Sunday, December 10, 2017

Debating Yeshua’s lineage? Look no further!

The anti-Y'shua crowd will go to any length to negate Him! They are adamant that He cannot be Messiah because His lineage came through a woman (since Joseph wasn't His biological father; just someone who "adopted" Y'shua...), and they insist the genealogy (according to Judaism), must come through the male.

Also, according to the anti-Y'shua crowd, women cannot inherit or pass on an inheritance. Hence, on several levels, Y'shua's messiahship - according to them - is null and void.

Well, let's examine what SCRIPTURE says:

Numbers 27:8 Moreover, say to the people of Isra'el, 'If a man dies and does not have a son, you are to have his inheritance pass to his daughter. 9 If he doesn't have a daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father doesn't have brothers, give his inheritance to the closest relative in his family, and he will possess it. This will be the standard for judgment to be used by the people of Isra'el, as ADONAI ordered Moshe.'"

That, all by itself, negates the idea that women cannot have an inheritance. Now, let's move on to the genealogy thing, where we see that Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son, Yeshua - except for a little known exception to the rule! Read on....

In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Yeshua. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. Not only are the two genealogies listed in the reverse chronology from each other, but the genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's mother, Mary, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's earthly father Joseph. (Note: this is completely opposed to most teachings! But there is no doubt that Matthew's genealogy is that of Mary, and not her husband Joseph, as is usually assumed.)

However, many people fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Matthew's gospel - the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's, you must deal with a second difficulty: The rights of the line are NOT passed through the mother; but rather, through the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline (as was her husband, Joseph), she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because she was female (Deuteronomy 21:16).

So, it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David; she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore, she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Yeshua - EXCEPT for a little known exception to the rule.

AND LOOK AT THIS! In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons; only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair.

So Moses prayed to YHWH and He gave Moses an exception to the rule! He told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements: There must be no male offspring in the family (Numbers 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Numbers 36:6).

Now, returning to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, she was of the line of David, AND received the inheritance of her father because her father had no sons, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

End of argument!

Footnote to Matthew 1 from the Aramaic English New Testament:

The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the context of this verse determines its specific meaning. Y'shua elsewhere says "which one of gowra, if he has a son...."; obviously "father" is intended. "Gowra" also applies to other forms of protector-male type relationships depending on the context, such as "husband", "son", and so forth.

Ancient Aramaic Matthew ends at verse 17, not verse 25. The text not only establishes the subject, but shifts from "background history" into the present, from intro to body. This means that the Yosip in verse 16 (the guardian or adopted father of Miriyam (Mary)) is not the same Yosip as the husband of Miriyam in verse 19.

There is no reason for Matthew to use two different words for the same individual, whereas gowra sometimes means "husband" but can also mean "father". The other term baalah can only mean "husband". On the other hand, there would most definitely be a reason to differentiate two men named Yosip, one being the adopted father, the other the husband of Miriyam.

With this differentiation we now have three full sets of 14 generations, which satisfies the demands of verse 17.

Furthermore....When you read thoroughly the details of Zelophedad's daughters it is clear that is exactly what it is about: Females inherit the assets of their father when there is no male heir. This is stated DIRECTLY:

Numbers 27: 7 'Zelophehad's daughters are right in what they say. You will indeed give them a property to be their heritage among their father's kinsmen; see that their father's heritage is passed on to them. 8 Then speak to the Israelites and say, "If a man dies without sons, his heritage will pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, the heritage will go to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, his heritage will go to his father's brothers. 11 If his father has no brothers, his heritage will go to the member of his clan who is most nearly related; it will become his property. This will be a legal rule for the Israelites, as Yahweh has ordered Moses."' (NJB)

Proof of this is also indirectly stated with Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem. Mary is attached to that inheritance through her husband but she also inherits from her family without there being a male heir.

And let's not forget, Talmud says a child is considered Jewish if his MOTHER is Jewish....And Torah says land can only pass WITHIN THE TRIBE it is allotted to. YHWH calls it an INHERITANCE. And with the Levites YHWH says, "I am their inheritance"...so obviously being from a tribe is an asset if you inherit YHWH..

We disagree that the King James is the “best” version….

Some people keep pushing the King James Version as the ONLY version to adhere to. Well, it's fine it you like that version, but please don't attempt to push it as "the only" Bible version that contains the Truth - because it doesn't. And here's why:

The KJV contains LOTS of problems - all from King James' skewed viewpoint! Here are just a few examples:

Check out, for instance, passages like Leviticus 12:8, 15:29 and Numbers 6:10 where KJV mistranslated the SLANG word "turtles" - meaning "TURTLE DOVES" - supposedly being used as sin sacrifices. The problem is "turtles" could NOT POSSIBLY be used as sin sacrifices because they're not kosher!

And here’s a shocker: King James perpetuated the “trinity” concept. Yes, it's true! Nowhere in Scripture do we ever see our ELOHIM referred to as a “trinity” or the Holy Spirit called a “person.” (Being “saved” in a Baptist church in January 1995, I always wondered how the heck a person would get inside another person to guide their life….) Let’s see what happened:

I John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

So, what's wrong with it? Well, the undiluted truth is: King James added the line! He worded it to make it seem as though John was defining the Father, Son and Spirit as three separate beings in one.

And oddly, all the other "versions" completely omit everything after the word "heaven" in verse 7! For instance the NIV says: “For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” This is TOTALLY different from the KJV! (Knowing this, and realizing all the various versions added, omitted and mistranslated, is it any wonder why we have nearly 40,000 different Christian "denominations"?)

Here is a footnote from the NIV referencing 1 John 5:7-8:

"Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify in earth--not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century."

This shows that both verses are late additions. Obviously, 5:7 is an addition post-397 CE, after the Council of Carthage and 5:8 is so late as to be meaningless. This is true because trinity was never, and is not, an original Biblical doctrine! It was a formulation of Constantine, Eusebius and others.

Here is the passage as seen in Aramaic English New Testament:

I John 5: 6. This is he who came by the water and the blood. Y'shua the Mashiyach; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit testifies; because the Spirit is truth. 7. (Verse 7 is nonexistent in the Eastern Peshitta!) 8. And there are three witnesses, the Spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union. (AENT)

Footnote: Appended text: (For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haKodesh: and these three are one.), which is why Murdock puts the brackets and adds: “This verse is not wanting in most MSS., and is omitted in the edit. London, 1826.” The fact is that this line was inserted under the authority of Constantine to promote the Trinity doctrine.

It does not exist in the Peshitta nor the oldest Greek manuscripts of Aleph, A, B and the Vulgate. Christo-Paganism which originated before Constantine taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically three separate beings, but yet “all the same” is a blatant violation of the First and Second Commandments (see Sh’mot/Exodus 20:1-6).

Hopefully, the above information will give you a new perspective on the King James version!

Satan’s greatest lie

Poster_satan6

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Clearing up the apparent discrepancy between Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14

READER COMMENT:

Would you mind shedding light on Acts 7:14 [75 souls in number]. Acts 7:14, according to some Rabbis and counter-missionaries, counters Genesis 46:27. They make claims that this is among many of the errors of the B'rit Chadasha. Please, silence this notion especially for those infant believers who by every whim are tossed to and fro.

OUR RESPONSE:

Thank you for your request!  This issue comes up from time to time and many are "quick" to cite "discrepancy" and blame the B'rit Chadasha as "erred"! But that's folly. Yes, there "appears" to be a discrepancy. To wit, the verses you cited:

Genesis 46:27 "Thus all the people in Ya‘akov’s family who entered Egypt numbered seventy."

Acts 7:14. "And Yosip sent for his father and brought Ya’akov and all his family. And they were seventy and five souls in number."

But let me say right up front: The discrepancy is only in our incomplete knowledge of the numbers presented in the Masoretic Text (the accepted Hebrew Tanakh) and the B'rit Chadasha. To conclude the B'rit Chadasha is somehow in error is the epitome of bias and arrogance. Scholars can't even agree on how the number "70" is arrived at in the Masoretic Text! Is Ya'akov counted? Are the two, named females counted (Dinah, verse 15 & Serach verse 17)?

(From my own counting of the names in Gen 46, I conclude that the numbers presented in the Masoretic Text are at least consistent, that is, "66" is correct in verse 26 because 66 includes all the names of sons and daughters and excludes Ya'akov, Yosef, M’nasheh and Efrayim). And "70" is correct because it INCLUDES all names including Ya'akov, Yosef, M’nasheh and Efrayim. But that DOES NOT mean "70" is "correct" because the Masoretic Text is nothing more than an amalgamation of many ancient documents! The Masoretic Text is NOT from an original ancient Hebrew manuscript.)

So let's look at the number "75" in the B'rit Chadasha, Acts 7:14. The number is presented by Stephen during a speech he made in which he summarized pretty much then entire history of Judaism! Guess what version of the Tanakh Stephen would likely have been familiar with in his time? It would NOT have been the Masoretic Text as the Masoretic Text would not appear for another 800+ years! It would have been the Septuagint from which Stephen was drawing his history!

And the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text in Genesis 46! It not only differs in the cited verse 27, but in other verses as well! In fact, verses 20-22 in the Septuagint cite grandsons of Yoseph not named in the Masoretic Text, adding 4 names to the total! So there's a total of 74 without much effort. (The problem is not resolved though. The Septuagint does not account for how it arrived at 75!)

But the Septuagint is probably what Stephen knew, and it said "75"! So, given that Stephen in Acts 7 was likely referring to the Septuagint which (I emphasize) pre-dated the Masoretic by hundreds of years, why aren't the naysayers complaining about the Septuagint instead of the B'rit Chadasha? Why aren't the naysayers questioning the Masoretic Text instead? After all, it disagrees with the far-older Septuagint!

The bottom line? The available manuscripts don't seem to provide enough information to come to a definitive conclusion. The Masoretic Text is biased (being the result of a "committee" of Rabbis who "decided" what was "original" from a number of sources), and the Septuagint is a Greek translation from now-lost original, ancient Hebrew manuscripts, and contains its own biases from the 70 scholars who assembled it!

Is this a "deal breaker"? That is, are we not to believe the B'rit Chadasha because of Acts 7:14? Of course, I would say "no", but if someone insisted, I'd simply point out to them the shady origin of the Masoretic Text and demand they prove its in-errancy.

About that odd Chapter, Genesis 38

In this week’s Torah portion about the Yosef saga, did you wonder about the odd insertion of Judah’s life into the text which stops abruptly in Chapter 37 and resumes in Chapter 39? How strange to suddenly dump Joseph by the wayside and begin discussing the life of Judah! (See Genesis 37:38 - 38:30). Was it accidental, or just “shoe-horned” in because the story didn’t fit anywhere else?

Nope! You see, this is the beginning of Y’shua’s genealogy!

Everett J. Fox, author of “The Schocken Bible, Volume I, The Five Books of Moses” concludes the following:

“The other function of this story seems to be to carry out the major theme of Genesis as we have presented it: continuity and discontinuity between generations. What is at stake here is not merely the line of one of the brothers, but the line which (as the biblical audience must have been fully aware) will lead to royalty – King David was a descendant of Peretz of v.29.

“This should not be surprising in a book of origins; we noted the possible mention of Jerusalem in 14:18. Apparently, a popular early theme, connected as we have noted to the power of God in history, continuity/discontinuity is repeated in somewhat similar circumstances in the Book of Ruth (which contains the only other mention of ‘begettings’ outside of Genesis and Numbers 3:1.”

Torah contains many messages – overt, covert, easy or hard to understand, repetitions, redundancies … you name it! Torah is perfect, concise and deliberate, containing NO mistakes! Every word is there for a reason. And the bottom line is, it makes perfect sense for the Yehuda story to have been inserted exactly where it was because of his importance in Bible history … especially in view of the fact that his line would one day produce our divine Messiah!

Please note, one of the keys to the Judah/Tamar/Peretz insertion is found within the short Book of Ruth which took place hundreds of years later, leading us straight to the “hidden” meaning of the Judah/Tamar/Peretz story.

Here’s a quick synopsis gleaned from the mind author Avigdor Bonchek, from his book, “Studying the Torah, A Guide to In-Depth Interpretation”:

The book of Ruth discusses the marriage of Ruth to Boaz and the birth of their son, Oved who is the father of Yeshai, the father of David (Ruth 4:17). The generations of Peretz includes his son Hezron father of Ram, father of Amminadab, father of Nahshon, father of Salmah, father of Boaz, father of Obed,father of Jesse, father of David the King of Israel, “the Messiah” (Ruth 4:18–22).

Bonchek questioned why David’s predecessors are mentioned through Boaz all the way back to Peretz; but not back to Judah, especially in view of the fact that David was of the tribe of Judah! He said, “it suggests that the reason the Book of Ruth highlights Peretz is the same reason that the Book of Genesis ends the Judah/Tamar affair with Peretz’s birth. The point is to lead us to free-associate—Peretz . . .

When we read of David’s genealogy and hear Peretz’s name, we think back to the last significant time Peretz was mentioned, at the conclusion of the Judah/Tamar story. And when we think forward to the Book of Ruth, Peretz’s name becomes associated with the birth of David, and the Messiah! Thus, our midrashic message of God creating the light of the Messiah is clarified.

Don’t be mad at Trump about Jerusalem….

Many seem to be angry at President Trump for acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to where the US embassy will eventually be moved.. I guess these angry people don't realize that TRUMP is NOT the one who started this; he simply finished what CLINTON began back in 1992! (You can Google it.)

This was accomplished with the stipulation that the US Embassy would move to Jerusalem by 1999. But that didn't happen because Clinton and every President since then has waived that embassy move every six months - until now, when Trump FINALLY went ahead and authorized the move.

I, for one, am GLAD that he did, because it's part of Bible prophecy that ALL nations will go up against Israel. Take a look at this meme:

Poster_jerusalem

Friday, December 8, 2017

Don’t be too angry with the Pope about “The Lord’s Prayer”

Don’t get too upset at the Pope who apparently wants to change “The Lord’s prayer” :

While the Pope definitely does NOT have the right to “change” Scripture”; he is actually correct in that God doesn't "lead” anyone into temptation. Satan does that! Since YHWH gave mankind “free will,” we are free to “fall into temptation” or even to pursue it, which many, unfortunately, do…

The problem actually lies in Bible translations. You see, copyright laws state that every Bible version has to be something like 20 percent different from any other version, and so they all say something different, rendering some meanings useless or too far OFF the mark.

....Which is actually the case with “The Lord’s Prayer.”

You see, the original languages don’t say anything about “leading into temptation.” Check out the Aramaic, which says the following:

Matthew 6:9. Therefore, you pray like this: Our Father in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. 10. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done. As in heaven so on earth.[1] 11 Give us the bread of our need this day. 12. And forgive us our offences as we also have forgiven those who have offended us. 13. And not bring us into trial,[2] but deliver us from the evil one, for Yours is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. (AENT)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Heavens always come before the earth in terms of the creation order, importance and having heaven’s laws rule on earth (Job 38:31-33).

[2] YHWH does not lead His people into “temptation”, but He does test and proves them. Deut. 13:3; Job 1:7-12; James 1:14.