Take Heed That No Man Deceive You - 101 Questions To Ask A Nuwaubian PDF

Questions
To Ask A
nuwaubian
BRO. JOSHUAH
Copyrighted © 2012 Bro Joshuah & Absolute Bible Truth. All Rights Reserved.
Copyrighted © 2012 by Bro. Joshuah and Absolute Bible Truth.
All rights reserved,

including the right of reproduction
in whole or in part in any form,
without the written permission of
Bro. Joshuah and Absolute Bible Truth.
Graphics (book cover)

by Joel Mills
Editor
Lecia Clarke
1
Copyrighted © 2012 Bro. Joshuah & Absolute Bible Truth. All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
Questions about the Words and Titles Nuwaubians Use .................................... 7
Questions about the Nuwaubians’ Views of Jesus Christ ................................ 32
Questions about the Nuwaubians’ Views of the Apostle Paul ....................... 121
Questions about the Man from the Planet Rizq .............................................. 153
Bibliography.................................................................................................... 169
2
INTRODUCTION
I would like to begin by stating that I knew I would eventually have to write
this book. For decades Dr. Malachi Z. York has claimed that he was sent here to
break the “spell of Leviathan” by teaching facts and “right knowledge.” Yet, the
amount of contradictions and hypocrisy in Dr. York’s books are so enormous--so
transparent, that it is utterly astounding that there are people who seriously believe
he teaches unadulterated truth. Yet incredibly, Dr. York has thousands of loyal
followers nation-wide and beyond.
Let me say up front that I once had the utmost respect for Dr. York. I used to
believe that he was probably the greatest teacher of our time. But when I really
started paying attention to the things he was saying in his books, it became very
evident that my faith in Dr. York as a teacher had been greatly misplaced. Now one
of the first remarks the Nuwaubians are probably going to make when they see this
book is, “he is copying the old format of Dr. York’s 360 Questions books. He is
trying to be like Dr. York.” Or, “let him come out with this book, it will not be able
to refute what Dr. York teaches anyway.” The diehard ones may even think I am
foolish for writing a book that challenges the doctrine of their “Master Teacher.” I
suspect that some of them will even cloud the issue and accuse me of personally
attacking Dr. York. To accuse me of this, they would have to hypocritically ignore
the fact that Dr. York has attacked several well-known religious leaders over the
years in his books.
WHY A “QUESTIONS” BOOK?
I admit that I patterned this book after Dr. York’s “360 Questions” books. I
intentionally did this for the benefit of the Nuwaubians. I wanted to write a book
using a style they are familiar and comfortable with. I also felt that this format was
the best way to ask logical questions that prove Dr. York’s teachings are filled with
error and inconsistency. Since Dr. York has written numerous books that question
the authenticity of several religions and philosophies, the Nuwaubians should not
be offended by a book that does the same to his teachings. In fact, they should
embrace this book with open arms.
MALACHI YORK, GOD TO THE NUWAUBIANS
Sadly, many Nuwaubians are so captivated by Dr. York’s bizarre

combination of religious and scientific philosophies, that they will not even
entertain the idea of Dr. York being in error. In fact, they have deified him. In other
words, they have made him their god. For instance, on the back of Dr. York’s
3
book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll #134, it says, “For Too Long
Now, We Have Looked For Our Own Savior, Our Personal Savior, One Of Us.
And Now Melchizedek As Dr. Malachi Z. York (Nayya Malachizodok-El), The
Lamb Is With Us Of The Ancient Ones … Today A Living God In Person … This
Eloheem Is All Powerful” (emphasis added). It should be noted that these exact
words are printed on the back of several of Dr. York’s books. Since Dr. York is an
“all-powerful god” to many Nuwaubians, there really is no surprise that they
accept anything he teaches, even when he changes his doctrine and contradicts
himself.
NUWAUBU ANALYZED
When examined closely, it is clearly seen that Dr. York’s doctrine is a blend
of scientific theories, various philosophies, and different principles borrowed from
a variety of religious beliefs and cultures. This combination of religious elements
probably explains why Dr. York used to call his group, “The Nubian Islamic
Hebrews” in the mid-1970s. Dr. York extensively draws upon Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, and especially Egyptology. He combines these things with
phonetics, psychology, and physics to produce “NUWAUBU,” the “science” of the
Nuwaubians. Despite all of this, this book will prove that Dr. York teachings are
riddled with error and are in fact wrong knowledge.
CONTRADICTIONS FROM THE START
When I first began reading Dr. York’s books, I was astonished by the vast
amount of information they possessed. But the more books I read, the more
contradictions I noticed. There are ever-changing views concerning Jesus Christ,
his teachings, his disciples, his crucifixion, and even his divinity. There are also
conflicting views of Muhammad, the message he brought, and the authenticity of
the Koran. But one of the most glaring contradictions I have discovered in Dr.
York’s writings concerns his concept of black Hebrew Israelite organizations.
DR. YORK SAYS THAT BLACK PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT THE
ORIGNIAL HEBREWS OF THE BIBLE
Dr. York once taught that the descendants of the original Israelite tribes of
the Bible have completely perished. He professes this in his book, 360 Questions
To Ask A Hebrew Israelite Part 1 Scroll #101. He says this concerning black
Hebrew Israelites:
4
So Now One Must Ask: Who Are The Black Israelites? By Now It Should
Be Obvious To You That They Are Not Of The Original Tribe Of Israel:
They Perished! They Are Not The Falasha Or The Danakiyl Remnant Of
The Tribe Of Judah In The Ethiopian Mountains; They Were Recently
Exterminated And Prior To That They Didn’t Come Out Of The Mountains.
Therefore, So-called Black Israelites Or Hebrews Must Have Adopted This
Religion Somewhere Along The Way. (XIII)
According to this book, Dr. York is saying that the original tribes of Israel
have died out and the remnant of the tribe of Judah was completely destroyed. At
the top of page XV he goes on to say, “Although Many Black Hebrew
Organizations Are Sincere In Their Actions, They Still Experience Many Problems
Because They Are Trying To Be A Nation Who They Are Not.”
Also, on the same page in the second paragraph he says to all black Hebrew
Israelite organizations: “You Cannot Be The Original Israelites In This Day And
Time.” Dr. York later says to all black Hebrew Israelites on page 132 of his book,
360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll # 137: “So You Don’t
Exist. Israelites Don’t Exist. That’s What The Scriptures Teaches [sic]. You Can
Interpret It Anyway You Feel Like [sic] Facts Are Facts That’s Right Knowledge.”
So in these books, Dr. York plainly says that the original Hebrew Israelites no
longer exist.
DR. YORK SAYS THAT BLACK PEOPLE TODAY ARE ORIGINAL

HEBREWS OF THE BIBLE
Dr. York, however, later changed his view on this particular subject and
later taught that black people are indeed the original Hebrew Israelites and tribe of
Judah. On the introduction page in the Nuwaubians’ pamphlet titled, Matthew The
Publican Disciple of Jesus Pamphlet No. 1, it states: “His [(Dr. York] message is
simple. You [black people] are Not Negroes or African Americans. You are the
lost sheep of the House of Israel, the tribe of Judah. Blacks Are Original Hebrews,
The Israelites.” Now, Dr. York’s message is that black people are the original
Hebrew Israelites and the tribe of Judah! This is a clear contradiction. Can any
Nuwaubian honestly reconcile this? Can Dr. York?
A COLLECTION OF CONTRADICTIONS
Without question, the most prominent things Dr. York is known for is the
amount of books that is said to have been written by him. According to Nuwaubian
literature, he has written over 400 books called “scrolls” over the pass thirty years,
5
which is very impressive. Ironically, his greatest achievement is also his biggest
flaw, because it is these very books that reveal the contradictions in his teachings.
These contradictions, which will be immensely shown in this book, are the
ultimate proof that Dr. York’s teachings are not divinely inspired and are hence,
subject to error.
ANSWERING DR. YORK’S CHALLENGE
Since Nuwaubians claim to be open-minded, this book should not offend

them, though I suspect it will. But why should they be offended? The only thing
this book does is respond to the many challenges Malachi York has made over the
years. Challenges such as the one he made in his book, 360 Questions To Ask The
Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll # 137: “If you want to prove our doctrine wrong you
have every right to” (II). If Nuwaubians do not like people questioning their
beliefs, then they should take this up with Dr. York because he is the one who
challenged people to prove him wrong.
One of the chief duties of all non-Nuwaubians who read this book is to
challenge the Nuwaubians to prove everything Dr. York has taught them. For
example, Dr. York claimed to be an extraterrestrial from a distant planet called
“Rizq.” Challenge the Nuwaubians to prove this. Tell them to verify this. Demand
that they provide factual answers to the questions presented in this book using
tangible knowledge that can be substantiated.
PUTTING THE NUWAUBIANS ON TRIAL
Let me state for the record that this book is not an attack on the Nuwaubians.
In fact, I can say from personal experience that they are some of the most
intelligent, kind-hearted and respectful people I have ever come across. But it is for
these reasons that I wrote this book. They deserve to know the truth about what Dr.
York has been teaching them.
The point is, it is high time for the Nuwaubians to be seriously questioned
about the things Dr. York is teaching them and realize they are just as misled as the
people they are trying to reach. Dr. York teaches that any religion that professes
that its doctrine is divine and authentic should be able to prove it beyond a shadow
of a doubt. Yet, how many Nuwaubians have ever actually proven that Dr. York is
an extraterrestrial from another planet called “Rizq,” or that there even is a planet
“Rizq” for that matter? None of them.
It is time to put an end to all the lies and ignorance. The only thing I ask you,
the Nuwaubian, as you read this book, is that you sincerely read it with the same
openness of mind and consideration you had towards Dr. York’s books when you
6
first began reading them. Be honest with yourself as you read the questions I
present. Do not allow your judgment to be clouded by any partiality or loyalty you
have for Dr. York. But be warned: I will not be pulling any punches in this book. I
will systematically show you just how deceptive, hypocritical and self-
contradicting Dr. York really is. You will not be able to deny this because I will be
showing you this directly from Dr. York’s own books, so continue reading, if you
think you are up to the challenge. You are about to encounter questions that may
forever change the way you view Dr. York as a teacher!
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORDS AND TITLES

NUWAUBIANS USE
1. QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE WORD “NUBIAN” MEAN?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the word Nubian means “new being.”
In his book, The Lost Tribe Scroll # 36 Revised, Dr. York states: “You Are
The New-Being Or Nubian Race Of Ptahite Origin …” (15). In this book, Dr. York
uses “new-being” and “Nubian” interchangeably. Dr. York again states: “So You,
The Nubian, Are A New Being From Adamites To A New Being, Enosite And
Your Evolutionary Ancestors Are The Personification Of The Original Creative
Forces, The 9 Ether” (18). Also, in his book, The People Of The Sun Scroll # 147,
Dr. York states: “Melanin Was Given To You As A Gift From The Anunnaqi,
Being That You Were Pro-Created As A New-Being Or Nubian, In The Image
And After The Likeness Of The Anunnaqi Eloheem” (82). It is therefore very clear
from reading these books that Dr. York is saying that the word Nubian means “new
being.”
2. QUESTION: CAN YOU PRODUCE ANY CREDIBLE SOURCES

OUTSIDE OF DR.YORK’S TEACHINGS WHERE IT
STATES THAT THE WORD NUBIAN MEANS, “NEW-
BEING”?
ANSWER: The answer is no.
I have done an extensive search in order to find sources outside of Dr.

York’s teachings that state the word Nubian means “new being,” but to no avail. It
appears that Dr. York is making up his own definitions for words. When he tells
people that the word Nubian means “new being,” he is using what is called
“phonetics.” Phonetics is the study of speech sounds in languages (Merriam-
7
Webster). Phonetics is almost never concerned with meaning, but sound. It is
easily used in the English language because of the many words and phrases that
sound alike. For example, if you say “real eyes” very quickly, it sounds like the
word “realize.” The words “profit” and “prophet” also sound alike, though their
definitions are different.
Phonetics can also be used in the spelling and appearance of words. For
instance, the word “flog,” which means to beat with a whip or rod, is phonetically
“golf” when spelled backwards. The word “trap” phonetically is “part” when
spelled backwards. “Pot” is also phonetically “top” when spelled backwards. Does
this mean that each of these words is somehow secretly connected to their phonetic
counterparts? The answer is no. Yet, Dr. York teaches this kind of reasoning in his
book, Is There A God Part 1 Scroll # 160. He says that the word “live” equals the
word “evil” because that is what you get when you spell it backwards (43). Is he
trying to say that anyone or anything that lives is evil, or to live is evil? He also
says the word “lived” equals the word “devil” (43). Is he trying to say that
everyone or everything that has ever lived is a devil? He also says that the word
love equals the word evil even though there is an O in love and an I in evil. Is he
saying that love is evil or anyone or anything that loves is evil? If we are to follow
Dr. York’s logic, that would mean that playing golf is the same as flogging
someone, anything that has parts contain traps, and that all pots are tops. Is this
what you call “right knowledge”? It should now be easy to see how phonetics can
be deceitfully used to relate words that otherwise have no linguistic connection to
each other.
REAL RESEARCH ON THE WORD “NUBIAN”
The word “Nubian” merely means one who is a native of Nubia (Merriam-
Webster). If you do some research, you will find that Nubia, which was often
called Yam by the Egyptians, is a region of Ancient Africa, south of Egypt that
covered part of what is now Sudan. Nubia extends along the Nile River from the
southern boundary of ancient Egypt to present-day Khartoum, Sudan. There are
many different theories on exactly where the word Nubia originated. Traditions say
that the word Nubia first appeared in the writings of ancient Egyptian dynasties
dating back to 3000 B.C. to refer to the area extending south of their kingdom and
to its inhabitants. However, historians have not proven this. The closest word to
Nubia to appear in these writings of ancient Egyptian dynasties is the word Nibid,
which was mentioned in the writings of Tohotmos the First. Some Egyptologists
consider this word to be the origin of the name Nubia. Other writers claim that the
word Nobo, meaning gold, is the origin of the word Nubia. They say that this word
was used in Egyptian writings that date back to the reign of Aminhat, one of the
8
kings of the 12th dynasty. Most likely, this word Nobo is regarded as the origin of
the word Nubia, which was famous throughout history for its gold mines. In
modern Nubian language, the word for “gold” is Nub, which confirms the ancient
meaning of the word Nobo. The word Nubia comes into the English language from
the Latin word Nubes Cloud, which is a light fabric of wool worn on the head by
women or a cloud (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary).
As you can see, none of these sources state that the word Nubian means or
has anything to do with any so-called new beings. Concerning Nubians, Dr. York
in his book, The Lost Tribe Scroll # 36 Revised states: “Your Etheric Creation
Took Place 76 Trillion Years Ago Out Of Triple Darkness” (15). Dr. York is
saying that the Nubians were created 76 trillion years ago! Just listen to his logic.
How can a people that he says has been around for the last76 trillion years still be
considered new beings today?
THE HISTORY OF THE NUBIANS
The earliest Nubians were a black race of people who were controlled by the
Egyptian rulers at times from about 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. The Nubians are of
Cushite or Ethiopian descent. In other words, they are descendants of Cush, the
grandson of Noah (Holy Bible: King James Version, Gen. 10:6-12). The name
Cush comes from the Hebrew word Kuwsh, which means black (Smith 131).
Nubians (Cushites) are the black people today who are known as Ethiopians. The
word “Ethiopia,” which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Kush, comes
from the word Aithiops, which means burnt faces (Smith 182). The early Greeks
and Romans were the first people to refer to the Cushites as Ethiopians.
The Nubians are descendants of only one of the many black nations that
came out of the lineage of Ham, so it is plain ridiculous to label every black person
“Nubian” as Dr. York does. To say that all black people are Nubians is just like
saying that all white people are Italians. That would not only be ignorant, but
offensive. As I said earlier, a Nubian is merely someone who is a native of Nubia
the same way an Egyptian is someone who is a native of Egypt. The word Nubian
has absolutely nothing to do with any “new beings,” and Dr. York is just playing
on words when he tells people it does.
3. QUESTION: WHAT RACE DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE?
ANSWER: If you follow Dr. York’s teachings, you will have to say that
you are Egyptian, Nubian/Nuwaubian, and even now, a Hebrew
Israelite.
9
4. QUESTION: WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR PLACE IN ATHENS,
GEORGIA WHERE YOU CAME TOGETHER TO HEAR
DR. YORK TEACH?
ANSWER: According to Nuwaubian literature, “The Egiptian Church Of

‘Karast’ Christ.”
5. QUESTION: WHAT DO THE WORDS “EGYPT,” “CHURCH,” AND

“CHRIST” ALL HAVE IN COMMON?
ANSWER: All three of these words are of Greek origin.
As I am sure the Nuwaubians know, the word “Egypt” comes from the
Greek word Aiguptos, which means, black (Smith 158). The ancient Egyptians
called their land Kemet, meaning black land, because of its dark-colored Nile mud
(University of Cambridge). The word “church” comes from the Greek word
Ekklesia, which means, called out or assembly (Strong G1577), and the word
Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, which means, anointed (Strong
G5547).
6. QUESTION: WHY DO YOU USE GREEK WORDS FOR YOUR

CONGREGATION BEING THAT YOU ARE
EGYPTIANS, NUBIANS/ NUWAUBIANS, AND
HEBREW ISRAELITES WHEN DR. YORK SAID THAT
THE ISRAELI CHURCH WAS INCORRECT FOR
CALLING THEMSELVES A CHURCH SINCE IT IS A
GREEK WORD WHEN THEY ARE HEBREW
ISRAELITES?
ANSWER: You will not have a reasonable answer for this question.
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll #137,
Dr. York says to the Israeli Church: “If You Really Were An ISRAELITE, You
Would Call Yourself The Israeli SYNAGOGUE And You Would Still Be
INCORRECT Using The GREEK Word Synagogue When You Call Yourselves
The ORIGINAL Hebrews” (emphasis added) (5). Note that Dr. York is telling the
Israeli Church that they would be incorrect even if they used the word
“synagogue” for their organization because it is a Greek word when they are
Hebrews. He is saying that the Israeli Church, being Hebrews, should not use
Greek words for their place of worship. Yet Dr. York used the Greek words
10
“Egypt,” “church,” and “Christ” for his location in Athens, Georgia, although he
says that Nuwaubians are Hebrew Israelites, too. Why did Dr. York tell the Israeli
Church that they were wrong for calling themselves a church, but later opens up
his own location called “The Egiptian Church of ‘Karast’ Christ”? Since one of the
Greek words Dr. York seems to love using so much is “Egypt”…
7. QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME OF THE LAND OF

EGYPT BEFORE IT WAS CALLED EGYPT BY THE
GREEKS AND ROMANS?
ANSWER: If you have done the research, you will say that the original
name of the land known as Egypt was “Kemet” (also spelled
Khemet) and you would be correct.
8. QUESTION: WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE WORD “EGYPT” IS

REALLY A FALSE NAME FOR THE LAND THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS KEMET?
ANSWER: You will have to say yes, since Dr. York states this in one of
his books.
In Dr. York’s book, The Lost Tribe Scroll # 36 (Revised), he conveys that
Egypt is a false name for the land of Kemet. He states: “Cuneiform Was The First
Language Spoken Because That Was the Language Spoken By The Eloheem
Anunnaqi. This Language Was Then Taught To Those Who Lived On The White
Nile And Blue Nile, Kemet Which Is Falsely Called Egypt Today” (43). In this
book, Dr. York is clearly saying that the word Egypt is a false name for Kemet. If
the word Egypt is a false name for the land of Kemet, then that would make it an
incorrect name, right? This brings us to the next question.
9. QUESTION: IF EGYPT IS A FALSE NAME FOR THE LAND OF

KEMET AS STATED BY DR. YORK HIMSELF, WHY
DID YOU NAME YOUR LAND IN EATONTON,
GEORGIA THE EGYPT OF THE WEST INSTEAD OF
THE KEMET OF THE WEST?
ANSWER: You will have no logical answer for this question.
On the back of Dr. York’s books, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History
Scroll # 134, Is There A God? Scroll # 160, and What Race Was Jesus? Scroll #
11
162, it states: “Our Pharaoh Who is Raising Atlantis (Atlan) Out Of The Earth
Right Before Our Eyes. The Egypt Of The West.” Even though Dr. York said that
Egypt is a false name for the land of Kemet, you still call your land in Eatonton,
Georgia, “The Egypt of the West.” If you really agree with Dr. York’s assertion
that Egypt is a false name for Kemet, why did you name your land, “The Egypt Of
The West”? Is it because the word “Egypt” is more known than the word
“Kemet”? Even so, that is not a justifiable excuse for you to call your land in
Eatonton, Georgia, “The Egypt of The West,” especially when Dr. York himself
said that Egypt is a false name. On top of that, is not Dr. York always saying that
knowledge should be authentic? If hardcore authenticity is what you really seek,
then why not call your land, “The Kemet Of The West,” instead of using the Greek
word “Egypt,” which Dr. York says is a false name?
The truth is, regardless of race or ethnic background, there is nothing wrong
with you or anyone else using Greek words for your organization if that is what
you choose to do. However, there is something wrong with Dr. York telling the
Israeli Church that they are wrong for using Greek words for their organization
simply because they are Israelites when he also uses Greek words for his
organization when Nuwaubians claim to be Israelites, too. That is hypocrisy, plain
and simple. Furthermore, since Dr. York said that the land of Kemet is falsely
called Egypt today, does this not mean that your land is falsely called Egypt today,
too? Yet, Dr. York’s hypocritical use of the word Egypt does not stop there.
10: QUESTION: IF EGYPT IS A FALSE NAME AND KEMET IS THE

TRUE NAME, WHY IS ONE OF THE ORDERS IN YOUR
ORGANIZATION CALLED “THE ANCIENT EGIPTIAN
ORDER” (AEO), INSTEAD OF “THE ANCIENT KEMET
ORDER”?
ANSWER: Once again, you will have no logical answer.
Dr. York stated that Kemet is falsely called Egypt today. Yet, one of his
most sacred orders is called “The Ancient Egiptian Order.” And do not try to say
that the word Egypt is no longer a Greek word when it is spelled with an “i,” or
that it is a different word altogether. That is nonsense. The word “Egypt” is still a
Greek word even if Dr. York deliberately misspells it with an “i” just to suit his
doctrine. If Dr. York truly believes that Egypt is a false name for Kemet, why is
one of the most sacred orders in his organization called “The Ancient Egiptian
Order” and not “The Ancient Kemet Order”?
12
11. QUESTION: IF EGYPT IS A FALSE NAME AND KEMET IS THE
TRUE NAME, WHY ARE YOUR BOOK STORES
CALLED “ALL EYES ON EGIPT BOOK STORE”
INSTEAD OF “ALL EYES ON KEMET BOOK STORE”?
ANSWER: You will probably give some off-the-wall excuse to this

question.
Dr. York once had a book store located on Auburn Avenue in Atlanta,
Georgia called “All Eyes On Egipt Bookstore.” There are also currently online
Nuwaubian books stores with the same name. Three websites that I have found are:
aeoebookstore.com, alleyesonegypt.net, and alleyesonegiptga.com. So, if you
really believe that the Greek word Egypt is a false name, why did you name your
bookstores after Egypt and not after Kemet?
It is therefore clearly seen that Dr. York uses Greek words for his
organization while claiming that he and his followers are Nubians/Nuwaubians and
Hebrew Israelites, even though he himself said that the Israeli Church is incorrect
for calling themselves a church since it is a Greek word when they are Hebrew
Israelites. In his book, 360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll #
137, Dr. York states: “The Reason The Israeli Church Call Themselves A Church
Instead Of Beth Keneseth (tsnk tyb), Which Is The Correct Word That Should Be
Used, Is Because They Hope To Attract Or Convert Christians In Hopes Of
Building Their Congregation Which Does not Consist Of Anymore Than 40
Members” (3-4). Does this mean that Dr. York named his location in Athens,
Georgia, “The Egiptian Church Of Karast Christ” because he hopes to attract or
convert Christians in hopes of building his congregation?
As if Dr. York has not contradicted himself enough, according to
Nuwaubian literature, he started up another place of worship in Macon, Georgia
called “The Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue.” Keep in mind that Dr. York stated in
his book, 360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church that the Israeli Church would
still be incorrect if they used the Greek word “synagogue” when they call
themselves the original Hebrews (5). Yet, even after stating this, he opened up
another place of worship called “The Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue” when
Nuwaubians now claim to be the original Hebrews, too. The hypocrisy does not
stop here. Dr. York also continues in this same book saying:
And Also The Old Testament Uses TEMPLE In 1 Samuel 1:9 (Haykawl,
lkyh) Or TABERNACLE In Exodus 25:9 (Mishawn, !kfm) or
TENT/TABERNACLE In Genesis (Ohel, lha) Or CONGREGATION In
Exodus 12:3 (Aydaw, (hdc). NEVER Once Does The Old Testament Refer
13
To Their Place Of Assembly Hall Or Place Of Gathering As A Church Or
Synagogue. SO STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH NUBIAN PEOPLE’S
SOULS (original emphasis). (5 & 6)
According to this book, Dr. York is saying that the Israeli Church is playing
games with Nubian people’s souls when they refer to their place of gathering as a
“church” or “synagogue.” Since Dr. York has places where his followers gather
called “The Egyptian Church Of Karast Christ” and “The Holy Seed Baptist
Synagogue,” does this mean that he is playing games with Nubian people’s souls,
too? Such hypocrisy! First, Dr. York criticizes, and then he does the same thing.
Why does he not practice what he preaches?
12. QUESTION: IS ONE OF DR. YORK’S TITLES “RABBONI Y’SHUA

BAR EL HAADY”?
ANSWER: Yes.
It should be a well-known fact among the Nuwaubian Nation that “Rabboni

Y’shua Bar El Haady” is one of Dr. York’s many aliases. Dr. York even said
himself that he should be called “Rabbi.” In his book, 360 Questions To Ask The
Orthodox Sunni Muslims Scroll # 198, Dr. York states this:
It Would Have Been More Proper To Call Me Rabbi Instead Of Imam,

According To The Hebraic Laws. For All Intents And Purposes I Am A
Rabbi Of A Hebraic Congregation, Not An Imam Of A Muslim Sect Falling
Under Your Sectarian Groups. The Messiah Jesus Was Called Rabbi Or
‘Teacher’ By His Disciples (Matthew 3:2). Thus, If You Go To The Hebrew
Language, Instead Of Calling Me Imam Isa My Name Would Be Rabbi
Yashua. (B)
By the way, the fact that “Rabbi Yashua” is also one of Dr. York’s titles brings us
to the next question.
13. QUESTION: DID JESUS CHRIST PERMIT US TO CALL EACH

OTHER “RABBI”?
ANSWER: If you have studied the Bible, you will have to say no.
14
MATTHEW 23:8
But be NOT ye called RABBI: for ONE is your MASTER, even CHRIST; and all ye
are brethren (emphasis added).
14. QUESTION: WHY DOES DR. YORK REFER TO HIMSELF AS

“RABBI” AFTER JESUS INSTRUCTED US IN
MATTHEW 23:8 NOT TO CALL EACH OTHER RABBI?
ANSWER: You really do not have any excuses justifying why Dr. York
violated the command of Jesus by calling himself Rabbi.
The Greek word translated “Rabbi” in this verse is Rhabbi, which means my
master, my great one, my honorable sir, teacher (Strong G4461). This comes from
the Hebrew word Rab, which means much, many, great (Strong G7227). The word
Rab comes from the root word Rabab, which means to be or become many, be or
become much, be or become great (Strong H7231). As you can see, “rabbi” is
actually an exalting title. The reason Jesus does not want us to call ourselves
“rabbi” is because he is our one and only master. This is why he also said in
Matthew 23:10: “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even
Christ.” Of course when Jesus said not to call ourselves “masters,” he did not mean
in the immediate sense. The Bible does speak of “earthly” masters.
EPHESIANS 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with
fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
1 PETER 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward.
As you can see, the Bible does speak of us having “earthly” masters.
Therefore, when Jesus told us not to call ourselves “masters,” he meant in a self-
exalting way because he is our only Master in that sense of the word. Now does
Dr. York use the title “rabbi” in a self-exalting way? Well I will say this: This is
the same man who also refers to himself as “The Supreme Being Of This Day And
Time,” “God In The Flesh,” and “The Imperial Grand Potentate”.
15
Jesus also said not to call any man “father.”
MATTHEW 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in
heaven.
The Greek word translated “father” in this verse is Pater, which means
generator or male ancestor (Strong G3962). Like the word “rabbi,” when Jesus
said not to call any man “father,” he did not mean in the immediate sense because
we all have earthly fathers. When Jesus said not to call any man father, he was
saying not to call any man our spiritual father, again, in a self-exalting way.
Apparently, the Catholic Church totally missed this verse because their priests are
known as “father.” I have personally heard Nuwaubians sometimes refer to Dr.
York as “Pop,” which is nothing more than another way of referring to him as
“father.”
Dr. York is also well aware of the fact that the word “rabbi” means master. I
know this because he states this in his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Hebrew
Israelite Scroll # 101 (VIII) and in his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian
Scroll # 102 (XXI):
In Using The Arabic Translation Of The Bible, The Word Used For “Lord”
Is “Sayyid,” Which Also Means “Master”. [sic] It Is Clear To Any Listener
That The Word “Rabb” For “Lord” Is A Derivative Of The Word “Rabbi,”
Which Means “Master”. These Words Are All Equivalents Of Each Other.
In these books Dr. York is saying that the words “lord,” “master,” and
“rabbi” are all equivalents of each other and this is true. As you know, one of Dr.
York’s titles is “Rabboni Y’shua Bar El Haady.” The word “Rabboni” comes from
the Greek word Rhabboni, which means master, chief, prince (Strong G4462). The
word “Rabboni” only appears in the KJV Bible once, and as you have probably
already guessed, it is referring to none other than Jesus.
JOHN 20:16
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni;
which is to say, Master.
Even though Jesus himself said not to call ourselves “rabbi,” Dr. York still
referred to himself as “RABBI Yashua.” Do not try to get out of it by saying that
16
you do not believe that Matthew 23:8 are the actual words of Jesus because
according to your pamphlet, Judas The Betrayer Pamphlet No. 8, it states: “The
red print in the New Testament symbolizes, the Blood of Christ. This is why Jesus’
words are written in red which is where our pure seed is found” (8). You also state
on the back of this same pamphlet: “We believe that Jesus’ Gospel is the red letters
or blood of our Bible and the foundation of our salvation. All others are mere
guidance.” The last time I checked my Bible, Matthew 23:8 was definitely printed
in red writing. If you really believe that Jesus’ words are the red letters in the Bible
and that they are “the foundation of your salvation,” why does Dr. York disobey
the words of Jesus and refer to himself as “RABBI Yashua”?
However, Dr. York calling himself “Rabbi” is not even the worst part. After
glorifying himself with so many other exalting titles, Dr. York actually had the
audacity to say that other black leaders are ego tripping. In his book, Does Religion
Breed Ignorance? Scroll # 98, he states: “The Problem Is Your Egos. Nubians
Tend To Ego Trip When They Get In A Position Of Authority And Power” (102).
He continues with this claim by saying:
Then You Have Various So-Called Black Organizations Such As: The
NAACP, PUSH, CORE. And Then You Have The Rainbow Coalition. All
Of These Fake Leaders Are Ego Tripping. That Is Why In South Africa You
Have The Communist Party, You Have The Zulu Party And Many Others
That Are All Ego Tripping. (102)
Can you believe this? What is more egotistic than someone calling himself
“The supreme being of this day and time,” or “God in the flesh”? On a side note,
did you know that these “fake leaders” of the NAACP, PUSH, CORE and The
Rainbow Coalition are the same people who rushed to Dr. York’s aid when he was
first charged with child molestation charges? I wonder how eager these “fake
leaders” would be to support Dr. York if they knew how he really felt about them.
I also want to bring something else to your attention. I do not know if you
are aware of this or not, but when you refer to Dr. York as “Rabbi,” you reveal
another big contradiction within his doctrine. According to your pamphlet, Judas
The Betrayer Pamphlet No. 8, it states: “There was a man who betrayed our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ …” (1). In another pamphlet, John Son Of Zebedee Jesus’
Beloved Disciple Pamphlet No. 4, it states: “John son of Zebedee, known
affectionately by our Lord Jesus Christ as his beloved disciple (John 13:23)” (1).
In your pamphlets, you are professing that Jesus is your Lord. Remember
that the words “lord” and “master” are equivalents of each other as verified by Dr.
York himself. This means that your pamphlets are saying that Jesus is your master,
too. Since you refer to Jesus as “Lord,” and Dr. York as “Rabbi,” and both the
17
words “lord” and “rabbi” mean master, then that means that you are saying that
both Jesus and Dr. York are your masters. Maybe you do not see anything wrong
with having two masters, but according to Jesus’ own words, which you claim to
believe, no one can serve two masters.
MATTHEW 6:24
No man can serve TWO masters: for either he will HATE the one, and love the
other; or else he will HOLD TO the one, and DESPISE the other. Ye cannot serve
God and mammon (emphasis added).
As Matthew 6:24 states, you will either hate Jesus and love Dr. York, or you will
hold to Jesus and despise Dr. York. Therefore, you now have a decision to make.
Who is your one and only Lord and Savior, Dr. York or Jesus Christ?
15. QUESTION: DOES DR. YORK TEACH THAT JESUS WAS ONLY
SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL?
ANSWER: You should say yes, since Dr. York states this in some of his
books.
Dr. York states in his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60 that Jesus said
that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and he is correct about
this. Jesus did say that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
which are Hebrew Israelites.
MATTHEW 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
16. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK BELIEVES THAT JESUS WAS ONLY

SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL AND NO ONE ELSE, WHY DID HE SET UP AN
EGYPTIAN CHURCH OF CHRIST, INSTEAD OF A
HEBREW ISRAELITE CHURCH OF CHRIST?
ANSWER: You probably will not want to answer this question.
18
If Dr. York really believes that Jesus was only sent to the Israelites, then
would that not mean the Israelites are the only people who can establish legitimate
churches of Christ? Since Dr. York primarily claims to be Egyptian and
Nubian/Nuwaubian, who according to the Bible are not Israelites, that means that
an Israelite did not set up your church and according to Dr. York’s view of
Matthew 15:24, Jesus was not sent to you. Israelites are descendants of Noah’s
son, Shem. Egyptians and the Nubians, however, are descendants of Noah’s second
son, Ham.
Dr. York also states in his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60: “The
People Of The Lost Tribe Of Judah, Were The Ones Who Would Be Accepted As
In A Flock, Not The People Of today. So Stop Fooling Yourselves. He [Jesus] Was
Not Talking About You, Unless You Believe That You Are The Lost Tribe Of
Judah Of The House Of Israel” (22-23).
Additionally, in this same book, Dr. York says: “He [Jesus] Was Sent To
The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel, Judah Only 2000 Years ago” (106). Dr.
York does not teach that the so-called Negroes are descendants of just the
Israelites. He teaches that the so-called Negroes are descendants of the original
Israelites, the original Egyptians, Nubians, Ishmaelites and Midianites.
Even though Dr. York teaches that the so-called Negroes are descendants of
all these different races, his doctrine clearly focuses on Egyptians and Egypt more
than anything else. Thus, according to Dr. York’s own teachings, Jesus could not
have been sent to you because you primarily call yourselves Egyptians and
Nubians, who are not Israelites. In spite of teaching that Jesus was only sent to the
Israelites, Dr. York still started an “Egyptian” Church of Christ, instead of a
“Hebrew Israelite” Church of Christ. Why did Dr. York set up an Egyptian church
of Christ if he believes that Jesus was only sent to the Israelites? His teachings are
loaded with contradictions and this is only the beginning.
17. QUESTION: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY CALL YOURSELF A

DESCENDANT OF THE ORIGINAL ISRAELITES, THE
ORIGINAL EGYPTIANS, THE NUBIANS, THE
ISHMAELITES, AND THE MIDIANITES WHEN
ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, ALL THESE PEOPLE
ARE DIFFERENT RACES OF PEOPLE?
ANSWER: You will probably say that the Israelite tribes intermingled and
combined with other non-Israelite tribes, therefore, you are a
descendant of the Egyptians, the Israelites, the Ishmaelites, and
the Midianites.
19
You would more than likely be basing this answer on Dr. York’s book, Who Was
Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60. Dr. York states:
Now Why And How Did I Say, You Are Ishmaelites, Midianites, And Israelites?
Because You Are From Abraham (Son of Terah and Nuwna), Which Makes Us All
Hebrews; By his act of crossing over the Tigris and Euphrates River. Because
Biliaal (cousin of Muhammad) was of Judah and Dan. Remember Dan Mixed With
Judah, Who Bilaal Mixed In And Lived With Muhammad’s Family In Arabia. Yes,
That’s Right. Judah And Dan Became A Part Of The Ishmaelites And Midianites.
That’s How We Are Judahites, Israelites, Ishmaelites And Midianites. (74)
So, according to Dr. York, the so-called Negroes are Judahites, Israelites,
Ishmaelites, and Midianites because these tribes mixed with each other. However,
this quote totally contradicts what he stated about family lineages in his book,
What Race Was Jesus? Scroll # 162. Dr. York states: “In Conclusion, The
Descendancy [sic] Of A Person Is Determined By The Father And Not The Mother
Except In The Case Of The Messiah Jesus. The Messiah Jesus’ Ancestral Line Is
Traced Through His Mother Because Joseph Was Not His Blood Father” (80).
According to this quote, Dr. York is saying that a person’s race is determined by
the father and not the mother and this is true. How can he then say in, Who Was
Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60 that he and other Nuwaubians are descendants of
Egyptians, Nubians, Judahites, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites simply
because these tribes interbred with each other?
If a person’s race is really determined solely by his or her father, then there
is no way you can simultaneously be all these races Dr. York mentioned. Also,
notice that Dr. York did not list the Nubians as descendants of Abraham. Why did
he not list the Nubians? Dr. York probably knows that real Nubians are not
descendants of Abraham. As I stated earlier, Nubians are Cushites who are
descendants of Ham (Genesis10:6), but Abraham and all his descendants are
descendants of Shem (Genesis 11:11-25).
It is true that like the Israelites, the Ishmaelites and Midianites are also
descendants of Abraham (Genesis 16:15; 25:1-2). It is also true that the Israelite
tribes intermingled with non-Israelite tribes and conceived children by them (Ezra
9:1-2; 10:1-3, Nehemiah 13:23-24). However, even though he knows this, Dr.
York sometimes seem to conveniently ignore the fact that it is the race of the
fathering males that determines the race of a people and not both parents. In other
words, according to the Bible, there is really no such thing as “mixed” or multi-
racial people. For example, if your father were an Egyptian and your mother an
Israelite, then according to the Bible you would still be considered an Egyptian.
Even the king of Egypt in Exodus 1:15-16 knew this.
20
The children of Israel were drastically increasing in number and the king of
Egypt feared that if the Egyptians ever went to war, the Hebrews would side with
the enemy and help them fight against the Egyptians. For that reason, the King of
Egypt decided to set taskmasters over the Hebrews to increase their already
rigorous labor. Once the king of Egypt discovered that doing this only further
increased the Israelite population, he decided to rectify his problem by
exterminating all newborn male Hebrews.
EXODUS 1:15-16
And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one
was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office
of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son,
then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
Why did the king of Egypt want to kill all newborn male Hebrews but chose
to spare the newborn females? Because the king of Egypt knew that it is the
fathering males that determine the race of a people. Thus, if he managed to kill all
newborn male Hebrews, he would eventually wipe out the entire Hebrew race.
This is clearly stated in the apocryphal Book of Jasher. The Book of Jasher is
referenced in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:17.
JASHER 67:49-51
If it please the king let him order all their children which shall be born from this
day for-ward, to be thrown into the water, for by this canst thou wipe away their
name, for none of them, nor of their fathers, were tried in this manner. And the
king heard the words of Balaam, and the thing pleased the king and the princes,
and the king did according to the word of Balaam. And the king ordered a
proclamation to be issued and a law to be made throughout the land of Egypt,
saying, Every MALE child born to the Hebrews from this day forward shall be
thrown into the water (emphasis added).
It does not matter that the Hebrew tribes intermingled with other non-
Hebrew tribes. If the fathering parents were Hebrews, then the children were also
Hebrews. On the other hand, if the fathering parents were not Hebrews, then their
children would be whatever race those fathers were. Whatever the case was, the
children were either considered Hebrews or something else altogether because
there was no in between. Therefore, you need to decide if you are an Israelite, an
Ishmaelite, a Midianite, an Egyptian, or a Nubian, because according to the Bible,
21
you are only considered to be one race. Just remember that if you do consider
yourself to be any race other than Hebrew that means that Jesus was not sent to you
according to Dr. York’s interpretation of Matthew 15:24.
18. QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE WORD “NUWAUBIAN” MEAN?
ANSWER: If you answer according to Dr. York’s books, you will say that
Nuwaubians are the black races and that the word itself means
prophet or simply message bearers.
19. QUESTION: IS DR. YORK A NUWAUBIAN?
ANSWER: Of course you are going to say yes to this question.
20. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK IS A NUWAUBIAN AND THE WORD

“NUWAUBIAN” MEANS PROPHET OR MESSAGE
BEARERS, WHY DID DR. YORK SAY THAT HE NEVER
CLAIMED TO BE A PROPHET?
ANSWER: You cannot answer this question truthfully without admitting

that Dr. York contradicted himself when he said that he is a
Nuwaubian, or when he said he never claimed to be a prophet.
In his book, What Race Was Jesus? Scroll # 162, Dr. York states:
Let Me Explain To You Why We Are Called Nuwaubians. The Word

Nuwaubian Comes From The Root Word Na-Wa-Ba Which Became The
Aramic (Hebrew) Word Nabi Also Meaning “Prophet” As Well As The
Syriac (Arabic) Word Nabi And It Also Means “Prophet” Or Simply
“Message Bearers.” (54)
According to Dr. York, the word “Nuwaubian” means prophet because it

derived from root words that mean prophet, and this is why you call yourselves
Nuwaubians. If Dr. York is indeed a Nuwaubian, then that makes him a prophet by
definition. Nevertheless, it states on the back of the same book regarding Dr. York:
“He told us for years that he was not a prophet, Apostle or Jesus Christ and that
one day he would tell us who he really is.” Plus, in another one of his books,
Nuwaubian Calendar A Daily Word From Maku Scroll # 200, it states this about
Dr. York: “Whatever he has said will happen, has come to past. No, he is not a
prophet and he is not your Jesus” (20).
22
Dr. York even gives the description of prophets in his book, 360 Questions To Ask
The Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll # 137. He states:
There Are Two Different Types Of Prophets. One Is Called A Prophet Of

Revelation. This Is A Prophet Who Receives Information By Inspiration.
The Other Is Called A Prophet Of Prophecy. This Type Of Prophet Predicts
Things Of The Future That Will Come To Pass, And Sends Warnings For
The People. (69)
We therefore see that there are at least two kinds of prophets according to
Dr. York. Even though Dr. York says that he never claimed to be a prophet, his
own writings verify that he considers himself to be both a “prophet of revelation”
and a “prophet of prophecy.” For instance, in his book, Nuwaubian Calendar A
Daily Word From Maku Scroll # 200, it states: “The Nuwaubian Calendar came
through me, Nayya: Malachi Zodok York-El as an Inspiration from the ancient
ones. Two years ago before the Nuwaubu Ball, I had a vision … I told everyone
about it and I even wrote a small pamphlet about it” (1). This statement puts him in
the ranks of a “prophet of revelation” according to his definition because he said
that the Nuwaubian calendar came through him as an inspiration.
Anyone who reads the Bible should know that whenever prophets had
visions they usually wrote about them. For example, it states in Numbers 12:6:
“And he [God] said, hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the
LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a
dream.” According to this verse, God first makes Himself known to His prophets
by visions and dreams. Then it states in Habakkuk 2:2: “And the LORD answered
me, and said, write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that
readeth it.” This verse lets you know that once a prophet receives a vision, he is
usually instructed to write about it. Dr. York claimed to have received a vision, and
then he wrote about it. That is a “prophet of revelation.”
According to Dr. York, a “prophet of prophecy” is a prophet that predicts
things of the future that will come to pass, and sends warnings for the people. The
prophet Ezekiel is one of many prophets in the Bible that would be considered a
“prophet of prophecy.” For example it sates in the Book of Ezekiel:
Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the
children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a
land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their
watchmen: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the
trumpet, and warn the people; So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a
23
watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my
mouth, and warn them from me. (33:1-3, 7)
Even though Dr. York says that he never claimed to be a prophet, in his
newsletter reviewing the 2001 Thanksgiving banquet held at Al Mahdi Shrine No.
19, it states: “Come and celebrate with ‘Al Mahdi Shrine Temple’ The beginning
of a new year. Enjoy an elegant evening with food & entertainment. The night of
PROPHECIES and PREDICTIONS by the Grand Al Mufti Divan Noble: Rev. Dr.
Malachi Z. York-El ...” (emphasis added). Remember that Dr. York said that a
“prophet of prophecy” predicts things of the future, and this newsletter clearly
stated that he would be making prophecies and predictions. That is a prophet of
prophecy!
Additionally, according to The Holy Tablets, Dr. York states in the section
titled “A Personal Note From The Receiver”: “I Prophesized [sic] That There
Would Be A New Drug.” So why does Dr. York make so many prophecies and
predictions if he is not a prophet? While we are on the subject of prophecy, I have
something I must ask. What happened to all the “vortexes” that Dr. York
prophesied would open up all around America on May 5, 2000 A.D. according to
his book, The Year 2,000 And What To Expect Scroll # 156? It is fifteen years later
and not a single known “vortex” has opened anywhere around the United States or
the world for that matter.
FALSE PROPHECIES FOR THE YEAR 2000
In his book, Nibiru & Anunnaqi Fact Or Fiction Scroll # 154, Dr. York also said
that he predicted that the year 2000 A.D. would be the end of the world as we
know it. He states:
I Predicted That The Year 2,000 A.D. Would Be The END OF THE
WORLD. By That I Mean, The End Of The Devil’s Rule, His 6,000 Years
Are Up. You Can See His Rule Coming Down All Around Him. When I
First Said It 30 Years Ago, I Looked Crazy But Now Everyone Is Saying It.
I Was Basing This On The ALIGNMENT OF THE PLANETS In This Solar
System. In the year 2000 A.D. all of the planets will line up on May 5, 2000
A.D. And the Planets Could Be Drawn Towards The Sun. This Could Cause
A Star Holocaust. This Could Be The End Of Life On Your Planet. I
Predicted This As Far Back As 1970 A.D. Now In The 1990’s It Is All Over
The Media Like Never Before (emphasis added). (114)
24
In addition, on pages 73, 76, 78, 80, and 82 of this book, Dr. York refers to
several magazines and books regarding this subject to further back up the claim
that the world would indeed end in the year 2000. Well, I am sorry, but Dr. York
still looks crazy to me. Not only is it nearly fifteen years later, but the Devil and
this world is still wicked, the planets have not aligned, and the Earth is still rotating
on its axis as always. This means that Dr. York was wrong about his “May 5, 2000
A.D.” prediction. Of course he had a clever excuse ready once he knew that people
would realize that none of these prophecies were going to come to pass. In his
book, Nuwaubian Calendar A Daily word from Maku Scroll # 200, Dr. York
explains why the end of the world was “delayed.” He states:
The Beings From Aldebaran Work Along With The Pleiadians, Procyonians,
Reptilians And Some Species Of Greys In Order To Stop Nibiru From
Coming. By Slowing The Process Of The Comet Hale-Bopp, It Altered
Time. The END OF THE WORLD Has Already Been DELAYED 30 Years
As A Period Of grace. If It Takes Another 30 years, The Luciferians Will
Have More Time To Figure Out A Way To Stop This And By Adhering To
The Other CORRUPTED CALENDARS You Are Being Blind To The
Natural Or True Time (emphasis added). (16)
This excuse is laughable. The Bible says it is impossible to stop true prophecies
from coming to pass. God said in Isaiah 55:11-12 that whatever He says will
happen is most definitely going to come to pass.
ISAIAH 55:10-11
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from the heaven, and returneth not
thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give
seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my words be that goeth forth out
of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing where to I sent it.
According to the Bible, when a true prophet makes predictions, they come to
pass at the exact time and the exact way they were foretold. Were these factors true
for Dr. York’s “May 5, 2000 A.D.” prophecy? Let us examine the outcome of his
prophecy. Dr. York predicted that the world as we know it would end on May 5,
2000 A.D. Did the world end at the time that Dr. York prophesied it would? No.
Dr. York also predicted that the devil’s rule would come to an end on this date. Did
all sin and wickedness completely cease on this date? No. People are still sinning
and the world is as wicked as ever. Dr. York also predicted that the planets would
25
all align on this date and possibly be drawn toward the sun and possibly cause a
star holocaust. Did any of this happen the way Dr. York prophesied it would? No.
The planets did not align, they did not draw closer to the sun, and there was no star
holocaust. This means that Dr. York’s “May 5, 2000 A.D. prediction” was a false
prophecy. How can you say that Dr. York is giving you right knowledge when he
is making wrong prophecies?
I also have another question to ask you. Why did Dr. York base his prophecy
on the Gregorian calendar if he says it is corrupted? Would it not have made more
sense for him to base his predictions on the Nuwaubian calendar, which he claims
is authentic and exact because it is based on the number nineteen? Most
importantly, if Dr. York is supposed to be divinely inspired, why did he not know
that the beings from “Aldebaran” and the other beings he mentioned would
interfere and delay Nibiru’s coming? If he really were divinely inspired, he would
have foreseen that “Nibiru” was not going to arrive May 5, 2000 A.D. and
therefore, should not have made any May 5, 2000 A.D. prophecies in the first
place.
Also, if it was possible for Nibiru’s coming to be delayed, then Dr. York
should have at least said that Nibiru is scheduled to arrive May 5, 2000 A.D. That
way, when Nibiru failed to arrive on the expected date, Dr. York would have at
least had a more decent excuse. This prediction error also means that you were
wrong when you stated this on the back of some of Dr. York’s books regarding his
predictions: “He would tell us everything that was going to happen and it
ALWAYS came true” (emphasis added). This statement cannot possibly be true
because of the simple fact that the world did not end in the year 2000 A.D. as Dr.
York predicted.
By the way, did you know that Dr. York changed the date of this “May 5,
2000 A.D.” prophecy? When I checked out your websites, I noticed that this end of
the world prophecy had been mysteriously changed to May 5, 2003. And not only
that, it also stated on these websites that space ships were supposed to come to
Earth on this date to pick up an elite 144,000 and take them back to the planet
“Rizq” for “rebirth.” But that is not all. According to The Holy Tablets, one of your
most sacred books, Dr. York states in Al Khidr Tablet Six Zodoq: Melchizedek (19
x 20 = 380) verse 18:
I try to raise your consciousness so that when the SHIP RETURNS in the
lunar logging of the TWELFTH POINT, in AUGUST, in the year two
thousand and three of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR, when the gate of
GREAT VORTEX will RE-OPEN and this planet called Earth POSITIONS
ITSELF, IN THE LOCATION OF REVOLUTION OF THE PLANETS,
AND THEY ALL ARE IN A LINE as in the lunar logging of THE FIFTH
26
POINT IN MAY, in the year two thousand, of the Gregorian Calendar, you
will be ready (emphasis added). (1635)
So, we have planets aligning, a vortex opening, a ship returning, and the fifth
point (day) of May. Does not these things sound like the same things Dr. York
predicted would happen May 5, 2000 A.D. in his books, Nibiru & Anunnaqi Fact
Or Fiction? Scroll # 154 and The Year 2,000 And What To Expect Scroll # 156?
Plus, why is he still basing his prophecies on the Gregorian calendar if he thinks it
is corrupted? It is obvious that when Dr. York realized that his followers would see
that none of his May 5, 2000 A.D. prophecies were going to come to pass, he
simply postponed them to May 5, 2003, and again in The Holy Tablets to August
12, 2003 A.D. Well, as you have witnessed, none of these things happened on May
5, 2003 or August 12, 2003 A.D. If you still believe that Dr. York’s prophecies are
going to come to pass, then I guarantee that you are going to continue being
disappointed just as you more than likely were on May 5, 2000 A.D. and August
12, 2003 A.D.
The Bible tells us how to view so-called prophets that make predictions that
do not come to pass. It says in Deuteronomy 18:22: “When a prophet speaketh in
the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing
which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:
thou shalt not be afraid of him.” The Hebrew word translated “prophet” in this
verse is nabiy, which means spokesman, speaker, prophet (Strong H5030). This
comes from the root word naba, which means to prophesy (Strong H5012). The
Hebrew word translated “presumptuously” in this verse is zadown, which means,
pride, insolence (Strong H2087). This comes from the root word zuwd, which
means to boil, boil up seethe, act proudly, act presumptuously, act rebelliously, be
presumptuous, be arrogant, be rebelliously proud (Strong H2102). This is exactly
what Dr. York did when he made these false predictions: He arrogantly and
insolently made his predictions without any real proof. Now we will review all this
information and see if we can make sense of it.
1. Dr. York calls himself a Nuwaubian, a word that he says means prophet, thus
rendering him a prophet according to his definition.
2. Dr. York then says that there are two types of prophets, a “Prophet of
Revelation” and a “Prophet of Prophecy” and judging by his writings, he definitely
makes himself fit the descriptions of both.
3. Dr. York also made prophecies and predictions that have been proven to be
false.
27
4. In spite of all this, Dr. York says that he never claimed to be a prophet.
This is a contradiction within itself. Do you really know which one it is? Does Dr.
York claim to be a prophet or not? Did he change his mind? Did he forget what his
own definition of the word “Nuwaubian” means from time to time?
How can you follow a teacher who cannot even decide if he is a prophet or
not?
21. QUESTION: IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO “BELIEVE” IN THINGS OR

USE THE WORD “BELIEVE”?
ANSWER: If you believe Dr. York’s books, you will say no because
according to Dr. York, if you have to “believe” something, that
means that you are ignorant, deceived, and in doubt.
In The Holy Tablets, Dr. York states in Tablet Ten Nuwaubu (19 x 2= 38) verses 7-
11:
BELIEF IS IGNORANCE. Belief is to Ignore the facts intentionally or

ignorantly. Also Nuwaubu is Right Knowledge, Right Wisdom, and Right
Overstanding. If one has to believe, it means he or she does NOT know, And
if one does not know, that is ignorance. Hence, belief is ignorance and
religious beliefs without the facts is ignorance. So demand that anyone
attempting to impose upon you their religious beliefs to produce the facts
(emphasis added). (87)
According to Dr. York, belief is ignorance and if one has to believe, that
means that he or she does not know. He continues to say: “The most DECEPTIVE
word in religion is the word ‘BELIEVE’ or ‘BELIEF’ (emphasis added). (Verse
12) He also states: “To know gives one confidence, but BELIEF infers DOUBT”
(emphasis added) (Verse 16). So again, according to Dr. York, the words “believe”
and “belief” are the most deceptive words in religion and to use them infers doubt.
Dr. York also teaches that the word “believe” when broken up is “be-lie-eve,”
which means to lie to Eve’s seed. In his book, Santa Or Satan? The Fallacy Of
Christmas Scroll # 31, Dr. York says: “You Can Find Some Sort Of Symbolic
Meanings Behind Everything You BELIEVE In, (BELIE TO EVE’S
CHILDREN)” (emphasis added) (66).
Furthermore, “The Truth Bulletins” magazine, Muhammad Was A Hebrew
Edition # 16 states: “They Have Been Lying To You For Thousands Of Years,
28
Having You Base Your Entire Lives In Believing (BE-LIE-EVE – LIE TO EVE’S
CHILDREN) Things Like, Kadmon (Zakar, Adam) Being The First Human Being
On The Planet Earth, Like I Mentioned Previously” (emphasis added) (19). So
according to Dr. York, every time someone uses the word “believe,” he or she is
lying to Eve’s seed, which is every human being alive today.
22. QUESTION: IF THE WORD “BELIEVE” MEANS TO LIE TO EVE’S

SEED, AND IT IMPLIES IGNORANCE, DECEPTION,
AND DOUBT, WHY DOES DR. YORK REPEATEDLY
SAY THAT HE “BELIEVES” THINGS IN HIS BOOKS
AND PAMPHLETS?
ANSWER: You will not have a reasonable answer to this question.
First of all, just because a person “believes” something does not mean that he or
she is ignorant, deceived, or in doubt. As a matter of fact, according to Hebrews
11:6, without faith, which is the same thing as belief, it is impossible to please God.
HEBREW 11:6
But without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please him [God]: for he that cometh to
God must BELIEVE that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “believe” in this verse is pisteuo, which means to
think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in (Strong G4100).
This comes from the root word peitho, which means persuade (Strong G4102).
According to this verse, without faith it is impossible to please God and before you
come to God, you must first believe that he is God. But how much faith or belief is
needed to please God? The answer to this question is found in Hebrews 10:23.
HEBREWS 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our FAITH without WAVERING; (for he is
faithful that promised) (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “wavering” in this verse is aklines, which means
not inclining, firm, unmoved or in other words, not doubting (Strong G186). This
comes from the root word klino, which means transitively, to incline, bow (Strong
G2827). According to Hebrews 10:23, in order to have true faith or belief in God,
29
no doubt can be involved. It even says in James 1:5-7 that if you pray to the Lord
for something while doubting, do not expect to receive anything.
JAMES 1:5-7
If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and
upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing
WAVERING. For he that WAVERETH is like a wave of the sea driven with the
wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive ANYTHING of the
Lord (emphasis added).
According to the Bible, true belief does not infer doubt as Dr. York claims.
Now as far as Dr. York saying that the words “believe” and “belief” implies
“ignorance” is concerned, I simply say no one knows everything, so we are all
ignorant about something we believe to some degree. For instance, no Nuwaubian
has ever been to this planet Dr. York calls “Rizq,” yet you believe it exists. None
of you have ever actually seen Nibiru, yet you believe it exists. To say that
someone is ignorant just because they have to believe something, reflects a poor
understanding of the word believe. However, Dr. York said that the words
“believe” and “belief” imply deception, too. But when you really think about it, the
only way someone can be deceived by “believing” something, is if what they are
being led to “believe” is a lie. What if they believe the truth? Are they being
deceived then, too? So, the words “believe” and “belief” does not necessarily
imply deception as Dr. York incorrectly asserts.
Finally, as for Dr. York’s definition of the word “believe” meaning to lie to
Eve’s seed, this is nothing more than a play on words. What Dr. York is doing is
merging the word “believe,” which means to trust in, accept as true, hold as an
opinion with the word “belie,” which means to show to be false, to contradict.
Even though there is only a two letter difference between the spellings of these two
words, they are still two totally different words with totally different meanings.
This is just phonetics, which Dr. York constantly uses. What is ironic is although
Dr. York claims that the word “believe” means to lie to Eve’s seed and that it
implies ignorance, deception, and doubt, Dr. York constantly professes that he
believes things throughout his books and pamphlets. For example, in his book 360
Questions To Ask A Christian Scroll # 102, it states in big bold letters:
“WHAT I TEACH AND WHAT WE BELIEVE” (83).
Also, on the back of your pamphlets, Matthew The Publican Disciple Of

Jesus” Pamphlet No. 1, Luke The Physician” Pamphlet No. 3, John Son Of
30
Zebedee Jesus’ Beloved Disciple” Pamphlet No. 4, and Judas The Betrayer”
Pamphlet No. 8, you actually use the word “believe” a whopping eleven times. The
back of these pamphlets state the following:
WHAT WE BELIEVE AND PREACH
* We BELIEVE that Christ was in the beginning in God

as God. The spirit of God (Gen. 1:2 John 1:1-17;
The Noble Koran 4:171) (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE Jesus Christ is the Son of God and

incarnated into the flesh of a Man as many Eloheem
“Angels” can do by God’s permission (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE that you get the true meaning of the word

Of God by knowing the language God revealed it in
(1 Corinthians 14) (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE all have sinned and have come short of the

glory of God and are in need of salvation (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE salvation has been provided through

Jesus Christ for all the Lost Sheep of Israel
(Luke 19:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9) (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE it is the will of God that every believer

Be filled with the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Seed
of the two women Eve and Mary (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE that Jesus’ gospel is the red letters or

blood of our Bible and the foundation of our salva
tion. All others are mere guidance and help (Luke
22:19-20; Mark 14:22-24) (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE the Synagogue “Church” consist of all

those who have received Jesus Christ as their person-
al Saviour (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE there shall be a bodily resurrection of the

just and the unjust, a Rapture of 144,000 then all
31
those who accept (Rev. 14:3; Rev. 7:9-10) (emphasis added).
* We BELIEVE in baptism by Fire and the Holy Ghost

(Matthew 3:11) and confirmed in (Acts 2:3-4) (emphasis
added).
It would seem that after examining your books and pamphlets that
Nuwaubians use the word “believe” just as much as Christian do. If you seriously
expect people to accept Dr. York’s view of the words “believe” and “belief,” then
they would also have to say that you are ignorant, deceived, in doubt, and lying to
Eve’s seed about everything you profess to “believe” in your pamphlets and books.
Once again, Dr. York is telling people that they are incorrect for doing something,
and yet he goes and does it himself. Does this not make him a hypocrite?
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NUWAUBIANS’ VIEWS

OF JESUS CHRIST
23. OUESTION: WHERE DID THE NAME “JESUS” COME FROM?
ANSWER: If you go by Dr. York’s books, you will say that the name
“Jesus” is really a derivative of the name “Zeus.”
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian” Part 1 Scroll # 102, Dr.
York states: “With A Little Research, You Will Find That The Names ‘ZEUS’
And ‘JESUS’ Are Linked By The Same Root” (emphasis added) (22). Dr. York
continues with this claim on the same page: “However, The Final Syllable Of
Dionysus Or Zeus Is Identical To The Ending Of ‘Jesus.’ This Break Down Proves
That The Reason For Selecting The Suffix, - Sus, For The Word ‘Jesus’ Was
Because Of Dionysus Or Zeus, Who Was Known As The Greek Savior When The
Bible Was Translated Into The English Language” (22). In these books, Dr. York
is saying that the names “Jesus” and “Zeus” are linked by the same root and suffix,
therefore, they are really the same name. It should be noted that many black
Hebrew Israelite congregations also teach that the name “Jesus” derived from
“Zeus.” However, if you do some research, you will discover that none of this is
true. The name “Jesus” and the name “Zeus” are not the same names.
The name “Jesus” comes from the Greek name Iesous (Strong G2424). It is
the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehowshuwa, meaning YHWH is
salvation (Strong H3091). The name Yehowshuwa comes from the root word
“Yasha”, which means to save, be saved, be delivered (Strong H3467). The name
32
Yehowshuwa is also a derivative of the Hebrew name yehovah, which means self
existent or eternal (Strong H3068).
In Greek, the “y” in the Hebrew name Yehowshuwa or Yeshua changes to an
“i” since there is no “y” sound in Greek, and the “sh” sound to a hard “s” sound
since there is also no “sh” sound in Greek. This comes out to be Iesou or more
commonly, Iesous when the final sigma (ς) in Greek is added to indicate
masculinity. From there, the Greek name Iesous goes to Latin, Iesus, and then into
Germanic languages, where the “y” sound is spelled with a “j.” If you do research
on the letter “j,” you will see that it developed from the letter “i.” During the
1600’s, an “i” at the beginning of a word was written with a tail. The letter “j”
developed from this form, and eventually became a letter of its own with its own
sound as in “jump.” So Iesus comes into the English language as “Jesus.” The
name “Zeus” is not involved in any of this.
In Greek, Iesous is pronounced ee-ay-sooce΄, sometimes dropping the final
sigma (ς), not Iazeus as many people claim. What they are trying to do is use
sound assimilation to make connection to the pagan god Zeus, thus condemning
Christians and other sects that use the name “Jesus.” This is nothing but phonetics,
which as I explained earlier, is not concerned with meaning but sound. The name
Iesous was commonly substituted for Yehowshuwa long before the birth of our
Lord and Savior. It is in the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew Scripture, which was
in existence before and during the time of Jesus Christ.
JOSHUA 1:10 (SEPTUAGINT, GREEK SCRIPT)
Kαὶ ἐνετείλατο ἰησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων …
In the Greek Septuagint the book of Joshua is called Iesous Naus, meaning
Joshua son of Nun. It was the Hebrew Israelites themselves who used the name
Iesous in the Greek language before the time of Jesus. The suffix of the name Jesus
is “sus” and is pronounced “soos” in Spanish. In Spanish, Jesus is pronounced
Hay-soos. And because of the simple fact that the suffix of the name Jesus sounds
like “Zeus” in Spanish, many black Hebrew Israelite congregations are actually
teaching people that “Jesus” comes from “Zeus.” This is linguistic ignorance.
Saying the name “Jesus” is not calling on the pagan god Zeus.
In Greek, Zeus is Dia. In the Strong’s Concordance, Zeus is pronounced
Dzyooce. Zeus was the supreme god of the Greeks who was the equivalent of the
Roman god Jupiter or Jove. The Jews were well aware of this, and never once in
the Greek New Testament did they mistake or substitute the name “Zeus” for the
name “Jesus.” Thus, as you can clearly see, the names “Jesus” and “Zeus” in the
33
original Greek are spelled differently, pronounced differently, have different roots
and suffixes, and have different meanings. They are not the same names. For this
reason, Dr. York and everyone else who teach this nonsense need to stop deceiving
the people and simply do some real research.
24. QUESTION: IF THE NAME JESUS IS NOT THE CORRECT NAME

TO USE, THEN WHAT IS THE CORRECT NAME TO
USE?
ANSWER: If you answer according to Dr. York’s books, you will say the
correct name to use instead of Jesus is the Hebrew name
“Yashua.”
If you have read any of Dr. York’s books concerning Jesus, you will see that
he almost always refers to him as “Yashua.” However, the fact of the matter is, no
one really knows for sure what the correct Hebrew name for our Lord and Savior
is. Even though “Yashua” is the most common name substituted for “Jesus” by
most Hebrew Israelite congregations, it is by far not the only name used. There are
literally dozens of different spellings and pronunciations used by various Hebrew
Israelite congregations who claim to have the correct name. Each of them promotes
the particular name they use as the correct and only name God approves.
If you do a little research, you will discover that some of the names they use
for Jesus besides “Yashua” are Y’shua, Yehshua, Yesha, Yahshua, Yehoshua,
YESHUAH, YEHSHUAH, YAHUSHUWA, Yahooshua, YHWHSOSANA,
Yahushuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Iahoshua, Yaohushua and Yahawashi (just to
name a few). So why are they coming up with so many different names for the
Messiah and who is correct? It is obvious that none of them really know which
name is right and are therefore no better than Christians who use the name Jesus.
So if the name Jesus is incorrect, then guess what? So are the names they use.
25. QUESTION: WHERE DID THE WORD “CHRIST” COME FROM?
ANSWER: If you answer this question with Dr. York’s books, you will
say that the word “Christ” derived from the Hindu word
“Krishna.”
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 1 Scroll # 102, Dr. York states:
Originally The Word ‘KRISTOS’ Comes From Sanskrit, The Ancient Script
Of The 200 Fallen Angelic Beings Who Were Cast Down To The Planet
34
Earth. The Head Of The Fallen Angelic Beings Was Named ‘Tarnush’ And
He Was Called “KRISNA,” The Demon Deity Of The Hindus, Who Were
Descendents Of The 200 Fallen Eloheem (Disagreeable Beings) Of The
Land Of Nod. This Is Where The Word ‘KRISTOS’ Is Derived (emphasis
added). (18-19)
According to this book, Dr. York says that the word “Christ” derived from
the name “Krishna,” the Hindu deity. This, however, is not true. Once again, Dr.
York is using phonetics, and this time he is using it to connect the word “Christ” to
the word “Krishna.” They are not the same words. The word “Christ” comes from
the Greek word Christos, which means anointed. This comes from the root word
Chrio, which means to anoint (Strong G5547). The word “Christ” is the Greek
equivalent of the word “Messiah,” which comes from the Hebrew word
Mashiyach, meaning anointed, anointed one (Strong H4899). The word Mashiyach
comes from the root word Mashach, which means to smear, anoint, spread a liquid
(Strong H4866). If you do a little research, you will discover that the Hindu word
for “Christ” (Messiah) is Mase', not Krishna as Dr. York claims. Just ask anyone
who speaks Hindi. They will verify this is true. A little further research will also
reveal that Jesus is pronounced “Yesu” in Hindi. Therefore, Jesus Christ in Hindi is
Yesu Mase'. So after careful research, you can see that there is no connection
between the words “Christ” and “Krishna.”
Now on a side note, here is an interesting point for you to think about. Dr.
York says in his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian” Part 1 Scroll # 102 that
“The Head Of The Fallen Angelic Beings Was Named ‘Tarnush’ And He Was
Called ‘KRISNA,’ THE DEMON DEITY OF THE HINDUS, Who Were
Descendents Of The 200 Fallen Eloheem (Disagreeable) Of The Land Of Nod.
This Is Where The Word ‘Kristos’ Is Derived” (emphasis added) (18). Then Dr.
York further states: “HINDUISM Is The Religion Of ‘The DEVIL” (emphasis
added) (21). If you believe that the word “Christ” really comes from the word
“Krishna” and Hinduism is the religion of the Devil, does this mean that when you
refer to yourselves as the Egiptian Church of ‘Karast’ CHRIST, you are really
referring to yourselves as the Egiptian Church of DEVILS?
26. QUESTION: IF SOMEONE CALLS ON JESUS AS “CHRIST,”

INSTEAD OF “MESSIAH,” WILL HE KNOW THAT
THEY ARE CALLING ON HIM?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, no.
35
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian” Part 1 Scroll # 102, Dr.
York states: “I Feel Sorry For All Those People Calling Jesus, ‘Christ,’ Because If
You Call On ‘The Messiah’ Jesus As ‘Christ,’ He Will NOT Know Who You Are
Calling” (emphasis added) (24). Dr. York is saying in this book that Jesus does not
know that the people who call on him as “Christ” are calling on him, and if Jesus
does not know that the people who call on him as “Christ” are calling on him, then
that would mean that Jesus does not hear the prayers of millions of people.
27. QUESTION: IF JESUS DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE

CALLING ON HIM AS “CHRIST” ARE CALLING ON
HIM, WHY DID HE RESPOND TO THE SAMARITAN
WOMAN IN JOHN 4:25-26 WHEN SHE REFERRED TO
HIM AS “CHRIST”?
ANSWER: You will have no explanation to this question.
JOHN 4:25-26
The woman saith unto him, I know that MESSIAS cometh, which is called CHRIST:
when he is come, he will tell us all things. JESUS SAITH UNTO HER, I THAT
SPEAK UNTO THEE AM HE (emphasis added).
Even though this Samaritan woman referred to Jesus as “Christ,” as well as

“Messiah,” he still knew that she was talking about him and therefore answered
her. If you do some research, you will see that the Jews and their surrounding
neighbors were multi-lingual people. This is revealed in John 1:41 where it says,
“He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the
Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” The Greek word translated
“interpreted” in this verse is Methermeneuo, which means to translate into the
language of one with whom I wish to communicate, to interpret (Strong G3177).
So the Apostle Andrew was saying that “Messiah” is translated “Christ.” This
proves that the Jews recognized that the Greek Christos (Christ) corresponded to
their Hebrew Mashiyach (Messiah). Jesus, like all other Jews at that time, was well
aware of this fact, which is why he responded to “Christ” as well as “Messiah.”
Then you have some that speculate that the New Testament was originally
written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek. They say it only seems as
though Jesus responded to “Christ” since the word “Christ” was translated from the
original Hebrew word “Messiah.” However, this is only a theory. There are
thousands of copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts. Yet archeologists still
have not unearthed even one ancient manuscript that verifies the existence of a
36
“Hebrew” New Testament. In fact, Aramaic was the spoken dialogue of the Jews
during the time Jesus walked the earth and Greek was the universal language.
Hebrew was rarely spoken except in Synagogue service while reading the Torah.
So it is very likely that the Jews of this time spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. This
would explain why the events in the New Testament are recorded in Greek instead
of Hebrew. As you can clearly see, the Bible verifies that Jesus knew that the
people who referred to him as “Christ” were certainly addressing him. So the real
question is, “Where did Dr. York get the idea that Jesus is limited by some kind of
language barrier?”
28. QUESTION: IS THE IMMANUEL SPOKEN OF IN ISAIAH 7:14

REFERRING TO JESUS OR THE PROPHET ISAIAH’S
SON?
ANSWER: I do not see how you will be able to give a straight answer
because Dr. York contradicts himself regarding this subject
in his books.
According to Dr. York’s book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134,
the Immanuel spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus. He states:
Emmanuel, The Son Of Isaiah And Majia Had A Few Similarities With
Jesus, Although They Were Born In Two Different Eras Of Time.
Emmanuel Was A ‘Messiah’ In His Time Which Was When the Kings Of
Syria And Israel Held The House Of David Captive (Isaiah 7:13); The Last
Israelite Jesus, Was Also A Messiah. Emmanuel Was Born Of A Virgin
Mother Named Majia And He Was Crucified. The Prophecy In The Book Of
Isaiah Does NOT Refer To Jesus, It Refers To Emmanuel. (45-46)
However, according to his book, The Titles Of Jesus In The Koran And Bible
Scroll # 122, Dr. York claims that the Immanuel spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 is
referring to Jesus. He states: “All The Titles Of Jesus In The Koran Were
Mentioned Previously, And Some Of The Titles Of Jesus Were Mentioned In The
Bible As Well, But Here Are A More Extensive List Of Jesus’ Titles In The Bible”
(108). If you look at page 109 in this same book, you will see that Dr. York lists
the following titles as pertaining to Jesus.
The Mediator
1Timothy 2:5
37
The Rewarder Of Faith
Hebrews 11:6
A Man Of Sorrows
Isaiah53:3
The Chief Cornerstone

Isaiah 28:16
The Captain Of Salvation

Ephesians 6:17
I AM That I AM
Exodus 3:14
Counselor
Isaiah 9:6
EMMANUEL
Isaiah 7:14
Notice that Dr. York listed the Emmanuel from Isaiah 7:14 as one of Jesus’
titles, which means that Dr. York is saying that the Emmanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is
referring to Jesus. How can Dr. York say that “Emmanuel” is one of the titles of
Jesus when he said in Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134 that the
Emmanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus? It would seem that Dr. York is
unsure who the Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is referring to. So again, is the Emmanuel
in Isaiah 7:14 referring to Jesus or Isaiah’s son? You will not be able to give a
straight answer using Dr. York’s books.
However, the fact is that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is a twofold prophecy, which
means it refers to Isaiah’s son, “Immanuel” and Jesus Christ. First we will examine
Isaiah 7:14-15.
ISAIAH 7:14-15
Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a SIGN; behold, a VIRGIN shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Butter and honey
shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good (emphasis
added).
38
As you have just read, Immanuel’s birth would be a sign given by God
Himself. Now if you read verses 1-7 of chapter 7, you will see that the birth of
Immanuel would signify and confirm a promise God made with Ahaz, who was
king of Judah at the time. This promise was that Syria and Ephraim would not
remove Ahaz from being king of Judah.
ISAIAH 7:5-7
Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against
thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach
therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith
the Lord GOD, it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
The prophecy concerning Immanuel continues on into verse 16 stating: “For

before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that
thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” Once Immanuel was born, God
would be with Ahaz and his kingdom, Judah. This is why Isaiah 8:9-10 states:
“Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear,
all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird
yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall
come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for GOD IS WITH US”
(emphasis added). Notice that verse 10 says, “Take counsel together, and it shall
come to nought …” (emphasis added). Remember that Isaiah 7:5 said that Syria,
Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah have taken evil counsel against Judah. So the
warning in verses 8 and 9 of Isaiah chapter 8 is referring to them.
Now, if you read Matthew 1:21-23, you will see that the prophecy concerning
Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled again when Jesus Christ was born.
MATTHEW 1:21-23
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall
save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be
FULFILLED which was spoken of the lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a
VIRGIN shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is GOD WITH US (emphasis added).
Now regarding Jesus being the foretold Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14, Dr. York
states in his book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134: “The Point
Needs To Be Made That, Yashua Was Never Called Emmanuel By Anyone In His
39
Time” (44). Dr. York is correct about this. There is no biblical record of anyone
addressing Jesus as “Emmanuel.” So what did Matthew 1:23 mean when it said
that Jesus would be called “Emmanuel?” It was saying that Jesus would be called
God with us, which is what “Immanuel” means. When Jesus was born, God was
literally with us. Yes, Jesus was God in human form and this will be proven later in
this section. We see that the scriptures clearly show that Isaiah 7:14 is a twofold
prophecy referring both to Jesus Christ and Isaiah’s son, Immanuel. It seems as if
Dr. York does not understand that some prophecies in the Bible are twofold and
therefore could not make up his mind whether Isaiah 7:14 was referring to Jesus
Christ or Isaiah’s son.
29. QUESTION: WAS JESUS REALLY BORN DECEMBER 25TH?
ANSWER: If you answer according to Dr. York’s books, you will say
no.
Dr. York’s states in his book, Santa Or Satan? The Fallacy Of Christmas
Scroll # 31 that “December twenty-Fifth (25th) Is The Date Of The Birth Of
NIMROD, NOT Yashua [Jesus]” (emphasis added) (33). According to Dr. York,
December 25th is Nimrod’s birthday, not Jesus’. Also, in this same book Dr. York
writes: “In Actuality The Holiday You Celebrate Today Has NOTHING To Do
With The Birth Of Yashua (Jesus) Except For The Fact That It Is Suppose To Be
His Birthday, And That’s NOT Even True” (emphasis added) (37). We can clearly
see from this book that Dr. York is saying that Christmas has nothing to do with
the birth of Yashua (Jesus) and that it is not his birthday.
30. QUESTION: IF JESUS WAS NOT REALLY BORN DECEMBER

25TH, WHEN WAS HE BORN?
ANSWER: In his book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92, Dr. York states:
“When I Say The Real Jesus, I Am Referring To The Jesus
(Yahshu’a) Of 2000 Years Ago, The Son Of Mary And
Adopted Son Of Joseph – The Carpenter’s Son. He Was Born
June 26, 7 A.D” (4).
31. QUESTION: IF JESUS WAS REALLY BORN JUNE 26, 7 A.D. AS DR.
YORK CLAIMS AND DECEMBER 25TH IS NOT JESUS’
BIRTHDAY, BUT NIMROD’S, WHY DOES DR. YORK
TEACH IN THE HOLY TABLETS THAT JESUS’
40
BIRTHDAY SHOULD STILL BE CELEBRATED ON
DECEMBER 25TH?
ANSWER: You cannot answer this question.
In the The Holy Tablets in the section titled “The Christians,” Dr. York gives
the following decree: “And This Is How This Event, Of The Birth Of Yashua
Should Be Commemorated.” Then below this, he says: “Children’s Day:”
DECEMBER TWENTY FIFTH is YAWM ‘UL AWLAAD, CHILDREN’S DAY,
Most Commonly Known As CHRISTMAS” (emphasis added) (1361). In this
book, Dr. York is saying that Yashua’s (Jesus) birthday should be celebrated on
December 25th. Why does Dr. York say that Jesus’ birthday should be celebrated
on December 25th (Nimrod’s birthday) in the Holy Tablets if he was really born
June 26th? And do not think for one second that I did not notice that Dr. York
conveniently made Jesus’ birthday the same day as his own! This is just another
deceitful way to make Nuwaubians subliminally view him as a type of “Jesus.”
32. QUESTION: SHOULD PEOPLE CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS?
ANSWER: Again, I do not see how you will be able to give a straight
answer because Dr. York contradicts himself in his books
regarding this subject.
As I have already shown in The Holy Tablets in the section, “The

Christians,” Dr. York states this concerning Christmas: “And This Is How This
Event, Of The Birth Of Yashua Should Be COMMEMORATED” (emphasis
added) (1361). Then he declares: “Children’s Day:” DECEMBER TWENTY
FIFTH is Yawm ‘Ul Awlaad, children’s day, most commonly known as
CHRISTMAS” (emphasis added) (1361).Yet, Dr. York states in his book, Santa
Or Satan? The Fallacy Of Christmas Scroll # 31: “DECEMBER 25TH, OR
‘CHRISTMAS,’ Is Nothing More Than Another Of SATAN’S Holidays. They
PRETEND That The Prophet/Messiah Jesus Was Born On This Day, And It Is
Celebrated As His Birthday” (emphasis added) (37). So does this mean that
Nuwaubians are also celebrating Satan’s holiday and pretending that Jesus was
born December 25th, since Dr. York says that Jesus’ birthday should be
commemorated on this day?
Dr. York also apparently knew that people would say that “Children’s Day”
(Ulaadat Yowm) is nothing more than the Nuwaubians’ own version of Christmas.
Dr. York responds in his book Santa Or Satan? The Fallacy Of Christmas by
stating: “When It Is Said That The Holy Tabernacle Ministries Is Only Doing This
41
To Emulate The Amorites Christmas, Say Yes, We Are. We Are Trying To
Reform By Turning Evil To Good Because So Many Of Our People Already
Believe In SATAN’S Holiday Called CHRISTMAS” (emphasis added) (112-13).
Nevertheless, it says in Isaiah 5:20: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and
good evil ….” This is exactly what Dr. York is doing. He is taking Christmas, an
evil, pagan holiday of the Devil, and calling it good. Why is that? This is
unnecessary because Jesus already told us in the Bible what to do to remember
him. Luke 22:15 states, “And [Jesus] said unto them, With desire I have desired to
eat this passover with you before I suffer.” Then verse 19 states, “And he took
bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body
which is given for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE of ME” (emphasis
added). In these verses, Jesus commands us to celebrate the Passover meal to
remember him, not Christmas. Jesus never said to celebrate his birthday, so why do
Nuwaubians do it? Now, do you currently partake of the Passover meal in
commemoration of Jesus as he commanded?
What exactly are Nuwaubians doing different on Children’s Day that is
supposedly turning it from evil to good? Christmas is celebrated on December
25th; Children’s Day is celebrated on December 25th. So-called Christians
celebrate Christmas in commemoration of Jesus’ birth and Nuwaubians celebrate
Children’s Day in commemoration of Jesus’ birth. So-called Christians lie to their
children by telling them that Santa Clause brings toys to children who are good all
around the world, and Nuwaubians lie to their children by telling them that angels
bring toys to children who are good all around the world (The Holy Tablets
Chapter Fifteen “Children’s Day,”1361-65). Is Dr. York serious? Are angels now
bringing toys to children? I thought Nuwaubians only dealt with facts and not
myths and fairy tales. Do you seriously believe that angels bring toys to children
all over the world every year? This is pure fantasy.
Nuwaubians even decorate trees for Children’s Day (The Holy Tablets
Chapter Fifteen “Children’s Day,” 1364) just like so-called Christians do for
Christmas even though Dr. York knows that Jeremiah 10:1-8 is says not to deal
with trees in an idolatrous way (Santa Or Satan? The Fallacy Of Christmas Scroll
# 31 91-92). This proves that Dr. York knows the truth, but still chooses to live and
teach the lie. So again, what exactly is the difference between the way you
celebrate Children’s Day and the way so-called Christians celebrate Christmas?
From what I can see, there is no difference. So once again, should people celebrate
Christmas or not? I do not see how you can give a straight answer using Dr. York’s
books.
42
33. QUESTION: HOW LONG DID JESUS STAY IN EGYPT AFTER THE
ANGEL INSTRUCTED JOSEPH TO TAKE HIM THERE
AS A BABY?
ANSWER: You will not be able to give a straight answer if you use Dr.
York’s books because he contradicts himself regarding this
subject, too.
According to Dr. York’s book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92, Jesus stayed in
Egypt until he was twelve years old after being taken there as a baby. He states:
“As All Great Egyptians Remember He Spent the First Years Of His Life In
EGYPT As The Angelic Being Told Joseph To Take The Baby There, Where He
STAYED UNTIL AGE 12. Then He Went Back To Jordan” (emphasis added)
(42). According to this book, Jesus stayed in Egypt until he was twelve years old
after he was taken there as a baby. However, The Holy Tablets does not agree.
HOLY TABLETS: AL MASIYHIYYIYN (THE CHRISTIANS) Tablet Seven:

The Travels Of Jesus, verses 1-3, 5-7, & 10:
Lo! As a babe Yashua was taken by his parents into EGYPT. Weaned until AGE
TWO under the close watch of his mother, at AGE THREE he started to study
alphabets and their meanings under an Egyptian teacher. AT THE SIX YEAR
THEY RETURNED BACK TO JERUSALEM for they heard of the death of Herod.
By age SEVEN, studying with the essenes of which Joseph was a member. He
memorized all the Hebraic text and returned to NAZARETH because it was now
safe for him and his family to return there. At age ELEVEN, Yashua was brought
to the council of Sanhedrin. Gammaliel, the grandson of Hillel, who was also one
of Mary’s teachers was so interested with the youngster that he personally
educated for the next year. At age TWELVE, HE RETURNED TO JERUSALEM
FROM EGYPT FOR THE FEAST OF PASSOVER (emphasis added). (1367)
Now according to verses 1-3 and 5-6, Jesus stayed in Egypt after he was
taken there as a baby until he was six years old and then he returned to Jerusalem.
Then at age seven, he studied with the Essenes along with Joseph. Then verse 7
says that when he turned eleven, he was brought to Gammaliel to study under him.
Keep in mind that there is no indication at this point that Jesus had again left
Jerusalem to live in Egypt between the ages of seven and eleven. Therefore, it is
safe to conclude by these verses that Jesus had been staying in Jerusalem from age
six to eleven.
43
Verse 7 then says that Jesus spent the next year studying under Gammaliel.
If you do the math, this makes Jesus twelve years old at this time. Finally, verse 10
says that when Jesus was twelve, he went back to Jerusalem from Egypt for the
feast of the Passover. This means that Jesus was already twelve when he went to
Egypt the second time, even though Jesus returning to Egypt a second time is not
mentioned in these verses. And since verse 10 also says that Jesus was still twelve
when he returned again to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, this means that this
time, Jesus did not even stay in Egypt a full year. If you add it all up, according to
The Holy Tablets, Jesus spent six years in Egypt after being taken there as a baby
and then returned to Jerusalem. So, which one is it? Did Jesus stay in Egypt until
age twelve, or was it until age six? I really do not think you know how to respond
to this question.
However, if you read Matthew 2:13, 19-20, 23, you will see that Jesus
probably did not even stay in Egypt more than one or two years after being taken
there as a baby. First, verse 13 says: “And when they were departed, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young
child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word:
for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” Notice how this verse refers
to Jesus as a “young child.” The Greek word translated “child” in this verse is
Paidion, which means an infant, a young child, a little boy, a little girl (Strong
G3813). Now we know that Jesus could not have been more than two years old at
this time because Matthew 2:18 says that Herod sent forth a commandment to kill
every child two years old and under in an attempt to kill Jesus.
Then verses 19-20 says, “But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the
Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young
child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought
the young child’s life.” Again notice that verse 20 uses the same Greek word
Paidion for “child,” which means Jesus could not have been that much older than
he was when the angel instructed Joseph to take him and Mary back to Israel.
Lastly, verse 23 says, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene.” After Jesus left from Egypt, he dwelt in Nazareth. How long did he
stay there? It says in Luke 4:16, “And he came to NAZARETH, where he had been
BROUGHT UP: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the
sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (emphasis added). According to this verse,
Jesus was raised in Nazareth, NOT Egypt.
Luke 2:39-42 also says, “And when they had performed all things according
to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And
the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of
God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of
44
the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after
the custom of the feast.” According to these verses, when Jesus went to Jerusalem
to keep the feast of the Passover at age twelve, he had just left Nazareth, NOT
Egypt as Dr. York claims in The Holy Tablets. It seems that Dr. York will write
just about anything in his books to link Jesus Christ to Egypt. It does not even
matter if it totally contradicts what is clearly written in the Bible.
34. QUESTION: WHERE WAS JESUS EDUCATED AS A CHILD?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York’s book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92,
Jesus was educated in Egypt as a child. He states:
Let Me Reiterate That Jesus Of 2000 Years Ago, Came Back

To Judea (Jerusalem) After Herod Was Dead When He Was 11
Years Old. He Was The One In The Temple At 13 Years Old
Where He Impressed The Elders With The Knowledge That He
Gained In The Mystery Schools Of EGYPT, Before Coming
Back To Jerusalem Once Herod Was Dead (emphasis added).
(32)
Now I know that this could not have possibly been true for two reasons.
First, as I have just shown, Jesus was not even raised in Egypt as a child. He was
raised in Nazareth (Matthew 19:20-23; Luke 2:39-42; 4:16). Therefore, he could
not have studied at any “mystery schools” in Egypt when he was a child as Dr.
York asserts. Second, even if Jesus did study at some “Mystery Schools” in Egypt
as a child, what knowledge could he have brought back from Egypt that would
have impressed the elders of Israel? According to 1 Kings 4:30, the wisdom that
God gave Solomon, who was an Israelite, “excelled all the wisdom of Egypt.”
Therefore, Solomon possessed wisdom far greater than that of Egypt. Since the
elders of Israel who lived during the time of Jesus were well versed in Solomon’s
writings, it is very unlikely that they would have been impressed by second-rate
knowledge brought back from Egypt. The bottom line is that Jesus could not have
been educated in Egypt as a child because the Bible clearly shows that he was not
even raised there as a child.
35. QUESTION: WHO WAS JESUS’ FATHER?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the angel Gabriel was Jesus’ father. In
his book, Who Was Jesus’ Father?” Scroll # 58, Dr. York
states: “The Real Truth Is, The Holy Ghost Who Appeared To
45
Mary Is The Same Angel Named Gabriel Of Which Jesus Was
Born. Thus, Making The Angel Gabriel The Father Of The
Child Named Jesus” (2).
In this book, Dr. York is saying that the angel Gabriel impregnated Mary
which allowed her to give birth to Jesus. This means that Dr. York is saying that
angels can have sex with mortal women and he is correct about this. Angels can
and did have sex with mortal women according to the Bible. This is stated in
Genesis 6:1-4.
GENESIS 6:1-4
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and
daughters were born unto them, that the SONS OF GOD saw the DAUGHTERS
OF MEN that they were fair; and they took them WIVES of all which they chose.
And the LORD said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is
flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were GIANTS in
the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN
which were of old, men of renown (emphasis added).
This is also verified in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. And just in case you have
doubts about the validity of the Book of Enoch, Dr. York himself referenced it in
chapter 11 of The Holy Tablets (El Lowha El Qudus).
ENOCH 6:1-6
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days
were born unto them beautiful and COMELY DAUGHTERS. And the ANGELS, the
children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let
us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ And
Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to
do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all
answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and bind ourselves by mutual
imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all
together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in
all TWO HUNDRED; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount
Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound
themselves by mutual imprecations upon it (emphasis added).
46
ENOCH 7:1-2
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose
for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with
them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and
made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare
GIANTS, whose height was three thousand ells (emphasis added).
36. QUESTION: SINCE WE KNOW THAT ANGELS CAN AND DID

HAVE SEX WITH MORTAL WOMEN TO CONCEIVE
CHILDREN, DOES THIS PROVE THAT THE ANGEL
GABRIEL HAD SEX WITH MARY TO CONCEIVE
JESUS?
ANSWER: If you believe Dr. York’s books, you will have to say yes.
However, what Dr. York does not seem to realize is according to Jesus’ own
words, good angels do not have sex.
MATTHEW 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the
power of God. For in the resurrection they neither MARRY, nor are given in
marriage, but are as the ANGELS OF GOD in heaven (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “marry” in this verse is Gameo, which means, to
lead in marriage, take to wife (Strong G1060). The Greek word used in this verse
for “as” is Hos, which means as, like, even as, etc (Strong G5613). In these verses,
Jesus is saying that the people that come up in the resurrection will not get married
and are like the angels in heaven. If the people that come up in the resurrection are
like the angels in heaven, that means that the angels in heaven do not marry either.
What kind of angels resides in heaven? Good angels reside in heaven. Thus, Jesus
was saying that good angels do not have sex. And the reason the good angels do
not have sex is because they know that it is a punishable offense to God. This too,
is stated in the Book of Enoch.
ENOCH 10:11-12
And the Lord said unto Michael: ‘Go, BIND Semjaza and his associates who have
UNITED THEM- SELVES WITH WOMEN so as to have DEFILED themselves
47
with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another,
and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, BIND them fast for
seventy generations IN THE VALLEYS OF THE EARTH, TILL THE DAY OF
THEIR JUDGEMENT AND OF THEIR CONSUMMATION, till the judgement that
is for ever and ever is consummated (emphasis added).
We can see from reading the scriptures that it was only evil angels that
disobeyed God and fornicated with mortal women. Now knowing just how much
of an abomination to God it is for angels to have sex with mortal women, would
He have sent the angel Gabriel to have sex with Mary? God forbid. As a matter of
fact, Gabriel was one of the four angels who reported to God that the angel
Semjaza and his associates were committing fornication with human women.
ENOCH 9:1-9
And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and GABRIEL looked down from heaven and
saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought
upon the earth. And they said one to another: ‘The earth, made without inhabitant,
cries the voice of their crying up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy
ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, “Bring our cause before
the Most High”.’ And they said to the Lord of the ages: ‘Lord of lords, God of
gods, King of kings and God of ages, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all
generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the
ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all
things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and nothing can
hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all
unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved)
in heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast
given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the
daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled
themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have borne
giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with the blood and
unrighteousness (emphasis added).
Gabriel was also the angel God sent to kill the giants that were born from the union
of the 200 angels and mortal women.
48
ENOCH 10:9
And to GABRIEL said the Lord: ‘Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates,
and against the children of fornication: and DESTROY THE CHILDREN OF
FORNICATION AND THE CHILDREN OF THE WATCHERS FROM AMONGST
MEN: and cause them to go forth: send them one against the other that they may
destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have (emphasis
added).
God was so enraged by what these angels did that He sent Gabriel to kill their
offspring. Therefore, God would not have later sent Gabriel to have sex with Mary,
a mortal woman, because doing this would have violated two of His most holy
laws. One of these laws is a law concerning marital engagement.
DEUTERONOMY 22:23-24
If a damsel that is a VIRGIN be BETROTHED unto an husband, and a man find

her in the city, and LIE WITH HER, Then ye shall bring them both out unto the
gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel,
because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his
neighbour’s WIFE: so thou shalt put away EVIL from among you (emphasis
added).
The Hebrew word translated “betrothed” in verse 23 is aras, which means to

engage for matrimony, betroth, espouse (Strong H781). Luke 1:26-27 says: “And
in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee,
named Nazareth, To a virgin ESPOUSED to a man whose name was Joseph, of the
house of David; and the virgin’s name was MARY” (emphasis added). The Greek
word translated “espoused” in verse 27 is mnesteuo, which means to betroth,
espouse (Strong G3423). Now if Mary was betrothed to Joseph as Luke 1:26-27
states, then there is no way Gabriel would have had sex with her because that
would have violated the law in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. The other law Gabriel
would have violated if he had sex with Mary is the heavenly law of immortality.
This is clearly expressed in Enoch 15:1-7.
ENOCH 15:1-7
And He answered and said to me and I heard His voice: ‘Fear not, Enoch, thou
righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice.
And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them:
49
“You should intercede for men, and not men for you: Wherefore have ye left the
high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with
the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of
the earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons. And though ye were holy,
SPIRITUAL, living the ETERNAL LIFE, you have defiled yourselves with the blood
of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the
children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also who die and perish.
Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget
children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you
were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and IMMORTAL for all generations
of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the
SPIRITUAL ONES of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling (emphasis added).
As you can see, all the angels of God know that it is unlawful for them to have sex
with mortal women. Dr. York also states in his book, Who Was Jesus’ Father?
Scroll # 58 that Luke 1:28 is proof that the angel Gabriel had sex with Mary to
conceive Jesus (96). Let us take a close look at this verse.
LUKE 1:28
And the angel CAME IN UNTO HER, and said, Hail, thou art highly favoured, the
Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women (emphasis added).
According to Dr. York, when this verse says “came in unto her,” it is saying
that the angel Gabriel had sex with Mary. If this is true, why did Mary ask the
angel Gabriel in verse 34 how this could be possible after he told her that she
would give birth to Jesus? When Mary said, “I know not a man,” she was saying
that she had never had sex before. She was saying that she was a virgin. How could
Mary make a statement like this if she had just had sex with the angel Gabriel in
verse 28? She would have understood how this could be possible because she
would have remembered having sex and being impregnated by the angel Gabriel.
Also, Mary would have not been able to tell the angel Gabriel that she has
never known a man sexually because according to Dr. York, she just lost her
virginity to him in verse 28. Can you see how illogical this is? When Luke 1:28
says that the angel “came in unto her,” it was simply saying that the angel Gabriel
came into the place where Mary was located, not into Mary herself. Dr. York also
claims that Luke 1:35 is also saying that the angel Gabriel had sex with Mary.
50
LUKE 1:35
And the angel answered her and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall COME
UPON thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God
(emphasis added).
Regarding this verse, Dr. York states in his book, Who Was Jesus’ Father
Scroll #58: “Make Note Of The Expression TO LAY UPON Which Is Translated
Out Of Your English Version” (emphasis added) (7). Now Dr. York is saying in
this book that when Luke 1:35 says “the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee,” it should really translate “the power of the Most High will LAY UPON
you,” meaning the angel Gabriel would physically lay upon Mary and impregnate
her. Something is not quite adding up here. First, how could the angel Gabriel tell
Mary in Luke 1:35 that he would have sex with her to conceive Jesus if he had
already done so in Luke 1:28? This does not make any sense at all.
Second, the Greek word episkiazo, which is translated “overshadow” in
Luke 1:35, does not mean “lay upon” as Dr. York claims. The word episkiazo
means to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to over-shadow (Strong
G1982). This comes from the root word epi, which means upon, on, at, by, before
(Strong G1909). The word epi is the same Greek word translated “upon” in
Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22, where it speaks of the Holy Ghost descending upon
Jesus in the bodily shape of a dove. Does Dr. York teach that the Holy Ghost had
sex with Jesus? I certainly hope not. Then that means that he cannot say that Luke
1:35 is saying that the Holy Ghost had sex with Mary because the same Greek
word is used there to describe what the Holy Ghost would do to her. When
Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22 said that the Holy Ghost descended upon Jesus, it
simply meant that Jesus was endued with the power of God. In fact, Jesus himself
told his disciples that this would also happen to them after his ascension.
LUKE 24:49
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be ENDUED with POWER FROM ON HIGH (emphasis
added).
The Greek word translated “endued” in this verse is enduo, meaning to

invest with clothing, array, clothe (with), endue, have (put) on (Strong G1746).
This “power from on high” is referring to the Holy Ghost. This is the same thing
that happened to Mary that allowed her to miraculously conceive Jesus. There was
51
no sex involved at all. It was completely supernatural. The only thing the angel
Gabriel did was inform Mary that this miracle would happen to her and then he
left. That is all that happened.
Lastly, Dr. York states in Who Was Jesus’ Father Scroll #58: “Mary Had To
Have Had A Sexual Relationship With A Man Because She Needed The ‘Y’
Chromosome Which Only A Man Can Supply To Conceive A Male Child” (97).
Dr. York is saying that there is no way Mary could have given birth to a male child
without having sex with a man, because only males carry the necessary Y
chromosome to conceive a male child. This carnal argument, however, totally
leaves God out of the picture, whereas in the Bible, God is very much involved in
the birth of Jesus. God, who designed and created the human body, could very
easily allow Mary to give birth to a male child without the aid of a man and
therefore without a Y chromosome. However, this subject does bring us to the next
question …
37. QUESTION: IF GABRIEL WAS REALLY THE FATHER OF JESUS

AS DR. YORK TEACHES, THEN WHY WAS JESUS
NOT BORN A GIANT LIKE THE PEOPLE IN THE
DAYS OF NOAH?
ANSWER: You will not have a logical answer to this question.
When the 200 fallen angels had sex with the daughters of men, the result
was a hybrid race of giants. These people were born this way because they were
the unnatural offspring of both angelic beings and mortals. So, if Jesus was really
the son of the angel Gabriel as Dr. York teaches, then it stands to reason that Jesus
should have also been born a giant just like the people who were fathered by angels
during the time of Noah. The fact that Jesus was not born a giant proves that
Gabriel was not his father!
38. QUESTION: DID JESUS EVER GET MARRIED?
ANSWER: If you believe Dr. York’s teachings, you will say yes, and that
he married Mary Magdalene.
In The Holy Tablets, in the section titled, “The Wedding Of Jesus” in verse
4, Dr. York states: “The wedding of Yashua bar Maryam took place in Cana in
Galilee” (1398). Dr. York continues to say in verses 41-42 of this section: “The
wedding at Cana prepared by Mary for the Lamb to marry, Mary Magdalene. This
was Yashua’s wedding” (1398). According to these verses, Dr. York is saying that
52
the wedding that took place in Cana, which is spoken of in the second chapter of
John, was really Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s wedding.
However, it states in John 2:1-2, “And the third day there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called and
his disciples, to the marriage.” The Greek word translated “called” in verse 2 is
kaleo, which means to invite, to call (Strong G2564). Now think about this, if this
was Jesus’ wedding, why does it say that he was invited? What kind of groom gets
invited to his own wedding? This makes no sense. Brides and grooms are not
invited to their own weddings, they do the inviting. Now verse nine says, “When
the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not
whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the
feast called the bridegroom ….” Does it say the governor of the feast called Jesus
or that Jesus was the bridegroom? No. It says he called the bridegroom, not Jesus.
Who was this bridegroom that the governor called to taste the water that was made
wine if this was Jesus’ wedding? This lets us know that this could not have
possibly been Jesus’ wedding.
Additionally, verse 12 says, “After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and
his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many
days.” If Jesus had just married Mary Magdalene, why does this verse not say
anything about her traveling with them? Do not try to say that Mary Magdalene
was one of the disciples mentioned in this verse. Jesus’ mother Mary and his
brothers were also his disciples and they were still singled out from the rest of his
disciples in this verse. If Mary Magdalene was with them, then surely she, if she
was Jesus’ wife, would have been mentioned, too. Yet, John 2:12 does not say
anything about Mary Magdalene. It does not even say anything about a wife. Why
not? Because there was no wife! This is just more proof that the wedding in Cana
was not Jesus’ wedding but someone else’s.
Dr. York also states in the The Holy Tablets under the section titled “The Wedding
Of Jesus” (19 x 7 = 133) in verses 36-39:
All the heavens was prepared for the wedding of Yashua for it was the laws
of his heavenly father that states ‘therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother and shall cleave unto his wife.’ This law would apply to Yashua
as well if he claims one jot or one tittle should not be removed from the law.
If it declares that the law came by way of Moses before Yashua, And Moses,
Abraham, Noah, and Adam all married and had wives, so the law would
apply to Yashua as well. (1401)
53
In these verses, Dr. York is claiming that the laws of the heavenly Father
dictate that a man must get married. However, nowhere in the Bible does it state
that a man or a woman must get married. If any man or woman chooses to, they
can live an entire life of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7-9). When the Bible says,
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife” (Genesis 2:24), it simply means once a man finds a wife, he is supposed to
leave his father and mother and start a family with that wife.
Furthermore, even if Genesis 2:24 was saying that a man must get married, it
never said when. Even if Jesus was supposed to get married by law like Moses,
Abraham, Noah, and Adam, he was crucified before he chose a wife. If Jesus was
killed before he chose a wife, would this mean he sinned? No, it does not. Once a
person is dead, they are exempt from the law (Romans 7:1). As you can see, even
if Jesus was supposed to get married like every other man, he was killed before he
had that chance and therefore still would not have broken the law of the heavenly
Father.
Dr. York also says in his book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92: “Mary
Magdalene Came To Wash His Body Against Jewish Law. She Could Not See His
Private Parts Unless She Was His Wife, (Leviticus 18:8-20)” (34). In this book, Dr.
York is declaring that Mary Magdalene could not have come to wash and see
Jesus’ naked body unless she was his wife and he refers to Leviticus 18:8-20 to
support this claim. Yet, if you begin reading at verse 6 of Leviticus chapter 18, it
says, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their
nakedness: I am the LORD.” When it says “to uncover their nakedness,” it means to
have sex with them, not to merely look at their naked body as Dr. York is twisting
it to say. If you continue reading, you will see that verses 7-20 is only talking about
unlawful sexual relationships between relatives or in other words, incest. In fact,
there is NO LAW in the Bible that states that only a wife can wash her husband’s
dead body, so where is Dr. York getting all this from?
Lastly, Dr. York’s doctrine of Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene is not even
original. This idea comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) by Michael Baigent,
Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. It also derives from Clive Prince’s The
Templar Revelation (1997) and books by Margaret Starbird. This theory was then
propagated by Dan Brown’s worldwide bestseller The Da Vinci Code (2003). Not
only is Dr. York wrong, he also appears to be a plagiarist.
39. QUESTION: WAS SIMON/BAR-JESUS (ACTS 8:9; 13:6) THE SON OF

JESUS CHRIST?
ANSWER: Dr. York states in The Holy Tablets under the section titled
“The Wedding Of Jesus”(19 x 7 = 133) in verses 123-124: “The
54
story does not stop there, Jesus and Mary of Magdalene had a
son, who they named Simon, And he became known as Simon
bar Jesus” (1404-05).
40. QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SIMON/BAR-JESUS WAS THE

SON OF JESUS CHRIST, THEN EXACTLY HOW OLD
WAS JESUS CHRIST WHEN HIS SUPPOSED SON
SIMON WAS BORN?
ANSWER: You really cannot give an exact age because Dr. York
contradicts himself regarding this subject too.
In his book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92, Dr. York states: “When I Say The
Real Jesus, I Am Referring To The Jesus (Yashu’a) Of 2,000 Years Ago, The Son
Of Mary And The Adopted Son Of Joseph – The Carpenter’s Son. He Was Born
June 26, 7 A.D.” (4). According to Dr. York, Jesus was born June 26, 7 A.D. In
The Holy Tablets under the section, “The Son Of Jesus” (19 x 6 = 114) in verses 6-
7, Dr. York states: “Simon Bar Jesus Was The Product Of The Marriage That The
Christians Claimed Never Happened. He Was Born SEPTEMBER SEVENTEEN
AND TWENTY AND EIGHT A.D” (emphasis added). If we go by these verses,
Simon bar Jesus was born September 17, 28 A.D. Now if Jesus was born 7 A.D.
and Simon Bar Jesus was born 28 A.D., then Jesus would have been twenty one
when Simon Bar Jesus was born.
However, it also states in The Holy Tablets under the section “The Travels
Of Jesus” (19 x 14 = 266) in verse 166: “At age TWENTY AND EIGHT he
married and impregnated his wife Mary of Magdalene” (emphasis added) (1374).
In this verse, Dr. York is saying that Jesus impregnated Mary Magdalene when he
was twenty eight. If Jesus impregnated Mary Magdalene when he was twenty eight,
that means that Jesus was twenty eight or twenty nine years old when his supposed
son, Simon was born. This is yet another contradiction. So, was Jesus twenty one,
twenty eight, or twenty nine when Simon was born? Dr. York definitely does not
seem to know.
The reason Nuwaubians think that Simon Bar Jesus was the son of Jesus
Christ is because “bar Jesus” literally translates “son of Jesus.” However, that does
not mean that he was the son of Jesus Christ. There were many Hebrew Israelites
named Jesus in the Bible who lived before, during, and after the time of our Lord.
“Jesus” or “Joshua” was a very common name. For instance, Colossians 4:11
speaks of a man name Jesus Justus. The Old Testament also speaks of more than
one person named Jesus (Joshua). We all know of Joshua the son of Nun, however,
other Joshuas are spoken of in 1 Samuel 6:14, 18, 2 Kings 23:8, and Zechariah 3:1.
55
The well renowned Jewish historian Josephus also speaks of many other
men named Jesus in his writings now known as The Works of Josephus. There is
Jesus, son of Phabet (Antiq. 6.5.3), Jesus son of Ananus (6.5.3) Jesus, son of
Sapphias, governor of Tiberias (Life 12, 27; War 2.20.4), Jesus, brother of Onias
(Antiq. 15.3.1), Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Antiq. 20.9.4), Jesus, eldest priest after
Ananus (War 4.4.3; 4.5.2) Jesus, son of Damneus (Antiq. 20.9.1), Jesus, son of
Gamala (Life 38, 41), Jesus, son of Saphat (Life 22; War 3.9.7) Jesus, son of
Thebuthus (War 6.8.3), and Jesus, son of Josedek (Antiq. 11.3.10). So again, just
because Bar Jesus means “son of Jesus,” this does not conclusively prove that
Simon was the son of Jesus Christ. Moreover, it does not even say anywhere in the
Bible that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. No marriage means no children, and no
children means Simon was not the son of Jesus Christ.
41. QUESTION: DID JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE HAVE ANY

MORE CHILDREN BESIDES SIMON?
ANSWER: Dr. York states in his book, The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92:
Yes! Besides The First Son Of Yashu’a Bar Maryam And Mary
Magdalene’s, Simon Bar Jesus, They Had No Other Children Until They
Took Residence In Egypt Between His 35th And 120th Year Of His Death.
The Remaining Children Moved South Into Nubia And There They Merged
Into The People. He Had Two Other Sons And Daughters. The First
Daughter’s Name Was Iglaal, His Second Son’s Name Was Zubair. And His
Third Daughter’s Name Was San’aa, And Their Third Son’s Name Was
Huday. They Became The Root Seed Of The MAHDI FAMILY IN SUDAN
(emphasis added). (36)
42. QUESTION: DOES DR. YORK CLAIM TO BE A DIRECT

DESCENDANT OF THE MAHDI FAMILY?
ANSWER: Yes, he does. In Dr. York’s book, The Nuwaubian Calendar

Scroll # 200, it states: “AL MAHDI Is The GREAT
GRANDFATHER Of Our Supreme Grand Master, NAYYA:
MALACHI ZODOK YORK EL, Known Then As As-Sayyid
Issa Al Haadi Al Maadi” (emphasis added) (35).
The “Al Mahdi” in this book is so named because he is a descendant of the

Mahdi family, the same Mahdi family that Dr. York claims Jesus and Mary
Magdalene started. If Dr. York is Al Mahdi’s great grandson and Al Mahdi is a
56
descendant of the Mahdi family of which Jesus Christ is the supposed progenitor,
then that would mean that Dr. York is actually claiming to be a direct descendant
of Jesus Christ!
43. QUESTION: HOW CAN DR. YORK POSSIBLY BE A DESCENDANT

OF JESUS CHRIST WHEN ACCORDING TO DR.
YORK, THE ENTIRE STORY OF JESUS CHRIST IS
PURE FICTION?
ANSWER: You will have absolutely no answer to this question.
In his book, Was Christ Really Crucified Scroll # 52, Dr. York states:
First, Let Me State For The Record, There Is No Proof Or Documentation

That A Real Person Named Jesus Christ (Isa Ibn Maryam) Ever Existed, Just
As ‘Mary Poppins’ And Many Others Are Man Made Stories, In Which
After Many Years, People Thought Are, Or Were Real People. Then As In
The Santa Claus Story It Does More Good Than Evil, So They Make It A
Real Story. Find Someone In His-Story And Say That Was The Real One?
Tom Sawyer, Superman, Dorothy Of The Wizard Of Oz And The List Goes
On. Well, Jesus Was Also Just A STORY, A PLAY Written By Joseph
Flavius Piso, That People Now THINK He Was Real (emphasis added). (1)
Dr. York also states in Jesus As Tammuz And Horus In History Scroll # 134:
“YOUR JESUS STORY IS NOTHING BUT A PLAY. You Christians Are Trying
To Live The Reality Of A PLAY” (emphasis added) (96). According to these two
books, Dr. York is saying that the story of Jesus is nothing but a play or a made-up
story. Do you realize what this means? If the story of Jesus is nothing more than a
play, then that would also include the part about him and Mary Magdalene getting
married and starting the Mahdi family. If this is the case, then Dr. York cannot
possibly be a descendant of this Mahdi family. Why not? Because according to
him, the entire story of Jesus Christ is a work of fiction written by Joseph Flavius
Piso, which means in reality, there is no Mahdi family or at the very least, there
was not one that was started by Jesus Christ.
This would also mean that Dr. York is trying to live the reality of a play
himself because he claims to be a descendant of this “fictitious” Mahdi family. So,
is Dr. York really a descendant of the Mahdi family or not? If you say yes, then
that means that you believe that the story of Jesus Christ is historical fact. If you
say no, then that means that Dr. York is a hypocrite for trying to live the reality of
something that is not real when he claims to only deal with facts. Which one is it?
57
44. QUESTION: WHO WAS JESUS SENT TO?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he was sent to Hebrew Israelites. He

declares in his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll #60:
“Jesus Clearly States Himself, Who Exactly He Was Sent To:
‘The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel’ (1).
45. QUESTION: SO WAS JESUS SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE

HOUSE OF ISRAEL ONLY?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, yes. He states in Who Was Jesus Sent
To Scroll # 60:
Now In Matthew 15:24 And 10:6, Jesus Said Himself That He Came ‘To The Lost
Sheep Of The House Of Israel’. Here In This Quote John 1:11, John Talks About
Jesus Coming To ‘His Own’. If Jesus Said He Came To His Own, Which Was
‘The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel’, This Proves That Jesus Only Came To
A Certain Group Of People, And These People Were His People. (16)
Notice that Dr. York refers to Matthew 15:24 and Matthew 10:6 to strengthen this
claim. Let us take a look at these passages.
MATTHEW 15:24
But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
MATTHEW 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded saying, Go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Still, Dr. York’s understanding of these passages is only partially correct.

The good news of the Kingdom of God was to be preached only to the Jews at first
and then later to all the other nations. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he told
his disciples in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you …”
(emphasis added). The Greek word translated “nations” in this verse is ethnos,
meaning a race, foreign (non-Jewish) one, Gentile heathen, nation, people (Strong
58
G1484). How could Jesus commission the disciples to teach all races and nations if
he was sent to give salvation to Hebrew Israelites only?
In 1 John 2:2, it states, “And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins: and
not ours only, but for also the sins of the WHOLE WORLD” (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “propitiation” is hilasmos, meaning atonement, an
expiator, propitiation (Strong G2434). How can Jesus be the propitiation for the
sins of the whole world if he was only sent to save Hebrew Israelites? As a matter
of fact, Jesus himself said in John 3:17, “For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the WORLD through him might be SAVED”
(emphasis added). Jesus said he was sent to save the world, not just Hebrew
Israelites.
There was a centurion who approached Jesus and asked him to heal his
servant who was sick of the palsy. Jesus offered to personally go to the centurion’s
house to heal his servant, but the centurion would not allow him to because he did
not feel he was worthy enough for Jesus to come to his home. Instead, the
centurion asked Jesus to merely speak the word and he knew that his servant would
be healed. When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said, “Verily I say unto you, I
have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you that many shall
come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out
into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:10-
12).
Jesus’ words in this verse are very interesting because he said that this
centurion’s faith is greater than any he had ever seen in Israel. This is a big
statement considering the fact that this included all twelve apostles. Yet, what is
really interesting is when Jesus said that other races will sit down with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while many Hebrew Israelites will be
cast out. How could Jesus make such incredible statements if he was only sent to
Hebrew Israelites?
Dr. York also teaches that when Jesus said “lost sheep of the house of
Israel,” he meant Israelites who were literally lost somewhere in the world. This is
revealed in Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60 when Dr. York states: “So I Ask
You This, Were They Found? Did He Say He Was Not Sent To The Lost But Now
Found? No! He Didn’t! He’s Still Looking For Them. Jesus Knew He Was Sent To
A People That Had Not Yet Come. That’s Why He Told His Disciples To Go Out
And Find Them” (9). It is obvious from this book that Dr. York thinks that when
Jesus said “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” he was speaking of Israelites who
were literally lost somewhere. Is this what Jesus really meant?
59
First, let us take a look at what Jesus said to the tax collector, Zacchaeus in Luke
19:10.
LUKE 19:10
For the Son of man is come to SEEK and to SAVE that which was LOST (emphasis
added).
In the Gospels, the “lost” (sheep) were sinners.
LUKE 15:3-7
And [Jesus] spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an
hundred SHEEP, if he LOSE one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the
wilderness, and go after that which is LOST, until he find it? And when he hath
found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he
calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for
I have found my sheep which was LOST. I say unto, that likewise joy shall be in
heaven over one SINNER that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just
persons, which need no repentance (emphasis added).
Matthew 9:36 also speaks of the “lost.”
MATTHEW 9:36
But when [Jesus] saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them,
because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, AS SHEEP HAVING NO
SHEPHERD (emphasis added).
This is what Jesus meant in Matthew 15:24 when he said “lost sheep of the
house of Israel.” He was not talking about Hebrew Israelites who were literally lost
somewhere. He was saying that the ones who were present were like sheep without
a shepherd. They spiritually did not know which way to go. Jesus was there to give
them guidance. This is why he said, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11). What
does a good shepherd do? A good shepherd guides the sheep. When Jesus told his
disciples to go to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in Matthew 10:6, they did
not go searching the world to preach to the lost Hebrew Israelite tribes. They
instead went to Hebrews Israelites who lived in the local region. Why was that?
The disciples did that because they knew that Jesus was not talking about the
Hebrew Israelites who were literally lost somewhere in the world.
60
Also, when Jesus told his disciples not to go among the Gentiles or into any
of the city of the Samaritans, he just meant for that particular moment. He initially
wanted them to only focus on preaching to the house of Israel. Later, however,
Jesus did send them to a village of the Samaritans. It says in Luke 9:51-52, “And it
came to pass, when the time was come that [Jesus] should be received up, he
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and
they went, and entered into a village of the SAMARITANS, to make ready for
him” (emphasis added). Jesus himself even preached to a woman of Samaria and
eventually to the entire town, staying with them for two days (John 4:1-42). As you
can see, Jesus’ ministry was not limited to the Jews only. He sent his disciples to
preach to the Jews first and when the time was right, he then commanded then to
preach to the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). This is what Paul meant when he
said in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST: for it
is the power of God unto SALVATION to EVERY ONE that believeth: to the Jew
FIRST, and also to the Greek” (emphasis added).
46. QUESTION: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE SAID IN JOHN

16:12, “I HAVE YET MANY THINGS TO SAY UNTO
YOU, BUT YE CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW”?
ANSWER: In his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 2 Scroll #

102, Dr. York states this concerning John 16:12: “Read It
Again!!! Jesus Was Not Finished Teaching Them Yet, So That
Makes His Doctrine Incomplete” (41).
47. QUESTION: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN IN MATTHEW 16:18 WHEN

HE SAID, “AND I SAY UNTO THEE, THAT THOU ART
PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK WILL I BUILD MY
CHURCH; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT
PREVAIL AGAINST IT”?
ANSWER: In 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 2 Scroll # 102, Dr.

York states this regarding Matthew 16:18: “If You Overstand
the Quote You Have Just Read, Taken From Your King James
Version Of The Bible, Which Most Of You Christians Read,
Then You Should Not Have Established Any Churches. Why?
Because Jesus Said He Was Not Finished Teaching” (41).
48. QUESTION: IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS SAYING

IN JOHN 16:12 THAT HIS TEACHINGS ARE NOT
61
FINISHED AND THAT MATTHEW 16:18 MEANS THAT
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED ANY
CHURCHES, WHY DID DR. YORK ESTABLISH THE
EGIPTIAN CHURCH OF ‘KARAST’ CHRIST”?
ANSWER: You have no logical explanation for this question.
Did Jesus secretly come back and finish his teachings? Did he personally tell Dr.
York to start the Egiptian Church of ‘Karast’ Christ? Or is Dr. York simply
contradicting himself again? I think we all know the answer to these questions.
First of all, Jesus was not saying in John 16:12 that his teachings are not
complete. When he said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot
bear them now,” he was simply telling his disciples that they would not fully
understand his teachings until they received the Holy Spirit. This is revealed in the
very next verse when he says: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he
will GUIDE you into ALL truth …” (emphasis added).
Second of all, the fact that Dr. York said that Jesus did not finish his
teachings proves that he must have not thoroughly read the Gospel of John. If he
had, then he would know that Jesus said in John 17:4, “I have glorified thee on the
earth: I have FINISHED the WORK which thou gavest me to do” (emphasis
added). The Greek word translated “finished” in this verse is Teleioo, which means
accomplish, consummate, concentrate, finish, fulfill, make perfect (Strong G5048).
This comes from the root word Teleios, which means complete, completeness, of
full age, man, perfect (Strong G5046). According to this verse, Jesus said he
finished the work the Father gave him to do, which means Jesus did finish his
teachings.
49. QUESTION: WHEN JESUS SAID TO PETER IN MATTHEW 16:18,

“AND I SAY ALSO UNTO THEE, THAT THOU ART
PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY
CHURCH; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT
PREVAIL AGAINST IT,” WAS HE SAYING THAT
PETER WOULD BE THE FIRST POPE?
ANSWER: It is hard to tell if you really know because Dr. York also
contradicts himself regarding this subject.
In Dr. York’s book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 1 Scroll # 102, he
states this concerning Matthew 16:18:
62
From This It Cannot Be Concluded That Peter Was The Rock That Jesus
Was Speaking Of Because After He Addresses Peter He Says And I Quote
‘And I Say Unto You, Thou Art Peter…[sic]’ He Didn’t Say ‘Upon You I’ll
Build My Church.’ Clearly He Wasn’t Addressing Peter Or Any Of His
Disciples. However Roman Catholics Have Managed To Twist Jesus’ Word
To Justify Them Saying Peter Was The First Pope. (39)
In this book, Dr. York is clearly saying that Peter was not the first pope.
However, Dr. York states this in The Holy Tablets in AL MASIYYIYN Tablet
“Twenty Yashua Travels To Damascus” (19 x 7 = 133) verses 43-44:
He Was Renamed PETER, Butrus, Cephas Meaning ‘Rock.’ Upon His

Separation From Yashua, He Became A missionary To The Judahites As Far
As Rome, And His Business Was Being A fishermen. He Was Responsible
For The Writings First And Second Peter In The ‘New Testament’ Today.
And Became The FIRST PAPAL, OR POPE (emphasis added). (1468)
You can clearly see in these verses that Dr. York is saying that Peter was the
first pope. This totally contradicts what he said in 360 Questions To Ask A
Christian. Therefore, it is evident that Dr. York seems to be confused on this issue
as well. So, was Peter the first pope of Rome or not? I do not see how you can be
absolutely sure if you believe Dr. York’s books.
The fact is Jesus was not saying in Matthew 16:18 that Peter would be the
first pope. The Greek word translated “Peter” in the New Testament is Petros,
which means a rock or a stone (Strong G4074). On the other hand, the Greek word
translated “rock” is Petra, which means a rock, cliff or ledge, a large stone (Strong
G4073). This is a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Did Jesus say “upon you,
Peter” or “upon your successors?” No. He said, “Upon this rock.” Roman Catholic
theologians are the ones who twist this verse to claim that Jesus made Peter the
rock upon which he would build his church. Why would Jesus build his church on
Peter when he called him Satan just a few verses later in Matthew 16:23? That
would not be a strong foundation.
Also, where in the Bible did Jesus or anyone else ever call Peter a pope?
Nowhere. This is Roman Catholicism. Peter was not a pope. If he was, he would
not have had a wife (Mark 1:30). Anyone who is familiar with the Catholic
priesthood should know that popes are not allowed to get married. (Why would the
very first pope be allowed a wife, but not any of the succeeding ones?) So what
“rock” or “stone” was Jesus talking about building his church on? He was speaking
of the very confession Peter made, which was Jesus being the Christ (Messiah), the
63
son of God. In other words, this “rock” that Jesus would build his church on was
himself.
1 CORINTHIANS 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK
that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST (emphasis added).
EPHESIANS 2:20
And are BUILT upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, JESUS
CHRIST himself being the chief CORNER STONE (emphasis added).
As you can see, the “rock” that Jesus was referring to that he would build his
church on is himself, and not Peter.
50. QUESTION: IS THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE REALLY THE

SAME PERSON AS TAMMUZ AND HORUS?
ANSWER: You should say yes if you follow Dr. York’s doctrine.
According to Dr. York in Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll #

134: “Tammuz Is Another Name For Jesus Of 2,000 Years Ago Whose Galactical
Name Is ‘Sananda’ And Whose Ancient Sumerian Name Is Tammuz” (91). Dr.
York also states in his book, Does Religion Breed Ignorance? Scroll # 98: “Let Me
Repeat Myself, They Are The Same People. The Story Just Changed As It Was
Retold From Place To Place. Thus Making Tammuz, Horus And Jesus ‘Christ’ The
Same Person” (12). Dr. York is therefore saying in these books that Jesus,
Tammuz, and Horus are really the same people.
51. QUESTION: IF JESUS IS REALLY THE SAME PERSON AS

TAMMUZ AND HORUS, THEN WHY DID GOD SAY IN
EZEKIEL 8:13-14 THAT IT WAS AN ABOMINATION
FOR THE WOMEN TO BE WEEPING FOR TAMMUZ?
ANSWER: You cannot logically answer this question.
Let me first say that the idea of Jesus being the same person as Tammuz and
Horus is one of the most popular teachings of Dr. York. It is one of the strongest
topics he pushes to promote the supposed authenticity of Nuwaubu. Nevertheless,
64
in the eighth chapter of Ezekiel, God shows Ezekiel a sequence of abominations in
a vision. Each time God shows Ezekiel an abomination, He would then show him
another that was even greater than the previous one. It was at this time that God
revealed to Ezekiel that it is an abomination to weep for Tammuz.
EZEKIEL 8:13-14
He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater
ABOMINATIONS that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the
LORD’s house which was toward the north; AND, BEHOLD, THERE SAT WOMEN
WEEPING FOR TAMMUZ (emphasis added).
I have seen Dr. York quote Ezekiel 8:14 in several of his books just to prove
that Tammuz is mentioned in the Bible. Yet, he never quotes verse 13. Why is
that? Could it be that Dr. York knows that reverencing Tammuz is an abomination
to God and therefore deliberately ignores explaining verse 13 in his books? You
decide.
The Hebrew word translated “abominations” in this verse is toebah, which
means a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable (Strong H8441).This comes
from the root word taab, which means to abhor, be abominable, do abominably
(Strong H8581). This is saying that God abhors (hate) Tammuz and the worship of
him. Now think about this. If Jesus is really the same person as Tammuz, why did
God consider weeping for Tammuz such a disgusting, abhorring act? This is
because Tammuz is not the same person as Jesus. Tammuz is a false god.
Yet, when the women wept for Jesus as he was being led away to be crucified, it
says nothing about God considering this weeping to be an abomination.
LUKE 23:28-29
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also
bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of
Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
In fact, God said he is well pleased with Jesus.
MATTHEW 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo,
the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
65
dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The Greek word translated “well pleased” in this verse is eudokeo, which
means to think well of, that is, approve (an act), to approbate (Strong G2106).This
means that God highly esteems Jesus and greatly approves of him. If Jesus and
Tammuz is the same person, why does the Bible say that God highly approves of
Jesus and greatly hates Tammuz? The answer is simple. They cannot be the same
person. So again, it should be clear that Jesus and Tammuz is not the same person.
If you do some research, you will find that Tammuz was a Phoenician deity
who was Adonis to the Greeks. He was originally the Babylonian sun-god,
Dumuzi, the husband of Ishtar, who was Aphrodite to the Greeks. Some sources
record that Tammuz was the son of Ishtar and the sun-god, Baal. In the Bible, God
severely condemns the worship of Baal (Judges 2:12-13; 1 Kings 16:30-31;
Jeremiah 11:17), which was nothing more than the Canaanite (Phoenician) version
of the Babylonian mystery religion. Baal and Tammuz is therefore essentially the
same deity, which means God severely condemns the worship of Tammuz as well.
Yet, there are several places in the Bible where it speaks of people worshiping
Jesus and never once does it say God condemned or corrected them for doing so
(Matthew 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; Mark 5:6; 15:19). Once again, it is clear that
Jesus and Tammuz is not the same person.
Now we will move on to Horus. As you read earlier, Dr. York claimed that Jesus is
also the same person as this Egyptian deity. Nevertheless, God strictly condemns
the worship of Egyptian deities as well.
JOSHUA 24:14
Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and PUT
AWAY the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in
EGYPT: and serve ye the LORD (emphasis added).
JEREMIAH 44:7-8
Therefore now thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; Wherefore
commit ye this great EVIL against your souls, to cut off from you man and woman,
child and suckling, out of Judah, to leave you none to remain; in that ye provoke
me unto WRATH with the works of your hands, BURNING INCENSE UNTO
OTHER GODS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, whither ye be gone to dwell, that ye
66
might cut yourselves off, and that ye might be a curse and a reproach among all
the nations of the earth (emphasis added)?
EZEKIEL 20:7
Then said I unto them, CAST YE AWAY EVERY MAN THE ABOMINATIONS OF
HIS EYES, AND DEFILE NOT YOURSELVES WITH THE IDOLS OF EGYPT: I
am the LORD your God (emphasis added).
The Hebrew word translated “defile” in Ezekiel 20:7 is tame', meaning to be

foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated), pollute, be unclean
(Strong H2930). Now, since Horus is an Egyptian deity, do not this verse and the
others apply to him, too? Yes! This means that God is saying that people who
worship and praise Horus are foul, polluted, and unclean. This is speaking of a
spiritual uncleanness, which means it is saying this is sin. However, the Bible says
the exact opposite about Jesus Christ.
JOHN 15:1-3
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that
beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it,
that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are CLEAN through the WORD which I
have spoken unto you (emphasis added).
TITUS 2:13-14
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and
our Saviour JESUS CHRIST; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us
from all iniquity, and PURIFY unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works (emphasis added).
1 JOHN 1:7-9
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another, and the blood of JESUS CHRIST his Son CLEANSETH us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
CLEANSE us from all unrighteousness (emphasis added).
67
The Greek word translated “cleanseth” in 1 John 1:7 and “cleanse” in verse
9, is katharizo, which means to cleanse, clean, purge, purify (Strong G2511). This
comes from the root word katharos, meaning clean, clear, pure (Strong G2513).
All of these verses are saying that people who follow and believe in Jesus Christ,
are cleansed from their sins. How can Jesus and Horus be the same person when
the Bible says believing in Jesus cleanses our sins, while believing in Egyptian
deities such as Horus, sinfully defiles us? There is only one logical answer. Jesus
and Horus is not the same person.
In his book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134, Dr. York
draws parallels between Jesus and Horus that supposedly prove they are the same
person. While some of these parallels are exaggerated and over simplified, there
are others that Dr. York claims are identical. We will focus on those. On pages 67
and 68 of this book, Dr. York makes the following comparisons between Jesus and
Horus:
Yashua Is Called The Good Shepherd Horus Was The Good Shepherd Who
With The Lamb Or Kid On His Carries The Crook Upon His Shoulder.
Shoulder, [sic]
Jesus Is Called The Lamb Of God. Horus Is Called The Lamb Of God.
Jesus Is The Bread Of Life. Horus Is Also The Bread Of Life.
Jesus Is The Truth And The Light. Horus Is Also The Truth And The Light.
Jesus Is The Way And The Door To Horus Was The Door Of Entrance Into
Eternal Life. Amenta, Which None Could Open.
Jesus Was Baptized By John The Horus Was Baptized By Anupp The
Baptist. Baptizer.
Jesus Was Born In Bethlehem, The Horus Was Born In Annu, The Place Of
House Of Bread. Bread.
Jesus Is The Christ. Horus Is The Krst.
The Star In The East That Indicated The The Star, As Announcer Of The Child
Birthplace Of Jesus, [sic] Horus.
The Blind Man Given Sight By Jesus. The Blind Mummy Made To See By
Horus.
Jesus Walking On Water. Horus Walking On Water.
At first glance, there is no denying that the parallels Dr. York has drawn
between Jesus and Horus are shockingly similar. There is only one problem. None
of these parallels are true! Dr. York merely took things that the Bible says about
Jesus and applied them to Horus! (It should be noted that Egyptologists and other
“black conscious groups” also do this.) Peter Joseph makes similar false
68
comparisons between Jesus and Horus in his popular Google film Zeitgeist (2007).
Also, did you notice that Dr. York never provided any sources that back up the
claim that Jesus Christ was “plagiarized” from Horus? Why? The reason is there is
no real historical documentation that back up this claim! None! The following
chart is a modified version of the chart Dr. York made comparing Jesus to Horus.
If you do some research, you will see that this chart is a true comparison between
Jesus and Horus.
Jesus is called the good shepherd. No source or historical record

whatsoever that Horus was called the
good shepherd.
Jesus is called the Lamb of God. No source or historical record
Lamb of God. Horus was represented as
a falcon or sometimes a man with a
falcon head.
Jesus is the bread of Life. No source or historical record
bread of life.
Jesus is the truth and the light. No source or historical record
truth and the light.
Jesus is the way and door to eternal life. No source or historical record
whatsoever that Horus was the door of
entrance into Amenta, which none could
open. It was actually the goddess
Amenta (Amentet) who stood at the
entrance to Amenta and offered food
and drink to the dead reviving them.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. No source or historical record
whatsoever that Horus was baptized by
“Anupp the Baptizer” or anyone else.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which Horus was not born in Anu, neither was
means “house of bread.” Anu ever known as “the place of bread.”
Anu means “house of the sun.” It
corresponded to the Greek Heliopolis.
Horus was born in Khemmis in the Nile
Delta marshlands where his mother Isis
fled to protect him from his uncle Seth.
69
Jesus is the Christ (Messiah/Anointed No source or historical record
One). whatsoever that Horus was called “Krst”
or was anointed.
A star in the east indicated the No source or historical record
birthplace of Jesus. whatsoever that a star announced the
child Horus or indicated his birthplace.
Jesus miraculously gave sight to the No source or historical record
blind. whatsoever that Horus gave sight to a
blind mummy or anyone else. In fact,
some Egyptian myths record that Horus
himself had to have his sight magically
restored by the goddess Hathor after he
was blinded by his uncle Seth during
one of their many conflicts.
Jesus walked on water. No source or historical record
whatsoever that Horus walked on water.
As you have just seen, NONE of the parallels Dr. York drew between Jesus
and Horus are true. That means Dr. York lied, plain and simple. Not only did he
deceitfully apply things about Jesus to Horus, he also lied about where Horus was
born and Horus being the door to Amenta! If you do not believe this, look up the
information I presented about Horus. You will see that I speak the truth.
Finally, there are many Egyptologists and “black conscious groups” that
claim that the Virgin Birth of Jesus derived from the story of Horus. They contend
that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. Yet, there is not a
single historical source or document that supports this claim. On the contrary, the
ancient Egyptian myths state that Isis had sex with the god Osiris to conceive
Horus.
“Thy sister protected thee, and she drove away thy foes,
“14. and she warded off from thee evil hap, and uttered the
“words of power with all the skill of her mouth; her tongue was
“trained, and she committed no fault of utterance, and she made
“[her] decree and [her] words to have effect, Isis, the mighty one,
“the avenger of her brother. She sought thee without weariness,
“15. she went round about through this land in sorrow, and she
“made light with her feathers, she made air to come into being
“with her wings, and she uttered cries of lamentation at the bier
“of her brother. 16. She stirred up from his state of inactivity
70
“him whose heart was still (i.e., Osiris), she drew from him his SEED,
“she MADE AN HEIR, she suckled the babe in solitariness, and the
“place wherein she reared him is unknown, and his hand is mighty
“within the house 17. of Seb. The company of the gods rejoice
“and are glad at the coming of HORUS, the SON OF OSIRIS, whose
“heart is stablished, and whose word taketh effect, the son of Isis
“and the HEIR OF OSIRIS.
Hymns To Osiris Chapter VII, verses 14-17 (emphasis added) (Budge 150).
Observe that it says that Isis drew Osiris’ seed, meaning his sperm, from him
and made his son Horus. Does this sound like a “virgin birth”? No. This is saying
that Isis had sex with Osiris and was impregnated by him to create Horus. There
are two accounts of Horus’ birth. One legend states that his mother Isis used a
magic spell to assemble his father Osiris’ dismembered corpse. She then revived
him long enough to be impregnated by him. In another account, Isis could not find
Osiris’ penis as it had been eaten by a fish. She therefore used her magic powers to
resurrect Osiris, and fashioned a new penis for him to conceive Horus. In either
case, this was clearly a sexual union, not a “virgin birth.”
The following are commentaries on the “conception of Horus” from various

Egyptian scholars:
ISIS helped OSIRIS in the struggle with their brother Seth, bringing Osiris
back to life by taking the shape of a kite and flapping her wings to put breath
into his body after Seth had used his trickery to kill him. As she did so, the
revived god IMPREGNATED her, and in due course she gave birth to a son,
HORUS. The Illustrated Anthology of World Myth & Storytelling. (emphasis
added) (Littleton 42)
“... drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering

above OSIRIS, who is revived enough to have an ERECTION and
IMPREGNATE his wife” Great Goddesses of Egypt (emphasis added)
(Lesko 162).
“After having SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, in the form of a bird, with the

dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, HORUS”
Gods and Men in Egypt (emphasis added) (Dunand and Zivie-Coche 39).
71
“Through her magic ISIS revivified the SEXUAL MEMBER of OSIRIS and
became PREGNANT by him, eventually giving birth to their child,
HORUS” Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt (emphasis added)
(Wilkinson 146).
“ISIS already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In
order to bring this about, she has to revive the SEXUAL POWERS OF
OSIRIS, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create
the first life” Handbook of Egyptian Mythology (emphasis added) (Pinch
80).
As you can see, Egyptian scholars testify that Horus’ conception was the
product of sexual intercourse, not a “virgin birth.” These sources, combined with
the fact that the Bible condemns the worship of Egyptian deities, are indisputable
evidence that Jesus and Horus is not the same person. The question you should be
asking yourself is, “Why did Dr. York lie about this?”
52. QUESTION: IS THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE THE SAME

MESSIAH WHO IS GOING TO RETURN IN THE
FUTURE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE?
ANSWER: Once again, I do not see how you can give a straight answer
because Dr. York again contradicts himself regarding this
subject, too!
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 1-4 Scroll # 102, Dr.
York asks: “How Will Any Of Them Know Who The Real Messiah Is, If They
Don’t Even Know That Jesus Of 2000, Years Ago Is NOT ‘The Messiah To
Come’” (VII). In this book, Dr. York is clearly saying that the Jesus of 2000 years
ago is not the messiah to come. Also, in his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll
# 60, Dr. York states: “It Is Quite Evident That The COMING Of The REAL
Messiah (And NOT The RETURN Of The Messiah JESUS) Is Very Close”
(emphasis added) (101). In this book, Dr. York is saying that Jesus is not
returning, but instead, the “real” Messiah will be coming. It is clear that Dr. York
is saying that Jesus and the “real Messiah” are two completely different
individuals.
According to his book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134,
Dr. York states: “TAMMUZ Is Another Name For JESUS OF 2,000 YEARS AGO
Whose Galactical Name Is ‘Sananda’ And Whose Ancient Sumerian Name Is
Tammuz” (emphasis added) (91). Dr. York also states in his book, Does Religion
72
Breed Ignorance? Scroll # 9: “Let Me Repeat Myself, THEY ARE THE SAME
PEOPLE. The Story Just Changed As It Was Retold From Place To Place. THUS
MAKING TAMMUZ, HORUS AND JESUS ‘CHRIST’ THE SAME PERSON”
(emphasis added) (12). According to these books, Dr. York is saying that Jesus,
Tammuz, and Horus are all the same people.
This is where it really gets confusing. In Dr. York’s book, Nuwaubian
Calendar A Daily Word From Maku Scroll # 200, it states: “Raju’ Shil El Masuh
Yawum This Is How It Should Be Commemorated: On This Day The Celebration
For When The Messiah TAMMUZ Comes Is Celebrated” (emphasis added) (204).
So in this book it is revealed that Tammuz is actually the so-called real messiah
that Dr. York says is to come in the last days. Now stop and think about this for a
moment. If Tammuz is the real Messiah to come and Jesus and Tammuz is the
same person as Dr. York teaches, then does this not mean that Jesus is indeed the
messiah to come in the last days after all? This is an obvious contradiction. In
some of his books, Dr. York teaches that Jesus and the “real messiah” to come,
who he says is Tammuz, are two completely different individuals. In other books,
he says that Jesus and Tammuz are one in the same. This does not make any sense.
What is even more confusing is the fact that there is a section in The Holy
Tablets called “The Return Of Yashua” (1483). How can Dr. York have an entire
section in The Holy Tablets titled, “The Return Of Yashua (Jesus)” when according
to his other books, Jesus is not returning, but someone else (Tammuz?) is coming
instead? Again, this is an obvious contradiction. Is the Jesus Christ of 2000 years
ago the same messiah to come in the last days, or should we be expecting someone
else? If you had to answer this question using Dr. York books, I would have to say
that you do not know the answer. If Dr. York spent more time reading the Bible
and less time attacking it, he would know for sure that Jesus, and not Tammuz,
Horus, or anyone else, is certainly the messiah to come in the last days to save his
people.
ACTS 1:10-11
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men
stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? this SAME JESUS, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so COME in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (emphasis
added).
These verses clearly state that the same Jesus who left 2000 years ago is
going to be the same one who returns in the last days to save his people. This alone
totally clears up all the confusion Dr. York has been teaching regarding this subject
73
over the years, so there is no need to go anywhere else in the Bible to further prove
this.
53. QUESTION: WHO WAS THE COMFORTER THAT JESUS SPOKE

OF IN JOHN 14:16?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the Comforter was the prophet

Muhammad.
In The Holy Tablets under the section, “The Death Of Yashua” (19 x 2 = 38) verses
23-25, 29-30, Dr. York states:
He left them the promise that he would send another parakletos, comforter,
like himself. Another holy person, or holy soul, who would not speak of
himself. But only that which he hears, would he speak. This prophesied
comforter was another [sic] than Mustafa Muhammad Al Amin, Commonly
called the prophet Muhammad born five and seventy A.D. in Arabia. (1479)
54. QUESTION: HOW COULD THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD HAVE

BEEN THE COMFORTER JESUS SPOKE OF WHEN
JESUS PLAINY SAID IN JOHN 14:26 THAT THE
COMFORTER IS THE HOLY GHOST?
ANSWER: Because Muhammad was not the comforter that Jesus spoke
about. The Holy Ghost is the comforter.
JOHN 14:26
But the COMFORTER, WHICH IS THE HOLY GHOST, whom the father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (emphasis added).
To make matters worse, Dr. York’s concept of Muhammad being the

prophesied Comforter is not even original. He borrowed this from his days as a
Muslim. Muslims are the ones who teach that Muhammad was the Comforter that
Jesus spoke of. Nevertheless, besides Jesus plainly saying that the Comforter is the
Holy Ghost, the interpretation of Muhammad being the prophesied Comforter fails
on other grounds as well. For starters, it says in the Koran in Surah 5:51: “O ye
who believe! Take not the JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS For your FRIENDS
AND PROTECTORS; They are but friends and protectors To each other. And he
74
Amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth
not A people unjust (emphasis added). Now the Bible clearly states that Jesus was a
Jew (Matthew 1; Luke 3:23-26; Romans 1:3). The Bible also states that Jesus is the
head of the Christian church (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:20-23; 5:23). Yet,
Muhammad, who according to Muslims was a descendant of Abraham’s first born
son Ishmael, states in the Koran that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews, of
which Jesus was one, or with Christians, of which Jesus is the head! Do you
seriously believe that Jesus would send a man like Muhammad to comfort his
disciples? I sincerely hope not.
There are many more points that prove that Muhammad could not have
possibly been the Comforter that Jesus promised to his disciples, but for the sake of
time and space, I will only give four more. First, Jesus promised his disciples that
God would send the Comforter to them, not Meccans, Medinans, or Arabians, who
Muhammad went to. Secondly, Jesus told his disciples in John 14:16 that the
Comforter would be with them forever, meaning the Comforter would be an
eternal entity. Do not try to say that the Comforter must have been some man and
not a spirit simply because Jesus always referred to him in the Masculine gender.
Both the Bible and the Koran always refers to God Himself in the masculine
gender and God is also a spirit (John 4:24). Also, when Muhammad came, did he
stay with his people forever? No. He died in 632 A.D. and his tomb is in Medina
where his body has lain for over 1300 years. However, Jesus said that once the
Comforter had come, he would never leave his disciples, but would abide with
them forever.
Thirdly, it is commonly alleged by some Muslims that the Greek word
parakletos, (an intercessor, consoler, advocate, comforter) which is translated
“comforter” (Strong G3875) in the New Testament is not the original word, but
instead, the Greek word periklutos, which supposedly means “the praised one.”
Muslims claim that the word periklutos was deceitfully changed to parakletos by
Christians in an attempt to hide the fact that Jesus foretold Muhammad’s coming
by name. They say that the definition of the word periklutos is the Greek
equivalent of the name “Muhammad” or “Ahmad,” proving that Jesus foretold
Muhammad’s coming by name. Nevertheless, there is not a shred of evidence that
supports the allegation that the original word was periklutos. There are thousands
of New Testament manuscripts pre-dating Islam and none of them contains the
word periklutos. Some Muslims will allege that Christians deceitfully changed the
word periklutos to parakletos, but they are in fact the deceitful ones because they
have no proof whatsoever to back up this claim.
Finally, Jesus continues in John 14:17 by telling the disciples that they
already know the Comforter who he calls the Spirit of truth. This definitely could
not have been Muhammad as he was born more than five hundred years later. How
75
did the disciples already know the Spirit of truth? Because according to Jesus, the
Spirit already dwelt with them and would also be in them. Now this is where the
theory that Muhammad is the Comforter is really laid to rest. Jesus was telling his
disciples that the Spirit would be in them just as it was in him (Luke 4:1). This was
a promise that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost shortly after his ascension.
ACTS 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in
one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto
them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all
FILLED with the HOLY GHOST, and began to speak with other tongues, as the
SPIRIT gave them utterance (emphasis added).
After this miracle occurred, Peter later confirmed that the Holy Ghost is the
promised Comforter when he said in Acts 2:32-33, “This Jesus hath God raised up,
whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY GHOST, he
hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” (emphasis added).When did Jesus
promise to send the Holy Ghost to his disciples? In John 14:16 when he said, “And
I will pray to the Father and he will give you another COMFORTER …”
(emphasis added).
It further states in Acts 9:31, “Then had the churches rest throughout all
Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the
Lord, and in the COMFORT of the HOLY GHOST, were multiplied” (emphasis
added). This verse plainly states that the churches walked in the comfort of the
Holy Ghost! So it is abundantly seen in the Bible that the Comforter or the Spirit of
truth is none other than the Holy Ghost. It is only wishful thinking that makes
Muslims and Dr. York allege that Muhammad’s coming was actually foretold by
Jesus Christ. However, as you have seen, a basic analysis of the Scriptures
completely refutes this theory.
55. QUESTION: IS JESUS GOD?
ANSWER: Like nearly every other subject, it is difficult to tell if you know
this answer or not because Dr. York contradicts himself
regarding this topic.
Dr. York states this in his book, The Resurrection Scroll # 59:
76
This Would Also Dispel Another Lie That’s being Told About Jesus And
That Is; He Is God. Why Would God Need To Run From A Mere Mortal?
(Matthew 2:13) Not Only Are You Saying The Ominpotent [sic],
Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnificient [sic] Heavenly Father Is Afraid Of
Mortals And That He Himself Gave The Breath Of Life To, But You’re
Also Saying That The Heavenly Father Can Die! Now Think, If ‘God’ Dies
Wouldn’t That Mean The End Of Your Existence? Don’t You See It’s Silly
And It Doesn’t Make Sense? If Jesus Was ‘God’ Himself, There Would
Have Been No Need To Hide From The Judahites And Roman Officials. (72
& 73)
So, according to this book, Dr. York is not only saying that Jesus is not God,
but that it also does not make sense to say that Jesus is God. Dr. York also states
this in his book, Who Was Jesus’ Father Scroll # 58: “No, Jesus Is NOT Eli (God),
Himself Come To Earth” (emphasis added) (100).Yet, this is all contradicted on
the back of the Nuwaubians’ pamphlet, Matthew The Publican Disciple Of Jesus
Pamphlet No. 1. It states: “We believe that CHRIST was in the beginning in God
AS GOD. The spirit of God” (emphasis added). Now if I understand this pamphlet
correctly, it is saying that Jesus was in the beginning in God as God, which means
Jesus was with God and is God. So, which one is it? Would people be lying, if they
said that Jesus is God, or did Jesus actually exist in the beginning as God, as your
pamphlet states?
The fact of the matter is there is a tremendous amount of evidence in the Bible that
proves that Jesus was and is God. To understand this, let us first read John 1:1.
JOHN 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS
God (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “Word” in this verse is Logos, which means a
word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God, decree, mandate or order
(Strong G3056). This comes from the root word Lego, which means to say, to
speak (Strong G3004). However, this “Word” in John 1:1 is not talking about
literal words that are spoken or words that are written. The “Word” in this verse is
actually one of the many titles of Jesus Christ.
77
REVELATION 19:12-13
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a
name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture
dipped in blood: and his name is called THE WORD OF GOD (emphasis added).
Since “the Word” (of God) is Jesus Christ, John 1:1 is actually saying, “In
the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was WITH God, and Jesus was God.” So now
we have Jesus, who was God in the beginning, with God. There are two Gods here.
The other God in this verse is the Father. John 1:1 is speaking of the same
beginning in Genesis 1:1. John 1:2 then says, “The same was in the beginning with
God.” The same “what” was in the beginning with God? The same “Word,” which
is Jesus Christ. Verse 3 then says, “All things were made by him; and without him
was not made anything made that was made.” The “him” in this verse is still
referring to “the Word,” which means Jesus created all things. Therefore, Jesus is
actually the God who “created the heaven and the earth” in the beginning as stated
in Genesis 1:1, and not the Father. This is clearly stated in Colossians.
COLOSSIANS 1:13-16
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the
kingdom of his dear SON: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even
the forgiveness of sins: Who is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God, the firstborn of
every creature. For by HIM were all things CREATED, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created BY HIM, and FOR HIM
(emphasis added).
Notice that verse 16 says that “all things were created by him and for him.”
The “him” in this verse is clearly referring to Jesus Christ. This is therefore saying
that all things were created by Jesus and for Jesus, which means Jesus is God.
Now John 1:14 says, “And the WORD was made FLESH, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of
grace and truth” (emphasis added). The Greek word translated “flesh” in this verse
is Sarx, which means the flesh of man or beast, the body of a man, the body, a
human being (Strong G4561). Keep in mind that John 1:1 says that “the Word”
(Jesus) was God in the beginning. Therefore John 1:14 is saying that Jesus, who
was God in the beginning, was made human.
78
The prophet Isaiah speaks of a child being born who would be called the mighty
God and who would also sit upon the throne of David.
ISAIAH 9:6-7
For unto us a child is born, unto us a SON is given: and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE
MIGHTY GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of
his government and peace there shall be no end, UPON THE THRONE OF
DAVID, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and
with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will
perform this (emphasis added).
The Gospel of Luke reveals that the child foretold in Isaiah 9:6-7 is Jesus Christ.
LUKE 1:31-32
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a SON, and shalt
call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID
(emphasis added).
David also knew that Jesus is God. This is revealed in Psalm 110:1
PSALM 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies
thy footstool.
The first time the word “Lord” is used in this verse it is translated from the
Hebrew word Yehovah, which means the existing One (Strong H3068). However,
the second time the word “Lord” is used in this verse it is translated from the
Hebrew word Adown, meaning lord, master, owner (Strong H113). Therefore, this
verse is saying that God told David’s Lord or Master to sit at His (God) right hand
until He makes his enemies his footstool. Psalm 110:1 is a prophecy. The “Lord” at
the right hand of God is Jesus Christ. This is abundantly seen in the New
Testament.
79
MARK 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and
sat on the RIGHT HAND of God (emphasis added).
ACTS 7:55-56
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the
glory of God, and JESUS standing on the RIGHT HAND of God, And said, Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the SON OF MAN standing on the RIGHT HAND of
God (emphasis added).
HEBREWS 1:3
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 on the RIGHT HAND of Majesty on high (emphasis added).
There are some Hebrew Israelite organizations out there that reject the New
Testament, so they teach that the “Lord” at God’s right hand is referring to David
himself. However, David is the person that is speaking in this verse. Why would
David refer to the “Lord” at the right hand of God as “my Lord” if he was talking
about himself? That would not have made sense. If the “Lord” at God’s right hand
was David, then David would have said, “The LORD said unto me, sit thou at my
right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool”?
Jesus addressed the meaning of Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:41-46.
MATTHEW 22:41-46
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think
ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto
them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying The LORD said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David
then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word,
neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions (emphasis
added).
When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose son is Christ, they told him the son
of David, which was correct. Yet, when Jesus asked them how is Christ, David’s
80
son, if David called him Lord, they were unable to answer this question. Why was
that? The Pharisees could not answer because they did not understand that Christ
was God in the beginning. Had they understood this, then they would have also
understood how it was possible for Christ to have been both David’s Lord and also
be his son. This is exactly what Jesus revealed when he said in Revelation 22:16, “I
am the ROOT and the OFFSPRING of David ….” The word “root” means origin,
source, derivation (Merriam-Webster). However, the word “offspring” means
descendants, children, young (Merriam-Webster). As you can see, these words are
direct opposites of the other. How can Jesus simultaneously be both David’s root
and offspring? Jesus can be both because he created all of mankind in the
beginning as God and then later incarnated in human form as one of David’s
descendants.
John 8:56-59 further proves that Jesus existed in the beginning as God.
JOHN 8:56-59
Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then
said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I AM. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went
out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by (emphasis
added).
When Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I am,” he was not just claiming to
have existed prior to Abraham. He was also making an even greater claim. He was
saying he had eternally existed as the God. “I Am,” which in Hebrew is Ehyeh, is
one of God’s titles. It states in Exodus 3:13-14, “And Moses said unto God,
Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God
of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name?
what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”
(emphasis added). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was saying, which is
why they tried to stone him for blasphemy.
Paul also reveals that when Jesus was in the form of God, Jesus did not think it was
wrong to consider himself equal to God the Father.
81
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the FORM
OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of
no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was MADE in the
LIKENESS of MEN (emphasis added).
Paul also plainly states that God was manifested in the flesh.
1TIMOTHY 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST
IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angles, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory (emphasis added).
The New Testament records that the disciples of Jesus worshipped him, which
means they also knew he was God.
MATTHEW 28:16-17
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had
appointed them. And when they saw him, they WORSHIPPED him: but some
doubted (emphasis added).
LUKE 24:51-52
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried
up into heaven. And they WORSHIPPED him, and returned to Jerusalem with
great joy (emphasis added).
If Jesus was anyone else but God, then there is no way he would have
allowed his disciples to worship him because that would have violated the law of
God, which stated in Exodus 20: 3, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” On
the other hand, when people tried to worship the disciples of Jesus, the disciples
would not allow it.
82
ACTS 10:25-26
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and
WORSHIPPED him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a
man (emphasis added).
ACTS 14:11-15
And when the people saw what PAUL had done, they lifted up their voices, saying
in the speech of Lycaonia, The GODS are come down to us in the likeness of men.
And they called BARNABAS, Jupiter; and PAUL, MERCURIUS, because he was
the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought
oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they RENT THEIR
CLOTHES, and ran in among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye
these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that
ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and
earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein (emphasis added).
Even the angel in the Book of Revelation would not allow the Apostle John to
worship him.
REVELATION 22:8-9
And I JOHN saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I
fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Then saith he unto me, SEE THOU DO IT NOT: for I am thy fellowservant, and of
thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:
worship God (emphasis added).
Incidentally, the Book of Hebrews states that even the angels worship Jesus.
HEBREWS 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let
all the ANGELS of God WORSHIP him (emphasis added).
The only one way the angels can worship Jesus is if he is God. The Apostle
Thomas even called Jesus “God” to his face.
83
JOHN 20:27-28
Then saith he to THOMAS, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and
reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but
believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my GOD
(emphasis added).
In John 17:5, Jesus says to the Father, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me
with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
What did Jesus mean by these mysterious words? Jesus was asking the Father to
give him the glory he once had before the world was created, but what exactly is
this glory Jesus spoke of? Jesus was referring to the glory of being God alongside
the Father before the world existed. As you can see, it is irrefutably clear that
according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is God.
56. QUESTION: IS JESUS MELCHIZEDEK?
ANSWER: If you believe Dr. York’s books, you will say no.
In his book, 360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church Scroll # 137, Dr York states:
To be Like Something Is Not To Be The Original. This Melchizedek Was

To Be LIKE The Son Of God NOT The Son Of God. And Jesus Says In
Matthew 27:43 And I Quote: ‘He Trusted In God; Let Him Deliver Him
Now, If He Will Haver [sic] Him: For He Said, I Am The Son Of God’. [sic]
So If Jesus Said He Is The ‘Son Of God’ And The Book Of Hebrews Says
Melchezedek Is Like The Son Of God, I Repeat Again They Can’t Be The
Same Person. (183)
Dr. York also says in this same book: “Now, Ask Yourself, If Jesus is
Melchizedek, How Can Jesus Be After The Order Of Himself? If Jesus Was
Melchizedek He Wouldn’t Have To Be After The Order Of Melchizedek, He
Would Be The Order Of Melchizedek. Once Again, They Can’t Possibly Be The
Same Person” (187). In this book, Dr. York is saying that Jesus and Melchizedek is
not the same person and he is right about this. Jesus and Melchizedek is not the
same person.
57. QUESTION: IF JESUS IS NOT MELCHIZEDEK, WHO IS?
84
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he himself is Melchizedek! Dr. York
states this in The Holy Tablets under the section titled “Zodoq:
Melchizedek” (19 x 20 = 380) verses 1-2: “Lo! Then El Eloh
The Supreme Being, Commanded All The Souls Of Creation
To Look At My Form, AND I INCARNATED IN THE FORM
OF MELCHI-ZEDEK, MALKI-TSEDEQ, MALACHI-
ZODOQ …” (emphasis added). (1633). It also states on the
back of several of Dr. York’s books: “For Too Long Now, We
Have Looked For Our Own Savior, Our Personal Savior, One
Of Us. And Now MELCHIZEDEK As Nayya Malachizodok
York El, Is With Us” (emphasis added).
This simply is not true. Dr. York is not Melchizedek or at least, not the
Melchizedek mentioned in the Bible.
Many people have sought the identity of the mysterious figure, Melchizedek.
The reason people find his identity to be such an enigma has always been because
of the third verse found in the seventh chapter of Hebrews, which says that he was,
“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of
days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually.” Before we investigate exactly what the author of Hebrews meant by
these seemingly extraordinary statements concerning Melchizedek, we must first
read where Melchizedek is first mentioned in the Bible, in Genesis 14:18-20.
GENESIS 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the
priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the
most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God,
which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Is there anything in these verses that suggests that Melchizedek was more
than just an ordinary human king? No. So, where would the author of Hebrews get
the idea that Melchizedek was something more, if in fact, that is what the author
was trying to propose? The only other place in the Old Testament where
Melchizedek is mentioned is Psalm 110:4 where it says, “The LORD hath sworn,
and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” This
is a prophecy referring to Jesus Christ, but again, there is nothing in this verse that
implies that Melchizedek was an angelic being. God, in this verse, is simply
expressing the uniqueness of the Melchizedek’s priesthood.
85
Unlike the Levitical priesthood of Aaron, the Melchizedek priesthood did
not pass from one person to another. Therefore, like Melchizedek’s priesthood, the
priesthood the Father bestowed upon Jesus Christ after resurrecting to life and
glory, will never be taken from him. It will remain his unique status in the eyes of
the Father. There is no doubt that this is how the author of Hebrews understood
Psalm 110:4. Take a look at what he states in Hebrews 7:20-25.
HEBREWS 7:20-25
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were
made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord
sware and will not repent, THOU ART A PRIEST FOR EVER AFTER THE
ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC: ) By so much was JESUS made a surety of a better
testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to
continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an
UNCHANGEABLE priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he EVER liveth to make intercession
for them (emphasis added).
By no means was God bestowing some type of angelic status upon Melchizedek in
Psalm 110:4. With that being said, how are we to understand Hebrews 7:3? To
answer this question, we should read Hebrews 7 from the first verse.
HEBREWS 7:1-3
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met
Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also
Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of
righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace;
WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT DESCENT, HAVING
NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS, NOR END OF LIFE; BUT MADE LIKE
UNTO THE SON OF GOD; ABIDETH A PRIEST CONTINUALLY (emphasis
added).
After reading these three verses you will see that the author sees
Melchizedek as a sort of an archetype of Jesus and draws parallels between the
two. He also brings four distinct things to our attention concerning the
Melchizedek priesthood. First, the Melchizedek priesthood is a royal priesthood.
Second, it is a righteous priesthood. Verse 2 says he was the king of righteousness.
Third, and again stressed in verse 2, his priesthood encouraged and exercised
86
peace. He was also “king of Salem, which is king of peace.” Last, and most
noticeably, verse 3 says he was, “without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of
God; abideth a priest continually.” Now, here is where some understand that
Melchizedek was a “theophany,” a temporary appearance of Jesus himself, rather
than a historical king of Salem. They feel that since it says that Melchizedek was
without descent, he was eternal and therefore, he was Jesus or an angel.
Just because Melchizedek foreshadowed Jesus, does not mean that he was
Jesus. In fact, if he was, many problematic questions immediately arise such as:
Was he born? If so, was he born of a virgin? Was he immortal? If he was immortal,
what does that suggest for the kingship of Salem in that period? What was the
priesthood there? Why are there no eternal priesthood recorded anywhere else in
the Bible? What use would an immortal have had for spoils of war? If he never
died, why did he not continue to rule as king of Salem? The problems introduced
when Melchizedek is viewed as Jesus are tremendous.
First of all, the idea of Melchizedek himself being eternal finds no support in
Genesis or Hebrews. Second, whenever God or angels temporarily appeared to
people in the Old Testament, they were always clearly identified as “God,” “the
Lord,” or “the angel of the Lord.” Never once in the Old Testament when God or
the angels appeared were they referred to as “Melchizedek.” What the author of
Hebrews is doing in Hebrews 7:3, is showing that what is true of Melchizedek
because of no preserved record is literally true of Jesus Christ. It says that
Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God. It does not say that he was the
Son of God. The Greek word translated “like” in this verse is aphomoioo, which
means to assimilate closely, to make like (Strong G871). The author clearly lets us
know in verse 11 of this same chapter that Jesus is another priest after the order of
Melchizedek, which means he could not have been Melchizedek himself.
HEBREWS 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people
received the law,) what further need was there that ANOTHER priest should rise
after the ORDER of Mechisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron
(emphasis added)?
Verse 15 states that Jesus was another priest after the similitude of Melchizedek.
87
HEBREWS 7:15
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec there
ariseth ANOTHER priest (emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “similitude” in this verse is homoiotes, which

means resemblance, like, as, similitude (Strong G3665). This comes from the root
word homoios, which means similar (in appearance or character), like manner
(Strong G3664). This verse is saying that Jesus resembled or was like
Melchizedek. It does not say that he was Melchizedek. When verse 3 says that
Melchizedek was without father or mother, or descent, it does not mean that he had
no parents or that he was not born or did not die. The Greek word translated
“without father” is apator, meaning fatherless, i.e. of unrecorded paternity, without
father (Strong G540). The Greek word translated “without mother” is ametor,
meaning motherless, i.e. of unknown maternity, without mother (Strong G282).
Hebrews 7:3 is simply saying that the Scriptures contain no record of
Melchizedek’s parentage and or his death. It is also the author’s way of comparing
the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical priesthood. The term “beginning of
days and end of life” is a comparison to the requirements of the Levitical priest to
commence duties at age thirty and cease at age fifty (Numbers 4:47).
Melchizedek’s priesthood had no such requirements. When it says he abideth a
priest continually, this again simply means, there is no record of his priesthood
ending, unlike the Levitical priesthood, which the High Priest succeeded on the
day of his predecessor’s death. All of this is further expounded in Hebrews 7:4-8.
HEBREWS 7:4-8
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham
gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people
according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of
Abraham: But he whose DESCENT IS NOT COUNTED FROM THEM received
tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without
contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes;
but there he receiveth them, of whom it is WITNESSED THAT HE LIVETH
(emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “descent” in verse 6 is genealegeo, which means

to reckon by generations, trace in genealogy, count by descent (G1075). These
verses are saying that Melchizedek was not of Levi’s genealogy. It is not asserting
88
that he had no genealogy. Also, notice that verse 4 refers to him as a man and not
an angel or God himself. If Melchizedek were an angel or God himself merely in
the form of a man, then here would have definitely been the time for the author to
point this out. Since verse 4 refers to him as a man, this must mean that he was a
normal mortal king.
The renowned Jewish historian Josephus mentions Melchizedek in his writings.

Interestingly enough, Josephus never once suggests that Melchizedek was anything
more than a human king.
AND thus was Jerusalem taken, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian,
on the eighth day of the month Gorpeius [Elul]. It had been taken five (34)
times before, though this was the second time of its desolation; for Shishak,
the king of Egypt, and after him Antiochus, and after him Pompey, and after
them Sosius and Herod, took the city, but still preserved it; but before all
these, the king of Babylon conquered it, and made it desolate, one thousand
four hundred and sixty-eight years and six months after it was built. But he
who first built it. Was a POTENT MAN among the Canaanites, and is in our
own tongue called [MELCHIZEDEK], the Righteous King, for such he
really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first
built a temple [there], and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly
called Salem. (War 6.10.1:435-438)
The name “Melchizedek” appears to have been the inherited title of the
kings of Jerusalem before the Israelites inhabited the land. Centuries after
Abraham, we meet another king bearing the title “Adonizedek” (Joshua 10:1),
meaning Lord of righteousness or justice (H139). This is another variation of
Melchizedek. With all these facts in mind, we are now able to accept Melchizedek
as a mortal human being. Still, one question remains though: Who exactly was he?
If you do some research, you will discover that Jewish tradition and rabbinic
literature unanimously identify Melchizedek as the patriarch Shem. For example,
the Midrash Aggadah (Targum Jonathan, Ned. 32b, Mid. Ps. 76:3) states that
Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. The apocryphal “Book of Jasher,”
another work rich in Jewish tradition, also implies that Melchizedek was Shem.
JASHER 16:11-12
And ADONIZEDEK king of Jerusalem, the same was SHEM, went out with his men
to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in
the valley of Melech. And ADONIZEDEK blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a
89
tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for
ADONIZEDEK was a PRIEST before God (emphasis added).
Notice that the Book of Jasher refers to Shem as “Adonizedek” just like the
king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10:1, while Genesis 14:18 says “Melchizedek.” This
shows that “Melchizedek” and “Adonizedek” are interchangeable titles. Shem was
really the only renowned and majestic dignitary during that Old Testament period
that could have held the divinely appointed office of the priest of God. He was 98
years old when God brought the great flood upon the earth and lived another 502
years after the flood (Genesis 11:10-11). This means that Shem lived on into the
lifetimes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This also means that Shem, being probably
the most renowned and revered figure on earth at that time, would have known
Abraham and would have undoubtedly had a long paternal-like relationship with
him. It would have been expected of Abraham to give this ancient and most
esteemed dignitary, now revealed to us as Melchizedek or Adonizedek, king of
Salem (Jerusalem) and priest of the Most High God, the tithes of all when he
returned from the slaughter (Genesis 14:14-20).
In Genesis 9:26 it says, “And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem;
and Canaan shall be his servant.” Here, Noah is selecting Shem from amongst his
two brothers, Japheth and Ham to represent the Most High God on earth. Noah’s
selection also made Shem the priest of God. In Genesis 14:20, Melchizedek says to
Abraham, “… And Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine
enemies into thy hand.” Notice that Melchizedek’s words resemble the words of
Noah in Genesis 9:26. Only Shem could have legitimately bestowed such a
blessing upon God at that time, since he was the one chosen by the patriarch Noah
to represent God on the earth.
But then you might ask, “If without descent means that there is no record of
Melchizedek’s genealogy, how could Shem have been Melchizedek when there is
a record of Shem’s genealogy in Genesis 10:21-32?” The answer is simple. There
was no record of Shem having a genealogy under the priestly title of Melchizedek.
Shem was not born Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, but was so named
later in life. We therefore see that the scriptures reveal that the mysterious
Melchizedek is not Jesus, not an angel, and definitely not Dr. York. The scriptures
and Jewish tradition imply that he was the patriarch Shem.
58. QUESTION: WAS JESUS CHRIST REALLY CRUCIFIED?
ANSWER: You will not be able to give a straight yes or no answer because
Dr. York drastically changed his view concerning this subject.
90
Dr. York has written several books wherein he states that Jesus was not really
crucified. In his book, Was Christ Really Crucified Scroll # 52, he states:
Read The Scriptures And You Will See For Yourself That YASHU’A WAS
NOT CRUCIFIED!!! Religion Is For The Ignorant. It Keeps You Mentally
Spell Bound. The Preachers, Pastors, Teachers, And Leaders Have You
Thinking That Jesus Died For Your Sins, When Inside Their New Testament
It Proves That YASHU’A WAS NOT CRUCIFIED (emphasis added). (82)
Dr. York also states this in his book, Nibiru & The Anunnaqi Fact Or
Fiction Scroll # 154: “For Years I Have Been Teaching Of How JESUS WASN’T
CRUCIFIED ON A CROSS And I Gave Several Facts To Back It Up” (emphasis
added) (112). Additionally, in Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134,
he states: “Paul, Unknowingly Along With Most Of The People During That Time,
Believed Jesus To Be Dead And Mistook This Meeting To Be Something Spooky
Or Mystical And This Incident Was Recorded As A Vision. JESUS WAS NOT
CRUCIFIED” (emphasis added) (31). In The Holy Tablets under the section “Only
A Wife Can Wash A Male’s Dead Body” (19 x 7 = 133), Dr. York states in verses
124-125: “It is a clear error, or an intentional deception. For this great one
YASHUA NEVER WAS CRUCIFIED, NOR DID HE DIE ON THE CROSS”
(emphasis added) (1450). Dr. York even reveals how Jesus supposedly died. He
states this in The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92: “JESUS OF 2000 YEARS AGO Went
To Egypt, And Lived There From 33 To 120 Years Of Age, THEN HE DIED ON
TOP OF THE PYRAMID AT GIZA” (emphasis added) (42).
All of this, however, is completely contradicted by your pamphlet, Judas The

Betrayer Pamphlet No. 8. In regard to what Koran 4:157 says about Jesus’
crucifixion, this pamphlet states:
So it does NOT say that he (Jesus) was NOT crucified or that Judas was his
replacement. None of that is there. It says that the JEWS did not crucify
Jesus and that the Jew did not kill him and that’s the truth. IT WAS THE
ROMAN SOLDIERS WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS (Matthew 27:22-35, John
19:23) under Pontius Pilate (7-36 A.D.) (emphasis added) (9-10).
This is unbelievable. Did Dr. York pull a 180 concerning his view on the
crucifixion or what? Do you believe that Jesus was crucified at age 33 or that he
died in Egypt at age 120? Dr. York cannot seem to make up his mind.
91
All you have to do is read and believe the Bible and it will tell you time and
time again that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified.
59. QUESTION: WHAT SCRIPTURAL OR HISTORICAL PROOF CAN

YOU PRODUCE THAT PROVES THAT JESUS CHRIST
WAS NOT ACTUALLY CRUCIFIED?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the so-called hidden Gospel of

Barnabas is authentic proof that Jesus Christ was not really
crucified.
In his book, Nibiru & The Anunnaqi Fact Or Fiction Scroll # 154, he states:
“Christians Will Go Out Of Their Way To Hide The Book Of Barnabas Because It
Tells You That Jesus Was Not Really Crucified” (57). Dr. York also states this in
his book, Was Christ Really Crucified Scroll # 52:
In The Gospel Of Barnabas, A Book Which Was Taken Out Of The New
Testament For Its True Accounts Of Yashu’a, It Has Records Of The
Transfiguration Of Judas. This Removal Was By Decree Of The Council Of
Nicea, Which Was Convened In 325 A.D. Under The Auspices Of The First
Christian Emperor Of Rome, Constantine. They Removed This Book Out Of
The New Testament To Keep You Misinformed, So You Would Be
Continually Believing That Jesus Supposedly Died On The Cross For Your
Sins. (69)
According to Dr. York, the Gospel of Barnabas was removed from the New
Testament because it says that Judas was transfigured to look like Jesus and then
crucified in his place.
60. QUESTION: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOSPEL OF

BARNABAS IS AUTHENTIC?
ANSWER: You will have to say yes since Dr. York cited it to prove
that Jesus was not crucified.
The Gospel of Barnabas, often confused with the first-century Epistle of

[Pseudo] Barnabas (c. A.D. 70-90), an entirely different book, is promoted by
many Muslims as an authentic Islamic Gospel because it contains many ideas from
the Koran. If Barnabas (Acts 13:2) really is the author of this gospel, then it is not
unreasonable to expect that he would be familiar with the basic facts of Jewish life
92
during that time. Let us take a look at some of the things the Gospel of Barnabas
says to see if it really is an authentic gospel. First, the Gospel of Barnabas states
that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth.
BARNABAS 3:1
There reigned at that time in Judea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and
Pilate was governor in the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. [In that time], by
decree of Augustus, all the world was enrolled [in a census]; wherefore each one
went to his own country, and they presented themselves by their own tribes to be
enrolled. Joseph accordingly departed from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, with his
wife Mary, great with child, to go to Bethlehem (for that it was his city, he being of
the lineage of David), so that he might be enrolled according to the decree of
Caesar.
This is historically inaccurate. Herod and Pilate never ruled in Judea at the same
time. Herod alone ruled Judea from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate reigned thirty years
later (Smith 242-245 & 519-520)! Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he
really was the author of the Gospel of Barnabas, how could he make such a simple
mistake?
In Barnabas 80:1 it states that Daniel was only two years old when he was captured
by Nebuchadnezzar.
BARNABAS 80:1
“Tell me, where dwelt Job but in Uz among idolaters? And at the time of the flood,
how writes Moses? Tell me. He says: “Noah truly found grace before God.” Our
father Abraham had a father without faith, for he made and worshipped false idols.
Lot abode among the most wicked men on earth. Daniel as a child, with Ananias,
Azarias, and Misael, were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in such wise that they
were but TWO YEARS OLD when they were taken; and they were nurtured among
the multitude of idolatrous servants. As God lives, even as the fire burns dry things
and converts them into fire, making no difference between olive and cypress and
palm; even so our God has mercy on every one that works righteously, making no
difference between Jew, Scythian, Greek, or Ishmaelite (emphasis added).
This disagrees with Daniel chapter 2, which says that Nebuchadnezzar

conferred with Daniel in the second year of his reign concerning his dream. He was
so amazed by Daniel’s wisdom that he made him ruler of the whole province of
93
Babylon. If we believe the Gospel of Barnabas, which says that Daniel was two
years old when he was captured by Nebuchadnezzar, then Daniel would have been
three years old when he was appointed ruler over the province of Babylon.
Now, we will take a look at some of the things the Gospels of Barnabas says
concerning Islam. Even though the Gospel of Barnabas is promoted by Muslims, it
does not even agree with everything the Koran teaches. For instance, the Koran
teaches that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) and never once teaches that Muhammad
is the Messiah (Christ).
KORAN 3:45
Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah giveth thee Glad tidings of a Word From
Him: his name Will be CHRIST Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour In this
world and the Hereafter And of (the company of) those Nearest to Allah (emphasis
added).
KORAN 4:171 (IN PART)
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say Of Allah
aught but the truth. CHRIST Jesus the son of Mary Was (no more than) A
Messenger of Allah, And His Word, Which He bestowed on Mary, And a Spirit
proceeding From Him: so believe In Allah and His Messengers.
However, the Gospel of Barnabas denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and instead
states that Muhammad is the Messiah!
BARNABAS 42:2
Jesus confessed, and said the truth: “I AM NOT THE MESSIAH.” They said: “Are
you Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets?” Jesus answered: “No.”
Then said they: “Who are you? Say, in order that we may give testimony to those
who sent us.” Then Jesus said: “I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and
cries: “Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord,” even as it is written in
Esaias” (emphasis added).
BARNABAS 97:6
Then said the priest: “How shall the MESSIAH be called, and what sign shall
reveal his coming?” Jesus answered: “The name of the MESSIAH is admirable,
for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in
a celestial splendour. God said: “Wait MUHAMMAD; for your sake I will to
94
create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make you
a present, insomuch that whoever shall bless you shall be blessed, and whoever
shall curse you shall be accursed. When I shall send you into the world I shall send
you as my Messenger of salvation, and your word shall be true, insomuch that
heaven and earth shall fail, but your faith shall never fail.” MUHAMMAD IS HIS
BLESSED NAME.” Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: “O God send us
your Messenger: O MUHAMMAD, come quickly for the salvation of the world”
(emphasis added)!
Both of these ideas totally contradict the Koran.
The Koran teaches that Mary experienced pain when she gave birth to Jesus.
KORAN 19:22-23
So she conceived him, And she retired with him To a remote place. And the PAINS
OF CHILDBIRTH drove her to the trunk Of a palm tree: She cried (in her
ANGUISH): “Ah! Would that I had Died before this! Would that I had been a thing
forgotten and out of sight” (emphasis added)!
The Gospel of Barnabas, however, teaches the opposite.
BARNABAS 3:3
The VIRGIN was surrounded by an exceedingly bright light, and brought forth her
son WITHOUT PAIN, whom she took in her arms, and wrapping him in swaddling-
clothes laid him in the manger, because there was no room in the inn. A great
multitude of angels came to the Inn with gladness and announcing peace to them
that fear God. Mary and Joseph praised the Lord for the birth of Jesus, and with
greatest joy nurtured him (emphasis added).
The Koran states that men are allowed to have up to four wives if they can afford
to do so.
KORAN 4:3
If ye fear that ye shall not Be able to deal justly With the orphans, Marry women of
your choice, TWO, or THREE, or FOUR; But if ye fear that ye shall not Be able to
deal justly (with them), Then only one, or (a captive) That your right hands
95
possess. That will be more suitable, To prevent you From doing injustice
(emphasis added).
The Gospel of Barnabas says something different.
BARNABAS 115:3
As God lives in whose presence my soul stands, if there were not internal lust
within the heart of man, he would not fall into the external; for if the root be
removed the tree dies speedily. Let a man content himself therefore with the WIFE
whom his creator has given him, AND LET HIM FORGET EVERY OTHER
WOMAN.” Andrew answered: “How shall a man forget the women if he live in the
city where there are so many of them?” Jesus replied: “O Andrew, certain it is he
who lives in the city, it will do him harm; seeing that the city is a sponge that
draws in every iniquity (emphasis added).
The Koran teaches that there are seven heavens.
KORAN 17:44
The SEVEN HEAVENS and the earth, And all beings therein, Declare His glory:
There is not a thing But celebrates His praise: And yet ye understand not How they
declare His glory! Verily He is Oft-Forbearing, Most Forgiving (emphasis added)!
The Gospel of Barnabas teaches that there are nine heavens.
BARNABAS 178:1
‘And let this suffice you,’ said Jesus, ‘for the knowledge of paradise.’ Whereupon
Bartholomew said again: ‘O master, have patience with me if I ask you one word.’
Jesus answered: ‘Say that which you desire.’ Said Bartholomew: ‘Paradise is
surely great: for, seeing there be in it such great goods, it needs must be great.’
Jesus answered: ‘Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Truly I say to
you that THE HEAVENS ARE NINE, among which are set the planets;, that are
distant one from another five hundred years’ journey for a man: and the earth in
like manner is distant from the first heaven five hundred years’ journey (emphasis
added).
How can Muslims promote the Gospel of Barnabas as an authentic Islamic

gospel when it does not agree with everything the Koran says?
96
What about the ancient copies of the Gospel of Barnabas? Do they date from
the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. like the other ancient manuscripts of the New
Testament books? The answer is no. There are no ancient copies of the Gospel of
Barnabas that date from before the 14th century A.D. The oldest copies are written
in Italian and Spanish and these are dated from the 15th century A.D. or later. So,
how could the Gospel of Barnabas have been removed from the New Testament by
the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. as Dr. York claims, if there are no copies of it
that predate the 14th century? The answer is simple. Dr. York lied. On the other
hand, every verse in the Bible, except eleven, was quoted or referred to in writing
by 300 A.D.! If the Gospel of Barnabas was available, then someone would have
quoted or referred to it, whether or not they believed its contents. The fact that they
did not, further proves that there are no ancient copies of the Gospel of Barnabas!
Is there any evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas was written in the 14th
century A.D.? There seems to be. For example, there was a man named Dante
Alighieri who was a famous poet of the 14th century and later centuries. In one of
his popular works called, The Divine Comedy, he describes ascending through nine
heavens to reach paradise, the 10th heaven. Just like Dante, the Gospel of Barnabas
portrays nine heavens before paradise.
BARNABAS 178:1-2
‘And let this suffice you,’ said Jesus, ‘for the knowledge of paradise.’ Whereupon
Bartholomew said again: ‘O master, have patience with me if I ask you one word.’
Jesus answered: ‘Say that which you desire.’ Said Bartholomew: ‘Paradise is
surely great: for, seeing there be in it such great goods, it needs must be great.’
Jesus answered: ‘Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Truly I say to
you that the HEAVENS are NINE, among which are set the planets;, that are
distant one from another five hundred years’ journey for a man: and the earth in
like manner is distant from the first heaven five hundred years’ journey. But stop
you at the measuring of the first heaven, which is by so much greater than the
whole earth as the whole earth is greater than a grain of sand. So also the second
heaven is greater than the first, and the third than the second, and so on, up to the
last heaven, each one is likewise greater than the next. And truly I say to you that
PARADISE IS GREATER THAN ALL THE EARTH AND ALL THE HEAVENS
[TOGETHER], even as all the earth is greater than a grain of sand.’ Then said
Peter: ‘O master, paradise must needs be greater than God, because God is seen
within it.’ Jesus answered: ‘Hold your peace, Peter, for you unwittingly
blaspheme’ (emphasis added).
97
It seems that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas could have gotten the idea of
nine heavens before paradise from reading Dante Alighieri’s literature. Is there any
other evidence that could link the Gospel of Barnabas to the 14th century? Yes!
The Bible speaks of the Year of Jubilee which is a celebration that was
commanded by God to be observed every fifty years.
LEVITICUS 25:10-11
And ye shall hallow the FIFTIETH year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the
land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a JUBILEE unto you; and ye shall
return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his
family. A JUBILEE shall that FIFTIETH year be unto you: ye shall not sow,
neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine
undressed (emphasis added).
In the year 1300 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII falsely decreed that the Jubilee
should be commemorated every one hundred years, instead of the original fifty.
However, the next Pope, Clement VI, changed it back to every fifty years, and
therefore, it was celebrated in 1350 A.D. In the church’s history, there is a fifty-
year period when the Jubilee was thought by many to be every one hundred years.
Apparently, the author of the Gospel of Barnabas accepted Pope Boniface VIII’s
false decree as truth because it is included in his book.
BARNABAS 82:4
And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received,
insomuch that the YEAR OF JUBILEE, which NOW comes EVERY HUNDRED
YEARS, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place. Then the
woman left her waterpot and ran to the city to announce all that she had heard
from Jesus (emphasis added).
We can see that the evidence suggests that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas
has used Dante Alighieri’s understanding of the heavens and Pope Boniface VIII’s
decree of the one hundred year Jubilee. Therefore, it appears that the Gospel of
Barnabas was written in the early 14th century A.D.
But why would someone in the 14th century A.D. write a book and pretend
that it was written by the Barnabas in the Bible? What would be their purpose for
doing this? To answer this question we have to take a look at what the author is
98
trying to accomplish and what type of audience this book was written for. Just like
the biblical Gospels, the main theme of the Gospel of Barnabas is the life and
ministry of Jesus Christ. It tells the story of Jesus similar to the biblical Gospels,
but with some noticeable changes and additions. Close examination of these
discrepancies reveal that they are deliberate, premeditated changes to make the
biblical account of Jesus agree with that of the Koran’s. Let us take a look at some
of these changes.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the son of God.
JOHN 20:30-31
And many other signs truly did JESUS in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his
name (emphasis added).
MATTHEW 16:15-17
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and
said, Thou art the Christ, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered
and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Bible, the Koran teaches that Jesus is not the son of God.
KORAN 4:171(In Part)
It will be better for you; For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him; (FAR EXALTED
IS HE) ABOVE HAVING A SON. To Him Belong all things in the heavens And on
earth. And enough Is Allah as a Disposer of affairs (emphasis added).
KORAN 9:30
The Jews call ‘Uzayr a son Of God, and THE CHRISTIANS CALL CHRIST THE
SON OF GOD. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate What
the UNBELIEVERS of old Used to say. ALLAH’S CURES BE ON THEM: HOW
THEY ARE DELUDED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH (emphasis added)!
99
In the Gospel of Barnabas, we see that Peter’s confession in Matthew 15:16-17 is
altered to agree with what the Koran says about Jesus not being the son of God.
BARNABAS 70:1-2
Jesus departed from Jerusalem after the Passover, and entered into the borders of
Caesarea Philippi. Whereupon, the angel Gabriel having told him of the sedition
which was beginning among the common people, he asked his disciples, saying:
“What do men say of me?” They said: “Some say that you are Elijah, others
Jeremiah, and others one of the old prophets.” Jesus answered: “And you; what
say you that I am?” Peter answered: “YOU ARE CHRIST, SON OF GOD.” THEN
WAS JESUS ANGRY, AND WITH ANGER REBUKED HIM, SAYING: “BEGONE
AND DEPART FROM ME, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE DEVIL AND SEEK TO
CAUSE ME OFFENCES AND HE THREATENED THE ELEVEN, SAYING:
“WOE TO YOU IF YOU BELIEVE THIS, FOR I HAVE WON FROM GOD A
GREAT CURSE AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE THIS.” AND HE WAS FAIN
TO CAST AWAY PETER; WHEREUPON THE ELEVEN BESOUGHT JESUS FOR
HIM, WHO CAST HIM NOT AWAY, BUT AGAIN REBUKED HIM SAYING:
“BEWARE THAT NEVER AGAIN YOU SAY SUCH WORDS, BECAUSE GOD
WOULD REPROBATE YOU!” PETER WEPT AND SAID: “LORD, I HAVE
SPOKEN FOOLISHLY; BESEECH GOD THAT HE PARDON ME” (emphasis
added).
The Bible clearly states that Jesus was crucified and died.
MATTHEW 27:35
And they CRUCIFIED him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them,
and upon my vesture did they cast lots (emphasis added).
MATTHEW 27:50
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, YIELDED UP THE GHOST
(emphasis added).
JOHN 19:32-33
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was
crucified with him. But when they came to JESUS, and saw that he was DEAD
100
already, they brake not his legs (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Bible, the Koran teaches that Jesus was not really crucified and did
not die on the cross.
KORAN 4:157
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger
of Allah”- BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR CRUCIFIED HIM, But so it was
made To appear to them, And those who differ Therein are full of doubts, With no
(certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to follow, For a surety THEY KILLED
HIM NOT (emphasis added).
Once again, we see that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has altered Jesus’
crucifixion to agree with the Koran
BARNABAS 216:1
Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been
taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. WHEREUPON THE WONDERFUL
GOD ACTED WONDERFULLY, INSOMUCH THAT JUDAS WAS SO CHANGED
IN SPEECH AND IN FACE TO BE LIKE JESUS THAT WE BELIEVED HIM TO
BE JESUS. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was.
Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: ‘You, Lord, are our master; have you
now forgotten us?' And he, smiling, said: 'Now are you foolish, that know not me to
be JUDAS ISCARIOT’ (emphasis added)!
BARNABAS 217:14
SO THEY LED HIM TO MOUNT CALVARY, WHERE THEY USED TO HANG

MALEFACTORS, AND THERE THEY CRUCIFIED HIM NAKED; for the greater
ignominy. JUDAS truly did nothing else but cry out: ‘God, why have you forsaken
me, seeing the malefactor has escaped and I die unjustly?’ Truly I say that the
voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and
believers entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the
doctrine of Jesus, believing that Jesus had been a false prophet, and that by art
magic he had done the miracles which he did: for Jesus had said that he should not
die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he should be taken away
from the world (emphasis added).
101
If you do some research, you will discover that the theory of someone else
dying on the cross in Jesus’ place has been in circulation since 150 A.D., probably
due to Gnosticism. Judas, Joseph, and even Simon the Cyrene who carried the
cross for Jesus, have all, at one time or another, been connected to this ridiculous
theory. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection are the very foundation of Christian
faith, it should be no surprise that Satan tried to distort the truth to lead people
astray. Yet, there is not a single shred of evidence from the first century concerning
someone trading places with Jesus on the cross. This theory is completely absurd
because it would require total ignorance and stupidity on the part of Jesus’
disciples and the Romans.
The Koran states that Muhammad’s coming was predicted by Jesus in the Gospel.
KORAN 7:157 (IN PART)
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, WHOM THEY FIND
MENTIONED IN THEIR OWN (SCRIPTURES)-IN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL
(emphasis added).
KORAN 61:6
And remember, Jesus, The son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the
messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming The Law (which came) Before me,
AND GIVING GLAD TIDINGS OF A MESSENGER TO COME AFTER ME,
WHOSE NAME SHALL BE AHMAD. But when he came to them With Clear Signs,
They said, “This is Evident sorcery” (emphasis added)!
However, Jesus made no such prediction in any of the Gospels in the Bible.
Jesus did predict the coming of the Comforter, but as I proved earlier, Muhammad
is not the Comforter. Let us examine how the author of the Gospel of Barnabas
clears this obstacle and makes Jesus foretell the coming of Muhammad.
BARNABAS 97:6
Then said the priest: “How shall the MESSIAH be called, and what sign shall
reveal his coming?” Jesus answered: “The name of the MESSIAH is admirable,
for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in
a celestial splendour. God said: “Wait MUHAMMAD; for your sake I will to
create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make you
a present, insomuch that whoever shall bless you shall be blessed, and whoever
102
shall curse you shall be accursed. When I shall send you into the world I shall send
you as my Messenger of salvation, and your word shall be true, insomuch that
heaven and earth shall fail, but your faith shall never fail.” MUHAMMAD IS HIS
BLESSED NAME.” Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: “O God send us
your Messenger: O MUHAMMAD, come quickly for the salvation of the world”
(emphasis added)!
All of these examples prove that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas
meticulously rewrote the biblical Gospel to make it agree with the Koran. He
occasionally makes historical errors and sometimes even contradicts the Koran
itself. After examining the changes in the Gospel of Barnabas, it is very easy to
understand what the author was trying to achieve. He was trying to deceive people
into believing that Jesus taught what the Koran teaches.
It is therefore clearly seen that the Gospel of Barnabas is not an authentic
Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a 14th century forgery and the evidence is very
compelling. The author makes historical errors and there is no ancient evidence for
this book. The contents of the book suggest that it was written in the 14th century
by an over-zealous Muslim with a somewhat distorted understanding of Islamic
teachings, calling Muhammad the “Messiah,” which the Koran does not teach. The
Gospel of Barnabas is clearly a fraud and should not be taken seriously by any
sincere Bible student.
61. QUESTION: IS IT SATANIC TO TEACH THAT JESUS WAS NOT

CRUCIFIED OR KILLED?
ANSWER: Of course you will say no because Dr. York had taught for
years that Jesus was not really crucified and that he did not die
on a cross.
However, when Peter denied that Jesus would be crucified and rise again on the
third day, Jesus called him Satan.
MATTHEW 16:21-23
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes,
and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to
rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he
turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offense unto
103
me: for thou savourest not the things that be of god, but those that be of men
(emphasis added).
Jesus was so outraged by Peter’s denial that he would be killed that he actually
called Peter Satan to his face. Who do you think Jesus considers Dr. York and you
to be when you teach people that Jesus was not really crucified?
62. QUESTION: ARE THE EXPERIENCES RECORDED BY DAVID IN

PSALM 22 REFERRING TO DAVID HIMSELF, OR ARE
THEY FORTELLING THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the experiences recorded in Psalm 22

are referring to David. In his book, Was Christ Really Crucified
Scroll # 52? Dr. York states: “Psalms Chapter 22 Is Speaking
About The Crucifixion Of David, Not The Prophecies Of Jesus
As The Christians Want You To Believe” (25).
PSALM 22:1
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping
me, why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
PSALM 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they
pierced my hands and my feet.
PSALM 22:18
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
However, David also states in 2 Samuel 23:2, “The spirit of the Lord spake by me,
and his word was in my tongue.” Whenever the Spirit of God came upon someone
in the Bible, they almost always prophesied.
NUMBERS 11:25
And the LORD came down in a cloud and spake unto him, and took the SPIRIT that
was upon him and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when
104
the SPIRIT rested upon them, they PROPHESIED, and did not cease (emphasis
added).
1 SAMUEL 10:10
And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him;
and the SPIRIT of God came upon him, and he PROPHESIED among them
(emphasis added).
LUKE 1:67 (IN PART)
And his father Zacharias was filled with the HOLY GHOST, and PROPHESIED
(emphasis added).
ACTS 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my SPIRIT
upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall PROPHESY, and your
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams (emphasis
added).
Nearly every time the Spirit of God came upon someone in the Bible, they
prophesied. Therefore, if the Spirit of God spoke by David, as it states in 2 Samuel
23:2, that means that he prophesied, too. Where are David’s prophecies found in
the Bible? In the Book of Psalms, of course!
63. QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT STATE THAT DAVID

WAS CRUCIFIED?
ANSWER: Nowhere. The Bible clearly states that David died of old age (1
Kings 2:1-12). Yet Dr. York has an entire section in The Holy
Tablets titled, “The Crucifixion Of David Son Of Jesse And
Hilmah,” saying otherwise. If the experiences recorded in
Psalm 22:1, 16 were referring to David, why did Dr. York have
to fabricate his own story of David’s crucifixion in The Holy
Tablets? He fabricated the story because the experiences
recorded in Psalm 22:1, 16 are not referring to David, but are
prophecies referring to Jesus Christ!
105
MATTHEW 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be
FULFILLED which was spoken by the PROPHET [DAVID], THEY PARTED MY
GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS
(emphasis added).
MATTHEW 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani? that is to say, MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN
ME (emphasis added)?
64. QUESTION: IS THE PROPHECY IN ZECHARIAH 12:10

REFERRING TO THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, no. In his book, Was Christ Really
Crucified Scroll # 52, he says, “this Quote Zechariah 12:10, is
speaking about David being pierced or crucified, and the
Aramaic Hebrew word used here is Dawqar (rqd) Meaning ‘to
pierce, thrust through, pierce through’ ” (24).
ZECHARIAH 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications: AND THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME
WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth
for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for
his firstborn (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, Dr. York is incorrect about this. Firstly, even if David was
crucified, this verse could not possibly be referring to him because it says they
shall look upon me whom they have pierced–future tense. David was already dead
and buried when this prophecy was written. Secondly, David is not the person
speaking in this verse, God is. Keep in mind that Jesus was the God of the Old
Testament before he incarnated as a man. Therefore, Zechariah 12:10 is actually
Jesus as God prophesying what would happen to Himself once He incarnated in the
form of a man. This is why He said they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced, instead of him whom they pierced. The New Testament clearly lets us
know that Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy.
106
JOHN 19:34-37
But one of the soldiers with a spear PIERCED his side, and forthwith came there
out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record; and his record is true: and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that
the scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken. And again
another scripture saith, THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED
(emphasis added).
REVELATION 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, AND THEY ALSO
WHICH PIERCED HIM: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.
Even so, Amen (emphasis added).
65. QUESTION: IS IT WRONG FOR PEOPLE TO WEAR CROSSES AND

ANKHS AROUND THEIR NECKS?
ANSWER: Again, you will not be able to give a straight answer using Dr.
York’s books because he has conflicting views regarding this
subject.
In his book, Was Christ Really Crucified Scroll # 52, Dr. York states,
“Despite The Religious Meaning Christians Attribute To The Cross, It Still Holds
The Significance Of The Morbid ‘Execution’ By The Romans. Wearing The Cross
Around Your Neck Is Equivalent To Having A Small ELECTRIC CHAIR
Hanging From Your Neck, Or A GAS CHAMBER, Or A GUILLOTINE. This Is
What You Want Me To Teach My Children” (emphasis added) (16)? Dr. York is
saying that wearing a cross around your neck is the same as wearing small replicas
of other death sentences around your neck. In this book, Dr. York even asked the
question, “This is what you want me to teach my children?” Therefore it is clear
that Dr. York does not only think that wearing crosses is morbid, but also plain
sick.
However, in his book, Does Religion Breed Ignorance? Scroll #98, Dr.
York states, “THERE ISN’T ANYTHING WRONG WITH WEARING AN
ANKH ON YOUR NECK OR A CROSS, But Negroes Have A Tendency To
Over-Exaggerate. You Don’t Have To Wear An Ankh Bigger Than Your Chest.
You Don’t Have To Overdo it” (emphasis added) (23). In this book, Dr. York is
saying that there is nothing wrong with people wearing crosses or ankhs around
their necks as long as they do not overdo it. So, which one is it? Is wearing a cross
107
around your neck sick, morbid, and something you should not teach your children?
Or is it okay as long as you do not overdo it? It appears that Dr. York cannot
decide.
The fact of the matter is both the cross and the ankh are pagan symbols and
neither should be worn by true servants of the Most High.
66. QUESTION: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE SAID IN

MATTHEW 12:40, “FOR AS JONAS WAS THREE DAYS
AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE WHALE’S BELLY; SO
SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE THREE DAYS AND
THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”?
ANSWER: Regarding Matthew 12:40, Dr. York states this in his book, The
Resurrection Scroll # 59:
But According To How Your Preachers Interpret The Quote,
Jesus Was Buried In The Tomb For The Exact Same Amount
Of Time. If That’s True, Then The Prophecy Contradicts Itself
Because It Says That The Two Men Were Alike; And In Order
For Jesus To Be ‘Like’ Jonah, He Had To Be Alive, Not Dead
And Buried In A Tomb. (92)
Dr. York is saying in this book that if Jesus was like Jonah and Jonah was alive in
the whale, then that means that Jesus must have also remained alive, and therefore
did not die and was buried in a tomb.
Dr. York is reading too much into Matthew 12:40. First of all, we know that
Jesus was crucified and he died. So, when Jesus prophesied that he would be in the
heart of the earth as Jonah was in the whale, he could not have meant that he would
be alive in the earth. Secondly, when Jesus said he would be as Jonah was in the
whale, he was referring to how long Jonah was in the whale, not Jonah’s state of
being while inside the whale.
JONAH 1:17
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in
the belly of the fish THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS (emphasis added).
108
MATTHEW 12:40
For as JONAS was THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS in the whale's belly; so
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
(emphasis added).
As a matter of fact, from this point on, Jesus never mentioned Jonah again in
relation to his death and resurrection. Jesus only focused on the three days he
would be in the heart of the earth. This is just more proof that when Jesus said he
would be as Jonah, he was only referring to how long Jonah was in the whale.
67. QUESTION: WAS JESUS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH FOR

THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS AS HE
PROPHESIED IN MATTHEW 12:40?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he was not. In his book, The

Resurrection Scroll # 59, he states: “The Second Contradiction
In Question Concerns The Time Factor In The Quotes – Three
Days And Three Nights, During Which Time All You Were
Taught Jesus Was Supposedly Buried In The Tomb, After
Which Time He Resurrected Into Everlasting Life” (93).
Dr. York even has the following chart in this same book to show this alleged
contradiction (92).
JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE TIME FACTOR

__________________________________________________________________
EASTER WEEK IN THE SEPULCHRE
DAYS NIGHT
__________________________________________________________________
FRIDAY NONE ONE NIGHT
Placed in a tomb just
Before sunset
SATURDAY ONE DAY ONE NIGHT

Supposed to be in
Tomb
109
SUNDAY NONE NONE
Missing before sunrise
__________________________________________________________________
TOTAL ONE DAY TWO NIGHTS

__________________________________________________________________
What Dr. York is saying in this book is that since you cannot get three days
and three nights from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, Jesus did not fulfill the time
factor in Matthew 12:40 and therefore, is a contradiction. This, however, is not
true. Dr. York’s mistake is that he is using a literal, western concept of time and
applying it to Matthew 12:40, implying that there should be a full 72 hours
between the crucifixion and the resurrection. This is not what Jesus was saying in
this passage. Let us take a look at what the Gospels and other books have to say
about this.
MATTHEW 16:21
From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes,
and be killed, and be raised again the THIRD DAY (emphasis added).
MATTHEW 17:23
And they shall kill him, and the THIRD DAY he shall be raised again. And they
were exceeding sorry (emphasis added).
MATTHEW 20:19
And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him:
and the THIRD DAY he shall rise again (emphasis added).
MARK 9:31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into
the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise
the THIRD DAY (emphasis added).
110
MARK 10:34
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall
kill him: and the THIRD DAY he shall rise again (emphasis added).
LUKE 9:22
Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the THIRD DAY (emphasis
added).
LUKE 18:33
And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the THIRD DAY he shall
rise again (emphasis added).
JOHN 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and IN THREE DAYS I
will raise it up (emphasis added).
ACTS 10:38-40
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who
went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God
was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of
the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God
raised up the THIRD DAY, and showed him openly (emphasis added);
1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died
for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose
again the THIRD DAY according to the scriptures (emphasis added).
Notice that all of the above verses say that Jesus was resurrected ON the third day
after his death and burial, not after three literal days. If he rose after 72 hours, then
all the above verses would say that he rose on the FOURTH day.
111
But what about Matthew 12:40? It does seem to say that Jesus was dead for a full
72 hours. How can this possibly be reconciled with the traditional chronology of a
Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection? Well to answer this question, note the
following story in 1 Kings.
1 KINGS 12:5
And he said unto them, Depart yet for THREE DAYS, then come again to me. And
the people departed (emphasis added).
1 KINGS 12:12
So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam THE THIRD DAY, as the king
had appointed, saying, Come to me again THE THIRD DAY (emphasis added).
Notice that the king told the people to depart FOR three days, yet they
returned ON the third day, instead of the fourth. Why is that? Because the people
knew that the king did not mean for them to be gone for a full 72 hours. The
counting of days was inclusive in nature. The same day that the king told them to
leave was the first day. The second day they stayed away and the third day they
returned, just as the king had intended. This is exactly the same manner of
counting used for the resurrection. It is inclusive in nature, with whatever part of
the first and last days being counted as full days. This same story is also told in 2
Chronicles, but it reads slightly different.
2 CHRONICLES 10:5
And he said unto them, Come again unto me AFTER three days. And the people
departed (emphasis added).
2 CHRONICLES 10:12
So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam ON the third day, as the king
bade, saying, Come again to me ON the third day (emphasis added).
Notice the way this is worded compared to 1 Kings. This lets us know that
“Come again unto me AFTER three days,” “depart yet FOR three days,” and
“Come again to me ON the third day,” all mean the exact same thing, which is
NOT a full three days or a full 72 hours. This method of counting is also used in
Leviticus for the law concerning sacrifices.
112
LEVITICUS 19:5-6
And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your
own will. It shall be eaten the SAME day ye offer it, and on the MORROW: and if
ought remain until THE THIRD DAY, it shall be burnt in the fire (emphasis added).
Notice that the day the sacrifice is made is counted as the first day. “The
morrow” is counted as the second day and the day following that is counted as the
third day. This is how you get the three days. These three days are also inclusive in
nature with whatever portion of the first and third day being counted as full days.
Now take a close look at how Jesus describes the time sequence of his death and
resurrection in the Gospel of Luke.
LUKE 13:31-33
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out,
and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell
that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures TO DAY and TO MORROW, and
THE THIRD DAY I shall be PERFECTED. Nevertheless I must walk TO DAY, and
TO MORROW, and THE DAY FOLLOWING: for it cannot be that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem (emphasis added).
In these verses Jesus is alluding to his resurrection. Note here that in Luke
13, the third day clearly means the day after tomorrow, NOT three full days. In
light of all the evidence, Matthew 12:40, does not really mean a full three days and
three nights or 72 hours, since Jesus clearly rose ON the third day. By Jewish
understanding, this is referred to as “inclusive reckoning,” three days and three
nights, and after three days, simply meant the same thing as on the third day.
The Gospel of Mark plainly states that Jesus rose on the first day of the week.
MARK 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils (emphasis added).
It said Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. This occurred
before sunrise which is why Jesus was already gone when the women arrived at the
tomb that morning.
113
Luke Chapter 24 also clearly indicates that Jesus resurrected on Sunday.
LUKE 24:1
Now upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, very early in the morning, they came
unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain
others with them (emphasis added).
LUKE 24:6-7
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in
Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and THE THIRD DAY rise again (emphasis added).
LUKE 24:13
And, behold, two of them went that SAME DAY to a village called Emmaus, which
was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
LUKE 24:21
But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside
all this, TO DAY is the THIRD DAY since these things were done (emphasis
added).
LUKE 24:46
And (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the THIRD DAY (emphasis added).
These passages plainly state that on the first day of the week (Sunday), the
women came with the spices they prepared (v. 1). The two angels at the tomb then
reminded them that Jesus had said that he would rise the third day (v. 7). On that
same day, two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus declared it was the third day
since Jesus was tried and crucified and that he said he would rise the third day (v.
46). So clearly, Sunday was the third day the angels and Jesus were speaking of,
which is the day Jesus rose from the dead. If you count three days back from
Sunday using the Jewish understanding of inclusive reckoning, Sunday would be
the third day, Saturday (Sabbath) would be the second day, and Friday would the
114
first day. This would mean that Jesus was indeed crucified on a Friday, and if you
read the Gospels, this is exactly what they indicate.
LUKE 23:52-56
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and
wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein
never man before was laid. And that day was the PREPARATION, and the sabbath
DREW ON. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed
after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and
prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the
commandment (emphasis added).
Observe that these verses state that Jesus died on “the preparation day” and that
after that day the Sabbath drew on. The Greek word translated “drew on” is
epiphosko, meaning to grow light, to dawn (G2020). This is saying that the
Sabbath dawned (started) after the preparation day. This means that the preparation
day is the day before the Sabbath day (Saturday). What day is that? Friday! The
Gospel of Mark also states that the preparation day is the day before the Sabbath
day, which is Friday.
MARK 15:37
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
MARK 15:42
And now when the even was come, because it was the PREPARATION, that is,
THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honorable
counselor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly
unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus (emphasis added).
Now the following chart shows the TRUE three day time sequence of Jesus’
crucifixion and resurrection.
Day 1: Friday - Day 2: Saturday Day 3: First day of the

Preparation Day (Sabbath day) week (Sunday)
Crucifixion and burial Rested in the tomb. Resurrection before
before sundown sunrise. Tomb
The women preparing discovered to be empty
spices. just before sunrise.
115
As you can see, the Gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was not speaking of
three literal days in Matthew 12:40 as Dr. York teaches. When Jesus said that he
would rise again the third day, he simply meant the day after tomorrow as shown
in Luke 13:31-33. Dr. York is supposed to be this big expert when it comes to
Hebrew cultures and beliefs, so he should be familiar with the Jewish concept of
inclusive reckoning when it comes to counting days. Yet, it is obvious from his
misunderstanding of Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:40 that he clearly is not. Why is
that?
68. QUESTION: WAS JESUS TELLING MARY MAGDALENE TO LIE

CONCERNING HIS ASCENSION TO HEAVEN IN JOHN
20:17?
ANSWER: Dr. York says that he was. In his book, Was Christ Really
Crucified Scroll # 53?, Dr. York states: “When Mary Then
Proceeded To Embrace Yashu’a, He Stopped Her And Told
Her, To Don’t Get Happy Yet, Because You See Me, I Have
Not Ascended To My Father. But Go Tell Them That I Did”
(111). IN OTHER WORDS YASHU’A TOLD HER TO TELL
A LIE (John 20:17).” Let us take a look at John 20:17 to see if
this is true.
JOHN 20:17
Jesus saith unto her [Mary Magdalene], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended
to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father; and to my God, and your God (emphasis added).
Once again, this is simply a case of Dr. York twisting the scriptures to make
them say something they do not. He even says that Jesus lied. But Jesus did not say,
“Tell my brethren, I ASCENDED to my Father,” he said “Tell my brethren, I
ASCEND.” Big difference! The word “ascend” is in the present-tense form, not the
past-tense form. Therefore, Jesus was saying to Mary Magdalene, “Tell my brethren
as we speak (present-tense), I’m ascending to my Father,” or “Tell my brethren I’m
going to ascend to my Father.” Where is the lie? This is basic, English verb tense.
You would think that Dr. York, with all his supposed knowledge, would not make
such elementary grammatical errors like this.
69. QUESTION: DOES JESUS DECIDE WHOSE NAMES GETS

WRITTEN INTO THE BOOK OF LIFE?
116
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he himself is the person who decides
whose name gets written in the Book of Life. He states in his
book, Whose God Is Responsible? Scroll # 89:
How Will You Get Out Of Here In 2003 A.D.? When It Opens You Got To
Be Ready By 2000. That List Has To Be Made By 2000 A.D. You Call It
THE BOOK OF LIFE, That’s Called The List Of WHO IS GETTING OUT
OF HELL. AND I DON’T LIKE THE FACT THAT I’M THE PERSON
THAT HAS TO MAKE THE LIST, Because, I Know People, And It’s Sad
Because People Judge You By Their Religious Beliefs (emphasis added).
(83)
Is Dr. York implying that he is Jesus Christ or what? Are we to believe that
Dr. York decides who does and does not go to Hell? Be serious. It says in John
5:21-22, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the
Son quickeneth whom he will. For the father judgeth no man, BUT HATH
COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON” (emphasis added).
According to these verses, the Father has committed all judgment to the Son,
which is Jesus Christ. This includes the decision of whose names are written in the
Book of Life and whose names are not.
REVELATION 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
opened: and another book was opened, which is THE BOOK OF LIFE: and the
dead were JUDGED out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works (emphasis added).
Revelation 21:27 reveals that the Book of Life is the Lamb’s book.
REVELATION 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever
worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in THE LAMB’S
BOOK OF LIFE (emphasis added).
If the Book of Life belongs to the Lamb, who is Jesus Christ (John 1:29, 36),
then that means that he alone is the person who decides whose names are written in
it and whose names are not. This is just another case of Dr. York assuming the role
and authority of Jesus Christ. You better wake up.
117
70. QUESTION: WHO WILL BE THE 144, 000 IN REVELATION 7:1-8
AND REVELATION 14:1-5? WHO WILL MAKE UP THE
TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the 144,000 spoken of in the Book of

Revelation will be people who reside in his organization, The
Holy Tabernacle Ministries. He states in his book, Who Was
Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60: “So The Messiah Jesus Came To
The ‘Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel’ Only But When The
Real Messiah Comes He Will Come For The 144,000 WHO
WILL BE OF THE HOLY TABERNACLE Then All People
Who Will Follow His Sent Angel)” (emphasis added) (76-77).
71. QUESTION: SO ARE THE 144,000 IN REVELATION ACTUAL

TRIBES OF ISRAEL OR ARE THEY PEOPLE WHO
MERELY POSSESS CHARACTERISTICS AND
PERSONALITIES OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF
ISRAEL?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the 144,000 are people who possess
characteristics and personalities of the twelve tribes of Israel. In
his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60, he states:
“These Names Are The Twelve Tribes Of Israel Mentioned In
(Revelation 7:4-8). The Tribe Of Israel Mentioned Here Is Only
Used As A Reference For CHARACTER TYPES For The
144,000. The Following List Confirms That The 144,000 Will
Have Possessed The Different PERSONALITIES Of The
Twelve Tribes Of Israel In The Later Days; That Is These
Days” (32-33) (emphasis added). According to Dr. York, the
144,000 are not actual Israelites.
The following list is from Dr. York’s book, Who Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60.
This list was put together by Dr. York to describe the supposed characteristics and
personalities of the twelve tribes of Israel (33-37).
Judah (Juda) – Meaning Let Him Be Praised:
The Personalities Of This Group Of People Will Be That They Will Be Heavy In
Faith. And In The End They Will Be With The Lamb.
118
Reuben – Meaning Behold A Son:
These People Will Be The First Fruits; Good, Not Faithful. They Were Here In
1970 A.D. Now They Are Outside Backbiting About The Past.
Aser – Meaning Happy:
The People Who Possess This Personality Will Be Happy. Yet, They Will Fall To
The Wayside. They Always Want To Joke And Play. They Don’t Take The Truth
Seriously And The World Will Get Them.
Naphtali – Meaning My Wrestling:
Are People Not Of The Seed, But Will Follow And Be Wealthy; However, Not
Proud.
Manasseh – Meaning Making Forget:
Are People Who Will Be Led Astray. (Manasseh) Was Not One Of Jacob’s Son,
But Was The Son Of Joseph And Asenath, The Daughter Of Potipherah (Genesis
46:20, 41:45) The Priest Of On. Therefore, He Is Called “Half Tribe”. They Will
Come To Us From Other Communities But Can’t Stay.
Simeon – Meaning Hearing:
Are People Who Will Hear The Truth, Yet, Still Insist On Going To False
Tabernacles Where The Laws Are Not Enforced.
Levi – Meaning Joined:
Are People Who Will Leave The “Truth” And Join Those Communities Which
Cater To Their Selfish Desires, And Egos. They Want To Be Leaders.
Issachar – Meaning There Is Hire:
Are People Of Farming And Growing, They Will Leave the South Or Farm Their
Own Family And Self.
Zebulon – Meaning Dwelling:
119
Are People Who Will Travel To Teach Their Own. They Will Try To Set Up Their
Own Communities, Only To Fail.
Joseph – Meaning Adding:
Are People Who Will Suffer, They Will Go To, And Be Accepted By The
Establishment As “Educated.” They Are In Reality “Fools.” These Are Your So-
Called Intellectuals.
Benjamin – Meaning Son Of The Right Hand:
Are People Of Business. He Was The Twelveth [sic] And Last Son Of Jacob. They
Will Open Their Own Business, But Not To Help Us. Yet They Learned How To
Peddle Or Open Stores From Us.
First of all, where did Dr. York get the idea that the 144,000 in Revelation
are a reference for character types and not actual tribes of Israel? Nowhere. He
obviously fabricated this list himself. This is why he never explained or proved
how he came to this conclusion. There is nothing in the Book of Revelation that
implies that the 144,000 are some kind of “symbolic tribes of Israel.” Therefore,
we can only conclude that the 144,000 are actual tribes of Israel. Secondly, if you
read Revelation 14:1-5, you will see that the description of the characteristics of
the 144,000 does not match Dr. York’s description of them.
REVELATION 14:1-5
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him a HUNDRED
FORTY AND FOUR THOUSAND, having his Father’s name written in their
foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as
the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their
harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four
beast, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the HUNDRED AND
FORTY AND FOUR THOUSAND, which were redeemed from the earth. These are
they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which
follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men,
being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. AND IN THEIR MOUTH WAS
FOUND NO GUILE: for they are WITHOUT FAULT before the throne of God
(emphasis added).
120
Notice that verse 5 said that there was no guile (deceit) found in the mouths
of the 144,000 and that they were without fault before the throne of God. Do the
personalities and characteristics of the 144,000 on Dr. York’s list describe people
who are without fault before the throne of God? Let us examine these
characteristics. According to Dr. York, people who possess the characteristics of
Rueben are backbiters, Asers will fall to the wayside, Simeons are members of
false tabernacles, Levis are selfish and egotistic wannabe leaders, Zebulons are
failures, Josephs are fools pretending to be intellectuals, and Benjamins will NOT
help others. Do these sound like the characteristics of people who are without fault
before the throne of God? Not at all. That means that Dr. York’s description of the
144,000 is completely FALSE. I guess it all comes down to this question: Do you
believe Dr. York’s description of the 144,000 or the Bible’s?
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NUWAUBIANS’ VIEWS OF

THE APOSTLE PAUL
72. QUESTION: DID PAUL EVER REALLY MEET JESUS?
ANSWER: You will not be able to give a straight answer because Dr. York
contradicts himself regarding this subject.
In his book, St. Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver? Scroll # 61, Dr. York states:
“PAUL NEVER MET NOR SAW JESUS CHRIST IN THE PHYSICAL FORM
Neither Was He Amongst His Disciples. I Mean JESUS NEVER LAID EYES
NOR HANDS ON PAUL, PAUL NEVER HEARD JESUS’ VOICE” (1)
(emphasis added). Dr. York goes on to say: “I REPEAT, PAUL The Son Of A
Roman Pharisee, Born In 10 A.D., In Tarsus, Rome NEVER MET HIM
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. But, In A Book He Wrote Himself, He Claimed
To Have Had A Vision” (2 & 3) (emphasis added). Without question, Dr. York is
plainly saying that Paul never met Jesus, saw Jesus, or even heard Jesus’ voice.
However, in his book, Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134,
Dr. York drastically changed his view on this. He states: “The Truth About Paul’s
‘Vision’ Is That While Paul Was Traveling On A Certain Route, Certain Schools
Of The Essenes Existed. These Essenes Were Well Informed About The Travelers
On This Road. Being Jesus Was Also A Member Of The Essenes It Was Relayed
To Him That PAUL Was Traveling By, So JESUS Went Out To MEET Him. Paul
Unknowingly Along With Most Of The People During That Time, Believed Jesus
To Be Dead And Mistook This MEETING To Be Something Spooky Or Mystical
And This Incident Was Recorded As A Vision. Jesus Was Not Crucified. He Was
On His Way To Mizriam (Egypt). JESUS CAME TO ASK PAUL BASICALLY
121
WHY HE WAS BAD MOUTHING HIM THE WAY HE DID” (emphasis added)
(31). Dr. York also states: “Paul DID MEET Jesus, However, He still Can Not Be
Believed …” (emphasis added) (32). This is yet another huge contradiction. In St.
Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver? Scroll # 61, Dr. York claims that Paul never met Jesus
in any shape form or fashion, however, in Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History
Scroll # 134, he says that Paul did in fact meet Jesus. Which one is it? Which one
of these books should people believe?
73. QUESTION: IS THERE A CONTRADICTION IN THE STORY OF

PAUL’S VISION AND CONVERSION AS RECORDED
IN ACTS 9:4-8, ACTS 22:7-10 AND ACTS 26:13-15?
ANSWER: You will say yes, if you believe Dr. York’s books.
Regarding Paul’s vision and conversion, Dr. York states in his book, Jesus
As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll # 134: “As You Can See Each Time The
Story Changes, First In Acts 9:4-8 Paul Fell To The Ground And The Men Heard
A Voice But Saw Not A Man, And Then In Acts 22:7-10 Paul Says He Fell To
The Ground And The Men With Him Saw The Light But Heard Not The Voice Of
Him Who Spoke And Then In Acts 26:13-15 Paul Claims That All Of The Men
With Him Fell To The Ground, When In The Above Quote Only Paul Fell To The
Ground. So As You Can See Paul’s Story Cannot Be Trusted, If He Were Telling
The Truth His Stories Wouldn’t Have Changed Each Time” (28). So, according to
Dr. York, the story of Paul’s vision and conversion changed each time he told it,
therefore, it cannot be trusted. At first glimpse, there does seem to be a clear
contradiction in the story of Paul’s vision and conversion.
ACTS 9:4-7
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord
said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must
do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE,
BUT SEEING NO MAN (emphasis added).
122
ACTS 22:7-9
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I
am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw
indeed the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE OF HIM
THAT SPAKE TO ME (emphasis added).
ACTS 26:13-14
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of
the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. AND WHEN
WE WERE ALL FALLEN TO THE EARTH, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and
saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks (emphasis added).
However, this “contradiction” is cleared up when we take a look at the

Greek definitions of the words translated “heard” and “voice” in these verses. First,
the Greek word translated “heard” in Acts 9:7 and “hearing” in Acts 22:9 is akouo
(Strong G191). This word has two distinct definitions: to perceive sound and to be
understood. The Greek word translated “voice” in these verses is phone (Strong
G5456). This too, has two definitions: a noise or a sound and a voice as in uttered
words. In Acts 9:7, the word “hearing” is referring to perceiving sound and the
word “voice” is referring to a noise or a sound because the verb is followed by a
genitive. Therefore, Acts 9:7 is actually saying, “And the men which journeyed
with him stood speechless, HEARING a NOISE or a SOUND, but seeing no man.”
So the men heard a noise or a sound but saw no man. This is verified by some
modern translations of the Bible.
ACTS 9:7 NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the SOUND but did
not see anyone (emphasis added).
ACTS 9:7 NEW LIVING TRANSLATION
The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the SOUND of someone's voice
but saw no one (emphasis added)!
123
ACTS 9:7 WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE
The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the SOUND, but seeing
no one (emphasis added).
In Acts 22:9, the word “heard” is referring to understanding and the word
“voice” is referring to a voice as in uttered words because the verb is followed by
an accusative. Acts 22:9 is really saying, “And they that were with me saw indeed
the light, and were afraid; but UNDERSTOOD not the voice or UTTERED
WORDS of him that spake to me.” Again, this is verified by some modern Bible
translations.
ACTS 22: 9 NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
My companions saw the light, but they did not UNDERSTAND the voice of him
who was speaking to me (emphasis added).
ACTS 22:9 NEW LIVING TRANSLATION
The people with me saw the light but didn't UNDERSTAND the voice speaking to
me (emphasis added).
ACTS 22:9 WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE
Those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they didn't
UNDERSTAND the voice of him who spoke to me (emphasis added).
The men who were with Paul heard the voice that spoke to Paul; they just did not
understand it. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
Now, as far as Paul not previously mentioning in Acts 9:4-7 and Acts 22:7-9
that everyone with him had fallen to the earth as he stated in Acts 26:13-15, is not
a contradiction. Just because Paul did not mention in Acts 9:4-7 and Acts 22:7-9
that the men with him fell to the earth, too, does not necessarily mean that it did
not happen. Just because something is not mentioned the first time a story is told,
does not mean that it did not occur. Therefore, this is a contradiction that Dr. York
is reading into the text. But as you can see, a quick look into the Greek language
reveals that there is no contradiction in the story of Paul’s vision and conversion.
124
74. QUESTION: DID PAUL CONDEMN THE OBSERVANCE OF THE
SABBATH IN HIS WRITINGS?
ANSWER: Dr. York states in St. Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver Scroll # 61:
“The Sabbath Was Instituted In Exodus 20:8 But Paul
Condemned It In Romans 14:5 And Colosians [sic] 2:16” (14).
Many people think that Paul condemned the Sabbath in Romans 14:5 and Colossians
2:16. Before we look at what Paul is saying in these passages, note the word of
caution the Apostle Peter gives us about Paul’s writings:
2 PETER 3:16
As also in all his [Paul] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some
things HARD to be understood, which they that are UNLEARNED and unstable
WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
(emphasis added).
The Greek word translated “wrest” in this verse is strebloo, meaning to

pervert, wrest (Strong G4761). Peter is warning believers that some of Paul’s
epistles are difficult to understand by ignorant and unstable people and these people
will pervert them just like they do other scriptures to their own destruction. The fact
that Dr. York (and many others) think that Paul condemned the Sabbath in his
writings is a prime example of this. Let us examine if Paul was in fact condemning
the Sabbath in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16 as Dr. York claims.
ROMANS 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
First of all, where is the Sabbath specifically mentioned in this verse?

Nowhere. The Sabbath is not mentioned here or any other place in the entire Book
of Romans for that matter. Therefore, Dr. York using this verse to say Paul
condemned the Sabbath is a completely unsound interpretation. What was Paul
talking about in this verse? To understand, observe what Paul says in verse 1 of
this chapter.
125
ROMANS 14:1
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to DOUBTFUL DISPUTATIONS
(emphasis added).
“Doubtful disputations” means matters of dispute. Paul is talking about

matters of personal preferences or opinions that lead to disputes. He was advising
the believers in Rome to not let their personal views of such things divide them.
We also need to examine the context of Romans 14:2-6. Note the repeated use of a
certain word throughout these verses. In verse 2, the words “eat” and “eateth” are
used. In verse 3 “eateth” is used four times plus four more times in verse 6. So we
can see that the immediate context of these verses is focused on eating.
From verse 1, the dispute is between, “him that is weak in the faith,” who
chooses to only eat herbs (v2), and people who are not weak in the faith, who
believe that they can eat all things. The Law of God cannot be the issue here,
because nowhere does it command us to be strict vegetarians. It does distinguish
between different kinds of meat (Leviticus 11:1-8; Deuteronomy 14:3-8), but
again, this is not the issue of discussion here. This is talking about the personal
preference of eating all things as opposed to eating only vegetables (v2). When we
get to verse 5, Paul says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Now this is where Dr. York (and many others) is interpreting Paul to mean
something like this: “Some people esteem the Sabbath day more holy than other
days: other people esteem all days holy. Let all people do whichever they prefer.”
However, Dr. York is once again in error. First, we have to keep this in
proper context. Paul is giving advice on personal preferences and opinions (v1),
and not God’s Laws. Personal preferences were optional. There was nothing in
God’s Law that specifically addressed them. This is why Paul said, “Let every man
be fully persuaded in his own mind,” meaning, “do whatever you are convinced is
best for you.” This automatically eliminates the possibility of Paul referring to the
Sabbath, as its observance was never a personal preference; it is mandatory.
The entire 14th chapter of Romans is about eating food. If you examine
verses 6 and 7, you will see that Paul is referring to days on which people chose to
fast. Even the Jews themselves had different beliefs about these fast days because
their observances were never commanded by God. One of the days Paul seemed to
be alluding to is mentioned in Zechariah 7:5-6. When the temple was being rebuilt
after the Jew’s captivity in Babylon, they asked the Prophet Zechariah, “Should I
weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years”
(Zechariah 7:2-3)? Notice that Zechariah’s response in verse 4-6 bears a striking
resemblance to the words of Paul in Romans 14:6-7.
126
ZECHARIAH 7:4-6
Then came the word of the Lord of hosts unto me, saying, Speak unto all the people
of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye FASTED and mourned in the fifth
and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all FAST UNTO me [the
Lord], even TO me [the Lord]?And when ye did EAT, and when ye did drink, did
not ye EAT for YOURSELVES, and drink for YOURSELVES (emphasis added)?
Now compare this with Romans 14:6-7.
ROMANS 14:6-7
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it UNTO the Lord; and he that regardeth not
the day, TO the LORD he doth not regard it. He that EATETH, EATETH to the
LORD, for he giveth God thanks; and he that EATETH not, TO the LORD he
eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to HIMSELF, and no man
dieth to HIMSELF (emphasis added).
As you can see, Paul was not talking about the Sabbath in Romans 14:5, but
traditional Jewish fast days. Now we will take a look at Colossians 2:16.
COLOSSIANS 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Paul is not condemning the Sabbath in this verse either. When we look at
this verse in its correct historical context, it quickly becomes obvious that Paul was
warning about Colossian philosophy. This was a Hellenistic philosophy based on
asceticism and the worship of angels in order to gain support from celestial
powers. The meaning of this heresy was that Jesus Christ alone was not enough to
deliver us from the bondage of sin. In the following verses, Paul was warning
against the traditions of men, the worshiping of angels, and submitting to the
doctrines of men. These things were unfoundedly being added to the gospel.
COLOSSIANS 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ
(emphasis added).
127
Paul could not have possibly been speaking of the Sabbath in this verse because
the Sabbath is not “philosophy,” “vain deceit,” or “the tradition of men.” It is a
commandment of God (Exodus 20:8).
COLOSSIANS 2:18
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and

WORSHIPPING OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he hath not seen,
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (emphasis added).
COLOSSIANS 2:20-22
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not;
handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) AFTER THE
COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN (emphasis added)?
Again, it should be obvious from reading these verses that Paul could not have
been talking about observing the Sabbath because the Sabbath is not the
“rudiments of the world” or “the commandments and doctrines of men.” It is a
commandment of God.
After Paul taught the converted Colossians how to truly worship God, the
people in the ascetic community began to condemn them. While addressing these
problems, Paul reminds the Colossians that they are complete in Jesus Christ and
have no need for the pagan philosophies (v8) of this world (Colossians 2:9-10).
In verse 16, Paul is encouraging them not to be bothered by the way the Colossian
society viewed their practices and new way of life in the faith. To sum it up, Paul
was basically telling the Colossian converts, “Do not let the Colossian community
condemn you for enjoying good food, drinking wine, or joyously celebrating the
Sabbath and other holy days.” So one of the very verses Dr. York uses to claim
Paul condemned the Sabbath is actually one of the strongest proofs that Paul taught
the Gentile converts to observe it!
As you can see, Paul was not abolishing God’s commandment to observe the
Sabbath in Colossians 2:16. He was warning against false teachers who added
ceremonial and ascetic boundaries to faith in Christ. If Paul had been teaching that
such a significant commandment as the Sabbath was discontinued, it would have
devastated the early church and he would have had to constantly answer opposing
views in his epistles. This definitely could not have been the case because it is
recorded in the Book of Acts that Paul himself observed the Sabbath.
128
ACTS 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that
these words might be preached to them [by Paul and Barnabas] the next
SABBATH (emphasis added).
ACTS 13:44
And the next SABBATH DAY came almost the whole city together to hear the word
of God [from Paul and Barnabas] (emphasis added).
ACTS 13:13-14
Now when PAUL and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in
Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. But when they
departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue
on the SABBATH DAY, and sat down (emphasis added).
ACTS 17:1-2
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to
Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And PAUL, AS HIS MANNER
WAS, went in unto them, and THREE SABBATH DAYS reasoned with them out of
the scriptures (emphasis added),
ACTS 18:4
And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every SABBATH, and persuaded the
Jews and the Greeks (emphasis added).
Now, why would Paul observe the Sabbath himself if he supposedly abolished it in
his writings?
75. QUESTION: DID PAUL CONDEMN THE LAW OF CIRCUMCISION

IN HIS WRITINGS?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he did. He states in St. Paul, Disciple

Or Deceiver Scroll # 61: “The Law Of Circumcision Was
Instituted In Genesis 17:10 And Paul Condemed [sic] It In
Galatians 5:2” (14).
129
Like the Sabbath, many people think that Paul abolished the circumcision
law in his epistles. In order to understand what Paul is saying in Galatians 5:2, we
must first take a look at when controversy first began to surround the rite of
circumcision. This is in Acts chapter 15. The issue here was not whether to abolish
circumcision or not, but to discover the true motivation behind circumcising the
Gentiles.
ACTS 15:1
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said,
Except ye be CIRCUMCISED after the manner of Moses, YE CANNOT BE SAVED
(emphasis added).
The issue here was that certain Jews that believed in Jesus Christ were
teaching people that circumcision was required to obtain salvation. This doctrine,
however, did not come from the apostles (vv 2, 19, 20). At one point, Peter stood
up and said, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10)? Was
Peter saying that circumcision and the other laws of God is a yoke too burdensome
to bear? Not at all. If Peter was saying that, it would not have been true because
every Jewish believer in the Jerusalem congregation where he was preaching was
zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20). Why would the Jews be zealous about the Laws
of God if they felt they were a burden? That would not have made sense. Also,
notice that it was a sect of Pharisees who insisted that the Gentiles must be
circumcised (Acts 15:5). Jesus said this concerning the Pharisees in Matthew 23:4,
“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s
shoulders ….” Peter’s words in Acts 15:10 seem to echo those of Jesus in Matthew
23:4. But what “yoke” was Peter speaking of that neither they nor their fathers
could bear? He was referring to someone having to bear the yoke of their own sins.
If we seek to be justified through works rather than through faith in Jesus Christ,
then his sacrifice does not benefit us at all. Why not? This is because we would
then be bearing our own sins upon our own necks.
Once Paul and Barnabas gave their testimonies, James gave judgment of
what would be carried out. The Gentiles were not to be bothered regarding the
circumcision. They had far more serious issues that needed to be addressed first.
They were to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from
things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20). Of course the Gentile converts had
more problems than these four issues, but James states in Acts 15:21, “For Moses
of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue
every sabbath.” Since the Gentiles would hear Moses preached every Sabbath
130
when they attended synagogue service, James knew they would eventually learn
the rest of the Law.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the Jerusalem council did not end the controversy
concerning circumcision. Years later Paul had to address this problem again in
Galatia. Now let us examine what he was saying in Galatians 5:1-4.
GALATIANS 5:1-4
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
entangled again with the YOKE OF BONDAGE. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that
if ye be CIRCUMCISED, CHRIST shall profit you NOTHING. For I testify again
to every man that is CIRCUMCISED, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law;
ye are fallen from grace (emphasis added).
This was the same argument Peter had in Acts 15 against circumcision for
justification. Paul is saying that anyone who looks to be justified by the Law,
whether it be circumcision, Sabbath observance, or whatever, is fallen from grace.
Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for their sins has become totally useless. Paul was not
saying that the circumcision Law is abolished. He was saying that being
circumcised for justification will not profit at all with Christ.
In the New Testament, the issue of circumcision always concerned
justification by faith as opposed to justification by works. No other issue regarding
circumcision was ever in question. Acts 21:20-21 proves that Paul never intended
for people to think that he abolished circumcision or any of the other Laws of
Moses.
ACTS 21:20-21
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest,
brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews
which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, SAYING THAT THEY OUGHT
NOT TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN, NEITHER TO WALK AFTER THE
CUSTOMS (emphasis added).
These allegations were all lies. Paul never instructed anyone to abandon the
Law of Moses or the circumcision of their children. He simply gave the Gentile
converts special instructions for a unique situation. The solution that the Jerusalem
131
elders provided for these false accusations was for Paul to take a vow with four
other men. By taking this vow, they hoped that this would prove that these
allegations were false.
ACTS 21:24
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they
may shave their heads: AND ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS,
WHEREOF THEY WERE INFORMED CONCERNING THEE, ARE NOTHING;
but that thou thyself also WALKEST ORDERLY, and KEEPEST THE LAW
(emphasis added).
Sadly, taking this vow did Paul no good. The Jews continued to spread lies
about him (vv 27 & 28). Still, the fact that Paul took the vow proves that he wanted
to refute the false charges against him. This means that Paul believed in the
circumcision and did not abandon the laws of Moses. If nothing else, we see that
people were spreading lies about Paul back then just like Dr. York and many other
are doing today.
76. QUESTION: DID PAUL CONDEMN BAPTISM?
ANSWER: Dr. York claims that he did. In his book, St. Paul, Disciple Or
Deceiver Scroll # 61 he states: “Paul Even Went Against The
Baptism Which Jesus Christ Himself Was Given By John The
Baptist” (1 Corinthians 1:14, 17) (14).
Let us take a look at these two verses.
1 CORINTHIANS 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 CORINTHIANS 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of
words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Dr. York is wrong again. Paul does not condemn baptism in either of these
verses. Paul said, “Christ sent me not TO baptize.” He did not say, “Christ did not
send me to PREACH baptism.” Do you see the difference? All the Corinthians had
132
already been told about baptism and many of the believers among them had
already been baptized. Notice that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:14-15 that he did
baptize Crispus, Gaius, and all the household of Stephanas. So, how could he have
been condemning baptism in verse 17? It is also recorded in Acts 18:5-8 and Acts
19:4-5 that Paul baptized people, so again, how could he be condemning it?
What did Paul mean when he said Christ did not send him to baptize? Well,
the problem here was that the Corinthians were divided among themselves because
they were not all baptized by the same person. This is why Paul said in verse 12-
13, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of PAUL; and I of
APOLLOS; and I of CEPHAS; and I of CHRIST. Is Christ divided? Was Paul
crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul” (emphasis added)? The
Corinthians were making a big deal about who baptized them and were therefore
missing the spiritual significance of the baptism itself. This is why Paul says in
verse 14 that he thanks God that he only baptized a few people. He did not want
any of the Corinthians to boast just because they were baptized by him. Paul was
telling the Corinthians that the person who baptizes them has no significance. They
belong to Christ.
Therefore let no man glory in MEN. For all things are yours; Whether PAUL, or
APOLLOS, or CEPHAS, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things
to come; all are yours; And ye are CHRIST’S; and Christ is God’s
(emphasis added).
For Dr. York to claim that Paul condemned baptism when there are several places
in the New Testament that mentions Paul baptizing people, makes Dr. York either
incredibly ignorant or incredibly deceitful.
77. QUESTION: WAS PAUL CONDEMNING JESUS FOR HAVING

LONG HAIR IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:14?
ANSWER: Dr. York claims that he was. In his book, St. Paul, Disciple Or
Deceiver Scroll # 61? He states: “Paul Was Trying To
Condemn Jesus For Having Long Hair, Something Approved In
Numbers 6:5 And Judges 13:5” (14).
Once again, Dr. York is misrepresenting the facts. Paul is not condemning Jesus or
anyone else for having long hair. Like Colossians 2:16, in order to understand 1
133
Corinthians 11:14, it must be looked at in its correct historical and also geographical
context.
1 CORINTHIANS 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame
unto him?
First of all, it is evident from reading verses 5, 6, and 13 of this same chapter
that the problem here was that women in Corinth were now praying and
prophesying in the church with their heads uncovered. These women were in some
sense breaking free from existing traditional restrictions. If you do some research
you will discover that in Greco-Roman Culture, women commonly had long hair
and men had short hair. A woman whose hair was cut short was probably a lesbian,
impersonating a man, or trying to avoid rape and capture during times of war.
Therefore, it was considered a shame for a woman to appear masculine by being

shaved or shorn as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:6. The length of a person’s hair
at that time indicated if they were a man or a woman. This is why Paul said that
long hair is shame to a man (v 14), while a woman’s long hair is her glory
(v 15).
What Paul was trying to do in this epistle is maintain a visible distinction,
consistent with Corinthian culture, between the men and women among the
believers. Since hair length was a symbol of masculinity or feminism in Corinth,
Paul did not want to see this distinction clouded within the church or anywhere
else. So, it is clearly seen that Paul’s statement about hair length was in reference
to Corinthian culture and has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ hair length.
78. QUESTION: DID PAUL DENOUNCE THE DIETARY LAW SPOKEN

OF IN LEVITCUS CHAPTER 11?
ANSWER: Dr. York says that he did. In his book, Does God Need
Religion? Scroll # 97, Dr. York states: “The Levitical Law, Is
The Books Of Leviticus, And In Leviticus, The 11th Chapter,
The 7th Verse, It Tells Christians Not To Eat Pork. But They
Say, ‘It’s Not What Goes Into A Person, But That Which
Comes Out Of A Person That Counts’, Meaning Rejecting
What Jesus Believed In, For What Paul Taught Them.” It also
states the following in your pamphlet Luke The Physician
Pamphlet No. 3 (4):
134
Jesus said: Paul changed it to:
From God’s law Paul says in Colosians [sic]

Don’t eat pig No man can judge you in
(Leviticus 11:7) what meat you eat
(Colosians [sic] 2:16)
Many people teach that the dietary laws in the Old Testament were
abolished in the New Testament when Jesus died on the cross. They are mainly
misled by the misunderstanding of the writings of Paul, along with a couple of
other passages in the New Testament. Nevertheless, remember that Peter warned
believers that people would pervert Paul’s writings and other scriptures to their
own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
One of the first passages that people will quote from the New Testament to
refute the dietary law is Matthew 15:11. Jesus says in this verse, “Not that which
goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth a man.” People contend that Jesus is saying in this verse that the food that
goes in our mouths do not defile us, therefore, we can now eat all things. However,
if you read this verse in its correct context, you will see that this is not the case at
all. Jesus is simply saying in this verse that the mind of an individual will govern
his actions. He explains this in verses 18-19 saying, “But those things which
proceed out of the mouth come forth from the HEART; and they DEFILE the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false witness, blasphemies” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the issue here is not a
controversy over the observance of the dietary law in Leviticus chapter 11. There
was never a controversy over this law amongst the Jews because they all knew that
they were not permitted to eat unclean meat. The argument here was whether or
not it is necessary to observe the tradition of the elders who stated that hands must
be washed before eating.
The Scribes and Pharisees had seen the disciples eating bread without first
washing their hands and asked Jesus, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition
of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread (Matthew 15:2)?”
Jesus, however, asked them, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God
by your tradition (Matthew 15:3)?” After asking them this, Jesus rebuked their
tradition and their hypocrisy. Jesus then summed up the matter in verse 20 stating,
“These are the things which defile a man [evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies]: but to eat with unwashen hands
defileth not a man.” Jesus never said, “To eat unclean meats defileth not a man.”
So again, this chapter has nothing to do with the dietary law in Leviticus 11.
135
Another argument that is used to refute the dietary law is found in Acts 10:9-
15. Peter had a vision of a big sheet descending to him with all kinds of creatures
within that are forbidden to be eaten in Leviticus chapter 11. A voice then tells him
to kill and eat, but Peter refuses stating he has never eaten anything common or
unclean. The voice then speaks again to Peter saying, “What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15). From these verses, many people think
that God has now cleansed the animals that he previously pronounced unclean. As
a result of this thinking, they believe that we are now permitted to eat all creatures.
Is this what these verses are saying? We will see.
First, note that this vision of Peter occurred approximately ten years after
Jesus’ death and resurrection, yet Peter still had not eaten any unclean animals.
Why had he not eaten any unclean animals if the dietary law ended at Jesus’ death,
as many modern-day theologians teach? Secondly, note that verse 17 states that
Peter doubted what this vision meant. Why would Peter doubt a vision from the
Lord himself? Peter doubted because he knew that the Lord could not have
possibly changed His mind about His dietary law. And if you read verse 28, you
will see that this vision had nothing to do with God’s dietary law at all. It was the
Lord’s way of telling Peter that Gentiles are to be accepted into the body of Christ
and are not to be considered common or unclean.
ACTS 10:28
And [Peter] said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man
that is a JEW to keep company, or come unto one of ANOTHER NATION; but
GOD hath shewed me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean
(emphasis added).
Also notice that Peter stated that he had never eaten two types of animals:
“common” (Gk. koinos) (Strong G2839) and “unclean” (Gk. akathartos) (Strong
G169). An “unclean” animal is an animal that was created to be unclean and
pronounced unclean by God in His law. However a “common” animal is one that
God created to be clean, but for whatever reason became unclean in a person’s
mind. This brings us to Romans 14:14.
ROMANS 14:14
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing UNCLEAN of
itself: but to him that ESTEEMETH any thing to be UNCLEAN, to him it is
UNCLEAN (emphasis added).
136
The Greek word translated “unclean” all three times in this verse is koinos,
meaning common, profane, defiled, unclean, unholy(Strong G2839). Remember
that Peter said in Acts 10:14, “I have never eaten anything that is common or
unclean.” The Greek word translated “common” in Acts 10:14 is also koinos, but
the Greek word translated “unclean” is akathartos, meaning impure, foul, unclean
(Strong G169) . All animals that were created unclean by God are akathartos.
However, when a clean animal becomes unclean in the mind of a person (because
it was sacrificed to an idol for example), it is called koinos. In Romans 14:14, Paul
is referring to clean meat that a person who is weak in the faith would consciously
consider common (koinos) and then making the decision not to eat it, choosing
only to consume herbs (Romans 14:2). A pig, however, is unclean of itself because
it was created unclean. On the other hand, a lamb that is sacrificed to an idol is not
common of itself. It becomes common in the mind of an individual through means
outside of God’s dietary regulations. So again, it is common (koinos) meat that
Paul is referring to in Romans 14:14, not unclean or (akathartos) meat.
1 Corinthians 10:25-27 is another place many have used to get around the dietary
law.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience
sake: For the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. If any of them that
believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before
you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
Once again, this is a passage that must be read in its correct context to gain its
true meaning. There were many kinds of unclean meats sold in Gentile meat markets
much like today. However, Paul is referring to eating clean meat sacrificed to idols,
not eating unclean meat. This entire chapter is talking about idolatry. The argument
was since part of the animal was sacrificed to idols, the idol and its worshipers were
partaking in a common meal. Paul was simply saying that a believer has the freedom
to eat such meat unless questioned, in which case he should limit that freedom
(v 28).
Probably the most popular passage used today to dismiss the dietary law is found
in Paul’s first letter to Timothy.
137
1 TIMOTHY 4:4-5
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with
thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
This is where many people get the doctrine that all we must do is pray over
the food we eat and it becomes “sanctified,” no matter what it is. However, the
people who teach this seem to focus only on the word “prayer” in this verse, while
totally ignoring the word “sanctified.” The Greek word translated “sanctified” in
this verse is hagiazo, which means to make holy, that is to purify or consecrate
(Strong G37). This means that somewhere in the Bible, God’s creatures were made
holy by his Word. Where in the Bible did this occur? Leviticus 11:46-47.
LEVITICUS 11:46-47
This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living CREATURE that
moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a
DIFFERENCE between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may
be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten (emphasis added).
This “difference” between the clean and unclean beasts in verse 47 is the
sanctification or separation Paul was talking about in1 Timothy 4:5. Also, if you
read verse 44 of Leviticus, God says, “For I am the LORD your God: ye shall
therefore SANCTIFY yourselves, and ye shall be HOLY; for I am HOLY: neither
shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth” (emphasis added). This proves that Paul was only referring to clean meat in
1Timothy 4:5 because that was the meat that was sanctified. So in essence, Paul
was quoting the dietary law! Furthermore, Paul could not have meant every
creature is good for food in an unlimited sense because every creature is not good
for food. The meat of some animals is poisonous and can be fatal if eaten.
Let us take a look at what God says He’s going to do to those who eat unclean
meat when He punishes this world.
ISAIAH 66:15-17
For, behold, the Lord will come with FIRE, and with his CHARIOTS like a
whirlwind, to render his ANGER with FURY, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
For by FIRE and by his SWORD will the Lord plead with ALL flesh: and the
SLAIN of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify
138
themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating SWINE’S FLESH,
and the ABOMINATION, and the MOUSE, shall be CONSUMED together, saith
the Lord (emphasis added).
As you can see, God is so serious about His dietary law that He is actually
going to consume, or in other words, destroy everyone who eats abominable
(unclean) animals when He judges the earth. Bear in mind that Jesus was the God
of the Old Testament, so that means that he is going to be the one who does this. In
the Bible, chariots of fire represent angels (Psalm 68:17; 2 Kings 2:11; 6:17), so
the “chariots” in verse 15 are referring to angels. Therefore, these verses are saying
that Jesus is coming with his angels and fire to punish those who eat abominable or
unclean animals. If we compare this with 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8, we will see that
Paul wrote something very similar to this prophecy.
2 THESSALONIANS 1:7-8
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord JESUS shall be revealed
from heaven with his mighty ANGELS, In FLAMING FIRE taking VENGEANCE
on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ
(emphasis added).
Do you see the similarities? It is obvious that Paul, being a Pharisee and well
learned in the Old Testament scriptures, acquired some of his knowledge of Jesus’
second coming from reading Isaiah 66:15-17. If Paul got this from reading Isaiah,
this means that he would have also informed the Thessalonians that Jesus would
punish everyone who eats abominable (unclean) animals at his coming. So Paul did
not only observe and teach God’s dietary law, but he also warned people of the
future consequences that would come with breaking it.
79. QUESTION: DID PAUL ABOLISH THE LAWS OF GOD IN HIS

WRITINGS?
ANSWER: According to your pamphlets, he did. In your pamphlet,

Matthew The Publican Disciple Of Jesus, it states: “In Matthew
5:17 Jesus made it clear that he came to fulfill the very laws
that Paul adamantly preached against (Acts 26:9, 1 Corinthians
11:17, Galatians 1:6)” (7). In your pamphlet, Luke The
Physician, it also states: “He [Paul] watered down the laws sent
to Moses and the changes appealed to the Gentiles” (4).
139
Due to a misunderstanding of his epistles, many people believe that Paul
abolished the law of God. However, it is very important that we keep in mind that
Peter warned us that Paul’s epistles are hard to be understood by people who are
unlearned, and that these people will pervert his epistles as they do other scriptures
to their own destruction. In order to understand what Paul is saying about the law
in his writings, we must first see if he himself believed and observed the law.
ACTS 24:14
But this I [Paul] confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so
worship I the God of my fathers, BELIEVING all things which are written in the
LAW and in the PROPHETS (emphasis added).
In this verse Paul is speaking to Felix. Understand that this discussion

occurred after most, if not all of Paul’s epistles were written. The Greek word
translated “believing” in this verse is pisteuo, meaning to have faith (in, upon, or
with respect to (a person or thing); to believe, commit (trust to), put in trust with
(Strong G4100). Paul is informing Felix that he has faith in and trusts everything
written in the Law and in the prophets. Paul understood that “The law of the Lord
is perfect, converting the soul” and that “the testimony of the Lord is sure, making
wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7). Paul knew that God’s law would keep him on the
right path.
Two years after his meeting with Felix, Paul met with Festus, Felix’s successor.
Let us take a look at Acts 25:7-8 to see how Paul stood up against the complaints
against him.
ACTS 25:7-8
And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round
about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not
prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the LAW OF THE JEWS,
neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended anything at all
(emphasis added).
As you have just read, Paul said that he did not offend any part of the Law of
the Jews. What was the law of the Jews? It is God’s Law, of course. The reason
Paul called it “the law of the Jews” is because God commissioned His Law to them
first. Throughout the New Testament it says things like “the Jews’ Passover,” or
140
“the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles.” Still, these festivals were not something the Jews
devised themselves, but were commandments of God.
Now the Greek word translated “offended” in this verse is harmartano,
which means, to sin, offend, trespass (Strong G264). So Paul is saying that he did
not sin against any part of the Law of God. Keep in mind that he made this
statement towards the end of his life. It is therefore evident that Paul himself
believed and observed God’s Law.
Still, there are many places in the writings of Paul where people go to claim that he
taught that the law was abolished. For the sake of time and space though, we will
only address a few of the most popular passages where people reference to back up
this claim. The first place we will go is Colossians 2:13-14.
COLOSSIANS 2:13-14
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took
it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
People who use this passage will claim that the “handwriting of ordinances”
that was “against us” was God’s Law. Therefore, it was “nailed to the cross” with
Jesus. This, however, is not true. Notice that Paul said that the “handwriting of
ordinances” was against us, meaning both Jews and Gentiles. This “handwriting of
ordinances” that was against both Jews and Gentiles could not have been the Law
because the Law was not given to the Gentiles.
So, what “handwriting of ordinances” did Jesus blot out and nail to the cross
that was against both Jews and Gentiles? According to the four Gospels and history,
when a criminal was crucified, his crime was written on a sign and was nailed to his
cross right above his head. The Greek word translated “handwriting” in Colossians
2:14 is cheirographon, which means, a manuscript, a legal document or bond,
handwriting (Strong G5498). The Greek word cheirographon has been identified by
scholars in extra-biblical Greek writings as a term used for a “certificate of
indebtedness” (Gingrich Lexicon). Paul was metaphorically saying that the debt of
our sins were nailed to the cross with Jesus the same way the crimes of criminals
were nailed to their crosses above their heads. Paul was saying that Jesus paid the
debt of our sins with his death. Incidentally enough, Jesus said in John 19:30 just
before he died on the cross, “It is finished,” using the Greek word teleo for
“finished,” meaning to pay (A DEBT); to complete, execute, conclude, discharge,
accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform (Strong
141
G5055). Therefore, Jesus was saying in John 19:30, “It is paid.” What was paid? The
debt for our sins! This lines up perfectly with what Paul said in Colossians 2:14.
Another reason to believe that Colossians 2:13-14 is not referring to the Law
concerning the Greek word dogma, which is translated “ordinances” in this
passage. This word means a law, decree, ordinance (Strong G1378). The Greek
word dogma is important because this is the word people use to make a connection
to the Law. Yet, notice that Paul did not say Jesus nailed them to the cross in this
passage, he said Jesus nailed it to the cross. That means that whatever was nailed to
the cross has to agree with the singular pronoun “it.” This would have to be the
singular word cheirographon, (debt/ hand-writing), not the plural word dogma
(laws/ordinances). Therefore, Paul was saying that Jesus blotted out our debt to the
Law and nailed our debt to the cross, not the Law itself.
Another verse people use to say Paul abolish the law is Romans 6:14.
ROMANS 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under
grace.
People who use this verse will claim that when Paul said “ye are not under
the law,” he was saying that we no longer have to keep the law. The
misinterpretation of this verse is due to not knowing the biblical definition of sin,
not understanding what it means to be “under the law,” and not reading the next
verse. First, if we read 1 John 3:4, we will see how the Bible defines sin.
1 JOHN 3:4
Whosoever committeth SIN transgresseth also the LAW: FOR SIN IS THE TRANS-
GRESSION OF THE LAW (emphasis added).
According to 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of God’s law. When Paul
said in Romans 6:14, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” he was saying,
“Transgressing God’s law shall not have dominion over you.” So, how can “ye are
not under the law” mean we no longer have to keep God’s law as people claim,
when the very definition of sin, is the transgression of God’s Law? Or, how can we
sin if there is no law? This does not make sense. Even Paul himself said, “Where
no law is, there is NO transgression” (Romans 4:15) (emphasis added). Paul also
said, “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is NOT imputed when there is
no law” (Romans 5:13) (emphasis added). If there is still sin in the world (and
142
there most certainly is), then there must still be a law-God’s Law. Therefore, when
Paul said “ye are not under the law,” he could not have meant we no longer have to
keep God’s Law.
What did Paul mean when he said, “ye are not under the law”? Let us take a
look. Romans 3:19 states, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it
saith to them who are UNDER THE LAW: that every mouth may be stopped, and
all the world may become guilty before God” (emphasis added). This verse is
addressing people who are “under the law.” Pay close attention to this verse.
Notice that when the Law speaks to these people, their mouths are stopped, and
they are guilty before God. Could this be referring to people who were obeying
God’s Law? Certainly not. If these people were obeying God’s Law, why would
their mouths be stopped and they be declared guilty before God when the Law is
read to them? That would not make sense. In fact, Romans 3:19 must be saying the
opposite. It must be saying that people who are “under the law” are those who are
not obeying the law; therefore, their mouths are stopped and they are guilty before
God. But this would mean that everyone in the world has either heard the law or
has been under it at some point. How can this be? This is because everyone has
sinned at some point in their life.
ROMANS 3:23
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
1 JOHN 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
It makes perfect sense that those who are “under the law” are those who
have sinned. They are the ones who are guilty before God. Paul continues in
Romans 3:20 saying, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Notice that Paul said
that no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law. Why is that? This is because all
have transgressed God’s Law. This is why Paul said the Law is the knowledge of
sin. Only in God can we have righteousness through Jesus Christ. Since he died for
our sins, we can now have eternal life. If we accept him, it is not our righteousness
that God sees, but the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is what Paul meant when
he said in Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I,
but CHRIST liveth IN me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (emphasis
added).
143
Paul continues in Romans 6:15, asking, “What then? shall we sin, because
we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Paul is saying that we
must not sin (transgress the Law) now that we are under grace. Why not? Because
then we would be going back to the sinful life we led before. Therefore, Paul was
not saying that we no longer have to obey the Law. But what did Paul mean when
he said “ye are under grace?” Well, we already know from reading Romans 3:19
that people who are “under the law” are referring to people who have sinned.
These people rely on their own righteousness or law-keeping to justify themselves.
However, those who have faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ are “under
grace.”
There are people that claim that faith in Jesus Christ nullifies God’s Law.
This is not true because Paul himself said in Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void
the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Paul is saying here
that faith (in Jesus Christ) establishes the law, not voids it out. The Greek word
translated “establish” in this verse is histemi, meaning abide, appoint, bring,
continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand by,
forth, still, up (Strong G2476). How do we show our faith in Jesus Christ? We
show faith by abiding by God’s Law.
Another popular passage people use to say that Paul abolished the law is Ephesians
2:14-16.
EPHESIANS 2:14-16
For he [Jesus] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even
the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain
one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one
body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.
People who use this verse claim that the enmity Jesus abolished in his flesh
was the Law. Nevertheless, this interpretation is incorrect. In his letter to the Gentile
converts in Ephesus, Paul explains that in Jesus Christ the enmity between Jew and
Gentile is abolished. Therefore, the “ordinances” in this passage that were abolished
must be laws that separated Jews from Gentiles. The main subject matter of these
verses is the broken walls that divided the Jew and Gentile. This is the only change
Paul is referring to in this specific context. The middle wall of division that was
between Jew and Gentile was sanctioned by racial guidelines that served to separate
the circumcised Jew from the uncircumcised Gentile.
144
These particular laws are referring to traditional Jewish oral laws associated
with these ordinances. These segregated laws produced hostility between the Jew
and Gentile and caused division in the early church. The most significant law that
separated the Jews from the Gentiles was the law of the ordinance of circumcision.
The Jews believed that they could not even eat at the same table as the
uncircumcised because they felt they were unclean (Acts 10:28; 11:1-3). This
hostility hindered the spreading of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-13). However,
circumcision was not abolished in Christ, but, rather, the uncircumcised received
circumcision in Christ.
COLOSSIANS 2:11
In whom [Jesus] also ye [Gentiles] are circumcised with the circumcision made
WITHOUT HANDS, in putting off the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ … (emphasis added).
The ordinances that Paul was speaking of that were abolished in Ephesians 2:14-16
were traditional laws that separated Jews from Gentiles. He was not speaking about
God’s Law.
Probably the most widely chosen passage people use to say that Christ’s death
ended the Law is Romans 10:14.
ROMANS 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
People who use this verse will say that Jesus’ death ended the Law. However,
the Greek translated “end” in this verse is telos, meaning aim, goal (Strong G5056).
This is the same word used in1 Timothy 1:5 where it says: “Now the end (telos) of
the commandment is charity….” This verse is saying that Jesus is the goal or aim of
the Law, which means, observing God’s Law points us towards Jesus. After careful,
thorough investigation, it is clearly seen that Paul did not abolish God’s Law in any
of his writings.
80. QUESTION: IS PAUL QUESTIONING THE RESURRECTION IN

1 CORINTHIANS 15:13-17?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, he is. In regard to 1 Corinthians 15:13-

17, in his book, The Resurrection Scroll # 59 he states: “Right
145
Here Paul Is Questioning The Crucifixion/Resurrection. Yet,
Your Teachers And Preachers Choose From Paul’s Books What
Pleases Them In Order To Please You And Pretend They Don’t
See The Rest”(6).
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we
are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised
up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead
rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye
are yet in your sins.
Dr. York is wrong again. Paul is not questioning the resurrection here. In
these verses Paul is addressing Corinthian converts. The Corinthians believed in
the immortality of the soul, but not the resurrection of the body. Paul was merely
telling the believers among them that if they do not believe there is going to be a
bodily resurrection, then that would mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Since Jesus’ death and resurrection are the foundation of Christianity, Paul
was telling the Corinthian converts that if they do not believe in the bodily
resurrection, then that would mean that Jesus did not resurrect and their faith
would be in vain. In other words, the Corinthian converts are the ones who
questioned the resurrection, not Paul. Paul was trying to convince them that there is
a resurrection. This is why he said in verse 20, “But now is Christ risen from the
dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” Notice that Paul said that
Christ has risen, meaning Paul was proclaiming the resurrection. How could Paul
make a statement like this if he himself questioned the resurrection as Dr. York
claims?
81. QUESTION: WAS PAUL A LIAR?
ANSWER: Dr. York believes that he is. In his book, St. Paul, Disciple Or
Deceiver Scroll # 61? Dr. York states: “After We Listen To
Paul’s Contradictions, It Makes It Very Difficult To Believe That
Paul Ever Had A Vision. PAUL IS A LIAR AND HIS OWN
WORDS CONFIRM IT (Romans 3:7)” (55)!!! He also states in
this same book: “PAUL WAS A LIAR!!! I’ve Shown You That”
(63)!
146
82. QUESTION: SO WAS PAUL ADMITTING TO BEING A LIAR IN
ROMAN 3:7?
ANSWER: Dr. York says that he was. Concerning Romans 3:7 in his book,
St. Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver Scroll # 61, Dr. York states:
“This Is The Kind Of Man That You Base Your Faith On! Your
Whole Law Concerning Christianity Hangs On The Words Of
A Man Who LIED To Get Your Loyalty” (6).
ROMANS 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet
am I also judged a sinner.
Once again, Dr. York is in error. Paul is not admitting to being a liar in this
verse. If you read verse 4 of this chapter, Paul says, “God forbid: yea, let GOD be
TRUE, but every MAN a LIAR …” (emphasis added). In verse 7, Paul is assuming
the role of a liar, as mentioned in verse 4. After stating a hypothetical argument
that someone might use to justify lying, he then rebuts it. Paul is telling the Roman
Christians that God does not use man’s sins to glorify Himself, otherwise how
would He judge the world (verses 5 & 6)? There is no way after reading Romans
3:7 in its correct context that Dr. York or anyone else can accuse Paul of using
deception to gain followers. On the contrary, it is actually Dr. York who is lying
about Paul and using deception to gain followers as you will see next.
83. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK THINKS THAT PAUL WAS SUCH A

LIAR, WHY DID HE PLAGIARIZE PAUL’S WRITINGS
IN THE HOLY TABLETS TO EXPLAIN THE
RESURRECTION?
ANSWER: You will likely claim that Dr. York never did this.
In Tablet Five of The Holy Tablets in a section titled “Karaha (Disagreeableness):

Resurrection Of The Dead,” Dr. York copy’s a portion of Paul’s words in 1
Corinthians 15:41-42 to explain the resurrection. Just take a look at the following
chart!
147
HOLY TABLETS: KARAHA 1 CORINTHIANS 15:41-42 (IN
(DISAGREEABLENESS) Tablet PART)
Five There is one glory of the sun, and
(19 x 1= 19): Resurrection Of The another glory of the moon, and
Dead, verses 17-19, page 820 another glory of the stars: for one
There’s a glory of the sun or another star differeth from another star in
like the moon and, Another of the glory. So also is the resurrection of
stars, So is the resurrection of the the dead.
dead.
Let me get this straight. First, Dr. York says that Paul is a liar. Next, Dr. York
claims in his book, St. Paul, Disciple or Deceiver Scroll # 61, that Paul was
questioning the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:13-17 (63). Finally, Dr. York copies
Paul’s writings almost to the letter to explain the resurrection, citing from the very
place he claimed Paul questioned the resurrection, which is 1 Corinthians 15! This is
absolute DECEPTION. Furthermore, since Dr. York never indicated that he copied
this from Paul’s writings, this makes Dr. York a plagiarist: a person who takes the
ideas and writings of another and passes them off as his own. Yet, Dr. York’s
deception does not end here. He plagiarizes Paul’s writings several other times in
The Holy Tablets! In Tablet 29 of the section titled “Karaha (Disagreeableness):
Speak To Us Of Death,” Dr. York copies Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44,
48-49 and 51-56 to further expound on the resurrection!
HOLY TABLETS: KARAHA 1 CORINTHIANS 15:48-49

(DISAGREEABLENESS) Tablet As is the earthy, such are they also that
Twenty Nine (19 x 3= 57): Speak To Us are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such
Of Death, verses 24-26, page 872 are they also that are heavenly. And as
For as is the earthly, such they also that we have borne the image of the earthy,
are earthly. And as it the heavenly, such we shall also bear the image of the
are they also that are heavenly. And as heavenly.
we have born the image of the earthly,
we shall also bear the image of the 1 CORINTHIANS 15:51-56
heavenly, Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
verses 27-35 page 872 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
Behold I show you a mystery, you shall at the last trump: for the trumpet shall
not all sleep, But you shall be sound, and the dead shall be raised
transformed in an instant faster than the incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
eye blinks, When Rapha’El blast the For this corruptible must put on
trumpet, for the trumpet shall sound and incorruption, and this mortal must put on
148
the dead shall be raised incorruptible immortality. So when this corruptible
and we shall be changed. For this shall have put on incorruption, and this
corruptible must put on incorruption and mortal shall have put on immortality,
this mortal must put on immortality, So then shall be brought to pass the saying
when this corruptible shall put on that is written, Death is swallowed up in
incorruption and this mortal shall have victory. O death, where is thy sting? O
put on immortality then shall be brought grave, where is thy victory? The sting of
to pass the saying that has been written. death is sin; and the strength of sin is the
Death is swallowed up in victory. Oh law.
death where is your sting? Oh grave
where is your victory? The sting of death
is sin and the strength of sin is the law
verses 36-43 page 872 1 CORINTHIANS 15:42-44

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It So also is the resurrection of the dead. It
is sown in corruption, it is raised in is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it
raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness;
is raised in power. It is sown a natural it is raised in power: It is sown a natural
body, It is raised a spiritually body. body; it is raised a spiritual body. There
There is a natural body, And there is a is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
spiritual body. body.
Just how deceptive is Dr. York? Well, think about it. For decades he taught
you that Paul was a liar, a deceiver, and cannot be trusted. Then he goes and steals
Paul’s writings and passes them off as his own in one of his most sacred books,
The Holy Tablets. That is pretty deceptive, is it not? There is yet another instance
in The Holy Tablets where Dr. York profoundly plagiarizes Paul’s writings. In
Tablet 18 of the section titled, “Qabiyl Wa Habiyl (Cain And Abel): The First
Murder,” Dr. York copies what Paul states in Romans 7:15-24.
ROMANS 7:14-24 HOLY TABLETS: QABIYL WA HABIYL

For we know that the law is spiritual: (CAIN AND ABEL) Tablet Eighteen (19 x
but I am carnal, sold under sin. For 10= 190): The First Murder, verses 8-24,
that which I do I allow not: for what I pages 797-798
would, that do I not; but what I hate, And Haylal said: For we have knowledge
that do I. If then I do that which I that the law is of the spirit, But I am of the
would not, I consent unto the law that body, one soul under sin who is Ishtar also
it is good. Now then it is no more I called Inanna. For that which I do, I allow
149
that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in not: for what I would, that I do not; But what
me. For I know that in me (that is, in I hate, that I do. If then I do that which I
my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for would not, I consent unto the rulers that are
to will is present with me; but how to agreeable. Now then, it is no more I that do
perform that which is good I find not. it, but the love of sin that dwell in me. For I
For the good that I would I do not: have knowledge that in me, But how to do
but the evil which I would not, that I that which is good, I find not. For the
do. Now if I do that I would not, it is agreeable that I would do, I do not: but the
no more I that do it, but sin that disagreeable which I would not, that I do.
dwelleth in me. I find then a law, But sin dwell in me. I find then a law, that,
that, when I would do good, evil is when I would do agreeable, Disagreeable is
present with me. For I delight in the present with me. For I delight in the rules of
law of God after the inward man: But ANU Most Glorified And Exalted, after the
I see another law in my members, inward human being; But I see another law
warring against the law of my mind, in my body, warring against the law of my
and bringing me into captivity to the mind, And bringing me into the level of the
law of sin which is in my members. O law of sin, which is in my body, O wretched
wretched man that I am! who shall human being that I am! Who shall deliver me
deliver me from the body of this from the body of this death?
death?
This is deception at its highest! Not only did Dr. York plagiarize all of this
from Paul’s words in Romans 7:14-24, but he also put Paul’s words in the mouth of
“Haylal” just to provide his own explanation for why Cain killed Abel. Still, there is
more. In his books, Whose God Is Responsible? Scroll # 89 (20-21) and 360
Questions To Ask The Orthodox Sunni Muslims Scroll # 198 (J-K), he again cites
Paul’s writings. This time he refers to Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:11-12 to explain
who the “disagreeable beings” are and how to fight against them. Check out the
following chart.
150
Whose God Is Responsible? Scroll # 89 EPHESIANS 6:11-13
pages 20-21 Put on the whole armor of God, that ye
When They Come You Have To Be Ready To May be able to stand against the
Do Battle With Them, Not Run From Them, wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not
And You Can Not Do Battle With Them against flesh and blood, but against
Unless You Have Psychic Self Defense, PRINCIPALITIES, AGAINST
Which Is When You Psyche Yourself Into POWERS, AGAINST THE RULERS
Self Defense, And That’s Why The OF THE DARKNESS OF THIS
SCRIPTURES Said Put On The ARMOR OF WORLD, AGAINST SPIRITUAL
GOD, In EPHESIANS 6:11 And 6:13. WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES.
That’s Why In Matthew 10:34, Jesus Said Wherefore take unto you the whole ARMOR
“…I Came Not To Send Peace, But A OF GOD, that ye may be able to withstand
Sword…”. They Didn’t Understand Because in the evil day,
He Didn’t Do Any Fighting On Earth. He and having done all, to stand.
Didn’t Come To Fight On Earth He Came
To Fight The PRINCIPALITIES OF
DARKNESS (Refer To Ephesians 6:12).
360 Questions To Ask The Orthodox Sunni

Muslims Scroll # 198 pages
J-K
We Are Fighting Against The
PRINCIPALITIES OF DARKNESS. We Are
Fighting Against Secrecy And
WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES. Do You
Overstand That? We Are Talking About
Arab Governments That Work With The
Devil And The Fake Christian World Will
Come To Their Aid If They Need Them.
Notice that in Whose God Is Responsible Scroll # 89, Dr. York refers to
Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:11-13 as “the scriptures.” This would mean that Paul’s
writings were inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Now how can Dr. York say this
about Paul’s writings in this book when he claims in St. Paul Disciple Or Deceiver
Scroll # 61? that Paul was a liar? Obviously, this is just another huge contradiction
in Dr. York’s teachings.
Now what is hypocritical about this whole subject is the fact that Dr. York
actually had the audacity to say in St. Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver? Scroll # 61: “Do
Some Research!! STOP FOLLOWING THOSE WHO TEACH THE WAYS OF
PAUL” (emphasis added) (17)!!! Well is not this exactly what Dr. York is doing in
151
his books? Was not Dr. York teaching the ways of Paul in The Holy Tablets to
explain the resurrection? Dr. York really put his foot in his mouth this time
because according to his own words, you, the Nuwaubian, should stop following
him since he also teaches the ways of Paul. So do you really believe that Paul was
a liar? If you say yes, then that means that you should STOP following Dr. York
since he clearly teaches the ways of Paul in his books. But if you say no, then that
would mean that Dr. York was in fact the one LYING when he called Paul a liar in
his books. What is your answer?
84. QUESTION: WAS PAUL A DISCIPLE OF JESUS CHRIST OR THE

FALSE PROPHET AND SORCERER, SIMON/BAR-
JESUS (ACTS 13:6)?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, Paul was a disciple of Simon/Bar-jesus.

In his book, The Three Jesus Scroll # 92, he states: “Jesus Of
2000 Years Ago Followers Referred To Bar Jesus As A
Sorcerer. He Had Many Followers, PAUL WAS ONE OF
THEM” (44) (emphasis added). Dr. York also states in this
same book: “Simon Bar Jesus Was Of The Tribe Of Judah Just
Like Jesus Son Of Mary, AND THIS SIMON BAR JESUS IS
THE JESUS THAT PAUL TEACHES YOU ABOUT
THROUGHOUT HIS BOOKS” (emphasis added) (52).
There is absolutely no evidence in the New Testament that Paul was a follower of
Bar-jesus, or that he taught people about him. On the contrary, in Acts 13:6-11,
Paul sharply rebukes Bar-jesus for his wickedness and supernaturally blinds him.
ACTS 13:6-11
And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain
sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was BAR-JESUS: Which was with
the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas
and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But ELYMAS the sorcerer (for so is
his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from
the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his
eyes on him, And SAID, O FULL OF ALL SUBTILTY AND ALL MISCHIEF,
THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
WILT THOU NOT CEASE TO PERVERT THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE LORD?
AND NOW, BEHOLD, THE HAND OF THE LORD IS UPON THEE, AND THOU
SHALT BE BLIND, NOT SEEING THE SUN FOR A SEASON. AND IMMED-
152
IATELY THERE FELL ON HIM A MIST AND A DARKNESS; AND HE WENT
ABOUT SEEKING SOME TO LEAD HIM BY THE HAND (emphasis added).
Paul publicly called Bar-Jesus a “child of the Devil” and the “enemy of all
righteousness!” These are the absolute harshest and most condemning words Paul
ever spoke to a single person in the entire New Testament! Does this sound like
something Paul would say to Bar-jesus if he was his faithful disciple? That would
be like me trying to convince you that a devoted Nuwaubian would say things like
that to Dr. York. Plus, let us not forget that Paul also added insult to injury (or
injury to insult in this case) and blinded Bar-jesus. It is crystal clear that Paul
followed and taught people about Jesus Christ, and not about the false prophet and
sorcerer, Simon/Bar-jesus.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAN FROM THE PLANET RIQZ
85. QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE ANUNNAQI?
ANSWER: According to Dr. York, the Anunnaqi are identical to what the
Bible refers to as angels.
In his book, Nibiru & Anunnaqi Fact Or Fiction Scroll # 154, Dr. York
states: “Don’t be Confused By The Title ANUNNAQI. Anunnaqi Simply Means
‘Those Sent From Anu To Qi (Earth)’ ” (89). Dr. York continues saying: “The
Bible Calls Them Angelos (Aggelo")” (89). Dr. York also says: “The American
Churches Simply Call Them ANGELS” (emphasis added) (89). He also adds: “In
The Old Testament They Are Referred To As ANGELS Or In The Hebrew
Language, ELOHEEM (myhla)” (emphasis added) (91). It is clear from this book
that Dr. York is saying that the Anunnaqi are simply what the Bible calls angels.
86. QUESTION: IS DR. YORK AN ANUNNAQI/ANGEL?
ANSWER: If you believe Dr. York’s writings, you would have to say yes,
since he says that he is an angel in many of his books.
In his book, Man From Planet Rizq (Study Book One: Supreme
Mathematics Class A For The Students Of The Holy Tabernacle) Scroll # 80, Dr.
York claims that he is an angel. He states: “I YAANUWN AM AN ANUNNAQI
Or What You Would Call An EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL; Extra-Terrestrial; Look
At This EXTRA Meaning In Addition To; TERRA- Of Earth; ASTRAL- Of Or
From The Stars. I AM WHAT YOU CALL AN ANGELIC BEING, An Eloheem
153
From The 8th Planet Called RIZQ Which Has 1 Moon SHESHQI Of It’s [sic]
Own” (emphasis added) (23).
87. QUESTION: IS DR. YORK THE SAME TYPE OFANUNNAQI/

ANGEL AS THE ONES IN THE BIBLE?
ANSWER: Once again you will have to say yes, since Dr. York clearly
identifies himself with the angels of the Bible in some of his
books.
In his book, Who Was Jesus Sent To Scroll # 60, Dr. York identifies himself
with the immortal angels spoken of in Luke 20:36. He states: “You Too Are The
Annas And Imraans Who Will Give Birth To The 144,000, Who Will Ascend
Mount Zion, And They Will become ANGELS Also, JUST LIKE ME” (emphasis
added) (77). After stating this, Dr. York then shows the words that are stated in
Luke 20:36 (78-79). So, we know that Dr. York considers himself to be the same
type of angel as the ones spoken of in Luke 20:36 because this is the scripture he
referenced after he said, “And they will become angels also, just like me.”
The fact that Dr. York said that the “Annas” and “Imraans” would become
angels just like him proves that he considers himself to be something different from
the rest of mankind. In other words, Dr. York was telling the “Annas” and
“Imraans,” who represent the people in his congregation, that they will go through
some kind of transformation before they can be angels just like him. Pay close
attention to what Luke 20:36 is saying.
LUKE 20:36
Neither can they DIE anymore: for they are EQUAL unto the ANGELS; and are
the children of God, being the children of the resurrection (emphasis added).
According to this verse, the people who are worthy to come up in this
resurrection can no longer die because at that time they will be equal to the angels.
The Greek word translated “equal to the angels” in this verse is isaggelos, which
means, like an angel, that is, angelic:-equal to the angels (Strong G2465). If the
people who are worthy to come up in this resurrection can no longer die and are
equal to the angels, that means that angels cannot die.
88. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK IS THE SAME TYPE OF ANUNNAQI/

ANGEL AS THE ONES IN LUKE 20:36, DOES THIS
MEAN THAT HE CANNOT DIE?
154
ANSWER: If you are realistic, you will say that Dr. York can and will die
just like everybody else.
89. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK IS THE SAME TYPE OF ANUNNAQI/

ANGEL AS THE ONES IN THE BIBLE, DOES THAT
MEAN THAT HE IS A SPIRIT MADE OUT OF FIRE?
ANSWER: No.
Since Dr. York claims to be the same type of angel as the ones in the Bible, then
according to Psalm 104:4, he should be a spirit made of fire.
PSALM 104:4
Who maketh his ANGELS spirits; his ministers a FLAMING FIRE (emphasis
added).
Do you seriously think Dr. York is a spirit made of fire?
90. QUESTION: CAN DR. YORK STAND IN A BLAZING FIRE

WITHOUT BEING BURNED UP?
ANSWER: No.
However, an angel in Exodus 3:2 could. It states, “And the ANGEL of the
Lord appeared unto him (Moses) IN A FLAME OF FIRE out of the midst of a
bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush BURNED WITH FIRE AND THE
BUSH WAS NOT CONSUMED (emphasis added). This angel did not just
withstand the fire himself, but also prevented an ordinary bush from burning up.
Another angel executed a similar feat in the Book of Judges. A man named
Manoah, offered a sacrifice to an angel because God had blessed him and his wife
with a baby boy who later grew up to be the mighty Samson. Please pay close
attention to what this scripture is saying.
JUDGES 13:19-20
So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the
Lord: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. For it
came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that THE
ANGEL OF THE LORD ASCENDED IN THE FLAME OF THE ALTAR. And
155
Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground
(emphasis added).
Reading scriptures in the Bible like this proves that Nuwaubians really have
no idea what angels are and what they are capable of. If you did, you would not
believe for one second that Dr. York could possibly be the same kind of angel as
the ones in the Bible. And please do not try to get around this and say when Dr.
York says that he is an angel, he is simply saying that he is a messenger because
the word angel means messenger. If Dr. York was simply saying that he is a
messenger, then why did he compare himself to the immortal angels in Luke 20:36
where it says “neither can they die anymore …”? For instance, it would have made
more sense for him to compare himself to a mortal messenger like the prophet
Haggai.
HAGGAI 1:13
Then spake Haggai the Lord’s MESSENGER in the Lord’s message unto the
people, saying, I am with you saith the Lord (emphasis added).
Dr. York could have also easily compared himself to the mortal messengers of
Saul.
1 SAMUEL 19:20
And Saul sent MESSENGERS to take David: and when they saw the company of
the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the spirit
of God was upon the MESSENGERS of Saul, and they also prophesied (emphasis
added).
Dr. York could have even compared himself to God’s inspired mortal messengers.
2 CHRONICLES 36:15
And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his MESSENGERS, rising up
betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his
dwelling place(emphasis added).
Haggai 1:13, 1 Samuel 19:20 and 2 Chronicles 36:15 are only three of
several places in the Bible where mortal messengers are referenced. There is no
question which angels (messengers) in the Bible, Dr. York identifies himself with.
156
Since Dr. York clearly identifies himself with the immortal angels, then it stands to
reason that we should expect him to be able to do the things that the immortal
angels do.
91. QUESTION: DOES DR. YORK HAVE SUPERNATURAL POWERS

THAT ALLOW HIM TO CONTROL FIRE?
ANSWER: No.
Yet an angel in Judges 6:21 has control over fire.
JUDGES 6:21
Then the ANGEL of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and
touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; AND THERE ROSE UP FIRE OUT OF
THE ROCK, AND CONSUMED THE FLESH AND THE UNLEAVENED CAKES.
Then the angel departed out of his sight (emphasis added).
Another angel in Revelation 14:18 also has power over fire.
REVELATION 14:18 (IN PART)
And another ANGEL came out from the altar, WHICH HAD POWER OVER FIRE
(emphasis added);
The angels in Judges 6:21 and Revelation 14:18 both have control over fire. So are
you saying that Dr. York can supernaturally wield fire like this, too?
92. QUESTION: DOES EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER HEARD DR.

YORK’S TEACHINGS BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS?
ANSWER: You will say no.
93. QUESTION: SO SINCE EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER HEARD DR.

YORK’S TEACHINGS DOES NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE
SAYS, WHY DOES DR. YORK NOT USE
SUPERNATURAL POWER AND STRIKE THE NON-
BELIEVERS DUMB LIKE THE ANGEL GABRIEL DID
ZACHARIAS?
157
ANSWER: You will not have a logical answer.
According to Luke 1:20, 22, the angel Gabriel struck Zacharias, the father of John
the Baptist, dumb, simply because he did not believe the message he was bringing
him.
LUKE 1:20
And, behold, thou [Zacharias] shalt be DUMB, AND NOT ABLE TO SPEAK, until
the day that these things be performed, BECAUSE THOU BELIEVEST NOT MY
WORDS, which shall be fulfilled in their season (emphasis added).
LUKE 1:22 (IN PART)
And when he came out, HE COULD NOT SPEAK UNTO THEM (emphasis added):
The Greek word translated “dumb” in this verse is siopao, which means to be
silent, hold one’s peace (Strong G4623). There are an untold amount of people in
the world today who has heard Dr. York’s message and did not believe it. So, can
you please tell me why Dr. York has not struck any of them dumb yet?
94. QUESTION: CAN ANUNNAQI/ANGELS FLY?
ANSWER: According to the Bible they can.
The Prophet Daniel speaks of the angel Gabriel flying.
DANIEL 9:21
Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man GABRIEL, whom I had seen in
the vision at the beginning, being caused to FLY swiftly, touched me about the time
of the evening oblation (emphasis added).
The Prophet Isaiah also speaks of angelic beings called “Seraphims” being able to
fly.
ISAIAH 6:1-2
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the SERAPHIMS: each
158
one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his
feet, and with twain he did FLY (emphasis added).
The Apostle John also speaks of an angel flying in the book of Revelations.
REVELATION 14:6
And I saw another ANGEL FLY in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
kindred, and tongue, and people (emphasis added).
If Dr. York is the same type of angel as the ones in the Bible, then why is he
unable to naturally fly like them?
95. QUESTION: DOES DR. YORK HAVE THE ABILITY TO

SUPERNATURALLY STRIKE THE WICKED WITH
BLINDNESS?
ANSWER: No.
Yet, two angels in Genesis 19:11 have this ability. God sent these angels to
destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the wickedness of the people that
inhabited these cities (Genesis 13:13). However, God decided to spare Lot,
Abraham’s nephew, and his family. When the two angels arrived at Sodom that
evening, Lot humbly greeted them and asked them to stay at his house. After some
reluctance, the angels finally agreed to stay at Lot’s house and feasted on
unleavened bread that Lot baked for them. Before they could even lie down
though, all the men of Sodom surrounded the house and demanded Lot to turn the
two angels over to them. Lot came to the door and knowing that these men wanted
the angels for evil intentions, he instead offered them his two virgin daughters.
This offer only angered the men, so they decided to take Lot instead. Before the
men could get Lot, the two angels pulled him back into his house and
supernaturally smote all the men of Sodom with blindness.
GENESIS 19:11
And they SMOTE THE MEN THAT WERE AT THE DOOR OF THE HOUSE
WITH BLINDNESS, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find
the door (emphasis added).
159
If Dr. York is an angelic being, can you tell me why he has not smitten any of his
enemies with blindness yet?
96. QUESTION: CAN DR. YORK SUMMON BRIMSTONE AND FIRE

DOWN FROM THE SKY TO DESTROY HIS ENEMIES
OR CITIES?
ANSWER: No.
Apparently, the angels in the Bible have multiple abilities. The same two
angels that smote the men of Sodom with blindness also destroyed them along with
Sodom and Gomorrah by summoning brimstone and fire down from the sky.
GENESIS 19:13
For we will DESTROY this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before
the face of the Lord; and the Lord has sent US to DESTROY it (emphasis added).
GENESIS 19:24-25
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah BRIMSTONE AND FIRE
FROM the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain,
and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground
(emphasis added).
Even though verse 24 says that the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom
and Gomorrah, we know that he used the two angels to do it because they said that
the Lord sent them to destroy these cities in verse 13. The reason verse 24 says that
the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah is because the angels
get their powers from Him and He is ultimately the person dictating all their
actions. Now, what is even more remarkable is the fact that in 2 Kings 1:10, the
Lord’s mortal messenger Elijah, also performed a very similar act.
2 KINGS 1:10
And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, if I be a man of God, then let
fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down
FIRE FROM HEAVEN, AND CONSUMED HIM AND HIS FIFTY (emphasis
added).
160
God has given his immortal and apparently even some of His mortal angels
(messengers) the ability to call down brimstone and fire from above. So, even if
Dr. York is a flesh and blood mortal (and he most definitely is), he should still be
able to do this even in his so-called mortal state. After all, did he not say that he
was the same kind of angel as the ones in the Bible? Please do not try making any
excuses to explain why he has never done anything like this by saying something
like, “Dr. York cannot or does not use his angelic powers when he is in his human
form.” That is unacceptable because according to Genesis 19:5, the two angels that
destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah were in the physical form of men (humans) when
they came to visit Sodom.
GENESIS 19:5
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the MEN which came in to
thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them (emphasis added).
The fact that the men of Sodom referred to the two angels as “men” means that
these angels were in the form of physical men. Also, in Genesis 19:10, these same
two angels are again referred to as “men.”
GENESIS 19:10
But the MEN put forth their hand, and pulled lot into the house to them, and shut to
the door (emphasis added).
The angels pulled Lot back into his house right before they smote the men of
Sodom with blindness. They were in the physical form of men when they did this
and if you read the whole nineteenth chapter of Genesis, you will see that they
were still in this form when they destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The prophet
Daniel also wrote that the angel Gabriel, though in the form of a man, still had the
supernatural ability to fly. In Daniel 9:21 it says, “Yea, whiles I was speaking in
prayer, even the MAN Gabriel, whom I seen in the vision at the beginning, being
caused to FLY swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation”
(emphasis added). So, even when angels are in the physical form of men, this does
not restrict them from using their supernatural powers. Besides all this, Elijah was
just a normal mortal and he was still able to summon fire from heaven. Thus,
whether immortal or mortal, Dr. York should be able to do this, too. Ask yourself
this, “Why is it that Dr. York has never summoned brimstone and or fire down
from the sky, if he is an angelic being with supernatural powers?”
161
97. QUESTION: DOES DR. YORK HAVE SUPERNATURAL POWERS
THAT GIVE HIM THE ABILITY TO TAME WILD
FEROCIOUS BEASTS LIKE LIONS?
ANSWER: No.
Well apparently an angel mentioned in Daniel 6:22 has the ability to tame wild
lions. The prophet Daniel was thrown into a den of wild lions after he deliberately
broke a newly established law that restricted prayer or petition to any God or man
except King Darius. Daniel, however, was delivered from the lions when God sent
an angel to protect him.
DANIEL 6:21-22
Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his
ANGEL, and hath SHUT THE LIONS’ MOUTHS, that they have not hurt me:
forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, o king,
have I done no hurt (emphasis added).
If you do some research you will discover that lions, along with tigers, are
the largest members of the cat family. Male lions usually weigh 350 to 400 pounds,
but some have been known to weigh as much as 500 pounds. Measuring from the
nose to the end of the tail, most male lions are roughly 9 feet long and are
approximately 3 ½ feet tall at the shoulder. Male lions are the only cats that have
manes. The mane, which is a long thick collar of hair, covers the head except for
the face and the neck all the way down to the shoulders and the chest. The thick
hair of the mane protects him during fights by softening the blows of his enemy.
However, a lion’s most fearsome weapons are his long sharp teeth and huge paws.
One swipe from a lion can disable or kill his prey. The lion can then use his
pointed teeth to rip his prey to pieces. The Bible testifies of the ferocity of lions.
For instance, the same men who conspired against Daniel to have him thrown in
the lions’ den were also thrown in afterwards with their wives and children, once
their wickedness was exposed.
DANIELS 6:24
And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel,
and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and
the lions had the mastery of them, AND BRAKE ALL THEIR BONES IN PIECES
or ever they came at the bottom of the den (emphasis added).
162
Do you seriously believe that Dr. York has the supernatural ability to tame wild
ferocious beasts like this?
98. QUESTION: CAN DR. YORK TRANSFORM HIMSELF TO LOOK

LIKE SOMEONE ELSE?
ANSWER: No.
Yet, an angel in the apocryphal “Book of Jasher” could do this. In order to help
Moses escape from Egypt, this angel transformed himself to look exactly like a
captain of Pharaoh’s guard.
JASHER 71:8-9
And he answered him and said to him, Who has set thee for a prince and judge
over us? dost thou think to slay me as thou didst slay the Egyptian? and Moses was
afraid and he said, Surely the thing is known? And Pharaoh heard of this affair,
and he ordered Moses to be slain, so God sent his ANGEL, AND HE APPEARED
UNTO PHARAOH IN THE LIKENESS OF A CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD
(emphasis added).
And for good measure, the Gospel of Mark states that Jesus Christ could also
change his form.
MARK 16:12
After that he (Jesus) appeared in ANOTHER FORM unto two of them, as they
walked, and went into the country (emphasis added).
Do you honestly believe Dr. York can do this?
99. QUESTION: CAN DR. YORK SINGLEHANDEDLY DEFEAT A

LARGE ARMY OF SOLIDERS WITHOUT ANY
ADVANCED WEAPONS OR HELP?
ANSWER: No.
An angel in 2 Kings 19:35 did this. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, threatened to

invade the kingdom of Jerusalem with his massive army unless the Jews
163
surrendered. God then sent an angel to protect the Jews after King Hezekiah
prayed for deliverance.
2 KINGS 19:35
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, AND SMOTE
IN THE CAMP OF THE ASSYRIANS AN HUNDRED FOURSCORE AND FIVE
THOUSAND: AND WHEN THEY AROSE EARLY IN THE MORNING, BEHOLD,
THEY WERE ALL DEAD CORPSES (emphasis added).
One angel single-handedly killed 185,000 enemy soldiers without the help of
any armies or any special weapons. He did not use any nuclear missiles or
warheads. He did not use any guns or tanks. He did not use any kind of advanced
weaponry at all. This angel only used raw, supernatural power. Now, do you
seriously believe that Dr. York has this kind of power? If so, then this brings us to
the next question.
100. QUESTION: BEING THAT DR. YORK IS CURRENTLY IN JAIL,

WHY HAS HE NOT USED HIS SUPERNATURAL
“ANUNNAQI” ABILITIES TO ESCAPE INSTEAD OF
SERVING TIME?
ANSWER: Dr. York is not really an “Anunnaqi”/angel and therefore does

not have any supernatural powers to escape jail.
If Dr. York were truly the same type of angel as the ones in the Bible, he
would be able to easily escape from any earthly prison. How do I know this?
Because according to Acts 12:5-10, an angel saved the Apostle Peter from prison
after he was arrested by the order of King Herod.
ACTS 12:5-10
Peter therefore was kept in PRISON: but prayer was made without ceasing of the
church unto god for him. And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same
night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, BOUND WITH TWO CHAINS: and
the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord
came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote peter on the side,
and raised him up, saying, Ariseup quickly. AND HIS CHAINS FELL OFF FROM
HIS HANDS. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.
And so he did. And he saith unto him, cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.
164
And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done
by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the
second ward, they came unto the IRON GATE that leadeth unto the city;
WHICH OPENED TO THEM OF HIS OWN ACCORD: and they went out, and
passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him
(emphasis added).
This is the power of a true angel! Acts 12:5-10 makes it very clear
that this angel had absolutely no trouble saving Peter from prison. If this angel
could save Peter from prison, it would have been too easy for this angel to save
himself from a prison. And that is only if this angel would have allowed himself to
be put in a prison in the first place. This angel even used his powers to remove
Peter’s chains from his hands before he lead him out of the prison. When Dr. York
was being led away after being arrested, he was wearing handcuffs. If he is
identical to the angels of the Bible, why not use his powers to remove his
handcuffs from his hands, the same way the angel removed Peter’s chains from his
hands?
Also, note that the Book of Acts was written by Luke, who also wrote the
Gospel of Luke. This is the same Gospel of Luke that Dr. York referenced in Who
Was Jesus Sent To? Scroll # 60 to verify that he was an angel to begin with. And
do not try to say that you do not believe the Book of Acts simply because Luke
wrote it. Why is Dr. York not using his powers to save himself from jail, the same
way the angel used his powers to save Peter from prison?
Yet, there is more. In The Holy Tablets, Dr. York actually claims to have other
supernatural abilities. In Tablet Ten Zodoq: Melchizedek (19 x 20 = 380) verses
44, 51-56, Dr. York states:
Therefore, when you think of ANGELS it is US who you think of and your
call is being answered. Your prayers are heard, so we DESCEND to Earth
and have become FLESH and BODY like MAN in order to help man. In the
etheric form of light, you call us spirits, And the supreme beings you refer to
as holy spirits or the holy ghost, Because we know the formula of the
chemistry of the human body. WE KNOW HOW TO ALTER
MOLECULES AND DEMATERIALIZE THROUGH MAGNETISM AND
THE TETRAHEDRON SCIENCE MATTERS AT WILL. By using
magnetism, we use the parts of the human brain that are not being used, And
live in parts of their cells that they don’t use as of yet. WE CAN
INCARNATE INTO ANYBODY WE WANT AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
(emphasis added) (1636-37)
165
According to the above verses, Dr. York says that he and these other angels
like him have the ability to dematerialize, which means to disappear (Merriam-
Webster). He also said that they have the ability to incarnate into anybody at will.
Now these supernatural abilities that Dr. York claims he has in The Holy Tablets
raise a number of questions. First of all, if Dr. York can dematerialize at will as he
claims, why did he not just “dematerialize” when the police first came to arrest
him? Or, to really show his power, why did he not wait until after he was arrested
and then “dematerialize” out of his holding cell? That would have been really
amazing. If Dr. York really has supernatural abilities like this, why did he even
allow himself to be arrested in the first place?
Dr. York also claimed to have the ability to incarnate into anybody at will.
So when the police showed up to arrest him he should have been able to just
“incarnate” into someone else’s body and they never would have really
apprehended him. Why did he not just do that? A couple of die-hard Nuwaubians
will probably claim that he did incarnate into someone else’s body before or even
when he was arrested. This would then mean that the guy who was arrested was
not really Dr. York after all. If this is the case and Nuwaubians know this, why did
so many of you go through the trouble of trying to get this man out of jail? Also,
note that Dr. York uses terms like “us” and “we” when he spoke of the angels that
have these supernatural abilities. This means that he is saying that there are other
angels out there besides him that can also dematerialize and incarnate into anyone
at will. This brings us to the final question …
101. QUESTION: IF FOR WHATEVER REASON DR. YORK WAS

UNABLE TO USE HIS POWERS TO SAVE HIMSELF
WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED, WHY DID THESE OTHER
ANGELS NOT STEP IN TO SAVE HIM FROM GOING
TO JAIL?
ANSWER: You will have no logical explanation to this question.
What happened to Dr. York’s “fellow angels” when he was arrested?

Why did these angels not come to his aid when he needed them the most? Are they
unaware that Dr. York is in trouble? Were they powerless to help Dr. York? Did
they get scared and take flight when they saw the FBI with loaded guns? Or, is it
that they just simply do not care that one of their own is rotting in a prison cell here
on Earth?
On a side note, I have just one more thing to bring to your attention
concerning Dr. York being in jail. In his book What Race Was Jesus? Scroll # 162,
Dr. York criticizes the late Yahweh Ben Yahweh for claiming to be a savior, but
166
not being able to save himself from going to Jail. Dr. York states: “Yahweh Ben
Yahweh Paraded Around Telling The People And His Followers That He Is The
‘Black Christ’ And That He Is Here To Save His People From The Whites
(Caucasians), Yet, He Couldn’t Even Save Himself From Going To Jail” (24). In
this, book Dr. York is saying that even though Yahweh Ben Yahweh claimed that
he was here to save black people, he could not even save himself from going to
Jail.
Dr. York also claimed that he is here to save black people, but could not
save himself from going to jail either. In his book The Lost Tribe” Scroll # 36
Revised, Dr. York states: “I’ve Come To SAVE You, A Lost People, From The
Teachings Of Lying Pastors, Evil Imams, Foolish Ministers, Misinformed Rabbis,
And From The Disagreeable Influences That Surround You Which Have Brought
You Down To Be The Filth Of The Planet Earth, Put You In bondage, And
Afflicted And STRIPPED OF YOUR IDENTITY AND HERITAGE” (emphasis
added) (1). He also says in The Holy Tablets on page 1641 in Tablet Six Zodoq:
Melchizedek (19 x 20 = 380) verse 164: “Simply ASK, Ask Seek Knock. Merely
ask for I am your long awaited SAVIOR” (emphasis added) (1641)! Incredible!
Since Dr. York obviously cannot save himself from jail either, does this mean that
he is no better than the late Yahweh Ben Yahweh?
167
A NOTE TO THE NUWAUBIAN
I did not write this book to “give you what you want, so you can learn to want what
I have to give.” I wrote this book for one reason and one reason only and that is to
show you the truth. I have no hidden agenda. I do not claim to be a god, an angel, a
prophet or an apostle. I am just a regular brother who has not done anything you
cannot do, and that is seeing through Dr. York’s deception. I am sure you thought
that Dr. York was a “Master Teacher” who only deals with the facts, but as I have
shown you, this simply is not true. This book proves that Dr. York’s teachings
contain deception, multiple contradictions, and a whole lot of hypocrisy. The
information in this volume is just a small example of some of the things I have
found to be fraudulent in his teachings. There is much more falsehood than this. I
could literally write a series of books showing more deception, contradictions, and
lies. However, I do not think that will be necessary… not right now, anyway.
Do not think for one second that upper-level Nuwaubians are unaware of
some of the contradictions in Dr. York’s teachings that I have revealed in this
book. They are well aware. They choose not to tell you about them. Why do you
think that is? Once you have carefully studied the questions in this book, share
them with other Nuwaubians, especially the teachers, and see what answers you
get. More than anything else, you need to be honest with yourself concerning what
you have just read. You will find the truth only if you are honest enough to
acknowledge it when you see it. Until next time, peace!
168
Bibliography
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Koran. Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile Qu’ran, Inc., 2005
As Sayyid Al Imaam Isa Al Haadi Al Mahdi. St. Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver? Scroll # 61. The
Holy Tabernacle Ministries, (1996): 1-3, 6, 14, 17, 55, 63. Print.
As Sayyid Al Imaam Isa Al Haadi Al Mahdi. Santa Or Satan? The Fallacy Of Christmas Scroll
# 31. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries, (1986): 33, 37 66, 112-13, 91-92. Print.
As Sayyid Al Imaam Isa Al Haadi Al Mahdi. What Race Was Jesus? Scroll # 162. The Holy
Tabernacle Ministries, (1999): 24, 54, 80. Print.
As Sayyid Al Imaam Isa Al Haadi Al Mahdi. Who was Jesus sent to? Scroll # 60. The Holy
Tabernacle Ministries, (1988): 1, 16, 22-3, 32-37, 74, 76-79, 101, 106. Print.
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
London: Arrow, 1996. Print.
Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Print.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. Hymns to Osiris. Kessinger Publishing, 2010: 150. Print.
Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch. Muskogee: Artisan Publishers, 2005. Print.
“dematerialize.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2012.
Dunand, Fran oise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche. Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 Bce to 396 Ce.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, (2004): 38. Print.
Holy Bible: King James Version. Peadbody: Hendrickson, 2010. Print.
Jeffery, Graham. The Gospel of Barnabas. Harper & Row, 1975). Print.
John Son Of Zebedee Jesus’ Beloved Disciple Pamphlet No. 4. Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue, 1.
Print.
Joseph, Peter. Zeitgeist: The Movie. S.l.: G.M.P. LLC, 2007.
Judas The Betrayer Pamphlet No. 8. Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue, 1, 8-10. Print.
Lesko, Barbara S. The Great Goddesses of Egypt. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,
(1999): 162.
Littleton, C. Scott, Ed. Mythology: The Illustrated Anthology of World Myth and Storytelling.
San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, (2002): 42. Print.
169
Luke The Physician Pamphlet No. 3. Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue, 4. Print.
Matthew The Publican Disciple Of Jesus Pamphlet No. 1. Holy Seed Baptist Synagogue, 7.
Print.
“Nubia.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2012.
“Nubia.” Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
“Nubian.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia

Britannica, 2011. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
“Phonetics.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2012.
Picknett, Lynn, and Clive Prince. The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity
of Christ. London: Bantam Press, 1997. Print.
Pinch, Geraldine. Handbook of Egyptian Mythology. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, (2002): 80.
Print
Smith, William. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, (1986): 242-
245, 519-520. Print.
Strong, James. King James New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 2001. Print.
“The Book of Jasher Referred To In Joshua And Second Samuel.” Salt Lake City: J. H. Harry &
Company, 1887. Print.
Whiston, William. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
(1999): 146. Print.
Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames &
Hudson, 2003. Print.
York, Malachi. 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Scroll Part 1 # 102. The Holy Tabernacle
Ministries, (1988): 18-19, XXI, 22, 24, 39, 83. Print.
York, Malachi Z. 360 Questions To Ask A Christian” Part 1-4 Scroll # 102, The Holy
Tabernacle Ministries, 7. Print. (page 45 in your book)
York, Malachi. 360 Questions To Ask A Christian Part 2 Scroll # 102. 41. Print.
York, Malachi Z. 360 Questions To Ask A Hebrew Israelite Part 1 Scroll #101. Holy Tabernacle
Ministries, (1994): VIII, XIII. Print.
170
York, Malachi Z. 360 Questions To Ask The Israeli Church Part 1 Scroll # 137. (1990): 2-6, 69,
132, 183, 187. Print.
York, Malachi Z. 360 Questions To Ask The Orthodox Sunni Muslims Scroll Part 1 # 198.
(1985): B, F, J-K. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Does God Need Religion? Scroll # 97. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1994): 61-62. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Does Religion Breed Ignorance? Scroll # 98. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1994): 12, 23, 102. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Is There A God Part 1 Scroll # 160. (1990): 43. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Man From Planet Rizq Study Book One: Supreme Mathematics Class A
For The Students Of The Holy Tabernacle Scroll # 80. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1995): 23. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Muhammad Was A Hebrew. Edition # 16. The Truth Bulletins. Eatonton: The
Holy Tabernacle Ministries, 1992. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Nibiru & The Anunnaqi Fact Or Fiction Scroll # 154. 57, 73, 76, 78, 80, 82,
89, 91, & 112, 114. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Holy Tablets. 1996. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Lost Tribe Scroll # 36 Revised. 1, 15, 18. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The People Of The Sun Scroll # 147. 1997. 82. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Three Jesus’ Scroll # 92. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries, 4, 32, 34, 36,
42-44. Print.
York, Malachi. The Titles Of Jesus In The Koran And Bible Scroll # 122. The Holy Tabernacles,
(1994): 108-109. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Nuwaubian Calendar A Daily Word From Maku Scroll # 200. The Holy
Tabernacle Ministries, (1999): 1, 16, 20, 35, 204. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Resurrection Scroll # 59. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries, (1994): 6, 72-
73, 92-93. Print.
York, Malachi Z. The Year 2,000 And What To Expect” Scroll # 156. The Holy Tabernacle
Ministries. Print.
171
York, Malachi. Was Christ Really Crucified Scroll # 52. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1999): 1, 16, 25, 44, 69, 82, 111. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Who Was Jesus’ Father?” Scroll # 58. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1994): 2, 7, 97, 100. Print.
York, Malachi Z. Whose God Is Responsible? Scroll # 89. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries,
(1994): 20-21, 83. Print.
Zodok-El, Nayya M. Jesus As Tammuz & Horus In History Scroll #134. Holy Tabernacle
Ministries, (1995): 28, 31-32, 44-46, 91, 96. Print.
172

Take Heed That No Man Deceive You - 101 Questions To Ask A Nuwaubian PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Take Heed That No Man Deceive You - 101 Questions To Ask A Nuwaubian PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Questions

All rights reserved,

Graphics (book cover)

Questions about the Words and Titles Nuwaubians Use .................................... 7

Questions about the Nuwaubians’ Views of Jesus Christ ................................ 32

WHY A “QUESTIONS” BOOK?

MALACHI YORK, GOD TO THE NUWAUBIANS

Sadly, many Nuwaubians are so captivated by Dr. York’s bizarre

CONTRADICTIONS FROM THE START

DR. YORK SAYS THAT BLACK PEOPLE TODAY ARE ORIGINAL

ANSWERING DR. YORK’S CHALLENGE

Since Nuwaubians claim to be open-minded, this book should not offend

PUTTING THE NUWAUBIANS ON TRIAL

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORDS AND TITLES

1. QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE WORD “NUBIAN” MEAN?

2. QUESTION: CAN YOU PRODUCE ANY CREDIBLE SOURCES

ANSWER: The answer is no.

I have done an extensive search in order to find sources outside of Dr.

REAL RESEARCH ON THE WORD “NUBIAN”

THE HISTORY OF THE NUBIANS

3. QUESTION: WHAT RACE DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE?

ANSWER: According to Nuwaubian literature, “The Egiptian Church Of

5. QUESTION: WHAT DO THE WORDS “EGYPT,” “CHURCH,” AND

ANSWER: All three of these words are of Greek origin.

6. QUESTION: WHY DO YOU USE GREEK WORDS FOR YOUR

7. QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME OF THE LAND OF

8. QUESTION: WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE WORD “EGYPT” IS

9. QUESTION: IF EGYPT IS A FALSE NAME FOR THE LAND OF

ANSWER: You will have no logical answer for this question.

10: QUESTION: IF EGYPT IS A FALSE NAME AND KEMET IS THE

ANSWER: Once again, you will have no logical answer.

ANSWER: You will probably give some off-the-wall excuse to this

12. QUESTION: IS ONE OF DR. YORK’S TITLES “RABBONI Y’SHUA

It should be a well-known fact among the Nuwaubian Nation that “Rabboni

It Would Have Been More Proper To Call Me Rabbi Instead Of Imam,

13. QUESTION: DID JESUS CHRIST PERMIT US TO CALL EACH

14. QUESTION: WHY DOES DR. YORK REFER TO HIMSELF AS

16. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK BELIEVES THAT JESUS WAS ONLY

ANSWER: You probably will not want to answer this question.

17. QUESTION: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY CALL YOURSELF A

18. QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE WORD “NUWAUBIAN” MEAN?

19. QUESTION: IS DR. YORK A NUWAUBIAN?

ANSWER: Of course you are going to say yes to this question.

20. QUESTION: IF DR. YORK IS A NUWAUBIAN AND THE WORD

ANSWER: You cannot answer this question truthfully without admitting

Let Me Explain To You Why We Are Called Nuwaubians. The Word

According to Dr. York, the word “Nuwaubian” means prophet because it

There Are Two Different Types Of Prophets. One Is Called A Prophet Of

FALSE PROPHECIES FOR THE YEAR 2000

21. QUESTION: IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO “BELIEVE” IN THINGS OR

BELIEF IS IGNORANCE. Belief is to Ignore the facts intentionally or

22. QUESTION: IF THE WORD “BELIEVE” MEANS TO LIE TO EVE’S

ANSWER: You will not have a reasonable answer to this question.

“WHAT I TEACH AND WHAT WE BELIEVE” (83).

Also, on the back of your pamphlets, Matthew The Publican Disciple Of

WHAT WE BELIEVE AND PREACH

* We BELIEVE that Christ was in the beginning in God

* We BELIEVE Jesus Christ is the Son of God and

* We BELIEVE that you get the true meaning of the word

* We BELIEVE all have sinned and have come short of the

* We BELIEVE salvation has been provided through

* We BELIEVE it is the will of God that every believer

* We BELIEVE that Jesus’ gospel is the red letters or