Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC) Posts: 3,537
|
Hello Everyone, I've recently had the pleasure of corresponding with "DK" about Yada Yahweh. Initially, our discussion started with my adminition about eating pork as contained in the Torah (thanks Ken and Yada). DK responded with a recommendation to read a book authored by Pope Benedict. The exchanges continued with Yada joining in (as a result of my forwarding some of Dk's questions,observations, and comments to him. I thought this would make for an interesting discussion so I've poste the series of e-mails below (minus some portions of a personal nature). I've also invited DK to join the forum so that he can participate directly and interact with the rest of us here. I sincerely hope he does and hope that you will welcome him. The first e-mail I got from DK as a follow-up to a face-to-face meeting/discussion we had: Quote:The pork thing I'm still sceptical of, to be honest. The analogy to a car manual is great, and I'm sure that holds well for extramarital relations and a lot of other things that the Old Testament spelled out. The dietary restrictions on scavengers was also pertinent at the time, I imagine. In Boy Scouts we were warned to avoid pork sausage, etc. on camps because it doesn't keep well and it must be cooked well. Millenia ago proper hygenic and culinary conditions were hard to insure, so the best bet was just to stay away. But these days... U.S. pigs have nothing to scavenge in the first place but quality feed soaked in antibiotics. I can't imagine that the FDA and consumer advocates like Ralph Nadar would keep mum on something that is unhealthy, laden with parasites and unhealthy levels of toxins. Have you read Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth? I liked it. Parts of it are a bit on the academic side, parts are more pious. In the section on The Kingdom he addresses the question of whether the Messiah wanted an organized religion or not (the Pope argues, well, I think, that the answer is yes). In several sections he discusses the danger of legalism. He also feels that moral teachings have to be grounded in truth, the nature of man as created by God, etc. My response to him: Quote:Hello D, It's great to hear from you so quickly. I enjoyed our conversation and would be happy to continue on anytime you like. I'm very interested in all the topics we touched on. Regarding pork, here are a couple of videos on YouTube that you might like to check out: The original "Coke Test" http://jp.youtube.com/wa...PLcs&feature=related 2. A follow-up to the test by someone who was skeptical: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OI41cgqHZmg As for the Pope's book, I'm afraid that my experience with the Jesuits led me to a deeper search for God which ultimately resulted in my decision to leave the Church. I stumbled across a book entitled "Yada Yahweh: A Conversation with God" written by American author Yada. Here's a sampling from the opening paragraph: "Most folks haven't studied the underlying texts of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or ancient Chinese religions or the foundational sources for Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or Socialist Secular Humanism. You may not know, as I do, that these belief systems aren't credible. But thankfully, it won't matter. The moment you come to realize that Yahuweh's Scriptures are inspired, trustworthy and true; all conflicting paths to God will become irrelevant. For that matter, so will all religions. And that's because the God who inspired the prophets whose words we are going to study is too merciful to be tolerant of deception - no matter how enticing man's words may seem, or how clever the counterfeit." The complete chapter "Re'shith – Beginning" is here: http://yadayahwehcom/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis.YHWH At the very least, I would encourage you to read this chapter as well as the subsequent ones that deal with the Genesis/Creation account – just brilliant. Yada is also the author of several other books (all free and available online) including "Prophet of Doom – Islam in Muhammad's Own Words" - http://prophetofdoom.net...uhammads_Own_Words.IslamMy decision to leave the Church was by far one of the most difficult I've ever made. I am/was a "cradle Catholic." I have an uncle who's a Diocesan priest and aunt who is a Benedictine nun. My announcement was not well received. Anyway, I'll leave that for a future discussion. Regards, -Yada DK's response: Quote:-----Original Message----- From: DK Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:45 AM To: Yada Subject: Re: Thank You
Disgusting, I gotta admit. I mean the pork. Still, I would go more on data than gross-me-out visuals. So far, all I saw says that meat should be fresh, and pork is safer when cooked. Coke doesn't measure toxins.
In high school my brother and I made wine and beer. We tried meed once, made with honey. Fermentation can be a little tricky - you want the yeast germs to get cooking, but all other bacteria and fungi to get out of there. A little SO2 can help in that regard, but it gives a slightly acidic taste. I don't remember what we did wrong, but when we came back to look the container was full of the most bizarre fungi you've ever seen. My brother took it school to show off. Some said "Cool!"; most said "Barf!" I don't think anyone swore off honey after seeing that, though.
Tapeworms, ringworms, etc., are parasites. They attach themselves to the intestinal tract and sap out nutrition. Maggots are not. If swallowed (I have known cases) they are quickly killed by stomach acid. Since you only find them in rotten meat, they are usually accompanied by germs that can be very toxic. But many kinds of larva and worms are edible, and in fact some cultures have cultivated them. To modern Westerners it sounds gross, but that's not a measure of how healthy they are.
As for the theology... that'll take more time. I'll try to keep an open mind to all this, but the starting point strikes me as erroneous. He says once you know scripture (ahem - it sounds flippant to me to toss aside the scholarship of millenia of scholars. If there's one thing that impresses me about the current Pope, it's his knowledge of scripture and the world in which it was written), you won't need religion. But the scriptures show Yahweh establishing a people, priests, a temple, etc. And in the New Testament, the Kingdom Jesus desires has a visible, hierarchical structure, his sacraments form the basis of a community, apostles have authority to bind and loose... Jesus wrote no scripture, but his church, aided by his Spirit, did, and it even has guarantees regarding correct interpretation (something needed for any religion of the Word, or you end up with anything and everything, by anyone that poses as a theologian or prophet).
Of course, it's not just a question of argumentation. I'll be keeping you and these questions in my prayers.
DK Another follow-up e-mail from DK: Quote:-----Original Message----- From: DK Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:00 PM To: Yada Subject: Online Bible study I took a quick look at the site you recommended. A lot of it is good, some of it I have questions about, but it's the kind of thing that I haven't gone through well enough to say anything generic about it yet. Have you seen this site? Scott Hahn knows his scriptures, and I find many of his observations rewarding. http://www.salvationhist...nline/gettingstarted.cfmDK At this point, I had gotten a response from Yada to a message from DK that I had forwarded to him: Quote:You have asked me to respond to the letter a Catholic sent to you. On the first subject, Ken Power has done a far more comprehensive study on the foods Yah advises His people not to eat, so there isn't much I can add. This subject is covered in The Owner's Manual.
The Catholic's theological position is typical of those who are unaware of the enormous differences between Catholicism and Scripture. He may be a smart person, but bereft of the evidence, he's unable to see just how ignorant (lacking knowledge) irrational (lacking judgment) his opinions really are.
Catholics are won't to see their popes as holy and somehow enlightened. It is the basis of the religion. But if what your Catholic acquaintance said were true, that this pope were particularly knowledgeable on Scripture, then he would have to be the world's most effective hypocrite. Hundreds of Catholicism's most important positions and teachings are substantially different than those found in the Scripture upon which they claim authority. That being the case, regardless of whether Scripture is inspired, Catholicism has to be untrue. It is simple logic.
Yahweh takes credit for freeing His people, who are Yahuwdym, not Catholics or Christians, and for helping them during the Exodus and again as the entered Yahudah. There is no rational correlation between Yahuwdym, the Exodus, and Yahuwdah with Catholics, Catholicism, or Rome. To make such an argument in favor of a religion is ignorant and irrational.
As you know, Yahuweh's Temple was singular, and it was in Jerusalem--on Mount Mowriyah. There were not multiples of them, nor was His Temple in Rome. It's basis, which is profoundly important spiritually as it relates to salvation, has absolutely nothing in common with St. Peters, or any RCC facility. Not only does the RCC miss all of the spiritual symbolism inherent in the Temple, Catholic Churches are filled countless violations of the Second Commandment. Moreover, Catholicism's images are almost universally pagan (steeples, obelisks, crosses, madonna and child, candles, holy water, sunbursts, statuary, clerical hats, religious clothing, and kneeling aids, etc.).
There is no correlation between the Levites and Catholic clergy. The Levites were not paid. They were not ordained. There were no "Fathers, Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes" among them. Their sole basis and authority came from the Torah. No Levite ever claimed to have the authority to establish a religion or contract Yah.
The Levites performed functions related to the seven Miqra'ey. There isn't any example of a RCC priest or pope doing any of these things. The RCC has created a counterfeit of each of Yahweh's Called Out Assembly Meetings, so to infer that Catholic clergy are somehow validated by the Levites is ignorant and irrational.
There was no Levite hierarchy. There was no hierarchy among the apostles. The fact that each follower of the Way has different gifts, and thus responsibilities, doesn't make one more important than any other. The Kingdom Yahushua speaks of isn't Earthly, but instead Spiritual. It's Yah's Kingdom, and in it He is our Father and we are all His children.
Yahushua is the Word made flesh. He is the author of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, which is the totality of Scripture. As for the Renewed Covenant Writings, most of it is comprised of citations from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, commentary on the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, or Yahushua's words, illustrating how He is the embodiment of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So Yahushua is the source and living embodiment of every Word of Scripture.
The Renewed Covenant isn't called Scripture by Yahuweh, Yahushua, or the apostles. Moreover, since there is no "church" in the Old Covenant Scripture or in the Renewed Covenant Writings, the church could not have been the source of such.
Catholics are universally clueless as to the meaning, content, and purpose of Yahushua's remarks to Peter. Ignorant of what was said, and why, they have falsely been led to believe that entrance to heaven is granted by the Church, rather than on reliance upon the seven-part path laid out by Yahuweh and fulfilled by Yahushua. They are so badly deceived, Catholics don't even know that there is no word remotely related to "church" in the Old or Renewed Covenant. And beyond all of this, there is no connection between Peter and any pope, so even if the RCC's misinformed, contradictory, and arrogant claim were true, it still wouldn't garner them any authority.
Yahushua didn't have any "sacraments." Yahushua observed the seven Miqra'ey. Catholics not only ignore them all, they have substituted a Babylonian sungod festival for each of them. In this regard, Yahushua's conversation regarding breaking bread and drinking wine was not only set into the context of Passover, it was designed to have us appreciate the fact that He was the fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, and for us to appreciate the fact that the Miqra'ey pointed the way to paradise.
Yahuweh's Set-Apart Spirit is willing and able to provide Scriptural insights, however, Scripture doesn't need to be "interpreted." Yah is an expert communicator. He presents a consistent story and explains it from every possible perspective.
The reason that Catholics speak of "Scriptural interpretation" is to justify their religion's consistent contradictions of it. But there is no spiritual, literal, or rational interpretation of Passover which gets one to Easter, of Tabernacles which gets one to Christmas, of the Sabbath which gets one to Sunday, of Yah's redemptive authority and plan being usurped by men and religious institutions, or of Yah's Word and Catholic doctrine.
The problem isn't "interpretation," but instead ignorance and a lack of reason. The problem is (according to Yahushua's open letter in Revelation) that Catholicism has become the seat of power for the wrong spirit, and that the church has married this lord.
It all boils down to: who do you trust? Is it Yahuweh or the Church. They tell a very different story so both cannot be true.
Yada I had invited DK to meet on Saturday, this was his response: Quote:This Saturday I'm booked already, but I do hope to continue this somehow, for truth and for friendship's sake. To really digest what he wrote would require some hours, which are hard to come by now, so I don't know when or how, but I'm still game. This gentleman is not the most politic person in the world, to put it mildly, but that in itself I find kind of fun, and I understand that he was not saying this to me personally, but rather to you, knowing you would know how it was intended. All the same, calling Ratzinger/Benedict either an ignoramus or a first-class hypocrite shows he's not very familiar with the man, and these diatribes don't speak well of him either. Nor do his frequent spelling and grammatical errors. DK DK had also asked which books Yada considered authentic vs. apocryphal, the answer which I've already posted under another thread. This from DK after Yada's response: Quote:Please thank Yada for taking the time to answer what I wrote. The YY site, etc., must be a gargantuan investment of time, all for the love of the Word. I read his comments about six times already. The first time it was almost like reading a different language. "Wow, what sort of a far-out sect is this?" was sort of the feeling. But you quickly get used to the jargon, for which I'm sure there is a rationale. Renewed Convenant Writings is roughly equivalent, I gather, to what is often referred to as the New Testament (I'm curious as to which books he regards as authentic and which as apocryphal). I'm guessing he translates it Renewed because (in addition, probably, to etymological evidence) he doesn't think there's anything really new about it; Jesus (Yehushua) was just calling us to live by what God (Yehuwah) had already told us. Sincerely, DK I just got this message from DK earlier today entitled, "Further Impressions:" Quote:OK, I've taken a closer look at a few of the YY chapters, starting with Genesis. It's obvious that the author put a lot of time, thought and love into it. But I frequently have doubts as to how reliable it is.
Take, for instance, his negative comments on the use of the words Bible, testament and Christ, based on supposed etymologies that are irreverent or even blasphemous. It's not that I have any objection to using the terms scripture, covenant or Yahushua (although, in the case of the last one, only YY adepts would understand who you're talking about).
Our word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "βιβλος", meaning "book" (whence our word "bibliography"). If biblos comes from an earlier Phoenician or Babylonian word, to me that seems irrelevant. When we use the word "book," we don't give a thought to the Anglo-Saxon word from which it is derived. That is buried in the past. It could even be irreverent – In Jesus' ancestry there are public sinners, but nevertheless he is the Holy One of God.
Similarly, Chrism and Christ are from a Greek root, χρυς, meaning "oil". Jesus Christ means Jesus, the Anointed one of God, i.e., the Messiah. I was unaware that there is also a related word with a less respectable meaning, but I can't see that it matters. When we use the English word "oil," we needn't be concerned that it sounds a lot like "owl," or perhaps a few dirtier words, or that "oily" has a negative feeling to it. Even a nice word like "sweet" has negative usages like "sweet-talk." I don't understand why someone would make an issue of using a legitimate word that has less legitimate cousins. Drawing parallels between words is so risky it can easily be parodied. The Japanese word for ground, "jimen", looks a lot like our word for an FBI agent, G-man, but I wouldn't be too quick to draw any conclusions based on that.
A "testament" is a contract in which only one party takes the initiative, giving the other some possession or right to which he had no previous claim and which he did nothing to deserve. That's not a bad way to describe the deal Yahweh gave us. These days practically the only use for the word is for bequeathing an inheritance at death, but I think it is unfair to mock the way Christians have used this word for the Bible. "Covenant" is certainly a good alternative, although in modern English this word is not used outside of religious terminology.
The use of ancient languages makes everything look erudite, but some of the argumentation strikes me as so overdone, so reliant on imagination or circumstantial evidence, that it almost makes me wonder if there isn't something else that's motivating all his criticism. Whether or not that's so, I wish he could keep things at a more rational level of discourse. I often get the feeling he's making connections where no connection exists, and taking jabs where it's uncalled for.
In his thoughtful answer to my email to you, Yada said, "The reason that Catholics speak of "Scriptural interpretation" is to justify their religion's consistent contradictions of it." The question of scriptural interpretation comes up inevitably because any observer will quickly see that there is and always has been disagreement over what exactly is contained in scripture and how it should be read. This is not just a problem between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants disagree with each other, even when all disagreeing parties are commenting on Scripture. This problem is insoluble to anyone who takes the Bible as his or her sole authority, because that is precisely what is being disputed.
On the YY website, you will find claims that this or that word of this or that text actually refers to some modern country or people or river or war. What is this if not interpretation? Or does Yada think that this is the only "rational" approach to these texts, that any intelligent person would see that, if only he put aside his prejudices? Or are we simply to accept it on his authority? The same is true of some of the doctrines espoused, like annihilation of souls, for instance.
Relying exclusively on the Dead Sea Scrolls does not eliminate the problem. Those scrolls themselves were written by scribes who make errors, and there were surely other manuscripts not contained in that set. At the time of Christ, it seems likely that the most commonly used Hebrew texts were actually a back-translation from the Septuagint Greek version. And who can say that God never intended or sanctioned the influence of the Greek translation? If Yahweh can inspire one author, he can extend a providential arm over a writing process that takes a century or more and involves several people and steps.
Is it really true, as Yada says, that scripture doesn't need to be interpreted? The ten commandments are about as black-and-white a list as you could hope for, but even there questions arise. Thou shalt not kill, but what about self-defense, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, war? Thou shalt not commit adultery, but does that include masturbation, soft porn, contraception, new-fangled techniques for artificial insemination?
The issue of interpretation is inextricably related to authority, or, as Yada puts it, it all comes down to who you trust. I believe that God speaks through His Church. God was good enough to give us a manual, but that's not all. Microsoft provides manuals, but they also have a customer service center, because sometimes people want to ask things. To understand a line of scripture, we need to look well at what's written, compare to other passages, and of course ask the Holy Spirit for his aid. But it sure helps to have a representative of the author nearby to be able to point the way, or at least warn us of mistaken interpretations, which unfortunately abound.
So, which text do we use? Which readings of them are likely to strengthen or weaken our spiritual life? Catholics are grateful when the teaching "magisterium" gives their assurance that a certain version of the Bible or a certain (pardon me) interpretation is reasonably safe, or not so. If you don't have that, most people inevitably end up following a scholar or tradition or authority of their choosing. What else can you hope for? Yada points out correctly that "Yah is an expert communicator", but given our limitations, is a one-time-only communicative act, with no later follow-up and no chance for authoritative clarification optimal?
So it's a question of who you trust. There are people who from an early age have heard nothing but stories of clerical abuse, witch-burning, science-hating, inquisition, etc. Most of this is but a caricature of the reality, but if that's all you hear, it predisposes you not to want to accept certain ideas, like "church." Someone could quote scripture in favor of a certain view of ecclesiology, and the gut reaction will be…"That word isn't used that way…That text can't be authentic…I don't see how that conclusion is justified…"
In Paul's travels we see him evangelizing a community, and then appointing "presbyters" for them through a ceremony of laying on of hands. So there were communities, with regular meetings for study, prayer, worship and fellowship, and they had appointed ministers. But Paul's authority was of an even higher jurisdiction, as we see in a letter to the Corinthians: Paul was not pleased with the laxity of the faithful and those responsible for them, and so he personally intervened, by excommunicating an adulterer in their midst. Since most such communities were still small in apostolic times, and the apostles themselves were still alive and active, we wouldn't expect to see every city endowed with a bishop and several priests providing pastoral care full-time to the faithful, but there are cases such as the one I mentioned (Paul, with full apostolic authority – a bishop, we might say; appointed community leaders (ordained priest); community of faithful) which show that the concept of hierarchy is not alien to the Bible and the People of God.
In the early church a controversy arose as to whether the Law of Moses was still valid. A council was held, Peter spoke, and the case was resolved. What I find interesting is not only that the case was so decided, but also the wording of the letter that was sent to the churches, in which the Christian community recognized a special working of the Holy Spirit in acts of authority ("It is plain to the Holy Spirit and to us that…").
John himself says that there are many things that were never written down because all the libraries of the world wouldn't suffice. Catholics (and some others) also place heavy weight on the testimony of the Church Fathers and other documents from the first centuries such as the Didache- these teachers were close to the original source and would have access to many of these unwritten oral traditions, plus many of them had a reputation for holiness. If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an excellent reference work), the first most often cited text is, of course, the Bible; next come the Fathers of the early Church; works of the "magisterium" (Church Councils and papal documents) come third, I believe. There is an interesting record from the first century in which one of the local churches has the bishop of Rome (Clement) settle a matter in their turf. This is corroborated by other testimonies from the first centuries.
I completely agree with Yada that ministry should not be seen as a career, power, etc. Too often it is, but God gives a plethora of gifts, and their exercise is meant to be a service to God and others. In the excommunication referred to above, Paul was acting to preserve faithfulness to Jesus, to maintain the unity of the flock, to prevent corruption before its pernicious effects spread even farther. I have known shepherds with this spirit of service toward their flock. And I don't say this because "we Catholics are wont to be gullible about these things." I have known them personally, practically as well as I know my Dad and Mom.
Wow, I didn't expect to write four pages. And I don't expect that with these four pages all is resolved. I don't mind if you send it to Yada or put it online, if you think that's appropriate. DK |