JESUS TOMB: Can we solve its mysteries?
Posted by Dr. Timothy J. Sakach Ph. D. at 27 February, 2007, 11:33 pmCould the tomb discovered in Talpiot, Jerusalem actually contain the Family of Jesus? Here is some information that may shock you: it is entirely possible. Here’s how.
The main problem with facing up to the evidence, such as it is, is that it is threatening to centuries old Christian thought. The idea that the one
we call Jesus could have been married was scary enough. But to now find the remains of a body in an ossuary with Yeshua bar Yosef (Aramaic) written on it next to another box with the name of Mariamene e Mara written on it, and another box with Yehuda bar Yeshua. This is pretty scary stuff for traditional Christians.
The reason for this is twofold: Christians are following traditions and beliefs imposed by a church with no real evidence for the claims that:
- Jesus never could have been married: “Sex is a sinful practice.”
- Jesus’s body was never left on the earth: “The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body.”
Both of these reasons or doctrines are false.
In this blog article, I am going to present from Scriptures why both of these teachings are false and describe what really happened, Theologically, and why.
Want to know the message hidden in the symbols on the entrance? Click here
See this post for the truth about what really happened at the time of the death and resurrection.
Could Jesus have been married and have children?
From a rational analysis, one could only answer that question with “Yes” to both counts. He could have been married. He could have had children. There is no Law against it in the Torah or any where else. Therefore, it would not have been sin for him to have loved and married a woman and had children by her.
Like many I had to face this question because of a fascinating book: The DaVinci Code. It was another instance that Theologians often face: “How do you account for the smoke, if there was no fire?”
So we are now faced with only confusion coming from religious doctrine and tradition. Why would he marry?
I wrote in other blogs, the one we call Jesus was Eyahushuah 
in Hebrew. (Look up the name in the Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance. That is where I found the spelling of “Joshua” that I transliterate here from the Hebrew with emphasis on all the long vowel sounds of ancient Hebrew, not modern Hebrew.)
Eyahushuah was the name of Eyahuwah
who came in the flesh to make things right. Is it a good thing for Man (includes both male and female) that the Creator go about his business without experiencing first hand everything that his creation has to go through to make it in this world? And is it not a good thing for the One who made the life and death covenants with his people to remove the debt they owed by becoming one of them and taking that debt upon himself? He had to be just like they were.
And to be a faithful High Priest did not he also have to experience everything they had to experience so that He could understand and show mercy and give them help? And would that exclude one of the most important commitments they have to make: marriage and children? Of course not! He had to go through it all and especially marriage and family. Where are our biggest problems today worldwide? Not in war, but in family!
Unlike Adam, who failed miserably with both his wife and his children, Eyahushuah had to set the record straight and take that on himself. He did! And he did it right!
Although I have heard Christians squirrel around the second chapter of John, there is no reasoning that can conclude that it is NOT Eyahushuah’s own wedding. Only days before, he called his disciples and had them come to the wedding. Who else but the bridegroom would have invited them? Then when they ran out of wine, his mother came and told him, and he replied, “What is that to us? My time has not come.” But she appeared to ignore this and told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Mother was not taking any guff from him. So he told them what to do and also told them to take this wine to the master of the banquet (the head waiter.) Then when the head waiter found out that this wine was better than other, he felt he had to teach a lesson to the bridegroom on when to serve the good wine and the not-so-good. The bridegroom didn’t say anything in reply. Then:
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and disciples. There they stayed a few days.
In other words, the party continued at Jesus’s home!
I get suspicious at this point. I would not be surprised if some over zealous and fear ridden church official didn’t erase the part about Mary Magdalene from this passage and maybe some other stuff to make it appear that this was someone else’s wedding. They did with other scriptures, so much so that John added a curse at the end of the book of Revelation.
The Christian world stood aghast when they found out it was written down that Jesus kissed Mary of Magdalene “often.” But no one seemed to bring up another verse found in the Gospel of Philip 36:
There were three Mariams who walked with the Lord at all times: his mother and [his] sister and (the) Magdalene°— this one who is called his Companion°. Thus his (true) Mother and Sister and Mate is (also called) ‘Mariam’.
The word translated “Companion,” even though this is Coptic, is a borrowed Greek word koinonos. Now the interesting thing with this word is the company it keeps in the Greek Lexicon. I happened to own an 1840 copy of Donnegan’s lexicon. In there koinonos is related to words that mean the “relationship between a man and a woman,” “put someone to bed,” “a pregnant women,” “intercourse” and “someone you sleep with.” The word translated “mate” in the analysis refers to a union with a binding contract! In other words, one you are united with or bound with, or more simply: married to.
Jesus’s Body: Explained in His Own Words
I explained above that Eyahuwah became one name Eyahushuah, whom we call Jesus. In order for him to become like us in every way, there really should be no difference. If we die, he dies. If we have to lie in a grave, then he did, too.
But there is one thing he experienced that we have yet before us. He is called the Firstborn from the dead. But when we die, we are among those who are “in their graves.” We don’t go to heaven when we die. That would make us, starting with Adam, those who preceded Him. But that is not what we are to understand. He is the Firstborn, the Wave Sheaf Offering, which is why he had to restrain Mary Magdalena: “Tell my brothers that I must go to My Father and Your Father, and to My Elahim (Family) and Your Elahim (Family).”
Enoch’s prophecy about that day and age told that “In it a man would ascend.” Eyahuwah’s experience is more like ours than we even care to imagine. It is not like Enoch’s or Elijah’s. Their experience was different. Enoch did not die. He was “translated” from one domain to another. Elijah was taken by a chariot. They were exceptions. But Eyahuwah could not be an exception. He had to be like us “in every way.”
So what happened?
He died and his body was placed in a tomb by his great uncle, Mary’s uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, who happened to be one of the richest men in the entire known world! Joseph of Arimathea was referred to by the Romans as ‘Nobilis Decurio’ or Minister of Mines to the Roman Government. He owned ships that transported commodities all over the Roman Empire. He mined tin and lead from the hills of southwest England. In fact, as I wrote in another blog, the lyrics of the English song, Jerusalem, tell about Jesus’s feet walking on England’s green and pleasant hills. Whether this is true or not, this was NOT a poor family as many assume.
Let’s take a look at the resurrection
After his death Jesus was placed in Joseph’s tomb and closed in with a huge stone. This was at the close of the day of Passover and just before the High day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It was also a short time before the start of the fourth day of the week at evening. Three days and three nights later, the tomb opened and Jesus was raised from the dead. And this is where nearly everybody gets lost.
The women didn’t come to the tomb on “Easter Sunday.” They came immediately after the weekly Sabbath, at evening after sunset and they found the tomb empty and Jesus’s grave clothes neatly folded at the foot of the place where they left his body. Also a messenger ask them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” Pretty amazing. They came to the tomb, a place where the dead are placed, and Jesus wasn’t there. And neither was his body!
If you are trying to help people understand the reality of the resurrection, do you think it would be wise to leave the body lying around? That would create confusion. The body must be moved, hidden, set aside or otherwise taken care of. Then you reveal the resurrected person.
The nonsense of the doctrine of the “resurrection of the body” has done nothing but confuse the entire Christian community and made a spectacle out of them to the rest of the world. That was never the way it was going to happen.
When I talked with my mom before she died in December of 2005, I told her that she would have no knowledge of her death. Instead it would be like the great sleep we may have experienced as a child or when camping in the open air. There was no knowledge of the sleep. Instead, you close your eyes and open them and it is morning. I loved that kind of sleep.
But I also told her that she would no longer have her cancer ridden body. Instead she would look at her hands and body and find that it is new and yet mature, like a very healthy young adult, not a child, but a full grown adult, maybe in as she might have been in her early thirties. My mom died laughing.
Do you really want to be raised from the dead only to find that you still have your same, sick body. I wouldn’t. Jesus’s body was beaten to shreds. He might even have lost his vision in one of his eyes. His ribs were showing. His cheeks were torn and his teeth were exposed. His back was ripped open and in some places muscle tissue was exposed and hanging loose. He didn’t even look human anymore!
It was not the body that was raised, it was the person and he was given a new healthy body. But to help his disciples understand that it was him, he had to give them some of his wounds, like the nail holes and the spear hole. Those were his, he could do what he wanted. But it was in a new, fresh body, like we all will have when we are also raised from the dead.
Not let me ask you a question. Out of all the disciples, who could Jesus confide in regarding the remains of his former body? As far as I see there was only one: His wife and close companion, Mary Magdalena! She was the only one he could tell where the old body was, why it was there, and what to do with it. And to keep this to herself.
What did Jesus, Eyahushuah, and Eyahuwah say?
He told Thomas: “Stop doubting and believe!”
He told Nicodemus: “I tell you the truth, unless a Man [includes both men and women] is born of water [human] and of the Spirit [not human], he cannot enter the Kingdom of God [Elahim]. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but Spirit gives birth to Spirit. You must not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again [born from above].’”
It is sad that we have corrupted the meaning of the saying, “You must be born again.”
I really hope that these really are the bones of Jesus and his wife and family. Nothing would be more in keeping with the Gospel.
- Bookmark :
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Stumbleupon
- Redit it
17 Responses to “JESUS TOMB: Can we solve its mysteries?”
-
-
Books
Autographed By Author
Timothy Sakach, Ph.D.
NEW!!! Enoch: The Book Behind the Bible. Special discount package includes 2009-2010 Enoch Calendar. Save almost $13.00. Click Here.
OR Click here to order the book only through Amazon.com
Prophecy Unsealed!. On sale now: $14.95. Click Here.
ORClick here to order the book from Amazon.com -
RSS: Subscribe to Prepare the way
Interesting thoughts. I need to study again what Paul said about the resurrection from the dead.
Question: where did you get this information - “…Joseph of Arimathea, who happened to be one of the richest men in the entire known world! He owned ships that transported commodities all over the Roman Empire. He also mined tin from the hills of southwest England. In fact, as I wrote in another blog, the lyrics of the English song, Jerusalem, tell about Jesus’s feet walking on England’s green and pleasant hills. And you know what? Jesus, Mary’s oldest son, was first in line to inherit Joseph’s business and fortunes! This was NOT a poor family.”?
You’re welcome to stop by at our blog, or send a reply to reinier@blijleven.tk
God bless you!
Reinier Blijleven
=====================================
Comment by Timothy Sakach
There is a lot of material on Joseph of Aramathea in published books and on the Internet. You could check out the wikipedia as I did. Joseph was the uncle of Mary the Mother, was a member of the Sanhedrin, mined tin and lead from England, owned a fleet of ships, and held office in the Roman government. Because of his close relationship to the family, he also became close to the young Jesus, and there are reports that he traveled with Joseph, even to England.
However, because these things rarely make it into classical, political history it is difficult to find any solid evidence. This doesn’t mean that these things didn’t happen, but it doesn’t prove that they did either. That Jesus may have stood in a position to inherit the fortunes of Joseph, and possibly take over his business, comes from Jesus’s position in the family as the oldest son of Mary, and there is no mention of any sons of Joseph. Joseph held Jesus in high regard.
There is an interesting quote written by Paul:
This could refer to spiritual riches, but Paul was contemporary with Jesus, though he said he never knew Jesus “in the flesh.” So it could also refer to physical riches. Paul would have known who Joseph was because Paul was both a Roman and a highly trained Pharisee. Physical or spiritual, this passage could be read either way as Paul was writing here about money and collections, and using this to lay a guilt trip on the people in chapters 8 and 9.
A couple of thoughts/questions . . .
1. What I hear you saying is rather Greek/Gnostic in nature. What was resurrected of Jesus is what you refer to as “person” and most others in the western world would refer to as soul or spirit. Thus, it is possible that Jesus’ bones remained in the tomb and yet something that was “more him” than his body was resurrected. A classically, Greek, dualist view of human nature.
2. The body, for all of us then, from this dualist perspective, is not important. This in turn would mean that the only reason I should exercise or treat my body well would be the impact that such behaviors would have on my person. If I can psychologically disconnect those behaviors from its impact on my “person/soul” then I have license to do what I please to my own body. It’s not going anywhere but to the grave, anyway. What is important is that part of us (person, soul, spirit, etc.) that will be resurrected which is something quite different than our physical bodies. But, perhaps God views us as totally redeemable, including these physical bodies, which Paul aptly calls a seed from which something far more grand will emerge.
3. My faith doesn’t fall apart if Jesus was married, but your reading of John 2 requires far more creativity and reading “into” the text than a legitimate literary critique of the text would allow. You have to want Jesus to be married to arrive at that point with that particular passage. Might be better to allow the text to speak rather than speaking for it from such a preconceived notion and desire. But they are interesting suggestions nonetheless . . .
===============================
Comments by Timothy Sakach
Actually, the “immortality of the soul” is far more Greek or Gnostic. But thinking that those “who go to heaven when they die” and then later return to get their old body back, such as it is, is more difficult to comprehend than receiving new bodies in which the spirit can be placed. This is more Scriptural than either Greek or Gnostic ideas. In the resurrection, some will receive glorified immortal bodies, while other get fresh bodies, free from contaminants and problems optimized to function in a healed world, like it was before the flood of Noah.
Given a new body at the resurrection with the spirit we had before we died, is something of great value. The current body is also, but it is destined to rot in the grave, or be consumed by maggots, or otherwise be converted back to soil. Therefore, I must conclude that the doctrine of the “Resurrection of the Body” to be indefensible.
Finally, the possibility that the one we call Jesus could have been married comes not from John 2, but rather from Hebrews where it was written that he was to be our high priest to intercede on our behalf. And coming in my series on the Resurrection is the similarity of the task given to the resurrected righteous to perform the same kind of intercession for people. Therefore, it would be important for Jesus to partake in what to us is the most important relationship and the most difficult that we can experience: having a successful marriage and family. In the context of Theology and the requirement that He suffer the same temptations that we have, the sequence of events of John 2 make the most sense concerning that the marriage at Cana was his.
Interesting, very interesting. Of course once you realize that the Bible has been corrupted by the Church down through the years everything becomes quite clear, doesn’t it? It is impossible to argue against your point because you have thrown out the only point common to all of us, the inerrancy of scripture. Once you begin to dig into apocryphal and other sources of “biblical era” info, the whole concept of Christianity gets kind of turned on its head, doesn’t it? By the way, basing your main argument on the very interesting work of fiction, The Davinci Code, nice touch.
What about Jesus saying ‘If you destroy this temple I will raise it again in three days.’ Wasn’t he talking about his body?
============================================
The following is my comment on this:
Found in John 2:19-22. This is an interesting question, which prompts me to write a blog article on the resurrection. The Greek actually says he was talking about the “temple belonging to his body.”
Modern Greek has four cases:
* Nominative, for subjects of sentences; in Greek: Ονομαστική
* Genitive, denoting possession; in Greek: Γενική
* Accusative, for objects (direct & indirect) of sentences; in Greek: Αιτιατική
* Vocative, for calling (usually we call people, but every object has a vocative case it might be a character in a story); in Greek: Κλητική
From the Overview of Greek Grammar
The genitive case used here shows that the Temple actually “belonged to” his body, so even if the Temple “belonging to his body” was destroyed he would raise it (the Temple) in three days only this time it would belong to his new body: “peri tou naou tou somatos autou.” The Temple is the object here, not the body.
Another question raised by this passage is “How could He raise up His body, if he was dead?” That question comes from a misunderstanding of what is being said. Again, He was raised from the dead by an act of Elohim (God) as the Scriptures show. He then received his power back after resurrection, and then made this new Body the Spiritual Temple of Elohim.
We should have the same experience, even now, while we are still in the flesh. By supplication and prayer, we need to go before our Father and request that we be made fit to enter into the Spiritual Temple not made with hands. This becomes our entrance into eternal Life now! We, like the Priests who served in the Temple have to be clean from all impurities of mind and spirit. If we achieve this we can then Live in the Temple and feast upon the clean spiritual food.
I had prepared a lengthy response to this post of yours, when, nearly at the end of it all, I had to stop and take a deep breath. Not because you are necessarily right, or even wrong, but because of the elements of truth in your post.
I hasten to add that I don’t agree with all you’ve said here; but as to the “being born again” doctrine currently in “secular” evangelical circles, yours agrees with mine, which I mention in my study at: http://alephtav.wordpress.com/about/everlasting-fire-everlasting-punishment/
If those bones belonged to Jesus, you are right; it would not mean that He didn’t rise, but that he shed his body, like a “kernel” of wheat would in order to grow into a different body. Thanks for your interesting post.
But if those bones ARE of Jesus, his natural wife and family, I’d hope that any wife and family he’d had, if any, would have been before his death and resurrection; imagine how people now are thinking that he lived, he died, was resurrected, then stayed on earth, then died again. See that problem? Yet if he fathered any children aside from WE, HIS SPIRITUAL children, then what? A new doctrine would arise, explaining anew what “adoption” meant.
I don’t think you need to worry about that. He explained before he died and was raised up that those who are born into the Kingdom of God or Elahim, neither marry nor would they engage in marital relations. Instead they are like the Messengers.
There is a mystery here. When Man was created was this a male being or was this one, as the Scripture says, made in the image and likeness of the Family of Elah? There is an interesting footnote in Everett Fox’s “The Five Books of Moses” regarding the translation of Man’s “ribs” where the word really means “sides”: “[this parallels] other ancient peoples’ concept of an original being that was androgynous!”
If that is the case, then one of Man’s sides was made female and the other male. In other words the Image is that of an androgynous being having both male and female attributes, or a self-contained Creator.
This is the type of being Jesus referred to: One who has no need of marriage! Those who will be raised to the likeness of a Son of God will have this body, and they will have “self-contained” creative powers. See Kabbalah: Part 3.
This is interesting, for as you noted, it was from Adam’s “side” that he “took from” and made a “woman”. And, it is true that Adam was made male and female. I take it from the sense of the theme in Genesis that this woman was NOT a female human, though it seems that way since woman in our understanding is gender female, plus of course, she gave of the “fruit” to “her husband”. But we also know that this garden is a type of Man’s being, and that therefore, these two trees were placed in the midst of that garden. Which I infer then, means that the “woman” was within “man”, not so much as androgynous, but as an anthropomorphic image of the dual gendered adam’s ego (creative self); and that adam’s ego “fell to earth” or became “earthy”, by which I mean, his understanding was base rather than elevated spiritually.
Marriage is a term meaning the union of two into one; man has now defined it as a ceremony between male and female and distorted the meaning into sexual procreation (which again, is the natural manifestation of a spiritual meaning).
I believe that Jesus was speaking not of the earthly understanding of marriage but of the “heavenly”, thus, as you point out, there is no need for further union.
[Recall that all messengers (angels) have been characterized as male, as have "the children of God" been characterized as "sons". Only the male carries the seed of life; any progeny would then be considered to be formed "in the womb" (female) in order to produce life.]
That “womb” is “womb-man”, from which the word “woman” comes. That “womb-man” is therefore independently androgynous; both the seed and the egg are, as you put it, “self-contained”.
But remember, it is still not the picture of seeding worlds with some sort of substance (like spermatozoa)but “the words that I speak, they are spirit, and they are life”, meaning consciousness is life; intent of consciousness is thought; thought when “spoken” is the life being created.
I think. :(~
I recently rented the documentary of the Jesus tomb, and found it and your blog along with the comments to be very enlightening. I was wondering about the chevron symbol and dot or circle just below it? On the official website for the movie they pose the idea of the “All seeing eye.” I have a few ideas of my own, however I was wondering what your take on it is? Thanks!!
Jonathan,
Well, you did it again! When I first saw the documentary and the photographs, including the opening facade to the tomb, I looked at the carved symbols and could not draw any conclusions. But your question made me take another look.
If I have opinions about things, I try to keep them to myself unless they lead me to look for corroborating evidence. If I don’t find any, then I ignore my own ideas. That is what happened here. Because I could not or did not find anything about these things, I didn’t give them any more thought.
Anyhow, as a result of your comment I did investigate the symbols and found some very interesting and worthwhile information that probably could not have been understood until our time. I get the feeling that the craftsmen who carved this may have intended to send a message to the future.
Here are some clues:
One must consider the whole facade, not just the two items above.
The symbols have a powerful meaning and are very old, pre-flood symbols that were carried from that time into a new world.
The symbols can be found in cultures from all parts of the world, including the Hawaiians and the American Indians.
After these symbols are understood, one can find a parallel in the spelling of the name of Eyahuwah in the ancient Hebrew letters!
I will post an article about this entire mystery!
Thank you
You seem to say that the wedding in Canaa is Jesus’ own wedding, and that he invited his disciples for the wedding several days beforehand. The only thing I can see is that He called his disciples to follow Him. I have several translations of John 2 and all of them say that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding in Canaa. I cant find anything in the Scriptures (John 2:2) which proves that the wedding should be Jesus own wedding, and that he should have invited his disciples. If he himself were invited, how could it be his own wedding? The point is not that he couldnt have been married, He could have been that. But the point is: using something like that: that he invited the disciples, when the scriptures say he was invited, that is very confusing, if you could not prove that these scriptures are wrong. That you even use the gospel of Philip without proving the reliability of those scriptures —— it seems to me that those things together is kind of a lower standard, in spite of what you have in other articles! I am very glad that you write your blogg and all those interesting articles. I would be glad if you would share your thoughts about what level of quality we could require from each other (so that we are not flying away and believe all kinds of imaginations).
May Yahua bless you !
Penina
There are a couple of things I see in your comment, that indicate a widespread problem that very few seem to understand concerning the New Testament. I have written about this before, but still it is hard to comprehend.
There are two groups of writers of the NT.
The primary group was the Hebrew disciples: Matthew, John, Peter, Jude, and James. There is also an unknown writer of the Book of Hebrews. These wrote in Hebrew, not Greek. However, John did write the Book of Revelation in Greek because at that time Paul’s Greek documents had been accepted by the followers. John did that for those who would come later and pickup on the codes he included in the book to tell something of what had happened during that time.
The other group consisted of Paul, Luke, and Mark. Timothy also helped them cobble together what we now have as the “Greek New Testament.” What was written by the Hebrew disciples was translated into Greek by Paul and his group. That act opened the door to much confusion and also caused Paul’s theology to be embedded in the Hebrew writings. Paul may have destroyed the Hebrew writings after he was finished with his translations. It is also interesting that the book of Acts up to about the middle of chapter 15 was written in Hebrew, and after the split between Barnabas and Paul the rest was originally written in Greek. We know this because of the presence of Hebrew idioms in the writings that would not have been part of Greek writing and culture..
As a result of these changes John included a warning and a curse for those would take away or change anything in the Book of Revelation. Scholars have not figured out why the Book of Revelation uses poor Greek syntax. The answer is simple, the writer’s primary language for writing and speaking was Hebrew!
So where does that put us at this time?
Most of the English translations are heavily influenced by the Greek and by the Latin Vulgate. That puts us a couple of steps removed from the Hebrew. Second, the scribes who copied the New Testament were untrained in this art. They were not Hebrew scholars. Instead they were just people who had the time and desire to make a copy.
Hebrew scribes were incredibly meticulous in making sure of their accuracy. However, they did attempt to make changes after the return from Babylon. Even Jeremiah warned about the unfaithful Hebrew scribes and the damage they were doing.
However, what was bad with the Hebrew scribes was nothing compared to the corruption that entered into the writings of the Hebrew disciples by Paul, Luke, Mark and their disciples.
As you may know Paul preferred celibacy to marriage. This doctrine entered into the “church” and women, because of Eve’s sin (according to the church) were considered unworthy of spiritual life and sex was considered unclean and to be avoided. The church also came up with a trinity of three male figures, which was contrary to the teachings of the true Hebrew disciples who knew that the word “ruach” (spirit} in Hebrew is a feminine noun! The word for “spirit” is also feminine in Aramaic.
Therefore, considering the corruption and changes that were made to the Hebrew writings of the true apostles, and corrupt church doctrines and dogma, we barely have any chance of really understanding the truth that Yahushua taught unless we do something completely contrary to past and current Christian practice.
Yahushua is Yahua in the flesh!
Therefor, we must start at the beginning and build from that basis. The beginning goes all the way back to the Instructions (Torah) and even further back to the writings of Enoch. Once these are known, then we can understand the history of Israel (all the tribes) and the messages of the Prophets. Only with that understanding can we then approach the tricky waters of the New Testament.
But Christians make the grave mistake of starting with Paul’s confusing theology and then look back at the Hebrew Scriptures through Paul’s dark glasses! Consequently, they fail to understand because they “only know in part.” And what they think they know, they really “know nothing as they should.” (Quoted from Paul’s own words.)
Ok, that brings us to consider the possibility that Yahushua could have been married!
That is a shock to the sensibilities of those whose minds have been shaped by church theology.
Marriage and family plays such a big part in the life and history of our fathers and mothers. It is an important part of the Torah. It was intended from the very beginning, was it not?
So it seems strange to consider the possibility that Yahushua as a human being and a man would have put aside and scorned such a major part of the life of all humankind as being beneath him, does it not?
The Book of Hebrews, which does not fit with Paul’s theology, tells that our High Priest was tempted “in every point” just like we are. Being married does not mean that he succumbed to temptation as the church seems to teach. But living in a husband and wife relationship is something so common to all humankind that for our High Priest to not have shared in the experiences, temptations, troubles, love, and working out of differences that we all experience as married folk, would be a major deficit in His life to be tempted in all things as we are, would it not?
Furthermore, the Priests were supposed to be married according to the Torah anyway!
So, the best advice I think I can give right now is to stop reading the New Testament for a long while. And in particular, read nothing written by Paul for a long time. Instead, focus your life on Enoch, the Torah, the Prophets, and the other Hebrew Scriptures. Pray that you be granted the gift of wisdom and understanding when you read them. Only by this “fast” can you cleanse yourself of this corruption. You will be very surprised after you have done this and you find that you finally understand the NT and the truth that may be hidden within those words of the true apostles.
Thank you for your thoughts on this subject! I will continue to study and seek the truth. I am grateful for the possibility to read your articles and teaching. For many years I was a member in a christian congregation and went to bible school. After that I had many strongholds in my mind to break down (and probably still have more left).
I would like to ask you some more questions right now, if you don t mind: is speaking in tongues a sign which should follow those who believe? Is speaking in tongues speaking other languages or is it speaking heavenly languages?
Should we wear tzitzies in the corner of our clothes if we want to obey Yahua?
What about kipa, do men have to cover their head? Do women have to cover their head?
At last: it is amazing that you are spending time to answer all questions from all people who write on your blogg, thank you for doing that!! Bless you!
Because of the overbearing peer pressure that is a driving force behind all religions, people will forever seek to justify the strange and uncessary things they think is required. At the risk of offending all religions on earth, I can tell you that none of what you asked about should be a matter of spiritual concern. Concerning the Instructions (Torah) we must understand what it teaches us. But it is the responsibility of the nations’ leaders to help us live by the Torah. And along with them, it is the responsibility of the priests, according to the covenant made with Levi, to teach the people. Since we have neither at this time, we are back to what I wrote above — we must live lives of uprightness, kindness, and understanding, and we must walk with the Elohim and with Yahua — who promised to go before us and to guard our backs. But anything more than that does not come from righteousness, but from the religions traditions.
Speaking in tongues or other languages is a valuable skill and takes a lot of effort for us westerners to be good at. But babbling unintelligible syllables and claiming you are speaking in a foreign or heavenly language is nonsense. Anyone can babble. Please understand that all of the questions you asked relate to Paul’s and the other Pharisees’ teachings, which were rejected by the true apostles. So don’t start wearing strange clothes, or hats, or speaking weird sounding words.
Learn to separate yourself from fables and foolish traditions and concentrate on understanding, kindness, and personal responsibility. Pray for wisdom. Do good to others. Help them succeed and feel happy that they have you as a wise and understanding friend. In doing that, you filfill the intent and purpose of the Instructions — the Torah.
Peace brothers and sisters !
I have some thoughts about adding and taking away from the Torah. Kipa and head-covering is adding because you do not find any commands about it in the Torah, but wearing tzitsies is a command for all Israel according to Bemidbar 15:37 (4 Mos ) and Debarim 22:12 (5 Mos).
Interesting is that Yahusha is criticizing those who did them too long, to be seen by others, to show them how “holy” they were.
The real thing about wearing them is that they should remind you about the Torah, according to the scriptures mentioned above! This is a command from Yahuah through Moses, therefore it is a spiritual thing. We may not understand all of it, but it still is a command and has a purpose. You know the command to the children of Israel to put blood on the doorposts for protection. They may have thought it was a strange thing, and you could call it a physical thing but anyway it was a spiritual thing, wasn´t it? They did it and saved their first born.
So, what am I writing this for? I write it because, before we are adding or taking away from Torah, we have to think twice and maybe more than that, because remember all those religious people, who are under the curse because they have done that. Or isn´t it so?
Of course we have to do as you, Timothy Sakach, says here on your blogg: judging things by the spirit, about which scriptures we use, and so on.
I am very glad for your writings and will encourage you to keep up the good work, but this was something who stirred up in my inward man, so I thought I had to share it with you all!
Blessings be with all of you in this remarkable time we live in, in the name of Elahim Yahuah / Yahusha.
Stefan
I think the key to understanding the “ancient paths” is to understand what we have about pre-flood history. In particular we need to know about the unusual characteristics of the first age or “week” revealed to Enoch. What is not in our minds is the fact that we have descended from a persistent line of righteous fathers. These started with Seth and continued to Noah’s sons. Then it quickly came to an end, although the line through Shem continued to produce righteous men and women. These right-doing people did not belong to any organized religion. They produced families and lived by the wisdom available to them from a personal relationship with Yahua. We can still have that today, but we must not depend upon men, governments, religions, or even education to show us the Way. But we hear constantly about how we are to behave in “society.” And there are plenty of people who want to tell us what we should or should not do. And we are led to believe that our freedom depends upon the laws men and women create to control us. And we hear about our “inalienable” rights, which we “must defend” against the demigods who wish to rule over us.
The Ancient Paths were identified by individuals who understood how to conduct their lives with the knowledge of personal responsibility for one’s decisions. Those who live such lives search for understanding and wisdom above all else. They recognized and experienced the help that comes from a spiritual relationship with the Elohim. They loved the truth and uprightness. And they were dependent only upon the help that came from EL and from Yahua.
Even before Judah went to Babylon, the prophets warned them of making a religion out of the Torah. But they went ahead with that anyway. So not only were they taken captive for 70 years in Babylon (ironically, the birthplace of their religion) but also in 135 AD under the leadership of a false messiah Simon Bar Kochba (also part of the religion) were they dispersed into the world by the Romans who first washed Judea in blood.
However, the Torah has not changed. The perceptions of the people under false leadership caused them to believe that the Torah was inadequate and they bought into the idea that the Torah was now replaced (sounds familiar) with the “Oral Law.” This became the rule of the day under which innocent people were condemned.
The problem is obvious. People look to a religion for guidance, rather than directly to Yahua. However, He warned them through the Prophets that because they do these abominations, He will not hear their prayers. That was really a statement of fact, more than a threat! How could He hear the prayers of the people under this disguise of a false religion and thereby a false relation? One that He did not want!
But what happens when the true Torah and the important relations it requires becomes the law of the land — of the people. Then there would be a wellspring of knowledge and understanding, would there not? A direct relationship between Yahua and the people would take place between the porch and the altar! He would meet with them. And they would receive instruction from Him, the Messengers, and the Priests.
That is the Life that will be brought to the world in the next age, and can happen even now to those who understand and desire it above all else.
What will not be present in that next age?
No “Christianity” or “Church.” No supposed “Oral Law” created by those who were not Priests of Levi! No other religion, cult, sect, or institution created by men to control the minds of people.
And there will be no lying and stealing national leaders. No longer any “Kings” who only do that which is evil in the sight of Yahua. No more oppression of both the poor and the rich. No more falsehood and corruption.
These will all be gone — never to happen again.
And the people will be so incredibly happy they won’t be able to contain their emotions.