5B6(5) - Father and Son are ONE

 Sec 5B6(5) - Father and Son are ONE

5.b.6 - The Oneness of the Father and His Son - Part 5: Came Forth From The Presence

Yah was clothed with a body, so He could freely offer it up as a sacrifice upon the tree. In another context, it is shown that Yah came forth from the presence of Yehowah:

Yeshua said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures, that the stone that the builders rejected is become the head of the corner, this came about from the presence of Yehowah, and it has become a wonder in our eyes." Matthew 21:42, my translation

Yah is the stone which came forth from the presence of Yehowah, and this remains a wonder before the eyes and understanding of mankind. Yeshua is quoting from Psalm 118, where the main verse is:

Yah is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. Psalm 118:14[Yeshua]

Therefore Yah is the Stone spoken of in Psalm 118: 22-23.

The Stone the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. This is from Yehowah, who has done this, it is a wonder in our eyes. Psalms 118:22-23[from ][meeth]

The normal word in Hebrew, which is often used to represent the idea of, "from or out of", is mem. However, in this context, the word used is spelled meeth. The Mem of meeth is an attached preposition from the root word Mem, which means "from or out of", while the eth, means, "with, near, or by anyone". Therefore "meeth Yehowah" means:

From the presence of

Out of the presence of

[out of the water]

Not only does the Aramaic Peshitta preserve this Hebrewism of thought, but it also designates who it is who came forth from the presence of Yehowah, and that is "THE STONE THE BUILDERS REJECTED".

The Aramaic uses men lawth to preserve the Hebrew idea of "from the presence of" or "out of the presence of". Lawth is from the Hebrew root lavah, which means "TO ADHERE, TO BE JOINED CLOSELY TO ANY ONE". Thus when the Mem, that is "from" or "out of" is added to this, we have: "to come from the presence of", that is "from close proximity of, from standing before another". However, in the spiritual sense, this means to: "come out of the midst of". Therefore, in this context "Yah came forth out of the midst of the presence of Yehowah".

When a believer understands that Yehowah is LIVING WATERS, that is a sea of LIVING WATERS, rather than a finite being, who the Son was able to stand literally before, then they can see, that there is no other truthful way of understanding this context. For Yah the Son came forth out of the midst of Yehowah the LIVING WATERS.

The Scriptures have shown that the divine essence of Yehowah is LIVING WATERS. And then the scripture has drawn the picture of Yah hiding in the thick, dark, water filled clouds of Yehowah's presence, revealing by picture, that this is how the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Therefore, from all these witnesses, the believer can be assured that Yah came forth from the divine presence, even the Living Waters of Yehowah, to appear in a mortal body before mankind. And this is how "a child was born into the world", who could also be called "THE MIGHTY EL", "THE EVERLASTING FATHER".

Yet the distinction between this Father and Son, is unlike any human father and son relationship. Because in this instance, the "Child" is of the same substance of the Father, in that Yah the Son, came forth from the Living Waters of Yehowah. So, the "Child" is also a portion of the Living Waters of the Father. Subsequently, Yah is the measure of the Living Waters, who appeared before mankind in a mortal body, in order to bring the Living Waters unto mankind, without measure, so that each soul who desires to drink thereof, can be filled, and satisfied.

If the Son simply came forth, from merely standing before the presence of the Father, then the distinction of the Father and Son, remains as two distinct persons. Yet if the Son came forth from the divine Essence of the Father, then the Son, is just like the Father, of the same substance as the Father, and in actuality, is simply an extension of the Father unto the earth. This latter idea is heavily suggested by the terms, "right hand", and "word" / "voice", which are both used to describe the function of the Son; yet both of these terms also describe something that is a part of the whole. Just as my own right hand and voice are merely attributes of my person, and never become a separate distinct person from me. They never manifest a will or desire apart from the body.

[NOTE: This truth only works in relation to Yah the Son and Yehowah the Father. Because it is a fact, that the flesh of Yah, and the physical mind (brain), had a will and desire, which had to submit to that of Yah, the Son, and Yehowah, the Father.]

The Father and Son relationship has been expounded in many ways in scripture. In this next verse it is shown that the Son is equal unto the Father:

Who, being in the form of Elohym, thought it not robbery to be equal with Elohym. Philippians 2:6[likeness]

The Greek reading of this verse is:

Who did not regard equality with Elohym a thing to be grasped. Philippians 2:6

But why the difference? The answer is with what Catholic and Protestant churches would later call, "The mystery of the trinity." Greek almost seems to say, "I really can't speak for issues." Aramaic clearly says it is "not blasphemous" to grasp this truth. In reality, the divine component of Messiah must be understood in the context of the Tanakh. Paul is not robbing anything from the truth which was in place long before his arrival; he declares the truth which is from the beginning."[the essential nature of Elohym]

The Aramaic Peshitta proves that the King James Version translators got this one right, while it also brings to light the error of modern day translators who try to rob this verse of its original meaning. By the way, the King James translators were translating this verse from the Greek text, without consulting the Aramaic Peshitta.

But how is Yah, the Son, equal unto Yehowah, the Father? Because, it is written that the Son "... offered fervent prayers and pleadings with intense anxious tears", unto the Father who was able to revive his physical body from death. 

Here is full verse:

Heb 5:7 “Even when he was clothed in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death; and verily he was heard.”   Lamsa Aramaic Peshitta

Then, in another place, there are things that the Father knows which are not known by the Son:

For concerning the day and concerning the hour, no man knows, also not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32, my translation

In one verse, the Son is praying unto Yehowah, His Father, and in another verse it seems as if the Son does not know everything as the Father does. However, in the context below, the Son is clearly being called Yehowah, and Yehowah is being spoken of as if HE were the one being pierced. In Zechariah 12:1, 4, 8, it is Yehowah speaking, and for this reason the "Me", as found in verse ten, has to be Yehowah.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his ONLY SON, and shall be in bitterness for him; as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." Zechariah 12:10

The New Testament bears out, that when they look upon Yehowah whom they have pierced, they are looking upon the Messiah Yeshua. For when the apostle John was telling the story of the crucifixion, he pointed out that in the prophets, it reads:

They will gaze at him whom they pierced. John 19:37, Roth

Therefore, if some translator tries to translate the Hebrew text as if the one being looked upon and the one being pierced are two different people, then we can rest assured that they have an agenda, and their agenda is to keep the reader from seeing that the Messiah is also Yehowah who can be seen and pierced.

But in what way is the Messiah, Yehowah, so that believers can look upon Yeshua to see Yehowah? The first-century Greek translation of Philippians 2:6 reveals a first-century understanding of this concept, by its use of the word morphe to illustrate the idea of "form", which is defined as: "(Through the idea of adjustment of parts): Shape; fig. nature: -form." This Greek word morphe finds its root in the word meros, which is defined as: "(To get a section or allotment): a division or share, pieces, portion." Therefore, the Greek reveals that Yah Yeshua, the Messiah, is a part of or portion of Yehowah, and in that sense, of the same material and substance as Yehowah. In other words Yah Yeshua, the Messiah, is formed from the same lump of clay, so to speak, as is Yehowah, but in the spiritual sense, rather than in the fleshly. Therefore, the King James Version translators saw in what way the Messiah is equal unto Yehowah, and they could see this from the Greek.

SEE ADDEBDUM BELOW

However, many modern day translators have lost sight of these truths and translated their error into their translations. In the first century, the Greek translator saw the Aramaic word, damah, in the original Aramaic text before him and understood that morphe was the best word in Greek to fully illustrate the original point. The Hebrew / Aramaic word, damah, does simply mean "likeness", however the picture formed by the letters of damah reveal something deeper about the Messiah, [damah in Hebrew is formed by three consonants and no vowels]:

Daleth (D)- Something opening and closing, such as a valve, like the heart

Mem (M)- Water, or some other fluid, like "blood"

Blood is a fluid which is pumped by the heart, which is why dam means "blood" in Hebrew.

Heh (H)- Behold me, look, reveal!

Damah is used to describe likeness in any respect, but the original idea is blood likeness. That is the likeness revealed through the blood between Father and Son. Remember though, that in the spirit, Yah, the Son, has no mother, and is thus, the exact likeness of Yehowah His Father. For Yah is simply the seed which came forth from Yehowah, His Father. Therefore Yah is the carbon copy of Yehowah, His Father, because Yah remains an attached part of Yehowah, His Father. Remember also that Yeshua, the body of Yah, is the product of his earthly mother, yet he still retains His heavenly Father's blood.

And this is mind-boggling, because we know that Yehowah has no blood. The Scripture says that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary [Luke 1:35], which means that the SPIRIT OF Yehowah caused Mary to conceive. Therefore, in the physical sense, the blood flowing through the veins of Yeshua, the man, is His Father's blood, even Yehowah.

In the Spiritual sense Yah came forth from the same substance as Yehowah. Just as a son comes forth from the blood of his father, likewise Yah came forth from the Living Waters, i.e. the divine essence of Yehowah. This is why Yah is our Elohym and is equal unto Yehowah, because HE is formed from the same material (Spiritual) as Yehowah.

In using some of these terms, it may sound like, to some, that Yah was created, when in fact just the opposite is the case. For in saying that Yah came forth from Yehowah, we are affirming that Yah always existed within Yehowah. However; when Yah came forth from Yehowah, He continued to exist as the extension of Yehowah unto the earth. In this extended existence, Yah cried out to Yehowah in prayer; and all things were not always revealed to the Son.

[However, I believe that this is in reference unto the flesh, or the mortal, carnal mind of the Son. For all things were not revealed unto the human mind of Messiah. However, I also believe that Yah, the Son, knows all things. Thus in the Spirit, Yah knows all things, but all things were not revealed unto the flesh.]

As I said above, the word dam means "blood", in Hebrew. And the letter "H", when added to dam, is damah, which means "behold me." It is as if Yeshua is saying, "behold my blood", for "my blood is the blood of my Father." Therefore, believers can see the likeness of Yehowah in Yeshua, the man. And since Yehowah is omnipresent, we know this likeness has to do with character rather than the flesh. That is the same works, etc.

The physical blood is also a type of the Living Waters. For just as the physical blood must pass from father to son, likewise a portion of the Living Waters must also pass from our Heavenly Father unto His Son. Remember this... There still remain three things upon the earth which continue to bear witness to the resurrecting power of our Lord Yah Yeshua, the Messiah:

Water

Spirit

Blood 

[1 John 5:8]

Now that we have examined the idea behind "child" / "born" [Isaiah 9:6] and understand that it simply means to come forth, and we know that Yah came forth from the Living Waters of Yehowah, we can see that this idea of "coming forth", in the spiritual sense, does not have to mean "two persons", one coming forth from another. Rather, the Hebrew reveals that when Yah came forth from Yehowah, that He did so as an extension of Yehowah, rather than as a completely different person, with a separate will, desire, etc. Therefore the phrase "For unto us a child is born", merely reveals the manner in which Yah came forth from Yehowah in the beginning. And the phrase "unto us a Son is given", reveals the main purpose for the Son's arrival in the world, which is to build the House of Yehowah, which means to bear many children in the name of Yehowah, and then to build them a habitation for dwelling. However Yah is building the House of Yehowah, as the right arm of Yehowah, proving that Yehowah Himself is the true builder. Because Yah is the extension of the power of Yehowah upon the earth.

Neither one of these terms indicate "two persons" in the [the essential nature of Elohym]! For Yehowah and Yah are ONE

!

*ADDENDUM: Unto My Greek Primacist Brothers and Sisters - Concerning Morphe and Meros*

Unto my beloved Greek primacist brothers and sisters, who have been taught to trust only the Greek, hear me for a moment, not as an enemy, but as a brother who also loves the Greek, yet knows that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic.

You have been told that morphe has nothing to do with meros. That this is old etymology. That modern scholars say morphe is of uncertain origin. This is true in their dictionaries, but not true in the mind of the first-century translator.

For in the beginning, the text before the Greek translator was not Greek. It was Aramaic. And in the Aramaic, the word standing there was *damah*.

What is damah?

Daleth - a door, a valve opening and closing, like the heart.

Mem - waters, fluid, blood itself.

Heh - behold! Reveal! Look!

Damah is not mere "likeness" as the English says. Damah is *blood-likeness*. The likeness that is revealed through the blood, from Father to Son. For dam itself is blood.

And so when the Aramaic says Yah is damah unto Yehowah, it is saying Yah is the blood-revelation of Yehowah. The carbon copy, because He came forth from the Living Waters of Yehowah, as a Son comes forth from the blood of his Father.

How then does a Greek translator render damah?

He cannot use eidos, for eidos is only outward appearance. He cannot use schema, for schema is only temporary fashion, and Paul himself uses schema in verse 8 for the fashion of a man.

He must use *morphe*. For morphe is the form which expresses the inner nature. The form that is made of the same material. That which IS what the Father is.

And in the mind of that translator, morphe WAS connected to meros. For what is meros? A portion, a division, a share, a piece of the lump. And is not a Son a portion of His Father's blood? Is not Yah a portion of the Living Waters of Yehowah?

Therefore morphe IS the perfect Greek for damah. It says: Yah is a portion of Yehowah, of the same substance, of the same lump of clay, so to speak, but in the Spirit.

This is why your translations differ so wildly in this verse, my brothers and sisters.

The King James men, though they had only the Greek, saw morphe and understood it. They translated "thought it not robbery to be equal with Elohym." For if you ARE morphe theou, if you ARE damah, of the same blood, it is not robbery to be called equal.

But modern translators have lost damah. They no longer see blood-likeness. They think morphe is just "form" and harpagmos is just "something to be grasped." So they translate: "did not consider equality something to be grasped."

Do you see? One translation says "It is NOT robbery to be equal, because I AM of the same substance." The other says "Equality was something He had to let go of."

One declares that Yah IS Yehowah, extended unto the earth as His Right Hand. The other makes Yah a second being trying to be humble.

Both cannot be true.

If you believe the Greek is first, you must still ask: What Aramaic word was the Greek translator seeing that caused him to choose morphe? He was seeing damah. Behold my blood. Behold me.

And damah was never robbery.