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

Notification

Icon
Error

13 Pages«<111213
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#601 Posted : Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:49:01 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
LB wrote:
Shalom alychem Yada;
Just wanted to share an insight I carelessly overlooked many times. I looked and beheld a man standing there with a measuring line, how many times have I read this without thinking? Have you ever seen an ancient plumb line? Yeah ..neither have I, until I was watching a documentary on Egypt, the whole of Mesopotamia shared building skills, sometimes willingly, other times not so willingly, this measuring line spoken of was made from hemp [7 leaf plant] and a stone, now if I look up the word stone in Hebrew and pulled it apart into the Paleo--it all suddenly fell into place for me. Abeyn, is the stone attached to the cord that connects us to Yahowah. And then I was thinking about the words Hayah asher hayah. It all makes sense. Not that it did not before, but this is a perfect little jewel connects it for me much better. Asher is the line, and hayah connects [asher] to hayah-what a pearl !!


Say, on another unrelated topic I have a question/query. I know that many have a problem calling Yahowah our King, but he describes himself as such, it is man’s perversion of what a King is...that is revolting, in my mind there is only one who stands above all men, He who created us, yet he is humble, kind, patient, just and loving-like no earthly king. I can separate the mundane from that which is set apart, so why the trouble with this term? Is Yahowah our King or is it just a title? I’m a little confused about this, did they not call him King of Yahuwdah? Am I off base with this? I see that a real King is one who takes counsel IE Towrah, and every king was expected to write a scroll of Towrah as part of the duties of his office, he is also to be a messenger like Dowd, but not a tyrant like earthly kings, is my viewpoint wrong, if it is I have no trouble adjusting my views but I do not have trouble saying Yahowah is my King without the need to diminish myself or worship him in any way, to me it is the highest honor to be a member of his inner rooms in His house, is this wrong or off base thinking?

Always Curious;
L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

If 'abeyn is with an Aleph, then it is a compound of 'ab - Father and byn - understand by making connections. That's rock solid if true.

'Asher has long been my favorite Hebrew word. I'm here because of 'asher. It may have been Dowd's too. In the first words of his first Mizmowr he used it twice...

“Blessed and happy is (‘ashry – by walking the correct and straight path the enjoyment of a favorable outcome and a meaningful life awaits) the individual (ha ‘iysh) who (‘asher – beneficially and relationally, correctly and meaningfully, in an upright fashion) does not walk (lo’ halak – who does not travel, conducting their life (qal perfect)) in (ba) the defiant counsel, advice and idolatrous schemes (‘etsah – the revolting approach, plans, deliberations, and direction) of the wicked and unrighteous (rasha’ – of those who are evil and condemned for having opposed and violated the standard). In (wa ba) the manner (derek – path or conduct) of those who have missed the way (chata’ – of the offensive and immoral sinners who are wrong, of those who when exposed will be condemned), he is not present and does not stand (lo’ ‘amad – he does not appear and does not bow down). Nor in the assembly (wa ba mowshab – in the dwelling places and settlements, the communities and sites, the residences and seats of power, the company and habitations) of spokesmen who deride and mock (lets – of those who boast about their interpretations while showing no respect for others, talking like bigshots in contempt while arrogantly scoffing), he does not stay (lo’ yashab – he does not dwell, live, settle down, abide, sit, or remain, even marry).” (Mizmowr / Melodious Lyrics / Psalm 1:1)

“To the contrary, instead (ky ‘im – by way of contrast rather, strengthening this statement as a point of emphasis, because truthfully), in (ba – with and within) the Towrah of Yahowah (erft efei – the Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction of Yahowah), he prefers and desires, finding enjoyment and pleasure (chephets huw’ – he refers and enjoys, he delights and is pleased by, eagerly and willingly choosing to experience, displaying an attitude of genuine affection, never swaying nor wavering in regard to his personal preference).

And regarding (wa ba – so in association with) His (huw’) Towrah (Towrah – teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction), he ponders it and then speaks thoughtfully and purposefully (hagah – he reviews the information, meditates upon its implications, considers its interpretations, exercises good judgment to render a rational conclusion, and then makes the decision to roar, declaring these conclusions forcefully, emotionally, and powerfully (qal imperfect – telling us that these informed declarations on behalf of Yah’s Instructions are genuine and ongoing)) in the daytime (yowmam – in the heat of the day) and at night (wa laylah – in the darkness and shadows).” (Mizmowr / Melodious Lyrics / Psalm 1:2)

It is also used here...

“Without prophetic revelation (ba ‘ayn chazown – with no communication from God, without prophecy, without a covenant agreement establishing the relationship; from chazah – without seeing and perceiving, without understanding) wicked people take charge and become unrestrained, leading the unaware to their death because they lack the ability to respond rationally (‘am para’ – individuals act as leaders over ignorant people and those in charge take their own initiative, running wild, while the people behave like an uncontrolled mob, unthinking, their responses become inappropriate).

But (wa) he who actually observes and genuinely focuses upon (shamar – he who closely examines and carefully considers (qal participle – literal interpretation of a highly descriptive verb whereby the individual becomes known and is influenced by his willingness to observe)) the Towrah (Towrah – the Source of Teaching, Instruction, Direction, and Guidance) walks along the path which gives meaning to life and is blessed (‘esher / ‘asher / ‘ashur – steps forward and strides upright on the correct path to a fortuitous relationship and experiences great guidance and teaching, living a joyous upright life having advanced and progressed along the restrictive, right, certain, and valid, straight way to be encouraged, become prosperous, be enriched, and become safe and secure).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 29:18)

Based upon what I've learned about 'asher over the past month or so, I should retranslate "hayah 'asher hayah." There is a lot more to 'asher than "who."

I have not only seen such a device as a plumb line, I've used them, albeit not with hemp and a stone - twine with a teardrop shaped and pointed metal casting at the end.

On your other point, human kings are so universally evil and self serving, and so into lording over and controlling their subjects, I find it difficult to use the term malak / melek in association with Yah. Your points are all valid, but since the term has been so maligned by men, I'm not comfortable associating it with Yah. I much prefer "Heavenly Father," "Spiritual Mother," and "God" as titles and of course Yah or Yahowah by name. He is the Word, leaders of leaders, shepherd of shepherds, father of fathers, mother of mothers, creator, author, savior, light, and so much more. He is only king of kings in reference to a short list of kings, Dowd and Solomon, for example.

Yah is so approachable, fatherly, non-political, un-lordly, and yes even humble, king is among the last ways I tend to see Him. But then again, I've often shared that on the scale between being comfortable with Yah and being awestruck by Him, I tend to embrace the far end of the spectrum, largely because it is a way of contrasting this approach to man's erroneous perceptions.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#602 Posted : Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:51:19 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Continued from Thread 616

R wrote:
Wow, You are absolutly right, I did not contribute the contribution of free will to Rons actions, within the adherance to Yahs the gift of free will.

Rons findings are epic, and his discriptions of said findings are reafirming, and purpossful for us.
The crystaleen wall behind the A.O.C.... Amazing!

Yah never pulls any punches.

Straight as a true arrow.

Thank you for reminding me, and straightening my point of view.

I live and work in Las Vegas, (missing the mark city), I live and breath by the archives you have made created via Shattering Myths.
Thank you.
Its my bread, its my oxygen, it qwenches my thirst for truth.
I have Yada Yah early editions... I read them. but you know I already know what it says as I read through them.
Mostly because I am addicted to S.M archives.
I have listened to them all, over and over.
It's almost as Yahs plan IS written in my brain, my heart, my nephesh.
Because of your brain mind you.
Anywho. Thank you.

You have been a father to me in my journey torwards being right.
Weather you like it or not...


Yada wrote:
I struggled with the same concerns my friend, and it was only when confronted by your question that the answer became clear to me. Fact is, I like Ron and I'm bothered that so many have sought to undermine him, negate his findings, or take credit for themselves. I've learned a lot from what he found and shared. I've just had to use the same religious filter on him that I use when reading the lexicons.

Kirk and I devoted the Observations show this past week to your question. We used it to affirm that Yah can be trusted because He is consistent. He is as you have written.

Yah does not impede our search for the truth, so He would not have tried to stop Ron. Whether He helped Ron in some way is subject to debate. It is possible that He helped him to help us.

LV is a tough place to live. I've been there many times but it's not my kind of town. Some of the golf course communities outside of town are nice, however.

I enjoyed everything about Yada Yah, even the edits. It was so much more enjoyable that POD or QP. It was a learning experience for me, one which I shared knowing that others like you would enjoy it too. But I'm no more than a fellow student. Sharing what we learn makes learning more fun and rewarding. So I see myself as someone holding up the map home who is conveying what it says to all of those who care to follow that same path to Yah.

I'm so very glad that I had the opportunity to do SM and that Richard devoted the time to archiving those programs.

Yada
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 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/9/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#603 Posted : Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:59:35 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
T wrote:
Hello Yada,
My name is Tom. I am working my way through your books and I find them very informative. I also like to hear the radio shows. At age 60, learning Hebrew seems like a big job. I also have a very hard time now with the KJV - trying to correct everything in my minds reading voice. Is there a place that your translation work is being collected and kept up to date? Is there any current English translation that has been taken directly from Hebrew? Or an English translation that will take less correction during reading?
Also, are you aware of any covenant family members in the Oklahoma City area? If you know of any, it’s fine to give them my contact info. Or I would happy to contact them.
Sorry to hear about the departure of Richard. He helped me several months ago when I first found his site.
Thank you for your work and availability.
Sincerely,
Tom

T


Yada wrote:
TK,

Learning to translate Hebrew is fairly easy because there are many effective tools at our disposal. Take it one word, one sentence, one conversation at a time.

The KJV is the worst of a bad lot, but every English bible is essentially worthless. I tell this story in chapter 09 of Observations which is posted on Richard's site.

I am constantly working to improve my translations so there is no place where they are compiled without commentary. And I translate to understand, so it's not possible for me to do so without commenting or sharing.

There are many Covenant members in TX which isn't very far away.

I miss Richard too.

Yada
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 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/9/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#604 Posted : Monday, December 19, 2016 12:19:27 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
J wrote:
Hi Yada,

Where did you amplify Mizmor 105:15?
How is one to know Yah's truly anointed?
I realize this is a very rudimentary query.
Thank you.

J


Yada wrote:
The subject is the "eternal and everlasting family covenant relationship" with 'Abraham, Yitschaq, Ya'aqob, and Yisra'el. So the "anointed ones" not to be touched are Yisra'elites who are part of the Covenant. They are also Yah's prophets whom we are not to harm.

Yada
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 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/20/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#605 Posted : Monday, January 9, 2017 5:01:35 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
LB wrote:
I’m having the most incredible time understanding Dabaryim 33:2 [MT] I simply don’t get it, what is this ?!? http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0799.html
You and I both know the inscribed instructions are not law, but I think I have a clue as to what the compound word means…but I’m not sure or certain, so I’m stumped.
I was reading …. and tripped over it like a wire….I know the context, and what happened, just not this word or its meaning. Any clues?
Always Curious;
L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

There are two words which are difficult to translate in Dabaym 33.2, so it's little wonder you were "tripped." I will share my thoughts, recognizing that there is no way to be dogmatic. This is up for interpretation. But here is what we know...

The speaker is Moseh. He is offering Yisra'el a blessing on behalf of Yah. He reminds us that Yahowah "bow' - arrived" and "zarah - appeared, becoming visible as shining light" to approach the Children of Yisra'el. "yapha' - His presence shown brilliantly." He came with "rababah - innumerable abundantly empowered" "qodesh - set apart ones" "min - from and out of" "yamyn - those who are right, who have sworn an oath, of the sea, from His right hand." They "'eshdath - ...

First, 'esh or 'ish means "fire or individual," as well as "there is." Transliterated 'osh it speaks of a "foundation." Then dath means "decree, directive, or requirement." So combined it is "an individual requirement" or "an enlightening decree." Tied to the "arrival of the shining visual appearance as light and brilliant presence" of Yah the references to "fire, individual, and foundation" all fit as do His "decrees, directives, and requirements," which are directions describing the requirements of the Covenant. This would also correspond with the innumerable and empowered with Him who were set apart as a result of Yah's hand and for being right.

For what it is worth, of the 15 lexicons I use, none of them got it right, and there were many acceptable options. They came up with "a pouring out, mountain slopes, angel, warrior, fire a law, strange fire, and foothills."

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#606 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:37:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
J wrote:
Hi Yada,

I'm 45. Grew up a pk, graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 1993 with a "Bible Theology" degree. Spent four years as a youth pastor. That "tour of duty" ended on a sour note with the typical elder uprising against the pastor which happened to also be my dad. I thought about going back, but never made it. I felt like I wasn't cut out for that kind of thing. It was always a struggle for me in many ways. I didn't "fall away" immediately, but I certainly had a different perspective on many things. I began the process of reprogramming...first it was just looking for a church that didn't have elder or deacon control, which meant the willow creek clone was the place to be. Eventually though it was too much to stomach the use of even their version of scripture exegesis. I was "educated" in hermeneutics after all. The out of context, the proof texting, you know what I'm talking about. Then the thing that really got me started down an alternate path was Greg Boyd's book "God of the Possible". The only way we have free will is if the future isn't determined...and anyway, I'm assuming you're familiar with his attempt at reconciling free will and God's foreknowledge.

Then I'm proud to claim that I figured out on my own that we should be using God's proper name (although at the time there were a few options). It's so clear when you read even the crappy English that many things He does are for the sake of His name. The idiots who have erased that for millions I agree should be held responsible.

The trinity was the next domino to fall for me. Doing a little research led me to realize how lousy that concept was.

What followed was a few years of just hands off religion while feeling guilty that I wasn't bringing up my kids with the same foundation that I had, and feeling the heat from dad for sure. I figured I knew enough that if the shit started hitting the fan, I'd know which side to choose when the time came. And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth. But I knew there had to be real truth out there. I never stopped believing there was a creator. I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.

So my dad decided he wanted to take me and my kids to Israel before my oldest leaves for college next fall. And it was while I was researching some places for the trip that I stumbled on one of your sites. I think yadayah. So it's only been about six weeks of reading and listening and I'm intrigued for sure, and concerned about some for sure. I'm inclined to believe that Paul is bogus, but I don't know if I can use all the evidence you do as proof. Maybe it's the translations I'm trying to use still.

You say some other alarming things that you don't readily back up. I've had to start making notes so that I can try to look things up later. Today on a shattering myths archive you made a comment that seemed a lot like you were putting words in Yah's mouth...speaking for Him as you might say. You said that none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him. Is this pure speculation on your part? It seems like it.

Now if you don't mind I would like to ask a few questions. I'm not looking for a short cut. Other than the brief hiatus I mentioned earlier, I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that. You can relate possibly to searching for this needle in a haystack, only to realize the needle is somewhere else. You might just simply respond with a comment like, keep listening, or keep reading, and all these will be answered. However, if you would throw out a few key nuggets, it would be appreciated.

YHWH can't hear or respond to someone he doesn't know. Where do you get that from?
He is not omniscient or omnipresent. Where do get that?
Three destinations of souls based in Noah's ark? How?
The Ruach is some kind of maternal manifestation? Being? Portion? Huh? Aren't genders in language just invented by man? We could have just as easily created another part of speech like verb, noun, etc. Or take English. Other than calling a boat a she and things like that, there is no gender in our language and it serves quite well to communicate.

Why do you point out the term gospel as so egregious? It seems that you are correct that it came from God Spell, but most christians associate the word with what seems to be the original intent, good news. Just doesn't seem to be a strong case for condemning Christianity. Although, I will agree with you that without Paul, there is no Christianity. But speaking of the "gospels" that is all you have when it comes to the life of yahowsha and yet you condemn the sources so completely. If you are using your interpretation of what yahowsha did during his time here from your interpretations of the Torah and prophets and psalms, then aren't you engaging in circular reasoning? This is what he must have done because this and this say he was going to do this and this. And if you want to use Matthew as you source, but yet claim that it's not a very reliable source, then how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?

What kind of answer can you possibly have for how ritualistic and seemingly pagan all the levitical stuff is? I mean from ceremonial washing to the animal sacrifices, to the doing it this way and only this way... sounds a whole lot like religion. And between that and slaughtering the canaanites they seem like your typical Bronze Age people group minus possibly the child sacrifice.

The term lord being so horrible, you mention a lot. You said something about Jeremiah, but can you give me something more specific? And I think you or someone else vaguely referenced Adonai as also being a term that YHWH does not like. Can you show evidence for that also?

Many modern Christians, maybe not many, but a good number are beginning to investigate the appointed times. They really only care about celebrating Pesach, but I'm wondering if you think since Chrisitianity is the most sane of the abominations that we call religion, and they seem to have the principle players at least in the room together, and live the most moral lives overall, that maybe YHWH is doing a little nudging to wake a few people up so that so many of them won't be doomed.

My name is J. Thanks for your time.


Yada wrote:
J,

You have been deeper into the lie that is Christianity than most of us, but other than that, some aspects of your path away from Christianity are similar to many of us who have chosen the Covenant. I was your former foe, an ordained ruling elder.

Church politics is a nasty thing, swirling in hypocrisy. Affirming this, it was Christians acting like Christians that initially caused you to be concerned about the way you had been programmed. The same was true for me.

Yes, Christians almost always seek to justify the unjustifiable by citing mistranslated and truncated statements out of context. Their attempts to prove their positions actually refute them when the statements are accurately translated and considered in context. They get this from Paul, who built his entire case against the Towrah in this fraudulent and misleading manner. If you haven’t yet read www.QuestioningPaul.com I would encourage you to do so, even though you are already inclined to reject him.

I’ve never agreed with Calvin regarding predestination, so this was never an issue for me. Just because Yahowah knows the future does not mean that we are being controlled. He has simply reported in our past the result of our future choices. And as I’ve studied Yah’s prophecies, I’ve come to appreciate the nature of time, especially as it relates to light. This is the best perspective to appreciate prophecy, because as light the past, present, and future can be seen simultaneously.

Freewill is a gift of God. He will never compromise on it because it is essential to the Covenant.

Yahowah is serious about His name. And as you noted, it is obvious even in the crappy English bible translations. His name is the basis of the 3rd statement He etched in stone. Negating it is unforgivable. Those who have removed it from His Word will be held accountable. And nothing could be more irritating to Him than replacing His name 7000 times with Satan’s title, Lord.

The Trinity is Babylonian. It is pagan. It is false. Yahowah is one. Yahowsha’ and the Ruwach Qodesh are set apart from Yahowah and thus are not separate individuals.

I too avoided raising my children to be religious. There were too many conflicts, contradictions, fallacies, and unanswerable questions to push them toward where I had been. And I had experienced way too many Christians justifying lying and stealing. I now see Christians as ignorant, irrational, hypocrites. There are no exceptions.

A decade ago I was briefly frustrated with God for making the truth somewhat difficult to find. Now I’m in complete accord with Him, realizing that He could not have been any more forthright. Had God provide a summary, a simple answer, few if any would go beyond that and therefore never grow. To cease growing is to die. Even God must grow to live. It is the very basis of what it means to be infinite.

Yahowah is a clear and consistent communicator. His Towrah is His teaching and guidance. It’s our religious indoctrination which has confused humankind, not His testimony. The fact is, according to Yahowah, we have been given all we need to be right. Most either ignore, reject, or despise what He conveyed.

I’m glad that I went to Israel. It was an awakening for me. But I won’t go back before Yahowah removes all of the religious rubbish.
Most have come to Yada Yah after reading Prophet of Doom, my book on Islam. Others have heard me discuss these things on one of the 3000 radio interviews I’ve done, and have sought to validate what they heard. Few have come this way due to a search on Israel.

About half of those reading YY, QP, or ITG, and now Observations as well, begin by questioning my translations, something I strongly encourage. The other half find Yahowah’s message so consistent with their perception of God and so credible, they read and read, never seeming to get enough of Yah. Most begin as either agnostics searching for the truth with an open mind or as former Christians who have left the religion based upon its many lies.

If you are concerned that I’ve played too strong a case against Paul, I’d encourage you as I’ve already mentioned, to read Questioning Paul and then Observations (which is available free at www.BlessYahowah.com, www.YahowahBeryth.com, or I can send it to you for free via Word attachments). You can also buy YY, ITG, or QP at http://claitors.com/yada.htm). I’ve barely scratched the surface on Paul. Turns out Yahowah had more to say about Paul and his religion than anyone else in human history. He hates him and calls him the plague of death.
Addressing your initial criticism, I very seldom write something that I don’t back up, and very seldom write anything that isn’t derived from Yahowah’s Word. However, the radio programs are different. Most who listen have read or are reading YY, ITG, QP, O, and PoD, so they are aware of the basis for these statements.

You asked whether the following conclusion is pure speculation on my part: “none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him?”
And yet you acknowledge that getting to know Yahowah takes a considerable amount of time, in your case a lifetime, and requires substantial thinking, therefore is not easy when compared to other endeavors. In fact, you are angry at God for making it difficult. So let’s begin there. Did God make it difficult by design or is this a failure on God’s part?

If we acknowledge that Yahowah created the universe and then conceived life, then we should give Him credit for being capable of doing whatever He wants. Further, He proved though prophecy (accurate depictions of history from creation to recreation) that He authored the Towrah, Naby’ (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Writings/Psalms). He then claimed that His Towrah was complete, lacking nothing, fully capable of restoring souls. It is therefore as He intended it to be.

And yet there isn’t any fast way to come to know Yahowah or understanding what He is offering. He did not provide a summation, a way of figuring it out with very little effort. By reading an English translation, there simply isn’t any way to quickly assess how we can go about availing ourselves of His Covenant – as they are too errantly and inadequately translated. This isn’t God’s fault. It is man’s fault – the deliberate attempt by religious leaders to make it difficult to know Yahowah. And God had to allow it because of freewill. So if you want to blame someone, blame the goddamn religions of Christianity and Judaism.

Worse, those who have been corrupted by religion, when confronted by the truth, typically reject what Yahowah inspired because they like what Paul wrote better. They trust their church or country more than God.
Since Yahowah is a brilliant communicator and has the ability to do most anything, we should be asking ourselves why He made it difficult for a religious person to know Him. He obviously wrote it this way for a reason. That is simple logic based upon the facts as they are presented to us.

Turns out Yahowah hates religion and He does not want anyone who is religious to be part of His family, to live in His home, or to ruin eternity for the rest of us. Religion is so stupid, so obviously false, those who accept it without thinking would hate eternity with Yahowah anyway. The only way Yah can keep it entertaining for His Covenant children, is to create an environment where we grow by exploring, learning, and sharing. So He created a filter to keep the faithful away from the rational. But more than this, why would any rational being want to spend eternity with individuals who never invested the time to know Him, who prefer the testimony of liars, who trust religious, political, economic, and military institutions over Him?

You seem to believe that God should grade on the curve, and accept those who are wrong, but have at least tried. I suspect that is self serving. But it isn’t in Yah’s nature. He is forgiving of bad but not wrong.

Yes, Yahowah gave us our mortal life (nepesh / soul) and freewill. But He also gave humankind a neshamah / conscience – the ability to reason. It is what gives us the ability to be like Him, to know Him, to engage in a relationship with Him. But like any computer, garbage in – garbage out. You have to consume and digest His Word and then process it rationally, making connections, to understand. We were designed to find Him, to know Him, to understand what He is offering and what He wants in return. Most however, no longer think rationally. They are no longer judgmental. They operate on faith. They have thereby excluded themselves. Yahowah stated, “My people are destroyed by their ignorance.”

Had God made Himself and His plan obvious, He would have negated the value of our conscience and freewill. And He would have devalued us. He gave us the ability to process His testimony and come to rational conclusions, and He trusts us to do so. Further, nothing is more rewarding, more enjoyable, or more beneficial than taking the time to listen to Him and think about what He has conveyed.

In hindsight, I no longer see the path to Yahowah as difficult. I’ve studied His words in Hebrew and I’ve come to understand what He is offering. It all makes sense. It is all accurate. There are no contradictions. There are no invalid statements. Yahowah is straightforward and unchanging. It was my prior religion and politics that led me astray. The only real challenge was clearing my mind of the lies so that I could embrace the truth. That is what Yahowah intended.

You are only a fraction of the way home. You’ve begun to question your religion but you have not yet studied Yahowah’s Towrah as He conveyed it in Hebrew. I don’t know if you ever will. But there is no other way.
Yahowah has stated that thousands will shamar – observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the terms and conditions of His Covenant relationship and thereby receive His mercy. That is one in a million. He is not interested in saving billions of souls. He is content with a family comprised of those who have come to know, love, respect, accept, and trust Him.

Let’s be honest. You sought the god of Christianity. He is not Yahowah. Paul’s god and the real God bear nothing in common, including their names, their plan, their nature, or their purpose. Further, this isn’t a needle in a haystack, but instead Yahowah, the creator of the universe, in His Word. Your perspective is so flawed you are not ready to begin an honest search.
Yahowah said that He does not hear the prayers of the Towrahless. He can and does reach out to those He wants to know. He did so with Abraham and Moseh – and even me.

Yahowah tells us that He does not know the sins of His children because they are cleansed and forgotten. And often He asks for information, indicating that He does not possess it. It is only in religion that god is seen as the micromanager who is involved in the minutia of life, favoring some and opposing others.

The notion of God being omnipresent is so absurd, so rationally impossible, I’m surprised you asked. Do think that God is in the middle of the sun, in all stars, in empty space, in the core of our planet, in a rock, in every plant, animal, and person? Is He in a mosque, in a church, in every temple and shrine, in every national capitol, in every business, in all military weapons?

How would one chose not to associate with God if God were everywhere including in them? This errant religious notion is so irrational it is only acceptable to those who have no understanding whatsoever as to why Yahowah insists that He, His name, His Towrah, His Spirit, His Son, His Covenant, His Land, His Shabat, and His Invitations are qodesh - SET APART. Set apart from what? Until you come to understand that set-apart defines His relationship to His creation, you will remain lost in the realm of false gods. There is no “holy” in Yahowah’s vernacular.

Beyond this, it is impossible for all of God to enter or exist anywhere in 3D. He has to exist in a dimension beyond what He spoke into existence via His words. Communicating with us in 3D is the purpose of His Towrah, His mal’ak, the ruwach qodesh, and at times the most set apart, the most diminished manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha’.

Three destinations for human souls is so obvious in Yahowah’s Word, so repeated, I’m amazed that so few have come to understand it. If God said, “Choose me or I will torture you forever,” He would be a monster. But that is the essence of the Christian and Islamic doctines of just Heaven or Hell. And yet Yahowah speaks of the death and destruction of souls 100 times for every mention of eternal separation or eternity in His home. So I’m afraid that you are still looking at things from a religious mindset – one that is rationally impossible.

Understanding requires two things: knowledge and making rational connections. The three destinations for souls is presented throughout Yahowah’s Word. The Ark with its three doors is simply an affirming reference to this. In fact, every aspect of the story of Noach and the Ark is symbolic of the Covenant. But you’ll have to read the Towah in Hebrew or baring that, the first 3 volumes of Yada Yah, to know enough to make these same connections.

Yahowah’s language is Hebrew. He invented it. He conceived it with masculine and feminine nouns. Ruwach is His term. It is feminine. But God presents hundreds of other insights directed at revealing that the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit is the Maternal manifestation of His nature. Family, after all, is Father, Mother, and child.

Hebrew is interesting in that all verbs are unconstrained by time. Most verbs are relational and establish a relationship between the subject and object. And many verbs are volitional, and thus convey freewill.

I don’t care what sailors call a boat in English. I care what Yahowah called the Set-Apart Spirit. Yah could have used a masculine noun, but that is not what God chose.

I’m beginning to lose interest now in your questions because of your poor attitude. There is nothing more debilitating. For example, you state that Gospel is from God’s Spell when it is actually from Gott’s Spell. Yahowah is not Gott and He does not inflict spells. It is neither a translation or a transliteration of the Greek, and like church, Gospel represents a completely invalid alteration. Moreover, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha’ spoke Greek. Yahowsha’ affirmed the correct term: Towrah. Why do you prefer man’s religious replacement? Do you prefer man’s terms to God’s. If so, you’ll never come to know Yahowah.

The Greek eugellion means “good news,” but not Gospel. It is just like ekklesia, which does not mean “church.” Both are deliberate corruptions.
Half of the Christian NT was written by the Plague of Death, a false prophet, and demon-possessed egomaniac who contradicted everything Yahowah said. Therefore, if you don’t question the rest of it you are not being rational.
Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant. He was not “Gospel” observant. There is no such thing.

I don’t condemn Mattanyah. I only state that the Hebrew conversations were translated by someone other than Mattanyah more than one hundred years thereafter and must be questioned. And I condemn the many changes that have been made to Yahowchanan, not the man, himself. Luke was Paul’s pal and was not present for any of this. Mark is hearsay as well. Neither would be admissible in a court of law. They are all written in Greek.

Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew. In the 9th chapter of Observations I detail the history and corruptions in the CNT. You’d have to be ignorant or irrational to trust it. There are more variants than words. That is a fact.

If you are unaware that Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven in accord with the Towrah I cannot help you. Yahowah, Himself, cannot help you. If you see Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s Towrah promises as circular reasoning then there is no way to reason with you.

Yahowah provided us with the means to know what He inspired and what He did not inspire. His test was presented twice in Dabarym. I use it. Shouldn’t you? Or are you unaware that He provided such a test because you are not Towrah observant?

If you believe that Qara’ / Leviticus is religiously ritualistic and pagan, then you need to take this up with Yahowah because He authored it. It is little wonder you don’t know Him. I suspect based upon your letter that you wouldn’t like Him.

Have you ever considered who consumes the “sacrifices?” How is eating something a “sacrifice?” The Miqra’ey are Festival Feasts. The lamb is part of the meal. Almost every civilization from Sumer to Rome engaged in child sacrifice – not Yahowah. Very few slaughtered animals like lambs or cows for food as part of any meeting with their gods. They killed for their gods, not to celebrate a meal with God.

You are only fooling yourself. Like almost every Christian, you are not just unaware of the Towrah, you are adverse to it. You mock Yahowah’s testimony, calling it ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Had I read your entire email prior to commenting on each paragraph, I would not have bothered to reply. There is nothing I find more reprehensible than someone who claims to be searching for God while at the same time demonstrating an aversion to His testimony.

Thank God, God has a filter to keep those who mock Him away from those of us who love Him. Your assessment of Yahowah’s Towrah is akin to Paul’s. It is disgusting.

I could provide you with a translation of Yahowah’s statements against being called “the Lord” in Yirma’yah and in Howsha’, but you’d simply reject His testimony and justify your religious preference. So it would be a waste of my time.

Pesach without Matsah is counterproductive. It is Satan’s ultimate triumph: eternal life separated from God like himself.
Calling Christianity “sane” is akin to calling the blend of a thousand lies truthful.

J, I no longer care if you read YY, QP, ITG, and O or not. But please don’t reply to this email. I’ll ignore it. I do not want to be your pen pal or your answer man. I strongly suspect that I’ve wasted my time.

If you read all four books and want to engage, I’ll do so. But that will require 400 to 500 hours of your time. And even then, none of it will do you any good until such time as you completely reject Christianity and open your mind to what Yahowah has to say. You are no where near that point currently. Your current attitude is in opposition to Yahowah. That must change.

Yada

Edited by user Friday, January 13, 2017 11:55:43 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#607 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:56:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
J wrote:
Ignore me for asking questions? Did your ego get in the way or are you really that much of a jerk? I'm sorry, are those questions offensive? If you really did used to be a Christian, what caused you to lose the compassion for those who are in the process of reprogramming? Six weeks man, six weeks. And you want to berate me and belittle my journey. Shame on you. I have my own business and three kids. I don't have 10 hours a day to spend like you. And if Yah didn't care about all the Christians bring deceived, then why all the warnings?

You have jumped to some incorrect conclusions about me, but you wouldn't care would you. I'm sure someone as smart as you doesn't like being wrong especially when you think it's worse than being sinful. I'll clue you in mister know it all. I'm as smart as you. I'd stack my intellect up against anyone. In fact I know how to pronounce NUCLEAR. Or how about Electoral college? Ha! You say NUCULAR and ELECTORIAL. Do you need a Hebrew transliteration to help you figure it out?

I'll probably keep reading and listening despite your uncalled for ridicule toward me. But you won't have to worry about being my pen pal. I like a lot of what you've had to say so far. So maybe after four or five hundred hours, I'll get back to you. But until then...middle finger asshole.


Yada wrote:
J,

After I read your disparaging comments regarding Leviticus, and thus of Yahowah’s Towrah, I immediately realized that I had wasted the five hours I had spent reading and then responding to your initial email – at least with regard to you. My assessment of your attitude, which was derived from the slanderous manner in which you framed your questions, was affirmed by your most recent reply. With the exception of the cheap shots which have no bearing on this discussion, you manifest every criticism you have sought to project on me.

Thankfully, emailers like you are rare, less than one in a hundred. And even though I cannot help you, your letters and my replies will be posted on number of sites in anticipation that many of those who read our exchange will find the God you likely will never know.

Time on this planet is a limited resource for those of us in the Covenant. And since it is foolish to squander it, I’m going to present my response to your statements and questions within the context of what you initially wrote. The resulting correspondence has the greatest likelihood of enlightening others when presented in that fashion.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Hi Yada,
I'm 45. Grew up a pk [preacher’s kid], graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 1993 with a "Bible Theology" degree. Spent four years as a youth pastor. That "tour of duty" ended on a sour note with the typical elder uprising against the pastor which happened to also be my dad. I thought about going back, but never made it. I felt like I wasn't cut out for that kind of thing. It was always a struggle for me in many ways. I didn't "fall away" immediately, but I certainly had a different perspective on many things. I began the process of reprogramming...first it was just looking for a church that didn't have elder or deacon control, which meant the willow creek clone was the place to be. Eventually though it was too much to stomach the use of even their version of scripture exegesis. I was "educated" in hermeneutics after all. The out of context, the proof texting, you know what I'm talking about. Then the thing that really got me started down an alternate path was Greg Boyd's book "God of the Possible". The only way we have free will is if the future isn't determined...and anyway, I'm assuming you're familiar with his attempt at reconciling free will and God's foreknowledge.

To which I replied…
J,
You have been deeper into the lie that is Christianity than most of us, but other than that, some aspects of your path away from Christianity are similar to many of us who have chosen the Covenant. I was your former foe, an ordained ruling elder.

Church politics is a nasty thing, swirling in hypocrisy. Affirming this, it was Christians acting like Christians that initially caused you to be concerned about the way you had been programmed. The same was true for me.

Yes, Christians almost always seek to justify the unjustifiable by citing mistranslated and truncated statements out of context. Their attempts to prove their positions actually refute them when the statements are accurately translated and considered in context. They get this from Paul, who built his entire case against the Towrah in this fraudulent and misleading manner. If you haven’t yet read www.QuestioningPaul.com I would encourage you to do so, even though you are already inclined to reject him.

I’ve never agreed with Calvin regarding predestination, so this was never an issue for me. Just because Yahowah knows the future does not mean that we are being controlled. He has simply reported in our past the result of our future choices. And as I’ve studied Yah’s prophecies, I’ve come to appreciate the nature of time, especially as it relates to light. This is the best perspective to appreciate prophecy, because as light the past, present, and future can be seen simultaneously.

Freewill is a gift of God. He will never compromise on it because it is essential to the Covenant.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Then I'm proud to claim that I figured out on my own that we should be using God's proper name (although at the time there were a few options). It's so clear when you read even the crappy English that many things He does are for the sake of His name. The idiots who have erased that for millions I agree should be held responsible.


To which I replied…
Yahowah is serious about His name. And as you noted, it is obvious even in the crappy English bible translations. His name is the basis of the 3rd statement He etched in stone. Negating it is unforgivable. Those who have removed it from His Word will be held accountable. And nothing could be more irritating to Him than replacing His name 7000 times with Satan’s title, Lord.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The trinity was the next domino to fall for me. Doing a little research led me to realize how lousy that concept was.


To which I replied…
The Trinity is Babylonian. It is pagan. It is false. Yahowah is one. Yahowsha’ and the Ruwach Qodesh are set apart from Yahowah and thus are not separate individuals.

You wrote…
J wrote:
What followed was a few years of just hands off religion while feeling guilty that I wasn't bringing up my kids with the same foundation that I had, and feeling the heat from dad for sure. I figured I knew enough that if the shit started hitting the fan, I'd know which side to choose when the time came.


To which I replied…
I too avoided raising my children to be religious. There were too many conflicts, contradictions, fallacies, and unanswerable questions to push them toward where I had been. And I had experienced way too many Christians justifying lying and stealing. I now see Christians as ignorant, irrational, hypocrites. There are no exceptions.

You wrote…
Yada wrote:
And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth. But I knew there had to be real truth out there. I never stopped believing there was a creator. I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.


To which I replied…
A decade ago I was briefly frustrated with God for making the truth somewhat difficult to find. Now I’m in complete accord with Him, realizing that He could not have been any more forthright. Had God provided a summary, a simple answer, few if any would go beyond that and therefore never grow. To cease growing is to die. Even God must grow to live. It is the very basis of what it means to be infinite.

Yahowah is a clear and consistent communicator. His Towrah is His teaching and guidance. It’s our religious indoctrination which has confused humankind, and hidden His truth, not His testimony. The fact is, according to Yahowah, we have been given all we need to be right. Most either ignore, reject, or despise what He conveyed.

Dowd / David wrote the following…
“Yahowah’s (efei) Towrah (Towrah – Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around, bringing back, and renewing) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahowah’s (efei) everlasting testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Psalm 19:7)

Yahowah seems to think that His Towrah is complete, lacking nothing. He says that it is sufficient. I concur.

You wrote…
J wrote:
So my dad decided he wanted to take me and my kids to Israel before my oldest leaves for college next fall. And it was while I was researching some places for the trip that I stumbled on one of your sites. I think yadayah. So it's only been about six weeks of reading and listening and I'm intrigued for sure, and concerned about some for sure. I'm inclined to believe that Paul is bogus, but I don't know if I can use all the evidence you do as proof. Maybe it's the translations I'm trying to use still.


To which I replied…
I’m glad that I went to Israel. It was an awakening for me. But I won’t go back before Yahowah removes all of the religious rubbish.
Most have come to Yada Yah after reading Prophet of Doom, my book on Islam. Others have heard me discuss these things on one of the 3000 radio interviews I’ve done, and have sought to validate what they heard. Few have come this way due to a search on Israel.

About half of those reading YY, QP, or ITG, and now Observations as well, begin by questioning my translations, something I strongly encourage. The other half find Yahowah’s message so consistent with their perception of God and so credible, they read and read, never seeming to get enough of Yah. Most begin as either agnostics searching for the truth with an open mind or as former Christians who have left the religion based upon its many lies.

If you are concerned that I’ve played too strong a case against Paul, I’d encourage you as I’ve already mentioned, to read Questioning Paul and then Observations (which is available free at www.BlessYahowah.com, www.YahowahBeryth.com, or I can send it to you for free via Word attachments). You can also buy YY, ITG, or QP at http://claitors.com/yada.htm). I’ve barely scratched the surface on Paul. Turns out Yahowah had more to say about Paul and his religion than anyone else in human history. He hates him and calls him the plague of death.

You wrote…
J wrote:
You say some other alarming things that you don't readily back up. I've had to start making notes so that I can try to look things up later. Today on a Shattering Myths archive you made a comment that seemed a lot like you were putting words in Yah's mouth...speaking for Him as you might say.


To which I replied…
Addressing your initial criticism, I very seldom write something that I don’t back up, and very seldom write anything that isn’t derived from Yahowah’s Word. However, the radio programs are different. Most who listen have read or are reading YY, ITG, QP, O, and PoD, so they are aware of the basis for these statements.

You wrote…
J wrote:
You said that none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him. Is this pure speculation on your part? It seems like it.


To which I replied…
And yet you, yourself, acknowledge that getting to know Yahowah takes a considerable amount of time, in your case a lifetime still without success (I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that.). Therefore, by your own admission, it is not easy when compared to other endeavors. In fact, you stated that you are angry at God for making it difficult (And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth.). So let’s begin there, now that you have affirmed my premise and confirmed that my premise isn’t a matter of speculation.

That brings us to my conclusion: it’s not easy by design. Recognizing that it isn’t easy and that there are no short cuts, we must ask ourselves: did God make it difficult on purpose or is the fact that it appears to be difficult a failure on God’s part to make it easier? Also possible, has man altered and occluded what Yahowah actually communicated, thereby making something that was straightforward difficult to see and comprehend? Is God’s Word inadequate and ineffective, did religious institutions edit God’s Word so that it now appears inadequate and ineffective, or is God’s Word adequate and effective, but also challenging (and if so, is that by design).

If we acknowledge that Yahowah created the universe and then conceived life, then we should give Him credit for being capable of doing whatever He wants. Further, He proved though prophecy (accurate depictions of history from creation to recreation) that He authored the Towrah, Naby’ (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Writings/Psalms). He then claimed that His Towrah was complete, lacking nothing, fully capable of restoring souls. It is therefore His Word and as He intended it to be.

And yet there isn’t any fast way to come to know Yahowah or understanding what He is offering. He did not provide a summation, a way of figuring it out with very little effort. That is a fact. Is it on purpose? If so, what is that purpose?

Making matters more challenging still, by reading an English translation, there simply isn’t any way to quickly assess how we can go about availing ourselves of His Covenant – as they are too errantly and inadequately translated. But this isn’t God’s fault. It is man’s fault – the deliberate attempt by religious leaders to make it difficult to know Yahowah. And God had to allow it because of freewill. So if you want to blame someone for making it especially difficult to know God and understand what He is offering, blame the goddamn religions of Christianity and Judaism.

Equally problematic, those who have been corrupted by religion, when confronted by the truth, typically reject what Yahowah inspired because they like what Paul wrote better. They trust their church or country more than God.

Since Yahowah is a brilliant communicator and has the ability to do most anything, we should be asking ourselves why He made it difficult for a religious person to know Him. He obviously wrote it this way for a reason – telling us not to add or subtract anything from His Towrah. And He was fully aware that religious and political institutions would remove His name and deliberately and reckless edit His testimony. That is simple logic based upon the facts as they are presented to us.

When we seek to understand why this is so in the context of everything Yahowah has shared with us, the reason is obvious. Yahowah routinely states that hates religion and He does not want anyone who is religious to be part of His family, to live in His home, or to ruin eternity for the rest of us.
Religion is so stupid, so obviously false, those who accept it without thinking would hate eternity with Yahowah anyway. The only way Yah can keep it entertaining for His Covenant children, is to create an environment where we grow by exploring, learning, and sharing. So He created a filter to keep the faithful away from the rational, the irritating away from the respectful.
But more than this, why would any rational being want to spend eternity with individuals who never invested the time to know Him, who prefer the testimony of liars, who trust religious, political, economic, and military institutions over Him, whose attitude toward Him is inappropriate?

You seem to believe that God should grade on the curve, and accept those who are wrong, but have at least tried. (I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.) I suspect that is self-serving. But it isn’t in Yah’s nature.

Yah is forgiving of bad but not wrong. For example, Dowd / David was bad and yet because he was right about Yahowah, Yahowah declared that he was perfect. Dowd is presented in a relationship with God, knowing Yahowah and understanding His Towrah, from the beginning. Whatever time was invested during his childhood seeking to know Yahowah is seldom mentioned – and thus isn’t considered valuable. His Psalms sing of his understanding – not seeking. Rather than citing the Towrah, Dowd explains it, celebrates its benefits, and reveals the nature of the God who wrote it. His every assessment, conclusion, and statement is correct.

Yahowah gave us our mortal life (a nepesh / soul) and freewill. But He also gave humankind a neshamah / conscience – the ability to reason. It is what gives us the ability to be like God, to know Him, to engage in a relationship with Him. But like any computer, garbage in – garbage out. You have to consume and digest His Word and then process it rationally, making connections, to understand. We were designed to find Him, to know Him, to understand what He is offering and what He wants in return. Most however, no longer think rationally. They are no longer judgmental and able to discern between fact and fiction. They operate on faith. They have thereby excluded themselves. Yahowah stated, “My people are destroyed by their ignorance.” They don’t even know where to look. Which is why Yahowah continued by telling Howsha’, “Because you have forgotten My Towrah, I will forget your children.”

Based upon these statements and countless others, to be spared, one must know. To know one must observe Yah’s Word. Then by using or neshamah / conscience we must think about what we have come to know which in turn leads to understanding. When we understand, we are empowered to make reasonable, rational, and beneficial choices regarding Yah. We have the opportunity to be right. This is the path which leads to Yahowah and to His Beryth. It is the way of the Miqra’ey. And both are found in only one place: His Towrah.

Had God made Himself or His plan any more obvious, He would have negated the value of our conscience and freewill. And He would have devalued us. He gave us the ability to process His testimony and come to rational conclusions, and He trusts us to do so. Further, nothing is more rewarding, more enjoyable, or more beneficial than taking the time to listen to Him and think about what He has conveyed.

In hindsight, and now that I’ve rid my mind of Pauline deceptions, I no longer see the path to Yahowah as difficult. I’ve studied His words in Hebrew and I’ve come to understand what He is offering. It all makes sense. It is all accurate. There are no contradictions. There are no invalid statements. Yahowah is straightforward and unchanging. He is an entertaining, effective, and brilliant communicator. Everything He says conveys insights on multiple levels.

It was my prior religion and politics that led me astray – that obscured my vision. The only real challenge was clearing my mind of the religious lies so that I could embrace the truth. That is what Yahowah intended. That is the reason knowing Him is challenging. That is the reason as few as one in a million come to know Him.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Now if you don't mind I would like to ask a few questions. I'm not looking for a short cut. Other than the brief hiatus I mentioned earlier, I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that. You can relate possibly to searching for this needle in a haystack, only to realize the needle is somewhere else. You might just simply respond with a comment like, keep listening, or keep reading, and all these will be answered. However, if you would throw out a few key nuggets, it would be appreciated.


To which I replied…
You are only a fraction of the way home. You’ve begun to question your religion but you have not yet studied Yahowah’s Towrah as He conveyed it in Hebrew. I don’t know if you ever will. Four years at the Moody Bible Institute was a step in the wrong direction. So were your four years of being a youth pastor. These experiences may be the reason that the attitude conveyed along with your questions suggests that your mind is not open – that it is still corrupted by the Christian myth.

Yahowah has stated that thousands will shamar – observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the terms and conditions of His Covenant relationship and thereby receive His mercy. That is one in a million. He is not interested in saving billions of souls. He is content with a family comprised of those who have come to know, love, respect, accept, and trust Him. All of those things require a considerable investment of time, the proper approach, focus, and especially attitude.
Let’s be honest. Based upon your letter, you sought the god of Christianity, not Yahowah most of your adult life. Paul’s god and the real God bear nothing in common, including their names, their plan, their nature, or their purpose.

This isn’t a needle in a haystack, as you have stated, again displaying the improper attitude to approach God. It is instead, Yahowah, the creator of the universe in the midst of His Word – His Towrah. Your perspective on this is so flawed you are not ready to begin an honest search. Until this attitude changes, your “needle in a haystack” approach, you are wasting your time. It is demeaning to God and to His Word. It devalues what He is offering. It is offensive.

While you are equating Yahowah to a “needle” in your analogy, if it wasn’t for what follows, a reader might otherwise assume that you were inferring that the wrong “haystack” was the Christian New Testament. This would suggest that you now realize that “the needle is somewhere else.” And if that were true, I’d owe you an apology for overreacting. Unfortunately, however, since you disparage the Towrah later in your email, my initial assessment remains valid.

You wrote…
J wrote:
YHWH can't hear or respond to someone he doesn't know. Where do you get that from?


To which I responded…
Yahowah said that He does not hear the prayers of the Towrahless. He can and does reach out to those He wants to know. He did so with Abraham and Moseh – and even me.

You wrote…
J wrote:
He is not omniscient or omnipresent. Where do get that?



To which I responded…
Yahowah tells us that He does not know the sins of His children because they are cleansed and forgotten. And often He asks for information, indicating that He does not possess it. It is only in religion that god is seen as the micromanager who is involved in the minutia of life, favoring some and opposing others. Yahowah exists in the spiritual realm of the heavens. He has no interest in snooping on what is said in churches or mosques, in military briefings or political speeches. To believe otherwise, demeans Him. He knows what is important to Him. He knows His children. He knows what He has said to us and what He has committed to do for us.

The notion of God being omnipresent is so absurd, so rationally impossible, I’m surprised you asked. Think about what it would mean for Yahowah to be present everywhere. Do think that God is in the middle of the sun, in all stars, in empty space, in the core of our planet, in a rock, in every plant, animal, and person? Is He in a mosque, in a church, in every temple and shrine, in every national capitol, in every business, in all military weapons? Is God in the air you breathe, in the light you see, in the food you eat? Do you envision your god where you want him to be but not where you don’t? Most important of all: how would one chose not to associate with God if God were everywhere including in them?

This errant, albeit popular, religious notion is so irrational it is only acceptable to those who have no understanding whatsoever as to why Yahowah insists that He, His name, His Towrah, His Spirit, His Son, His Covenant, His Land, His Shabat, and His Invitations are qodesh - SET APART. Set apart from what? Until you come to understand that set-apart defines His relationship with His creation, you will remain lost in the realm of false gods. There is no “holy” in Yahowah’s vernacular. There are few things more important than “qodesh – set apart.” It is among the most important insights needed to view everything associated from the proper perspective. Mankind and God are set apart from one another. There is only one way to bring us together. And that way requires us to set ourselves apart from the ways of man, from religion especially. By being set apart, Yahowah cannot be omnipresent.

Beyond this, it is impossible for all of God to enter or exist anywhere in 3D. He has to exist in a dimension beyond what He spoke into existence via His words. This is simple physics. Communicating with us in 3D is the purpose of His Towrah, His mal’ak, the ruwach qodesh, and at times the most set apart, the most diminished manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha’.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Three destinations of souls based in Noah's ark? How?


To which I responded…
Three destinations for human souls is so obvious in Yahowah’s Word, so repeated, I’m amazed that so few have come to understand it. If God said, “Choose me or I will torture you forever in hell,” He would be a monster. But that is the essence of the Christian and Islamic doctrines of just Heaven or Hell. And yet Yahowah speaks of the death and destruction of souls 100 times for every mention of eternal separation or eternity in His home. So by asking such a question, I’m afraid that you are still looking at things from a religious mindset – one that is rationally impossible. For God to be fair, for God to be loving, there must be a third option – the death and destruction of the soul.

Understanding requires two things: knowledge and making rational connections. The third destination for souls, that of their death and destruction (and thus neither heaven nor hell) is presented many hundreds of times throughout Yahowah’s Word – sometimes bluntly and at other times symbolically. The Ark with its three doors is one of many affirming references to this. In fact, every aspect of the story of Noach and the Ark is symbolic of the Covenant – not only of its nature and purpose, but of how we go about participating in it. But you’ll have to read the Towah in Hebrew, or baring that, the first 3 volumes of Yada Yah, to know enough about things like the Ark’s construction, to make these same connections and thus conclusions.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The Ruach is some kind of maternal manifestation? Being? Portion? Huh? Aren't genders in language just invented by man? We could have just as easily created another part of speech like verb, noun, etc. Or take English. Other than calling a boat a she and things like that, there is no gender in our language and it serves quite well to communicate.


To which I responded…
Yahowah’s language is Hebrew. He invented it. He conceived it with masculine and feminine nouns. Ruwach is His term. It is feminine. Beyond this, God presents hundreds of other insights to reveal that the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit is the Maternal manifestation of His nature. Family, after all, is Father, Mother, and child. The Covenant is a Family.

Hebrew is interesting in that all verbs are unconstrained by time. Most verbs are relational and establish a relationship between the subject and object. And many verbs are volitional, and thus convey freewill. The language was perfectly conceived to convey His nature, purpose, plan, and message: a relationship subject to freewill which makes us eternal – like God, akin to light.

I don’t care what sailors call a boat in English. I care what Yahowah called the Set-Apart Spirit. Yah could have used a masculine noun, but that is not what God chose. Details matter when it comes to Yah’s Word. That is why Yahowsha’ spoke of the eternally enduring nature of the Towrah’s Yad (smallest letter) and defining strokes (speaking of the composition of Hebrew letters). You may believe that English would have served to communicate God’s message quite well, but the fact remains, Yahowah chose Hebrew because it is better.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Why do you point out the term gospel as so egregious? It seems that you are correct that it came from God Spell, but most christians associate the word with what seems to be the original intent, good news.


To which I responded…
I’m beginning to lose interest now in your questions because of the attitude that surrounds them. You aren’t simply asking questions, but are now accompanying them with disparaging comments regarding Yahowah. There is nothing more debilitating.

For example, you state that Gospel is from God’s Spell when it is actually from Gott’s Spell. Yahowah is not Gott and He does not inflict spells. It is neither a translation or a transliteration of the Greek, and like church, Gospel represents a completely invalid alteration. Moreover, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha’ spoke Greek. Yahowsha’ affirmed the correct term: Towrah. Gospel is therefore unacceptable. Why do you prefer man’s religious replacement? Do you prefer man’s terms to God’s. If so, you’ll never come to know Yahowah.

The Greek eugellion means “beneficial message,” which can be interpreted as “good news,” but not Gospel. It is just like ekklesia, which does not mean “church.” Both are deliberate corruptions. They are not godly. They are wrong. By seeking to justify them you are displaying favoritism of man’s terms over God’s terms.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Just doesn't seem to be a strong case for condemning Christianity. Although, I will agree with you that without Paul, there is no Christianity.


To which I responded…
Half of the Christian NT was written by the Plague of Death, a false prophet, and demon-possessed egomaniac who contradicted everything Yahowah said. Therefore, if you don’t question the rest of it you are not being rational. And if you question it and conduct a comprehensive study of the history of the text, especially the Greek text, what you will find is that most of it isn’t reliable and is not accurate.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#608 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:56:46 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada wrote:
You wrote…
J wrote:
But speaking of the "gospels" that is all you have when it comes to the life of yahowsha and yet you condemn the sources so completely. If you are using your interpretation of what yahowsha did during his time here from your interpretations of the Torah and prophets and psalms, then aren't you engaging in circular reasoning? This is what he must have done because this and this say he was going to do this and this. And if you want to use Matthew as you source, but yet claim that it's not a very reliable source, then how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?


To which I respond…
Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant. He was not “Gospel” observant. And to suggest that “the "gospels" are all you have when it comes to the life of Yahowsha” is ignorant of the fact that the most important and accurate portrayals of what He accomplished were presented in the Towrah, Naby’, and Mizmowr – all written 500 to 1500 years before He fulfilled what they promised. Yahowsha’ literally walked out of the pages of the Towrah and Prophets. He was resolutely Towrah observant. His life is defined by the Towrah and described by the prophets. Your statement dismisses much of the content and purpose of Yahowsha’s life and forestalls any understanding of His mission while negating the only way to properly understand His testimony. It’s the ridiculous Christian perspective of viewing everything from the end to the beginning rather than as it was revealed and occurred. It removes Yahowsha’ from His source.

Words do not suffice to explain how errant your statement is regarding what can be known regarding Yahowsha’.

If you are unaware that Yahowsha’ came to fulfill Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven in accord with the Towrah I cannot help you. Yahowah, Himself, cannot help you. If you see Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s Towrah promises as circular reasoning then there is no way to reason with you. And once again, you are displaying the kind of inappropriate attitude and perspective with the way you are now framing your questions that will absolutely preclude you from knowing Yahowah or understanding His plan. It’s not your questions, but your statements, and what they convey about your mindset that is keeping you away from God, away from the truth.

I don’t condemn Mattanyah. I only state that the Hebrew conversations were translated from Hebrew to Greek by someone other than Mattanyah more than one hundred years thereafter and therefore must be questioned. And I condemn the many changes that have been made to Yahowchanan, not the man, himself. Luke was Paul’s pal and was not present for any of this. Mark is hearsay as well. Neither would be admissible in a court of law. The oldest extant MSS are written in Greek. Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew. Greek is not convey Hebrew effectively or accurately.

In the 9th chapter of Observations, which is sent to your, I detail the history and corruptions in the Christian New Testament. You’d have to be ignorant or irrational to trust it based upon its history. There are more variants than words. That is a fact.

You wrote…
J wrote:
…how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?


To which I responded…
Yahowah provided us with the means to know what He inspired and what He did not inspire. His test was presented twice in Dabarym. I use it. Shouldn’t you? Or are you unaware that He provided such a test because you are not Towrah observant? Rather than disparaging my approach, which is Yahowah’s approach, if you want to know God, you need to learn, accept, and then use His test for determining what can and cannot be trusted. You’ll find it in YY, ITG, and QP.

You wrote…
J wrote:
What kind of answer can you possibly have for how ritualistic and seemingly pagan all the levitical stuff is? I mean from ceremonial washing to the animal sacrifices, to the doing it this way and only this way... sounds a whole lot like religion. And between that and slaughtering the canaanites they seem like your typical Bronze Age people group minus possibly the child sacrifice.


To which I responded…
If you believe that Qara’ / Leviticus is religiously ritualistic and pagan, then you need to take this up with Yahowah because He authored it. It is little wonder you don’t know Him. I suspect based upon your letter that you wouldn’t like Him. You certainly don’t like or respect what He wrote.

Have you ever considered who consumes the “sacrifices?” Is eating something a “sacrifice?” The Miqra’ey are Festival Feasts. The lamb is part of the meal. Almost every civilization from Sumer to Rome engaged in child sacrifice – not Yahowah. Very few slaughtered animals like lambs or cows for food as part of any meeting with their gods. They killed for their gods, often humans, and did not serve lamb as part of a celebratory meal with God. I cover this in great detail in the 11th chapter of Observations. Since it is germane to your criticism of the “animal sacrifices” which were part of the “ritualistic and seemingly pagan livitical stuff,” I’d like to provide it as an “answer.”

“And (wa) Yitschaq (Yitschaq – Laugh and Play) spoke (‘amar – communicated (qal imperfect)) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome), his father (‘ab huw’), stating (‘amar – bringing to light and declaring (qal imperfect)), ‘Father of mine (‘ab ‘any – My father).’
So (wa) he responded (‘amar – he, ‘Abraham, provided assurance, promising (qal imperfect)), ‘Here I am (hineh ‘any – look up at me and pay attention to the details in this discussion, presently, right now I am here) my son (‘any ben).’
Then (wa) he asked (‘amar – he mentioned, inquired, and questioned), ‘Behold (hineh – looking up right now and paying especially close attention, noticing all of the relevant details) the fire (ha ‘esh – the source of light and warmth, radiant energy and the means to properly prepare food so that it is eatable) and (wa) the wooden pillars (ha ‘ets – the timbers and planks), but (wa) where is (‘ayah – serving as an interrogative in a relational circumstance) the lamb (ha seh – the sheep (masculine); related to sahed – a brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about the situation and teaching regarding the subsequent event who serves as an advocate and spokesman on behalf of the accused) for the elevating offering (la ‘olah – to approach by rising; from ‘alah – to ascend and go up, to be withdrawn and carried away)?’” (Bare’syth / Genesis / In the Beginning 22:7)

There are a surprising number of Hebrew words for “lamb,” each providing a nuance which is appropriate to the context and designed to enhance our understanding. In this case, at least based upon the most closely related words, ha seh draws our attention to “the brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about this specific situation while teaching us about the subsequent event destined to occur in this same place who serves as an advocate and spokesman on behalf of the accused.” The seh is the set-apart and diminished manifestation of Yahowah known as Yahowsha’.

Yitschaq’s question regarding the lamb, while seemingly subtle, affirms two profoundly important aspects of their adventure to Mount Mowryah. For him to have recognized that they needed a lamb to roast on the fire requires an understanding of the Towrah. ‘Abraham had obviously shared it with him, even at an early age. And even more revealing, they were intending to celebrate Passover, just as Yahowsha’ did forty Yowbel later on this same mountain.

As proof that ‘Abraham and Yitschaq were operating out of an entirely different playbook, one composed by God and in universal conflict with the rest of humanity circa 1968 BCE, in the cradle of civilization, indeed, ‘Abraham’s birthplace, the Sumerians were sacrificing humans, not lambs. Six years ago, archaeologists at the University of Pennsylvania reached this conclusion after conducting CT scans on the skulls of over 2,000 victims buried in sixteen golden tombs in a single royal cemetery in Ur, Sumer. These researchers reported that human sacrifice was conducted on a very large scale. The common characteristic of these ancient remains was that two one-inch-diameter spikes had been driven through the heads of the men and one through the women while they were still alive. Their bodies were then baked, albeit not burned, and then doused with mercury so that they wouldn’t decompose and could be put on display during religious ceremonies. ‘Abraham’s countryman sought to appease their gods through religious mass murder.

Especially wanton, during this time Sumerian and Egyptian lords, priests, and kings had countless servants, concubines, musicians, handmaidens, grooms, guards, and soldiers murdered because their clerics claimed that the dead would continue to serve their masters in the afterlife. Worse, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to their gods. In one cemetery alone, urns containing the tiny bones of 20,000 ritualistically murdered children have been found.

It has recently been discovered that the Greeks practiced human sacrifice as did the Romans through the second century BCE. The Mongols, Druids, Chinese, Japanese, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Polynesians, and Africans prolifically, barbarically, and religiously sacrificed innocent human lives on behalf of make-believe gods. So, the only reason that Yitschaq would have asked his father about a “lamb” is because he was aware of Yahowah’s instructions regarding Passover.

There is sound justification for translating ‘olah as “elevating offering” rather than “burnt offering.” And yet the latter is how it is rendered in virtually every English bible. So I’d like to explain why I have chosen a different approach. First, virtually every Hebrew noun is defined by its actionable root, and ‘olah is based upon the verb “‘alah – to ascend and to go up, to be withdrawn and to be carried away.” In fact, ‘olah and ‘alah are written identically in the original Hebrew text: elo.

Graphically, the letters elo encourage us to observe the perspective and purpose of the Shepherd if we want to stand with Him. Therefore, ‘alah conveys the result of being Towrah observant. We grow to appreciate what Yahowsha’ did on our behalf on Pesach and Matsah, enabling us as the Covenant’s children “‘alah – to ascend as a result of being withdrawn and then being carried away” by God.

Second, since the preponderance of the Passover lamb is consumed by the celebrants after it has been cooked above the fire, and is thus not “burned,” there is absolutely nothing associated with ‘olah which would suggest a “burnt offering” or anything of value being offered in the fire. Burning the inedible portion of the lamb is no more a sacrifice than incinerating one’s garbage. Beyond this, ‘olah has no etymological connection with burn, burnt, burning, or fire.

Therefore, in the context of its use, ‘olah presents a visual and symbolic portrait of what God is offering to do for us – raising us up to Him – and not something we are sacrificing to Him. We are being nourished and we grow as a result of the consuming the lamb which we roast on the fire. It creates the kind of celebratory feast Yahowah intended for His family’s enjoyment. We are not only warmed by the blaze; its light is symbolic of what Yah has in store for us. And as we witness the smoke rising up to the heavens we can envision “being withdrawn and carried away, ascending to” the home and presence of Yah. ‘Olah speaks of His offer to immortalize, perfect, and adopt us and it is His sacrifice which makes this all possible. We are the beneficiaries of Yahowah’s magnanimous offer. We are not giving God anything other than the opportunity to serve His children.

This next statement from ‘Abraham suggests that this assessment is valid...
“‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) responded (‘amar – promised, declaring (qal imperfect)), ‘God (‘elohym) will actually and continually reveal the proper perspective to understand how (ra’ah – will literally show by consistently making visible, providing the proper perspective to understand (qal imperfect)) to approach Him by way of (la huw’ – on His behalf and in accord with Himself, concerning Him and to move toward Him, and in reference to the proper direction according to Him) the lamb (ha seh – the sheep (masculine); related to sahed – a brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about the situation and teaching regarding the subsequent event who serves as an advocate and witness on behalf of the accused) for the elevating offering (la ‘olah – to approach by rising; from ‘alah – to ascend and go up, to be withdrawn and carried away), my son (‘any ben).’ Then (wa) the two of them walked together in one accord (wa halak shenaym hem yahdaw – and so both journeyed in unity with each other, reciprocating with one another, united and alike in love; from yachyd – begotten and beloved son (qal imperfect)).” (Bare’syth / Genesis / In the Beginning 22:8)

They continued to excel at every aspect of Yahowah’s test because they were following His instructions. ‘Abraham and Yitschaq had learned to trust that God would take care of them – guiding, instructing, teaching, and directing them to every relevant answer.

I went on to convey…
You are only fooling yourself. Like almost every Christian, you are not just unaware of the Towrah, your words are averse to it. You are mocking Yahowah’s testimony by calling it ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Had I read your entire email prior to commenting on each paragraph, I would not have bothered to reply. There is nothing I find more reprehensible than someone who claims to be searching for God while at the same time demonstrating an aversion to His testimony. Leviticus, actually Qara’ / Invitations, is the Word of Yahowah. It is the heart of the Towrah. It presents the Miqra’ey and the Yowbel. Nothing other than the Beryth is as essential to engaging with Yahowah. And yet you dismiss it as ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Shame on you.

Thank God, God has a filter to keep those who mock Him away from those of us who love Him. Your assessment of Yahowah’s Towrah is akin to Paul’s. It is disgusting.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The term lord being so horrible, you mention a lot. You said something about Jeremiah, but can you give me something more specific? And I think you or someone else vaguely referenced Adonai as also being a term that YHWH does not like. Can you show evidence for that also?


To which I responded…
I could provide you with a translation of Yahowah’s statements against being called “the Lord” in Yirma’yah and in Howsha’, but you’d simply reject His testimony and justify your religious preference. So it would be a waste of my time. That has been the approach you have used in this letter, so it is what I’d expect from you.

Lord and father are opposites. Yahowah’s desire is to be our Father. Satan’s ambition is to be lord, which is why Ba’al / Lord is used by Yahowah to describe him. Understanding the difference between lord and father is essential to knowing Yah.

As for ‘adon / Lord and ‘adony / My Lord, Masoretes used it 7000 times in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms to replace YHWH. That is another reason Yahowah does not like the term. It is also the basis of Adonis, the Greek god, while Bel was the god of Babylon – both Lords.

For others who may be interested, proof is found throughout Yada Yah and An Introduction to God as well as in Observations.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Many modern Christians, maybe not many, but a good number are beginning to investigate the appointed times. They really only care about celebrating Pesach, …


To which I responded…
Pesach without Matsah is counterproductive. It is Satan’s ultimate triumph: eternal life separated from God like himself. To appreciate this reality, you will first have to refrain from seeing the “levitical stuff” as pagan and begin to appreciate the purpose of the Miqra’ey / Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.

You wrote…
J wrote:
…but I'm wondering if you think since Chrisitianity is the most sane of the abominations that we call religion, and they seem to have the principle players at least in the room together, and live the most moral lives overall, that maybe YHWH is doing a little nudging to wake a few people up so that so many of them won't be doomed.


To which I respond…
Calling Christianity “the most sane” is akin to calling the blend of a thousand lies the most truthful. But I will give you credit for recognizing that all religions are an abomination.

Christianity does not have the “principle players in the room together”. They have created a caricature of Yahowsha’ with their “Jesus.” The Christian “Jesus” has more in common with Dionysus than the Towrah. They don’t have any appreciation for Adam, they changed his wife’s name to Eve, they are unaware of the reason behind the story of Noach, the Ark and flood. They know almost nothing of the conversations between Abraham and Yahowah. They despise Moseh and the Towrah. They miss the entire point of Dowd / David. They do not understand the prophets. They are completely clueless regarding the Set-Apart Spirit.

You, yourself, criticized the behavior of Christians in your opening comments. They are not moral. And with Yah, being right is vastly more important than being moral, and none of them are right.

No religious person can be awakened from their ignorant and irrational stupor. Religion is very good at being bad. God, Himself, cannot or will not do so.

Christians are not “doomed.” They simply die at the end of their mortal lives and their souls cease to exist. The only people who are doomed are those who promote religion, politics, patriotism and militarism to the point that they mislead others sufficiently that those who believe them ally themselves with the lie rather than the truth. Very few people are doomed to an eternity in hell – and you are not among them. The moment you stopped promoting Christianity as a minister you were no longer in jeopardy of your soul being cast into She’owl. Even your dismissal of the Torwah as pagan isn’t enough to get you there.

J, I no longer care if you read YY, QP, ITG, and O or not. But please don’t reply to this email. I’ll ignore it. [As you can tell, I decided to restate and augment my reply into the context of your original letter in the hope that this discussion will help others.] I do not want to be your pen pal or your answer man. I strongly suspect that I’ve wasted my time with you because of the positions you have taken. The way you have framed your questions is disturbing and irritating. You seem to think that God has somehow failed, that His Word is either inadequate, or worse, pagan. You don’t seem to respect Him or Hebrew, much less His Towrah. I find it repulsive.

If you read all four books and want to engage, I’ll do so. But that will require 400 to 500 hours of your time. And even then, none of it will do you any good until such time as you completely reject Christianity and open your mind to what Yahowah has to say. You are no where near that point currently based upon your letter. The attitude expressed in your words is in opposition to Yahowah. That must change.

Yada

Then, proving that my assessment was correct regarding your attitude, you wrote…
J wrote:
Ignore me for asking questions? Did your ego get in the way or are you really that much of a jerk? I'm sorry, are those questions offensive? If you really did used to be a Christian, what caused you to lose the compassion for those who are in the process of reprogramming? Six weeks man, six weeks. And you want to berate me and belittle my journey. Shame on you. I have my own business and three kids. I don't have 10 hours a day to spend like you. And if Yah didn't care about all the Christians bring deceived, then why all the warnings?

You have jumped to some incorrect conclusions about me, but you wouldn't care would you. I'm sure someone as smart as you doesn't like being wrong especially when you think it's worse than being sinful. I'll clue you in mister know it all. I'm as smart as you. I'd stack my intellect up against anyone. In fact I know how to pronounce NUCLEAR. Or how about Electoral college? Ha! You say NUCULAR and ELECTORIAL. Do you need a Hebrew transliteration to help you figure it out?

I'll probably keep reading and listening despite your uncalled for ridicule toward me. But you won't have to worry about being my pen pal. I like a lot of what you've had to say so far. So maybe after four or five hundred hours, I'll get back to you. But until then...middle finger asshole.


There is no need to respond.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#609 Posted : Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:08:02 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
N wrote:
Yada!!
So so happy I was refered to your site by a dear friend who found the truth a few years ago and shared it with me. I went through a horrible major depressive episode. During that time my family and church felt I was being attacked by the devil because I had so many thoughts that the Bible couldn't answer. Their advice to me was always biblical and when I would read I would feel more depressed. At one point I felt suicidal because I couldn't feel God, understand him, couldn't tap into my faith and felt like I was becoming a non believer. Just those thoughts alone sent on a downward spiral. How can I live if there is no God? How can God be love but threatens to torture me in hell for eternity if I don't do as he says? God seemed terrifying yet the thought of no God was equally terrifying so I settled to just "fight the enemy" and be obident anyway by having blind faith and going up church. After talking to my friend about this he sent me to your site. I have been reading for days now but not only reading but confirming and doing research of my own. I can't believe how liberating this experience is. I will NEVER go back to church or force myself to do things that are just ridiculous rituals being masked as signs of obidiance towards Yah.

However (I'm still reading and learning), I have a few questions and maybe you answer them in your book and I just haven't gotten to it yet. Here goes: If Yah knows everything and sees the future then why not stop the human suffering if he loves us? Why create humankind? Like didn't he know we where going to sin then suffer because of it? Does he really know our every move? And if you can answer this question what are your sources? How do you know. I had some really really bad and dark thoughts during my depression and some still plague me today and disturb me to the core because while I respect and honor Yah, I want to understand him too and that's one of the most important questions I have and really want to try and comprehend. Maybe you can help?


Yada wrote:
N,

I'm sorry for your suffering. And I'm sorry that religious people misled you regarding God's nature.

If Yah knows everything and sees the future then why not stop the human suffering if he loves us?
Freewill. He can't intervene without making a mockery of life. Suffering exists because almost all humans have rejected God.

Why create humankind?
For a relationship.

Like didn't he know we where going to sin then suffer because of it?
That is why He created a solution.

Does he really know our every move?
No.

And if you can answer this question what are your sources?
His Word.

How do you know.
I've translated and studied His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. You can know too. Read Yada Yah and then An Introduction to God.

I had some really really bad and dark thoughts during my depression and some still plague me today and disturb me to the core because while I respect and honor Yah, I want to understand him too and that's one of the most important questions I have and really want to try and comprehend. Maybe you can help?

His Word is the only source of help. No one in His family is depressed for any length of time. He can be known and the benefits of His Covenant can be accepted.

Take your time and read Yada Yah, An Introduction to God, and then Observations. He will heal you and bring you great joy.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#610 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2017 8:53:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
C wrote:

I have a question. A lady contacted me because is concerned about what day to celebrate the Sabbath. She is convinced that there was a 360 calendar (http://www.360calendar.com/) and that our days are off. Seriously, I'm not interested in a 360 calendar, but she is uptight about it.

Please tell me what you feel about the 360 calendar. Is there a better site that I can direct her to? Personally, I feel like some people get fixated on issues that just distract and detract us from simply studying the Torah. It is a good thing to keep our eyes open for information that may help us better understand the Torah, but we should never let something dwarf our time of study.

Thanks,
C


Yada wrote:
CM

The solar year is 365.25 days. It is not 360 days. If Yah's year was 360 days the Miqra'ey would meander around the seasons. They would no longer correspond to their symbolic harvests. Lunar months are 29.5 days. That is not divisible into 365 or 360 either. Moreover, Yahowah never once equates His Shabat with months or with years.

Therefore, the seventh day is not based upon months or years. It is simply the seventh day. Neither 365.25, 306, nor 29.5 is divisible by 7. So it would be impossible to follow Yahowah's instructions of every 7th day using any of these options.

Personally, I only consider things outside of the Towrah when they shed light on the Towrah's depiction of science, history, or prophecy.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#611 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2017 11:34:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JS wrote:
Greetings,

My name is Jeremy. I obtained this email address from the yada forums while browsing a topic concerning the name of the Almighty.

It concerns the spelling of the name of the Almighty as I noticed that it is different than what is accepted, generally, from other sources as Yahweh.

I have attached a PDF file that deals with this evidence, but I am most interested in seeing what evidence you have that would show it to be in error.

Thank you for your time. I await your response.


Yada wrote:
JS,

Read http://anintroductiontog...2.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah.
An Introduction to God - Shem
anintroductiontogod.com
As you are now aware, this Introduction to God makes no accommodation to garner popular support, and it was not designed to appeal to a religious audience.


YHWH are all vowels. Y-aH-oW-aH. Yahweh ignores the sound of the W and is inconsistent with regard to the sound of the H.

If you are unaware of the sounds and meanings of the 22 Hebrew letters, read: http://anintroductiontog....0-Dabar-His_Word.Torah.
An Introduction to God - Dabar
anintroductiontogod.com
The evidence affirms that Yah’s Word was as inerrant as language allows when it was revealed to Moseh and to the Children of Yisra’el, and when it was scribed in ...


JS wrote:
Yada,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

I am in the process of reading that article, but I would like to clarify concerning the PDF file I sent you.

As I am not an expert on the Hebrew pronunciation and am still learning; I would like to see if you have some solid evidence against the historical reference to the Pharisees, as linked in the article, to claiming that the Messiah committed Blasphemy according to their Tradition in that this blasphemy was pronouncing the name as it was spelt.

There is also historical material referenced in that PDF that you can verify online that they also accused the Samaritans of Blasphemy as they pronounced the name as it was spelt...and all the evident points towards Yahweh. Pronounced "ee, ah, oo, eh".

The underlying point is that the Ineffable Name doctrine was started by the Pharisees and the Messiah condemned that practice as it is part of the Traditions of the Elders. So they had to know how it was pronounced else they could not call it blasphemy.

Another question, if I may, is how would you address the Messiahs words in Matthew 23:2-3?

If a lot of what we have is corrupted today in some form or another and is also based inherently on the religious doctrines of men...then how would this be accurate?

How could the Messiah tell the people to listen and do things the way the Pharisees say they were done according to Moses, the reference being judgment, "law" or "towrah" if what they had was not the way it was supposed to be?

I do not know if your the specific author of this quotation, but I would like to point out this portion;

http://anintroductiontog...02.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah



"God’s seventh arrival, which is for reconciliation, is on our horizon, and will transpire on Yowm Kippurym in the Yowbel Year 6000 Yah (at sunset, October 2nd, 2033). The date has been set. It will happen. Are you ready?"

How would show that this is not a contradiction of the Messiahs words in Matthew 24:36?


Yada wrote:
JS,

Messiah is not accurate. The closest Hebrew name is Ma'aseyah - Work of Yahowah. The closest word is mashiach, but it is never used as a name or a title. In Daniel it is used as an adjective modifying messenger. You should refer to Him by His proper name: Yahowsha' - Yahowah Saves.

I translate the whole of Mattanyah 23 in Yada Yah. It is not rendered correctly in English bibles. Yahowsha's testimony is wholly consistent with His Towrah.

You are free to read, accept, challenge, or reject the evidence presented in the Word and Name Volumes of An Introduction to God regarding Yahowah.

Based upon your depiction of the PDF you seem to believe that the proper pronunciation of YHWH can be derived by means other than considering the pronunciation of all of the other words and names formed by the same 22 Hebrew letters used by Yahowah in the Towrah, Naby' (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Psalms). That does not sound rational to me. Why look elsewhere when His name is written 7000 times in His Word?

Speaking of irrational, the Pharisees were not the first to make saying Yahowah's name a crime. This occurred before there were Pharisees. Predicting that Yisra'el would do so, and presenting the consequence, is the purpose of the 3rd statement on the 1st of 2 tablets.

If you read the statements Yahowsha' cited during His trial they contain Yahowah's name. The religious scum hated Yahowah's name. So they had a conniption fit when He said it. They were wrong. Yahowsha' was right.

There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. 17 are consonants and 5 are vowels. You can prove this to yourself by examining the pronunciation of the most recognizable Hebrew terms, such as shalowm, 'elowah, towrah, and gowym, even hayah, the verb which serves as the basis for Yahowah's name.

Yada


JS wrote:
Yada,

http://yadayah.com/Yada_...h-Genesis-Chay-Life.YHWH


I have noticed that you believe in Evolution or at least some part of it. I would recommend that you watch the Kent Hovind series that completely destroys this concept of origination. Your entire premise is based upon an impossibility invented by those who desire a different origin of life and you are attempting to join the two together as compromise.

They are simply not compatible.

Your arguements stem from the assumption that whatever we have today is either corrupted or an amalgamation of religious and doctrinal positions from fallible men. That alone makes yourself suspect. Why is it that you take the same materials along with several others that you claim are corrupt to make your case but then argue that the material your referencing should be translated differently as its corrupted in the first place and not accurate?

Genesis 2:3 the word "rest" is in the Perfect Qal stance which you should know means the complete summation of the event referenced back when it was done. THe Almighty ceased from doing what He did...proving that your entire contention of billions of years in the creation process to be absurd.

This is verified by the fact that Exodus 20:11 in which this is repeated by Moses in reference to the seventh-day sabbath of the weak. That is in the Qal/waw-consecutive and you would also know that this is referencing an event that had already happened and Qal means that the subject of the verb performs the actions or is in the state described by it. Hence, rested, past, as what is being spoken to the Israelites is a reference and comparison of why they should be doing the same for the weekly Sabbath.

Yet, I doubt you would listen as you seem to have it within your head a notion that all that we have today, minus what you consider to be authentic, a corrupted form and not trust-worthy.

I also looked at your translation of Matthew 23 and perhaps I did miss it, but I did not see a reference to verses 2-3 in which the PHarisees sat in Moses seat and whatsoever they bid to observe and do...that observe and do. That alone destroys your entire position and practically everyone who has heard of them in relation to the Son of the Almighty knows what day they considered a Sabbath and how it was a literal day not representative of a billions of year creation process.

You make some good points, yes, in that we should be studying the Hebrew but your entire work is laced with doctrinal issues of your own while condemning others as false.

Perhaps you could show clear-cut evidence without adding in third party dogma(Science/evolution) and prove from the scriptures that the creation process was not a literal six days and therefore billions of years. I dare-say that you will not be able to. If you cannot...then your foundation cannot be trusted and you have to re-examine everything.


JS wrote:
Yada,

My question to you is why do you seem to have an adversion to believing that the Almighty would "command" us to "keep" a "law, statute"?

Half the time when I read your book of "Introduction" I get the distinct impression that you have a thorough dislike for "Law" or anything that gives the concept of instructions that people are required to obey to show by action that they are doing what the Almighty says to do.

For instance, in the "Psalms 119" portion of your website at the following address under Volume Three, Part Three;

http://anintroductiontog...owrah-His_Teaching.Torah

You say the following;

"Therefore, if you believe that “observing the Torah” means “being obedient and obeying God’s laws,” you will be disappointed. Even in this, Scripture’s most comprehensive presentation on how to observe and respond to Yahowah’s Towrah, you will find nothing to support a legalistic perspective."

You go on, after this, to translate the Psalms according to your rendering and take effort to make sure the translation avoids a "legalistic" perspective of which additional scriptural context would show this view to be in error.

You translate the word "testimonies" as the following;

"(‘edah – His restoring and eternal witness; from ‘ed – witness, testimony, and evidence which endures forever, a contracted form of ‘uwd – to repeatedly testify about restoration and to exhort, warn, and affirm through solemn testimony)"

While this word does have "witness" as part of its definitions and usage you ignore scriptural usage of this word in context of other passages and hinge on very specific portions of definitions to prove your case. This word is used in Deuteronomy 4:45 in direct connection and correlation and context of "statutes and judgments". Now, Im using the English here and I know what the Hebrew means, but the usage of these words in context of what exactly was told the children of Israel shows that they were indeed laws and commandments.

This is repeated again in Deuteronomy 6:17,20 in context of what the Israelites were to do. You know as well as I do that it refers to the way of the Almighty in what the Israelites were to do as exemplified in the Almighty's commandments, statutes and judgments.

You try to quote Genesis 26:5 and use that as a reference to say that nothing specific was mentioned, but you ignore scriptural context in that it is obvious this was an oral telling to Abraham while what happened at Mount Sinai was the oral put into graven form...as that same covenant was promised to the seed of Abraham in Genesis 17:7. Same covenant. Everlasting covenant. Same way given. Same testimonies. Same judgments. Same law. This context right here shows you to be completely in error in trying to tell people that there is no requirements given to anyone by the Almighty.

Yet, back to this word translated "testimonies". It is used again in Psalms 78:56 in which it is used to refer specifically to a commandments that were given, namely the first and second. Are you seriously going to attempt to translate this away to mean what you want it to mean and ignore the obvious context?

After all...according to you, there is no "law" given to us by the Almighty. Its specifically instruction and direction only and not any type of requirements. How ironic that you only speak of half the equation. It is not possible to have a requirement without knowing the instruction in the first place. They go hand-in-hand.

You also seem to be thoroughly convinced of the notion of "free-will" being in complete opposition to the reality in which we live and to have a "law" given to us by the Almighty is in violation of that "free-will". Well, if you truly had "Free-Will" in all sense of the term...then you would definately be able to choose not to be presented with a choice of doing what the Father wills in the first place. See the contradiction?

We are created in this world and we have to deal with everything we are presented with and you have a choice to follow the Almighty in doing EVERYTHING that the Almighty wills/says/commands/requests or any other word I missed, or refusing said situation.

You do not have the freedom or "free-will" to not be presented with that choice. That is woven into our reality and you cannot escape it...so why try to say that there is no "law" and only instruction/direction/guidance?


Yada wrote:
If you want towrah to mean "law" and and not "teaching and guidance," shama' to mean "obey," rather than "listen," and shamar to mean "keep" in the sense of "obedience" rather than "observe," then you are in the majority. But there is no etymological reason to support these connotations. And the majority is most often wrong.

That said, I agree that the religious lexicons all tilt in favor of your conclusion, not so much with regard to towrah, shamar, or shama' but with a number of other words which can readily rendered in a legalistic fashion.

Then that begs the question: are the legalistic connotations a result of erroneously rendering the meaning of towrah, shamar, and shama' for the benefit of religion, and in keeping with the concept of a fearsome Lord, or was Yahowah being inconsistent, asking us to listen and learn on one hand and then be obedient to His laws on the other? That not only sounds more like a Lord than a Father, a Kingdom rather than a Family, it all but negates the purpose of our conscience and freewill.

I have consistently admitted that I see the Towrah as parental guidance and the Covenant as a family with Yahowah in the role of Father. Therefore, when given equally viable options based upon word studies I render every statement consistent with that perspective. I am admittedly at the extreme end of that paradigm. Those who concur are few.

Most disagree. That is your option, your choice. But since much of what is written in the Towrah is predicated upon that which no longer exists or is inaccessible, some of which are illegal, how are you going to "obey" these "laws?" Where are the Priests, the Judges, the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple?

I have no issue in doing much of what Yah asks. I am not, however, going to kill someone for picking up sticks on a Saturday or for adultery. I'm not going to pitch a tent in Yahuwdah on Sukah. I'm not going to slaughter a lamb in front of my family that I brought into my home four days before Passover.

I am in support of accepting and acting upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant. And yes, instructions and requirements go hand in hand regarding admission into His family. But they are not laws. Acceptance and obedience are different concepts. His instructions and guidance are in our interests. And I can learn from everything He says.

But, I am completely opposed to a Lord telling us to obey his laws or die. If your view of Yahowah is valid, I don't want to spend an eternity obeying him. I'd rather die. I am not that kind of father and I don't think Yah is either.

So my question to you is simple: why are you tormenting yourself with YY, ITG, O, or QP? Why read something that is fundamentally opposed to your perspective on God? Surely, there are books which coincide with your thinking.

Yada


JS wrote:
Yada,

I am not saying that "Towrah" means only "law" or that "shama" means only to "obey". I am saying that your using only half of the definitions of the words. I do not dispute at all that they also mean teaching and guidance and listening intently. I am pointing out that you seem focused only half of the definitions and half of the usages.

I do not disagree that the Almighty created things for the purpose of a family. I see that as much as you do, but I also see that there are rules and regulations. There are ways to do things. You don't steal from each other. You don't charge interest to your neighbor. You don't kill each other. You don't lie to one another. You do not rape. You do not cross-dress...etc. Doing these things causes a lot of harm to other people and they are a legalistic concept as much as guidance.

Considering your position I would imagine you would have a problem with Ezekiel 18:4 in which the "soul" or "person, life" that sins shall die. "Chata"...misses the mark. "Muth"...to die. What mark are we missing? The context are all things contained in verses 4-23...but you should pay attention to verse 23; the Almighty wants us NOT to die...therefore choose life and obey and live. If you hold to your position then you would seem to have a hard time with this passage.

You should also take this in lock-step with Ezekiel 33:11. The Almighty does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked. He wants us all to turn back and follow and live. That sounds like a loving Father to me. All ways outside of Him lead to death. Following His ways leads to life because your "shamar" to him. You are following and obeying.

When in regards to the so-called "impossibility" of observing the Almighty's ways because we no longer have a Temple, ark and of the like...you are under a misconception. I have attached a word document concerning this explanation. It is probably base and simple compared to what you are used to, but it should get the point across that there was a difference between animal sacrifices(Levitical Priesthood) and the "commandments, statutes and judgment" and that the latter remains while the former was prophesied to change. Still a sacrifice, but no longer of animals.

However, your admission of doing "much" of what Yah asks while not doing the rest is a blatant error. It is defiance. You acknowledge that there are things that you would not do and by default admit that you would ignore portions of the "Towrah", the "instruction/direction/guidance" if it required you to do so if it conflicted with what you wanted to do.

You then reference specific events such as killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath; a reference to Numbers 15:32-36. That is a instruction event...but also a legalistic once; obey. You have contradicted yourself.

When in regards to "obey or die" you only have one half of the equation. I should also mention that a Father punishes as well as rewards. You have the instruction part down pat. I do not dispute that, but you willfully and admitted ignore the other half. Perhaps these passages concerning death would fill that other half;

Exodus 21:12, 14
Deuteronomy 13:10, 17:5, 18:20, 19:12
Jeremiah 31:30.

Those are just a few. Your problem, Yada, is that you admit you take only what you want and ignore the rest. That shows that your belief system is based in your own personal desire and wants and is, by definition, partly defiant of the instruction that you claim the scriptures are all about.

So how can anything you teach be trusted in full?

Lastly, I was reading those books of yours because I desire to see any and all contentions against the scriptures in any form to see if they are true. Primarily I was focused on finding additional evidence concerning Paul speaking against the Law and the Prophets. I had only just recently uncovered the evidence concerning Paul before I even came across your documents on the web.

Yada, I would surmise that you have probably taken offense to a lot of what I have told you, but at the very least I would think that you should re-confirm your beliefs to make absolutely sure the scriptures tell you what to believe and then you have to make the choice to do it.

I came from a position of dogmatic and almost fanatical belief that Paul was an apostle of the Messiah(I'm still unsure of your translation, but I reference the one from Daniel and the Gospel accounts and Psalms) and that shook my entire foundation. Perhaps this is doing the same for you?

I try not to be long-winded, but my final question is this concerning the name of the Almighty and His Son;

In the PDF file I referenced to you initially the external evidence as well as a few of the internal evidence suggest that the pronunciation was "Yahweh" and based upon the prophecy of Zechariah 3 the name of the coming Messiah would have been equivalent to the Hebrew pronunciation of "Joshua" which would have been "Yahushua"...meaning Yah/Yahu/Yahweh saves.

Your argument is based strictly(as far as I can tell) upon an examination of the letters of the alphabet and words ending with the "he" and that the name is spelt and pronounced "Yahowah". I have heard that the contention against this is that the verb form changes how a word is pronounced.

So when Moses was told "I am that I am", this was in the first person form, but in Exodus 3:15 the Almighty used the third person form and the pronunciation therefore was "eh" and not "ah" at the end of the name.

How would you answer these contentions?


Yada wrote:
Sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. All it took was your first paragraph...

You worte: "I am not saying that "Towrah" means only "law" or that "shama" means only to "obey". I am saying that your using only half of the definitions of the words. I do not dispute at all that they also mean teaching and guidance and listening intently. I am pointing out that you seem focused only half of the definitions and half of the usages."

Towrah does not mean "law." No aspect of the word means "law." Law isn't half of the definition - it isn't any part of the definition.

Shama' does not mean "obey." No aspect of the word means "obey.' Obey isn't half of the definition. It isn't any part of the definition.

The religious lexicons which say otherwise are wrong. They are often wrong. Wrong is popular. But wrong is never right. Popular isn't proof.

Towrah means "source from which teaching, guidance, instruction, and direction flow." It is from yarah. Shama' means "to listen." That is all it means.

There is no "also." You are wrong.

Believe what you want, but don't support your opinions with inaccurate translations.

If you don't like my translations, read something else. I love it when somebody finds an error in my work, because I make more than my fair share, and can correct my mistakes. But there is nothing to be gained by your assessment. It is not valid. It isn't even remotely accurate regarding towrah or shama'.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#612 Posted : Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:31:34 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
DH wrote:
Dear Yada,

I have learned so much from your writing, and I have read most of it. I am impressed that you have modified your beliefs and knowledge over the years. That is evidence of growth. I am profoundly grateful for your efforts.

May I return the favor in a very small way?

I think that the 2 BC/33 AD dates for the physical life of Yahowsha are off by two years. I have several reasons to conclude this.

First, you state:

"Tertullian, a trustworthy historian and lawyer born about 160 CE, stated that Augustus began his reign 41 years before the birth of Yahowsha’ and that the emperor died 15 years after the Ma’aseyah’s redemptive advent, placing Yahowsha’s arrival in 2 BCE. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 BCE to the fall of 1 BCE. Tertullian also noted that the Ma’aseyah was born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra in 30 BCE, which is consistent with the 2 BCE date."

There is a counting problem with this. If 43 BC is the first year of Augustus' reign, then the 41st year is 3 BC. You have to count from 44 BC, not 43 BC. Also the 41st year may have started in late 4 BC. 2 BC is too late to satisfy this condition! However, 4 BC or 3 BC would be correct.

I am 65 years old. I was born in 1951. Yet 2017 is the sixty seventh calendar year in which I have lived. It seems as though there is a two year error. I have to count from 1950, not 1951. And I will turn 66 later this year.

The second problem relates to the amount of time that Yahowsha spent in the grave. The sign he gave was to be three days and three nights in the grave (Matthew 12:40). In 33 AD, passover was on a Friday. From sunset on Friday to before sunrise on Sunday there is one day and less than two nights. Three days and three nights just don't fit in that interval.

We know that Yahowsha died on passover (Matt 26:2, Luke 22:7). The next day was the first day of unleavened bread, an annual sabbath. The first day of unleavened bread is always the day after passover. The day following Yahowsha's death was a "high day" or a "special sabbath," not necessarily the same as the weekly sabbath (John 19:14, 31).

There were multiple sabbaths after the burial and before the empty tomb was discovered. In Matthew 28:1 the word "sabbath" was plural in the Greek, but mistranslated as singular. NIV notes admit this. It should read, "after the sabbaths at dawn..."

So the multiple sabbaths had to be (1) the first day of unleavened bread, and (2) the weekly sabbath.

Now everything fits. If the year was 31 AD, passover was on a Wednesday. The burial was just before or at sunset on Wednesday. Thursday was the special sabbath the next day. Yahowsha spent three days and three nights in the grave just as he said. The three nights were Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights. The three days were Thursday (special sabbath), Friday, and Saturday (weekly sabbath). The resurrection would have been just before or at sunset on Saturday evening (the weekly sabbath). The empty tomb wasn't discovered until some hours later, before dawn on Sunday.

If this understanding is wrong, I would like to know.

With my warmest regards,

DH


Yada wrote:
DH,

We are going to disagree here. While I could be wrong about 33, and while I'd enjoy considering evidence to the contrary, the many arguments presented for it in Yada Yah for 33 are better than yours in favor of 31.

First, I don't much care if Yahowsha' arrived in 2BCE or 1BCE. It is irrelevant. It is relevant that He arrived on Sukah. God was not born, so dating His "birthday" is a waste of time. I cover it briefly, but not seriously, in YY.

I would not trust any Christian historian on anything. I've studied their propaganda. My review of them can be found in Volume 7 of www.YadaYah.com.

Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and FirstFruits transpire over three days, meaning that Yahowsha's body did not and could not be in the grave 3 days. It was actually destroyed immediately after Passover and His soul and Spirit were reunited early on Bikuwrym. Matsah is only 24 hours. And there is no question historically that His soul was released from She'owl on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Similarly, He was crucified on a Friday. This timeline only fits 33CE and does not fit 31CE. Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym all fall on the days of the week attested in Mattanyah.

The Daniel prophecy points to four days before Passover in 33 CE, not 31 CE. It trumps all notions to the contrary. Yahowah is precise, and so it only makes sense that the special Shabat of Matsah would fall on a natural Shabat, just as the special Shabat of Sukah in 2033 also falls on a natural Shabat. Here is my analysis of the Daniel prophecy regarding Yahowsha's pre-Passover arrival.
http://yadayah.com/Yada_...-Set_Apart_to_Serve.YHWH

In the Mow'ed - Appointed Meeting Times chapter of the Good News volume of YY (http://yadayah.com/Yada_Yahweh-Good_News-Mow'ed-Appointed_Meeting_Times.YHWH) I present what I think is a much more compelling and consistent explanation of the Yownah 3 days and 3 nights statement.

Dowd / David set the cornerstone of the Temple in 968 BCE, 20 Yowbel from 33 CE. Rabbi Akiba promoted Simon bar Kokpha to Messiach in 133 because it was a Yowbel year. 31 was not a Yowbel.

I've never said that I'm certain 4000 Yah was 33, but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of it. My issue has and remains the difficulty of calibrating Yah's calendar with the Imperial Roman Pagan Catholic replacement.

Year 4000 Yah is of the utmost importance as is Year 6000 Yah. So the only reason that I care about locating 4000 Yah on the Roman calendar is so that I can locate Year 6000 Yah on it as well. That is the year He will return, on Yowm Kippurym. If you are right, we have 2 fewer years to share what we know. If you are right, the Tribulation will begin in the fall of 2024. But if I'm right, then there is a reason the timing of Apophis coincides with its arrival in 2029 as predicted in Revelation.

Yada


DH wrote:
Yada and Larry,

Thank you both for your extensive replies. I have a lot more to study!

All of this started after I heard Yada on "Coast to Coast AM" way back in 2003. Since then I have read Tea with Terrorists and Prophet of Doom (both in hard copy), Introduction to God, Questioning Paul, and I am now on chapter 3 of Yada's Genesis. I started reading Questioning Paul a few years ago, the same way Yada started writing it - as a defense of Paul. I thought I had Paul in a well-contained little box, where with much waving of hands I thought I had myself convinced that there were no contradictions between him and Yahowah. Boy was I wrong. 1/3 of the way into Questioning Paul, I had come to see it. I have heard claims elsewhere that II Peter is pseudonymous, which may be another reason to disregard what seems to be an endorsement of Paul (in English translations, anyway) at its end.

All of this sure makes me wish I were fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek.

I'll keep reading. I have a lot more to cover.

Again, thank you for your time and effort.

DH


Yada wrote:
DH,

I don't cover the evidence behind 33 and 2033 in ITG or QP, but instead in YY - which you are just beginning to read. While the support for those conclusions is presented in the two chapters I identified and provided links, you'd be better off ignoring them for now so that you can continue to read YY from the beginning. The "Genesis" volume is eyeopening. You'll get to those chapters and volumes in due time. And when you are done, consider Observations. It's available at www.YahowahBeryth.com.

In context, and properly translated, "Peter" destroyed Paul's credibility. But I was once with you, believing that there were no contradictions between Paul and Yahowah. I believed this because I did not know Yahowah and did not understand His Towrah. Sadly, the opposite is true. Paul is the plague of death.

There is no advantage to learning Greek because half of the NT is trash and the rest is far too unreliable to trust. If you are interested in why these conclusions are irrefutable, read the 9th chapter of Observations. Bottom line: focus on Hebrew and the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#613 Posted : Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:44:26 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
J wrote:
Hi Yada.
I have been reading YY, Invitations to Meet God, the Pesach chapter.
On page 46/97 - in reference to the term "bakowr" - you mention that Yah saved the First Born of the Yisraelites during the first Passover which occurred in Egypt (the Exodus event).
My question is this, was that event the first Passover?
Not too long ago I recall that we (the Covenant family) were discussing the 'near sacrifice' of Yitzhak by Abraham - on Mount MoriYah - as constituting a celebration of Pesach.
Thanks.

J


Yada wrote:
J,

Good question. I suspect that Noach celebrated Pesach, and as you have mentioned, so did Abraham and Yitschaq. The details in both stories lead to these conclusions. I actually think that Abraham, and then he and his son, Yitschaq, celebrated Pesach prior to the obvious time on Mowryah. But that said, the first Passover celebrated in accordance with the instructions Yah has provided and then presented to us for our consideration was in Mitsra'ym en route to the Promised Land.

Yada


J wrote:
Yada,

Shabat Shalowm.
Thank you for the reply.
I agree with you.
I just listened to the Shabat show and this topic (commencement of the Miqra) was brought up. I agree with J.B. regarding his thoughts regarding Adam and Chahwa in the Garden and their 'observance' of the Miqra. I also agree with your comment about Abel's sacrificial offering of a lamb.
By the way, I think it is terrific that you, Larry, Kirk and James explained your methods of translating and deciphering YAH's Word on today's show.

Best,

J


Yada wrote:
Jeff,

Yes, Pesach was there from the beginning of time. It will endure throughout the whole of time. It is a celebration of life.

There is a lot that goes into translating Yah's Word and even more that goes into understanding His Teaching. It is a process and we must draw upon all of the resources at our disposal to do the job effectively. We must be observant and thoughtful. But that is the point. It is how we learn. It is how we make connections and understand. It is how we transfer short term memories to long term, causing them to endure. It should require effort and focus, an investment of our time and resources. But it should also be fun and rewarding. Moreover, the more we do it, the better at it we should become, thereby always learning and always growing.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#614 Posted : Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:47:23 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
F wrote:
Hi Yada,

While re-reading the Noah chapter of YY I was wondering why Ron Wyatt measured the Ark as 450ft by 75ft and I remembered you saying how the timbers would have changed their scale simply due to the wood rotting and causing the size to appear different than the 6 and 1 ratio of the above number, but Yahowah being who He is and always confirming His Word, as I was reading your dimensions in feet for 300 cubits by 50 cubits, I was struck with the same confirmation of 300 by 50 also being a 6 to 1 ratio. I also think the 30 cubits in height could be a reference to 3 doors and I'll tell you why, and it has to do with Trump and Rev 9:11

I listened to a study where Larry went on about liking Trump, not so much as calling him a good person, but just a guy who could muddy up the waters for the establishment, and that's fine if you want to think that, but I have a different take on him. Not sure you knew his home in Trump Tower is on the 66th floor, but it's called the gold room for a reason. When you look at the room you can get caught up in its opulence of shimmering gold and fresco's on the ceiling, but did you know that on the main living room, the fresco on the ceiling is to Apollo the Roman sun god? This struck me as weird because looking at the front of the building there's a grove of trees planted in an upside down pyramid shape with 6 trees to each side of it, and towering above that are 7 phallic symbols united to form his tower, and each in the shape of an obelisk all to King Trump Tower..

Now back to the 3 doors. Considering Trump has some affinity to Apollo and all the symbols with his tower, Rev 9:11 speak of the destroyer named Abaddon.
Would I be wrong to associate the name given the destroyer, Ab(father) dalet/dalet(2 doors) nun( fallen son)..I've looked at all the meaning of this word and I see that it also relates to Sheol / Gehanna..Considering one place is referenced as the grave while the other is referenced as a compartment of the underworld for fallen souls, I was wondering if that name could possibly mean more than just a destroyer? Knowing the Father offers 3 doors, 2 doors for religion just rang a bell in my head, and knowing Christians believe the 2 door symbolism, but they never associate it with both doors leading away. And brother do Christians love Trump..It's almost sickening what I hear out of them about this guy being viewed almost as their savior of the great USA..It's gross, truthfully.

Now 30 cubits could be each level as 10 cubits where those cleansed would inhabit the 1st level / closest to heaven, the 2nd level could be the level where the animals pictured as clean would inhabit it, and the bottom level would possibly be the place for the animals that eat garbage / Gehanna.

I just get an eerie felling about Trump and how much he cares for Israel doing things outside its borders when like you said before, " you support them as long as their weapons are only used for defensive reasons," (paraphrasing). So witnessing Him and Netanyahu buddy up and Trump mentioned he would move the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, causes me to think Trump may be looking to let Israel begin building the temple, and if anything would start an uproar in the Muslim world, it would be that.

Well anyhow, I'm just rambling with these pictures in my head. Don't get me going about my crazy dreams about Islam or I could go on forever.

As always, regards,
F


Yada wrote:
Actually, what I thought that I had written was that the ark splayed, which is to say that the internal timbers either rotted away or ultimately failed over time due to the weight of the volcanic ash that was deposited over them. That would have caused the surviving portions of the external hull to be appear wider and longer. Also, along the incline of the ridge line, gravity and friction working in opposition would have eventually broken the keel, causing the lower and upper portions of the Ark to separate, thereby also extending a measurement from bow to stern.

I concur with you regarding Trump. My assessment of him has gone from bad to worse over time. I suspect that he will be destructive for America and the world. And yes, his ego is on display in everything you observed in Trump Tower.

He has reneged on most all of his promises to Israel, so he is not going to move the embassy or support a new temple. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is why Christians love him.

I agree with you on the 6 - 1 dimensions of the Ark and appreciate why that is as essential as the three doors to our understanding.

My overall negative view of Trump was once identical to Larry's, thinking that he was the lesser of two evils - not that that was saying much considering H Rotten C. But over time Larry has seen more positives than negatives while I've observed more negatives than positives. Since neither of us participate in or support the political process, candidates or office, the differences in our assessments are irrelevant to our participation in the Covenant. In fact, I'm glad that we differ.

In this vein, I thought that it was interesting that Genesis's radio host, Alex Jones, apologized to the owner and staff of Comet Ping Pong for spreading false reports in Pizzagate regarding the Clintons. They are bad, but that story was rotten.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#615 Posted : Friday, April 7, 2017 7:58:07 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JM wrote:
Yada,

I have a contact who is a contractor in the Pentagon, who is the man who was tasked by someone in the White House to find resumes for some senior PR employees, including me, and I would like to give him some sound advice to give to the military that is contemplating action in Syria.

My advice would be to do nothing, but what is your advice? Perhaps you have a nuanced suggestion that is a good start, since you know the military is unlikely to stop fighting completely, worldwide, overnight.

The President of China is having din-din with our Prez tonight. Not sure if Syria will be discussed. I doubt it.

It would be interesting to know Xi’s response to all the America First protectionism stuff.


JM


Yada wrote:
The advice I would give is simple:

What did we accomplish when we invaded Korea and what was the cost of achieving a stalemate?
What did we accomplish when we invaded Vietnam and what price did we pay for making a bad situation worse?
What did we accomplish when we armed al Qaeda, the Mujahideen, and Taliban in Afghanistan and what price did we pay for causing that war?
What did we accomplish when we invaded Afghanistan and what price did we pay for making a bad situation worse?
What did we accomplish when we invaded Iraq and what price did we pay for making a bad situation worse?
What did we accomplish when we bombed Libya and what price did we pay for making a bad situation worse?
What did we accomplish when we armed Iranian Shia (the Iraq military) and Sunni tribal leaders (the Awakening Program) in Iraq, and what price did we pay for making a bad situation worse by facilitating the rise of ISIS?
When will we learn that US military intervention has become costly and counterproductive, especially in the Islamic world?
When we ousted the leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, those who replaced them were far worse, so why would any rational individual repeat this same mistake in Syria?

The US intervention in the Muslim Middle East is wholly to blame for the migration of millions of Muslims into Europe and the West. And they are bringing the cancer that made these places living hells with them. The US would have to be insane, both ignorant of history and completely irrational to engage further in Syria.

Why during the time the US military and intelligence agencies are more powerful and intrusive than the rest of the world's combined, has the world become so mired in deadly conflict and immersed in terrorism if America is a force for good?
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#616 Posted : Friday, April 14, 2017 11:07:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JK wrote:
I've been intrigued by your observation that Yahowah reaches out to individuals whom he knows will respond, If I'm characterizing that statement accurately. This caused me to look upon past experiences which perhaps fall in that category. A very young memory came back to me.

When I was very young, my mother would take me to Catholic mass. My siblings and I were indoctrinated into Catholic elementary for our first four or five grades until our parents could no longer afford it, and we were placed into public schools. Recently I revived a long term memory of one of those occasions during mass. I guess I was about five or six years of age. I vividly recall the plaster of Paris figures of Mary and other such idols and how the parishioners were paying homage to those figures.

I remember trying with all my youthful, impressionable might to experience the presence of the supernatural, someone even more substantial than Santa Claus himself. I saw these people venerating these idols and I was flooded with an insight that what they were doing was incredibly foolish and impotent. I think I actually felt as if the very roof of the structure parted and like a storm giving way to the bathing of streaming sunlight, I got this message, "You will not find Me here".

After all these years it's possible I might be embellishing somewhat, but it was certainly a powerful moment for such a young mind. Maybe Yahowah was already reaching out to me.


Yada wrote:
JK,

Great story. I love it. It begs the question: What is the difference between the images and characters of the Christian Mary and Jesus and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Very, very little.

That is half of what I said, however. It's true that it would be silly for Yahowah to reach out to someone who He knew wasn't going to respond. And that is why I said so. But the key motivator is likely the same as our own. He and we choose relationships with people who are interesting to us. Yahowah clearly found you interesting - someone capable of thinking their way out of religion and to Him. You haven't changed in this regard which is why we get along so well together and why we get along so well with Yah.

There is far more to you than just a willingness to respond. It's your attitude and thinking Yah enjoys.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#617 Posted : Friday, April 14, 2017 11:08:22 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JB wrote:
Dear Yada,

Is there somewhere on the web site that tells us how we are to keep these feasts? Christy McCord told me how to celebrate the Passover and I did so, but what do we do on Bikurim and Pentecost and the fall feasts. Someone told me that we have to stay in a tent for the feast of booths. We have people in our neighborhood breaking into cars and another man and his son were shot to death in their living room by someone who got away in a stolen car and were later arrested. My backyard is visible from the street. We also have the west Nile thing going on here in Louisiana and with the mosquito being the state bird that would be dangerous as well. Thanking you in advance for any help you can provide.

JB


Yada wrote:
Joe,

Please read Volume 2 / Invitations of YadaYah.com. It begins: http://yadayah.com/Yada_...tation_to_Meet_God.YHWH.

You will be best served if you seek to understand before you act. There is no advantage for you in a short, quick, answer. With understanding as the goal, the journey is the reward.

Sounds like your neighbors are worse than the mosquitos. People can be real buggers. I'd avoid both.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#618 Posted : Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:45:12 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
TP wrote:
DEAR, Yada,, IT WAS SO SO SO GOOD TO HERE YOU ON DR BILLS PROGRAM,AGAIN, IT WAS THE 2012 PROG YOU WERE ON THAT'S WHEN I FIRST LISTENED YOU TALK ABOUT YAHOWAH, IT CHANGED MY LIFE SO MUCH, AND CHALLENGED ME TO OBSERVE AND LISTEN,,,THEN BILL ASKED ME TO GO ON AND TALK ABOUT YAHOWAH 3 YEARS AGO ,I DID NOT GO ON THEN AS I WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED THEN AND DID NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO TALK ABOUT YAH, UNTIL I WAS ADOPTED, I'M SO HAPPY THAT YOU GOT TO MENTION PAUL AND FALLS CHRISTIANITY, BILL AND MICHELLE DEAGLE HAVE BEEN GOOD FRIENDS FOR 13 YEARS NOW I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO THEM BOTH ABOUT YAHOWAH AND THE TRUTH,, , THANK YOU Yada FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS AND BOLDNESS TO SHARE YAH..I'M ONLY ON LINE ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS,, I SENT YOU SOME INFO ON JOB 41 THE LEVIATHAN, AND THE CORRELATION WITH PAUL,, HOPE FULLY ITS IS OF USE TO YOU TO EXPOSE CHRISTIANITY SOME MORE,,,, KIND REGARDS TP


Yada wrote:
TP,

Thanks for the encouraging note. I'm thrilled for you that you decided upon circumcision to accept the final condition of the Covenant. Welcome to the family.

By doing shows like Bill Deagle's from time to time we reach people such as yourself, who may not have heard about Yahowah any other way. And for that, it's worthwhile. In fact, few things could be as beneficial. My concern, however, is the loss of credibility that comes with being part of a program where the host is promoting conspiracies. I since that he is open to the truth, but he still is clinging to a lot of things he'll have to dismiss if he is going to become a Covenant member. But so long as he remains willing to listen, continue to talk to him about Yahowah.

I am hit and miss with emails, so I expect to find your letter on Yowb 41 and its association with Paul. That ought to be interesting.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#619 Posted : Friday, May 5, 2017 2:51:12 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
CP wrote:
Hi Yada,
You know I am doing ('asah) a simple, basic interlinear dabar.(I sent you a sample) I have been especially stumped concerning what to do with 'adonay. Today I think I may have decided on how to handle it, but I thought I might run it by you. As I was reading Daniel for our Torah study, Daniel called Yah "most High" so I did a search on high. I discovered that Abraham and David called Yah "most High"-'elyown but that word was then, after David, used for other things than Yahwah and not for Yahwah at all.. I think I want to replace all 'adonay with 'elyown Most High. What do you think?

I know that you use Upright Pillar 'eden, but that needs commentary and Most High is self explanatory and seems to fit. I am so tired of seeing all the prophets and kings call Yah 'adonay when there is no way-that would be like Him being the 90 tall golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar and not our Most High Father.

I appreciate any input. No one else seems too interested in what I am doing, but I think it wil be valuable.

Thanks, CP


Yada wrote:
CP,

The reason I use "Upright Pillar" is because 'adon and 'edon, which are from 'adown and 'edown, are indistinguishable in the Hebrew text. The difference is only in the Masoretic vowel pointing in the 11th century CE. And since 'edown is used throughout the Towrah to describe the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle, it is a perfect fit.

The y at the end, making 'edowny or 'adowny, makes it my Upright Pillar or my lord.

'Elohym, the plural of 'el, is seldom written that way. It is from 'elowah - meaning 'Almighty.' 'Elyown is a variation of the word. There are a number of words conveying "Most High" and "Almighty." Yahowah's name is used throughout his conversations with Abraham, so I'd be careful forming conclusions otherwise. And Dowd consistently uses Yahowah's name. He on occasion uses many of the other words for God or Almighty.

While Most High is the meaning of 'el, 'al, 'elohym, 'elowah, and 'elyown, the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle is most high, so there is nothing wrong with using it. And you'll note that 'edowny and 'elyown have but one letter which is different.

I'm a big fan of interlinears. There are no good ones because the English is always a product of existing religious translations. The translations I create for the books are essentially interlinears because both Hebrew and English are presented side by side.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#620 Posted : Friday, June 2, 2017 3:53:04 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
BG wrote:
One of my 'here and now' conscience dreams / future memories has actually been troubling for me---in the here and now. I've always been wired as a sensitive guy. I probably don't come off that way in public social settings, but deep inside I am a very sensitive non-confrontational guy.

My nightmare, which actually causes me elements of depression is knowing so many people I've known and cared for do not understand what Yah is offering, what the narrow path is, and what the conditions are to receive the gift. Certainly I can lead discussions in that direction, but so many people who I consider persons of value, to me at least; are quite quick to stop the discussion. Religion has fooled so may and I feel incapable of lifting the fog that clouds their minds. When this happens I don't take any blame due my own failure, yet I do get depressed. Of course I can't be selfish, I am not the one doing the adopting. I am only the adopted.

I've experienced some long hard thoughts on this. The only reason I bring it up is because I've never heard another Covenant member mention it before.


Yada wrote:
BG,

My impressions from 45 years ago, is that you were the way you describe yourself, a genuinely caring, unselfish, humble, and nice guy. I saw you as bridge builder and peacemaker, never as confrontational. The same is true today.

Some time ago, I was depressed when I learned that my eldest son, who started down the right path, had veered substantially from it as a result of some stunningly bizarre liberal social and economic notions promoted by an anthropology professor. The only hope I have of getting him back is when we are gone and he witnesses what we've shared is going to happen between that time and the events of 2033. My wife never has been interested. Fortunately, my youngest son knows Yah and is part of the Covenant.

For a long time, I blamed myself, thinking that if I lived a better life, if I set a better example, if I knew more and could share more effectively, then they would find the Covenant irresistible too. But then I began to consider Dowd, and that changed my perspective, releasing me from guilt and also from the associated depression.

Next, I began to realize that their choices were not my fault. All I had to do was to consider Yahowah's and Yahowsha's success rate on encouraging people to observe the Towrah and accept the Covenant. Since I could never be perfect, know that much, be that articulate, or be as effective as a witness, I relaxed, recognizing that there was nothing I could do to change others. They would have to be open and receptive.

Ultimately, it is their loss, not yours or mine, not even Yah's. And fortunately, there is no punishment, only squandered potential. And this is the reason that unlike us, Yah does not know those who do not know Him. Otherwise, their rejection of Him would be too painful to endure.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#621 Posted : Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:27:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
CP wrote:
Dear Yada,
All the times I found (and there are probably more) Hebrew words ending in ”wa he” (wh), they can be corrected enmasse to wah from the Strongs vah –no “o’” is ever involved except with *elowahh, which actually fits both of the categories I am considering. See the following list.
Yahwah hwhy
lusted hwa <'awah>
sheweth hwx <chawah>
great lust hwat <ta'awah>
Yahushua. ewvwhy <Yahwahsha`>
Instruction hwum <mitswah>
instructed hwu <tsawah>
lend joined hwl <lawah>
What he did bhw <Waheb>
mischief hwh <hawwah>
small towns hwx <chawwah>
desire hwa <‘awwah>
unclean hwre <`erwah>
removed hwez <za`awah>
excellency hwag <ga`awah>
line hwqt <tiqwah>
waited looked hwq <qawah>
water hwr <rawah>
Eve; hwx <Chawah>
ditch hwqm <miqwah>
beholding hwar <ra`awah>
plain hwv <shawah>
prosperity; hwlv <shalwah>
desolation awv <show'>, hwav <sha`awah>
pride; hwg <gewah>
declaration hwxa <‘achwah>
body; hwg <gewah>
gentleness hwne <‘anwah>
Aliah, hwle <`Alwah>
iniquity hwle <`alwah>
joy hwdx <chedwah>
stalls hwra <'urwah>
Tikvah, hwqt <Tiqwah>
Iwah hwe <`Iwwah>
burned; hwk <kawah>
Hodaviah, hywdwh <Howdawwah>
mischief hwh <howah>
scrabbled hwt <tawah>
gentleness hwne <`anawah>
home, hwn <nawah>
hope hwqt <tiqwah>
astonied, hwt <t@wahh (Aramaic)>
made hwv <sh@wah (Aramaic)>
tranquillity. hwlv <sh@lewah (Aramaic)>
Kibrothhattaavah, hwath twrbq <Qibrowth hat-Ta'awah>
joy, hwdx <chedwah (Aramaic)>
shewing hwxa <'achawah (Aramaic)>
*God hwla <'elowahh>
On the other hand, the Hebrew words that have the “wa” ow are written in Hebrew as ow and pronounced as o. I have never had to change anything. The Hebrew word is “towb” as is. You are right, there are many Hebrew words where the “wa” is pronounced o, and the Strong’s has those words as ow=o….but not; dare I say, never, except elowahh, those followed by “he”--including Yahwah .
And if Yahwah’s name is Yahwah, then His son who came in his name is either Yahsha (Yah saves) or Yahwahsha (Yahwah saves.
Thank you
CP


Yada wrote:
CP,

There are only two words on this list, mitswah and its verbal base, tsawah, where the pronunciation is somewhat well known, that is apart from the two names Yahowah and Yahowsha'. But since mitswah is among the most errantly rendered words, and is the basis of Rabbinic Judaism growing out of the Masoretic period, I'd discount it somewhat. In this regard, I've shared my study on shav' which was likely showa' prior to the adoption of the Sheva System to mislead people regarding the pronunciation of the Hebrew W and H so as to hide the proper pronunciation of YHWH.

In particular, Chawah, is among the least known pronunciations, meaning that it could well have been Chowah. Also, most all of the words on your list, apart from those I've mentioned, are not the primary Hebrew word for any of the sentiments being expressed. Apart from mitswah, tsawah, chawah, Yahowah, and Yahowsha', they are uncommon and often of Aramaic derivation. Further, 'el, and in the plural, 'elohym, is a contraction of 'elowah, which proves the case rather than refutes it.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#622 Posted : Monday, June 26, 2017 7:37:37 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
KJ wrote:
Hello,

Do you have any of your books in a physical book that may be purchased, or just online?

Thank you,

KJ


Yada wrote:

KJ,

All of my books are free online. Three of my books are available in printed form at: http://claitors.com/yada.htm.

Yada


KJ wrote:
Thank you. I did find the link to your hard copy books on the Bless Yahowah site after I had emailed you. I want to apologize for my first email. I was so excited, and shocked, when I found your site, that I didn't wait to learn more before I started asking you questions.

I do have something that I am confused about. One place I read said that Yahowah cannot forgive the sin of someone who leads people away from Him. But as I understood it in another place, either on your site or Bless Yahowah, that if you turn from that sin and follow the instructions/teachings to be in Yahowah's family, then He will accept you. I was a "Christian" until I found your site a few weeks ago. I had also invited people to church and taught children's "Sunday School". Could you please clear this up for me?

Also, my husband works for a chemical plant. His uniforms, which are required to be worn by everyone, have the American flag on the sleeve. I am still reading, researching and learning but wanted to know now, does my husband have to quit his job to job to fulfill the instructions of Yahowah in being called out/set apart?

I am so thankful to have found your site.

Thank you for your time!

KJ


Yada wrote:
KJ,

The only unforgivable sin is negating Yahowah's name. Those who have removed it from His Word and replaced it with "the Lord" will spend an eternity in She'owl. Every other error in judgment can be forgiven so long as the wrongdoing ceases. For example, I was an ordained ruling elder and evangelist, led public prayers and taught bible studies. Now I despise Paul, his New Testament, Christianity, the name Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Cross, Christmas, Easter, Sunday Worship, Praising God, and a paid clergy. I speak out against this plague of death and am therefore no longer plagued by it.

Since Yahowah only forgives those who engage in the Covenant and who therefore attend His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, 100% of those who are forgiven are no longer leading anyone away from Him. Their past behavior is no longer counted against them once they cease doing it to become part of the Covenant. That is one of the reasons that the lone prerequisite for Covenant participation is to walk away from Babylon, from the confusing corruption of religion and politics.

Being required to wear a uniform with a flag on the sleeve isn't a problem unless the uniform is a military uniform. And it would be a bad idea to choose of one's own volition to fly a flag at home or choose to pin one on their clothes. But your husband did not make this choice so he is not affected by the consequence.

The requirement to walk away from one's country means that we ought not engage in its politics, swear an oath of allegiance to it, vote for its leaders, join its military, be patriotic, or claim that our prosperity and freedom is attributable to it.

Yada

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#623 Posted : Monday, July 3, 2017 11:10:28 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
FP wrote:
I was listening to C2C. did I hear you say that Jesus isn’t real?

FP


Yada wrote:
FP,

I said, "There was no one named Jesus. That individual's name is Yahowsha'. If you don't know His name, you don't know Him." The "J" wasn't even invented until the 17th century CE. And the "us" ending is to comply with Greek grammar. He was not Greek.

What's surprising is that so few people are aware of this profound and vital truth.

While this reality is presented throughout my books translating the Torah and Prophets, this Volume of An Introduction to God is a good place to begin.

http://anintroductiontog...02.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah

Yada


FP wrote:
Thank you for replying. I am surprised and pleased.

I understand the language issues- Hebrew, latin, greek, ie, INRI…….

Is there a creator God and did he become a man and live in this world – to be crucified and resurrected?

I believe He did.

Peace, brother.


Yada wrote:
FP,

With respect to the name "Jesus Christ," it isn't a language issue. It's a religious corruption. It was done deliberately to create the impression of a new god in the form of a man. Man does not have the right to change a name Yahowah selected. And the new Christian man/god is more similar to Dionysus than to Yahowsha'.

Yahowah is a seven dimensional being. He cannot enter 3D any more than we can enter a 2D realm. Further, He is light. So to set apart a tiny aspect of Himself and have that diminished manifestation become matter, it has to be diminished at the rate of E=mc2. When it comes to Yahowah, Yahowsha' is akin to a toenail clipping. In actuality, the only thing that made Yahowsha' a diminished manifestation of Yahowah in 3D was His soul and the Set-Apart Spirit.

Christians are way too fixated on the diminished manifestation rather than on Yahowah, Himself. And even then, there isn't a single Christian who actually knows who His is, why He came, what He did, or who He quoted.

Crucifixion was only a tactic. He came for Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. And while His body died as the Pesach lamb, His soul did not. It went to She'owl on Matsah and was released on Bikuwrym. Yah's Spirit went back to Heaven prior to the death of the body. Therefore, God did not die for any reason, much less to resolve sin. God cannot die.

The body was destroyed by Yah's mal'ak at the conclusion of Passover in accord with the Towrah. There was no bodily resurrection. That is why no one recognized the post Bikuwrym Yahowsha'. He was now light energy.

What you believe is irrelevant. What is true matters. Faith is a Pauline fable.

If you want to know Yahowah and understand who He is and what He expects from us, please read www.YadaYah.com. If you want to understand why Christianity is wrong, read www.QuestioningPaul.com.

Yada


FP wrote:
The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation.

You also mentioned having learned Hebrew and read the quran. Do you read Arabic. The quran mentions Jesus 25 times- while mohammed 4 or 5.


“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’’

Peace…….


Yada wrote:
Frank,

You didn't get anything right in your reply. If you were not religious, you'd be embarrassed. I am disappointed.

Our exchange began with you asking me a question regarding the fact that there never was anyone named "Jesus." After acknowledging that answer, you asked a question set into the context of a statement of belief. I explained that what you believed to be true regarding the crucifixion and resurrection was at best misleading. Ignoring all of that, you have now returned to defend the erroneous name "Jesus."

Normally, I just ignore religious emails because I recognize that there is no way to reason with those who have been conditioned to believe that which is not true. Even the Word of God is rejected by such individuals. But you started out by asking a question, so I gave you the benefit of doubt. However, now you are promoting religious deceptions, while pretending to know what you are talking about. That is not acceptable.

The problem with religious people is that even when corrected, even when shown the truth, they are wholly unaffected by it. You, for example, continue to use "Jesus" when you know that was not His name.

While "command" isn't actually a correct translation of any Hebrew word, the single most important message of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that Yahowah is God's one and only name and that a god by any other name is false. His name is the basis of the 1st and 3rd statements Yahowah etched in stone. The 1st declares that Yahowah liberated us from oppression and that we will not exist with a god by any other name. The 2nd implores us not to be religious. The 3rd statement is especially relevant, because it states unequivocally that anyone who accepts or promotes the negation, belittlement, or nullification (the actual meaning of the Hebrew verbs nasha' and showa') the importance of Yahowah's name (written yhwh and thus not "the lord") cannot and will not be forgiven. Yahowah uses His name exactly 7000 times in His Torah and Prophets. His view of His one and only name is the antithesis of your own. His view on His name is the opposite of that promoted by Christians. That's an insurmountable problem for you, because your argument is in direct opposition to God.

But now that you know that you were wrong, that you promoted something that was not accurate, are you going to change your thinking? Or are you going to retreat into the irrational realm of religion and pretend that contradictions are irrelevant? Whose words are you going to believe, Yahowah's or those promoted by men?

Gospel is from "Gott's Spell." It is a pagan term. It is a religious replacement, and not a translation, of the compound of eu, meaning beneficial, and aggelos, meaning messenger and message. Yahowah does not have a Gospel. Neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha' ever spoke Greek. He does not have a Greek name.

Along these lines He does not have a "Church" either. The Greek word ekklesia, meaning "called out" was a translation of miqra', the title of Yahowah's seven annual meetings, or which Shabuw'ah is fourth.

With Yahowah, there is no Day of Pentecost. He established and personally named His seven annual Miqra' - Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. The actual event you have misrepresented was the fulfillment of Shabuw'ah - the Promise of the Shabat. It is seven Sabbaths from Firstborn Children, known to Yah as Bikuwrym. On this day those who had observed Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym became the beneficiaries of Shabuw'ah. They were enlightened and empowered to convey Yahowah's message, which is found in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. Yahowsha' explained numerous times that to know Him, to understand Him, a person has to read the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Consider what He said to the fellows on the road to Emmaus during Bikuwrym. Also consider why no one recognized Him.

There is no "Holy Spirit." Holy is a pagan term. According to Yahowah, the Ruwach is Qodesh - Spirit Set Apart. That truth explains Her source, nature and purpose. Yahowsha' was qodesh qodesh - or set apart to an extraordinary degree. This is the truth which invalidates the Trinity - another pagan concept.

There is no indication of writing lessons during Shabuw'ah. They were given the ability to "speak" other languages. Your argument is invalid.

Spelling must matter when it comes to Yahowah and Yahowsha'. One hundred percent of the pre-Constantine manuscripts of the the Greek texts found of the so-called "Christian New Testament" used placeholders rather than improperly spell God's name. It was the pattern of the Septuagint translation of the Torah and Prophets. The name "Jesus," therefore, was not derived from the Greek. Further, there was no "J" in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. It did not appear until the 17th century CE.

No one was given the authority to change God's name. Further, as I've just alluded, His name was not actually written out in Greek a single time in any of the Greek manuscripts dating prior to 450CE. Once again, you have been lied to and are now promoting something that is simply not true. If your faith requires you to believe that which is not true, your faith is in that which is not true.

Names do not change between languages. They should be transliterated while words are translated. You have been misled here as well.

According to Yahowah and Yahowsha', there is only one Covenant. It is everlasting. The notion that God inspired and authorized Paul to contradict everything He had said and then replace His testimony and plan with a faith-based religion devoted to the Gratia is the most irrational idea with popular acceptance. It is why Yahowsha' stated that the popular way leads to death and destruction. Christianity is the most popular way man has ever followed. That's a problem.

Yahowah refers to Paul, the founder of the Christian religion (Yahowsha' was Torah observant), and author of half of its "New Testament," as the "plague of death." Paul, himself, admits to being demon possessed in his second letter to the Corinthians. Yahowsha' completely destroyed the basis of Pauline Christianity in His Sermon on the Mount.

Essentially all of Yahowah's testimony is in Hebrew. The tiny part that is not is in Aramaic, a language so similar to Hebrew if you know one, you know the other. Yahowsha' spoke Hebrew. The only Aramaic statement attributed to Him was actually a quotation of the 22nd Mizmowr / Pslam which Dowd / David wrote in Hebrew. He wasn't asking a question with it, but instead providing an answer - one every Christian has missed.

The Lord is Satan's title according to Yahowah. You can listen to him and address him in any language you'd like.

There is no statement from God that asks anyone "to call on the name of the Lord." God wrote: "Call on (from qara', the basis of Miqra') the name (ha shem) Yahowah (written with vowels which are pronounced Y aH oW aH (consider T oW R aH or hayah, the verb which Yahowah used to explain His name))." You have been played for a fool by your religious translations. You believe that which is not accurate. You have been misled. That isn't good. And what's worse is continuing to promote these lies.

Faith in that which is not true is a bad idea.

In the statements He etched in stone and throughout His Torah and Prophets, Yahowah reveals that He alone can save. That is why Yahowsha' means: "Yahowah Saves."

The Qur'an never mentions "Jesus." In the Qur'an the name attributed to the errant characterization is Issa, which is a transliteration of Esau. The Qur'an was inspired by Satan. Like Paul, Muhammad was demon possessed - also by his own admission. Further, the Arabic alphabet is modeled after the Hebrew alphabet, albeit 4000 years later, and thus has the characters to properly transliterate Yahowah and Yahowsha'. Qur'an, itself, is from the Hebrew word I've mentioned twice before, qara', meaning "to read and recite, to invite and to summon, to call out, to meet and to greet."

If you are open to the truth, if you have an interest in knowing the truth, if you'd like to know Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha', I invite you to read: www.QuestioningPaul.com, www.YadaYah.com, www.AnIntroductionToGod.com, and Observations, found at www.YahowahBeryth.com. If you are interested in Muhammad and his Qur'an, try www.ProphetOfDoom.net.

If you read these books and can refute any of the translations or explanations, send me a letter supporting your arguments. If not, please don't write me again.

Questions are fine. Lies are not. Don't ask unless you can handle the answer.

Yada

Edited by user Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:55:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#624 Posted : Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:50:53 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
BC wrote:
Greetings Yada,
I heard your interview tonight with George. I liked that you were rather precise in telling folks that there never was a "Jesus" and essentially, they are praying to someone that never existed.

I am a self-proclaimed "Gaytheist." I am gay and an atheist. Your discussion tonight did not offend me. It was great fun when you told a christian that he was wasting his time.

When so many religions cannot even realize the letter "J" has only existed for about 360ish years and there never was a "Jesus" by that name and spelling, then the lead character in their movie script (the bible), means that everything else is a falsehood and a complete waste of time.

My family ruled at least eight European nations and helped to establish the USA. Most of my family over the last 1500+ years did not believe in those religions, rather, they used religion to manipulate, control, and dominate all of the "sheeple" that were naive enough to believe in religion.

Here are some of the FAMOUS COUSINS OF MINE:
www.brennancallan.com/fam1.html

The entire elongated purpose of religion is to hoodwink anyone stupid enough to believe in the paradoxes of religion.

If a god existed, and had all of the alleged powers that are claimed to be bestowed by that god onto "itself" then that same god would not be a male; it would not have a need for a penis; and it would not need simpleton humans to praise it; but beyond all of that. If a god existed, then everything in the "Easter" charade was pure "Hollywood" in that a real god could have snapped its fingers and "Jesus" (who never existed), could have been freed.

It is beyond me while millions of suckers believe in religion and they cannot ask the simplest of questions to realize they have been seriously duped by religion, the oldest network marking scam in history!

My parents are Catholics and yet we had Mormons and other flavors of christians and non-believers in the family too.

YOUR ONLINE MATERIALS: only briefly did I skim through a few of them. It is generous for you to provide those for free and I commend you for doing so.

RESPECTFUL OBSERVATION:
You should never begin sentences with "and," "but." or "with" as those are incomplete sentences and incomplete thoughts. Whether the slang typing guides or the Associated Press have permitted it, that is improper English.

The persistent issue of starting sentences with "So" becomes over whelming too.

About two weeks ago, I attended a conference and the speaker spoke for about 90-minutes and in that time, she started 163 sentences with the word "So." I could not tolerate listening to her! Her job is giving presentations at the Rauch Planetarium on the campus of the University of Louisville. It was awful! Eventually, no one is listening and the primary focus is listening to each time she uses the language.

Your verbal conversation sounded great. You did not have the many negative habits that so many guests on radio shows tend to have about saying "You Know" every few words. Those are the folks that I have to turn off immediately.

The issues of starting incomplete sentences improperly has caused me to halt subscriptions to many periodicals. It would be appropriate to update all of your previous published books to have an editor resolve those persistent grammatical issues.

Once more, you never offended me with your discussion tonight. I am a devout gaytheist. I only worship hot guys, hot pizza, and hot chocolate. I will never waste my life following any flavor of any "recognized religion." I absolutely know the purpose of religion is to hoodwink mentally weak people into unsolved-able paradoxes.

Here is what we know. Other than potential test-tube babies, each human had two parents. Those parents had two parents each. Everything else in religion is meant to be deceptive.

Goodnight,
BC


Yada wrote:
BC,

It's an easily discernible fact that no one named "Jesus" lived prior to the 17th century CE. As I said last night, if folks do not know his name, there is no chance whatsoever that they know Yahowsha', which is the actual name of the 1st century individual. He, like you, was overtly anti-religious.

I go into considerable detail regarding this in the Name volume of An Introduction to God. I'm impressed that you know the history of the letter "J." There is far more to it than just the substitution of the J for the Y, however.

Nothing the caller, whose name I think was Howard, said was accurate. I'm sure he was blown away by my response and it certainly made him angry. He has probably written George protesting against me. He has been lied to so many times and in so many ways he does not know that his entire religion is constructed on a pile of pagan lies. He does not know that his "New Testament" isn't even remotely reliable.

A god whom men can kill isn't God. There is no concept remotely akin to "church." The Lord is Satan's title. Christmas and Easter are Babylonian as is Sunday worship. Bible is based upon babel, meaning "to confuse by intermixing." Christ means "drugged" in Greek. The Trinity is also Babylonian.

I've never understood the attraction of the dead god on a stick.

All religions are man made constructs designed to control people and fleece them through fear and deception. They are all irrational. I've written several books devoted to disproving them.

Prophet of Doom is the best documented, contextual, and comprehensive presentation of Muhammad's life and words. It deploys the Hadith to reorder the Qur'an chronologically and set it into the context of this repulsive man's life. I suspect that it is the single most effective book ever written to expose and condemn Islam as a hoax and fraud. You might enjoy it.

I am unaware of anyone having read Questioning Paul who has remained a Christian. It proves beyond any doubt that Paul was a false prophet. It is an interesting read.

Yada Yah would upend your world. It not only proves Yahowah's existence, but demonstrates that although better than hot chocolate, God does not want to be worshiped. He is not fond of homosexuality, but actually says very little about it. Sexual preference and indulgence isn't a big deal with God. His favorite person was Dowd, known as David, and he was promiscuous in the extreme. The Christian and Muslim fixation on and an animosity toward homosexuality isn't shared by Yahowah. And truth be known, Paul was a homosexual. Muhammad was bisexual.

We will agree to disagree on starting some sentences with "and," "but," or "so." Sometimes it is advantageous to demonstrate a connection between thoughts. And it is by making connections that we transition from knowing to understanding. In the ancient world, especially in the first alphabet, Hebrew, a wa, meaning "and," "but," "then," or "so," was used to designate the start most sentences and to connect the next thought to the previous one. Prior to becoming immersed in ancient Hebrew, I would have agreed with you. Now I appreciate the concept of "byn - understanding by making connections between things."

Former agnostics, like myself, comprise the overwhelming preponderance of people who have read www.YadaYah.com, www.AnIntroductionToGod.com, www.QuestioningPaul.com, and Observations for Our Time at www.YahowahBeryth.comand who have come to know and like Yahowah. Religious people are seldom if ever influenced by evidence or reason, and they don't much like what Yahowah had to say about them, or himself, so they tend to run away screaming. While there are some former atheists in Yahowah's Covenant Family, most atheists tend to be too entrenched in their beliefs to even consider the possibility that they are wrong.

Yahowah is almost as critical of politics and human government as he is of religion, although they are usually intertwined. So while I surmise that you are proud of your family's accomplishments, I'm not typically impressed by such things. Exposing and condemning political leaders is one of my hobbies. Should you be interested, I report Yah's views on this in Observations.

Thanks for listening and for writing.

Yada


Yada wrote:
BC,

I read your byline. My eldest son has a masters in aeronautical engineering and designs jet engines for GE. I'm an ATP typed in a number of jets. I currently own and fly a TBM850 turboprop. His passion is anthropology.

My youngest son has a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry. He is currently in law school to become a patent litigator. His passion is archaeology.

I'm enthralled with photography, science, and history, too, so we have many interests in common. While my primary home is in Virginia, I spend most of my time just north of Kentucky in Cincinnati.

In the opening chapter of www.QuestioningPaul.com, you'll find 20 statements akin to the one we've been discussing regarding the name Jesus, each of which demonstrate that the core of Christian beliefs are invalid. Each by itself is sufficient to destroy the viability of the faith.

You have done what so many have done before you, including my best friend. You have associated God with religion. Since you can prove that all religions are false, you conclude that God is false and are therefore an atheist. It is why God is so opposed to religion. The gods of religion are pathetic. For example, a god who would say, "Worship me or I'll torture you in hell" would be sadistic.

As I studied the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I discovered that none of the attributes ascribed to god by religious doctrines are consistent with Yahowah. And once the myths were disassociated, I became interested in knowing if there was a god, and if so, what was he actually like.

If you read www.YadaYah.com (it's 7 Volumes and 3500 pages) you'll discover that Yahowah actually proves his existence. Moreover, he proves that he inspired the text of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. If you are devoted to knowing, have an open mind, are willing to go where the evidence leads, and are resolutely rational, it will transform your life.

By reading Questioning Paul, you'll have more ammunition to discredit Christianity than you can imagine. You'll have great fun debating believers. In it you'll find that the Habakkuk prophecy and Sermon on the Mount destroy Paul and his religion. You will also discover that Paul claimed to be demon possessed. Yahowah calls the founder of man's most popular religion "the plague of death."

By reading Prophet of Doom, you'll see Muhammad, Allah, and Islam for what they really are - perverted and horrifying. PoD is the best documented, most comprehensive, chronological, and contextual presentation of the five earliest Islamic scriptural sources. Allah most assuredly isn't God. Muhammad wasn't a prophet.

If nothing else, by reading them you'll come to appreciate how I use evidence and reason to present an irrefutable case against man's greatest foes.

An Introduction to God provides a tool box so that you, like an archaeologist with a spade, can uncover the truth for yourself. I systematically present a review of the source material, the language of revelation, the alphabet, grammar, and vocabulary. Then I deploy these tools to show readers how to do their own translations and analysis. It is great fun. It is remarkably rewarding.

My most recent work is entitled Observations for our time. It is currently presented at www.YahowahBeryth.com. It reveals Yahowah's animosity toward religion and politics, while at the same time, presenting his alternative.

Your statements regarding Easter are actually invalid. Easter is Babylonian and has nothing to do with Yah. Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children is what he fulfilled in year 4000 Yah, 33CE. God did not die. There was no cross. There was no bodily resurrection. The actual events are far more interesting. Of particular interest is the statement, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" It wasn't a question, but was instead an answer.

European nations were ruled by a consortium of cleric and king. The birth of this system occurred in 400 CE with Roman Emperor Theodosius. America was founded by Freemasons. That too is an interesting story. I don't know if you have studied Adam Wieshaupt's legacy. Sheeple is one of my favorite terms. Do not be surprised that rulers did not believe the religion the used. The popes and cardinals don't believe it either. It is simply a source of power and wealth.

While he fancied the Jacobins, Thomas Jefferson is the only founding father I respect. He knew that Paul was a fraud. He knew that the Qur'an was a terrorist manifesto. He was opposed to a central bank and an established military.

A person has to be ignorant or irrational to be religious. The faithful are usually both.

However, socialist secular humanism through political correctness, has rendered generations unable to think. The least rational and even reasonable people in our society are no longer religious. It's appalling to witness the stupidity of the left. They are bigger hypocrites than the religious right. Both are lost.

Yahowah refers to Roman Catholicism as the ultimate beast, as the worst institution in human history. Having studied Mormonism, it clearly vies for a leadership role among the most stupid religions of all time. It, however, still faces some strong competition from Scientology, Islam, and Christianity.

You mentioned "Ruach." It is the Hebrew word for "spirit."

Since you mentioned it, I am very critical of my speech. I cannot listen to any of the 3000 archived shows I've done over the years. The only reason I do them is to encourage listeners to read what I've written. I prefer the written word to the spoken word.

I eat pizza several times a week. There is a new favorite in town: Two Cities in Mason, Ohio. As for boys, I prefer girls.

I am driven by evidence and reason. I am not, however, Jewish. I'm as opposed to Rabbinic Judaism as I am Christianity and Islam.

You mentioned your stint in the USAF NG. If you read my books or listen to the archived shows, you'll find that I am anti military and anti-political. The reasons are many.

Very few Jews learn Hebrew to study the Torah. They learn Hebrew to recite enough of it to get earn their bar mitzvah. They don't know what they are saying. Further, very few Jews study the Torah or Prophets. Judaism is based upon the Talmud.

Regarding surnames, in the Hebrew text it is always presented as Yahowsha' ben Nuwn or Dowd, the son of Yshay. It is one of many reasons Jesus Christ is so absurd.

American history isn't my favorite. In fact, I don't actually have a favorite because the history of human civilization is horrid. I only study it to understand how men beguile and control the masses.

It's funny that you mentioned a Confederate monument. I actually side with the CSA over the Union in the war. Lincoln was a racist. Grant was a drunk. The most upright guy in the mix was probably Robert E. Lee. My issue, however, is that you cannot have a democratic union if states cannot opt out of that union. That said, I have issues with democracy as well.

The RCC is a complete sham. Their issues with pedophilia are appalling.

I don't think that 10% of people are homosexual or that 80% are bisexual today. I don't care what anyone else prefers, but the evidence suggests that it's closer to 2% and 5%. Although I will acknowledge that bisexuality is rising rapidly among young women. And both homosexuality and bisexuality were far more prevalent 2000 years ago. Christianity may have played a role in all of this. That's odd too, considering Paul's love of Timothy.

If facts are offensive, the problem isn't with the presenter, but instead the one reacting to them. That has been my issue with the Christian and Muslim reaction to my testimony for many years now. If a person cannot refute what I say, they should not believe what they believe. I'm doing them a favor by pointing out the flaws in their faith.

Inter-galactic travel is not possible. There will be no aliens landing on the White House lawn. As a three-dimensional construct stuck in the ordinary flow of time, the distances are too great. One of my favorite topics is the nature of dimensions and what that means relative to God and man.

Lastly, you wrote:

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I always viewed agnostics as a non-group (individuals) with a commitment problem to say, "I know all of religion is a scam" and they are just hedging their bets. It seems cowardly to ride a fence. In fact, I found it liberating to recognize the entirety of religion is the hoodwinking, enslavement of sheeple, and exploitation of society for the benefit of a few. Then I got to see both the political and religious leaders in a new light.

At a certain point, very few people benefit from the perpetuation of religion. I call those folks exploiters, freeloaders, and similar names. If their gods exist, they don't need 10$%+ of my income."

An agnostic is typically an honest and rational thinker. Some have discounted god because of religion, but not all. They aren't hedging their bets. They are admitting that they do not know. They are not riding a fence. They are being honest. In this case, it's you who have made the error in judgment by discounting God by discounting religion. Yes, all religions are false. However, the actual God isn't known through any religion. He isn't associated with any religion. He is opposed to all religions. He knows that they are false.

Religions enslave. Yahowah liberates. Religions beguile. Yahowah enlightens. Religions control. Yahowah celebrates freewill. Religions coven money. Yahowah does not ask for it or want it. Religions worship god. Yahowah does not want to be worshiped. Religions show god as fearsome. Yahowah is approachable.

It takes too much faith to be an atheist. The existence of God cannot be disproved. In fact, his existence can be proved. He does so using prophecy.

Yahowah is worth knowing. I enjoy his company. He is brilliant, fun, and creative. He is consistent, truthful, and dependable.

Yada



Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#625 Posted : Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:42:01 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Continuation of BC from above
BC wrote:
Hi C,
it is great to hear about our overlapping interests. A friend of mine was in a WEIGHT SHIFT CONTROL (trike) as a passenger, but he was a Private Pilot and an Advanced Ground Instructor. He was training to become a Light Sport Pilot Certificate Instructor under the new Light Sport Aviation (LSA) RULES. Here is the best article and video of what happened on 26 Feb 2009:

http://www.nbclosangeles...at-Torrance-Airport.html

Here is my deceased friend, Ryan Christopher Mouritsen before his death: http://ryanmouritsen.nowcasting.com/

I had already completed my MASTERS OF AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in 2007 with two specializations: 1. Space Studies (same degree as astronauts in the ISS), and 2. Aviation/Aerospace Safety Systems (so I was academically trained to investigate aviation crashes).

On 26 Feb 2009, after a few hours of studying together, Ryan with Jon Thornburgh (U.S. Navy Combat Pilot from Vietnam era / Delta Airlines Capt. / Nationally published expert for aviation safety), Jon needed to maintain his nighttime currency for his trike. Originally, Jon was going to fly alone, but they had been at the Sizzler near Zamperini Field at Torrance, CA when Ryan got invited along.

This was Ryan's first flight in a trike and he was positively excited. He shot photos with his phone and sent what would be his final text message to his dad (Bob), who is another pilot as is Ryan's other brother Robby.

The article (above) covers many of the details and I have researched the topic enough to write a book. Ryan's and Jon's accident has refocused my life in too many ways for this note. However, I am researching and designing AIRBAGS FOR ULTRALIGHTS as an external airbag system that would be used on (initially) Kolb Aircraft (manufactured in London, KY). I want to make Light Sport Aviation safer as a part of my grieving process and loss of Ryan.

Yes, Ryan was gay, but I never got around to saying, "I love you" to him while he was alive. That is a longer story too. He lived and worked in Hollywood. The fastest way to send away a man of any sexual orientation is to say "I love you" too quickly. We had hopes and ambitions of starting a LSA Flight School that could be duplicated in various airfields across the country as a franchise to inspire folks to FIRST earn their Sport Pilot Certificate and build their hours, experience, and self-confidence on the way to a RECREATION or PPL, etc.

I have about 40+ years of doing entertainment projects/productions (film, radio, TV, newspaper), and Ryan had been involved in the arts since he was a teenager. I saw many grant possibilities for us, but this gets into a longer story that is too much for today. He was slowly working on his becoming a LSA INSTRUCTOR which only requires about 150 hours of flight time compared to the over priced way of earning the Commercial, MEI, CFI, CFII etc., before you earn a dime at anything.

While I attended ERAU from 2001-2007, no one ever told me about LSA, but it was Ryan who helped me to realize I might get to have my earlier aviation dreams come true.

Yada, I am a Veteran of 4-years of the Air Force Junior ROTC (in high school), but I was also in the KENTUCKY AIR NATIONAL GUARD (3-years) at Standiford Field (KSDF) which is now called the Louisville International Airport.

COAST: I listen to Coast for many obvious reasons. The guests inspire me to consider other possibilities. As long as someone does not "You know" me to death, I will continue listening. When they have poor grammar, that is the immediate need to turn them off.

The most important guests for me are those Theoretical Physicists. I want to find a way to send a radio frequency modulation to 26 Feb 2009 and say to Ryan, "STAY OFF THAT ULTRALIGHT, IT IS GOING TO CRASH." Determining potential scientific methods has been a major pursuit over these last 8ish years. Here is an interview with Dr. David Anderson Lewis from Dec. 2009. I am the second caller in the second hour and they call me "Caller from area code 502" and then I give out my name. While I have told you Ryan's full name, I respect the privacy of his family and I only use his first name.

Overall, I call the broader project "SAVING PILOT RYAN PROJECT" and that is a similar name to the WWII movie called "Saving Private Ryan." George Noory has helped me to get onto many shows. Other times, I write him a brief note of reminder to ask a Theoretical Physicist about the project and he complies with my request. I have George's very person email that is not known to the public.

*********************
BACK TO YOUR NOTE:

You said, "Your statements regarding Easter are actually invalid. Easter is Babylonian and has nothing to do with Yah. Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children is what he fulfilled in year 4000 Yah, 33CE. God did not die. There was no cross. There was no bodily resurrection. The actual events are far more interesting. Of particular interest is the statement, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" It wasn't a question, but was instead an answer."

I only presented what the Catholic church (generally) conveyed/hoodwinks everyone to believe. Like you, I see problems with what they proclaim. Therefore, I cannot defend the mistakes or invalid statements I made. It is all problematic what they teach. Additionally, I have no emotional attachment to what the Catholics proclaim.

I agree with them that abortion is murder. They like to drink, gamble, and party. In moderation, all of that is fine with me too.

For the Jewish theme, I know that LOYALTY is a cultural significance and method of survival. Therefore, whenever I needed to hire attorneys or tax accountants, I always tried to hire someone Jewish. It was not based on stereotypes, but I respect those positive attributes of their sub-culture. Having my Boy Scout Troop at the Temple, it let me understand them much better and appreciate my friendships with many Jewish members. I visited their homes, we camped together, and did countless wonderful things together. That does not mean I will learn Hebrew, but at least if I attend Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, weddings, funerals, or other events, then I would comprehend those proceedings and better understand my place.

SHEEPLE AND RULERS: my family lead about eight European nations. I absolutely agree with you that they used religion to exploit those that they ruled. Here are some of the FAMOUS COUSINS OF MINE from about 500 A.D. to today:
www.brennancallan.com/fam1.html

FREEMASONS: we have some in our family. That is too long of a topic for now, but I continue to agree with you.

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH: I have canoed the inland waterways of the USA since 1994 pursuing wrecked steamboats, but specifically of the Civil War era. Many steamboats were sunk with gold/silver/payments onboard. A past pair of COAST guests discussed in their book, "REBEL GOLD," even more that I did not know before learning about and reading their book.

This is why I needed to attend ERAU to be able to more efficiently use UAV/UAS to help me explore the rivers as canoeing at 3-5 mph is too slow and I will get too old to do the research eventually. Now that we have what people incorrectly call "drones," (because they must maintain at least 400 AGL or more for that title), then I can see using UAVs to help me conduct my research while making far better documentary films about that same archaeological research that could/should help me fund my future research too.

TOM JEFFERSON: Louisville is within "Jefferson County" and the two legally were merged in 2002ish. This was due to Lexington and Fayette County merging in 1976, but Louisville did not want to lose the status as the "largest city in KY" or we would lose state/federal funds.

One of my cousins was Kentucky's first and fifth Governor, Issac Shelby. More counties are named for him than any other human in the USA. He was the only sitting Governor to serve in battle while a Governor. He negotiated with Thomas Jefferson the Commonwealth of KY coming into existence as TJ knew that "Taxation without representation" was harming the nation. Either KY would become a separate nation or go with Spain. Now in Kentucky's forth Constitution, there is still a clause that keeps some authority of Virginia over Kentucky.

Josiah Bartlett of MASS was another of our family who was a founding father, signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Bartletts have recently still been involved in Washington D.C. and one was a COAST guest about 2-years ago. He grew up in Louisville and is connected to my maternal grandmother's side of the family.

MORMONS: after Ryan's death, I visited Salt Lake City, UT as his family were Mormon Pioneers. I wanted to see the places that were important to him. Each day on my first trip in 2010, I would visit his grave. As I sunburn easily, then I would visit in the morning and again in the evening, but during the day, I would frequent places he loved. On occasion, his parents and I would meet for a meal to update them on my travels, but then to learn of new places to visit too. In 2011, I stayed for a month doing the same and much more. Utah is a beautiful place.

During those trips, as a genealogist, I had to visit the Mormon facilities, temple, research in their genealogical lab, and much more. The amount of Freemason symbolism is fully embedded and something they don't easily discuss. Ryan's family are current/ongoing Mormons. When they asked me about my religious activities, the best way to dance around the topic was to say, "I was raised in a Catholic home..." I was not there to debate religion with them. My goal was multipurpose, grief over his loss, to learn/visit places important to him, to explore Utah, to have a continued friendship with his family, and also understand my family which I eventually traced back one of my cousins, William Preston, who had met Ryan's ancestors in Canada and caused them to read Mormon books and that encouraged them to become Mormons and migrate to Utah. (Short version). I am slowly researching and writing a film about all of that.

Another famous cousin is William Clark of "Lewis and Clark" (Corps of Discovery). They opened the west along with the help of TJ and that eventually led to the Mormons getting to Utah. Therefore, my family greatly impacted Ryan's family as well as millions of others.

The Corps of Discovery started on the Ohio River, just on the lower side of the FALLS OF THE OHIO RIVER at older brother's cabin, General George Rogers Clark, who freed the nation of the British in what is now about a 5 state region.

SPEECH AND WRITTEN WORD: over my life, I have gotten better at both, but I found that by listening to past interviews, then I can determine the weaker points and hopefully correct those issues. Your oral presentation was just fine. Believe me, I am rather discerning. At no point did I ever recall you starting sentences with "and," "but," or "with."

I love George as a host. He and countless guests keep saying a word that does not exist. They say "Nuc u lar." The letter "u" is only used ONCE IN THAT WORD and it is seriously irritating to hear them abuse our language. Over the years when a supposed nuclear expert gets on there and cannot even pronounce that word, I have to turn off that radio instantly.

JEWS IN KENTUCKY: they have a long history here and they have several temples. There is even a book called "200-years of Jewis in Kentucky" or something similar to that. I have about 400+ books on Kentucky history and I am not sure if I bought that one yet.

It is interesting to see your objections to "religion" yet you have the belief in Yahowah. Proving/disproving can be exhaustive as you already know. It can take a lifetime and still it might only persuade yourself, but not necessary put food on the table. That is why I have just acknowledged the problematic history of "religion" as a broad topic and moved on to other pursuits.

Yahowah is someone you have referred to in the current form of existence, when you said, "He is brilliant, fun, and creative. He is consistent, truthful, and dependable." which suggests to me that if his life continues, he must be an alien of some sort as his species has a longer lifespan or he lives in that other dimension you briefly discussed.

Eventually, all of the written records have their issues. I appreciate that some are more factual than others. Learning those former/dead languages is an honorable ambition. It can be fascinating, but at a certainly point. We live in a different time and our meaning can be wrong about whatever that author wrote way back whenever.

For those that believe in an "after life," I would love if they are correct and I will get to meet Ryan again. I have tried to meet many thousands of guys on the various dating sites since 2009 and I don't want any of them as much as I want Ryan!

AVIATION POETRY: also in honor of Ryan being a Hollywood writer/actor/producer, I have been researching and writing an AVIATION POETRY BOOK WITH TEMPLATES FOR NON-RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. As all pilots, crews, and aviation/space enthusiasts will eventually die, then for their funerals, I wanted to write / compile previously written poetry/songs to have in a singular source for creative funerals/memorials.

The first point is that if any gods are mentioned, those are rejected as I am incredibly tire of religious content. If someone that buys my eventual book is religious, they can sprinkle that into whatever my book has accumulated to become. Hopefully, all of that makes sense.

The pursuit of writing that book has had me interviewing funeral directors and others. For example, I plan on visiting the BLUEGRASS AIRPORT (KLEX) to learn how they dealt with the crash and mass funeral needs/wants/desires of the families, yet they needed to process about 52 bodies.

Lexington is about 90-minutes away from me and an easy airport to interview the various folks.

You might not know this, but RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR were invented first in Kentucky by aviation pioneer Matthew Sellars. His plane (a replica) is on display along with many of his personal equipment from his workshop at the AVIATION MUSEUM OF KY at the Bluegrass Airport. You can fly into the field and taxi over to that museum without a cab.

It is 1537 EDT and I will continue to think about our conversation throughout the day. Right now, I must jump off the computer.

Happy 4th of July
BC


Yada wrote:
B,

I am sorry for your loss.

I can empathize with you. Death is universal. Most of us by the time we are combing grey hair have lost an acquaintance, a colleague, a friend, a lover, a relative, and a parent, and many have lost a sibling, a spouse, or, worst of all, a child.

You realize that religion is used by the few to control the many. It, however, appeals to the many for this express reason. While it is false hope, it helps them deal with the premature passing of a loved one.

I have had three near death experiences in airplanes. I should not have survived any of them, much less all of them.

Like you, I have many interests and several loves, but only one passion. My passion is the same as Dowd. I seek to know and understand Yahowah and then share what I have discovered with those who are interested in knowing Him.

I receive too many emails to reply to all of them. I responded to your email partly because of your intellect, but principally because I realized that you were a thoughtful man who had made the mistake of concluding that God does not exist because all religions are false. My emails to you have consistently explained how the books I have written would serve to correct this false assumption. However, since you have not shown any interest in reading them, there really isn't anything more I can do to be helpful.

You have experienced religion as a foe, as an institution that attacks your sexual preference. And since they purport to speak for God, you have chosen to conclude that He must not exist. That's an easier solution than trying to prove that the religious don't speak for God and that the actual God isn't a blithering idiot. Now that you are encountering someone advocating on behalf of God, it's hard for you to fathom the notion that He might actually exist apart from religion. Much of your life has been devoted to the identity of being a gay-atheist. There isn't much room within your self portrait for Yahowah.

From what I garner from your letters, your passion is your lost love. Mine is a found source of love.

Yahowah, who happens to be the God you don't believe exists, is devoted to freewill and intellect. He can be known and understood if you choose to do so.

As for Ryan, you may find it interesting that according to Yahowah there are three potential destinations for human souls / consciousness (nepesh in Hebrew). Those engaged promoting religion or politics who deliberately mislead others for their own benefit, will have their souls reduced to a single dimension and will reside eternally in She'owl - which is akin to a black hole. Your foes will get what they deserve.

Those who do not know Yahowah, those who have been beguiled into trusting a political or religious scheme, even those who reject Yahowah, will simply cease to exist upon their mortal death. There is no penalty, no pain, and no punishment. Such individuals live on in the memories of those who knew them.

One in a million souls come to know Yahowah through His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They grow to understand what He is offering and what He expects in return. Those who accept the terms and conditions of the Covenant become seven dimensional spiritual/light-based being and live forever in the new universe Yahowah will create for our enlightenment and amusement. We will gain the ability you seek, which is to travel in time.

The books that I have mentioned translate Yahowah's testimony in an amplified fashion from the oldest extant sources and then comment on what He revealed to help readers properly assess the insights that are pertinent to their lives. They typically focus on prophecy because only a being who exists beyond our 4 to 6D universe as light would be able to witness our future in our past and report it accurately to us, proving His existence while validating it inspiration.

Yada

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#626 Posted : Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:05:30 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Continuing with BC, there are a number of participants in the exchange, I will post them as I recived them, and try to keep the order straight, but this can get a bit confusing.
BC wrote:
Hi Yada,
it seems several other folks are now getting our notes. I am intentionally replying to everyone.

1. We share the agreed view that all religions are false.
2. I still have never seen any proof of what people call a "souls" and it is my position that this is just a secondary product sold by religions to hoodwink everyone to get into proving/disproving topics that no one will ever agree upon.

3. Part of my keeping our discussions on a basic level is that you have invested decades into researching the topics and I would not presume to know more on these topics than you. It is just being respectful of the time for both of us.

4. While you are correct that I have focused much of the last eight years on "lost love," but that has not turned me toward drugs, alcohol, binge eating, it turned me more toward science, but I already have seven completed college degrees. When I don't understand issues, I research them to death. It seems you and I share that methodology.

Along with that, I pursue positive ways of improving aviation safety in honor of my deceased friend. Then I am turning toward honoring his career in aviation by writing the AVIATION POETRY BOOK WITH NON-RELIGIOUS TEMPLATES FOR MEMORIALS. Ryan was a writer/actor/producer in Hollywood, and this way, I am continuing some of our shared passions.

In society in general, but especially in the gay community, there is the worshiping of youth. Once a gay man turns 30-years of age, he is more likely to spend the rest of his life alone than find Mr. Right. None of us knows our exact age of death, but each day I am older, the odds grow more likely I shall die single and alone. The man I want died on 27 Feb 2009. Whether I am a fixed to that date and still pursuing the goals/dreams I had with Ryan, it is just the way I strive to endure whatever life is handing me as my future. That is not meant to make me sound like the victim. It is just my reality.

When I put on Ryan's aviation memorial, I looked for other ideas and I identified the need for an AVIATION/AEROSPACE POETRY BOOK. It appears I will be the first human to write such a book and it will be dedicated to Ryan. That is great.

CHOICE: My goal is not to parse words. It is important to comprehend that you did not "chose" to be heterosexual as I did not chose to be a pure homosexual. Each of us have our pursuits. The world can be a better place when it matures to realize that homosexuality is just as old as heterosexuality. Both will always exist no matter whatever laws exist. There are bigger issues to solve.

EMAILS: I commend you on replying to all emails. After being on COAST, I am sure you got many that night. You did a nice presentation as we discussed earlier.

WRITTEN BOOKS: I am absolutely convinced there are no gods. Certainly, something transpired about 2000 ish years ago and there are a wide array of spellings/misspellings for Yahweh. At a certain point, even for an intensive researcher as you seem to be; either the new audience is placing BELIEF/FAITH in the writings of yesteryear or not.

As a person of science, I come back to what Rene Descarte addressed when he discussed in his meditations that "SENSES CAN HAVE ERRORS," and eventually he was led to "radical skepticism."

Yada, you are trusting in the validity and soundness of the translations of the current and foreign languages. Even if you sincerely believe those authors from thousands of years ago as being "honest," it does not mean their senses were not making mistakes either. Hence, it is sincerely time for everyone to forget about religion.

If a god exists, then until that alleged god shows up, I won't worry about she/he/it either. There could have been a guy Yahweh that lived 2000ish years ago; but I thought we agreed most of his messages have been highjacked over those 2000+ years. At a certain point, we cannot find a 100% accurate source.

Yes, I perform Underwater Archaeology. There can be the investment of years and decades into projects and there are other times that just "moving on to the next project" is necessary. The extremely broad term of "religion" (organized/disorganized) is an utter waste of humans to pursue as we shall never fully prove/disprove any of those diatribes.

What I appreciated about your research is that you did not just argue over the English versions of religious interpretations, you attempted to learn the languages of old, and embrace whatever that author would have written then. Whether a few thousands years ago or yesterday's newspapers, we still must question the motives of the author to pen the documents.

Yada, we equally distrust "religion." Therefore, it is time to rise above being persuaded by any of it.

In 17-minutes, I am the presenter for a national telephonic conversation, so I must go now.

My issue for reading your periodicals relates to countless projects. I am the caretaker two family members in their 80s. I am suing 17-defendants in Federal Court over the theft/embezzlement of the Louisville Confederate Monument.

I am about to bring suit against contractors who screw up my parent's house.

As we discussed in the first note, whenever there are inappropriate uses of "and," "but," or "with" that start incomplete thoughts and incomplete sentences, it immediately and permanently halts me reading those books. I have corrected entire textbooks to authors and sent them back so they would know they need to re-edit the books. I just don't have time to correct more books. Hopefully, that makes sense. The grammar issue is vital as it can alienate the audience.

Respectfully,
BC


JM wrote:
B,
You wrote, “When I don't understand issues, I research them to death.” Later, you wrote, “If a god exists, then until that alleged god shows up, I won't worry about she/he/it either.” The two statements are inconsistent. Choosing to have no interest in God will result in the same consequence as those who choose to believe the false gods of religion - each soul will cease to exist. Choosing to engage in God’s Towrah / Teaching and Instructions, therefore coming to know and understand Yahowah, the Source of life, His nature, and the plan He offers for continued life is the most important research one will ever undertake – or not.
j

“God (‘elohym) spoke (dabar – declared) all (kol) these (‘ehel) Words (dabar), saying (‘amar – avowing, claiming, commanding, and promising): I am Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), who relationally (‘asher) came forth to bring (yatsa’) you out of (min – to set you apart from) the house (beyth – the dwelling and abode) of bondage (‘ebed – slavery, servitude, and submission; of work and worship) in the land (‘erets – territory and realm) of Mitsraym (mitsraym – the crucible of Egypt, serving as a metaphor for human religious and political oppression). You shall not (lo’) establish or institute (hayah – bring into existence or exist with) other (‘acher – different) gods (‘elohym) beside (‘al – in addition to) My personal presence (panym – My face to face appearance before you).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:1-3)
“Yahowah’s (efei) Towrah (Towrah – Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around, bringing back, and renewing) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahowah’s (efei) everlasting testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Psalm 19:7)


BC wrote:
Hi everyone,
the point is that there is no god and therefore, I shall not waste whatever is left of my life researching something that is irrelevant. If such a god exists, let it show up. Otherwise, I cannot see the millions of people praising and worshiping something that does not exist. That is an incredible waste of human mental energy. There are far better things we could do to improve our world that waste our lives haggling pointlessly to persuade one another about one flavor of religion is better than the other.

Yada and I already had other emails before he included you. My family ruled at least eight European nations for about 1,000 years. These people exploited the idiots that followed all of those religious just so those rulers could stay in power.

Religion is the grandest network marking scam hoodwinked in history and whether someone follows a fragment or they are a full-absorbed follower of some mindless religion, then their lives are forever wasted and pissed away.

Today, I have been thinking about what I believe Yada has classified himself to be: "Agnostic that believes in a non-religious god and Yahweh." That seems to be contradictory to me if I understood his positions correctly.

As a "Gaytheist" (my own term for being a gay man that is an atheist), it is my contention that the entirety of religiosity, whether it formal or information adherence to the various doctrines is an utter waste of human energy.

Rather, it is far more likely that we are all just characters in someone else's videogame and the perceived physical constraints thrust upon us are the limitations of that videogame/computer/holographic projection we otherwise call "life."

Whatever "Billybob" (or whatever name) from 2000+ years ago might have been his truthful statement, but I do not know of his ethical or educational qualities to have made his writings or postulations. Therefore, if you cannot "know" that Billybob was telling you the truth, anymore than we can be sure that your favorite newspaper (today) is telling you the truth, EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN THE PAST IS SUBJECTIVE and eventually, erroneous.

When we consider that today, most "news" is "fake news," then what was different 2000+ years ago? Perhaps they had the similar credibility issues.

J, it is time for all humans to throw all religious out with the dirty bathwater.

Still following alleged gods (without the official religious flavor of the day) is still its own unsolvable paradox that shall not be resolve. If and if ever a god shows up, then I will contend with it. The fact is that if a god meets the usual human requirements that it must be:
1. Omnipitant
2. Omniscient
3. Perfectly benevolent
4. etc.

Then that alleged god is not likely to need or have a penis. The persistence of men to claim that their god(s) are MEN is that men seek to subjugate woman and often other men. Human history clearly conveys that RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

The benefit in any god means that humans are not taking responsibility for their own actions. They can just claim, "That was god's will."

As space travel continues to grow, the earth religious will become more obvious as to their pointlessness. All of these "creative writings" of the past will not matter to anyone living on Mars or elsewhere in space.

Once we all halt the acculturation of the broad religions into our society, things will be far better. Yada discussed that many people want at least a false hope compared to no hope at all. There is truth that there are sheeple who seek to be mislead, there are people who use harmful/illegal drugs each day, and there are people who stay in abusive relationships too. All of those are forms of ADDICTIONS and religiosity is a world-wide addictive problem.

There are already 12-step programs for addictions.

Yada has identified and helped to DEFINE some of the issues, but if he still follows any god, then that is similar to say, "I don't use heroine, I just smoke pot from time to him...but I can stop anytime I want..."

Once you purge religion from your daily life, it is similar to getting off of an addictive substance. Your life will improve and you can find far more time to accomplish viable life goals that are far more fascinating than reading whatever "Billybob" with his 2000+ old education recounted on a tablet.

Yes, at least "Billybob" lived in that timeline/period, and there is potential value in a first-hand report. We still don't know his slant, background, educational level, veracity, and so on.

These are a fast set of why WHY FOLKS SHOULD JUST STOP WASTING THEIR LIVES FOLLOWING ANY ALLEGED gods.

Intentionally, I refuse to capitalize "gods" as proper pronouns (people, places, and things) can be proven to exist. There is no go and this means I shall never even provide a capitalized "g" for something that does not exist.

To pursue and follow any god is its own form of slavery. FREE YOURSELVES!

It is important to recognize that "ethics" can exist and be absolutely disconnected from all religions. We can be respectful of one another, but we don't have to genuflect one another. Therefore, I hope each of you appreciate that I do cherish positive and respectful relations with other humans, but for those to be devoid of all religiosity.

Best wishes,
BC


JM wrote:
No, BC, the point is that, in your opinion, there is no God. Yahowah disagrees and proves through prophecy that He is God. Opinions are irrelevant.

I fail to understand how you could have read Yada’s emails and come to the conclusions that you have stated below (some items are not addressed).

• God detests religion. They are all manmade and their “gods” are intentionally oppressive and lead away from Him.
• God does not want to be praised or worshipped. Period. He is the Father of His family.
• Yes, religions are lies and a waste of energy, and those who believe them are deceived.
• No one in Yahowah’s Covenant family is agnostic – God exists, He proves such, and we, who have read and studied His Towrah, know Him.
• One can know that Yahowsha’, a part of Yahowah set-apart in corporeal form, fulfilled God’s Towrah promises for His family in 33 CE. You wrote, actually shouted, “EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN THE PAST IS SUBJECTIVE…” On who’s authority, but your own, and without researching, closely examining and carefully considering, God’s Towrah / Guidance, can you, with any objectively, come to this conclusion much less think you are correct?
• God states His will; the religious ignore Him. Excerpt from Observations for Our Time: There is no reason to ever ask God for His will for your life. He has stated it here using the yiqtol imperfect to express that it is His will, His desire, His decision, and His choice to lift us up and take us away from national and religious subjugation. While cleric and king would have you bow down to them, Yahowah wants us to stand upright. His goal is the antithesis of that imposed by man. “And then (wa) the Messenger (mal’ak – the heavenly envoy and spiritual representative who is dispatched as a deputy) of Yahowah (efei יהוה ) ascended (‘ala – rose and went up) from Gilgal (min ha Gilgal – of the wheel; from galgal – a cart wheel which rolls, invocative of rolling away the burden of sin; based upon gal – a rock or stone used as a witness to mark the boundary of an agreement; related to gilgalath – the skull or cranium of an individual; also galah – the feminine of gal, meaning to reveal and make known) to Bokym (‘el ha Bokym – of the weeping, the place of tears), and He said (wa ‘amar – He claimed, He promised, and He declared (qal imperfect)), ‘I chose to continuously lift you up because you wanted Me to take you away (‘a’lah – I decided to make an enduring sacrifice enabling you to rise up throughout time, to meet with you and withdraw you forever, and to carry those of you away who so choose (hifil stem yiqtol imperfect conjugation – the subject, God, enables the object, those being lifted up and taken away, to participate in their withdrawal and ascension to the extent that it becomes a shared experience, one which is ongoing, continuing to unfold throughout time, expressed in the volitional form, similar to the cohortative (first-person volition) and the jussive (third-person volition))) from (‘eth min – out of and away from) being besieged in the Crucible of Egypt (Mitsraym – confining crucibles of human oppression; associated with Egypt, whose name for itself was the Black Land; plural of matsowr which is from tsuwr – to be confined and besieged by an adversary, to be assaulted and tested to the limit by a foe, to be bound and controlled as a result of being confronted by a militaristic enemy which hems in and precludes escape, cutting off supplies, while relentlessly attacking the source of strength), and so I brought you (bow’ – I came to pursue you, to get you, to include you, and to return you (hifil imperfect – with the intent of motivating and engaging on an ongoing basis with unfolding implications while participating in the action together)) into the Land (‘eth ‘el ha ‘erets – accordingly to the realm) which relationally and beneficially(‘asher) I promised (shaba’ – I swore an oath, affirming the trustworthiness, reliability, and dependability of My testimony so long as the conditions were met (written identically in the text to sheba’ – seven, fully fulfill and satisfy, and abundance, making shaba’ – seven is a promise to fulfill and satisfy abundantly (nifal stem perfect conjugation passive voice – acting on His own initiative, the subject, who is God, is providing every aspect of the sworn testimony regarding the oath which at one point in time was made so nothing more need be done or said because the promise is totally complete, lacking nothing)) to your fathers (la ‘ab – for your forefathers to approach and come near). And I explained (wa ‘amar – then I declared and promised) I would never break, split into two, violate, make ineffectual, nor nullify (lo’ parar – I would never discontinue nor cease to uphold, I would not at any time infringe upon nor encroach upon, I could never invalidate nor repudiate, I could not at any time annul nor abolish, I would not ever revoke, fragment, nor create a second variation; identical to parar – to split, separating into two parts, thereby breaking, shattering, dissolving, and voiding the original agreement (hifil stem yiqtol imperfect conjugation – the subject, Yah, enables the object, the beneficiaries of the original promise, to participate in this proposed agreement to the extent that it becomes a shared experience, one which is ongoing, continuing to unfold throughout time, never ending, expressed in the volitional form telling us that this is the way God wants it to be (as a result, there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever for a new covenant nor new testament))) My Covenant (beryth-y – My one and only, singular and binding, family-oriented relationship agreement of Mine, My contractual arrangement regarding My household, My alliance and partnership pledge, My marriage vow; based upon beyth – family and home and banah – to build a home upon the family name) with you (‘eth ‘atem), ever, throughout the whole of time (la ‘owlam – to approach for all eternity, to come near for the duration of time, always being the proper direction to reach the goal into perpetuity, consistently and continually existing without end, endlessly and for forevermore).” (Shaphat / To Decide by Exercising Judgment / Judges 2:1)
• God is none of the following:
• Omnipitant
Omniscient
Perfectly benevolent
• Yahowah will return. When He arrives, it will be too late for most people will have chosen poorly. They ignored or rejected His Towrah / Teaching, Guidance, Instructions, and Directions for Life.
A relationship requires at least two. Yahowah chooses also. Therefore, He delineates 5 requirements. These separate the grain from the chaff.

Goodbye,
JM

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#627 Posted : Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:05:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
continuing some more


BC wrote:
JM,
we agree that religion has its "issues."

However, what you and Yada purpose is its own form of a "light religion."

Calling your god "He" is not appropriate as your alleged god would not require sexual organs to reproduce.

My life goal is not to break down anyone's belief systems. If you are still believing in any gods, you have been hoodwinked by someone for some reason of their own. What you discussed in your note is older documents than the bible, but that is still "religion."

There is zero proof of any god or the need for the existence of the same.

We agree that the systems of religions are corrupt and self-serving. Until someone claiming to be a god can prove it is that said god, I shant waste my life pursuing the matter. The entirity of the subject is a waste of human energy.

Certainly, we all have the obvious questions:
1. Why do we exist?
2. What does it mean to exist?
3. Yada's valid questions about dimensions as we could be living in someone else's holographic videogame.
4. "Who created you" is simple. YOUR PARENTS--AND SO ON BACK IN "time."
5. About 250,000+/- years ago, there was genetic altering and fewer people are asking about "WHO" genetically transitioned us into homosapien-sapiens?

JM, do you really want to spend the rest of your life in the whirlwind of citing various old documents that we can only guess who were the authors, their ambitions, and their motives? There are far better things to accomplish because none of the banter will put food on your table.

The entire purpose of our public school systems is NOT to help the average citizen to be "FREE," rather, it is an indoctrination system to acculturate people to be sheeple in the cogs of the elitists dream machines and factories.

Purging every aspect of religion from society is an absolute need. It is a mental weakness that holds back human understanding. Giving over to gods and religions is enslavement and I choose to be free of that quagmire.

JM, what you described is a rebranded version of the religion that you agreed is problematic. Worshiping any god is its own form of religion. Assigning a gender role to a non-procreating non-existing god makes absolutely no sense. Constantly calling an alleged god "he" means you are still perpetuating traditional christian dogmas.

In the days of polytheism, if the people of those times did not understand lightning, then they called a male god "Thor," and so on. It is far more logical to say, "I don't understand lightning," than to say, "There is a god of lightning and His name is Thor."

Creating unfunded mythologies is fine for Hollywood writers, but in the real world, all of that is rhetorical writing.

Even science is being highjacked with a new false religion called "global warming." Proportionally, the higher someone gets in their education, the less they believe in religion. As so much of our society agrees that "religion" is an utter scam, the need to control, dominate, manipulate, and tax (tithing) the general population has meant that altering and creating a FALSE SCIENCE to suggest that our politicians need more taxes for "carbon footprint taxes," allegedly because the temperature is rising along with the oceans.

I absolutely support: clean air, clean water, safe non-GMO food, avoiding food coloring/bad additives, and countless legitimate organic farming methods.

What we have seen since the 1990s is that science is being funded by folks who want "false science" to become the new religion and that is a form of enslavement to the planet.

This is why we have to be cautious of anyone aspiring to control, manipulate, and dominate us from the present or the past. I shall now empower anyone claiming to be any god of any time period.

We all had parents. We came from them as did their ancestors come from their parents. Prior to that, it is speculation from which other planet they hailed.

Most of this is summarized to "linear thinking." The question of "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" The PROBLEM is the question assumes "lineal progression." There are two logical answers, "Neither" or "Both." A third possible answer is that the question is illogical.

Rene Descartes' "radical skepticism" makes far more sense.

Best wishes,
BC


JG wrote:
BC.

My name is JG.
I am Covenant Family member.
I think you are confusing the term religion with Yahowah's Towrah testimony.
We in the Covenant abhor and disdain any and all of man's religions.
Yahowah despises man's religions. He is anti-religious.
We in the Covenant rely upon and trust Yahowah.
Evidence and reason guide us...not faith and belief.
B., I think you are conflating your idea of religion with Yah's Towrah, Prophets and Psalms.
I suggest you consider reading and investigating what Yada, Kirk and JB have written and researched.
Consider investigating:
www.yadayah.com
www.blessyahowh.com
www.blessyahowah.com
www.poweronhigh.com

Best.

JG


JM wrote:
B,
Again, your opinions, which most often you errantly state as facts, are irrelevant. Arrogance is not a characteristic God finds becoming. Yahowah and His Towrah are tsadaq, right; you are wrong.

You are stuck in your faith-based religion, atheism, and are, therefore, close-minded, adamantly believing there is no God which is no more beneficial than belief in a religious false god. There is no reason to continue these email exchanges. Yahowah only asks His family to share His Towrah with those who are willing to listen. Then, one may choose to engage with God through His Towrah / Teaching – or not. We’ve both made this extremely important decision.
JM



JG wrote:
BC.

I feel compelled to ask you to please refrain from denigrating, trivializing, minimizing, disrespecting or disparaging the Name (Shem), Reputation or Renown of Yahowah.
While you may not appreciate the consequences of doing so (i.e., bringing Yah's Name to nothingness) I assure you that the consequences of doing so are not good.

JG


BC wrote:
This reply is for both JG and JM,

I was only having an email exchange with Yada and he included each of you for whatever reason. I did not seek to focus another moment of my life on any gods of any religion. My goal is not to insult any of you, but the absolute reality is that you have created your own version or flavor of the pursuits of rituals that fall within a "religion."

We all agree that "religion" is a problem, but you don't realize you are within your own paradigm of an organized "Family Covenant" that is its own religion. I am using that term broadly.

Decades ago, I already saw the pursuits of any flavor of religion as fruitless. That is no arrogance. I also avoid the persistent scams that come in the U.S. mail and in email.

If you are glorifying and proclaiming a non-existent being as your ruler or his alleged "family" to be your icons, then that is a strong flavor of a religious cult.

I would have far more "faith" in "Bob from Mars" having been the guy that seeded planet Earth as part of a school project than all of the teachings of any particular gods.

My goal in any of this discussion was not to "recruit" any of you. It has been my life experience that when others are recruiting, it can be viewed that they are unsure of their own belief systems and only through the process of imparting their belief system do they gain greater confidence as to their direction in life.

What I am hearing from Yada, JM, and JG are attributes of a religious cult even if you state you are against "religion."

There is no egotism to saying, "There is no god." There is freedom to remove the shackles of any alleged gods. I create no false dogmas. I collect no tithings. There are no membership dues, no books to purchase, no chants, no prayers, no genuflecting, none of the trappings of the religions. Anyone purporting there are gods is seeking to control you with rules and interpretations of alleged edicts.

Yes JG, I agree with you that we can halt our discussions. I never understood why Yada brought everyone else into our private discussion. I appreciated that he does answer the emails of all folks who write him. However, I believed my conversation with him was not including anyone else.

JG, whenever someone uses religious threats such as "I feel compelled to ask you to please refrain from denigrating, trivializing, minimizing, disrespecting or disparaging the Name (Shem), Reputation or Renown of Yahowah.
While you may not appreciate the consequences of doing so (i.e., bringing Yah's Name to nothingness) I assure you that the consequences of doing so are not good."

Then you are opposing what Yada has discussed and written about that the various gods would/should not be provoking us with fear.

You guys are fully enveloped in the very "religion" you are just calling a "Covenant Family."

If it acts, tastes, smells, and recruits like a "religious cult," then that is likely the case. As each of you express your disdain for the 350+ recognized religions, you must see the harmonious overlapping of what you are promoting and espousing.

I am not afraid of any gods that have been created by one man attempting to hoodwink another.

On some topics, I have agreed with Yada and others that just wrote me. It was interesting that he studied the lives of the historic folks enough to know who was gay and bisexual too. All of that is the past.

Best wishes,
To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"


TR wrote:
BC,

My two sense on the matter in bullet points because I have little free time...

* No where, ever, do we, or Yada, claim to be religious. We are the antithesis of religion as is God.

* Your family may have used religion to rule many people, that's great, but that has nothing to do with knowing Yahowah.

*With a minut amount of research you would realize that Yahowah also will not waste His time on people that refuse to want to take the time to know Him, very simple.

*Us covenant members worship no one.

*We agree religion is a farce and hoodwinked billions of souls.

*Yahowah never said he is omnipresent, omnipotent or perfectly benevolent, those are religious ideologies.

*The entire holographic, matrix, projection video game and "Free Yourselves" sounds like new age propaganda.

*'Lets be free of religion', and your "that was god's will" statement is another religious connotation...Yahowah gives us free will. So it's your choice, plain and simple. If you want to come to know Yah and read His word great, if you want to use your free will and be atheist or 'gaytheist', again that is your God given free will.

Again, I apologize for the bullet points but I have young children to tend to.


Originally Posted by: Oops, realized JM beat me to the punch with the response. Sorry for the repetition. Nevertheless, it' Go to Quoted Post


JM wrote:
TR,
Yah is repetitive. It benefits us. Your response was similar because we know and understand Yahowah and we closely examine and carefully consider His Towrah.
Good night.
Shalowm,
JM


BG wrote:
The original poster Hon. BC, lost my interest a long time ago.
• He spent 80% of his initial posts describing his own and his families' historical accomplishments, which is irrelevant to a discussion about our creator and understanding His message to us
• He lost a love interest on 2009, and is still unable to get passed it
• He has the three letter 'HON' in front of his name in emails.... which I find an arrogant self promotion. If that means Honorable, then I will choose to feel that way only if I feel he is deserving of my respect. So far, no thanks.
• He seems like a bright guy, no doubt, but he refuses to address the issues Yada puts in front of him, instead changing the subject or darting to a different issue.
• The only benefit I gained from reading this is understanding what kind of junk crosses Yada's desk that he has to deal with.
• If my thoughts are out of line, scold me.


JK wrote:
I would ask you to logically think through the implications of the purpose for creating man, if indeed a superior being saw fit to do so, and desired to provide evidence of such a plan. The easy way out is to demand proof. That of course would negate all value of free will. But we adore easy answers which of course makes that option appealing.

Yahowah's testimony both directly and through the prophets, offers abundant evidence of religious tampering and corruption, which you acknowledge served a purpose throughout your ancestry by facilitating control and subjugation of the people. God could have prevented this which again violates the ability to have legitimate choice through exercise of free will.

Thus we have a choice, as Yahowah clearly indicates, to exercise some considerable effort to seek the truth. There is no concept of faith or belief expressed in the Torah, prophets and Psalms. God's will for us is to closely examine and carefully consider His testimony. In so doing we begin to understand the consistency of His word pictures, connecting the dots and becoming aware that this tapestry reveals a brilliant plan of justice and prescriptions for living according to a cohesive set of teaching and instruction. Further reinforcement comes from discovering the incalculable accuracy of prophetic events required to prove it could not be coincidental writings of some ancient collection of man's imagination. Expecting any less than perfection in this regard renders God capricious and unworthy of our trust and reliance.

No amount of my inelegant prose proves any of this. Without investing the time and effort it is impossible to understand Yahowah's character, His plan, what He desires from us and what He is offering in return:

The unfurled and unfolding revelation (pethach) of Your Word (dabar) is a continually illuminating (‘owr) resource which makes a rational evaluation of the evidence leading to understanding (byn) simple for the open - minded – indeed easy for those who demonstrate a capacity to be receptive and change their thinking based upon what they learn (pethy) .”

Eternity is hard for us to fathom. Eternal consciousness could be seen as a cruel existence if not providing less than continual growth, discovery, new creation and sharing with like minded conscience beings. Yahowah has a lot to say in this regard. First and foremost, He describes existence in His presence as a nurturing, family oriented relationship. His promise is an inheritance of all He has and more - eternal life, creating entire new universes, and limitless travel beyond any boundaries of time as we experience in our mortal life. He also makes it clear that as an eternal being, He benefits as well, growing by expanding His Family forever.

I often wonder if those who never come to know will be given a glimpse of what they squandered before they are mercifully extinguished. Though it is an infinitely more preferable consequence than those who actively deceived many. Their fate is just, having condemned souls to extinction. They inherit eternal life in a dark place, reduced in dimension, forever aware of their crimes.


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 Bubsy  
#628 Posted : Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:26:49 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 77
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 13 post(s)
I wonder if BC, the gay atheist, would find himself in Thor's position upon reading the "Playing the Odds" chapter of Tea with Terrorists. It certainly caught my attention, leading me to "Future History" (now "The End of the Beginning"), which eventually led me here. If BC actually wants to see Yahowah appear before believing his existence, well, he will have to put a bit of trust in His prophesies and plan how to survive The Tribulation without taking the mark of the beast, and also siding with Yahowah's people. Or maybe witnessing the two witnesses coming back to life and ascending to Yahowah will cause him to be the last person to hop off the fence and decide whose side he chooses to be on. Maybe seeing some of Yahowah's prophesies coming true will wake him up and be sufficient evidence to constitute sufficient proof in his mind. If the prophecy seed worked for me, it could easily work for others.
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
Offline James  
#629 Posted : Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:32:02 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
BC is as religious as a Christian with his faith placed in his own beliefs. He has no interst in facts that don't support his belief that there is no God.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#630 Posted : Monday, July 17, 2017 7:46:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,514
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 195 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Same RM from above
RM wrote:
Thanks Yada, I feel like I have been coming out from among them (Babylon) for quite some time. But it’s a lonely road for fellowship when you can’t find a group of people on the same plain, or belief. Recently I’ve meet some x-Christian’s that are now more Towrah observant, and keeping the Sabbath, and festivals, etc., that we will be able to fellowship with soon.

Where do you get all the reference material you mention like the: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear and other materials that you use. Is any of it available online for free? Does BibleHub use good lexicons and dictionaries? What about E-Sword, can you get trustworthy study material that you use through E-Sword?

It seems most of the material I have is written to really just support the Pauline, Christian\Catholic doctrine and dogma. How do you really find unbiased study material that truly just focusses on the actual Hebrew\Greek\Aramaic ancient text?

For now I have to trust you and what you’re saying is authentic…


Yada wrote:
RM

There are no unbiased or unreligious resources. Every publisher is religious. I don't use E-Sword or BibleHub, but I know of both. I use Logos electronically and have hardback copies of the most everything. Over the years I have invested over ten grand in the tools I use, probably more. The best option is the original languages version of Logos if you are going to spend a lot of time doing translations. Otherwise, the free online resources are as good or bad as anything else.

Regardless of what you use, you'll have to deploy a religious filter to remove the religious corruptions from consideration. I'd ignore Greek and focus entirely on Hebrew. Find an interlinear that works for you and then make sure to use at least 4 or 5 dictionaries.

Yada
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
Users browsing this topic
13 Pages«<111213
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.