From there, you will seek Yahweh your God with all your heart, and you will find Him, if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul. (Deut 4:29)


A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us




Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"

Torah Corner: What About Wool and Cotton

Recently a Paulinist mocked my desire to be Torah-observant by asking me whether I wear cotton shirts and wool suits, implying I was breaking Torah. (See excerpt of email exchange with John on March 12, 2013, at bottom.) This was to dissuade me from the Law which supposedly prohibited something so 'normal' that I would want to accept that the Torah is supposedly archaic. But whatever the Torah says, I would do anyway, trusting our inscrutible God. But it turns out the Paulinist did not know Torah, and thus was erroneously trying to mock the word of God, ridiculing it as outdated.

For when I asked my friend Adam --  a Torah expert -- whether wearing wool and cotton -- a wool suit with a cotton shirt -- violates Torah (without sharing my experience), he explained carefully that the answer is no. Here is an excerpt from his informative email -- copied here by license with his permission:


Regarding your question…the basis for this commandment lies in Yahweh’s general [prohibition on mixing seeds, animal and human, etc.] Here are scriptures that speak of things related [mixed with the unrelated]:


v  You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind: you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon you a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together. - Leviticus 19:19

vYou shall not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. - Deuteronomy 22:11

vYou shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard. - Deuteronomy 22:9

v  And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and you shall slay the beast. - Leviticus 20:15

And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, you shall kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:16


Seed, animals, clothing, sexual relations…they are all amongst things that are meant to remain pure as Yahweh created them.  This would mean that things like hybrid seeds and GMO foods should be avoided if at all possible.  Man’s messing with Yahweh’s genetic material isn’t a good thing.  Take the mule for example.  The mule is a mixing a female horse and male donkey.  Mules cannot breed (except in extremely rare occasions, and only with females, never males -  This is clearly a corruption of Yahweh’s intent because being able to spread the species and “be fruitful and multiply” is a command to both man AND animals.  The mule is an adulterated product of man breeding two things that should never have been bred together.


Regarding the linen and woolen command specifically…I believe that the issue arises when they are woven together into one cloth, not worn together as two separate pieces of clothing.  The Hebrew word sha’atnez there means a “cloth or garment made of two kinds of thread, linen and woolen” (Gesenius’ Lexicon).  The reasons for this command are two-fold, according to my present knowledge.  The first reason is what was stated above.  It is abominable to Yahweh to join things that were never meant to be together (in this case an animal product weaved together with a plant product).  It adulterates the end product.  The second reason is one of practicality.  The washing and drying properties of linen or cotton and wool are very different.  If you’ve ever ruined a 100% cotton shirt by tossing it in a really hot dryer you know what I mean.  Wool doesn’t have the same result when placed in the dryer.  Wool and linen also have different break-down properties.  The result after much use of the garment could mean that the plant and animal parts decay at different rates causing rips, tears, and holes in the garments.  This would be a very inefficient way to make clothing as it would require making more much more often.







Paulinist Ridiculing Distaste for Law's Rules Citing Clothing Command

 John N. (March 11, 2013)

It is the principle of righteousness by the atonement of Jesus and the "law" as "teacher" of the principles of righteousness to us that is now the central issue.  If Christ be not risen, our faith is in vain - in vain!  No keeping of the law will justify us alone.  Keeping of the law is vanity.  The principles of the law are good and righteous but manifestly unattainable

Look, do you as an attorney wear cloths to court that are a mixture of synthetic and natural fibers - I do.  Then we are violating the law.  Condemned are we!   Yikes!  I don't like that at all.  So my justification rests in the shed blood of Jesus and his righteousness.  That is the Good News - the Gospel!

The law's principles exist however the entire letter to the Hebrews was the thesis on the end of the practice of the law's obligations and it was written during the existence of the temple.   Look in the scripture before and after the tabernacle and the temple for the evidence of the sacrifice and cutting covenant.  It starts with  Adam and Eve and covering sacrifice by God of their nakedness and also their shame.  It continues with Noah and through pre-law with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  What of the covenant of circumcision that was so important that when Moses violated it with his sons he nearly died before his return to Egypt.  That now is done away with.  The practice of atonement and cutting covenant predates the Law of Moses, which is really not the law of Moses but only given to him as an example of things in the heavens.   The argument in Hebrews and in Galatians puts this practice of law keeping in the name of the "principles" to rest.


I am not a believer who puts the teaching of Paul at odds with Jesus' teaching.  I see his instruction to the church as timely and relevant.  If you want to keep the law, keep it in every respect.  Do not stray in any regulation or obligation - yet it does not justify the keeper.  Paul and I agree, I preach Christ and him crucified.   It is finished.  There is no "but" at the end of Jesus' statement on the cross.  Is there more blood to shed? No.  Is there penance to practice? No.  Is there another work of grace to experience? No.  It only remains to be baptized in water and be baptized in the Holy Spirit. 


You are doing a disservice to the letter to the Galatians and the letter to the Hebrews in trying to keep the law. 

My Reply 3/11/2013


Please read what you wrote:
Look, do you as an attorney wear cloths to court that are a mixture of synthetic and natural fibers - I do.  Then we are violating the law.  Condemned are we!   Yikes!  I don't like that at all.  So my justification rests in the shed blood of Jesus and his righteousness.  That is the Good News - the Gospel!
Do you see the flaw in this? If you don't like a law, you prefer finding you don't have to obey it. "I don't like that at all." So rather than obey, you take the easy out. That's not right.
And you have side-stepped how an atonement law that could only be appropriated by those who were penitent under the Law applies to those who do not believe the very same Law applies to them? That is a contradiction. You paper over it with soothing words that "it is finished" "the law is completed" --- when all that means is the sacrifice was completed. The terms of who can invoke it has not gone away -- that is in the Law God gave Moses. So no one can appropriate that sacrifice -- done and completed true -- who at the same time claims the Law given Moses does not apply to them. For if true, on what basis do they invoke the covering of an atonement under a Law they claim does not otherwise apply to them? That is like taking only the part of the law you like -- atonement -- and excusing yourself from the Law's condition of repentance from sin (of disobeying the very same Law code.)
In the end, Paul's doctrines are self-contradictory , and directly contradict the Savior's..... 
You are worried that I am not listening to Paul and the author of Hebrews. Doesn't that make you see that you have made Paul and that Hebrew's writer of more import than Jesus, for I am calling you to look at passages that are Jesus (not Doug) telling you not to listen to Paul -- Matt 5:17, Rev. 2:2 and Matt 24:4-6, 24-27.... You need to be sure you can answer your Savior later when He asks you why you did not take the time to read those passages and be sure you could explain them away as not directed at Paul.
Anyway, I enjoy your emails... Kind but blunt at the same time.

 John's Reply March 11, 2013 [Notice the condescending and insulting messages now begin, highlighted in yellow]

Doug, I see you have missed the simple point of my mix fibers example.  The point is so badly missed by you that I expect you have a predisposition to a position and either genuinely misses the essence or your predisposition causes you to intentionally ignore the simplicity of my illustration.

My Reply March 11, 2013


Let's agree to disagree. I cannot be in danger following what Jesus taught, can I? Or do you worry I do not follow the avowedly lawless doctrine which Paul taught and you follow? And why would that be?


John's Reply March 12, 2013
Have you considered in response to your position on Paul's teaching being apostate what occurred and what was debated in Acts 15?
Further, I also am no slacker in study.  Graduated 1st in my class from Rutgers with Key awards and Medallion awards, obtained a joint MBA and JD from UNM with honors.  I was rescued from the streets at 19 and read and studied the scripture for 10 years and worked in ministry before going to college.  I am a trial attorney.  So I am not simply ill equipped to discuss the issues you agree to disagree upon.

Look brother, you are wrong on this point.  You are chasing bunny trails to no end.  Jesus did say things that are foundational but the confession of him as savior is primary.  Jesus was asked what must we do to do the works of God.  Jesus said believe on him whom he has sent.  Short, sweet and to the point as he always spoke. 


Your dilemma with Paul is a bunny trail and preposterous.  Paul was anointed by God and set apart for his calling by Jesus himself unless Jesus got it wrong and you would not confess to that would you?

You know Jesus violated the law and taught others to violate the law --oops what did John say?  He touched a woman who had a flow of blood for many years and was distinctly unclean.  He touched lepers and cleansed them.  He healed on the Sabbath.   He traveled through Samaria.  He spoke to a woman of Samaria.  He sent his disciples into towns of Samaria.  Moreover, he taught the parable of the  good Samaritan.   In the parable he taught the keeping of the law regarding who was the lawyer's neighbor.  In the parable, the Levite and the priest would not touch the bleeding countryman for fear of becoming unclean.  He castigated that behavior.  Implying that they had violated the law and the prophets by not loving their neighbor.  It was left to the reprehensible Samaritan to keep the law and the prophets by loving his neighbor.


Get it?

My Reply of March 12, 2013


I think I understood your point.... it is a hassle to be concerned about specifics like the fiber command...You don't like it. I should not like it. Let's find someone who preaches we can ignore all those commands. Hence, let's go with Paul who frees us from having to obey the law. You argue well. But it is a point that is lawless in the extreme. I was hoping you would see from your own words how they destroy the system upon which you have founded your understanding of Christ.

 John's Reply of March 12, 2013

you are not really observant on the mixed fiber issue are you.  Have you like me ever hugged your wife during her period to comfort her?  That is a violation of the law.

Ta for now.

 My Reply of March 12, 2013 on John's Claim Jesus Chose Paul


You say Jesus chose Paul. If so, then you are reluctant to let him go. But what if Jesus tells you prophetically He did not choose Paul. Would that make a difference? I am sure it would as you are a true follower of Jesus.

So please read my article -- with your scholarship and background you should appreciate it -- entitled "Jesus Prophecy about who Identified Himself to Paul as Jesus."  

Synopsis: All you need to know is that Paul's encounter 3 years after the Ascension was with a voice and light that said "I am Jesus" on the road to Damascus -- which means outside the city. And those with Paul heard the voice but "saw no man." Acts 9:4-11. The area outside a city in Bible terminology is known as the "wilderness." 

But Jesus warns the true apostles in Matthew 24:4-5 and 24-27 to be concerned about imposters who come in the wilderness in His name ("Jesus", e.g., "I am Jesus") and Jesus says you will know it is not Him because not every eye will see Him -- when Jesus comes He says He will be seen by everyone on earth -- like lightning flashing from Eastern to Western Sky as the Son of Man returns on clouds of glory.

Now simply compare what Jesus warns about -- and he tells us "not to listen to him" = the imposter Jesus. 

So you see, this is not simply Law v. Grace issue. That is only one area of contradiction between Paul and Jesus. The real point of all my work is to find where Jesus tells us prophetically about Paul, and what Jesus wants us to do with Paul's message.  

You would benefit to know that Shaul-Paul's is a Hebrew-Latin name ... Since Paul was a Roman citizen from birth, he had to have a Roman name. Shaul is Hebrew. Paul is Paulus, Latin / in Greek, Paulos. Jesus identified in Matthew 5:17-19 that the one who teaches you not to obey the Law shall be called by those in the kingdom of heaven the "least." And what do you think Paulus means in Latin? LEAST. Here is my article on that topic where YOUR LORD AND MINE is telling us in prophetic terms what is the fate of those who go by Paul's doctrines: Jesus on Paul the Least

I did not know about either of these 2 points when I wrote Jesus' Words Only. That book systematically proves (I contend) that Revelation chapter 2 -- words of Jesus -- are prophetically telling us about Paul. For that you can read my book free online at 

So my primary message is always focused upon what does Jesus tell us about Paul. Side-issues like specific contradictions on the Law are secondary to this bigger issue.
Blessings and Shalom


 My Second Reply to John on March 12, 2013 on John's Contention Jesus Violated the Law
You write:
You know Jesus violated the law and taught others to violate the law --oops what did John say?  He touched a woman who had a flow of blood for many years and was distinctly unclean.  He touched lepers and cleansed them.  He healed on the Sabbath.   He traveled through Samaria.  He spoke to a woman of Samaria.  He sent his disciples into towns of Samaria.  
If Jesus violated the Law, then he was not a spotless lamb, and none of us have atonement. So I suggest you reconsider these conclusions. 
By the way, I have an article about how those wed to Paul are willing to throw Jesus under the bus to save Paul. Are you truly willing to do so? Please reconsider.
First, the laws of clean-unclean are not laws of sinful behavior. They are health laws. Jesus explained well that what is in the heart -- the laws about sinful intention, like coveting your neighbor's wife, coveting your neighbors' goods,  these are what "defile" the man -- with sin. In our law, we differentiate between malum in se v. malum prohibitum, and I think you as a JD know the difference.
Second, the law prohibited labor / work on the sabbath. Sabbath means "day of rest." Jesus said however there is no prohibition on doing good. So labor / work in the Sabbath command means your regular work -- work 6 days and take one day off. This does not mean you cannot do any good on the Sabbath. Quite the contrary, you can do good. If you say Jesus sinned, it is because you reject Jesus' teachings on what 'work' means; but if I accept Jesus' interpretation, I find no sin.
If you love Paul, however, you are anxious to throw Jesus under the bus and call him a sinner under the Law which Jesus said would not pass away until the heaven and earth passes away to try to make the point that Paul is right that the Law was abolished, done away with, etc. But don't you see the incongruity?
John's Reply to My Contention Paul Fits Jesus' Warning of a Wilderness Experience March 12, 2013

When Jesus appeared to Mary at the tomb and when he appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and when he appeared in the upper room several times including to Thomas and when he appeared on the shore of Galilee after his resurrection and when he was with the disciples for 40 days and when he ascended into heaven  -- was it like lightening and did everyone on earth see him.  Common now I really do see you are grasping for straws!  You cannot let go the fact that Paul was chosen and was recognized by the 11 disciples as chosen by Jesus the Christ.  Even Peter refers to Paul in his writing accepting him as a brother and that he has wisdom given to him 2 Peter 3:15.  Now I know you are a false teacher and a wolf for you would not deny Peter's testimony of Paul if you were seeking the truth.  I would be kind to you and consider you mistaken and yet seeking the truth.  But you are not mistaken and you are intentionally acting on doctrines of demons. 


May God reveal to you the truth if you are indeed a seeker after Christ.  Nevertheless you are the type of person foretold would come in the last days.  Time to terminate.   

My Reply To John's Argument On Jesus' Matthew 24:4-5, 26-27 Warning About Wilderness Citings of Jesus

No, John, Jesus post-resurrection was not seen by everyone. But Jesus' words in Matthew 24 that every eye would see him was talking about his return, proven by his reference to the Son of Man "returning" on the clouds of heaven. You know that. 
So face up to the warning, and apply it -- you were trained as a JD... you know what Jesus is saying. Please let me know when you let the light in and listen to Jesus again.
And by the way, the 11 did not recognize Paul as an apostle. Read Acts 15. They accepted his testimony of his work among Gentiles. The speech says that PETER, not PAUL, is the apostle to the Gentiles. 
Also, in each vision account of Paul, the "Jesus" whom Paul met said Paul would be a "martus" -- witness -- he did not even call him an Apostle -- apostolos -- which means messenger. (See Acts chs. 9, 22, and 26.) So if I am right about Matt 24, God restricted the imposter Jesus whom Paul met so he would never be permitted to say Paul was Jesus' "apostle." This way Paulinists could not claim Luke records Jesus told us that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. And this you can never do because Acts betrays that the person saying "I am Jesus" never once calls Paul "apostle." 

John's Contention Again Jesus Broke the Law - March 12, 2013

See also Peter's vision in Acts 10.  It is abundantly clear that he was told three times to kill and eat unclean animals, to wit, go to the unclean gentiles.  Jesus again breaks the law or so it seems by this vision and that 3 times!


My Reply About The Problem With John Claiming Jesus Broke the Law -- March 12, 2013
Peter was told to eat the unclean meat in a vision which Peter then realized was symbolic -- not an actual command to eat unclean meat -- to tell him to go to the Gentiles. They were not unclean in of themselves under the Law. But Jews were taught oral tradition to regard them as such. To make the point to do so, Peter interpreted the dream as to be breaking an oral anti-Torah tradition to treat Gentiles as unclean. That is actually explained in Acts 10. 
If Jesus breaks the law, then who provides you atonement? 

 John's Hostile Reply March 12, 2013 Rather Than Answer The Problem Jesus Would Not Be Innocent Lamb

Doug it is a paradox I presented to inform you of your false teaching.  Paradox man -- I do not think Jesus was not the Christ or the atoning lamb.  I do and so have confessed repeatedly in this exchange.  You are either ignorant or willful.  I choose that you are willful.  As Jesus said, you strain at a knat and swallow a camel.  That is you Doug.  Your references to historical figures during the reformation are well known to me and your invocation of them tells me you are a willful apostate like them as they profess error and try to harm the church.


Sole Fide Bro

 My Last Reply To Which None Was Received - March 12, 2013
I take it from your tone, you are foreclosing any further dialogue.

Lessons Learned from The John Dialogue for Followers of Yahshua
If you watch this dialogue with John, I stayed cool, raised points that he cannot answer, and he increasingly responded with ridicule and mockery. John ends finally with curses and swearings. This is how only a few dialogues go.
Most people are genuinely kind and wish to know the truth. But John was not willing to enter into a true dialogue -- where I hear and answer his points, but he also hears and answers mine. It is our obligation to consider what others say about God's word if they are correcting something we claim. We don't have to have an instant answer. You can go back and study if you are stumped. Do not resort in kind to mockery and cursing and swearing at a current opponent if you don't agree with what they are saying.
Many times I throw out what I think is a proof, and someone shoots me down. Great. I learned. I grew. Our goal is not to win arguments, but to get to the truth. If that is your objective, never respond with ridicule, mockery or cursings. You need to pray you know the truth, and if you are confident you are correct, pray and be kind to the one you think is in error. If I were in error, do you think John did anything for the cause of Christ as John perceives it to win me over? Of course not. So do not be like that, and strive to gain the truth God is revealing to you. The shame is perhaps John did have something I could have learned and grown from. But his behavior never allowed me to gain what that may be. So love your enemies (or those you perceive as enemies) for perhaps one day they will be your friends. 
Blessings, Doug