Galations- what's wrong here?

[alon]

Galatians is possibly one of the most mistranslated, misinterpreted and misunderstood books in the Bible. No other text has been so tampered with and changed. It was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek, as was the rest of the Kethuvei Shelachim. Most Christian leaders assume it was written in Greek because they assume it was to Gentiles; because it was written to Galatia, in central Turkey. There were however many Jewish families and several synagogues in this region. Paul did not have to write in Greek. He and his audience would have spoken and preferred Hebrew.

The “church” assumes all letters were written to everyone, including the "church" and nonbelieving gentiles. This is not so. It was to the leaders in the synagogues. Letters were always to the leadership, never to the assembly. And they certainly would not have been passed to the community at large. They were encyclicals- letters that were sent from synagogue to synagogue, read by the leadership, and then passed on. The word ecclesia is always interpreted “church” in Bible translations. However in use it could more often refer to any group of leaders, secular or religious.

Gal 1:11 “Furthermore, let me make clear to you, brothers, …” How could Paul call them “brothers” if he letter was to the whole congregation, some of whom were falling into idolatry? He calls them “brothers” because he was writing only to the leadership.

Mercian (85-161 CE) wrote of copies of Pauline letters that had been altered by others. He also made his own false, tampered with letters. Mercian’s copies are older than any others we have today. He was one of the “church fathers” responsible for the canonization of the New Testament, so it is likely that what we now have in cannon is one of his redactions.

The best way to know what is OK and what is a redaction is to match it to . If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with , then it is false. The truth is still there, we just should not take what we read as it sounds, or especially not take someone’s word for what it says.

Dan C

[Frank T. Clark]

Feb 22, 2014 5:58:46 GMT -8 alon said:

Galatians is possibly one of the most mistranslated, misinterpreted and misunderstood books in the Bible...

The best way to know what is OK and what is a redaction is to match it to . If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with , then it is false. The truth is still there, we just should not take what we read as it sounds, or especially not take someone’s word for what it says.

Dan C

Absolute agreement! God says "I change not"! So many people think our Savior and His disciples changed something. Never! The titles Old and New Testament are misleading. I often say the Original Testament and the Renewed Testament. One faith, one truth, one covenant.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

[Deleted]

I am really confused now.

[Deleted]

Should we throw out the word of God because it has mistranslations or man's tampering? Just venting.

Moriah Ruth

[alon]

Feb 22, 2014 18:16:25 GMT -8 @moriahruth7 said:

Should we throw out the word of God because it has mistranslations or man's tampering? Just venting.

Moriah Ruth

No ... I think we covered this in another thread already. The truth is there- it just isn't always as neat and tidy as we'd like.

To the Hebrew mind, and I think even to Jews today, scriptures were not these absolute truths set down by God alone and canonized by some assembly. I was at first really taken back when I started studying the notes in my TNK! They point up every discrepancy, every place where it looks like someone other than the original author added something ... often to the point they forget about the role of HaShem working through His prophets and say that there must be more than one writer because something happened after the death of the first, so he couldn't have possibly known this! They tend to approach the TNK in a scholarly, almost clinical manner. To them it's like these are just religious documents from which we can take life lessons. It is one reason I believe they have the Oral Tradition as well.

To be sure, their leadership in the various sects agreed that some were true, others false- and of course they disagreed on many more.

We Gentiles don't like this line of reasoning. We want a list- a cannon; and we want to repeat that the King James Version of the Bible is the only true and accurate and infallible word of God until we believe it! And don't show me anything that disagrees or we'll both be going to HELL!!! I know ... I been there.

Problem is, God didn't tell us everything. He put some things in that didn't quite line up just, so far as I can figure, so we'd actually have to think when we read. And yes, men have always either felt that The Almighty needed our help, or felt the need to explain that which we don't ourselves understand; or all too often just wanted to present what we thought "religion" should be. So we've corrupted that which the prophets and the talmidim left to us.

But no matter, God's Word is still powerful, and the truth is there! We just have to believe this and be willing to dig it out. We have to get over this "every word is true and inspired" nonsense and work at understanding what is really said.

2Ti 2:15 KJV "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

God's Word is true, and the fact that so many have tried to destroy or change it and all failed- the fact the evidence of this is right in front of us, yet the truth is only brighter when we dig it out of what is there- these are all evidences of the magnificence and glory of an all powerful and sovereign God!

Dan C

[Questor]

In Galatians, and other places in the Apostolic Scriptures, there has been much tampering...by the "Christian Father's" that took over the leadership from the Jewish run synagogues in 201 CE, and then molded and changed whatever they thought was convenient. Unlike the Hebraic Scriptures, which were able to be kept carefully for generations, as they were given by the Ruach through men, the New Testament writings about Yeshua, and about , and about how they went together were altered, mis-translated, and indeed twisted to suit Greek Philosophy which was not anything like what is taught in the Tanakh.

Well before Constantine there was another whole belief system that nullified the through Paul's writings, although, if all Paul's writings are read as if they were to practicing Orthodox Jews, it was plain to see that they were not to be read without the Hebraic Scriptures as the context.

YHVH's commandments are not able to be ignored by any Believer, but the Greco-Roman Church that rose after Jews began to be persecuted by Greco-Romans, and Christians were forbidden to partake of the whole of the sacred writings simply tossed out what was Jewish. That meant the Sabbath, the Feasts, and yes, the ritual laws that are kept even in the absence of the temple to honor YHVH were lied about by the newly Greco-Roman CHurch, and fully seperated from the Jews.

Unfortunately, with the Jews kicking out the Gentiles that tried to stay in the 1st Century Nazarene Synagogues, it created the rift between all Believers in Yeshua.

The non-Believing Jews mostly still are kicking out Believers in Yeshua, even if they are Observant, simply because we believe that Yeshua is sent from YHVH. 

What we call the New Testament never had a chance to be truly codified and referenced in accordance with the Tanakh...there was never sufficient time to straighten out the errors that crept into the various Apostolic letters...particularly when some things were done on purpose to create a full separation from Observance.

So, here we are, 1950 years later trying to re-attach the Apostolic Scriptures to the Hebraic ones, so that the whole of obedience to YHVH can be taught, along with the Salvation we have in Yeshua.

Once saved, we are to obey to show our love for YHVH, if the Commandments in the apply to us in the here and now.

Mostly, the only thing that we need to do, is to try to come up to the standard of the walk of Yeshua. He kept the Law, and so should we to the utmost of our ability.  But He also loved and had compassion on His followers, and we are supposed to do the same.

Yeshua is the image of what we are all striving to be, and what we need to come up higher in our walk to achieve.

[jimmie]

Feb 22, 2014 5:58:46 GMT -8 alon said:

The “church” assumes all letters were written to everyone, including the "church" and nonbelieving gentiles. This is not so. It was to the leaders in the synagogues. Letters were always to the leadership, never to the assembly. And they certainly would not have been passed to the community at large.
Gal 1:11 “Furthermore, let me make clear to you, brothers, …” How could Paul call them “brothers” if he letter was to the whole congregation, some of whom were falling into idolatry? He calls them “brothers” because he was writing only to the leadership.

Mercian (85-161 CE) wrote of copies of Pauline letters that had been altered by others. He also made his own false, tampered with letters. Mercian’s copies are older than any others we have today. He was one of the “church fathers” responsible for the canonization of the New Testament, so it is likely that what we now have in cannon is one of his redactions.

Dan C

What I get from your statements is that Paul was in league with people like Mercian. Mercian was a church leader thus one that Paul would have sent his letters to and addressed as brother.

If we say that the letters were only for the "leaders", why can't the Jew's say that God's Laws are only for them and not the gentile?

[alon]

Feb 24, 2014 6:36:35 GMT -8 jimmie said:

What I get from your statements is that Paul was in league with people like Mercian. Mercian was a church leader thus one that Paul would have sent his letters to and addressed as brother.

If we say that the letters were only for the "leaders", why can't the Jew's say that God's Laws are only for them and not the gentile?

How can you possibly get from my statements that Paul was in league with someone who rewrote his letters, lied about what he said, and was in no way even linked to the Jewish or Natzarim faiths? He was even disowned by the young pagan "Christian" faith in the end. Paul's letters were in no way addressed to Mercian, or any of the other pagans who became our "church fathers," building their new religion by rewriting their "New" Greek legal document, formerly the letters of the apostles of Yeshua.

Let me say that plainly- the early (and later) church fathers were entirely pagan, in no way followers of the Christ whose name they took. Liars and thieves (and in most cases murderers), they were no better than Muhammad. This includes Mercian.

As to the question of the Laws being only for the Jews, gentile converts were supposed to learn obedience to the Law gradually, as explained by Paul in Acts 15:21. So over time, they were becoming like the Jewish stock onto which they were grafted upon accepting Yeshua.

Dan C

[Deleted]

I believe what Jimmie was trying to say is that you were stating in your previous posts that Paul only wrote the letters to the LEADERS only and not to the whole believing body of believers which would be the believing Galation church.

"To the churches of Galatia:" Galations 1:2

Paul didn't state anywhere that he was speaking to just the LEADERS of the churches of Galatia. In all of his letters to any of the churches he stated TO THE CHURCHES, not to the leaders of the church.

Paul was including everyone that was a believer in the body of Yeshua. A body of believers makes up the church of Christ or in this sense the congregation of Yeshua.

Besides, why would Paul want to segregate just the Leaders of the churches and not the rest of the believers?

This was the impression that I got from your post with regards to that.

Moriah Ruth

[alon]

Because that was historically the way it was done.

Because it was the responsibility of the leadership to instruct the lay people.

Because if you think about it, had the letters been sent to the whole congregation, it never would have made it out of the 1st synagogue- it'd take too much time, and never survive the process.

Believe the above or not, as you wish; however your interpretation of Jimmie's post was way off the mark.

Jimmie was saying I equated pagan, idolatrous leadership such as Mercian to the Jewish leadership of the synagogues. I said no such thing, and I think that was very clear in my posts. Mercian was a leader in the synagogue of ha satan, NOT in the Jewish/Natzarim synagogues of the day.

Dan C

edit: see 1st post in theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3384/out-wrong-thread

[Deleted]

Alon,

Jimmie's quote, "If we say that the letters were only for the "leaders", why can't the Jew's say that God's Laws are only for them and not the gentile?"

This statement is what I was zoning in on. And even when I read your post that Paul only wrote to the Leaders of the churches, this was my thought also. I don't believe that I misunderstood him. The key word used is ONLY. This is what I understand and understood what Jimmie was trying to point out.

As for the pagan. I get that, no issue there.

You also need to realize that most believers at the time of Paul were kicked out of the synagogue. They met in homes and other places.

You state that in history, letters were always given to the Leaders of the synagogue, which I have no issue with.

It may have been a possibility that the letters were given directly to the leaders, however Paul never addressed the letters to just the Leaders. He addressed them to the Churches or congregations. This was my point.

I still love ya though Alon.

Moriah Ruth

[jimmie]

It wouldn't take much longer to read a letter from Paul as it would to listen to him present a sermon. Sure Paul sent the letter to a trusted Elder who would then present it to the church/people. The way I understood your post was that Paul sent the letters to the leaders only setting up some kind of Gnostic hierarchy.

[Deleted]

Gnostic hierarchy?

Why this thought?

[jimmie]

If Paul's intent was that only the "leaders" see his letters, then the truths in the letters would be hidden truth only to be gained from the leaders. A gnostic method of control of the masses.

[alon]

It wasn't hidden, it was explained by the leadership, just as everything was at the time. Remember, they read from scrolls in Shabbat services. We tend to think like everyone had their own scroll, just as we have our own Bibles. But scrolls were expensive, relatively fragile, and not available in any quantity. So pretty much everything was explained by the leadership anyways. These letters were just as fragile, and just as rare.

Gnosticism came out of the Greek mythological system. It had no place in the synagogues of either the Jews or the Natzari, other than that this and other pagan beliefs were trying with some success to infiltrate both. This is why Paul could not call the entire body of believers "brothers."

In order to understand what is being said, we have to put ourselves as much as possible into the history and mindset of those involved. Rav Sha'ul, or Paul, was a 1st cen Jew. So was his intended audience. The believers under their care might range from elderly Jews raised with the Word to new Gentile converts, totally ignorant of all but one thing- Yeshua was and is HaMoshiach, and He died and rose on the third day that they might be reconciled to a Holy God. They would have tailored what, how much and how they revealed what was in the TNK as well as the Kethuvai Shelachim (Apostolic Letters) to whoever they were speaking to.

There was no secret hierarchy, gnostic or otherwise in the synagogues. We must understand that the early "church" as it was emerging had nothing to do with Judaism in any form, even Jewish believers. They hated Judaism. And they did have secret hierarchies. Part of their design in tampering with the letters was to remove any "taint" of Judaism from their new religion. They were laying the foundation for their spiritual progeny to burn synagogues and murder those Jews and Natzarim who did not convert.

We should not confuse the "early church" with believers who still followed Yeshua's example as a observant Jew. And just because they were in leadership in a religious organization which claimed the name of the Christ doesn't mean the letters were addressed to or given to them initially.

Saying these letters were for everyone is like the argument so often leveled that not all writings are in the Bible. Of course they aren't! And of course the letters were not meant for nor distributed to everyone.

Dan C

edit: see 1st post in theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3384/out-wrong-thread