Secondly, Jewish people do not compare their Jewishness with that of other Jews. If for some reason a Jewish person needed/needs to demonstrate that he was/is truly a Jew he would not simply tell you some generality as that he was/is from this or that tribe. He will offer to you his ancestry, just as Matthew does with Yeshua in his book, or his certificate of conversion. That is all. Why did Paul not simply say, "the record of my circumcision is here or there", or "my genealogy is this and that"? He does not do it because his lie could then be easily proven. What he does is to brag and compare his pretended "Jewishness" in a very un-Jewish way with other Hebrews. Christians/Paulinists do not understand these things and they find it normal because they do make a difference among each other. In their mind there is all the time something like this: "This guy is more Christian than the other because of this or that." Christian competition is legendary, but it is not so with Jewish people. Also, Christians deny the Christianity of other Christians, just as a Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness do to each other. In that way they are always on the defensive/offensive. So, for them, projecting this trait on others is very normal; so they think that the Jewish people do the same thing. And in so doing they find nothing suspicious with Paul's un-Jewish defense of his so-called "Jewishness". But every Jewish person knows that, whether born Jewish or a convert, no Jew is more Jew than the other — you surely can be more or less observant than the other, but that is all. So, in the mind of a Jew it is totally foreign, and false, the spurious claim of Paul when he said he was "a Hebrew of Hebrews." That very statement is enough to demonstrate that he was not Jewish because not Jew would ever think of saying such a thing.
Paul may have converted to Judaism, he may have followed Rabbi Gamaliel for a little while, but after to having been rejected in his marriage proposal to the daughter of the High Priest, he apostatized — and by doing so he proved that he never was truly part of Israel, but just a fake. Then, filled with satanic hatred toward the whole House of Jacob, he invented his "revelation" on the Road of Damascus tale, his subsequent anti-Torah "revelations" ... and the rest is mere history of Christianity and anti-Semitism.
Those who accused Paul of not being a Jew were the Jewish people. Therefore he should have tried to make his defense to them in a Jewish way. But he did not do it. He does not even try to prove to them that he truly is Jewish — with the correct procedure — because he knows that he has no case at all. What he did was to try and "prove" his Jewishness to non-Jewish people who have no idea of how to prove it or disprove it. And the way he did it was by using a lot of empty words that sounds like a bragging litany of supposed "Jewishness". And to these days in the ears of Gentiles his "reasons" for being a Jew sound very logical ... but not so in Jewish ears. Maybe in the ears of children the "reasons" to prove the "existence" of Santa Claus sound very logical, but in the ears of adults they sound very different. Of course, Christians think that they understand the Jewish mind better than Jews themselves. And what could I say to that?
Finally, no Jew would ever play a Gentile to be approved by non-Jews. But Gentiles have no problem impersonating Jews if it is to their convenience. So, Paul the Liar ... well, because he was a Gentile liar, he had not trouble with lying about his true colors. And that is why he could play the chameleon, despite Torah and Yeshua harshly condemning such a practice.
1 Corinthians 9:20
20 And I became to the Jews a Jew, so that Jews I might gain (deceive). And to those under the Law as under the Law, so that those under the Law I might gain (deceive).
Could anyone, but another liar, trust this evil man of deception? Where did he get an example for this simulation? Certainly not form Torah, nor from Yeshua. And if not from where? From whom? Did Paul of Tarsus have license to sin? For him Torah made way to sin, and now we see that he also thought that sin could create salvation! Go figure.
8. In his notorious self-righteousness and rash style, Paul brags of being a "perfect" human being when he shamelessly asserted he was "as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless"!
Well, this is quite a declaration in the lips of the man who said that Torah prevented any righteousness in people who wanted to obey it, since it had been give just to demonstrate that no one can obey it. But now we find that Paul not only obeyed it, but he did it like no other human being ever did it. He did it in a totally "perfect" way, for which reason he had been found "blameless"! This guy was amazing!
Now, the question is, who found Paul "blameless"? The Judge of Heaven? Israel? Certainly not. Neither the Almighty, nor Israel would declare blameless, i.e. perfect, any human being. If the accounts in this respect given by Mark and Luke are true, then even Yeshua rejected such a blameless perfection for himself:
Mark 10:17-18
17 As he (Yeshua) was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Rabbi, what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life?" 18 And Yeshua said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except Elohim ALONE.
Luke 18:18-19
18 A ruler questioned him, saying, "Good Rabbi, what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life?" 19 And Yeshua said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except Elohim ALONE.
Then who pronounced Paul to be "blameless"? Well, Paul himself !!! Who else?
Where he gets people entangled in his web is because like the snake he was he spoke on both sides of his mouth.
Philippians 3:12
12 Not that I have already attained this — that is, I have not already been perfected — but I strive to lay hold of that for which Iesous Christos also laid hold of me.
Of course in this case he is not talking about Torah. This is just a subterfuge he used to impress his readers as if he were a very humble man.
Romans 10:4
4 For Christos is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Sounds so nice in the ears of Christians! But Paul's Greek Iesous Christos is not the same as Yeshua the Messiah of Israel because Yeshua came to confirm and fully explain Torah, but the Fiend of Tarsus says that Yeshua came to put an end to it. Of course, I am well aware of all the mental acrobatics and intellectual stunts that Christians/Paulinists make in order to circumvent this self-incriminatory statement, but none of them gets away with his evident massive guilt.
Also in this verse we encounter once more Paul the Gnostic Guru when he says that "righteousness" is for all those who simply believe the "gnosis" he taught. The intellectual inclusiveness of Paul is in diametrical contrast with all the teachings of Torah and Yeshua in reference to the exclusivity of those who follow the entire Torah, and who therefore are under the currently effective Covenants.
Stephen, it is very noticeable your writings that, as a good follower of the wayward philosopher Paul, you mention and interpret history at will; but your absence of Scripture quotations is verily appalling from a person who like you needs to demonstrate to an "unbeliever" of your religion, like me, the Scriptural validity of the tenets of your argument. Allow me to remind you again a verse to which you, and all Christians/Paulinists pay no attention whatsoever, since evidently such a spiritually healthy practice is not convenient to your dogma:
Isaiah 8:20
"To Torah and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no Dawn (beginning of Light)."
I quoted to you lots of very pertinent passages from the Jewish Scriptures and from Yeshua's words, but to no avail. You very simply dismissed them all out of hand! Fantastic! How convenient! How could you ever open your eyes to the Truth, if you prefer to have them closed? But, after all, what does a Paulinist care about the Jewish Scriptures, or even the words of Yashua, if the real source of their beliefs is Paul the Gnostic philosopher who had no use for them either. And, of course, of course, it is my approach the one that is "ludicrous." I would laugh, if it was not so sad.
You say, "These 2 terms have been poorly translated and misunderstood." How do you know this? Do you read Greek? Can you translated? What I first studied was languages. I was teaching languages in a college by the time I was 18 years old, I also have done translations. As a language professional I have a hard time with neophytes making such wide assertions without first hand knowledge — that is repeating what others say without proper evaluation. I find it kind of wild that your attempt at giving me a lesson on what Paul said in the originals when you cannot read these originals, while I surely can.
Who said that "Paul upheld the commandments," Stephen? Where are the two witnesses, as required by Torah, of such accomplishment?
You repeat: "I believe it is absolutely ridiculous and totally ludicrous yr claims about Paul." Easy to say but impossible to prove. I do not care about what you believe if you cannot back it up with True Scriptures.
I would not argue with you on the possibility that "THERE WERE Christians on Earth before Rabbi Yahushua haMashiach was born — and they were Pagans." There sure were worshippers of Christos in several parts of the Empire. But no one ever equated Yeshua with that false deity until Paul came in the picture with his Gnostic version of syncretism and created Christianity as it is always referred to the religion which exalts Paul above the Messiah of Israel. (Remember, "Yes Yeshua said that, but Paul said" in the lips of Christians/Paulinists) Oh, I know you are going to simply assert the Nazarene mantra that Paul was not a syncretist? Then what is this blasphemy doing in his filthy lips?
Acts 17:22-23
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship. I also found an altar with this inscription, 'to an unknown Elohim.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you" !!!
Wait a minute! YHWH in the shape of an idol?! Well, that is a "novelty" indeed! I wonder where did he get his "authorization" to say such "Hillul HaShem"? Let me see… Oh, I know! From Paul the Great Chameleon (small dragon). Or worse yet, from Satan who was the one who inspired him to bald-facedly say this hypocritical tactic from Hell by which he lived his murky and sinister life:
1 Corinthians 9:20-22
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law — although not being myself under the Law — so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without Law — though not being without the law of elohim, but under the law of Christos — so that I might win those who are without Law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak (this he really did). I have become all things to all men, so that by any means I may save some.
Ah. Paul, the self-proclaimed "savior" of the weak and dumb, commits "Hillul HaShem" once again.
Isaiah 43:11
11 I, I am YHWH, and there is no Savior besides me!
But coming back to history. What you seem to ignore is that there were Gnostics "on Earth" that were not sun-worshipers — before and after Yeshua — being Paul of Tarsus one of them. There were countless shapes and forms in which Gnosticism presented itself. What all Gnostics worshipped was Sophia, the false deity of Gnosis openly or subtlety.
[ Sophia (?o?í?) is Greek for knowledge, wisdom and doctrine. Because of that Philosophy, or philosophia, means the "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom" and "love of doctrine." For Gnostics like Paul, Christos was/is the Logos because in Gnosticism Sophia expresses herself through the Logos (the Logos is the Word of Sophia). But the Greek concept of Logos was/is totally alien to Judaism, therefore John the Disciple of Yeshua would never had used it as it appears in most Christian translations. John said that Yeshua was the Torah made flesh, not the Logos made flesh. And, of course according to it he was the incarnation of Torah, not the incarnation of YHWH because Torah was the Voice of Adonai — and certainly not of Sophia ]
If I continue scrutinizing everything that Paul said wrong it would be an interminable essay. These 50 pages, and the other 25 I wrote before, are enough proof to create in any honest person the necessary interest in examining it by himself, as I did, and so responsibly arrive to his own conclusions.
Stephen, all the neo-Nazarenes I know do seem to like talking much about some obscure and still controversial aspects of history, but they only succeed at impressing themselves or a few neophytes in that discipline — most of all those who are also novices in Scriptures. Your mentioning of some controversial historical portions does not make any point in your favor because, even though we can use those parts of history which are validated is not the ultimate Judge in the matter of identifying a false prophet in Israel. This fact is even more pertinent in the case of Paul who attempted — no less — to reinterpret everything through many concocted artifices and simply claiming that it was a special "revelation" he received and a — again — non-validated status to say the very least. So, you are going to the wrong source to begin with. And on the other hand, you can never talk about history as if its parts were disconnected from each other and therefore inconsequential. This is why you cannot talk about the American Revolution without first understanding that it took place because — among many other things that took place before — a brilliant sailor named Christopher Columbus first discovered the New World. It is because of this that you could never truly understand what happened with Ignatius who raised the pole that Paul had already set before. If you no not analyze and understand the dramatic heresies that Paul introduced, you will never understand what Ignatius compounded. Of course, I know by now that neo-Nazarenes have a version of history of their own choosing and for their own convenience. But despite whatever your history merchants may say, the fact remains that had Satan not sent Paul when he did it Ignatius would not have had the set foundation to say and do what he did. Again, you can never analyze history backwards and expect to obtain the Truth. But, of course, you have your "particular assumptions (presuppositions)-certain things are taken for granted" and that way you surely could have Cleopatra discovering America and Francis Ford Coppola as Commander in Chief of the Napoleonic forces in Waterloo.
That aside, I would have continued shedding some light upon your other convenient misapplications and misinterpretations of history — since I give great importance to ancient history, which I have carefully studied for many decades. But first, history takes the backburner to Scriptures when discussing spiritual and theological matters and second, because you did not answered to any of the many points which I raised against the Monster of Tarsus — all of which I surely validated with stated Jewish Scriptures. Therefore, since this is already quite a long writing and you did not honored any of the many points which I raised, as well as the questions I asked in my two previous letters in respect to Paul being a false prophet and a prophesied ravenous wolf, I am going to finish here.
You are free to think whatever you prefer if it makes you feel good, as it seems. But if you are going to believe according to what the Almighty has truly revealed to mankind, you had better do it according to Torah, the Testimony of the True Jewish Prophets, and the true words of Yashua ... nothing else!
As I told you in my previous letter, I expected respect for my 12 fair rules of debate, to which you answered by saying that you do not want a debate. However, the rest of your letter evidently demonstrates that what you really want is a chaotic debate without any fair and decent rules, and where the points which I raise but are not to your liking, or theological convenience, can be easily discarded and forgotten. Not with me, friend. You apologized for your explosive and public attack on my beliefs concerning Paul as a blasphemous heretic, but you certainly never got a light year away from proving you erroneous case to me. You surely like to talk chip — that is without presenting any real facts, true evidences or Scriptural basis of any kind. Well, that is your prerogative to do, but mine is not to let people to use my time when they are so blatantly dishonest, not only with me but with themselves and the Almighty. For this reason this is my last message to you. Evidently there cannot be any understanding between me an you while you assume your dishonest stance while discussing the matter at hand. There would be many other things which evidently I could share with you in matters of the Jewish Scriptures. But due to your baseless dogmatism, which closes your mind to any Scriptural reasoning, I can easily see that you are way beyond not only my reach, but even that of the very Jewish Writings. Therefore, not wanting to brake the mitzvah that Yeshua instructed his disciples in reference to giving the Truth to the Gentiles, it is not my intention to write to you any more. If you want more on this subject you can find it on my other website www.JudaismRediscovered.com, where I intend to post this essay — without the personal stuff, of course. There are others too, like Sherry Shriner's, for example.
Now, if you want to get entertained and/or feel good about yourself, it would be more profitable if you feed the hungry, weep with the suffering or do other loving things (Tikun Olam), rather than going around picking theological fights with those whom you disagree with. After all, they might probably know much more than you, reason why they know exactly why they believe. Remember, those who have their roofs made of glass should never throw rocks to their neighbors'.
I most sincerely hope that you can recover soon from your physical sickness — and the spiritual one even more.
L'Shalom,
Ya'akov Ben Avraham
Webmaster
P.S.: Again, I really wish for your own sake that you would read these two excellent books:
"Jesus' Words Only":
http://astore.amazon.com/returnofthene-20/detail/0741429659/103-5323359-4359861
"When Jesus Became God":
http://astore.amazon.com/returnofthene-20/detail/0156013150/103-5323359-4359861
And most of all, read Torah, Tanakh and the words of Yeshua with your own eyes, instead of with the eyes of Paul.
The End
