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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#1 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:42:15 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
One of our members wishes to post an exchange with an old friend who became catholic, completed a masters in theology and is pursuing a doctorate in historical theology, but is having issues so I am starting the thread for him.
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 pilgrimhere  
#2 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:56:29 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Thank you, James.

I have little interest in planting seeds where they will die without ever producing fruit and so am hesitant to engage many people regarding the fallacy of xtianity ... even among my extended family. An old friend and I have entered into an email exchange however that I have decided to share with YY Forum readers. For the most part, the posts will be lengthy. But most here do not shy away from that. Please feel free to support/contribute arguments on behalf of Torah where I am missing a good point as this discussion is now unfolding.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#3 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:07:06 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Bla, bla, personal bla ... All that matters to me most anymore is raising my girls with (wife) to be princesses and teaching them Torah. It’d be nice to catch up with you a little if you’re interested. Otherwise, I wish you kol tov, (all the best).



M,

I'd love to catch up with you. From your e-mail, it sounds like you have converted to Judaism. Is that right? If so, I would love to hear what led you and (wife) to make this move.

I have a few surprises myself. I became Catholic six years ago and am about to move to (city) to start a doctoral program in historical theology. It is a major career move, but I feel that it's the direction God has been leading me in for quite some time. I finished my Master's degree in theology a year ago at the University of (City) in (other City), and it has been quite a journey. I'm currently teaching a class to freshmen called Understanding the Bible. It's just a little side thing in addition to my full-time job as a (profession), but it's been a good experience.

Please, catch me up on what's been happening with you spiritually over the past few years when you have the chance. It would be great to dialogue back and forth on spiritual matters from time to time.

Overall, it sounds like you are very happy. It's great to know that God has blessed you with such a wonderful wife and family.

Looking forward to hearing back from you.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#4 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:22:30 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Dear B,

Some years ago, bla, bla, personal intro bla. After so many years of trying to figure out my place in this world, my deepest desire is to escape from it with my family.

You have been building momentum for ten years or so until now on an identifiable path. I have been wandering in circles getting nowhere. All the while, I was convinced looking back that God’s fingerprints were all over the decisions that determined my direction. Looking ahead, I was blind and confused. There was no destination to approach, only short-sighted goals. Somehow, circumstances developed that compelled me to seek out a purpose beyond just living and dying that might satisfy my soul.

(Wife) and I were active in our Christian community as any other passionate Christian might be. Over time though, we became isolated from any direct influence whether group or individual. Gradually, we became more able to observe than participate and identified events and routines germane to church activity and function that began to deplete our enthusiasm. Eventually, all matters of religion appeared more as a burden than a blessing. Trendy ministries emerged with exciting programs to draw the discontent in with a new contemporary approach to church. We “experienced life” for a while but couldn’t resist being repelled by the bustling emptiness.

One thing was clear to me – that I did not know God. I knew religion, doctrine and believed in the God of the NT. On one occasion while strumming my guitar, I impressed myself with the notion that I could play a few tunes pretty well. Someone could easily be fooled into thinking I know how to play the guitar by listening to these. In reality, those few tunes were all I knew. Even as the thought entered my mind, my attention was redirected to a more profound concept. I could easily fool someone into thinking that I know God with the knowledge I have of religion. In reality, I know only a few things about God.

A striking similarity occurred to me a couple years ago while listening in class to my history professor. Constantine experienced virtually the same conversion that Paul described. Neither was searching for God at the time. They were both pursuing hostile objectives. Constantine implemented a course of action thereafter that secured his dominance. Could Paul’s directive have been the same? God’s alleged approach and recruitment of these two is unique to them in all of history. Did God appoint them, or was some sinister scheme unfolding that would beguile the world with religion? I had to know.

Over the course of two years, (wife) and I began identifying discrepancies in Christian theology that are ordinarily overlooked or swept aside. There was a time when a man could be found dead after daring to question prevailing doctrine. For many centuries, Christians were subjected to the contrivances of ruling authorities who shaped doctrine as cleverly as they constructed battle plans. Perhaps they were the same endeavors. Dissidents were removed by any means necessary. Kingdoms were established by the fear of God as the masses remained loyal to the clergy. Our approach to religion began to include attention to the pretenses that have subdued facts for nearly two millennia.

So then, how shall I proceed? My desire to reconnect with you particularly within a spiritual context has not just begun. I remember you describing an attraction to the structured elements that comprise clerical religions. You have been building on a foundation for years while I have been excavating dirt. Although little is evident of my efforts, I have discovered a treasure more valuable than diamonds, more beautiful than gold and silver. My next step is to sell all that I own and buy the field where it lies. Only now am I beginning to comprehend the wealth of knowledge that God initially provided but has not been guarded as He instructed.

Revealing the discoveries of my adventure to you involves considerable risk. I’m not sure if you can appreciate how great that risk is to me. You are in both a terrific and terrible position to examine closely the details I am eager to disclose. Indeed, I’ve already composed a thorough introduction to provide some orientation for friends and extended family. I have sent that only to my mom with no response after a few months.

Acting on the energy of new and exciting discoveries, I corresponded with a good friend who has preached at a CoC in Florida for years now. He was my best man. After presenting only a few easily verifiable discrepancies for his consideration, he referred to me as incompetent to examine matters involving Hebrew and Greek language and promptly ended any further dialogue. He mentioned that he, “will not discuss matters of theology with me until I return to the truth of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.” I asked that he point out anything I had presented that was untrue and have not received a response to this day. How ironic that he refuses to acknowledge the fallacy in his own words. Church, lord, Jesus and Christ do not in any way identify anyone associated with God’s family.

B, are you willing to examine and confirm evidence on your own? Are you willing to consider material that will lead you to identify God’s standards and compare those to your own? What I am asking is no minor test for many, but will especially challenge you. Were I able, I would drive to (City) and plead unashamedly for your attention to these matters. You can be sure that I am no pioneer on the path I’ve chosen. No grand revelation has been given to me. I simply demanded honest answers and wouldn’t let go of the questions until securing reliable facts upon which to base my convictions. Research has been accomplished by others that I examine and test with an assortment of tools contained in Logos, Original Languages as well as other resources. And of course, I perform my own research as I am able.

I once prided myself on describing the single most poignant flaw of Mormonism to countless young “elders” who visited my home. They base their entire doctrine on the testimony of one single individual, a scoundrel no less. Only Joseph Smith could decipher the words inscribed on gold, regardless of any others reported to have seen the plates. Investigating historical events relative to the inception and progression of their faith is shunned though I did encourage them. Now, I am embarrassed by my failure to investigate and identify the soul individual to testify that God reneged on His promise, abandoning Torah for a “new testament”.

The process of examining uncomfortable, even disturbing evidence and arriving at the truth elicits a spectrum of emotions and shock that very few are capable of traversing. Regardless of what you may be thinking at this moment or perhaps have already concluded, please engage. You possess a rare quality of balancing passion with reason in making courageous decisions.

No longer struggling in the faith,

M


M,

Please, send me the introduction you have written. I can assure you that you don't need to fear that your beliefs will negatively impact our friendship. I value honest questioning and am becoming increasingly comfortable conversing with people whose beliefs are different than my own. I only ask that you approach our dialogue with openness as well. You seem already to have your mind made up and be confident that you are about to turn my world upside down. You are not the only one who has done some serious questioning over the years, but don't be surprised if others have come to different conclusions than yours.

Looking forward to hearing back from you,

B
Offline pilgrimhere  
#5 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:58:06 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Okay, let's see if this works. The "Introduction" is a pdf: Where to Begin supplemented with: Add it Up
.

10 pages or so ... more than I'd want to post on the forum, but it's the starting point to the conversation.

B,
Even though I was confident … well, hopeful that you would agree to move forward, I am immensely relieved. Already, I owe you an apology. Winds of Change reeks with condescension that was certainly not intended. I do apologize for that. Let me clarify that my beliefs are entirely irrelevant. I actually have no real concern for how you might respond to my beliefs. As a matter of fact, I really don't have any more beliefs. I have neither a need nor desire to believe anything related to God's message. A more complete explanation for this will be given as we move ahead. If sufficient information is not available and no evidence exists that I may examine so that I can come to know and understand without having to believe, then I am hesitant to form a conclusion. I may have given you the impression that I have a lot of answers. In reality, I know and understand a few important things but have more questions than I may ever answer with satisfaction. Much of what I am evaluating is still beyond my capacity to comprehend. As I become more proficient with Hebrew, I am better able to confirm content that is not conveyed in our English translations of scripture. Among others who are traveling the same path, there are mixed opinions and speculation when words are not explicit. Debates occur that are productive and informative but not always conclusive. Teaching you something or anything is not my objective. Drawing your attention to urgent questions so that you may gain some perspective from your own research is all … or mostly what I want to achieve. I promise to give thorough consideration to any idea you may present. (Wife) and I are not in agreement on several issues, a condition that exists in more than a few households. The point is that we are seeking diligently, and that is what is expected of us.

There are three pdf documents attached (2 are combined) that will introduce you to the adventure I have begun. I encourage you to have a pencil handy to jot down quick answers to questions listed and also to note where you may challenge any remarks I have made that need to be checked. Please do no hesitate to call me out where I am mistaken. It's an opportunity for closer examination, and I love that. I love Yah's Torah. I hope that you may eventually come to understand what Torah is … and what it is not based on clear evidence that you determine to be reliable.

Edited by user Friday, June 21, 2013 7:27:18 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Added content

Offline pilgrimhere  
#6 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:16:02 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
M,

Thanks for sending me the materials. You have given me a lot of homework. :-) I just want to let you know that it may be the middle or late part of next week before I respond. This is the end of the semester, as I'm sure you're aware, and I've got to grade finals and enter final grades this weekend. However, I do promise to carefully read and consider every word. Just don't think that I'm blowing you off if it takes me a few days to respond.

Have a great weekend.

B

Hello B,

I am happy to know that you will not shy away from examining some very challenging stuff. As for the response delay, I understand perfectly and expect that you may need to sort through the questions for some time. The process of confirming information is lengthy even with adequate resources on hand. Some historical events/subjects are also not easily verified as several sources have to be compared for consistency. And of course, web sources have to be weeded through for legitimate content. Even after everything has been reviewed, sometimes you just have to draw a conclusion based on what is most reasonable. All of this does take a lot of time and energy, but it’s a fantastic project. There are times when I am aggravated by my need for sleep. I hope that you enjoy your research, and I appreciate the heads up.

M,

Thank you for your patience in waiting on my response. I finally had the time and energy to sit down this morning and read through the papers that you sent me.

I have several things to say, but won't attempt to answer every objection in this e-mail. These are simply the things that occurred to me upon an initial reading.

First, your interpretation of Paul differs greatly from mine. I do not gather from an honest reading of Paul's letters that he had a disdain for the Torah. On the contrary, he says in his letter to the Romans: 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Your interpretation of his writings reminds me of 2 Peter 3:15-16: 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Of course, one could just argue that that statement was added by Constantine or Erasmus or someone else.

Second, Paul, as a Pharisee, would have had the utmost respect for the Torah. The Pharisees were experts in the Law and demanded strict obedience to all the laws in the Pentateuch. This is widely known and accepted by almost all scholars. I have never heard otherwise, except from you. Furthermore, the Pharisees had a strong belief in human freedom and on a person's ablility to do good works prescribed by the Law. (By the way, I am using Law and Torah interchangeably, although I know that Torah may be better translated as "teaching" or "instruction".) Yes, I am aware that the Pharisees also believed in an oral law and often took things to the extreme in regard to legalism. However, they certainly did not disdain the the Torah. Rather, they studied it diligently in an effort not to break a single commandment.

Third, you make several bold claims, such as: "Sadly, the transmission of the original message has suffered considerable distortion both deliberate and negligent." "Few if any extant Greek NT manuscripts have eluded the filter of Marcion's, Constantine's, Jerome's, Erasmus', Luther's and other's combined tweaking to reflect faith consistently..." This claim, supposedly supported by some Philip Comfort according to you, goes against the claims of many other (I dare to say the overwhelming majority of) well-respected textual critics. How do you decide who is right here? In any case, you certainly can't prove that the manuscripts we have today were tampered with by all of those people. And if they have been tampered with, how can a person tell which parts are genuine and which parts are spurious?

For example, you seem to take I John 2:3 as authentic and inspired, yet how can you claim to know that this text is inspired and at the same time claim that many other parts have been added or altered by man? If one were to ascribe to your way of logic, he would have to question every single word of Scripture. In that case, it makes much more sense to doubt the inspiration of Scripture altogether.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if God really wanted us to know the truth, He, himself would have protected the transmission of the sacred texts from theological errors. Otherwise, why would He have bothered to inspire the writers of Scripture in the first place? There is no question that as the texts have been copied down, the copyists have made errors. However, most biblical scholars agree that the errors are small and inconsequential as far as doctrine is concerned.

Fourth, you claim that you are not willing to believe anything that you don't know. You, yourself, seem to contradict that claim on several accounts. You seem to take it for granted that God exists, that He is one God, that at least some portion of Scripture is inspired by Him. How can you prove any of these things?

For myself, I would not believe that any of Scripture is inspired if I did not believe with all my heart that God had established a church, a visible church here on earth, that through the wisdom given her by the Holy Spirit determined which writings were inspired and which were not. This whole idea of biblical inspiration does not make sense, otherwise. For, contrary to what others may think, there is no self-attesting canon.

Fifth, I can't resist commenting on the single statement you made about the Lord's Supper being derived from the Catholic Eucharist. You stop right there, assuming that all your readers are wearing the same filtered glasses as you are. Yes, you are absolutely right. The Lord's Supper is derived from the Catholic Eucharist, and the Eucharist is derived from the words of Christ, himself. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Says the same thing in the Greek. I checked.

Let me ask you a question. When you were trying out all these different church communities, did you ever check out the Catholic church? From reading your story, it seems to me that you left that stone unturned -- like that was an option that either did not occur to you or one you could rule out based on some universal understanding that Catholics were not even Christians. You claim to be unbiased and to want honest answers. I believe that you want honest answers, but from what you have written, you would have a difficult time in persuading me that you are unbiased. You and I are human, and we both have biases -- there's no escaping that. However, the Catholic church does have answers to your questions -- ones very different and more ancient than the ones you have turned up with.

In closing, I likewise extend an invitation to you. Are you willing to begin a journey that will require incredible courage but will deliver a reward beyond your comprehension? Are you willing to examine what the Catholic church really teaches? What do you have to lose?
Offline pilgrimhere  
#7 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:23:58 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Hello B,

Are you upset? Please don't hold back. Although I would prefer to encourage you with the most complimentary correspondence, I choose to risk presenting my thoughts with excruciating honesty. As you have suggested that a more thorough response may be anticipated, I don't intend to stack additional content by addressing points you've raised just yet ... much. (Ok, so I may have gotten a little carried away. As it turns out, I guess I couldn't let it go.)

(Wife) is laughing at me. She has no sympathy for me at all and says that I am going to lose all my friends. Recall that I warned you from the start what reaction I've experienced even from people close to me. Our ongoing dialogue may well incite you to lash out at me. Please evaluate the information for what it is and determine what is fact and what is fiction based on clear evidence. Familiarity is very comfortable, so much more than facts. The journey I'm on is not the least bit comfortable.

I am well aware of Paul's praise for Torah. He is after all, all things to all men such that his audience dictates his message as he described to the Corinthians (1 Cor 9). Consistency becomes a liability when a favorable response is at stake. I take ownership of everything I've stated. Have you answered the questions I've posited? Are any of them unfounded or without merit? And yes, I am also aware of 2 Peter. That will be addressed in time. Remember that I myself will have made very similar arguments to such a nonsensical idea that Paul was a deceiver in defense of my faith and doctrine even up to these past two years. His clear and obvious statements demeaning Torah are not abrogated by contradictory rhetoric any more than traces of arsenic can be regarded as harmless in a supply of otherwise refreshing water.

My understanding of the Pharisees' regard for Torah is consistent, not with modern scholars, but with Yahowsha'. His interaction with them exposed their hypocrisy and preference for their traditions (which coincidentally empowered them). Indeed, "hypocrites" was the very word he shouted repeatedly. By reviewing his description of their "utmost respect for the Torah" (Mt 6,7,22,23,24) you may realize that I am certainly not the lone voice suggesting disdain. Why didn't you look first to see what God's impression is before deferring to any scholar? Pharisees, Sadducees and any other ambitious, self-serving sects are neither sanctioned nor condoned by Torah. Their emergence and authority was not from Yah. Refer to my core: What does God love/hate/esteem? "Widely known" and "path to destruction" have been directly correlated with each other as I recall. I do agree that Paul possessed expertise.

Today, neither Torah nor the Prophets are encouraged by rabbinical Judaism. Talmud remains their prerogative http://www.timesofisrael.com/never-mind-the-bible-its-the-sanity-of-the-talmud-you-need-to-understand-the-world-and-yourself-adin-steinsaltz/ Talmud shapes Judaism, not Torah. This is nothing new. There is a reason Torah had to be "discovered" in the days of Josiah. The prevailing trend from when Moses was receiving Torah to this day has been rebellion. Torah observance within Judaism remains superficial as constrained by Talmud. That's just reality and is reflected in virtually every aspect of Judaism due to Maimonides and Rabi Akiba. Haredim, the modern Pharisees, are predominantly a vile parasite on the state of Israel.

Our legislators are experts in law. They continually devise means of extending their authority and transferring wealth from others to themselves (or those who own them) in moderate increments as acts of service to us. The Federal Reserve has virtually no other purpose. There may be some well meaning politicians, but enough time under that domineering influence will either cause conformity or expulsion. (Alan West is a prime example: don't muck with it)

Are you unfamiliar with Philip Comfort? I truly expect that you must have been exposed to his works at some point in your studies. Look him up on amazon.com or something. He is regarded among the foremost authorities with respect to NT manuscripts. I suspect his theology will align with your own. Even so, two of his books in particular describe any extant material dated after the third or fourth century to be so inconsistent that they are not even given consideration for accuracy (or words to that effect). Among the earliest, no two are exactly the same. I did not indicate that Comfort supports my claim, B. I referenced his work as relevant to evaluating textual criticism. Please maintain an objective posture with my statements. I know that they seem preposterous. As additional resources to Original Languages, I included DSS database and Targumic fragments which comprise the NT. You can be sure that I am no scholar. My reference to these and other tools within the Logos library is primarily for verification and secondarily for research. Or at least it started that way.

B, I will undoubtedly test your patience by bringing matters to light that have collected dust in a dark cellar. Rather than insisting I cannot prove this or that, simply ask for supporting evidence. We are given a standard by which to determine "who is right here." Information that contradicts Torah is a lie. This is easily discerned from instructions given in Deut. 4,13 and 18. Also, I did not even imply that John's letter was inspired (neither did John), but I do question every single word of scripture as it exists in our English translations ... all the more, NT texts that are not scripture. As we progress, I will bring to your attention proof that many words are not translated consistently with even the very lexicons produced by the same publishers of many bibles containing those mistranslations. The key principle is: familiarity sells. And publishers have to sell.

I do not hesitate to define scripture as Torah, Prophets and Writings. The two eye witnesses (Mtt/Jn) who recorded events surrounding Yahowsha's activity did not claim inspiration. Mark and Luke recorded second and third hand stories. This definition continued up to the council at Nicaea as best I understand. John's revelation is the only record outside of that which I would regard as inspired ... by Yahowah.

Be sure of this, I do not take for granted Yahowah's existence. His very name is a derivative of "to exist" or "I exist" which is why He will not leave anyone unpunished who participates in diminishing the recognition of His name. The evidence also exists. Yah placed explicit descriptions of kingdoms and events into prophetic scripture long before their occurrence. Knowledge of future activity on such an exacting scale verifies that Yah's perspective lies outside of time and space as we know it. I will also describe this evidence in greater detail when we arrive at that subject. It is fascinating!

Do you realize what you are implying by suggesting that God has protected his message from corruption? God never once made such a claim. To the contrary, God warned more than once or twice what will become of those who do engage in that corruption. Such a warning is empty if the act is not even possible. Did God warn people not to search for the garden? No, He stationed a guard to prevent any access. So who is to guard the words of Torah? That answer is clearly described by God. We ourselves are instructed to guard His message. You will read "keep" or "obey" where shamar (שמר) was scribed in Hebrew. A decent examination of shamar in various lexicons reveals that "keep" is equivalent to "guard" as well as "pay attention" rather than "obey". If you like, I can send you excerpts from multiple lexicons and dictionaries as evidence. And this is just one word, a single example of very many. By asserting that God has prevented any distortion of His message implies that He interferes with free will which He does not. God certainly wants us to know the truth. He rewards those who find it. We demonstrate that we want to know it by following His instructions to search diligently with our whole heart, not by listening to a sermon routinely and pouring money into churches.

A reference to "most biblical scholars" does not bolster your rebuttal. All (relevant) biblical scholars are Christians and interpret translated texts within some doctrinal frame of reference. No longer consigned to Christianity, I am examining God's message as close to the source as I am able via Hebrew translation (holding DSS priority) with available tools and guides for content, not doctrine. Any message inadequately translated cannot convey the fullness of its original intent. Bible publishers have proven themselves unreliable, and I do not trust English translations to be accurate with regards to significant portions of scripture. This is a topic we can, and surely will address in painful detail further down the road.

So you will not believe one thing without believing another? Did God establish a church? When? Did He define the operations of this church? When/where? Search for any reference to a church described by Yahowah or Yahowsha'. You will not find it. The word "church" in no way, shape or form describes the called out assembly, the people called to set themselves apart from the world and assemble with Yah at His appointed times. Ecclesia is the closest Greek description of God's mow'ed miqra'ey and happens to be the term used before being replaced with church. A close examination of their definitions and derivations should be taken into consideration. One might wonder, "Why change the words?" But then why is Yahowah replaced with "The Lord" and Yahowsha' with "Jesus"? These are all important questions that we'll address.

I have recently argued that those words you described regarding eating flesh and blood were true and were delivered in a spiritual context. Today, I am persuaded that they were likely never spoken considering the audience and the clear instructions in Torah against any such notion. I just can't be sure of it. Case in point, the episode of the woman singled out in the act of adultery does not exist in any of the early and most reliable manuscripts as footnotes in most study bibles affirm. Conveniently enough, that episode presents a deviation from Torah - the only other such in his teaching that I am aware of. In any case, the reference to "remember me" applies to the long established Passover. Concluding otherwise is extrapolating. The audience listening to "drink my blood" knew full well that drinking blood was associated with ancient pagan religion.

I readily admit that I cannot draw solid conclusions for some statements I've boldly asserted. In mentioning that, "sometimes, you have to choose what is most reasonable", I do not see contradiction in my statements. I certainly have biases, but I did not say that I am not willing to believe, rather that I have no desire or need to. Many conclusions I draw are based on what I consider the most reasonable information I've looked at. My understanding changes as new questions arise and more reliable information is reviewed. I am on a journey and remain far from the destination.

To answer your question, I have ventured into Catholic and Methodist assemblies. It's been more than a decade ago. I cannot base my understanding of either on those visits. I do welcome, expect and anticipate all that you may present to educate me. Incidentally, I considered catholics no less Christian than any other doctrine from around 1996 or so when I began to reject CoC theology. I know that the Catholic church has answers to my questions. So does the Protestant and every mix of doctrine in between. What are your answers? I ask in earnest. My questions are upsetting and offensive - more than you've seen yet. I don't have answers to most of them. Even so, I ask that you not take personal offense. We have only taken the first step on a journey of a thousand miles. I will call your attention to the view beside me and give my attention when you do the same.


Respectfully,

M


I predict that some references to Hebrew and possibly some Greek text will be necessary at some point. If these words:
[ וָאֵרָא אֶל־אַבְרָהָם אֶל־יִצְחָק וְאֶל־יַעֲקֹב בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי וּשְׁמִי יהוה לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם׃ ]
do not appear as Hebrew symbols on your computer/device, you may want to enable Hebrew language for your keyboard or load applicable fonts. I've attached this same message as a pdf for comparison and functional links. Let me know if you have a preference. I typically compose in Pages or Word.


M,

Thanks for your response. I actually have not read it, yet and will likely not have a chance to until this weekend. During the work week, my job consumes much of my time and energy, and I have little time for e-mail. So, again, please, know that when you write, it may take me some time to respond. Also, as you know, I am about to move out of state. So, I can't guarantee that I will have any time to correspond once that happens.

One thing that might allow us to correspond more is keeping our conversations more succinct. I know that you enjoy writing, but I'm just letting you know that I have very little spare time right now. So, I ask you that you bear that in mind when composing your e-mails.

Hope that you have a great week!

B

Edited by user Friday, June 21, 2013 7:30:26 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline pilgrimhere  
#8 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:30:32 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
M,

First of all, I certainly hope that you do not interpret my remarks as lashing out at you. That is certainly not the tone that I mean to convey in these e-mails.

Second, please, know that while I respect your personal search for truth and am interested in corresponding with you, I am not so interested as to be willing to devote my entire weekends to reading and responding to your e-mails. So, I will make an effort to respond to what I deem to be the most critical points on which we disagree and will have to leave other matters unaddressed. I have read your latest e-mail, but have not looked at the attachments you have sent. There is still too much that I feel I need to address from your previous e-mail as well as your view expressed in this latest e-mail on the accuracy of English Bible translations.

In your previous e-mail, you made the claim that the Catholic Church instituted certain Christian holidays that have their origins in ancient pagan rituals. This is certainly not a new accusation hurled against the Catholic church. While some Christian holidays may in fact coincide with pagan holidays, this obviously does not mean that pagans and Christians are celebrating the same things. In some cases, Christian holidays may have been introduced to provide an alternative non-pagan celebration, much in the same way that some Protestants, rejecting Halloween, have introduced harvest festivals. In other cases, the parallel holidays may be entirely coincidental. According to some theologians, Christians came to date Christ's birth on December 25 based on a belief that his conception and death occurred on the same day of the year. Whatever the case, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25, not Tammuz's re-birth,and we celebrate his resurrection on Easter, not sun worship, sex, and death.

One of the other questions you asked in your previous e-mail is who testified to Paul's conversion other than himself. Luke testifies to it in Acts 9. Acts also testifies to the apostles' acceptance of Paul and his message as well as his claim that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be Christians. Unfortunately, you do not accept Acts as being inspired. While I am on this topic of the canon, I think that it is very interesting that you regard John's apocalypse as being inspired, even though this was one of the disputed books that eventually made it into the canon, but you do not accept Paul's writings, which were among the first to be regarded as authoritative by the early Christians.

I have to admit that I'm very confused on your criteria for deciding which New Testament books are authoritative and which are not. I also wonder why you accept the Old Testament writings as having been faithfully transmitted to us, but think that the New Testament texts have been corrupted. How can we trust that the current copies of the Old Testament manuscripts we possess have not been altered? Of course, I understand that you think that the translations cannot be trusted, but I am referring to the Hebrew manuscripts we have. After all, the oldest complete manuscript we have of the Old Testament is from 1000 A.D. Yes, fragments of all of the Old Testament books have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but you have to be aware of the fact that when we compare all of the fragments we have from different manuscripts, there is certainly not complete agreement. So, my question to you is why do you consider the Old Testament books as being faithfully passed down to us? Certainly, the possibility of corruption exists with regard to the Old Testament text even more than for the New Testament because it was composed many centuries earlier. Also, why do you consider the Torah, the prophets, and the writings as being inspired? Who decided that these books were inspired and authoritative and that books such as I Enoch and 4 Ezra were not?

Next, since you do accept Matthew and John's Gospels as being inspired, I want to cite a few examples from these regarding the authority that Jesus gave to his apostles as well as to the church.

Matthew 16:18-19: 18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:15-18: h “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.16* i If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’17j If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.18* k Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John: 20:21-23: 21* [Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,m “Receive the holy Spirit.23* n Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even if you are correct in saying that we cannot trust our English translations of the Bible, you, yourself, are unqualified to make that judgment. Michael, I have taken 4 semesters of Greek and 2 semesters of Hebrew and while this language study has been helpful in understanding certain passages of the Bible, it does not make me competent to translate it. It takes years and years and years of study before a person can make a serious claim that he is competent in any given language. This applies even more so to an ancient language like Greek that is so rich and complex. You have to have an understanding of the grammar, the syntax, the nuances of certain words. And you can't just isolate certain words and determine their meaning apart from understanding the context. I don't know how long you have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I'm willing to bet that it's not long enough to make you an expert in either language. So, I don't think it's wise for you and I to get into any kind of serious discussion regarding the Greek and Hebrew texts because neither of us are language scholars. And I have to admit that I am somewhat appalled by your belief that you will be able to uncover the "true meaning" of the biblical text using "available tools and guides." Just what are these available tools and guides? Online resources can be helpful as can lexicons when studying a language, but they are no substitute for an instructor. You can't just decide that you're going to master Greek and Hebrew through self-study. It doesn't work that way. I think that you are seriously lacking an appreciation of what it takes to become proficient in a language.

You seem to have a distrust for anyone in authority, and while I will readily admit that people often misuse and absuse their power, I am firmly convinced that in order for there to be any kind of unity among believers, there has to be some structure and someone has to be in charge. That is precisely why Jesus chose 12 men and gave them the authority to bind and loose, and why he entrusted the keys to the kingdom to Peter, in particular.

M, I fully understand your disgust and disdain for organized religion. During my own journey, I experienced this same shallowness and entertainment-based worship when I would visit certain churches. The church is constantly in need of repentance and reform because it is made up of sinful human beings. Yes, there is this dark side to the church, but there is also this other side that you aren't able to see right now. We have the witness of so many faithful saints who have gone before us. We have the witness of the martyrs -- men like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. We have the wisdom and insight of men like Augustine and Aquinas and Origen and the examples of holy women such as Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila who offered themselves completely to God. And you seem to want to sever yourself from this body. You can't do it, Michael. You're not going to survive. You need the body. You can't be a lone ranger Christian. You're depriving yourself of so much that you aren't even aware that exists. Am I upset by this? How can I not be?

Nevertheless, I fear all that I have written has fallen on deaf ears, but perhaps you feel the same way. These are my thoughts for now. Again, I don't know how much time I will have to correspond in the future, but I want to leave the doors for communication open. Please, feel free to write me whenever you wish, but know that if you send me 20 pages worth of material, I probably won't read it. I think our dialogue might be more fruitful if we choose one or two things to focus on at once rather than twenty. So, if there are one or two questions, in particular, that you would like me to comment on, let me know. That would be more manageable.

I pray that God continues to bless both of us on our journeys and that ultimately, they will lead us to Him.

Respectfully,

B
Offline pilgrimhere  
#9 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:50:00 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Yes B, I tend to get ahead of myself and if you might recall, I can spout out statements that have no place being directed to you. Once again, I apologize. The insinuation that you have lashed out was not intentional. I was suggesting that I might present something later on that you wouldn’t appreciate. Even so, the comment was misplaced. I also agree that a productive dialogue must be focused. ‘Where to Begin’ was composed with no specific audience in mind. I was just trying to put my thoughts in some order. I have a long way to go to be sure. I am grateful for any input you offer and assure you that I am not deaf to your comments.

I suppose the most prominent issue lies with Paul and his legitimacy as God’s voice to the gentiles. If you find this agreeable, let the primary focus of our discussion rest there. I will answer questions you’ve asked but will otherwise rein in my discourse. Short answers to those (Paul) questions alone are a good starting place.

Addressing the first question regarding corroborating testimony of Paul’s conversion experience, you mentioned … Luke? Why would you identify Luke as qualified to testify to an event he was oblivious to other than what he was told by, of course, Paul? Luke was not there, and Acts is simply his recount of Paul’s story. Luke presents himself as a careful investigator of facts. He manages however to record Paul’s three descriptions of his encounter with striking inconsistency. You would think he might have asked for clarification when Paul explained the event differently each time. This failure was presented in the very next question I asked. A flag should certainly also have been raised when Euripides was plagiarized with the “goad kicking” remark. The only honest answer is “nobody”. Paul’s description (as recorded by Luke) is the lone testimony. So again, why would you consider the equivalent of a Greek physician/journalist qualified to offer testimony even if he had, which he did not? Luke also never claims inspiration.

Let me reiterate now that I do not subscribe to Christian theology so that you may know that I see no merit in what Christians have determined to be factual but are obviously not. Your own assertion that Pharisees respected the Torah and that Luke could have possibly testified to Paul being assaulted with blindness by some luminous apparition in the wilderness is evidence that fact and fiction are merged in Christianity. Paul’s writings being among the first to be regarded as authoritative by the early Christians is the very inception of the religion I am disassociating myself from. As I have stated, most will choose familiarity over evidence. Please begin to assess the questions I’ve presented based on rational discernment rather than knee-jerk Christian presumptions that I will likely have already considered.

Regarding inspired material: John (actually, Yahowchanan meaning ‘Yah is Merciful’) clearly claimed to receive the content of his revelation from God. The prophetic warnings are consistent with those who spoke God’s message to His people previously of corresponding events pertaining to the (singular and dreadful) day of Yahowah. John is the only author of NT canon who meets the criteria delineated in Deuteronomy (actually, Dabarym – Words). Outside of Revelation, the only other NT author who makes any claim whatsoever to speak on behalf of God is Paul who incidentally identified himself as demon possessed. So, what is confusing you about this? God’s trademark for inspiration appears to be prophecy that complies with His criteria. Eyewitness and otherwise historical records by credible authors that are not inspired certainly contain valuable information none the less.

Regarding transmission: Have I indicated that the Torah, Prophets and Writings have been “faithfully transmitted to us?” No, I think I’ve stated otherwise at least relative to God’s name which Christians don’t bother even to acknowledge. Yahowah, Himself affirms that His words are twisted and explains the consequences for corrupting His message (Jer 23 among others). The Masoretes continued the corruption of God’s message with their vowel pointing fraud (Hebrew contains 5 distinct vowels … always has) as well as other linguistic corruptions. To be sure, if God had determined to protect His word from corruption, Would He not have interceded with the first and most obvious? “Did God indeed, say ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’? … You shall not surely die. For God knows that on the day you eat from it, then your eyes will be opened and you shall be like gods, knowing good and evil.” We are given free will and experience the reward/consequence of our choice to seek God diligently or accept/promote corrupting deceptions.

Thank you for directing my attention to the teaching of Yahowsha’ that is perfectly consistent with all of Torah. You referenced passages recorded by eyewitnesses (not prophets) Yahowchanan (Yah is Merciful) and Mattanyah (Yah’s Gift) that are excellent examples of man’s manipulation of religion to proliferate his own power and control over whole communities resulting in the sale (!) of indulgences and threats of excommunication by the religious authority - disgusting. Christian publishing companies perpetuate corrupt translations because familiarity sells while accurately conveying God’s message in bibles will negatively impact those sales. So, what message was actually being presented by Yahowsha’ in those passages? We’ll get there.

I commend you for completing some study of Greek and especially of Hebrew. They are certainly more complex than English. Hebrew is by far the richest and most complex language and the only language capable of conveying God’s message in its fullest measure. Of course, I agree with you that translation of these languages cannot be accomplished without a huge investment of time, effort and costly resources. The tools and guides previously mentioned include but are not limited to:

• The Dead Seas Scrolls Bible
• Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
• The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
• Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew
• Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament
• A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
• New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
• A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
• The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
• Englishman’s Concordance
• Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
• The Complete Word Study Guide of the Old Testament
• The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
• The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament
• Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Morphology
• Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear
• The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts
• Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
• The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
• Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek
• The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
• The Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
• Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature
• Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
• A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition
• The New American Standard Greek Dictionary
• The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
• An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
• The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
• The Complete Word Study Guide of the New Testament
• Synonyms of the New Testament
• Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament
• The New International Greek Testament Commentary
• Word Studies in the New Testament
• The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
• The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
• Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, with McReynolds English Interlinear
• Marshall’s Parallel New Testament in Greek and English
• Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Most (not all) of these are in my Logos library or on my shelf while I also rely on other people who are more proficient with all of them to translate with amplification that is not difficult to confirm (example below). Although (wife) and I are endeavoring to speak Hebrew fluently, modern Hebrew does not hold a candle to the original pictographic symbols. Entire statements are communicated within individual words. That’s exciting stuff, but I won’t go there. In any case, confirming where bible publishers have printed very poorly translated passages is simple to do with little more than an exegetical guide and a few dictionaries. Let’s look at John 20:22-23.

The very notion that God hands over to men His unique discernment to forgive or condemn violations of His own terms should by itself shout, “What’s wrong here?” But of course nobody is listening. Consider what the Greek text communicates in context: (Resembling ‘draw near to Me, and I will draw near to you’ and v/v.)

“And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said: ‘Accept, associate with, and use (lambano – take upon yourself in order to be carried away, take hold of and use productively, choose to form a relationship with, accept, receive, experience, and exploit courageously) the revered, cleansing, and set-apart Spirit.

If
(an) someone (tis – a certain individual) is dismissed and sent away (aphiemi – divorced, forsaken, or disregard; neglected or omitted) [by the Spirit], missing the way and erring (hamartia – being without a share because they wandered off on the wrong path and were not made upright), he or she (autos) will be dismissed and sent away (aphiemi – divorced, forsaken, and disregard; neglected and omitted).

If (an) someone (tis – a certain individual) is empowered to gain possession (krateo – if they hold on to and retain) [the hagios Spirit] they will be empowered to gain possession and they will be held on to and be retained (krateo) [by the Spirit].’” (Yahowchanan / John 20:22-23)


An interlinear (containing added words) alone will not reveal this, but an honest and critical evaluation of the existing words in context with an exegetical guide and associated dictionaries will. Further explanation of this reciprocal relationship continues:

What Yahowsha’ is translated saying is that those who err and miss the way in this life, and those who are as a result dismissed by the Spirit, will be forsaken in heaven. And those who are reborn into Yahowah’s family by way of the Spirit shall always be empowered and shall always be retained. Adoption is forever, but to be adopted, we must accept the terms and conditions of the Covenant and walk to Yahowah along the path He provided through His Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.

I’m afraid of becoming long winded instead of concise. If you’d like details on the loosing/binding passages, let me know. Simply stated, the interpretation consistent with Yah’s message is also a reciprocal relationship and reiterates that the judgment you impose on others now is already determined for you in heaven. So love others as yourself here, and you’ll be doing pretty well there. Stepping on toes here reduces the potential of your role there. The “You go ahead and decide what’s right and wrong. I’ll just apply your terms to My kingdom” line is beyond suspicious to say the least. That would place a tremendous and divine power into a few mortal hands … and did just that - pure genius. Just what kind of person would have wanted that implemented?

Many people have exhibited incredible selflessness and valor due to patriotism or on behalf of some religion or other. If any kind soul led an admirable life but refused to approach God according to His terms and conditions that He outlined, then they were not faithful to the Covenant He cut and are not adopted into His family. Yahowah has never described or condoned any institution with a “church” structure (elders/deacons/pastors, clergy, etc.). He is in charge of His Covenant family as a Father and has invited us to meet with Him - feast with Him on specific, prophetic occasions. His priests provided services and intercession on behalf of Yah’s people.

Please explain what I am deprived of that is actually appealing and beneficial. What am I missing that will usher me into God’s presence in place of His Torah? I will listen to you and examine any material you direct me to with rational discernment.

Enjoy your weekend B.
I wish you well,

M

You may notice that I removed a reference to Spiritual Mother from content taken from Histemi page 25. Just trying to move forward gradually without inducing any more shock than is necessary.

The dialogue is up to date.

Edited by user Friday, June 21, 2013 4:03:20 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Waiting for response.

Offline James  
#10 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:46:34 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Okay, reading this I had to say something, not that you have not done a great job in fact most of what I say you have already said, I just could read it without writing a response as I went. If there is anything I have added feel free to use it.

I'll also state that based on this, this dialog is going nowhere, but as you said it may help others so thanks for sharing it.

B wrote:
First, your interpretation of Paul differs greatly from mine. I do not gather from an honest reading of Paul's letters that he had a disdain for the Torah. On the contrary, he says in his letter to the Romans: 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Your interpretation of his writings reminds me of 2 Peter 3:15-16: 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Of course, one could just argue that that statement was added by Constantine or Erasmus or someone else.


My favorite response to this one is, sorry but I have yet to get my Paul decoder ring in the Cracker Jack box, I assume what he said is what he meat. So many people want to say, “What Paul meant was…” I think that is why he is so discussed and loved in Christianity he is so open to interpretation because you really REALLY have to work in order to make him not only fit what God said but what he said elsewhere. You did a good job addressing this by pointing out that Paul claimed to be all thing for all people so the fact that he is pro Towrah occasionally is irrelevant.

B wrote:
Second, Paul, as a Pharisee, would have had the utmost respect for the Torah. The Pharisees were experts in the Law and demanded strict obedience to all the laws in the Pentateuch. This is widely known and accepted by almost all scholars. I have never heard otherwise, except from you. Furthermore, the Pharisees had a strong belief in human freedom and on a person's ablility to do good works prescribed by the Law. (By the way, I am using Law and Torah interchangeably, although I know that Torah may be better translated as "teaching" or "instruction".) Yes, I am aware that the Pharisees also believed in an oral law and often took things to the extreme in regard to legalism. However, they certainly did not disdain the the Torah. Rather, they studied it diligently in an effort not to break a single commandment.


Again you addressed this well. This idea that Jews and Pharisees were devotees of the Towrah is just plain wrong, and not supportable by the facts, the evidence and reality. They follow their oral laws not the Towrah. The fact that they think the rabbis can out vote Yah is proof of this.

B wrote:
Third, you make several bold claims, such as: "Sadly, the transmission of the original message has suffered considerable distortion both deliberate and negligent." "Few if any extant Greek NT manuscripts have eluded the filter of Marcion's, Constantine's, Jerome's, Erasmus', Luther's and other's combined tweaking to reflect faith consistently..." This claim, supposedly supported by some Philip Comfort according to you, goes against the claims of many other (I dare to say the overwhelming majority of) well-respected textual critics. How do you decide who is right here? In any case, you certainly can't prove that the manuscripts we have today were tampered with by all of those people. And if they have been tampered with, how can a person tell which parts are genuine and which parts are spurious?


Actually Phillip Comfort would disagree with this assessment, he would agree with the “many other (I dare to say the overwhelming majority of) well-respected textual critics” It’s examination of the evidence that he presents which leads to this conclusion. Another good book to cite on this matter is “Misquoting Jesus” it actually shows the evidences that stories such as the let he who is without sin cast the first stone never existed. What I would recommend in this regard is to present evidence of these corruptions and changes, while he most likely won’t examine the evidence you present he certainly won’t examine the evidence you tell him to look up for himself. Most are too lazy to go look for the evidence themselves, if they weren’t they would have fond it already, it’s not hard.

And yes we certainly CAN prove that the manuscripts we have today were tampered with, that is not in the slightest bit hard, in fact I believe later B goes on to admit this. So that goes to show how irrational he is.

And how do I decide what is right? SIMPLE, I apply Yahowah’s test.

B wrote:
On the other hand, it seems to me that if God really wanted us to know the truth, He, himself would have protected the transmission of the sacred texts from theological errors. Otherwise, why would He have bothered to inspire the writers of Scripture in the first place? There is no question that as the texts have been copied down, the copyists have made errors. However, most biblical scholars agree that the errors are small and inconsequential as far as doctrine is concerned.


Two word answer: FREE WILL. I know you already essentially explained that to him, but I thought I would point it out anyways. Understanding free will is essential to understanding Yahowah and Towrah.

Again he seems to put his faith in these self-proclaimed scholars. He needs to examine the evidence, and not the conclusions of scholars with a vested interest in the status quo.

B wrote:
Fourth, you claim that you are not willing to believe anything that you don't know. You, yourself, seem to contradict that claim on several accounts. You seem to take it for granted that God exists, that He is one God, that at least some portion of Scripture is inspired by Him. How can you prove any of these things?


You already addressed this, but I’ll go ahead and add my 2 cents. We do not take these for granted; Yahowah has provided ample evidence for all of these. He isn’t interested in long answers so I won’t bother presenting the evidence.

That to me is the reason this dialog is doomed. He isn’t interested in investing the time to come to know and understand. He wants you to give short answers to disprove lies that have been accepted as truth for centuries. That is impossible. One of the reasons Yada stopped debating Muslims was a lie could be said in ten seconds, and it would take him 10 minutes to show it was a lie, and then they would just move on as if nothing happened. It takes long answers to provide the evidence and reason against these lies, if he is not interested in investing the time in long answers then there can be no satisfying answers. “I want you to completely and adequately defend your position and provide strong evidence against mine. But make is short I don’t have time.”

B wrote:
For myself, I would not believe that any of Scripture is inspired if I did not believe with all my heart that God had established a church, a visible church here on earth, that through the wisdom given her by the Holy Spirit determined which writings were inspired and which were not. This whole idea of biblical inspiration does not make sense, otherwise. For, contrary to what others may think, there is no self-attesting canon.


This is circular reasoning pure and simple. You can’t argue with belief, it is impervious to evidence and reason. I used to think that faith was belief without proof, and while I was incapable of it I understood it somewhat, but experience has shown me that faith is really belief despite proof. No matter how much evidence you show him, no matter how much Scripture you cite he will never admit that God did not “established a church, a visible church here on earth, that through the wisdom given her by the Holy Spirit determined which writings were inspired and which were not.”

As for there being no self-attesting cannon, God would disagree and so would Dowd who wrote that the Tworah was complete and perfect.

There are two questions to ask in response to this, one you already asked when and where did Yahowah authorize as church to do this job. Second, who did it before the Church? Say you argue that it was the job of the 12 after Jebus, but who had it before that?

Also as you pointed out perfectly God told us this would happen.

B wrote:
In your previous e-mail, you made the claim that the Catholic Church instituted certain Christian holidays that have their origins in ancient pagan rituals. This is certainly not a new accusation hurled against the Catholic church. While some Christian holidays may in fact coincide with pagan holidays, this obviously does not mean that pagans and Christians are celebrating the same things. In some cases, Christian holidays may have been introduced to provide an alternative non-pagan celebration, much in the same way that some Protestants, rejecting Halloween, have introduced harvest festivals. In other cases, the parallel holidays may be entirely coincidental. According to some theologians, Christians came to date Christ's birth on December 25 based on a belief that his conception and death occurred on the same day of the year. Whatever the case, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25, not Tammuz's re-birth,and we celebrate his resurrection on Easter, not sun worship, sex, and death.


Same old same old none answers. You have the Protestants keeping Catholic tradition so that makes the Catholic tradition okay despite what Scripture says. And oh yeah the ever present, “That’s not what it means to me” argument.

So B, forget the Chruch (catholic and protestant) what does God, you know the creator of the universe, have to say about the adopting of Pagan practices? And what was Yahowah’s response when the Yisraelites decided that a Golden Calf was the embodiment of Him, and they were going to celebrate Him the way the pagans celebrated their gods? Did He look down and say, oh well they mean well, it doesn’t mean that to them? No He got royal pissed off and it didn’t end to well for them.

So how about you make an argument based on facts and evidence rather than your opinions.

B wrote:
One of the other questions you asked in your previous e-mail is who testified to Paul's conversion other than himself. Luke testifies to it in Acts 9.


You already answered this M, but I’m going to reiterate it. Was Luke there when this happened? NO. Did anyone other than Paul actually see this happen? Depends on which version of his story you go with, but we have no evidence that if someone else did see this that Luke ever talked to them. So all we have is Luke’s record of what Paul told him, and that is good enough evidence for B.

So M, I want you to tell B that I meet with God down on Main Street last week and He told me that Paul was full of bull. If you attest to it even though you weren’t there it’s good enough for B right, so I must have meet with God.

B wrote:
Acts also testifies to the apostles' acceptance of Paul and his message as well as his claim that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be Christians.


Well let’s start with the most glaring error here. The word Christian is never used anywhere in the Greek text so we can say 100% for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “Apostles” never spoke of what was needed to be a Christian.

Now on to the more pertinent point. They never said it was not needed, they merely were not requiring it of people because they wanted people to read the Towrah and think for themselves, not listen to what they had to say as though they were God, which ironically is how people look at it now. BUT let’s say for the sake of argument that they did accepted Paul’s claim that circumcision was not necessary. WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHAT GOD SAID. These were 11 men, humans, yes they had spent considerable time with Yahowsha, but one thing is clear from the eye witness testimonies, these men were not perfect. SO even if they did agree with Paul that doesn’t change what God said.

If God had given men the right to change what He said, or He himself changed what He said, then He would be unreliable.

B wrote:
think that it is very interesting that you regard John's apocalypse as being inspired, even though this was one of the disputed books that eventually made it into the canon, but you do not accept Paul's writings, which were among the first to be regarded as authoritative by the early Christians.


Well that’s because, pardon the language, I couldn’t give two sh*ts about which books are disputed and accepted by religious scholars.

B wrote:
I have to admit that I'm very confused on your criteria for deciding which New Testament books are authoritative and which are not.


My criteria is that delineated by God (ou already gave him the places in Scripture to looks for this), I don’t know why it would confuse you that I would choose to accept His criteria over that of religious scholars, He’s not only the creator of the world, the savior, but also the one who those calming to write Scripture are claiming to be quoting.

B wrote:
I also wonder why you accept the Old Testament writings as having been faithfully transmitted to us, but think that the New Testament texts have been corrupted. How can we trust that the current copies of the Old Testament manuscripts we possess have not been altered? Of course, I understand that you think that the translations cannot be trusted, but I am referring to the Hebrew manuscripts we have. After all, the oldest complete manuscript we have of the Old Testament is from 1000 A.D. Yes, fragments of all of the Old Testament books have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but you have to be aware of the fact that when we compare all of the fragments we have from different manuscripts, there is certainly not complete agreement. So, my question to you is why do you consider the Old Testament books as being faithfully passed down to us? Certainly, the possibility of corruption exists with regard to the Old Testament text even more than for the New Testament because it was composed many centuries earlier.


Well this is as you pointed out M, just a straw man argument. As you pointed out, even with the TPP we have to be careful because they were subject to religious copy editing as well, thankfully Yah repeats himself to make sure the most important stuff stays there.

B wrote:
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even if you are correct in saying that we cannot trust our English translations of the Bible, you, yourself, are unqualified to make that judgment.


I suppose you have to have a degree from a religious institution to be qualified right? Examining evidence and drawing conclusion isn’t good enough, you have to have the authority of man for your words to mean anything.

So his basic argument here is that he is not smart enough and needs others to tell him what is right and wrong, and since he is not smart enough neither are you. Basically this means no matter how many lexicons and dictionaries you cite which show that the translators have it wrong it isn’t going to matter because they have “mastered” the language according to the powers that be and you haven’t.

B wrote:
M, I fully understand your disgust and disdain for organized religion. During my own journey, I experienced this same shallowness and entertainment-based worship when I would visit certain churches. The church is constantly in need of repentance and reform because it is made up of sinful human beings. Yes, there is this dark side to the church, but there is also this other side that you aren't able to see right now. We have the witness of so many faithful saints who have gone before us. We have the witness of the martyrs -- men like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. We have the wisdom and insight of men like Augustine and Aquinas and Origen and the examples of holy women such as Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila who offered themselves completely to God. And you seem to want to sever yourself from this body. You can't do it, Michael. You're not going to survive. You need the body. You can't be a lone ranger Christian. You're depriving yourself of so much that you aren't even aware that exists. Am I upset by this? How can I not be?


SO because there are members of your group that has “done good” that makes your group righteous and authorized to change God’s work, that makes it so we should overlook the evil they have done. If judging the behavior of the Church is what you think should be done to determine its righteousness then should we not put it on a scale and see how the balance comes.
What “Good” balances out the inquisitions, silent consent of the holocaust, the brutal murder of Jews in the crusades, and most recently the shifting around of and covering up of pedophiles to save face, just to name a few? If you want me to judge the Catholic church based on its merits I’m more than happy to, but all the martyrs and saints isn’t going to budge the scale with so much blood and pain on the other side.

And I have no desire to be a “lone ranger Christian” I don’t have a desire to be any kind of Christian. You can take all the men you want from that “body” and have them on your side, as for me and my house, we serve alongside Yahowah.




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 JamesH  
#11 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:21:14 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Hi pilgrimhere

This has been an amazing exchange of words and conversation.

One thing that really jumped out at me is the differences between you and B

B has spent the last several years learning religion, doctrine , church, faith, belief,  church fathers, christian terminology , the mysteries of the church, nt, Jesus  on and on. He is like an athlete on steroids with the christian stuff.
But B does not know YHWH

The difference is M you know this.
One thing was clear to me – that I did not know God. I knew religion, doctrine and believed in the God of the NT. On one occasion while strumming my guitar, I impressed myself with the notion that I could play a few tunes pretty well. Someone could easily be fooled into thinking I know how to play the guitar by listening to these. In reality, those few tunes were all I knew. Even as the thought entered my mind, my attention was redirected to a more profound concept. I could easily fool someone into thinking that I know God with the knowledge I have of religion. In reality, I know only a few things about God. 

M has spent the last several years studying YHWH's word , which is contrary
to everything christian and not very well liked by Christianity.

Christianity is well supported by schools, writers, comintaries and there own mistranslation of the bible.  Wile seeking the truth in Yah's word is a very lonely road but extremely rewarding and at the same time disheartening when family and friends are unwilling to seek or see the truth in YHWH word.
Offline dajstill  
#12 Posted : Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:00:15 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Great exchange. The only thing I have to offer is that one of the hardest conversations to have is one with those that have a vested/financial interest in Christianity. Your friend has put his entire life on the line and needs for the Catholic church to be right in order to feed his family.

I often say to people I will do what is necessary for my children to eat, even if that means swinging from poles in a club (not that "I" would make all that much money, this old grey mare just aint what she used to be LOL ). This is the stance of many of my friends and family members financially tied to the Christian myth. They will protect it at all costs because it feeds them. This is why the term "whore" is so appropriate to those that push the doctrine of religions.

He is a student of the catholic church, he knows the truth; he is simply in too deep to change course, has invested too much time, effort, and money. The thought of someone calling him "Dr" and even at some point "Father" is too strong to turn back. Nothing you can show him will change his course. He was purchased for a price and will not work feverishly to purchase others. You can love him greatly as a friend, but the chances of getting him to even acknowledge Yahowah are slim to none. I have found when I argue with those purchased by religious institutions, they fight even harder against the truth and actually recruit stronger. Them seem intent on finding even more persons to sentence to destruction as punishment for making them think. Just my experience, yours may be different. I have a sibling married to a pastor - we don't even talk about religion or God or anything else. Her husband won't step into the same state as me. It is the only thing that saves our relationship it seems.

Offline JamesH  
#13 Posted : Monday, June 24, 2013 6:25:24 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Here is another interesting subject in Christianity 

Is Mary the mother of god?

Early Christian attitude to the Mother of God

No picture has preserved for us the true likeness of Mary. The Byzantine representations, said to be painted by St. Luke, belong only to the sixth century, and reproduce a conventional type. There are twenty-seven copies in existence, ten of which are in Rome. [140] Even St. Augustine expresses the opinion that the real external appearance of Mary is unknown to us, and that in this regard we know and believe nothing. [141] The earliest picture of Mary is that found in the cemetery of Priscilla; it represents the Virgin as if about to nurse the Infant Jesus, and near her is the image of a prophet, Isaias or perhaps Micheas. The picture belongs to the beginning of the second century, and compares favourably with the works of art found in Pompeii. From the third century we possess pictures of Our Lady present at the adoration of the Magi; they are found in the cemeteries of Domitilla and Calixtus. Pictures belonging to the fourth century are found in the cemetery of Saints Peter and Marcellinus; in one of these she appears with her head uncovered, in another with her arms half extended as if in supplication, and with the Infant standing before her. On the graves of the early Christians, the saints figured as intercessors for their souls, and among these saints Mary always held the place of honour. Besides the paintings on the walls and on the sarcophagi, the Catacombs furnish also pictures of Mary painted on gilt glass disks and sealed up by means of another glass disk welded to the former. [142] Generally these pictures belong to the third or fourth century. Quite frequently the legend MARIA or MARA accompanies these pictures.

Use of her name

Towards the end of the fourth century, the name Mary becomes rather frequent among Christians; this serves as another sign of the veneration they had for the Mother of God. [143]

Conclusion

No one will suspect the early Christians of idolatry, as if they had paid supreme worship to Mary's pictures or name; but how are we to explain the phenomena enumerated, unless we suppose that the early Christians venerated Mary in a special way? [144]

Nor can this veneration be said to be a corruption introduced in later times. It has been seen that the earliest picture dates from the beginning of the second century, so that within the first fifty years after the death of St. John the veneration of Mary is proved to have flourished in the Church of Rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

http://www.google.com/se....1c.1.17.img.u9q-_azcDpA


Or

Is Isis the mother of god?

http://www.google.com/se....1c.1.17.img.CDpjFOboPc8
Offline JamesH  
#14 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:08:13 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Did Constantine incorporate the ancient pagan gods Isis, Osiris and Horus into the Christian religion as the Madonna and child ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus



The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor as having great influence and ultimate regulatory authority within the religious discussions involving the early Christian councils of that time, e.g., most notably the dispute over Arianism, and the nature of God. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Offline seeker83  
#15 Posted : Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:39:32 PM(UTC)
seeker83
Joined: 6/19/2014(UTC)
Posts: 11
United States
Location: Florida

Thanks: 15 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Wow great exchange. Very interested to know if the communication ceased after this or if there was further conversation?
Offline pilgrimhere  
#16 Posted : Friday, June 27, 2014 10:06:36 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
B entered into a doctoral program for historical theology shortly after beginning this dialogue. Time constraints due to both of our studies have resulted in somewhat of a hiatus. Continued correspondence has included little more than acknowledging our academic demands and wishing each other well. I understand that B may have a break in July but could fill that visiting family and friends. Honestly, I am eager to progress or otherwise engage with another old friend in a similar pursuit. This other is not so sensitive and so my ‘invitation to engage’ was very straight forward. Still … no response other than a request for patience until seminary finals had ended (which they have). And as Inigo Montoya expressed with frustration, “I hate waiting.” Likewise, I don’t expect either to “accept my help, since I am only waiting around to kill you(r irrational fascination with religious deceptions).”

In the meantime, I am attempting to devise an approach that is palatable, easily verifiable and appealing to xtians who haven’t even thought to ask, “Hey, is this for real!?”

Seeker, I especially hope that your husband and children will be receptive to the discoveries you have made.
thanks 1 user thanked pilgrimhere for this useful post.
seeker83 on 7/11/2014(UTC)
Offline pilgrimhere  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:55:08 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Since this dialogue is still receiving a little traffic now and then, interested readers may find similar content in my wordpress blog here. The other seminary friend I challenged has not responded. What has become apparent to me is that xtians simply will not consider any material that violates their comfortable paradigm of religious faith. The one rule I maintain in discussions with xtians is personal respect while addressing content with evidence, i.e. I will not call someone "stupid" or otherwise engage in ad hominim. Honestly though, these people are most certainly the blind leading the blind.
thanks 2 users thanked pilgrimhere for this useful post.
cgb2 on 11/13/2014(UTC), matt on 11/13/2014(UTC)
Offline matt  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:55:10 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Offline Sarah  
#19 Posted : Friday, November 14, 2014 10:48:08 AM(UTC)
Sarah
Joined: 11/4/2012(UTC)
Posts: 103
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I understand your frustration. When a person is part of a congregation, even one that studies the Scriptures continually, the environment is such that one is admonished to "keep the Faith;" "don't ever deviate from the 'orthodox' or you will be 'lost'." Every question has an answer. The lastest I heard from my very evangelical 'faithful' friend is: "One must interpret Scripture based upon the 'intent' of the author"(esp speaking of Paul's writings so, obviously, Paul 'intended' to write/preach in complete accordance with all the Scriptures and the Savior, so if Paul sounds contrary, well, it is our fault for misunderstanding). So, my next question to her will be: "So, Paul says the Torah is 'holy and good' and 'no one will be in the Kingdom who does perverse things'; why do we not then live in accordance with the Torah?" (BTW, there are folks who do focus on Paul's pro-Torah words, and are turning to the Torah).

As for celebrating Christmas, she says: "The holiday has been 'baptized', so now it is perfectly proper to celebrate." My question will be: "So, you give 'authority' to the Roman church? Doesn't God's instruction flow from Israel and not Rome? Didn't God say not to associate Him with any pagan tradition? Isn't that why Israel got in trouble time after time?"

As for the Names, she says: "Names are translated into different languages, and languages change over time." My question: "If God says that His nature and reputation do not change, then His Name cannot change, either."

She tells me that I am departing from the 'orthodox' church.

I am curious how Yada originally taught Paul's letters.

Offline Bubsy  
#20 Posted : Monday, November 17, 2014 4:12:37 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 122
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Also, as Yada has repeatedly stated, names are supposed to be transliterated, not translated. Though with Yahowah's names, they can also be translated.
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
Offline Sarah  
#21 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:49:33 PM(UTC)
Sarah
Joined: 11/4/2012(UTC)
Posts: 103
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I know, names should be transliterated, but most folks just can't understand that concept.
Users browsing this topic
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.