|An Introduction to God - Shem – His Name (4)
Other dictionaries, suggest that gospel was “derived from an Anglo-Saxon word which meant ‘the story concerning God’” even though there is no etymological history of such a term in the annals of the Anglo-Saxons.
It is also insightful to know that according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the English word “spell,” came to us “from Old English by way of Middle English.” And “circa 1623 (which would be around the time the KJV was being popularized) a spell 1) was a spoken word or form of words which were held to have magic power, 2) was a state of enchantment, or 3) was used in the context of casting a spell.”
Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary says: “The word ‘god’ is common to the Teutonic tongues…. It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense.” Then, further affirming that “Gospel” conveyed the idea of being under “Gott’s spell,” Merriam Webster explains: “god is from Old English by way of Middle English and is akin to the Old High German got, which was derived before the 12th century CE.” And gottin, therefore, was the Old High German word for “goddess.”
Digging a little deeper in our quest to understand the religious origins of “gospel” circa 17th-century Europe when the religious connotation was first conceived, the Encyclopedia Britannica reports: “God is the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship…applied to all superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word god, upon the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity, was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being.” So like every Christian corruption of Yahowah’s Word, man’s religious term is drenched in paganism.
Moving on to Charis, no credible source disputes the fact that it is a transliteration of the name of the three Greek Graces known as the Charities (Charites). The English word “charity” is a direct transliteration. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty, were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and rejoicing over fertility. Collectively, they make four appearances in Homer’s Iliad and three in the Odyssey.
The Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul puts one of Dionysus’ most famous quotes in Yahowsha’s mouth during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Paul’s faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman mythology) which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the “Kataginosko – Convicted” chapter of The Great Galatians Debate in Questioning Paul.)
These “Graces” were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes throughout Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, was that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them.
At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that Yahowah tells us in the Torah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should not be memorialized in this way. “Do not bring to mind (zakar – remember or recall, mention or memorialize) the name of other (‘acher – or different) gods (‘elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth.” (Exodus 23:13) And: “I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods (ba’alym) out of your mouth, and they shall be brought to mind and memorialized (zakar – remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name no more.” (Hosea 2:16-17)
And yet, the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis – Charity, memorialized today under their Roman moniker Gratia – Grace, is the operative term of Galatians—one which puts Paul in opposition to the very Torah and God which condemns the use of such names. Simply stated: the “Gospel of Grace” is pagan. It is literally “Gott’s spell of Gratia.”
In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, were goddesses of joy, beauty, charm, happiness, and feasts. As personifications of prosperity and well-being, and as the messengers for Aphrodite and Eros, the Gratia served as clever counterfeits for euangelion—Yahowsha’s healing and beneficial message. Therefore, those who conceived the religion of Christianity simply transliterated Gratia, and then based their faith on a new mantra called “the Gospel of Grace,” unashamed by the fact that their credo bore the name of pagan deities. This is deeply troubling. It is a scar, indeed a mortal wound to Paul’s epistles, and a deathblow to Christendom.
To be fair, in ancient languages it’s often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing word later became a name. We know, for example, that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions.
Such is the case with the Charites. The Charis came to embody everything that the word charis has come to represent: “joy, favor, mercy, and acceptance, loving kindness and the gift of goodwill.” So, while we can’t be certain if the name Charis was based on the verb chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name Charis, once Charis / Gratia became a name, it doesn’t matter, as saying it violates Yahowah’s instructions.
There are two Hebrew equivalents to the verb charis which are devoid of pagan baggage. Hen, sometimes vocalized chen, is used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Chen is derived from the verb chanan. As a noun, it means “to favor and to accept by providing an unearned gift,” which is why it is often translated “grace” in English bibles. To be chanan is “to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor,” and as such chanan is usually rendered “to be gracious” in Christian literature. The author of the eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s life, whom we know as “John,” was actually Yahowchanan, meaning “Yah is Merciful.”
Racham, which appears 77 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, means “merciful, loving, compassionate, and tenderly affectionate.” Its shorter form, raham, meaning “mercy,” makes 44 appearances, and the longer form, rachuwm, which also means “merciful,” is scribed 13 times.
The bottom line is: if we are being asked to take the Greek manuscripts seriously, at the very least, the words contained therein should be rendered accurately. And to the extent that Yahowsha’s words have been translated accurately from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, and retained appropriately by scribes over the centuries, we are not at liberty to alter His testimony, at least not without consequence.
By augmenting and corrupting the Greek text, as has been universally done with the Galatians 1:6 passage we are going to consider next, we obfuscate the evidence thoughtful people require to evaluate its veracity. Here we find that in Paul’s first letter, both words, “Grace” and “Gospel,” entered the religious lexicon. And it is interesting to note, that based upon what Paul wrote in the second sentence of his initial letter, it is apparent that the Galatians had wisely rejected his newly coined: “Gospel of Grace.”
The false apostle known to us today as Paul, wrote: “I am amazed (thaumazo – I am astonished and surprised) that in this manner you quickly departed and were changed away from your calling and invitation in Charis – Charity / Gratia – Grace (charis) to another different beneficial message (euangelion – literally: healing and beneficial message; a compound of eu meaning beneficial, healing, and prosperous and aggelos, meaning message and messenger [universally changed to “Gospel” in English translations]).” (Galatians 1:6)
When you study Sha’uwl’s letters, it becomes immediately obvious that he never provided his audience with sufficient or appropriate Scripture references for them to understand, much less trust, Yahowah’s plan of salvation. His style was always to issue a wide range of original and unsupported precepts under the banner: “But I say….” This realization is important because in Galatians, Paul established the foundation of Christianity, which remains: salvation by faith through grace. He accomplished this by completely undermining the authority of the Torah. And that is particularly relevant considering that this passage contrasts Pauline Doctrine, marketed under the moniker “Grace” with an alternative message, which in this context could be none other than Yahowah’s Torah—something most all Christian theologians openly acknowledge.
Also relevant, you may be surprised to learn that Paul actually called the Galatians to his “Gospel” of “Charis – Charity / Gratia – Grace.” According to Parchment 46, the oldest witness to this letter (dated to the late first or early second century), Paul did not include any reference to the Ma’aseyah in this sentence, either by placeholder, or by name.
Sha’uwl was therefore asking the faithful to believe his message, one directly associated with “Charis – Charity / Gratia – Grace” as opposed to Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s testimony. And never was this reality so obvious as it was in this passage, which is why Jerome, the author of the Roman Catholic Vulgate felt the need to add “Christi” to this verse without any textual support. Translated from the Latin, his errant rendering inappropriately associates “Grace” with “Christ.” “I wonder that you have been so quickly transferred, from him who called you into the Gratia of Christi, over to another evangelium.”
But this deception did not end with Jerome. Demonstrating that Francis Bacon’s King James Version was a translation of the Roman Catholic Vulgate, and not the Greek text, it reads: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.”
Then, proving religious myths die hard, the more modern paraphrase marketed under the deceptive title “New Living Translation,” chose to replicate the erroneous presentation. Augmenting Paul’s sentence, and turning it into a sermon, they published: “I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News…”
Removing “Christ” and “God” from this passage, as we must based upon the oldest textual witnesses, we are left with Paul promoting his own “Gospel of Grace,” a message which was entirely “different” than “another” the Galatians had not only heard, but had accepted as true. And since this epistle exists to mount a frontal assault on the veracity and viability of the Torah, the rival message to Paul’s “Gospel of Grace” can be none other than Yahowah’s Towrah.
While it is impossible to reconcile Paul’s letters with Yahowah’s Torah, as they are opposites, theologians will protest and say that charis can be found in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of portions of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. But there are issues with this justification. First, there is no credible evidence to date a Septuagint manuscript to much before the first century CE. The infamous “72 Elders” letter from King Ptolemy, from which the translation gets its name, isn’t remotely credible. Also, while there are a handful of LXX fragments emanating from the 1st century BCE, everyone of the extant manuscripts from the 1st and 2nd century CE, were not only scribed in codex form by those we would now refer to as Christians, they were found in collections of “New Testament” manuscripts. And thus, these scribes were influenced by Pauline Doctrine.
The oldest surviving relatively complete Septuagint translations were found in conjunction with the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were the products of Roman Catholicism, and both date to the second half of the 4th century, long after Pauline Doctrine became the official religion of the land.
Further, over a hundred years earlier, the accuracy and reliability of the Septuagint had declined to the point where Origen invested most of his life trying to recalibrate it with the Hebrew text. But unfortunately, nothing of Origen’s Hexapla project remains. Therefore, to conclude that charis/gratia/grace must be okay because it’s found in Greek translations of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, is like saying that it’s justified because it’s also in the New Living Translation.
Charis only appears once in Yahowsha’s voice, but even then, it is neither accurate nor credible. Yahowsha’ was speaking to Yahowchanan in Heaven, and based upon the rest of His Revelation, we know that He was speaking in Hebrew. Therefore, He would have said “chesed – mercy,” not “charis – charity,” much less “gratia – grace.” And since we do not have a copy of this portion of Revelation dating prior to the time Constantine legitimized Paul’s faith, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Yahowchanan changed chesed to charis.
This then brings us to the only other problematic placement of the pagan name—in the first chapter of Yahowchanan’s eyewitness account. But even here, the oldest extant copy of the Disciple’s introductory narrative dates to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. And it was professionally scribed in Alexandria, Egypt, where Pauline influences had long since permeated the profession and place. Therefore, while I’m convinced that Yahowchanan didn’t use the term, I cannot prove it, nor can anyone disprove such a claim. And frankly, charis was not among the best words in the Greek lexicon to describe the Hebrew concept of “chesed – mercy.” (For more on this, I invite you to read Questioning Paul, where this topic is covered in much greater detail.)
At best, charis / gratia / grace is misleading. At worst, it attempts to associate one’s salvation to faith in a very popular pagan goddess. So, while using the term to convey “mercy” is misleading, promoting salvation under the auspices of “you are saved through faith by Grace” is unquestionably deceitful, deadly, and damning.
Since Yahowah’s descriptive term for “mercy” is chesed, let’s consider its meaning in Ancient Hebrew. Here, the ch sound is from Chet, which, drawn in the form of a barrier, conveyed the idea of protecting by separating. The Shin was depicted using teeth. It spoke of language and nourishment. And the Dalet was a doorway. Therefore, chesed is the Doorway to protection provided by the Word of God. It is the means Yahowah uses to set us apart from the world and unto Him, the very doorway to life eternal in Heaven.
Now that we understand who Paul was opposing, let’s see if we can ascertain what he was promoting. And for that, we must come to understand the consequence of replacing euangelion with “gospel,” in the King James as well as in most all subsequent translations. The result is that Christians now believe that Paul’s preaching was not only focused upon, but was also limited to, what have become known as the “Gospels” of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” But there are a host of irresolvable problems with this theory.
First, Sha’uwl never quoted a single line from any of them. He didn’t even reference them. Worse, in Galatians we learn that Paul not only despised the three most important Disciples—Shim’own – Peter, Yahowchanan – John, and Ya’aqob – James—he openly condemned their witness. As such, the notion that Paul preached the message contained in their “Gospels” is ludicrous.
Second, the biographical accounts attributed to “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” were not called “Gospels.” No such word existed at the time they were written. “Gospel” was a product of the 17th century.
Third, since Paul wrote Galatians around 50 CE, the evidence suggests that Mattanyah – Matthew’s eyewitness account was still in its original Hebrew. And while it was cherished in Yaruwshalaym – Jerusalem, it wasn’t widely distributed at this time, and thus would not have been known to the Galatians, or the Corinthians, Thessalonians, or Romans.
Moving on to Mark, Eusebius wrote: “Marcus, who had been Petra’s interpreter, wrote down carefully…all that he remembered of Iesous’ sayings and doings. For he had not heard Iesous or been one of his followers, but later, he was one of Petra’s followers.” Origen, Tertullian, and Clement concurred, writing at the end of the 2nd century that “Marcus compiled his account from Petra’s speeches in Roma.” As such, Paul’s letter to the Galatians predates Mark’s presentation of Peter’s testimony by a decade.
Further, according to the book of Acts, Luke, its author, hadn’t appeared on the scene by this time. Therefore, his historical portrayal would not be written for at least a decade following the time Galatians was penned. Also, based upon the enormous popularity of Yahowchanan – John’s eyewitness account (evidenced by the sheer volume of extant pre-Constantine manuscripts), had his portrayal of Yahowsha’s life been circulated by this time, Paul would have been compelled to reference it. And that is especially true in Asia Minor, because Yahowchanan had established himself in Ephesus.
Therefore, at the time this letter to the Galatians was written, Scripture existed solely of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It still does. And that means that Paul’s “Gospel of Grace,” rather than being a summation of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,” was unassociated with them—even hostile to them.
As you shall discover if you read Questioning Paul in The Great Galatians Debate, the self-proclaimed apostle’s “Gospel of Grace” was overtly opposed to the message Yahowsha’ affirmed and fulfilled. Simply stated, neither “Gospel” nor “Grace” are Godly, appropriate, or reliable. The Old English moniker, “Gospel,” like the use of the Greek goddess’ name, Charis, known by the Latinized “Gratia – Grace,” has caused millions to believe that the “Gospel of Grace” replaced the Torah, when according to God, the Torah is the source of His “chesed – gift of favor and mercy.” No Torah, no “Mercy.”
Therefore, you will not find “Gospel” or “Grace” in these pages—unless it is to expose and condemn the terms. Yahowah’s actual designation is far superior and it has no demonic overtones.
* * *
Throughout this Introduction to God, the title “Church” is only used in a derogatory sense. So this is the perfect time to uncover another of Christianity’s most ignoble myths. With “church,” we discover that nothing remotely akin to it appears anywhere in Scripture.
The notion of a “church” began when Catholic clerics chose to replace the Greek word ekklesia, meaning “called-out assembly,” rather than translate it (replicating its meaning (which is required for words)) or transliterate it (replicating its pronunciation (which is permissible with titles)).
This counterfeit has served to hide the fact that the source, the meaning, and the purpose of the “ekklesia – called out” was delineated in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms by way of the essential Hebrew title Miqra’, which means “Called-Out Assembly.” Yahowah used Miqra’ to describe the nature of the seven annual meetings He established with mankind, whereby we were invited to answer His summons to appear before Him, reading and reciting His Torah. Simply stated: Yahowah’s Miqra’ey (Called-Out Assembly Meetings) gave birth to Yahowsha’s Ekklesia (Called-Out Assembly). Observing the Torah’s presentation of “Mow’ed Miqra’ey – Called-Out Assembly Appointments to Meet” on “Pesach – Passover,” “Matsah – Unleavened Bread,” “Bikuwrym – FirstFruits,” “Shabuwa’ – Seven Sabbaths,” “Taruw’ah – Trumpets,” “Kippurym – Reconciliations,” and “Sukah – Shelters” represents the Way to enjoy eternal life as a child in our Heavenly Father’s family.
Christian apologists, however, will protest that their “church” was derived from the Greek kuriakon. But that’s absurd in the extreme. Why would someone translate a Greek word by replacing it with a different Greek word, especially one with an entirely divergent meaning? It is as odd as replacing Torah with Tadpole. Worse, even if the Greek text said kuriakon rather than ekklesia, the case cannot be made that kuriakon sounds like church, further incriminating the religious men who justify this exchange. As such, all of the religious arguments that “church” is a transliteration of kuriakon, which is somehow a translation of ekklesia, fail the test of reason.
Should you be curious, kuriakon, or kuriakos as it is sometimes written, is based upon kurios, which means “lord and master, the one who rules by usurping freewill.” This of course is wholly unrelated to ekklesia, which literally means “to call out”—and thus serves as an invitation. And yet, since the Catholic Church needed a system whereby they could control and fleece the masses, subjecting them to their control, buildings were built and a religious institution was established, under the moniker of: “the Church.”
I find it interesting to note that a derivative of the Greek kuriakon was used by the false-prophet Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (verse 11:20) to obfuscate the celebration of “Pesach – Passover,” replacing it with the religious notion of “the Lord’s Supper”—which has subsequently evolved to become the Eucharist and Communion.
Turning to Webster’s International Dictionary, in the 1909 edition, their explanation begins: “Church, noun. [of Medieval origin. Chirche from the Anglo-Saxon circe…].” They then describe church as “1. a building; 2. a place of worship for any religion.”
Since there is no connection of any kind between “ekklesia – called out” and a building or a place of worship, we must conclude that the religious corruption of the Greek word has effectively hidden and then changed its original meaning. And in so doing, the Church severed God’s overt linguistic association between miqra’ and ekklesia, erasing the essential connection between Yahowah’s Called-Out Assembly Meetings and Yahowsha’s Called-Out Assembly, thereby separating billions of souls from their Creator, Father, and Savior.
While “church” isn’t a translation of ekklesia, or even a transliteration of kuriakon, there is an unmistakable phonetic link to the Druid, and thus Anglo-Saxon and Germanic words chirche and circe—consistent with what we just discovered in Webster’s Dictionary. The Oldest Druid temples were built as circles, a transliteration of circe, to represent their god, the sun. Worse, most every encyclopedia of mythology reveals that Circe was a sun goddess, the daughter of Helios. And if that were not enough to make you want to scream, the “Savior” of the Druid religion (where the “Horned One” is god) was named “Gesus,” which was pronounced: “Jesus.”
The best that can be said is that “Church,” unlike the word it replaced, ekklesia, conveys no relevant spiritual message. Whereas Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqra’, telling us that Yahowsha’s Called-Out Assembly is based upon the Torah’s Called-Out Assembly Meetings. And since this is among the most essential concepts relative to our salvation, let’s pause a moment and consider Yahowah’s introduction to His Miqra’ey.
Not so coincidently, this presentation is found in the heart of the Towrah, in a book named “Qara’ – Called-Out,” which was subsequently modified to “Leviticus” by religious clerics promoting their Greek Septuagint. “Yahowah ( – Yahowah) spoke these words (dabar – communicated) as God to (‘el) Moseh (Moseh – one who draws us away from oppression and judgment), saying (‘amar), ‘Speak the Word (dabar – communicate with) of God to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny yisra’el – the children who strive, contend, and struggle with, the sons who engage, persist, and endure with, those family members who persevere with, and who are set free and empowered by God), and share with them these Godly (wa ‘amar ‘el-ahym – and you shall communicate to them the Almighty’s) Appointed Meeting Times (Mow’ed – fixed assembly and betrothal appointments, celebrations which are festivals and feasts focusing on the specific purpose designated by the Authority) of Yahowah (), which as a result of the relationship (‘asher) you shall summon and invite them, welcoming them to meet, encounter, and participate in (qara’ ‘eth – you shall call out to them, you should read aloud and recite to them, you must proclaim and announce to them) the Set-Apart (Qodesh – dedicated and purifying) Called-Out Assembly Meetings (miqra’ey – invitations and summons to be welcomed by, to encounter one another and meet, a calling together to greet, read, and recite; from qara’). They (hem) are of God (‘el-leh), My Appointed and Designated Meeting Times (Mow’ed – fixed assembly feasts and festivals for the purpose of celebrating the relationship).’” (Qara’ / Called-Out / Leviticus 23:1-2)
In these two sentences, Yahowah used “dabar – communicated the Word,” and “‘amar – communicated by speaking,” twice each. His Word was designed to speak to us and communicate with us.
Yahowah also scribed “Mow’ed – Designated Meeting Times and Appointed Celebrations” twice so that we would know that these are His Festival Feasts, and that their purpose and timing are not arbitrary—nor is our participation in them. Unfortunately however, Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that these are “Jewish holidays” which do not apply to them, and that celebrating other occasions, like the pagan festivals of Christmas and Easter, are not only acceptable, but preferable. They protest: “Since God knows my heart it doesn’t actually matter what I say or do.” To them perhaps, but not to God, for if they knew God’s heart, they would never make such a foolish and antagonistic claim.
And speaking of Christian substitutions and counterfeits, Yahowah wrote His name in the midst of this message. He did not refer to Himself as “the Lord.” Of that, you can be certain.
The most important word within this passage is “Miqra’ey – Called-Out Meetings.” While it was only scribed once, its root “qara’ – to call out, to summon, to invite, to welcome, to meet, to encounter, to proclaim, to announce, to participate, to read, and to recite” was inserted before this title so that we would understand it. Moreover, Miqra’ey, which is the plural of Miqra’, was further defined by Qodesh, which affirms that these “Called-Out Invitations to Meet with God” are “Set-Apart” from common days unto Yah, and that they are “dedicated” to the process of “purifying and cleansing” us so that we can “encounter” God, personally “meeting with” Him.
The operative verb in this passage is therefore qara’, which was written in the qal relational stem, designating reality. As such, it tells us that we are to actually do all of the things described by the verb within this context: to call out to everyone, summoning and inviting them to participate, welcoming them and encouraging them to meet with and encounter God during His Appointed Assembly Meetings, to proclaim and announce their existence, and to read and to recite Yahowah’s Word to those who attend.”
Further, qara’ was scribed in the imperfect conjugation, which encourages us to do these things so often that they become ingrained within our very nature. It even promises that unfolding benefits and ongoing results throughout time await those who capitalize upon this opportunity.
Since “church” is a pagan replacement of ekklesia, and since ekklesia is a translation of miqra’ (מִקְרָא), let’s examine the Ancient-Hebrew characters Yahowah used to originally convey its meaning: . Turning to the language the Towrah, itself, was scribed, we discover that today’s letter Mem was originally called “Mah,” which is the Hebrew word for “water.” Drawn as waves upon the sea , this character conveyed all of the Scriptural symbolism associated with water being the source of life and the means to cleansing.
The second letter in Miqra’ is a Qoph. It was conveyed by way of placing the sun on the horizon . It spoke of enlightenment and of time, of waiting expectantly, and of hope.
As we now know, the Rosh was scribed to depict the head of a person . It communicated the ideas of first, best, and foremost, in addition to leadership, new beginnings, and rebirth.
In its singular form, the final letter used to designate the title of Yahowah’s “Called-Out Invitations to Meet God” is the first character in the Hebrew alphabet—Aleph. It was drawn in the form of a ram’s head to convey strength, power, might, and authority . So, we shouldn’t be surprised that ‘al and ‘el (both written the same way) represent the Hebrew words for “Almighty God.”
And should we consider the plural form of miqra’, miqra’ey, as this title was deployed in this context, we discover that the Yowd, yesteryear’s Yad, was pictographically represented by an arm and hand . It conveyed the ability and willingness to engage and do whatever was required to accomplish a task.
Therefore, the title Yahowah selected to describe His seven “Miqra’ey – Called-Out Assembly Meetings” pictorially communicated that these days are associated with the source of life, and that they are purifying and cleansing. They are also enlightening, as they provide the means to hope and expect that our days will be prolonged—enduring throughout time: . The Miqra’ey are foremost and come first, before anything else. They represent the best of days, new beginnings, and our spiritual rebirth. And these are Almighty God’s times, the very days where He personally uses His power and authority to engage and do what was required to save us.
And that, my friends, is a whole lot more meaningful and revealing than anything a “church” will ever communicate to you.
Yahowah has a vibrant and rich pallet of words, titles, and names He has chosen to deploy to communicate with us. The very least we should do is use them.
Posted on Mar 07, 2012 18:42pm by
(Return to Articles)
Pin us on Pinterest