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.

Parashah 9: Vayeshev (He continued living) Genesis 37:1 through 40:23

Shabbat shalom, mishpocah! Yes, it’s that time again – time to get really serious about your Weekly Torah Studies – Halleluyah! A synopsis of this week’s Torah portion can be found on our website.

In last week's Torah portion we saw Ya'akov (renamed Israel) going back to his homeland. By that time he had twelve sons who were to become the twelve tribes of Israel. His father Yitz'chak (Isaac), our second Patriarch, died at the age of 180, and Ya'akov (our third Patriarch) and his twin brother, Esav, buried him.

In this parashah beginning in Genesis 37 we find Israel's (formerly known as Ya'akov/Jacob, Genesis 32:28) son Yosef (Joseph) as an object of jealousy for his brothers who realized that their father loved Yosef more than any of them. After revealing a series of dreams that seemed to indicate Yosef would eventually be their leader in some way, his brothers plotted to kill him - but ultimately sold him to the Goyim (Gentiles) after his oldest brother Reuven insisted they simply throw him into a cistern. Reuven planned on rescuing him later, but the story took a turn when the brothers decided to sell Yosef to a passing caravan which took him on to Egypt.

For more, please read our synopsis and the actual Torah portions and other readings.

Poster_bat_tallit

Did Y’shua have two different fathers?

Let’s quickly address the false allegation that Y’shua had two different fathers. Messiah-Deniers attempt to use poor translations of Matthew 1:15-16 and Luke 3:23-24 as supposed "proof".

Matthew 1:15 And Eli'ud begat Elea'zar; and Elea'zar begat Mat'than; and Mat'than begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yehoshuah, who is called Messiah.

Luke 3:23 And Yeshua himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi,

Note how they don't mind using the New Testament "against" us whenever it suits their purposes; but if we try to correct the misunderstanding, they will immediately hide behind "the New Testament is a myth" argument!

The truth is, many have mistaken the genealogy in Matthew as that of Joseph, while the genealogy in Luke is taken as that of Mary. This is backwards! The genealogy in Matthew is of Mary and Luke's is of Joseph, Mary's husband!

Matthew 1:16, does not read "Joseph the husband of Mary" as most poor English translations say; rather it is: "Joseph, the guardian of Mary." What's happening here is that the Greek translators failed to understand the Aramaic "gowra", meaning "guardian" in the context, and instead translated it as "husband", the error of which is simply carried forward in English translations.

This means that the "Joseph" in Matthew 1:16 is the name of the guardian of Mary, not the "Joseph" who became her husband, who simply had the same name! Indeed, if you just keep reading in Matthew 1, Matthew goes on to say: "But Yosip [Joseph], her husband was just and did not desire to expose her, yet he was thinking in secret that he would dismiss her." Even Matthew understood that in verse 19 he needed to clarify that there he was talking about "Joseph", Mary's husband, rather than "Joseph", Mary's guardian whom he was naming in verse 16, son of Jacob!

We need to understand, Yeshua HAD to come from the line of David through Solomon! You see this in Matthew 1:6. But if you insist that the genealogy in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, then you would incorrectly cause the birth line of Yeshua to come from Natan, not Solomon! (See Luke 3:31). But Luke 3:23, is very clear that Luke here is addressing the line of JOSEPH, Mary's husband, of whom Yeshua is rightfully claimed as Joseph's son because Joseph did marry Yeshua's mother!

Anyway, here is one final response to their myriad allegations: A Messiah-Denier on Facebook recently ridiculed Yeshua's comment, "Let the dead bury the dead" in Matthew 8:22. This person insisted He was being "anti-Torah" which "proves" He cannot be THE Messiah....Well, the meaning is perfectly clear for those who understand the whole of the Bible. Yeshua wasn't talking about physically dead people (dead people can't DO anything!); rather, He meant the spiritually dead. If someone is spiritually dead, NOTHING you can say to them will matter, because they don't and can't understand (see 1 Cor. 2:14).

In other words, "leave those people alone and move on. Don't waste your time because they don't want to hear what you have to say. Let the dead bury their dead."

…Which is exactly what we ALL should do whenever challenged by some Yeshua-denier, for anyone who is able to deny Yeshua, never knew him, in the first place

About that “don’t use the Lord’s Name in vain” thing…

Once someone rejects Y'shua, one of the first things they will do is begin to harp about our use of the Name of God. They will even type out the mere title of "God" as "G-d" as a form of respect. Well, fine, but I question why we shouldn't use YHWH's Name or any of His Titles, when we see in Exodus 3 that ADONAI personally gave His Name to Moshe/Moses. Seems to me, if He didn't want anyone to know or use His Name, He would have kept it a secret!

Exodus 3:13-15 Moshe said to God, "Look, when I appear before the people of Isra'el and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you'; and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?" God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'" God said further to Moshe, "Say this to the people of Isra'el: 'Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [YHWH/ADONAI], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz'chak and the God of Ya'akov, has sent me to you.'This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation." (CJB)

One woman wrote to tell me "'I am what I am' isn't a name! It's HIS presence!" and another wrote: "Leviticus 22:32 tells us to sanctify his name and to not profane it. Using G-d's holy name cavalierly is Chilul Hashem - a desecration of His name. It shows a lack of respect."

My question is, then WHY do we see Exodus 3:13-15 telling us that YHWH said, "Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh (Yahweh), 'This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation'"?

Has "forever" ended? NO! And that "don't use the Lord's Name in vain" thing refers to attributing something to YHWH that He didn't do or say! It's got nothing to do with NOT using His Name!

If we only refer to Him as "G-d" which is how most Jews refer to our ELOHIM, then in my opinion, we are hiding from the world WHO He is. Exodus 23:2 tell us: "Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth" which prohibits the use of alternative names and titles that replace the Name of YHWH and His Mashiyach Yeshua; both are absolute.

Whether it's His "Presence" or His Name – He gave it to Moshe to tell to the people of Israel! And then He said: 'This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation." If you don't wish to use the Name He gave to Moshe, then don't! It's that simple.

But please do not tell the rest of us that we are "using the Lord's name in vain" whenever we say YHWH! And please don't tell us we can't even write it due to some misapplication of Deuteronomy 12:3-4! Using His "Name in vain" would be assigning something to God that He never said or did. We are not to misrepresent His Character or what He stands for. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with NOT using the Name He gave to Moshe when you are glorifying Him when you use it!

For more on this topic please check out our article about the Name of God, or see Carmen Welker’s video #29.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

You're welcome, PM Netanyahu!


You're welcome, PM Netanyahu! We love you and we love Israel. Halleluyah!  Hang in there.  You know how The Book ends! (Please take two minutes to listen to PM Netanyahu’s speech.) 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Discussion with a counter-missionary

EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, a counter-missionary will pose some challenges we can't resist. The following conversation was borrowed from the wall of Jason N Lyn, where tons of Yeshua-bashing takes place:

MIRIAM WROTE: Jason was challenging a specific verse in Luke 24, and that is not at all addressed in your response. Where - chapter and verse - is there any reference in the Tanach about the Messiah rising from the dead on the third day, or repentance in his name being preached?

The bigger question is why all his apostles and disciples DIDN'T KNOW this, especially when the gospels says that HE TOLD THEM before his death - just go back a few chapters in Luke 19:33, where they were told, "they [the Gentiles] will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise."

Let's assume you were told that, back then, and you heard him say that with your own ears. Wouldn't you burn that into your memory so that you knew, and were confident, at the time of his death, that he was going to be resurrected either on the third day or after 3 days and 3 nights (take your pick)? How completely difficult is that to understand or remember when you believe that Jesus is the Messianic King? Even after being told by eye-witnesses that of Jesus was raised from the dead and seen, his 11 apostles chalked it up to OLD WIVES' TALES - "but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them." (Luke 24:11).

My approach, as you probably know, is that the books in the Christian bible are NOT inspired scripture; they have some element of truth mixed in with an unknown amount of fiction. So, for me, Jesus is "off the hook" for anything he is quoted as having said - because he was dead, likely for decades, before the unknown writers of the gospels took up their pens to write contradicting things in his name from their memories.

The "New Testament" needs to be exposed as containing falsehood so that gullible Jews don't, for example, test their faith by drinking poison (Mark 16:18), and so they don't run to a church to get baptized in an effort to stay out of hell. The gospels have a number of threats that say, if you don't believe, you'll be damned, and these threats are lies. There is no commandment to believe that any man is the Messiah when the messianic prophesies remain to be fulfilled.

As Jason said, we gotta watch out for those phony "The bridge is safe" signs. It isn't. It's a slippery slope to idol worship, apostasy, and assimilation.

CARMEN WELKER RESPONDS:

MIRIAM ASKED: “Where - chapter and verse - is there any reference in the Tanach about the Messiah rising from the dead on the third day, or repentance in his name being preached?”

MY RESPONSE: In other words, Miriam is saying: “Show me chapter and verse or I won’t believe it!” The very question presupposes that the answers are elucidated in the Tanakh; yet a complete reading and study of the Tanakh reveals that much of it is not clear at all - about quite a lot!

The counter-missionary crowd is simply abusing the two verses in Luke 24, specifically verses 46 and 47, to claim that “Jesus does not know the Bible” (Jason’s words); when in fact, it is they who clearly don’t know Scripture - or the Messiah! They’ve failed to see that earlier Luke 24:25-27 explains that the proper evidence was revealed to those on the road to Emmaus – it simply was not revealed to “us”!

Consequently no one knows which verses from the Tanakh Yeshua addressed revealing that he would rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance in His name would be preached! Does that mean the verses don’t exist? Of course not. So, what we have to do is turn to the Tanakh with unbiased eyes and ears to see what it reveals. Unfortunately, any two people can read the Tanakh and come away with a divergent understanding. (This is why it took Yeshua to reveal the meaning to those on the road in Luke 24:27!)

Fact is, there are hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Tanakh (Micah 5:2, 6; Zechariah 9:9-10 to cite a couple), and YHWH Himself declared He would be Israel’s salvation (many verses, including Exodus 15:2, Isaiah 45:17, 46:13, etc.); and while some understand “Yeshua” in “salvation”, others don’t see it. So, sadly, there is little agreement on which verses in the Tanakh are Messianic and which are not.

But as to the question, “is there a verse in the Tanakh which suggests the Messiah would die and rise on the 3rd day?” There is, but again, it is up to the reader to see it. Take Hosea 6:1-3:

6:1 “Come, and let us return unto the LORD; for He hath torn, and He will heal us, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. 2 After two days will He revive us, on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence. 3 And let us know, eagerly strive to know the LORD, His going forth is sure as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain that watereth the earth.”

Does this specifically mention Yeshua? No. Does it address that there will be a death with a resurrection on the 3rd day? Yes. Does it ask that YHWH will come to them? Yes. (Since YHWH can’t come to them in His form because no one can look upon Him and live (Exodus 33:20), we realize that YHWH must be “seen” in another form.) It is not that hard to see the Messiah in these verses!

See also Isaiah 53:3-5 and Psalm 16:8-10 which include the prophecy of death and resurrection of the Messiah. And for what it’s worth, the author of Acts (accepted as Luke) said in Acts 17:2-3 that Paul went into Synagogues teaching from the Tanakh how the Messiah had to suffer, die and rise again. But here again, we aren’t told which scriptures Paul would have used from the Tanakh prophecies.

And so, what about “repentance in His name being preached?” Again, WE aren’t TOLD which verses Yeshua explained, but there are many in the Tanakh linking YHWH and Yeshua (as savior and mashiyach) of YHWH. Here are a few which can be understood when one realizes how YHWH can be savior:

Hosea 13:4 “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt; and thou knowest no God but Me, and beside Me there is no saviour (moshia).”

Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour (moshia).”

And here are two sources identifying the Messiah as the Savior: Micah 5:2 & 6; Zechariah 9:9-10.

And in Isaiah 53:1-12 (which, for brevity, I won’t reproduce here), Isaiah reveals details of the Moshia. (Yes, I know the counter-missionaries poo-poo these verses and explain them away but that does not negate what the verses say.)

And Micah 6:6-8 reflects repentance (without using the word) to walk righteously with YHWH.

As Yeshua explained in Luke 24:25, people were foolish and did not comprehend the meaning in the words of the prophets. It should not be surprising that it takes the lifting of blinders for the message to become clear how the Tanakh reveals the Messiah.

By the verses cited here alone, one can conclude that 1) YHWH is the savior, 2) Yeshua is the mechanism, and therefore YHWH and Yeshua are “one”. And wouldn’t you know it, Yeshua actually said that (John 10:30)! When one repents in the name of Yeshua, then they are repenting in the name of YHWH. (Can one repent in the name of YHWH and not Yeshua? Certainly. But since everyone must be redeemed for their individual salvation, and Yeshua is the redeemer, why give up your redemption and only seek forgiveness through repentance?

Repentance, i.e., returning to a state of righteousness through remorse and being forgiven for innocent acts against Torah; and Salvation, i.e., the continual possession of an everlasting life with YHWH through redemption, are two different things. Nowhere in the Tanakh do we find eternal salvation obtained only upon turning from one's sinful behavior through repentance. Eternal salvation in the Tanakh was obtained solely upon turning to YHWH in faith and being redeemed by a blood sacrifice.)

As to the posed “bigger question”, i.e., “why all his apostles and disciples DIDN'T KNOW this, especially when the gospels says that HE TOLD THEM before his death - just go back a few chapters in Luke 19:33 [sic], where they were told, ‘they [the Gentiles] will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.’

(The intended verse is Luke 18:33.) This person is complaining that the disciples are portrayed as having not known the Messiah would be killed and rise despite being told, because a later verse (Luke 24:11) describes the disciples as scoffing at the events. Yet Luke 18 goes on to say in the very next verse: “However, they understood none of this; its meaning had been hidden from them, and they had no idea what he was talking about.” (Curious isn’t it. It’s the same situation still today! Meaning remains hidden.)

So: scripture TELLS us that understanding was being hidden from them. Today someone dares complain that the disciples are portrayed later as not knowing? Come on! This is not actually the “bigger question” at all! This is ignorance! Today, the question only surfaces as a result of not understanding scriptures.

We are told several times in the Gospels that the disciples were having difficulty accepting and comprehending what Yeshua was telling them about who He was and what had to happen. (Again, the same situation remains today!) And this person apparently fails to realize that Yeshua later rebuked the disciples for their unbelief and hardness of heart (Mark 16:14).

As to the rest of the comments, they merit no response as they are simply the ramblings of misguided personal opinion from someone who has already decided, and will likely not change....

Responding to a “sneaky” counter-missionary

Below is our final correspondence with a woman who has over the last week written to our website several times in hopes of converting us away from Y'shua. She has been pretending to be in a "seeking" and "questioning" mode, all the while pushing her "OT-only" agenda down our throats. Well, what she clearly failed to realize is that, unlike many, we KNOW Scripture and are no wishy-washy pushovers, blowing in the wind! Unlike many, we are NOT "seeking." We have read the Bible through MANY times, and know what it says and doesn't say, and no amount of Scripture twisting on someone's part is going to sway us!

We are posting this as a warning to others who may be receiving emails or private messages from someone "seeking your help" to clear up their "confusion about Jesus"... Chances are, the "seeker" is a former Christian converted by Jewish counter-missionaries, who is being used to reach as many as possible for the purposes of taking them away from Y'shua and the NT so they will stop pushing the YHWH/Yeshua/Torah Truth and thus "confuse" some Jews who are seeking Messiah.... BE VIGILANT! DON'T FALL FOR THEIR AGENDA!

Hello Susan,

This will be my final correspondence because I don't have time to engage in a daily pen-pal type of situation where you keep cutting and pasting and reiterating the same things - the Paul bashing, the "God has a better plan for the Jews" ideas, etc. It's clear you're not reading my responses or anything on my website. In other words, you're doing your level best to waste my time in hopes of bringing me around to a skewed theology that pushes "separation" and "elitism" and "OT only" ideology.

You are clearly pushing your agenda, which appears to be to tell us Messianic Believers that God has different rules for different people, and that the NT doesn't apply (i.e., you wish me to forget about that "ONE in Messiah" thing AND ignore passages such as Numbers 15:13-16 where YHWH Himself tells us FOUR TIMES IN A ROW that ALL who accept Him are to do the same as HIS people).

You tell me you're busy studying Talmud, when it's clear from the things you've written, that you really don't yet have a good grasp of Torah, Tanakh OR the "New Testament" - and yet you feel qualified to "teach" me everything you know. You've made it abundantly clear that you're all about "the Jews" and their beliefs, yet, you keep insisting you'll "never leave Jesus!" - which makes absolutely NO sense!

I know from 20 years of experience in challenging counter-missionaries, that you WILL leave Him at some point! Everything you've written to me indicates that you either already have, or you're headed in that direction. And if you WERE Christian, then - like most Christians - you never bothered reading the ENTIRE Bible at the pshat level (plain meaning) where you would have understood the simplicity of who God is, what He expects of HIS people (which includes ALL who accept Him as their ELOHIM); and that He gave us a "rest of the story" via the New Testament which reveals WHO His Divine Messiah is, and which perfectly lines up with Torah - which reveals ALL must be Torah observant AND believe in His Divine Messiah who willingly lowered himself to become our Final Sin Sacrifice/Offering.

Clearly you don't believe that, and it's all because you are hooked on the teachings of an Orthodox Rabbi whose goal is to use former Christians against their own kind.

So, this is it. I wish you well, but I'm done. But, here's a final word for you if you truly are a "Christian" as you proclaim: In my 20 years of experience in challenging Jewish counter-missionaries, I can promise you that you WILL reject him, at some point, because you're already hooked into the "Judaism minus Jesus" mindset - which is a HUGE mistake and I pray you would re-read the entire Bible WITHOUT the "help" or advice of your Orthodox Rabbi BEFORE going over that cliff.

That Jewish Rabbi whose teachings you're so in love with - he is just "using you." He will never accept you as a Jew or an equal, no matter how much "converting" you may do! You're his "patsy" - someone who is willing to do exactly what you've done here with me, in your efforts to pretend to be seeking while secretly pushing the "OT-only" ideology down my throat. Scripture doesn't teach "elitism" - it teaches ONE IN MESSIAH, same God, same rules. Please let that sink in!

I wish you well.

Blessings,

Monday, December 4, 2017

Countering MORE “counter-missionary” nonsense!

antimis6

We don't believe the words in this screen shot for a second, do you? It's just another of the counter-missionaries' attempts to keep Y'shua out of the picture! WHY would Jacob - after 20-some years - have been fighting his brother, Esau, who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, and married pagan women? When Jacob "fought" this entity, he hadn't even seen Esau yet! And HOW could Esau, the mere man be responsible for changing Jacob's name to Israel? No...this fight was with God!

Note verse 24 where "some man wrestled with him until daybreak." As we continue reading, you should have noticed that this couldn't be just any man; it was Yeshua, the arm of YHWH (Isaiah 53:1) sent in the form of a man to wrestle with Ya'akov!

How do we know this? Please refer back to Genesis 32:3-5 and also Genesis 35:1 where YHWH says: "Get up, go up to Beit-El and live there, and make there an altar to God, who appeared to you when you fled 'Esav your brother. (Genesis 32:3-5)"; plus nobody but YHWH has the power to rename someone - especially the man who would end up giving birth to what became known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel!

Plus, as we read on, Ya'akov himself says:

Genesis 32: 29 Ya'akov asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he answered, "Why are you asking about my name?" and blessed him there. 30 Ya'akov called the place P'ni-El [face of God], "Because I have seen God face to face, yet my life is spared." 31 As the sun rose upon him he went on past P'ni-El, limping at the hip. 32 This is why, to this day, the people of Isra'el do not eat the thigh muscle that passes along the hip socket - because the man struck Ya'akov's hip at its socket.

This is confirmed in our Haftarah reading in Hosea 12:4-5 (3-4 in some versions):

Hosea 12: 3 "In the womb he took his brother by the heel; in the strength of his manhood he fought with God. 4 Yes, he fought with an angel and won..."

We know from Exodus 33:20 that nobody can look upon God without dying, and so YHWH in His Mercy and Grace, sent His "Son" in His place. If this doesn't bring tears to your eyes....

So here comes that "million dollar question" that is surely on everyone's mind:

"You believe 'the man' that Ya'akov was wrestling was Yeshua, yet in the Hosea reading it refers to Ya'akov wrestling with an angel. Yeshua is higher than the angels in that He is ONE with YHWH and he came from Him, so why would he be called an angel? Angels don't 'forgive' or 'save'...."

One possible answer is: Perhaps Ya'akov didn't have the words to describe exactly "whom" he was fighting and saw the entity as an angel. In the Genesis account, Ya'akov said he saw a "man" and yet called him "my lord"....Hosea is simply describing the event as if it was a spiritual thing. And don't forget that Yeshua comes long AFTER Hosea, so what else is Hosea going to describe Him as, except as an angel?

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Some quick facts about “Shabbat”

As another Shabbat comes to an end, I just wanted to make a quick comment about "Shabbat", which is the Fourth Commandment (of the Aseret HaDibrot - Ten Words/Commandments) that YHWH spoke to Israel.

The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is DALET, the Door - and it just so happens that the Shabbat is a "door" into the Kingdom of Elohim (Matthew 16:19, Isaiah 66:2, Ezekiel 44:24, Zechariah 14:16, etc.).

Interestingly, Y’shua, the Word of the Living Elohim, is ALSO the "Door" or the "Gate" (John 10:9-16). NOBODY comes to the Father except through THAT Door! (John 14:6)

Please remember that Shabbat is "eternal" and not for "the Jews only,” but for ALL Believers (see scriptures such as Numbers 15:13-16). All true disciples of Y’shua are able to enter into YHWH’s Shabbat as the “Bride” of Mashiyach (Messiah) from Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset, according to Revelation 21:9; Hosea 2; Jeremiah 17; Isaiah 56; 58; 62; 66; Ezekiel 46; Psalm 92, etc

Friday, December 1, 2017

Parashah 8: Vayislach (He sent) Genesis 32:4 through 36:43

Shabbat shalom, everyone! A synopsis of this week's Torah study can be found on our website. In the previous Torah portion we saw Ya'akov (Jacob) fleeing from his father-in-law Lavan as he heads back to his homeland and his own father. Unfortunately, he still needed to face his twin brother, Esav (Esau), who squandered his his birthright in exchange for a bowl of lentil soup (Genesis 25), and later, getting his father Yitz'chak (Isaac, the second Patriarch) into giving him (Ya'akov) the blessing of the firstborn (Genesis 27).

Please read Genesis 32:4 - 22 to get a feel for Ya'akov's anxiety and frustration about meeting Esav for the first time in more than 20 years.

This week's parashah is exciting on several levels because we get to see YHWH's "grand plan" in birthing Israel as a people and a nation! To see how it all unfolded, please read our synopsis AND the actual Torah portions, etc. mentioned in our article.

Live feed showing Rabid anti-Semitism against the Jews

These anti-Semites in this live video fee who  protesting "the Jews” are completely IGNORANT of Scripture, but yet they're out there "protesting"... LOST, PATHETIC Bible illiterates! Perhaps they would do well to READ the Bible for a change?

"White Supremacists" like to justify their hatred of the Jews because "the Jews killed Jesus." Perhaps they need to ask themselves: Who nailed Him to the cross? It was the Romans! Why was He nailed to the cross? Because He offered Himself up as the FINAL SIN SACRIFICE for all sinners! Why did He agree die? For the SIN OF ALL! If Yeshua hadn't done this, then we would ALL be headed for hell - including the "White Supremacists" who wouldn't even have a "Jesus" if it weren't for "the Jews"....

Let's always remember that Yeshua HAD to die to offer eternal life to the believers of this world. Let's remember that if God hadn't scattered the Jews, then nobody on earth, except tiny Israel would ever have known about YHWH, our Creator! There certainly wouldn't be any "Christians" because - had they never heard of YHWH - they never would have heard about His Son Yeshua who came to die in exchange for our sins!

Let's always remember that God gave us a new (or rather, "renewed" covenant; NOT a new Torah! Covenants can change; YHWH's laws do not!

Let's also remember that the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is the unfolding of YHWH's "Big Picture". HE is God; WE are His Creation. He tells us what to do; our job is to obey. When we obey, we reap God's blessings. When we disobey, we end up with only our big toes dipped in God's "swimming pool" and staying on the sidelines while the TRUE believers who have immersed themselves with Truth are being used to further His ultimate agenda - which is to usher in His Kingdom.