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

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Swalchy  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 16, 2009 3:37:01 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Yada is currently in the midst of writing YY chapters regarding the notes he has for the Galatians study on YY radio, and he has asked me to tell people that he has completed a first review run-through of his first chapter, and would like people's thoughts and what not on it.

Please email me at theway - at - thewaytoyahuweh.com (replace - at - with @) to receive a copy :)

Edit: Also PM forum member "James" for the latest chapters as well :)

Edit: I now have the first six chapters. Email me to obtain copies :)

Edited by user Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:54:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Robskiwarrior  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:09:03 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
coolios :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline edStueart  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:58:05 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Either the book of Galations or the book of James has to go.
Choose one! ;-)
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline James  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:32:18 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)
wrote:
And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of Galatians—one which puts Paul in opposition to the very Law and God which condemns its use. Simply stated: the “Gospel of Grace” is pagan. It is literally “Gott’s Spell of Charis.”

Well if you consider that Gott was just another pagan manifestation of satan, then what christians believe in is satan's spell of charis/grace.

Great start to the review of Galatians, I noticed however in the beginning in the translations, the Greek words where not within the parenthesis like they are normally, but then where in the later translations, I personally prefer them to be included. Was this done for a reason, or have they just not been added yet?
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 Marcus  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:21:38 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

I was reading the chapter but I did not see yet- one of the possibilities that Yada postulated before. That Paul did not know that this letter was going to be considered as scripture and that he unfortunately carelessly wrote it or dictated it. It might have been a first draft of an angry response to a letter he did not like. I don't know about you but I have written some letter to friends that I wish I could take back and fortunately enough I know they won't be used as scripture.
Offline Swalchy  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:56:46 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Well, though I seriously doubt that Sha'uwl/Paul would even dream of considering what he wrote to be Scripture, but even then, as a teacher, if he wrote Galatians then he just contradicts Yahuweh so many times, it doesn't matter what he thought about his writing.

Galatians is a gurgitated mess of crap, which I doubt, if Paul had written Galatians and sent it to them, that they would have understood it anyway.
Offline sirgodfrey  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:05:38 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

ok soooo - is Galatians not scripture? PPLEEASSE let me know. Galatians seems to be so contradictory in certain parts.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:19:22 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Well most of the RC isnt scripture - you can only really say that Revelation has a claim to be scripture as it was dictated and therefore inspired. But the RC is never referred to as Scripture anywhere, by any of the writers of it or by Yah.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Swalchy  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:22:10 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

I think Yada's list is more or less right: Tanakh + MattithYah + Yahuchanon (eye-witness account) + Revelation = Scripture

Anything else = not
Offline edStueart  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:57:35 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Swalchy wrote:
I think Yada's list is more or less right: Tanakh + MattithYah + Yahuchanon (eye-witness account) + Revelation = Scripture

Where can we find Yada's list?

(Not "Yadaslist", but Yada's list and justification/condemnation for what should/shouldn't be canonical.)
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline Marcus  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:21:01 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

Marcus wrote:
I was reading the chapter but I did not see yet- one of the possibilities that Yada postulated before. That Paul did not know that this letter was going to be considered as scripture and that he unfortunately carelessly wrote it or dictated it. It might have been a first draft of an angry response to a letter he did not like. I don't know about you but I have written some letter to friends that I wish I could take back and fortunately enough I know they won't be used as scripture.


This is funny quoting my own stuff. I did actually see around page 10 when he does go over the ground rules. He does give mention to this.
Offline Swalchy  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:38:34 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

edStueart wrote:
Where can we find Yada's list?

(Not "Yadaslist", but Yada's list and justification/condemnation for what should/shouldn't be canonical.)


It was mentioned on Monday's show :)
Offline Matthew  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:05:51 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)
Swalchy wrote:
I think Yada's list is more or less right: Tanakh + MattithYah + Yahuchanon (eye-witness account) + Revelation = Scripture

Anything else = not


What about John's other books and Peter's two books, because I love them? But I can happily do with that T+M+Y+R list as they are definitely fantastic books to read and do seem to gel with Torah perfectly.
Offline edStueart  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:02:53 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Just finished the document Yada wrote.

Whoa!

We are sure to be excommunicated now!

I'm not even sure that my Messianic friends will be able to digest this one!

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:05:41 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
What about John's other books and Peter's two books, because I love them? But I can happily do with that T+M+Y+R list as they are definitely fantastic books to read and do seem to gel with Torah perfectly.


The fact that they are extreamly useful and awesome is great - and they are very important. But we cant really call them Scripture because I doubt the authors would ever want that and it was never expressly stated.

It does not remove anything of the importance of the writings what so ever, and any hint of how we are to be is even better :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline James  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:21:35 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)
Swalchy wrote:
I think Yada's list is more or less right: Tanakh + MattithYah + Yahuchanon (eye-witness account) + Revelation = Scripture

Anything else = not

Why is Mark not included in this account. i was under the understanding that Mark was merely a scribe for Shimone, and therefor it would be an eyewitness account the same as Yahuchanon or MattithYahu.
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 Swalchy  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:39:41 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Well, most of Marcus is pretty much repeated in MattithYah anyway, just extended.

Hearing it again, that's actually the list Yada said that if all we would need to take out of the RC writings, those would be them.
Offline Matthew  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:14:02 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)
edStueart wrote:
Just finished the document Yada wrote.

Whoa!

We are sure to be excommunicated now!

I'm not even sure that my Messianic friends will be able to digest this one!

My thoughts exactly. I'm probably not gonna voice my opinion too loudly on this one, will keep a low profile and will probably say things like "well, Galatians is somewhat questionable since scholars say it's very poorly written..."
Offline edStueart  
#19 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:14:05 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

One of my "irreligious Messianic follower of The Way" friends has published this document. It covers some of the same ground. (I always like it when I can find non-Yada/KP sources that say the same thing!)

Comments?
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline James  
#20 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:57:38 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:
My thoughts exactly. I'm probably not gonna voice my opinion too loudly on this one, will keep a low profile and will probably say things like "well, Galatians is somewhat questionable since scholars say it's very poorly written..."


I've brought this up with several of my christian friends now, and have been surprised by there reactions.

I start however by explaining how I define Scripture, which may vary from them. I define Scripture as God's Word, meaning it is what God said through men. I then refine the definition to defining how we are to judge rather something comes from God or not, this is the one that stumps people, they really don't know how to say rather or not something comes from God or not, other than "if it is in the bible, then it came from God."

Once they say that, which has been about the same thing everyone I have talked to has said, with one exception. Then I point out, how do they know they can trust the people who compiled the bible. To which there is no answer.

That is when I bring up that God gave us a way to test rather something someone says comes from him, and I show them Deuteronomy 18 starting at verse 18. If you can prove to them that the only way to test rather something comes from God is if they give prophecy that comes true, then you can point out that nowhere in Galatians is there a single word of prophecy, and therefore there is no way to test rather or not it comes from God, and therefore we should not act as though it does.

I don't know if any of them where completely won over by the argument, but they all thought it was interesting, and left thinking about it.

So to get to the point of this. Matthew, I would not keep quite about this if I where you. Showing people that Paul was not Scripture could be the thing that pushes them to open there eyes and see the Truth.
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 Swalchy  
#21 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:04:49 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

edStueart wrote:
One of my "irreligious Messianic follower of The Way" friends has published this document. It covers some of the same ground. (I always like it when I can find non-Yada/KP sources that say the same thing!)

Comments?


Interesting. Although the fact that Ya'qob sent his letter to "the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion" and Galatians is sent, well, to the Galatians, who were not members of the 12 tribes but Gentiles, would make one question why Paul would answer Ya'qob's letter by sending it to Gentiles, who probably wouldn't have ever read Ya'qob's letter.

It also doesn't negate the fact that Galatians contradicts what Paul says in his other letters.

I personally think Galatians is an answer to Acts, where Paul/Saul is portrayed as a Jew who was willing to submit to the Jerusalem authorities. Pagan Gentiles who considered the Jews to be "barbarians" would not allow for such a description of Paul/Saul.
Offline James  
#22 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:22:39 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)
Swalchy wrote:
His most greatest sacrifice.

Off topic, but I just noticed this. I thought you where a real stickler for grammar Swalch?
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 Swalchy  
#23 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:27:47 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

=/ Hardly important atm James :P
Offline RidesWithYah  
#24 Posted : Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:10:37 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

I dunno.
Even if Galatians, IS Paul, so what?
As I read it, he's speaking against the oral law.
In his own words (other books), he clearly defends the law.
(Acts 15, etc.)

And then there's this: (Pardon my KJV)
Quote:
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With Yahweh a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Yahweh is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of Yahweh will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Yahweh and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
2 Peter 3:1-18

Edit #1:

oops, that's NIV, not KJV.
But I'm sure Swalchy will fix it anyway.


=8^)

Edit #2:

And I see my replacements of "Lord" with Yahweh may have gotten carried away in that last line, lol.

Edited by moderator Friday, November 20, 2009 3:18:28 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Combining posts :)

Offline Swalchy  
#25 Posted : Friday, November 20, 2009 3:19:55 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Hey RWY :D

Yada answers the 2 Peter 2 stuff in the Chapter above, and in yet-to-come Chapters he discusses which "law" the Galatians Paul is referring to.

And I much prefer your use of the NIV btw. At least I can understand that compared to the KJVB :)
Offline Matthew  
#26 Posted : Monday, November 23, 2009 8:40:30 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)
What do you guys make of the Aramaic Galatians?

Here's a word for word (with Aramaic and English) translation by Andrew Gabriel Roth: http://aramaicnttruth.or...ds/Aramaic_Galatians.pdf

Here's the English translation with commentary of Galatians by the same guy again: http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/Galatians.pdf (note: the first 8 pages are the Table of Contents from his book called Recovering the Aramaic Origins of the New Testament and the Lost Vision of the Nazarenes, and then it only includes Galatians)

Note: I'm trying to advocate the Aramaic version but just saying we need to consider it as well, because perhaps it was translated into Aramaic before the Greek was allegedly corrupted, unless of course the Greek really was written poorly by Paul.
Offline Walt  
#27 Posted : Monday, November 23, 2009 11:11:00 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

I have a "new" perspective on this.

Would Yahuweh Inspire writings in a language that can not declare or proclaim His name (like Greek)?

I say NO

Yahuweh knew that religious leaders would hide and mask His name, that they would forbid they masses from proclaiming or saying His name - would He assist them in this endeavor by Inspiring Scripture in a language that would prohibit using His name?
Offline Matthew  
#28 Posted : Monday, November 23, 2009 11:47:53 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)
Walt wrote:
Would Yahuweh Inspire writings in a language that can not declare or proclaim His name (like Greek)?

I say NO

Yahuweh knew that religious leaders would hide and mask His name, that they would forbid they masses from proclaiming or saying His name - would He assist them in this endeavor by Inspiring Scripture in a language that would prohibit using His name?


I would say yes, lol, because Yahweh created language and knew language would change with time, regardless of the ambitions of men. Plus placeholders are perfectly acceptable to use when considering the Names couldn't be spelled out. Greek also has the unique function of combining words, for example the word apostello:

Yada - Histemi chapter of Yada Yahweh wrote:
Apostello, in first century Greek meant "to send people forth who are conscious of the goal being attained." It conveyed that "inherent in the sending was that the messenger was linked to the sender for the express purpose of associating the recipient with the source." When this word is used in the context of Yahushua's relationship with Yahuweh, apostello, is most revealing. Technically, apo designates "the separation of a part from the whole from which the part originated, whereby the individual is separated from the union or fellowship of the source." Then stello means "in order to prepare and equip the individual for use." Thus, apostello explains that Yahshua is a manifestation of Yahuweh, a part of Yahuweh, set-apart from God to prepare us to join with God.


Therefore Greek has its uniqueness too, in combined words and, more importantly, in the fact it encourages us to review the Covenant Writings, due to the placeholders, whereas English leaves people neck-deep in the Renewed Covenant Writings (NT) as opposed to studying Torah and the Prophets in order to understand Yahweh and His Plan of Salvation.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#29 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:43:33 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Very interesting thread, I'm enjoying the discussion very much.
I've always thought Paul was misunderstood (like Peter said), more than he was wrong (or forged).

For example, in Galatians 4:8-11...
Quote:
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.


Many people read that as a warning against turning back to the "Jewish" feasts and Sabbath observance.
But Paul's audience was Gentile converts in the Roman province of Galatia, fresh out of paganism.
Far more likely that the "Seasons" he was warning against were worship of Tammuz (Christmas) and Ishtar (Easter), or perhaps Saturnalia and Bacchanalia.

There's plenty of references in the RC both to Paul keeping the law, and to his teachings being misunderstood. What do you find in Galatians that contradicts this view?

In His Love,
RWY.

Offline bitnet  
#30 Posted : Friday, November 27, 2009 4:04:13 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shabbat Shalom,

After listening to YY Radio regarding the Great Galatians Debate, there is cause to be careful about what was written in the book of Galatians. While much of it is in sync with the TPP, a few points are questionable. But how and why these points were written is not known for sure. Perhaps it was changed after being rewritten over time, or perhaps it was Paul struggling with language, or even his scribe not writing down what was said but what he thought was meant. I am not perturbed in any case as he certainly did impart more positive knowledge than what is being spinned by the churches. So while I may question some verses ascribed to him, Paul is way ahead of me in understanding the mind of Yahweh. What Yada, Yow'el and KP have done is to raise some very interesting points in understanding the fallibility of man and language. So I'd rather focus on the points that jive with the TPP and move on. I am not for Paul nor for Peter. The brand does not matter... focus on the product. Just remember that everything post-Sacrifice has to be in sync with the TPP... the Word who walked with us. Other than The Book of Revelation, which is a direct revelation by Yahushua to Yahuchanan, all other books and letters are testaments to the Word. They are not Scripture but mostly help to explain Scripture. Well, that is my understanding thus far and I may be wrong but I am willing to be corrected.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#31 Posted : Friday, November 27, 2009 8:57:41 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Quote:
I am not for Paul nor for Peter. The brand does not matter... focus on the product.

You're starting to think like Paul (lol).

Pardon my NIV:
Quote:
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1 Corinthians 1:10-19.
Offline bitnet  
#32 Posted : Friday, November 27, 2009 10:43:23 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Yeah, it was with some tongue-in-cheek when I wrote that. It is obvious that when we study the Word we will begin to realise that it is basically the TPP. Everything that came after that either testifies to the TPP or contradicts it. With the recent study on Galatians, we can see that what Shaul wrote is contradictory to Scripture, so we can discard much of what is written there. Now the questions are, who wrote it, how did we ascribe it to Shaul, and does it really matter to us now that we have a deeper understanding of it? As it is, I can only discredit the letter to the Galatians, not Shaul. Some of the other letters supposedly penned by him seem to prescribe the Torah and contradicts Galatians. If it is true that all the letters ascribed to him are penned by him, then he has a dual personality or does a bad job delivering the message of Salvation. But right now I don't really care, as I am focused on what is Truth, not what is fiction. Much of what Christianity is based upon is false, and Galatians is perhaps the cornerstone of the religion. The study thus far helps to explain why and how this crept in and how we can explain it to others who really seek Truth. So while the letter is discredited, I can't say the same about Shaul. While Galatians is clearly disproved, I think Yada also has some reservations about the author of the letter. That's is why I am not for Paul. As for "being for Peter," this is really a blank statement as it typically refers to supporting the Catholic church, out of which I came. Much of the world today supposes that being for Peter means supporting the Catholic church. Sad, but true, and Kephas will be horrified to know that his name is associated to the false and destructive teachings of the Catholic church. Hence, I cannot be "for Peter" either. Context is important, and it is difficult to put things into perspective without being verbose. So I simply say, focus on Yahweh and understand how He works through Yahushua and the Ruach Qodesh as is written in the TPP, and do as He says.

So, apart from the epistles what about the other post-Sacrifice books known as the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation? Personally, I think that Revelation is Yahushua's epilogue -- and is not to be tampered or trifled with -- and is thus seen as Scripture, while the others are not. That said, the Gospels seem to be in accord with Scripture and testify of Yahushua, while Acts has provided an additional basis for evaluating other post-Sacrifice writings, if it is taken as historically truthful. Again, the real benchmark is the TPP and our brothers-in-study have always pointed to it as the basis for understanding Yahweh and His plan for us.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Noach  
#33 Posted : Friday, December 11, 2009 12:48:55 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

If Paul was a false prophet, what was his motiviation? Or was he just completely misunderstood in his attempts to deliver the good news?
Offline James  
#34 Posted : Friday, December 11, 2009 1:02:35 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)
Noach wrote:
If Paul was a false prophet, what was his motiviation? Or was he just completely misunderstood in his attempts to deliver the good news?


Rather he was a false prophet or just a horrible communicator doesn't really matter. The fact remains the same, his writings contradict Torah and have lead people astray. I can't judge his intentions, only his writings, and the result.
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 RidesWithYah  
#35 Posted : Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:18:26 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Specifically which verses in Galatians do you believe contradict Torah?
Offline Marcus  
#36 Posted : Saturday, December 12, 2009 5:30:57 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

RidesWithYah wrote:
Specifically which verses in Galatians do you believe contradict Torah?

I assume from your other post and that if you have been following Yada and Yowel on the show that you just want someone to write it down on the post? Right?
Offline Matthew  
#37 Posted : Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:29:34 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)
Guys, in honesty I have to break the ice. I don't agree with Yada's interpretation of Galatians, well at least not yet. At first I was buying what he said but as I really thought about it I realised I didn't agree with him but agreed with Paul. For example I'm perfectly happy with Paul using Sarah and Hagar to define the difference trusting in Yahweh to fulfil His covenant and trying to fulfil the promise in one's own strength. I believe Paul is right when he says "For in Messiah Yahshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but belief working through love," because if physical circumcision is a prerequisite for salvation then it surely means we have to keep the remainder of the Torah as well. Why do one and not the other? Why elevate the covenant with Abraham above the covenant with Moses, why elevate circumcision over the 10 Commandments, why elevate circumcision over having to keep the literal laws of the Torah? Scripture has clearly defined there's more than one covenant, though all covenants are tied up in Yahshua (Isaiah 42:6-7), Yahweh's Covenant personified. He is the One way to Yahweh, if we somehow think our flesh and blood seals the deal, i.e. our foreskins removed, then we bring His work to naught. We cannot buy our way in, it is like slavery where one works really hard for little or no reward, i.e. Paul's reference to Hagar. A person trying heed the literal laws of the Torah might benefit from being productive, being healthy, having a legal system that works, BUT if his heart's not circumcised it is all meaningless. It would be as if one was a slave, working hard for no real reward. All his trips to the temple would've been pointless, even being circumcised would've been pointless. I'm perfectly happy with Paul comparing the Torah to Hagar, the slave woman, and to be satisfied with Paul one needs to under the context he's using. Children of the slave woman are unbelievers, those who reject Yahshua, whether a Pharisee or an Atheist. They will be judged by the Torah and found wanting, it will be harsh towards them in judgement.

Yada also takes Paul's Galatians 3:21 apart, but I believe Yada took Paul out of context. Paul was saying that for us trying to keep the literal laws as a means to earn salvation renders the Torah without life because the task is impossible in our own strength. The Torah does however produce life if we understand that we cannot earn our way into heaven but have to trust Yahshua. The Torah is meaningless and dead without Yahshua, but with Yahshua it becomes full of promise and full of life.

Also, Yada tries to justify physical circumcision by using Ezekiel 44:9 "Thus said the Master Yahweh, "No son of a foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, comes into My set-apart place, even any son of a foreigner who is among the children of Yisra’ĕl."" But in context, or the way I see it, this is talking about the physical Millennial Temple, and obviously for a person to enter the temple they would need to be -and I hate to use the word- ceremonially clean. But this time round God also wants people to enter the Temple with circumcised hearts, because He was accusing the Jews of not taking His laws seriously before, their hearts weren't in it the first few times round. The passage of Ezekiel is obviously deeply metaphorical as well. Note: I'm not really sure who exactly and where in Jewish history the passage of Ezekiel 44:5-8 is referring to, maybe perhaps it's also talking about the Antichrist who will take charge of the temple during the Tribulation, thereby desecrating it, but I'm not sure.

If you would like to be circumcised as a demonstration of your trust and reliance in Yahshua then by all means get circumcised, but remember this: you received His Spirit (the seal of your redemption) before your circumcision! If you believe you're saved because of physical circumcision then you got to ask yourself: what about all this time from my departure away from Christianity up until now, was I not saved even though I've been using the Names all this time? And this is the point of Galatians, it talks about the initial stage of being born from above, do we receive the Spirit by doing works in our own strength or do we receive the Spirit by believing what we heard. It sounds to me as if the Galatians were worried that they weren't really saved because of not being circumcised, they had become confused, because someone started saying to them they had to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved. But Paul came to say to them that they were already saved through trust and reliance in the finished work of Messiah, therefore they didn't have to worry about trying to earn salvation through their flesh and blood. Paul never encouraged people to turn their eyes away from Torah, that's an errant assumption by the church, Paul was instead teaching the deeper things of the Torah.

If it wasn't finished then we wouldn't have the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

I wasn't planning on writing so soon, I had originally intended to wait until after Yada posted his 200 odd page chapter to make my opinions known. I was even planning on just keeping my mouth shut but in the end I thought I owe it to you all to know my thoughts on the matter.

I hope I haven't spoiled the party.

But please note: I'm still very much open and willing to change my mind if the evidence proves convincing.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#38 Posted : Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:59:40 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Matthew, I'm glad you posted, you covered many of my thoughts better than I would have, and a few I didn't have.

Marcus, I have not been following the show (what show?), just have the books and the forums. So I'm sincerely ignorant of what verses are being contested. Lots of folks saying "Paul contradicts Torah", I would like to know which verses are viewed that way, because I don't see the contradictions. As Peter wrote, many of the things Paul writes are hard to understand, and men twist them (to their own destruction). I do see Paul speaking against the oral traditions of the Pharisees, but not against Torah. What am I missing?
Offline Marcus  
#39 Posted : Sunday, December 13, 2009 3:21:38 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

RidesWithYah wrote:
Matthew, I'm glad you posted, you covered many of my thoughts better than I would have, and a few I didn't have.

Marcus, I have not been following the show (what show?), just have the books and the forums. So I'm sincerely ignorant of what verses are being contested. Lots of folks saying "Paul contradicts Torah", I would like to know which verses are viewed that way, because I don't see the contradictions. As Peter wrote, many of the things Paul writes are hard to understand, and men twist them (to their own destruction). I do see Paul speaking against the oral traditions of the Pharisees, but not against Torah. What am I missing?


Oh. I thought you followed the show. Yada and Yowel cover allot. There is more than 30 hrs of material verse by verse , and you can download them unto an MP3 player.

They go over many things to many to go over in just a small forum. There are going to be several chapters in the God Dam Religion Book.
Offline Marcus  
#40 Posted : Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:59:24 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

Matthew

This is from the standpoint that I am still learning myself and that I have questions as well. I am also waiting for the final chapters on this. But on most points I tend to agree with Yada and Yowel.


I think a major premise that is being stated is that the Torah does not make us slaves. Observing what we can observe and understanding what we can’t is important. Concentrating on circumcision which is a fairly minor wound (a not a big deal) and not talking about harder task to be completed at the time for these gentiles like offerings (since they did not have access to the Temple and technically could still do them and those Jews that were believers in Yahshua still did them. Obviously not necessary at that point since Yahshua completed the task once and for all.) for these gentiles.
I think one of the points is that the Torah should not be considered a burden (and I due understand that Peter in Acts equates it to a yoke and a burden his audience was also those that were previously Pharisees which means that they were following oral traditions and not Torah since they were the big proponents of oral law).

As you already know the Torah is the delineation to the plan of our salvation but just because we are not expected to be perfect and we know were our salvation comes from we shouldn’t just throw our hands up in the air and say we can’t do everything so we don’t need to do anything. Do what we can. It is my understanding that the Torah was made for our benefit not detriment as Paul is inferring. It was made for our health.
Paul equates the Torah with slavery and a burden. The Torah was not a religion given to the Israelites it was a gift. I might be wrong on this but I don’t think circumcision saved Abraham, but if he was not circumcised he would not have been set apart to God. I agree in that maybe circumcision might not be that big of a deal for us today (I would need to understand scripture better on that) but with the evidence brought against Paul in this Galatians review I think Paul is wrong.
Paul used an obviously incorrect interpretation of the Torah as his basis to make a point instead of using Isaiah 42: 6-7 for his basis of “two covenants” as you did. He knew scripture so he could have easily quoted it. When he uses Sarah and Hagar he is totally twisting the scripture. It is totally inaccurate from a historical standpoint. He can’t just take a story out of scripture and twist it and say this may be taken allegorically to mean…. (I guess he could for the gentiles at the time probably did not have access to Torah as we do and could not confirm his allegory.) Why not use concrete scripture to back up his thesis? I think one of the points being made is that Paul in Galatians is not using much scripture to back up what he is saying and what he is using he is twisting.

When stating the example of the Torah and the covenant of Yahshua with Abraham and Sarah he is making it clear that he is not referring to the oral law. If he wanted to do that he could have stated the difference between the Abrahamic covenant and made a second covenant example with Moses as the "oral law" since that is were the Jewish people claim that the oral law was given. This is of the top of my head and I am ignorant compared to Paul about scripture.

I also don’t agree with the fact that you either chose to follow Torah and if you do you have to follow it perfectly or you are dammed. Or you chose to follow Yahshua. I think that following Yahshua is following Torah. And understanding and observing Torah is following Yahshua. Not one or the other. No one was saved by doing what is in the Torah religiously not before and not after Yashua. That is why they had representational sacrifices because they failed but they still tried because it was good for them. another example was Daniel he was not saved because he practiced Torah perfectly but because he was part of the covenant, he was special because he strived to follow God's precepts. Just my opinion with the evidence presented.
Offline Noach  
#41 Posted : Sunday, December 13, 2009 7:33:47 AM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127


I am still trying to follow Yada's presentation of Galatians and try to understand what Paul is saying. But I think I might understand what Paul is trying to say.

At the end of Deuteronomy (chapters 28-31), Yahuweh outlines blessings and curses that would come to Israel if they followed His instructions or didn't. He specifically cites that they would be cursed if they did not follow all of His instructions. We all know that they strayed far from the Torah. Israel was therefore cursed. Literally, they were cured by the Torah, but only because they chose to be. Their only hope was to choose to be free by relying on Yahushua.

Only through trust and reliance upon the Messiyah could Israel become free from slavery to the Torah's curse.

I think what Paul is railing against is Rabbinic teachers and others promoting Torah instructions first, above trust in the Messiyah. Things like circumcision would be of no help to an adopted Israelite if they weren't first freed from the Torah's curse by first trusting in Messiyah.

Bottom line, throughout Galatians, I think Paul is referring to the curse of the Torah as layed out in Deuteronomy chapters 28-31.

Noach
Offline James  
#42 Posted : Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:07:50 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)
You said what I was thinking perfectly Marcus.

I'm still a bit on the fence about a lot of what Yada has discussed in the Galatians shows, mainly because I do better with something written in front of me, and I plan on reading the new chapters as soon as they come out to get a better idea.

I would also point out that using Hagar and Sarah as an example of two covenants, makes no sense, as there was no covenant made with Hagar Period. Yah never made a covenant with her, so to use her as an example of the Torah is a grotesquely horrible thing. Yah specifically left her and her son out of the covenant.

I agree completely with Marcus on this, the Torah was for our benefit, and therefore it is not a trap, or enslavement.

I don't know if I completely agree with Yada on the issue of circumcision, while I do think you should have it done, as Yahuweh asked us to, I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you do not, then Yahuweh will not let you in to heaven. I think the Ezekiel verse does make a good argument for that view, but I have not studied it enough to say for sure, I frankly never gave circumcision much thought before, I was circumcised after birth, and planed on circumcising my children. I never realized that it was such a big deal.
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 Matthew  
#43 Posted : Monday, December 14, 2009 2:15:03 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)
Thanks for your responses guys.

Yada is right in that God did not make a covenant with Hagar, and even in Galatians 4:24 Paul doesn't suggest He did, but Paul rather shows how it can be viewed metaphorically. We also have to see it from Abraham's perspective, can we do it in our own strength and buy our way into Heaven (fulfil the promise) or do we have to trust Yahweh to do the impossible? Buying your way in is slavery, it cannot be done (i.e. Numbers 35:31). Paul doesn't say the Torah is slavery and a burden but says the Torah is a burden when trying to earn salvation in one's own strength, an impossible task. In context Paul is perfectly accurate, but the problem comes when what he says is isolated and then extrapolated upon. Take for example, Galatians 4:30-31 "But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." This could easily mean we should get rid of the Torah because we are not sons of the Torah (i.e. if we assume that Paul is saying that the slave woman equals the Torah), which is certainly the Christian understanding of it, but if we understand what Paul is really saying then it becomes obvious, he wants us to get rid of the mentality that thinks we can earn salvation in our own strength. He doesn't want us to get rid of the Torah itself, but just stressing that our flesh and blood mean nothing at the end of the day when it comes to receiving God's Spirit.

Unbelievers are children of the slave woman, these are those that through their unbelief they'll be judged according to their good works. To them the Torah produces death, their eternal and spiritual death. The unclean won't share in the inheritance that comes through the promise of Yahweh's Covenant personified, who we know to be Yahshua.
Offline Marcus  
#44 Posted : Monday, December 14, 2009 5:21:13 PM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

My problem is that I don't believe I can accurately determine what the context is. From Yada study Paul never makes the context clear. And since I agree with Yada in the fact that it can not be considered scripture, the context in reference to scripture as a whole is of no certainty. People that want to believe Paul was right will do what Yada went over, which is assume he is speaking of Rabbinical Law Vs. Torah or Works vs. Trust and reliance. When he does not make that clear and his examples don't help. The reason I don't feel that I can determine the context is that I don't know Greek grammar (I am learning Hebrew at this point- which is why it is sad that Torah Tue are on hold for now. Hopefully coming back soon.)and you can not trust the current translations because they make it clear that it is the Torah Vs. Grace. So I don't feel I can have a rational discussion out of my own study outside of what Yada is doing. And in reality it dose not make a difference to me to actually take the time to decipher what he is saying because I know I am not redeemed by works but by trust and reliance on Yahweh. But at this point I still think the example with Hagar was a very poor one and that he is not clear in what he is trying to convey. But I am looking forward to read some further discussions and responses to your question on the subject. Especially from SW, KP and Yowel.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#45 Posted : Monday, December 14, 2009 11:13:43 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Ok I have been holding back my opinions just because I thought I would wait until the end, plus I have been discussing a lot with Swalchy and a document he is putting together about it. But here are my views.

Firstly I agree that Galatians or any letter of Paul is not Scripture, they are letters of advice and Paul suggests as such in his letters to stating that it is his opinion etc. I do think Paul has a little issue with ego, but I do not believe it is too bad. With the study Swalchy has done on Galatians and the logical reasoning that we have discussed together I am 95% (probably more) that Paul never wrote Galatians, for many reasons that would be better explained via Swalchy's document, than me rambling them together. My main issue at the moment is Yadas attitude if I am honest, it seems he has let his past feelings for Paul's writings fall into some kind of "hurt" or "betrayed" response of lashing out blindly and out of context towards Paul - to me it seems Yada is falling into the trap that he hates others doing.

Now I am quite happy for this to happen, I think we have all been there and we are all human, but my issue is the radio show is recorded and if someone slipped into it then they would end up getting the wrong message. My other issues is Yada keeps claiming that the council meeting kicked Paul in the nuts as to say, yet I don't see that at all, and if we only looked at Galatians we would never know there was a meeting, because he never outright says it. He also claims Paul is against Circumcision, when one of the first things Paul does when he meets Timothy (who was a Jew by his mother) was give him the snip. The meeting recorded in Acts ends with Peter giving a speach about how the Gentile followers of the Way were empowered by the spirit to do things just as much as the others were. No mention of Circumcision as necessary was given, which it should have been in the letter to clear up the whole reason they were there. All that was given was to avoid blood, and strangled animals - but Peter knew that they would hear the Torah at the Synagogue.

Now as it was said above, it someone wants to be snipped it is wrong to say to them "No, don't do it" because it is something important in Torah, but using that Ezekiel verse to claim all must be is ridiculous, if you look at the context it is talking about Gentiles taking over the roles of the Levite Priests, which is incredibly wrong because of the picture it destroys. Personally I think he would have said the same about a circumcised Israelite from any other tribe doing that too! The reason I think Yah was angry there was they were destroying the sign they were meant to be upholding.

As for being cut off, do we think the lack of Circumcision is the only thing that cuts someone off from Yah? Logo's search and you will see its quite a few things, including eating blood. The Sabbath is actually spoken about more strongly and more frequently than circumcision, yet a few weeks ago we were told on the show that "we might not know what day it is on, but as long as we have some time off a week that s is fine" - if we know the exact day when Yahushua was Sacrificed 33CE Passover - Sabbath, we know how to count in 7's from there so we know when the Sabbath is.... If we have to go hardline on the snip we need to go hard-line on Sabbath and then everything else as well!

I just think things are getting a little out of context and more a knee jerk response to hurtful feelings towards Paul than logic and reason. Especially seems as though I don't think Paul even wrote the letter. It's just a waste of time and pointlessly destructive.

Do I love Paul? No. Do I care if Galatians is written by Paul or not? Not really. But is it important to stick to truth?! Yes!

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline James  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:31:55 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)
Good points Rob, and I agree with a lot of where you are coming from. Personally I'm of the opinion that Paul, right or wrong, can be usefully, but my time is better spent studying Scripture.

I agree Rob, I think Yada has become a bit too emotionally involved, and may be effecting his objectivity. I especially think some of the Quran comparisons the other day where a bit of a stretch, and uncalled for. I'm not quite as sure as you that Paul didn't write Galatians, but I haven't spent as much time on it as you either.

Rob wrote:
"we might not know what day it is on, but as long as we have some time off a week that s is fine"

I don't remember hearing that on the show, but I might have missed it. But I don't think it is all that hard to determine the Sabbath, and i think we should keep it on that day. I don't think that if you miss a Sabbath you're going to be left out of the Family, but if you miss the importance of the Sabbath, then I think you might, same with the snippies, I don't think that not being sniped will leave you out of the Family, but not understanding the significance of being set apart, might.
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 Swalchy  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:55:17 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

James wrote:
I don't think that if you miss a Sabbath you're going to be left out of the Family, but if you miss the importance of the Sabbath, then I think you might, same with the snippies, I don't think that not being sniped will leave you out of the Family, but not understanding the significance of being set apart, might.


One of Rob's points is that there is an emphasis on circumcision at the moment, due to the fact that Genesis records Yahuweh saying, " Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant," (Genesis 17:14), especially noting the fact that those that aren't physically circumcised shall be cut off from his people.

Thing is, however, this phrase appears several times more in the Torah, for different things:

Exodus 30:32-33 - It shall not be poured on the body of an ordinary person, and you shall make no other like it in composition. It is set-apart, and it shall be set-apart to you. Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people.

Exodus 30:37-38 - And the incense that you shall make according to its composition, you shall not make for yourselves. It shall be for you set-apart to Yahuweh. Whoever makes any like it to use as perfume shall be cut off from his people.

Exodus 31:14 - You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. nWhoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Leviticus 7:27 - Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.

There are many more places where Yahuweh specifically states that doing whatever it is, a person is therefore "cut off from his people." You can't give an emphasis on circumcision, and then ignore the rest that tells us that the same thing that happens to those who are not circumcised, also happens to those who work on the Sabbath, or who have eaten any blood.
Offline Marcus  
#48 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:07:48 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

I understand that the oldest Aramaic writings of the renewed covenant were written later than what we have of the Greek but I was reading in the Aramaic English new testament and in there the Aramaic does make the distinction between being subject to Torah and being under Torah. I still believe Paul needed to be more specific (ie. Galatians 5:2-3. or he would be flat our wrong.) I like a footnote in the Galatians Aramaic translation that says:

Some seek "justification" through observance of Torah, others seek it by not observing Torah; both persuits are based on man's religion. The answer is to observe Torah in YHWH and His Mashiyach and live righteously as Yahshua did. Put trust and faith in YHWH, not in works of religion, but as co-laborers with Mashiyach. Page 571 English Aramaic New Testament.
Offline Noach  
#49 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:43:38 AM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127


Lew White has a great article on his website regarding Paul. In his article, he mentions that the "law" that Paul is referring to is the sacrificial law and more specifically the law of circumcision. Galatians, like much of Paul's letters, is a treatise on circumcision so this makes perfect sense.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#50 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:46:12 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Noach wrote:
Lew White has a great article on his website regarding Paul. In his article, he mentions that the "law" that Paul is referring to is the sacrificial law and more specifically the law of circumcision. Galatians, like much of Paul's letters, is a treatise on circumcision so this makes perfect sense.


I think the problem is - and I think Yada is correct on this in many places - is that we can't be sure to what law he is referring and sometimes in the context it seems to be Torah.

Just saying that "he was referring to this law and not Torah" is inconclusive, and sometimes against the evidence.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Users browsing this topic
5 Pages123>»
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.