Thus says YHWH, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it: And you shall find rest for your souls...." (Jer. 6:16)


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"

Acts Chapter 19 - Yada Yahweh's Analysis on Paul's Actions

Paul in Acts ch 19 says that followers of John did not have the right message, and Paul had a different message for them to accept. As a result of accepting Paul's message, they spoke in tongues, and changed the spirit of John's followers. The website Yada Yahweh says Paul implied that he, Paul, was the figure who came in fulfillment of what John said was another coming. And as a result, a whole different spirit fell on them. Paul clearly rebaptized John's followers into a new spirit ... raising a question whether Paul's followers were truly following the spirit of the true Yahshua which John should have imparted to his followers prior to his beheading.

This action by Paul also thereby created 12 new apostles for Paul. So if Paul is to be trusted, this disciple of Yahshua --- John --- supposedly did not understand enough to teach about Jesus/ Yahshua to these same 12 men. Here is the radio commentary by Yada Yahweh about this. Also here below are the radio notes which I offer without comment:

The reason I said that Yahowsha’s prophetic warning was the last He would make before returning home, is that from heaven, Yahowsha’ warned Yahowchanan about the wannabe Apostle. Writing to the Called-Out Assembly in Ephesus, the place where Yahowchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s footsteps and writings crossed paths, the Ma’aseyah in heaven told His beloved Disciple:

“I know that you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – haven’t the will, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up or carry forward (i.e., advance or promote)) those who think errantly, those who are wrong, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – are incorrect, wicked, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful). And you have observed and objectively tested (peirazo – scrutinized, examined through enquiry) those who claim and maintain (phasko – say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautousthat they are (eimiApostles (apostolos – someone who is prepared and sent forth) but are not. And you have found them (heurisko – examined, scrutinized, come to understand them, and discovered through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers).” (Revelation 2:2)

It is especially relevant to this statement that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in Yahowsha’s Revelation letters where Paul and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.

While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahowsha’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahowchanan scribed Revelation in 69 CE, seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the wannabe and self-proclaimed imposter Apostle’s death. So considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahowsha’ was calling Sha’uwl an “errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan.” We are without excuse. Christians cannot claim that they were not warned about this horrible man.

Even Yahowsha’s parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to the distinction between Yahowah’s Way and Paul’s way. “And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomoneand have endured (bastazothrough My name. You have worked hard (kopiaoand have not grown tired.” (Revelation 2:3)

Since I’ve made the claim that Paul and pals preached in Ephesus, and that they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowsha’s Disciples, and notably, Yahowchanan, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be apostles, let’s consider the evidence. I’ll be providing this testimony using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to be as accurate as possible. What follows is based upon Paul’s personal testimony, which was presented as a historical portrait by Luke, so much of this is difficult to read.

“But it became in the Apollos (one of Paul’s accomplices and a man who still bore the name of the Greek god Apollo) to be in Corinth (the Greek city in which Paul preached the longest and to which he wrote two early letters, in the second of which he admitted to being demon possessed by a messenger of Satan), Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find which Disciples.” (Acts 19:1)

“And he said against and regarding (prosthem, ‘If conditionally, spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but to him but but not if conditionally spirit holy there is we heard.’ He said, ‘But into what then were you immersed?’ And they said, ‘Into Yahowchanan’s immersion.’” (Acts 19:2-3)

“Said but Paul, ‘Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind to the people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe this is in the Iesous.’ So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesous.”(Acts 19:4-5)

“And having set on them the hands of Paul came the spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were speaking inspired utterances. Were but the all men as twelve.” (Acts 19:6-7)

While it is impossible based upon the quality of this testimony to know for certain what actually happened, I suspect that based upon information Paul received from Apollos in Corinth, Sha’uwl felt threatened. He recognized that his message was vastly different than Yahowsha’s Disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was treading upon his exclusive dominion over every race and nation. So he headed south, arriving in Ephesus to determine who was responsible for the encroachment and then to reestablish himself as the exclusive source of salvation for Greeks and Romans. When he arrived, rather than meeting with Shim’own or Yahowchanan, Paul undermined them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to Yahowchanan was not the right spirit. This is why Paul used pros to say that his contrarian message was regarding and against the Disciples, not to them.

But then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Paul’s next sentence has two hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation. And yet as we continue to read, some things become abundantly clear. When Paul learned that these people had been immersed in Yahowchanan’s message, Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had changed it, altering their thinking. He then questioned the nature of the spirit they had received. He told them that they should instead believe that Iesous had sent him. So after listening to Paul’s contrarian view, these Ephesians were re-baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his hands on them in the name of his Lord. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired prophets. But whatever they were saying, they were now Sha’uwl’s twelve disciples, just as Yahowsha’ had chosen twelve.

That was bad, but it gets worse. Paul was just warming up. “And having moved into the synagogue he was speaking boldly for three months, disputing and persuading about the kingdom of the god.” (Acts 19:8) Here, “speaking boldly” was from parrhesiazomai, which means that he was “using the freedom to speak in an unreserved manner.” It is a compound of pas, which means “individually,” and rheo, meaning “to pour forth.” So let there be no mistake: this was Sha’uwl’s message and his alone.

Also insightful, “disputing” was from dialegomai, which means “to argue against someone using different thinking.” It is “to contend with and convince though discourse.”

Even more important, take notice of the order of the verbs. The message and spirit of Yahowchanan had to be “dialegomai – disputed” prior to Paul “peitho – persuading others to obey and to become followers.” Peitho speaks of tranquilizing those who listen, inducing them through words to believe, persuading them to favor one individual over another and to join with them. So it is hard to miss the fact that Paul is confessing to the crime Yahowsha’ addressed in His letter to Ephesus through Yahowchanan.

I have always held hypocrites in low esteem. Sha’uwl is a textbook case. He erroneously presents his “Gospel of Grace” as the alternative to obeying God’s Torah, which he presents as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for “obey,” and while Torah does not mean “law,” Paul routinely lashes out at people for not obeying him.

“And now because some were becoming stubborn and they were disobedient, speaking abusively of and maligning the way before the multitude, having separated from them, abandoning and forsaking them, he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating and excluding the Disciples through daily disputes in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. And this took place for two years so that everyone residing the Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks.” (Acts 19:9-10)

Just as Yahowsha’ had explained, there were some in Ephesus who did not believe Paul. And while Yahowsha’ praised them for rejecting the liar and his lies, Paul saw them differently. He said that they were “skleruno – stubborn and obstinate.” Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as “hard, harsh, and rough men who were stern, offensive, and intolerant.”

Sha’uwl said that they were “apeitheo – disobedient” because they “apeitheo – refused to believe” him. They “were not persuaded,” they “refused to comply,” and thus were in Paul’s words: “apeitheo – contumacious,” which is “to be flagrantly disobedient and rebellious, disobeying an order or law without a good reason.” Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town.

The next verb in Paul’s intolerant diatribe was translated “speaking abusively of and maligning.” It is from kakologeo, which is “to curse and revile, denouncing through evil and insulting speech.” The verb is a compound of kakos, which describes that which is “of a bad nature, an inappropriate mode of thinking, feeling, or acting which is troublesome, pernicious, baneful, and wicked,” and logos, the “spoken word.” Paul, like all insecure people, was ever ready to curse his perceived opponents but would not tolerate any reciprocation.

Yahowsha and His Disciples are often translated using histemi to convey that God stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But Paul’s twist on this is markedly different. Aphistemi, rendered “having separated from them, abandoning and forsaking them,” is colored by apo, which speaks of separation, even of abandonment. It tells us that Paul “caused the rebellion” and then “avoided association, forsaking and abandoning” the Disciples.

But that’s not the half of it. The very next verb is aphorizo. Speaking of Paul, it reads that “he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating and excluding” the Disciples. Aphorizo’s primary connotation is “to determine, to define, and to mark off boundaries for those who are disreputable, specifically to separate them by establishing limits which they may not transgress.” It means “to divide and to exclude, to sever a relationship and to get rid of particular individuals.” And when the object of such constraints are Yahowsha’s Disciples, Paul is at war with them.

Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of “dialegomai – arguing against and disputing” the Disciples because their “thinking was markedly different.” But this time Paul was not to be found in the synagogue, in the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He turned to the “Tyrannos Schole.” Tyrannos is based uponkurios, denoting “the Lord.” But this time there would be no mistaking that this lord was a tyrant and despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.

It is a fact little known by Christians, but if Paul’s preaching is reflected in his letters, he never accurately shared the word of Yahowsha’. In one of his thirteen letters he made a brief passing attempt, citing a snippet, but even then he got that wrong. So rest assured, when Sha’uwl claims that everyone in Asia heard him “preach the word of the Lord,” it’s Satan’s message which is being proclaimed. Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as “ba’al – lord” because Satan, like Sha’uwl, craves supremacy, mastery, control, and ownership.” This very passage affirms Paul’s predilection for these very same things.

Yahowah and Yahowsha’ routinely tell us that “dunamis – ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders” are often, if not usually, associated with false prophets. But since Christians don’t listen to either, they typically associate such things with God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without God’s assistance. “Miraculous power and supernatural deeds and not having experienced the god were performed through the hands of Paulos.” (Acts 19:11)

Tugchano, which was negated in this statement by “ou – not in any way,” speaks of “hitting the mark and becoming a master, especially at throwing a deadly weapon.” It was rendered here as “having experienced,” but be aware that it is an equivocal term denoting that the actions are only probable. It is used to describe “extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skill.”

“So that also on the being weak to be carried away from the skin of him handkerchiefs or aprons and to be settled from them the illnesses and annoying spirits to depart out.” (Acts 19:12)

“Handkerchiefs” is from soudarion, which also means “a piece of cloth, towel, or napkin which may or may not be used as a burial cloth over the face of the deceased, to blow one’s nose, to wipe perspiration for one’s face, or to dry one’s hands.” It is of Latin origin. “Aprons” was rendered from simikinthion, another Latin word, which is “a worker’s smock or bib-apron worn by common workers and servants to protect their clothing.”

So what Paul is saying here is that napkins and aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and that as a result annoying spirits were exercised from the diseased. It is creepy in the extreme, not unlike today’s charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick.

The term Paul chose to infer that his handkerchiefs were healing the sick, apallassomai, means “to change, to settle with, and to reconcile,” which then infers that the feeble may have simply come to accept their maladies. It is derived from allasso, which denotes “exchanging one thing for another.” Perhaps lepers stopped complaining when they were given malaria?

The “spirits to depart out” were called “poneros – annoying, burdensome, harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal.” But remember, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’s most beloved Disciple, was rejected by Sha’uwl and replaced by another of his choosing. So I suspect that the reason Paul saw the Set-Apart Spirit as “annoying,” is that She was opposed to him.