Ben Yahuah's Truth Page

Meaning of "Day of Trumpets" in Ancient Hebrew

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:26:02 GMT

Meaning of "Day of Trumpets" in Ancient Hebrew
by J E Marchant ©2008
The "Day of Trumpets" should actually be called the "Day of Blasting".
This is because in ancient Hebrew the phrase for the "Day of Trumpets" is "IUM (day) TaRUOE". TaRUOE means the "first sign to secure, watch and lookout", ie an initial indication or alarm that was given to groups of people to secure, watch over and look-out for their family and property, in the case of an emergency, war, or a set-apart time of rejoicing. In ancient times the alarm was made by blasting a trumpet and/or a human voice. In the Book of Revelation the alarm might also be made using thunder, earthquakes, and great icy and fiery hail.
People Can TaRUOE (Blast) Too. The main reason why we celebrate the Day of Blasting is to envision the FUTURE event when we (prayerfully) will obtain new bodies as we shout IEUE's Name, and when IEUE's period of final warning of the inhabitants of the Earth will commence.

The Day of Blasting
We are commanded to blast on the first day of the seventh month.
CLV Lv 23:24 Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, In the seventh month on day one of the month there shall be a cessation for you with a memorial trumpet blasting, a holy meeting.
CLV Num 29:1 In the seventh month, on day one of the month you shall come to have a holy meeting when you shall do no occupational work at all; a day of trumpet blast shall you come to have.

Trumpets not Specified, but Were Usually Used to Blast
These verses (above) do not actually contain the word "trumpet". However we know from many events in scripTURE that ancient Hebrews certainly used trumpets/bugles/horns which they called SHaPURs (shofars) to make blasting noises for emergencies, battle starts and times of rejoicing. This is the reason why most bible versions have inserted the word "trumpet".

Ancient Hebrew "TaRUOE" Means "Blast"
The ancient Hebrew word for blasting/blast in the above verses is "TaRUOE" (said as "ta-roo-oh-eh"). This word has five letters. The lower case "a" is just a default vowel for connecting two consonants, and is not based on Massoritic vowel points.

The five letters are
T = tau (modern tav) = two crossed sticks. This represents a sign.
R = raash (modern resh) = man's head. This represents first
U = uu (modern vav) = tent peg. This represents secure
O = oin (modern ayin) = eye. This represents watch
E = ea (modern heh) = man with arms raised. This represents look

Overall we get "Sign (that is) first (for) securing, watching and looking", or "the first sign to secure, watch and lookout". In other words an initial indication or alarm that was given to groups of people to secure, watch over and look-out for their family and property, in the case of an emergency, war, or a set-apart time of rejoicing (usually because of the victory over an enemy).

Concordance and Lexicon Definitions
Strong's Concordance and Benner's Ancient Hebrew Lexicon say that TaRUOE means an alarm, loud noise, shout, a cry. This aligns with the ancient Hebrew pictographic analysis of each of the letters of the word.

Strong's definition of "TaRUOE (teruah)" (H8643)תּרוּעה

From H7321; clamor, that is, acclamation of joy or a battle cry; especially clangor of trumpets, as an alarum: - alarm, blow (-ing) (of, the) (trumpets), joy, jubile, loud noise, rejoicing, shout (-ing), (high, joyful) sound (-ing).

Strong's definition of "RUO (rua)" (H7321)
רוּע
A primitive root; to mar (especially by breaking); figuratively to split the ears (with sound), that is, shout (for alarm or joy): - blow an alarm, cry (alarm, aloud, out), destroy, make a joyful noise, smart, shout (for joy), sound an alarm, triumph.

Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible Definition of TaRUOE (AHLB#:1460-J (i1))
Shout: A great shout of alarm, war or rejoicing. [freq. 36] |kjv: shout, shouting, alarm, sound, blowing, joy| {str: 8643}

Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible Definition of RUO (AHLB#:1460-J (V))
Shout: To shout an alarm, war or great rejoicing. [freq. 46] (vf: Niphal, Hiphil) |kjv: shout, noise, alarm, cry, triumph, smart| {str: 7321}

People Can TaRUOE (Blast) Too
The word TaRUOE is not just used for the blast of a trumpet. It can be used for describing the shout of a person.
For example -
1) When the ISHaRaALites encircled IRIHU (Jericho). They were commanded to not just blow their SHaPURs but also shout (TaRUOE) with their voices.
"Teruah literally means to make a loud noise. This word can describe the noise made by a trumpet but it also describes the noise made by a large gathering of people shouting in unison (Nu 10:5–6)."http://www.karaite-korner.org/yom_teruah.shtml Emphasis added.

CLV Jsh 6:5
and it has been, in the prolongation of the horn of the jubilee, in your hearing the voice of the trumpet, all the people shout--a great shout [TaROUE], and the wall of the city has fallen under it, and the people have gone up, each over-against him.'
CLV Jsh 6:20 And the people shout, AND blow with the trumpets, and it comes to pass when the people hear the voice of the trumpet, that the people shout--a great shout [TaROUE], and the wall falls under it, and the people goes up into the city, each over-against him, and they capture the city;

2) When the ISHaRaALites took the Ark of the Covenant from the Philistine camp back to the Hebrew camp. It doesn't say exactly what ISHaRaAL shouted with, but it does say "ISHaRaAL shouted". ISHaRaAL are people.

1Sa 4:5 And when the ark of the covenant of יהוה came into the camp, all ISHaRaAL shouted [TaRUOE] so loudly that the earth shook. 1Sa 4:6 And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout [TaRUOE], they said, “What is the noise of this great shout [TaRUOE] in the camp of the Heḇrews?” And when they knew that the ark of יהוה had come into the camp,

3) When the ISHaRaALites carried the Ark into the city of IRUSHaLIM. Both humans shouted [TaRUOE] with their voices AND the ram's horn was "sounded".

The word for "sounded" used is QUL, which means "voice" (not blast), and comes from the letters "qap-uu-lam" which mean "authoritative securing at the horizon", in other words the call of the shepherd to the sheep at sunset, which by extension means "call". (Note the similarity in the English word "call" and the ancient Hebrew word "QUL"! This is not a co-incidence, please see English Alphabet Shaped by Hebrews Only for the explanation why).

Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible Definition of QUL (AHLB#: 1426-J (N))
Voice The call of the shepherd to the sheep who knew him by sound. When it came time to move he would call them and they would quickly gather to him, the sound of the shepherd, musical instrument, the wind, thunder, etc.

2Sa 6:15 Thus DUD (David) and all the house of ISHaRaAL brought up the ark of יהוה with shouting [TaRUOE] AND with the sound [QUL]of the ram’s horn.
4) When the altar was rebuilt in IRUSHaLIM. The people of ISHaRaAL praised IEUE as they shouted [TaRUOE].

Ezr 3:11 And they responded by praising and giving thanks to יהוה, “For He is good, for His kindness towards ISHaRaAL is forever.” And all the people shouted with a great shout [TaRUOE], when they praised יהוה, because the foundation of the House of יהוה was laid.
5) IUB (Job's) friend BaLaDaD (Bildad) told him that lips can blast [TaRUOE].
YLT Jb 8:21 While he filleth with laughter thy mouth, And thy lips with shouting [TaRUOE],
There are more references to humans "blasting" in Psa 27:6, Psa 33:3, and Psa 89:15.

More than Just a Rest Day with "Blasting"
TURE (Torah) may be fairly quiet on what this IUM (day) means, but the New Covenant scriptures are very clear what this day represents.

IUM TaRUOE is not so much a day of remembering the past, this is probably why the TURE is fairly quiet on the matter. The Autumnal feasts are types of FUTURE events, and so this means IUM TaRUOE's meaning is futuristic, because IUM TaRUOE is an autumnal High SHaBaT.
One day in the future the Son of ADaM (IEUESHUO) will gather His chosen ones from the whole Earth with the "great sound of a TRUMPET" at the culmination of the Great Tribulation.

Mat 24:31 “And He shall send His messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This day of the "rapture" will be both a day of great rejoicing for those who were deemed worthy to meet Him in the air, AND the start of the beginning of a huge emergency for those left behind.
The worldwide government will be fully declared by the Anti-Mashich by this time, along with lightnings, voices, thunders, an earthquake and great hail occurring on a global scale.

This last day of trumpet blasting (the seventh "trumpet"), and the six preceding "trumpet blasts" may come in the form of thunder, earthquakes, great icy and fiery hail, or other large-scale natural blasting.

After this the worst of IEUE's judgment on this unbelieving generation will be unleashed through the vials/bowls. These events (wicked sores, blood sea, blood rivers, burning sun, darkness, the Euphrates dried up) will be IEUE's FINAL WARNING until the Battle of IRUSHaLIM on the Day of Atonement (IUM KIPUR), when SHaTaN will be bound, and the 1000 year reign will commence.

Shouting IEUE's Name on the IUM TaRUOE
In Lev 23:24, IUM TaRUOE is also referred to as "ZaKRUN TaRUOE". The word "ZaKRUN" is sometimes translated as “memorial” but this Hebrew word also has the meaning of “mentioning” often in reference to speaking the name of IEUE (e.g. Ex 3:15; Isa 12:4; ; 26:13; Ps 45:18).
The day of ZaKRUN TaRUOE, the “Mentioning Shout”, may refer to a day of gathering in public prayer in which the crowd of the faithful shouts the name of IEUE in unison. http://www.karaite-korner.org/yom_teruah.shtml

Could it be that the only ones raptured will be those shouting the (correct) Name of IEUE on some future Day of Blasting?!

This aligns with the traditional IEUEDic (Jewish) blessing of "MAY YOU BE INSCRIBED & SEALED FOR A GOOD YEAR".

Only those correctly sealed using the proper Name of ALEIM, which is IEUE, will know what Name to shout on IUM TaRUOE! These people have had the Name of IEUE and his son IEUESHUO (just one word - IEUE is embedded into the Name IEUESHUO) on their foreheads (via immersion). When we are immersed we should call on IEUESHUO's Name.

Joe 2:32 “And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה shall be delivered. For on Mount TSIUN and in IRUSHaLIM there shall be an escape as יהוה has said, and among the survivors whom יהוה calls.
See "The Name is the Seal" for more about the importance of being sealed.

In Conclusion
The "Day of Trumpets" should actually be called the "Day of Blasting". Ancient Hebrew "TaRUOE" Means "Blast". People Can TaRUOE (Blast) Too.

The main reason why we celebrate the Day of Blasting is to envision the FUTURE event when we (prayerfully) will obtain new bodies in the sky as we possibly shout IEUE's Name, and when IEUE's period of final warning of the inhabitants of the Earth will commence.

May we be sealed FOREVER (not just for the year!) in the only name that saves - IEUESHO (IEUE Saves).

The Constitution Has Been Suspended!

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:23:04 GMT

Part 1

A Special Report On The National Emergency In The United States Of America

This page contains the complete text of the book "War and Emergency Powers" A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Researched and written by: Gene Schroder, Alvin Jenkins, Jerry Russell, Ed Petrowsky, Russell Grieder, Darrell Schroder, Walter Marston, Lynn Bitner, Billy Schroder, Van Stafford, Fred Peters, Tinker Spain, and Paul Bailey.
Due to file size limitations we have elected not to include scanned images of the exhibits that appear in the book.
The Report... WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS

NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war."
Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732.
This report begins with a series of documents which are representative (Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.
Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by "Swisher" called Constitutional Development. Let's read the first paragraph. It says:

"We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established," said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."
How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? Justice Hughes goes on to say:

"The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation."
What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation"?
In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same."
Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say:

"But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."
What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."
Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.
Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens"
and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."
Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to say:

"For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
The introduction continues:

"And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."
How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school? Amazing, isn't it?
Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, we find the following words:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."
Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 13), it says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the United States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn't they? They could not hold us.
But let us recall that, in Exhibit 13, it says:

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or public danger."
We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.
Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14), and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they're talking about these emergency powers and they say:

"They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus."
Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.
But once it was done, the Constitution was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the "State of Siege." In Great Britain, it's called "The Defense of the Realm Acts." In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called "Article 48." In the United States, it is called the "War Powers."
If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence. And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law which states:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)".
Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95 (b) is current law. This is the law that exists over this United States this moment.
If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933?
On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read (Exhibit 16):

"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fall to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.
On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.
In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 17), it states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application."
What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the act as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.
Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.
In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), it further states in Title 1, Section 1:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
Where have we read those words before?
This is the exact same wording as is found (Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95 (b). The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the "Rule of Necessity." We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.
As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."
By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War 1; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.
Therefore, Congress passed this Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave the government total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page:

"other than citizens of the United States."
The Act specifically excluded citizens of the United States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the United States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this act.
Section 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), states:

"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)".
Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this act. "We the People", were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies.
It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called "enemies." Consequently the government, under the war powers of this act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the United States will become crucial later on.
In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), "Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;"
So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis added):

"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that definition citizens of the United States.
In Section 5 (b) of this act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the United States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the United States, because we were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary, and, in effect, all business transactions. "We the People," became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states:

"during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President...". So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17) "through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, boarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at:

"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time."
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.
Now let's find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 21), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:

"The Trading With the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8, c1. 11. P.241".
Remember your Constitution? "Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies," all rules.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 22), remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read: "Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse."
This is the case of The Rapid (1814).
Additionally, "No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio".
In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).
In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the words:

"By the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership".
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:

"The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks".
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):

"The produce of the soil of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner".
From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William Bagaley (1866):

"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended."
From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:

"The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill."
It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all intercourse is illegal.
That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to have a "Social Security Card," which is a license to work, and a Drivers License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?
Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law:

(Exhibit 27) "But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even, at times, our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for arms and a peace for commerce". One of the most important features of the bill is that which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property."
This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary takeover of enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned, mustn't it?
The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent night of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.
Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written in 1933:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:

"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation..."
That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis added), "Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner..."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid frustration of the potential power of the government.
Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:

"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency ..."
In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say: "People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 31):

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Sat., March 4, and Monday, March 6.
In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?

Misc RM 63 Misc reference material Part 1

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

Paul more APOSTATE than apostle part2

Tue, 13 May 2008 01:06:24 GMT

A New Morality

One of the proofs that Paul used to declare the Law was abolished is in the way Paul explains that a 'new morality' is now established for christians. Paul now provides his own replacement ethical system in place of YHUH's... I guess he thinks his is better. Paul's new morality system is based on what is "obvious" as wrong to a person led by the spirit. Here are some of the tests he uses...

1Co 6:12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; 1Co 10:23 All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. Rom 14:22 ... Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. Rom 14:5 Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.

This is the "If It Feels Good... Do it!" Philosophy

This is the same philosophy that the Pagan Greeks have... Paul was a Hellenist Jew (More pagan than Jew). Now you are beginning to see Paul's Hellenized roots popping up. You need to ask yourself... is holding this philosophy keeping in the standards and ways that YHUH established for us... Absolutely Not!

This needs more discussion. Paul teaches that anything is allowed if your conscience permits it. According to Paul The Torah is moot and no longer applies. If your conscience allows you to think something is permissible... then it is permissible.

Here is another issue where Yahu'sha and Paul differ greatly.

Paul says if you sin, just find a way to let your conscience live with it. Rom 14:22 ... Happy is he that does not condemn himself in that thing that he allows.

Yahu'sha says: Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
Mat 18:8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire; 44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell; 46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of YHUH with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell; 48 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched

Yahu'sha's plan for repentance is a lot harder to accept and it is no wonder that Paul's worshippers and the church preferred the easy way out. There's no personal sacrifice in Paul's religion. Just forgive yourself and go on lying,cheating, stealing, raping and killing.... No worries.... You can continue to do whatever you want and remain saved. Somehow that doesn't equate with Scripture. One can continue to be in blatant disobedience to YHUH's Law and still retain full pardon? How does that work?

There is no point in repenting from anything or turning away from sin if your reward is guaranteed no matter what you do. Is that what Scripture says? That is the doctrine of Paul and the Church. The sad thing is the church truly lives that way too.

Paul's Belief's on the Origins of The Law

I hope you're sitting down for this. It is one of the most troubling aspect of Paul's writings on The Law. He attributes the Law that was given to Moses was given by angels. According to Paul...Moses was just a mediator and if we want to go back to a Torah based lifestyle, then we are submitting ourselves to those who are no gods and they are weak and beggarly elements. In saying this Paul clearly says the Law was not given by YHUH. Let's take a look at what Paul said.

Gal 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Gal 4:8 Howbeit at that time, not knowing YHUH, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods:
Gal 4:9 but now that ye have come to know YHUH, or rather to be known by YHUH, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?

What is also very disturbing is that he speaks of people who are obedient to YHUH as if they are in bondage. Rather than the Law being a positive thing, he prefers to recast the nature of the entire Hebrew Scriptures to make them a very bad thing. Now let's read that entire section in Galatians.

Gal 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but YHUH is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of YHUH? YHUH forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward (bondage)under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor (The Law)to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor (The Law).
Gal 3:26 For ye are all sons of YHUH, through faith, in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
Gal 4:1 But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all;
Gal 4:2 but is under guardians and stewards (angels) until the day appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elements (angels) of the world:
Gal 4:4 but when the fullness of the time came, YHUH sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, YHUH sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through YHUH.
Gal 4:8 Howbeit at that time, not knowing YHUH, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods (angels):
Gal 4:9 but now that ye have come to know YHUH, or rather to be known by YHUH, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly elements (angels), whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.
Gal 4:20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
Gal 4:23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
Gal 4:30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.

Who gave the Law.... YHUH or Beggarly Angels?

Ok, Let's test Paul against Scripture... wanna guess who's in error?

I'm going to take you first to Exo 20:1 And YHUH spake all these words, saying,.... what follows is the rest of the Ten Commandments. Did you see anything about angels or elements giving The Commandments to Moses? OK, Let's see if there is any more evidence...

Exo 25:16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. 21 And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Care to see what Yahu'sha says about who gave the commandments?

Mar 12:26 But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how YHUH spake unto him(Moses), saying, I am the Elohim of Abraham, and the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob?
Luk 20:37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he calleth YHUH the Elohim of Abraham, and the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob.

Did anyone see any angels or beggarly elements mentioned in those scriptures?

It appears that Yahu'sha has declared Paul a false teacher again and again and again! Paul is FLAT WRONG!

FALSE PROPHET - FALSE APOSTLE - FALSE TEACHER

More Contradictions from Paul

What I find amusing yet disturbing is that Paul does not want his worshippers to submit to YHUH's Laws, Yet Paul does want them to submit to Pagan Authorities (Roman Caesars). He says that YHUH has set the Pagans in authority over the believer's for their own good. Paul says the cruel Romans are Ministers of YHUH.... Want Proof?

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of YHUH; and the powers that be are ordained of YHUH. 4 for he is a minister of YHUH to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of YHUH, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.

Roman Cruelty is ordained by YHUH?

So we are to submit to Disobedient and tyrannical governments but not YHUH's Laws? Does anyone see anything wrong with that picture?

Yahudah finds Paul Heretical!!!

Paul says YHUH's angels are weak and beggarly elements and that is a severe put down of YHUH's creation. He also implicates the angels for acting out of turn and bringing the Law to Moses (which I have already disproved)

However Yahudah (Yahu'sha's brother) condemns Paul and "those who make grace a license for immorality"

Yahudah 1:4 For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our YHUH into lasciviousness (Immorality), and denying our only Master and Lord, Yahu'sha. 8 Yet in like manner these (false teachers) also in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion (YHUH's Kingdom), and rail at dignities (Angels). 10 But these (false teachers) rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed. 11 Woe unto them! For they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah 12 These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn leaves without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Now allow me to explain how this relates to Paul... Jude clearly condemns the Dangerous Grace Teachers and gives a clue as to the identities of these teachers... They rail at dignities (Angels). He warns of wolves in sheep's clothing that have slipped in among you (Yahudah 4). They put down and slander Angels (Yahudah 8). They are False Teachers who teach grace is a license for immorality (Yahudah 4)... Yahudah defines this as teaching that "Once you are a Christian there is no risk of eternal fire" (Yahudah 7) if we engage in immorality (Yahudah 4,7). Yahudah gives us an example that initial salvation and even a presence with YHUH in Heaven is brought to nothing by sin/having lost faith. There are NO guarantees that one will finally be saved from eternal fire. Those who teach to the contrary and guarantee salvation no matter what sin you commit after you've been initially saved... Yahudah says These are False Teachers who are TWICE DEAD... meaning they were dead in sin, then born again, then died again by virtue of their apostasy (Yahudah 12)

Your security is totally dependent on your faithfulness and obedience to YHUH. Like a Faithful and Obedient Bride. This is what is meant when Yahudah says "Keeping yourself" (Yahudah 3). What it boils down to is Yahudah says You must not stray from the words of YHUH and Yahu'sha by listening to the words of False Teachers who rail at Angels, deny YHUH's authority (in giving the Law) and contradict Yahu'sha's teachings, these false teachers boast of their own accomplishments and give assurances that YHUH's grace will protect them from the penalty of their sins after the initial salvation.

So Yahu'sha and Paul have very different beliefs about Moshe and the Law.Yahu'sha condemns Paul for the undermining of Moshe's Inspiration. If you accept Paul's religion then you have undermined the very authority necessary to trust Yahu'sha.

Joh 5:46 For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.
If Paul is correct about the Angels and them giving the Law to Moshe...Then Yahu'sha's words make no sense and the key to truly know and trust in Yahu'sha is destroyed. Some thing is terribly wrong with church tradition and that does include Paul.

Paul Contradicts Yahu'sha

Yahu'sha stressed the validity of the Law up through the passing of the Heavens and the Earth.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yahu'sha can never be accused of leading or seducing anyone away from the law.

Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against YHUH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which YHUH your Elohim commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Another interesting fact... Yahu'sha or YHUH never specified the Commandments/Law was for Jews only... this is another lie that was started by Paul and carried through the ages faithfully by christianity.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am YHUH your Elohim.

There is no requirements to be Jewish and the law did not lose its importance with the death of Yahu'sha... These are more of Paul's Falsehoods.

Yahu'sha just says:

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.

Many will argue about what commandments Yahu'sha gave... Perhaps the following will answer everyone's questions...

Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Yahu'sha said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.

So it was Yahu'sha who gave the Law to Moshe... It is Yahu'sha's Law/Commandments.

Christianity has NO EXCUSE

Christianity has some very difficult decisions that must be made very soon. To follow Yahu'sha and abandon the False Prophet/Apostle or continue it's current heretical path of apostasy

What About Paul's Pro-Law Statements?

Messianic believers follow the law except for animal sacrifice. In order to bridge the connection to christianity Messianics like to cite a few verses from Paul to prove he did not abrogate the entire law.

Some of these are: Rom 3:31 ... we establish the law. Rom 7:12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

They will even cite the self-contradictory verse: 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of YHUH.
Paul is quoted by Luke by saying: Act 24:14 ..., so serve I the Elohim of our fathers, retaining my belief in all points of the law...

Using these little snippets can be very misleading and does not explain Paul's thoughts about the Law or his preaching against it. Paul's randomly compliments the Laws good nature but it does not mean much. We all can speak kindly of the dead. Paul does not agree that the principles are more than dead letters and these compliments have no bearing.

Rom 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.

Paul uses his prowess in deception in a verse we need to examine a lot closer...

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul says that circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments is everything.... This is self-contradictory. If you are a believer you already know that circumcision is a commandment. Now here's the deception... He is leading the pro-Law believers to his side by sounding like he is pro-Law. The Messianics are still taken in by Paul to this day.

Paul created a huge stumblingblock for all believers and especially Jews.

The Jews that believed in Yahu'sha and were pro-law called considered heretics by Paul (the sentiment still abides today). Paul claims that Jewish believers who were still obedient to the Law were abiding in the curse (the Law). Paul said they were severed from Yahu'sha and that Yahu'sha will profit them nothing. They are bound to keep the whole law. Paul calls them cursed and anathema because they bring "another gospel" that is not Paul's. They actually were holding the truth and Paul could not afford his worshippers to be exposed to them.

The Jews stopped coming to Yahu'sha as their atonement not because YHUH hardened their hearts as Paul said...

Rom 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:
Rom 11:8 according as it is written, YHUH gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.

The true stumblingblock was the one Paul alone created... it is his brand of christianity and his requirement that they had to give up the Commandments of YHUH. They had to accept him as a prophet even though he violated YHUH's laws and taught others to do it. He sought to seduce them away from YHUH's Laws

Paul in Romans 7 clearly said the Jews were released from from the law and were now free to remarry another Jesus who had ended the Law.

In Acts 21, Ya'acov (James- Brother of Yahu'sha) was the Bishop of Jerusalem and heard that Paul was creating stumblingblocks for the conversion of the Jews, and Ya'acov tried to prevent it. He tells Paul that he is aware of a rumor of Paul's works, but he is not yet aware the rumors are true. He asks Paul for assurance that Paul is not an apostate heretic from the Law. Ya'acov tells Paul that believers must still be circumcised. He tells Paul what is at stake and that myriads of Jews were coming to Yahu'sha... however they are hearing from Paul that they must give up the Law...including circumcision. Ya'acov's outlook is that both Jew and Gentile were to form one congregation, but only the Jews were obliged to circumcision.

Paul's response to Ya'acov was well guarded and he did not reveal his true teachings. He purposely misled Ya'acov and the Jerusalem Council on what he taught.

Paul corrupted the New Covenant that was promised... so as to expel the Law and observant Jews

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith YHUH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Paul created a distorted image of what the New Covenant really represented.

Yahu'sha taught to add the New in a way that preserves both old and new...Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.

But Paul's message became associated with Yahu'sha. Christianity teaching came to view that Paul's New replaced the old. But that Doctrine violates Deu 13:5 and Jer 31:31.

Paul's apostasy became legitimate justification for Jews to view Yahu'sha as an apostate from the Law. In Rabbinical Literature the rejection of Yahu'sha is based upon Deu 13:5 as the Jews were commanded to follow.

Christianity really has no idea what severe damage has been done to the Jews through Paul's rejection of YHUH's authority and christianity has not a clue of the path of destruction it has been on since it adopted Paul's doctrine as a replacement for YHUH's. If any hearts have been hardened... it has been the hearts of christianity against the Commandments of Yahu'sha/YHUH and even rejecting YHUH himself.

I hope this article has been helpful to your quest of truth. Ben Yahuah

Much of the info that was used in this article can be found in a book entitled: "Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2?" by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Esq.

Many Thanks Doug for sharing what you have been given by YHUH!