Questions concerning the Last Supper

This article is actually pretty long. It is a conversation I had with a family through four e-mails. To sum up the four e-mails the initial question is pretty much wondering if whether or not I am reading the original text correctly on my on-line article called, "Was the Last Supper Jesus had with his disciplesthe Passover or Not? Click [Here] to read it. Or, mayby that is is simply a typo through the other e-mail. Likewise, the question is pretty much asked if it really matters or not. In the process of answering I give the answer and give insights to truth you will and shall find revealing.

Here is this conversation:

Thomas,

As much as you would have people blindly accept what you say, I cannot. Not “I will not”, but I cannot, because I have been rebuked more than once from the Lord not to do so, but instead to study and seek God about anything that some person is trying to teach me as fact to see if it really is truth.

I question you so much because I see contradictions in what you say. Not that I think you do this intentionally but in ignorance through bias. For instance: You do not accept the book of Matthew for various reasons and yet you quote from it quite a bit. I felt the Lord was telling me to reread and study the passage in Matthew that you say is wrong because it shows the “last supper” and Jesus’ crucifixion on the Passover. When I reread it and studied it (you are right, the bread they ate at supper was leavened bread) I found that the writer places the time of the “last supper” on the “day of preparation”. I think God pointed this out to me because while He does sometimes send people my way to show me truths or to cause me to study and seek Him more, He still wants me to trust Him and to seek Him and to learn from Him, learn to hear His voice speak to me; so at this time He is using you as a tool to bring me closer to Him.

Here is what I am talking about with that passage in Matthew (emphasis and notes in red are mine):

Mt 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mt 26:17 Now the first <protos> day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him,

Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

4413. protos, pro'-tos

contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.}

I believe the writer intended the word “first” in v. 17 to be interpreted as “before”. I will show the reason for this in my next note and in later passages.

18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the

Passover at thy house with my disciples.

19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.

Some assume because the disciples were making plans for the Passover, that day must be the ‘day of preparation’, but this is not so and is proven in later passages.

There were lots of people who surely had to start making Passover plans many days before Passover because some had to travel and others with no home in Jerusalem had to acquire a dwelling of some sort to eat the Passover in. If you did not already have some sort of dwelling, whether house or tent, it would be necessary to NOT wait until the last minute to do so because of the great number of people coming to Jerusalem for the feast. I do not try to use this reasoning as a proof. The proof is in later passages.

20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been

good for that man if he had not been born.

25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread <artos> meaning leavened bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to

the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

740. artos, ar'-tos

from 142; bread (as raised) or a loaf:--(shew-)bread, loaf.

They were eating leavened bread which shows that this could have not been the ‘first’ day of Passover but instead ‘before’ Passover.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my

Father's kingdom.

30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Again, going out of the house where they were eating shows that this did not occur on Passover for they would not have gone out of the house on Passover.

Mt 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves,

from the chief priests and elders of the people.

This occurred that same night. If this were the Passover the priests and other people would have been inside someplace keeping the Passover Feast.

Mt 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus'

disciple:

58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the

sepulchre, and departed.

61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto

Pilate,

63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal

him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

This shows that the writer of the book of Matthew was NOT trying to say that the last meal Jesus had with his disciples was the Passover Feast meal. Verse 62 is saying: The next day – the day after Jesus was laid in the tomb – the day that followed the day of preparation….

Here are the order of events as shown in the book of Matthew:

1. he night that begins the “day of preparation”, Jesus eats ‘last supper’ and is taken prisoner

2. “Day of preparation”, Jesus was crucified and laid in the grave (everyone else eats the Feast of Passover that night)

3. Passover (day that followed the day of preparation), after the priests have remained in their homes all night eating the Feast

of the Passover, that next morning, when they are permitted to leave their homes, they go to Pilate and roman soldiers are

set to guard the tomb

4.Day after Passover – the day after the Sabbath – the first day of the week, Jesus raises from the dead

Jesus was dead on the ‘day of preparation’ , still dead on the Passover (Sabbath) , and raised on the ‘first day of the week’ – the third day.

I realize this was a long explanation but I hope this makes things clear.

Shalom,

Ma'am in Arkansas

Ma'am in Arkansas,

This is what I am saying when you are standing so close to the tree you cannot see the forest at all. In fact, you are standing so close you are assuming that all the bugs that live between the bark are the only eco-system. Because once again, through your studying of Matthew and lack of knowledge and "selective hearing of me" you think "Matthew" told the truth and that I "don't accept Matthew." You need to listen better, my friend. I said, "I do not accept much of Matthew" and "Matthew is full of contradictions." Also, "Matthew can practically be an apocrapha, because of all of its falsehoods" and "The Gospel of Matthew can lead you astray." This is what I say about Matthew, nothing more or less or I say something similar to these terms.

As far as what you mentioned, "As much as you would have people blindly accept what you say," I don't want people to do so, ever, but why pray over something if it is there and if someone has already read what is being discussed? Because after that point it is just a big waste of tiime until they finally do it, because when they do it, obviously, they accepted it. It's like when Jesus told one church back in the day, through the prophet / apostle John, "I desire that you were hot or cold, for you are lukewarm..."

Back on track, I am not trying to be rude by any means, even though it may sound like it. But I do not say it lightly when I mention that you are studying so heavy you are missing the facts of things. Because through that you are looking at a mere tree vs. the forest.

I will show you your error because of your 'selective" verse picking, thus in the process you justified the Book of Matthew and basically think I do not know what I am talking about. In all the verses you quote and highlight in Red, you failed to see one thing that made you slip off the cliff. It is verse 18, there you see Jesus saying, "I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples. " Therefore, I am right. Because, if Jesus is this grand prophet, he did not judge that to well, did he? Remember, prep day is the14th of Aviv, the day of Passover. On the 15th of Aviv is when we eat Passover.

Did you know you are quoting things wrong? You write:

Mt 26:17 Now the first <protos> day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

This does not even make sense, "Now the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread......"

This should read "On the......"

Secondly, you are 'blindly' accepting the 'scholars' translation or should I say, 'their insert' of the word "day." This word does not exist in the text.

Thus it should read, "on the eve of the feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

Then you write, I believe the writer intended the word “first” in v. 17 to be interpreted as “before”. I will show the reason for this in my next note and in later passages.

You came up with a somewhat correct rendering, but you have to tell me whether or not this is based on trying to make the story work, which you do, or being fair and balanced?

Thus, if it is the eve of the feast of Unleavened bread and if the disciples are asking where to prepare for it, they obviously have not eaten it. Yet, Jesus says he will eat it with them. Thus, when he sat down that evening with his disciples he was eating the passover according to "Matthew." Thus making him a sinner, because of him having and eating normal bread, as well as tempting his disciples to carry or get a sword, because it was a shabath and.... Not only this, 'Matthew also portrays the servants of the priests as sinners by them carrying clubs and lanterns later that evening.

Thus in your studying not only did you miss the big phrase, but you seemingly can't accept that the gospels have errors. Look, I will not lead you astray, my friend. All I preach is Torah and truth.

Don't try to fix a broken foundation, for many things are built on sand and the "Holy Bible" is not "inerrant." This is one of the hardest things for me to conquer in people, because not many, if any, people has uttered such in this generation, nor for a long time.

So according to Matthew he ate the Passover, not a regular meal on Prep Day!

In Love and kindness as a friend,

Thomas

Thomas,

Hopefully these missives will somewhat clear the air – at least for you to understand my position…

I hope to be helpful as well as kind-please take my comments with that thought

In considering the sequence of events in Matthew and comparing them to the other synoptic gospels, or to John, I focused on the phrase “day of Preparation”. Here are the texts I reviewed:

1. Matthew 27:62, "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came

together unto Pilate",

Matthew 27:61-63 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)

2. Mark 15:42, "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath",

Mark 15:41-43 (in Context) Mark 15 (Whole Chapter)

3. Luke 23:54, "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on."

Luke 23:53-55 (in Context) Luke 23 (Whole Chapter)

4. John 19:31 "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the

Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and

that they might be taken away."

John 19:30-32 (in Context) John 19 (Whole Chapter)

5. John 19:42 "There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand."

John 19:41-42 (in Context) John 19 (Whole Chapter)

(source www.biblegateway.com)

While it may be difficult to follow the exact chronology of any of these texts, I believe that even a cursory examination reveals all 4 writers (regardless of their actual identities) are relating the same story, questions of leavened and unleavened bread notwithstanding…

If I were to use an example from my professional life:

If I were trying to prove a concept in tax law, and if I found a sequence like the above in 4 different cases dealing with a tax issue, and then gone on to note that one court deviated in some detail not central to the issue in their recitation of the case; I would suppose that one of the judges might not have been careful in transcription of issues that to him were either off-point, or else obvious. However, I have seen such things, and it doesn’t disturb my understanding that all 4 cases might be describing the same issue. As an example, a fundamental issue in my work is often referred to as “commerce clause” issues. Now, there can be several variations, such as:

“dormant commerce clause”

“negative commerce clause”

“commerce clause”

“interstate commerce clause”

These phrases all can have significant differences in meaning, but if a judge or a transcriber should occur to use the wrong term, the sense can still be picked up from the document as a whole. I believe the issue of Matthews’ harmony with John can be resolved in similar manner, simply realizing the document may suffer from an unintentional error of the writer, scribe, or translator.

I do want to make this point about New Testament translation in general – we discussed some other areas of Matthew that are fantastic and uncorroborated by any other source (such as the mass resurrection), and I think it has direct bearing on your stance with regard to medicines and chemical additives. Bear in mind that Greek in general doesn’t have the expansive vocabulary we’re used to especially in the English language. You can find a simple proof of this proposition in the Strong’s, simply by comparing the number of Greek entries to the number of Hebrew entries. In practice, this means that the Jewish writer (if the New Testament autographs were, indeed, in Greek originally) often had to struggle to express a Hebrew thought using a limited Greek vocabulary.

This isn’t that uncommon, even today. You’ll note that German is often referred to as the “scientific language” because of the precision in word order (every sentence is a “Pattern 1” as opposed to our 5 or more in English), subject predicate agreement (16 forms as opposed to 3 in English) et al.

I first noticed this when a Rabbi challenged me to explain Paul’s use of “law”. In fact, he could mean the Levitical law, the Torah, the Decalogue, but there being only one Greek word for the concept, he was stuck with one word for a label, and the reader is left to infer the exact subject of discussion from context.

With that, I submit to you that indeed, pharmakos is the Greek word translated both sorcerer and pharmacy. However, it’s a gross oversimplification of etymology to identify those two terms as synonymous simply because they spring from the same root. The study of homonyms, heteronyms, heterophones, and capitonyms all center on this issue in English grammar. All languages are subject to the phenomenon of a word having vastly different meanings depending upon context of the sentence.

Back to my point about Matthew, and translation in general… as you noted the concept that the entire Torah was transcribed by Moses is belied by the description of his death and Joshua’s actions immediately after the event. I trust you have, at some point, considered the “Documentary Hypothesis”, which is a very well-developed discipline of study in its own right, which attempts to identify and explain such apparent contradictions. With that in mind, I would like to point out that it’s not a long stretch from some of the “layers” of the Torah, to Jesus rebuke to the scribes about teaching for the doctrines of God the commandments of men. As your argument suggests, the commonly held opinion that Moses wrote the entire Torah word for word probably isn’t entirely accurate, I’m extending that to say there are several things in the Torah that are not necessarily to be taken at face value, because (a) they may be subject to the same issues I noted above about Matthew or (b) they may well have been the work of a redactor. I’ll not try to push specific issues, because I’m not well-studied on the field of inquiry myself, but I will say that before taking any doctrine from the text, it’s important to consider the large body of study surrounding the text as a whole. In plainer language, “the text plainly says” probably isn’t a valid defense because even if you have the agreed-upon Hebrew text in hand, this is only the beginning of the journey.

I’d like to make this quick disclaimer, I do believe God reveals His word to men through study, but it's a sad thing when the American mindset toward scholarship is somewhat lazy, and while it might seem clever to work through the text of the Torah (in English or in Hebrew) and come up with unique doctrines that hinge upon clever turns of phrase, and claim it all comes from “revelation and diligent devoted study”, what this mindset does, in fact, is attempt to ignore centuries (or millennia in the case of the Torah) of research and debate, and use ones interpretation of the text at hand as authoritative.

Finally, let me close with a bit of background information about me. I think we mentioned, in the course of the discussion, I was a UPC member for many years. On the bad side, I saw many instances of sincere people who were being led about by leaders who were well-schooled in their shared understanding of certain passages of scripture, and I would say, on the whole, the entire group is honest in saying they absolutely believe their positions. However, it’s unfortunate, due to the condition of American scholarship as I just lamented, they not only refuse to look at other evidence which might be contrary to their position, but in their pride and egotism, (which I also attribute to being American, incidentally) they refuse to accept that any evidence which contradicts their belief might be valid.

Let me close by giving credit to a couple of sources which have greatly impacted my thinking – I give you great credit for your willing attitude to obey the truth as you perceive it – it’s easy for me to recognize this attitude because of my years of military service. In the Army, “my way or the highway” just wasn’t an option, it was the Army’s way period. We should approach God’s commandments in the same fashion, and your evident grasp of this reality gives me great pause – I’m very challenged to be more observant having seen your evident devotion to God.

Let me thank my wife who has been the source of energy for some of my greatest strides in learning and understanding for the past 17 years. Until she persuaded me to return to college, I had not heard of 90% of the issues I’m raising for your perusal here Further until she encouraged our oldest son to study debate I was woefully ignorant of the whole discipline of logic, which is, I believe indispensable as a foundation to any type of textual criticism.

One of my wife’s maxims has always been the words from Proverbs (which, for her at least, take the form of a commandment) “Buy the truth and sell it not”; or, to take a quote from a more modern Jew, “The pursuit of truth is more important than its assured possession” (Einstein). Our lives have taught us to be people who ask questions, and aren’t afraid to challenge assumptions. While you perceive her tone as argumentative, let me assure you, she is obeying the central thing God has revealed to her, and, by your own admission I’m afraid, often you are setting yourself up as the final authority to assure the validity of your statements. When you consider that your doctrine, via your webpage, puts you in the position of teaching others, I believe you’ll find the honest reader will question you, and will press you to assure them of every point. If you presume to teach, you should be grateful that readers and students take such intense interest in your work, and remember that a critical review of your thoughts isn’t a criticism of the writer personally!

Okay, so there you have it, my prayer is that I’ve been helpful, and it was certainly my intention to be charitable, it wasn’t my aim to be so verbose, but unfortunately that’s the nature of the beast with me…

La’Hitraot!

Ma'am's husband

Ma'am's husband,

Peace be upon you and your family.

I don't mind at all the drilling, or the inquisitive questioning. In fact, I welcome it. Not to sound egotistical, but if the Lord is with me, really with me, not a doctrine or belief shall contradict (of mine, that is). Therefore, I shall be more than glad to answer all of your questions, and give you insight.

You have to tell me this about yourself, so that I will know if I am judging you correctly. When I read your words I see a basic lackadaisical attitude. This might stem from just believing in Jesus and that is about it, regardless of truth, culture, history, what a prophet is, what the messiah is, and the like. For when I read your words, "I believe that even a cursory examination reveals all 4 writers (regardless of their actual identities) are relating the same story.............. it doesn’t disturb my understanding." You even gave an example of situations at work or in court. However, this does not apply. What I see is that you are accepting the fundamental truth of Jesus, in which:

1. he came from heaven

2. lived among us

3. was crucified

4. died

5. was resurrected

6. ascended

7 sits at the right hand of God (maybe not for you, I do not know what you personally

believe, for some folks he is the only ONE and there is only one throne)

8. he will come again

So, other than this, details are not necessary for you, just the summary, is this not correct? This is maybe to a point, ofcourse. I say this because I meet people, many people that think they are saved because they "believe" (John 3:16), in this overall summary and are not really concerned about details.

However, even though people might not really care, it does matter. Because in so doing a person either presents the prophet as a sinner, or he can present him as a sinless man. And if someone presents the Moshiach (messiah) as a sinner, that person will not enter into his kingdom, because they are speaking / preaching lies about him, whether deliberately or ignorantly. You just don't call a righteous man a 'sinner.' If that is the case, how much more so the messiah? Elijah and Enoch were great prophets, even though Enoch is not talked about that much. They entered into the presence of HaShem, yet they did sin in their lifetime, but they were not sinners (there is a huge difference between a sinner and one that sins accidentally). Yet, this particular prophet that was to come on the scene was prophesied that he will not even transgress a single time. For, not only did he have to obey all the written text, as all must do, but he, like Jonah, had to obey all the oral commandments that the Lord gave him without fail. Those personal commandments were many. For he had to be at the right place at the right time in order to fulfill HaShem's prophecies about him, to prove HaShem does not lie. Thus, he trembled before HaShem all the days of his life.

Moving on to these five things you list:

It is understandable to catch a typo. It is also easy to catch a misplaced word, or an inaccurately stated word by the context in which it is found, or even better, by the story in which it is being told. In your example, of all the different meanings of "commerce clause" this is frankly meaningless with the context. Why? because it is referring to a recorder's "typo". However, when we are looking at the gospels and what is being said in the four gospels, and comparing them with each other, we are not dealing with typos. We are dealing with "testimony", (as in a court of law, as when a crime took place), about which day an event took place. For, there are three testimonies or gospels that testify that Jesus ate the Passover, and his disciples got things ready, or got things "prepared" on "Preparation Day", which was the 14th, and ate the Passover as commanded on the 15th night, right after the sunset of the 14th day. Yet, someone else's testimony, John's, declares he did not eat the Passover at all, but only a regular meal. John's testimony also declares that Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, before the beginning of the special sabbath/passover meal night/1st day of Unleavened Bread. Thus, these three testimonies are a far cry from a simple typo which you could simply write off. Rather the fact is, that the three testimonies testify that a sinner broke and ate leavened bread during the feast of Unleavened bread, thus preaching a false Jesus. Thus, also proving that "Matthew, Mark and Luke" were not Jewish, nor apostles, because they would have caught their discrepancy, if it was simply a typo. Rather, they were Gentiles that did not follow the law, thus most likely followers of Paul. For if you believe in Paul, then the law is done away with, and thus, you are saved by "grace" and not by works of the Law, so why study the law if you do not need to observe it? So, we see who follows who when it comes to every church, even if the spirit of Jesus does dwell in someone, because they believe in the 'summary' of what I mentioned above. Yet, even those that have the spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of the Ancient of Days in them will be thrown into hell, because they never do what the God of Israel and the messiah have commanded.

I hope I am not rambling here.

Moving on to one thing that you said:

"Bear in mind that Greek in general doesn’t have the expansive vocabulary we’re used to especially in the English language. You can find a simple proof of this proposition in the Strong’s, simply by comparing the number of Greek entries to the number of Hebrew entries. In practice, this means that the Jewish writer (if the New Testament autographs were, indeed, in Greek originally) often had to struggle to express a Hebrew thought using a limited Greek vocabulary. "

Actually, the Greek is pretty extensive, especially when compared to English, but who cares about English right now? Let me say this though, the reason there are fewer Greek entries in the Strong's is: first, the lack of books and especially chapters when compared to all the chapters of the so called "O.T." Secondly, when someone writes a story he does not deliberately try to mention every word found in the dictionary, so that argument is not really valid, actually. The "N.T." is also filled with repetitious words over and over again, as well as the Tanach, yet because there are fewer actual words (not repetitive) in the NT when compared to all the words of the Tanach, it is just common sense that the one with the more actual words probably has the more entries. Comparing two books, one book has 30,000 actual words equaling around 8,000 repetitious words or one time usage, whereas the other book has only 15,000 words. Which is more likely to have more entries, if it is not a dictionary itself? The fatter book is. Sorry for the rambling.

Like I said, you have to tell me, what it at least seems to me that you are doing is accepting a mere summary of things of Jesus, which is obviously fine. However, this will not help you when trying to prove Jesus is the Messiah by using false testimony about him. You must approach the name (realize I am just saying,' name' here, not he himself) of Jesus with fear, because fire awaits for those that call the God of Israel's son a sinner and liar or hypocrite, even if accidentally. Better not to preach at all, than to say something false, if not sure about it. I am sure however, and I know what I am talking about. All of my words are in context. I am not having an ego problem here, just being bold about the truth, and not afraid of any cost.

Thus, when we approach Jesus we must have fear and always present him as a torah- observant Jew that was greater than the prophets before him. He also never sinned, not even once, and drew people or others to the walk and yoke of Judaism, not traditions of men.

Preachers do not preach Jesus, the man of Judaism. They teach a false messiah that came to do away with the law, even though he says otherwise throughout all four gospels, regardless of their discrepancies, as well as in Revelation. They do not preach that Jesus taught a theocracy and one day he will be the King and Priest of that theocracy. Not like the theocracies one might see in Iran or other places however, nor in history under the 'Holy Roman Empire,' where they were/are separate. No, they simply teach love your neighbor only - believe in Jesus or this 'summary' I mentioned, apart from the law, ofcourse, and you shall be saved. Taking way out of context John 3:16 that says: "HaShem so longed for the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should be saved."

1. "love" should not be there, because He only loves those that obey Him, thus "longed for"

should be there, or something within those lines, such as 'cared for,' 'desired,' 'streched

out His compassion for.'

2. "Believe" does not simply mean, "I believe in you, because of who you are." Rather,

"believe" here means "those that so believe in what I say, and so act upon it shall be saved,

for in so doing you accept that 'I,' Jesus, am the 'promised one' and all that comes forth

from my lips is trust worthy, and those that do what I say, thus "believing" in me, shall be saved."

As far as theocracy goes, "you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Thus, 'forever,' means forever, and 'priest' obviously means that he is not the God of Israel, but rather he is serving the God of Israel.

These vile and evil preachers teach you need to obey the laws of the land, versus what Jesus said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.....Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," not what other governors, kings and rulers command you. For this is the reason why the prophets before Jesus, and counting John the baptist, Jesus and the 11 apostles were either murdered or persecuted. For they taught that you must obey heaven, not any man, whether being king, prince, ruler, president, governor, nor even husband or parent.

The saint must always remember, we will be judged by the law he gave long ago, thus those that deny Jesus, those that are cowards in speaking up about him, and those that do not obey the word of him outright, or his prophets that speak in his name by signs and wonders, shall be condemned. With no pity.

Again, Jesus says outright, "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom (better: 'his presence', because wicked people do not enter the kingdom) all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." (Matt 13:41) Thus, if one only knows a little part of the law, he obviously does not know all of the commandments. If someone therefore does not know the commandments, then chances are he is breaking them.

I tell people this when telling them about the law and observing it:

If someone is sitting on their couch all day, alone and no one is in the house with them, then it is obviously clear that they are fulfilling a great amount of commandments, just by sitting there. Even though that might just be by reason of inactiveness versus how his heart is, or what his attitude is because he is not mudering anyone, even though he might want to. He is not robbing anyone, even though he wants to. He is not commiting fornication, adultery, bestiality or homosexual sodomy, even though he might want to. He is not committing arson..... nor, breaking sabbath, because it is only midweek, even though he has planned to go fishing, or to go to work on that day. He is not breaking Passover, because it is summer. He does not mar the edges of his beard, because he is a hard biker with a beard already. Thus, you see my point. I hope you see it also on all fronts and not just on one of them. Meaning, the law is not hard to obey, as Jews know, because many of the commmands are obeyed just by sitting there, or by what season it is, or by what day it is. But nonetheless, the man is a sinner, because he has not the desire to keep them, even though at the time he is not breaking them. Yet because he loves darkness, when it comes to actual events and situations he chooses what will suit him, versus what his Maker wants. Thus, it is easy to see if one changes their attitude in their heart, to obey those commandments, they are practically already doing them. Doing them not because of fear of going to hell, if that is the case, they shall still go to hell, because they are not quite righteous. Because a righteous man does not 'act' holy because of what might occur to him on the day of judgment. Rather, a righteous man is actually holy, because that is how he wants to be. Being fair, just, honest in business, dreading even the mere thought of backbiting his neighbor or harming his neighbor and.... Those people ally themselves with the God of Heaven, because He is the same way, thus they are considered His friends, as Abraham was and is, even though he sleeps in the ground at this time. Thus, if the sinner by merely sitting down on the couch cannot transgress a fat quantity of the law, it is just as easy for the righteous man to keep it. This is talking about a great amount of commandments, not all of them.

Moreover, on the other hand, many other commandments must be kept by action, versus. non-action such as arson, rape, murder, theft, and idol-making. Like, you cannot keep Passover unless, the Temple was here, but if it were you would have to go to Jerusalem every year and do all the commandments or precepts that are in regards to it. But as mentioned, this is only a one time deal per year, not a every day deal as others. Here are some more: Putting your hair up, having tassels on the corners of your clothes, speaking of the commandments while walking and sitting and when you rise up after resting and lay down to rest, if you have relations with your wife and seed is produced, you must wash before sundown. If someone is guilty of a capital offense you must either burn them or stone them. You must give 10% of all crops to the Lord as well as income, as well as livestock And so on...

So, this is where I can see a dividing line with people when bombarding them with so much truth at once. They are readily willing to accept those commandments they do not transgress by reason of 'doing nothing', thus, all they do is accept those things in their heart, versus those commandments they have to fulfill by action. Salvation is not free, as pagan and wicked preachers teach. Jesus, the 11 apostles and the prophets NEVER taught salvation is free. Rather, it is only OBTAINED by a righteous and real' holy' life. Therefore, as we see with the stories in the Torah, few are always saved, because people would rather not go out of their way to serve the God of Heaven, versus keeping the things a majority of people won't do anyways. Like the things I mentioned. I will say it again, but I will erase fornication from the list: kidnapping, murder, theft vs maybe petty theft, adultery, rape, bestiality, arson, lying in a court vs. to one another, and similar hard crimes. But they are apt to do things on shabath and other holy days, fornicate or have girl friends, even at an earlier age, learning the mythologies of other cultures, have a garden of various plants of the same family, like white corn and yellow corn or roma tomatoes and beefsteak tomatoes (which is sinful, because they can cross breed - Lev 19:18), they watch sports and play them, watch movies, wear all manners of clothes, go to the beach wearing a bikini or if in France, not even a top. They don't care about seeing their wife naked during the seven days of her uncleanness, or however long that might be. They don't mind going to a doctor, because they trust man more than God and think man is wiser than God (even though they do not realise their blindness, partial blindness, sickness, AIDS, SARS, flu, fever, rashes, cancers, sudden death, being victims of robbery, etc.... exists, or occurs, because they do not follow the commands.) For how readily would HE heal and protect people if they would just turn their hearts toward Him, and keep His commandments. But because they do not follow His ways which He told through His many prophets, He is simply fulfilling what He said He would do in Deut 7 & 28 for those that transgress His covenant which He gave to the 'native and the alien alike.' Regardless of location and era or time.

Thus it is as I say, "If there is just one God, He has only one law", not: the pact at Sinai is for the Jews and 'grace' is for non-Jews.

For the grand evil what Paul does, apart from all his other evils, he simply states that the law points out what sin is, which is true, and that is where he leaves it. What he fails to say however, is the real truth, which is: the law or the commandments and statutes point out what holiness and righteousness is, and those that keep these requirements are free from sin. Thus meaning, they have no sin, because they are doing what is asked of them. Furthermore, if that is the case, then the God of Heaven cannot bring up an accusation against and so cannot condemn them, because they are righteous. Got it!!!

Let me move on for a second.

People will say things to me on the lines of: You know Thomas, what you say goes against the sayings, teaching and writings of scholars that been around for centuries as well as the teachings of the Church, or Christianity as a whole that has been around for ages.

To that I say: maybe so, but they are all pagans and ill-informed. Look, how far back does the Trininity doctrine go? Does it not go back before the Nicene Council of 325 in order to have a council about it? Yet, it is false. Look, how far back 'grace' has been around, even during the time of the apostles. Look at the other doctrines that have come and that have apparently faded away, like the reference to the "doctrine of the Nicolatians" in Revelation. What about things that go even further back than that, further than the birth of Jesus? Where the Jews interprete the word, "Elohim" as a singlar word, versus the plural word it is. "Christianity" is full of wickedness, if fact, almost every doctrine that is preached today, does not inline with the Torah, nor the word the Lord gave through the Prophets.

Being:

1. Who and what is the Messiah and what does he do?

2. The doctrine of death (in the grave or with the Lord - or in Hell)

3. Monotheism or Trinitarianism

4. Obedience vs. grace

5. The resurrection and things regarding hell

6. The rapture, pre-trib or post trib

7. Are the commandments merely pointing to sin, or do they really point to the Character of

the God of Israel? and those that obey them transform their moods, attitudes and character

to the way the Lord wants them to be, which is to be in His likeness.

8. Righteous people enter and spend eternity in heaven vs. the meek inherit the earth.

9. and.......

Thus, almost every aspect of all the churches out there are false or shall decieve you.

But if you go to a synagogue, only a few things might be in error.

1. They believe correctly the monotheism doctrine.

2. They do not know that much about the messiah regarding pre-birth, but they do post birth

3. Some sects teach the truth about the doctrine of death, where others say that you are in

heaven when you die. Likewise, many don't believe in hell, yet some do.

4. The Resurrection takes place at the end of the age.

5. Much of the Torah is eternal while other things will last till the day of judgment, which is

true. But none of it is ever done away with in this age, unless a prophet gives a sign and

says this particular commandment is either transferred to something else or simply

changed, like the tabernacle to the Temple, or an altar of stone to the altar in the Temple.

Or, the allowance of marrying your sister to not allowing it (in that case the allowance was

no longer permitted, not that a commandment was done away with).

On a footnote: we even see this when Jesus says, call no man: fool, father, rabbi, teacher or master. Or again, when Jesus says, let your "Yes," be, "Yes," regarding "You have heard that it was said, "Make your oaths (or swear) to the Lord," but I say....." Thus, when he does so he is simply changing commandment number 3 in the 10 commandments, "Do not use the name of the Lord your God in vain." Even though we see Jesus outright doing way with this commandment, he replaces it with "just be honest," because one should not have to swear in order to give their word, or to be honest. This is the underlying tone of commandment #3, "honesty." Pagans think this is referring to blasphemy or cussing, this is not the case. It is referring to taking an oath and then not fulfilling it, thus using His name in a vain manner.

So-called Christians need a wise man, prophet or someone that has been trained under them to explain the truth to them.

The fact is, one cannot even know Jesus if he does not understand the law, because every action, thought and word of a righteous man is based within the bounds of the Torah. So, if a non-torah observant person reads what Jesus says, he can come up with something totally different from what Jesus intended or said. I can give several examples here, even in the 'gospel' of 'Mark,' the Gentile where he even inserts his pagan interpretation of Jesus' holy words in his writings.

Let me paraphrase using Matthew 15 and Mark 7, when Jesus came from the market place and his diciples sat down to eat, they did not wash their hands. At that, the pharisees that did follow him because he was a righteous man, were apt to point out what they considered a sin, because of what they had been taught. At that Jesus says, "it is not what goes into the mouth that makes a man unclean, but what comes out of it." Yet Mark, because he is a Gentile and does not understand Jesus and in obviously a follower of Paul, puts his 2 cents of interpretation right in the text. He does so by saying, "by this all meats are now purged (paraphrase)." However, this is not in the context of a torah bound man. Jesus is only referring to dirt, he is not saying that you are now allowed to eat:

1. Blood

2. Fat

3. Food sacrificed to idols

4. Unkosher meats.

5. A kosher animal found dead or torn by a wild beast

6. Nor is he allowing smoking here.

This is the context of his words and life. Thus, being within the bounds of the Torah he is saying, even though you might wash your hands and don't want to swallow dirt and whatever else, things do not defile you, what defiles you is what is treasured within you, that is in your heart. For out of the heart springs up every word a man speaks and deed a man may do, thus if that tree does not produce good fruit, that tree is cut down and thrown into the fire.

With the Peace of the Moshiach

Thomas