DISCLAIMER

Upon occasion, individual sacred name people who correspond with us are offered the opportunity to write an essay to be posted on the web site. The invitation is to support, explain, or defend any of their doctrinal issues or to rebuttal any of the points made on the Sacred Name Movement Errors Web Site.

Certainly we do not agree with the points made in these essays. But, we publish them here in an attempt to let our visitors see first hand the extent of the error into which sacred name converts have sunk.

We are often falsely accused of attempting to make the sacred name doctrine out to be a spiritual monster. This page lets sacred name teachers speak for themselves. It also lets our visitors judge for themselves whether the doctrine of the sacred name with all its tentacles is a monster.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS

This essay was first sent to our web site with the following words of challenge:

"Read this and if you believe it to not be true have courage to post it and not supress it!! Your lack of knowledge is show in your traditionalism! YOu say that people like myself have no research sad to say post this on your site of you think the research is lacking!"

After making this sacred name teacher aware that we were interested in publishing his research, he suddenly wanted to revise it and refused even to allow his name to be associated with it.

This "research" epitomizes the kind of work sacred name teachers compile and imagine it has some great weight of proof in the direction of negating the name of Jesus.

The only thing this kind of nonsense negates is the creditability of its proponents.
gm

________'S STATEMENT OF PERMISSION
 
Copy and Paste this, please keep personal names out of it please.

JESUS EQUALS EARTH PIG

BY SACRED NAME TEACHER _______

IS J.E.S.U.S. THE NAME?

CHANGES MADE AT THE HANDS OF MEN

There is much controversy about the Messiah's Name these days.

Most Christians would be ready to die for the name that they have been taught to call our SAVIOR by---- JESUS.

"SOOS" in Hebrew can mean "Horse".(Strong's #5483)

Or even "JOY" (#7797)

But in Latin it has a totally different meaning.

"SUS".suis 1. Prop.: A swine,hog.pig,boar,sow:

Cic--Proverb: SUS MINERVAM, A hog teaches Minerva, i.e. an ignorant person pretends to instuct one well versed in any subject.  (Latin Dictionary)

DISCLAIMER

Upon occasion, individual sacred name people who correspond with us are offered the opportunity to write an essay to be posted on the web site. The invitation is to support, explain, or defend any of their doctrinal issues or to rebuttal any of the points made on the Sacred Name Movement Errors Web Site.

Certainly we do not agree with the points made in these essays. But, we publish them here in an attempt to let our visitors see first hand the extent of the error into which sacred name converts have sunk.

We are often falsely accused of attempting to make the sacred name doctrine out to be a spiritual monster. This page lets sacred name teachers speak for themselves. It also lets our visitors judge for themselves whether the doctrine of the sacred name with all its tentacles is a monster.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS

Yahuwthah’s essay is presented with the hope that our visitors will better see how sacred name teachers think. This essay is a first hand demonstration of the logical process of the person who gives himself over to believe a false doctrine. It shows the twisted conclusions one can reach once one goes out the door of belief in what the Bible says and into a false doctrine which allows, even encourages, one to misuse and manipulate the Scriptures.

A pet sacred name theory, that some form of the name of Jesus adds up to 666 and is the mark of the beast, has been around almost from the time the movement started. Most sacred name people now a days want to keep this little bit of their heritage in the closet. A few of them like to pretend it doesn’t exist anymore. Some movement people have at one time believed this silly bit of doctrinal garbage and later, after they had used it to make themselves look really bad to their former “Christian” brothers, cast it overboard somewhere along their journey.

For a long time, we have hoped to get someone to publicly express the details of the Jesus is 666 theory. Mr. Arce has consented to write about this teaching and allow us to publish his essay here. He also shows that he believes the name of Jesus means Vision of Zeus.  He believes that to declare that Jesus is Lord is to declare that Vision of Zeus is the Baal.
gm

Sure, Jesus is the Lord But Yâhuwshú`a is Yâ-hwéh…

By sacred name teacher
Jose’ Luis Arce, MD
Web name: Yahuwthah

 

Sure, Jesus is the Lord But Yâhuwshú`a is Yâ-hwéh…
What does this mean?

Christianity has been misled to proclaim a wrong name for the One Who they worship, now for over 1900 years.  They are the only religion on earth that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the name of Whom they worship, convinced by the names they hear from their pastors and read in their establishment Bibles.  Yet some wonder what the name of the impostor who is foretold to come will be, though the answer is under their very noses.

DISCLAIMER

Upon occasion, individual sacred name people who correspond with us are offered the opportunity to write an essay to be posted on the web site. The invitation is to support, explain, or defend any of their doctrinal issues or to rebuttal any of the points made on the Sacred Name Movement Errors Web Site.

Certainly we do not agree with the points made in these essays. But, we publish them here in an attempt to let our visitors see first hand the extent of the error into which sacred name converts have sunk.

We are often falsely accused of attempting to make the sacred name doctrine out to be a spiritual monster. This page lets sacred name teachers speak for themselves. It also lets our visitors judge for themselves whether the doctrine of the sacred name with all its tentacles is a monster.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS

I had intended to upload this essay without any comment of my own. However, I am not able to refrain from at least one paragraph.

This man gave four different names for the Messiah in his correspondence to Sacred Name Movement Errors web site - Yahshua, YeSHUWAH, YeHSHUA, and YAHSHUWAH. He said the latter two were typographical errors. Now, in this essay, he gives numerous names, any of which he prefers over the name of Jesus. As you read, you will notice nine [9] different names, Yehsua, YESHUA, Yeshuwa, Yeshuwah, Yasha, Yesha, Yahuw, YEHOSHUA,  and finally Yehoshuwah.

But, in this whole essay of almost two thousand words he never makes a single mention of the pronunciation he began our correspondence using - Yahshua. This is the one pronunciation I had hoped [actually asked] for him to present documentation for.
gm

MARIO'S STATEMENT OF PERMISSION
 
You have my permission to post this and only this, anything else and youwill be transgressing. Does your diety allow you to transgress and disrespect others. If so this why "JESUS" does not save.

THE CORRECT HEBREW NAME OF MESSIAH

BY MARIO

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:00:36 -0700
          From: Mario
          Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

It is impossible for the Messiah's name to be "Jesus",  simply because there was no letter J, at the time of his birth or at the time the scripture of Matt 1:21 was written. Secondly, YAHuWEH, or Yoseph and his wife would not have broken Mosaic traditions, customs, and laws. As you can see they followed and kept the law even as they circumcised the Messiah on the eigth day according to the Mosaic law and YAHuWEH way of custom. Hebrew parents would not have called there child, whom they knew to be the Hebrew Messiah a Greek/Syrian name, any more than they would have served pork at the pass over. Lastly, A baby with a gentile name would have been allowed to be circumcised according to Mosaic custom, in the "temple."

DISCLAIMER

Upon occasion, individual sacred name people who correspond with us are offered the opportunity to write an essay to be posted on the web site. The invitation is to support, explain, or defend any of their doctrinal issues or to rebuttal any of the points made on the Sacred Name Movement Errors Web Site.

Certainly we do not agree with the points made in these essays. But, we publish them here in an attempt to let our visitors see first hand the extent of the error into which sacred name converts have sunk.

We are often falsely accused of attempting to make the sacred name doctrine out to be a spiritual monster. This page lets sacred name teachers speak for themselves. It also lets our visitors judge for themselves whether the doctrine of the sacred name with all its tentacles is a monster.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS

Those who accept the doctrine of the sacred names are compelled, by the very nature of that doctrine, to reject the authority of the New Testament. It seems strange that anyone would claim to know the Savior and at the same time reject the only book that reveals him. Where is the doctrinal foundation for faith in his death, burial, and resurrection, if not the New Testament? Where else will one find a basis for teaching his second coming? Without the New Testament there is no Christology.

A few sacred name teachers reject the complete New Testament, some decry the writings of Paul and perhaps Luke, while others repudiate all except the gospels. Most just preach the theory that the New Testament is not Scripture, cannot be trusted as a basis for ones faith in Christ, and should not be looked to as authoritative in spiritual matters, but otherwise it is a fine book. [See "A letter to a friend."]

In correspondence with the Sacred Name Movement Errors web site Mr. Allen expressed his conviction that the New Testament cannot be regarded as Scripture. We invited him to write an essay in support of that position. His article precisely demonstrates why one who accepts the sacred name teaching is compelled to give up the New Testament.

My question to sacred name teachers is always the same: What is wrong with the New Testament? Their answer is always the same: It doesn't support the doctrine of the sacred names.
gm

JASON ALLEN'S STATEMENT OF PERMISSION
  
I give you this with permission to use it in it's unadulterated entirety with all rights reserved. 28 USC 1746(1); UCC 1-207 Without Prejudice.

WHY DOGMA, DOCTRINE AND FOUNDATIONAL BELIEFS/CONVICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE BASED WHOLLY ON THE "NEW" TESTAMENT.

BY JASON ALLEN

To start, I am not what the editor/author of this site would consider a “Sacred Namer”, per se.  I do, however, know that the Creator’s name isn’t “God,” ”LORD,” or any other title mankind has given him.  While that doesn’t mean I know exactly, 100% how Adam referred to Him or the exact pronunciation or enunciation of the name of the Creator, the fact is that it is not now nor ever was “LORD,” “God,” “LORD God,” etc.  Also, the Messiah was a Hebrew man, living in a Hebrew culture, with a Hebrew name, period.  Common sense would dictate that just because a translation (English) is based on Greek (copies of copies nonetheless), doesn’t mean that the originals were Greek, contrary to the flawed logic used on this site and by many others.  Even if the originals were penned in Greek, [the only people who KNOW were those who viewed the documents being written firsthand, period, everything else is sheer speculation at this point], that does not make the Messiah’s name “JESUS.”  It seems absurd to think the angel ‘Gabriel’ came down to Miriam (mistranslated as Mary, but a Hebrew woman with a Hebrew name) and told her to name her firstborn Hebrew man-child “JESUS,” which, can arguably be translated as ‘hail Zeus.’ Keep in mind that the original 1611 King James Version language (an early form of ‘English’) wrote the name of the Messiah as “Iesus.”  The letter ‘J’ is only about 500 years old…see an encyclopedia.