The TRUE Messiah — Who IS He?: Modern Opposition

6.1     Modern Day Opposition

Nevertheless even among the RULERS many believed in Him,
but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him,
LEST THEY BE PUT OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE;
for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of Elohim
.” John 12:42-43

6.2     EYES AND HEARTS BLINDED, TODAY

There is nothing new under the sun, said Solomon. That is as true today as at any time in the history of mankind.

Today there is opposition to the use of the Messiah’s true Name, just as there was in the time of Acts. Yet those who oppose using the Name are blinded to their own arguments. Perhaps we should insert this chapter here and discuss some points that will surely arise elsewhere.

A few years ago, one of the major “church” leaders, now deceased, said this about the use of the Name of the Father. “The people won’t go for it.” That was his reason for not teaching the truth. Many of his followers still use that same reasoning today.

However, he did, for years, teach that it was better not to use the term “Lord” but use “the Eternal” instead. Now even his followers have dropped that and feel it is okay to use “Lord” once again. Be that as it may, we must consider some of the opposing points.

Just as its mentioned in John 12, verses 39-40, the religious leaders today can’t or won’t heed the truth. “Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, That they should not see with their eyes, Nor understand with their heart, And turn again, and I should heal them.’”

6.3     FIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE NAME

There are, generally, five arguments used by those who refuse to accept the truth of the Name of Yahshua. Basically they are:

1) The works of those teaching the “Sacred” Names are not very scholarly.

2) The idea of Sacred Names is based on the “assumption” the New Testament was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

3) The Sacred Name user then, does not “believe” in the Greek New Testament.

4) “Jesus” is the anglicized version of the Greek “Iesous” which is the translation of the Hebrew “Yahshua” or “Yeshua.”

5) The use of Sacred Names is nothing more than playing with “magic” by those who teach the Names. They believe in the Names more than the individuals who carry those Names.

I am sure many of you have heard these and other arguments. Upon close examination, however, these are no arguments at all. At best they are just EXCUSES for refusing to obey the Father and Son in this matter. No one wants to appear to be a “kook.” So let’s take these arguments one by one and see if they are valid or not.

6.4     NO SCHOLARLY RESEARCH DONE?

We have a copy of a paper here that was written to “disprove” the Names teaching. It is entitled, “The Sacred Name, Is It Sacred or
Mystical?

This paper is probably one of the most complete papers written on this subject. Since it is one of the most thorough we’ve seen, it seems reasonable to answer some of the arguments given within its contents.

First, then, what do they say about “scholarship” on this matter?

There is neither scholarly nor historical support for the Sacred Names assertion that names such as God, Lord., Christ, and Jesus are pagan in origin.” p. 61

Although these names are not the subject of this book, except the name “Jesus,” think of this one thought. It is not the use of the above names and titles that the Sacred Name Movement is against. It is the use of those names and titles in reference to the True Mighty Ones of Israel.

There is nothing wrong with calling a false deity “god,” or “lord,” for that is what they are.

The very fact that these words are not Hebrew words makes them “pagan” without any etymological argument. They come from languages not of Israel, so the Bible would label them pagan.

The major point here is, check the bibliography at the end of this book. You will find dozens of sources listed that ARE scholarly reference works proving the premise of this book. Other than their own statements, the authors of that paper against the Names profess only ONE real “scholar” – R. Laird Harris. Is that because he is the only one “worthy” of upholding their viewpoint? Is it tenable that they would reject earlier publications by their parent organization which wrote a full-length article proving we should not use “Lord” in our worship? That was part of their “original” truth. Which is correct today?

6.5     ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT IN HEBREW?

Next, they say the New Testament was written first in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, as the Sacred Namers claim.

It should be called to the reader’s attention that most scholars who support the idea that there is evidence of Aramaic influence behind the New Testament Scriptures limit this influence to a few books only. Names advocates carry this to the extreme by teaching that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic. But no Aramaic copies of any New Testament book exist and if, for example, Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, there is every reason to feel that Matthew was responsible for the Greek translation. Bruce tells us that up to about the sixties of the first century there does not appear to have been any need for written gospels.” p. 22

To answer this question, read the preceding chapters. The explanation of how the beginning New Testament books were written in Hebrew is clearly given. If this is not true, then Paul is not correct when he says that to the Jews were given the Oracles of YHWH. So, what were the writers of the “New Testament”? Were they not writing the further ORACLES of the Father? And if that is not true, then the New Testament cannot be true, since that would be an obvious contradiction. Think about it.

The preceding chapters also explain why there are no original copies of the New Testament in Hebrew or Aramaic. They were destroyed and burned with the Temple.

I personally do not know of any believers using the correct Names who would deny the authority of the New Testament.

Just as the opposition argues, “But the burden of proof is on the Sacred Names advocates to produce original copies of any Aramaic New Testament book.” p. 23 Thus, I ask the opposition to produce just ONE ORIGINAL copy of ANY Greek manuscript. That can’t be done either. But we have a REAL reason why we can’t produce an original of the New Testament in Hebrew. They were destroyed. Of this, there can be no doubt. If you have proof otherwise, please send it in.

Even ONE mention or hint that they were originally written in Hebrew OR Aramaic knocks the opposition arguments in the head. Guess what? From their own paper, “It should be called to the reader’s attention that most scholars who support the idea that there is evidence of Aramaic influence behind the New Testament Scriptures limit this influence to a few books only.” It would only take ONE book to be written first in other than Greek to uphold the truth of the Names, and here they admit to “a FEW”. Interesting.

Further, “It was Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, during the early second century, who said that ‘Matthew compiled the oracles … in the Hebrew speech, and everyone translated them as best he could.’” p. 21 Remember, just one book!

6.6     TRANSLATE OR TRANSLITERATE?

Great lengths are taken by most to avoid using incorrect names, even in referring to their fellow human beings.

Isn’t it interesting that those in authority place such emphasis on their underlings calling them by the CORRECT name and title? For example, I can remember many incidents in college that point this out.

One prominent minister was constantly miffed because more  prominence was given to his father’s name than his own. I am going to use fake names here, but the incidents are real. Everybody called this minister “Mr. Smith.” They also called his father “Mr. Smith.” This did not sit well. The former wanted to be called “Mr. John T. Smith” And not “John Smith” either. “MR. John T. Smith!”

We would have been on the coals for days had we called him “J.S.!”

Students could call each other by first names or nicknames but they could never address the ministry or instructors this way. They were to be addressed as “MR. Jones” or “MR. Johnson.” Now, I ask you, if correct names and titles are not important, why go to this trouble with human beings, much less the Creator of the universe and His Son? Does this make good sense to you? Humans get the adulation but not the Father and His Son? In no way can that make any sense. You know it, and I know it.

Read this: “What God owns He openly possesses by placing His name upon it…” p. 42 says this paper criticizing the use of the correct Name of the Father.

Let’s put ourselves in that place and stead. We own a car. In order to own that car we have to register it in OUR NAME, and get a driver’s license in OUR NAME. I don’t know about you, but when I, as a young teenager, got my driver’s license at that time, they would not accept my friend’s name for mine. Nor, any other but my own! Did they on yours?

Additionally, they would not accept just part of my name. For instance, I do not like my middle name, so I tried to write Robert J. Petry. That wasn’t good enough. They wanted my full and CORRECT name. So you will find my complete name spelled out on my pilot’s license, etc.

Is the Father or His Son any less important than we are? Would they accept any old thing to be called? Like “hey you, answer this prayer.” Or “hey big G., I want an answer.” If you believe in using “Jesus Christ,” do you think He would accept this? “Yo, J.C., I got this problem you should fix.” Of course you KNOW this is not the right way to address the Father or Son, don’t you?

What makes you think They answer to any old thing YOU want to call them? Do you answer to any old thing someone else wants to call you? I doubt it. In our courts, we go according to the motto “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Well, the proof is in that we do know their correct Names!

Besides, even in their denial, the authors admit that “Jesus” stands for “Jeshua,” “Yahshua,” etc. Since He was a Jewish Messiah and went by a Jewish Name, it is obvious we should use the Name He went by. Furthermore there is no reason whatsoever now that we cannot “translate” and “transliterate” Yahshua’s Name today. Except if one is self-centered and has a stubborn defiance to doing that.

Here is how they attempt to get around to doing so. “Iesous is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yeshua.” p. 49 Since they admit that much, why not use what they know to be true? Does it make sense to use a Greek word, when even in English we could easily and correctly and more properly say “Yeshua” or “Yahshua.” Admittedly, that would be just as correct a modern day transliteration as any, wouldn’t it?

Isn’t it interesting that the people who want to be different from all the other poor, misled “Christians” still want to be classified by the same name? i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah Witness, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Church of God, etc. etc. Why is this, since they say they seek the truth and are so different in other ways? Or are they so different? The truth is, EVERY NAME AND TITLE is important to them except the Ones whose Names are really important! Well, those Names are to be ignored by them and not used. It’s called the “unconverted carnal mind” in action. Ignore the Father and Son, but make sure MR. John T. Smith is labeled by the right name or else.

6.7     IS USING SACRED NAMES MAGIC?

Is it a matter of “magic” to speak and use the “Sacred Names?”

As you know, there are many pagan practices that are taught by the Christian world. Yet the Christian refuses to say that Christian practices came along last. If so, they would be practicing copies of paganized rituals. So Christians say that the world copied the truth from the Bible and then polluted and paganized the practices.

However when it comes to the so-called “Sacred Names,” their argument reverses. The Sacred Name believer is following and copying practices of “magic” of the world. Talk about calling the pot black. What if, just as they argue, the world copied and began to use the Names in a wrong, “magical” way?

Did you know the Messiah was accused of practicing magic by using the Father’s Name? If they accused Him of witchcraft, they would not have to follow Him. Yet, what if He healed people because He was the Messiah? And what if, being the Messiah, He believed in giving due honor to His Father by using the Father’s Name with respect and awe? Would that have anything to do with magic? Of course not!

If the Messiah were alive today as a human, here is what the opposition to using the Names would say about Him. (This includes the Jews who didn’t want to believe what He said. They believed He was a magician, in the same way the opposition today accuses believers who use the correct Names. The Jews were not correct in their false accusations, and neither is the opposition correct today in their false accusations.)

“[Yahshua] was believed to have learned the arts of magic or witchcraft in Egypt.” “4.) Later Jewish legends … [say] He is supposed to have cut in the letters of the holy name, by means of which he performed his miracles, on his thigh.” Jesus in the Talmud, p. 54.

So, what’s new today?

The truth of the matter is others took the Names and tried to do magic with them, like Simon Magus who wanted to “buy” the Father’s Spirit to perform miracles. He did not want to repent, in order to freely receive it. And what about the people who healed in Yahshua’s Name? When the Disciples came to Him about it, Yahshua said in essence to just leave them alone.

Because others have misused the Names does not mean true believers are practicing “magic” when they use the Names with honor and respect in their worship. Can you say otherwise? If you truly believed in the Father and Son, wouldn’t you do the same?

Finally, let me make you this offer.

During the last ten years, I have been doing the majority of my research at the University of Arizona library. It is rated as 17th in the nation at the moment. Be that as it may, here is the point.

There is way too much material for me to put in this book. Just quoting the material would make a book hundreds of pages thick. So I am writing this book as condensed as possible. Since that is so, here is an offer for you.

If you think there is no voluminous scholarly resources covering this, then come to Tucson. Let me know you are coming and I will meet you at the library on campus and give you a personal tour. You will go through three floors of hundreds, if not thousands of volumes. Within those volumes are some of the most amazing material you will ever see.

Once you do this and do it honestly – read through all the volumes I have during the past ten years – if you can disprove the information in this book, I will gladly retract the entire book and write your version.

You cannot disprove this material on your opinion alone. You also cannot disprove this material on preferences or emotion. As Sergeant Friday would say, “Just the facts ma’am, just the facts.” That’s fair, isn’t it?

Author: Bob Petry

Student of the Bible since 1953. And am still learning.

Leave a Reply