Paul the Deceiver by Malachi Z York

[1dell]

Here is online access to the "scroll" written by the "master" teacher supposedly hipping up the Deceiver named Paul. Since no one ever wants to challenge me on what was so wrong with Paul, I decided to go up against the "master" teacher himself. But since learning that He never really did write the books anyway, his employed-but-not-paid staff did, I guess I'm really not going up against him then am I. Just some weak information that he has used to perplex the minds of weak Christians who have NOT "studied to show themselves approved, a workman who cannot be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth..." II TimotIHaWa/Timothy 2:15.

I will be taking bites out of this "scroll" a bit at a time and showing where the "master" teacher has beguiled my Christian Brethren with errors and mistruth, and then maybe the next time some one comes to you with some weak argument against Paul you'll be equipped.

This could take some time yall, because I am a pretty busy dude, and I gets my chill-on quite often so it's gonna be diffy cult to break the habit but I think it's worth it. For those of you who want to study up on your own, here ilz da link:

factology.com/paul/index.htm

If you are just some goto church, let the preecha emotionally hype-me-up, molest my funny bone, pimp me for my tithes and offerings, know one verse in the bible by heart, my bible has 2 inches of dust on the cover as it sitteth on my coffee tableth, then please dont click on the link, because this book has done enough damage to the weak minded as it is.

There will be a page by page, paragraph by paragraph, line up line, precept upon precept, greek and hebrew thorough break down of this book that could very well reach monumentus proportions (always wanted to talk like Don King ) So be warned. Unless you ready to get your study-on dont come back chere

[1dell]

Introduction

“Introduction”<br>One of the most prominent religions today in the western hemisphere is called Christianity. Most people are under the impression that they are following a God incarnated in human form known as Jesus Christ. In actuality, they are following the teachings of a man named Paul.

This is not true, not even the teachings of Paul are being followed, if they were, the complection of the "church" would be entirely different. In Actually these people are following WHATEVER their PASTOR's choose to focus on in the scriptures. For example, some Pastor's want to focus on money, they will focus on the money making principles found in the bible so their congregations will become moor prosperous and moor generous and give the tithe over to them.

To say they are following the teachings of Paul is foolish! They have access to the entire New testament, Unless he is saying that the entire new testament was written by Paul that is the most false statement I have heard in a long time, And it appears that is the foundation of this book

Christianity as taught in the churches today is not the way the Messiah Jesus taught.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly and that is my gripe with the present state of the Christianity

Whether you realize it or not, Paul has you following him and his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This is false, Paul's teachings are not interpretations but in harmony verbatim with the teachings of the other Apostles and Ishua, in fact he opened himself and his teachings up for scrutiny by the other Apostles and was held accountable by the founding apostles.

He even calls himself, and is known as Saint Paul, the pure.

That is a bold face lie. Paul never called himself this, this can not be found in scripture.

The man's name was Saul but he was called Paul:
Act 13:9 Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

The name Paul meant Small or Little:
Paul or Paulus = "small or little" and can also mean Least. As Paul writes of himself in scripture:
1Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

If any source would have considered him such, it would be the Catholics who took freedom to disrupt the truth of the scriptures and are not a credible source. And to my knowledge they called him no such thing

Paul never met nor saw Jesus Christ in the physical form neither was he amongst the disciples. I mean Jesus never laid eyes nor hands on Paul, Paul never heard Jesus’ voice.

This is not true, but if it was, so what would it matter? Does any of this make a man less competent of a messenger? I don't think so. Paul was a Perushi/Pharasee stationed in Yerushalayim/Jerusalem. In fact he was at the Stoning of Stephen in Yerushalayem at a synogogue.

Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:


Act 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.


Act 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.


Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.


Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called [the synagogue] of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.


Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

In a nutshell, there were certain fellows within the synagogue of Yerushalayim who disputed Stephen which caused Stephen to draw a crowd to him as he spoke, Those among the crowd were Paul:

Act 7:58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.


Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.


This is where we are first introduced to Saul/Paul. The men who stoned Stephen, threw their outer garments at the feet of Saul/Paul in order to stone Stephen. You tell me, HOW ON EARTH Paul, being a Perushi in Yerushalayim did not see Ishua? Sure this was after the death of Ishua, but well within a year after he had died and Saul/Paul was in Yerushalayim. I mean as big as Ishua's trial was. As much attention that case attracted! Thousands met Ishua on the road to Yerushalayim:
Mat 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

Mat 21:10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Mat 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,

, with the Elite Clergy hating the man the way they did and supervising the crows as often as they did, how could Paul NOT have seen him? It would have been moor impossible that Paul DIDN"T see Ishua, than that he did!!! IMPOSSIBLE! Even if but a climpse.

Ishua taught in Synogagues in Yerushalayim:
Jhn 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

, where Perushim actually dwelt and lived in some cases, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Paul NOT to have heard Ishua. Synagogues were not like churches today where you can find one on every corner. So it would have been hard for Paul to miss Ishua teaching at the synagogue.

These are words from a man who have spent moor time studying the writings of men who hate the bible rather than the bible itself. It's impossible for a scholar to come away with this impression that York has if has studied thoroughly

As far as Paul never hearing Ishua's voice, thats not what the Scriptures say:
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:


Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?


Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

This book is going to explain to you how the preachers, teachers, reverends, rabbis, imaams, sheikhs, and pastors who don’t take the time to study the languages that the scriptures were revealed in or the language Jesus Christ himself spoke, but merely relied on poor English translations which can’t give you the true meanings. If you want real facts, then read on.

verily i tell you, it's not really that deep, most of this stuff can be seen PLAINLY on the surface. It only takes common sense and attention to detail to deflate the ego and misinfo of this book

[1dell]

Fact one: Jesus Christ, whose Hebrew name is Yahsua meaning “savior,”<br>
Aw Mercy Mercy Me... Aint this ridiculous! Someone who is seeking truth should be appauled at this, a misspelled word. The word he is TRYING to spell is Yashua which is STILL incorrect because the Messiah's name is Ishua spelled Yud Shin Waw Ayin that would be YSHUA. Why Yshua and NOT Yashua? Because once you have studied and innerstood Hebrew/Ibry you come to realize that there are certain suffixes and prefixes that are added to a word already that adds a sound to the word, not alter it's entire pronounciation and Yshua is one of them. Made up of the word Shua which has the strong's lexicon number of 7769 here is the link for the word's definition: www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1078321054-9825.html

As you can see the word means to cry out or wealth. So it's implied by it's use that it will mean Deliverance. In hebrew/Ibry, you add masculinity to a word by adding the letter Yud/Y/I to a word as a prefix. So when you see Y or I added to Shua thusly becoming Yshua you know it's meaning as HE is Deliverence or synonomous as He is Salvation.

York is again incorrect about Yshua meaning Savior (misspelled) or Saviour, the word for savior is Yshe

referred to his heavenly father in Matthew 6:9 as Ab meaning in Hebrew as well as Aramic as well as Arabic and Syretic simply “father”

Ok Imma come up in this run on sentence and break it apart because it's confusing as all get out. There are like 3 sentences here in one all connected by the word and. It's confusing. Here, this first point. That is correct Ab means Father in Ibry/Hebrew. Albeit Yshua didn't refer to his heavenly father as Ab, He refered to him as Abba:

Mar 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Which is a moor affectionate term than AB being moor formal and used moor so when refering to your father to someone else.

and Eli which is from the Aramic (Hebrew) Eloh or Elohim “these beings”

by this statement york is saying that Yshua ALSO refered to his heavenly father as Eli which again is incorrect, because in the Galilean dialect that he spoke it would have been Ali, not Eli. If anyone wants to do further research on that dialect here www.peshitta.org

Here is one of the first signs that was shown to me that York didn't know what he was talking about. When he says that Elohim means "these beings, I almost joked with laughter! here is why:

To say that Elohym/Elohim means these beings is to totally ruin the grammatical fabric of ANY language. Here is why. The word EL, also means these, Which is ALREADY a plural word. To add the suffix -ym or -im to a word is to basically add and -S ad the end of a word, So to TECHNICALLY (not correctly) pluralize EL it would look like this with the suffix law: ELim or Elym, that would mean THESES LOLOL!!!! These is already plural and there is no such tense to describe a word like Theses!

Elohim is makes the word Eloh plural. Now what does Eloh mean? Simply, it means Deity. Thats it. And according to suffix law Eloh when applied the suffix -im, means Deities, plain and simple.

In order for York to be correct in his statement, Eloh would have to mean This, for "this" is correctly conjugated into the word These when made plural. The hebrew word for THIS is Zot or Zeh. Not even close!

and from the language of the Galileans, Acts 2:1-7 called Arabic today, Allah.

Again another True statement. York does have truth sprinkled in his documents but their are hiding. Oh but wait! Sorry, he is wrong here too, Galilean DIALECT is NOT called arabic today it's Called Aramaic. Again www.peshitta.org for reference. Yet, The word for God in the Galilean dialect IS Alaha, that I will correct.

Allah is the name in the New Testament called Eli in Matthew 27:46

No, because Allah and Eli are words that are in different stages of Conjugation. He would have been better off saying Allah and Eloh. Eli means MY God. Whenever there is a letter Y or I at the END of a word it denotes possession. As in MY. If he would have said Ali is the name in the new testament... then yes he would have been correct. This is just sloppy and poorly written.

It is indeed correct that the Hebrew word Eloh is in fact Alah in the galilean.

when Jesus used it as “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” translated as “my god, my god why hast thou forsaken me?” In Psalm 22:1 David made this same declaration saying “Eli, Eli…” He used the Hebrew or Aramic of it is Eloh. The Arabic is Eloh, Eli or Eloh (Allah) also.

Here York is confusing himself, One minute Allah is arabic then the next minute Eloh is arabic, you see that? I am talking about that last sentence "The Arabic is Eloh, Eli or Eloh (Allah) also" Can't seem to make up his mind.

Lets deal with something for a 2nd. This thing about Eli Eli lama Sabachtani. First of all David didn't say this in Tefillym/Psalms 22:1 here is what he said
"Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? "

lets just deal with the My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? In Ibry/Hebrew it goes like this:
Eli Eli lama ihzabtani... don't believe me check it out: www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1078323586-4669.html#1 Ihzab means to forsake, and the word Ani is a personal pronoun for the word Me. Sorry, David didn't say Eli Eli lama sabachtani. That is wrong.

Even Ishua didn't say that. That is a mistranslation. What he DID say was Ali Ali lama SHABAKHTANI. It's SH NOT S! Which translated means "My God, My God for this reason I had been purposed, or preserved, or kept" Doesn't that make moor sense? This correction was brought to the world's attention by the Peshitta.

Many believe that the New testament was originally written in Greek. That is not true It was written by Galileans of whom the Lord's Disciples were. They wrote their documents in Aramaic in the Estrangelo Script. AGain www.peshitta.org for reference.

[1dell]

I repeat, Paul the son of a Roman Pharisee, born in 10 A.D.,

Paul is reportedly born around 10 A.D. Which would make me 14-17 years younger than Ishua/Jesus.

Here Paul admits to being a Roman Citizen with condition:

Act 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

Act 22:26 When the centurion heard [that], he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

Act 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was [free] born.

Paul Admits to being a Roman. In Acts 22:28 Paul further explains "with a great sum obtained I this freedom." So Paul PURCHASED his roman citizenship and it was a high monetary price to pay for citizenship, which with it came certain benefits within the empire. Paul also mentions that he was born free. Possibly having something to do with is birth in Tarsus/Turkey:

Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man [which am] a Jew of Tarsus, in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

in Tarsus, Rome, never met him directly or indirectly.

True no one could have met Ishua/Jesus in Tarsus, because he didn't goto Tarsus. Goofy ass... This is where it would have behooved york to read the dayum book:

Act 22:3 I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Hold up! What does Paul mean when he says he was brought up in THIS city at the feet of Gamaliel? Well, we can find out what city they are in in Acts 21:31 (for you lazy bastards who don't feel like grabbing your bibles)

Act 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.

They were in Jerusalem at the time Paul had said this. Which means He GREW UP in Jerusalem!!! and his Rabbi was Gamaliel! Which means what? That Paul was BORN in Tarsus/Turkey but was RAISED in Ysra'al in Jerusalem. So how can you live in Jerusalem and be a Pharisee and have NEVER seen Ishua? When Ishua frequented the Synagogue whenever he made his several trips to Jerusalem and spoke directly to the Pharisees? Thats impossible and preposterous! Someone aint did dey homework

But, in a book he wrote himself, he claimed to have had a vision.

In a book he wrote himself? Lukas is the author of Acts. Dag, yall call this man the master teacher and he can't even get the basics correct. But then years later, York teaches that it wasn't Paul that wrote this at all but the Piso family make the whole thing up. Confused?

He has been able to fool the whole Christian world with this self-acclaimed doctrine and made him appear to be one of the most prominent disciples of Jesus Christ.

He didn't make himself appear like anything, he was so popular because he put in moor footwork than the others. He took the gospel to the world while the others basically stayed put around Ysra'al. Some disciples ventured to the west and to the far east, but Paul was moor zealous, the Bishop of many churches and instrumental in the conversation of the leaders of an evil empire. Give the man his props. DAg

[1dell]

This pamphlet, “Saint Paul, Disciple Or Deceiver?”, was written to open your eyes to the undisputed facts about this man whom you all look upon as a saint!

Firstly these "fact" have been disputed centuries before this pamphlet/scroll was put together. So it's already starting out with a disadvantage. And you are about to watch it get disputed right chere

From cover to cover is proof of how this man Paul made no attempt to hide the misleading doctrine he taught.

from cover to cover we are about to witness one of the most feeble attempts to discredit ball ever to have existed. No only is this not well researched, it's not thoroughly thought out and full of holes

He outwardly admits that he used lies (deception) to gain his followers.

Romans 3:7: “For if the truth of Elohim has increased by way of my lying and untruths and is his honour and glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner?” – Right translation from Greek by Dr. Malachi Z. York.

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” – Mistranslation by King James 1611 A.D.

Ok here we go, York and the Paul argument says that Paul admited that he lied. My question is What did Paul lie about? My question is if a man goes around telling folk he lied who on earth would follow him? Back in those days such an act would get you killed. How do you amass thousands of followers while going around telling people you are lying?

The first Mistake york Makes is giving us some Shaddy translation which is nothing moor than his own interpretation of the scripture below it wich is Romans 3:7. All York did was insert 2 words that aren't even in the manuscript: Untruths and honour. He thinks he's slick by spelling Honor as Honour just to give it a european flavor. Insincere manipulation tactic just gives it away. Not only that, he changes the tense of Lie to lying, and that is now how the greek is supposed to read. So we can deduce that if york is translating greek himself now, We have proof that he is not good at it. Thats about all he's proven with that.

Enough of him, let's get to Paul and debunking this farse:

Ok, the scripture in question is Romans 3:7 where Paul supposedly says that he lies about something. Nowhere in that scripture does he say what he lied about and most importantly no where in the SURROUNDING scriptures does he say what he lied about.

This is a classic tactic of heretics. They isolate a scripture to make it say what THEY want it to say. But when kept in context (reading the ENTIRE passage of scriptures that includes that scripture in question) greater innerstanding is achieved.

I will take you verse upon verse threw the surrounding verses in Romans chapter 3:

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?

This is actually a continuation from a discourse in Chapter 2 and this starts off chaper 3. Remember in the manuscripts there were no chapter numbers and verses and in some cases there was no punctuation. It was all one continuous letter. The Translators and cannon staff later made divisions to have a systematic method of organization to the scriptures.

Paul asks the question What is the advantage of being a Jew or being of the circumcision. To give you a little background the Jews had difficulty embracing their gentile counterparts into the faith of Judaism because of former teachings that taught them to exclude the goyim/gentiles from their members. The Jews boasted of their esteemed position before the Most High and the abasement of the gentiles and would have not fellowship with them. This epistle of Paul's speaks to both groups and puts them on equal footing with this argument. Let's continue

Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Paul then makes known that the advantage of being a jew is being the steward of the Oracles of God, in greek that is Logia tou Theou, meaning the Utterances of God. Which would be classified as the will of God, the Law of God, the writings of God. And to the Hebrews/Jews were these intrusted, which made them a priviledges People.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

This verse is Tantamount to innerstanding the pattern in which Paul speaks throughout the remainder of this passage ultimately leading up to 3:7 It's the concept of Man's behavior rendering God's attributes ineffective or useless.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Another VERY important verse in innerstanding the totality of point that Paul is trying to get across. Not to mean we have the first part of the Lie Puzzle. The word Liar is introduced to us but we see that it's MAN who is to be charged with being a Liar versus God being true. This is Paul' response to the question he himself just asked in verse 3 which is of course rhetorical. He then in turn answers his own question in this verse.

Paul is speaking of matters of Belief. Now why is he talking about Lying? Because When the oracles are given, it takes belief. One you must belief that God is telling the truth. If you believe he is telling the truth, then you will do them. If you believe he is a liar, you will do them not. Just that simple. Thats why Paul says let the Liar be MEN, and NOT God because His every word is true. This is the beginning of the Lie concept in this scripture and we will find that Paul is actually speaking as this very same Lying man later. Keep reading

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

Ok here Paul also associates himself with is people - The Jews. Our Unrighteous, versus the righteousness of God. Once again staying true to the pattern started in verse 3 Faithulness vs faithlessness, 4. truth teller, versus liar. And now Unrighteousness versus Righteousness. you can see Paul setting this up. He has his opponents placed on the table - Man (jew) versus God. It is no secret that the Jews mishandled the oracles of God, tis why he is using them to illustrate his point. To help raise the esteem of the goyim/gentiles. The overall point is that The Jews may behave like their ish don't stink but in fact they are guiltless and in the end we are all guilty and therefore in need of forgiveness and grace from the Most High who if he were to judge us accordingly, none would be able to pass his judgment. Lets continue

Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

If God was partial in his judgment his judgment would be flawd. How then could he be God if he didn't judge correctly and if there were flaw in him how could he correctly judge the entire world, that is why these statements are false or these proposed accusations against Him is false. Thats why let God be true and every man a Liar, there is none that could charge the Most High with a crime. In Chapter 2 Paul shows the flaws of the men of Righteousness and their crimes. Thats why in comparison to God they fall short.

So far this has absolutley NOTHING to do with Paul and it continues to have nothing to do with Paul. He is setting the stages with so far 3 scenarios to make a point. And we continue:

[1dell]

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Finally we're here. but verse let me borrow from something Paul said back in verse 5 "[Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)" also let me borrow from verse 4 "let God be true and every man a Liar" hmmm Do you see what I see? Paul is saying let God be true and every man a Liar, then says I speak as a Man. Paul is saying that he is now speaking in a different tense, he is NOW speaking AS THAT MAN. Disassociating himself by making that statement. Letting his audience now that he is NOW speaking in 3rd person 1st tense (if there is such a grammatical classification. lol) He is speaking in 3rd person in personal pronoun form. Since my grammatical classification sucks. Let me give you an example:

Let just say I have a friend who just broke up with her boyfriend. I try to console her but I try to be objective and unbiased. Here we go:

She says "My boyfriend cheated on me, I had to leave him"

I say "Yeah? dag, sorry to hear that, can a bruva come by later on and hit that? LOLOL Nah just playing.

Heres what I would really say "Really? I think I know why he cheated on you. I know we friends and all but allow me to keep it real. If I was him and I saw you looking the same way when I came home as you did when I left in the moorning I would be pissed. I mean just think I am going to work around woman lookin at their best, smelling good denna mug then I gotta come home and there is, flip flops on, Rug Rats' T-shirt and been wearing the same draws for the last 3 days. Heck if one of them sista rolled up to me I can innerstand how he would be tempted to bunny dip all up in that"

Ok see my point? See how I dove in and out of persons and tenses as I spoke. Now did I DOOO any of those things? Did I NOT qualify my statements by saying "if I was him..." Paul did the same by saying "I speak as a man" thats just how they said it back in them days . And did I do the things I said? no, I was speaking as if I was him. Same thing. Lets continue

Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

oooooHHH!!!! So Paul is ALSO dealing with Slanderous reports where he has been misquoted! It makes all the sense in the world now!!! See, all this would have been missed if we would have just isolated that ONE verse. I said it 1nce I'll it a 1000 times, heretics CANNOT be trusted because they use methods of deception THEMSELVES to manipulate people's thinking Just as this pamphlet is doing.

Dont think for a minute that york didn't read that entire chapter and innerstood it, anywhere else he would give you moor than one verse to make a point. but here he has one solitary verse, that when used by itself would make poor Paul look like a liar. Shame on you york.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

here again proves my point that the reason he is even addressing this is because of the schism between the Jews and the Gentiles. This argument he is using humbles the Jews enough to put them on the same level as the gentiles and raises the esteem of the gentiles to that level of the Jews but ultimately he lets them BOTH know, we all got work to do.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:

Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:

Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:

Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:

Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

the end. Paul aint say he lied yall!! and if he did what did he lie about? and if he did how would he profit from saying that he lied? this should have left you with moor questions than they could answer. But you all just accepted this falsehood at face value.

If you learned nothing else from this learn this: PLEASE keep scripture in context. You can make a scripture say almost anything you want it to say unelss you keep it in the body of the passages. That violates the intregrity.

[1dell]

In light of what we just covered from the previous page (1) Page (2) seem extremely superfluous! This entire page is a tantrum rant that goes on and on about nothing really after we have distinquished the truth about Rom 3:7. I think page 2 deserves one big

YAWN!!

Dont you? Well maybe not yet. lets just see what he's got for us:

This is the kind of man that you base your faith on!

Well, yeah Malachi, I mean dwight, yes and no. I don't base my "faith" on a man. No one should do that, but if you are going to call Paul's character into subjection then I would rather a man like him, than a man like you, ANY DAY! Just a brief Resume of Paul's

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.

2Cr 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I [am] more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

2Cr 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty [stripes] save one.

2Cr 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

This dude was beaten 5 times with rods. He received 40-1 stripes. Meaning he was whipped 39 times according to the law of Moshe, for what he taught. I'd like to see you do that. I'd like to see anyone do that. I mean if I am out there teaching falsehood, do you think I would take and ass whoopin like that for it and keep on doing it? Sheeeaaaattt, not the kid. Conviction makes you do things like that dude. Men will die for the truth.

It wud'nt like Paul was gettin some ass from this, it wasn't like he was ballin off the hook making mad loot doing this. It wasn't like he was partying. The brutha was in prison most of the time because to teach The Way was outlawed. He sacrificed life and limb LITERALLY for what he believed and taught. They don't make men like him no moor! What he taught led him to be eventually executed. Men don't do that for self made up lies.

Your whole law concerning Christianity hangs on the words of a man who lied to get your loyalty.

Ok we proved already that he didn't lie, lets move on shall we

He altered the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as remitted the laws of the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-18).

dayum, can we get some proof of any of this? A scripture or 2 perhaps? I mean Paul went to the Goyim/the Gentiles, they were not under the laws of the hebrews because the Oracles of God were given to the Hebrews. the Messiah's, the Prophets were sent to the hebrews, not to the goyim. He went in the permission and authority of the Councel in Yrushalayim Acts 15:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Now if Paul taught these things to Hebrews, it would be a different matter altogether. But even the Prophets teach that invitation would be extended to the goyim. Should a Goy decide to inhabit Ysra'al then Torah would be cast upon him. But since these goyim were in their own land, no such burden was to be placed on them.

But they were to do these basic things to keep themselves CLEAN in order that they were able to fellowship with the jews so that they might be able to enter the synagogue and hear the teachings of Moshe so they would learn and progress in the truth.

Yet, you still follow Paul. You’ve modernized an already fabricated religion and broke it up into many other little sects: Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Born-again-Christians, Hebrew Israelites and many others who call themselves Hebrews or Israelites or Jew yet, quote the New Testament and speak of Jesus; making them another sect of Christianity. (Refer to Matthew 24:24).

Yeah I am pissed about that too Malachi, because of disagreements and pride and thangs Many groups have splintered off. We would be very much moor powerful is we could keep the family intact. but it's all good because Ishua said:

Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

It's just that plain and simple. But even now we have nuwaubian splinter groups so I guess you learn first hand that while the shepherd is away it's difficult to keep the flock together. No? What goes around comes around

You are following these false preachers, teachers, rabbis, sheikhs and imaams. Each one thinking they’re right and none of them really following “the Christ, Jesus,” the real Messiah their personal savior.

I agree with you on that Malachi, that is so true. Even when they DO have a false preacher they barely follow him. It's sad it's really sad. Reminds me of what a wise man 1nce said "Let God be true and everyman a liar"

[1dell]

Each of them are preaching their own gospel making them all off-shoots of an “incomplete doctrine.” Isn’t that what Jesus meant when he said in John 16:12 that he had many things to teach them but they weren’t ready? Read it again! Jesus was not finished teaching them yet!

Wow, he's at it again, taking scripture out of context knowing full well that the answer to his supposed debate is in the surrounding verses but he refuses to include them. Lets check it:

Jhn 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jhn 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

This is what he should have done, included the rest of the thought and he would have never had to enter this page in his tyrade against Paul. The very next scripture rebuts him. Ishua had many moor things to teach them. Ishua was training prophets, there are some things they lacked skill in that only experience and internal esoterical insight could provide. Thats where the Spirit of Truth/Ruakh haQodesh/Holy Spirit comes in, he would be their internal and eternal tutor guiding and directing them. He was their initiation into prophethood.

The Holy Spirit didn't take long to come. In fact He endowed them on Shavuot, 50 days after Passover, 52-53 days after the death of Messiah. They didn't have to wait long. We find that happening in the First couple of Chapters of the book of Acts.

Riddle me this, How could Ishua even have an incomplete doctrine when he didn't come teaching anything new? He didn't come to bring Ysrael a New doctrine to begin with:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He merely came to fulfill the Torah and HaNeviym. He came to fullfill/establish what they already had for the last few thousand years. He came and taught the lost prophetic arts that were being taught in the original school of which Elisha was teacher: The Sons of the Prophets hundreds of years prior.

In fact there was only one new thing he introduced during his ministry:

Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

That's it! So sorry he was basically reestablishing and rehashing the system they ALREADY had in place, the Torah and the Prophets that was written thousands of years prior. The system was already in place. So it makes absolutely no sense to say that his doctrine was incomplete when he didn't come teaching a new or unfinished doctrine.

Heretics love to isolate one single scripture and build an entire book around them. When all a person has to do to nullify the argument is read the very next verse.

So that makes his doctrine incomplete. Now you tell me why Peter, Paul and those false preachers set up churches if Jesus himself said my teachings are not complete? In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said that he would build his church, not Peter!

Matthew 16:18: “And I Yashu’a say unto you, Petros, meaning firm as a rock that upon people this firm like a rock will I build my assembly: and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” – Right translation from Greek by Dr. Malachi Z. York.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” – Mistranslation by King James 1611 A.D

here we go again with the "right translations" which are nothing moor than an interpretation with words added that are not in the manuscripts. But really in lieu of what we just covered all this is just a moot point seeing as how Ishua didn't teach a doctrine that Ysra'al didn't already have.

So why degrade Peter/Kefa and Paul for doing something that was totally legit? I mean if Ishua was supposed to set up his own churches, PLEASE tell me why the man spend 3 years training over 200 hundred prophets to go out into the world teaching, healing, converting, and immersing folk! I mean what where they supposed to do? hang out in front of the Seven Eleven pitching horse shoes?

So far this book aint put a dent in Paul's reputation.

[1dell]

If you understand the quote you just read taken from your King James version of the Bible which most of you read, you should not have established any churches. Remember, Jesus never built a church because he never completed his mission; you have taken Jesus’ mission further than he did. Paul “the Apostle of the Gentiles,” started this! You must wake up to the reality that your are being blindly led by Paulites (followers of Paul), not Messiahites (followers of The Messiah). You must get back on the right path.

The quote he's talking about is:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Maybe it's me but I don't see where this scripture is telling people not to be building churches. lol

These disciples were actually being trained to be heads of churches/Assemblies.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.


Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.


Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

They took Ishua's mission further than he did because they were told to lol:

Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

It was his expectation that they would exceed him.

Jhn 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

This is an excerpt from the prayer that Ishua prays right before his trial. I am curious, Why would he spend so much time praying for them, then asking for their protection as he sends them out into the world. Send them out in the word to do what? Play Bad Mitton? To be foosball champions?

Ishua sent them boys out with a Mission:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.


I just don't see how anyone can read the scriptures and come away with the idea that he didn't intend for his disciples to go into retirement after his death.


It is important that you research from many books other than the Bible.

I agree that is most important

The Dead Sea Scroll Tablets talk about the real story concerning the birth of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his ressurrection. These scrolls were written over 2000 years ago and were found in jars with leather rolls in 1947 A.D. in a cave near the north west shores of the Dead Sea.

Imma hold you to that Malachi, you are saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls speak about Ishua's Birth, execution and resurrection. You are saying that is the REAL story, i.e. that he was born, you are saying he existed and that he was executed and that he resurrected. I say Imma hold you to this because in some of your other information you say quite the contrary.

This area is 14 miles east of Jerusalem near the Jordan river where Jesus himself was baptized (Mark 1:9) in an area called Qumran by two Bedouin shepherds.

uh huh

[1dell]

Once you have thoroughly done research you will plainly see the truth behind the false religious teachings that you’ve been following and how it is not what the Messiah Jesus Saviour to the world was teaching, but the evil ones got in. As Matthew 24:4-5 states you will be deceived by people that come using Jesus’ name.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Actually, this is not refering to those who teach in Jesus name, but pertaining to those who CLAIM to be Jesus or Messiahs proclaim that they are Christs. And in doing so they shall greatly deceive many people.

Verse 5, Ishua quotes what they go around preaching "I am Christ" Thats exactly what they claim and history is replete with those who have done just that claiming to be Ishua = I (He) Shua (Salvation) i.e. the Salvation of IHaWaH.

Jesus said in the Book of Revelation that he would send “his angel” in the last days (Revelation 1:1). I am here to help you find the way to that spirit.

York is supposed to help us find our way to the Angel Ishua was going to send in the last days? I am seriously curious about knowing if any student has been able to find their way to that angel. All jokes aside.

You must stop listening to those false preachers and lying ministers who model themselves after Paul, the disciple of the anti-Christ a congregation as mentioned in 1 John 2:18. The word antichrist in this quote is pluralized, meaning that there is not only one antichrist, but many.

I can see the logic being built trying to accuse Paul of being an Anti-Christ but the foundation of this argument is built on sand and has not gravity to it As we'll continue to see

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

...who model themselves after Paul, the disciple of the anti-Christ a congregation as mentioned in 1 John 2:18...

I don't know any Pastors that are modelling themselves after Paul, they claim they model themselves after Christ

Paul is the disciple of the Anti-Christ?

And is the Anti-Christ a congregation of people? because no such thing is remotely mentioned in 1 john 2:18. Otherwise trying to resolve this statement:

who model themselves after Paul, the disciple of the anti-Christ a congregation as mentioned in 1 John 2:18.

ends in failure of proving it true.


Ques: Why do we call Paul the antichrist?

Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21),

Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

hmmm, Paul is the anti-christ because he told people not to circumcise themselves? Thats all it takes?

Lets take a look at Malachi's statement:

"Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21),"

Malachi is saying that Jesus taught 2 things one being Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27) and to keep circumcise your male children. Then Malachi uses Luke 2:21 to say that Ishua teaches this or said this. When in all actuality:

Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Luke 2:21 is not a teaching of Ishua's it's Ishua's circumcision being recorded. This is Ishua's own circumcision. Ishua wasn't teaching this. This scripture shouldn't be used. How does this scripture prove that Paul is an Anit-Christ?

I know what Malachi is trying to say so let me argue that argument

Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Here is the verse that Malachi cites that makes Paul an Anti-Christ. I was expecting to see a verse where Paul was saying "DO NOT circumsize your male offspring" I see no such verse. Instead Malachi provides us with this. A general principle that speaks of truth beyond circumcision and that was truly proven by Abraham himself. Not to mention who is Paul speaking to? Some Jews? Who was the law of Circumcision given to jews or gentiles? Gentiles. So if Paul is talking to uncircumcised people then wouldn't it stand to reason that he is speaking to gentiles? The covenant of circumcison was not given to them. So why would he command them to be circumcised?

Even if Ishua was teaching circumcision (which isn't even a teaching) what of it? His audience was Jews. Paul's audience was gentiles. Apples and Oranges. IHaWaH made a distinction betwixt jews and gentiles and the requirements of the 2, Paul honored that distinction and taught accordingly. Besides during that day and time circumcision and uncircumcision was used as racial slang moor so than speaking of a function of the minor surgery. Synonomous with the terms Jew or Gentile.

Lets look at this again Malachi said "Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21. "

Paul said circumcision is not necessary in Romans 2:26? Thats lie, Pauls aid no such thing in Romans 2:26. Malachi also said What Paul said in Romans 2:26 goes against what CHRIST SAID in luke 2:21

hmmm. We already looked at Luke 2:21 and it's amazing because Jesus is 8 years old and getting circumcised himself and is not recorded as to have said anything in this verse. Sigh.

Next

[1dell]

Afraid not Kahanyah, See the Gospel was supposed to be taken to the gentiles. so says the old and new test. Ishua had intended it to be thus:

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Act 1:8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Paul was just fullfilling the mission.

Their were provisions made for the gentile just coming into the Faith that the entire Mosheic law was not placed on their shoulders. They were commanded to follow just enough laws to make them fellowshipable and "clean" and were to grow into the grafting process:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

kAH said:

u know what i think, i think the church purposely mislead the masses by including pauls letters in the book of the jews. Paul was a prophet unto the gentiles (pagan worshippers). Jesus christ was a prophet unto the jews. two types of ministries.

The church misleads by giving us the impression the ministry of paul is the ministry of Jesus when he walked the earth. FAR FROM THE TRUTH.

[1dell]

The word anti means against. So antichrist means to go against anything that Christ taught.

Actually this is misleading. Not what Malachi is saying per se but what the word AntiChrist itself. Because it's implying an idea in english terms that is not the same in hebrew terms. Anti indeed means against or oppose even opposite and it's this word that stands out in the true hebraic meaning of the word. Opposite. Anti Christ means the opposite of Christ i.e. the Opponent of Christ or the exact opposite of christ. This would shed moor light on what the antichrist is moor so than "antichrist means to go against anything that Christ taught" The Perushiym and Tz'dukiym (Pharisees and Sadducees) were against what Christ taught that doesn't make them anti-christs. They were very Pro Christ. And as we will find, Paul didn't go against the teachings of Christ, so we will prove that he is no anti-christ by any definition.

In II Chronicles 7:12-16 it says that the God dwells in chosen temples; a law through Moses. However, Paul says in Acts 7:48 the Most High does not dwell in temples.

Wow Lets lay the ground work first and we will find that Paul is not the ONLY person that said this and we will clarify ii Chronicale 7:12-16

2Ch 7:12 And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.

2Ch 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;

2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2Ch 7:15 Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer [that is made] in this place.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

hmmm, so God's NAME will be at that House/temple that Solomon had build FOREVER. not the Most High himself. Hmmm. Which means the Temple would be sorta like his headquarters if you will, an earthly embassy of sorts, a portal if you will to confront and supplicate.

Here is the next verse Malachi cites that he is accusing Paul of contradicting:

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

hmmm!!! I 1der if Malachi noticed the last part of this verse where paul says "..as saith the prophet..." Because this is Paul QUOTING a prophet from the bible which means that someone ELSE said this before Paul said it and he is quoting the bible himself. Fascinating!! Lets look at the REST of this passage where Paul completes the quote:

Act 7:49 Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest?

Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

Wanna know where Paul got this from and what prophet he is speaking of?

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven [is] my throne, and the earth [is] my footstool: where [is] the house that ye build unto me? and where [is] the place of my rest?

Isa 66:2 For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Must be YshaIHaWaH/Isaiah

Ishua also said this when he said "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you"

Even Solomon the one who built the temple of IHaWaH innerstood that IHaWaH would not dwell in a temple. That very same Temple that Malachi quots from 2 Chronicles where he said God would dwell was built by Solomon and we have a quote from Solomon that proves that God doesn't dwell in Temples:

1Ki 8:22 And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven:


1Ki 8:23 And he said, LORD God of Israel, [there is] no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:


1Ki 8:24 Who hast kept with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him: thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled [it] with thine hand, as [it is] this day.

1Ki 8:25 Therefore now, LORD God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me.

1Ki 8:26 And now, O God of Israel, let thy word, I pray thee, be verified, which thou spakest unto thy servant David my father.

1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

My point in this is this, The temple was built as a place of worshipping the most high. No one said he dwelt there Malachi is assuming thats what the Most High Meant when he said "that my NAME shall be there forever..." No where does it say that IHaWaH will dwell in a temple. Thats my point.

So in essence Paul is dead on it when he makes that statement.


God dwells in light in 1 Timothy 6:16 says Paul. But the book of 1 Kings 8:12 the Lord says he dwells in thick darkness.

Here is 1 timothy 6:16:

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Well I 1der where Paul got that from, hmm Maybe from D'wed/David the man after God's own heart:

Psa 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

Psa 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Obviously Paul wasn't the only one who knew that God dwelled in the Light. Lets look at the supposedly contradicting verse:

1Ki 8:12 Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

So Solomon is quoting IHaWaH. How would he know that IHaWaH said that unless he read that somewhere? And where did Solomon read this?

Deu 4:11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.

Wow. That happened once a upon a time. So is God still there chilling on top of that mountain in the thick darkness? I don't think so. Heck this was wwaaayyy back hundreds of years ago when Moshe took the elders of Hebrews to the mountain to commune with God right after they left egypt.

oh But wait, there are times when God would appear in a cloud for the sake of those he would appear to:

Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Did yall see that part where it said "That he die not" Well obvioiusly the luminous form of the Most High is detrimental to the health of human beings in flesh so he would appear to the priest in a midst or a cloud to dilute his appearance. So both are correct He doesn't Dwell mean thats his address, the word shakan can also be translated as inhabit.

[1dell]

In Romans 1:20 Gods attributes are revealed in his works says Paul. But, Isaiah 40:28 says the opposite.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

and

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, [that] the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? [there is] no searching of his understanding.

how is this saying the opposite of what Paul Said?

Malachi's accusations are that Paul said God's attributes are revealed in his works. and he is also saying that Isaiah is saying that Hiw works cannot be revealed thru his works. Anyone see Isaiah saying that? I certainly don't, maybe it's me. I think what Malachi is realy trying to find conflict with is the word that both verses seem to be talking and it is "understanding" Where Paul is saying that IHaWaH can be innerstood via his creation where as he THINKS Isaiah is saying that IHaWaH can't be understood. Malachi might be trying to argue that. Even then that would be false because to say "no searching his understanding" Means "his intelligence can not be enquired upon" meaning He possesses infinite knowledge and no one person can exhaust it. 2 entirely different things being talking about here.

Anger is approved by Paul in Ephesians 4:26. But anger is disapproved in Ecclesiates 7:9. As well as Proverbs 22:24.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Ecc 7:9 Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

Pro 22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:

Wow Malachi is all over the place and none of this contradicts. Paul acknowledges that anger does happen to a person and says control it the anger that it does not cause you to sin. Ecc 7:9 is saying Dont be in a hurry to be angry.... And Proverbs 22:24 is saying don't make friends with an angry man and don't tag along with a furious man.... sigh. All of this just to discredit Paul? Give me something I can go on! This aint enough to convict a man with error when there is no error! What makes it so back is that Paul did teach about anger and wrath:

Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

in the very same book where he says be angry but sin not. To be angry itself is no sin but what one does when angry can be sinful. Heck Moshe got angry D'wed Got angry, Ishua himself got angry... And dammit, now I am angry


1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul was trying to condemn Jesus for having long hair, something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.

1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Jdg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Num 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth [himself] unto the LORD, he shall be holy, [and] shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

This is cute. lol. I have shown you 1 corinthians 11:14 did you read ANYWHERE where Paul condemned anyone let alone Jesus for that matter? I don't. lol And where does it say ANYWHERE in scripture that Ishua had long hair? What Malachi didn't know I guess was Paul was speaking to corinthians a pagan nation. Anyway thats not even the point. Paul was using this to teach women that they aught to cover their heads:

1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If he was condemning anything it was women praying and prophesying with bald or uncovered heads.[/b]

[1dell]

sigh, here we go, Not here Kah, I am trying to stay focused on Paul the supposed deceiver dude. Now I have all this miscellaneous conversations going on all up in my thread. thats why I locked it in the first place. If you want we can take this up in another section or thread, cuz I am going delete these other messages up outta here except the one by balkis and hathor.

kAH said:

Well 1dell, the only "gospel" I know of to be preached unto the world before the end was the deceitful message by HaShatan -

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom [is] as the sand of the sea.

The message HaShatan brought to the entire world [nations which in the four quarters of the earth] brought about the end. This was the fulfillment of Matt 24.14.

[1dell]

The law of circumcision was instituted in Genesis 17:10 and Paul condemned it in Galatians 5:2.

Gen 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Key part of the quote from Paul is "I Paul say unto you...." why is the an integral part? because who is Paul talking to? First of all he is obviously talking to UNCIRCUMCISED people. Who are these uncircumcised/non jewish people? Citizens of Galatia. Sigh! Paul is not condemning circumcision whatsoever. He is not even speaking against circumcision. He is just tellin the Pagan Galatians if they go seeking to be circumcised then Ishua would be useless to them.

Ishua is the salvation of the world. Those who saught to be circumcised were looking to Circumcision as a choice mode of salvation. Thats the key behind what Paul is teaching. He is in no way condemning Circumcision.

The Sabbath was instituted in Exodus 20:8 but Paul condemned it in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16.

Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!! We have big ass mess right chere! Malachi is accusing Paul of what? Condemning the Sabbath day right? Can ANYONE show me where Paul condemned the Sabbath day? I don't see NO WHERE in EITHER verse where he condemns the Sabbath day:

Rom 14:5 He is speaking of 2 types of people 1) who says that certain days are moor important than another. and 2) a man who sees all days equally. Then what does paul say? "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" And what does that mean? does that mean "I condemn the Sabbath day!" OH HELL NO!!!!

Then there is Col 2:16

Let no man JUDGE you in food, drink, or respect to any holy day or sabbath day or new moon. OH MY GOD!!! He is telling people don't let no one condemn you for Keeping reverence over these days!!!! Don't let no one JUDGE you for keep the Sabbath day. He is condoning the keeping of revered days!! This is preposterous what has been done against Paul and how incredibly misinnerstood his teachings are.

Paul even went against the baptism which Jesus the Christ himself was given by John the Baptist (1 Corinthians 1:14, 17). Here Paul is going against the Christ. The list goes on and on. Seek the book entitled Contradictions Of Jesus’ Disciples and Jesus’ Disciples For Or Against Him.

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

LOL!!! How is Paul condemning Ishua's baptism? Does anyone see it? I certainly don't. Now if this was kept in CONTEXT one would see Paul was rebuking some Corinthians for their behavior and to have baptised someone is to say that you have initiated them into Messianic Judaism and thereby you are responsible for their entrance into the faith and for their cleansing. That is why Paul is thankful that he didn't baptise any of the people he was talking to because they were corrupt and god-forbid he would have brought corrupt people into the faith only to have ruined his name and reputation.

Ishua sent Paul to Proclaim the Gospel that was his primary goal in the body of Messiah. His sole purpose was not a Baptizer an Immerse. But when one seeks to be baptized by you, you are not to refuse them. Which is why Paul did do a lil baptizing here and there.

Again another Lie against Paul resolved

Ques: What laws did Jesus follow?

Ans: Christ said in John 1:17 that he clearly followed the laws of Moses and again that not one period called in Greek keria “tittle” or a dot called in Greek iota “jot” the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet called yod “in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18 so if I read this right, the Christ was telling his followers to follow all the laws of Moses not to change one dot or one letter from the law.

Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

BOY!! I wish I was there at the committee meeting when this book was written or in the classes where York was teaching this. I may have prevented this book from EVER being written. Because this is just ridiculous! Malachi says that Ishua/Jesus SAID in John 1:17. First off Ishua is not the one talking!!!! IHukhanan/John is the one providing the Narative. Ishua doesn't even start talking until verse 38!

And how does John 1:17 Prove that Ishua followed the Law of Moses when the verse only says The law came thru Moses but Grace came thru Ishua Malhushkay?

Matt 5:18 what one must innerstand is that the LAW of Moses and the LAW are 2 different things. Moses indeed gave a law but there is also a law that came thru God himself. there is a distinction. One written on STone, the other on skins/scrolls. One was kept inside the Ark of God the other on the table within the temple. When a Hebrew said the LAW, he spoke of them both combined, Which is why there is even a distinction "the law of Moshe" if there was only ONE law why would one need to place the name Law of Moses on it to distinquish it? So I say that to say Ishua followed moor than just the Law of Moshe.