Who Is He And Why Did He Come?

Updated: Sep 19

So if he is not Almighty God in the flesh, if he did not come to die for our sins, if he did not create the heavens and the earth, if he is not the second person of a triune god-head, if he is not co-equal, co-substantial, and co-eternal with God the Father, if he was not conceived in the womb of a physical virgin, if he is not the Alpha and the Omega, if we are never supposed to pray to him, if we are never supposed to offer up divine worship to him, if we are never supposed to pray to the Father in his name, if we are not supposed to sing songs of praise to his name, then who is he and why did he come?

First of all, the historical existence of the man cannot be questioned. He was executed by the Governor Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Tacitus, Annals 15.44:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." So forget all that Piso nonsense you've been seeing all over the internet. There is too much independent corroboration for his historical existence. The question therefore is not "Did he exist?" but "Does the Greek New Testament tell the truth about him?" The answer is absolutely not. The mashaykh (messiah) is a man from heaven. He was created by YA'OH. All of the angels in heaven are people with physical bodies, just like their Creator YA'OH is a man with a physical body. Adam, the first man from earth, was made in "their" image physically as stated in Genesis 1:26. The angels are people but not from earth. They are endowed with powers and abilities far greater than people born on earth, but they are people nonetheless.

Maychah (Micah) 5:2 prophesied that one whose origin is from ancient times, i.e. a man from heaven, would be born into the royal family of King Doayd (David) in the city of Doayd called Bayth-lakham (Bethlehem). Doayd said this would happen long before the prophet Maychah was born. Doayd knew that one day he would have a descendant from his direct paternal lineage who would really be his lord (Mazmor [Psalm] 110:1). This is the mashaykh. He is a man from heaven who existed way before Doayd, but he also became a son of Doayd and he is to be our future king.

He came in the 1st century AD in order to lay the foundations of a movement among his own race, a movement which made the commandments of YA'OH in the Thorah the priority. It is a movement which puts YA'OH and His words above everything and everyone. That movement was illegal according to Roman law. The Romans had the hegemony over our people at that time in our land. So any talk of a kingdom with a king greater than Caesar, having its own laws that override and cancel out Roman law, was an act of sedition. The punishment was death.

After teaching his men about the kingdom and what things they ought to do, the mashaykh allowed himself to be arrested, tried, and executed. He did this in order to ransom his men from the punishment of sedition. Death was the penalty for sedition which hung over the heads of every member of his movement. When he said: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to ala'aym what belongs to ala'aym" (Mat 21:21), he was not telling his people to play both sides of the fence when it comes to God and a heathen civil authority opposed to Thorah. This is what Christians believe he meant and this is incorrect. That remark was revolutionary to its core. It was a radical directive to give Caesar his money back and to keep all the commandments of YA'OH. You could not do the latter and also serve Caesar because Caesar would have you disobey YA'OH in order to obey Caesar. You must choose.

Thus, he literally saved his men by dying for them. He ransomed them from the penalty of sedition by dying in their place. Had he not died the Romans would have put the entire movement between cross-hairs.

Contrary to popular belief, his death had absolutely nothing to do with atoning for sins. Don't believe me? Read his own words, but make sure they are his real words from the original Ghabaray (Hebrew) Ebionite Matthew which is the only legitimate account of his words and deeds:

"And he took the cup and gave glories to his Father; and he gave to them and he said: Drink from this, all of you. This is my blood from a new covenant which will be spilled on behalf of many for the ransom of punishments. I say to you that I will not drink from henceforth, and I have walked from the fruit of this vine, until that day that I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven". The Greek version of Matthew 26:27-29 that appears in every English Bible is different from what you've just read above, and that is because the Greek version is a corrupted version that changes the account.

Let's look at the differences.

First, he did NOT say his death was going to introduce "THE" new covenant, meaning the one that is spoken of in Yaram-Ya'oh (Jeremiah) 31:31. He said his life's blood being spilled was a barayth khadashah ("a new covenant") without the definite article "the" prefixed to the adjective "new". The Greek New Testament says the opposite in Hebrews 8:8-13 and this is a lie. The new covenant the mashaykh made with his men was simply a promise to them that his death would "ransom" them from the "punishments" (the word עונות at the end of line 28 means "punishments") that would have befallen each and every one of them for being a part of his movement. As I said, his movement was sedition according to Roman law. This of course is not how the Greek New Testament spins it. The heathen authors of the Greek New Testament would have you believe that both the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (John 18:38) and the Roman-appointed Edomite King Herod Antipas could find "no guilt in him" (Luke 23:6-12).

According to these heathen writers, "Jesus" taught that you should be obedient to the Roman laws and also obey God's laws. This oxymoronic absurdity was a key component of the false apostle Paul's teaching when he commanded obedience to the Roman law for all his Christian followers: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God" (Romans 13:1-7). None of this convoluted nonsense is found in the Ebionite Matthew. The Ebionites were separatists because their leader stood for sedition against Rome. If declaring oneself to be the KING MESSIAH was not against Roman law then Pilate would not have put a sign over the head of the mashaykh at his public lynching which accused him of sedition (Mat. 27:37). Pilate did not execute the mashaykh for being a "spiritual leader". He executed him for sedition. The mashaykh ransomed his men from death so the movement would not die but live on beneath the Roman radar.

Now back to Ebionite Matthew 26:27-29. In the second place, notice that he said he would not drink from the fruit of the vine as he "had walked" from the fruit of this vine. The verb is a first person imperfect in the basic stem but prefixed with a Wa of reversal; Wa-aylach, "and I have walked". This proves he never touched a drink in his life. This entire clause was omitted from the Greek version of Matthew 26:29 in order to hide the fact that the mashaykh was a law-keeping nazayr (nazarite) from the day he was born until the day he died. He promised his men that he would drink from the fruit of the vine only when the vine is made new in the kingdom. In other words, he was promising them they would see him again and he will cease being a nazayr at that time and drink wine with them.

If the wine in that cup effectuated the forgiveness of sins why would he be drinking from it new in the future? Clearly, the wine his men drank that night, and will drink again new with him in the kingdom, had nothing whatsoever to do with any notion of cleansing of sins. It only became that in the contrived and fabricated doctrine of false apostle Paul who was repudiated by the Ebionites because he taught lies. No man can die for the sins of another man and nowhere in Thorah or in the prophets are we ever told to anticipate that Almighty God would become a man and die as a sin atonement. This doctrine is blasphemy. It is the abomination of desolation. If he was the mashaykh predicted to spring out from Doayd's patrilineal bloodline and sit on Doayd's throne as king, and if he came in the first century, why didn't he establish the kingdom in the first century?

Because the nation of Ya'ohsharal had yet to fulfill all the curses of the law foretold in Deuteronomy 28. He came before the curses were fulfilled in order to oppose the traditions of men that were being taught by the school of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, traditions and interpretations that nullified and canceled out the verbatim directives of Thorah. He came to uphold Thorah and to instill within his followers that they must keep it in order to gain admittance into the kingdom. But he did not come to ascend the throne in the first century. That has to wait until after the time that the curses have run their course and the remnant of Ya'ohsharal has been restored and after they have returned to their land from their gathering in the wilderness. The parable he taught about the man going on a "far journey" (Mat. 25:14-30) who would not return after "many days" was meant to cue his people into the truth that he would be absent from them for quite a long time and that there will be a reckoning of his servants at his return. Just to show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. In the Greek Matthew, "Jesus" initially tells his disciples not to go to any gentiles and preach to them (Mat. 10:5), but at the end of the book he changes his mind and tells them: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Mat. 28:18-20 - 1611 Queen James Virus).

But in the original Ebionite Matthew, the mashaykh does not flip-flop and change his mind. The real ending of the book is this:

"To me has been given every ability in heaven and on earth. Go and keep them to fulfill all the things which I commanded you until the end of the age".

That's it. There is no change. There is no new directive to go out and preach to gentiles as well as their own people. There is no baptism in the name of a three-headed god, and where only the middle god actually has a name in the entire Greek New Testament. None of this satanic garbage was in the original Ebionite Matthew. The Greek version is a distortion made be a gentile for gentiles.

All he told his men is that he had been given every היכולת ("ability") in heaven and earth and that his men were to "keep them" in order to carry out the instructions he gave them until the end of the age. For example, he had the ability to heal the sick and to cast out demons. He gave his men the same ability. If his men were not Almighty Gods because of these abilities, and they were not, then neither was he.

The mashaykh is not Almighty God. He is our brother.

Ebionites do not reject him. We reject the Greek New Testament, 75% of which was written by the liar Paul and the rest of it by followers of Paul, and with some of them actually claiming to be people they were not. These authors and editors invented a blasphemous idol god-man who is to be worshiped as Almighty God because he saved people by being born of a virgin and dying on a cross for their sins, but he is a figment of Paul's imagination and he never existed. The truth was hijacked and turned into a lie called the Greek New Testament.

Throw the whole Greek New Testament away!

1,014 views5 comments