Well my Holiday was nice, kind of spoilt a little by hearing I was banned, but there we go.

For the record - I have had no emails, no chats with people about my conduct; I have just been banned until the estimated date of the fulfilment of Atonement. As much as I have been abrasive I have peace kept and as much as any of those I have apologised for words that have either been too harsh or been miss-understood, something that happens a lot with plain text as it lacks the facial expression and emotion conversation holds. If there is anyone out there who actually feels offended by me I would like an actual explanation of why - without involving Paul or my views on him, because that isn't the point - right?

So after all that I do not know what I need to apologise for other than maybe asking questions.

Yada's behaviour has left me extremely disappointed in him, not only has he seemingly lashed out at Swalchy's research on Paul and whether or not we can attribute Galatians to him - but he has also never replied to Swalchy's email with his document in it or tried to refute it in any way. Now we are left with being removed from the community, apologising for something I feel we have nothing to apologise for and no room to talk about the issues raised.

This is, in my eyes, extremely dangerous, and looks a lot like religion.

Our view on Paul is not 100% the same. We do not promote him and his doctrine - actually Paul is the last person I would quote, BUT we must look to the facts and only the facts, we cannot just make stuff up. Swalchy's document, for those who have not yet read it, does not defend Paul as a saint or founder of anything - but actually lays out the issues of Paul writing Galatians, and compares his writings and supposed writings with other authors that we accept as "sound".

After reading this document you will not find justification for the use of Paul, but will probably have a lot more questions lol.

This is all that the document does, and it swings with a lot of weight as Swalchy's greek is excellent and all he wanted to do was shed some light and reason on the subject - whatever the outcome.

I have to restate this again - we are not pro Paul - but lies about anyone are pointless and destructive, so let’s just have the facts, or as close to the facts as we can get eh?

Now this would all be resolved if Yada did what I expected he would have done and responded to the points raised. Instead, from what I can see, he either couldn't and decided it best to remove the threat to the hours he put in labelling Paul incorrectly, or he completely believes that he is 100% correct on everything he has decided about Paul.

The whole issue of "other forums" and Swalchy promoting his site is ridiculous. Swalchy makes no money from his site - the only benefit he has ever of giving a link to his site is for people to get a FREE amplified version of the massive amount of man hours over the past 3 years that he has put in to translating the "New Testament" - Who doesn't want a link to that? The forums - he had the idea of setting up a while ago with the express reason of his readers being able to ask and discuss things specifically related to translation and the site. No threat to Yada News or any of its linked sites, and actually a benefit!

All of this is just a smoke screen, a cover to remove the views of individuals that would have caused Mr Winn to step back and think again. If finding issues in Yada’s work cause this kind of reaction then I am better off away from this community myself - and I would warn each and every one of you to really think about your stand point to.

My request to Yada is that he reads and responds to Swalchy's document in a civil and useful way, showing where conclusions are wrong and backing up his findings. This will then make this whole situation turn from stupid to excellent, pooling the resources to gain the most accurate understanding. As of yet Swalchy has had no response from a man who he deeply respected and spent 8 months digging through history and research documents to bring the most accurate results to aid the project.

Now I hope this post remains on the forums, but I have a feeling it will be removed, and my wife's account banned until I am "rehabilitated" or whatever this whole thing is "supposed" to be about - but I will not apologise for simply taking a stand. If people want to blindly follow then that is fine - I for one will never do that and will always question everything.

I would just like to express how disappointed that I was never contacted about any of this before receiving my ban, and the only reason I can see is that I know Swalchy in real life - which is something else I am not going to apologise for lol

This forum has been like a family to me over the past few years, and I have put alot of work into moderating the boards, it really hurt to find all of this out, and it really hurt to see Yada stoop to this level after he had been such a blast of fresh air.

To everyone who gets to read this - thank you for all your posts, from the most academically challenging to the people who have amazing insight and normally believe their posts are irrelevant (you guys hit it on the head all the time lol) I hope and pray that you keep well and keep seeking!

I hope Yada 'man’s up' and does tell everyone the real reason for this expulsion, because all these back doors, random miss-quotes and ridiculous accusations is the politics that Yada claims to hate. I also hope he stops destroying his incredibly valuable work with lies and speculation.

I have nothing else to say, other than this is a sad day.

Thanks very much everyone.

- Rob

Sometimes the most amazing letters pass in the mail. Stephen has acknowledged and apologized for the overly argumentative, sometimes arrogant, and often inappropriate nature of some of his posts. He has promised to abide by the forum guidelines. He blamed no one other than himself. He has accepted responsibility and has been reinstated. Speaking for so many of us who have grown to enjoy the Stephen of old, we welcome him back with open arms.



Rob’s reply, which I read an hour before seeing Stephen’s, however, is not only argumentative and divisive in tone, it misses the point Yada, Moseh, and I have been trying to make. If this reply accurately reflects Rob’s current state of mind, he is in the wrong frame of mind. And if that were not enough, Rob's claims regarding me are neither accurate nor particularly rational.



Demonstrating the first point, Rob has written his response as an advocate for Stephen and his positions, and he has set me up as their foe. And Rob is still pushing an irrelevant argument, “arguing for the sake of argument,” in Moshe's words.



Stephen did not send me an email regarding his article, nor attach it in any email sent to me. And Stephen never asked me to respond to his article. Further, if he had, I would have told him the same thing I have now told everyone. It is the same thing that I told Rob before Stephen even started preparing his article: it will be a complete waste of Stephen's time. His skills should be used on something else, like reconstructing Yahuchanan. My position on this has not changed, nor is it a secret.



Since Rob has led us down the wrong path, it bears repeating: in my mind the only value in disassociating Paul from Galatians (even if textual criticism, especially considering the extenuating circumstances, were a reliable means for doing so) would be if Romans wasn’t equally false regarding the Torah, and if the remainder of the letters attributed to Paul were inspired and accurate. But it is evident to me that Romans is based upon Galatians, because it reads like an extension of the same argument. Further, by everyone's admission (at least those who have spoken up in the forum), the remainder of the letters claimed by Paul were not inspired and are not true.



Therefore, based upon Rob’s own summation of Stephen's article, there is no reason for me or anyone to respond to the authorship claims. So long as Paul wrote Romans, it makes no difference who wrote Galatians. What matters is that Galatians and Romans (and indeed all of the letters associated with Paul) are false. And it matters that people come to know why they are false. If Rob wants to argue those points, then there would be sufficient reason for all of us to engage in debate. But not on the subject of authorship.



Yada’s temporary suspension was not about being pro- or anti-Paul. It was not even about what Paul wrote, no matter how much Rob wants it to be seen this way. It is about an unacceptable attitude in far too many posts. Neither I nor Yada care what Rob or Stephen believe about which letters they think Paul wrote or didn’t write. Our interests are in seeing that everyone follows the guidelines which have been established for participating in the forum. We seek fellowship and a discussion of Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.



Since he asked the question, in my humble opinion, it would be good for Rob to apologize for his own attitude in this response. But, that is not what matters. If there is to be reconciliation (which was Yada’s reason for choosing the date), Rob, like all of the rest of us, must agree to follow the forum guidelines, most of which he has violated in this post. So here they are again for everyone’s consideration:

Anything which stands in the way of the objective of observing Yahweh’s Word, preparing to be effective witnesses, and supporting one another, including demeaning posts and the promotion of other sites, is to be avoided. Therefore, based upon the negative tone currently permeating the Yada Yahweh Forum, the following guidelines apply:

1) Personal criticisms are not allowed between forum participants.

2) Impassioned forum discussions on topics unrelated to our salvation shall be very strongly discouraged. Save your passion for things which matter.

3) Books and sites which augment our understanding of Yahuweh’s Word may be referenced once, but not promoted.

4) Personal agendas and unique proclivities shall not be pursued. The stated purpose of the Yada Yahweh Forum is fellowship and Scriptural discussion.

5) If there is a disagreement on something essential to our understanding of Yahweh’s plan of salvation, minimize overtly critical rhetoric.

6) Try to avoid being divisive, at least in the sense of motivating forum participants to take sides.

Everyone is free of course to violate all of these standards, at least so long as they do so on their own sites and in their own private emails.



By calling the temporary suspension of two people, one for demeaning others with an arrogant attitude, and the other for encouraging him in a forum dedicated to fellowship, “extremely dangerous,” and “a lot like religion” is so ridiculous and provocative, it tells me that Rob doesn’t recognize that people should not be demeaned or treated poorly in a forum devoted to fellowship. And until he does, speaking for myself, I’d prefer that he write whatever he wants somewhere else.



That is not to say that I don’t won’t Rob back. I do. His posts, at least those apart from the promotion of Pauline authorship, are wonderful.



In this post, however, we see Rob blaming me for his and Stephen’s temporary suspension (one of which has already been reconciled). He said: “Now this would all be resolved if Yada did what I expected he would have done and responded to the points raised.”



He then demeans me and misstates our sole reason for the temporary suspensions by saying: “Instead, from what I can see, he either couldn't and decided it best to remove the threat to the hours he put in labelling Paul incorrectly,…” Then, abandoning all semblances of truth and reason, Rob wrote: “All of this is just a smoke screen, a cover to remove the views of individuals that would have caused Mr Winn to step back and think again. If finding issues in Yada’s work cause this kind of reaction then I am better off away from this community myself - and I would warn each and every one of you to really think about your stand point to.”



I am not surprised, but I am disappointed, by Rob’s allegations. He is now trying to drive people away from the Yada Yahweh forum. He is trying to make me his enemy. He has reaffirmed what we were told, that he was now complaining that the only reason he was suspended is that I didn’t want to be questioned. This is as offensive as it is untrue.



And by the way, no one said that Stephen makes money on his site. I only said that he has been over hyping his site. That is not the purpose of this forum.



As I have stated over and over again, there is no reason for me or anyone to respond to Stephen’s document. While I would be civil, it would not be useful. Doing so would not only enrage Rob all the more, as he would likely become even more defensive and argumentative. It would divert attention away from an “excellent” example for all of us to learn from, and change it into something “stupid.” There is no value in obtaining an “accurate understanding” of who wrote Galatians.



There is value in explaining why Galatians, Romans, Thessalonians, and Corinthians are inconsistent with Yahweh’s Scripture. Why not focus on those reasons so that Christians might be saved from Christianity?



To infer, as Rob has done, that Stephen “deeply respected” me, at least in his more recent posts, is laughable considering what he wrote in the forum. That does not mean that Stephen has always held such derogatory views, only that they have come to dominate his recent posts. And to suggest that I failed to respond to Stephen ignores the facts that Stephen never sent me a copy of his article with a request to review it, and that I told Stephen and Rob that I wouldn’t do so because there would be no point to it.



The only way for Rob’s inaccurate, insulting, and purposely divisive post to remain in the forum was for me to respond to it. Now that I’ve done so, it, and my reply will linger for a while. But soon, in order to keep this from destroying the Yada Yahweh forum, it will be removed. And once more, we have been placed in the position that if we do not continue Rob’s suspension as a result of this abrasive letter, we will negate the value of the forum guidelines.



Before posting this, Rob could have rejoined our fellowship, as Stephen has done, by simply promising to follow the forum guidelines. Now that has changed, because he has validated Yada’s decision to temporarily suspend him.



I hope that Rob “man’s up,” to cite his words, and accepts responsibility. For once, I hope he speaks as Stephen has done. But if not, we will not risk this fellowship, nor the credibility of Yada Yahweh, by allowing this kind of attitude to prevail in our midst.



Yada

Is the Ruach Qodesh actually active in individuals lives?
Leading and directing and teaching - guiding into Truth - empowering Yah's children?