Please do not be put off by the size of this page. The information is good and it is important. Though it is under construction, I felt it is too important not to at least put the information on the site until I can work on it further. Most of all of it it my notes from a class on a book written by Daniel Gruber called:
Copernicus And The Jews – [My Notes]
The Bible is the unmutable unchallengable Word of God right? The Bibles we have are translations of translations of the unmutable unchallengable Word of God.
The purpose here is not to prove translations in error for the sake of proving translations in error. It is for the purpose of understanding what YHWH is communicating to us.
When it comes to translating, you cannot translate meanings perfectly. Languages are just different. Even with the simplest of words. Sometimes however translations are made with the intention of changing meanings, often times for purposes of religious political agenda.
There are many people who say they don’t read (or trust) the Bible because there are so many contradictions in it.
As we will see, some of the things we have thought YHWH was saying, we are now discovering He wasn’t saying those things after all.
You can’t challenge fundamental assertions from within a system.
The tradition of translation. Translations made hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, continue to have an effect today.
When doctrine has been received and accepted for generations and generations, going against the status quo is much harder than just revealing truth and exposing errors, it requires proof.
3. Dr. Frankenstein's Neighborhood Bible Club (Audio of classroom teaching) Chapter 3
The word “covenant” changed to the word “testament” in most western bibles. In the Greek, the word "covenant" is used, not "testament" in Hebrews 9:15-18
Hebrews 9:15 Should read:
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
In verses 16-18 the word "testament" is correct even though the Greek and some other versions such as NASB are incorrect, still saying "covenant"
16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. (NASB)
The statement “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.”, applies to a testament not a covenant. A covenant is only valid when both parties are alive.
The Bible also says a mediator is needed. Why? It also says the Messiah is the mediator. If He is the mediator, he can’t be the maker of it.
This passage is referencing Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares YHWH, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
The descriptions of how a “covenant” works in the Newer Testament do not match that of the Older Testament.
A contract is an agreement between two at least two parties. It is not a declaration of one party.
First we have here a problem with what a covenant actually is, then we have two false statements about covenants, then in what is supposed to be getting towards the conclusion of the topic we have a statement that contradicts what has already been said.
If one or more of the parties to the covenant has to die, how can the covenant go in effect? A covenant ends when one or both parties dies.
Clearly the translators of the Newer Testament (or at least the book of Hebrews) did not understand how a covenant works as defined by the Older Testament and confused it with a testament.
Proper translation of Hebrews 9:15-16:
15For this reason He is the mediator of the New Covenant since a death has occurred for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant that those who have been called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16For where there is a covenant, the death of what confirms the covenant must be presented.
This is true because in all previous covenants, there was a death of what confirmed the covenant (animals were sacrificed to establish the covenant).
In the context of the Tanach (the only scriptures that existed when the Newer Testament was being written of which the book of Hebrews is a part), this translation makes sense.
This translation is consistent with the context immediately preceding and following. It is also consistent with the Tanach.
By designating the Old Testament and the New Testament, one is made separate from the other, and new is better than old, so a built in bias is created; Out with the old, in with the new. With this in mind, it is interesting Yeshua Himself in one of His parables about new wine(Himself) and old wine (the Law) wineskins, inferred the new was inferior to the old. In those interpretations it is conveniently forgotten that He said no one who has tasted old wine desires the new because the old is better.
There are many passages like that used to juxtapose old verses in Christian theology. In fact, this is the central idea in Christian theology in the system of Christianity; old and new. Old = Israel, New = Christianity, Old Testament, New Testament, old = law, new = grace, old = Moses new = Christ.
A covenant is something that is done, a testament is something that is said. A testament is simply something that is stated.
While it is true the old covenant is superseded by the new covenant, the problem is the mindset that everything old is superseded by the new, so the Older Testament is considered irrelevant as it is superseded by the New Testament. This is a grave error because in order to understand what is written in the New Testament, it is necessary to know what is written in the Older Testament.
If you study early church fathers or later theologians of Christianity, you will see how prominent this old vs. new paradigm is.
In the book of Acts, When Paul was speaking in Berea, he said the Jews there were more noble minded, than the Jews in Thessolonica. Why? Because they listened to what he had to say, then searched the scriptures (Older Testament, because the Newer Testament hadn’t been written yet) daily to see if what he said was true. All believers are commissioned to do the same.
So if something comes along like the Newer Testament that supersedes the Tanakh (Older Testament), there is a problem. If a believer even bothers to read the Tanakh, it is almost always secondary to the Newer Testament, so the problem is interpreting the scriptures backwards.
The word "covenant" changed to "testament"
So what is the problem with calling the scriptures the Old Testament and New Testament? The first problem is compromising truth. It is simply not true to present the common Christian understanding.
People who read these translations consider what they are reading as the “Word of God” but they contain statements that are false and statements that don’t mean anything. How can this be the Word of God when it is saying something that is not true.
Scripture says: He who does not enter the Kingdom of YHWH like a child shall not enter it at all. Usually that is commented on as meaning we have to have simple faith and not question and just believe. There may be a part of that which is true, but there is another element to the faith of a child as well, which is honesty and lack of having learned hypocrisy and the ability to state what is there, right in front of your eyes, such as the fact the translation isn’t making any sense.
We should not be afraid of these questions, even though they seem to be disconcerting as first. We should recognize there is an answer somewhere, and even if we don’t have an answer for a specific question, we should none the less maintain the question in our minds, because it may be important.
There is a second reason why the terminology of Old Testament/New Testament is not merely a question of semantics. It expresses a complete difference in mindset, from YHWH’s ideas.
The world knows the Older Testament is Jewish and the Newer Testament is Christian, but this is a false conception. To the extent we use this terminology of Old Testament/New Testament, we help perpetuate this false understanding or mindset. The very terminology itself is the fundamental principle of official Christianity and the system of Christianity that YHWH has rejected the Jews, that He has cast aside the old people, the old system in order to bring about a new people and a new system. This concept is actually completely opposed to the Scriptures. [see "The Error of Dispensationalism" from the "False Doctrine" page from the table of contents]
The very statement the Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament is a statement that says YHWH has rejected Israel. This is perhaps the mean principle motivating the foundation of the system of Christianity, after all, the reason for the Council of Nicea was to eliminate Jewish practices. This is the fundemantal principle motivating the system of Christianity and every interpretation of the Bible takes place within that context. Actually this agenda started to develop before the Council of Nicea, but was made official through it, but Paul wrote: “don’t think you can exist apart from the Jews”.
Another aspect of this is those who call the scriptures the “Old Covenant and New Covenant Writings”. While this is somewhat less problematic than the terms “Old Testament and New Testament”, it is still false and misleading, because a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties, not the writings He has given us.
Another reason this is problematic is because the Old Covenant is superseded by the New Covenant, so calling the Tanakh the “Old Covenant Writings”, associates the Tanakh with that which is superseded by another.
YHWH did not divide it that way. Man divided it that way for specific political religious historical reasons in opposition to His design.
If we want to understand scripture, we have to abandon concepts that are opposed to what He says.
It also shows a kind of tendency to continue to operate within the Christian framework, even while recognizing some of the problems within it.
It distorts the scriptures when we think of the Word of YHWH as being distorted in this way.
When Yeshua says He is instituting a new covenant with Passover (the Last Supper), He is referring to something that is in the Tanakh because the first mention of the new covenant is in the Tanakh (Jeremiah). When it is spoken of in Hebrews, it is quoting the scripture in Jeremiah.
This is a challenge for all of us to think differently. Since our linguistic concepts form the way we think, if we change our linguistic concepts, we will think differently and we will start to see different things from YHWH’s Word. We will start to see passages in a different light, and the Word of YHWH as a whole in a different light.
The scriptures themselves (the Tanach) as they were described in the Messianic writings (known previously as “New Testament”) are the basis for our faith. Those represent what we have to have if we are going to understand what YHWH wants to communicate with us.
A Good Church Is Hard To Find
Just as there is no such thing as an Old Testament and New Testament, there is no such thing as a church in the Holy Scriptures.
The Septugent is good for linguistic purposes. Masoretic Texts are useful for other purposes.
As long as you think in terms of “the church” or “a church”, you cannot understand the Bible. It is a notion that is absent from the Bible and completely contradicts many of the ideas of the Bible, at least in the way it has been interpreted through history.
When we talk about how the church arose, we are not talking about something that arose by chance, or something that arose innocently through ignorance, we are actually talking about a conscious decision that was made dishonestly, to mistranslate these words or translate them one way in one context and another for another and to translate them a completely different way in yet other contexts.
The Hebrew word for assembly or congregation is ~cohol. The Jewish-Greek word for assembly is ~eclesia. In no place in the Tanach is it translated as “church” and in no place in the Brit Hatisha should it be; but it is.
The conversations we have recorded in the Messianic Writings (what Christians call the New Testament) and perhaps some of the writings themselves almost certainly did not take place in Greek. These are translations of conversations we have.
When Yeshua was speaking with His disciples, why would He have spoken to them in Greek? Almost certainly He did not, because He spoke in Hebrew or Aramiac, and it can be proven that at least while He was on the cross He spoke Hebrew, because as the scriptures record, when He said “Father why have you forsaken me?” some there thought He was speaking to Elijah because in the Hebrew language, the term He used for “Father” is very similar to the Name Elijah. Only in the Hebrew language, is this the case.
A less serious example of mistranslating ~eclecia (assembly) into “church” Matthew 16:18
18 I also say to you that you are [l]Peter (Keifa), and upon this [m]rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Another example of the Hebrew word ~”cohol” from the Greek ~eclecia is in
Acts 19:40 where it is not translated as “church”, but rather; “assembly" or "gathering” in some versions.
40 For indeed we are in danger of being accused of a riot in connection with today’s events, since there is no real cause for it, and in this connection we will be unable to account for this disorderly gathering.”
Why wasn’t the Greek word eclecia translated as “church” here? Because a few verses before this scripture is describing an assembly that was worshiping a pagan goddess. Acts 19:35-36:
34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is [aa]Artemis of the Ephesians!” 35 After quieting the crowd, the town clerk *said, “Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great [ab]Artemis and of the image which fell down from [ac]heaven?
The answer is quite simple: The translators didn’t want the word “church” associated with something negative or denotative. People forget words have meaning, and the same word can have different meanings for different meanings to different people. That’s why it makes a difference which words you use.
One of the problems with meanings of words, is that it is very difficult to change that meaning for the same word once a person has known a meaning attached to it for any period of time.
William Tindale tried to make corrections to make more accurate translations and was burned at the stake for his efforts. His version was not perfect, but accurate for his day.
The King James Bible was a mostly plagerized version of Tindale’s work, however much of it was altered for various reasons. One of the alterations was translating the Greek word ~eclicia. Why would someone alter something they knew to be mostly accurate? The answer is political and religious, to fit some previously established system so it wouldn’t contradict the human system that had been set up, when it actually did contradict that system.
Quote from the writings of the King James Translators: “We have on one side avoided the scrupulosity of the puritans who leave the old ecclesiastical words and we take them to other as when they put congregation instead of church”
They don’t want to be scrupulous, they want instead to use ecclesiastical words traditional Christian words. This forces them to only use Christian words only in settings and contexts when the word can possibly be given a Christian connotation.
For example the case of Yeshua speaking to Peter saying “on this rock I will build My church”, but it can’t be used in Acts when it is talking about the ~ecclecia of the Ephesians who wanted to kill Paul ~(Shaul).
At the Council of Nicia it was declared the voice of the Bishops was to be equivalent to the voice of YHWH. In other words, you do not have free conscious. “What YHWH says is what we tell you He says”. If you study Pharisical/Rabbinical thinking, you know it was the Pharisees/Rabbis who declared themselves to also be the voice of YHWH to the people, and even to this day consider their authority to be above YHWH.
If the translators had begun to translate the Hebrew word ~”cohol” to the word “church” in the Tanakh, and it Ephesis for the mob, then “the church” would have a different meaning in English now, but they did not do that, so “church” had its own meaning that didn’t correspond to the biblical meaning. When the word ~cohol” or eclecia is used in the Messianic writings, it is silly to think it is something new (like “church”) when we have been told in hundreds of verses, it is the Hebrew word ~”cohol”, meaning “congregation”, which is very similar to the Greek word ~”eclocia” which means “assembly”.
Whether in this verse or that verse something new is being described, is a matter of interpretation, but you have to get the language right before you can get to the proper interpretation. You have to have a text to interpret. If you have a false text such as Hebrews which made false statements which completely misinterpreted the idea of a covenant, the end of testament and completely misinterpreted what was being said, so it became non-senseical as well as being false. If we have a text like that, we are not going to get anywhere no matter how brilliant our interpretation is. So let’s actually try to figure out what the text actually is.
The only reason the word “Christ” could be used for “Messiah” is because they both have something to do with that which is anointed. It didn’t have connotations like “church”.
In another example the Greek word ~”eclocia” wrongly being translated as “church”, is found in Matthew 18:15-17:
15 “If your brother sins[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY [n]FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector.
Why wasn’t the more accurate word “assembly” used here?
Because the connotation here is the “church” is a place of justice and right doing. It is also a safe place that no one would want to be kicked out of, or they would be treated as Gentiles and hated tax collectors. This makes no sense because the Christian “church” are the Gentiles. If they want to consider themselves “grafted in” to Israel, they would be Israelites and part of Israel, but they reject that and take up the position instead of replacing Israel who they only consider to be the Jews, forgetting “the Jews” are only one tribe of 12, ten of which are “scattered among the nations”.
Another reason this verse doesn’t make sense as translated, is because “the church” didn’t hate tax collectors, because they collected taxes from everyone (including those who were not part of the church) and gave some of the funds to the church.
Finally, this passage doesn’t make sense, because “the church” should not treat those outside “the church” with anything but the love they claim to show such people.
Let's look at another source:
Archive for the Category » Today’s Word « The First Synagogue Wednesday, June 13th, 2012 | Author: Skip Moen Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. Genesis 1:9 NASB
Place – In Hebrew, the word translated “place” is maqom. From a root meaning “to stand,” it is fairly straightforward as far as translations go. It means some space, a particular spot, a location. There’s nothing too significant about this Hebrew word. But when it comes to the LXX translation, then things get quite interesting. In the LXX, the Greek word used to translate maqom is synagoge. Yes, that’s right. A place to stand in Greek is a synagogue. It’s a particular spot, a gathering, an assembly. The first use of the Greek word synagoge in Scripture is not about a religious gathering. It is about God’s fashioning the oceans, collecting the waters into particular spots. The first “synagogue” in Scripture didn’t have a singe human being in it. It was nothing more than the vast ocean all in its proper place.
While this tidbit of linguistic information may seem cute and clever, it has further implications. It implies that the term synagoge used in the New Testament is not restricted to a religious gathering. The term simply means assembly. It doesn’t matter if the assembly is for worship or for swimming fish. This explains why the New Testament authors do not use the word synagoge when they describe the gathering of Messianic believers. The word is too loose. It could mean a synagogue, a religious gathering, but it doesn’t specifically mean this kind of gathering, as the Genesis text demonstrates. In other words, the meaning of synagoge is determined by the context, not by its inherent distinctions.
But ekklesia has a similar problem. It never means “a religious assembly” in classical Greek. However, it does mean a gathering called for a specific purpose and that is the key to its use in the New Testament. The Hebrew comparable word is qehelah, a word used in the Tanakh for the assembly of human beings for a specific purpose. The New Testament authors shy away from the loose synagoge and adopt ekklesia, but they change the meaning of ekklesia from any called-out assembly to an assembly called for the purpose of worship. They avoid synagogue by creating a new, specialized meaning for the old term ekklesia. What they have in mind is not maqom but rather qehelah.
This tells us something important. First, it tells us that ekklesia has been given a new meaning, distinct from its classical Greek sense and distinguished from the possible substitute synagogue. Second, it tells us that the use of this term must have been deliberate since these distinctions are not inherent in the language itself. Whatever the New Testament authors had in mind, they specifically avoided prior understandings of the two Greek words synagoge and ekklesia. Finally, it tells us that wherever we find ekklesia in the New Testament Greek, we must translate it according to the distinctions these authors intended. The word is unique to New Testament usage. It has one and only one meaning. Therefore, there is absolutely no warrant for translating ekklesia as “church” in some places and as “congregation” in others. Stephen’s speech is not about the “congregation” in the wilderness. It is about the ekklesia, the called-out gathering, exactly the same called-out gathering in Ephesus or Corinth or Rome. The gathering of God’s people isn’t different in the Tanakh when compared to the Brit Hadasha. God’s “church” began at Sinai and continues today. If that’s true, don’t you suppose His instructions to His people are the same now as they were then?
Another word that is not translated consistently is the word “Gentiles”. Sometimes it is translated as “pagans”, sometimes translated as “heathens”. Most often “Gentiles” is used for the Hebrew word ~“goyim” which refers to those who are not a part of Israel; “the Nations”(but not the lost tribes scattered among them) non-believers, etc. Today the term “the world” or those who are “worldly” could be used.
In the Jewish mindset, anyone who was not a Jew (whether born or converted into one) were considered ~”goyim”. This is also actually Biblical when you think of Jews as being “Israel” In YHWH’s eyes, anyone who is not a part of “Israel” is ~”goyim”. This is also why there are only twelve gates to the New Jerusalem spoken of in the Book of Revelation. One gate for each tribe.
Synagogue of satan
9 ‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
This verse has been used throughout time horrible atrocities against the Jewish people. This verse was taken to symbolize all of Israel, that they are a synagogue of satan. The effects of this interpretation exist to this day, but it arose from the Christian translation of this verse combined with Christian translation of other verses.
If the translators thought synagogue meant “place of assembly”, they would have used “assembly” here, but because there is a specific negative connotation, connected to the verse,, they chose to translate it as “synagogue”.
Now, the traditional translation of “place of assembly” or “place of congregation” when it refers to Jews, is “synagogue”.
2 For if a man comes into your [a]assembly with a gold ring and dressed in [b]fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes,…
If the translators thought synagogue meant place of assembly or place of congregation, they could have used it here, but because to believers in Yeshua (and there is no negative connotations in this verse attached to it), they chose “assembly”.
The system of Christianity consistently throughout history and in various parts of the world by theologians and writers, the basic principle is the opposition between old and new, Israel and the Christians , synagogue and the church.
This is the basic structure of Christianity and it is not found in the (non English) Bible. It contradicts not only the message of the Bible and the actual language of the text.
The first error translators of English bibles make, is they do not translate from the Jewish-Greek, which is the language of the text as is clearly evident from study of the Septuegent. The second error is even though they claim to translate from Coynae Greek (the common language of the Roman Empire). Instead they translate from some presumed Christian-Greek ie. ~Eclecia means “church”. ~Eclecia did not mean “church” in the Roman Empire.
9 Behold, I [e]will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down [f]at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.
They translated “place of assembly” here as synagogue because the negative connotation of being connected to satan, but the verse is actually very pro Jew spoken by YHWH Himself.
Revelation 3:9 sounds a lot like Isaiah 60:14:
14 “The sons of those who afflicted you will come bowing to you, And all those who despised you will bow themselves at the soles of your feet; And they will call you the city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
What harm could it do?
In a book called “The Popes Against The Jews – The Vatican’s role in the rise of modern anti-semitism” By David I. Kertzer
This looks at the timeframe of the last couple centuries. In the book, David is describing a nineteenth century Pope Pius IX, who wrote a particular letter in the context of the Catholic Church attempting to respond to the modern world (at the time). In this letter, Pius IX warned the world’s bishops saying “in these times, the haters of truth and justice and the most bitter enemies of our religion deceive the people and lie maliciously. Nor are you ignorant of the fact that in our age, some men are found to move by the spirit of satan have sunk to that degree of impiety in which they do not shrink from denying our ruler and Lord; Jesus Christ, or from inpuning His divinity with wicked pertinacity.”
Then in a phrase that would be echoed by his successor; Louis XV, he said: “It is them from the synagogue of satan which gathers its troops against the church of Christ, takes its strength.” Kertzer comments: “With this phrase the fateful Papal identification of the Jews as the enemies of the church began to gain ground (not for the first time, but in this particular context). A decade Pius IX returned to the theme that is was the synagogue of satan that lay behind the worldwide conspiracy.”
It is clear from the text that the term “synagogue of satan” is not actually referring to the Jewish people and in fact in Revelation, it says specifically that it is referring to those who claim to be Jews, but are not, yet in Christian history this became associated with the Jews and you can see the impact of that goes far beyond the realm of Christian believers, in fact it goes to Jewish understandings of what the “New Testament” says and it goes it goes to academic understanding of what the “New Testament” says, so it is commonly believed among Jews and among scholars as well as among Christians that the “New Testament” terms the places of worship for the Jews, a synagogue of satan.
At the end of the chapter, Kertzer says: “Pius IX’s anti-Jewish language of a traditional Christian kind recalling that found in the New Testament itself. The Jews were responsible for killing Christ Matthew chapter 27, John chapter 19, they were born of the devil John 8:44 and constituted a synagogue of satan. But this ancient view of the Jews promulgated by the church hierarchy would soon be transformed as the Jews increasingly became blamed for all the ills or perceived ills of modern times”
This blame fueled the fire that led to the Holocaust.
A Good Church Is Hard To Find pt. 2
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
If you read this with a Christian viewpoint, the meaning is different when read from a Biblical point of view. To the Christians, this is saying those circumcised in the heart (Christians) are the real Jews. But that is not what it is saying at all. Gentiles can have circumcised hearts and be grafted in to Israel, not as Jews, but as Gentiles. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, not a religion.
The Jewish people are the chosen people of YHWH. The is a misunderstanding of this. While it is a privledge to be chosen by YHWH, but the scriptures make it clear that it also comes with great suffering. Scripture also makes it clear YHWH did not choose Israel because Israel is superior, because Israel as it is described is inferior the YHWH’s glory might be made manifest. That is why there is suffering associated with Jewishness and why there is suffering with being associated with being chosen by YHWH. It is not against the people the Jews that people are reacting, it is against YHWH. It is against what YHWH has placed in and on the Jewish people. The story of the Jewish people is the story of the relationship of the man Adam (humanity) and YHWH and most of humanity does not like YHWH very much. It is this which is expressed in the way the Jewish people are treated. This also applies to many people and groups of people who follow YHWH, the Elohim (God) of Israel, and especially to those who also follow Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel.
How can millions of Christians that have “the truth” be wrong? “The church” is associated with truth.
Martin Luther is quoted as saying: “Outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation”. Most Christians and especially the Christian system would not disagree with that statement.
YHWH calls His message “good news”. It is translated into English as “gospel”, but this is not a “New Testament” term. “Good News” is spoken of throughout the Tanach. Just one example is found in
9 Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion, bearer of good news, Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news; Lift it up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah, “Here is your God!”
Even though the term “gospel” means “good news” which is used throughout the Bible, “gospel” is only found in the “New Testament”. This is a perfect example of translating with Christian bias.
Where is the harm in using the word “church” instead of “assembly”? The meaning of scripture has been completely changed. It means exactly what the Gentile “church” says it means, which is a new creation which has replaced Israel. It is something that has separate promises, separate reality and something totally unique and separated from Israel and all the promises YHWH has made to them.
Transliteration creates the illusion of Christian religious offices
The choice by translators of English bibles to transliterate rather that to translate created an entirely different world, with all sorts of different titles and positions in this new realm.
Question: Why do translators change the names of people in the Bible? Why is it ~Mirium in the Tanakh, and Mary in the “New Testament”? Why is it Jacob (Yacob) in the Tanakh and James in the “New Testament” etc.? Answer: To maintain the separation of old and new, Christians and Jews, etc.
By reading miss-transliterated names, millions of people are deceived away from the significance of the real names. When they read “Mary”, they should be reading Muriem and thinking of the sister of Aaron. After all, both ~Muriems had specific praise to YHWH. When they read James, they should be reading Jacob ~(Yacov) who is writing a letter to the twelve tribes of Israel and thinking of ~Yacov the father of Israel.
Transliteration creates the illusion of Christian religious offices pt 2
Transliteration creates the illusion of Christian religious offices like elders, deacons and pastors in special positions in a special world apart from the actual non-English scriptures.
In the Messianic writings there are words that describe functions of people. These were common Greek words that described the same functions in all spheres of life. The church turned them into ecclesiastical titles by transliterating them instead of translating them. Transliteration keeps the words foreign and outside the level of understanding. The advantage of translating is people understand what you are saying. For example if you translate teshuvah as “repentance”, people understand repentance. The disadvantage is you lose some of the meaning along the way. In this example the word teshuva in Hebrew, means to turn and go back to where you came from (when you sin/break Torah, turn around and go back to Torah). You can see the translated word “repentance” while capturing most of the meaning, misses some of it. For example, if you are going the wrong way (sinning) and wind up walking down a pier on a lake and someone says turn and go another way (repent), unless you turn completely around and go back to where you came from (teshuva), you will get wet (not be following Torah).
The advantage of transliteration is that you avoid invoking a foreign concept into the language and you faithfully represent the sound of the original word. The disadvantage of transliteration is that no one understands what you are talking about. Transliteration keeps words foreign and outside of normal understanding. It helps create a special religious world. In this case, a special Christian religious world which is not Jewish and not biblical.
Translating the words would have enabled the people to understand them. So these words were just describing functions. These were just common words there was no need to transliterate them. Besides that, all of these functions already existed in biblical Israel, so no new context was needed for what was being said.
Translations of the Messianic writings are from Greek to Latin. Western translations follow the Latin. Greek and Latin have some similarities, however for the most part, they are substantially different languages.
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
The words “apostle”, evangelist and decon are transliterations, not translations. The word “prophet” is also a transliteration, but it is not only used in the Messianic Writings but throughout the Tanakh.
The basic argument for “apostles” is the meaning is simply “people who are sent out”; “emissaries”. Any translation should attempt to convey that meaning, not create some special title or office. The same thing is true of the word “evangelist”. It comes from the Greek word “euaggelistas”. It means “a good announcement” and “one who brings good news”. Again any translation should convey that meaning, rather than to create some special title and some new office for these people.
There is a Christian denomination (and probably more) that defines itself by the use of one of these transliterated titles. A split took place because one group of people said there had to be one type of office as opposed to another type of office. This is referring specifically to Precepiterianism in which preceptors. What are prespeters? Who knows? It is a transliteration. It doesn’t mean anything in English. We have to figure what it means through some other means than the text itself, so it becomes inviewed with a different meaning depending on the likes or dislikes of a particular group of people.
In this case it is actually a word in Greek, so we can look at in that language. This information is available to any Christian in Christian reference works, but it is not typically put into practice. It is not put into practice in translations, in bible schools, in sermons, in seminary or in theology.
From Christian reference work: Barclays New Testament Notes:
The word “bishop” today has an eclastical sound which the original word “apiscipos” did not have in New Testament times at all. . The word literally means “an overseer” or “a superintendant”. The oversight may be a view to discipline or possibly to protection. Usually the word “bishop” will give quite a wrong impression of what appiscoples was. He was the superintendant of the congregation. It has been said with truth, the word “elder” in the New Testament describes the church leader in his person while the word apiscipos describes him in his function.
From Smiths Bible Dictionary: The word “bishop” originally signified an overseer or spiritual superintendant. The tiles bishop and elder or presiptor were essentially equivalent. Bishop is from the Greek, and denotes one who excercises the function of overseeing. Prespitor was derived from the office in the synagogue.
So you see the information is available and it is not challenged by standard Christian reference works. It’s just not thought about, or thought about enough to put into practice. What is being said here is not new, in a lot of ways, it’s just that people have built up a system and they are so attached to the system, the information doesn’t make any difference to them (traditions of men?).
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8 Neglecting the commandment of YHWH, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
The word “apostelo” transliterated as “apostle” means “to be sent out”.
The word “deoconos” transliterated as “deacon” means “servant”. If people understand it, as opposed to thinking of some other religious title, they understand it is a servant. A servant serves. A deacon is part of a hierarchy. The term “layman” or (“laypersons”) is also part of that hierarchy. It means or refers to the common people as opposed to the official clergy. Sometimes that split was enforced in things like the common people couldn’t read the scriptures.
“Gospel” is an English word that means “good speak”/”good news”, so if we had retained that meaning, it would be a good translation, but no one knows what it once meant (it doesn’t mean that anymore so it is now only associated with the Christian idea of good news).
The word “angel” is also a transliteration. It simply means “messenger”. By transliterating it, the true meaning is somewhat lost. While we may think of them as heavenly messengers, we think of them more as heavenly beings. Whether or not this is a good thing, it is not truth. The truth is the word “angel” means “messenger”, so a “messenger” delivering a message (good, bad or otherwise) to someone, is an “angel”.
1 Samuel 11:3
3 The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Let us alone for seven days, that we may send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to deliver us, we will come out to you.”
If transliteration was the way to go, we could simply substitute transliterated words from the Messianic Writings (New Testament) and apply them to writings in the Tanahk. After all, if transliteration was as good as a good translation there should be no difference in meaning of the words. Let’s see if this is the case. Read 1 Samuel 11:3 again, only this time with the words transliterated in the Messianic Writings:
3 The old ones of Jabesh said to him, “Let us alone for seven days, that we may apostle angles throughout the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to deliver us, we will come out to you.”
This scripture now doesn’t seem to make sense, but in reality, it only doesn’t because the meanings of the words have been twisted by transliteration, because until you give a transliterated word proper meaning, you can use it like a clean slate and put whatever meaning you want to it, providing it makes some sense according to context.
To put it simply:
When we think of the word “elder” in the Messianic Writings, we don’t necessarily think of “old one” us, but we should, because that is what it means.
When we think of the word “apostle”, we don’t think of “those who are sent out”, but we should, because that is what it means.
When we think of the word “angel”, we don’t necessarily think of “messenger”, but we should, because that is what it means.
When you consider the Messianic Writings (New Testament) in our English Bibles are full of transliterated words, it should cause some concern. This was an easy, sneaky, deceptive way to twist scripture that is difficult for people to catch. When we have been taught what these transliterated words mean over and over for many years, that meaning is what we think as we read, so there is no red flag that pops up telling us something is wrong, better go digging for answers.
If you are confused, that is because it is confusing. Confusion is where the enemy operates. YHWH is not an Elohim (God) of confusion, satan is.
In speaking about these apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers, shepherds, pastors, bishops, deacons, angels etc., it is primarily service, not position title or authority that the scriptures are trying convey, yet most of these are indeed viewed as position, title or authority.
When a word is translated instead of transliterated, the title disappears, but the function becomes clear. The transliteration serves to create and ora of religious realm that is separate from common life. In the religious realm, there are deacons who do not serve. They are servants who are not servants, because they have a position, a title, and a particular authority in that world. All of the forms of service that are mentioned in the Messianic Writings, are also mentioned in the Tanahk. The all existed in the biblical context of Israel. None of these forms of service required a new context.
As Paul expressed and identified himself in Romans 1, Paul, a servant of Yeshua, called to be an ambassador, and set apart for the good news of YHWH, the good news He promised before him in the scriptures regarding His son who came physically as a descendant of David.
Most people don’t know the “gospel” (good news) and and “New Covenant” are from the Tanahk, but they are, if properly understood. The good news was promised by YHWH in the Hebrew prophets. Yeshua came to fulfill that promise, not to abolish it. The creation of an ecclesiastical vocabulary obscures this reality and creates an alternate, anti-biblical context. Christian doctrine in opposition to the Jewish people misidentifies and mischaracterizes the ecclecia which got established. It creates the illusion of a God separating from Israel, the New Covenant that brings redemption is made with Israel. It is not made with a “new Israel”. It is made with the same old Israel whose fathers broke the covenant that God made with them at Sinai after He brought them out of Egypt. – Daniel Gruber
It is stated that way because that is how YHWH states it in This passage is referencing Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares YHWH, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares YHWH. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares YHWH, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know YHWH,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares YHWH, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
When Yeshua said “Salvation is from the Jews”, he meant the Jews that are Jews, not Gentiles. Church Ecclesiology is not biblical. The study of ecclecia if you want to understand it from a biblical perspective, is different from the way it is understood in the church.
The words we looked at have important ramifications; how people see themselves, how they act, how they see other people and their communities, so all this is extremely important. It has a broader idea just in terms of being a servant. The way of the world which works (actually doesn’t work very well) for most governments and societies, with people on the top who lord it over others and are called the benefactors, that model is not supposed to be YHWH’s model (His ~kohol/community), and if we understand these terms better, we can understand better how to integrate that teaching into our own lives and into our own communities.
The People Came To Him -Chapter 6
The Jews rejected Yeshua. At least that’s what most people believe, even Jews. It is what the church has been teaching and has become universally accepted for thousands of years. It is accepted by the Christians, it is accepted by the Jews, and to some degree it is accepted in the Messianic Jewish community as well. But is it true? No. This is an eronious conception that arose for various reasons.
Not only are these messages inaccurate, but they are opposed to the message YHWH gives and to His heart in regards to the Jewish people. In fact, In the story of Exodus, YHWH calls Israel His first born son. He even says to Pharaoh: (paraphrased) “let my first born son go or I’ll kill your first born son”. In Hosea, you have one of the most poetic yet complicated expressions of YHWH’s love for His people Israel, as the prophet is to marry a prostitute who he knows will not be faithful to him, yet he would still continue to love her. YHWH describes His love for Israel that way, that it is eternal and that Israel is His special possession, so something went wrong something went dramatically somewhere in Christianity. It’s not just Catholicism; it extends out throughout the Christian system in one way or another.
The word “epistle” is another example of this churchification of the language. It is just saying that Paul or someone wrote a letter, so we make this religious language that surrounds it, instead of saying he wrote a letter, it gives this sort of other worldly quality as if it is a separate religion type of thing, just like saying “bishop” or presiptor, or something like that.
You don’t have to learn Hebrew or Greek and scholarly literature in order to search these things out. Just having a concordance or bible dictionary can greatly help, but I recommend reading from a Hebrew/Greek interlinear Bible which includes the English KJV version, so you can compare as you read. It also contains built in Strongs Concordance. Best of all it is free viewable or downloadable to your computer. Go to http://scripture4all.org/ . Most translations of the Bible are inconsistent in how they translate words, so I highly recommend using this Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible.
Unless you are going to do a very literal translation and not even always then, to translate words perfectly consistently, everything is always a choice between different options. Some translators attempt to be literal and therefore consistent in how they render words, so you can get more into the original language of the text. Most translations that we have don’t try to do that. That is partly an issue of the philosophy of translation. Even if you are trying to produce a translation in the target language like English that is fluid and reads well in English, as opposed to being literal as sort of a word for word translation of the original language. There are dozens or hundreds of passages that are related through word usage which is not conveyed in translation. If these things are not translated consistently (and they usually aren’t) you miss a lot. You won’t understand what is actually being said, so it is very important to make those choices carefully and consciously. Although it may not be possible to translate perfectly consistently. If you look in a concordance, you will be surprised at the wide variety of meanings that are assigned to different words, and you’ll see that it is not so much the actual meaning of the word that is being conveyed an interpretation of that meaning for each specific context.
It is better to error on the side of more faithfully representing the original text rather than more comfortably choosing your words in the target language.
When translators come across a passage that they don’t understand, they should write it as it is and state the meaning is unclear, rather than putting a meaning to it and saying it is the Word of YHWH.
The people came to Him. The people responded positively to Yeshua.
“The Gospels” don’t record a rejected Yeshua, they record a Yeshua that was so saught after by the people, he had to escape from the crowds. The wanted His wisdom, so they listened to His teaching by the droves, and pursued Him for his Healing.
The rulers of the people arrested Yeshua at night. The reason He was arrested at night, was because if it had been during the day, the crowds wouldn’t have let it happen. They would have mobbed the soldiers. They gathered together their own mob of worthless men as He was then taken to their trial for Him through the night, then they went early in the morning before Pilot. All this before the Jewish people knew what was happening. The mob of worthless men was the mob that cried out for the release of Barabas and crucifixion of Yeshua. It was not the Jews that followed Him around and listened to Him teach and for healing.
Actually, if you read the text in our inadequate (western) translations, the impression that is given is a very different one than common belief. It is only because the propaganda that that has existed for so many centuries, that people don’t notice it when they read, because they have already been told what it says, so they are not getting something out of the text, they already know what it says through propaganda taught to them passed down through systems such as seminary resulting in pastors teaching it to their flocks and so on and so on.
And then there is this:
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many [d]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
If you notice, “thousands” has a foot note in the NASB version. The foot note says “ten thousands”, which is more literal, but why did they have to make it a foot note? At least they bothered to say the real thing. Most translations leave the truth and footnote out, to take away from the fact the Yeshua was well received by tens of thousands of Jewish people, not just thousands, to support the whole Yeshua was rejected by the Jews paradigm they are trying to promote.
How do we know this? Because the same Greek word is accurately translated in Acts 19:19, Revelation 5:11, Deuteronomy 33:17, Ezra 2:64 and even higher in Revelation 9:16.
You have to ask yourself, if there is no bias, why was the same Greek word translated as “tens of thousands” everywhere else in the scriptures, but translated as “thousands” in Acts when it talks about the amount of Jewish people who believed in Yeshua?
9 There was the true Light [g]which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [h]own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
Some people use this scripture to say the Jews rejected Yeshua, but that is reading into scripture things that are not there. This scripture is saying The True Light (Yeshua) came into the world and the world did not know Him. He came to His own [creation] and His own [creation] (man) did not receive Him. It is clear that the context here is man not Jews.
Theopolitical Rulers - Chapter 7
It was the rulers and chief priests that gave Yeshua up to be killed. Certainly the majority of Gentiles did not accept Yeshua. Because the errors of interpretation and translation, the ideas presented that the Jews rejected Him and the Christians accepted Him, is a false impression and an overgeneralization in both instances. This is like saying all Americans accepted George Bush. The truth is some did and some didn’t. Many Jews (educated or not) went to synagogue every Sabbath, and many in particular to hear Yeshua speak.
There is enough scriptural evidence to show the religious leaders were unscrupulous and immoral in how they conducted their affairs. Yeshua was not violating His Father’s commandments, what Yeshua was doing was challenging the authority of the religious leaders under the Roman Empire, who were twisting scriptures and putting a burden on the people with extra man-made laws.
They brought false accusations with false witnesses against him. The one charge they brought against Him was not false, but true; that He was the King of the Jews. It was under that charge that He was crucified.
25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”
Who was “all the people”? It was all the people that were there. According to scripture, we are told over and over again it was the mob of false witnesses and religious leaders, not even close to the majority of the Jews. Again, it was not the Jewish people who followed Him around by the multitudes that shouted “crucify Him!”.
Christianity teaches it was the Jews that were there and when they said “His blood shall be on us and on our children”, they were cursed, for killing Yeshua.
In a way, all of us are responsible for crucifying Yeshua, because we are all sinful and He died to atone for our sins, yet in another way, He laid His life down.
The people who lined the streets wailing and mourning for Yeshua as He went by, were Jews.
Again, it was the chief priests and rulers that delivered up Yeshua to be crucified by the Roman soldiers.
In the Book of John, it does appear to say the Jews rejected Yeshua and were responsible for His crucifixion. There is a Greek word in the Book of John that is almost always translated as “the Jews”, but in addition to meaning “those from the Tribe of Judah”, can also mean: “those from Judea” or even “those of the Southern Kingdom” (when the Kingdoms were divided into Northern Tribes and Southern the political religious authorities. The word is a transliteration of youdheim. It appears only four times in the other three “Gospels” but it appears fifty times in the Book of John.
Even in Greek, this word is transliterated, so they didn’t have a good translation for it.
In an article from the Harvard Theological Review which is a well known scholarly publication in an article called: “The meaning of the term “Jew” on Greko-Roman expressions” by Ross Kramer (1989) says studies have suggested the term had geographical meaning, rather than ethnic in nature, so “Jews” would be an inaccurate translation, because there were plenty of Jews that didn’t live in Judea. Though Ross Kramer sites several studies, but in his own research he has found cases when the word referres not to Jews at all, but rather to pagans that adhere to Judaism in some way. This makes sense when you consider at the time, the people consisted of a very small amount of Jews and a very large amount of pagans.
The multiple meanings of this word can be compared to the word “yankee”. It can mean a Northerner, a North American, a New Englander, it can even refer to a baseball team. Initially it referred to Dutch settlers, during and after the civil war, Southerners used it to refer to all Northerners, in the turbulent sixties, it was used in Latin America to designate all citizens of the United States.
Chapter 7 – Theopolitical Rulers Part 2 24:00