My reasons why I walked away

These are the reasons I walked away from Judaism in 2014 after being biblical orthodox for about 25 long years, or since 1989.

PLEASE CLICK THE BLUE LINKS

1) First, when showing others the "whys" behind me walking away from my walk in biblical Judaism... I could start anywhere I suppose, but I felt the need to start here...

I had to establish the age of the Earth, according to the dates of the Tanach or Old Testament, so things could be understood in proper order. This whole set of papers, by the way, took awhile to create for there was lots of typing and studying involved. It has all been in my mind though and so this is me penning it down.

I display the dates that the bible gives, starting in Genesis with Adam and then going down the genealogy list till we get to the 4th year of Solomon's reign... then I counted the years of how long each Judean king reigned till we get to Nebuchadnezzer destroying the Temple in 586 BCE. Then that will give us the age of the Earth according to the bible.

2) Once shown that the Exodus supposedly happened in 1,495 BCE, according to the Torah and Tanach.... then find historical events around that time frame. {Paper completed - Age of the Universe}

3) Who were the Hyksos

4) The Hyksos reigned in biblical Goshen, and their capital was Avaris, called Ramesses in the Book of Exodus. That alone tells you that Exodus was written after Ramesses II.

5) Point out Kamose and who he is. Kamose, King of Upper Egypt waged war against the Hyksos and was defeated.

6) Then point out Ahmose. The brother of Kamose, took his place as king. His name was Ahmose. He defeated these Asiatics, these Semetic people or Hyksos and drove them to Canaan.... possibly to a place called, Sharuhen. Ahmose then destroyed Avaris and so Ramesses was eventually built on top of it. 

The Hyksos were not wiped out by Ahmose, he just forced them to Canaan where the other Semetics were. 

Through all of this.... one sees that Passover never happened, nor the great biblical Exodus, nor the splitting of the "sea of reeds (not the Dead Sea as translators translated).

THEN, when one "sees" that Passover, the Exodus, the splitting of the sea never occurred.... then Judaism literally goes away as a false religion... at least regarding the whole "biblical" narrarive regarding Exodus, Sinai and many of the commands related to those "supposed" events. Like, Passover and the Sabbath. 

As a footnote... in another paper, I show that Yom Kippur was totally invented after Ezra. And, due to this and other factors, this paper proves that our "current Torah" was compiled somewhere after Ezra (397 BCE), but also before the creation of the Greek Septuagint in 285 BCE.

Tie this in with all the Sumerian mythologies Jews were exposed to in Babylon, which were then adopted by them and then canonized in Genesis.... 

If one seeks for real truth, one has to walk away from all of this falsehood and that is what I did.

*These truths also cause problems for any thinking Christian. Because if the Exodus and Passover never happened then Jesus CAN'T BE the "Passover lamb that takes away the sin of the world." 

Maregaal
1-2-2022

My papers

 ** When did Paul convert? 

** Making a point of how life was Before Paul

** Why did I walk away from Biblical Judaism

**

When did Paul Convert?

When did Paul convert? And when did he meet up with James the Torah observant brother of Jesus, who was head of the Jewish and only body of believers or "church?"

According to Galatians 1 & 2, according to Paul himself.... Acts 21 took place 17 years after his so-called conversion. 

Then Acts 21-24 shows us that this 17th year is in 58 AD, the last two years of Felix's rule over Judea.... so 58-17 =  41 AD.... this is when Paul converted.... 

In the year 58.... not one Jewish believer believed in Paul's grace message, cuz it didnt exist, they were all Torah observant according to Acts 21:17-24

That is the real history of the early church.

Now for those of you that are to lazy to look things up for yourself, here is is:

Acts 21:17-24

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly.18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

So, what does Paul do? He lies to James or deceives James by going along with his recommendation. Because we all know what Paul taught in his letters. Thus, the "rumors" of what James caught wind of was actually true. For we all know that Paul turned his back on Judaism and from walking in the commandments. 

In fact, Paul wrote the entire epistle to the Galatians just to combat Judaizers, for the people of Galatia were practicing the Torah. Paul didn't like that at all. 

This is why he wrote in Gal 1 & 5 these words:

 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel....
...the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it... (lol, red flag)
...you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism...
....I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

...I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

From the crucifixion in 0033 to 0058, which is 25 long years..... the believers were strictly practicing the Torah and were not aware that any "saved by grace" doctrine existed, because it didn't. Mind you, James, the very brother of Jesus himself was head of this new Judaic sect!

Any one that has this info would reject Paul and all his writings and those that are attributed to him.

Maregaal

Dec 10, 2021

Making the point, Life before Paul

Can I make a very crude example between the original group of Jesus followers with the original facebook..... vs. How things changed once Paul came on the seen 25 long years after Jesus was crucified and Paul gave rise or invented his "grace" message that the original group knew nothing about?

25 years is a long time, all the original believers kept observing their Judaic heritage and kept practicing the Torah, like the Pharisees and Saduccees were. That is if the Book of Acts has any truth to it.

The original facebook is nothing like the facebook of today. The original was for college students/friends at Harvard University. That is the original, a far cry of today.... the same goes for the "church...."


Now that we made our point, the difference is this...

When it comes to the "church" or the body of true believers.... the original is the only version that Jesus wanted and set up. 

Not what some so-called "disciple" named Paul claimed who never heard Jesus, nor saw him. In fact, by his own admission.... he never even 'learned" his theology from the other apostles. He merely claimed he learned it by some revelation!!!! Haaaahaaa

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.  I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ," Galatians 1:11-12.

Soooo, if he never walked with Jesus, never heard from Jesus, never heard from any of the apostles, nor heard from Jesus' very own brother... why do people bother listening to him?

In fact, out of the 13 supposed letters by Paul....

he doesn't even write about the historical Jesus, except for one little passage that was supposedly said at the last supper. Something, that would bolster his doctrine, but nothing else is mentioned concerning Jesus.

In truth, Paul just promotes what Jesus'  death supposedly occomplished. 

Yikes!!!

Maregaal
Dec 10, 2021

The True Reason behind Christmas

I know most people dont question their personal faith, because they are either afraid of what the results may bring or they are afraid to blaspheme or see that the truth will force them to walk away.

With that in mind.... what is the real reason why people celebrate the birth of Jesus in Dec, and more precisely Dec 25?

Many say..., "Jesus is the reason for the season." However, is the date truly rooted in Jesus' birth or more likely rooted in Roman paganism to mask over heathen celebrations?

The gospels, and the whole New Testament is silent of the time and day of when Jesus was really born. That is a fact and 100% of all historians and theologians know this.

Paul, was the first author of the NT... and the most prolific.... in Romans 1:1-3 Paul claims that Jesus was conceived by a normal sexual union...  and at the time when he was writing, the made up stories of the 2 separate versions of the virgin birth stories were not invented yet.

Let me digress on the 2 different virgin stories...

In these two accounts, however, there are no hints that it is cold, nor winter, especially when the shepherds are out tending their flocks.

So.... where did the December 25 date come from or how did it originate.

Most likely it is associated with the pagan worship of the Sun. The winter Solstice typically falls on Dec 21...

In the Roman world, they celebrated Saturnalia and Juvenalia.... but in the 4th century... the time when the date of Jesus' so called, "birth" was given by the church elders.... The celebration of  "Sol Invictus" was observed, due to the normal.wunter solstice and the worship of the sun

"Sol Invictus" was pushed by Emperor Aurelian, who ruled in 270 AD. A longer name to this celebration is "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti  (“Birth of the Undefeated Sun”)."

Along with this was the cult of Mithras.

Here is a quote,
"By a decree of March 7, 321 CE Emperor Constantine the Great introduced Sunday as the official holiday Sol Invictus – dies Solis.

Sol Invictus, falling on December 25, is first authenticated in 354 CE Church at the end of the 4th century CE rewrote the celebration of Christmas on this day. It is widely claimed that the December 25th date for Christmas was chosen to deliberately remove and replace the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (“Birth of the Undefeated Sun”). However, this claim is heavily criticized."


Not sure about this quote... but Sol worship was accepted and pushed by Emperor Aurelian and it was at the time of the Solstice, Dec 21.


Dec 25 is hard to prove as a decree from Aurelian. Keep in mind, they were using the flawed Julian calendar, and apparently/possibly the winter solstice was on Dec 25, at one point, but due to their ill math figures the calendar was updated centuries later, giving us the Gregorian Calendar... so if true, or close enough.... this is why it is on the 25th, and not on the 21st.

Thus, Jesus is NOT the real reason for the season. Christmas originally is just a mask to cover over a national pagan holiday of sun worship.


Maregaal
12/14/2021

Who truly dug the well in Beer-Sheba

Here is another contradiction in the Book of Genesis concerning "who" exactly dug the well in Beer-Sheba and "why" was the place called Beer-Sheba


1. Who dug the well in Beer-Sheba?
a. Abraham
b. (Or) The servants of Issac


2. How old was Isaac when Esau and Jacob were born
a. 60
b. 75 or older

___________________


The first contradiction is found between Genesis 21:22-32 and Genesis 26:23-33.

There are several contradictions and/or problems actually...

1. Who dug the well?

2. It is funny to read that Abimelech and his General Phichol are in both stories concerning who originally dug the well. Genesis just can't figure out if Abraham dug it or that the servants of Isaac did so.


Here are the passages...


Genesis 21:22-32
22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou doest. 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.' 24 And Abraham said: 'I will swear.' 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said: 'I know not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to-day.' 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven ewe-lambs which thou hast set by themselves?' 30 And he said: 'Verily, these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.' 31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath); because there they swore both of them. 32 So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba; and Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.


Now here is:

Genesis 26:23-33
23 And he (Isaac) went up from thence to Beer-sheba**. 24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said: 'I am the God of Abraham thy father. Fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for My servant Abraham's sake.' 25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants digged a well. 26 Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his host. 27 And Isaac said unto them: 'Wherefore are ye come unto me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?' 28 And they said: 'We saw plainly that the LORD was with thee; and we said: Let there now be an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; 29 that thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace; thou art now the blessed of the LORD.' 30 And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. 31 And they rose up betimes in the morning, and swore one to another; and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. 32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him: 'We have found water.' 33 And he called it Shaba'. Therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath) unto this day. {S}


** = This is not meant to mean that it was already named Beer-sheba. Rather, the author of this narrative lived over a thousand years after this event, supoosedly, took place and is merely pin pointing the local of "where" this event took place.


So, by this we can see that these stories or narratives came from different authors and not a single author named "Moses." And, in truth, by these different accounts we cannot know for certain "who" actually dug the well. Whether that be Abraham or the servants of Isaac...

Or, if it was dug by someone else and the Israelites just merely credited their ancestors for doing so? Keep in mind, that Genesis was written far after the "supposed" lifetime of Moses, even though Rabbis claim that Moses wrote it.

Why do I say that? Because in Genesis 36.... the author mentions the kings of Israel. Thus, being way after Moses supposed time frame of living that was around 1505 BCE, supposedly.


Genesis 36:31
These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.

*********

Now the way Genesis reads, when reading straight through

When Abimelech and Phicol came to Abraham, Isaac was just born, thus Abraham was 100 years old.

For the story takes place in Genesis 21 also, just at the beginning of the chapter....

1 Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him. 4 When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

Now if you keep reading through....

when we get to Genesis 26 Isaac is beyond 60 years old, namely around 75 years old, because Abraham lives to 175 and he dies in the chapter before and so Isaac and Ishmael bury their father (Gen 25:9). The ages are told by some author, but it seems that the person who put Genesis together didn't bother with confirming the stories with how long the patriarchs supposedly lived.


For a few verses later, after the death of Abraham in v.9.... Isaac becomes the father to Esau and Jacob.... but the story all of a sudden claims that Isaac was 60 at the time.... not over 75 years old.


Thus, there is another contradiction we found just by dealing with the two Beer-Sheba accounts...


Again,

According to one passage Abraham was 100 years old when Sarah has Isaac, then in another passage it says Abraham lived to 175 years old. Yet, according to Genesis 25 Abraham was dead before Esau and Jacob were born, yet Isaac was only 60 years old.


It is clear that there were many authors and that the stories were so scrambled up, to say the least, thus giving us many contradictions.


Maregaal
11/28/2011
6:33 AM (Arkansas time)


UPDATED ON:
Dec 29, 2021
3:59 am

Jesus cursing the fig tree, Nope

 Dang, accidentally found another contradiction in the New Testament.... regarding an event that probably never took place.

Here we go...

In Matthew 24 we see Jesus saying these words....

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near," Matt 24:32

And, those that know farming practices know that figs come in early  summer and Fall if cultivated correctly.

In Israel, it can produce two harvests in a growing season. A crop of figs can come in late June, and then another crop comes along in early September. That first crop is produced on the branch grown the previous season

 https://www.kkl-jnf.org/tourism-and-recreation/touring-holy-land/trees/fig.aspx

So, here is the contradiction which would seem to point out that the event never took place... so here it goes

Now I just quoted Matthew 24:32 and by that verse it seems clear Jesus knows a little bit about farming practices.

Now keep in mind that the Passover is held sometime between late March to early April, depending on the first Full Moon after the Spring equinox. Well,  for that year of 0033, Passover was on Thursday April 1st.

Now that quote is from Matthew 24, but if we look in chapter 21 just hours earlier of him saying what he did in Matt 24:32... we find something very odd.

This takes place on Monday, the day after Palm Sunday... keep in mind to what i just said, Thursday is Passover. So, according to the Gregorian Calendar, this Monday was March 29, 0033.

So here is Matthew 21:18-22...

Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again." Immediately the tree withered.

When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

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

So, if Jesus knew when the leaves sprout out and then the figs come, as claimed in Matt 24.... then why would he even bother looking for figs in March? Thus, this event never took place.

For real figs dont come until Summer and Fall.

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

Now what is interesting is what Mark says. Keep in mind that many Textual Critic scholars deem Mark as the first gospel of the three synoptic Gospels. In other words it is the source gospel for Matthew and Luke. For Matthew copies Mark verbatim word for word in a vast amount. And, whatever Mark has Matthew also has. However, Mark only has 16 chapters, whereas Matthew has a long 28 chapters in comparison. So, Matthew greatly adds to Mark's account.

Now keep in mind what i just wrote about the contradiction in Matthew.

On top of this i want to point out a detail... when Jesus curses the fig in Matthew, on that Monday, it says it withered "immediately."

Now when we read Mark... Palm Sunday happens, then Jesus leaves Jerusalem.  On Monday, Jesus and his disciples return to Jerusalem and when they are going he sees a fig tree and curses it for not having fruit. Unlike Matthew, where Jesus flips the tables on Palm Sunday, in Mark he does so on Monday. Likewise, in Matthew the fig tree withers immediately, so much so that the disciples say something about it.

Not so in Mark. While the tree gets cursed on Monday, the disciples don't say anything about it till Tuesday when Jesus goes back to Jerusalem for the third time.

What is interesting is this... "Mark" tries to fix the story by adding some remarks in the narrative by saying.... "because it was not the season for figs."

Which i find funny! Because why look if it is not the season for figs? And, why curse the tree when it is not justified to do so?

Because of things like this, this gives just cause for why Textual Critic scholars lean towards the theory of a "Q" source manuscript and so Mark is not the original source to Matthew, nor to Luke.

So here is Mark, chapter 11

Mark 11:12-26

The next day (Monday) as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables.....

....When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

... In the morning (Tuesday), as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

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

Mark shouldn't put the little comment in there. Because if people don't know farming... they wouldn't see the contradiction.

Not until they read Mark 13:28-29, where Jesus seems to know a little bit about farming...

“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near..."

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

So we see several contradictions when studying this topic

1. Jesus seems to know when figs come, yet then looks for figs a few days before Passover, in late March that year, when figs don't even exist on  trees during that time of year.

2. When did the disciples notice the withering? Was it Monday according to Matthew or Tuesday according to Mark?

3. Though I didn't mention this fully... but the flipping of the tables occur on Palm Sunday in Matthew, but on Monday according to Mark.

Again, it seems like the smallest of all gospels, Mark, is copying from some source (like source "Q") and "possibly" that this "source" doesn't mention times regarding the tree being cursed, nor the time frame of the year... rather it might just be crude notes and these authors who don't know farming, added it in the wrong spot in their personal narrative, but that is uneducated or unverifiable speculation, except for the source part. That might be more of a "likelihood." 

Now if we go to Luke's version on the "end time" conversation that Jesus had with his disciples in Luke 21.... he adds to the narrative something that neither Mark, nor Matthew has. Instead of focusing on just a fig tree.... he mentions all trees....

Luke 21:29-31

He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near."

Just had to point that out.

Now in Luke 19, we don't get a since of what day Jesus enters Jerusalem, especially when the lead up he is here and there. However, the same day he enters Jerusalem he drives out those who were selling. 

Interestingly enough though, in Luke's narrative.... Jesus never curses a fig tree, so either Luke omits that story or was not aware of it. Likewise, in Luke, Jesus never flips tables over in his narrative.

We only read... 

Luke 21:45-46

When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer;' but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.'"

So, you can't have a guy that is seemingly to be knowledgeable about when figs mature then suddenly look for figs to eat from the tree when they don't exist yet. Thus, the story probably never happened, and as mentioned, it is interesting that Luke omits that story altogether!!!!

Maregaal

12/27/2021