With that in mind, this is the image that was posted:
Then this was the discussion that followed (People's names have been changed to keep the commentators anonymous (except me and CW - most people who read this forum know who he and I are
). Unfortunately it hasn't copied well, so my apologies for some missing numbers - but you can blame facebook for that ----Start----
Δυναμις: I'm sorry you think Yahweh's truths are unpleasant. I find them to be quite the opposite.
Τ: The idea of the pic is that all the people in the other line find them unpleasant and choose religion over relationship. I find Yah's truths to be the most fantastic thing in this world.. the path is extremely narrow and exacting and few will find it.. so the main point is that Yah's truth is and always has been extremely unpopular
Δυναμις: Agreed, but what does Paul have to do with religion? I think maybe you've got him confused with Constantine or Marcion. Blaming Paul for the state of the ekklesia today is like blaming Martin Luther King for the stuff Jeremiah Wright says.
Τ: It is because of Paul's writings that the vast majority of Christians hold certain views which are not in line with Scripture. Among those views are:
That Yahowsha' started a new religion and none of that stuff in the OT matters anymore.
in fact, why bother, if your a new Christian, just start in the NT and ignore most of that Jewish stuff (almost all of my christian friends, except you and a couple others, hold this view because people see Paul's writings as saying that the Towrah is no longer relevant and a burden).
the sinner's prayer of grace.. say a quick prayer and then go back to doing whatever you want because now your saved forever.. but the fact is without the Towrah it is impossible to know Yah.. and if one doesn't know Yah, He doesn't know them.
I see it this way.. if one takes Paul's writings at face value, they will be led away from Yah.
If one tries to make sense and rationalize Paul's writings and say he didn't mean this, he meant that, etc etc then that is time I could have been spending learning Towrah - so I just ignore his writings, because there is enough there to show me that I should stay away.
& I think Yahowsha warned us about Paul because he knew a huge number of people would be led down the wrong path
Τ: “And Yahushua (ΙΣ) responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – used discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo, separate, and krino, to separate, choosing right from wrong), telling (eupen) them (autos), ‘Pay attention and be perceptive (blepete – look closely and watch out, be careful and discerning, think and understand), lest (ue) someone (tis) will cause you to wander away from the truth (planaomai umas – deceive and delude you, leading you astray).” (Matthew 24:4)
“For (gar) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus ; whereas the more recent NA reads “by means of (epi)”]) My (ego) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) exist as, belong to, or represent (eimi – I am and I stand for) the (o) Messiyah (ΧΣ – the Implement of Yah). And (kai) many (polys) will wander away from the truth (planaomai – will be deceived and deluded).’” (Matthew
“Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) says to (eipon) you (umeis), ‘Behold (idou – indeed, suddenly now, look) here in this place (hode – in this case positioned near the speaker) the Messiyah (ΧΣ),’ or, ‘in this case here (hode),’ do not (me) think that they are trustworthy or reliable (pisteuo).’” “Because (gar) pseudo-christs (pseudochristoi – false-messiahs) and (kai) pseudo-prophets (pseudoprophetai) will stand up and arouse (egeiromai – will rise up, awaken, and stir the comatose), doing (didomi) great (megas) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events) in order to (hoste) elude and deceive (planao – causing people to stray from the path), even (kai) if it were possible (ei dynatos – if they were able), those who were chosen (eklektos – those who select and are selected, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word).” (Matthew 24:5)But, Yahshua would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he met with Yahshua in Arabia, the ultimate Scriptural “wilderness.” Listen to God: “Look (idou – indeed, telling the listener to pay attention to this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will occur in your future). If and when (ean) therefore (oun), someone says (eiposin) to you, ‘Look, indeed (idou), He exists (estin – He is (third person, singular and thus “He exists,” and not “I exist”) in (en) the (te) wilderness (eremos – uninhabited desert),’ behold, do not (me) leave (exerchomai – go away from) your place in (en) the treasured inner room of the home (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed). You should not (me) trust him (pisteuo – think that what he has said is true).” (Matthew 24:25-26)
Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia. Once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahshua’s audience. Yahshua specifically warned His Disciples about Sha’uwl’s deceptive message—and us through them. Are you listening?
Δυναμις: Obviously, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what Paul meant to teach---and whether Yahshua intended His words as a warning against him. I find CW's contentions less than convincing.
Ωπ: I find Paul less then Family and ignore his misguided diatribes.
Τ: Understood.. you and I are on the same page about most things.. I have to say I haven't taken the time to really dive in to what Craig said about it (haven't read much of QP) because I personally want to use that time learning about what Yah wrote in TPP. That' why I don't talk that much about the Paul thing because I'd rather be talking about the Yah thing.
Ωπ: less *than even.
Ισι: Once you know the truth, you find that others believe it is unpleasant. That is the gist of the cartoon. Lies are easier to digest because they have been sugar coated. The truth then is hard to swallow because you'd have to spit all the tainted sugar out of your mind. Satan did a good job of spreading the tainted sugar! The bibles everyone seems to hold in esteem are tainted with incorrect names of our Creator, Yah. Then you have the second part of "the book" boasting on Paul's position who preaches the opposite of what Yah teaches! He makes it seem so sincere (sugar coating all the love and faith and grace) putting the focus on him and actually away from the savior, all along sweetening the stance that what he says supercedes Yah's!
Ωπ: Δυναμις, there is probably nothing I call show or tell you that you have not already see or heard regarding Paul. Forget about Craig Wynn for a second... many, many, many more people have come to see the fraud that is Paul apart from anything Craig has written or exposed, than have through his views.
Paul does not add up. Period. Simple math analogy... Yah says... divided by =
Paul comes along and says forget about that... +=
Ωπ: I *can even
Ωπ: *seen too... man I need to proofread my posts before I hit enter.
Τ: and as far as Craig, he set out to prove that Paul was simply misrepresented.. but that's not where the truth led.. it's not like he had some agenda against Paul.. he just followed the evidence with an open mind.. Forget about QP, you should check out ITG.. it really is a good read about Yah and the Towrah... better than Yada Yah was and will be posted soon and I have an updated copy if you wanna see it
Τ: And Δυναμις I am thankful for your books.. I read FH before the Yada Yah and it was a real eye opener for me about ten years ago or however long it was
Ριχ: We are to make a difference between what is clean and what is unclean, between what is true and what is a lie, between what is good and what is evil. Paul's teachings fall on the unclean/lie/evil side. So why even debate the matter with someone who so obviously prefers Paul's ideas to Yahowah's Word? I've got better things to do than lip-flap with my Father's enemies.
Me: I'll state it quite bluntly here: CW's "translation" of Matthew 24:5-6, 25-26 is completely and utterly wrong, and dare I say it, a fabricated version of the words to put things into the Messiah's mouth that he didn't say, therefore misrepresenting Yah's Word made flesh. Look for when I release "Questioning Paul Review - Part" where I go through all this in detail, plus some more besides. QPR Part 1 still has yet to have someone find something wrong with it, and I still await peoples comments on it - http://tinyurl.com/cuwr27c & http://tinyurl.com/clng6hr
Ριχ: I love you, TWTY-Admin, so I'm going to read your stuff. I have come to trust your work.
Me: Thanks Richard. Add this account to your friends, if I don't do it before you
Τ: As I said earlier, I won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings..
Me: CW's Hebrew isn't any better, sorry to say. Whilst I agree that studying the TPP is a much better use of people's time, I've found that most people currently mean "I'm gonna read YY or ItG", and not actually look at the Hebrew & Aramaic of the TPP. Although i know this isn't true in your case, Terry - you're lucky enough to have Logos to aid with your studies
Τ: thanks.. but I have checked a whole lot of verses of YY and ITG against my version of Logos, in fact there are a dozen of us who have Logos and have checked Craig's Hebrew (because we trust no one except Yah) and not one us have found any discrepancies.. he (like me) used the DSS wherever extant.. I have to say he understands Hebrew very well and I will continue to check his work and he is completely open to change it if it is wrong. It's the Hebrew 'scholars' that you have to watch out for becuase they know a whole lot about Hebrew but understand very little..
Τ: Hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I think you guys hold something against Craig because of his stance on Paul and I've heard that you call some of us 'Craig followers' when that couldn't be further from the truth.. We only seek Yahowah and if Craig or anyone else says something contrary to Yah's Words then it is Yah I will follow in every case.. never man.. you're missing out if you haven't read ITG - regardless of who wrote it because most of it is quoting Scripture, except for the commentary.. I think the truth is that people have too much invested in Paul to let him go, even when they know or suspect he was wrong.. I respect your work, Swaclhy... this is a touchy subject.. so I hope no one gets angry since it is just a discussion
Me: You got around to checking Psalm 119:127 in Chapter 3 of ItG? There is no "God" in that verse, yet ItG seems to say that it does. The same is true for 119:128. I have actually read an awful lot of ItG, mainly because I've been asked by a friend to go through the translations of the Hebrew and Greek seen in it. Unfortunately T, there are an awful lot of "Criag Followers", although that would be the wrong thing to call someone who merely reads ItG or YY. Although those who only seem to be capable of giving CW's thoughts rather than their own can really only be considered CF's.
When I ask people a question on a subject, I want to know what *they* think - not what someone else does =)
Τ: TWTY-Admin, let me check those verses.. Gimme a few days and I'll get back to ya. I understand you want to know what they/we think.. me too
thinking, understanding and learning is what it is all about Κυκ: This is all way over my head. You guys are in a class all your own.
Μορος: I wonder why anyone would listen to Paul when Yahoshah said very clearly anyone claiming to be with Him was a liar not to be trusted. Further Clement who was Shimown's Disciple said that good old uncle Paul threw Yacov down a flight of stairs and tried to kill him. Thirdly who do you people think Yahoshah was talking about in Rev : lastly we are told we know them by their fruits. Paul's fruits like it or not is religion. I see nowhere in scripture where anyone talks about themselves that represent Yahowah. To me you either believe Yahowah or tap dance for Paul because you cannot do both.
Μορος: You know them by their fruits.
Μορος: Let's look at what uncle Paul did after being demoted according to Clement who unlike Luke was really there: "And when matters were at that point that they would all come and be baptized, Paul and his men entered the temple: and Paul cried out: 'Oh men of Israel, why are you so easily influenced by these miserable men?' He began to excite the people and raise a tumult... and drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been done by James. Paul rebuked the priests for having listened to James, and, like a madman, began to excite the priests and people to murder James and the brethren, saying 'Do not hesitate; grab them and pull them to pieces.' Paul then, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, joined in the beating. Much blood was shed. Although James and the brethren were more numerous and more powerful they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than to kill others. Paul attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead left him."
Μορος: I realize that Marcion decided not to put Clement in his religious book.
Μορος: According to Clement here is what He said Peter had to say about uncle Paul who we all now is the foundation of Twistianity : Peter asking Paul all of this : "Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those of us who were awake?" And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, Interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am rock, the foundation of the Ekklesia, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from Yahowah, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But If you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against Yahowah, who revealed the Ma'seyah to me, and you inveight against him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, Indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow worker with us.
Μορος: My question to anyone is why would anyone listen to Paul over Clement who was Peters choice to be the next leader of the Ekklesia. Since a church and religious books do not count why read them?
Me: I know you can't see this post, Μορος, but for the benefit of those who can see my response to your posts, you are quoting from the Clementine Homieis and/or recognitions, which werent even written until at least the middle of the 3rd Century CE. It also doesn't help that the person being addressed is Simon Mangus, not Paul. Whatever version you're quoting from, it has purposely changed the names to produce something that the Clementine homilies/recognitions have no evidence of saying. The recognitions have also only come down to us in Latin, a language you've said you've detested, and yet you quote its words as if they're absolute fact? Let's not also forget the fact that Clement wasn't with Peter - the "Clement" of the Clementine homilies/recognitions is noted as Titus Flavius Clemens, the great grand nephew of Emperor Vespasian, both of whom never met Peter, never mind travelled with him like the "Clement" of the Clementine homilies/recognitions does.
Ισι: I'm simple, so here goes. Does Yah make mistakes so he sends troops in to correct himself? Yahosha said he would reappear to his disciples. He was wrong? He should have said but later he will add one? Because does not Yah/Yahosha know what he is saying? Are we not to know that when Yah speaks in Torah, which is all perfect so says Scripture, there is no time limit? So why does time change and corrections need made years down the line?
Me: 1 of the Messiah's adherents had killed himself by the time He had been resurrected. I also do not know where the Messiah said he had only 12 people altogether that He was particularly bothered about and that he'd reappear to again. The Messiah had many disciples that outnumbered the main ones mentioned, and He didn't actually pick out Judas' replacement personally either.
Μς: TWTY-Admin I was reviewing the Psalms 119:127-128 and reference which I have not really gotten that far in ITG. But the inclusion of God in those two verses do not change the verse they clarify the person he is addressing. But have you brought it up to CW why he chose to render. Therefore (ken) God ('al) as such.?
Ισι: Thank you for your kind response, TWTY. I respond in kind. Matthew: "And when Yahosha had finished instructing his disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities." Matthew: "...he sat at the table with the disciples...." Matthew: But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." Matthew :. "Now the disciples went to Galilee...." John: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter said to him, 'Yahosha, where are you going?' Yahosha answered, 'Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward..." John: "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who keeps my instructions and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and MANIFEST MYSELF TO HIM...." John: Now Thomas, one of the 12, called the Twin, was not with them when Yahosha came, so the other disciples told him, "We have seen Yahosha...." John "After this, Yahosha revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias...." He told just those disciples they would deny him three times upon his appearance. In John, he is speaking to those disciples. John: "These things I have spΔυναμις to you while I am still with you." Speaking to "these" disciples, John: says, "His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly,not in any figure! Now we know that you know all things and need none to question you." "John: "I have manifested they name to the men whom though gavest me out of the world. Thine they were and thou gavest them to me and they have kept they word." John: forward speaks of those disciples whom had been with him since Passover. He prays for "them," not of the world but "for whom thou hast given me..." He asks the Father to "keep them in thy name..., that they may be one. And as he had said, he appeared to them at the Sea of Galilee. Please tell me where I've messed up regarding Yah/Yahosha not making mistakes.
Me: I never meant to imply that the Messiah had made a mistake - he didn't. I pointed out that he didn't reappear to the *twelve* disciples after his resurrection, as one of them had killed himself. The Messiah also never said "I shall appear to you 12 again" - He said "you" (plural), no matter whom was there, which we also know included many women. Also "The Twelve" was essentially a title given to the combined group, so when it says "Thomas, one of The Twelve" it isn't indicating that there were there - because one was dead.
@Μς I refer to our facebook chat convo where I point out an extra 5 words that Craig mistranslates in Psalm 119:127, therefore only actually getting 40% of the verse translated correctly. When he is incapable of translating a mere 10 Hebrew words correctly, don't hold out much hope of the rest being any better.
If people aren't finding things wrong with CW's translation, then I'm afraid you're either not looking properly, or attempting to explain them away with "Well they don't change the meaning of the verse" or "They clarify who's being addressed". If CW is allowed to criticise *other* translations for doing just that, then he shouldn't be doing the same thing as well. He is also misrepresenting what Yahweh's words are saying. There was no need to add "God" to the verse and then say he was translating the *preposition* 'al - he wasn't. He was butchering the words and saying he was translating a word that he wasn't actually translating. In my book, that's called lying
Ισι: Good morning, TWTY. Regarding Thomas, such is the reason for the commas setting off "one of...." The 12 were the "lesser commission" of disciples with him during Passover and he's speaking only to them, the (until one dies) during the verses I quoted above, and he says he will meet them after his resurrection (which occurs at the Sea of Galilee and, with the , while gathered behind closed doors) having told them earlier they, the /, would deny his appearance three times (and then proceed to spread his word except to the gentiles). Who else is he speaking of other than the then-present disciples? When speaking "of" his disciples in the verses where he is asking Yah to protect "them," I accept he is speaking of the (+) others in the then-present time who were given instructions for all nations. Where does "future" have its place when Yahosha is speaking to and of his discples? I am rather new to Yah's Truth; and when I do not know something, I ask for clarification/help/guidance, so I would appreciate your time in directing me where I error. If you are agreeing Yah/Yahosha makes no mistakes, where is the credibility of a "future" Paul." Yahosha sent the + out to the "other nations." If that was not sufficient and Yah knew it would not be sufficient, would not he have foretold, just like he's foretold everything else? I am not of the vaster knowledge as the other gentlemen posting here, and I am forming and have formed my own thoughts regarding Paul's writings in the second half of the bible. Shalom and pleasant shabat.
νικος: Saul/Paul was a Pharissee that is all you need to know..Yahushua let us know when he walked the earth what he thought of the Pharissees.
Me: How about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea? They were Pharisee's also - Joseph even more so, as he was a member of the Sanhedrin
Τ: Here is how Craig renders Ps 119:127 in ITG: “Therefore (ken) God (‘al), I genuinely and totally love (‘ahab – I have developed a close, personal, affectionate, and abiding relationship with (qal perfect)) the terms and conditions of Your relationship agreement (mitswah – Your authoritative instructions and written directions regarding Your covenant contract) more than (min) gold nuggets (zahab) and more than (min) gold coins (paz).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:127)
He used 8 of the 10 words.. the ten being: 'Al ken ahab mitswah ka min zahab wa min paz.. he missed the ka and wa but they weren't needed to convey the verse.
1.'Ken' can indeed mean therefore
2.'Al.. (aleph lamed) is 'al/‘el, which is the contracted form of ‘elowah and is Yahowah's Title - also known as God or The Almighty. It can also mean "in relation to, near, before, in proximity to, in addition to, on account of, on, upon, regarding, concerning, on behalf of, because of, for, against, opposed to"... but it can just as easily be translated 'God' or 'The Almighty'
3. ahab - love... yep that's right..ahab means "love; close, friendly, and affectionate relationship, choose to actually love"
4. Mitswah - Indeed is the relationship agreement - errantly rendered by religious people looking to control the masses as 'commandments'.
Mtswah can be defined as "terms and conditions of the binding contract, authorized directions and written instructions, authoritative instructions, written legal conditions" ... and indeed in this context 'relationship agreement' works.
5. ka - not translated by Craig here.. wasn't really needed, but means "when, just when, just as; is akin to; can be compared to, as, as with, like, the same as, similar to, consistent with, according to, accordingly"
6. min - he has 'more than'
min is defined as "from, out of, away from, part of, source of, means to, flow from, flow toward, more"
7. zahab - he has 'gold nuggets'.. yep
8. wa - he didn't used.. means "and"
9.min - more than, same as used above
10. paz - he said 'gold coins'. I don't see 'coins', I would have said 'pure gold' or 'refined gold', but gold coins doesn't change anything.
It is an acceptable translation based on the words used in the verse and their meanings according to the lexicons, wordbooks and dictionaries within Logos.
Does anyone else with Logos want to recheck this? I mean anyone who doesn't have a bone to pick with Craig and isn't looking to falsely accuse him. Use an open mind like I did.. not pro-Craig, not anti-Craig, but rather pro Yahowah.
Me: I'm sorry Τ, but I seriously contend that. 'al is not 'el. Firstly, 'al-ken is a Hebrew clause, which is a very concrete form of "Therefore" or better yet "Because of this". It doesn't mean "Therefore God" in the slightest, as that's actually rearranging the words (Ken 'al as Craig has it, which is wrong) and destroying the clause that Yahuweh intended. The 'al-ken clause is used 165 times in the Tanakh. I think Yahuweh knows what He means to say when He uses His own language. If Yahuweh wanted David to say "Therefore God" He is more than capable of doing so - He doesn't need to use a common clause that everybody would've realised in a completely different way, nor does He need to turn a preposition ('al) into a noun ('God').
'ahab however doesn't mean "I genuinely and totally love, I have a developed a close, personal, affectionate, and abiding relationship with" - that's just a flamboyant exaggeration of something that just means "love". It could be "I love, cherrish, and have affection for", but I couldn't find a single thing that could provide the source for where Craig got his translation of the word as he has it there. Could you provide the source? I'm checking mainly TWOT and BDB, the two best things on Logos for Hebrew. You could have "I actively love" due to the active sense of the verb, which isn't easy to bring across in English translations
mitswah does mean commandments - it's not just an errant translation to control the masses. When it's used 198 times in the sense of "command" or "commandments" (the difference between singular and plural), it's quite obvious as to what it means here in Psalm 119. It could also mean "ordinance, instruction, and prescription", all of which would've been the accurate and amplified translation of the word; not how CW has it.
The fifth word is actually 'attah, and it means "your". Whilst -ka is stuck on the end of mistwah, it isn't actually the word ka being used. 'attah is the second person pronoun in Hebrew, and Hebrew usually likes to stick pronouns after the noun (ie soul his; son his; daughter theirs).
The sixth word - min - according to BDB is a "prep[osition] expressing the idea of separation, hence out of, from, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not". Oddly enough, this was one of the four words CW got right both times.
zahab just means gold, not gold nuggets. In its 392 uses in the Tanakh, I can't see a single one that would require the addition of -nuggets to the word when 'gold' is more than enough.
I agree with you on paz - and that's one of the words I pointed out to Marcus, which I hope he shared with you. Oddly enough, you pointed out the two translations of paz that I did. It means either "refined" or "pure" gold - doesn't mean gold coins.
The Hebrew actually reads as follows: 'al-ken 'ahabti mistwotekah mizahab uwmipaz. What you have at the top is just the root words (although accidentally with ka instead of 'attah), which doesn't help with understanding how the words are used in the text itself. Plus if all we're going for is an "acceptable" translation, then there's essentially nothing wrong with the KJV or ESV's rendering of it.
Not surprisingly, "it's an acceptable translation" or "it doesn't change the meaning of the verse" is the same excuse Christians give when people point out flaws in their popular translations.
If you tell people you're giving them an "accurate" translation of Yahuweh's words, then you'd better do so - not make up your own translations of words that have no basis to them.
I'm not falsely accusing Craig - I'm attempting to get an accurate translation and understanding of the words that Yahuweh used, and I will not sit back and let someone else butcher them when it is quite clearly observed that they're not really bothered in providing a correct and accurate translation of Yahuweh's words for those that read their productions.
Oh, and recalling a previous comment that might be getting passed around, let Larry know that I don't have a 'degree in Greek'. I don't know where on earth he got that idea from - but hey, it's not like Larry to tell people something factual, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised
Τ: It comes down to the fact that Paul was a false prophet.. he stands against Yah on the issue of the covenant and on the issue of circumcision. And if you seriously think Yah would ever 'command' His children versus intruct them, then you don't even know Him. I'm done arguing about Pauline anti-Yah doctrine.
Τ: the above rebuttle is totally wrong.. I won't argue about this anymore, as I can use that time to study about Yah from His Word.
κροων: Interesting thread. The debate on the validity of paul's apostleship rages on......
I look at it like this: Since Torah says what it says, and is unchangeable, reading Paul's letters is really unnecessary, thus rendering the debate pointless.
I'm more interested in what the Torah actually says, and what every word really means. Since we know it is entirely perfect, transforming the soul, then that tells me what is important to understand.
Shalom, Shalom.
-----End-----
I'll post some more comments on this later, but I just want to ask a quick question first: Bar my mentioning the "Questioning Paul Review", where exactly, in this discussion, did I ever engage in a discussion on "Pauline" doctrine? I only ever talked about ItG ('Introduction to God' - which it actually isn't) and its incorrect translation of Yahuweh's words - I never brought 'Paul' into the discussion for us to "stop" talking about it - it never actually started.
