Public Service Announcement

OK, after researching things, I have decided to return to my original viewpoint of Yeshuah being the Messiah, but there are some revisions to my viewpoint:
The only Scripture is:

The five books of Torah

• Bereshit


• Shemot


• Vayyiqra


• Bamidbar


• Devarim

The eight books of Nevi'im

• Yehoshua


• Shoftim


• Shmu'el


• Melakhim


• Yeshayahu


• Yirmiyahu


• Yehezq'el


• Trei Asar

The eleven books of Ketuvim

• Tehillim


• Mishlei


• Iyyov


• Shir ha-Shirim


• Ruth


• Eikhah


• Kohelet


• Esther


• Daniel


• Ezra


• Divrei ha-Yamim

And the three Gospels

• Matthew


• Mark


• Luke

Also, I have come to the conclusion that, per Prophecy, Yeshuah was NOT born of a Virgin, but rather this was an err in translation. Yeshuah was fully human, yet sinless. Also, his death was not to save us from sin, but rather his life was to bring us to Torah.

Working on things

OK, I'm going through one of those nice spiritual journeys where everything gets re-examined and old ideas are abandoned and new ones are formed :P

Anyways, once I manage to work through the issues, I'll be sure to come back with a whole slew of posts to help reveal the truth!

Cain

After Cain killed Abel, and G-d sent him elsewhere, he lamented about how everyone would treat him. (Gen 4:14)

It is also known Cain found a wife while he was exiled (Gen 4:17).

He was exiled. He was scared about how the other peoples would treat him (although, supposedly the only other people in existence at that time were Adam, Eve, and him). He found a wife somewhere in his journeys.


So, my question is, is it possible that other peoples had been created as well, outside of Eden, and this is who Cain was referring to.

The Resurrection as Told by John

Look at the resurrection as told by Matthew and as told by John. Separately, they are both feasible, but if you look at them side by side.... well, you'll see.

In Matthew, the two Mary's go to the tomb, are greeted by the an Angel who rolls away the stone from the tomb so that they might see that Jesus's body is not there. The Angel then proclaims Jesus has risen from the dead. The two Mary's are then to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

While on the way, the two Marys run into Jesus himself, whom they both worship and whom then repeats the Angel's instructions.


Now.... let's move onto John. Once again, there is an empty tomb, but that is about the only similarity.

In John, only Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb. There is no Angel to greet her, and she fears that the body has been stolen. Having no reason to believe otherwise, she runs to the disciples to inform them of the grave robbery.

According to Matthew, both Mary's meet the Angels and the resurrected Jesus himself before seeing the disciples, yet according to John this is obviously not the case.

Actually, even more contradictions abound. Matthew has Roman guards placed at the tomb to ensure the body is not stolen. Yet Matthew's guards have no place in John's accounting.
Christian evangelists use these guards as a means to say that the resurrection was the only reason his body was not at the tomb... but yet, according to John, the more likely possibility appeared to be the body was stolen, as there were no guards.

According to John, Mary returns to the tomb to find two Angels inside, and without any reason to believe the body hadn't been stolen, Mary confronts the Angels, adamant to find the location of the body. Then Jesus himself arrives, who Mary mistakes for a gardener, and she confronts him, wondering if he is the one who stole the body.
It is only then that Mary realizes she is speaking to the resurrected Jesus.

Matthew has the Angels telling Mary about Jesus before she sees him, and only goes to the tomb once, and yet according to John, Mary doesn't find out until a second visit to the tomb, when she runs into Jesus himself.


And so, as I have asked before, is John infallible, or is Matthew infallible?
The two accounts of the crucifixion and the resurrection are hopelessly irreconcilable. They cannot both be infallible.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, yet John remains the odd-man out with an account that contradicts the other three.

Passover and the Crucifixion, as told by John

OK, well, I'm just going to jump right on into it.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. Yeshuah was crucified on the next day, so he was crucified on the first day of Passover,or the 15th of Nissan.

However, the Book of John reads, "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover . . . . Then he handed him over to them to be crucified." (19:14-16)

Wait... so he was crucified on the 14th of Nissan then? OK.... surely he wasn't crucified on both days was he? That'd be kinda hard to pull off...

Actually, the difference between these two dates isn't something that can easily be explained away either... There is a LOT that is thrown off throughout the rest of the Book of John that now becomes contradictory to the other three gospels.

For one, in John's version, the bread and the wine is not included because that is part of the Seder, and the Last Supper was the day before the Seder. So Communion as we know it does not exist according to John.

Also, when Judas leaves the meal, in John's account the disciples assume he is going to purchase the Passover meal, but according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they had just eaten the very meal Judas was going to buy. Were they still hungry then?

Also, in John 18:28 the Jews do not want to enter Pilate's house so as to avoid ceremonial uncleanness so that they could still eat the Passover which Matthew, Mark, and Luke say they have already eaten.



Thus, the 4th Gospel of Jesus Christ is in question. If this particular Gospel is inspired by G-d, why does it contradict the other 3 Gospels?
This doesn't mean the other 3 Gospels aren't infallible, but the Book of John sure isn't, and thus it lacks the crucial qualities required of Scripture.

This isn't the only way it contradicts the other 3, either. Be on the lookout for my next post : The Resurrection as told by John

Eloi! Eloi! Lama sabachthani?

My G-d! My G-d! Why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

Many Christians recognize this as being some of the last words of Yeshuah on the cross.
It comes from Psalms 22:1, where it is written as “Eli, Eli, lamah azovtani . . . .”
My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? O my G-d, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.


I have a question, if Yeshuah were G-d, why exactly is he crying out that G-d has forsaken him?
It's kinda hard to forsake yourself, is it not?

Ka'ari

Psalms 22:16 is commonly translated as saying :

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

The Hebrew word used where pierced is is the word ka'ari.

But wait, ka'ari does not mean pierced. In fact, out of all the places this occurs in the Bible, this is the only place it is translated as meaning pierced.

Ka'ari is also found in the verse Isaiah 38:13
I waited patiently till dawn, but like a lion he broke all my bones; day and night you made an end of me.

Here, replacing it with the faulty "pierced" translation, makes absolutely no sense.

Moshe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus (blek), argues that it is supposed to be pierced, and that the word is actually supposed to be kaaru (kaf, alef, raish, vav), and not ka'ari (kaf, alef, raish, yod). After all, yod and vav look similar to each other. But anyone who knows anything about the Hebrew language well tell you that not only does kaaru not translate to pierced as many evangelists insist, kaaru isn't even a real word!
There is a similar word, karu (kaf, raish, vav). But this doesn't translate to pierced either.

In fact, if it is to translate to pierced, the Hebrew texts always use the word daqar or ratza.

So, this is just one place it has been proven the Bible has been translated incorrectly over the years. Whether intentionally done so or not, I do not know.
Are there others? Well, we will just have to wait and see.

Yeshuah was NOT the Messiah

Yeshuah was not the only person to claim to be the Messiah. All of them performed nice tricks, raised up followers, and were later stoned and beat to death. And yet none of them bore the sins for all mankind. Yeshuah is no different.

YESHUAH DID NOT FULFILL PROPHECY

• Yeshuah did not build the Third Temple, as Prophecy says the Messiah will (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
  
• Yeshuah did not gather all the Jews back to Israel, as Prophecy says the Messiah will (Isaiah 43:5-6)
  
• Yeshuah did not usher in an era of world peace, as Prophecy says the Messiah will (Isaiah 2:4)
  
• Yeshuah did not bring the entire world to G-d, as Prophecy says the Messiah will (Zechariah 14:9)

Christians hold to a Second Coming, yet Prophecy says all of these will be fulfilled outright.

MISTRANSLATIONS

• The Messiah had to be descended from David on his father's side... but Yeshuah was "born of a virgin" (Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1)
  Isaiah 7:14, which is translated as to requiring a virgin birth, is mistranslated. Alma is used a few other times in Tanakh, and it never once refers to a virgin but just an adolescent female, virgin or not.
• Psalms 22:16 is commonly mistranslated as "They have pierced my hands and feet" but it uses the word ki-ari... like a lion. When properly translated, it reads "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet"
• Isaiah 53 is commonly interpreted as meaning the Messiah will be a suffering servant, but this in incorrect. Isaiah 53 follows Isaiah 52 in that it is referring to ISRAEL, and NOT the Messiah.

FALSE THEOLOGY

• The Trinity - G-d as Three (Matthew 28:19)
  "Hear O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)
• Man as G-d (John 10:30)
  "G-d is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19)

I will close with saying that while Yeshuah may not be Messiah, he has served his role. Scripture states that the Messiah will bring the entire world to Torah, how much easier this will be when most of the world already follow a watered-down version of it!

As relating to the Exodus

Recently doubt has been given as to the validity of the Exodus as given in G-d's Word.


Some people would argue that just because there is an absence of evidence does not mean it never happened.
Some people would say that there was one tribe of Israelites who was appointed to clean up each place they stopped at, thus wiping away any possible evidence.

Both of those may be true. However, it is not the lack of evidence of their travel, but rather the lack of evidence of the arrival that truly casts doubt on the Exodus scene as literally described.
Surveys of ancient settlements (such as pottery and etc) suggest that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus, which is said to be sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C.
If people had suddenly arrived from Egypt, then their pottery and stuff would be different than that of the native Canaanites, yet no archaeological evidence shows this to be the case.

If you look at both history and the Bible, a different possibility occurs. Exodus happened. But it was not quite as large scale as previously though, but rather small-scale.
There are various rabbis and the like coming to the same conclusion. Some have went public, and others say something along the lines of "It is true, but not something that should be said too publicly."
And that is among the Jewish scholars who were encouraged to look into this stuff!
Among Christians, it is considered a deep sin to let scientific and archaeological evidence cast question on faith. Many are too close minded to even consider it, and those that do are seen as non-Christian heathens.

However,
1) A tradition cannot make a historical claim and then refuse for it to be evaluated by history if it can be done. There are some parts of the Bible that rely on faith alone, and others that correlate to history.
2) Facts should be able to line up with faith. If one fails to line up with the other, question should be brought to both. G-d gave us brains for a reason people, and for it to be insisted people should not make a study and open-minded inquiry to this area unintentionally cast doubt on G-d by implying He gave us brains but does not want us to use them.
3) Our faith should not rest on whether the Exodus was small or large-scale. At Passover, it is said we should see ourselves as if we were part of the Exodus. Whether the Exodus was 3 people or 3 million people, we are still able to do this.

Let me conclude with saying this:
In Jeremiah 16:14-15, it is prophesied that the liberation from Babylon will be more important than the Exodus. This is interpreted as inferring that when the Messiah comes, the history of the Exodus will fade. That does not mean we should not remember the Passover and the Exodus, of course not! But we also need to remember it is not the specifics of history, but rather liberation that is the central theme of faith.

Homosexual Adopting

OK, this is another issue that has been annoying me here lately.

I agree that homosexuality is a sin. G-d's Word is quite clear on this issue. But yet you must realize this is a political issue, not a religious one. I do not believe anyone truly needs that much convincing that in the US at least, there is a separation of church and state. You need more reasoning than "They live in sin!" to exclude gays from adopting children. . . VALID reasons and not gross over-generalizations such as they are child abusers or some inane crap like that (There are at least as many straight child abusers as gay child abusers).

So the gays live in sin? Does that mean we are to remove every child from every home that does not completely rely on the Word? Perhaps in a theocracy we could get away with it, but as far as politics and the government go, the constitution is a far more powerful device than the Bible.

I am all for evangelism and leading the world to G-d, but unless you can find a legal, constitutional reason to do something, QUIT shoving your beliefs upon areas that have no business intermingling with religion.

The only reason to keep gays from adopting is out of mass homophobia and hypocrisy. Rather than going and pointing out their sins and why they should not have children, get off the high horse and evaluate yourself and your own attitude.