Let us take that thought a bit further.

Why were they not written to the churches Paul started?

That has to be the single longest sentence I may have ever read. WOW. Deep breath ...

I need to ask: How is the 12 loaves of bread that is to be laid out on the pure gold table within the temple before Yahweh every Sabbath as a lasting covenant not a covenant?

Godfrey, in my mind the author makes it clear that it is to be seen figuratively, i.e. two paths to God: 1) trying to achieve it in one's own might (sweat, blood and pain) or 2) through the promise, which is to rely on God to perform the miracle. Trying to fulfill the promise in one's own strength is a fools errand, as Abraham learnt the hard way, it resulted in unnecessary troubles for him. Even at the time of sleeping with Hagar, his slave, he believed in Yahweh, yet still he could not achieve what he set out to achieve no matter how noble his intention was.

His mistake still causes us major trouble even today, we have Islam thanks to it, a religion built on the concept of slavery.

Obviously to display trust in Yahweh is to heed His advise and do what He says. But we mustn't think that somehow our circumcision (our sweat, pain and blood), or Torah observance for that matter, adds to the finished work of Yahshua.

Now consider David who, in a relationship with Yahweh, willfully blew 5 Commandments and yet in 2 Chronicles 7:11-12 was commended for having kept them all in Yahweh's covenant speech to Solomon. Why wasn't David separated from Yahweh for these serious violations? Because he never abandoned Yahweh. Instead David understood that his sins were covered, they were atoned for because he confessed and acknowledged them.

How did David "keep the Torah" if he blew it on occasion? Because to keep the Torah means to Love God, Love one's neighbour and to recognise Yahshua as the Messiah.

Also, we're fooling ourselves to think we're "Torah observant" when in fact we follow a heavily, heavily truncated list.

How's this for a covenant:

Paul said that the dead would rise before the living at the Trumpets harvest. He also said Yah's spirit would be removed. From where, the earth? That's what's usually assumed. He also said that there would be a falling away from the truth. That would be assuming there had been a general acceptance of the truth in the first place. There has been no such acceptance, at least in any popular or common scenario, in the history of mankind. So, who's truth is Paul referring to? Paul said the anti-messiah would be revealed after the "falling away". When has/is the falling away going to occur?
So, is any of this true?

Well from passages like Isaiah 26 and 57 it's not hard to see the possibility dead rising first. I don't have concrete evidence of the dead rising before the living but I wouldn't be surprised if it's mentioned as a hidden nugget in the Tanakh.

Technically, if God raptures those with His Spirit then for a short time being there won't be many "saved" believers, and plus in Leviticus 14 Yahshua hints at Him shutting the house up to let it run its course on its own. This doesn't mean His Spirit won't be present, because obviously He pours it out on His sons and daughters during the time of Jacob's trouble, but it seems Yahweh is refraining from protecting Man.

Falling away? It's mentioned in Matthew 24. I think it's already begun yet will accelerate, much like the prophecy of God pouring out His Spirit in Joel 2:28-29 when Peter claims it to be fulfilled in Acts 2:14-47 though we know its complete fulfillment will come during the End Times.

Matthew, I'm not sure that we can say that Yahshua said he definitely wasn't going to the feast, from the KJV it says not up yet, not sure if that's a good translation or not.
John 7:8 " Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. "

More concerning to me is that they say Paul spoke with satan on the road to Damascus, because what he was taught was against the law that was given to Moses. But they won't say that about the vision that was given to Peter when he spoke with Yahshua about clean & unclean things, which Peter believed was agianst those same laws. That they won't hold Yahshua to those same standards when he & his apostals were picking corn on the Sabbath which was also against those same laws. Moses had a man stoned to death for just picking up sticks on the Sabbath, there seems to be a doublr standard on this issue.

When you say "law that was given to Moses", you mean the written Torah, right?

This is distinct from the "oral law", given by the rabbis, that would later be codified in the Talmud.




1) Kefa (Peter) knew Yahushua before He died. Kefa could recognize Him by the sound of His voice (and/or sight, if Yahushua actually appeared in the vision). Paul couldn't pick Yahushua out of a police line up because they never met. How could Paul know whom he was actually being addressed by during his 'road to Damascus' experience?

B) Kefa's Ruach-assisted interpretation and application of the vision was not in conflict with the "law that was given to Moses", the written Torah. It was in conflict with the "oral law" being enforced by the religious guys of the day.



III) Nope, grabbing a bite to eat was NOT forbidden by "law that was given to Moses" (the written Torah). In fact, the Torah prescribed that 'the corners of the fields' be left unharvested for 'the poor'. It was a violation of the "oral law", but once again, the religious guys find themselves on the opposite side of what YHWH actually said!

d) The moment Yahushua broke any part of the Torah, He would have been immediately disqualified as MessiYah. According to the 'religious Jews' (then and now) He was violating "the law" all the time. He wasn't violating the written Torah, rather, He was in violation of their "oral law".



Kinda like this guy, clearing brush at his "ranch" in Crawford Texas on a Saturday:
[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7rJMXRxx6Q0TTLgBs1RhpQP5SUc0PfFHan0ABBD3JZbon8h9qQg[/img]

Truth B-Told here is a really good video I think you would enjoy.

It is from a Karaite Jew (Tanakh Only) who is a former Ultra orthodox Jew, and he explains the "Oral Torah". I think this might answer some of the questions you have.

http://video.google.com/...cid=2662031810327980639#

Saw it coming...


Praise Yah!

From Questioning Paul chapter 2:



It my last email to Yada, which was posted on the forum, I tried to be as academic as possible. Yada's reply, in my opinion, was somewhat opinionated. Could someone please inform him that Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus use placeholders for the passage in question, and that every manuscript up until the 9th Century CE uses placeholders.

Sorry!!!..OP should be, QP.

If we want to criticize Yada's extrapolations and suppositions at every turn...be they minute or more substantial then I think we can look at ourselves at well. I am sorry but considering how much the Word is referred to in the Tanakh I really think it is unneccesary and agenda driven to conclude that Yahuchanan's Word had anything to do with the Stoics or with Heraclitus.

So for the benefit of Paul who quotes from everyone from Epimenides to Menander and even puts Greek drama into the very mouth of Yahushua we are going to take one word and conclude that Yahuchanan was into Greek philosophy based on that one word that is a translation of the Hebrew dabar.....I find that suspect.

That would be a fine analogy Matthew if these people had nothing but the writing of Yahuchanan to guide them and teach them but I believe there is also a book called the Tanakh. Anyone who takes the time to read that book would indeed understand by the time that they got around to Yahuchanan what the "whole nine yards" meant.
I also think we are missing a very big point here. There is this natural attitude where all the Goyim were just a bunch of ignorant pagans that had no idea who the God of Israel was and had no idea about the Torah, the Nebiim and the Ketubim and the perspective offered in those books. That is decidedly false. We know for a fact that the Yahudim were everywhere in the ancient world be it Rome or Greece or North Africa or Anatolia. Wherever they went they built synagogues and those synagogues were chock full o' converts, god-fearers and the inquiring. And there were plenty of synagogues when you consider that more than 10 percent of the population was Jewish and the Jewish population peaked somewhere right around the time we are talking about at 8 to 10 million....in an empire of 60 million. Sure, there were some who did fall into that catagory...the ignorant pagan goy wallowing in darkness....but I think that it is safe to say that many if not most of those who were coming into the Way were coming from at least a cursory backround in the Torah and many of those in that catagory were extremely well versed and dilligent and were already immersed in the Jewish community by virtue of living in it. Furthermore, we can only imagine at that time how much more centered things were on the Tanakh....to the point of exclusivity....it was a Tanakh culture....there were no "new testament christians" at this time. If they wanted understanding they immersed themselves in Tanakh and I am sure they were ravenous.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking even for one moment that I am completely against you Matthew. I just want to say straight away that though at times the dialogue has been intense I can say for myself and I think I speak for others when I say that I appreciate your contribution. You have kept us honest and kept us on our toes and you have striven to make valid and challenging points. You have spoken the truth on many issues. It is my strong conviction that Yada would benefit immensely if he ammended QP in light of many of the issues that you have brought up. Indeed, you are correct chariti/charis-grace is a term not exclusively used by Paul. And I don't think it is right to give it some pagan goddess connotation even if you disagree with the theology if Y'aqob, Shimon Kepha, and Yahuchanan are all using the same terminology. I never really saw eye to eye with Yada on the whole "Gesus" thing either. I am not in favor of messing with the placeholders...if they are there...they are there. The style of questioning Paul is something that sometimes makes me squirm. The tone of the book is too personal for many. Could the points still be made without the "Paul was a homo" as Daniel puts it? The answer is yes....they could be. As I said Yada could benefit from these criticisms. I don't agree with or ascribe to everything that is in QP, but I will say this. QP makes some very valid points and brings attention to some very disconcerting facts that escape those who have been lulled into sleep by accepting at the outset that everything that is found in the "bible" is trustworthy and true. For the sake of brevity I will only name a few. The conflicts of the accounts of Paul's Damascus road experience, the Moshiach's admonitions about false prophets in Matthew and Paul fitting the character of many of those warnings, the fact that there had to be a deceiver in the generation of the disciples that would even deceive those that were chosen, the fact that Paul said he was tortured with a prod by a demon, the fact that according to Paul Messiah was quite a fan of Greek drama, the fact that one second Paul is saying yeah, Torah is great and the next second he is comparing it to Hagar and saying it was a task master am not comfortable with Paul's egoism and I will agree with Yada that he comes off more like Muhammad that YashaYahu. It is all about Paul all the time. It is one big sad pathetic pity party half the time and a braggadocio's fanfare the other half. I am not comfortable with what I have to say is deception on the part of Paul...being all things to all people. And just what is the law of Messiah if it is not Torah? For these reasons and many others I am not going to accept Paul. I have said it before and I will say it again. Paul troubled me long before QP was written. I had to jump though hoops and torture the text to make it flush with the Tanakh and with the words of Yahushua. And I wrote several pieces on the YY forum that were apologies for Paul that I now regret. I tried to gain peace of mind by lying to myself. I will say one more thing. In our circumcision debates I did not rely on QP for my arguments. This is not merely about Yada's Questioning of Paul....this is also my own QP.

Well said Shalom. Like you there are aspects of QP that I don't think should be in it, and I told Yada that at the time, but it is his book, and he has his reasons, rather we agree with them or not. But I think while aspects here and there can be rightfully challenged, I think overall the argument is strong.

amane shalom82, and Brother James

Yada is substantially more than 1% right!

Paul of Tarsus personal correspondence should never have been considered The Word of God!

(Be sure and buy my 600 page book: Ignoring Paul )

;-)

I hope I did not cause you to make your computer keyboard "ceremonially unclean".

Sorry, but I have to ask: what does that make Yada if he [Yada] is 99% wrong?

Chuck, my issue comes with what I see as false accusations, claiming things Paul said where there's absolutely no indication he did. For example saying Paul intended to not use placeholders but Greek corruptions instead. See Yada's translation of Galatians 6:18 from chapter 11 of QP below:



There are just so many errors in the above passage it's not even funny. Take for example Yada is saying Paul is referring to an Egyptian sungod. The author of Galatians used the Greek word αμην and not Αμμων. Αμμων is the transliteration of the Egyptian polytheistic god, pronounced Amun-Ra and not Amen-Ra. The Greek αμην is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew אמן (alef, mem, nun) meaning "something truthful, reliable, correct, established, upright, confirmed, verified, sure, trustworthy, lasting, supported, upheld, and nourished."

By the way, which passage of the Pauline Epistles is Yada referring to when he says Paul is claiming to speak on behalf of God?

If Paul isn't speaking on behalf of God - then he is just another religious leader burdening sheep with rules of men - a part of the problem and NOT of the solution

Just to come back to this point. Yada might not directly claim to be a "prophet" or that his words are "Scripture," something I don't see Paul doing either, but Yada has called himself a "messenger" of Yahweh, a "witness" of His truth and that "Yahweh asked" him to "engage" in the mission (so far POD, YY and QP). He also chooses to not "ascribe" his name to his work. So whose words are they, am I to believe they are they of the one "Yahweh asked" to write?

Therefore Yada's words should to be heavily weighed, especially since he's attempting to translate Scripture and commenting on it. Something I believe all of you already know. In fact all of us must have our own words measured because of the warning in Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."

Interesting note: by doing a word count Yada equals Paul's complete word count in just the opening two chapters of Questioning Paul. Yada has written substantially more than Paul. Minus the translation and amplification work I'm pretty certain Yada's comments alone equals that of Paul, if not way more. Yada tries to claim his words are "mostly irrelevant" but then goes on to speak about the importance of accuracy in translating. Because he translates and then provides commentary actually causes his words to become relevant, especially as his translations and interpretations are leading people to a similar belief as his.



Walt, is there specific passage you're referring to when suggesting Paul's laying burdens on us?

Seems frequently, and often without trying, some other thing reaffirms conflict with Paul. Some "messianic" streaming radio I listen is usually freindly toward Paul but yet often uses extreme reasoning to get it to fit. Now I run into this broadcast on "Women should remain silent..."
http://www.truth2u.org/2...uld-women-be-silent.html

While still trying to include Paul he explains how things in things in the bible should be considered "inspired", "history", "midrash", etc...
He talks about "Women should be silent.." and other misogyny verse as coming from the Talmud not the Torah, since there's many examples of women given authority and whatnot in the Torah. Yet that Corithians verse prefaces "for it is written...". If true, sounds like just another who teaches the doctrines of men for the commandments of YHWH. Hope someone knows Talmud better than I do and can listen and find the verses he mentions.

My favorite observation.

My challenge to X-ians goes something like this: "You think that in first century Palistine someone named 'Jesus' was born on Christmas day, later killed by The Jews on the cross, and came back to life on Easter and did away with the Torah."

(Sometimes I have to explain what the Torah is before we can move on.)

They usually say "Yeah, that's right! That is what I believe!"

Then I have to tell them that NONE of those things are true.

Then I ask "You are trying to tell me how I can have a personal relationship with the Messiah and how He loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN GET HIS NAME RIGHT?!?!?!"

It usually sends them screaming into the night.



Anti-Christ, but Pro-MessiYah!

I think a valid point is that although the Creator knows our hearts (as they say), He would like for us to know His as well. He states many times that He has one personal name.

In addition to the aforementioned, His name conveys meaning that the traditional name is completely devoid of. Which then runs back to the ten commandments, Him stating not to bring his name to nothing or vanity. Look into the hebrew words for that specific commandment as it is one of the most enlightening discoveries I have ever made.

and welcome to the forum! :) :)