Paul the Deceiver by Malachi Z York

[1dell]

The word used there in Greek is nomas and implies the law of the Torah which would be the five books of Moses.

Not so Malachi the word refering to the 5 books of Moshe is Pentateuch Not Nomos. Nomos means any law:

) anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command

a) of any law whatsoever

1) a law or rule producing a state approved of God

a) by the observance of which is approved of God

2) a precept or injunction

3) the rule of action prescribed by reason

b) of the Mosaic law, and referring, acc. to the context. either to the volume of the law or to its contents

c) the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, esp. the precept concerning love

d) the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch), is put for the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT

---

Ques: Who are the anti-Christs mentioned in 1 John 2:18?

Ans: Anyone who tries to teach in the name of Jesus Christ but does not include all the laws of the Torah which Jesus followed according to his own words would be an antichrist. You are so busy looking for and antichrist amongst the Mohammedans, or the Jews, or the Politicians, that you missed that he would be a Christian as the Book of Matthew 24:4-5 clearly states. He and his followers would be coming using Christ’s name. They will be called Christians or some form of Christians. These followers of Paul are your antichrists.

Anyone who teaches in the name of Ishua HaMashiakh but does not include all the laws of the Torah is smart. Because you cannot include ALL the laws of the torah because the Torah was to be keep in totality in the land of Canaan. Here in America we have no temple, there are over 100 laws that deal with the temple alone. So it would NOT be wise to demand that people in a diasporic state keep the Torah because they would NOT be able to do so.

So being an Anti Christ is a LOT moor than just that. In fact that doesn't even mean you are an anti-christ if you do that. To be an anti-christ has MOOR to do with claiming to be the Christ rather than teaching "against" christ. Being an Anti-Christ would be like being the Opponent of Christ or being the Rival of Christ. Being the Anti-Christ is saying that You ARE Christ and having supernatural power and ability to back you up but causing the people to worship other gods. The Old testament already gave a definition of the anti-Christ:

Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Christ is nothing moor than a spirit which would inhabit men as certain times for enduring periods of time and empowered them with supernatural abilities. King Saul possesed it so it D'wed/DAvid and others. We found that same spirit visiting Ishua when he was baptised.

So to ansaar the original question. The anti-christs that are being mentioned in 1 John 2:18:

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.

Were not those who taught against christ, but those men who claimed themselves to be the Christ.

Here is a scriptural incident:

Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

---

Ques: What is an anti-Christ?

Ans: If you go against Jesus, you are anti-Jesus. If you go against Christ, you are anti-Christ.

People who follow after Paul are not only anti-Jesus; they are anti-Christs. I am here for you to answer questions you have on any subject that your teachers, leaders, preachers, reverends, shaikhs, and imaams cannot. Even if you don’t follow me, at least seek after the true ways of Jesus! Do some research! Stop following those who teach the ways of Paul! Seek the truth! It will make you free and lead you to the right way!

Wow, there are 7 sentences in Malachi's ansaar here and only one of the sentences addresses the question. The other 6 are spend laudating himself and exalting himself and no where in there does he prove his point.

I think we have already been there and done that on this question, showing that Paul was not only a disciple of Ishua the Messiah, but also a support and his teachings were in common with Ishua. He didn't teach not a thing against Ishua. And we have already shown how Being Anti-Christ DOES NOT mean being Anti-Jesus or Against Christ. so lets move on

---

Here within this pamphlet, I have given you the truth about this man, Paul. Was he a disciple or deceiver? Once you finish reading this pamphlet you will be able to answer this question yourself.

Dude, the ONLY thing you said that was true about Paul was that his name was Saul. That his name became Paul, That he was a pharisee, that he was a hebrew, and ummmmm. Thats about it. All that other stuff was either purposeful misinterpretation of scripture or just outright lies.

[1dell]

Ques: Who was Paul?

Ans: Paul (meaning “little” in the Greek translation Paulos was an Israelite of the Tribe of Benjamin. Being that he was an Israelite his Hebrew name by birth was Saul (Shauwl) meaning “asked;” from the root word shaal or shael meaning “to inquire.”

Actually Sha'ul means "desired". Sh'al does mean to ask, enquire, borrow or beg. which is the root of the word Sha'ul.

the name Paul also means Small, little or least. But then again as Malachi Said thats in the greek translation. But Paulos or Paulus is actually latin.

Isn’t it a contradiction on Paul’s behalf to call himself by a Greek name if he was born with a Hebrew name;

Not at all. Because Saul didn't name himself Paul, that most assuredly came from his contemporaries. He later identified himself as Paul because it was in the name of Paul that his fame began to spread across the gentile word. That is the name they new him by.

NIck names were VERY common back then. You have John who was also called Mark or Marcus, you have others as well:

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Simeon was called Niger, why? because he was Black. LOL! I'm serious! Niger means black in greek. Often times their nicknames were greek or latin names. Paul Means least or little and we can find scripture that explains why Paul was called this. One is because his appearance was of a little weak looking person:

2Cr 10:10 For [his] letters, say they, [are] weighty and powerful; but [his] bodily presence [is] weak, and [his] speech contemptible.

also too Paul became very humbled by his encounter with Ishua on the road to damascus so Paul the name also described his humble nature:

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.

wasn’t Hebrew the nationality of Jesus? Saul’s name was changed to Paul when he became a Christian.

So what if Ishua's nationality was hebrew, wasn't Sha'ul multinational? I am American does that mean I have to change my name to Hebrew just because Ishua was a hebrew? That makes no sense at all. Paul's name wasn't changed, Paul/Sha'ul got another name and like many of us the nickname became moor Popular.

Paul inherited the name Judahite which you now call Jew due to the territory in which his father resided before becoming a recident of the city Tarsus, which lies in the vicinity of Rome (Acts 22:3).
Paul was called a Judahite because his father was of the Tribe of Judah. Paul was called a Judahite only by territory not by blood! Judahites were brought to Tarsus, of Rome in Cilicia, to promote business and were given citizenship. Paul’s father, who was of Roman nationality, became a Pharisee, which was one of the many religious groups of that time, they were:

HOLD UP!!! stop the music!!!! Didn't Malachi just say in the beginning of this question "who is Paul" that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin? Now he is saying Paul's father was of the tribe of Judah??? Huh? How can Paul be from both tribes? Paul is not a Jew by blood even when both of his parents where jews? How can that be? Come on Malachi! A person can be a roman CITIZEN which can be purchased but Not a roman by RACE! Like Malachi, claims to be from Sudan, and from native american tribes. Thats the Cloud calling the Marshmellow White!

2nd of all there is no such term as Judahite. The word is Yhudy or Yhudit.

Paul was called a Jew by the blood of both parents. How can Malachi say that Paul born in tarsus, a city where jews were transported to for commerce yet Paul finds a way to be born not of Jewish blood? Impossible! Malachi himself says that Paul's father was of the tribe of Judah then says in the same paragraph that Paul's father was a roman citizen, then says in the same paragraph that Paul was jewish by birth. LOL!!! What kind of sense does that make my friend? If both of your parent are jews then what does that make you? But what I need Malachi to reconcile for me is how on earth can Paul's father be of the Tribe of Judah but Paul be from the tribe of Benjamin?

Sadducee
Chief Priests
Zealots
The Essenses
The Scribes
The Rabbial Council of Levites

Now, because Paul’s father (originally a Benjaminite) dwelt in the land of Judah (due to some of the Tribe of Benjamin migrating into the land of Judah) they inherited the name of the most prominent tribe – the Tribe of Judah. This took place during the reign of King Rehoboam (I Kings 12:21) from 967 – 950 B.C.E., son of King David, son of Jesse of the house of Judah (Ruth 4:22).

Now if that was true Paul would have NEVER said that he was from the tribe of benjamin:

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

As you can see Paul identifies himself with Benjamin, not with the tribe of Judah

Paul’s father was a Judahite by name only. So Paul was born a Roman Greek Hebrew – in other words a reformed Judahite, a “gentile!” Paul was of a mixed seed and his father had long since left the laws of Moses.

dag, Malachi early said Paul's father was of the tribe of Judah, now he says Paul's father was a "Judahite" by name only. Dayum yo! which is it? Either he is OF the tribe or he ain't. I still wrestle with the question if Paul's father is a "judahite" by name only then how is it that Paul is of the tribe of benjamin. I know, because this book is spewing lies on Paul and full of misinfo, thats how.

So Paul is born a roman, greek, hebrew? where the greek part come in at? Paul was born into roman CITIZENship! but the points that NEED to made his that the dude is a Hebrew by race, your citizenship and nationality are separate from your RACE. Race if the bloodline, nationality is the country you live in. People indeed to name themselves after countries hence African-American, but those who know themselves are called by their fathers, as Paul identified himself with his father Benjamin.

Paul was of mixed seed? based on what? Malachi's illogical misinformation that contradicts itself consistenly? Paul of hebrew stock, only his nationalities or national identities changed just like york's does. And this is a very hypocritical thing york is doing against paul

Now Malachi is heralding slander against Paul's father by saying that he forsook the laws of Moshe. Hopefully York will explain this because there is absolutely no way he got this from reading the bible, let's see...


Paul’s father had “reformed!” Now what does it mean he had reformed? According to the American Heritage Dictionary reform means:

v. - To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life.
To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.

The reformed Jews were those of the Tribe of Judah who confirmed to the Hellenistic ways of Rome.

My goodness, where on earth do we find that Paul's father did anything like this? York cites NO references that Paul's father even did this. We are just supposed to take his word for it as he uses faulty logic to explain something that only ends in hypocritical contradiction on his part. Where is the proof that Paul's father was a hellenistic?

2 B continued

[1dell]

Most of these reformed Jews held high or prosperous positions in the government. They prospered either as skilled workers, Roman soldiers or learnt scholars. The council of the Sanhedrin were of this class of people, as well as Saul’s father. These men modernized the laws and statutes given to the children of Israel by way of Moses. These laws were adjusted according to their Roman life styles. (Matthew 15:6, 16:6, 23:2-3, 23:23, 25) Jesus Christ referred to them in this way:

it's a not a matter of roman corruption, this corruption existed even before the days of the roman occupation concerning the law. So that cannot be blamed as the source of the problem. Since the days of solomon the Ysraeli politician has compromised torah.

Matthew 15:8-9: “The is the people that approach unto me with their mouths, and honour me with their lip service: but their heart is very far from me. But it is no use for in vain they worship me, because they teach man-made doctrines and commandments.” — Right translation from Greek by Dr. Malachi Z. York.

“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” — Mistranslation by King James 1611 A.D.

These are the Jews you see today, they have diluted the original laws and customs. The only true Hebrews who still follow the old laws are the Falashas—the Tribe of Judah, the remnant of the original tribes, reside in Ethiopia and some have moved up into Nubia.

hmmm So the Jews that Jesus was talking to bout 2000 years ago are the jews you see today? Wow, How come all the jews that malachi has sketched from back in Ishua's times are black, but the jews we see today are white? So obviously these are NOT the same jews we see today. Thats another total matter all together.

That may sound nice, that the Falashas still follow the old laws but that is not correct. If you don't live in Ysra'al and don't worship at the temple where the most high placed his name in Yrushalayim, then there are a few hundred laws you can't keep ergo the Falashas are not following the old laws.

[1dell]

Who are the real Falashas?

Ans: The Falashas, today are the only true Israelites because they follow the Torah only.

Like I said before The Falashas are not wholeheartedly following Torah today, No one can because the temple has been destroyed and there are laws that are temple-dependant.

The Falashas are the ONLY True Israelites? How so? The origins of the Falashas are unknown. In order to be an Isra'alite you must either be the offspring of Isra'alite parents or from Isra'al. They have neither. According to their own tradition, they descendents of Menilek the supposed son of Queen Sheba and King Solomon. So as far as never mixing their seed goes, THEY ARE mixed seed

The Talmud (meaning “study” or “learning”) is written interpretation of the oral law called the Mishnah which existed from the 1st century A.D. and was collected by Rabbi Judah and the Gemara, the comments of the Rabbis from 200 - 500 A.D. on the Mishnah.

The Talmud contains halakhah which is legal enactments and precepts. The Falashas do not accept these interpretations over the law of Moses. For this, the Jews of today do not accept them as Rabbis or any type of religious official. This makes no sense at all.

They also adhere to certain traditions that correspond to some of those found in the Midrash and Talmud not to say they got it from these text. It could be purely coincidental. The Falashas do good in doing this-sticking so loyally to the Torah. Ishua was the same way, he was against man-made laws, and so was Paul as we shall see later.

[1dell]

They will not accept the Falashas who have not mixed their seed at all and kept the laws of Moses because they do not recognize the Talmud; a man-made set of books!

That is a shame Malachi.

Paul studied to be a Rabbinical Priest which was a trait he inherited from his father.

A Rabbinical Priest? Not so! Paul studied to be a Pharisee. A pharisee is not a priest and vica versa. It would be better said in today's venacular that Paul studied to be a Politician for that is what a Pharisee was. America is unique in that there is a separation from church and state. but in other countries that do not herald secularism it's not so. Polity is nothing moor than a rank within their religious systems. Very religious nations conduct themselves that way. With a western mindset we fail to grasp these systems correctly.

He too was not of the true followers of the Laws of Moses; yet, he was a full believer in a set of traditions of that day and time that was just like the Talmud. So here you see how simple it was for him to “add” to the books of the New Testament.

Malachi can be so silly sometimes. First of all, I agree the perushiym/pharisees were not true followers of the Torah that was Ishua's beef with them. He CONSTANTLY corrected them telling to readjust their azimuths to the truth.

2nd, Paul didn't ADD to the books of the New testament. LOL!!! There was no New Testament to add to. All Paul did was write LETTERS to groups of christians in certain areas. EVERY LAST BOOK in the new testament that is credited to Paul is NOTHING but a LETTER that he MAILED to the heads of a group of people over a church in a particular region. Paul NEVER intended for his letters to be compiled in a book. Just like I would never expect my emails sent to my mom to be compiled in some book form. That was the work of the Nicean council and the canonizers. Paul had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with that.

The New testament wasn't compiled until hundreds of years AFTER Paul had died. So if there were no New testament books during his life, how could he possibly ADD to what didn't exist? You otherwise must recant your feeble argument against Paul trying to further damage his character and person.


The Pharisee’s doctrine was a product of Hellenism (adopted Greek culture). Therefore, the Pharisee’s doctrine was mainly from the philosophies of the Stoics (Greek philosophers). Originally, Greeks were pagans before they converted to Christianity.

Now that is some skraight up bull jank here is the doctrine of the Pharisee:

The aim and object of the Torah, according to Pharisaic principles, are the training of man to a full realization of his responsibility to God and to the consecration of life by the performance of its manifold duties: the one is called "the yoke of God's Kingship" and the other "the yoke of God's commandments".

Every morning and evening the Jew takes both upon himself when reciting the "Shema'" (Berachot ii. 2). "The Torah preaches: Take upon yourselves the yoke of God's Kingdom; let the fear of God be your judge and arbiter, and deal with one another according to the dictates of love" (Sifre, Deut. 323). So says Josephus: "For the Jewish lawgiver all virtues are parts of religion" ("Contra Ap." ii., §§ 17, 19; comp. Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 52, 55).

Cain and the generation of the Flood sinned in that they denied that there are a Judgment and a Judge and a future of retribution (Targ. Yer. to Gen. iv. 8; Gen. R. xxvi.). The acceptance of God's Kingship implies acceptance of His commandments also, both such as are dictated by reason and the human conscience and such as are special decrees of God as Ruler (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, 13). It means a perfect heart that fears the very thought of sin (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 2); the avoidance of sin from love of God (ib. 11); the fulfilment of His commandments without expectation of reward ('Ab. Zarah 19a); the avoidance of any impure thought or any act that may lead to sin (ib. 20b, with reference to Deut. xxiii. 10). The acceptance of God's Kingship implies also recognition of His just dealing with man, and a thankful attitude, even in misfortune (Sifre, Deut. 32, 53; Sifra, Shemini, 1; Mek., Yitro, 10; Ber. ix. 5, 60b). God's Kingship, first proclaimed by Abraham (Sifre, Deut. 313) and accepted by Israel (Mek., Yitro), shall be universally recognized in the future.

That is taken directly from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee

The Pharisee were very concerned with the keeping of the law and trying to prevent Ysra'al from straying as their fathers did. so they were made standards much stricter than what the law required so that they could keep from transgressing the law thereby abating the wrath of God and losing their land once again

next

[1dell]

When they did cross-over, they brought a lot of pagan practices with them such as: hymns, the worship of dieties in temples, statues, polytheism, and mysticism.

thats outlandish. when they converted they knew what was expected of them and forsook their previous lifestyles, they did not worship dieties in the temples or propulgate polytheism. What is moor they were not even ALLOWED into the temples!!! Goyim/Gentiles were not allowed into the temple unless they converted to judaism and were circumcised. Many went uncircumcised. But they were admitted into synagogues. The rules were strict against their former pagan lifestyles and it was not permitted.

A person's end shouldn't be judged by their beginning. There are many nuwaubians who started out as christians. Do you as a nuwaubian discredit them because they were ONCE a christian? Just because a nuwaubian had christian roots does that then mean that they cannot be a good nuwaubian? Then why do you judge the greek converts thusly?

As far as statues go, hell even Solomon had statues in the temple. STatues of oxen, bulls, kerubiym, etc. Statues were always in the temple. There is nothing wrong with statues.

The Pharisee’s philosophy was concerning the laws of Moses.

Dammit I am confused, was it concerning the laws of moses or was it concerning the hellinized pagan greeks? which one is it Malachi?

They were professing to be learnt men; while the Sadducees held to the physical aspects of the law of Moses.

So then, no they weren't perpetrators whose foundation was the doctrine of hellinze greece like you said a page ago, they were really concerned with the Law of Moshe?

So the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Chief Priests made up the Sanhedrin (formed in 902 B.C.E. [II Chronicles 19:8-11]), the Chief Judicial Council of the Supreme Courts of the Judahites (Acts 5:21).

AS Teddy Reiley would say: yep yep

The Council of the Sanhedrin, because of its judicial authority, had a lot of influence over the people. They were given their authority by the Roman empire as a means of keeping the Judahites in control. They adjusted their Judaic laws in compliance to the laws of Rome. So all those who conformed to these ways became the “reformed Jews” who mix state with religion.

Dayum, actually the sanhedrin is made up of 71 sages and said to have been the very descendants of the 70 elders whom moses enlisted to helm him with the newly exodused hebrew slaves from egypt. It's the same body but different name.

This is the same thing your religious leaders do today, but what did Jesus say about this when the Pharisees approached him about “church and state?”<br>
Matthew 22:21: “They say unto him Caesar the Emperor’s so he then said to them pay therefore to the Emperor Caesar the things which are Caesars: and unto Theh-Os (Elohim) the thing that are the Elohims.” — Right translation from Greek by Dr. Malachi Z. York.

first of all this translation is some crap! how on EARPH is theh-Os translated into Elohym, one word is singular the other is plural. The word in greek is Theos meaning God, Elohiym means GodS so this "right translation" is incorrect. If it was Elohiym, then the greek should have been Theous - Gods. Then what makes it EVEN WORST is at the end of the translation he says "Elohims" Jesus Christ!!! thats a double plural word!! Elohim is plural by itself then he adds and S at the end? LOLOL!!! Thats like saying Godsss LOLOL. Where is a proofreader when you need one?

“They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” — Mistranslation by King James 1611 A.D.

So, why did the Reverend of a Christian church called the 700 Club named Pat Robertson as well as a Baptist named Jesse Jackson try to run for president of a political country set on ruling by wars that have illegal tax systems, racism and etc.? Why not try to change these conditions by using the church platform instead of rendering what is the Lord’s to the Caesars (politicians)? They want the power and attention of popularity that’s why! It has nothing to do with religion or saving people’s souls.[/i][/color]

HUH? There is NOTHING wrong with christians entering politics!!! Lets not forget a Prophet was a politician!!! He counselled kings and princes and court officials who in modern times would be considered politicians! David was a King, Solomon a King, Ishua a King all positions of Politics!!! That IS the best platform to affect policy not from behind some daggone pullpit!

This scripture has NOTHING to do with separation of church and state but EVERYTHING to do with your devotion and priorities! Give to ceasar what belongs to ceasar. Well my question is what belongs to ceasar? Loyalty, respect, obedience, action, in some cases your land, a portion of your money, etc. The bible commands that we be subject to the civil authorities. Any student of the scripture would know this. That you can not have a state without the church nor a church without the state.

For the poor people, it is their way of life. They are working hard and praying to a single mystical “God” they’ve never seen before so they’ll be guaranteed a “place in heaven,” somewhere that their scholars can’t explain when they die, as long as they work hard, be good, pray, and be patient.
[/i]

Don't even start that Malachi! Because you have your people praying to gods they have never met, drawing sketches of gods they have never seen but some mysteriously look like actors, singers and songwriters. You have them believing in aliens they have never seen, and planets they have never been to. So who are we trying to kid? As long as they "Support the Lamb during his retirement" Once hussle for another brutha, who you trying to fool. You live in a Glass house Malachi, stop throwing stones.

[CoUrTnEy]

Glad to see this topic revived, thanks 1dell

[1dell]

The above post was incomplete when I left yesterday but has been completed. reread.

[1dell]

The Pharisees and Sadducees loved the wealth and power that working with Rome brought them. They benefitted from the ways of Caesar - “the Gentiles” (Matthew 6:32). None of them have any concern for the things of Eli (God). This is why Jesus constantly spoke out against the council of the Sanhedrin and all those associated with them (Matthew 23:5).

This little booklet is about trying to discredit Paul. And I guess you are building up a case against the pharisees only to discredit Paul seeing as how he WAS a pharisee. Why even bother to do that? Like I said before a man may start off as a thing but when he treads the path of truth he will end up an enlightened being. Does his former lifestyle then negates his present state? If that is the case then you are telling christians, muslims and others that it's hopeless to be a nuwaubian because they will always be judged as a christian or muslim no matter what strides they make in nuwaubu.

Let's take you for example. You were a perm wearing, eyeliner and lipstick wearing disco singer who sang love songs, should I judge you as that same individual? We ALL are aware of the debauchery performed in that industry yet you associated your self with that industry. If you want to Judge Paul as a Pharisee even though he gave his very life preaching the gospel of the messiah and was a messianic jewish convert, then you judge yourself Malachi because even you at one time were a Muslim but now a Nuwaubian. You even speak against the evils of Islam but you were at one time under the oaths of islam. So then why do you judge this man for his former occupation when it's no matter when he has proven himself devoted to the very sect he at one time wanted to destroy, even gave his life for it?

All the false ministers, preachers, teachers of today are like the Pharisees and the Saduccees of the time of Jesus. Now, they are the law-makers and law-breakers. Today, there are religious public figures who commit abominations like Reverend Jimmy Swaggert and Reverend Jim Bakker just to name a couple that are against the beliefs of the entire Christian population. Yet, their wrong doings were overlooked because contributions come by the millions to their organizations. It was of these reformed Jews that Paul and his father belonged.

WOW!!!! LOLOL!!! All I can say is WOOOOWWWW!!! Dude, I guess it doesn't pay to throw stones when you live in a glass house your dayum self does it? LOL! What abominations have these christian and religious leaders commited Malachi? I am VERY interested in your ansaar! Would those adominations include,
* Mishandling Money
* Having sex with members?
* Having sex with minors
* Statutory Rape?...

You got me curious Malachi. Are YOU pointing fingers at these ministers for doing these things? How dare you malachi, How DARE you! LOL Thats all I will say on this. He who has an ear and is aware of Malachi's present plight, let his ass hear.

[CoUrTnEy]

couldn't have said it better myself!

[1dell]

The High Priests of the Tribe of Levi were the only ones who were permitted in the Holy of Holies (Exodus 28:35, Leviticus 16:2) this is the tent or area which contained the Ark of the Tabernacle. They were considered the chiefs of the Sanhedrin Council. They wore a miter (Exodus 29:6) on their heads and a breastplate with twelve stones for each of the twelve Tribes of Israel on their chests.

They wore a blue robe (Exodus 28:31), partly covered with an embroidered type shawl called and ephod (Exodus 29:5). When they had to enter the holy of holies, they wore a white linen robe. They are also anointed with holy oil (Exodus 29:7; 30:25) before receiving this position of authority.

You get no argument from me on this info.

[1dell]

These men were also priests of the Tribe of Levi. They were the maintenance men of the council. Their duties consisted of the upkeep of the tabernacle. They looked after the furniture and the court of the temple.

They also watched the door and other servant-like tasks (Exodus 28:40-43). When the Sanhedrin Council was first formed, the Levitical priests held office for life. However, later on, Herod and the Romans appointed and dismissed the priests as they wished; another part of the ‘Judahite Reformation.’<br>
The Sadducees or Scribes were men who copied the Torah, or Mosaic laws. They became learnt men who taught and interpreted the scriptures and kept charge of official documents.

Another Messiah known as Ezra was a Scribe in the time of the Judahites’ return from the Babylonian exile (538 B.C.E.). In the time of Jesus, the Scribes were called “doctors of the law.” Some Scribes held classes to train Rabbis. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel; was a Scribe. Jesus was constantly warning about “the Scribes and Pharisees” (Matthew 23; 16:1-11;15:1-20).

The Pharisees, a group of elders, made up the Council of the Sanhedrin. They were the official heads or decision makers of the group of Pharisees. Young members such as Paul served as apprentices to these elders.

The Pharisees followed strict religious laws. They did not have much to do with unfaithful or Judahites outside of their own group. The Pharisees considered themselves more righteous that the ordinary people. They added their own interpretations to the first five books of Moses; forming what was called the oral laws. The oral laws were rules for daily living. Jesus Christ called them hypocrites or pretenders. (Matthew 23; Mark 7:6; Luke 11 & 12). The Pharisees also believed in the resurrection of the dead and things dealing with angels and spirits. The Sadducees bitterly disagreed, so they were rivals.

After the Christian church was organized, the Pharisees withdrew more than ever from the world. They worked for years compiling The Talmud along with The Gemara. The Talmud contains all the civil laws of the Judahites (Revelation 3:1-6) that were developed over the years by The Mishnah, the oral laws.


AGain No argument from me, wait, thats not true York sorta contradicts himself when he says that the Talmud and Gemara came from the pen of the perushiym. Firstly The Gemara is the Babylonian Talmud and was produced by the Amora'iym. And most assuredly was written before the talmud produced. Not to mention the Talmud is made up of both the Gemara AND The Mishnah which neither was even completed until hundreds of years after christ AND PAUL! And if the Mishnah and the Gemara MAKE UP the talmud, then how can these very same pharisee be responsible for it's compilation.

See what York is doing is trying to discredit the pharisee THEN he is going to show you how Paul was among them thereby discrediting Paul. But if you are going to do that you need to use accurate info. Then too, it's like football If you are a good player with Hall of FAme abilities, and you get traded from the Seattle Seahawks to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and you end your career with the bucs, guess what, it's your BUCCANEER Jersey NOT your Seahawk's jersey that goes into Canton Ohio at the NFL Hall of Fame! That being said, What profit is there in trying to exhalt the mistakes of the pharisee other than filling up pages to make your book thicker. Seeing as how Paul began his career as a Pharisee, but ended his career AND LIFE as a Messianic Jew diametrically opposed to the pharisian view?

[1dell]

As I mentioned before, this is the same Talmud that the so-called Jews (those who try to make you think they are Judahites) use today, man-made laws and traditions (Revelation 2:9). This isn’t only something the so-called Jews made up. The Mohammedans of Al Islaam also made up a book of tales called the Hadith. They give more reverance to these volumes of man-made stories than their holy book known as The Koran. Christians are also guilty of man-made stories called the books of Paul. They are twenty-six in number in the New Testament. Being used over the laws that they claim to be following.

Dag, did he just say the books of Paul? LOL!!! Paul never wrote a book!!!! LOLOLOL!!!! Paul wrote letters and Paul (as I have said before) never intended for his letters to be extracted and canonized with the T'nakh in a compilation called the New Testament!!! LOL! That is the work of the Ncean Council.

Hold up!!! So now Paul's letters are man-made stories? Granted Christians do exalt the letters of Paul over the Torah, even I have that beef with them and will team with Malachi against them on that. But it's just down right foolish to consider Paul's Letters "man-made stories" over 70% of the content of Pauls' letters deal directly with instructions and admonitions NOT stories and tales! Even when he is speaking of history and the life of christ even his own life, it's very much accurate and shant not be described as "stories"

Ques: What kind of influence did the Roman lifestyle have on Paul?

Ans: Paul grew strong and loyal to the Roman Empire. At the age of twenty years (30 A.D.) he attended the Rabbinical School of the Pharisees (Acts 26:4-5) and was taught by a doctor of the law named Gamaliel (Acts 5:34, 22:3).

I don't know where Malachi is getting the idea that Paul started school at 20 from. I guess from the idea that you can only become a Rabbi at 30 and I guess he is assuming it takes 10 years to comeplete rabbinical school.

[1dell]

Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, a Sanhedrin and teacher of the Messiah Jesus, whose fondness of Jesus made the two inseperable during the time they spent together. Gamaliel had the same liberal feelings as his grandfather concerning the disciples. When the disciples were brought in front of the Council of Sanhedrin, Gamaliel supported them and turned the vote in their favor. So, they were released (Acts 5:38-39).

Yeah Gammy was the shiznit for rizzle. I just 1der where Malachi gets his information on Hillel teaching Ishua/Jesus. Hillel's life covered the periods of 30 B.C.E. to 10 C.E. And according to sources, Ishua was born in 6 or 7 C.E. So Ishua was either 3 or 4 years old when Hillel died. Hillel was an esteemed Jewish Sage, why woudl he take time out to teach a toddler when he had an entire school and leg of Judiasm to run? Don't make much sense does it?

Now the way Malachi has this written it's difficult to tell whether he is saying that Hillel or Gamaliel taught Ishua. But from proper grammatical syntax he is saying that Hillel Taught Ishua per the clause enclosed in comas.

Other than that, I ain't mad atcha Malachi

[1dell]

These men kept a “reformed” form of the Laws Of Moses, as well as working hand in hand with the Roman Empire, keeping the Judahites now referred to as “Jews” from revolting against the Emperor. It was this era of “church and state” environment that Paul was raised.

These men who? Hillel and GAmaliel? What, if that is what you are saying that makes no sense Malachi. If in one instance you are saying these reformed jews followed strict laws and ordinances. According to your definition on page 13

The reformed Jews were those of the Tribe of Judah who confirmed to the Hellenistic ways of Rome.

Then you go on to say these are the very same jews that ishua had beef with

These men modernized the laws and statutes given to the children of Israel by way of Moses. These laws were adjusted according to their Roman life styles. (Matthew 15:6, 16:6, 23:2-3, 23:23, 25) Jesus Christ referred to them in this way:

Matthew 15:8-9: “The is the people that approach unto me with their mouths, and honour me with their lip service: but their heart is very far from me. But it is no use for in vain they worship me, because they teach man-made doctrines and commandments.” — Right translation from Greek by Dr. Malachi Z. York.

If that is indeed the case Malachi, then Hillel and Gamaliel would be exempt from that reformed jew list and then you have contradicted yourself again. Because You admittedly called Hillel "liberal"

Gamaliel had the same liberal feelings as his grandfather concerning the disciples.

Because Ishua's teachings share the same heart as Hillel's and Gamaliel's then He would have had no beef with these men. What one must innerstand was that there were basically 2 schools of thought in Ysra'al at the time: Those of the school of Hillel and those of the school of Shammai. It's those of teh school of Shammai that you are speaking about.

I know I know I know! You are doing the best you can to point this all to Paul but I am sorry it's just not working. Paul is a student of a moor liberal thinking Pharisidic order. An order moor inclined to Ishua's way of thinking. And if Ishua had beef with the reformed Jews, And Hillel, Gamaliel and Paul were in harmony with Ishua's teachings, then I guess it's safe to say it was the Jews of the school of Shammai that they had beef with and it was these jews that were the reformed once. NOT Hillel, Gamaliel and Paul. So this leg of logic aint jiving.

They’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). The government of “Rome” rules them. Rome restricts your laws socially, religiously, educationally, etc. They only seek their own gain or think that they will. This is why they always fail, the truth will not let them prevail (John 8:32, Revelation 19:19).

The goverment of Rome ruled every dayum body Malachi! But what was so unique about Rome and their treatment of Ysra'al and other nations they governed is that they let those nations keep their foundations and systems in place. They greatest demand over them was to pay tribute to ceasar, financially. Rome didn't go into Ysra'al and try and revamp their religious system or system of culture. In fact even down to their trials and judisprudence, it was according to hebrew law. NOT roman law. Albiet there were certain issues regarding Rome that if one were to voilate they would be held accountable, like claiming kingship over ceasar. EVen the pharisees tried to pin that one on Ishua. But for the most part they let the jews be jews and the roman's main duty was surpressing any outbreaks against the empire.

So no Rome didn't restrict their laws, society, lifestyle or none of that. If you would left it up to Rome, the Jews would not able to use their own system of measurement, would not able to worship on the shabbat. Would have had their temple gutted and romanized. It wasn't utnil they tried to rebel against rome did their way of life become obliterated. Teach the real history Malachi

Ques: So what made Paul such a fierce persecutor if his teacher was a supporter of the disciples of the Messiah Jesus?

Ans: Paul became a fanatic. Remember Paul grew up to be very loyal to the State Of Rome. You know how you felt about America, land of opportunity, before you found out the truth. Some of you ran to the recruiting office to sign up in order to fight for your country. So, you know how Paul felt about his country. All he thought about was the Roman Empire. He was very educated in Roman and Judaic law (Acts 22:2-5).

Remember Paul grew up to be very loyal to the state of rome? Remember this from where? Your teachings? The scriptures never teach that he was a loyal roman. In fact we never find out that he IS a roman until he is threatened to be arrested without a trial. Come on now! Ury body and their aunt Bev can see that Paul uses his roman status as a Ace in the Hole to get out of trouble. LOL!

Here we go one moor 'gin:

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.

I am 1dering where did Paul learn Roman loyalty in the city of Jerusalem? That city was ALWAYS half a heartbeat away from rebellion AGAINST rome. And here with have it from Paul's OWN mouth. He was Zealous/fanatic towards GOD, not towards the state of Rome.

As with any nation under tribute to another there are demands placed on humbled nation and they are forced into complying. Now to say These very men enjoyed being RULED by rome is preposterous!!! Thats like saying South Africans are lovingly devoted to the white men ruling their countrying.