Names of God

 Note: I have long wanted to write something on names, as in all names, but as time ticks away, the notes I've long ago written concerning the names of God and the Lord have been sitting on my hard drive an in my notebook, not helping anyone. So I have finally uploaded this much, and one of these days, perhaps I will add all that I want concerning names in general.

SACRED LANGUAGE AND SACRED NAMES DOCTRINE

The idea of "sacred languages" is found in many pagan religions. I find it strongly disappointing that many who come in the name of Christ claim also that the Most High God, Creator of the heavens, earth, and everything in them (as signed by the 7th day Sabbath) has some "sacred language" and "sacred name." They REFUSE to believe the scriptures and use good logic.

First of all, the Eternal is just that--Eternal.  At some point he created humankind and gave them a human language.  He created many other creatures and assigned them all different languages.  Zebras have a different language than humans.  Wolves have different languages than zebras and humans.  Was God then not Eternal?  Did he have no identity, no name, before the creation of human language?

Fast forward to the destruction of the Babel tower, and it's clearly taught in the holy book that God CONFUSED the original human language. There has been NO perfect language since then. He uses whatever language a person knows in order to reveal himself to him or her. Otherwise, how could the person understand? The wicked Roman Catholic Church also kept people in the DARK ("Dark Ages") having the sacred language of Latin for the priesthood of their cult, while the laity could not read Latin. They could not understand any truth, so they could not prove whether the Roman church-state's priesthood class was teaching them truth or not. BUT, there is no excuse for people today, certainly not in the lands of Israel (Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Jews). Certainly not in the English-speaking nations, for sure. There is NO EXCUSE. You POSSESS the scriptures in the language in which you understand. You also POSSESS Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. You POSSESS bible history and also the histories of pagan cultures. You can RESEARCH. Finally, you can also use GOOD LOGIC.

What good is some "sacred language" if you do not know it? Those who claim some sacred languages DAMN THEMSELVES with their own words, for they only use a select few "special" words in the so-called "sacred language" of Hebrew. If it's such a sacred language sanctioned by the God of Israel, with his top four commandments SIGNED with his fourth commandment, then why are not those people scrambling to learn this "sacred language?" Why are they still speaking English or something else?  At least in congregational gatherings, the ministers should be preaching and teaching totally in the so-called sacred language.

They are so unlearned as to honestly think Hebrew is an unpolluted language. UNEDUCATED people! If you are UNLEARNED on a topic, DO NOT GO CLAIMING TO KNOW THE TRUTH! Even the biblical Hebrew of the Old Testament has borrowed words from other languages, words that were not original in Hebrew. ALL languages are constantly evolving. Such people just BLINDLY BELIEVE some articles written by those who want to convince others of such doctrines, but then those people do not know how to properly prove whether it is the truth or not! But, they have no problem spreading the lie. Is that not what is wrong with this world and all the lies it believes??? I know some who at least partly buy into the idea/doctrine of a "sacred language," which so, so, so much bible evidence just crashes to the ground, both in the books written under the time of the old and fault-filled carnal covenant and in the books written since the time of the institution of the new and better spiritual covenant. If people would just THINK FOR THEMSELVES and ask for Spiritual guidance, then the Truthful Spirit, the spiritual sperm of God, will guide them to the truth. If one does NOT have guidance from the Spirit of Truth, that person will continue to be victim to all sorts of false doctrines.

There are many lying spirits out there, deceiving people to believe they are listening to truth, but they don’t prove/test them.  

MEANING

All throughout the scriptures, emphasis on a name's MEANING is taught.  When language was translated, the writers would say, "[So-and-so, being interpreted, So-and-so."  Names don't always look alike when translated into another language.  For example, the Aramaic Tabitha, meaning "gazelle" is translated into Greek in the NT as Dorcas, meaning "gazelle."  The two names look nothing alike, but the meaning is the same.  

I believe it's the meaning that is attached to us is important.  Anything we're called, we should be concerned about what it means.  A good way to illustrate this is, how would you feel if your husband regularly referred to you as "Bitch?"  That carries a terrible meaning.  But, you might like it if your husband were to regularly refer to you as "Sweetie."  It's the meaning that matters, right?  

I know there are those out there who name their children based on how a name sounds, the phonetics, the pronunciation.  Indeed, the majority is like this now, I think.  Passing down family names isn't as common as it was, and even fewer people base their children's name on meaning.  But, should we really focus so much on pronunciation and spelling?  Is it really wise to give our child a name based on it "sounding nice," regardless of what it means?  

Think of the times God changed some of his servants' names.  Did He change them, b/c He didn't like how they sounded?  Or did He change them, b/c He wanted them to be labeled differently--to MEAN something different?  Abram means "high father," but Abraham means "father of many."  Saul comes from the Hebrew Shaul and means "prayed for," but Paul (from the Roman/Latin Paulus) means "humble."  

It's not the phonetics and spelling of our names.  It's what it means, it's who we are.  The phonetics and spelling is just a way for everyone else who speaks our language to speak the label.  And in our day, first names are not enough, except in our inner circle.  Surnames have been added, and now we have middle names.  We have addresses, social security numbers, and all sorts of other identifiers.  There are who-know-how-many other Tara Nicoles in the US and Canada and even Tara Langs and Tara Chapmans. 

The main thing we need to remember when it comes to God's name is WHO HE IS. The one thing that sets Him apart from false gods is that HE IS THE CREATOR of all, and everything else is created. His signature is found in the 4th commandment heading. He is the Creator, and He is eternal. Names and other words are just LABELS. Most people have several labels. As long as God is given labels that identify WHO HE IS, the Creator and the Most High individual in the universe, then there is no problem. There is only ONE. There's no way to confuse who He is. He is who he is: "I AM THAT I AM." He's the Highest, Creator of all. Period. Any name/title given Him that does not contradict this or degrade him is FINE. We can read all through the scriptures and see this ourselves. There is no way He can be confused with any of the false gods. And the REAL CHRIST cannot be confused, either. The false christ, the one who was supposedly born on Christmas and resurrected on Easter CAN be related to all the false creat-ED gods. The TRUE Christ will never be confused, regardless of what language His name is in. He is the Son of the Most High God. No false gods can truthfully be labeled that way. 

As far as something like what is right or wrong in calling the Most High One in all the heavens and earth, I think that should be a basic thing, but people have MADE it confusing, have come up with all these fancy deceptions to try to deceive people in what the third commandment is or is not about.  If we call God something that means "evil one" or something that means "dog face" or something that means "horned one" or "yellow worm" or "poop pile," we'd obviously be doing wrong.  I just don't think it should be made into a confusing doctrine so that we refuse to call His Majesty lofty names like Almighty God and Lord of all, etc.  Why wouldn't we?  Has it also become wrong to call him the God of Love, simply because the heathens also have a god of love or goddess of love???? 

The heathens have different made-up gods for everything:  god of ocean, god of earth, god of war, god of weather, god of love/sex, god of food, god of jewels, god of cell phones, god of carpets, god of lizards, god of transportation, god of protection, etc.  

Well, is not I AM one God over all things created?  If I call him the God of the sun and moon, do I not speak truth?  Is not He the one God over all?  Of course, when I say one, I mean there is a union.  He didn't say "I am single," but rather "I am one."  Currently, he's completely one with his Firstborn Son who has been his public spokesperson through the ages.  When other men are born into the Family of God, they will be completely one with Father, too.

Don't be carnal like so many are. There are more important things than arguing about whether some MAN language is sacred...only sacred to foolish men, not to God. A horse has a language, a dog has a language. Man had one language to start out with, but they used their one language to do evil, so God confused the language of man. Do you think God cannot speak to man in any ever-evolving set of words (language/tongue) that a man understands? The point is not some spelling of some words or names, but the MEANING. My children call me Momma. That is my name to them. If we spoke another language, it wouldn't be that word, but they'd still be referring to me as their mother, which is what MATTERS.  Those who paste some "sacred" phonetics and/or spellings on the name of God are foolish and are missing the point. You're too carnal to get it. The point He wants to get across is that HE IS ETERNAL. HE IS THE I AM. AND THOSE SONS BORN TO HIM WILL ALSO HAVE HIS NAME IN THEIR FOREHEADS, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE GOING TO BE MADE OF FLESH WITH LETTERS ENGRAVED INTO OUR FOREHEADS. WE WILL BE SPIRIT-BODIED SONS OF GOD, NO MORE SONS OF MAN. We will have His IDENTITY, meaning we will also BE ETERNAL. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Nor does it mean that those who, instead of honoring God's name, honor the name of the end time beast (whose prophet will speak as a lamb, so in other words, it will LOOK Godly) will have a literal 666 stamped into their foreheads or hands. NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!! No one is going to have JHVH, YHVH, OR YHWH stamped into their foreheads literally. No one is going to have a literal 666 carved into their heads or microchips lasered into their foreheads. NOOOO! What it means is that some of us give honor to the Eternal One, I AM, the one WHO WAS, AND IS, AND IS TO COME, and we will become like He is, just as the Firstborn of our Father is. We will be just like him. Our identity will be ETERNAL. That's what it means to have his family name. Those who have 666 on their foreheads and hands are those who give their honor to the false Christianity religion, all those who reject the Law of God in their thoughts (forehead) and their actions (hands). This is the truth of the matter. You can worship God the Eternal One in spirit and in truth and so honor his name in truth, OR you can worship him in VAIN, so that you're not honoring his NAME (his IDENTITY, His ETERNALNESS, being the Creator of ALL) in truth.

I thank my God my Father that I have his holy WORD (written through men while under inspiration) translated in the ENGLISH language so that I am not cut off from the TRUTH, the MEANING of those words. If it was written in some "sacred language" so as to DISCRIMINATE against all who do not know it, I'd have to scramble to learn to read Hebrew very well before I could understand, which would take years.  Was it not a blessing that the OT scriptures had already been translated into Greek before Christ came and the NT was written in Greek so that the majority of the world's inhabitants could read and decide whether to believe the truth of the Messiah who came?  That was the primary official language of most of the earth during that world/age.

I guess if we were foolish enough to give into false doctrines and LYING SPIRITS and not use the WORDS, the MEANINGS of the words in scripture and line them up with our good logic and ask for the guidance of the TRUTHFUL SPIRIT, then we could think that only those who know the "sacred language" were good enough to be in the cult of Yah, as I will call it. If someone walked up to me two decades ago and told me the name of God was Yahweh, that wouldn't mean anything to me! But "The Eternal [One]" now that makes sense! I will bluntly just say the truth on my mind that the WORD "Yahweh" sounds really strange to me, just like when I hear other strange words from foreign languages. Words in biblical Hebrew (which, by the way, is NOT the language Salvation the Anointed One spoke as a man, as they had evolved to speaking Aramaic by that time) meant something to those who spoke Hebrew. It should be obvious to anyone actually reading their bible (in the language in which they understand, of course, which is ENGLISH here in the U.S.) that what names MEANT was what was important. They are translated to their MEANINGS for us in the footnotes or in the sentences after the given name that was transliterated. It's as if we were to give names to our children in English, like some do. Some have names like: Faith, Joy, Hope, Rain, Sunny, Stormy, Will, Liberty, Sky, etc. We do not have to look them up to see what they mean, because we used a name that we already understand.

What if I were to give a girl the name Vanilla? Sounds nice, doesn't it? I happen to know the story behind the vanilla plant's name. Of course, we could have the picture of a vanilla bean or white vanilla flower or the scent of vanilla in our minds when we see the little girl called Vanilla...or we could think about "little vagina," if we know the background to the word "vanilla."

Jehovah or Yahweh or Yahveh or whatever doesn't mean anything to me, unless I know the original language's meaning.  My God who is also my Father is the great I AM, the Eternal One. He IS. Wow...just meditate on that name. Meditate on "Yahweh" all day long, and it doesn't mean anything in the English language. Meditate on "I AM" or "Eternal One" and see what it does for you.  Besides all this, though, I have a lot of names and titles I call my Father and my head brother, Father's Firstborn, and when I pray to my Good Father, I NEVER call him Yahweh.

When I read my KJV bible, and I see "the LORD," I don't read "the LORD," but I read "I AM" or sometimes Jehovah (only b/c I know what the original language for that words means, namely "I AM") or very often "the Eternal One." I have sometimes said "Yahweh," but I think "I AM" is good, if the point to his name is to meditate on HIS BEING, HIS IDENTITY, WHO HE IS.  The same is true for anyone’s name, which is why I have recently preferred to call “Jesus” or “Yeshua” or “Iesous” Salvation, because the English meaning of his name is “Salvation.” 

I call different people different names all the time, and I don't see them getting upset with all the varied names I give them, as long as they're not bad.

AUTHORITY

Yahushua, Jesus, etc. alone doesn't even point to our Savior.  It's when it's further defined by his name title:  Christ, Messiah, the Anointed One.  The proper ENGLISH name for us to call our Savior "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is:  "Salvation the Anointed" or "Anointed Salvation" or "Salvation"

We are told to pray directly to the Father and anything we ask of Him, we are to ask in Christ's name.  Does that mean when we pray, we have to use a specific pronunciation of the name Christ was given at birth?  That was not an uncommon name.  Joshua, who led ancient Israel into Caanan bore the same name long before Christ.  People today in all languages have the same name.  Jesus and Joshua are English forms.  Jesus (pronounced hay-soos) is common in Mexico. I'm sure other forms in other languages are not uncommon.  It's not a "sacred name" in and of itself.  It means, "Salvation" or "The Eternal's Salvation."  Others had bore the name before Christ came along, but it was fitting for him to be named that, was it not?  Because of the meaning.  He was also named Immanuel, "God with us."  Also fitting.  

Back to our prayers.  What does it mean to ask something in Christ's name?  It means he holds authority.  My husband often mentions the names of well-known and prominent individuals he knows to others so that he can get a good deal or better create a new relationship.  We are all familiar with this.  I might know someone really well who is a manager, retail store owner, or whatever.  I have a friend who is about to seek services from this place or deal with this person.  My other friend doesn't know this person.  I may tell my friend, "Tell him you know me and ask about a discount."  THAT is why we ask things in the name of Christ.  And Yeshua, Yahshua, and Jesus alone doesn't cut it.  There are  many people with that name.  It's the fact that it's Jesus Christ.  It's the Anointed One, the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour of Mankind.  When we ask things in his name, we are asking in his authority, we are claiming to KNOW HIM personally and to be covered by his sacrifice.  It's not the phonetics of some name.  There are many who ask things in the name of Christ, but God doesn't know them.  The thing that matter is that we're asking in the name of Salvation.  We can only expect to have Father answer our prayers if are covered by Salvation.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt. 7:21-23).

"In thy name."  Does this just refer to people who call the Lord "Yahushua" or "Yeshua?"  Many more people call him Jesus.  It's many of these people to whom he is referring.  There are professing Christians who do things in the name of Christ, attempting to use HIS authority ("in [his] name"), but they do not keep God's commandments.  He will say, "I don't know you."  Could you imagine the humiliation if I tried to get a discount or entry on or into something by claiming to the person in charge that I know his good friend "So-and-so," and then that "So-and-so" happens to show up and say, "I don't know you."  This will be a similar situation when people are before Christ, and he will tell them he never knew them.  It was all a lie to the Father. 

TITLES, COMMON NAMES, AND OTHER GIVEN NAMES

When people are of importance, they have titles, which are a type of name.  When people hold such titles, they nearly ALWAYS prefer these lofty titles over their given birth names.  Would the president of the US prefer being called Barack or Mr. President?  Probably he prefers the latter.  Kings have been called "Your Highness," "Your Majesty," and so on.  There is no higher title than "The Most High God."  And of course, there is nothing higher than "I AM THAT I AM" or "The ETERNAL ONE," either.  Or Emperor of the Universe, The Highest Majesty, and so on.  Any of these refer to the One Who is Above All.  It's all the same person.  And whether it's Yahweh, Jehovah, or Yahovah, they all refer to the same One.  They mean the same.  I remember choosing my son Asher's middle name.  I preferred Evan, but Nathan preferred Ivan.  So, we went with Ivan.  They mean the same, but Evan is a Welsh form of John; Ivan is the Russian form, both derived from the Latin Iohannes, from the Greek Ioannes, from the Hebrew Yochanan.  The meaning is the same across the board.  But, languages are different. 

I'm not even called Tara nearly as much as I'm called by my titles, WHO I AM. I'm called "Momma" all day long, and I tell my boys that that is my NAME. My NAME is Momma to them. My NAME is "Lady" usually by Nathan my husband, short for "Sweet Lady." I'm "Ta" by my parents and sister often. You should see my point. I do like Tara, but I sure love Momma and Sweet Lady. It reminds me of who I am, the many different roles I play. God is the Most High, and He loves to hear it. He REALLY likes to be called "Father" or "Daddy" by his children (preferably "Holy Father" or "Good Father" or "Blessed Father," etc.)

He's fine with being called Jehovah, too. But, it's ONLY because of what it MEANS (though the English translation is I AM or The Eternal, and Jehovah is the transliteration). It reminds Him of Who He Is, and that He is worthy of being worshiped for it. He created all, and it's perfect and good, and we should be happy about His Law, because it is what is good for us. I give Him all sorts of lofty titles throughout my articles. I don't limit them. Our husbands usually like lots of varied lofty names for them from us. Our children love variation of beloved names/titles upon them. I've called my husband and children by their titles/nicknames much more than their given names that have meanings of their own. Do we have to limit ourselves to one meaning even? We should show our love and honor with all sorts of wonderful titles, wonderful names for our Father and for our Firstborn Sibling.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name [shem] shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).

LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES AND EVOLUTION

Now, most people who speak English can probably pronounce one of the popular Hebrew forms of YHVH, but there are many in other languages that would definitely not be able to.  Different cultures have evolved different tones and lingual skills. We couldn't expect some peoples of the earth to pronounce neither Jesus nor Yeshua. Their alphabet, and their spoken language and dialect, would not allow them to. There are some people who have heard me pronounce my name to them, and they cannot say it that way. When people learn to speak another language, they often don't always get the pronunciation the same way that we who grew up learning to pronounce it one way, while their brains were developing. Focusing on pronunciations is a deception from Satan to get our focus off the importance of meaning.   How Mexicans talk as quickly as they do is beyond me.  And what about some of those African tribes who do clicking sounds and such?  If you expect them to say Yeshua or Jesus, you will probably be disappointed, because it's doubtful they can do either.  Mandarin Chinese is especially difficult, because they use tones to differentiate many words, and if you didn't grow up learning that language as a child, it's almost impossible to learn that language, because the tones are so similar. They notice if you get the tone wrong, and therefore you use the wrong word altogether.   Thankfully, pronunciation and spelling of any of God's names have nothing to do with the third commandment.  

'V' and 'W' are related. That is why some use Yahweh and some use Yahveh, Yehovah, or Jehovah. 'Y' is related to 'I', and 'I' is related to 'J.' If you all are even a little familiar with our so-called "sister language" German [the modern Assyrians], you will know how the v and w are related, and it evolves differently in different languages. I took Spanish lessons in high school, and I do well remember learning about the 'j' and 'y', and how people with different dialects across the broader Spanish language (for example, you have Mexican Spanish, Spaniard Spanish, etc.) pronounced the sounds slightly differently. Some would pronounce the 'j' in a word with a 'y' sound, and some would do it with a cross between our 'j' sound and our consonant 'y' sound. The best way I can describe it is a 'zh' sound, if that makes sense. You can study the 'i' in the Greek language and Old English.  But, then the 'i' evolved, and we now have separate letters in the Roman alphabet [the alphabet in which our English speaking peoples--Israelites--use; we have the Roman/Babylonian alphabet]: both 'i' and 'j'. But, there are striking similarities. Study an AUTHORIZED King James Bible, 1611 edition. Read it. If you have never done this, I recommend it.

The 1611 version is written in Old English. You just think the more modern versions of King James is "difficult" Old English. I've owned a King James Bible Companion, by David W. Daniels, a very thin booklet that you can place in the back of your King James Bible [my main study bible, a more modern version] for many years now [6 or 7 years, probably] that contains over 500 archaic words defined. I'm not nearly as ignorant about the archaic terms in the King James bible now. 

You'll truly learn simply from the differences in that and the modern KJV's OE and today's Modern English [which, boy, Modern English is evolving more speedily now than ever...I don't see how anyone could keep up with the evolution and increase of our language in this day; it will make you crazy trying]. You'll see where Iesus is the Messiah's name.  I recommend this study in addition:  http://www.keithhunt.com/Sacred1.html

Names evolve. Words evolve. Language evolves. It's the meanings and the principles and the way the names are used that matters much more. When names and titles translate to other languages and evolve, the spellings and pronounciation (or is that the wrong spelling? Should it be pronunciation?) See the difference? But, it was just my spelling. The meaning stayed the same, and who cares, right?  But, do you see how the ou and the u doesn't matter? There was a game on my forums community that we played a few years ago.  I wanted to see which spellings and/or pronunciations my friends preferred to use.  Mustache or moustache? Short 'u' or long 'u'? What about syllables? Caribbean? How do you pronounce it?

How do you pronounce my name, "Tara?" What does it mean, and where did it come from? How has the pronunciation changed? What about the spelling? Has the meaning remained the same? That is what we need to remember.

Ashtoreth, Ashteroth, Hester, Esther, Asherah, Astarte, Isis, Oestre, Eostre, Easter. Does it matter what the culture, the language, the pronunciation? Has the MEANING stayed the same? STAR.

Eve, Eva, Eeva, Evaline, Evalyn, Evaleen, Olive, Olivia, (the last two mean "olive," but is a symbol of life) Evita, Viva. The spelling and pronunciation has changed. The MEANING has not. LIFE.

Yahweh, Yahveh, Yahovah, Yehovah, Jehovah. Same thing.  The MEANING is "eternal one" or "I am that I am."

Yahshua, Yehshuah, Yeshua, Iesus, Jesus [Mexicans spell it the same way but pronounce it differently], Joshua [another English version], just as some of those Eves up there were considered Hebrew. English has several variations of the same thing, too.  The MEANING is Salvation.

English is mainly Hebrew and Assyrian [German] in our more ancient history, then it became overlaid with much Latin, but the more recent our history is the more we are adulterated with more and more languages.

Neither Hebrew, Assyrian, Roman, or anything else was like the original language, and all languages mix and evolve.  Since Babel, it has always been that way. The language doesn't matter. Mixed language is a curse.  Only when the curse is lifted will the world again have a pure language. For now, we need to speak to others so that they understand us. That should be our primary concern.  Hebrew didn't even exist before Babel, and Hebrew had borrowed words from other languages, like Aramaic, Chaldee, and Egyptian, just as any other language.  They are all mixed.  The language Jews spoke during the days of Christ's first coming, besides many speaking Greek, was NOT the language of the OT books, Hebrew, but rather Aramaic.  More recently, Jews speak Yiddish, and most of the House of Israel speaks some form of modern English or a Scandinavian language. Most people in the Israelite nations identify with Jesus and Jehovah (by the way, some pronounce that 'j' as a 'y'. I don't personally mind people using the Hebrew names. But, people usually like to speak in the language they know.

I could probably write a book just on language development, etymology, etc., but I don't think studying and researching that in-depth should be my focus right now. I just need to share enough with people to help people understand that we can't be so hung up on pronunciation and spelling.  Does Father care? Why does the KJV translate the MEANING of God's name as given to Moses? It's because it's the meaning that matters. Moses asked God himself (the Son of God who had come in Father's name [authority, in other words]. God would have been fine with identification as "the God of our fathers." That's how He introduced Himself in Exodus 3:6. Moses was afraid the Israelites would ask for a specific name. So, what was the meaning of the name? I am that I am. He is who he is. He's the Mighty One (God). There's no one higher than He is in this Universe. He is the Creator of all. That's the meaning of I am that I am.

We need to be careful about being too hung up on spoken pronunciations and spellings. Language, linguistics means, "tongue." Language was deliberately scrambled by God at Babel. And all the strife caused between "sacred name" groups shows a lot of bad fruit. They can't all agree with each other on how to spell or pronounce the Hebrew names. And they never will agree. It's fruitless, and it's a waste of time. Satan has them so busy squabbling over such nonsense, that they miss what is important.

Those who were educated within Israel knew Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire at that time, which made it quite easy to spread the gospel. Just the mere suggestion that the NT letters were written in Hebrew is laughable, because Paul, the dominant writer of the NT, wrote to gentiles. And how were most people expected to read the gospels, if written in Hebrew? The vast majority of people in the empire did not know Hebrew. It would have been quite silly to have written anything in the NT in the Hebrew language. How fruitless!

TODAY Hebrew is long an outdated language. There are definitely remains of it in certain languages, but no nation today speaks the Hebrew of the OT. And there's absolutely no reason to believe that it will ever be re-instituted, either. It was never a pure language. It was one of many languages that was the result of the scramble. God never has said anything about it being a special language or that His written or spoken name needed to be kept in that language. 

DEFINITION OF "REPUTATION" IN STRONG'S DICTIONARY

The word for “Thou shalt not take” in the third commandment is the Hebrew nasa (Strong’s 5375). Its use is very variable. It can mean “advance,” “honorable”, “hold up,” “take” as in “take away” or “take up,” and many other things. Looking at the scriptures as a whole, I truly think it’s better rendered as something more along the lines of “hold up” or “take up” or “advance,” showing that a person is claiming to hold up and honor the name of God, which is good, unless you do it in vain.

The Hebrew word that was translated “the name” is shem (#8035). Notice the similarity between it and our English word shame. That’s what shem can mean, but as with other Hebrew words, there’s a positive meaning and a negative meaning. Strong’s Concordance says, “an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character -- + base, (in-)fame(-ous), named(-d), renown, report.” A name is an identity. Whether we like it or not, our names often tell a great deal about us.

When we hear someone say, “They tarnished his name,” or “My good name is ruined,” or similar sayings, we realize it to mean that a person’s reputation has been has been dealt a blow.

DEFINITION OF THIRD COMMANDMENT "IN VAIN" MEANING

The Hebrew word translated to “in vain” in Exodus 20:7 is shav (#7724 in Strong’s): “from the same as show’ in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain) --false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.”

So, the third commandment could be written as follows (my paraphrase):

Thou shalt not ruin Jehovah’s good reputation by worshiping him (holding up his name) in a useless way or speaking badly of him. Anyone who makes Jehovah look bad by their useless worship of Him or by badmouthing him will be found guilty.

Davidic Covenant Genetic Code to Immortality?

If you're saying to yourself, "What?" when reading the title of this post, you're not alone. I just finished debunking John R. Clark's book The Davidic Covenant Genetic Code to Immortality The Mystery of God.  He claims it's the "little book" of Revelation 10.

You can find the in-depth article under the false prophets heading on my website here.   For a summary, read on:

1. John R. Clark is a self-exalting brother in the Church who thinks Herbert W. Armstrong baked a cake and that he (John) has now iced the cake to finish it.  He believed that in 2011 (copyright year of book) we were in the time of the seventh (the last) angel trumpeting, which would mean the tribulation was coming to an end, and that his Davidic Covenant book is the "little book" spoken of in Revelation 10.

2. He believes that the "Word" and "Christ" are the same individual who existed with Father God from the beginning but that "Jesus" was just a man and not the Word or Christ, though he later became the Christ.  He believes that Jesus was the product of King David's of Israel sperm and Mary's ovum, and that is why Jesus was called the son of David.  He doesn't understand what that means.  Does he surely think that David, being called the son of Abraham in Matthew 1:1, is the direct product of Abraham's sperm?

3. John C. wrote, "Jesus was of the kingly genetic bloodline, that came through Nathan and Mary his mother.  Jesus is not only the king, but also the high priest, therefore to fulfill the law of the priesthood , Jesus must also come from the bloodline of Aaron the Levite" (pg. 45).  He also stated that Jesus could not be Melchisadec. There was no prophecy that foretold of that, however.  Also both the genealogies listed (one from Mary and the other from his earthly adoptive father Joseph, though not his bloodline) go back to Judah.  Jesus was the high priest called Melchisedec, who Hebrews says had no beginning, no father and mother, etc. If one reads the sixth and seventh chapters of Hebrews, you can get a real good idea that that Melchisedec was indeed our Lord.  It also clearly lays out how Levi was not even born yet nor his seed even in Jacob's sack when Abraham met Melchisedec (the time recorded in scripture).  For that matter, Jacob wasn't in Isaac's sack, and Isaac wasn't even conceived in Sarai/Sarah yet!  Those chapters are all about how the Melchisedec order of priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood.  It also states clearly that Jesus sprang forth from the line of Judah of which Moses spoke nothing about concerning the priesthood.  Read it!  Prove it for yourself.  The big point is that Jesus did NOT come from the Levitical line and that he most definitely did not need to come from that line, because the Melchisedec order (organization) of priesthood is BETTER!  And it was around BEFORE the Levitical one!  I'm not sure why John is so confused about why Jesus was made high priest after the order of Melchisedec if he were already the priest.  Uhhhhh….remember, God made a physical/fleshly/carnal covenant with Moses and the physical nation of Israel with the Levitical priesthood.  When that covenant was instated, the Melchisedec order was temporarily ended and the order of the Levitical priesthood was established.  When the new and better covenant was instated, we returned to the order of Melchisedec!

4. He believes that Jesus' 100% human genetics had to be pure and from the Jewish bloodline with no intermarriage, yet if David's sperm sired Jesus, then he was one-eighth Moabite, because David's grandmother Ruth was a Moabite, making David a quarter Moabite.  The law of Moses forbade foreign marriage on spiritual grounds that those who worshiped other gods would turn believers from God and didn't have anything to do with physical genetics.  The law of Moses forbade sibling marriages, because marrying too close is what causes problems.  Even today marrying cousins or even ones of the same nation is causing too many like mutations to be passed on in double to offspring.  It's also seen in other animals like dogs that purebreds have far more genetic diseases and deformities.  Furthermore Moses himself had an Ethiopian (black) wife (in addition to his Midianite wife), and when Miriam gave Moses a hard time about it, God punished Miriam with leprosy.  John R. Clark's teaching that all interracial marriage is wrong is unbiblical.

5. On page 61 he said, "The Word was not Jesus and Jesus was not the Word, rather the Spirit mind of God [the Word] was in Jesus, thus Jesus had the mind of God in him. Philippians 2:5-Let this mind be in your which was also in Christ Jesus…"

It might be helpful for you to read I Corinthians 2:11-16 to get a better understanding.  Read it, pray, and meditate upon it to understand.   Perhaps read through it a few times.

Anyone in the God Family, even those simply begotten have the Spirit of God within them and the "mind of God" or "mind of Christ" (same thing, because it's the same Spirit in any member of the God Family).  Men tend to think the same way, apes think the way apes think, dogs tend to think a different way, and so on.  No big mystery here.  Dogs understand dog things, because they have a dog mind enabling them.  Man understands man things due to possessing a man spirit, and those with God's Spirit can understand God things, because the God Spirit enables them to do so. 

MEDITATE ON THIS:  IF THE WORD/CHRIST WAS WITH FATHER GOD IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN HIS MIND WENT INTO THE BODY OF THE MAN JESUS WHO HAD ANOTHER MIND OF HIS OWN, AND THEN JESUS ALSO BECAME THE CHRIST AND WAS RESURRECTED AND ASCENDED TO LIVE WITH GOD, THEN THAT MEANS BOTH THE WORD AND JESUS ARE HAVING TO SHARE A SPIRIT BODY OR ELSE THERE ARE REALLY TWO OF THEM IN SEPARATE SPIRITUAL BODIES UP THERE WITH FATHER.  TWO CHRISTS, SINCE THE SCRIPTURES MAKE CLEAR THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, EVEN THOUGH JOHN R. CLARK ADMITS THE CHRIST/WORD EXISTED BEFORE.  IF THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT PERSON'S MINDS IN THE BODY OF JESUS, THEN JESUS EITHER COULD HAVE REJECTED THE WORD'S BEING THERE AND SINNED SO THAT THE WORD THEN LOST OUT ON GOING BACK TO SHARING FATHER'S GLORY WITH HIM, OR THE WORD COULD HAVE OVERPOWERED JESUS' WILL, THEREBY NOT GIVING JESUS A TRUE CHOICE IN OBEDIENCE OR NOT.  AND NOW THEY BOTH STILL MUST SHARE A BODY IN HEAVEN ABOVE, WHICH IS REALLY NOT FAIR AND CERTAINLY NOT THE HIGHEST HONOR, SINCE EACH OF WE OTHER SONS OF GOD WILL GET A BODY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO SHARE WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.  

Prove all things!  Keep Christ as your only Church Head.  Do NOT follow after a man leader who exalts himself in any way.  Stay cautious!  

Romans 13...Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Romans 13.  It's the "submission to government" chapter, quite famous as well as quite misconstrued and taken out of context.

I think a lot of people have been wondering about this topic lately.  A family friend of ours said to me a couple months ago that he saw something on television where a man quoted a verse from Romans 13 to give Christians the notion that they should always submit to the current occupying governing authority in their land.  My friend wanted to know whether the bible really taught that, because he questions a lot of what the government does and says we should do.

Then a dear sister in Christ asked me yesterday about Romans 13, because a friend of hers was struggling with confusion over the matter.  Must we submit to the governing authority no matter what?

Rather than isolate a verse or two from one chapter in the bible, let's do three different things:

1. Examine scripture's teaching as a whole.

2. Look at real examples in the scriptures of Godly people's dealings with the governing authorities.

3. Pray and meditate on this subject to make sure that we're both using good logic and being led by the Spirit of God.

The physical nation of Israel was to be an example nation to the rest of the world.  They were ONE NATION UNDER GOD.  They were FREE.  They were given a written law made up of commandments, statutes, ordinances, and judgments.  They had a priesthood, and there was supposed to be elders as judges. But the nation wanted a man king like the other nations had.  The Eternal viewed this as evil, because in asking for a man king to reign over them, they rejected His reign.  You can turn in your bible to I Samuel 12:17-24 and read that it was evil that they did that, but they should still "Only fear the Eternal and serve him in truth with all your heart..." (vs. 24a).  To get the background of Israel wanting a man king, you can turn back to chapter 8 and read.

All throughout the scriptures you will find that man should obey God.  If man's government conflicts with God's, then man should disobey man.  Let's look at some biblical examples real quickly.  On your own you can study it more in depth by reading the references I give.  These examples are not all inclusive, but this is a good list I have compiled for you:

*The Hebrew midwives disobeying the Egyptian pharaoh and deceiving him to protect the lives of the male infants.  Make note that the sixth commandment ranks above the ninth (Ex. 1:17-19).

*Rahab the harlot hiding the Israelite spies and lying to her government officials, because she believed God (Joshua ch. 2).

*Elijah fleeing from Jezebel (certainly not submitting or handing himself over to the authorities) after killing the prophets of Baal (I Kings 19:1-4).

*David avoiding death by Saul (I Sam. chs. 19-24).

*Esther entering the king's court without being called, which was illegal and could end up reaping the death penalty, to risk her life to save her people (Esther 4:10-11).

*Shadrach and friends disobeying Babylon's law to bow to the image (Dan. 3:8-18).

*Daniel praying to the Eternal God, despite the new Persian law demanding that all prayers go only to King Darius (Dan. 6:11-13).

*Our Lord Salvation calling Herod a fox when told Herod wanted to kill him (Luke 13:31-32) and many recorded instances of disobeying Pharasaic man-made laws, sprinkled throughout the gospel narratives.

*After his arrest, the Lord answered the high priest's question sarcastically and received a slap for it (John 18:19-23).

*The apostles disobeyed the mandate given to them to not spread the Good News, saying we should OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MAN (Acts 5:27-29).

*After his arrest Paul spoke before the high priest and was slapped, and afterward he cursed him and then spoke sarcastically to those who objected (Acts 23:1-5; see also Acts 21:27-28 to see what got him in trouble). 

The previous examples I laid out in order as the books go in a KJV bible, so it should be easy to look up the references, read the context, and be able to pray and meditate on them.  Now let's look at Romans 13 itself:

The first verse is "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing authorities].  For there is no power [authority] but of God:  the powers that be are ordained [appointed by] God."

At this point, you can go and review Daniel 2:44.

Continuing on to verse 2, it says that whoever resists the authority resists God and therefore shall receive damnation.  So if one stops at these two verses and do not look at the rest of the bible, like the scriptures saying that we should obey God rather than man, that we should only fear the Eternal and obey Him, and all the examples of Godly people resisting the governing authorities, we could falsely teach that we should not resist ANY government's authority for ANY reason.  But let's continue on.

Verse 3:  "For rulers are NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL..." and "...do that which is good, and you shall receive praise [from the governing authority]."

Verse 4 says that the governing authority is the minister of God to thee for good.

STOP!  Let's meditate on what we've read so far.  Was the Egyptian pharaoh ministering to the Israelites for their good?  Was the Babylonian king who wanted to throw Shadrach and friends into the fire for not bowing down to the image (which breaks the second commandment of Eternal) ministering on behalf of God for their good?  Were the Jewish leaders ministering on God's behalf for the good of Salvation (Jesus/Yeshua) and of Paul?  Was Hitler a minister of God for the good of the people?  Is the United States government serving the people on God's behalf by starting wars, allowing abortion, allowing multiple divorces for any reason, allowing homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, pushing harmful synthetic drugs and requiring toxic vaccinations while outlawing good God-made drugs, approving GM foods and unhealthful meats like pork and lobster and shrimp, attacking organic foods, etc.?

Is the U.S. or any other government on this earth God's servant for our good?  WELL, to a point, yes.  When someone is murdering people or robbing others or raping women or doing some other evil, and the government punishes that person, then YES, THAT GOVERNMENT IS SERVING GOD'S PURPOSE FOR A GOVERNING AUTHORITY.

Skip down to verse 10:  Love works no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

This is worth repeating:  LOVE is the fulfilling of the law.  LOVE.  LOVE.  LOVE.  Is something loving?  Do not resist it.  It's for our good.  It serves God's purpose, and we should feel no fear unless we're doing something wrong (verse 3).  If it's not loving and contradicts God's law, THEN IT'S NOT FOR OUR GOOD, AND IT'S TO BE RESISTED.

This is important to thoroughly understand, because a TIME OF GREAT DECEPTION IS COMING.  It will be the time when the last resurrection of the "Holy Roman Empire" reigns over the western world.  Most people think of Antichrist to be secular in nature, but that is what's most deceptive.  It will be a FALSE CHRISTIAN system.  Those who obey in thought and deed (symbolized in bible by forehead and hand) the false system will be resisting God.  Those who obey in thought and deed God's Ten Commandments will be resisting the false system.  For the latter group there will be two options:  FLEE to the wild or be a martyr.

There's the true Church pictured in Revelation 12 and the false church pictured in Rev. 17 and 18.  You NEED to know the difference.  You NEED to know what's coming.  You NEED to be STUDYING (not just reading) the bible.  You NEED to be paying attention to world events.  I have an article on the "mark of the beast" on my website.  It can be found here:  http://www.endtimecog.net/articles/markofthebeast.html

I also recommend my book (you don't have to buy it but can find it in ebook format free of charge on my website) God's Law of Love, the Perfect Law of Liberty: Jehovah's Ten Commandments Still Apply Today and also Keith Hunt's book The Biblical Prophets for Today.  You can find his book in website article form on his website keithhunt.com under the prophets section.  Both books are available in hard copy on Amazon.com.

For what is coming, the true Christian MUST NOT submit to the governing authority, because to do so will be to resist the Governing Authority.  It will be a choice as to WHICH governing authority to which you wish to submit:  God's or man's.

Choosing an Evil

Tomorrow many of my fellow United States citizens will go to the polls to cast their votes in the quadrennial presidential election.  I will not be among them.  I voted in one presidential election, back in the year 2000, which was prior to my true conversion.  Toward the end of a time I had been drifting and getting caught up in a lot of the wrong ideas (due to lack of reading the Word and praying as I should) I voted in a primary election, February of 2008, for Congressman Ron Paul.  He's certainly vastly different than the rest of them, but he's still not representing God's government.  Besides that time I have not voted for anyone, for anything, during my time being a citizen of God's spiritual nation, nor do I plan to ever do so again.

So why not, you may ask.  Do I not think it's important to try to vote in the "lesser evil?"  No, I don't. I don't think it's important to vote for any evil.  Admitting both sides are evil should be enough.  End of discussion.  If you admit that both sides are evil, how do you then determine which is less evil, and how do you even know that?  I think a lot of the time those who think they're voting for the lesser evil are voting for the more evil.  Only God knows, really.

Concerning the two main presidential candidates (since most of my fellow U.S. citizens continue to be so foolish as to ignore anyone but the two main guys), both support different evils.  Some of the evils they both support.  And besides what they openly say they support or oppose, how do you know they're not just lying?

Obama supports human fetus murder.  Romney says he's against that, but he's a big hypocrite when he says he's pro-life (as opposed to anti-abortion), because he's the bigger supporter of war between the two.  More innocent people are murdered and otherwise harmed in war than any evil people they claim they're after.  And all the so-called Christian right-wing extremists who tune into the Catholic-owned Fox News base their vote on two main issues--abortion and homosexuality.  Whichever candidate is against those two things (especially the former) is their pick.  Ironically, the right-wingers are the pro-war side.  I guess it's fine for countless Arab in-utero babies to prematurely abort or be born terribly deformed due to all the chemical warfare to which they and their mothers are exposed.  I guess it's okay to them that some pregnant mothers and children of all ages are killed by U.S. forces.  Or maybe they're just too brainwashed and sadly ignorant to even consider that these things happen, because the news they watch doesn't bother telling them this happens, and they live in la-la land.

These same people don't bother to get on the Internet and look into these things.  They don't bother to sit and simply meditate on what must happen over there in the Middle East.  They also apparently don't bother to read what the real Christ taught about war.  True Christians do not engage in war, they do not support war, and they do not vote in the elections in the governments of men.

This is what God's servant Samuel said to the people of Israel when they desired a man to rule over them (taken from KJV):

12And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king. 13Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you. 14If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:15But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.16Now therefore stand and see this great thing, which the LORD will do before your eyes.17Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king. 18So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day: and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel (I Sam. 12:12-18, bold emphasis mine).

Now the scriptures spell out the reasons why the Eternal says it's evil to ask for a king (or president or any other name for a leader).  You can read it all for yourself, all the details about being taxed heavily and having your children go to war, etc.  Sound familiar? 19And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.

Now pay attention carefully to what Samuel said to the people after this:

20And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not: ye have done all this wickedness: yet turn not aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; 21And turn ye not aside: forthen should ye go after vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain. 22For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people. 23Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way: 24Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you. 25But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king.

Only reverently obey the Eternal.  He's our Father, and we are to obey him as did Father's Glory Firstborn, our Lord Salvation, did so.  Did Salvation (Jesus/Yeshua) get into Roman politics or even Jewish politics when he tabernacled among us in the flesh?  He clearly did not.  The Jews of his day (and still to this day) thought he was coming to establish God's Kingdom on the earth (and he will, but that is not what he came to accomplish during his first coming).  The religious and political leaders of his day thought he and his supporters were going to rebel against the Roman government.  The Lord made clear, though, that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), and if it was then his servants would fight (which definitely puts an end to any notion that Christians should engage in warfare).

The Church, made up of a spiritual priesthood, the begotten children of God--destined to be born as spirit-bodied Sons of God at the beginning of the next age, upon Christ's return--is a spiritual nation that has no physical national boundaries on this earth.  We are a people scattered all over the earth, and we live as secondary citizens in various man-ruled governments.  To participate in these unGodly governments (there is no government on this planet that truly teaches a nation under God to abide only by the Ten Commandments with Christ as the Judge) is treason against the Government of God, because you are working against the principles of that spiritual nation.  If you CHOOSE (vote) anyone to rule over you but Christ, you are rejecting his rule and rather choosing the other.  We ARE God's government.  We are to represent it.  We are not representing the coming Government of God if we are choosing the flaw-filled men and U.S. government principles to have rule over us.  We are an EXAMPLE nation, a holy nation.

We are to pray God's Kingdom come and for Father's will to be done.  We can't in good conscience do that while we are seeking for the world to become Godly by the hands of man.  It's NOT going to happen.  Why should we who are spiritual be choosing the unspiritual to rule over us?  How insane is  that?  Stop a few minutes and seriously meditate on this.

There is much scripture on this subject, and if you do not yet understand the truth about God's government and how his elect are going to become Sons of God  and reign over mankind to show them the way of Peace, then you should open your bible and get to work studying it now.  May the Spirit of Truth guide you and open your eyes to His awesome way.

Answers to Jessica's ("Raggthyme") Questions

Jessica aka Raggthyme posed some questions in the comments section of my post entitled New Covenant Does Not Abolish Law But Does Abolish Old Covenant.  I could not post my answers in the comment section, unless I were to make comment after comment after comment.  I posted a reply to get an email address, but I have not heard anything in these last months, so I have decided to share the answers here in a blog post.  Perhaps it will also be of help to others.  I will quote Jessica's questions here, and then I will post my answers after each.

Thank you Tara. I read your article on the Paul rejectors, it was full of info and very interesting. These folks I've come across who reject Paul do so (it seems) because they believe Jesus, being the word of God made flesh, was actually the Torah in flesh. I will write out some of the things I've read and then post what I am struggling with and what I disagree with.

But not as the carnal “old” covenant based on letter.

1.They say that He commanded we follow Him, that He did not come to abolish the law but to live it perfectly. And by giving us His Spirit, we are able to walk as He did. And when we sin, He is the propitiation for our sins, being that he died and rose again.

True, except he did it truthfully, from the heart, not limited to some letter [of the law] to simply avoid penalty.

2.They mention John in his first epistle a lot, who says that if we say we abide in Him we ought to walk just as He walked. This, in their estimation, means that we obey all the commandments of God the way Jesus did.

True again.  All ten commandments and all that they encompass.

3.That Jesus was angry with the leaders because they didn't keep the Torah as God intended, but they added all the commandments of men to weigh people down and keep them from entering the kingdom, not having a heart for God but for themselves. Jesus came to draw men to Himself, the Torah (teaching, instruction) in flesh to fulfill it from the heart.

True.  Men did add and add (just as our own leaders in the U.S. do), taking away liberty.  At the same time, they were corrupt at heart and didn’t keep commands where they count, themselves (again, just as our own leaders).

4.They say in Rev. 2:2 Jesus is referring to a trial of Paul at Ephesus, where they tested him and found him (and others) to be false apostles. They say there are only 12 Apostles which Jesus Himself commissioned to go into all the world, to all nations (Jew and Gentile), and Peter says that by His mouth the Gentiles should hear...

 This is false assumption regarding Rev. 2:2, and they are foolish to think apostles would stop with the first twelve.  They died just like all other men.  They are not here today to do the work of an apostle.

5.They also say that Jesus, condemning the eating of meat offered to idols in Rev. was referencing Paul, a type of Balaam, since Paul said an idol is nothing, suggesting that the conscience of a man supersedes the Law of Moses, causing the children of God to sin.

Jesus said himself that some things were allowed under Moses because of carnality.  Furthermore, a lot of physical/carnal ordinances applied (penile circumcision, tassels, etc.)  Idols truly are nothing, and how are we to know whether someone sacrificed meat to idols and why bother asking whether someone did, because we know they are indeed nothing and are not going to truly defile the  meat, as long as the meat was good to begin with--not an animal not intended for food (like pig or dog) and free from disease and/or loads of hormones and antibiotics.

6.They bring up the fact that Jesus only wrote to the 7 churches in Asia because they were the only churches He established and rebuked in love. 

Those were true physical church groups, but there is a bigger message there, likely representing ages of the Church and the dominating characteristics, all of which serve as a warning to each of us as individuals, too.

7.They say Paul admits all in Asia had forsaken him and that means they didn't receive his doctrines. Jesus commends the church in Ephesus for standing firm in the faith, testing those who say they are apostles and are not.

Paul’s doctrines were the same as the others and the same as Christ’s, so what was said to Ephesus has nothing to do with Paul.  Those in Asia simply rejected truth.  People rejected the truth when received by other apostles as well.

8.They say James was written for a trial of Paul, specifically correcting the doctrine of justification by faith alone, saying Abraham was not justified by faith alone, but by doing what God commanded, thus his faith was made perfect.

There is no contradiction between what Paul and James wrote, and those that teach such obviously ignore all of Paul’s words.  He taught very clearly that one must keep the law as defined by the ten commandments (in their spiritual intent, of course, just as Jesus magnified examples for us, recorded in Matt. 5).  We are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but if we are not abiding by the commands and we have no works, then we don’t have true faith.  If we believe something, truly have faith in something, then we do that thing.  If my son has faith in me, then when I tell him not to walk into the road by himself, then he will work obedience.  Those who do not have works to back their faith do not have true faith and do not have grace, either.

9. They say Jesus told His 12 Apostles "freely you have received, freely give" whereas Paul taught that the Scripture about not muzzling an ox was written for men and that he should be allowed to reap their material benefits.

Paul freely gave and worked his own trade, but he was correct that some of our tithe money can go to those who are devoting most of their time evangelizing.  Think of how difficult it must have been for Paul with all his travels, need of food, etc., and all the time he put into teaching, leaving little time to do his regular work to support him.  We--the member of the spiritual Church Body--make up the new covenant priesthood.

10. They say that Jesus warned that if any man says He returned, believe him not. And Paul was given a whole lot of instruction from this Jesus he met on the road to Damascus that added to what Christ taught His Apostles.

He never did return bodily to the earth.  John also was revealed things and heard Christ speak (the Revelation).  Wonder how they neglect to remember this.  In neither case did Jesus return bodily or ever contradict any previous teachings.

11.They say all the factions of Christianity come from Paul and his letters, not from the teaching of Jesus Himself. That there is one flock and one Shepherd, there are not supposed to be shepherds/pastors or teachers in the congregations of the Lord's people. This has led to much error. 

Paul taught the very same thing in his first letter to Corinth.  Peter also warned about people twisting Paul.  Paul is not liable for people twisting him and making a religion(s) based on their misinterpretations of his teachings any more than Mary is liable for people worshiping her as the “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.”

I would say first, I myself question Paul because of some of the things listed above. I am asking God for wisdom, which I believe He gives liberally to those who seek to know the truth and not follow the ways of any man. I'm asking that He root out all error from my heart and show me what is true.

So if you don't mind, I will start with my struggle with #11. I have always questioned the countless number of denominations that all name the name of Christ, but hold to so many different doctrines. Jesus said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. All these teachers teach something different because they all interpret the Bible differently, especially Paul's writings. This divides. If we would have followed Jesus teaching, no one would be called "teacher" or "leader" save Jesus alone and all brethren would heed His words spoken in the gospels. He has the words of eternal life. These are recorded in the 4 gospels and I believe the words that came out of His mouth are our Father's words and are fully sufficient for knowing Him in truth. John even says that the Son has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true. The word was made flesh and dwelt among them. This is that Prophet to whom Moses testifies, saying that God would command Him what to say and all should heed His words. My sheep hear MY voice... amen?

Now Paul comes along, with this vision of Jesus, never having met Jesus in the flesh. He just sees this bright light who proceeds to give him much doctrine in revelations etc. I am not at all saying this isn't from God, but I want to test ALL things. Shouldn't we test every vision and revelation? Even Paul says, let God be true and every man a liar. So my question is this.. John says that Jesus Christ (Eternal Life, the Word of the Father) has come IN THE FLESH, and by this we can know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. I believe this means that every word which proceeded from Jesus own mouth came of the Father, that we may live thereby. This is the Spirit of truth. Jude says they were to contend for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints. Was there really a need for a second appearing of Christ (not in flesh) to teach much doctrine and mysteries never taught to the disciples? Maybe so, but I still want to make sure I'm hearing His voice alone. Jesus tells His own that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth and would bring to their remembrance all that He taught them. If Paul met Christ on that road and repented and believed, wouldn't you think he would have gone to the twelve to receive Jesus doctrine? He even prayed "I pray not for these alone (his disciples), but for all who would believe in me through THEIR words."

I have to say it is interesting that Paul refers to these revelations he had, and that John also had a Revelation and wrote it down for the 7 churches. The difference though is that John said that it was a revelation of Jesus Christ, which "God gave him to show his servants" and he sent and signified it by his angel to John. So that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Whereas Paul, all alone, heard this voice and received instruction privately, then taught this to the churches. I don't understand why the Lord wouldn't have revealed Himself like He did with John, since He Himself said that He comes in His Father's name, by His authority. Not speaking on His own authority or by His own name. Some say the Jesus who was revealed to Paul spoke by his own authority, not in His Father's name. I won't go so far as to call this one an "angel of light" as they do, but I still question and want to test this against Jesus own words. He says He goes away and sends the Spirit to lead them into all truth. 

Concerning visions, you’re forgetting that the Lord told Ananias in a vision that Saul (who became Paul) would come and that he should baptize him.  Peter also had a vision of animals, and the Lord spoke to him in that, revealing that he should not consider gentiles as unclean.

While Paul gives a TON of instruction to his churches, teaching so much doctrine on practical living and mysteries and such, John writes in his first epistle to the church with such simplicity, that they needed NO MAN to teach them because the anointing they have from God teaches them, His word abiding in them. Jesus said the words He spoke to them while He walked on the earth were "spirit" and "life." John says that the Word is that Eternal Life which was with the Father and was made manifest to those who saw and touched and walked with Him. That they were actually the Father's words, commanded (as Moses said in Deut) by God to be spoken to the people so they would heed them, (every word) and live by them.

I myself do not believe the these folks who say Jesus commanded us to follow the Torah. I believe He commanded us to follow Him. That He alone is the Good Shepherd and the Way to life. I believe that He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets when He spoke God's words to us and finished the works of His Father. I believe that Christ Himself is our Law. If we abide in His teaching, found in the gospel accounts, believing and obeying all that He taught, we will ourselves fulfill the requirements of the Law. And when we fail, He is the propitiation for our sins. The Spirit is given to us to do all of this, not by our own strength, or by the flesh, but by the Spirit of God we walk in obedience to Him and know Him. And this is eternal life.

At least that's my understanding of things so far. I am always open for God to help me see where I am in error. I don't know what to believe about Paul, but I don't think one needs to read his writings to understand that Jesus brought about a New Covenant. He said that the Law and the Prophets were until John. He is the New Covenant. So I figure if I just spend my time reading the gospels for awhile, and letting that soak in really deep, I think all the other things will fall into their rightful place. Thanks for letting me share with you, Tara. I hope to hear what you feel about these things I've mentioned.

Well, Jesus himself said before he left to “teach” all nations, baptizing them... Some have the gift of teaching, while others have different gifts.  Many teachers even can learn one from another.  BUT, everyone with God’s Spirit conception has the ability to search the scriptures to make sure the teachings are correct and can also be led in right or wrong by the Spirit.  So there is no contradiction.  We can be led by the Spirit, but not all have a teaching gift, which is a very useful tool to help other members in the body grow.