Craig's response:

Shabbat Shalom,

Can people browse the YY sites using anonymizer software or proxies? Just wondering. Sometimes I can't seem to get through to the sites, but when I use proxies such as www.hidemyass.com I am able to access the YY sites.

Shalom,

"Turn over control to Yahweh..." That's what we did by taking a vacation! It is difficult for us to leave our business but since we are able to do this each weekly Sabbath, we have turned over control of our business to Abba Yahweh to preserve and grow while we are away to celebrate Sukah! We don't know what lies in store but we trust that He is control and shall do whatever is right to bring us closer to Him while increasing our business or opening new doors.

Craig's response:

"Why Crucify, not Stone?"




Craig's response:

Craig responds:



"YP" writes back:



Craig's reponse:

Is CW saying here that he doesn't view Matthew, Mark and Luke as Scripture, or saying that the oldest known copies of these books have also been tampered with and therefore can't be relied on?

What me and Craig are getting at, is that due to the fact that what we have of certain books pre-Constantine - such as Matthew, Mark, Acts, Revelation, Ya'qob, etc., etc., - is just so fragmentary and copious amounts of those books are missing (Matthew is missing chapters 7-9, 15-19, 22, 27-28; Mark is missing chapters 1 - 3, 10, 13-16; Luke is missing chapters 19-21 etc., etc., and the rest of the chapters that are extant are still fragmentary), that what is said in these missing verses and chapters is up to debate for whether they can be trusted to actually be the words that Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc., etc., wrote down.

Due to the fact that the oldest manuscript to contain these missing verses is Codex Sinaiticus, and the fact that my study into the text of Codex Sinaiticus has shown it to be wholly untrustworthy, we just can not base any sort of exactness or certainty on the words not found in any pre-Constantinian manuscript.

The only book we have in full in pre-Constantinian manuscripts is the eye-witness account of Yahuchanon - with Chapters 1 through 21 being extant between two manuscripts: Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 66. My study into the text of P66 and P75 has shown that they are very alike (at the moment, they're expressing a 99.2% agreement with each other in the first chapter of Yahuchanon), so they give us indubitable evidence to the words that Yahuchanon actually wrote down, therefore showing it to be the only book of the Renewed Covenant that we can put 100% trust in.

Until older manuscripts of the other books are found, the evidence is against trusting anything bar Yahuchanon's eye-witness account of Yahushua.

A shocking truth (as it was to me), but the truth nonetheless.

Craig's response:



Here is Craig's first response to "LR":


I've read the article on Lewis Loflin's site (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnostic_files/maccoby.htm), closely examining the unknown author's evidence and reasoning, and consider it brilliant. This anonymous author has found things I agree with but missed, just as I found things in Questioning Paul that he or she would probably agree with but missed. But in the end, we are saying the same thing: Paul, the author of Galatians and Romans, very deliberately and thoughtfully created a false Christ and false gospel so as to lure people away from Yahweh and His Torah. He did so by using half-truths and clever counterfeits. And we are both troubled, although not surprised, that so many people have disregarded the obvious.

Thanks for sending this article. It is a great read. I especially enjoyed the author's analysis of Yahshua's temptation at the beginning of His ministry. It serves to disprove Pauline Doctrine as adroitly as does Yahshua's Sermon on the Mount. I differ however with the article's author when it comes to Yahshua being about Yah's business, and thus of Him facilitating the Torah's plan of salvation. It is a connection the article misses.

The one place I have my doubts, and I'm not yet convinced, albeit I've been leaning in this direction for some time, is the correlation between Paul and Gnostic teaching, especially as those things were interpreted by Marcion, a Gnostic who like his apostle Paul, also attacked Gnostics. But, either way, the author's relentless logic, and his or her insightful Scriptural comparisons, are irrefutable, albeit cerebral. This article is akin to "Questioning Paul" for especially well educated and thoughtful people--except the author does not take a stand, as I do, in favor of Yahweh and the Torah.

I would love to be able to "dumb down" the arguments and examples used in the article so that they might be applicable to a larger audience. And over time, I'll read some of the things Loflin himself has written to see if his reasoning and conclusions are equally consistent and accurate.

Craig

PS, What follows is my highlighted version of the article, revealing what I considered to be especially revealing.

CW





Hyam Maccoby [The Mythmaker] was mostly right: 1. Paul was not a Pharisee. 2. Christians prior to Paul were not antinomian (anti Torah), anti-Jewish, or anti-God. 3. Paul invented the doctrine of the Cross, along with the story of the Last Supper and associated doctrine of the Body of Christ. This much of The Mythmaker I had to agree with after examining the evidence, even though I was extremely reluctant to part with the idea he had been a Pharisee. Maccoby was also right about something else, which I shall go into in greater depth later on.

Having determined all this to my satisfaction raised the question "What did Paul think he was doing?" I found myself lost in a sea of contradictions: Paul preached "salvation by faith," that is, by belief; yet, he did not believe in the Christian gospel himself. We know this because the gospel he preached was totally different, bearing no relationship whatsoever to the life and teachings of Jesus. Now, before Paul invented his gospel, the only gospel which existed was that of the apostles. Why would a man who believed his salvation depended upon believing the gospel not believe in the gospel preached by the apostles of Christ? How could Paul, who makes so much of his own authority as an apostle, so disregard the teaching of every other apostle?

The contradictions are particularly acute with regard to the "law," or Torah: in Romans he portrays himself as a pious observer of the Torah who found himself unable to obey it; meaning, we suppose, that no one else can either. Yet Paul must certainly have been aware of Deut. 30:11, "[this law] is not too difficult for you," for he quotes most of the passage in the very same epistle, leaving out only "not too difficult" and "so you may obey it." St. Paul would have had to have been a colossal idiot not to understand this passage. Furthermore, in the epistle to the Galatians Paul lists the "effects of obeying the law" as follows:

1. It "nullifies the effect of Christ in you."

2. It makes "Christ die for nothing," i.e., it nullifies "the cross."

3. It renders "all my work for you in vain" (in preaching the gospel, presumably). Now, this contradicts the main argument in Romans, that it would be fine to obey the law if it were possible but since it is not we must not; which makes no sense at all, but so what?

These passages also show that Paul could not have believed the law "abrogated," or nullified, for there can be no effect from obeying a nullified law, and if there is an effect there can be no nullification.

How can we discover Paul's true beliefs from this maze of contradictory statements? By Maccoby's Fourth Proposition: 4. That Paul employed deception, and most especially misrepresentation, to convince people to accept the gospel. In other words, Paul was a liar, not a pathological liar, but a purposeful one: he lied to advance the gospel; not the gospel of the apostles, but the gospel he himself preached. He himself declared that among Jews he acted like a Jew, among Greeks like a Greek; is it unlikely then that among apostles he would act like an apostle? Or that he would emulate apostlolic behavior (like extreme humility) in his letters even though he was nothing like it in fact?

Paul was a liar, but he was also a preacher and pastor: he had to tell at least something of the truth to preach, and give the Galatians some kind of idea that their obedience of the Commandments was a bad idea, even if he could not say precisely why. How can a man both lie and tell the truth at the same time? The way to do that is by clever use of language. Paul used a special type of language which he called "spiritual words," which he distinguished from the ordinary kind of language, which he called "speaking as a human being." Now these "spiritual words" could not be understood by the rules of grammar and syntax.

They can, however, be decyphered. Here are some examples, and their meaning, translated by myself: ...[the law] was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator of one is not, but God is one. Gal. 3:19-20

Notice how the meaning of this passage seems to sail right past you and out of sight, leaving you the impression of having witnessed something profound even though you cannot say just what. Let us turn the passage front to back and see what we have: God is one.

A mediator of one is not. The Law was ordained through a mediator.

What we have here is what the Greeks call a syllogism, a sequence of facts tending towards a conclusion. And the conclusion? Since the law was ordained through a "mediator" (leaving aside the question of whether this was so or not), and there can not be a mediator of "one," such as God is (leaving aside this issue as well), it follows that the law could not have been ordained by God. So the phrase which begins the passage, "the law was ordained by angels," is really the conclusion of the syllogism: since "angels" are more than one, "angels" ordained the law. Now, this conclusion is virtually imperceptable to people who worship God, such as Jews (although Maccoby did object to the idea the Torah was ordained by angels): there are too many factual discrepancies to let anyone take it seriously. These people all know that the Torah was ordained by God Almighty, Ruler of heaven and earth. But Paul was not such a person. He was not one of those "unbelievers" who are "blinded by the Ruler of the World" in their study of the Torah; oh no. He was something else entirely.

Let us conclude that Paul conceded the law was ordained by someone or something, and did not believe that someone or something was God. Would this be satisfactory? After all the word "God" is not a name but a title, and the fact that Paul does not care to bestow the title does not know what is what. After all, in later generations the term "angels" was applied by Gnostics with the meaning "the God of the Old Testament," or Yahweh. If one person can grant a title, someone else can equally change that title; so if Paul says "angels ordained the law" with the meaning "Yahweh ordained the law," is this not factual? Blasphemous as hell certainly, but not untrue. In short, if Paul were a Gnostic his passage would have made perfect sense, and his epistle to the Galatians would have made perfect sense as well, for what were the Galatians doing but obeying the law? What was wrong with that?

Another example: Paul tells the Galatians that even though they accepted Christ they are "turning back" to "bondage to the elements of the universe" in their observance of the law. Now the word "turning" needs no explanation: in Bible-Speak it is synonymous with "repent." Now, who would characterize the act of converting from Christ to Judaism "repentance?" Why does Paul think this "repentance" bad? Because it involves serving "elements." What are "elements?"

To people brought up in the study of Scripture, "the Word" is something constant and immovable. To Korzybski, father of General Semantics the word is merely a representation of the truth, not the truth itself: "the map is not the territory." Therefore we can consider the term "elements" as a variable rather than a constant. The way to determine the value of a variable is by analyzing its relationship to other values. What values does Paul give us here?

Galatians observing the law == serving "elements" Now in any equation you can reverse the order of the terms without effecting the truth of the statement. Therefore we can also say Serving "element" ==what you do when you observe the law The burning question is, how did Paul know, with such utter certainty, that the Galatians were serving anything (we cannot say precisely what just yet because we have not determined the value of "elements") by obeying the Commandments? Let us see if we can zero in on a definition of "elements:" the term appears in an earlier passage, which provides further insight into Paul's understanding of the term: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world... Gal. 4:3

In algebraic terms this works out to something like: "elements" = what Paul served in his youth. So, what did Paul serve in his youth? The answer to this might give us an idea of what "elements" are. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Gal. 1:13

The upshot of all of which is this: Paul was a Jew in his youth, and served the "elements of the world;" and the Galatians observe the law and serve "elements." So "elements" must be a disparaging sort of term for "Yahweh," just as "angels" is another. It is not that Paul does not believe in Scripture, but that he has a negative opinion (in Greek, heresy) about Scripture's God: He acknowleges that those who obey the Commandments serve the "ruler of this world." He acknowleges that this "ruler" ordained the Law.

He acknowleges that someone "in Christ" who decides to obey the Commandments serves this "ruler." This is why obeying the law abrogates the gospel of Christ: for the function of Paul's Christ is to "conquer all rule." It goes without saying that "the function of Paul's Christ" is identical to Paul's purpose in preaching the gospel, since Paul and Paul alone invented that gospel. So then Paul's purpose is to overthrow the Kingdom of God (or Heaven). Thus Paul's distress with the Galatians makes perfect sense: you cannot overthrow God if you obey His Commandments, can you?

The revelation that Paul was trying to overthrow God, and the means he chose to do it, namely disguising himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, explains a number of seeming contradictions in his epistles, and allows us to hazard a guess as to why he granted Christ God-like, or at least Yahweh-like attributes: Paul's Christ was intended to serve as a kind of substitute for Yahweh during the Interregnum, the transitional period between the Rule of Yahweh and the Rule of the Gnostic deity. It was a manifestation through myth of the practical situation during Paul's ministry, when the vast majority of his converts did not consciously reject God or imagine Paul would have wanted them to. Paul could not tell such people not to worship God because they would have rejected him immediately. In Paul's terms, they were not "spiritual" enough to appreciate the true "wisdom" of the gospel. So in the meantime he fed them what he called "milk for infants in Christ," which is to say doctrines and concepts they could agree with. And throughout, he worked to "wean" them away from the worship of God by giving them an almost-identical Christ to worship instead.

Now for another example of Paul's "spiritual words." Know ye not, bretheren, (for I speak to them that know (Gr. epignosis) the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while here husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adultress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adultress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brfethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Rom. 7:1-4

This passage Maccoby despaired of understanding, calling it "muddled." It is nothing of the sort. Let us start by observing the people it is addressed to "those who know the law." The term Paul uses is "epignosis," implying a particularly excellent kind of "knowing." But "gnosis" is also the term Gnostics used for their own religion, which takes as a fundemental principle the "knowlege" that the Ruler of the Universe is evil. So Paul is being deliberately ambiguous here: he could mean either a rabbi or a Gnostic. Which is it? The part that follows is exceedingly "legalistic" in tone, as though it were addressed to a rabbi. Yet, the legal principle itself requires no great knowlege to understand: who does not understand that a married woman may not marry another man? Though this is certainly no great challenge to the rabbi's knowlege, Paul goes on to state the principle once more, to make sure we get it right.

But the final part seems to leave the bounds of reality behind altogether: what does Paul's "legal principle" have to do with the body of Christ, or being dead to the law? Let us take another look at Paul's "legalism:" the "married woman" is analogous (at least the prophet Hosea thought she was) with someone who is "under law." Such a person is through the covenant of Israel a "bride of the Lord." Likewise, employing Hosea once more, the "living husband" to whom she is bound by law is "the living God." In Hosea's vision, therefore, the act of worshipping idols was considered "adultery." Israel, the person "under law," becomes an "adultress" if she worships other gods.

So how can Israel get out of this situation? Paul provides two mechanisms, and we presume both operate simultaneously: first, "the law has authority only so long a a man lives." Thus, the "married woman" who "dies" is no longer "under law," therefore no longer subject to the authority of the law. Second, her "living husband" can "die:" this allows her to "be married to another," or worship another god. With this the meaning of the final part becomes clear: Paul believed that a person who was "in Christ" was both "dead" (hence 'dead to the law), and the "living husband," or God, was also "dead." Since both God and believer are "dead," it is now permissible to worship Christ instead.

That is what Paul says; and if Maccoby did not understand, it was because there are some enormities the mind cannot encompass. This is one of them. However, the idea of murdering God (or the 'Ruler of this World') would have been quite familiar to later generations of Gnostics, whose doctrines were described by one Christian theologian as "an abyss of madness and blasphemy." The idea of murdering God sounds crazy to someone who thinks God is "good;" but to someone who has "put the Lord your God to the test," and decided the Ruler of the World was "evil," such a thing would be a logical consequence, a necessary prerequisite for the salvation of the universe. What is so crazy about saving the universe? We must put ourselves in their shoes before we can judge them. Suppose you were a Jewish mystic pondering the meaning of the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil.

That man ate of the fruit of this tree clearly implies that man's "knowlege of good and evil" is beyond God's direct control, for men "become as gods in knowing good and evil." What is the proof this is so? Well, to find a proof it is customary to dream up the most extreme example conceivable, and if that example "works" we know any lesser one will also. The ultimate proof of God's goodness is found in the Torah; so if a person were of the opinion that God was evil, and then studied the whole Torah completely, and still found hiimself of the same opinion at the end, it would be proof that God has no authority over that man's opinion. And of course this is entirely possible: just look at the history of anti-Semitism, and compare the things Jews were accused of with the things they actually did, and you will have to agree that the opinion of humanity can triumph over plain old simple reality every time. This is what the Gnostics did: they did not reject Scripture so much as reject Scripture's Author. Gnostic myths and traditions, for all their wonderful variety, were the result of interpreting Scripture according to the opinion that God was evil and not good.

For what mystic would not strive to advance himself into higher realms of existence, to become as a god?

According to Scripture, "gnosis," the knowlege of good and evil, was the only way this was possible; so that is what they did.

The Gnostics' spiritual bent has led many to compare them with the Platonists and Neo-Platonists; yet one of the latter criticized them because they had no concept of physical beauty. How could they? They knew God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it; if God is not beautiful, how could anything He created be beautiful? For a Gnostic to admit that something in this world was beautiful would be the same as saying God had done something right, which would have been from their point of view a monstrous sin. Their own doctrine prohibited them from seeing anything good in the world.

This is what distinguishes them from the Platonists: the latter rejected the "worldly" horse for the "unworldly" ideal of "horseness," because they thought the idea somehow superior to the reality; while the Gnostic rejected the horse because he had read the Bible and knew where horses had come from. Gnosticism is radically different from Judaism. But it is not so difficult to invent as say Christianity: all a Jew had to do to become a Gnostic was to turn his own religion upside-down and invent a few myths, such as worshipping a new god, and presto, he is a Gnostic. A Christian would have had to perform considerably more ideological manipulation; he would have had to decide which god Jesus was the son of, for example: if the son of Yahweh, that would make Jesus an enemy, if the son of the Gnostic deity an ally. As it happens during the Christian Era Gnostics swung both ways on this issue: Jesus introduced an ambiguity into the world-picture that did not exist in Judaism. But back to Paul. In Paul we find that the world has an enemy, and that this enemy is called "sin."

As Paul states, "Scripture has locked up all under sin." What does that mean? First let us observe Paul is expressing an opinion in "locked up under:" he clearly does not approve of this situation. But what sort of condition does "locked up under" signify? Well, "locked-up" signifies inability to escape, and "under" signifies subservience, subjection, bondage, etc. Hmm, looks kinda like the world is in the same shape as someone "under law," doesn't it? Okay, what does "under" mean, stripped of its opinionated connotations? It means sin is the ruler of the world. I remember getting angry when I read this: how could Paul have believed sin to be the ruler of the world when Scripture states quite emphatically that God is? Who told Paul he was naked? And then it came to me: he got it from Scripture. Back to algebra. Let us examine the statement "Scripture has locked-up all under sin" again: we find that it can also be expressed thus: "Sin is what Scripture has locked-up all under." Notice we have neither added no deducted any information from Paul.

So there is no excuse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Scripture certainly doesn't "lock up all under sin." So, either Paul is wrong (again) about Scripture, or else he is right. How could he be right? We just said Scripture does not "lock up all under sin." But it does "lock up all" under something. Suppose this "something" were what Paul meant by "sin?" After all, what is sin? It is commonly defined as the disobedience of God. Well, Paul was antinomian, he does not want us to obey the commandments of God, and considers it "trespass" if we do (for 'the law entered so the trespass might increase'); how does a person who thinks obeying God a bad idea define sin? Sin can be given a broader definition than simple disobedience of God: it can also mean impiety or irreligious behavior of any sort. Now Paul certainly considered obeying the law irreligious and impious; but he doesn't use the word "sin" to characterize such behavior, only "trespass." "Sin," for Paul, was far worse than the law: "Is the law sin? Certainly not!"

As we find in the seventh chapter of Romans, sin enjoys a particularly intimate relationship with those "under law:" it is something "dead apart from law" which "revives" under the influence of the law, and "lives" right there inside a person as long as that person does not disobey the Commandments. Wow, this sin is really something, isn't it? Pauline sin is something both within and without a person, something with its own "desires and lusts" and commandments and decrees. It is something all of humanity is subject to because we are all "in Adam," in the likeness of Adam.

And yet someone "under law" is especially "under" sin, for "you are a slave to whoever you agree to serve, whether sin or righteousness." For people "under law" actually serve sin voluntarily, as if they knew what sin was. Can you see where this is heading? Go study! Just find out what Scripture "locks all up under" and you will know what Paul means by the word "sin." And once you know that, you will be able to read the epistle to the Romans with a whole new understanding.

Sin was just another name for God.

Okay, what does this have to do with Christ? Paul stresses the importance of believing in Christ, and particularly the crucified Christ, going so far as to make this act synonymous with salvation, although as we have seen in his epistle to the Galatians it was not. What was so important about the crucified Christ? And what does this have to do with the other ideas Paul seems to have invented along with it, such as the idea that believers were "in Christ" (only Paul uses this term), and the "body of Christ?"

Well, "in" is short for "in the likeness of" whatever. Thus, those who are "in Adam" are "in the likeness of Adam, and presumably, by extension "in the likeness" of whatever Adam was "in the likeness" of. Go look it up.

Now, what does it mean to be "in the likeness" of Christ? It means being "in the likeness" of Christ's death: Paul says he is "dead to the law, crucified with Christ;" and the reason he is dead is that he has been crucified. He says the believer has "been buried with him in the likeness of his death" so he might be "resurrected with him in the likeness of his resurrection." A person who is thus dead is free from sin, for "he that is dead is justified of sin." Now all this is just analogy: what happens, or is supposed to happen, to the believer is similar to what happened to Jesus, but it is not the same.

Likewise, Paul could not have derived his doctrine of the cross simply by meditating on the crucifixion of Jesus: Jesus may have died for our sins, but he certainly did not die so we might die also. Yet this is what "in Christ" means: the believer has "died" to his previous existence "in Adam" just as Paul has "died" to his previous existence "under law." This is not a welcome analogy to modern Christians, who prefer to concentrate on the life-affirming aspects of their faith; yet for Paul the meaning of the cross was inseparable from the fate of the believer: his "death" to Adam and to the likeness of Adam, was the prerequisite for salvation, because it was how justifiection was effected. So what was wrong with being "in Adam?" Adam was "in sin," in the likeness of sin (see above); Paul must have found this out in the Bible somewhere.

In fact, his whole concept of "in Christ" is a direct steal from the concept of "in Adam": for just as Adam was "in the likeness" of something, even so Paul's Christ was "in the likeness" of something else; so that believers, by undergoing this mystical process of death and resurrection, might cease to be "in the likeness" of Adam's likeness and be conformed to the likeness of Christ's likeness.

Needless to say, none of this makes any sense as long as one believes both Adam and Christ the creation of the same entity. If Adam was "in the likeness" of God, and Christ was also "in the likeness of God," (for Paul says this and he should know), then the only thing the believer is accomplishing by the exercise is an exchange of middle-men. If this was the only thing going for Paul's gospel it is difficult to understand why he would have endured the hardships and persecutions he suffered trying to preach it. On the other hand, if the "father" of Adam and the "father" of Christ are different entities, then the story is quite different: instead of merely changing god-names, the believer is changing god-identities, becoming the son of another god.

It then becomes understandable why Paul endured the hardships and persecutions and told all those lies. He wants us to stop being human beings subject to the Ruler of the Universe, in the only way, legally, this can be brough about: through death.

He does not want us to be in any way subject to "that which Scripture has locked all up under," he wants us to be subject to "righteousness" instead. Isn't that wonderful? PAUL AND THE APOSTLES We have been beating around in Paul's doctrines quite awhile it is time to step back and look at the situation around him. Maccoby's book made it pretty clear that Paul and the apostles had serious differences: the issue of the law for instance.

If Paul's rejection of the law angered ordinary Jews enough to chase Paul down the street throwing rocks at him, how much worse would it have angered the church he claimed to be a member of? After all, Paul was not merely misrepresenting himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," he was misrepresenting the Church as agreeing with his doctrines, which it almost certainly did not. As I considered the matter, I realised they must have been tremendously pissed off at him. Well, if they were, there ought to be evidence of it. Now Paul does not quote the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels; this suggests he did not know them, and the likeliest reason for this is that the apostolic gospel postdates Paul's ministry. Unfortunately, all true apostolic texts have been "gone over" and edited by latter-day followers of Paul; so direct evidence is not likely to be found.

However, there is an abundance of indirect evidence, or maybe cryptic evidence. The anti-Pauline material starts early. Luke and Matthew include lengthy birth-narratives, each of which is quite different and therefore unlikely to have originated from a single source, like the sayings of Jesus. The first point at which the Synoptic Gospels coincide is the Baptism of John, commonly considered the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Immediately following his baptism, Jesus goes off into the desert to fast, and, according to Mark, "to be tempted of the devil." Did Mark think being tempted of the devil was a standard practice in those days? More likely Mark, whose Gospel is the shortest of the Synoptics, simply omitted the story of the Temptation of Jesus. The Temptation of Jesus is a peculiar sort of "teaching of...

Just to pick on a few things from the article:

Firstly, the author says this line: It means sin is the ruler of the world. I remember getting angry when I read this: how could Paul have believed sin to be the ruler of the world when Scripture states quite emphatically that God is?

I take it that the author was also angry when Yahushua was recorded saying this in Yahuchanon 12:30-31: Yahushua answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world shall be thrown out."

And in 14:30: "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me.";

And in 16:8-11 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: concerning sin, because they do not place trust me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged."

And how about Yahuchanon himself in 1 Yahuchanon 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the authority of the evil one.

Why exactly isn't the author of the article also angry with Yahuchanon, who not only says that the world is in Halal's authority, but also puts into the words of Yahushua Himself stating that "the ruler of this world has nothing on me" and "the ruler of this world shall be thrown out" and that "the ruler of this world is judged". Seems to me that actually, Paul isn't so out of sync with either Yahuchanon or Yahushua.

Another thing the author states: Now Paul does not quote the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.

Would someone like to point to any of the "sayings" of Yahushua seen in the Synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) in 1, 2, and 3 Yahuchanon, 1 and 2 Peter, and in Ya'qob, and in Hebrews (which I now know Craig doesn't think Paul wrote)? (To save everyone the bother - none of these people quote the "sayings of Jesus" either, although feel free to check - they're not that big, bar Hebrews).

The unknown author of the article is a hypocrite and a liar, and obviously hadn't done enough searching before he started making blanket statements. And the owner of the webpage that posted this unknown author's article is also a liar when he states "Note: I do not know who wrote this and have been unable to trace it. But I checked the information and it is correct," when actually, the information isn't correct.

It took me less than 20 mins to discover the bias of the author and his false statements. I wouldn't hold out much hope for what else he has said, either.

All the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls that talk of "The Wicked Priest" or "The Liar" are dated pre-1st Century CE. So whoever they're on about, they were alive long before Paul or James or whoever was.

And if Josephus, writing at the end of the 1st Century CE, was referring to Paul when talking of this Saulus, as famous as Paul had gotten by then I'm certain that Josephus would've clarified that he meant Saul of Tarsus, and not just referred to a certain otherwise unknown Saulus. And having looked at the very, very small passage in Josephus, the attribution of Josephus' Saulus to Saul/Paul is just complete ludicrous. I also found no reference of Josephus saying that the Saulus he talks about extorted Widow's houses.

Also, Josephus states that this happened after King Agrippa II had made Caesarea Philippi bigger and named it "Neronlas" after Emperor Nero, and this happened to have been done in 61 CE, when Paul was actually in Rome, not Jerusalem. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

As Saul, being a common Hebrew name, there would've been many people who went by such a name.

And when it comes to the Ebionites, the earliest actual reference we have to them (because we don't have any of their extant writings) is actually Irenaeus writing at the end of the 2nd Century CE, and all that he references is very little. It would also have been more than enough time for any Hebrew at that time, hearing of Paul through the lips of Marcion's followers, to have cast serious doubts on Paul, even though they may not have had any access to Paul's letters to actually read what he had said.

The thing is BR, is that Acts 8:3 happened around about 39CE, the bit of Josephus you quoted above is placed in 61 CE (read the paragraph before the one above), long after Paul had ceased to be in Jerusalem. The two aren't connected.



They've been re-checked by several other people now that have no affiliation with Rome. Robert Eisenman, the scholar whose idea's you seem to be referring to, got the Zurich Institute of Technology to Carbon Date the scrolls in 1990, and in 1994 they were Carbon dated by the University of Arizona, both of which dated them as Pre-1st Century CE, which completely blew Eisenman's ridiculous theories right out of the water.

Not surprisingly, Eisenman fails to mention the Carbon Dating of the scrolls in any of his books. I wonder why...

The following is an exchange between "CC" and Craig:



Craig's response:

The following is an exchange between and Craig:



Craig's response:

Wow! Amazing! Thanks for posting these.

Craig's response:

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:27 PM, "CL" wrote:




Good. Let me know how it goes.





We are to observe all seven Called-Out Assemblies forever. We have a calendar available for you in the Miqra' chapter of the Called-Out Volume of Yada Yahweh. The Sabbath is our Saturday. I devoted the Shabat chapter of the first volume to how to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath is unrelated to months, only to weeks. The entire Miqra' - Called-Out Volume is devoted to how to observe the 7 Called-Out Assemblies.







I just recently learned that the Covenant has not yet been renewed, and it is for this very reason: the Torah has not yet been placed inside of us. The purpose is so that our understanding of Yahuwah's instructions will be perfect.





There is a real antichrist and he will use religion and politics, thus involve the church and governments.






Yes, I have been. She provides understanding and communication that would otherwise not be possible.

Craig's response:

Craig's response:

Craig's response: