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 masters_apprentice  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:30:07 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Paul and Jesus (yes Jesus for the sake of the argument) were NEVER in contradiction. Anyone that does not see this does not get Paul.

Can you tell me why these 2 verse are not in conflict? If so then you know Paul. If not you do not know Paul.

Verse 1 -
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Verse 2 -
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

As Peter says...
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And as Paul said...
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul tells you what he believes in. Why are the 2 verses above not in conflict?

Offline James  
#2 Posted : Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:49:35 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I have ate a lot of Cracker Jack in my day and I still haven't got my Paul Decoder Ring, perhaps one day, until then I guess I will just have to assume that what he wrote is what he meant.

When it comes to Paul people have 3 choices:

1) You twist what Paul wrote to fit with God.
2) You twist what God wrote to fit with Paul
3) You dismiss Paul and side with God.

Those are your options. So when Yahowah says that any male who is not circumcised has nullified his covenant. And Yahowsha, not jesus, says that not one jot or tittle of the Towrah would pass until heaven and earth are gone, and Paul says, “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.” Those are your options. And I bet I already know what you are going to do, you are going to twist what Yahowah had to say and argue that that was only for the Jews. Well I’m not into to twisting Yah’s words I am going to dismiss Paul for the false and deceitful prophet that he was.

And before you start trying to argue that circumcision was only for the Jews take the time to look around the forum because that issues has already been addressed, in fact listen to the Shattering Myths archives I did a 3 hour show on it last year where I examined every single time the Towrah, Prophets and Psalms as well as Yahowsha mentions circumcision and Yahowah is quite clear on the topic.


As a side note, “yes Jesus for the sake of the argument” tells me you obviously know that Jesus is not his name. So please do not use that name here. If you know his name have the decency to show a little respect and use it.
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
thanks 3 users thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 3/12/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/12/2015(UTC), matt on 3/13/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#3 Posted : Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:36:34 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Obviously you do not know Torah Law as much as you need to. And again, you do not understand Paul. You read him and get upset over him, but you are not getting where Paul is coming from.

Paul did not teach against Torah Law. He preached against Jewish law.

Do you understand the difference in a Jew and an Israelite? Do you understand why Paul left Judaism?

When you see the word "Law" in Romans 7, Galatians 3, and other places in Paul's writings IT IS NOT TORAH LAW.
Offline masters_apprentice  
#4 Posted : Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:39:46 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Also, you did NOT address my question in the top post about why the verses are not in conflict.

And I would PREFER we start calling him Saul if you don't mind. Why do you call him Paul but insist on calling Jesus Yashua? You feel your salvation is in jeopardy?
Offline masters_apprentice  
#5 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 12:03:59 AM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
By the way...not sure how to edit a post until you post it, but I stated Galatians 3 is not about Mosaic Law. Part of it is and part of it is not. Maybe you can patch all posts together.

Paul is vehemantly agaisnt Rabbincal Judaism and he left his "friends" and converted back to straight Torah Law. He never started Christianity.

The problem is the word "law".
Offline James  
#6 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 12:29:25 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
Obviously you do not know Torah Law as much as you need to. And again, you do not understand Paul. You read him and get upset over him, but you are not getting where Paul is coming from.

Paul did not teach against Torah Law. He preached against Jewish law.

Do you understand the difference in a Jew and an Israelite? Do you understand why Paul left Judaism?

When you see the word "Law" in Romans 7, Galatians 3, and other places in Paul's writings IT IS NOT TORAH LAW.


After reading your post yesterday I thought they just sounded familiar because you were arguing the same points that countless others have done, but then I started looking through some older threads and realized they sounds familiar because you have been here before, about 3 years ago, and we had this same discussion then. So I will simply state this, NO Paul was not speaking of Oral Law. If you want to know why I say this then read the thread where we had this discussion before.

http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197

MA wrote:
Also, you did NOT address my question in the top post about why the verses are not in conflict.

And I would PREFER we start calling him Saul if you don't mind. Why do you call him Paul but insist on calling Jesus Yashua? You feel your salvation is in jeopardy?


I did not address your point because it is irrelevant to rather Paul was a false prophet or not. The fact that you think in circles to justify Paul’s self-contradictions and contradictions of Yahowah don’t change a thing. I am not going to waste my time trying to understand while Paul contradicted himself. Also I didn't address them because after reading through the above thread it is clear to me that addressing your points is a waste of time.

Paul/Paulus was the name that Saul/Shauwl choose for himself. He called himself that, Yahowsha never called himself anything even remotely resembling Jesus. And it has nothing to do with salvation it has to do with showing God the respect of calling Him by the name that He choose for Himself. So quite with the Straw Man arguments. You know Jesus is not His name, so why would you continue to call Him that?

MA wrote:
By the way...not sure how to edit a post until you post it, but I stated Galatians 3 is not about Mosaic Law. Part of it is and part of it is not. Maybe you can patch all posts together.

Paul is vehemantly agaisnt Rabbincal Judaism and he left his "friends" and converted back to straight Torah Law. He never started Christianity.

The problem is the word "law".


Again read the post above where we addressed this time and time again. Just because you state that he is not speaking of Towrah does not make it so. So I will end this post the way I ended our last discussion, “I have spent too much time in this futile conversation already, and won’t waste any more.” So if you wish to actually address the evidence posted in the other thread then perhaps we can continue, but not until then.
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/13/2015(UTC), Richard on 3/17/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#7 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 10:01:27 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I will give you a couple of things to think about...

1. My friend wants to do the Passover this year and he is not circumcised. Must I make him become a "naturalized Israelite citizen through physical circumcision in accordance with Exodus 12:48"? In my opinion circumcision is for hygenic reasons in the Law at this point and the keeping or non-keeping is a breaking of Torah Law just as anything else is. But to circumcise for the sake of coming under Abraham's covenant is moot and over with.

Paul called uncircumcised Gentile proselytes “Brethren”. He calls them his brothers. And he calls them his brothers not once, but lots of times. So whenever Paul uses the term “brethren”, he’s making a loaded point. At almost EVERY opportunity, Paul is saying, YOU UNCIRCUMCISED GENTILES ARE MY BROTHERS. Not the sort of thing you’d normally hear very often from a former enforcer of the Sanhedrin. His message VERY CLEARLY is: we are ALL sons of GOD, whether or NOT we are sons of Abraham. And that is arguably is the guts of the first (and most significant) of the two themes that Paul is addressing in his letter to the Galatian churches.

Yes, he will do the Passover with me regardless.

2. “Works of Law” Not “The Works of The Law”

Paul writes about “the works of the law” six times in Galatians, and it’s always negative, but before we look at any of these verses we need to clarify one thing. Actually Paul does NOT use the expression “THE works of THE law” (even ONCE). The translators have wrongly inserted the definite article “THE”. In the original Greek (as Young’s literal translation tells us) Paul is talking about a far more generic expression “works of law”. NOT “the works of the law” - just “works of law”. That’s worth taking a note of, because it gives us a clue about what Paul is really criticizing. Unfortunately you can’t tell this from a KJV or a NKJV, because although they usually italicize the words that aren’t in the original text, for some reason here they don’t.

Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by THE works of THE law but by faith in Yashua, even we have believed in Yashua Messiah, that we might be justified by faith in Messiah and not by THE works of THE law; for by THE works of THE law no flesh shall be justified. NKJV

So here we see one verse where in six cases the word “THE” has been inserted without it being in the original Greek. The same is true of ALL the other three times the expression is used in Galatians. This happens in a number of other cases in Galatians which are telling. That is, there are lots of cases where the King James translates the original Greek as “THE LAW”, but actually Paul wrote “law”.

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by THE WORKS OF THE LAW, or by the hearing of faith?

YLT Gal 3:2 this only do I wish to learn from you--by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith?

Again “works of law” not THE works of THE law

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by THE WORKS OF THE LAW, or by the hearing of faith? (wrong words)

Gal 3:5 He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you--by works of law or by the hearing of faith is it ?

Same thing - “works of law”.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of THE works of THE law .

Gal 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law--to do them,'

Same thing. “works of law”

So why’s Paul being negative about “works of law”? Well, some commentators tell us that: “Works of Law” is Paul’s way of saying “legalism”. Cranfield in ‘79 in the International Critical Commentary (Romans) says: “The Greek Language of Paul’s day possessed no word grouping corresponding to our “Legalism”. Ernest de Wit Burton also in the International Critical Commentary of Galatians 1921 says “By Erga Nomou (works of law) Paul means the obedience to formal statutes done in the LEGALISTIC SPIRIT. (quoting selectively) “the translation of this phrase is a serious defect”.

Paul makes four references to being “Under the law” in Galatians, which it’s difficult not to suggest is criticizing THE written Torah in our Bibles as oppressive. But yet again the translators have done us the same disservice. The original greek says simply “under law”. Again if Paul is taking pot shots at Jewish law when he speaks of being “under law” we need to ask the same question. Which part of first century Jewish Law was Paul implying was an oppressive burden?

YLT
Gal 4:4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,
Gal 4:5 that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye who are willing to be under law, the law do ye not hear?

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under THE law. NKJV

YLT Gal 5:18 and if by the Spirit ye are led, ye are not under law.

The original Greek DOES NOT SAY “under THE law”, simply “under law” in these verses.

So when Paul talks about being “under law” (remember it’s not “under THE law”, just “under law” and when he talks about “works of law” (not “THE works of THE law”) he can be talking about ANY aspect of first century Jewish ORAL law. With a little more understanding about the context in which Paul wrote the book of Galatians and more specifically some background about the Oral Torah, Galatians welcomes uncircumcised gentiles into the family of God (as opposed to the family of Abraham) and far from criticizing it, upholds the written Torah law, and criticizes at least some aspects of the burdensome Oral Torah law.

Offline masters_apprentice  
#8 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 10:40:20 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Examples - (Works of Law = Oral Talmudic Law/Customs)

KJV
Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
YLT
Galatians 3:2 this only do I wish to learn from you—by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith?

KJV
Galatians 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--
YLT
Galatians 3:5 He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you—by works of law or by the hearing of faith is it?

KJV
Galatians 3:10 for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
YLT
Galatians 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, ‘Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law—to do them,’
Offline James  
#9 Posted : Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:15:07 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
I will give you a couple of things to think about...

1. My friend wants to do the Passover this year and he is not circumcised. Must I make him become a "naturalized Israelite citizen through physical circumcision in accordance with Exodus 12:48"? In my opinion circumcision is for hygenic reasons in the Law at this point and the keeping or non-keeping is a breaking of Torah Law just as anything else is. But to circumcise for the sake of coming under Abraham's covenant is moot and over with.


Good for you. Your opinion means precisely bumpkiss to me. Your opinion is in line with Paul’s and contrary to God’s. I’m going to go ahead and side with God, you know the creator of the universe, but you can side with a man all you want.

MA wrote:
Paul called uncircumcised Gentile proselytes “Brethren”. He calls them his brothers. And he calls them his brothers not once, but lots of times. So whenever Paul uses the term “brethren”, he’s making a loaded point. At almost EVERY opportunity, Paul is saying, YOU UNCIRCUMCISED GENTILES ARE MY BROTHERS. Not the sort of thing you’d normally hear very often from a former enforcer of the Sanhedrin. His message VERY CLEARLY is: we are ALL sons of GOD, whether or NOT we are sons of Abraham. And that is arguably is the guts of the first (and most significant) of the two themes that Paul is addressing in his letter to the Galatian churches.


Thank you so much for proving my point. Paul contradicted Yahowah who said that any male who is not circumcised of the flesh cannot participate in or benefit from Passover.
Shemowth 12 wrote:
And Yahowah spoke unto Moseh and Aharown, ‘The prescribed ordinance of the Passover is not for every estranged and foreign child to partake in it. But every servant, every individual who chooses to be included and adopted, and who is circumcised at that time, he may partake in it and be nourished by it. Temporary residents and hired workers are not to partake in it or be nourished by it. Inside one’s home and with one’s family it will provide nourishment. You shall not go outside of the family and home, taking the flesh outside [of the family]. And you shall not break or sell its bones. The entire community and witness of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – a compound of ‘ysh – individuals, who sarah – strive and contend with, engage and persist with, are set free and empowered by ‘el – God) shall actively engage, celebrate, and profit from this with Him. And indeed when a guest who is living with you, and the visitor who is from a different place and culture acts upon and actively engages in, thereby celebrating Pesach / Passover to approach Yahowah, every male must be circumcised for him to reach this goal, and for him to approach and present himself. And then, at that time, he may approach so that he may celebrate, actively engage in, and do this (‘asah – act upon, perform, and profit from this). And then he shall be considered the same as a native-born member of the family, grafted and rooted into the land. But anyone who is uncircumcised he shall not partake in it or be nourished by it. Only one Towrah shall exist the naturally born person and for the visitor from different countries and cultures who lives as a guest in your midst.


So seeing as you have already contradicted God and choose to side with a man, I see no reason to bother to respond to anything else you have to say.

I will say once again, please read the thread where you stated all this same stuff and were proven wrong 3 years ago before you post the same thing again, because unless you can address the points brought up prior there is no point in continuing this dialog.

http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/14/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/15/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#10 Posted : Saturday, March 14, 2015 10:52:12 AM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Tell me something James...

1. After Yashua died did anything change in the Law? Is it just as it was before he died?

2. Did Torah invite the "foreigner" or "gentile" to participate in the Law?

3. Is the millineal kingdom of God inclusive of Isralite and Gentile for His assembly on earth?

Paul tells us he was sent to the Gentile. For what reason? To bring them to Torah Law which is NOT the Covenant of Abraham as seen through cirumcision. Paul did not preach lawlessness.

I have tried to explain to you what Paul is saying and again for some reason you are not able to see it since you have a predisposed dogma that Paul is wrong, bad, and blasphemous. I am sorry you cannot get through this.

Paul knows this stuff WAY better than you or I or KP or anyone you will ever meet.
Offline James  
#11 Posted : Saturday, March 14, 2015 4:54:47 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
I don’t know why I continue to waste my time, but here we go.

MA wrote:
Tell me something James...

1. After Yashua died did anything change in the Law? Is it just as it was before he died?


First there is no LAW, Towrah means teaching, instruction and guidance, not LAW.

Second the Towrah did not change after Yahowsha’s body died. He told us that he did not come to do away with, and that nothing in it would change so long as heaven and earth remain.
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.
Mat 5:19 “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

The last bit is particulairly condemning of your man Paul who has taught Christians the world over to ignore the Towrah.


MA wrote:
2. Did Torah invite the "foreigner" or "gentile" to participate in the Law?


Since there is no LAW in Towrah NO. Yahowah through the Towrah did invite everyone to participate in His Covenant, Yahuwdi and Gentile. He was quite clear that there is but ONE Towrah for the natural born and the gentile.


MA wrote:
3. Is the millineal kingdom of God inclusive of Isralite and Gentile for His assembly on earth?


Yes and No. The Millennial will include natural born Yahuwdi and Gentiles, like me, who have been grafted in, but we will all be Yahuwdi.

MA wrote:
Paul tells us he was sent to the Gentile. For what reason?


Better question, why do you believe him when he says this? What evidence did he present that he was sent by Yahowah?

Paul claimed the gentiles as his because he knew they were ignorant of the Towrah and he could more easily beguile them.

And we are shown in Acts that Peter was spreading the Word to gentiles long before Paul came on the scene.
MA wrote:
To bring them to Torah Law which is NOT the Covenant of Abraham as seen through cirumcision. Paul did not preach lawlessness.


There is no such thing as Towrah Law, the Towrah is not Law. The Towrah exists to guide us to Yah’s family, which is through the One and only Covenant. No Covenant, No Relationship.

MA wrote:
I have tried to explain to you what Paul is saying and again for some reason you are not able to see it since you have a predisposed dogma that Paul is wrong, bad, and blasphemous. I am sorry you cannot get through this.


http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197
Yeah we have had this conversation before too. I reject your premise based on the evidence of Paul’s own writings. You have yet to show any evidence to support anything you have to say. You can state your opinion as fact all you want it does not change what Paul wrote.

Pleas just go away, and this time stay away. I really don’t feel like having this same inane conversation with you again three years from now.
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/14/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/15/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#12 Posted : Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:45:36 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Sure James, whatever floats your boat. And you still have not answered my original question.

And as I said 3 years ago you folks should start your own religion since you are as close minded as they come and have mind tricked yourself into levels of grandeur which causes you to not open up to anyone outside your little c*rcle j*rk.

So you guys can sit here all day with your little forum and tell each other how smart you are, and miss it when folks like me try to help you. You are no different than the Pharisees when Yashua walked the earth.

And I can tell by your tone your heart is "uncircumsized". Circumcision of the heart, or did you not want to discuss that also? Your demeanor is vile and vicious, yet I am sure you walk around proudly with your supposed knowledge of scripture which you twist to fit your pre-deposed thought of what it should be.

You still did not answer my question and in fact hardly addresses anything I wrote instead just going to forks in the road back to your stance - which is Paul is stupid, knows nothing, etc. Paul was a genius and Yashua straightened him out. And you are in the same mold Paul was until he had his eyes opened. Yours are closed.

Good day to you, but I hope whomver has eyes to read got what I was trying to say. If you catalyzed that then this was all worthwhile.

Edited by user Monday, March 16, 2015 10:11:11 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline masters_apprentice  
#13 Posted : Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:40:23 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I must say I do resepct the fact you published my last post. And just for grins...

Paul said...
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Which says folloe the Law, yet Yashua said...
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

So by your literalism Yshua is a Pagan and Paul is spot on Torah right?
Offline InHisName  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:50:13 AM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 104

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 35 post(s)
MA,

It is normal to hold fast to that which the authorities have taught you. But you are harming yourself and your loved ones by not thinking for yourself. You need to dig deeper into Yahowah's word, look beneath the errant english translations, to find the truth of Yahowah's word. You don't need experts to understand what He is saying, you just need to open your ears.

Free apps (e-sword) are available to help you with a rudimentary tool to do this investigation. Just keep in mind that most of the tools available to understand the underlying hebrew words are written to support the english translations. The introductions to Yada Yah and Intro To God will list more comprehensive and accurate definitions. These two books can also HELP you with YOUR translation of God's word. But don't trust Yada's translations!!! Verify them yourself.

This takes time, an open ear and the will to know the truth. There is so much that is obviously and glaringly wrong with christianity and english translations, but you can't see it because of the warped lenses of your christian glasses.

What I suggest for you above is time consuming, earth-shattering, distressing, eye-opening and the most wonderful and rewarding experience you will every have.

The link below will cost 35 minutes of your time, but hopefully will give you enough to think about that you will consider the steps above.

http://www.blessyahowah....ur1_Shattering_Myths.mp3

BTW the bless yahowah site is a wonderful resource for Yah's truth!
thanks 1 user thanked InHisName for this useful post.
matt on 3/17/2015(UTC)
Offline Richard  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:32:54 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)
I assume that by now we all know the master to whom "masters_apprentice" is enslaved. JB, ignore that self-worshipping, Satan-promoting religionist and get on with your relationship with our heavenly Father. The willingly deceived such as masters_apprentice love to yak and expound and make much noise, all the while imagining themselves to be oh-so-wonderfully-astute. They imagine that all others will be cowed by their impressive intellect and reasoning. Ignore him, I say, and stop tap dancing with the devil. Leave the fool to himself and his reject daddy.
thanks 1 user thanked Richard for this useful post.
matt on 3/17/2015(UTC)
Offline Glfnaz  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 7:46:46 PM(UTC)
Glfnaz
Joined: 7/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I don't know RM. I too was that way once. A militant xtian. yada was too. Sometimes it takes time. The posters have indeed pointed him in the right direction. It's up to him now. I can't believe the carp I used to buy into. But one day I looked deeper.
Offline masters_apprentice  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 8:01:16 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
CONTINUING -

Although it was of course supposed to be the bedrock of Jewish law, THE God breathed WRITTEN Torah-law which we have in our Bibles, was therefore probably only about a third of the Jewish Torah-Law (both written and Oral Torah law combined) during the times recorded in the New Testament. When Paul writes to the Galatian churches about the GENERIC subject of “law”, “works of law” and being “under law”,we need to know much more before we assume he was criticizing the written Torah law. The written Torah-law is a blessing. It is perfectly clear from scripture that keeping the written Torah-law isn't a curse. It never has been and never will be. Paul of course says in Romans 7:12:

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. - Young's Literal Translation

We know that Paul's talking about the written Torah law here, because he's specifically mentioning the commandments. But notice that he refers to it here as "the law". Although that said there are some cases when Paul writes and refers to the written Torah-law as "law" without the definite article.

Paul was no stranger to the oral torah-law, because he of course was a Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in the Oral Torah-Law, but the Sadducees didn't.

Philippians 3:5 circumcision on the eighth day! of the race of Israel! of the tribe of Benjamin! a Hebrew of Hebrews! according to law (NOT "the law") a Pharisee! - Young's Literal Translation

In chapter 1 of Galatians and verse 14: Paul writes:

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the TRADITIONS OF MY FATHERS.
As he defends himself to his peers Paul explains:

Acts 22:3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. NKJV

So Paul was taught the oral Pharisaic traditions of the fathers at the feet of Gamaliel. But notice what Paul says about what he believes AFTER his conversion from Pharisaic Judaism on the road to Damascus. In Acts 24:14 Paul sums up his beliefs in front of an array of accusers AFTER he has been converted.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are WRITTEN IN THE LAW AND IN THE PROPHETS:

Paul is saying here: "I believe in all the written scriptures in the Old Testament", BUT for a former Pharisee about the Oral Torah law he says what? He mentions NOTHING about the Oral Torah law, which was later codified in the Mishnah.
He COULD have said: "believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE FATHERS". But he doesn't. And that tells us volumes.

Before his conversion Paul was a Pharisee, a trained specialist in the Oral Torah law and exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers. Following his conversion though Paul is critical of "works of law" or legalism and Paul is equally critical of being "under law and subsequently in Acts 24:14 declares only that he believes in the written Torah law.

Whilst to the Jews over the generations since the exile in Babylon it had increasingly seemed to be, that the more they kept law's oral additions and traditions, the more righteous they were. Paul knew that this was nonsense. It's certainly the case that Yashua criticized the oral torah-law traditions of the Pharisees, which were later codified in the Mishnah and then commented on in the Talmuds.

Certain elements of the oral torah law (and the later Mishnah) are based upon the rejection of scripture in favour of rabbinical traditions and are therefore invalid. Others deal in the minutia and lack the broader perspective regarding bigger issues, and have been rejected by scripture itself. Some of the judgements are inconclusive and even contradictory and consequently difficult understand how to put into practise. Certainly some rabbinical traditions completely contradict scripture and are therefore null and void.

Particularly given Deuteronomy 4:2 scripture’s authority regarding top level principles is unassailable. Where there’s a contradiction, Yahweh's word “trumps” any form of rabbinic tradition. Since certain elements of Mishnah are intended to be an additional protective “hedge to the law”, Deuteronomy 4:2 denies such rulings validity.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2
1 ¶ Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Those "of the circumcision" who were trying to compel the gentile proselytes in the Galatian synagogues to be circumcised were wrong to do so. That's the primary theme of the Book of Galatians since it became a tradition of being a Jew (as it is today) under the covenant of Abraham which is now obsolete. Circumcision became a hygenic Law, but as a covenant Law it is not in effect, (except for Oral traditional views). We are under a different Covenant now and will be under a different covenant during the millinial rule. So if circumcision is now a hygenic Law why should a person passionate about the PAssover be kept from it? Who in this forum does not break a Mosaic Law? Don't be a hypocrite.

A more careful study gives us a lot of vital background about the second theme in Galatians which most commentators fail to get to grips with - the subject of Jewish Torah law. In the first century when Paul wrote Galatians the written Torah represented a miniscule part of Jewish Law, albeit the most important. By far the largest part of first century torah was the Oral Torah law.

When we examine his life before and after his conversion on the road to Damascus, we see significant differences in Paul's views about the Oral Torah law. Before conversion he was exceedingly zealous of the "traditions of the fathers". After conversion in Acts 24:14 he doesn't mention his belief in them at all. This fits well with our knowledge that Yashua criticises some aspects of the oral torah-law but in the sermon on the mount upholds the written Torah Law and indeed curses those who teach that it is "done away".

So when Paul talks about being "under law" (remember it's not "under THE law", just "under law" and when he talks about "works of law" (not "THE works of THE law") he can be talking about ANY aspect of first century Jewish law.
thanks 1 user thanked masters_apprentice for this useful post.
tagim on 4/17/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 8:12:09 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
INHisName, I listened to the MP3. Yet another Paul hater that can read the bible at a shallow level. You need to go back and read what I have posted here. I do not understand Paul haters, but there are a LOT of you. It sems to be a "hte Paul" club. Per the MP3...

At minute 9:00 you folks quote Paul on Romans 13 and totally do not get what Paul is saying. He is not talking about civil governing authorities. He is not saying bow down to the president. He is saying all power comes from Yahweh. It is the Bible translators that are messing you up. Many bibles re-word this verse on purpose.

12:05 – He is not in direct opposition.

15:31 – There is no new religion. Paul did not start Christianity. He setup assemblies to teach the Law and the KJ bible changed the name to the Pagan word "church". Paul was not a Christian setting up churches - he was a follower of Messiah setting up assemblies.

27:37. True.

28:00 It is not a New testament. It is a new COVENANT. A covenant is a "contract". If you do "A" Yahweh will do "B". The atonement of sin has been changed since Yashua died.

FOR YOU PAUL HATERS ONCE MORE, you never think scripture is talking about you, but here it is forewarned...

2Pe 3:16 Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.
2Pe 3:17 My dear friends, you have been warned ahead of time! So don't let the errors of evil people lead you down the wrong path and make you lose your balance.


Whomever made that MP3 - I feel for you, but you do not get Paul.

Edited by user Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:41:58 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline InHisName  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:10:37 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 104

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 35 post(s)
YAWN Sleep
thanks 2 users thanked InHisName for this useful post.
Sheree on 3/19/2015(UTC), matt on 3/19/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#20 Posted : Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:50:44 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
CONTINUING......

Of course the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the writings (Kethuvim), the things that we refer to collectively as the Old Testament, are the bedrock of Judaism, BUT since the times of the Babylonian exile Judaism also included the Oral Torah-law.
That means that at the time of the FIRST century, when Galatians was written, the Jewish members of the assembly in Asia Minor to whom it was written, would have come from a background which had been steeped in the ADDITIONAL oral torah-laws as much as they understood the written scriptures. They had to "unlearn" these oral "traditions of the fathers". Even today most Jews and Christianians who read the bible know little if nothing about these added aspects of the Jewish law and religion. And of course therein lies at least part of the problem in really getting to grips with what Paul was addressing in his Epistles to the assemblies in that part of Asia Minor.

In post-exilic times important historical events were made the basis for the institution of NEW FASTS AND FEASTS. When the first temple was destroyed and the people were carried into captivity, "the sacrifice of the body and one's own fat and blood" were substituted for that of animals (see Talmud, Berakhoth 17 a). With such a view of their importance, fasts of all sorts were as a matter of course rapidly multiplied. (Note that the Day of Atonement was the only pre-exilic fast.) Of these post-exilic fasts and feasts:

• The Feast of Dedication or Hanukka (1 Macc 4:52-59; John 10:22; Mishna, Ta`anith 2:10; Mo`edh QaTon 3:9; Josephus, Ant, XII, vii; Apion, II, xxxix)
• The Feast of Purim (Esther 3:7; 9:24 ff; 2 Macc 15:36); and
• The Fasts of the Fourth [Month] or Fast of Tammuz 17 (Zechariah 8:19; Jeremiah 39:1; 52; Mishna, Ta`anith 4:6),
• The [Fast of the] Fifth [Month] or Tisha be-Av (Fast of Av 9)(Zechariah 7:3-4; 8:19; Ta`anith 4:6),
• The [Fast of the] Seventh [Month] (Zechariah 7:5; 8:19; Jeremiah 41:1 ff; 2 Kings 25:25; Cedher 'Olam Rabba' 26; Meghillath Ta`anith c. 12),
• The [Fast of the] Tenth Month (Zechariah 8:19; 2 Kings 25:1),

Notice that whilst the Bible records these five fasts as historical events, nowhere does God command them. Paul was CRITICAL of this in Galatians and he said…

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Offline James  
#21 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 8:17:49 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Paul’s Apprentice wrote:
Yet another Paul hater


You just don’t understand. Yada really loves Paul, you just don’t understand what he means. WE all really love Paul, you just don’t understand what we are saying.

When I said I hate Paul, and that Paul is a false prophet what I really meant was that Paul was a great and wise leader who we should all follow. You just don’t understand what we are saying.
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/20/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/20/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#22 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 10:40:28 AM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
James,

Paul was trained on levels you and your buddies here do not get. Trained daily by the greatest of teachers that would make today's teachers look like 1st graders. I'll leave it at that.

I would recommend you go back and read the posts instead of closing yourself off. And the posts 3 yers ago. And pray for understanding beforehand. You do pray don't you?

There are 2 options with Paul obviously. 1 is he is whom I tell you he is and 2 he is a false biblical writer used to deceive the masses. You folks choose 2. If you take the fact that #1 is the correct answer then you must go back and ask "How can what he write be correct". Then you will look for the way for his writings to make sense. Then you will see that Paul talks about 2 kinds of Law not one. And the 2nd law is what he means when he tells us it (oral law) is of no use more or less. But you folks seem to have a set mind set and unfortunately that is not the way to take on scripture. And you get confused every time his writings use the word "law".

Paul is not easy to get, the understanding of who or what the Ruach Ha-kodesh is is not easy to get, the "who" or "what" is Yahweh is not easy to get. It is too bad people here get these answers in their head before they search the scriptures for truth.

I think I have said enough on this post. But I do enjoy the banter since the ones causing the banter make me write me for the ones who will read this and get it. I have always said I write for the 5% - not the 95%.
Offline James  
#23 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 5:27:11 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
Paul was trained on levels you and your buddies here do not get. Trained daily by the greatest of teachers that would make today's teachers look like 1st graders. I'll leave it at that.


Yeah, the same teachers that Yahowsha called a den of vipers. Paul was trained by religious teachers, I don’t give a hairy rat’s butt what religious teachers taught him. And just because a teacher is great in the eyes of man does not make him great in the eyes of Yah

Against my better judgment I’ll give rational dialogue with you one more chance.

Okay, let's take this step by step, one issue at a time, no tangents, not distractions, no changing the subject.

Let's start with the same issue I tried to start with three years ago, and you continually dodged and avoided.

You claim that Paul was condemning the "Oral Law" and not the Towrah. PROOVE IT.

Sticking exclusively with Galatians for the sake of simplicity. Show me any evidence that what Paul is condemning is the “Oral Law” show me one place where he quotes, cites, references or in any other implies that he is speaking of anything other than the Towrah.

To quote myself from three years ago.
James wrote:
If Paul doesn’t make a distinction between which nomos he is referring to, why should we add it there for him? If you and I were having a discussion about the difference between “Mosaic Law” and “Rabbinic Law” we would qualify which we are refereeing to when we talk. I have had many conversations like this and never once have I used just the word law and hoped people would know what I am talking about at any given time. So if Paul was speaking in favor of Torah but against the Oral Law, why does he not specify which he is refereeing to?

Also Galatians was written to gentiles, not Jews, and gentiles where never under the Oral/Rabbinic Law. In all likelihood like most today they probably didn’t know that there was a difference. Most who have not taken the time to study Judaism don’t know that there is they believe in an Oral Torah and a Written Torah, most outside of Judaism think that Jews follow the written Torah.

Also since Paul uses nomos without any modifier we must examine the context in which it is being said in order to gain clues as to which nomos he is refereeing. In that light there are a few things which are important to note:
1. Does he ever quote or cite the oral law? NO
2. Does he ever quote or cite the Towrah? YES 3:6,8,10,11,12,13, and that is just in the 3rd chapter.
3. Galatians 3:17 tells us that the nomos he is referring to is the one that came 430 years after Abram, i.e. the Torah
4. 3:23 he says we were held prisoner by this nomos, still hasn’t changed which he is speaking of, this is a single stream of consciousness. Not once has he made a distinction of there even being two laws.
5. 4:24 while delineating his 2 Covenants he links the law that he is referring to, to a covenant formed at Mount Sinai, and that covenant to slavery. What significance does Mt. Sinai hold in Scripture that is where Yahowah gave Moshe the Towrah. Still no mention of oral law, but now we have him linking the Torah to a covenant of slavery.
I could pull out every reference in Galatians to Law, and not one does he ever even attempt to link to Pharisees, not one does he ever attempt to separate from another. Every reference to nomos in Galatians is to a single nomos, he is not distinguishing between Torah and Oral Law, he is not speaking of manmade vs God’s law, he is speaking of 1 nomos throughout the text, and given the information provided about that nomos we have no choice but to link it to the Torah. The Towrah is:
1. The only nomos he cites or quotes.
2. The only nomos given 430 years after Abram.
3. The only nomos associated with Mt. Sinai.


So without changing the subject or dodging the question provide any evidence or reason to argue that Paul was speaking of anything other than the Towrah. If you cannot or are unwilling to do this, then please just leave, or you will be banned.
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
thanks 3 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/20/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/20/2015(UTC), Sheree on 3/21/2015(UTC)
Offline Sheree  
#24 Posted : Saturday, March 21, 2015 2:34:43 PM(UTC)
Sheree
Joined: 8/1/2012(UTC)
Posts: 63

Thanks: 69 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 14 post(s)
gotta love the patience of youth..At my age and also that of Yada's my patiences has been worn thin.Have learned that the adversaries tactics of diverting our time with useless debates and such could much be better spent seeking Yahowahs truths and helping the real seekers of Yah,shake the dust off and move on.
thanks 1 user thanked Sheree for this useful post.
matt on 3/21/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#25 Posted : Saturday, March 21, 2015 6:00:47 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I will have time to post to your reply on Monday.

Offline masters_apprentice  
#26 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2015 9:43:16 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
(well...I just typed for 15 minutes, I hit some key by accident, and the reply vanished unfinished so if you get an email before this it is not the correct one. Where was I. Darn. Guess I will start over)

There is probably not much more I can write that will convince you of what I am trying to tell you about Paul. I will say a few odds and ends…

Most people that think like you think Paul is going against the Law of God, speaks out of both sides of his mouth, forsakes the Law, and is teaching Pagan doctrine. And unfortunately there are those Christians that say Paul explained away the Law and started Christianity. And some of us, very few, see Paul in a very different way.

Paul had a terrible task put on him – to teach the Law to the Gentile. The Law was always supposed to be taught to them. For example…

Num 9:14 Anyone, including gentiles who live among you, can celebrate Passover, if they follow all the regulations.

and...

Num 15:14 And the gentiles who live among you must also follow these rules.

and...

Lev 17:10 I will turn against any of my people who eat blood. This also includes any gentiles living among you.

and...

Deu 31:12 Everyone must come--men, women, children, and even the gentiles who live in your towns. And each new generation will listen and learn to worship the LORD their God with fear and trembling and to do exactly what is said in God's Law.

(Of course gentile and foreigner are basically interchangeable)

Paul was asked to do what Israel failed at - teach the world the Law. We see in the END TIMES the world will be run under Law also (Isaiah 2:2-3).

Do you know how hard it is to teach a “Christian” ANYTHING about the Law? They do not want to hear it. Don’t want to know about Sabbath, Feasts, etc. Paul faced this same problem and in his Epistles he is having problems. The people do not understand the difference in Jewish law and Torah Law and Paul is trying to explain it. This is very difficult. And he tries. And somehow his entire message got rail-roaded. But even today Jews do not even know what they are doing and do not know what they are following. It is a shame.

One other way I know Paul is on target is by using a bible called the Message bible for Paul. Many people “diss” the Message bible. When it comes to Paul they got it “Spot-on” though. Look at how they translate Paul so as to call out when he is NOT talking about Mosaic Law. For example…

Gal 3:12 Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: "The one who does these things [rule-keeping]continues to live by them."

They use the term rule-keeping. And here they use the term Law-code

Rom 7:8 Don't you remember how it was? I do, perfectly well. The law code started out as an excellent piece of work. What happened, though, was that sin found a way to pervert the command into a temptation, making a piece of "forbidden fruit" out of it. The law code, instead of being used to guide me, was used to seduce me. Without all the paraphernalia of the law code, sin looked pretty dull and lifeless,
Rom 7:9 and I went along without paying much attention to it. But once sin got its hands on the law code and decked itself out in all that finery, I was fooled, and fell for it.

They understand what Paul is saying. I suggest you get a Message bible for Paul and compare it to the King James. You will see the differences. And the Message does this in many other places with Paul.

Anyway, if I could give everyone I meet a magic pill to take that would make them get this I would. Unfortunately scripture does not work like this. It took me 2 years to get an answer on 1 topic I had difficulty with once. And this study about Paul is the same. It is complicated. All I can tell you is Yashua/Yahweh put into this book what he wanted in. Paul is in. You need to say, “Paul is correct, but his statements seem off. In what way could they make sense” and try to find that answer. Then it will come.
Offline James  
#27 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2015 11:44:06 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
There is probably not much more I can write that will convince you of what I am trying to tell you about Paul. I will say a few odds and ends…


You have done nothing to convince us, other than state your view as fact. You have not provided any evidence to your position, you have not presented an argument for your position, you have simply stated a position.

I have not only stated my argument which is counter to your position, but I have also provided evidence to support my position, as well as evidence that disproves your position.

I have asked you to simply prove your stated position. If your position is correct it should be a simple thing to do, but you are unable to do so because your position has no basis.

MA wrote:
Most people that think like you think Paul is going against the Law of God, speaks out of both sides of his mouth, forsakes the Law, and is teaching Pagan doctrine. And unfortunately there are those Christians that say Paul explained away the Law and started Christianity. And some of us, very few, see Paul in a very different way.


Again please support your view. We all understand your view, we know exactly how you see Paul, but what we don’t know is why, and how you have that view.

MA wrote:
Paul had a terrible task put on him – to teach the Law to the Gentile. The Law was always supposed to be taught to them. For example…

Num 9:14 Anyone, including gentiles who live among you, can celebrate Passover, if they follow all the regulations.

and...

Num 15:14 And the gentiles who live among you must also follow these rules.

and...

Lev 17:10 I will turn against any of my people who eat blood. This also includes any gentiles living among you.

and...

Deu 31:12 Everyone must come--men, women, children, and even the gentiles who live in your towns. And each new generation will listen and learn to worship the LORD their God with fear and trembling and to do exactly what is said in God's Law.

(Of course gentile and foreigner are basically interchangeable)


Agreed the Towrah was meant to be taught to any and all that would hear it.

What evidence do you have that Paul was tasked by God with anything? All we have is Paul’s word for it. But don’t answer this because that would just create a tangent and I want to keep this as focused as we possibly can on the 1 singular subject of “Did Paul condemn the Towrah or the Oral Law”



MA wrote:
Do you know how hard it is to teach a “Christian” ANYTHING about the Law? They do not want to hear it. Don’t want to know about Sabbath, Feasts, etc. Paul faced this same problem and in his Epistles he is having problems. The people do not understand the difference in Jewish law and Torah Law and Paul is trying to explain it. This is very difficult. And he tries. And somehow his entire message got rail-roaded. But even today Jews do not even know what they are doing and do not know what they are following. It is a shame.


It is impossible to teach a religious person anything contrary to their religion, agreed. Again here you state that Paul was trying to teach the difference between the Oral Law and the Towrah, but again you have not backed that up. Where does Paul ever make a distinction between the two? Paul uses the Greek nomos every time, and never modifies it with Oral or anything else to distinguish. Again, he never cites or references the Oral Law. So to say that he is speaking of the Oral Law without any evidence, when in fact all the evidence is that he is speaking of the Towarh, as I pointed out.

MA wrote:
One other way I know Paul is on target is by using a bible called the Message bible for Paul. Many people “diss” the Message bible. When it comes to Paul they got it “Spot-on” though. Look at how they translate Paul so as to call out when he is NOT talking about Mosaic Law. For example…

Gal 3:12 Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: "The one who does these things [rule-keeping]continues to live by them."

They use the term rule-keeping. And here they use the term Law-code…

Rom 7:8 Don't you remember how it was? I do, perfectly well. The law code started out as an excellent piece of work. What happened, though, was that sin found a way to pervert the command into a temptation, making a piece of "forbidden fruit" out of it. The law code, instead of being used to guide me, was used to seduce me. Without all the paraphernalia of the law code, sin looked pretty dull and lifeless,
Rom 7:9 and I went along without paying much attention to it. But once sin got its hands on the law code and decked itself out in all that finery, I was fooled, and fell for it.

They understand what Paul is saying. I suggest you get a Message bible for Paul and compare it to the King James. You will see the differences. And the Message does this in many other places with Paul.


Again we have been over this. The Message Bible is being disingenuous with their translations. Paul wrote the same word, but they choose to add a distinction to it with no linguistic, or subjective basis to it what so ever. They arbitrarily added words to the text to suit their agenda. This alone should make you want to throw out the Message Bible.

MA wrote:
Anyway, if I could give everyone I meet a magic pill to take that would make them get this I would. Unfortunately scripture does not work like this. It took me 2 years to get an answer on 1 topic I had difficulty with once. And this study about Paul is the same. It is complicated. All I can tell you is Yashua/Yahweh put into this book what he wanted in. Paul is in. You need to say, “Paul is correct, but his statements seem off. In what way could they make sense” and try to find that answer. Then it will come.


Neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha had anything to do with the compiling of the so called canon of the bible. It was compiled by religious men who sought to usurp God’s authority. Human, corruptible untrustworthy men choose what was put in and what was left out, God had nothing to do with it.

Yahowah did however give us a test in Dabariym/Deuteronomy 18 as to how to determine for ourselves what is from Him and what is not. That is the test that I use, and when I apply that to Paul’s writings it fails, falling way short in a test where a single wrong means failure. I trust Yahowah and His Word, I do not trust any men, be they the crooks who compiled the “Bible” or hacks who translated the Message Bible to support Paul.

Here is the thing. I have considered your view, everyone here has, in fact like most here I once held your view. But then we examined the evidence and realized that that view was unsupportable. So we did the logical and reasonable thing, we abandoned that view, and changed our understanding to one which fits the evidence. You however cling with a religious fervor to your view despite the evidence. You will not even consider another view. Like I said the last time we had this conversation; there is no amount of evidence or reason which will ever persuade a true believer that they are wrong. And you are a true believer.
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/24/2015(UTC), Sheree on 3/24/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#28 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:59:50 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I'll most likely end my posting on this subject in this post with one question at the end and then you can have the last word. But before I post the question let me quote some verses from Paul just for clarity sake...

1. Col 2:16 Then do not let anyone judge you in eating, or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,

This is not telling people to eat anything, drink anything, or NOT do the Feasts or Sabbaths. What he is telling people is that when you START TO eat correctly, celebrate the Feasts and Sabbaths, do not care what your friends will say as you come to Law and repentance.

2. Act 24:1 (ASV) Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings

Paul kept the Laws for offerings.

3. Act 24:14 (GW) But I'll admit to you that I'm a follower of the way of Christ, which they call a sect. This means that I serve our ancestors' God and believe everything written in Moses' Teachings and the Prophets.

Paul confirms his beliefs and supports the written Law.

4. Coll 2:14-20 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his stake;

Ordinances is from a Greek word "dogma". He is saying he blotted out "dogma" which is religious doctrine - not Torah.

5. Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;

A New Testament study on the word "ordinance" as used in Colossians 2:14 and above reveals that the word is from the Greek "dogma" and refers to man's rules and regulations, not Yahweh's. Throughout the New Testament where "ordinances" has been translated from "dogma," the meaning is a civil, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical law, Strong's Greek Dictionary No. 1378. The word has been used in only five other places in the New Testament and always refers to man-made laws. Let's examine each instance.

6. Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid.

Paul reinforces his stance.

7. Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

This is not about eating food. Many will disagree with me, but this is about doctrine and study of the Word. He is saying do not judge those not as smart as you. You have eaten the "good food" (the Word) and they have not, but do not hold it against them.

This being said I guess I can keep going. But I stand behind my assertion as it is clear to me. Paul talks about 2 kinds of Law. Oral law and Mosaic Law. He mentions in his writings many times specific wordings such as "as was written" to be clear. He never endorses sinful behavior. And he was mixing oral and Mosaic law in his Epistles and that is what the problem is that confuses people.

Now, let me ask you a question. How are these verse not in conflict?...

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

and this...

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The answer is the Law in Romans is Mosaic Law and the law in Galatians is oral law. That is why these verses do not conflict. And Paul in Galatians 3 is going back and forth mixing Mosaic and oral law in his phrases and it gets very difficult to grasp. Even I get a little mixed up and I am looking for it.

Anyway.............












Offline Bubsy  
#29 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:02:23 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 107
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 18 post(s)
I'll also point out that at one time, Yada also thought like "masters apprentice", thinking that Paul was misunderstood, and sought to reconcile what Paul wrote to Yahowah's Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. From the eighth and ninth paragraphs in "The Truth About Paul" :

"At the onset of this study, now over five years ago, I was inclined to believe Paul’s testimony. I thought that Sha’uwl (Paulos’s given name which is indistinguishable in Hebrew from She’owl, the realm of the dead and demonic, meaning “to question”) was “an Apostle,” that he encountered “Jesus” on the road to Damascus, and that he spent three years in Arabia in preparation for his mission—just as he had claimed. At the commencement of what would become a comprehensive evaluation of Paulos’s (a name which means “lowly and little” in Latin) testimony, I was predisposed to think that scribal error, misleading translations, errant transliterations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over whether Sha’uwl was assailing the Torah or Rabbinic Law, and an overall ignorance of the Torah’s purpose, had collectively abetted religious doctrines which were inconsistent with Paul’s intended message.
But it will be Paul’s letters, his words, not my preconceived notions, which will ultimately determine whether or not the world’s most influential religious character had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to establish a “New Testament” in place of an “Old Testament” – especially recognizing that according to Yahowah there is still only one Covenant and it has yet to be renewed. But if he did, and if he made his case, then the Christian faith may be valid. But if he didn’t, billions of Christian souls have been misled – their lives shortchanged."

Once he closely examined the evidence, though, he realized he could not reconcile Paul's letters to Yahowah's Word. And it only got worse for Paul after that.
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
thanks 1 user thanked Bubsy for this useful post.
matt on 3/24/2015(UTC)
Offline pilgrimhere  
#30 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:30:09 PM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
From the 2012 thread:

Is it the comfort of familiarity that cements your heart to such fallacies as you are promoting? You seem to be encouraging us to examine Paul’s blusters with our hearts above our minds. Scripture decries such a notion as abhorrent. The crux of your premise is fraudulent because you’ve arrived at your destination from your destination. Travel the path from the start and you are more likely to find that narrow gate that leads to life. It doesn’t hurt to ask and keep asking, knock and keep knocking, seek and keep seeking. But you have to stop talking and start listening … to Yahowah at some point.


In so much time, you've not taken a single step forward MA. I’ve discovered that people don’t tend to accept truthful information if they aren’t looking for it to begin with. My own understanding has changed considerably since 2012. I have made (and continue to make) statements that are not perfectly accurate as I trudge along. Indeed, I remain far from my destination, but I have identified where the path begins and who laid it. Yah's perspective of his own instruction is the only one that matters. Not once has Yah so much as hinted even remotely of the religious routine described thoroughly, but inconsistently by Paul and modified later by Marcion ... and more so by many other politically minded, inscrutable men over many centuries. Even so, if you see no animosity to Yah's Towrah in Paul, then adhere to Towrah and direct your attention to Yah's instructions rather than waste time and energy arguing a moot point. Should you continue to focus on Paul's ramblings in this forum, you can only be attempting to feed your ego, a habit that most distinguishes Paul from any valid prophet. No one here will listen to you because your remarks are either unrelated to or inconsistent with Yah's instructions that hold the attention of this forum. As such, you are merely a distraction from any productive conversation.

The only proof I would like to see from you is that you are capable of listening - actually receiving and processing information, assessing the content for validity based on substantial evidence, and then shifting your paradigm to what is reasonable from what is unsound. I suspect however that you will prove otherwise ... again.
thanks 2 users thanked pilgrimhere for this useful post.
matt on 3/24/2015(UTC), shamar emet on 3/29/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#31 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:44:41 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,593
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
The answer is the Law in Romans is Mosaic Law and the law in Galatians is oral law. That is why these verses do not conflict. And Paul in Galatians 3 is going back and forth mixing Mosaic and oral law in his phrases and it gets very difficult to grasp. Even I get a little mixed up and I am looking for it.

Anyway.............


Again, you have not provided any evidence that Paul is speaking of anything other than the Towrah in Galatians. You have also again not addressed any of the evidence presented which shows that he is speaking of the Towrah. Again, if he is speaking of the Oral Law, then why does he cite and quote the Towrah, and not the Oral Law? Every bit of context in Galatians leads to one unavoidable conclusion, Paul is speaking of the Towrah.

You get a little mixed up because you are trying to make sense of the incomprehensible. Paul is confusing, not because we/you are not smart enough to understand him, he is confusing because he sought to be so. Paul by his own admission, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, to be all things to all people. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha nor any of the Prophets made such a claim or sought such. They all were direct and uncompromising with Yah’s Word. Paul sought to win over as many as possible, by any means necessary. So to gentiles he condemned the Towrah, and to Jews he praised it. Confusion is the mother of deception. Paul is confusing because Paul is deceptive, following the spirit, Ha Satan, that he encountered on the road to Damascus.
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/26/2015(UTC), shamar emet on 3/29/2015(UTC)
Offline InHisName  
#32 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 8:58:23 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 104

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
I'll most likely end my posting on this subject in this post


Thank Yah!
Offline Scott In BR  
#33 Posted : Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:51:25 AM(UTC)
Scott In BR
Joined: 7/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 35
Man
United States
Location: Prairieville

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
It's been five years, I hope MA learned something about the Plague Of Death AKA Paulos.
Offline Stewart James  
#34 Posted : Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:40:04 AM(UTC)
Stewart James
Joined: 7/4/2017(UTC)
Posts: 97
Man
Thailand
Location: Thailand

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Scott A Hunt Go to Quoted Post
It's been five years, I hope MA learned something about the Plague Of Death AKA Paulos.


I can tell you, I have learned something valuable from these posts, even though they are from 5 years ago.

I long since suspected that Paul was an addition by the Roman System! I cannot prove such a thing, but see the video about "The Invention of Christianity and Flavian Dynasty I posted here in the Twilight zone. Very interesting!

I know that all the "New Testement" writings have been subject to serious editing from Early Rome to portray what they wantd to use to control the populous, rendering them spurios to a degree. It's such a shame really as prior to coming to learn about Yada Yah, I had placed my focus mainly on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts plus Revelations! I have to question all things I have learneed from the NT!

It was probably not such a bad thing for MA to post his ramblings, much like Pauls, since all he has done is cement the notion I had that hardly anyone seems to accept truth when presented accurately and sensibly. It seems everyone (outside of this forum) espouses their own version of truth, when all you need to do is understand the Towrah!

As "pilgimhere" suggested, start from the beginning of the path! Certainly the path is narrow and few find it, but MA has had a chance to find the beginning of that path! The entrance is narrow, that is quite sure, but when you find it the path begins to widen from what seemed like a tightrope, into a wider path full of surprizes. At least, that is my very recent experience so far!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease being honest!
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.