Bible Scholar Dr. Nehemia Gordon is the host of "Hebrew Gospel Pearls", “Hebrew Voices”, "Torah Pearls" and Prophet Pearls". He has written two popular books on the Hebrew origins of Christianity: “The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus” and “A Prayer to Our Father”. He is also the author of the book “Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence”, which uncovers the age-old tradition of not speak the name of God.
Nehemia holds a Masters Degree in Biblical Studies and a Bachelors Degree in Archaeology, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has worked as a translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls, a researcher deciphering ancient Hebrew manuscripts, and is currently working on some ground-breaking research which he hopes to share with you.
🔔 Subscribe to my RU-vid Channel and click that bell!
🌐 Visit my Website for my studies www.NehemiasWall.com
📰 Subscribe to my Newsletter www.nehemiaswall.com/nehemias-newsletter
💬 Follow me on Social Media linktr.ee/nehemiagordon
At 3:25 regarding the triangles of the Star of David ... did you realize that it also implies a time of history? Ancient Sumer and its descendants like Abraham of Ur knew a period of time called the Sar, for which there were seven in a precession. Like the Holy Week, they come to an end of the cycle and they start again. Well, the cycle of the Sars is ending. And the way we know this is that the Sun's vernal equinox has returned to where the 1st of Aries (symbolized by your top triangle) now rests on the line where Pisces ends and Aquarius begins. That line joins the 1st of Virgo (Mom's womb symbolized by the bottom triangle). So note next year's eclipses are on this equinoctial line. Help returns. And by all indications, we'll severely need it.
This is so important but rood makes it so hard to listen to. Would gordon correct someone for buying or selling on Shabbat or employing someone else like going to a restaurant? You have to make that clear because those things are written in the Tanakh. Of course the rabbits are wrong about Shabbat 99% of the time.
We shouldnt be blown away as knowledge is within all of us . We are all worthy and capable vibrating in the right frequency eh . Privileged to the informed field
Can someone tell my why when vowels where added to conflate the languages and not a part of original text ?? All of the variations have 50 percent vowels .... lol
Problem! The Hebrew Matthew is not a Catholic document Jesus as a Jew most likely spoke Hebrew. He may have spoken Greek to deal with government burocracy. He may have spoken Aramaic when buying groceries. I am sure he spoke Hebrew when he was teaching his talmudim. Jesus didn't start a new religion. The new religion. The new religion was started by people who misunderstood what he taught. Was the Name represented with the correct vowels in the title page of the King James Bible?
Nehemia, you give light to the nations, just as Keith illuminates the word of the Lord for us. Nehemia, you do not believe in the divinity of Yeshúa, but Yeshúa knows that you spread his truths better than many Christians and He loves you very much, hears you and blesses you. Thanks to both of you. Yeshua is the light of the world. Shalom aleijem to you all 💌
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible 1 John 5:7 Verse 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, etc. There are three that witness, or that bear witness--the same Greek word which, in 1Jo 5:8, is rendered bear witness --marturounteV. There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New: Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage. It is not consistent with the design of these Notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the results which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page.* The portion of the passage, in 1Jo 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following: I. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek Ms. written before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age--one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek manuscripts. II. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions--one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, Ehiopic, and Arabic. III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity--a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century. If the passage were believed to be genuine--nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favour--it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the Divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any one who examines the subject with an unbiased mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725,) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine. (a.) The connexion does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear "witness" to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things were well known to those to whom he was writing--the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are "three that bear witness"--three not before referred to, and having no connexion with the matter under consideration? (b.) The language is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term Logos, or Word, o logoV Joh 1:1,14; 1Jo 1:1, but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;" that is, the terms "Father" and "Word" are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word Son--o uioV--is the term which is correlative to the Father in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1Jo 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 3:9; and the Gospel of John, passim. Besides, the correlative of the term Logos, or Word, with John, is not Father, but God. See Joh 1:1. Comp. Re 19:13. (c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1Jo 5:6; and in immediate connexion with this, in the argument, (1Jo 5:8,) it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three--the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was wanting in all the earlier manuscripts. VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use. (1.) Even on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would yet be found which would contain it **; yet it is not wise to adduce it as a proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this. (2.) It is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt. (3.) The removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still. * Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721--727; Father Simon, Crit. Hist. New Test.; Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 412, seq.; Semler, Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John v. 7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum, I John v. 7, 8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and Lucke's Commentary in loc. ** Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet si non autographurn Joanneurn, at alios vetustissimos codices Graecos, qui hanc periocham habeant in occultis providentiae divine forulis adhuc latentes auo tempore productum iri. {b} "the Father" Joh 8:18 {c} "the Word" Heb 4:12-13; Re 19:13 {d} "Holy Ghost" Joh 10:30
Trinitarians always forget verse two of John chapter 1. You'll never hear them quote it but only verse 1. He in the beginning was WITH God. Notice when someone is with someone that makes two. And you'll also notice that the trinitarian starts to cut him off and goes on and on with scriptures but no texts or manuscripts to quote from. Seen it over and over with them. Brian never did show proof in the bible that God is three in one. Matthew 28 states baptize them in the name of the Father, AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit. Brian forgot to say the word and each time he was quoting Matthew 28. Makes a big difference showing three different entities and not three in one. The dude is a dudd!! the only creed he speaks of is his own. And he took over most of the conversation when it was supposed to be fair. Brian forgot to read Matthew 5:17-19 properly. It wasn't the word that would remain forever but God's Law which he does not support. God's Law and the writings and the Prophets are a different meaning to a trinitarian. The trini's will never believe that we have to keep Leviticus 23 and that the law was done away with which it was not. Brian still tries to teach with that arrogant jw teaching that has been engrained in him. Not his fault but he needs to reexamine his belief system. Brian doesn't even listen to Nehemiah but will follow his own bible which has only been around for a few hundred years. He needs to dig deeper and stop cutting people off when its their turn to talk. And Yehovah is not Yeshua. Would love for Nehemia to have a conversation with Sean Griffin who does Kingdom of Context and Messenger of the Most High sites.
Pharoh was called a god by Yehovah himself but that didn't make him a god. God has different meanings. Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” He did the same to Yeshua. He created him and sent him to earth to show everyone his power in him but that doesn't make Yeshua God. Trinitarians can never show solid proof that Yeshua is God. You either have to believe or you're not a Christian. Go back to Exodus 7: 1 So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. 2You shall speak all that I command you. Again, God made Pharaoh as a God. Yehovah uses whomever he wants to fulfill his words/commandments.
Disagree with the exjw baptiste on how many mags are handed out. We worked at the headquarters of watchtower and the numbers were always fudged. We threw out many publications before they were even sent out so it wouldn't surprise us if the jw organization went by those numbers than the literal numbers of what was placed and they would know this since their members used to have to fill out papers on how many publications they placed and what they were, hours out in the door to door service, their names and dates. The org recently dropped all that since they are losing many members and are starting to lose their charity status in different countries. Plus, not many jws wanted to do the doors so mags were either returned to the halls or jws dumped them out or they would put them in people's mailboxes which later they found out is a federal crime to go into other people's mailboxes. And the hours that are marked down for door to door are fudged as well. More time was spent at restaurants having breakfasts or sitting on someone's road in their cars debating whether they should do a house because they saw a car in the driveway. It was pathetic. And JWs do not focus on the Hebrew scriptures at all but mostly on the Greek scriptures using them for their doctrines. Had they understood the Hebrew scriptures they would have understood what Yeshua/Jesus was talking about every time he was quoting from the Law and the Prophets writings. The jws don't know squat!! All this exjw did was go from the frying pan into the fire. All religions are cults and whores of Babylon the Great!! And there is no trinity.
Thank you for your professional analysis, which is very helpful. By the way, I would like to ask a question. Michael Rood said that the woman (אִשָּׁה) in Zechariah 5:9 should be translated as fire. Can you also verify whether this is true? Thank you very much!🤝
so glad to have found this series today...Eureka! Pure gold. Love your senses of humor too. All of you bring so much light and joy to a very complex matter. Thank you so very much!
No entiendo el ingles me gustaria una traduccion .... igual por lo poco que te escuche en castellano con michael ..... te va un link ... y mil mas ...... Shalom
I was just looking up Ashura day because it is on my calendar for July 16. It is a Muslim holiday where they celebrate the following as stated on Google: 661-750), link Ashura to various auspicious events: On this day, Moses parted the Red Sea, Noah disembarked from the Ark, God forgave Adam, Joseph was released from prison, Jesus, Abraham, and Adam were born, Muhammad was conceived, and Jonah was freed from the fish that had swallowed him. But Ashura is a pagan fertility goddess??
I love Nehemia's love and zeal for God's name. I'm a Christian, i believe Jesus is the messiah, yet i am not a trinitarian, i dont believe Jesus is God, i believe there is only one true God, and that is the God of Israel, the God of Jesus. I believe that if more people shared that view, it would be easier for the Jewish community to accept Jesus as the messiah; God's anointed. Let me make a just one point to back this up; Jews are still waiting for the messiah, if someone appears tomorrow and claims this title, claims to be the messiah, how will you be able to prove his lineage is from King David? Jesus was able to prove his blood line to King David. It isn't just recorded in the Gospels, it's also something to think about; think about it, with all the opposition Jesus faced, the Jewish leaders of the time never refuted his lineage, they could have if he had no legal claim to it, but they didnt because he did have a claim to it. Now that those records have been destroyed, how can anyone after 70 AD claim lineage to king David? (Those records were destroyed when Rome invaded Jerusalem in 70 AD and destroyed the temple) I would like to know how the Jewish community is going to resolve that critical and very important detail with a messiah that for them has not arrived yet?
Which is it? Your title says the Jews DO! Click Bait? One of you asks if the Jews, plural, refer to God as allah, and the other answers saying one clo... man did long ago. The conotation of the title allah most certainly does not refer to the Most High Almighty Creator Yehovah in Heaven, but certainly does refer to the god of the man-made hate-filled anti-Yehovah imaginings of those who hate Yehovah. Yehovah Commands the Use of His name in His 3rd commandment. Yehovah is the Mighty One of national, physical Israel, and of Spiritual Israel, His called-out ones of the New Covenant. Beside Him there is None Other. He will share His shekinah/glory with No other. Watch and see.
My entire dissertation was Jewish evangelism. I was appalled at how the Scriptures referencing the Jews in the NT are misused to drive a wedge between Gentiles. Jewish people have as much diversity as the entire US nation. We have a Jewish Messiah, Yeshua, and we are doing God a disservice to avoid His own covenant people.
I do have a question for Dr. Gordon about praying the 12th benediction of the Amida which is the blessing/curse on the heretics. I learned that this benediction was added as a curse against Jewish believers in Yeshua Messiah in attempt to stop them from participating in Temple prayers. I am a believer in Yeshua Messiah and I do attend a Messianic Synagogue. I love the Sabbath Prayers and I know they don’t ever pray this 12th benediction on Sabbath. Some Messianic Synagogues are returning to encourage praying the Amida daily/ 3 times a day. Please clarify me but is the 12th benediction the benediction “Against Informers”? I learned about the addition of the curse in the Amida at the Messianic church I previously attended. The Messianic Synagogue I now follow is encouraging praying the Amida daily as well as weekly in the Shabbat Prayer Service. One of the Rabbis in a weekly prayer Zoom meeting group said that this benediction is not a curse. These two view points are in contradiction of each other. Another Messianic congregation that I follow on line and has a world wide following is also encouraging people pray the Amida daily. I pray the Shema and The Avinu Prayer ( The Lords Prayer) during the week and the Amida only during Shabbat Prayer Services. I’m not sure about adding the Amida to my daily prayers until I am clear on what I should be praying. I certainly don’t want to be cursing myself!! Dr. Gordon what daily prayers would you recommend? Should I pray the Amida once a day and omit the 12th benediction? Also sorry for spelling and grammar errors, these are not my strong points.
When I was reading the Aramaic English New Testament one of the Aramaic names for God was Allahah. I’m not going to be able to find the exact pages this is on or the footnotes right now, I’m sorry!! This specific translation does use the mispronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. I do need to review the information on the mispronunciation because is that something I should expect to see in Aramaic translations or is this a mistranslation? I don’t know?
Great discussion. I have a lot of respect for Kent, and what he has done. The comment at 1:25:45 was absolutely uneccesary though, and hurtful. My greatest hope is that the veil be lifted upon all Jews not accepting Yeshua as their Mesiach. Nehemia, you are producing such amazing content, and have bring forth an equal amount of life changing information in my life. I pray that אלהימ will bless you and open your eyes and lift the veil. Kent, it was such a great interview until you made fun of the Jews, No need for that. I as a South African, feel that was somewhat anti seministic. We should all be mindful of our words and the expressions we use, even if that is what we are used to be used around us in our communities. אלהימ wants Their people to be united and live together as one Israel. Not a divided nation. Thanks again for this discussion Nehemia.
