Is Yahshua Actually Yahweh in the Flesh?

There is soooo much here, folks.  More than we could possibly share in one, or even a dozen, blog entries.  With your bible, your concordance, and a sincere desire to know the truth, you can learn as much as you want on this topic - please don't limit yourself to our writings!  Our purpose in sharing this is two-fold.  One, we just want to whet your appetite.  Two, we are so excited!

Because there is so much to cover, we thought we'd start by sharing portions of a letter we wrote to a friend.  We had sent our friend a letter covering basically what I covered in my "Being Berean - The Trinity" post, as well as a list of 100 scriptures that prove Yahshua isn't Yahweh in the flesh (you can find the list here - note, we do not affiliate with the folks who put this site together - in fact, we don't know much about them at all - just happened across this page). Below you'll find the questions our friend responded with, as well as our answers (and whatever we have to add to make it clear for our blog readers).   Enjoy!
-----------------------------------------

Sorry if we weren't entirely clear last time. It's taken us some time ourselves to weed through the details of various doctrines (a label comes with certain assumptions that may not be accurate) and get to the bottom of the issue. For instance, are divinity and deity the same thing? What is sovereignty? What is meant by oneness? Can someone be 100% man and 100% elohim?

We have come to believe that Yahshua is not Yahweh in the flesh. (That right there would have us stoned in many Constantinian churches!)  We do believe Yahshua is the savior and messiah that Yahweh provided for us. We do believe he is from Yahweh and therefore divine. We do not believe he IS Yahweh and therefore is not deity, as Yahweh alone holds that title. We believe Yahshua is 100% man and therefore cannot be any percent deity. More on that later. We also believe he is sovereign, as his kingship was given to him by the Father.

Now you have even more questions. But let's get to your letter...

Savior

Should our redemption then be found in man whose breath is in his nostrils (Is 2.22) rather than our salvation being in Yahweh, maker of heaven and earth?

You mentioned these:

Isa 45:17 Israel has been saved by YHWH with an everlasting salvation; You will not be put to shame or humiliated To all eternity.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am Elohim, and there is no other.

There are also these, and probably more:

Isa 43:11 "I, even I, am YHWH; And there is no savior besides Me.

Hos 13:4 Yet I have been YHWH your Elohim Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any elohim except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.

And when we consider passages that show Messiah to be our savior, it seems reasonable that they (Yahweh and Yahshua) must be one and the same entity, since we cannot have two elohim. However, we found that neither of them hold exclusively the title of savior in scripture. Consider:

2Ki 13:5 And YHWH gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.

Neh 9:27 Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.

Oba 1:21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be Yahweh’s.

None of these refer to Yahshua or Yahweh as savior, as far as we can see, and some of these are even pluralized. Sometimes the sending of saviors is seen as occurring in the past (for instance in the verse from Nehemiah), thus providing further evidence that the saviors being referred to were NOT the Messiah prophesied elsewhere as a future event.

So we know that Yahweh is our savior, the question then is how does he save? Apparently it’s not unusual for him to raise men up to do the job. The Hebrew word used in all these references is "yasha" (H3467). Yahshua is the promised savior of Israel in the NT - Acts 5:31, 13:23. We don't see a conflict here, nor do we see that they have to be the same entity.


From Eternity

But as for you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2

This very verse says that from Judah one will go forth for Yahweh to be ruler. In his "goings forth" from long ago, we found that the Strong's word used there can also mean "family descent," which to us seems to fit better with the whole of scripture. Thus, the verse would read, "His family descent is from long ago, from the days of eternity." Luke 3 shows us that Messiah's lineage does indeed go back to Yahweh (specifically vs 38), including Judah.

Was Yahshua from eternity or 100% man through Joseph and Mary.

Um.... Yes. =)

Hebrews 7 seems to say Yahshua was Melchizadek.

We don't know a lot about Melchizadek. We've heard that he was one and the same as Yahshua, but we're learning to question everything we've heard! We do note in Hebrews 7 that he was made like the son of Elohim. Also, vs. 11 says there was another priest of the order of Melchizedek. That, along with the fact that Yahshua does have a genealogy, parents, beginning of days and end of life, makes us think they can be nothing but separate beings. Anyway, there seems to be a lot in the (endless!) genealogies that we have yet to unpack, but if we start with examining the virgin birth, it does narrow down the options.


The virgin will be with child...

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.


The fact that millions of women have become pregnant and have given birth by means of their husbands is not an amazing sign but rather the way of reproducing mankind. For it to be a sign of any significance it seems to need to be out of the ordinary.

(From Bobby's notes)

We've read that the earliest accounts of Matthew and Luke said nothing of the virgin birth. Here is why I believe that to be true: First of all Matthew supposedly quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy. You've already recognized that the word "virgin" could mean maiden:

almah (H5959) possible to be virgin, but usually maiden or young woman.

betulah (H1330) impossible to be anything but virgin


Yet, the issue of the Hebrew word almah is unimportant compared to the context of Isaiah 7:14, for it is firmly and irrefutably placed in Isaiah and it doesn't seem possible it could be legitimately used anywhere as a messianic prophecy.

The facts seen from the context of Isaiah 7:1 - 8:8:

1.  Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, king of Judah and tells him that the sign of the virgin birth will be for him, Ahaz. This fact alone makes the application of Is. 7:14 to the birth of Messiah impossible since Ahaz had been dead some 700 years before Yahshua was born. Yahshua's birth would not have made a very good sign for a dead guy.

2. The entire context refers to the specific issue of the prophecy regarding what would happen to those who were plotting against Judah, of whom Ahaz was king.

3.  Only a few verses later, in 8:3, we see the birth that was prophesied, that being the birth of Isaiah's son with his second wife. So, if 7:14 were at the least a near/far prophecy then Mary would not have been the only virgin to give birth. If we apply virgin in the "betula" sense to Mary, we must do the same for Isaiah's wife (was his child Yahweh in the flesh, too?).

4.  Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 are almost identical, proving them to reference the same event, that Yahweh would eliminate the threat posed to Ahaz by Ephraim and Damascus.


5.  It seems the only way Isaiah 7:14 can be used as a Messianic prophecy is to completely rip it from it's context.


6.  Yahweh calls either Isaiah or Ahaz "Immanuel" in 8:8.


Incidentally, the idea of a virgin birth is not strictly a Christian concept. Consider these virgin births from history: Buddha, born of virgin Maya; Horus, born of virgin Isis; Attis, born of virgin Nama; Adonis, born of virgin Myrrha; Krishna, born of virgin Devak; Quirrnus, Indra, Mithra, Zoroaster, all the pharaohs, all Greek emperors, even Alexander the Great were all supposedly born of virgins, probably more. Another popular theme in pagan religions is elohim procreating with mankind. In Gen 6 the sons of elohim lusting after the daughters of men was not a good thing. It was part of the reason Yahweh destroyed the world by flood. Now it seems Christianity claims that Yahweh did a similar thing with Mary.

(On a side note, we're finding there's a pretty even split among those Messianics who don't believe Yahshua is Yahweh in the flesh; some do still claim the validity of the virgin birth. Admittedly, it's hard for some to believe that scripture could have been so twisted.)

With this in mind, is it any wonder that this most important doctrine is included with the rest of the Greek paganism that entered the church? We're finding that many scriptures that would be better translated one way are instead translated with a Trinitarian slant. Yet aside from a handful of these sorts of scriptures (like Micah 5:2) and this apparently false prophecy in Matthew and Luke, the idea of Yahweh himself coming in the flesh is strangely absent from the whole of scripture. Really! Think on it.


You know that sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said. Fishy virgin birth aside, we only have come across one other mention in scripture of an elohim coming in the flesh and it ain't purdy, ma friend.

Act 14:11 And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The elohim have become like men and have come down to us."

Act 14:12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

Act 14:13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.

Act 14:14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out

Act 14:15 and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living elohim, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.

Now, maybe they were just upset that they were the ones being worshipped, but wouldn't this have been a good time for them to explain that Yahshua was the elohim in the flesh to whom they owed homage, if such a thing were true?
I know it's hard to comprehend this Yahshua-as-just-a-man thing at first because it seems that we must accept the Yahweh-in-flesh doctrine to accept Yahshua as Messiah, but after a bit of studying and reexamining of what we "thought" we knew, everything (so far) has fallen into place and it really makes clear a lot of things that had been unclear to us in the past, things a lot of people struggle with in trying to make sense of the Trinity. It's also a touchy topic because Yahweh and Yahshua's very characters are being questioned either way and that's a hard place to be for anyone who loves them.

And he shall be called....

When Isaiah 9:6 says that Yahshua's name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Elohim, Eternal Father, etc., we don't feel it's saying that Yahshua is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of Yahweh. The word "name" in scripture seems to imply the character rather than merely a form of address. In Lazarus 17:11-12 Yahshua, when praying to the father (explain that?), twice refers to "your name, the name which you have given me."

Incidentally, this passage includes the oneness theme that we find elsewhere in scripture, but does oneness mean that Yahshua IS Yahweh? He prays that we (his sheep) would be one the same way he and the Father are one. This gives us an idea of what kind of oneness we're talking about - if we can be one the same way Yahshua and the Father are one, then I don't think it means they're the same person, rather that they have the same character.

The Image of Elohim, Creator Yahshua?

(From Bobby's notes)


Eikon (image)1504

Col 1:15 And He is the image of the invisible Elohim, the first-born of all creation.


Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him.


Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

a likeness, a statue, profile, representation, resemblance, pattern, portrait, image as in reflection, or image as in the mind, similitude. note: none of these are equal to the genuine article.

prototokos (firstborn)4416
first born, birthright, inheritance rights of the firstborn, first begotten, rights of the firstborn.

If Paul was trying to say that Yahshua is YHWH, why did he not just say so? Did he not shoot himself in the foot if he meant to have people believe that Yahshua is YHWH by using the word

Eikon in this verse? Are we not the image of YHWH?

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image (eikon) and glory of YHWH: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Does that mean that I'm YHWH? Same word used! Of course it doesn't mean I'm YHWH. The same understanding we come to in 1 Cor. is what he intends us to come to in Col 1:15

First born

Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rev 1:5 And from the messiah Yahshua, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.

If we look at the context, don't we see many first born spoken of in the bible? Now, is Paul speaking of a preexistence or is he referring to the fact that Yahshua, having been raised from the dead by YHWH (Yahshua's Elohim), is the firstborn of the dead? Yahshua was the first to be raised from the dead into eternal life, therefore giving all that follow his footsteps of faith and obedience hope that they will follow him into a resurrection of eternal life.

Col.1:16

here we have to look at a few words again

En 1722
in, at, on, by, about, after, against, almost, altogether, among, as, before, between, by all means, for the sake of, because of, through, when, where

Dia 1223
dee-ah'
through, with, for, the ground or reason that something is or is not done, by reason of, on account of, for the sake of, for this cause, because, because of, etc note: this often refers to the reason for something

So, in essence we have:

Col 1:16 For the sake of him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created on account of him, and for him:

We see a similar Trinitarian "translator's choice" in Hebrews.

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through (dia - "for, because of,") whom also He made the world.

Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 1:4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "THOU ART MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

The whole of this passage (and much besides) of Hebrews supports a man-Yahshua. "Exact representation of his (YHWH's) nature," words such as "inherited, son, begotten, father," Yahshua sitting at Yahweh's right hand. And subtle but important phrases such as, "having become as much better than the angels." Wasn't Yahweh already better than the angels? (Similar to the idea of Yahshua learning obedience and being made perfect, Heb 5:8-9) Scripture is FULL of these things!

Equality with Elohim...

(again from B's notes)

Php 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Messiah Yahshua,

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of elohim, did not regard equality with Elohim a thing to be grasped,

Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Php 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Form? Isn't that the same theme as an image? Let's see shall we?

Morphe H3444
Shape, nature, form, character, outward appearance

Couldn't Paul just as easily be saying here that even though Yahshua appeared as elohim (which is used for kings, judges and yup, you guessed it, even satan) he did not take advantage of the situation (being a king from the line of David he could have claimed a throne) instead he humbled himself and became like an obedient servant (like an average every day Joe Shmoe) instead of Elohim (king), so obedient that he died in his obedience to YHWH's command? Couldn't he have profited by claiming his kingship here on earth? Isn't that humbling yourself, having that much influence yet not using it to your advantage? Don't verses 9-10 show that Paul did not think that Yahshua was YHWH by differentiating the two?


And the Word was Elohim...

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.


Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with Elohim.


Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(B's notes again)

key elements to see here is that what is translated as "word" is - logos 3056

1) something said 2) a topic 3) a reasoning 4) motive 5) computation 6) devine expression 7) treatise 8) utterance 9) word 10)work

Let's read that again shall we?

In the beginning was the plan (motive), and the plan (motive) was with Elohim, and the plan (motive) was Elohim.

We can only know Yahweh or his plan by reading his Torah (divine expression). Therefore his plan (motive) is the very manifestation of himself. Yahshua, as the perfect servant, revealed the character more than any other man, however, everything he did and preached was accomplished within the sphere of YHWH's divine plan (logos) (just as we are to do!). The rendering of logos to "word" in John 1:1 is not as logical unless one is already predisposed to believe in the Trinitarian view, and intentionally biases the translation to support a mysterious inner meaning. Greek writer Heraclitus first used the term logos around 600 bc to designate "the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe" So here we have a historic proper understanding of the term logos as divine thought, plan, or motive. This rendering is logical (it makes sense) and removes the cloud (albeit man-made) of mysticism from YHWH.

Also are we to believe in the preexistence of Yahshua?

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even YHWH, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1:21 Who by him do believe in YHWH, that raised Yahshua up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in YHWH.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So, from revelation 13:8 are we to believe that Yahshua was slain before the foundation of the world physically? I don't get that from these. I see that YHWH had a plan (motive) and that plan (motive) was with YHWH in the beginning, before the foundation of the world.


* * * * *

That about covers the scriptures you presented in your letter (and then some, eh?) and we're sure (we hope!) that you'll have more questions.

Bobby has another question for ya: Can Yahweh be tempted to worship Satan?

We've considered many aspects of these doctrines. Besides the ones we've touched on in this letter we've also looked into the significance of "I AM," worship of Yahshua, the immortality of Yahweh, the temptation of Yahshua, as well as why the modern church believes what it does and why they won't let go of their traditions (not unlike the Torah issue). We're very excited by what we're learning. It's so neat to watch the pieces of the puzzle snap into place!

I think one of the scariest things about studying this belief for me (K) is not wanting to let go of who I always thought Yahshua was. I had to pray fervently that Yahweh would forgive me my mistakes and any lies I'd inherited, while helping me to know and understand him better. It’s sobering indeed to realize that you might have been worshiping a man as deity or that you might swing too far and not give Yahshua his due credit and respect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I hope and pray this has benefited my blog readers in some way!