You have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false (Rev 2:2). Is there sufficient evidence to definitively conclude that this was referring to Paul?

Hi Bridget: Just did a quick search on questioningpaul.com, and couldn't find any quotation of Revelation within it, nor any reference to Ephesus. And I wouldn't know whether Yada's referred to it on the Radio show.

So, whatever anyone's take on Paul is, my answer is still that there isn't sufficient evidence that Revelation 2:2 is a direct reference to Paul.

I know that rv's question is quite possibly based on what is said in http://www.jesuswordsonly.com, where the author of said book attempts to argue that Revelation 2:2 is a direct reference to Paul, but as with most things in his book, he does an abysmal job of being truthful or convincing

:)

Yeah, sorry about that. It's mainly so that people can look up the root word in Strong's, which only contains the nominative, singular reading and never any of the others (all Greek nouns can be used in the following: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, singular, plural, feminine, masculine, 2nd person, 3rd person, 3rd person singular, 3rd person plural, 2nd person singular, 2nd person plural etc etc - Strong's would be a lot bigger if it contained each and every version of a Greek word (there's even more for verbs))




In Greek, it is the beginning and endings of words that tell you whether something is singular, plural, or any of the other voices/tenses mentioned above. In Revelation 2:2 for example, the word transliterated "apostles" is from the accusative, plural form of the Greek αποστολος/apostolos - αποστολους/apostolous - hence pluralising it in English to "apostles". Strong's is a basic tool used for quick look ups of the roots of the words found in the Tanakh and the Renewed Covenant: if you can't read Greek you'd need an interlinear that also tells you how the word is being used in a sentence.

And again, Greek doesn't work like English. The Greeks don't need to keep adding pronouns before words like us English speakers do - it's the beginnings and endings of the words that do that for them.

For example: in Revelation 2:4, the usual translation is But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

Now, the following un-bolded words aren't technically in the text: But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first..

The reason these are added are because the word translated as "have"/εχω/echo - is actually in the present, active, first person, indicative, singular form of the verb - εχω/echo.

Now, the Greeks don't have to add the word "I" to before εχω/echo like we English do, because unlike the Greeks, we English speakers don't have first person/2nd person/indicative version's of words. No, we have to add words to represent those voices and tenses - the Greeks just have to change the beginning or the ending of a word, and they'd understand it as it is translated.

The same for the Greek word translated as "abandoned"/αφιημι/aphiemi - it is in the aorist, active, 2nd person, indicative, plural form of the verb - αφηκες/aphekes - which in English has to be translated as "you have abandoned" because that's the only way we can get the meaning of the 2nd person, aorist (or past tense) across.

This is also the same for numerous other languages across the world - English is actually a very basic language.

Saying that, Revelation 2:2 does indeed include the pronoun αυτους/autous "them", and εαυτους/eautous "those" within the text - YOu really need a Greek-English interlinear to see which words are actually used in the Greek text - just having a KJV with Strong's numbers on it is really going to hinder you in studies :)

Well, it's certainly better than just a KJV :)

The best interlinear I've found for those who want a quick resource, especially in book form, is The Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek And English. Not only does it have the KJV for those that grew up with that, it has the NIV as well, a "refurbished" dynamic-equivalence translation. The two English versions are on the Left hand page, and the Greek with English underneath on the right-hand page. Very good for what it is.

Saying that, I myself have been working on a few Greek-English interlinear's based on the oldest text - they can all be found and downloaded at http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/pdf/Interlinear/

You could even try Philip Comforts' Greek-English Interlinear - Amazon.com. Although I myself haven't had a look at it



Thanks very much ^_^

Seems in Romans 16 (verse 7 target) Paul cites many "apostles" - Plural.

Also per Rev 2 could tie to specifically rejected in Ephesus in Acts 19 (verse 9). Also rejected in all of Asia 2 Tim 1 (verse 15)

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Sorry I wasn’t able to follow-up with you directly over the weekend, and I was away all day yesterday – but, there seems to be significant interest in this topic given the number of views over the short term.

Quick note: When posting the topic, I didn’t know about the jesuswordsonly reference mentioned by Swalchy. Noticed Friday evening that Bridget had zeroed-in on last week’s radio show content as the motivation for the question, but it seems she has since deleted her post.

I’m reminded of that old lyrical phrase “I get by with a little help from my friends” and sense that this notion is fundamental to the day-to-day workings of this important Forum. It’s an AND world: Diverse perspectives, personalities, backgrounds, professions, collaborating together endeavoring to shake down key concepts, doctrines, and teachings to their core Scriptural elements and proving whether they are indeed pivotal ideas we can hang our hats on and promote as the truth to others.

I have been catching the daily Yada Radio shows via after-hours replay since my weekday afternoons have been packed. By the time I got to the Tuesday 5/11 show (Seven Prophetic Letters pt 2 Ephesus) late last week, calling-in for clarification/discussion wasn’t an option. Hence, the current topic poser to see if anyone else shares my concern or if perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that could be shared to help me out of my conundrum.

Yada Radio 5/11/10 http://www.blogtalkradio.../05/11/yada-yahweh-radio





I recognize the Questioning Paul movement has gained quite a head of steam here in the Forum over the last 6-8 months and it is not difficult to understand why. But there are some real problems with using Rev 2.2 to bolster that interpretation. Attempting to do so is not just a huge stretch of the meaning of the actual content, but seems to me to be a gigantic leap to the conclusions described above. This QP endeavor has obviously emerged as a doctrinal teaching, and I have to say that I would have a very hard time explaining to a savvy Bible student that it has anything to do with Rev 2.2.

Please tell me if you think I am wrong, but the primary criterion for conducting an unbiased examination is determining whether a specific doctrinal claim squares with direct Scriptural evidence and prevails in the light of objective scrutiny. Friendships and personal favoritisms aside, each of us has the solemn duty to exert all due diligence to get to the root of a matter by rightly dividing the Word of Truth to the best of his or her abilities. Anything less and we are in danger of defrauding the Almighty and His sovereign purposes, and misleading the innocent.

Swalchy wrote:




I submit that this is an even-handed treatment of the verse that underscores an inappropriateness of attributing it as a reference to any specific person(s). Swalchy, I concur with your assessment and believe it captures both the spirit and letter of the verse. And while I agree that chapters 2-3 are prophetic, these ekklesia were populated with real people, with real issues, in the then “here & now.” So I would have to argue that the intent of these chapters is actually two-fold: Addressing the then present situations on the ground in Asia, and the broader prophetic aspects of what the future held…what is now and what will take place later Rev 1:19

Swalchy, Thanks for the feedback -- particularly appreciate your discussion of Eph 1.1 in P46: to those who are set-apart and trustworthy in Messiah Yahushua.

I just took the opportunity to re-read the Book and couldn’t help noticing that it has much more of a global orientation than I had previously recognized—almost as if it was intended to address the Ekklesia at-Large, and not just a specific local assembly. If this was being distributed in the modern world, I could easily envision an electronic macro processor embedding a personalization for each name on the TO LIST: To those who are set-apart and trustworthy in Messiah Yahushua at Antioch, at Kyle of Lochalsh, at West Palm Beach, at Hangzhou, at Timbuktu…

There is nothing new under the sun: If it happens today, it certainly could have happened back then with the handwritten replications, and the discrepancy you aptly identify could possibly be explained by the recovery of two different copies: Paul’s master copy compiled in P46, and the Ephesus site-specific copy obtained through a different channel. There is also evidence of an un-recovered letter to Laodecia (Col 4.16), and Colossians has an uncanny number of parallels and similarities with the above.

The different salient issues raised with QP aside, you have to admit, “Ephesus” is a remarkably well-written Book. Think I’ll go read it again now.

Wasn't aware this was a major theory -- just my general sense and comment after reading the Book again this evening.



It is reasonably believable to me that Tychicus could have been sent to a group of ekklesia, say in the Roman province of Asia. Could probably make the loop from Ephesus up through Smyrna, Pergamum, down around Thiatyra, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea/Colosse in around 2 months--give or take--spending time with each assembly along the way. The remaining distance from Laodicea to Ephesus is about 85 miles. Tried to embed a graphic snippet of the map, no luck.

Edited by user Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:19:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: spelling error

Possible, but highly unlikely. Judging from what we know regarding the rest of Paul's letters, he doesn't send global letters to numerous Ekklesia - he sends letters to people and sole cities. Just wasn't feasible to send one man around. The usual way in those days, if you were to be sending letters to numerous people, would be to write a main letter, have others copy it, and then put a greeting at the beginning and end to the person a specific copy was being sent to. Another way would be to send one letter to a person, and then have the person who it was sent to to take it to anyone else who needed to read it. But then the writer would address each and every person to whom the letter was being sent.

As it stands however, we don't have any proof that this was done with "Ephesians", and it being a "global" letter is just pure speculation and conjecture in an attempt for people to explain why "Ephesus" isn't in the oldest manuscripts.

Plus, we already see in Colossians how Paul would send letters to different cities near each other.



Another thing I noticed looking at Revelation 2:2 is that the Greek words translated as "calling"/lego and "are"/eimi are in the present tense. It basically would mean that a full translation of Revelation 2:2 would be as follows:

I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are errant, but have tested those presently calling themselves apostles, but do not exist as such this present time, and found them to be false.

If this was in reference to Paul, we'd expect either the Greek perfect or past tense to be used for both lego and eimi, so it would say "those who have called themselves apostles, but have never existed as such."

Seeing as though Paul was dead by the writings of Revelation, Rev 2:2 can't be referring to him at all. The Greek words are absolute.

And seeing as though these are the words of Yahushua, I personally wouldn't attempt to twist what He is saying.

If you quickly read the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/...Epistle_to_the_Ephesians - it gives a quick general overview that the majority of scholar's agree that "Ephesians" wasn't written by Paul.

I'm guessing those 20% that do believe that Paul wrote Ephesians are merely Christian "scholars" attempting to hold onto some hope that they have.

Swalchy, I also checked out Wikipedia for differences in opinion about the authorship of Galatians; came up empty. Could you share some specifics, references, or rationale regarding Rob's position that Paul was not the author. Thanks.

Hey RV - really good post dude.

I have to agree that it seems there is a little too much energy going into this Paul hate - especially as the "evidence" sits wrong with me too. Paul might not have been the person Christianity believe him to be but the evidence for him being a false teacher is left wanting too.

In my view either opinion is incorrect and because of that destructive. In my opinion at the moment, the credibility Yada gains via exposing so well the Scriptures is tainted by his reaction to finding out the letters associated with Paul don't line up. As I have said in other posts, I can understand his reaction - but saying the evidence for the claims that Paul is a false teacher (prophet) is thin is a little bit of an understatement. From what I can see in regards to Yada's conclusions on Paul is that he is doing something he hates others for doing - using bad evidence and sources out of context to prove an agenda.

This runs deeper than Paul being a false teacher, and actually seeing Paul as a false teacher in my view is falling for the masquerade.

I was slow in replying because people would be asking for evidence etc etc, which is completely understandable - that will come as soon as it is fully ready.

Guess I'll go ahead and chime in here. I've avoided it, because I'm sick of the Paul debate, it's irrelevant in my opinion.

I would say, just going by the evidence presented here and in QP, that it is a stretch to say that the Ephesians letter is addressing Paul. It may have been addressing a "false messenger Paul", disciples of the "false messenger Paul", a group of unknown people, the people that "really wrote" Galatians, or a number of other possibilities. I personally definitely see it as prophetic and addressing those who would go on to include Paul's letters, and most of the "New Testament" as Scripture, something that should never have been done.

Yada has come to the conclusion that Paul was a false witness, right or wrong, agree or disagree, that is the conclusion he has drawn from the evidence he has looked at. In his opinion rather Paul wrote or didn't write Galatians is irrelevant, because he says his studies show that everyone of Paul's letters, and the account of Paul in Acts, all convey the same message. Now, I have done any study on this, and can not refute them, nor confirm them, but that is his position and his understanding. So that is where he is coming from, right or wrong, his intention is to eventually deal with every one of Paul's epistles in the same way he dealt with Galatians. So when he does that we will have the entirety of his case, but until then, there is going to be a lot of disagreement here.

If you are of the opinion that Paul didn't write Galatians, and/or a number of the other letters attributed to him, and that the rest of Paul's letters are great/good/alright then fine, no one here believes they are Scripture so what does it matter. If Yada is of the opinion that Paul is a false prophet and thinks the evidence supports that, so what.

Personally I don't think we will ever know for sure in this lifetime. I think there is an argument to support Paul did write and an argument to support that he didn't write it. I don't think any of it is definitive. Personally Paul being a false prophet seems to fit it makes sense to me, considering he is the basis for most everything errant in Christianity, but it could very well have been someone usurping Paul's name to get there ideas incorporated. Either way what I found to be the best thing about Questioning Paul is that if you use the argument that Galatians prove's Paul to be a false prophet, then Christians are forced to deal with that, or admit that Galatians might not have been written by Paul, and therefore question the trustworthiness of all of the Renewed Covenant writings, and/or at the very least admit that Paul's writings were not Scripture. So I stick with saying definitively that the Paul of Christianity is a false prophet.


The chirch comments were in YY way before Yada ever came to the conclusion that Paul was a false prophet. I would actually say that his hatred for Christianity, which is base off of "Paul's" teachings, created his hatred for Paul not the other way around.

But as for the chirch basis for Church, I have found sources that show both the chich basis as well as the kuriake basis. Which is the true basis i don't know, i'm not a linguist, but the idea that the English translators would base their translation because of it's reference to a pagan goddes, I don't find that hard at all to believe, after all these same translators replaced Chawa with Eve, a pagan goddess, Pesach with Easter, a pagan goddess, and Yahuweh with LORD, the name and title of Ba'al, so I don't find it hard to see them doing the same thing with Ecclesia. Just looking at it chirch seems a lot closer linguistically with church than does kuriake, but that's not exactly the best way to go about it.



My understanding, and this could be wrong, is that biblos in Greek is the papyrus bark used to make written scrolls, sheets, or books, derived from Biblia, the name of the Canaanite sun goddess, the Phoenician town known for weaving papyrus into scrolls was named in her honor. As for it's use in the RC, biblion which is derived from biblos was used, but never in reference to Scripture, other than what the Scriptures were written on. As for it meaning book in Greek, it can, but the origin of the Greek word is still from a Pagan god, just as the word atlas in English has a meaning (A collection of maps) it is derived from the name of Atlas, on of the Greek titans. Many words in English are derived from the name of god/goddesses, and the same was true for Greek. Personally i think calling Yahuweh's Scripture's by a term derived from a pagan goddess is wrong, despite what that word meant in Greek. And I think when biblon appears in the RC, it should be translated, and not transliterated as Bible.

Just my 2 cents.

Well, surely he wouldn't know about them?

Don't see why not. Is that a bad thing?

I sent this thread to Yada so that he could comment and add clarification for his point. Here is the reply I got back.

This is one of the big reasons I copied all the chapters of YY during the Great Galatians debate. Once it became clear that there would be severe editing done, I wanted to preserve what was there so I could read it for myself and make my own determinations. I know the gist of Yada's argument, and on the surface it certainly seems logically made, assuming the history and other assumptions pan out. It's just that the way it's been presented is so emotionally done that it doesn't seem as objective as it could be. I don't want to sacrifice the credibility of the tremendous amount of research that has been done by tainting it with emotional diatribes. I have enough problems reading through the tedious anti-Christian rants throughout YY. I understand why they're there, but it gets old fast. I'd rather have it mentioned up front and then gone into detail in the God Damn Religion book.

As for Paul, I don't have enough information to make an informed decision yet. Hopefully I'll get there eventually, but I think getting to know what Yahuweh has said is far more important to me right now. I'm still stumbling along, trying to get to my feet to walk upright with Him. Paul is just another distraction I don't need as I concentrate on walking.

I guess that really depends on how Paul used the prophecies from the Tanakh. Does he ever say "and here's a prophecy Yah gave to me" and then just summarise something from the Tanakh, therefore falsely claiming a prophecy as his own? Or does he quote a prophecy from the Tanakh, and attribute it to the actual prophet? (for the record, it's the latter, not the former)


Something we should all be wary of, no matter who the person speaking is.


Don't recall any of us here attempting to state that Paul's writings were Scripture, or necessarily from Yah. This is kind of a straw-man argument. No one here has yet to argue such a position.

Notwithstanding, seeing as though the author of Galatians doesn't specify who's supposed to be "emasculating themselves", imagining and speculating who it is and then stating it as fact is just as silly as the sentence itself.

Edited by user Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:33:51 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Can we agree that the "spirit"/manner with which we hold out the Truth is at least as important to YHWH as Truth itself? I almost gleen from Scripture that it is even more important. It is not the quantity of talents that matters, but the stewardship of them.

Like others here, I've felt for some time that the spirit or manner that the Truth was being taught, communicated and handled was wrong. I've sensed the opposite or anti-Spirit with which we're called to manage or steward the Truth -- and this has been heightened throughout the "hate everything Paul" Galations debate -- which teaching I set aside awhile ago because of this anti-Messiah spirit.

If king Saul was given an evil spirit, if the false prophets were given a lying spirit, if Peter was given an adversarial spirit, etc. -- any one of us can be given an anti-Messiah spirit -- of pride, arrogance, know-it-all attitude, impatience, unkindness, rudeness, bitterness, contentiousness, lack of compassion, etc. Including a gloating spirit -- gloating over the downfall of another which is evil in YHWH's site -- because EVERYTHING that any of us has is His GIFT. None of us has or is ANYTHING apart from Him and His mercy.

I believe that I besmirch the Truth more when I handle it with an unkind, uncompassionate, unmerciful spirit -- a prideful, "aren't I better" because I know more type of spirit -- than those who commit idolatry out of ignorance because they didn't have as many "talents" of truth as I do (like Pygmies and thousands of generations of sincere believers.)

We're really good here at discussing the "tithe of mint and cumin", but are we neglecting the "weightier matters"?? We're blessed with an increasing knowledge of the "letter" of the law, but are neglecting the spirit with which we're called to shine it out?

I'm so thankful for all of you and even for this current struggle because it's causing me to do some careful self-assessment. Let us praise and exalt YHWH for all His glorious, merciful ways and let us pray for one another that we would not be given over to any of the anti-Messiah spirits that we are all open to and that instead, He would stir up a right spirit/heart within us like Ezra to be rebuilders and repairers of His Truth.

I think you might be giving yourself a little too much credit. Yada had been considering cancelling the show for some time now, and while I believe reading this thread may have been a catalyst for it, it is by no means his primary reason. His primary reason being, the time it takes away from his studies, and writing, and the fact that it is impossible to cover a subject as in depth on a daily radio show as it is in a book. The latter being where I see this thread playing a role. A comment he made on the show, which he didn’t take the time to back up, or explain himself as fully as he would and could do in a book has led to a rather heated attack of him and his work. His discontinuing of the show is really to do what many here have said that he has not done, which is properly back up his claims. He feels he is unable to do that with the show, without the book finished to back up his claims. It’s one thing to mention something in passing and point out that it is discussed in more detail in chapter X, then it is to mention it, and say that it will be addressed. Personally I agree with him, it is of much more value that he finish his rewrite of YY, and back up his arguments there than it is that he continue with the show.



Here I think I am to blame, and for that I apologies. The quote I posted from Yada, was not intended to be a response from him to the forum, it was intended to be a response to me personally, and in hindsight I should not have shared it, as without the context of many previous email exchanges, it is very easy for the intention behind many of the statements to be misunderstood. I would like to try to clarify what Yada meant in the email.

As for his referring to them as Pro Paul arguments I think this statement has been misunderstood by most everyone here. To me it seems obvious that he did not intend this to mean that the people are pro Paul as in defend him at all cost, but merely as in they are defending him in this instance. It’s a lot easier to say pro Paul arguments than it is to say those who are arguing that this prophecy is not addressing Paul. Again this was meant as an email to me, and not to the forum, so he was using a bit of short hand.

Also, he agreed that there was no direct evidence within that verse to pin it exclusively on Paul. So there was no need for him to refute any evidence, as he agreed with the evidence presented. He also then stated that his conclusion was based on a correlation of other evidence with it that lead him to this conclusion. He did not state this evidence, because as I pointed out, it was an email to me, and not an email to refute what was on the forum. The other evidence he is referring to is the whole of Questioning Paul. He did not point out the evidence specifically because he know that I have read questioning Paul and would know what he was speaking of. (For the record, I am in agreement with Yada at this point, in that I see Paul as a false messenger, I could be wrong, but the evidence and reasoning seems sound to me, and Yada knows this. Now if more evidence comes up those points to another conclusion, then I will examine it.) That said, I’m not going to defend Yada here, I think his arguments in QP do a good job of that, and if you have a concern about his methods or evidence, I would suggest emailing him and asking him. The forum is a good place to get others opinions, but if you have a question for Yada, it is not the place; he avoids the forums for the most part, but is very prompt about answering emails.

He then stated that, in his opinion based on his studies, all of Paul’s letters are troubling, and go against Torah. This is his conclusion; he has stated it, to me at least, many times. I have not done the research in to Paul’s letters, nor do I intend to I have much better ways to spend my time than that. As I said before his intention is to address them in additional volumes of QP, when those are published I will read them and examine the evidence he presents.

As for his comment about how he doesn’t think many will ever see the Paul issue as he does being arrogant or conceited, I disagree. I think that is a huge extrapolation. He has said many times that he doesn’t think many people will ever understand Islam as well as he does, and no one has ever said that was arrogant. His point was that given the time he has invested in it, which is significantly more than most, he has an understanding that most will not share. I don’t see this as arrogant at all, it’s just as if Ken were to say that he has a better understanding of Prophecy than most after having wrote Future History. He’s not saying that no one understanding it like he does or that no one can. Swalchy has a better understanding of Greek than most, and I’m sure he would agree, does that make him arrogant? No.



I may be blind, but I don’t see that at all. I have emailed him numerous times about questions and concerns in YY, and he has been more than willing to address them and correct them in many cases. Again, the forum is not the place to ask Yada a question; he doesn’t read the forum unless someone sends it to him like I did. Frankly if Yada was to follow the forum and reply to everyone who question him, he would do nothing all day. Just look at all the people that come in here with their own agenda and idiocy, i.e. prophet Speaks, and the likes. If you have a question for Yada concerning anything in YY,or QP, email it to him.



I would disagree the intention of the forum, as I see was to be a place for mutually supportive fellowship and study.



Again, this is not the place to submit a critique of Yada’s work to him, it is a place to critique it with other readers, but if you have specific critiques, send them to him.



First Yada’s reason for not publishing YY, and sharing it on the internet, are the same for his releasing Prophet of Doom on the internet. 1) It’s FREE. 2) It’s an ongoing work 3) No publisher would be interested as it would not sell enough.

As for “extra scriptural revelations directly “shared by YHWH” Himself.” Yada has never said that he was given Revelations, only that he talks with Yahuweh. Personally I talk with Yahuweh all the time, especially before I make big decisions. I have had several times while working on translating were I am talking to Him trying to work something out, and an idea will pop into my head as to where to look, or the best way to word something, was it Yahuweh talking back or just my mind finally catching up. It’s all in how you choose to interpret it. I have never seen Yada say Yahuweh revealed this to me, and then not back it up and just say take it as I said it, maybe I missed something.



Completely agreed. Like I said, I can’t think of a time Yada has ever said that something was revealed to him and didn’t back it up, it is most always the same as the example I gave for myself. If I was in Yada’s position and trying to decide if I should discontinue the show, I sure as heck would have been discussing it with Yahuweh.



Agreed, and I see Yada acting within this same manner. But he has yet to see any argument that disproves to his satisfaction that his understanding is wrong in this case. We have had many people come into the forum and say we are wrong about this and that, and we have always asked them to provide proof, but none of us have changed our understanding of anything without what we have deemed sufficient evidence, the key being we individually have deemed as sufficient evidence. Everyone here comes from a different background, and none of us came to our understandings of Yahuweh lightly. Speaking for myself, I was agnostic, and it was only when I read what I deemed sufficient evidence for the existence of God, and that God had revealed himself through the Towrah, Prophet and Psalms, that I came to know him and understand him, but it took what I deemed enough evidence. We shouldn’t expect Yada to be any different. If you think his understanding is errant, provide him with evidence to the contrary, and continue to do it until he sees he is wrong.



Again, this is my fault, as I should not have posted the email I received from Yada, since without the context of our previous discussions it was easy to misunderstand what Yada was saying. I say this because I have a completely different read on what he said than everyone else.



I don’t know exactly which conversation your refereeing too, so I can’t comment.



I don’t see where exactly Yada has done this, considering he acknowledged that the verse alone didn’t contain sufficient evidence for his conclusion. And it is this kind of understanding that he is wishing to avoid by discontinuing the show until the book is more complete, and the evidence is more available.



I think I have to disagree with Rob a bit on this. Yada has always been a very emotional person, particularly pertaining to things he dislikes and feels are harmful, i.e. religions. I think then only thing that has really changed is you disagree with him on that. No one here has complained because Yada attacks Islam with strong emotional attacks, because we all agree that Islam is detrimental. Yada is doing the same thing with Paul because he feels Paul is detrimental. Has Yada brought Paul into discussions where it really didn’t fit, Yes, but that is because it is key in his mind right now, but I’m sure someone who thought he was wrong about Islam would see him doing the same thing with Islam. Its human nature that when something is on your mind you see it, or relate whatever you are talking about to that thing.
And RV, I completely disagree with you on Yada cutting and running. He stopped the show, so that he could better address issues. No one can be perfect on the radio and cover things as in depth as need be.



I don’t know if Yahuweh woke him up the night before or not, I wasn’t there. I do know that he was thinking of discontinuing the show more than a week before I sent him this post, for the very same reasons he gave. Whether Yahuweh woke him up or he woke up troubled and began to talk to Yahuweh, Is irrelevant. And your poker analogy falls apart, since he never intended that email to be posted here.

If you really think that Yada is wrong, compile an argument showing evidence where he is wrong and why, and send it to him. I know Swalchy is doing just such a thing, concerning why he thinks Yada is wrong in regards to Paul’s authorship of Galatians. I’m sure Yada will take the time to read it, and either agree or offer points of contention. Either way the best thing you can do is engage in a dialog with him, if you are certain he is wrong, try to convince him of that.

Like I said, having reviewed all of the evidence in QP, I agree with Yada. As for the particular topic of this thread, I don't think, and Yada has said the same, that there is sufficient evidence to say that this verse is talking of Paul and Paul alone, but with the rest of the evidence I think that Paul would be a part of it, or at the very least the person who claimed to be Paul and wrote Galatians was.

Well, again, no one *has* supported any of Paul's statements or whatever in this thread - we have merely checked to see whether Revelation 2:2 is a direct reference to Paul or not. Having had a diligent look at it, I provided more than enough evidence in this thread to show that Rev 2:2 wasn't a direct reference to anybody that we actually know of, so making a statement that it is a reference to Paul is just a complete and utter twist of the Messiah's words by a gross over-eisegetic purposed mind. That is really the main issue of the thread. And as far as it happens, no one has yet given any contradiction to what has been presented by me or rv regarding Revelation 2:2.



That would apparently be what the author of Galatians would want us to think, but all the negative comments directed towards the 12 Apostles and James is contradicted by the overtly pro 12 Apostles and James statements seen in 1 Corinthians (where Paul always refers to Peter as Kephas - never as Petros), especially 1 Cor 3:22-4:1, and 1 Cor 15:3-11; and even in Romans 16:7 (which I amplified for everyone in a previous post in this thread).

This is why it is imperative that we check everything, and not just accept one person's point of view as fact just because of who the person is. Hence why everyone should be checking my words as well.

People need to learn to do their own studies and examinations, and not just rely on someone else to do it.

@ rv - You need to check your PM's sometime dude :D

I would have to agree with RWY. I didn't feel to much love in your statement.

I don't disagree with what they did either. They didn't call for or organize their community to burn/ban/rid the world of writings they thought were wrong. They only took private action for themselves to remove what they felt was contrary to their walk with Yah. I can't find fault with what they did.

Looks like a couple of posts have been edited or deleted.

What I replied to read something like "purge all book burners, they are self-absorbed prigs".
I thought that was over the line, beyond what we would call a friendly disagreement.

I'm sorry - read QP or PoD lately? Lots of attacks on the character of Mohammed and Paul rather than a discussion on Scripture in numerous places.

And really, I don't think rv mentioned that he thought that Yada thought he was perfect - you're creating a straw man there.

=



=



=

Decided that I can express a lot more with pictures than I can words.

And you know what, I'm done with this thread. Until someone comes and actually attempts to refute the evidence brought by me and rv regarding Revelation 2:2, I really don't see the need for this thread to continue past this post.

Edit: You can continue the "Book removal" discussion in the new thread I've created in the God Damn Religion sub-forum. Keep this thread as a discussion on Revelation 2:2