Camp Fire

I Will be with you,
Until you leave me.

Right or Wrong,
You ain't got whats gone.

Who's gonna tell you what to see?
What it could have been
and what it came to be.

In the wind
alone with HaShem

- Gad
https://youtu.be/p53pDNodxHE

Resume

William Derrick Hindsman
126 Lake William Dr.
Cataula, Ga. 31804

Objective: I am seeking a position where I can obtain on the job training and utilize my past experience and education to develope a long term career. I am hardworkingand motivated by professional and personal growth, results driven, always striving to achive set goals ass effectively and efficiently as possible by continuously searching for ways to improve processes and performance.
Work Experience:
* Willie D's (Self Employed) Purchase & resale of Merchandise/ setting up locations, Keeping locations clean, safe and presentable/ Keeping books... 2007-2014 /126 Lake William Dr. Cataula, Ga. 31804 (706) 662-2883
* Miscellaneous Jobs: Landscaping, painting / 2007-2014
* DJI Builders (Don Jones) 2005 (constuction :demolition and rebuilding army barracks, cleaning)
* Sabarro's Pizza (2004) Peachtree Mall (Columbus Ga.) / Assistant Manager, Cook, register, food preparation, close and open...
* Fox's Pizza Den / Cataula, Ga. (delivery) 2001-2002
* Landscaper / Gardener (for realtor Richard Edge) 2001 (labor) 2000 Smith Rd. Fortson, Ga. 31808
* Triple 'S' Asphalt (2000) Lee County, Alabama (David Sorrells) / labor

Rabbi?

Followers of the "English Aramaic New Testament" are by their own authority > claiming < that Matt.23:8 doesn't say "Rabbi" (Be not called Rabbi). Can we trust these "Aramaic Roots" movement claims?

The "English Aramaic New Testament" Is a Modern bible version and the article claims the following: "But I want to look at the verse with you in Matthew 23 which reads (in the original Aramaic)" (Matt.23:6-11).... Then it gives its translation as:

"But you should not be called ‘My Great One’ for there is only one Who is Great and you are all brothers. "...

The article goes on to say: "it is properly translated in the Aramaic English New Testament from the original manuscripts of the New Testament."

We don't have an "Aramaic Manuscript" of Matthew or the "New Testament" we do have the Peshitta which is a translation To the Syriac From The Greek and the so called Aramaic scholars of the "English Aramaic NT" basically just used their own authority and their biased view of "scholarly works" to compile their texts (source).Claiming that an Aramaic scholar can know what proper words these texts Would Have been relative to the Aramaic. (Feel free to correct me and give a "Aramaic Manuscript" and not a later source that has no real foundation).

None of the earliest texts of this verse support the claim made here. There are two separate words used in the Greek here but the first is to say "rabbi" as in "call no man rabbi" (in The Greak Manuscripts (earliest copies) and Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew! We can't make attempts to change it by creating our own texts but if its gonna be taken seriously better support needs to be given rather than just telling people this is the proper text "bases on manuscripts" (WHAT MANUSCRIPTS?). The claims of the "Khaboris Codex" is that its a medieval (5th - 15 century) text. What is the exact date? What studies have been done on it? Most of those making claims and studies of this source are supporters of the New Aramaic New Testament Bible so I tend to think they are biased. Where are scientific studies of the date of this texts? The claim is that this is a "Medieval" text (of course claims I by those people who push and use this source/ claims I have yet to even see supported but lets act like they have said this much in truth without demanding them to document it) which conclude it at a later date (500-1500 AD)! The Book of Mathew was "said" to be originally written around 60-65 AD!

The Earliest texts we have of this book are Greek (no denying that)! Thus to show an Aramaic source ("purchased from a Kurdish monastery") that came long after that as being a trust worthy "original text" rather than a (LATER) translation just isn't trust worthy without Evidence (Especially when it has a different context). Example the Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the earliest Complete copy of the New Testament) was hand written in the middle of the fourth century (Codex Vaticanus another nearly complete manuscript dates to the same time period & there are many other Earlier fragments of manuscripts / None of which are Aramaic)... So I think the foundation of the claims is misleading to begin with. Many DO consider Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew to be a Hebrew manuscript of Matt. and it says Do not desire to be called רבנים (Rabanim/ plural sense of Rabbi)...

I would have to get get past this before considering this article any further (be cautious who does your "translating". Looking forward to a response.

(רבי / H#4461 rhabbi -Resh Bet Yod/ רב H#7230 rob/ רב rab H#7227)

.......... The "Complete Jewish Bible" makes an attempt as well. (KJV) Jn.13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." ... You see here the KJV uses a Different word than that used in Matt.23:8 for Good reason it is a different Word here in the Greek Manuscripts!  (Jn.13:13 / Greek #1320 Master, instructor, doctor, teacher....) (Matt.23:8 G#4461/ my master, title of honor, rabbi) KJV Matt.23:8 " But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."....

“You call me ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Lord (G#2962),’ and you are right, because I am.”  – (John 13:13) Yahshua’s words ("Complete Jewish Bible" – Translation by David H. Stern)... This verse doesnt contradict Matt 23 in any way! Notice how this source uses the same word in both verse when its two different terms in the manuscripts. I think you can see how these people are Playing word Games and why.These people that Love to be called rabbi are attacking the Word cause they love their social positions of power and they do the very things that Messiah condemned false shepherds of doing many times. Matt 23:8  (C.J. Bible)  "But as for you do not desire to be called Rabbi: For one is your Rabbi, even the Moshiach; and all you are Yisraelite brothers. (the Word "Yisraelite" isn't even present in the verse)

KJV Matt.23:4-7 

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

I don't expect to agree with anyone on all things all the time (where two or more agree in truth there he is in the midst of us)  nor do I think that any two people are always at the same stage of their walk. With that being said I do know that G-d uses others as instruments of truth and edification in our lives. I personally acknowledge a number of people I consider as Elders, or sages. But I know no one has it all figured out. We all have room to grow in Faith and I only look to GOD for my completeness! Everything works to the good for them that Love the LORD. A truth seeker can learn even from an enemy. On our paths we will choose weather we trust GOD or put confidence in man. I also find bards (or a Azmari, minstrel, skald, scop, rhapsode, udgator, griot, ashik) to be useful for carrying on history and culture (tribal identity), Christ himself taught in parables!

.......................

I am a bit concerned about the growing support for this NEW source. I listened to a portion of a speech by one: "Andrew Gabriel Roth" who stated that there were mistranslations in the Greek manuscripts that could have "only" come from mis-translation of aramaic Texts. In this small clip there were No examples given and even through discussion with many who supported the source i was being left without any such example.

* The thing to stay mindful of is that this New bible and those who push it claim to have The Proper translation of a Source (manuscripts) they don't have (that dont exsist) while we do already have accepted greek manuscripts.

updated interests:

____Eunuch?_____

I have been taking note of some claims that have recently come to my attention. And while they seem to show how some mistranslations could have taken place by misunderstanding Aramaic when attempting to translate it this gives no one authority to claim they know better how to rewrite the N.T. without any proper manuscripts.

1) Acts.8:27 And he (Philip) arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, aneunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.

Anyone familure with the Torah and the culture of Israel would know it is forbiden 4 a eunuch to enter the gates of YHVH (Deut.23:1) to do anything including to worship.

Hebrew term for eunuch is saris (#5631) and is basically to mention one with injured stones (male privates) or a castrated one.

However the Aramaic term M'Haymna (M'HAIMNA/ pronounced: mahameanah) Can mean "eunuch" yet can also mean "Believer", "faithful one".

This seems to be the only correct context of the verse! This faithful one went to Jerusalem to worship.

(Matt.19:12?)

__Gamla?__

Matt.19:24/ Mk.10:25/ Lk.18:25

While I have recieved understanding on the verse before hearing the aramaic claims i will share the claims for individuals to do their own research!

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

While many of us clearly understand this verse as saying the rich man must not allow his personal material riches to cause him to stumble rather if his focuss is on The commands of YHVH then the LORD is 1st and also others which would lead the man to use these material riches to please God.

THe same message is repeated elsewhere in the NT making it more problematic that this was a one time mistranslation and to me personally the verse makes GOOD sense with the term camel. Oral Torah uses two simular Habraisims and even the quran (not like its a reliable source) carries the use of a camelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle.

This has been revealed to many with the concept of the needle gate. It is said that before the (Golden/ eastern) gate was sealed (Eze.44:1-3) that within the gate was a smaller gate (door) which would have been used at night and perhaps times of increased defense, this needle gate is recorded within Jewish writtings such as Rashi's commenatry of Eze.44:2 "shall be closed": "Our Rabbis interpreted this verse as referring to the southern wicket, for the gate of the Heichal had a wicket, a small entrance. So we learned in Tractate 

Middoth (4:2): The Great Gate had two wickets, one in the south and one in the north. No one ever entered the one in the south, of which Ezekiel says, “This gate shall be closed.” ...and "comes through it": is described as "in the future" Of this being given (and of course Rashi who didnt know Yeshua as King Messiah would have still insisted on this being future however the gate that once was is no more and will never be again! No one shall enter that gate again and the location now is a bricked up surface (sealed gate) not made to enter. This needle gate would only be big enough for a single file line entrance and a overloaded camel would first have to unload in order to enter.

Anyway will share their claim:

Below is the relevant entry for "Gamla" (root fmg) in the Lexicon Syriacum (Bar-Bahlul, Bishop of the Church of the East, 963 AD)

Translation:

The term Gamla can mean "camel" or "Large/Thick Rope"

Khawla (Aramaic) Khevel (Hebrew).

According to this its harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than a Large Rope to pass through the eye of a needle. I will leave it up to the individual to study the verse for themselves. A rich man's camel having to be unloaded and possibly still would probably have to stoop down to enter in a needle gate seems to relate more to a rich man entering in much more than a big rope and a sowing needle comparision. (please feel free to share on any of these points for i am not a exspert on Aramaic and am but sharing recent claims i have come across)

Matt.19:24-26 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this isimpossible; but with God all things are possible.

(iI was impossible with man, thus tends to be pointing to the literal camel passing through eye of needle.)

Seems to me these Aramaic "scholars" would do better to list the "mistranslations" they find rather then creating a New source (version) that they ask we put side by side with our already supported sources to see if we approve of their "New" translations (bible versions)

Parts of the bible were written in Aramaic in relation to our latest sources (manuscripts). Example: Daniel 2:4b-7:28 I know there are other areas so if anyone else cares to share those that would be nice but to create a whole bible in Aramaic based on how man thinks it would have ("originally") read in the Aramaic is silly and knocks the door down to allow leaven and traditions of man (perversion).

What to think of this? There are claims that the world's oldest Torah scroll found in Italy.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22697098

re to atheist critic

Katrina, who here doesnt read the bible? It helps to read it in context (let the TEXT speak) led of the spirit of truth not a spirit of unbelief. Anyway The bible has laws on how "Slaves" (Employees, Servants) were and werent to be treated so any horror stories about slavery shouldnt be compared to biblical "slavery". http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm The Modern labor force uses many of the same concepts of biblical "slavery". Do you have a job? Some had no other way to provide for themselves other than by their labor and allegiance. The Bible does NOT condone rape (and i challenge you to expose your level of understanding scripture on the subject), as far as genocide goes, Yes there where entire cultures that were destroyed for their continual rebellion against G-d and His will(and we shall all die eventually and answer to him you are NO exception to that no matter what you tell yourself), you can challenge His righteousness and authority at judgement if you wish, Who are you (a creation with limited knowledge and understand) to even say what is good or bad verses the Holy Word? You Totally have NO idea what Torah was saying at Deut 22. I think we have all seen the claim by biblically Illiterate critics that "Torah tells rapists they must marry their victims or victims their rapists" GET REAL..... Here is the verse they pervert out of its conText.............. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."............................ It's an ignorant view of Deut.22 (:28- 29). It never said they must marry. It is best FOR him if they marry but it ********NEVER**** said she/he must. IF (thats a big IF) she were to (agree to) marry him it would free him from the transgression (sin) cause they would be echad (one/ Gen.2:24) thus there would no longer be a transgression AND its basically up to her and her father (to accept) if you know anything about Jewish culture (This isnt some barberic islamic culture being mentioned in which many women/Girls are forced to marry or sold into marriage). In the Jewish culture the man asks the blessing of the father and if he gives his blessing the man gives payment as gift showing respect for the value of the woman. If the man recieves the Fathers blessing he then asks the woman to be engaged. (If she says Yes and IF they marry you cant come against him cause it would be to come against her as well for something she didnt do cause again they are one and this relates to them being one. (If they dont marry guess what? He would have recieved the punishment.) Thats the WHOLE reason marriage was even mentioned cause it requires its own set of standards thus the man would be innocent cause their is No victim. THINK... (What G-D joins together let No man set asunder)
Note: "and she shall be" is one Hebrew word (hâyâh) which means to be or become. Many may try to say shall means must but No its one word and yet for the Torah observant believer it would be unto them as they will (must/ shall) cause they seek the statutes of Hashem. 2 Tim.3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Adon HaMelech Moshiach

ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו, כפי תורה בכתב ושבעל פה, ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה, וילחם מלחמות ה׳, הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח, אם עשה והצליח ובנה מקדש במקומו וקבץ נדחי ישראל הרי זה משיח בודאי, ויתקן את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה׳ ביחד שנאמר כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה׳ ולעבדו שכם אחד.

Rambam

If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like David his ancestor, observes its mitzvos as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in [the way of the Torah] and repair the breaches [in its observance]; and if he will fight the wars of G-d – he is presumed to be Moshiach. If he succeeds in the above, builds the Beis Hamikdash on its site, and gathers in the dispersed remnant of Israel, he is definitely the Moshiach. He will then perfect the entire world, [motivating all the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written (Zephaniah 3:9), "I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose".
............................................

By tradition some claim If Messiah is killed before fulfilling all these:

1.) Compel all of Israel to walk in the way of Torah 
2.) Repair the breaches in observance 
3.) Fight the wars of G-d 
4.) Build the Beis Hamikdash in its place 
5.) Gather in the dispersed exiles of Israel

...then he isnt Messiah which I see as a ideology only supported by those who saw the true Messiah as a threat (to their own social status and power) and didnt allow for all scripture to apply or even Jewish commenaries of many Jewish sages. This type of ideology was allowed to take hold that G-d's will be done.
אנו חײבים להאמין שבא יבא איש יהודי והוא יחל להושיע את ישראל והוא יגמור ישועת יעקב באותו הדור, ומי שיגמור הדבר הוא הוא ומי שלא יגמור באותו הדור ומת או נשבר או נשבה אינו הוא ולא אלקים שלחו.
We are obligated to believe that if a Jewish man comes and begins to save the Jews and he completes the salvation of Israel in that generation, if he finishes the job then he is [Moshiach]. However, whoever does not finish the job but dies or is broken or is captured then he is not [Moshiach] and G-d did not send him. 

ואם לא הצליח עד כה או נהרג, בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה... ולא העמידו הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא לנסות בו רבים.

But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Moshiach promised in the Torah... and G-d only appointed him in order to test the masses.
אבל אמונתנו ואמונת כל יהודי שאם יבא אדם ויקבץ נדחי ישראל ויבנה מקדש וכל העמים יאספו אליו ויקראו כולם בשם קל אז נאמר כי הוא משיחנו. וכל מאמר שיאמר היפך זה יש לו פירוש.
Our belief and the belief of every Jew is that if a man comes, gathers the dispersed of Israel, builds the Temple, and all the nations gather to him and call out unanimously in the name of G-d, then we will say that he is Moshiach. Any statement that contradicts this has an explanation. (Shevet Yehuda p. 105)
 ולכאורה עכצ״ל שאין דוד המלך בעצמו מלך המשיח שיהי׳ ״נשיא להם לעולם״, שהרי תחילת פעולת מלך המשיח תהיה קודם הגאולה, כמבואר ברמב״ם (הל׳ מלכים פי״א ה״ד), ובודאי קודם תחײת המתים (גם דצדיקים הקמים מיד, כחז״ל (יומא ה,ב) משה ואהרן עמנו).
Evidently, we must say that David HaMelech cannot himself be the Melech HaMoshiach who will be "a leader for them forever" because the initial work of the Melech HaMoshiach will be before the redemption, as explained in the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 11:4) and certainly before the resurrection (including the righteous who arise immediately, as Chazal say (Yoma 5b) "Moshe and Aharon with us"). (Likutei Sichos vol. 35 p. 206 n. 6) 

......................................

ואח״כ יעמוד מלך עז פנים שלשה חדשים, ואח״כ תמלוך מלכות הרשעה על ישראל תשעה חדשים... ויצמח להם משיח בן יוסף ויעלה אותם לירושלם ויבנה בית המקדש ויקריב קרבנות ותרד אש מן השמים ותאכל קרבנותיהם... אם לא זכו משיח בן אפרים בא ואם זכו משיח בן דוד ויעמוד מלך רשע ושמו ארמילוס... וישראל גולין למדברי אגמים לרעות במלוחים ובשרשי רתמים מ״ה ימים, ואז נבחנים ונצרפים שנאמר והבאתי את השלישית באש וגו׳. וימות שם משיח בן אפרים וישראל סופדים אותו, ואח״כ יגלה להם להם הקב״ה משיח בן דוד, וישראל ירצו לסקלו ואומרים לו שקר דברת שכבר נהרג משיח ואין משיח אחר עתיד לעמוד ויבזוהו... והוא חוזר לו ונכסה מהם... ובצר להם לישראל הם חוזרים וצועקים מרעב ומצמא ומיד נגלה להם בכבודו.

Afterwards, the evil government will rule over Israel for nine months... Moshiach ben Yosef will arise and then bring them to Jerusalem where they will build the Temple, offer sacrifices, and fire will come down from heaven and deavour the sacrifices... If they do not merit it, Moshiach ben Efraim [i.e. Yosef] will come but, if they merit it, Moshiach ben David will come. An evil king named Armelius will arise... He will go to Jerusalem and battle Moshiach ben Yosef in the east gate... The Jews will flee to the desert to feed on salt land and roots of weed for 45 days. They are then tested and purified as it says (Zechariah 13:9), "I will bring a third in fire..." Moshiach ben Efraim will die there and Israel will mourn him. After this, G-d will reveal to them Moshiach ben David and the Jews will want to stone him. They will say that he is lying because Moshiach was already killed and another Moshiach will not arise. They will insult him... and he will

ומלך המשיח יצמח שם... ויפיח באותו ארמילוס הרשע וימיתהו... והקב״ה שורק ומקבץ כל ישראל ומעלם ירושלם...

return and be concealed from them... After this, the Jews will return and cry out from hunger and thirst and G-d will immediately reveal Himself to them in His glory... The king Moshiach will arise there... and will blow at Armelius thereby killing him... G-d will whistle, gather all the Jews, and bring them to Jerusalem... (Otzar HaMidrashim p. 551)

(Moshiach is unknown to the Jews (Judasim) prior to him arising as Messiah Ben Yoseph (role of the 2nd Advent of Yeshua. )

ולענין היאך יעמוד משיח והיכן יעמוד הרי הוא יעמוד בארץ ישראל דוקא ובה תחל התגלותו... ולענין היאך יעמוד, הוא לא יודע כלל לפני עמדו והוא אינו משיח עד שיאמר פלוני בן פלוני מבית אב פלוני, אלא יעמוד אדם שאינו ידוע לפני התגלותו.

Regarding how and where Moshiach will arise, he will arise specifically in the land of Israel and there will begin his revelation... Regarding how he will arise, he will not be known at all before his arising while he is not the Moshiach, so that it would be said about him such-andsuch from such-and-such family. Rather, a man will arise who will be unknown before he is revealed. (Iggeres Teiman, ed. Kafah p. 52)

אי אפשי להאמין במשיחותו שהנביא אומר ״ומשלו מים עד אפסי ארץ״ והוא לא היה לו ממשלה... וכן הנביא אומר שבזמן המשיח ולא ילמדו עוד איש את רעהו ואיש את אחיו לאמר דעו את ה׳ כי כולם ידעו אותי וכו׳ ואומר כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה׳ כמים לים מכסים ואומר וכתתו חרבותם וכו׳ ולא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה ומימי ישו ועד הנה כל העולם מלא חמס ושוד.

I cannot believe in his messiahship because the prophet says (Tehillim 72:8) "He will have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth" and he [Jesus] did not have dominion... The prophet also says (Yirmiyahu 31:33) "No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me..." And it says (Yishayahu 11:9) "The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." It says (Yishayahu 2:4) "they shall beat their swords [into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;] nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." But from the time of Jesus until now the world is full of murder and theft... (Kisvei HaRamban vol. 1 p. 311)

*******************

- Bamidar Rabbah 11:2, "Like Moses, Messiah will be revealed, then hidden, then revealed again."

- "Moshiach [King Messiah] will thereupon rise up to Heaven just as Moshe [Moses] ascended to the firmament, and will subsequently [return and] be revealed completely for all to see. The entire Jewish people will then perceive him and flock towards him." From Arba Mei'os Shekel Kesef(page 68) ...written by Rabbi Chaim Vital, pupil of the Arizal...

A less well known is that some post-Biblical rabbis actually held much the same belief in Jesus. For example, a Midrash states, "The son of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi had a choking fit. He [Rabbi Joshua] went and brought one of the followers of [Jesus] to relieve his son's choking" (Midrash Rabbah, Ecclesiastes 10:4:1).And according to a Medieval rabbi, Menachim of Speyer, "A Christian may be permitted to heal a Jew even if he invokes the aid of Jesus and the Saints." Even Maimonides wrote, "Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth . . . will only serve to prepare the way for the Messiah's coming and the improvement of the entire world" (Mishnah Torah: Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 11:4).According to Luke, the common Jewish people flocked to Jesus. For example, the first 5,000 Christians were Jews (Acts 4:4)Nicodemus, a "leading Jew" hailed him as "a teacher who comes from God" (John 3:1-2). And Rabbi Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin and later Paul's teacher, declared, "If [Christianity] comes from God you [members of the Sanhedrin] will not only be unable to destroy [it], but you might find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:34-39) Elsewhere, the Sanhedrin itself concluded, "It is obvious to everybody in Jerusalem that a miracle . . . has been worked through [Christ's disciples] in public and we cannot deny it" (Acts 4:16).

Maimonides writes in the Mishnah Torah, "Jesus of Nazareth . . . aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court" (Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 11:4). Also, the Talmud states:

"On the eve of the Passover, Jesus of Nazareth was [crucified]. For 40 days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he is guilty of practicing sorcery and enticing the people to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was [crucified] on the eve of the Passover . . . Rabbi Ulla asked, 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could have been made?' [And then he answered his own question by stating,] No, because with Jesus of Nazareth it was different, for he was descended from the royalty." (Tr. Sanhedrin 43a)

Another point of interest in this Talmudic text is that it openly acknowledges Jesus to have been "descended from the royalty" (i.e., the Throne of David), which implies that He was a legitimate heir, in their eyes, to the office of Messiah -- and, furthermore, it was because of that very royal lineage that "a defense could not be made" on his behalf, as stated by Rabbi Ulla in the Gemara in question.

Shortly after Jesus announced that he was the "Son of God," He went to the home of Mary and Martha in Bethany. There He proclaimed the next stage of His vocation: "I am the resurrection . . . If anyone believes in me, even though he dies he will live" (Jn 11:25). Then, as if to prove this bold assertion, He raises Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11:43-44).

________________________

"Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting. 'Here is this man working all these signs,' they said, 'and what action are we taking? If we let him go on this way everybody will believe in him and the Romans will come and destroy the Holy Place and our nation.' One of them, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said, 'You don't seem to have grasped the situation at all: you fail to see that it is better for one man to die for all the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.' He did not speak in his own person, it was as high priest he made this prophecy that Jesus was to die for the nation -- and not for the nation only, but to gather together in unity the scattered children of God. From that day they were determined to kill him." (Jn 11:47-53)."

"When God desires to give healing to the world He smites one righteous man among them . . . and through him gives healing to all . . . A righteous man is never afflicted save to bring healing to his generation and to make atonement for it."(Zohar 5:218a)

"[The] Messiah [ben Joseph] will . . . be slain and lay in the streets for three days. Then . . . the prophet Elijah will go and revive [him] . . . And in the hour when the Tribes of Israel will come forth, Clouds of Glory will go before them. And the Holy One, blessed be He, will open for them the sources of the Tree of Life, and will give them to drink on that day." (Otot HaMashiach)

"And then the Community of Israel communes with the Holy One, blessed be He, and that hour is a time of grace for all, and the King [Messiah] holds out to [Israel], and all who are with her, his scepter of the thread of grace so that they all may be wholly united to the Holy King." (Zohar 5:45a)

a Mishnah by Maimonides states,

"If a king will arise from the House of David [who] . . . gathers the dispersed of Israel [as Caiaphas believes Jesus could do], he is definitely the Messiah." (Mishnah Torah: Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 4:11)

______________

"In order to give all of mankind the option of living according to the Torah's precepts, the Lord offered it to each nation of the world. . .[Gentile] nation after nation refused to accept [it] . . . Finally, the Lord approached Israel: 'Will you accept my Torah?' . . . Not only were they willing to receive the Torah but they did so even before knowing what it contained." (Tr. Avodah Zara 2b)

Moreover, the same Gemara continues: "The Gentiles will eventually regret their decision and plead, 'Offer us the Torah again and we shall obey it.' But the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them, 'You foolish ones among the peoples, he who took the trouble to prepare on the even of the Sabbath can eat on the Sabbath, but he who has not troubled on the eve of the Sabbath, what shall he eat on the Sabbath?'"

In other words, Gentiles are forbidden, by rabbinic law, from practicing Judaism because they rejected the Torah when it was offered to them. This belief was and is so strong that the Talmud and Midrash state: "If a Gentile is learning Torah or keeping the Sabbath in the manner of Jews . . . he is liable for capital punishment by the rabbinic court." (Quoted in Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky, The Path of the Righteous Gentile, p. 42)

the proper observance of Torah for righteous Gentiles is "Noahism," in which they join the Community of Israel by following the "Seven Laws of Noah". It was within this belief system that the Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Corinth Tribunal, not because he taught Christianity, but because he taught it to the Gentiles in a manner that permitted them to worship as Jews. For that reason, I submit, and not because he taught Christ, they accused him of "persuading people to worship God in a way that breaks the law." This may have been another way of saying, "Paul is encouraging Gentiles to break the law by worshiping God as if they were Jews rather than Noahites."/ (Acts 15:1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y
http://friendsnchrist.ning.com/video/yeshua-sacrifice-tanach 
DEAD SEA (Qumran) SCROLLS with Messianic overtones! Document 13 (11Q13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11Q13 and 4Q521http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q521

out reach/ and other

Responce to the question:
"Let's say you gave a child that hadn't been influenced by their parents or surroundings ( impossible I know) about religion. You set them down when they where old enough to make rational decisions. Gave them the holy books and told them to decide for themselves. 
I think they would want to see some evidence besides just written word. What evidence would you supply for your religion other that it's true because God said so."

Responce:
Just as the bible says I would ask them to test these things to see if they are true and not just pre judge. Apply the Word to their lives and see if you experience Evidence. Heb.11:1 "Faith is the Substance of things hoped for the Evidence of things unseen"! The profound evidence is Spiritual (self evident). Spirit is unseen physically other than by its effects and or fruits. Most people coming to the faith without spiritual eyes and ears (experiences) seek physical evidence so in regards to this i would 1) show them how Phy. science has Played catch up to the Word! 2) show them how Archaeology continues to document the storylines 3) Show them how PROPHACY continues to play out against all rational odds (Jews and Christians walk according to prophacy). 4) I would show them basics of study (properly dividing the Word/ So that Everytime they read The Written Word they see another (layer of) truth thus grow in it and have them discern if its feeding them spiritually 5) Ask them to discern how it impacts their life. The Word shows you the ways of life/death. It can show you how to be blessed or cursed. 6) I would suggest that Everything is subjected to it. It describes even its enemies (those who reject it) in better (more relevant) ways than they care to (acknowledge) themselves....

.................
Responce to someone constantly asking about "G-D". This person keeps on with the questions its like a child that you answer the question then they say why. then you tell them why and they ask why,... Gavin you keep seeking the source and when you are told of the source you keep asking. I know your not intentionally trying to be rude but its rather simple His name is I Am That I Am, I will be(come) what (who, where that) I will be(come), I Am all and all unto u the self existing one. He doesn't need a creator or even a beginning. He Is It (the Source of all things). When i was like 9 or 10 i remember rotating around the concept (which men can do) and asking my Papa if G-d was in the beginning when was the beginning? Time is in relation to creation (to us) Not Him! Time is relative to space/distance (between two objects) in the scientific field of documented evidence and understanding. He created these too. He is All and All. He completes us and is the source. We see everything in a very limited view as men but he Is greater than all that. I hope you allow the simplicity of it all to flow and dont compound yourself with trying to relate him to carnal mindsets and conclusions. G-D is Spirit. GBU (Ps.90:2/ Jn.1:3)

kabba idolatry

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pagan_Origins_of_Islam

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm

will store more here on the subject feel free to leave comments showing historical and islamic documentation showing the idolatry that surrounded and surrounds kabba today

The name made simple

There are many Hebrew titles translated to G-d. Examples: El, Eloah, Elah (aramaic), Elohim, Elyon, ... "Adonai" & Adon are word's for Lord which closely relates as well. Each title shows a specific relation. "HaShem" simply means "The Name" (the "Shem" and is used to mention G-d because shem means "name & character") in reguards to the Sacred name ( Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh pronounced :/AyHeYay Asher AyHeYay or E-Yah Asher E-Yah/ Yod Hey Vav Hey) which means: I Am That I Am,... I Will Be(come) What (That, Who, Where) I Will Be(come), I Am All & All Unto You, The Self Sufficient One. In short I Am /(ha)Yah

purim observances

Recording discussion:
An Israeli Purim costume poses a question of talmudic complexity -- what color is this dress?

Will Hindsman Im confused is a man dressed in womans clothing relative to the Tanakh ("Purim")? Perhaps i will be told im being to critical, to have a sense of humor.
Lisa Reiss It's a part of the traditions of observing Purim. Dressing up in costumes, satire, not knowing the difference between Mordechai and Haman, etc.
Will Hindsman Are there not set gender roles in the Tanakh? Is dressing like this (even by tradition) in relation to religion not an oxymoron? I am not trying to be obnoxious just honest questions
Hanokh Travis Eliezar Yes it is forbidden for a man to wear specifically female clothes (and vice versa for women). Many people will follow this prohibition on Purim as well, but one of the more significant scholars of the Middle Ages ruled that it is allowed as part of a Purim costume because the intention of the clothing is only for the celebration of Purim. Another important thing to note, is that this guy is clearly not a religious Jew...
Lisa Reiss Will, Purim is a unique holiday in many ways. We're also supposed to get drunk enough to not be able to tell the difference between Mordechai and Haman as part of the holiday's observance where otherwise, the Tanach repeatedly speaks against excess alcohol.
Will Hindsman Well then it seems Purim encourages people to stray from Hashem by traditions (of man) according to what im reading here 
Lisa Reiss No, Purim is observed as we are supposed to per the Tanach. I understand that it's particularly difficult for many Christians such as yourself to understand actual Judaism and our observances as opposed to what you think Judaism is. 

That whole 'traditions of man' thing is a Church/NT pejorative against Judaism. We Jews are just fine in following the path given to us by HaShem.
Will Hindsman I could also make claims that you dont understand Judaism but I rather not, Well can anyone show me bible verses that support what yall are telling me. I know the story of the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire is Commemorated with the modern day observances but i cant see any support in the Tanach where the people are told to set aside times to "Dress up costumes", to transgress gender roles, " supposed to get drunk enough to not be able to tell the difference between Mordechai and Haman "... These comments make it rather clear these are traditions, and celibrations, but where are the people told to do this?... You say the whole traditions of men" thing is a church pejorative (whatever that means) against Judaism. In the shema we are told to Put G-D first not to allow men to draw us away from observing Torah. Sounds like yall are justifying traditions Over the ways of Hashem. Honestly reminds me of Jer.17:5 & Deut.5:32/ Anyway Im all for celibrating and remembrance of victories of biblical history but I dont see how anyone calling themselves religious Jews can do this while embracing transgression of G-D's standards laid down in the tanakh. So I am not concerned about how you want to judge me. I see the Tanach as laying down the standard that was delievered unto Israel (Judaism) Not modern traditions. You have Takanot and so on so be it but when it goes against what you already were given you are clearly adding to (Deut.4:2/ Deut.12:32 / Proverbs 30:6 / Is. 29:13 ) what you were given which is a transgression in of of its self.Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Pro.3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding / Pro.1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction / Pro.14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Thanks for sharing anyways. Do what ya do and may you put all that you are into what you do.