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

Notification

Icon
Error

4 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline VinceB.  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:09:44 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Finished Questioning Paul, after, roughly about 2 months, and copious note taking, I can see how Pauline Doctrine is pagan and a continuation of religious schemes out of Babylonia...which would mean to me, that the entire Christianity movement is 'pagan'...the whole thing is a scam: as are the governments spawned from it and/or because of it...

IMHO, without Paul's pagan Christianity, there wouldn't be the Catholic Church, the Lutherans...all the schemes of religion; nor would there be your Hegel, with his dialectic; or Hitler or Karl Marx...etc etc etc...

Thanks to YY, Mr. Winn, and others for the 'guts' to put the facts out there and letting the pieces fall where they will; as a result I resoundingly reject everything Paul related, and trust and rely upon Yahowah to do what He's promised to do...

HWHY
Offline Noel  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:48:13 PM(UTC)
Noel
Joined: 9/27/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: UK

And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee


As to 'types' in scripture, king Saul is nominally the nearest to Saul of Tarsus.

I came across the above verse from 1.Sam 28 .28 and it occurred to me that for those of you/us? who are making their mind up about Paul, this may have a sort of prophetic prediction about it.

Any ideas anyone?

Noel
Offline Daniel  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:52:02 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

QP is a little over the top for me. I am not saying that I disagree with Yada's overall line of reasoning, it is just that the histrionics are a bit much.

My policy on Paul is just ignore him.

I am going to concentrate on the Tannakh and the words in red. After I have learned and applied everything in the Torah, Writings, Psalms and what Yahushua said, then I will take a look at Mr. Oftarsus.
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline VinceB.  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:00:19 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

I'm actually glad I immediately went to Questioning Paul first and foremost...and as I was reading, studying, and doing the juxtapose related maneuvers with what I had to work with, about half way through the study I started seeing Sha'uwl for what he was, to the point I was actually thinking ahead followed by confirmation in what Mr. Winn wrote some, perhaps, 5 to 8 paragraphs later.

Because of what I experienced in reading through the whole study was just how diabolical Paul really was to take what Yah gave to Abraham (actually He reveals He's giving it to the whole world, but on His terms) in Covenant Relationship -that He affirms and confirms over and over during some 4000 years of Yisrael history- fulfilling it in coming Himself as Yahowsha' (confirming and fulfilling as was promised to Abraham, all along 'The Way'); to then have Sha'uwl come along, throw the whole thing out - like dirty bathwater; and starting with the fulfillment of Passover (Paul doesn't even see the significance of Unleavened Bread or First Fruits in Yahowah's first advent) Sha'uwl takes the whole act done at Calvary and marries it via his 'Iesou Christou' to some Babylonian/Greek/Roman Dionysus mythology, and thus giving birth to his pagan Christianity without ever even batting an eye, or working up a good sweat...so Paul never changed; he was hell bent on destroying The Way prior to his 'supposed' experiences on Damascus road (and later on in Arabia)...and since he obviously couldn't destroy it from without, he did it by seeming to join them, and continued to destroy them by working from within...sounds like 21st Century geopolitical politicking to me.

As for me, I have to treat Paul's stuff like the plague...down the road when I've been built up in The Way, I may try and go back and study Paul as it relates to Paul revealing how Satan thinks and operates, as a 'wolf'/'insider', so as to, perhaps, help explain to others just how really really bad Paul/Sha'uwl really was.

HWHY
Offline VinceB.  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:35:49 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Noel wrote:
And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee


As to 'types' in scripture, king Saul is nominally the nearest to Saul of Tarsus.

I came across the above verse from 1.Sam 28 .28 and it occurred to me that for those of you/us? who are making their mind up about Paul, this may have a sort of prophetic prediction about it.

Any ideas anyone?

Noel

Unlike Sha'uwl, who seemed to get some serious kicks out of 'superspiritualizing' everything (reading virtually everything into how it is he interpreted the singular Covenant, he refers to as the O.T., as being simply 'shadows' and 'types' of what his Iesou Christou accomplishes - turning on its head what it was Yahowah actually was doing and accomplishing) toward the promotion of his new book: the N.T. (at least that half he wrote)....I can definitely see in king Saul (of the same tribe) similar ego and insecurities issues that were pointed out in QP...like a generational curse type thing...

I to would be interested to hear what others have discovered related to king Saul and Paul
HWHY
Offline Matthew  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:51:49 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
VinceB. wrote:
...Sha'uwl takes the whole act done at Calvary and marries it via his 'Iesou Christou' to some Babylonian/Greek/Roman Dionysus mythology,


Remember guys, Paul never used the phrase 'Iesou Christou,' to say he did, or even suggest that he meant to use them, ignores the facts. Evidence proves that not a single Greek manuscript containing Paul's letters before the 9th Century CE contained 'Iesou Christou'. And seeing that Paul was the earliest writer (1 Thess), it was most likely him who started using placeholders first.

QP chapter 6 wrote:
In this light, I’d like you to consider a different translation of Galatians 2:16—one more in keeping with Paul’s Gospel. "Know (oida – intuitively appreciate, understand, and remember) that because no man is vindicated (dikaioo – justified, acquitted, or saved) by means of (ek – or out of) the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities (ergon – works (observing in the sense of doing the edicts)) of the Torah (nomou) if not through (dia) faith in (pistis) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders for Messiyah, the Implement of Yahweh, Yahushua, Yahweh Saves [However, since the primary purpose of this epistle is to disassociate Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Towrah, it would be irrational to assume that Sha’uwl would have used these placeholders to reconnect that which he has striven to separate.])." (Galatians 2:16)


"Er, what Paul meant to say was 'faith' even though he used the word 'pistis' which we know doesn't mean 'faith' but 'trust and reliance.' And he meant 'Christon ‘Iesoun' even though he used placeholders." This same reasoning has many Jews with two kitchens when all God said was "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

This is yet another reason, of a long list of reasons, why I'm still not buying (v.tr. to accept the truth or feasibility of) QP.
Offline VinceB.  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:27:20 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Matthew wrote:
Remember guys, Paul never used the phrase 'Iesou Christou,' to say he did, or even suggest that he meant to use them, ignores the facts. Evidence proves that not a single Greek manuscript containing Paul's letters before the 9th Century CE contained 'Iesou Christou'. And seeing that Paul was the earliest writer (1 Thess), it was most likely him who started using placeholders first.



"Er, what Paul meant to say was 'faith' even though he used the word 'pistis' which we know doesn't mean 'faith' but 'trust and reliance.' And he meant 'Christon ‘Iesoun' even though he used placeholders." This same reasoning has many Jews with two kitchens when all God said was "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

This is yet another reason, of a long list of reasons, why I'm still not buying (v.tr. to accept the truth or feasibility of) QP.


Thanks for the clarification on 'Christon ‘Iesoun', vs my rendering Iesou Christou...
HWHY
Offline Matthew  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:47:35 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Vince, my concern wasn't for your use of Iesou Christou, but of Yada's use of it, well of Christon ‘Iesoun. My first three sentences in my previous response wasn't to correct you, but rather to highlight Yada's unjustified use of it.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:07:59 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Quote:
it was most likely him who started using placeholders first


Wh? Wha? WHAT?

Hmm. Hadn't considered that. More to chew on -- thank you Matthew!
Offline cgb2  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:30:14 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
> it was most likely him who started using placeholders first

Could be. Here's High resolution P46 images for viewing. Chock full of placeholders in most every manuscript.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links19.html
Offline Richard  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:55:54 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
"Er, what Paul meant to say was 'faith' even though he used the word 'pistis' which we know doesn't mean 'faith' but 'trust and reliance.' And he meant 'Christon ‘Iesoun' even though he used placeholders." This same reasoning has many Jews with two kitchens when all God said was "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

This is yet another reason, of a long list of reasons, why I'm still not buying ... QP.


Thank you, Matthew.

I'll tell you what, brothers and sisters, I am now totally confused on the whole issue about the validity of Paul's message and "apostleship". Stephen Walch, or Swalchy to those of us who know and love him, even points out that the word "apostle" is grossly misunderstood by the majority of us. This is getting deeper and darker rather than higher and more clear. *sigh*
Offline VinceB.  
#12 Posted : Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:23:44 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Insofar as I have learned, nothing has changed...Paul/Sha'uwl's message was/is clearly the opposite of what God reveals in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms...Paul does replace the work and message Yahowah makes, when He came in person as the Ma'aseyah, replacing it with his own personal and private interpretation of what the Torah Prophets and Psalms says.

It has been made clearer to me (thanks to QP making things much clearer) that Sha'uwl divided/split everything up into components, that he does superspiritualizes everything into shades and types (to Paul, the O.T. was only symbolic of what he interprets Yahowah was really doing: replace the old with Paul's interpretation of what the new is) - and he did this off the back of Yahowah, and what Yahowah had promised to Abraham.

I believe, based on what I've read and heard, Paul started his new religion by creating confusion in the very theological 'style' questions he himself asks (like Hegel's Dialectic; or like someone who tries to sell health and/or life insurance off of fear by daring to ask the 'What if' questions) distilling the answers he's come up with, answers he says he got from private meetings with Yahowsha', which we now know is Dionysus "pagan" mythology...to Paul the ends really did justified the means...to me, the evidence is all around us in this early 21st Century world...Acts records some 3000++ being added to The Way with the Pentecost (that's a huge explosive movement), and growing everyday there after.

Sha'uwl knew , along with others I'm sure, that the only way to try and stop it was to 1.) drag folks out of their homes - definitely not good PR 2.) join it for the purpose of changing it...I'd not doubt Sha'uwl was a type of counter-terrorist-agent/Green Beret sent in to disrupt what it was Yahowah was really doing: enabling affirming and confirming His Torah Prophets and Psalms that we might have relationship with Him per His House Rules we're to observe (as He fulfills all the promises Himself, building up our trust and reliance), and if we'd like to fellowship and hangout with Him both now, and in what's to follow...

HWHY
Offline danshelper  
#13 Posted : Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:47:21 AM(UTC)
danshelper
Joined: 11/30/2009(UTC)
Posts: 196
Location: Gettysburg, PA

Why shouldn’t we see this as 3 forms of 1 substance? Lamb, Man, Spirit

From Moses to the Apostles we received, witnessed and testified to the Lamb.
From the Apostles to Pentecost, we received, witnessed and testified to the Man.
From Pentecost to the present we receive, witness and testify to the Spirit.

YHWH our Righteousness has been, is and always will be the guiding principle of righteousness, the “law of the Spirit of life.”

YHWH our Righteousness as the Passover Lamb,
YHWH our Righteousness as the Yahushua the Man,
YHWH our Righteousness as the Spirit of Life.

The Law of Righteousness written on tablets of stone,
The Law of Righteousness embodied in a fleshly tabernacle,
The Law of Righteousness written on the mind and heart.

Shouldn’t we view these as development stages – like embryo, baby and adult?

The messenger Saul/Paul received, witnessed and testified to the Spiritual manifestation of YHWH our Savior. His witness is not contrary to the Lamb or the Man, but complimentary. The Spiritual witness and understanding is a more developed understanding – but it is the same substance – just like the adult is more developed than the baby, but is the same substance.

The wilderness tabernacle with 3 “stages”, from courtyard to holy place to most holy place – all make up the dwelling place, but there is a necessary progression. The sacrifice and washing in the courtyard (Lamb), the light and bread in the holy place (Man) and the presence of YHWH in the most holy place (Spirit).

I understand Saul/Paul’s testimony to be of the later stage, but like the Truth in all times, has been twisted and corrupted by the adversary.


Offline bigritchie  
#14 Posted : Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:26:00 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

I think in the end all a person really has to do is go check every single Tanakh reference Paul made, and go and read it in context.

This will expose Paul more then anything else, and it is very hard to blame overall context on bad translations.

A very good example of this is Romans chapter 3.

In verse 7 Paul admits he is a liar and asks why he is being judged.

he then goes on his famous rant about how no one is righteous, and this is the Christian religion, and the "Romans Road to Salvation" Paul took 6 sentences from the Tanakh and stuck them all together.

NOW go read the truth, read all these in their context, and pay very close attention to what King David really says.

Psalms 14
Psalms 5
Psalms 140
Psalms 10
Psalms 36

and the entire book of Isaiah.

Paul utterly butchered and twisted what King David was saying. In fact King David was contrasting the WICKED with the RIGHTEOUS almost everytime.

This is just one small example of Pauline butchering of the Torah.
Offline Noach  
#15 Posted : Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:13:12 AM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

To Danshelper:

You don't neep Paul to spiritualize anything. Yahuwah tells you exactly what you need: Yahowah’s (YaHoWaH’s) Towrah (towrah – authorized directions, law, instruction, and prescription for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – our consciousness). Yahowah’s (YaHoWaH’s) testimony (‘eduwth – and witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Psalm 19:7)
Offline sirgodfrey  
#16 Posted : Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:31:42 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Bigritchie's comment is def the core of the matter (my one cent). Paul, more than once or twice, seems to take what Yah stated in Torah and twist it to try and prove what HE is trying to say. That is probably the most damning evidence.
Offline Heretic Steve  
#17 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 10:14:34 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio


Does this mean that everything Paul said prophetic is untrue? If it is true, then how did He know so?
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline VinceB.  
#18 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 12:15:06 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Sha'uwl's rendition of his Christon 'Ieoun (with or without the placeholders) is not the same as Yahowah come as Yahowsha' the Ma'aseyah (as revealed in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms in Covenant Relationship as what was promised to Abraham)...Sha'uwl's Christon 'Ieoun is powerless - he has no power. He is powerless to raise the dead, or rapture Paul's Church the Christians. He has no power to kill steal or destroy...

Where it is Paul's Christon 'Ieoun (again, with or without the placeholders) has the power to kill steal and destroy is in the spirit realm: In the hearts and minds of people made in the image of God; he has power such, that a billion godless Chinese poses a real threat to our way of life; and/or a billion Muslems on the otherside of the spectrum poses the same threat...or a billion Pauline Christians sit right in the middle awaiting a rapture that will never come.

Closer to home: everytime a pilot drops a bomb -or fires a missle- in these illegal Bush/Obama wars, for a paycheck and/or misplaced/faulty patriotism, or a police officer arrests and/or shoots someone in defense of DHS and/or on behalf of Patriot Act, for a paycheck and/or misplaced/faulty patriotism -- what you have is the power of Paul's Christon 'Ieoun working through the very same people made in God's image, for everyone to see.

IMHO, if there's a rapture/snatching away as what Paul says there's going to be -it won't be by Satan's power (he has no power), but will be by Yahowah's power in giving delusion misguided people what they want since they don't want to know the God of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms - via His Shabbats Feast Days and as He has invited us to have fellowship with Him according to the rules that governs His House.

I personally will not believe anything Paul says related to any future events (Paul won't know anymore about Yahowah's agenda than Satan would know - even Yahowah come in the person of Yahowsha' was limited on aspects of it)...Daniel, other Prophets, Yahowsha's Word on the matter, including Revelations, are the only sources I'd use to see what Yah's allowing to be brought onto the world scene...most of which is designed to bamboozle those who are already bamboozled; and/or as giving the people -from the various factions (including Paul's Christianity)- what it is they all want...
HWHY
Offline cgb2  
#19 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 12:17:43 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Heretic Steve wrote:
Does this mean that everything Paul said prophetic is untrue? If it is true, then how did He know so?


Well, this one sure was untrue.
Act 27:10 saying, “Men, I see that this voyage is going to end with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives.”
Offline Matthew  
#20 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 1:41:16 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
bigritchie wrote:
I think in the end all a person really has to do is go check every single Tanakh reference Paul made, and go and read it in context.

This will expose Paul more then anything else, and it is very hard to blame overall context on bad translations.

A very good example of this is Romans chapter 3.

In verse 7 Paul admits he is a liar and asks why he is being judged.

he then goes on his famous rant about how no one is righteous, and this is the Christian religion, and the "Romans Road to Salvation" Paul took 6 sentences from the Tanakh and stuck them all together.

NOW go read the truth, read all these in their context, and pay very close attention to what King David really says.

Psalms 14
Psalms 5
Psalms 140
Psalms 10
Psalms 36

and the entire book of Isaiah.

Paul utterly butchered and twisted what King David was saying. In fact King David was contrasting the WICKED with the RIGHTEOUS almost everytime.

This is just one small example of Pauline butchering of the Torah.


I really do not see what you guys are seeing here, because for me in Romans its clear that Paul is asking a rhetorical question, he is not in any way saying he is a liar.

Paul was trying to combat the following thought: If God is proven right when He speaks and prevails when He judges, if His righteousness is magnified when we sin more, then let us continue to sin that God can be glorified even more. Why are we still called sinners if doing sin magnifies and abounds to God's glory all the more?

As far as I am aware Paul could have quoted a hundred more verses confirming the nature of sinners and that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour. The overall context of each Psalm [recorded as songs] is irrelevant in this case. In fact David is contrasting the righteous verses the wicked. And is not Romans exactly that, trying to combat wicked, human, philosophical thinking verses good, righteous thinking?
Offline Matthew  
#21 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 2:03:08 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:
Well, this one sure was untrue.
Act 27:10 saying, “Men, I see that this voyage is going to end with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives.”


He was definitely right though. The storm was strong enough to destroy the ship, cargo and their lives if it had not been for God. Perhaps he saw red sky in the morning and based his warning on it ;) He had no choice but had to go with because he was held prisoner by the centurion. A messenger appeared to him while on the ship and encouraged him by saying no lives will be lost. This cannot be seen a prophetic prediction but rather simply a general warning for some serious weather action. Californians beware of a super storm approaching!
Offline bigritchie  
#22 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 2:37:53 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Matthew wrote:
I really do not see what you guys are seeing here, because for me in Romans its clear that Paul is asking a rhetorical question, he is not in any way saying he is a liar.

Paul was trying to combat the following thought: If God is proven right when He speaks and prevails when He judges, if His righteousness is magnified when we sin more, then let us continue to sin that God can be glorified even more. Why are we still called sinners if doing sin magnifies and abounds to God's glory all the more?

As far as I am aware Paul could have quoted a hundred more verses confirming the nature of sinners and that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour. The overall context of each Psalm [recorded as songs] is irrelevant in this case. In fact David is contrasting the righteous verses the wicked. And is not Romans exactly that, trying to combat wicked, human, philosophical thinking verses good, righteous thinking?


Matthew, Paul makes it clear that HE IS BEING JUDGED. This occurs all through Paul's letters, where the man admits with his own mouth that people are questioning whether he is a apostle or not, or questioning whether "Christ speak in him". Even the Aramaic lines up with the Greek here.

ܐܶܢ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܫܪܳܪܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܶܬ݂ܝܰܬ݁ܰܪ ܒ݁ܕ݂ܰܓ݁ܳܠܽܘܬ݂ܝ ܠܬ݂ܶܫܒ݁ܽܘܚܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܺܝܠܶܗ ܠܡܳܢܳܐ ܗܳܟ݂ܺܝܠ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܰܝܟ݂ ܚܰܛܳܝܳܐ ܡܶܬ݁ܬ݁ܕ݂ܺܝܢ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ

Here are 3 totally different men and their translations so you do not have to rely on my own.

(Etheridge) For if the truth of Aloha is promoted by my lie unto his glory, why then am I judged as a sinner ?

(Murdock) But if the truth of God hath been furthered by my falsehood, to his glory; why am I then condemned as a sinner ?

(Lamsa) For if the truth of God is made abundant through my falsehood to his glory, why then am I to be judged as a sinner?

Paul lied, got busted for it, and the Romans just like everyone else Paul writes to were questioning Paul.

And 1/2 these Bible translations add something like "but you say" to cover up what Paul really said.

And whether Paul was a lair or not, does not disprove the fact that Paul butchered and lied about what King David was really saying! Paul says no one is righteous, and the Creator calls various men righteous, therefor one is wrong!
Offline danshelper  
#23 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 3:44:28 PM(UTC)
danshelper
Joined: 11/30/2009(UTC)
Posts: 196
Location: Gettysburg, PA

Proverbs 22:12 The eyes of YHWH preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor (unfaithful, treacherous, traitor, false, unjust).

If Saul/Paul were the treacherous traitor he’s accused of being, wouldn’t his writings have been overthrown by now? Or do you think that YHWH is incapable of preserving His Word?

Noach, if not spiritually, how do you interpret the Messiah’s words in Matthew 5:29-30 … and so many other places?

The spiritual fulfillment of the law is far more demanding than the physical – as much more demanding and as much better as the blood of the Messiah is than the blood of animals. This is what Paul teaches – this was the baton handed to him – summarized in Matthew 7:12, Proverbs 10:12, 1 Peter 4:8 – the weightier matters of Matthew 23:23, etc. This is the inner obedience to the perfect law that governs the thoughts and words (first and foremost) as well as the actions. The spiritual obedience is more pure, more perfect, more demanding … this was Paul’s commission and emphasis and we are blessed to have YHWH’s Word through him.

Bigritchie, you know when Paul says that no one is righteous, he’s echoing Yahushua (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19, Psalm 53:3, Psalm 14:3, Matthew 19:17) that no one is good – no one is sinless except YHWH himself. Paul’s emphasis had to (and still does) counter the self-righteous, spiritually immature focus on merely physical, outward obedience devoid of heart/mind.
Offline bigritchie  
#24 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 4:30:42 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

You know this Paul thing really is so simple.

All you have to do is check every time Paul quotes the Tanakh and go read what it says in context.

I think alot of people traded their pastors in for a Messianic guru that told them "Paul was pro-Torah".

I argued for years myself that Paul was "pro-Torah" and hard to understand.

This entire Messianic line that you have to look at Paul via a "Hebraic mindset"..............guys the Hebrew have told us for 2,000 years that Paul is full of it. And you talk to virtually any Rabbi they will tell you their problem is with PAUL not Y'shua.

The only people that are running around saying Paul is pro-Torah is gentile christians playing dress up Jew who say "Sha'ul", as if that adds some credence to their argument.

Guys do you THINK Paul is pro-Torah because you watched a Messianic video? Do you think he is Pro-Torah because when you came out of christianity that is what you were told?

or do you KNOW because you took the simple time to check the guy out?

You can do the homework or you can always say "Well Paul said X, but he really means B".

Look gents I am not attacking you, and I know this is a emotional subject. But most of these Messianic posers who say hebrew words to make themselves look cute and run around telling people Paul is "pro-Torah" are just as deluded as Christians who say Torah is done away with.

Just question what you are told and be willing to look at the evidence folks.

Offline Matthew  
#25 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 4:52:18 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I believe one needs to take into consideration the Greek δε (de) which can be rendered formally (more or less literally) or dynamically (paraphrase). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/..._and_formal_equivalence. In other words Romans 3:5 says he is using a human argument, and therefore due to the Greek δε (de) verse 7 should also to be treated as a "human argument," as is verse 8 as well. This "human argument," this "human reasoning," is further clarified in verse 8; they were accused of saying something other than what they were actually saying. There are a number of translations on the market who pick up on this issue and translate accordingly.

It is my understanding that a disdain for Paul would lead to seeing this Romans 7 passage in that light, that Paul was caught out as a liar. It is the same reasoning that comes from the need to mistranslate and misinterpret Acts 15, 2 Peter 3, Galatians 2, etc. in order to separate Paul from Peter.

The gist of Romans:

Torah teaches us what sin is, it even teaches us how to directly sin against God, to really annoy Him if we are that way inclined. The fact that Torah reveals to us the definition of sin and that God has forgiven us does not give us the right to go sin more in order to prove God right. If our attitude is right with God we could still stupidly disobey commands 2,6,7,9, and 10 (i.e. David) and continue in a relationship with Him because He is a loving and merciful God. Three chapters later after Romans 3 on the same train of thought an English translation of Paul's question reads "Shall we go on sinning so that grace (unmerited favour) may increase?"

Note: I forgot to mention in my first post that Yada opens chapter 6 of QP with a correct translation of Galatians 2:16 but then proceeds to translate according to what he believes is Paul's intention.
Offline cgb2  
#26 Posted : Friday, January 21, 2011 8:05:35 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
danshelper wrote:
Proverbs 22:12 The eyes of YHWH preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor (unfaithful, treacherous, traitor, false, unjust).
If Saul/Paul were the treacherous traitor he’s accused of being, wouldn’t his writings have been overthrown by now? Or do you think that YHWH is incapable of preserving His Word?


I don't understand the reverence for the Roman & Protesting Catholic Canons of authorized books. Why were Revelation and Enoch omitted during most of the 300's, then Revelation made the cut but not Enoch? Why are Jubilees, Jasher & others mentioned in the OT but not included? Look at the agendas of various meetings (Council of Nicea, when to have easter, etc). I can't but notice corruption was already well established by the ones making those decisions, and was likely greatly influenced by political and religious agendas. Paul may have been writing to small assemblies meeting in homes, but it sure was ripe for clerics to create a massive top down structure lording it over the laity & plundering them in their "universal" religion.

The same argument "wouldn’t his writings have been overthrown by now" could be used by others in regards to the Koran, Hindu, and many other "scriptures".
Offline RidesWithYah  
#27 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:33:12 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

I am *really* enjoying this thread.
LOTS of good points being made on both sides,
without the vitriol we've seen in some other threads.

Way to go, and keep it coming.

Only thing I'll add is that I did exactly what BigRitchie describes with Romans 3;
it makes your point clear, and I was with you until the very end of the chapter...
Quote:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Hard for me to see this as "anti-Torah".

Shalom.
Offline Walt  
#28 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:45:15 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

Heretic Steve wrote:
Does this mean that everything Paul said prophetic is untrue? If it is true, then how did He know so?


What is "prophetic"?
Just predicting the future - or is it Yah speaking through them?
Yah gives HIS standard in Scripture of what is a true Prophet of Him - does Paul meet this? Where does Yah show He speaks through Paul?
Offline Walt  
#29 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:50:48 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

danshelper wrote:
Proverbs 22:12 The eyes of YHWH preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor (unfaithful, treacherous, traitor, false, unjust).

If Saul/Paul were the treacherous traitor he’s accused of being, wouldn’t his writings have been overthrown by now? Or do you think that YHWH is incapable of preserving His Word?



So are the koran and book of mormons legit then since they haven't been "overthrown"
Does "preserving His Word?" mean there can be NO corruptions, so EVERY translation is equally legitimate?
Offline Richard  
#30 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:00:55 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
RidesWithYah wrote:
Hard for me to see this as "anti-Torah".


Paul was not advocating obedience to Yahuwah's instructions, Rider. He was defending his twisted interpretation of Yahushua's work on our behalf. That is not the same as being "pro-Torah". Paul was pro-Paul, just like the Roman Catholic Church is pro-Roman Catholic Church. Paul's entire universe centered around himself. That is why he talked about himself so much. That is why he felt it necessary to defend himself all the time.

When Mosheh recorded Yahuwah's instructions, he didn't fill up tablet after tablet with explanations of what he was really saying or why he had the right to say it. He just recorded what he was told, nothing more and nothing less. That is the sign of a true and faithful servant, who is committed to his master's cause and not his own. Yahuwah did not feel it necessary to dumb down His Torah for the common man and neither did Mosheh. But Paul felt that we are so intellectually inferior to him that he had to break it all down for us. In his mind, our Father dropped the ball by not giving us all we needed in His Word. Then He tried to make up for His blunder by snatching the hero of mankind, Saul of Tarsus, to His bosom and revealing wonders and Brilliant Truth to him so that he could undo Yahuwah's damage and thus save men's souls. According to Paul's implied reasoning, even Yahushua screwed up and didn't adequately teach the Eleven the truth about the Way. Paul had to step in and rebuke that scoundrel Peter.

Give me a break.

The fact that so much time and effort must be spent defending the man from Tarsus indicates that something is amiss. He is a distraction. We don't need anything he wrote, so why even bother with it?
Offline Walt  
#31 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:09:30 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

Matthew wrote:
He was definitely right though. The storm was strong enough to destroy the ship, cargo and their lives if it had not been for God. Perhaps he saw red sky in the morning and based his warning on it ;) He had no choice but had to go with because he was held prisoner by the centurion. A messenger appeared to him while on the ship and encouraged him by saying no lives will be lost. This cannot be seen a prophetic prediction but rather simply a general warning for some serious weather action. Californians beware of a super storm approaching!


Was he? Is it reliable? Are there any witnesses that show Paul said this before hand?
Luke is recording what Paul told him, Paul could have easily embellished the story to add flair to it. I don't find that Paul has established credibility to believe so just cause he said it.

My logic on this "is Paul of Yah or not" debate is this
The anti-Paul people don't have to prove him false - the burden of proof is on those who claim Paul speaks on the authority of God
The burden should always be on those claiming "this is of God" to show it so - Yah even tells us to test if it is of Him.
Does Paul speak for God as he claims - prove it.

christianity has it backwards (in most everything) by saying "it's all true till proven false" - that's "blind faith" and anti what Yah wants

It's all untrue and unreliable till show to be true & reliable

Any false teacher or prophet can be right some of the time - they have to be right ALL the time
Are we to take Paul as 80%, or 60% reliable?
He is either totally reliable (of Yah and His authority) - or is evil and dangerous - there can't be ANY middle ground in this area
Offline RidesWithYah  
#32 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:05:12 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

I'm not fully convicted either way, yet.
And I am taking extra care not to blaspheme the Spirit,
leaving open the possibility that (some of?) Paul was inspired.

*BUT*
What I keep coming back to is this...
Did Yahshua say, "Y'all just don't get it, so I'm going to come back, appear to just one person, spend as long in the desert with him as I did in my public ministry with y'all, so he can straighten everything out." --OR--
Did Yahshua say, "Beware of false prophets. Many will come in my name, acknowledging that I am the Anointed Implement of Yah, but teaching damnable heresies. If they say I appeared in the desert, don't believe them. If they say I appeared in the inner room of the temple, don't believe them. When I do come back, EVERYONE will know it, because it will be as lightning in the east is visible in the west. I have taught you everything you need to know, go and teach others to observe everything I have commanded you."

That's the hurdle I can't get past, but I'm still praying for a clear and complete understanding and conviction.
*IF* this line of thinking is correct, how in the world do we get others onboard the truth?
It's such a *HUGE* paradigm shift -- metanoeo -- change of thinking.
Offline VinceB.  
#33 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:29:10 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Yahowah having come Himself as Yahowsha' to do His works of affirming confirming enabling and fulfilling His Towrah, all the while literally observing the Towrah as what was given to Yisreal through Mosheh (never adding to or taking away from it) as an example we're to follow what He Himself demonstrated -as if that were some small matter, He also then, not just as Yahowah having come in human flesh: but as Yahowsha' the Ma'aseyah 'IS' the Pesah-&-the very Gate/doorway into God's family in Covenant Relationship with Him just as what was promised and as was demonstrated in Abraham - in other words: Yah does all the work Himself (Gideon, being just one example of thousands, comes to mind), and He invites us along for the ride as Towrah observing followers of His; you just can't go out and pick any day to have your Shabbat day of rest; or go and have a little lent with your coffee...

Further proof we're to follow Yahowah's example (and not Sha'uwl's), beside the obvious distinction between Paul's spirit being more like a tropical-storm/hurricane vs Ruwach Qodesh Who falls like the dew on hills where cattle often graze (Eliyahu/Elijah 19 comes, again, to my mind), is that not only did He fulfill -while also observing and confirming it- Pesah: He also fulfills, while observing and confirming - Unleaven Bread and First Fruits...and rather than having Ruwach Qodesh giving birth to Yah's Called-Out Assembly/His past-present-and His future children two weeks later (heck, why not the following Friday; or the previous Tuesday?)...He did it on the Harvest Festival of Shavuot/Feast of Weeks just as Towrah instructs, and as what was given to us by Mosheh...as QP said, paraphrasing: to God, His Name matters to Him as does His Towrah...
HWHY
Offline sirgodfrey  
#34 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:52:29 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

According to Yah, it takes one lie to be a false prophet.

Galatians 4:24 - maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be an outright lie.... TWO COVENANTS??!!
Offline bigritchie  
#35 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:54:09 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

RidesWithYah wrote:
I am *really* enjoying this thread.
LOTS of good points being made on both sides,
without the vitriol we've seen in some other threads.

Way to go, and keep it coming.

Only thing I'll add is that I did exactly what BigRitchie describes with Romans 3;
it makes your point clear, and I was with you until the very end of the chapter...


Hard for me to see this as "anti-Torah".

Shalom.


O yea, I agree 100% here RWY. And without a doubt there are various verses to suggest that might be pro-Torah (Of course you have to ignore 95% of the other stuff he says though hehe)

by the way, are you all aware the Marcionites accused the "orthodox" of editing Paul's letters and adding various things such as Romans 3:31 to make Paul sound more "kosher". Bart writes about this in Lost Christianities.

is it true? I have NO IDEA!

But regardless of what Romans 3:31 says Paul still butchered what King David was saying. And because most of us were raised as pagan sun god worshipers, we think a righteous man is 100% sinless and has never sinned! And this is just one example of Paul butchering the Tanakh. I just tend to use it because you can read 1 chapter of a Psalm and get the full context.

Here is how I see Paul's writings

I hate small puppies, I hate small puppies, I hate small puppies, I hate small puppies, Small puppies are just and good, I hate small puppies, I hate small puppies, establish a small puppy in your life, I hate small puppies, I hate small puppies.

The Christians scream all day about the "I hate small puppies statements"
The Messianics point out Paul saying "Small puppies are good" They then ignore everything else Paul said and say "Well Paul can't hate small puppies, he said they were good"
Offline Matthew  
#36 Posted : Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:20:46 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Just another quick thing which I'll probably have to dig into some more:

Yada says Paul's Damascus road experience in Acts 22, that of lightning flashes, was not Yahshua talking to him but rather Satan, in reference to Satan falling from heaven as per Luke 10:18. But Psalm 29:7 also states that "The voice of Yahweh strikes with flashes of lightning."
Offline dugdoo56  
#37 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:51:06 AM(UTC)
dugdoo56
Joined: 12/1/2009(UTC)
Posts: 58
Location: adelaide south australia

One thing that worries me is that if someone with all of the know-how and tools to use like Yada and Swalchy, and they come to different results regarding Shaul/Paul, what chance have we with only the basic tools to use. As stated earlier, maybe it is better to just stay with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms...that way, we know we are correct. There are some good points made in the "new covenant" but if there are doubts as to the authenticity of Shaul/Paul, then leave it alone.
Offline MadDog  
#38 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:26:19 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
dugdoo56 wrote:
One thing that worries me is that if someone with all of the know-how and tools to use like Yada and Swalchy, and they come to different results regarding Shaul/Paul, what chance have we with only the basic tools to use.


The point is you can get the very same software and reading material Yada and Swalchy had/have and make your own decision(s).

Swalchy is just being hard-headed. Much like Yada can be hard-headed about WWII and the USA's involvement.

Also, I didn't need all that "know-how" technology to know that there was something wrong with christianity, even since I was a kid and before the internet. But I do thank Yada for hitting the nail on the head on religion, especially christianity.

Yada only said what we were all thinking.

As gifted communicators as Swalchy, Yada and Ken are, they have never claimed to be infallible.

If they were infallible they would be prophets, but none of them even dares to claim that title.

dugdoo56 wrote:
There are some good points made in the "new covenant" but if there are doubts as to the authenticity of Shaul/Paul, then leave it alone.


The best way to hide a lie is between two truths.
Offline Noel  
#39 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:14:52 AM(UTC)
Noel
Joined: 9/27/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: UK

Rides said: (and I agree with him).............

What I keep coming back to is this...
Did Yahshua say, "Y'all just don't get it, so I'm going to come back, appear to just one person, spend as long in the desert with him as I did in my public ministry with y'all, so he can straighten everything out." --OR--
Did Yahshua say, "Beware of false prophets. Many will come in my name, acknowledging that I am the Anointed Implement of Yah, but teaching damnable heresies. If they say I appeared in the desert, don't believe them. If they say I appeared in the inner room of the temple, don't believe them. When I do come back, EVERYONE will know it, because it will be as lightning in the east is visible in the west. I have taught you everything you need to know, go and teach others to observe everything I have commanded you."

That's the hurdle I can't get past, but I'm still praying for a clear and complete understanding and conviction.
*IF* this line of thinking is correct, how in the world do we get others onboard the truth?
It's such a *HUGE* paradigm shift -- metanoeo -- change of thinking.


This is a hugely important subject, and frankly, I am still on the fence, although Rides is absolutely right to be asking for guidance on this subject from the source. If we ask in the right spirit (of genuinely wanting to know either way) then I think we can expect a firm answer.

N
Offline James  
#40 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:34:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
dugdoo56 wrote:
As stated earlier, maybe it is better to just stay with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms.


Go with what you know is true and you can't go wrong.

And even Swalchy and Rob, and Matthew have all said that they don't see Paul as Scripture, but they have found his writings to be useful, and valid. Personally i find his writings to be confusing to the point where you can use them to argue pro Torah or anti Torah, but I also have not invested an extensive amount of time into them, as I would rather spend it in Torah.

So as far as I am concerned as long as the Torah is your guide, love Paul, hate Paul, feel nothing toward Paul, it doesn't matter, just don't base your understanding on him alone.

I'm convinced if all we had was the Torah, we could spend our life studying it, and be good. Everything else is overkill, but nice to have.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline bigritchie  
#41 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:07:11 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Matthew wrote:
Just another quick thing which I'll probably have to dig into some more:

Yada says Paul's Damascus road experience in Acts 22, that of lightning flashes, was not Yahshua talking to him but rather Satan, in reference to Satan falling from heaven as per Luke 10:18. But Psalm 29:7 also states that "The voice of Yahweh strikes with flashes of lightning."


That is a excellent point Matthew.

Though we are still left with the point that Paul told 3 different stories of this encounter. His testimony would be thrown out of court.
Offline bigritchie  
#42 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:09:15 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Noel wrote:
Rides said: (and I agree with him).............

What I keep coming back to is this...
Did Yahshua say, "Y'all just don't get it, so I'm going to come back, appear to just one person, spend as long in the desert with him as I did in my public ministry with y'all, so he can straighten everything out." --OR--
Did Yahshua say, "Beware of false prophets. Many will come in my name, acknowledging that I am the Anointed Implement of Yah, but teaching damnable heresies. If they say I appeared in the desert, don't believe them. If they say I appeared in the inner room of the temple, don't believe them. When I do come back, EVERYONE will know it, because it will be as lightning in the east is visible in the west. I have taught you everything you need to know, go and teach others to observe everything I have commanded you."

That's the hurdle I can't get past, but I'm still praying for a clear and complete understanding and conviction.
*IF* this line of thinking is correct, how in the world do we get others onboard the truth?
It's such a *HUGE* paradigm shift -- metanoeo -- change of thinking.


This is a hugely important subject, and frankly, I am still on the fence, although Rides is absolutely right to be asking for guidance on this subject from the source. If we ask in the right spirit (of genuinely wanting to know either way) then I think we can expect a firm answer.

N


That is a great point also Noel.

In fact I would add this. if Y'shua popped down to visit Paul, why didn't he pop over to the 12 and say "o by the way boys, there is a new sheriff in town"
Offline bigritchie  
#43 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:11:33 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

James wrote:
Go with what you know is true and you can't go wrong.

And even Swalchy and Rob, and Matthew have all said that they don't see Paul as Scripture, but they have found his writings to be useful, and valid. Personally i find his writings to be confusing to the point where you can use them to argue pro Torah or anti Torah, but I also have not invested an extensive amount of time into them, as I would rather spend it in Torah.

So as far as I am concerned as long as the Torah is your guide, love Paul, hate Paul, feel nothing toward Paul, it doesn't matter, just don't base your understanding on him alone.

I'm convinced if all we had was the Torah, we could spend our life studying it, and be good. Everything else is overkill, but nice to have.


And James I think that could be the worst part of the Pauline Corpus.

One sees what he wants to see based upon his or her worldview and religious views when they read Paul, and one sees only confusion.

Although I personally feel like when a person stops being Paul's lawyer and just takes him at face value the overall arching point of what he is saying comes clear.
Offline Noel  
#44 Posted : Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:59:39 PM(UTC)
Noel
Joined: 9/27/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: UK

Okay.

So if Paul is the basis of Christianity (which he is) and Christianity is basically a false religion (as per Yada etc, ) who were the Revelation letters to the 7 churches written to and by whom? Were they written to 7 false religious systems and if so why are some of them commended?

Please someone, say something.

Noel
Offline James  
#45 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 2:13:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Noel wrote:
Okay.

So if Paul is the basis of Christianity (which he is) and Christianity is basically a false religion (as per Yada etc, ) who were the Revelation letters to the 7 churches written to and by whom? Were they written to 7 false religious systems and if so why are some of them commended?

Please someone, say something.

Noel

Revelation was given to Yahuchanon, not Paul. The letters were to seven actual assemblies in that area, but are also symbolic of seven eras that the called out assembly would go through. The God Damn Religion vloume of YY cover these, they are one of my favorite parts of Revelation, because it is a great way to see what Yah likes and what he doesn't.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline cgb2  
#46 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 3:03:02 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
James wrote:
Revelation was given to Yahuchanon, not Paul. The letters were to seven actual assemblies in that area, but are also symbolic of seven eras that the called out assembly would go through. The God Damn Religion vloume of YY cover these, they are one of my favorite parts of Revelation, because it is a great way to see what Yah likes and what he doesn't.


Rev 1:10 I came to be in the Spirit on the Day of יהוה, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 saying, “I am the ‘Aleph’ and the ‘Taw’, the First and the Last,” and, “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven assemblies of Asia – to Ephesos, and to Smurna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodikeia.”

I take this to mean it was both extant assemblies in his time (to get perspective) but more in the context of the time of the end.
Many english translations could give one the impression that he was in the spirit on the 7th day (sabbath)...
Whereas a better translation is Great Day of YHWH(2nd coming of Messiah, ie Isaiah 40, etc).
Offline Daniel  
#47 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 4:55:15 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

cgb2 wrote:
I don't understand the reverence for the Roman & Protesting Catholic Canons of authorized books. Why were Revelation and Enoch omitted during most of the 300's, then Revelation made the cut but not Enoch? Why are Jubilees, Jasher & others mentioned in the OT but not included? Look at the agendas of various meetings (Council of Nicea, when to have easter, etc)...



This is precisely the problem. Once you accept that the only stuff in the last third of the "Bible" that could be construed to be the Word of God is printed in red ink, the problem of Paul starts to go away.

When Mr. Oftarsus writings are taken to be what they say they are, ie: personal correspondence, he becomes just another first century itinerant evangelist. His letters become just that, half (or sometimes one quarter!) of a 'conversation' that we are trying to piece together two thousand years later. It is like reading only (half of) the e-mail messages in some guy's "Sent Messages" folder, then building an entire doctrine around that material.

Some of the stuff Paul says could be attributed to hyperbolic speech, perhaps he is just trying to "make a point". On this very forum people's writings get misunderstood all the time, even when we can see the entire "thread" of messages.

If we move Paul off shelf of "Scripture" and down to the shelf that has writings/books by Clement, Polycarp, Ignatious, Irenaeus, CS Lewis, Francis Schaffer, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Jim Dobson, Max Luchado, Rob Bell, et al. then he (Paul) is just another guy. He makes some good points, and he is waaaaaay off on some others.

The people who said "Paul's writings are the Word of God" are the same people who brought us Christmas, Easter and Priestly Child Molestation. Their belief system is based upon the writings of an itinerant first century evangelist who was always getting in trouble with the disciples and "James". Who gives a rat's-rump about what they think? These jokers say that they follow Jesus, but they can't even get His name right!!!

Perhaps I should write a 600 page book/website under the title: "Ignoring Paul".

(Sorry, Yada, I couldn't resist!)

I am going to spend most of my time studying and applying the stuff in the Tannahk and the words in red. I may study Mr. Oftarsus writings, later, perhaps in the fall of 2033...
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline VinceB.  
#48 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 7:02:46 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

The people who said "Paul's writings are the Word of God" are the same people who brought us Christmas, Easter and Priestly Child Molestation. Their belief system is based upon the writings of an itinerant first century evangelist who was always getting in trouble with the disciples and "James". Who gives a rat's-rump about what they think? These jokers say that they follow Jesus, but they can't even get His name right!!!

I could not agree more with what you said here...

the entire western civilization is based primarily on Pauline Doctrine that takes the one act of God -done at the death and resurrection of Yahowsha' the Ma'aseyah (the act He does on behalf of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms)- and creates an entirely counter-clock-wise religious system out of it in which we no longer have to know God in how He wants to be known, and do what it says - which is having relationship/fellowship with Him; and we now have 2 separate Covenants: Ones an old and out dated one having been replaced by the new and improved as Sha'uwl interprets things, and reads into everything, things to become his New Testement...Yahowah is still going forward clock-wise as He always has...because of Pauline Doctrine, and its influences into the western Europe into America etc., it's gotten to the point in which to do as Yah says in Towrah to do (Shabbat Days and Feast Days - observing and doing the Towrah as Yah admonishes us to have fellowship and relationship with Him in doing things His way - and thus being a real light, and making real difference in a world that says: it just doesn't matter...), you'd probably lose your job - in other words: 21st Century Western Civilization founded/influenced mostly out of Pauline teachings requires we 'break' the Towrah, Propehts, and Psalms in order to make a living...and thus making null and void the Covenant Relationship He had with Abraham, and that He would like to have with us if not for Pauline Doctrine getting in the way and blocking us from seeing Him clearly as He's revealed Himself to us.

Perhaps I should write a 600 page book/website under the title: "Ignoring Paul".

(Sorry, Yada, I couldn't resist!)



You write it, and I'll be buying it; adding it to my collection...

I am going to spend most of my time studying and applying the stuff in the Tannahk and the words in red. I may study Mr. Oftarsus writings, later, perhaps in the fall of 2033...


For me, reading Paul's stuff literally makes me sick and makes me feel depressed...there's no real joy after reading Sha'uwl's stuff...If I read Yeshayahu/Isaiah, or any part of the Torah Prophets and Psalms, I sense and feel I've met with God when I'm finished reading.
HWHY
Offline cgb2  
#49 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 7:25:55 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
and in regards to the Roman & Protesting Catholic canon of approved books:

Why is there 66 books and not 77 ? :^) kidding.
Offline James  
#50 Posted : Monday, January 24, 2011 8:12:59 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
VinceB. wrote:
creates an entirely counter-clock-wise religious system out of it in which we no longer have to know God in how He wants to be known


Off topic a bit, but I've been proof reading some of Yada's new material, and one line particularly fits exactly what Vince is saying here.

Yada wrote:
What on Earth causes the faithful to believe that God wants to accept someone into His home who wouldn't even recognize Him if they were invited inside?
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
4 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.