H,

I am very disappointed in your reply. I was hopeful that you would be better informed, more thoughtful, even logical. But alas, you are poorly informed and are not thinking clearly. And since you chose not to deal with any of the issues I raised in my reply, a continued discussion with you is probably a waste of time. And while that sounds harsh, it is none the less an accurate reflection of your last two emails.

But since I typically give people a second chance when it comes to exposing the truth, I will affirm that I do not have a religion. God does not have a religion. Yahweh is anti religious as is Yahshua. So your question demonstrates a complete ignorance of God's Word and also that you have not read the book you are criticizing.

I do not have my own "teachings." I translate and share what Yahweh teaches. Yahweh's teachings are in the Torah Prophets and Psalms. They have never disappeared from history, although your church did its best to hide them from everyone for a thousand years.

You have demonstrated the consequence of religion by this response, H, in that you have shown that you are currently incapable of making a rational judgment based upon evidence and reason. Until you can deal with the fact that your religion is counter to God's Word, no one can help you, not even God.





Paul was the wolf in sheep's clothing, the false prophet, and lying self-proclaimed Apostle that Yahshua constantly warned us about. In Corinthians he admitted to being demon possessed. In Acts he quoted Dionysus's most famous line and attributed it to Yahshua. He never once quoted Yahweh or Yahshua accurately. Most everything Paul wrote is in conflict with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, which means that he could not have been speaking for God as he claims. God does not contradict Himself. He does not change. So, to quote Paul is to share Satan's perspective on God. Paul's writings are not Scripture. And they are not clear. His letters are very, very poorly written. As proof of this, read www.QuestioningPaul.com.

Lord is Satan's title according to Yahweh. There was no person named "Jesus" in the first century CE. There was no person known as the "Christ" either, but instead the Messiyah or the Chrestus (an entirely different word). The "body" of the Messiyah Yahushua was only meaningful as it relates to the fulfillment of Pesach. Neither Yahweh nor Yahshua ever equate a relationship with them with a physical body--and instead claim the opposite. Paul alone, in direct conflict with God, promoted the idiotic, impossible, and counter-productive notion of us having our own physical bodies in heaven. The ekklesia is based upon the miqra'ey and the work of Yahweh, not the body of anyone.

What I have shared with you is what Yahweh has shared with us. Your ad hominem argument is therefore inappropriate. It is an admission that you cannot refute what I have shared with you.

And it is equally irrational to say that rejection of the Catholic Church makes a person a Protestant, or that understanding what Yahweh revealed makes a person a Protestant. Are you so religious that you cannot think for yourself?

If you want to defend your church, then you need to demonstrate that the list of changes and corruptions I shared with you are not in fact changes or corruptions. If you cannot do that, you do not have a defensible position.





There is no Eucharist in Scripture. Yahshua was observing Passover. So, once again your conclusion is inconsistent with Yahweh's Word and reveals that you are so polluted by your religion that you'd rather believe the lies they have fed you than know or trust the Word of God. Good luck with that H.

Yahweh told us what we "need" in this world to be saved. But since you believe your church, and don't know or care about what Yahweh told us, you haven't a clue as to what is required. But should you one day come to reject your religion, then you may want to read the Torah to find out that you need Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, Seven Sabbaths, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters. In the Second Commandment, the one Catholics violate every day with their crucifixes and statues of Mary, Yahweh said that His mercy was for "thousands," not millions or billions (thereby excluding Catholicism) and that it was for those who "observe His instructions." His instructions, like His commandments, are found in the Torah.



The first use of "Jesus" was in the 16th century. Gesus is the savior of the Druid religion where the Horned One is God. There was no J in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or even Latin. Yahshua's name (meaning Yahweh Saves) could not have been "Jesus." And in the Greek Writings, the Savior's name is never written out. It is always represented by a Divine Placeholder, so the excuse that "jesus" is a feeble transliteration of "Ieosus" isn't justified.

There is no word related to Holy in Scripture. Yahweh wrote qodesh, which means "set apart and purifying." It is our Spiritual Mother, the Ruwach Qodesh, the Set-Apart Spirit, who is responsible for our adoption into Yahweh's family. Devotion to "His Holy Mother" is a direct derivative of the Babylonian religion upon which most of Catholicism is derived. It is from Babylon that Catholics came to celebrate Lent, Easter, and Christmas, as well as the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God.

You have been deceived, H, by the very people you have chosen to believe. If you do not start to question them, and then come to consider what Yahweh actually revealed, this mistake in judgment will cost you your soul.

In Yahuweh's Name,

Yada

PS, Unless you can prove that my translations of Yahweh's Word are inaccurate, or that my statements regarding the Catholic Church's replacements of Lent, Easter, Christmas, and Sunday Worship are inaccurate, there is no reason for you to write me again, H. You would be wasting your time and mine.

J,

I am not interested in dialog with you, J or H. Your opinions mean nothing to me. No offense; it's just that I don't respect the opinions of religious people nor find them of any value. If I want to know something about God, I'll read His Word.

I responded to H's ignorant and irrational criticism of my presentation of the conflicts between Roman Catholicism and Yahweh's Word. She and you have thus far been unable to refute anything that is published in Yada Yahweh, and you both seem completely lost in your religion so there is no merit in continuing with either of you. No one can help you find your way to God until you are willing to leave your religion. It is a point Yahweh makes many times over, many of which are presented for you to read in www.YadaYahweh.com should you be interested in proof.




How could you not know the answer to this question? Yahweh answered this question as did Yahshua. Yahweh's Word = Torah, Prophets, Psalms.



By being the human manifestation of the Logos/Word, Yahshua was the Torah in the flesh. There was no NT when Yahuchanan penned those words.

Moreover, most every significant statement and act attributed to Yahshua by Mattiyahu, Shim'own Kephas (in Mark), and Yahuchanan was predicted and described in great detail in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. In fact, most of what Yahshua said was cited from Yahweh's Word, and His fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits are far better detailed in the T,P&P. The statement regarding Yahshua (who is accurately name in the T,P&P) being the Dabar/Word is much more completely presented in the T,P&P as well. All of this is presented and proven in Yada Yahweh, which is free for you to read at www.YadaYahweh.com.

The title New Testament was conceived by Marcion, as was the term Old Testament. They are not Scriptural designations. Marcion was a very very misguided fellow. He's the guy who elevated Paul's letters to "Scriptural" status, because they are contrary to Yahweh--the God Marcion hated. If you'd like to know more about him, you should read www.QuestioningPaul.com.

God never once refers to what you call the NT, nor ever even suggests that it is Scripture or inspired by Him. The best that can be said of these writings is that to the degree that Yahshua's words have been accurately translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, and then accurately retained by scribes (which based upon the evidence has been abysmal in your NT), Yahshua's words would be equivalent to God's Word. But you will have to remove everything that Paul wrote and it all conflicts with God's Word and you will have to deal with the fact that no two manuscripts are even remotely similar so we don't have a clue as to what was originally written beyond Yahuchanan.




I don't refer to the OT or NT as those are both errant terms.

But since you agree that the "OT" is the written repository of Truth, why are you a Catholic? Catholicism is in complete conflict with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. If God's Word is true, Catholicism is not.

Paul's letters are not perspicuous. They are very poorly written. But then again, they are not Scripture.

But the Torah is beautifully and clearly written. It is perspicuous: "clearly expressed and therefore easy to understand." Your opinion is the antithesis of Yahweh's:

“Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s) Towrah (towrah – law and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded.” (Psalm 19:7)

So, your "crucial" statement that the "Scriptures are not perspicuous" is in direct conflict with God's Word--as is your religion by the way. This alone should be sufficient to cause you to leave the Church.



So you believe you are right because the Roman Catholic Church has said so. Now there is a compelling argument. You trust the interpretation of an institution which contradicts God's Word in countless material ways to tell you how to interpret that which they contradict. From Yahweh's perspective that is stupid.

TA's interpretation is as irrelevant to me as is yours. Yahweh warns us against doing this very thing. Yahweh's message is clearly presented and the words all have well defined meanings. Understanding what He has revealed isn't therefore a matter of interpretation, but instead a matter of accurately defining each word. And that is the basis of Yada Yahweh.

We have older, better manuscripts of the T,P&P today, and better Hebrew lexicons, than TA had in his day. So we are vastly better prepared to understand Yahweh's message today than he was.

As for calling Yahweh's Word a "clay nose which can be turned," I'll leave you to such foolishness.



Yahweh dismisses the concept of "belief" in favor of knowing, trusting, and relying, so that's good enough for me. Especially since He provides all of the proof which is required to know, and all of the information which is required to understand and thus rely.

And the history of my understanding is devoting 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 6 years translating Yahweh's Word from the oldest available manuscripts and then making the obvious connections so as to facilitate understanding.

But that is irrelevant. This is not about me. The issue is that Yahweh's Word differs in countless material ways from the teachings of Roman Catholicism. And that is a lose-lose position for Catholics. They lose no matter if Yahweh's Word is truthful or not.




IN THE TORAH, PROPHETS, AND PSALMS.



I didn't "discover" the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. I have simply studied God's Word. It was not hidden by God, although the RCC has tried to hide it.

Man was given freewill, and thus the option to corrupt and conceal Yahweh's name and testimony. Yahweh predicted we would do this and warned us about it. So the "hiding" issue isn't Yahweh's fault, nor His intent, by instead the fault and intent of religious men.

Following the false characterization of the Messiyah Yahshua presented in Roman Catholicism does not lead to God no matter how sincere the believer. That is why few find life, and why Yahweh's mercy is only for thousands, not millions or billions.

There is only one path which leads to Yahweh--the one He described in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. All other paths lead to oblivion. It's not a matter of what we believe, or how much we believe it, but instead in what and who we know, trust, and rely.

If the best you can do is to create a straw man, you aren't capable of a rational discussion. I never call myself a prophet. In fact in the opening chapter of the book I clearly state that I am irrelevant. I'm telling you what Yahweh said. The fact that His message is unknown and unfamiliar to you is your fault, and the fault of religious institutions.



Okay J and H, I understand that you don't care what Yahweh's name is, nor care about the name He used to define His mission. I understand that you do not know nor care that "Gospel" is a pagan term, or that Yahuchanan's name was not John. Yahweh's position on this matter is the antithesis of your own, not that this will matter to you.

And you are fooling yourself when you refer to "Jesus" as the Logos/Word. You don't know or care about the Word of God. For you and your church, the connection between Yahshua and Yahweh, between Yahshua and the Torah, has been severed, rendering His Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices moot. In fact, you don't even respect what Yahshua told you about the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. You are like the fellows on the road to Emmaus, save the visit by Yahshua.

If you do not understand the basis of His life, the promises He fulfilled, the source of His message, you do not know Him.

J, unless you can demonstrate that I have mistranslated Yahweh's Word in Yada Yahweh, or misrepresented the the Catholic positions like Sunday Worship, Easter, Christmas, the cross, and statues to Mary, and how they conflict with Yahweh's Word, then we have nothing more to discuss.

My policy is to invest the time to help a religious person twice, but not a third time. That is one more time that Yahshua requested. If you leave your religion and are open to Yahweh's Word, that is a different situation, and then I'll invest whatever time is helpful to point you in the right direction. But I do not think you are remotely close to being open minded or free from your religion.

In Yahweh's Name,

Yada

Welcome Paul,
All of us who have been led to the YY website have learned so much about the false teachings of Christianity and religions of whatever flavor. We are all blessed to be given knowledge of the truth and Yada has been a mighty instrument in exposing the compromise and lies of religion. This is what I would humbly suggest as a focus for you with your daughter - the preeminence of relationship over religion.

YHWH is relationship - that is His substance and that is His desire - from what I am learning. We're called to live out this truth in our relationships with others - especially in marriage and parenting. Live out faithfulness in marriage to your daughter. Live out faithfulness as a father. These are the greatest lessons you can teach her. The second thing I would humbly suggest is to speak the truth in love. Be patient with those in your family who are not at the stage that you are in understanding truth. And never forget that YHWH is Sovereign over all things - including our understanding of Him. He is Sovereign over the when, where, how ... of our understanding of Him. All the truth we have is a gift from Him.

Be cautious not to wield the truth as a weapon to tear people down. We're called to tear down false teaching, but we're also called to build up people - through compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Can there be any better "curriculum" for our children that living out in front of them the relationship and truth with which we've been so blessed by Our Father?

YHWH bless you as your live out the precious gift of this eternal relationship before your family.

Karen

I am Catholic, am familiar with the exchange included above, and look forward to joining this discussion in a few days. In the mean time, why must you retain Hebrew and Greek terms for your fundamental concepts? One might be tempted to do this when translating certain specialized, culture-specific texts, but not Scripture.

On "Pentacost," the Holy Spirit ('holy' can, without violence, be defined as 'set-apart and revered') descended on the disciples, and they spoke the Truth to everyone in attendance, people of every tongue, in their own language. Hence there is no need, if you are thus guided, to use Hebrew or Greek for important terms. I have labored long over translations and understand the challenge. English is the richest language in the world, with sufficient resources to translate virtually anything.

Edited by user Saturday, June 12, 2010 5:31:09 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I really am not competent to translate Hebrew. Evidently some mystery surrounds "selah," but it is an exception to the rule, or translation itself would be futile, and ultimately so too would dialogue. This may be another word that must be imported whole into English, which linguistic hospitality is why the language is so richly expressive.

The archetype is Pentacost, the birth of the 'Ekklesia of Yahushua' (the community of adherents to the Truth He taught about living in intimate communion with Him, i.e, the 'Christian Church'?, bearing His charge to spread this Truth). The Truth was transmitted to everyone in their own tongue, without a tutorial in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. The vital presence of the Holy Spirit enables such faithful transmission, especially to the unlettered. "Whoever does not enter the Kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter."

Edited by user Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:06:38 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Can you give me examples of "regal splendor and other "churchy" things attached to it from throughout the ages"?
Yahuweh's splendor is fearfully regal. I am aware of crass or childish misuse, but not of any misunderstanding of its conventional meaning.

jpelham was banned for two days so his reply will be delayed.

I would add to your list there...

-Why call every priest father? Why call the pope holy father?

Matthew 23:9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Didn't the Jews call Abraham 'father'? [Ac 7:2]. Yada uses Luke's Gospel/Acts to refute Paul's letter to the Galatians, so Acts can also be used to shed some light on this thread. If we are going to be 'torah observant', then using the term 'father' should have no problems.

I think you have completely missed what was intended. The point he was making was that many of the Hebrew words that Yahuweh choose do not have a simple one word translation into English, and that to attempt to do so as English translators have done, is to loose the full meaning of the word.

jpelham had said that English is the richest language in the world, with sufficient resources to translate anything. While i would disagree with the idea that English is the richest language in the world I would completely agree that it does have the resources to translate anything, but that said our translators have not done so. There are many words which are either mistranslated or translated very deficiently so as to miss the point.