My 52 Books #15 “The Mystery of the 666 Revealed” by Uriyah Baraka


Well, where to begin….I will explain myself, but this was my initial reaction.  Since this is meant for review I will try my best to condense it by addressing a few of the bigger issues (Wound up failing at brevity :-/).

The underlying foundations of this work are borderline dualistic/gnostic in nature (a false duality between the material being evil and the spiritual being good.  Very Platonic in nature) and faulty in interpretation.  Mr. Baraka’s initial arguments from the text are built upon an allegorical interpretation, where the author smashes his presuppositions or personal ideas into the text.  It’s a prime example of proof-texting and eisegesis.  That meaning the author will pluck out a verse from it’s immediate/intermediate context and make a case based on a few words that only make sense in his interpretation outside of the wholeness of the original context.  One of the worst features of the book, in my opinion, is the fact that he does not back his work up with citations, but simply assumes that his readers will follow his every word as fact without question.  Rob Bell did something very similar in his recent book “Love Wins”.

The primary problem with this book is Braka’s use of allegory in interpretation.  While the Bible does contain much allegory and figurative language, it always interprets itself within the book, other areas of Scripture, or in exceptional cases can be found in an immediate historical context (i.e. Revelation 3:14-22).  Similarly, to really understand the book of Hebrews you need to understand Leviticus, along with the rest of the Pentateuch.  But here we find interpretations of many specific words that are not found in the historical-grammatical fashion of it’s time.  He interprets the leopard in Revelation 13:2 to be an “adulteration of the Word to the degree that it takes on an infernal quality of Gehenna.”  and somehow man and the devil are two and the same? (pg 8,11)  Again, zero citation.  You really have to stretch the Scriptures hard, and inject some additives into what doesn’t connect, in order for the majority of this book to make any sense.  This is the peak of dishonesty and many of the claims found in here turn on itself, as the basis and teaching of this book is anti-Christ.

Probably the most annoying factor is that he does not represent the opposing view well at all.  He tends to think that Christians worship a man.  And that in so doing we are worshiping the creation rather than the divine.  His basis of argument here is built off another passage out of context, “I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Cor 15:50)  If you look at the context of this picked out verse (v.12-58) you will see that Paul is talking about the need for a physically resurrected body that is in the same manner as Jesus Himself (though we are not to become divine we do partake *or enjoy* His divine nature).  The reason Paul was rejected at Mars Hill in Acts 17 was due to his proclamation of a physical resurrection.  The philosophy of that time (much like Baraka’s) was platonic in nature, which thought the physical resurrection to be foolish.  Only the spiritual was considered worthy of contemplation to both first century philosophers and seemingly here with Baraka.

Jesus, Iesous, Yeshua, Isa, Gott, Boze, or however you pronounce His name (He is not the God of the Jews only- Romans 3:29.  And the “praise zeus” hypothesis holds no weight in the greek), is the eternal God, Who created all of creation (Col 1:15-20), yet took on corruptible flesh (John 1), did not sin (Heb 4:15).  He was then crucified for our sin in our place and was raised after death as physically incorruptible.  After this he touched and ate (Luke 24:39,42,43), so He never lost His human nature after He ascended.  And afterward they worshiped Him (luke 24:52).  So we do not worship a created being, but the eternal-transcendant Son, who took on created flesh and now lives with an infinite resurrected body.  Again, the lack of citation from Mr. Baraka is extremely disheartening, and his work should be thoroughly questioned by his followers.  He claims that the Trinity itself is a concept birthed at the council of Nicea under Constantine.  This is another reason why he should be questioned (The term Trinity was birthed by Tertullian in the second century, and the concept is eternal (Gen 1:26, John 17:5, 2 Cor 13:29….Side note: God could not be eternally loving without His creation in such a unitarian view).

Trying to make this as short as possible (A book could be written on his historical and Biblical inaccuracies.), I wanted to address the issue of “vicarious imputation of righteousness”.  This is the crux of the gospel, and I do hope that those who read this would consider the difference between religious duty and the amazing enjoyment of the grace that binds us to the Father through the gift of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Baraka said, “Yet the doctrine of the beast teaches us, we are saved by a grace that is not of works (obedience), but of grace (unmerited favor).” (pg. 26)  The Scriptures speak of the good news that Jesus saves us from our sin.  There is a major confusion (or intentional deception) in his mind that this unmerited favor implies that there is no need for holiness following salvation.  Someone said it rightly, “Religion says that if we obey God He will love us. The gospel says that it is because God has loved us through Jesus that we can obey.”

Jesus paid the penalty for our sin on the cross (1 Cor 15:1-4).  He was tortured, and nailed to that tree for our infinite crimes against the infinitely holy God of creation.  This was to express His righteousness while simultaneously holding back justice, and granting His love and mercy as a gift to be received and not earned (Romans 3:21-23).  The law is not obsolete, as Baraka assumes Christians believe, but it is a schoolmaster/guardian to lead us to Christ that we might be justified (ie. made right) by faith.  Hebrews speaks of the law making nothing perfect, but it was always by faith that one is justified (Heb 7:19, Rom 4).  But like he rightly states in James 2, faith without works is dead.  This grace is not meant to say, “you’re saved, now go off on your own and do what you want.”  This grace is meant to save and then work in and through those who are in Christ.  He does not leave those He transforms alone like orphans, He is a good Father.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
And Philippians 2:9,10 “…Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

I would strongly caution anyone reading this to fact check everything.  My heart goes out to those who get so close to the kingdom, yet are halted by the false teachings of work righteous religion.  Jesus is the only one who divides the line between religion and relationship, and He will manifest Himself to you if you will repent of your sin and trust in Jesus with who you are.

A few links to help along the way.
http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-
http://carm.org/trinity
If you’re looking for an easily accessible entry point toward Biblical apologetics and teaching:
http://www.str.org
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/
http://carm.org/christian-doctrine


Advertisements

About Dan Bartol

I decided to walk in my old mentor's footsteps by starting a blog primarily dedicated to reviewing 1 book per week. While I typically read books on theology and philosophy, I am hoping to stretch myself a little by reading other genres of literature. I don't know if that will always happen, since I'm trying to read what will benefit me at school, but I am certainly going to try when I get the chance. View all posts by Dan Bartol

12 responses to “My 52 Books #15 “The Mystery of the 666 Revealed” by Uriyah Baraka

  • jonathan friedl

    Well I first want to start by thanking you for taking your time and setting an example of looking to expand your knowledge and perceptive thinking, which many do not follow or desire for multiple reasons. Mainly laziness & lack of desire to change or make change for good, which is in my understanding like almost all things a product of the surrounding enviornment. Anyways, conserning the book there’s much to be said. For me this book was the start of my journey to where I am today. Better worded the start of the answer to my deep & lengthy prayers which showed me what I already had discerned from being in the church most of my life, that being way too many grey areas and gaps.

    Your first quote came from pgs 8 &11. Now as you mentioned of taking one text and using out of context is wrong, I don’t think your getting the bigger picture of all this and what you must do in order to interpret any of the scriptures accurately. Lets begin. Paul said to be carnally minded is death and the letter of the word brings forth death. I dont think you need to be a bible scholar to interpret that this means there is a deeper meaning than that which is shown in appearance or effect..the letter. Yeshua responded to the question why do you speak in these parables? “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to them it is not.” Jer4:22 “For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.” Also when writing revelation John said he was in the 3rd heaven and theres were unutterable things & things he was told not to write down. Why? Because were taught “if my people would humble themselves and pray I would open up the windows of heaven” & in Rev. “worthy is the lamb to open the scrolls” finally isa. 29:11&12 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”

    The point that your missing is what the opening two pages of the book stated which is from Paul who taught, “we speak of a hidden wisdom,..a mystery of God” Therefore its not known according to the carnal mind and the secular teachings of the churches today. But glory be to Yeshusa who is the lamb and as also taught “according to the flesh we know him no more for he has become a life giving spirit” from which he has been given the authority to open the scrolls as fortold in Rev. But heres the thing to whom much is given much is required. Now this goes very deep and way back to genesis where it speaks of cursed is ground because of you in toil you are to eat of it all the days of your life..it starts there. But to the carnal minded we thinking the ground we walk on as well as that entire story as being the creation of the heavens and earth which we see today. But how can that be if yeshua taught the kingdom of heaven is within you. Luke 17:21 The church teaches its somewhere up in the sky and we waiting on some sort of alienesque type abduction. Yet in that prior verse he said the kingdom shall not come by observation and in Rev. it shall be taken by violence. And the 3rd or 4th commandment in 6 days you shall labor and do all thy work. What is all this reffering to? I’d be happy to share if its purpose is for redemption. But you also state Christians dont teach laws are abolished yet dont keep sabbath and practice every holiday, traditons, and customs of this world which is said to make his word null and void. Why? Since it has replaced the ordedr of the activity of the kingdom within you to that of the carnal mind and has masquered as a messenger of light. Yet woe to the man who calls good evil and evil good. Or as the master yeshua taught if your eye be dark then how great is that darkness and thus the whole body is dark. Therefore in Jerm. 9:14&15 which you can look up as is also quoted in thes. Yah sends a great delusion that they would belive the lie and are thereby formless and void. Paul speaks of how to this day their is a veil over their eyes everytime they read the old testemant and only way its removed is to turn to elohim. Who is they? Those on the outter courts of course, the gentiles bablyon. Which we are told to come out of. Those who play with the latter and exault it as supreme.

    Finally, I conclude with this for there is much more I’d like to day but I already wrote a book here. Jesus can’t be his name since He said I come in fathers name and you reject me they come in their own name and you accept them. Therefore His fathers name would have to have some form of jesus in it, but it don’t. So Yah..Shua which means salvation from Yahweh makes much more sense. AlleluYah right? And lastly Yeshua taught my sheep now me by my voice, if you dont hear his voice in all this than maybe you should humble yourself and be sure of your position is correct because in the book as well as here nothing but scriptures have been quoted.

  • Dan Bartol

    Thank you for your reply Jon. I apologize for the lateness, as I’ve had a very busy couple weeks. School has been a heavy load and working with different people in different places has been a handful (still learning to say no here). I also appreciate your somber approach, as we dive into a few specifics concerning this book. I will address your issues idea by idea, so that we can have a little structure to the conversation. Sorry for the lack of brevity again, but there was a lot of material to cover.

    “taking one text and using out of context is wrong, I don’t think your getting the bigger picture of all this and what you must do in order to interpret any of the scriptures accurately.” “Paul said to be carnally minded is death and the letter of the word brings forth death. I dont think you need to be a bible scholar to interpret that this means there is a deeper meaning than that which is shown in appearance or effect..the letter”

    While I agree that you do not need to be a Bible scholar to interpret the Scriptures, it is not hard to understand the whole of Mr. Baraka’s message in his book, and I believe you just did exactly what I was talking about in the review.
    I agree that to be carnally minded is death (Romans 8:6), but the foundation of how you understand “flesh” and “carnal” is foreign to what Paul had in mind.

    “For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6).
    “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3:6).

    What is carnal/flesh? He is not talking about material substance, but of the sinful nature of man (Galatians 5:16-22), and the letter is the letter of the law that is the condemner of all men (Romans 3:19), and the Holy Spirit brings forth life in those who repent and trust in the Messiah (Mark 1:15).

    “Yeshua responded to the question why do you speak in these parables? “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to them it is not.” Jer4:22 “For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.”

    First, the parables had a point behind them, with which he explained to His disciples. Second, the problem with the Pharisees (which is also your problem), is that you misuse the Scripture to substantiate a foreign claim for a foreign view than what God is conveying to us directly. You’ve given me Scripture that has been twisted beyond how the original audience would have understood it and then smashed other texts in to substantiate your point. That is what is meant when I spoke of eisegesis. The way you have interpreted and applied those texts have been built upon by a man or groups imagination and not how God has revealed Himself.
    You’ve started with a faulty assumption with a twisted text, and then used other texts (out of context) to make your case.

    The Pharisees of the 1st century, among many others of the time, did the exact same thing your doing with God’s word. It takes the Holy Spirit to obey His word (faith and obedience is a gift Eph 2:8-10), but not to see clearly what it says (There are scholars, who are anything but believers, who can understand what it says). “this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,” (Isaiah 29:13). When you add the interpretations of men, and call them “spiritual” (how else can you cover up the fact that you don’t want people to test what you’re saying? It’s the oldest trick in the cults. Ie. Jehovah’s Witnesses and LDS) you wind up missing the point all together and the relationship with God is non-existent. We can try all day long to cover the outside, but without the blood of Christ, we cannot please God (Matthew 23:27-28)

    ” Therefore its not known according to the carnal mind and the secular teachings of the churches today.”

    While I agree that most mainline denominations have missed the point altogether and are not preaching the Biblical gospel, quoting 2 Cor 2:7 as a foundation to your argument backlashes in the end.
    Here’s an example:
    A woman confessed her adulterous relationship to a pastor, and said that it was ok, because God gave her permission. Of course the pastor asked, “why?” She went on to quote Eph 4:24 which says in the KJV to “put on the new man.” That’s a silly example, but this is not far off from the method of interpretation you ascribe to.

    I would ask that you start with those texts (2 Cor 3:6, 1 Cor 2:7, 2 Cor 5:16), and really look at them.
    Spend the time to get to know what God is actually saying, by not just finding a “hidden” meaning in the text (which the Gnostics/Platonists enjoy doing), but seeing what He really says and means by what He says. You don’t have to be an ivory tower follower to get these basic principles:
    1- What does the immediate context say? (the first verses surrounding it)
    2- What does the intermediate context say? (The chapter(s) surrounding it)
    3- With this context in mind, what does he mean by what he says?
    4- Understanding the meaning, how does this affect you or the world around you?

    These are a few assumptions that I ascribe to when reading the Bible
    -The genre of literature in the Scriptures plays a part in how I read it
    -Scripture always interprets Scripture
    -The Scriptures are clear on all essential matters of teaching
    -History informs us as to what was going on around it (The Bible is a book grounded in the reality of history).

    “Now this goes very deep and way back to genesis where it speaks of cursed is ground because of you in toil you are to eat of it all the days of your life..it starts there. But to the carnal minded we thinking the ground we walk on as well as that entire story as being the creation of the heavens and earth which we see today. But how can that be if yeshua taught the kingdom of heaven is within you. Luke 17:21”

    Again, you start with a faulty assumption of what Jesus is saying by “kingdom of heaven”, and then knock over a strawman to make your case. The kingdom has always been seen as God’s sovereign rule. If the kingdom of heaven is within us, then that means God’s sovereign rule is reigning in our inward being (the core of who we are). But the creation story of Genesis is how it was then. Today, we see the results of Genesis 3 and on. If you are more along the lines of people like Philo (a Jewish historian who needed Greek influence to interpret the Bible), then of course you cannot see it as God clearly revealed it.

    “The church teaches its somewhere up in the sky and we waiting on some sort of alienesque type abduction.”

    That is a debatable secondary issue, which I don’t subscribe to (don’t see a pre-tribulation rapture in the Bible)

    “But you also state Christians dont teach laws are abolished yet dont keep sabbath and practice every holiday, traditons, and customs of this world which is said to make his word null and void. Why? Since it has replaced the ordedr of the activity of the kingdom within you to that of the carnal mind and has masquered as a messenger of light.”

    Holidays are a secondary matter that can be debated another day. But on the note of the Sabbath, I believe the Scriptures teaching on the New Covenant, that God has given to us in Ephesians 4, where we have entered His rest by faith, and enjoy it’s benefits. The Sabbath never left, but it was a foretaste of the rest we would have in Christ. I try to keep a day of the week separate for physical rest and special time with God, but that does not earn me anything (Ephesians 2:8,9; Galatians 2:21 says “If righteousness is through the Law,” that is, through the works of the Law, “then Christ died for naught”). I would recommend a book titled “The rest of God” by Mike Buchanan
    http://www.amazon.com/Rest-God-Restoring-Your-Sabbath/dp/0849918480

    “Therefore in Jerm. 9:14&15 which you can look up as is also quoted in thes. Yah sends a great delusion that they would belive the lie and are thereby formless and void. Paul speaks of how to this day their is a veil over their eyes everytime they read the old testemant and only way its removed is to turn to elohim. Who is they? Those on the outter courts of course, the gentiles bablyon. Which we are told to come out of. Those who play with the latter and exault it as supreme.”

    My heart aches for you man. You are actually in the camp God’s Word is warning in those verses. Much like the mainline denominations that have abandoned the authority and inerrancy of His Word. This view you propagate is pagan in nature (along the lines of Greek Platonism/early Gnosticism). We are told to test all things (1 Thess 5:21), by what? The Scriptures. If they are interpreted by a man (such as Mr. Baraka) in such a way that they cannot be tested, then you should begin to wonder. This is why I encourage you to fact check this stuff. You will find so many holes (like the major ones I pointed out in the review), and hopefully sift your way into the truth of God.

    “Jesus can’t be his name since He said I come in fathers name and you reject me they come in their own name and you accept them. Therefore His fathers name would have to have some form of jesus in it, but it don’t.”

    Where in that text does it say that Jesus’ name must have an alphabetical aspect of the name of the Father?
    What is in a name? It is the substance of the Person and character. If I go to Germany and Dan is pronounced “Dane” or “Doin” in another dialect, then I am not offended. If you refer to me as the one eyed black man from North Korea with a french accent, then we’ll have issues, cuz that’s not who I am. If you refer to me as a white guy from Milwaukee, who is now living in OKC with his wife and 2 kids and a flat midwestern accent, then we’re on the right track.
    God is referred to in many different ways. Elohim is just one of them (His primary name being IAM or YHWH / יהוה‎). Jesus is called numerous titles in Isaiah 9:6. He probably had the name Yeshua, but He is revealed by God in the Greek as Iesous Christos (the English rendering of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός). There is no original Hebrew New Testament. It’s deceptive and is refuted easily by simple history and the Biblical record.
    For more info:
    http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr08.html
    http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html

    I would encourage you to test everything I have written, and seriously take a look at each passage I cited in it’s context (the verses then chapters surrounding it) to see if it is true. Pray over this, and do not harden your heart. I have approached this kind of systematically, but I want you to know that my heart is for you. To see crippled hands healed on the streets, to be overwhelmed by the Spirit of God during times of prayer, and resting in the fact that Jesus is enough and that He loves you as an adopted child is just a taste of the life lived in Christ. He is better than any religious pursuit, and He will empower you to obey if you will believe. I only say that by experience. The truth thereof must be tested to see if it’s true. He will manifest Himself to those who will follow Him and keep His commandments (John 14:21 also look at John 6:28,29) It was a long time coming, as I was not interested in His will, but after He opened my eyes in 03, I am free and through the good and the bad I am His. I don’t know your religious history, but I do hope you would take this into high consideration and prayer.

    Soli Deo Gloria,
    Dan

  • jonathan friedl

    I think your responding with half truths and an erroneous intent. I only bear witness to the Truth not my job to convince anyone. But since you think your being accurate explain one thing to me…“And the earth was without form (tohu; absent of ???) and void (bohu; Absent of ????) and darkness (Chosek) was on the face (pene) of the deep .”{ Gen 1:2.} Also vs 26. Finally you speak of Gnostics as if its wrong, yet michah prophesied “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” which is what gnostics means. Timothy states my ever learning but never coming to knowledge of the truth. Micah also said “form me in your light that i might see from your righteoussness. john said we must purify ourselves as he is pure for in him there is no darkness.. Yeshusa taught if your eye be dark how great is that darkness and its better to enter in the kingdom with one eye rather than two…” Does the eye see on its own? can you walk into a room without light and see? No its a vehicle of reception of light. Thus what eye does Yeshua speak of? He used natural things to express spiritual teachings for all things natural have a spiritual counterpart…As or as taught “…foreshadowing of things to come” I enjoy writing but I wont engage in what i know as foolisheness..”dont follow the crowd in a false report ..path is narrow and hard pressed and few find it…” Point being if the majority excepts it..well…I’d question it…..!!!Shalom Come out of here my people lest you share in Her sins! Its time to soound the last trumpet of Yah and raise back up the two witnesses!! Rev. 11

  • uriyah baraka

    I thank you for the crotizism of the book I wrote, mystery of the 666 revealed. You are wonderfully secular christian, but your points do not hold water. for instance, you did not show the point after debasing the scriptue used, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, you failed to show my back up scripture. “he (yeshua) became a life giving spirit.” (1 Cor 15) The gnostic idea fails, since i do not agree that Yeshua arose in a phatom body as many gnostics belived in the 2nd centurey, mainly valentinus. no. I belived that Yeshua did raise in a transforrmed form of his earthy body tp prove his ressurrection. but we understand that this was his pre-glorified body. Yeshua told Mary; do not hold on to me because i have not yet ascended to my Father,” this means that he was still not yet glorifed as he taught in John 17, “father glorify me with the same glory i had with you in the begining before the world was” it was therefore in his ascension to gloification that he put off all remnants of his earthy body and as is taught in 1 cor 15, he became a life given spirit. this is proven by the likeness of Yeshua in the first chapter of revelations. It bears no resemblance to the je’sus like of the false christian church, but it does bear image to the man of the flesh. Paul taught us, “we once knew christ according to the flesh, but now we know him no more.” why? as paul says in 2 Cor 3. “The Lord (Yeshua) is the spirit…” Yeshua taught us, “what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit. He is therefore the firstborn of the spirit puting off the remnant of the flesh completely, and as paul teaches, he became a life-giving spirit… from the father and of the father. nuff said. also you trick the public when you say that tetullian mentioned the word trinity. you are correct. yet in his apologetics his definition of the trinity is quite differant from the nicene creed. tetullian states; that the word was a light that proceed from it mass indivisable as a ray of light that proceeds from the mass of the sun yet remains connected with the sun. so is father and son. the two are one (Eis: the same). whereas Anthanasius the developer of the nicene creed, define the trinity as three persons, and distinct. thus three gods, this is polytheism of ancient babylon, and osirian theology. Lastly you demeaned my revealing of the spotted leopard. wow, this is a very elementary veiw that i thought it needed not much support. since we know that Yeshua was offered to EL without spot or blemish, thus to be without spot is to be pure whereas to be spotted is to be unpure or adulterated, this simply deducement seemed to have escaped you,but i gave the potential reader more credit, and i think they would have probably have made the same simple deducement. The point of this book was to show that we the believer in the messiah or Christ, should worship Elohim (The Word) in spirit and truth, for Elohim is Holy (Set apart from the flesh of the human). the scriptures are there to prove the point made. but i notice in most of you statement like this work is platonic, gnostic, and anti-christ, you failed to show evidence of these false accusations, so i take it that you did not read this as a protagonist, rather and antagonist, and thus the critizism was prejudised by your own resistance to comprehend another veiw. so your demonization of this work I veiw as superfisial. May ahuah open your eyes with the light of love and mercy. Shalom. Uriyah Baraka

  • Dan Bartol

    I think you both are missing the point. Gnosticism comes in many shapes and forms, but the fundamental markers of it are found in the dividing dualism of spirit and the material creation (as if the material could not possibly be good), as well as an arrogance of pursued “hidden” wisdom, as if God wasn’t clear about what He said. No one is arguing against knowledge. We have the same material before us (I’m assuming), but it is what we do with it and how we approach it that matters. That is why you are still in your sin, since you will not receive the knowledge and grace of God, but seek pagan undertones in between the lines. You come with allegories and Scripture twisting built upon your imaginations, and yet the Scriptures remain in their context for us to seek out to find life in the God of the Bible.

    You must take the Scriptures in their context. Anyone can quote a Bible verse (the world does it all the time, and just look at cultural Christianity), but only those faithful to what God has actually said seeks to find His word in the context with which it was written. Go back and read everything surrounding those texts you don’t cease to quote to get the point.

    Mr. Baraka, you hold to a pagan view of the Scriptures. The fact that you pull that verse from John 17 to substantiate a claim that He has shed His resurrected body at His ascension is very telling. Jesus did not die twice to shed His body at the ascension. Jesus also told Thomas to touch the scars He chose to retain in the same context you spoke of concerning His reaction to Mary. The whole of Scripture must be taken into account, and not a few eisegeted verses.

    Your point on “Je’sus”, just proves you did not read what I wrote (let alone the article destroying that argument), nor know anything about how we got to the use of His name in that manner in the english language. Though I agree that your pagan view of Jesus holds little likeness to who He actually is.

    You quoting that Turtullian and Athenasius contradicts the Nicene view of the Trinity just shows you do not know what you are talking about, nor what the Trinitarian view of the Bible actually is (how you described it in your book and just above was extremely ignorant, and I would recommend further study. For a basic understanding I would recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Trinity-James-R-White/dp/1556617259).

    While I have laid out enough evidence that would make any thinking person, without mass presuppositions, see through you, I do not claim to be greater than you in any sense or way, but I do write with a heart of correction because I want to see you know grace, as a dying man writing to a dying man. It is unmerited, but it is also transforming; changing the heart and mind to seek the relational will of God. If you do not have the Son you do not have the Father, and I hope one day that you would see Him in truth. Grace n’ Peace.

  • uriyah baraka

    quite interesting your response. antagonistic as well as accusatoy. so you will know i paraphrsed directly from tertullian from his apologetics, try reading it, says tertullian; “that which came forth out of EL is at once EL and the son of EL, the two are one”. meaning the son is a manifestation of Yahuah, this is why it is taught in jerimayah, That the Messiah name would be called Yahuah tsaddikenu. that is Yahuah our righteousness. One scholar says, “to tertullian the trias (Triune) is EL, his reason and the word as an expression of reason…tertullian does,nt think of three separate persons of the deity.” kaye. I am well studied in the writings of Tertullian his apology as well as his ethical writings. As far as the duelism concept that the material is not evil, this is not understood by you because you are unlearned in the scriptures. paul says, in the flesh (Nature of material substance) “no good dwell” this is to says good according to the quality of the divine, and not the standard of carnal men. In rom 7. Paul is very thorough about showing the duel conflict of the flesh against the spirit. And in Galations he teaches us, the flesh war against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh for they are contary to one another. There seems to be a conflict here of flesh and spiit, dont u think? also i am messianic Hebrew, thus i am dedicated to purging my life from euro-pagan culture and its supremacist values. so this accusation of underline paganism from a christian that probably honors the day of ishatar (Easter: a pagan goddess) and lifts up the osirian tree in honor of the day of birth of osirus the sun deity. who profanes the oneness of Elohim with the doctine of three divine persons a doctrine of ancient babel, i find it quite amusing. Shema o Yisrael Yahuah Eloheka Yahuah Echad. and as Yashua teaches us, I and the father are one (Eis: the same), and last in Paul, “In Him (Yeshua) is the totallity (Fulness) of Theotetos (Divinity) in Bodily form”. so if the all of the divinity is in The Messiah, then there is no part of divinity apart from him. And as far as the hidden wisdom of the word, we get this information of its existant from Paul, and not from Uriyah Baraka, “But we speak the wisdom of Elohim in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which ELOHIM ordain before the foundation of the world.” so it was Paul who testified to a deeper wisdom of the word apart from the letter. I guess Paul was a gnostic too, uh? despite your demeaning of what the apostle taught, I will continue to seek his mysteries, and teach them as the spirit reveals it. and lastly, the grace of Elohim works mightily in my life and teaches me to deny sin and all worldly life, and this is how i was delivered from a criminal lifestyle, and lawlessness, and now live a righteous life according to his commandments. The grace I know delivers me from sin and lawlessness, and is redeeming me from death, O great the victory that eshua won for us, that we are given the power to be sons of Elohim, aqnd appear as he is, Pure, unspoted, and unadulterated with the darkness of the world. Ke tob Yahuah ke liolam ch’sideka. May Yahuah bless u with his grace that brings salvation and love. Uriyah Baraka

  • Dan Bartol

    Claiming antagonism and accusation is not my intention, nor does it help your argument. Even if you were to go that route, you are in the same boat with your words toward my position. We both think each other are wrong, and that’s ok. But claiming antagonism as a front to your reply doesn’t do you any good. And if you reply again, please break up your paragraphs or points. Not upset or anything that you haven’t, but It helps a lot.

    But again you miss the point all together and run off in another direction, knocking over a strawman (as you did a great number of times in your book).
    “the two are one”. meaning the son is a manifestation of Yahua”
    Context again is key. You must look at context (con=with, text=the words in question) to get the point, and so far I do not know if you are capable of doing that. Tertullian was anything but perfect in his understanding, and his focus (though accurate in the Three being one substance or essence) actually led to a subordinationism view, which Arius adopted in the future to develop his heresy and also Sebellius’ modalism. I am going to simply ask that you go read up on this subject before trying to argue it again. You did not describe the Christian view of the Trinity in your book, and you still won’t here (missing the emphasis of the subject at hand concerning Tertullian’s view just shows your ignorance). I just hope you’ll take that for what it is and go do some research.

    Another thing you overlook is the concept of progressive revelation. The hidden wisdom Paul speaks of it in 1 Corinthians is that of what God had hidden from them in plain sight in the Old Covenant. It has been made clear now, in that what was spoken of was fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus. Only those who have been given the light of the grace of God have the capacity to truly understand it.

    “There seems to be a conflict here of flesh and spiit, dont u think?”
    You really need to look at what Paul means by flesh and spirit (do a word study on that and come back). Again, context. Flesh is always considered to be the sinful nature, unless the context of the passage says otherwise.

    ““In Him (Yeshua) is the totallity (Fulness) of Theotetos (Divinity) in Bodily form”. so if the all of the divinity is in The Messiah, then there is no part of divinity apart from him.”
    I don’t know if you do it on purpose, I haven’t quite put my finger on it, but if the fullness of Deity dwells bodily in Jesus, then the fullness of deity dwells bodily. God doesn’t lose His deity if He takes on humanity, but humanity would lose it’s humanity if it were to take on transcendant deity. See how it works? the Eternal One can take on the creature and not lose His transcendence, since He is taking on the finite, but for the creature to take on the eternal, it would not longer be a creature, since it would no longer be of creaturely substance. It’s complex, but He is a complex God. He is Three in persons and yet One in substance. Not three gods, and not a unitarian being who cannot experience love without his creation.

    “If righteousness is through the Law, that is, through the works of the Law, then Christ died for naught” Galatians 2:21
    His death and bodily resurrection paid the price of sin, and for those who receive the gift of grace, He produces work in them.
    “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13
    “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10

    I would ask, what you think the term “Grace” means? Because I think you have a very different view than what the Scriptures speak of.
    “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Romans 11:6

    Again, I do not speak as one claiming to be better than you, but I do hope you would go back and do a little research to get a clearer understanding as to what you are arguing against. We both think the other is wrong, but it does help to know the others position. I’m definitely trying, and will be open to correction if I am not characterizing your hermeneutical approach rightly. The way I see you approach the Bible involves a lot of allegory, which is not wrong in and of itself when founded upon by supporting texts. But I see you allegorizing texts with proof-texts that do not support your view in the context in which it is written. So I simply cannot accept your take as Messianic Hebrew, let alone Scriptural. Concerning your accusation of easter and the like. There is a freedom in the grace of God to take pagan holidays and redeem them to tell of the stories of the Bible. That’s called contextualization not adaptation, but that is another discussion.
    “May Yahuah bless u with his grace that brings salvation and love.”
    Ditto 🙂

  • uriyah baraka

    lol. well friend i see that u refuse to accept the fact that my undestanding is base in research, prayer and a total dependance on the spirit to reveal the intent of the word.I am content to know that the book 666 has led many to the acceptance of yeshua as the Messiah, and the life giving spirit of the father as the scriptures teach. Christian have away of chaos-ing things when the truth is readily before them. the information i have gave you is sound and the revelations of the verses shown are back by scripture thoughout the book 666, so i concede to the point of veiw that i conceded to when i left the church in 92, because of the chaotic method that they reason the word. that is, the ministry Yah has placed within me is not for the secular thinking christian whose assemblies are fill with compromised minds, and peons, to say the least.

    I have better things to do then to waste it showing a clear point, only to have you say its unclear never explaining why you think its unclear. Yahuah is one and Yeshua is the manifestation of Yahuah in bodily form, and the two are one comparable to the unity of the body and soul. “It is not i that speak, but the father in me that does the work, Yeshua teaches us.the father in him as the soul is in the body.

    The jesus of this supremacist culture is a delusion, i explained that i agreed with Paul, we are not under the works of the law, this expression signifies the ritual works of sacarfice and offerings as a means of atonement, inclusive of fleshly circumcision. in the hebrew culture we call this the halakah of the torah. this is shown in the book of hebrew what Paul meant concerning the ritual works of the law. I concur.

    Yet in 1 Cor 7:19, it says, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matter, but the keeping of the commandments. for the commandments hold within them the all of truth Ps 119: 142, 151. thus did Paul teach us, that we are to fulfill the righteousness of the Torah (Law) Rom 8:4. I will excuse your insinuation of my ignorance, and will move on knowing that my relationship with the father through Meshiach is firm, and need not defend my intelligence. Yahuah commands us to be holy (Set- apart ) from the customs of the world. so the integration of babel traditions with the tachings of the way of Yeshua is Idolatry (Chata: SIN), and there is no room for sin for those who worship in spirit and truth.Finally, the book of revelation 12:17, showns the tue identity of Yahuah people, “those who keep the commandments of Elohim and the testimony of Yeshua.” the grace (Chesid: love; mercy; compassion: kindness) works mightily in such to overcome all sin. “for if we walk in the light as he is in the light. the Blood (Of the covenant), we have fellowship with one another, and are cleanse from ALL SIN.” not vicariously, but in actuality. A grace that cleanses sin in actuality, is the grace i Believe in. But i thank you for this discussion, it reinforces why i left the secular church in the first place, which is,to get away from a myopic veiw of the word of Elohim, a veiw that stands on a culture of supremacy and hatred. for wherever your christ has gone there has been only accomplished the negation of man and mass murder. of couse it was to propagate freedom and liberty for all. Lol. Peace and love to you my friend.Yahuah Echad!!!!!!!!

  • Dan Bartol

    “i see that u refuse to accept the fact that my undestanding is base in research, prayer and a total dependance on the spirit to reveal the intent of the word.”
    I have yet to see any of that in what you have propagated thus far. You’re book was an uneducated rant against many of the core doctrines of Scripture, backed by a pseudo-historical approach to the ekklesia. The majority of the Scriptures you cite (both here and in your book) are extremely prooftexted, which is a hight of dishonesty (especially when dealing with the very Word of God). I’ve pointed that out many times above. The lack of exegesis drives one to think that you might have alterior motives, but I will not judge your intentions. And while I do appreciate your zeal, I would hope that you question and research the opposing view that you deny, so as to at least look like you’ve done some research on the topic.

    “I have better things to do then to waste it showing a clear point, only to have you say its unclear never explaining why you think its unclear”
    I would ask that you go back and read slowly, and spend some time examining why I am writing in such a forward fashion. This is a big deal. For a decent understanding on the Biblical view of the Trinity, I would go back and read the book I recommended. If you would be willing to read it, I’ll get it for you. It’s very basic and answers a number of the issues you have brought up in detail.

    “Yahuah commands us to be holy (Set- apart ) from the customs of the world” No one here is arguing against that.
    But we do have differing understandings of who Christ is. Yours is historically heretical, as it contradicts many portions of Scripture. (Why would Jesus talk to the Father in John 17, yet say in John 10 that “I and the Father are one”? Under the view your express, it looks like Christ is a schizophrenic). You must take the whole of Scripture to come up with a reasonable understanding of who He is, but you have fallen into a ton of ancient traps, by cherry picking verses. It’s just bad hermeneutics.

    “not vicariously, but in actuality.”
    You’d have to unpack that, as I believe in grace, as a gift that covers all sin and then works in and through the regenerate individual. If you are speaking of vicarious, as if it does not directly involve both Christ and the individual, then I agree. But it does not seem that way. Again, zero in on Ephesians 2:8-10 (the whole chapter gives the context).

    “a veiw that stands on a culture of supremacy and hatred. for wherever your christ has gone there has been only accomplished the negation of man and mass murder”
    Again, a lack of understanding is showing your ignorance. The only reason I’ve replied was out of love for you. Those who love you will tell you the most truth, no matter how much it hurts. I doubt you are challenged like this very often, which is why I implore you to take the time to look at the resources I’ve offered. I enjoyed the conversation and it reminds me how much I still need the grace of Christ, just as much as the day He gave it to me. I say again, I am not better than you, but this gift I cannot hold in, the joy of Jesus is incredible, and the Holy Spirit is more personally intimate that you know. I would encourage you to repent and place your utmost trust in the Christ, as He is revealed in Scripture for salvation and everything. He will not only manifest Himself too you, but break the darkness and set you free. God is love, and I hope you will go back and spend some time in study to really get a grasp of this.

    I would truly enjoy an in person conversation with you one day. God willing that may happen someday. Grace n’ Peace 🙂

  • Uriyah baraka

    you think to much of yourself. Yahuah be praised!!!

  • Dan Bartol

    Mr. Braka, I am not good enough to have that kind of view of myself. Which is the reason I still need the unmerited favor of Christ on my behalf.
    Thanks for the reply!

    • Emeli Gaston-Friedl

      Thank you Dan for this. Im the wife of Jonathan Friedl who first responded to you on here.
      Thank you for your words, resources and wisdom. I know this was years ago and unfortunately Jonathan has only gotten deeper into Uriyah’s teachings, but it brings so much comfort to know that I dont stand alone. Im not a scholar and I’m not that good with words but I do have decernment and from the moment my husband started practicing these teachings none of it was consistent. His fruit definitely shows and has only gotten worse throughout all these years.
      I ask you to pray for him and all of the people that they are leading astray. Including our family and Uriyahs family.
      Thank you for your review and God bless you and your loved ones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: