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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#1 Posted : Monday, December 3, 2007 10:03:38 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

BABYLON - THE BANDIT

You (not everyone on this forum) may be shocked with what you find, and personally challenged (even more so than you already have been) by the depth of delusion that Babylon has perpetrated upon the people. Untangling the ball of string that the cat's paw of Satan has tangled is a daunting task, believe me. But, it is where the spirit is leading those He has anointed to lead His people out of Babylon into the Philadelphian Ecclesia, and not into another per-version of Babylon.

Unfortunately many who leave Babylon are destroyed, some by remaining in it, or perish by leaving it, all due to a lack of knowledge . There are few who can teach them sound doctrine that they may be preserved and that they may strengthen the things that remain in them.

Yahshua asked an interesting question.

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

In our time, we tend to look at the shell (the outside body - the church) and look very little at the seed inside, the seed of faith and He who gave it to us, our Messiah, Yahshua. So, we remain confused when we leave. Or more precisely, confusion remains in us. The shell must die that the seed may germinate, and when it does we must make sure the soil is good and the new sprout is not choked off or the seed is not eaten by the birds. We tend to look at the soul tie conflicts that come from pulling away from the 'old cloth' of conformity and the drunkenness of the 'new wine' if we drink it too fully without moderation, and confusion tends to overtake us, so we reel like drunken men with tattered clothing in our leaving, and in our attempting to rebuild the walls, not recognizing the 'types' of spiritual foes, real and very powerful foes we encounter in the Sanballats and Tobiahs that await us in our new found zeal to go to the crumbled wall, and we may fail or become discouraged.

This new endeavor requires wisdom, and teacher/leaders like Nehemiah who in all his conflicts with the foes always did one very important thing. He prayed! This is PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with the REVELATOR - YAHSHUA. Through a relationship with the TRUE ONE comes wisdom which directs to success. It is only He who can unravel the confusion, only He who can direct our walk down this new narrow path that leads to life, for wide is the way that many walk when leaving Babylon. Some will, like the mixed multitude that came out of the Babylon called Egypt, will wander in a dry place, coming back to Baal worship and rebuild the golden calf in their hearts, instead of a tabernacle for the presence of YAH in their hearts.

I would like to direct your attention, as a sign post, to this very important statement from our Messiah.

Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

The Philadelphian Ecclesia was the ONLY one that had no criticism from the Messiah. Why? The reasons are many, but the main reason was what I emphasized in the above scripture. Babylon tends to deny the true name of our messiah. From this starting point the whore will introduce more and more destructive heresies until the whole lump of dough is completely leavened and the messiah cannot even recognize the very body He set up! The 'church' of today, the Laodecian, is one that He is so disgusted with, that He promises to 'vomit' them out of His mouth!

I say all of that to say this. When we attempt to rebuild the wall, we better make sure it is on the TRUE and FIRM foundation of a personal relationship with the TRUE MESSIAH and not deny His TRUE NAME. For this is the CORNERSTONE that the builders rejected. All other precepts that are laid upon precepts, which build a line of bricks line upon line, are laid upon this first precept, who He IS and what HE is CALLED. If we get this wrong, we get it all wrong. It was because of the name that the Messiah was crucified, and it was because of the name that the apostles were persecuted. When we, the 'church' gave up the true name, we gave up the true messiah.

In our 'coming out' we must rediscover the Philadelphian secret before we can rebuild if we want to have and 'open door', even as they did. From here
http://www.worldwidewarr...bylon%20the%20bandit.htm

Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry
Offline coleridge  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:47:13 AM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

hey buddy! i looked into that site... again.. i like the way you study. quick question: do you think paul intended to thwart people away from the truth? or do you think he has been misquoted and misunderstood? for example: a lot of people base their theology on the role of the woman in the home and "church" off of 1 Tim. i've read all of the pauline epistles.... 1 Tim is not paul's writing. do you think that he was trying to make a new messiah or did he really get it?
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 1:59:15 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

Hey Coleridge. Thanks for the reply. The Paul question is an interesting one. To be perfectly honest I have been of two minds on Paul for quite some time. But, as I continue to meditate on the validity of Paul and his ministry I still have some hard questions to answer that cannot but stare me right in the face. Questions like...

1. Why does Paul claim to be an Apostle all the time? It is like he has something to prove. We don't see this kind of subtle vanity in the apostles Yahshua appointed.

2. Who is Yahshua refering to in Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Paul and company were the ones rejected at Ephesus.

3. Why is Paul's testimony of his encounter with Yahshua on the Damascus road inconsistent. Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

4. Why does Paul's evangel contradict (at least on the surface) the very words of Yahshua. Anyone, at first read of Paul's evangel sees this contradiction.

5. Why was Paul's epistles prefered by Constantine over the many (mostly unknown now) other manuscripts? Perhaps because they were more 'church organizational' oriented?

6. And let us consider the fruit of Paul's evangel. It is now considered superior to the very words of Yahshua amongst 'christiandumb'. Do we really think Yahshua would hand everything He ever said over to another to reinterpret as he saw fit? Paul was never the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. Paul's word cannot nor should not trump the words of Yahshua.

In summary, I think Paul was ambitious. To my mind, I do not believe any self proclaimed Apostle is really an apostle. He was flawed like all of us, flawed with the weakness of humanity. Yet the wrtings of Paul are brilliant and not without divine inspiration in many parts. I think Paul was a prophet, not an apostle, and his style of letters were pushed to the forefront by Constantine, who saw an advantage in doing so. This manipulation of cannon and scripture was further exacerbated by future translaters like those of the King James Bible, again favoring 'church structure' and hierarchial control. Yahshua taught servanthood and Torah. It can be argued that Paul also taught these things, and I do believe he did, but what other men did in the twisting of his words has not only caused perhaps their own destruction but the destruction of all who now prefer the words of Paul over the words of the Messiah Yahshua.

Having said all of that, I think Paul was a real and genuine convert to Yahshua, and his writings (in part) are inspired. But like all scripture there are human elements in them. It is a pity Paul and Yahshua are not here to settle this confusion. I still read Paul's letters, sometimes with joy, and sometimes with concern. To quote him,
Quote:
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


Enough said. :)

Shalom and Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry
Offline rs  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 2:58:51 PM(UTC)
rs
Joined: 7/31/2007(UTC)
Posts: 35
Location: Dove Canyon, CA

Remember that Paul always spoke of the malady he had, the thorn in his side. This thorn may have been a spiritual malady, possible envy and jealousy that he was not one of the original apostles and also that Peter, not he, was given the first charter to take the message to the Gentiles.

I have always been taken by how he claimed to have upbraided Peter in one of his letters for not eating with the gentiles. The only time Peter ever had anything somewhat negative to say about Paul, was when he mentioned that Paul's arguments may be sometimes hard to understand.

With all that, his letters and his his life stand by themselves and his humanity as evidenced by his weaknesses make him very credible.
Offline coleridge  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 4:47:04 PM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

rs... again. i'm with you on that one. paul really did have a lot to say and he was very instrumental to bringing a lot of converts to the kingdom. as for his human flaws; who doesn't have them? even "the rock man" peter, was referred to as "satan" himself. lest we forget doubting thomas. apostle simply means = one who is sent out. i think paul qualifies. he definitely was sent to do a work.
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 7:09:43 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

Maybe some brave soul can answer this one for me.

Quote:
Why is Paul's testimony of his encounter with Yahshua on the Damascus road inconsistent. Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


I have asked this question many times and so far NO ONE has had the courage to answer me.

Could this be a mistranslation or a mistransliteration? I have looked at the Greek and can find none. Surely Yah is not the author of confusion. If it is not a mistranslation or a mistransliteration then this error is like a pimple on Paul's nose, and his testimony is inconsistent. This would be a deal breaker for a defense in a court of law.

Somebody pleeeeeeze help me with this one.

Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry
Offline coleridge  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, December 4, 2007 8:39:10 PM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

well... paul didn't write the book of acts.... john mark did. so even though those are incongruent stories... look at the person they are written in. the first verse was in 3rd person. the second one was a quote. i don't think that makes paul's ministry a fraud, but it does bring to mind a couple other questions
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
Offline coleridge  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, December 5, 2007 9:21:42 AM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

thanks swalchy.... i aprreciate that correction. i knew that... you guys are great
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
Offline J&M  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, December 5, 2007 11:41:05 AM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

YahWarrior Posted: 04 December 2007 23:59:15



" I think Paul was a prophet, not an apostle, and"

In relation to Paul being an Apostle:-It would appear that Barnabus and "Saul" were themselves either teachers or prophets or were in the company of those who were. Thus ALL the teachers and prophets referred to ,were told by RK(RQ) either separately or as an assembled group to send B and S forth , "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. "



Just a quick referral to Acts
Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

I hope this helps clarify how Saul became "sent forth" (an Apostle)

Jane
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, December 5, 2007 11:23:45 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

From what Jane has posted we can agree that Paul was sent forth. So we can say he was in the legal sense; an apostle. Then in the legal sense; so are all of us. But I would not claim to be one.

I am sure this kind of question has been argued over and over again many times, and I certainly do not want to start one here, for the spirit here is (in my short time on this forum) respectful and peacable.

The point made about the greek translation of the two 'hearing a voice' incidents is somewhat consoling but to my mind is not conclusive. Was Yahshua speaking to Paul in unknown tongues or in the Hebrew language? If in the 'understanding' of the Hebrew language then why couldn't the others understand it? If in tongues then where is the interpretation?

Any brave souls out there who would chance a crack at this one.

Quote:
2. Who is Yahshua refering to in Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Paul and company were the ones rejected at Ephesus.


Would someone more knowledgable than me take a crack at this and at least find someone else who fits the bill as the 'so called' apostles who were rejected by the Ephesian Ekklesia, who Yahshua called liars?

Not trying to be difficult but these questions must be answered. I know some folks would rather avoid the question altogether because it would mean re-evaluating Paul if he turned out to be (perhaps by the process of logical deduction) the very one Yahshua was speaking about. Yahshua never pulled His punches, even with His servants. Peter was called Satan, so it is not out of character that Paul could be called a liar. Of couse this kind of criticism does not mean that either of them are Anti-Messiah or of the devil, it just means that Yahshua calls them as He sees them, as He will us at the White Throne judgment.

Not trying to be difficult, just want some answers.

Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry



Offline jojocc  
#11 Posted : Thursday, December 6, 2007 2:23:11 AM(UTC)
jojocc
Joined: 12/1/2007(UTC)
Posts: 97

Just a quick question,

YahWarrior wrote:
Paul and company were the ones rejected at Ephesus.



Who rejected them?

If the Ekklesia rejected them then fair game.

If they were rejected by these self-same liars, then I don't think that this passage is refering to Paul and co at all.
Offline jojocc  
#12 Posted : Thursday, December 6, 2007 4:14:28 AM(UTC)
jojocc
Joined: 12/1/2007(UTC)
Posts: 97

YahWarrior wrote:
From what Jane has posted we can agree that Paul was sent forth. So we can say he was in the legal sense; an apostle. Then in the legal sense; so are all of us. But I would not claim to be one.



I have understood something different from Jane's post.

Indeed Paul and Barnabus were 'sent forth', but they were Ruarkh haKodesh appointed:

"the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. "

Which means that 'in the legal sense' we are not all 'sent forth', only those of us who are appointed by the Ruarkh haKodesh are.
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#13 Posted : Friday, December 7, 2007 4:18:03 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

This is the ‘legal sense’ as defined by Yahshua. In Revelation and the Gospels Yahshua mentions repeatedly the number of apostles is twelve. Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve emissaries of the Lamb. They are to serve as the twelve judges ruling the twelve tribes. Mat 19:28 And Yahshua said to them, “Truly I say to you, when the Son of Adam sits on the throne of His esteem, you who have followed Me in the rebirth, shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Yisra’ĕl.

Paul was not appointed to replace Judas as an apostle. Mattithyahu was the twelfth apostle. Act 1:26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Mattithyahu. And he was numbered with the eleven emissaries. Does the scripture the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them then make the number 14, for was not Barnabas also seperated for the work by the Ruach? If Paul and Barnabas are also apostles appointed by the Set Apart Spirit of Yah then there were actually 14 apostles. Perhaps Yahshua was mistaken? I think not.

In Revelation 2:2, Yahshua is speaking of a person claiming to be an apostle that He did not appoint as an apostle, this person had to:

• had been put on trial by the Christians at Ephesus;
• had told the Ephesians he was an apostle of Yahshua; and
• had been wrong when he claimed to be an apostle of Yahshua.

Paul’s’ apostleship is self proclaimed. The 12 Yahshua appointed apostles never refer to Paul as an apostle. In all accounts in Acts of Paul’s vision of Yahshua, (Acts chapters 9, 22, 26.) not once does Yahshua appoint Paul an apostle. He appoints him instead to be a witness; that is, an evangelist.

Paul told the Ephesians he was an apostle. (Eph. 1:1.) This satisfies the second part of Yahshua’s remarks in Revelation 2:2: the person tried by the Ephesians who claimed to be an apostle.

Paul himself admits that he was rejected by all in Asia, which would include Ephesus 2Ti 1:15 You know this, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phugellos and Hermogenes. This strongly places Paul within the first criteria that Yahshua mentions in Revelation 2:2: the person who was put on trial by an assembly at Ephesus.

Under Revelation 2:14, this person had to be:
• someone who taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Three times Paul says it is perfectly fine to eat idol meat unless you are around someone who thinks it is wrong, and could violate his conscience if you eat such meat. (Romans 14:21, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.)

Under Revelation 3:6, this person had to be:
• someone who claimed to be a Jew; and who was not a true Jew by birth.

Again, we only have Paul's words claiming to born a Jew. Epiphanius knows an Ebionite Acts of the Apostles in which he says he found many errors, and in which Paul was characterized as a false apostle. Paul was said to have been born in Tarsus from Gentile parents, and accepted circumcision in Jerusalem in order to marry the daughter of the High Priest. The Ebionites—likely the apostolic church under James—investigated Paul’s background at Tarsus and reported he was not born a Jew at all. He was circumcised as an adult because he had fallen in love with the daughter of a priest and wanted to be able to marry her. "'They declare that he was a Greek... He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law" (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16. 6- 9.) more on the Ebionites here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites/wip

1 Cor 11:4 is also very remarkable, where Paul instructs the men not to pray with their heads covered, since this is a disgrace: 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. If one recalls that even until today Jewish men are obligated to wear a head-covering in their worship service, one can perceive this instruction only as an indication that the author of this letter certainly could not have been raised in the Jewish tradition. It appears that the Jewishness of the 12 Apostles (or was that 13, or 14?) was no longer important to Paul in the case of the head convering instruction, for this instruction was very much a Greek thought.

One might succesfully argue that evidence outside of scripture should not be used, so one cannot prove the 'Jew' point scripturally, but 4 out of 5 matches in scripture pointing to Paul, is, in a legal sense, and speaking metaphorically, enough for a judge to issue a warrant of arrest.

Just food for thought, thinking outside of the box. Know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.

Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry
Offline coleridge  
#14 Posted : Friday, December 7, 2007 6:48:56 PM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

yah... just a quick question. do you believe that apostles exist today?
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
Offline jojocc  
#15 Posted : Friday, December 7, 2007 11:36:26 PM(UTC)
jojocc
Joined: 12/1/2007(UTC)
Posts: 97

Food for thought indeed, YahWarrior, gonna have to pray about this one :-)
Offline jojocc  
#16 Posted : Saturday, December 8, 2007 1:55:10 AM(UTC)
jojocc
Joined: 12/1/2007(UTC)
Posts: 97

Have prayed… and done a little reading…

First of all, to clear this up, the word apostle, from the greek, ‘ἀπόστολος’ (apostolos) means, one sent forth. (Liddell & Scott, The Def. Gr. Lexicon, - a messenger, ambassador, envoy). Herodotus uses the word ‘ἀπόστολος’ in the context, ‘he went off on a mission’.

So Coleridge to answer your question, yes there are apostles today. Taking the word in its true meaning, you can have Tupperware apostles, or Avon apostles…

As for ‘The 12 Apostles’, they are not named, all we know is that they are the 12 apostles of the lamb, for all we know they could include David and Ruth…

To put the ‘legal sense’ firmly to bed where it belongs, Yahashua is not interested in legalism, which is why I put it in inverted commas to start with.

Question, how do you know that Revelations 2:2 is not referring to Diotrephes? 3 John 1:9

What you have here is a problem, similar to the problems that have been levelled at the Qura’an. If Paul is indeed a false apostle, then the Renewed Covenant or New Testament as we have come to know it, is fundamentally flawed and is therefore null and void, or at least those sections attributed to Paul are. Here we have a major issue because Paul, along with Barnabus, was separated out to the Ruarkh haKodesh to be sent forth, and in the next verse, 13:3, was sent out by members of the Ekklesia. So if he was pulling a fast one, he duped some serious players.

Basically put, if Paul is indeed who Yahashua was referring to in Rev 2:2, then the Ekklesia in Acts 13:4 were wrong.

Also interesting is Rev 21:14, here indeed the 12 ἀπόστολος of the lamb are mentioned, but given the verses before and after, I would say that these ἀπόστολος are more likely to be messengers from the 12 tribes rather than The disciples, for they are not named.

In terms of eating idol meat, because of the sacrifice of Yahashua, indeed we can, we have a carte blanche, because as long as we confess, repent and accept his forgiveness, Yahashua has already paid the price for us. I won’t be eating idol meat, or murdering my next-door neighbour because although I could do anything I wanted, the laws of YHWH are written on my heart.
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#17 Posted : Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:51:46 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

coleridge wrote:
yah... just a quick question. do you believe that apostles exist today?


Sure I do. There are so many self proclaimed apostles around today that some form of the term sent out ones surely must apply to those going out to preach their form of evangel. ;)

As to the true evangel of Yahshua, and His appointment of the twelve (including the replacement Mattityahu in place of Judas), the original twelve were the true definition of an apostle. All were Talmidim of their Rabbi Yahshua (including Mattityahu), they walked with Him and talked with Him.

In all scripture cannon there are only 19 references to the word 'apostle', and 17 of them are made by Paul, 2 by Peter, who, unlike Paul, was personally chosen by Yahshua. Almost all the teaching we have on apostleship is from Paul. Not only do we have a slightly differing evangel from Paul but we also have a slighty differing 'apostle', where one must simply claim that they are 'sent out' to become one, at least in the practice of todays intepretation.

Yahshua always spoke of the Law and the Prophets hanging on the two sayings, or the Royal Laws of Love, to Love Yah with all, and to Love Your Neighbor as yourself. Yahshua emphasized in His evangel the spirit of the law being fulfilled in Himself and of the spirit of the Prophets speaking of Him, and how both the Law and the Prophets hung upon the Two Royal Laws of Love. Yahshua kept Torah (The Law) and qouted the Prophets. He personally chose 12 prophets who had the Testimony of Yahshua, which is the spirit of prophecy to be sent forth by Him personally. This to my mind is the original definition of the first Apostleship. The Pauline apostleship is less defining. Anyone can claim it, and they often do. The Apostleship of Yahshua is without doubt, as is His evangel. The original 12 taught Torah and the evangel of Yahshua, one which was, strictly speaking, of the Renewed Covenant Of Yahshua to the Yahudim (Jewish). It was the evangel of Paul and his version of apostleship that a differing Hellenistic orientated evangel was preached, which became known as 'christianity'.

Yah Bless

YahWarrior
Harry

Offline J&M  
#18 Posted : Saturday, December 8, 2007 11:57:47 PM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

Yahworrior - I notice that you did not answer any of Jojocc's very valid points, mainly, that if Paul is a rogue, then the whole of the renewed covenant starts to fall to pieces.

We have to take the scriptures in faith, and as the basis of our faith subject to problems of translation and tampering. Ephesians is one of the epistles that the 'experts' say was not written by Paul. This is called 'speculation' and it is very damaging. Paul did not invent 'christianity', We know that Paul was a Jew and he got into a lot of trouble for being a Jew. He would never have been accepted by Gamaliel as a student if he was anything other, he would have had to prove his 'Judaism' from the temple records (as does/did Messiah). At no point does Paul deviate from Torah, and we read of him rushing back from his journeys to keep the Miqra.

Much of what we know of the early days of the JEWISH believers is preserved thanks to Luke and Paul. Nobody became a 'christian' until Constantine created the pagan counterfeit.

The word 'christian' means 'annointed' but with the implication that the oinment is 'drugged'. It was meant as an insult to the believers.

Paul wrote for people who were foreign to Judaism, that they might understand the Old Covenant, which the native born Jews ?(the Apostles) understood intimately, they had grown up with it in a relatively pure form (Zakkai, Akiva and Rambam had yet to pervert it). But it was impenetrable to the Greeks who had a philosophy set based upon the worldliness of Plato and Aristotle.

YHWH congratulates us on what we have achieved, Greek philosophy curses us for what we have left undone, our society is based upon the Greek model. And if we judge Paul by the Greek model, he was a 'looser'.

But I am here writing this because Paul wrote Romans specifically for me.
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#19 Posted : Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:30:20 AM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

Quote:
I notice that you did not answer any of Jojocc's very valid points, mainly, that if Paul is a rogue, then the whole of the renewed covenant starts to fall to pieces.


Well, I don't think anyone on here answers all the points one makes. Neither were the majority of the points I had made answered, just selected ones that were easier to answer. The difficult ones were left unanswered. But to answer your assertion that the whole of the Renewed Covenant falls apart on Paul being a rogue is simplistic. The RC is not based on whether Paul or any of the Apostles were correct in their writings (see Dead Sea Scrolls), but on Yahshua being resurrected from the dead. He, Yahshua is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Quote:
The Greek apostolos (Apostle) actually occurres 81 times in the RC.

That's a lot more than 19.


How I came to that number was by doing a search through E-Sword of the word Apostle. The number you came to may be derivations of the word apostle or sent out one, but on the singular word apostle there are only 19 references. Now, on the word apostles there are another 60 references. So, when it comes to hair splittin' I stand corrected and repent in sackcloth and ashes. ;)

I find it interesting that we can all agree (for the most part) both from YY and the writers that came before who were sources for YY, such as Hislop and Coster, that...

1. The scriptures we know as cannon were tampered with.
2. The sacred names were altered.
3. The cannon was selected by Constantine omitting many manuscripts.

Quote:
We have to take the scriptures in faith, and as the basis of our faith subject to problems of translation and tampering.


Has anyone ever considered that... 4. The Pauline Epistles were prefered over others with the view of church organization, i.e. the Catholic Church, to bring unity in the Roman Empire, as a means of control?

I believe we should study, examine, and test everything regarding the cannon of scripture. If we can do it with mistranslations/transliterations and see the hand of the enemy in those, then why can't the whole of the cannon be examined considering that its choice of manuscripts we now accept as the TRUTH were MINIPULATED by Constantine, who NO DOUBT was an enemy of Yah El!

Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the only TRUTH was that which Yahshua Himself taught to His Talmidim, of which I hold in question Paul as one of Yahshua's Talmidim, until proven from study of all documents to be also a Talmidim of Yahshua. So far I only have his (Paul's) word for it from the Constantine cannon. How much of Paul's Epistles were tampered with?

Yahshua was a "Nazarene", a term that refers to
Quote:
a member of the Essene movement associated with Mount Carmel in Northern Israel.


My research continually brings me back to this fact. The absolute truth of what Yahshua taught is hidden in this long forgotten group of Nazarene Essenes. This was the NARROW PATH Yahshua taught. To walk the wide path only took two small steps. The first step was probably Paul's doctrine - (as I have not completely made up my mind as I am still researching) and the second step was the formation of the Catholic Church under Constantine, or as Yada so succinctly calls it God Damned Religion! Another question which arises in my mind is WHEN did this God Damned Religion actually start? Did it start at Paulinism? Did it start at Catholicism? Or did it start way, way before at ancient Babylon? Perhaps all are correct?

Here are a few interesting articles on this subject of Paul.

YAHOWSHUA OR PAUL?
ESSENE CHRISTIANITY VERSUS PAULIANITY
AN EXPOSE´ AND CALL TO ACTION
by Rev. Abba Nazariah, D.D.
http://essenes.net/NazPaul.htm

The Problem of Paul
http://essenes.net/paul1.htm

The Verdict
http://www.jesuswordsonl...from%2019b%20revised.pdf

The Unprecedented Corruption
By Paulinism of Bible Analysis
http://www.jesuswordsonl...ruptionBibleAnalysis.pdf

And finally we must consider the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the deception and controversy surrounding them. Because of the scrolls pointing directly at the Nazarene Essense as the Original followers of Yahshua of which Yahshua was a member and the prophesied Messiah.

Quote:
From The Publisher:

Over the last two years a controversy has erupted in the world's press over the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in caves 20 miles east of Jerusalem between 1947 and 1956. Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford calls it "the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century", Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University protests that "there is no justification for the cover-up", and Professor Robert Eisenman of California says "we're tired of being treated contemptuously".

Working closely with Eisenman - one of the foremost experts in biblical archaeology and scholarship - Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have succeeded in uncovering the story of how and why up to 75 per cent of the eight hundred ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, hidden for some nineteen centuries, still remain concealed from the world today. But their book is more than an exposé of a bitter struggle between scholars who have begun passing round bootlegged photographs of scrolls yet to be released. Through interviews, historical analysis and a close study of both published and unpublished scroll material, the authors are able to reveal the true cause of all the trouble, for these documents disclose nothing less than a new account of the origins of Christianity and an alternative and highly significant version of much of the New Testament.

The oldest Biblical manuscripts in existence, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves near Jerusalem in 1947, only to be kept a tightly held secret for nearly fifty more years, until the Huntington Library unleashed a storm of controversy in 1991 by releasing copies of the Scrolls. In this gripping investigation authors Baigent and Leigh set out to discover how a small coterie of orthodox biblical scholars gained control over the Scrolls, allowing access to no outsiders and issuing a strict "consensus" interpretation. The authors' questions begin in Israel, then lead them to the corridors of the Vatican and into the offices of the Inquisition. With the help of independent scholars, historical research, and careful analysis of available texts, the authors reveal what was at stake for these orthodox guardians: The Scrolls present startling insights into early Christianity -- insights that challenge the Church's version of the "facts." More than just a dramatic exposé of the intrigues surrounding these priceless documents, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception presents nothing less than a new, highly significant perspective on Christianity.
From here http://www.centuryone.com/2761-1.html

NOTE: Just because I refer to another's opinion does not mean I agree with everything they might opine. I am certain Winn and Powers would agree that we are to test all things, even the things they assert, for men such as these do not seek Sycophants.

There is a TRUTH. The Truth is Yahshua. Only the truth can set you free.

Yah Bless!

YahWarrior
Harry


User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#20 Posted : Sunday, December 9, 2007 7:35:37 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

How so?
Offline gammafighter  
#21 Posted : Sunday, December 9, 2007 11:14:38 PM(UTC)
gammafighter
Joined: 11/6/2007(UTC)
Posts: 114
Man
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

While I have no idea where I stand on this topic, as it requires a greater quality and quantity of research than I am capable of right now, YahWarrior brings up a good point- we can't necessarily trust Scripture just because it has been historically accepted as Scripture. For the most part, I think Renewed Covenant Scripture is unique from OCS in that RCS is (excepting Revelation) more or less the life of Yahushua, what His life means, and the life of His followers after He ascended. So what makes a Matthew Mark Luke and John (sorry I don't know their real names) worthy of being called inspired while there are many other gospel accounts that have been rejected? Are the four gospels actually inspired? If so, are they the only acceptable gospels?

For the purpose of this topic, my question should probably be limited to Shaul- Were his epistles really inspired Scripture? Is there even a way we can be remotely sure, let alone absolutely certain?
Great topic Harry- very challenging. I only regret that at the moment I have little to add to the discussion.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#22 Posted : Monday, December 10, 2007 12:34:29 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

gammafighter wrote:
While I have no idea where I stand on this topic, as it requires a greater quality and quantity of research than I am capable of right now, YahWarrior brings up a good point- we can't necessarily trust Scripture just because it has been historically accepted as Scripture. For the most part, I think Renewed Covenant Scripture is unique from OCS in that RCS is (excepting Revelation) more or less the life of Yahushua, what His life means, and the life of His followers after He ascended. So what makes a Matthew Mark Luke and John (sorry I don't know their real names) worthy of being called inspired while there are many other gospel accounts that have been rejected? Are the four gospels actually inspired? If so, are they the only acceptable gospels?

For the purpose of this topic, my question should probably be limited to Shaul- Were his epistles really inspired Scripture? Is there even a way we can be remotely sure, let alone absolutely certain?
Great topic Harry- very challenging. I only regret that at the moment I have little to add to the discussion.


Its definietly a question that has to be approched, as we have all found there is something up with religion, and most of us have found Christianity falling short mainly over the fact that they accept everything man says.

My personal view - yes there are more books that were not considered scripture, but unfortunatly, alot of that infomation has been lost. In the case of Paul, he does seem to say when what he is speaking is from Yah or from him. Paul is obviously a man stuck between religious Jews and "freedom in Messiah". Whatever Yah was trying to tell Israel throughout history, I would say Paul is trying to impart onto these religious men. That is why Christianity thinks he is fighting against the "OC" and is promoting a "NC" when the only covernant is relationship and love - and its always been the same, its just what man does with it.

So I think Paul is a valid man of Yah, in whatever vocation you want to put him in. As for trusting what we have, well I think we have to go with what we have got - but from the earliest of what we have. I know Yah, I speak to Him and He speaks to me - so to be honest I just ask Him. From that I believe that what we have in current modern translations are pants, and there is some agenda promoting - like anti-"OC" extra bits and bits removed, we can see this from the earlyest manuscripts. We need a new way of studying, and a fresh translation.

Scripture is awesome stuff, but you know, Yahweh is better :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline coleridge  
#23 Posted : Monday, December 10, 2007 10:58:33 AM(UTC)
coleridge
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 74
Location: birmingham, al

hey this is seeming to get a little heated... let's just agree that he did preach Yahushua and Him impaled. John said, as long as they aren't teaching anything other than that... you don't have much to worry about. hate him or love him... let's not get so caught up in the whole " i follow apollos, i follow jesus" thing. some plant, some water... YHWH gives the increase.
let YHWH be true, and every man a liar
User is suspended until 4/7/2030 11:52:02 PM(UTC) YahWarrior  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:19:00 PM(UTC)
YahWarrior
Joined: 12/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Florida

coleridge wrote:
hey this is seeming to get a little heated... let's just agree that he did preach Yahushua and Him impaled. John said, as long as they aren't teaching anything other than that... you don't have much to worry about. hate him or love him... let's not get so caught up in the whole " i follow apollos, i follow jesus" thing. some plant, some water... YHWH gives the increase.


Amien, and So be it! I follow Yahshua, and anything outside of what He taught is always open to examination. What Yahshua taught IS the WORD OF YAH and is immutable.

HalleluYAH!

YahWarrior
Harry
Offline Rachael  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:04:50 AM(UTC)
Rachael
Joined: 12/16/2007(UTC)
Posts: 10
Location: Australia

I am not educated enough in scripture to agree or disagree but what stood out to me was the questioning of if Paul was an Apostle.

I think he was - inperfect yes but an apostle - why?

because I believe we are all apostles those that choose to learn and follow the teachings of Yahushua and then teach them to others. In that fashion he is an apostle.

flawed maybe, as we all are and of course most likely the disciples too. but no less or more than.
Offline bitnet  
#26 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2008 6:19:44 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

"Wretched man that I am... why do I keep doing the things that I ought not to do and less of the things I ought to do?" A personal lament that usually opens up a chink in the armour and which the unforgiving will zero in upon.

Paul's apostleship is appointed by Yahushua. I see nothing that contradicts his sharing of Yahweh and the role of Yahushua as the Messiah. Rev. 2.2 tells to be wary of those who claim to be of his family but who are really wolves in sheep clothing, those who claim to be descendents of Abraham and are Yahudim but are not. The clear impostors are visible to all of us today. Why the question about Paul? Because of the writings of Rabbinical clerics unclear of the role of emmisarries annointed with the Ruarch HaQodesh? I'd be inclined to resolve apparent contradictions from within Scripture itself. The schism in the early ekklesia stemmed from partisanships supporting Peter or Paul when neither brand is important but the Message itself. A clearer understanding of Paul's writings can be gleaned with a little more inspection of Scripture. Food offered to idols do not make a person unclean if it does not contradict the dietary laws and does not make others stumble. Getting rejected by whole towns is the norm even today. So, what's the worry about?
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Bubsy  
#27 Posted : Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:20:31 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 92
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 15 post(s)
YahWarrior wrote:
Hey Coleridge. Thanks for the reply. The Paul question is an interesting one. To be perfectly honest I have been of two minds on Paul for quite some time. But, as I continue to meditate on the validity of Paul and his ministry I still have some hard questions to answer that cannot but stare me right in the face. Questions like...

1. Why does Paul claim to be an Apostle all the time? It is like he has something to prove. We don't see this kind of subtle vanity in the apostles Yahshua appointed.

2. Who is Yahshua refering to in Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Paul and company were the ones rejected at Ephesus.

3. Why is Paul's testimony of his encounter with Yahshua on the Damascus road inconsistent. Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

4. Why does Paul's evangel contradict (at least on the surface) the very words of Yahshua. Anyone, at first read of Paul's evangel sees this contradiction.

5. Why was Paul's epistles prefered by Constantine over the many (mostly unknown now) other manuscripts? Perhaps because they were more 'church organizational' oriented?

6. And let us consider the fruit of Paul's evangel. It is now considered superior to the very words of Yahshua amongst 'christiandumb'. Do we really think Yahshua would hand everything He ever said over to another to reinterpret as he saw fit? Paul was never the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. Paul's word cannot nor should not trump the words of Yahshua.

In summary, I think Paul was ambitious. To my mind, I do not believe any self proclaimed Apostle is really an apostle. He was flawed like all of us, flawed with the weakness of humanity. [Snip!]


I take it that by now all participants in this thread have seen Questioning Paul and even its re-write. Turns out all the suspicions about Paul were indeed fully justified! There were exactly two chances of Yahshua handing everything He ever said over to anyone else, especially a character like Paul - Slim and None - and Slim has been kidnapped by Islamic jihadists!
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
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.