My Last Word on the Cepher Bible and the Divinity of Yeshua-At Least Till Next Time
Why Discuss the Cepher Bible Yet Again
So I elected to do a rather quick reiteration–albeit last word on the Cepher Bible and the Divinity of Yeshua. At least, until the issue comes up, let’s just say.
Over the last year or so I’ve received a number of inquiries about my position(s) on the Cepher.
The Cepher Bible I feel has some significant problems attached to it that I feel detracts from its accurate usefulness.
Over the last year or so I have received multiple hits on the website by Cepher inquiring minds.
Questions about my thoughts on the Cepher and about Philippians 2:10,11.
But set Christ (ie., Messiah) apart as Lord (ie., Master) in your hearts and always be ready to give an an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Messiah (ie., Christ) may be put to shame when they accuse you (1 Pet. 3:15,16; NET).
2 Reasons I Don’t Recommend The Cepher Bible
Practical usefulness of Cepher is sorely lacking.
- The Cepher is a bulky book.
- The Bible uses 1611 KJV Elizabethan English.
- There is an over-emphasis on Hebrew names of people, places and things.
- The Cepher uses or provides no cross-references.
- If you don’t have tabs, you could spend an unreasonable amount of time searching for a particular passage.
- The translators and editors took great liberties in their translation of the text. Philippians 2:11,12 is an prime example of such liberties.
I originally purchased the Bible for its advertised accuracy, which I found was not necessarily there.
The Cepher lacks commentary and references to explain translation, which forces the reader to rely exclusively on the integrity of the Cepher organization.
Positives of the Cepher
The Cepher contains the apocryphal OT books, including the books of Jasher, Enoch and Jubilees.
The Cepher is a well bound hardback book with quality paper.
It has a handsome appearance.
My stance on the Divinity of Yeshua Messiah–Is Yeshua and YHVH one and the same Being?
I believe that Yeshua Messiah is NOT YHVH.
Yeshua Messiah was and is a Created Being. For me, this does not mean that Yeshua did not pre-exist the creation of the earth and heaven. We know the Angels were existed before the Creation.
Which stands to says also that I do not believe Yeshua is the Illusive Angel of the LORD (YHVH).
There is no Biblical support for Yeshua being YHVH and such a belief defies Hebraic understanding of the Person of YHVH despite what many in our Faith Community say to the contrary.
Yeshua Himself never described or identified Himself as YHVH, although He did identify Himself as the Messiah and the Son of Yehovah, along with some other titles such as the Bread of Life and the Good Shepherd.
I won’t rehearse fully why I don’t believe Yeshua is YHVH–having done a series on the divinity of Yeshua which you are invited to listen to or read at your leisure. However, here is a quick run-down of some of my reasons:
- YHVH cannot die.
- The Creator said Himself that He cannot be tempted.
- Abba declared that He is the Creator of the Universe and there is none other. He never declared Himself as being Y’shua Messiah.
- Yeshua said He received His instructions from His Heavenly Father.
- Our Master prayed to His heavenly Father.
- Yeshua Messiah never identified Himself as YHVH–the Most important proof.
All alleged scriptural proofs offered by those who hold to YHVH and Yeshua being one and the same Person/Being are shaky at best and are built upon certain placement of punctuation and order of words in the received, sacred texts.
Belief in Y’shua being YHVH/YHWH by anyone in our Faith Community is in no way a relationship impediment. In fact, most of the folks I personally know in our Faith Community believe opposite what I believe. Nevertheless, I respect their belief and understanding of the divinity of Yeshua.
Any further questions on this issue in terms of my personal understanding or belief on this any any other issue I am happy to discuss via email.
https://youtu.be/w99g6wlFJpQ
Thoughts on this?
Thank you so much for the referral.
I watched about 3/4 of the video and I vaguely remember watching this video some time ago.
These gentlemen, to me, are echoing the same talking points that trinitarians and dualists have put forth to the world to support their doctrines for a number of years. Each of their points I can refute quite easily. But I’ve come to see that it really wouldn’t make any difference to them. There are many, within and without our Faith Community, who have elected to believe in a trinity/duality/or unified Godhead–however they choose to express it–with shaky biblical backing. Their scriptural proofs are nothing more than conjecture. Eisegesis–reading into the texts something that in most cases isn’t at stated.
I say again: there is NO biblical support for what they believe and are preaching regarding the identities of our heavenly Father and our Master.
Case in point: the trinitarians will always point to the passages that speak to Jesus creating everything. But those passages state that our Father, THROUGH Yahoshua, created. They conveniently leave out the term “through.”
The other common proof passage is John 1 where the apostle uses the term WORD, which the trinitarians and dualists state is another name for Yahoshua. Again, pure speculation. Nowhere in that key passage of John, based on context, is Yahoshua our Master said to be the WORD. Wouldn’t it have been so much clearer if John would have simply wrote, “In the beginning was Yeshua, and Yeshua was with YHVH, and Yeshua was YHVH?” But instead, John elected to use the general “Greek” term “word,” or “logos,” that from my research has a multitude of English term meanings. And because logos has a multitude of meanings, the proper application and understanding of the term in English MUST be based on context. And I believe, in context of John 1, the Greek term “logos,” means plan–in the beginning was the plan–maybe best Torah–and that plan was in the mind of YHVH and so forth. The use of plan when looked at contextually in John 1 makes so much more sense than Jesus Christ being identified as the WORD. This whole thing from Genesis to Revelation concerning our heavenly Father is a grand plan and Yahoshua is at the center of that plan.” For the embodiment of Yah’s plan was embodied in Yeshua Messiah who came to dwell with us full of grace and truth.
To me, it all comes down to this, and the main speaker in the video actually touched upon this as well in his criticism of Rico Cortez (a prominent Messianic teacher and speaker) for his refusal to support a dualist or trinitarian mindset simply because Yahoshua Messiah Himself never identified Himself as YHVH. He had ample opportunity to do so throughout His earthly ministry. He described Himself as the prophesied Messiah and Son of the Living God. And for me, that is MORE THAN GOOD ENOUGH understanding of who He is. I’m not sure why people feel they have to go around and add to that which the Master said of Himself.
Torah commands that we NOT add to or take away from His WORD. When we go around that which Master said and add to it such as the concept of the trinity, I believe we are in a sense violating Father’s central command not to add or take away from His Word.
Now, if folks choose to believe in a “Duality” or a “Trinity,” Yah bless them. I may be entirely wrong, but I don’t think so. And one day, when or if I’m proven wrong on this, I will happily concede my error, repent, and change my ways. But I don’t foresee that happening. For now, I choose to stick to a contextually-based understanding of Scripture and avoid, the best I can, vain speculation on who our Master is. He is the Son of the True and Living Elohim, the Messiah and our soon coming King.
I still love the Trinitarians and Binarians. I just don’t agree with them.
Warm blessings.
(Christian Theologian and Professor Anthony Buzzard has published a couple books refuting Trinitarianism and Dualism that I can recommend. He’s not a Messianic, but His examination of this issue is exhaustive and easy to understand.)