It may (or may not) help to know, Y777, that Yada and I have radically different approaches to the practice of "Christianity." We both know that even at its best, it's flawed, errant in places, and prone to lose focus. Yada, I fear, has run into very few "Philadelphians" in his life, and between Sardis and Laodicea, is as disgusted with "the church" as it's possible to be. The result is that he does not engage in fellowship with any local group of believers, assuming that there are none (at least, not real ones) in his particular locale. And for all I know, he may be right.

I, on the other hand, meet a couple of times a week with an enthusiastic Yahweh-honoring local assembly. Do "we" get some of the vocabulary and emphasis wrong? Yes. Does the pastor know everything there is to know about Yahweh and His word? No. But I can affirm without hesitation that we love our God (and are loved by Him), love and support each other joyfully in His presence, and endeavor wholeheartedly to keep Yahshua's command to persevere. If I were to leave, what little I'm able to do now to influence and edify my brothers and sisters would become impossible. I realized a long time ago that fellowship is not about me---it's about us. I don't believe we're called to monastic isolation, even if it helps us focus on "rightly dividing the word of God." It's hard to serve your neighbor if you never go near him. It's hard to be light and salt to the world if you're cloistered in an ivory tower.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just lucky to have a "close-enough" fellowship within driving distance. But it's in a godless city that isn't all that big. I can't believe mine is unique situation. Please don't take me wrong, though: I'm not advocating compromise. The vast majority of "churches" do not honor Yahweh. But I've never (well---seldom) found it impossible to find that one rose among the thorns.

As far as your study tools are concerned, I wouldn't advise against getting too wrapped up in what our forebears did or did not say or do. They, like us, are figuring this out as they go along, and some of their takes on scripture are downright looney. That being said, most of the really old stuff (Josephus, etc) is available on the web. But filter everything you read through the truth of God's word, and pay close attention to what God's Spirit tells you as you study.

kp

Please, can you tell me where, between the time Jesus walked the earth (if then) and your exegetical work, has your understanding of Yahweh and Jesus existed in history, with your understanding of the 'canon' of Scripture?

Did Yahweh leave the numberless interim generations with a gravely deficient understanding of the Truth? Or was the truth as you understand it hidden from the pages of recorded history?

Thanks

The reason I ask is this. That Yahweh would let the Truth, the full Truth of the relationship which He offers mankind, through which one apprehends His goodness and beauty and love insofar as our limited faculties allow, in answer to man's intrinsic need to know and love Him, that Yahweh would allow this to lapse for 20 centuries, until an amateur translator rediscovered the Truth, assumes a unbecoming estimation of Yahweh's paternal concern. A good father does not deny his young children's free will, but neither does he let them wander off into the wilderness for hours at a time, or days, lifetimes or centuries. Yahweh's relationship with Israel is instructive. If this then is your view of Yahweh, during the two millennia of Truth's absence, where could the billions of illiterate but humble and wholeheartedly sincere seekers of Truth find it? They evidently could not, because there was no one to offer your understanding of the Scriptures. Yahweh Who allows each of His children to enjoy and suffer the consequences of their choices, while never leaving a single one without knowledge of the way home, is a worthy Father. The most enduring understanding of Yahweh allows that every prodigal knows the way home, even the son who was not raised there. I do not see the benefit or desirability of anything less.

I quite agree, jpelham. And if the seven letters recorded in Revelation 2 and 3 are what they appear to be (now that we seem so close to the end of their lessons)---a chronologically arranged prophetic look at the course of the age of the ekklesia---then it is apparent, even obvious, that for all its troubles through the last two millennia, Yahweh has always reserved for Himself a remnant, however small, who embraced the truth. Further, they arrived at this truth with far less resources available to them (and far more roadblocks in their way) than we enjoy today. I mean, if there were a few names even in Sardis who had not defiled their garments, then it is clear (at least to me) that even in the darkest days of dead religion, honest seekers were still able to find the truth. Did they adhere to the standard authorized YY vocabulary, striking out all of our horrible no-no words? No, I can guarantee that they did not. Didn't seem to matter to Yahshua. He knows our hearts.

kp

The Truth for the most part has always been available, but not always easy to find. Yahuweh knowing He could not interfere with man's free will and thus keep man from corrupting and covering up His Word, did the one thing He could do, he made it difficult for it to be covered up entirely by being very repetitive. But His Word has always been available, but man has found many ways to beguile people from it. Perfect understanding of Yahuweh's Word is not necessary, none of us will have that in this life, but that does not mean we are free to make up our own understanding or that any understanding is equally valuable.

I think it is entirely possible to use nothing but a simple English translation, as horrid as they are, and disprove Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism and Islam. I would say that it is also possible, so long as you read it with out the preconceived Religious notions, to use an English translation to come to understand God. The problem is most people read "the bible" not to understand it, but to confirm what they have already been told. The benefit of translating fresh and amplified, is that you can come to a better understanding of the nuances of the text and the message as well as get beyond the man made corruptions which permeate our English translation.

No one has said that you have to have this exact same understanding of Yahuweh, like I said most everyone here's understanding is constantly evolving. What we endeavor to do is to show where common held understandings are errant and inconsistent with Scripture.

So in short no Yahuweh's Word was never completely gone, just corrupted and hidden very well.


While that may have been when it was officially canonized, it was promoted as Scripture well before that. Marcion who lived in the 1st Century, promoted the idea that Paul was the only True apostle and prepared and disseminated a cannon which consisted of Luke, Acts and Paul's Letters only. As far as I know this was the first, but unfortunately not the last, time Paul's letters were promoted as Scripture.

define seeker of Truth, because to be honest most people I meet have no interest in Truth, or seeking. They are happy to go to Church once a week sing a few songs and call it good. They have no interest in reading Scripture or trying to understand it themselves, they want it spoon feed to them. So the majority of people in my opinion are not seekers of truth. Yahushua said the way is narrow and unpopular and few there are who will find it that leads to life, and the way is broad and many will find it that leads to death. I think he was incredibly accurate, the Truth is there for those that seek it, most don't however.



most who found the Truth throughout history have been rejected, just as the Truth is rejected today. Tell a pastor at most any Church that Christmas, and Easter are Pagan abominations that God hates, and they will either ignore you or ask you to leave. The Truth has never been popular, and most who knew it are ignored in history as they never gathered a following and were looked at as kooks.



Yahuweh didn't abandon anybody, his Truth has always been there for anyone to seek. sometimes seeking has been harder than at others, but he warned us it would be that way.

If we have understood the enquiry correctly, jpelham is asking. Why the silence from Yah?
Why of all the billions who have existed over the last 2000 years have only you on YY have found the truth?

We (J&M) will try to answer, if we have misunderstood we apologise.

We don't perceive a "silent " Yahu'eh.(I was, I am, I will exist,be..)

We do not hold the opinion that only you on YY have found the truth.

Although those who connect to this forum often have a strong desire for Yah and his TRUTH, which is more difficult to perceive in a poor and erronius translation into English (in our case), from Hebrew,Greek,Aramaic, Chaldean than a better,more exact English translation/transliteration, of Yahs "physical" written words.

Our view is that of a “6000” year unchanging history of Yah.
Our view is that the events of 33 CE “changed” nothing with regards to Yah, but fulfilled his purpose in providing a permanent “way” back (which was untouched by "time") from the consequences of Edon, other than the temporary Temple/Tabernacle requirements (which were"time" sensitive).
Yahushua didn’t just “die for our sins” but for the causes of our sins in our self godship inherited from Adam in Edon.
All religion whether religious, political or social is the product of mans’ godship.

1Relationship with Yah only appertains to those who are seeking first the SPIRITUAL kingdom of Yah and his SPIRITUAL righteousness.

2If no man ever does this it will not change Yah.

3The truth is there to be found for those who seek it; Yah says “I will be found of you”.

4Yah is interested in quality not quantity.

Yah has a nation group, the “Jews”, with whom he entered into a covenant, and offered himself as their husband. But they had other practices and ideas, as are described in Torah, Prophets and Writings….Their path of religious and spiritual practices have led them away from Yah, though they would claim differently.
However He, unlike them, is faithful in keeping his side of the marriage vow (Covenant), and when they turn back once again to him, he will receive them back with great joy.

It’s the one to one relationship that has been offered by Yah over the last 6000 years that is the moot point here.

Constantine is credited with assembling christianity out of the religious, political and social smorgasbord available to him( +/- 1700 years ago). Thus laying the foundation of a great new deception; Christianity, church, Catholicism, and all its variants. Of which Wycliffe, Unitarians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Calvinists are all part.
As is any other grouping of a religious nature. .

The WORLD did not change when Yahushua ( Yah is salvation,deliverance,rescue) died on the upright pole, nothing changed because Yah does not change. Yahushua undid the events of the Garden of Eden for those who seek relationship with Yah (on his terms ).

The pigmy in the rainforest is Yah’s problem to solve. If one of them is truly seeking his creator it is Yah who will find the way to reveal himself to the seeker.

However humans’ desire/ability to enter into relationship is usually marred by religion of some sort. It is on spiritual revelation that Yah builds HIS called out (ekklesia).

The following verse has given us tremendous support over the years , when after detaching /being detached from “church” and “christianity”( and what seemed at the time " ALL religion"), we often felt so “alone”.

Eliyahu (my El is Yah) was beset by life and death issues we have not had to face , hounded by Yezabel (“Baal exalts” or “Baal is husband to” or “unchaste”) and Achav (“father’s brother” ), who with their priests of Baal were a fearsome prospect , and even Eliyahu, the prophet of Yah at the time felt “alone”.

1Ki 19:18 “and I have left in Israel seven thousand, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him.” YLT

18 והשׁארתיH7604 בישׂראלH3478 שׁבעתH7651 אלפיםH505 כלH3605 הברכיםH1290 אשׁרH834 לאH3808 כרעוH3766 לבעלH1168 וכלH3605 הפהH6310 אשׁרH834 לאH3808 נשׁק׃H5401 (sorry, this keeps on coming out backwards!!)


I don’t know if this helps, but we have taken the view that there are always 7000 that are in Yah’s camp. We used to call them “true believers”!

We make no claim for where we stand before Yah , that is his judgement privilege. But trust and confidence in him seems to be increasing in our experience, by following these concepts.

The knowledge that sustained us greatly over the years was that even though’ we didn’t know who they were, there were more,”like us”- seeking FIRST the rulership of Yah in our lives and HIS righteousness (his knowledge source), according to HIS definition of these words and concepts. It took us a while longer to return to Torah (his directions).

Therefore throughout time Yah has always had a remnant, even if they didn’t know one another.

This is yet another reason his “set apart spirit”, the Spiritual Mother is so important in our lives.

We humans are physical , our “brush” with things “spiritual” , is in many cases what leads us far ,far away from Yah.

Many sincere Christians,, know their scriptures , believe they know their God, and earnestly believe in the “power of the holy spirit”. But are easily fooled and deceived into accepting almost any “benign” spiritual event as coming from God.
They are not alone.

However, without our Spiritual Mother to keep us on the straight and narrow way, to change not who we are, but who we choose to return to in “likeness and image”. We choose Yah’s “likeness and image” to be the goal.

Throughout the centuries we are sure that different terminology, language , culture etc… have been used by this “7000” , who want to walk with Yah.

Yah may choose to take on human physical form, but we must remember he is not human, we would call him Spiritual. If we are to be like him we NEED his spirit and no other, as THE constant in our lives. This is our goal.

There were plenty of living souls in the land in Eliyahu's era, but so few who even gave “lip service” to Yah. Despite the fact that his presence shone out from his temple in Jerusalem (on a highish mountain top) for all to see

Please pardon the delay in responding to your gracious replies. A large family and work afford little time for my avocations. I do not have time now for an adequate response, only to mention the focus of my remarks when I do.

As humans we form our identity in the context of a culture, most of us unconsciously and passively, as you observe - thus the myriads of Americans undertaking to 'find themselves' in the consumerist hodgepodge of distractions we have instead of a culture (You'll recall that Plato hated democracy precisely because so very few really think about their choices. A learned priest commented thus on my discouragement at dogmatic Protestant irrationality” “Why are most Protestants Protestant?... Ignorance and prejudice. And why are most Catholics Catholic?... Ignorance and prejudice.”).

A culture does not exist without memory, memory that reaches back to something we meaningfully understand to be 'antiquity,' a remote age of ancestors whose ways of thinking about things has stood the test of time. In fact it must extend back through them and to eternity past, if it is to endow meaning/identity (Sartre conceded that without an infinite reference point, all finite reference points are absurd), and a merely transcendent reference is not adequate for us who are also flesh and blood, hence the Incarnation. Or do you not accept that “The Logos became flesh,” meaning Yahuweh Himself became the man named Yahushua, Who was fully God and fully man?

Even so, human life that does not subsist in a culture embodying a continuous heritage shared in all its unique essentials with exemplary, revered ones who came before us, nurturing, refining and transmitting our defining heritage, is described by this female punk-rock singer: “I belong to the Blank Generation. I have no beliefs. I belong to no community, tradition, or anything like that. I’m lost in this vast, vast world. I belong nowhere. I have absolutely no identity.” (G.E. Veith, Postmodern Times).

I.e., if I cannot turn to a history of my own knowledge of truths, in which is transmitted the fullness of eternal Truth continuously from the earliest horizon of history, and therefore from eternity, then I lack the context that will nurture my full humanity. Even illiterate cultures have left their mark on history. Then our task would be to reason from the facts at hand, toward identifying the unique culture/tradition that has been established and sustained by Yahuweh, and revealed fully in the Logos made flesh, Yahushua, recognizing that satan will have done his best to confuse things. Since 8.33% of Yahushua's chosen 'Apostles' were sufficiently corrupt to be complicit in His murder, we cannot expect the tradition in which the remnant is found to be any more virtuous than their community.

The prophet of Yah you mention, who felt so alone, was nonetheless “called-out” in the annals of history, as one who fecundates the culture of Yahuweh for his descendants and all who will in their turn follow The Way, which a good Father would not allow to be hidden from any of His children in any age. If every generation must reinvent the wheel, we are culturally destitute.

Excuse me again, and the lapses. I will return as soon as I can.

Edited by user Tuesday, June 1, 2010 6:56:46 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Clarification

It would be helpful to digress for a moment, on your 'theology.' I am so very self-conscious about my terms here! Do you consider then that Yahushua only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, and was actually incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die? If so, then the "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) would be purely figurative. And from conception to birth and childhood he would have been a spirit 'materialized' as angels are? This requires, as I think you explained, that Yahuweh's spirit in flesh as Yahushua is a minute portion of the His/our Heavenly Father?

If the Messiyah's Spirit is Yahuweh's Spirit, then if Yahuweh is The Spirit, the Spirit being in Yashushua, then wouldn't Yahushua be also wholly Yahuweh, simply Yahuweh incarnate?

If His soul went to hell (forgive my colloquialisms) but His Spirit went to heaven, then one would not say that "He" descended into hell, since just a part of Him did. And without a spirit, isn't a soul dead? Have I misunderstood?

Do you accept the Resurrection? If so were the three parts then reunited?

Shabbat Shalom Yisra 'el (Those who Strive W/ God)

I believe that ( MY OPINION) Yahushua has led me to Yada him. I have just recently wondered if the Ruach is in me.

I think that my life holds the answer. I FINALLY know his NAme. That indicates to me, at least, it is LEADING me.
I think that Paul may have been genuinely thinking he was right, but we analyse the text and come up w/ problems.
When I say I come in HaShem, the name, I better do my homework. My wife makes me mad when she questions me, but when
I look at the questions, it seem to be from a higher source. I am Not a Prophet. I am a Child w/ my dad or mom guiding me.(ruach)

Always keep looking. We have been conditioned to " Take my Word For It..." just because some one says their right, doesnt mean
it's true. Love has kept us moving forward. Each Generation has got Either closer or farther from the truth. Yahweh is in charge.
Epiphianies keep happening to me WHEN I AM OPENminded. I must keep searching and moving forward till the end...

Take YaHuWeH @ his word... I quit my job when it interfered with my Shabbat and I emmediatly got a New one that I was not looking 4.

He provides

Love Michael

I use the feminine for the Set Apart Spirit, because the term used is feminine. In Hebrew Ruwach is the feminine form of Spirit. The Ruwach Ha Qowdesh is the maternal feminine part of Yahuweh’s nature.
The finite cannot contain the infinite is a good way to put it.


I don’t see how it assumes this at all. Yahuweh existed prior to space and time, he is the creator of space and time, just because he can enter our universe, doesn’t mean that he must be.

That is exactly as I see. He is outside of space and time, being the creator of space and time, and can enter it when and how he chooses. It is why his prophecies are 100% accurate, he exists past present and future simultaneously.

I would disagree here, a being with the power to create the universe, could not fit entirely with in that universe. Yahuweh is not infinite in a physical sense, but rather infinite in energy, and power. That infinite energy cannot fit with in a finite universe, let alone a finite person.

He may have had that view, but I don’t share it with him.


No, completely accept that the Word/Logos became flesh, but that doesn’t mean that it was the whole of Yahuweh.


Jerome was only interested in the old Latin manuscripts, and if I remember correct, didn’t read Greek or Hebrew. His Vulgate is nothing but a selective compilation of the old Latin manuscripts. I’m not very familiar with Thomas Aquinas so I can’t comment on him. What I do know is that we have uncovered many ancient manuscripts, i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls, with in the last hundred years, also we have many more tools at our fingertips, I can do in 30 seconds with Logos what would have took Jerome hours to compile. Besides you can have all the resources in the world and not know anything.

As are all of us.


I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you need to have the kind of relationship with Yahuweh that the disciples had? I would love, and indeed look forward to the day, when we have that, but I enjoy the relationship I enjoy with him now, and enjoy getting to know him better.


Our relationship with our Father is the most important thing, but I have found having a community of people with whom I can share my journey with has helped me greatly.

I prefer to use she in reference to the Ruwach, because when a pronoun is assigned to the Ruwach Ha Qoedesh it is alway the feminine. If our translators translated it properly you always see the Spirit presented with feminine pronoun. i realize this is not the thrust of your post, but I thought I would explain.



I think you are misunderstanding my use of fit. By fit, I do not mean in a physical sense, I mean in the sense of energy and power. Yahuweh doesn't have a physical size, he is entirely spirit, he exists in a state of pure energy so to speak. His energy is infinite, the Universe has a finite amount of energy, that which Yahuweh put into making it. So from that perspective, his infinite energy could not fit with in a finite universe.

An analogy would be to try to fit the energy of a bolt of lightning in to a human body, the human body can not contain such energy, and relativity speaking the bolt of lightning is only moderately more energetic than the human body, Yahuweh is infinitely more energetic than a human body.



I don't know which biographies you have read, but according to what I have read, even in his correspondence with the Pope Jerome admits that in the compilation of his Vulgate, he used the old Latin manuscripts, and not the Greek or Hebrew. He actually complained to the Pope because he didn't want to have to choose between varying Latin manuscripts, because he knew that he would end up angering the people whose manuscripts he rejected ion favor others. not to mention the fact that he was commissioned to do his compilation by the Pope, and he was a Catholic, he was needless to say extremely biased. The fact that his Vulgate varies so much from the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents which date to around 200 BCE, shows that his work was unreliable.



If you want to know where the early and late manuscripts vary, read YY, or read Swalchy's translations.

The fact that Thomas Aquinas was Catholic tells me that he didn't understand the essential Truths of Scripture, had he, he never would have accepted the authority of the Pope. Catholicism is so blatantly against Scripture that that anyone who works in the Catholic establishment has no credibility when it comes to Scripture, in my eyes.



If it's going to take the physical incarnation of Yahushua for you to enjoy a relationship with Yahuweh, I think you are going to be waiting a while.

The oldest Greek sources use a placeholder, so the Greek equivalent is not written out on any of the oldest manuscripts. The translator’s decision to render it in the male is just that an arbitrary decision based on no facts.

I use energy merely as a metaphor, and as we all know metaphors are imperfect and when you try to make them walk they always fall down.

If all of Yahuweh was in Yahushua, there would be no reason to call Him Qowdesh, a word which means separated and set apart, the word is perfectly apt however if you apply it as Yahushua was a part of Yahuweh separated from the whole, and set apart. So we can argue in philosophical circles, or we can look at the text that was given, and analyze what he said, in which case one understanding fits, and the other doesn’t.

Either way, an analysis of his translation/compilation against the oldest manuscripts in the original language shows that his Vulgate is extremely erroneous. And just like with Aquinas the fact that he was a Catholic destroys all of his credibility with me in terms of his understandings of Scripture.
Anyone who would take ten minutes to study even the modern English translations can see there is no basis for a Pope, then if they were to take another ten minutes and study a little on the history of pagan religions they would see that the Pope as well as most everything else associated with Catholicism has a Pagan origin. So a man who didn’t recognize any of that, and submitted to the authority of the Pope, obviously doesn’t have an understanding of Scripture.

I grew up in a Catholic family; all of my relatives on my father’s side are Catholics. But beyond that I have taken the time to study Catholic doctrine, and the history of the Catholic Church. Besides, it doesn’t take more than an understanding of Scripture to see that the Catholic Church is not what Yahuweh intended. And as I pointed out it doesn’t take much study to see that most every part of Catholicism has a Pagan origin.
Now, that is not to say that Protestants are any better. The protestant churches have rejected the authority of the Pope, and some of the Catholic traditions, but beyond that they have not left religion and continue to engage in the Pagan practices started by the Catholic Church.

While His stating that he was Yahuweh was offensive to the religious leaders at the time, he never had His follower humble themselves before Him. He walked with them, conversed with them, and taught them, they were not groveling at His feet.

If by “what is in some mysterious way "truly flesh."” You are referring to the Catholic belief that the wafer of bread is miraculously being transformed in to the “body of Christ” then I would agree with the Protestants, as this is a ridiculous notion, which is never even hinted at in Scripture, and communion is a pagan ritual.
If that is not what you mean by it, then I apologize for the assumption, and need clarification.

I presuppose no such thing, and have stated no such belief. Yahuweh’s Word has always been there, man has attempted to corrupt and conceal it, quite well, and most men are too lazy and indifferent to seek it out. Religion has done everything within its power to insure that people do not understand Yahuweh’s Word, they indoctrinate their members and pacify them. By in large the average Christian knows no more about Scripture than what they are told each Sunday from their pastor. They don’t read Scripture for themselves, they don’t study it in its entirety, and when they do read they read to reinforce what they have already been taught.
And while I believe that people have conspired to hide Yahuweh’s Word, I don’t believe that it was all one. Each religion that derives its authority from Yahuweh’s Scriptures is independent, and while their goals have been the same, to corrupt and hide Yahuweh’s Word, they have done it independent of each other, and each for their own advantage, and not in concert together.

Yahuweh lets man do what man will do; it is the essence of Free Will. And while he was there for those that sought Him, at times those were few, just as it is today. But Yahushua told us it would be this way. He told us the path was narrow and few would find it.

Awmane

You have built a straw man, I have concede from the beginning that His Word has been available, and that there have been those that have come to know Him.
But facts are facts; God’s Word has been corrupted by man. The fact that the oldest manuscripts vary so much from the modern ones, tells us that either 1)Yahuweh allowed them to be corrupted then, and then fixed them over time, or 2)Yahuweh allowed them to be corrupted over time, and they were right then. Either way He allowed His Word to be corrupted. Why, because man has free will, and Yahuweh will not stop man from using his free will.
Yahuweh’s Word has been available; people have come to know Him throughout all of recorded History.
And your reasoning ignores the fact that in the thousands of years between ‘Adam and ‘Abraham, no more than a handful of people knew Yahuweh or had a relationship with Him. If he allowed it to occur then why do you insist that he didn’t allow it now? Yahuweh is not interested in quantity; he is interested in quality of relationship. If someone isn’t interested in investing the time to get to know Him, why would he want to invest the time to get to know them.

I just read all of John 17, in 6 different translations, I don’t know what translation you are using, but I didn’t find that in any of them. Perhaps you cited it wrong, but if you would please give me a chapter in verse that says that I will look at in the context and then respond.

Yahushua was Torah observant and told His disciples to be the same. Something the Catholic Church is not.
Not to mention the fact that Matthew 23:8 is a pretty condemnatory verse on the Catholic Church whose leader is the Pope, which means Father, and whose priests are called Father.


How exactly is this supposed to transfer to Catholic priests having the authority to forgive sins? This was told to His disciples, they never, at least to my recollection, told this to those who taught them, and it was never implied. And if that were the case, then all who are followers of Yahushua would have the ability to forgive with His authority, not just a certain select group.

Since there is no record of the disciples ever physically consuming the flesh and blood of Yahushua, I think it is pretty safe to assume that this was meant symbolically.

The Catholic Church is not founded on Shimon Kephas’. It was founded by Constantine, a pagan general with ambitions of being king. The Catholic Church engaged in the activity that the Nicolaiatians promoted and Yahushua said that he HATED them for, which is incorporating Pagan practices into the Way. The Rock had nothing to do with the founding of the Catholic Church.

Yes Benedict has great moral character, just look at how well he condemned an turned over the pedophile priests, oh wait, he did no such thing, in fact he did everything in his power as a cardinal to ensure that they were not punished. Benedict’s moral authority has gone right out the window with the Church’s inaction in turning over these sick perverted pedophiles. You can find any number of stories showing how he along with many other members of the Church attempted to cover up incidents of atrocious acts so as to not make the Church look bad.
Besides, even if he were the nicest most descent man in the world, it doesn’t make his understanding of Scripture correct, or his authority divine. It doesn’t change one bit the fact that most every Catholic practice is derived from Pagan religions.

I’m happy for you, but I would say that you have accepted that which makes you fill good, as opposed to that which is true and reliable.

I'll let James debate the rest but I'll just have my quick little say here: The placeholders were used in place of Hebrew words they wanted to preserve and to point people in the right direction when it comes to understanding Scripture. In this case the Hebrew the word ruach, from which we get "spirit," is a feminine noun.

I'm not trying to protect the Catholic Church here in general but about 10 years ago I worked with a married Christian guy at Avis rent-a-car. He went to a typcal "on-fire-for-Jesus" church, which at the same time I attended a similar church down the same street. He was a part of the worship band and through his "trusting" nature lured a young boy into being sodomised in exchange for an ice-cream. He promptly got jail time because the boy told his mother soon afterwards after she asked him where he got the ice-cream. It happens regardless of beliefs and casts an incredibly bad light on anything to do with Scripture and believers. But I do acknowledge the Catholic Church, and Christians and Jews along with it by association of Scripture, are a serious target by the media, especially by Humanists.

Thank you for adding some balance. Yet satan himself knew Scripture marvelously well, and quoted it, but he did not cast a bad light on it. If someone were to learn of Scripture only from him, however, or someone as faithless, if that someone were searching sincerely for love, he would likely look no further. This is a grave and common problem.

I very much appreciate your comments. I very respectfully note that, although some who profess first hand knowledge of Catholicism might say such things as you've included above, none of this is true of Catholic teaching. There are reasons one might reject it, but non-Catholics virtually never cite these reasons. You might consider the two I discussed above. If you want to effectively criticize RC doctrine, you really should study the Catechism of the Catholic Church, charitably. You'll probably be shocked at the difference between what you've been told (perhaps by someone claiming to be Catholic) and what is actually taught.

Note for example that Mary, the blessed Mother of Yahushua, was inseminated by the Holy Spirit. Its 'feminine' attributes notwithstanding, the Holy Spirit thus cannot be considered female. Yahushua was born under the law; hence His Father must be the spouse of His mother. The Torah does not permit anything less.

Edited by user Wednesday, June 9, 2010 7:23:53 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

John 20:23 is clear and direct. If Yahushua endows His disciples with the authority to forgive sins, or retain them, without knowledge of the particular sins of the individual, this becomes a despotic, arbitrary act with no relevance to the state of the individual soul. Yahushua taught crowds, but ministered to individual souls. His disciples were sent to do the same. If you will pardon my candor, you have not really addressed this forthrightly.



Surely all of this is true, but the most galling offense was always the claim that an ordinary looking man claimed to speak with the authority of Yahuweh.




It really was not His "desire," it was the most fervent and unequivocal petition Yahushua made in Scripture. He prayed this in faith; His request was therefore granted.

The Word of God is the Logos, and the Logos became flesh. To the extent that the Torah was identified with the "Word," the Logos, in Yahushua it became flesh, incarnate and alive, for the world to see and know.




Not really, those that followed the Messiyah could find Him in their own Jewish heritage. He fulfilled the law, He did not break with the Jewish past. What was written and known by prophecy became flesh.




You are drawing inferences that do not follow from my reasoning. If the Way has been visibly evident, though certainly not widely accepted, continuously through history, this does not entail that everything that has been visibly evident over the course of history is the Way.



Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, to all of us, who share the same needs of those to whom Yahushua appeared and spoke with the presence and authority of Yahuweh.



James, I am very grateful for the time you have given to this discussion. And, while I have probably been oblique, you have not really addressed the issue of Holy Communion forthrightly, and it is evident that you were diverted from your study of Catholic belief before you understood it, or you would not say this. The Catholic Church essentially is the Eucharist. One must recognize what this means and entails to reject it honestly.




Your assessment of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is not well-informed. Or perhaps to place too much trust in the objectivity of Time magazine or the New York Times?




"Sacrament" is modern word, and I would not assert otherwise. I am concerned with the act. If you will again forgive me, this is rather more cynical than reasonable, and blames the Church, the body of Christ, for the sins of some of its members. Recall that 8.33% of the Church hand-chosen by Yahushua was corrupt enough to be party to His murder.



A "Catholic" is precisely one who believes all that the Catholic Church has recognized to be true. I know the ala carte kind of Catholic, and perhaps we all share this tendency, but once we reject an element of doctrine, we are de facto Protestant. Your parents were then what we could call nominally Catholic. What they left was not the Catholic Church, though their priest may have been regrettably faithless and culpable. Most strive genuinely for holiness; the few who don't are often taken to disgrace the whole.




I came late to the study of Protestant and Catholic theology, and as teenager I would probably have grasped far less than your study did. I do not fault you for it, but I must be frank - you are not familiar with the fundamentals of Catholic teaching. The church you rejected is not the Catholic Church.



It is to the perhaps eternal shame of those who obscured the splendor of the Truth from you when you were a child, and to the glory of Yahuweh that you were not discouraged enough to stop your search.

We would not blame the Apostles as a whole for Judas, so should we treat the Church differently now?




You might have something here, I'll check when I have time. ..I just checked, and this is strictly a liturgical matter, evidently to curb certain liberal excesses. I will not need to confess it.

I regret that I must leave our dialogue for a while.

Luther announced, after almost 1500 years, that he had finally brought the truth to light, the truth that had appeared only in fragments until he revealed it whole. Calvin set out to correct Luther (and Zwingli) to proclaim the truth that, after all, was only fully discovered by his study of Scripture. Calvin's erudition - a brilliant polyglot and classicist - endowed him with confidence that those who took the new liberty to interpret Scripture individually too far should be stopped. So he executed Michael Servetus, a notably more brilliant scholar (who also discovered the essential nature of the circulatory system) whose understanding of the "Triune" God departed sharply from the traditional, Athanasian view. But all of these innovative minds sprang out of the Reformational demand for private interpretation of Scripture; none of their essential beliefs had any antecedent in history. You do have a tradition, and it begins with theirs, probably most directly related, even if not intentionally, to the unitarian view of Servetus. Without a history, your god is one who waited until Yada arrived to finally, after 2000 years, bequeath to the world, the whole truth. I do not believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel would require His people to reinvent the wheel in every age that saw their return to obedience. Moreover, you have not fully addressed the issue of the Eucharist (the scandal of Jn. 6) or Confession (Jn. 20:23, whatever the first discples called it). I need Him, just as His Apostles needed Him, in the same way, and I know that He made provision for this because I know that He loves you and me no less than He loved them.

Dominus vobiscum,
Joseph

Edited by user Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:43:37 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The Constitution of the US was written to be understood and followed. Yet even such a modern and meticulously crafted document would be the focus of endless debate without the Supreme Court, a body with the political authority to interpret it. The Scriptures are considerably more recondite, and yet you arrogate for yourself the right of interpreting it privately. This is a quintessentially Protestant invention, without mandate in Scripture.

Several times your reply says, variously paraphrased - "That doesn't matter," because 'that' does not comport with your interpretation. It is not insignificant that you apply this to your not being familiar with Catholic belief. It is eminently human to make our theological commitments before examining the alternatives, and then set out to accumulate a stock of reason to justify our commitment. But this is a backward development of faith. After drifting along in Protestantism for long while, my guilty conscience collided with Jn. 23, and would not allow me to drift anymore. I studied, carefully, the alternatives - though admittedly not Yada. But this we know: if the Apostles had the authority to retain sins, theirs was not merely a ministry of generalized forgiveness. The Way that fulfills and perpetuates the intent of Jesus must include their authority to absolve sins. I need this. If you will reject Catholicism, I would only encourage you to do it knowledgably.
Peace to you and your family.

You are missing a simple and glaring point here, the US Constitution establishes, outlines and gives authority to the Supreme Court, as well as institute a system of checks and balances so that Court doesn’t over step it’s Constitutional bounds. Scripture does no such thing. The Catholic Church appointed itself to this task, not Scripture. Scripture did not establish a Pope and a College of Bishops, Cardinals or any of the Catholic Church. So they have no Scriptural authority for usurping this role.
Second, the Supreme Court interprets The Constitution; it does not change it, add to it, or take away from it. The Catholic Church on the other hand has not only assumed the role of interpreter, but has claimed for itself the authority to change and add to it, claiming that their edicts and precepts are equal to God’s.


I say it doesn’t matter, because like you I am limited in time, and there is no point in my answering those arguments until you address the crux of the point. Which again is:

So until you address that it is not worth the time to bother with the minutia points. So until you give a response to these points, there is no point in continuing this dialogue, and I have no interest in continuing it beyond this point.

Yada's dialogue with the Catholic has disappeared. Why?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the word "worship" used in Acts 20:7. In fact I fail to see anything in Acts 20:7 mention that "and on the first day of the week, the disciples met together to observe the new Sabbath day that had been transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first". Do you see anything remotely like that there?

Yes, some disciples met THIS ONCE on the first day of the week, but they didn't treat it like it was a brand new Sabbath day. Actually, they met on the first day of the week due to the fact that they had been observing the Sabbath the day before and had rested according to the Torah's instruction.


No it isn't. The Matthew 16:18 and 18:18 verses are so mistranslated and misinterpreted it's unreal.



Actually, the third commandment is "You shall not promote desolation or lifelessness in Yahuweh's name" (Exodus 20:7)





What utter nonsense.

The Sabbath is the seventh day, not the first, as ordained by Yahuweh Himself.


And yet not a single one of the disciples ever stated that the Sabbath had changed the day it was on. That's because they understood that the only significance of the Messiah's resurrection and the immersion of the Set-Apart Spirit being on the first day of the week was because they fell on the Feast of Firstfruits, and on the Feast of Weeks. And not surprisingly, neither of those feasts had to do with changing the seventh day sabbath to a first day worship troop.





As I said in another thread - these pictures are seriously coming in handy!

The "breaking of bread" is significant. It's significance begins with Melchizadech, culminates at the last supper, and begins a beautiful legacy with the two disciples who met Yahushua on the road to Emmaus. Justin, who was martyred for his membership in the budding 'ekklesia,' noted "We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead." (2nd c.)

One might argue against the Church's authority to institute such a change, but it is not unfairly attributed to the desire to memorialize Yahushua's victory over death, a turning point in human history.



Are we to judge that two thousand years of utterly obfuscatory, deceptive translations and teachings finally came to an end with Yada? It was finally he and he alone, after the Apostles themselves, who understood the autographs, which are the sole repository of Truth? Joseph Smith made this claim about 150 years ago, Jim Jones and David Koresh more recently. Such claims suppose a feeble Holy Spirit' (we can, without violence, take 'holy' to mean 'set-apart'). A vital stream of "Truth-based culture" - i.e., threading its way through the pages of history, can be sustained without violating man's freedom unless, again, one assumes a providence of very limited resources.



Perhaps because, upon your noble head turning hither and yon in your plaintive hands, are draped your most remarkably expressive forelocks!?

Edited by user Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:52:31 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The Greek is taken from the oldest sources we have, and the words that are used in those verses are all included with a little amplification above. You can actually check them out yourself with that information :)

I would also point out that no only sin is not there but the actual act that was put across by the modern translations, of man forgiving man of sins.