Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
the Omega?
By Jeffrey D. Dean, Sr.
Revelation 5: 1
"And I saw in the right hand of him
that sat on the throne a book written
within and on the backside, sealed with
seven seals."
The one that opens the book according to verse 5 is "the
Lamb of God, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah."
Revelation 5: 5
"And one of the elders said to me,
Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe
of Juda, the Root of David, has
prevailed to open the book, and to
loose the seven seals thereof:"
The Lion, my friends, is Messiah! So, is Messiah sitting
on the throne? He's already got the book in his hand
then, and should open it any minute, right? WRONG!
1 Corinthians 15: 28
"28 And when all things shall be
subdued to him, then shall the Son also
himself be subject to him that put all
things under him, that God may be all
in all."
In light of all the overwhelming evidence, how does
anyone say that God and Messiah are the same person?
Messiah is right now reigning in God's stead on the
Earth, but there comes a day when he delivers the
kingdom back up to God, and he himself will be a
"subject" of the Lord of Heaven, God Almighty. How
can any of this happen if they are the same person?
Even if the titles of "Alpha and Omega," and "the
beginning and the ending" are titles reserved
exclusively for God Almighty (which they aren't) but if
they were, we've already learned that Messiah was "the
proxy of the Father, God." Messiah made it clear that
whenever he spoke, it wasn't his words, but God the
Father's. Therefore, even if Messiah had stood up in a
crowded room and said "I am the Lord God Almighty
hear my voice this day and obey," Messiah still
wouldn't have been claiming to be God! Messiah
speaking words that only God should speak doesn't
prove he's God, it only proves that he was right when he
said, "the words I speak are not my own, but the
Father's who sent me."
This isn't that hard to understand! A child can see the
simple truth here being proposed. It takes a truly
"learned expert" to muddy up the waters and turn such
a simple truth into something so complicated that "no
one" can understand it anymore, then stand back and
declare, "of course you don't understand, it's a ....
myyyysssterrrry! God doesn't want us to understand
everything!"
Phillipians 2: 5-8
"5 Let this mind be in you which was
also in Messiah Yeshua
Phillipians 2:9
"Wherefore God also has highly
exalted him, and given him a name
above every name."
If the Apostle who wrote this believed that Messiah was
God, before he came a man, he is ignoring his Godly
nature in verse 9, for, if Messiah was God, he already
had a name above every other name, YHWH! (God).
Furthermore, the writer of this verse was speaking as if
God and Messiah were two different people by saying
"God also has highly exalted him."
We, therefore, have an example from the apostles
themselves which demand we refer to Messiah as “a
man” and refer to him as separate (and subordinate to)
the Father. Even if Messiah were God before he
became a man (which I do not believe the scriptures
teach), yet even if he WERE, it is irrelevant enough that
the Apostles continued to follow in Messiah's example,
focusing on the man, Yeshua, instead of his Godhood,
and continuing to speak of him as a man and not God!
When did the followers of Messiah decide to depart
from this example of down playing "Messiah the God,"
and continuing to focus on "Messiah the man?" I see
no scriptural evidence of this! Are we not to strive to
follow in his footsteps (and in the footsteps of the
apostles)?
1 John 2:23
"Whosoever denies the Son, the same
does not have the Father:"
1 John 4: 15
"Whosoever shall confess that Yeshua
is the Son of God, God dwells in him,
and he in God."
1 John 5: 5
"Who is he that overcomes the world,
but he that believes the Yeshua is the
Son of God?"
Notice these scriptures do not say "confess" or
"believe" that Jesus is God!
No matter how you slice it, even if Messiah were, at one
time God Himself, before he became flesh, (which I do
not believe) he did not lay claim to it, but instead said,
"I am a man, I am a servant!" Who are we to say he
was not a man? Are we calling Him a liar? Are we
questioning God's ability to become mortal? Even if
they were armed with the rock solid evidence that
Messiah was God who became a man, (which they are
not) and could prove this without a doubt, (which they
can't), even still, Messiah's Godhood, prior to his
mortality would be completely irrelevant! (Being that
he laid that aside and became a servant).
If a man, who was once God, decided to leave aside his
deity and become a mortal man, his former status of
God is irrelevant, because now he is a man. Messiah is
depicted as a "has been God," by choice, the most he
can be is a "has been" and not an "I Am." According to
the Trinitarian heresy!
When they worship "Jesus" as God, the name of the
God they worship would not be "I Am" but "I was."
So, they say he "was" God, but we have a problem, the
name of the Almighty God is "I Am that I Am," not "I
Am that I Was," and certainly not, "I Was that I Was,"
and definitely not "I Was that I Am." Even those who
say that he was once God teach that he gave that up and
became a man!
He called himself "the son of man," continually, so why
they get angry at me for doing the same? Why do they
call me an heretic? If I'm a heretic for referring to
Messiah as a man, then the Apostles were all heretics,
Messiah was a heretic, and yes even the great I Am is a
heretic by their dogmas and doctrines!
Phillipians 2: 5-9 never says that Messiah was once
God, but came down and fashioned himself as a man. It
said he was "in fashion" as a man! Someone, therefore,
fashioned him! He was a created being! Someone
created him, or fashioned him a man! That would be
the creator! I repeat, it doesn't say "he fashioned
himself as a man."
When it says he was "in the form of God," it's not
saying he was God, it's saying he was in "the image of
God!" We shall some day be remade in the image of
God too, because we will be in the "image of Messiah,"
does that make us God come down to earth? I don't
think so! It also says that, even though he was in the
very image of God, and though he was equal with God,
being God's son, he humbled himself and became a
servant instead!
Hebrews 5: 5
"So Messiah glorified not himself to be
made an high priest; but He that said
to him, You are my Son, to day have I
begotten you."
When was this said to Messiah?
Matthew 3: 16-17
"16 And Yeshua, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of
the water: and lo, the heavens were
opened to him, and he was the Spirit of
God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him:
Isaiah 9: 6
"6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Here in this verse it definitely appears to state clearly
that Messiah’s name would be “mighty God” and
“everlasting Father.” First we must examine the
original word for “mighty” in this text. It is the Hebrew
word “gibowwr” or “gibbor” which denotes a
“champion” or “warrior.” We know that the great I
Am is not a “champion.” A champion, or warrior, is
someone who fights on BEHALF of a higher power or
authority. We know that there IS NOT higher power or
authority than God! This Hebrew word, when it was
translated DEMANDED that the OF should have been
placed in the phrase. It should read, “The mighty of
God” or “the champion of God.”
Let’s look now at the phrase “everlasting Father.”
Indeed this phrase appears to be translated properly as
long as you have the PRECONCEIVED notion that
Messiah is “God incarnate” and that the Son is the
Father also! Take away this premise and it makes no
sense at all to use the literal sense of the word ab
(pronounced awb). It is very highly unlikely that the
original Torah uses the phrase “everlasting Father” in
the translation. It is more than likely it reads
“everlasting chief,” or “chief everlasting” (Which, as
you recall is another title of Messiah, “the chief
cornerstone”). The context here is a “son” being born,
the author would not turn around and call this son
“everlasting FATHER.” Clearly the translators
CHOSE to settle on the literal use of “ab” here because
they had a preconceived notion of Messiah and the
Father being one in the same person! It’s doubtful the
original prophet would use the literal “ab” because
herein he’s writing about “a son is born.”
We have to be careful when we hinge an entire doctrine
and dogma on the translation of one single verse (or in
this case grossly mistranslated). The rest of the
scriptural record does not support the claim that one of
Messiah’s names or titles is “everlasting Father.” It
would be more likely and even better translated
“everlasting OF the Father.”
Let’s say, for argument’s sake that the word is “ab.”
Why is it capitalized in the Bible? Why does the phrase
say “everlasting Father?” We know that capitalization
is a convection of the translator and that it was not a
capital “F” in the original text! The fact that the word
Father is capitalized is the only evidence we need of the
bias of the translators. They gave themselves right
away when they capitalized the F in this word!
If we call Messiah “everlasting father” with a small f
this could be a reference to him being the “father” and
“author” of our salvation, (for the word everlasting
here denotes salvation).
The question: “is Jesus the Almighty God?” The
answer: not by any scripture I can find.