Logo Copyright © 2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved
Return to Main Page




Symphony of Truth

In a Nutshell

Topical Guide


5 Commissions

10 Commandments

333 NCCG Number

144,000, The


Action Stations

Agency, Free





Apostolic Interviews

Apostolic Epistles

Archive, Complete

Articles & Sermons





Baptism, Water

Baptism, Fire

Becoming a Christian

Bible Codes

Bible Courses

Bible & Creed


Calendar of Festivals


Charismata & Tongues

Chavurat Bekorot

Christian Paganism

Chrism, Confirmation


Church, Fellowship

Contact us



Covenants & Vows












Ephraimite Page, The

Essene Christianity




Family, The



Festivals of Yahweh

Festivals Calendar



Gay Christians


Godhead, The






Hebrew Roots





Holy Echad Marriage

Holy Order, The

Home Education


Human Nature




Intro to NCCG.ORG



Jewish Page, The

Judaism, Messianic

Judaism, Talmudic


KJV-Only Cult





Marriage & Romance



Messianic Judaism






NCCG Origins

NCCG Organisation

NCCG, Spirit of

NCCG Theology



New Age & Occult



New Covenant Torah

Norwegian Website


Occult Book, The

Occult Page, The

Olive Branch



Paganism, Christian















RDP Page




Satanic Ritual Abuse



Sermons & Articles

Sermons Misc







Swedish Website


Talmudic Judaism



Tongues & Charismata



True Church, The




United Order, The




Wicca & the Occult


World News


Yah'shua (Jesus)




    The YATI Whole Wheat (WW) Doctrine Examined

    Posted by Lev/Christopher on October 1, 2008 at 2:59am
    in Questions & Answers

    I have created this thread for a discussion of YATI's "Whole Wheat" doctrine which you can learn about by reading Moshe Koniuchowsky's book called Our Last days Meal: The Full Truth of Yahshua Our Whole Wheat Unleavened Bread. You can read some of the chapters at the Nazarene Israelite True Name Network - the thread I had up there has been deleted. The chapters available on their group can be accessed here:







    for those of you who don't have the book or don't want to spend money buying it.

    Before we get into any discussion I want to firstly state our criteria for debate:

    1. That only the Protestant Canon of the Bible is used as an authority (this means we do not accept arguments from the Book of Jasher/Yasher, the Book of Enoch, the Sepher Yetsirah, the Talmud, Mishnah's, Kaballah, or Jewish tradition and mysticism;

    2. Recognised linguistic scholarship.

    In a nutshell, the Whole Wheat (ahereafter abbreviated as 'WW') doctrine teaches that "Yah'shua (Jesus) did not share the flesh or blood, or humanity of Adam and that He was fully separate from the sons of men." (from the back cover from the book). The author continues: "See how His flesh, blood and spirit were all provided by YHWH before the foundation of the world. Only in this understanding of Yahshua as our WHOLE WHEAT UNLEAVENED BREAD do we see Yahshua in all His true eternal majesty, removed from all pagan and religious perversions of the living bread, that has sadly been processed into white bread, processed by religion and totally void of spiritual nutrition".

    This ministry does not accept the WW doctrine which has virtually become a test of faith for members of YATI and is now YATI dogma. We believe that Yah'shua the Messiah was fully man (Adamic flesh) and fully Elohim (God), and not some wetsuit (Yah'shua's alleged unique non-human body) in a testtube (Mary/Mirian). My own personal refinement of this doctrine is essentially Nestorianism inasmuch as I believe that Yah'shua was 100% man in His physical body and flesh and 100% Elohim in His ruach/spirit.

    I am including some of my own posts here from the YATI group to initiate a discussion.

    My object in opening this discussion is not to attack YATI and its author (and I will not tolerate any personal attacks on him here or any sort of lashon hara - please do not join this group if your sole interest is in personally attacking the author) but to seek out the truth. We will only be looking at the merits and demerits of the doctrine. As a doctrinal proposition it is worthy of honest investigation. My own tentative conclusion (for I am willing to be corrected if found to be wrong) is that this doctrine so isolates Yah'shua from the human condition and its trials and temptations and makes Yah'shua so 'other-wordly' as to make Him virtually non-human at all. That has serious repercussions not only for the Atonement but also for our personal relationship with Him as our brother.

    May YHWH bless and guide this discussion.

    This was my initial post in the YATI group:

    As this topic has arisen in another thread and not really been discussed anywhere on this network I thought it time to raise some questions which concern me. I have to say point blank that I believe in the commonly understood and proclaimed doctrine that Yah'shua was part man and part Elohim - I believe (like the Nestorians) that He was full Elohim in His Ruach and fully man in His flesh. I cannot see how He could (a) fully identify with our infirmities; (b) be tempted in the same way as we are; and (c) and overcome, becoming a son as we do by obedience, submittitting the fleshy nature as we must. I believe that unless He could have sinned/fallen, there would have been no risk on His part and Satan wouldn't even have bothered to tempt Him - so great was this struggle that it required a 40 day battle, with malkim/angel support, in the Judean desert. I believe that He representationally slew the demonic flesh nature making it possible for us to do the same by trusting in/adhering to Him.

    In another thread it was pointed out that Yah'shua was BORN through the virgin Mary's flesh but not CONCEIVED in her flesh. I suspect word fencing here:

    Matt 1:20
    20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of YHWH appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Ruach haQodesh

    gennao (ghen-nah'-o); from a variation of NT:1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:
    (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

    In other words there were two conceiving agents - the Ruach haQodesh and Mary/Miriam.

    The implication of the Whole Wheat Doctrine is that Yah'shua was not touched by the fallen nature which is resident in 'human flesh' but what actually is meant by 'human flesh'? Whatever form that 'nature' may take, we cannot argue that it is not somehow resident in the physical body itself. On p.5 of his book, Bro. Koniuchowsky claims that no part of Mary's flesh was donated to the embryonic Messiah. However, as any biologist or biochemist will tell you, that is completely untrue. There is a constant interchange of chemical matter across the placenta. The embryo is constructed of this matter. So even if you argue that the egg/sperm zygote was directly from heaven, by the time the embryo is mature and ready for birth, 99.9999999% of its body mass will be composed of biochemicals derived from the mother. And as any biologist will also tell you, within ~5 years, each of us totally exchanges ALL the physical matter in our bodies so that physically we are not, today, the same person as we were ~5 years ago. Not one single molecule in my body was a part of my body ~5 years ago.

    Since the Adamic nature is in the flesh - our physicality - and since our physicality is derived from our mother and from the environment through natural respiration, whatever sin nature must, logically, be locked up in PHYSICAL MATTER ITSELF. It must be, as scripture intimates, derived from the fallen natural environment - fallen precisely because YHWH cursed it back in Edenic times.

    Would the proponents of this doctrine therefore please explain to me WHERE this sin nature is resident and how a hypothetical Messianic flesh (which is supposedly 100% from Elohim) is not, in the process of time - whether in the 9 months period of gestation in the womb or subsequent to birth - not totally eluted by molecular interchange? And if it is not in physical matter, then where is it? For Yah'shua to have retained a 100%-derived physical nature in the natual world he must not have eaten, breathed, or excreted but become a totally isolated physical system.

    So I await an explanation.....

    Ya'akov's answer:

    You are totally right about the replacing of body cells and the building of a body. An adjustment to the Whole Wheat doctrine may be in order. But it still is harmonious with 100% Elohim zygote idea because the key to the verse is "that which is concieved in her is of." The concieving was done via El Elyon and the Ruach HaQodesh,-- once Yahushua was concieved, then He was put inside of Miriam's womb.

    Lev said "The implication of the Whole Wheat Doctrine is that Yah'shua was not touched by the fallen nature which is resident in 'human flesh' but what actually is meant by 'human flesh'? Whatever form that 'nature' may take, we cannot argue that it is not somehow resident in the physical body itself. On p.5 of his book, Bro. Koniuchowsky claims that no part of Mary's flesh was donated to the embryonic Messiah. However, as any biologist or biochemist will tell you, that is completely untrue. There is a constant interchange of chemical matter across the placenta. The embryo is constructed of this matter. So even if you argue that the egg/sperm zygote was directly from heaven, by the time the embryo is mature and ready for birth, 99.9999999% of its body mass will be composed of biochemicals derived from the mother. And as any biologist will also tell you, within ~5 years, each of us totally exchanges ALL the physical matter in our bodies so that physically we are not, today, the same person as we were ~5 years ago. Not one single molecule in my body was a part of my body ~5 years ago."

    ---(That certainly would be another reason for the importance of kashrut ; )

    Mac's response:

    I haven't read the WW Doctrine, but only gleaned a few snippets here and there. Therefore it isn't possible to address the book but I am glad you brought the issue up as it does interest me. This is one area where I believe the Orthodox understanding mostly supports rm. One aspect is the shattering of the soul of Adam Rishon into the many today. This is a curse on the spirit of man, where as there must be a new Ruach resident in each. Along with this there is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, it is the duty of men to restore the 4 worlds through tikkun haOlam accomplished mostly through the "born again" nature and achieving a state of chesed.
    Furthermore, the flesh itself, indeed all physicality of the universe is composed of that which is oppositional in nature to Yhwh.

    In this understanding, it is possible to have the cursed state not pass through Mary by virtue of eliminating the state of destruction that runs with the seed of Adam Rishon, by arrival of Adam Kadmon. This pure soul occupies a basar that is in itself oppositional to the Soul and Spirit of Y'shua. Here is the temptation the problem posed in the first part of your post is overcome and the requirement of the resident "sin potential" in the second are resolved by this concept. So I suppose orthodoxy diverges from the WW doc as you describe it in the second issue. Time is short, more later, shalom.

    My reply:

    Yaacov: It seems to me that an awful lot hangs on the precise meaning of "in her is of". What are the possible meanings of this conglomorate of words and especially "of"? The ISRV renders this as "that which is in her was brought forth from" - what equally can "from" mean? In claiming that the whole being of Yah'shua was directly from heaven without earthly input we are pushing an awful lot into those two little words "of" and "from". Does "of" refer to substance, point of origin, identity with, or what? IMO the most we can extract from this passage is that the Ruach was the primary moving power in this operation which even orthodox Christians accept.

    I think we are going way beyond kosher - even kosher material for consumption is affected by the curse - it's all fallen matter so eating a pure diet would not ensure that a hypothetical 100% original messianic zygote remains untainted from the world - the tainting comes simply by being in and interacting with it.

    Mac - in reading your comments I see a whole world of extra-biblical kabbalistic presuppositions that go way beyond anything in the Scriptures themselves. I mention this because I work out of a sola scriptura context and try to therefore keep the equations simpler. And I have sufficient suspicions about and doubts about the spiritual purity of kabbalah as to exclude it from any models of what is going on, interesting though kabbalistic exercises may be intellectually. Otherwise we must come to agreement on a 'canon'. Thus I would want concrete evidence that kabbalah merits any sort of authority at all given its origins and manipulations over the centuries and the ease with which it dovetails into New Age and occultic anti-gospel doctrines. I believe in using it we needlessly complexify, and run the risk of contaminating, exegeses from the simple Word.

    Ya'akov's reply:

    Yes but wouldn't the biological materials that Yahushua's zygotic body added to Himself be made Qodesh, because He already Is most Qodesh?

    Ya'akov's reply:

    OK, so the picture you want to paint is of a Messiah who is so holy or set-apart that everything which enters His physical system undergoes a transmutation and is made the same as the original 100% pure zygotic material?

    As I recall when Moshe/Moses went into the presence of the Malak/Angel of Yahweh (Yah'shua) on Mt.Sinai and into that fiery, pure presence, he emerged with his face shining. If the mortal Yah'shua were made of this same material, would He not be shining all over and have the unmistakable appearance of Elohim - glorious and resplendant? And yet the picture we are painted in Yeshayahu/Isaiah is the very opposite - He appears marred and unattractive...which better lines up with the traditional doctrine of the Messiah possessing genuinely human Adamic matter.

    As a footnote to this, if Yah'shua were doing all this amazing transmutation of the oxygen He breathed and the food He ate, would not the carbon dioxide and waste material He voided be of a higher state than the matter we poor mortals wear? Wouldn't it be shining too? What then would happen to that? Is that why those who were breathed on by Him received the Ruach haQodesh? (I assume no one for one minute believes that the Ruach was sanctified carbon dioxide and nitrogen).

    What of His whippings and wounds? Wouldn't the wounds instantly heal in such a sanctified presence? What of the nails piercing His flesh? Would they not be transmuted too ... or the opposite, corrupt the 100% pure flesh?

    Finally, if this wonderful transmutation process were taking place (which I guess would have to be if the Whole Wheat Doctrine is true) then would not the leprosy which Yah'shua supposedly contracted after He 'healed' lepers (according to the YATI teaching) also be swallowed up and destroyed/transmuted, making Him NOT a leper? (I do not believe the Leper doctrine BTW - I am just pointing out that the WW and Leper Teaching are, when taken to their logical conclusions, mutually exclusive).

    Ya'akov's reply:

    The Shining/glowing is just one of different ways that Yahushua can manifest Himself, but it apparently is not the only way.

    If the Leper-Scholar doctrine is true (Ed. another YATI doctrine), the only way i see it as possible is if Yahushua healing lepers was as instantaneous as when Moshe put his hand into his cloak it came out leprous, and then when he put in in again a half a minute later it was healed. So the only feasible method would be Yahushua absorbing the leprosy and then immediately self-healing of it.

    My reply:

    The Leper-Scholar doctrine is mostly incidental to the main points I was trying to raise - as Yah-shua is operating in Yahweh's Name then presumably any healings that took place at His hands would be as instantaneous as that (for example) of Namaan the Leper in the Yarden/Jordan. Moshe/Mose was purposefully leprous as a SIGN so his situation is a little different. I am still not sure that Yah'shua took ANYTHING "upon" Himself/absorbed into Himself before Golgotha. IF He did then that means the atonement was taking place in stages and as early as the first days of His ministry. That would not, however, IMO, fulfil the purpose of Pesach/Passover - I have to believe that the payment for the sins of mankind did not take place until the commencement of the last Old Covenant Pesach, and that what healings too place before were of the type that have been witnessed throughout history through the prophets. My belief (at this stage) is that Yah'shua acted as a prophet until Pesach and then - and only then - became the paschal Lamb sin-offering. The only piece of evidence I can think of that might be contrary to this would be the time when Yah'shua lost power when the woman with an issue of blood touched His tzitzit which overwhelmingly suggests that the healing power was coming from His very flesh in some way. That He "felt" is pretty much suggests that He was the conduit of the power of YHWH.

    What you say about the manifestation through Moshe/Moses as compared to Yah'shua is certainly a valid explanation. Certainly if malakim/angels can conceal their power, then so could Yah'shua, thus offering an alternative explanation to my arguments. I think what concerns me more is the fact that the WW doctrine makes Yah'shua more "other worldly" and diminishes His rôle - in part or in whole - as our brother with like infirmities, the main weakness of the WW doctrine.

    What I like about the Nestorian doctrine of the Person of Yah'shua is that it both preserves the divinity of Yah'shua and His manhood whilst at once disqualifying the Virgin Mary as being in any sense 'divine' or the "mother of Elohim" - thus Mary/Miriam would be (in the Greek) Khristotokos ('Giver of Birth to Messiah/Christ) as opposed to the Catholic Theotokos ('Giver of birth to Elohim') , emphasising her rôle in conceiving the humanity aspect of Yah'shua. (Orthodox blend spirit and flesh together, saying that Yah'shua was both man and Elohim in flesh and spirit).

    [I have snipped out a lot of the other posts which you can read in the YATI network as things got off topic.]

    Simon said:

    Shalom Chaverim,

    Let me throw the spanner in the works and let's really critically examine atonement.

    YHWH said this:

    Lev 18:21 ‘And do not give any of your offspring to pass through to Molek. And do not profane the Name of your Elohim. I am יהוה.

    Human sacrifice is forbidden!!!

    So now why would YHWH offer His Son when human sacrifice is forbidden?

    How would that factor in considering the Messiah is dual, part man part elohim or as some believe 100% human and 100% Elohim or failing still fully human fully GEE O DEE such nonsense I have heard plenty of times in Christianity. I am sure some say he is both 100% but the mathematics just dont' fit. Either you are 100% Elohim or you are 100% human but you still need to get over the hurdle NO HUMAN Sacrifce.

    Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

    The contention of both the Muslims and Jewish people is not wrong with human sacrifice.

    This question is addressed to all bar those who who hold to whole wheat unleavened bread because theat is the ONLY way it resolves what I said above else you have a problem like it or not. I would like you now to resolve that problem. Thank you.


    Rabbi Simon

    My reply:

    Well, for one thing I do not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine, Simon - I am Nestorian in that respect - Yah'shua was 100% Elohim in His Spirit and 100% man in His flesh - which is not mathematically absurd at all.

    Secondly, if what you say is true - viz. that YHWH could and would never offer up human flesh in the form of Yah'shua, then why did He command Abraham to offer a very human fleshy Isaac as a similitude of what He would do centuries later in the Meridian of Time? If YHWH had wanted to give us a picture of a non-human Yah'shua He would not have got Abraham to enact the rôle.

    Mac replied:

    I would like to point out the differences in differing that have come up. In the proper tradition Lev has questioned the issues which I appreciate and see as the mark of a true brother. Anyone can just agree, although it takes skill and preparation to engage in a CONSTRUCTIVE dialog. This has not been the case in some threads where 1 or 2 others simply make it personal when they had no reason behind their objections but merely threw ego into the discussion. It's always a quandary whether to abandon the discussion and write them off at that point or press on hoping they will compose themselves sufficiently to give an answer that shows themselves approved. Thanks to Lev, rm and many others who have demonstrated the true Spirit of Yisrael in contending for the faith in these matters. There is a suggestion though for issues that one may not want to be publicly pulled through the proverbial knot hole backwards. The suggestion (2nd time here,) is for peer review on issues that are controversial. (Maybe a separate group?). In a peer review setting the reviews are anonymous and the critique is private. shalom

    Simon's reply:


    Whichever way we work that formula it is unworkable and self contradictory. You cannot have 100% of one susbstance and then 100% of another. Look at the equation.

    The idea of Abraham being chosen to sacrifce his son was a test and never going to be carried out to the letter as we know plus you forget one significant factor with Isaac that he was not sent to be sacrificed for the sins of the world but just as a trial for Abraham.

    Secondly the Torah was not given in writng as yet.

    We are talking about a perfect sacrifice without blemish.

    The other problem we have is Yahushua's own words that He is from above meaning His body is not of this worlds substance or cloaked from dust of the earth.

    Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

    Ps 40 tells us that a body was prepared. To me that is of above as Yahushua said and not below so making him 100% whole wheat unleavened.

    This argument has raged on for centuries and I guess we won't have a solution here today either .


    Rabbi Simon Altaf

    « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Purchase the WHOLE Website by clicking here

    Return to Main Index Page of NCCG.ORG

    This page was created on 5 May 2010
    Updated on 5 May 2010

    Copyright © 1987-2010 NCCG - All Rights Reserved