Yahweh's Restoration Ministry

Did Paul follow the Messiah’s teachings or did he hijack them and begin a new religion?

Q.   Did Paul follow the Messiah’s teachings or did he hijack them and begin a new religion? Yahshua the Messiah says He’s for Israel only. It’s for this reason that I left the church 20 years ago and started with Buddhism.

A.   You ask a great and important question. We do not believe that Paul hijacked the Messiah’s message. While many today believe Paul started a new religion that resembled the Greco-Romans culture of his time, nothing could be further from the truth. If Paul is understood and his writings applied correctly, we will conclude that Paul never forsook the faith given to him as a boy. He continued keeping the commandments, even after coming to the Messiah.

An example of Paul’s unrelenting commitment to the faith of the Old Testament is Acts 24:14. He states there, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:”

In addition, we find several examples of Paul supporting the commandments throughout his epistles:

Romans 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not: yea, we establish the law.”

Romans 7:1, 12: Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? … Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

1Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of Yahweh.”

These passages do not describe a man who was anti-law or against the Old Testament, but a man who supported and saw value in both. Along with Paul’s commitment to the law and the Old Testament, we find several examples of him referring to and observing the Sabbath and Feast days.

Acts 17:2: “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”

Acts 18:4: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.”

Acts 20:16: “For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.”

1Corinthians 5:7-8: “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

A man who was sincerely opposed to the Old Testament laws would have never observed them as Paul did. Through Paul’s actions he demonstrated that he was not against the commandments, but supported and taught them.

While he remained faithful to his Old Testament roots, he was at times hard to understand. Peter even warns about Paul’s epistles, “And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction,” 2Perter 3:15-16.

Sadly, Christianity is guilty of Peter’s admonition. For nearly 2,000 years the church has used Paul to undermine sound, biblical teachings. So much of church theology and teachings are based on error and paganism, including beliefs such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and going to heaven or hell after death. This is also true of church holidays. Christmas and Easter are both based on pagan tradition. Christmas ushers back to the Roman festival of Saturnalia, a day originally dedicated to the god Saturn. As the early church grew, they compromised on an ever-increasing scale, until there was virtually no truth remaining.

As a ministry, we strive to base everything we believe and do only on the Bible. For this reason, we dismiss and reject all beliefs that are foreign, especially those adopted from paganism.

For more information, watch: Twisted Logic – Beware of the Doctrine of the First Glance


Visit our Q&A page for additional Q&A’s

I really don’t understand how we can reject the Apostolic Fathers who were appointed and trained by the apostles.

     I really don’t understand how we can reject the first churches, which had fathers who were appointed and trained by the apostles. For example, what about the Synod of Hippo and the Third Council of Carthage? Could you explain how “Sola scriptura” is reasonable and why these additional books should be rejected?


     We adhere only to the 66 books of the Bible. Therefore, while we have disagreements with Luther, we would agree with him on his doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e., Scripture alone. While we may refer to additional books as secondary witnesses or for historical reasons, we do not view them as Scripture or inspired. This includes the Jewish and Christian Apocrypha along with the Apostolic Fathers, those men who are believed to have followed the apostles.

There are several literary problems with the Apostolic Fathers. One, it’s hard to confirm the authorship of many of the books from the timeframe. In many cases, tradition alone ascribes authorship. Second, in some cases, the authors clearly deviate from Scripture. For example, the book of Barnabas, which claims Barnabas as its author without proof, teaches that the Old Testament was not for Israel, but for the church. Consequently, it allegorizes many of the commandments and concepts in the Old Testament. We also see elements of church tradition already within the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. For instance, it describes the Eucharist, a tradition that likely originated with the Passover. Other examples of Apostolic Fathers include Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. While we can glean important historical facts and see how certain beliefs may have developed, we should not look toward these writings as inspired. Regarding the Synod of Hippo and the Third Council of Carthage, these occurred in 393 CE and 397 CE, respectively, and were convened centuries after the apostles.

Can women preach?

q In 1Corinthians 14:34-35, wasn’t this translated from the old language and means for the women not to be “chattering” in church rather than a prohibition on women ministers? This is what many churches teach today.


First Corinthians 14:35 holds the key: If women are to learn, they are to aask their husbands at home, not be formally taught the Word by a woman preacher. Paul specifically said in 1Timothy 2:12 that a woman is not to teach a man. The fact that all priests were men, and all the apostles and writers of the New Testament as well, lends support to what Paul instructed the young Timothy. In the qualifications for the office of minister in1Timothy 3:2, Paul said that an individual had to be the husband of one wife. This automatically disqualifies women.

Is Paul apostate?

I qhave heard a lot of teachings concerning Saul of Tarsus lately. They say he was an apostate because of his message. I am seeking Yahweh’s Truths and understand that the scribes have deliberately changed things as the Old Testament states. Can you please help me on this. The scriptures tell us to see things out but there are so many lies it makes it hard to decipher the truth.

aPaul is apostate only to those who misunderstand or deliberately twist his teachings. By his own admission he was clearly pro-law (Rom. 3:31, 6:13, 7:12). He stated that he believed all things written in the Old Testament (Acts 24:14). In fact, Peter confirms Paul’s apostleship in 2Peter 3:15-16, “And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” With the exception of 134 instances where Yahweh’s Name was replaced by Adonai, the Old Testament text has remained practically untouched since its inception. This can be proved by comparing the accuracy of the many texts available to scholarship today. The Scribes and Pharisees were less guilty of modifying the text and more guilty of adding their own rabbinical, man-made traditions (Matt. 15:3).