and saved as a photoshop 7.0 file—the professional program we should expect to see if the image is a hoax. There are no reports of archeology digging up nine foot tall skeletons. It is for this reason that White wants to claim there is a massive conspiracy for archeologist to hide them when they "dig them up regularly." This is a case of White failing to do his homework.

For example, on pages 126 he claims that Josephus attests to the existence of "3-4m tall humans." First of all, Josephus was writing in the first-century. There were no remaining Nephilim for him to attest to at that time on his own witness. Second, Josephus did not even place Goliath's height at 3-4 meters tall (9 to 13 feet). He tells us that Goliath was 6 ft 6 inch just like the Septuagint does and closer to the Qumran material (22). White gets his notion that the Nephilim were nine feet tall on the basis nothing more than tradition since most Bibles are based on the later Masoretic reading of Samuel which has long been recognized to be nearly intractably corrupt at this point (that text family even leaves off an entire paragraph in chapter 10 of the first division of the book).

The average height in the ancient world was under five and a half feet. Anyone of Goliath's 6 and a half foot height would have been a giant in the most literal sense. The only other argument for giants the size White wants them refers to King Og of Bashan whose iron sarcophagus (and not him) is reported at thirteen feet long. As Michael Heiser has told me, this is a poor argument if one is familiar with the nesting style of Near Eastern royal coffins.
In connecting the Nephilim with alien appearances White elsewhere supports the idea that the Hebrew word Nephilim strictly means "fallen ones" rather than "giants" (it appears he wants to take the whole Sitchin route of relating them with aliens in this way.(23)

Heiser has proven by the necesity of the morphology of the term that it must mean "giants" and not "fallen ones." (There's a yod vocalization marker in the word that makes White's etymology impossible.)(24)

This current post is incomplete and will be added to then overhauled as a PDF as time continues.

1) Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ 2007. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 169.
2) Edwin Yamauchi quotes this in Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baer, 1996), 510.
3) Ibid. 169.
4) Vaage, Leif E. (Editor). Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. Waterloo, ON, CAN: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006. 175.
5) (trans. Richard Gordon), New York: Routledge, 2000), 7.
6) Mithraism and Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921), 94.
7) Ibid. Strobel, 170
8) Ibid.
9) Ibid.
10) Ibid. 174
11) Ibid. White, 56-7
Dr. Chris Forbes, Brief Historical Critique of Zeitgeist. 2009.

13) Ibid. White, 145.

15) Ibid. White, 47-8
16) See footnotes on page: James Phinney Baxter et tal. A Memoir of Jacques Cartier, Sieur De Limoilou (New York: Dodd Mead & Company, 1906), 178.
17) Nicholas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night. (USA: Oxford University Press, 2002),57.
18) Lesley Pratt Bannatyne, Holloween: An American History (Luisiana: Pelican Publishing company, 1990), x.

19) See Heiser's website and more recent posting on the

20) See
my paper The Deity of Christ in John 1:1, Titus 2:13 and John 20:28.

21) Using
this original of the image as it is the first and only occurrence which displays on Google search using the keyword "nephilim". If White has another one he is free to offer it.

22) Quoted by


24) Nephilim morphology


  1. A bit thick with the snark eh? Considering that "Christianity" (or rather Cretinism the original title) has become so polluted with paganism, at least White is attempting to uncover that.

    The Hebrew scriptures say YH is SINGULAR--unchangeable and unique and by extension, so is YH's Word; the three aspects of YH (which humans mirror--your mind, your word/body, your spirit) that people have made into 3 g-ds is a total affront to YHUH.

    The prejudice against Israelites (you call them Jews) is obvious; Christianity was a political/temporal power once (you can't hide from prophecy or the knowing that Israel had of who the Beast of Prey and the Prostitute on the Beast is).

    YH has not and will not change. But humans presume to change set-apart times (Sunday instead of Saturday; Ishtar instead of Pesach) and the Torah ("fix" the Sayings that YH--the Word--wrote with the Finger of YH on stone!).

    As for Constantine: he nor you can hide from the hint that Revelation gives about Laodicaea (Council of Laodicaea anyone?); nor what Daniel wrote about.

    i don't know Mr. White all that much but this book of his is interesting and ties in with what a lot of others are uncovering; myself included.

    You can have your "expert"...i'll take YH's written, embodied (Yahshuah, the D'Var), and expressed Word by YH's Ruach over theirs and yours dear scoffer--ANY DAY.

    1. Actually the Hebrew bible says God is "echad" which means "one". This is in the famous passage "Hear oh Israel the Lord our God the Lord is ONE. However there is another word in Hebrew which also means "one", i.e. "yacheed". The word echad refers to a multiplicity that forms one single entity. For example the bible says a man and a woman become "echad" after being joined in marriage. There are still two people but they are in some way also "one".

      Yacheed on the other hand refers to something that is not a multiplicity in nature. It does not use that word to refer to God.

      I can't figure out what the rest of your post is saying.

    2. Because of my health I am restricted pretty much to research on the internet. There is a wonderful library here in Charlotte, NC at UNCC and I can access everything in their library and more. I always try to double or even triple check everything, However, this is difficult to do without make errors or mistakes. We all make them and if we begin with a preconceived idea of looking specifically for mistakes then that is exactly what we will find. We should enter into a research project with the purpose of finding the truth wherever that leads us. Do we knowingly seek to deceive or do we make errors unknowingly while seeking the truth?

    3. Anonymous July 7th,
      You can have your "lot of others". I'll take heed to Ben's well documented expose of Lew White's sloppiness over your snarky scoffing.
      I know the uncreated creator. I call him my father in heaven. He really does't care if you mispronounce his name. The writers of the NT understood, in verbal language of Hebrew, "name" means "to draw attention to"/"to locate" and not some kind of label. If you use words a hearer doesn't understand, even if it is a correct word, with some kind of aloof religious spirit -- you miss the mark. Like Paul says -- a noisy gong.

  2. to add a little correction to my initial post. "Christianity was a political/temporal power once" should include that it was called "Rome" when it was temporal and then became "Christianity" when it transformed into a "Christian" power.

    ...and "anonymous" to you (but known to myself) because i am not "plugged in" to facebook, twitter, or any other electronica; except of course for the access i do decide to take.

  3. I do not agree with a lot of Lew White's conclusions. However, I admire his diligence in trying to uncover the truth,even if he makes mistakes. I would like to point out a few related items of interest. Regarding Mithraism: Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his book, "From Sabbath to Sunday", (pg 253,1977 hardback edition) makes reference to the fact that the earliest known Christian mosaic (dated ca. A.D. 240) portrays Christ as the Sun (Helios) ascending on the quadriga chariot with a flying cloak and a nimbus behind his head from which irradiate seven rays. In numerous pagan pictorial representations, the Sun or Mithra is portrayed as a man with a disk at the back of his head. Further, I recall a passage from the New Testament where the Messiah thanks the Father for "giving me your name", which I believe was His reference to the first 3 letters of the Tetragrammaton, "Yah", as in Yahshua, Yahushua, etc., all meaning basically Yah is our salvation, Yah saves, and so forth. I see absolutely no connection between the name Jesus (which you and I both know is not what the Messiah was known by) and the term "God". The prophet Joel stated "there is only one name under heaven by which we may be saved" and Peter quoted him in Acts. You can rest assured that name was not Jesus. The Father Himself states,"My Name is Yahuah, and I do not change". Unfortunately, Christians have historically demonstrated that they continue in the apostacy of the Israelites (see Ezekiel 8:6-16): Christmas trees (asherim), praying to saints, Good Friday (wrong day); weeping for the Sun god (Helios Christos?), Easter sunrise services, etc. And just where is our Passover Lamb in all this pagan nonsense? Oh! Two more things: 1.If Yahuah is his name, and he deosn't change, why do most Christians call Him "God"? My understanding is that Elohim means "Mighty One". 2. If His Name is Yahuah, and he doesn't change, what right did the early Christians have to try and change the Sabbath to Sunday (I've read most of the early apologetics. I really like the one about 8 people on Noah's Ark being the symbolic justification), particularly when the Messiah Himself said that anyone who breaks the least of his commands and teaches others to do likewise will be considered least in His Father's kingdom. Jon Bartz

  4. I for one agree with Keith Truth re Lew White. Anonymous of Nov 13, 2011 - I noticed you didn't provide the scripture verse or verses to substantiate your claim that Jesus somewhere in the New Testament, "thanked the Father for giving Him His (Yah's)name." Also, "you and I" do NOT know that the name of "Jesus" has "no connection"....blah, blah, blah. You're so typical of many Messyanics and Hebrew roots folk who make claims but provide no proofs. Either provide proof of your claims, or be quiet. Plus, I've got news for you, the Messyanics (spelled this way on purpose) have just as much "Paganism" in their doctrine(s) as do Christians! Quite a few of them believe in "plural marriage" (a man can have many wives) just because the ancient Israelites did it! That was a "Pagan" practice NOT ordained of the Almighty Who allowed Abraham to have a concubine, but a concubine was not a sex partner, but was a helper for the wife. That Abraham took his concubine for sexual use, was NOT God's will - as was made plain by the severe, long-term, negative consequences - like continual WAR between two nations! I shouldn't need to explain about the relationship between Arabs and Israelites then or now, for those who know their bible history - right? My point for those who can't comprehend, is that just because the ancient Israelites practiced 'something,' does not mean that WE, TODAY, are to do likewise! Everything in the Word MUST be taken in CONTEXT and compared to the REST of the Word, in order to properly interpret it. Jesus gave us the PROPER interpretation of all the Old Testament writings, it is HE we should be following, not Sages. Plus, Jesus is to be the "head" of the "called out ones," not the Sages, nor mystic Judaism, nor the Talmud, nor the letter of the law. Life is in Jesus, not merely the written word - "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the Life" said He.

    Messyanics have other Pagan practices too, like the mystic Kabbalah with all it's worship of numbers, and Hebrew letters, etc. Then Messyanics have their Pagan Babylonian TALMUD and "oral traditions" of the "sages." So, all this talk about paganism in Christianity - yes, there is some, but Messyanics and Heb Roots systems, have just as much Paganism in them, if not MORE!

    Isn't their name-calling just a bit hypocritical??? Think it is.


  5. Further to my comments of July 2011...

    Anonymous of Nov 13 2011 i appreciate your comments. I would add that Yahu/YHU is the "root" name for both the ABBA and ban/son. "Yasha" is "salvation" in Hebrew; ancient Hebrew plays on sounds, words, and meanings. Thus Yahusha can sound a lot like "yasha"; it's pretty cool. YHUH warned Yashra'al in Shmt/Exodus 23:21 that "my name is in him", being the Prophet he would send to us; Yahusha. In Yahuchanon/John 17 Yahusha actually prays to ABBA and speaks of revealing YHUH's Name to his taught ones (by word, deed, and presence); also in Yahuchanon/John he tells one of his disciples if you have seen me you have seen the ABBA. Also, the malak/angel Gabryal speaking to Myram when announcing that she was chosen to bear the Mashiach says, "he shall be called 'Yahusha' for he shall save his people from their sins".

    "J-sus" does not contain the name YHUH. It is derived from the Pagans (unable to pronounce Hebrew words) trying to give YHUH their highest G-d's esteem, i.e., "dje-us"/Zeus; but ends up suggesting our Saviour is an ass since "sus" in Hebrew means Horse; asses were the common "horse" of the day for Yashra'al. The letter "J" is only about 500 years old. Also when anyone says "L-RD" or "G-d" they have a problem; they could be referring to any idol in their hearts; by saying "amen" (as in Amen-Ra, Egyptian paganism, instead of "ameyn") people are assenting to the prayer and its recipient. It was the plan of YH's enemies to obscure YH's name and steal glory from YHUH and get us to break the 3rd Saying/Command of misrepresenting YH's character by hypocrisy and to bring it to nothing by not using it. Sun-day is a day dedicated to the devils/fallen ones who kept the Shbt before it was instituted on erets/earth (according to 1Enoch and Jubilees). Not being under the law and expecting to get away with it (Law-/Torah-lessness) is what most Krystyanay/Christians (converts to Yashra'al) practice today. If being Twrhless was so simple Yahusha would not need to have suffered and died so horribly.

    Yahusha's said that he did not come to destroy or do away with Twrh, but to "fulfill", menaing establish and confirm it so we would know how to keep it. The Ceremonial Twrh of the Lewite Priesthood was the shadow (or temporary placeholder) of his ultimate sacrifice to kaphar/cover us (atone for our sins); and pointed to his appointment as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Sovereign of Righteousness) for our sakes. The other aspects of the Twrh still stand: i.e., YHUH's mandatory set apart moadym/times includng the weekly Shbt of Rest (you can praise and worship him any day of the week but the Shbt/7th day--S-turday to the Pagans--is his day of REST); Kasrut (clean and unclean foods--YH knows better than all of us combined what is good for us to eat); Employee/"Slave"-Employer relations; Husband/Wife duties and Male/Female distinctions; Farming and Husbandry; Liability; social interaction with believers and unbelievers, et alii. Yahusha predicted beyond his physical presence on erets/earth that Shbt remains: "pray that your flight is not in the winter or on a Shbt day" alluding to the fall of Yerushalaym in 70AD roman calendar. Yasha YHU/Isaiah 66 explains we will continue to keep Shbt (7th day) and New Moons on erets before YHUH not in shamaym (heaven).


  6. re my comments to Anonymous of Nov 13 2011...

    oh dear: spirit is willing; flesh is weak.

    Meant to comment:
    "dje-sus" (and 'iesous'), giving the "J" sound which is foreign to Hebrew and Aramaic too (as i understand it)...

    third Saying/Command against* misrepresenting...

    Yahusha would not need to have suffered and die so horribly...

    various typos...

    would like to add:
    The eh (ay) sound as in Yahweh (yaw-way) is likely Greek in origin as they refer to Nuach/Noah as "Noe" in the so-called N-w Testament (which is actually the fulfilled prophecy of the Renewed Covenant: i.e., the receiving of YHUH/YHUShA's Ruach/Spirit at Shabuot/Pentecost written of in YermYahu/Jeremiah 31.) Hence, "YaHUaH" as likely a closer transliteration of b'Sham/Shem. But i continue to study and come out of Babel. May the everlasting light of YHUH through YHUShA and by Ruach ha Qodash continue to brighten our studies and guide our feet on YHUH's Pathway.

    i know, i'm packing a lot of info into my comment with all the brackets and slashes but i don't frequent this place often.

    Shalwm Aleykm, b'sham YHUShA.

  7. Anonymous of Feb 23 2012... aren't you jumping to conclusions? I thank the author of this article for their graciousness of allowing opposing comments. We should "shut up" because you don't like our comments? How about you actually bring your Ruach/Spirit-inspired insights instead of choosing to level nastiness? smh. This is the internet. Get over it.

    Apparently, according to your suggestion anyone with a knowledge of the Hebrew way and/or a willingness to speak Hebrew is a "Messyanic" or "Hebrew roots"?

    Wow. YaHUShA our Saviour said "this tribe (Yshra'al) shall not pass" suggesting in part part to me that we would still be here; even if only a remnant. i for one am neither a descendant of the European Ashkenazi Yaphathite converts who call themselves 'Jews' or Pagan Krystyanay grafted into Yshra'al. i was led by YH's Ruach to know who i am by intense scripture and supporting historical secular study (since childhood); family history; and discussion with others awakening to their heritage. i grew up honouring YHUH's Commands; as a sinner i have also gained the experience of being grafted in to Yshra'al through YaHUShA. i agree that "Messyanics" are too much like Pharisees or Ebionites. And the Talmud is often profane being the written version of the Oral Twrh YaHUShA opposed.

    As for Abraham; he was following the custom of the day in order to fulfill YHUH's promise concerning him and his wife. Don't you know that Twrh (YHUH's instructions) commands a Yshra'alite to raise up seed to his deceased brother should the brother die without giving his wife children? In effect making his sister-in-law his wife while he gives her a child. Abraham and Sawrah/Sarah used human reasoning instead of faith to bring forth the promised son (after all they were very aged); therein lies the real error and unintended consequences of the strife between Yshma'al/Ishmael and Yts'haq/Isaac; Yshma'al was 13 years older and the "first born" by human standards but not by YH's plan.

    The original model for marriage is the Adam the image of YHUH: one male and one female. Polygamy and modern concubines are often an excuse or cover for fornication and adultery, imo. it could also be seen as a form of legalized prostitution; why can't a male help a female as YHUShA did without expecting sexual favour from them?

    i think the Kabbalists and Talmudists capitalized on YHUH's Word and people's ignorance (feigned or real) and created bastardized versions of it; after all, scripture is useful for instruction and doctrine according to Paul; that does not preclude false doctrine. Their religions come from Babylon and the traditions of men; and they are doing violence to YHUH's Sovereign-dom misleading people, imo.

    In defense of the alaph-bayt (Hebrew alphabet); it is composed of letters with multiple dimensions: representational image (like Ox for Alaph), letter character, number, and sound. Anything can be misused to conduct witchcraft and sorcery, false divination, et alii; modern Christianity, e.g., imo

    Free scripture software like the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer is available that parallels the Hebrew and English with the transliteration of the Concordant Literal Version; and anyone can freely acquire online Aramaic "N-w T-stament" translations (Aramaic is closest to Hebrew). By reading and study (with prayer and comparing to Twrh) we can get a better sense of what those of that culture were actually saying and meant. Our culture is Pagan (Babylonian/Persian/Greek/Roman); should we not at least get an understanding of what the Ancient Hebrew culture was like since YHUH chose to speak and write the Eseret ha Dabrim (10 Sayings) in Paleo Hebrew?

    Shalwm Aleykm, b'sham YHUShA.

  8. I agree that Mithraism did not influence the development of first century Christianity. It was the second, third, and most especially, the 4th century when the influence was realized. When in an attempt to gain converts to the Christian faith, the Catholics compromised with the Mithraists (pagans); allowing Mithraic idolatrous practices to continue that stood in opposition to becoming a 'new creation' in Jesus/Yeshua at conversion. These practices and customs were 'sterilized' or cleaned up by linking them with things from the Christian faith. Example: The 'Asherah' tree idol used in worship of the sun reborn on December 25th became 'Christianized' in celebrating the Son's birthday (Jesus/Yeshua) - the tree used now called the 'Christmas' tree.
    As a follower of Yeshua I want nothing to do with anything that has to do with idols. It's sin. Plain and simple. If you read "Fossilized Customs" and in good conscience still observe Christmas, Easter, Halloween,tithing,etc. then it may do you good to ask Yahweh to show you where your heart really is in Him.

    1. Rubbish! Only one thing that needs to be said! Revelation 12:9: Satan has deceived the WHOLE world. If this is not true, that the WHOLE world is deceived, then the Word of the Creator is a lie. We should all know, and believe, that His Word is truth. Think about this and humble yourselves before the Creator and maybe He will show mercy and give you His wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Ecclesiastes 8:5—Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment.

    2. Yes, yes ‘Rubbish’ I am in agreement with you! Satan has deceived the WHOLE world! If a person takes the time and ‘proves all things’, like we are instructed to do, it becomes very clear how this spiritual being is able to fulfill this prophecy. Yahshua (Yah-saves) tells mankind this is not His Kingdom. We are also told not to love the world or anything in the world. Yahweh (His name is on the Moabite stone and on the pillar king Solomon built and raised at the Red Sea crossing) has seasons for everything under heaven. The season of the assembly is over (Eph. 3:10-11) and we are now in the season of Amos 8:11-14! Satan has, and is, deceiving the entire world by religion! Check the fruits of the tree (religion)! Ephesians 4:4-5—There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Sovereign, one faith, one baptism; 6 one Elohim and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. You will not get this unity following man.
      Truth is defined in any dictionary as undisputable fact! Lew might have missed the facts on some points in his book, but it is still very clear that Christianity is full of idolatry practice that goes back to Nimrod the great hunter before Yahweh. Hislop goes into great detail with ‘facts’ proving this point. Christianity has currently 2.1 billion members who can’t agree to be united (denominations). 2.1 billion members! Largest religion on this planet! What happened to “small is the gate and narrow is the road and only a few will find it?” America’s fruit (Christianity): Statue of Liberty is a roman goddess and America has worshiped this goddess by giving her the title of a national monument! We are also warned that many will come in Yahshua’s Name (not Jesus) claiming He is the Messiah and deceive many. We see the Sacred Name Movement and all its sub groups gaining popularity today!
      When a belief is presented, prove it with facts! Be like a child and always ask why! Proverbs 4:18-19—The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. 19 But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble. Believe His Word not man! Apply what His Word says to your daily life and see if He does not give you more understanding. I’ll give you a simple example: I was doing and in-depth study on Ex.23:13 a while back. During the study I took everything I had in the house with the name ‘nike’ and its symbol on it and burned it in the burn barrel. Wow! The mercy I was shown by Him who created me was absolutely amazing. . . very humbling!
      Proverbs 18:13 He that judgeth a matter before he investigates is not wise.

    3. Yes, very interesting discussions above. We have some connection with the
      MOTHER of so called "Christianity" and her daughters following along.
      Being raised in a staunce Catholic family, altar boy, on and on, for some
      30 years, we can say Lew White has done a great service in bringing these
      Fossilized Pagan customs to light. These customs are still very much alive
      and well and growing it seems, which the Spiritual decline abserved every-
      where we look confirms. This past week gave us another witness to the world
      in election of a new Pope. Did you see it? the beast clothed in Purple and
      Scarlet, the Pagan Dagon Fish hats, the pompus garments, the adulation shown
      by the mob, the "man" in white, standing there for, how long? drinking it in.
      What did the Master Yahuah, warn the Apostles? the Pharasees LOVE to dress in
      long robes and get the greetings and adulation in the market, "BUT NOT YOU" be
      ye meek and humble as I, follow me, etc. etc. Another important fact that is
      overlooked in this Pope, he is the first JESUIT ever chosen. Why is this very
      important? Most do not know there are really TWO popes, white, supposed leader
      of the church, and the BLACK, the ruler of the Jesuits. If you don't know the
      history of Jesuits,information is available on the NET, Satanic, murderuos
      world rulers. So these monsters have solidified their stranglehold of power,
      and will have no restraining force of the White pope. Should be an interesting
      ride from here on out. STAY TUNED.

  9. Lew White...the same Lew White that you are all talking about runs (or at least ran) a headshop in Louisville where he sold his books right next to bongs, music albums and pornographic images.
    THIS is where you are getting your "Biblical" knowledge from, people!
    Grow up. Move along. Party's over. ~ for proof!

    1. Hi
      When owning the headshop do you realize how many pagans he reached out to and how many turned to YHWH,he outsmarted Shatan for a long time until you Christians broke he's good works. Shatan used you well, sons of plunder.

    2. Lew is a modalist among other heterodox doctrines. The majority of major creeds throughout history imply that adherence to modalism is an assault on the gospel itself. Paul rebuked Peter at the council of Jerusalem. I think I'm ok for publicly challenging Lew's book.

    3. david was a satanist, yep, cuz he played music

      there's no porno in Lew's shop

      and where is the commandment that says cannabis is prohibited?

      now, go gobble a pork-chop and look in the mirror

    4. I am not knocking Lew White at all, in fact I agree with some of the things he teaches. I am just making a comment on your cannabis prohibited. In the New Testament in several places Paul talks about actions which are not acceptable to the Kingdom of Heaven. One of them in the KJV is called sorcery, that that is a bad translation like the KJV is, because the Greek word is Pharmcah which means drug sorcery, which is mind altering drugs. i.e. opiates, cannabis, acid, LSD, and so on. I dont think any believer should be using cannabis, and I am an ex-medical cannabis user. Notice I said ex.

    5. Sorry, I just want to change one thing, I do believe Medical Cannabis is ok for cancer patients. It does help with mood, appetite, and pain, but for recreational, it is not ok, and that is not me it is what the Word says.

    6. Well, well, aren't we something. Splitting hairs, he said, she said. Mr. White repeatedly tells the reader of FC, "don't take my word for anything!" Get off your ass and do research. I haven't done research, (I try not to) I ask my father, Yahuah for guidance. If you allow him, he will explain everything to you. Just ask! My knowledge of the 7th. day Shabbat didn't come from a book, or man's indoctrination. It's so simple look at the calendar on the wall. Count 7. Gee! What is the abbreviation for Saturday, Sat. That is past tense for sit. What did Yahuah do on the 7th day. He sat an observed his handiwork. All you scholarly types out ther can have a field day with that, eh? Ilove my father with all my heart, my might, my soul. Right now I am working on loving all of you as he has loved me, unconditionally. That's a task, cause some of you are so unloving. Personally, I tend not to trust anyone who says "my translation is the only acceptable version." As to Mr. McIntire. Be specific. If one is using drugs as part of a ritual, (as in sorcery) then they are dabbling in sorcery. If you use an antibiotic as part of a ritual, (as in sorcery) see previous statement. If I am correct, sorcery is a form of idolatry. Anything that obscures our relationship with abba is detrimental. Believe what you want to, I do!

  10. Dear Writer, so far i have seen much of your attempts (valid or not) to discredit Lews findings, what i have not seen is any areas of his findings that you agree with. Should I then conclude that nothing in his book has any validity and that we are nowhere closer to uncovering truth ? If we are to worship in Spirit and Truth, should we not attempt to find that truth ? A better approach may have been to contact Lew directly, and advise him of his inacuracies, allowing him therefore to correct them, not sure if that was done but i think it would be a more love thy neighbor type approach to this situation, the snide remarks whilst funny dont serve to glorify Yahweh in any way. thanks for your insight though

    1. I did contact Lew. He refused to talk to me.

    2. There is NOTHING truthful in White's book, neither Alexander Hislop. Show me ONE verse in Scripture that states that Nimrod was married. Just look at how many s@xual symbolism White sees everywhere and the worst thing is that he lists flimsy sources. He just doctors up a story out of thin air.

    3. Did we read the same book? Nowhere does it state he was married. NOTHING IS TRUE? So we can disregard the story he mentions as to the women who washes the saviors feet with her tears, then drys them with her hair? I think you missed your calling, the Salem witch trials are long gone!

  11. Just a quick note, there are lots of things wrong in his book, but there are allot of things right. It's up to us to make them out for ourselves. We all know each of us will find our own way to our ultimate end, so as humans it's good to just help where we can and let others find their way to. Just don't bow blindly but talk openly to what our who you feel is your creator. It's all opinion and we all got one or many. Lol

  12. Ben, I am an ex-Southern Baptists member, I have been a deacon, and even delivered a few sermons. I am a ordained Minister now, not with the Southern Baptists, I am non-denominational. There are things that Lew White says that I do not agree with, but there are some I do. One of the things i do agree with and if you would do a more in depth search you will find out Christianity has been fooled, and a lot of the doctrines and dogmas steeped in Christianity today is of pagan origin. You spoke about Mithra sun worshipers, well there was a stone found from this pagan cult recently that predates Christianity, which has a carving of what looks like a crucifix. Maybe Lew wont talk to you, but I would love too, so I have my name on this post and you can contact me anything. I have my email attached to my name. Just shoot me an email.

    1. Can you provide a source for this pre-Christian 'crucifix stone' or is this just a rumor you saw on the internet?

    2. sorry for the late reply, I did not get a message you replied to me. I just happened to check the site out again. I will do some serious research, and get you exact unrefutable documentation. It is very clear I will have to have all my t's crossed and all my I's doted. What I have is probably not good enough for you, and I am not being mean i just know by the way you talk you want exact dates and accredited research, and I dont blame you because I am the same way. give me a few days, because I am in the middle of an important project. Thanks Ken.

    3. By the way I do not agree at all with what Lew White says about the Trinity. He has changed the original Hebrew words in Genesis 1:26 to try and take out Make and change it with breathe, and taken out In Our form, as Our image to shared essence. This is very bad what he is doing, even though I agree with him about the cross I dont agree at all with what he is doing with the Trinity, and some of his other teachings are blasphemy. But that does not mean he is wrong about everything. I think he started out good, but like a lot of teachers went to far and went bad. We as believers must research and be sure of everything, so we dont end up doing the same blasphemy Lew has done.

  13. Ben if you are interested I have a site it is a Scripture teaching site without any concerns for doctrine or dogmas. I am in the process of translating the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures to English. I call the translation "The Way Translation." I have three columns, the first is the original Hebrew from the Westminster Leningrad Codex, the middle column is the Basic Translation which is a word for word exact translation to English. Hebrew sentence structure is backwards from English, so the Way Translation uses the same words and the Basic Translation, just put in proper English grammar. There is the Fellowship Press which is news articles about history, and word events that believers need to know about, but the main point of the site is Scripture studies. It is set up in a teaching format where people can make comments, and ask questions about Scriptures or commentary. I will post any comment from anyone, as long as it is not foul, hate, or attack language. There is not place for that among believers, because Yahusha Messiah said, "Love one another as I have loved you." Amen! Please let us love one another as He loves us.

  14. Ben, in all fairness to Lew about the photograph of the so called Nephilim, which i do not agree with Lew about. Whenever I write an article for Fellowship Press, and use a photograph, I always run it through Photoshop or Photo-scape to re-size it for the web. If you dont it takes for every to load and slows down my website. I have not read much of Lew Book, but the Nephilim before the great flood were not sired by messengers or angles. Number one, messengers are obedient to Elohim, and those that are not are called demons, not angles. Number two messengers or angles are sexless. The Master says in Matthew Chapter 22, verses 29 and 30, “You have strayed, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of Elohim. For in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the messengers (angels) of Elohim in the heavens.’” The sons of Elohim were not messengers or angels they were the line of Seth, and the daughters of men were the wicked line of Cain. The Strong's word is H5303: nphil (nef-eel’) properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant. The only other place this word is used in Scripture is Numbers Chapter 13 verse 33. The K.J.V. says, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. This was an exaggeration because those who went with Caleb into the Promised Land were afraid to back go back in, so they exaggerated their report to Moses and the people. Firstly how could the sons of Anak be descendants of the Nephlim of Genesis Chapter 6, since all, except the family of Noach died in the great flood? If you want a more in depth look at this please check out

  15. Nothing in Lew White's book is truth

  16. Hi. I have a great guilt over Jeremiah 10. Can you help me? I have seen so many websites that say that Jer 10:3 is not about carving an image but rather it is ONLY about tree chopping. In essence, this is what they say that verse 3 says:

    "For one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the chopped tree by the woodsman with the tree cutting instrument."

    Look at it again:

    "For one cutteth a tree out of the forest" <------- Clearly a tree is being cut

    "The work of the hands" <------- the chopped tree

    "Of the workman" <------- The woodsman

    "With the axe" <------- With a tree cutting instrument

    Therefore, they say, verse 3 is talking ONLY about tree chopping and not wood carving.
    1) Why would a hand carved idol need to be fastened with nails and hammers, when all wooden idols in Jeremiah's day were small and could be made in such a manner that it would be steadied by itself?

    2) Why does the verse mention a forest when in other portions of Scripture when wooden idols are mentioned, they don't care where the wood came from?

    3) Why do all older versions of the Bible translate maatsad as a tree cutting instrument, i.e. an axe?

    4) Why does it mention the "signs of heaven" as the tree verse immediately follows the "signs of heaven" winter solstice?

    5) Why does verse 4 say IT while verse 5 says THEY? Doesn't the use of different pronouns imply a change in topic? Meaning that verses 3 and 4 independently talk of a decorated tree while verse 5 describes the idols. Therefore verses 3 and 4 are independent and have no bearing on verse 5.

    6) Modern translations water down verse 3 and add the word chisel to the verse when verse 3 in the Original Hebrew has no chisel. Isn't the NIV rendering of verse 3 deceiving people?

    7) "With silver and with gold" in verse 4 is just a metaphor for objects placed on a tree just like "it is raining cats and dogs"?

    These are not my ideologies but theirs, I am feeling wracked with guilt and don't know which interpretation to believe. On one hand the idols view is plausible and on the other hand the "chopped tree" view is also plausible. Who should I believe? Is the NIV really deceiving us? Please give some thought to my questions. I don't want to have an accursed object in my living room. Which view does the Original Hebrew support? Thanks for your time.

  17. Anon34, why would you want a 'tree' in you living room anyway. You would be better off (from any practical vantage point) and the tree would be better off being left in the ground (forest) to the advantage of other living creatures. So spare yourself the beating up !

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. So are you telling me I can't even have a potted palm in my living room?

  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. Hi Ben, and everyone. This is Lew, the author of the infamous book being discussed here.
    I wanted to add that many customs, both secular and religious, derive from pagan sources. Certainly one can acknowledge that the faith - Abraham through Yahusha ha'Mashiak - did not involve the use of steeples, obelisks, holy water, or any of the special calendar days observed by Christianity.
    Ken, the Hebrew words at Barashith 1:27 connect with 2:7, "breathe into" is the meaning of NESHAH, not "Let us make". The concrete meaning of the Hebrew word TSELEM is "image", however in the sense that the breath of Yahuah is instilling His character, that "image" formed is "abstract", so it should be translated "essence", a resemblance of His character. This meaning is revisited at 2:7, as we see the objective of breathing His essence into Adam was to equip him to "rule over" the rest of Yahuah's creatures and their domain.
    Some have said there is nothing true in FC, and that I've assembled my research from the Internet. The largest body of my research was done first from Scripture, beginning in 1985, and the library at U of L where I conducted research on the various alphabets, including the original Hebrew. The main debate against my conclusions above seems to be from the perspective of men's traditions, and is quite normal. Mithraism is the pattern of the Alexandrian Cult, and the doctrines of the Catechetical School at Alexandria (the Didascalia) and the circus fathers (headmasters) of that institution are held as unquestionable. I've questioned them, and shown their errant doctrine, so bear the mantle of "heretic". I do not malign anything but teachings; the teachers of false ideas are merely deceived themselves. The first reaction to Truth is to say it's ridiculous; the 2nd stage is to violently oppose it (and the Inquisition is proof of that principle); the 3rd stage is coming along now, as Truth is accepted as being self-evident. There is an earthquake occurring in the false pattern of Christianos/Catholicism today, and everything is falling down around their ears. The Shabath day is the sign of the everlasting Covenant, and together with the Name "Yahuah", the Truth is being restored. To resist it is to hate Wisdom, and that is the danger - not whether Santa Claus or Halloween's origins derive from one source or another. The mistake in the KJV at Acts 12:4, Easter instead of Passover, stands as a monument to the kind of thing I point out to be flawed in the behavior I was once trapped in because of a lack of knowledge.
    Ben, I'd like to compliment you for a great debate you've put together here, and I certainly understand how you feel you must defend your position. One day you will become a lover of Yahuah's Torah, and accept the label "Natsarim". It may not be this month, or this year. The facts will reveal everything eventually, and the little fractures you already know are there will spread and grow.

  20. "Cross" is a Latin Vulgate item, from the late 4th century. The Greek word STAUROS has no "crux" meaning. When Heironymus Sophronius Eusebius translated the word into Latin, he ignored the perfect-matching word, STAURO. The world-wide symbol of sun worship has no close competition to the crux emblem, and as you make each small discovery, like this one, you will eventually realize the Truth has won, and is self-evident. I'm here for you as you wrestle with each detail. I don't want to win any arguments, but like you I only want the Truth, and feel comfortable abandoning anything that isn't necessary for the walk - like cruxes, steeples, statues, holy water, trinities, Sun-day, Easter, and so on. One thing you stated in your debate above concerned Easter; At the Nicene Council, it was not to align "Passover" at that time with the date of Easter, but it was stipulated that if Easter ever fell on the same day as Passover, Easter was to be moved to the following Sun-day. The light drives away the darkness every time.

  21. @Anon34: Your concern over the wooden object people bring into their homes is well-placed. Your heart does not want to do anything, even in ignorance, that may offend Yahuah. Notice this text from "Dt." (Debarim) chapter 7, from the BYNV:
    7:25 “The carved images of their mighty ones you are to burn with fire. Do not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it, for it is an abomination to Yahuah your Alahim.
    7:26 “And do not bring an abomination into your house, lest you be accursed like it. Utterly loathe it and utterly hate it, for it is accursed."

    Besorah Of Yahusha Natsarim Version (BYNV) Lew White - BYNV Kindle Edition

  22. It is a clear fact that the author of this post has used selective scholership in trying to prove his points.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. I'm not sure what "author" you're referring to Brad, but "selective" is a good approach. To generalize without specifics would be dismissive and fail to edify. The tree / wooden object is "selective", and that it is an Asherah object is beyond doubt. Yahusha surely did not bring any trees into His home, and decorate them with testicle/orbs, tinsel/semen, and hang a wreath/vagina on His front door. Pagans did this, and like all rebellious witchery, the meaning behind the symbols have been occulted. The encyclopedic sources have hidden these things from the average person, so it's the pattern of "scholarship" to conceal the Truth of many unsavory and idolatrous activities. On another "selective" item; the BYNV has restored the Name of the Creator to the text, and taken out the traditional "Let us make" (supposedly built from the word NESHAH), and it is called a "blasphemy Lew has done". Other translations (KJV, NIV, NASB, ASV etc.,) retain the "Let Us Make", and remove the Name entirely, and yet are not blasphemous? We are creatures with serious strongholds binding our minds in thought-prisons. Anyone that steps out of the standard line-of-thought is maligned in the most damaging ways possible. Rather than destroy the reputation of another, it's best to promote sound teaching that will expose the error for what it is. The Truth will win all by itself, and needs no defense. It cannot be attacked, so instead the bearer of the Truth is attacked. That fact speaks volumes. Torah teaches us how to love - failing that, nothing else matters at all.

    1. Thanks for the reply Lew. Since I haven't touched this page much in years, I now realize reading over it much of the ad hominem was needless, and I've made a couple changes accordingly. I'm unable to pursue new topics due to my studies, but if you have anything to dispute regarding the specific points raised in this post I will make an attempt to respond as time allows.

      A few quick words:

      In American English commas and periods always--without exception--appear inside quotation marks. If you apply this rule to your writing style (which is rich in quotation marks) your website, books and articles will immediately gain in credibility.

      Gen. 1.26 is paralleled with an Akkadian text:
      "Let us slay (two) Lamga gods. With their blood let us create mankind."
      A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 2 ed. (Chicago, 1963), 69.

      In the Hebrew we have:

      ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

      This and other ANE Edenic parallels, especially in the Ugaritic texts, demands exegetically that the grammatical plural of exhortation in this passage is addressed to YHWH's council of בני האלוהים frequently mentioned in the Psalms. Your interpretation of the Hebrew grammar is impossible. The verb נעשה derives not from the shoresh "to breath" but "make" or "do"--אשה. This is easily demonstrable even to a person unacquainted with the grammar by simply searching for the similar term in a Bible data-base. Notice, not one of these following 33 identical occurrences agrees with your translation. They all show the traditional is accurate:

      It is likewise easy to show צלם corresponds with the translation "image" or "likeness" by the wealth of times it is used to describe a carved statue of idol. From what comparative text do you derive the nuance "essence?" Lastly, on what grounds do you assert the pronominal suffix נו ought to be translated as "shared" or "same" rather than its possessive meaning represented by all other cases? These are rhetorical questions of course. I don’t think it is wise to publicly pontificate on grammar you aren’t qualified in.

    2. Lew, I was referring to the original post "The Many Historical Blunders of Lew White’s Fossilized Customs" and not you. One can hunt for excuses to justify the sin. No one compares what they do with the Torah. Here is the most recent example. The menorah with the fish emblem hanging on the bottom. The menorah is something that came from above and given to man by his creator. The Messianic's refuse to be out done by the Christians with their fish emblem. So they (the Messianic) make's their version of the golden calf, by hanging a fish on the bottom of the menorah. Do you see what's coming next?
      Now what does the Torah have to say about that? Do not mix your seed (also means do not mix your worship), do not mix what is set apart with that that is unclean, the list continues...
      The Christians justify their willful dis-obedience excuses by always referring to their god Paul.

  24. I'd only seen your blog for the first time a day ago, and regret years have passed getting to respond. Translation errors made by men that lived over 400 years ago who failed to comprehend Hebraic nuances and the context's influence on the meaning of words causes us to remain closed to other possible ideas, no matter how many citations we make to prove them correct.
    Reason dictates that the Creator, Yahuah, did not "make" Adam in His Own appearance literally. This is figurative, abstract rhetoric. The context of the activity described, bringing forth a living man, is best understood by examining 1:26 and 2:7 as pointing to the same event. If these two verses both involve "breathing" (NESHAH, NESHAMAH), as I've expressed them in the BYNV, we also see the purpose: to rule over the rest of Yahuah's creation. If we hold the old line of "Let Us make" for the Hebrew word NESHAH, our understanding is darkened. In 1609 - 1611, the men that influenced future seminary pupils like yourself were flat-Earthers, and Geo-centrists. The "church fathers" have steered interpretations of the Word, forcing concepts like replacement theology and spiritual Israel into young minds.
    Those who "rule over us" (such as seminary / cathedral school teachers) have caused us to "howl", because they have turned the will of Yahuah (Torah), and many of His Words, into wormwood (poisoned doctrines of men). We could debate what an individual word means until blue in the face, but the Ten Commandments are the heart (character) of Yahuah. Hopefully we can agree on that point. These 10 Words instill a single behavioral trait that is the target of all the rest of the Writings of Scripture: They teach us how to love.
    If you absolutely must insist that NESHAH means "Let Us make", I'll give you that. It was a Catholic translation of this word to suggest there is an "Us", so the trinitarian heresy could be promoted.

  25. For those readers who don't know, this page is a good example of casuistry and equivocation. Specious arguments, or those that sound reasonable yet are intended to deceive, are one of the tactics of the Societas IESU (Jesuit Order). The use of Latin, especially Latin terminology pertaining to arguments, is seen here in the use of the Latin phrase, ad hominem. Those who know me realize I'm for keeping things simple, and as far from deceptive as possible. Ad hominem is a kind of fallacious approach to a debate or argument, where this process is used to attack the position of another:
    This type of "argument" has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.

    I'm not bright enough to know how to use quotation marks, therefore whatever I may say has no credibility.
    This is intended to show method, and helps identify the training behind the attacker. I was trained by Jesuits, so I know their tactics. Operatives they have brainwashed may use these tactics, never realizing their thought processes have been molded, and would never consciously believe they were defending Catholic teachings, because they don't consider they are Catholics.

  26. There's a word limitation to each comment, so please forgive the breaks.
    I love the title of this blog Ben, it should be a book. The odd thing is, a book filled with lies would out-sell any book that held Truth in its covers. I'd like to comment on the sub-title:
    "Responses to wacky attempts at hijacking the ancient world". (There's no comma or period after the sub-title, that's why the quotes end before the end of my sentence).
    Archaeology and Anthropology are attempts to understand the ancient world through it's culture and architectural styles. The behavioral patterns of ancient societies, including language and the meaning of words, can only be partially known at best. Researchers in every field hold preconceptions, and any two observers can look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions. I'm happy to hear your ideas based on your preconceptions, which seem to be based on the same ideas held dear by very sincere men, who in many instances were sincerely wrong. My premise is that Scripture is the Word of Yahuah, and He declares the "nations" (goyim) were given to darkened senses, and worshipped the "host of heaven". They didn't need me to "hijack" their world with my wacky attempts, they hijacked their world all by themselves. In so many words, Yahuah's Word agrees with that observation of the facts. If I could possibly hijack the ancient world any more than they accomplished doing so with the book Fossilized Customs, it would be a feat worthy of a new category for a Nobel Prize.

  27. Great to hear that Brad, I thought that was probably what you meant. I'm not here to defend myself, but it's always encouraging to see someone like you come along side with similar pro-Torah perspectives. Your comment / example of the fish+menorah emblem is spot-on, and although I don't criticize those who interpret it as they do, I've never liked it personally. The menorah is something shown to Mosheh and is not a design of any man. The fish symbol is a monument to the hiding of the Name in "Christograms", one of which was the ICHTHUS icon. Pagans concealed the names of their deities, so it follows this "fossilized custom" of hiding a name would be adopted. The symbol of the fish is also a pagan item in itself, one culture that comes to mind is the Philistines, who worshipped the fish deity Dagon (meaning "fish").
    Paul is certainly misunderstood, as Kefa wrote about him, but I've never heard him referred to as a deity before.

    1. I see attempts to hold conversation with you about Hebrew grammar you are not trained in and primary sources are a waste of time and effort. It’s also unfortunate and no small matter that you are so attached to Sabellian heresy. As for punctuation, I offered it as a courtesy, not an insult. I assure you it is proper grammar:

      Since I disagree with you on central articles of doctrine and wish to discredit you on those things, it is to your benefit and not mine that your writing look more professional. In regards to the silly “evil-symbol” arguments that have already been raised in these comments, which are not historically informed(the Christian fish symbol derives from a Greek acrostic, not paganism) I would direct readers to this post:

    2. Ben, if you consider me unqualified to discuss Hebrew with you, explain to the other readers how NESHAH means "Let Us make". Use Scripture to correct, rebuke and teach. I can learn too. The discussion between the two camps, modalism and trinitarianism, are outside the boundaries of how we are teach or correct one another. The allegorical school at Alexandria won, and the truth fell in the streets when the school at Antioch became overwhelmed by all the theological constipation that built-up over the centuries. You are admitting to everyone here you are a Catholic, because the central tenet of being a Catholic is belief in "one god, three persons."
      Athanasius (of the Alexandrian school of course), declared this as a foundational litmus test for being Catholic. Being trained in the wrong teachings causes error to propagate into the next generation, and each moment a heart continues in error it hardens against the Truth a little more. Your blog comments above defend "Easter", yet you need to explain why PASCHA (Greek for Pesak) is properly rendered "Passover" 28 times, and "EASTER" in one place (in the KJV and Tyndale's work, which the KJV translators followed closely).
      Is my book, Fossilized Customs, correct to any extent in citing the many instances Christianity adopted formerly pagan practices, and abandoned the prescribed festivals of Yahuah for His people to guard? Is there an "Esterfest" in Yahuah's Word? Show Scripture to correct me, not the rulings of men's councils, if at all possible. Again, I point out Shemoth 20 and Debarim 5 as our guide in doing the Will of Yahuah, and the fruit of doing so is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Strife and divisive arguments are not among those fruits. The false doctrines taken into hearts is weed seed, and produces a crop of drunken, rebellious, violent behavior. Only plant seed you find in the Word of Yahuah, and you will do well. Let's not worry about where fish emblems came from so much, we can do without that kind of knowledge. Just explain to everyone the words NESHAH and PASCHA, and real progress can begin.

    3. This may be my last response to you.

      Since you are the founder of the "Torah Institute," publish heterodox ideas in "Jewish" garb and have asked, I will explain how your view demonstrates you are incompetent in your understanding of very basic Hebrew grammar:

      1) A database search of the verb נעשה reveals that in its 33 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible *every single one* contradicts your translation and affirms the traditional reading. Don't take my word for it. Here is the proof of my assertion:

      2) How do I and every other translator derive the translation “let us make” from נעשה? The shoresh אשה is prefixed by the conjugation נ, indicating the first person, plural, future tense—i.e. a plural of exhortation: “Let’s make.” This translation not only is exemplified by every other occurrence of the term in the Hebrew Bible but is parallel to other ANE creation texts like the one I cited above and plurals of exhortations in the same book. (“Now man has become like one of the us”; “Let us go down and confuse their languages.”)

      Some academic articles on the real reasons for the dating of Easter:

      Last of all, you assume that the doctrine of the Trinity is a pagan idea. This doesn’t fly in scholarship and shows you need to pick up Benjamin Sommer’s (Jewish Theological Seminary) book The Bodies of God, any of Daniel Boyarin’s (Berkeley) papers online or look around at Heiser’s lectures and website on the subject: ( The Trinity is a Jewish idea; many, if not most, Jews of the second-Temple period before Christ believed in a plurality participating in the one identity of God. In fact, your unwillingness to accept a model of divine fluidity shows an affinity for Greek thinking and presuppositions. It is distinctly western and *not* Ancient Near Eastern or Jewish. This is demonstrated in Sommer’s book

    To attack the "Hebrew roots of the faith" is to attack the everlasting Covenant of loving-kindness (Kasid).
    Reading the Ten Commandments, we see they teach us how to LOVE.
    They are not difficult at all. If we live in the Word, we are doing what it says, and we walk as Yahusha walked.
    They instill in us the Mind of Yahusha, and we bear the fruits of His indwelling Spirit:
    love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self control.
    False doctrines paralyze and intoxicate us, and produce weed-behavior.
    The false seed produces malice, hatred, strife, jealousy, division, selfishness, dissent, slanders, foul talk, and pride.

  29. Wow, this has been a good read! Yahuah be praised! Lew, I thank you for rattling my cage! Yahusha has shown me things and saved my life and even at this old age still leads me to His Truth, He has used you both! Peace brothers!

  30. I too have been deeply interested in these discussions. One thing my heart has noticed Ben seems unable to answer using Alohim's word and goes to academic reasoning which misses the "science" of the Spirit......the eyes & ears to hear and be illuminated from within by the perfection of the Word of our most exalted creator. Not sure where it is written in scripture but we are to test all things and hold on to what is good but the standard of GOOD cannot only rely on the physical senses

  31. To finish last post .....I originally was searching for info about Lew because I had watched a Seminar video. Then I came across shop video. I am a bit unsure about who or what is trying to pull Lew into hope is the good of being a light in a dark place & foolishly joking around because of the pressure

  32. Just wondering why you chose the winged serpents in the header for your blog?

    1. Mr. Lew White is a false teacher, who takes the truth and twists it into lies, and overthrows people’s faith, by his new twist on Jehovah Witness Doctrine. I almost fell for his teachings until things he said just did not ring true on closer study. If anyone uses deception, and changes the Word of Elohim to suit his doctrine it is blasphemy, and he is a false teacher and this is what the Word says.
      He said the Trinity was a Christian stronghold from the Catholic Church, and is blasphemy. So I emailed him and started asking questions. I asked him about Bereisheet (Genesis) 1:26-27, because it says “Let Us make man in Our image, in the likeness of Us.” I asked him if he could explain this because I was confused.
      He says that the Hebrew word naʿăśeh was forced into verse 26, and the real word is neshah, which means to breathe, or breathe into. He says the Scripture should be U’YAMAR = and He said; Alahim = Alahim; NESHAH = breathe into; ADAM = Adam; B’TSELEM’NU = in same essence; KADEMUTH’NU = same character; U’YARADU = that they rule.
      Well here are the Hebrew words from the Westminster Leningrad Codex: wayyō'mer = and He-is-saying; 'ĕlōhîm = Elohim; naʿăśeh = We-shall-make; āḏām = Adam or human; bəṣaləmēnû = in image-of-Us; kiḏəmûṯēnû = as likeness-of-Us; wəyirədû = and they-shall-sway. He has changed the original words to suite his doctrine, and in doing so has become guilty of exactly what he is accusing the Catholic Church of doing.
      I am not saying the Catholic Church has not done wicked things, because it has. Almost all of its doctrine is blasphemy and against the Word of Elohim, but so is Mr. White’s doctrine. I hope you those who read this will see how he is leading believers astray, and you will see his teaching for what it is, and turn away from it.
      Paul exposed false teaching and teachers by name in his letters. He did this to warn believers about those who crept into the assembly to led believers astray. For example again in 2Timothy 2:11-18; “This saying is faithful: ‘For if we died with him, we will also live with him. If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, he remains faithful. He can’t deny himself. ’Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Master, that they don’t argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear.”
      “Give diligence to present yourself approved by Elohim, a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed, properly handling the Word of Truth. But shun empty chatter, for it will go further in ungodliness, and those words will consume like gangrene, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who have erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past, and overthrowing the faith of some.”
      I too believe that believers should not celebrate Christmas because it does have pagan origins, but Mr. White’s information is incorrect and twists the truth. He says that Mithras was the state religion in Rome, and they celebrated his birthday on December 25. The ancient world celebrated winter solstice and celebrated it as the birthday of all sun deities not just Mithras. There are a lot of claims on the internet, and in non-scholarly writings that “Jesus is a copy of Mithras” which is not found in any ancient source.

    2. Some scholars have mistakenly made this mistake of Mithras’ birthday being celebrated on December 25th, like Manfred Clauss, who states in his book, The Roman cult of Mithras, "Light comes from the firmament, Mithras is the god of light, the new light which bursts forth each morning from the vault of heaven behind the mountains, and whose birthday is celebrated on 25 December. A late antique Syriac commentator describes this festival, and correctly observes that it later developed into the birthday of Christ: 'It was in fact customary among the pagans to celebrate the festival of the Sun's birthday on 25th December and to light bonfires in honor of the day. They even used to invite the Christian population to these rites. But when the teachers of the Church realized that Christians were allowing themselves to take part, they decided to observe the Feast of the true Birth on the same day.' It may be that the Mithraists also celebrated the birthday of their god in public in a similar manner." (1)
      Mr. Clauss makes a mistake in this statement, because the text is from 13th century scholar Dionysius bar Salibi, who is not referring to Mithras. Mr. Clauss later writes in his book, Mithras: Kult und Mysterien, "The Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras." (2)
      Scholar Roger Beck talks about December 25th in his book, Merkelbach's Mithras, in which he writes, "In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of Invictus on that date in the Calendar of Philocalus.'Invictus' is of course Sol Invictus, Aurelian's sun god. It does not follow that a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras, was necessarily or even probably, born on that day too." (3)
      Some people are confused about Mithras, because of all the misinformation everywhere on the internet, which says Mithras and Sol Invictus are one and the same, but this is not true, because there is no ancient source for this. Manfred Clauss writes in his book, The Roman cult of Mithras on page 147, "On the other hand, however, Mithras and Sol are two separate deities, as can amply be demonstrated."
      And again on page 148 he writes, "Mithras is Sol, and at the same time Sol is Mithras' companion. Paradoxical relationships of this kind are to be found between many deities in antiquity. People in the ancient world did not feel bound by fixed credos and confessions which had to be consistent to the last detail: in the area of religion, a truly blessed anarchy held sway."
      Mr. White makes this statement in his Prologue to his book, Fossilized Customs, “Etymology is the study of word origins. The word itself comes from the 2 Greek words, etumo (truth, true) + logos (word). So, it means “true-word”. Being a student of etymology, I am an etymologist.” Oh really? Wow, that would mean if have medical training I am a doctor! No Mr. White, you are only an etymologist if you have a degree in etymology.
      Mr. White says that the Son’s Name is Yahusha and that Yeshua is not His Name and even goes as far as to imply if you are saved in the Name of Jesus or Yeshua, then you are not really saved. Well His real full Name is Yəhushua or Yəhôshua, and this name was shortened when the children of Yiśərā’ēl were in captivity in Babylon to Yeshua. We can see this in Ezrah 2:36; “The priests: the children of Yəḏaəyāh, of the house of Yeshua, nine hundred seventy-three.”

    3. Mr. White says there was a great deception from the Catholic Church to hide Yeshua’s real Name, but nothing could be further from the truth. When names are translated from one language into another, they transliterate them by the way they sound, so they can get as close as possible to the sound of their name in the original language. Now here is the kicker, Yeshua and most of the people of Palestine in those days spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Yeshua’s Name in Aramaic is Eshoa, so if you want to get technical then we should use the name His disciples call Him, which was Eshoa. Even some scholars say that Yeshua is Aramaic but this is wrong according to linguistics, because Yeshua is Hebrew and the shortened version of Yəhushua.
      The truth is, the transliterated word Jesus was an honest mistake. Yeshua transliterated into Greek is Iesous, because the Greek language has no “Y” or “SH” sounds. The King James Version relied heavily on the Tyndale Bible, because Tyndale translated his Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale translated Iesous in Greek to Iesus into Early Modern English.
      Mr. White also says that before the KJV was translated the letter J was not even invented. This is a lie and he is using deception in trying to prove his point that the Christian Church is trying to hide His real Name. He also says the first publish KJV did not have the letter J in it until the Revised version of 1629. This is partly true, but still deception. The sources of the following information about the history of the English language are: The Oxford Dictionary, History of English; Middle English–an overview; The History of English, Luke Mastin, and Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
      I have heard most of my life that the King James Version was written in Old English, and this is not true either. The KJV was written in Early Modern English. Old English is also called Anglo Saxon, or Old Saxon. When the Saxons invaded Britain about 470CE, the Celts left to inhabit Northern Britain, which became Scotland, and they also settled in Ireland. Old Saxon or Old English is a German dialect, and only a few words are left in English. (4)
      The Saxons were called Angles, and Britain was called Angleland which became England. By the late 8th century CE the Vikings were invading Britain, and some Viking words mixed with Old English, like skull, skin, leg, neck, freckle, sister, and so on. The following paragraph is taken from Aelfric’s "Homily on St. Gregory the Great"
      “Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. þa cwæð he, ‘Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon.’”
      As we can see, there are not very many words in Old English that are recognizable as Modern English. A few words can be recognized in our Modern English like; he, of, him, for, and, on. The following is a translation of the Old English into our Contemporary English;
      “Again he [St. Gregory] asked what might be the name of the people from which they came. It was answered to him that they were named Angles. Then he said, ‘Rightly are they called Angles because they have the beauty of angels, and it is fitting that such as they should be angels' companions in heaven.’” (5)

    4. When the Normans under William the Conqueror invaded and conquered England in 1066CE, the English language changed drastically. Norman was of the French language, but it was a lot different than the standard French spoken in Paris. Between 1100CE and 1500CE Middle English was the language use in England, and that was the language the Wycliffe Bible was written in. The Following is from the Wycliffe Bible, Mattithyahu (Matthew) 4:1-4; (6)
      “Thanne Jhesus was led of a spirit in to desert, to be temptid of the feend. And whanne he hadde fastid fourti daies and fourti nyytis, aftirward he hungride. And the tempter cam nyy, and seide to hym, If thou art Goddis sone, seie that thes stoones be maad looues. Which answeride, and seide to hym, It is writun, Not oonli in breed luyeth man, but in ech word that cometh of Goddis mouth.”
      As we can see there is a J in Middle English, and Yeshua’s Name in Middle English is Jhesus. With the invention of the printing press in about 1476, the dialect spoken in London became Early Modern English, and was spoken from about 1500CE to 1800CE. This was the language the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the King James, and many other Bibles were written in. So you see the letter J was in English, but was taken out between 1500CE and about 1630CE. (7)
      It was during this time a series changes occurred in English pronunciations called the Great Vowel Shift. These changes were linguistic sound changes, which had a major effect on the pronunciation of the English language. The English language has borrowed words from Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, Spanish and many other languages. It was during the Early Modern English period that most of the grammar rules put in place.
      William Shakespeare and the King James Bible were literary masterpieces, which helped change the language. Before Contemporary Modern English, scientific, medical, and scholarly papers and books were written in Latin, French, or Greek, because English was not an exact language. Now, because of the advancement and adaptability of the language they are written English. (8)
      The real truth is the Name Yeshua could not have been transliterated into Early Modern English like it can in Contemporary Modern English of today. Because the English language is so adaptable, many Hebrew names, and places can be transliterated into English now. With the findings of archeology, and different manuscripts we know a lot more than the people did in the 1600’s. So either Mr. White is really ignorant about linguistics and language history, or he is trying to deceive to prove his doctrine. If he really was an etymologist he would have known this.
      Mr. White also says the word God comes from the German god Gott. There is no German deity named Gott. Gott is the generic word for Deity in German, hence Mien Gott! The Oxford Dictionary says the origin of the word God is, “Old English, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch god and German Gott.” Old English as I said before was of Germanic origin, and related to means all these words came from the same root word. The Mariam Webster Dictionary says the origin of the Word God is, “GOD Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god; First Known Use: before 12th century”
      This maybe where Mr. White made his mistake thinking there was an Old High German god named got, but it is saying that god is a kin to or related to, which means all these words; God, Gott, Got come from the same root word. If Mr. White really was an etymologist then he would really know the etymology of the word God.

    5. There were two theories that are considered obsolete now. One is that the Langobardic name for the Norse god Odin, which is Godan, was shortened to God and made its way into English. The other popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of the forms shows this to be an error. Also, the notion of goodness is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, because people were mostly afraid of the heathen gods, as they were considered anything but good. The truth is God is a generic name for deity, and the etymology of the word God is uncertain. The following is what the Oxford Dictionary says about the etymology of the word God:
      “The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *glheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. yéotan YETE v.). Hence *glhutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’.” (9)
      The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the etymology of the word “god” as follows: “Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person, from Proto-Germanic *guthan (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), from PIE *ghut- ‘that which is invoked’ (cognates: Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- ‘to call, invoke.’”
      “But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- ‘poured,’ from root *gheu- ‘to pour, pour a libation’ (source of Greek khein ‘to pour,’ also in the phrase khute gaia ‘poured earth,’ referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). ‘Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound’ [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good.” (10)
      PIE stands for Proto-Indo-European, which is the original language family that English and all Germanic languages originate from. The old etymology of the word “god” was “good” but we now know that is an error. Anatoly Liberman, an etymologist for Oxford University says. “Good has transparent etymology: gather and -gether are related to it. Their root means ‘fit, suitable.’ This circumstance is borne out by numerous cognates in and outside Germanic. That is ‘good’ which has been ‘fixed,’ ‘assembled,’ ‘put together’ in a proper way. By contrast, the origin of god is debatable, which does not mean that we know nothing about its derivation.” (11)
      He goes on to say that the further we go back into the history of Germanic peoples the idea of One Supreme God does not exist, instead they believed in many gods, and this is proved by the fact only the plural form of the word existed in the Old Germanic languages, not the singular. Furthermore in ancient Germanic mythologies, the gods were never thought of as good, instead they were frightening, and mostly were the cause of hardships for man. He also says, trying to connect words that look alike should be resisted. (11)

    6. Marija Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis in 1956, which combined archaeology with linguistics to locate the origins of the Proto-Indo-European speaking peoples. She named the set of cultures "Kurgan" after the Russian term for their unique burial mounds and traced their diffusion into Europe. (13)
      This theory has had a substantial impact on Indo-European research. Scholars who follow Gimbutas identify a Kurgan or Pit Grave culture as imitating an early Proto-Indo-European culture which existed in the Pontic steppe and southeastern Europe from the fifth to third millennium BCE.
      They believe the ancestors of the Germanic tribes, from which the English language was spawned, came from the area in purple which would be ancient Sumerian language around 3000 BC. They believe sometime between 3500 BC and 2500 BC, the Indo-Europeans began to spread across Europe and Asia, looking for better hunting grounds, and new pastures. They believe their languages developed, and diverged, in isolation, and by around 1000 BC, the original Indo-European language had split into several major language groups or families.
      The main language groups were as follows: Hellenic, Italic, Indo-Iranian, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, and Albanian. There were other language families that spawned the languages of the world other than Indo-European, which include: Afro-Asiatic, Altaic, Amerindian, North Caucasian, Niger-Congo, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Uralic, and others. The Hebrew language comes from the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. (14)
      Those of us who believe what the Word of Elohim says, know that the world’s languages were confused and the people of the earth were scattered from the Tower of Babel by Elohim, Bereisheet (Genesis) 11:1-9. According to Matthew Henry this scattering of peoples happened about 2247BCE, and the Tower of Babel would have been in the area Marija Gimbutas said these languages started in. (15) We know they were not looking for better hunting grounds, but were spread by Elohim, because they were of one mind and had one language, which was Hebrew, the set-apart language of Elohim.
      There are many Christian scholars, and denominations, like the Christian Church of God who believe that the English word God comes from the Hebrew word Gad, which is pronounced Guwd or Goode. We know this is not possible because Hebrew comes from a different language family then English or any other Germanic language, which all real etymologists believe.
      Since we who believe the Word of Elohim know the families of the people who built the Tower of Babel were from the sons of Noah, and knew who Elohim was, we know they would have invoked the Name of, or pour libation to the One true Elohim, the Elohim of Noah and his sons. With that being said, the word “God” which comes from Proto-Indo-European word gheu, or ghu-to- is not derived from heathen or Idol worship. There is nothing wrong with calling our heavenly Father “God”, because he was the One our ancient forefathers were worshiping. False teachers like Mr. White either twist the truth or make up their own history to try and prove their false teaching.

    7. I choose to call Him Elohim, because His Hebrew title of Elohim transliterates in English perfectly. At the same time will not judge or condemn anyone for calling Him God, because as we have learned that title is traced back to Him. No matter what anyone says, no one today knows for sure how to pronounce His Sacred Name. What’s wrong with calling Him Father? And the same thing goes for Yeshua, I don’t like calling Him Jesus because it is not His real Name, but I will not force my opinion on anyone and tell them it is wrong to call Him Jesus, because it’s not.
      The doctrines Mr. White is trying to prove by twisting the truth is blasphemy, the same blasphemy the Jehovah Witnesses have been spreading, just with a new twist on it. All you have to do is do what I did and research credible scholars and you will see, almost all the facts he gives about ancient history are wrong. He is a false teacher, plain and simple, turn away from him. I am not calling Mr. White bad names; it is just the truth that his teachings are deceptive blasphemy.
      The word Elohim is plural for two reasons. One is that all through Scripture Elohim is represented as three persons in one Godhead or Divinity, called the Trinity by most Christian Churches and scholars. The second reason is that He is mighty in all ways. He also quotes Yôḥānān (John) 14:9, Yeshua said to him, “Have I been with you so long and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father and how do you say, ‘Show us the Father?” He says Yeshua Himself is saying He is the Father. Let us look at the rest of the conversation, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself. But the Father who stays in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, otherwise believe Me because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he shall do also. And greater works then these he shall do because I go to My Father.” It has a different meaning when it is put in context with the rest of the conversation with Philip.
      He also quotes Scripture and says “Elohim is One” and this is true, but the Hebrew word used for one is 'eḥāḏ. In the Strong’s this word is H259 אֶחָד ('eḥāḏ) - properly, united, i.e. one; - or (as an ordinal) first; Etymology: a numeral from H258; KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together. The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 2:24, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to him a wife, and the two shall become one (echad) flesh.”
      In the B.D.B it is H259 אֶחָד ('eḥāḏ); 1.) one (number); 1.a.) one (number); 1.b.) each, every; 1.c.) a certain; 1.d.) an (indefinite article); 1.e.) only, once, once for all; 1.f.) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one; 1.g.) first; 1.h.) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal); Etymology: a numeral from H258; Part of Speech: adj.; AV- one (687), first (36), another (35), other (30), any (18), once (13), eleven +H6240 (13), every (10), certain (9), an (7), some (7), misc. (87); (952)
      The Strong’s Etymology for this word is H258 אָחַד ('āḥaḏ); - to unify, i.e. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts); Etymology: perhaps a primitive root; KJV: go one way or other. In the B.D.B. it is H258 אָחַד ('āḥaḏ); 1.) (Hithpael) to go one way or another, to be sharp; Etymology: perhaps a primitive root; Part of Speech: v; AV- go thee one way or other (1);
      It seems these two Hebrew English-Lexicons differ from each other, but it also is true that this same word is used for one and united. Elohim is One, One Elohim in three Persons, thus the Divinity, or Godhead. This is what Scripture and the Messiah taught us. This is how most false teaching starts, by taking Scripture out of context, and then finding people who will believe anything you say without researching it.

    8. The following paragraphs are an excerpt from an article from Lew White’s website called “Trinity Stronghold.” In this article Lew tries to explain Bereisheet (Genesis) 3:22, which says, “And יהוה Elohim said. ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now lest he stretch forth his hand and takes also from the tree of life and he eats and he lives forever.’”
      [“We know with certainty that Yahuah is one, and that the “stars” sang together as He created. Those “stars” were the immortal beings called malakim, or in the Greek, “angels” (both terms mean messengers). These are the Watchers (alahim, mighty ones) that were with Yahuah at all times during creation, and He was speaking with them. The fact they are IMMORTAL (deathless), “like” Yahuah, is also very true, however an extraneous idea is inserted making it seem to say that Yahuah is somehow a multiple personality, or compound Entity within Himself. Yahuah is not committee of multiple beings, nor is He a family – He says there is no one with Him from the beginning, and no one like Him.”
      “Adam and Chuah were suddenly FALLEN, and MORTAL, and discerning of good and evil. If they had remained in the garden and eaten from the Tree of Life, it would have sustained them in their fallen state. The trinity doctrine is common to most Pagan pantheons, and blended into the early developing forms of “Christianity” from Greek Gnosticism. Gnosticism promoted the idea that higher knowledge needed to be attained for spiritual growth and understanding.”
      “At Genesis/Bereshith 3:22, the prepositional connective that follows “as one discerning” is a LAMED. The LAMED inserts the idea of “moving toward” comprehension, not that they (Adam and Chuah) instantly possessed all knowledge of good and evil. This added to the complexity of the catastrophe. To comprehend or discern “good and evil” became the similarity between them and Yahuah and the malakim. In this aspect, Adam and Kuah had become “like” them, but the text is addressing how they had become “as one discerning”.
      Deu 6:4: “Hear, O Yisharal: Yahuah our Alahim, Yahuah is one!” Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from that time? Is it not I, Yahuah? And there is no mighty-one besides Me, a righteous Al and a Deliverer, there is none besides Me.”
      Yahuah is not a “family”, but He created one; that’s why He’s our “Father”. It was Gnosticism that blended the Pagan idea of father-mother-child into the faith.]
      This is an exact excerpt from Mr. White’s article. I did not fix the spelling or grammar. It appears he has his own way of transliterating Hebrew, because He writes “Alahim” instead of Elohim, Chuah instead of Havvah for Eve, and Bereshith instead of the standard Bereisheet for “In the beginning” or Genesis. That aside, his reasoning is very flawed, because nowhere in Scripture does Elohim say messengers or angles are equal with Him, and calls them Us, except for His Messenger, who is Yeshua Messiah, Elohim incarnate. No messenger or angle accepts praise and worship except for the Messenger of Elohim, who is Yeshua.

    9. Mr. White is very crafty here, because he says here when Elohim says Us He means the messengers. He knows he cannot use the same theory for Bereisheet 1:26, because he would be saying that the messengers helped Elohim create man. So he changes the words in verse 26 to take out the words “Us” and “Our” as I stated earlier. This is wickedness, and blasphemy to try and not only change the meaning of the Hebrew words of Scripture, but change the very Hebrew words themselves to try and prove his doctrine. He is no better than the Catholic Church he is condemning, and far worse than the Christian Church he is ridiculing.
      I do agree with Mr. White about the Pagan mother and child like the Catholic Church presents as Mother Mary, Mary and baby Jesus, and Madonna and Child. This is all from the pagan Queen of Heaven, which dates back to ancient Babel, Semiramis, and Tammuz. Everywhere in the Scriptures it speaks of a multiplicity of Elohim. Yes Elohim is One, but in Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Sacred Spirit.
      Mr. White seems to be like the Jehovah Witnesses in most of his theories and evidence. Now sometimes the Jehovah Witnesses have been correct in some things, but most of their doctrine is way off the mark! Like the Jehovah Witnesses he quotes a part of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia Volume 11, page 928.
      In Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in teh New Testament, not did Jesus and his followers intent to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament; Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord, Deuteronomy 6:4 The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.
      He is correct, the word Trinity is nowhere in Scripture, but let us look at the real article called “Trinity in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
      Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.
      Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

    10. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.
      The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance.
      It seems that Mr. White edited the article and threw out what he did not like. 2 Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Sacred Spirit, be with you all. Amen.” In this letter to the Corinthians, Paul list three separate Individuals, or Persons. Not only that, but in every one of Paul’s letters in the New Covenant Scriptures, except Hebrews, if he really wrote it, he had about the same greeting. My favorate is Galatians 1:1-5, which says:
      “Paul, an emissary (not from men, neither through man, but through Yeshua the Messiah, and Elohim the Father, who raised him from the dead), and all the brothers who are with me, to the assemblies of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from Elohim the Father, and our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our Elohim and Father —to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”
      There is no doubt Paul is talking about two distinct Persons. It is correct the Scriptures never say Trinity, or Godhead, and that is why I don’t like using these words, but the Scriptures do say Divinity. Let us look at the Greek word used to translate Godhead in Acts 17:29 in the Strong’s: G2304 θει̑ος (theios) - godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): - divine, godhead; Etymology: from G2316. And in the Thayer’s: G2304 θει̑ος (theios); 1.) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks; 2.) spoken of the only and true God, trinity; 2.a.) of Christ; 2.b.) Holy Spirit; 2.c.) the Father; Etymology: from G2316; Part of Speech: adj. AV- divine (2), Godhead (1); (3).

    11. The Etymology of this word in the Thayer’s is G2316 θεός (theos); 1.) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities; 2.) the Godhead, trinity; 2.a.) God the Father, the first person in the trinity; 2.b.) Christ, the second person of the trinity; 2.c.) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity; 3.) spoken of the only and true God; 3.a.) refers to the things of God; 3.b.) his counsels, interests, things due to him; 4.) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; 4.a.) God's representative or vicegerent; 4.a1.) of magistrates and judges; Etymology: of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; Part of Speech: n m; AV- God (1320), god (13), godly (3), God-ward +G4214 (2), misc. (5); (1343).
      If you can’t already tell, I am very thorough, and don’t like to leave any stone unturned. With that being said there are only two other places in most Bibles that have the word Godhead. One of those is Romans 1:20, and the Greek word translated for Godhead in the Strong’s is: G2305 θειότης (theiotēs) - divinity (abstractly); Etymology: from G2304; KJV: godhead. And in the Thayer’s: G2305 θειότης (theiotēs); 1.) divinity, divine nature; Etymology: from G2304; Part of Speech: n f; AV- Godhead (1); (1). The other place is Colossians 2:9, and the Greek word translated for God head in the Strong’s is: G2320 θεότης (theotēs) - divinity (abstractly); Etymology: from G2316; KJV: godhead. And in the Thayer’s: G2320 θεότης (theotēs); 1.) deity; 1.a.) the state of being God, Godhead; Etymology: from G2316; Part of Speech: n f; AV- Godhead (1); (1).
      The reason I don’t like using the word Trinity is because it is not in Scripture, and there is a good reason why I don’t like using the word God or Godhead, and I will tell you all about it in a little while. But first, let us deal with this matter. As you can see he omitted what he did not like from the Encyclopedia Britannica to try and prove his point that this is only one God and not in three Persons. What he has done is called deception, and it was either done on purpose or out of ignorance. On purpose if he knew what he was doing; out of ignorance if he just copied the deception of the Jehovah Witnesses and did not research it. Either way it is deception, and not of Elohim, because when someone changes fact or Scripture to try and prove their point it is false teaching.
      Yeshua prayed many times and spoke to Elohim, and called him Father. Let us look at Yôḥānān (John) 10:27-36, which says: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Therefore the Yəhûdim took up stones again to stone him. Yeshua answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?” The Yəhûdim answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself Elohim.” Yeshua answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are elohim?’ If he called them elohim, to whom the word of Elohim came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of Elohim?’”
      Yôḥānān (John) made Yeshua’s teaching very clear in this passage. He said, “I and the Father are one,” and then He makes what He is saying completely clear when He said, “…because I said, ‘I am the Son of Elohim?’” He said He and the Father are one because He is the Son of Elohim, making it very clear that they are both the same Elohim, but there is the Father and the Son. He does not mention the Sacred Spirit, because He had not been given to man yet, and Yeshua had not been through His sacrifice and resurrection yet.

    12. He also says believers should keep the Ten Commandments and the Law of the Torah. He is wrong, because Yeshua gave us an even higher law of love in His Sermon on the Mount. Let us take a close look at some His teaching in Mattithyahu (Matthew) chapters 5 through 7, starting with 5:14-20, “You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can’t be hidden. Neither do you light a lamp, and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house. Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Don’t think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the Torah, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”
      Yeshua said to let our light shine, His light and His love, so men will see Him in us by our good works that He does through us. Mr. White says that when Yeshua said that the smallest letter, (literally iota) or one tiny pin stroke shall pass away from the Torah, until all things are accomplished, that all things are not accomplished until He comes back, so the Torah is still in effect. This is the same thing the Pharisees were saying in the time of Paul, that Gentile believers must keep the Torah, the law of Mosheh (Moses).
      I think what Dr. John Lightfoot wrote on this subject explains it best, “I. It was the opinion of the nation concerning the Messiah, that he would bring in a new law, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Moses and the prophets: but that he would advance the Mosaic law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the prophets, and that according to the letter, even to the greatest pomp.
      II The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, snatch an occasion of caviling (split hairs) against Christ; and readily objected that he was not the true Messiah, because he abolished the doctrines of the traditions which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the prophets.
      III. He meets with this prejudice here and so onwards by many arguments, as namely, 1. That he abolished not the law when he abolished traditions; for therefore he came that he might fulfil the law. 2. That he asserts, that "not one iota shall perish from the law." 3. That he brought in an observation of the law much more pure and excellent than the Pharisaical observation of it was: which he confirms even to the end of the chapter, explaining the law according to its genuine and spiritual sense.”

    13. With that being said let us look at what Yeshua said was the genuine and spiritual sense of the law: 5:21-26 says, “You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, ‘You shall not murder;’ and ‘Whoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment.’ But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing!’ shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fire of Gehinnom. If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the way; lest perhaps the prosecutor deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. Most certainly I tell you, you shall by no means get out of there, until you have paid the last penny.”
      When Yeshua said you have heard it was said to the ancient ones, He was not talking about Mosheh, He was talking about the perversion of the law by the scribes, because this was not the law of Mosheh. Murder from the beginning was punishable by death, not the judgment. Every city had court that could sentence a criminal to be strangled, but only the Sanhedrim could sentence a criminal by stoning to death, and the decision of the court of the city could be appealed to the Sanhedrim.
      When He said you have heard it had been said; the Scribes would read their version of what the Torah said, and they only dealt with the external act and not the spiritual inward thoughts, and thus misrepresents the law, and makes it of little or no effect. Yeshua is teaching us it is not only what we do and don’t do, but how we love. The condition of our heart is what Elohim cares about. What we think about and how we feel is as important as what we do. How we treat others, is how we love.
      To be angry with our brothers without cause, to call them bad names, to belittle them is not love. To love your neighbor as yourself was not new teaching. The Word of Elohim says in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the יהוה.” And D'varim (Deuteronomy) 10:19 says, “Therefore love the foreigner; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.”
      Yeshua goes on to teach about adultery, false vows, loving your enemy, doing merciful deeds, praying, forgiving, being anxious, and judging others. What He was teaching was not just the outward appearance of the law, but the spiritual sense of the law. He was teaching not just to clean the outside of the cup, but to clean the inside as well. He showed what the law really meant, and also that no man can be justified by the law. He gave us a much higher law, and much purer spiritual law, to walk in love. His teachings are what every believer should strive for, to walk in His light and love. Amen!
      Mr. White also quotes Acts 15:28-29, which says, “For it seemed good to the Sacred Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.” He says that the only reason they just told Gentile believers they only had to keep these parts of the Torah is because it was too much to put on them all at once.

    14. He says if these are the only parts of the Torah we are supposed to keep then is it ok to steal, or lie, or murder? Of course it is not ok to do those things, so let us look at all the verses covering the council at Yərûšāliam (yer-oo- shaw-lah'-im) {Jerusalem}. When I quote Scripture I don’t usually quote just one verse, because I want to show the context the verse was written in. Anyone can prove anything just quoting a verse, but when the verses before and after are quoted too, it shows the context it is written in, and the truth of the Word is made known. Amen!
      According to his YouTube seminars he believes we must keep the Torah to be saved. He even says that it is ridiculous to think that when the Council of Yərûšāliam (Jerusalem) said Gentile believers should abstain from things offered to idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood, that that is the only part of the Torah they should keep. He says what about sealing and killing and lying, is it ok to do those things? He said because the converts were steeped in idolatry the Council did not want to put too much on them too soon.
      Let us look at what was really said at the Council of Yərûšāliam in Acts 15:1-29, “Some men came down from Yəhûdāh and taught the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.’ Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Yərûšāliam to the emissaries and elders about this question.”
      “They, being sent on their way by the assembly, passed through both Phoenicia and Shomeron, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brothers. When they had come to Yərûšāliam, they were received by the assembly and the emissaries and the elders, and they reported all things that Elohim had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Torah of Mosheh.’ The emissaries and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.”
      “When there had been much discussion, Kēpha rose up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that a good while ago Elohim made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the Good Message, and believe. Elohim, who knows the heart, testified about them, giving them the Sacred Spirit, just like He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by belief. Now therefore why do you test Elohim, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, just as they are.’”
      “The entire multitude kept silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul reporting what signs and wonders Elohim had done among the nations through them. After they were silent, Yaʿăqōb (yah-ak-obe') {James in the KJV} answered, ‘Brothers, listen to me. Shiməʿôn has reported how Elohim first visited the nations, to take out of them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets. As it is written, ‘After these things I will return. I will again build the tabernacle of David, which has fallen. I will again build its ruins. I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek after the Lord; all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who does all these things. All of Elohim’s works are known to him from eternity.’ Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to Elohim, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For Mosheh from generations of old has in every city those who proclaim him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.’”

    15. “Then it seemed good to the emissaries and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Yəhûdāh (yeh-hoo-daw') called Bar-Sabas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers. They wrote these things by their hand: ‘The emissaries, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings. Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the Torah,’ to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah. We have sent therefore Yəhûdāh and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.’”
      I will show through Scripture that these were concession the Gentiles would make for the sake of the Yəhûdim, because these things were not only very offensive to the Yəhûdim believers, but they were forbidden by Elohim before the Torah was given. So, these things were not a part of the laws of the Torah. These four things should not be done by believers even today. As far as murder and stealing, and lying, Elohim said, “I will put my laws into their mind; I will also write them on their heart. I will be their Elohim, and they will be my people.” Hebrews 8:10 from Yirəməyāhû (Jeremiah in the KJV) 31:33. If we have the Sacred Spirit living in our hearts, we know right from wrong. Amen.
      Let us look at the things that Yaʿăqōb (yah-ak-obe') {James in the KJV} said should be forbidden for Gentile believers. The pollution of idols appears here to be just those things sacrificed to idols, because of verse 29. If you did not buy the food offered in the market what was offered to idols, then you would have to go to the sacrificial ceremony where they had a feast to be able to partake in the things offered to idols, which would be taking part in idolatry. This is exactly why the Yəhûdim were forbidden from having to do anything with idols so they would not be polluted by it in anyway.
      Eating things sacrificed to idols was very offensive to the Yəhûdim, because it was strictly forbidden, because partaking of things offered to idols was in fact being partakers in idolatry. Paul later says you can eat meat offered to idols as long as it does not cause a brother to stumble, but he never says it is ok to partake in idol sacrifices, or pagan ceremonies, or holidays.
      This is why I believe true believers should not take part in pagan holidays today, like Easter, Halloween, and Christmas, which is really winter solstice, or the Roman sun god Sol Invictus’ birthday, not necessarily the birthday of Mithras as Mr. White claims. There are a lot of claims on the internet, and in non-scholarly writings that “Jesus is a copy of Mithras” which is not found in any ancient source.

    16. It also seems that Mr. White is focused on saying the Yəhûdim were not responsible for killing the Messiah. Number one; the Roman soldiers executed Yeshua (Jesus). Number two: if you really want to know who is responsible for the death of Yeshua (Jesus), look in the mirror! My sins and your sins put those stripes on His back from the Roman scourge; also call a cat of nine tails. In the leather tails of the whip it had sharp pieces of metal and pieces of broken pottery, which literally ripped the flesh (muscle) off His bones. The reason Pilate said “Behold the man!” in Yôḥānān (John) 19:5 is because Yeshua was beaten so badly that He could not be recognized as a man.
      Most people did not survive a beating like that from Roman soldiers, because they did not give thirty-nine lashes like the Yəhûdim. The Roman soldiers would beat a man until they wore out or the man died, which ever came first, and through it all, Yeshua never opened His mouth. Yes, and it was my sins and your sins that put that crown of thorns on His head; and they did not just put it on His head, they shoved it on His head, inflicting as much pain and humiliation as possible.
      Yes it was my sins and your sins that put those nails, or should I say spikes through His hands and feet. Yes, it was my sins and your sins that hung Him on that stake, and caused Him to die that horrible death. But praise Elohim, He was raised from the dead for our justification! Amen and Halleluyah! He not on that stake and He is not in that tomb, as the messengers said, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He isn’t here, but is risen.” Halleluyah and praise Elohim!

    17. Next was sexual immorality, and this one has perplexed many theologians over the years, because it was not part of ceremonial law like the other three, and no believer could argue that fact that it was a sin against Elohim. Number one: sexual immorality has been forbidden before the Torah was given. The Messiah quoted Bereisheet (Genesis) 1:27 and 2:24 in Mattithyahu (Matthew) 19:4-6; He answered, “Haven’t you read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’ So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.”
      Also to the Gentiles there was nothing wrong with sexual immorality, and it was part of their everyday life, and even in their pagan worship services. The Greek pagan temples had temple prostitutes, and the worshipers having sex with the prostitutes were how they worshiped their pagan deities, like the worship of Venus.
      Sexual immorality was so prevalent in the Gentile society that it was important for early believers to frown upon and opposite it, especially in the assemblies. We see from Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, it was a problem in the Gentile assemblies. This was very disturbing and offensive to the Yəhûdim. Elohim hated immorality, and especially sexual immorality long before the Torah was given.
      Let us look at Bereisheet (Genesis) 6:4-6; “There were tyrants in the earth in those days; and afterword, when the sons of Elohim came to the daughters of men, and there gave birth to children, they became great warriors, and men of great fame. And יהוה saw the wickedness of mankind was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his was only evil continually. And יהוה regretted making man on the earth, and it grieved His Heart. And יהוה said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and birds of the heavens for I regret that I have made them.’”
      Also let us look at Bereisheet 18:20-21, 20, “And יהוה said, ‘Because the outcry of Sedom and Amorah is great, and their sinfulness is very heavy. I shall descend now, and I shall see if they have done all according to the cry of her, which has come to Me, and if not, I shall know.’”
      What happened when the messengers went to Sedom? Bereisheet 19:4-5 says, “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sedom, from young man to old man, all the people from the outmost parts, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them forth to us, that we may have sex with them.’”
      And what happened to Sedom (sed-ome') {Sodom in the KJV} and Amorah (am-o-raw') {Gomorrah in the KJV}? Bereisheet 19:24-25 says, “And יהוה cause to rain on Sedom and Amorah, sulpher and fire from יהוה out of the heavens. And He overturned those cities, and the entire basin, and all those dwelling in the cities, and everything sprouting from the ground.” As we can see sexual immorality was a great sin before Elohim before the Torah was given.
      For more evidence, let us look at Bereisheet 20:2-7, “And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife, ‘She is my sister.’ And Abimelek (b-ee-mel’-ek) the king of Gerar, sent for and took Sarah. And Elohim came to Abimelek in a dream at night, and said to him, ‘Behold, you are a dead man! For the woman you have taken is another man’s wife.’ And Abimelek and not come near her, and said, ‘My Master, will you kill a righteous man? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister?’ And she even said herself, ‘He is my brother.’ In the sincerity of my heart and clearness of my palms I have done this.’”

  33. “And Elohim said to him in a dream, ‘Yes, I know that you did this in the sincerity of your heart, for I also withheld you from sinning against me, so I allowed you not to touch her. Now restore the woman as his wife, for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you, and you shall live! And if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die you and all that are yours.’”
    Elohim told Abimelek he was a dead man because he had taken another man’s wife, and He also said He kept Abimelek from sinning against Him, because He did not let Abimelek touch Sarah. Elohim hates sexual immorality, which includes; adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and all other sex outside of marriage.
    To prove that people knew sexual immorality was a sin against Elohim before the law was given, let us look at Bereisheet 39:7-9; “And it came to be after these things that his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Yoseph, and said, ‘Lie with me!’ And he refused and said to his master’s wife, ‘Behold! My master does not know what is with me in the house, and he has put all he has into my hand. There is no one greater in this house then me! Neither has he kept back anything from be, except you, because you are his wife. How can I do this great evil, and sin against Elohim?’”
    The third thing the Gentile believers need to abstain from was things strangled, which was done to keep the blood in the body of the animal. These animals were considered a greater delicacy by the Gentiles, which brings us to the forth thing the Gentile believers needed to abstain from: blood. To the Gentiles eating blood was not only a delicacy; it was also a part of religious ceremony when worshiping their deities. We see this in Homer’s Odyssey:
    "At the fire already lie the paunches of two goats, preparing for our evening meal, and both are filled with fat and blood. Whoever shows himself the better man in this affray, and conquers, he shall take the one of these he chooses."
    The eating of blood has been forbidden by Elohim since the beginning. Elohim did not allow Adam or his decendents to eat animals before the great flood, as we see in Bereisheet (Genesis) 1:29-30; “And Elohim said, ‘Behold I give you ever plant bearing seed, which is upon the surfaces of the earth, and every tree bearing fruit which has seed in it for food. And to every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to every creeping creature on the earth which has a living soul, I give every green plant for food. And it became so.”

    1. It was not until after the flood that man was allowed to eat the flesh of animals, but they were strictly forbidden from eating blood, as we see in Bereisheet (Genesis) 9:3-6; “Every moving animal which has life, he is food for you, even as the green plants, I give all to you. But the flesh with life of him, which the blood of him, you shall not eat. And I shall surely require your blood of your lives from the hand of every animal, I shall require it, and from the hand of every man, and from the hand of ever man’s brother I shall require the life of the man. The one shedding the blood of a man, by man his blood shall be shed, for Elohim made man in His own image.”
      As we can see whether it is eating of blood or shedding of blood, or both, it was forbidden by Elohim long before the Torah. As I said before all these things the Council of Yərûšāliam (Jerusalem) said the Gentile believers should abstain from were forbidden before the Torah, and thus no part of the Torah was enforced here. Paul also said in Romans 3:19-31;
      “Now we know that whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be closed, and the entire world may be brought under the judgment of Elohim. Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law, a righteousness of Elohim has been revealed, being testified by the Torah and the Prophets; even the righteousness of Elohim through faith in Yeshua the Messiah to all and on all those who believe.”
      “For there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of Elohim; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Messiah Yeshua; whom Elohim sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in Elohim’s forbearance; to demonstrate His righteousness at this present time; that He might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Yeshua.”
      “Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is Elohim the Elohim of Jews only? Isn’t he the Elohim of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed there is one Elohim who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! No, we establish the law.”

    2. And again Paul said in Romans 5:6 through 6:23; “For while we were yet weak, at the right time Messiah died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man. Yet perhaps for a righteous person someone would even dare to die. But Elohim commends His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we will be saved from Elohim’s wrath through Him. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to Elohim through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by His life.”
      “Not only so, but we also rejoice in Elohim through our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren’t like Adam’s disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of Him who was to come.”
      “But the free gift isn’t like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of Elohim and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Yeshua the Messiah, abound to the many. The gift is not as through one who sinned: for the judgment came by one to condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses to justification. For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Yeshua the Messiah.”
      “So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous. The law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceedingly; that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord.”
      “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all we who were immersed into Messiah Yeshua were immersed into His death? We were buried therefore with Him through immersion to death that just like Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.”
      “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, we will also be part of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. But if we died with Messiah, we believe that we will also live with Him; knowing that Messiah, being raised from the dead, dies no more.”
      “Death no more has dominion over Him! For the death that he died, he died to sin one time; but the life that He lives, He lives to Elohim .Thus consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to Elohim in Messiah Yeshua our Lord. Therefore don’t let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. Neither present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to Elohim, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to Elohim.”

    3. “For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? May it never be! Don’t you know that to whom you present yourselves as servants to obedience, his servants you are whom you obey; whether of sin to death or of obedience to righteousness? But thanks be to Elohim, that, whereas you were bondservants of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were delivered.”
      “Being made free from sin, you became bondservants of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh, for as you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to wickedness upon wickedness, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness for sanctification. For when you were servants of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.”
      “What fruit then did you have at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and having become servants of Elohim, you have your fruit of sanctification, and the result of eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of Elohim is eternal life in Messiah Yeshua our Lord.”
      We are free from the Torah, but are still under Yeshua’s law of love, which He said in Mattithyahu (Matthew) 22: 37-40; “‘You shall love the Lord your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole Torah and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
      Anything we do for our heavenly Father, for the Messiah, for others should be done out of love. Which do you think is more pleasing to our Father, to do things, or not to do things out of fear, or out of love? Will we say to Him, “I did not do those things You don’t like, because I was know You are a vengeful Elohim and I was afraid of going to hell,” or will we say “I did not do those things You don’t like, because I love You, because you first loved me?”
      Mr. White makes this statement in his Prologue to his book, Fossilized Customs, “Etymology is the study of word origins. The word itself comes from the 2 Greek words, etumo (truth, true) + logos (word). So, it means “true-word”. Being a student of etymology, I am an etymologist.” Oh really? Wow, that would mean if have medical training I am a doctor! No Mr. White, you are only an etymologist if you have a degree in etymology.
      Does it say anywhere in Scripture that it is ok to deceive? Some misguided people think 2Corinthians 12:16 says just that, but they are wrong. Let us look 2Corinthians 12:14-17, “Behold, this is the third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I seek not your possessions, but you. For the children ought not to save up for the parents, but the parents for the children. I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more abundantly, am I loved the less? But be it so, I did not myself burden you. But, being crafty, I caught you with deception. Did I take advantage of you by anyone of them whom I have sent to you?”
      To think that Paul would use craftiness to deceive people is absurd, and to conclude from this passage that it is lawful to use deceit in order to serve a good and a spiritual purpose is equally absurd. These words are most evidently those of the apostle's slanderers, against which he defends his conduct in the following verses. If a man says he is a true man of Elohim, and then uses deception, then he is not to be trusted as a man of Elohim. As you can see Mr. White’s claims are deceptive.

    4. There is another deception Mr. White uses; he says that calling the Father and the Son Lord is calling them Ba’al, which means Lord in Hebrew. This is just more deception trying to twist the truth into a lie. Nowhere in the original Hebrew do they use Ba’al to describe either the Father or Son. Bereisheet (Genesis) 15:2 says, “Abram said, ‘Lord Yahweh, what will you give me, since I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?’” The Hebrew word translates to Load Adonai, and the definition of Adonai in the BDB is: H136 אֲדֹנָי ('ăḏōnāy); 1.) my lord, lord; 1.a.) of men; 1.b.) of God; 2.) Lord-title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence; Etymology: an emphatic form of H113; Part of Speech: n m; AV- Lord (431), lord (2), God (1); (434)
      The Scriptures use Adonai in the following verses when men were talking to Elohim in the book of Bereisheet (Genesis) alone, 15:8; 18:3; 18:30, 31, 32, 33; 20:4; and nowhere did they ever use Ba’al to talk to Elohim. This is complete deception to say calling Elohim Lord is calling Him Ba’al when Abraham called Him Lord (Adonai). In the New Covenant Scriptures, Kurios in Greek is used as the title for Elohim. Kurios really means Master, because it has the sense of ownership, like Master and slave. Let us look at the word Kurios in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon;
      G2962 κύριος (kurios); 1.) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1.a.); the possessor and disposer of a thing; 1.a1.) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master; 1.a2.) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor; 1.b.) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master; 1.c.) this title is given to: God, the Messiah; Etymology: from kuros (supremacy); Part of Speech: n m; AV- Lord (667), lord (54), master (11), sir (6), Sir (6), misc (4); (748)
      This is why I call Yeshua the Messiah my Master, because He bought me with the price of His own blood, never to be sold again. By His never ending grace He made me His bondservant. By His never ending love He gave His life for me when I was still wicked. He not only knew all the bad things I did before he saved me, He knew all the bad things I would do after he saved me, but He saved me anyway. He is my Master, my Owner, my Elohim, my Brother, my Friend, and the Lover of my soul. Amen!
      Below are scholarly references for everything I have written.
      1. The Roman cult of Mithras, Manfred Clauss; page 66.
      2. Mithras: Kult und Mysterien, Manfred Clauss; page 70.
      3. Merkelbach's Mithras, Roger Beck; page 299.
      4. The History of English, Old English (c.500-c.1100); Luke Mastin;
      5. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, What are the origins of the English Language?
      6. Oxford English Dictionary; Middle English-an overview; Philip Durkin, Principal Etymologist; 2013 Oxford University Press.
      7. Oxford English Dictionary; The History of English; Philip Durkin, Principal Etymologist; 2015 Oxford University Press.
      8. The History of English, Early Modern English, Luke Mastin
      9. Oxford English Dictonary, Etymology of the word God, copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.
      10. Online Etymology Dictionary, God, copyright Douglas Harper 2001-2014.
      11. Oxford University Press; Academic Insights for the Thinking World; Good God and Etymology, November 4th 2009; Anatoly Liverman, Oxford Etymologist; copyright Oxford University Press 2015.
      12. Image from Indo-European Languages, Kurgan Hypothesis,
      13. Indo-European Languages, Kurgan Hypothesis,
      14. The History of English, Before English (Prehistory - c. 500), Luke Mastin, copyright 2011 Luke Mastin.

  34. WOW Why did you delete what I wrote Ben? Sorry i had to put anonymous but i cant get into my google for some reason!

    1. opps sorry i guess you did not