Patriarchinity Chapter 7: Divine Kind vs. "The God Man" - NCCG.ORG Ning Network Archive 2008-10

Patriarchinity chapter 7:
DivDivine Kind vs. "The God Man"
By Chris Jacob (Yaacov) Schaefer ©2009

What is the essence of Yehoshua? How did His earthly form as a little baby come to be? From those two questions comes forth a third: what are the implications for born-agian believers?

Before we get started, let’s examine the varied beliefs of Christianity regarding these matters. [To avoid blasphemy, I’ll be using the westernized mis-transliterations for hypothetical scenarios.]
Here are the conclusions that Christianity is limited to:
1. that Mary[sic] had sexual union with God [sic] the Father.
2. that Mary [sic] had sexual union with God [sic] the Holy Spirit [sic].
3. that Mary [sic] had sexual union with both God [sic] the Father and God [sic] the Holy Spirit [sic]
4. that Mary [sic] did not have sexual union with either God [sic] the Father nor God [sic] the Holy Spirit [sic] but through non-sexual means God’s [sic] sperm/seed (whatever that may be) combined with Mary’s [sic] egg via the Holy Spirit [sic].

There are several troubling problems with the Christian viewpoint if it is honestly thought through. With option 1 and 2. is there is no marriage between Mary [sic] and her Maker, (whoever that might be). Mary [sic] is never spoken of as the wife of the Holy Spirit [sic] nor as the wife of God [sic] the Father. In Scripture, sexual relations without marriage are categorized as fornication or adultery, which would be sin. Sin of course is something that the Creator would never do.

But let’s pretend for a minute that a divine-human marriage happened but it wasn’t overtly recorded. After Mary [sic] is pregnant, she marries Joseph [sic]. So if we assume that Mary [sic] is already married to God [sic] through some unmentioned marriage covenant, if she had then married Joseph [sic], she would then be (at best) a practitioner of polyandry, since there was no divorce recorded between Mary [sic] and God [sic]. Polyandry is never permitted in the Scriptures. Yehoshua certainly does not allow for it as a possibility in the question that the tzadukim (sadducees) put to him about the widow of 7 husbands (Mattityahu 22:23-32). In the Scriptures, the closest thing that we have to polyandry is the Great Whore of Babylon--not exactly a fitting type for the righteous Miriam.

So in the worst case scenario, Mary [sic] would be an adulterer and consequently in the cross-hairs of the penalty for such an act-- hence Joseph’s [sic] merciful inclination to put her away quietly. The Roman Catholic church conveniently does a patch job on this conundrum by saying that Joseph [sic] and Mary [sic] never had sexual relations the entirety of their married lives and so never actually consummated their marriage. (So then Joseph [sic] dies at a young age of prostrate cancer from the buildup of a couple decades of seed?). There is also the tipping point of conjugal rights: that the husband and wife are not to deny each other sex, so the Roman Catholic concept of a sexless Mary [sic] and sexless Joseph [sic] violates Scripture and is therefore untenable.

Additionally, option number 3 has Mary [sic] being polyandrous with two Divine Beings, and we already know that polyandry is not permitted in Scripture.

So that brings us to option number 4. Without the stigma and ramifications of divine-human sexual activity, the fornication and polyandry problems are solved-- sort of, but this brings us to the next big question. Does Scripture make any allowances for Divine seed combining with human seed (egg)? Let’s take a look at the Scriptures for some precedent.

What is YHWH’s design for reproduction?
Beresheeth (Genesis) 1:24-26, 28
24 And Elohim said, “Let the earth bring out the living
creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after its kind:” and it was so.
25 And Elohim made the beast of the earth after its kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps
upon the earth after its kind: and Elohim saw that it was
good.
26 And Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
after Our likeness...”
28 And Elohim blessed them [the male and female humans], and Elohim said to them,
“Be fruitful, and multiply , and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moves upon the earth.”

Reproduction certainly seems to require the participants being of a like kind. Notice that the command for human dominion over the non-human creatures immediately follows the command to multiply (via sex)-- making a further distinction between the human kind as opposed to the non-human kinds.

What consequences are there if the mode of reproduction (sexual activity) violates the own-kind requirement?

Shemoth/Exodus 22:19
“Whoever lies with [has sexual relations with] a beast shall surely be put to death.”

Wayiqra (Leviticus 20:15-16
15 “And if a man lies with a beast, he shall surely be put to
death: and you shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approaches any beast, and lies down
with it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast: they shall
surely be put to death; their blod shall be upon them.”

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 27:21
21 “Cursed is he that lies with any manner of beast.” And
all the people shall say, “Amein.”

So, there we have the condemnation of humans mating with creatures below their kind. Even for animals we see that when a horse mates with a donkey, they are not blessed with fruitful offspring, but rather a sterile. and often stubborn, mule.

Now let’s take a look to see what happened when angelic beings (in this case, former angelic beings) mated with humans.

Beresheeth/Genesis 6:2
2 That the sons of Elohim [fallen angels]
saw the daughters of men that
they were beautiful; and they took for themselves wives
of all which they chose.
3 And YHWH said, “My Ruach shall not always strive with
man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be one
hundred twenty years.”
4 There were Nephilim [literally : fallen ones]
in the earth in those days; and
also after that, when the sons of Elohim came in to [had sex with] the
daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the
same became mighty men who were of old, men
of fame.
5 And Elohim saw that the wickedness of man was great
in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it bothered YHWH that He had made man on the
earth, and it grieved Him in His heart.
7 And YHWH said, “I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the
creeping thing, and the fowl of the air; for it bothers Me
that I have made them.”

So when humans mated with beings not their kind, it resulted in abominations (the nephilim) which led to the destruction of most humans from the face of the planet, sans Noach and his wife, and his sons and their wives. Doesn’t sound very promising.

So would YHWH mix His kind with human kind to produce a baby Yehoshua? The pattern in Scripture is a resounding NO! Now the Roman Catholic church is aware of the principle of keeping kinds distinct when bringing about pregnancy, but they use this instead to elevate Mary [sic] to the status of Godhood [sic] by declaring her to be a sinless co-redemptrix. Of course Miriam acknowledged that she needed a savior/redeemer (Luka 1:47) and outwardly brought a sacrifice to the temple (Luka 2:34), so it is clear that she was neither sinless nor a co-redemptrix, At least the Roman Catholic viewpoint is consistent in it’s errors by preserving the reproduction principal of own kinds.

On the other hand, the Protestants rightly preserve Mary’s [sic] human-ness and also preserve the concept of conjugal rights for Joseph [sic], but they unfortunately violate the principle of own-kind reproduction when they refer to James [sic] as the “half -brother” of Jesus [sic].

So Binitarianism and Oneness theology are both reactions against the above mentioned conundrums (spawned by Protestantism and Roman Catholicism). I can’t say I blame Binitarianism and Oneness Pentecostalism for distancing themselves from such a tangled mess. Historically, there are many pagan myths containing divine-human sex resulting in demi-god-like offspring. But error doesn’t correct error. Binitarian and Oneness theology is incapable of hiding the subject-object distinctions throughout Scripture between Father YHWH, the Ruach HaQodesh, and Yehoshua (the Son of Father YHWH).

Now, perhaps some might object when I had earlier explained how Yehoshua is the same kind, only begotten offspring of his Father YHWH. After all, aren’t all believers children of God [sic], born of the Holy Spirit [sic], -- so doesn’t that mean that God [sic] is not really limited to His principle of same kind offspring? Understand, when a person is born again, he or she is not conceived again, because the believer has already begun as a human, conceived in the usual manner. While believers are children of YHWH, they did not come about becoming children of YHWH in the same way that Yehoshua was brought forth as the only begotten Son of YHWH. Believers are reborn through the Ruach HaQodesh, NOT reconceived through the Ruach HaQodesh. So YHWH does not violate His principle of same-kind reproduction.

Another objection might be this: the body of believers is said to be The Bride of Moshiach-- so then wouldn’t that contradict the principle of same kind mating? Remember however, the bride of Moshiach is a metaphysical ,metaphorical, collective bride that is both singular and plural at the same time-- The Bride is not a lone human being, but something far greater than just a human being. No solitary person by her or himself is THE BRIDE, and certainly not in a literal pashat sense. If The Bride was literal and individual, then the consummation of the marriage of Jesus [sic] to The Bride would involve sex with each and every believer! Fortunately the Bride is metaphorical, so the principal of same kind mating is not violated. This may also put to rest some speculations about Yehoshua allegedly marrying Miriam of Magdala and having children.

Much of modern Christianity’s conventional understanding of the “incarnation” is based upon the assumption that the words in the Mattityahu and Luka accounts do not have multiple definitions. However, in the following passages, the key words do in fact have multiple definitions. So a different read of the “incarnation” is entirely plausible if that is kept in mind. Now while I believe soundly in the Semetic origin of the B’rit Hadashah, there has not been much yet done in the way of Hebrew or Aramaic Lexicons for the B’rit Hadasha. And while there are nuances in the Hebrew and Aramaic that I will address later, we’ll first look at the more easily accessible Greek Lexicon definitions (which do not contradict the Semetic- base text anyhow, at least for the following passages). So below, The boldfaced definitions are keys to understanding how Yehoshua is from the heavens and also how the Ruach HaQodesh is feminine.

Mattityahu 1:18-20
18 Now the birth of Yehoshua the Moshiach was in this
manner: When His mother Miryam was espoused to
Yoseph,
before they came together, she was found to be
with Child by* the Ruach HaQodesh.
19 Then Yoseph her baalah-husband,
being a righteous man,
and not willing to make her a public example, desired to
put her away and conceal her.
20 But while he thought on these things, see, the heavenly
angel of the Master YHWH
appeared to him in a dream,
saying, “Yoseph, son of Dawid, fear not to take to you
Miryam your wife: for that which is conceived, in her, is
from** the Ruach HaQodesh.”

*
to be with Child-- (combination of the three following Greek words, an idiom for pregnancy)
-ekh'-o: literally “to have, hold”
-en: in by with etc.
-gas-tare: the womb/belly
by-- ek: out of, from, by, away from

**
conceived--ghen-nah'-o: to be born , to be begotten , of women giving birth to children
in –en: in by with etc
is --es-tee: to be
from --ek: out of, from, by, away from

Luka, being a doctor gives us the most detailed look at Yehoshua’s manifestation into Miriam’s womb.

Luka 1:34-35
34 Then said Miryam to the heavenly angel, “How shall
this be, seeing I know not a man?”
35 And the heavenly angel answered and said to her,
“The Ruach HaQodesh shall come upon* you, and the power
of El-Elyon shall overshadow** you: therefore also that
Kadosh-One which shall be born from*** you shall be called
the Son of YHWH.”

*
come --ep-er'-khom-ahee: to come to arrive; of time, come on, be at hand, be future.
upon --ep-ee' : upon, on, at, by, before; of position, on, at, by, over, against; on, over, on, at, across, against
to come upon, overtake one, said of sleep, disease, calamities, of the Ruach HaQodesh descending and operating in one, of an enemy attacking one.
and –kahee: and, also, even, indeed, but

**
Power --doo'-nam-is: strength power, ability, inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth; power for performing miracles
El Elyon: the Most High Elohim [Father YHWH]
overshadow --ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo: to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow

***
born --ghen-nah'-o: to be born , to be begotten , of women giving birth to children [same word as Matthew 1:20!]
from --ek: out of, from, by, away from

It is significant to remember that many Christians (but not all) misunderstand the Divine action/miracle of the Most High and the Holy Spirit [sic] upon Mary [sic] as somehow a divine-human sexual encounter-- this context of the assumption of a masculine Holy Spirit. I don’t even like to mention this, and many Christians will deny that they are thinking of it in terms of a divine-human sexual encounter, but here’s the test. If it is suggested that the Ruach HaQodesh is feminine, those believers (who think that Mary [sic] was fertilized by God [sic] sexually) will immediately protest that the implication is quasi-lesbianism! The whole problem is the assumption of divine-human sexual activity in the first place. If the manifestation of Moshiach in Miriam’s womb was the result of a human-divine sexual encounter, Miriam would have referred to herself (in Luka 1:38) as “wife” or “concubine,” (those are the only lawful sexually active options permitted in Torah for a woman). But in Luka, she said neither. Miriam refers to herself as a slave/bondmaid/handmaid of YHWH— so there’s no sexual activity going on there between a mortal and her Creator(s). Additionally, Yehoshua is to be called the “Son of Elohim” or “Son of YHWH’, not “son of YHWH and Miriam” nor “son of Elohim and Miriam.” His title is to be Emmanu El (El with us), not “half-El with us”. A firstly spiritual, then biological miracle is what the Father and the Ruach HaQodesh did by making Yehoshua very small (zygotic in form), and then placing Him into Miriam’s womb. Yehoshua in his essence is 100% Elohim, who had none of Miriam’s genetics, because otherwise He would have half of our fallen nature in His essence, not to mention the confusion of being a hybrid "god-man". While people in the gospels refer to Miriam as Yehoshua's “mother,” Yehoshua Himself never calls Miriam “mother” or “eema”.

Next, let’s examine the word “overshadow” (gk: ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo) the other times it appears. The Hebrew word from which the greek was derived is tsel meaning shade, whether literal or figurative -- defense, shade(-ow). It is used is in
Matttiyahu 17:5
While He yet spoke, see, a bright cloud overshadowed
them and they were greatly alarmed:
and see a Heavenly voice of YHWH [came]
out of the cloud, which said, “This is My beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased; hear Him.”

Also the same word is in Yochanan Moshe/Mark 9:7 and Luka 9:34 to also describe the transfiguration. In that instance the Messiah’s divine nature was revealed/made manifest to Kepha (Peter), Ya’akov (James), and Yochanan (John) in a special way. Well, when Yehoshua was placed in Miriam’s womb, His divine nature was made manifest in a special way -- from Miriam, the placenta nourished Yehoshua’s body according to the instructions of His 100% Divine genetics. Overshadow is used is one other time in Maaseh Schlichim/Acts 5:15-16.
15 So that they brought out the sick into the streets, and
laid them on mats and couches, so that at the very least,
the shadow of Kepha passing by might overshadow some
of them.
16 There came also a multitude out of the cities around
Yahrushalayim, bringing sick folks, and those who were
troubled with demons:
and they were healed, every one.

In that instance the overshadowing and dynamic activity (miracles) are inseparable. In the same way, when the power of YHWH the Father overshadowed Miriam/Miriam’s while the Ruach HaQodesh came upon her, The Father’s Power guided the miracle, going beyond just the protection of Miriam. The emphasis is clearly the activity of the Most High directing the placement of the preconceived Yehoshua into Miriam’s womb while sustaining His protection.

In order to get a grasp on the understanding of “born/conceived” let’s look at Yochanan/ John 3:3-8:

3 Yehoshua answered and said to him, “Amein, amein, I say to
you, Except a man be born again and circumcized of the heart,
he cannot see the kingdom of YHWH.”
4 Nakdimon said to Him, “How can a man be born when
he is old? Can he enter the second time into his eema’s (mothers’s) womb, and be born?”
5 Yehoshua answered, “Amein, amein, I say to you, Except a
man is born of water and of the Ruach, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of YHWH.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which
is born of the Ruach is ruach.
7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born from
above.
8 The wind blows where it desires, and you hear the
sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from, and
where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Ruach.”

Question: in what sense was Nakdimon’s (Nicodemus’) understanding of the word “born? Was it masculine or feminine birthing? Clearly, from Nakdimon’s questions, he understood it as being the feminine aspect of birthing. Did Yehoshua try to change Nakdimon’s understanding of feminine birthing to the masculine sense of begetting? If that were the case, Yehoshua’s answer would have read something like, “womans’ flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Heavenly Father begets the spirit.” But it doesn’t say that, does it! Rather, instead of tearing down the understanding of feminine birthing, Yehoshua not only reinforced it, but built his answer around Nakdimon’s understanding! Of what? Feminine birthing! With the knowledge that both spiritual and fleshly birthing are a feminine action, the parallel is stunning: first Yahushua was born of the Ruach HaQodesh and then born through human flesh into human-like form; people on the other hand are first born of the flesh, and then when they trust in and obey Yehoshua, are born of the Ruach HaQodesh. Divine Order and symmetry—it is beautiful—no wonder angels longed to look into these things!

In all of those instances above, “born” is ghen-nah'-o, and “gives birth” is literally ghen-nah'-o ek, of which both in context, are consistently a feminine action. So how would this help in understanding the “incarnation” accounts? Well, Mattityahu 1:20 and Luke 1:34 use the same word: ghen-nah’-o . Now, try using the English word “born” from Luke 1:34 and put it in place of the English word “conceived” for Matthew 1:20. Here’s how it turns out
“…For that which is born in her is of the Ruach HaQodesh”

In fact a translation from the Munster Hebrew and DuTillet Hebrew manuscripts goes like this:
“...do not fear to take Miriam [to be] your wife: for what shall be born within her midst is from the Ruach HaQodesh.”

That certainly is a confirmation of the Hebrew origin of the text.

In the Younan Aramaic literal translation of Luka 1:31, the angel says to Miriam,
“Behold, for you will receive conception...”.

It does not say “you will conceive” but rather that Miriam is to receive [Who is] already coneived!

So how do we solve the seemingly contradictory titles for Yehoshua as “Son of YHWH” and “Son of Adahm”?

Yeshayahu 9:6a (ISRV)
“For a Child shall be born unto us, a Son shall be given unto us, and the rule is on His shoulder”****

Notice that it says “shall be given unto us” not “shall come from us.” Yes, He was born through Miriam through the line of Yahudah, but first He was given. He did not originate from humans in part or whole.

Yochanan 3:31
He [Yehoshua] that comes from above is above all; he that is of the
earth is earthly and speaks of the earth; He that comes
from the shamayim (heavens) is above all.

Yochanan 6:38 [Yehoshua speaking of Himself]
“For I came down from the shamayim (heavens), not to do My
own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.”

So when was Yehoshua brought forth prior to Miriam? Yochanan 17:5 gives us a hint [Yehoshua speaking]:
"And now, O Father, esteem Me by Your Own Self with the
esteem that I had with You before the world was
created."

Rabbi and Hebrew scholar Simon Altaf gives some further insight about the Ruach HaQodesh bringing forth Her Son, Yehoshua:

“Remember my assumption is all NT books were written first in Hebrew not Aramaic. Also we do know Mattityahu was most definitely written in Hebrew as we have surviving copies.
So yes certainly there are nuisances, but we need to go back to the Hebrew mindset ... This is difficult to tell unless we can pin down the exact Hebrew word used...

The Hebrew word for “with child" is "hareh". Basically to mean: with child, pregnant or to conceive.

Now applying ancient Hebrew to this, it shows what took place in Miriam is the work of the Ruach HaKodesh so we have the Heh which is significant followed by the letter Resh and then Heh again.

Heh - This indicates at least to me that the Ruach HaKodesh had to be ready and prepared to do this job so it is at the head of these letters in the word Hareh as in the Matthew 1:20.

Resh - Normally this would be ahead of the Heh but here this is not, indicating that Resh which is a picture of the head shows this is the orchestrated work of Abba YHWH.

Heh - This again shows the work completed by the Ruach. So the Ruach was the receptacle/container to carry the baby.

The Ruach HaKodesh conceived Yehoshua before time began... but we obviously do not know when in eternity this happened other than the fact the Scriptures tell us that He [Yehoshua] was brought out from the bosom of the Father.

The book of Proverbs gives us a clue in Mishlei/Proverbs 8:22 [Chochmah (the Ruach HaKodesh) speaking of Herself]
‘YHWH possessed Me in the beginning of His way,
before His works of old.’

The word to possess is the Hebrew word Kanah
קנה

Note it is so close to the word for Jealousy-- same sound but spelled differently. Again, note the difference is the Heh. Kaf, Nun and Heh. To possess has the idea of giving birth to something because it has the NUN and that represents the picture of a "sperm". So the idea of a birth is right here in this word.

So if this was the time of the Ruach to be brought forth then it was also at this point that Yehoshua was brought forth and begotten.

Mishlei/Proverbs 8:23 [Chochmah (Ruach HaKodesh) speaking of Herself]
‘I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
before the earth was.’
The word for "set up" is Nasak. נסך

Did you notice what I said earlier. It has a nun to start the word. The picture of a "sperm". Now I don’t want to lose you here, but pay close attention. The letter "Samech" has the idea of puncturing, piercing something. What is a woman? Someone to pierce for conception. What is man? Someone that penetrates.

So with that thought, look above for Nasak:

Nun - Sperm
Samech - To Penetrate or pierce, puncture.
Kuph - The picture of a Palm, Cover or to bend.

Now to understand my analogy and wordings, look at the passage in Beresheeth/Genesis 1:27

Beresheeth/Genesis 1:27 ‘So Elohim created man in His own image; in the image of Elohim He created him; male and female He created them.’

Check the words for male and female above in the ancient Hebrew

Male - Zakkar represents a male member something to "puncture" but you won't find this in the text unless you understand ancient Hebrew or old Hebrew customs.
Female - Nekebah the translations hide what I am trying to say so you may not find it in there. The word actaully means "punctured" not what they want you to read. So what does a man do to the vagina of a woman? Puncture it.

Yes. Because YHWH used His words and His language [ancient pictorial Hebrew], not man’s idea. We know ancient cultures like the Egyptians did follow this pattern also, and in many other cultures that had pictorial scripts instead of our Modern scripts. Even in Saudi Arabi where Mount Sinai is we find the writings were done in pictorial, not modern Hebrew.

Just as the woman was brought out from the man in Beresheeth/Genesis chapter 2:22 it is very clear that Abba YHWH had already done this deal where He had brought out the Ruach (feminine side of Abba YHWH) from within Himself before the Son Yehoshua was given. We do not know how the Abba YHWH brought the Ruach or what process took place since we do not know the substance of our Father, but clearly the pattern is present which is shown in Adahm and Chawa where the woman originated from the man and also the children were already in the loins of the man.

It would [also] appear that at least the make up of the sentence structure for Luke 1:35 is of more feminine than masculine words --specifically the text that speaks about the Ruach as the receptacle. For “shall come upon” the Hebrew could likely be “V’Hayah Bo” and similar to Beresheeth/Genesis 12:12…”Therefore it shall come to pass”

The sentence for Luke 1:35 starts with a VAV; this is prophetic Hebrew for "This is a done deal" no one can change what is about to take place."

So taking the Scriptures as a Whole here is what we have:
1. Father YHWH, derives the feminine Ruach HaQodesh from Himself in eternity past before the world began (Mishlei/Proverbes 8:22-23) (this is also covered in Patriarchinity chapter 6).
2. Father YHWH is super-ordinate over the Ruach HaQodesh (covered in-depth in Patriarchinity chapter 4).
3. Yehoshua was brought forth from Father YHWH and the Ruach HaQodesh in eternity past before the creation of the earth (Yochanan 3:11-13,Qolesayah/Colossians 1:13-17), (also covered in this chapter and Patriarchinity chapter 6).
4. Father YHWH manifested himself in a physical way (Beresheeth/Genesis 3:8, Shemoth/Exodus 33:18-23) By the way YHWH did not need to be recombined with a human seed to do that.
5. Yehoshua appeared as a complete Being in the Tanakh (Yahoshua 5:13-15, Bamidbar 22:24-34, Shophtim13:3-20, to name a few.) Yehoshua did not need to be combined with human seed to become physical during those appearences.
6. Under the direction, proteciton and guidance of Father YHWH, the Ruach HaQodesh transforms Yehoshua into the smallest human-like form (zygote), and places Him (preconceived) into Miriam’s womb. (Patriarchinity chapter 7)
7. Yehoshua was then “re-born” from His surrogate mother Miriam of the line of Yahudah.

And if YHWH wants to bring forth His Son into the world that way to save us, who are we to argue?

****
Note Regarding Yeshayahu 9:6 (adapted from The Virgin Birth by Yoseph Viel)
6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given: and the
government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name
shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty-El,
Awb Ad, The Prince of Shalom.

The typical translation of Awb Ad as "Everlasting Father" is not accurate.

The phrase in question can be translated several ways. Awb can mean "Father" or "origin". Ad can mean "eternity" or "witness". So the possible translations are...

Father of Eternity
Origin of Eternity
Originator of Eternity
Father of Witness
Origin of Witness
Fatherly Witness
My Father is a Witness
My Father is forever

I'd suggest that the translations that verify the necessary distinction between Father and Son are more accurate.

Special thanks:
to Simon Altaf for in-depth insight on the Hebrew letters and counsel on the Hebrew texts in this chapter and also chapter 1 and 6.
and to Yoseph Viel for the Hebrew translation of Matt 1:20 and his explanation of Yeshayahu 9:6.

Previous Chapter

Comment by Lev/Christopher on January 11, 2009 at 5:07am: We are here dealing with what hypostatic union means - of two different natures at work. The problem is how to define them. Since you have asked for scriptures, let's try and arrange these two natures as two separate sets. First the obvious:

ELOHIM & MAN
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33) <> He worshiped the Father Yahweh (John 17).
He was called Elohim (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) <> He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Elohim (Mark 1:1) <> He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59) <> He prayed to the Father Yahweh (John 17).
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15) <> He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
He knows all things (John 21:17) <> He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He gives eternal life (John 10:28) <> He died (Rom. 5:8).
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9) <> He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Explaining how these two natures have co-existed has been the task of theologians for the last 20 centuries. How should we see their interaction? The theories advanced are:

1. They're not "mixed" as one would two cooking ingredients;
2. They're not combined to make a new Elohim-Man nature

The two natures co-exist in a single sphere, the human one coming from fleshy matter and the divine from His Ruach. Like a hand in a glove, the Divine inhabits the Human. The Divine (Ruach) nature "is the radiance of Elohim's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3, NIV). This Divine Nature was made flesh (John 1:1,14).

Clearly these two natures have two sets of properties (as partly shown in the list I gave above) that are diametrically opposite and incompatible. Therefore they must be kept separate whilst at the same time having the ability to communicate to one another. How this is done we may never fully understand but it must be based on the echad principle in some way but with an interface between the two giving open communication, the same way that OUR spirit communicates with our fleshy nature, and vice versa. The only difference between him and us is that his spirit/ruach is infinite deity and ours is finite.

When the idea is posited that Yah'shua's flesh is not like ours but something 'specially prepared' elsewhere, a new paradigm is created that does not match our reality. It means that Yah'shua has not fully entered our reality. Therefore all his temptations are not really 'ours' - they may be similar but they're still 'something else'. If the wetsuit doctrine is true then He has never fully entered our world or reality but is somewhere 'inbetween'. This means that He is not really our 'brother' either but something like a brother. He is not, then, truly the "Word/Logos/Davar made flesh" but (according to the wetsuit hypothesis) the "Word/Logos/Davar made something like - but not quite like - flesh".

Scripture speaks of 4 types of flesh:

1 Cor 15:39
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds.
NKJV

Clearly Yah'shua became the flesh of men (not of the other three) otherwise Yochanan/John would have clearly made a distinction in his Gospel Prologue. Reading the plain sense or p'shat we can be left in no doubt that the Word became human flesh as consistently defined throughout Scripture.

John 1:14-15
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
NKJV

Comment by Yaacov on January 10, 2009 at 12:12pm: OK, i see your point on the blemishless bodies of sacrificial animals as types representing the sinless soul of Yahushua. And good point against the leper-Shcolar doctrine.

From my understanding though, taking on a human or human-like body would entail all the drives and desires of a human body: "I thirst, I'm hungry, I desire sex, I'm tired, I desire comfort, I desire relief from pain, I'm curious, I desire to know." All those drives and desires are not sinful in and of themselves. But, they all have the potential to become sinful if handled in the wrong way. Wouldn't the potential to be sinful be a sufficient challenge for Yahushua to conquer.

Maybe instead of speaking of general ideas, we should look at specific scriptures.
What verses do you have in mind when you're speaking Yahushua allegedly having an "Adamic/carnal/fleshly nature" which you described as "a purely satanic nature ... the personality of Satan, of man without Elohim"?

Comment by Lev/Christopher on January 10, 2009 at 10:26am: The goodness/purity is Yah'shua's sinless being, the perfection of His character - His Ruach of which the outer animal forms were a type. According to the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, He was outwardly unattractive:

Isa 53:2
he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him
KJV

By the time He was taken to the cross for "sacrifice" He was already horribly mutilated physically from all the scourging He received, and therefore hardly "without blemish" in His Body.

As an aside, if the Leper-Scholar doctrine is true (which I don't believe it is for one minute) then He would have been disqualified on the basis of physical uncleanness because He was carrying both a disease and one that rendered one under First/Old Covenant as unclean too. So He would have been blemished on that count. After all his mutilations and traumas I would not be surpruised is had some sort of infection (though that's ulotimately unprovable, of course)

I am further unclear as to how Yah'shua could have had the same drives and temptations as is common to any human being. What would this hypothetical wetsuit flesh have been most similar to that we know of? Presumably Adam. He was entirely innocent, there being only temptation which he could possibly have yielded to (and which he did), presumably the same as the malakim/angels. The latter raises another question: what were THEY open to temptation to? The same, presumably, as Adam - the sin of pride.

Now the wetsuit doctrines posits that Yah'shua physicality was even higher than the angelic and pre-fall Adamic (presumably) - therefore how could He have been tempted in every point as we are? Just list all the temptations we are open to and compare those to the malakim or Adam and Eve (Hava).

Comment by Yaacov on January 10, 2009 at 9:07am: In the Lewitical system, the sacrifices had to be free of blemish. I cannot imagine any greater blemish than having a satanic adahmic nature.

Why kill off something good and pure? That is the whole point of a sacrifice.
Wasn't Yahushua always the Second (New Adahm).

As for Yahushua's flesh, I believe he experienced the same drives and temptations as common (and uncommon) to any human, except that he wasn't of human origin, but only birthed through human.

Comment by Lev/Christopher on January 10, 2009 at 8:33am: That, as I see it, was the whole point of the atonement - putting to death the satanic nature in His flesh (as opposed to His Ruach) so that in turning to Him as the One who accomplished that feat, we too may have that old nature well and truly crucified too. What else would be the point of the crucifixion? What was being crucified? Why kill off something good and pure? When he cast off the flesh He cast off the Adamic nature too, and took up a new one, becomind the Second (New - as opposed to renewed) Adam.

I guess this brings is to the word "perfect" and what we mean by it. Does this mean His flesh has to be perfect/untainted by the Adamic nature? I don't thing do. More pertinently, He did a perfect job, crucifying the Adamic nature by proxy for all men and women and exchanging it for an immortal resurrected body free of all contaminants. He was without blemish in His spirit nature, not having yielded to the satanic flesh-nature in one instance, wholly obeying Torah in every point.

That's how I see it at any rate.

Comment by Yaacov on January 10, 2009 at 7:06am: I read through the link. While they make a good case for all humans having an "Adahmic nature," I still don't see any Scriptural justification that Yahushua had anything of the sort. For Yahuhusha to be the perfect sacrifice/offering for the salvation of all human beings, I just cannot fathom Him having "a purely satanic nature-- in other words ... the personality of Satan, of man without Elohim." Am i missing something?

Comment by Lev/Christopher on December 18, 2008 at 3:14am: Now THAT'S an extremely good question, brother, and well worth a thorough discussion. Since Shau'ul/Paul says that there is nothing good in the carnal/Adamic/fleshy nature, I am assuming that this is a purely satanic nature - in other words, it is the personality of Satan, of man without Elohim.

As a means to getting this discussion underway, I recommend this study (I am not necessarily agreeing with all of it) as a launching point:

http://truthsearch.org/twonatures2.html

Comment by Yaacov on December 17, 2008 at 9:33pm: Yes, as a side note, there is no lack of brotherly love in this discussion, that's why i'm enjoying it so much (what a relief from hissssssspace LOL)

but anyway, now we're getting to what might be the linchpin, maybe.
What exactly are the boundaries, parameters, and limits of the "Adamic nature" that you are saying that Yahushua took on? Because as it is now, I don't really see much conflict in what you're saying with chapter 7.

Comment by Lev/Christopher on December 17, 2008 at 1:11am: I think what is critical here (at least for me, my understanding and testimony) is that Yah'shua's body was not just like a human body in form/appearance but was in every respect a naturally functioning one with the Adamic nature. I have to believe that He was tempted in every was as we are and faced minute-by-minute choices as to whether He would respond to the Adamic urges or not. In this regard I do believe that He was absolutely sinless and never yielded once. According to Isaiah there was nothing "comely" (attractive) about Him - in other words, there was no "magical shine" to Him that would have made people gasp in wonder - His deity was well and truly hidden/concealed in His humanity so that when it was manifested in His miracles, loving-kindness and faithful Torah-obedience what was seen was still His humanity but in its fullness so that we might have a perfect model to imitate. Only in such manifestations as the Mount of Transfiguration were the disciples permitted to see something more than His humanity and (of course) in the resurrection, Johannine visions, etc.. The miracle (or one of them) was (for me) was that He resisted the temptation to go beyond what a supernaturally-endowed human being was capable of, thus emphasising the utter importancre of His humanity and full identity with us.

How the conceiving and implantation took place is another matter. I am open there. Clearly that was a supernatural operation. Part of the overwhelming and integral testimony of my heart (and I am am not speaking mere theology here) is that Yah'shua the Glorified descended (to the horror of all Gnostics) into the muck that is fallen Adamic flesh and adapted Himself to it out of love for me, you and all of us, becoming the ultimate example of servanthood and self-sacrifice which we should want to emulate. He was no "Jesus Christ, Superstar". He descended into Adamic flesh and conquered it together with Satan. This is so much a part of my testimony of Him and what I stand for in everything and which gives me life in Him that I cannot imagine ever believing in anything else. It is His revelation to my being.

I do believe we will come to unity in this, brother, one way or another. He has brought us to unity in almost everything else :)

Comment by Yaacov on December 16, 2008 at 9:27pm: I think we may actually agree more than meets the eye here. Unlike Koniuichowsky, I believe Yahushua's earthly body was very human-like, in fact nothing about him looked or felt anything other than human. While His zygotic form organized all the rest of the matter and self-assembled, repaired, and replaced (throughout his earthly life) all the material that was added to his earthly form, and so was human for all practical purposes, BUT the main and crucial difference is origin. I certainly don't believe in Docetisim. nor do i believe in a stone faced Messiah (a Koniuchowsky WWUB offshoot), nor a perpetually rotting Messiah (leper Scholar theory).

Purchase the WHOLE Website by clicking here