logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

14 Pages<12345>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Yada  
#101 Posted : Saturday, August 8, 2009 4:20:31 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:

Re: Sir Francis Bacon‏
From: Yada
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:23:19 AM
To: "MB"


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:09 PM, "MB" wrote:

Hi Yada

Regarding the God's Word episodes, which I'm thoroughly enjoying, what manuscripts did Sir Francis Bacon use to create the KJV and twist Romans 13? Did he already use a corrupted version (i.e. the Latin Vulgate, Textus Receptus, etc.) or were the versions before him already uncorrupted? What do the manuscripts (not the earliest 70 Greek manuscripts) before him say, did SFB corrupt Rom 13 outright or was there already corruption before him in that particular passage? I just can't see Constantine's and the early Roman Catholic Church's little helpers reading Romans 13 and not wanting to edit/tsiwt it.

You also said Jerome used a number of manuscripts to make up the Geneva Bible, and it seems to say a similar thing to the KJV, that we are to submit to the "magistrates." You seem to be saying that SFB purposefully twisted Rom 13 but I'm wondering if it didn't already happen before him, unless of course I've missed something you said.

By the way, what Greek manuscripts did the early RCC initially use, would they have used copies of the earliest Greek manuscripts (the one's with placeholders)? And if they did, then what became of their copies of the earliest Greek manuscripts?

Anyway, it's fantastic they way you give us an objective and thorough history lesson with each recording! I always asked Yahweh for understanding and knowledge in regards to history and how it affects us today.

-M


Yada's response:

Quote:
M,

The great thing about the spoken word is that it's much easier and more enjoyable for people to listen than it is for them to read the written word--but it's harder to remember. Considering the the amount of information I shared over the course of 4 hours, you've done very well.

All of your questions are answered in the material I prepared for the last two programs, and for the one I'll do next week. I've pasted it below for you. Feel free to share it in the forum or with others as you see fit.

The KJV was a revision of the Great, Bishop, Cloverdale, Matthew, and Tyndale revisions of Wycliffe's translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, itself a blend of Old Latin manuscripts which were translations of the Greek, which was a translation of Aramaic and Hebrew.

The highly flawed and very late, Textus Receptus was available, but there is no evidence that is was used to any meaningful degree. The Codix Leningradis of the Masoretic was not available, and no better, or older Greek MSS were available to Bacon.

The Geneva Bible was great for its time, but it was Bacon's enemy and well as the enemy of the RCC, so it was not used.

Every copy of a RC MSS used by the first Followers of the Way used placeholders without exception for Yahweh's name, Yahshua's name, the Spirit, and Yahweh's and Yahshua's titles. If you can read Greek, you can read them in The Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts.

I enjoy learning from history as well.

Yada

Here is the info I promised...



Romans 13 & Submission to one’s Government

In our first Yada Yahweh Radio program, some of you may remember, that I quoted an email I had received from Chuck Baldwin. He had accurately written that the Christian right was as wrongly devoted to, and fooled by, GWB, as the Secular left is wrongly devoted to and fooled by BHO. Today, I’m going to quote another letter I received from Chuck Baldwin, but this time, while he is right to a point, stressing to the Christian Right that they ought not support what the American government has become, the evidence he cites is horribly flawed.

The reason that we are going to embark on this exercise is singular. Before those who do not know Yahweh can come to know him, they must first come to know that religious and political men and their teachings cannot be trusted. The swamp in which they live, must be drained, the religious and political weeds must be pulled, before the seeds of truth will grow. People much come to understand that we are all called to make a choice: we can choose to rely on man’s political and religious schemes, or we can choose to rely on the path Yahweh articulated and facilitated.

This is one step among many that I hope to take in order to help those of you who are not yet saved, or who love family and friends who are not yet saved, understand that it is not appropriate to be either patriotic or religious—to be submissive to any human institution. If you love your fellow man, if you love your neighbors, expose and condemn the behaviors of both.

At one time in America, during the revolution, the most patriotic people were totally opposed to their government—they fought their government. Today, I’d like to see patriotism practiced the same way.

And speaking of a different perspective, a different attitude, a different way of thinking, it’s long past time that many of you deal with an unpopular reality. The Bible you may be holding, the one on your shelf and nightstand, is not inerrant, as you have been told. Pastors have lied to you about this to control you. This isn’t my opinion; it is a statement of fact.

The Renewed Covenant is 180,000 words long, and yet there are over 300,000 known variants between the Textus Receptus and its derivatives, and the oldest manuscripts. In the Old Covenant, the Dead Seas Scrolls demonstrate that in books like Isaiah, where we have a complete manuscript, 1 word in 14 has been changed, and that’s before arbitrary rabbinical vocalization and the removal of Yahweh’s name. So even if our translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts we are using were accurate, which they are not, it would be ludicrous in the extreme to assume that the biblical text has evolved over time from horribly flawed to pristine. But that is what you must accept to assume that what you are reading today is inerrant.

Further, for those who “cannot believe that God would allow men to corrupt His Word,” I’ve got some bad news for you. Either your God is impotent, or He has allowed it, because the evidence for corruption is overwhelming and undeniable. We are going to examine some of it today.

What those who hold this view are missing, is that Yahweh’s Word as originally written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms was as precisely accurate and inerrant as the imprecise tools we call language and words would allow. But not only have there been many scribal errors and religious copyedits along the way, the moment you translate a message out of one language and culture into another, part of the message is lost, and other parts change. While the consequence of these things can be minimized with diligent research, amplified translations, and cultural commentary, most people aren’t willing to invest sufficient time to benefit from this approach. It’s easier to believe that which is familiar. And that is the means behind the corruptions.

Yahweh, as we have just heard, and as we shall once again discover, is serious about freewill, about freedom of choice, because it lies at the heart of a loving relationship. Man has to be free to corrupt what God has said, for man to be free to accept what God has said.

These things known, I don’t want you to be afraid, but instead to be excited. So long as we are willing to change our attitude, our perspective, our thinking, Yahweh’s Word and will can be known. And what we come to know is vastly superior to, vastly more brilliant, consistent, loving, fair, rational, trustworthy, and reliable, than anything you have previously experienced. This is a voyage of discovery where the destination is perfection.

All right, as I mentioned earlier, the vehicle for our journey today will be Chuck Baldwin’s letter. He wrote:

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:


The “Authorized” reference is not only untrue, it promotes a devastating misconception, one which is part and parcel of the indoctrination of American pastors and their churches. It’s designed to infer that the King James Bible, which is actually a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and not translation itself, nor a text based upon the Hebrew or Greek, was authorized by God and King, even supervised by “the Holy Spirit,” and thus inerrant, when in fact, the historical record reveals that it wasn’t “authorized” by anyone—religious or political—and is irrecoverably flawed as it was heavily influenced by both.

The English revision which became known as the KJB was coveted, albeit not authorized, by a power-hungry usurper Scottish king who was chosen by an occultist, Queen Elizabeth, who was advised by one of the most notorious occultists of all time, John Dee, for the explicit purpose of artificially establishing King James’ “god-given right to rule,” when none actually exists. This was required because James hated the fact that the immensely popular Geneva Bible astutely stated that there was no place in Scripture where divine authority to rule was granted to kings.

These historical facts are especially germane to our study of Romans 13, and to the subject of being submissive to human religious and political authority, so, please bear with me as we pull back the rug, and discover the dirt which has sullied the pages of the King James Bible. And for those of you who have discarded your KJV for more modern texts, I want you to understand that the same modest revisionist strategy which produced the KJV produced the ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, JB, and NKJV.

Every politician and business person knows that familiarity sells. That is why politicians want their name in print, even if the coverage is bad. It is why Nike pays Tiger Woods 20 million to wear their swoosh, and Dupont pays Jeff Gordon the same to paint their name on his car. Understanding this, pastors will not promote, people will not accept, and therefore publishers will not print, a translation of the bible which is unfamiliar—which differs significantly from that which people have grown familiar. As a result, once the first translation appears in a given language, the message, no matter how errant or unsupported, will never corrected if it requires a significant alteration. It will be justified instead.

With that in mind, let’s return to our investigation of the KJB, as it has become the well-spring of all subsequent English renditions. I’ll be that you don’t know that the 1611 original was filled with Rosicrucian, Qabbalist, and Freemasonry symbols throughout, especially their distinctive handshake in the pervasive accompanying graphics and coding within the text, depicting their desired influence and control. It was the work of England’s second most famous Occultist, Sir Francis Bacon, who possessed, edited, and decorated the revision for an entire year under Masonic and Rosicrucian supervision before it was finally published. In fact, the Elizabethan English and literary style of the KJB, is largely Bacon’s invention. And that is why the original 1611 version was rejected by both Pilgrim and Puritan leaders, as they opposed the Satanic symbolism and phrasing. Even Anglican pastors rebelled against their protestant pope, and refused to replace their beloved Geneva Bibles with the new King James Version.

So that you know, the Order of the Rose Cross was a secret society of mystics, based upon ancient truths only a small and restricted group of enlightened initiates understood. The Rosicrucian views on nature, the physical universe, the spiritual realm, human enlightenment and authority, are essentially indistinguishable from that of Freemasonry. In fact, the Scottish Rite of Masons is derived directly from it.

The founder of the Rose Cross, identified himself as Dr. Rosenkreuz, or Rose-cross. He is said to have studied Sufi, or Mystical, Islam and Zoroastrianism. And while that may be, he himself speaks of an ill-fated pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and of his subsequent tutelage by the secret sages of Arabia (read fundamentalist Muslims), magicians to the east of Arabia, which would be the cult of Mystery Babylon, Occultists in Moroccan Fez, Qabbalists, which is Rabbinical mysticism, in the Egyptian sun-god religion, and by Abu Abdallah in alchemy, astrology, and magic. Along the way, he gained an affinity for the Greek philosophers, for symbolism and gematria, or number codes. His Brethren of Purity and Sufi Muslims share much in common, including Qur’anic theology.

Based upon his Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis, first published in 1614, it’s obvious that the founder of the Rosicrucians had a working knowledge of Old Covenant which was sufficient to corrupt and counterfeit its stories. Most people today, think that Dr. Rosenkreuz, was nothing more than a pseudonym for Francis Bacon.

Speaking of the same Francis Bacon, the fellow who most assuredly controlled and influenced the entire KJB development process, he was appointed by Queen Elizabeth, at the behest of John Dee, England’s most famous Occultist, to membership in her Extraordinary Counsel in 1596. Seven years later, immediately following the poisoning death of Queen Elizabeth, and just as King James assumed the throne, James as the new king knighted Bacon. James then appointed, Bacon, a Rosicrucian, Qabbalist, and Freemasonary leader, and thus an Occultist, to the King’s Counsel in 1604, to Solicitor General in 1607, and to head of the Star Chamber in 1608, from which he controlled the production of the King James Bible. For those who don’t know, the Star Chamber served as the English court of law until it was abolished in 1641. It was used to persecute political and religious dissenters, including the Puritans. Court sessions were held in secret; there were no juries, no witnesses, and no right of appeal. Satan Himself, couldn’t have asked for a better environment.

In 1613, following his overt corruption of the King James Bible, Sir Francis Bacon was appointed Attorney General. He was made a member of the Privy Council, appointed Lord Keeper of the Royal Seal, and then made Lord Chancellor in subsequent years, all as a reward for the work he had done advancing King James’ authority. But his royal ride wouldn’t last. In 1621, Sir Francis Bacon was arrested and charged with bribery. He pleaded guilty, was heavily fined, and sentenced to prison in the Tower of London. The author of the King James Bible, died a disgraced and fallen man. It was poetic justice.

And all the while, there was no need for the King James Bible. There were in fact, better choices. The Wycliffe Bible, the first English translation, which unfortunately was made entirely from the Latin Vulgate, appeared in 1382 and was revised in 1388. For over 100 years, as a direct result of religious and political oppression, it was the only English translation available in the world. However, for his effort, Wycliffe was convicted of heresy. His remains were desecrated by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of letting people know what God said.

Nearly a century and a half later, Tyndale revised Wycliffe’s work in 1526. He wanted to create an actual translation from the Hebrew and the Greek, but the bishop of London and the crown rebuffed his work, sending him into exile. So while he was able to compose a modest revision, and not a translation, he was caught, kidnapped, imprisoned, convicted of heresy, and strangled to death by the Church and crown for the crime of working to improve Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin Vulgate.

A decade later, a man of lesser conviction, Cloverdale, produced a modest revision Tyndale’s work in 1535. He added his own special phraseology and euphemisms—many of which have been transmitted down to us today as if they were Scripture.

At about the same time, John Rogers, writing under the pseudo name Matthew, to avoid political and religious prosecution, based his revision of some of Tyndale’s unpublished work in 1537. He was tortured and then burned alive for it by Queen Mary.

Next, a fellow named Traverner was imprisoned and tortured in the Tower of London for his ever so modest revision of the Matthew Bible in 1539. I suppose that you are noticing a trend here. The political and religious authorizes, to whom our English translations of Romans 13 say we must submit to avoid damnation, did their damnedist to keep everyone from knowing anything about Yahweh’s plan of salvation.

The Great Bible followed in 1541. It was the first “authorized” English Bible, and only one of two to carry that religious and political distinction. It was inscribed with the words: “This is the Byble apoynted to the use of the Churches.” But, it too was little more than a modest revision of the Matthew Bible. It was only called “Great” because of its size. And while it is also the first to have claimed to have referenced the fraudulent, and heavily corrupted Textus Receptus, its only actual hint of doing so is its revised order. These things known, you should also know that it was illegal, by order of the crown, for a common person to possess a copy of the Great Bible. And it soon became illegal even in Anglican churches.

Becke’s Bible followed in 1551. It was a less-than-admirable blend of Tyndale, Matthew, and Taverner. It was famous only for perpetuating mistakes.

The Geneva Bible appeared next, in 1560. It was the first to use numbered verses and to provide marginal notes—especially regarding historical events. And while it was the first actual translation of Hebrew and Greek, as opposed to a revision of a Latin translation, the quality of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available at the time was deplorable.

The 11th-century CE Leningradis Codex of the Masoretic, the manuscript in use today, is overwhelmingly superior to the text it replaced, but it hadn’t been discovered, published, or made available for study until the late 19th century—300 years after the Geneva translation was made. Further, the Textus Receptus, which first appeared in 1515, was an intellectual fraud and a financial hoax. It’s nothing more than a 12th century Greek manuscript, altered by the Secular Humanist Desiderius Erasmus, and then augmented by the Latin Vulgate to appease the Catholic Church.

In spite of these liabilities, and the fact that it was Calvinistic in tone, the fact that these Protestants had made an effort to actually create a translation from the Hebrew and Greek, rather than a revision of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, made the Geneva Bible immensely popular with everyone except cleric and crown. The political and religious authorities despised the Geneva Bible, because its marginal notes adroitly demonstrated that Scripture provided absolutely no authority to popes or to kings.

To counter its popularity and influence, the political and religious leaders of the day “authorized” the Bishop’s Bible in 1568. It was to be “a revision of the Great Bible and be designed to supplant the Geneva Bible,” to quote Parker, the archbishop of Canterbury. “There was to be only such variation from it as was required.” Therefore, the only actual translation of the Hebrew and Greek text was to be completely ignored in favor of the revisions of Latin translations.

The product of religious and political tampering, was therefore of uneven quality because it was a loose paraphrase of the Great Bible’s New Testament, and nothing more than a restatement of the Great Bible’s Old Testament. And now we know, based upon the promoter’s own admission, the Great Bible was simply a modest religious revision of the Matthew Bible, which was a revision of Tyndale, which was a revision of Wycliffe, which was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. I’m sure you see where this is leading.

As you might have guessed, the politically and religiously inspired Bishop’s Bible was a colossal failure, in spite of it being the second authorized version. And that would be due to the fact that it was plagiarized and paraphrased from a singular source.

At this time, the Catholic Church, after threatening to kill anyone who translated Scripture out of Latin and into a language people could actually read and understand for the past one thousand years, stood aside and allowed Jesuits to create a translation from the Latin which would challenge the Geneva and Bishop Bibles. But they pleaded poverty and for “lacke of good meanes to publishe the whole.” This Latin-based translation wouldn’t published until 1610, and only then sparingly.

With soaring popularity, the Geneva Bible therefore became a serious threat to the Roman Catholic Church, to the Anglican Church, and to every king and queen in Europe who derived their authority through them. To solve this problem, to keep the populous from knowing that neither were ordained by God, Sir Francis Bacon, convinced King James to let him oversee a revision of the Bishop’s Bible. Bacon was at the time, the second most powerful political leader in England. He was head of their secretive judicial system, and the head of the Mysteries of the Rosicrucian Order, a Babylonian-, Egyptian-, Islamic-, and Freemasonry-inspired occultist secret society.

So then in a realm immersed in the occult, the King James Bible would be a revision of a translation of the Latin Vulgate five times over. The first rule was “the Bishops Bible was to be followed and altered as little as is possible.” And where the religiously and politically inspired Bishops Bible was to be altered, the authors of the King James Bible were ordered to revert to the text of the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, or Great revisions.

The King James Bible, by the admission included in its original preface, is therefore a very modest, politically inspired, revision of the religiously and politically inspired Bishops Bible, which was a modest revision of the politically and religiously inspired Great Bible, which was a modest revision of the Matthew Bible, which was based on the Tyndale Bible, which was a revision of the Wycliffe Bible, which was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was a blend of the Old Latin texts, which were paraphrases of the Greek translations of Aramaic conversations and Hebrew Scripture citations with regard to the Renewed Covenant, and translations of the Septuagint, which was a highly corrupt translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. The KJV is thus nine times removed from the original text, with religious and political tampering occurring all along the way. To call it inerrant, is to be ignorant and irrational. To infer that it was authorized, is to be wrong.

This known, devoid of even remotely old or accurate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, there was no way to make the King James accurate, even if the director of the project, a professed crook, wanted to get it right.

So, when it comes to a rendering of the text on government authority, the KJV should be considered highly suspect—and at best a revised translation of the Latin Vulgate, from which it was derived. Yet, as much as I like his politics, Chuck Baldwin’s religious past prevents him from sharing this essential information with you. In this regard, he is therefore, part of the problem.

In actuality, no English translation is very good, because all of the early ones, including nine of the ten already cited, were revisions of translations of the RCC’s Latin Vulgate, itself a blend and translation of Old Latin translations, which, with regard to the Old Covenant, were translations of the Septuagint, which was a translation of the Hebrew. So not only was the KJV a revision five times over, it was based upon a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation, the basis of its basis, the Septuagint, had became so inconsistent and unreliable, by the time of Origin in the third century, it was considered hopelessly errant and unsalvageable. And there were as many variants of the Renewed Covenant as there were Old Latin translations, most of which were paraphrases to suit the proclivities of their authors.

Further, as few people know, but as is confirmed from the quill of Jerome’s own hand, his Vulgate was designed to unify the Old Latin translations, to blend the best of them together, rather than translate Hebrew, which he didn’t know at the time, or Greek, which he wasn’t skilled.

Also, with regard to the Renewed Covenant, the conversations it records were spoken in Aramaic, and the Scripture it cites, was written in Hebrew, making Greek a translation once or twice over before it was exposed to Old Latin and then to Jerome’s contemporary Latin blend. With every translation, meanings are lost and others are altered. Therefore, even if the KJB’s clerics and scholars, who were skilled in Latin, hadn’t been politically controlled, which they were, there was no hope of accuracy, much less inerrancy.

This history known, let’s examine the KJV text from Romans 13. It reads: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

We’ll continue with Chuck Baldwin’s citation of what he called the “Authorized King James” politicized corruption of the Renewed Covenant Writings in a moment, and in a couple of moments, we’ll actually examine what the actual text reveals, but I would be remiss if I didn’t pause here and comment. The intent of the King James was to convey the idea that his monarchy represented the “higher powers,” and that his powers “were ordained by God.” And while that’s not true, nor what is actually stated here, the notion that “resisting human authority leads to damnation” is purely Satanic. Further, the leap from resisting God’s authority, to resisting the crown was made in the preface of the KJB, where the King was explicitly called “the higher power.” He was even called “the Sun,” with a capital S-u-n.

If Paul actually penned such words, and if this is what he meant to convey, than everything Paul wrote would have to be considered suspect, and none of his letters could be considered inspired. Reliance on man for one’s salvation is the antithesis of Scripture. Yahweh’s message is one of choice: we can rely on Him or on men, but not both, because what they claim is contradictory and conflicting.

It should also be noted that most every man who dared translate Yahweh’s Word into English was in opposition to cleric and king. For example, as I hinted at earlier, at the synod held at Blackfrairs, London in May 1382, John Wycliffe and his writings were condemned as heretical and erroneous. He had maintained that Scripture alone was the eternal exemplar, the sole criterion of doctrine, to which no religious or political authority could lawfully challenge, contradict, or augment. He also said that there was not authority for the pope in Scripture, all of which is consistent with Yahweh’s testimony. Yet in 1415, the Wycliffe Bible was condemned and burned. His associates were jailed. In 1428, Pope Martin V insisted that Wycliffe’s body be exhumed and burned, and that his ashes be cast into a river.

But had it not been for John Wycliffe’s rebellion against human political and religious authority, there never would have been a Reformation or a nation like America, and Catholicism would never have lost its grip on men’s souls. His rebellion led to the salvation of many—in direct conflict with Paul’s words as they are rendered in the KJV.

Tyndale, who unfortunately revised the Wycliffe text by referencing Erasmus’s overwhelmingly flawed Textus Receptus, at least had the right idea—that of creating a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek. But he too had to resist the higher religious and political authorities in England, by fleeing to Germany to conduct his work. But for doing so, in May of 1535 he was kidnapped and imprisoned in Brussels by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. He was tried for heresy on October 6th, 1536, and was put to death by strangling. His body was burned. His last words were: “God, open the king’s eyes.”

John Rogers, the creator the Matthew revision, who we mentioned earlier, was imprisoned by Queen Mary in 1554. The mass murdering queen, who if we are to believe the King James Bible, was doing good, and was ordained by God, is someone to whom John ought to have submitted. But Mr. Rogers served a higher authority, so he was burned alive, along with countless other early Protestants.

Traverner was imprisoned and tortured in the Tower of London for his revision. Cloverdale’s Great Bibles were ordered placed in the churches, then ordered removed, and then they, rather than Cloverdale, himself, were burned by the British government in 1546.

So had it not been for men willing to resist the powers of religion and politics, there wouldn’t even be an English translation of Scripture—in fact, there wouldn’t even be Protestant Church or the United States of America.

The KJV goes on to say, and therefore Chuck Baldwin cited: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?

Religious and political leaders want the masses to be afraid of their power. That is why the Qur’an says: “He who fears will obey.” It is why the Catholic sympathizer and supporter, Machiavelli wrote that since love requires choice, and fear can be imposed, that fear is how princes should rule. He even praised how popes had done this very thing.

The purpose of the RCC’s torture chambers and instruments of pain, was to inflict fear. It is why they have changed revere to fear with regard to God throughout His Word. And it is why the verse reads as it does.

The KJV claims:

“do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

With these lines, King James established not only his right to rule under divine ordination, but also found justification to kill anyone who opposed him. But as I said, we’ll deal the actual intent of Paul’s words in a moment.

So that you know, most of what I’ve just read to you is grammatically incorrect as it relates to punctuation and capitalization, but what follows next is pure gibberish.

“Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also:

Now that you are confused, here is the punch line:

for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

While much of this is horribly worded, the intent is clear. King James wanted the paupers under him to pay him tribute. But to do so, his accomplice, Francis Bacon, had to contradict much of the Old Covenant, because it is dedicated to telling us that we should not honor or practice the customs of Gentile nations.

So, while he was clueless as to what Paul actually wrote, Chuck Baldwin made some valid political points. He said:
______________________________

[color=green]Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe...
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline bitnet  
#102 Posted : Saturday, August 8, 2009 7:52:24 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Aaah... this is just what I was waiting for... a transcript of the radio program I listened to that should be distributed to all Christian pastors and clergy worldwide. I have a few people I have in mind who should read this and I have already printed out an eight-page PDA of Yada's text. Thanks so very much!
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Matthew  
#103 Posted : Sunday, August 9, 2009 2:56:28 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Hey bitnet, MD is me in that email of Yada, but I notice when Yada posted it it got cut short, well over half short actually. I've tried uploading the notes in full but each time it cost cut short as well. If you want a copy of Yada's notes just send me a private message with your email address and I'll forward it you. Same goes for others.
Offline Yada  
#104 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:26:30 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:19 AM, "CH" wrote:

Listening to your blogtalkradio concerning our economy and the wonderful private Federal Reserve Bank, Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave.

Thomas Jefferson 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Just couldn't resist - Connie

PS. I try never to miss your blogtalkradio. Just to know Thomas Jefferson educated himself on the Qur'an says volumes about him.


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Appreciate you all‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:52:24 AM
To: "CH"

C,

Thanks for this great TJ quote. I had read it before, but had forgotten where. It's one of his very best. He was right.

Thanks for listening to the radio program and for sharing your thoughts.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#105 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:29:21 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537


Quote:
Re: Fw: Alleged Discovery of 'Real' Mt. Sinai Could Change the Middle East Forever / Red Sea Parting - archeology finds chariot wheels and horses bones‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:57:02 AM
To: "JG"
As I was send this to you I noticed that the second article mentions Ron's name with regard to the Yahweh column.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM, "JG" wrote:

Dear Brothers,
I find it quite amazing, Yah's will be done, that the truth about the location of Har Sinai/Horeb is coming to the fore.
Moshe received the Ten Commandments/Torah on Horeb.
Shaul/Paul was in "Arabia" for 3 years.
The Sinai Peninsula is NOT the site where Moshe and Paul were in communion with Yahuwah/Yahusha.
Perhaps the Fakestinians/Palestinians should be placed in the Sinai in Egypt - this option has been discussed in the past but hasn't gotten much press.
Take care and stay well.
-J

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: drhistory <drhistory@cox.net>
To: EaglewingsBJ@Q.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:46:44 AM
Subject: Alleged Discovery of 'Real' Mt. Sinai Could Change the Middle East Forever / Red Sea Parting - archeology finds chariot wheels and horses bones



Alleged Discovery of ‘Real’ Mt. Sinai Could Change the Middle East Forever

Posted By Ryan Mauro August 14, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/...the-middle-east-forever/

It may be the biggest archaeological discovery to date, but it is also the most dangerous. In an adventure story rivaling an Indiana Jones movie, Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams snuck into Saudi Arabia to investigate whether the Wahhabist home of Mecca and Medina is also home to one of the holiest sites in Judaism and Christianity: Mt. Sinai. They have each written page-turning books about their story. Dr. Lennart Moller, a Swedish scientist, has gone one step further, writing a must-read book full of images and scientific analysis titled The Exodus Case [1], which puts together the stunning evidence that the Biblical events of the Exodus are historical, not mythical.

Cornuke’s BASE Institute [2] has released a documentary titled Search for the Real Mt. Sinai [3] and Moller’s additional work was made into The Exodus Revealed [4]. Now, a forthcoming documentary to be released in theaters titled The Exodus Conspiracy [5] is being produced that will have far-reaching effects Michael Moore could only dream of.

A quick look at what has been found easily explains all the fuss. Dr. Moller points out that the site at Nuweiba he identifies as the Red Sea crossing point has an underwater land bridge, upon which damaged [6] chariot parts and bones remain, engulfed in coral. The top of Jabal al-Lawz, the alleged real Mt. Sinai, is black [7], as if burned from the sky as described in Exodus 19:18, where it says “the Lord descended upon it in fire.” This feature sets it apart from all the other surrounding mountains which do not have darkened tops. The BASE Institute’s film shows Cornuke, who snuck onto the mountain, examining the rocks he cracked, observing that they are not merely black rocks and that only the outside had become darkened by whatever had occurred at the site. Moller has a photo of one of these rocks, which he identifies as “obsidian or volcanic glass, a mineral formed at high temperatures.”

One of the greatest — and most doubted — miracles of the Exodus is the story about God instructing Moses to hit a large rock with his rod, which resulted in a flow of water for the Hebrews to drink from. Near Jabal al-Lawz is a large rock, standing about 60 feet high, split [8] down the middle. The edges of the split and the rock underneath it have become smooth, as if a stream of water had poured forth from the rock, creating a river. Given the annual rainfall in Saudi Arabia and the fact that the erosion is only present on that rock and no other ones in the surrounding area, it’s hard to find a plausible explanation for this remarkable find.

A site matching the description of the altar of the golden calf is also at this site. As the Biblical story goes, while Moses was away for 40 days on Mt. Sinai, the Hebrews created an altar with a golden calf on top of it, which they worshiped. Moses, incensed at the betrayal, crushed the calf into smithereens. A large altar [9] with inscriptions [10] of Egyptian bulls engraved onto it is also near Mt. Sinai, making it the only location in Saudi Arabia to have such inscriptions. Moller notes in his book that “one block of stone at the altar had a slight depression and after a brief shower something glistened at the bottom, which turned out to be small flakes of gold. This rock could well have been the place where Moses ground the golden calf into powder.”

This is just scratching the surface. The 12 wells of Elim, the altar constructed by Moses after the defeat of the Amalekites, evidence of large encampments, the boundary markers and stone pillars the Bible says were placed around Mt. Sinai, and several other sites identified in the Old Testament are located. Simply put, everything that the Bible indicates should be there is present. The researchers even describe how the locals refer to the site as “Moses’ Mountain” and it is common knowledge that Moses passed through the area.

The finds are extremely significant and have the potential to change the dynamics of the Middle East. If a site of such importance to Jews and Christians exists in Muslim Saudi Arabia, then a conflict may arise that matches the intensity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hordes of non-Muslim researchers and tourists will demand access to the site, placing pressure on the Saudi government and creating internal instability that could be impossible to contain. The Saudis are aware of the consequences of this find and have surrounded Jabal al-Lawz, the alleged altar of the golden calf, and other sites with armed guards, patrols, and barbed wire with a sign designating them as off-limits archaeological sites. Ironically, the strict form of Islam enforced by the Saudi government has allowed these sites to be preserved.

Perhaps you think this is all hogwash. Regardless of your stance on these findings, the fact remains that if the deserved publicity follows the release of The Exodus Conspiracy, a new clash between Islam and Judaism and Christianity will erupt in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, with results no one can predict.







In case you did not see this before...



Red Sea Parting - archeology finds chariot wheels and horses bones





Check this Website out:
http://www.raindrops.org...edSea/RedSeaConfirm.html

This confirms what we already knew..in pictures.





Chariot Wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea -- See pictures below and the route:












You will be surprised to see proof of Pharaoh's chariot and bones of horses and men found in the Red Sea. Evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea . Pharaoh's drowned army.









Confirmation of the actual Exodus route has come from divers finding coral-encrusted bones and chariot remains in the Gulf of Aqaba. ONE of the most dramatic records of Divine intervention in history is the account of the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt.



The subsequent drowning of the entire Egyptian army in the Red Sea was not an insignificant event, and confirmation of this event is compelling evidence that the Biblical narrative is truly authentic. Over the years, many divers have searched the Gulf of Suez in vain for artifacts to verify the Biblical account. But carefully following the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus brings you to Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba , as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978.



Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. Artifacts found include wheels, chariot bodies, as well as human and horse bones. Divers have located on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well.



Since 1987, Ron Wyatt found three four-spoke gilded chariot wheels. Coral does not grow on gold, hence the shape has remained very distinct, although the wood inside the gold veneer has disintegrated making them too fragile to move.









The hope for future expeditions is to explore the deeper waters with remote cameras or mini-subs. (ABOVE GILDED CHARIOT WHEEL) - witness to the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews 3,500 years ago. Found with a metal detector. Coral-encrusted chariot wheel, filmed off the Saudi coastline, matches chariot wheels found in Tutankhamen's tomb.







Mineralized bone, one of many found at the crossing site (above center). This one tested by the Department of Osteology at Stockholm University, was found to be a human femur, from the right leg of a 165-170cm tall man. It is essentially 'fossilized, ' i.e., replaced by minerals and coral, hence cannot be dated by radiocarbon methods, although this specimen was obviously from antiquity. Chariot wheel and axle covered with coral and up-ended. Exodus 14:25 'And took off their chariot wheels, that they drove them heavily...' Solomon's memorial pillars.

When Ron Wyatt first visited Nuweiba in 1978, he found a Phoenician style column lying in the water. Unfortunately the inscriptions had been eroded away, hence the column's importance was not understood until 1984 when a second granite column was found on the Saudi coastline opposite -- identical to the first, except on this one the inscription was still intact!

In Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew), it contained the words: Mizraim (Egypt ); Solomon; Edom ; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh, indicating that King Solomon had set up these columns as a memorial to the miracle of the crossing of the sea. Saudi Arabia does not admit tourists, and perhaps fearing unauthorized visitors, the Saudi Authorities have since removed this column, and replaced it with a flag marker where it once stood.







How deep is the water? The Gulf of Aqaba is very deep, in places over a mile (1,600m) deep. Even with the sea dried up, walking across would be difficult due to the steep grade down the sides. But there is one spot where if the water were removed, it would be an easy descent for people and animals. This is the line between Nuweiba and the opposite shore in Saudi Arabia.








Depth-sounding expeditions have revealed a smooth, gentle slope descending from Nuweiba out into the Gulf. This shows up almost like a pathway on depth-recording equipment, confirming it's Biblical description, '...a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters.'

(Isaiah 43:16)



The Bible writers frequently refer to the miracle of the Red Sea crossing, for it was an event which finds no equal in history. The Hebrew prophets describe the sea at the crossing site as '...the waters of the great deep...the depths of the sea...' (Isaiah 51:10)



Knowing the exact spot to which the Bible writers were referring, what is the depth there? The distance between Nuweiba and where artifacts have been found on Saudi coast is about 18km (11 miles).







Along this line, the deepest point is about 800m (2,600 feet). No wonder that Inspired writers of the Bible described it as the mighty waters. And no wonder that not a single Egyptian survived when the water collapsed in upon them. ( Above right NUWEIBA BEACH- the spot where the crossing began)
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#106 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:32:32 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:07 AM, "MS" wrote:

Yada,

Great Show. Your presentation really resonated with me because even though I’ve had three years of Seminary and am currently completing my undergrad in Psychology at a Christian college (Liberty University), I’ve become very disillusioned and cynical about present day “Christianity”. What started this process is a simple question(s) I had asked myself…”Is this God really had in mind when He created all this? “Is this what Jesus really died for?” As I look at the “Christian” landscape I see greed, control issues, politics, immorality (and it doesn’t necessarily mean sexual immorality either, although, that is a problem too) cult of empire and so many other things I can’t put words to that make our present religious system (in every sense of the word) to ugly to look upon, let alone practice. I will visit your website and really take into consideration the work you have done.

I do have a question, since most of us don’t have an education in Greek and Hebrew is there a current translation in English that is faithful and reliable that one can purchase and commit to study with confidence?

I look forward to your response.



-M


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Show With Stan Montieth‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:11:48 AM
To: "MS"

M,

Thanks for your encouraging words.

I have been to Liberty University many, many times. Jerry Falwell and I were very close friends before I started writing Yada Yahweh.

Pertaining to your letter, the first step we must all take, if we want to really know Yahweh, is to walk away from religion. It sounds like you are in the midst of doing just that. But at Liberty, this will make you very unpopular.

My hope for you 'M' is that you read Yada Yahweh. It is the most accurate translation I was capable of creating from the oldest extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. One of the many reasons that I invested the time to do so was because I couldn't find an English translation that was even remotely accurate. Honestly, there are none.

If you have time, listen to one of the three Yada Yahweh radio programs on Monday pertaining to Romans 13. I cover the history of English translations during those shows.

Jerry was the biggest proponent of biblical inerrantcy that I ever came across. During our last meeting, we discussed the mistranslations I found in the Old Covenant. He admitted that I was accurate, but warned me against sharing what I had found with others.

Yada

Edited by moderator Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:42:19 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline James  
#107 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:43:21 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,612
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 210 time(s) in 148 post(s)
http://www.amazon.com/Se...-Sinai-VHS/dp/0967501008

Here is a link for anyone who is interested, The Search For The Real Mount Sinai. It is a really good watch, and lays out the path of the Exodus to Mount Sinai. I found it a very interesting view, and would recommend it.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Yada  
#108 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:49:11 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

The following is an exchange between and Yada. Yada's responses are in blue:


Quote:
Re: Dr. Stan Radio Program‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:16:22 AM
To: "JS"


On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:13 AM, "JS" wrote:

Mr. Winn, I listened to your program with Dr. Stan, and enjoyed it very much. I was able to spend a couple of hours or so skipping around the e-books. My plan is to start today at the very beginning of "YadaYahweh" and I am sure you get bombarded with questions? And just from those few hours, I have numerous ones. I will do more research today, but one question is, Why 2033? I haven't been to the timeline chapter yet so perhaps it explains thoroughly?

Thanks for listening to Dr. Stan and for turning to Yada Yahweh for answers to your questions.

You will have to read most of YY before you will be able to fully appreciate the reasons for 2033. While I think it is obvious considering the evidence, this conclusion seems to have eluded many.


If someone is indwelt by the Spirit, and the "Great Escape" takes place, then by definition they are going home?

Yes. Yahweh's Spirit will be removed from the Earth immediately following the Taruwah harvest. All who have been born anew from above will be called home.

Without sounding to far-fetched there certainly are not two types of born-again? Either your family and you go home, or you never where but claimed you where,then you go into the tribulation?

The Laodician assembly of "Christians" will miss the harvest. They think that they are born again, but Yahweh doesn't know them. They will have another chance, however, during the Tribulation. But it is possible to be spiritually born of the devil. Those folks go to the Abyss.


Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#109 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:52:12 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:13 PM, "AM" wrote:

To whom it may concern, I heard your interview on Dr. Stanley Monteith's Radio Liberty. I then decided to check out the website. I must say the wealth of knowledge is fantastic. The one thing that dismays me is in your Salvation Masehyah pdf you seem to have arrived at the 14th of Nisan falling on a Friday. I am not sure how you came to that date. Yahuweh stated that (paraphrasing) "just as jonah was in the great fish 3 days and 3 nights so will the Son of Man be in the earth". It is in my opinion it is scripturally impossible to have the messiah cutoff on Friday and resurrecting on Sunday. It doesn't add up. If you could shed some light as to why you ignored the 3 days and 3 nights and arrived at Friday and Sunday, I would love to examine it. I will not accept it, however I would like to see your research as to how you arrived at that day. Once again I do appreciate the information provided. I just think you are holding on to Christianity and Catholocism in the Friday, Sunday theory.

Yahweh bless.
-AM


Yada's response:

Quote:
A,

Thanks for listening to Dr. Stan and for checking out the Yada Yahweh website. You will find 2000 pages of amplified translations from Yahweh's Word in the book.

Here is some of what I wrote regarding the Yownah reference:


This brings us to Yahushua’s reference to Jonah and to three days. God is obviously annoyed and thus He is toying with these people. To understand this passage you must first appreciate the circumstance and the audience. “Then, at that time, certain individuals among the Scribes (grammateus – public servants, politicians, judges, teachers, theologians, and journalists) and Pharisees (Pharisaios – the sect of rabbis who recognized, promoted, imposed, and valued the Babylonian Talmud and man’s oral traditions over Yahuweh’s Scriptures) said, ‘Teacher (didaskalos) we want (thelo – we desire) to see (horao – to witness with our own eyes and to personally experience) a sign (semeion – an unusual occurrence, a token which distinguishes) from you.’ But He answered and said to them, ‘An annoying, works oriented (poneros – unethical, diseased and blind, worthless, wicked) and adulteress (moichalis – those in relationships with whores and false gods) generation (genea – descendants of “poneros and moichalis”) seek (epizeteo – clamor for, crave, and demand) a token (semeion – a sign). But (kai – and so) no (ou) sign (semeion – unusual occurrence) shall be given (didomi – granted, supplied, or furnished) to them (autos), except (ei) the token that distinguished (semeion – the unusual occurrence of) the prophet Ionas (Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yownah, symbolic of the Spirit). For just as (gar hosper) Ionas/Yownah was three days and three nights in the center (koilia – innermost part) of the great fish (ketos – from chasma, meaning that which opens wide) so (houto) the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in (en – by or with) the heart (kardia – the center of circulation and life) of the land (ge – earth).” (Matthew 12:25-40)

The prophetic predictions and the eyewitness confirmations are well documented and perfectly clear. Yahushua arrived in Jerusalem, the “heart and center of the land” on Monday, March 28, 33 CE, the exact day Daniel predicted over 500 years earlier. But He didn’t stay. According to Mark 14, Yahushua, sought to thwart the desire of the “Chief Priests and Scribes to seize Him by stealth and kill Him” prior to “the Feast of Passover, so as to diminish the likelihood of a riot by the people.” He did this by spending “two days,” those being Tuesday and Wednesday, “in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper.” While the Messiah was willing to sacrifice Himself on our behalf He was not willing to have any aspect of His fulfillment of the three days depicted in the Miqra’s of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits occur on days other than those previously specified.

So then Yahushua returned to Jerusalem, “the heart and center of the land” on Thursday for Passover dinner. He stayed in town (courtesy of Caiphas’ dungeon accommodations) so that He could attend His own crucifixion on Friday, which was still Passover. The body of the Messiah spent the Sabbath of Unleavened Bread, which began at sundown and continued through Saturday, in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Roman guards were positioned just to make sure He remained in town. Sometime after sunset on Saturday, April 2nd, and before sunrise on Sunday the 3rd, Yahushua rose from the dead. But His body did not leave Jerusalem until later that morning, going to heaven and then to a “village called Emmaus, which was sixty stadion [seven and a half miles] separated from (apo) Jerusalem.” There is a reason we were given this otherwise irrelevant information by Mark and Luke.

The bottom line is: Yahushua gave a sign that the religious and political leaders of Jerusalem “could see, personally witness and experience.” “The Son of Man was three days and three nights in the heart (kardia – center of circulation and life) of the land (ge).” His promise was fulfilled uninterrupted for their viewing pleasure beginning on Thursday afternoon and ending late Sunday morning. That’s three days and three full nights.

Before we leave this verse, I must tell you that I was initially very troubled by it, at least as it appears in English translations. Clearly, Yahushua wasn’t in, as inside, the earth for three days or three nights. Many very famous pastors use this quote to claim that He was, but by so doing they are essentially saying that the precise timelines laid out by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all wrong. They are also saying that Yahshua was wrong in claiming that there was a direct correlation between His suffering for three days with the inspired Scripture recorded by Moses and the Prophets in the Torah and Psalms.

But all one has to do is correctly translate the words and think a little, and the truth becomes obvious. This passage isn’t a contradiction; it’s a confirmation. According to Strong’s, the primary meaning of ge is land, not earth. Ge is the Greek equivalent of ‘erets, with also means “land.” The majority of the time ‘erets is used in Scripture it applies to the Land of Israel—to the Promised Land. And even if ge were afforded its fourth most prevalent meaning, from the perspective of Yahuweh, from the perspective of Scripture, from the perspective of the audience listening to Yahushua, Jerusalem was, is, and forever will be the heart, the center of circulation and life, of the Earth.

The bottom line is from prophecy to fulfillment Scripture can be trusted.

Also recognize that the Scribes and Pharisees “wanted to see (horao – to witness with their own eyes, to personally experience) a sign from Him.” And this is what they were given. Had the sign been three days and three nights inside the earth, they could not “have seen or experienced” it because they were not yet there.


The days of the week are listed in the eyewitness accounts. Recognizing them has nothing to do with Christianity, but with reading them as they were written. Also, in another chapter I document exactly what happened each of the three days in 33. But in reality, the whole book is about those three days and their consequence.

My hope is that you come to see Yahshua through the lens of the Torah, and thus come to fully appreciate Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits.


Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#110 Posted : Saturday, August 29, 2009 5:04:59 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:53 AM, "JK" wrote:

I have vision problems. Would love to listen to an audio version of your latest book, and would appreciate a free online version.

Is this available.

I am a Dr. Stan loyalist and have heard Mr. Winn several times on Dr. Stan's shows.

-JK


Yada's response:

Quote:
JK

About 10% of Yada Yahweh is available in audio form--about 30 hours or so. Those portions are all free. But you can listen to our radio program. Thus far we have over 75 hours of recorded shows. This is the site: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Yada.

Yada


Quote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM, "JK" wrote:

Thank you. I will go to your site again and try to find that 10 percent. I did listen to one of your radio shows.

I find your work very interesting, however, I would love to see someone debate you who is also skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic and Latin and who is a bible translation scholar. I do not know enough to subject some of your ideas to rigid scrutiny, and I think you would agree that that would be good.

Thanks again

-JK


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: book "yadayahweh" audio format?‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:45:24 AM
To: "JK"

J,

Better yet, have a friend look up the Hebrew and Greek words in the text of Yada Yahweh and see if I've translated them completely and accurately. If I have, then there is no debate.

These ideas are not mine, they are Yahweh's. I'm just sharing what He had to say.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#111 Posted : Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:54:33 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:03 PM, "AM" wrote:

Yada,

Thanks for your kind response. I have read your response and find it very plausible. That would in fact explain why modern christianity clung to the good friday and rose easter sunday theory. They knew all along that the translation should have been "heart of the land" but chose to keep the emphasis on the pagan days instead of divulging the truth. Of course with the indoctrination I have had (fortunately, I haven't spent any length of time in a "church") it will take some time to digest this information. I continue to read your pdf files pretty much daily. If you have any idea where I would be able to get some scriptures in a book form that reflect the proper meanings I would appreciate that information. Once again thank you very much for taking the time to email me and explain something I was ignorant of.

Yahweh's blessings and mercy be upon you!

-A


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Information‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:39:35 AM
To: "AM"

A,

Thank you for your response. It reflects very positively on you. Your perspective, attitude, and way of thinking is ideal when it comes to understanding Yahweh's Word.

Alfin, there are many things that I do not know, but one of the things I know for certain is that Yahshua fulfilled Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits on three successive days. And I know that most every aspect of the Christian holy week is Babylonian--especially Easter Sunday. My hope is that you will read the Called-Out Assembly chapters and come to appreciate the reasons I am so confident regarding these things.

But keep in mind that Christianity is a counterfeit, and as such, while it is false, it is made to appear true. It isn't that Christianity is wrong about everything, but instead that it has concealed and corrupted the truth in such a way as to make lies seem plausible. So, their Friday Saturday Sunday timeline is accurate for that particular year, and yet, not for most years. Also, their understanding of what these days represent is horribly inaccurate.

Speaking of inaccurate, there are no accurate English translations. Sorry.

If you have more questions along the way, please send them to me. The question you rose this time was first presented to me by Jerry Falwell. He misunderstood the Jonah reference as well. And what's troubling about that is that the timeline presented in the eyewitness accounts doesn't allow for a Wednesday crucifixion. As a seminary graduate, and nationally televised evangelist, he should have known this.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#112 Posted : Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:02:06 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:20 PM, "JA" wrote:

I remember hearing a Father Ken Roberts, Catholic priest, speak one time on EWTN TV with Mother Angelica. He is a bible scholar and he said, I believe speaking of translating Greek to English, that there could be several meanings of the Greek word and it takes great skill to decide upon the closest most correct English words and phrases for translation.

You make it sound simple, but I do not think it is as simple as you seem to say.

Again, I do not know but I would think that there are those who probably would disagree with some of your work. For example, one lady called in to Dr. Stan's show after you were on and said that the Holy Spirit is definitely not a feminine gender phrase in the Greek. I forget whether she said it was neuter or masculine.

God bless you.

-J


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: book "yadayahweh" audio format?‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:54:51 AM
To: "JA"

J,

I would encourage you to stop listening to EWTN in particular, and to Catholics in general. No institution has done more to conceal and corrupt Yahweh's message then the Roman Catholic Church.

Translating isn't easy, but it isn't hard either. It is simply a matter of investing the time, using the oldest extant manuscripts, and relying upon as many of the best translation tools as you can afford.

The issue FKR brought up is solved very easily, however. It is called amplification. The surest way to choose the most correct English words to represent a Greek word is to provide the full range of possible meanings. While it makes the sentence harder to read, it eliminates the influences of human choice.

While it is neuter, what the lady who called in did not know is that the Greek word for "Spirit" isn't written out even once in any first-, second-, third-, or early fourth-century manuscript of the Renewed Covenant. Not once, not ever. A placeholder is used 100% of the time, telling us to look to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for answers. And there we discover that Ruwach, the Hebrew word for Spirit, is feminine--as are all of Her attributes. The proof of this statement is contained in Yada Yahweh.

Understanding, like translating, isn't difficult so long as you invest the time to become properly informed, which most Christians aren't willing to do, and so long as you have the right perspective (that of the Torah), the right attitude, and are willing to change the way most of us have been conditioned by our religious societies to think.

My hope is that you are willing to do these things.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#113 Posted : Saturday, September 5, 2009 12:55:58 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM, "DS" wrote:

Quote:
hi again Yada,
your job is huge and i have no business making it harder but i find that even when i have had a name or term translated or transliterated several times i have a hard time remembering the english meaning for the original hebrew, greek, or whatever. do you have, or have you given thought to a glossary of terms for quick reference to aid morons such as myself who can't remember.... words?
thanks,

-d


Yada's response:

Quote:
D,

We have thought about this and we agree with you. We'll create one. The only issue is time.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#114 Posted : Saturday, September 5, 2009 1:00:38 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM, "LH" wrote:

I have tried to get into both the paltalk group and yada yahweh group to no anail I read Yada Yauweh and have tried to share it with hundreds although most will not read it. I had a debate about the timeline with another follower of the way who understood that Yahushua had fullfilled the first 4 Miqra and had another title in front of Messiyah ( i am sure you know what it was) he seemed a bit religous to me but the debate was about knowing the time and when I said that the line about nobody knowing the time wasn't in the first 70 manuscripts he claimed it was in both hebrew and aramaic...can anyone help ?


Yada's response:

Quote:
Larry,

Thanks for trying to spread Yahweh's Word. It's worth doing, even though most religious Christians are opposed to it. There is nothing more central to Yahweh's plan of salvation or His prophetic timeline than the seven Called-Out Assemblies--events Christians universally ignore and reject.

As for your question, there are no Aramaic manuscripts dated prior to the 6th century CE, so those translations are irrelevant to this conversation. While Yahushua spoke Aramaic, there just aren't any early Aramaic texts upon which we can rely. And there are no Hebrew manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant. So your debate partner wasn't very well informed.

So that you know, I didn't say that there was no reference to "no one knows the time" in the earliest 70 manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant, but instead that the line, "not even the Son" isn't recorded as part of this discussion. I've also said that the "no one knows" verse is improperly translated and understood.

I cover the "no one knows" topic in three different chapters of Yada Yahweh. For the most comprehensive review, please read the Taruw'ah chapter. Here is some of what I wrote in it:

Moving on, Matthew’s Greek translation of Yahushua’s next statement in Aramaic containing a Hebrew quotation is the most challenging verse within the Renewed Covenant writings. As rendered, it throws everything into question. Translated thrice, from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek and from Greek to English, we find: “But nevertheless (de), concerning the immediate vicinity of (peri – regarding and referring to) that one specific and definite (ekeinos – unique, certain, emphatic, sequential, and distant) day (hemera – interval between sunrise and sunset) and (kai) hour (hora – a certain definite time) no one (oudeis - nobody) recognizes it (oida – appreciates, acknowledges, or is aware of, sees, perceives, discerns, notices, or knows it relationally), not even (oude) the messengers (aggelos) of heaven (ouranos), only the Father (pater) alone (monos).” (Matthew 24:36)

Of the eighteen pre-Constantine manuscripts of Matthew, this passage was not included in any of them. There is a record, however, of those responsible for the creating the Textus Receptus, having changed Matthew’s alleged “not even the Son” remark so that it would match Mark 13:32.

Therefore, when it comes to this passage, most scholastic tools are rendered unreliable. And unfortunately, there is only one manuscript of Mark dating to the first-through-third century CE, and it ends in the twelfth chapter. This reliability problem is further compounded by the fact that at best, English is a translation of a translation of what was said. And since most of the Olivet Discourse is quoted from ZakarYah, what we have is a translation three times over.

This leaves us with five different ways to explain the words currently found in Matthew and Mark. First, if we retain the “not even the Son” reference, Yahshua is neither divine nor Yahweh and all of Scripture is a hoax, as it would be impossible for “the Word made flesh” to be unaware of the Word or for the human manifestation of God not to know Yahweh’s thoughts. Further, as an eternal being, there can’t be a date Yahshua doesn’t know. As God, He was there during creation, and He has already been to our future. In fact, in this very discussion, He has told us exactly what would happen prior to and during His return. So it’s absurd for Him not to know what He has just predicted. Therefore, I’m going to discard this interpretation and blame those who copyedited Yahweh’s testimony for the confusion. After all, current scholarship confirms over 300,000 known variations and alterations between the Textus Receptus and older manuscripts.

The second option, one predicated on the removal of “not even the Son,” requires us to assume that Yahweh’s messengers, who are eternal spirits and thus able to see the past, present, and future simultaneously, have no interest in knowing the timing of the most important event in world history. And since Yahshua says in the same passage that these messengers announce His arrival, it’s not reasonable to assume they don’t know when to perform. This universally ignorant interpretation also requires us to question why God would provide an overwhelming amount of details specific to His plan and His timeline and yet not want us to understand any of it. Confronted with thousands of useful clues and one poorly rendered passage which seems to negate their purpose, Christian theologians have almost universally held up the grain of sand while ignoring the mountain behind them. Although religious men have earned the criticism, I don’t think God is saying, “You are so stupid, you’ll never figure this out no matter how obvious I make it.”

Our third alternative is so obvious, the first modern theologian to consider its implications within the context of God’s timeline, John Mill in 1707, concluded accurately that the verb oida in Matthew 24:36 was rendered in the present tense. So Yahushua was not saying that no one has ever known, nor that no one would ever recognize the day, but only that no one at that moment in time was aware of it. Worth noting is that not only did Mill close the case on closed mindedness with this analysis, his continued investigations prompted him to question the accuracy of the Textus Receptus. He himself found 30,000 errors in the universally accepted, and yet overwhelmingly flawed, document which still underlies all English bible translations.

Therefore, “no one” in Yahushua’s audience and population at the time of His revelation “recognized, appreciated, acknowledged, saw, perceived, discerned, noticed or knew relationally” the predicted day when He was planning to return. This was absolutely true then and almost universally so today. Virtually no one recognizes this “specific and definite, unique and certain, sequential day.” After all, thanks to Catholics, Yowm Kippurym has been replaced by Halloween.

The reason for this ubiquitous ignorance is that as a rule, Christians don’t study Yahshua’s message in the context of the Old Covenant promises, and so they don’t connect important fulfillments to the Miqra’ey. They don’t even know what the Miqra’ey are. Moreover, they don’t understand the Genesis one timeline or its prophetic implications. And not one in a thousand connects the parallel passages in Zechariah to Matthew. So Christians don’t recognize what’s going to happen or when, and most Jews, secular humanists, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists have no interest in this subject at all.

The fourth option relative to understanding this passage is tied to the fact that Yahshua quickly transitioned in the Olivet Discourse to a discussion regarding the Taruw’ah harvest. In the case of the harvest, the day of the year when the ingathering will occur is known, but the year itself is not known. And while Yahweh and Yahshua know the timing, there is no way for man to discern it from Scripture. All I know for sure is that it will occur on Taruw’ah/Trumpets some time between now and the fall of 2026.

In this regard, Yahshua’s answer was ingenious. Jews have substituted the Babylonian religious observance, Rosh Hashanah (Head of the Year), for Yahweh’s Taruw’ah (Shout for Joy and Signal a Warning). Rabbis called it “the hidden day no one knows, only the Father.” In their warped minds, it was the one day each year Satan accused Jews of being bad before God. So they blew their trumpets to confuse the Devil. And they kept the day a secret so that Satan would miss his appointment. Therefore, by saying that He would come for His family on “the day no one knows, only the father,” Yahushua was telling His disciples that the harvest would occur on Taruw’ah, now religiously observed as Rosh Hashanah.

The fifth consideration for interpreting this verse is based upon the similarities between it and its counterpart in ZakarYah. The subject, timing, context, and word selections are virtually identical, meaning that it is likely that Yahushua was answering His disciples’ question by citing the prophet He had previously inspired. So, speaking of the day He is going to return in Hebrew, He said…“This shall be (hayah – exist as) the one (‘echad – exclusive, unique, certain, and only) day (yowm) which (hu’) is known relationally (yada’ – personally revealed and respected, understood and acknowledged, distinguished and discerned) to (la) Yahuweh.” (Zechariah 14:7) The words “know,” “only,” “God,” “one,” and “day” are all in the prophet’s text, but in a different order, and thereby providing an entirely different, and entirely preferable, meaning.

The translation of this Hebrew citation to Aramaic, then to Greek, to Latin, back into Greek, and finally to English, without the benefit of an early manuscript, allowed the original word order to be affected by many centuries of religious tampering, and they were changed to…“But nevertheless (de), concerning the immediate vicinity of (peri – regarding and referring to) that one specific and definite (ekeinos – unique, certain, emphatic, sequential, and distant) day (hemera – interval between sunrise and sunset) and (kai) hour (hora – a certain definite time) no one (oudeis - nobody) recognizes it (oida – appreciates, acknowledges, or is aware of, sees, perceives, discerns, notices, or knows it relationally), not even (oude) the messengers (aggelos) of heaven (ouranos), only the Father (pater) alone (monos).” (Matthew 24:36)

Since the Father is Yahweh, with the exception of the messenger reference, the quotes are so similar I think Yahushua was telling His disciples that the answer to their question could be found in ZakarYah. It therefore isn’t about not knowing, but about recognizing where to look to know.

In ZakarYah’s next line, we find: “There shall be (hayah) no (lo’) day (yowm – time reckoned from sunset to sunrise) and no (wa lo’) night (laylah – darkness or gloom). And then (wa) light (‘owr – brilliant illumination) shall exist (hayah – shall be) at (la) the point in time (‘et – the specific season and proper duration) of sundown (‘ereb – sunset, twilight, dusk, and early evening).” (ZakarYah / Zechariah 14:7) The NIV Hebrew English Interlinear renders this passage in the Hebrew order and in the compound form as: “And-it-will-be day unique. It-is-known to Yahweh. No daytime or-no nighttime. And-it-will-be at-time-of evening He-will-be light.”

All of Yahweh’s Miqra’ey begin at sunset, the prior day. So the Day of Reconciliations, which is the tenth day of the seventh month, starts at twilight of the 9th day and culminates at sunset on the 10th. So, since Yahshua is returning to the Mount of Olives, His glorious final advent will occur just after sunset on October 2nd, 2033, which will be at 6:22 PM or just prior to sundown in Jerusalem. It will be approaching lunchtime on the American East Coast—11:22 AM—based upon the seven-hour time-zone differential.

However, Yahweh has testified that on this day, the sun will not rise nor set, because He will arrive and His light will rise instead. While I think He is speaking of the Day of Reconciliations which follows, and not the sunset which initiates this Miqra’, it may be presumptuous to set a time based upon the normal course of things. Anyway, this I do know, the darkness which is obliterated by the Light is symbolic of the darkness of Satan’s Ba’al-sungod and Allah’s moon-god guises being obliterated by Yahweh’s glorious presence.

So to be completely consistent with His Word, God must touch down within the specified 24-hour period He designated for the Miqra’ of Reconciliations. And while that could be any time between sunset on the 9th of Tishri and twilight on the 10th (our October 2nd and 3rd, 2033), I think the reference to “sundown” is both literal and symbolic, and that means His return will most likely occur at the beginning of Yowm Kippurym and not after it is over. Open your calendars and set your clocks: based upon the Scriptural evidence, Yahweh will most likely return to planet earth at 6:22 PM, Jerusalem time (11:22 AM EST) on October 2, 2033—the dawning of the Day of Reconciliations.
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#115 Posted : Friday, September 11, 2009 3:21:48 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:08 AM, "BC" wrote:

Quote:
Dear Yada. Please set me clear on something. What is the difference between -Tranlslation and transliteration?

I love your work. Yaweh gets the glory.

The confrontation I get all the time is about the Jesus name. Many I know don't have a problem using the name of Yaweh, but they won't ley go of the name Jesus. Am I choking on a gnat here. Much of the reseach I do on the subject of Jesus says the name Jesus is the greek equivalent. I really need to be clear on this. Of course we're labeled kooks and I don't care. Just want to be clear on this.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

-B


Yada's response:

Quote:
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:17:06 AM
To: "BC"

Transliteration is conveying the sound of a word in one language with the alphabet of another. Translation is conveying the meaning of a word in one language with the words of another.

Using Yahweh is much better than using Lord. But to use Jesus, and not use Yahshua is to say that you don't know who Yahshua is and that you don't respect Yahweh.

I cover the basis of Jesus, and prove that there is not Greek equivalent to it in the RC throughout YY. The use of Yahweh and Yahshua causes religious Christians and Secular Humanists to label us "kooks." Since they cannot refute the message, the demean the messengers.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#116 Posted : Friday, September 11, 2009 3:25:15 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM, "KM" wrote:

Hi Yada,

Haven't written you in bit. I have some interesting email correspondence with a "British" writer named Philip Jones. He wrote an article in regards to the "Burka ban" that is being initiated in Denmark. He tried to write, or pose, as a "middle man" of reason plodding the PC thought process to guise the reader into finding sympathy for the Burka wearers, while at same time, disparaging the Danish population.

I obviously misinterpreted his article, thinking he was advocating the ban. The ensuing remarks by me, brought him to rage, whereby he eventually called me pork, or "dead pork", he also email shouted something in Arabic.

I'll forward you the article and also my interactions with him. I'm beginning to realize that all Muslims follow the same thought pattern--In honest discourse, debate, or thinking, they falter because the foundation of their belief system is seriously flawed. I'm thinking that most Muslims encounter a blind rage when it comes time to explain their faith and this rage is automatic. It's built into the Co-ran.

Regards,

-K


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: interesting dialogue‏
From: Prophet of Doom (email@prophetofdoom.net)
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:11:06 AM
To: "KM"

KM,

PJ sounds like a real jerk, and a deceiver to boot.

But what's absolutely certain is that Islam corrupts all of those it infects. It inspires rage and it precludes reasonable thought. I have never experienced a Muslim who was capable of conducting a debate.

As for the Burka, I find it revolting. I stare in disgust at those who walk around in religious tents. It's so insulting and dehumanizing.

Yada

Edited by moderator Saturday, September 12, 2009 1:34:00 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#117 Posted : Friday, September 11, 2009 3:29:52 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM, "RC" wrote:

Hi Yada. Your work with Yada Yaweh is truly remarkable. It has transformed me and members of my family. It seems that there are 2 camps--those that joyouly recieve the message of Yaweh (talking about using His name) and those that oppose. Amazing. Anyway, my question is: Why does the Renewed Covenant have to be in Greek. Seems like that's where amany problems arise. Did Hebrew go away and only Greek is left? Also, do you recommend getting the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible?

Thank you for your time and effort. Keep up the good fight. Yaweh Bless,

-RC


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: "RC"
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:36:24 AM
To: "RC"

Hello R,

Is Christiano your last name? If it is, you may want to listen to the radio program I recorded recently on Yada Yahweh Radio on Chrestus and Chrestianos. As it turns out, the first Followers of the Way were called Chrestusians, based upon Chrestus, meaning "Useful Tool, Gracious Servant, and Upright One."

Thank you for letting me know that Yada Yahweh has made a difference in your life and home. While all of the credit goes to Yah, it's nice to know that you and yours have "joyously received the message of Yahweh."

To answer your question, Hebrew was no longer spoken apart from citations from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms by the 1st century CE. And Greek was the most common language, especially for written texts and intellectual discussions.

While I would have preferred Aramaic as the RC language, due to its similarity with Hebrew, there are reasons Yahweh chose Greek. In that it focuses on thinking, it works nicely with Hebrew, which is a spiritual and relational language.

But, we must always keep in mind, that when it comes to Yahshua's words, He spoke them in Aramaic, so Greek is already a translation of what He said.

The benefit of reading a Dead Sea Scroll Bible is knowing where the Masoretic differs from the oldest manuscripts. And unless you are planning on translating the text yourself, these differences may not be especially helpful.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#118 Posted : Friday, September 11, 2009 3:34:13 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:52 PM, "EF" wrote:

Hello,

This just came from a friend of mine when he tried to access your site today from his work web account during his lunch hour.
He and I have used your site for a number of years now, and this concerns me as to just what protocol 8e6 Technologies is using that would list a site that spreads information on the hate and discrimination that is contained within the cult of islam, but does not voice one word on hating or discriminating against those who choose to follow that cult. By inference, the information on your site may call on us to question their sanity, maintain an "alert" and informed attitude, and view those who wish to do us harm as dangerous (duh), but that is all I have seen.
I am letting you know about this because I see this as a serious threat to free speech that should not go unanswered.
Your site allows us to learn about this cult of submission so we can dialogue successfully with those who are still ignorant of islam's true calling. Thank you for all the work you have put in on your site and elsewhere...it is invaluable.
Kind regards,

-EF


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Fw: look what our scrubbers say‏
From: Prophet of Doom (email@prophetofdoom.net)
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:21:31 AM
To: "EF"

EF,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We know that the site is blocked for the US Military and in China, but we had not seen evidence of it being blocked elsewhere.

Your assessment of our site and this assault on free speech is astute. It should be among the last things the world ignores. Tolerance and ignorance of deadly dogmas isn't sane, it isn't civil, and it most certainly isn't compassionate--it's suicidal.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Mike  
#119 Posted : Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:34:46 PM(UTC)
Mike
Joined: 10/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 533
Location: Texas

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Access to the POD website is blocked at my work also.
But YY isn't blocked (yet). Yea!

Here is a link to Yadas interview on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith: Goto the 08-17-09 show, Hour C, second half.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Offline bitnet  
#120 Posted : Friday, September 25, 2009 4:23:57 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shabbat Shalom,

Can people browse the YY sites using anonymizer software or proxies? Just wondering. Sometimes I can't seem to get through to the sites, but when I use proxies such as www.hidemyass.com I am able to access the YY sites.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Yada  
#121 Posted : Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:05:15 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:20 AM, "CC" wrote:

Yada

I'm reading the chapter on Tabernacles in yadayahweh, and I had to pause mid-sentence, after reading your interpretation of Lev.23.28:

"In addition to (min la bad) Yahuweh's Sabbaths (sabat - seventh day to cease work, regaling and revering God), besides (min la bad) your gifts (mattanah - something given for the good of a relationship), and in addition to (min la bad) all (kol) your vows (nadar/neder - promises), as part of (min la bad - out of or from) your freedom of choice (nadabah -freewill), relationally ('asher) turn over control (natan - give, deliver, assign, dedicate, and entrust yourself) to (la) Yahuweh." (Leviticus 23:38)

to just pause and say, wow. That is so powerful! Such a subtle shift in perspective, in words, seems to equal a paradigm shift.

I read another friend's teaching on Sukkot, and it was mostly in the right place, but it also had this string of 'you must do such and such, or else the consequence is death, so don't get this wrong' -more or less, right not in those exact words, but pretty much. . .and reading stuff like that leaves me with this certain feeling, and a bit of inner conflict when I do read passages that seem to say 'do this, obey my commands, or else...'
And yet when I read yada yahweh, and with my understanding of Yahuweh being ALL about freewill and love and choice, I'm just not sure how to marry those things.

But this verse above, 'verses' the verse in my 'Scriptures' which doesn't leave me with much, this on the other hand is just awesome.
Yahuweh is awesome. And I don't know if I really have a point other than just needing to exclaim that.

Thank you for taking the time, to convey Yahuweh's Word in it's intended meaning. I know you battle with receiving thanks for your work, and you credit it all to Yahuweh -indeed it is His Word, but it's being restored, in an amazing way, and you have had an amazing part to play.

Shalom. Have a most blessed Feast of Tabernacles! I can't wait to meet you one day under His magnificent Sukah!

-K


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Sukah and the joy found in Yahuweh‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:50:44 AM
To: "CC"

K,

Thank you for sharing this passage. It came at a perfect time. I'm in the midst of adding a long section to the end of the Yowm Kippurym chapter and this verse helped shape the way I'm presenting it.

I have attached the YK chapter hoping that you might find time to copyedit it. I'm finished with my edits through page 67, and hope to complete the rest of it over the next few days. I enjoyed the YK presentation in Zakaryah, but the one in Mal'aky is even more riveting.

As you know, I see myself as a flawed tool in great hands. The passage you cited is breathtaking because it is the way He wrote it. Like you, I really enjoy His writing style. Translating it and thinking about what He says is great fun.

Yada
File Attachment(s):
_AB (364kb) downloaded 34 time(s).
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline bitnet  
#122 Posted : Wednesday, October 7, 2009 7:29:44 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

"Turn over control to Yahweh..." That's what we did by taking a vacation! It is difficult for us to leave our business but since we are able to do this each weekly Sabbath, we have turned over control of our business to Abba Yahweh to preserve and grow while we are away to celebrate Sukah! We don't know what lies in store but we trust that He is control and shall do whatever is right to bring us closer to Him while increasing our business or opening new doors.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Yada  
#123 Posted : Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:38:15 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:14 AM, "CM" wrote:

Hello, Yada...

I am utterly hooked on your book Yada Yahweh. I am now in chapter four, and savoring every word... Thank you for sharing your thoughts with others. I understand this book has one thousand pages...

I've looked at the contents as posted below:

Yada Yahweh
I. Genesis: Why Are We Here?
II. Called-Out Assemblies - Understanding the Basics
III. Going Astray - America Reflected in Hosea
IV. Salvation - Messianic Prophecies
V. Good News - Historic Fulfillments
VI. God Damn Religion - The Church Age
VII. The Last Days - Prelude to The End

Where do I go from here to find the rest of the book Yada Yahweh?

Thank you for you kind help?

Your brother in Yahshua,

-CM



Quote:
Re: Yada Yahweh question‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:28:38 AM
To: CCM

C,

Thanks for sharing this generous evaluation of Yada Yahweh. The seven volumes as they are currently posted online comprise 1800 total pages. Later today, we hope to double the length of Yowm Kippurym with an update, and I have 200 pages of yet unpublished material on Romans and Galatians which will be added to the 5th volume in a month or so. Then, after editing Yowbel, the Hosea chapters, the Salvation volume, Good News and God Damn Religion, I plan to complete the Last Days volume which will take me out several more years.

So, based upon where you are now, you have 1700 pages still to read. And by the time you've completed them, I will have added a few hundred more.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#124 Posted : Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:41:01 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM, "LM" wrote:

In debate with a woman who is clearly reading some posts I am doing on FB she writes "Jeremiah says it is a NEW Covenant...it's even in the Jewish Bible." I am sure they decided to use the word new although it most likely wasn't and second could you give me Jeremiah's real name

Thanks,

-L


Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: New Covenant‏
From: Yada Yahweh (email@yadayahweh.com)
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:55:22 AM
To: "LH"

L,

The prophet Yrmayahu wrote "renewed covenant," based upon the Hebrew beryth chadash. And what He did not say was "New Testament." Moreover, there is no such thing as "the Jewish Bible." That's a Christian religious view without justification.

Yahweh says hundreds of times that His Covenant is everlasting and eternal, for all time, for all people. And there is only one Covenant--the one established with Abraham, depicted in the Torah, and fulfilled by Yahshua. So, the idea of creating a new one is completely inconsistent with Scripture as a whole.

Jer 31.31 reads: "Look, the day will come, declares Yahuweh, that I will cut with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Yahuwdah, a renewed (chadash - restored and reaffirmed, from chodesh, time of renewal) covenant (beryth - familial relationship)."

Chadash, from Chay Delth Shin, like most Hebrew words, has different meanings depending upon the way the actual Hebrew text was later pointed by rabbis. In the most direct sense, chadash means "renewed and restored," as it is based upon chodesh, meaning "time of renewal and restoration."

You'll also notice that the renewal and restoration was between Yisra'el and Yahuwdah, not the ekklesia.

Yrma might be from yari'ah meaning "shelter of Yah." Or yarah, Yah teaches." Or Yarah Yah Refreshes. I prefer yare', Revere Yah. Strongs says it is from ruwm, meaning Yah is Exalted.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#125 Posted : Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:43:23 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
2009/10/17: I wrote to Yada:

Hello Yada - on yesterday's show, you mentioned the 100 page rewrite of the Kippurym chapter. I believe that you now think this Miqra is not a fast as stated in the excerpt below. However, I still think agree with what you wrote here initially and wanted to ask you what your thoughts were regarding the "6 + 1" forumula as it related to this/the Miqra overall?

The following was taken from the Paralambano chapter:

"Scripture's most important seven sevens are: One: In Genesis One there are six days of creation plus a day of rest. This is symbolic of the six thousand years of man after the fall followed a Millennial Sabbath. The six plus one accounting provides the framework for all redemptive prophecy. Two: The Fourth Commandment says there are six days for work and one for rest. It is symbolic of the fact we cannot work for our salvation. Three: The Torah reveals that there are seven Miqra'. Six are Feasts and one (the Day of Atonement) is a Fast. Represented by the seven light menorah lamp, the seven Miqra' provide a chronological and descriptive prophetic essay on the seven most important events related to man's reunification with Yahuweh. Four: The Seven Spirits of Yahuweh/Yahushua depicted in Isaiah and Revelation. Each is represented by one of Yahuweh's seven metaphors. This subject is reasonably complex so I'll defer its discussion to the future chapter on sevens. Five: The seven advents of Yahushua, 'Yshaya'el/God existing as man. I'll list these in a moment. Six: the seven harvests of cleansed and set-apart souls. And Seven: The seven ekklesia depicting the prevailing nature of the seven eras of past, present, and future "church" history."

source: http://yadayahweh.com/Ya...Assemblies_Kippurym.YHWH

Thanks.

-"Yada"


Yada's response:

Quote:
I wrote Paralambano long before I wrote Kippurym, and learned that the rabbis were wrong regarding the fast. The six with regard to the Miqra' are the first six meetings, all of which represent the steps to heaven. The seventh is the result, as it represents heaven.

Yada

Edited by moderator Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:35:35 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#126 Posted : Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:45:53 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

"Why Crucify, not Stone?"

Quote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, "YP"om> wrote:


C-

Check this out! ...it is very interesting...by the way don't fell rush or pressure...everything that is from God/Yashua... works on His time not ours...I'll wait patiently for your response!
Much Love!

Y.

http://www.actioninterna...%20Why%20not%20Stone.pdf



Yada's response:

Quote:
Y

I read the first paragraph of the article.

From a historical perspective, Jews had no right to capital punishment under the Romans which is why they couldn't stone Yahshua. Romans, who reserved the right to capital punishment for themselves, didn't stone. Yahshua was not sentenced to blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God as this author attests, but for speaking Yahweh's name.

From a Scriptural perspective the Upright One had to be affixed to an Upright Pole. Such is the lesson of quwm and histemi. And it is what was predicted in Yahsayahu.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#127 Posted : Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:57:58 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:05 PM, "TS" wrote:

Hello Tools-O-Yaw

I have listened to everything audio from POD YY FH and BTR as well as read much of what is not on audio. I greatly appreciate your commitment! Admittedly, not all of my family and friends are quite so appreciative.

Finally have a few questions for you.

First one is straight forward.

I spent some time in my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and looking through some online lexicons and couldn't find "yaqah" or the Hebrew ?????. In my search for it two references to Yada Yahweh popped up.

Yada Yahweh - Book III-Going Astray -- Chapter 1-Azab
In His Scriptures, Yahuweh presents man’s history from Adam to Armageddon.
It’s a dramatic and gut-wrenching journey from Beriyth ... "So he went and bought (yaqah - took, acquired, accepted, seized and married)


Yada Yahweh - Book IV-Salvation -- Chapter 8-Ga'al
"Now, what am I doing here, asks Yahuweh, seeing that My family ('am) has become insolent, proud, arrogant, and haughty (yaqah - showing audacity toward My authority;

Can I get a Strong's reference number, some other reference or another form of the word yaqah? I found "laqach" and "yaqa'" but nothing that fits "audacity toward my authority".

Also curious as to the Hebrew word used for "are deluded" in Isaiah 52:5.


Second

I was entertaining getting the Logos Original Language suite. I currently am using the free tools available on the net. Just wanted to know what you think would be the best investment on a limited budget.


Now for the more difficult question.

I heard Yada mention in one of the YY shows that he can't or doesn't talk with his wife about this subject. I may have incorrectly taken the comment to mean that she finds the truth upsetting. If my assumption is correct how do you deal with the problem?

Not trying to be troublesome but I am having difficulty with my wife on this.


Thanks,

-TS


Yada's response:

Quote:
TS,

What was the verse in which yaqah was cited that cause you concern?

Dealing with the passage you listed, it appears that an old version of Logos led me in the wrong direction with yaqah--at least with regard to Strong's. The proper word is laqah. (Strong's 3946 - they use the hard ch at the end and render it laqach)

Properly translated the passage reads: “And (wa) now ('atah), why (my) should I be concerned here (la 'any poh), prophetically asks (na'um) Yahuweh (YaHuWeH), that (ky – indeed) My ('any) family (‘am) has been taken away (laqah – led away and captured, removed from Me, and has been seized and acquired) for nothing, without cause, and in vain (chinnam – for naught, to no avail, and without purpose)?” (Isaiah 52:5) I've changed the translation in YY to reflect this version.

In this regard, I had written the following paragraph:

There is a dispute as to whether Yahuweh intended to use yaqah or laqah in this verse. The words are related. Strong’s actually lists both variations under laqah (יָקַח, לָקַח). If it is laqah, Yahweh’s family was “acquired, snatched away as prey and booty,” and then as “captives” they “married their assailant.” Regardless of the rendering, the question remains haunting. So not liking this question, as it spoke unfavorably of them, the Mesoretes changed “what” to “who” suggesting that God was searching for His identity rather than questioning the wisdom of trying to redeem those who had no interest in their own salvation.

Based upon the DSS, I have also changed the commentary to:

By using laqah, translated as “have been taken away,” in this prophetic question, Yahweh is saying that His concern for mankind is unwarranted because His family was “acquired, led and snatched away as prey and booty,” and then as “captives” they “married their assailant.” So not liking this question, as it spoke unfavorably of them, the Masoretes changed “why” to “who” suggesting that God was searching for His identity rather than questioning the wisdom of trying to redeem those who had no interest in their own salvation.

The translation in Hosea is accurate but the transliteration should have been laqah, not yaqah.

Logos is expensive, but it is a great tool. That said, I use the Scholars version which is much more advanced than Ancient Languages, but more than twice the cost. Further, you still have to have additional resources to translate the Word. But, I can think of no better way to invest your time and money.

Since you asked, my wife and I get along very well. She is a terrific person, wonderful mother ,and great homemaker. But she just isn't interested in Yahweh.--at least not in the way I am. While she has come to know that her religious upbringing was replete with pagan traditions, and errant teachings, and while she no longer goes to church, family and cultural customs are very important to her and she doesn't want to let them go.

It's not our job to hound anyone, to make them uncomfortable, or to change or convince them--just to make the truth available. My sons and I talk openly about Yahweh and His Word, and routinely criticize religion in her presence, so she knows where we and Yahweh stand.


Yada

Edited by moderator Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:37:36 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#128 Posted : Saturday, November 14, 2009 3:02:47 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, "YP" wrote:


C-

Check this out! ...it is very interesting...by the way don't fell rush or pressure...everything that is from God/Yashua... works on His time not ours...I'll wait patiently for your response!
Much Love!

Y.

http://www.actioninterna...%20Why%20not%20Stone.pdf


Yada responds:

Quote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Yada Yahweh <email@yadayahweh.com> wrote:

Y

I read the first paragraph of the article.

From a historical perspective, Jews had no right to capital punishment under the Romans which is why they couldn't stone Yahshua. Romans, who reserved the right to capital punishment for themselves, didn't stone. Yahshua was not sentenced to blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God as this author attests, but for speaking Yahweh's name.

From a Scriptural perspective the Upright One had to be affixed to an Upright Pole. Such is the lesson of quwm and histemi. And it is what was predicted in Yahsayahu.

Yada


"YP" writes back:

Quote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM, "YP" wrote:

Thanks Yada ...I will get more involved and read everything o YY and study your lessons...
Also How do we really know that Yashua was only talking about Yahwueh's name...where this is written...because this is very interesting to me to know..Thanks in advance!
You are the best!
Y.


Yada's reponse:

Quote:
I cover this topic in YY, but don't recall which chapter. But the reason we know is two fold. First, Yahweh's name is written in one of the two passages Yahshua cited in His trial. Second, the rabbinical response to saying Yahweh's name is to tear one's robe, which is what they did.

Yada

I don't know what the author of the article's point may have been, but when he began by incorrectly referencing history, and then misquoting Scripture, it became immaterial. He didn't even understand that he was guilty of committing blasphemy as it is defined in the Torah as he devalues Yahweh's name by not using it and by using "Jesus." Further, the penalty of belittling Yahweh's name is expulsion from the family, death is simply the consequence. This is the message of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Matthew  
#129 Posted : Friday, December 18, 2009 10:17:28 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Yada wrote:
The closer we look, the more it appears that we can't rely on much more than Yahucanan.

Is Yada saying here that he doesn't view Matthew, Mark and Luke as Scripture, or saying that the oldest known copies of these books have also been tampered with and therefore can't be relied on?
Offline James  
#130 Posted : Friday, December 18, 2009 11:33:21 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,612
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 210 time(s) in 148 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
Is Yada saying here that he doesn't view Matthew, Mark and Luke as Scripture, or saying that the oldest known copies of these books have also been tampered with and therefore can't be relied on?

He's saying that what we have of them may not be very accurate. It's one of those situations where we don't have good reason to trust the manuscripts that we have.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline bitnet  
#131 Posted : Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:33:19 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Well, apparently the contradictions that the RC raised that were pointed out years ago continue to this day. So the best way is not to unravel the twisted cords but to cut the Gordion knot! This is a right approach for a great recipe. Use what was known as Scripture and keep it that way as the core ingredient. The add one part Revelations from Yahushua via Yahuchanan and this is the cream on the top. All others can be added as condiments if they are not in conflict with Scripture. I'm definitely OK with this. I appreciate the 4 Witness accounts, the letters and epistles as they flesh out the life of The Word, but I'd hesitate to call it Scripture because it was not described as such; man did it on their own accord centuries after Yahushua's Sacrifice. However, there's much to learn in these RC books, but then again the confusion caused by some of the contents therein have led many astray instead of towards Yahweh. Can we find Salvation with the TPP and Revelations? Yes. Do the 4 Witness accounts help? Yes. The other letters? Well, do personal letters count? Can our discussions here be added to future "bibles"? I'd say "Not!" So it is a logical foundation with this approach and our Creator is of a sound mind. So, the bottomline is quite obvious: if it isn't much good then we really must be careful how we use it if we decide to use it.

Edited by user Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:51:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling errors corrected... a case of digitalis dyslexia... ;-)

The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Yada  
#132 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 10:14:29 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, "LR" wrote:

Yada,

Please take the time to go to www.sullivan-county.com/...nostic_flies/maccoby.htm and read Hyam Maccoby {the Mythmaker} was mostly right. Let me know your reaction, please.

Thank you,

-LR


Yada's response:

Quote:

"L"

After returning from lunch I did a quick review of Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker, and found that much of what he wrote was false. So while I agree with most everything in the article you sent me, I do not concur with a significant swath of Maccoby's book.

After reading a significant excerpt from TM, I found this paragraph by a reviewer.

Maccoby summarizes in advance what he hopes to prove in The Mythmaker; let's look at that first.

1. Paul, who is painted as a Pharisee in Acts and claims to be a Pharisee in his letters, "never was one." [xi] He lied about his qualifications and was poorly trained as a rabbinic scholar. [15ff]

2. Jesus was a Pharisee whose teachings Paul distorted. True Christianity, represented by the Jerusalem church led by Peter and James, never believed that Jesus was divine, though they did believe he was the Messiah and had been resurrected. They observed the Jewish law faithfully and disdained Paul, who created what we call Christianity out of a mix of hellenism, Gnosticism, paganism, and Judaism.

3. The similar description of Paul written by the Ebionites in the middle of the second century is a much more reliable source about Paul than the NT, and scholars have neglected this fact for "quite inadequate and tendentious reasons" [xii].


I am convinced that Paul flunked out or was drummed out of rabbinical school for bad behavior. That is why he became a tent maker with an attitude. So he did lie about his qualifications. But while Paul's logic was deeply flawed, that does not exclude him from being considered a scholar, rabbinic or otherwise. In fact being irrational is a trait common to most scholars. As a rule, they like Paul know a great deal but understand very little.

Yahshua was not a Pharisee. He was opposed to the Pharisees.

It is absolutely true: Paul distorted Yahshua's life and teachings more than anyone whoever lived.

Shim'own and Ya'aqob were true followers, disciples, and apostles of the Way, and as such they knew that Yahshua was the human manifestation of Yahuweh, making Him divine. They not only knew that Yahshua was resurrected, they knew what those three days represented. And yes, Shim'own and Ya'aqob, like Yahushua, were Torah observant. But the Torah isn't "Jewish Law," but instead, Yahweh's instruction.

Shim'own and Ya'aqob rejected Paul and his testimony.

Paul did in fact create Christianity out of a mix of myths.

I have not yet read the whole of what we have found from the Ebionites, but what I have read strongly suggests that they were right in rejecting and condemning Paul.

Yada


Here is Yada's first response to "LR":


I've read the article on Lewis Loflin's site (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnostic_files/maccoby.htm), closely examining the unknown author's evidence and reasoning, and consider it brilliant. This anonymous author has found things I agree with but missed, just as I found things in Questioning Paul that he or she would probably agree with but missed. But in the end, we are saying the same thing: Paul, the author of Galatians and Romans, very deliberately and thoughtfully created a false Christ and false gospel so as to lure people away from Yahweh and His Torah. He did so by using half-truths and clever counterfeits. And we are both troubled, although not surprised, that so many people have disregarded the obvious.

Thanks for sending this article. It is a great read. I especially enjoyed the author's analysis of Yahshua's temptation at the beginning of His ministry. It serves to disprove Pauline Doctrine as adroitly as does Yahshua's Sermon on the Mount. I differ however with the article's author when it comes to Yahshua being about Yah's business, and thus of Him facilitating the Torah's plan of salvation. It is a connection the article misses.

The one place I have my doubts, and I'm not yet convinced, albeit I've been leaning in this direction for some time, is the correlation between Paul and Gnostic teaching, especially as those things were interpreted by Marcion, a Gnostic who like his apostle Paul, also attacked Gnostics. But, either way, the author's relentless logic, and his or her insightful Scriptural comparisons, are irrefutable, albeit cerebral. This article is akin to "Questioning Paul" for especially well educated and thoughtful people--except the author does not take a stand, as I do, in favor of Yahweh and the Torah.

I would love to be able to "dumb down" the arguments and examples used in the article so that they might be applicable to a larger audience. And over time, I'll read some of the things Loflin himself has written to see if his reasoning and conclusions are equally consistent and accurate.

Yada

PS, What follows is my highlighted version of the article, revealing what I considered to be especially revealing.

Yada

Apostle Paul


Hyam Maccoby [The Mythmaker] was mostly right


Hyam Maccoby [The Mythmaker] was mostly right: 1. Paul was not a Pharisee. 2. Christians prior to Paul were not antinomian (anti Torah), anti-Jewish, or anti-God. 3. Paul invented the doctrine of the Cross, along with the story of the Last Supper and associated doctrine of the Body of Christ. This much of The Mythmaker I had to agree with after examining the evidence, even though I was extremely reluctant to part with the idea he had been a Pharisee. Maccoby was also right about something else, which I shall go into in greater depth later on.

Having determined all this to my satisfaction raised the question "What did Paul think he was doing?" I found myself lost in a sea of contradictions: Paul preached "salvation by faith," that is, by belief; yet, he did not believe in the Christian gospel himself. We know this because the gospel he preached was totally different, bearing no relationship whatsoever to the life and teachings of Jesus. Now, before Paul invented his gospel, the only gospel which existed was that of the apostles. Why would a man who believed his salvation depended upon believing the gospel not believe in the gospel preached by the apostles of Christ? How could Paul, who makes so much of his own authority as an apostle, so disregard the teaching of every other apostle?

The contradictions are particularly acute with regard to the "law," or Torah: in Romans he portrays himself as a pious observer of the Torah who found himself unable to obey it; meaning, we suppose, that no one else can either. Yet Paul must certainly have been aware of Deut. 30:11, "[this law] is not too difficult for you," for he quotes most of the passage in the very same epistle, leaving out only "not too difficult" and "so you may obey it." St. Paul would have had to have been a colossal idiot not to understand this passage. Furthermore, in the epistle to the Galatians Paul lists the "effects of obeying the law" as follows:

1. It "nullifies the effect of Christ in you."

2. It makes "Christ die for nothing," i.e., it nullifies "the cross."

3. It renders "all my work for you in vain" (in preaching the gospel, presumably). Now, this contradicts the main argument in Romans, that it would be fine to obey the law if it were possible but since it is not we must not; which makes no sense at all, but so what
?

These passages also show that Paul could not have believed the law "abrogated," or nullified, for there can be no effect from obeying a nullified law, and if there is an effect there can be no nullification.

How can we discover Paul's true beliefs from this maze of contradictory statements? By Maccoby's Fourth Proposition: 4. That Paul employed deception, and most especially misrepresentation, to convince people to accept the gospel. In other words, Paul was a liar, not a pathological liar, but a purposeful one: he lied to advance the gospel; not the gospel of the apostles, but the gospel he himself preached. He himself declared that among Jews he acted like a Jew, among Greeks like a Greek; is it unlikely then that among apostles he would act like an apostle? Or that he would emulate apostlolic behavior (like extreme humility) in his letters even though he was nothing like it in fact?

Paul was a liar, but he was also a preacher and pastor: he had to tell at least something of the truth to preach, and give the Galatians some kind of idea that their obedience of the Commandments was a bad idea, even if he could not say precisely why. How can a man both lie and tell the truth at the same time? The way to do that is by clever use of language. Paul used a special type of language which he called "spiritual words," which he distinguished from the ordinary kind of language, which he called "speaking as a human being." Now these "spiritual words" could not be understood by the rules of grammar and syntax.

They can, however, be decyphered. Here are some examples, and their meaning, translated by myself: ...[the law] was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator of one is not, but God is one. Gal. 3:19-20

Notice how the meaning of this passage seems to sail right past you and out of sight, leaving you the impression of having witnessed something profound even though you cannot say just what. Let us turn the passage front to back and see what we have: God is one.

A mediator of one is not. The Law was ordained through a mediator.

What we have here is what the Greeks call a syllogism, a sequence of facts tending towards a conclusion. And the conclusion? Since the law was ordained through a "mediator" (leaving aside the question of whether this was so or not), and there can not be a mediator of "one," such as God is (leaving aside this issue as well), it follows that the law could not have been ordained by God. So the phrase which begins the passage, "the law was ordained by angels," is really the conclusion of the syllogism: since "angels" are more than one, "angels" ordained the law. Now, this conclusion is virtually imperceptable to people who worship God, such as Jews (although Maccoby did object to the idea the Torah was ordained by angels): there are too many factual discrepancies to let anyone take it seriously. These people all know that the Torah was ordained by God Almighty, Ruler of heaven and earth. But Paul was not such a person. He was not one of those "unbelievers" who are "blinded by the Ruler of the World" in their study of the Torah; oh no. He was something else entirely.

Let us conclude that Paul conceded the law was ordained by someone or something, and did not believe that someone or something was God. Would this be satisfactory? After all the word "God" is not a name but a title, and the fact that Paul does not care to bestow the title does not know what is what. After all, in later generations the term "angels" was applied by Gnostics with the meaning "the God of the Old Testament," or Yahweh. If one person can grant a title, someone else can equally change that title; so if Paul says "angels ordained the law" with the meaning "Yahweh ordained the law," is this not factual? Blasphemous as hell certainly, but not untrue. In short, if Paul were a Gnostic his passage would have made perfect sense, and his epistle to the Galatians would have made perfect sense as well, for what were the Galatians doing but obeying the law? What was wrong with that?

Another example: Paul tells the Galatians that even though they accepted Christ they are "turning back" to "bondage to the elements of the universe" in their observance of the law. Now the word "turning" needs no explanation: in Bible-Speak it is synonymous with "repent." Now, who would characterize the act of converting from Christ to Judaism "repentance?" Why does Paul think this "repentance" bad? Because it involves serving "elements." What are "elements?"

To people brought up in the study of Scripture, "the Word" is something constant and immovable. To Korzybski, father of General Semantics the word is merely a representation of the truth, not the truth itself: "the map is not the territory." Therefore we can consider the term "elements" as a variable rather than a constant. The way to determine the value of a variable is by analyzing its relationship to other values. What values does Paul give us here?

Galatians observing the law == serving "elements" Now in any equation you can reverse the order of the terms without effecting the truth of the statement. Therefore we can also say Serving "element" ==what you do when you observe the law The burning question is, how did Paul know, with such utter certainty, that the Galatians were serving anything (we cannot say precisely what just yet because we have not determined the value of "elements") by obeying the Commandments? Let us see if we can zero in on a definition of "elements:" the term appears in an earlier passage, which provides further insight into Paul's understanding of the term: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world... Gal. 4:3

In algebraic terms this works out to something like: "elements" = what Paul served in his youth. So, what did Paul serve in his youth? The answer to this might give us an idea of what "elements" are. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Gal. 1:13

The upshot of all of which is this: Paul was a Jew in his youth, and served the "elements of the world;" and the Galatians observe the law and serve "elements." So "elements" must be a disparaging sort of term for "Yahweh," just as "angels" is another. It is not that Paul does not believe in Scripture, but that he has a negative opinion (in Greek, heresy) about Scripture's God: He acknowleges that those who obey the Commandments serve the "ruler of this world." He acknowleges that this "ruler" ordained the Law.

He acknowleges that someone "in Christ" who decides to obey the Commandments serves this "ruler." This is why obeying the law abrogates the gospel of Christ: for the function of Paul's Christ is to "conquer all rule." It goes without saying that "the function of Paul's Christ" is identical to Paul's purpose in preaching the gospel, since Paul and Paul alone invented that gospel. So then Paul's purpose is to overthrow the Kingdom of God (or Heaven). Thus Paul's distress with the Galatians makes perfect sense: you cannot overthrow God if you obey His Commandments, can you?

The revelation that Paul was trying to overthrow God, and the means he chose to do it, namely disguising himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, explains a number of seeming contradictions in his epistles, and allows us to hazard a guess as to why he granted Christ God-like, or at least Yahweh-like attributes: Paul's Christ was intended to serve as a kind of substitute for Yahweh during the Interregnum, the transitional period between the Rule of Yahweh and the Rule of the Gnostic deity. It was a manifestation through myth of the practical situation during Paul's ministry, when the vast majority of his converts did not consciously reject God or imagine Paul would have wanted them to. Paul could not tell such people not to worship God because they would have rejected him immediately. In Paul's terms, they were not "spiritual" enough to appreciate the true "wisdom" of the gospel. So in the meantime he fed them what he called "milk for infants in Christ," which is to say doctrines and concepts they could agree with. And throughout, he worked to "wean" them away from the worship of God by giving them an almost-identical Christ to worship instead.

Now for another example of Paul's "spiritual words." Know ye not, bretheren, (for I speak to them that know (Gr. epignosis) the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while here husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adultress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adultress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brfethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Rom. 7:1-4

This passage Maccoby despaired of understanding, calling it "muddled." It is nothing of the sort. Let us start by observing the people it is addressed to "those who know the law." The term Paul uses is "epignosis," implying a particularly excellent kind of "knowing." But "gnosis" is also the term Gnostics used for their own religion, which takes as a fundemental principle the "knowlege" that the Ruler of the Universe is evil. So Paul is being deliberately ambiguous here: he could mean either a rabbi or a Gnostic. Which is it? The part that follows is exceedingly "legalistic" in tone, as though it were addressed to a rabbi. Yet, the legal principle itself requires no great knowlege to understand: who does not understand that a married woman may not marry another man? Though this is certainly no great challenge to the rabbi's knowlege, Paul goes on to state the principle once more, to make sure we get it right.

But the final part seems to leave the bounds of reality behind altogether: what does Paul's "legal principle" have to do with the body of Christ, or being dead to the law? Let us take another look at Paul's "legalism:" the "married woman" is analogous (at least the prophet Hosea thought she was) with someone who is "under law." Such a person is through the covenant of Israel a "bride of the Lord." Likewise, employing Hosea once more, the "living husband" to whom she is bound by law is "the living God." In Hosea's vision, therefore, the act of worshipping idols was considered "adultery." Israel, the person "under law," becomes an "adultress" if she worships other gods.

So how can Israel get out of this situation? Paul provides two mechanisms, and we presume both operate simultaneously: first, "the law has authority only so long a a man lives." Thus, the "married woman" who "dies" is no longer "under law," therefore no longer subject to the authority of the law. Second, her "living husband" can "die:" this allows her to "be married to another," or worship another god. With this the meaning of the final part becomes clear: Paul believed that a person who was "in Christ" was both "dead" (hence 'dead to the law), and the "living husband," or God, was also "dead." Since both God and believer are "dead," it is now permissible to worship Christ instead.

That is what Paul says; and if Maccoby did not understand, it was because there are some enormities the mind cannot encompass. This is one of them. However, the idea of murdering God (or the 'Ruler of this World') would have been quite familiar to later generations of Gnostics, whose doctrines were described by one Christian theologian as "an abyss of madness and blasphemy." The idea of murdering God sounds crazy to someone who thinks God is "good;" but to someone who has "put the Lord your God to the test," and decided the Ruler of the World was "evil," such a thing would be a logical consequence, a necessary prerequisite for the salvation of the universe. What is so crazy about saving the universe? We must put ourselves in their shoes before we can judge them. Suppose you were a Jewish mystic pondering the meaning of the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil.

That man ate of the fruit of this tree clearly implies that man's "knowlege of good and evil" is beyond God's direct control, for men "become as gods in knowing good and evil." What is the proof this is so? Well, to find a proof it is customary to dream up the most extreme example conceivable, and if that example "works" we know any lesser one will also. The ultimate proof of God's goodness is found in the Torah; so if a person were of the opinion that God was evil, and then studied the whole Torah completely, and still found hiimself of the same opinion at the end, it would be proof that God has no authority over that man's opinion. And of course this is entirely possible: just look at the history of anti-Semitism, and compare the things Jews were accused of with the things they actually did, and you will have to agree that the opinion of humanity can triumph over plain old simple reality every time. This is what the Gnostics did: they did not reject Scripture so much as reject Scripture's Author. Gnostic myths and traditions, for all their wonderful variety, were the result of interpreting Scripture according to the opinion that God was evil and not good.

For what mystic would not strive to advance himself into higher realms of existence, to become as a god?

According to Scripture, "gnosis," the knowlege of good and evil, was the only way this was possible; so that is what they did.

The Gnostics' spiritual bent has led many to compare them with the Platonists and Neo-Platonists; yet one of the latter criticized them because they had no concept of physical beauty. How could they? They knew God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it; if God is not beautiful, how could anything He created be beautiful? For a Gnostic to admit that something in this world was beautiful would be the same as saying God had done something right, which would have been from their point of view a monstrous sin. Their own doctrine prohibited them from seeing anything good in the world.

This is what distinguishes them from the Platonists: the latter rejected the "worldly" horse for the "unworldly" ideal of "horseness," because they thought the idea somehow superior to the reality; while the Gnostic rejected the horse because he had read the Bible and knew where horses had come from. Gnosticism is radically different from Judaism. But it is not so difficult to invent as say Christianity: all a Jew had to do to become a Gnostic was to turn his own religion upside-down and invent a few myths, such as worshipping a new god, and presto, he is a Gnostic. A Christian would have had to perform considerably more ideological manipulation; he would have had to decide which god Jesus was the son of, for example: if the son of Yahweh, that would make Jesus an enemy, if the son of the Gnostic deity an ally. As it happens during the Christian Era Gnostics swung both ways on this issue: Jesus introduced an ambiguity into the world-picture that did not exist in Judaism. But back to Paul. In Paul we find that the world has an enemy, and that this enemy is called "sin."

As Paul states, "Scripture has locked up all under sin." What does that mean? First let us observe Paul is expressing an opinion in "locked up under:" he clearly does not approve of this situation. But what sort of condition does "locked up under" signify? Well, "locked-up" signifies inability to escape, and "under" signifies subservience, subjection, bondage, etc. Hmm, looks kinda like the world is in the same shape as someone "under law," doesn't it? Okay, what does "under" mean, stripped of its opinionated connotations? It means sin is the ruler of the world. I remember getting angry when I read this: how could Paul have believed sin to be the ruler of the world when Scripture states quite emphatically that God is? Who told Paul he was naked? And then it came to me: he got it from Scripture. Back to algebra. Let us examine the statement "Scripture has locked-up all under sin" again: we find that it can also be expressed thus: "Sin is what Scripture has locked-up all under." Notice we have neither added no deducted any information from Paul.

So there is no excuse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Scripture certainly doesn't "lock up all under sin." So, either Paul is wrong (again) about Scripture, or else he is right. How could he be right? We just said Scripture does not "lock up all under sin." But it does "lock up all" under something. Suppose this "something" were what Paul meant by "sin?" After all, what is sin? It is commonly defined as the disobedience of God. Well, Paul was antinomian, he does not want us to obey the commandments of God, and considers it "trespass" if we do (for 'the law entered so the trespass might increase'); how does a person who thinks obeying God a bad idea define sin? Sin can be given a broader definition than simple disobedience of God: it can also mean impiety or irreligious behavior of any sort. Now Paul certainly considered obeying the law irreligious and impious; but he doesn't use the word "sin" to characterize such behavior, only "trespass." "Sin," for Paul, was far worse than the law: "Is the law sin? Certainly not!"

As we find in the seventh chapter of Romans, sin enjoys a particularly intimate relationship with those "under law:" it is something "dead apart from law" which "revives" under the influence of the law, and "lives" right there inside a person as long as that person does not disobey the Commandments. Wow, this sin is really something, isn't it? Pauline sin is something both within and without a person, something with its own "desires and lusts" and commandments and decrees. It is something all of humanity is subject to because we are all "in Adam," in the likeness of Adam.

And yet someone "under law" is especially "under" sin, for "you are a slave to whoever you agree to serve, whether sin or righteousness." For people "under law" actually serve sin voluntarily, as if they knew what sin was. Can you see where this is heading? Go study! Just find out what Scripture "locks all up under" and you will know what Paul means by the word "sin." And once you know that, you will be able to read the epistle to the Romans with a whole new understanding.

Sin was just another name for God.

Okay, what does this have to do with Christ? Paul stresses the importance of believing in Christ, and particularly the crucified Christ, going so far as to make this act synonymous with salvation, although as we have seen in his epistle to the Galatians it was not. What was so important about the crucified Christ? And what does this have to do with the other ideas Paul seems to have invented along with it, such as the idea that believers were "in Christ" (only Paul uses this term), and the "body of Christ?"

Well, "in" is short for "in the likeness of" whatever. Thus, those who are "in Adam" are "in the likeness of Adam, and presumably, by extension "in the likeness" of whatever Adam was "in the likeness" of. Go look it up.

Now, what does it mean to be "in the likeness" of Christ? It means being "in the likeness" of Christ's death: Paul says he is "dead to the law, crucified with Christ;" and the reason he is dead is that he has been crucified. He says the believer has "been buried with him in the likeness of his death" so he might be "resurrected with him in the likeness of his resurrection." A person who is thus dead is free from sin, for "he that is dead is justified of sin." Now all this is just analogy: what happens, or is supposed to happen, to the believer is similar to what happened to Jesus, but it is not the same.

Likewise, Paul could not have derived his doctrine of the cross simply by meditating on the crucifixion of Jesus: Jesus may have died for our sins, but he certainly did not die so we might die also. Yet this is what "in Christ" means: the believer has "died" to his previous existence "in Adam" just as Paul has "died" to his previous existence "under law." This is not a welcome analogy to modern Christians, who prefer to concentrate on the life-affirming aspects of their faith; yet for Paul the meaning of the cross was inseparable from the fate of the believer: his "death" to Adam and to the likeness of Adam, was the prerequisite for salvation, because it was how justifiection was effected. So what was wrong with being "in Adam?" Adam was "in sin," in the likeness of sin (see above); Paul must have found this out in the Bible somewhere.

In fact, his whole concept of "in Christ" is a direct steal from the concept of "in Adam": for just as Adam was "in the likeness" of something, even so Paul's Christ was "in the likeness" of something else; so that believers, by undergoing this mystical process of death and resurrection, might cease to be "in the likeness" of Adam's likeness and be conformed to the likeness of Christ's likeness.

Needless to say, none of this makes any sense as long as one believes both Adam and Christ the creation of the same entity. If Adam was "in the likeness" of God, and Christ was also "in the likeness of God," (for Paul says this and he should know), then the only thing the believer is accomplishing by the exercise is an exchange of middle-men. If this was the only thing going for Paul's gospel it is difficult to understand why he would have endured the hardships and persecutions he suffered trying to preach it. On the other hand, if the "father" of Adam and the "father" of Christ are different entities, then the story is quite different: instead of merely changing god-names, the believer is changing god-identities, becoming the son of another god.

It then becomes understandable why Paul endured the hardships and persecutions and told all those lies. He wants us to stop being human beings subject to the Ruler of the Universe, in the only way, legally, this can be brough about: through death.

He does not want us to be in any way subject to "that which Scripture has locked all up under," he wants us to be subject to "righteousness" instead. Isn't that wonderful? PAUL AND THE APOSTLES We have been beating around in Paul's doctrines quite awhile it is time to step back and look at the situation around him. Maccoby's book made it pretty clear that Paul and the apostles had serious differences: the issue of the law for instance.

If Paul's rejection of the law angered ordinary Jews enough to chase Paul down the street throwing rocks at him, how much worse would it have angered the church he claimed to be a member of? After all, Paul was not merely misrepresenting himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," he was misrepresenting the Church as agreeing with his doctrines, which it almost certainly did not. As I considered the matter, I realised they must have been tremendously pissed off at him. Well, if they were, there ought to be evidence of it. Now Paul does not quote the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels; this suggests he did not know them, and the likeliest reason for this is that the apostolic gospel postdates Paul's ministry. Unfortunately, all true apostolic texts have been "gone over" and edited by latter-day followers of Paul; so direct evidence is not likely to be found.

However, there is an abundance of indirect evidence, or maybe cryptic evidence. The anti-Pauline material starts early. Luke and Matthew include lengthy birth-narratives, each of which is quite different and therefore unlikely to have originated from a single source, like the sayings of Jesus. The first point at which the Synoptic Gospels coincide is the Baptism of John, commonly considered the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Immediately following his baptism, Jesus goes off into the desert to fast, and, according to Mark, "to be tempted of the devil." Did Mark think being tempted of the devil was a standard practice in those days? More likely Mark, whose Gospel is the shortest of the Synoptics, simply omitted the story of the Temptation of Jesus. The Temptation of Jesus is a peculiar sort of "teaching of...

Edited by user Saturday, August 14, 2010 6:16:41 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#133 Posted : Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:56:04 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

After notifying Yada that I had posted the above response, I received this from him:

Quote:
I have started writing the second book on Paul. It focuses on Romans. The article we have been reviewing and the initial research I've done all leads to the inescapable conclusion that Romans and Galatians say the same thing. And no one disputes that Paul wrote Romans. His letter to the Romans is every bit as anti Torah as is his letter to the called-out assemblies in Galatia. The same arguments against the Torah are used in both letters, it's just that the Romans (as Paul's sixth epistle) presentation against the Torah is better written than Galatians, his first attempt at conveying his unique and false doctrine.

And that means that trying to disassociate Paul from Galatians is without merit. What's important is to expose and then condemn Paul's lies so that open-minded Christians are freed from them. Based upon some of what I've read recently, it is apparent that Paul blended a corrupted version of the Essene and Gnostic teachings with the Dionysus cult to create his mythology.

Edited by user Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:36:03 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline bigritchie  
#134 Posted : Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:18:08 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

I can comment for a bit on what the Ebionites believed and taught regarding Paul.

They gathered evidence against Paul and believed him to be a utter fake. They said both his parents were Gentiles, and that he was in love with the High priest Daughter so he "converted" to Judaism. Later when he could not marry the daughter of the High Priest, he left and had his "conversion" to the "Jesus movement".

They considered him a utter heretic, Apostate, a someone who said he was a Jew but was not, and they considered him a utter pagan who created a new religion mixing a small part of Judaism with Gnosticism and a massive serving of pagan sun god worship. They also regarded Paul as being a Liar of liars.

In light of Josephus writing about a Saulus who worked for the High priest extorting widow's houses, and in light of the dead sea scrolls and all the writings about the "wicked Priest" and "The Liar" who went out from them teaching Jews and Gentiles not to keep Torah, it is disturbing.

The more and more you dig, the worst things look for Paul or whoever it was writings some of those letters.
Offline bigritchie  
#135 Posted : Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:23:15 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

I believe I may have got the widows houses mixed up with the dead sea scrolls, but here is what I was speaking of in the writings of Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews book XX chapter 9

"Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

Acts 8:3 "As for Saul he made havoc of the church entering into everyhouse, and hallowing men and women and committing them to prison"

Now remember in Acts Paul speaks of his kinsman the Herodian?

"But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus"

"Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest , by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. "

(Annas the High Priest and Caiaphas in Acts 6:1)

Please also keep in mind the dead sea scrolls dating 200 bc, was done by Rome. Coins have been found from that area from the time of the Apostles all the way up to something like 150 ad.

(The dead sea scroll cover-up, is a excellent book, that exposes some of the things going on via Rome and the Scrolls)

I just find it very strange this wicked priest in the dead sea scrolls linked with the "Liar" who was running around teaching Jews and Gentiles not to keep the Torah, while the people who wrote it taught a renewed covenant!

Then we have Paul calling the Herodians kinsman and having a Roman Citizenship. Caesar kept that list in his own office.

Now could this all be weird coincidence? Who knows?
Offline Yada  
#136 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 3:27:47 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Here is an exchange between 'DS" and Yada:

Quote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, "DS" wrote:

Hello Friend and thank you for the follow up.

I am relieved that I took that posting as bad news and made a serious mistake of jumping to conclusions. I have flushed it out and I don't need any more info.

Thank you and thank you again. I will sleep much better tonight.

When you call kp give him my concerns as I read his work regularly. I'm still having difficulties about Paul and I've been reading his work since 1948 and QP is a serious issue (my family has rejected me for it). My only serious recourse is the Sermon on the Mount. I read that almost as much as I read both of your works.

Thank you again, no need to respond. Go back to work and keep me posted on any up dates or help you need.

. . . jest me 'n Dog.
shalom.


Yada's response:

Quote:
D,

You have nailed the issue. It can be said no more simply than this: Yahushua's Sermon on the Mount is 100% incompatible with Paul's comments on the Torah. Both cannot be true, especially since their positions on the central aspect of their conflicting messages are diametrically opposed.

And worse for Paul, since he claims to speak for Yahushua, the moment he contradicted Him on the foundation of His mission, Paul proved that he was a deceiver. It really is that simple, that black and white.

That said, accepting the fact that Paul's letters are in conflict with Yahuweh's Word and Yahushua's testimony is very, very difficult for people to accept, so I tend to give folks lots of time and space to gradually arrive at this conclusion. And I don't harbor animosity toward those who have yet to accept this very difficult realization.

This is a place where we would be wise to give a wide birth to disagreements.

If you have a chance, read Shalom82's post. It is brilliant.

I love your honesty and style, D. Never flinch from reacting if you suspect a problem. I always love hearing from you.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#137 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 3:40:15 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

The following is an exchange between "CC" and Yada:

Quote:

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM, "CC" wrote:

Hi Yada

Thank you, for asking "how are you?"...I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take the liberty of sharing with you what's happened to me over the last month or so. . .I hope it doesn't seem too odd, but you are one of the rare handful of people in my life that knows YHWH the way that you do, and when it all happened I had such a strong desire to email you, I guess it's just taken a little while to find the right time.

Also, you are one of the rare people that also has a vast accumulative knowledge about so many other philosophies and religions out there. I thus enjoy hearing/reading your unique view of things...

It all started a few months ago when I met a man named "K". As background, I work from home doing some beauty stuff, but moving more into massage and bodywork. "K" is a musculoskeletal practitioner, and also into a technique called Craniosacral therapy -have you heard of it? It works with the rhythm of the cerebrospinal fluid in the body, a subtle tide that can be felt at certain points on the body, and where there is a problem in the body -a constriction of some sort, or "imbalance", adjustments can be made when you hold the body in stillpoint. It also works with the bones -especially the relationship between the bones of the cranuim, and the sacrum.

He also works with myofascial release - there is a current understanding that the connective tissue in the body is where the body stores trauma. Connective tissue has the ability to be fluid, (which is optimal for health), but can also crystallise and become more rigid, and that can be caused by an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, or also trauma through injury - physical and/or emotional.

Thus the idea is that when you release the connective tissue, through touch, you can release trauma, and then free from that trauma, the body heals itself.

I originally came to Ken because of my jaw being out of alignment. He began to work with me in a way no one has before. In that his approach was so holistic. -He greeted me as an entire being. Not just sitting down to work on my symptom, if you know what I mean.

Also seeing that I am a practitioner too, he began to teach me.

For the next few weeks, I began to learn more about myself than I ever had before....every week I learned something new, and was changing....I began to view others differently, myself, and my son, differently...I had more patience, more understanding....
But I also know that I had a reservation throughout the whole process. . .

They say hindsight is 20/20 vision...and in so many ways it seems so blatantly obvious how I veered off the path.... This man doesn't know YHWH, and thus didn't work in His Spirit....But I think coming out of Christianity, where anything that isn't "in the name of Jesus" is seen as demonic, I had wanted to be a lot more open-minded...and I realised some things aren't so black and white....but then again perhaps somethings are. . .

My very first experience with him had been hugely intense, where I released some huge emotions relating to an issue with my father.

The way that it released, you'd think I was having an exorcism, and in a way perhaps I was, I released a huge amount of frustration, and tears, everything I'd been holding on to for so long......and in so doing I began to see how emotions are....how powerful and destructive they can be when we hold on to them.

I guess I saw so many positive changes in myself, that I went along, ignoring that inner voice that wasn't quite sitting comfortably.
I didn't think to test the spirits.... Instead often there would be a statement or point that lined up with Scripture, and I would think surely, this can't be wrong....

But I've also begun to see the counterfeiting nature of the New Age view of "the Universe", and how the laws of nature, or the 'law of Attraction', is elevated above the law of Torah.....I think in my life, I began to elevate the wrong laws.

Ken worked very much in the spiritual realm. . . And one night I was doing some work on my own body, when I became aware of a presence in my room, holding me by the ankles; there to help me release my hip, that I couldn't do on my own.

It was actually a very positive experience, and I guess opened me up to when the next time something like that happened -when I became aware of Ken's spiritual presence in my room, I was more comfortable with something before I probably would never have been. He works with what he calls 'the dream body'...which I understood to be the soul of a person - their spirit; the essence of who they are. In previous sessions with me, which I see now were all designed to free that part of me. . .

But something struck me when I was reading some of yadayahweh -where you wrote, "once people are souls apart from their bodies, it's too late to make that choice..." I see now that he works on a level that belongs to YHWH only...

That last night he worked with me on that level, everything turned very very bad....

After a full body correction, which was quite incredible to witness my body doing these extraordinary things, anyway, he was going to help me fall asleep, and in that process I experienced a sensation that was exactly the same as a spiritual 'rape' that had happened to me about 7 years ago....this time something overcame me and I sat up very fast, and told him to get out in the name of YHWH, and to never come back.... It all then unfolded into one of the worst night's of my life...a spiritual warfare that's hard to describe...but the one incredible thing that happened -that i wanted to share with you - was that YHWH intervened, Yahushua fought for me.....He put Scripture in my mouth, in a way I didn't know....and most awesomely, He spoke His Name through me....I've for a long time now been really wondering how exactly you pronounce his Name - Yahweh, or 'Yahuah', and He said it that night - 'YAHUAH' It was almost breathed out of me. . .Then recently, I also read in yadayahweh where you wrote that because His Name is based on hayah that it's probably Yahuwah....I just thought it was incredible the way He answered me in need, and used His Name as a powerful weapon of protection.

that night was only the beginning...I thought I was ok the next day, but weird stuff started happening again, and before I knew what was happening to me, I was back in the emergency department, in a state of complete detachment from reality. I stayed catatonic for three days and three nights. They tried every drug and tranquiliser under the sun to try and sedate me, and nothing worked. They could not figure out what was wrong with me.

My mother was with me through it all...rather hellish for all my family to witness. . .

But eventually, on the Sunday, I began to come back....YHWH kept a hold of me, and didn't let me go.

What I experienced through that time, can't really be put into words, other than I believe YHWH kept a hold of me, and brought me back...it's the only way.

I got out of hospital 4-6 weeks ago, and am still kinda putting the pieces together...studying Torah, Yah's words, keeping myself under the shadow of the Almighty :)

In all of it, I believe He's teaching my to hear His Voice....and He's refining me. Showing me how dangerous it is if we veer to "the left or to the right". I made the mistake of letting my experiences validate Scripture, instead of the other way around - that Scripture should always validate our experiences. (i hope i got THAT the right way round...) But like you say, a good counterfeit; the best lie has a lot of Truth in it. . I was holding on to all the truths I found along the way, but was ignoring the fact that the complete picture was the wrong one.

I also elevated this Ken guy, into more than who he is...turning to him, because I believed he could heal, instead of turning to The Healer!

I remember when I first met Ken, I had a desire to email you. I was going to ask you if you could share with me through what you do with Scripture, and words, the way you expound them...if you could translate for me the Torah about spiritists - what exactly that word was in hebrew, and it's fuller meaning.

Maybe if I'd trusted that gut instinct from the beginning, none of this would've happened. . .

Thank you for taking the time to read me. . .I hope it hasn't been too selfish an endeavour...writing it all helps me process stuff a little further; even though some of it is just so bizarre, I simply have to find the peace in letting it be, whatever it was, and just holding on super tightly to what YHWH has shown me about Himself...That His Torah is complete and perfect, for bringing back the being.

I'm studying yadayahweh again. Never quite read it beginning to end, but it's what I'm doing now. I find it harder to just study my copy of the Scriptures, knowing the errors, and wondering if what i'm reading is really what YHWH intended...But I find I receive plenty "sustenance" in studying yy...I just love what you do with Scripture.

So thank you too, as you've kinda been there for me along my journey, without even knowing it.

Shalom, Yada.

-C


Yada's response:
Quote:

C,

I am speechless! So, this reply will surely disappoint you, especially based upon your overly kind evaluation of my qualifications. Catt, this is one of the most amazing stories I've ever heard, and yet, knowing you and Yahuwah, I believe that every nuance you have shared is true.

Thank you for reinforcing something I have long known to be true. His name is pronounced: YaHuWaH. And His name alone has the power to save and protect. You called on Him and He responded. You are His, and He was jealous of someone trying to steal you away from Him. Yahuwah is wonderful.

I don't know what else to say, but to say thank you for this amazing insight into our Heavenly Father in action against the Adversary.

Stay away from Spiritualists. Stay away from Ken. Walk away from those who heal apart from the Word and name of Yahuwah. Walk in His Word. Walk with Him. Communicate with Him. Trust Him.

Would you consider allowing us to share your experience with others? This is a very, very powerful witness, Catt.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#138 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 3:43:58 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

The following is an exchange between "N" and Yada:

Quote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:23 PM, "N" wrote:

Hi Yada,

I am still a little confused on exactly what happens when your body dies even though you have discussed it a few times. Can you point me to where the Torah talks about death and what happens to our souls when are bodies die? Can you give me your understanding of what happens upon our bodily death? Specifically, if a member of Yahuwah's family were to die tomorrow what would happen to their soul? What would happen to the soul of someone who died tomorrow that was not a member of Yahuwah's family.

Thanks as always,

-N


Yada's response:

Quote:
N,

My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the souls of adopted sons and daughters of Yah who died prior to Yahushua's fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread went to the Covenant side of Sheowl, but were elevated to heaven on FristFruits in 33CE when they were transformed spiritually.

I think that the souls of those who have died since, who have been adopted by Yahuweh and are enveloped in His Set-Apart Spirit, have gone directly to heaven.

I think that those who die and don't know or rely upon Yahweh, from the dawn of time to this day, and even until the midpoint of the Tribulation, have gone or will go into a state of suspended animation: soul sleep.

To accommodate Paul's "the dead in Christ rise first" myth speaking of his harpazo/snatching away in Thessalonians, I had previously discounted Yahushua's statement to the man hanging next to Him on the pole, and had thought that the sons and daughters of those adopted by Yah went to sleep before they would be raised on the fulfillment of Taruw'ah.

But now, discarding Paul's conflicting statements, and relying on Yahushua's, I think that the souls of those who rely upon Yah go directly to heaven.

I think that the souls of those who don't know Yah fall asleep. I think that all those who are asleep will be awakened for the Great White Light Judgment, in which those who misled others will go to the Abyss while the souls of their victims will dissipate to nothingness.

I see our bodies as being totally meaningless. There is only one passage in the Tanack which potentially speaks of bodily resurrection, but as I have pondered it, I think it is more prophetic symbolism than literal realism. And that's partly because of Yahushua's example and His statements in this regard conflict with it.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#139 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 3:47:19 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

The following is an exchange between and Yada:

Quote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, "GE" wrote:

Shalom Yada, I hope you are well, as well as your family.

I am reading the Matsah chapter and certainly couldn't help but noticed that you stated Yah has a soul. Could you please explain further? Are you speaking of His diminished manifestation Yahushua? I haven't really given this much thought at all in the past, and it is very interesting to me. I look forward to your reply.

-G


Yada's response:
Quote:

G,

Yes, Yahuweh says that He has a nepesh soul and the reason is so that He could fulfill His Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits promises through Yahushua. It's Yah's soul which goes to the place of separation on the Sabbath to pay the penalty for our sins. I think I get pretty deep into this in the Salvation volume which is where it comes up in Scripture.

It's a very insightful aspect of Yah's nature and purpose. In fact, it is one of my favorite tidbits--those things which are small in the overall scope of things but big in how they help us understand.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#140 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:41:50 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, "N" wrote:

Thank you Yada.

I have to tell you, when you first exposed Paul I was actually very excited. I could never understand a thing he said, it was all mumbo jumbo to me. I would always feel like the only one who couldn't figure out why his writings were relevant at all. His letters felt so forced, like he was trying to tell us something important, but would never come out and say exactly what was so important. It makes perfect sense to me that this guy would be a complete fraud. I stopped reading anything from Paul a long time ago.

Thanks again,

-N


Yada's response:

Quote:
"N," I have started to feel like the last guy to wake up. So many people like yourself knew that Paul's message was convoluted years before I was finally able to accept it. But once you come to understand Paul, it is as if all of the remaining conflicts fade away. You stand with Yah, and with no one else.

I don't know enough to be certain that all of the conclusions I shared with you regarding our souls upon death are precisely accurate, but I know that once Paul's statements are jettisoned, the answers become more clear.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline ks77  
#141 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 6:36:31 PM(UTC)
ks77
Joined: 8/1/2010(UTC)
Posts: 69
Location: Australia

Wow! Amazing! Thanks for posting these.
Offline Yada  
#142 Posted : Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:07:09 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:15 AM, "MK" wrote:

Yada


What have you come up with in regard to Paul?

What do you think god meant for us to guard the Sabbath?

You may end up being my Rabbi or guide (if you are up to the task)

I'm not yet finished reading your books but am long inspired and impressed.



-M


Yada's response:

Quote:
M,

I have written an entire book on Paul, and I am starting another. I invite you to read it at www.QuestioningPaul.com and then share your constructive criticisms with me. I received more assistance composing that book than anything I've ever written, but I'm always looking for a fresh set of eyes. It is the single most controversial thing I've ever done.

To cut to the chase, I concluded, after having been deceived for 50 years, that Paul was a complete and total fraud--a false prophet, unappointed appostle, and extraordinarily talented liar. Paul was anti Torah, anti Covenant, anti Yahuwah, and anti-Semitic. His depiction of Yahushua bears no resemblance to the actual Ma'aseyah (Implement Doing the Word of Yahuwah). The more I have come to know him and his tactics, the more I have come to dislike him. His was a costly crime. Billions of souls have been lost as a direct result of his poison pen. He is the founder of the Christian faith, and he bears its stain. So that is "what I have come up with in regard to Paul."

Moving on to your second question, I wrote a chapter on the Sabbath, called (wait for it...) Shabat. Here is the link: http://yadayahweh.com/Ya...weh_Genesis_Shabat.YHWH. The answer to your question, however, is far too important for me to share it with you in a sound byte. If you read the chapter, and then want me to list what I think Yah means by keeping/guarding/observing the Shabat, I'll gladly provide a summary because it is one of the most important insights in the whole of Scripture. And again, since my understanding of the Commandments (discussed in this chapter) is so different than anyone I've ever seen, I invite you to be critical of what you find. I am very fond of constructive criticism.

I'm not fond of the title rabbi, however, (it actually means (elevated and uplifted) but I rather like being thought of as a guide (albeit one who is flawed and unqualified). My passion in life is to reveal what Yahuwah actually said, and then help lead people to a better understanding of Him. I don't claim to be good at it, but I love trying.

I appreciate your kind evaluation of Prophet of Doom and Yada Yahweh, but as I'm sure you know, I don't deserve any credit. The Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are impressive and inspirational. All I'm doing is sharing them. And I relied on Yahuwah to write Prophet of Doom, so even there, He gets the credit. More importantly, we made a deal before I began--one which He honored, which is the only reason I'm still alive.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#143 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:18:33 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:47 PM, "DM" wrote:

Hello Yada,

I emailed you a couple months back with some questions, you may or may not remember me. But anyways, my name is Drago Malesevic, I am an 18 year old university student very eager to learn about my relationship with Yahweh. Having recently finished my summer schooling and working term, i want to commit a sizeable portion of my free time to studying His Word. However, I feel odd solely relying on your amplifications/aid. I really want to read the bible (old and new testament), but im hesistant to do so based on your forewarnings. If i read YadaYahweh from start to finsh, will that be equivalent to reading the bible itself? For some reason, i feel as if i should read the bible first and then read YadaYahweh. I also want to fine tune my knowledge of the bible's actual construct (5 W's and how). I would really appreciate it if you could lay out a quick learning plan/strategy that will help me attain a strong, deep-rooted understanding of His Word to supplement my already-present trust and reliance.

One further thing, i was told that there is only one copy of an original, hebrew New Covenant and that it lies within Vatican archives. Is this true? Given your resourcefullness, have you ever attempted to attain/borrow this copy for study purposes? Or is such an initiative beyond your personal reach?

Warm regards,

-DM


Yada's response:

Quote:
Hello D,

Yes, I remember you. And I applaud your desire to "learn more about your relationship with Yahweh," to "develop a strategy to help you attain a strong, deep-rooted understanding of His Word," and to "supplement your already present trust and reliance." If only seven billion other people thought like you we'd be back in the Garden of Eden.

Since Yahuwah asks us to observe His Towrah, it's always a good idea to study it, which would be my advice. Then after reading the first five books, I'd encourage you to read the first four volumes of Yada Yahweh--the first two of which focus on the Torah, and the next two delve into prophecy. At that point, I'd recommend that you read the rest of what is errantly called the Old Testament. From there, you may want to finish reading Yada Yahweh and Questioning Paul before reading what's errantly called the "New Testament." And while you are reading Yada Yahweh, when you come to a passage that you find particularly interesting, use some of the many online lexicons and interlinears to verify the translations and to look deeper into the intended meanings.

As it relates to your last question, the Covenant has not yet been renewed, and there never will be a "new" one, so that is strike one against such a claim. Strike two is that there is no evidence that anyone but Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and no copy of Matthew in Hebrew exists. Strike three is that the RCC's oldest MSS appear to be the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of which date to the fourth century, both are in Greek, and there are some 69 extant Greek MSS which predate them (an not one in Hebrew). So the rumor regarding the RCC is not true. I wish it were, however.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#144 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:02:57 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, "LH" wrote:

Yada are there really aryag Mitzvot, "613 commandments" in the Towrah ?


Yada's response:

Quote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, "LH" wrote:

Yada are there really aryag Mitzvot, "613 commandments" in the Towrah ?
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#145 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:08:30 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537


On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:27 PM, "CL" wrote:

Quote:
Shalom Yada,

I just finished up the lesson plan I prepared from your Book of Genesis though I am starting just pass the Creation part for now. The women that I will be teaching are not versed in Scripture but one has just enough of Church to be a practice in patients for me and she also has very little education I'd say 4/5th grade though very street smart. The other lady was a nurse and questions everything. So they are going to keep me on my toes and my nose in studying Father Word. I bought a Strong's Word Dictionary and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance,. I have downloaded the Dead Sea Scrolls on Isa, though I haven't had time or funds yet to print it out.



Good. Let me know how it goes.


Quote:
Question, are we suppose to keep the Feast that don't require sacrifice? I bought a Jewish calendar and I don't understand it. Is the Sabbath our Saturday or if the Jewish one how do I keep that when I can't understand what day it is much less the month. I have a way of making thing more complicated then need be and perhaps that is the problem now. But the women want to know how to keep the Sabbath and 7 Feast and I don't know. Help.



We are to observe all seven Called-Out Assemblies forever. We have a calendar available for you in the Miqra' chapter of the Called-Out Volume of Yada Yahweh. The Sabbath is our Saturday. I devoted the Shabat chapter of the first volume to how to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath is unrelated to months, only to weeks. The entire Miqra' - Called-Out Volume is devoted to how to observe the 7 Called-Out Assemblies.




Quote:
Did I read in your work that the renewed Covenant has not happened yet and won't until Yahushua returns and that the Word won't be written on our hearts and minds until then as well?



I just recently learned that the Covenant has not yet been renewed, and it is for this very reason: the Torah has not yet been placed inside of us. The purpose is so that our understanding of Yahuwah's instructions will be perfect.


Quote:
Do you think the end day's has a antichrist leader or is it an antichrist Church and Government not necessarily a lone man?



There is a real antichrist and he will use religion and politics, thus involve the church and governments.



Quote:
Have you been baptized in the Spirit? How can one know?



Yes, I have been. She provides understanding and communication that would otherwise not be possible.



Quote:
Must I be baptized and if so what is supposed to be said before, during and after emersion?

As alway's, thank you,

-LR


Quote:
Water baptism is nothing more than the outward sign of what you have chosen to accept spiritually. So, while spiritual baptism, aka, spiritual rebirth from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, is necessary, being immersed in water is advisable as an affirmation and symbol for what you have done, but to the best of my knowledge, it is not required.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline James  
#146 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:42:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,612
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 210 time(s) in 148 post(s)
Quote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, "LH" wrote:

Yada are there really aryag Mitzvot, "613 commandments" in the Towrah ?


Yada's response:

Quote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, "LH" wrote:

Yada are there really aryag Mitzvot, "613 commandments" in the Towrah ?


Looks like you pasted the question in the reply spot as well as the question, Yada.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Yada  
#147 Posted : Monday, September 6, 2010 5:52:38 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM, "AC" wrote:

Hello Yada how have you been doing? While I know that my relationship with Yahweh and how well I yada Yahweh is my own personal journey, my question is this; is it important to gather with others in God's family to celebrate knowing Him and to become closer to him? The blogtalkradio shows were in a way serving this purpose for me but they may have been a bit of a crutch which fed my natural laziness. While the shows may have done a lot of the work for me, they did inspire me to do more of my own work. Because of this, I was wondering if your study has led to any specific insight. It seems to me that Yah's Word is full of examples of one on one relationships which work out and of many on one relationships which do not. Having said that, with whom do we gather,outside our immediate family who may be open, to celebrate the Miqra? If there are other likeminded people in my community, how do I find them? And is it important to? -C


Yada's response:

Quote:
C,

As you say, there are plenty of examples of Yahuwah forming a one on one relationship with individuals like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and even David, so you are in good company with Yahuwah alone.

My hope is to begin the radio show in a few weeks. I don't know how often I'm going to do it, however Also, while we are having some issues with the Yada Yahweh forum, it was created for fellowship. We are trying to return it to this purpose.

The fact that Yah wrote that thousands, not millions or billions would receive His mercy, tells us that at any one time there are fewer than one in a million people who know and love God. So your situation is not uncommon, but is instead the norm.

I celebrate the Miqra'ey with my youngest son, so even with these special days, I like you have difficulty finding others who observe Yah's Word.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#148 Posted : Monday, September 6, 2010 6:00:12 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM, "N" wrote:

Quote:
Hi Yada,

I have a situation I would like to get your opinion on. My brother an sister in-law are devoted Christians. They are very involved in their little church. I gathered the whole family together during christmas six years ago to explain that I would no longer partake in these holidays and would be walking with Yahuwah from then on. Needless to say, there has been a level of tension every year since then when we all get together for Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is coming around again this year and out of the blue, my sister in-law gave me a Christian book to read. She mentioned that the author had written that he no longer celebrates christmas or easter, and has instead decided to celebrate the feasts. Of course this book is the same kind of generic feel good Christian book that litters the book store shelves. The author never comes out and states why he doesn't celebrate the holidays anymore, and never enlightens the reader about the feasts. Needless to say it is filled with Christian errors.

I had intended to highlight and sticky note the book with my comments, but my wife doesn't think my sister in-law will appreciate this. My wife thinks I should just ignore it and write a brief sticky note telling her thank you and give it back to her. I am just not sure what my sister in-laws intent was. I don't now if she wants me to explain my differences or come around to the authors way of thinking.

Have you had an experience like this? If so, how did you handle it?

Thanks,

-N


Yada's response:

N
Quote:
,

I agree with your wife with one caveat. I'd add the comment that if she'd like to discuss Yahuwah's instructions, and how they differ from the book and from Christian tradition, you'd be pleased to do so.

I think we should make it known that we are ready and willing to share what we know, but only with those who are open and receptive. If your inlaws are not open and receptive, you will increase the divide without benefit. They will reject you and your message.

Until and unless someone is willing to change their perspective, attitude, and thinking, no amount of evidence or reason will prevail with a religious person. All you can do is plant a seed, something which may cause them to question Christianity.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#149 Posted : Monday, September 6, 2010 6:20:23 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 PM, "LR" wrote:

Shalom Yada,

How is Romans coming along? Question. Do we really have to stop eating pork, shrimp and the like. This seams like a minor question I know but I really do miss these foods especially pork. My store is having a sale on pork ribs mummm I'd sure like to make them!

Yet iIdon't want to ever offend Father if he still feel's we shouldn't eat these things. Is it a No eating at all or OK now, some 3,500 or better years later to eat them? In the Dead Sea Scroll's it sounds as if the Righteous Teacher could be Yahushua and the Liar Paul, or is the dates off to far to be them?

Thank you,

-LR


Yada's response:

Quote:
Romans is coming, but slowly.

The purpose of the food instructions was two fold: provide healthy advice for living and to remind us that if we inject things which are not healthy (like religion), we are poisoning ourselves. These things known, it's always a good idea to observe Yah's instructions, literally and symbolically.

The RT of the Esenes in the Temple Scroll lived circa 300 BCE, so he is not Yahushua. The liar was a Macabean priest who became high priest by buying the position and ignoring Yah's instructions on who qualifies. Paul was a liar, but not the Esene liar.

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Yada  
#150 Posted : Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:58:04 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:01 PM, "N" wrote:

Yada,

Can you give me an overview of all of the previous bible translations that have gotten us to where we are with todays current Bible. For example, how do the Septuagint, Textus Receptus, Wycleff translations fit into the mix? I think you have addressed this throughout Yada Yahweh, but I am looking for a quick reference aid.

Thanks,

-N


Yada's response:

Quote:
N,

I reviewed all of this in considerable detail during one of the early YY Radio programs on Romans 13.

But for a quick, off the top summary, the Septuagint dates to 250 BCE, although our oldest copies are first through third century CE. It was so corrupt by that time it is of no value today. Wycliffe translated the Latin Vulgate (composed in the fourth century CE) into a precursor of English in the late 14th century. The TR (which was a complete fraud) was created in the 16th century from a low quality 13th century Greek manuscript. The KJV is a revision five times over of the Wycliffe translation and was created for purely political reasons.

Yada

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
14 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.