Видео

That was actually our live feed crew. They had a power surge that caused the camera to switch over to the computer for a few seconds.

Jesus did say this -"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” I believe the "he' there is added, so the idea is Jesus is referencing the I AM who spoke to Moses. So in that way, it might be a salvific issue, though I get your points, we certainly need to flip the doctrine pyramid like the food pyramid with love being at the top, however, love must me tied to scripture, so it makes it difficult, but too many Christians just dismiss others way too quickly instead of taking the time to really understand them. Good comment!

@@flamingswordapologetics The verse you're referring to is John 8:24 from the New Testament. Here's the context: In John 8, Jesus is having a conversation with the Pharisees. He is speaking about his identity and mission. Jesus warns them that they do not know where he is going and that they are not following him. Specifically, John 8:24 says: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins." In this context, Jesus is emphasizing the necessity of believing in him as the Messiah (the "I am he" refers to his identity as the promised Savior) for salvation. He is addressing the issue of disbelief and its consequences, suggesting that failure to recognize and believe in him as the Messiah will result in remaining in sin and its ultimate consequences. The broader passage includes Jesus declaring himself as the light of the world and offering spiritual truths and teachings that challenge the existing religious norms and understandings of the time. So, when the context is included, the "if you don't believe I am he" part is referring to those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah / Savior.

@@lightbeforethetunnel Thanks, I see that is possible, but the "he" I'm pretty sure is not in the Greek, and the context of the I AM statements in the same chapter seem to be pointing back to the I AM that sent Moses, which we all identify as Yahweh. If this was the only verse taught alluded to the Divinity of Christ, it would be more difficult, but it seems the Unitarians take a position that is less likely and simply does not fit the context. Yes, they must believe He is the Messiah, but that the Messiah is the I AM from the Old T. That is my conundrum, because I am very open to accepting those who disagree with me as brothers/sisters on many issues.

Yes ,you are Indeed correct. Great answer

It seems to me that Jesus Christ (described in the Bible as the begotten son of God), has the same God that saved born-again Christians have.

Here are some historical facts. Trinitarians dominate Christianity so much so that they would have you believe that if you are not a Trinitarian, you are not a Christian. This is not true. Historically, Christianity has not always been controlled by the Trinitarians or their Doctrine. There was no defined Trinitarian doctrine for the first three hundred years of the history of the Christian Church. But to listen to Trinitarians, you would think Christ taught His disciples the Trinity, or at the very least God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the church from the beginning. No such teaching or revelation from God was ever given, nor was the Trinity made essential for believers according to the Bible. Yet, according to Trinitarians, the doctrine of the Trinity is considered sacred and fundamental, and most Trinitarians view it as the litmus test for defining who is and is not a Christian. Only ignorance would allow such a thing. The audacity of the Trinitarians to threaten one’s very salvation! James White has publicly stated, “We (Trinitarians) hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine… We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 14-15). And yet, no one can understand the Trinity. Scholars have acknowledged this, “The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul” (Harold Linsell and Charles Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, pp. 51). This Trinitarian Doctrine produces confusion, and this confusion is not from the God of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33). Where did this doctrine of the Trinity come from? “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century but received wide currency and formal elucidation only after the 4th and 5th centuries” (see “Trinity,” New Bible Dictionary, 1996). “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (see “Trinitarians,” A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge). Biblically, God never revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity, then how did the church come to accept it? From history, we get the answer, “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and many controversies…It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 11, p. 928, 1985 ed.). “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from Him” (H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 2, p. 499, 1920). Over 3 hundred years after Christ, this doctrine of God being Triune took over the church as essential to our salvation! What of all the believers who accepted Christ before the 4th century, but had no idea that belief in the Trinity was a requirement for their salvation? Is the demand by Trinitarians that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation a form of legalism? What is legalism? Have not Trinitarians laid down the law that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved? In Christian theology, "legalism" is a pejorative term applied to the idea that "by doing good works or by obeying the law, a person earns and merits salvation." If men, whether by popular belief or by group or clergy, place a prerequisite, a stipulation, or insist upon a certain belief upon one so that they would receive salvation is this not a form of legalism? Only Christ, by the will of the Father, can place prerequisites, stipulations, and beliefs upon one to receive salvation without falling under “legalism.” Therefore, Christ made no requirement that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation, then it follows that the stipulation that one must believe in the Trinity would be a form of legalism caused by Trinitarians. There is no requirement by Christ that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation. Where did the idea of the Trinity come from since God never revealed the concept of the Trinity? Edward Gibbon, a noted historian, gives this answer, “If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians…was changed by the Church…into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. xvi, 1883). The Trinity finds its birth in the West according to Pagan Greek philosophy. Were we not warned about this by the apostle Paul, who wrote, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Rise up in truth all Christians and throw off this heavy yoke of Trinitarian bondage to a false doctrine never revealed by Christ. It is false that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved. Christ is God because His God and Father gave Him all things, and all things are committed to Him. Christ said, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27).

@@S.R.M. Thanks for your above post. I just read through it. I was late, but better late than never! I've noticed a lot of Christians don't seem to realize how absurdly dogmatic and intolerant they are about Trinitarianism. They treat it as though it's a salvation issue when there's no reason why it would be.

@@lightbeforethetunnel Thank you. Jesus is a counterfeit name. (2 Timothy 4:1-22) I charge you in the presence of God and of the Messiah YAHSHUA, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His Kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill your ministry.” (2 Corinthians 10:5) “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…” Strong’s Dictionary of Bible Words (Hebrew) Hawah- modernized Hebrew word: havah, means “to be” (Strong’s #1933). “To exist,” (Strong’s #1934). Part of God’s name YAH-a-wah, YAHAWAH means “I AM Everpresent,” revealed to Moses. Hovah- means “Ruin, Mischief, and Calamity,” (Strong’s #1942, #1943). Part of the name Je-hovah, which means “Ruin, Mischief, and Calamity.” Jehovah is a concoction of the Hebrew vowels of the Hebrew word for God, “Eloah” (e-o-a), and these vowels are placed onto the Tetragrammaton YHWH, Anglo-Latinized to JHVH, thus causing the name of JeHoVaH. God never revealed this name: “Jehovah.” The name Jehovah, or Yehovah, is a euphonious name, a counterfeit name, and in the name of God’s Truth must be discarded! YAH - Means “I AM,” as opposed to Jah, due to the Hebrew having no corresponding letter for ‘J’. Therefore Jah is inconsistent with YAH. Halleluyah means “Praise YAH.” The following is incorrect: Jah and Iah. The Hebrew letter Yod corresponds to the English letter “Y.” YAH is correct, as in Halleluyah! Strong's Hebrew: 3050. יָהּ (YAH=I AM) -- the name of the God of Israel: YAH is “the name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9). Halleluyah means “Praise YAH!” “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation’” (Isaiah 12:2 NKJV). “Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name Yah, and rejoice before Him” (Psalm 68:4 NKJV). The Messiah has “the name which is above every name”, which is, “YAH.” YAHSHUA said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). I AM=YAH. YAHSHUA means, “I AM Salvation.” “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). To reject the name YAHSHUA, or disbelieve this name, is to be condemned (John 3:18). Unfortunately, there are few who will find the way, the name, of salvation (Matthew 7:13-14). The priests, pastors, teachers, and evangelists, who preach, and teach, in the counterfeit names of Jehovah, Yehovah, or Jesus, are workers of lawlessness (Matthew 7:21-23; Malachi 2:2). HAYAH - meaning, “the I AM.” To exist, (Strong’s #1961). God answers Moses, “[the I AM] HaYAH [Who] Ashar [the I AM] HaYAH” (Exodus 3:14). God did not say, ‘Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.’ HAYAH - Has been mistakenly tied to the name Jehovah, the erroneous, euphonious, name: For God (see Strong’s # 1962). Therefore the words ruin, and mischief are false definitions and not related to the definition of HaYAH, however, Jehovah does mean ruin, mischief, and calamity. Jehovah - is a Latinization of the HebrewTetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH), this name (Yehovah) is an improper name of the God of Israel and has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures, or any Bible, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English. The Hebrew letters Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey, (YHWH) the Tetragrammaton יהוה is the name of God in Hebrew and a form of God's name in Christianity with the essential name YAH. YAHAWAH was revealed to Moses and appears in English Bibles as LORD. LORD in all caps is a cover-up for YHWH, a practice by man, and not God. The growing consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahawah. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ('LORD'). The Hebrew vowel points of Eloah (e-o-a) were added to the Tetragrammaton by Jewish scribes to remind the readers in the synagogues not to attempt to pronounce the name of God but to say, “Adonai,” instead. Thus around the 12th century CE, Roman Catholic clerics, being ignorant of the practice, inaccurately transliterated the Tetragrammaton with these added vowels from another word causing the hybrid name Iehovah. Thus, the derived forms Iehouah, and Iehovah, first appeared in the 12th century. In the 17th century, the name of Jehovah became known, and today has been modified, in some circles, to Yehovah (see Strong’s #3068). Yehovih - (see Strong’s #3069) This is the Tetragrammaton יהוה With the vowels of Elohim (e-o-i), which caused Yehovih. From: Word + Vowels = Modified name for God Adonai + a-o-ai = YaHoWaiH shortened to YAHWEH. Elohim + e-o-i = Yehovih (appears in the Hebrew Scriptures 305x) Eloah + e-o-a = Yehovah (appears in the Hebrew Scriptures over 2,000X) Scholars know that the name Jehovah is considered historically inaccurate as it emerged from combining the Hebrew consonants YHWH and the vowels (e-o-a) of the word Eloah to make the name YeHoVaH. The hybrid name, therefore, does not reflect the divine name as it was used in ancient times or its pronunciation. This presents linguistic differences as The name Jehovah fails to follow the rules of the Hebrew language, which does not have the letter “j.” Therefore, combining “J” and “jeh” to form a word cannot be found in Hebrew, where the divine name originates. YAH is part of the beginning of God’s original name, hence Halleluyah, Praise YAH. Jah, Jeh, Ieh, and Yeh are inconsistencies. Stop using concocted, hybrid, counterfeit names for the LORD!

Voodie Bauchman? So, you don't know Voddie Baucham either 😂🎉

@@elnewPC NOT the word trinity. Whatever you see this ideology was made up by men. You can trust men or the word of GOD. take your pick. I will pick the word of GOD.

@@elnewPC JAMES WHITE I USUALLY AGREE BUT THE TRINITY IS NOT BO LIVAL IT IS OF HUMANS AND RIGHT NOW YOU ARE THINKING LIKE A HUMAN. WHO KNOW NOTHING.

@stevemarks9820 ignorance of scriptures and its authority stance is ignorance to Christ.

@stevemarks9820 can you show me where more than 2 verses where Jesus is Michale the arcangel, like you belive? I can show you multiple verses where Jesus sits on God's throne and even in the center of the throne. If you can't show me then you lose. 😇

@@elnewPC What are you talking about . Never would I say thAt. I get on the jw for this . JESUS is not vrated for one thing and He was never an angel His name is the highest in the universe They must now down to Jesus. I quit the Jw on the spot when they said they did not worship Jesus. JESUS is my life and I love Him more than anyone or anything you are mistaken.

Exactly. The Trinity doctrine is *not* accurate.

@@vettelover695 of course I can help you with it.... The scripture say that when Jesus became flesh.... He made himself lower than the angels.... And he set aside his authority..... He gave his authority back to the father..... And the father gave it back to him after he completed his work.... Remember Jesus was God but he was clothed in human flesh and as such he had limitations. It wasn't that his deity was taken away but rather that humanity was added to him..... Now if you're asking me to explain exactly how that worked LOL, find me anyone who can exactly explain God..... But that is what this particular verse means and the loud mouth in the comment below is never going to see that unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to him because the bottom line is, he hates Christ the son and because of that he will perish in his sins

bro, he literally came down as a man to be the perfect example for us in how to follow and do the will of the Father. He basically capped his power level for a bit till he was resurrected.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I HAD with YOU BEFORE the world existed.

@@revel77 I love that verse. It does still stir in me the question Does being with God make Jesus God? In other words, could it be that He was always the Son?

He actually believes the number of the elect are like the sands of the sea, I.e., billions. Nice try though. You are clearly not listening. No reformed person ever said a minority is saved.

Wow this is awful lol you don’t even care to listen

@@timothyvenable3336 No you listen. What I posted above is the hideous heresy of Calvinism. It is a cult and absolute Blasphemy!

There's no subordination spiritually bc that would make the deity of Jesus lesser than the Father. It would lead to HOMOOUSIOS (similar substance) rather than HOMOIOUSIOS (same substance)

@@JesusPPK Jesus isn't His Father... Two separate individuals...

@@JesusPPK Kind begets kind. God brought forth of His own substance.

@@davidmoorman7062 nope. That's not what happened to us or to Jesus. The Triune God created man from the earth. Jesus always was & is existing before & after the incarnation.

​@@JesusPPK- Actually, there *is* subordination spiritually, with Jesus being *spiritually* subordinated to The FATHER as in the verses below; -->1 Corinthians 15:28 ~ *_"And when all things have been subjected to Him (Jesus), then the Son Himself will be made SUBJECT to Him (God-YAHWEH) who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all."_*

Jesus as human had to be bestowed with the HS. You should always be considering is where did Jesus come from & what he had prior to the incarnation. Phil 2:4-8 speaks about Jesus having the FORM of God but then taking on A HUMAN FORM. The two verbs "having" & "taking" denotes possession of one innately but putting on another bc he never had it before.

@@JesusPPK That's not to say Jesus wasn't the only Begotten Son of the living God prior to coming to Earth as a man. John 3:16-19, 1 John 2:22-24

@@JesusPPK Acts 10:38 clearly tells us Jesus Christ was given His Father's Spirit.

@davidmoorman7062 You're misunderstanding the text & ignoring other verses. The argument about Jesus is about Homoousios (of similar substance) & Homoiousios (of the same substance). Phil 2 tells us that Jesus had the form of God and that he took upon the human form. Also, it tells us that when Jesus had the form of god that he did not consider equality with God to be something that was to be grasped. Here in John 12:41 ESV "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." We need to ask ourselves who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? John is telling us that Isaiah saw the glory of the LORD. He is also telling us that who he saw was Jesus. Jesus is YHWH.

@@JesusPPK Men's terms right? Not Biblical right? It's cool you bringing up Phil. 2:5-8 but seriously Phil 1:2, 2:11, 13 that slays the Roman Catholic Trinity doctrine/creed. Who works in you? ‭Philippians 2:13 KJV‬ [13] For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. How does Our Heavenly Father accomplish this? By His Holy (set apart, sanctified) Spirit.

No one has to believe in the Trinity doctrine to be a Christian and have God's salvation. - Faith in JESUS and faith in His sin-atoning BLOOD is our salvation - not faith in the Trinity doctrine.

@@VAIO294You need to believe in the right Jesus whose father is God and filled and led by God The Holy Spirit. You may not understand the trinity but the right Jesus is essential for salvation. If I believe Jesus is an angel or gay or married to Mary Magdalene then I believe in a made-up Jesus, a fake and I’m not saved.

@@blackcoffee2 - Believing in the Trinity doctrine is not a requirement for a person to have "the right Jesus." - A person can simply believe Jesus is the Son of GOD and place their faith in Him, just as most people confessed in the scriptures. - Belief in the Trinity doctrine is not a salvation requirement.

@@VAIO294 Which Jesus do you believe in? Are you a JW?

​@@blackcoffee2- No, I'm not a JW. - I believe in the same Jesus Peter believed in. The CHRIST, the Son of the living God. -->Matthew 16:15-17 ~ _“He (Jesus) said to them, _*_‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, You are THE CHRIST, the Son of the living God.’_*_ And Jesus said to him, _*_‘BLESSED are you, Simon Barjona,_*_ because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.’”_

That was a very long very insightful post but the fact of the matter is is that God said he would preserve his word down through time and so we have to take into consideration that God is sovereign and if he is sovereign he did not allow the holy scriptures to be so polluted that we would be confused about something as important as who God is So when those verses say that we baptize you in the name of God the Father God the son and God the Holy Spirit you can be sure that is exactly what Christ said otherwise God has failed to do his job and is now a liar and if he is a liar he cannot be God

Not to mention I hate to tell you this but your viewpoint on that whole entire process is garbage.... You yourself have just introduced an incredible amount of agenda and eisogesis and your own presuppositions while complaining that you believe that trinitarians have done the very same thing. The fact of the matter is, the scripture refers to God the Father God the son and God the Holy Spirit and would not do so if there were not such a thing. We have all three members of the Trinity there when Jesus is baptized Jesus is in the water, the father speaks from heaven and said this is my son and whom I am well pleased, and the spirit ascends upon him like a dove now you can choose not to believe that if you want but all of that babble bull hockey you just said about the church and everything else means that God is not capable of preserving the most important doctrine of All in His holy scriptures for believers leaving out nearly the entire last 2000 years of so-called believers on their way to hell for worshiping a false god and if that's how you think God decides he's going to give humanity an opportunity to serve him then you are out of your mind. No sir!!!! God preserved his word down through time and we have as close to the original manuscripts as we need in order to ensure the salvation of all who read the scriptures and believe the gospel and the fact of the matter is if we were wrong about the Trinity then we would have a different God and the gospel would be useless

@@BenDeRaps1 “For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’” (Romans 10:13). What is “the name which is above every name”? The answer is given by the prophet Isaiah. “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation’” (Isaiah 12:2 NKJV). Where did the name YAH come from? First, did you know that the name Jesus has only existed since the 17th century? Therefore, God never revealed the name Jesus, nor did the apostles ever know Him by the name Jesus. But what of the name YAH? We look to Moses. “Then Moses said to God, ‘Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?’ And God said to Moses, “HaYAH Ashar HaYAH” [meaning: “I AM WHO I AM”]. And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM {YAH} has sent me to you.’ Moreover, God said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations’” (Exodus 3:13-15). “HaYAH” means “the I AM” YAH is “the name which is above every name.” YAH, I AM, in Hebrew is יָהּ Therefore, it is HaYAH, “The I AM.” Not Ehyeh. Yeh, or Jehovah are false names never revealed by God. Since the apostles never knew the name Jesus, which was placed by man into the New Testament, and not according to the revelation of God, we need to put back the revealed name of the Savior. Is this name YAH a part of the Savior’s name? The apostle Paul assures us of “the name which is above every name,” as part of Christ’s name. He testified, “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am YAHSHUA, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me’” (Acts 26:12-18). Christ told Paul His name in Hebrew. And this is what Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him ‘the name which is above every name,’ that at the name of YAHSHUA, every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that YAHSHUA the Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11). Christ, Himself told the people that He is YAH, meaning “I AM.” Our Savior said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM {YAH}.” The expression “I AM”, means YAH. We praise our God and Savior with this expression: “Halleluyah, Praise YAH!” Shua means “my help,” as in “salvation.” YAHSHUA means, “I AM Salvation.” And the apostle Peter testified, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” When the Sanhedrin (Jewish Court) heard the name YAHSHUA, as the name YAH is the very name given to Moses, and they recognized the very name YAH, that they sought to hide from the Gentiles, for fear that the Gentiles would profane the name, the Sanhedrin forbid the apostle from preaching in this name, “YAHSHUA” (Acts 4:17-18). However, when the apostles preached in the name of YAHSHUA, the people did not hear it, instead, they heard the name Yeshua (a common name among the Jews at that time), and unless one was part of the Way, the Nazareans, the name YAHSHUA was not well known. Yeshua, an Aramaic name, was a common name in the 1st century. Those who reject the name YAHSHUA need to take warning, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). Why is this important revealed name, YAHSHUA, not better known? The answer is given by YAHSHUA, He said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). “Few there be who find it.” The Aramaic name Yeshua was transliterated into Greek and became an entirely different name Iesous. Iesous (ee-sous) transformed into Iesus (ee-sus, as seen in the 1611 KJV Bible). Iesus was later transformed into the name Jesus (gee-sus) when the letter J became officially incorporated into the English Alphabet in the 17th century. According to the testimony of the apostle Peter, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). No other name, so which is the one name given under heaven by which we must be saved? Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus? Is the name of salvation based on the revelation of God, or by the changing languages according to the tongues of mankind? The prophet Isaiah tells us the name of salvation, he says, "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation’ ” (Isaiah 12:2 NKJV, as found in Hebrew Scriptures Yod-Hey יָהּ). Is YAH the name of Salvation? Did the Savior identify Himself with the name YAH, which means "I AM." Christ said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58 NKJV). Is YAH "the name which is above every name"? When Moses asked for God's name, did God reveal the name YAH, as in "I AM?" "Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, "HaYAH Ashar HaYAH" [“I AM WHO I AM”]. And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM {YAH} has sent me to you.’ ” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations’" (Exodus 3:13-15). Does this make YAH [I AM] "the name which is above every name"? When the apostle Paul was on the road to Damascus and encountered the Lord, did he hear the Lord give his name in Hebrew, as found in Acts 26:12-18, and so did he hear "the name which is above every name"? Did the apostle Paul hear the name given to Moses, the very name "YAH"? Is not the revealed name of YAH, "the name which is above every name"? The apostle Paul wrote this, "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him 'the name which is above every name'..." (Philippians 2:9). Therefore, is it not reasonable to see that "YAH" is "the name which is above every name," and that YAH is part of our Savior's revealed name? Therefore, the apostle Paul would have originally written: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him 'the name which is above every name,' that at the name of YAHSHUA, every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that YAHSHUA the Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11). Therefore, based on the above, YAHSHUA is the only name by which we must be saved. What if I do not believe in the name YAHSHUA, and stay with the name Jesus, even though it came to be by the tongue of man, and not by the revelation of God? Well, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). In answer to your question, according to the New Testament, you will stand condemned...

@@BenDeRaps1 And yet, the apostles did not do what the Savior asked regarding how to baptize. 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Trinitarians dominate Christianity so much so that they would have you believe that if you are not a Trinitarian, you are not a Christian. This is not true. Historically, Christianity has not always been controlled by the Trinitarians or their Doctrine. There was no defined Trinitarian doctrine for the first three hundred years of the history of the Christian Church. But to listen to Trinitarians, you would think Christ taught His disciples the Trinity, or at the very least God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the church from the beginning. No such teaching or revelation from God was ever given, nor was the Trinity made essential for believers according to the Bible. Yet, according to Trinitarians, the doctrine of the Trinity is considered sacred and fundamental, and most Trinitarians view it as the litmus test for defining who is and is not a Christian. Only ignorance would allow such a thing. The audacity of the Trinitarians to threaten one’s very salvation! James White has publicly stated, “We (Trinitarians) hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine… We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 14-15). And yet, no one can understand the Trinity. Scholars have acknowledged this, “The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul” (Harold Linsell and Charles Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, pp. 51). This Trinitarian Doctrine produces confusion, and this confusion is not from the God of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33). Where did this doctrine of the Trinity come from? “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century but received wide currency and formal elucidation only after the 4th and 5th centuries” (see “Trinity,” New Bible Dictionary, 1996). “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (see “Trinitarians,” A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge). Biblically, God never revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity, then how did the church come to accept it? From history, we get the answer, “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and many controversies…It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 11, p. 928, 1985 ed.). “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from Him” (H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 2, p. 499, 1920). Over 3 hundred years after Christ, this doctrine of God being Triune took over the church as essential to our salvation! What of all the believers who accepted Christ before the 4th century, but had no idea that belief in the Trinity was a requirement for their salvation? Is the demand by Trinitarians that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation a form of legalism? What is legalism? Have not Trinitarians laid down the law that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved? In Christian theology, "legalism" is a pejorative term applied to the idea that "by doing good works or by obeying the law, a person earns and merits salvation." If men, whether by popular belief or by group or clergy, place a prerequisite, a stipulation, or insist upon a certain belief upon one so that they would receive salvation is this not a form of legalism? Only Christ, by the will of the Father, can place prerequisites, stipulations, and beliefs upon one to receive salvation without falling under “legalism.” Therefore, Christ made no requirement that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation, then it follows that the stipulation that one must believe in the Trinity would be a form of legalism caused by Trinitarians. There is no requirement by Christ that one must believe in the Trinity to receive salvation. Where did the idea of the Trinity come from since God never revealed the concept of the Trinity? Edward Gibbon, a noted historian, gives this answer, “If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians…was changed by the Church…into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. xvi, 1883). The Trinity finds its birth in the West according to Pagan Greek philosophy. Were we not warned about this by the apostle Paul, who wrote, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Rise up in truth all Christians and throw off this heavy yoke of Trinitarian bondage to a false doctrine never revealed by Christ. It is false that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved. Christ is God because His God and Father gave Him all things, and all things are committed to Him. Christ said, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27).

@@S.R.M. your big long goofy post is absolutely false and not a word of it is true. Yes of course the word Trinity was not found in the pages of scripture however Christ spoke of the father and of the paraclete, the Holy Spirit when she spoke to them just before he left and said he was sending the spirit in his place and he mentioned it other places throughout the scriptures as well. Just because something isn't directly spoken of such as the word Trinity does not mean that the doctrine was not taught and all of that garbage you just said for about 2000 words about how the first 300 years it was never mentioned, first of all, I'm sorry were you there for the first 300 years? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...... Since we don't have any first century documents except for a timely little leaflet piece of the book of matthew...... Everything else that we have is from the second and third century.... But the fact still remains that Christ spoke of the father and he spoke of the spirit in multiple places and you'll find it in every gospel and you'll find it and all of the Epistles and so for us to assume that it was not spoken of by Christ is just completely ignorant of the facts and just because you don't want to believe in the Trinity yet you want to call yourself a christian, that's up to you.. and of course you're not a Christian if you don't believe in the father son and spirit because they are one God and if you don't believe in God as he is then you're believing in a different God aren't you because you don't believe in the correct God.... You believe in the Jesus as a historical figure but you do not believe in Jesus who is the son who has a father and has a spirit, a triune being that makes up one God which is the God of the Bible the God that we serve..... And that doesn't sit well with you and I really don't give a crap how it sits because it is nevertheless true. I'm not here to cuddle your emotions or make your little feelings feel better I'm here to tell you the truth and if you don't like the truth that's your own problem not mine... You have to be completely ignorant of the facts, by simply turning a blind eye to what the scripture say if you would like to do that that's on you and one day you'll stand before God and you'll answer for that. You don't have to stand before me and answer for anything but to say that the father son and spirit are not found in scripture is just absolutely a false statement and it only takes a 5-year-old reading level to be able to tell that Christ spoke of his father and of the spirit who would come in his place the second paraclete in the Greek.... Jesus even spoke of the spirit to Nicodemus and we know that by textual criticism because the word Spirit and the word wind are the same word in the Greek but when you follow contextual criticism we know that Jesus wasn't talking about the wind because of how he used it in the sentence..... In other words, through contextual criticism we realize he was talking about a person not a thing..... Had he simply been talking about wind he would have described it like you would describe wind not like you would describe a person with a personality.... Anyway I'm not going to continue to have this conversation with you because there are all kinds of fake religions that believe in Jesus they just believe in the Jesus of their own creation not that Jesus of the Bible..... And you are absolutely correct that we trinitarians believe that if you don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible then you believe in a false Jesus and you will not be saved by a false jesus. It's called The Gospel and it's the only way that man can be saved because it's the power of God unto salvation

1corth 1: 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1corth 2: 1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Don’t confuse the physical red and white blood cells shed with what it meant “Christ’s sacrifice of Himself for the payment of our sins.”

@@bobs3729 The atonement has EVERYTHING to do with the blood. It is what Jesus took into the holy place for the Father to declare the unjust to be justified. Without the blood you have no payment for sins.

Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, fnbut we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. We are not “saved”with the physical blood of Christ, but the eternal life that He gives to unregenerate that is dead in their sin. His sacrifice took away our sin guilt on our behalf took the punishment we deserved of Father’s wrath so we don’t have to. To focus on the Christian-eze “there’s no mention of the blood..” is to ignore the NT hammering over and over , even quoting the OT “the just shall live by faith”. Granted “faith in what”? Is the unspoken question but is inferred that “we can’t, but God can.” Justification by faith (alone) is from Adam and Eve to Abraham to the Syrian washing in the muddy Jordan to Habakkuk to the woman at the well to Heb 11 to us today, unless the mans need to “earn” Gods favor get in the way. Then rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 👉4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.👈 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

The doctrine of the Trinity is believed by Christians to be biblical, and those who believe it cite Matthew 28:18-20, or 1 John 5:7, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” These verses are the modern-day rendition identifying an interpolation, and so the question must be asked, “Did Christ in fact speak every word found in these verses?” The first Church Historian Eusebius (quotes Matthew 28:19 as it appeared in the early 4th century, Christ said, “Go and make disciples of all nations in My name” (Matthew 28:19, as it was originally quoted, Eusebius, The History of the Church, p. 68, Penguin Classics, 1965). Note, He never said, “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Which commandment did the disciples hear? It appears the latter quoted by Eusebius from an original manuscript of the NT, for there is no instance of the disciples ever baptizing anyone “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” according to the New Testament! On baptisms specifically were done in the name of {YAHSHUA}, Martin Luther notes, “The apostles certainly used this formula in baptizing in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,’ citing Acts 2:38; 10:48; and 19:5” (Erik H. Herrmann, Paul W. Robinson, The Annotated Luther, Volume 3: Church and Sacraments. Fortress Press. p. 66, 2016). In a documented sermon, Martin Luther made this astonishing statement, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (The Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). The disciples of Christ, in the first two or more centuries, did not know of any doctrine of the Trinity. Historically, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from him” (H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 2, p. 499, 1920). The so-called Great Commission, as written is an interpolation: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, the words in italics were added centuries later). The disciples were to make disciples in His name and they were only baptizing in the name of Christ, as the NT gives evidence. The formula is mentioned in the Didache (7:1-3), and it is mostly accepted as authentic due to its supporting manuscript evidence (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 2013, pp. 134-5). Nevertheless, some scholars have held the view that the passage in the Didache is an interpolation as it is absent from the first few centuries of early Christian quotations, in which case it is believed it would be part of an apostolic or early Christian oral tradition from which both the received texts of Matthew and the Didache emerged, however, the conclusion is the church only baptized in the name of Christ. The view of the passage as an interpolation was in recent times maintained, and this particular line of opposing arguments by Trinitarians is pure eisegesis, meaning the process of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one's presuppositions, agendas, or biases, that artificially supports the Trinitarian formula, and based on interpolated verses added to the New Testament. Catholics and Protestants would agree with Protestant Theologian James White, who writes, “We hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine…We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully completely Christian” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 14-15). And yet most other scholars know that the Trinity is beyond human understanding, “The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind, but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul” (Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge, A Christian Handbook, pp. 51-52, 1953). Nowhere in the New Testament is believing in the Trinity a prerequisite for one’s salvation. Nowhere in the Bible did the LORD ever reveal Himself as a Trinity, or Triune God. Interpolations exist in the New Testament, which are words added later to prove the Trinity. Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are proven interpolations, and therefore not of the original Scriptures. 1 John 5:7 is known as “The Johannine comma,” due to a sequence of extra words in 1 John 5:7-8 which appear in later versions of the Bible, but not in earlier Scriptures. Compare these words below in italics in the KJV and the same verse from the newer ESV. "For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" (1 John 5:7-8 KJV). "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree" (1 John 5:7-8, ESV). These extra words are generally absent from the early Greek manuscripts. They only appear in the text in late medieval manuscripts, which were done by Trinitarians to bolster the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian doctrine only existed since the 4th century! A religion unexamined is not worth having. Besides, most Christians when questioned about the Trinity prove to be Modalists, not Trinitarians (The Forgotten Trinity, p. 16). Christians have given examples of the Trinity, and one is the steam, water, and ice, which is not a good example for it only proves modalism. The Trinity is not so much a mystery as it is the doctrine of confusion, and we know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

- No one has to believe in the Trinity doctrine to be a Christian and have God's salvation. - *Faith in JESUS and faith in His sin-atoning BLOOD is our salvation* - not faith in the Trinity doctrine.

@@VAIO294 The Trinity is the Father fully God, the Son (Christ) fully God, and the Holy Ghost fully God, however, the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, and the Spirit is not the Son, nor is the Spirit the Father. They are all distinct from each other. Yet there are not three Gods (elohim), but One God (Eloah). How is it that not one verse in the Bible states: “God is One in three persons”? It is common among Christians who tend to think and believe that the Trinity is established in the Bible, who insist on the belief of the Trinity of three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the One God is biblical. And yet increasingly, many very well-known Bible Scholars do not think Christ is God in a Trinitarian sense, based on the lack of evidence in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, many distinguished scholars maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Trinitarians promote two verses, which are Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7, however, these two pillars of Trinitarianism are proven interpolations, that is words that were added to Scripture much later into the original biblical text. While the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the New Testament and never revealed by God in the Old Testament, it was first formulated by Christian bishops in the 4th century, that is three hundred years after Christ, and who attempted to understand the relationship between Christ and the Father in three main Church Councils, The Council of Nicaea (325), The Council of Constantinople (381), and The Council of Ephesus (431). Those men who participated in three councils sought to define God on their terms without one thus says the LORD, and not one provable proof text . History does not reveal that the apostles ever knew of the Trinity Doctrine, that is: “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and yet not three gods (elohim), one God (eloah), equally important, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, therefore, each is a separate Person of the Godhead.” Trinitarians have placed two major interpolations in the New Testament to artificially establish the Trinity. To sum up the findings of historians, H.G. Wells stated, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from him” (THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY, Vol. 2, p. 499). “Primitive (Apostolic) Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early (4th century) church” (see “God”, THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY of NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 84). First interpolation: 1 John 5:7-8. Modern Biblical scholarship agrees that 1 John 5:7 seen in Latin and Greek texts after the 4th century and found in later translations such as the King James Bible Translation, cannot be found in the oldest Greek and Latin texts. Verse 7 is known as the Johannine Comma, an interpolation, which most scholars agree to be a later addition by a later Trinitarian copyist, also classified as a textual gloss, but not part of the original text. This verse reads: “Because there are three in Heaven that testify - the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit - these three are one.” This verse is absent from the original Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, early Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It is primarily found in later Latin manuscripts, although some Greek, Slavonic, and late Armenian manuscripts contain it. Second Interpolation: Matthew 28:19. States, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” Matthew 28:19 is quoted by Trinitarians as evidence for the Trinity. However, it is an interpolation into the Text. Respected Bible scholars say that the formula was an insertion and that it originally stated: “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.” Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire New Testament with the “Trinity” formula.” All other verses point to baptism being performed in the Name of Christ alone. Take for example Apostle Peter in Acts, who promoted baptisms in the name of the Lord. See the following verses: Acts 2:38 - “Then Peter said to them, “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:16 - For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48 - So Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay there for several days. If Matthew 28:19 is true and genuine, and Jesus did command His disciples to baptize ”in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” then why would Peter go against a commandment and baptize only in His name? Well, the answer lies in the Text.

This is unbiblical and borderline insane to act like Trinitarianism is a salvation issue.

@@lightbeforethetunnel It is time for Christians to throw off the Trinitarian tyranny! The God of the Bible is not Triune!

However, belief in the Trinity doctrine is not a salvation requirement.

@@VAIO294 That's because it is not taught or revealed in Scripture.

@@gimel77 That's right. It's not. - In GOD’S reality, *Trinitarians and NON-Trinitarians WILL BOTH BE SAVED,* *cleansed of their sins* by the sin-atoning *blood* of Jesus, *IF* they both have repented of their sins and have their faith anchored in Jesus Christ, trusting JESUS to save them based on what He did for us at the cross when He died and paid for our sins.

@@VAIO294 it most certainly is a salvation issue. If Jesus isn’t the second person of the Godhead, we are all without Hope. Only God in flesh could make a propitiation for us.

@@twelve5church- *(Part 1)* - If Jesus was just *an ordinary human,* "we are all without Hope." Yes, I agree. - But I'm *not* saying Jesus is just an ordinary human. - I'm saying, that nowhere in the Bible is a confession of faith in the Trinity doctrine said to be a salvation requirement. -- Even when Jesus asked His disciples WHO they believed He is, Peter gave a simple non-trinitarian answer, as we see in the verses below: -->Matthew 16:15-17 ~ _“He (Jesus) said to them, _*_‘But who do you say that I am?*’ Simon Peter answered, *‘You are THE CHRIST, the Son of the living God.’_*_ And Jesus said to him, _*_‘BLESSED are you, Simon Barjona,_*_ because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.’”_

One Essence....Yaweh is Spirit (John 4:24) Jesus is Yaweh manifest in the Flesh (John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-23, John 10:30-38, John 14:7-11)

“Jehovah…” (Yehovah) It is widely used in many churches. It is considered by many Christians to be hollowed, and many beautiful hymns also endear it, however, this name “Jehovah” is a concoction of man. Therefore, it is a “mongrel,” a “hybrid,” and it is “fantastic,” a fantasy, and it is “monstrous!” There is something very wrong with this euphonious name Jehovah. Therefore, the name of Jehovah was a name never revealed by the LORD. The facts have only to be known to justify this verdict. What are the facts? Ever since the Babylonian invasion of the Kingdom of Judea, and the enforced diaspora of its noble class in 597 BCE, the Jews have had a strong penchant for hiding the name of the LORD (YHWH) from the Gentiles, thus preventing them from potentially profaning the LORD’s name revealed to Moses (specifically the name of YAH, “HaYAH”, as found in Exodus 3:13-15). YAH is “the name which is above every name.” Readers in the synagogues would inadvertently attempt to pronounce the LORD’s name, as there were no vowels in the Hebrew words within the Hebrew Bible [or known as “The Old Testament”] when coming upon God’s name: YHWH. Later, the Jewish clergy developed the practice, around the 1100s of adding Hebrew vowels created by the Masoretes, to the Tetragrammaton [Gr. word for the four consonant letters of the LORD's name]. The vowels were taken from at least three other Hebrew words, namely, Adonay (meaning Lord, with the vowels of a-o-ai causing the hybrid name YaHoWaiH, or later shortened to YAHWEH), Eloah (meaning God, with the vowels of e-o-a causing YeHoWaH later Jehovah or Yehovah), and Elohim (meaning Gods, with the vowels of e-o-i causing YeHoWiH, as shown in Strong’s Dictionary of Bible Words # 3069). These hybrid names were never meant to form any legitimate name for the LORD but were placed there to remind the readers in the synagogues to say, “Adonay” instead of attempting to pronounce the LORD’s actual name. How was this euphonious name, Jehovah, propagated? Later in Medieval times, the Roman Catholic Church was known to raid Jewish synagogues, take their gold, and the Hebrew Scriptures [the Old Testament], and persecute Jews. Raymondus Martini was a 13th century Dominican friar and theologian. He is remembered for his book called “Pugio Fidei” (in the year 1270 CE). Finding the absconded Hebrew Scriptures in the Dominican Library, and believing he had discovered the name of God, he used the name Iehovah (or Iehova) in his book not understanding that these vowels were not original to the LORD’s actual name. The name and pronunciation of “Jehovah,” (and also the name Jesus unknown until the 17th century) were essentially unknown in the years before 1520 CE, when introduced and propagated by Peter, Galatinus (1450-1540), he held the office of penitentiary under pope Leo X. His chief work De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, a book, written at the request of the pope, the emperor, and other dignitaries, in the year 1516 CE, as he also used the name Iehovah in his book. The name Iehovah was altered with the addition of the letter J, which was a recent addition to the English alphabet in the 17th century. Galatinus also did not know of the Jewish practice of adding vowels from an entirely different word. He did not know that the vowels found around the Tetragrammaton YeHoWaH were from the Hebrew word Eloah, and if he did, he did not care. Noted Bible scholar J. B. Rotherham, essentially stated, “To give YHWH (Latin: IHVH and later JHVH) the vowels of the word (ELOAH) to remind the Jewish reader to say, ‘Adonay,’ and to be pronounced by the Christians, ‘Jehovah,’ is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name of Germany with the vowels of Portugal-viz., Gormuna” (The Emphasized Bible, J. B. Rotherham, Kregel Publication, 1994, Pp. 24-25). Jehovah in its present hybrid form has only existed since the 17th century. Fact: The LORD’s essential name is YAH, and Bible scholars have acknowledged YAHWEH (see Strong’s #3050), as in “Praise YAH,” Hebrew: “Halleluyah!” The English “Hallelujah” is a misnomer. YAH is “the name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9), and YAHSHUA is the only name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), and this name is to be known among every language, and tongue, as the essential revealed name of the LORD according to the Gospel (Philippians 2:11), YAH, as in HaYAH (the I AM). The Savior identified His name as “I AM” (YAH, see John 8:58). The prophet Isaiah identified the name of salvation as YAH (Isaiah 12:2 NKJV). And “shua” means “my help”, as in “my salvation.” To reject the revealed name of YAHSHUA, which was given by the angel (Matthew 1:21) is to stand condemned (John 3:18). YAHSHUA is shortened from the name YAHOSHUA, which is commonly spelled Yehoshua largely due to the Jewish practice of hiding the name YAH, by adding vowels to YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, from the Hebrew vowels of Eloah, which caused the false Yeh, as a result, scholars would consider YAHOSHUA a philological impossibility, however, they are mistaken. What does the name Jehovah mean in Hebrew? Je-hovah, “hovah” in Hebrew means, “Ruin, Mischief, and Calamity” (see Strong’s #1942, #1943). The Jewish Encyclopedia, states, under the name “Jehovah,” “This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form Jehovah, which, however, is a philological impossibility” (p. 160). The Jehovah’s Witnesses admittedly make a similar reference that the name Jehovah is inferior, in their book: Let Your Name Be Sanctified (p. 16). Undoubtedly, the name Jehovah is not the revealed name of the LORD! Many Christian clergy know the truth that the name Jehovah is bogus. Still, due to their tradition, or the fact that this name erroneously appears in the King James Version of the Bible, they hold to this euphonious name for the sake of their tradition, which makes void the revelation of God (Mark 7:6-7). The Lord has a warning for them, “And now, O priests (pastors and teachers), this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if you will not take it to heart, to give glory to My name,” says the LORD of hosts, “I will send a curse upon you, Yes, I have cursed them already, because you do not take it to heart” (Malachi 2:1-2). Satan is deceiving the whole world (Revelation 12:9). Despite being told the truth of the one name of salvation, YAHSHUA, they will hold to the name Jesus and Jehovah, despite never having been revealed by the LORD. Many will reject the name YAHSHUA leaving only a few, and being of the many despite the admonishment: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). The name Jesus was never revealed by the LORD, or an angel of the Lord, and history proves this, as eminent historian Ernest Renan acknowledged that the Savior was never in His lifetime called “Jesus” (The Life of Jesus, p. 90). The name Jesus, in its present form, has only existed since the 17th century. Many on the path to the wide gate of destruction have sought to justify their faith in the substitute (counterfeit name) of Jesus, for they say, “I have seen wonders in the name of Jesus, and demons cast out in the name of Jesus, however, the Lord YAHSHUA has this to say to them, as given in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Those who think that demons were cast out as a basis for holding onto a name that God never revealed will find the Lord saying “Depart from Me,” for they are workers of lawlessness! As the apostle Peter said, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This means that all these names Jesus, Iesus, Iesous, and all the names that come from these three names are counterfeits! Halleluyah, Praise YAH! Praise YAHSHUA!

@@sandman9390 True YAHSHUA is YAH, but He is not the Father, who is His God and Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is believed by Christians to be biblical, and those who believe it cite Matthew 28:18-20, or 1 John 5:7, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” These verses are the modern-day rendition identifying an interpolation, and so the question must be asked, “Did Christ in fact speak every word found in these verses?” The first Church Historian Eusebius (quotes Matthew 28:19 as it appeared in the early 4th century, Christ said, “Go and make disciples of all nations in My name” (Matthew 28:19, as it was originally quoted, Eusebius, The History of the Church, p. 68, Penguin Classics, 1965). Note, He never said, “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Which commandment did the disciples hear? It appears the latter quoted by Eusebius from an original manuscript of the NT, for there is no instance of the disciples ever baptizing anyone “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” according to the New Testament! On baptisms specifically were done in the name of {YAHSHUA}, Martin Luther notes, “The apostles certainly used this formula in baptizing in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,’ citing Acts 2:38; 10:48; and 19:5” (Erik H. Herrmann, Paul W. Robinson, The Annotated Luther, Volume 3: Church and Sacraments. Fortress Press. p. 66, 2016). In a documented sermon, Martin Luther made this astonishing statement, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (The Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). The disciples of Christ, in the first two or more centuries, did not know of any doctrine of the Trinity. Historically, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from him” (H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 2, p. 499, 1920). The so-called Great Commission, as written is an interpolation: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, the words in italics were added centuries later). The disciples were to make disciples in His name and they were only baptizing in the name of Christ, as the NT gives evidence. The formula is mentioned in the Didache (7:1-3), and it is mostly accepted as authentic due to its supporting manuscript evidence (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 2013, pp. 134-5). Nevertheless, some scholars have held the view that the passage in the Didache is an interpolation as it is absent from the first few centuries of early Christian quotations, in which case it is believed it would be part of an apostolic or early Christian oral tradition from which both the received texts of Matthew and the Didache emerged, however, the conclusion is the church only baptized in the name of Christ. The view of the passage as an interpolation was in recent times maintained, and this particular line of opposing arguments by Trinitarians is pure eisegesis, meaning the process of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one's presuppositions, agendas, or biases, that artificially supports the Trinitarian formula, and based on interpolated verses added to the New Testament. Catholics and Protestants would agree with Protestant Theologian James White, who writes, “We hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine…We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully completely Christian” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 14-15). And yet most other scholars know that the Trinity is beyond human understanding, “The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind, but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul” (Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge, A Christian Handbook, pp. 51-52, 1953). Nowhere in the New Testament is believing in the Trinity a prerequisite for one’s salvation. Nowhere in the Bible did the LORD ever reveal Himself as a Trinity, or Triune God. Interpolations exist in the New Testament, which are words added later to prove the Trinity. Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are proven interpolations, and therefore not of the original Scriptures. 1 John 5:7 is known as “The Johannine comma,” due to a sequence of extra words in 1 John 5:7-8 which appear in later versions of the Bible, but not in earlier Scriptures. Compare these words below in italics in the KJV and the same verse from the newer ESV. "For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" (1 John 5:7-8 KJV). "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree" (1 John 5:7-8, ESV). These extra words are generally absent from the early Greek manuscripts. They only appear in the text in late medieval manuscripts, which were done by Trinitarians to bolster the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian doctrine only existed since the 4th century! A religion unexamined is not worth having. Besides, most Christians when questioned about the Trinity prove to be Modalists, not Trinitarians (The Forgotten Trinity, p. 16). Christians have given examples of the Trinity, and one is the steam, water, and ice, which is not a good example for it only proves modalism. The Trinity is not so much a mystery as it is the doctrine of confusion, and we know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Let me explain.... If you understood the Hebrew translation of what you are saying then you would understand exactly what's going on here. In the prayer the shema the Hebrew prayer it says hero Israel the Lord our God is one but the word used for one in Hebrew there is "ACHAD" which means a compound union. It's the same exact word for one used when a husband and wife get married and it says the two become One flesh the word their used is "ACHAD" as well..... It means a compound Union.... Meaning Father Son and Holy Spirit equal one God

@@BenDeRaps1 One "essence"? Compound unity? That's nonsense.

It doesn’t mean that Jesus is not God, it means that The Son, living as man, submitted to God the Father. Jesus was man AND God, and since He is a perfect man, He needed to have perfect submission to God. In order to do that, He would need to acknowledge God in the first place. Hence, the Son acknowledges the Father as God.

@@thatonechristian2487- The Bible does *not* say Jesus' subordination to God is limited to only while Jesus was in the fleshly body. Actually, even in His spirit form Jesus is subordinated to The FATHER as in the verses below; -->1 Corinthians 15:28 ~ *_"And when all things have been subjected to Him (Jesus), then the Son Himself will be made SUBJECT to Him (God-YAHWEH) who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all."_* -->1 Corinthians 11:3 ~ _“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; _*_and THE HEAD of Jesus Christ is GOD.”_* Also, Jesus Himself said *_"The FATHER is GREATER than I."_* (John 14:28) - Jesus did *not* add any qualifier to that statement such as _"for only as long as I'm in the fleshly body."_

@@thatonechristian2487 Jesus still calls the Father his God in Revelation. And before you say it's just because he's in a mediatorial role, 1 Corinthians 15:28 says the Son will be subject to the Father after the period of mediation is complete. So if the Father is Jesus' God right now, he will still be after 1 Corinthians 15:28 takes place.

@@gimel77 you are purposely ignoring all of the verses let people have quoted explaining how your position is wrong. Like when God the Father calls Christ the son Lord and then says this day I have begotten you..... Begotten not made....

@@BenDeRaps1 “Begotten” refers to a point of origin in a Father. The word “begotten” completely goes against your position.

Rom 4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.” Also see Heb 11. Not inconsistent with James where true faith does produce “works”