Author's Response to Two Critics of Fossilized Customs
Concerning the Name "Jesus," jump to
bookmarked link on this page
Scripture uses the Name YAHUSHA 216
YAHUSHUA is found twice, YSHUA once, and JESUS is not found at all.
Below are the complete comments of a congregational leader in Texas who
wrote to a publisher of a magazine that used one of my early articles in it.
I’ll address both the publisher 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.
congregational leader to publisher: "In
the Oct-Dec 2003 issue of (publication), 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.
(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; Paul was thought to be one because he witnessed that Alahim 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 Paul 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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin)'s service. In the criticisms
below I find no circumstances which effect one's salvation before
Yahuah, 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:
congregational leader to publisher:
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).
2. He does not believe in the tithe and states it is a social decision and
not a biblical commandment (p. 89).
Catholicism, according to the circus father Athanasius:
"the belief in one god in three persons." (please research him)
are world-wide, Babel’s gift to the nations. Hinduism reflects the Babel triune
system of Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz in Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, and most of the Hindu
practices were adopted by Roman Catholicism from India (holy water, image
veneration, beads, candles).
Athanasius is called the father of orthodoxy (upright teaching), and was one of the main influences on the doctrines adopted at the Council of Nicea (325 CE).
He was from the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Egypt.
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 Yahuah 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 Yahuah 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 Yahuah is one.
Sir Isaac Newton and Alexander Hislop were non-trinitarians.
In Hislop's The Two Babylons, we read:
"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 (Alahim), and what likeness will
you compare unto Him?'"
- The Two Babylons, pgs. 16,17.
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. Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) 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 Yahuah (Proverbs 19:17, YaAqob 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 Kefa 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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin)'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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) 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).
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 Kefa have a job? Andrew, Kefa, 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 Yerushalom 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 Alahim 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 Yahuah.
4. He does not believe in gathering on the Sabbath, or in fact, ever
needing to gather as Believers.
Lew: We worship Yahuah by our obedience every day. Gathering on Shabath (or after Shabath, 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 Shabath. Primarily, we are commanded to assemble 3 times in a year (males over 20). On a typical Shabath, 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 Yisharalites 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
The small synagogues could never have contained all the Yisharalites in a town.
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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) cannot speak to the Body -- the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin). 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 Shabath (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 Shabath, 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 Shabath; 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 Yahuah 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.
5. He believes in the "Two House / Covenant" theory, whereas, all Gentiles Believers are descended from the lost 10 tribes of Yisharal.
This is the
My error in your sight comes from Scriptural references which
clearly contrast the terms "house of Yisharal" and "house of Yahudah," the
divided houses which developed after Daud (aka David)'s conflict with Abshalom.
The Yahudim are indeed among the Elect of Yahuah, 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 Yisharal among the Gentiles, as one
sifts with a sieve, yet not a grain falls to the ground." YaAqob 1:1
is addressed "to the twelve tribes who are in the dispersion,
YirmeYahu 31 speaks of this Ephraimite (Afraim) Error:
"For there shall be a day when the watchmen (Natsarim) cry on mount Ephraim, 'Arise, and let us go to Tsiyon, to Yahuah our Alahim." (A better transliteration would be "AFRAIM.")
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 Alahim 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? Paul 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 Yerushalom will be named for each of the 12 tribes, because Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) is finding each one of us -- and others also who are engrafting. The 12 tribes (Yisharal) are the priests to the nations.
6. He believes God has divorced Yisharal (p. 59) for her idolatry.
Physical Yisharal no longer has a covenant with God unless they accept
the New Covenant.
odd that you would bring this up! If you turn to YirmeYahu 3, you will read
about the treachery which the northern "house" (Yisharal) did after Daud (aka
David) and Abshalom's conflict caused the division of the north and
south. Yahuah 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 (Yisharal
was carried away!). He pleads with the house of Yahudah, telling her that
her sister (Yisharal 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 Yisharal 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
The ”old covenant” involved the use of animal blood offered for the temporary covering of sin for the nation through the priesthood.
The eternal Covenant is the Ten Commandments.
Yahusha has brought about a complete end to the use of
animal blood by offering His Own perfect blood as the high priest of the eternal
priesthood of Melkizedeq. One perfect offering has been made for all mankind,
and those trusting in His blood are to be obedient now, calling on His Name as
they pledge their belief in Him through immersion, the outward sign of a good
conscience toward Yahuah. We are redeemed by His blood, and sealed by calling on
His Name, Yahusha.
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: Yahuah Alahim 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, Kanok (aka Enoch), Daud (aka David), Shalomoh -- these men could not read modern Hebrew; they used that "outlandish and ridiculous" palaeo-Hebrew script.
The Great Scroll of Isaiah (YashaYahu) is a copy of
the original, and it is on display in the Shrine of the Book Museum in
Yerushalom -- 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, alterations have occurred in the Hebrew / Eberith tongue. But the script we call the palaeo-Hebrew was taught to Kanok / Enoch by a messenger of Yahuah (Book of Jubilees, source info).
The Aramaic script is from Babel, and the letters became known as modern Hebrew script.
In the 8th
century, dots were invented to divert the reader to pronounce Adonai”in place
of the Name Yahuah.
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.
8. His use of "Yahusha" is completely incorrect
for representing Messiah.
The hypocorism (diminutive form) Y'shua is fine with me, since it was written
on YaAqob'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 missing a letter (YAHU should be in there). Yeshua seems to be off a bit, and we all hope it isn't attempting to alter the sound of the Name, YAH.
YESHU is the acronym we should avoid, it is the term for Yahusha in the Talmud.
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-uau-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 Yahuah, yod-hay-uau-hay. These are written vowels.
If the proper way to say yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin is not Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin), then I'm all ears to learn a better way.
9. His use of Ha-Shatan is an incorrect use of the Hebrew language.
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."
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 Alahim. Like us, this being has to go through time, so he doesn't exist in all time like Yahuah does. If the word were spelled shin-tau-nun, it would mean to urinate.
They sound the same -- so that may be poetic justice.
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.
11. The entire book is incoherent and rambles endlessly back and forth between subjects and concepts.
The book has no set order, theme, or
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 Paul. 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 Yahukanon:
"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
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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin), 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."
Without Yahusha’s Spirit in us, we cannot understand what He inspired the
prophets to write. It was Yahusha in those prophets, because He is Yahuah.
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.
free to use any of this e-mail in either direct or indirect quote.
I concur; circulate this in any way you like.
Lew White, www.torahzone.net
THE NAME JESUS / IESV / IESOUS
Next is a response I made to a brother who had received two letters regarding
criticisms by a 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.
Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) isn't a Christian
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.
(Yahusha is a better transliteration)
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 Yahuah
spoke of His Name, His intention was never for us to substitute it with other
terms. Also, Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) was quite specific when
He referred to the Name, and His own.
He knew, obviously, that the nation of Yisharal was not using the Name, and He
stated He had "revealed" the Name to those the Father had given to Him (Yn.
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.
This seems alien to the religion "ABOUT" the Messiah, but not to we who seek the "Kingdom" (rulership) of Yahuah. 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 Hebrew 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 Alahim, and His Son -- the Name is keeping us in unity as His followers.
Everlasting life is linked directly to knowing Yahuah (Yn. 17:3) and His Son.
Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) is the One who has authority over all flesh, and
He gives everlasting life to all those whom Yahuah has given to Him.
Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) prayed that we be guarded in the Name of Yahuah,
the Name Yahuah gave to Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) (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
"Oh, well, we didn't realize there were other Messianics who believe that
Yahuah 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
We all 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 Yahusha
(yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin). 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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin)'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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin)'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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) 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:
"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." :
"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."
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 Yisharal" & "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
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
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 / MatithYahu found in Cave 1 at Qumran 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, but actually
HUSHA), and the scroll of MatithYahu (Matthew) discovered in the DSS, but held
captive by the RCC. We don't have to play the Greek trick.
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. Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) means "Yah-is our-salvation," the same
thing that JOSHUA (best Yahusha, yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) means.
Yahusha is 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 (Shabath).
Origen's school at Alexandria,
Egypt started some of our modern interpretations because everything drifted into
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-uau-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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin)
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 Shabath to
all 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 Yisharal, which former Gentiles (Eph.
2:8-13, Romans 11) must engraft to become partakers.
Stay positive about sharing the truth with everyone, but in small,
The truth that you send into the world around you will bear fruit, like planting and watering. We're workers / gardeners / caretakers, and Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) 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. Keep planting and watering, and Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) will
refine us and 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 Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) plants in
its place will be eternal and pleasing to Him.
May Yahusha (yod-hay-uau-shin-ayin) use us all for His purposes, and produce a
brother Lew White
Read Psalm 80, and you will see that we are something completely new that Yahuah
is doing, that He planned long ago.
How to find the research I’ve posted on the Internet:
Suppose you need to research something important, and want to know where to go
on the fossilized customs website to find it, or return to it again. Here's how:
Empty your web browser, and type these words separately:
+ customs + (the word you want to
To find the page of poems, I only had to enter three words,
fossilized customs poems
The top hit selected is:
BACK TO FOSSILIZED CUSTOMS HOMEPAGE
Are You A Critic?
We should all test what we are taught.
On this page, I address some of the comments made by critics, and help them understand some of the ideas in Fossilized Customs they may have misunderstood. The Truth is a threat to the rigid teaching authorities that impose their ideas on their adherents. 2000 years ago the Pharisees were the self-appointed authority that controlled teachings.
They used the power of the Sanhedrin to wipe out all those who would not accept their authority, just as the Magisterium of Rome controls the teachings they endorse.
Truth is not their foundation, and the Scripture of Truth had to be withheld
from the crowds.
Everything changed when the printing press was invented (1450 CE).
The Inquisition and subsequent militia of assassins (Societas IESU) swept away those who might be a threat to their teaching authority.
The Natsarim are obsessive and zealous for the Name, and the Torah (Word). Fossilized Customs is a book that explains the way the World Order (beast) controls what you believe and practice. The critics hate this book.
Share the link: