Butchering the Name of God

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?

Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has bound the waters in a garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,

If you know? [Proverbs 30:4; NKJV]

It would be interesting to see how many verses the "Old Testament" state that Yahweh has a son.  If we take the phrase "image of God" as literally as possible, then that too would be an allusion to the fact that God has a son, though there's only so much that can be gleaned from that phrase before things start to break down.  But that's not the point of this post.  Today, we're going to focus on the questions "what is his name" and "what is his son's name", or more accurately, we're going to focus on what they are not.

You might be thinking that the Sacred Names movement is responsible for the trend of butchering God's name (and his son's name).  And you would be partially correct.  But the first historical instance actually comes from the Hebrew scribes themselves.  When vowel points were created for the Hebrew alphabet (called the "alef-bet"), and the scribes started making copies of the Bible that had these points on them, whenever they reached the name of God, they would deliberately put the wrong vowel points on that name.  The vowel points used caused the name to be pronounced "Yehovah" (English equivalent is "Jehovah"), and these deliberately incorrect markings were to remind the reader to never pronounce God's name.  Instead, they say "adonai", which is Hebrew for "lord".  "Adonai" is God's title, not his name.  And because God's people (including Christians) follow human rules rather than God's rules, the completely pagan law forbidding the name of God from ever being pronounced is followed in spite of the law of Yahweh!

Today, we have the Sacred Names movement and other movements butchering God's name to some degree other another.  Some are not as bad as others.  The one's that can be abbreviated "YHWH" in its transliteration, and contain three syllables at most are the least egregious of these butcherings.  As for the rest (as far as I'm concerned), it's a different name, and therefore, a different god.  One that masquerades as the God of the Bible!  This deception is so much worse than the fake faith healers.  Because one killed by a fake faith healer may still be raised to eternal life if their faith is ultimately in Yeshua instead of the "faith healers", but those who put their faith in these demons disguised as God will perish in the lake of fire!

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" [Matthew 7:21-23; NKJV]

Again, different name, different god!  And while we technically do not know with 100% certainty what God's name is thanks to the above-mentioned scribes (I believe it's "Yahweh"), we do know with 100% certainty what our Messiah's name is!  It is "Yeshua" in Hebrew.  Of course, that won't stop people from saying that it's really "Yahshua" because that means "God saves".  This ignores the fact that (a) those who speak the language (rather than merely studying it to better understand Scripture) pronounce it "Yeshua", and (b) not every name that contains the "YH" is pronounced "Yah".  Some names ("Benyamin" for example) are pronounced with "yah" instead of "ye".

And, just like with the name of God, changing that one syllable simply because of a lack of understanding of the Hebrew language is the least egregious of these mutilations of the Lord's name.  And like with the first, I dare to say for the rest, different name means it's a different god!  A different savior!  The only exception to this rule would be if someone used "Yehoshua", but only because "Yeshua" is the contracted for of "Yehoshua", which literally means "God is salvation".

Spirits Are Not What You Think!

Spirits are typically thought of as immaterial, supernatural beings that are capable of influencing the material world.  And while it's true that some types of spirits are exactly this, the word for spirit is so incredibly broad that it can refer to even that which can only exist if it has a material host and is bound strictly by the capabilities of said host.  In these cases, if the material host is destroyed, then the spirit also is destroyed, and ceases to exist.  The word in Hebrew is "ruach", and in Greek is "pneuma".  These words literally mean "wind".

Wind refers to the physical movement of air.  You cannot see the wind, but you can see the effects that it has on some of the things that it interacts with.  When the Bible uses the word "wind" to refer to something other than moving air, it can be referring to anything that cannot be seen, but the effects of which can be seen.  By this definition, the software that you are using to read this article is also classified as a "spirit" or "wind".  Because you cannot see the software, but you can see its effects when it interacts with your monitor.

This word is translated as "breath" in places like Genesis 6:17, where the context is in a creature's ability to breathe.  This same word is also found in Genesis 7:22, but some translations skip translating it, since the word "neshema" (literally means "breath") is translated instead.  Other translations use "of the spirit" instead.  However, since the context is in the creature's ability to breathe, translating this word as "spirit" instead of "wind" or "breath" is actually incorrect.  Another example of the word being used in the context of a creature's ability to breathe is Job 34:14-15.  Specifically, the context is a person's ability to breathe, and what would happen if this ability was taken away.  In this passage, "ruach" is typically translated as "spirit" instead of "wind" or "breath".  This may be because the passage describes it as belonging to God.

There are some instances, the word is used to describe someone's state of mind, or their emotional state.  For example, Genesis 26:35, where the word is translated as "mind".  In Judges 8:3, the word is translated as "anger".  And in Genesis 41:8 and 45:27, it's translated as "spirit".  In fact, this seems to be the case in a great number of passages where the word is translated as "spirit" when dealing with human "spirits".  Just goes to show that you cannot always rely on the translation of Scripture to give you an accurate picture of what's going on.

Along similar lines, in Judges 9:23, Yahweh sends a "spirit of ill" between two groups of people, resulting in a civil war which destroyed both parties, which dealt treacherously with those who had previously rescued them from the Midianites.  This "spirit of ill" refers to how the group's relationship with each other went from one of friendship to one of hatred.  And in the case of 1 Samuel 16:4, the "distressing spirit" from Yahweh refers to Yahweh turning King Saul into a madman.  The "spirit" in this case is referring to the person's character.  The word can also refer to someone's motivation or lack thereof.  By the way, it is entirely possible that the "Spirit of God" can often refer to God's character, motivation, emotion, etc., and not what is typically thought of as the Spirit of God.

As far as I can tell, the first instance where a spirit is described as being a personal being is 2 Chronicles 18:18-22.  This does not by any means, mean that all spirits are personal beings, but this is the first indication that some of them are.  Though just because something is personified, does not mean that it's a personal being either.  For example, wisdom is personified in Proverbs 1:20 and elsewhere.  Also, I'm not counting 1 Samuel 28:13 (King Saul consulting a medium) because the word translated as "spirit" is the Hebrew word "elohim", which literally means "mighty ones", and typically refers to God, or one or more false gods (should be a hint as to what is actually going on in that passage), or a human being who is a ruler or has great influence, strength, or wealth.

When referring to human beings, I cannot find one instance where the spirit is described as an immaterial being controlling a material body.  On the contrary, we are described as having spirits, but none of those spirits are described as being "us".  Our "spirits" are part of who we are, but can be entirely removed from us and replaced with an entirely different "spirit" (eg: Ezekiel 36:26).  These "spirits" represent our character, or the desires of our heart (and yes, the heart is capable of having thoughts and desires).  There are very few instances where these spirits are even implied to be immaterial beings.

By the way, that's just the "Old Testament".  It's not really until the "New Testament" that we see spirits that are unmistakably described as immaterial beings.  That doesn't mean that they didn't exist until the "New Testament" era.  We just don't hear of them before then.  This in no way means that the nature of human spirits has changed.  In fact, the "New Testament" uses the word for spirit in the same way as the "Old Testament" in many places.  For example, Mark 2:8, where it refers to Yeshua's state of mind.  Or in Luke 8:55, where the intended usage is probably like that of Genesis 6:17, or Job 34:14-15.  That is to say, that the girl that Yeshua raised started breathing again.  In certain instances, like in Luke 13:11-13, it appears that the "spirit" may be referring to an unseen medical condition that the doctors of the day couldn't figure out, rather than an immaterial being.  Actually, the passage outright says it was a sickness, so the "spirit" likely refers to an unseen material cause of the sickness.  And it's also the case that it never states in this instance that Yeshua drove anything out.

What about places like John 19:30 or Acts 7:59?  The former is using the word like Genesis 6:17, and is likely a newer version of the idiom "he breathed his last" (Genesis 25:8).  The latter is probably a reference to Ecclesiastes 12:7, which states that the spirit (referring to the person's breath) returns to God while the person returns to dust.  It does not say that the spirit of the righteous returns to God.  It says the spirit returns to God, regardless of the righteousness or wickedness of the person.  The person who had it returns to dust.

There are two remaining issues concerning the topic of spirits:  (1) What is the nature of the Holy Spirit.  And (2) can spirits have a physical or defined form (material or otherwise)?  Let's start with the second question first, then we'll address the first question.

As mentioned at the beginning of the post, the word translated as "spirit" simply means "wind".  And a wind is something that cannot be seen, but has effects that can be seen.  So there is no reason, from this definition, that a spirit cannot have a physical (material or otherwise) form.  Some will object to this and quote a passage like John 4:24 ("God is a spirit") with Luke 24:39 ("spirits do not have flesh and bones"), asserting that no spirits have any physical form.  I touched on this in my post about the Image of God, but didn't go into detail.  So let's do exactly that.

A similar instance to Luke 24:39, where the disciples are frightened when they see Yeshua are Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49 (Yeshua walking on the water).  Now, Matthew and Mark do not use the word "pneuma" to describe what the Disciples thought they saw.  They use the word "phantasma", which is where we get the word "phantom" from.  "Phantasma" is used to describe a specific type of spirit.  In other words:  The Disciples thought that they saw a ghost.  Luke however, doesn't care about being specific about the type of spirit, though the situation is the same, but in a different setting.  So he uses the vague word, "wind", instead.  The vagueness of Luke should not be used to nullify the specificity of Matthew and Mark.  By the way, the word "phantasma" literally means "to blow".  Ghosts also do not exist.  Because of this, one cannot say, "the Image of God cannot be literal" just because God is a spirit.

Now, about the nature of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God.  The Bible is actually very vague about this.  For example, it never says that the Holy Spirit is God, nor does it ever require you to believe that it is.  It also never says that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, though some Scriptures imply that it is while others imply that it is not.  Nor does Scripture require us to believe either way concerning that.  But there are some places where the "spirit of God" is clearly referring to God's character, desires, or state of mind or emotion.  Other than that, it would seem as if God never intended for us to know the nature of his Spirit, and that's assuming that we can even understand it.  In fact, 1 Corinthians 2:11 states that we do not know the things of God, implying that we cannot know these things.

To summarize:  A human spirit can refer to the person's breath, or the wind of a person's breath.  Or it can refer to a person's character, desires, state of emotion, or state of mind.  A person is not a spirit, and a person's spirit is not an immaterial being inhabiting a material body.  When a person dies (regardless of whether that person is righteous or wicked), the spirit returns to God while the person returns to dust (this is why a bodily resurrection is necessary for Judgement Day or to fulfill the promise of eternal life).

One more thing:  Do not conflate "spirits" with "souls".  The former is described as something that we have while the latter is described as something that we are (Genesis 2:7).  That's a topic for another post.

Resurrection Contradiction?

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26; NKJV]

The above passage is one of several passages where Yeshua references the resurrection and promises eternal life.  The reason I bring up this passage is the apparent contradiction between Yeshua saying, "the one who believes in me shall live even though he dies" and him also saying, "the one who believes in me shall never die".  So how is this alleged contradiction resolved?  First, the passage is in the context of the resurrection.  Yeshua even states that much right before he said what he did.  Therefore, the rest of the passage shall be interpreted as if it is a statement of what will happen at the resurrection of the righteous.  Note that the one who does not believe in Yeshua will perish.

If the one who believes in Yeshua shall live even though he dies, then that is clearly a promise that the believer who dies shall be raised back to life.  I used to interpret verse 26 to mean that the soul leaves the body just before death, I have since learned (through some people pointing it out) that (a) souls are something that we are (Genesis 2:7), not something that we have.  And (b) the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)!  So that interpretation is ruled-out.  But again, Yeshua made it clear that what he is saying concerns the resurrection of the righteous, those who believe in him.  So the correct interpretation is that once you are raised at the resurrection of the righteous, you will never die again.

One interesting thing to note is that Yeshua counted the living among the dead and the dead among the living.  For example, in Mathew 8:22, he spoke of living people as if they were already dead.  And in Matthew 22:32, he spoke of dead people as if they were still living.  Matthew 22:32 is another passage who's context concerns the resurrection.  There are probably other passages like this.  So what's the idea behind counting the living as being dead and the dead as being alive?  If you answer the following question, you will have your answer:  What is the end result?  Those who are raised at the resurrection of the righteous will live forever.  Those who are not raised at the resurrection of the righteous will perish!

But there is not one resurrection, but two!  The resurrection of the righteous, which is the one that happens first (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and the resurrection of the wicked, which happens later.  At the second resurrection, there will be many people who will wish that they were not raised because of what will happen to them!

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and [the Grave] delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and [the Grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. [Revelation 22:11-15; NKJV] [see note at end of post]

This is what will happen at the second resurrection, the resurrection of the wicked.  They will be required to give an account of everything that they have done.  And because they do not have any atonement for their sins, they themselves will pay the penalty for their sins by burning up in the lake of fire!  All who transgress the Law of Yahweh and have not had their sins atoned for by the blood of Yeshua will perish in the lake of fire as punishment for their innumerable transgressions.  The same will happen to anyone who uses this atonement as a license to sin, and willfully do that which they know is contrary to the commands of Yahweh.  The atonement for sin comes from the blood of Yeshua by believing in Yeshua, the one who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Note:
The Greek word "Hades" is a substitute for the Hebrew word "sheol", which literally means "grave".  The definition of the Hebrew equivalent is prioritized, because the New Testament (with the exception of Hebrews) was written in Hebrew.  One of the definitions of "Hades" is also "grave", but usually refers to either a false god or the realm of said false god which has the same name.  This pagan association is also why I'm prioritizing the definition of the Hebrew equivalent.

The Evils of April Fools Day

This is the day when many people pull pranks on each other and practice all sorts of deceptions and practical jokes on others in ways that tear each other down.  What could possibly be wrong with that?  Especially since the these are revealed to be "April Fools" jokes shortly thereafter?  Well, let's start with Leviticus 19:11.  "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another [NKJV]."  Pretty straight forward.  And in case you're wondering what "dealing falsely" means, the word translated as "falsely" is the Hebrew word "kahas", which deals with deception.  The intent of these pranks is to deceive, which makes them contrary to Yahweh's commandments, even though they are quickly revealed to be pranks.

What about when the intent is not to deceive?  For example, anyone who checks the date on an article that says outlandish things may quickly notice that the intent is not to deceive, but rather to joke around.  (You're not going to find me posting those types of articles or videos, by the way.  And I'm certainly not joking around in this one.)  Such things follow the letter of the commandment, so they are technically not sinful.  But I do not believe that such things follow the heart of the commandment.  But I will leave it to you to decide for yourself.

Now, about what happens when someone does fall for your prank or practical joke:  As I said earlier, such things tear people down by making them look foolish for falling for what you have said or done.  This is the opposite of what we should be doing as members of the Body of the Messiah.  For example, 1 Thessalonians 5 is all about encouraging one another.  April Fools' jokes do the exact opposite to those who fall for them.

By the way, even when everything else that is done on April 1st is in line with the Bible, that does not necessarily mean that the day itself is okay.  The thing that would make it not okay is if it were somehow linked to pagan worship.  Deuteronomy 12 makes it very clear that anything that the pagans did to worship their gods is off limits to us!  An internet search gives some quite interesting results:  While the origins of the day are not known, it would seem that April 1st has many centuries of history of people pranking each other.  There are indeed some inconclusive links to pagan worship (links that are probably correct).  And there are also speculations of other links.  Of course, there are some who interpret the unbiblical practices of a "holiday" as definitive proof of the day's pagan origins.  I learned of that line of logic when doing research about Purim and Hanukkah.  So make of that what you will.  But even without this link, this day goes against every intent of Yahweh's commandments, even when the commandments are not actually broken.  It also goes against the intent of Yeshua's teachings of going above and beyond what is required of us.

Misunderstanding the Doctrine of Obedience

Have you ever heard the claim that "obedience to God's Law is by definition, salvation by works"?  Well, that's a lie!  According to Deuteronomy 13, those that love Yahweh obey his Law.  And those that rebel against his Law by definition, practice idolatry!  Is it possible that someone will keep Yahweh's Law as a means of salvation?  Yes.  But there are other reasons to keep the Law of Yahweh.  For example, to prove that you love Yahweh.  Or to prove that they believe in Yeshua.  Yeshua said that those who love him will keep his commandments (John 14:21).  And Yeshua commanded us to live on every word of Yahweh (Matthew 4:4).  You are not living on every word of Yahweh if you are rebelling against his Law!

This misunderstanding concerning obedience is understandable.  Simply put, the teaching that, "one cannot be saved so long is one is living in rebellion", can be easily misinterpreted as saying that it's the obedience that saves you, rather than faith in Yeshua.  For example, Hebrews 10:26 makes it clear that those living in rebellion have no atonement.  But it is also clear from other passages, such as Romans 3:19-20, make it clear that, even if one were to stop rebelling against Yahweh's Law, they would still not be saved!  And Yeshua said, "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men [Matthew 12:31; NKJV]."  So the one who stops their rebellion will be forgiven of their rebellion.

While this may look like salvation by works, it's not.  It only looks that way because living in rebellion will prevent you from being saved.  If someone stops rebelling against Yahweh's commandments, that does not automatically mean they are saved.  It just means they can be saved.  Salvation still comes from believing in Yeshua.  All this can be summed-up by the following saying:  "Obedience cannot save you, but rebellion will condemn you."  You might have also heard this saying:  "We do not keep the Law to be saved.  We keep the Law because we're saved."

There are some things that need to be addressed.  The ultimate reason that this misunderstanding exists is because Satan wants to keep us away from Yahweh.  And he does that by deceiving us into believing that the Law is bad, and that keeping it is bad.  Yeshua warned against this tactic when he said, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men [Matthew 15:8-9; NKJV]."  Their hearts are far from Yahweh because they do not keep his commandments.  So now you know that drawing close to Yahweh starts with keeping his Law.

There are of course human motivations for believing that obedience is salvation by works:  People do not like change!  They want to continue in their ways and their hearts deceive them into making excuses for continuing in what they now know is sinful.  This is an excellent example of the mind being governed by the flesh not being able to submit to Yahweh's Law, as Paul warned about in Romans 8:7.  For teachers, there is even more motivation to teach this:  Money and/or power!  Or rather, the love of money and/or power.  People generally have itching ears and will not tolerate anyone who does not tell them exactly what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4)!  And guess what:  You can't maintain a Church building if nobody is there to give their "tithe" to the Church.  Then there are the wolves!  These teachers know the truth, and teach the opposite.  It is their job to make sure that you perish in the Lake of Fire!  By the way, the more people realize that God expects us to keep his Law, the more wolves will make themselves known.

What Loving God Really Means

What are the two greatest commandments?  Yeshua was asked this once, and here's what he said in response:

37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 22:37-40; NKJV]

This is probably the exact passage that you were quoted concerning this very topic.  In fact, it's likely the case that this passage was quoted as an excuse to ignore Torah ("Torah" is Hebrew for "instruction" and is typically translated as "law"), that is, God's Law.  The argument is that since all of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments, then just obeying these two means we do not have to keep the rest.  There's just one slight problem with this interpretation.  Okay, several problems, but we'll get into those later.  What does it mean to love God?  Also, what does it mean to love your neighbor?  Should it be left to man to figure these things out for himself?

For starters, loving God is defined in several places.  One of these places is the second commandment, which is the one against idolatry.  Here's what the third commandment says:

4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. [Exodus 20:4-6; NKJV]

Notice that in verse 6, it mentions those who love God and keep his commandments.  This is found elsewhere in Torah.  For example, in Deuteronomy 7:9.  There is no such thing as loving God without keeping his commandments, which is his Law.  If you are not doing the latter, then you are by definition, also not doing the former.  You may have noticed that there are many posts where I mention Deuteronomy 13.  In fact, this one chapter not only defines loving God as keeping his commandments, it also defines idolatry as rebellion against his commandments.  And it is also where the Deuteronomy 13 Test comes from.  We see a hint of this in the second commandment.  Notice in verse 5, the second commandment says that those who practice idolatry hate God.

So if loving God is keeping his commandments, then Torah tells us how to love God.  Interestingly enough, most of the commandments concerning how to love God are labeled by the Church as being the "ceremonial law", which they claim we do not have to keep because of what Yeshua did.  And as mentioned in my last post, the Church doesn't mind sidelining their "most important doctrines" if it means they get to keep their golden calves (among other things).

But there is another part to what Yeshua said.  He said that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.  If the Law of God tells us how to love God, and in fact keeping his Law is loving God, then it is also the case that God's Law tells us how to love our neighbor.  So Yeshua is correct when he said that all of the Law and the Prophets hang on those two commands.  But not because you don't have to worry about keeping the Law if you "love God" and "love your neighbor".  On the contrary, keeping God's Law is part of loving your neighbor.

That brings up another interesting issue.  Remember how I mentioned that the Church classifies some of the commandments as the "ceremonial law"?  Well, for those familiar with Church doctrine, you will know that there are typically three categories of Law in Torah.  These categories are (according to the Church):  The moral law (which the Church says we have to obey), the ceremonial law (which the Church says were done away with by Yeshua's work on the cross), and the civil law (which deals with punishments for breaking the moral law).  But is this division biblical?  Not quite.

Let's use what Yeshua said concerning the greatest commandments as a template on how to divide God's Law.  Since he said the Law hangs on "love God" and "love your neighbor", then the Law should be divided into commandments that tell us how to love God, and commandments that tell us how to love our neighbor.  Then, those commandments may be sub-divided if you wish, so long as Deuteronomy 12:32 is not violated.  Of course, someone will bring up the "what about" scenarios, which I will not cover in this post.  But I will say this much:  God does not hold us guilty of breaking a command that cannot possibly be kept.  And if you think otherwise, then you've fallen for the same trap that Adam and Eve fell for in the garden!

Here's another interesting point.  Since loving God is keeping his commandments, then really, all of the commandments are instructions on how to love God, regardless of whether we classify them into the "how to love God" or "how to love your neighbor" categories.  So even the commandments that concern how to love your neighbor are also concerning how to love God.  In other words, those that love God also love their neighbor.  But this doesn't work the other way around.  If you obey only the commands concerning how to love your neighbor, you indeed love your neighbor, but you actually hate God because you are ignoring the commands that are specific to loving God.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. [1 John 5:2-3; NKJV]

Ministries Do Not Believe Their Own Doctrines

Most mainstream "Christian" ministries list certain doctrines that you must believe in order for them to acknowledge you as a "real Christian".  And this list is basically identical between ministries.  These doctrines are said to be very important for the faith.  However, there are other doctrines that these same ministries hold to that, if true, completely undermine the credibility of the "important" doctrines that you "must believe" in order to be a "real Christian".

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

Some ministries point out that the above verse literally says "all Scripture is God-breathed", then assert that this means that every word that is in the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God, and that the Bible is therefore inerrant.  By the way, if you really want to be literal, then the verse should say "all writings are God-breathed".  For the word translated as "Scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun explaining that one away.  But they are right about it saying that it's "God-breathed".

These ministries that hold to the inerrancy doctrine because of their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 typically invoke the slippery slope for anyone who does not accept their doctrine.  They may also say that if you don't believe it, then you're not a "real Christian".  In fact, some don't even allow you to challenge the interpretation given.  So, how do these ministries show that they don't believe the doctrine that the entire Bible is the direct word of God?  There are a few ways in which they do this.  One of those ways is by ignoring the front of the book completely (with the exception being Genesis for some of these ministries).  Here's another way.

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. [1 Timothy 4:1-3; NKJV]

What would happen, say, if someone pointed out that God himself commanded us not to eat the flesh of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8)?  Well, these ministries will all quote 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and assert that such people are teaching doctrines of demons.  That's right, those who claim that the Bible is inerrant call a command of God "doctrines of demons" without any hesitation!  Of course, if they call a command of God "doctrines of demons", then that also means that they are calling God himself a demon.  This same God that they are calling a demon gave us Jesus, which also means they have completely undermined the Gospel!  By the way, anyone who calls even one command of God "doctrines of demons" calls all of God's commands "doctrines of demons", for the same God gave all of the commandments found in Torah.  Also, if their interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is correct, then the Bible is not inerrant and they really should not be listening to Paul.  By the way, it's God's Law that determines what is or is not food.  And the definition of "food" that Paul is using in that passage is that which is found in God's Law.  And God says that pigs are not food.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. [Hebrews 7:12; NKJV]

Here's a passage that many of these ministries will use to justify not keeping God's Law.  The Greek words translated as "change" in this passage is "metatithemi" and "metathesis" respectively.  These words literally mean "to transfer".  Also, Psalm 119:160 says that all of God's judgements are eternal.  The Law of God is a list of God's judgements concerning what is right and wrong.  Some of these ministries, when confronted with the question of "who created God", will rightly point-out that God is eternal and does not change.  If that which is eternal does not change, then that means God's Law also does not change, for it is said to be eternal.  So if their interpretation of Hebrews 7:12 is correct, that means that Psalm 119 is wrong, which means that the Bible is not inerrant.

Here's another point:  If the Law needs to be changed, then that proves the Law to be in error.  But if the Law is in error, then the Bible is not inerrant.  And if their interpretation of Hebrews 7:12 is correct, yet the Law is not changed, then it means that Hebrews 7:12 is in error, and the Bible is not inerrant.  There are more ways that they undermine this doctrine, but it's time to move on to the next doctrine that they undermine.

That doctrine, or rather, doctrines, would be the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus.  While some ministries make it their job to prove the inerrancy doctrine to those who don't believe it, no ministry in mainstream Christianity allows you to challenge the Trinity.  And most don't allow you to challenge the Deity of Jesus, though all of them show that the latter is able to easily withstand scrutiny.  Now, whether the Trinity is right or wrong is beyond the scope of this post.  This post will simply cover how these ministries undermine the credibility of the Trinity (and the Deity of Jesus).

In one of the excuses that these ministries use to rebel against God's Law, they will assert that the Law is impossible to keep, or that it's somehow burdensome, and that Jesus freed us from God's Law.  Are you noticing a pattern in how these "most important doctrines" are being undermined?  One aspect of the Trinity is that Jesus is the same God that gave us the Law of God.  But when it comes to God's Law, the God of the "Old Testament" is portrayed as an oppressive being while Jesus is portrayed as having freed us from said "oppressive" being.  That means that Jesus is a different god than the one that gave us his law.

By the way, remember how I pointed-out that these ministries will call certain commands of God "doctrines of demons" without hesitation?  Well, if Jesus is God, but what we call the Law of God is really "doctrines of demons", then that also means that Jesus is not the same God who gave us his law.  Yet if you insist that he is and hold that some of his commands are "doctrines of demons", then you're believing in the wrong god, and the wrong trinity!  Oh, by the way:

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. [1 Corinthians 9:20-21; NIV]

This passage is often quoted like this:

In 1 Corinthians 9:20, it says that we are not under [or "we are free from"] God's Law.  In verse 21, it says that we are under Christ's Law. 

See what happened?  They misquoted 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 to make God's Law be in direct opposition to Christ's Law.  "We are not under God's Law, we are under Christ's Law."  But if this is true, then that means that Jesus is not the same God that gave us his law.  Also note that in all of these examples, the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus is also thrown away for the sake of rebelling against God's Law.  Oh, and remember back to the post exposing the serpent's deception in Genesis 3?  The very first deception was making God's Law look oppressive!  In fact, the occult teaches that a serpent freed us from an oppressive god through knowledge.  If you replace "serpent" with "Jesus", and replace "knowledge" with "the cross", you have Church doctrine!

All this goes to show you which doctrines are actually important to these ministries.  They'll be quick to say "if you don't believe the Trinity, you're not a real Christian", yet they will just throw that doctrine to the side if it means they don't have to obey God's commandments.  Some will also say "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God", and "rejecting Biblical inerrancy is dangerous to your faith", but have no problem portraying the front of the book as being in error for the sake of their idolatry (rebellion against God's commands), so long as nobody catches onto the fact that they're doing just that.  Remember, you can either do things God's way, or make for yourself golden calves.  If you refuse the former, you are doing the latter by definition.

And if you think that things couldn't get any worse.  Well, it's about to get even worse.  Revelation 13:11-18 describes a one world religion and a mark that everyone must take if they want to live.  This mark is known as "the mark of the beast".  Now, nobody seems to know what exactly this mark is.  But there are a lot of claims about what this mark is, and even claims about it's precursors.  Which of these claims is correct is beyond the scope of this post.  But some ministries will dismiss the mark of the beast as mere "conspiracy theory".  This tells you all you need to know about such ministries.  Such ministries are part of the system that will bring about the mark of the beast.  And they want to make sure that you cannot identify it as such, so that when it comes, you willingly take it, unaware of what it really is.  In this case, they have sacrificed the inerrancy doctrine by calling Revelation false prophecies, because they are part of a (probably global) propaganda campaign designed to trick you into getting the mark of the beast!

The Paganism of Christmas

From the beginning, Satan's goal is to keep people away from God.  And he does that through any means necessary.  From deceiving people into believing that the Bible is scientifically and historically inaccurate, to following human traditions and rules under the guise of "this is what the Bible requires", even to leading people to follow other gods which at best, don't exist.  And that's without mentioning the repeated use of the trick of making God's Law look burdensome.  There is no shortage of ways that people have been kept away from God.

The reason I mentioned the deception of making God's Law look burdensome is because it makes it easier to lead people to do things their own way, just as Adam and Eve did things their own way by trying to obtain a type of knowledge that God never indented for us to have.  Take this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees, for example:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' 6 they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'" [Matthew 15:1-9; NIV]

The elders of the day put in place a tradition of washing ones hands before they ate, and the Pharisees expected everyone to follow that tradition (along with many, many other human traditions) as if it was equal to God's Law.  Some of these traditions even broke God's Law as you can see from the quoted verses.  Jesus points this out, then quotes Isaiah 29:13, exposing the system for what it really is:  A set of human rules!  To drive the point home, Jesus outright said that the Pharisees cannot escape being condemned because of their system that keeps people far from God [Matthew 23:13-36].  How does it keep people far from God?  By keeping them in rebellion against God's Law, in direct violation of Deuteronomy 13.  Isn't it interesting that the Pharisees tested Jesus against Deuteronomy 13, but never tested their own?

What does this have to do with Christmas?  Only everything.  Christmas is nothing but human tradition built upon human tradition.  These traditions are in place as a means of worshiping God, in direct violation of Deuteronomy 12, which, in summary, says that we shall worship him the way he wants to be worshiped [12:1], not as the pagans worshiped their gods [12:4], nor as we see fit [12:8].  And that we are to keep his commands, not adding to them or diminishing from them [12:32].

So, you think Christmas is not a pagan holiday?  Let's say, for argument sake that it isn't.  Does that change anything?  God did not authorize us to worship him in the ways that are done on Christmas (violates Deuteronomy 12:1).  That in and of itself disqualifies Christmas as a Christian holiday.  What about why Christmas is celebrated?  Isn't it because it's viewed as okay in the eyes of man because "God never forbade it" or "the Disciples did it"?  Strike two, violation of Deuteronomy 12:8!  In other words, Christmas being Christian in origin would mean nothing!

As mentioned in a previous post, the Catholic Church is part of a much larger, satanic cult that is bent on ruling the world.  So if you trace any teaching or tradition back to the Catholic Church, you are, by definition, tracing that teaching or tradition back to paganism.  For the Catholic Church is a pagan Church.  We, as Christians, should be doing nothing that originates from them.

The Catholic Church never creates anything new.  All of their practices come from somewhere.  They just modify these practices to suit their counterfeit version of Christianity (if that).  When it comes to Christmas, they took the winter solstice practices of the surrounding pagan cultures, condensed it down to a single day, and named the modified practice "Christmas".  These days were the Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (and perhaps a couple others).  These practices are themselves modifications of the pagan practices of the Babylonians, Egyptians, etc.  Practices that long pre-date Christianity.  Even the date that Christmas is celebrated is the same as Sol Invictus.  And if it wasn't for the fact that the calendar tends to drift about 1 day every 100 or so years, the winter solstice would still be on December 25, as it was when the Julian calendar was established.

Let's talk about the Christmas Tree.  Those who wish to defend it will trace its origins back to the Catholic Church, which we already discussed why that doesn't work.  But the practice of using trees in the worship of the pagan gods long pre-dates Christianity.  In fact, if you've read the historical documentation contained in the Bible, you'll realize just how prevalent tree worship was in the pagan societies.  Deuteronomy 12:2 commands us to seek-out and destroy all of the pagan alters under every green tree.  Deuteronomy 16:21 commands us not to plant any trees next to any alter of Yahweh.  Deuteronomy 12:4 commands us not to worship God the way the pagans worshiped their gods.

So the mere fact that the pagans used trees to worship their god is enough to make the Christmas Tree a satanic practice.  But did you know that what Christians do to pine trees is exactly what the pagans in the middle eastern regions did to Cedar trees?  Isaiah 14:8 notes the type of trees used in idol worship:  They are indeed evergreen trees!  Jeremiah 10:1-4 gives a perfect description of a Christmas Tree.  And it's rather interesting how the practice evolved over time.  The ancient pagans carved images into the tree.  Christians do not.  The ancient pagans used Cedars (and Junipers, and sometimes even Pines), Christians use Pines.  Some modern trees are made of metal or plastic and are stored when not in use.  What about the claim that the trees in Jeremiah 10 aren't Christmas Trees?  That claim is a lie!  By the way, here's another description of pagan practices surrounding trees!  Isaiah 44:14-19.  Notice that most of the trees listed are evergreen trees (the exception being the Oak).

The Catholics didn't invent the Christmas Tree.  Some pagan convert to Catholicism brought an existing custom into the Catholic Church and it stuck.  Also notice in the passage in Isaiah that these people don't know why they are worshiping trees.  They never stop to think about the absurdity of their practices!  Christians do the exact same things that Isaiah was mocking 2,500 years ago!  Those who set up a tree in the name of Yeshua (Jesus) are worshiping the tree, not the Son of God.  Those who put an angel on top of the tree are worshiping the angel.  Those who put a star on top of the tree are worshiping the star (which represents the pagan sun gods, but was renamed to "Star of Bethlehem" after being adopted by the Catholic Church) and the pagan sun gods that are associated with it.  Those who set up a manger scene worship the manger scene, not the one that is allegedly represented by it.  These are all golden calves.  And I already pointed out how much God hates setting up images in his name!  The one who sets up a "golden calf" does not worship God, but the calf, even if they say in their heart "I'm worshiping God."

Every single thing that is done at Christmas time is a human tradition, including the date.  The rationalization for the date is also an appeal to human tradition.  Some have appealed to a Jewish tradition that a prophet of God lives an exact number of years.  They even admit in their argument that it's a human tradition!  The evidence that this tradition is true:  None that I've seen!  They just assume that this tradition is true, and state that because a prophet lives an exact number of years, and because life begins at conception, and because Jesus died on March 25, and because human gestation is 9 months, Jesus must have been born on December 25.

There are so many holes in this argument that it's astonishing that it's even believed!  Where to begin?  How about the fact that the tradition actually uses the Hebrew calendar (which typically has 355 days in a year), while those justifying the December 25 date are applying it to the Julian or Gregorian calendar.  If the tradition is true, then you need to calculate from the Hebrew calendar when Jesus would be born, not the Julian or Gregorian calendar.  Even if his death was on March 25 (it was not), you would have to find the Hebrew date that year, then calculate back to the year of his conception to get the actual Julian date of his conception.  And the same for the date of his birth.  Except there's one problem:  Birth can happen anywhere between 37 and 42 weeks from conception.  That's a span of 1.5 months!  So we can't know for sure when he was born just by knowing when he was conceived.

The next problem is that the years that a person has been alive is counted from birth, not conception.  It is true that life begins at conception, but the years of a persons life are counted from birth.  In other words, according to the tradition being appealed to, it is the day of birth that is also the day of death.  Oh, and did I mention that this appeal began with the Catholic Church?  Add that to the list of traditions that the Catholic Church modified to suit their agenda.  Anyone who uses this argument is not appealing to a Jewish tradition, but a Catholic one.

Because the Catholic Church hated the Jews, they set up Good Friday and Easter Sunday to never fall on the same day as Passover or the Feast of Firstfruits.  Granted, they still sometimes fall on the same day, but this is rare by design.  So we can know for sure that whatever day Good Friday fell on in the year that Jesus died is not when Passover was (which is when he actually died).  So without even looking for when Passover that year was, we know that the March 25 date is wrong.  Also, 33 AD is not the year that Jesus died.  It was 30 AD.  And March 25 did not land on a Friday that year.  And neither did Passover.

The fact that the Church appeals to tradition rather than the Bible or other period documents to determine the day that Jesus was born tells you everything you need to know about the December 25 date.  In fact, it is impossible to determine the day of the Messiah's birth from the Bible or any other documentation of the time.  That should tell you all you need to know about how God feels about our celebration of his birthday.  If God wanted us to celebrate his birthday, he would have revealed to us when it was.  God hid it from us because he does not want us to celebrate it.  Why?  Because the pagans celebrated the birthdays of their gods.  And Jesus' birthday is irrelevant to the gospel message.

Want to see just how demonic Christmas really is?  Here's a documentary produced by Passion for Truth Ministries showing just that:

Here's another documentary from 119 Ministries, also showing the paganism of Christmas:

There's also more evidence for those who care about searching for the truth instead of justifying unbiblical and demonic traditions.

Go to Jail to Fall-Away

It is typically believed that if a minister is sent to jail even though he has done nothing wrong, that the prisoners within the jail will be saved.  And the minister who was falsely jailed will come out stronger in faith than ever.  But I've noticed two cases where a minister is falsely jailed, and when he got out, ended up going off the deep end.  These two ministers are Dr. Kent Hovind, and Pastor Jim Staley.

Before we get started, keep in mind that just because someone is mentioned in a positive light on this blog, or one of their teachings are featured on occasion, doesn't mean I agree with all of their teachings.

Dr. Kent Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist who was arrested for tax evasion.  Well, tax evasion is the official story.  He not only taught about YEC, but also about government and corporate corruption.  And made many predictions about what these corrupt entities would do in the future.  All of these predictions that I know of have come true, by the way.  When it comes to YEC, Kent Hovind actually got a lot of things wrong.  For example, the blood vessels in the eye are not in front of the photoreceptors.  It's the nerve fibers that carry signals from the receptors to the brain that are in front of the receptors.

Kent Hovind wasn't jailed for what he got wrong.  He was jailed for what he got right, which has very little to do with YEC.  After he got out of jail, he wound up reading a New Age book, and accepted its demonic teachings as biblical.  And he did not listen to his viewers who warned him about the deceptions in that book.  To this day, I do not know if he has since renounced those teachings since then (probably not).  By the way, this is an excellent example of the point I made in a previous post:  Either learn to obey the whole Word of God, or you will fall away.

Next, we have Pastor Jim Staley, who was charged with fraud, investigated by his own state, and cleared of all charges.  Many years later, some women who hated Jim Staley accused him of the exact same crime that he was cleared of many years earlier, but this time, he was jailed.  This jailing is an example of something known as "double jeopardy", and it's illegal.  Jim Staley is not your traditional Christian.  In fact, he's hated by the Church for exposing the pagan traditions that exist within Christianity.  But he is (or was?) a Christian by the standards set forth in the Bible.  His teachings are mostly Messianic in nature last time I checked.

So what went wrong?  The 2020 election.  Although I can no longer find the video, Jim Staley prophesied in God's name that Biden was celebrating his victory too early and that Trump would be declared the winner of the 2020 election.  He compared it to Adonijah declaring himself king over Israel, only for King David to declare Solomon king over Israel.  Apparently, the idea that his arrest brought him closer to God went to his head.  So although he passes the Deuteronomy 13 Test, this single, failed prophesy makes him a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18.  Also, some time later, I went back to that video to find that the comments were disabled.  It's because of this that I said, "his teachings are mostly Messianic in nature last time I checked."  And if I ever feature any of his teachings on this blog (which I have in the past), it'll be one from before the 2020 election.

What Sins are Not Covered by the Blood of Jesus?

The Bible makes it clear in many places that whoever believes in Jesus will have their sins forgiven and will be saved.  But is this forgiveness conditional or unconditional?  And if it's conditional, then what are the conditions?  Well, Hebrews 10:26 says that when you learn something is sin, but deliberately continue in it anyways, then you have no atonement for your sins.  In fact, if you keep reading past that verse, you'll see just how dangerous it is to rebel against God's commandments once you learn what they are.  The very next verse literally says that the enemies of God will be BURNED! UP!  Jesus himself said, "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." [John 5:14; NIV]  And we know from a previous examination of Scripture what that "something worse" is.

So one of the conditions is that we cannot continuously, deliberately do something that we know is sin.  If we learn that what we are doing is a sin, we must stop if we want to be forgiven.  Is that the only condition to being forgiven?  No.  Jesus made it very clear in several places (eg: the Lord's Prayer) that if we want God to forgive us of our sins, then we must forgive those who have sinned against us.  In other words, if you hold a grudge against someone who wronged you, even if they have repented, you will be counted among the wicked and the fate of the wicked will fall onto you.

By the way, what does it mean to forgive?  Psalm 32:1-2 gives a good definition.  It means to not count or hold something against someone.  When God forgives us of our sins, he no longer counts those sins against us.  If someone offends you or harms you, and you forgive them, then you no longer count that offense or harm that they have caused you against them.

Are there any more conditions for our sins being forgiven other that what we discussed, and the need to continuously believe in Jesus?  There does appear to be one more condition:  "One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps on speaking against the [Holy Spirit] will never be forgiven, neither in the [present age] nor in the [coming age]." [Matthew 12:32; CJB]

Note:  Because of the translation I quoted from in the above passage, I translated the Hebrew phrases in the translation to English.  The word I translated as "age" can also be translated as "world" or "eon".

So, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit means complete disqualification from having your sins forgiven.  Now, nearly all translations that I know of does not have the word "keeps", implying that one mistake in this regard condemns you with no hope of redemption.  However, it appears that the Greek word translated as "against" (kata) has something to with a continuous action.  So the CJB is probably correct to include the word "keeps".  So one mistake won't do it.  But the continuous action of blaspheming the Holy Spirit will indeed disqualify you from eternal life.

So, there are three conditions for being forgiven, not counting the obvious condition of believing in Jesus.  These conditions are:  (1) When you learn of your sin, stop deliberately doing it.  (2) Forgive those who sin against you.  And (3) do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  What about all of those "what if" scenarios concerning sin?  Well, if you're not deliberately sinning, then you show that you do not want to sin.  The fact that you do not want to sin proves that your faith is the type that God wants from you:  A faith that drives you to naturally obey his commands.  Jesus himself advocates for us [1 John 2:1-2].

Those who learn of their sins, and initially deliberately continue in it, but later stop doing it and repent of it, they will also have complete forgiveness of their sins.  But if anyone uses that as an excuse to start deliberately doing what they know is sinful, because they can later "stop and repent", is that repentance even genuine, since they planned to sin from the beginning?  Such people put themselves into great danger!  Nobody who genuinely believes in Jesus wants to sin.  Nobody!  They all want to live in full obedience to his teachings!

One more thing:  If for any reason, there is a command that you cannot keep, then failure to keep that command is not a sin.  Using this as an excuse to break a command that you can keep however, is a sin.

What Does Believing Moses Really Mean?

A common (and 100% correct) argument used to refute theistic evolution is the fact that those who don't believe Moses will not believe Jesus.  When Young Earth Creationists (which I am one) make this argument, they are quoting Jesus directly, from John 5:46.  Again, this is 100% correct, but not just for the reasons that creationists give.

Most of the time, when a creationist invokes John 5:46, they're talking exclusively about believing what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything.  And while they are right that you need to believe what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything in order to believe Jesus, where they go wrong is the exclusion of the rest of what Moses wrote.

Some will point to Genesis 3:14-15 as being where Moses wrote about Jesus.  This is indeed a prophesy about Jesus written by Moses, but there is so much more that Moses wrote than a single prophesy in a single book.  In fact, Genesis as a whole is a mirror image of the Messiah (both literally and figuratively).  The literal part because of the fact that Hebrew scrolls are striped (to guide the scribes on where to write) and pierced (to bind the different scroll pieces together to make a single scroll) just as Jesus was striped (by whips) and pierced (by thorns and nails).  The figurative part because many of the lives of those who are recorded in Torah mirror the life of Jesus.

Here are some examples of people who's lives mirrored that of Jesus:

• Noah's Ark saving Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus saving us from God's coming judgement.
• Noah's Ark being the only means of salvation from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus being the only means of salvation from God's coming judgement.
• Isaac being born by the Spirit of God is a mirror of Jesus also being born by the Spirit of God.
• Isaac nearly being sacrificed is a mirror of Jesus actually being sacrificed.
• Joseph being betrayed by his brothers is a mirror of Jesus being betrayed by a close friend.
• God using the treason against Joseph to save the world is a mirror of God using the treason against Jesus to save the world.
• Joseph is never recorded to have sinned even once, mirroring Jesus never sinning once.

In addition to that, many of the things which are found in Moses' writings point directly to Jesus, including:

• Jesus is the Passover Lamb that caused God's wrath to pass over us (the Passover meal).
• Jesus is the Unleavened Bread, leaven representing sin (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
• Jesus is the First Fruits from the dead (Feast of First Fruits).
• Jesus is the Sabbath (seventh day) rest.
• Jesus is the Atonement for our sins (Day of Atonement).

There is quite a bit more in Torah that points directly to Jesus than what I've listed here.  Go search for yourself!  As you can see from this sample, Genesis is only a small part of what it means to "believe Moses".  If you believe Moses concerning Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote, then you really don't believe him.  For nearly everything recorded in Torah is a picture of Jesus our Lord and savior!  In fact, according to the biblical definition of faith, merely believing what Moses said is not good enough.  You must also obey him!

Again, believing Moses about Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote is not believing Moses.  Believing Moses only starts with believing Genesis.  And believing all of what Moses wrote without obeying him is also not believing Moses.  For Moses told us how to live holy (set apart) lives dedicated to God.  Obeying him shows that you believe he was truthful concerning holiness, while disobedience shows that you believe he was mistaking or lying about holiness.  And Jesus obeyed Moses!  Isn't it interesting that those who do not obey Moses (who wrote exactly what God commanded him to write [Exodus 24:4]) also do not obey Jesus?  And that those who cherry-pick Moses' teachings also cherry-pick Jesus' teachings?