answersLogoWhite

0

Lew White is a subliminal pseudonym, designed make it sound as though he is a member of the tribe of Levi, i.e. a Lewite.

In the 12th ed. of his book, Fossilized Customs (FC), LW claims that early believers were members of a sect called Natsarim, of which he is a modern leader. His scriptural reference shows that membership in the Natsarim sect was more likely a false accusation made of Shaul by his enemies. In a later verse, Shaul himself states that he owes his allegiance to the Way.

LW strenuously advocates that Yahusha is Yahuah, and he argues for Yahusha's preexistence. It begs the question, how can Yahuah die? If Yahusha's (Yahuah's) death was not really a death, then all scripture is called into question. If Yahusha is thought of as a separate representative or an ancient helper being (Twinity), then Yahusha is a son begotten, not a begotten son. Scripture makes heavy use of prefigurement, or foreshadowing, as a literary device, so it might be easy to fool oneself into wrong beliefs. A more objective and literal view of scriptural references leads to the argument that Yahusha was a real human person, who did not preexist. As son with direct lineage, Yahushua would have been taught directly by Yahuah. After the resurrection, Yahusha became the first representative of the promised "all-in-all," so yes, Yahushua is currently a direct arm of Yahuah.

Although very critical of eisegesis, LW brings his share of Christian baggage into FC. He is quick to argue against "ceremonial law," by making the Christian argument that animal sacrifices are no longer required because of Yahusha's ultimate sacrifice. In fact, this is the start of Christianity's slippery slope that is eventually used to argue against all law. When presented with the verse, "not one jot or tittle ... until ALL is fulfilled," they typically explain fulfillment as Yahusha's death and resurrection, which conveniently ignores the future second coming, the millennium, the judgment, etc. Truly, scripture makes no explicit distinction between moral, civil, or ceremonial law. LW further twists logic around to state that because ceremonial law has been abolished, then the temple has been done away. Correlation is not causation. It might be better to think about the lack of a temple is the reason why animal sacrifices are not currently required.

I would also quibble with the general lack of references throughout FC, especially for hard to accept assertions, such as Arabic being a purer form of Hebrew. However, these main objections notwithstanding, LW has given us a lot to think about in his book Fossilized Customs. I'm glad that I had a chance to read it.

What else can I help you with?