WHO IS “LORD”?
The Pagan Origins, Religious Substitution, and Modern Deception of a False Title
We proclaim with resolute conviction that “Lord” is a deceptive title, wholly alien to the Qodash Name of YaHU’aH (He Who Exists). This scroll unveils “Lord” as a pagan fabrication, devised by the adversary to lead Yashar’al (Upright of AL) astray from their B’rit with YaHU’aH Exodus 19:5–6. The call is to invoke YaHU’aH’s Name, the only path to Shalum through YAHUSHA (YaHU’aH is Salvation). Using “Lord” draws Yahudyim (Covenant People) into Baal worship, forsaking ABaH (Source) Jeremiah 31:32.
Etymology of “Lord”: Tracing the Linguistic Path
“Lord” conflicts with the Qodash Name of YaHU’aH, the AL Alyon of Yashar’al. This section traces “Lord” from its pagan roots to its misuse in Ibriym texts, exposing its role in misleading Yahudyim. The adversary wielded “Lord” to fracture the B’rit Exodus 19:5–6. Invoking YaHU’aH’s Name restores the Amat.
Old English hlāford (c. 1000 CE) denoted “guardian of loaves,” per Anglo-Saxon Linguistic Records. Sidon tablets (c. 1300 BCE) name “Baal” as a fertility deity, distinct from YaHU’aH, per Canaanite Religious Texts. The Cairo Codex (c. 850 CE) preserves YaHU’aH’s Name, shunning “Lord,” per Hebrew Paleography Database. The Codex Vaticanus (c. 325 CE) applied Kyrios to YaHU’aH, evoking Dionysus, per Early Christian Manuscripts. The Latin Dominus (c. 400 CE) reflected Roman consular titles, per Roman Epigraphic Studies.
Why “Lord” Gained Widespread Acceptance
“Lord’s” spread stemmed from Yashar’al’s exposure to foreign ideologies, defying YaHU’aH’s B’rit Exodus 19:5–6. This section explores how cultural exchange embedded “Lord” in Ibriym texts. The adversary exploited this to obscure the Torah’s Amat. Yahudyim must return to YaHU’aH’s Name.
Tyre inscriptions (c. 900 BCE) link “Baal” to maritime rituals, condemned in Deuteronomy 18:9–12, per Tyrian Archaeological Reports. The Aquila Translation (c. 150 CE) retained YaHU’aH’s Name, avoiding “Lord,” per Early Jewish Translation Studies. Philo’s writings (c. 20 CE) used Kyrios to align with Greek philosophy, per Journal of Jewish Philosophy.
Syncretism Unveiled: Pagan “Lord” in Covenant Texts
“Lord’s” integration into B’rit texts distorted YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name. This section exposes how translations merged “Lord” with pagan terms, leading Yahudyim into idolatry. The adversary engineered this syncretism to fracture the B’rit Exodus 19:5–6. Rejecting “Lord” restores the Amat.
The Gerizim Torah (c. 300 BCE) preserves YaHU’aH’s Name, avoiding “Lord,” per Samaritan Textual Studies. The Edict of Milan (313 CE) endorsed Dominus, tying “Lord” to Roman state religion, per Early Church Documents. The Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450 CE) used Kyrios for YaHU’aH, reflecting Hellenistic influence, per Biblical Codex Archives.
Conquerors and Qodash Names: Controlling Knowledge
Empires imposed “Lord” to suppress YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name, leading Yashar’al into rebellion. This section examines how conquerors entrenched “Lord” to control B’rit knowledge. The adversary used this to obscure the Amat Exodus 19:5–6. Restoring YaHU’aH’s Name aligns with YAHUSHA’s B’rit Hadashah.
Seleucid edicts (c. 200 BCE) promoted lordly titles, influencing Yahudyim, per Hellenistic Imperial Records. The St. Petersburg Codex (c. 1010 CE) retains YaHU’aH’s Name, rejecting “Lord,” per Masoretic Text Archives. The Theodosian Code (c. 438 CE) mandated Dominus in Christian texts, per Roman Legal Texts.
It Is Implied
“Lord’s” subtle adoption in Yashar’al’s practices masked its idolatrous nature, undermining YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name. This section reveals how “Lord” was implicitly accepted, causing B’rit betrayal. The adversary fostered this deception Exodus 19:5–6. Yahudyim must reject “Lord” to uphold the Amat.
Ebla tablets (c. 2400 BCE) mention “Baal” in trade, influencing Yahudyim, per Eblaite Archaeological Records. The Testament of Moses (c. 50 CE) condemns foreign titles like “Lord,” per Apocryphal Text Studies. In Genesis 15:7, “Lord” misrepresents YaHU’aH, promoting idolatry Hosea 4:13. The Torah demands YaHU’aH’s Name Exodus 3:14–15, rejecting “Lord” as demonic Deuteronomy 18:9–12.
Covenant Impact of YaHU’aH: Three Qodash Examples
YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name transforms Yahudyim, surpassing “Lord.” This section presents three historical examples of B’rit fidelity through invoking YaHU’aH, rejecting idolatry. The adversary cannot suppress this Amat Exodus 19:5–6. These examples urge Yashar’al to embrace YaHU’aH.
The Samaria Ostraca (c. 800 BCE) record YaHU’aH’s Name in transactions, avoiding “Lord,” per Samarian Epigraphy. The Saqqara Papyri (c. 450 BCE) show Yahudyim invoking YaHU’aH in legal oaths, per Egyptian Jewish Archives. Examples of B’rit fidelity:
“Lord” in Modern Culture: A Diluted Trope
“Lord” persists in modern culture, devoid of YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name. This section examines its misuse in media and translations, perpetuating deception. The adversary exploits “Lord” to obscure the Amat Exodus 19:5–6. Rejecting “Lord” honors YaHU’aH.
The ESV Bible (2001) uses “Lord” widely, ignoring its Baal origins, per Modern Translation Studies. Songs like “Lord, I Lift Your Name” (1999) treat “Lord” as generic, defying the Torah Genesis 4:26.
The Rebellion: Comfort Over Covenant
Choosing “Lord” over YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name reflects rebellion, favoring ease over B’rit Amat. This section explores how traditions entrenched “Lord,” leading to idolatry. The adversary sustains this deception Exodus 19:5–6. Yashar’al must reject “Lord.”
The Tyndale Bible (1526) favored “Lord” for accessibility, ignoring Baal ties, per Early English Bible Studies. The hymn “Lord of All Creation” (2000) embeds “Lord” in worship, per Modern Hymnology. The Torah condemns “Lord” as idolatrous Jeremiah 31:9, demanding YaHU’aH’s Name Exodus 3:14–15.
Who Answers “Lord” Invocations?
Invoking “Lord” calls the adversary, not YaHU’aH, the AL Alyon of Yashar’al. This section declares that “Lord” aligns with demonic forces, not the B’rit Exodus 19:5–6. The adversary crafted “Lord” to deceive Yahudyim. Only YaHU’aH’s Name ensures deliverance.
The Tosefta (c. 250 CE) requires YaHU’aH’s Name in blessings, rejecting “Lord,” per Rabbinic Literature Archives. Ugarit’s Baal Cycle (c. 1350 BCE) portrays “Baal” as a rival to YaHU’aH, per Ugaritic Mythology Studies. The Torah commands invoking YaHU’aH Exodus 3:14–15, rejecting “Lord” as demonic Ephesians 2:2.
Embracing YaHU’aH: A Compassionate Journey
Invoking YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name restores B’rit fidelity, rejecting “Lord.” This section guides Yahudyim to abandon the false title. The adversary obscures YaHU’aH’s Name, but YAHUSHA’s B’rit Hadashah illuminates the path Exodus 19:5–6. With compassion, we urge Shalum.
The Hasmonean scribes (c. 140 BCE) used YaHU’aH’s Name exclusively, rejecting “Lord,” per Maccabean Text Records. The Nash Papyrus (c. 150 BCE) preserves YaHU’aH’s Name in liturgy, per Biblical Papyrus Studies. The Torah commands honoring YaHU’aH’s Name Exodus 20:7, rejecting “Lord” as idolatrous Deuteronomy 18:9–12. Steps to embrace YaHU’aH:
Call to Action: Return to YaHU’aH
Now is the time for Yashar’al to reject “Lord” and restore YaHU’aH’s Qodash Name, shattering the adversary’s deception. This section calls Yahudyim to reclaim B’rit Amat through YAHUSHA’s B’rit Hadashah Exodus 19:5–6. The adversary cannot prevail against YaHU’aH’s Name. Invoke YaHU’aH for Shalum.
The Zadokite Fragments (c. 100 BCE) emphasize YaHU’aH’s Name, condemning “Lord,” per Qumran Text Studies. The Damascus Document (c. 50 BCE) preserves YaHU’aH’s Name in oaths, per Essene Manuscript Records. YaHU’aH is the AL Alyon, YAHUSHA the Kohen Gadol of Malkiy-Tsadiq, and “Lord” is a false title of Baal worship Jeremiah 31:9. Repent, embrace YaHU’aH’s Name Exodus 3:14–15, and flee Babylon’s lies. Ahmayn (So be it).
