Was Gen 15:6 mistranslated?, Was Abram actually imputing righteousness to YHWH? Options

[Tom]

I am please to hear you have read the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as many forum contributors have not done so.

Yes, I think it is essential that researchers first read the works of Josephus as a prerequisite to any meaningful or scholarly discussion of ancient Judaea. Another essential work that should be read is Tertullian’s “Against Marcion”, as it shows Paul was not always accepted at the same level as the apostles that were personally and publicly appointed by Yahshua Himself.


I have noticed that you have chosen to use the word “Jew” to refer to any and all of the 12 tribes of the ISRAELITES. The term “Jew” is a modern term that was never used in ancient times. It is much more accurate to use the term “Judean” or “Judahite” to refer to the 3 tribes of the House of Judah (Judah, Benjamin, and a portion of Levi) or to the tribe of Judah alone, respectively. Modern “Jews” have encouraged this confusion by insisting on calling all of the 12 tribes by the name of “Jews”. They act as if the 10 tribes of the northern House of Israel are gone forever, but that is not possible if the Houses of Judah and Israel are to be reunited when we enter the time of the New Covenant and per Jer 31-31-34.

I have also noticed that you tend to take Paul at his word and thereby believe he is telling the truth when he says he is a Benjamite. When dealing with Paul, it is best to consider his claims to true Israelite ethnicity as mere claims rather than established facts. It is also very naive to assume Paul was once a devout follower of the Torah as a person affiliated with the High Priesthood. Do not forget that Yahshua condemned the Herodian High Priesthood for substituting the words of the Talmud for the law of the Torah. Please also notice that Josephus reminds us that the Edomite King Herod restaffed the Sanhedrin with his own personal appointments after removing the priests who were descended from the royal Hasmonean lineage. It is also naïve to believe that Paul’s alleged conversion was an authentic event rather than a contrived means of infiltrating the early Christian movement. I strongly suggest you read “Paul as Herodian” and “James, Brother of Jesus” by Robert Eisenman and then reconsider your viewpoint.

When you diminish the significance of Herodian Edomites among the leadership of state of Judaea, you are overlooking the fact that Edomites are the one group of people who are the perpetual enemies of Israel, and their final fate is told in Obadiah 1:18.

No other tribe of people is the object of so much condemnation, as per: http://www.ldolphin.org/edom.html


When you say there is one law for both the Israelite and the stranger living among the Israelites you are ignoring there were some tribes that Israel was commanded to avoid at all costs, as per Deuteronomy 7. You are also ignoring the fact that the English word ‘stranger’ is rendered from 8 different Hebrew roots that refer to entirely different groups of people.





IN THE OLD TESTAMENT there are eight words which are translated as stranger, strangers, foreigner, sojourners or aliens and some clarification is necessary. Without this clarification we have translations which make the Bible appear contradictory and inconsistent.
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT there are ten words which are variously translated, so that it's clear that each word in the original has a different meaning. Some of the New Testament quotations are from Old Testament origins and therefore they show a close alliance between the two languages. Specifically, the Hebrew words goor, ger, zur, magur, nekar, nokriy, towshab have very different meanings, so translating them all as "stranger" caused the original distinction between to be lost in the King James Translation of the Holy Bible, as well as in all following translations which followed the original mistakes made in the KJV.
Gur are strangers who are Israelites travelling in foreign lands.
H1481
gu^r
goor
A primitive root; properly to turn aside from the road (for a lodging or any other purpose), that is, sojourn (as a guest); also to shrink, fear (as in a strange place); also to gather for hostility (as afraid): - abide, assemble, be afraid, dwell, fear, gather (together), inhabitant, remain, sojourn, stand in awe, (be) stranger, X surely
Gen 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
Exo 6:4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were
strangers.
Psa 105:12 When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and
strangers in it.
Ger are strangers or guests who are fellow Israelites.
H1616
ge^r ge^yr
gare, gare
From H1481; properly a guest; by implication a foreigner: - alien, sojourner, stranger.
Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Exo 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
Exo 18:3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange [nokriy, #5237] land:
Exo 23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Lev 17:8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,
Eze 47:23 And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.
2Sa 1:13 And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence [art] thou? And he answered, I [am] the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.
This Amalekite or son of an Amalekite who had slain Saul was attempting to ingratiate himself to David by referring to his Amalekite father as a "ger". David didn't accept this characterization and instead slew him, saying: "Thy blood [be] upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed". The Amalekite proved that an Amalekite cannot be a "ger" by slaying the king of Israel, wounded or not. By slaying the Amalekite, David made it clear that neither Israelites or he ever considered Amalekites to be "ger".
Zur are strangers who are undesirable to or enemies of Israelites.
H2114
zu^r
zoor
A primitive root; to turn aside (especially for lodging); hence to be a foreigner, strange, profane; specifically (active participle) to commit adultery: - (come from) another (man, place), fanner, go away, (e-) strange (-r, thing, woman).
Num 1:51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
Exo 29:33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy.
Lev 22:12 If the priest's daughter also be [married] unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
Num 16:40 [To be] a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which [is] not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.
Isa 1:7 Your country [is] desolate, your cities [are] burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and [it is] desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
Eze 28:10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord GOD.
Joe 3:17 So shall ye know that I [am] the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.
Oba 1:11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou [wast] as one of them.
Magur are strangers who are either Israelites or non-Israelite travellers.
H4033
ma^gu^r ma^gu^r
maw-goor', maw-goor'
From H1481 in the sense of lodging; a temporary abode; by extension a permanent residence: - dwelling, pilgrimage, where sojourn, be a stranger. Compare H4032.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 28:4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.
Gen 37:1 And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan.
Eze 20:38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
Nekar are strangers or foreigners who are non-Israelites who are put away.
H5236
ne^ka^r
nay-kawr'
From H5234; foreign, or (concretely) a foreigner, or (abstractly) heathendom: - alien, strange (+ -er).
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
Neh 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.
Eze 44:7 In that ye have brought [into my sanctuary] strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, [even] my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
Isaiah 56:3 "Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people".
Note that "his people" are the Israelites, and that there are a number of conditions for "nekar" to receive "a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters [read: Israelites]":
1) join themselves to the LORD.
2) love the name of the LORD.
3) be his servants.
4) keepeth the sabbath from polluting it.
5) taketh hold of my covenant.
6) offer "burnt offerings and their sacrifices".
Is there a single verse in the entire Holy Bible, or is there a single instance today across the entire globe, where a single "nekar" ever met these conditions? No. The only thing "nekar" ever accomplished was to prevent Israelites from upholding their Torah [read: God's Law]. Furthermore, Isaiah's entire point here is that "His watchmen", who are appointed to keep the "nekar" out, or KICK them out as Nehemiah did above, not place them above "his people", the "sons and daughters" of Israel, had failed miserably in that task:
Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
Nokriy are strangers who are adulterous, or foreigners, non-Israelites who are not brothers.
H5237
nokri^y
nok-ree'
From H5235 (second form); strange, in a variety of degrees and applications (foreign, non-relative, adulterous, different, wonderful): - alien, foreigner, outlandish, strange (-r, woman).
Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
Deu 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Ezr 10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, [one] of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.

[zionprophet]

Hi,

I take Paul's words in the same light as I treat other ancient writers' works in that we observe merely what they say, and look for consistencies amongst other ancient writers. We have no outright condemnation by the acknowledged Apostles against Paul, and that should at least be noteworthy. If Paul had infiltrated the early jewish church with some other agenda, we would expect to see at least something spoken of against him by James or Peter or the other apostles, but we do not find any record of this. In accordance with scriptural direction, a man is not condemned unless solid proof is provided against him, and that proof should be no less than the testimony of at least two witnesses. There is a complete absence of this in ancient writings in respect of Paul, therefore any condemnation of Paul without the required biblical standard of proof is unjustified.

As for Robert Eisenman's 'Paul the Herodian', he more or less concedes himself that he has no conclusive proof, just some obscure little quotes here and there from other writings without anything substantial or anything that could be considered or offered as evidence beyond reason of doubt.

As for anything written by tertullian, it should be treated with a pinch of salt IMHO. Tertullian became a follower of Montanism, who, like Marcion, proclaimed his own version and understandings of the scripture. Montanis and Marcion were both charismatic leaders of their time, with many writers acknowledging that marcionism was very popular and had a large following.

Marcion's teachings also focused along the lines of the teachings of Paul, so it is hardly surprising to me that you should refer to Tertullians condemnation of him, which in itself could be considered a condemnation of Paul by proxy. However, Tertullian, the Montanist, is not without his own flaws being a follower of Montanis, the self proclaimed prophet with his two female sidekicks, one of whom proclaimed to be the living embodiment of the holy spirit.

The only thing that is clear of these people - Tertullian, Marcion and Montanis, is that they clearly had different teachings and beliefs from each other, kinda like Pharisees and Sadducees, Catholics and Protestants and so on. They were two opposing sects, both of whom had teachings and beliefs inconsistent with scripture. That Tertullian was a follower and believer of one of them (Montanis), should be noted when we consider his condemnation of the opposing sect of Marcionism.

I acknowledge and don't disagree with your assertions anent jews/israelites/hebrews, and of course the varying terms and interpretations relating to 'strangers', and I touched upon this by identifying our difficulties relating to the various interpretations and ways in which words have been translated. Much of this controversy was believed by early Israelite scholars to have been caused by the translation of the hebrew scriptures into the Greek, what we now call the Septuagint Text, circa 285 BC, for it's inclusion in the Great Library in Alexandria, Egypt. It is recorded than many Israelites in fact mourned this feat and called it one of the greatest travesties of their long and troubled history.

The testimony of Paul is no less credible than the testimony of Peter or James or John. Neither of these writers actually condemn Paul, the only difference being that they were believed to have walked and talked with the messiah.

I could be really obscure and say that we only have the testimony of this small group of men themselves, ie: James, Peter and John, that the were in fact the true apostles of Jesus, and this claim itself could be considered spurious when we consider that the gospels record a story that there was infighting amongst some of them to see who would be the greatest. All we have for the entirety of the new testament is a series of letters or tales written by less than a dozen men. For everything that supposedly took place in 1st century Palestine, there is so little evidential writing concerning it. However, we treat these writings as fact, because they appear to be consistent and corroborative of each other, and this forms the basis of the whole era of christianity that was spawned after it.

I am not an open supporter of Paul, I am simply not a condemner of Paul, because I have no conclusive evidence or proof of anything to condemn him for. To say that he misquoted the OT, the Law, or whatever, puts him in a classification with the vast majority of the Israelites of his day.

I believe that the standards of faith and allegiance never deviated from those written in the tanakh, since this was the only scriptures that the apostles themselves had. Their own writings were nothing more than letters, so who do we in fact blame for them having become 'accepted scripture' ? We can't blame Paul, or James, Peter, John, Jude or any of the crew I may have missed, because we know that they were not responsible.

The man charged with that feat was Eusebius, under orders from Constantine.

[Tom]

1 If Paul had infiltrated the early Jewish church with some other agenda, we would expect to see at least something spoken of against him by James or Peter or the other apostles, but we do not find any record of this.

2 As for Robert Eisenman's 'Paul the Herodian', he more or less concedes himself that he has no conclusive proof, just some obscure little quotes here and there from other writings without anything substantial or anything that could be considered or offered as evidence beyond reason of doubt.


3 The testimony of Paul is no less credible than the testimony of Peter or James or John. Neither of these writers actually condemn Paul, the only difference being that they were believed to have walked and talked with the messiah.

4 I am not an open supporter of Paul, I am simply not a condemner of Paul, because I have no conclusive evidence or proof of anything to condemn him for. To say that he misquoted the OT, the Law, or whatever, puts him in a classification with the vast majority of the Israelites of his day.

I will take the time to address your principle objections for the benefit of our readers.

1 You forget too easily that the Catholic church burned or banned many papyri of opposing doctrines in an effort to defeat criticism of their approved canon, and many of these documents are gone forever. HOWEVER, many documents that were thought to be destroyed have recently been found and are proving to be an embarrassment to the Catholic church. If you take the time to read "Jesus Words Only", you will be able to examine many of these documents.

2 When you dismiss over 1000 pages of Eisenman's work in "James, Brother of James" as a study with only a few "obscure little quotes here and there from other writings. . .", you prove to me you have not read his book or seriously considered his thesis or mine. . . . and so I wonder if I should take to time to seriously consider your criticisms of his work.

3. If you just take the time to read "Jesus Words Only", you will find many good reasons to see Paul's
testimony is far less credible than that of the original apostles. Have you read this book yet? It is available free online at http://www.jesuswordsonly.com

4. Neither is there 100% conclusive proof for just about any event in the antiquities of Mankind, or other events in the canonized Bible, but the preponderance of the evidence, should you choose to examine it, weighs heavily against the apostleship of Paul of Tarsus. Once you read "Jesus Words Only", I think you may even think the case against Paul convicts him beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you do decide to read "Jesus Words Only" or "Jesus, Brother of James" and then wish to discuss specific issues addressed in those books, I will be happy to converse with you.

[Tom]

Meanwhile, I have found some other verses that support the alternate view of the meaning of Gen 15:6:

Neh 9:7 Thou [art] the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;


Neh 9:8 And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give [it, I say], to his seed, and hast performed thy words (or promises to Abram); for thou [art] righteous:

This supports the view, that Nehemiah perceived Gen 15:6 to mean that righteousness was being imputed to HaShem rather than Abram, (as the traditional translation alleges).

[Tom]

Other translations make it even more clear that YHWH fulfilled His promises to Abram because YHWH was righteous, as per my alternate translation of Gen 15:6 in which Abram praises the righteousness of Yhwh rather than the reverse.



NLT - Neh 9:8 - When he had proved himself faithful, you made a covenant with him to give him and his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Girgashites. And you have done what you promised, for you are always true to your word. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust



NIV - Neh 9:8 - You found his heart faithful to you, and you made a covenant with him to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Girgashites. You have kept your promise because you are righteous.

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society


“You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles



NASB - Neh 9:8 - "You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give {him} the land of the Canaanite, Of the Hittite and the Amorite, Of the Perizzite, the Jebusite and the Girgashite-- To give {it} to his descendants. And You have fulfilled Your promise, For You are righteous.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation



RSV - Neh 9:8 - and thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Per'izzite, the Jeb'usite, and the Gir'gashite; and thou hast fulfilled thy promise, for thou art righteous.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

[zionprophet]

I will take the time to address your principle objections for the benefit of our readers.

1 You forget too easily that the Catholic church burned or banned many papyri of opposing doctrines in an effort to defeat criticism of their approved canon, and many of these documents are gone forever. HOWEVER, many documents that were thought to be destroyed have recently been found and are proving to be an embarrassment to the Catholic church. If you take the time to read "Jesus Words Only", you will be able to examine many of these documents.

2 When you dismiss over 1000 pages of Eisenman's work in "James, Brother of James" as a study with only a few "obscure little quotes here and there from other writings. . .", you prove to me you have not read his book or seriously considered his thesis or mine. . . . and so I wonder if I should take to time to seriously consider your criticisms of his work.

3. If you just take the time to read "Jesus Words Only", you will find many good reasons to see Paul's
testimony is far less credible than that of the original apostles. Have you read this book yet? It is available free online at http://www.jesuswordsonly.com

4. Neither is there 100% conclusive proof for just about any event in the antiquities of Mankind, or other events in the canonized Bible, but the preponderance of the evidence, should you choose to examine it, weighs heavily against the apostleship of Paul of Tarsus. Once you read "Jesus Words Only", I think you may even think the case against Paul convicts him beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you do decide to read "Jesus Words Only" or "Jesus, Brother of James" and then wish to discuss specific issues addressed in those books, I will be happy to converse with you.

Hello,

Thank you for your comments. I too shall be gracious enough to address your principal objections to my own comments, for the benefit of your readers.

I have read much material of the early church and what the catholic church done, and I certainly do not disagree with you on most of your conclusions anent this. However what exactly they did destroy is no longer with us, therefore nothing can be presumed or assumed. We cannot second guess what may or may not have been destroyed by the Roman's and thereafter seek to draw our own opinions or theses on this basis to support condemnation of any man. It is contrary to the whole ethos and some direct commands of Torah.

I have not read Robert Eisenman's book nor am I aware of anything which he directly or indrectly may claim in this particular book, however I did read this page by Mr Eisenman himself:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

An this is what Mr Eisenman states quite clearly:
"THOUGH none of this information is precise or secure enough to draw any clear-cut or final conclusions, nonetheless it does raise interesting questions and opens new directions not heretofore explored. We do not deny that Paul considered himself Jewish. "

and he concludes thus:
"Though these matters are hardly capable of proof, and we have, in fact, proved nothing, still no other explanations better explain the combination of points we raise. One thing cannot be denied, Paul's Herodian connections make the manner of his sudden appearances and disappearances, his various miraculous escapes, his early power in Jerusalem, his Roman citizenship, his easy relations with kings and governors, and the venue and terms of his primary missionary activities comprehensible in a manner no other reconstruction even approaches."

It was upon this testimony by Mr Eisenman that my comments were based, and I think they speak for themselves. This testimony by Mr Eisenman was made in Spring 1996 according to his own words, and Mr Eisenman therafter must have researched new material, wrote and published his book all in under a year. Given the time taken for research of a book like this with over 1000 pages, pre-publication requirements, proof reading etc., there must have been a very short gap between the two, so what does that say about Mr Eisenman ? If his book does indeed portray a contrary notion (and I do not know one way or the other whether it does), however I can say with confidence that if he does present a contrary opinion, then he has hardly given himself sufficient time to weigh up the whole matter seriously from the volume of material that would need to be analysed in this very short space of time and his earlier testimony clearly states he 'proves nothing', but I can happily agree that he does indeed spin a good story. ( re also http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html concerning his book )

Mr Eisenman was one of the early opponents to the attempts by the Catholic Church to try and keep a firm hold on the Dead Sea Scrolls and it was predominantly Cathloic priests that were charged with the task of interpreting them early on. I think some strong personal bias is evident in much of his writings against the catholic church, and there can be no doubt that they hijacked Paul's writings for their own agenda. However, as I noted in a previous post, do we blame Paul for this, or the Catholic Church ? We can no more blame Paul for the way the Catholic Church twisted his writings any more than we could condemn Moses for the way the later jewish sages wrung out their own interpretations of the Torah, and to this day still ascribe it to Moses as the 'oral traditions'. I have personally witnessed some of the present day personal affects of this during my own time in Israel. On one stay we had a jewish talmudic abider who was married and his wife had only just given birth living next door to us. It was common for the man to come to my door on shabbat at a time he was experiencing difficulty with his air conditioning. Their teachings forbid him from switching it on during shabbat, so they switch it on the evening before and leave it on until after shabbat. However, this poor guys kept cutting out, and he had to come into to get me to go into his house and flick a little switch! Goodness knows what might have happened to the poor baby if I did not live next door to him as the heat and humidity level can be quite suffocating without any air conditioning.

I did take the liberty of reading the other book you referred to - 'jesuswordsonly'. It's premise is that Paul is a false prophet, and further rests on the assumption that Paul seduces people to follow after other gods, and quotes frequently from Deuteronomy 13:1-5. To do proper justice of examining this, we would require to look at Deauteronomy 13:1-5

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Deuteronomy clearly warns against a false prophet who could seduce the people with signs and wonders to follow after other gods.

Nowhere in the entire new testament can I find Paul claiming to be a prophet, or even being referred to as a prophet. He certainly refers to it in a very broad sense in Romans 12, and 1Corinthians 13, but does not actually claim to be a prophet nor does he claim to have prophesied himself. In 1 Corinthians 13:2 he is clearly generalising when he says 'though I have the gift of prophecy'. The important operative word here is 'though', which comes from the greek word 'ean' (ehan). Strong's concordance explains that it is a conditional particle and should be properly understood in context with the statement, and accordingly would be more appropriately rendered as 'even IF I had the gift of prophecy, understanding of mysteries, etc., If I don't have love, I have nothing. It is clear that this verse is not to be taken literally as an affirmation that he does have the gift of prophecy - in context he also refers to faith to remove all mountains, but we know he never moved all mountains. There are frequent claims and comments atributed both by and to Paul of him being a 'servant of God and an aposle of Jesus Christ'. Nowhere does he ever seduce people to follow after other gods, indeed, he constantly calls upon people to follow after the one true god, and Yahshua.

The book makes other claims and references various scriptures from the Torah in support of it's conclusions, most of which, IMHO, quote out of context or seek to re-align scripture with conclusions which the evidence does not support. In particular, Paul's comments concerning meat sacrificed to idols. The book claims that Paul 'clearly states' three times that there is nothing wrong in itself with eating meat sacrificed to idols, and then proceeds to give 3 verses/passages of scripture as supporting evidence [Jesus words only: Chapter 6, page 118, second paragraph].
The first verse is from Romans 14:21, and here is what Romans 14:21 REALLY states:

21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

. NASB

Far from advocating meat even sacrified to idols, Paul clearly states it is good NOT to eat meat at all !

The second 'supporting' scripture of evidence of Paul's guilt of 'clearly' preaching eating idol meat is ok, is given as 1 Corinthians 8:4 -13, and here is what that states:

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.
9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. NASB

The only verse which really directly relates to idol meat eating by persons is verse 7. The KJV uses the word 'conscience' twice in verse 7, and the Greek text confirms that the greek word interpeted as 'conscience' is 'suneidesis' :

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Corinthians 8:7 | all <235> {BUT} ouk <3756> {NOT} en <1722> {IN} pasin <3956> {ALL} h <3588> {[IS] THE} gnwsiV <1108> {KNOWLEDGE:} tineV <5100> {SOME} de <1161> th <3588> {BUT} suneidhsei <4893> {WITH CONSCIENCE} tou <3588> {OF THE} eidwlou <1497> {IDOL,} ewV <2193> {UNTIL} arti <737> {NOW} wV <5613> {AS OF} eidwloquton <1494> {A THING SACRIFICED TO AN IDOL} esqiousin <2068> (5719) {EAT,} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> suneidhsiV <4893> autwn <846> {THEIR CONSCIENCE,} asqenhV <772> {WEAK} ousa <5607> (5752) {BEING,} molunetai <3435> (5743) {IS DEFILED.}

Strong states that this word is a prolonged form of 'suneido' [G: 4894 - strongs ref], meaning 'to understand or become aware of, to be conscious or informed of'. It would appear to me that Paul is addressing believers who have some manner of 'knowledge'. We can only reasonably conclude this to be knowledge of the law against eating idol meat, since this is what is being addressed, and which Paul later re-affirms they should not knowingly do in 1Cor 10 v 28. Therefore, used in the prolonged form and taken in context, a more accurate interpretation would not be 'to become aware of' but should in fact be more appropriately rendered as having 'full awareness of'. This is clearly a condemnation by Paul of men who are eating idol meat yet are fully aware of some kind of 'knowledge', which can only reasonably be concluded as knowledge of the torah prohibition against eating idol sacrificed meat, which he reaffirms in 1 Cor 10 v 28 that they should NOT knowingly do.

Again, I see no claim by Paul that eating idol meat was okay. I see him trying to address a problem which obviously concerns this issue, and he even refers to some who appear to think they have this 'liberty' to do so, and clearly warns them to take heed lest their 'liberty' becomes a stumbling block to the weak.

The third and final verses of 'evidence', is 1 corinthians 10: 19-29:

19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.
28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;
29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?

These verses seem more complex and appear contradictory, but they are not. Paul clearly identifies that the 'Gentiles' sacrifice to demons, and not to God. He does advise to eat anything sold in the marketplace without asking questions for 'conscience' sake. In verse 28 he clearly states that if your are advised that meat is sacrificed to idols, do NOT eat it. His admonition to eat anything sold in the marketplace can easily be understood in it's proper context of not doing anything in public to offend, which would be in harmony with what Peter experienced in Acts 10 concerning taking care not to offend the gentile believer Cornelius.

Paul is clearly addressing what was a complex issue in those early days of jews and gentiles mixing together as believers. As a consequence, Paul is not in fact modifying or altering the Law, but more appropriately seeking to address issues which affected Gentile believers. I think it fair to conclude that these were persons previously given to eating idol sacrificed meat, and some of them clearly were still doing so. Paul even refers to them earlier in this letter thus:

1. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able. - 1 Cor 3: 1-2 NASB

Clearly Paul is speaking of a weaning process from gentile practices to proper practices of a believer. The allegory used clearly implies this. The 'milk' that Paul is referring clearly implies 'baby food'. Still food, but food only fit for babies, who are even having difficulty digesting this. What could this 'milk' possibly be ? It could only be the four requirements laid down by the Jerusalem Council, which also included to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem Council laid down only 4 primary requirements for gentile converts, and Paul nowhere deviates from this. I do not believe Paul believed that these were the only requirements, nor that the other apostles believed this, because James' concluding statement of that meeting alludes strongly to a time when they would be expected to eat the 'meat' that Paul refers to when he states immediately after it in Acts 15: 20-21

20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

In other words, 'after they have been built up with the milk, they will be able to deal with the 'meat' (the rest of the Torah) which is preached every sabbath in the synagogues.

We recall that in the book of Acts 10 Peter faced a similar dilemma of this nature, and had a vision of unclean animals which he refused to eat, and was rebuked, at Acts 10: 9-16 . In verse 28 Peter declares to Cornelius and his company how God had revealed certain things unto him concerning this. In Acts 11, we have him retelling the story to his jewish brethen, and in Acts 11: 18 we have his jewish brethren holding their peace and glorifying god.
This is the same Peter, who in in his second letter, chapter 3 thereof, states this of Paul:

"14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

According to Peter, Paul is 'our beloved brother'. Peter states his (Paul's) message is hard to understand, and the unstable and untaught distort his words. It is more interesting to note that the 3rd chapter of 2nd Peter is clearly prophetic in nature, and speaking of 'scoffers' in 'the last days' (2 Peter 3:3 - Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts) , and then Peter concludes this chapter and indeed his whole letter with praise of Paul 'our beloved brother'. I could take the same liberty as the author of 'jesuswordsonly' and enquire just who Peter might have been referring to in 'the last days' as 'scoffers'.

Whilst I am aware that there is doubt by some scholars over 2 Peter (notably those who support Paul as a false prophet theories), from the overhwelming volume of contrary evidence, I firmly support the conclusions referred to in wikipedia from reliable sources. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter , see also http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1363 ).

The 'jesuswordsonly' book refers also to the book of Revelations and the letters to the churches, in particular, the Ephesians, who are commended. The book also infers Paul is the 'false prophet' of Revelation, and also that he may well be the very man that jesus is speaking about in condemnation of the Nicoliatains.

In the first instance, this is said to be the words of Jesus in a vision to John. Paul is reputed to have died during the reign of Nero, when he and Peter were killed following the burning of Rome and their deaths are said to have been in 64 and 65 AD, some date it as around 67 AD, but either way they were dead by the time of writing Revelations. The book of Revelations was not written until sometime between Autumn 68 Ad and early 69 AD, some 4 or 5 years AFTER the death of Paul, although some scholars date it as late as the 90's AD. If Jesus were condemning Paul in these addresses to the seven churches, it is more reasonable and indeed logical to conclude that he would OPENLY name him and condemn him, after all, the guy is dead now, and clearly his writings were a problem even at the time of that prophecy. If Jesus were to have openly condemned him it would have removed all doubt; but he does not, and great heed should be taken of these glaring facts and ommissions.

The association with Paul as the 'false prophet' is equally unfounded. These verses come towards the end of the book, and AFTER relating the tale of the 'beast' spoken of in Revelation and it is clearly not a reference to Paul.

Having read your comments, and the material you refer to as purported 'evidence', I cannot under good conscience agree with your conclusions.

The materials presented against Paul in condemnation quote very frequently from the Torah to show Paul as a false prophet and apostle. The material clearly condemns Paul with purported proof from Paul's own words matched up against the Torah. When men seek to utilise the Torah in this manner, then they should also be bound by that same Torah. You cannot pick and choose what you like from it to support frivolous and obscure conclusions, and since this is a matter which is clearly in condemnation of Paul then we can only do proper justice in this matter by looking to the Torah for guidance concerning condemnation of a man:

Deuteronomy 19: 15 -20

15 " A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
16 " If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
18 "The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.

See also Deuteronomy 17: 6 , Numbers 35:30, which concur with this.

Finally, let us look at the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-16:
15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED."

There is a clear and undeniable duty on those doing the judging to 'investigate thoroughly'.
The credibility and reputation of Paul is being slaughtered by men who have nothing to present as evidence other than frequent mis-quotes, suppositions and frivolous mistranslations which could not even pass as circumstantial evidence, and who frequently lift words out of context or quote a sample part of a verse which might at first glance appear to concur with their assertions. I have examined in detail one instance of this above by the three passges of scripture used to proclaim Paul teaches against Jesus' words, and Torah. Under closer scrutiny and analysis, the only thing that is abundantly clear to me, is Paul at no time advocates the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and in fact highlights the dangers thereof.

The Bible is CLEAR that a man can only be condemned on the evidence of TWO or THREE witnesses. Since none of us alive today could qualify as witnesses, and our testimony being regarded merely as 'hearsay' evidence, it is unacceptable as evidence and is in fact no evidence at all. In the proper course of justice, we would require to find witnesses and testimony from Paul's era, and from people who heard and observed him. It would not even be acceptable to quote writings from early church fathers unless they themselves had witnessed and heard false teachings, so you can rule out anything written by anyone who was not actually a personal witness as THIS is required standard that Torah demands. Many early church fathers actually do reference, quote and support Paul's writings.

I would happily concede that Paul used a particular amount of freedom in his letters to answer common jewish/gentile debates of that period, in exactly the same manner as Jesus did also, for he was condemned on many occassions by those from one of the two main strains of judaic teachings at that time, those being Hillel and Shamai, and Jesus would no doubt have been aware of and grounded in these teachings also, for many of their prohibitions were not actually Torah, but merely 'traditions of the elders', which he condemned. Paul clearly references his zeal for these same traditions of the elders in Gal 1:14 and in 2 Thess 2:15 these traditions are now the same 'traditions' which are translated as 'ordinances' in 1 Cor 11:2, concretely it is translated as 'precepts' or the law. From this, we can derive that Paul uses the same term to interchangeably refer to both the 'oral traditions' and his new understandings given by revelation from Yahshua. Merriam webster defines 'precepts' as:
1 : a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action
2 : an order issued by legally constituted authority to a subordinate official
synonym see LAW


Clearly Paul is also undergoing transformation from jewish talmudic or 'oral tradition' interpretation of the Law to actual proper interpretation of the law himself. When he is debating and contending with all matters relating to the law, he uses the same single term when it is clear that at times he is refrring to the actual Torah, and at other times referring to the 'oral traditions'. This would be far to great an analysis and debate to undertake in this post, as we have already deviated from the Genesis 15 story, but I have done so only to answer more fully your own objections and comments of my post.

I have also presented to you credible evidence that NONE of the apostles condemn or even criticise Paul, indeed, Peter calls him 'our beloved brother'. If we assume that the other Apostles, James, John, Peter etc., are indeed all torah observant jews, we have another problem here. IF Paul WAS a false prophet, they would be duty bound under the Torah to condemn him and kill him. We find no such claims or references anywhere. On the contrary, Peter actually refers to Paul as 'our beloved brother' , acsribes to him as having 'wisdom', but concedes his words are difficult to understand and are frequently abused by unstable and ignorant men.

Accordingly, I cannot agree with your conclusions as I would be violating both Torah and the words of Yahshua by unjustly condemning a man without the sufficient burden of proof which the scriptures demands.

The words of Robert Eisenman, and the fickle writings of the author of 'jesuswordsonly' are not evidence at all, indeed, Eisenman, whilst painting a slick story, filled with undigestible words to many people, concedes with his own testimony that he proves nothing against Paul. You cannot ignore these glaring facts. Eisenman is a Professor of religious studies - a wordly title with absolutely no scriptural significance or authority, nor does it convey anything with regards to his personal allegiances or religiou or spiritual persuasion. Most professors of the world have allegiance only to their own ego, and scripture admonishes us to have no favor or love for the ways and things of the world - indeed, the contrary notion is strongly implied- HATE the world and it's ways! I am not doubting him as a clever man and well schooled in the ways of the world and its education system, but that lends nothing whatsoever to his religio-spiritual allegiances. Indeed, his personal bio at the huffingtonpost states his very first book was 'Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel' , and he personally declares that "I lived on the West Bank from 1968 to 1973 while I was writing my doctorate on Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel.! A serious follower of the Torah would not touch Islamic Law with a bargepole !

Even if, on the hypothesis that Paul were a 'false prophet' , neither you or I or anyone else of this era would qualify as witnesses able to condemn him because anything we stated would not be our own testimony, but would only be the testimony of people long dead, therefore, in accordance with the torah law which is frequently referred to and mis-quoted by some, we have NO RIGHT to condemn Paul, and in fact the man who does should be killed according to the torah, because without any evidence he is a false witness. we may privately choose to ignore Paul's teachings or letters if we can do so without violating the Torah, but open condemnation of the man Paul is an entirely different matter, and such accusations and condemnation must ALSO be tested under the weight of Torah. I have sought to do this honestly and justly, and having done so, I cannot agree with any of these conclusions. If I were a judge, the only condemnation I could honestly make in these circumstances would be of the men who have presented frivolous claims and unfounded accusations. If I could find any basis upon which to support your arguments, I would do so, but unfortunately I do not find them.

You clearly make strong use of Torah, and I hope you have the wisdom to understand where I am coming from here. Even if you were right, you have no evidence, and in that case, you should hold your peace. I have seen no evidence, and believe me, I did search for it, because I had my own problems with Paul's writings before, when I was ignorant and unlearned. The material which you present as evidence is frivolous and glib at best, and at worst it is condemnable assassination of the character of a man whom the apostle Peter considered as 'our beloved brother'. Any man who is not able to properly understand and FULLY investigate Paul's writings and necessary supported writings should not engage in condemnation. Proverbs speak strongly on several verses against condemnation and judgement by such people who have not weighed up all of the evidence in accordance with the Torah, and ascribes great folly to them. To be a doubter or disbeliever of a man's writings is one thing, even if such doubts or unbelief is borne out of improper understanding of how to correctly assess such matters, but to be a condemner is an entirely different matter. The more ancient jewish sages and judges were men who were firmly grounded in Torah. You could not aspire to the position of a judge except you had the proper understanding of torah and appropriate knowledge and training in how to correctly access and interpret matters of law. A self appointed judge is no judge at all, but is in fact, as poverbs strongly alludes, a fool.

I have seen nothing new in these materials that I have not encountered before, and I took the liberty of being just and fair to you by taking the time to read the material you referred to. I cannot in good conscience agree with any of the conclusions in the book 'jesus words only'. It is specious and glib, and if we were to test that book using the same test that it claims itself, ie. to weight the accusations up against torah, then it does NOT meet the required test for condemnation of a man, the penalty for which, would be death, because of the public accusations.

I am not seeking to infer any slurs against yourself. It is obvious you are passionate in your beliefs and search for evidence against Paul, but I regret to advise that so far, I do not see you having presented anything credible which would qualify as evidence against Paul. Indeed, your passions could easily be equated with the same fervour and passion that Paul himself is credited with having prior to his conversion, as it were. Passionate and sincere, but misguided nonetheless, and clearly God is a just and forgiving God able to take such passions and fervour and turn them around for his ultimate glory and transform a man and his message.

I am NOT a 'saved by grace or faith only' believer, and in fact I am a supporter of many of the things that those who disagree with the teachings of much of christianity and the catholic church advocate. I find no evidence that the Law was ever done away with, nor do I find evidence that Paul is actually teaching this. It is further clear that the Catholic church turned against 'sabbath keepers' and 'jews', and the various councils of the early catholic church openly condemn sabbath keepers and those who keep the laws of the jews and warns to stay away from them, contrary to the whole body of scripture. It is clear that the 'false prophet' of the book of Revelations is the various Popes, as representative of this body, and not in fact of Paul. Certainly, they utilise Paul's writings. That should come as no surprise to us today as Peter concedes it was a problem even in his day, yet STILL in light of that, Peter calls Paul 'our beloved brother'.

I have also observed that people who take this opinion against Paul, also have a tendency to try and portray Peter as a lesser leader, and frequently attempt to put up James as the true leader, and I have read much material on this matter also, so I doubt if Mr Eisenman would present anything new on that matter. The reason I believe such men do this, is because Peter clearly provides evidential words in support of Paul in the Bible. Such men like to pick and choose what person or words support their own agenda's, and that is a grave error on their part.

I do not profess to be any kind of scholar, and I do not have any letters after my name. I do believe that the Almighty God has embued me with sufficient wisdom and intelligence to be able to analyse these matters for myself, without having to depend on someone else's forceful and incorrect, IMHO, conclusions.

There was a time i my life that I would have supported some of these claims. I would like to advise you also, that in the years following these doubts and beliefs about Paul, I was led down a path which literally had me fighting for my life against the authorities of my country, having been falsely accused of many things myself and indeed thrown in prison also. The solicitors who were appointed to assist me in my defences were not working for me, and if I had left them to represent me, I would have been a condemned man. I relieved them of their obligations, and with the grace of the Almighty, began to study our own laws and legal system. This led me to an intense study of the Law, of understanding it, and of properly interpreting it. After this crash course in judicial matters, I was able to defend myself against my false accusers, show them up as liars, and walk away a free man. My trials and tribulations led me to defend myself in several court cases raised against me by false accusers, and went to even the Supreme courts of our land on one occassion. I was able to pick apart and shred legally the writings and work of some of the most astute legal brains in my nation and defeat their arguments, whilst also highlighting their own misgivings. I was also able to show that my own solicitors acted with complicity in some of my defence, were incompetent (or had an agenda), and I was in fact represented initially by a Law firm which is considered one of the top law firms in my nation. Yet here was I, an unlearned and untrained man embued from above with the abilities to be able to take upon this monumental task, and even having audience with some of the most senior Law Lords in my nation. It would be fair to conclude that the Almighty taught me a very harsh lesson indeed, but through that learning experience, I was able to take a fresh look at scriptures, embrace the Torah, and became a wiser, better educated man in matters pertaining to how judicial matters are actually properly conducted, and how the law should be interpreted. And whilst this was merely dealing with man's Laws, the principles of justice, interpretation and presentation are in fact no different from the laws of the bible. Thus I was able to enter into a richer and more fulfilling and truer walk on my spiritual pathway.

If you have any credible evidence in condemnation of Paul, I would be more than happy to look afresh and engage in further dialogue with you, and if I find that your evidence is supportive, I will be more than happy to confirm those supportive conclusions. However, be advised that I will apply the same test to any such evidence as the scriptures demand, and as the book 'jesuswordsonly' also claims should be done, yet conveniently ignores the Torah when it comes to the required test for proof and condemnation of a man.

Kind regards

[Zekaryah]

I would like to share some thoughts here.

Tom, I have been very open about who I am at http://yahuah.org. I was just asking if you could return the favor.

Zionprophet, I would refer you to Doug Del Tondo's Jesus' Words Only because he covers several areas that I, as a long time Paul detractor, had missed. You mention Paul's claim of being of Benjamin. Doug deals with the implications of this. I will admit I haven't read Josephus or church "fathers," but will share with you that hours of reading Isaiah and other Scriptures as a teen greatly influence what I believe now. I also am very thankful for e-sword!

But to get back to the topic of this thread, I would like to examine the context of James 2:23 use of Abraham as a Friend of YHWH.

Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

This morning I reviewed Isaiah 40-45 and noted several verses in context that deal with YHWH being righteous and of people being made righteous.

Isa 41:10 Fear thou not; for I [am] with thee: be not dismayed; for I [am] thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Isa 42:6 I YHWH have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

Isa 43:25 I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Isa 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! [Let] the potsherd [strive] with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Isa 45:24 Surely, shall [one] say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: [even] to him shall [men] come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
Isa 45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

Abram in Genesis 15:2-3 seems to have been at a crisis point. He could have been in danger of striving with his Maker.

Gen 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
Gen 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

However, he hears and accepts YHWH's promise. He sees YHWH as righteous. I think as he acknowledges YHWH's righteousness, righteousness sprung up in him. Abram was no longer in danger of striving, but he was in league with YHWH. James shows that Gen. 15:6 was not the end, but was fulfilled with Abraham's obedience to YHWH's instructions concerning Isaac.

Maybe, "He believed in YHWH and it reckoned to him righteousness," is a correct translation.

Carl

Hi Tom,

I know there is various groups roaming around cyberspace and I tend not to become too close or acquainted with any of them. My own perceptions of scripture have been gleaned thru many years of personal unaffiliated study and searching. I've read the complete works of josephus, eusebius and more. In fact I had many of those materials for years before something like e-sword came along, with hindsight I could have saved myself a fortune!
I know of Avi from my times on paltalk, and of course I've come across many of that crew. Last I heard Avi was drifting towards a Karaite persuasion and was buddies with Nehemiah Gordon, but I don't know if or how much truth is in that.
I am not convinced that the entire NT was written in Aramaic, if indeed any of it was. We do not have much evidence, if indeed we have any. The most reliable statements from historical writers seems to be nothing more than a repeated statement that Matthew wrote his gospel in the language of the jews, and of course we could not conclusively prove one way or another whether that was hebrew or aramaic. I do believe that the transition from the messiah's name to Jesus could only have come via an aramaic route, but is not conclusive proof that the entire NT was written thus, and I've read many of the material on the peshitta's and it's variations.
As for Paul v Peter, the talmudic student, I have no idea who made those conclusions, but I believe that Acts 4:13 should knock that conclusion on it's head. If Peter was an 'ignorant and unlearned man' in the early 30's AD, I could hardly envisage him becoming an ardent student of the Talmud in his later years, particulary after his time with the Messiah who condemned the 'traditions' of the elders.

My reasoning behind suggesting a hebraic perspective when seeking to understand Paul, and subsequent quote of Rashi, was neither in support of either Paul or Rashi, but was merely intended to lend towards what may have been very general perceptions and beliefs amongst the jews of that era, without any particular conclusions as to who was right or wrong.

I have seen and read a lot of material, even from so called scholars, who propose arguments which IMHO come from very biased western traditions. I don't believe that the Catholic church and Constantine era and beyond are without blame in the muddlings and mistranslations of the New Testament writings. We are simply the people left at the tail end trying to make sense of it all, and that is not an easy task because we know from history that some better informed and clever heads of the earlier centuries even had difficulties in so doing, and they were closer to the whole situation than we are in this day and age.

There can be no doubt that even the jews had their differing opinions, teachings, and beliefs with regards to the scriptures, and that is where I would tend to place Paul's writings. I've had my own doubts and disputations with Paul many times over the years, but more study has led me to stray away from any definite conclusions with regards to him, and lack of good historical material does not prove anything definite one way or another other than that his writings could be placed in a disputed category along with most of them!

A good book I have had for the last decade with good material and references is 'Jews In The Mediterranean Diaspora' - From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE) , by John M G Barclay, first published in 1996,for some insight into jewish life during that important period. I was fortunate to stumble across this book just as it came out.

I have a very open mind with regards to scripture and ancient writings, and have covered a very wide spectrum, including such obscure writings as Sitchins whole collection and Anne Madden Jones' "The Yahweh Encounters", so I'm very open-minded and would not consider myself 'religionised' towards any particular belief system, but more just a simple honest seeker of truth, whatever that may eventually turn out to be.

I do agree with your comments with regards to language differences, and the difficulties encountered with the septuagint/Greek words and hebrew equivalents. To that end I believe that we simply do not have enough material other than historical variations and flavors of various so-called experts of their day. One 'expert' could equate a hebrew word with one greek equivalent, whilst another could equate it with a different greek equivalent, both being similar words, such as emunah and pistis which you referred to. The difficulty we have with this in the present age, is knowing who to rely on best. Each scholar would have their own reasoning for their various interpretations, and this would no doubt be based on the various debates and ideaologies of their respective periods, and would also be dependent upon how well they knew both greek and hebrew, with their own religious beliefs thrown into the interpretative mix.

This is what I find interesting about the talmud. It gives insight into how the jewish sages sought to wring out every possible meaning of precise areas of text or even single words, in an endeavour to get at the root of the meaning of any particular scripture. Some of the debates that go on drift into the realms of the ridiculous, but it serves to show that even amongst these ancient jewish and scriptural scholars, even they had debates and differences over a single word or phrase and it's many potential meanings.

And here we are 2,000 years plus later, still trying to do the same! It simply goes to show that there is indeed nothing new under the heavens.

Paul's writings themself also show various meanings and intents, and difficulties, over their usage of words such as faith and belief. Their is a clear difference between a 'faithful' servant, and a 'believing' servant.

When you take Paul's apparent interpretation of Gen 15:6 in Romans 4, we have to look more into the root of what Paul was getting at. Neither of course am I completely disagreeing with your own assertions in their entirety. The matters ascribed to abraham could be read or understood in various ways, and it is possible that the varied ways could all be right. Indeed, Paul's own words in Romans 4:21 " He (Abraham) staggered not at the promise of unbelief, but was strong in faith giving glory to God" would in fact lend support to your argument, where you stated :
I feel that Paul's own faith/justification/righteousness/law arguments were more of a tirade against certain jewish elements who were hounding him, and we see many instances of this, such as Acts 15 1-2 and Galatians 2:4, where he clearly identifies 'false brethren spying on him'. Paul lived amongst the jews, as a jew, and was dyed-in-the-wool jew to even many jews, and indeed previously was reputed to have been a guy who rounded believers of this new 'messianic cult' for severe punishment. Then he does a complete u-turn. When we take scriptures right out of the way, and look at this from a personal perspective, here was a guy who just became a turn-coat (old scots saying for someone who changes their beliefs) overnight. From one week being a hunter and condemner of believers in this guy Yeshua/Yahshua/Jesus or whatever one wants to call him, to the next week being an ardent follower. Now I bet there was some jews out there who knew all this, were close to it all, and were greatli miffed at Paul. You can almost imagine some of the confrontational scenarios .... "how could you, YOU, of all people... be a traitor to our laws and customs in this way" with many jewish expletives thrown in for extra effect.

Put into a wider perspective, we recall that Paul was a jew, a hebrew, a pharisee, of the tribe of benjamin. Any regards with Herodian links, general claims of 'benjamite' or any such claims are moot points in my opinion when viewed under the full weight of the Torah itself, which proclaimed ONE LAW for the jew AND the stranger living in the land. So whether Paul was half-jew/full-jew/herodian/political or whatever, are irrelevant. However, such arguments may well have a bearing when understanding some of the jewish feelings and beliefs.

There's a whole lot of stuff going on in Paul's writings that are often overlooked. The whole 'flavor' and 'atmosphere' of some of these events are lost in religious arguments. However, when you take the specific material of the religious arguments out of the way, and look at the bigger picture, we can see here a guy who was having one hell of a battle with some of his old torah buddies. Not only this, but he was moving around the 'diaspora' as well, so he was mingling amongst strict jews, lax jews, half jews and even non-jews. Every journey brings him up against a particular 'strain' of jewish thought and belief, and he's trying his best, IMHO, to be an ambassador unto all of them without showing favoritism to any particular sect or division. It's clear some of his tirades are being directed at some of the people hounding him, and it's clear also that some of the people hounding him are of varying different jewish religious groups, and I believe that would account more for many of his various 'contradictions'.

When it comes to Paul, I don't look upon him as some kind of heretic who spawned a new religion, a position which I did not always hold. Looking at Paul's words alone, without seeking to put any perspective or picture around the whole scenery does Paul a lot of injustice. Many strict jews of his time considered 'half-jews' as no jew at all. At the same time, there were many jews in the diaspora who didn't even know they were jews, and I believe that is what was alluded to with the messiah's claims of coming only to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel', and I believe Paul had an understanding of this, and hence his mission.
In other words, there were Israelite/hebrews/jews who had become so seperated from their roots since the Assyrians and Babylonian captivities and other disruptions that they did not even know that they were actually jewish, and many of whom would not even have been religious in any way, much like tel-Aviv is today, for example (and yes, I have been there, spent 3 months there in 2003).

Whether Paul was right, wrong, indifferent, or just completely nuts, is clearly a matter which has sparked much debate and controversy since the very day of his 'conversion'.

[Tom]

Zekaryah,
1 Sorry but I do not have a webesite, and the details of my personal life are not relevant to the discussion. But I will say I am an older gentleman and am semi-retired and am thereby able to devote some extra time to bible study.

2 I forwarded zionprophet's recent critical post to Jeff Del Tondo and have received his answer, but I am awaiting his permission to post it here.

On the topic of James and Gen 15:6, I had addressed that already in an earlier post on this thread which I am reprinting below:

3 My friend, Scott Nelson, concurs with me that God is not imputing righteousness to Abram, but he had thought Abram was imputing righteousness to himself for being righteous. (Since the time Scott wrote this, he now agrees with me that Gen 15:6 simply means Abram was praisng YHWH for His righteousnes and nothing more.)

Either way this disrupts Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6 and destroys the basis for the false theology of 'justification by faith'. But since the time Scott wrote this, he now agrees with my translation.

Here is part of Scott's essay:
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

"Abraham justified by faith?

Abraham's supposed justification by faith is Paul's ace-in-the-hole argument for faith apart from the works of the law both in the book of Romans and the book of Galatians. The following passages come from Romans and Galatians and contain his supposed direct quote from the book of Genesis.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Romans 4:1-3

...just as Abraham "Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". Galatians 3:6

So fundamental is Paul's use of Abraham as a proof-text example for his "apart from works" doctrine that James becomes fully aware of it and refutes it in his epistle.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." James 2:21-23

James' logic here is far superior to Paul's, but the disappointing thing about James' rebuttal is that he could have done a better job and perfectly squashed Paul's pet argument! One reason it is obvious that James is directly addressing Paul's doctrine is by virtue of the fact that James' quote from Genesis is identical to Paul's quotes... and in error, again! My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds. But in doing this, he appears to have agreed with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith. After all, that's what Paul's quote from Genesis appears to indicate. But James goes about arguing that Abraham's faith was a faith made of works, as opposed to Paul's faith without works. If James had gone down to the local Synagogue and scrolled through the book of Genesis to see if Paul's quote was perfectly accurate, he no doubt would have dealt with Paul's doctrine much differently. The difference is very subtle in appearance at first, but it is devastatingly misleading. The accurate quote from Genesis is in the following passage.

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

Notice the difference that here it says, "and he accounted it to him", as opposed to Paul's, "and it was accounted to him". Paul and James' quotes rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun "he". You may be thinking, "What's the difference? Aren't they still saying the same thing?" Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, who is this pronoun "he" referring to?

Because Bible translators work from the assumption that Paul knew what he was talking about, they assume the particular pronoun here in Genesis is in reference to God. So they capitalized it to indicate that it was God who accounted something to Abraham. But in the Hebrew text there are no such capitalizations, nor are there any indicators in the word itself (which is actually only one letter) as to who the pronoun refers to. The Hebrew language makes much use of pronouns this way and at times it can be confusing for English speaking people. We prefer to have the person identified more regularly. You may have noticed in the short passage above there are seven pronouns and Abraham isn't even named! We only know it's Abraham from two verses earlier! The Hebrew language assumes more intelligence upon its readers to figure out who the pronouns refer to from the context in which they are used. The first key to understanding who this particular pronoun refers to comes from the obvious fact that the sentence this phrase is found in begins by changing the identity of the one referred to as "he" from God to Abraham. Read the entire passage again and notice how it changes with, "And he believed in the Lord..." Obviously this passage isn't stating that the Lord believed in Himself. So at this point the narrative changes and begins to refer to Abraham... and he believed in the Lord. Would it not make sense that the remainder of the pronouns in the sentence also refer to Abraham? The second key comes from the very next word translated "accounted". The predominant meaning of this Hebrew word is to compute, reason, or reckon. Seldom does it mean to credit to someone's account. The far more likely interpretation of this phrase is that "he" (Abraham) "reasoned" that "it" (the promise) was given to him for (because of) his righteousness. Read it again and see if this doesn't fit much better. In a moment, I will prove that this interpretation is without question the truth of the matter. But first we need to note something else that happened in the same scene as this one where God promised to multiply Abraham's descendants like the stars of heaven.

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates..." Genesis 15:18

Now comes the proof. Let's look at something God said to Abraham's son Isaac a number of years later. Notice that God makes reference to everything promised to Abraham on that same day in history, and most importantly, notice why God gave Abraham the promises. God says to Isaac...

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Nowhere does God say anything to Isaac about Abraham's faith! The promises were all given because of Abraham's works! God gave Abraham the promises because Abraham was a righteous man... just as Abraham reasoned was the case back in Genesis 15:6. Abraham was not justified by faith as Paul would have us believe. He was justified by works! God couldn't have made that fact more plain to Abraham's son Isaac. "
-------------------
Tom speaking: The important thing to remember about Gen 15:6 is that it has nothing to do with Abram's righteousness for believing in YHWH. Abram was considered righteous by God long before Gen 15:6 and that is why God was rewarding him with the promises He made.

[Zekaryah]

Hi Tom,

I'm wondering if I too qualify as an older gentleman, semi-retired, and able to devote some extra time to bible study.

Gen 15:6 (KVJ) And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Gen 15:6 (my "literal" version) And he [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] counted (took) it [YHWH's promise] to him [Abram] (as) equity in the administration of justice.

Versus

Septuagint (as quoted in Jesus' Words Only) And he trusted God and it was reckoned to himself as righteousness.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Jam 2:23 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Am I on the right track?

Believe implies mental assent. Trust is perhaps more a better word. See footnote 13 in Jesus' Words Only (Infinity Publishing Co. page 241).

aw-man'
A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.


I compared Genesis 38:15 where "and he took her" is exactly the same Hebrew as "and he counted it" in Gen 15:6.

I used Davidson's The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Zondervan 1981) and substituted his first definition of tsedaqah (page 640).

This view doesn't have Abram on the verge of sinning, but just asking a question and accepting a just response.

James' repeating Paul's (Septuagint's) translation still bothers me (James 2:23). I see that Scott Nelson holds that James just hadn't checked out Genesis 15:6 in the Hebrew. Doug in Jesus' Words Only implies James was thinking Hebrew while quoting the Greek. What do others think? Is there posibility of the text being corrupted?

Tom, I'm beginning to see why you are so passionate about this issue.

Carl

Zekaryah,
1 Sorry but I do not have a webesite, and the details of my personal life are not relevant to the discussion. But I will say I am an older gentleman and am semi-retired and am thereby able to devote some extra time to bible study.

2 I forwarded zionprophet's recent critical post to Jeff Del Tondo and have received his answer, but I am awaiting his permission to post it here.

On the topic of James and Gen 15:6, I had addressed that already in an earlier post on this thread which I am reprinting below:

3 My friend, Scott Nelson, concurs with me that God is not imputing righteousness to Abram, but he had thought Abram was imputing righteousness to himself for being righteous. (Since the time Scott wrote this, he now agrees with me that Gen 15:6 simply means Abram was praisng YHWH for His righteousnes and nothing more.)

Either way this disrupts Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6 and destroys the basis for the false theology of 'justification by faith'. But since the time Scott wrote this, he now agrees with my translation.

Here is part of Scott's essay:
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

"Abraham justified by faith?

Abraham's supposed justification by faith is Paul's ace-in-the-hole argument for faith apart from the works of the law both in the book of Romans and the book of Galatians. The following passages come from Romans and Galatians and contain his supposed direct quote from the book of Genesis.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Romans 4:1-3

...just as Abraham "Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". Galatians 3:6

So fundamental is Paul's use of Abraham as a proof-text example for his "apart from works" doctrine that James becomes fully aware of it and refutes it in his epistle.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." James 2:21-23

James' logic here is far superior to Paul's, but the disappointing thing about James' rebuttal is that he could have done a better job and perfectly squashed Paul's pet argument! One reason it is obvious that James is directly addressing Paul's doctrine is by virtue of the fact that James' quote from Genesis is identical to Paul's quotes... and in error, again! My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds. But in doing this, he appears to have agreed with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith. After all, that's what Paul's quote from Genesis appears to indicate. But James goes about arguing that Abraham's faith was a faith made of works, as opposed to Paul's faith without works. If James had gone down to the local Synagogue and scrolled through the book of Genesis to see if Paul's quote was perfectly accurate, he no doubt would have dealt with Paul's doctrine much differently. The difference is very subtle in appearance at first, but it is devastatingly misleading. The accurate quote from Genesis is in the following passage.

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

Notice the difference that here it says, "and he accounted it to him", as opposed to Paul's, "and it was accounted to him". Paul and James' quotes rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun "he". You may be thinking, "What's the difference? Aren't they still saying the same thing?" Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, who is this pronoun "he" referring to?

Because Bible translators work from the assumption that Paul knew what he was talking about, they assume the particular pronoun here in Genesis is in reference to God. So they capitalized it to indicate that it was God who accounted something to Abraham. But in the Hebrew text there are no such capitalizations, nor are there any indicators in the word itself (which is actually only one letter) as to who the pronoun refers to. The Hebrew language makes much use of pronouns this way and at times it can be confusing for English speaking people. We prefer to have the person identified more regularly. You may have noticed in the short passage above there are seven pronouns and Abraham isn't even named! We only know it's Abraham from two verses earlier! The Hebrew language assumes more intelligence upon its readers to figure out who the pronouns refer to from the context in which they are used. The first key to understanding who this particular pronoun refers to comes from the obvious fact that the sentence this phrase is found in begins by changing the identity of the one referred to as "he" from God to Abraham. Read the entire passage again and notice how it changes with, "And he believed in the Lord..." Obviously this passage isn't stating that the Lord believed in Himself. So at this point the narrative changes and begins to refer to Abraham... and he believed in the Lord. Would it not make sense that the remainder of the pronouns in the sentence also refer to Abraham? The second key comes from the very next word translated "accounted". The predominant meaning of this Hebrew word is to compute, reason, or reckon. Seldom does it mean to credit to someone's account. The far more likely interpretation of this phrase is that "he" (Abraham) "reasoned" that "it" (the promise) was given to him for (because of) his righteousness. Read it again and see if this doesn't fit much better. In a moment, I will prove that this interpretation is without question the truth of the matter. But first we need to note something else that happened in the same scene as this one where God promised to multiply Abraham's descendants like the stars of heaven.

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates..." Genesis 15:18

Now comes the proof. Let's look at something God said to Abraham's son Isaac a number of years later. Notice that God makes reference to everything promised to Abraham on that same day in history, and most importantly, notice why God gave Abraham the promises. God says to Isaac...

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Nowhere does God say anything to Isaac about Abraham's faith! The promises were all given because of Abraham's works! God gave Abraham the promises because Abraham was a righteous man... just as Abraham reasoned was the case back in Genesis 15:6. Abraham was not justified by faith as Paul would have us believe. He was justified by works! God couldn't have made that fact more plain to Abraham's son Isaac. "
-------------------
Tom speaking: The important thing to remember about Gen 15:6 is that it has nothing to do with Abram's righteousness for believing in YHWH. Abram was considered righteous by God long before Gen 15:6 and that is why God was rewarding him with the promises He made.

[Bill Anderson]

Hi Tom and other forum members.

I know that in your post you are dedicated and passionate about Genesis 15:6 and I
know you are having a field day in defending it, but I thought I would
just add an interesting slant to your post.

In it you correctly make constant reference to Paul’s use of faith through
righteousness, in fact Paul mentions a string of great old testament characters
justified by faith in later part of Hebrews chapter eleven.

But did you know that in Paul’s constant confused logic, in another place said
that faith did not exist until Jesus came.

Galatians 3:23-25
But before faith came , we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would
afterward be revealed. .
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith .
25 But after faith has come , we are no longer under a tutor.

I wonder if Paul could tell day from night ?

I just thought this interruption would bring a smile to a few faces. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

OK... I apologise for the interruption...

Now you can return to normal programming schedule... Gen 15:6


.

[Tom]

Bill wrote:

In it you correctly make constant reference to Paul’s use of faith through
righteousness, in fact Paul mentions a string of great old testament characters
justified by faith in later part of Hebrews chapter eleven.

But did you know that in Paul’s constant confused logic, in another place said
that faith did not exist until Jesus came.

This is just priceless, Bill, and it not only shows Paul's comic folly, but it also shows the folly of those who have followed his nonsense for centuries.

But I must also point out that Paul spoke of "righteousness through faith" or as a result of faith rather than "faith through righteousness".

Paul's language also shows how he was constantly reifying constructs by making faith appear to be a tangible object that comes along.

[Tom]

Zionprophet had criticized some of the points raised by Douglas Del Tondo in his book "Jesus Words Only" and I asked Doug to respond, so here it is. I don't know if we will be able to have him as a frequent participant, but I certainly am grateful that he has taken the time to write to us on this occasion. I will address other points of "zionprophet" soon in a separate post.


Hi Tom

Well, I would answer this way:


1. Jesus obviously did not tell us who was the subject of Revelation 2:2. However, it had to be someone. To reject it ever could be Paul because we assume Jesus would tell us it was Paul if it was Paul is merely conjecture. This is a presupposition of how we think Jesus would be clear rather than enigmatic. But Jesus used parables in His ministry, proving enigmatic _expression is part of His method.

2. The question comes down to who was the person spoken about in Rev. 2:2. I appreciate that Deuteronomy 19 mentions the two witness rule. If the accused admits something, the rule does not apply. At Jesus' trial, we heard 'he says it with his own mouth, what more need do we have of witnesses?' Paul told the Ephesians he was an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Eph. 1:1.) We don't need 2 witnesses. Then how do we know that Paul is the person who told the Ephesians he was an apostle but was NOT? By the very principle in Deut. 19 which requires two witnesses. No one but Paul ever says he was an apostle. You will not find any apostle or Jesus say Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ. Not in the Gospels, not in 2 Peter, not Acts. In fact, in Rev. 21, you have Jesus reaffirming the number of apostles as only 12, which means Jesus disaffirms Paul.

3. Thus, we find Rev. 2:2's identification is learned from Scripture alone and it is inferred from the 2 witness principle itself. Paul has the burden of proof to establish his claim, but he cannot prove it. I do not have the burden to prove Paul is NOT an apostle. Jesus acknowledged His own identification as Messiah could not rest upon His witness alone, or otherwise he would be "a liar." (John 5:31.) Paul is not above Jesus. Paul's identification as an apostle has to meet the same burden of proof. He cannot. Thus, Jesus says he is a "liar" if we apply John 5:31, which then tells us Rev. 2:2 identifies Paul.

4. As to Deut. 13:1-5, if a prophet seduces you from following the Law of Moses, he is not true because he did not explicitly tell you to follow an idol or exonerated because he uses Yahweh's name or Yeshua's name. That was the point of all Jesus' warnings of the false prophets ... they would come in His Name and have true prophecy. Rather, it is the contradiction of the Law that disqualifies the person from being a valid teacher. This is clear in Isaiah 8:30 as well as Jesus' warnings. The effort by some to make Paul's words inspired and on par with Jesus presupposes Paul has the status of Prophet. Paul often says that the Lord gave him a message, etc. If Paul uses Jesus' name or Yahweh's name but teaches subversion of the Law of Moses, he is still a false prophet and the idol he seeks to endorse is HIMSELF. He becomes the object of veneration and the source of truth from Yahweh. History proves Paul has taken on this status, so much so that my challenging his canonicity is deemed heresy. If Paul were merely a religious writer who is not regarded as a prophet and ORACLE OF GOD than why would my book cause the response it gets? and the vigorous defense of Paul? After all, all I want is that Jesus' words be deemed the sole inspired NT.

Shalom,
Doug Del Tondo

[Zekaryah]

Back to the drawing board...I am backtracking from the translation in my last post after comparing the grammar of the other Hebrew examples. The Hebrew verb translated as took, counted, imputed etc. (H2803) often has a "to (unto, for, against) something" associated with it, as "to him" in Genesis 15:6. Compare Genesis 50:20 where "... ye thought (H2803) against me evil... but Elohim meant (H2803) it (suffering imposed on Joseph) for good." Compare also Leviticus 27:18 with "reckon (H2803) unto him the money" or "reckon the money unto him."

Genesis 15:6 And he [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [YHWH] counted it [Abram's trust] to him [Abram] (as) righteousness (justice of character and conduct).

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

Lev 27:18 But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation.


The Septuagint version quoted by Paul and James is different from the Hebrew, but seems to have the same meaning (less the Name and with the change in the grammar).

And he [Abram] trusted God and it [Abram's trust] was reckoned to himself [Abram] as righteousness.

The important point that Doug brings out is that Abraham's conduct is being commended in this verse, as James implies in James chapter 2.

Paul, on the other hand, says that it was not Abraham's conduct (works), but his belief (mental assent) that was critical. (Remember James asserting that the demons believe and tremble...)
Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 4:7 [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom 4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Paul goes on to quote from Psalm 32, but he conveniently stops before getting to the works part in verse 5. One following YHWH's commands would be concerned about confessing transgressions of the commands.

Psa 32:1 <[A Psalm] of David, Maschil.> Blessed [is he whose] transgression [is] forgiven, [whose] sin [is] covered.

Psa 32:2 Blessed [is] the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile.

Psa 32:3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.

Psa 32:4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.


As we study Messiah's and James' words, we see the lies of Paul.

Hi Tom,

I'm wondering if I too qualify as an older gentleman, semi-retired, and able to devote some extra time to bible study.

Gen 15:6 (KVJ) And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Gen 15:6 (my "literal" version) And he [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] counted (took) it [YHWH's promise] to him [Abram] (as) equity in the administration of justice.

Versus

Septuagint (as quoted in Jesus' Words Only) And he trusted God and it was reckoned to himself as righteousness.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Jam 2:23 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Am I on the right track?

Believe implies mental assent. Trust is perhaps more a better word. See footnote 13 in Jesus' Words Only (Infinity Publishing Co. page 241).

aw-man'
A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.
I compared Genesis 38:15 where "and he took her" is exactly the same Hebrew as "and he counted it" in Gen 15:6.

I used Davidson's The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Zondervan 1981) and substituted his first definition of tsedaqah (page 640).

This view doesn't have Abram on the verge of sinning, but just asking a question and accepting a just response.

James' repeating Paul's (Septuagint's) translation still bothers me (James 2:23). I see that Scott Nelson holds that James just hadn't checked out Genesis 15:6 in the Hebrew. Doug in Jesus' Words Only implies James was thinking Hebrew while quoting the Greek. What do others think? Is there posibility of the text being corrupted?

Tom, I'm beginning to see why you are so passionate about this issue.

Carl

[Tom]

Zekaryah (or Carl),
Doug Del Tondo and Scott Nelson have changed their view of Gen 15:6 and agree that it should actually be translated as follows:

Genesis 15:6 And he [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] counted it [God's promises] to Him [God] (as) righteousness.

Abram's righteous character had already been previously established, and this is why God chose him to be His Prophet and Patriarch.

Please read my post at the top of this thread.

Tom

[zionprophet]

I tried the link for Doug's article but it came up with a 'forbidden access' error. I don;t know if anyone else is experiencing this issue.

I think that we could speak about Paul's inferences concerning 'faith' for ever and a day, as indeed with much of Paul's writings. When it comes down to the nitty gritty of dissecting sentences and words, I think that in general we are blowing against the wind in this day and age, and that would include Genesis 15.

Notwithstanding the commandment not to add or take away from the Law, I think that the attempt in a general sense to compare ancient laguages and their subsequent translations in a modern sense creates many problems.

Language, like everything else on this world, has gone through periods of evolving and developing. It would be fair to say that in centuries gone by, language was pretty limited. Education was limited, so language would also have been limited. There are many inventions and concepts which have developed over many centuries since the earliest writings of the Law which simply did not exist back when those original versions were completed, and from which many other words, concepts and expressions have further developed, and this to a large extent would perhaps explain the many variations of meanings of a particular anicent word to many modern words in this day and age. Variations in words can also convey something else, which is what I believe Paul was seeking to develop upon, and which could well have been an alien phenomenon back in Paul's day.

By the time history had arrived at the period of Paul and the Apostles, it would not be an unfair criticism to say that the Israelites had completely lost the spirit of the Law, and this is clearly inferred in many of the comments by Yahshua in the gospel narratives - no more clearly than 'this people worship me with their lips, but their heart is far from me'. They were sticklers for the letter of the Law, and even that had become perverted due to this very lack of spirit, with the expressions concentrating on what could more accurately be attributed to the literal words, without any spirit. Yahshua's references to how the jews had expanded upon this are clear when we look at his comments concerning the various ordinances concerning 'cleanliness' of every vessel except that all important vessel that contained the heart, the very one which Yah had sought to change withing them and make right. The jews, quite clearly, had lost this 'spirit' of the law. It is this 'spirit of the law' which was intended to condition the heart and the whole spirit of man. This is why it can be said that the whole of the law and the prophets stand on two main principles, the love of Yah, and the Love of self and your fellow man, with the latter being the intended natural progession from the former.

Many of Paul's arguments contend with these pinciples and the corresponding differences between the actual 'Law' of the Torah, and the jewish ruleset in what we now call the 'Talmud'.

Without a full and proper understanding of these concepts, Paul's words can indeed be very difficult to understand. The Law comprises two elements, the actual written statement, and the intended 'spirit' effect which it seeks to provoke within the individual - hence we have colloqualisms such as 'he's had a chnage of heart'. Where I live in the UK, we have the exact same principles evident in our Laws and judicial system and most western systems do as far as I am aware. The written Law, predominantly in the field of criminal law (ie: the failure to abide or uphold the written law) is evidenced by 'intent', which is encompassed in the latin maxim 'mens rea'. Mens rea is the true intent behind an action. The bible clearly deals with these matters on numerous occassions throughout the old and new testament, and so does Paul, but if you have no understanding of these things, you would completely miss the mark with many of the issues which Paul seeks to deal with.
The jews had become intense students of the actual literal statement of words and the various derivative literal meanings, but had completely lost the spiritual intent encompassed in them.

Paul's character is frequently sabotaged by men with nothing other than pedantics and play on literal words, and it can be clearly seen by this that they have no actual real understanding of the spiritual intent and meaning of those words. The very points which he often addresses in his letters! Pedantics (mw- Pedant) are the very thing Paul criticises most, just exactly as Yahshua did before him (out of the abundance of the mouth, the heart speaks). That is why i have no difficulty now in believing Paul's claim, that he was an appointed servant of Yah, a position which I did not previously hold due to ignorance of these very concepts. It is abundantly clear in much of Paul's writings - sometimes he is speaking at personal level, other times he is speaking of or to an individual, and yet at other times he is adressing whole groups or a single group, but in many instances, he is dealing with these very concepts. They might at times appear to differ from the Torah, but Paul is actually seeking to address the differences between their laws (oral torah/talmud, The actual Torah, and the true intended 'spiritual' meaning thereof), and of course, you can throw into that concoction the changes of languages from ancient to modern, concepts from ancient to modern, and translation and mistranstlation of languages. At times it can also be evidenced that Paul is now beginning to properly understand the true spiritual intended meaning - in other words, he's a student of the 'spiritual meaning' , whilst he may well know the strict legal and literal concepts from a jewish perspective, which it is clear he does also.

The people who write the many books, rants, and whatever else about Paul, clearly have no understanding of these concepts. I have yet to find one credible writer who does, and I've read a lot of books just like many people on this forum and many others. Reading is one thing, TRULY understanding is an entirely different ballgame.
Whilst I have no doubt that Doug will write a great story, I am also confident it will be full of the very concepts that Paul was speaking against - Pedantics of the Law !

These matters are no more beautifully summed up by Paul himself in second Corinthians, small pieces of which I quote here:

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:.........
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It is all of these very matters which Paul is clearly addressing here, and many foolish people say that Paul doesn't know the law, never studied it, isn't a jew, is a false prophet,have the spirit of Ya etc etc etc.,
To wit:

Isaiah 55:9 (New International Version)
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

and from the NT : (Perhaps even Paul himself again)

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[Tom]

zionprophet,
Please tell me which link is not working for you from the online version of "Jesus Words Only".
Here is the gateway URL http://www.jesuswordsonly.com

As to your present post, I find you are speaking in generalities and thus it is difficult to apprehend your full meaning, and therefore it is difficult to compose a full response.

But I will say that Jesus was indeed criticizing the Pharisees for their emphasis on their Talmudic traditions rather than the holy Torah. It is also apparent the zealots at Qumran were also upset with the apostasy of the Pharisees and Herodians in Jerusalem. We must remember that the House of Judah had allowed many non-Israelite strangers to become proselytes, as per Antiquities 13.9.1, and it seems many of them aspired to the Priesthood or affected the doctrine of the existing Priesthood. But we also know that King Herod has killed and replaced many of the members of the Sanhedrin with his own appointees, possibly foreign Idumeans like himself. (You may wish to read my post discussing how the tares infiltrated Israel as early as Joshua 9.)

But while Jesus repeatedly criticized the doctrine of the Pharisees I do not see any incontrovertible evidence of Paul doing the same. Instead Paul attacked the true apostles of Jesus and had the hubris to criticize Peter in Galatians 2.

[Zekaryah]

Hi Tom,

I've read through the posts on this thread and I still feel the need to offer an alternative explanation.

I suggested more than one construction over the past several days.

1. Most recent:

He [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [YHWH] reckoned it [Abram's trust] to Abram (as) righteousness.

2. Previous, on your evidence:

He [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] reckoned it [YHWH's promise] to YHWH (as) righteousness.

Here is how I see the first part of Genesis 15

Verse 1: YHWH introduces himself for first order of business
Verses 2, 3: Abram voices concern
Verses 4, 5: YHWH responds with promise
Verse 6: Narrator notes that Abram responds correctly to that promise and that YHWH commends him for his right response (justice of character and conduct, see Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan, 1981, page 640, 2nd column, 13 lines down).
Verse 7: YHWH introduces next order of business.

I can see both constructions making sense. Having Abram being the subject twice in verse 6 seems to make the verse easier to diagram, but having YHWH as the subject in the second half gives the verse the feel of a summary of the first order of business. That YHWH is righteous is a given; the righteous response by Abram to YHWH is what is noted and is the reason they can proceed to the next order of business.

This is where I am. I don't see a problem with number 1.

Deu 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Carl

Zekaryah (or Carl),
Doug Del Tondo and Scott Nelson have changed their view of Gen 15:6 and agree that it should actually be translated as follows:

Genesis 15:6 And he [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] counted it [God's promises] to Him [God] (as) righteousness.

Abram's righteous character had already been previously established, and this is why God chose him to be His Prophet and Patriarch.

Please read my post at the top of this thread.

Tom

[Tom]

Hi Tom,

I've read through the posts on this thread and I still feel the need to offer an alternative explanation.

I suggested more than one construction over the past several days.

1. Most recent:

He [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [YHWH] reckoned it [Abram's trust] to Abram (as) righteousness.

2. Previous, on your evidence:

He [Abram] trusted in YHWH; and he [Abram] reckoned it [YHWH's promise] to YHWH (as) righteousness.

Here is how I see the first part of Genesis 15

Verse 1: YHWH introduces himself for first order of business
Verses 2, 3: Abram voices concern
Verses 4, 5: YHWH responds with promise
Verse 6: Narrator notes that Abram responds correctly to that promise and that YHWH commends him for his right response (justice of character and conduct, see Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan, 1981, page 640, 2nd column, 13 lines down).
Verse 7: YHWH introduces next order of business.

I can see both constructions making sense. Having Abram being the subject twice in verse 6 seems to make the verse easier to diagram, but having YHWH as the subject in the second half gives the verse the feel of a summary of the first order of business. That YHWH is righteous is a given; the righteous response by Abram to YHWH is what is noted and is the reason they can proceed to the next order of business.

This is where I am. I don't see a problem with number 1.

Deu 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Carl

Carl,
Sigh!

The biggest problem with your "number 1" translation is that you are ironically arguing in favor of a translation that favors Gen 15:6 as a verse that supports Paul's apostate doctrine of "Justification by Faith".

Having said that, it is also ironic that you correctly point out that Deu 6:25 established that righteousness is based on obedience (and omits any reference to faith as a factor in imputing righteousness to a person).

You also correctly point out that Gen 15:6 is ambiguous and that either translation is possible.
But you have ignored all of the corroborating evidence for my alternate translation that I have made in my various posts.

So I guess I just need to copy and paste some of my previous points:

If Gen 15:6 was such a foundation stone for a new theology of justification by faith rather than obedience, they why didn't Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel or any other prophet develop that idea further in the Old testament? Why didn't any OT figure quote Gen 15:6 or even mention the idea that it might have been the foundation of a doctrine of justification by faith? Instead there are only verses such as Deu 6:25 and the whole chapter of Deu 28 that promote the opposite idea, that righteousness is imputed because of obedient works. . . with no mention of faith as a necessary ingredient!

Another line of reasoning to be considered is how Noah obviously believed YHWH when He said He would deliver a flood, and Noah therefore obeyed YHWH's command to build an ark.
If believing that YHWH will do as He says He will do was the cause for being righteous, then why didn't the Bible arrange a dialogue in those verses in which YHWH would impute Noah as righteous for believing the Flood was coming and was building the ark in good faith that YHWH could be trusted to create the Flood. In both cases, the most likely trait that could be imputed to either Noah or Abram was just the trait of common sense, nothing more. Each of them had past experiences that showed YHWH was 100% reliable, as reliable as the sunrise or sunset, so it was not any great feat or testament to their characters for them to believe YHWH when He said He was going to do something.

[RhodaRose]

Tom asks:

"Why didn't any OT figure quote Gen 15:6 or even mention the idea that it might have been the foundation of a doctrine of justification by faith? "

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his (Paul's) soul which is lifted up is not upright in him (Paul): but the just shall live by his (Paul's) faith.

Peter says to ADD to your faith..."faith" is not enough....

2 Peter 1:5-11 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Was Jesus asking if He would only find "faith" on this earth, because of Paul's teachings? and no growth that leads to the Kingdom as Peter says:

"they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ"

"give diligence to make your calling and election sure"

"ye shall never fall"

"an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

You need "ears to hear" what the Spirit is saying in His Words

[Bill Anderson]

Rhoda if I discern properly you have gone way off track here .

Even I do not see Genesis 15: 6 as Tom does, but I don’t discount his interpretation as
nought, it does hold some merit. If you can’t identify attained righteousness for your believe in
Genesis 15:6 , you will definitely find it in many other places like Psalm 18 for example.

If I understood you correctly, you seemed to suggest that faith was not part of the old
testament way. I f this is what you were suggesting then I will show you your folly in what
Jesus said about FAITH and BELIEF .
( Abraham BELIEVED God )

Matthew 9:28-29
28 And when He had come into the house, the blind
men came to Him. And Jesus said to them,
"Do you believe that I am able to do this?"
They said to Him, 'Yes, Lord.'
29 Then He touched their eyes, saying,
"According to your faith let it be to you."

Surely this must tell you something about the old testament followers.
Let’s look at it with a practical example from Moses.

Deuteronomy 9:23 “Likewise, when the Lord sent you from Kadesh Barnea,
saying, ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you,’
then you rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God,
and you did not believe ** Him nor obey His voice.

**could have been written ( have faith in )

Rhoda do you believe in Jesus?

Have you belived His voice?

Your answer would suggest you have faith !

1John 5:4-5
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this
is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith .
5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he
who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ?

So did the Israelites who believed Moses when he discipled them, about the Lord and His
Torah. (Well some of them anyway)


I don't like to quote Paul, but one thing he did say that held TRUE, that any of us would
agree on if we discussed it in the kitchen, was:
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17)

The only sad thing is Paul did not understand the word of God.

We who have diligently immersed ourselves in the foundation of the PERFECT WORD which
came through the holy prophets through the Holy Spirit , can easily discern TRUTH from
FALSHOOD .

In fact we don’t need to read letters that came after, we can discern from the foundation
ourselves if we are willing to dig deep. In that way one is able to pull apart the letters or any
body you encounter in the flesh, when you are properly grounded in TRUTH .

This is where GREATER FAITH comes from.
When the TRUTH has penetrated DEEP within your spirit...

Then your FAITH is unshakable!

Because you have BELIEVED the voice of God through the holy prophets.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your comments, I think my addition
to the post may have benefited everybody anyway.


.