This day have I begotten you

[Wick Stick]

We see from the first analogy using figs that it concerns all of mankind, Adam.

I differ in my interpretation.

Adam is not all mankind. Adam is Edom (same word!) and his posterity, the Kenites (Cain in the other story).

Israel is the fig tree. The Kenites joined themselves to Israel after the exodus. Or if you prefer, "Adam" has outfitted himself in an array of fig leaves.

Unfortunately for them, national identity does not confer election. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." An enemy has sewn tares among the wheat. Jacob have I loved, but Esau... God hates that fool.

Double unfortunate for Esau/Edom/Adam and Cain and his Kenites, they have chosen the wrong tree with which to clothe themselves. Notwithstanding the sandpapery elegance of the fig leaf, this "fig tree" - Israel - is all bound up in the Mosaic Law, which gives knowledge of good and evil.

Had Edom not so joined himself to a people belabored by the Law, he might have been able to join himself to that other tree, the tree of zoe-life, which is animal life, lawyer-free and unbound by statutes.

But now Edom and Cain are in the worst place. Un-elect, born of the devil, and destined to do his father's deeds, yet bound to God's laws, and by the punishments for failing to uphold them.

He is for the moment camouflaged, a "fig tree" as reckoned by the leaves, but unable to give fruit, because it is not truly a fig tree. As Jesus foretold, a reckoning was at hand to separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the Kenites from the Israelites. The chaff and the tree that is unable to bear fruit were destined for the pyre. Indeed, they seem to have made their way there.

 

[freelight]

Jesus adopted and anointed as God's Son or 'Messiah'.........

Jesus adopted and anointed as God's Son or 'Messiah'.........

For a more liberal esoteric view of these famous "10 words" (""Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee") go here as Allan Cronshaw terms it to see how to some students believe the words were taken out of the gospel accounts and kept only in some of the other NT passages, some doctrinal preclusions motivating the ommissions being made. Is this significant? It goes back to a special sonship being christened upon Jesus AT his baptism, when the dove of the Holy Spirit or 'Christ' came upon him,....whereby the divine voice of the Father 'anounced' the 'sonship' being given at that time,....."that day". This is more of an Adoptionist view as we've shared previously and could challenge some Trinitarian claims of Jesus eternal sonship....hence the textual 'tinkering'

 

[daqq]

daqq,

What particular aspects of the traditional virgin birth narrative do you accept and what differentiates your view or interpretation of Mary's conception with the Christ-child? Some traditions or views accept Jesus birth as special in some sense, but with Mary being impregnated by Joseph in the usual natural way, except that overshadowed or enhanced by the Spirit of God. Did Mary conceive miraculously without the usual way of human intercourse, so that Jesus birth is indeed a real miracle, or is this to be interpreted figuratively? Care to elaborate?

All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan:

Matthew 11:9-15
9 But why did you out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and exceedingly more than a prophet!
10 This is he of whom it is written, "Behold, I send My Angel before your face, [Exodus 23:20a LXX] who shall prepare your way before you.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there has not arisen a greater-elder than Yohanan the Immerser: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he [for the Son of man was made a little lower than (the) Elohim].
12 And from the days of Yohanan the Immerser [cf. Slavonic Josephus] until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and men of violence take it by force.
13 For all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan.
14 And, if you are willing to receive it, this is Eliyahu that is about to come.
15 The one having ears to hear let hear.

So not only is Yohanan the greatest of those having been born of women, and not only is he Eliyahu who is always to come, (because the words of Yeshua will not pass away), and not only is Yohanan the Malak of Exodus 23:20, (because that is where Yeshua quotes from in the Septuagint according to the author of Matthew), but because the nashiym are the kohanim, (born of nashiym, born of women), Yohanan is Mashiach ben Ahron. That is not "the Messiah, son of Ahron", but rather, "the Anointed one, son of Ahron". Elisabeth is the same name as Elisheba, (that is how her name is rendered in the Septuagint, Exodus 6:33). Her name means "oath of God" or "God of oath" because sheba/sheva is seven, (a seven times oath as if "to seven oneself in oath" or repeat a sworn statement seven times in oath). However Elisheba the wife of Ahron is full blooded Yhudiy being sister of Nahshon, prince of tribe Yhudah. That is why I said that every son and daughter of Ahron is one hundred percent Leviy, (Levite), and one hundred percent Yhudiy, (Jewish), and that is because their mother is Elisheba, sister of Nahshon, prince of tribe Yhudah, and Elisheba is the wife of Arhon and therefore the mother of the priesthood. This is why both Maryah and Elisheba spin the scarlet together in Apokalypse Yaakob, and why it draws from the fact that the Torah says the scarlet for all the holy things, including the veil, is to be double spun. It is another allegory, (of blood lines and genealogy in this instance). Yohanan therefore has the right by blood to become a chief Kohen, but he empties himself, and counts it all as loss to gain Messiah. Messiah is he that descended from the heavens at the immersion and he it is who speaks through Yohanan the Lamp. In physical terms Messiah would be through king David, tribe Yhudah; but Messiah is not that kind of physical, for all flesh is not the same flesh, (and king David says, "YHWH said to Adoniy, Sit at My right hand", David therefore is not speaking of a physical son born of the flesh). The body of Messiah could not see corruption, neither could death hold him; and this is the holy food, the true manna from heaven, the bread of life, the pure blood of the grape, the Memra-Logos-Word of the Father. Yohanan is given a new name when he is at last born from above, that is, Yeshua, (and this is the new birth process having been fully disclosed in the scroll of the Apocalypse of Meshiah Yeshua). There is Yeshua the one Anointed and there is Yeshua Meshiah YHWH who descended from the heavens and abode-remained upon the man Yeshua, (formerly Yohanan). Yohanan is not the only one either; for he was not born from above until all those seeking to enter into the kingdom of Elohim had been immersed under his name, (the first shall be last and the last shall be first). Every one born from above has the name of the Father and the name of the Arnion written in his forehead. The firstfruits are those whom Herod had locked up and "hedged in" at the hippodrome, marked for death, about 144000 manchild servants, (παιδας), yet they returned to their brethren just as prophesied in Jeremiah and Micah, (Septuagint version), and Yohanan immersed them all during his very lengthy ministry of an immersion toward teshuvah in the desert. Yoseph and Maryah are therefore allegories: they are the other half of the spiritual lineage and holy seed line of Yohanan the Kohen. Yoseph is Yoseph as prophesied in the Torah; Maryah is Yerushalaim of Above as prophesied in Yeshayahu-Isaiah; for all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan. I know this is going to be too much for most to take in all in one post; therefore I have some 1200 other posts which came before this one to explain what is herein.

 

[daqq]

I differ in my interpretation.

Adam is not all mankind. Adam is Edom (same word!) and his posterity, the Kenites (Cain in the other story).

Israel is the fig tree. The Kenites joined themselves to Israel after the exodus. Or if you prefer, "Adam" has outfitted himself in an array of fig leaves.

Unfortunately for them, national identity does not confer election. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." An enemy has sewn tares among the wheat. Jacob have I loved, but Esau... God hates that fool.

Double unfortunate for Esau/Edom/Adam and Cain and his Kenites, they have chosen the wrong tree with which to clothe themselves. Notwithstanding the sandpapery elegance of the fig leaf, this "fig tree" - Israel - is all bound up in the Mosaic Law, which gives knowledge of good and evil.

Had Edom not so joined himself to a people belabored by the Law, he might have been able to join himself to that other tree, the tree of zoe-life, which is animal life, lawyer-free and unbound by statutes.

But now Edom and Cain are in the worst place. Un-elect, born of the devil, and destined to do his father's deeds, yet bound to God's laws, and by the punishments for failing to uphold them.

He is for the moment camouflaged, a "fig tree" as reckoned by the leaves, but unable to give fruit, because it is not truly a fig tree. As Jesus foretold, a reckoning was at hand to separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the Kenites from the Israelites. The chaff and the tree that is unable to bear fruit were destined for the pyre. Indeed, they seem to have made their way there.

Out of curiosity, is this from the hypothesis that the Torah was written either in the days of Josiah or possibly rewritten later under Ezra? Not that I would discount what you have said if you believe that, (because either could be true), but just curious. As for the bulk of what you have said I do believe that all have Kenite in them and it, again, needs to be removed. We see evidence of this in the following:

Judges 4:11 ASV
11 Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far as the oak in Zaanannim, which is by Kedesh.

Whether Chobab is the brother-in-law or father-in-law of Moshe really is not of concern here but, rather, the Key is what is about to come to pass:

Judges 4:11-14 KJV
11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
12 And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor.
13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.

And what is about to commence following after the above passage?
Nothing less than the Battle of Evermore, (cf. Judges 5:19-21, Daniel 8, Revelation 12).

Matthew 10:34-38
34 Think not that I am come to send peace upon the land: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to sever a man from his father, and the daughter from her mother, and the daughter in law from her mother in law.
36 And the enemies of a man shall be those of his own household.
37 The one loving father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and the one loving son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And the one not taking up his stake and following after me is not worthy of me.

The Kenite is the old man nature, that is, "Esau man" or Edom, (Adam).

 

[Wick Stick]

Out of curiosity, is this from the hypothesis that the Torah was written either in the days of Josiah or possibly rewritten later under Ezra? Not that I would discount what you have said if you believe that, (because either could be true), but just curious.

Not specifically, but perhaps indirectly.

It is my own understanding of the text. My hypothesis of the authorship of the Pentateuch is colored by the Documentary Hypothesis, but differs in major ways. I will explain:

I believe that Deuteronomy was the original composition of Moses (&/or his scribe). I believe this is the book which was lost, and then found in the time of King Josiah. By contrast, the Documentary Hypothesis proposes a late date of authorship for Deuteronomy ("D"), making it a pseudonymous composition of one of the prophets.

I believe that the tribes were keeping (at least) 2 historical records, the "Book of Jasher" which is mentioned in the Bible (not to be confused with the modern 'book of Jasher' used by the Mormon church), and presumably a "book of Judah" or similar. These are roughly analagous to "J" and "E" in the Documentary Hypothesis ("hereafter DH"). However, the DH proposes a single author and a composition date somewhere around the reign of David, while I a hypothesize multiple authorship over a prolonged period of time.

I do believe somewhere between Saul and Solomon, when the tribes organized a united monarchy, a redaction of the two national histories was undertaken, and they were combined. These form the bulk of the books of Exodus and Numbers. Also combined into the mix were 2 other notable documents.

First, it appears that at some point the Levites authored documents on conduct of priests and procedure for performing sacrifices. In the DH, this is "P." This forms the bulk of the book of Leviticus.

Additionally, it appears that someone contributed to the redaction project a collection of genealogies, catalogued under colophon statements, and therefore probably written in antiquity on clay or stone. The DH does not recognize these as a separate data source. These form the bulk of the book of Genesis.

The DH obviously influences my views, but there are some other sources I should credit:

The Amarna Letters, without which I would never have understood the competing polities of the Ancient Near East and their importance to the text.

The gibberish-until-they-suddenly-aren't writings of Ken Sublett (the notorious Piney/blituri). I disagree with most of Ken's theology, but his mastery of pagan mythology and its influence in the Bible is quite remarkable.

The archaeological reports (mostly the summaries thereof) from the digs at Timna, which proved to me the priesthood was corrupted even before it arrived in Canaan.

Midian, Moab, & Edom by Sawyer and Clines, for elucidating the relationship between Israel, Midian & Edom, as well as systematically proving the dating of the original settlements of Israel (to Iron I) through comprehensive treatment of archaeological digs.

Several books on textual criticism, of unremembered names and authorship. Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua opens the Scriptures like nothing else.

Jarrod

 

[daqq]

Not specifically, but perhaps indirectly.

It is my own understanding of the text. My hypothesis of the authorship of the Pentateuch is colored by the Documentary Hypothesis, but differs in major ways. I will explain:

I believe that Deuteronomy was the original composition of Moses (&/or his scribe). I believe this is the book which was lost, and then found in the time of King Josiah. By contrast, the Documentary Hypothesis proposes a late date of authorship for Deuteronomy ("D"), making it a pseudonymous composition of one of the prophets.

I believe that the tribes were keeping (at least) 2 historical records, the "Book of Jasher" which is mentioned in the Bible (not to be confused with the modern 'book of Jasher' used by the Mormon church), and presumably a "book of Judah" or similar. These are roughly analagous to "J" and "E" in the Documentary Hypothesis ("hereafter DH"). However, the DH proposes a single author and a composition date somewhere around the reign of David, while I a hypothesize multiple authorship over a prolonged period of time.

I do believe somewhere between Saul and Solomon, when the tribes organized a united monarchy, a redaction of the two national histories was undertaken, and they were combined. These form the bulk of the books of Exodus and Numbers. Also combined into the mix were 2 other notable documents.

First, it appears that at some point the Levites authored documents on conduct of priests and procedure for performing sacrifices. In the DH, this is "P." This forms the bulk of the book of Leviticus.

Additionally, it appears that someone contributed to the redaction project a collection of genealogies, catalogued under colophon statements, and therefore probably written in antiquity on clay or stone. The DH does not recognize these as a separate data source. These form the bulk of the book of Genesis.

The DH obviously influences my views, but there are some other sources I should credit:

The Amarna Letters, without which I would never have understood the competing polities of the Ancient Near East and their importance to the text.

The gibberish-until-they-suddenly-aren't writings of Ken Sublett (the notorious Piney/blituri). I disagree with most of Ken's theology, but his mastery of pagan mythology and its influence in the Bible is quite remarkable.

The archaeological reports (mostly the summaries thereof) from the digs at Timna, which proved to me the priesthood was corrupted even before it arrived in Canaan.

Midian, Moab, & Edom by Sawyer and Clines, for elucidating the relationship between Israel, Midian & Edom, as well as systematically proving the dating of the original settlements of Israel (to Iron I) through comprehensive treatment of archaeological digs.

Several books on textual criticism, of unremembered names and authorship. Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua opens the Scriptures like nothing else.

Jarrod

Hi Jarrod, thanks for the reply,

It is certain to me that you have done much more investigation and research in this direction than I have; so if you have things you would like to add or say concerning this avenue which pertain to anything in this thread, I would certainly welcome your commentary and input here. But the point being I would probably not be able to "hang with you" in an in depth conversation of such thing as I have not gone far in that direction, (not that I do not want to hear it or learn from it but simply do not have the background). But I will say that the main reason I have not felt compelled to go in that direction is because it appears to me that Paul grapples and deals with this issue in certain clouded or veiled terms. For instance in Galatians 4:22-31 we see the clear juxtaposition between above and below. And although he does not mention Horeb it is implied because of the mention of Sinai. By the context of the passage we see clear juxtapositions made between Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, (though Ishmael also is not mentioned by name the implication is clear), Jerusalem of above and Jerusalem of below, the mother covenant which is holy and the mother of harlots which are they that see all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh, and thus the opposition of the Spirit against the Flesh. So we see the two covenants, the two women Sarah and Hagar, (who is Egypt, "great of flesh", and Sodom), the two seeds; Isaac of the promise and Ishmael of the flesh, and thus the two mountains; mount Horeb which is of above and is called the mountain of Elohim, (and thus represents the Torah of Elohim), and mount Sinai which is of below, (and thus represents the Torah of sin and death, [used for putting to death our own bodies yet still in the symbolic and supernal way, "Mortify the deeds of the body"]). When we get to Romans 7 we see this same juxtaposition between the Torah of Elohim, (Torah of the mind and inner man, which is Horeb), and the Torah of sin and death, (Sinai which is of the flesh and of below).

Romans 7:14-25 KJV
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me ( that is, in my flesh, ) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So then with the mind I myself serve the Torah of Elohim, that is, mount Horeb, the mountain of Elohim, (Exodus 3:1), which is of above and represents supernal Torah of the mind and of the inner man: spiritual and supernal. This Torah of Elohim in my understanding is Devarim or Deuteronomy.

But with the flesh I myself serve the Torah of sin, (and death), and this is mount Sinai which is of the flesh and of below. I therefore so run, not with uncertainty; but in this manner I fight, not as one beating at the air about me: but I pommel my own body into submission and bring it into slavery, into subjection; lest by any means, when I have preached to others, (says Paul), I myself should be a castaway, (worthless castaway fish; for the kingdom of the heavens is like a net).

Joshua 24:26
26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Sefer Torah of Elohim, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the Sanctuary of YHWH.

 

[Wick Stick]

...the main reason I have not felt compelled to go in that direction is because it appears to me that Paul grapples and deals with this issue in certain clouded or veiled terms.

For instance in Galatians 4:22-31 we see the clear juxtaposition between above and below. And although he does not mention Horeb it is implied because of the mention of Sinai. By the context of the passage we see clear juxtapositions made between Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, (though Ishmael also is not mentioned by name the implication is clear), Jerusalem of above and Jerusalem of below, the mother covenant which is holy and the mother of harlots which are they that see all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh, and thus the opposition of the Spirit against the Flesh. So we see the two covenants, the two women Sarah and Hagar, (who is Egypt, "great of flesh", and Sodom), the two seeds; Isaac of the promise and Ishmael of the flesh, and thus the two mountains; mount Horeb which is of above and is called the mountain of Elohim, (and thus represents the Torah of Elohim), and mount Sinai which is of below, (and thus represents the Torah of sin and death, [used for putting to death our own bodies yet still in the symbolic and supernal way, "Mortify the deeds of the body"]). When we get to Romans 7 we see this same juxtaposition between the Torah of Elohim, (Torah of the mind and inner man, which is Horeb), and the Torah of sin and death, (Sinai which is of the flesh and of below).

You're on the right track, there, in my opinion.

I have quite a few hours in hermeneutics, so it was with some difficulty that I finally relented to the conclusion that the NT authors applied the OT text in a supernal fashion, as you do. Numerous examples show that they weren't interested in context, or original intent, or historical accuracy. They were interested in how they could apply it to their lives, and this they accomplished more by rehearsing the words, putting them into action. Maybe it's old fashioned, but I think if you're applying Scripture as the NT authors did, that can't help but be a good thing.

Yet we don't always interpret the same. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Where you have taken the supernal meaning to apply internally to ourselves, I am taking a supernal application that is external.

Israel is the church; Egypt the world. Israel came out of Egypt, and stopped laboring as slaves, by the might of the hand of God. The same may be said for the Church in the world.

But the record shows that Israel was corrupted as soon as she came out, both by bringing out many people who were not Israel, and by allowing others who were foreign to be joined to them. So Israel, from her nativity as a people, was really two peoples - Israel and Edom (aka Jacob and Esau).

Likewise the church. From her nativity, grievous wolves have entered the flock. It is no coincidence that the wolf was the apocalyptic symbol of Egypt. Likewise, Canaanites are dogs in NT parlance, being descendants of wolves. Jesus warnings about wolves and dogs should be understood in that light.

So then with the mind I myself serve the Torah of Elohim, that is, mount Horeb, the mountain of Elohim, (Exodus 3:1), which is of above and represents supernal Torah of the mind and of the inner man: spiritual and supernal. This Torah of Elohim in my understanding is Devarim or Deuteronomy.

But with the flesh I myself serve the Torah of sin, (and death), and this is mount Sinai which is of the flesh and of below. I therefore so run, not with uncertainty; but in this manner I fight, not as one beating at the air about me: but I pommel my own body into submission and bring it into slavery, into subjection; lest by any means, when I have preached to others, (says Paul), I myself should be a castaway, (worthless castaway fish; for the kingdom of the heavens is like a net).

Joshua 24:26
26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Sefer Torah of Elohim, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the Sanctuary of YHWH.

An interesting facet of the derivation of the Pentateuch is that many of the stories are duplicated. When they redacted the two histories, many of the stories (and names) diverged enough to be included twice with different details. Isaac is Jacob. Ishmael is Esau. Abimelech is Pharoah. Abram is Abraham, with sparse explanation for the name change. Is it Sarah and Hagar, or Rebecca and Leah? It is no coincidence that Israel has 12 tribes, and the Canaanites have 12 tribes as well.

Likewise, it isn't that Abraham & Isaac cut separate covenants with Abimelech for the same well at Beersheba; the story is just duplicated. Abram didn't cut two covenants with God, either; the one covenant is recorded twice. And so on and so forth.

It turns out that the names are less important than the message. Israel is a house divided, a kingdom half full of pretenders. The church is the same.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

For a more liberal esoteric view of these famous "10 words" (""Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee") go here as Allan Cronshaw terms it to see how to some students believe the words were taken out of the gospel accounts and kept only in some of the other NT passages, some doctrinal preclusions motivating the ommissions being made. Is this significant? It goes back to a special sonship being christened upon Jesus AT his baptism, when the dove of the Holy Spirit or 'Christ' came upon him,....whereby the divine voice of the Father 'anounced' the 'sonship' being given at that time,....."that day". This is more of an Adoptionist view as we've shared previously and could challenge some Trinitarian claims of Jesus eternal sonship....hence the textual 'tinkering'

Okay Freelight, according to whom was Jesus adopted and anointed son of God and Messiah? Probably according to Paul if you read Acts 9:20 and II Timothy 2:8. I do believe Jesus was son of God and Messiah but as part of the People be belonged to. Son of God as we have in Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son; let My Son go that he may serve Me." And Messiah as we have in Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the son of God.

 

[daqq]

You're on the right track, there, in my opinion.

I have quite a few hours in hermeneutics, so it was with some difficulty that I finally relented to the conclusion that the NT authors applied the OT text in a supernal fashion, as you do. Numerous examples show that they weren't interested in context, or original intent, or historical accuracy. They were interested in how they could apply it to their lives, and this they accomplished more by rehearsing the words, putting them into action. Maybe it's old fashioned, but I think if you're applying Scripture as the NT authors did, that can't help but be a good thing.

Yet we don't always interpret the same. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Where you have taken the supernal meaning to apply internally to ourselves, I am taking a supernal application that is external.

Israel is the church; Egypt the world. Israel came out of Egypt, and stopped laboring as slaves, by the might of the hand of God. The same may be said for the Church in the world.

But the record shows that Israel was corrupted as soon as she came out, both by bringing out many people who were not Israel, and by allowing others who were foreign to be joined to them. So Israel, from her nativity as a people, was really two peoples - Israel and Edom (aka Jacob and Esau).

Likewise the church. From her nativity, grievous wolves have entered the flock. It is no coincidence that the wolf was the apocalyptic symbol of Egypt. Likewise, Canaanites are dogs in NT parlance, being descendants of wolves. Jesus warnings about wolves and dogs should be understood in that light.


An interesting facet of the derivation of the Pentateuch is that many of the stories are duplicated. When they redacted the two histories, many of the stories (and names) diverged enough to be included twice with different details. Isaac is Jacob. Ishmael is Esau. Abimelech is Pharoah. Abram is Abraham, with sparse explanation for the name change. Is it Sarah and Hagar, or Rebecca and Leah? It is no coincidence that Israel has 12 tribes, and the Canaanites have 12 tribes as well.

Likewise, it isn't that Abraham & Isaac cut separate covenants with Abimelech for the same well at Beersheba; the story is just duplicated. Abram didn't cut two covenants with God, either; the one covenant is recorded twice. And so on and so forth.

It turns out that the names are less important than the message. Israel is a house divided, a kingdom half full of pretenders. The church is the same.

Jarrod

I do agree with most everything you have said; seems to me we are pretty much on the same track. I do not discount layers of thinking, one layer beneath or upon another, and it seems we are simply looking a different layers for the moment, sort of speak. The reason everything is repeated imo is because it is pretty much all parable and allegory which expands with each retelling until Meshiah came. History is being used to tell the people of Elohim about spiritual and supernal things and that is why, sometimes, the history does not quite match up: it was not the most important message the authors wished to convey. The Essenes also appear to have often applied prophetic passages to their present circumstances. That is also the way Yeshua appears to interpret many things also; for instance Herod fits the mold of Nebuchadnezzar, (and the dominion of Herod was divided into tetrarchies, like four heads), and so on and so on. The chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducs, Scribes and Lawyers, they all fit typologies, (as well as the Sanhedrin and the criminal court of twenty three). Likewise, if you do not already do so, when you read the Prophets and Daniel in this way, (through the lenses of the Testimony of Yeshua), you will begin to see correlations most would never imagine. For example the Pharisees are they of whom Yeshua makes an example by way of mentioning how long they love to make their tassels, (probably tzitzit), and those tassels are in the four corners of the curve, (of the garment), just as the leopard has four wings, (spirit), in its "curve", (Dan 7:6). You would never imagine that this could be so until you start searching out the blue, and believe it or not, hair, specifically Ezekiel's Nazarite hair, (it represents spirit as well as hairy Eliyahu and in the bad sense hairy Esau which in one place is not actually hairy but sa`iyr-shaggy-goat). And who was given dominion? Queen Alexandra gave it back to the Pharisee party after a mortal head wound, (even 800 Pharisees were crucified). And which party branched out into four heads? The Pharisees. These things speak more in terms of the nation as a whole and its rulers and their parties, (thus the view you have put forth is appropriate here imo, [but not the only layer]). So when Yeshua condemns Pharisees and others, calling them terrible things like hypocrites, and telling some that their father is the devil, it is not the condemnation of any single individual human being but the condemnation of a doctrine or set of doctrines while teaching the correct doctrine at the same time.

 

[daqq]

Okay Freelight, according to whom was Jesus adopted and anointed son of God and Messiah? Probably according to Paul if you read Acts 9:20 and II Timothy 2:8. I do believe Jesus was son of God and Messiah but as part of the People be belonged to. Son of God as we have in Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son; let My Son go that he may serve Me." And Messiah as we have in Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the son of God.

Hi Ben, from the Habakkuk passage you have quoted, what do you suppose those Jews understood and meant when they rendered that same passage from whatever Hebrew text they had into the Greek Septuagint? For they rendered τους χριστους in that passage, (the later versions, such as what is found in the ABP Apostolic Bible Polyglot, have it changed to τον χριστον but the earlier texts read τους χριστους).

Habakkuk 3:13 LXX
13 εξηλθες εις σωτηριαν λαου σου του σωσαι τους χριστους σου εβαλες εις κεφαλας ανομων θανατον εξηγειρας δεσμους εως τραχηλου διαψαλμα
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/35_003.htm

Before you dismiss the LXX please understand that this may actually support your position.
(Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, compliments of Wick Stick).

 

[freelight]

Hi Ben, from the Habakkuk passage you have quoted, what do you suppose those Jews understood and meant when they rendered that same passage from whatever Hebrew text they had into the Greek Septuagint? For they rendered τους χριστους in that passage, (the later versions, such as what is found in the ABP Apostolic Bible Polyglot, have it changed to τον χριστον but the earlier texts read τους χριστους).

Habakkuk 3:13 LXX
13 εξηλθες εις σωτηριαν λαου σου του σωσαι τους χριστους σου εβαλες εις κεφαλας ανομων θανατον εξηγειρας δεσμους εως τραχηλου διαψαλμα
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/35_003.htm

Before you dismiss the LXX please understand that this may actually support your position.
(Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, compliments of Wick Stick).

Per Ben's view, since Israel is God's collective 'Son', then the Messiah is a kind of human complex, a human community...a kind of nation of priests. I don't think however Ben would extend any kind of 'divinity' to this human community, but that it is ordained, maintained and anointed in some sense by God. If we extend this further,....do you see the Messiah (Jesus) as having a special or exclusive quality of divine sonship, from the collective of those adopted as sons into Messiah, or do all 'brethren' hold equal sonship in God with Jesus merely being as the 'head' of such a 'body'?

 

[freelight]

Okay Freelight, according to whom was Jesus adopted and anointed son of God and Messiah? Probably according to Paul if you read Acts 9:20 and II Timothy 2:8. I do believe Jesus was son of God and Messiah but as part of the People be belonged to. Son of God as we have in Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son; let My Son go that he may serve Me." And Messiah as we have in Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the son of God.

Well, I guess its fine to 'morph' an individual person serving in some sense as 'Messiah' WITH the entire human community that constitutes Israel,....so its a co-mingled Sonship,....all representing Israel. Some however as you know give greater pre-eminence to Jesus as some pre-existent divine being...further being transmuted as some demi-god-man thru the incarnation - fun stuff eh? At the end of the day, beyond what you choose to be believe, its all 'figurative' anyways.

 

[daqq]

Hi Freelight, I'm going to break this up and try to answer it in sections.

Per Ben's view, since Israel is God's collective 'Son', then the Messiah is a kind of human complex, a human community...a kind of nation of priests.

I think he and I agree in this although I do not recall ever having made my own position clear to him before. The reality cannot be escaped and I therefore believe that is the way it is intended to be, and actually, I believe the understanding unlocks many difficult passages. Isaiah 45:3 often goes mistranslated in my opinion because the mind of the translator simply is not willing to accept it for what it plainly says. The Father calls His Meshiah by the name, "Elohey Yisrael", but then says, "Though you have not known Me." Judaism does not want to render it that way because they claim it only speaks of Cyrus; Christianity does not want to see it that way because of the obvious implications and the fact that Paul quotes from the passage and applies it to Messiah, ("every knee shall bow", which is also generally misunderstood in the quotes from Paul as to what Paul actually says). This to me is along the same lines as what we read in Psalm 82 and John 10. Who therefore is Elohey Yisrael but the same firstborn Son of the Father, (Exodus 4:22), and the same one who named Yaakob by a new name, giving Yaakob his own name, that is Yisrael, (and in one Greek manuscript of 1Enoch the name Istrael is found in the place of Arsayalalyur, [Enoch 10:2 Greek Manuscript (P) Codex Panopolitanus] which slight corruption of the name Israel is also found in the book of Jubilees). The name Arsayalalyur is already clearly a compound of several names of Elohim-Angels which reveals the thinking of the author or authors. For when we look in the Genesis record who is it that warns Noach about the coming flood and tells him what to do to save his household? It is Elohim and ha-Elohim, (the Angels). Whether one chooses to believe such things is really beside the point, the point being, this gives much insight into how the author of 1Enoch was reading and understanding what he had before him in the account written in Genesis 6. We read in Genesis 6:8 that Noach found grace in the eyes of YHWH. The "eyes" of YHWH are seven upon the one Stone.

I don't think however Ben would extend any kind of 'divinity' to this human community, but that it is ordained, maintained and anointed in some sense by God. If we extend this further,....do you see the Messiah (Jesus)

Critical error alert! :crackup: Just kidding, well, kinda; I do not see the man Yeshua/Jesus as Meshiah YHWH who is the one whose name is Tsemach-Branch. That one is the Memra, the Logos, the Word, they are not the same. I see TWO of the name Yeshua: one is the Anointed one, a man, the other is the Anointing which descended from the heavens, that is the Son of Elohim. One is The Son of Elohim while the other is A son of Elohim just as we are.

I don't think however Ben would extend any kind of 'divinity' to this human community, but that it is ordained, maintained and anointed in some sense by God. If we extend this further,....do you see the Messiah (Jesus) as having a special or exclusive quality of divine sonship, from the collective of those adopted as sons into Messiah, or do all 'brethren' hold equal sonship in God with Jesus merely being as the 'head' of such a 'body'?

The Father is the Great Head over all.
The Son, (under the Father), is the Head over the great congregation body.
The man Yeshua was "adopted" at his immersion-Anointing.

However, the Anointed one, the man Yeshua, is the firstborn among many brethren. Therefore he became the author of our deliverance because the Father acted out the "ages" through him, (my understanding of Hebrews 1:2), and set His seal of approval upon him. We therefore cannot enter into the kingdom of the Father without having and holding the holy Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness and that is to walk it out in faithfulness. When Paul therefore says that Messiah must be formed in us he speaks of these things: and in this manner shall all Yisrael be delivered, (each in his or her own appointed times). All Yisrael is therefore to be one with and in Messiah by the Testimony of Yeshua who was anointed from above with the Memra-Logos, that is, Messiah, who descended from the heavens in the somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon Yeshua throughout his ministry and Golgotha. Herein is the difference: the words that the man Yeshua speaks are the Messiah. Messiah is therefore both The Son of Elohim and The Son of Man because Testimony is Spirit.

 

[daqq]

Here is the perfect logic behind what I say, Freelight, taken straight from the Testimony of Yeshua himself in the very same Gospel account which so many use to supposedly prove that the man Yeshua or Jesus is "God Almighty born into human flesh" as they say. But when we take certain key statements of the Master himself, as follows, the error of Trinity is clearly exposed by the Testimony of Yeshua himself. The first key statement is that Yeshua says his words are SPIRIT, and even this should be enough to fully support what I have said, but if you follow the logic laid out in sequence from the statements below there is absolutely no denying the outcome of these clear emphatic statements.

The words of Yeshua are Spirit:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up [to] where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The man Yeshua also states that he himself judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges and he is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Memra-Logos-Word which the man Yeshua speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but-contrariwise [it is] of the Father who sent me.

The Memra-Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

Revelation 19:11-16
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no one knew but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The Son of Elohim and Son of Man is the Memra-Logos-Word who descended from the heavens in pneumatikos-spiritual somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon-within the man Yeshua throughout his ministry and Golgotha. No one has seen Elohim at any time because spoken word cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh. The "new covenant" new Spirit, (Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, 36:26), is therefore the most holy Word of the Testimony of Yeshua. Anyone claiming to have "the Holy Spirit" but not having and upholding the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness is therefore deceived.

 

[freelight]

The truth of Jesus....and the Christ bestowal......

The truth of Jesus....and the Christ bestowal......

Here is the perfect logic behind what I say, Freelight, taken straight from the Testimony of Yeshua himself in the very same Gospel account which so many use to supposedly prove that the man Yeshua or Jesus is "God Almighty born into human flesh" as they say. But when we take certain key statements of the Master himself, as follows, the error of Trinity is clearly exposed by the Testimony of Yeshua himself. The first key statement is that Yeshua says his words are SPIRIT, and even this should be enough to fully support what I have said, but if you follow the logic laid out in sequence from the statements below there is absolutely no denying the outcome of these clear emphatic statements.

The words of Yeshua are Spirit:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up [to] where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The man Yeshua also states that he himself judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges and he is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Memra-Logos-Word which the man Yeshua speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but-contrariwise [it is] of the Father who sent me.

The Memra-Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

Revelation 19:11-16
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no one knew but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The Son of Elohim and Son of Man is the Memra-Logos-Word who descended from the heavens in pneumatikos-spiritual somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon-within the man Yeshua throughout his ministry and Golgotha. No one has seen Elohim at any time because spoken word cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh. The "new covenant" new Spirit, (Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, 36:26), is therefore the most holy Word of the Testimony of Yeshua. Anyone claiming to have "the Holy Spirit" but not having and upholding the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness is therefore deceived.

Super

Interestingly, the redactors could not take this passage out of the entire NT,....but only did in Luke as if to wipe out any hint of Adoptionism, but there is ample evidence elsewhere for the whole passage of the psalm being 'anounced' concerning Jesus, about a particular DAY that worship was granted (ordained)....and that was at his baptism - although some assume his resurrection also sealed his sonship status in some sense as well.

Curiously in a mystical sense since we are the body of the Messiah we all share in a collective sonship, under Messiah, who is under God, in order of primacy

All is allegory, figurative. It would also hold that the body has full access to the immeasurable Spirit of the Lord thru the Lord Christ, hence the gifts of the Spirit available to the sons and daughters for God.

How many 'christians' do you think are unaware that some form or 'Adoptionism' predated the Trinity doctrine for early followers of Jesus, and that Jesus was made into 'God' by a church developing its doctrine?

Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus became God, The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee' ?

 

[daqq]

Super

Interestingly, the redactors could not take this passage out of the entire NT,....but only did in Luke as if to wipe out any hint of Adoptionism, but there is ample evidence elsewhere for the whole passage of the psalm being 'anounced' concerning Jesus, about a particular DAY that worship was granted (ordained)....and that was at his baptism - although some assume his resurrection also sealed his sonship status in some sense as well.

Curiously in a mystical sense since we are the body of the Messiah we all share in a collective sonship, under Messiah, who is under God, in order of primacy

All is allegory, figurative. It would also hold that the body has full access to the immeasurable Spirit of the Lord thru the Lord Christ, hence the gifts of the Spirit available to the sons and daughters for God.

How many 'christians' do you think are unaware that some form or 'Adoptionism' predated the Trinity doctrine for early followers of Jesus, and that Jesus was made into 'God' by a church developing its doctrine?

Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus became God, The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee' ?

Hi Freelight, what do you mean by "worship granted"? Even after the resurrection Messiah says to the women, who were clearly not in fear or being fearful, but rather had grabbed him at the feet and were about to worship him, he says, "μη φοβεισθε! υπαγετε!", which is to say, "Do not reverence! Withdraw yourselves!, (Matthew 28:10). The majority of English renderings for that passage are clearly misleading when compared to the way phobos and the verb phobeo are used in the Septuagint for such statements as "The reverential fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom." The Hebrew equivalent for "fear" is clearly reverential fear which is worship reserved only for the Father. Also μη φοβεισθε, (Do not [you] reverence), is pretty much the same thing that all the holy messengers say in the scripture. As for Adoptionism it surely predates Trinitarianism; but I doubt hardly any Christians know this because it is generally not even discussed anymore, and in most circles one cannot even be considered a "Christian" anymore without towing the Trinity dogma line. As for Bart Ehrman I know of him and have come across his blog more than a few times when doing topical searches at different times on different subject matter. I have also read some portions of books by him but never the one you mention, (though I have heard of it). In fact I consulted with his Greek version of Apocalypse Yakob because of the great amount of research that was behind it, (he used the work of others who came before him as much work has been done compiling manuscripts, see here: The Apocryphal Gospels). However, from the title of the book you mentioned, I probably already have a pretty good idea how it reads, (he is a textual critic and well informed of patristic evidence, [which evidence is damning evidence for the early "church fathers" using their own words]). But I think he goes too far, that is, he does not appear to believe anything at all; in other words he threw the baby out with the bath water. Apparently he was a believer but through college or university studies, (whatever it was, not sure), he simply was not able to swallow the Trinity dogma hook, line, and sinker, and so apparently tossed it all overboard, (which is an understandable response after one discovers he or she has been lied to on so many levels; but unfortunately not the correct response, imo).

 

[freelight]

Hi Freelight, what do you mean by "worship granted"? Even after the resurrection Messiah says to the women, who were clearly not in fear or being fearful, but rather had grabbed him at the feet and were about to worship him, he says, "μη φοβεισθε! υπαγετε!", which is to say, "Do not reverence! Withdraw yourselves!, (Matthew 28:10). The majority of English renderings for that passage are clearly misleading when compared to the way phobos and the verb phobeo are used in the Septuagint for such statements as "The reverential fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom." The Hebrew equivalent for "fear" is clearly reverential fear which is worship reserved only for the Father. Also μη φοβεισθε, (Do not [you] reverence), is pretty much the same thing that all the holy messengers say in the scripture. As for Adoptionism it surely predates Trinitarianism; but I doubt hardly any Christians know this because it is generally not even discussed anymore, and in most circles one cannot even be considered a "Christian" anymore without towing the Trinity dogma line. As for Bart Ehrman I know of him and have come across his blog more than a few times when doing topical searches at different times on different subject matter. I have also read some portions of books by him but never the one you mention, (though I have heard of it). In fact I consulted with his Greek version of Apocalypse Yakob because of the great amount of research that was behind it, (he used the work of others who came before him as much work has been done compiling manuscripts, see here: The Apocryphal Gospels). However, from the title of the book you mentioned, I probably already have a pretty good idea how it reads, (he is a textual critic and well informed of patristic evidence, [which evidence is damning evidence for the early "church fathers" using their own words]). But I think he goes too far, that is, he does not appear to believe anything at all; in other words he threw the baby out with the bath water. Apparently he was a believer but through college or university studies, (whatever it was, not sure), he simply was not able to swallow the Trinity dogma hook, line, and sinker, and so apparently tossed it all overboard, (which is an understandable response after one discovers he or she has been lied to on so many levels; but unfortunately not the correct response, imo).

:thumb:

Ah.....I guess I was meaning to say that his sonship was bestowed and that gave a greater value (worth-ship) to his status as the adopted Son of God/Son of Man. Of course only the Universal Father is to be worshipped in the highest most ultimate sense as 'The Most High'

 

[daqq]

"if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins"
You better take a close look :sherlock: at that "burning bush", as there were TWO entities therein.
If you think that "burning bush" was HOT, well............

Portion of a song:

"For if you do not believe that I am _ _ _ _ _ , you will die in your sins."

They immediately understood that he did not complete the phrase:
And so they said, "You are who?"

Next verse:

I am _ _ , I am _ _ _ _ _ , in the mountain of YHWH it shall be seen.

Next verse:

Amen, amen I say unto you, before Abraham is done, I am _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(in the mountain of YHWH it shall be seen).

The song includes Matthew 5:3-16, (for all the little rams, lambs, and arnia).

 

[beameup]

 

[daqq]

Oh well, not everyone can learn a new song . . .

Matthew 5:14-16
14 You are the light of the world: a city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand; and it gives light unto all that are inside the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in the heavens.

John 8:12
12 Then again Yeshua spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of the life.

:sheep: