Author's Response to Two Critics of Fossilized Customs 

Concerning the Name "Jesus", see discussion 2/3 down this page

 Hit Counter people have visited this page

In the black text below are the complete comments of a congregational leader in Texas who wrote to Rick Chaimberlin, who publishes Petah Tikvah  --  a wonderful quarterly magazine everyone should subscribe to.   In blue text, I address both Rick and our unhappy brother, point-by-point.   I present this for you to print out and read over, since there are certain congregational leaders who seem to take opposition with many of the same topics discussed in Fossilized Customs.  Even leaders can have trouble understanding that we are not all serving in the same capacity.         

Dear brother Rick, (and congregational leader in Texas);

 (Lew's opening comments):    If a member of the Body is found to be practicing or teaching error, he is to be confronted by the offended person privately first, and if this fails it is to be brought before the elders.   If this fails to correct the man's error, it is brought before the whole assembly of saints, so that his shame is before all (Mt. 18:15-17).  If I am a false witness to some, then I am in good company;   Shaul was thought to be one because he witnessed that Elohim raised up Messiah (1 Cor. 15:15) -- a very unpopular idea to the establishment.   To the establishment, men who expose error have usually and understandably been labeled rebels, or worse.   As Shaul stated at Philippians 1:15-18, he rejoiced in the fact that Messiah was announced, whether in pretense, envy, strife, or selfish ambition  -- so in the spirit of this concept I will not speak against anyone who is working in the harvest and giving of themselves in Yahushua's service.   In the criticisms below I find no circumstances which effect one's salvation before YHWH, regardless of which way one leans in belief.   It would be my privilege to respond briefly to our brother's sincere concerns regarding what he finds offensive in my book Fossilized Customs, but I do not hope to win a debate at the expense of offending or shaming my brother:

Response to First Critic:

congregational leader to Rick (Petah Tikvah):      "In the Oct-Dec 2003 issue of Petah Tikvah, on page 4, you have footnote 2, which makes mention of "Fossilized Customs" by Lew White.  Let me make you aware of the dangerous material contained within this book.

congregational leader:   1.  Lew White does not believe in the Tri-unity of the Godhead.  He believes it's pagan in origin and based on pagan sexual practices (p. 91-93). "
Lew's response:    If a person were to only have contact with the Scriptures, without any outside teachings or influences, it would be highly unlikely for them to develop a belief in a "Trinity" on their own.  Too many texts reveal that YHWH is one, not three.   Exegesis (direct analysis or interpretation of Scripture) will often conflict with what a person has been taught or already believes as he brings them with him to the study -- prior beliefs must not be allowed to influence such analysis.  When we approach Scripture with ideas we already believe and then hunt down the texts which support our belief, we find ourselves "proof-texting".  In this case, if we read a text, the teaching we already believe is not directly being taught, but we can snatch or extract the necessary phrases in order to support our belief.  This is not exegesis, but rather eisegesis.   Eisegesis (analyzing from one's own ideas) is what we mostly see being done, where an explanation or analysis is based upon one's own ideas, which is often based on popular opinion.  Eisegesis (analyzing from one's own ideas) is what we mostly see being done, where an explanation or analysis is based upon one's own ideas, which is often based on popular opinion.  Eisegesis (analyzing from one's own ideas) is what we mostly see being done, where an explanation or analysis is based upon one's own ideas, which is often based on popular opinion.  The "Trinity" entered the belief  through what is called The Apostles' Creed, formulated as an integral part of the rite of baptism.  A clearly divided and separate confession of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, corresponding to the Divine Persons invoked in the formula of baptism was imposed by Catholicism, and this dogma has persisted strongly to the present.  This Creed developed from a primitive teaching (c. 390), and is referred to in a letter addressed to Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213), which supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum ("Creed of the Apostles").   Certainly any idea that it actually originated with the 12 Apostles is a myth.  The actual inception of the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be best explained as coming from the Nicene Creed, formulated under the Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.  All we need to do is find a text in the Scriptures which teaches anything about YHWH being three distinct persons, and that belief in such a model is so paramount that our salvation hangs on it.  He is neither trinity or "twin-ity", but if we would condemn one another over whether He is or isn't, we are operating outside the bounds of what Scripture teaches us -- especially about judging one another.  What I am guilty of (hopefully) is not judging people, but rather beliefs which entered the faith from outside.   Constantine was marvelously talented at modifying and formulating things that appealed to what everyone already believed.   He did not emphasize Scripture as our model and guide for doctrine.   Fossilized Customs is not the only book which has been written which teaches that YHWH is one.

Sir Isaac Newton and Alexander Hislop were non-trinitarians.  "In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day.  In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him Who hath said, 'To whom will you liken (Elohim), and what likeness will you compare unto Him?'"  The Two Babylons, pgs. 16,17.

congregational leader:      2.  He does not believe in the tithe and states it is a social decision and not a biblical commandment (p. 89). 
Lew:     Anyone who has read Fossilized Customs can see that I cite many Scriptures which show that we are to tithe;  the only controversy is who is to be the recipient of it.  Yahushua was not supported by the tithe, but rather by those who were in the office of giving --  women of means (Luke 8:3, Mark 15:41).   Miriam of Magdala was one of these women!   The tithe is for the support of the widow, fatherless, lame, hungry, or any who are in temporary or permanent need of support.  Giving to the poor is lending to YHWH (Proverbs 19:17, Ya'aqob 1:27, Acts 10:4).   There are many examples in Fossilized Customs supporting the tithe, but I also cite several Scriptures which expose how the sheep will be fleeced for gain (2 Cor. 2:17, 2 Kepha 2:3, Acts 20:32-35).   We who labor in teaching are worthy of support, but only from those in the office of "helps" (1 Cor. 12:28).   No where do we see any leader in Scripture teaching his students to give him 10% of their income.   Certainly no Apostle ever took such plunder for personal use from any assembly they started.   Performing a study of the phrase "ravenous wolves"  might shed light on this subject better.   If you have the means to support a leader who is working in the service of Yahushua's Body, PLEASE do so;  but to call it the tithe is inappropriate.   For this teaching, I am willing to be shamed for;  but let Yahushua judge me.   He is so much more forgiving than men are.   Those who oppose this teaching may have much to lose financially, but it is so much more blessed to give than to receive.   I know, because I must receive to do the work I do also.   Without support, I would not be enabled to do the work I do.   Another good word to study in this context is "nicolaitan" (no offense to my critic intended).
congregational leader:  3.  He believes ministers should not receive of tithes and offerings for their support.  He believes ministers should get a job like everyone else and stop "bilking" the people out of their money. 
Lew:      This topic is always very big with "religious leaders" -  notice this is high on this gentleman's list.  Did Kepha have a job?  Andrew, Kepha, and Yohanan did quite a bit of fishing, and not for sport.  Paul was a maker of tents, and he mourned for the occasions he was supported by assemblies when he needed to impose on them.   He surely didn't confuse this support with the tithe;  he carried offerings of food to the saints in Yerushaliyim when there was a famine (1 Cor. 16:3, Romans 15:26,27).   The poor were foremost on the minds of these men  (Galatians 2:10).   We are to be supported as elders in the Body, and this is to do the work of the workman;  we must not become a burden on every person to the extent of taking 10% from everyone's wages.  Those with the means will have it put on their heart to invest in our work, and by doing so share in the rewards.  The Gentiles who reaped spiritually from the people of Elohim were encouraged to share materially with them (Romans 15:26,27).   Our brother's word "offerings" above was never a topic I taught against in the book.   I still feel that we who serve the Body should work in an auxiliary capacity to earn a living, since we are not Levites and exempt from having a livelihood.   Each one of the Body is of the priesthood of Melckizedek, and we are the living stones of the Temple of YHWH.
congregational leader:      4.  He does not believe in gathering on the Sabbath, or in fact, ever needing to gather as Believers. 
Lew:      We worship YHWH by our obedience every day.  Gathering on Shabbat (or after Shabbat, as we see done at Acts 20:7-12) is encouraged if possible in Fossilized Customs.  But, we must study to see if it is required to assemble or not.  Reading Exodus/Shemoth 16:29,30, we know we must not leave our "vicinity" on a Shabbat.  Primarily, we are commanded to assemble 3 times in a year (males over 20).  On a typical Shabbat, those who study may do so in their homes today with their families, where the basic focus or center of our life and walk begins.   The small synagogues we read about in Scripture describe study groups of converting Gentiles, and native Israelites that wished to further their knowledge, or become teachers (rabbis) themselves. Yahuah told parents to teach His Torah to their children, no one else.  We do not live to assemble; but we are to live to teach our children the Torah of YHWH.   The small synagogues could never have contained all the Israelites in a town.  In fact, Yahuah never commanded that synagogues even be built.  When we assemble it is for edification, and here each one is to have a turn at teaching, prophesying, interpreting, revelations, singing, according to their gifts (1 Cor. 14:26).   If we never gather together, the Voice of Yahushua cannot speak to the Body  -- the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Yahushua.  He is in us, and teaches us through one another  -- even the least of us.   Perhaps our brother misunderstood what I meant in the book;  we are not "obliged" or commanded to assemble each and every Shabbat (as Catholicism has taught for centuries about their Sun-day worship services called the mass).   If we choose to, we can sleep all day on Shabbat, and no wrong is done.   Leaders who insist otherwise may have an agenda to push  -- and their congregation should investigate what that may be.   If a leader takes up a collection of money on the Sabbath, then they need to find where this behavior is seen in Scripture  --  we should not be carrying money around at all on a Shabbat;  even the beggars have to take this day off.  What does this text mean:  "Six days work is done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a set-apart miqra.  You do no work, it is a Sabbath to YHWH in all your dwellings." Please look up the Hebrew meaning of MIQRA, as it pertains to its root, QARA.  The root meaning is proclaim, not gather or convocate as translators have rendered it.


congregational leader:      5.  He believes in the "Two House / Covenant" theory, whereas, all Gentiles Believers are descended from the lost 10 tribes of Israel.  This is the "Ephraimite Error." 
Lew:       My error comes from Scriptural references which clearly contrast the terms "house of Israel" and "house of Yahudah", a division which developed after Dawid's conflict with Abshalom.  The Yahudim are indeed among the Elect of YHWH, but there are "other sheep who are not of this fold".   Please don't put me into a box by thinking I believe that England and America are the primary remnants of the 10 lost tribes.  Amos 9:9 tells us "For look, I am commanding, and I shall sift the house of Israel among the Gentiles, as one sifts with a sieve, yet not a grain falls to the ground."   Ya'aqob 1:1 is addressed  "to the twelve tribes who are in the dispersion, Greetings!"   YirmeYahu 31 speaks of this "Ephraimite Error":  "For there shall be a day when the watchmen (Natsarim) cry on mount Ephraim, 'Arise, and let us go to Tsiyon, to YHWH our Elohim."   Then there are the end-time prophecies of the "two sticks" being made into one again, declared at Ezekiel 36 & 37, but if a person chooses to think these are Jews being regathered to Jews, then they are missing out on the revealed secret of Elohim which is being revealed just prior to the sounding of the 7th messenger (Rev. 10:7, Eph. 3:6).  No harm done, but is this really an issue over which we have to become adversarial with one another?   Shaul warned us to shun foolish controversies and genealogies  -  see 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.   But, I like knowing that the 12 gates into the New Yerushaliyim will be named for each of the 12 tribes, because Yahushua is finding each one of us -- and others also who are engrafting.  The 12 tribes (Israel) are the priests to the nations.
congregational leader:      6.  He believes God has divorced Israel (p. 59) for her idolatry.  Physical Israel no longer has a covenant with God unless they accept the New Covenant. 
Lew:      Odd that you would bring this up!  If you turn to YirmeYahu 3, you will read about the treachery which the northern "house" (Israel) did after Dawid and Abshalom's conflict caused the division of the north and south.  YHWH even says that the house of Yahudah did not return to Him from her backsliding even after witnessing what He had brought on the north (Israel was carried away!).  He pleads with the house of Yahudah, telling her that her sister (Israel of the north) would not return to Him, "But she did not return.  And her treacherous sister Yahudah saw it.  And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisrael had committed adultery (idolatry), I had put her away and given her a certificate of DIVORCE;  yet her treacherous sister Yahudah did not fear; but went and committed whoring too."   YirmeYahu 3:7,8.

congregational leader:      7.  He use of "Paleo Hebrew" is outlandish and ridiculous, as there are many uncertainties about original character meaning and pronunciation.  He believes that using "Paleo Hebrew" for God and Yeshua is the "only" correct way of representing them.  He says the use of God is pagan and the use of Jesus/Yeshua is incorrect. 

Lew:      YHWH Elohim used palaeo-Hebrew to write the Torah in the stone tablets, so I stand on my choice of characters with Him.  In fact, most of the prophets wrote in the archaic, primary Hebrew;  it was only during the Babylonian Captivity that the Yahudim took the "Babylonian Hebrew" characters on -- Belshatstsar needed Daniel to read this "outlandish and ridiculous" script, because the Babylonians knew nothing of it.   Mosheh, Abraham, Enoch, Dawid, Shlomoh -- these men could not read modern Hebrew; they used that "outlandish and ridiculous" palaeo-Hebrew script.  The Great Scroll of Isaiah (YeshaYahu) is a copy of the original, and it is on display in the Shrine of the Book Museum in Yerushaliyim -- the Name is preserved in its original "outlandish and ridiculous" palaeo-Hebrew script, while the rest of the text is in modern Hebrew.  The original is the Qodesh script, and must never be referred to in a profane or disrespectful manner.  The letters (22) of both scripts have the same meanings and sounds (with some exceptions).   The words mean the same things too.  Alef is "ox", Beth is "house", and so on.   Being a "living language",  changes have occurred in the Hebrew tongue.  But the script we call the palaeo-Hebrew was taught to Enoch by a messenger of YHWH (Book of Jubilees, source info).  I have no axe to grind with the Aramaic whatsoever, but if we have to choose between them, I vote for the way my Father writes.  We are babbling today, no doubt.  Change is a form of corruption too.  I can read both forms, both modern Babylonian/Aramaic as well as palaeo-Hebrew.  I encourage everyone to draw closer to the original script, and for this I take a little heat once in a while.
congregational leader:   8.  His use of "Yahushua" is completely incorrect for representing Messiah. 
Lew:      Y'shua is fine with me, since it was written on Ya'aqob's ossuary in this way.  But, it should not be dangerous to know that Y'shua is short for something, just as "Larry" is short for Lawrence.  Yahshua is another fine rendering.  Yeshua might be alright, as long as it isn't attempting to modify the vowel for the sound of the Name, YAH.   We mustn't argue over words, but grow in understanding why we are using them.  If a person wants to dig into it a little, the Greek texts at Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 will reveal the fact that "Joshua" and "Jesus" have the same underlying Greek letters, and so scholars have deduced that the two men actually have identical spellings in Hebrew.   Greek is an intermediate language, and we know our Rabbi did not have a Greek name, nor did He ever hear "Jesus" on His eardrums.  "Joshua" is spelled yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin.  If you notice the spelling of "Yahudah", the first three letters also match this Name as well as the first three letters in YHWH, yod-hay-waw-hay.  If the proper way to say yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin is not Yahushua, then I'm all ears to learn a better way. 
congregational leader:    9.  His use of Ha-Shatan is an incorrect use of the Hebrew language. 
Lew:     Shatan is word #7853, spelled shin-tet-nun, and means adversary or opponent.  The prefix "ha" is simply an article equivalent to our word, "the".  Is this something to get our hackles up over?  Used as a pronoun, it is sometimes mistaken to be the same thing as a name;  but in these cases it is merely a designation for a being who has, in fact, had his original name blotted out.  The name this being had prior to its rebellion is easily researched;  it is Azazel, meaning power of Elohim.  Like us, this being has to go through time, so he doesn't exist in all time like YHWH does.   If the word were spelled shin-tau-nun, it would mean "to urinate".  They sound the same -- so that may be poetic justice.  Now we're having fun!
congregational leader:    10.  Throughout his book he has nothing good to say about anyone or anything, as he believes he is the only one who has the correct understanding. 
Lew:      I didn't realize that the book was not only depressing, but also taken to be a monument to conceit as well.   I sincerely apologize if it was taken that way, but I recall stating that I merely gathered facts from many sources, and put them together  -- not to judge people, but rather customs which had unsavory origins.  Sure, most of the investigation is a major bummer, but trashing nonsense and doctrines against the Truth are difficult to present with a gleeful outcome.  The wonderful news is, lots of people can investigate on their own to find out if what I've uncovered is true or not.  Then they can gain the understanding and see how it feels to have eaten the "red pill" (analogy to Matrix).   "With much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."  Eccl. 1:18.   I will pray for you, brother, to be granted wisdom in greater measure, and I hold no bitterness against you for your position.  In the future, you will find that using Scripture to correct and rebuke error will work much better than personal feelings and popular opinions (just a friendly tip).  "Preach the Word . . ."  2 Tim. 4:2.
congregational leader:      11.  The entire book is incoherent and rambles endlessly back and forth between subjects and concepts.  The book has no set order, theme, or consistent message. 
Lew:       The tapestry I chose to unravel is connected to many disciplines of knowledge, and what you said about the "rambling" back and forth is quite true  --  but it is also true of the writings of brother Shaul.    Reading FC is not for entertainment.  Many who have read it tell me they begin to see more and more with their 2nd and 3rd reading.  If it doesn't make sense to you, then read it again, and again, until the consistent message appears to you.   Below, our brother rightly describes the contents of FC, calling them "abhorrent".   I could not agree more.    The deceptions that have been perpetrated upon all mankind are described more concisely by the messenger's words recorded by brother Yohanan:
"Babel the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, and a haunt for every unclean and hated bird, because all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her whoring, and the sovereigns of the earth have committed whoring with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the power of her riotous living."  Rev. 18:2,3.   If my worst sin is writing the book Fossilized Customs, exposing the deceptions and showing the Truth, then I am indeed relieved.  The trouble is, I think I'm guilty of much worse -- I was doomed at one time without knowledge of Yahushua, and His love for me, and all His chosen ones.
As I reflect back to when I could not understand Scripture, I could have been guilty of having the same opinion of it, as you said of FC:   "The entire book is incoherent and rambles endlessly back and forth between subjects and concepts.  The book has no set order, theme, or consistent message". 
congregational leader:     Rick, as a result of these things, I feel it is inappropriate to be promoting a man with such deviate and unscriptural ideas.  I think it would be in proper order to print a retraction in your next issue and warn people against this man and his book.  I have had to deal with this book numerous times, as a number of people have been led astray by it's abhorent contents.
congregational leader:     Feel free to use any of this e-mail in either direct or indirect quote.   
Lew:      (I concur, Rick; circulate this in any way you like.) 
Lew White, Strawberry Islands Messianic Publishing   Petah Tikvah (Link) 


Next is a response I made to a brother who had received two letters regarding criticisms by the Christian Research Institute.  Their criticisms and accusations against the "Sacred Name / Yahweh groups" are typical of most people who initially encounter Truth that may make them stretch beyond the box they are in.   I guess those of us "outside the box" will seem like aliens to those who have closed themselves off from more Truth.    Yahushua isn't a "Christian" . . . . .

Lew:     I finally read the two letters they sent to you in response to the issues of the Name and so on. One of the letters acknowledged that the name "Jesus" is Greek.   They didn't seem to hear what they were really saying by this obvious admission.  To be technically accurate, "Jesus" isn't really Greek, but rather a Latinization based on the Greek.   He also said that "Jesus" and "Yahshua" refer to the same Person.  This is quite true, but one of the two words is a counterfeit for the "only Name" under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved.   He also was broad-stroking the definition of the word "name", yet when YHWH spoke of His Name, His intention was never for us to substitute it with other terms.   Also, Yahushua was quite specific when He referred to the Name, and His own.   He knew, obviously, that the nation of Israel was not using the Name, and He stated He had "revealed" the Name to those the Father had given to Him (Yn. 17:6).   They didn't even know it until He used it, tradition had levied the penalty of death on anyone who would ever use it aloud. 

    The other letter made the "sacred Name groups" sound like some bizarre, cultish extremists.  Actually, we're only obsessive and zealous for the Name, and the Torah.   This naturally seems alien to the religion "ABOUT" the Messiah, but not to we who seek the "Kingdom" (rulership) of YHWH.   We're not attempting to sneak over the wall, but we want to enter through the gate with a status of legitimacy.   We know the Name, the personal Name, of the One we serve.   Generic, vague references don't get the job done for us, because we have been given an awesome gift:  a love for the only true Elohim, and His Son  --  the Name is keeping us in unity as His followers.   Everlasting life is linked directly to knowing YHWH (Yn. 17:3) and His Son.   Yahushua is the One who has authority over all flesh, and He gives everlasting life to all those whom YHWH has given to Him.    Yahushua prayed that we be guarded in the Name of YHWH, the Name YHWH gave to Yahushua (not that there are two Names, nor two "Beings").   The article started out discussing the lack of our belief in the "trinity", and never used any Scriptural criticisms for this, but instead brought up that there were some Messianic groups that did believe in a trinity, as if that was some sort of proof that we surely are wrong about this.   I suppose the writer expected us to hear what he said about this, and respond with "Oh, well, we didn't realize there were other Messianics who believe that YHWH is three Beings;  we need to simply agree on that, and move on."    As I mentioned in a previous Email, the inception of the belief in the trinity can be read about in the article at:  (that's this page you're on)

    Often we have a tendency to search out fine points on which to disagree, but I still accept everyone as a brother who has the belief in Yahushua.  It is our love for one another that should be the unmistakable trait that the world should see, not all the arguing and divisions.   They may not have the "walk" correct at all, but taking baby steps in the right direction means a whole lot in Yahushua's eyes.   He is the light, and since He is in us, we are the light of the world for them to follow -- just like the shekinah pillar in the wilderness.   We aren't policemen, but ambassadors.   They will draw away from us if we keep using stun guns and bull prods on them;  their struggle, and ours, is against authorities and principalities of wickness of a spiritual nature.   These principalities have sent many false doctrines/teachings out into the world, but overcomers (by Yahushua's power) will discern what is a lie, and what is Truth.   They will admit that the false Sabbath they observe is not the same one that Yahushua observed when He was on Earth 2000 years ago, the Sabbath He declared He was Master of.   Though they are blind, we are here to help guide them back to the path   --  we are not here to ridicule or condemn them.

I probably won't find time to get in touch with the writers of the letters, but you are welcome to share my responses with them if you think it will help.  

Response to a Second Critic of Fossilized Customs 

Lew's opening remarks:   The following is from an Email sent on 11-11-05 by a person who consulted her pastor for his opinion of certain information on this website concerning the NAME  (    Her words are in green, and her pastor's in black: 

Emailer:   "I don't know if you accept feedback by email, but I thought I would send it & if you can reply, that would be great.  I read "Fossilized Customs" recently & wanted to see how the pastor (at the church I have been attending) would respond to some of the info, so I emailed him a link to your website.  His initial response said that Jesus was the Greek transliteration of Joshua (or words to that effect).  So I sent him the link to the article on the name of Jesus from your website & asked if he had seen that article.  I copied the part of his reply that addresses it below." :

pastor:   "I did go to their website and read the article on the name of Jesus.  Let me tell you why it is false.  The oldest fragments of the New Testament, some dating back to 125 AD long before there was a Roman Catholic Church and even longer before the Jesuits arrived, all use the Greek name Jesus as is found in the Greek New Testament sitting here on my desk.   I would challenge these people to produce texts older than lets say P52 (Book of John, dated 125 AD) that don't use the name of Jesus.   They can't because they don't exist.   This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory similar to that of the DeVinci Code."

Emailer:   "I did not expect to sway him to accept what I have read, so I am not necessarily disappointed with his response.  I just reread the article & it still makes sense to me & I have no problem accepting what I have read so far.  I started attending this church years ago because it was one of the few that taught from the bible verse-by-verse.  The pastor started on the book of Hebrews last week.  I thought that I would attend a few more times, maybe even through the teaching on the book of Hebrews.  The more I consider it, the less inclined I am to return to that church or any other mainstream christianity group.  I was raised catholic & was able to accept christianity after I finished high school.  Now that I have read a couple of related books ("Nazarene Israel" & "Restoration") & had time to think & pray about it, accepting the re-newed covenant idea was not difficult at all.  I almost feel like I need to be deprogrammed or detoxified or something from everything I have been taught up to this point.  Thanks for your time."  [sender's name deleted]

Lew's response to Emailer:    Thank you for your gentle boldness in sharing the Truth with your assembly's "shepherd" (pastor).
This gentleman is fully aware that if he were to guide his sheep in the direction of the true Name, or promote obedience 
to the Covenant, he would lose about half of his assembly.   The idea that the Greek letters IESOU and 
IESOUS are the "final authority" for the real Name of our Messiah is promoted by all the seminaries and 
"Bible colleges", but all of these are off-shoots of Jesuit schools.   The first universities and seminaries 
were Catholic Cathedral schools, and the protestants mimicked these.   Remember also, the first protestants 
were all Catholics!    This is why I can honestly say that the false name JESUS is a promotion of the Jesuits, who only
want people to think about the Greek, and NEVER pay any attention to the original Hebrew.   Magicians use one thing to their advantage:   the skilled art of misdirection  -  the distraction in this instance is the Greek language.   We are children of Light, and Truth;  not misdirecton.
In the 4th century, a "church father" named Epiphanius wrote of a "sect" of "heretics" 
called NATSARIM that possessed a copy of the gospel of Matthew, as it was written in the original Hebrew.
The Catholic-controlled scroll team (concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls) at Ecole Biblique has a copy of 
Matthew found in one of the caves in 1947,  but they have not released it to be viewed by the world.
These scrolls were retired to those caves for only one reason:   the NAME of the Creator was written on them.
This means that the copy of Matthew (Hebrew, "MattithYahu") also has the NAME written on it.
But still we have the misguided impressions in seminary-trained men who think the GREEK is the final authority 
on this matter.   The pastor's challenge was to produce texts OLDER than AD 125 "that don't use the name Jesus".   Sure, no problem;  the Hebrew texts like the book of "Joshua" (the same name), and the scroll of MattithYahu (Matthew) discovered in the DSS, but held captive by the RCC.   We don't have to play the Greek game.   There IS NO TEXT before 1530 CE that uses the spelling JESUS.   The letter "J" didn't even exist until then.  Does IESOU look or sound anything like JESUS?   There is no letter "J" on this planet until around 1530.   What does the name IESOU mean?   What does the name JESUS mean?   No one really knows.   Yahushua means "Yah-is our-salvation", the same thing that "JOSHUA" (best "Yahushua") means.    It's Hebrew; not Greek, Latin, English, or Japanese.

Since you will be studying Hebrews soon, note carefully Hebrews chapter 4, and watch how 

they "spiritualize" the 4th Commandment (Sabbath).   Origen's school at Alexandria, Egypt started some of our modern interpretations because everything drifted into "allegorical" meanings.   Also, it's interesting that the GREEK text which underlies 
the English text uses the SAME LETTERS (IESOU) for both names, JESUS and JOSHUA  (proof can be easily seen
by looking at a Greek/English interlinear at Hebrews 4 and Acts 7).   Scholars agree that 
since this is the case, both our Messiah and Mosheh's successor had THE SAME NAME.   That name is spelled 
yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin in the Hebrew;  anyone who searches this out can see it in the Hebrew texts.   You might 
further challenge your pastor with my response here, to see how he might either accept or refute what I'm saying.
Pray for him, he may begin to see that our Rabbi Yahushua would not promote a fake Greek name, nor 
continue to teach His followers to ignore the true Sabbath (Hebrews 4), when He is the One who gave the Sabbath 
to mankind, and called it the "sign" of the eternal Covenant (see Ezekiel 20:12-20, Is. 56, Ex. 31:13-17).   
There is only one BODY, and that is ISRAEL, which former Gentiles (Eph. 2:8-13, Romans 11) must engraft into.  
Stay positive about sharing the truth with everyone, but in small, bite-sized bits.  The truth
that you send into the world around you will bear fruit, like planting and watering.  We're gardeners,
and Yahushua is the Owner of the garden.   People are the soil, waiting for the seed and watering we gardeners provide.
The thing we have to remember is that it takes time to see the fruit.  We plant a seed of truth, but often
want it to sprout ripe fruit right before our eyes.   Just keep planting and watering, and Yahushua will
bring forth the harvest.   Your efforts are having a huge effect.   When they talk about you behind your
back it's proof that you are rustling their consciences.   The truth will conflict with what they have come to
believe, and it will have to be reconciled eventually.   The truth never loses the battle against the principalities
and powers of evil.   The corruption we see in this world will be cleared-away, and what Yahushua plants in
its place will be eternal and pleasing to Him.
May Yahushua use us all for His purposes, and produce a beautiful garden!





  WHAT IS THE "GOSPEL"?   The true message is a SECRET

Q:  Where did we get the form "JESUS" from?

Is the author of Revelation still alive?





                 SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN                

Institute for Scripture Research, USA

Messianic Marriage Seekers Contact Page:

Read Psalm 80, and you will see that we are something completely new that Yahuah is doing, that He planned long ago.


See more about them at:

  Now available:  large print edition of Fossilized Customs, limited quantity.


Strawberry Islands Messianic Publishing, Louisville KY

Strawberry Islands Messianic Publishing, Louisville KY

The Torah is out there.   I want to obey.







Mr. Electricity Alan White Louisville KY




Commercial Real Estate Louisville KY for sale 402

CONDO - BUSINESS RETAIL / OFFICE 40299 for sale Louisville KY