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

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<2345>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Swalchy  
#151 Posted : Tuesday, February 23, 2010 8:15:41 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

In His Name wrote:
Swalchy, I stand guilty of offering this text without subjecting it to a scholarly vetting. In my defense, I did not understand that to be the standard for this site, I offered it to stimulate the discussion at hand. To hold this theory (JWO) or any other theory, as truth is dangerous. As soon as we accept any theory as truth, we close our minds to new ideas. I sense this attitude in the sources you provide.


Unfortunately IHN, I have seen numerous people on here quote things from JWO or at least mention it in their posts, who don't appear to be testing what is said in JWO, but taking it as absolute truth. Whether this is my misinterpretation of people's posts or not, I don't know, but others I have talked to have also come to a similar conclusion.

Regardless, the sources I referred to had actually read Eisenman's books, but found them wanting. Geza Vermes even quoted from it numerous times and also pointed out that Eisenman hadn't noted the results of the Carbon dating of the Qumran manuscripts. One of Eisenmans core theories is that the non-Scriptural scrolls found in the Qumran-caves all come from the same people who wrote them in the first century CE (specifically in the midst of the first century CE). So convinced was he that Eisenman got the Institut fur Mittelenergiephysik at Zurich to Carbon date some of the non-Scriptural manuscripts, expecting them to come back as being definitely from the first century CE, and therefore prove his theory. Unfortunately for Eisenman, the Carbon dating of the parchments didn't come back as he wanted, and actually showed them to be Pre-First Century CE, not from teh first century CE. Therefore Eisenman's theory that the texts speaking of the "The Zaddic" and "The man of lies" are talking of James/Ya'qob and Paul are wrong, for they were written before Ya'qob and Paul even existed.

Quote:
And even with your rebuttal, I still do not see how JWO has been destroyed.


The Author of JWO picked and chose what to say about Eisenman's work, and failed to give a full picture to the reader of why Eisenman thought that the Qumran documents were about Ya'qob and Paul. And the things that he chose from Eisenman's work as "truth" turned out to be quite false. Geza Vermes (source 1 above) released that document in 1992, 18 years ago. If I found it quite easily, then the author of JWO must surely, if he wasn't just being plain biased, been able to find it and read it as well.

Quote:
JWO said it was not possible to carbon date the ink.


I'm pretty sure that JWO is wrong on this one actually. I recall reading somewhere that they had been developing ways of being able to date the ink used on old manuscripts. Obviously not perfected just yet.

Quote:
I agree this is a specious argument since it is unlikely they would use 200 year old hides to write on. But the source you provide states that only 8 DSS documents were tested and did not indicate if any of these were the later documents in question.


It actually says 14 were from "the Judean Desert" which includes the DSS, the other Qumran texts, and also those from Nahal HEver, Masda, and Wadi Murabba'at, all of which are grouped together as one, with the non-Scriptural scrolls agreed to have come from the same people.

Quote:
That some of the documents were older is in keeping with the JWO theory of Qumran being a hiding place for the documents, not a scribal community.


Many scholar's agree with that, so that really isn't new or of any real prevalence. In fact, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible states, "[A]ll scholars agree that none of the biblical texts [were] actually composed at Qumran; on the contrary, they all originated before the Qumran period." Think most are agreed, however, that the non-Scriptural scrolls were written by the people who did indeed live at Qumran.

Quote:
Is it wrong to take a piece of a theory out of the whole (as JWO took pieces of Eisenman) and use it elsewhere? I remember Yada saying that he has used an authors research for the facts he provides, even though the authors conclusions are wrong. It seems to me that JWO has taken 'facts' from various sources and built them into a compelling argument.


Unfortunately, what JWO has taken from Eisenman (from which he has created an 8-page argument) has turned out to not be facts at all. What I despise most of all, is stating things as "facts" when they aren't, regardless of conclusion. If the author of JWO hasn't been honest here, what exactly is there to persuade me that he hasn't done the same thing elsewhere in his book?

Quote:
Swalchy, I recognize your superior background in this matter, please help me understand your issues with JWO.


lol, whilst I appreciate the compliment, I unfortunately don't agree that I have a superior anything with regards to looking up things. I'll admit that I haven't read all that much of JWO, but there are currently better things for me to do and read, and I trust that the people on here are going to be doing their usual digging around to find out whether the words of JWO are true or not.

All I can suggest is that when JWO quotes from something, you read at least 2 to 3 chapters before and after the quote he has quoted. I noticed he started an argument based on James chapter 2, but didn't mention James Chapter 1 at all and why he was omitting making any mention of it. He eventually gets to James chapter 1, but only quotes about 6 verses from it, in a cut-n-paste fashion.

edStuart wrote:
Who is JWO?


More "what" than "who" :) - JWO = Jesus' Words Only = www.jesuswordsonly.com/
Offline Matthew  
#152 Posted : Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:11:48 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's Yada's take on 2 Peter 3:15, what does he think about it?

Swalchy's translation:

"And think and consider, seem and deem, reckon and regard the patience and endurance, forbearance and perseverance, steadfastness and restraint of our Sovereign Master* to be as deliverance and preservation, salvation and safety, just as and exactly as our beloved and esteemed, dearly loved and highly regarded brother and fellow brethren Paul* also wrote and inscribed, recorded and composed to all of you in accordance with and with regards to, in relation to and with respect to the wisdom and intelligence, knowledge, sophistication and insight that has been given and granted, supplied and furnished, bestowed and delivered, committed and permitted, extended and presented to him, as, like and similar to the way he does within and inside all his individual and collective letters, messages and epistles, speaking, chatting and talking about and concerning, regarding and on account of, because of and with respect to these things within and inside them."

ISR:

"...and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Sha’ul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,"

Offline James  
#153 Posted : Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:26:37 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)
Matt Yada covers that in the Kataginosko chapter of QP.

http://questioningpaul.c...icted_and_Condemned.Paul
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  
#154 Posted : Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:29:04 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)
Thanks James, the Google search bar didn't seem to really work.

Another question, Yada has ""Consider (hegeomai – think about and regard, be directed and guided by, be counseled and led by) the degree which (kathos – accordingly) the Upright One (KY – Yahuweh) steadfastly forebears (makrothumai – showing restraint which consistently and patiently endures) the process of our salvation (soteria – the means to our deliverance)." (2 Peter 3:15)" but what Greek word does he use to justify the translation "the process"?
Offline Swalchy  
#155 Posted : Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:13:44 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

He tells you - soteria - Strongs #G4991 - feminine noun from the masculine noun soter/σωτηρ/#G4990, from the verb sozo/σωζω/#G4982. But then again, you'd need to read The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) to get an actual meaning for each of these Greek words. The strong's Lexicon is a basic lexicon, not a more thorough dictionary as the TDNT, or as the Liddel-Scott A Greek-English Lexicon.
Offline edStueart  
#156 Posted : Monday, March 1, 2010 3:11:07 PM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Two Very Good Reasons Why a Jew Cannot Believe in Jesus Are Clearly Stated in the New Testament.
Submitted By Hakham Meir Yosef Rekhavi

1. Galatians 5.2 says, "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

Are you circumcised? Then why bother to follow a Christ who will profit you nothing? But you may say, Paul is only talking to Gentiles so that they should not first join the Jews via the Abrahamic covenant in order to become followers of Jesus. Not so for the next verse of the same chapter warns:

2. "Every man that is circumcised, he is a debtor to do the whole law."

This means that all Jews are debtors to do the whole Tora. Paul then goes on to say that if you are keeping the Tora you are fallen from grace (vs. 4). Jews are circumcised, therefore Christ will profit them nothing, because they are circumcised they must keep the Tora, and because they keep the Tora they are fallen from grace.

Paul even says, "Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Galatians 3.10). But those who are circumcised and wish to do the commandments are no longer justified in the sight of God (vs. 11). See also Acts 13.39, Romans 7.4.

So Paul a man and only a man whose logic defies reason says, damned if you keep the Tora (Gal. 5:4, 3:11) and damned if you don't keep the Tora (Gal. 3:10).

But YHWH the Eternal One, creator of the universe, giver of life, all-merciful, all-powerful giver of the Tora to the Children of Yisrael says, "My judgements you shall do, and my laws you shall keep to walk in them, I am YHWH your God. And you shall keep my laws and my judgements, which when a human does them, he lives by them, I am YHWH." (Lev. 18:4-5) and, "And all that I say to you, you are to keep." (Ex. 23:13) and again, "Only be strong and very courageous, to keep and to do according to all the Tora, which Moshe my servant commanded you; turn not from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may prosper wherever you go." (Josh. 1:7)

So to whom are you going to listen, Paul or YHWH?

Here is the original article: http://www.karaites.org.uk/two_reasons.shtml
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline sirgodfrey  
#157 Posted : Monday, March 1, 2010 7:31:39 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

edStueart wrote:
Two Very Good Reasons Why a Jew Cannot Believe in Jesus Are Clearly Stated in the New Testament.
Submitted By Hakham Meir Yosef Rekhavi

1. Galatians 5.2 says, "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

Are you circumcised? Then why bother to follow a Christ who will profit you nothing? But you may say, Paul is only talking to Gentiles so that they should not first join the Jews via the Abrahamic covenant in order to become followers of Jesus. Not so for the next verse of the same chapter warns:

2. "Every man that is circumcised, he is a debtor to do the whole law."

This means that all Jews are debtors to do the whole Tora. Paul then goes on to say that if you are keeping the Tora you are fallen from grace (vs. 4). Jews are circumcised, therefore Christ will profit them nothing, because they are circumcised they must keep the Tora, and because they keep the Tora they are fallen from grace.

Paul even says, "Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Galatians 3.10). But those who are circumcised and wish to do the commandments are no longer justified in the sight of God (vs. 11). See also Acts 13.39, Romans 7.4.

So Paul a man and only a man whose logic defies reason says, damned if you keep the Tora (Gal. 5:4, 3:11) and damned if you don't keep the Tora (Gal. 3:10).

But YHWH the Eternal One, creator of the universe, giver of life, all-merciful, all-powerful giver of the Tora to the Children of Yisrael says, "My judgements you shall do, and my laws you shall keep to walk in them, I am YHWH your God. And you shall keep my laws and my judgements, which when a human does them, he lives by them, I am YHWH." (Lev. 18:4-5) and, "And all that I say to you, you are to keep." (Ex. 23:13) and again, "Only be strong and very courageous, to keep and to do according to all the Tora, which Moshe my servant commanded you; turn not from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may prosper wherever you go." (Josh. 1:7)

So to whom are you going to listen, Paul or YHWH?

Here is the original article: http://www.karaites.org.uk/two_reasons.shtml



Very interesting stuff. This whole Paul may be a false teacher is so interesting. It is definitely funny for Yah to uplift His Torah so much throughout scripture, but then have areas in the bible where Torah is swept to the side (by a "prophet" or apostle) as if it is not as important today.
Offline Matthew  
#158 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:00:52 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:
1. Galatians 5.2 says, "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

2. "Every man that is circumcised, he is a debtor to do the whole law."


When I read this in Galatians I still see it differently to the way Yada sees it. From my understanding the words in Galatians are concerning the moment of "conversion", the moment of receiving God's Spirit. The author of Galatians seems to understand that God gives His Spirit to a believer, regardless of being circumcised or not. There are members on the forum who are uncircumcised, well they were at the start of the Galatians debate, so here we have a dilemma, are they saved or not? I'm pretty sure they were "saved" then and are still now "saved"!

The topic of Galatians could be defined as: is being circumcised a prerequisite for receiving God's Spirit? In this case the author thinks receiving the Spirit at conversion is a guarantee of salvation, if one continues in the walk and does not willingly turn their back on Yahweh.

From my understanding the point of Galatians is separating those who believe Yahshua to be the Messiah and that He saved them completely from those who want to earn salvation through their own sweat and blood, regardless of whether they believe in the Messiah or not. Galatians is trying to say that if a person wants to earn salvation on their own merit, by their own sweat and blood, then they are indebted to keep the whole law, so if a person thinks that through their own pain and blood of being circumcised they can earn salvation then they are indebted to keep every single law within the Torah perfectly. And only one Person has been able to do that, and He did it for us.

Abraham tried to fulfill the promise on his own merit, and it did not go well. But the next time round he trusted Yahweh to fulfill the promise. Abraham still had to go and have sex, he still had to obey, but the difference was trying to do it in one's own strength versus trusting Yahweh to accomplish what was needed.

It's about perception really, one chooses to be circumcised, not to earn salvation, but because God asked one to do it, if however one wants to earn salvation on one's own merit by being circumcised then I personally think one's making a mockery of Yahshua's crucifixion, as if somehow it's not His blood that saves but by our own blood.

The question is: if the book of Galatians did not exist, would we come to the similar conclusion.

PS: I'm not trying to defend Galatians here, especially since the controversy surrounding it and I'm personally still confused about whether it's legit and about whether it was Paul wrote it. But my point was to share the way I see what Galatians is trying to say.

Here's a question: does God accept a Xhosa person if they come to belief but were initianally circumcised through Xhosa traditions prior to "conversion"?

Here's another question: why is there no mention of circumcision in the 10 Commandments? Why were the 10 Commandments placed within the Ark while the Torah only beside it?
Offline James  
#159 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 3:14:47 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:
When I read this in Galatians I still see it differently to the way Yada sees it. From my understanding the words in Galatians are concerning the moment of "conversion", the moment of receiving God's Spirit. The author of Galatians seems to understand that God gives His Spirit to a believer, regardless of being circumcised or not. There are members on the forum who are uncircumcised, well they were at the start of the Galatians debate, so here we have a dilemma, are they saved or not? I'm pretty sure they were "saved" then and are still now "saved"!

The topic of Galatians could be defined as: is being circumcised a prerequisite for receiving God's Spirit? In this case the author thinks receiving the Spirit at conversion is a guarantee of salvation, if one continues in the walk and does not willingly turn their back on Yahweh.

From my understanding the point of Galatians is separating those who believe Yahshua to be the Messiah and that He saved them completely from those who want to earn salvation through their own sweat and blood, regardless of whether they believe in the Messiah or not. Galatians is trying to say that if a person wants to earn salvation on their own merit, by their own sweat and blood, then they are indebted to keep the whole law, so if a person thinks that through their own pain and blood of being circumcised they can earn salvation then they are indebted to keep every single law within the Torah perfectly. And only one Person has been able to do that, and He did it for us.

Abraham tried to fulfill the promise on his own merit, and it did not go well. But the next time round he trusted Yahweh to fulfill the promise. Abraham still had to go and have sex, he still had to obey, but the difference was trying to do it in one's own strength versus trusting Yahweh to accomplish what was needed.

It's about perception really, one chooses to be circumcised, not to earn salvation, but because God asked one to do it, if however one wants to earn salvation on one's own merit by being circumcised then I personally think one's making a mockery of Yahshua's crucifixion, as if somehow it's not His blood that saves but by our own blood.

The question is: if the book of Galatians did not exist, would we come to the similar conclusion.


I agree with what you are saying, at least in terms of trust is what saves us, and not fulfilling the Torah. The only problem I have is, I don't see hoe you can come to that conclusion through reading Galatians. Paul didn't say that you can't be saved through circumcision, he said that if you are circumcised you can't be saved. Paul didn't say that if you want to be saved through circumcision that you have to follow the whole Torah, we said that if you are circumcised you have to follow the whole Torah.

To answer your final question I think the idea is prevalent throughout all of the Torah, it's the whole message of the Sabbath. We can't work for our Salvation, God alone has done the work. So yes we would have this with out Galatians. I think people have read this into Galatians when it is not there. So wither that is what Paul meant, and he is an absolutely horrible communicator, or we are reading that into him when it was not meant.

Matt wrote:
PS: I'm not trying to defend Galatians here, especially since the controversy surrounding it and I'm personally still confused about whether it's legit and about whether it was Paul wrote it. But my point was to share the way I see what Galatians is trying to say.

Here's a question: does God accept a Xhosa person if they come to belief but were initianally circumcised through Xhosa traditions prior to "conversion"?

Here's another question: why is there no mention of circumcision in the 10 Commandments? Why were the 10 Commandments placed within the Ark while the Torah only beside it?


I agree completely circumcision is not God's most important sign or commandment, the only reason it has come up is that is where Paul choose to build his argument (I believe it is because Paul hated his own people, and this was one of there most basic practices). I don't think that you have to be circumcised to receive God's Spirit, but I think that if you have received Yah's Spirit, you would want to follow his instructions, and if you are not circumcised, get circumcised, and have your kids circumcised, not because it will save you, but because he asked you to.

I don't know what a Xhosa is so I can't answer that one sorry.
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  
#160 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:10:57 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)
James wrote:
Paul didn't say that you can't be saved through circumcision, he said that if you are circumcised you can't be saved. Paul didn't say that if you want to be saved through circumcision that you have to follow the whole Torah, we said that if you are circumcised you have to follow the whole Torah.


Hmmm... I will need to look again into Galatians because what you're saying here makes sense as it quite possibly is what the authour intended to say.

Quote:
=JamesI don't know what a Xhosa is so I can't answer that one sorry.


African tribe found in the south-east of South Africa. Mandela is a Xhosa. Some strange ritual performed at about the age of 17, involving painting oneself white and living in the bush for a week, moving from boyhood to manhood.
Offline James  
#161 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:13:52 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:
African tribe found in the south-east of South Africa. Mandela is a Xhosa. Some strange ritual performed at about the age of 17, involving painting oneself white and living in the bush for a week, moving from boyhood to manhood.


Sounds like a fun ritual.
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  
#162 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 2:10:21 PM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Was this tribe in the news in the past year because the Mediine Man diced when he should have sliced and instead of entering into manhood the poor kid lost his?
“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 Matthew  
#163 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:37:51 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)
In His Name wrote:
Was this tribe in the news in the past year because the Mediine Man diced when he should have sliced and instead of entering into manhood the poor kid lost his?


Probably, because unfortunately with cheap alcohol mixed into the rituals now there are often reportings of circumcisions that result in the boys becoming headless, one could say a semi-eunuch. And unfortunately some bleed to death. It's quite sad really.
Offline Heretic Steve  
#164 Posted : Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:39:26 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio

I apologise as I've been awol.
I read the announcements day before yesterday, something not usually done. Big mistake. I read where Paul was an unreliable wittness of Yah.
Big kick in the gut, especially after having read so many references to Paul in YY.
I read about the "recent discussions" regarding Paul's unreliability. I'm thinking, "What discussions?". Did a search and saw a reference to QP, which I then copied from the library comp-all 472 pages at a nickel per page. Been reading it nearly every waking moment since and all that can be said is thank Yah for YY, Yada, and the rest of the members of this forum, (Ekklesia).
QP answered some nagging thoughts. Mainly, since Yahshua said the Pharisee's were born of Halal's spirit, then how could Paul,(who I thought was a Pharisee), be a true wittness of Yah.
QP supported my concern as apparently Paul was not a true wittness.


Back to QP.
Later...



If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline RidesWithYah  
#165 Posted : Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:25:31 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Swalchy made reference to Eisenman's work, which is (mis?) quoted extensively in JWO.
Here's a link to the original book at Amazon.

I've only read the first few chapters so far, so can't comment too much, but so far it's an interesting read.
VERY thick, but those of us here at YY should be used to that... <grin>
Offline James  
#166 Posted : Friday, March 26, 2010 3:07:16 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)
Heretic Steve wrote:
Mainly, since Yahshua said the Pharisee's were born of Halal's spirit, then how could Paul,(who I thought was a Pharisee), be a true wittness of Yah.
QP supported my concern as apparently Paul was not a true wittness.

While he did call them that, there is mention in Acts of former Pharisee who were followers of the way. This doesn't absolve Paul, but it is important to note.
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 SWest  
#167 Posted : Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:24:23 AM(UTC)
SWest
Joined: 8/16/2010(UTC)
Posts: 16
Location: Florida

I'm new here at YadaYahweh, and have started reading the pages on Galations. now at p.37

Yesterday I was banned from a forum I've been on for several years, because I brought up the Shaul debate. Below is what came up on the screen when I logged in.

(((((You have been banned for the following reason:
Blatant Heresy!... and disregarding my admonition of usurping Divine Scripture.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never))))))))) OUCH!

I am 100% convinced that Shaul (Saul) was not only a False Apostle, but even worse.
I'll go into that later.

There can only be 12 Apostles as stated in Revelation. There is no room for 13, and in the beginning of Acts it is stated that the 12th Apostle to replace Judas needed to be a person who was:

(I use The Scriptures)

Act 1:20 “For it has been written in the Book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling lie waste, and let no one live in it,’ and, ‘Let another take his office.’

Act 1:21 “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have been with us all the time that the Master יהושע went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 beginning from the immersion of Yoḥanan to that day when He was taken up from us, that one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Act 1:23 And they put forward two: Yosĕph called Barsabba, who was also called Justus, and Mattithyahu.

Act 1:24 And praying they said, “You, יהוה, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two You have chosen

Act 1:25 to receive the share in this service and office of the emissary from which Yehuḏah by transgression fell, to go to his own place.”

Act 1:26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Mattithyahu. And he was numbered with the eleven emissaries.


In Yahushua,
SWest


Offline Swalchy  
#168 Posted : Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:01:50 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Should probably give the following topic a read first before completely making up your mind: http://www.yadanews.com/...at-Galatians-Debate.aspx

And the document I have done found at http://www.thewaytoyahuw...did-paul-write-galatians
Offline bigritchie  
#169 Posted : Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:14:07 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

SWest wrote:
I'm new here at YadaYahweh, and have started reading the pages on Galations. now at p.37

Yesterday I was banned from a forum I've been on for several years, because I brought up the Shaul debate. Below is what came up on the screen when I logged in.

(((((You have been banned for the following reason:
Blatant Heresy!... and disregarding my admonition of usurping Divine Scripture.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never))))))))) OUCH!

I am 100% convinced that Shaul (Saul) was not only a False Apostle, but even worse.
I'll go into that later.

There can only be 12 Apostles as stated in Revelation. There is no room for 13, and in the beginning of Acts it is stated that the 12th Apostle to replace Judas needed to be a person who was:

(I use The Scriptures)

Act 1:20 “For it has been written in the Book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling lie waste, and let no one live in it,’ and, ‘Let another take his office.’

Act 1:21 “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have been with us all the time that the Master יהושע went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 beginning from the immersion of Yoḥanan to that day when He was taken up from us, that one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Act 1:23 And they put forward two: Yosĕph called Barsabba, who was also called Justus, and Mattithyahu.

Act 1:24 And praying they said, “You, יהוה, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two You have chosen

Act 1:25 to receive the share in this service and office of the emissary from which Yehuḏah by transgression fell, to go to his own place.”

Act 1:26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Mattithyahu. And he was numbered with the eleven emissaries.


In Yahushua,
SWest




People get really mad if you mention anything bad about their god Paul. (Telling christians to obey Jesus will result in really fast bannings from christian forums hehe)

(and I do not mean that regarding Paul, rather his worshipers)

And when it boils down to it, Paul is the god of christianity, and Messianics spend way to much time saying "but Paul says"

Whether Paul was a false prophet or not though, Messiah himself commended assemblies for questioning Apostles, a point most seem to miss.
Offline TRosso  
#170 Posted : Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:49:01 PM(UTC)
TRosso
Joined: 8/16/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3
Location: Florida

SWest wrote:
I'm new here at YadaYahweh, and have started reading the pages on Galations. now at p.37

Yesterday I was banned from a forum I've been on for several years, because I brought up the Shaul debate. Below is what came up on the screen when I logged in.

(((((You have been banned for the following reason:
Blatant Heresy!... and disregarding my admonition of usurping Divine Scripture.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never))))))))) OUCH!

I am 100% convinced that Shaul (Saul) was not only a False Apostle, but even worse.
I'll go into that later.

There can only be 12 Apostles as stated in Revelation. There is no room for 13, and in the beginning of Acts it is stated that the 12th Apostle to replace Judas needed to be a person who was:

(I use The Scriptures)

Act 1:20 “For it has been written in the Book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling lie waste, and let no one live in it,’ and, ‘Let another take his office.’

Act 1:21 “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have been with us all the time that the Master יהושע went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 beginning from the immersion of Yoḥanan to that day when He was taken up from us, that one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Act 1:23 And they put forward two: Yosĕph called Barsabba, who was also called Justus, and Mattithyahu.

Act 1:24 And praying they said, “You, יהוה, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two You have chosen

Act 1:25 to receive the share in this service and office of the emissary from which Yehuḏah by transgression fell, to go to his own place.”

Act 1:26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Mattithyahu. And he was numbered with the eleven emissaries.


In Yahushua,
SWest




Shalom, I am new the forum as well.

It is interesting that when you question their source, they always quote Paul. But when you ask them to juxtapose it a reference on what Yahushua said regarding a matter, they revert to Paul or get angry.

As pointed out in YY material and many other reference materials like the Scriptures, Paul seemingly contradicts Yahushua.

It would be seem that a fair litmus test for the Truth would be a comparison between what man said and what Yahuweh or Yahushua said...

Blessings, TRosso
Offline SWest  
#171 Posted : Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:38:12 PM(UTC)
SWest
Joined: 8/16/2010(UTC)
Posts: 16
Location: Florida

... just a thought.

If Shaul was Yahushua's top fellow to get the story straight,
why would He entrust John with the Revelation instead of Shaul?


Another burden:

Shaul said:

1Co 15:10 But by the favour of Elohim I am what I am, and His favour toward me was not in vain, but I laboured much more than they all, yet not I, but the favour of Elohim with me.

Yahushua warned:

Luk 21:8 And He said, “See that you are not led astray, for many shall come in My Name, saying, ‘I am,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Then do not go after them.

I've always thought that was kind of spooky.

SWest
Offline Swalchy  
#172 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:27:43 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

SWest wrote:
Shaul said:

1Co 15:10 But by the favour of Elohim I am what I am, and His favour toward me was not in vain, but I laboured much more than they all, yet not I, but the favour of Elohim with me.

Yahushua warned:

Luk 21:8 And He said, “See that you are not led astray, for many shall come in My Name, saying, ‘I am,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Then do not go after them.

I've always thought that was kind of spooky.

SWest


Actually, Paul says "ειμι ο ειμι/eimi hos eimi" for "I am what I am" in 1 Cor 15:10; in Luke 21:8, the Greek is "εγω ειμι/ego eimi" for "I am". So the two aren't connected in the slightest.

Doing a quick search, there aren't any places in the attributed, undisputed, disputed, or completely rejected "Pauline" letters where the words "ego eimi" are found.

If people are going to start picking on things they see, they're gonna have to check the Greek before they post something - English translations are a hindrance, rather than a help.
Offline Matthew  
#173 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:38:37 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)
TRosso wrote:
It is interesting that when you question their source, they always quote Paul. But when you ask them to juxtapose it a reference on what Yahushua said regarding a matter, they revert to Paul or get angry.

As pointed out in YY material and many other reference materials like the Scriptures, Paul seemingly contradicts Yahushua.


Welcome to the forum TRosso, hope you enjoy the ride, because it surely is!

Guys, one thing that begs me to continue questioning Yada's work on Paul is when it comes to juxtaposing Paul (or the unknown author of Galatians) with Yahshua, or in this case not juxtaposing Paul (or the unknown author of Galatians) with Yahshua.

For example, in Chapter 10 of QP Yada takes Paul apart in Galatians 5:14, which says "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself"", saying that Paul conveniently didn't list the first bunch of the 10 Commandments that has to do with loving God, as if somehow Paul was guilty of breaking them. On Blogtalk Radio Yada slammed Paul saying that "loving God" was more important than "loving one's neighbour" and Paul should've said that instead. In a general context of Scripture yes it's fine to say, but not in the context of what the author of Galatians was saying. BECAUSE, Yahshua a very similar thing in Matthew 7:7-12

Quote:
7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


Yada made no comparison to what Yahshua said here in Matthew 7, why did Yahshua not say "loving God sums up the Law and the Prophets" seeing that one was requesting something from Yahweh and not being told to judge in the previous verses? Instead Yahshua said loving one's neighbour sums it up.
Offline bitnet  
#174 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:39:32 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Quote:
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


Let us not forget that Yahushua also reminded us that the whole Torah rests on two main principles: love Yahweh and love our neighbour. We simply cannot have one without the other. If we respect Him enough to understand His mercy and receive His blessings, then that first part comes into play as we acknowledge Him as the giver and sustainer of life. Loving each other is good but not at the expense of not loving Yahweh. The whole world is trying to put one foot in front into the light by believing that all will be well if we are nice to each other, but the problems of the world are primarily caused because we cannot agree on which God we are supposed to be nice hence the step back into the darkness.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline MadDog  
#175 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:04:08 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Matthew wrote:
Welcome to the forum TRosso, hope you enjoy the ride, because it surely is!

Guys, one thing that begs me to continue questioning Yada's work on Paul is when it comes to juxtaposing Paul (or the unknown author of Galatians) with Yahshua, or in this case not juxtaposing Paul (or the unknown author of Galatians) with Yahshua.

For example, in Chapter 10 of QP Yada takes Paul apart in Galatians 5:14, which says "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself"", saying that Paul conveniently didn't list the first bunch of the 10 Commandments that has to do with loving God, as if somehow Paul was guilty of breaking them. On Blogtalk Radio Yada slammed Paul saying that "loving God" was more important than "loving one's neighbour" and Paul should've said that instead. In a general context of Scripture yes it's fine to say, but not in the context of what the author of Galatians was saying. BECAUSE, Yahshua a very similar thing in Matthew 7:7-12

Yada made no comparison to what Yahshua said here in Matthew 7, why did Yahshua not say "loving God sums up the Law and the Prophets" seeing that one was requesting something from Yahweh and not being told to judge in the previous verses? Instead Yahshua said loving one's neighbour sums it up.


So either Yahshua is lying or Shual is lying? I think you are reading scripture backwards. You need to start from the beginning. Anything that contradticts the Torah is a lie. Shual can not or should not contradict the Torah whatsoever because IF he does that would make Yahweh a liar.

I, myself, can try and summarize the Torah and even if I get a nuggett or two of truth in there, it does not make it scripture. However the rest of Shual's letters seriously and critically codemn the Torah as IF Shual could with a wave of his hand undo THE WORD.

Shual on the other hand, according to the current world view, IS, considered scripture and Yada has hit the nail on it's head...Shual is a false prophet and that is the reason this whole world is upside down.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#176 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:36:20 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I think the issue is that Yahushua is trustworthy - obviously lol and that in Matt 7 He is recorded saying "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." So for Paul to (supposedly) say that he would have to be saying it AFTER Yahushua. So if you say Paul is wrong, then Yahushua is wrong - in THIS regard, because He said it first. lol
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Matthew  
#177 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:54:24 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)
Nice post bitnet, you've highlighted something important.

Through chapter 10 of QP, especially the part in regards to Galatians 5:14, Yada tries to point out the Paul has separated these two principles on purpose, hoping that the author's audience wouldn't pick up on his alleged failure to keep the 10 Commandments regarding the "loving Yahweh" part. I see Yada's point of view, and if I didn't read and know the rest of the New Testament (Renewed Covenant, whatever we should call it now) and the writings of Paul then I would agree with Yada. But when I read Paul's writings (i.e. Romans 7:12,22) it's quite clear he speaks highly of the Torah and believes loving God through understanding the Torah (i.e. 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:14) is important. It's also obvious he paraphrases Yahshua is many cases, for example the passages being discussed in regards to loving one's neighbour being the summation of the Torah and Prophets. I don't see the author trying to separate the two, but rather in context saying how important it is to love one's neighbour, because it does truly sum up the Torah and Prophets, but obviously it will all be in vain if one does not love Yahweh first. Peter also highlights the need to love's one neighbour because of the grace given to us by Yahweh in 1 Peter 1:22. Both Paul and Peter continuously stress the importance of being "holy", well set-apart according to the Torah.

Plus Galatians 5:14 refers to the law, which we believe is the Torah in this case. So if they went to their local Synagogue to hear the Torah being read it would be quite obvious that one must love Yahweh.

Please don't get me wrong guys, I still highly respect and like Yada and am thankful for all he's done, and will do. The fact I sort of disagree with him doesn't mean I disagree with him on every point he has ever made. With that sort of logic it means I would be classified as a good Muslim. And plus the fact it seems as if I'm defending Paul doesn't mean I hang upon every word he says. This whole Galatians debate has made me somewhat dizzy, I jumped on to Yada's boat at first, then off it, then half back on it, then off it again, a roller-coaster in other words. I'm still somewhat confused about it, and haven't really made up my mind about it. I just know that I'm not fully with Yada on this one.

MadDog, I do agree that if something contradicts Torah, within the current book we call the Bible, then those books shouldn't be called Scripture. However, I'm not happy with the way Yada's argument is going. I think the way he slams Paul (or the author of Galatians) in regards to 5:14 and Romans 13:8-10 is uncalled-for, especially since Yahshua said similar things in Matthew 7 first.

SWest wrote:
Shaul said:

1Co 15:10 But by the favour of Elohim I am what I am, and His favour toward me was not in vain, but I laboured much more than they all, yet not I, but the favour of Elohim with me.


In 1 Corinthians Paul wasn't saying that he himself is Yahweh, or the Messiah, but rather expressing thankfulness to that fact Yahweh has allowed him to share the Good News even though he originally persecuted the body of believers in Jerusalem.

On Blogtalk Radio Yada slammed Paul for equating himself to the Messiah in Galatians 4:14, but the author of Galatians was saying they welcomed him as if he was the Messiah but not that he was the Messiah. I'm not a Greek linguistic but if I compare that message to Matthew 25:34-40 Yahshua admonishes us when we treat people as if we were treating the Messiah Himself. That doesn't mean we bow down to them and worship them, it just means we should treat them the way we want to be treated, it's called loving one's neighbour Torah style. Maybe the Galatians were inspired by what the Messiah had said earlier, hence why they were treating the author of Galatians with such great respect.
Offline bigritchie  
#178 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:22:05 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

I think it is very interesting if one takes the time to go through for instance Romans Chapter 3.

And watch how Paul quotes verses from all over the Tanakh to prove no one is justified by the law.

THEN, you go and actually read where he is talking about and read the "verse" in context..............

Then you see the game. Then you see why Gentiles were fooled, and Jews rioted at the feast in Jerusalem.

So for example. Read Romans 3:10-18.

He quotes:
Psalms 14:1-5
Psalms 5:9
Psalms 140:3
Psalms 10:7
Isaiah 59:7-8
Psalms 36:1

Now read what Paul says and the conclusion Paul comes to, and then read from the Tanakh IN CONTEXT what Paul is quoting. Take the time to read the entire "Chapter" from where Paul is quoting.

The entire Paul sham is run on people being

#1 Ignorant of the Tanakh
#2 Only reading the one "verse" or sentence Paul quotes
#3 Pre-conceived notions.

It is just like how Galatians play with "The just shall live by Faith", and then attacks anyone who keeps Torah.

Another good example is when Paul is trying to push the point that the Creator hated Esau from Birth. I mean what utter nonsense. And he quotes out of Malachi, when if read in context is talking about the DESCENDANTS of Esau.

Or Paul using the "ox treading out corn muzzled" as a excuse for religious people to "reap material things from you".

When about any Farmer can tell you that if you muzzle a ox on a hot day, he will either refuse to work or possibly die on heat stroke. And Paul even says "Does God care about oxes?" (because clearly he did not give them the Sabbath off, and clearly Messiah did not mention that the Creator even knew when the smallest bird fell)

What Paul forgot to tell his readers was that oxes have the majority of their sweat glands on their muzzles.

Sadly Galatians is not the only problem.
Offline Swalchy  
#179 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:33:40 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

bigritchie wrote:
I think it is very interesting if one takes the time to go through for instance Romans Chapter 3.

And watch how Paul quotes verses from all over the Tanakh to prove no one is justified by the law.

THEN, you go and actually read where he is talking about and read the "verse" in context..............

Then you see the game. Then you see why Gentiles were fooled, and Jews rioted at the feast in Jerusalem...


Actually, the context for Paul's discussion you've taken a section from starts way back in Romans 1:17, and continues all the way to 8:17. So really, just reading one Chapter isn't going to help. Paul has a lot to say, without the help of a word processor.

And I doubt the Jews reading Romans 3 (for Paul mentions lots of Jewish names in Chapter 16, to whom the letter was written) would've been ignorant of from where Paul quotes the Tanakh - they themselves would've had easy access to a copy of the Tanakh to read and check what Paul said (And in Acts 17:12, Luke records the Berean's checking the Tanakh to make sure what Paul was saying was true).

But what do you make of Romans 2:13: For it is not the hears of the Torah who shall be upright before God, to the contrary it is the doers of the Torah who shall be declared upright? Sounds quite pro-Torah to me.

Quote:
Another good example is when Paul is trying to push the point that the Creator hated Esau from Birth. I mean what utter nonsense. And he quotes out of Malachi, when if read in context is talking about the DESCENDANTS of Esau.


I think that's your interpretation of Romans 9:9-13, especially as Paul doesn't say that "before they were born, God hated Esau". In fact, Yada has also stated that "Esau is the one person whom Yahuweh says he hates", and you know the only place in Scripture that specifically states that Yahuweh hated Esau? Yes - Malachi 1:3. Even if you can interprete Malachi chapter 1 as referring to the nations that came from Ya'qob and Esau, Scripture is replete with statements that not only refer to single individuals, but to a whole lot of people as well with the exact same words.

Take Hosea for instance. Hosea is Yahuweh speaking to Israel, and yet, isn't the whole of Yada's "Going Astray" section of YY stating that Hosea is also talking of America too, and not just the Israel of Hosea's time?

Quote:
Or Paul using the "ox treading out corn muzzled" as a excuse for religious people to "reap material things from you".

When about any Farmer can tell you that if you muzzle a ox on a hot day, he will either refuse to work or possibly die on heat stroke. And Paul even says "Does God care about oxes?" (because clearly he did not give them the Sabbath off, and clearly Messiah did not mention that the Creator even knew when the smallest bird fell)


Again, reading in the context from 9:1-18, Paul is pointing out to the Corinthians that others have taken advantage of their generosity, but he always spoke the good news without asking them for anything.

And where does Paul say anything about the Sabbath here? I think we're reading far too much into what is being said by Paul here, especially regarding oxen. Again, it's one of those places that not only applies to one thing, but also to another.

I mean, just look at the verses before Deuteronomy 25:4, and the ones after. They're all referring to humans. And yet we have this odd verse 4, which for some reason mentions not muzzling an ox, when Yahuweh hasn't said anything about animals since Deuteronomy 22:10. In fact it looks to me that Deuteronomy 25:4 would be better placed after 22:10, not randomly in the midst of instructions about marriage, loans, and disputes.

Quote:
What Paul forgot to tell his readers was that oxes have the majority of their sweat glands on their muzzles.


And everyone back in the 1st Century CE knew that? (I didn't even know that until I read what you've just written) Whilst I'm sure there's probably many things people can pick on to complain about, this is just going way too far. They didn't even know what SNOT actually was back then! Aristotle thought it was brain matter!

Quote:
Sadly Galatians is not the only problem.


Definitely agreed. But then again, if we're going to complain about Paul taking things out of context, are we allowed to look the other way when we do the same thing with what he also/supposedly wrote too?
Offline bigritchie  
#180 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:46:53 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Yea, man do not get me wrong, I know Paul in various places is Pro-Torah , like I always joke about how Romans 3:31 is always left out of the "Romans road to salvation" hehe.

I have defended O Paul quite a bit. But of course we have Paul on the other hand saying he becomes every man to every man depending on the situation to advance the "gospel of Christ"

I guess what I finally had to ask myself was this "Am I being just as biased as Christians when it comes to Paul and picking only what I want to show he is pro-Torah"? You know what I mean? Am I letting Paul just speak for himself? Am I so intent on showing Paul to be pro-Torah that I am ignoring the plain truth? Who knows?

Paul kind of reminds me of someone who committed a crime, and everyone suspects it, and there is alot of evidence that suggest he did it, but there is no 100% solid DNA evidence.

But yea the ox thing is strange. I actually do alot of farming and growing my own food, and called several places that raise Ox and sell them, or use them to "tread out the corn". And they all pretty much said "if you slap a muzzle on a ox and work with it on a hot day, it can die of a heat stroke".



Offline bigritchie  
#181 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:48:42 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

O regarding the Sabbath, I was meaning to point out:

Paul says "Does God care about the ox?"

My point was the Creator himself gave oxes the Sabbath off, and we have Messiah talking about how God knows when the smallest bird falls from the sky. I should have clarified myself better.

Offline Swalchy  
#182 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:17:38 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

bigritchie wrote:
Yea, man do not get me wrong, I know Paul in various places is Pro-Torah , like I always joke about how Romans 3:31 is always left out of the "Romans road to salvation" hehe.


Heh. Didn't mean to come across as a jerk, BR. It's just hard to fully understand what people are saying sometimes.

The main problem with Paul is that he takes a LONG TIME to explain his points, and each point leads on to another point for him to explain and conclude, which then leads him on to yet ANOTHER point that he has to explain and conclude, and before you know it there's 2000 words between a point and it's conclusion.

Unfortunately we have these verse numbers that make it very easy for us, all of us, to fall into the trap of cutting and pasting random verses to say what we think is being said. It's one of the reason's why I put them to the side on TWTY so that people can read everything in context, even if it looks like a huge mass of text.

It's probably how it looked to everyone else reading it, to be honest!

Quote:
I have defended O Paul quite a bit. But of course we have Paul on the other hand saying he becomes every man to every man depending on the situation to advance the "gospel of Christ"


Well, he says that's why he did (although I do need to go back and check all of these things), but he doesn't ever say "and so you should all do the same thing". It must also be pointed out that he only ever says this to the Corinthians, and not as something that they should do. Oddly enough, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is Paul being honest about himself - he's told the Corinthians what he does.

I should also point out that Paul says he becomes "as, like, or similar to" every man, whilst not actually being their exact equal. The word I'm referring to is the Greek ως/hos which is, according to the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, "a marker of weak relationships" . If Paul wanted to say "exactly like, just as, corresponding to", then there's two other Greek words that mean that - hosper and kathos. People are put off by the unknown, and I do think what Paul describes in 1 Cor 9 is his honest attempt at trying to reach all people, without going outside the bounds of the Torah.

Whether we agree with what he did or not is our opinion - without actually seeing exactly what he did, are we really in a position to judge whether he was right or not to do so?

I'm pretty sure there's lots of people who disagree with the way I go about doing things.

Quote:
I guess what I finally had to ask myself was this "Am I being just as biased as Christians when it comes to Paul and picking only what I want to show he is pro-Torah"? You know what I mean? Am I letting Paul just speak for himself? Am I so intent on showing Paul to be pro-Torah that I am ignoring the plain truth? Who knows? Paul kind of reminds me of someone who committed a crime, and everyone suspects it, and there is alot of evidence that suggest he did it, but there is no 100% solid DNA evidence.


I personally think that we should always search for the truth about everything, and that includes even those people that we may not like.

Paul is writing letters of instruction to Ekklesia's that have their own problems that needed dealing with - he's not generally concerned in his letters about theology, oddly enough. We know he travelled around, so he probably taught a lot more with actual speech than written letters.

And it must be noted that disregarding Romans and Galatians, there aren't any of Paul's other letters where the Ekklesia's appear to have had any trouble with following the Torah (and as far as I can see in Romans, the Roman's weren't complaing about following or not following the Torah either).

This is another of those cases where Galatian's is the odd one out among the attributed Pauline corpus. Something to add to TGGD I think :)

Quote:
But yea the ox thing is strange. I actually do alot of farming and growing my own food, and called several places that raise Ox and sell them, or use them to "tread out the corn". And they all pretty much said "if you slap a muzzle on a ox and work with it on a hot day, it can die of a heat stroke".


Ya see, I definitely did not know that.

Quote:
O regarding the Sabbath, I was meaning to point out:

Paul says "Does God care about the ox?"

My point was the Creator himself gave oxes the Sabbath off, and we have Messiah talking about how God knows when the smallest bird falls from the sky. I should have clarified myself better.


Unforutnately, English translations add two question marks to Paul's words, when actually it should go all the way from "Is it oxen that God is fully concerned about, or is it because of us that it cetainly speaks?" I think Paul is trying to point out that Deut 25:4 isn't just about oxen, it's also referring to humans too.
Offline bigritchie  
#183 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:26:39 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Well I agree with you regarding totally coming down on the guy.

To think he may be one of the Messiah friends and servant is scary. But then you have the other side........

I guess I should probably clarify regarding the entire Ox thing also, in case people are not familiar with it.

It is very much like how a dog cools itself through panting. A dog does not sweat. So if you muzzle a dog, and take him for a run on a hot day, you can kill him, because he cannot cool his body. While a ox does not cool itself via panting, the majority of its sweat glands are on its muzzle. So if you muzzled a ox and used it for farming labor, at best you are being cruel and are going to have a very pissed ox, and at worst, you will have a dead ox from heatstroke. (Where a cow has more sweat glands throughout its entire body, the ox anatomy for cooling is more pointed to his muzzle).

At best we have jumbled mess with Paul's letters or the letters the church claim Paul wrote. At best he is a legit guy stating his opinion alot, rambled on way to much without making himself clear and if we take his word as a excuse to break Torah we can destroy ourselves. Not to mention a entire religion created and based upon his words (not that it would be his fault if he is legit, he could not help what religious nuts do)

At worst the guy is bad new and a false prophet.

Both options are pretty scary, and it is sad "Christians" or even Messianics for that matter say "But Paul says" so much. Either the way the man is like holding a lit stick of dynamite.

I really hope as things continue on someone finds some ancient Hebrew Text of his letters (and the entire NT for that matter).

The entire thing with Paul is just maddening.
Offline BiynaYahu  
#184 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:53:25 PM(UTC)
BiynaYahu
Joined: 4/5/2008(UTC)
Posts: 314
Man
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Hello again everyone,

It's been a long time haha. I want to point out in Mattithyahu 7:15-20. The fruit of Paul is Christianity. Also he was a Beniyaminite. Bareshith 49:27 Beniyamin shall "raven like a wolf". I feel we simply don't lose anything without Sha'uwl, but his teachings, even if technically correct, may be too dangerous for the average person.


Your brother,
Mike Browell
Someone who does not dearly love or welcome, entertain, look fondly upon or cherish people with strong affection or highly esteem them with great favour, goodwill or benevolence, be loyal to or greatly adore them has not known or understood, perceived or realized, noticed or discerned, discovered or observed, experienced or ascertained, learned about or distinguished, comprehended, acknowledged or recognized God*, for concerning this, God* is and exists as brotherly love and affection, good will, esteem and benevolence.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#185 Posted : Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:47:44 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
bigritchie wrote:


Both options are pretty scary, and it is sad "Christians" or even Messianics for that matter say "But Paul says" so much. Either the way the man is like holding a lit stick of dynamite.

...

The entire thing with Paul is just maddening.


I have to completely agree with this.

I am 100% sure that Paul did not write Galatians, it is physically impossible - BUT that does not mean I see the rest of his work as a shining example of whatever. I don't look at the NT as Scripture at all for the simple reason that it has been so destroyed and added to and made up that you don't know which end is right. I still find it an interesting historical document though, and with the eye witness accounts fitting and revelation being almost too insane for someone to make up, yet still having the same prophetic locks being opened by the old "keys" as to say from Torah, it holds some water.

Saying Paul did not write Galatians instantly destroys Christianity, because so much is hung on it, as we know. But I believe it is more important to understand as much of what we can piece together as possible and give people a well researched and honest answer, instead of either jumping into the normal Paul lovers or Paul haters camp. This isn't really about Paul it is about accuracy and honesty. If we are truly seekers of truth we need to question everything everyone says, and at the end of the day the Truth is what will matter. If someone ask's our opinion about something we can return with a more solid fact like response. Logic and reason must rule out over the emotional response I have noticed this topic brings up.

And yes it is completely driving me mad lol

I have to reiterate again, because sometimes I think it gets lost, Swalchy and myself are not pro Paul. We do not hang anything on Paul we are mealy trying to look at what evidence we do have a draw a conclusion. I know I can speak for Swalchy as we meet every week and share almost the same opinion on this. So please do not take our questioning as defence of Paul to regain him some kind of seat of authority, because it is not - we just want to know the truth, and I believe the truth is a more powerful weapon.

Edited by user Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:35:37 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bigritchie  
#186 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 7:03:07 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

O yea, I totally understand!

And it is good that Swalchy is the way he is because it keeps the emotional rage from setting in, and keeps it more "scientific". And I hope you all understand that if we do post questions regarding Paul it is just because we are all curious and want the truth. Sadly there are not very people people on planet earth you can even have this conversation with hehe

Offline Matthew  
#187 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 9:04:10 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)
Regarding the Benjamin prophecy, does anyone know of an alternative view other than referring to Paul. The prophecy could easily refer to Saul if it's specific in regards to a person and not the tribe as a whole. Saul did try to kill David in the morning.
Offline kp  
#188 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 10:20:51 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

The Benjamin prophecy of Genesis 49:27, where he's called a "ravenous wolf"? Is the theory that Paul, who was a Benjamite, was therefore automatically a ravenous wolf? Boy, and I though some of my stuff was thin. That's downright anorexic. It's far, far more likely that the prophecy found fulfillment in the sad, sick tale related in Judges 19-21. Basically, a bunch of Sodomite home invaders (literally, "sons of Belial"---19:22) raped a traveler's concubine to death ('cause they couldn't get their hands on him). This happened in Gibeah, a city belonging to Benjamin. The call then went out to all of Israel to come and wipe Gibeah off the map for the transgressions of its resident hoodlums (since nobody was paying attention to Torah rules), but the tribe of Benjamin came to the city's defense. They prevailed at first, but later got virtually wiped out, and the other tribes subsequently vowed not to let their daughters marry Benjamites. Only then did they come to their senses, realizing that their actions had doomed the tribe of Benjamin to extinction, at which point Israel mourned their loss. They then contrived a means by which Benjamite lads could "seize" wives from themselves from the daughters of Israel, so the tribe wouldn't die out because of a stupid fight and a rash oath. So yeah, Benjamin was a wolf, doing what wolves do: trying to stay alive (and if American wolves are any indication, getting a bad rap for it in the process).

So are all Benjamites ravenous predators? Bear in mind that the word translated "ravenous" in Gen 49:27 (taraph) can just as easily mean "to provide, i.e., give an amount that is sufficient to meet a need to satisfaction, as a figurative extension of killing prey." (DBLwSD) There's a really interesting refutation to the "Benjamin is cursed" theory in the geography of the Millennial Kingdom. Ezekiel 49 lists the territory of the tribes of Israel, starting from (idolatrous) Dan in the north and ending with Gad (who didn't want to settle in the Promised Land at all, first time around) bringing up the caboose in the far south. Judah is smack dab in the middle, bordering (on the north) the consecrated zone set aside for the Levites, priests and the prince---prime territory including Jerusalem, the place of utmost honor. And who bordered the holy district on the south? Benjamin.

kp
Offline Swalchy  
#189 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 11:41:13 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Thanks for wading in on Genesis 49:27 kp. I had always thought said theory was ridiculously ludicrous, and now I know why.

Thank you very much :)
Offline Matthew  
#190 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 4:31:11 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)
Nice post kp! Makes sense in the context of Israel's history, especially the part you mention.

For interest sake guys, here's Yada's argument for the Benjamin prophecy that he says is referring to Paul. The lengthy quote can be found in chapter 5 of Yada's Questioning Paul:

Quote:
Yahshua made yet another prediction regarding Paul. It was the last He would make before returning to heaven. But as was His custom, His preamble provided the information we would need to understand it, so let’s begin there.

"This was already the third appearance by Yahushua (ΙΣ) with the Disciples, after rising from lifelessness. Therefore, while they ate breakfast, Yahushua (ΙΣ) said to Shim’own Kephas, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me more than this?’ He said, ‘Yes, You are aware (oieda) that I love You.’ He said to him, ‘Feed (boskomai – tend to and nourish) My sheep.’

He said to him again, a second time, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me?’ He said, ‘Yes, You recognize (oieda) that I love You.’ He said, ‘Shepherd (poimaino – guide, care for, feed, protect, tend to, and assist) My sheep.’

He said to him a third time, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me?’ Grieved, the Rock said to Him, ‘You are aware of (oieda) everything. You know (ginosko) that I love You.’ Yahushua said to him, ‘Tend to (boskomai – feed and nourish) My sheep.’" (Yahuchanan / John 21:14-17)

Yahshua wasn’t talking to Shim’own about grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The "sheep" are Yahweh’s "children." Their "food" is "God’s Word: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms." As a "shepherd" Yahshua was asking Shim’own Kephas "to guide and protect," His flock, keeping His sheep out of harm’s way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and remain "His" sheep, not Peter’s, and especially not Paul’s, a pope’s, nor a pastor’s.

"Tending" to God’s children, requires a shepherd to be "properly prepared," which means Shim’own would have to diligently study God’s Owner’s Manual, so that he would be able to teach the Heavenly Father’s children what they need to know to survive and grow, and to quickly recognize problems and resolve them appropriately. To properly tend sheep, "the Rock" would have to remain "vigilant," which is to say that he must never let his guard down, lest a diseased animal, unfit food, unhealthy behavior, or predator harm God’s flock. And the best way to do that would be to nurture God’s children on the merit of the Torah, so that they would be equipped to care for their children for generations to come.

Cognizant that Yahshua was telling Shim’own Kephas to fend off false prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of place or race, Yahshua provided this final prophecy before returning home...

"‘Truly (amane), truly (amane), I say (lego) to you, when you were young (neos – newly born), you gird yourself (ezonnues – second person singular indicative of zonnymi – tied the belt of your own garments), and walked (peripateo – traveled and directed your life) whenever and wherever (hotan) you desired (thelo – decided, intended, and determined). But (de) when you grow old (gerasko – when you age), you will extend (ekteneis – stretch forth) your hands and another (allos – a different kind of person), he will gird (zosei – third person singular future of zonnymi, he will fasten a strap around the midst of) you (se), and he will move you (oisei – third person singular future of pheromai – he will bring, carry, guide, or drive you) where (hopou) you do not (ou) intend (thelo – want, decide, desire, or propose).’ ...He said (lego) to him, ‘You should follow My path (akoloutheo moi – follow and accompany Me, and be My disciple; from a, be unified and one with, keleuthos, the Way).’" (Yahuchanan / John 21:17-19)

As was the case with much of what Yahshua told His disciples, Yahuchanan may not have understood this prophecy. If he actually wrote the commentary which was added much later, then he incorrectly assumed, with Yahshua’s crucifixion vivid in his mind, that the reference to "you will extend your hands," was a prophetic portrayal of the nature of Shim’own’s death. But the verb "ekteneis – you will extend" was written in the second person singular tense, "you will extend your hands," not in the third person plural—as in "they will extend your hands," which would be required for crucifixion. (Moreover, since we don’t actually know how Shim’own died, it’s likely that the commentary was added much later by a scribe.)

What Yahshua was saying to Shim’own is that in the act of reaching out to feed His flock, someone would tie him up and take him to a place he did not intend to go. The keys to unraveling how this would occur, and to identifying the perpetrator, are zonnymi, pheromai, and akoloutheo. On the surface they mean "gird," "move," and "follow," respectively. But to understand the prophecy, we will have to dig a little deeper.

Zonnymi, translated "gird," is from zygos, which means "to tie together and to yoke, to apply a burden, or to enslave." It was used by Paul to speak of the "yoke of the Torah being an unbearable burden." And he will soon be so bold to declare that the Torah "enslaves." Remember Acts 15:10: "Now therefore, who submits a test and attempts to trap God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our fathers had the ability to endure (bastazo – accept, bear, and carry)?" (Acts 15:10) The fact that Yahshua’s statement was delivered in the third person singular, it is describing one particular individual who would place a yoke upon Peter. Only one person did this: Paul.

Similarly, pheromai, "he will move you," was transcribed in the third person singular, as oisei. One individual in Peter’s future was able to drag "the Rock" to a place Peter had not intended. After pushing Shim’own out of Antioch, and driving him back to Yaruwshalaym, Sha’uwl’s rhetoric and force of personality caused Shim’own to cower as he had before, and even retreat, leaving Yahshua’s flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even Peter’s comments regarding Paul’s epistles were used in a way "the Rock" never intended. Rather than being used to warn God’s sheep to be on their guard lest Paul’s epistles lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what Peter wrote to infer that Paul’s letters were Scripture. Peter had been taken to a place he did not intend to go.

As a compound of a, "signifying unity and being part of," and keleuthos, "the Way," Yahshua used akoloutheo to tell Peter to "Following The Way"—the narrow path to God described by Yahshua as being delineated within the Torah. Written as akolouoei, it was rendered in the second person singular present active imperative tense. Second person singular indicates "you," and thus Yahshua was addressing Shim’own to the exclusion of others. The use of the present active tense indicates that He wanted Peter specifically to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The imperative mood was deployed to express that this was a command, an earnest desire, and supportive advice issued within the context of freewill, and thus in full recognition that Shim’own’s volition was in play.

Yahshua wanted "the Rock" to "Follow His Way" to the Father—not Paul’s way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the opposite direction.

Should you wonder why I referred to Paul as "a wolf in sheep’s clothing," let’s turn our attention to Genesis 49:27, where Yahweh spoke about Sha’uwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamin’s tribe.

But first, let’s affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheep’s clothing wrote: "I say therefore, that God (ΘΣ) has not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai) His people (laos – nation or common individuals). May it never be (ue genoito). For indeed (gar), I am an Israelite (Israelites – transliteration of Hebrew Yisra’el), from (ek – out of) the seed (sperma – semen singular) of Abraham (‘Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Abraham), from the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn)." (Romans 11:1)

While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, I’d be remiss if I didn’t correct Paul’s erroneous statements. God rejected Yisra’el in Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity. And He has repudiated them countless times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for their false teachings and observances of pagan rites. While Yahweh and Yahuwdym will be reconciled, Paul’s "may it never be" is in conflict with the Scriptural testimony. Further, Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set-apart unto Yahweh, making them the antithesis of "laos – common."

So since we know that Paul has once again twisted God’s word, it is incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious. Paul’s theory is: since God has not rejected or repudiated His people (at least according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not rejected or repudiated "me," "for indeed I am an Israelite." Moreover, there is even a twinge of a messianic complex being revealed here with Paul saying that that he is "from the seed (singular) of Abraham," a distinction that would otherwise be redundant to "Israelite." The Messianic nature of the seed of Abraham will be twisted in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians as Satan’s Messiah strives to separate Yahshua from the Torah.

Now for Yahweh’s prediction: "Benjamin (benyamyn) viciously tears apart, mangles, kills, and devours (tarap – creates his food by tearing and plucking the life out of his victim) like a wolf (za’eb – a yellow predatory animal), in (ba) the morning (boqer – early part of the day) devouring (‘akal – feeding upon) his prey (‘ad), and in the evening (‘ereb – during the dark of night and end of the day) he divides and destroys (halaq – apportions, assigns, distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been spoiled (salal – possessions of value, plunder, and prey)." (Genesis 49:27)

The experts say that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son, and yamyn, conveying either "right, right hand, or south." As such, we might see this connotation reflected in Sha’uwl’s attempt to position himself as "God’s right hand man." Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock—Christians—south, and back into the wilderness. And it has become obvious that Sha’uwl, a man named after She’owl, served as Satan’s right-hand.

But I also see yam in the name’s root. Yam is the Hebrew word for "sea," and it is symbolic of Gowym, as opposed to Yahuwdym, who are associated with the "’erets – land." After all, it is hard to miss Paul’s repetitive and braggadocios claim of dominion over Gentiles.

Tarap is a precisely prophetic portrayal of what Sha’uwl would do to the Torah, and to his victims. He "tore it apart," "mangling" what God actually said, "ripping the life out of" the Torah which ultimately lead to the "death" of countless Christian souls. Paul’s "food" which Christians "devoured," came from the "rotting and neglected carcass" of the Word of God which he had "viciously attacked and torn apart."

And like a za’eb, Paul was cunning as a wolf. He was a "predator" masquerading as the Shepherd’s "right hand," while dressed as one of His sheep, to "pluck" souls away from the flock.

"Boqer – in the morning," meaning "the first part of the day," provides two interesting insights. First, Paul was the first to mangle Yahshua’s message. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of ‘Jesus.’" (From Jefferson’s letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, 1985, page 208)))

Second, Paul’s treachery occurred at the very beginning of the fifth day of human history, as measured from the fall of Adam. So this timing is indicative of his timing. And third, the "morning" reference adroitly connects Yahshua’s "breakfast" conversation in which the prophecy warning about Paul’s predatory practices was revealed.

‘Akal, rendered "devouring," and meaning "to eat and feed upon," in addition to "to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable," is an even more exacting fit for Yahshua’s prediction. It was in the act of feeding God’s sheep that Paul viciously savaged and devoured Peter. Likewise, Yahweh is not speaking of "wolves and their prey" in a literal sense, but instead of "predators" and their "victims," His "sheep."

‘Ereb, translated "evening," is indistinguishable in the text from ‘arab, which means "desolate and lifeless" in addition to "making a pledge which exchanges one thing for another." Paul’s lifeless pledge was that "belief in his Gospel of Grace" replaced "trusting the Torah." And lest we forget, Sha’uwl’s credibility is derived from his mythical journey to Arabia.

Halaq doesn’t just mean "divides and destroys." It also speaks of someone who is a "smooth talker," and a "slick operator," as well as of the "slippery slope" they lead their victims down to their "ruin." Halaq is "flattery, words that reflect illegitimate praise." And it describes the "use of seductive words which are deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner." Paul was the poster child for halaq.

Additionally, halaq is a "smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar, and as a stand-in for an imaginary god." Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus bill.

And that leaves us with "salal – the spoils," the victims and their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Paul’s legacy, the Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed.

So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Paul and the destructive wolf, as well as between Yahweh’s predictive description and Yahshua’s prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahweh’s list, and the last prophecy in Genesis, the reference to Sha’uwl was the last prediction Yahshua would make before He returned to heaven.

There is but one man in all of human history who fits Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s prophecies: Sha’uwl.

The reason I said that Yahshua’s prophetic warning was the last He would make before returning home, is that from heaven, Yahshua warned Yahuchanan about the wannabe Apostle. Writing to the Called-Out Assembly in Ephesus, the place where Yahuchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s footsteps and writings crossed paths, the risen Messiyah said:

"I know that you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – haven’t the will, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up or carry forward (i.e., advance or promote)) those who think errantly, those who are wrong, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – are incorrect, wicked, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful). And you have observed and objectively tested (peirazo – scrutinized, examined through enquiry) those who claim and maintain (phasko – say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) Apostles (apostolos – someone who is prepared and sent forth) but are not. And you have found them (heurisko – examined, scrutinized, come to understand them, and discovered through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers)." (Revelation 2:2)

While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahshua’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahuchanan scribed Revelation in 69CE, seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the wannabe Apostle’s death. And considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahshua was calling Sha’uwl an "errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan."

Even Yahshua’s parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to Paul. "And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired." (Revelation 2:3)
Offline MadDog  
#191 Posted : Friday, August 20, 2010 11:39:54 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Matthew wrote:
Nice post bitnet, you've highlighted something important.

MadDog, I do agree that if something contradicts Torah, within the current book we call the Bible, then those books shouldn't be called Scripture. However, I'm not happy with the way Yada's argument is going. I think the way he slams Paul (or the author of Galatians) in regards to 5:14 and Romans 13:8-10 is uncalled-for, especially since Yahshua said similar things in Matthew 7 first.


So is it okay then to eat unclean food? What about circumcision?

Did Yahshua eat unclean food; did he not get circumcised? Did Shaul not say that it was permissible and sometimes better not to follow the Torah, i.e. circumcision doesn't make you more righteous so why bother when that was not what Yahweh had stated. Yahweh didn't say it would make you a superman, he said it was a sign or a mark of the the convenant, that's all.

This also goes back to the Garden of Eden. One simple commandment or rule, DON'T EAT FRUIT FROM THAT TREE, has turned the world upside down.

From my point of view is that that is the reason there is such deception in the world and one of the reasons I am so disgusted with Christianity is that they bend and stretch the Torah like Shaul did and on top of that we supposed to believe on "faith" alone. What Shaul has done has pitted Christians against the Torah, and Muslims agaisnt the Jews and Christians for centuries.

The aftermath of the completion of the "bible" has seen nothing but a horror story for humanity. For Christians, Jews, and Muslims all proclaiming to be "religions of peace" is the ultimate irony.
Offline MadDog  
#192 Posted : Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:25:50 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

I think I goofed. I am not able to edit my post and I wasn't finished with it. Can an administrator move my post to a forum where I can edit and finish my post? It is difficult for me to navigate around this forum, I keep having to log in more than once it seems.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#193 Posted : Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:14:30 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
MadDog wrote:
I think I goofed. I am not able to edit my post and I wasn't finished with it. Can an administrator move my post to a forum where I can edit and finish my post? It is difficult for me to navigate around this forum, I keep having to log in more than once it seems.


There isn't much we can do really - it's just bad forum software, very frustrating :(
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Richard  
#194 Posted : Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:49:22 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
This is the most confusing discussion I have ever attempted to follow. As I see it, either Shaul/Paul was the 12th apostle and the other fellow selected in the book of Acts was unceremoniously and secretly booted out, or Shaul/Paul was a liar. If he was a liar, then all the discussion about whether he wrote this or that letter is irrelevant. On the other hand, if he was truly Yahushua's right-hand man, why didn't the other apostles have the courtesy and responsibility to inform us common folks of this great officious change? Why didn't Yahushua Himself endorse Shaul/Paul during His discourse with Yahuchanon about the end time events?

Confusion hops and skips gleefully around the maypole of "lively discussion", laughing his face off at how much time we're wasting on this thing.

Because I cannot know with absolute certainty that Shaul/Paul was one of Yahushua's servants at all, much less an apostle, then I am comfortable ignoring him completely. Yahuweh's Word is complete without Shaul/Paul's writings.

That's my own 2 cents worth. Take it as you will.

Love you all.

Richard
Offline MadDog  
#195 Posted : Sunday, August 22, 2010 10:28:57 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

flintface wrote:
This is the most confusing discussion I have ever attempted to follow. As I see it, either Shaul/Paul was the 12th apostle and the other fellow selected in the book of Acts was unceremoniously and secretly booted out, or Shaul/Paul was a liar. If he was a liar, then all the discussion about whether he wrote this or that letter is irrelevant. On the other hand, if he was truly Yahushua's right-hand man, why didn't the other apostles have the courtesy and responsibility to inform us common folks of this great officious change? Why didn't Yahushua Himself endorse Shaul/Paul during His discourse with Yahuchanon about the end time events?


Yashua certainly had plenty of time after the resurrection but before the ascension to pick out a new apostle but he didn't. It must've been one of those "Opps moments" walking all the way to the car and forgetting you don't have the keys or while he was ascending, he was thinking, "Am I forgetting anything?"

Also maybe they didn't need a 12th apostle because Yahushua didn't even bother. In Acts they take it upon themselves to pick the 12th apostle (Matthias) right before Shabuwa'. They took a vote and their vote didn't seem to be divinely inspired. They should have waited for Shabuwa' and then made any decision if they needed to make one at all concerning the 12th.

Edited by moderator Monday, August 23, 2010 12:27:11 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Merging posts

Offline Swalchy  
#196 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 12:26:06 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Okay, this is probably going to be the 15th time I've explained this. Hopefully someone may listen to and understand what I say this time around.

Everyone needs to get this title "apostle" out of their heads, seriously. Everyone appears to have been completely brainwashed by English translations of the NT and you're all only seeing the word (NOT TITLE) "apostle" as this super-title-name-thingy that is *only* given to 12 people who have lived on the planet.

For the Greeks the term αποστολος/apostolos was a word (let me stress that again: a word) that meant messenger, and that's it.

The word was used long before it was used in the NT, and long after. Or are we to assume that when Greek writers refer to other people as "apostolos" they were trying to incorporate these people into Yahushua's "Apostle" group? No, we're not, because that would be ludicrous, nonsensical and incongruous.

Now, the feminine form of αποστολος/apostolos - αποστολη/apostole (usually translated as "apostleship" - see Acts 1:25) - is used several times in the Greek Septuagint. The first is in Deuteronomy 22:7 where Yahuweh says "You shall consider the mother αποστολη/apostole/a sent out messenger." Are we to now assume that every bird (see from v6) that was "sent away" is now an Apostle? No, because that too is completely stupid.

Another place is in Psalm 78:49, where the Greek translator has Yahuweh "letting loose" a "company/αποστολη/apostole" of Heavenly messengers (αγγελος/angelos). Is the Greek translator trying to say that there are Heavenly messengers that are also αποστολος/apostolos and are therefore apart of the αποστολη/apostole? No, he's not, because he's using common and well-known words to translate Hebrew into Greek. He's not placing any emphasis on the word as if he wanted his readers to think of it as a super-title-name-thingy.

Now, Paul does not claim to be "the 12 Apostle" or "the 13 Apostle" or any numbered "Apostle". He does indeed claim to be an αποστολος/apostolos, but in its actual sense of messenger. What other Greek word could he have used if he wanted to tell his readers that he was a messenger in the Greek language? If no one here can come up with any, then you're just as stuck as Paul was to find another word to describe what he was.

He doesn't just refer to himself as an αποστολος/apostolos either, and neither does Luke, to be exact. In Acts 14:14, he says "But when the αποστολος/apostolos Barnabas and Paul heard of it..." Is Luke using αποστολος/apostolos as a title? No, he's not, he's using it as a word that should be translated as messenger.

What about Paul? Well, disregarding the references to himself, he not only refers to Ya'qob, Yahushua's half brother as an αποστολος/apostolos (1 Cor 15:7), he also refers to some unnamed brothers as αποστολος/apostolos (2 Cor 8:23), a man named Andronicus and a woman named Julia (Romans 16:7), a man named Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 2:6-7).

Are we to assume that Paul is trying to number all these different people among Yahushua's super-title-name-thingies? No, because that too, is absolute insanity, and just bastardises and twists the Greek word αποστολος/apostolos into what English Bible translations have done to it, and now, in the minds of the people here.

It's time to μετανοεω/metanoeo - change your way of thinking, because your thinking is in error.

I shouldn't pass to mention what the author of Hebrews says in Hebrews 3:1: Therefore, set-apart brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Yahushua, the αποστολος/apostolos/apostle and high priest of our confession... Is the author of Hebrews trying to number Yahushua among his own 12 super-title-name-thingies? Pretty sure you can all guess my answer to this by now.
Offline MadDog  
#197 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 1:51:07 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

What happend in "Acts" with the disciples or aposteles or the remaining 11 followers tells me that they chose and voted on and for a 12th to complete Judas Ischarite for having committed suicide. Having Shaul claim 12th place or at least allowing people to assume that he completed the circle reminds me of the Jim Jones massacer in Guyanna. Jim Jones never said he was God, he simple allowed his followers to come to their own conculsions that he was God.

Hey Stevie, can you just say for once whether Shaul was a false prophet or not? Can you please stop defending him? I don't understand why you just don't see the forrest for trees on this one.
Offline Swalchy  
#198 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 2:39:36 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

MadDog wrote:
What happend in "Acts" with the disciples or aposteles or the remaining 11 followers tells me that they chose and voted on and for a 12th to complete Judas Ischarite for having committed suicide. Having Shaul claim 12th place or at least allowing people to assume that he completed the circle reminds me of the Jim Jones massacer in Guyanna. Jim Jones never said he was God, he simple allowed his followers to come to their own conculsions that he was God.


Paul didn't claim "12th place", nor did he allow people to assume that he was a "12th member" of anything. None of the Early Ekklesia Fathers claimed or even assumed that Paul was among the 12 "Apostles", probably because they all knew Greek and understood the meaning of the term. Unfortunately English translations have caused the meaning of the word to be lost, so that now it's become this super-duper title that people just can't seem to get out of their heads.

There was an early title for whom we now refer to as "The 12 Apostles", they were just called "The Twelve", and that was it. And when there was just eleven of them Luke refers to them as "The Eleven" (Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 2:14)

Quote:
Hey Stevie, can you just say for once whether Shaul was a false prophet or not? Can you please stop defending him? I don't understand why you just don't see the forrest for trees on this one.


So, because I'm pointing out the inaccuracies and fallacies in peoples thinking, assumptions, presumptions, false premises, conjectures, imaginations, postulations, and ridiculous fancies, and because I don't agree with Yada (and provided an 118 page document & 56 page Appendix outlining numerous problems with thinking that Paul wrote Galatians, which no one has refuted), and because I'm standing up for trying to ascertain the truth without bias, I'm apparently the one who can't see the forest for the trees?

Ken also pointed out how trying to twist Genesis 49:27 to say something about Paul was completely absurd and grotesque, and no one refuted what he said either.

So no, I will not stop pointing out things that are wrong just because others don't like being refuted.

Proverbs 13:18: Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honoured.
Proverbs 15:32: Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.
Offline MadDog  
#199 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 3:05:44 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

No, you still haven't answered my question. Is Paul a false prophet or not? A simple yes or no would be nice. Someone from an earlier post stated that you were not pro-Paul, but from what I am reading you are. Can I get a yes or no from you?
Offline Matthew  
#200 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 4:02:28 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Not to be rude here, but i would really like to see someone dismantling KP's post first, explaining why Yada's understanding of the Benjamin prophecy is credible.

Also, Yada refers to Acts 15:10 in the passage I quoted from Chapter 5 of QP earlier. He seems to believe it was Paul stating it. Also, in Chapter 4 Yada says:

Quote:
But then, according to the text, Paul stood up and interrupted Peter. We know this because Shim’own wouldn’t consider "trying to trap God." Also, Sha’uwl’s willingness to twist the Torah, and test God in the process, has become legendary. So the wannabe Apostle declared: "Now (nyn) therefore (oun), who (ti) submits a test and attempts to trap (peirazo – tempts) God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples (mathetes – followers who are tutored) which (on) neither (oute) we (emeis) nor (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) had the ability (ischuo) to endure (bastazo – accept, bear, and carry)?" (Acts 15:10)


Did any of guys inform Yada that is was PETER who actually said this and not the "wannabe Apostle?" That means Acts 15:11 was also said by Peter.
Users browsing this topic
5 Pages«<2345>
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.