James Trimm
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by James Trimm
-
-
Wierwille said that the Jewish people of the present day are descendants of Attila the Hun.
As I understand it, DNA technology can identify markers of geographic origin and the geography involved in Wierwille's claim does not prove out. Someone please correct me on this. I'm sure I've oversimplified it.
He also said that when God reunites the peoples of Israel, they won't be arriving on jet planes. This was a derogatory statement directed toward the country we current know as Israel.
Sorry I misread your post, I thought you said VPW taught modern Jews are biblical Jews but that some genetics research today was disproving that. Now I see the word "not" and that you were saying the opposite,
-
Yeah, "replacementism".
That was what Wierwille promoted.
Only he never came across as being hateful about it.
It was almost like he professed to have some sort of "pity" for the Jews.
He did, incidentally, claim that modern days Jews are not the descendants of the Biblical Jews, a claim that modern DNA technology has shown to be incorrect.
Not sure what you mean. Modern Jews come from many back grounds: Ashkenazi; Sephardic; Yeminite and until recently "Babylonian" Jews from Iraq who had been in Babylon since the Babylonian exile.
As I understand it DNA decomposes and we have no DNA from "Biblical Jews" to compare with.
Also since Gentiles can BECOME Jews (See Esther 8:17) there is a constant influx of new DNA.
-
According to Wierwille, God gave up on the Jews and made us (Wayfers) the chosen people. Is that anti-Semitism? I like to think it is more like a misguided, delusional form of elitism.
That is replacement theology.
Replacement Theology
One of the greatest misunderstandings of the Church/Israel relationship is called "Replacement Theology". This theology teaches that the Church has been given the
promises made to Israel, because of Israel's unbelief and rejection of the Messiah. Thus these theologians teach that the Church has replaced Israel and the Jews have no future in
Elohim’s plan. This theology guises itself under a number of names: "Dominion Theology"; "Kingdom Now Theology"; "Covenant Theology"; and "Reconstructionalist Theology". This theology is held to by Postmillenialists, amillinialists and some Premillinialists.
One of the major problems with replacement theology is that it falsely leaves Elohim guilty of not keeping his promises to literal Israel to whom they pertain (Rom. 9:3-4). These promises include:
* PROMISE OF LAND (Gen. 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-8).
* PROMISE TO REGATHER ISRAEL AND RESTORE THE KINGDOM OF
ISRAEL WITH MESSIAH AS KING. (Deut. 30:1-5; Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-16; Jer. 23:5-6; see also: Deut 28:1-14; 2Sam. 7:4-14; 1Chron. 17; Ps. 89; Is. 2:1-4; 14:1; 25:1-27:13; 56:1-18; 60:1-22; 62:1-12; 65:17-25; 66:7-9; Jer. 16:14-15; 30:1-33:26; Ezkl. 33:1-39:29; 40:1-48:35; Hosea 11:1-14:9; Joel 2:18-3:21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-8ff; 7:11-20; Zeph. 3:9-20; Hag. 2:20-23; Zech. 14; Dan. 2:44.)
One of the key points of Replacement theology is its false claim that Elohim has rejected Israel. The Scriptures, however, are very plain. Elohim promised in the Tanak (Old Testament) not to ever reject Israel, saying:
Thus says YHWH, Who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who stirs up the sea, that the waves thereof roar, YHWH Tzva’ot is His name:
If these ordinances depart from before Me, says YHWH, then the seed of Yisra’el also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever.
Thus says YHWH: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Yisra’el for all that they have done, says YHWH.
(Jer. 31:35-37 HRV)
Elohim has also stated in the Ketuvim Netzarim that he has not rejected Israel, as we read in Romans:
But I say, Has Eloah rejected his people? Absolutely not! For I also am from Yisra'el. I am from the seed of Avraham, from the tribe of Benyamin.
Eloah has not rejected his people who from before were known by him. Also, do you not know what he said in the writing about Eliyahu when he was complaining to Eloah concerning Yisra'el? And he said
Now I say, Have they stumbled so as to fall? Absolutely not! But in their stumbling, life has come to the Goyim for their jealousy.
Do not boast against the [natural] branches; but if you boast, you are not bearing the root, but the root bears you.
(Rom. 11: 1-2, 11, 18 HRV)
This "boasting" is Replacement theology which is twice condemned in the Ketuvim Netzarim saying,:
I know of the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not,
but are a congregation of Satan."
(Rev. 2:9; 3:9.)
Now we have already shown that the Kingdom of Elohim is the restored Kingdom of Israel. Now bearing in mind that the Kingdom is Israel, we must now determine if the claim made by Replacement theologians is correct, has the Christian Church replaced Israel as the Kingdom?
One of the passages which makes it clear that the Christian Church cannot be the Kingdom spoken of in the New Testament may be found in 1Cor. 15:50-55 which states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (1Cor. 15:50) and that as a
result when Messiah returns (1Cor. 15:52; 1Thes. 4:16-17; Mt. 24:30-31) mortals will be made immortal (1Cor. 15:50-55). If this refers to the Christian Church, then no mortal man of flesh and blood can be a part of the Church. This would make no sense at all.
Another passage which makes it clear that the Kingdom cannot be the Church takes place in Acts chapter one immediately after Yeshua's resurrection. In this text we read that the emissaries spent forty days studying "the things pertaining to the Kingdom of Elohim" with Yeshua (Acts 1:3.) After this incredible forty day study the emissaries ask Yeshua "Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6.) After forty days of study with Yeshua on the topic the emissaries still believed that the Kingdom would be a restored Kingdom of Israel, this can only be because this is what they were taught for forty days.
The strange thing is that VPW also taught Dispensatoionalism which tends to teach an entirely different theology called Church/Israel Dichotomy
Another misunderstanding of the Church/Israel relationship is known as "Church/Israel Dichotomy. Church/Israel dichotomy is the position held by Dispensational Premillinialists (called Dispensationalists). This teaching was first put forward by John Darby during the 19th Century. Church/Israel Dichotomy teaches that the Church and Israel are two totally different groups with no members in common. According to this teaching, when a member of Israel (a Jew) becomes a member of the Church (a Christian) he is no longer a member of Israel (a Jew). Church/Israel Dichotomy came about as a result of false Dispensationalist teachings. Dispenstationalism teaches that the history of man can broken down into various compartmentalized "ages" or "dispensations." One of these is called "The Age of Law", this "Age of Law" is said to have ended with the founding of the Church and the beginning of a "Church Age" in Acts chapter 2. During this "Church Age" Dispensationalists teach that the Old Testament Law does not apply. This "Church Age" of no Law will, they say, end with the start of the seven year Tribulation (Dan. 9:27). The Dispensationalists admit that the Law is in effect during the Tribulation, since the sacrifices and offerings are continued during this time (Dan. 9:27). As a result Dispensationalists invented a Pre-Trib Rapture (dealt with in another chapter) to separate the Church Age from the Tribulation so that the Church is raptured away and Israel remains for the Tribulation. To make this theory work, Dispensationalists had to make the Church and Israel two totally separate groups, so that everyone was either raptured away as part of the Church, or remained behind as Israel to enter the
Tribulation. Thus Church/Israel Dichotomy was invented.
One of the verses used by Church/Israel Dichotomists is 1Cor. 10:32, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church of God." (KJV) The Dichotomy Theologians argue that these must be three distinct groups, with no common members. The truth is that there is no indication of this, for example "signs, wonders and miricals" (2Cor. 12:12) are not three distinct sets with no common members. The famous phrase "Friends, Romans and countrymen" also contained common members.
Another text used by Dichotomists is Eph. 2:14-16. However in this text we see only the destruction of enmity, not the birth of dichotomy. Another verse used by Dichotomists is Col. 3:11 "...there is neither Greek nor Jew..." however, if we look at a parallel passage in Gal. 3:28 we also read "There is neither Jew nor Greek... neither male nor female..." Yet females continue to exist as a distinct group with differing obligations (see 1Tim. 2:12-14; Titus 2:3-5.) The true meaning of this text is that Jews and Gentiles are both saved in the same way (Acts. 15:11; Rom. 3:22; 10:12) and both can be immersed into the Body of Messiah (1Cor. 12:13).
Several N.T. passages make it clear that Jews and Gentiles still exist as distinguishable peoples among believers (1Cor. 12:13; Rom. 9:3-4; Rom. 3:1-2; Rev. 2:9; 3:9) In the Ketuvim Netzarim Jews are still a nation of Priests (1Pt. 1:1; 2:5, 9 = Is. 43:20-21; Deut. 7:6; 10:15; Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 61:6) moreover in Acts 15 and 21 is is clear that there are both Jews and gentile believers (Acts 15:19-20; 21:21-26) with different emissaries (Acts 9:15; Gal. 1:16; 2:7-9).
According to Wierwille, God gave up on the Jews and made us (Wayfers) the chosen people. Is that anti-Semitism? I like to think it is more like a misguided, delusional form of elitism.
How odd of God to choose the Jews,
But not so odd as those who choose,
The Jewish God and hate the Jews.
-
SOURCE TEXTS USED IN THE HRV "NEW TESTAMENT":
-
One other question regarding the eternal nature of the Torah. What of all of the laws that pertain more to civil government that are handled currently by secular government as opposed to spiritual leadership? What of dietary laws?
Well the Theocracy does not exist and will not exist again until Messiah returns, so we are not authorized to carry out penalties. As a result death was replaced by disfellowshipment. That was the case in Yeshua's day as well.
Other than that I am not sure what you mean.
The dietary laws are for all generations forever, just as the whole Torah is.
-
"anti-semetic".. is the bear cathololic?
does the pope..
I really shouldn't go there..
James, I brought an old thread I started up from the murky depths of Greasespot Cafe..
Holocaust denial. Tell me what you think..
Well my wife is the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor... so the should tell you a little.
Since the Holocaust DID happen, and because of the nature of what it was, Holocaust denial IS anti-semitism.
-
What it represents in all gospel accounts is that now the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, have access into the Holy of Holies which they could not possibly previously have access to without being Jews.
It represents now that all common people who accept Jesus Christ have the same access to God that only the High Priest had under the Law.
Did you pick that up?
I cannot accept that interpretation. I do not believe that before Messiah's death Gentiles were just fuel for the fire of Hell.
To the contrary MANY gentiles came to the true faith in so called "Old Testament Times". Ruth was a Moabitess. We read in Esther:
And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and
his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy; a feast and a good day. And many from
among the peoples of the land, became Jews: for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon
them.
(Esther 8:17 HRV)
Jonah was sent to urge the Ninevehites to repent... to what end if the way was closed to them.
I cannot accept that interpretation. I do not believe that before Messiah's death Gentiles were just fuel for the fire of Hell.
To the contrary MANY gentiles came to the true faith in so called "Old Testament Times". Ruth was a Moabitess. We read in Esther:
And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and
his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy; a feast and a good day. And many from
among the peoples of the land, became Jews: for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon
them.
(Esther 8:17 HRV)
Jonah was sent to urge the Ninevehites to repent... to what end if the way was closed to them.
Although I would like to keep the theological debate in the Which Way? thread and keep this thread for Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament Origins.
-
Personally - I think you understand incorrectly. The Matthew/Mark versions of the story say that the veil tore after he died. Luke clearly states that it happened before. I won't even get into the notion that someone didn't get it right - that kind of flies in the face of the whole "God inspired" thing. The point is that the placement of when that event happened has significant theological implications - and 2 very different things are being said by way of where that tearing of the holy of holies takes place.
I cannot agree. In fact the Old Syriac text of Matthew 27:51 says that "in the same hour" the Temple veil was torn. I think that the veil was torn at the exact moment of Messiah's death, thus in listing the things that happened in that instant Matthew lists it after and Luke lists it before, but both are listing things that happened at the same instant in time.
-
In the past the Way International has been accused of Anti-Semitism
For example the ADL in 1982:
Anti-Defamation League accuses religious group of Anti-Semitism
St. Petersberg Times - July 24, 1982 p. 37
And one of the largest newspapers in Arkansas in 1995:
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette says concerning The Way International: ”Charges of anti-Semitism brought more unwanted publicity when followers were urged to read
“The Myth of the Six Million” and “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” Both
books cast doubt on the Holocaust. Six ex-followers have told the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazettethat Wierwille and other Way leaders had taught that the
Holocaust was a myth concocted by the Jews.”
- The Way: After a family breaks up, questions arise about the group; By Mary Hargrove; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer
October 15, 1995
I understand TWI denies any anti-Semitism.
Does anyone have insight on this issue? I would love to know the truth.
-
and WHY did he do this?
Because he believed it was the right thing to do. He would have liked to do it strictly bro bono, but even bro bono cases incur expenses, and Larry scratches out a living, so the time taken from paying cases was quite a burden on him and his family. Anyone who wishes to contribute may, anyone who does not wish to do so may abstain. Its pure free will, do as you wish.
-
I am saying that the Torah is for all generations forever. Yes I also accept the books known as the "New Testament". I maintain that Yeshua ("Jesus") did not come to create a new religion, but to be the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.
Hi James :) I'm just trying to get this right...so it is the Torah and NOT the New Testament that is right ? And the purpose of getting 'into' the Torah is...? Does it fall into the category of "rightly dividing the Word of truth" I mean, I'm saved and I know it
I'm saved and I know it (sorry, couldn't help that one )!!I'm saved, I speak in tongues (what's your handle on that btw) I have a more than abundant life, I was personally present when my wifes' niece was instantaneously raised out of a coma, nearly dead, I have seen numerous physical healings and word of knowledge manifestations, so...what is the profit in ditching the N.T. for the Torah ?
??"Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." ??
Yes, you are still there, and can't move beyond it, that's your choice and you've made it. I've made mine too.
The law is the guide dog that fetched the sheep to the shepherd. Temporary as a sacrifice until he paid the price. All our fathers looked forward to the day when something more perfect should come, for without him, God could only be approached through sacrifice and most diligent observance. Moses led God's people until Joshua, and the law leads us to Christ, Christ, in turn leads us into the unmerited grace of God. Christ ended the slow bleeding for God's people and brought us something never really known before, access to God.
Edited to add:
This is less about the Way International than your other posts, and probably belongs in "Doctrine'
For All your Generations Forever
Now we have already shown that in studying the New Testament we must ask ourselves "can you get here from there?" ("there" being the Tanak (Old Testament)). If we understand something in the New Testament in such a way that it contradicts the Tanak, then we must be misunderstanding it. Now there are many who understand many New Testament passages in such a way as to believe and teach that the Torah has been abolished. Let us be like noble Bereans and let us look in the Tanak to see if this is so (Acts 17:11). After all Paul tells us that the Tanak is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction" (2Tim. 3:16). So what does the Tanak say? Was the Torah to be for all generations, forever? or would it one day be abolished? If the Torah would one day be abolished, then we should be able to find this taught in the Tanak. As Noble Bereans we should be checking to see if the things we have been taught can be found in the Tanak. By contrast, if the Torah would not be abolished, but would be for all generations forever, then we should be able to find that information in the Torah as well. Since the Tanak is profitable for doctrine and correction, perhaps we can seek the truth on this issue from the Tanak:
...it shall be a statute forever
to their generations.... (Ex. 27:21)
...it shall be a statute forever to him
and his seed after him. (Ex. 28:43)
...a statute forever... (Ex. 29:28)
...it shall be a statute forever to them,
to him and to his seed
throughout their generations. (Ex. 30:21)
It is a sign between me
and the children of Israel forever. (Ex. 31:17)
There is no shortage of passages in the Torah which specify that the Torah will not be abolished but will be for all generations forever. (For more see: Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10 and Deut. 5:29)
Moreover the Psalmist writes:
Your word is truth from the beginning:
and every one of your righteous judgements
endures forever.
(Psalm 119:160)
Furthermore the Tanak tells us that the Torah is not to be changed or taken away from:
You shall not add to the word
which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deut 4:2)
Whatever thing I command you,
observe to do it: you shall not add thereto,
nor diminish from it.
(Deut. 12:32)
So if we are "Noble Bereans" we will find that the Tanak teaches that the Torah will not be abolished but will endure for all generations forever. This teaching from the Tanak is profitable to us for doctrine, for reproval and for correction.
The Messiah echoes this teaching:
Do not think that I have come
to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.
I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you,
till heaven and earth pass away,
one yud or one mark will by no means
pass from the Torah till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least
of these commandments, and teaches men so,
he will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven;
but whoever does and teaches them
will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matt. 5:17-19 see also Lk. 16:17).
As does Paul:
Do we then abolish the Torah through trust?
Absolutely not! We uphold the Torah!
(Rom. 3:31)
Despite the fact that David was saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:5-8) he loved the Torah and delighted in it (Ps. 119: 97, 113, 163). Paul (Paul) also delighted in the Torah (Rom. 7:22) and called it "holy, just and good." (Rom. 7:12). There is nothing wrong with the Torah that Elohim should want to abolish or destroy it, in fact both the Tenach and the New Scriptures call the Torah "perfect" (Ps. 19:7; James 1:25).
The Torah is even called in the New Testament "the Torah of Messiah" (Gal. 6:2). To say that the Torah was not forever and is not for all generations, is to call Elohim a liar.
Another popular teaching in the church is a teaching that Elohim only gave the Torah to Israel to prove that they could not keep it. For example one book states:
...Israel, in blindness and pride and self-
righteousness, presumed to ask for the law;
and God granted their request, to show them
that they could not keep his law...
(God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66)
Now lets think this through for a moment. God gives Israel the Torah. He says he will place curses upon Israel if they fail to keep the Torah (Lev. 26 & Deut 28-29). He sends prophets to warn Israel of pending destruction because of their continual failure to keep Torah. Eventually God allows Babylon to invade Jerusalem and the Jews to be taken into captivity, because of their failure to keep Torah. Then he comes along and says "Nah, I was only fooling. I just gave you the Torah to prove you could not do it." What kind of God would that be? Of course as noble Bereans we can simply look in the Tanak to see if this poular teaching is true. Let us see what the Tanak says on this issue:
For this commandment which I command you this day
it is not to hard for you, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that you should say:
" Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us,
and make us to hear it, that we may do it?"
Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say:
"Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us,
and make us hear it, that we may do it?"
But the Word is very near to you, in your mouth,
and in your heart, that you may do it.
(Deut. 30:11-14)
The fact that the Torah can be kept is confirmed as well in the New Testament which tells us that Yeshua was tempted in all things just as we are and he did keep the Torah (Heb. 4:15).
The Nazarenes saw Paul as having been spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah. As we reed in the Ancient Nazarene commentary on Is. 9:1-4 (8:23-93 in Jewish versions) as cited by Jerome:
The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above,
try to explain this passage in the following way:
When Messiah came and his proclaiming shone out,
the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were
freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees
and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke
of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the proclaiming became more dominant, that means the proclaiming was multiplied, through the Goodnews of the emissary Paul who was the least of all the emissaries. And the goodnews of Messiah shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked
or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the goodnews.
(Note: The "Jewish traditions" in the context of this commentary refer to Rabbinic Halachah of the fourth century CE with which the Nazarenes took issue.)
Now Isaiah 9:1-4 refers to "Galilee of the GOYIM (nations/Gentiles)" but identifies these "Gentiles" as the inhabitants of "the land of Zebulon and Naphtali". Here the House of Israel is being identified as "Gentiles". There are at least two other places in Scripture where the word "Gentile" is used to describe Ephraim (the House of Israel). One of these is Gen. 48:19 where (in the Hebrew) Ephraim is told his descendants will become "a multitude of nations (GOYIM; Gentiles)" (compare Rom. 11:25 where the same phrase is translated in the KJV as "fullness of the gentiles"). The other case is in Rom. 9:24 which refers to "Jews" and "Gentiles" but then goes on (in Rom. 9:25-26) to quote Hosea (Hos. 2:23; 1:10) to identify them which the "Children of Judah" and "the Children of Israel" (Hosea 1:10-11; 2:23).
The Nazarene Commentary on Isaiah understands "you have multiplied the nation" (Is. 9:3) to refer to Paul "the proclaiming was multiplied, through the Goodnews of the emissary Paul... to the most distant tribes". Therefore the ancient Nazarenes understood the "Gentiles" to whom Paul primarily directed his message with the Ephraimite "Gentiles" of Isaiah 9:1-4 and with "the most distant tribes".
This comment in the Nazarene Commentary on Isaiah makes it clear that the Ancient Sect of Nazarene Judaism held that Paul was an emissary to the Ephraimites.
-
The Pauline Epistles
The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the Pauline Epistles were first written in Greek. This position is held by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers" admitted the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome) admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles . Still, Paul is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from Tarsus who Hellenized the Gospel. So strong has this image of Paul been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have argued for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament have rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles.
Paul and Tarsus
In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them .
Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3:
I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,
but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,
taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah.
and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel passage in Acts 7:20-23:
At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God;
and he was brought up in his father's house for three months.
And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away
and brought him up as her own son.
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...
Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di). Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely born at Tarsus.
Was Paul a Helenist?
The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist. This would explain why Paul disputed against the Helenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.
Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expression meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed to Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism.
The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles
Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians . It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes:
What advantage then has the Jew,
or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way!
To them first, were committed the Words of God.
- Rom. 3:1-2
It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.
One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:
1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)
2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)
All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic Paul would not have written material which he intended to be read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal) authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Semitic Style of Paul’s Epistles
Paul clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions. Paul uses the term "word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor. 12:8) Paul also uses the Semitic form of magnification by following a noun with its plural form. This is used in the Tenach (Old Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies." Paul uses this idiom in such phrases as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5); "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).
Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew
tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.
(Eccl. Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Hist. 6:14:2)
Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)
Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)
-
45 Now from the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land, until the ninth hour.
46 And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My El, My El, why
have you forsaken Me?
47 And some of the men that stood by, when they heard, and said, He calls for Eliyahu.
48 And one of them ran right away, and took the sponge and filled it with vinegar, and
put it on a reed and gave Him to drink.
49 But the others said, Let be, and let us see if Eliyahu will come to deliver Him.
50 Then Yeshua cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 And behold! The veil of the Temple was torn in two, from the top to the bottom, and
the earth did quake, and the rocks were torn,
(Matt. 27:45-51 HRV)
44 Now about six hours had gone, and darkness was upon all the earth until the ninth
hour.
45 And the sun was dark, and the veil of the Temple was rent from its middle.
46 And Yeshua cried out with a great voice and said: My Father, into your hands I
commend My spirit! He said this and died.
(Luke 23:44-46)
It is my understanding that both accounts are describing a number of things that all happened at once.
The following is my comment on Matthew 27:51 from my
Hebraic Roots Commentary to Matthew
27:51 the veil of the Temple was torn in two – In ancient Israel it was the custom of a father to mourn the death of his son by renting his garment in two. In this beautiful imagery the Father rent his garment in two at the death of his son. The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of this event as it was recorded in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews:
But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters
we read not that the veil of the Temple was rent,
but that the lintel of the Temple of wonderous size
collapsed.
(Jerome; Letter 120 to Hedibia and in his Commentary
on Mt. 27:51)
While Jerome thought that the collapse of the lintel occurred in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews instead of the tearing of the veil, it appears that both events occurred.
The lintel was a crossbeam over the doorway to the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The lintel stood atop two pillars eight stories high forming a doorway. The lintel was some thirty feet across and made of solid stone. It would have weighed about thirty tons! At the death of Yeshua there was an earthquake. This earthquake seems to have caused the lintel to break in the middle. It would have been no small event when these two pieces of the thirty ton lintel came crashing down eight stories. The veil hung from the lintel on the outside of this doorway. The hekel doors were attached to the pillars. When the lintel broke it caused the veil to be rent in two from top to bottom. This event seems to have damaged the hekel doors as well. The Talmud records:
[For] forty years before the Temple was destroyed…
the gates of the Hekel opened by themselves.
until Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai rebuked them
saying “Hekel, Hekel, why alarm you us? We know
that you are destined to be destroyed. For of you
has prophesied Zechariah Ben Iddo (Zech. 11:1):
“Open your doors, O Lebanon and the fire shall
eat your ceders.”
(b.Yoma 39b)
-
I think a fairly good case can be made for some, most, or all of the 4 Gospels having been
given originally in Aramaic and soon after translated into Greek.
From what I've seen, that can't honestly be said of the Epistles, and few people have
attempted to make that claim. Basically, Lamsa did, and Lamsa disciples do, and vpw
did as someone who parroted Lamsa as he parroted others.
That is, not counting present company.
I noticed that when you got to someone specifically claiming the Epistles had such an
origin, your source was Lamsa. It's no secret around here that Lamsa was a crackpot
and a megalomaniac, and might have been where vpw ripped off the assertion that he was
some special unique Christian in his lifetime.
I will try to respond to this more in depth later today.
But on the topic of the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles, there was a nice piece written in the GMIR section of The Way Magazine (March-April '84) by a Karen Masterson 9th Way Corps. It was also presented at something called the Biblical Research Fellowship held at TWI HQ in Aug. 1983.
An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles
In this paper she makes a very good academic case that Paul wrote in Aramaic.
I think she was right and I will post some of my own reasons later.
Also in the May-June 1985 issue Dr. Daniel McConaughy published a paper The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament,
in which he also argues "We can clearly see... that he [Paul] would have written in Aramaic." (p. 19 column b; last paragraph).
Dr. McConaughy is known to me, he was a student of the noted scholar Arthur Voobus. He discovered a missing page of the Old Syriac in an expedition to the Middle east in November of 1985 and published his discovery in the professional journal Biblia Vol. 68 in 1987 (pp. 87-90).
And in 1988 he published a paper in the Journal Oriens Christianus
"An Old Syriac Reading of Acts 1:4 and More Light on Jesus' Last Meal before His Ascension.
(Band 72, 1988; p. 63-67)
In other words, he was no George Lamsa.
Wonder what ever happened to Ms. Masters...
-
James, a lot of this was taught by George Lamsa and Rocco Errico. I assume you also are familar with Matthew Black, Agnes Scott(?)Lewis, and Arthur Vorbius as experts in Aramaic/Syriac and Hebrew. One example where Greek is used is in Gospel of John where after Jeusu/Eshoo's ressurrection about love(khobva) is translated in Greek as philo by Peter/Kepa and agape used by Jesus(Eshoo). In Greek Jesus is saying divine love coming from God(Yahweh)but Peter(Kepa) is saying love/like as a friend. However in Aramaic the term love can mean godly divine love or friendship"brotherly" love, hence Peter's misunderstanding what Christ/Meshiah is saying in context. Or that is what I remember VPW teaching.
Why the Hebraic Roots Version "New Testament"?
Yes, I am familiar with their groundwork.
In fact various scholars have made the case for a Hebrew or Aramaic rather than Greek origin for each and every portion of the New Testament:
When we turn to the New Testament we find that
there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
(Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii)
I. THE GOSPELS
The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian, and the
language in which it was originally written is Aramaic,
then the principal language of the land..."
(Charles Cutler Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936; p. ix)
The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was
Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short
of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case,
some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main
contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ...
The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from
a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was
Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly
through a comparison of parallel passages. ...
One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century
and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels
were written in Greek...
Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly
with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35
are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text....
My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position
valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated
from Aramaic into Greek.
(Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979)
A. MATTHEW
...certain linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew
text [of DuTillet Matthew] underlies the Greek, and that certain
renderings in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew
original.
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; Hugh Schonfield; 1927, p. 17)
B. MARK
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that a new Hebrew
translation of the New Testament was badly needed... I chose
the Gospel of Mark... preliminary study of the Greek text of Mark
turned up the conclusion that the Greek word order and idiom was
more like Hebrew than literary Greek... I wondered if the Gospel
might not be a literal translation from some Semitic original.
(Robert Lisle Lindsey; A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark; p. 9)
C. LUKE
In regard to [Greek] Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four
Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most
constant evidence of being a translation [from Aramaic]."
(Charles Cutler Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936; p. lix)
D. JOHN
Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the
question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel; and
quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic
document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the
fullest verification...
(Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3)
II. THE APOSTLES
A. ACTS
...the presence of Semitisms... in Acts once again raises the
whole question of its composition.
(Max Wilcox; The Semitisms of Acts; 1965; p. 157)
The ultimately Semitic nature of the traditions enshrined in a
number of parts of the New Testament- especially in Acts- must
not be underestimated or otherwise left out of account."
(ibid; p. 185)
B. THE EPISTLES
1. The General Epistles
...a number of scholars,... believe that portions of the New
Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic... this case has been
made for... the General Letters."
(David Stern; Jewish New Testament; 1989; p. xvii)
2. Pauline Epistles
The Pauline Epistles were letters written by Paul to small
Christian congregations in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. These
early Christians were mostly Jews of the Dispersion, men and women
of Hebrew origin. Paul on his journeys always spoke in the Jewish
synagogues. His first converts were Hebrews. Then came Arameans...
Paul emphasizes Hebrew law and history. He refers to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as our fathers. In his letters and teaching he
appeals to the Jewish people to accept Jesus as the promised
Messiah. Paul's mission was first to his own people... Paul was
educated in Jewish law in Jerusalem. He was a member of the
Jewish Council. His native language was western Aramaic but he
acquired his education through Hebrew and Chaldean or Palestinian
Aramaic... He defended himself when on trial in the Hebrew tongue.
Acts 22:2... Very early the Epistles were translated into Greek
for the use of converts who spoke Greek. Later they were
translated into all tongues."
(George M. Lamsa; The New Testament according to the Eastern Text; 1940; pp. xi-xii)
C. REVELATION
...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and
the Greek translation... is a remarkably close rendering of the
original."
(Charles Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church; 1941; p. 160)
We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse
as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...
(RBY Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6)
The HRV "New Testament" text is taken from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. (Shem Tob, DuTillet and Muster Hebrew Matthew; Munster Hebrew Hebrews; The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels; The Aramaic Pedangta NT and the Crawford Aramaic Revelation.)
Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written: Hebrew and Aramaic. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za
The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene
-
As you all know I have long said that the “New Testament” was not written in Greek or any other European language but was instead written in Hebrew and Aramaic. I have also said that there are many passages which do not make sense in Greek or in the translations derived from Greek, but only make sense when we look at them in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. There are a number of examples I have given over the past few years but I want to make it clear that there are MANY MORE examples I can cite. The Hebraic Roots Version is the first translation in many cases to correctly translate these passages by translating directly from the original Hebrew and Aramaic.
The following are just a few more examples from various portions of the “New Testament” which do not make sense in the Greek or in the Greek based translation but which do make sense in the Hebraic Roots Version:
CAST OUT YOUR NAME AS EVIL ?????
In Luke 6:22 the KJV reads “Blessed are ye when men… cast out your name as evil…” following the Greek.
The Aramaic of the HRV has “Happy are you when men… cast out your evil name…” following the Aramaic of the Old Syriac.
In the Aramaic this is a usage of a Semitic idiom (also found in the Torah) whereby a person having been slandered is said to have an “evil name”. For example the Torah says:
If any man take a wife, and go unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her,
and bring up an evil name upon her,….
…because he has brought an evil name
upon a virgin of Israel…
(Deut. 22:13-14, 19)
Now in Hebrew and Aramaic a modifier follows the word it modifies. As a result the literal sentence structure of Luke 6:22 in the Aramaic has “name evil” but in English we say “evil name”. The Greek translator was apparently unaware of the Semitic idiom “evil name” and finding the term “evil name” odd, left the words in their Aramaic order and added the word “as” in between to make the phrase say in Greek “name as evil” rather than “evil name”. Luke 6:22 is actually saying in the Aramaic that believers would be persecuted by being slandered just as the virgin of Israel in Deut. 22:13-14, 19 was slandered, while the Greek simply implies that the believers very names would be hated and counted as evil things.
TOMBS IN THE CITY ?????
In Luke 8:27 the KJV (following the Greek) says that Yeshua met a man “out of the city” and who dwelt “in the tombs”.
Now anyone who knows much about the Torah knows that TOMBS were never located in a CITY because the dead are considered unclean. However the Aramaic uses a word here which can mean “city” or can mean “province” thus the HRV translates properly here that the man was “from the province” not “the city” while the Greek has misunderstood this ambiguous Aramaic word.
GREET NO MAN ON THE WAY ????
In Luke 10:4 in most translations (following the Greek) Yeshua sends his talmidim (disciples) out to travel around teaching and in doing so instructs them to “greet no man on the way” (as for example in the ISR version). Now this makes little sense. Why would Yeshua instruct his talmidim not to greet people? Can you just see them pass by someone on the road, the person says “shalom” in a friendly voice and the talmid just looks at him a minute, says nothing and keeps going. Surely the traveler thinks “what’s up with this rood jerk?”. In a quest to make some sense of this Greek phrase David Stern’s Jewish New Testament has “…don’t stop to shmooze with people on the road.” This is very much a paraphrase at best. First of all “shmooze” is Yiddish and has no relevance to the first century. The word “shmooze” means “engage in gossipy chit-chat” (as Stern defines it). There is no word in the Greek of Luke 10:4 that means “engage in gossipy chit-chat” or even “stop”. The Greek word in Luke 10:4 means “salute, greet”. However the Greek translator appears to have misunderstood the Aramaic original. The Aramaic has an ambiguous Aramaic word here which can mean “greet” but can also mean to “join or unify with”. Yeshua was not telling his talmidim not to greet people during their travels, nor was he instructing them not to stop to engage in friendly gossipy chit-chat” (though that might have been a good instruction). He was telling them not to be join or unify with other travelers along the way. Thus the HRV has here “and join no man on the way”.
GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND ????
In Romans 1:28 the KJV follows the Greek in having Paul say of Homosexuals that “God gave them over to a reprobate mind”. Now the Aramaic that appears here is a word that can mean to “deliver”/”give over” or to “release”. The Greek translator misunderstood this passage to mean that Elohim “gave them over to a reprobate mind” however the HRV correctly translates the Aramaic to read “Eloah released them to a mind of vanity”. Certainly Elohim does not deliver persons to a reprobate mind, but he may release them to their own freewill to their own mind of vanity.
I WILL CAST [JEZEBEL] INTO HER BED ??????
In Revelation 2:22 the KJV follows the Greek in telling us that Yeshua will cast Jezebel into her bed with her adulterers!!!! Certainly Jezebel would not mind being cast into a bed with her adulterers nor would Messiah be likely to do so. The Aramaic word here is ambiguous and can mean “bed” but can also mean “funeral pier” or “coffin”. The Greek translator misunderstood this Aramaic word and mistranslated it to mean “bed” and thus we read in most translations that Messiah cast Jezebel and her adulterers in bed together. The HRV reads correctly “Behold I will cast her into the coffin”.
Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written: Hebrew and Aramaic. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za
The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene
-
Another thought too...whether it was the jailer and his household who received salvation or Cornelius and his family, it was through baptism and confession and was somewhat instantaneous, not some sort of doctrinal and practical apprenticeship ( unless I've mistaken what you are proposing ?) No-one really denies Jesus initially 'came to his own', Israel, however, 'his own' rejected him and thereby paved 'the way' for the Gentiles to receive him and everything that entails.
Many have asked "Why have the Jews rejected Jesus?"… well let me make this clear, the only "Jesus" that most Jewish people have ever been exposed to is the "Jesus" that supposedly came to "free them from the bondage of the Law". Yes, they have rejected this Torahless Jesus, and rightly so. But most of them have never been exposed to the real Yeshua.
In coming years you will see many Jewish people embracing Yeshua as the Messiah. But the Yeshua that they accept will be the real Yeshua and not the Torahless "Jesus" that Christendom has adopted from pagan sources. The Jewish people know that an anti-Torah Messiah is no Messiah at all, they know better than to accept the rank paganism attached to Gentile Christianity.
The truth is that a great number of Orthodox Jews (even Rabbis) already know that Yeshua is the true and only Messiah, some of them have even confided this to me. At present they have no intention of disclosing this fact because they believe it would unite them with an anti-Torah Christianity which is overflowing with pagan customs and
practices, and a disdain for the Torah which is seen as "bondage".
The Jewish people will also come to realize that the books known as the "New Testament" (More correctly called the Ketuvim Netzarim, the "Writings of the Nazarenes") in their original Hebrew and Aramaic rather than their Greek translations, are as much a "Jewish Book" as the Tanak ("Old Testament")
It is not Christianity that the Jewish people will ultimately embrace, it is the ancient Nazarene sect of Judaism.
Read Romans 11, Paul says that if you thought wild branches being grafted in was a blessing to the world, wait until you see natural branches grafted into their own olive tree!
(Rom. 11:11-12, 15, 23-24)
Don't get me wrong, I do NOT teach that Torah observance earns salvation, absolutely not!
The following is taken from our statement of faith:
III. MESSIAH
We believe that Y'shua HaMashiach has come and with great joy we anticipate his return, and even though he may delay, nevertheless we endeavor to think about his return every day. We believe that the Messiah is the Word made flesh. We believe he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life in accordance with the Torah, performed miracles, was crucified for the atonement of his people in accordance with the Scriptures, was bodily resurrected on the third day. ascended to heaven and currently sits at the right hand of YHWH. He will return at the end of this age to usher in the Kingdom of Elohim on earth and will rule the world from Jerusalem with his people Israel for one thousand years. We also believe that the Messiah Yeshua is the Torah incarnate. Just as the Torah is the way, the truth and the light, the Messiah is also the way, the truth and the light.
IV. SALVATION
We believe that through the death of Messiah, because of his blood covenant with us, we receive salvation by way of inheritance. This salvation comes by faith through grace alone and is not earned by Torah observance.
V. TORAH
The Torah of Truth the Almighty gave to His people, Israel, through Moshe. He will not exchange it nor discard it for another until heaven and earth pass away. We believe that Torah observance is man's moral obligation and expression of love to YHWH. The Torah is freedom and not bondage. The Torah is the way, the truth and the light and is for all of our generations forever.
-
Galatians 5:1-4 tells me that if I try to justify myself THROUGH the 'law' I am fallen from grace, rather, I am to stand fast in the 'liberty' of Christ Jesus.
From what I see, the Apostle Paul wrote way too much about Grace versus Law for me to accept he spent 3 years attempting to 'perfect' himself in order to be able to join what you are purporting to be the 'true church' of Christ
Galatians 4:21-5:6
In prompting this study I will begin with Gal. 5:2:
Behold, I Paul say to you, that if you be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal. 5:2 KJV
At first glance one might think after reading this verse that this one verse disproves the entire case made throughout the book you are now reading. But the key is that we must take the verse in context. One basic rule of hermeneutics is to ask yourself "who is speaking?" and "who is being spoken to?" Now we know that Paul is the speaker, but who is the "you" in Gal. 5:2? Is it the Galatians in general? Is it all mankind? Is it the modern reader? The answer to all of these questions is "no". If we look up just a little bit in Paul's letter here we will see that Gal. 5:2 is the summary of an argument that he initiates in Gal. 4:21 and which he illustrates in Gal. 4:22-31. Gal. 4:21 tells us exactly who the "you" in 5:2 is. He writes:
Tell me, you that desire to be under the law,
do you not hear the law?
Gal. 4:21
Note that "you" is defined in 4:21 as "you that desire to be under the law" Thus Gal. 5:2 should be understood to mean:
Behold, I Paul say
to you, [that desire to be under the law]
that if you be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing
What does the phrase "Under the Law" mean?
Much of the confusion about Paul's teachings on the Torah involves two scripture phrases, which appear in the New Testament only in Paul's writings (in Rom. Gal. & 1Cor.). These two phrases are "works of the law" and "under the law", each of which appears 10 times in the Scriptures.
The first of these phrases, "works of the law", is best understood through its usage in Gal. 2:16. Here Paul writes:
knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Yeshua the Messiah,
even we have believed in Messiah Yeshua,
that we might be justified by faith in Messiah
and not by the works of the law;
for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Paul uses this phrase to describe a false method of justification which is diametrically opposed to "faith in the Messiah". To Paul "works of the law" is not an obsolete Old Testament system, but a heresy that has never been true.
The term "works of the Torah" has shown up as a technical theological term used in a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls called MMT which says:
Now we have written to you some of the
works of the law, those which we determined
would be beneficial for you...
And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness,
in that you have done what is right and good before Him...
(4QMMT (4Q394-399) Section C lines 26b-31)
The second of these phrases is "under the law". This phrase may best be understood from its usage in Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." Paul, therefore, sees "under grace" and "under the law" as diametrically opposed, one cannot be both. The truth is that since we have always been under grace (see Gen. 6:8; Ex. 33:12, 17; Judges 6:17f; Jer. 31:2) we have never been "under the law". This is because the Torah was created for man, man was not created for the Torah (see Mk. 2:27). "Under the law" then, is not an obsolete Old Testament system, but a false teaching, which was never true.
There can be no doubt that Paul sees "works of the law" and "under the law" as categorically bad, yet Paul calls the Torah itself "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12), certainly Paul does not use these phrases to refer to the Torah itself.
The phrase "under the law" therefore, does not refer to the Torah itself but to a false teaching that was never true. So Paul is telling these people who are ready to apostatize and seek salvation through the false "under the law" doctrine, that their circumcisions will profit them nothing. Following the context then the rest of Gal. 5 is addressed to the "you that desire to be under the law" of 4:21.
Now let us examine the midrash Paul gives in Gal. 4:22-31. Remember now, we know from Gal. 4:21 that Paul is going to be illustrating a contrast between the Torah and the "under the law" teaching. The parable may be illustrated in a chart as follows:
The Torah
Abraham’s son by the freewoman(Isaac) (Gal. 4:22)
Born by promise(Gal. 4:23)
Jerusalem which is above which is free,the mother of us all. [sarah](Gal. 4:26)
the liberty where with Messiah has made us free(Gal. 5:1)
Under the Law
Abraham’s son by the bondwoman(Ishmael) (Gal. 4:22)
Born after the flesh (Gal. 4:23)
from mount Sinai genders to bondage Hagar
entangled again with the yoke of bondage"(Gal. 5:1)
The Torah is freedom. False teachings such as the ANOMOS teaching, the "works of the law" teaching and the "under the law" teaching bring only bondage.
-
My attorney Larry Meadows deserves much of the credit, and all total he only got paid $700 for almost a year of work on this case. But he stood Strong against TWI and its lawyers. Larry is not a fancy $5,000 suit lawyer, he is a Men's Warehouse suit lawyer scratching out a living with a one man business. If anyone would like to make a donation to the legal fund and help compensate Larry for all of his work, donations can be sent by paypal.com to:
nazarene-legal-fund@meadowsllp.com
-
I want to thank you all for being so hospitable and many of you for helping me through this time with prayers, information and just a place to talk.
Also many thanks in this go to my attorney Larry Meadows.
BTW if you want to donate to our legal fund, he certainly deserves more than the $700 we have raised for him, you can paypal.com donations to
nazarene-legal-fund@meadowsllp.com
-
Which Way?
By James Trimm
NAZARENE JUDAISM WAS “THE WAY”
Acts 24:5 reads:
"For we have found this man to be one who is corrupt and stirs up
sedition among all the Jews in all Ha-Eretz (The Land). For he is a
leader of the teaching of the Nazarenes."
(Acts 24:5 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)
The Greek has "sect" in pace of "teaching".
Then in Acts 24:14 Paul responds to this accusation saying:
"…this I do confess, that in the same teaching about which they are
speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"
(Acts 24:14 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)
Now while book of Acts was originally written in Aramaic, the only
surviving witness to that original Aramaic text in Aramaic is the
Pedangta (and a few quotations by Syriac "Church Fathers") the more
primitive Old Syriac Aramaic text of Acts has not survived.
We do have indirect witnesses to that text through the Western type
text of Acts preserved in the Western Type Greek manuscripts, and in
the Old Latin. While the Greek is not the original language of Acts,
it can preserve original readings not preserved in the Pedangta, in
much the same way that the LXX can sometimes preserve original
readings which have not survived in the Masoretic Text. In this case
the word "The Way" (a single word in Aramaic) has been omitted from
the Aramaic Pedangta version of Acts, but it is almost certainly
original, since it appears in all other versions of Acts.
The Original Aramaic of Acts most probably read:
"…this I do confess, in this Way, the teaching about which they are
speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"
(Acts 24:14 as it must have read in the original Aramaic)
Here it is clearly stated by Paul that "The Way" is a synonym for "The
Teaching/Sect of the Nazarenes".
So if we can better understand how "The Way" is used, we will better
understand how the term "Nazarenes" was understood.
ESSENE JUDASIM WAS “THE WAY”
The term "The Way" is used to describe believers in Acts 9:2 and Acts
22:4 (which actually recaps the events of Acts 9:2).
Both the Qumran community, and John quoted Is. 40:3 as being a
prophecy foretelling of their work (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn
1:23; Dam. Doc. viii, 12-14; ix, 20). This verse appears in most New
Testaments as:
The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the Lord;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
However, the cantor markings in the Masoretic Text give us the
understanding:
The voice of one crying
"In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH;
make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim."
As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Essenes of
the Qumran community referred to themselves as being "in the
wilderness" and both the Essene Qumran community and the early
believers in Yeshua called their movement "The Way". (Mt. 3:3; Mk.
1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn 1:23; Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14 compared to Manual of
Discipline viii, 12-14; ix, 17-22).
In Acts we read about Paul just before he became a believer in Messiah:
Now Shaul was yet full of the threat and anger of murder
against the talmidim of our Adon. And he asked for letters
from the Chief Cohen to give to Darm'suk (Damascus)
to the synagogues, that if he should find any who follow in
this way, men or women, he might bind and bring them
to Yerushalayim.
(Acts 9:1-2)
Now why would Shaul want to go to Damascus to pursue the followers of
Yeshua?
Damascus was the capitol of Essene Judaism as laid out in the
"Damascus Document" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first
Essenes "...went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of
Damascus..." (Damascus Document 6, 5)
As we have demonstrated so many times before (and this is a whole
separate article) the first followers of Yeshua were from the Essenes.
Now while on his way to Damascus Paul encounters the resurrected
Yeshua and himself becomes a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah (Acts
9:3-7). As instructed by Yeshua, Paul enters Damascus and makes
contact with the followers of Yeshua there (Acts 9:8-19). In his
letter to the Galatians Paul describes these events as follows:
And I did not go to Yerushaliyim to the emissaries who
were before me, but I went to Arabia and again returned
to Darm'suk (Damascus), and after three years, I went
to Yerushalayim to seek Kefa and remained with him
fifteen days.
(Gal. 1:17-18)
Why did Paul remain for three years in Damascus? Because it took
three years to be fully admitted into the Essene community. As
Josephus writes:
"But now if any one has a mind to come over to their sect, he is not
immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living
which they use for a year, while he continues excluded'; and they give
him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white
garment. And when he has given evidence, during that time, that he can
observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living,
and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not
even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of
his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to
be worthy, they then admit him into their society."
(Wars 2:8:7)
Paul went through the entire process of learning the ins and outs of
Essene Judaism. These studies also shaped Paul's thinking. There are
several Parallels between Paul's teachings and the Essene teachings at
Qumran.
The important point I want to make here is that the term "The Way" was
originally a euphemism for Essene Judaism and became a euphemism for
Nazarene Judaism as an offshoot of Essene Judaism. Thus "Nazarene" is
clearly a designation of a Jewish sect, just as the Essenes, Pharisees
and Sadducees were also Jewish sects.
TORAH OBSERVANCE IS “THE WAY”
It is important to realize that the term “The Way” is drawn from the Torah itself, in which “The Way” is clearly identified as being the Torah and the commandments. No anti-nomian Christian organization that teaches that the Torah is not for today, can honestly call itself “The Way”:
And YHWH said unto me: Arise, get you down quickly from hence, for your people
that you have brought forth out of Egypt have dealt corruptly. They are quickly turned
aside out of THE WAY which I commanded them: they have made them a molten image.
(Deut. 9:12)
For if you shall diligently keep all this commandment which I command you, to do it,
to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in all HIS WAYS and to cleave unto Him,
Then will YHWH drive out all these nations from before you, and you shall
dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves.
Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread, shall be yours: from the
wilderness and the L’vanon, from the river--the river Euphrates--even unto the hinder sea
shall be your border.
There shall no man be able to stand against you. YHWH your Elohim shall lay the
fear of you and the dread of you, upon all the land that you shall tread upon, as He has
spoken unto you.
Behold, I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse:
he blessing, if you shall hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your Elohim,
which I command you this day.
And the curse, if you shall not hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your
Elohim, but turn aside out of THE WAY which I command you this day, to go after other
gods, which you have not known.
(Deut. 11:22-28)
See, I have set before you this day, life and good, and death and evil,
In that I command you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in His WAYS,
and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances; then you shall live
and multiply. And YHWH your Elohim shall bless you, in the land where you go in to
possess it.
(Deut. 30:15-16)
127 (57): Then he answered me, and said, This is the condition of the battle, which man that is born upon the earth shall fight;
128 (58): That, if he is overcome, he shall suffer as you have said: but if he gets the victory, he shall receive the thing that I say.
129 (59): For this is the Way of which Moshe spoke unto the people while he lived, saying, Behold I have set before you life and death; the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life that you may live, you and your seed
(2Esdras 7:127-129 Apocrypha)
THE MESSIAH IS THE WAY
Scripture also tells us that Messiah himself is “The Way” (Jn. 14:6).
To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the "Body of Messiah" as we read:
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence."
(Col. 1:18 - KJV)
"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head
over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
(Eph. 1:22-23 - KJV)
Now one may ask what "Assembly" is the allegorical Messiah? To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15:
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and
departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord
by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "
(Matthew 2:14-15 - KJV)
Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context:
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt."
(Hosea 11:1 - KJV)
Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah:
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."
(Ex. 4:22-23 - KJV)
From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the "firstborn". Moreover Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23 - KJV).
Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. Messiah is “The Way” and His true Assembly, the Assembly of Israel, is also “The Way”.
WHO IS THE WAY?
The Way in the Scriptures is a Torah Observant sect of Judaism known as “Nazarene” with roots in Essene Judaism.
Any organization claiming to be “The Way” and teaching that the Law is not for today, is a false “Way”.
James Trimm
Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim
A follower of the [True] Way
-
The Hebraic Roots Version (which began as the Semitic New Testament
Project) was a ten year project to produce a new and accurate translation
of the New Testament taken primarily from old Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek
Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text
of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally
written. This is important because there are some passages in the NT
which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense
when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic:
Acts 11:27-30
And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of
them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going
to be a great famine throughout all THE WORLD, which also happened in the
days of Claudius Caesar. Then the talmidim, each according to his ability,
determined to send relief to the brothers dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also
did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
Now this doesn't make sense at all, why would those in Antioch send
relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA if the famine was to strike all THE
WORLD. They would be facing famine themselves. The solution lies in
the fact that the word for "WORLD" in the Aramaic manuscripts
is ‘ERA (Strong's #772) the Aramaic form
of the Hebrew word ERETZ (Strong's 776). This word can mean
"world" (as in Prov. 19:4) "earth" (as in Dan.
2:35) or "land" (as in Dan. 9:15) and is often used as a
euphemism for "The Land of Israel" (as in Dan. 9:6). Certainly
the word here is not meant to mean "world" but "land of
Israel."
Mt. 26:9 = Mk. 14:3
And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city
(see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without
vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper)
and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours
oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker
and not a leper.
Mt. 19:12 & Acts 8:26f
....there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the
Kingdom of Heaven's sake....
--Mt. 19:12 NKJV
So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a
eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians,
who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to
worship.
--Acts 8:27 NKJV
The man in Acts 8:27 appears to be a proselyte to Judaism since he seems
to be making the Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Dt. 16:16). The
Torah, however, forbids a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew, and
from worshiping at the Temple (Dt. 23:1f). This also raises the question
of why one would become a eunuch (be castrated) for the sake of the
Kingdom of Heaven. After all eunuchs are excluded from the assembly of
Israel. The word for "eunuch" in the Aramaic manuscripts
of both of theses passages is M’HAIMNA which can mean "eunuch"
but can also mean "believer" or "faithful one" as it
clearly means here.
Mt. 19:24 = Mk. 10:25 = Lk. 18:25
...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which
can mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large
rope," which is certainly the meaning here.
Jn. 12:11 & 15:16
One word that the Greek translators often misunderstood was the
Aramaic word ‘EZAL which normally means "to go" or "to
depart" but is used idiomatically in Aramaic to mean that some
action goes forward and that something progresses "more and
more".
One case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word and
translated to literally is in Jn. 12:11:
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews
went away (!?!?!?!?), and believed on Jesus. (KJV)
Now I have translated the Aramaic of this passage as follows:
because many of the Judeans, on account of him,
were trusting more and more (‘EZAL) in Yeshua.
And Jn. 15:16:
...that ye should go and bring forth fruit...
KJV
I have translated from the Aramaic:
...that you also should bear fruit more and more (‘EZAL)...
The HRV Tanak it translated primarily from the Hebrew Masoretic Text
contains many footnotes giving important alternate readings from the Dead
Sea Scroll manuscripts; the Samaritan Pentateuch; the Greek Septuagent;
the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak and the Aramaic Targums.
The HRV "New Testament" text is taken from ancient Hebrew and
Aramaic manuscripts. (Shem Tob, DuTillet and Muster Hebrew Matthew;
Munster Hebrew Hebrews; The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels; The Aramaic
Pedangta NT and the Crawford Aramaic Revelation.) and has over 1,700
footnotes.
The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za
The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene
-
In Recent Court Documents:
TWI Admits to Wrongly Dividing the Word
or
A Comparison of the Theology of The Way International in its Books Vs. The Theology TWI Advocates in its Court Documents
By James Trimm
In recent court documents The Way International has argued that the actual words with which the Bible is translated and written are not doctrine. Instead they argue that doctrine is not “what the words [of the Bible] say”
TWI claims that “doctrine” is only “a principle or body of principles presented for belief.” TWI says for an example:
"The Way teaches, that when someone dies, he is not judged immediately,
but is 'asleep' until the time of the last judgment, when all the dead are awakened and judged. This... is an example of a doctrine, which can be taught, believed or rejected..." (Response to Motion to Dismiss TWI vs. Trimm and SANJ)
But of the actual words of the Bible they say:
"It is what the words say; it is not itself a ‘principle presented for acceptance or belief...’” (Ibid)
This is in sharp contrast to the beliefs of most Protestants in America who hold the words of the Bible to be doctrine and inseparable from doctrine. As the reformer Calvin said:
This, then, is the difference. Our opponents (speaking of the Roman Catholic Church) locate the authority of the Church outside God's Word, that is, outside of Scripture and Scripture alone. But we insist that it be attached to the Word and to not allow it to be separated from it. And what wonder if Christ's bride and pupil be subject to her spouse and teacher so that she pays constant and careful attention to His words. For this is the arrangement of a well-governed house. The wife obeys the husband's authority. This is the plan of a well-ordered school, that there the teaching of the schoolmaster alone should be heard. For this reason the Church should not be wise of itself, should not devise anything of itself but should set the limit of its own wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this way the Church will distrust all the devisings of its own reason. But in those things where it rests upon God's Word the Church will not waiver with any distrust or doubting but will repose in great assurance and firm constancy.
(Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 1, Chapter VIII)
Ironically TWI founder Victor Paul Wierwille taught in his Power for Abundant Living Classes that the greatest secret in the world today is that "the Bible is the revealed Word and will of God," or that "the Word of God is the will of God." Wierwille emphasized
reading the words of the Bible directly as opposed to “principle presented for acceptance or belief...”. He even stated that one day he hauled over three thousand volumes of theological works to the city dump, because he found that "equally intelligent men, talking about the same verse of scripture, would be miles apart on their conclusions." (Power for Abundant Living, pp. 119-120) Wierwille maintained that God’s Word itself is doctrine and scoffed at “principles” and “dogma” taught by men.
Yet TWI argued in court documents that the actual words with which the Bible is written are not constitutionally protected “doctrine” only the “principals” and “dogmas” taught by men are constitutionally protected as “doctrine.
In other court documents in this same case TWI has argued that the Scriptures may be translated in a variety of ways. In speaking of Bible translation TWI says:
...a single word can be translated in a variety of ways.
(Brief in Support of Summery Judgment p. 11)
The Preface to the AEINT opens by saying:
In his years of Biblical research, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille often expressed his gratitude for the contributions of others to the understanding of the rightly divided Word of God.
In order to understand this statement it is important to understand Dr. Wierwille’s teaching on “the rightly divided Word of God”. In his book Power for Abundant Living Dr. Wierwille states concerning 2Timothy 2:15:
[speaking of 2Tim. 2:15] Its intricate nuance of meaning is that there is only one way to rightly cut The Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings.... 2 Timothy 2:15 says we are to "study to show ourselves approved unto God by rightly dividing." There is one way to rightly cut The Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings. Now do you understand why we have splits, denominations and sects in so-called Christianity? They stem from the wrong dividing of The Word.
The first word in 2Timothy 2:15 is "Study." The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide The Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries of secular writers; he must study The Word. If we are ever going to rightly divide The Word, we have to study The Word and not what people say about it. For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr. So-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quite reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word—its integrity, its meaning, its words.
(Power for Abundant Living Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille; American Christian Press; The Way International, 1971; p. 119-120)
From this we learn that Victor Paul Wierwille and TWI clearly maintained in this exposition on 2Timothy 2:15 that “rightly divide” in this verse means that there is only one right way to “rightly divide” The Word.
Now the AEINT translates this verse as follows:
And be diligent that you present yourself mature before God,
a worker without shame, who is rightly proclaiming the word of truth.
2Tim. 2:15 AEINT
Thus “rightly divide” may be understood as “rightly proclaiming”. There is, according to Wierwille and the AEINT only one way in which to rightly proclaim The Word.
The Preface to the AEINT immediately continues saying:
He was able to draw from their vast backgrounds of expertise in order to teach God's Word to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. One of these men was Dr. George M. Lamsa, who contributed much in Aramaic studies. Dr. Lamsa finished proofreading his translation of the Bible from Aramaic into English in the home of Dr. and Mrs. Wierwille.
In the Preface it is clear that “Word of Truth” refers to “God’s Word.” For a good understanding of how Dr. Wierwille understood the term “God’s Word” (or “Word of God”) we may turn to his own writings:
Now I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence today. The oldest dated manuscript is written in Estrangelo Aramaic...."
(Power for Abundant Living Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille; American Christian Press; The Way International, 1971; p. 127)
In other words the “Word of God” in reference to the New Testament is understood by Wierwille to refer to the original Aramaic. The AEINT Preface cites Dr. George M. Lamsa, his contributions in Aramaic Studies and his translation of the Bible from Aramaic into English as an example of “the contributions of others to the understanding of the rightly divided Word of God.” In other words “rightly dividing” or “rightly proclaiming” may be understood as applying specifically to the task of “translation of the Bible from Aramaic into English”. In other words TWI has historically taught that there is only one
way to translate the Word of Truth, not that a single word can be translated in a variety of ways.
Amazingly in the same court document TWI admits to what they themselves call "many simple errors made in the AEINT translation.” (Brief in Support of Summery Judgment p. 9) That’s right TWI is now admitting they themselves have been dividing The Word of Truth in error!
-
Shalom Friends,
I have a very important announcement.
As many of you know The Way International had filed a lawsuit against myself and the WNAE (under our old name of SANJ) this last summer, alleging that portions of the HRV Scriptures infringed on the copyright of a translation they once published about twenty years ago.
We responded by arguing that the lawsuit itself was unconstitutional on the basis that Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine. (The US Supreme court has ruled that the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights forbids the court from adjudicating property disputes between religious groups where hearing the case would require the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine, or resolve doctrinal
issues.) In this case hearing such a case would put the government in the position of regulating Scripture interpretation, and that we as an Establishment of Religion may interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
We also responded by stating that the HRV is an original translation made directly from Hebrew and Aramaic sources and that close agreement with the AEINT is to be expected since both are (at places) literal translations of the Pedangta, and that such similarities fall within the legal doctrine of merger. Furthermore we argued that any use the AEINT made of the HRV was within the four criteria of the fair use law and was also permitted by an implied license, and thus did not constitute copyright infringement.
I am pleased to announce that after a process of discovery and taking of depositions, The Way International has chosen to settle their lawsuit rather than take it to trial. As part of the settlement they have issued us a permanent license with no monetary consideration. Also as part of the settlement we have maintained that there was no copyright infringement on our part, however we have also agreed as part of this license agreement, to henceforth give credit in editions of the HRV to the TWI version. (Thus allegations of copyright infringement are forever ended.).
We have always maintained that a final stage in the translation of the HRV involved comparing with previous translations of the Aramaic so as to insure that the HRV presented the best possible translation of each and every word and phrase, and so we have no problem giving them due credit. In fact we will be crediting several other works that were referenced as well.
We maintain our use of the TWI edition was legal fair use and was also permitted under an implied license, but for the record there is now a formal license as well. Where there is a formal license in place there can be no question of either copyright infringement or plagiarism.
With this suit behind us, we can now freely answer our critics who have accused us of plagiarism and copyright infringement. We have compiled a document from the evidence we had originally planned to present in court which demonstrates that the Hebraic Roots Version is an original and independent translation made directly from Hebrew and Aramaic sources, not infringing on anyone's copyright. This PDF document (about 50 pages) settles this issues once and for all and can be downloaded at:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8850000/8850159/1/print/jstrimm3.pdf
Also a response to some of the other Slander that has been posted about me on the internet:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8857000/8857710/1/print/sl2.pdf
Which Way?
in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Posted
We keep the Torah that can be kept. The Torah requires animal sacrifices be made at the appointed place (the Temple) so until the Temple is rebuilt we cannot make these. However the original followers of Yeshua continued to make them. Hebrews teaches that the offerings continued each year as a remembrance (Heb. 11:2-2). Paul made offerings at the Temple long after Yeshua's death (Acts 21:17-26/Num. 6:13-21; Acts 24:17-18 see also Acts 18:18/Num 6:13-21). And the offerings will be made at the Millennial Temple (Ezek. 43:18-27). BTW there was no standing Temple in the days of Daniel, yet he was Torah Observant.
Matt. 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets, I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill. – This is the only passage from the New Testament which is actually quoted, or more correctly paraphrased, in the Talmud. In the Talmud a certain Nazarene Judge is cited as having quoted the following phrase from a book called the ”The Good News”.
I have not come to take away from the Torah of Moshe
and I have not come to add to the Torah of Moshe
(b.Shabbat 116)
This passage refers to a Torah command which forbids adding to, or subtracting from, the Torah (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). The Tanak states clearly that the Torah would never be abolished:
...it shall be a statute forever
to their generations.... (Ex. 27:21)
...it shall be a statute forever to him
and his seed after him. (Ex. 28:43)
...a statute forever... (Ex. 29:28)
...it shall be a statute forever to them,
to him and to his seed
throughout their generations. (Ex. 30:21)
It is a sign between me
and the children of Israel forever. (Ex. 31:17)
There is no shortage of passages in the Torah which specify that the Torah will not be abolished but will be for all generations forever. (For more see: Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10 and Deut. 5:29)
Moreover the Psalmist writes:
Your word is truth from the beginning:
and every one of your righteous judgments endures forever.
(Psalm 119:160)
Furthermore the Tanak tells us that the Torah is not to be changed or taken away from:
You shall not add to the word
which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deut 4:2)
Whatever thing I command you,
observe to do it: you shall not add thereto,
nor diminish from it.
(Deut. 12:32)
Similarly Paul writes:
Do we make the Torah of no effect by trust?
Absolutely not! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah!
(Rom. 3:31)
Despite the fact that David was saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:5-8) he loved the Torah and delighted in it (Ps. 119: 97, 113, 163). Paul (Paul) also delighted in the Torah (Rom. 7:22) and called it "holy, just and good." (Rom. 7:12). There is nothing wrong with the Torah that God should want to abolish or destroy it, in fact both the Tanak and the New Scriptures call the Torah "perfect" (Ps. 19:7; James 1:25). The Torah is even called in the New Testament "the Torah of Messiah" (Gal. 6:2). To say that the Torah was not forever and is not for all generations, is to call YHWH a liar.
Abolish/destroy…fulfill – In Hebrew and Aramaic these are idiomatic expressions. To “fulfil” the Torah means to keep and teach the Torah according to its true meaning. To “destroy” the Torah is to teach its meaning in correctly and to violate Torah. Yeshua came to teach the true meaning of Torah, thus in 5:21f he will teach the true meaning of various commandments of the Torah.
“love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,”
This is nothing new… this is what the Totah says (Deut. 6:4)
and your neighbor as yourself.
This is also nothing new, it is a commandment in the Torah (Lev. 19:18)