IN DEFENSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT-- Ian Edwards Diamond

Being an examination of the contrast between the New Testament And the Sacred Name Doctrine. Beloved Brethren, I write this out of concern for your soul. It may seem strange for me to start off with that statement but I hope that you will soon see why I say it. I do not want this to bring division to the remnant of faithful Christians. At this point in time it is so critical that we come together, not separate from one another. If we can not stand together we will most assuredly fall separately. However there are some things that are essential to the faith that we hold. The New Testament is on of those essentials. In 1880, when German higher criticism was taking root in England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Joseph Parker stood firmly against those questioning the authorship of the Bible. Spurgeon said regarding this matter, Defend the Bible? I would just as soon defend a lion!!! My sentiments echo his completely. I strongly believe that if you read the New Testament for what it says you can easily ascertain the truth. Before I get to far into the discussion, I'd like to say that I view the Old and New Testament as being one book together not separate! They flow together in perfection as one divine river of truth. Each dependent upon the other. The only uninspired page in the Bible is the one separating Malachi from Matthew. I rather prefer not to distinguish the one from the other. But because the charges discussed hear after are only leveled against the part of Scripture known as the New Testament, I have found it impossible to not make the distinction. At times it may seem that I'm even contrasting the one to the other to set them at odds with each other. However this is not my intent. The idea has been put forth that both are inspired yet only one of the two Testaments have been preserved in it's original form (the older). I am not the one who started the argument. But to finish it please grant me this liberty for the arguments sake. In the end I hope to reestablish both to there rightful place in harmony as the God breathed inspired and therefore preserved words of Scripture! Two men have stood out in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism. I understand the personal nature of our discussion very well. Many tears have been shed in my life because of it. To stand were I stand now has not been the easy road to take. We so often grow an emotional attachment to what we believe. And it becomes so painful to separate our feelings from facts when examining what we hold to as true. I can scarcely think of two more personal subjects to a believer than whether the accounts given to us by the disciples and apostles about our Savior's deeds and teachings while on this earth were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefor preserved by his Saints, and what names we should use to petition and call upon our father in heaven and his beloved Son. Yet some how these two things have managed to get caught up in the same controversy and seem diametrically opposed to each other. As we look into this subject, please try to divorce yourself from your feelings and examine the facts of Scripture and history. They line up quite well, in

fact. The Sacred Name Movement (hereafter abbreviated SN or SNM) started about 1930. The primary founder was a man named Clarence O. Dodd. After being rejected from his position in the Church of God Seventh day. He with others such as Angelo B. Traina, John Briggs started the SNM. This arose about the same time, as and is very closely aligned with another movement called the Hebrew Roots movement. The primary tenet of the SNM is that there are Sacred Names for the Creator of the universe and his Son, that we must use. These names are generally accepted as Yahweh and Yahshua (though a plethora of other pronunciation are used among various groups). These are thought to be the correct original Hebrew pronunciations of these names. What implications this has on us as individuals is some what disagreed upon among SN teachers. Many SN leaders teach that you can not have Salvation if you don't use these names! The thought seems to be that to not use the names is breaking of the third commandment. Because to not use them is willful breaking of the third commandment this is sin. Others teach that you will just attain to a higher spiritual states for the use of these names. But that if you are showed the names and reject them your salvation is forfeit (This is were I theoretically fit in). All SN Believers seem to unanimously agree that names and titles such as Jesus, God and Lord are not to be used when referring to The Father and the Son. The following is a brief explanation of the primary arguments used to support their belief. The following verses are most commonly used to teach that our Father has only one personal name that we must use to call upon him. "I am Yahweh: that is My Name, and My glory will I not give to another neither My praise to graven images," (Isaiah 42:8). "Oh Yahweh, Thy Name abideth for ages; Oh Yahweh, Thy memorial is to generation after generation," (Psalm 135:13). "If Yahweh be Elohim, follow Him; And if Baal then follow Him," (1 Kings 18:21; Hebrew Baal=Lord, a Phoenician deity). "How long shall it be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, which think to cause My people to forget My Name as their fathers have forgotten My Name for Baal," (Jeremiah 23:26-27). "I will take the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by their name," (Hosea 2:17: Hebrew plural of Baal, i.e., Lords). "I will declare thy Name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise unto Thee," (Hebrews 2:12 and Psalm 22:22). "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the Name of Yahweh shall be saved," (Acts 2:21 and Joel 2:32). "And they that know Thy Name will put their trust in Thee," (Psalm 9:10). "Thus saith Yahweh, the maker thereof, Yahweh that formed it, to establish it, Yahweh is His Name; Call unto Me and I will answer thee and show thee great and hidden things which thou knowest not," (Jeremiah 33:3). "I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world," (John 17:6). "And I have declared unto them Thy Name and will declare it," (John 17:26). "Hallowed be Thy Name," (Matthew 6:9). The Sacred Name of the Messiah, Yahshua, is the only Name by which He was known to His disciples, though He has several titles such as Rabbi, Son of Man, Savior, Anointed and King of Kings. "What is His Name and what is His Son's Name, if thou canst tell?" (Proverbs 30:4). His Name is composed of two parts: Yah-Hoshua (Savior). Thus, the contraction Yahshua

signifies Yahweh-Savior and strikingly bears out the logic of Matthew 1:21: "And she shall bring forth a Son and thou shalt call His Name YAHSHUA, for He shall save His people from their sins." "I am come in My Father's Name and ye receive Me not--," (John 5:43). "Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the Name of Yahweh," (John 12:13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye ask anything in My Name I will do it," (John 14:13-14). "--for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," (Acts 4:12). "And I looked and Lo, a Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with Him an hundred and forty and four thousand having His Name and His Father's Name written in their foreheads," (Revelation 14:1, Revised Version). They seem to view Hebrew as the Divine language of heaven. Therefor all things Hebrew are good and all things Greek Latin etc. are bad. 3 Because the Tetragramaton is used 6823 times in the Old Testament. It must also be in the New Testament. And must use it today. ( The word Tetragramaton comes from Greek meaning four lettered word. Used to refer to the four Hebrew letters comprising the name HWHY.) 3 Corrupted Greek New Testament. This is so important for their belief to stand, because there is not one occurrence of the Divine name in or any direct teaching about it's use in the New Testament as it stands. In the words of Garry Mink the New Testament is the nemesis to the SN doctrine.They say that Imaginary Evil Scribes (A term I have coined, referring to the evil scribes and copyists, here after rendered IESs) theoretically removed the Tetragramaton and other things from the New Testament. We will see why I say imaginary later. In theory the IESs were able to completely remove the tetragramaton, the Hebrew spelling of our Savior's name, and any arguments and teachings directly relating to the use of the divine name from the books of the NT. Many in the SNM have posited the idea that the entire New Testament was first written in Hebrew and that the corruption took place at the time that it was translated into Greek. "Scholarship has proved that the New Testament was not written

first in the Greek language" - Exploding the Inspired Greek New Testament Myth, Jacob O Meyer The above statement reminds me of one by Frederick Nietzsche . God is dead we killed him with science. Science hasn't killed God nor has scholarship killed theInspired Greek New Testament! This last argument is what has really caused me to do this study. It has struck a chord with me that sounds very out of key to the rest of Scripture. There are countless promises and prophecies regarding the preservation of his word. Assuming this is true, That the entire New Testament has been altered in that the Divine names have been removed. I'd like to ask you a question. If all New Testament books were under the knife and pen of the IESs at some point, what guarantee do we have that they did not add and subtract other things than just the names of the Father and the Son??? How do you know that you can believe anything pertaining to doctrine written therein? So what implication does that have on the validity of the New Testament? How does that affect your personal faith? These very questions have led many in the SNM to regard the NT as only a book of historical record. Sadly, it has caused some to abandon it

altogether. Yet most only view these changes as pertaining to the names of God. They apparently think that The Father of the universe can preserve everything but his name. Being raised to believe very strongly in the inspiration and preservation of the Scripture, when first confronted with this belief, I looked in my English Bible and read some of his promises about his word. Here Are a few. (In many of the below verses the term forever is used. As we will see later the underlining Hebrew and Greek words would be better translated as to the age or ages. However the time period of this age is often equated with all generations and the existence of heaven and earth.)

Psalms12:6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms119: 89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (See Deut 30:11-14) 111Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. 152Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. 160Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Isiah55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Matthew 5 :17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matt 24:35; Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 2 John 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.I realized that in order to believe the Sacred Name Doctrine, I had to believe that some of Our Savior's words have passed away. There is no way around that. If he said something that the Holy Spirit inspired to be written down and it no longer exists then his words have passed away! If He frequently spoke the name Yahweh and we have no recored of it, then again, his words have passed away! If he taught his disciples and preached sermon after sermon about the importance of the use of the Divine name and all these are gone, then again I must say that his words have passed away! No other conclusion can be made. So we have to examine this belief with careful scrutiny. For more, please see Appendix B An interesting study is the definition of the Greek word logos,used in the above passage for words. It is Strong's word # G3056 ? log'-osFrom G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Being that the use of the Divine Name is purported to be a cornerstone doctrine of our Savior, not only has every instance that he spoke the Divine name passed away, but so also his teaching, reasoning, motive, communication, thought, preaching, intent and doctrine regarding the use of the name disappeared off the face of the earth. For from the time that the Church theoretically apostatized and stopped using the proper names until it was restored by the founders of the SN movement in the 1930s there is not one historical reference to there use. This again strikes an off cord with me because not only did the everlasting Father prophecy of preserving his Word but also his Church.

Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.( Butpraise our Father it's not possible).

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 1 Peter: 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Eph 2:20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 1John 4:4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Our Father has always reserved unto himself a faithful remnant, that has held true to his core doctrines. At some points in history this was a small group of people yet at other times the Remnant has been the majority. Yet from the time of the theoretical apostasy by the Church till the advent of the SNM no one has used these names of God. Which is to say that he hasn't had a remnant people.

Let's briefly overview the evidence and facts. The tetragramaton appears 6823 times in the Old Testament. SN leaders feel like this necessitates it's use in the New testament. There are however 5,686 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek. When we add to this, the ancient Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic and Latin translations of manuscripts, we have over 24,000 extant manuscripts giving witness to the New Testament text. Nowhere does the tetragramaton ever appear in any of these manuscripts. We also have contained in 9 volumes, the works of the Apostolic and early Church Fathers from 100 to 325 AD. And in them there is no direct preaching or teaching about, or use of, the Divine Name at all. Nor is there a single word written about some vast conspiracy to remove, erase, or blot out the names, and the use thereof. Even though many of these men wrote against heresies, false doctrines, and the changing of the Scriptures. Let's look at two passages in Psalms. Please compare Ps. 14 to Ps. 53. These psalms are virtually identical except the tetragramaton appears four times in Ps. 14 and in the same place the Hebrew word for God (elohim) appears four times in Ps. 53. This is the work of the Holy Spirit divinely inspiring David to call upon The Father one way the first time and another the second time. This is not the work of some scribe or copyist! But of God himself. One of the biggest arguments used by SN leaders is that since the New Testament Quotes the Old, wherever the tetragramaton occurs in the Old it must therefore also occurs in the New. However these two Psalms represent the second most extant internal quote in the Old Testament of it's self. Yet in this very quote we have clear testimony that by the hand and breath of God occurrences of the divine name were changed to a generic word meaning Mighty One or God. So let us at least consider that this maybe just might have been the case in the New Testament as well. Not outside the realm of possibility at least is it? The thought has been put forth by SN Leaders that since all people have names and all the other gods have names our Father needs a name as well. But is it our place to decide that God needs a name? It may seem very logical to us that he should have a name but often times what our Father does is foolishness to us.

1 Corinthians1:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;And also it is our way to name everyone and everything. But our ways are not the same as the Father's. We have his word it is through reading, studying, prayer and most importantly faith and believing that we learn of him and his ways.

Isaiah55:7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Also consider this about 190 times in the four Gospels the God of heaven is referred to as Father. Read John's Gospel, it is through out the text. Yet very few times is he ever called Father in the entire Old Testament. Virtually all of these instances occur in Messianic prophecies and prophecies about

Israel in dispersion. Also God the Son is called by a distinct personal name close to a thousand times in the New testament. Yet again this name is never used in direct reference to the Son in the entire Old Testament (except maybe in Bible codes). Our Savior clearly taught us to think and refer to God as our Father but there are very few references to such usages in the Hebrew OT. The disciples taught us that there is Salvation in no other name than that of the Son of God. But that name isn't in the Hebrew Old Testament. So looking at what SN leaders have done. I could just as easily launch a campaign that scribes and copyists have defaced the Old Testament by removing the references that must have been there to God as our Father and blotting out the name of his Son. That of course would be ludicrous. There is absolutely no manuscript or historical evidence to support such a claim! Just as there is no manuscript or historical evidence to backup SN Leaders claims regarding the New Testament! So with that in mind I must ask you a question. How much evidence do you need before you just believe the New Testament taking it for what it says? On a personal level what key factor is the deciding point for you? What will it take to set aside your personal theology that dictates that our Savior and His disciples had to have spoken the name HWHY and that the Tetragramaton must have, should have, could have, probably did, and absolutely had to have been written in the originals of the New Testament books? What will it take to believe that the Creator of the universe is sovereign and can do what ever He wants. Including the possibility that maybe it was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Disciples and Apostles wrote down words like Kurios, and Theos in their gospels and epistles, even though that doesn't fit with our personal dogma. So how much evidence do you need? What if an autographed copy of the gospels was uncovered? What if a copy old enough to be a first or second generation of the original is found? Is a third or fourth generation copy not good enough? What if there was an eye witness account from history of some one seeing an autograph? And yet they said nothing about the tetragramaton's appearance. At what point would you accept that the tetragramaton just wasn't written in the New Testament? Where do you personally draw the line? Do you only believe in the wickedness of man or do you have faith in the faithfulness of the Father? Let's say I have a little box, and it represents what I believe God can and can't do. If I find that He has done something that doesn't fit in my little box, I am obliged to get a bigger box. In truth I don't think we can contain the Father of the universe in a box. With that introduction let us examine some points of relevance to our discussion. ***************************

Point#1 FruitOur Savior said that you shall know a tree by its fruits, so in our examination of the SNM it would be a good start to examine what fruit it has brought forth. 1 2 The movement has brought forth good fruit in teaching people to keep Biblical Feasts and Sabbath Days. This is something that I strongly advocate myself, and am very happy to keep feasts with my brethren in the SNM. I have, however, seen it cause a lot of division. Even among themselves they can not agree on how to pronounce the names of the Father and the Son. The following are YHVH YHWH

Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Yahowah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Jahuwah Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu Yahoo Yaohu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe Yauhu Yawhu Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh

Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yawhushua,Yahawshua, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jahshuwah, Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua, Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah, Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAHOthers refuse to even talk to and fellowship with people that use the words Jesus, God and Lord. 2 Because SN teachers put such an emphasis on the use of the name, many believe that there is only Salvation for those who use the name. Is there salvation to be found in a group that doesn't use the true Name of the Messiah? The obvious answer is NO. What must we do to be saved? The answer is obey what the Bible teaches! Believe on the Name of Yahshua the Messiah, and be baptized in that Name.13 Meyer, "What Must We Do To Be Saved? Part 6," Sacred Name Broadcaster (March 1990), pp. 9-10. 3 Linguistic Superstition also known as cult and witchcraft. Spell -noun 1. a word, phrase, or form of words supposed to have magic power; charm; incantation: The wizard cast a spell. 1 charm noun 1

5. something worn or carried on one's person for its supposed magical effect; amulet. 6. any action supposed to have magical power. 7. the chanting or recitation of a magic verse or formula. 8. a verse or formula credited with magical power. incantation noun 1. the chanting or uttering of words purporting to have magical power. 2. the formula employed; a spell or charm. 3. magical ceremonies. 4. magic; sorcery. 1 It has fostered a disregard and uncertainty about the New Testament. Here are some quotes from different SN Leaders regarding their beliefs about the New Testament.Therefore,

until such time as the original [New Testament] documents are unearthed we must base all doctrine on the Old Testament. the New Testament is fraught with contradictions, additions and subtractions[xvi] The complete statement in a personal letter from sacred name missionary to India, Tony Suckla: If you

are basing the foundation of your faith on the Greek New Testament, I will have to say that is a very flimsy foundation.Because of a questioning of New Testament works, an interesting concomitant of their desire to keep the law, is that because at first glance many of Paul's epistles can appear to fly in the face of the importance of the law, many SN leaders either completely reject Paul's writings or hold them as only a historical reference. One of the early leaders of the movement, A. B. Traina rejected all of Paul's writings. Since our English version of the Bible and the underlying Greek manuscripts are so corrupt, SN leaders have just made there own Bibles. Because they view the Bible as altered and corrupt, they then feel that they have the ability to restore it. Where Did they get that right? Without any manuscript evidence they proceed to write in whatever pronunciation of the names that they want. Not knowing where the Tetragramaton originally might have occurred they put it wherever it soots their purpose. Some restrain this to only Old Testament quotes within the New Testament. While others put it anywhere replacing virtually all occurrences of the word God in the New Testament with Yahweh. And since we don't know where else the IESs changed the text a few have gone so far as to alter verses that don't jive with some of there other personal doctrines. This practice is strictly forbidden in Scripture. I don't care how you think it was in the original to add to our Fathers word is strictly forbidden. 2

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Rev:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.The fact is that they view scripture as no longer sacred. This gives them license to change it however they want. Well sorry but two wrongs don't make a right. Especially since it is not proven that there was a first wrong! 1 Now let's put ourselves in the shoes of a SNM believer. You believe that the New Testament is a flimsy foundation; you've rejected the writings of Paul, as you continue down this path, can you see how you would start to question if there is any truth in the New Testament? Perhaps at this point in time, the deceiver puts books in your hand about how Christianity is all just a big Catholic conspiracy. Or a Passover Plot. Or in your studies defending SN theology, you read further into some of their sources. You might see the rest of Shem Tov's writings, part of which is the Toledeth Yeshu. Or you may run across Joseph Hoffmann's books. You read such trash and the next thing you know you've rejected the New Testament and Christianity for Judaism. Friends, you may think that I am taking this to an extreme, but I have personally witnessed Christian families accept Sacred Name Doctrine, only to follow it to its logical conclusion that the New Testament cannot be trusted because of it's unreliability. At this point, their treacherous path has left them living as Jews. At some point, they have put themselves back under the law. We are unable to keep the law; that is why Christ came- to break the curse of the law hanging over our heads. I have friends that have witnessed the same thing.

You might think it an extreme idea to think that this will happen in your life. But what effect will this have on your children and grandchildren? Please think about this generationally. The doctrinal foundation that you lay for your family will have repercussions for centuries. Many of you reading this have been brought up to believe in the Divine inspiration, preservation and inerrancy of scripture. But you may now have accepted that Scripture is not true when it comes to the names. With your foundation you won't let the decay go any farther. But now your children are raised and taught that the text of the Bible has been at the mercy of the IESs. With that as the cornerstone of their faith what conclusions will they come to? Whenever a Jehovah's Witness comes and knocks on their door and tells them that the same IESs that added God and Lord to Scripture added all the verses about the Deity of Christ, how will they answer? When anyone comes and tells them New Testament? You can't believe that, It's been corrupted by scribes and copyists. It's not truth anymore. Do you think that your children won't believe these lies, when this is basically the same thing that you're telling them? 1 Brethren and Fathers especially I adjure you by the living God, please do not lay this foundation for your family and children!! It will lead to spiritual shipwreck!! I've seen it and I don't want to see it any more!

1 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.Since the SN doctrine has led people in this generation and will only lead more in the next to deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Through the test laid out for us by John I have no choice but to say that it is not of God. **************************

Point #2 Name means...As stated earlier the SN position relies very heavily on the literal interpretation of the word name in scripture. In other words that every time that the word name is used it refers only to a persons phonetic identification mark. How ever I have yet to find a single dictionary or lexicon that defines the word name in only that way. That is always the first definition given but it is always followed by a second, defining it as relating to Character authority power etc. Especially when relating to the Father. Here are just a few examples of such.she?m A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report. onoma on'-om-ah From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a name (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name(-d). Vines ...1onoma (Noun)

Is used (I) in general of the "name" by which a person or thing is called, e.g., Mr. 3:16,17, "(He) surnamed," lit., "(He added) the name;" Mr. 14:32, lit., "(of which) the name (was);" Lu. 1:63; Joh. 18:10; sometimes translated "named," e.g., Lu. 1:5, "named (Zacharias)," lit., "by name;" in the same verse, "named (Elizabeth)," lit., "the name of her," an elliptical phrase, with "was" understood; Ac. 8:9, RV, "by name," Ac. 10:1; the "name" is put for the reality in Re. 3:1; in Php. 2:9, the "Name" represents "the title and dignity" of the Lord, as in Eph. 1:21; Heb. 1:4; II for all that a "name" implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that the "name" covers: (a) of the "Name" of God as expressing His attributes, etc., e.g., Mt. 6:9; Lu. 1:49; Joh. 12:28; 17:6,26; Ro. 15:9; 1Ti. 6:1; Heb. 13:15; Re. 13:6; (b) of the "Name" of Christ, e.g., Mt. 10:22; 19:29; Joh. 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; Ac. 26:9; Ro. 1:5; Jas. 2:7; 1Jo. 3:23; 3Jo. 1:7; Re. 2:13; 3:8; also the phrases rendered "in the name;" these may be analyzed as follows: (1) representing the authority of Christ, e.g., Mt. 18:5 (with epi, "on the ground of My authority"); so Mt. 24:5 (falsely) and parallel passages; as substantiated by the Father, Joh. 14:26; 16:23 (last clause), RV; (2) in the power of (with en, "in"), e.g., Mr. 16:17; Lu. 10:17; Ac. 3:6; 4:10; 16:18; Jas. 5:14; (3) in acknowledgment or confession of, e.g., Ac. 4:12; 8:16; 9:27,28; (4) in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying or resting on), Mt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Ac. 8:16; 9:2 (eis, "into"); Joh. 14:13; 15:16; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17; (5) owing to the fact that one is called by Christ's "Name" or is identified with Him, e.g. 1Pe. 4:14 (with en, "in"); with heneken, "for the sake of," e.g., Mt. 19:29; with dia, "on account of," Mt. 10:22; 24:9; Mr. 13:13; Lu. 21:17; Joh. 15:21; 1Jo. 2:12; Re. 2:3 (for 1Pe. 4:16, see Note below); (III) as standing, by metonymy, for "persons," Ac. 1:15; Re. 3:4; 11:13 (RV, "persons"). Note: In Mr. 9:41, the use of the phrase en with the dative case of onoma (as in the best mss.) suggests the idea of "by reason of" or "on the ground of" (i.e., "because ye are My disciples"); 1Pe. 4:16, RV, "in this Name" (AV, "on this behalf"), may be taken in the same way. name ne?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[neym]Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, named, naming, adjective

noun 1. a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known. 2. mere designation, as distinguished from fact: He was a king in name only. 3. an appellation, title, or epithet, applied descriptively, in honor, abuse, etc. 4. a reputation of a particular kind given by common opinion: to protect one's good name. 5. a distinguished, famous, or great reputation; fame: to make a name for oneself. 6. a widely known or famous person; celebrity: She's a name in show business. 7. an unpleasant or derogatory appellation or expression: Don't call your brother names! Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. 8. a personal or family name as exercising influence or bringing distinction: With that name they can get a loan at any bank in town. 9. a body of persons grouped under one name, as a family or clan. 10. the verbal or other symbolic representation of a thing, event, property, relation, or concept. 11. (initial capital letter a symbol or vehicle of divinity: to take the Name in vain; the power of the

Name. As stated before all of these definitions give a broader meaning to the word name than just a phonetic identification mark. How ever none of theses sources are inspired it is always best to let the Bible define it's self. So let us embark on a brief word study. The underlying Hebrew word translated name is shem which is synoptic with the Greek word onoma. In the KJV Shem in translated renown 7 times name 837 times fame 4 times report 1 time and famous 2 times So yes it is almost always translated name. Yet in 14 cases the context necessitated that it be rendered differently. To be fair to our scriptural definition we must keep this in mind. Here are some of the verses were it is translated differently.

1 Chronicles 22:5 And David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house that is to be builded for the LORD must be exceeding magnificent, of fame (shem) and of glory throughout all countries: I will therefore now make preparation for it. So David prepared abundantly before his death.

Zephaniah 3:19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will saveher that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame (shem) in every land where they have been put to shame.

Numbers 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel,

two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown (shem):

Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot becauseof thy renown (shem), and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

1 Chronicles 5:24 And these were the heads of the house of their fathers, even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour, famous (shem) men, and heads of the house of their fathers.These verses speak for themselves, it's clear to me that the word name doesn't always refer to a certain phonetic identification mark. But as stated in the above definitions has a much broader use. Let us know look at some of the verses were it is translated name. Proverbs 22:1 A GOOD name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold. Ecclesiastes 7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth. The good name talked about in these passages doesn't refer to one's birth name. Meaning that it is

better to be called Issac (laughter) than Jabez (sorrow) or John (who was beloved of Christ) than Judas (who betrayed Christ) for example. But that a name of good report and trustworthy reputation is what you want in life.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Proverbs 21:24 Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrathIsaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. The above passages if understood by the narrow SN interpretation of name wouldn't make much sense. But when it is understood that the word name also pertains to a persons character attributes these verses have meaning. If not then apparently we need to start calling God by his name Jealous, right?

Joshua 7:9For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name? Name occurs twice in this verse. The Israelites had just lost a battle at Ai. Joshua was very down cast over the lose. The first use is much broader than just that Israelites wouldn't be called by that name any more. But that without The Fathers help all the Canaanites would surround them and kill all the Israelites. Feeling abandoned by God he cries out what will thou do unto they great name. This again does not refer only to the Fathers phonetic name. For if Israel was lost it wouldn't hurt or harm four Hebrew letters and the pronunciation thereof. But the great renown and fame that God is praised for in his deliverance of the our Fathers from Egypt that he had gotten among the Heathen, would be lost. If the Canaanites won victory over Israel then it would appear that the gods of the Canaanites had permanence over the God of Israel.

Psalms 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: 8Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word: 9Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: 10Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: 11Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth: 12Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: 13Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.Dragons, deeps, fire, hail, snow, vapors, winds, mountains, hills etc do not have voices and so how

can they praise the name Yahweh? With out even being able to say the name Yahweh, as is said to be so important, how can they hallow it? Yet they are set forth as praising the name of the LORD in the same way as us. This is not possible unless you understand that name also refers to the Fathers beautiful nature and awesome power in creation and faithfulness in upholding all things. Indeed for his name alone is excellent. Again is his literal name Excellent or is his power, authority and character excellent?

Isaiah55:13Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.In this beautiful and elegant passage of Scripture it seems to say that his faithfulness ,blessings and provision will be his name. However in the context the it in this verse could refer to his Word spoken of in verse 11. In which case his word ( which shall not return unto him void) would be his name. This would flow very well with the Logos theology taught in John 1. We could keep going in our study but this should suffice to show that word name can not always be understood as pertaining to a phonetic identification mark. So whenever you read the word name in scripture you must consider these definitions. For a study of the Greek word onoma see the references mentioned above in Vines expository dictionary.

Point #3 Hebrew tongue of men or angels?The following are some excerpts from articles pertaining to Hebrew found on Wikepedia. Hebrew (?, Ivrit) is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family spoken by more than seven million people in Israel and Jewish communities around the world. The core of the Tanach (the Hebrew Bible ") is written in Classical Hebrew, and much of its present form is specifically the dialect of Biblical Hebrew that scholars believe flourished around the 6th century BCE, near the Babylonian exile. For this reason, Hebrew has been referred to by Jews as L? shn Ha-Qdesh ( ?), "The Holy Tongue", since ancient times. Most linguists agree that after the 6th century BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its population to Babylon and the Persian Empire allowed them to return, the Biblical Hebrew dialect prevalent in the Bible came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic.

[edit] HistoryAs a language, Hebrew refers to one of several dialects of the Canaanite language. Hebrew (Israel) and Moabite (Jordan) can be called Southern Canaanite dialects while Phoenician (Lebanon) can be called a Northern Canaanite dialect. Canaanite is closely related to Aramaic and to a lesser extent SouthCentral Arabic. Whereas other Canaanite dialects have become extinct, Hebrew survived. Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in Israel from the 10th century BCE until just before the Byzantine Period in the 3rd or 4th century CE. (See below, Aramaic displacing Hebrew as a spoken language.) Afterward Hebrew continued as a literary language until the Modern Era when it was revived as a

spoken language in the 19th century.[1]

Origins of HebrewHebrew is a Semitic language, and as such a member of the larger Afro-Asiatic phylum. Within Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages formed around the 3rd millennium BCE, grouped with the Arabic languages as Central Semitic. The Canaanite languages are a group within Northwest Semitic, emerging in the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, gradually separating from Aramaic and Ugaritic. Within the Canaanite group, Hebrew belongs to the sub-group also containing Edomite, Ammonite and Moabite: see Hebrew languages. Another Canaanite sub-group contains Phoenician and its descendant Punic.

[edit] Hebrew as a distinct Canaanite dialectThe first written evidence of distinctive Hebrew, the Gezer calendar, dates back to the 10th century BCE at the beginning of the Monarchic Period, the traditional time of the reign of David and Solomon. Classified as Archaic Biblical Hebrew, the calendar presents a list of seasons and related agricultural activities. The Gezer calendar (named after the city in whose proximity it was found) is written in an old Semitic script, akin to the Phoenician one that through the Greeks and Etruscans later became the Roman script. The Gezer calendar is written without any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the places where later Hebrew spelling requires it.

The Shebna lintel, from the tomb of a royal steward found in Siloam, dates to the 7th century BCE. Numerous older tablets have been found in the region with similar scripts written in other Semitic languages, for example Protosinaitic. It is believed that the original shapes of the script go back to the hieroglyphs of the Egyptian writing, though the phonetic values are instead inspired by the acrophonic principle. The common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician is called Canaanite, and was the first to use a Semitic alphabet distinct from Egyptian. One ancient document is the famous Moabite Stone written in the Moabite dialect; the Siloam Inscription, found near Jerusalem, is an early example of Hebrew. Less ancient samples of Archaic Hebrew include the ostraka found near Lachish which describe events preceding the final capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of 586 BCE.

[edit] Classical HebrewIn its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between the 10th century BCE and the turn of the 4th century CE.[2] It comprises several evolving and overlapping dialects. The phases of Classical Hebrew are often named after important literary works associated with them. Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. Historically, it used a form of the Canaanite script.

Biblical Hebrew around the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Babylonian Exile and represented by the bulk of the Hebrew Bible that attains much of its present form around this time, give-or-take. Also called Classical Biblical Hebrew (or Classical Hebrew in the narrowest sense). It adopted the Imperial Aramaic script. Late Biblical Hebrew from the 6th to the 4th century BCE, that corresponds to the Persian Period and is represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible, notably the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, corresponding to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the Qumran Scrolls that form most (but not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Commonly abbreviated as DSS Hebrew, also called Qumran Hebrew. The Imperial Aramaic script of the earlier scrolls in the 3rd century BCE evolved into the Hebrew square script of the later scrolls in the 1st century CE, still in use today. Mishnaic Hebrew from the 1st to the 3rd or 4th century CE, corresponding to the Roman Period after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the bulk of the Mishnah and Tosefta within the Talmud and by the Dead Sea Scrolls, notably the Bar Kokhba Letters and the Copper Scroll. Also called Tannaitic Hebrew or Early Rabbinic Hebrew.

Language of Biblical Hebrews before CanaanIf (as the Book of Genesis implies) the Hebrews came from elsewhere rather than being native to Canaan, their language was most probably not a Canaanite one (as Biblical Hebrew linguistically is). Biblical scholars who accept this feature of the account in Genesis have put forward several theories as to what this language may have been: The language was Akkadian, the predominating language of the Chaldees. The language was an early form of the Aramaic language, more specifically the same language spoken by Laban, another descendant of Terah. This theory assumes that Laban inherited the language ancestrally from Terah, thus assuming that the Hebrews spoke Aramaean languages. It was a Northeast Caucasian language, perhaps closely related to Avar. The language was one of the extinct Hurro-Urartian languages, a non-Semitic language family based in eastern Anatolia. This theory assumes that the Hebrews were originally HurroUrartian-speaking, and different descendants of the culture adopted local languages wherever they sojourned or settled. It also associates the Hebrews either with the Hurrians, or with Urartu and the mountains of Ararat, the traditional landing site of Noah's ark. The early Hebrews were highly multilingual and no one language clearly predominated. This would be plausible considering Abraham and Lot as sojourners, learning and speaking the local language of the places they traveled and in which they traded. Biblically, the original single language was changed for confusion at the Tower of Babel by the Lord's purpose. Also, Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In the Biblical flood, all land animals and people that were not on the ark were destroyed, making Noah's three sons those that would repopulate the earth in the many, many years ahead. Shem is considered to be the father of Semitic languages, as well as Abraham(7th great grandfather, 10 generations), due to the location of where he went Biblically and potentially also being Melchizadek king of Salem, due to name changes after the language changes, the age he is recorded to have lived, and as older culture would have had the oldest be the priest of the family.

Chapter 4 Hebrew or Greek?Many SN teachers have put forth the idea that New Testament was written in Hebrew. Although not completely necessitated by there view that we must use only Hebrew names for God it is a very important principle for there teaching to stand. Because if the New Testament was written in Greek then it would likely use Greek names for God. This gives a lot of precious ground away that they much need to stand on. Hence it is of great advantage to them if the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Quite a few times I've heard it said like it was unequivocal fact that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. There has already been much written against such an idea. So I won't belabor the point to much here. A book on the subject that I would highly recommend for anyone to read is New Testament Hebrew or Greek by Gary Mink. It is a very well put together study in this area. To my knowledge there are only two articles coming from the SN side to support the Hebrew New Testament. A. B. Traina's article Not Greek and Exploding the Inspired Greek New Testament Myth,

Jacob O Meyer.Mr. Mink's book does quite a good job on the subject I just wanted to put forth a few other ideas on the subject. To overview the facts there is not one fragment or shred of a New Testament manuscript written in Hebrew. Also there is no historical account of the New Testament being written in Hebrew . Although some scholars have tried to claim a Hebrew origin for some books, it was not until the SNM's theology virtually necessitated a Hebrew New Testament that the thought was put forth of a completely Hebrew New Testament. SN teachers mostly say that the Disciples couldn't speak or write in Greek therefor they say that they must have written in Hebrew. This quote from the Mishna is largely used to say that Jews didn't speak Greek. The thing that we must remember is that the mishna was written by the Rabbis who thought that they were better than every one else. I'll bet that we could find a few proud white American Texas ranchers who would make a statement that they'd rather eat dirt than learn Spanish. However there are many white Texans that speak Spanish. Judea at the time of Christ was under Roman rule. For the past three hundred years Judea had been ruled by various Greek speaking rulers. The conquerers don't learn the conquered language. Evidence shows that most businesses of Judea was done in Greek. Since the Disciples were common men with products such as fish to sell, if they wanted to sell there goods they would have had to learn Greek. The Apocrypha was written between the time of Ezra and our Savior. Here is what the one author has to say about their original language.

The Books called the Apocrypha consist of 14 books originally attached to the Greek Old Testament that were not in the Hebrew-written Bible. That is because they were "firstwritten" in the Greek language. They were considered scripture and used as such by the Jews of the Dispersion (Jews living in foreign countries) at the time of Christ. http://goodnewschristianministry.org/apocrypha.htmSo in the Apocrypha we find very strong evidence that the New Testament was written in Greek. And that Judeans had a working knowledge of Greek. Else why would they write these books in Greek? Because over 300 years before the writing of the New Testament we find that Judeans were already writing done the history of there Heros and the wisdom of there Sages in Greek. Although the debate is very much open there are many who view some if not all books of the Apocrypha as being

Divine Scripture. Why would the disciples regress, to writing their books of new life and hope in a dead and dying language? In it's oldest canonized form the Old Testament contained 22 books corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Signifying that Our Fathers revelation to mankind in the Hebrew language had been completed and he was about to do something new. Many are very apt to point out and trust the quote from Papias when he said that Matthew first published a gospel in his native tongue. But when Papias and other Church Fathers say that all the other books where written in Greek SN Teachers call then liars or think them misinformed. I find it ironic that SN teachers think they have a better handle on how the New Testament was written almost two thousand years after the fact than the men who lived with in a hundred years of it, some of which personally new some of the Disciples. Bible codes Ivan Paining. I would now like to engage in a direct rebuttal of A. B. Traina's article Not Greek. We'll call this

Contra Trainam

In order to bolster the theory that the New Testament was written in Greek, the theologians have put forward the idea that at the time of our Savior the Palestinian Jews spoke the Greek language, and that the Savior Himself spake the Greek in order to make Himself understood.The so called theory of a Greek NT is not some new Idea of modern Theologians. The fact has existed since the beginning of Christianity.

This lame alibi falls to the ground when confronted with the actual evidence found within the New Testament, and by contemporary writers of the New Testament times. Here I shall offer repeated statements of Josephus Flavius, the Hebrew historian who lived in that so-called Hellenic Age, and prove that the Hellenic (Greek) culture did not contaminate the Palestinian language. In "The Antiquities of the Jews," Book 20, Chapter XI, Section 2, we read the following: "And I am so bold as to say, now I have completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do that no other person, whether he were a Jew, or a foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to do it could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks, as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to the Jews. I also have taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce the Greek with sufficient exactness, for our own nation DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THOSE THAT LEARN THE LANGUAGES OF MANY NATIONS, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their period; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of freemen,

but to as many of the servants as please them to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with OUR LAWS, and is able to interpret their meanings; on which account as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein who were immediately rewarded for their pains," (emphasis added). In the "Wars of the Jews," Josephus in his preface, Section I, says, "I have proposed to myself for the sake of such as live under the Roman Government, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formally composed in the LANGUAGE OF OUR COUNTRY..." (the common Hebrew, otherwise known as Aramaic). As already demonstrated by the Apocrypha, it shows that Jew-deans did have aworking understanding of Greek. Also another Jewish historian named Philo of Alexandria wrote from 35 to 45 bc and he wrote entirely in Greek.

Herein follows the testimony of investigative scholars, who have not gone along with the myth of the Greek origin of the New Testament. Dr. H.J. Schonfield, in translating an old Hebrew Text of Matthew's Gospel, in his 1927 Edition, says, "My opinion is that the canonical Gospel of [Matthew] is an abridged edition of a larger work, of which fragments still survive, and which contained all and more of the acts and sayings of [Messiah] than is now found in the four accepted Gospels put together. I believe this Protevangel WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW, NOT ARAMAIC, [emphasis ours] and was intended for Judean Christians [believers] who produced it, to become the last book of the Old Testament canon, such a collection as the New Testament not having at that time been thought of"--preface, page 6.Stop!!! Hold the phone!!! Does the name H.J. Schonfield ring a bell? He is the author of a book called the Passover Plot in which he teaches that the life and death of Christ was a conspiracy by our Savior and Joseph of Arimathia to deceive people into thinking that the Messiah had come. So if you're a Christian, you can pretty much take anything that he said, and use it in the smallest room of your house, behind you. He obviously thinks that the New Testament is not our Fathers words to mankind, so of course, he wants to paint it in a picture very far from it's original form. And to say that Matthew thought that his would be the only book Written about Christ is insane. He very well knew that the Gospel was now to spread to all the nations of the Elect.

The Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans as of the people of the Gaulonites, and natives of Syria, according to Josephus (Bell, Jude 4:1,5) "were able to understand it" (idem, page 10). "From all the considerations must be drawn the conclusions that [Yahshua] grew up speaking the Aramaic tongue, and that He would be obliged to speak Aramaic to His disciples and to the people in order to be understood."

"That this [the writings of the Gospels] was done in the Greek by three out of four Evangelists has long been an accepted tradition; though it is NOW ON PHILOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISPUTED," (the emphasis is our). "Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest," Prelim. P.4 by Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, Hon. D.D. (Heidelberg) Ph.D. (Halle) L.L.D. (Sr. Andrews) Litt. D. (Dublin) F.N.A.B.A., Published in London by Williams and Norgate. Prof. D.S. Gregory, quoted in Smith's Bible Dictionary, in the Article "Gospel of Matthew," says, "The Jewish Historian Josephus furnishes an illustration of the fate of the Hebrew original of Matthew, Josephus informs us that he wrote his great work, 'The History of the Jewish Wars,' originally in Hebrew, his native tongue, for the benefit of his own nation, and he afterwards translated it into Greek. No notices of the Hebrew originals now survive." The following is a quotation from Renan, the famous French scholar and archaeologist, who spent many years in the East in research work for the Imperial Government of France: "It is not probable that [Yahshua] knew Greek. This language was very little spread in Judea beyond the classes who participated in the Government, and the towns inhabited by the pagans, like Caesarea.... Neither directly nor indirectly, then did any element of Greek culture reach [Yahshua]. He knew nothing beyond Judaism; His mind preserved that free innocence an extended and varied culture always weakens. In the very bosom of Judaism He remained a stranger to many efforts often parallel to His own," "," by Ernest Renan, as quoted in "Gospel Light," by Lamsa, Page 25, Introduction, "The life of [Yahshua]." In the same introduction to "Gospel Light," page 24, Dr. Lamsa says, "Greek culture, philosophy and religion had no influence on [Yahshua] and His disciples or the early [disciples]. The Jews resisted every influence not Semitic. Greek customs and manners were forbidden. During the reign of Trajan and Hadrian, the Jews were not permitted to learn Greek or use Greek ceremonies. The first part of the Talmud, 'The Mishna,' emphatically declared IT WAS WORSE FOR A JEW TO LEARN GREEK THAN TO EAT SWINE'S FLESH. These laws were strictly observed, with few exceptions, by the Palestinian Jews who jealously preserved their religion, customs and language from contamination." Dr. F.C. Burkit of Cambridge says, "But our [Yahshua] and His first disciples spoke Aramaic; there is nothing to suggest that they were acquainted with the current Greek version [the Septuagint]. In the Synagogue they would hear the Scriptures read in the original Hebrew, followed by a more or less stereotyped rendering into the Aramaic of Palestine, the language of the country, itself a cousin of the Hebrew. A faithfully reported saying therefore of [Yahshua] or Peter ought to agree with the Hebrew against the Greek, or at least ought to acquire its point and appropriateness from a peculiar rendering in the Greek,"

quotation by Dr. Lamsa in "The Gospel Light," Introduction, page 30. So far I have quoted from a few of the modern scholars who were not satisfied to accept blindly the popular theory of the theologians, and investigated for themselves, not for their personal curiosity, but for the sake of truth, and for the benefit of the truth seekers. That the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic is attested by authentic historical evidence, plus internal evidence found in the New Testament itself. In this study I propose to prove without fear of successful contradiction, that the claims of Christian theologians, to the effect of Greek originals of the New Testament are absolutely baseless. I will now continue the array of evidence by quoting ancient authorities, and begin by listing a number of the early church leaders and writers who either possessed, or had access to, the Hebrew and Aramaic Gospels: Papias, Hegesippus, Justin Martyr Symmachus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Pamphilus, Epiphanius and Jerome. Now I shall proceed to quote from their works, giving documentary evidence that the New Testament was written in the language in which it was inspired, the language which the Apostles spoke and that language was Hebrew and Aramaic. "Matthew, who also is Levi, and who from a publican became an apostle, first of all the Evangelists composed a Gospel in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into the Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the Martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes, who use this volume in the Syrian City of Berea, to copy it, in which, it is to be remarked, that, whenever the Evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the old Scriptures, he does not follow the authority of the Seventy Translators [the Septuagint] but that of the Hebrew," Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccl. From a later testimony of Jerome, it is evident that he too, undertook to translate it; for in, Hieronymus: (Jerome) Commentary to Matthew, in Book 2, Chapter 12 and 13, he states, "The Evangel which the Nazarenes and Ebonites use, which I translated into Greek, and which is called by most persons, the Genuine Gospel of Matthew." In Hieronymus DeVirus, Book 3, Chapter 36, again Jerome says, "Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had there preached the advent of our Savior...according to the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew letters and which, on returning to Alexandria he brought with him." From the above, it must be evident not only that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but that it must have been copied in Hebrew, for the evidence here is plain that there must have been more than one copy of the Hebrew Matthew. Also please note, the very fact that Jerome states that Matthew did NOT follow the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint] is evidence that

he was not versed with the Greek language, nor was the Septuagint in anywise used by the Savior or His disciples, for they knew that the Septuagint had been corrupted, and that the Names of the Elohim of Israel had been substituted in it by the names of Zeus, Theos and Kurios, the appellations of the Greek deity. In fact it has lately been discovered that the original translators of the Old Testament into the Greek by the Seventy Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolomy-Philadelphius did not translate, nor transliterate the Name of Yahweh, but in every place where the Sacred Name was written, they blocked off a space, and then in gold, they inscribed the Tetragrammaton (the four lettered word YHWH), which in Hebrew is pronounced "Yahweh." The Greek copyists not being able to make out the Name which was written in Hebrew letters, they read it as "PiPi," which made no sense to them, so they inserted the names of their chief deities, mainly Theos and Kurios (which are the evolvements of Zeus and Horus), and used these names indiscriminately. Now let us return and continue with further testimony of the early church fathers, who because of their having had contact with, and in many cases actual possession of, the original apostolic documents (Gospels and Epistles) were in a better position to know the truth than the modern Christian theologians who upheld the theory of the Greek origin of the New Testament Scriptures. Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," Book 4, Chapter 22, says of Hegesipus, "In his history he states some particulars of the Gospel of the Hebrews, and from the Syriac, and particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also records as taken from the unwritten traditions of the Jews." Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 4, says, "That Paul preached to the nations and established churches from Jerusalem around as far as Illiricum, is evident from both his own expressions and from the testimony of Luke in the book of Acts, and in what provinces Peter also proclaimed the doctrine of the Messiah, the doctrines of the New Covenant appear from his own writings, and may be seen from that epistle we have mentioned as admitted in the canon, and that he addressed to the Hebrews in the dispersion, throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." Of the preceding Eusebius says, "We may mention as an instance what Ignatius has said in the epistles we have cited, and Clement in what is universally received by all, which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to that of Corinth, in which after giving many sentiments taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also literally quoting the words, he clearly shows that this work was by no means of late production: when it is probable that this was also numbered with other writings of the Apostles; for Paul addressed in the language of his country [Hebrew]. Some say that the Evangelist Luke, others say that Clement, translated the epistle; which also appears like the truth, as the epistles of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserve the same style and

phraseology, and because the sentiments in both of these works are not very different." Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 38, reads: "Papias, a disciple of John says, 'And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but not however in the order in which it was spoken by our Savior, but as before said, he was in the company of Peter, who gave him instruction such as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Savior's discourses wherefore Mark has not erred in anything by writing some things as he recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts." Such is Papias' account respecting Mark's Gospel. As concerning Matthew, we read in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 39, that he said, "Matthew composed his History [Gospel] in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able." Of Irenaeus, in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, Chapter 8, we read, "Since we have promised in the outset of our work to give extracts occasionally when we refer to the declarations of the ancient presbyters and historians of the church, in which they have transmitted the traditions that have descended to us respecting the Sacred Scriptures, among whom Irenaeus was one, let us now give his words: Matthew produced his Gospel, written among the Hebrews, in their dialect, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the Gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by him." Of Pantaneus, Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 6, Chapter 10, says, "Of these Pantaneus is said to have been one of them, and to have come as far as India. And the report is, that he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who were acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew one of the Apostles had preached, and had left them the same Gospel in Hebrew which was preserved until this time." "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, Chapter 14, Eusebius, writing of Clement, says, "But the epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue; but carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks, whence also, one finds the same character of style and phraseology in the epistle as in Acts. But it is probable that the title 'Paul the Apostle' was not prefixt to it; for, as he wrote to the Hebrews who had imbibed prejudices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards against diverting them from perusal by giving his name. But now as the Blessed Presbyter used to say, 'since Yahshua was the Apostle of the Almighty sent to the Hebrews,' Paul by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles [the nations], did not

subscribe himself as the Apostle to the Hebrews." Concerning the Gospels, he (Clement) says that those which contain the Genealogies were written first: but the Gospel of Mark was occasioned in the following manner, "When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome and declared the Gospel under the influence of the Spirit, as there was a great number present, they [Jews in Rome] requested Mark, who had followed him from afar, and remember well what was said, to reduce these things to writing and after composing the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it of him: which, when Peter understood it, he directly neither encouraged it nor hindered it." Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 16, Chapter 16, speaking of Origin, says, "So great was the research which Origin applied in the investigation of the Holy Scriptures, that he also studied the Hebrew language; and those original works [the Gospels and Epistles], written in Hebrew and in the hands of the Jews, he procured them as his own. He also investigated the editions of others, who beside the Seventy had published translations of the Scriptures, and some different from the well-known translations of Aquilla, Symmachus and Theodocian, which he traced up and traced to I know not what ancient lurking places where they had lain concealed from remote times, and brought them to light." Here follows Origin's statement, as found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 6, Chapter 16, "As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of [Elohim], throughout the world. The first according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of [Yahshua] the Messiah who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him; the third according to Luke commanded by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John. Jerome's "Nicean and Post Nicean Fathers," Volume 3, Chapter 1, in his "Lives of Illustrious Men," says, "Simon Peter the son of John [Jona] from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the Apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been Bishop of Antioch and having preached to the dispersion, the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.... He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic [Universal or General], the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be his, then too, the Gospel according to Mark who was his disciple and interpreter is ascribed to him." These writings directed to the Jews dispersed in many nations were certainly written in the Hebrew language.

Jerome, writing of Mark, in the same book, Chapter 8, says, "Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority. Clement in the sixth book of his Hypcryposes, and Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, record.... So taking the Gospel which he himself composed, he [Mark] went to Egypt; and, first preaching the Messiah at Alexandria, he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of the Messiah to his example. Philo the most learned of the Jews, seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something credible to his nation, telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded what he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark." The same Jerome, writing of Paul says, in the same book, Chapter 5, "He wrote nine epistles to seven churches: to the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two; and beside these to his disciples: to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one. The epistle which is called 'The Epistle to the Hebrews' is not considered his on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either by Tertullian, to be the work of Barnabas; or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist, or Clement afterwards the Bishop of Rome, who they say, arranged and adorned the IDEAS of PAUL in his own language; though, to be sure, since PAUL was writing to the Hebrews and was in disrepute among them, he may have omitted his name from the salutation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that in his own tongue and most fluently, while the things that were written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek, and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul." In the same book, Chapter 9, Jerome writes of John's Gospel, saying, "John the Apostle whom Yahshua most loved, son of Zebedee and brother of James, the Apostle whom Herod, after our Savior's passion, beheaded most recently of all. The Evangelist wrote a Gospel at the request of the Bishop of Asia, against Corinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that the Messiah did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His Divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things that they said were true, but they had give the history of only one year, that is which follows the imprisonment of John, and in which he was put to death; so passing by this year the events which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others."

The very fact that John wrote his Gospel on the instance of the growing dogma of the Ebionites (who were a group of Samaritan believers), whose language was Aramaic gives added evidence that it was written with an eye single to reach the Aramaic speaking people. Epiphanius ("Against Heresies," Chapter 30:3) says, "Others again have asserted that the Gospel of John is kept in a Hebrew translation in the treasury of the Jews, namely at Tiberias, and that it is hidden there, as some converts from Judaism have told us accurately." Ibid, (Chapter 30:6) says, "And not only this alone, but also the 'Gospel of Matthew' which was originally written in Hebrew." That the Gospel of John was translated into Hebrew can be understood, as the original was written in Aramaic. See C.F. Burney, in his "Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel." In addressing Justin Martyr (in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," Chapter 10), Trypho says, "Moreover I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Evangelion are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them." Surely, in the above, one can see that the Jew Trypho refers to the Sermon on the Mount, which he had read in his own language. The date of this dialogue was about A.D. 140, and the reference undoubtedly to the Hebrew Matthew, T.B. Shabb, 116 A., states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Jochanan called it, (the history of Matthew) Evangelion. In the same book B.T. Shabb 116 A.B. the author tells a story that bears out the fact that the Aramaic and Hebrew Gospels were well known and read by many. Now for the story: "Imma Shalom was the wife of Rabbi Eliezer and sister of Rabbi Gamaliel. There was in her neighborhood a 'philosoph' who had got a name for not taking a bribe. They sought to make fun of him. She sent him a lamp of gold. When they came before him, she said to him, 'I desire that they divide to me the property of the woman's house.' he said to them, 'divide it.' They said to him, 'For us it is written, where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' He said to them, 'From the days when ye were exiled from the land, the law of Moses has been taken away, and the law of the Evangelion has been given; and in it is written. A son and a daughter shall inherit alike.' The next day Rabbi Gamaliel sent him a Lybian ass He said to them, 'I have looked further to the end of the book, and in it is written, I am not come to take away from the law of Moses, and I am not come to add to the law of Moses, and in it is written, 'Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.'" The above was written in Aramaic, proving that this Jewish 'philosoph' had access to the New Testament writings, for the quotation is purely Matthewan, and the date of this is about A.D. 80. Origin against Gelsus, Book 2, Chapter 13 says, "This Jew of Celsus continues after the above, in the following fashion: Although he could state many things regarding the events in the life of [Yahshua] which are true and not like those

which are recorded by the disciples, he willingly omits them." Undoubtedly there is more evidence than I have been able to dig up and anyone interested may find more evidence, because I firmly believe that we are living in that age of which the Savior said of the Angels (Messengers), He was going to send them to separate the wheat (the Word) from the chaff (the tares), the corruptions that Satan has sown. Note, He did not say "Angel," as of one, but "angels," that is many. So, I expect that many of Yahweh's children will take up the cause and get busy on the work of searching, finding and restoring that which was taken away, picking out and casting out that which was added, in order to fulfill that which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "And they that shall be of thee [meaning faithful Yahwists] shall build up the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in," Isaiah 58:12. There is beside the above an abundance of internal evidence in all the Gospels, with the exception of the Gospel of Luke, which was expressly written to the Greeks by a Greek, for the Greeks that were coming into the churches of the Jews. But even this is but an editing into the Greek language, the traditions taken directly from the Semitic source material available to Luke (see Luke 1:24), then translating and transliterating into the Greek language for the Greeks who were coming into the church, at the instigation of the Apostle Paul. See Origin's statement found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 6, Chapter 16. Even the Acts of the Apostles, which bears the name of Luke, shows evidence that the early part of the book was originally written in Hebrew, by some Hebrew author, and when Luke joined with Paul (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:5), from there on it seems that Luke took the account of the Acts of the Apostles which had been kept by some Jewish scribe, and translated it into Greek; and from then on, he kept the record. The first part of the Acts show abundant evidence of having been translated, while the last part gives evidence of having been composed in Greek. This explains what has been puzzling the theologians for so long, when they could not understand the difference in the grammatical construction between the first part and the last part of the Book of Acts. Now, as to the Epistles, James writes to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad," for even those living in Greece could still understand the Hebrew as well as those who lived in India, Persia and in Lybia, or any other part of the globe, where Israel was to be found. As for proof, I place the entire contents of the epistle as evidence, for the epistle is loaded with quotations from the law in a way that only those acquainted with the law could understand it. Peter's two epistles were also definitely addressed to the "sojourners of the dispersion." And they were the dispersed Israelites, who had been scattered in the Assyria and Babylonian dispersions, as well as the Romans. He, too, in his

epistles, makes much use of the Old Testament as proof that the recipients of his epistles were people who were acquainted with the law as well as the language he wrote in. Note also his reference to Paul's epistles, when he says, "Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written unto you," 2 Peter 3:15. Now, if Peter wrote to the scattered Israelites (and he said he did), in the aforesaid quotation, he distinctly states that Paul wrote his epistles to the same people who were the recipients of Peter's epistles; and, if so, then Paul also must have written to them in their language, THE HEBREW. Please do not misunderstand me, IF there has been such a thing as a purely Greek congregation, I believe that Paul would have written to them in Greek, even if he had to get Luke to translate it for him. But I do not know from the epistles now in our present text, which one of them might have been purely Greek. From the first verse of the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians, I gather that Paul wrote to the Hebrew believers; for he says, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the GENTILES." Here Paul shows the contrast between the Gentiles and Hebrews. As for the epistle to the Romans, that, too, is full of evidence that the most part of the congregation of the church at Rome were Hebrews. Anyone with a sharp eye can go through the epistle and find plenty of evidence of its Hebrewism. For example, read carefully the second chapter in its entirety, especially verses 14, 17, 24 and 25. The third chapter also in its entirety is full of Hebrewism. The fourth chapter, particularly the first verse; the ninth chapter, especially verses 24-29; also the tenth chapter; and, as for the eleventh chapter, read the thirteenth verse to the end, and you will find that it is an exhortation to Gentile believers who had joined the congregation which was in the main Jewish telling them that they were not to boast as if they were better than the Jews, for their (the Gentile) salvation was dependent upon the fact that the Gospel was to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. The book of Revelation is so full of Old Testament symbology that to the Gentile mind, which has no knowledge of the Old Testament apocalyptic message, the book that it intended to be a Revelation of the culmination of the glories to be revealed, he (the Gentile) sees nothing more than the ravings of a madman impossible to be understood. The Holy Scriptures were written in Hebrew, by Hebrews, for Hebrews, particularly for the Israelite branch to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the services of Yahweh and the promises. The Covenanted Israel is more than the Jew, but it takes in the so-called Ten Tribes of Israel, which the Christian Church calls Gentiles (the Caucasian Race) in their blindness. In closing, let me remind you of the incident in the life of the Savior. When the Greeks came to Philip and said unto him, "We would see Yahshua," then Philip tells Andrew, and both of them came and told Yahshua. Reader: meditate on

what Yahshua said, "The hour IS COME that the Son of Man is to be impaled." In other words when the Greeks came to look for Yahshua, it did not auger good but evil. The Savior knew that the Greeks were going to bring corruption into the Holy Seed which he had sown (the Word of Yahweh); and, in His messages to the seven churches, in the second and third chapters of Revelation, He warned against the Nicolaitanes (Greek worshippers of Zeus), the synagogue of Satan. Through them the Scriptures have been perverted