Was the Trinity always the "Orthodox" position?The Truth!

Bart Ehrman is an apostate from the Christian faith.I do not in any capacity advocate much of what he claims or represents.He,however,because he's an agnostic now,has no reason to "take sides" so to speak in theological debates about the nature of Christ.It wouldn't really concern him whether God is one or three or three people in one "homoousios" since he doesn't even worship him anymore.As abhorrent as I find many of his sentiments and beliefs,I have to admit that he's seemingly on the mark with much of what he says about the "orthodox corruption of scripture" in his book of the same name.Not all of his opinions on the scriptures are sound,but with a little discernment it's easily detectable what should be heeded or discarded in what he has to offer in his book.All the quotes in this blog are taken from his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament."I won't be getting into how certain texts have been corrupted to make them seem a little more "orthodox"(as that term is so defined today anyway)right now,but rather how Christians(some willfully selective and ignorant..others just simply innocently ill informed about their own history)neither herald nor profess the real truth about what the earliest Christians believed.

Yes,one prevailing Christian trend is to rewrite history to make it more palatable in conformity to our own ideas regarding doctrine.For instance,most Christians wouldn't hesitate to tell you that in nascent Christianity,everyone was clearly a true saint who believed God was three people.Is this accurate?Or is it as about as true and unbiased as the "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book?Well,the least we can do is examine the other side to all the issues for a balanced & honest approach.Just like an orthodox Christian would desire to urge a devout Jehovah's Witness to examine their "true" history,I as an unorthodox Christian urge you to examine the history of your system of beliefs just as seriously.After all,when we take bias men's selective assessment(ones with a specific agenda mind you)as unquestionably true without critical thinking of our own weighing all the information,we're wide open for being fooled.Ehrman says:

"During its first two and a half centuries,Christianity comprised a number of competing theologies,or better,a number of competing Christian groups advocating a variety of theologies.There was as yet no established "orthodoxy,"that is,no basic theological system acknowledged by the majority of church leaders and laity.Different local churches supported different understandings of the religion,while different understandings of the religion were present even within the same local church."..p. 4
Further,:

"The classical understanding of the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy met a devastating challenge in 1934 with the publication of Walter Bauer's "Recht-glaubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum",possibly the most significant book on early Christianity written in modern times.Bauer argued that the early Christian church in fact did not comprise a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities.Instead,early Christianity embodied a number of divergent forms,no one of which represented the clear and powerful majority of believers against all others.In some regions,what was later to be termed "heresy" was in fact the original and only form of Christianity.In other regions,views later deemed heretical co-existed with views that would come to be embraced by the church as a whole,with most believers not drawing hard and fast lines of demarcation between the competing views.To this extent,"orthodoxy",in the sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere,did not exist in the second and third centuries.Nor was "heresy" secondarily derived from an original teaching through an infusion of jewish ideas or pagan philosophy.Beliefs that were,at later times,embraced as orthodoxy and condemned as heresy were in fact competing interpretations of Christianity,one of which eventually(but not initially)acquired domination because of singular historical and social forces.Only when one social group had exerted itself sufficiently over the rest of Christendom did a "majority" opinion emerge;only then did the "right belief" represent the view of the Christian church at large."p.7

Ehrman goes on to note that Bauer's claims were based upon the closest scrutiny of the evidence from ancient sources for the Christianity in various regions,particularly Edessa,Egypt,Antioch,Asia Minor,Macedonia,and Rome.He found that,contrary to the claims of Eusebius(a fourth century bishop who was influential and who was deemed the so-called "father of church history"),the predominant Christian view was what today would be deemed "heretical."Ehrman further notes that even though there were folks scattered in these regions who embraced some form of what later became "orthodox",they were the minority to be sure.Much of the literature and opinions produced by the so called "heretics"(by today's standards that is) would NOT survive because,as Ehrman says:

"One would naturally not expect the victors of the struggle to reproduce the literature of their opponents."p.9

As Ehrman also notes,even those who seemed at least somewhat orthodox by today's standards(some of the much-hailed and quoted early church fathers,namely) had certainly not imagined today's trinity formulation and all it's nuances so definitively or meticulously.There was definitely "social ostracism,economic pressures,and political machinations"(as Ehrman puts it,p.15) that led to the "orthodoxy" held today.Not only that,the Early Church Fathers that are venerated in some respect by so many Christians today as fathers of their faith had some truly peculiar and "heretical" beliefs themselves!A small sampling:

"Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen,for example,acknowledge that Jesus' body could readily change appearance at will--a decidedly docetic notion--with Clement claiming that Jesus ingested food not for nourishment but simply to convince his followers that he actually had a body."..p.10

Irenaeus believed there were four gospels because there were "four winds" and "four corners of the earth",and therefore four pillars,or Gospels,upon which it is built.(Adv. Haer. III,11,7-8)

I see Christians all the time condemning Jehovah's Witnesses for following an organization and men with such a dubious history of peculiar beliefs,yet they do the same thing.If you're going to tell a Jehovah's Witness that one reason the Watchtower organization is corrupt is because of some of the particularly peculiar things Charles Taze Russell believed,did and taught,then the very least you can do is recognize the imperfections and peculiarities in the beliefs of the "fathers" of your faith.You will often hear trinitarians hailing the Early Church Fathers (yes,the same ones with beliefs that were heretical)as if they are true heroes.Even the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't bold enough to call the governing body their heroes.And if it's ok to be so selective when presenting the beliefs of these "heroes",then I suppose,if we're going to be unhypocritical,I could present a good case for the Watchtower.All I would have to do is omit all the lies,all the bloodguilt,all the hypocrisy,all the questionable beliefs.

Just like the Watchtower compels JW's to accept their interpretations of scripture by use of the power exerted over them by certain men with weapons of intellectual intimidation and salvation threats intact,"orthodoxy" accomplishes acceptance of it's questionable dogmas much the same way.

"For it is a historical fact that ,owing to a variety of reasons,one group within early Christianity achieved social dominance and enforced its views on other groups that had supported divergent opinions.Looked at in sociohistorical terms,orthodoxy and heresy are concerned as much with struggles over power as with debates over ideas."p.12

Should we really want to garner our "truth" from the effects of power struggles,social dominance,bloodshed,intellectual intimidation,threats,and the like?The history of the establishment of what is now termed "orthodox" has an ugly trail of blood.Besides,:

"If the term orthodoxy means the dominant form of Christianity,then prior to its domination,the views of this group are scarcely orthodox.."..p.12

So it's kinda funny how orthodoxy wasn't always "orthodox" at all yet people choose to believe it was because they don't or won't look outside the box where they are anymore than the average Jehovah's Witness would.If they do,the repurcussions might not be anymore attractive than those suffered by conscientious JW's who question the protocol of the Watchtower "organization."

Fact is,our "traditions" and what we've always been taught,that which is thoroughly and stubbornly ingrained in our conscious,is not necessarily true or real.But how palatable it is to continue believing it is and deceiving ourselves at all costs to maintain the comfort it compels!How horrible it would be to have to tell ourselves we've been deceived,receive possible shunning from our respected and well loved piers,receive constant labels and threats to our salvation,etc.Such terrible things would of course scare most any human being/Christian from the kind of critical thinking and genuine truth seeking they should embrace wholeheartedly.After all,if there's any possible way to take scriptures,twist them,and make them "fit" our heritage,that is often undertaken to ensure the comfort that results from ALREADY being completely and utterly right about everything.Pier approval.Cozy traditions.Feels good.And as human beings,it's only natural to run vigorously toward what feels good and away from what hurts.Even though Jesus said we are called to suffer as he did.

Even if Jesus seems to contradict what we've been taught and come to believe(everywhere,left and right),common sensically and earnestly,we human beings have a consistent and concerning history,right along with the Pharisees ,of insisting that we have the truth that Jesus lacks.(when it's the other way around of course!)I mean,it's so easy to find a few texts here and there that can conform to our ideas,just like the Jews who opposed & persecuted the Christ had in their arsenal.They too possessed a particular understanding of sacred texts.They just KNEW they were right.Deception wasn't possible for them at all.Being blind was real for others,but not for themselves!Yah's simple words and Christ's simple words weren't good enough at all.But they sure knew the scriptures!Right?

Doctrines that are true don't need to have their history of development concealed,colored, or fabricated.They also don't need to be "formulated" at all because Christ stated creeds that were simple,clear,and not mysterious at all.God didn't want us to calculate the number that he is while we ignore common sense mathematics and qualify his Son's words at every turn.Just to make them fit a cherished belief,of course.The Pharisees had cherished beliefs too.Christ challenged those.Christ also challenges you.Let him.

Disclaimer:
I'm not supporting Ehrman or even the nontrinitarians who had the majority position at certain points in history.There are certainly differing views within the nontrinitarian community about who exactly Christ was.I'm also not suggesting the Early Church Fathers mentioned in the video weren't Christians just because they didn't have every belief accurate.I'm never the one who determines who a true Christian is in God's eyes.

Will Jehovah's Witnesses be found naked?

Jehovah's Witnesses often think they are "rich" with God,in a spiritual "paradise" if you will..safe,sound,and protected benevolently in "God's chosen organization."Their refuge essentially becomes that "organization" that is,let's face it,a modern day establishment that Christ and the apostles knew nothing about.

They say:

"Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb 15 p.12

Is a manmade organization really the protection,"richness", and covering(the Watchtower also often identifies itself as a safe ark wherein we must be to pass safely into a new world)we need for salvation?One,as a Christian,would certainly not want to be found poor,pitiable,blind,or naked when Christ returns!So Jehovah's Witnesses must think critically about these things.

Revelation 3:17:For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

The church of Laodicea thought they were rich,when in fact they were poor and naked.Christ disciplines:

"..because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."(Rev. 3:16)

Thankfully,Christ gives the elixir to this spiritual disease:

"I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent." (verses 18-19)

IF Christ had returned in the first,second,or third(etc..on and on) century,what would have been the only sound and safe refuge for a true Christian?Obviously not the Watchtower!So the fact that people have been convinced that it's needed for salvation and a relationship with Yahweh is nothing short of a serious deception and is a downright genuine absurdity.The WT would like everyone to believe that Christians are naked and poor without their organization.Is this true?

The refuge and "clothing" one needs(obviously and biblically speaking) is the Christ of Yahweh and his body,of which any true Christian is supposed to be an eager and faithful part(or member) of.

1 Corinthians 12:27:Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Notice it says "each one of you."

When Adam and Eve experienced their tragic fall from grace and found themselves naked,they tried to cover themselves with something that wasn't adequate,namely fig leaves.Yah gave them something more befitting for the job to cover their shame in their nakedness,which was compelled by the consequence of transgression.

Genesis 3:21:the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible notes:

"It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering to God."

As Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible also notes:

"..until the Messiah should come and die, and become a sacrifice for sin, the sacrifices of slain beasts were appointed."

This "covering" so to speak prefigured the Messiah,who we all need to cover our sin,for God "made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(2 Cor. 5:21)Yeshua was the "Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world."(Rev. 13:8)

Since Adam passed sin and death on to all men,we all need covered because we've all sinned.(Rom. 5:12)In God's mercy,he provided the perfect One in Yeshua,the holy righteous Lamb of God.If the Watchtower denies that you can even be in him at all unless you're one of only 144,000 Christians throughout all of time,then what I want to know is how in the world are you covered at all?There is no evidence in all of scripture that an organization is a covering or that you're covered at all unless you are genuinely IN CHRIST.There is literally no fathomable or logical way around this.It's SO integral as a key to one's salvation that the Messiah said :

"If anyone does not ABIDE IN ME he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."(John 15:6)

Notice Yeshua didn't say "If anyone does not abide in the Watchtower as a Jehovah's Witness he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

YET the WT actually says about people that:

"They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah's organization is essential to their salvation." Kingdom Ministry 1990 Nov p.1

Does the BIBLE say that identity "with Jehovah's organization" that,again,didn't exist until recently,is "essential to salvation"?Or did Christ say that identity IN HIM(denied most every Jehovah's Witness by the Watchtower) actually is?According to the Watchtower,you need them to survive!

Imagine if Paul(or any other Christian for that matter),in the 1st century, had been asked by inquiring minds "sir,are you in Christ?"And Paul answering in pride "no,but I'm in the Watchtower organization and the men I follow are!"Any conscientious Christian listening to such nonsense would have thought he was nuts,not only because the Watchtower didn't exist until modern times but also because there is "no salvation in any other NAME."(Acts 4:12)What is that NAME?The governing body and a manmade organization are NOT that "name."Therefore,they are not essential to your salvation.Notice in such holy inspired texts(like Acts 4:12 and John 14:6) that there is a particular and uncluttered way to salvation that leaves the Watchtower organization out of their sentiments.If you congregate somewhere where the aggregate assembly denies this basic milk of the word with clutter and manmade ideas & additions,then it's time to turn to Yah through his REAL "channel of communication",Christ.(1 Timothy 2:5).

I too believe in congregating with like minded believers,but not where these foundational fundamental truths are denied.Not where I'm denied Christ's covering,which only exists in his body!He can't be your head if you aren't a part of his body,if you are outside that temple.Yes,God's real temple IS that body,not the Kingdom Hall.I could take a fig leaf(which I'll liken to the WT organization since it won't be able to cover your nakedness either) and pretend I'm covered,but God beholds & knows the whole time that the only sufficient covering is the blood & body of Christ.A Jehovah's Witness might say they don't deny Christ and that he covers them and that they accept his sacrifice,but it's *empty speech* because:

1.they aren't allowed to actually abide in him in the true sense of what it really means to actually do so.The WT would tell them "no!" unless they are one of 144,000.

2.Messiah says:"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."(John 6:53)He doesn't qualify this for anyone at all like the WT does.I'm not suggesting you have to drink wine and eat bread for salvation.That is just an outward symbol of an inward exercising of faith in Messiah's sacrifice.However,when it's passed around to professed Christians at a gathering,not partaking would suggest that you don't exercise faith in that sacrifice.After all,you aren't showing it when you shun the outward display!

3.If you exercise faith in Christ,you ARE born of God.(1 John 5:1)Being born of God,aka "born again",is denied most JW's by the WT.

So,again,*claiming* something (like that you're covered in Christ or God's child)with some serious unwarranted qualification in the background doesn't mean what you're saying is meaningful in any real *biblical* sense.The only thing that matters is what the *bible* means when it says you must be in Christ.I think it's obvious to most anyone that it means you must be a part of the body of Christ.That's what it meant for John and Paul and everyone else Christ loved.That's what it should mean for you.:)Yeshua's invitations are free and clear.

Christ says:

Rev. 16:15:"Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

Repent.Don't be exposed by remaining unclothed.That can only bring you embarrassing exposure and unabashed shame.

Much like the Laodiceans,if an unclothed(again,we must be clothed in the body of Christ)professed Christian hears Christ's voice,opens the door,and repents,Christ promises he will "grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."(Rev. 3:20,21)

Will you be ready to "sit with" Christ on his "throne"?If that doesn't sound like something you want to do,who or what convinced you that, as a Christian, reigning with Christ wasn't an option if you want to inherit a "new earth"?Christ is only in heaven "until the time comes for God to restore everything."(Acts 3:21)Yep,he'll reign ON EARTH with all those clothed in "white garments."Another explicit biblical revelation the Watchtower inexplicably denies.

The emphasis in scripture isn't on an "organization" that denies the body of Christ for most of it's advocates.The emphasis and importance is quite obviously placed upon finding life in a WHO,that being Christ.He is God's word of life manifest for our eternal lives if we exercise faith.(1 John 1:1,2,John 3:16)I have stressed this repeatedly in my blogs and in a number of youtube videos precisely because it's a KEY salvation issue that compelled me to find the TRUE ark,the body of Christ, and to run from "shepherds" who deny this foundational life enhancing and saving fact.(John 10:7-13)

In John chapter 21,the disciples were out fishing.Jesus appeared,and this is what happened:

"Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. "(verse 7)

This should be our attitude.Get clothed and run to Christ!:)The water here may even symbolize a baptism or perhaps the "living water" Christ offers.(John 4:10,Rev. 7:17)Not sure.Either way,we must be READY for Christ by being clothed and baptized into HIM.Not an organization that makes the ridiculous lofty claim you need IT for salvation,protection,and covering!One that actually makes you pledge that your baptism identifies you with their self- professed "spirit-directed organization."Where did the Christians getting baptized in scripture have to do that?It's all about identity in Christ(yes,clothed in HIM)as opposed to identity in and with an organization.(that clothes about as well as a fig leaf.)

Sarcasm for Christmas

Let's all be a part of the world this time of year.It's hard not to do what the crowd does!Made this vid replete with a healthy dose of sarcasm last year.

The Watchtower's "Faithful Slave"-a Few Concerns and Questions

Already blogged about this previously.This is that blog in a video form with a few minor adjustments.Hopefully there will be at least one or two little points within this that will make Jehovah's Witnesses think critically about governing body claims.Or that will help those who desire to reach JW's with the truth of Christ.

Responding to ex-Jehovah's Witness trinitarian Bibl3thumper's youtube video

I made a youtube video in response to ex-Jehovah's Witness youtube user Bibl3thumper's video where he asserts that the trinity,or rather the "deity of Christ", should be at the center of discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses.He didn't approve my video response,even going so far as to erase a comment on his video where I said I'd made a video response.I have seen Bibl3thumper engage others with whom he disagrees respectfully before,while NOT censoring them,so I didn't suspect that he'd resort to that.I would only understand resorting to that if someone had been hateful or disrespectful to you in some major way.Anyway,first is his video,then my two responses.Feel free to write me at biscuitpouncer@hotmail.com with any respectful concerns or questions.

Please,everyone,test all things and make sure of what is good,for many will come to you in sheep's clothing making claims that seem sound on the surface.That with just a little biblical reasoning are easily refuted and proven both shallow and inconsistent.Much like the Watchtower,"orthodoxy" has it's fair share of such claims.Ex Jehovah's Witnesses are extremely susceptible to deception(again) because they want to fit in somewhere again and are used to having it all laid out for them by men,reading certain ideas INTO the bible instead of gleaning the truth from scripture.They're used to reading what they've been handed by men INTO scripture,and that practice can absolutely be repeated after leaving the Watchtower with another false system of worship and ideas.

Jehovah's Witnesses:5 integral Kingdom Questions!

Question # 1:

In Genesis 13,verses 14-17,Abraham is told to look all around him at the land that would be his inheritance,as well as his ""offspring's" inheritance.

Galatians 3:29 says:

"If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

The Watchtower would say that those who are "Christ's" are the anointed who go to heaven.So how could it be that those in Galatians 3:29 who are "Christ's",and also "Abraham's offspring",will not be heirs according to the "promise" actually given to Abraham & his offspring?That being,the "land"?Are we REALLY to believe that "Abraham's offspring",also known as ""Christ's"(or the anointed) according to Galatians 3:29 will not get the precise inheritance promised them in Genesis 13?Is there a separation here of two vastly differing promises like the WT boldly claims or is it the same promises for the anointed and the OT faithful like the scriptures explicitly claim?




Question # 2:

Hebrews 11:16 says that there is a "heavenly country" and a "city" "prepared" for the OT patriarchs,who the Watchtower claims will inherit a "new earth."

Problem is,Revelation identifies this "city" as "New Jerusalem",which the Watchtower claims is only for an anointed 144,000 and no one else.Why would something be "prepared",namely a "heavenly country" for the Old Testament faithful, if they have no hope of actually attaining it?

Matthew 8:11 says:

"Many Gentiles will come from all over the world--from east and west--and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven."

Again,the Watchtower says that "the kingdom of heaven" is reserved solely for 144,000 folks and NOT those who Matthew 8:11 says will actually be there.So question is:

On what basis did the Watchtower dogmatically determine that the "kingdom of heaven" won't be on the earth since the earth is actually promised to those who are said to be in the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God"?This naturally leads to the next question.


Question # 3:


Daniel 7:27 says :

"Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms *under* the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High."

Here we have the saints inheriting a kingdom "under heaven",do we not?Is this not the kingdom of heaven?Is it possible the heavenly kingdom will manifest on earth for the saints?Won't the "new earth",promised the OT patriarchs and NT Christians alike,be "under heaven" according to Daniel here?

Could it be that the kingdom is "prepared" in heaven(1 Pet. 1:4,5) but will be "revealed" when it "comes down"?

Revelation 21:2 enlightens:

"I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, COMING DOWN out of heaven FROM God and prepared as a bride"

So is this "city" being "prepared" "coming down" TO us..or are people going up TO it?It descends to the earth for the patriarchs and the Christians who will receive the same promises according to texts like Romans 15:8,where Christ is said to have "confirmed" the promises made to the OT patriarchs also to the Christians in the body of Christ.

Even further confirmation in Acts 13:32:

"And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers"

According to Genesis 13:14-17..what WAS that "promise which was made to the fathers" that was ALSO "glad tidings" for the *anointed* brothers and sisters in Acts?In these clear and easy texts,isn't it the promises to the "fathers" and "patriarchs" that are confirmed for the "anointed" Christians?Or is it some vastly "different" promise like the Watchtower claims?

Apparently,gifts from God are "prepared" and "reserved" in heaven,but they "come down" and manifest themselves on earth.(James 1:17)What God sources..every good gift from him,including the kingdom,"comes down" to us.Where does the bible say we have to fly up to heaven to receive our gifts that are prepared there?Doesn't the bible instead say those prepared gifts descend to earth?All believers are said to have a "heavenly calling"(Heb. 3:1) because we have a calling from God to be Christian,not because we fly away to heaven.


Question # 4:

Look out.This one's WAY explicit.

Revelation 20:9 describes an invading army that "advances over the breadth of the earth" as it "encircles the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city."(which we've already identified as New Jerusalem)Then it proceeds to say that "fire came down out of heaven and devoured them"(the army)...So question is:

If the "camp of the holy ones and the beloved city" is supposed to be in heaven as the Watchtower insists,then how in the world can it be invaded by an army that "advances over the breadth of the earth?"If "fire came down out of heaven" to devour those invading the "holy ones",wouldn't this suggest(ok.. explicitly confirm to be honest)that the "holy ones" would positively have to be on earth?Otherwise,how could an invading army advancing against them ON EARTH make any sense whatsoever?

But what about Jesus?Won't the "anointed" live with him?


Question # 5:

Acts 3:21 says about Jesus:

"He must remain in heaven *until* the time of universal restitution, which God announced long ago through the voice of his holy prophets."

Wouldn't this scripture suggest(ok..explicitly confirm to be honest) that Jesus will return to the earth since heaven only holds him *until* a certain time?Repetition for emphasis(which I learned from the Watchtower..thanks a lot!):

"He(Jesus) must remain in heaven *until* the time of universal restitution"

Notice "until" yet?

As a Jehovah's Witness,I must have observed the "passover" when I saw this text.I certainly passed over this text!Accidental,I promise.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 says that we are to "wait" for Jesus "from heaven",which seems to correlate,no?When someone comes "from" somewhere to ones who are "waiting",wouldn't that imply leaving where he currently is to go TO those ones?Especially when we consider he's only in heaven "until" the time of restitution?

Fact is,the kingdom of the heavens is NOT distinguished from "the inhabited earth to come"(Heb. 2:5) in scripture.The Watchtower may make prodigious attempts to convince you otherwise,but all these scriptures are clear enough.

God's hidden message in the genealogy of Genesis 5

Genesis chapter 5 contains the genealogy from Adam to Noah.Therein lies a code according to the Hebrew meanings of the names that is yet another poignant demonstration of the poetry and the marvelous prophetic significance of the holy inspired word of God.Yahushua the Messiah is the word of God made flesh and manifest in the last days,of course.So this hidden message in Genesis points to him as the fulfillment of the word of God as do so many other mechanisms in the OT.Yes,Yahushua is ALL through the OT.Not as an angel nor as God,but as the word of God prophesied,prefigured,foreshadowed,typified,and represented in a number of places and ways,in a number of OT figures and stories and prophecies.Even in clandestine "messages" like the one I'm about to assess.

Yes,let's examine these Hebrew names and their meanings to receive God's message.And also to determine whether this code proves that God became a man,as trinitarians like to believe.Like so many other Hebrew terms,the names of people generally have more than one meaning,so it isn't easy to dogmatically pin down only one proper way to view this code in my humble opinion due to the variety of meanings of the names therein.Most typically,this is the interpretation of the "hidden" message one will see(first we have the Hebrew name,then the meaning of it after):

Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.

So the code when translated could very well mean:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow.The blessed God shall descend teaching. His death shall bring the despairing rest,or comfort.

It should go without saying that this message was intentional and inspired,a beautiful prophecy poetic in it's "surreptitious" presentation.Let's dissect whether or not this code fits like a puzzle piece into the truth of the rest of the inspired word of God.(of course it does!lol)Examine:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

This text of course correlates with "Man was appointed mortal sorrow" which was gathered from the names Adam,Seth,Enosh,and Kenan in the Genesis 5 geneaology.Romans 5 goes on to say that "many died through one man's trespass" ,"one trespass led to condemnation for all men",and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"(verses 15,18,and 19),all points which also corroborate the authenticity of this "code" being a significant prophetic message.Men went from being immortal and sinless,as God intended,to mortal and pitifully in bondage to sin as the consequence of one man's sin.Loss of life and the ability to please God perfectly because of our tainted flesh naturally leads to sorrow and pain.(Romans 7:14-25)

Thankfully,that isn't the end of either the code's message nor the message in Romans.That's only the bad news which people often like to hear before the GOOD NEWS!Further,the code says in the names of Mahalalel and Jared(I'll get into another possible interpretation a little later) that "the blessed God shall come down."

Trinitarians and others who believe Yahushua was the God of Deuteronomy 6:4(inexplicably considering the predominant biblical admonitions against such a view) will of course proudly wear their "See!!God came to earth as a baby/man to die for me!" glasses while conveniently ignoring the Hebrew semantic range of "elohim" in biblical times.In fact,they have to ignore a LOT of things to continue dogmatically asserting most of what they do.Let's examine the lexical possibilities for "elohim" and "theos"("God" in Hebrew and Greek) before we assert that "God" can only mean "Yahuwah's first,second,or third person OR Yahuwah's triune being." In fact,where does "God" EVER mean such concepts unless you choose to define it by use of a misguided theological presupposition or an abuse of inference.

The "Dictionary of biblical language with Semantic Domains" says that in the Hebrew OT ,the word God (אֱלֹהִים (ʾělō∙hîm)can also mean a "mighty one, i.e., a person who is strong and capable, and so a leader or prominent one" and also "majestic one, i.e., a person of high social status"..even "mighty, majestic things, i.e., things of nature that are awesome and large, majestic, and so awe-inspiring."Biblically speaking,the semantic range of "Elohim" is larger than the box in which trinitarians and the like would desire to force it.Larry Hurtado notes in "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus":

"Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term up to the end of the first century A.D.,there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics.”

Yes,in the scriptures,judges,kings,angels,and God's representatives are sometimes so termed "elohim."(John 10:35; Ps. 82:1,6,97:9,Ex. 4:16,7:1)Couple more significant quotes,accurate in my opinion because of their scriptural & historical support.:

As for the way "god" aka "el" or "elohim" or "theos" is used in scripture.. "The root from which the Hebrew "el" is derived indicates "strength or might" We should not be aghast to see it used of men in the OT.There is an element of strength and might associated with human authority."~Ron Frye,from "The father/son relationship"

"As we have seen "theos" may refer to the One True God but it may also be used of other individuals.It refers to other figures,human or heavenly,only when they are understood to exercise some office or function on God's behalf and when ASSIGNED that function or office BY GOD."~Marianne Thompson(the God of the gospel of John p.47)

So IF we choose to interpret "Mahalalel" as "blessed God"(this isn't the only possibility)then this presents no real problem to monotheism and unitarianism unless those who believe Yahushua is part of a triune "homoousios"(substance) aren't able to face the Hebrew semantic range of "el" or "elohim."This ultimately may all be beside the point because it could very well be that the name "Mahalalel"more accurately means "The Praise OF God" or "The Blessed OF God."(as opposed to the blessed God)This also fits with scripture.(Matt. 9:8,Jn. 12:28,Matt. 3:17)There should be no dogmatic stance insistent upon either interpretation because they're equally valid.

Since the name "Jared" can mean "shall come down",let's determine where this particular phrase is corroborated in the holy inspired word,in relation to the descent of Christ of course.James 1:17 demonstrates the view of the Hebrew bible authors when it states rather plainly that :

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

There is quite literally no greater gift to mankind than Yahushua from God.Yahushua was "from above" like any other gift from God.Christ said,however,in the gospel of John,that his "flesh" came down.This would present a real problem for trinitarians considering they think it was a spirit that "came down."Yes,they think it was God who had NO flesh who "came down" to RECEIVE flesh...Something Yahushua in John's gospel refutes.

John 6:51:I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John's gospel also says that the Son of MAN descended.(John 3:13)Why wouldn't this present a real problem for trinitarians who maintain that God descended into a womb to BECOME a man?According to John's gospel,again,it was a flesh man who came down.A man with flesh from heaven.Obviously,Christ and John incorporate figurative language because EVERY good gift comes down from heaven.So does the kingdom!
God's "word" is his every prophecy,one of which is communicated in the Genesis 5 genealogy,spectacularly enough.And who was the father's word manifest in and through?Well,the Last Adam,of course.So God's word of life(Messiah's flesh for the immortality of mankind) "came down" as God's greatest gift to mankind.It might be figurative but it's the way the Hebrews thought and wrote about any gift that came from heaven with God as it's source.I don't think that Hebrew concept would change in their hidden messages from God,which are simply going to affirm the scriptures and not stray from them.

It is certainly noteworthy that "Jared"(which we've so far interpreted to mean "come down") can also mean "going away from a place of prominence" or "one who is humbled".. If this perchance instead be the case in this hidden message,then that TOO would equally befit scriptural truth.In Philippians chapter 2:6-8 and 2 Corinthians 8:9,a rich man became poor for our sake by humbling himself all the way to death on a cross!This would most definitely correlate with the other possible meaning of "Jared" where a "humbling" could be in view instead of a "descent."This particular interpretation may even fit even better with what comes directly afterward in the message.(namely,Christ's death since it was a "humbling" at the cross,as opposed to an "incarnation" in a womb that led to his death)We further have the name "Enoch" which can mean "teaching" or "dedicated."(among other things)Christ was both a great teacher and dedicated to his mission as destined savior of the world.

Finally,we have the names Methuselah,Lamech,and Noah which ultimately probably mean(when interpreted together) "His death shall bring the despairing rest,or comfort."This brings us full circle back to Romans chapter 5 where we at last get to indulge in the GOOD news!Paul in Romans delves into Messiah's "death" that would bring us "comfort."We already covered earlier the "bad news" portions about how the first Adam's sin lead to death for all men.Now let's wrap our heads around the entire passages as a whole to glory in the promises,love and salvation of God in Christ our Lord!:

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now ithe law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I LOVE how this hidden message in Genesis demonstrates that Yah knew the end from the beginning.(Is. 46:9,10)How it proves that his "word of life" was in and with him in the beginning as the prophesied Messianic savior that eventually would manifest to give immortality and hope to a mortal and wounded world.(1 John 1:1,2,Titus 1:2,Galatians 4:4)This was the most important and significant message of all..the word of God made flesh in a savior whose humbling and death would bring salvation and life to those who exercise faith.:)