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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, December 7, 2016 8:55:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
W wrote:
Happy Shabat Yada, I hope this email finds you well. I heard on a past Observations program you talk about the 3 doors of the Ark; and the 3 destinations of the human soul. I had an insight that I'm sure came from Yah's set apart Spirit. It's about the dimensions Yah gave Noah for the Ark and what I see as a parallel to the Miqra'ey .....the 300 cubits in length parallel the first 3 miqra'ey, the 50 cubits in width parallel Shabuwa and the 30 cubits in height the equal to Taruwah, Kippurym and Sukah . If I have missed something in observations or even a past broadcast and this perspective has been covered I apologize for being slow on the take. If not could you take the ball and run with it when you have the time; I'm sure between the family more insights and understanding may come out of it.


Thanks, W


Yada wrote:
W,

The pattern seems to generally fit. 3 days for P, M, and B, then 49 / 50 days to the one day of S depending upon when you start counting, then 3 days over 15 days for T, K, and S. So I think you are right.
Thanks for sharing this.

Yada
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
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Mike on 1/13/2017(UTC)
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, December 7, 2016 8:58:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Originally Posted by: J& Go to Quoted Post
Yada,

Reading Observations heavily today and, once again, I'm reminded of how I wish I read this material every day!!!

It’s such a blessing to have this rich material to read.

Going back to reading now.

But I do have two questions (one from C):

1) Do all the Covenant member patriarchs, Abraham, Dowd, etc., come to earth to live for the 1000 Millennial reign? (and approximately what do you think the earth’s population will be then; and who percent would be Covenant members and what percentage would be people who weren’t Covenant members but who lived through the tribulation?

2) How important is it for us to take a strict and total break on the Shabbat? Is it OK to fudge a bit, taking some business calls, reading a little email, etc? Does it displease Yahowah if we work too much on the Sabbath? Or is it just bad for us health-wise not to take a break?


Thanks.

J&C


Yada wrote:
J&C,

1) We are not told. I suspect that the answer is "yes" on Abraham, Moseh, and Dowd, et. all, but do not know for sure. It seems likely based upon what we are told.

Apart from two periods, the Exodus and conclusion of the Tribulation, there have only been been between 0 and 10,000 Covenant members at any particular period of time. We know that there were 600,000 men, plus more than that number of women and probably twice that number of children during the Exodus, totally 3 to 5 million. Our best guess is that there are 15 million Yisra'elites today, but 2 of 3 will die, leaving fewer than 5 million. A very small number of Gowym will join them.

Since we don't actually know Yah's method of determining who is a Yisra'elite, it's hard to put a number on it. But they will procreate for 1000 years during which time very few will die.

No one will live through the Tribulation and survive Yah's return who is not part of the Covenant.

2) Strict isn't part of Yah's vocabulary. As with all things Yah, understanding and appreciation is more important than anything else. Keep the seventh day special, set apart from the ordinary. Enjoy what Yah has done for us.

Yada
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
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/20/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#3 Posted : Monday, December 19, 2016 12:22:28 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JM wrote:
Paul Mikov is the United Nationals liaison from World Vision. He is a prolific writer and he might be the Torahless one.

Just keeping an eye on him. When quoting his name in quote marks in a search, about 10% of those stories have the word “Macedonia” in them.

In contrast, I don’t think the Torahless one is George Soros since he’s Hungarian and probably too old. But here’s an interesting article about how Soros, in conjunction with USAID, is giving millions of dollars from his foundation to Macedonia, but the opening gives away the fact that not one penny appears to be earmarked for food for the poor. Here’s the first two incredible paragraphs:

Over the last five years, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has funneled $5 million to the small Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, through George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. That seemed strange to me. I thought USAID was all about spending money to fight poverty and disease abroad. Shows you what I know. USAID does fight poverty and disease, but it considers promoting Western-style liberal democracy to be part of that. From USAID’s website:

Similarly, our cross-cutting efforts in promoting democracy, rights and good governance, empowering women and girls, advancing prosperity, building resilient societies, and mitigating climate change are all essential to ending poverty...

Later in the article it says: Soros’s Macedonian foundation translated and published Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, and promoted it with an event in Skopje, the nation’s capital… (that book, as I think you know, was dedicated by Saul (note the first name) Alinsky to Lucifer in the front of the book since Lucifer was the first radical)

Here’s the full article for reference:

http://www.theamericanco...-america/comment-page-1/


JM


Yada wrote:
Paul is the right name. And Soros is a likely benefactor. Macedonia is clearly part of the nexus.

Interesting to be sure.

Yada
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
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/20/2016(UTC), Mike on 1/13/2017(UTC)
Offline James  
#4 Posted : Monday, January 9, 2017 5:05:15 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
E wrote:
Hello, I was drawn to Yada Yahweh site years ago and was enthusiastic about diving in. Unfortunately, I was led away for a bit. I won’t bore you with excuses, but I am back and anxious to begin a new journey to get to know Yahweh.

In listening to your radio archive, The Word Part 1: while reading along with the text, you mentioned not having the answer for individuals questioning whether or not one would enter heaven after having lived and died under the false teachings of Christianity. Is this not addressed in Hosea 4, beginning with verse 6?

Beginning Hosea 4:6 (a common translation) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…


Thanks,
E


Yada wrote:
Eric,

I must have misspoken. No Christian has or will ever enter heaven. To enter Yahowah's home one has to be part of His Covenant Family. The terms and conditions for doing so are presented exclusively in the Towrah.

The souls of those who die deceived by their religion are destroyed. That is indeed what Hosea 4.6 affirms.

Yada

PS: Welcome back.

Some time ago I was mistaken about how to pronounce YHWH. But now after evaluating every word in Yahowah's lexicon and considering the pronunciation of all 22 letters, it is Yahowah. I cover the reasons behind this conclusion in the Name Volume of www.AnIntroductionToGod.com.
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 James  
#5 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2017 8:51:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
JER wrote:
I have just begun to watch you video on youtube regarding discernment. I appreciate you speaking of the name of the Most High as few do.

I would like to know the word (hebrew) which you use for the ability to reason. Sounded a bit like TSaomah. Please forward this to me.

Now for a search and my study on the name in the New Covenant. I have found that the root spelling in greek gives the CODE or sequence of the Name that the Father in Heaven, sent His only Son with. I will forward a PDF of my work if you like.

JER
a hungry student which is a bit learning.

Please forward you response to the ability to discern in Hebrew as asked above? Also please forward you name. I will say that the greek core letter to make known the hebrew name is used over 923 time. A clue.


Yada wrote:
JER,

I don't know what video you are referencing because I've never produced or posted one - although others have done so based upon my radio shows.

The Almighty's name is Yahowah. That is God's one and only name.

The Hebrew word for understanding is byn. It means to make connections. The Hebrew word for knowing is yada'. It speaks of becoming aware. Both require either shama' listening or shamar observation.

There is no "New Covenant." There is only one Covenant. Most of the Christian New Testament is false.

Yahowah does not have a Greek name. There is no merit to Greek coding. Yahowah is a Hebrew name. It is based upon the Hebrew verb hayah.

Yada
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 James  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:00:03 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Roy wrote:
Yada,
I was listening to your discusssion of the malakim on BTR.
It occurred to me that there may be a larger dimension to the functions of the malakim. That they are tools to carry Yah’s will into lower dimensions is a given.
Yah is neither omniscient nor omnipresent for the reasons you elucidated. He certainly can’t be omnipresent in our dimension and I agree He would not want to see everything happening here on earth. The extent of the evil is so great that He would be in hell if He had to see it continuously.
Just being aware of even a tiny bit of the evil of this world is enough to drive any normal person to despair.

So this is where the malakim come in.
As spiritual beings they may be invisible to us or they may choose to manifest themselves in different ways – such as humans or in any other way you could imagine.

I suspect their function here on earth is two fold.
1 To protect family members
2 To report back to Yah.

It is likely that the reports are edited, truncated and highly specific by Yah’s direction, so that Yah is not swamped with a whole lot of useless information.
It is likely that each family member is assigned a malak immediately after the family member takes the decision to join the covenant. The malak’s function would then be in the role of a protector a la Mismowr 19.

Recently on Frank’s show we discussed what would happen to the soul of a family member who was dementing. Memory, personality, character and higher reasoning functions are the traits that make us who we are and what makes us unique. These traits are stored in the brain as software is in a computer.
Progressive destruction of the brain by dementia from whatever cause results in the progressive loss of memory, personality, character and reasoning ability such that by the time of death, that individual is little more than flesh and bones.
Under those circumstances if Yah waited until we died of natural causes in many cases there would be no ‘usable’ soul to insert into a new spiritual body.

So my hypothesis is that as soon as each individual makes an informed and rational decision based on knowledge and understanding to join the covenant, a malak is assigned to that individual. The malak does not simply protect the individual a la mismowr 19, he also takes an ‘imprint’ of the personality and character of the individual - perhaps with the help of the Spirit - like an uploaded file to be stored in heaven pending Yah’s return. (See Revelations – the souls stored under the throne).

Thereafter whatever happens to the individual, his/her membership of Yah’s family is not affected.

The malak may monitor the newly minted family member, guide him/her in daily life, provide insight and understanding and report back to Yah. The role of the Spirit in clothing us with light may be to make our (continuing) sins invisible to the malak so he has little or nothing to report back to Yah. So the malakim may act as editors and filters as well as functionaries in lower dimensions.

Zacaryah 3 illustrates another possible function of the malakim. The scene is in heaven immediately after Yahowha’s rescue from She’owl. Yah, Satan, the prophet (in spirit) and a malak are present as well. Yahowsha’s guilt in the imagery of dirty, filthy rags are still on him in heaven which means He was not cleansed of sin while in She’owl.
The malak’s role in the scene depicted is not clear.
I suspect the malak is actually the one that brought Yahowsha out of She’owl or moved Yahowsha to heaven after He had been rescued from She’owl by the Spirit since the light that Yahowsha eventually saw after (? billions of years) being persecuted by Satan in She’owl was the Spirit. (There was some argument in the group as to whether the spirit could go to She’owl but I contend that she could as she is not Yah himself by a diminished manifestation like Yahowsha who could and did go to She’owl. )
Roy


Yada wrote:
Roy wrote:
I was listening to your discusssion of the malakim on BTR.
It occurred to me that there may be a larger dimension to the functions of the malakim. That they are tools to carry Yah’s will into lower dimensions is a given.
Yah is neither omniscient nor omnipresent for the reasons you elucidated. He certainly can’t be omnipresent in our dimension and I agree He would not want to see everything happening here on earth. The extent of the evil is so great that He would be in hell if He had to see it continuously.
Just being aware of even a tiny bit of the evil of this world is enough to drive any normal person to despair.


We agree on all four points.

Roy wrote:
So this is where the malakim come in.
As spiritual beings they may be invisible to us or they may choose to manifest themselves in different ways – such as humans or in any other way you could imagine.

I suspect their function here on earth is two fold.
1 To protect family members
2 To report back to Yah.


We agree on both points.

Roy wrote:
It is likely that the reports are edited, truncated and highly specific by Yah’s direction, so that Yah is not swamped with a whole lot of useless information.
It is likely that each family member is assigned a malak immediately after the family member takes the decision to join the covenant. The malak’s function would then be in the role of a protector a la Mismowr 19.


Agreed. Although to be fair, this is an extrapolation from what we know and is based upon what we understand.

Roy wrote:
Recently on Frank’s show we discussed what would happen to the soul of a family member who was dementing. Memory, personality, character and higher reasoning functions are the traits that make us who we are and what makes us unique. These traits are stored in the brain as software is in a computer.
Progressive destruction of the brain by dementia from whatever cause results in the progressive loss of memory, personality, character and reasoning ability such that by the time of death, that individual is little more than flesh and bones.
Under those circumstances if Yah waited until we died of natural causes in many cases there would be no ‘usable’ soul to insert into a new spiritual body.


While I'm not certain, this makes sense to me. In fact, it would be hard to imagine any other viable option. I think you are right.

Roy wrote:
So my hypothesis is that as soon as each individual makes an informed and rational decision based on knowledge and understanding to join the covenant, a malak is assigned to that individual. The malak does not simply protect the individual a la mismowr 19, he also takes an ‘imprint’ of the personality and character of the individual - perhaps with the help of the Spirit - like an uploaded file to be stored in heaven pending Yah’s return. (See Revelations – the souls stored under the throne).


We have every reason to accept this as true. In fact, there may well be more than one mal'ak assigned to each Covenant member based upon the mission and associated risks.

Roy wrote:
Thereafter whatever happens to the individual, his/her membership of Yah’s family is not affected.

The malak may monitor the newly minted family member, guide him/her in daily life, provide insight and understanding and report back to Yah. The role of the Spirit in clothing us with light may be to make our (continuing) sins invisible to the malak so he has little or nothing to report back to Yah. So the malakim may act as editors and filters as well as functionaries in lower dimensions.


I'm not prone to accept the "guidance" aspects of this, as that is the role of the Set-Apart Spirit, but I'm with you on monitoring and reporting. If we are correct in being flooded with the Set-Apart Spirit's light, the mal'akym would not have to edit, but I concur, they would filter out the mundane and only report the useful.

Roy wrote:
Zacaryah 3 illustrates another possible function of the malakim. The scene is in heaven immediately after Yahowha’s rescue from She’owl. Yah, Satan, the prophet (in spirit) and a malak are present as well. Yahowsha’s guilt in the imagery of dirty, filthy rags are still on him in heaven which means He was not cleansed of sin while in She’owl.


I think, but cannot prove, that you are right regarding mal'ak, probably Gabriel and Michael, freeing Yahowsha's soul from She'owl. He was then forgiven in Shaba'ym because He was a member of the Covenant and was Towrah observant, having attended and accepted the Miqra'ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Shabuw'ah.

Roy wrote:
The malak’s role in the scene depicted is not clear.


Agreed.

Roy wrote:
I suspect the malak is actually the one that brought Yahowsha out of She’owl or moved Yahowsha to heaven after He had been rescued from She’owl by the Spirit since the light that Yahowsha eventually saw after (? billions of years) being persecuted by Satan in She’owl was the Spirit. (There was some argument in the group as to whether the spirit could go to She’owl but I contend that she could as she is not Yah himself by a diminished manifestation like Yahowsha who could and did go to She’owl. )


We may disagree on the Set-Apart Spirit going into She'owl to rescue Yahowsha's soul, but you have studied this more than I 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 James  
#7 Posted : Sunday, February 26, 2017 3:00:50 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Roy wrote:
Hi Yada,
I listened to the discussion on last week’s BTR.
Near the end you discussed the meaning of Zak 3. In it you stated that the risen Yahowsha could not actually have been in heaven in the scene described by the prophet since Yah would not permit even Yahowsha to appear in heaven contaminated with our sin. (Please correct me if I have misquoted you).
At first blush this seemed an obvious truism. However, consider the fact that Satan is permitted to enter heaven when Yah allows it. Of all creation, Satan would have to be the one most covered in the filth of sin. He was described as being present while Yahowah judged Yahowsha in heaven.
Additionally if Yah created evil as He stated, then evil would have existed in heaven, even if only in the mind of God.
In my view the scene in heaven is not a metaphor but a vision given to Zakaryah of what actually transpired in heaven after Yahowsha was rescued from She’owl.
As for who rescued Him, it could have been the Spirit or a malak as I previously stated. In fact the malak mentioned in Zakaryah may have been the one who rescued Yahowsha.

This brings me to the garden and the women in Mattenyah.

I wonder why Yahowsha after leaving She’owl should wander around in the region of the garden tomb. Why not go straight to heaven to the scene described in Zak 3? After ascending straight away to the Father, He could have returned after empowerment to give us all a teaching moment as illustrated by the failure of most He met to recognise him.
Logically, the Spirit could not have been on him as described in Mattenyah since He was still contaminated with our transgressions. Additionally we are told the Spirit clothed Him only when he was in heaven in the presence of the Father and had been declared innocent by Yahowah as described in Zak 3.
So what did the women see? And why were they directed not to touch Yahowsha before He went to the father?
They could not contaminate Him since He at that moment was already contaminated. His physical body was gone; all the was left was His soul.
I doubt He could have injured the women in that state.
So, one possible explanation is that He could have been under the protection of a malak/many malak who were under instructions to let nobody interfere with Yahowsha’s soul.

The bottom line is, I suspect, that that part of Mattenyah may have been corrupted.
Roy


Yada wrote:
My friend,

We typically agree, but not in this case my friend. I realize that you are much smarter than I am and that you have spent more time evaluating this passage, so you could be right and I might be wrong.

But...I do not think that Yahowsha' the High Priest is Yahowsha' ben Yahowah. The focus is on Yaruwshalaim, Tsyown, and Yahuwdah - and especially Yaruwshalaim (Zechariah 2.12-13). So I think that Yahowsha' the High Priest is more likely Yahowsha' ben Yahowzadak, the High Priest in Haggai 1.1. The two prophets overlapped and testified after the return from Babylon but before the second temple. The timing and location of Yahowsha's tenure as High Priest, as well as his name, serves as a perfect metaphor for the soiled nature of Yahuwshalaim's attire which will be cleansed upon Yah's return, and prior to Him establishing His home on Tsyown.

If I'm right, the Mal'ak-Messenger/Representative of Yahowah who "'uwd - returned to eternally surround and forever sustain," this individual, also changing his garments from soiled to pristine, "bore eternal witness which should be observed because it serves as an admonishment" which in the hifil imperfect, has the mal'ak causing the individual to participate in this action on an ongoing basis, is Yahowsha' ben Yahowah.

This said, there is so much of this that is interesting, that I will translate all of Zakaryah 1-4 in the near future. I may come to see it differently. But between now and then, I don't see this in conflict with the Set Apart Spirit being unified with Yahowsha's soul on Bikuwrym or with the testimony in Mattanyah.

I would also like to engage further in discussing why Satan can come before Yah, even though he advocates evil. As light, he can appear perfect. As a messenger of evil, he will be incarcerated, but since he has no freewill, I'm not certain how he is seen by Yah. He was allowed into the garden. He was created for this reason. He is an implement. The Towrah was not created for him and I don't think he'll be judged by it.

But this is yet another can of worms.

Anyway, please consider the possibility that Yahowsha' the High Priest is a metaphor for Yaruwshalaim after Babylon but before Rome.

Yada

Edited by user Thursday, March 2, 2017 8:47:22 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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 Pete_Smith  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:57:43 PM(UTC)
Pete_Smith
Joined: 7/7/2015(UTC)
Posts: 7
United States

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
James,

It appears that you inadvertently posted the original letter twice.

By the way I always enjoy reading these. Thanks for doing it.

Pete
thanks 1 user thanked Pete_Smith for this useful post.
James on 3/2/2017(UTC)
Offline James  
#9 Posted : Thursday, March 2, 2017 8:48:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Thanks for letting me know. That's what happens when I sit down to post before coffee. BigGrin
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 James  
#10 Posted : Friday, March 24, 2017 7:10:32 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Lisa wrote:
Upset about a local child abuse case that went so far I regress to give details other than that child died a painful horrendous death. I cried quietly in my pillow for this child and in my utter despair for the children who are victims of such heinous crimes it moved me into another place, one of truth and responsibility [not I am not actually responsible for the act itself but I fear we are all responsible for the outcome], I went deep into my mind to uncover what I think is the root of this issue. I know that it stings to hear of what I’m about to expose, but please hear me out. I am about to uncover some very uncomfortable truths.

I began thinking about how this could happen in this day and age, what I uncovered will shatter any false sense of dignity you may have in relation to how sexual predation [the lowest most vicious form of abuse] actually occurs, and how it grows within a society and what responsibility we all share in the petri dish of the predation model. This will be most painful to us all to take a look at, but reality is this…we are all somewhat responsible for the rise in this type of predation and yet we refuse to see out part in it because it is a complete horror to look at. But I want us to look at it, we need to look at this problem OBJECTIVELY without false morality and with logic and reason. SO this is my attempt at looking at the situation wholistically and without fear of anyone’s opinion about me or what I have to say about what I discovered.

Let me introduce you to the global cult of Moral Murder;
what I like to term as The Prey/Predation Model [and we were all an integral part of it on some level]

In churches we are taught deranged fairy tales and to have blind faith to those theologies
In Mosques we are taught to love Satan and kill the infidel and that children and women are owned property
In Sin-a-gog we are taught ritual and lies from those who seek to control the truth and that women are “bad”

At home we are taught to love and obey immoral, inept and abusive parents who lord over us [for our own good, of course] who have little to no real social skills or honest integrity towards children, we pretend we “own’ them for a time and we only accept blind obedience from them, then when older we expect them to love us unconditionally for enslaving them emotionally and psychologically and call it honor and love?

To understand why we are so blind to our own enslavement as adults, we need to understand how we are first enslaved as children. As always, our enslavement begins with moral hypocrisies inflicted upon us by those in authority. Parents will always call us “selfish” if we fail to act on the basis of their emotional preferences.
If your mother wants to talk to you, and you do not want to talk to her, then you are “selfish” if you choose not to talk to her. Be a good little “Johnny”, they tell you. Don’t upset grandma by not eating her shitty cookies, give drunk uncle Bob a kiss and show you how much you love him, its his birthday, ya know…and on and on…it goes, don’t rock the boat or we will push you over into isolation and into the deep abyss of emotional postreaction in effect what we do is ostracize them, or worse yet, we inflict emotional or physical abuse in the form of verbal slights or even spanking us for our “bad” behavior. Zero free will and total submission to parental authority is slavery. We no longer guide, teach and instruct we simply and only accept them to do as we ask, and when they don’t we recoil and retract our love from them, what kind of relationship is this I ask you?

At school we are taught to talk to a flag and to be a good zombie for the State who has weapons and kiddy prisons for juveniles and parents if they refuse to comply to our standards, go to school be good, they say. Obey.
At college we are taught not to think at all but to repeat liberal lies and falsities called subjects and are graded at how well we assimilate that false information with little to zero rationality, don’t question authority.

At work we are taught to do our job and polish the boss’s bald head and to accept the thievery of our work in the form of taxation because if we don’t there is a jail cell waiting for us, a cage for the base ‘animal’ who refuses to pay the extortion rate for having so called leaders, its for our benefit, they say.

All abuse is swept under the carpet and ignored as the soul withers and we walk through life like starving ghosts with long necks and tiny mouths and a hunger that never ceases, ever look into the eyes of most people? They aren’t even there anymore, because they have been conditioned to be numb to the enslavement.

Intimacy is something few have, along with morals or truth because we are raised to be enslaved by others and repeat that model of prey/predation by false moral manipulation and we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of false goodness and call it love and can’t understand why we are so unfulfilled in life. This is why divorce rates are so high and happiness levels are so very low, we accept low standards because we have no true personal freedom not to lie, the fellow slaves make sure of this by pummeling free thought and right discernment into dust.

And the same is considered true of us, in our “democracies.” a terrible trap was cleverly set up for those who were subjugated…If they obeyed the will of their masters, they were “good” – and “liberated” from their own tendency toward self-destruction. If they disobeyed the will of their masters, they were “evil,” “irresponsible,” “willful,” etc.
Thus: “slavery equals freedom,” and “freedom equals slavery.”

When dating we are taught a series of luke warm sexual encounters with other enslaved persons that will eventually lead to a wonderful marriage and when we discover years later, we lied to ourselves but refuse to break free from that bond out of a false sense of duty, we feel enslaved to our own choice. Not because we are true to ourselves but because we are afraid of financial fall out, the social fall out, familial fall out and the opinions of other slaves. The test is embarrassing simple yet we refuse to have the courage to work through our negative feelings to get to the reality of the situation. We equate slavery with being good for the sake of others.

We start relationships based on never healing our past, we just carry it like baggage along our invisible chains of slavery which come right along with us, we have become inauthentic and enslaved to social conditioning that says we must remain married, we must pay taxes, we must honor our parents, we must obey the law a false sense of obligation kicks in, even when we know that the real personality of this prey/predation model is like physics and will not change, not matter what love we provide, what resources we throw at it, what empirical truths we uncover, we remain in a piggish sense of false morality and conditioning. So we cling to our own lies and say to ourselves but I love them, I love my community and I want it to work for the greater good, what fucking greater good?

We hypersexualize just about anything and everything including chocolate commercials, our own children internalize this trend and we wonder why they are having sexual experiences so young, or why we have predators hunting them? We have raised a society of prey and predation based on manipulation of power and control, win lose interactions become exploitation, without lies exploitation is impossible. Ye we cant tell each other or ourselves the truth.

When getting married we chose the same epileptically damaged socially conditioned people and we don’t even know it, that would make us uncomfortable, so we live out our lives in quiet desperation, we reguard ourselves as damage control to rampant narcissism, and cant figure out why we have dissatisfaction and anxiety because somehow we owe them or ourselves some type of relationship, even if it is not reciprocated or actually and genuinely beneficial. But we keep up the pretense and we keep digging hole to bury our fears and lies we tell ourselves.

We are taught “consideration” not as a mere personal preference on the part of our parents, but rather as an objective and absolute moral principle. If “consideration for the feelings of others” is such an axiomatic and universal moral value, then clearly it must at least apply equally to both parents and their adult children. In reality is never happens this way, the parents give little consideration to the child they raise to be “good” to others but not reciprocating the same moral is total and complete hypocrisy and brainwashing that leads to good slaves.

Parents hit children and tell them it’s for their own good, parents yell and lose control and harm children’s free will and innate innocence and emotional trust-but that’s ok, honor your parents, right? We produce slaves because we are omnipotent in a child’s life and as such, we raise intergenerational slaves to a system of Lord/Slave paradigms that we can’t see objectively or rationally out of a sense of misplaced loyalty, loyalty is not slavery. If you want to know if you hate your parents, its easy to figure out, just gauge how you feel when they call you and you see their number, your emotional reaction is that gauge, do you feel a sinking sense of dread? Do you give monosyllabic answers to questions hoping the conversation ends soon? Is the conversation full of subtle manipulation and ensuing platitudes?

How to know if you are a slave? Chances are you not able to tell the truth, not able to offend, not having a presence, always on guard, not having open and free conversations, we avoid and keep avoiding certain topis out of fear is discord, shy away from truth, fear their opinion, lack curiosity, lack real emotion, skirt the obvious then use moral arguments to remain in a relationships are the rank hypocrisy of our social conditioning.

We have sexual predators and child molesters today because….
WE RAISE PREDATORS ---- BECAUSE WE RAISED CHILDRENTO BE PREY !!
AND DON’T EVEN ASESS THE SITUATION, UNDERSTAND OR KNOW IT !!

I would like anyone to prove me wrong on this…..I would like to hear it, openly and objectively. My view is this, we are all REPSONSIBLE for this, so don’t act so indignant and with horror because we all had out part in this prey/predation system, we are the responsible integers and vehicles of duplicating our own prey/predation models. No I’m not making a moral equivalence here, but what I am doing is ripping off the veil of ownership and responsibility for our part [however big or small that part in it may be] in this horribly dishonest system and the evidential relationships with others that are mutual exploitation. I’m no longer curious about the why we have sexual predators, not at all.

You know everything you need to know – if you want to stop being a slave, you just need to stop avoiding your knowledge and the truths we have worked hard to obtain and stop taking moral manipulations as to the lack of responsibility we all share in the problem. No I’m not saying that child molestation is not the fault of the deviant, I’m not that ignorant but what I am saying is that we all refuse to look at the problem in its full light and what part we played in the prey/predation model of our so called civil society. We simply bury our heads and say that’s appalling when it’s a problem we feel is too ugly, too brutal to look at objectively or see what part, if any, we all played in a prey/predation model.

Its shocking when viewed like this, isn’t it? We hide the truth, even from ourselves because if we were responsible adults with open eyes and we discovered the absolute truth of this heinous perversity and disgusting model of prey/predation it would require we all fundamentally change something/perhaps everything…it would require us to take some form of responsibility for the model we participated in and we cant have that searing uncomfortably fall into our laps, now can we?

We all have a little piece of Qayin/Cain in us, when we tell ourselves “I am not my brothers keeper”.

I fully realize I may be hated for this message but I’m not about to sacrifice truth for someone’s feelings, not even my own, what I do intend to do is to wake people up to subtle truths that we fail to see because we are wholesale uncomfortable with the topic and that alone, may produce some very negative outcomes that I am willing to accept.
You can hate the message or hate me for saying/exposing it, but I view this issue in a completely different light than anyone else I have seen put forward as a realistic and acceptable truth about the massive global problem of child predation. We are all a part of this problem when we support lack of free will, truth, honest morality and right responsibility.

My question began as why cant we figure this out? Why cant we see what’s happening? And the truth of it shocked even me, because we refuse to, it hurts too much. Just as much as we refuse to stop being slaves to our social conditioning from our slavish institutions, even familial or relational ones sometimes we still play our part in prey/predation models. This is why we need free will and why free will and free thinking are paramount and why choice is so very, very important yet so very illusive to obtain.

Hate me or love me, its your choice, but this is how I see this issue of child predation, it all begins at home, one of the most unfree, stifling, dominating, abusive place for a child and even for some adults living today.
I will say this one last time….because it needs to be heard loud and clear in everyone’s ears….
WE RAISE PREDATORS BECAUSE WE RAISED CHILDRENTO BE PREY !!

[accept it or not, it is a truthful and fair assessment of our conditioning to by enslavement]

Better to hear it now from me, someone who cares, then to hear it from your own child later when its too late and the damage has already occurred and can never be undone.


Yada wrote:
Lisa,

While I'm not quite as negative, I tend to agree with the vast majority of your assessments and conclusions. As a culture, as a society, the West has rendered the last two generations incapable of being judgmental, and thus incapable of being rational, moral, just, or right. The West has created a culture of indoctrination whereby the failed and false, often perverted and irrational, notions of Socialist Secular Humanism prevail and Political Correctness trumps being right, moral, or rational. The West has fostered and promoted the conditions whereby pedophilia, sexual abuse, dishonesty, incompetence, and dependence flourish. Look at the prevalence of sexual abuse among politicians, in academia, the military, the media, even at religious institutions. Society no longer encourages disciplined investigation, a discerning evaluation of evidence, or thoughtful and reasoned conclusions based upon individual responsibility and accountability, on discriminating between right and wrong, or on assessing that which is beneficial versus counterproductive.

We are collectively responsible for the monsters in our midst. We made them that way.

This evaluation regarding the cause of pedophilia reinforces one of my most important revelations. The problem isn't that we hate, it is that we don't know what to hate and do not hate enough. For example, even though Islam is overwhelmingly and undeniably abusive to women and although it provides the exclusive motivation for 99% of the world's terrorist attacks, it is allowed to victimize the defenseless because of the irrational mindset of Socialist Secular Humanism and Political Correctness. PC tells us to be merciful by tolerating, even accepting, that which is merciless. That is not only stupid, it is depraved.

The canary in the mine for a society is its treatment of women and children. To quote Yahowah, our "iniquity is full." We "are destroyed because we no longer think rationally."

Yada
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 James  
#11 Posted : Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:46:06 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Continuing from above

Lisa wrote:
Yada;

Perhaps I was harsh in my assessment, but I live in a very different culture than you in the West, and have for quite some time. What I see on a daily basis here is even more base, more savage, more immoral and more often than you could imagine. Animals, children and women are abused in ways that defy the mind, children are victims to high rates of incest here, this culture is more than a little ‘rapey’, men are aggressive when drunk which is often, teens are wild and criminal, verbally abusive is normative, they beat their children openly, spousal abuse is prevalent, women are treated egregiously, cops are corrupt/lazy, they even play dominoes violently.
No kidding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGRf8_mC7Zs

DOM, as most islands do, operate on rhum, lots of rhum means lots of drunkenness, cheap cocaine is also a huge problem here. This island has an everyday, hypersexualized culture compared to similar neighboring islands. Racism in the reverse is a daily occurrence and to be expected, of course I have negative views… I have eyes with which to see. My daughter cant wait to leave here in just a few weeks, even for her it has become intolerant and she’s very liberal minded. *sigh*
The culture is mostly to blame.

Last week a village girl of just 5 yrs old was raped to death and thrown in the river in such a heinous way that made a Somali Jihadi look amateur, a child here must [sadly] be most aware of the family as the primary predator, its epidemic here. This is a violent culture to be sure, there were no enforced child, incest, rape or sexual laws here until 98-2009 - even now most are not reported or ‘settled out of court’ for payment, majority involve underage girls.

A female Ross Medical student was raped while jogging on a street not far from me while I was away, just a two weeks before my return.

These things happen within 3 km of where I live, in a ‘good’ area. But as on most islands, crime is rampant and kept quiet, as to not hurt tourism. Cruise ships are beginning to not come to port and are cancelling because they simply do not find anything redeemable or likable in Roseau, I share that sentiment.

NO, I’m not very positive about things around me, it’s more “jungle” than you imagine. This island, like most Caribe islands I have lived on, has a very dark underbelly and very evil aspects to them, if one just scratches beneath the surface of its outer beauty and gets to the reality of island life.

I assume it is infinitely worse in DRC right now. Living here is harder than one would expect, it is very demanding in ways that most take for granted living in the West. Even driving is an extreme challenge here. Going back and forth twice to Florida in the past year has really punctuated this for me, as opposed to have never having left island and not having any comparison. I’m certain I would amuse your wife if I were to go to the grocery store with her and she could see my reaction to the immense amount of choice, volume and culture shock in your modern grocery. I forget this used to be my norm. I bet you never went to the grocery and they did not have milk [and wont for weeks] in the past 50 yrs. Am I right? I’m just scratching the surface here.

And religious….ohhh ,,, my…..they just LOVE JESUS !! Because he forgives everything….so why be moral? Cause and effect is lost on these people they can’t see past the next meal or sexual encounter with a willing body. The African culture of casual sex w/o condoms [even when married] have gripped the tiny island nation and the rates of sterility are soaring amoung women who have free medical, yet often go “unchecked”. I estimate that 73% + of women here have had at least one STD in the past.

Morality is not understood very well here, forget thinking, the average IQ is very low, this is the first generation in Dominica to become literate, a high percentage of over 45 yr olds and above are not literate. There are many challenges to living outside one’s own tribe, land and culture, zero cohesion, zero trust.

Mingling peoples is a recipe for disaster, of that I am utterly convinced, as the fruits of it are right before me, on the daily. The price of living in so-called paradise is very real and has little to do with money.

So yes, I’m a little negative in my outlook lately, women tend to have this exquisite and subtle emotional/psychological radar that senses danger around her, its not easy to turn off, if at all possible. Men are more practical and would fix the problem by getting a defense weapon, unfortunately I live with those who think guns are “bad” and not the trigger finger that pulls said gun. So I’m denied any real personal protection at all. A bit of an issue that is a sticky topic in my home. After having both our SUV [crashed] and motorcycle stolen and not recovered, while I was away, he’s beginning to see my point just a little, especially after they beat him up for defending a gay man who was being harassed.

Liberals..cant live with them and cant slap any sense into them either, I hear they frown upon ‘violence’. 😉 I’m not a violent person, nor would I slap people, but Liberal non-sense is intensely and viscerally frustrating.

Back to the same concept of what we both know to be true, that the problem isn’t that we hate, it is that we don’t know what to hate, or conversely, what to love and cling to. I have plenty of hate, and I have very discriminating love and that seems to be why most people do not care to listen to me. It shatters the illusions they carry and would force them to look at the situation and think, we can’t have that, now can we? [there goes my sarcasm slipping past the gates again] I could talk until I’m blue no one here is going to “get” Yah’s message, I don’t think they are capable.

There are places worse than the West…many times one can forget this is a very real truth, unless living amidst it.

In a highly religious culture its hard to be positive, the rational is so damn base. Perhaps I’m feeling a little overwhelmed by this culture, which I think is quite normal and rational to feel as it keeps me safe to be suspicious here. In the West I can, at the very least, let down my guard occasionally, here it would be moronic/suicidal. I don’t get out much because its not safe for me to do so. It was nice having the ability to go to the shop alone up North.

Unlike most, I’m not inveigled by living in “paradise” and see many things that others refuse to; or unwilling to see. Every once in a while, I’m remined that the raw beauty here can be very enticing to the senses but deceiving, it’s the culture that demands fixing, not the place, the place is absolutely and perfectly- jaw-droppingly-gorgeous. There is no place to go, nowhere to move to, nowhere explore or to find that is not corrupted, not one single place.
[ Except Towrah]
As for me, I can still appreciate a cool island night breeze over this landscape, but we all know the future forecast overshadowing this world, it’s a little hard to forget, even for a second. Our "iniquity is full” …even in ‘paradise’.
Dominica—


Yada wrote:
Lisa,

Context is always king. In your situation you were insufficiently harsh, not overly so. In fact, it's the context that proves the validity of your conclusions. So I'm glad that you shared them.

We have the same views on guns. It isn't the weapon, but instead the judgment of the person wielding the trigger. Our views on religion are identical.

I have asked JB and Christy to post your assessments on their sites and think that this retort further enhances your position. To be moral, we must not only hate the pedophile, but also hate the culture and religion that causes them to do so with impunity.

Yada
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 James  
#12 Posted : Thursday, March 30, 2017 7:49:24 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
R wrote:
Hi Yada


Ok..I've e-mailed you a few times now and I'm struggling. Yada, I have listened to MANY of your radio shows, I have all of your books. I've started reading Observations online..But every time I get a decent way into it I start realizing how much I've forgotten. There are so many words,terms,symbols,history and principals along the way, after I realize that I've forgotten so many of them I get discouaged and feel like I have to read everything again. Do I just continue reading and hope that I retain the necessary information to become part of Yahowah's family? I can see that you have an intellect far beyond my own and I just keep wondering if i'm intellectually capable of becoming part of Yahowah's family.


Thank you


Yada wrote:
R,

We are all the same. Every one of us have been where you are. It takes time to lay the foundation and more time still to build upon it.

I've reread and edited each book, some some seven or eight times, each time revising the translations, and I done one or more shows on most very chapter of every book I've written and each time I recognize that I've forgotten some of what I've written, but each time I learn more. I suspect that many Covenant members have read each book several times. Many do their own translations. None of us retain it all.

Learning is based upon repetition and use. The more we read or hear a lesson, the more likely it is that we'll transfer it from short to long term memory. The more we use what we learn, the more it becomes part of us. And ultimately, knowledge becomes understanding. And with understanding everything falls into place.

Being part of the Covenant is actually quite simple. Yahowah wants to be your Father. He has five things He wants you to do, none of which are difficult. And He wants you to be Towrah observant, which is to examine and consider His teaching. That is what you are doing. And that is all He asks.

Read and relax. Engage and enjoy. Participate and have fun. Cast your concerns aside. It is a straightforward and easily understood proposition from a very likable, unpretentious, fair and dependable God. So long as you are willing to accept the five conditions Yah lays out to be part of His family you are perfect, immortal, adopted, enriched, and empowered. Knowing you, the answer is a resounding yes.

Abraham wasn't especially smart, and yet he is in the Covenant. The disciples weren't the sharpest tools in the shed, and yet they are part of Yah's family.

Yes, there are some really brilliant people in the Covenant, but even the dullest of us will become brighter than can be imagined.

Yada
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 James  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:51:00 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada wrote:
Following our last Yada Yah Radio Shabat Towrah Program which focused upon my concerns regarding fake news, I was sent the following email...

Quote:
You know what my favorite point in the Pesidential debate was ?

Chris Wallace says to Trump "sir you lied when you said Aleppo was finished "

Trumps answer :

Have you seen that place ? What do you want a declaration of surrender ?

Al-Qaeda started actually as Mujahideen not as Al-Qaeda and later morphed into the Taliban and an excuse to have a war in Afghanistan . Who started and funded the Muj ? The US government did . Now we have another group funded and trained by the US government called Daesh or in the US ISIS . What do they have in common with Al-Qaeda ? Well they kill anyone that doesn't attend their particular religious institutions, they are an excuse for the US to be in foreign countries and they carry US made weapons . Are they the same group with a different name ? Of course they are. Do they have some minor differences ? Sure the leader and the name . Yet at one time ISIS was a part of Al-Qaeda . They simply went through a divorce .

The Islamic State began as an Iraqi organization, and this legacy shapes the movement today. Jihadist groups proliferated in Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and many eventually coalesced around Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s and again in 2001. Though Bin Laden gave Zarqawi seed money to start his organization, Zarqawi at first refused to swear loyalty to and join Al Qaeda, as he shared only some of Bin Laden’s goals and wanted to remain independent. After months of negotiations, however, Zarqawi pledged his loyalty, and in 2004 his group took on the name “Al Qaeda in Iraq” to signify this connection. Bin Laden got an affiliate in the most important theater of jihad at a time when the Al Qaeda core was on the ropes, and Zarqawi got Al Qaeda’s prestige and contacts to bolster his legitimacy.


I remain very concerned about the acceptance and promotion of fake news, and that is why I discussed it last Friday and why I invested the time to refute the claims made in the email sent to me after the show.

I will not relent on this issue. I see it as vital to our credibility, and thus to the willingness of others to listen to what we have learned regarding Yahowah. Being right matters.

Rest assured, I am committed to resolving this issue and I am not angry with anyone. I simply want to set the record straight and reestablish not only my credibility on a topic that I've staked my reputation, but also reaffirm the reason I am so concerned about the proliferation of fake news.

It is apparent that we disagree on some aspects of what constitutes false news, especially as it relates to the consequence of embracing conspiratorial ideas. My concern is that when we speak out in favor of Yahowah, whether that is in writing or verbally, those with a different agenda search for ways to discredit us. Since they are incapable of and uncomfortable with attacking God, when our credibility is undermined we set them up to attack the messenger rather than the message through the ad hominem fallacy. When this occurs, all we have done is for naught - negated not on its merits but on the validity of an unrelated, and sometimes unimportant, issue.

Most everything Yahowah says is counter to popular beliefs, and in opposition to most all political, patriotic, religious, societal, military, and academic agendas. And while Yahowah's credibility is established through prophecy, few will consider that proof if they can more easily dismiss those speaking for Him. In fact, Yahowah is so credible, the only way to counter His guidance regarding the Towrah and Covenant is to impugn our credibility. And there are few things as debilitating in this regard as promoting conspiracy theories and advancing fake news - even if we believe such things to be true. There is almost nothing to be gained and everything to lose - at least for those who will reject us because we pursue issues which are questionable.

Let me share an example: religion was associated with God's message. The religious were wrong about most everything. The nonreligious rejected God because they knew that the religious were wrong. Everyone lost.

We are among the very few promoting Yahowah's message. If those who do not know Him are able to reject what we have to say on His behalf because we are advocating something else that they recognize as invalid, they will reject what we have to say about the Towrah and Covenant. And since those who would slander us rather then consider Yahowah’s testimony, dismiss us by falsely claiming that we are part of a cult, the last thing we need is a bunch of people who embrace crazy ideas associating with us.

False reporting is ubiquitous. Most of what we read in major newspapers is untrue. In my experience, the New York Times, while still agenda driven, is the most credible source and the Washington Post is the least credible among major papers – particularly after Bezos purchased them. But there is no television resource that is remotely reliable, not CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and especially not the cable providers like History, Discovery, or even ESPN. I use Reuters, CNN, the Washington Times, and BBC, but I have to hold my nose while doing so. I haven’t watched ESPN in the last year. Talk radio is no better.

As bad as the major news and information sources have become with their promotion of Political Correctness and Socialist Secular Humanism, the internet news feeds and blogs are far worse. The information and ideas they present are overwhelmingly false. And they feed on one another, quoting similarly unreliable sources to validate their point. Much of what they present as evidence is fabricated. And their strange notions are routinely presented out of context. Most of those promoting such sites are doing it simply for the traffic and thus for money. They know that they are spreading lies, but do not care. Fake news has become a business in and of itself. And sadly, most people are incapable of exercising good judgment and are unable to discriminate, and are therefore easily misled. For many, the conspiracy sites have become a source of entertainment and an addiction.

I'm assuming that this email was sent to me and the other participants in our Shabat Towrah Show to suggest that I was incorrect in stating that al-Qaeda was not the basis for the Islamic State. So what were you expecting me to do with this? Take it at face value, believing that Trump actually said this during the last presidential debate in response to a question on Aleppo when that is untrue? Am I to agree that his facts, should any of this have come from him, are accurate and that his reasoning is rational, when neither are valid? Do you want me to embrace faulty notions to avoid conflict?

If I capitulate and show a willingness to go in the opposite direction of where evidence and reason lead, how would that influence my credibility as a translator and commentator on Yahowah’s Word – especially since I seem to be the only one who has independently come to many of the conclusions we trust and embrace? Am I to discard the ten thousand hours I invested at Yahowah’s behest in studying the Qur’an and Hadith so as to understand Muhammad and his influence on the worst of human behavior to keep peace in the family? Was my devotion to exposing and condemning Islam on behalf of humankind a waste of time?

Since understanding Islam and communicating its negative impact established my credibility as a researcher, writer, and public spokesperson, and eventually led to Yada Yah, Introduction to God, Questioning Paul, and Observations, bringing most of the Prophet of Doom audience along with me on my migration, I am going to respond. I am going to do what I have always done. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

So please bear with me as I address the errors in fact and reason which appear in the two paragraphs presented in the email that was sent to me following our last show as if it were part of Donald Trump’s answer to a question on Aleppo during the final presidential debate.

But first, let's clear up the notion that Obama admitted to equipping and training ISIL. It was, just as I had suspected and stated during the show, nothing more than a momentary disconnect between his brain and tongue. In fact, in the very next YouTube video, he called his wife "Michael." It happens to everyone. We all do it from time to time. But the reason I knew that it was an unintended error and misidentified group was that Obama despises ISIS so much that he moronically armed and trained other jihadists to fight them. He's bombed ISIS nearly into oblivion. He routinely slanders them. In fact, it's his hatred of ISIS that has led to the counterproductive US war against them. Obama is bad, horrible in fact, and overtly pro Islam, but he is no fan of ISIS.

The fact is, George Bush and Company are responsible for ISIS, not Obama. That is not what you believe or want to hear, but it is the truth.

Moving on to the email rebuttal offered to invalidate what I have consistently presented regarding the origins of the Islamic State, there may be as many errors and fallacies in it as there are words. In its entirety, the email read:
Quote:
“You know what my favorite point in the Pesidential debate was ?

Chris Wallace says to Trump "sir you lied when you said Aleppo was finished "

Trumps answer :

Have you seen that place ? What do you want a declaration of surrender ?

Al-Qaeda started actually as Mujahideen not as Al-Qaeda and later morphed into the Taliban and an excuse to have a war in Afghanistan . Who started and funded the Muj ? The US government did . Now we have another group funded and trained by the US government called Daesh or in the US ISIS . What do they have in common with Al-Qaeda ? Well they kill anyone that doesn't attend their particular religious institutions, they are an excuse for the US to be in foreign countries and they carry US made weapons . Are they the same group with a different name ? Of course they are. Do they have some minor differences ? Sure the leader and the name . Yet at one time ISIS was a part of Al-Qaeda . They simply went through a divorce .

The Islamic State began as an Iraqi organization, and this legacy shapes the movement today. Jihadist groups proliferated in Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and many eventually coalesced around Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s and again in 2001. Though Bin Laden gave Zarqawi seed money to start his organization, Zarqawi at first refused to swear loyalty to and join Al Qaeda, as he shared only some of Bin Laden’s goals and wanted to remain independent. After months of negotiations, however, Zarqawi pledged his loyalty, and in 2004 his group took on the name “Al Qaeda in Iraq” to signify this connection. Bin Laden got an affiliate in the most important theater of jihad at a time when the Al Qaeda core was on the ropes, and Zarqawi got Al Qaeda’s prestige and contacts to bolster his legitimacy.”


In actuality, Trump’s answer was not as it is presented. The first sentence was the gist of his interruption but it was not his answer. And nothing following “Have you seen that place?” was said by Trump during that debate. So I do not know whose statements I’ll actually be addressing, because what is cited did not come from Donald Trump. This alleged answer is fake news.

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 James  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:57:02 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada Continues

Yada wrote:
And that is what is at issue here. There is so much false reporting and errant conjecture presented as fact regarding Islam, Islamic terrorism, 9/11, al Qaeda, and the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, it has become the epicenter of fake news and of conspiracy theories. And since Allah was modeled after Satan, and since Muhammad was a terrorist, this is an important place for us to set the record straight. This becomes especially relevant because of its intersection with Yahowah’s prophecies, where God condemned the United States for its role in bolstering Yisra’el’s Muslim foes. That connection becomes paramount in Yasha’yah 17 and 18, as Yahowah addresses Damascus and Syria and the terrorism wrought by the likes of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a result of American meddling. So while I am opposed to us pursuing and promoting controversial issues which are unrelated to Yahowah’s testimony while speaking for God due to its impact on our credibility as witnesses, this issue lies at the heart of His prophetic depiction of the years leading up to His return.

The question of Aleppo was indeed raised during the final presidential debate. So let’s consider Trump’s actual answer. The following presentation, transcription, and analysis of it was provided by Zack Beauchamp and posted on Vox.

In my attempt to validate Vox’s/Beauchamp’s credibility as a resource, I found another article which promotes the same errant message found in your email – so I’d consider them highly suspect. However, I found other sites which provided the video of that portion of the presidential debate, and after listening to them I was able to validate that Vox’s transcription of Trump’s answer was accurate. (Here are two of the links I considered in this regard: http://www.vox.com/world...rump-third-debate-aleppo and http://www.cnn.com/video...residential-debate-2016/ )
Quote:
“Moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump about the Syrian city of Aleppo, currently the site of one of the most important battles in the country and a massive humanitarian disaster. Wallace asked him to clear up his stance on the city given that, in the previous debate, Trump falsely claimed that rebel-held areas of the city had fallen to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Here is Trump’s answer in its entirety:
‘Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It's a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what's happened. And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton. Because what has happened is by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she is going to say, “Oh, he loves Assad.” He's just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He aligned with Russia. He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean cash, bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.
Now they have aligned, he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don't want ISIS. But they have other things because we're backing, we're backing rebels. We don't know who the rebels are. We're giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don't know who the rebels are. And when and if, and it's not going to happen because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up as bad as Assad is, and he is a bad guy.
But you may very well end up with worse than Assad. If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape. And this is what has caused the great migration where she has taken in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who probably in many cases, not probably, who are definitely in many cases ISIS-aligned. And we now have them in our country and wait until you see this is going to be the great Trojan horse.
And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.’
This answer contained a number of blatant falsehoods. The US has never outright fought Assad’s regime, and US support for the anti-Assad rebels is not what has caused the massive humanitarian disaster in Aleppo — that was largely caused by Assad and Russia besieging and bombing the city indiscriminately. Furthermore, Assad was aligned with Russia and Iran well before the Syrian civil war, not as a consequence of it as Trump says. There is also no evidence that refugees are a “Trojan horse”: The odds of being killed by a refugee terrorist are 1 in 3.6 billion.
But the most fundamental issue here isn’t specific statements. It’s that Trump’s answer to a deeply important policy questions is stream-of-consciousness blather, a nearly indecipherable string of nonsense that jumps from a brief discussion of Aleppo to Russia to ISIS to the refugee crisis. He never once says anything of substance about Aleppo, anything at all to indicate that he actually understands what’s happening in the city and has an iota of an idea of what to do about it.
When you read it, it becomes clear just how ignorant about policy Donald Trump is.”


Vox’s rebuttal is agenda driven and is no more consistent with the facts than Trump’s reply. But there just isn’t enough time to correct everyone. Vox didn’t present their faulty argument during our show so I’m simply going to acknowledge that it is misleading.

Trump’s actual answer was correctly assessed by Vox as a “stream of consciousness blather” and a “nearly indecipherable string of nonsense.”
But since the president’s reply wasn’t made in my presence, during our show on the Towrah, or sent to me, it would be a poor use of my time to discredit it. And in that his actual answer was replaced by what appeared in the email sent following our show, I’ll address the statements actually contained in the email because they seek to disprove what I have come to know and share regarding al Qaeda and the Islamic State, as well as America’s role with each.

Let's begin addressing the errors in the order they appear...

Quote:
“What do you want a declaration of surrender ?”


Trump did not say this during the debate. It was not part of his interruption or his answer. It is falsely attributed to him.

And so is everything which follows. Not a word of this came out of Trump’s mouth during the debate as part of his answer to Chris Wallace.

Trying to ascertain who wrote or said what follows, I copied and pasted many sections of both paragraphs and conducted Google searches. I could not find the author. So while it is attributed to Trump in the email, I could not find any evidence he said any of this. I do not know who did. I just know that it is wrong, and worse, misleading.

Quote:
"Al-Qaeda started actually as Mujahideen not as Al-Qaeda and later morphed into the Taliban and an excuse to have a war in Afghanistan..."


Al Qaeda did not start as Mujahideen. Al Qaeda began as a database of foreign Islamic jihadists who could be located and then recruited to fight with the Afghani mujahideen and Pakistani Taliban. Al Qaeda associated with the Afghani mujahideen and later, the Taliban, for this purpose but did not morph into the Afghani mujahideen or the Pakistani Taliban, just like Canada fought alongside of the US and Australia in WWII, but did not morph into the US or Australia as a result. The Afghani mujahideen and the Pakistani Taliban were allies with al Qaeda. They shared similar views on Islam but had different leadership, membership, ethnicity, and foes.

Much of this history is misunderstood. For example, al Qaeda was more closely aligned with the Afghani mujahideen than with the Pakistani Taliban. It was the Afghani mujahideen that ultimately prevailed in controlling Afghanistan after the Russians left. And it was the Afghani mujahideen, not the Taliban, that invited bin Laden to return to Afghanistan when it became evident that the Sudan was going to extradite him. It was only after bin Laden’s arrival in Afghanistan that the Pakistani Taliban over through the Afghani mujahideen. This put bin Laden in a position where he could either leave Afghanistan or change his allegiance. Also subject to revisionist history, the Russian support for the secular government in Afghanistan was very popular. The worst government in Afghanistan’s history was that of the Afghani mujahideen American helped usher into power. The Taliban was vastly superior. In fact, the Taliban was superior to the puppet governments America has established after the invasion. Lastly, no one associated with the Afghani mujahideen nor the Pakistani Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. There was no justification whatsoever for America’s invasion.

The al Qaeda (meaning "the base") computer files were essential to the US's proxy war in Afghanistan because unlike the Pakistani Taliban which had to be rented from the Pakistani government at the cost of several billion dollars annually, foreign jihadists associating with the Afghani mujahideen were free – at least up to a point. The US still had to commit billions of dollars in military and financial aid to Pakistan to equip them because all of the weapons had to be flown into and trucked through Pakistan.

As for the Taliban, it was created and controlled by the Pakistani ISI (their version of the CIA), in order to take control of Afghanistan. This was not done for the benefit of the Afghani, not for the benefit of Islam, but instead to allow for an oil and gas pipeline that would connect with those in Pakistan and thereby enrich Pakistan and the US. The Russians were going to take the oil and gas in a different direction.

Zbigniew Brzezinski used this potential "benefit" as a selling point when he came up with the immoral notion of giving the Russians a taste of what they had done to the US in Vietnam. Knowing that the groundwork had already been laid, he simply bribed the Pakistani government with billions of dollars of weapons to allow the US to rent their Taliban and send weapons through Pakistan to equip the Afghani mujadideen, all so that they could attack the Soviets. Clinton and Bush would later negotiate with the Taliban once they ousted the Afghani mujahideen for the same oil and gas rights.

That is the early history of all three groups as it relates to the opening statement in the email. The notion that al-Qaeda began as mujahideen and then morphed into the Taliban as an excuse for them to fight a war in Afghanistan is nonsense. And it covers up something which is vitally important. Over a million people died as a result of a war America started, a war America falsely blamed on the Soviets, and a war which brought weapons to Islamic fundamentalists. This is what not only led to 9/11 and the rapid proliferation of Islamic jihadists, and thus Islamic terrorism, America’s miscalculation is what started the Muslim migration into Europe and the West.

Quote:
"Who started and funded the Muj ? The US government did ."


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 James  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:00:09 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada continues

Yada wrote:
The US government did not start the Afghani mujahideen. It armed them to kill Russians. And the Pakistanis started the Taliban to assert control over Afghanistan – not the US. Further, Islamic Mujahideen have been around since Muhammad in the 7th century – a thousand years longer than the US has existed.

This error in fact was presented to mislead readers into believing that “since the US started and funded the Muj/Taliban/al-Qaeda” (which is false in the sense of starting, correct in the sense of funding, and errant in the sense of one morphing into the other), that the US also funded and trained ISIS. But that is not even remotely accurate. There is nothing more deceptive than a half truth, a lie which contains an element of truth.

So here now is the transition which is not only based upon an errant premise, but also upon a logical fallacy. One thing does not flow out of the other.

Quote:
"Now we have another group funded and trained by the US government called Daesh or in the US ISIS ."


The US heavily funded, heavily armed, and spent tens of billions training Shi'ites, not Sunnis, in Iraq. ISIS is exclusively Sunni and is in hostile opposition to those America armed, funded, and trained. In other words, the opposite of what is stated here is true.

The imbalance of power America imposed in Iraq by arming, funding, and training Shi’ites led to the civil war in Iraq between Shia and Sunni. Then to correct our mistake, the US at the inspiration of General Petraeus and President Bush lightly funded and lightly armed, but did not train, Sunnis in the Awakening Program. Sunni tribal and community leaders, most of whom had been high ranking officials in Saddam's Baath Party, were given small cashes of small arms and up to $30 dollars a month salary for militia members in their tribe and community late in the Iraq War during what was called "the Surge." According to Bush and Chaney they were armed to "fight al-Qaeda," even though al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq at that time, before the US invasion, or at any time thereafter. Bush lied when he justified the Iraq War on the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq. This realization is essential if we want to understand how the United States is to blame for making bad situations far worse throughout the Islamic Middle East.

The actual reason for the Awakening Program was to keep the Shia that America had empowered and armed in Iraq from slaughtering the Sunni following the US invasion which transferred power from a secular thug to an Iranian theocracy.

The US miscalculated the consequence of the Awakening Program. The moment it was announced, I shared with all who would listen that it would be catastrophically counterproductive. I was right. These same Sunni tribal and Baath Party leaders were eventually incorporated into the Islamic State in Iraq. This occured at the organization’s inception. But it wasn’t until the Iraqi bombardment of Falujah by the Shi’ite government, whereby the Shia used American weapons to slaughter Sunnis, that the Islamic State in Iraq emerged as a viable force. And this was long after the US had left Iraq and abandoned its Awakening Program.

Baghdadi, who assumed control of the Islamic State of Iraq in 2010, was a religious cleric and did not have the military, economic, or administrative qualifications or training to marshal an effective defense against a well equipped and well trained adversary – much less to establish a state or caliphate. And therefore it wasn’t until 2014 when Baghdadi deployed the tribal and Baath Party leaders who had benefited from the Awakening Program to help him defend Sunnis in Fallujah that the ISI became relevant. By working together, they not only defeated the Shia militias and Iraqi military, they confiscated their weapons and captured the city, doing the same in Ramadi. They would hold both towns until they were essentially flattened by the combined assault of a reengaged US military working with Iranian forces, Shia militias, and the Iraqi army in 2016.

At the time that the Awakening program was announced, I immediately declared is stated mission a farce, because I recognized that al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq. And I realized that mutually assured destruction as a result of weaponizing both sides of a conflict would be counterproductive with Muslims because they crave and celebrate death. But let’s be clear. These Awakening leaders were never part of or allied with al-Qaeda. And at the time of their modest funding, they were not part of the Islamic State in Iraq. But let’s set the ISI aside for the moment and return to the fallacies presented in the email.

Quote:
"What do they have in common with Al-Qaeda ? Well they kill anyone that doesn't attend their particular religious institutions, they are an excuse for the US to be in foreign countries and they carry US made weapons ."


The only thing ISIS has in common with al Qaeda is that both are led by fundamentalist Sunni Muslims and most of the jihadists in both groups are also fundamentalist Sunni Muslims. That is not saying much, however, since 90% of Muslims are Sunni and 70% of Sunnis are fundamentalists. Moreover, and this is important, they have different foes. Bin Laden wanted to kill Infidels, especially Russians and Americans, and he opposed Islamic jihadists who targeted Shia Muslims. The Islamic State in Iraq was expressly designed to kill Shia Muslims. This is a substantial departure from what is implied in the quote. Additionally, ISIS is a state, a national entity in most every relevant regard, while al Qaeda was never anything more than a terrorist group.

Neither ISIS nor al Qaeda have a "particular religious institution" that is "theirs" or that "can be attended." They are simply good Muslims. They do not promote a unique interpretation of Islam. They live Islam as Muhammad portrayed it. They believe in and promote the Qur'an and Hadith. They have no agenda or beliefs that are estranged from Islam as it was conceived by Muhammad.

Al Qaeda's database was capitalized upon by the US, but it was the Afghani mujahideen and the Pakistani Taliban that was deployed to fight the proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. They were not "an excuse" to invade but instead a proxy to negate the need to invade. Once again, the truth is the antithesis of what is inferred in this rebuttal.

In context, the statement presented in the email is designed to infer that ISIS was used in the same way, and that isn't even remotely accurate. The US has never used ISIS nor provided ISIS with weapons. The weapons ISIS wields were stolen from the Shia America equipped.

Quote:
"Are they the same group with a different name ? Of course they are. Do they have some minor differences ? Sure the leader and the name . "


This statement is as errant as Paul's letters. It is only true if one claims that all Sunni Muslims are part of the same group – a common denominator completely missing from this quote. But then even if this was intended as an indictment against Sunni Islam, different names would then become irrelevant.

The Afghani mujahideen were not the same group as the Pakistani Taliban. They went from allies to foes. And the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has always been wholly distinct from both. Further, while al Qaeda was initially an ally of the Afghani mujahideen, and then transferred allegiance when the Pakistani Taliban toppled them, they were never the same. More importantly, ISIS isn’t a different name for the Afghani mujahideen, the Pakistani Taliban, or al Qaeda. The differences are not minor and are far greater than leadership and nomenclature.

If this was written to say that all four organizations were comprised of fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, then it would have been true. But it does not mention “fundamentalist,” “Sunni” or “Muslim.”

Quote:
"Yet at one time ISIS was a part of Al-Qaeda . They simply went through a divorce ."


That is an outright lie. ISIS was never part of al Qaeda. I’ll prove that in a moment. ISIS, therefore, could never have divorced itself from al Qaeda. It’s the Nusra Front that briefly became an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria only to renounce that association as they were being pummeled by ISIS. The person making this assertion is confused, unaware that Zarqawi was the product of American propaganda and that almost nothing which is reported regarding him can be trusted. Further, Baghdadi only emerged as a leader in 2010, and did not engage in a meaningful way until 2014, and only then as part of an Iraqi tribal alliance – not as an outgrowth of al Qaeda. The latter is an American myth. The legend of Zarqawi was designed to mislead the world into believing that he was the leader of the Iraqi insurgency and to create the false impression that he was a member of al Qaeda solely to justify and prolong America’s occupation of Iraq.

Many people have fallen for this lie. It is repeated so often, it’s considered credible. But the fact that it is a popular deception does not make it true.

Quote:
"The Islamic State began as an Iraqi organization, and this legacy shapes the movement today."


This is the first accurate statement in the email, but it is used as a bridge to a series of fallacies. Unlike al Qaeda, the Islamic State began as an umbrella group providing communication between and messaging for Sunni Iraqis to defend Sunni Iraqis from the Shi'ite Iraqis America had armed. That is still its primary mission. That is not the mission of what was once known as al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden was vehemently opposed to the idea of Sunnis killing Shia.
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 James  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:01:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada Continues

Yada wrote:
Quote:
"Jihadist groups proliferated in Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and many eventually coalesced around Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s and again in 2001."


The first part of this is true, but most of it is not. The US invasion of Iraq, like the US invasion of Afghanistan and its bombing of Libya, caused Islamic jihadist groups to proliferate. Jihadist groups did not exist under Saddam Hussein. The US invasion was based upon a lie and it was counterproductive. The US invasion of Iraq increased the amount of Islamic terrorism experienced in that country a million fold. If the war was designed to fight Islamic terrorism, it had the opposite effect.

Musab Zarqawi was a moron and thug. He was insignificant apart from American propaganda. And he was in Iran throughout most of 2001 and 2002, in Syria in 2003, and back in Iran in 2004. He was not actually in Iraq during most of the time the US claimed that he was a menace in Iraq. And there isn’t any evidence to suggest that any jihadist groups coalesced around Zarqawi – much less many of them. Moreover, the brief, tenuous ties between his insignificant jihadist gang and bin Laden were publicity stunts. There was never a meeting of the minds between them. All of these myths were promoted to justify the US invasion of Iraq. Those who believe any of this have been played for fools. But don’t take my word on this. Do your own research, careful to separate opinions from evidence. I’ll present mine momentarily.

Quote:
"Though Bin Laden gave Zarqawi seed money to start his organization, Zarqawi at first refused to swear loyalty to and join Al Qaeda, as he shared only some of Bin Laden’s goals and wanted to remain independent. After months of negotiations, however, Zarqawi pledged his loyalty, and in 2004 his group took on the name “Al Qaeda in Iraq” to signify this connection. Bin Laden got an affiliate in the most important theater of jihad at a time when the Al Qaeda core was on the ropes, and Zarqawi got Al Qaeda’s prestige and contacts to bolster his legitimacy."


First and foremost: while much of this may be somewhat accurate, albeit distorted, unproven, out of context, and mostly irrelevant, it was presented to infer that a connection between Zarqawi and bin Laden was not only substantial but also affirmed a connection between IQI and ISIS, when there was none. Zarqawi's Jund al-Sham and his Jama'at al Tawhid wal Jihad were not incorporated into the Islamic State as I shall demonstrate. And in reality, the brief, tenuous association between Jama'at al Tawhid wal Jihad and al Qaeda had no bearing on either group, did not influence the participants or leaders in any way, and was done purely to stroke the egos of both insecure men. It was renounced more quickly than it was formed. And it only existed for a tiny fraction of the time Zarqawi was behaving like a thug.

While this paragraph provides a synopsis of the popular view of what turned out to be a fleeting and meaningless aspect of Zarqawi’s life, by emphasizing it out of context and following the previous paragraph, it is entirely misleading. And that is important because this ploy is used to promote most every fake news story. It is the same strategy deployed by Paul. The statement is only partially accurate and only meaningful in the proper context. It was used to create the opposite impression from what is actually relevant.

Zarqawi, a Jordanian, was born Ahmad Fadeel al Nazal al Khalayleh in 1966. Nothing is known of him before he went to Afghanistan to join the Afghani mujahideen fighting the Soviets in 1989. But he arrived as the Soviets were leaving. Without a foe to fight, he became a reporter for an Islamic newsletter. During his lone interview with OBL, bin Laden rejected and opposed Zarqawi because of his views on "takfir - justifying the killing of fellow Muslims" were opposed to his own. Zarqawi’s views were rejected by the Afghani mujahideen, the Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda and he was forced to leave Afghanistan. He went back to Jordan, where in 1991 he was an early participant in Jund al-Sham - the Syrian Division. He was soon arrested and imprisoned by the Jordanians for making bombs in his home. In prison, he was molded into the thug America exploited to justify its invasion of Iraq.

Zarqawi was nothing more than a wannabe terrorist, and was therefore released from prison in 1999 by King Abdullah. But in 2000 it is alleged that he tried to reestablish Jund al Sham, which had failed after its leaders were arrested. Then after his release, the Jordanians claim that he planned a bombing of the Amman Radisson. The charge is suspicious because rather arrest him, they allowed him to flee into Pakistan which required a valid passport and visa. The Pakistanis, however, revoked his Jordanian visa, so he crossed the border into Afghanistan.

While there is no credible proof, the same Jordanian officials that released Zarqawi assert that he met a second time with OBL and asked for money to set up his own training camp in Herat. However, the differences between them on targeting Muslims rather than Infidels was too great for one to have funded the other. Any rational evaluation of these two men leads to the conclusion that this was a myth. The one thing al Qaeda was adept at doing was organizing training camps for jihadists. They would never have gone outside of their organization to fund someone whose views were so divergent and whose abilities were so lacking.

Clearly, Zarqawi wanted to be a jihadist. He may eventually have trained as one and ultimately found other mujahideen to join him in Afghanistan. But if so, his target remained the Jordanian monarchy. There is no evidence that he ever resurrected Jund al Sham. And there is no proof that he successfully trained anyone in Afghanistan in 2001. In fact, Zarqawi was actually in Iran throughout most of 2001, and therefore was neither associated with an alleged training camp or the Sunni al-Qaeda organization.

Zarqawi did not return to Afghanistan until after the US invasion in November and even then fought alongside the Afghani mujahideen. He did not lead a group of al Qaeda sponsored jihadi. And he was quickly injured and fled back to Iran in December of 2001. His rib injury was not treated by the Taliban, by al Qaeda, or in Afghanistan, much less in Iraq. The Iranians provided medical care. And throughout 2002 the Iranians expressly refused the Jordanian requests to extradite Zarqawi. Iran, a Shia nation, has nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda. Moreover, Iran is the primary foe of ISIS.

The US, without any concern for the facts in this case, contends that Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad, when the Iranians and Jordanians recognized that he was treated in Mashhad, Iran. Based upon the American claim, however, the Jordanians who rely on American money and weapons, played along and asked Saddam Hussein to extradite Zarqawi for his suspected role in the previously mentioned and foiled bombing in Amman. Saddam Hussein, however, could not extradite someone who was not in his country.

The only reason the US associated Zarqawi with Iraq was to justify invading Iraq. This lie served as one of the cornerstones vindicating the invasion, along with the false notion of Iraqi WMD. On February 5th 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council and lied, falsely stating…

“Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad.”

Every last word of this was untrue, just as were Colin Powell’s claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction. His speech remains one of the most deadly deceptions every perpetrated on the world community. If you don’t concur, conduct your own investigation. The British did, and they concluded that the basis for the Iraq War was not only fraudulent, but was known to be untrue at the time it was presented by GW Bush and supported by Tony Blair.

Later this same year, in a now declassified CIA report, the US conceded that there was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein harbored Zarqawi or supported him in any way. Another report, this one from the Senate and two years later, reveals “Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Further, addressing the next American deception, “Abu Yasim Sayyem was responsible for murdering Laurence Foley, not al-Zarqawi.” It was the biggest “oops” of modern history. And a comatose nation yawned.

The Jordanians, who had every reason to track Zarqawi’s whereabouts, realized that he left Iran and went to Syria. And it was in Syria, not Iraq, that he was once again accused of not only trying to train jihadists, but also of hiring assassins to kill Laurence Foley of the US Agency for International Development in Amman, Jordan. The only problem with this theory is that the "confessions" suggesting this association were coerced under torture and in reality members of Afghan Jihad and the International Muaheddin Movement, which were unaffiliated with Zarqawi, planned the attack. Salim Sa'd Salim bin Suwayd, who was not associated with Zarqawi accepted $30,000 to kill US, Israeli, and Jordanian government officials, including Foley.

Realizing that Zarqawi was in Syria after the raid, however, and thus not in Iraq, the US and Jordanians asked Syrian President Assad to extradite him in 2002. Assad refused. And yet, lying to the nation, the 2006 Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq, falsely claimed that Zarqawi was in Baghdad in 2002. Court documents in Syria show that Zarqawi remained in Syria throughout the year. And yet the Bush Administration in February 2003, a month before the invasion of Iraq, dishonestly presented Zarqawi's alleged presence in Iraq to justify the war. It was reprehensible.

Saddam Hussein and al Zarqawi were opposites, one secular the other sectarian. One was a jihadist and the other opposed jihad. Both were thugs, but one had the ability to lead while the other was a buffoon. Those who knew them realize that there was no chance whatsoever that Hussein harbored or assisted Zarqawi. Given the chance, Saddam would have had him killed.

The myth of Zarqawi was initially created by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard in March of 2003. He falsely reported that "British Intelligence claimed that before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi ran a terrorist haven in Kurdish northern Iraq to set up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated during the US occupation of the city." He further claimed that Zarqawi “had possession of chemical and biological weapons which he had received from the Kurds." Hayes would write "al Qaeda-associated terrorists were continuing to arrive in Baghdad throughout March 2003." Lastly, he said that Zarqawi was akin to the mythical Captain Hook, with "a prosthetic limb." None of it was true. The Weekly Standard "journalist" invented his stories to peddle the war on behalf of his neocon publisher. It was all fake news!

In early 2003, Zarqawi returned to Iran. From there it would have been impossible for him to have established Sunni sleeper cells in Baghdad. Iran is Shia and they already had hundreds of thousands of Shia jihadists in Baghdad mobilized under existing Iranian clerics. They would be deployed to oppose their Sunni counterparts.

The CIA would then promote some fake news of their own. In May 2004 a video appeared on a website that the CIA claimed was "associated with al Qaeda.” It revealed five men with their faces completely covered with keffiyeh, beheading American civilian Nicholas Berg, who had been abducted the previous month. While the video opens with the title "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughters an American," there is no evidence Zarqawi ever engaged in jihad. He reported on it, may have trained others for it, and then likely sent off jihadists to do his bidding, but he didn’t know how to use a rifle. The speaker, who the CIA claimed was Zarqawi even though they did not possess a prior recording of his voice, said “the murder was in retaliation for the US abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison” - where as we now know, the Bush Administration approved the use of torture. So while Zarqawi was a murderous and immoral man prone to violence, so were his foes, including George Bush.

In actuality, it wasn't until sometime later in 2004 that Zarqawi entered Iraq for the first time, well after the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq and well after the country fell into anarchy. At that time he is said to have formed al-Tawhid wal Jihad as a Sunni militia to oppose the US invasion and the now growing Shia influence in Iraq. He was not armed or trained by the US then or at any time. His jihadists, who were few in number and undisciplined, were attempting to kill American troops. Zarqawi was neither a member of nor aligned with al Qaeda when he cobbled together al-Tawhid wal Jihad. He was little more than an irrelevant thug in a world filled with thugs.

Zarqawi did not limit his rage to Iraq. Unlike OBL, his primary foe was not America. He claimed to have launched attacks in the Islamic countries of Morocco in Casablanca, in Istanbul, Turkey, and of course, in Jordan - typically targeting Shia mosques. This is precisely what distinguished Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad and Zarqawi from al Qaeda and bin Laden. He is also said to have targeted the Shia officials from Iran whether they were in Iraq and Syria.

His alleged plot against the Jordanian government under the moniker of Kata'eb al Tawhis - Batallions of Monotheism, was said to have included the use of "chemicals, explosives, and blistering agents." As part of his ongoing anti Jordan campaign, in November 2005 Zarqawi took credit for killing sixty people in three hotels in Amman, including members of the PLO. He is said to have been the mastermind of the Shia shrine attacks in Karbala and Baghdad, killing 180 Muslims, and then the dual car bombs in Jajaf and again Karbala, killing 60 Muslim civilians – these becoming his four most egregious acts. His last attack was also against Muslims, a February 2006 attack on the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra - once again targeting Shias.

In October 2004 the US State Department for the first time listed Zarqawi and his Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad group (and thus not "Al Qaeda in Iraq") as a "terrorist organization." The US was so fixated on this mouse of a man, they offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture - the same offered to capture OBL. The US was manufacturing its enemy, this time not with weapons, but with marketing ploys. They of course left out the fact that he "married" a 14 year old that he impregnated from his resume. But the truth be known, Zarqawi was the product of a US military PSYOP. The man was incapable of leading a trash brigade in dog kennel.

It was in 2004 that Zarqawi was said to have been allied with al-Qaeda. At the time, the Shi'ites in Iraq's government fabricated a letter that they claimed to have intercepted from Zarqawi to al Qaeda regarding the progress of Iraqi Jihad. But both parties to the letter announced that it was a fraud. The reason behind the Iraqi assertion is that Zarqawi was trying to undermine the Shia-controlled election, saying "those who engage in democracy are enemies of Islam. We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it. Democracy is based on the right to choose your religion and is against the rule of Allah." He then declared "all out war on Shi'ites."

In April of 2006 a video of a man who was said to look somewhat similar to Zarqawi surfaced, in which the speaker mocked George Bush. He said, "Why don't you tell people that your soldiers are committing suicide and taking drugs to help them sleep?" Whether or not the speaker was Zarqawi, he was right. The tape ended with the man saying that the US was "arrogant for rejecting the truce offered by our prince and leader," which as assumed to be OBL. The only problem with that notion is that bin Laden was never engaged in Iraq and never
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 James  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:02:32 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada Continues.

Quote:
offered a truce. The US, however, made the video available to the media because the speaker was so inept he did not know how to clear a stoppage on the stolen M249 automatic weapon he was "using."

According to the Washington Post, Zarqawi swore loyalty to bin Laden in October 2004 and was appointed OBL's deputy - a notion refuted by those closest to bin Laden. In an interview on Al-Majd TV, al Qaeda leader Walid Khan who was fighting alongside some jihadists who claimed to be associated with Zarqawi's Jund al Sham in Afghanistan said that the two groups did not get along and were not in fact allied. Bin Laden's Chief of Jihad, Saif al Adel, while engaged trying to overthrow Egypt's Mubarak on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, however, tried to reconcile the hostile relationship between Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden because he agreed with Zarqawi's desire to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. The Washington Post claimed that while Zarqawi may have accepted money from al-Qaeda, he "pursued an agenda that was largely distinct" from bin Laden.

Undermining this Washington Post theory, German wiretaps demonstrated that in the Fall of 2001, Zarqawi grew angry when his members were raising money in Germany for al Qaeda's local leadership, saying, "If something should come from their side, simply do not accept it." This recording was played at a trial of alleged Zarqawi operatives in Dusseldorf. It is also known that earlier this same year, Zarqawi expressly refused to swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden because he did not want to take sides against the Northern Alliance and he doubted the resolve of the Taliban.

While there is no connection of any kind between Zarqawi and Baghdadi, or between their organizations, it is true that Zarqawi briefly allied his Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad mujahideen with al Qaeda, renaming them Tanzim Qaidat al Jihad Bilad al Rafidayn sometime in October 2004. However, when al Qaeda's Shadi Abdellah was arrested, he affirmed that Zarqawi and bin Laden were not actually linked as was being promoted and believed. Apart from one announcement made by someone who claimed to be associated with Zarqawi, the most that can be said is that Zarqawi may have accepted an endorsement to satiate his ego and validate his credentials, and may even have assisted Saif al Adel in shepherding jihadists into Syria and Iraq, but nothing more.

The lone exception to this conclusion is a October 2004 message posed on an Islamic website by someone claiming to represent Zarqawi's jihad interests, writing that Zarqawi had sworn his network's allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for an endorsement by bin Laden. That message, which was neither written nor spoken by Zarqawi, himself, read:

"Numerous messages were passed between 'Abu Musab' (Allah protect him) and the al-Qaeda brotherhood over the past eight months, establishing a dialogue between them. No sooner had the calls been cut off than Allah chose to restore them, and our most generous brothers in al-Qaeda came to understand the strategy of the Tawhid wal-Jihad organization in Iraq, the land of the two rivers and of the Caliphs, and their hearts warmed to its methods and overall mission. Let it be known that al-Tawhid wal-Jihad pledges both its leaders and its soldiers to the mujahid commander, Sheikh 'Osama bin Laden' (in word and in deed) and to jihad for the sake of Allah until there is no more discord [among the ranks of Islam] and all of the religion turns toward Allah... By Allah, O sheikh of the mujahideen, if you bid us plunge into the ocean, we would follow you. If you ordered it so, we would obey. If you forbade us something, we would abide by your wishes. For what a fine commander you are to the armies of Islam, against the inveterate infidels and apostates!"

Keep in mind that the opening line proves that there was no meaningful dialog, relationship, nor franchise affiliation between Zarqawi and bin Laden from 2000 through 2004, and thus al Tawhid wal Jihad was not created as an affiliate of al Qaeda – nor did it act as such in 2002 or 2003 as Colin Powel told the United Nations. The purpose of this dialog was to establish that relationship on terms acceptable to both men. And after exchanging letters over the course of eight months, the agreed to disagree.

The reason behind the change of heart and brief alliance, should this have been approved by either man, was that al Qaeda was now irrelevant, bin Laden was in hiding, becoming little more than a legend, and Zarqawi craved the credibility an endorsement from the man once revered by Muslims for bloodying America would bring. Al Qaeda had never been a factor in Iraq. Al Qaeda's leaders had either been either killed or they were too far removed from the action to be of any value. The score of souls still affiliated with the organization were desperate for attention. And Zarqawi sought the standing in the Islamic world being lionized by the likes of Osama bin Laden would bring.

But the alliance between the two men if it occurred at all, was not tactical. One did not receive orders from the other. And this veil for appearance purposes crumbled in a fraction of the time it took to negotiate the news release. Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's co-founder, wrote Zarqawi, bluntly warning him that Muslim public opinion was turning against him because he was fixated on murdering Shia Muslims rather than Infidels. The letter made it obvious that al Qaeda had no influence over Zarqawi or his al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, and that in fact, al Qaeda opposed both. These facts are irrefutable and they destroy the notion that al Tawhid wal Jihad ever actually became al Qaeda in Iraq.

As a result, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded, “Zarqawi's alleged ties to al Qaeda are ambiguous. He may have been more of a rival than a lieutenant of bin Laden.” He even admitted, "Zarqawi may very well not have sworn allegiance to bin laden." And that "it could be legitimately said that he is not al Qaeda."

If that quote did not resolve this issue in your mind, you might as well stop reading.

Zarqawi was a typical Sunni Jihadist. He killed indiscriminately. He murdered far more Muslims than Infidels. Osama bin Laden was the exception to the rule. He targeted one foe at a time, transitioning from Russians to Americans. He opposed killing Muslims. But most of all, Zarqawi was a product of fake news, an American Bogeyman, the product of war propaganda and faulty intelligence. Unlike bin Laden before him or al Baghdadi after him, Zarqawi had no inspirational, planning, leadership, or tactical capabilities. He was an irrelevant and moronic thug.

Most all of the statements provided in the quoted material presented in the email were either false and their implications untrue, or they were irrelevant and misleading. It was another case of false news. We do ourselves and our God a disservice to share and promote that which is not true.

Zarqawi was a typical fundamentalist Muslim, and therefore an abhorrent man and murderer, who was further demonized to justify continued military operations in Iraq. A Sunni leader in Iraq would say: “Zarqawi is an American myth which was promoted to justify the occupation of Iraq.” The second most influential Iraqi, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said: “I believe he is fictitious. He is a knife or pistol in the hands of the occupier. I believe that all three – the occupation, the takfir (the practice of declaring other Muslims to be heretics who should be killed), and the Saddam supporters are a weapon in the hands of America and it pins its crimes on them.”

But the news regarding Zarqawi only gets worse. In April 2006, the Washington Post reported that the US military conducted a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi’s role in the Iraqi insurgency.” General Mark Kimmitt admitted, “the Zarqawi PSYOP Program is the most successful information campaign to date.”
It was all a deliberate hoax. The United States lied. A million people died and no one seems to know or care why.

While his death was reported eight times, beginning in 2002, 2003, twice in 2004, and four times in 2005 (May, September, November, and December), the official version promoted by the US military is that America bombed a home he was using in Baquba in June 2006, deploying two F16s and dropping two 500 pound guided bombs, a laser guided bomb, and a GPS guided bomb, killing him and five others. But these accounts are shrouded in controversy, some of which claim that US troops arrived on the scene and beat the man who they claimed to be Zarqawi to death.

And speaking of death, killing Zarqawi was counterproductive. The month following his alleged assassination was the deadliest in Iraqi history, with 1600 civilians succumbing to Islamic terrorism in a matter of weeks.

Now that we have destroyed the myth that Zarqawi ran an al Qaeda franchise in Iraq, let’s turn to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was born Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al Badri in Samarra, Iraq in 1971. He was a shy, unimpressive religious scholar who eschewed violence according to those who knew him best. His youth was spent in a room attached to a small mosque in Tobchi, Iraq, a poor neighborhood in western Baghdad.

Ahmed al Dabash, the leader of the Islamic Army of Iraq, and contemporary of Ibrahim Badri, provided this depiction, one which matched those of Tobchi residents: “I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same courses. He was quiet and retiring. He spent time alone. I came to befriend all of the jihadists fighting the occupation personally, including Zarqawi, …but I did not know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. But no one really noticed him.”

Something that Ibrahim Badri, the future al Baghdadi, did drew America’s attention. He was arrested by US Forces-Iraq in February 2004 outside Fallujah and detained at the Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca detention centers under his birth name, Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al Badry. He was classified a “civilian internee.” In December, he was released as a “low level prisoner.” There is no report on what he may have done to illicit his arrest. But it was a mistake. In prison, the future al Baghdadi first met members of a Mujahideen Shura Council, the umbrella group which would become ISI and then ISIS.

If we are to believe the propaganda, Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al Badri earned a doctorate for Islamic Studies in the Qur’an from Saddam University in Baghdad. That’s akin to being an expert in Dr. Seus’s Hop on Pop, albeit not as nurturing or pleasant. The Qur’an is irrefutably the worst book ever written. (If you disagree, read www.ProphetOfDoom.net.)

While he was more cleric than jihadist, in 2005 after he was released from prison, he served on a local Sharia Committee for Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al Sunnah wa I Jamaah (JJASJ). It wasn’t until 2006 that he became a member of the Mujahideen Shura Council (majlis Shura al Mujahideen fi al Iraq) by serving on their Sharia Committee. He would eventually earn a seat on their Consultative Council. And it was this organization, MSCI, that was rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). Baghdadi would not, however, become the leader of the ISI until May 2010 following the death of his predecessor, Abu Omar al Baghdadi.

The Mujahideen Shura Council of Iraq did not have, arm, train, or deploy jihadists. And while it was called “an umbrella organization,” it was actually an internet blogger, a source of fake news. Because it was cloaked in obscurity, if we are to believe the propaganda, the loose and unstructured confederacy was designed to make a handful of existing Sunni Islamic jihadist militias more effective. But in this regard, even as a marketing manager, promoter, and internet blogger, they failed. From 2006 through 2014, the Mujahideen Shura Council of Iraq accomplished nothing of any consequence.

But that is not to say that they were silent. They were internet bloggers after all.
According to their own reports, the MSCI inspired Sunni Salaf fundamentalists to oppose the American occupation and the Shiite government of Iraq. Their stated purpose was in their own words to: “Manage the struggle in the battle of confrontation to ward off the invading kafir (read Infidels) and their takfir stooges (read Shi’ites),…uniting the word of the mujahideen and closing their ranks, …determining a clear position toward developments and incidents so that people can see things clearly and the truth will not be confused with falsehood.”

But beyond this online release, and the online postings which followed, little if anything is known about the “organization,” its structure, or the jihadist groups with which it allegedly associated. It is a dark and blank slate that beacons to be written upon by those promoting an agenda. And few were more adapt at garnering attention than the propaganda czar of the Mujahideen Shura Council of Iraq, Murasel, who posted updates conveying accolades of the Council’s accomplishments – few if any were meaningful or credible. Like so many in the Islamic world, they accepted credit for the work of others – no matter how evil.

In October 2006 the MSCI announced their “Mutayibeen Coalition” on the internet, consisting of the MSCI (which did not have jihadists), three extremely small and essentially unknown jihadist groups, and for the first time, Sunni tribes. And because they counted the entire population of those tribes, the MSCI claimed to be 300,000 members strong. The internet video showed six white-clad masked men, “representing the Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq, the Jaysh al Fatihin (the Army of the Conquerors), Jund al Sahaba (the Army of the Companions), Kataib Ansar al Tawhid wal Sunna (the Monotheism and Sunnah Brigades), and many of the sheikhs of the faithful tribes in Iraq, taking an oath of the scented ones (hilf al mutayyabin).”

They announced: “To implement Allah’s Sharia we swear by Allah to do our utmost to free the prisoners of their shackles, and to rid Sunnis from the oppression of the Shi’ite Muslims and the crusader occupiers, to assist the oppressed and restore rights even at the price of our own lives, to make Allah’s word supreme in the world and to restore the glory of Islam.”

You’ll note, there was no mention of bin Laden, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda in Iraq. There was no mention of Zarqawi or his Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, either. The Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq was not based upon nor an outgrowth of either. And for the first time, the Sunni sheikhs and tribes who comprised the Awakening Program were listed as part of a jihadi organization. This was a tribal alliance.

The Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq was a Sunni, Iraqi, Islamic organization, not an al Qaeda franchise. Its objectives were known, as was its god, Allah, its constitution, the Qur’an, and its purpose, jihad.

Several days thereafter, the Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq announced on the internet that it would be henceforth known as “the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and would encompass the governorates of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salaheddin, Niniveh, and parts of Babel and Wasit.” This was in essence central and western Iraq where most Sunni Iraqi’s lived.

ISI was branding itself like a nation based upon ethnicity, religion, and geography rather than on jihad. This made it fundamentally different than anything that the world had witnessed since the rebirth of Islamic terrorism with the PLO. As such, Abu Omar al Baghdadi announced that he was the new state’s Emir. The
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 James  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:03:09 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Yada Continues

Yada wrote:
Mujahideen Shura Council said: “Allah willing, we will set the Law of Sharia here and we will fight the Americans.” He urged the Sunni Muslim “tribal leaders” who had been part of the Awakening Program “to join the Islamic state to protect our religion and our people, to prevent strife, and so that the blood and sacrifices of your martyrs are not lost.” Following the announcement, those who had been part of the Awakening Program grasped hold of their guns and took to the streets, marching in vast parades behind their tribal leaders in Ramadi and other Anbar towns to celebrate the birth of their state.

Rather than a franchise of the known, the ISI was akin to what Muhammad had created in Yathrib fourteen hundred years before. They would deploy the same tactic on behalf of the same wannabe prophet and demonic god.

A month later, Abu Ayyub al Masri went online to confirm the end of the MSCI, affirming that by forming this Sunni tribal alliance, they had formed the Islamic State in Iraq. The tribal leaders provided political, economic, civil, judicial, engineering, religious, and military leadership. It was an emerging state. Terrorism would be one of many tactics they would deploy. The world was ill prepared for them, did not understand them, and responded foolishly to them just as it did to Muhammad’s creation of Islam so many years ago. And in fact, the Islamic State was a foreseeable consequence of the Awakening Program. They would owe their existence to America’s stupidity.

If you hate the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and you should, you can blame George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powel, Donald Rumsfeld, General Petraeus, and Paul Bremer for their existence. But do not blame Osama bin Laden or al Zarqawi.

Al Baghdadi has published one sermon since he rose to power. He quoted the Qur’an and Hadith to justify his existence, his reign of terror, even his selling little girls into sexual slavery.

In conclusion, fake news is everywhere. It is much more prevalent than the truth. Most every article on Global Warming and Climate Change, for example, is fake news. Most every article on the Ukraine is comprised of fabrications and US propaganda. And there is no accurate reporting on the direct link between Islam and Islamic terrorism or between Islam and the abuse of women.

Fake news comes from sources many deem credible, such as the CIA, the US State Department, the US military, American presidents, think tanks and research groups, magazines and newspapers. Even the summation presented at the beginning of each Wikipedia article I read to prepare this analysis was usually wrong, and was typically contradicted by the evidence contained in the body of the article. To know the truth, we not only have to deploy a filter to discard that which isn’t valid, we have to have studied the issue to the point that we can readily recognize when we are being played. I have invested 10,000 hours investigating the origins and consequence of Islam. I’ve studied everything associated with 9/11 and the reemergence of Islamic Terrorism, from the PLO to the Islamic State.

Throughout this study regarding the presumed connections between bin Laden, Zarqawi, and al Baghdadi I found a barrage of purported links between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Iraq, but they all fell apart upon closer examination. For example, the rebranding of Zarqawi’s fledgling gang, al Tawhid wal Jihad, as al-Qaeda in Iraq, was a deliberate hoax perpetrated by Colin Powel and the US military to justify and prolong the US invasion of Iraq. And now, it’s parroted by others as if it were true. It was such a ruse, this alleged kingpin of the Iraqi insurgency was never even named on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda in Iraq never actually existed. Zarqawi was never inspired or controlled by bin Laden. They were as different as two fundamentalist Muslims can be. And when the Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq was formed and then became the Islamic State in Iraq, there was no association of any kind with bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, al Tawhid wal Jihad, or the mythical al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Islamic State began as an Iraqi Sunni tribal organization comprised of the same leaders who had been the focus of America’s Awakening Program.

Hopefully this is a lesson for all of us. Stick to stories which have a bearing on Yahowah’s testimony, and then be careful. Do not repeat the myths and fake news propagated by those with an agenda, such as the US State Department, the US military, the CIA, or any American president or administration. And question everything you read. Fact check the issue through multiple searches, and to the greatest extent possible, only cite the most credible sources. Never trust a blogger or internet news site. They are worse than the mainstream media. And be a skeptic. When you read something that stretches credulity and that has no credible sponsors, especially if it is associated with a conspiracy, turn away.

There is too much at stake for us to be suckered into the fray. And it’s too easy to expose and condemn political, religious, and military leaders based solely on readily available and easily verifiable facts to grasp at straws blowing in the ether of the web.

The internet has provided us with a platform to share Yahowah’s testimony with the world. But it is a cesspool – providing the least credible exchange of ideas in human history. We must do everything in our power to remain above the fray, to avoid any association with that which is false and misleading.

Yada
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 James  
#19 Posted : Friday, April 7, 2017 7:51:52 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
In regard to Yada's letter above F wrote
F wrote:
Again, my apologies for not checking deeper into the Red Sea story. It's a good lesson to learn that actually was between only us two. So thanks for letting me know about it before making a fool out of myself.

I'm usually looking into many sources to verify what I've read, but just at that time you sent one thing to me I was looking at it after watching the Exodus Story and willy nilly jumped on the archeology (fake news) story.

This is the point I think you're trying to make with the family too, that we are what we eat..Yahowah speaks about pigs, camels and food, and animals that don't exist. And when we consume these things it will end up ruining our own credibility and destroy our ability to bring Yahowah's words to light the path. Those obvious animal references that relate to religions are easy to see, but we can consume make believe stories like giant's / Enoch / flat earth..etc, and when we don't nip it in the butt, then it can consume others as well and hide Yahowah's path from the obvious

I know you and Larry are bigger than any story that doesn't involve Yahowah, and when we have hiccups in the family over mans ways, we should always look at one another as family, and family bends over backwards to keep our relationship on an even keel.

F


Yada wrote:
F,

As you know, I did not associate you with the Red Sea story. In fact, I'm most always impressed with your reasoning and understanding and have told you so on many occasions.

The Red Sea story was easy to believe because it contained much of what Ron W originally discovered. I wanted to believe the rest of it, too. I'm glad you sent it to me. I was going to report on it until I discovered that it was fake news. That is what brought me to the topic in the first place. It's all too easy to be fooled. We have to be careful what we endorse.

Being part of a family means that we will disagree respectfully and that we will care enough about the family to address anything we think is counterproductive. But it does not preclude disagreements. For example, I did not use anyone's name, I did not besmirch anyone's character or motives, I did not use derogatory language, and I'm neither angry or irritated. I suspect that this is so with my friend as well.

We ought never bend over backwards to keep our relationship on an even keel. Yahowah doesn't and nor should we.

If I think someone is wrong, I'll explain why I think so. If they want to oppose my assessment, then we'll hash it out, just as we are doing in these opposing emails.

No one is bigger than their credibility. When it is impugned, we must confront the issue.

I'm not married to doing either show. If I am rubbing people the wrong way because of my fixation on addressing the topics that relate to Yah while avoiding others, especially conspiracies, then I'll gladly step aside. Fortunately, there are many who can carry on and do a great job.

When we have an argument of the nature that occurred last week, my in box is usually flooded. The fact that I only received one email on it, and that one in opposition to my testimony, suggests that many who listened to the program disagree with me. And that's fine.

I'll consider what folks have to say regrading my reply and take it from there. But I'm not going to back down or cower. I'm not going to ignore something that I know to be wrong.

I learned a great deal that I did not previously know during the research. I now have to correct some of the things I've previously said regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban. So it was a productive use of time. I have benefited and grown as a result of the disagreement. I consider that a positive.

I knew that Colin Powell lied regarding the WMD, but I did not know that his other excuse to invade Iraq, that of Zarqawi and al Qaeda, was also a lie. I did not know that the Zarqawi al Qaeda connection was a deliberate PSYOP perpetrated by the US military. I knew that al Qaeda was never in Iraq, but did not know the origin of that deception. Now I do. And turns out, it is relevant to the story Yah presents in Yasha'yah 17-18.

The individual with whom I had a disagreement is my friend and will always be my friend. I love him like a brother. He is one of my favorite people. And he's a big boy, one that isn't going to let an argument effect him.

Yada
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 James  
#20 Posted : Friday, April 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
R in response to Yada's letter above.

R wrote:
C,
Thanks for putting this out. I skim through many web sites and find, as you have, that there is a supposed hidden revelation or event of immense import that is about to occur within the immediate future and that you, the reader, ‘needs to take immediate steps to protect yourself from what is coming’. This click bait technique is used by both political and ‘economic’ pundits and is now so ubiquitous that I either skip over them or make a note to see if they come to pass. Like Mohammad and Sha’uwl they never do. My particular concern with most web sites and on the feedback traces running across the bottom of the television screen is the appalling ignorance of the English language displayed by most of those who comment. Many are abusive, ad hominem or both but some are so poorly worded they contradict their own thesis or are simply gibberish. This poverty of thought and language occurs across the western world from the USA to Australia, even to the UK.

I agree with you that all political television and radio talk is partially or wholly fake. I might watch television for an occasional documentary (which I view sceptically) but I usually only watch TV for thrillers, dramas or comedies. BBC offerings in this regard are usually good.
What you have laid out and what I see has been of increasing concern but paradoxically of great satisfaction to me. Concern because the basis of any functioning society is trust which with the lies is now all but gone; satisfaction because we are seeing prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. Yashayah 18 means the US has to fall but from my POV here in Australia that is going to have very negative consequences for us. We are right next door to a muslim nation of 200 million people, most of whom hate us and envy our wealth and resources. We are practically undefended and undefendable and since we have always relied on the US umbrella for defence we are going to be in big trouble after the fall of the US.

Australia is filled with socialist ideas, pushed by an MSM with a disinterest or hatred of Yah and a poverty of a meaningful education. This leaves the population ignorant and at great risk since most are unwilling to listen to the truth and do not have the judgment or mental ability to cut through the lies and deceit when they do.
As you say, loss of credibility in one area leads to loss of credibility in all areas. I know this is true between me and my (earthly) family and I suspect it is why Yahowsha said He came to bring division. A prophet is not accepted in his own home and a child who finds Yah because of his past behaviour - which siblings and parents know all too well - is disregarded.

For this and other reasons I have been concerned for some time about how our credibility as members of the covenant family affects others.
That concern hinges on the third door, i.e. whether what we say and do impacts so negatively on those we meet who are not Family members that they are driven away from Yah as a result. I know that every person has to make his or her own decision and will be judged accordingly but I suspect there is a point beyond which we cannot go without being judged to have led people away from Yah and so suffer the consequence of joining the deceivers in She’owl.
I have brought this up at least once in Frank’s group but I haven’t had a satisfactory answer. There may not be one. We should all just behave in the manner you have described so that any chance of us being judged becomes moot.

I am given to forming hypotheses and ‘batting the breeze’ with ideas from left field and then discussing the consequences of a hypothesis in a logical manner. I have found that doing this sometimes leads to hidden truths whether in aspects of science or from parts of the TPP. However, with the latter I make it plain that the opinions are my own, that anyone can falsify or show my hypotheses to be true and that I am not speaking for Yah. These discussions occur within the confines of the Family so I feel are justified in that they will not lead people from Yah. Outside the Family I have to more careful.
R


Yada wrote:
Roy,

I was hoping that you would weigh in on the core of this issue, which we both see as the impact of fake news (general dishonesty) on a nation and society and the potential of Covenant members to squander our credibility and thereby negate our witness regarding Yahowah by associating ourselves with incredulous accounts. For some reason, I'm having a difficult time gaining traction with the family on this issue.

As I expected, your analysis is informed, reasonable, and articulate. I agree with almost everything you wrote. The bait for these stories is presented to drawn people into a sordid world where evidence is cherry picked and manipulated and where the most rational explanations are never considered. They lay out a preposterous theory and then recklessly extrapolate from there. And they do so for money, peddling false news like preachers peddle false hope for tithes. And sadly, when what they have claimed is shown to be false, those who believe them remain unaffected - still prone to believe that which isn't true.

The flaws in logic and language are related, both contributing to the problem. Decades of indoctrination in Socialist Secular Humanism and PC have left most in the West incapable of evaluating evidence rationally. Informed debate and rhetoric are lost arts. I suspect that one of the reasons I'm able to translate and interpret Yahowah's Word is that I'm a throwback to an approach that few appreciate, in that I'm still intrigued by cause and effect, by probability, by patterns and consistency, by evidence and reason, by exercising good judgment and being discriminating.

It's largely social media that has not only exacerbated a decline in language skills, but has also brought a tsunami of unfiltered information to the forefront. Dealing with an overwhelming amount of information was the purpose of Political Correctness in that it renders the masses incapable of processing it rationally, of knowing what can be trusted.

Our role in Yah's family is to correctly demonstrate division, to be judgmental, to show why we should not agree with others or seek to fit in, to be angry, even hateful when appropriate. But in this regard, the only controversial and unpopular truth we ought to embrace is Yahowah's Towrah. With everything else, from religion to politics, from patriotism to militarism, from news sources to social media, our role ought to exclusively be to expose and condemn all of these things. And in this regard, verifiable evidence is sufficient to make the case. My review of the Mujahideen, Taliban, al Qaeda, Zarqawi, ISIS, and the Bush Administration sought to demonstrate this approach.

And yes, I concur, the principle issue which divides us from our families and society is the unwillingness or inability of those we live around to consider the evidence regarding Yahowah rationally.

With the internet, we have to be careful regarding the distinction between what is "in family" and is available to everyone. Very little of what we say or do today in any electronic media or forum is private.

I rather like your logical approach to evaluating a hypothesis. And for the most part, your analysis pertains to something that helps us better understand Yahowah, such as dimensions, creation, and evolution - and of course your review and conclusions regarding prophecy. Even when we don't agree, I'm enriched by your presentation. And I have never heard you pursue a hypothesis that would erode your credibility.

I sense that you and I concur, recognizing that mankind's greatest threat is our rapid decline into irrationality and propensity to be conditioned into believing lies. I sense that you and I concur, recognizing that our witness on behalf of Yahowah can be seriously compromised if we embrace either side in this battle, the lies of the establishment or the lies of the conspirators and news junkies.

I am of the conclusion that we cannot be individually expelled from the Covenant, so I'm not comfortable with the idea that Covenant members may be judged and held responsible for misleading others. Dowd serves as proof for me. But like Dowd, I would hate to be set back on the shelf, becoming an unusable implement, because I ventured too far off of the path, luring others astray. So even if not judged for doing so, the consequence of erring in this regard is every bit as serious as you have stated.

Again, thank you for weighing in on this. If I've misrepresented anything you have said, please correct me.

While I've received favorable replies from more than half of the small group of Covenant members with whom I've shared my concerns over fake news, I suspect others have refrained from answering lest they be seen as taking sides. It could also be as a result of not wanting to take the time to read my 27 page lone analysis of the US involvement with and deceptions regarding Islamic jihadists. If the subject isn't of interest, I understand, although it does shed light on the issues raised in Yasha'yah 17-18. Regardless, my hope is that more come to appreciate the consequence of the problem wholly devoid of any potential personal conflict. The first is critical and the second should be irrelevant.

Yada
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 James  
#21 Posted : Friday, April 14, 2017 11:09:52 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
M wrote:
Hi Yada-

I appreciate your work as a member of the covenant family, and wanted your opinion on a matter.

My gifts are few, but interpersonal communication is a strong point. I also happen to be a former Christian before coming to know Yahowah and His covenant.

Because I am a former Christian and a strong communicator, I have been asked by a friend of mine to speak at a Christian men's retreat. Obviously, he doesn't not know me well enough to know that I am no longer deceived by the Pauline cult.

That said, there is a part of me that would like to do the retreat, specifically to craft a message that points towards Yah. I believe I can communicate in a subtle manner that the Christian god is not the true Creator, and do so in a way that they would listen.

In your opinion, is this toeing the line too much into playing with religion? My intent is righteous, but, is it too futile a task to bother?

Again, thank you. Hope it has been an amazing Pesach for you and yours!

M


Yada wrote:
Matt,

I am like you. I'd go and then lead them to the truth - knowing that even if 99 of 100 reject you, it would be worth the effort. And in this regard, you may want to consider using the unanswerable questions in the opening chapter of QP to set the stage.

So that you are not disappointed, be aware that while some may listen, some may try to shut you up and push you aside. Some will be very angry. They are looking for a religious high and you will be offering them the Most High. They are looking to meet with Jesus whom you will tell them is Dionysus under a different name. It will not equate with most of them.

Yada
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 James  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, May 3, 2017 7:57:16 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Danny wrote:
I just had a profound thought, its worth shareing.


When death comes ,whether expected or not ,our loved ones are ripped from us,,,,,an empty space prevails ! You,ve been there, dwell on that thought for a moment or two. Empty space.


Love is defined by intamacy , by caring , we can only love those that we know and nuture. When my soldiers and officers got killed in iraq it hurt , it hurt so bad , i had failed them ( that is what i understood and felt back then).


In due course i realised i was a pawn in the game but i didnt know the name of the game let alone the rules.


During the passage of time I learnt to accept the grief , the loss,the void, the empty space. Life is about loss , its the greatest teaching tool we have , we lose our virginity, we lose our youth, we lose those that we care for, and for many we lose ourselves in the melee. Its only when you rationalise the experince that you can rise above it . It aint easy , you need a big wedge and a bigger hammer.


In Iraq 2006, my troop suffered heavy losses,death and injury, my soldiers where in tatters. I told them point blank, "Soldiers die , what they die for is of no consequence, they are collateral and you voluteered". That was recieved bitterly by the troops, and they hated me for saying it ,but its the truth. A few days latter the Major told my guys not to spill there blood in iraq as it wasnt worth it ,,,,, thats ratification. They all knew it was bullshit, but when the Major and I tell them how it really is , the thin viel of patriotism and militarism evaporates,,,,it just becomes survival.


Half of my guys left the miltary within one year of that incident , they knew they were pawns in the game and withdrew their services,,,i remained !


I have to make an effort to recall the hardship and misery, i dont dwell on things that make me feel shit and worthless. I just tried to do my best with my guys , keep them out of harms way as best I could, but knowing full well some of them aint coming home , that a rough deal Yada, a real juggling act back then. I was known a "fucking Benson", no compromise hard nose bastard,,,but that was just a reputation invented by my superiors to appease me and palcate my soldiers,,,it took along time to see the spiritual burkha that envoloped me.


That empty space lessens with time, the pains of decisions and words from the past, the echo,s reduce to nothing,,the ripples become still.


Yahowah gives us everything, As far as I am currently aware Yah said he will wipe away our tears, that means he consoles us . CurrentlyI dont think Yah would take anything from us , He speaks of giving to his children endlessly, everything that he has, but as far as i can understand he never says he will take from us ,,,, but he wipes our tears away like a real father beyond would do .


I hope i aint bothering you here Yada ,


Shalowm


Dan


Yada wrote:
Dan,

I agree: "Love is defined by intimacy , by caring. We can only love those that we know and nurture."

If this were not the case, humankind would cause God more pain than He could endure. But He is not bothered by those He does not know, even when they die.

I wrote a book called the Islamic Terrorism Timeline which presented every act of terrorism from the 1960s through 2004. I detailed every US soldier's death during the first few years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what I found is that if there was limited information, there were no feelings associated with the deaths. But with some cases, there was so much detail, I experienced a sense of loss.

What I learned after reading what the DoD claimed and then what the men who were actually there at the time wrote, is that the US DoD lies all of the time and can never be trusted - ever. So what you told your men is exactly what I came to know as true. Lives were being squandered making bad situations much worse.

Yada
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 James  
#23 Posted : Friday, May 5, 2017 2:52:39 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
FS wrote:
Dear Yada...I have a question...after reading 2 Shamuw'el 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 in ordinary Bible...I found a different story about Dowd purchasing a threshing floor in Shamuw'el it is from Arawnah for fifty shekels of silver...but in Chronicles it is from Ornan for six hundred shekels of gold....which one is the right one....thanks


Yada wrote:
FS

Yes, in Chronicles it is Ornan and the price is 600 shekels. In Shamuw'el it is 'Arauwnah and 50 shekels.

Out of the entirety of Chronicles we only have three words in 28:27 and seven in 29:1. We have sixteen words between 29:2-3 in the Qumran scrolls. That's so little, it's not enough to establish any credibility.

Moreover, Shamuw'el was a prophet and a contemporary of Dowd. We have so much of Shamuw'el represented in the DSS, it takes over 40 pages to present it in the DSSB. Of 2 Sam 24, we have verses 16-20 in the DSS.

So this is an easy one for me. Shamuw'el is correct. The Chronicle references are "typos."

Yada
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 James  
#24 Posted : Friday, June 2, 2017 3:52:02 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Lisa wrote:
Yada;
Just some musings of my mind I would like to share. I am aware of the sign of Yownah and its significance, but I can’t help thinking there is more to the account’s symbolism.
Yownah ran away when Yahowah [qara] called him, right? Yownah rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of Yahowah.
So he went down to Yowppa, found a ship which was going to Tarshish, paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of Yahowah.

Based on that account [and what most Yahudi do to this day--run away] what is this place Tarshish and what happened next? Yownah was eaten [consumed] by a sea creature, a leviathan, a whale is just that, it is a leviathan and creature of the sea, my mind naturally asks the question, was this a foretelling of Jews being consumed by Christianity and its fish symbol? Christianity had a precursor in Mistrayim, as the cult of seraphim, which has many features shared with Paul’s of Tarsus’s religion, another feature is that of the Dagon [fish god] inserted into it. This was clearly not a Roman concept, Romans were much like Greeks, in that they never really invented much, but plagiarized most of what they knew, inserted their own twist, and called it something new. Paul’s religion is a stillborn child birthed from the dust of the surrounding nations false gods, like that of the Palishty and Egypt. The star of Remphan and Baál Zephon [same god] is a god of the sea from my brief research into the subject matter. Just thoughts....
Shalowm alychem;
Lisa


Yada wrote:
Lisa,

Outstanding analysis.

Yes, by walking away from Yahowah, for failing to listen to Him and respond to His requests, they (Yahuwdym) have been consumed by the giants of the sea (Gentiles). These giants include Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Imperial Rome, Roman Catholicism, Christianity, Socialism, Communism, Nazi Germany, and now Islam. The giant fish is a symbol of the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, of Astarte, of Roman Catholicism, and of Christianity.

Yada
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 James  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:20:45 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
DL wrote:
Yada,

First let me take a moment to say I'm sorry to hear about your back. That's terrible. Back pain can make a person not want to do anything. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that.

Now I would like to ask you about last week's shabbat program, because I'm confused and trying to chase it down but I think it'd be worthwhile to get your insight.

On the show dated June 2 2017, if I understood correctly I think you said at about 71 minutes from the beginning that it wasn't just being circumcised, but being circumcised because you want to engage in the Covenant.

In fact let's be as precise as possible with our research of the item I'm struggling with:
Show archive at http://www.blessyahowah....tr/2017/17-06-02_BTR.mp3

Immediately following a discussion about why there are two (2) loaves, JB begins speaking at 1hr9min41sec, bringing up that Goyim are invited also at Passover, given a circumcision prerequisite:
“You know I find it interesting that, (you know) the other Miqra which Goyim are invited to, is Passover, but there's a caveat to them being allowed to participate in Passover, and that's that they become circumcised, but it also states there that then they are considered just as the natural born; so at that point they are no longer Gentile, they are no longer Goyim, they are Yisra'el; but in this case, there's no caveat so you could be a Gentile, you don't have to become part of Yisra'el to participate in this. To participate in Passover you have to become Yisra'el.”

You responded, “Correct. You have to be not only circumcised, but you have to be circumcised as a Gentile because you choose, out of love, the benefits of being included...a desire to be part of the family, has to be the motivation for being circumcised. So just being circumcised doesn't qualify you, you have to be circumcised because of your desire to be part of the family. So you are fulfilling, if you will, the signing your name to the Covenant...in fact, by participating in Passover by doing those two things, you are accepting the Terms and Conditions of the Covenant. At that point you are walking away from all the religious practices of the rest of the world...”

So it would appear that you specified that circumcision must come after the decision to join the Covenant. On the face of it this would invalidate infant circumcision. That concerns me because I had thought I had chased this one down and settled it previously, but that wasn't my conclusion. And I have “skin in the game” on this one, because I had a circumcision as an infant.

I had previously assumed that the fact I was circumcised as a child was sufficient. In fact at one time I considered whether it was on the 8th day, but in all honesty it was probably shortly after birth, given the medical practices at the time. As I understand it the doctors routinely whipped the scalpel around claiming better hygiene unless the parents specifically requested that their son remain uncircumcised.

Now I will right away admit I'm pretty simple-minded, often accused as very gullible, and a concrete-thinker, but it occurs to me that if infant circumcision is invalid because we cannot speak for the child's desire to join the Covenant, then (at least with the severe “peri'ah” circumcision style I have) if a man later in life decides to join the Covenant family there's no foreskin left to cut; this could be a novel way to preclude someone from joining the Covenant family. Perhaps, if the flesh-parents of the child were already in Yah's family then infant circumcision might be valid, because it is not the intent of the child, but instead of the parents, that the child be brought into Yah's family? Well, that's not where I came from anyway so that's a moot point in my situation, but then I'm pretty sure you heavily underscored the need to walk away from one's earthly family (more specifically, their religious teachings and traditions) in your books. So I'm inclined to think that it should be my own motivation and desire that should be considered. But all of this paragraph seems to be walking on the thin ice of speculation.

Ultimately my question to you is, if I have no foreskin left, how then can I be circumcised after having come to the conclusion that I agreed to the terms and conditions of the Covenant?
(The foreskin-restoration crowd suggests pulling and stretching and taping the skin to promote skin growth to create a “faux-skin”. I suppose that then could be cut; should that really be necessary?)

Examining your writings and Towrah references, here's what I have so far:

http://anintroductiontog...owrah-His_Teaching.Torah
1. Paul takes direct aim at the Covenant, its sign which is circumcision, the Sabbath, as well as Yahowah’s seven “Miqra’ey – Called - Out Assembly Meetings,” labeling them irrelevant and even counterproductive.
2. And finally, as a sign that we are committed to raising our own children within the Covenant, we must circumcise our sons.
3. “And Yahowah ( - - יהוה – Yahowah) spoke as God unto (‘amar ‘el – said to) Moseh (Moseh – from mashah, meaning One Who Draws Out) and Aharown (‘Aharown – Enlightened Freewill) , ‘The prescribed ordinance (chuqah – the clearly communicated rule regarding) of the (ha) Passover (Pesach – the process of being passed over) is not (lo’) for every (kol) estranged and foreign (nekar – those lacking kinship and unrelated) child (ben) to partake (‘akal – consume and eat) in it (ba - y) . But (wa) every (kol) coworker (‘ebed – associate and servant) , every individual (‘ysh – man) who chooses to be included and adopted (kasap / kesep miqnah – who yearns to be purchased at a price) , and who is circumcised (muwl) at that time (‘az) , he may partake in it and be nourished by it (‘akal ba - y) .’” (Shemowth/ Names / Exodus 12:43 – 44)

“and who is circumcised at that time”, at least in English still seems ambiguous with regard to my question: While it seems to conjure to mind the idea of being cut immediately before partaking in Passover, it also allows for being passively in the state of being circumcised, all scarred over and healed up.

4. “The following is a very insightful instruction, one which tells us that the benefits of Passover are for Jew and Gentile alike. “And indeed when (wa ky) a guest who is living (guwr) with you (‘eth) , and the visitor who is from a different place and culture (ger – a new arrival on a voyage of discovery who has walked away from his own nation and family) acts upon and actively engages in, thereby celebrating (‘asah – assumes as accepts the responsibilities associated with, performs, and benefits from) Pesach / Passover (Pesach) to approach (la – to reach) Yahowah ( ) , every (kol) male (zakar – man and boy for the purpose of remembering) must be circumcised (muwl) for him to reach this goal (la - w) , and for him to approach and present himself (qarab – for him to draw near and be present) . And (wa) then, at that time (‘az) , he may approach (qarab – draw near) so that (la) he may celebrate, actively engage in, and do this (‘asah – act upon, perform, and profit from this) . And then (wa) he shall be (hayah – he shall come to exist) considered the same as (ka – even identical to) a native - born member of the family, grafted and rooted into (‘ezrah – a person who springs from the natural tree with all rights of citizenship [becoming as Yisra’el and Yahuwdym in]) the (ha) land (‘erets – realm) . But (wa) anyone (kol) who is uncircumcised (‘arel) , he shall not (lo’) partake in it or be nourished by it (‘akal ba - y) .’” (Shemowth/ Names / Exodus 12:48)

This seems to be more direct about it: “and then, at that time, he may approach so that he may celebrate, actively engage in, and do this”.
Looks like I need to be cut in a circular fashion again, as part of the Passover celebration. That would mean I've been doing it wrong in the last 4 years.

5. “While we will delve deeply into Yahowah’s instructions regarding circumcision during our comprehensive review of His “Beryth – Covenant,” suffice it to say for now that while circumcision does not in itself save anyone, there is no access to salvation without it. And that is because circumcision is the sign of the Covenant, and the Covenant is the reason for salvation. No circumcision – no Covenant.”

This one appears to direct us to your “His Covenant” volume. So I'm going to jump there.

http://anintroductiontog...eryth-His_Covenant.Torah
1.One of the Covenant’s most indelible themes is “yasa’ chuwts – being led by God to a place which is set apart.” It is why chuwts is based upon a Hebrew word which means “to sever.” Our Heavenly Father wants us to walk away from our familial, political, and religious affiliations, severing those human ties, and thereby setting ourselves apart from the material world, so that we can be set apart unto Him. It is the symbolism behind circumcision, the enduring symbol of the Covenant. It is the purpose of the “Ruwach – Spirit” who is called: “Qodesh – Set Apart.”

2.”“On (ba – in) this (huw’) day (yowm) , Yahowah ( ) cut (karat) the Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – nurturing relational agreement, binding promise, solemn oath, and mutual alliance and pledge based upon a marriage vow and home which fosters and encourages) with (‘eth – in association with) ‘Abram (‘Abram – Father who Uplifts) to promise (la ‘amar – to communicate and confirm) : ‘To your offspring (zera’ – seed) I give (natan – bestow and devote) therewith (‘eth) this (ze’th) land (‘erets – established realm and firm, reliable place) .” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:18)
“The Hebrew word translated “cut” is karat. It is routinely deployed in connection with the formation of the Covenant and describes the manner business associates or a judge might “cut a deal.” God selected it for two reasons. First, the purpose of the Covenant is to separate God’s Chosen from the world, and to set them apart unto Him. Second, karat is used in connection with circumcision, and circumcision will become the “sign of the Covenant.”
And while it is seldom translated, much less considered, let’s not neglect “’eth – with.” A covenant isn’t something anyone can do alone—even God. It is a relationship, and that requires at least two consenting parties.

So, with regards to my initial question, and in light of the revelation elsewhere that Yahowah is not omnipresent (which would suggest Yah was probably not present in the hospital) then this seems (at least circumstantially) to suggest that I had been mistaken in assuming that my infant circumcision was sufficient. I had thought of myself as Covenant since I first actively engaged in Passover in 2014, but maybe I was wrong?

We could keep going, but this is already on page 3, and I've already wasted too much of your time.

But I am going to throw in this one last one from your Beryth Volume:

““And (wa) a son (ben – a male child) of eight (shamonah – from shamen, meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, of being anointed, and of being rooted in the land) days (yowmym) you shall circumcise (muwl – you shall cut off and separate his foreskin (scribed using the niphal stem denoting a relationship which is genuine and indicating that parents benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur over time and that it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male (zakar – masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to memory, to remind, and to remember) throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations (dowr – your protected households and extended families, elevating and extending your lives) , those naturally born (yalyd – those naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth – into the household and family (singular absolute)) , and also (wa) those really wanting to be (kasap – those deeply desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah – purchased and obtained) of (min) every (kol) son (ben – male child) of foreign lands (nekar – of places where they are not properly valued and appreciated) who relationally (‘asher – by way of making a connection) are not (lo’) from (min) your seed (zera’) .” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:12)”

This one seems to have put some validity back into infant circumcision. Uhoh, now I'm confused again. Because I was circumcised as an infant but it was a medical circ and my parents thought themselves to be devout christian, which I rejected once and for all reading An Introduction to God in 2013.

I do apologize in advance. I'm sure the answer to this question is obvious to you. I'm writing to ask if I've come to the wrong conclusions here, because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it either way here.

I'm stuck and embarassed. Am I just asking the wrong question entirely? Am I “majoring in the minors” here, given that it's “just a sign”?

If it's possible to get this thing right I want to.
Feel free to point and laugh if necessary.


Yada wrote:
DL,

Yours is a long email and I don't know if I can address all of it, but let's address the question on circumcision.

The fifth condition of the Covenant asks parents to circumcise their sons on the 8th day for the purpose of remembering and acknowledging the Covenant. Yah wants parents to raise their children to become His children. Therefore, a child that has been circumcised at the direction of their parents would meet this requirement. But keep in mind, it is the 5th of 5 conditions. So circumcision alone is insufficient.

The instructions on attending Pesach state that every man who participates has to be circumcised. There are two groups of potential participants - those naturally born into the family, and thus Yisra'el (those who would have been circumcised at birth) and Gentiles who choose to participate in the family out of love. They too, at whatever age they may be, must be circumcised to participate. The reason is important. Passover provides eternal life. Those in the Covenant spend it with Yah. Those not in the Covenant would spend it in She'owl. But in this case, there is no mention of a second circumcision or of how much should be cut. So, since there is no such instruction, a second circumcision isn't necessary. Your choice is then do you accept the other four terms of the Covenant and are you attending Yah's seven Miqra'ey.

So, if not circumcised at birth according to Yah's instruction for Covenant participation, a man has to be circumcised later in life if they choose to attend Passover and become part of the Covenant. But once is enough, no matter when it occurs or who made the choice to do so.


Yada


James wrote:
Agreed. The desire to be a part of the Covenant and Circumcision are the requirements. Those of us Circumcised at birth had no control over that aspect, but that is why Circumcision alone is not enough, what we do have control over is our desire to participate. I think Yada may have misspoke slightly on the show, it's the nature of live extemporaneous speaking, and insinuated that you had to be Circumcised for the right reason when I think what he was intending to say was simply that for a Gentile to be a part of the Covenant and be considered Yisra'el that they had to have the desire and they had to be circumcised. At least that is my understanding. As a Yahuwdi Dowd would have been circumcised as an infant, and thus had no choice or desire in it, but he was still part of the Covenant because when he became able he did have desire and choose it.
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 Bubsy  
#26 Posted : Monday, October 16, 2017 5:52:44 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 89
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 15 post(s)
Having listened to the October 13, 2017 Shabbat Towrah Study show, the mention of how 7000 people were spared simply because they were not bowing to Ba'al seems to parallel what looks like it will be the criteria during The Tribulation. Just as those who were bowing to Ba'al were apparently eternally separated, so will those who align themselves with who posed as Ba'al by taking his representative's mark. Yada said that nobody knew Yahowah at that historical time, and after the ultimate fulfillment of Yom Teruah, nobody left on Earth will know Yahowah at that time.
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
Offline James  
#27 Posted : Thursday, November 2, 2017 7:53:16 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,529
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Roy wrote:
Yada,

I listened to Observations where you were discussing Yashayah 9:6
I think you’ve found something wonderful from chapter 9 but I would like to amplify your thesis.
I think Yashayah 9:6 was talking about both Yahowsha and Dowd together. They are essentially joined at the hip. They both will play a role in the end times and its aftermath.
Both Dowd and Yahowsha were sons of God.
Both were described as the son of Man since both were born of women.
Both probably had an ordinary and sinful early career even though we don’t hear of the early career of Yahowsha. It is alluded to in Yashayah 7:15 where He is imbibing the Torah before He reaches the age of accountability. Then the Spirit descends upon Him, perfecting Him so that he can be the sacrificial lamb.
Before going further, I should backtrack and provide an overview of what I understand Yahowsha to be:
We understand the name Yahowsha means Yah is salvation or Yah saves.
Yahowah as far as we know exists in 7 dimensions. He is made of light or a related substance.
We have come to the conclusion that He cannot enter any dimension lower than the 7th as He is.
However, he has tools called Malak that can go into lower dimensions. He can also set aside a part of Himself to go into a lower dimension.
Those implements exist as light in His realm but have the ability to convert to matter in our 3-dimensional universe.
It has been shown mathematically that 3 spatial dimensions and time is privileged in that that combination of space and time is the only combination of all possible spatial and temporal dimensions that can sustain matter (note: not referring to light or EM radiation here) in a (relatively) stable state.
The set-apart manifestations of Yah that we know of are Yahowsha and the Set-Apart Spirit.
Yahowsha has the ability to transform Himself into matter that we would recognize as a person. The Set-Apart Spirit is light and to all intents and purposes is invisible to us in our 3D realm.
Yah in his diminished form as Yahowsha has appeared ?6 times in human history. The first, of course, was with Adam and Chawah in the Garden. He appeared accompanied by malak to Abraham.
From the above we know that it is impossible for Yah to appear to any of us in our material forms in any form other than as Yahowsha.
Yahowsha does have to completely dial down to walk unnoticed amongst us.
We are told that when Yahowah returns again as Yahowsha He will be so energetic that anyone who is not protected from his electromagnetic emanations will be destroyed as if they had just been thrown into the photosphere of the sun. Note: Yah cannot return to earth except as Yahowsha for the reasons given above.
We know that Yah in His diminished form as Yahowsha gave Mosheh the Torah and was so energetic that Mosheh’s face shone for some time afterwards.
Yahowsha has been described as the Word of God and the creator of the universe, life and mankind on this earth.
Yahowsha in his lowliest form appeared as an ordinary man and became the sacrificial lamb fulfilling the first 4 miqrae that He, Himself, spelled out in the Torah.
We are told that Yahowsha came in His Father’s name, carried Yahowah’s soul and was endowed with the Set-apart Spirit.
We know in the form of a human he selected apostles, taught and counseled them.
We know if the NT is to be believed in even a small way that He spoke to crowds, performed miracles, condemned the political and religious leaders of His time and gave prophecy from the pages of the Torah. He spoke in parables, deliberately disguising His message from those who could not or would not understand while at the same time teaching his disciples.
He gave advice and condemnation to Nicodemis. He healed the sick and constantly referred people with questions to the Torah and spoke little of Himself but pointed people instead to the Father

Returning to 9:6 the attributes given there can be shown to apply to Yahowsha and Dowd.
The attributes are given as:
Striving
Name is called wonderful
Counselor
Mighty
God,
Everlasting Father
Prince of Reconciliation
7 attributes.

Certainly Dowd strove with Yah. Yahowsha as the son of Man strove with the enemies of His time – in word only.
Both Yahowsha and Dowd could easily be described as wonderful
Both counseled. I disagree with your statement that Yahowsha was not a counselor. The Set-apart Spirit is a counselor but so was Yahowsha.
Your definition of a counselor: An advisor and consultant, one who provides directions and thought-provoking guidance, to deliberate, one who proposes and reveals the purpose and the plan.
Yahowsha as the Word gave us the Torah. Therefore by definition Yahowsha fulfilled the definition of a counselor. He counseled his disciples, he admonished Nicodemis, indirectly advising him to revisit the Torah of which he was supposed to be a teacher. He revealed Yah’s plan, if only to his disciples who were slow to catch on.
Both Yahowsha and Dowd were mighty. Dowd was mentally mighty and very tough. He was mighty in courage. He was mighty in persistence, He was mighty in the Torah. Yahowsha was mighty as the perfect sacrificial lamb and as a diminished manifestation of Yah.
Your definition of strengthening God is good idea iff it is possible for any man - Dowd - to strengthen God. Yahowsha could and did strengthen God by virtue of his role. He never (as far as we know) described Himself as almighty God because in the role He was engaged in that would not be true.
Eternal father: For Dowd your idea is possible but a stretch. He certainly ‘fathered’ the nation of Yisra’el. That is true. And Yahowsha came from his line. And it is also true that Yisra’el will continue as those who are spiritual beings continue to strive with Yah.
It is also true that Yahowsha after his stint in She’owl returned to join the Eternal Father and in that sense I find the attribute more appealing. It is worth noting that Yahowsha as he was in 4000 Yah differed from Yah in only one major way – He was material. He had Yah’s name, he had Yah’s soul, He was enveloped by the Set-part Spirit and he not only knew the Torah but as its author His thoughts and way of thinking were those of Yah.
Prince of Reconciliation:
Reconcilliation would not have been possible without the Torah and without Dowd to tell us how to interpret and understand it. Yahowsha is by definition the Prince of Reconciliation.

So I think that Yashayah 9:6 et seq is referring to both Yahowsha and Dowd. Dowd’s throne will be established for all eternity but it was not Dowd that established it. It was Yah/Yahowsha that did that.
Yahowsha and Dowd will be side by side on the Temple Mount, with Dowd as the go-between between Yah (as Yahowsha) and the mortals that have not yet joined the covenant. In that sense he will be a teacher and guide and additionally he will be a ruler holding dominion but it will not be the form of government that curses us now.
One final thought: I believe that the code for Yah’s soul was transmitted genetically to Yahowsha. If true then since Yahowsha came from Dowd’s line he would have had the same genetic code and may even have had the same or nearly the same code for Yah’s soul as Yahowsha.
Dowd and Yahowsha are two peas in a pod. What applies to one applies to the other.
I have sought Lisa’s opinion as well. Her response was along similar lines. I think together, with you leading, we have made a tremendous break through.
Roy

A postscript:

Christians (and us) got only half the truth. To Christians ‘unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given’ = Yahowsha.
The reality is: ‘unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given’ = Yahowsha = Dowd.
I should point out that Yashayah 9:7 does not name Dowd as such. It names the Throne of Dowd. Likewise Yashayah 7:13 mentions the House of Dowd.
The English crown is called the House/Throne of Windsor. That is a generic title – or institution - for whoever sits on that throne. Elizabeth is not the name of the House of Windsor, she is merely the occupant of the House at this particular time.
Likewise the House of Dowd extends from Dowd to today. It included as an institution others within that house down through the centuries, the most important other than Dowd being Yahowsha.
So putting it all together the one liner above is a very brief and complete summary of where we have arrived.
Roy



Yada wrote:
Roy,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your last two letters. I have been out of town and wanted to complete enough of this to provide some of the reasons behind my thinking.

As I was translating Yasha'yah 9.6-7 this time through, I wrote it as you are now presenting it, as if it applied to both men. That is not, however, the way I'm rewriting it. I do not think that this applies to Yahowsha', but only to Dowd. It will take me at least another couple of days to complete my case in this regard. And if the words don't support my conclusions as I continue to work through this, I'll change it, just as I have before. Most importantly, if I'm right about this, it is among the most inflammatory conclusions I've yet made. If I'm right, Christianity is wrong about many more things than we have noted previously.

That said, I'm thrilled to see you in the middle position, agreeing with my conclusions regarding Dowd while disagreeing with my conclusions regarding Yahowsha'. This will produce the most thoughtful and defensible chapter in the end. So by all means, continue to disagree. Considering the issues involved, it's critically important.

Since I haven't completed the rewrite of 9.7, l's like to respond to your key points. You are correct that it is addressing the throne of Dowd. That, however, isn't in conflict with my assertion that Dowd's is the only name provided in either list of seven attributes and benefits. Also, if Yahowsha', He wouldn't be seated on Dowd's throne nor would Yahowsha's kingdom, should that be something that will exist, be based upon Dowd's.

There are many reasons to exclude Yahowsha' and see Dowd as the object of the prophecy, which I think covers two eras of Dowd's life, past and future.

I've attached a very rough draft of my rewrite. This chapter is more than a week away from completion. So please, share your ideas and concerns. Let me know where you think I'm right and where I am wrong. This is an outgrowth of our mutual conclusion that Yahowsha' was not born as God nor born of a virgin.

Yada

PS: The name of this chapter will likely change.




Roy wrote:
Hi Yada,
Here’s something out of left field:
If the code for Yah’s soul was transmitted genetically to Yahowsha then since Yahowsha came from Dowd’s line he would have had the same genetic code and may even have had the same (or nearly the same) code for Yah’s soul as Yahowsha.
So what if the genetic codes for the souls of Dowd and Yahowsha were exactly the same?
Then literally Dowd and Yahowsha were and are one and the same.
Since the soul makes the man in the way that he thinks and behaves (Ignoring the physical body which is really irrelevant) and since Yahowsha carried Yah’s soul then every manifestation of Yahowsha was in reality the same as saying he was a manifestation of a version of Dowd. (The neshamah as a plug-in given to Adam, was transmitted through the rules of genetic inheritance to all of mankind. It is like a computer programme that is a plug-in given to every individual to be used in combination with each soul enhancing the soul’s abilities in a way unique to each individual.)
This idea needs to be fleshed out a bit (forgive the pun) but I think it explains and simplifies many of the questions surrounding Dowd’s relationship to Yah.
Dowd’s soul is now in heaven as Yah’s favourite son. So is Yah’s soul. If they are the same then Dowd must have been/is identical to Yahowsha. Yahowsha as the Word gave us the Torah through Mosheh. This is why Dowd understood the Torah and was declared ‘right’ despite his behavior. As Dowd/Yahowsha he showed us that the Torah was just a teaching tool, not some rigid set of laws to be obeyed for otherwise nobody would ever be ‘saved’. One manifestation showed us Yah as He is and the other Yah’s response to those who want to be with Him no matter what they have done (with one exception).
This idea may be too much for some if I have managed to convey the ideas I had correctly. It is something to ponder and perhaps refine.
Roy
[\quote]

Yada wrote:
Roy,

I've attached the latest version of O17. My second draft of Yasha'yah 9:6-7 is now complete, but I still have to make one last pass from beginning to the end of the chapter which I have not yet stared.

With one exception, I like the shared soul idea between Dowd and Yahowsha'. That exception is how different these men actually were. Their rhetoric was the same, but little else: including Dowd's warring tendencies, sexual pursuits, accumulation of wealth, political ambitions, etc.

Also, I don't think that Yahowah's soul was as defining of Him as our souls are of us. I think He simply created a soul for Himself to use with Yahowsha'. It wasn't His soul in the sense of representing His life and personality.

However to your point, if it is the same soul as He used with Dowd, then Yah will get to enjoy a relationship with that soul forever, unlike what would exist with Yahowsha' in that it would be self love rather than love of another.

There is a tremendous connection between Dowd and Yahowsha'. They are mutually dependent and synergistic.

Yada

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
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.