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

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages<1234>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline lassie1865  
#51 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:47:19 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I am amazed at the number of articles on the internet which concur with Yada and our discussion of Galatians concerning Paul and his "doctrines." One which covers many interesting points is at:
http://www.serveyahweh.org/Paul/heretic02.htm

Paul preached in such a way as to enable his students/subsequent leaders, to interpret his words as meaning "the Law is abolished." Paul himself kept the Law, thereby impressing the Jerusalem Council, but he preached to others that they did not have to keep it! His preaching is very contradictory, i.e., eating meat sacrificed to idols . . . idols are nothing, etc.; Revelations admonishes NOT to eat meat sacrificed to idols . . .

Paul's teaching is deceptive because he STARTED OUT so well, but he didn't preach the whole truth at the end; he didn't FINISH well. Yahushua said "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YAHWEH" NOT "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of PAUL," or any other messenger for that matter.

Was Paul really an APOSTLE? I think he was anointed to "go out and preach the Message", but an APOSTLE? The Temple only has TWELVE pillars????

So, I am beginning to see two groups growing together as an entwined vine until the harvest; one being the "ekklesia" and no wonder the other is called the "church" . . .


Shalom
Offline Swalchy  
#52 Posted : Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:22:22 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

It's interesting how they only quote Galatians and Ephesians out of Paul's supposed letters - the two letters I'm more or less certain aren't written by Paul.

Edit: One of our Forum members, Noel, has been having trouble replying to this thread. He has sent me what he wanted to say, so I shall quote it below:

Noel wrote:
Having been thinking a lot about the subject of circumcision, I have come to a couple of conclusions, having asked a lot of questions

If you are born from above, and not circumcised, then where will you spend eternity if not in the tabernacle? You have to spend it somewhere as you are indwelt by the Set apart Spirit, and so far as I believe, you cannot be unborn from above after you are indwelt.

Scripture is clear that some Gentiles were indwelt, despite not being circumcised. Where are they now? I don't think that they are forming a long line outside the tabernacle not being admitted, but still being indwelt by the Set apart Spirit.

Suggestions that by adding your own blood in circumcision to that of Yahushua is in my view nearly, if not wholly, blasphemous.

Even the catholics have not exactly gone that far. And anyway, people who happen to have been circumcised as babies (you could argue) would need to upgrade their 'sacrifice' as it was done a) without their consent and b) probably before they were born from above. And if it was done in a hospital, then why not by a priest, and if done by a priest, then what sort of priest can do it anyway ?

So those who happen to be clear of the practical side of this (by default), need to be careful before pointing their fingers at those who are not. Besides, where does this stop, and what other laws need to be actually done rather than observed before salvation is 'acheived' . No this is a very dangerous path.

Then I believe I found a result.

God can do absolutely anything he wants, with one exception, and that is to over rule our individual will.

Scripture is quite clear in 1 John 5:14-17 that if you ask anything which is in line with God's will, he will do it for you. Therefore whichever side of this discussion you are, the answer is in a prayer to Yahweh that if he requires you to be circumcised before entering in to the tabernacle, then you are happy for him to do it for you. After all Yahshua is our High Priest. If he requires it, then I would be happy for him to do it. I think that if you then trust and rely on that prayer being answered, then that is enough for now.

Edited by user Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:14:11 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Theophilus  
#53 Posted : Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:15:41 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I too would like to see what Swalchy has been working on regarding Paul as well as the new YY chapters on Galatians to supplement what I've been listening to on BTR.

One thought did occur to me regarding Noel's take on asking God to supernaturally perform a circumcision. Did not even Yahushua have His circumcision performed via human agency in order to comply with the Torah instructions? I realize that this is a separate matter from whether a physical circumcision is needed today for Gentiles seeking to be in grafted into Yah's adopted human family, but the thought occurred to me still.

If I understand Noel correctly, we could / should make a blanket prayer request asking God to do whatever is needed to make us acceptable to Him and leave God accountable for the results?

Respectfully,

-Theophilus
Offline Matthew  
#54 Posted : Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:49:42 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Deuteronomy 23:1 "No one wounded, crushed or whose member is cut off does enter the assembly of יהוה."
Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth does enter the assembly of יהוה, even a tenth generation of his does not enter the assembly of יהוה."

Would Yahweh really prevent eunuchs from being saved, or people (and 10 generations of their descendants) being born from women other than their fathers wives? To me when I read Paul, or even hear Yada's translation, it seems obvious that Paul had an amazing understanding of Scripture, as if he really took everything into account, even taking into account the words of Yahshua. He understood that we are to look deeper into the Torah, to see what the physical represents in the grand scheme of things, in the reality which in the spiritual.

I don't know, but to me the context of Galatians is simple and straightforward, are we justified by Torah through literally obeying the laws in our own strength, in other words we can save ourselves regardless of Yahshua (doing it with Hagar), or are we justified by Torah through trust and reliance in the promise of salvation, like Abraham was (doing it with Sarah). Note: I said twice "justified by Torah" because Paul uses it in Galatians 2:16-17, 3:11,24, and 5:4, and to understand him I think we need to understand which one he's referring to. Galatians 3:2-3 clarifies this for us, through human effort or through belief. Also, I don't see why there should be any confusion about which law (Torah, Rabbinical, Human, etc.) he's talking about especially since verse 11 says he's talking about the Torah.

Paul doesn't seem to be against circumcision if a person feels compelled to do it as a symbolic gesture and physical demonstration of what God did for them, much like water baptism, but he's against the notion that says we're not really saved because we don't fully and completely obey the Torah in a literal sense.

Let's pretend no Renewed Covenant Writings exist, except for John and Revelation. Now suppose an uncircumcised Gentile guy and a Gentile woman, not living in Israel, become saved and imparted with God's Spirit, much like some of the forum members are. How would you explain circumcision to them if someone else came to them and said "guys, you're not really saved because you're uncircumcised, but to become saved you need to become circumcised in the flesh otherwise you cannot enter God's Tabernacle!"? Think about it...
Offline Matthew  
#55 Posted : Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:53:46 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Edit:

The "(doing it with Hagar)" should read as "(i.e. Abe doing it with Hagar)" and the second time it's used should be "(i.e. Abe doing it with Sarah)," otherwise some guys might think I'm saying Yahshua is doing it with Hagar ;)
Offline lassie1865  
#56 Posted : Friday, December 18, 2009 4:52:31 PM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I found an interesting website called "FirstFruits of Zion" http://ffoz.org/blogs/20...standard_of_abolish.html
They are discussing the relevance of all believers keeping the Torah.

Offline Matthew  
#57 Posted : Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:34:06 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Remember guys, Paul esteemed the Torah highly in the rest of his writings and nowhere does he say we should stop paying attention to it, instead he says we cannot in any way earn salvation/eternal-life in our own strength. We Paul pull out of context to our own demise.

The article says "I have even heard some Christians say that even by attempting to observe the Torah's laws, one becomes an 'enemy of the cross.'" Now if we think we can earn salvation through our own sweat and blood, by literally keeping the Torah perfectly where possible, then we insult the Messiah's finished work on the upright pole, as if somehow we don't require His blood for our forgiveness and therefore can stand in God's presence on our own merit. The subject of Galatians is about the immediate impartation of God's Spirit in one's life and not really about one's continuing walk with Yahweh. So if a person wants to literally observe the laws as a symbolic gesture of the deeper spiritual and prophetic things then by all means do it, much like we do water baptism, but remember that your flesh and blood don't add to your salvation through literal obedience because you have already received the Spirit and are saved.

If a person says we are to observe the laws literally as a means to salvation then they are indebted to keep every single law within the Torah perfectly. If I was uncircumcised I would probably get circumcised as a demonstration of my love for Yahweh, but I wouldn't dare do it thinking I was somehow earning salvation through my own pain and mortal sweat and blood.
Offline bitnet  
#58 Posted : Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:28:57 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Once again, after much consideration it is quite advisable to read the RC with circumspect. It was never Scripture, and only the Book of Revelation can be considered Scripture because it was basically dictated to Yahuchanan by Yahushua with a specific warning against tampering and editing. All other RC books serve a purpose... either to expound Scripture or confound Scripture. If it does the former, great... if the latter, then those parts should be ignored and labelled with a warning instead. As to the purported authors of confusion, I believe Yahweh will deal with them when the time comes. Who really knows who wrote what in whose name after 33CE? As it is, Swalchy suspects Galatians was not written by Paul as the literary style and language is inconsistent with the other epistles. So let's not take potshots at the person but continue to poke holes where it counts most.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Marcus  
#59 Posted : Monday, December 21, 2009 6:10:52 AM(UTC)
Marcus
Joined: 9/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 93
Location: NY

http://www.religiousstud.../JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html something I found while googling after last show.
Offline lassie1865  
#60 Posted : Monday, December 21, 2009 6:43:56 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

As for Yahushua's appearing to Paul in a vision:

Did Yahushua indicate that He would never appear to anyone in a vision after the ascension? and

Didn't Yahushua say that the Set-Apart Spirit would remind the disciples of everything Yahushua said so that they could write it down? (or is that part not verifiable?

Thanks!
Offline Swalchy  
#61 Posted : Monday, December 21, 2009 9:53:52 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

lassie1865 wrote:
As for Yahushua's appearing to Paul in a vision:

Did Yahushua indicate that He would never appear to anyone in a vision after the ascension? and

Didn't Yahushua say that the Set-Apart Spirit would remind the disciples of everything Yahushua said so that they could write it down? (or is that part not verifiable?

Thanks!



Hi Lassie,

What you're referring to is Yahuchanon 16:4b-15, which is indeed evidenced by P66 and P5 :)

I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Her to you. And when She comes, She will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: concerning sin, because they do not place trust in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see Me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, She will guide you into all the truth, for She will not speak on Her own authority, but whatever She hears She will speak, and She will declare to you the things that are to come. She will glorify Me, for She will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that She will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Offline In His Name  
#62 Posted : Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:37:56 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
In today's Galation Debate, Yada threw out a Thomas Jefferson quote that intrigued me... HERE is what I found:
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson: Unbeliever

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." —2nd Corinthians 4:4

I was greatly saddened to learn that Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was NOT a Christian. Jefferson made so many wonderful quotes concerning freedom and the dangers of the central bank. It is tragic that such a brilliant man would be so foolish as to reject the Word of God. I realize that there are historical writings which reveal that Thomas Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, including an actual photo of Jefferson's handwritten statement "I am a real Christian." Nevertheless, the following quotes from Mr. Jefferson make it quite clear that he was NO Christian:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat


I think the writer of the website is right that TJ was not a christian. The statements above sound very much like TJ was a follower of Yahushua, even a YYer. But that he tried to maintain that he was a christian because he was without the knowledge that we are privy to through Scriptural discoveries, technology, etc., to meaningfully reclassify his belief.
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline James  
#63 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 6:31:18 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I don;t know IHN, with one exception, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." I would say I agree with everyone of those statements, they are for the most parts statements against religion, not against Yah.
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 James  
#64 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 6:33:14 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
IHN wrote:
I think the writer of the website is right that TJ was not a christian. The statements above sound very much like TJ was a follower of Yahushua, even a YYer.


Sorry didn't see that part at the end.
The only thing I could see against this view however is TJs associations with groups like Jacobins, and the Free Masons.
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 In His Name  
#65 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 7:25:20 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
James wrote:
I don;t know IHN, with one exception, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." I would say I agree with everyone of those statements, they are for the most parts statements against religion, not against Yah.

Yeah, that one bothered me a little at first, but on a reread, I thought he could be a little prophetic... the day has come when the virgin birth, even the life of Yahushua is attributed to fable; then the artificial scaffold is the fable that needs to be done away with; restoring us to the genuine doctrines.

Hard to tell with everything out of context and without a more thorough investigation, but interesting.
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline James  
#66 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 8:34:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Well I know that TJ did publish his own 'bible' with all the miracles taken out of it. I think he saw Yahushua more as a philosopher than as the Messiah.
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  
#67 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 12:56:34 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

One other thought...

We are cautioned, strongly, about blaspheming against the Spirit.

I've always wondered what this means.
Could it be referring to speaking against things divinely inspired?
Or what specifically would constitute blasphemy against the Spirit?
Offline Swalchy  
#68 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 1:11:11 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

The Greek word "blasphemos" actually means "slander", so it would be more saying "the Spirit has said this" when the Spirit hasn't.

You know, like saying the Set-Apart Spirit inspired the Qur'an. That is an example of "blaspheming" against the Set-Apart Spirit
Offline lassie1865  
#69 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 11:55:32 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Has anyone read the book "Jesus Words Only" by Douglas Del Tondo? Sounds as if Yada, Ken, and Stephen could have written it. Read it online for free at
http://www.jesuswordsonl...ages/stories/JWO_Online/

Offline kp  
#70 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 4:26:09 PM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

I wouldn't really include me in that list, lassie.

kp
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#71 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 8:48:48 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I take it he says that only Yahushua's words count? Well I suppose that is a good starting point, but then we would not have what He said without the eye witness accounts...

There is a lot of value in the RC, and especially in books like revelation - I think we just need to be careful now with what we rely on as truth, just because a bunch of guys in a religious huddle decide something... actually that should be even more reason to be careful. If you do not already appreciate the problem we have with the RC, then when Swalchy has finished his first account of the changes found between manuscripts of John, which is one of the better books, you will see that it would be a fools game to trust 100% that the RC is a solid account of events. That's why when you hear Swalchy saying "well we don't have that in the earliest manuscripts" some things could have been completely fabricated, and in a lot of cases actually more likely that it was than wasn't. We can also see with other manuscripts that were written about the same time, there was some serious changes and theologies floating round even about the time that they were copied down into the manuscripts we know as the earliest ones.

When RC is right we know it affirms Torah, and when its brilliant we can see it being acted out correctly and explained well, but we should not rely on its message like it was something that could be seen as reliable.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Swalchy  
#72 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 3:56:49 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

lassie1865 wrote:
Has anyone read the book "Jesus Words Only" by Douglas Del Tondo? Sounds as if Yada, Ken, and Stephen could have written it. Read it online for free at
http://www.jesuswordsonl...ages/stories/JWO_Online/




Having read a few of the PDF's, I wouldn't include myself in that list either. I wouldn't include Yada in it either
Offline lassie1865  
#73 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:38:29 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Ok. My thought was that this author seems to find Paul as constantly contradicting Yahushua and the eyewitness accounts, thereby making Paul a false prophet.
Offline Swalchy  
#74 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:49:03 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Doesn't someone have to make a prophecy that doesn't come true in order to be brandished a "false prophet"?

An egotistical, arrogant, sometimes annoyingly incorrect teacher, yes - but a false prophet? I don't recall agreeing with Yada wholeheartedly on that.

Saying that, however, I do also question a lot of Mr. Tondo's conclusions, and especially some of the sources he uses (Bart D. Ehrman? Seriously?). His "How Not to Study the Bible" was very good however
Offline lassie1865  
#75 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:55:19 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

My apologies; I misspoke. Let me rephrase this. It is interesting that there is someone out there such as Tondo who raises some very valid questions as to whether Paul's letters should be defined as "Scripture." What specific points does Tondo make with which you agree, and/or not agree, and why.
Offline Swalchy  
#76 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:36:05 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

lassie1865 wrote:
My apologies; I misspoke.


No need to apologise :) I wasn't offended in the slightest.

Quote:
Let me rephrase this. It is interesting that there is someone out there such as Tondo who raises some very valid questions as to whether Paul's letters should be defined as "Scripture." What specific points does Tondo make with which you agree, and/or not agree, and why.


Well, I, and most people on here I would presume (bar a few people) agreed long ago that Paul's writings couldn't, and shouldn't, be considered "Scripture". Tondo's books are aimed more at Christians, who have probably never even considered the possibility that any of the NT writings shouldn't be classed as "Scripture".
Offline RidesWithYah  
#77 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:23:43 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

THANK YOU so much for posting the link to Jesus' Words Only.
I haven't finished yet, but have read through Chapter 9 (haven't started the salvation book yet).

Some really good stuff in there, although the writing style isn't the best.
Among the factoids: As recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, how many times does the Messiah use the word "grace" in the context of our path to salvation? (Zero.)

The Balaam parallels are almost eerie; a very compelling argument.

Well worth a read, and I may pull from this for a (relatively short) article on my site.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#78 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:01:25 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

This is quoted in Chapter 12, and I haven't seen it referred to before.
Can anyone comment on its authenticity?
Letter to James

The quoted part includes this tidbit about our friend Paul (claimed to be from Peter, to James ca. 92AD).

Quote:
For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: "The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.
Offline Swalchy  
#79 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:20:53 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

According to what I can see throughout the "Clementine Homilies", Peter's "enemy" is not Paul, but a certain Simon Magnus.

I think you'll also see what I meant by "questionable sources"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature
Offline bitnet  
#80 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:44:13 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Not that I really miss reading it but am I the only one who can't seem to get connected to that Tondo website? I keep getting this:

Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges.

Edited by moderator Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:54:53 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Swalchy  
#81 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:56:09 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Hi Bitnet:

Go to http://www.jesuswordsonly.com, and you should be able to read stuff on it
Offline RidesWithYah  
#82 Posted : Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:00:08 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Swalchy,
The section "Theories of Baur" in the wikipedia link you provided seem to summarize the views of the author of JWO.
He argues, using evidence from Paul's letter, from Acts, and from the book of James that Paul was tried and convicted for heresy at Ephesus, and that this is referred to by Yahshua in Revelation 2....

Quote:
1To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.


It's an interesting argument.
Offline Swalchy  
#83 Posted : Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:09:03 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

RidesWithYah wrote:
Swalchy,
The section "Theories of Baur" in the wikipedia link you provided seem to summarize the views of the author of JWO.
He argues, using evidence from Paul's letter, from Acts, and from the book of James that Paul was tried and convicted for heresy at Ephesus, and that this is referred to by Yahshua in Revelation 2....

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

It's an interesting argument.


One has therefore to wonder who else incorrectly classed themselves as an "apostle", due to the fact that Revelation 2:1-2 mentions those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. Plural words = plurality of people, not just one person.

It should also be noted that a lot of the stuff on that Wikipedia page is out-of-date - scholarship has moved on from the early 19th Century F.C. Baur.
Offline James  
#84 Posted : Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:31:42 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
bitnet wrote:
Shalom,

Not that I really miss reading it but am I the only one who can't seem to get connected to that Tondo website? I keep getting this:

Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges.

I had to go to www.jesuswordsonly.com and then navigate to the actual text.
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  
#85 Posted : Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:22:50 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

I currently have Yada's latest update to Chrestus - Useful Implement. I've decided not to attach it to the forum, do to the fact that then just anyone can download it, and it's probably best that "Christians" don't have direct access to it - they'd like it even less if they don't like the rest of YY.

So, email me at theway - at - thewaytoyahuweh.com (replace - at - with @) if you want a copy, and I'll send it you :)
Offline James  
#86 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 3:11:42 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I have Yada's latest update on the Chrestus - Useful Implement chapter, as well as his latest update on the Euangelion - Healing Message chapter.

If anyone would like to read them, so that they can provide feedback to Yada, PM me with your email address, and I will send you a copy tonight.
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  
#87 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 4:59:48 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
I have Yada's latest update on the Chrestus - Useful Implement chapter, as well as his latest update on the Euangelion - Healing Message chapter.

If anyone would like to read them, so that they can provide feedback to Yada, PM me with your email address, and I will send you a copy tonight.


What was the Aramaic, or Hebrew, equivalent of the Greek word euangelion? Does the word appear in the eye-witness accounts as if Yahshua said it or do we only find it later in the Renewed Covenant Writings?
Offline Swalchy  
#88 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 5:09:05 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Matthew wrote:
What was the Aramaic, or Hebrew, equivalent of the Greek word euangelion? Does the word appear in the eye-witness accounts as if Yahshua said it or do we only find it later in the Renewed Covenant Writings?


Euangellion is found in the following places:

Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 24:14, Matthew 26:13, Mark 1:1, Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15, Mark 8:35, Mark 10:29, Mark 13:10, Mark 14:9, Mark 16:15, Acts 15:7, Acts 20:24, Romans 1:1, Romans 1:9, Romans 1:16, Romans 2:16, Romans 10:16, Romans 11:28, Romans 15:16, Romans 15:19, Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 9:12, 1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Corinthians 9:18, 1 Corinthians 9:23, 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 8:18, 2 Corinthians 9:13, 2 Corinthians 10:14, 2 Corinthians 11:4, 2 Corinthians 11:7, Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7, Galatians 1:11, Galatians 2:2, al 2:5, Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:14, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 6:15, Ephesians 6:19, Philippians 1:5, Philippians 1:7, Philippians 1:12, Philippians 1:16, Philippians 1:27, Philippians 2:22, Philippians 4:3, Philippians 4:15, Colossian 1:5, Colossian 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 1 Thessalonians 2:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:9, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Timothy 1:11 Timothy 1:82 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 2:8, Philemon 13, 1 Peter 4:17, Revelation 14:6.

The Hebrew equivalent is Basowrah - Strongs #H1309
Offline Noach  
#89 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 5:20:09 AM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

I don't understand. If Yada Yaheweh has information regarding Paul that can help free Christians of his religion, why wouldn't it be shared? It is important for Christians to have the opportunity to be exposed to this information. Hiding and restricting accessibiility to this information seems contrary to the use of Yada Yahweh as a tool to help. Our job is to simply present the truth. People will come to their own conclusions. The most loving thing we can do is give Christians any and all information we have to help them come out of their religion. Hiding information isn't going to help in this regard. Please reconsider the current plan regarding the presentation of Paul in Galatians.

Noah
Offline James  
#90 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 5:28:15 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Noach wrote:
I don't understand. If Yada Yaheweh has information regarding Paul that can help free Christians of his religion, why wouldn't it be shared? It is important for Christians to have the opportunity to be exposed to this information. Hiding and restricting accessibiility to this information seems contrary to the use of Yada Yahweh as a tool to help. Our job is to simply present the truth. People will come to their own conclusions. The most loving thing we can do is give Christians any and all information we have to help them come out of their religion. Hiding information isn't going to help in this regard. Please reconsider the current plan regarding the presentation of Paul in Galatians.

Noah

We aren't trying to hide it, when the final revisions are done, it will be posted on the site, just as everything else. What we are doing now, is working on the wording,clarity, and presentation of it. Yada wants to make sure that he covers everything before it is put out in mass. We are just trying to make sure that when it is posted it will be most effective. If the presentation is wrong, it could do more harm than good. Plus it would be much better to release the book as a comprehensive whole than one chapter at a time.
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  
#91 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 7:34:36 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Thanks Swalchy! But if I'm honest I wasn't straight, I was thinking of the word metanoeo, but for some reason thought euangelion meant changing one's thinking, attitude and perspective. I'll have a read through the Metanoeo chapter because maybe Yada addresses my question there.
Offline Swalchy  
#92 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 9:55:35 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Matthew wrote:
Thanks Swalchy! But if I'm honest I wasn't straight, I was thinking of the word metanoeo, but for some reason thought euangelion meant changing one's thinking, attitude and perspective. I'll have a read through the Metanoeo chapter because maybe Yada addresses my question there.


Metanoeo is found in the following verses:

Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 11:20; Matthew 11:21; Matthew 12:41; Mark 1:15; Mark 6:12; Luke 10:13; Luke 11:32; Luke 13:3; Luke 13:5; Luke 15:7; Luke 15:10; Luke 16:30; Luke 17:3; Luke 17:4; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22; Acts 17:30; Acts 26:20; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 2:2; Revelation 2:22; Revelation 3:3; Revelation 3:19; Revelation 9:20; Revelation 9:21; Revelation 16:9; Revelation 16:11

And the Hebrew equivalent would be ... a word I do not know =P
Offline Matthew  
#93 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 11:27:41 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Noach wrote:
I don't understand. If Yada Yaheweh has information regarding Paul that can help free Christians of his religion, why wouldn't it be shared? It is important for Christians to have the opportunity to be exposed to this information. Hiding and restricting accessibiility to this information seems contrary to the use of Yada Yahweh as a tool to help. Our job is to simply present the truth. People will come to their own conclusions. The most loving thing we can do is give Christians any and all information we have to help them come out of their religion. Hiding information isn't going to help in this regard. Please reconsider the current plan regarding the presentation of Paul in Galatians.

Noah


I think this Galatians debate will be lingering on for a pretty long time, and many Christians will turn away from the forum, and YY, without considering the rest if we were to say Paul is a false prophet and promote it as one of the core beliefs, but then again there'll also be people who'll be attracted to YY if Paul is not promoted. I know in my early walk I rejected a Messianic group who rejected Paul's writings, I didn't even consider the rest of what they had to say. Paul is deeply rooted in Christianity, there's no question about it. If I has seen YY rejecting Paul in my early walk then I wouldn't of even opened an eye-lid to it, but that's just me. Maybe coming out in the open is the way to go, being frank and honest, like Yahshua was, but for that to happen those responsible for presenting Paul as a false prophet really need to be sure of their decision.

Anyway, I've been listening to all the radio shows and Yada has said a number of times that he's been revising what he's written in his drafts. He wants to be sure, and complete, before "publishing" his work online, as any rational person should, as it truly is divisive. Also, some of us are waiting for him to finish his work before commenting on the forum, and on the radio I haven't yet seen anybody really challenge him on his take, which I would really like to see. I've already mentioned on the forum that I currently don't agree with his understanding of Galatians. But before I share my thoughts in full and my many questions I'm waiting for Yada to post his works online which will give me time to go through it properly, because maybe I change my mind if convinced of his argument point by point. I want to be sure of my stance, because it truly is a huge change and will have dramatic effects on my personal life, and plus I don't want to be rash and say something stupid. If I disagree on things I have a desire to lash out while unprepared for the response, just ask my wife, instead of taking the time to look at the facts, think things through and approach in a way geared towards learning and being constructive. Many times I've slept on the couch because of my immature actions, my immature loud mouth. And the last thing I want is to be alienated from a group of people -you guys- who are geared towards learning the truth no matter what the costs.

So far I have plenty of things I disagree with or am somewhat unsure of so I want to take my time with this.

Here are just two things of which I'm somewhat in disagreement with, and would like to address already:

1) Yada says Paul is against marriage, hence against God's Covenant, which I can understand why Yada says what he says, but passages such as Luke 14:15-35, especially verses 20 and 33, suggest marriage could be a hindrance, and these words have been taken directly from Yahshua. Now without thinking I could say something stupid like "why did Yada not quote this passage when saying what he said" as if implying Yada hasn't done the obvious, but since I want to think things through, walk in love and be a brother I would rephrase my question, for example "how would Yada relate Luke 14 to Paul's opinion on the matter, can Paul's words be justified with what Yahshua said." A slight difference in tone and use of words helps us all instead of creating more damage, and hopefully preventing alienation of people. In my approach (and this is a personal battle of mine) I must realise that I'm on the same page as Yada, in other words, a child of Yahweh, and that we are all working towards understanding Yahweh and the Way better, instead of being on the opposide side of the fence and against my brother in Yahshua. Which leads me on to the next point, and is relevant if I think about it.

2) Yada in episode 30-32 (not sure which one) said Paul incorrectly listed "love your neighbour" in Galatians 5:14 as the commandment summing up the Torah when it should be to love Yahweh with all your heart. Now, out of the context that I see Paul discussing and in a general sense I agree with Yada, but when related to the specific passages surrounding the verse, where people are bickering and arguing with and devouring each other, I think Paul had a valid claim because the Torah has the solution to help us stop our infighting, which is to love each other (Leviticus 19:18), hence why Paul says the entire Torah can be summed up in loving each other, as Yahshua mentioned as well in Matthew 22:36-40. To love each other would be to work towards a common goal, and as the expression goes, without killing each other in the procees. Yahshua (well an English translation of His words) says the second law "is like, resembles and is similar to"* the first commandment, which I think adds weight to Paul's claim, hence why I think Paul's claim is valid. Also, I think it's obvious that to love Yahweh is the greatest commandment of all -and I assume the Galatians already knew that- followed on the heels by loving one's neighbour. We must seek ways to build, encourage and edify each other (for example Yada sharing his studies for free online), going out of our way to help others and our brothers, rather than seeking our own selfish ways, like pleasing those desires contrary to Scripture, for example trying to prove "I'm right and you're wrong" if based upon selfish gain which could serve to puff up one's egoism (hmmm... some would see Galatians this way), or trying to earn God's salvation through our own pain and blood and strentgh, our own good works and on merit, and making a profit while we're at it, the things upon which religions are built and which lead to infighting when arguments follow.

*Thanks Swalchy for your translation of Matthew 22:39

Swalchy wrote:
And the Hebrew equivalent would be ... a word I do not know =P


Thanks again.

Reason I ask is because Yada puts a lot of emphasis on the word. Does the word nacham (H5162) mean the same as metanoeo? Does the Hebrew differ from the Aramaic word? I'm not against the Greek word, in fact I like it, but was curios to know the word the Messiah would've used in His Aramaic speeches, unless He quoted a Hebrew passage with the word nacham in.
Offline James  
#94 Posted : Monday, January 11, 2010 3:01:55 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Matt, I would recommend that you take a look at the drafts, and then make comments to him on anything you might disagree with. That way he can consider any challenges, and then incorporate them into the chapter.

There where several things that Yada had in some of the first draft of it, that I didn't agree with, and where I didn't I let him know, and let him know why, and he addressed the points. I think the process will work very well for the future of these chapters, since it is allowing him to clarify where it needs to be done, and elaborate or explain areas that need to be.

Please send me your email, and I will send you the chapters, I'm sure your input will prove invaluable. I think the more Yada is challenged on this, the better the review will be, as it will incorporate those challenges. And if Yada is wrong, I'm sure he would love to have some one explain why.

Also I will try to determine the Hebrew equivalent of Metanoeo tomorrow, I meant to today, but work kept me a little busier than normal.
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  
#95 Posted : Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:47:45 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
Also I will try to determine the Hebrew equivalent of Metanoeo tomorrow, I meant to today, but work kept me a little busier than normal.


Perhaps a copy of Shem Tov Matthew could help, but apparently the oldest copy we have dates to about the 11th or 15th century.
Offline James  
#96 Posted : Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:15:06 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
well Matt the closest word I could find in the Covenant Scriptures, is the word sub Shin Waw Bet. It means return or turn away from. It is often translated repent, just like Metanoeo. It is used frequently in Ezekiel, where the Yahuweh is telling Israel to turn or return from their transgressions and their false idols etc. It is frequently used doubled up, so it read subu wehasibu which would mean something along the lines of return and come back, or return and change. So to change ones way of thinking would likely be that combination, and then one of a couple of Hebrew words that could mean thinking or thought. The three that I found are tarit -taw resh aiyn yod taw - meaning thought or thinking as a mental process, seah - sinn het - meaning plan course or thought, and sekwi - sinn kaf waw yod - meaning mind.

I don't think there is a perfect Hebrew equivalent, and I don't have any translations of the RC into Hebrew to see what others have used, so this is my best educated guess.
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  
#97 Posted : Monday, January 18, 2010 7:31:01 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Me and James should now have the first six Chapters of the new section of Yada Yahweh.

PM James or email me theway - at - thewaytoyahuweh.com (replace - at - with @) in order to obtain a copy :)

Or go to http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/contact and use that to send me an email :)

Edited by user Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:55:33 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline RidesWithYah  
#98 Posted : Friday, January 22, 2010 3:32:25 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Thanks to Stephen for sending me the first 3 chapters; of which I confess I've read only 2.
And I've now found my first major stumbling block, or point of disagreement.
(And it has nothing to do with Paul.)

Page 17 of Chapter 1 says,
Quote:
“observing the Torah,” doesn’t mean to “do it,” but instead to “carefully examine” what it says so as to comprehend its message


I'm all for careful examination to comprehend the message.
But I believe we're called to do both -- DO, and carefully examine, so that we understand the reasons and the lessons.
It's the key to building our relationship with Yah.
(In my mind, Matthew 5:17-20 says this EXACTLY -- "whoever practices AND teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven")

Yahshua didn't tell us to "understand" or "comprehend"; he told us to "do" and to "obey".

See for example:
Matthew 7:21-23
Matthew 28:18-20
Mark 10:17-27
Luke 6:46-49
Luke 10:25-28
John 15:1-17
Ja'aqob (James) 1:19-27
1John2:1-8

Looked at another way--
The family is a picture of Yahweh's relationship with us.
I remember being a rebellious teenager in my parents' home.
They would have preferred my following their rules because I understood completely the reasons for them;
They would have settled for my following their rules blindly because I trusted them to know what's best;
We could have reasonably coexisted, had I followed their rules out of respect.
There would have been hell to pay if I told them I didn't have to follow their rules -- that they were going to love me even if I didn't obey, because I was under grace.
And I don't think it would have gone much more smoothly had I said "I'm not going to follow the rules, but yes, I understand them."

History tells us there was another school of thought that taught "Knowledge" or "Understanding" as the key to salvation.
Let's not fall into that trap.
Offline Swalchy  
#99 Posted : Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:07:31 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Well, as it's very unlikely that Yada will read this thread, you should email him you thoughts on this at email - at - yadayahweh.com (replace - at - with @)

:)
Offline Yada  
#100 Posted : Saturday, January 23, 2010 7:14:55 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

As I read the first chapter, I'm still confused by the "Divine Placeholders" and the point Yada is trying to make. Yada writes:

Quote:
"And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to their wording, the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored. There isn’t even a footnote in any of our English translations indicating that these Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts, including the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by translators, substituting the very names and titles which would have been written out by the original authors had they been intended."


Then, a paragraph later:

Quote:
"This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing Yahweh’s name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahweh’s name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain, what seemed perfectly obvious: the Divine Placeholders ΚΣ and ΚΥ were used to designate Yahuweh’s name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its sounds.

Also by finding “Yahuweh” written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Covenant Scriptures, especially in those dating to the first and second centuries BCE and CE, we have an interesting affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was accurate. Yahweh’s name can’t be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet, so to avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was initially used, and then, after Hebrew became a dead language, Greek symbolism was substituted.


So, which was it - could the original authors written out the Names and titles if they had intended?, or, "the Divine Placeholders ΚΣ and ΚΥ were used to designate Yahuweh’s name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its sounds"?

I must confess I'm still not clear on the purpose of the use of these "placeholders." Perhaps someone on the forum can help clear this up for me.

Thanks.
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
5 Pages<1234>»
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.