Orion

I thoroughly agree with you re: Yeshua's Lordship. If we say He is our Lord and Savior, then we are acknowledging His Lordship in and over our lives. When someone declares Him as Savior, but denies that He is Lord of their life, they have likely been taught the heresy of antinomianism. And as far as I am concerned, antinomianism is just another word for condemned. Peace

For me it was crying out in tears to the Father God I knew existed from my youth, Father of all creation, but with whom I did not yet have a serious personal relationship. I only knew His name or title 'Father God.'. Of course I knew the name 'Jesus', and believed He was the Son of God part of the Trinity, but I did not know Him as our mediator. Now I understand who our Triune God is and His many titles. Praise His holy name, Eh Yeh, YHVH, Yeshua.

Before we were born again, we walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2). We were by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). We were in the flesh, unable to please God (Romans 8:8).. When we were born again, we received the Holy Spirit who indwells us (Romans 8:11). Now, we who are born again by the Spirit are guided not by the flesh, but by the Spirit (Romans 8:1), and the laws of God are written on our hearts (Rom. 2:15). Accordingly, we are justified by faith, and we live by the faith that justifies (Rom. 1:17). So, what I mean by saying "We have the moral law of YHVH written on our hearts, and we are to live according to it, which is the Law of Yeshua ha Mashiach", is that the Spirit within us guides us in loving God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and in loving others as God loves us. Are we perfect? Not even close. Do we stop loving because we are imperfect? Not a chance, because it is God indwelling us Who began a good work in us, which He has promised to complete (Philippians 1:6). Peace

That's excellent. I started with the 1995 NASB, then went to the KJB, then the ESV, then to the NKJB, now I alternate between KJB, NKJB, and ESV. Plus online at Biblehub and Berean Study Bible, and YouTube with the KJB recited by Alexander Scourby and others. Peace

Here is the full text of the EO on Krebs. Please direct me to that part of the EO that compels a criminal investigation into Krebs or anyone else. Because all I'm seeing are directions to review and evaluate. MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The Federal Government has a constitutional duty and a moral responsibility to respect and promote the free speech rights of Americans. Yet in recent years, elitist leaders in Government have unlawfully censored speech and weaponized their undeserved influence to silence perceived political opponents and advance their preferred, and often erroneous, narrative about significant matters of public debate. These disgraceful actions have taken the form of coercive threats against the private sector — including major social media platforms — to suppress conservative or dissenting voices and distort public opinion. Much of this censorship took place during a Presidential election with the apparent purpose of undermining the free exchange of ideas and debate. Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective. Abusive conduct of this sort both violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself. Those who engage in or support such conduct must not have continued access to our Nation’s secrets. Accordingly, I hereby direct the heads of executive department and agencies (agencies) to immediately take steps consistent with existing law to revoke any active security clearance held by Christopher Krebs. I further direct the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant agencies to immediately take all action as necessary and consistent with existing law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at entities associated with Krebs, including SentinelOne, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest. I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA. This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship). As part of that review, I direct a comprehensive evaluation of all of CISA’s activities over the last 6 years, focusing specifically on any instances where CISA’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149. Upon completing these reviews, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare a joint report to be submitted to the President, through the Counsel to the President, with recommendations for appropriate remedial or preventative actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of Executive Order 14149. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Absolutely trust the Bible. But beware of which Bible. Some are considered literal translations. Some are considered formal equivalent. Some are considered functional equivalent. Some are considered dynamic equivalent. Some are considered paraphrases. Then there are some that are completely edited to suit a particular ideological lifestyle. Which would you say is the preserved word of God in English? All? some? only one? Which one?

Yes, I suppose. I called on the name of Jesus when I was born again, and continued to use His name in prayer and worship, until recently. I know prefer to call on Yeshua, His name in Hebrew. I pray I'm saying it right. But, it's not mandated like you've stated and @Marathoner has stated. Peace

Did the Executive Order demand and investigation? No. It was simply a referral of its own reasonable suspicion that crime(s) occurred. Now, keep in mind the AG is an officer of the Court, and is bound by the rules governing government lawyers, i.e., prosecutors. Thus, the AG is constrained by those rules and jurisprudence to act, not just as zealous advocate, but also a gatekeeper so as not to engage in frivolous filings with the court that neither comport to standards of probable cause, or admissibility, or of any other kind of filing that is not grounded in fact and truth. In other words, the AG must demonstrate that the government is pursuing justice with "clean hands." I suggest you read the EO again, and pay close attention to its wording. No idea what you mean by this. Reasonable suspicion allows an investigation to begin, during which investigation probable cause can be found to justify a warrant application. Right. Initial investigations are often based on reasonable suspicion. Probable cause can be found during the initial investigation, which probable cause now allows the government to apply for warrants or convene a grand jury. The EO is a referral to the DOJ to further investigate Krebs and others. The DOJ will determine what, if any, laws were violated, and proceed accordingly Regardless, not all orders are enforceable. And the head of the DOJ, the AG, is bound by the rules of the Court, thus the AG acts as a gatekeeper so as not to file frivolous lawsuits. Every EO is reviewed by the counsel to the POTUS before it is issued. Every Secretary has their own counsel who reviews EO's to ensure they comport with, or do not otherwise run roughshod over, standing agency rules and regs. Again, that is an opinion. The EO lays out the reason it referred Krebs to the DOJ. If the DOJ determines there is sufficient evidence to conduct a full blown investigation, neither you, nor I, nor the courts can stop it. It is only when the government goes to court with a complaint or application for warrants or application for the assembling of a grand jury that the courts will get involved. Even then, the courts cannot command the executive branch not to investigate anyone or anything the executive branch determines a need to investigate.

God has preserved His word for all of posterity. Trust it. They KJB translators are not "translators of the English Bible." They translated into English the ancient languages found in the manuscript evidence. The manuscript evidence is the preserved word of God, and the KJB is an English translation of the preserved word. Did you know that the KJB translators used 85% of Tyndale's translation of the Greek NT, word for word? Except Tyndale used 'congregation' for the Greek 'ekklesia' and 'Iesus' for the Greek 'Iesus'? And did you also know that the KJB translators were instructed to use the Bishops Bible as their guide, but chose instead to copy and use most of Tyndale's work for the KJB NT? Interesting. The only reason the KJB translators used the word 'church' instead of 'congregation' was because they ordered by King James to use only the word 'church' wherever the manuscripts used the Greek 'ekklesia.' Another thought provoking matter, indeed.

As I said before, I'm not SDA or any other cult or movement. But there is a cultic deception that goes something like this: if you don't use the name 'Jesus' when referring to the Lord, and use some other name like 'Yeshua', then you aren't using the correct name of the Lord, because the God doubly-inspired 1611 KJB says His name is 'Jesus'. It's called the KJB Only cult. The strange thing is they don't even know what the 1611 KJB says about Yeshua, becausr none of them teavh or preach from the 1611 edition. The 1611 KJB does not use the name 'Jesus', nor does the 1611 use the name 'Yeshua'; the 1611 uses the name Iesus. Trust in the Lord Yeshua. Confess Him with your mouth and believe in your heart that YHVH raised Yeshua from the dead, and you will be saved. Peace

How pure of a bloodline do you suppose exists for the children of Jacob. Consider Judah who took a Canaanite wife and had offspring with his dead sons widow, Tamar, also Canaanite. And Joseph whose wife was likely Egyptian. Consider also the lineage of Yeshua: Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabitess, Bathsheba the Hittite. How many other non-Israeli women did the twelve sons of Jacob propagate children? As well as the sons and grandsons, etc. of the twelve? We just don't know. And this is why God's people, God's children, are not just faithful Jews, but are faithful people from every nation.

When did I ever say that. I never even suggest it. Phew. LOL. If you only knew. You mean, do it again? LOL. Once was enough.

All that is required for a criminal investigation is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. Probable cause is the standard used to secure a warrant when the government wishes to search or seize someone or their property. Warrants are not always necessary, as with the plain view doctrine, or the exigent circumstance doctrine. The EO on Krebs articulates reasonable suspicion that Krebs and others committed a crime(s). Furthermore, the EO is only a request to the DOJ to investigate, which does not mean the DOJ will indeed investigate. If the DOJ does investigate, it would need to articulate probable cause in any search warrant or arrest warrant. Only judges issue search warrants, and only judges decides whether the government's affidavit in support of its application for a search warrant meets the threshold of probable cause; the judge is the gatekeeper. If the judge grants a warrant, he or she is agreeing that the government has met the probable cause burden. Likewise, if the government decides to seek and indictment by grand jury, a judge must agree that the government has reached its burden to warrant the assembling of a grand jury. Once again, the judge is the gatekeeper. The 4th Amendment is a prohibition against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. If the government has evidence of a crime, the standard for probable cause is based on the "reasonable person" standard, which basically says if a person in his right faculties says the elements are met of a crime under a particular law for which a warrant is sought, then probable cause exists to issue a warrant. Law is not rocket science, but some get it wrong anyway.

That is your opinion. After reading the President's Executive Order, it appears on its face that the government has met the low threshold of reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation. Keep in mind, probable cause is not the standard that the government is required to show in order to investigate. Here is the Executive Order that mentions Krebs: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-from-chris-krebs-and-government-censorship/

The implication was obvious.

That is not what I said or implied. For you to suggest otherwise is rather odd. I'm not SDA. I am simply a student of Yeshua and His word. Yet everyone that knew Yeshua called him Yeshua. When the apostles and the other disciples wrote their letters, they transliterated Yeshua into the Greek Iesus. However, anyone in Judea reading those letters would have understood Iesus was Yeshua. And for the next 1600 years Yeshua was Iesus in both the Greek manuscripts and the English translations. Man changed Iesus to Jesus for man's convenience. I find no burden whatever in using the Lord's name as it originally sounded, which is Yeshua. You are free to say Jesus or Iesus or Yeshu, which many jews in Israel do today. I'll stay with Yeshua. Does the 15th chapter of Acts say anything about the moral law? adultery? Murder? Coveting? Using the name of the Lord in vain? Theft? Bearing false witness? Etc? If one says they abide in Yeshua, but does not have the moral law written on his heart, does not love God but continues to walk in the lust of his eyes, the lust of his flesh, and the pride of life, he is not saved. Acts chapter 15 addresses the judaizers who said the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (the civic and ceremonial law). But we are free from the mosaic laws other than the moral laws.

His name is Yeshua. I fail to see the burden at all in saying it with all reverence it is due and that His name deserves.

I will say it again for your understanding: I expect nothing of you or anyone else. I made a suggestion that seems burdensome to you, but in reality is not burdensome at all.

Acts 15 is one thing, but it is not the whole counsel of God for those who are called by His name. We have the moral law of YHVH written on our hearts, and we are to live according to it, which is the Law of Yeshua ha Mashiach.

No. No. Yes. Exodus 3:14, 20:1-7.

I have no expectations of you or any other person. But wouldn't you agree that the Lord our God Yeshua has expectations of all that claim to know Him and follow Him?

Does this apply to everyone?

Let's say hypothetically your name is Peter, and you go by no other name but Peter. It's always been Peter to family, close friends, neighbors, but you also accept being called Pete, Petey, or even rePete. But others who claim to know you and are known by you call you Eddie, or Pedro, or Padrig, or something other than your easily pronounced name of Peter, Pete, Petey, or even rePete. Would you still say they know you or are known by you?

Pronouncing the Lords name YESHUA does not require learning Hebrew. It's very easy to say. Go ahead. Try it. YESHUA.

Is there any language on earth that is unable to orally pronounce the name YE-SHU-A? Any? Thst is the correct pronunciation of the name of the one who saved us. I've heard others who know not a lick of English or any other language, say with crystal clarity the name 'Yeshua.' Is it that you can't, or is it that you won't, pronounce the name of the Son of God correctly? "He has shown you, o man: what is good and what the Lord (YHVH) requires of you; but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God (Elohekha)." Micah 6:8.