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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline doncarp14  
#1 Posted : Friday, November 1, 2019 8:01:12 AM(UTC)
doncarp14
Joined: 11/1/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States

In the Paul section, you state that Yahowsha was not physically resurrected because his body was incinerated. Forgetting whether or not this claim does violence to Pauls writings, it does violence to the gospels (which you say are our reliable resources). The gospels have his body being placed in a tomb, and even has women going to said tomb to annoint the body. Why would they be going to visit a body that had been incinerated? The gospels have the rock being rolled away and an empty tomb. It would be very helpful to address such obvious concerns as you make these claims; it makes it hard to continue and focus on your claims with these things not immediately addressed...
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:08:22 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: doncarp14 Go to Quoted Post
In the Paul section, you state that Yahowsha was not physically resurrected because his body was incinerated. Forgetting whether or not this claim does violence to Pauls writings, it does violence to the gospels (which you say are our reliable resources). The gospels have his body being placed in a tomb, and even has women going to said tomb to annoint the body. Why would they be going to visit a body that had been incinerated? The gospels have the rock being rolled away and an empty tomb. It would be very helpful to address such obvious concerns as you make these claims; it makes it hard to continue and focus on your claims with these things not immediately addressed...


I am not the author of QP, he actually does not frequent the forum, if you wish to talk with him he can be reached at email@yadayah.com

Personally, I find the "gospels" to range from a somewhat useful history to outright useless. However, even without that nothing in them indicates that His body was resurrected. Let us examine what you point out. The body was placed in the tomb, but the fact that the 2 women were going to anoint it just tells us that they assumed it would be there, this does not mean it was. You say the rock was rolled away to revel an empty tomb, exactly because the body was incinerated.

Yahowsha’s sole purpose was to fulfill the role of the Passover lamb, and just Yahowah instructed nothing of the lamb was to remain; it was to be burned in the fire. Yahowsha’s body was incinerated and not left in accord with Passover.
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 doncarp14  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:27:14 PM(UTC)
doncarp14
Joined: 11/1/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States

i may have misunderstood regarding incineration; I was assuming he meant incinerated by those attending as opposed to being placed in a tomb. I now assume you mean incinerated in the tomb by the power of god. Still, it leaves a bit of a vague picture of what the body that was seen by others was---he still had the holes in his hand and side. As for the gospels mentioning resurrection, perhaps you could read John 11:25 where Yahowsha uses the actual word resurrection (I am the resurrection-pretty direct), and also all the passages that refer to him being risen (implying that body being risen, no sense of a new body) such as Matt 28:5-6, Matt 20:18-19, John 20:8-9. Also, and I realize it is not one of the gospels, but I do not think the author has a problem with Peter, Peter use "resureection" in 1 Peter 1 and 1 Peter 3. If you find the gospels "useless" in some cases, Im not sure whta your basis for belief, interest, or commentary would be at all...
Offline doncarp14  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:33:03 PM(UTC)
doncarp14
Joined: 11/1/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States

Oh...and I forgot....No, his "sole purpose" was not to just be the passover lamb. In his own words--"I am the resurrection and the life, the one who believes in me will live..." He came to also be the firstfruits of the dead. A simply dead, incinerated lamb is not our hope for eternal life; a resurrected lamb is...
Offline chrud  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:28:02 AM(UTC)
chrud
Joined: 8/22/2012(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Austin, TX

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
It looks like this needs to be stated clearly: what are called the gospels are a mix of a bunch of lies with some nuggets of half truths. They are unreliable. Reading them does more harm than good.

You are asking a question that says "Given all the lies that I've learned, how do they fit into the truth that you are trying to give me?" This is absolutely the wrong direction to take.

Change your thinking. Instead, remove everything you think you know based on the gospels, and then figure out what questions you should ask.
Offline Stewart James  
#6 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:00:19 AM(UTC)
Stewart James
Joined: 7/4/2017(UTC)
Posts: 105
Man
Thailand
Location: Thailand

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
First to undertstand Testimony is to understand what is true and what is false, so if you have a new testimony which supplant's, annuls, or does away with the first or original testimony, then when you accept that new testimony as beieng true, reliable and having the nature and veracity of truth, you then allow yourself to be persuaded to another argument, doing away with the first!

I a court of law as I understand it (I am no expert) this would destroy the first or original testimony and persuade the jury (You) to conclude that the first testimony was a fake, errant and perhaps a complete lie!

In that case you would need to compare both side by side and understand from whence they came in order that you can determine which is reliable and true and where contradictions come into play. Which one came from a diivine source and which is simply the words of men, albeit in some cases and only few eye witness account that have een tampered with?

If the orignal testament has verifiable poof of future history being spoken of in times past and you can see it all being revealed before your eyes in the current day, which would you conclude to be truthful? If the new testament were at least 50% the words of one man, not God and not inspired by God, but of one man, which would you trust? If the eye witness accounts, of which there are only 2, not the inspired word of God were corrupted, changed, added to and taken from with thousands of copies all saying slightly different things encompassed in a new collective tesimony of some errant copyist men, then which would you determine to be truthful and correct?

It is very clear that the new testimony, having ben corrupted is at the very heart and root of the new religon, with a new book and new name for their messiah (read Ma'aseyah! It is clar the original testimony is far closer to the truth when you can find clear and correct traslation attemts rather than accepting errant scribes writings!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease being honest!
Offline Bubsy  
#7 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2019 3:53:33 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 113
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Regarding the incineration of Yahowsha's body, the Towrah instruction for Passover which said that all of the lamb's flesh not eaten shall be burned in fire before morning was also prophetic - after Yahowsha's body was sealed up in the tomb on the definitive fulfillment of Passover (on the 6th day of the week - a "Friday"), sometime during the night, the body was incinerated in some great burst of energy, likely performed by Yahowah or one of His messengers. The next day, Unyeasted Bread (on a natural Sabbath), the soul paid the penalty of sin in She'owl (as described in Psalm 88). And the day after that, Firstfruits / First-born Children (on the 1st day of the week - "Sunday"), the soul was reunited with Yahowah's spirit and born spiritually, in an energy-based "body". "Behold, he is risen." Those who saw him did not recognize him by his appearance. His subsequent traveling of 60 stadia in an instant, and appearance in a closed-up room with his disciples are consistent with being energy-based, and not resurrected in the same mortal body. Another thing to consider: if man has been able to use E=mc^2 to make nuclear power and nuclear bombs (energy out of matter), isn't it reasonable to conclude that Yahowah knows how to use the equation in the other direction, taking energy and diminishing it to visible, tangible matter?
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
thanks 1 user thanked Bubsy for this useful post.
Disa on 11/22/2019(UTC)
Offline Glfnaz  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:52:50 AM(UTC)
Glfnaz
Joined: 7/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 59
Location: Arizona

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 7 post(s)
His soul was resurrected and reunited with Yahowah's Spirit in Heaven. Now I ask, what good would a 3 dimensional 'body' be in a 6th or 7th dimensional spirit realm? It would be a hinderance, and surely a liability there. Bodies are usefull in a 3 dimensional realm, but useless in heaven.
Offline doncarp14  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:55:29 PM(UTC)
doncarp14
Joined: 11/1/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States

Originally Posted by: Stewart James Go to Quoted Post
First to undertstand Testimony is to understand what is true and what is false, so if you have a new testimony which supplant's, annuls, or does away with the first or original testimony, then when you accept that new testimony as beieng true, reliable and having the nature and veracity of truth, you then allow yourself to be persuaded to another argument, doing away with the first!

I a court of law as I understand it (I am no expert) this would destroy the first or original testimony and persuade the jury (You) to conclude that the first testimony was a fake, errant and perhaps a complete lie!

In that case you would need to compare both side by side and understand from whence they came in order that you can determine which is reliable and true and where contradictions come into play. Which one came from a diivine source and which is simply the words of men, albeit in some cases and only few eye witness account that have een tampered with?

If the orignal testament has verifiable poof of future history being spoken of in times past and you can see it all being revealed before your eyes in the current day, which would you conclude to be truthful? If the new testament were at least 50% the words of one man, not God and not inspired by God, but of one man, which would you trust? If the eye witness accounts, of which there are only 2, not the inspired word of God were corrupted, changed, added to and taken from with thousands of copies all saying slightly different things encompassed in a new collective tesimony of some errant copyist men, then which would you determine to be truthful and correct?

It is very clear that the new testimony, having ben corrupted is at the very heart and root of the new religon, with a new book and new name for their messiah (read Ma'aseyah! It is clar the original testimony is far closer to the truth when you can find clear and correct traslation attemts rather than accepting errant scribes writings!


The "new testament" does not annul the old; Yashua made that quite clear; he fulfilled the promises of it. All of the old testament prophecies speak of him, he made that quite clear. If Paul's teachings contradict this idea, that is one thing; some of you seem out of touch with the narrator of this site you claim to support. He doubts paul, but supports the gospels of john and matthew. As far as comparing the two, as I said, the old clearly speaks of christ; and as far as reliable prophecy that has unfolded before our eyes nothing is more convincing than the Revelation, which is a companion book to Daniel and an opening of the book sealed there. All of the visions of Revelation can be understood in the context of the old testament feasts. Where do I ever say to "do away" with the first? dont confuse me with yourselves who seem to want to do away with the second. Both are indispensable to me. Without the reliability of the "new", the old testament has not seen its fulfillment and we are all still waiting for the messiah. You go on and on using words like "reliable" and "trust" etc..., while still espousing belief in Yashua? The only record we have of his coming is the new testament, so either you believe it or you dont, its your only basis for believeing in Yashua and the reality of his coming in the first century AD..
Offline InHisName  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, November 20, 2019 10:09:59 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 113

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 59 time(s) in 36 post(s)
The "new testament" does not annul the old; Paul does: The purpose of the Towrah (1st 5 books) is to introduce Yahowah, to prove the History he lays out, to provide a framework and teaching for humans to understand and trust Him and to mold all of this into a family. The heart of this is the story of Abraham, here Yah laid out His Family Oriented Covenant. Abraham, Sarah and Isaac became it’s symbolic first members. Paul lays out a different story, Paul says there are two covenants(there was only one), that the covenant of Mt Sinai was with Hagar(she was specifically excluded) and was of bondage [to the towrah]. Paul lies and lays it out all backwards, that salvation is through belief in the grace of christ to save us from the LAW. (Galations 3 and 4) Yah say that salvation is a one of many benefits of the Covenant, which is the heart of the TOWRAH. Only one of them is correct, I choose Yahowah.

Yashua made that quite clear; he fulfilled the promises of it. All of the old testament prophecies speak of him, he made that quite clear. If Paul's teachings contradict this idea, that is one thing; some of you seem out of touch with the narrator of this site you claim to support. He doubts paul, but supports the gospels of john and matthew. As far as comparing the two, as I said, the old clearly speaks of christ; and as far as reliable prophecy that has unfolded before our eyes nothing is more convincing than the Revelation, which is a companion book to Daniel and an opening of the book sealed there.
All of the visions of Revelation can be understood in the context of the old testament feasts. Where do I ever say to "do away" with the first? dont confuse me with yourselves who seem to want to do away with the second. Both are indispensable to me. Without the reliability of the "new", the old testament has not seen its fulfillment and we are all still waiting for the messiah. You go on and on using words like "reliable" and "trust" etc..., while still espousing belief in Yashua? The only record we have of his coming is the new testament, so either you believe it or you dont, its your only basis for believeing in Yashua and the reality of his coming in the first century AD.. I believe this is all addressed in my reply in the THE LAW thread
Offline InHisName  
#11 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2019 12:09:32 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 113

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 59 time(s) in 36 post(s)
In Galations 4-5, Paul lies about the details of Yah's family oriented Covenant made with Abraham and twists it to mean it can not save us, so we must believe in a second covenant that provides righteousness by faith. That "christ has made us free of the yoke of bondage" (the law (towrah))

That is an annulment of the Towrah. Yah called the Towrah complete, all we need!


Yah promised Abraham that He would provide the Passover Lamb and He either has or will. Whether 'Jesus' was Yahowsha (Yahowah is salvation)or he is still to come is irrelevant. Yah will provide.

Allen
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.