Program 142: The true origins of Christ

Gabriel clearly explained Christ’s origins to Mary. This was later corrupted when pagan philosophy entered the church.

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of World’s Last Chance Ministries, an online ministry dedicated to learning how to live in constant readiness for the Savior's return.

For two thousand years, believers of every generation have longed to be the last generation. Contrary to popular belief, though, Christ did not give believers “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, he repeatedly warned that his coming would take even the faithful by surprise. Yahushua urgently warned believers to be ready because, he said, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” [Matthew 24:44] 

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Part 1: The true origins of Christ

Miles Robey: Knowing where a person is from can tell us a lot about that person. This is why, when meeting someone for the first time, we often ask, “Where are you from? What do you do?”

Hi, I’m Miles Robey and you’re listening to WLC Radio.

As Christians, we tend to accept without question what we’re taught about the Saviour. But today, Dave Wright is going to share with us some thoughts on the origins of Yahushua. Dave?

Dave Wright: Thanks, Miles. Most Christians become Christians in childhood. They’re raised in the faith. The result is that most Christians simply accept what they are taught as truth without ever questioning it.

Miles: Right. Kids’ questions tend to be more the unanswerable sort, like my youngest asked me when she was just three: “Daddy, why do you have a beard under your arms?”

Dave: And what did you say?

Miles: Well, it caught me by surprise, as you can imagine. So, I did what any self-respecting father would do: I sicced the little rug-rat on my wife by saying, “Mummy has beards there, too, she just shaves hers off.”

Dave: What happened next?

Miles: Well, she dashed off to ask Mummy, letting me return in peace to watching football on the telly.

Dave: I still remember my son’s first visit to the zoo. He was really young. He was particularly fascinated by the monkeys and how they could climb and swing by their tails. After staring at them for some time, he turned and demanded, “Where’s my tail?”

So, yeah. Those are the sorts of questions children are more prone to ask. What they don’t often ask are questions relating to theology. Supporting evidence for belief. That sort of thing. Unfortunately, that often ends up producing adults who don’t question, either. If it’s said from the pulpit, they accept it without question even though, too often, what is taught from the pulpit cannot be supported by Scripture.

Miles: Which is why, at WLC, we’re constantly encouraging our listeners and readers to study new truths out for themselves. We’ll never ask you to take our word for it. Study it for yourself. Give the Holy Spirit a chance to convict your heart one way or the other.

Dave: Right.

One thing most Christians never question is the origins of Yahushua. We just tend to accept without question whatever doctrine is taught in whichever flavor of Christianity we’re raised.

Because this is a subject most people never question, it might surprise you to learn that there are a number of differing beliefs within Christianity as to the origins of Yahushua.

Miles: Yeah, that is a bit surprising. I know what I believe now and I know what I was taught to believe growing up. Those are different. I guess I hadn’t really thought about it beyond that.

Dave: I think most of us are like you: we believe without question whatever we’re raised to believe. But consider this for a moment. Most Christians are trinitarians. Most trinitarians believe that Yahushua, whom they think of as “God the Son,” the third person of an eternal godhead, has been eternally co-existent with “God the Father.”

Miles: Right. That’s how I was raised to believe. We were taught to dismiss as cults any denomination that taught Christ was a created being. But you said that as though even trinitarians don’t all believe in the same thing?

Dave: Well, there are some Christians who believe in a triune godhead and who still believe in a pre-existent “God the Son.” However, they believe that, at some point in the far distant past, too far back for human minds to calculate, Yahuwah somehow brought forth Yahushua. While not eternally co-existent, they believe that he was brought forth before any created being so, in effect, he’s still fully “God,” one-third of the triune godhead.

Miles: Speaking of which, there are Christians who believe that there are three phases: “God the Father” was the God of the Old Testament; “God the Son” was God in the New Testament phase; and now, in the so-called Christian dispensation, “God the Holy Spirit” reigns, but they’re all the same being, just in different phases.

Dave: Exactly. So there are actually a lot of different views concerning the origins of Yahushua. You may not have encountered them all, but there are sincere Christians out there who believe a wide variety of different beliefs regarding Yahushua’s origins.

Miles: And, of course, after careful, deep Bible study, we now realize that Yahushua was not pre-existent at all. He’s not created, but he was miraculously begotten in Mary’s womb just as the Bible says. So, yeah. It’s important to know just how and when Yahushua came into being.

Dave: It’s one of the most important questions that can be asked. There’s a big difference between a being that has existed for eternity past without a beginning, and one whose existence began in his mother’s womb.

Miles: Huge! But what about Christians who believe Yahushua was pre-existent as an angel? We forgot to mention that belief.

Dave: Let’s look at that. Would you please pull up Hebrews chapter 1 on your monitor?

Again. Huge difference between a person who starts out as an embryo in his mother’s womb versus an angel who has lived for millennia in heaven and who is later reduced by Yahuwah to become a fetus in the womb of a woman he actually predated.

Miles: Yeah, you put it like that, and the sheer absurdity is very apparent.

Dave: Right? What’s more, the Bible makes it very clear that Yahushua was never an angel and never even on the same status of an angel. You’ve got Hebrews 1? Let’s see what that says. Start with verse 1. This passage is all about Yahushua’s origins.

Miles:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. [Hebrews 1:1-4]

Dave: I’m going to interrupt you here for a moment. Notice in verse two it says that Yah has, quote, “in these last days spoken to us by His son.” It’s easy for us today to think of “last days” as applying exclusively to us. But in the context in which it was written, it simply means now—the “now” when Hebrews was written—as opposed to Old Testament times, centuries before Hebrews was written. The author of Hebrews is saying now Yahuwah speaks to us through His son. Way back then, He spoke to us through the prophets.

Okay. Go on. Verse 5.

Miles: Um. Just before we go on, could you clarify one point? We believe that Yahushua is the only begotten son of Yah whose existence started in Mary’s womb. But—and I don’t want to get too far off on a tangent—but why does it say here in verse 2 that Yahuwah made the worlds “through” Christ? How do we reconcile that?

Dave: Simply put, this isn’t referring to any act of Creation prior to Christ’s birth. This passage also says that Yahushua’s been appointed the heir to all things. You can’t be appointed heir to what already belongs to you through an act of Creation.

Furthermore, the word translated “world” actually comes from the Greek aion. This refers to “ages” or “eras.” So this verse refers to Yah making all things new in Christ.

Miles: Okay. Thanks. That makes sense.

All right, um. Verse 5:

For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My son,
Today I have begotten You”?

And again:

“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a son”?

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

And of the angels He says:

“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.” [Hebrews 1:5-7]

Dave: Here a stark contrast is being drawn between Yahushua, Yah’s begotten son, and the angels.

He continues the comparison and contrast in verses 13 and 14. Drop down and read those, would you please?

Miles: “But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?”

Dave: You can’t get more definite statements than those in the first chapter of Hebrews. Yahushua’s origins were never those of an angel. And neither, as we have covered in other programs, did he share a pre-existence with Yah, eternal or otherwise. He came into being in Mary’s womb. Not before.

This is an important point and I don’t want to rush past it too quickly because Yahushua’s origins are integral to his role as our redeemer.

Miles: In what way?

Dave: Well, Yahushua came to redeem us where Adam fell, right? So only someone who was 100% human could do that. Not this ridiculous, confusing mumbo-jumbo that he was 100% human and 100% divine.

Our redeemer had to be 100% human. Full stop. To be completely human, one must begin his or her existence in the womb!

Miles: Post-Adam and Eve, of course.

Dave: Of course. Furthermore, he had to be a literal descendant of King David. Turn to Psalm 132 and read verses 11 and 12. The Messiah’s descent from David is something repeated throughout Scripture. To be the Messiah, the Saviour of mankind, he had to be a biological descendent of David. Go ahead. Psalm 132:11 and 12.

Miles:

Yahuwah has sworn in truth to David;
He will not turn from it:
“I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.
If your sons will keep My covenant
And My testimony which I shall teach them,
Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore.”

Dave: Okay, I’ve got Psalm 89, verses 34 to 37. Would you read that next?

Miles:

My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.
Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David:
His seed shall endure forever,
And his throne as the sun before Me;
It shall be established forever like the moon,
Even like the faithful witness in the sky.”

Dave: This is a solemn vow Yah is making here! He’s saying that David’s seed shall reign on his throne forever. Now, obviously, this prophecy has not yet reached its complete fulfillment and it won’t until Yahushua reigns in the earth made new. But the point is, this prophecy could not be fulfilled unless the first part is fulfilled. And that is Yahushua’s origins: he’s a direct descendant of King David. Not some mystical chimera, part god, part divine, but a literal human descendant of David.

Miles: Yeah, I’m not as well-versed in the Old Testament prophecies pointing toward the Messiah as you are, but the New Testament certainly makes it clear that Yahushua was descended from David and thus a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

Luke chapter 1 records Zacharias’s prophetic words when he confirmed that his infant son was to be named John. Listen to this. Verses 68 to 70. He said:

Blessed is Yahuwah God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of His servant David,
As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets,

Dave: Most people are acquainted with Joseph’s genealogy. It’s given in Matthew, chapter 1. In fact, Matthew starts with “The book of the genealogy of Yahushua Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob . . .” And so on and so forth. You follow it down and it gives the lineage of Joseph, Mary’s husband.

But an even more fascinating chronology is the one given in Luke 3 which gives Mary’s lineage. It comes down to Joseph, as Yahushua’s . . . stepfather, so to speak, but the lineage given here is actually that of Mary, starting with her father, Joseph’s father-in-law, Heli. And it goes straight back to David. The Redeemer could only have been a biological descendent of David in order to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies, and in order to be that, he had to be fully human.

Would you turn now to Isaiah 9? This is an important prophecy. Isaiah 9 verses 6 and 7.

Miles: Oh, yeah. I recognize this one. Most people hear it read every Christmas.

Dave: It’s one of the most important Old Testament prophecies. Go ahead and read it.

Miles: It says:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a son is given;
And the government will be upon his shoulder.
And his name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.

Dave: This, right here, is a prophecy of the kingdom of Yah. This was what Yahushua was so excited to talk about. The gospel of the kingdom is that someday through Yahushua as one of David’s descendants, the earth would be restored, the blight from sin totally eradicated, and Yah’s kingdom of peace established forever and ever.

Now, obviously, this hasn’t happened yet.

But it will! It will. The point I want to focus on, though, is that Yahushua’s origins are so important to understand that Yahuwah commissioned the angel Gabriel to go to Mary and tell her. There aren’t very many times Scripture reports Gabriel being commissioned to go to someone, but every time was important. He was sent to Daniel to explain an important prophecy in Daniel 9. So, whatever message he took to Mary, we can know that it was very important.

Now, if Yahushua had actually had a previous existence, don’t you think this explanation to Mary would have been the logical place for that to appear?

Miles: Certainly seems like it. I never really thought about it. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at that. Could we take a minute to read the account?

Dave: Sure!

Miles: All right. Luke 1, starting in verse 26. It says:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Yahushua. He will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that holy one who is to be born will be called the son of God. [Luke 1:26-35]

Dave: So here we’ve got it spelled out: in fulfillment of the promises to David, a child shall be born to Mary that shall sit on the throne of David forever. When Mary naturally wonders how this can be, Gabriel explains: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.”

Nothing is said about a pre-existent being entering her body. Rather, it is simply and clearly spelled out. The power of the Creator would fertilize her egg and she would become pregnant with the only begotten son of Yah.

Miles: Yeah. No confusion there. It’s clear when you read it just as it’s written and don’t superimpose other beliefs on top of it.

Dave: Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s been happening with Luke’s account. I know we need to take a quick break, but when we return, let’s talk about that.

* * *Part 2: The true origins of Christ

Dave: Have you heard of Raymond Brown?

Miles: Nooo . . . the name doesn’t sound familiar.

Dave: He was an American priest and professor as well as a widely-respected Biblical scholar. His primary area of focus was on the Gospel of John. He wrote a number of influential studies on the birth and death of Christ.

Miles: A Catholic priest?

Dave: Yes. Remember, as with all things, we can take what is good and lay aside the rest. No one, even us, will have complete knowledge this side of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Miles: That’s true. So what about Raymond Brown?

Dave: He wrote a detailed account and commentary on the various gospel accounts of the Saviour’s birth. What’s interesting in his study is that he points out something very important. Now remember, as a Catholic priest, Brown was a trinitarian. But what his careful scholarship uncovered was that Church tradition has obscured Luke’s account of Christ’s birth!

Miles: What do you mean? How so?

Dave: Well, I suppose you could say it’s a case of confirmation bias. Since the fourth century, the church has been trinitarian. That understanding has been the lens through which the New Testament has been read and interpreted.

Brown, being the Bible scholar he was, had the knowledge and the courage to point out that this later tradition of a triune godhead actually obscures Luke’s account—and even Gabriel’s words—by imposing on the gospel of Luke the idea that Yahushua’s existence did not begin in Mary’s womb, which we know every human being must in order to be considered a human being.

Miles: Basically, trinitarian theology altered the account?

Dave: Or at least the way we interpret it, yes. I’ve got Brown’s book, The Birth of the Messiah, here. Would you please turn to the sticky note and read where it’s marked? He’s explaining here that the idea of pre-existence is super-imposed upon Luke’s account.

Miles: “For preexistence . . . the conception of [Yahushua] is the beginning of an earthly career but not the begetting of [Yahuwah’s] Son.”

Dave: He’s saying that if you believe Yahushua was pre-existent, his conception in Mary’s womb was simply the beginning of his life on earth but not his actual act of being begotten. Being begotten refers to when he is actually brought into existence.

Okay, uh. Where are you?

Miles: Page 141?

Dave: Go on.

Miles: “The virginal conception was no longer seen as the begetting of [Yahuwah’s] Son, but as the Incarnation of a [preexisting] Son, and that became orthodox doctrine.”

Dave: Do you catch the significance of what he’s saying here? Brown is pointing out that, originally, the virginal conception was viewed as the beginning of Yahushua’s existence. However, when the pagan triune godhead nonsense was imposed upon Luke’s account, Christ’s conception suddenly became transformed into the incarnation of a being that was already in existence. And it was that which became orthodox doctrine accepted by Christians everywhere.

Miles: Wow. So what you’re saying is that Luke’s literal account of Yahushua’s birth was, basically, annulled by the heresy of a triune godhead. Instead of accepting Luke just as it read, they imposed on it meaning that wasn’t there originally.

Dave: Right. So instead of Luke being an account of how Yahushua came into being at conception, it was transformed into an account of how he became incarnate. And it was that which became orthodox.

Miles: And, as anyone who has studied church history knows, “orthodoxy” was imposed on believers by the edge of the sword.

Dave: Or the flames of the stake, yes. Brown says that just as soon as the pagan trinity became standard doctrine, belief in Yahushua’s pre-existence naturally accompanied that theory. It was at that point, he explains, that Yahushua’s conception in Mary’s womb was no longer seen as his point of origin but merely his incarnation into human flesh, transitioning from a previous and eternal existence.

Miles: Wow. You know, truth is so simple and easy to understand. But you start bringing in any pagan concepts, you start bringing in any error, and all of a sudden it becomes a confusing conglomeration of conflicting ideas you’re left scrambling to figure out!

Dave: Exactly. To put it bluntly, Luke’s account—indeed, Gabriel’s own explanations—were no longer to be believed. They weren’t to be accepted as the true, factual account of Yahushua’s origins!

Miles: So, not only was Yahushua’s point of origin changed, but his very identity as a human being was altered.

Dave: Precisely. That’s how serious this is. The imposed interpretation contradicted Scripture, but it became the accepted doctrine and superseded Luke’s and Gabriel’s words.

Miles: We should call it what it is: an abandonment of clear Scriptural doctrine and the adoption of a new and completely different identity for the Saviour. Because that’s what it is. When you reject that Yahushua was begotten in Mary’s womb—and that’s exactly what Gabriel’s describing, the literal coming into existence of Yahushua—when you reject that Christ’s existence began in his mother’s womb like all humans, you’re left with having to impose meaning that is not found in the original text. You just declare that this isn’t a begetting at all but an incarnation.

Dave: And the real problem is that in doing so, they swapped out the real Saviour who was 100% human with some fantastical, impossible part-god, part-man chimera. And that’s not what the Saviour was at all!

Miles: That’s true. “Demi-gods” is a totally pagan concept. Certainly it’s not consistent with what Scripture really teaches about Yahushua. That’s a Greek concept that the Romans adopted.

Dave: The adoption of the pagan trinity heresy imposed upon Scripture an origin story for Christ that is not only false, but does not actually exist in the Bible! That origin story has to be imposed on Scripture because it’s not actually there when you read the Bible just as it’s written. And everywhere Christianity has spread, Christians have taken this unscriptural definition of the origins and identity of Christ!

Miles: I gotta admit, this is bigger than I ever realized. It’s kind of like when you toss a rock in a still pond. After the splash subsides, the ripple effects go on and on. So, what are the long-term consequences of this, uh, omission and substitution of the Saviour’s true identity?

Dave: All right. Let’s talk about that. Raymond Brown was very open and forthright in his well-written The Birth of the Messiah. The orthodox understanding of a triune godhead was superimposed on Luke’s account. Consequently, the words of Gabriel recorded in Luke were no longer taken literally. The true account of Yahushua’s origins—and thus his identity as fully human—were swept under the impenetrable rug of “Tradition.”

Miles: And that’s where Luke’s account remains in the minds of most Christians to this day. Incredible.

Dave: Now, according to Luke, Yahushua’s point of origin was in the womb of Mary. Just like you came into existence in your mother’s womb; I came into existence in my mother’s womb. That’s how every human being since Cain and Able have come into being.

It was a miraculous conception in the womb of a virgin. Yahuwah truly is Yahushua’s Father, but that does not make Yahushua divine. Yahushua is the “only begotten son of Yah.” He is unique in all the universe. See, the rest of us are Yah’s sons and daughters by adoption.

This difference is important to understand. Would you turn to Romans 8, please? This is the very crux of the gospel message. It’s why the Saviour had to be fully human. Would you read the first four verses, please?

Miles:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Yahushua, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Yahushua has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, Yahuwah did by sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Dave: Now drop down to verses 14 and 15.

Miles: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 

Dave: This is the truth the devil was trying to obscure by imposing a new, different meaning onto Luke’s account. Instead of Yahushua being the only begotten, fully human son of Yah, he was now merely the incarnated-into-human-flesh-but-still-divine second person of a mystical, pagan three-in-one godhead.

. . . What do you have there? What are you reading?

Miles: Well, I was just looking again at precisely what Gabriel told Mary. You remove the superimposed trinity lenses and it becomes very clear. Listen to this again:

“You will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son . . .” [Luke 1:31.] Then down in verse 35 he says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, the power of the most high will overshadow you. Your child will therefore be called holy—the son of God.”

“Therefore.” That’s what this whole explanation is leading up to. Because the Holy Spirit will come upon you and because the power of the most high will overshadow you, your child will therefore be called the son of Yah. Not because he had some eternal preexistence prior to conception.

Dave: Good point. Any time we impose exterior meanings on the simple word of Yah, confusion results. That’s what happens when you try to extrapolate from Luke’s account and prove preexistence.

Take Brown’s book again and turn to page 290. Read the bracketed paragraph.

Miles:

Some church fathers and medieval theologians thought that the reference in Luke 1:35 [“the holy spirit and power of Yahuwah”] referred respectively to the third and second Persons of the Trinity, so that “power” was the second Person descending to take “flesh” in Mary’s womb. As we shall see there is no evidence that Luke thought of the Incarnation of a pre-existent Son.

Dave: We need to quit imposing pagan philosophy, a pagan triune godhead onto Luke’s account. This needs to be exposed for the lie of the devil it is.

You just read Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you—therefore—that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” Another version translates that: “. . . the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.”

Brown says that this verse was an embarrassment to the Church fathers because it explicitly linked Yahushua’s virginal begetting to Yahushua being Yah’s son.

Miles: That’s amazing. A Catholic priest admitting that.

Dave: Well, Yah has honest-hearted people everywhere. Remember, too, that for Catholics church “tradition” trumps Scripture. It always has. But let’s read it in Brown’s words. Page 291. By the asterisk.

Miles: “This has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in preexistence [or Trinitarian] Christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s Son. [But] Luke is unaware of such a Christology. For Luke conception is causally related to divine Sonship.” Unquote.

Wow!

Dave: Isn’t that a powerful quote?

Miles: It is. Makes me wonder why I never picked up on this before.

Dave: Well, like most of us, you read Luke through a trinitarian lens. This is huge and it calls into question all “traditional dogma” of the last 1900 years!

Hand me the book a minute. I want to read something.

Here. Listen to this. Quoting Brown: “I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the connotation in the word ‘therefore,’ which begins this line. They argue that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son into being, but only enables us to call him Son of God who already was Son of God.”

Miles: Huh! That’s really clear.

Dave: Brown explains that the Biblical account, accepted just as it is written, reveals Yahushua’s identity as Yah’s son is linked to his conception in Mary’s womb. Not to some non-existent pre-existence, but to the first moment of conception.

It becomes totally clear when you read the Bible just as it is written. Matthew and Luke both link Yahushua’s identity as Yah’s son to his origin in Mary’s womb. There’s no confusing, contradictory mess in Gabriel’s clear explanations. The Church fathers did that when they adopted the pagan triune godhead.

Miles: I think if we’d accept Yahushua’s origins as given in Matthew and Luke just as they read, we’d quit using John to try and contradict Matthew and Luke. We wouldn’t try to use John 1:1—

Dave: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Miles: Yeah, we wouldn’t impose on it a meaning that contradicted Matthew and Luke. We would simply see it for what it is: John’s announcing Yah’s eternal plan from the beginning. The “word” was Yah’s thought; His plan. It’s not a symbol for some mystical Second Person of a triune godhead.

Dave: Remember as we’ve discussed before, this personalizing of “Word,” making it refer to a “God the Son” comes from pagan Greek philosophy, not Scripture.

The Bible writers are crystal clear: Yahuwah. Is. One. He is a single Divine entity. He’s not a union of three united in purpose or substance or whatever else ridiculous spin has been applied trying to reconcile a pagan concept with Biblical truths.

There’s another problem with this traditional, erroneous reading of Luke. That’s the nunc stans.

Miles: What is that?

Dave: It’s a Latin phrase that means “standing now.” Basically, it conveys the idea that for Yahuwah, time is always in the present. There is no future; no past. Only an eternal present.

Anthony Buzzard explains this well. Would you read this . . . yeah. Right there.

Miles:

“Nunc stans” is the “eternal now,” the idea of eternity as standing still in the present. You could conceive of being around eternally as being around to watch all of history happen forever, but the idea of nunc stans is as if you experience all of time in a single moment which never ends. So a Yahuwah who perceives the nunc stans would know everything that has happened and that will happen at the same moment for all eternity. It would be like being able to see all of time spread out before Him in another dimension or something.

Dave: Okay. Got that in mind? Now here’s the problem. Psalm 2 verse 7 says, quote: “Yahuwah has said to me, ‘You are My son, today I have begotten you.” Again, “begotten” means “brought into existence.”

Miles: I don’t see the problem.

Dave: In standard Christian theology, you believe that time has no meaning for Yah. That He is in an eternal “now.” Consequently, Yahushua’s begetting is not a specific point in time—when he was conceived in Mary’s womb—but occurred in the past and is occurring now because with Yahuwah there is no “today,” only a forever “now.”

Miles: More confusing gibberish.

Dave: Well, that’s what happens when you try to reconcile pagan theories with Yah’s word. But this was the argument framed by the pagan-embracing “Church fathers” in the fourth century. When they accepted a triune godhead, they had to somehow come up with a way to make the so-called second person of the godhead, eternal as well.

One of the church fathers—it may have been Augustine of Hippo, but I don’t remember for sure—actually said, and I quote: “The Son had a beginningless beginning.”

Miles: That’s ridiculous! It’s clearly simply trying to confuse what, in Luke, is a very clearly expressed concept.

Dave: And any time such deliberate confusion occurs, you have to ask yourself why? What truth is Satan trying to conceal?

Think about it. Satan doesn’t go to that much effort unless it’s really important. And it is, because it’s obscuring the Saviour’s origins as a fully human son of Yah, able to save to the uttermost all who come unto Yah through him.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Advertisement

No one likes to feel helpless. No one enjoys feeling indebted. And that may be why Satan has so successfully ensnared people into the trap of thinking they must do something in order to be saved.

This desire to have some hand in our salvation runs so deeply that many Christians fall into a works-oriented mindset without realizing it.

The truth is, there’s absolutely nothing you can do to earn salvation. Everything necessary for salvation comes as free gifts of grace from the Father of All. But that hasn’t stopped Satan from tricking many Christians into trying to earn their salvation through self-denial, or a self-consciously austere life style. This is the heavy burden of the Pharisees the Saviour warned about.

To learn more about the pitfalls Christians should watch out for, go to WorldsLastChance.com and look for “Removing the deadly leaven: the Pharisee in us all.” Reject forever the notion that there is some part you must play in order to earn salvation. Your salvation is ever a gift of divine grace. Your part is to accept it by faith.

* * *Daily Mailbag

Miles: We’ve got a rather unique question from our Daily Mailbag today. Kelly from Se–, Sack– … Sequim? Washington? In the US. I’m probably not saying that right.

Dave: Let me see … hmmm. Must be a Native American place name.

Miles: Whatever it is, it doesn’t follow any logical pronunciation rules I know! Anyway, Kelly writes: “Would you consider Catholics to be Christians, and are they saved?”

Dave: Well, I personally would consider them Christians. They believe in Christ, so yes. I think of them as Christians.

A lot of Catholics themselves, however, don’t call themselves Christians.

Miles: I’ve noticed that and it always kind of surprised me. I’m not sure why because, as you say, they do believe in Christ.

Dave: Well, the word “Catholic,” as I’m sure you know, means “universal.”

Christian is an umbrella term that covers all believers in Christ, but perhaps “Catholic” is the only umbrella term they want? I don’t know. As to whether or not they’re saved, that would depend on the individual.

This is an important point everyone should remember: membership in a particular denomination or religion is not a guarantee of salvation. It does not stamp your admission ticket into the kingdom of Yah.

Miles: Kind of like what Yahushua said in Matthew 7:

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. 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?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’ [Matthew 7:21-23]

Dave: Perfect. Only those who do the will of Yah will gain entrance into His eternal kingdom. And that is inclusive of every religion, including those outside of Judeo-Christianity.

As we’ve said before, Yah has insured that every belief system has some truth in it so that the sincere of heart, if they follow on to know the truth, can be saved. Christians may be blessed to know that the Father is loving, rather than an angry, vengeful god, but if they do not allow that truth to soften their hearts and draw them to Him, it does them no good.

One of Yahushua’s parables really demonstrates this point. Would you please turn to Matthew 13? Here, Christ is describing the different ways people react to the truth. Matthew 13 and verses 3 to 8.

Miles:

Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Dave: This is a perfect illustration of how different people—choose—I repeat, choose, to respond to truth. Now, drop down to verse 19 and read through verse 23. Let’s read Yahushua’s interpretation of the parable.

Miles:

When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Dave: We’ve already said that Yah makes sure every religion contains some truth so that all have an equal opportunity at salvation. Thus, the “word of the kingdom” isn’t just your standard come-to-Jesus Christian sermon.

Miles: Well, yeah. A Muslim, who is a strict monotheist, is going to reject a Christian message that preaches a triune godhead!

Dave: And just as all religions have some truth, all also have error. And that includes the various denominations that make up Christendom. Revelation 18 says: “Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: For her sins are come up into heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” [Revelation 18:4-5]

We are to leave all organized religions and denominations, following the Lamb wherever he leads. But getting back to Yahushua’s parable. It is the individual response to truth that determines whether someone is saved or lost. Not their name on the church rolls; not their avowed religion or denomination. Not even what they say but rather how their heart responds to truth.

Miles: We’re always saved as individuals, not in groups.

Dave: Exactly.

Miles: I know some churches, such as the Catholic Church, teach that membership in their denomination is required for salvation, but that’s not what Scripture teaches. Ezekiel 14 verse 20 says: “Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith Yahuwah Elohim, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.” So, yeah. It is our personal, individual relationship with Yah, how we respond to truth on an individual basis that determines our salvation.

Dave: And that’s why some Catholics are saved and some will be lost. Some Mormons will be saved, others lost. Some Hindus or Buddhists or whatever have you, will be saved, while others will be lost. Yah is no respecter of persons.

Miles: And aren’t we glad that we all stand as equals before Him??

All right. Next question comes from Makati in the Philippines. You ever been there before?

Dave: Where? The Philippines? No. I’d like to, though. The photos I’ve seen are really beautiful.

Miles: Me, too. I’ve heard it’s the second largest archipelago in the world. Interestingly enough, it is the only Asian nation that is predominantly Christian.

Dave: Huh! So, what’s the question?

Miles: Uh … Rosamie writes: “Some schoolmates and I are reading through the Bible together. One thing we were wondering about is why Adam didn’t die on the day he sinned. Genesis 2:17 says, ‘But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ So why didn’t he die? Thank you.”

Dave: First, let me say how wonderful it is that you and your friends are reading through the Bible together. There is so much truth to be gleaned at every stage in life from Scripture. I’m glad you’re learning at a young age the value of spending time in Yah’s word.

Okay. Why didn’t he die? Well, he did not physically die within the first literal 24-hour period, no. But he did die spiritually. He immediately lost the initial promise of immortality. He inherited Satan’s fallen nature and brought the curse of death on, not only himself, but all of his descendants after him.

Miles: He died spiritually. I like that. That’s a good way to look at it and, of course, one obvious proof is that he ran and hid in shame as soon as he heard Yah’s voice in the garden.

Dave: Right. He was no longer innocent. Physically speaking, he died within the first prophetic day of 1,000 years. Would you please turn to 2 Peter 3 and read verses 8 and 9?

And while he’s looking that up, I’ll read Genesis 5:5 which gives us Adam’s age at death. It says: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." So, that’s obviously less than 1,000 years. This is an important point because … well, you have 2 Peter 3:8 and 9? Go ahead and read it.

Miles: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with Yahuwah as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Yahuwah is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Dave: In the Bible, there are various lengths to prophetic time. The Children of Israel wandered 40 years in the wilderness, one year for each day the spies were in Canaan before they returned and complained about the dangers.

Another segment of prophetic time as explained in 2 Peter is 1,000 years equaling one “day.”

So in that sense, Adam did die within the day he ate the fruit, because he died within the first 1,000 years of his existence.

Miles: One final quick question. This is from Dave … Dave! Did you write in to yourself?

Dave: No. Someone else.

Miles: Yeah, this Dave is from Tshwane … Tshwane? South Africa. He says, “I have extended family that don’t speak English. I would love to share your videos with them. Could you please tell me what languages your videos are in?”

Dave: Certainly. Both on our website, as well as on Youtube, you will find videos in over 30 different languages. Not sure if I can remember them all.

Miles: I’ve got a list here. We’ve got videos in Afrikaans, Arabic, Bahasa, Bemba, Bulgarian, Chinese, Citonga, Cook Islands Maori, Czech, Dutch, English, Fijian, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Shona, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog, Telegu, Ukranian and Vietnamese. And our website articles are available in many different languages, too, so be sure and check it out.

If you’ve got questions or comments, just go to WorldsLastChance.com and click on Contact Us. We always enjoy receiving messages from our listeners.

* * *Daily Promise

Hello! This is Elise O’Brien with your daily promise from Yah’s word.

Matt Chandler is an American pastor and author, and the president of the Acts 19 Network. He writes, quote: “The greater your knowledge of the goodness and grace of [Yah] on your life, the more likely you are to praise Him in the storm.”

This was a lesson learned recently by a teenager, a lesson he’ll always remember.

Fifteen-year-old Sean was bored. He’d finished his homework and, with the day being overcast with the promise of rain, he was stuck at home with nothing to do. To help pass the time, he decided to play some computer games.

“Mom?” He called. “May I use your computer? Mine’s not working.”

Sean’s mother worked from home out of an office in their basement.

“Sure,” she called back. “But don’t exit out of that document. Just minimize it.”

Sean quickly became engrossed in his computer game. Hours passed and the forecasted rain became a reality. Plugged into his headset, Sean didn’t realize that the rainstorm had become an electrical storm. With his attention focused on the game, he wasn’t aware that water had leaked into the basement room where he was playing.

All of a sudden, a voice told him, “Move your foot.”

What a stupid thing to say! Sean shook his head and kept playing.

“I said, move your foot!” The voice spoke more urgently.

Sean glanced down at his feet and noticed that one of them was in a pool of water that had collected from the storm. Resting in the shallow water was the end of an extension cord; the other end, plugged into an electrical outlet.

“I’m not going to hold this back much longer,” the voice said again. “Move your foot.”

Sean didn’t know what was going on but decided he’d move his foot. Now that his concentration from the game was broken, he didn’t like the wet feeling on his foot anyway. Just as soon as he moved his foot, lightning struck the house and ran down the electrical system to the basement’s wet floor. Had Sean not moved his foot, he would have been electrocuted. In the chaotic confusion following the lightning strike and the loud blast of thunder, Sean whirled around, but there was no one there. No one was in the basement with him, but someone had warned him and saved his life.

Lamentations chapter 3, verses 22 to 26, says:

It is of Yahuwah's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.

They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.

Yahuwah is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.

Yahuwah is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.

It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of Yahuwah.

When you dedicate your life to Yah, you can trust that He who has made you will also watch over you and take care of you.

We have been given great and precious promises. Go and start claiming!

* * *Part 3: The true origins of Christ

Miles: You know, this “beginingless beginning” is such foolishness.

Dave: Well, what else can you expect from the same people that taught us

1 + 1 + 1 = 1? And we all bought it?

Scripture is so clear but you bring in these pagan philosophies and, all of a sudden, you’ve got all these convoluted doctrines that are so skewed you can’t even grasp it. So what do you do? You just dismiss it as a “mystery” too difficult for human brains to grasp.

Miles: You know Yah would never leave important truths unclear, certainly nothing as important as the origins—and thus the essential being—of the Saviour!

Dave: Dr. James Dunn was a British New Testament scholar and professor at the University of Durham. He actually passed just . . . real recently. June of 2020, I think. Anyway, he wrote a book that explored origins of the doctrine of the incarnation called Christology in the Making. He summed it up well. He said, quote: “There is of course always the possibility that ‘popular pagan superstition’ became ‘popular Christian superstition,’ by a gradual assimilation and spread of belief at the level of popular piety.”

And that’s exactly what happened. Pagan philosophical ideas were imposed on Luke’s clear account. Gabriel explained clearly that Yahushua’s point of origin was the moment of conception. But that became twisted into the supposed incarnation of an eternally pre-existent Second Person of the Godhead.

Miles: And in doing so, the true beauty of the Saviour, his identity as the only begotten, fully human son of Yah, was lost. It just goes to show how important it is that we bring every belief to the word of Yah and assume nothing.

Join us again tomorrow, folks, and until then, remember: Yahuwah loves you . . . and He is safe to trust!

* * *

You have been listening to WLC Radio.

This program and past episodes of WLC Radio are available for downloading on our website. They're great for sharing with friends and for use in Bible studies! They're also an excellent resource for those worshipping Yahuwah alone at home. To listen to previously aired programs, visit our website at WorldsLastChance.com. Click on the WLC Radio icon displayed on our homepage. 

In his teachings and parables, the Savior gave no “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, the thrust of his message was constant … vigilance. Join us again tomorrow for another truth-filled message as we explore various topics focused on the Savior's return and how to live in constant readiness to welcome him warmly when he comes.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.