"MarYah deception" ???

[Broad-ley]

"So, please tell me, is Yahshuah in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Yahshuah?
Let's ask the Bible...
Colossians 2:9 "For in him is embodied all the fulness of the Godhead."
So, if the fulness of the Godhead is the trinity, then read:
"For in him is embodied all the trinity."
No way to get around this."



To get a better view of this read slowly the beginning of Revelation and you will be given a clarification. This area was dealt with by Isaac Newton, he had written at one point about this. Look it up as my information on Isaac is not credible by investigation. It was a radio report. But, Revelation's Word demonstrates the oneness of our Elohim bodily according to Colossians 2:9 "For in him is embodied all the fullness of the Godhead.

Plus, it was opened to me as I read there when I was coming to an understanding of the Trinity theology I had been given as Truth. He is one in Spirit and bodily. He is The Spirit and the Tabernacle (body) which is represented by "The Temple" earthly and The Temple without hands which is heavenly Jerushalayim. The Body with Him as Head is New Jerushalayim. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

i think it is always important to hear the "other side", but Aaron told me that MRYA is often times used in the OT quotes, which, to me, makes it far more likely that it is a direct replacement for YHWH. Why would one look for more euphemisms that can be confused with other words? it seems likely they were looking for an expression to unmistakenly represent YHWH.



About the author's introduction:

This theory is a slight-of-hand trick, an illusion, used to support the erroneous doctrine that Yeshua and YHWH are one and the same being or person.

i apologize for being a little OT here, but we are talking about this article, and i would like to respond:
If YHWH is not Yahshuah, how are we to understand this:
John 1:1 "THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and [b]God was that Word."
Now, if, for example, we assume the trinity to be God, then it should read:
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the trinity, and the trinity was that Word."
Or, maybe in this case God is only the Father?
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the Father, and the Father was that Word."
You pick and choose, i see no way possible to claim that the Word is not fully and completely all God.


And, why do people always ignore Hebrews?
Hebrews 1:3 "For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his being, [...]"
i think many prefer this:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the trinity, [...]"
or:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the Father, [...]"
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of one third of his being, [...]"
See where i am getting? Makes no sense, right? Unless, of course, you accept Yahshuah is YHWH, as he proclaimed in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

i believe these verses to be directly written to people believing in multiple personalitles in the Godhead. Try< to swallow it all. It could not be any more plain. i like this illustration:
Always look for the opposing sides of the wheel to get to know why Yahshuah is YHWH.
http://www.acts238.50megs.com/whats_new.html


i am not claiming to be smarter than all of you theologians, but i don't think that the truth can oppose very simple and basic logic, and in that sense, who can tell me that it is wrong to say that Yashuah is the highest revelation of the fulness of YHWH a human can percieve?