Theoferrum

The Chronology of the Apocalypse

2010-06-05T17:01:00.012-06:00

Year 1 - Nisan First Mar 31, 2033 AD : Seal 1 - Yom Kippur Oct 03, 2033 AD
Year 2 - Nisan First Mar 21, 2034 AD : Seal 2 - Yom Kippur Sep 23, 2034 AD
Year 3 - Nisan First Apr 10, 2035 AD : Seal 3 - Yom Kippur Oct 13, 2035 AD
Year 4 - Nisan First Mar 29, 2036 AD : Seal 4 - Yom Kippur Oct 01, 2036 AD
Year 5 - Nisan First Mar 17, 2037 AD : Seal 5 - Yom Kippur Sep 19, 2037 AD
Year 6 - Nisan First Apr 06, 2038 AD : Seal 6 - Yom Kippur Oct 09, 2038 AD
Year 7 - Nisan First Mar 26, 2039 AD : Seal 7 - Yom Kippur Sep 28, 2039 AD

Notes :

The Davidic Leader of the end times, whom is the person who finalized this time line, achieves Theosis circa June 13, 2010 AD and becomes the Angel of the Apocalypse.

America Judged circa October 24, 2010 AD on Ephraim's Feast of Tabernacles (which originated from Halloween which was the World's commemoration of the Global Flood) by God as he removes the Restraining Band from the Babylonian World Tree (Daniel 4) which will immediately start growing branches. This event sets the stage for the events of the tribulation. Isaiah chapters 18 and 28 and most of Amos and Hosea begin to be fulfilled as well as the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy Chapter 32. Between now and the start of the tribulation the ancient City of Babylon is rebuilt ending the big Mystery which is made possible via the diversion of the Euphrates back to its ancient course as well as diverting the Tigress into it and, further, with the complete melting of the polar ice caps the ocean level climbs by thirty feet bringing the ocean right to the door step of the city causing it to become the ruler of the end times earth.

Church Age Ends September 15, 2032 AD on Yom Kippur with Rapture in the Sabbatical Year in which Jewish (Christian) Slaves set free. Global effects of the atomically regenerated bodies of 2000 years worth of saints may result in a Y2K effect hitting the world with the most damage resulting in the most technologically advanced nations. May also result in earthquakes and minor, or major, pole shift. Chaos results with a breakdown between the nations. The Olivet Discourse begins to be fulfilled when False Prophets and Christs begin to appear.

Daniel's 70th Week of Jacob's Trouble begins precisely on Nisan First (where all the other years of the previous 69 Weeks started) in 2033 AD. Should include rebuilt Temple with sacrifices.

One Year Liberty for Groom (Y'shua) who takes New Bride (Church) before He goes to War ends on October 3, 2033 AD on Yom Kippur with the breaking of the First Seal and declaration of War against World System. Antichrist begins his rise shortly thereafter by attacking the first three beast kingdoms of Daniel 7 - Lion of England with Wings of Eagle America, Bear of old USSR, Leopard of the Arabs which results in the Antichrist invading Egypt in this first year. This campaign results in famine and pestilences and more war and riots under the next three War Horses of the Apocalypse.

Abomination of Desolation occurs, after the Antichrist's second invasion of Egypt, exactly on September 31, 2036 AD on Yom Kippur starting the 1260 Day countdown that ends, precisely, on Nisan First 2040 AD. The Antichrist is revealed as being the immortal Cain (who became immortal from a battle for the tree of life before the flood attested to by the constellations and mythologies including the Gilgamesh epic which is his personal historical account) when he offers up a cannibalistic sacrifice (as he had done with Able) on the Temple Mount. The False Prophet, which is the immortal Judas (who became immortal through the blood of Y'shua which he tasted when he betrayed him with a kiss on His bloodied cheeks in the Garden), presiding and calling on everyone to worship Kynabaal Merodach which adds up to 666 in Hebrew and is where we get the term cannibal from.

Jubilee Year starts September 28, 2039 AD on Yom Kippur with the New Jerusalem in the form of a four sided equilateral pyramid with a base of 350 miles square takes up a geostationary orbit over the eastern Mediterranean Sea in preparation for touchdown seven months later which is seen by the entire world including the leaders who cry for the mountains to hide them from the face of the one on the Throne. The city pulls meteors in its wake, and destabilizes any satellites still in orbit, including some with nuclear payloads, which begin to pummel the earth under the Trumpet Judgments.

First Trumpet Sounds September 28, 2039 AD on Yom Kippur with the remaining six trumpets sounding on the New Moon of each succeeding month. Antichrist starts the Armageddon campaign with a third and last invasion of Egypt on his way to the Valley of Jezreel; Second Trumpet Sounds October 19, 2039 AD the New Moon of Cheshvan; Third Trumpet Sounds November 18, 2039 AD the New Moon of Kislev; Fourth Trumpet Sounds December 18, 2039 AD the New Moon of Tevet; Fifth Trumpet Sounds January 16, 2040 AD the New Moon of Sh'vat; Six Trumpet Sounds February 15, 2040 AD the New Moon of Adar I.

Seventh Trumpet Sounds March 15, 2040 AD the New Moon of Nisan with the Vials starting to be poured out at two days each (similarly to many of the plagues of Egypt in the days of the Exodus) and which are a result of the entry of the New Jerusalem into our atmosphere, which rolls the heavens back like a scroll as it descends to the earth over those 14 days, ending precisely on March 28, 2040 AD on Nisan 14 the Passover. The touchdown of the city sends a massive concussion wave over the entire globe destroying the remaining cities of the world including rebuilt Babylon. Y'shua starts his campaign that ends at Megiddo with the destruction of the Antichrist and his army which then becomes the body that the Eagles gather over who are the Angels and Glorified Saints who return with Y'shua. Daniel's 70th Week Ends March 15, 2040 AD on Nisan First. The Consumption (Isaiah 28 etc) or Shortening (Matthew 24) occurs with the judgment concluding on Nisan Fourteenth instead of continuing to the end of the Jubilee Year until September 17, 2040 AD on Yom Kippur for a total shortening of 176 Days.

Return of Messiah Y'shua ben Y'hava Amin on March 28, 2040 AD...

Amin - Lord of the Silent

2010-05-18T11:55:00.026-06:00

Major cult center Thebes

Symbol two vertical plumes and a Sphinx

So, I attended the Ethiopian Church this past Sunday on May 16, 2010 AD which was the New Moon of the Third Month and the Anniversary of the arrival of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai as well as of Theoferrum and also from when Y'shua told me I was His Son.

It was a life changing experience.

I didn't think that I should even mention this but I have decided that I want to record this if only for myself.

The Ethiopians wear a White Prayer Shawl during their service which you can see in the video below and they wrap it around themselves and keep their arms tucked underneath so that they don't Cross themselves as most of the Apostolic Churches do but, instead, at appropriate times they will bow themselves to perform homage at various times.

Like when they say, Amin.

And, as near as I can tell, that is how they pronounce it and not specifically as amen. Anyways, I'm standing there listening to the Liturgy in Amharic (note the Sacred Name as prefix) and starting to get involved by bowing and all and then, all of a sudden, they start bowing and saying Amin real low but audible throughout the church and in a flash of Inspiration, while the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, I realized that they were literally bowing to Amin and this is not some nebulous god or idol but is, in fact, Y'hava himself as Lord of Perfect Black and Lord of the Silent and as I made that realization it was like He entered the Sanctuary right there in front of me.

This Sacred Name, like that of Y'hava itself, has been hidden for all these years and only the Ethiopians have kept it alive, appropriately enough, since their land is the Antediluvial home of the Gods - the Trinity with the three flags for their Hieroglyph (which means God) as I have mentioned elsewhere and I further suspect that this and the revelation during the service the other day has also got something to do with the fact that the Ethiopians are the ones that are stewards of the Ark of the Covenant and that the first one which Symbolises Y'shua himself - in other words, its His Ark.

So, it is for this reason that Y'shua calls himself the Amin - like Father like Son - and I suspect that the personal pronoun is not in the original text and that He is literally calling himself Amin, the Faithful and True witness and the Beginning of the Creation of God, as the article below describes concerning this God.

To give you some understanding about this word, in the Hebrew (Strong's 544) is where the word Omen undoubtedly comes from originally because omens were considered to be faithful or truthful and I have absolutely no doubt that I definitely saw an omen that morning.

Anyways, I'm standing there and it was as if Y'shua ben Y'hava Amin, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, stepped right into the Church service and I've never seen anything like it. The whole service was performed as if there was a Lion prowling around in the Sanctuary and they even Incensed Him at the front of the congregation, for those who had eyes to see.

This aspect of the Divine Nature of Y'hava was explained, to some extent, in my post on Black Dwarfs :

Proving the existence of a Black Dwarf would be similar to proving the Existence of the Creator in two ways. The first is that both a Black Dwarf and the Creator hide themselves in that the only way you can tell they're there is by the effects they have on their environment. Like the Proverbial King of the Beasts dragging their tail behind Him swishing it to and fro and erasing all his tracks, He hides himself as Lord of Perfect Blackness...

Then, after this Manifestation - I guess what you could call an Epiphany - I noticed something else that was just too unreal to believe if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes at the same time. They have several tapestries hanging on the Iconostasis, one of which was of the Three Angels that appeared to Abraham (what the Eastern Churches consider to have been the Trinity and a popular, and only way, to present them) and during the course of the service the morning sun shone through the windows highlighting one of the Angel's Eyes and then this rectangle of light slowly moved perfectly straight across the tapestry illuminating the second and then the third Angel's Eyes as if Abba was saying to me that he saw my eyes as well - in reference to my post on the Sacred Name of Y'hava.

Let me tell you, it is a AweFull thing to know you have a Lion staring at you...

אָמַן

The word "Amin" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related - in fact, almost identical - to the Hebrew word for "believe" (aman), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence. - HMM

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G281&t=KJV

Even in the remote period of the Vth Dynasty Amin was numbered among the primeval gods, if not as gods in chief certainly as subsidiary forms of some of them, and from the fact that they are mentioned immediately after the deities of primeval matter, Nau and Nen, who we may consider to be the equivalents of the watery abyss from which all things sprang, it would seem that the writers or editors of the Pyramid Texts assigned great antiquity to their existence.

Of the attributes ascribed to Amin in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it.

The word or root amin, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods.

In hymns to Amin we often read that he is "hidden to his children" and "hidden to gods and men."

Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is hidden and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amin, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon" and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men.

In the times approaching the Ptolemaic period the name Amin appears to have been connected with the root min, "to abide, to be permanent;" and one of the attributes which were applied to him was that of eternal.

Amin is represented in several forms: As a man, when he is seen seated on a throne and holding in one hand the scepter and in the other the symbol of "life."

As a lion couching upon a pedestal...

http://www.touregypt.net/amen.htm

Amin, reconstructed Egyptian Yamānu (also spelled Amon, Amoun, Amen, and rarely Imen, Ammon, and Hammon, was a God in Egyptian and Berber Mythology who became the focus of the most complex system of theology in Ancient Egypt.

Amin represented the essential and hidden. As the creator deity par excellence, he was the champion of the poor and central to personal piety. Amin was self created, without mother and father and during the New Kingdom he became the greatest expression of transcendental deity in Egyptian theology.

He was not considered to be immanent within creation nor was creation seen as an extension of himself. Amin, likewise with the Hebrew creator deity, did not physically engender the universe. His position as King of Gods developed to the point of virtual monotheism where other Gods became manifestations of him. With Osiris, Amin is the most widely recorded of the Egyptian Gods.

Amin who comes at the voice of the poor in distress, who gives breath to him who is wretched. You are Amin, the Lord of the silent, who comes at the voice of the poor; when I call to you in my distress You come and rescue me...

In Libya there remained a solitary oracle of Amin in the Libyan Desert at the oasis of Siwa. Such was its reputation among the Classical Greeks that Alexander the Great journeyed there after the battle of Issus and during his occupation of Egypt, where he was declared the son of Amin by the oracle. Alexander thereafter considered himself divine. Even during this occupation, Amin, identified by these Greeks as a form of Zeus, continued to be the principal local deity of Thebes during its decay.

Several words derive from Amin via the Greek form, Ammon: ammonia and ammonite. The regions of the hippocampus in the brain are called the cornu ammonis – literally "Amin's Horns", due to the horned appearance of the dark and light bands of cellular layers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun

The Sword

2010-04-10T14:52:00.002-06:00

David Hill "The Sword" Email :jesterbr549@yahoo.com

Originally Posted June 19th, 2002

He that kills with the Sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints...

My comments after quote.

George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom :

In the nature of the case, if at any time God intends to re-establish such a Theocratic - David Kingdom, which is designed to extend its sway over the world, all, or nearly all, earthly kingdoms will oppose it. This is precisely what the prophets, one and all, uniformly predict. This is a terrible subject, and the writer was under strong temptation to suppress, in a great part, this proposition, lest to some it would prove "a dead fly in the ointment" (Ec 10:1), causing a rejection of the whole [Premillenial faith]. But consideration urged that, as God proclaimed it, and frequently adverted to it, duty and faithfulness demanded its insertion as a testimony and warning to others.

This war, etc., in the future as expressly asserted, is not carried on because God delights in it, but because it will be waged against Him, His people and His purpose by wicked and ambitious men, and the Almighty condescends to meet them in the same way to give them, through appointed agencies, a signal and deserved punishment and overthrow. The rise, progress, aims, slaughter, etc., of the confederation of wickedness arrayed against Him, will fully vindicate the propriety and consistency of the means used in its downfall; which, as prophecy declares, will be freely and universally acknowledge the world over after its occurance.

The writer must add, in order to avoid a misapprehension of his position, the he has no sympathy [with those who believe] that saints or believers now, under the present ordering, are to take the sword to advance the truth for the church, or the cause of Christ. This is positively forbidden, and, therefore, we must await the time and the ordering appointed by God Himself.

The Theocratic Kingdom when first instituted was introduced by war and violence, vanquishing its enemies, and this only teaches us that when again set up, because of the opposition excited and the resistance audaciously exhibited, it will again fight its way over its enemies, but under a leader immeasurably greater then Joshua. It is simply impossible - if believers in the word are willing to receive its contents - to ignore the Scripture relating to the subject.

Now, during the gathering out of the elect [Church Age], vengence is God's and we are forbidden to exercise it; but God's forebearance with Gentiles will also end as it did with Jerusalem, as it now does with individuals, and then He employs what agencies He pleases to cause their destruction.

This future overthrow of the nations is the Key to the warlike spirit noticed in many of the psalms, and which has been the fruitful subject of derision to unbelievers. Even many believers, not recognizing the period and design God has in view, turn with unbelief from Ps 58:10;68:23, etc., as if it were inconsistant for the righteous to see and engage in the specific, appointed work of Jesus, the Divine Master.

Rejecting this prophetic war-spirit, commentators are greatly perplexed over the statement of Luke 22:36-38 and render corresponding singular interpretations. Jesus exhorts the purchase of a sword, and when "they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, it is enough." And in vs 49 the question was asked, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" Jesus permitted, vs 50, so that "one of them smote the servant of the highpriest and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, suffer ye thus far."

It is simply indicative that he can and will resort to arms and violence when (as all analogy proves) the proper time has arrived, but not then at that crises (the time of obedience and humiliation, and suffering to perfect Himself as Redeemer), for to carry out the Divine will, the resistance then offered - a sign that the sword also belonged to Him - was amply sufficient.

The truth is, that it [Imprecatory Psalms] needs no apology, but it is precisely the language that we aught reasonably to anticipate, provided it is true that, after the long extended mercy and love of God in Christ Jesus, the nations and the kings of the earth will be arrayed against the truth; that they will exalt a monster of iniquity over them as their chief ruler; that they will proceed to martyr all true believers; and that they will even dare to oppose the Lord Jesus Himself. These Psalms are Prophetical. The spirit, by anticipation, speaks for the believer, and puts forth the prayers that time will prove are precisely those that true piety, oppressed by a terribly vindictive power, can consistently utter.

God, in deference to His own rights, His own inheritence, His own Kingdom, His own saints, His own Honor and Glory, is compelled in consistency to arise and take vengence on that humanity which is so impious, merciless, and cruel.

To intensify this, against the ridicule of unbelief that laughs at all such threats as idle, it compresses it all into the astonishing phrase, "The Wrath of the Lamb;" thus showing how the same saviour, who loved us even to a shameful and cruel death, will ultimately at His coming manifest His anger against those who willfully and malignantly reject Him.

In the face of all this array of Scripture, it will not answer for the objecter to quote the language (John 18:36) of Jesus : "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from hence." Will the saviour contradict the predictions of the prophets? No, for He qualifies His language, guarding it, by the "but now," i.e. at the present time, my kingdom is not of this world and my servants do not fight, leaving the plain inference that at some future time, just as prophesied, His servants would fight. The time of wrath on the nations and of the Kingdom will also come, Rev 11:15-18.

And hence, just as it is said of Jesus (Is 49:2), "In the shadow of His hand hath He hid me and made me a polished shaft," etc., so saints, the brethren of Christ, those who inherit with Him, are employed (Ps 149:9) "To execute the judgement written," thus exhibiting the irresistable power of God.

The hand that was pierced holds this power.

"He stood and measured the earth; He beheld and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow; His ways are everlasting."

This gives a vivid representation of the supremacy, dominion and power exercised by King Jesus, that all things, including the whole earth and its nations, are under His control and submit to His commands.

This is a subject that is much mis-understood and I included Peters' wisdom on this which I will now comment on.

He correctly points out that the timing is everything on this. There will come a time to pick up the sword and regarding this very time Paul says, "And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." When our obedience has been fulfilled, and this is the key. And for the Christian this has to be some time after the Rapture of the Church and this explains Y'shua's words to "sell your [wedding] garment and buy a sword". For those who are left behind at the Rapture and end of the Church age and who live through those events, the time will come when they will be able to pick up the sword. And it is to this time that the verse at the top of the post refers to. He who kills by the sword (the Antichrist) will also be killed by the sword (specifically Y'shua's), and they are commanded to have patience until that time, paralleling Paul's words of the same.

To understand the timing involved we have merely to look at Peters' hint above and in the Revelation for the time when God says, 'Now is My Kingdom of the World' and now my servants will fight. The phrase occurs twice.

The first in Rev 12:10, when the male child is caught up to heaven and the woman flees to the wilderness. This is the midpoint of the tribulation. However, this verse is applying to Ephraim and not to Judah, pictured by the male child himself - the thirteenth star and tribe. The first half of the tribulation the Antichrist will be the Assyrian to the nation of Ephraim (America) and this will be America's just chastisement from the Lord and if you fight against the Antichrist in the first half of the tribulation, you will lose and possibly die in the process. I believe that Jerimiah's admonition to the Judah at the judgement by Babylon also applies in this case.

However, at the mid point of the tribulation, when the Antichrist rebels and proclaims himself God, then Ephraim's chastisment is over and he can then pick up the sword and fight. It is at this point in time that Washington's vision shows Angelic assistance helping America. The Antichrist then becomes the Babylonian to Judah and turns his focus from America to Israel. This is also when his kingdom starts falling apart.

Then Judah's chastisement begins and he should not at this time pick up the sword or he will be found fighting against God's just chastisement (which is why Y'shua tells them to flee into the mountains). But, the phrase is repeated again in Rev 11:15 under the seventh trumpet (last month of the tribulation - see my post on the Jubilee Chronology) and then he also can pick up the sword and fight.

Both Judah and Ephraim are stated to fight at the end of the trib against the Antichrist's army (this is the "body" that the eagles gather over - the body of the opposing army). There are so many references that I can't include all of them but Peters lists some of them above.

So, that is my advice to those who may find themselves experiencing these events, for what it is worth.

My Eyes see Your Eyes Y'hava

2010-02-01T09:12:00.008-07:00

The Redeemer

The Sages tell us that Ya’aqov gave his sons a secret password that would clearly, and unambiguously, identify the redeemer. When Yosef told the Israelite elders that the time for their redemption was near, he gave them this same sign by which they would recognize their redeemer. The code word that Yosef gave to tell the Israelite elders was: h,sep sep (pakod pakadti).

We find the word sep, pakod, used in many different ways in the Torah. Here are a few examples : Remembered, Appointed, Count, Missing.

The ambiguous meaning of pakod suggests that HaShem is telling us more than one message.

One of the messages suggested by our Hakhamim is that the redeemer would be able to count the exact appointed time for the redemption.

http://www.betemunah.org/redemption.html

This is a quote from my post on the Times of Enoch and as I was looking at it again this morning, I picked up on the Legend of the Remembering. It appears that Jacob gave Joseph a Catch Phrase, so to speak, that would enable their descendants to identify the Redeemer when he arrived and at the time of Moses only one person remembered what the Phrase was and she correctly identified Moses as God's Man of the Hour for their Redemption - see the article below for the details.

So, as I am reading the individual's explanation of this Legend, it occurs to me that it is very similar to the Sacred Name that God gave to Moses and which Israel lost at the time of the Babylonian Captivity 2700 Years ago.

The word used for Remember - Pakad - is related to the Hebrew Word Pak (Strong's 6378) which means a Vial or Flask or, as the AV translates it, a Box and thus would imply a container in which one keeps valuables or a Treasure which is how Y'shua describes the Ten Lost Tribes (i.e. the Treasure Hid in the Field and Ten Lost Coins) and Judah (Pearl of Great Price) and, in general, how Y'hova views His People (The Apple of His Eye). Now, it turns out that the Pacad Passage is the very passage where Moses tells the Israelites that very Sacred Name. Thus, it is as if the two are related and that, sometime in the future, just as Y'hova remembered Israel, someone from Israel will remember Y'hova and that specifically through the restoration of the Sacred Name. I believe Y'shua himself knew and used the Sacred Name during the years of his ministry but the disciples didn't realize it at the time and that the Name has continued in obscruity to our day and age.

I myself have tried to discover what the Sacred Name is and exactly how it is pronounced about four or five times through the years with no success. But then, this past summer, as I was looking closer at the name of Joseph, I found the answer to this last Mystery of the Word of Y'hova.

It turns out that the Hebrew Word הַוָּה or HaVaH contains the last three letters of the Sacred Name and its primary meaning is to Breathe (Strong's Number 1942) and the Root (1933) itself means to be or to exist. It is actually connected to the Hebrew Word for Love (to breath hard and/or desire) which root is AV and is used in the English word Love and also in my own name David which means Beloved.

When I saw this word I immediately realized that if one prefixed this word with a Yod they would have the exact Sacred Name and I realized that it would mean The Breather which is, of course, how Y'hava appears in the book of Genesis. He Spoke the Universe into existence which means that He Breathed the Universe into existence and, at the Creation of Man He breathed into Adam and he became a Living Soul. This word also would, then, embody the concept that God is Love as John tells us in his Epistles and both of these together would also carry the meaning of the self existant one or Eternal Love, if you will.

I then verified this morning that, in fact, the Hebrew Letter Yod can be used as a prefix and it is done so in cases of the Third Person Singular which, if I am not mistaken, could be translated as the personal pronoun The as I have done (and as Y'shua used the phrase The Son of Man) but if not then it would be translated as He Breathes (or He is Breath or Spirit and He is Love).

Either way you have the Unbreathed Breath, if you will, or the source of all Life and Love in the Universe. Further, when you realize that the letter B and V are often interchangable, then Y'hava is very close, phonetically and etymologically, to Abba or The Father. Thus, it is possible that Y'shua spoke His Father's name as Y'hava and the disciples thought he was saying Y'Abba or The Father and didn't realize the significance of what he was saying. In the Upper Room discourse recorded in the Gospel of John, Y'shua specifically states that he has declared the Father's Name and, in my opinion, this can only be the Sacred Name being referred to and would have been the first and last time it was spoken in public in 600 years.

Until now...

Question

Subject: Exact phrase Moses told Elders of Israel
Category: Reference, Education and News > General Reference
Asked by: dortmund-ga
List Price: $20.00 Posted: 23 Sep 2004 13:50 PDT
Expires: 23 Oct 2004 13:50 PDT
Question ID: 405426

I believe that Moses, when he returned from exile in Midian, told the elders the phrase: 'He has remembered you.' I believe the pronunciation is as follows: pakod pakadeti. Is this correct?

Secondly, does the phrase mean, He has remembered you (as a person? as a people? or both?)? I know that the word pakod translates as remember, and also means a deposit, derivative of the word, pikadon.

Answer

Subject: Re: Exact phrase Moses told Elders of Israel
Answered By: tutuzdad-ga on 24 Sep 2004 09:17 PDT
Rated:
Dear dortmund-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. Normally, as you might imagine, a straightforward question such as yours could be answered with a simple straightforward answer. But because of the fact that the issue is a matter of biblical history and much of what has been recorded has been translated and re-translated over the years, it is difficult to say for certain the ?exact? phrase used in the context you are referring to. It is important then to note some pertinent facts related to this phrase in order to know roughly what the phrase was and what it meant. Since you are agreeable to my explanation of what is ?taught? as opposed to ?exact phrase? I will gladly explain what I know about this issue.

The phrase "pakod pakadeti" (alternatively recorded in some texts as ?"Pakod pakad'ti?, ?pakod pakad-ti? and perhaps other variations) is not JUST a phrase. In fact the significance of this predates Moses as was prophesied as a sign to be watched for. You see, long before Moses time, God had told Jacob that when the redeemer of Israel came to Egypt he would utter special words. Jacob handed this secret down to Joseph who later told his brothers. Asher handed the secret down to his daughter Serakh (Serakh bat Asher, known as ?Serah? and ?Sarah? in Biblical texts). So when Moses was instructed by God to tell the elders He has said ?I have remembered you?, Serakh was the only person alive who had heard the secret words and recognized ?the sign? as it was predicted in previous generations. When she heard the words and recognized them she told the Israelites that Moses had truly been sent by God.

The Legend of Serakh bat Asher

http://www.wlcj.org/outlook_articles/serakh_asher_seder.html

Gather the elders of Israel, and say to them, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, appeared to me - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He said, 'I have granted you special providence regarding what is happening to you in Egypt.

http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=3#P19

The phrase ?pakod pakadti et?chem? then is not One remembering another in the literal sense, but is an oath indicative of the fact that one is favored above other. By saying ?remembered? the intent is to convey that one has been ?counted? or set aside for pecial purpose. In Shemot we see that the phrase was used to remember ?the people? as opposed to one person. By remembering the elders the oath refers to them and all the peoples they represent and by remembering ?the children if Israel? the oath refers to the chosen people of Israel. Logically, since the phrase is used in no other context through the scriptures, we can assume that when God said this to Moses, He too intended it to be taken that He was remembering the people, rather than Moses himself.

I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any questions about my research please post a clarification request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards,

Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/405426.html

The Sword from the Stone

2010-01-07T13:54:00.032-07:00

I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the Voice of my Beloved that knocks, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled, for my head is filled with dew and my locks with the drops of the Night.

I have put off my Mantle, how shall I put it on?

I have washed my Feet, how shall I defile them..

Turns out my interpretation of the woman laying aside her mantle from Songs 5, in my post the Watchmen, was correct but for slightly different reasons. The word above for Coat in the Hebrew is katheph and via Root Word Associations is connected to covering the shoulders in a circle as a crown and thus this is a Mantle of some kind as I correctly interpreted it above. Now, it dawned on me today what this was referring to here in our day and age and that is simply the time that the Pope gave away the Papal Tiara on February 6, 1965 AD a year after I was born.

Similarly, the washing of the feet mentioned above is referring to the Second (as in two feet) Vatican Council when (opened by one Pope and closed by another - two feet again) they washed away the Latin acutriments of a thousand years and allowed the various denominations within Catholicism to return to their own liturgical purity - which they were able to do because they had been maintained through those years by the Orthodox Churches.

What clued me in to this is the fact that the various Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace their Apostolic Succession back to a specific Apostle. Rome to Peter and the Orthodox to Paul, etc. Well, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem - currently Theophilus III - is the only Church that can trace their Apostolic Authority right back to the Apostle James the Just the brother of our Lord and Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne and Kingdom upon the Ascension of his Brother. It is, assuredly, for this reason that Y'shua appeared to him after His resurrection. James was not one of the called out and Annointed Apostles and we don't even know if James was properly baptised by John or Y'shua for he was not specifically a disciple of Y'shua's that we know of until after the resurrection.

Thus it was that, in some way, Uncle James was commissioned, assuredly, at that post resurrection appearance and went on to be the leader of the Church even above Peter. After his death the Keys of David reverted to Peter for safe keeping which is why they appear in the Papal Coat of Arms. Uncle Pete passed them on to Rome (via Constantinople I suspect) who used them in the past as the Royal Keys that they are which is the very gripe the Orthodox have against Rome trying to Lord it over them.

However, when they laid down the Papal Tiara - the tangible symbol of the Theocratic Keys of David - those keys would have reverted directly back to the only Bishop who can claim direct Apostolic Succession back to James - similarly as the Priesthood reverted back to Ephraim the Firstborn Tribe when the High Priest ripped his Aaronic Robe at the trial of Y'shua.

I have studied the imputation of Authority in the Word in a very detailed and precise manner since my days in Alaska twenty five years ago and I have been looking for those Keys for half a lifetime and there is now no doubt in my mind that the current holder of the Royal Keys of David is none other than Theophilus III (who may be a Monarch) and those very Keys are pictured in his Royal Priesthood Crest at the bottom of the Shield. This particular crest also pictures the Sun and the Moon as well as the Papal Royal Crown.

Now, for the Sword from the Stone thing. The Stone is symbolic of the Church itself perfectly pictured by Peter the Rock. The Sword is Theosis of the endtimes Davidic Leader (as pictured by the Authorian Legends themselves via the Land and the King being one symbolism). This was enacted by the Angel at the conception of Samson the Shining One when he consumed the Eucharist offered on the Rock by having Fire break out of that Rock in which he himself ascends to the heaven - the Angel was the personification of the Sword just as the Sword is an extension and personification of the man. This is metalurgic symbolism and that, specifically, of Theoferrum - GodSteel from God's Forge. It is also the symbolism of the Phoenix which is drawn by all the cultures from the constellations of Sagitairius and Lyra - the Eagle rising in new life from that same metalurgic forge called Ara the Altar.

The same type of symbolism goes into more detail in Zechariah where the Davidic Leader Zerrubabel is teamed up with the Ephraimite Priest called Joshua in front of the Stone (and Plumbline which denotes Inheritance) with seven eyes and the Ecclesiastical Menorah.

The problem, up until yesterday, was which one of the Seven Flames was going to lead to my Theosis compounded by the addition of the Orthodox Church which added at least another seven more to the Quest for the Holy Grail, so to speak.

Now, however, we know that Rome - as a result of the Great Schism which is the breaking of the Sword into two pieces in the Mythos - severed themselves from the Orthodox Connection of the Liturgy of St. James which the Patriarch himself uses and is the Guardian of, in a manner of speaking.

As far as which Orthodox Church (or possibly an Oriental Orthodox Church) it could be anyone of them for they are all connected back to Antioch as far as I can tell and thus during a Divine Liturgy of St. James my divinization should begin. Thus, when I attain Theosis, it would be the reforging of the Sword back into one piece in one person. That's the Theory, anyways.

All's I need now is a little Spark...

I also don't have to worry about those keys going anywhere anytime soon - or anyone else pulling the Sword from the Stone - cause it is waiting for the one whose right it is. One of the reasons I say this is because the individual who pulls that Sword out of the Stone - achieves Theosis - must have been to the Theoferrum Crucibulum (I have a form of the Stigmata to prove I was there) and he must be able to maintain a Catholic and Orthodox Position (and possibly an Oriental Orthodox position) both at the same time (the two pieces of the Sword, so to speak) and, on top of that, in order to be able to hold the Keys of David, he must be a Premillenialist as were all the Apostles and Y'shua himself.

There is, currently, only one person on the planet that fits that discription.

Now there is a verse that supports all this, that I remembered last night (Ez 21) but didn't realize the significance or appropriateness of at the time. This is one of my favorite passage and it mentions the Slayer which is probably Abbadon mentioned in Revelation in what I have identified as the Eleventh Month. It also deals with the Sword and overturning of Thrones and taking off of Crowns and reserving them for the One Whose Right It Is - identified in the passage as the Rod of His Son which is either a Son of Y'shua himself, or a Son from Ephraim - or both as Ezekiel 37 suggests.

That would be me.

And that would be that Spark I was looking for...

I heard the Phoenix call my name...

My Immortal Signature

2009-12-29T19:12:00.004-07:00

Originally published 12/28/09 by Theoferrum

Take a look at the photo above.

It's called a Signature.

It is a satellite photo of my camper trailer (the bright white dot just below left of center of the picture) and the driveway to it back in Vermont where I lived from April 2001 till October 2003 and where I was living when Theoferrum occured and when I met my betrothed.

You will note that the driveway is in the form of a Sperm and this is my Spirit which was alloyed to Y'shua's Spirit at Theoferrum, bragging about being the fulfillment of the 2700 year old prophecy at the top of this blog.

"If you make His Soul an Offering for Sin, He will see His Seed."

This was not intentional on my part. The driveway is actually composed of four different sections. The first part which is the middle section, has always been on the land and we have used it to climb the hill or to go get would for years. The second section which is the top of the circle was made when I hauled my trailer up unto the very top of the hill back in the spring of 2001. The third section which is on the far right was made by some loggers who thinned out the trees on the hill. The last section, the bottom of the circle, originated as a foot path from my trailer down the hill to my parents house which I then turned into a road when I got my blazer shortly before heading out to Denver. So, this is why I say - Bing - that it is a signature from my Spirit of my upcoming change which I mention on my Theoferrum II Blog.

Now, I looked at the aerial photo of my trailer a couple of years ago while in Denver but never noticed it then which then indicates that the date of discovery, yesterday, December 27, 2009, may be an important date in my life's Journey and, possibly, in reference to my change.

Anyways, this is why the Insiders posted the Worm Turns at the time of my conception that I have mentioned in my post Holy Blood Holy Grail.

It is also why Guarini included the Spermatozoa in the Architecture of the Shroud

It is also why C. Boel including them in the Frontispiece of the King James Version which I talk about in my post on the Authorized Vision.

It is very possibly when Bernini combined two separate symbols to form this same signature via the letter Q (Crown of Thorns combined with the Titulus), as I mention in my post Where Angels Fear to Tread.

I have actually used this same signature in the past when I used to post on the Five Doves in the form of a Fish swiming across the page.

<><-------------------------------------------------

Now I would portray it as :

o~

I at one time realized that it could also be understood to be a Sperm but didn't really think much about it at the time but now, of course, it makes perfect sense as a signiature from my Spirit.

Anyways, this is what my Fiancee was giggling about the first time I met her...

Immortals Among Us

2009-12-29T18:52:00.002-07:00

Highlander : Who Wants to Live Forever - Who Dares to Love Forever - I Do

So, now that we have established the possibility of immortals among us and have actually proven that it is more than a possibility, what else do we know about them.

Well, since I have been looking into this for some time I have whittled it down to the observance that there are actually three groups of immortals in existence.

The First Group of Immortals are those who became immortal via the Tree of Life. These people would have 'survived' the flood in underground bunkers or the pyramids in Egypt (probably drowning several times in the process, no doubt) and then dug themselves out after the flood. This is actually pictured in the second Highlander movie where one of the immortals had been buried for a very long time in a pile of rocks. This is also specifically stated in book by a Denver author called God's Assassin which tells much the same story (specifying their immortality) and which the author claims to have learned via some type of spectral telepathy from one of the individuals himself. They would have slowly worked their way up the world's corporate ladder after the flood as humanity repopulated the globe until they eventually ended up ruling the world. I believe they were Pharoah's House during the days of Moses as well as the rulers of Sodom which explains the necessity for God's direct intervention on behalf of his people. They probably ran the world from Tyre until Nebachadnezzar sacked it and then chose another Island Stronghold called England, in my personal opinion (Tarshish of the Scriptures) however, their original preflood Stronghold was what is now called Shamballah somewhere over in Afghanistan near Tibet (i.e. the king of preflood Babylon called Marduk had a stronghold in the mountains 'north' of Babylon and they portray it in the Superman Comics as his Ice Fortress in the North).

The Second Group of Immortals are a group of Roman Soldiers (and possibly more - this includes Judas Iscariot) who became immortal as Herod's Soldiers who whipped Y'shua. Edersheim, referencing Josephus tells us that Herod's Body Guard came from Gaul who were in the habit of drinking the blood of their enemies and thus when they whipped Y'shua and drank his blood, they became immortal (Judas, when he kissed him in the garden came into contact with the great drops of blood he had just previously sweated) and Y'shua himself refers to this possibility in John chapter 6. They have set up shot in their old stomping grounds in Gaul where they, along with the first group, run the world. The first group is like the Legislative Group with the Soldiers being the Executive and the Committee of 300 Mortals run the world for the immortals as the Judicial Branch of the current world pyramid (for the support for these conclusions see the previously mentioned book the People of the Secret by Octagon Press). In the movies with the Vampires (antediluvial immortals) and the Werewolves (post flood immortals), they depict these two groups (your duality complex again) as at each others throats and killing each other (like the Highlander movies), but they actually are working together and this is one of the ways they control the masses under the committee of 300 - the recent movie of the same name was made in their honor.

The Third Group of Immortals are those who have become immortal through faith alone in Y'hova's word and that via the Eucharist, in one form or another (note the similarities between the Apostle John and Ezekiel both eating the little book which is very similar to communion). I don't know how many there are in this group but I suspect it is more then anyone would think and possibly about equal to the total of the other group. I suspect that John Mark is in this number and, eventually, the man who becomes the Angel of Y'hova (one of the Cherubim left behind to guard the way of the tree of life) will become immortal also through Theosis via the Eucharist. He is the one that I call the Last Immortal.

At my niece's wedding reception my mother asked the table we were at the immortal question, "Who wants to live forever?" And, of course, I replied.

I do...

Proofs for the existence of Immortals

2009-12-29T14:49:00.005-07:00

Now that we have, tenatively, established the possibility of immortality, at least in theory, we can go on to show that, in fact, there is a very good probability that some have actually achieved immortality and thus I offer below a list of indications or proofs that this is actually the case.

Proofs of the existence of Immortals :

They run the world and nothing changes (yeah, you know who I'm talking about). The Immortality Institute has stated that if mankind ever achieved immortality, that the secret would be closely guarded by a select few who would then go on to become filthy rich and end up controling the entire planet and enslaving the population. That this is actually the case and is how the current world system is run is shown by the people who acknowledge the existence of this hidden Cartel. From Woodrow Wilson's famous Whisper Speech and the Queen of England's reported attempt to warn Dianna of their pathological behaviour. There are so many quotes of this nature that it is not deniable except by disinformationists. In other words, there is a Hidden Power Structure somewhere in the World that gives orders to, or controls, the (arguably) two most powerful nations on the earth - America and England.

This is, in fact, supported by the word of God via the prophet Daniel who spoke about "Them" several times (2:35&43, 7:5, 4:19&25, 8:23, 11:6&21 - see also Mt 24:9&24&37, 25:44) and the most notable is the group that told the Bear (chapter 7) to rise and devour much flesh. Now, the proper interpretation of this passage is that the Bear is referring to the old Soviet Union and thus, from Daniel's use of this Signature, we can learn two important points about this mysterious group called They and Them.

First, they were powerful enougth to tell the USSR what to do which puts them on a greater footing then the United States of America at the heighth of the Cold War and, secondly, they have been in existence since Babylon was having its Hay Day or about 2600 years or so.

And, actually, we can learn a third important point and that is that these people have been trying for all that time to "fulfill the vision" of Armageddon and the advent of their own personal Messiah (Hitler was a trial run) which the Angel tells Daniel in his last vision. That particular verse is specifically referring to Shabatai Tzvi in 1666 AD but it is a very popular Signature among the immortals and you can see it in most, if not all, of the propaganda spewed out by them all across the globe - like the Cosmic Christ, Maiatreya, the Disclosure Event, Operation Armageddon, the Armageddon Script and from a host of, so called, Prophecy Experts all claiming Armageddon is gonna start tomorrow with the latest attempt being the Mayan end of the world 2012 date just made popular by their latest propaganda movie of the name number.

Now, the chances that various secret societs that run the world (see Mark Booth's The Secret History of the World as well as the various books written by the author's of Holy Blood Holy Grail as well as a book called the People of the Secret published 1983 by Octagon Press all who verify that this power structure exists and two of which imply that there may be immortals at the top), have consistently worked to fulfill the vision for over 400 years - all the while supposedly being at each others throats like the Templars and Hospitalars - is extremely hard to believe outside a inner core group that never changes simply because they are immortal.

Signatures indicate their existence. Ask any Criminal Psychologist and he will tell you that pathological behavior is almost always signed by the perpetraitors and this group of people believe that they are above the law and have the right to decide who lives and who dies and they kill people on a regular basis and, in the process, they leave their own signatures behind when they do so. The point is that if a group of immortals ran the world, they couldn't help but leave their signatures everywhere and everywhen and that right in plain sight and that is exactly what they do.

They brag about themselves in various movies and books (by the way, think about this - immortals don't need to sleep so, what would you do with all this spare time when the rest of the world is asleep other then various forms of amusement such as movies, etc). An example is the Vampire and Werewolf movies (for a fuller discussion on this see my next post and note the duality involved which is how the powerstructure of the world system is divided) whom are 'immortals' as well as comic books, believe it or not (you know, like when Superman died but then came back to life). The Highlander Movies were their most detailed admission to their own existence to date.

Now, one of the most ancient Signatures that I have found is the number 77 which is Lamech's Signature from his lament in the Bible ("if Cain is avenged 7 fold then certainly I will be avenged 70 times 7 fold"). Just do a Google search for all the famous people who died at age 77 (Ted Kennedy was the most famous recent one) and you will begin to understand what I am talking about. The one that clued me into this was the death of Danny Casolaro who had his wrists slit seven times each for the 77 Signature. People mistakenly call it the Revenge of Lamech Signature but they are completely wrong for this is, literally, Lamech's Personal Psychopathical Signature. Its first occurance, that I have found was Zoroaster who was slain on his own alter at the age of 77. Lamech was claiming to have killed him for whatever the reason and I would remind the reader that the date for that event is circa 600 BC or a time span of about 2600 years that this particular Signature has been in vogue with the people who run the world.

Constellations and Mythologies support it. The mythologies of the world (i.e. every major and most, if not all, minor cultures on the planet) are drawn from the constellations which have been dated to about 6000 years ago as to their formation (and that by a single individual by the way) or about 4KBC which was the Age of Taurus when the summer solstice was occuring in Leo. Hercules holds the Tree of Life in his hand and he is fighting with Centaur (this should be read Caintaur - get it?) and the Dragon for its life giving fruit and it is confirmed by the mythologies that, in fact, there was a war for the Tree of Life (preflood) and that some of the fruit was obtained (and then returned - yeah, right) and the most notable one is the (preflood) Summerian Gilgamesh epic. It was Cain (Gilgamesh - where mesh is a suffix title and Gilga is just another version of Gog of Ezekiel with the l being silent) and his descendants and the Dragon (Cain's sire) who led the charge and thus they are the ones who obtained some of the fruit which is why Adam lists Cain's lineage and descendants in Genesis - those are some of the ones that became immortal at that time. Cain himself is the destined to become the Antichrist and the reason he will survive a mortal head wound is, simply, the fact that he is already an immortal anyways.

Scripture verifies it which specifically states that the Tree of Life exists and if one were to eat the fruit they would become immortal. Y'shua himself, since he was sinless, was, in fact, an immortal who had to lay his own life down or he would still be on the cross (as one Pastor put it one time) and he was certainly immortal after his resurrection. Moses was immortal during his 120 years in that he never aged, nor did Caleb (who, unlike Moses, was never stated to have died). John was, potentially, given immortal life by Y'shua and there remains the possibility that the Angels who were left to guard the way of the tree of life are still here among us and thus are immortals (note the Angel visited Israel after the death of Joshua and the elders, as if he was living among them). This is supported by statements by Scientists that our bodies were "designed to live forever" and thus, were it to have access to that particular mineral or element, our bodies would, in fact, never perish.

Eye Witness Testimony provides circumstantial evidence to it, provided by various people through history testifying to the existence of immortals. The Greek Orthodox Church has always believed that the Apostle John is still alive - and that from Theosis via the Real Divine Presense in the Eucharist.

There is another story from a Royal Lady who lived in the times of the Count of Monte Crisco (pun intended) otherwise known as the Lavender (Lunatic) Prince and who knew him when she was a child and also as an aged woman and she said he never aged the whole time.

Others say they don't need to eat or sleep etc. Another example of this is Vlad the Impaler who was so difficult to kill that they finally cut his head off and pickled it in honey. This was the accepted method of killing an immortal which is probably why David was in such a rush to cut off Goliath's head.

An Autopsy proves it. The clearest example of this - actually it is a proof admissable in any Court of Law - is the 'death' of Rasputin.

It is recorded that he was Poisoned, Shot, Beaten, Shot again (right between the eyes which was reported by a physician to have been terminal) and then thrown in the River. He is not reported to have been strangled, as one website mentioned, confusing this with Rasputin himself, after the first time he was shot, getting up and strangling one of his would be assassins.

Now, the interesting thing is that if you do an image search for Rasputin you are gonna find that they actually pickled his erect sexual organ, for whatever the stupid reason, but in doing so, they have proven the existence of at least one immortal for that proves that Rasputin died of asphixiation and that from drowning (which leads to oxegen depletion of the brain which leads to involuntary sexual arousal). Problem is, he was already dead when he got shot between the eyes. The only conclusion is that, after he was shot and thrown in the water, he came back to life and subsequently drowned.

Interestingly enough, before he died he predicted the death of his assassins within 25 years and, exactly 25 years later, the Royal Russian Assassin did, in fact, die over at Davos, Switzerland. So, either Rasputin was a Prophet or he was an Immortal - take your pick.

And, there is your proof for Immortals Among Us...

The King's Daughter

2009-12-26T16:16:00.025-07:00

Let me tell you a story of a mysterious women hinted at in the constellations and Scriptures and who appeared to the Father of this country in the dead of winter at Valley Forge in 1776, just before Christmas.

Ps 45 : The King's Daughter

All your garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and Cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made you glad. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon your right hand did stand the Queen in gold of Ophir.

Hearken, O daughter and consider, and incline your ear; forget also your own people, and your father's house;

So shall the king greatly desire your beauty: for he is your Lord; and worship thou him. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat your favour.

The king's daughter is all Glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto you. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace. Instead of thy fathers shall be your children, whom you may make princes in all the earth. I will make your name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise you for ever and ever.

Cassiopeia - The Daughter of Splendour

"In the Denderah Zodiac her name is Set, which means set, set up as Queen. Al Bumazer says this constellation was anciently called "the daughter of splendour." This appears to be the meaning of the word Cassiopeia, the enthroned, the Beautiful. The Arabic name is Ruchba, the enthroned.

This beautiful constellation passes vertically over Great Britain every day, and is easily distinguished by its five brightest stars, forming an irregular "W."

Caph, means the branch; it is evidently given on account of the branch of victory which she bears in her hand."

She is actually pictured combing her gorgeous hair in preparation for our wedding which will occur in the Kingdom - but for now I and my little Song Bird in a Gilded Cage have to wait what seems like an eternity, but one day will be a reality - one of the reasons I usually drink to the future.

George Washington - Valley Forge 1776 just before Christmas :

"I do not know whether it is owing to anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something seemed to disturb me.

Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a Singularly Beautiful Female. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed, that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of her presence.

A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat my question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of her eyes."

Some people have expressed that since the angel was identified as a female that the vision is invalid. However Jer 31:22 is refering to this very woman which shall "encompass a man" and Ps 45 calls her "The Kings Daughter" and she is the subject of the constellation of Casseopeia. As well, in Rev 19:10, one of the saints is called an angel, indicating that a female saint may in fact be this individual of the vision. She would be equivelent to a Prophetess of the Old Testament. But, thats a story for another time as well.

Let me tell you a couple of stories about her. I first met her just after Theoferrum. I was walking back up the hill on some land my parents owned where I had parked my camper trailer. I was carrying a box of groceries that weighed about 50 lbs when I started and about a thousand by the time I got to the top of the hill and as I was struggling with this box I 'heard' this voice (not audible - telepathically, like the "still small voice") that said, "Hello David" and, as she broke my concentration, I was a little irritated and replied, "Who's that? I've never heard that voice before" and she immediately giggled and I promptly tripped over my own feet as I was stepping into the trailer.

As they say, the rest was history from there on. We spent the next several years together via the spirit and some incredible things have occured that proves to me that all of this was true, and that she is real, and that she is my Love and the woman of Psalms 45.

The first thing was that I have grown up in the Hills of Vermont for my entire life but never once, until that spring, had I ever seen two Barn Swallows Kissing in Flight and if you have never seen this you just don't know what you are missing.

These two love birds will go zipping at each other at about 90 miles an hour and just when you think they are about to collide in mid air, they both swoop up and come almost to a stand still in mid air and then, of all things, they kiss each other and then they would break off in different directions and circle around and do it all over again. It is, absolutely, the coolest thing I have ever seen in my entire life. Similarly to this, and also something that I had never seen till that summer was two Yellow Butterflies (hence the title of this post and one of our songs above) that would encircle each other in flight as they both climbed into the sky and then when they were up about forty feet they would separate and then circle around to meet up again and go dancing into the sky.

That summer, I had found one of those inexpensive rings in one of my sister's old room and I started to wear it to remind me of her but eventually I decided that I had better put it back in case the owner came looking for it so the next time I was down at the house I took it off and tossed it on the table and it bounced back up and stood on end just like the ring above did. That was her letting me know that she wouldn't forget! She has done that several times since then - playig little gravity defying games to let me know that she is still hanging around.

But the coolest thing that she did was one time in food line in Denver at one of the Catholic Churches I used to grab my stuff and go stand by the dumbster which I used as a shelf for my food while I ate. Well, I came walking back from line and threw a packet of Sugar on the shelf and, I kid you not, the packet of sugar bounced off the shelf and stood straight up on end like in the picture above, just exactly like that ring had done and stayed there for several seconds while I reached right out and grabbed it asking her, "How do you do that?"

Hence, the song below is another one of our theme songs...

I might add here that the verse about a Woman encompassing a Man has actually been shown to be referring to the Virgin Mary as that passage occurs in the New Covenant Passage in the Old Testament and Mary is the most famous Woman of the New Covenant and, further, many saints have been comforted by her through the years fulfilling the description perfectly as nothing else could.

However, for myself, it personally reminds me of my girl.

The really cool thing is is that when I convert to the Orthodox Faith I get to pick a Guardian Angel...

Originally Titled : A View from the Hill Daily Editorial : Yellow : April 28, 2004

Editor's Note : December 26, 2009 : I had previously found the date from Washington's writings when the vision occurred and it was sometime before Christmas of 1776 when he crossed the Delaware. Some say this latter event was the turning point of the Revolution however, it is the vision that preceded this event, which gave Washington the fortitude to fire up Congress and then, after he had received some provisions for his troops, his army to cross the River. Now, that letter was dispatched either on the evening of December 12 or on the evening of the 20th. The latter date is assuredly too late for provisions to have arrived before the big crossing so it is the dispatch of December 12 that we are concerned with in which he fired up the Congress and received a certain amount of Authority from them that enabled the Logistics to be accomplished.

Just so happens that December 12, 1776 was the Eighth day of the Feast of Hanukkah...

The Night

2009-12-26T16:14:00.009-07:00

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 The Night

Recently I have gotten the feeling in the spirit that the earth may experience a meteorite strike of some magnitude - possibly multiple strikes and that involving ancient Gaul and other places.

I have also seen this verified by the Word of Y'hova in at least one place where the Beast of Revelation 13 already has a Head Wound when it rises from the Sea.

The 'Head' would be referring to one of the ten countries that make up the beast and, therefore, one of those countries receives a head would of some kind.

The ramifications of this - that I have also received in the spirit and seen verified by the Word, are many and varied. One or several or all of the effects listed below may result like dominoes falling over.

Pole Shift

See John White's Book by the same name. If the meteorites hit is multiple, it could set up wave propagation out of all due proportion affecting one location on the earth more then others and, in this case, that would be the North Pole resulting in this shift. If that were to occur, I would suspect that it would interrupt - possibly permanently - all satellite communications over the entire globe - basically Y2K style.

Antarctic Ice Cap

A pole shift of large enough proportions could send the Ice Cap into the Ocean - see Richard Noone's Book 5/5/2000 for more information. This, of course, would end up flooding a large proportion of the world's coastlands however, there is another result as well.

Yellowstone Super Volcano

With the added weight of the ice cap on the water this, as well as the previous pole shift, could very easily set off the Ring of Fire triggering that volcano in particular and this could also trigger several more major catastrophes.

Great Basin

One author has suggested that if Yellowstone were ever to let go that it would end up cracking the Great Basin in Nevada possibly to the point where it would be flooded by the ocean pouring in down by California.

Methane Explosion

David Dun has recorded in his book the Black Silent that trapped Methane and Natural Gas is, basically, a ticking time bomb with very serious repercussions were they ever to light off including large marine and animal deaths and possibly setting the atmosphere on fire. These could easily be set off by earthquake, apparently.

Anyways, I am convinced some or all of these events will be affecting the globe in the near future and many other people have also gotten this feeling, what everyone seemed to lack is a general time frame.

I have just recently seen that the Year 2009 is being targeted by some of the Chronologies in the Word especially as it relates to the Nation of Ephraim which, today, is America and it would appear that its judgment day for this country.

This will be the start of what the Scripture calls the Night with the Rapture of the Church occurring Yom Kipper 2033 AD about 25 years from now and during this period the geopolitical situation across the globe will change completely.

So, that is where it stands right now and, whether or not anything occurs, this will probably be my last post for I feel that my ministry is now going to change and I am being told to walk away from the "Tools of an Idol Shepherd" as Zechariah calls them.

If the Meteorite Strike occurs as stated, it is probably a safe bet to assume the rest of this post is going to occur as well and one would want to copy anything off the web that they think they might need and then head to a secure location.

I would suspect that the Pole Shift would occur within a week of the strike, but that is, of course, just guess work.

Via con Dios.

Sincerely,

David T. Hill

Post Script : October 15, 2009 : The Day of the Vengeance of our God

All of the judgment symbolism and typology (Basket of Summer Fruit, Whirlwind Season (Hurricanes), Early Rain, Plowing Season, Migration, etc) applies to the date that Ephraim chose to celebrate Tabernacles which is the 15th day of the 8th month which, on some years, falls on America's Thanksgiving and there should be a post on this subject somewhere on this site however, this year it happens to fall on November 1, 2009 (plus or minus two days) and, of course, it starts at sundown the night before - October 31, 2009.

All Saints Day also known as All Soul's Day and Halloween and Mardi Gras and Octoberfest and which is anciently the Anniversary of the Flood (per Olcott's Starlore and Davidson's Great Pyramid) and which every culture on the planet celebrated on the 17th day of the 2nd month which, before the flood, occured in the fall around October and which is the day that Jeroboam was trying to garnish to his own appointed holiday when he switched Tabernacles from the 15th day of the 7th month to the 15th day of the 8th month, and, it just so happens, that this the High Occult Day that Luther chose to nail his Heresy to the door of the Church - "which thing I hate" - starting the Protestant Apostasy from the True Faith. Thus, since the Protestants walked away from the New Covenant and are now under the Abrahamic Covenant, then they will be judged when Ephraim is.

Thus we are to look for Y'hova's judgment against Ephraim on his own holiday of Tabernacles one month after Jewish Tabernacles which, as stated, will be October 31. If Y'hova decides to use an annual meteorite storm to effect this judgment then this would fall under the Taurids which is the result of Comet Enche which is pronounced Enki as in the Sumerian texts, whom I have identified as Adam himself. Thus this judgment is also a result of them not disclosing to the world the existence of Adam's Body which they have had for forty years now. This meteorite strike would perfectly reflect the symbolism used in Ephraim's Judgment passage in Isaiah 28 of the Plowman breaking up the ground.

I also found out today that "in that day" of judgment, Y'shua will raise up the Tabernacle of David (Amos) thus implying that my change as a result of the Eucharist will occur on the same day that Ephraim is visited by Y'shua (visitation - Isaiah, Hosea, Micah etc), in judgment. This Visitation was symbolized the first time when Y'hova sent the Prophet to the Northern Nation to curse the altar (the Lion and Ass episode) which was broken and the ashes (volcano) spilled out onto the ground.

Here is the URL for my post on the Thanksgiving of Ephraim/America :

http://theoferrumii.geocities.master.com/texis/master/search/showmsg.html%20?id=4b05b9f410&Catid=46be277a3#m4b05b9f410

Editor's Note : December 9, 2009 : Hanukkah, otherwise known as the Second Tabernacles would have all of the symbolism of Tabernacles and Thanksgiving as well as the added symbolism of the Plumbline - this latter from Isaiah and Amos and also Hosea, I believe.

Editor's Note : December 26, 2009 : One more possibility is that I recently realized that, in fact, Y'shua was born on the first day of Hanukkah in 4 BC which, that year, just happened to be December 25 - see my post on the First Noel.

Now today, I also just found out that the day that Washington received his vision from the King's Daughter (which see) was December 13, 1776 which was the Eighth Day of Hanakkuh that year (this was also the day I received the word Gravel as a type of the Rapture and my change in 1998 - see my post Bull's Eye - and, you are just not going to believe this - that was the First Day of Hanukkah that year). As these two events are connected together to myself (i.e. my 'birth' or change also connected to her like a Wedding Ceremony symbolized by Tabernacles), in the Dead of Winter (Sun in Scorpio bringing in the symbolism of All Saints Day mentioned above) then there is a good chance that the Window now extends up to next Friday which is January 1, 2010 - Sun, Mercury and Venus in Sagittaurus the Archer (see my post on the Gravel Tipped Arrows) and Moon right in the middle of the Theoferrum Twins - who are Archers - called Gemini the Twins.

Thus, if the meteor impact above is from one of the annual meteor showers, it would appear to be from the Quadrantids, which peak around January 3 and, there is really good viewing down at the Antarctica which is where I believe one of the impacts will occur. This shower is, apparently, a result of Comet 2003 EH1.

Guess we'll wait and see...

On the Twelveth Day of Christmas My True Love gave to Me...

Mystery Babylon

2009-12-23T16:48:00.010-07:00

David Hill (21 Oct 2002) "Mystery : Babylon"

And upon her forehead was a name written : Mystery : Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.

And the angel said unto me, Wherefore did you marvel? I will tell you the
Mystery of The Woman...

I wanted to add some more information to my posts on the identity of the real endtimes Babylon. In the above translation you will see that I have replaced the comma after Mystery and placed a semi colon in its place. I did this for a reason. Many people use this word to say that the endtimes Babylon is going to be a 'spiritual' one and then apply these passages to whatever group they feel fits the facts. However, the Ancient Greek Grammar allows no such application for the simple reason that this word (Strong's 3466), if it were a name would be spelled differently (which is why the KJV includes the comma).

Thus, this is refering to a Mystery concerning Babylon, as the latter part of the above quote makes clear from the context where the Angel will tell John the mystery concerning the Woman called Babylon. This allows no spiritual application regardless of how many people do so.

Thus, again, if you take all the clues as to the identity of this woman, you can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the ancient city and empire is going to be rebuilt as I have stated many times. And I have included many points on current events etc, which shows us that they are planning on doing just that. And, in fact, might it be possible that all the Weather Modification is to make the Mesapotamian Plains the Fertile Cresant once again?

To further support this, I remind everyone that John specifically stated that he was taken out into the Wilderness to see this city. This can only be the plains of Shinar as previously stated, which is subsequently confirmed by Ezekial 19, where the King of Judah is taken to Babylon which is then called "The Wilderness" (vs 9 and 13). Remember that Ezekial specifically stating that this had already been done and this then is not a prophecy but a literal description of ancient Babylon, and thus the reference in Revelation is all the more conclusive.

Babylon (which has always been inhabited to this day with a current population of around 200,000) was never destroyed by fire as predicted, including that they wouldn't reuse the bricks which they have done (Is and Jer).

Zechariah tells us after the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and Persians (which some say is its "destruction") it will have its house rebuilt on its own base in the Plains of Shinar, which is exactly what Daniel 4 tells us, after the Seven Times (of the Church) pass over it. In the endtimes two woman (apostate Judaism and apostate Christianity) will carry a basket case woman to the Plains of Shinar, to (re)build (same word) it a home. The Plains of Shinar is ancient Babylon. James hints at this when he repeats the archaic expression "Go To" twice in his epistle - while speaking of endtimes events- which was first used in the Scriptures when the people decided to build a city. One rule of interpretation is the first use of a phrase in the Scripture. Taking this as a guide, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit through James was calling our attention rebuilding of the ancient City of Babylon. The Lord tells us that He is going to cause Judah and Ephraim to labor "in the very fires" to build this city (probably as slaves), which He calls Vanity in other places. And then He tells them to flee from this city, shortly before it is destroyed at the very end of the tribulation, when the Lord is about to return.

The rebuilding of Babylon - kingdom and city - is the subject of the Sign of Daniel chapter four, in which the Babylonian Kingdom (including city), is to be cut down and restrained for the Seven Times of the Church. Hence, the Restrainer will continue to restrain until He is taken out of the Way. At which time the Babylonian Tree ("and all the trees") and Kingdom will be Revived - City and Empire and Religion.

This tranistion is hinted at in the difference between the second Beast of Revelation 13 and the Woman of chapter 17. The clue to this transition is found in the verse where the woman says, "I sit as Queen and am no Widow." Look at Lam
1:1 where widowhood, in the Word, in reference to a city is refering to the destruction of a city at the hands of their enemies. It is after the destruction of their current home and before they have a new capitol (when she will be enthroned as Queen), that this 'woman' takes on her real Beastial character as the second Beast of Revelation.

Now, note this. No matter how you look at this, if you say that Rome is the City, then it is destined to be destroyed or was destroyed in the past. The only problem with that is that George Peters has correctly pointed out that as long as the Catholic Church maintains the Cardinal Doctrines of the Faith then they are not, nor can they be, the Antichristian System of the end days nor the Mother of Harlots. The situation is exactly similar with the United States but from a slightly different perspective simply because America is only 200 years old yet the Whore of Babylon is the Mother of all Harlots. Most of the religions currently on the planet are older then this country which is highly indicative that the United States is also not the Antichristian System of the End Days, nor the Whore of Babylon.

In fact, basically, Babylon went underground long before the Christian era and has remained such, working through various secret societies during that time until the day comes when she is once again placed on her own thrown having been restored from the destruction of the Medes and Persians which will, assuredly, be accompanied with the rediversion of the Euphratees River, as mentioned above.

Jeremiah calls it Chaldea and the Land of the Chaldeans, as does Isaiah. Y'hova tells Jerimiah to throw a copy of the Prophecy into the Euphratees River, which runs right into Babylon. In the Spiritual realm, this is a territorial claim. The person thus 'claiming' the Euphratees river, was 'claiming' Babylon and cementing it into the prophecy of Judgement that God had given. Most people don't understand this, but it is very real. Why do you suppose that God had that person go to the Jordon River to be healed? Because that belonged specifically to God and the Theocratic Kingdom. The same is true of the Euphraties. It 'belongs' to the god of this world, who has set himself in opposition to God. So, God told Jeremiah to throw that Prophecy into the River, indicating that as sure as the water flowed down into the city of Babylon, that God's Judgement, in its day, would also 'flow into the (same) city of Babylon. Which river figures prominently in endtimes events, as recorded in the Revelation, during which we see the rise, and destruction of endtimes Babylon.

However, shortly after this Cyrus diverted the Euphratees River and so God's judgment of the ancient city has been held in abeyance. Now, get this: if they redivert the Euphratees River back to its original course, then Jeremiah's Judgment will flow into that ancient city in God's time. And, I assure you, that is exactly what will happen, thus fullfilling the prophetic typology. That will be everyone's proof that the rebuilding of ancient Babylon is the mystery.

Jeremiah and John both link it to the Euphrates, and both say that it sits on Many Waters of the Eurasian crossroads.

It is called Babylon by all the prophets who speak of it including here in John as a proper gramatical interpretation makes clear, and especially in the succeeding verses where it is called simply Babylon with no more mystery attached.

It was built, as John says, on the Seven Mountains that surround the Mesapotamian Plain (and not seven man made ramparts called hills as Rome was), which their World Map and Creation Epic prove where the 'islands' of the map (pictured above) are the mountain tops in the heavenly sea.

The passage of Scripture in Revelation, refering to endtimes (mystery) Babylon is what is called a retrospective passage, and looks no further back in time then Rev 4 - The Rapture. The Rise of the Mystery Whore (who rides the beast), takes place after the Rapture. This rules out every city currently on this earth. And, when the Destruction of this City is accomplished the angle does NOT use the word Mystery, but simply says that Babylon has been destroyed. The Word 'Mystery' that is used is not part of the proper title, but it is a description of the rise of the city. Saying that it is a Mystery, that this city has returned. This alone also rules out any city on the face of this earth. Only the rebuild ancient Babylon, would fulfill this 'mystery'. The fact that nobody believes that it is going to be rebuilt adds authority to this view.

John here calls her the Mother of Harlots and that is exactly what ancient Babylon is, whose civilzation still rules the world today (when you look at a calender, or your watch, or go to a libray or drive on a road or ride a train you are utilizing a civilization that originated in Babylon, very possibly PREFLOOD in origins) via all the Secret Societes currently on the planet, and includes politics and religion and most civil institutions.

This woman is the same as the second beast in Rev 13 and therefore arises after the revived Roman Empire which rules out every city now on the earth (including Edinbourough, London, Washington, New York, Constantinople etc, all of which have been called Babylon in the past).

The Babylonians worshiped many gods, however, the particular god that they adored, which will be worshipped in the tribulation was M-SH-S. This was originally the Sun, but eventually became 'personified' in a Serpent. But not any particular Serpent but the Firery Red Dragon and thus this organization will use the Dragon as its symbol which neither America, England nor Catholicism utilizes.

Peter was not using Babylon as a 'code word' for Rome for at the time he wrote that, there was a sizable Jewish community in Babylon that he assuredly ministered to.

Some people ignore all the clues above and focus on the colors that she wore, which basically narrows it down to only a couple of thousand of organizations that use those same colors. When you take all that and realize as John states that this city was responcible for the death of the Prophets (OT) and Apostles (NT) then this is conclusively only one CITY.

You must take all the Scripture into account or you will fall into error.

Jerimiah (51) tells us that Babylon will be overthrown by the Kings of Ararat etc. And this area is in the Caucus Mtns. What few people realize is that this is the area where the Assyrians exiled the Nation of Ephraim (can you say caucasian?), into a buffer zone between them and their enemies. However, Ephraim made friends with their enemies and then helped the Babylonians overthrow the Assyrians. But then, they helped the Medes and Persians overthrow Babylon. And then, they helped the Greeks overthrow the Medes and then they helped the Romans overthrow the Greeks. And, as the Parthians, they were about to overthrown Rome when the Church age began and they became 'lost' to history. God used The Nation of Ephraim at every change in the World power (just like he used the Brits against the Emperor Napoleon). Hence, this shows us that in the enddays that the Lost Nation of Ephraim (and all the other ten tribes which are scattered throughout the globe) will be used by God in the overthrow of the endtimes Babylonian System.

The Babylon of the old times was never destroyed (by fire suddenly) as predicted (Jer 50-51, Is 13 etc) including that they wouldn't reuse any of the bricks (which they did), which is understandable if the end times Babylon is destroyed by nukes. Thus, if you take the geographical statements as to the location of endtimes Babylon, you will see that it can only be refering to a rebuilt Babylon in these end days as stated in this post.

"Mystery Babylon is not credited with the death of Apostles in Rev 17 or 18."

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath avenged you on her. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his Servants at her hand."

In strict rules of interpretation, we have here a single city that is responcible for the death of Apostles, Prophets, Saints, Martyrs and Servants.

If, in fact, the Word Prophet means exactly what it says, then this city has, in fact, been ultimately responcible for every Prophet and Saint and Martyr and Servant ever killed, from Able down to the last saint killed in the tribulation.

And, in fact, as I have just shown over the last several days, there is only ONE CITY that can possibly meet all the statements concerning endtimes Babylon, and that is the Rebuilt Babylon that was, in fact, in existance before the flood, and after the flood, and at the time of the Apostles, and during the tribulation.

In fact, that is why this city is called the Mother of Harlots. And, if we didn't have preconceived opinions that have been drawn from our pastors or favorit Bible expositor, and would just let the Bible say what it says, that there would be no question at all about the identity of this city.

Just because we can't see how a city can emerge in seven years, does not make it impossible, and in fact it is possible, which anyone who has studied the Manhatten project can easily verify.

Most eroneous views are big on making Jer 50-51 the endtimes Babylon, which I actually agree with. However they apply it to America or the Catholic Church or some other organization, even though Jeremiah, time and time again, makes reference to the Land of the Chaldeans, which is only one place in this world. And then, to emphasize literal Babylon, he has his servant throw a copy of that very End Times Babylon Passage, into the river Euphratees, not the spiritual Euphratees (Tiber or Mississippi?).

So, my question is this: Exactly how can you literally apply the destruction, to a spiritual nation? Won't the destruction be 'spiritual' as well? (i.e. "I have been cruxified with Christ" is a spiritual application of a physical judgement on a literal person. Hence, "I have been blown to bits with Babylon" would also be a spiritual application of a physical judgement on a literal city). But if you literally interpret the judgment in that passage, then sheer consistancy demands that you literally apply it to literal Babylon, as the passage demands. You can't have both. Either spiritually apply the judgements to 'spiritual Babylon' (i.e. London, New York, Rome, etc), or literally apply the judgements to literal rebuilt Babylon. Take your pick, but you can't have both. And, in fact, only one is correct. America is Ephraim, and Babylon is toast.

"If the literal sense, makes common sense, then seek no other sense."

Editor's Note : November 8, 2007 :

As I just mentioned elsewhere, now that we know we have to wait another 25 years before the tribulation, then it is very feasible to believe that this ancient city will be rebuilt to become the ruler of the world before the tribulation and I refer the reader to my section on the chronologies as well as my posts that show the feasibility of the rebuilding of the ancient city.

This post will serve to be a compilation of all my major points on the identity of the Harlot from all my other posts and will contain updates when appropriate.

The Quest for the Immortal

2009-12-23T16:27:00.001-07:00

Y'shua the Messiah circa 33 AD

He that believes on me and lives, shall never die...

The Quest for the Immortal Wednesday, August 29, 2007

"Those who survive will never die." February, 1964

Before I go any further with this blog there is one subject that requires a more professional presentation and that is the subject of Immortality. I have mentioned this in several of my posts but there is a need to compile the information in a logical manner to present to any visitor to this blog so that they will not write off my material out of hand and to show that belief in immortality is not illogical or fanciful.

This will certainly not be a Tour de Force or Exhaustive study into this subject, for that is not how an Editorial is designed, but it will be a useful introduction into the concept and will serve to provoke further research for the interested as well as meet this writers goal for his own defence.

The Scriptural Record

"And Y'hova Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..." Genesis 3

For those who believe in the Inspired word of Y'hova who may read this, the theory of immortality itself is presented in the opening chapters of Genesis where Y'hova banishes the unfortunate fallen pair from the garden to keep them away from the Tree of Life. The Scripture presents immortality, not as a theory, but as a definite fact. If the Scriptures are to be taken at face value, then this verse alone opens up the possibility of the reality of immortality.

I would also point out that the Christian West has been celebrating Immortality every year for 2,000 years, as has a large portion of the rest of the world, and it is currently called Easter, in reference to the Resurrection of our Lord who now is Immortal and destined to live forever and he promises this same Eternal Life to everyone who calls on his name and, in fact, potentially promised it to the Apostle John when he implied that it was His will that John tarry until He returns. This then shows that belief in immortality is not necessarily ludicrous but is a viable system of belief.

In passing it should also be stated that Y'shua also used his physical blood to typify this Eternal Life through the Spirit but this also leads to the possibility that his Eternal Blood would literally have given the drinker that same Eternal Life - which the Insiders refer to as the Holy Grail as portrayed in the third Indiana Jones movie and which is implied in the concept of Vampirism.

The Secular Record

"Scientists don't know why people die because our bodies are designed to live forever." Robert Buckley, High School Math Teacher, Blue Mountain, circa 1980

For the Atheist or Agnostic or anyone else for that matter, the concept of immortality is then substantiated to some extent by the Constellations of the Zodiac themselves where Hercules holds the Tree of Life in his hands while in mortal combat guarding its precious fruit with the surrounding constellations and decans supplementing that story. There we see Scorpio trying to rob Hercules of immortality as well as the Centaur trying to obtain some of that fruit for himself and Sagittarius arriving to the aid of Hercules.

There are those who say that the Zodiac Story is at least 5,000 years old - when the summer solstice was in Leo - and thus this record dates back to before the Exodus and is one of the oldest records in mankind's history and it also presents immortality, not as a myth, but as a reality - a reality, by the way, worth fighting, and dying, for.

The mythologies that arose from these constellations also state, emphatically, that some of that life giving fruit was indeed acquired, as in the Gilgamesh Epic and, as any Shrink worth his Salt will tell you, all traditions and mythologies and Folk Lore assuredly arose from some type of historical, actual event in the past.

This, by the way, would include modern Folklore such as movies, books and periodicals most, if not all, of which is produced by corporations that some would say are under the control of the people who currently run the world and thus serve to further the goals of the Insider run Illuminati. At least two books by Masonic Historians (Mark Booth's The Secret History of the World and another book published by Octagon Press called the People of the Secret) will tell you that the people who run this world belief that there immortals exist and they have even developed a 'process' for becoming immortal yourself, by channeling your sexual energy to obtain divinity. The fact that this process actually exists - and is actually supported by the people at the top of the world pyramid, is further, inadvertant truth, to the possibility of immortals among us.

The Special Record

"The absence of such signs indicates that hydra does not undergo senescence and is potentially immortal." "Mortality patterns suggest lack of senescence in hydra," D.E. Martinez, Experimental Gerontology, pg 223, 1998

There are actually a couple of species that never age or that can rejuvenate their life and, that being the case then it is obvious that immortality is not totally impossible at all but is, in fact, a very real phenominum which would include, one would imagine, spontaneous cell reproduction at enormous rates, as when a frog regrows a limb or in "transdifferentiation" (Scott F. Gilbert, "Cheating Death: The Immortal Life Cycle of Turritopsis," Developmental Biology, 8th edition, March, 2003) which is actually a cellular rejuvenation or, to put it in plain English, the fountain of youth.

So, the Sacred, Secular and Special Sciences lend their testimony to the possibility of immortality and it is not unimaginable that, given time, our own scientists would succeed in unlocking the DNA Code itself that would lead to unending life and, in fact, there is an Institute that is dedicated to this very goal.

"We can no longer pretend that we know so little about how to cure aging that the timing of this advance will be determined overwhelmingly by future serendipitous discoveries: we are in the home straight already." Aubrey de Grey, The Scientific Conquest of Death, The Immortality Institute, October, 2004

It is also not inconceivable that some Ancient Society - for the Christians, Jews and others that would be Antediluvia - that Robert Bauval (The Orion Mystery, etc) and others postulate existed on this planet in the prehistoric past, may themselves have cracked the code that led them to produce immortals.

The Quest

"Practical worries might include: the population problem, the problem of scarce resources and environmental pollution, eternal youth that is only available to the wealthy, the accumulation of too much wealth and power by an elite group of immortals." Ibid, Marc Geddes compliments of the Speculist

It is intriguing to myself that Philosophers who spend any amount of time on the concept of Immortality would arrive at the conclusion that if there were a select group of people who were immortal that they would somehow end up running the world and enslaving the rest of society which, then, is inadvertant indication that, in fact, they do exist and this is exactly my contention concerning the current Geopolitical situation that is presented in various posts on my site and, further, this is exactly what has been described by those people who have studied the Illuminati World System in depth, whether they realized it or not, and one indication of this is that the same agenda that pushed centuries ago, is still actively pursued to this day, and I would refer the reader to my post on Daniel's Last Vision for more details on this point.

The quote at the top of the post, from a major News Periodical at the time of my Conception or Birth, would lead the reader, initially, to believe that, in fact, the Insiders had indeed already arrived at their Immortal Destination and, with this as our basis, it is not, therefore, illogical to look into history to see if at any time in the past there have been those who exhibited Immortality and who may have actually worked themselves into positions of Political Power.

Thus, those who may be a little skeptical about immortality, here you have the first steps on your own quest for the immortal.

Antediluvial Ecliptic

2009-12-22T17:49:00.014-07:00

The information below ties in directly, not only with my post on the Black Dwarf, but also my other post on the Day of Creation and Egyptian Creation Glyph.

I was re-reading through Robert's Book on the Sirius Mystery and saw where the Ancients stated that Orion was half below the Horizon and thus equated with the underworld and half above the Horizon equated with the sky and I wondered if maybe what this actually means is that the Ecliptic used to pass right through the Belt of Orion.

There is a 'problem' with the Mechanics of this however, much of the confusion in the Ancient Astronomy can easily be cleared up if we consider that possibility.

To make a copy, what I did was to take the September copy of the Sinusoidal Star Chart in Astronomy Magazine and Xeroxed a couple of pages and cut one up on the ecliptic to use it as a template then moved it straight down until it was on the belt of Orion and drew the 'old' ecliptic (pictured in red in the photo above) and, when one does this, it is like putting the last piece in a jig saw puzzle, as we will see.

Castration of the Gods : Their are two of the constellations right now that have their loins on the ecliptic and three or so that had their loins on the ecliptic before the change. Thus, when the change occurred, it would have been perceived as a castration of some of the gods. Aquarius now has his loins on the ecliptic and this constellation was assigned to Enki by the Sumerians who had virility problems cause his wife poisoned him. Anu and Lullu had a wrestling match and the latter bit off the former's you-know-what and swallowed it and this is pictured in the constellation of Serpentaurus wrestling the Serpent in Scorpio whose loins are very close to the ecliptic now. The most famous - which we will see again - is Orion/Osiris who was castrated by Set and, as stated, his loins actually marked the original ecliptic. Horus, his son, represented by one of the Twins, no doubt, came back and avenged his old man by castrating Typhon who is of course set and this is pictured by the constellation of Hydra whose loins were on the old ecliptic.

The Clash of the Titans : When Worlds Collide. If the Ecliptic was originally about 30 decrees below what it is today, the gods would have been described as fighting over the new positions as a result in the change resulting, of course, in many of the previous mentioned castrations as well as much of the sexual deviancy of all the gods. Zeus overthrew Saturn and Horus replaced Set, Gorgon getting its head cut off by Perseus, etc.

Patriarchal to Matriarchal Society : With the Male Gods all proving to be 'unstable' and quarrelsome, the change in the Ecliptic began to emphasis the 'stability' of the Maternal aspect of Society. On the old ecliptic there are no female figures anywhere near but on the new ecliptic, of course, the Heavenly Virgin has now been brought down to earth showing stability.

Jason and the Argonauts : Before the change, the planets would have passed from Orion right into the good Ship Argo where they went sailing around the world on the quest for the Golden Fleece Award now, of course, the ecliptic doesn't pass anywhere near Argo so the typology is no longer evident.

The Chariots of the Gods : Similar to the one above the circumpolar stars would have changed slightly - I have tentatively identified the old pole star not as Draco but the very knee that Strong Hercules has planted into the ground which would explain why he was associated with all twelve signs of the zodiac and this would have made some signs circumpolar including Cephus the King whose Chariot (big and/or small dipper) was pulled around the heavens by the Swans known as Cygnus. When the Ecliptic changed it would have looked exactly like Phaeton drove the chariots right into the ground.

The Age of the Gods : With the Virgin now on the earth and the planets passing through that constellation, it could be said that she was conceiving by them and giving birth to godmen thus showing the end of the Age of the Gods and the start of the Age of the Demigods. This would also serve to explain why some of the gods are pictured as half man half beast having come down to earth from the Heavens.

The Age of Taurus : With the Heavenly Bull aforetime above the ecliptic, when this changed it would appear as if the Bull had been brought down to the earth and Sacrificed and this is exactly what the Mithras religion represents along with another major typology.

The Sleeping Hero : Several mythologies show the Hero sleeping until some important time in the future and with the change in the ecliptic it would appear as if Orion had crawled into a cave which is where the Mithras religion and many others, celebrated their initiations. This is similar to the Egyptians who, according to Lockyer if I am not mistaken, at one time believed the departed spirits went up to the heavens but afterwards the departed spirits went to the underworld to be with Orion. And, further, this is when the Gods from before times would have been incarcerated in the underworld represented by Centaur fleeing underground.

Hero with a Thousand Faces : Campbell talks about the Hero and one of the major points of that mythology is the descent of the Hero into the underworld. Sometimes he is stuck there and sometimes - like the Gemini Twins - he successfully arises from the grave. With the Old Ecliptic the Gods - the planets - would have passed from Orion and started their descent into the underworld around Centaur and Scorpio and then climbed back up into the world around Orion.

Whale Mythology : Similar to the above is the Hero, like Jonah, being swallowed by the Way and then being barfed back up and this would literally be the case with the old ecliptic where the Gods would get barfed back up by Cetus.

The Age of Aries : Along with the end of the Age of Taurus you also have a clear representation of the start of the Age of Aries which is now right on the Ecliptic and was steward of the period of time that saw more animal sacrifices then any other period of time before or sense.

Now, that is just some of the major points and there are several other minor points that I can add.

A Little Bird Told Me : You know the story, you should be careful what you say about other people cause a little bird my take your message and place it in the ears of the wrong person. Solomon in his wisdom himself warns us of this. So, it is no coincidence that Apollo's Gossiping Bird the Raven would have been right on the old ecliptic and would have whispering in the ears of the sun god on his way past.

Tipping the Scales : Self explanatory, ain't it.

Stork Bringing the Baby Home : Now, back to the original point of this thread. With the old ecliptic you would see that it would look exactly like Orion was siring the gods by shooting his seed right into the Cosmic Egg (exactly as pictured in the Egyptian Creation Glyph above) in the same manner that a Male Fish would fertilize the eggs previously laid by the Female Fish and this is why both the Sumerians and Egyptians and Dogon used the fertility symbol of the fish itself and why the fish is located in the Dendarra where it is but further, this symbolism is what gave rise to the legend of the Stork which holds the baby in a sheet hanging down from its beak in that elliptical orbit described in this area by the glyph that I previously posted. One should remember that, in the picture of the position of the planets in my post on the Day of Creation that all the planets would be lowered 30 degrees and be right in the Loins of Orion and 'streaming' right into the Cosmis Egg.

Axis Change : Now, there is really only one problem and that is that the only way you can change the ecliptic is if you lower the earth in its orbital plane to the sun and planets making them look as if they have risen into a new ecliptic and this event must have taken place in recorded history and the only thing the Ancients - who recorded this change - give as a possible explanation is the World Wide Flood which would have taken the Water Vapor Canopy (Henry Morris, the Biblical Basis for Modern Science) that was around the earth at the time of the flood being ruptured and condensing all that vapor into water that poured onto the earth and remained here thus changing the gravity of the earth and causing it to 'ride a little lower' in the plane of our orbit.

Hey Diddle Diddle : This, in turn, about 100 years after the flood, with the breakup of Pangaea led to the earth tilting off its axis due to the bulge in the earth not being balanced as well as the mass of the earth. The Sun, acting on that bulge, pulled the earth off its axis to where it is today.

This change in axis is what is being referred to by that old folk song where Diddle is actually to tremble and the Cat (Leo) and the Fiddler (Crab of Cancer and the Cow (Taurus) jumping over the Moon with the little Boys (Gemini) Laughing (falling over backwards) to see the Dish (Big Dipper) run away with the Spoon (Little Dipper).

So, anyways, I believe that all this was known by the Ancients and especially by the Dogon who possibly believed that there was a Black Dwarf somewhere near the constellation of the Unicorn and I believe that it may actually be precisely in the middle of the Rosette Nebula which would explain why Cancer was anciently known as the Red Flower (per Olcott's Star Lore).

Now, proving the existence of a Black Dwarf would be similar to proving the Existence of the Creator in two ways.

The first is that both a Black Dwarf and the Creator hide themselves in that the only way you can tell they're there is by the effects they have on their environment. Like the Proverbial King of the Beasts dragging their tail behind Him swishing it to and fro and erasing all his tracks, He hides himself as Lord of Perfect Blackness.

The second is that when it is proven that there is a Black Dwarf in the Constellation of the Unicorn it will be proof of instantaneous creation ex nihilo because any Black Dwarf that exists would have to be 'older' than the known universe.

Perhaps, this is what the Dogon meant when exercising their faith of the Black Mustard Seed when they said that the Black Dwarf was the first star the Creator fashioned - older then the universe.

Suffer me a little and I will show you that I have yet to speak on God's Behalf. I will fetch my knowledge from afar and ascribe righteousness to my Maker. Surely my words shall not be false and he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.

You know, they say that in Heaven, a Rose doesn't have any thorns...

Black Dwarfs and Revelations

2009-12-22T17:31:00.005-07:00

So, in my quest for Ancient Wisdom I picked up a book the other night called The Lost Star by W. Cruttenden which postulated the possibility that our sun is in a binary orbit with Sirius and, frankly, he blew the opposition out of the water.

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

Basically, without getting into the mechanics involved, there is no way you can look at the facts and not conclude that we are in a 'binary' system.

So, as I was looking at his diagram on that orbit (pg 167) I personally concluded that there may be a third star in this system that the other two are orbiting around that holds them on that course and I decided that it may, in fact, be a Black Dwarf.

While just recently re-reading The Sirius Mystery by Temple, I had postulated the existence of Black Dwarfs because of the Black Rite of the Religion of Osiris who is Lord of the Perfect Black and, turns out that, in fact, Black Dwarfs do exist.

In Theory, anyways.

A Normal Star goes ballistic and blows itself up and the remaining mass contracts upon itself into a tight ball forming Dwarfs such as Red and Brown which, if I remember correctly, are also known as Neutrinos which are, in fact, the smallest and heaviest stars that we know of.

Then, after it has had time to Air Cool (which is the problem for Physicists cause it would, supposedly, take longer then the Universe has been in existence) which in Metallurgy would be called Tempering, it then becomes a Black Dwarf.

Well, this, then, set off the bells in a manner of speaking cause this would be the only true Star - a Black Hole is not a Star - that would be Invisible.

You know, like described by the Dogon.

So, I went back and checked all my notes on the Sirius Mystery and found further support for all this which I hopefully will type up and place on this post sometime but, for starters, they compare this to the Seed of a Small Plant and Y'shua (Hebrew name for Jesus) parallels this when he mentions the Faith of a Mustard Seed which was the smallest cultivated seed that the Hebrews sowed. It is from the Plant called Brassica Nigra otherwise known as Black Mustard.

The formation of this Star via the Supernova is probably what they are talking about when they say that this star was Circumcised which, actually, is a pretty good description of the process from a stellar point of view.

So, with that information and formative theories, I went looking for anything in the area to the left of Orion which is where, in theory, our orbits meet which should be where this Black Dwarf is and on the Dendarra Zodiac, lodged directly between Sirius (pictured as a Cow sitting down) and Orion is a Glyph of a Bird of Prey perched upon a Fish. The the picture below shows it right at lower center.

The Bird would Picture, I believe, Procyon which many think is somehow connected to Sirius and the Fish, then, represents the Elliptical Orbit of a Black Dwarf.

The Fish symbol is connected to Narmer the Farmer whom the Dogon call Nommo and is also, assuredly, the source for the original Fish Men Story and also represents the Cosmic Egg which is why there is a Duck, Duck, Goose who laid the Golden Egg just to the left of Orion having laid that Egg right where that orbit is depicted. This would be the Secret Chambers of the South referred to by Job (chapter nine compliments of Michanowsky) as well as the Secrets of the Abyss (per Temple I believe).

This area just happens also to be the location of the Super Conjunction that occurred in the Constellation of Orion that I have mentioned in the Day of Creation and on my website which all Cultures seem to connect to the Creation Cosmologies in one way or another, but not quite so clearly as the Dogon.

A Stellar Explosion of this magnitude, by the way, according to Michanowsky in his book the Once and Future Star, in 1977, was determined by Scholars to be possibly the source for the formation of Solar Systems such as our own thus the star would fulfill the description - in every way - of the Dogon Po Tolo or possibly the Thrid Star in their system - I forgot the name.

I also want to mention that the Dogon have an incredible Christology which includes three Great Mysteries that most, if not all, Christians are totally unaware of. I mention this because this indicates that, since their Christology is not a result of 'contamination' from outside influence then their Cosmology which is intimately connected with their Theology, is also uncontaminated and original to their system which, in my opinion is actually a Record of the Oldest Astronomical System in existence.

That dedicated to the Age of Gemini, which was replaced by the Age of Taurus circa 4KBC (four thousand years before Christ) which all the other Astrocosmologies embody.

As for the three great mysteries, well, they have all been expounded on my Message Board in various posts which I may elaborate upon here on this post when I get the time. But, for the record, they are the fact that Y'shua Nommo has a Twin Brother, that when this Nommo returns he will be bringing his Star with him which is the New Jerusalem (at the start of the Millenium not end as Christians place it) and, further and, perhaps greatest, that he is actually going to be Physically Married and have kids.

I'll be Dogon...

Anyways, this would be the area of sky that is taken up by Monoceros.

The Unicorn :

This weekend we move on to the constellation Monoceros the Unicorn. Unicorn's are mythical creatures with the legs of a deer, the tail of a lion, and the head of a horse. There is one horn growing straight out of the center of the head. The stars of the constellation are faint and illusive, just like the Unicorn. In many cultures, the tiny crescent moon is said to represent the horn of the Unicorn. Given that Orion is a mythical hunter, it's pretty funny to have a highly prized Unicorn standing right behind a mighty hunter.

http://www.utahskies.org/deepsky/constellations/monoceros.html

The Rosetta Nebula - gee, like, can Nebula's form from, like, Supernovas?

Inquirering minds want to know...

Yup :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula

There is also a Cone Nebula in that area.

From Wiki :

Rosette Nebula : It is believed that stellar winds from a group of O and B stars are exerting pressure on interstellar clouds to cause compression, followed by star formation in the nebula. This star formation is currently still ongoing.

Bull Loney.

Something else is causing that compression.

Like, a Black Dwarf at the very center.

I have just been reading through Olcott's Star Lore and Cancer - the Rosette Nebula could be considered between Gemini and Cancer - was anciently known as a Red Flower and the most famous red flower is of course, the Rose.

The Day of Creation

2009-12-22T16:54:00.005-07:00

I just found Zep Tepi!

I found a picture of creation by the Egyptians in Mark Lehner's Book, "The Complete Pyramids" and it shows a conjuction of the Sun, Moon and seven stars in Orion in Taurus.

Knowing the approximate date for Creation in 4182 BC I just checked for the New Moon of that Month in that year and I nailed it on the first try.

April 28, 4182 BC (Nisan First) there is a super conjunction starting with the Sun and Moon in Orion and the rest of the planets just ahead in Gemini.

The only planet that is not represented is Jupitor over in Pisces but all the rest are right there. That has got to be the most astronimcally impossible coincidence in my entire life.

I just found Zep Tepi...

I found another glyph on the net that shows Taurus with the son, moon (just to the right of the sun) and seven planets (with earth being the seventh) represented by people under the bull which is then referring to this superconjuction.

The only planet I can't find is Pluto.

I still can't find it but did the math and as far as I can tell it should be right in Corona the Crown - kids being the jewels in their parents crown according to the ancient sybolism and thus Pluto represents Atum's kid (Horus according to the article below) in the picture and Atum himself is represented by the Planet Jupitor in Chephus the king and thus this is literally a perfect fulfillment of that description.

Now all I have to do is find the picture itself.

I finally found it (above). That is not the exact same picture but it is very close and is from the Book of the Earth part A :

Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health, 16(3), Spring 2002

The Sunrise As The Birth Of A Baby: The Prenatal Key to Egyptian Mythology Franz Renggli, Ph.D.1

In Deference to the Dutch Historian of Religion, Bruno Hugo Stricker

ABSTRACT: The Dutch historian of religion, Bruno Hugo Stricker, has been studying Egyptian mythology since 1940 and can show that this ancient culture tries to understand the development of a baby in the womb of its mother as a basis to comprehend the origin of the world.

INTRODUCTION

Correspondence to: Dr. Franz Renggli, psychoanalyst and body psychotherapist, Nonnenweg 11, 4055 Basel, Switzerland.Email: the_nyfelers@bluewin.ch.

It is exactly about this mythic clutter that Stricker has written De Geboorte van Horus (The Birth of Horus) in five volumes comprising 770 pages. There were 8,500 footnotes in his Dutchlanguage which I could not understand at all.

Strickers life work.

In the following brief essay, my intention is to sum up his most important ideas in order to present them to a broader audience of colleagues in prenatal psychology.

As Stricker stated in a letter, he does not understand anything about prenatal psychology. He is an historian of religion, well informed and actually brilliant in the philosophy and theology of the whole ancient world, and also the world of the Greeks and Romans, the Jews, Persians, and the Indians. Incessantly, he quotes geniuses of these cultures and compares them with the experiences of the ancient Egyptians realizing that their theology had a deep impact on the thinking of all later peoples.

But there is another important dimension: Stricker compares these ancient quotations and writings with the images of the ancient world. Thus, his life work is a synthesis between word and image.

Stricker's main attention is focused on one of the books of the netherworld, The Book of the Earth, which he calls The Embryologic Treatise. His basic work De Geboorte von Horus (The Birth of Horus) published in five volumes is mainly an analysis and decoding of this book about the netherworld.

The French scholar Piankoff who had originally edited the Egyptian text,understood it as an analogy to the birth of the sun (See Piankoff, Alexandre & N.Rambova,1954, in English). In contrast, Stricker manages to prove that in The Embryologic Treatise found in the burial chamber of Ramses VI, with the help of its cosmological imagery about the creation of the world, the ancient Egyptians tried to comprehend the development and evolution of a human baby from the moment of procreation to birth.

All ancient peoples had a strong interest in the origin of the world: in cosmology on the one hand and in the baby (embryology) on the other.

THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN'S VIEW OF LIFE

Before the discovery of the earth as a globe, the ancient Egyptians had envisioned the world as a flat disk surrounded by an ocean as by a broad river. Beyond this body of water a circle-shaped world mountain surrounds the whole world, the Egyptians called this Achet, the hieroglyph which literally means the horizon. The sky rests like a lid on this cosmic circle-shaped mountain Achet. There is nothing beyond but abyss and chaos. Thus, the whole world can be understood as a cave.

Macrocosmically, it is the primal sea--the primeval waters which flow encircling the earth like a river, as the amniotic fluid in the microcosmos, the unborn in the mother's womb. As a baby looks for the first time on the light of this world (at birth), originally Horus created through Isis and Osiris, so every day the sun is born out of the vulva of Nut, the Goddess of Heaven.

In the beginning of all creation, the Sun God Ra, spontaneously came into being out of the primeval waters: Like a newborn baby, the Sun God is sitting on top of the primeval lotus.

The most important contribution of Stricker is the analysis of the Egyptian book of the netherworld, the Book of the Earth or Book of Aker, which is a part of the burial chamber of Ramses VI, 20th Dynasty in the 12th century before Christ.

Stricker understands this Book of the Earth as 'The Embryological Treatise', beginning with a conception and ending with the birth of a baby. Here I give only a selection of the most important depictions of this tomb.

As already mentioned also the cosmic mountain chain Achet and the world cave in it are also understood as a cosmological womb, see my fig. 1 & 2, illustrated by the two goddesses Isis & Nephtys, see Fig6.

The Fertilization

The microcosmic semen is synonymous with the macrocosmic light from the sun, with its cone of beams, and the receiver of the seed-beams is the womb, the two stretched pairs of arms.

The Snake as a symbol for the sperm may be seen in Stricker, Birth I, Fig. 2: 15.

Thus the image has again the shape of the cosmic circle - shaped mountain Achet (Figure 1) this time as a pregnant cosmic womb.

In the last five pictures of The Book of the Earth, the pregnancy is almost completed, and finally, the birth itself is presented.

Fig. 35 Represents time of birth.

In my opinion, the Flood is a representation of the amniotic fluid breaking or as the burning sensation on the skin during birth. Thus, I understand the last pictures in The Embryological Treatise as a representation of the baby's actual physical sensations at coming into the light of the world.

THE BOOK OF THE EARTH AS EMBRYOLOGICAL TREATISE

So then, there is absolutely no doubt that the figure above is used in the context of Zep Tepi or the first time and thus now all we need to do is see how old it is.

Many Egyptologist admit that the Egyptian Texts are assuredly accurate copies of original material and thus the Book of the Dead would also be included in that statement.

The Book of Aker speaks of the solar journey from sunrise to sunset. While the book in it's entirety can no longer be found, it's components can be brought together for a complete reconstruction of the Book of Aker. These components were found in the tomb of Ramses VI, the tomb of Pedamenopet, the el-Asasif necropolis at thebes, and among various mythological papyri of the priesthood of Amun (of the twenty first dynasty).

http://www.per-heh.org/ntrw-list/42-ntrw-gods-and-goddesses-of-ancient-egypt /16-aker.html

Here is what Wiki has to say about it:

The Book of the Earth (also known as Book of Aker and the Creation of the Solar Disc) is an important Ancient Egyptian funerary text of the New Kingdom and later.

Editor's Note : December 22, 2009 : Now, there is another conclusion that can be drawn and that is, if my post on the original ecliptic of the planets is correct, then before the flood and before the ecliptic changed, these planets would have been, literally, right on the loins of Orion in a 'stream' right into the cosmic egg mentioned in that post, which see.

Thus this information conclusively shows the very day of creation...

The Heart of a Man

2009-12-22T13:42:00.013-07:00

The first was like a Lion and had Eagle's wings.
I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked
and it was lifted up from the earth
and made stand upon the feet as a Man
and a Man's Heart was given to it.

A couple of years ago there was a famous black man who was a boxer, I think, who ran into some financial trouble and almost got kicked out of his house and he said it was the scariest thing that he has ever experienced. Now here's a guy who could probably beat the snot out of just about anyone on the planet with one hand tied behind his back, literally, and he said that the scariest thing he has ever faced was the prospect of going homeless and living on the streets.

I can attest to those sentiments exactly. Going homeless was, without a doubt, the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life to date. This, by the way, tells you a lot about my old man. Some say he was just a good preacher or teacher but they have absolutely no clue as to what he is like cause he went homeless on his own without even batting an eye.

To give you some perspective about this, when I was in Basic Training for the US Air Force, some of the guys were crying at night the first week until they got used to the new surroundings and being away from home for the first time while having a total stranger yelling and screaming at them all day long from a nose away. I, however, didn't cry at all and in fact was pretty much glad to be out of Vermont. On the other hand, the first night I went homeless in Denver, I was just about in tears, wondering how I was gonna support myself and not having a roof over my head or four walls around me to protect me while I slept, and not owning anything except the clothes on my back and no transportation if I felt I needed to relocate for some reason.

Anyways, if this were just a photo op for them, he would have gone homeless in the middle of the summer when he could have sat on the sidewalk drinking a couple of beers all night. But what does this boy do? He goes homeless, literally, in the dead of winter and, in the process, by calling people's attention to the plight of the homeless, probably just saved a lot of lives this winter.

Now, I don't know if this was the fulfillment of the prophecy at the top of this post or not but it certainly symbolizes the fulfillment when it occurs. Some interpreters say that the verse is describing Secular Humanism in the life of any given nation but this interpretation belies the context for the passage takes a Beast that tears everything in its path in pursuit of its various appetites and then, all of a sudden, the Beast stops and stands on its feet like a man and is given the Heart of a Man. This is exactly the same as Nebachadnezzar returning to his sanity after seven years living like a beast and he realizes there is a God in Heaven and that he, as a King, is supposed to reign in Justice and Equity which takes a certain amount of human compassion and in the article below you have this portrayed for us by this Crown Prince of the Anglos.

Those two boys are gonna be the salvation of the Anglo Saxon Monarchy and Empire if it's saved at all and they can both hold their heads high cause their Mom must be very proud of them and, one way or another, those two heads were born to wear a Crown.

Prince William spends night on London streets

By JENNIFER QUINN, Associated Press Writer – Tue Dec 22, 10:34 am ET

LONDON – A cold alley in central London is a far cry from a palace — but it was the spot Prince William chose to sleep to highlight the plight of homeless British teenagers.

He spent a chilly night near Blackfriars Bridge last week with Seyi Obakin, the chief executive of British homeless charity Centrepoint. William has been the charity's patron since 2005.

"I cannot, after one night, even begin to imagine what it must be like to sleep rough on London's streets night after night," William said Tuesday. "Poverty, mental illness, drug and alcohol dependancy and family breakdown cause people to become and then stay homeless.

"I hope that by deepening my understanding of the issue, I can help do my bit to help the most vulnerable on our streets."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_prince_william

The Son of Man

2009-12-21T16:01:00.001-07:00

David Hill (5 Aug 2002) "The Son of Man"

John 6 And what if you see the Son of Man ascend up to heaven where he was before?

During the course of my various studies I have concluded that Y'shua was taken to heaven and back through time just before he started his ministry to further prepare him for his work and future rule. Before you scoff at this and write it off, remember his words to Apostles ("you of little faith"), and reflect upon the verse above. The Son of Man, as Theologians will tell you, is referring to His humanity. With this in mind, you should also check out John 3 where the Son of Man was on the earth and in heaven both at the same time, which, again, is not refering to his Divinity, but his humanity. Then read this post with open mind.

Point 1

I myself would like to return back and experience some of the great events - to live through them. This, I believe, would also be true of the Savior. Would God deny this priveledge to his son? In fact, IF the angels, to some extent, were witnesses to the creation, and since Jesus - as the Son of Man - is greater then the angels, then isn't it a prerequisite that he MUST have been taken back to witness the creation iteslf, including the creation of the angels, before the foundation of the world? This is more so true when we realize that he was to die to redeem that same creation. Note that he never claimed to have had visions, yet his detailed descriptions of the past and future are more intricate then Daniel's or John's, as if he had personally lived through them as we will see below.

Point 2

This aspect is not necessarily fulfilled by the Godhead in Jesus. This is simply seen in the fact that, as God, he needed no perfecting, but as man "he was perfected" in the things he suffered, or experienced. This applys to his knowledge as well. Though, not denying his omniscience as God, his humanity was limited in knowledge (i.e. he didn't know the woman who touched his cloak, the name of legion, when the Son of man returned, and he "grew in wisdom" etc), and to be like us in all things his knowledge would grow through experience. So, when you consider that he "spoke as one having authority" and "he knew what was in the heart of man" and "no man ever spoke like this man" and "he does all things well" etc, then it presusposes a knowledge (including knowledge of himself) gained over a long period of time - as if he had been alive forever as a man.

Point 3

He is redeemer as Son of Man. The previous propositions lead to this one. According to George Peters :

"This bestowal of the kingdom to the Son of man by the Father, is clearly and explicitly taught in the covenant. Hence in agreement with it, we have the language of Dan 7:13,14; Is 49; Luke 22:29 and 1:32, etc. The divine sovereignty insures it to him.

This giving of the Kingdom by the Father to the Son of Man shows what has already been observed, that this kingdom is something very different from the general divine sovereignty exercised by God.

Various reasons are assigned by theologians for the use of this phrase "The son of man", a favorite with Jesus, such as its reference to the Incarnation, to his relationship with man, to his being the predicted man, to his special peculiarity of personality.

It is the peculiar, distinctive, predicated name of messiah given to him in virtue of his covenanted relationship to the kingdom. This is clearly seen by the invariable linking of the name with the reception of the kingdom by Jesus himself, as e.g. Mt 25:31-34;Matt 16:27,28 etc.

It may be well to add that Daniel, in the passage designated, does not speak of humiliation, but of exaltation, and with the period of Christ's Highest Glory the title is associated as various scriptures testify its meaning reaches far beyond the present into the future, indicating the future conjoining and manifestation of the covenanted Son of Man and his kingdom. These two are inseparable, and the one suggests the other.

To confine the Name to His first advent or to this Dispensation is to limit it within unauthorized bounds, for Jesus repeatedly shows that this name stands allied with, and most intimately related to, his final advent and the revelation of his kingdom." (George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, Vol 1, pages 565-67 and 577

I might add, as we will see, that Y'shua Himself also links this name to the past, and which cannot as such be refering to His Diety, but to his humanity. This alone leads to the next proposition.

Point 4

The so-called Pre-Incarnate Epiphanies of Jesus the Christ recorded in the Old Test. are, in reality, post-incarnate appearances of the Son of Man, taken back through time by the Spirit. The Jews believed in the pre-existence of the Messiah, to some extent, and in order for the Son of Man to exhibit this aspect of his person, it would be necessary for him to go back in time. Hence Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Longmans, Green and Co., Ny 1896, Vol 1, pg 172-5) says:

"But the rendering of psalm lxxii. 5,7; psalm cx.3; and especially Isaiah ix., carries us much further. They convey the idea, that the existence of this messiah was regarded as premundane (before the moon, before the morning star), and eternal, and his person and dignity as superior to that of men and angels: 'The Angel of the Great Council,' probably 'The Angel of the Face' - a view fully confirmed by the rendering of the targum (three if not four, different renderings of the targum on Is. ix.6 are possible. But the minimum conveyed to my mind implies the premundane existence, the eternal continuance, and the superhuman dignity of the Messiah).

But even in strictly Rabbinic documents, the premundane, if not the eternal existence of the Messiah appears as matter of common belief. Such is the view as expressed in the Targum on Is. ix.6, and in that on Micah v.2. But the Midrash on Prov. viii.9 expressly mentions the messiah among the seven things created before the world. The passage is the more important, as it throws light on quite a series of others, in which the name of the messiah is said to have been created before the world.

In the talmud it is not only implied, that the messiah may already be among the living, but a strange story is related, acording to which he had been carried away by a storm. 'Before the first oppressor [pharoh] was born, the final deliverer [messiah, the son of david] was already born'! In another passage the messiah is expressly identified with Anani [he who comes in the clouds of heaven], and therefore represented as pre-existent long before his actual manifestation"

You will see that the view that I present here thus perfectly harmonizes the Jewish and Christian views (both originally obtained from the Inspired texts by sages like Simeon and Gamiliel etc) of the Son of Man. And now, with these four propositions in mind, we can look at the Scriptural evidence that supports all this. These can be presented under several sub titles: The Earth, Heaven, Satan's Kingdom, Past Events, Appearances, Time, Miricles, Scriptures and Logic. Keep in mind that all these deal with the Son of Man and his personal experiences (John 3:31-32, 8:38).

EARTH

"If I have told you earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things."

This would be considered an arrogant statement coming from anyone other then him; for we know that what he tells us is true and factual.

Now, however, what most people miss is the fact that Jesus is here claiming factual, professional, experiential knowledge of earthly things. Even Solomon, who was given wisdom (or more probably, the ability to discern wisely), had to exercise that ability by indepth study and experience (proven by the opening premise of Ec. 1:13).

Long before anyone else understood it, Solomon gave us, in poetic language, a detailed scientific thesis on the precipitation cycle. He gained this knowledge by study and observation.

So also did Enoch learn ALL the preflood knowledge of the sciences, by practical study and application in the same, and, apparently, he mastered them all as the great pyramid proves.

Hence, this would also be true of Y'shua Himself. And this is necessarily the case as his own statment appeals to. His earthly knowledge was gained by personal experience and study as the Son of Man. For instance, how can he talk about the poor in spirit unless he has been oppressed? Or those that mourn, unless he has (Matt 5-7)? In the same way the earthly subjects that he talks about are gained from personal experience.

A casual reading of the gospels shows the incredible variety of subjects our Lord touches upon: Animals - moths, fowls, wolves, foxes, rooster, sparrow etc; The Elements - light, water, rust, salt etc; Human society - widows, weddings, father/son, brothers, evildoers, enemies, thieves, childbirth, children, judges, kings, war etc; Possessions - fields, lamps, cloths, householder, land etc; Plants - flowers, grass, grapes, figs, trees, wheat, mustardseed, corn etc; Body - eye, finger, stature, hair etc; Weather - sun, rain, clouds, wind, drought, seasons, meteorology etc; Occupations - construction, textiles, baker, milling, fishing, winemaking, physician etc.

Now, all of these, to some extent, were common to most people, and thus not conclusive proof of my theory. But as I proceed, keep in mind that he would take these everday subjects and shed a very original light on them (the very hairs of our heads are numbered), which in itself indicates a much deeper knowledge of each subject then otherwise known by normal men. Now, to further support what I have said so far, I want to focus on some things that he talked about that confirms this.

First of all is this: Y'shua talked a lot about the master/servant relationship, more so then the average individual would. In fact, he talked about this as one who had servants - lots of them (see Matt 6:24, 13:27, 18:27, Luke 16:13, 17:7, 19:3, John 8:34, 13:6 etc). And, I might add, that this goes along with another subject that he had a lot to say about and that is finances (accounting, investing, credit, banking, merchants, coinage, silver, depression, inheritance, mammon etc).

In fact, it may be that he talked more about this then any other subject except the Kingdom of Heaven. And it seems like these three are inseparable and in fact, support my contention, for IF he was taken to heaven before his ministry began for an indefinate amount of time, and if he did go into the past also for an unknown length of time, this explaines all of His knowledge especially these last two. In heaven He would have had thousands of servants.

These subjects that he talks about, I feel, were not gained solely from books or observation, but by practical experience.

Another subject he talked alot about is the agricultural profession - plowing, sowing,growth of crop, reaping, burning the chaff, storage into barns etc. From start to finish he talks about this AS IF from personal, indepth experience. When was he a farmer? When did he "put his hand to the plow" (and not look back, for if he did, the furrows would not be straight)? When did one of his enemies sow tares in one of his fields? He speaks as one who has experienced these things.

Note especially the parable of the Sower. Our Lord says that, "He who sows the good seed is the son of man." (Matt 13:37) and that the field is the world (cosmos), and ask yourself, when did he Himself sow the good seed in the world? This is NOT the same as sending the servants (apostles) to sow in the world. He was only sent to Israel during his ministry after his ordination as their King (where he may have went before then is open to conjecture). As well, if as I suspect, the parallel passage in Mark 4 tells us of the parable of the ear of corn; then the seed (Mt 13:19) is refering to the gospel of the kingdom being preached from the begining (the blade-antediluvial stewardship, the ear- the israeli stewardship, the full corn- the chrisitan stewardship, the harvest-the tribulation) by the messiah himself, throughout the world!

Note that Paul verifies the previous preaching of the gospel (Rom 10:18 see also Rev 14:6 etc), and this is also implied in Matt 13:35 when compared with the Old Test. passage referenced (ps 78), which states that these mysteries of the kingdom were heard and known "of old" or "from the foundation of the earth", but that they, being "dark sayings" were still a mystery hidden.

We know that it was God who "preached" to Moses concerning the kingdom, which we also know was Y'shua himself. And this is tied into another parallel concept, which a comparision of these two passages will show, for, "From" (apo) the foundation of the world (Matt 13:35, 25:34, Lk 11:50, Heb 4:3, Rev 13:8 and 17:8) is refering to the begining of the creation itself, or the beginings of time (Strongs # 6924 Qedem - the first time, in the O.T., and #1597 Ek Palai - long ago, in the N.T., where Ek denotes origins and Palai is the root for the word Paleontology).

This alone strongly implies that Y'shua, the Speaker of the Parables (note this implication in the personal pronoun in Ps 78), began preaching from the begining of time. However, in John 17:24 (see also Eph 1:4 and 1Pet 1:20) he tells us that Abba loved him (the Son of Man) "Before" (pro) the foundation of the world. This is refering to the time before time existed, also called Eternity Past by some theologians, and is refering to the Olam, or Hidden Time, and strongly confirms this theory, for Abba loved Y'shua before he even created the universe.

The personal pronouns (esp. in John 15-17) prove this. All of this from his parable of the Sower. But further, he is called the Good Shepherd and gives a detailed description of the shepherds life in John 10, which implies personal experience. That sheep learn their masters voice, the attitude of a hireling (another servant) when the wild beasts attack the flock, and that the shepherd would make a fold out of stones and at night would sleep in the doorway thus becoming "the door of the fold" (see "Jesus the Jewish Theologian"). When was Jesus ever a shepherd? When did Jesus dress a vineyard? When did he go on a long journey? Yair Davidy ("The Tribes : The Israeli origins for Western Peoples") points out that the fact that Y'shua could sleep on a ship tossing in the sea, without waking up (or getting seasick) implies one who was used to this lifestyle. When was he ever a sailor or a merchant?

And yet again, in Malachi, it says of him, that "he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" implying that he already has some experience with metalurgy (symbolism not-with-standing).

As already stated, God expects us to learn from our experiences and doesn't normally hand us a working knowledge of anything (tongues being one exception), and thus, for him to be perfected as the Son of Man, his learning must have been acquired in the same way.

As well, the more experiences and knowledge he gained - in every field - would better prepare him to be the Theocratic King, when that day does arrive. Thus, when he said, "Take my yoke upon you" we are convinced that he knew what he was talking about because, as a carpenter, he knew how to make a yoke that would fit the oxen without injuring it.

HEAVEN

Lets look at a very innocuous statement from Mt 6:20, "Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt."

Now, he is saying this, not as a guess or a logical conclusion (Deut 29:5), but as a fact and that by personal observation. How does he know that rust doesn't exist in heaven unless he, as the son of man, had been there?

He talks about his Father (Mt 16:17 etc) as if he had seen him on a regular basis and that all that his father owned belonged to him (John 16:15), including the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 16:19) which he entrusted to Peter with the council that whatever he bound on earth would also be bound in heaven (Mt 18:18), where he knew, from personal experience, that God's will was always done (Luke 11:2), including that angels don't marry (Mt 22:31), and that they were like children there (Mt 19:14), and that there existed many mansions in heaven (John 14:2), and if there were not he would have told us, because He only spoke of those things which He saw with His Father (John 8:38-420.

You really can't get any stronger proof of my theory then this (would a vision fulfill this statement? I really don't see how.). Y'shua, the son of man, said that he personally saw all these things, and so he did, as the Son of Man, as the verse at the top of the first post proves ("what if you see the son of man ascend up to heaven where he was before?").

As well, he talked about the Holy Spirit (John 14) as if he had personally seen and known him, way before anyone else thought of God as a trinity, yet it is already fully developed by him, as well as his father's angelic hosts (Mt 16:27 etc).

SATAN'S KINGDOM

He has a general's wisdom of sizing up the enemy's kingdom (Mt 12:25 etc), in fact may have had a part in the first 'abdication' of satan (Lk 10:18), and future one's (Lk 12:31, Rev 12), and he assaults the enemy kingdom with the skill of a professional soldier (Mt 8:26), and wages war against the enemy soldiers (Mt 1:24, 3:11, 5:7, Lk 4:41, 8:28 etc), who know who he is by name and rank as if his reputation had long preceded him.

He knows that some of these conquered enemy soldiers will "walk through dry places" (Lk 10:43) until they find another host, and that some of them would be interned where "their worm dies not" (Mk 9:44), and where there isn't any water to drink (Lk 16:19). How does he, the son of man, know all these things and more?

Even Paul, with all his visions of the angelic realm doesn't come close to the details here spelled out, but our savior talks about them as if he had personally experienced them, not as God, but as The Son of Man, his favorite term for himself.

PAST EVENTS

In Mt 7:24, he gives a very accurate description of the building of the pyramid by Enoch, even pointing out that it was anchored to the bedrock, which is something they didn't know in his day. Notice the flood and rain and the fact that there was another house built, which is confirmed by Josephus, made of bricks, assuredly on the plains of Shinar. It was as if he SAW and perhaps participated in, the building of the pyramid itself ("Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" - remember, it was made of stone like the pyramid).

He states, as if knowing the social environment, that Sodom would have remained (Mt 11:23 also Mk 6:11); that God was the God of the living Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mt 22:32); that Moses gave them divorcement because of their hard hearts (Mt 10:5), as if he had been standing there in the crowd that day (Deut 29:14-15!!!); refers to Elijah and Elias with insite that others never did (Lk 4:25); tells the apostles that many kings and prophets wanted to see the things they saw (Lk 10:24) as if having fellowshipped with the same; he tells us, as if reminicing, to remember Lot's wife (Lk 17:28); uses the dream of Jacob to teach Nathaniel of the future glory of Messiah, as if he had laid Jacob to rest that night (Jn 1:51); compares Moses lifting up the serpent to his own lifting up (Jn 3:14) and many other events of the past, however, some have special details that strengthen my theory.

He tells us that satan was a murderer "from the begining" as if he knew that he was the main motivating force behind Cain's murder of Able, which is only something that an eyewitness would have realized (Jn 8:44 and also states that satan was the father of "The Lie" or the strong delusion - compare 2 Thes 2:11, Rom 1, Jn 8, 10:34 and Ps 82 indicating that Cain is the lie).

Note also that the main point of his question to the leaders of Israel (Mt 22:42) was not specifically his diety, but his Pre-Existence, for David saw the Son of man and heard Abba talking to him.

He confirms the Jewish Tradition that Zechariah was killed between the altar and the temple (Mt 23:35 and Lk 11:47), which, again, only an eyewitness could have done at that date, as it was not a known fact, but just a legend.

He talks about Life in the days of Noah, again as if he had experienced it himself, right up to the time they entered the ark. There is a curious legend in a book I skimmed through once that Noah had company in the ark with him other then his family. Someone, apparently, of importance was on the ark with him who his family couldn't see, only Noah (Mt 24:37 - remember Davidy's comments and see in Gen 7:1 where the Lord says, "come into the ark" as if he was already in it himself).

He tells the Jews that Abraham saw "My Day" but then said that before Abraham was, I (the son of man) AM, showing, again, that he, as a man, was taken back through time, and participated in those events.

And this is emphasized by this last passage which motivated me to put this post together. He tells us that Abiathar the high priest gave bread and the sword to David and those with him. But, the Scripture states that Ahimelech his father gave these to him. What this indicates is that Ahimelech reluctantly allowed his son Abiathar to give David those things. His son became High Priest later, after this event. Y'shua did not confuse the names (Ahimelech means 'friend of the king' which he wasn't and Abiathar means 'liberal' which he was).

But note as well that Y'shua emphasises that David was not alone, contrary to Jewish legends and records (one of which says, "because of his great hunger, David ate an excessive amount of bread on that day."). We know that he didn't make a mistake, and this proves eyewitness knowledge.

In fact, might it not be possible that he himself was with David that Day?

In all their afflictions He was afflicted and the Angel of his presense saved them.

APPEARENCES

There are many appearences of the Lord in the Old Test. However, there are several appearances that stand out, because of the information learned. The occasion when Jacob wrestled with the angel shows that the angel had a Corporeal Body (Gen 32:24). Hence would a pre-incarnate Christ have a physical body (John 4:24), if he told us that "God is a spirit" including God the Son.

As well, Jacob says that he saw God, "Face to Face", but the Lord specifically stated that no man could see him and live (Ex 33:20). But he goes on to say that Moses would see the similitude (image) of the Lord (Num 12:8 compare with Gen 1:26) and compare this with Y'shua's words (Jn 14:9) that whoever saw him had seen the Father.

Thus it is obvious to me that this is not a pre-incarnate appearence, but a post incarnate appearence of Y'shua taken back through time.

And in fact, aren't these appearences similiar in nature to his post resurrection appearences to the disciples? He appeared as one already among them (Lk 24:15 and Gen 37:15) indicating that he may have dwelt among them and they would not have even known it (Heb 13:1); He appeared suddenly (Jn 20:19 and Jud 13:3); disappeared suddenly (Lk 24:31 and Jud 6:21); ascended (Acts 1:9 and Jud 13:20); ate food with them (Lk 24:42 and Gen 18:8); made physical contact (Lk 24:39 and Gen 32:24), showing, again, that he had a corporeal body; increased their faith in him (Jn 20:27 and Jos 5:14); instructed them (Jn 21:17 and Jud 6:12) etc.

"And that rock that followed them was Christ."

TIME

There are several statements that he made that are time sensitive. We have already touched some of them previously, and now I will list some more. In Mt 12:8 he said "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and how might this be possible unless he, as the son of man, was taken back in time to witness (possibly participate in) the creation of the same?

The testimony of the Baptist was that he was "before him" , and where did John get this info from if not the epiphanies of the son of man in the old test (Compare John 1:15 with verse 18)?

He then said that "the son abides forever" indicating that before he started his ministry, God caught him up to heaven and subsequently back through time to the begining and that he lived through many of the events there recorded.

And this then becomes the basis for his statement concerning John (21) tarrying "till I come". If, as I believe, the apostle John has tarried here for 2,000 years, it is because, as our Lord's best friend, he wanted John to be like him, who also had "tarried" here since the begining, up until the ascension.

He wouldn't ask anyone to do something that he was not willing to do himself.

Now note in Jn 8:42 and 18:37 he indicates this very process. In chapter 8 he "proceeded forth" from God at the incarnation (exerchomai - to issue; ex denoting origin) and then came (heko - to arrive, be present) >From (apo - off or departure).

While the origins of God the Son are the same as the Son of Man (both proceeded from Abba), the second statement can not be stated of God the Son who is always with God the Father (Jn 3:13). Only the Son of Man could proceed from God and depart from God.

This process is echoed in chapter 18 to confirm this view and order of events from his perspective, where he was "born (incarnation) and "came into the world" (compare Jn 3:31, 6:38, and 7:27 etc).

This second account stresses the entrance into the world and the former account stresses the arrival in Jerusalem as their king at the start of his ministry.

Both of these taken together as bookends to chapter 17 PROVE what I am saying here. For in that chapter he states that he (the son of man - note the copious personal pronouns in that chapter which removes all reasonable doubt) was glorified with his father "before the foundation of the world.

This statement actually sheds alot of light on the transfiguration itself. Of the trans.

"Avoiding the idea of its being 'figurative' (for it was real), the scene enacted in the transfiguration is a representation of the very appearance that the Son of man will assume when he comes in glory at his second coming in his kingdom.

Another feature as introductory ought to be considered. Just previous to this the confession had been made by Peter that Jesus was "the Christ of God".

He (2Pet 1:16-17) says: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables" (as so many now allege) "when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His Majesty."

Peters (The Theocratic Kingdom) presented this view to prove the future personal advent of the son of man in glory, for the purpose of demolishing preterism. However, in the process, hasn't he also proven that this is how the son of man was glorified "with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world", as he tells these same disciples in this passage? If the one is true of the son of man, then, de facto, so is the other one.

He then says that Abba loved him (the son of man) "before the foundation of the world" (17:24). Compare this with his words, "I have known thee" and this is conclusive. He is not speaking as God the Son, but as The Son of Man.

This whole process is hinted at in the words of the Psalmist (45:5): "Many, O Y'hava my God, are your wonderful works which you have done, and your thoughts toward us; they cannot be reconked up in order unto thee."

From the Church's perspective, the appearances of our Lord in the Old Test. are pre-incarnate appearances of the Son of God in human form.

But from his actual experience, he was born, then taken up to heaven (probably just before he would have started him ministry) where he was glorified with Abba, and then was separated from his Abba and heaven, and came into the world, being afflicted with the people of God, and finally arrived at Jerusalem and started his ministry as their King.

It is possible that Heaven exists in a perpetual state of time called "Before the foundation of the world" ("the same yesterday, today and forever") and this would be what the OLAM or "Hidden period of time" is refering to, which is usually translated as eternity as in Ec 3:11 where "world" is this word Olam (compliaments of Don Richardson, "Eternity in their hearts").

Thus the passage reads, "He hath made everything beautiful in his time, and he has set eternity in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God forms from the begining to the end."

Much can be learned from Paul's writings on this. In 1 Cor 1-2; where he references Is 64 (where 'continuance' in vs 5 is this word Olam); he intimately connects this to the cross and to "The mystery of the fellowship" which mystery was known (Ps 78) from the foundation of the world (Is 64:4). In Eph. 3, he tells us that this hidden Eon (N.T equivelent of Olam) was fore-ordained and hidden in God. In Col 1 he calls this Olam, amoung other things, The Mystery (yet again) of "Christ in you, the hope of glory." And in 1 Tim 1 he calls Christ, "The King of Eons" where this word is used three times.

This last statement confirms that the incarnate Christ, the son of man, as the king of the ages, must have been taken back to witness and participate in the creation itself ("Let us make man in our image").

I will have more, Lord willing, on this Olam in my posts "The Theoferrum Crucibulum" which will reveal exactly what these mysteries are, but for now compare Ps 45, Heb 1:8, 5:6, and Ps 110.

Note esp. in Ps 110 where the priesthood of Melchizedek, as it is applied to the son of man, is "forever" (Olam), which again supports this especially realizing that, as this priesthood is to redeem mankind, it must be refering to his Humanity.

"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

And, in fact, it is highly possible that Y'shua was Melchizedek (Book of Jasher not-with-standing which says that this was Shem). This can be supported in several ways.

That this priesthood was "of the order of M." does not rule out that he was Melchizedec. In fact, the two words translated "after" actually strengthen this connection. For in Ps 110 the word used is AL, which means above, over, upon etc, and is of course also a title for the Almighty, and is spelled almost exactly as Olam with out the final Mem, bringing this right into my previous quote of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

In Hebrews, it is the word KATA which has a host of definitions, but the one that is intended would be 'of' or pertaining to. Hence, the priesthood OF Melchizedek, which again does not negate that it was Jesus. And this can be seen in the ceremony of Melchizedek with Abraham.

You will note that there was no sacrifice, but that he brought bread and wine - exactly as our Lord did at the institution of communion. There is no doubt that he thought that he was the fulfillment of this type, and very possibly because he was the Type.

Thus in Ps 110 Abba was telling him that his priesthood would not consist in continual sacrifices after the one sacrifice was committed (*), which is what Barnabus says in Hebrews concerning the same, set in opposition to the Aaronic priesthood.

As well, this priesthood is based on the Sonship of Y'shua as Barnabus also points out ("As a Son over the House") as opposed to Moses who was just a servant. Note that this household really started back in the garden, implying that the Son had the oversite from that point in time and forever. That he had 'no father or mother or begining or end' is an accurate description, from an earthly viewpoint, of someone who had been taken back in time to before he was actually generated.

Thus Peters says: "He is priest of "the everlasting covenant" and as such he not only provides the provision for its realization, but being its 'surety' he remains personally interested in the same, and secures it for us.

The continuity of his priesthood is identified with the perpetuity of his own existence (Heb 7:24,25): "But this man (Jesus) because he continueth ever (Gr. remains forever) hath an unchangeable Priesthood."

Even such a commentator as Moll (Lange's Com. Heb.) designates Jesus as "the promised Eternal Priestly King" and writes of him as "the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthoodAN."

So, I might ask, how then, could it have been transferred from Melchizedek to Y'shua? Perhaps it never was. And, perhaps this event, along with the sacrifice of his son, together make up the 'day of the son of man' that Abraham saw and rejoiced in.

MIRICLES

All this can be emphasised by the miricles of our lord, but specifically those with no known precedence. In the feeding of the multitude, though preceded by miricles of Elijah and Elias, and the manna in the wilderness, this miricle takes it further then we can understand.

Why, without so much as blinking an eye, could Jesus, not once, but twice, immeadiately feed thousands of people with a couple of fishes and loaves of bread? Only because there are no hungry people in heaven, and maybe that is how its done there (i.e. "Angel's Food" Ps 78).

And how could he alone, of all the prophets, perfectly heal a man born blind (Jn 9), unless it be that there are no blind people in heaven and even that his own literal hands formed the first set of eyes.

How could he raise a man dead for four days (Jn 11), unless its because "all live unto him" "before the foundation of the world".

But to me, the greatest miricle of our lord that enforces this theory; is in fact its capstone; is his miricle of walking on the water (Mt 14). This really has no precedence to speak of, yet it can be understood from the word.

This subject, also, was in my book and I will summarize it here. The sea of glass is mentioned throughout the word (Ex 24, Job 37, Rev 4, 15, I Cor 13, Ez 1, 26) and if you compare all the scriptures you will see that the sea of glass is the floor of the throne room of heaven (note that in exodus it appears as such) and is the heavenly counterpart of our atmosphere (note in Ezekial that he is on the earth, with the four beasts, and the sea of glass is over their heads, but still the floor on which the throne is sitting). And, this will again be the case when the NJ is once again established on the earth, with our atmosphere being level with the floor of the throne room of heaven, literally (see my post on Mt. Zion, and note that the sea of glass in Rev 15 is mingled with fire under the seventh trumpet when the vials are poured out on the earth again showing that it is the division between heaven and earth, which Paul compares to "a looking glass" or "through a glass darkly").

Thus when the son of man walked on the sea of Galilee, it was no different for him then walking on the sea of glass in heaven, which he had assuredly done many times previously.

SCRIPTURES

There are other scriptures which further support and explain this theory (Rom 6:3-7, 8:29-39, 9:23, 11:34, 1Cor 2:7, 2 Cor 4:18, 9:9, Eph 1:4, 2:6-10, 3:9-21, Col 1:15-17, 2:1-5, 1Pet 1:11, Ex 23:20!, Ps 91:11 etc) for those who might want to scripturally meditate on all this ("How hath this man letters having never learned?").

Note especially Mic 5:2 where "come forth" means birth, but "goings forth" not only is plural, but contrary to Strongs, means journeys not issue.

But I also wanted to say that some of our lords words indicate that he also experienced some of the future before he started his ministry (he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree, knew Lazarus was dead, that the disciples would find the colt, and the man carrying the pitcher of water, and that Peter would find the coin in the first fish he caught, how Peter would glorify him etc) and also that he continued (after his ressurection perhaps) to experience future events (that John would tarry, the revelation and possibly even the call of Paul and maybe even the call of the 144,000 - a prerequisite of being an apostle is to have seen the ressurected savior).

But I found one passage of Scripture that was cleared up for me with this theory. I have always wondered why, if "The Son of Man" is a title unique to the Messiah, this title was then given to Ezekial. It obviusly is because, in some way, Ezekial is a type of The Son of Man. However, I had studied this book as much as all the others and never really found any thing that set him apart from the other prophets. In fact, at first glance, Daniel would be a better candidate for this typology, because he is from the tribe of Judah, whereas Ezekial was from the Priestly lineage. But then I figured it out as I was finishing this post.

In Ez 8, the lord takes the prophet up and brings him to Jerusalem, where he sees the woman weeping for Tammuz. This is an annual festival of that religion (including the making of the cakes and "putting the branch to their nose" - see post on the sign of cain) which is celebrated in the month that gives it its name - Tammuz. This is the fourth month.

Now, however, Ezekial was caught up in the sixth month, and was taken, not only back to Jerusalem, but back to Jerusalem as it was two months previously, at which time Ezekial interacted with the people at that time.

Thus, if this is true, then this is the only occurance in the word (specifically) where an individual was taken back in time, thus becoming the perfect type of the Son of man as presented in this series of posts.

LOGIC

If it be asked, "Why would God take Y'shua back through time? Why not have him born before the flood and then live through time?" The answer will be found in the covenanted ministry and kingdom of the Messiah.

Because of the fall, God had to take back what Satan had usurped - rule of this cosmos. So, Jesus couldn't be born until the theocracy had been established. And, because he had to die to purchase that cosmos, it would not befit him to be the King that institutes the kingdom under war time conditions (seen in David and Solomon). This required his birth after the monarchy was established.

And, as well, in order for the king to relate to the (predominantly) gentile church, it behoved him to be born and manifested at the start of the engrafting of the gentiles into the kingdom.

So, as savior and king, he has a relationship to Israel as to physical descent and to the gentiles via spirtual descent.

However, this leaves, to some extent, the antediluvial patriachs out of the picture. So, though born "In the fullness of times", he was taken back to the begining and lived through those years and thus becoming united with ALL his people - Antediluvials, Israelites and Christians.

And, he is even united to the trib saints, who "sing the song of Moses and the Lamb" and ask yourself, why is it named this, unless He was with Moses when that song was written (Deut 32)?

CONCLUSION

This entire post depends upon my understanding of "The Son of Man", so to finalize this, I will include some more information from Peters.

"Dr. Neander (Life of Christ, pp. 99,100) says respecting this phrase: "We conclude that as Christ used the one (viz., son of man) to designate his human personality, so he employed the other to point out his divine."

Now, admit that it refers to "human personality" why should the meaning thus given be changed for the divine or spiritual?

If such an arbitrary change is to be made, what uniformity and consonance is there is scriptural exposition? .

The exact same question can be asked concerning the verse that I started this post with, "what if you see the son of man ascend up to where he was before". To consistantly interpret this phrase "the son of man" then at some point in his life, before he started his ministry, he had to have been caught up to heaven where he was glorified with the father etc. Notice that he did not say, "and what if you see the son of God ascend up to heaven where he was before" which is what he would have said if that is what he meant. "Oh ye of little faith".

"Dr. Campbell (Diss. on the Gospels) remarks, that the phrase meant that the messiah "would be human, not an angelical, or any other being; for in the oriental idiom, son of man and man are equivalent."

Pretty much proves my point, hey.

"The simple fact is this: The phrase "son of man," in its covenanted sense, does not fit into a spiritualistic system, and hence arises the various and conflicting sennses applied to it, making it to denote more or less by way of accommodation. The pre-mill doctrine alone gives it one determined and continuous meaning and consistently preserves it throughout."

And, the view here presented is the only one that continues to consistently interpret the phrase as He intended it to be understood.

"There is no proper pre-existence of Jesus as "the Christ" the promised "Messiah". Fully admitting the pre-existence of the divine, this itself does not constitute "The Christ," for it is the union of the Divine and human in David's son that forms "The Messiah," - the historical, covenanted Christ. The notion of a pre-existent Christ is contradictory to covenant and prophecy, for before David was born to whom the covenant was given and before Jesus was born as David's descendant, "The Christ" as such could not exist."

His statement here, to some extent, is correct, for he is saying the same thing that I am and that is that there is no such thing as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah in the Old Testament. However, were he presented with the view here enclosed, he would see that his pre-existence, is a result of his being taken up to heaven and then back through time, making it appear that in fact he had always existed. Thus merging perfectly the Firstborn Son of the Creator and the Firstborn Son of the Creation in a perfect harmony.

He is, after all, the GodMan.

Search the Scriptures, for in them you think that you have Eternal Life; and it is they that testify of me...

The Metal of a Man

2009-12-21T15:52:00.003-07:00

Mark 8-9 "Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospel's the same shall save it...whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in the Glory of His Father with the Holy Angels. Verily, I say unto you, that there are some that stand here who shall not taste of death ere they have seen the Kingdom of God come with Power."

Originally Published in 2003 and reposted on my own Web Site in 2004.

In keeping with the theme of my recent post on Peter (The Rock) I wanted to point out some things concerning his nephew John Mark (who, some scholars believe, is the Young Man of Mk 14:51). Many Theologians make disparaging remarks concerning him, 2,000 yrs after the fact, who were not there, and who don't know the reasons for Mark's departure from the Missionary field (Acts 15:36).

First, let us look at the metal of this young man. Many are quick to point out that he fled away from the scene of the arrest (as did all the disciples after Y'shua made it clear to them that he did not want them to fight for him at that time - Mt 26:52-54). But what they do not ponder (Lev 26:21b) is that after the other disciples fled, John Mark still "followed him" (Mk 14:51), which , when the soldiers saw and then tried to arrest him, only then caused him to flee. This makes me wonder if there are any other events in the Lord's life where John Mark might have followed at a distance, out of curiosity - see final comment on this at bottom of post.

However, that is not the end of the story of that night for John Mark.

We know from John (18:15-16) that only he and Peter were brave enough to enter the Den of Vipers itself, in order to find out what would happen to Y'shua. But, there is one other "fit man" who didn't have the prestige of John to enter the High Priest's house, and didn't arrive soon enough, as Peter, to be ushered in by John ("My uncle would have told me to go home anyways"), so what's a young man to do but climb up on to the roof of the High Priest's house, under cover of darkness, so that he could eavesdrop on the proceedings. And, if you will compare the accounts (Mt 26:69, Lk 22:55,62, John 18:15-16, Mk 14:66) you will see that the other three Gospels describe Peter's position as "at the door without" and "in the midst of the hall" and "without in the palace" and that when he left he "went out" and "out into the porch" all of which are descriptive of the Temple mount area itself, with the Priest's quarters, as a flat open expanse in which the ministry occurred.

However, John Mark, while caught up in remembering the events of that night specifies that Peter was "beneathe in the palace" and the only way he could have made that statement was if he was above on the roof of the palace. And that is why he records the false witnesses brought against Y'shua (14:55-59) which is only repeated, in an abbreviated form, in Matthew's Gospel, which leads to the conclusion that Matthew received this account (at the time he began compiling his Gospel) from John Mark. John, of course, wrote his own account being outside the room itself and would have missed some of the events that transpired. Peter was outside and probably only received bits and pieces of the hearing. Luke, assuredly, received his account from Paul (see Saul of Tarsus at URL below) who was, at this time, confronting Peter by the fire, and Matthew, of course, was not there. Thus, only John Mark overheard the presentation of the witnesses and passed that information on to Matthew.

This, now, brings me to the point of this post.

It, apparently, has never dawned on any of these Couch Potatoe Critics that, in the process of ministering to Paul and Barnabas (possibly a thankless job from his perspective - "Let him who would be greatest, be servant to all"), and hearing the New converts asking questions about Y'shua's life and ministry (and especially about his Diety which Paul was still struggling with at this time), and hearing Paul and Barnabas reply, time and time again, to the same questions (and, more likely, the questions they could not answer concerning our Lord because they weren't there for the most important events), caused John Mark to realize that they would need a written record of the Life of Y'shua that they could take with them on the road and let the fledgling Churches transcribe their own copy from this "Gospel" so that they would have a record of his life and sayings after the Missionaries had moved on. And that is assuredly the motivation for John Mark leaving Barnabas and Saul and returning back to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13) to write this Gospel.

He would need to go back to the other Apostles to fill in the details of our Lord's life that he had missed (the upper room discourse *, the meeting of the 11 with the resurrected Saviour etc), and to motivate them with the need to write all of this down because, early on, he saw the needs of the Gentile Churches in this regard. That is why he designed his Gospel in a concise form (as opposed to all others) for ease in transcription of copies on the road and I believe that the manuscript evidence bears this out (i.e. I believe that it is recognized that Mark's Gospel is the oldest and with a fragment of Matthew's being dated circa 40AD places Mark's before that).

He records that the voice from heaven at the baptism (1:11) was directed to Y'shua himself, and Matthew does not, but Luke does. Matthew himself probably compared notes with John and Peter and the other Apostles at Jerusalem when he compiled his account, and Paul, assuredly, must have received the account from John Mark while they were on the road (and thus recorded in Luke's Gospel). This, then, tells us that at some point in time John Mark personally asked Y'shua about that event and that he told him that His Abba had spoken directly to hime.

Only John Mark (1:15) makes specific reference to "the time is fulfilled" an obvious reference to Daniel's 70 weeks. Only he records (2:26) the name of the Priest, in faith, for Y'shua emphasized the actions of Abiathar; even though his father Ahimelech was the priest at the time (see The Son of Man); it was assuredly the former, as our Lord indicates and subsequent history shows, who helped out David when he needed it. John Mark, in simple faith records our Lord's words, trusting that he knew what he was talking about ("and my words"), where as the other writers either didn't think the name important, or left the name out because they might have thought that Y'shua had make a technical mistake.

John Mark, at the healing of the man with the withered hand (3:5) makes note of Y'shua's emotions (anger and grief) showing his nearness physically and personally with the Lord, as Luke's account (6:11) that of Paul's to these same Pharisees. Only he records the names that the Lord gave the Son's of Zebedee - the Son's of Thunder (3:17), and the parable of the Corn (4:26).

If all of this was given to John Mark by Peter then they probably would have been in Matthew's Gospel as well. That they didn't leads me to believe that John Mark himself wrote down these things that he remembered from the Lord's life. The proof of this is that Matthew records Peter walking on water (14:28), but John Mark omits it from his account (6:50).

He gives us the healing of the Blind man in stages (18:23), and again, feeling the emotions of the Saviour (18:38), caused him to remember not only that Y'shua said he would be ashamed of those who are ashamed of him, but that he called them an "adulterous and sinful generation.

Only John Mark (9:14-16) tells us that Y'shua confronted the scribes about what they were questioning the disciples on and gives us a personal insight into the Metal of our Saviour in the process as well as the anguish of the father in that same event (9:24). He reminds us of the man casting out demons in Y'shua's name, but who wasn't one of the twelve (9:38) showing that John Mark emphasized with the man over those coveted positions. He, only, records the name of the blind man healed outside of Jericho (10:46) showing, again, that he was more personable, perhaps, then the other disciples.

At least twice (8:33, 11:11) he alone records that Y'shua "looked" round him; at the disciples before he rebuked Peter (to show that they were all thinking what Peter was) and upon the money changers. John Mark realized the power in the gaze of a man who is, not only sure of his position, but who is also sure of who he is as a man (Ps 11:4, Prov 20:8 etc - an interesting topical study), and the power that the eyes can have over people. This is actually more significant, for it was John Mark who tells us that he looked upon these money changers the night before, and then began to cast them out the next day. They had all night to remember the first time that he had done this (John 2:15), and repent; and by doing this, the atmosphere for the following day's events was already set.

He only records that God's house is one of prayer "to all nations" (11:17) and that we need to forgive others so as not to hinder our prayers (11:25). And it is John Mark (15:39) who tells us of the respect of the Centurion - a professional soldier - for the "Son of God." This, actually, sums up this individual called John Mark as even his name proclaims, for in the Hebrew Root Words, Mark means Polished, Sharpened or otherwise (mentally) prepared, as A Sword for Battle. Taken with his first name, which means a gift, than this is A Weapon Prepared and given as a Gift, obviously to be put to use, and not placed on a shelf on the side unnoticed or unappreciated by the majority.

However, of special notice, is John Mark's account of the Scribe (12:28, Lawyer of Matt 22:35), which is more detailed (for a specific reason) then Matthew's, and which is not recorded by the other two.

This Lawyer came on the scene at the end of the discussion of the resurrection. He perceived that Y'shua had answered the question well, then asked his own question, concerning the Greatest Commandment. This lawyer asked this question for a specific reason and that was to address the real issue of Y'shua's life and ministry (which this person had a problem with), and that was His claim to be God's Son. Y'shua answered the question, as it could only be answered, "to Love Y'hova with all you heart" but he is already one step ahead of this lawyer, for he also states the Second Great Commandment, and that was to love your neighbor. This went right over this zealous lawyer's head (at the time), and thinking now that he had Y'shua where he wanted him, he answered "discreetly" (12:24) that Y'shua had answered with the truth "for there is one God and no other but Him" insinuating that Y'shua could not, therefore, be the Son of God, for that would make two Gods (forgetting that the word "one" that is used in that passage means united). Then, agreeing with Y'shua's second premise he said that this was more then sacrifice.

This lawyer was Saul of Tarsus (Rom 13:8, Gal 5:14).

Y'shua then complimented the lawyer on his understanding, telling him he wasn't far from the Kingdom but then "answered" (12:35) his "question" about his Deity, with the now famous passage of who David's Lord is. This silenced this Champion of the Lawyers and nobody bothered trying to "trap him" in his words after that.

It is only someone who was close to both of these men, that could have possibly followed this deep theological undercurrent. John Mark knew Y'shua, perhaps, better then the other disciples, in some respects, and he worked with Paul for several years, so he was able to record this very delicate account in such a superb way, showing his own discreetness and position in the Kingdom; so much so that this conversation "between the lines" has been concealed for, basically, the entire Church age (at least I have never heard it explained in this light), much like the story of John Mark itself.

The Lord, even then, tried to warn Saul about the real situation of most of the people that he was rubbing shoulders with, and their traditions that had blinded him to the truth about the Deity of Messiah (which he realized immediately after his conversion when he started proclaiming that Y'shua was the Son of God - Acts 9:20), and which, ultimately, led him to agree to the stoning of Stephen, thus breaking the Second Great Commandment that Y'shua had emphasized to him, undoubtedly, for that very reason.

This account may possibly have contributed to some of the friction between these two, at the very time that John Mark wanted to start writing his Gospel. That Paul recognized his mistake is seen in Paul's commendation of John Mark (2 Tim 4:11) on being profitable to the ministry. This, in turn, reminded Paul to ask Timothy to bring the books but, "especially the parchments" very possibly referring to a copy of the Gospel of Mark. And in so doing he would have passed the scepter to John Mark as he had, in turn, taken it from Peter the second time that he confronted him (Gal 2:11 - Acts 15:35); it was not until after this second confrontation that, through Paul, the Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 19:6) in Ephesus, as had been accomplished in the past through Peter (Acts 2, 4:31, 8:17, 10:44), and only after this, did Paul himself start performing miracles (Acts 19:11) on the same order that Peter had (Acts 5:15); thus when Paul acknowledged his mistake concerning John Mark, the Scepter of Authority, through this submission, would have transferred to John Mark.

Thus compare Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, Lk 22:54 - a word for word description by an eyewitness, which shows a common source for this account. The only connection between the Apostles in Jerusalem and the Missionaries in the field (Luke), that we know of for sure, was John Mark who was an eyewitness of many of these things. This indicates to me that he is the source for Luke 22:39-46, which he forgot to place in his Abridged Life of Christ. Notice in vs 39 Y'shua "came out" (contrast with John 18:1) and thus, the person who supplied this info was waiting outside the upper room for Y'shua to finish his Passover Meal with the 12. Also, note this, in Hebrews, which I have shown was assuredly written by Barnabas, it mentions (5:7) that Y'shua offered up prayers and supplications "with strong crying and tears" to him that was able to save him from death. This is a direct reference to this time in the garden when he sweat great drops of blood, and asked Abba, if possible, to take this cup (death) away from him.

Now none of the Gospels mention the Lord's tears at this time, but it must have come from an eyewitness. And what eyewitness do we know, that went to Cyprus with this same Barnabas (Acts 15:39). Thus, during that time, John Mark told Barnabas that when Y'shua had "prayed more earnestly" that it was to the point of tears. And note this (if true) that this means that, even though "their eyes were heavy" that only John Mark watched one hour with the Lord during this greatest trial in our Saviour's life. And, along with this, for aught we know, much of the information in the opening chapters of Acts were supplied by this young man to Luke.

Paul (and all the Apostles) then realized what John Mark recognized early on; that souls are saved by the spoken word, but that Churches are built by the Written Word.

Thus notice how the Gospel writers start their accounts. Matthew says, "This is the Generation of Jesus Christ," John says, "In the Beginning was the Word," Luke, who came on the scene later specifically says that "Many had taken in hand" to write these things down and delivered them "unto us," but Mark emphatically says, "The Beginning of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God" while speaking by the Spirit. Mark's Gospel was the first one written, then Matthew's then John's and finally Luke's.

And, if all of this is the case, it further shows us what John Mark was like, for he was so sure of the correctness of his decision, that he stood up to Paul, and would not back down from God's calling on his life. I believe he made the right decision and the Church has continually reaped what he first planted and watered, for the last 2,000 years ("The First shall be Last and the Last shall be First").

So, we should, perhaps, be more careful in our comments on The Heros of our Faith, lest we be found slandering the Saints of the Lord Y'shua bar Y'hova...

Editor's Note : April 27, 2005 :

Concerning the Upper Room Discourse that night, I have just completed some research on the Lord's Supper, contained in the post at the URL above concerning the Passover Meal, and I have found that this was assuredly a Peace Offering Meal that preceded the Passover Meal. During this meal a Servant would bring in a basin so they could wash their hands and at that same time a servant (probably the same one) would sweep the floor. I believe that it was at this time that Y'shua, instead of washing his hands, washed the disciples feet. In doing so, in a way, he would have been saying to the servant who swept the floor that, not only did he wash their feet because they needed it, but so that they would not dirty the floor that the servant just cleaned. Again, this brings out his own admonition that he that would be greatest should be servant to all. Now, some scholars state that the Last Supper occured at the home of the father of John Mark (so Edersheim) and it is my contention that the servant who brought in the water basin and who subsequently swept the floor was none other than our man John Mark.

So, if you compare the Gospel accounts, you will see that there is some information in Luke that is not recorded in Matthew's Gospel, even though Matthew was at the very table that night. Luke records that the discussion actually arose at that very meal about who would be greatest among them and Y'shua actually responded that they should consider themselves as "the youngest" if they wanted to be great, and as a "servant" to the greatest who actually ate at the meal while the servant served.

Y'shua was actually using John Mark as an example to the disciples while he was right there in front of them sweeping the floor and waiting on them hand and foot.

Here we actually have two parts of the conversation that Mark overheard. Like Matthew, Mark records the conversation with Judas which he probably heard when he brought in the water basin and started sweeping the floor, for this occured just after the Blessing of the Bread at the Main Meal and before the Blessing of the third Glass of Wine. Then, this second bit of conversation that John Mark overheard was when he was actually sweeping the floor.

What the implications of all this is, assuming this to be true, is that John Mark is the greatest Apostle...

Editor's Note : September 6, 2005 : First Day of the Sixth Month in the Year of our Lord 2005 :

In reference to my comment in the second paragraph at the start of this post, I get the impression that John Mark actually followed Y'shua and the disciples from a distance when they went up to the Mount of Transfiguration which Peters has stated was a prefiguration of the Return and re-establishment of the Theocratic Kingdom on earth. He points out that, with Y'shua as the King, the Glorified Saints were represented by Moses and Elijah and the mortal Saints by the three Apostles but I don't recall if he made an additional observation and that is that the Heavenly Army would also have been represented with, assuredly, Angels unseen surrounding the Mount and, if so, that the Earthly Army would also have been represented in some way.

It also may not be coincidence that the Apostle Peter then links the Transfiguration with the Rapture (when the restraits will be removed) when the Daystar will arise in the Churches heart when he says, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Y'shua Messiah, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the DayStar arise in your hearts."

This was actually the turning point in his ministry for the leaders of the nation had made it clear that they would not accept him as their Messiah and he began to openly teach his disciples about his approaching death subsequently resulting in the postponement of the Kingdom for the last 2,000 years with its resultant Restraining Ministry of the Holy Spirit. In other words, up to this time, the Kingdom was Nigh, but after this point in time, it was no longer near them and hasn't been since that time.

Almost as if Time has been standing still for 2,000 years.

And so it is that the Babylonian Tree and its Branches were to be 'cut off' (almost implied in Peters desire to build Tabernacles at that time for they built them out of tree branches) and the restraining band placed around the Stump and this was assuredly a result of the pouring out of the Spirit recorded in the Book of Axe. The point that we are interested in is that the restraining band was made of Iron (Roman) and Brass (Grecian) which is refering to the Gentiles in some way and thus it is that the Spirit was first poured out on the Gentiles under the authority of the Roman Centurian. This was hardly coincidence and thus it is when one reads the History of the Church by Eusibius that on many occasions there were exploits of one kind or another that were performed in the Roman Army by the Christian Soldiers.

This restrait by the Church of the Babylonian System can actually be seen in the events that immediately preceded the Transfiguration for, after the denial by the leaders of the nation, Y'shua asked his followers who they thought he was resulting in the Confession of Peter that earned him his nickname to which Y'shua added this very process of Binding and Loosing which was then, subsequently, also given to the Church, and believers (Matt 18:18), in general.

One other point of notice, before I bring all this together,is that this event occured during the Night which is a predominant typology of the endtimes upon the breaking of the Bands ("In that Night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken and the other shall be left").

What is significant, for the purposes of this Editorial Note, is that Y'shua stated that some of the people who were standing in the crowd before his ascent of the Mountain, would not die, but would see the Kingdom itself established in power.

Thus, the Beloved Apostle John and the Greatest Apostle John Mark could very well be the fulfillment of that prediction where John would symbolize the Earthly Saints and John Mark would embody the Earthly Army.

And, so it is that it was on that very Mountain, in the Shadows of Time where he was watching, that I met with John Mark the first time, in the spirit, and which actually resulted in this very post.

I know a Soldier when I see one...

The Rock

2009-12-21T15:40:00.004-07:00

David Hill (9 Sep 2003) "The Rock"

Mat 16 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto you, That you art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and what ever you shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what ever you shalt loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Many have a mistaken view of authority in the Word of God, and in embracing these wrong views, they inadvertantly undermine their own authority for ministry in God's Kingdom. God's authority is transfered in the Spiritual realm by public ceremonies and with physical contact between the giver and receiver of this authority. This is true of blessings (Jacob to Joseph's sons), annointing of Kings and Priests (Moses to Aaron and Samuel to David) and in one case amoung the prophets (Elijah to Elisha). This public ceremony was consistantly carried into the NT, with the "laying on of hands" to commission people to the ministry (note the breathing of Y'shua to the Apostles and the ordination of Paul and Barnabus). God does everything decently and in order and this transferral of Authority is also carried over into the Atoning Sacrifices in which the "authority" or "power" of our sins were transferred, originally, to the animals and then perfectly to Y'shua. It is not our position, in the Church or Kingdom to deny this principle or reject it or ridicule this, for it is a principle of transferal of authority that God ordained and commanded.

Now the incorrect doctrine that I was referring to is that of the position of authority that Y'shua gave to Peter. This position is misapplied by the R.C. Church and, in reaction to this, the protestants take the opposite extreme. The R.C. overemphasises this into the doctrine of Apostalic succession, and eventually led to the "infallibility of the Pope" speaking ex-cathedra, and to the establishment of the "vicar" of Christ. This latter was established with the aid of the Church Kingdom (Covenant) Theology, which believed that the Church is susposed to subdue the world and reign over it and thus this view requires a vicorship during Y'shua's absence. Plenty of books have been written on the fallacy of these points, so I will not spend the time on it here. However, the Protestants, in refuting these teachings, utilized an argument that is not Scriptural, that led to Theological error and, in the process, undermines Ecclesitical Authority.

Their exegesis of Mt 16:18 is founded solely upon their hostility to the Romanish Doctrine and, because of this, is unreliable especially when, to accomplish this, they break several well known principles of Hermenutics. For instance, one well known and acknowledged rule of interpretation is to understand how the hearers understood his words. Thus, the Protestants make much of the Greek, and totally disregard the fact that these words were spoken in Aramaic in which there is no difference between Rock (Petros) and rock (petra). There is no stone and Rock (or boulder), but all is simply rock.

Second, they totally disregard the Scriptural interpretation of types and supply their own. The typology of stones is almost everywhere in Scripture (if not everywhere), used of people that God is building into a spiritual temple (see use of "bar" in Hebrew with its suffixes). They then lay aside this Scripturally supplied typlogy and apply it, not to Peter, but to his Confession.

They totally ignore the principle of not forming a major Doctrine from one verse, and brush aside the Scripturally recorded fulfillment of Y'shua's words that Peter was used by Him to build the Church among the Apostles (Acts 1), upon the Ten Tribes (Acts 2), upon the Samaritions (Acts 8) and among the Gentiles (Acts 10) before He sent Paul to them. And even the ordination of Barnabus and Paul (Acts 13) can be traced back to Peter (Acts 4:36).

They even misunderstand the Greek which many of them claim to be Masters of, for, the only reason for the difference between Petra (feminine) and Petros (masculine) is solely to take a noun and make it into a name. The exact same process is fulfilled in Pauo and Paulos.

They throw out the original Church teaching on this, which recognized no such difference in these two words because, as the first rule of interpretation (which they also break) which led to the original Church Doctrine is that the simpliest (contextual and literal) interpretation is assuredly the correct one. They spiritually apply the rock to a concept and not to Peter, as our Lord obviously did - as the description of the New Jerusalem will easily verify.

So, in forcing their interpretation from one verse, they must break six major principles of sound Biblical interpretation solely in reaction to the Romanish Doctrine. The proof of this latter statement is simply seen in the fact that this teaching (Peter is just a pebble and his confession is the Rock) was not recorded anywhere in Church History until the times of the Reformation.

So, like it or not, regardless of the errors of some in this regard, there is an Ecclesiastical Succession, if you will, where Authority from God flows out to His people in direct succession. The position of the Apostolate was solely for the founding of the Church as Y'shua specified, but the Authority that he gave them subsequently passed to all the Church.

And thus, when we undermine the Rock or Foundation of the Church, we weaken our own positions of Authority. And this actually explains the "dysfunctional" condition of the Church today. And until this condition is dealt with in the Church, most ministries and individuals will remain impotent in their commission.

I repeat: If we all strived to be more like Peter instead of belittling him and the other Saints, perhaps, one day, we also might walk on water...

Editor's Note : December 21, 2009 :

Now that I have converted to Catholicism I realize some of the mistakes in the information above. First off is that, in fact, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can both claim Apostalic Authority for they have continued the direct laying on of hands at the Ordination of Bishops in a direct and unbroken lineage back to the Apostles. No other Churches - nor any of the many Christian Cults - on the planet can make this claim and it is proven by the Incorruptibles - bodies of the saints that do not corrupt upon death - which both Churches manifest and which is assuredly a result of the Real Presense in the Eucharist.

I have also shown, at the least, that if God wants to speak through the Pope Ex Cathedra He certainly can if he wants to for there is one case of Ex Cathedra in the Scriptures and that is when Caiaphas stated, while decked out in his priestly robes to minister during Passover, that it was necessary for one man to die for the people. Thus the Holy Spirit stepped in while the priest was speaking Ex Cathedra from the Seat of Moses to insure that the statement was, in fact, infallible.

The Son of Consolation

2009-12-21T15:34:00.000-07:00

David Hill (15 Aug 2003) "The Son of Consolation"

Act 4 "And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the Son of Consolation,) a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles' feet."

I wanted to submit some information that I feel shows that the writer of the book of Hebrews, contrary to popular opinion, is Barnabus and not the Apostle Paul.

It probably isn't that critical for, ultimately, the book was written by the Holy Spirit regardless of human authorship. However, in all fairness, the true authorship should be recognized by the Church, and credit given where due.

There are three primary sources for establishing the correct view and each one, in and of itself, carries enough weight to warrant another look. But taken altogether they make the case as solid as can be this far into the future from when it was first penned.

THE SACRED TESTIMONY

The oldest record that we have of the authorship of the book comes from Tertullian (2nd cent AD) who stated that the author of the book was Barnabus. Considering that he lived only two hundred years after the writing of the book, then his testimony is much more weighty then that of Scholars who lived two thousand years later, and who are trying to prove a preconceived theory of the authorship.

It would be like me saying Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and then, eighteen hundred years later, scholars questioning that and saying that they really think George Washington actually wrote it. Though many people would like to think that Washington as the father of this country was actually the writer of that letter, the truth is, he did not. The more ancient the source, the more weight the testimony carries.

THE SECULAR TESTIMONY

When secular science is in accord with the facts, then its testimony bears important weight in and of itself, primarily because it is unbiased and, therefore, should be welcomed and not rejected. The authors of the book "Kourion" (the ancient name for Cyprus) have presented much circumstantial evidence that strongly indicates that Barnabus is the author.

Unfortunately, I don't recall their names [1], nor the details of the information, but for those interested they can research this avenue (look under Barnabus in the index) which will not disappoint them.

When I get some time I will research that again and post their points here. But, one of the main points, if memory serves, is that the Islanders themselves have ancient traditions as to the authorship of that letter. Many people are unaware of the fact that Barnabus went to Rome and founded that Church there before either Paul or Peter and that he also founded the one in Alexandria with John Mark, I believe.

THE SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY

By far, however, the strongest evidence to the authorship of the epistle is from the Scriptures themselves. It is obvious to me that a casual reading of the book will make one very obvious point that is strongly in Barnabus' favor, and that is that the author of the book was intimately acquainted with the Priesthood in Israel. In other words, this book could not have been written by a Pharisee (as was Paul) but must have been written by a Priest, as Barnabus was as the verse at the top of the post points out.

Though the theology is as deep as Paul's, it still has the touch of a Levite to it, and not a Lawyer. The similarities with Paul's writing is easily accounted for when we realize that at the very beginning of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, Barnabus was his fellow laborer and the Theology that Paul presents to the Gentile Church was developed between the conversations that he undoubtedly had with Barnabus concerning the life of Messiah and the call to the Gentiles. They developed their own peculiar theological positions together, and thus the correspondences between the two.

This can actually be emphasized by the fact that when Paul first started out it was by denying the Divinity of Y'shua and then, when he got saved, he retreated to the Pharisee's understanding that, at the ascension Messiah will become "The Son of God" and Paul concluded that was when Y'shua became divine and this comes out in his speeches in the book of Acts, if memory serves. However, by the end of his ministry he had realized that, in fact, Y'shua was God by conception and birth and pre-existence, as he testifies in the letter to Phillipeans. Barnabus, on the other hand, proclaims from the beginning the belief that Y'shua was the Son from birth cause the Levites were not hung up on the theology that the Pharisees were. This shows the difference in authorship of these epistles.

Thus, taken altogether these three points make the case for Barnabus as the author of the book of Hebrews. I also wanted to point out that, in my opinion, Barnabus (as described in the above verses) thus possibly becomes a type of the Male Child of the Book of Revelation, and thus not surprisingly focuses on the High Priestly Ministry of Y'shua Messiah. And in doing so adds some insight to his being the Son of Consolation...

1 Kourion : the search for a lost Roman city

David Soren and Jamie James, Anchor Press, New York, 1988

Saul of Tarsus

2009-12-21T15:30:00.003-07:00

David Hill (13 July 1999) "(1) Saul of Tarsus"

I have often wondered why Saul was not more involved in the events of Yeshua's ministry. I had decided that he probably wasn't in Jerusalem for most of the events.

However, in Acts 22:3 he tells us that he was raised in Jerusalem. This means that it is impossible for Saul to NOT have been involved in some way during the Ministry of Yeshua.

So, I got to thinking, and realized that many of the events that are recorded in the Gospel of Luke, probably were given to him from Paul, during their travels together. Many of these involve the Pharisees reaction to Yeshua, and would have been noticed by Saul, and reflected on by him, when he became Paul. There can be little doubt that Saul himself, or his teacher Gamilel, would have been interested enough in the rumors about Yeshua, to have wanted first hand information concerning him. Especially since most of them were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. I believe that it can be said that the Gospel of Luke, is also the Gospel of Paul, as I will show below.

The events listed below, are peculiar to Luke alone. He composed his Gospel by interviewing the eyewitnesses. However, many of these could only have been recorded by someone who was a pharisee at the time, which brings us back to Paul. He was probably the brightest pupil of the school of pharisees in Jerusalem at the time, and he and Luke travelled together for some time. Certainly Paul would have shared with Luke any connection that he might have had to Yeshua.

1. Luke 5:12. Luke is the only one who records for us that the Lepor that was healed was FULL of leprosy, right to the point of death. This is important, and Saul would have taken notice. Because on of the stipulation by the Pharisees on who the Messiah was, was his ability to heal leprosy. The worse the case, the greater the chances that it was the Messiah. Yeshua sent him to the Temple as a Witness to the Priests, that He was the Messiah (I get this information from Arnold Fruchtenbahm -spelling?).

2. Luke 7:11. Luke is the only one who records the raising of the widows son, in the city of Nain. This became important, because the "Rumor went throughout all of Judaea." This is of course the area immediately around Jerusalem, and is something that Saul would have remembered, because raising someone from the dead was another 'Test' to the office of Messiah. It apparently made more of an impression on the Pharisees then it did on the disciples!

3. Luke 7:30. When the disciples of John came to Yeshua, Luke is the only one that tells us that the "Pharisees and Lawyers" didn't justify God, because they refused John's Baptism. Again, this is something that a Pharisee like Saul would have known and remembered.

4. Luke 7:36. Luke tells us that Simon the Pharisee invited Yeshua to dinner, which is the second time that Yeshua told someone that 'Your Sins are forgiven you' which was another point of contention between Him and the pharisees.

5. Luke 9:9. Again, the only one who tells us that Herod 'desired to see him' which is why Yeshua retreated to the wilderness with His, and John's disciples at that time. This comes up again later.

6. Luke 10:18, where Yeshua tells us that He saw satan fall from Heaven. A pharisee would have a problem with this, as it implies that the person was from Heaven, not earth. In this same passage is also the only account of the Power to tread on Serpents and Scorpions, that these things were Revealed to Babes, that your Eyes are Blessed for many have desired to see these things. And then, immediately a Certain Lawyer stands up and asks Yeshua a question, and then Yeshua goes into the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which pharisees and priests are shown in an unfavorable light. I believe that this Lawyer was Saul of Tarsus.

Perhaps we should say here that Luke, more than any of the other Gospels, differentiates between Pharisee, Lawyer (scribe) and Priest. Mark doesn't really diffferentiate between them at all. Matthew, as a Publican who was familiar with the different classes, occasionally makes a difference between them. John, lumps them all together under the heading of 'Jew'.

Perhaps we should say something about this as well, for any of our Jewish friends that might read this. John, was a Priest, who had probably served as such in the temple itself. In fact, not only did he personally know the High priest, but he also knew the servant of the Hight Priest, and is the only writer that records his name. So, by John's own definition, he himself was one of these 'Jews'. When he wrote his gospel (around 70-90 ad) the church had become predominantly Gentile, and he himself was ministering in Ephesus, a Gentile city. So, when John lumps all of these different players together, he is not trying to stir up anti-seminism, but is manly concerned with simplifying the information for his gentile friends, so that he can focus on the main teaching of Yeshua. To his converts, there was no need to know the different classes in Judaism. Unfortunately, this method has been abused through the churchs history, as a means of persecution of the Jews, but this was not the writers original intent.

So, getting back to our study, Luke is the only one who specifically differentiates between the different classes of players involved. This shows the minds of a pharisee at work, and possibly that of a Lawyer, or potential lawyer, as I believe that Saul was at this time.

7. Luke 11:20 where Yeshua claims to cast out demons by the 'Finger of God". A pharisee would have a hard time with this as well.

8. Luke 11:45-53, Again, Luke notes the subtle difference between Pharisees and Lawyers. This is something a pharisee (or Lawyer) would take pride in. He goes on in this passage to tell us that this infuriated them both so much that the 'provoked' him so that they could catch him in his words.

9. Luke 12:13 tells us of one man asking Yeshua to divide up his inheiritence, promping the parable of the rich barn builder. He then goes on to tell them that the Father is going to give them the Kingdom. A pharasee and priests would choke over this statement. Them right after this, he says that he has come to send a fire on the earth, in which faimilies will be divided. This will come up later also.

10. Luke 13:4 is the only record of the Tower of Siloam falling on 18 people, which provoked the words, 'Unless you repent you shall likewise perish.' Then he goes into the parable of the three year fig tree, again only recorded hear. A pharsee would have made the connection to Israel, and the length of Yeshua's ministry. And, at this same time, He healed a "Daughter of Abraham" on the sabbath, and all of his adversairies were Ashamed. This would have been remembered and recorded by a Pharasee, and not one of the apostles records it.

11. Luke 13:31. Apparently this upset them enough so that they went to Yehusa and told him to leave bacause Herod was going to kill him. Again, here but in no other Gospel.

12. Luke 14:7 takes place at a pharisees house, during which Yeshua heals a man of dropsy, tells us that we have to 'hate' our parents to be worthy of him, and tells us to count the cost.

13. Luke 15:8, appently while still at the phariess house, he tells us the parable of the Ten Silver coins, which prompts him to say that in the presense of the Angels there is joy over one repentant sinner. Again, this is a statement of authority of one who has been to heaven, and a pharisee andd definately a lawyer, would remember this, from a very Legal point of view. For, this is a statement on one's Citizenship in Heaven, which was expected of the Messiah. He then goes on to tell of the Prodigal son, which would have been immediately recognized as refering to Ephraim and Judah. And only Luke tells us this.

14. Luke 16:19, the parable of the unjust steward prompts the scorn of the pharisees, to which Yeshua responds with the parable of Lazarus.

15. Luke 17:11. Only Luke tells us of the healing of the ten lepers, and that the one who returned to thank Yeshua was a Samaritan. Remember point six above. This is something that the Lawyer would remember and have his conscience pricked on.

16. Luke 17:21 The Kingdom is Within you. This is a theological statement that would have sent the pharisees and lawyers to the Scripture, to understand exactly what He was saying. This is possiblily refering to the New Covenant, which also will come up in my next post.

17. Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's Wife. The other Gospels record the days of Lot, but here only are we reprimanded to 'not look back'.

18. Luke 18:1, and the Parable of the unjust judge, where Yeshua goes on to question whether or not there will be any face when the 'Son of Man' returns. Again, this titile comes from a Messianic Passage in Daniel, which He applys to Himself, and then He adds His Return to this. This would have gotten a real scholar of the Scriptures wondering, about where he was going and when would he return. This is the same question that the apostles asked, but they did not record this statement.

19. Luke 18:9 tells us of the parable of the Publican and Pharisee, because there were some there who tried to justify themselves. Again, why didn't Matthew, a Publican, pick up on this parable? Why only Luke?

20. Luke 19 tells us of the Salvation of Zacchaeus, and record Yeshua's Words, that he too was a Son of Abraham. He you have the seed of Paul Ripe Doctrine of the Salvation of the Gentiles. That they also are Sons of Abraham through Faith. You can almost see the process that Paul went through when he remembered this event, and applyed it to the Gentiles.

21. Luke 1939, where only Luke records for us that the Pharisees told Yeshua to rebuke his disciples during the Hosanna's of his Triumphant Entry, to which He replys that the rocks would then cry out. This may be that the disciples, due to the crowd, did not here this conversation. And if that is the case, then the information came straight to Luke from a Pharisee, that was in the Crowd next to Yeshua! He then makes another statement, only recorded here, that would have starteled any scholar of the word who was waiting for the Kingdom, and that is "If you had only known the time of your visitation." This COULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED, by any Scribe, Pharisee or Priest. Yet only Luke records it. Not Matthew, or John. Hence, the primarily source would almost assuredly be Paul.

22. Luke 20:16, during the parable of the husbandmen killing the son, only Luke records for us that, after the judgement was stated, the Pharisees said, "God Forbid!" Because they knew that Yeshua was speaking of them. From there luke goes on to tell us that this maddened them so, that they determined to send out Spies to trap him, and deliver him to the Governor. This is information that only a Pharisee would have been privy to.

23. In 22:6, Luke tells us why it was necessary for the pharisees to covenant with Judas to betray his master, and that was so that He could be taken in the "Absence of the multitude." When no one was around. Only luke makes this connection, and again, this is something that he had to have learned from a pharisee.

24. Now, in Luke 22:19, we have the most compelling proof that most of Luke's Gospel comes from a pharisee, and also who that pharisee was. You see, the three other gospels basically follow the same pattern and words, when refering to the Lord's Supper. Matthew, Mark and John all record that Yeshua would drink of the fruit of the vine with us, in the Kingdom. However, Luke omits this very touching and dear statement. Why? Note also this, and check it out for yourselves. Luke is the only writer who tells us to partake of the Lord's Supper, "In Remembrance of ME." This is important, because LUKE WAS NOT THERE! This statement had to come from someone who 'was there'. However none of the other three record these words. BUT, in 1 Cor 11:24, where Paul is laying down the proper order of the Lord's Supper, he tells us that we are supposed to partake of it "In Remembrance of Me." The same as Luke. And if you will look earlier in that same passage, you will see that Paul makes the statement that he did not receive this information from mortal man, but that he received it from the LORD HIMSELF. Hence, he did't get it from Luke, but LUKE GOT IT FROM PAUL! And I would suggest to you that Paul had indeed celebrated the Lord's Suppor with the Lord Himself, during which the Lord broke the bread and poured the wine and handed it to Paul and told him to do this in "Remembrance of Me." And this is the exact scenario you have in Rev 3:20, where Yeshua says that whoever opens the door will sup with Him. Paul did so, and passed that information on to the Gentiles and to Luke who added it to his Gospel. And some think that this is a type of the communion of the 144,000 with the Lord during the trib.

25. Luke 22, in that garden, only Luke records for us that the Lord sweat drops of blood. Why didn't any of the other writer record this, especially John? Why, because they were sleeping, and when they awoke it was dark, and they would not have even seen the blood, that was probably still on Yeshua's face. Then they fled. But someone was there in the arresting crowd, who saw the blood when the torches shown on His face, and he remembered that event, and when he got the chance, he asked the Lord about it and the Lord told him. What else explains it? And along these same lines, only luke tells us that Yehsua healed the ear of the high priests servant. Again, this probably took place after the disciples fled, and only his captors would have observed it. One of whom was undoubtedly Saul of Tarsus.

26. Now, here we have another interesting scenerio. In Luke 22:61. I should say first off, that if you want an interesting study, then read all four gospels accounts of the trial, and try to figure out where everyone was, and what was said when, and where, and you will come up with some really intriquing possibilities. (Hint, Mark, peter's nephew, who fled naked from the scene of the arrest, later worked his way to the temple and climbed up on the roof of the high priests house. One word shows this. See if you can find it.) But for our purposes, luke is the only one who records that when Peter betrayed Yeshua the third time that, "The Lord turned and looked at Peter.". Why is this recorded in Luke? I can assure you that if Peter had of made eye contact with the Lord at that moment, that he would have remembered it, and it would have been recorded in the Gospel of Mark. But Peter HAD HIS BACK TO THE LORD, which is the body language that affirms the denial. And while thus standing and warming his hands at the fire, ONE COMES AND CONFRONTS HIM, and says, you are one of his disciples, cause your accent is galilian. The person who was confronting Peter, would have been FACING OUR LORD. And when Peter denied Yeshua the third time, he and Yeshua and the Confrontor ALL would have heard the rooster crow, and the person confronting Peter would have seen our Lord Turn and Look right at Peter. And this person told Luke about it. To me it is obvious that it was Saul of Tarsus, who confronted Peter at the denial of Christ, because it was Paul who later confronted Peter when he 'denied' the Gentiles when the Jewish Christians showed up. It was easier for Paul that time, cause he had already confronted Peter on another occasion.

I was going to end my post here, but while I was finishing up my study on this, another conept jumped out at me which was totally unexpected.

While doing the study on Saul, some points came up that could not be explained in any other way that what I am about to precent to you. I don't know for sure that I am right, and I am sure that the two involved would forgive me if I am wrong. But I also think, that both would have me tell their story, if I am right. So, I will let the reader decide...

In Acts 6 we learn of a Synagogue called the Libertines, that was originally from the area of Asia. From the names given, we can know that this is the same area that Saul of Tarsus came from, and hence he was probably a member of this Synagogue. The name Libertines, means "FreedMen" and hence, this was probably an 'Exclusive' Synagogue, the memebers of which had either purchased their Roman Citizenship, or had been born free, as was Saul of Tarsus.

Stephen ends up getting in an argument with them, concerning the Temple, which is the exact same Conflict that occured with Yeshua (Matt 26:60-61), so it is very possible that some of the 'false' witnesses, came from this very Synagogue of the FreedMen! They almost assuredly were rubbing shoulders with politicians on both sides, and this explains one way in which Saul became a Student of Gamilel, as well as his being a gifted student.

Stephen gives his testimony, during which he touches upon the New Covenant with the words "Uncircimcised in Heart" and brings them right back to the subject of the Temple, and them calls them the den of serpents (more or less) that killed the prophets, just as Yeshua had done! They stone him, he askes Yeshua "Not to lay it to their charge" he beholds the Son of Man standing on the Right hand of God, asks the Lord to receive his spirit and then gives up the Ghost. The murderers lay their garments at the feet of Saul who consents to the stoning!

Now, I originally left this here, a couple of years ago. But now, I am convinced that there is more to this than meets the eye. You see, there are some things that are recorded in the gospel of Luke and not in any of the other Gospells, that Paul himself couldn't have known, unless SOMEONE TOLD HIM. These I will briefly list below, and then I will tie all this together.

You see, only Luke records for us that Yeshua commisioned the Seventy disciples. The 12 didn't think this important enough to include in their accounts, but someone who knew Paul thought it important enough to tell him about it, and he then told Luke. Legend has it that Stephen was one of the Seventy.

As well, only Luke records that Yeshua commended His Spirit to the Father, in much the same way also, Stephen committed his spirit to our Lord.

Only Luke records a detailed account of the two who journeyed to Emmaus in the night. What are the odds that it was Stephen and Philip?

Think about this for a bit, and ask yourself something. Just why did Stephen get into an argument with the FreedMen? The answer is obvious and heartrending at the same time. The obvious reason is because Stephen was a FreedMan himself. Why did they lay their garments at Saul's feet? I always assumed it was because he was the 'leader', but there is another possibility. Saul was Stephens friend! That is why luke made a point of stating that Saul consented to the stoning.

This explains the fury of Saul at persecuting the church. He blamed them for 'deceiving' his friend which led to his death. This also shows even more exactly why everyone was afraid of Saul, if he was indeed Stephen's friend.

Stephen told Saul about the commisioning, and about seeing the Lord Ressurected on the way to emmaus.

If you look at the reverence that Paul has for Crowns in his writings, you will see this better, for this is what Stephen means. And Paul almost always links the reception of a Crown, to persecution.

Pauls, Theology (which most consider the deepest) concerning the New Covenant, being written on their hearts, comes right from Stephen! None of the other writers of the New Testament go into this subject like Paul does, and he got it from Stephen! (Acts 7:51, Rom 2:23-29, Deut 30:6 and Jer 31). This shows you the level of education that Stephen was at. He was on the same level as Paul, before Saul got saved!

To further show that this is more then just trying to make up for his part in Stephens death, let me close with this:

Late in Paul's life, after he had fought the good fight, he said he was ready to be offered (11 Tim 4:16). He then goes on to say that at his first defense, he was alone and no one stood with him...Then, he pauses and reflects upon another time in the distant past, when another one of Yehsua's disciples Stood Alone, and was stoned for his faith. And he remembered the prayer that Stephen said for Saul...so he continues to Timothy, "May the Lord not lay it to their Charge." He quotes his friend Stephen, almost word for word.

And I can just bet that when Paul was ushered home, that there were at least two people standing for him...

Editor's Note : September 26, 2007 :

It is also very possible that Stephen was actually Paul's Brother...

The Son of Thunder

2009-12-21T13:58:00.010-07:00

David Hill (29 Dec 2003) "The Son of Thunder"

"I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that believes and me and dies, yet shall live. And he that believes in me and lives, shall never die..."

Several years ago now, I sent in a post on the Son of Thunder, but unfortunately I forgot to save the draft, and it is no longer in the archieves. I had been contemplating retyping it. So, I figured that this must be the leading of the Spirit, so here it is.

I stumbled on to this theory when I realized that man's first six thousand years would be divided up into three groups of 2000 yrs each, and that this symbolized the Trinity. And, in the first 2000 God the Father was typified by Enoch who did not die and thus lived forever like The Ancient of Days Himself. It was easy, therefore, to make the connection of the second set to God the Son who was represented by Elijah who was also taken up to heaven without dying and thus represents Y'shua who also is God. Thus, in theory, there should be a third individual that represents the third set of 2000 years which itself typifies the Holy Spirit.

The only conclusion would be John who, it is possible, might not have died, but, like the Holy Spirit that has "gone out into all the earth" John has been walking the earth for all these years.

When you look at the Scriptures and Church History, it provides circumstantial evidence that, though it does not prove the theory, it certainly does not disprove
it either.

His name, "John Zebedee" would mean, literally, "A Gift from the Eternal Giver that Endures" and exactly what gift could The Eternal One give someone that would last forever? Obviuosly it would be Eternal Life. Thus it is that John mentions Eternal Life more than all the other writers of the New Testament combined. John was extremely interested in this Gift.

Now, place yourself at his side when Y'shua raised Lazarus with the words at the top of this post. He that believes on me and lives shall never die. Those words were probably still ringing in John's ears a couple of weeks later when he is standing inside the empty tomb and he then says of himself that he believed, speaking, of course, by the Holy Spirit. John didn't just believe that Y'shua was alive, he believed that Y'shua was the resurrection and the life, and in doing so, possibly became the fulfillment of that very truth.

Thus, after the resurrection, while on the shores of the sea of Galilee, Y'shua tells Peter to follow Him, and not to worry about John for if it were His Will, than John would tarry until He returns. Thus, the rumor went out throughout all the Spirit filled Church, that John would never die. John himself, does not deny this possibility, only qualifies it, as his Lord did, with "If it were His will" then he will tarry until the return (which, by the way, technically would be refering to the end of the trib, and thus John may have a ministry to Israel during the trib).

Because of this 'rumor' John also ended up earning another name by the early church and it is "That Certain One" as Paul calls him in one of his epistles.

He is the Certain One who will never die. Thus it is that Justin Martyr tells of his own conversion at the side of a lake by "A Certain Old Man" who introduced him to the Lord, while he was "searching for a lost memeber of his household."

The teaching of the early church tells us that John, though in his older years (80's possibly) saw a backslidden young believer one day, who, when he saw John, took off running in the other direction in his quilt, and John took off after him and caught him, and led him back into the fold. This shows us what kind of physical condition that John was in, much like Moses (and Caleb) who maintained their natural strength.

The oldest tradition we have concerning the death of the Beloved Disciple is from the Greek Orthodox Church (they, if anyone, would know since he was last seen in Asia Minor - see quote below) which states that John told his disciples to bury him alive, which they did (probably in a tomb). Then, they went back for him later but he was gone.

"Attributing the Elder's death to the Apostle would explain why the latter is the only Apostle for whom no relics have been preserved. In the Greek Orthodox Church tradition, the Apostle, near death, asked that a grave be dug for him in the form of the cross. He was laid in the grave, covered to the neck and a cloth was placed over his face. Later, friends found no body. This legend is recorded in the "Daily Lives of the Saints and the Calendar of Feasts," by Tom Mitrakos of the Orthodox Calendar Co., 3131 Scenic Ct., Allison Park, Pa. 15101.

The legend is also recorded in a book on "John, Whom Jesus Loved," by Dr. J. Culross (a book so old it has no date of publication by Morgan and Scott of London). He wrote that the belief continued through the Middle Ages. John's remains were sought, but never found. The belief became almost an article of popular faith. The English sect of Seekers, under Oliver Cromwell, expected John to reappear as the forerunner of Christ's glorious coming (P.240). While only a legend, it shows there is no conclusive evidence that John ever died.

Domitian banished Christians from Rome before he died in 96 AD. John was among them. Under Trajan, from 98 to 117, it was a capital offence to be a Christian. Ignatius, another pupil of the Apostle John, was a martyr during this time. In the first list of martyrs, John the Apostle is not mentioned! (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, P.742).

In a book on "The Twelve" by the great Greek and Semitic scholar, published by John Winston Co., Phila., 1957, P.19, Edgar J. Goodspeed, author of over fifty books, says: "There is no record of John's martyrdom." Without such evidence, the Scriptures should be considered. We know of three important passages.

The most convincing Scripture is that of the two voices telling John in unison: "You must prophesy again before many people and nations and tongues and kings." Rev.10:11. This was after heaven's voice told John to "seal the little scroll" out of which seven thunders spoke. It was after he ate the scroll...sweet to the taste and bitter to the stomach. Otherwise it seems like an uncalled-for ritual without purpose. Nothing John wrote after that required him to "prophesy before many people and nations and tongues and kings" Rev.10:11.

http://www.lastday.net/lastday/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65"

Thus, there is no Scriptural evidence that John ever died.

He was commissioned by our Lord to go to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which is refering to the lost tribes, and thus John would have been "ordaining elders" in and amoung these people unawares for all this time. Also, assuredly John would have been involved in any major Translation of the Word, like Erasmus, who knew many different languages and completed a translation of the Word at the expense of rejecting two very lucritive positions in the Catholic Church and in another organization (by the way he used the Received Text which aught to tell you something). Interstingly enough, the individual that convinced King James that they needed a new translation was a guy named John, unfortunately, I don't remember his last name.

In the winter of 86/87 while at Bible College in Arizona, I was walking home from the restaurant that I worked at, and up ahead of me I see this "Certain Old Man" standing on the sidewalk, and I get the impression from the Spirit that I should witness to this individual. So, when I neared him I asked him if I could ask him a question. He said yes, and so I asked him, "If you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven?"

Immeadiatly he responded, "Heaven, what do you know about Heaven? Where is Heaven?" This particular response caught me off guard, so I sheepishly replied, "Ah, Heaven is where God dwells." To which he said something to the effect that "that's a pretty pat answer" or something like that, but what surprised (and awed) me next was that he began quoting about four or five verses (all of which I recognized) showing me exactly where Heaven is as if he had personally been there (somewhere in "The North"), which John had been to, when he received the Revelation.

After this, he barraged me with questions about the Bible, all of which I successfully answered, and this caused him to calm down and he said, "well, I quess you do know alittle bit about the Bible, huh" to which I aswered "yeah, a little bit" and then we had an interesting conversation that lasted for about ten minutes or so, during which he told me I was from the tribe of Ephraim, to which I responded "how can you tell" and to which he replied "Oh, I can tell by your eyes and the color of your hair" which, really, should be impossible (if true) for the physical identity of the tribes have been lost for 2000 years, yet he claimed to be able to id the tribes by their physical characteristics.

By the way I have a 'condition' when I shave where by, the hairs of my beard are so corse, that when they are cut with a razor, they immeadiately curl up under the skin, so that, when they start regrowing, they pierce the skin, and it becomes discomforting, to say the least. That is one of the reasons that I don't shave any more. This condition is well known amoung black people and in fact, in the military the blacks are the only ones who can get shaving wavers for this very reason. Now, the reason that I say this is because Ephraim and Manasseh were sired by Joseph and an Egyptian Princess, and thus, their descendants might also manifest this particular skin condition. Something to think about.

So, after this little discussion, he then told me something that I couldn't believe at the time, and so I thought he was either lying to me or crazy, so I broke of the conversation, and that is that he had the entire Bible memorized in like forty differenct languages, or something like that. However, if this were John, who had wandered the entire world, for all these years, and learned the languages of different peoples and translated the Word, hundreds of times, then he could have memorized the Word as he said.

Years later, after I had come to the conclusion that he may be alive, I went back out to Arizona to try and find him, without any luck (forgot to check Messianic Congregations). When I described this individual to one Pastor who had been in the area for about ten years (I toned down the description to only ten languages), this pastor said, "well, if that's true, then he would have the Apostle Paul beat." "Yeah, he would" I replied, and then hung up.

Now, though I don't know if I should or not, but since I have not heard from this individual again, I assume that he has "moved on" so I will add this to the story. Right after I originally posted this material on the Doves, I got a letter from Rosh Kodesh, and he quoted one of the Psalms that I mentioned in that post that John would have seen "many sore troubles". He was responding to my statement that one night at the Power Company I used to work at, when I had arrived at the conclusion that John was still alive, I opened my Bible to turn to the Revelation at the end of the Bible, and the Scriptures instead actually opened up directly to Psalm 71 and I looked down and read, "now Lord, when I am old and gray don't forsake me until I have shown the generation that is to come your wonderful salvation" and I knew that John was alive and this Psalm was referring specifically to him. So, Rosh Kodesh was emphasisinng to me the struggles that John would have went through in this fallen world system over the course of the last 2,000, as if he was remembering them himsef.

I didn't think much about it for a couple of months but then I got to thinking what if John was alive and ministering to people on the net, wouldn't he, eventually, find his way to the Doves who are watching for the return of the Lord more than any other group of Christians I know? Then I remembered this letter from Rosh. I believe, for other reasons that I am not including here that occured in our letters, that Rosh Kodesh was this "Certain Old Man" that I had met in Arizona, and I believe that he is John.

It was right after I met this individual that I got the impression that I was susposed to head back to my home in New England (see post The Road to Zion).

This repost is not as detailed as the original, but I guess you get the picture.

And by the way, in Ps 71, the individual is "revived" three times. For John, this would have occured the first time after his minstry was ended in Asia Minor at his 'burial' and the second time around 1000ad for the Lord "visits man every morning" or every thousand years, and He would have visited the beloved disciple then, and finally, the third time John will have his youth restored would be at the Rapture. So, I am quite sure I will be seeing John again during the trib in Israel. But I may not recognize him then in his 'new' body. For aught we know, he is one of The Four Carpenters that I mentioned in my recent post.

Oh, and one more thing to John, in case he reads this: Y'shua didn't say no, he said, not yet...

Editor's Note : December 21, 2009 :

It may interest the reader to know that, now that I have converted to Catholicism and am in the process of converting to Orthodoxy that I have realized that, in fact, John assuredly became immortal via the Real Presense in the Eucharist which is known as Theosis. The Catholics do not believe that this is possible in this life but the Orthodox do.

Kinda like they know something that no one else does, huh...

The Beatific Vision

2009-12-21T13:32:00.002-07:00

So, what did they do cause I am planning on conversion to Orthodoxy.

Killed the Archbishop.

The name of his home Church is exactly the same name as the one I am attending - Holy Trinity.

Cause of Death would be a Directed Energy Weapon compliaments of the CIA.

See my post on the Watchmen (click on title of this post) for the start of my conversion process.

Archbishop Job of Orthodox Church dies at 63‎

Head of Orthodox Church in America in Chicago and the Midwest was found in parking lot in Ohio

By BJ LUTZ

Updated 3:15 PM CST, Sat, Dec 19, 2009

Archbishop Job, the head of the Orthodox Church in America in Chicago and the Midwest, has died. He was 63.

He was found Friday morning collapsed in the parking lot of a motel in Maunee, Ohio, where he'd spent the night, Fr. John Zdinak said.

Zdinak said the Archbishop had not been feeling well all week and had complained of shortness of breath and heaviness in his chest. In a telephone conversation within two hours of his death, the Archbishop told Zdinak that he had trouble sleeping and had to sit in a chair all night to remain comfortable.

An exact cause of death has not yet been released.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/archbishop-job-death--79722622.html

Theocratic Covenant : Conclusion

2009-12-19T14:43:00.000-07:00

David Hill (29 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (13)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

F O U N D A T I O N :

In his work Mr. Peters states that the New Covenant is nothing more than the renewed Abrahamic Covenant which the Church currently lives under (which, apparently, is a prominent view in many Premillennial circles and may be, perhaps, an attempt to bolster their belief that the Church is the "Other Nation"). I will address this belief below but would start by asking; since the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant (Vol 1 pg 176 and see also Chafer's excellent discussion on this point in his Systematic Theology), of what need is there for it to be renewed? This was never addressed by the author, and is really where he should have started that particular proposition.

His whole argument actually hinges upon his treatment of the word New as it appears in Jer 31 and in the passages in the New Testament. He correctly points out (Vol 1 pg 323) that the word often means renewed (new creature, new heavens and earth, new moon etc) and then he goes on to say, "As the phrase 'New Covenant' only appears once in the Old Test. and but a few times in the New, the general analogy of Scripture must be allowed to determine the sense in which it is used." Thus, the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, instead of a totally New Covenant. However, this violates the first rule of Hermeneutics and that is how it is used in the immediate context (which is why he made the above statement - and note his admission of the same; when speaking of the regeneration he says, "so that, let the word be applicable to both (and thus employed), yet the meaning that Jesus attached to it must be sought in the general complexion of the passage." Vol 2 pg 476).

In the "general complexion" of the passage, the Lord is contrasting the nature of the Old Cov. with that of the New. The former was carved on stone and the latter will be on their hearts. Here, it is obvious that we have an entirely New Covenant. This is emphasized by the author's application of "The Letter" (2 Cor 3:6) to the Abrahamic Covenant though, in context, it is obviously referring to the Mosaic Covenant, and thus he inadvertently shows the similarity in the nature of the Ab. and Mos. covenants as opposed to that of the New (Vol 1 pg 332 and note a similar mix up in obs 3 note point (e)).

This is revealed further by the animal sacrifices that ratified both the Ab. and Mos. Covenants (Gen 15:9 and Ex 24:8), while the New is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Eternal Son (Is 53, Heb 10 etc). Along these lines he says that the Mosaic Covenant made no provision for the inheritance because it "provided no resurrecting power" (Vol 1 pg 322), but this is circular reasoning in that he is implying that the Abrahamic did provide this resurrection power because he believes the New is the Ab. Cov. renewed. However, there is no provision for the resurrection in the Ab. Cov. directly, only in type, which type (sacrifice of Isaac) is no stronger than the type of the smiting of the rock (or the serpent on the pole) accomplished by Moses, or even Moses' mysterious burial etc. Y'shua's statement "before Abraham was I AM" proves this point, as the Archetype of both those types.

"Those who advocate that an entire new covenant was given and confirmed by the death of Jesus differ very much as to the nature and meaning of this alleged covenant. A variety of explanations are tendered, but all these, so far as noticed, with but few exceptions, attempt no Scriptural proof. We are simply to receive assertion, without having the New Covenant itself pointed out and its language quoted. If Jesus gave such a covenant, as alleged, it ought, in the very nature of the case (like preceding ones) to be plainly stated; for a covenant is of so special a character that it cannot be taken for granted, or be simply inferred. Now not a single writer of this class has attempted to produce the covenant itself." (Vol 1 pg 326)

I would first point out that the author, and, apparently everyone else, has taken for granted the fact that Y'shua is Y'hova and that the New Covenant contained in Jer 30-33 was first spoken by Him. They also "simply inferred" that the New Covenant was the renewed Abrahamic with no supporting "Scriptural proof"). Now, the reason no author from "this class" (Covenant/Replacement Theology) produced the New Covenant, is because they consider the Old Test. void, and for similar reasons, no writer from his class (Premillennial) has produced the New Cov. because, apparently, they feel that the Mosaic Covenant is "inferior" and voided and, therefore, the New is simply the renewed Abrahamic Covenant. They are driven to this position because the New Covenant passage in Jeremiah includes the sacrifices of the restored Priesthood (33:18) which they cannot accept, Theologically. This is also why the former do not understand the nature of the New Covenant any more than the latter.

Y'shua did not quote the "alleged" New Covenant simply because it was so well known (and expected) that the mere mention of it was understood by the Apostles, as he says referring to the covenants in general (Vol 1 prop 19, 22, 40, 44 etc). I will "point out" that the New Covenant as "alleged" by Y'shua is contained in Jer 30-33 and in listing its blessings and provisions I will "quote" its language.

"Behold, the days come when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (31:31) and right here we see (hind sight being 20/20) a second offering of the New Covenant (and there can only be one New Covenant (this statement was made after I critiqued Mr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's Theology who basically stated that the Jews will receive a different New Covenant then that accepted by the Gentiles thus building up the wall again - I mailed him a copy of my book "Israel and the Church on the Road to the Kingdom circa 1996 and he subsequently changed his tune in one of his monthly letters without extending to myself the courtesy of a reply), because Y'shua can not be offered a second time) to Judah, after Ephraim/Israel and the Gentiles received it during the Church Age (and this, to provoke Judah through jealousy to repentance - Dt 32:21 and Rom 10:19).

"I will put my Law in their hearts" and this is proof positive that this is not the renewed Abrahamic Covenant for there was no provision for this in any of the first three covenants, but only in this, the New Covenant. That this is correct is confirmed by Paul in Rom 2:14-15 where the engrafted Gentiles fulfill the Law because of "The Law written in their hearts." Thus, at least Paul understood Y'shua's reference to the New Covenant as stated in Jeremiah. This alone is conclusive for he was specifically commissioned to carry this New Covenant to the Gentiles (though paired up with Barnabas and John Mark).

This fact is the strongest proof that Christianity is not separate from Biblical Judaism (it actually destroys all replacement and spiritualized theological systems) and against the belief that it was Paul and not Y'shua who founded the Church as some 'theologians' say (Vol 1 pg 429, 435), or that Paul discarded the belief that Y'shua would one day sit on the Davidic Throne over the restored Theocratic Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 437) for this very Kingdom is also confirmed by the same oath that ratified this New Covenant. Peters' rebuttal of these errors was hampered by his own erroneous views of this New Covenant. Had he understood this, he could have properly and conclusevely refuted these Heretics (per Justin) who teach a progressive growth in Church Doctrine between Petrine, Johanine and Pauline (Vol 1 pg 510), the last of which, supposedly, exorcised "Jewish Fables" from our Theology (the ancient Premillennial faith of the believing nation, of John, Simeon, Annah, Y'shua, the Apostles, the Seventy, the disciples and the early Church - universally and uncontestedly - for the first three centuries of the same, as the author proves in Vol 1). This view also helps to combat the belief that the Church is the Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 583) that replaces the Israelite Kingdom, for, the restoration of the Davidic Throne and the Levitical Priesthood is also confirmed by this same oath. And even that the Kingdom is "in your heart" (Vol 1 pg 586) or that the Apostles had a carnal/incorrect view of the Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 598) for, the Church has received no more blessings than are specifically stated in this Legal Document confirmed by the Solemn Oath of the Eternal Creator, predicted to be given to Israel and not, per sae, to the Gentiles. It is only because of their fall (Rom 11) that it was extended as "a light" to the Gentiles (Is 42:6, 49:6). The view that Israel, as a nation, has been entirely cast off and will not receive any of the blessings or promises (Vol 1 pg 588) is also sharply rebuked (in the name of the Lord Y'shua Bar Y'hova, I might add) when we understand that the New Covenant as given in Jer 31 specifically to this Nation, and specifically when this Southern Nation of Judah receives it (Rom 11 etc). Even the view that the Church is supposed to usher in the Kingdom or to "Christianize the present world" (Vol 1 pg 589) is condemned as untrue by this understanding for the rebellious nations that persecute this nation the Lord will "make a full end of" while He preserves Judah and Ephraim. Many more errors then I present here (that the Church is just a continuation of the Jewish Synagogue - Vol 1 pg 604, or that Y'shua failed in his plans - Vol 1 pg 623) are assuredly swept away when we realize that Y'shua Y'hova has always planned on giving the New Covenant to Ephraim, the Gentiles and Judah in their proper order and in His own time in preparation for the Theocratic Kingdom - the presence of God - to be re-established on this earth as it was before the Fall (Ps 68:18) As I live says Y'hova the whole earth will be full of the Glory of the Lord.

"They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me" is also expounded by Paul in reference to the Gentile Church in 1 Cor 13 (see also 1 John 2:27, 2 Pet 1:2, John 10:14-17 - this last is assuredly a reference of our Lord to Jer 31).

"I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more" is, again, not provided by any other covenant as it is by the New, for Barnabas (please see my recent post "The Son of Consolation" in which I prove that Barnabas is the author or Hebrews) tells us that the "blood of bulls and goats" could not take away sin, and, though Abraham was made righteous by his faith, it would have been impossible without the atoning and propitiating sacrifice (both aspects seen in Is 53) of the Theocratic Covenant (note especially Heb 1 and 7) which Barnabas implies when he says that Levi (Mosaic Covenant) paid tithes in Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant) to this High Priest of the New Covenant, which he "quotes" (Heb 8:9) specifically making Jer 31 the New Covenant. Thus, the second Apostle commissioned to the Gentiles bearing this New Covenant, directly affirms its location in the Biblical record of God's Holy Oath-Bound Eternal Word, in Jer 31 - By two or three witnesses let a matter be established.

Further, it should be stated that, the omission, ultimately, by the Holy Spirit, of any reference directly by the other Apostles (who were strictly commissioned to "the circumcision") is certainly not proof that it is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, but is itself a very solemn testimony to the fact that the Nation, as such, refused the first offer to them of this same New Covenant in the person of Y'shua himself. And this, strikingly so, emphasizes his words that if you put new wine in old skins they would burst and both be lost. The nation did not repent, and was subsequently burst open by the New Wine that was poured out into the nation at Pentecost, and the Spirit then worked, predominantly, among Ephraim and the Gentiles as it is to this day. It is lack of comprehending this that caused him (Vol 2 pg 51) to answer, unsatisfactorily, the question as to the lack of "The subject of the restoration" of Israel, directly, in the N.T. writers. The simple fact is that, to preach the restoration then, at the time of the reception of the New Covenant by the Gentiles, would have been inconsistent and unnecessary. And, in fact, this also explains why the other Apostles did not mention the New Covenant in Jeremiah per sae, because of the conditions contained therein of this restoration, when Judah, as a nation, receives the New Covenant. Thus, reference is made to it incidentally as something still future, not as something in effect now.

Thus, in accordance with the other covenants, this one was stated to be "forever" (and "everlasting") and was confirmed by the Solemn Oath of God Himself (Jer 31:35-37, 33:20-26). And if you look carefully through this covenant you will see that the Church has received no more and no less then the promises contained therein. This is the covenant that the Church is living under today. And it is this covenant, through "the death of the testator" that frees the Church from the curses of the Mosaic Covenant (where applicable - see his comments on this death and the curse Vol 1 pg 368).

I might add that Barnabas, who was himself a Priest and knew of what he spoke, stated that Ps 110 and the Melchizedek Priesthood was part of this New Covenant (Eternal and confirmed by oath - vs 4 and which he possibly calls "The Covenant of the Lord" Vol 1 pg 601), that provides us with an Eternal Intercessor, which also is not provided under any of the other three covenants. This, alone, is conclusive. Thus, "no beginning or end" is a perfect description of Y'shua, the Son of Man, as the Melchizedek High Priest existing before David, Moses and Abraham in time and superiority.

This New Covenant was intimated in Dt 30:6 as "God will circumcise thine heart" and at once shows the difference between the Ab. Cov. (which originated this sign of circumcision) and the Mos. Cov. (which continued the sign) from that of the New Covenant which will be a spiritual circumcision not done by the hands of men, but of God (Col 2:11, see also Rom 2 which links this with the New Cov. passage again). Thus, his entire line of reasoning (Vol 1 pg 320), that the renewal of the Ab. Cov., "under which renewal we now live" is forcefully refuted by one "minor" technicality.

The Church, correctly, argues (including the author) that since we are not commanded to fulfill any of the Mosaic Rituals, that we, as a Church, are not subject to the Mosaic Covenant (this rule was originally given in Acts 15 and expanded by Paul in his epistles). I might state, then, that since I am not commanded to be circumcised (Gal 3-5 which the author makes much of to show that the Mos. Cov. has been dis-annulled), and since this commandment was originally given as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17), therefore I am not subject to the Abrahamic Covenant. This is irrefutable for, if we live under the Ab. Cov. which was confirmed by the Solemn Oath of God, then the Church would be subject to this divine and emphatic commandment. For proof of this read Ex 4:24-26 which occurred before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant (where Moses was almost slain by the Angel for failure to circumcise his son).

"Those who admit the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the distant future, but deny that we live under it now (making a new covenant existing), thus ignore its not having been annulled, that our adoption as children of Abraham hinges on it, that Christ's death confirms its validity to us, and that all our blessings flow from it. The dislocation offered by them is unnatural and destroys the unity." (Vol 1 pg 330)

I would make the same (last) statement concerning his view and for various reasons. In reference to Y'shua not annulling the Ab. Cov.; the same requirements he sets forth for establishing the New Covenant are lacking in his presentation of a renewed Ab. Covenant.

Why didn't Y'shua come right out and say, "This is the blood of the renewed Abrahamic Covenant?" Why didn't he quote from the same in the upper room that night?

He proves, from the Scriptures, that the promises of the Ab. Cov. were to "The Seed" Christ. Thus, his view is erroneous and "unnatural" in one particular. We do not receive the New Covenant and its blessings by becoming children of Abraham through adoption; we become the children of Abraham through adoption by receiving the blessings of the New Covenant. There remains a major difference between the two. We become "brothers and fellow heirs" with Y'shua by adoption (Eph 1:5) upon receiving the New Covenant, and in so doing, because Y'shua is now our brother and is a child of Abraham, we also now, in this relation to Y'shua, are children of Abraham.

To further emphasis this; I feel that I could successfully argue the point (though I don't feel it is needed) in God's Supreme Court of Law itself; with the Old and New Covenants as my Legal Authority; that since I am saved through Y'shua and am now his brother, I could claim, on these grounds alone, not only adoption into the tribe of Judah, from which our Lord, the Messiah, sprang, but into the very Royal Lineage of David and Solomon. Thus, the Church is "A Royal Priesthood."

"The chosen are never called the children of Christ, but his brethren, co-heirs, etc." (Vol 1 pg 329)

Here the author is trying to show that we receive not a New Covenant, but "the promises given to Abraham." However, this is begging the question for Y'shua Messiah will be called "The Everlasting Father" (Is 9:6) and that God the Father would "see his seed" (Is 53:10) and Paul calls him the second Adam or father of the Human race (Rom 5:14), and He Himself calls the saved his sons (Rev 21:7). Thus, this solely emphasizes the the elect lineage of Y'shua of necessity, and not the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, it is because of Y'shua (symbolized in John 12:24) that Abraham's seed is going to be so populous (Gen 22:17), not the other way around.

The author makes much of becoming the seed of Abraham, and rightfully so, and also mentions that we must become grafted into "the commonwealth of Israel" not understanding that it was the Mosaic Covenant that formed Abraham's seed into that commonwealth that was "brought near" at Mt. Sinai (on Pentecost when the Church was also brought near under this Mosaic ritual in Acts 2 showing the intimate connection between Biblical Judaism and Biblical Christianity). Thus, by his own reasoning, the Mos. Cov. is also in effect, and the New is just the renewing of the Old. The fact is, that "The Old Covenant" as refereed to by the New Testament writers is referring to all three previous covenants. He himself says that the Ab. and Dav. covenants are "really one covenant" (Vol 1 pg 337), and thus the Mosaic is included in that as the link between the two, which is confirmed by the author himself when he states (Vol 1 pg 230, 232) that provision for these future adopted children of Abraham into the commonwealth of covenanted promises was first made via the Mosaic Covenant and not the Ab. Cov. showing the latter's dependency on the former as the next link in the chain to the Dav. covenant.

Thus, if you state that the Mos. Cov. has been disannulled, you sever the connection of the New Covenant back to the Covenant source (as far as the Gentiles are concerned). This, itself can be seen in that, originally, for Abraham to be a blessing "to the nations" it did not necessarily provide for adoption into the Israelite bloodline. The real source for this engrafting, from our perspective, is found in Num 14:21, because these glorified Gentile Saints will be Y'shua's Ambassadors in their respective nations during the Millennium, because the unbelievers in the Israelite nation (taking this Glory for granted) refused to go up into the promised land where God's Glory would (and will) reside permanently. Ephraim should seriously ponder how this type might be repeated in the life of this nation today.

"By the death of the seed provision is made so "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" - i.e. the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant." (Vol 1 pg 321)

Here I must emphatically protest his statement that the promise of the Spirit comes to us through the Ab. Cov. (providing no scriptural proof, only shear inference and a bad one at that), which covenant contains no such promise. Paul (Gal 3:16) qualifies his reference to Abraham as "To Abraham and to his seed" were the promises made, which seed he specifies is Y'shua. Further, there remains the obvious point (in context) that the inheritance of vs 18 is "the blessing of Abraham" in reference to the promised land (Gen 12 etc), and not "The promise of the Spirit" which is more likely drawn from Jer 31 (note this connection by Barnabas in Heb 10:15-16). This promise of the Spirit (Lk 24:49, Acts 1:4, 2:33, Eph 1:13, 1 Thes 4:8) is stated to be from the Father and Peter (Acts 2:34) links it to Y'shua's ascension which is a specific reference to Ps 68 and the New Covenant (and certainly not to the Ab.). The fact that this phrase is not repeated anywhere in the Old Testament directly , led Peter to search for it in type (A Gift) and this is the reference he gave to this promise while filled with that same freshly poured Spirit. The point is that the first recorded promise of the Spirit was given by Y'shua himself (Vol 3 pg 65 noting Peter's words in Acts 11:15-17), and the prediction of John (Mt 3:11) is a reference to that of Joel (2:28) stated for the time when Judah receives the New Covenant at the end of the Age. This separate, though "earnest" of the future pouring out of the Spirit needed to be specifically stated by the Lord to authorize the preaching of the New Covenant to the Gentiles while the Kingdom was postponed.

And just here is where the "provocation" lies. Not that the Gentiles also received the Abrahamic Covenant (for any "stranger" could, by applying for membership in the nation), which was already received by the Jews, but that the Gentiles received the promised New Covenant with the indwelling Holy Spirit before the nation of Judah received it (Rom 11:11).

I feel compelled to illustrate this provocation by relating a story I heard while in Jerusalem from a lady who ran a Christian Bookstore there. One day a Rabbi got into a discussion with one of the workers and he became indignant and turned around and stormed out. But at the door he turned and said to her, "We know you Christians have more light than we do, but please leave us the little light that we do have" and then he left. This Rabbi was provoked by this girl because she had received the New Covenant and had the Holy Spirit indwelling her. If the New Covenant is simply the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, then the Church would have no more light then does Israel and there would, therefore, be no provocation.

This can further be emphasized by the loss of the New Covenant privileges in the Nation of Ephraim at their rejection as Priests at the start of the tribulation; for then will be the "famine for hearing the Word of the Lord" (Am 8:11) and "to whom shall He teach knowledge" (Is 28:9) and the people "destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos 4:6) and "the prophet is a fool and the spiritual man is mad" (Hos 9:7) and "The sun will go down over the prophets" (Mic 3:6) and then they will know the loss of light that Judah has experienced for all these years. And this includes those Gentile nations that have had the blessings of the Church in their countries as well. Then, only the 144,000 will be lights in their worlds.

Thus, as a Father gives gifts to his children, and because we have been adopted as brethren of Y'shua by faith (Gal 3:14), God gave us (his children) "The promise of the Spirit." Thus, this promise comes to us through the Seed Y'shua and the New Covenant and not through the Abrahamic, Mosaic or Davidic Covenants.

You can not have the Abrahamic Covenant "in complete force" (Vol 1 pg 320) and yet "It has never yet been so realized as to meet the natural wisdom of man." (Vol 1 pg 335). It either is, or it is not, in operation. If so, than why are we, the Church, not currently living in the promised land? Isn't this a sign of rebellion as it was for the Israelites? The only logical answer is that the Ab. Cov., like the Dav. and the Mos., is held "in abeyance" until the Second Advent. I might add, that as long as the nation, as such, is dispersed from the land, and not fulfilling any of the oath-bound covenants, then the Church as such, engrafted into the commonwealth, can not and will not fulfill any of these covenants either. Only the New has been (currently) given to the Church, and the others only by way of a promise (earnest) of futre inheritance, as he points out in numerous places.

The author even goes so far as to say (Vol 1 pg 328) that these covenants will be fulfilled as a result of the incarnation, thus implying via the New Covenant, which, could also be called the Melchizedec Covenant - "A Body have you prepared for me." And all of these covenants are received through faith (Vol 1 pg 334) and not solely the Abrahamic (Heb 11 proves this). Thus, it is a specific new covenant that will fulfill all the covenant promises through the Seed to whom all the covenant promises are given and to whom they all belong and to whom he may graciously bestow them to by faith in his blood, being "slain from the creation of the world" as the Sacrifice of the true "Everlasting Covenant" (Jer 32:40, Heb 13:20 - The New and not the Abrahamic as he states in Vol 1 pg 323), based on the Eternal Nature of the Testator.

This is forcefully proven by the author's own words (Vol 2 pg 375) where he says, "The inheriting of a 'Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' again favors our position. For, if it refers to a Kingdom designed for them in the beginning, it must correspond with the covenant and the promises based thereon." Now, there is only one such covenant that was ratified "from the foundation of the World" and that is the New Covenant specifically stated by John (Rev 13:8 see also Mt 13:35, 25:34, Lk 11:50, Heb 1:10, 4:3, 9:26, Rev 17:8) which is further emphasized by the fact that this sacrifice - God's Son - existed before said foundation of the World (John 17:24, Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 1:20), and we were in him then, not because of the Ab. Cov. but the New. For, though the Covenant with Abraham was made with the Eternal I AM, the sacrifice that ratified it was not eternal. Only of the New Covenant can it be said, that it procures for us, forever, the forgiveness (Atonement) of sins (please see my posts "The Theoferrum") and Eternal life and enjoyment of the personal presence of the Creator as our Abba, forever.

That is the difference in the natures of the two covenants.

In fact, in light of all that has been presented, it is obvious that the New Covenant is the Theocratic Covenant and all others stem from it, for it was confirmed from the foundation of the world, and all the subsequent covenants only procured the promises that Y'shua had already been given. Take the offering of Isaac by Abraham, which had already been done (from God's perspective) by Himself in His own Son ("Abraham rejoiced to see my day"); take Moses being hidden in the Cleft of the Rock ("and that Rock was Christ"); and David building God a House that was already built by Y'shua ("as a son over the House"); and we see that, contrary to Peters' (and others') opinion, it is the New Covenant that is the foundation on which all the other Covenants are built(including, by the way, the one with Noah - Gen 9:9, and Phinehas - Num 25:11 and all other Covenants that are recorded in the Word, which can not be claimed by the Ab. or Mos. or Davidic, and yet they must be included in the Covenant Chain). This is typified by the City of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21) for, although the twelve tribes are seen in the gates ("salvation is of the Jews") implying the permanence of the Ab. and Mos. covenants, the foundation of the city is in the Apostles of the New Covenant.

The significance of choosing Jeremiah, just before the pouring out of God's wrath via the Babylonians (not just on Israel mind you, but on the entire known world), to confirm Moses' words of a coming New Covenant (Dt 30:6 etc), so as to give the exiles hope and to prepare the way for the first offer of the New Covenant to Judah by Y'shua is clearly seen in this passage of Moses who connects it to a time of exile, after blessings and curses had been experienced by the nation, which includes (Lev 26) the destruction of the City and nation and subsequent exile. It is significant that it was Jeremiah (like Moses both a prophet and priest) who first penned down a specific record of this covenant. Of passing interest is that his name means "Yah will rise" and is not this a veiled reference to the death and resurrection of the Seed that ratified this New Covenant and ensure our own resurrection at his hands?

He talks of the Olive Tree (11:16) which is assuredly where Paul (Rom 11) drew his conclusions from of the grafted Gentiles in the place of the branches "cut off" in judgment. He also refers to the Indwelling Spirit as God's Word like a Fire (1:9, 5:14, 9:23, 11:19, 20:9, 23:9) as it appeared on Pentecost (Acts 2). The foreknowledge of God in Paul's great passage (8:29) including sanctification and predestination find their foundation in Jeremiah (1:5).

As Moses was the "Father" to Israel at its founding, and Elijah the "Mother" that nursed the nation into revival, Jeremiah thus becomes the "Male Child" of Israel (1:6), who experiences the judgment on the nation, and, as such, is a type of Y'shua at the first offering of the N.C., and of the Male Child of Rev 12, who offers the N.C. to Judah the second time.

Thus it is that Jeremiah was (like the Church) sent to the nations (1:10, 1:5, 1:7 and chapters 46-51) to warn them to repent because of coming judgment. The reception of the N.C. by Israel is linked to God's judgment as "The Time of Jacob's Trouble" (Chap 30 in the New Covenant Passage) or Birthpains (13:21, Rev 12), and is connected to this same time when the captivity shall return and the Davidic Throne be restored (chapters 31-33 and note also 23:5), at a time when the woman flees to the wilderness (Rev 12 compare with Jer 9) and the land itself is restored (contrasting the clay pot of chapter 19 with the earthen vessel of chap 32 see also Ez 36-37).

The judgment itself is described as Wormwood (9:15, 23:15 and Rev 8:11), a Whirlwind in the latter days (23:19 and Rev 6:13), Four Sore Judgments (15:1-4 repeated several times, compare Rev 6, Ez 14:21), the Swelling of the Jordan at Armageddon itself (12:5 and see my post the Seven Thunders), as a Cup of Wine (25:12-18 compare Rev 18:3), the Seven Thunders (10:11-13 and Rev 10), the earth trembling at the Wrath of the Lamb (10:10 and Rev 6:15-17) and the Signs and Wonders thereof ()10:2, Mt 24:30, Rev 12:1, 15:1).

It is also significant, as a symbol to provoke them to repentance at the first offer of the New Covenant, that Y'shua compares the nation to an old garment and wine skins, both of which are drawn directly from Jeremiah (13:1-17, Mt 9:16-17). And thus, Y'shua himself locates the New Wine of the New Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah, and the second offer of the same will occur during the seven year tribulation, when conditions are basically, the same as they were in the world and nation in Jeremiah's day and then again in Y'shua's day.

And; if the writing of the Ten Commandments on Stone resulted in the establishment of the Theocratic Kingdom the first time and the utter overthrow of the Egyptian World System then; and the carving of the Law on the Hearts of the Gentiles completely turned the Roman World System upside down; and when the Theocratic King, aided by 6,000 years worth of all the Saints decides that the time has come to engrave the Law on the heart of His people; what do you think that we can rightfully expect as an outcome to HIS "Labor of Love?"

Read Zechariah 12:8 and Ezekiel 37, for starters.

C O N C L U S I O N :

"This covenant will pour a flood of light on many precious promises linked with it. Language, otherwise dark, becomes easy of comprehension; dispensational procedures, otherwise dim and unaccountable, become precise and significant in their meaning; the preaching of John, Jesus, disciples, and Apostles, instead of being contradictory or accommodating to error, is found consistent. It explains much that enables us the more clearly to perceive and appreciate a regular divine plan in preparing for and ultimately establishing the Theocratic Kingdom under Messiah. It tells us, as nothing else can, why the Gentiles must be grafted in, why 'blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of Gentiles is come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written: there shall come out of Zion a Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob for this is my covenant with them.' It, and it alone, as the outgrowths from it are developed, gives us a strict historical, providential, doctrinal, and divine unity of purpose in the Word."

Just as the life bearing seed (Mk 4:26-29) clothes itself from the vital nutrients of the lifeless soil, until it grows up and brings forth a bountiful harvest; so also has the life giving seed (John 12:24) of the Eternal Word as contained in the Theocratic Covenant clothed itself in Glorious Majesty from the vital nutrients of the soil of the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants, so that, when it reaches maturity, it will render a bountiful harvest in the Theocratic Kingdom of God on Earth.

I wish it Godspeed.

Maranatha : the return of the Lord Y'shua ben Y'hava draws nigh...

Theocratic Covenant : Restoration

2009-12-19T14:39:00.000-07:00

David Hill (29 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (12)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

R E S T O R A T I O N :

I have already provided quotes from the author and Scripture references to show that, when the nation is resurrected (Ez 37 - see post The Valley of Dry Bones), then so also will the Mosaic Covenant, and then the blessings of all three covenants will be realized by the inheritors during the Millennium and beyond (see his comments Vol 2 pg 117 which apply to this restoration of the Mos. Cov.). However, I would like to illustrate this further to set the stage for this section.

To this day I remember a discussion I had with an Amish friend in the Military, when we were talking about the Law, and he stated, "The Law was nailed to the Cross" in reference to Paul's words in Col 2:14. Well, I might ask, "What was nailed to the Cross?" and the answer is, obviously, Y'shua. Thus, Y'shua is the Law. So, for those who say that the Mos. Cov. is a permanently dead letter, I would ask this, "What happened to the Law three days later?" and, the answer is that it was resurrected. Thus, these three days became three of the Lord's days ("a thousand years in you sight is but one day"), and thus, on "the third day" (an incredible study in itself) the Law will be resurrected in the life of the nation ("Life from the dead" - Rom 11).

Why was Abraham heartbroken for three days (Gen 22:4)? Because the Heavenly Father of Many Nations was heartbroken for three days (Is 48:16-19).

Why was Isaac silent for those same three days? Because there was no Laughter in Israel for three days (John 16:21).

Why was Joseph justified on the third day (Gen 40:18)? Because the Dreamweaver Counted on that third day (Mt 27:62-66).

Why did Moses journey three days into the Barren Wilderness (Ex 3:18)? Because the Living Waters (John 4) were Drawn Out for three days (John 19:34).

Why did Joshua enter the promised land on third day (Jos 1:11)? Because the Savior entered the Heavenly Land on the third day (John 20:17).

Why did Samson pose his riddle for three days (Jud 14:14)? Because the Shining One (Mt 17:2) had everyone puzzled for three days (Lk 24:21).

Why did they look for Elijah for three days (2 K 2:17)? Because they looked for Their God Yah for three days (John 7:33, 13:33).

Why was Jonah fasting and praying for three days? Because the Doves were mourning for three days (John 16:20)*.

Why was Ephraim raised up on the third day (Hos 6:2)? Because the Grain (John 12:24) was Fruitful on the third day.

Why was Saul blind for three days (Acts 9:9)? Because there was no Answer in Israel for three days (Mk 15:3-5, Acts 8:32, Is 53:7).

Why was David at Ezel for three days (1 Sam 20:19)? Because the Beloved had Departed for three days (Lk 9:31 "decease" = "Exodus").

So, why will Judah be restored on the third day (Ezra 10:6-9)? Because the Celebration was restored on the third day (John 16:22 see also Dt 33:7).

To my Jewish brethren I would ask, in reference to the last verse above by Moses: When was Judah ever separated from his people? For, even in exile and captivity he has always played a prominent, Kingly role in the life of the nation (like Daniel in Babylon). Thus, history testifies to the fact that the verse must be read Messianically as, "Hear, Y'hova, the voice of Judah and return him to his people." For those Jews who say (Vol 1 pg 378) that there is no "clear, unequivocal prophecy" from the Old Testament concerning the Second Advent of Messiah - here it is .

This application of the three days can be applied to the Resurrection itself (note Y'shua's reference to this same verse in John 10:18 - who do you think pointed out that interpretation to me?) and, as all the rest above, a second application can be made to the Return itself after three of the Lord's days for, Y'shua was (and is) The Son of God. Note also that this prophecy was not recorded in Jacob's blessing of the tribes, but comes to us from the Mosaic Economy, obviously, for a reason, I might add.

* On an extremely personal three-day-note (which I hesitate to include) : On the previous three days from "The third day of the third Jewish month in the year of our Lord 2,001" there were no terrorist attacks in Israel. This was during the heighth of the intifada, when there had been attacks every day. Yet for three solid days there were none (enough to make special notice of it over the radio). "How can the birds be singing on a days like this?" Christians would say that anyone who would blow themselves up to kill someone else is, obviously, suffering from Demonic Possession or Oppression. The Demons are typified by the Fowls of the Air in the Word (Mt 13:4,19 note especially Is 18:6). So, why were there no Birds "singing" in Israel for three days? Because the wrath of the Lamb was rekindled in those three days.

All of this is as powerful a statement as can be made (humanly speaking) to the Jews that Y'shua is the Son of God - following as it will upon the resurrection of those Jews and Christians believers who have accepted the New Covenant during those three days, and will go along way to prepare the nation itself, as a nation, to receive that same New Covenant (Zech 12 etc). Thus, I challenge them to find a more Scriptural description of all the covenants, including the New, as laid out in this series of posts and as it has been manifested in the history of their nation and that of Ephraim. The time is coming, very soon, when one will come unto you saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, again, and this time, it ain't gonna be postponed!" (compare the Holy One Y'shua at the first offer of the New Covenant, and The Watcher Prince David of the second offer of the New Covenant in Dan 4 where Neba's seven insane years are a type of the Church Age and were held in abeyance to be fulfilled in the seven year tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble).

Then all eyes are going to be on you, and what you do with this man (Hos 2:16) Y'shua. On that day, when you "look upon me who you have pierced" and God then carves the Law on your heart, Paul says that it will be life from the dead (Rom 11, Ez 37). This is The Day that he also describes as all creation groaning until the Sons of God are revealed, and Peter as hastening unto The Day. I am here to tell you: that day is now. "Behold, now is the accepted time, now is Yom Y'shua" (Is 49, 2 Cor 6, Ps 95).

"Scott remarks that it denotes the restoration of a thing to the state from which it had fallen, and that it must include the Sec. Coming and the restoration of Israel. Dr. Bell says: "The word translated 'restitution' might berendered 'restoration'"...But what is to be restored, brought back to its former condition with increased glory? Gerok quotes Baumgarten as saying, "Nothing else than the Kingdom of Israel, the whole power and glory of the Israelite Kingdom." While Gerok justly observes that it includes more, as the prophets predicted, yet Baumgarten is right in laying stress on the restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom; for that is the burden of prophecy, that is the main, leading object to which the eye of faith and hope is directed." (Vol 2 pgs 465-6)

The first thing that we need to realize is that the descriptions of this Restoration in Ezekiel 40-48 are referring to a mortal Prince and people and Priesthood (not Glorified Saints), who live through the tribulation (Vol 3 pg 87).

"The Prince is a mortal man; for to him are ascribed "sons" to whom he may give gifts etc (ch 45:16 18), and he is exhorted not to do wrong...This Prince being thus mortal and un-glorified, is subject to sinfulness, for he is exhorted to offer "a sin offering" in behalf of "himself" as well as for all the people, which cannot be applied to Christ...The Theocratic rule here delineated is very different from that exhibited under Christ and His associated body of Rulers...The only answer that might be given is this: That this Prince is a mortal, ruling over the Jewish nation at its future restoration under - subject to - the Reign of Christ."

I hesitate to state the obvious because some, in the past, have misunderstood my viewpoint, or misinterpreted the Scriptures on this subject. However, because of its importance in this very subject of the Restoration, with Peters I conclude that, "Consideration urged that, as God proclaimed it, and frequently adverted to it, duty and faithfulness demanded its insertion as a testimony and warning to others." (Vol 2 pg 102)

It is obvious, as Peters stated, that this Prince cannot be Y'shua, and just as obviously, and for the exact same reasons, he cannot be King David himself (as Pentecost says in "Things to Come"), for in that day King David will be in a resurrected and glorified body as a citizen of the New Jerusalem (Heb 11:32, 12:1), and will not, at that time, sin or have offspring. The obvious reason why some propose this is because this individual is specifically mentioned by name in the Word.

Jeremiah records his name (30:9 - note the significance of his name being mentioned in the New Covenant passage and compare with Is 55:3 and see my post Theoferrum - "Let him who reads the letter execute the message"), and that God would raise him up. This is not referring to a resurrection, for God raised up Moses for the nation of Israel at the Exodus (Am 2:11), and Judges (Jud 2:16) and King David himself (2 Sam 23:1) and Y'shua at the First Advent (Lk 1:69).

Ezekiel (34:23-24, 37:24-25) also calls him by name and states that, as a shepherd he would feed God's flock under a "covenant of peace" and calls him a Prince. This is further detailed in Chapter 37, which is the chapter on this very Restoration of Israel (The Dry Bones and Two Sticks - again see my post Theoferrum for the perfect merging of these two sticks) and gives us a clue to his ancestry, for he will be descended from Judah and specifically from David (per Jer 33:21 - the New Covenant Passage again), on his father's side and from Ephraim on his mother's side (The Male Child of Rev as the 13th star must descend from Ephraim, the 13th tribe in order of birth and from Joseph, for this honor and blessing was given to him in the dream originally, and not to Judah or any other tribe - Gen 37:9). In this way, because both houses can claim him as their Prince, the nation is bonded together again and the enmity between them (Is 11:13) is ended. By the way, note that it is the LORD who is stating this and this is Y'SHUA; there is no other way to interpret these passages, and whoever would do so, inadvertently removes Y'shua's Divine Right to that position of Y'hova in the Word - they try to rob him of His Glory and not me (Job 34:33). [1]

Hosea (3:5) also names him and links it to "the latter days." There are many more passages in both the Old and New Testaments that confirm this teaching and add more details (Hos 1:11, Mic 5:3-6, Hab 3:13 etc), specifically to his position as Prince over reunited Israel, just as all the other mortal nations will have mortal Kings ruling over them, in submission to this Prince of Israel who is himself subject solely to Y'shua.

But note this: Y'shua had seen these prophecies in the Word and knew that they were not referring to himself or King David, therefore he rightfully understood that this person would be Prince over Israel in the end times and Millennium directly under Y'shua's rule, which is the only view that explains some of his statements in the New Testament referring to this individual (Mt 11:11, 17:20 - Zech 4:7, Mt 24:47 where "Household" is the Davidic Throne, Mk 4:31, Lk 6:48, Mt 13:52, Lk 10:22 - 1 John 4:12, Lk 12:43 - Rev 12:5 etc), including one very well known passage (John 5:43) which most (if not all) interpreters apply to the Antichrist, however it is assuredly (keeping the above Scriptures in mind and Y'shua's understanding of them) referring to Prince David (who offers the New Covenant to Judah the second time), and that is the passage that reads, "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Y'shua's name, as such, was not connected with these prophecies of this anointed, however, and this is the key, Y'shua saw himself in the prophecies wherever Y'hova is mentioned and thus "I am come in my Abba's name" because Y'shua is Y'hova (John 10:30, 8:58). See especially Zechariah 12:8-10 which completely proves my point, for Y'shua could not have interpreted that Messianic passage any other way then that he was the one whom they would "pierce" and that, therefore, he was Y'hova who was speaking (and in fact, since "no man has seen God at any time" - 1 John 4:12 spoken after the Revelation was received by the way - then every appearance of Y'hova in the Old Testament must be that of Y'shua himself, as stated in my post the Son of Man). And this was his Divine Right and legal title to the Theocratic Throne as Y'hova, born from the Loin's of David.

He, then, also knew that this Prince David could not claim any such Divine Right, and in fact, might not be able to prove his lineage from David (because of the coming destruction of Jerusalem and exile which he already knew would last about 2,000 years), or from Ephraim (because they were already lost and would continue as such for those same 2000 years), and thus (Zech 9:6-7) would have to fall back on the three prophets who called him specifically by "his own name" (thus see Mark 9:38-40). I believe that he is also called "a servant of Kings" in Isaiah which is exactly how he appears in Ez 40-48 (and my post Theoferrum) as a servant to Y'shua. Hence, he is commonly called the Prince, as opposed to Y'shua who is the King of Kings.

With all these in mind (that Y'shua is Y'hova in the Old Testament), then we see that the Vice Regency was established by the Mosaic Covenant (which answers Rabbi Bibas' question of "Two Rulers" - Vol 3 pg 88), for the mortal nation at Sinai, when they were so terrified by the presence of Y'shua in His Glory as Y'hova (as were the disciples Mk 9:6), that they requested Moses (a mortal man) to be their Daysman between themselves and God (Ex 20:19, Dt 5:23-33). But note especially that the Lord heard their request and said, "they have well spoken" and laments that they should always thus fear Him. So, the Lord then established the Vice Regency in the Theocracy which eventually became known as the Davidic Throne and Covenant - a mortal shepherd over a mortal nation, directly and solely under the authority of Y'shua bar Y'hova. Thus, the restoration of the Davidic Throne must include this Vice Regency; it can't be otherwise.

When we realize this (and that this was Y'shua and "He changes not"), then this Vice Regency in Ezekiel is a logical (and the only) conclusion to the prophecies, with the New Jerusalem on earth so paired with the Old Jerusalem (God's "footstool") as to be indistinguishable from it (note the plural Thrones in Ps 122:5 and "compact together" means a joining together as in a marriage), as Peters himself says.

"It is impossible to separate the Glorified (The King and Co-Rulers) from the unglorified, for they are united, the one as authoritative head and the other as specially exalted in view of this union (hence numerous prophecies make no distinction between the two, but speak of the nation as it shall be when restored and associated with the glorified seed of Abraham - which gives the Key to the magnificent language employed)...The relationship of the Jewish nation restored (mortal) to the glorified portion, is an inseparable union, and...the supremacy accorded to such a union necessitates that language of the prophets respecting the supremacy of the nation, as it shall be in the future, without discriminating; and...this supremacy (owing to Divine Ordering) pertain(s) to a nation which is described in conditions restricted to a mortal condition, and yet exalted to it in view of the overruling Divine Government instituted in its behalf under the rulership of the Glorified Messiah and his coheirs. Looking at only one side of the subject is doing violence to the unity of covenant and prophecy, which has two sides, a human and a divine." (Vol 2 pgs 97-100)

Thus his own words above perfectly meets his own objections to the Vice Regency as predicted in Ez 40-48 (below). This splendorous union of the Thrones of King Y'shua and Prince David is wonderfully explained in my posts the Theoferrum Crucibulum, for the mature Christian and Jews to contemplate. And this Vice Regency of Prince David to King Y'shua (Rev 3:21, 12:5 etc), as here presented, is portrayed in the Mountain Kingdom and the Stone Kingdom of Dan 2:34-35, 44-45, where the Mountain Kingdom is Y'shua and the Glorified Saints, forming a Kingdom already in existence at the end of the trib, which Peters makes note of.

"Such passages include the idea, that the authoritative manifestation of Theocratic Rule is exhibited, before it issues forth from the desert. It is a form ready for action before it emerges from the Wilderness. Considering the formation of the Theocracy with its added hosts of Kings and Priests in so isolated a place, secluded from the observation of the nations, and its sudden and overwhelming appearance, it may be a question whether Christ had not this initiatory stage in view when He told the Pharisees, "the Kingdom of God cometh not with observation" seeing that it is not only divinely instituted, but this is done in a secluded manner and place, so that when it appears it is already so organized as to be irresistible, etc." (Vol 3 pg 23)

And, in fact, this Mountain, which is emblematic of an existing Kingdom, is literally a reference to "The Throne of Glory" the New Jerusalem itself, when it is established on this earth at the start of the Millennium (Vol 3 pg 39). Thus, the Stone cut out of the Mountain, is the restoration of the Theocracy via the Davidic House and Covenant and its Vice Regency, because, "The change from a Stone to a Mountain is unsuitable to Christ." (Vol 1 pg 683). The restored mortal nation and its Capitol City the Old Jerusalem will be built up during the Millennium (Songs 8:8-14), into a Mountain (Kingdom) because of the Kingdom of Y'shua represented by this very Mountain.

This is why, throughout the Word, there are scattered references to the Lord having two armies (a Heavenly one that returns with Him as in Rev 19 etc, and an earthly one composed of mortals from Ephraim and Judah as in Zech 9:11-16 which is this Stone cut out of the Mountain). The 68th Psalm is a classic example, which Peters (quoting three different sources, one of which is a Jewish Rabbi - Vol 3 pg 20) says could be translated as, "The Horsemen of God are two companies of myriads" and may not Ezekiel 37 describe this earthly army, along with other passages in the Word (the Armies of the King in Matt 22:7 that exact justice on the murders, and notice especially Is 60:22 where a Small One (The Stone) becomes a "Strong Nation" which is exactly the same phrase used in Joel 2:5 as "A Strong Nation set in Battle Array," again a possible further reference to Ez 37). And in the chaos of those events, the ability of Prince David to be able to coordinate the earthy army in tandem with Y'shua and His Heavenly Army, would be of the utmost importance for the nation itself. This ability to communicate with the Lord is amply illustrated in my post Theoferrum. And, I might add, this dual army is exactly portrayed for us in the vision of George Washington and America's final battle where the Heavenly army assists the earthly army to rid the country of the enemy invaders.

The author rejects this Vice Regency solely because Christ is not "introduced" in the passages in Ezekiel which he should be if this is the Millennial Reign of Messiah (not-with-standing his additional arguments that have already been more than amply addressed - Vol 2 pg 207). However, Mr. Peters failed to realize that Y'shua is introduced (chap 43) for the Lord here is Y'shua, visiting the mortals from the New Jerusalem (see my post Mt. Zion). He then goes on to say, therefore, that this promise to Prince David in Ezekiel is simply conditional and because the Jews didn't repent (?) when they came back from Babylon, that the prophecy will never be fulfilled (even after stating that the Temple will be rebuilt "with a magnificence (see Is 60 etc) superior to the former" which he derived from Hag 2:9 - Vol 2 pg 496), which he then subsequently contradicts by stating that it will be fulfilled by the Church offering Spiritual Sacrifices (along with a whole host of other Millennial predictions that also are not conditional - Is 2:3, 60:1-22, 61:6, Jer 30:17-22, 33:18-21, Zech 14:16-21 which positively show the restoration of the Mos. Cov.) all of which he then lumps under the very technical and professional (please give me some authority) term "Hypocatastasis" (Vol 3 pg 89), which is nothing more than the Spiritualization (Hypercomatosis?) method of interpretation that he demolishes in Vol 1.

The conditionality of these passages is refuted by the same rebuttals presented respecting the same in the Mosaic Covenant, and we have removed the motivation and authority for making them conditional (for Y'shua is the main personage of the passages that the Prince and People are waiting for - chap 44). The reason the Scriptures could not be more specific was so that the Nation could be put in the most favorable position for repentance at the First Advent (Vol 1 pg 364) which would not have been possible if Ezekiel had described the Mill Glory of the Messiah, as such, here.

"The entire tenor of the prediction in its relation to the Prince, the Priests, the Sacrificers, etc., makes a decided impression that it describes a continuation of the Mosaic Ritual, not retrospectively or commemoratively but prospectively in the form instituted under Moses and retained by David (e.g. Ez 45:17-25)." (Vol 3 pg 87)

Here, it is clear from his own Literal Interpretation, that the Mosaic Covenant is restored during the (tribulation and) Millennium, including the animal sacrifices (though with some very interesting and prophetical changes...), which is the real reason that authors try to explain away these passages. For, we know from Barnabas (writer of Hebrews - see the Son of Consolation in the Biography Section) that it was never possible for the blood of animals to cleanse our spirits from sin, so they fail to see (now that the Sacrifice that can do so has been offered) why God would allow them to be restored which they consider a personal affront to God. However, they are not looking at this from God's perspective (through the Eternal Spirit - Heb 9:14), for this sacrifice in God's Eyes was "slain from the foundation of the World" (1 Pet 1:20). Thus, this sacrifice was the first sacrifice slain, and these people should actually be asking themselves, why did God allow animal sacrifices in the first place.

Part of the reason was as a "schoolmaster" to bring us (mortal men) to Messiah, which will still be true of those mortals born during the tribulation and Millennium. As some Theologians say, they were "prospective" looking forward (in our view) to the Cross, so, as some say, these are retrospective, looking back to his sacrifice, which is assuredly another part of the equation. Another part that all miss is that, when these sacrifices are restored, it is to supply the needs of the Priesthood, the Levites who have no inheritance in the land and must, therefore, derive their sustenance from the people of the nation. Also, they don't just go kill the animals and burn them up, but the Priests and People partook (1 Cor 9:13) of the Altar (how many cows does Burger King 'sacrifice' every day?). As long as the Levitical Priesthood lasts, then, to some extent, so too will the Tithes and Offerings and (temporarily) these Sacrifices.

The reason for their (temporary) cessation was because it would have been impossible for the Gentile Christians, in their totality, to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year to offer these sacrifices, along with the nation itself; thus, the logical conclusion and authoritative ordinance by the Apostles (Mt 16:19, Acts 15), that the Gentile believers did not have to fulfill the Levitical requirements. So, since Y'shua knew this, as well as the coming destruction of the Temple complex anyways (Dan 9), he made provision for this lack, which we call the Lord's supper, drawn from His Passover Sacrifice. It is also true that these same Gentile believers are predicted to receive their glorified bodies before this restoration, so that there will be no need, in this (near) future sinless condition to ever fulfill the Levitical ordinances. The Church, then, are the inheritors of the Kingdom, which is not the same as the mortals who are the subjects of the Kingdom ("flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom" - mortals). Thus, Peters quotes, "Tyng (He will come, pg 159) correctly observes: 'It is a very false representation of Scripture which pictures the Church as subjects of the Coming Kingdom. They shall indeed acknowledge a submission to their Lord, but toward the inhabitants of the earth they will assert a majesty. For this they will have been qualified by their glorification, and to this they have even now been assigned by prophecy and promise.'" (Vol 2 pg 574)

Thus, for the Church the Mos. Cov. has been set aside, but to the mortals of the nation during the tribulation and into the Millennium there will still be a need for this law of the schoolmaster to bring them to maturity in Messiah before their own glorification ( thus, mortals are servants to the Law and immortals are Sons of the Law - Gal 4:1-2 etc, and note the verse that says of this mortal nation that they will be circumcised in the flesh and in the spirit at that time Dt 30 etc).

Now, the need for provision in the Lord's Supper can be understood by Peter's word concerning how Baptism saves us, "not by putting away the sins of the flesh but by the answer of a clear conscience before God." Even though Y'shua's blood has cleansed our spirits from sin, the need for continual "foot washing" of the conscience in this (still) fallen world remains; the guilt (a product of the conscience - Watchman Nee "The Spiritual Man") still remains. The Key to understanding the ordinances of the animal sacrifices and the Lord's Passover is found here. This gives us something we can do to clear our consciences after Y'shua's blood has cleansed our spirits (implied in Heb 9:13 where "flesh" includes the mind or conscience - W. Nee). This then frees us for fellowship with him and each other as a community, and this will always be the case for mortals living in a fallen world, including during the Millennium. If a person understands this penitent sacrificial system, then there remains no problem with the reinstitution of them as is predicted in the Word. And, actually, this is the only logical explanation of why God allowed them in the first place. [2]

1 The Son of Man :

http://theoferrumii.geocities.master.com/texis/master/search/showmsg.html?id=46ddc96016&q=%22son+of+man%22#m46ddc96016

2 The Theocratic Sacrifices :

http://theoferrumii.geocities.master.com/texis/master/search/showmsg.html?id=46f97c1e11&q=%22theocratic+sacrifices%22#m46f97c1e11

Theocratic Covenant : Transferral

2009-12-19T13:59:00.003-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (11)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

T R A N S F E R R A L :

"The Kingdom of God is expressly covenanted to the seed of Abraham (but to the faithful obedient seed); now how can the covenanted promises respecting the Kingdom in this line be carried out into realization when the nation embracing that seed is rejected?...Can the nation or people who are to specially receive what the Jewish nation then lost by its non-repentance, obtain it without any reference to the Abrahamic And Davidic Covenants, i.e. without, in some way, becoming, by adoption, or engrafting, or incorporation, the seed of Abraham? Remember that God confirmed his promises by oath, and that He is faithful - not given to variableness or change - and, therefore, unless these questions can be satisfactorily and consistently answered, so that the promise still runs in the covenanted Abrahamic line, there would be a sad and unwarranted deficiency somewhere." (Vol 1, pg 387)

There is one last, great link in the Theocratic Chain that must be understood and so I include it in this series and that is the Transferral of the Kingdom (Mt 21:43) to "Another Nation."

Since the offer of the restoration of the Kingdom in the person of Y'shua was rejected by the southern nation of Judah (1 K 11:11-13, 29-37; 13:16-24), the need remained to transfer it to this other northern nation of Ephraim (Ez 23; 35:10; 37:22; Zech 11:7; Mt 21:28; Lk 22:38; John 10:16 etc), that would "bring forth the fruits thereof" which is an obvious reference to the preaching of the Gospel and harvesting souls for the Kingdom during this current Church Stewardship (dispensation if you prefer). This then kept the Election intact and engrafted Gentile believers, not into the Jewish Nation (Judah), but into the Northern Nation of Ephraim (Vol 2, pg 64 for his teaching on the Ten Lost tribes, which he never quite connected to this other nation).

This adoption of Gentiles was provided for in all three covenants, specifically as the "stranger" that gave up all to be part of this covenanted nation - Ruth the classic example. Before we get to the proof on this, it must be pointed out, that before Judah can, as a Nation (Zech 12, Jer 31 etc) receive this New Covenant, with its resultant restoration of the Theocracy, the Kingdom must be transferred back to them, as I have stated in previous posts (see Hos 4:6 etc).

This is clearly seen in Y'shua's application of Is 8:14 to himself (Lk 7:23 "offended" should read "stumble over"), and by the Apostles (1 Pet 2:28, Rom 9:32).

The significance is that "both houses [nations] of Israel" shall stumble over this stone. Now, Judah stumbled over him at the first advent, so when did Ephraim stumble over him (as a nation)?

Keep in mind that Y'air Davidy ("The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples") proved that the Magi that honored him at his birth, and the King of Parthia (same nation as the Magi), who acknowledged him as the rightful King of Israel (an ancient source says the King sent a letter to Y'shua telling him that if the Jews wouldn't have him, then to come on over and set up shop in Parthia) were actually a large portion of the Ten Lost Tribes who the Assyrians had placed between themselves and the Persians in a "buffer zone" (their modus operandi), and that over time these people gained control and rose to power (who else among the Gentiles would thus honor a Jewish King?).

Thus, at no time in the past has Ephraim as a nation stumbled over him as their rightful King (Vol 2 pg 91). In fact, Peter states just the opposite (1 Pet 2:6-10); that the nation was again "the people of God."

It would do well to ponder James' words in Acts 15:16 where "after this" is referring, in context, to this preaching of the New Covenant by Ephraim to the Gentiles. Keep in mind that James was now the Crown Prince of this Theocratic Kingdom, from an earthly standpoint.

It is extremely ominous that he quotes from the prophet to the Northern Nation (Amos 9:11) and from a passage that details the judgment on them because of this rejection at the Pretrib Rapture (vs 9:8-10).

Here I need to add that, since Ephraim went into exile in 740 BC, the Mosaic Covenant was suspended in their lives, i.e., as "wanderers among the nations" they were "divorced" from the same till the time that they received the New Covenant Nationally. Because of their divorce, they received neither the Blessings or the Curses from the Mos. Cov. which resulted in them loosing their National identity as well, and this is how God chose, in His sublime wisdom, to keep this nation hidden in the world while maintaining their bloodline (as opposed to Judah who have received both blessings and curses at various times and have always maintained their identity because of this).

Thus, when they received the New Covenant (Hos 1:10, and 1 Pet 2:10), they continued under it solely until such a time as (1) They enter their promised land (2 Sam 7:10 - which is not the land of Israel because they were already settled there; this is their second land grant that they are entitled to as firstborn; notice Hos 6:1-2 two of the Lord's Days is 2,000 yrs thus 1776 was "the third day" from their original exile), and (2) They reconfirm the Mosaic Covenant, Nationally, in some way (which many believe was fulfilled in this "Christian" "In God We Trust" "Nation").

This, however, would not be the restoration of the Theocracy proper, but the restoration of Ephraim as "The Northern Nation" as a Nation in their own land (just as they existed after the break away from Judah 1 K 13), in preparation (Vol 1, pg 587) for the re-establishment of the Theocracy, with revived Priesthood and House of David in the Land of Israel.

"Thus e.g. consider what Jesus said to the Jews (Mt 23:37-39; Lk 13:34-35), respecting his leaving their house desolate until a certain period elapsed...and until the predicted time (as e.g. Zech 12:9-14; Joel 3 etc), of their repentance and willingness to receive the Messiah. This "house" receives singular treatment at the hands of those who overlook the postponement of the Kingdom. Forgetting how this word is used in the Davidic Covenant and by the prophets, we have a variety of significations given, which are not in accordance with the covenants, or the prophets, or the facts as they existed when Jesus spoke...history shows that the Temple (as indicated by Mark 13:1,2 etc), by the additions made by Herod, was a splendid edifice, while the City and Land were far from being desolate. The same history, however, informs us what was desolate and remained desolate, viz.: the Davidic Kingdom which was overthrown, - the Davidic Tabernacle which was fallen down, - for the Jewish Nation, instead of having their former covenanted Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, were under the rulership of the Roman Emperors. This corresponds precisely with what David himself predicted, Ps 89:38-45. Let the careful student but reflect: If Jesus came to fulfill the prophets, he will use the word "house" as they employed it, and especially as it was given in the covenant. This he did, taking the word to denote the fallen Davidic House or Kingdom, which was indeed "desolate" for a long time, and, being left by him in that state, continues so to the present day." (Vol 1, pg 628)

Now the need for this continuity in the covenant chain, other than being enforced by the precedent established in ordination ceremonies under the Mosaic Economy, and the fact that Peters didn't quite hit the Bullseye on this (Vol 1, pg 409 where he makes the Church this other nation), is pertinently seen in a comparison of two of his propositions (61 and 62) where the Kingdom "is now" (present tense) given to this other Nation and then he says in the next proposition that this people "becomes the elect nation" (future tense). To some this may be a minor technicality, but one must remember one other minor technicality and that is that now our salvation is hanging in the balance (instead of on "nails fastened by the Masters of the Assemblies which are given by one Shepherd" - Ec 12:10) on these points. The Kingdom can not be given to a nation that does not yet exist, nor can, subsequently, that non-existent nation bring forth any fruits.

This harvesting the author does not specifically address, as it has been fulfilled by the Apostles and Church ("the first fruits of Asia" etc). This point alone destroys his view (prop 65) that the Kingdom is given to them (the Church) at "the gathering of the elect" at the Second Advent, for the fruits were already being gathered, and thus, the other nation, as a nation, must have already been in existence in 30 AD and received the New Covenant. I remind you that, technically, the twelve Apostles were all from north Israel (for a reason) excepting Judas, and were commissioned to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which includes the northern nation (thus typifying the 144,000 in the trib). He tries to sidestep this issue (prop 65 obs 9), but unsuccessfully; which itself supports the need for this continuity in the Covenant Chain that this great scholar of the Word intuitively felt was missing from his own chain; for, though God may "call the things that are naught as if they were" the Divine continuity has always existed in its realization in real time in the world of men - necessarily so. Thus, this link from Judah to Ephraim with the subsequent harvesting of the Gentiles, is established and maintained through the New Covenant itself, while the other three covenants are held "in abeyance."

That it is maintained on a national basis can be proven, conclusively, by the process of engrafting, which Paul, drawing from our Saviour's own typology (Acts 9:5 where "pricks" are grafted branches), expounds in Romans 9-11.

"This Kingdom of God is given, not to nations, but to one nation. This is distinctly stated, "a nation" Mt 21:43. It necessarily follows from our Scriptural propositions, and corroborates them. It is a logical sequence from the premises laid down. For, so long as one nation is chosen from among all others, and the Kingdom is covenanted by oath to that Nation, it is impossible for other nations,in their national capacity to be thus elected. It would be a violating of the most solemnly given promises and assurances." (Vol 1 pg 392)

The author breaks the force of his own statement above by, subsequently, rendering this "nation" that thus receives "the Kingdom" into "a people" (The Church) at the gathering at the end of the trib, which leaves them with no national capacity at the time of the transferral.

"The Kingdom is promised to the natural believing descendants of Abraham, and as the nation, then existing when the Kingdom was offered [emphasis mine], refused to repent in order to receive it, God must now - to carry out His purpose - raise up a nation unto Abraham, i.e. a nation in some way still related to him...the importance, therefore, of tracing His chosen nation [the Church], and ascertaining how it becomes - to insure covenanted relationship - incorporated with the elect nation, the Abrahamic people, can not be overestimated. Upon this largely depends our estimation of the covenants, the faithfulness of God, the continued election of the Jewish Nation [the remnant Rom 11:5], the design of the Church, the nature of the Kingdom, and the Inspiration and Unity of the Word." (Vol 1, pg 392)

So, the question now is, how can God engraft the believing Gentiles branches into the place where the non-believing Jewish branches were cut off if that nation was rejected, and with it, presumably, the covenants of promise? Peters tries to answer this question by saying that "the root" that they are engrafted into was the covenants themselves and their "personal interest" in them (Vol 1 pg 397), but his answer is placed in doubt by his own words.

"Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same Olive Tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow citizens of the same commonwealth...forming the same "peculiar people," "Holy Nation," and "Royal Priesthood." (Vol 1 pg 404)

Thus, it is obvious that the root is not referring to a covenant but to a person (Judah and/or Ephraim) in a National capacity at the time of the reception of the New Covenant which is, really, the only reason for the Lord to chose out twelve Apostles.

That the root is a person or a group thereof, and not the covenants themselves, can be gained from the context of the passage in three particulars. Firstly (vs 16) the root is compared with "the firstfruits" which, obviously, as used elsewhere in Scripture (Rom 8:23, 16:5, 1 Cor 15:20-23, 16:15, Jam 1:18, Rev 14:4), is referring to a group of people, which is further clarified by the "lump" being Holy, which is a reference to bread, which also is symbolic of people (Lev 23:17 compare with 1 Sam 10:4, Lev 24:5, Mt 13:33 etc) and it would be the leaven (symbolic of doctrine - good or bad - Mt 16:12) which would symbolize the covenants, and not the firstfruits.

Secondly, these Gentile branches had been cut off of a "Wild Olive Tree", which is referring to Gentile nations, none of which have a covenanted relationship with God, thus, the root would not be referring to a covenant but to the origins of the nation.

And finally, the branches that are cut off are still "beloved for the fathers' sake" not for the covenants sake. The root, then, of the Olive Tree is referring to the Patriarchs (Heb 11) and not specifically the covenants with them. The fathers are the root that is rooted in the covenants (Ps 80:9) and a further study of the use of this symbol in Scripture will be conclusive (Is 11:10, 14:10, Ez 31:7, Hos 9:16, Mal 4:1, Mt 13:6, Rom 15:12, Rev 5:5, 22:16 etc).

The fact that the Patriarchs became "an Holy Nation" shows us that, taken with the entire context in Rom 11, the root is, in fact, the commonwealth of Israel and further that, in order for the Gentiles to be grafted into this root, this nation, this commonwealth, when the southern nation was cut off, this other nation already in the covenanted line must have been a nation at that time (via descendency from Abraham and reception of Y'shua as their national Messiah), in order to transfer the Kingdom to them, from Judah, exactly as it will be when transferred back to Judah as prophesied (Vol 1 pg 600). Therefore, this nation is not the Church but can only be the nation of Ephraim.

That this is assuredly the case can be proven also from the "parable" of the Barren Woman and the Married Wife (Is 54), of which Peters says, "Surely, if ever fancy or imagination has had full play in exegesis, it has been on this Scripture." (Vol 2 pg 130)

However, his own attempt only confuses the passage and the women involved, as a comparison with Gal 4:26-27 proves. For, Paul makes the Jerusalem above the Barren Woman, and the earthly Jerusalem the Married Wife (under the Mosaic economy). Peters feels this inconsistency in his own view (just the opposite of Paul's) by saying that Paul "looked in faith" to the Married Wife and his inheritance, and further by emphasizing the interpretation by the "general analogy" as opposed by the immediate context. Both are necessary, and the correct understanding of the immediate context should then be understood as to how it relates to the broader general analogy of Scripture.

The confusion is simply due to the lack of understanding that these two women are two nations - Ephraim and Judah (Ez 23 proves this). Judah was never divorced (Jer 3 and Is 49 where the question about the bill of divorcement is to emphasize the fact that Judah was never given one - Vol 2 pg 133), but Ephraim was divorced (Jer 3 - the two sisters again, vs 8 specifies Ephraim's divorce, see also Hos 1:9-10, 2:2 etc). Thus, the northern nation of Ephraim is this Barren Woman (which Peters shows is a reference to a people whose land has been laid desolate as was Ephraim's by the Assyrians prior to the time of Isaiah's writing), who is to bring forth more children than the Married Wife (could not this be a specific reference by our Lord to "the other nation" and this very passage?), or the southern nation of Judah.

This, in context, is referring to the preaching of the Gospel of the New Covenant and thus "Bringing forth the fruit thereof." The chapter previous (53) is, of course, the Theocratic Sacrifice of Y'shua, then this Barren Women becomes remarried here in chapter 54 under the New Everlasting Covenant (vs 13 compare Jer 31:34 and 3:12-14 and Ez 16:60), which is described in the very next chapter (55) as "the sure mercies of David." The children (fruits) here referred to, would thus be the "Children" of Gal 4 or the engrafted Gentiles under this New Covenant. But Judah also will receive this everlasting covenant (Jer 30-33, Ez 16) and also Ephraim will be brought back under "the rod" of the Mosaic Covenant (Ez 20:33-38 probably specifically those of the nation that relocate to the promised land as I don't think the nation of Ephraim in its entirety will), I would guess, as a result of their rejection of Y'shua Messiah in some way ("My Lord delays his return"?), and thereby stumbling over him. This will then, subsequently, require the stumbling stone to be taken out of the way (Is 57 by putting it back in its proper place as the cornerstone) of both Judah and Ephraim during the trib (note the stranger of chapter 56 is the Male Child of Rev 12 and the Leader here in 55:4; and the eunuchs of chapter 56 are the 144,000 - these two will be instrumental in this work, especially helping Ephraim recognize his true ancestry), which is described in the next chapters (58-59) and into the Millennium (60). Not only does this view clear up any contradictions between Peters and Paul, but it brings a unity to this section of Isaiah, which should lead to a greater understanding of the book as a whole.

Both of these women are further symbolized by the story in 1 K 13, where only the wisdom of Solomon could tell them apart. The first woman was lying. Her child (type of Y'shua) was born, then three (of the Lord's) days later the other (male child of the apocalypse) was born ("the crown of the head of him that was separated from his brethren" Gen 49:26).

Then, the first woman "smothered" her child (crucifixion leads to asphyxiation), but craftily left him in her own bed and then accused the other woman (who represents Ephraim - notice both these women are called harlots as both nations committed adultery against God by worshiping idols), of killing her own child ("The same judgment you judge other with you are guilty of yourself"), and switching them.

Subsequently, the kid was just about torn in two (Ez 37) and threatened with the Sword of Judgment (Dan 11:22, Ps 116 etc).

And, I will add, that these same two women are assuredly the two women of Zech 5 that take a third woman back to Babylon to "build it a house on its own base" (Rev 17-18), which preview was just seen on the sixth day of the sixth month (Sept 3rd) of this year and their "war on terrorism" when, for the first time in 2500 years, Babylon made the International News.

And, that leads to the obvious conclusion that these three women are also the three sisters of Ez 16 (where the Return of Sodom is symbolical of the endtimes return of Babylon - Vol 2 pg 82). This is strengthened by the judgments of Edom (where Sodom was) and Babylon (Jer 49:17-21, 50:40-46) using the exact word-for-word typology (poor of the flock, noise of the fall etc) and comparing both to Sodom (49:18, 50:40).

All of this, now, can be further supported by the transferral of "the keys" of the Kingdom to Peter. When taken together: "I will give the Kingdom to another nation" and "It is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" and "I give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom" shows that an actual transferral of Kingdom Authority occurred, and thus "The Kingdom" was transferred from the Nation of Judah to the Nation of Ephraim via Peter, the Apostles and the New Covenant.

I feel the need to state here that in the transferral back to Judah, in preparation for the restoration of the Theocracy, and the re-unification of the two nations (Ez 37), that God ordains the 144,000 who are responsible for the salvation of "The Great Multitude." For any of them that might read this; in reference to conversions (Rev 12:17, 14:13 etc) and a public demonstration of the same, due to the nature of the case, I would assume that any Christians left behind (and there will be plenty in America and Europe) would need to be re-baptized under your authority (1 Pet 3:21), having been cut off from the body ("true vine" John 15:6) of Messiah. They, and actually yourselves and any Gentiles saved during the trib, are no longer part (specifically) of the Bride, but are now "children of the Bride chamber" (or as I like to call it, Children of the Kingdom), as far as I can tell. If any reject, and since Paul compared our baptism with Y'shua to that of the Israelites to Moses (1Cor 10:1-12), remind them that 40 yrs later the people were baptized unto Joshua when they crossed the Jordan and entered the promised land (Josh 3).

As far as communion; you will still be offering it to any new coverts, but for left-behind Christians, I really don't think any of us can make a change to that ordinance without Y'shua's direct command. The problem may occur that some might (in their conscience) consider that they are re-crucifying Messiah. A possible modification may be to use water (John 19:34 and compare other verses that combine "bread and water" in the Word - there are more than you might think). But, perhaps, the best would be for them to abstain from "the fruit of the vine" until they can drink it "anew" in the Kingdom with Y'shua (which some have stated may be a reference to the vow of a Nazarite - Num 6).

The transferral of the Kingdom to Ephraim specifically for the purpose of "bringing forth the fruit thereof" is the whole purpose for the two parables of the two sons (Mt 21:28 and Lk 15:11). In Matthew, a certain man (God the Father) had two sons (present tense - Ephraim and Judah), he asked "the first" (Ephraim the firstborn - Jer 31:9 and note the significance of this birthrite being recorded in the passage of the New Covenant as well as in this parable) to work in the vineyard and ("bring forth the fruits thereof") he said no (Assyrian Exile), but then repented (First Advent). The second son (Judah) said, "I go" (First Advent), but then didn't (Roman Exile).

Note that this shows the transferral from Judah to Ephraim, and the second parable notes the transferral, because of the sin of Ephraim, back to Judah, when the Kingdom will be restored ("all that I have is yours" - Judah's vs 31). Again, notice the precision of the Holy Spirit in these two parables for, though Ephraim was the "younger son" who became the prodigal, he was still the firstborn son of the previous parable, with Judah being the second, though older son, who inherits his father's Kingdom. This should indicate to us that with Ephraim/America wasting the inheritance (biggest debtor country in the world), and experiencing a (global depression/war induced) famine (Rev 6:5), then here in America, we can expect this prophecy to soon be realized in the life of this nation. And notice, especially that, he remembered whose son he was at that time.

This view, by the way, and only this view, consistently clears up all of the remaining parables that are still hotly contested.

"To appreciate the parables in all their fullness it is absolutely necessary to keep in view the covenant and the divine purpose in its fulfillment, as shown in previous propositions...the parables having reference to the Kingdom of God must, as is the case, have reference to the rejection of Jesus and the consequences resulting therefrom, otherwise they would not be adapted to meet the exigencies of Christ's position...The change from the direct form of teaching to the parabolic which excited the astonishment (Mark 13:10) of the disciples is readily accounted for in view of this contemplated postponement, especially when it is considered that the parabolic form was introduced (so numerous Harmonies) after the representative men of the nation had commenced consulting and conspiring against Jesus. Because of the moral obliquity (Mt 13:13) evidenced by the nation, He now teaches in parables in order that they may remain in it (Mk 4:12), and carry out their plans to the end...the direct appeal being rejected, repentance being refused by the nation, the postponement of the Kingdom and the processes in preparation for its ultimate re-establishment demand the veilment of the parabolic." (Vol 1 pgs 16,21)

Not all of these parables directly apply to the Church Age (The Sower - Mt13, Mk 4, Lk 8; The Wheat and Tares - Mt 13:24; The Wicked Servant - Mt 18:21; The First and Last - Mt 20:1; The Tower - Lk 14:28; The Dutiful Servants - Lk 17:7; The True Vine - John 15:1 etc), but some to the Rejection (The Vineyard - Mt 21:33, Mk 12:1, Lk 20:9); the Rapture (The Humble Guest - Lk 14:7, The Sheepfold - John 10:1); and the Harvest (The Tribulation: The Net - Mt 13:47 which is basically the same symbolism as The Snare that springs shut at the Pretrib Rapture - Lk 21:35; The Woman in Travail - John 16:21; The Dry Tree - Lk 23:31) and even into the Millennium itself. Thus, Y'shua does not reiterate, in another parable, the same stages but further reveals the progress of the Kingdom from the postponement to its restoration. There is a consistency in interpreting these parables, founded in the first ones given (Mk 4:13) that should be maintained throughout.

THE TREASURE (Ex 19:5, Ps 135:4) hid in the field ("the field is the world") is Ephraim as a "wanderer among the nations" of the world for the last 2700 years.

THE PEARL of great price, as a product of the Sea (a type of the Gentile nations - Dan 7 etc), is the Gentile Christians grafted into Ephraim which is why the Lord linked these two parables together. Judah would be "the Jewel" in Scripture (Ez 16:12, Mal 3:17 etc) which probably includes the Antediluvian Patriarchs (Heb 11), and wasn't included here because of their rejection of the first offer. Notice that neither Judah, the Church or the Pearl was "hidden" only Ephraim - The Treasure was (compare Is 49:2 where the Lord is Y'shua and thus the arrow is someone else, and other passages that contain "hidden" things).

These assuredly correspond with the THREE MEASURES OF MEAL that the woman (Holy Spirit - The Wisdom of Proverbs) hides the leaven (Doctrine of the Kingdom - The Covenants), which emphasizes the individuality between the Israelite, Church and Trib Saints, but also that, they are, after all, really the same.

The Parable of the BLADE, GRASS AND EAR showing the growth of this diverse community from start to finish (emphasizing the climax at the end of the age and harvest) in its consistency and unity (and may even entail a reference to the three previous covenants themselves, for aught we know).

The Restoration of the Kingdom is described by the Parable of the MUSTARD SEED (where a seed can be the symbol of a person - John 12:24) which "a man took" (Rapture - exact same word), and sowed (The Sower is the Lord - Mk 13:37) "in his garden" (Land of Israel) and it grew to be a shady tree (Ps 1, Jer 17) for the Fowls of the air (Good angels and Glorified Saints - Mt 13:4,9 compare Mt 24:28 etc and see Vol 2 pg 618 noting especially John 1:51 which is still future for its greatest fulfillment and see my posts on angels in achieves). For the mature, take note that the mustard seed is "THE LEAST of all seeds" sown, and compare other verses with this same phrase (Zech 4:10, Jer 49:20, 50:45, Am 9:9, Mt 11:11, 25:40 etc). Notice there is no mention of the sower "taking" the good seed at the start of the Church Age, as opposed to this "least" seed. That this is not referring to the Church Age can further be seen in the fact that, contrary to popular misinterpretation, the mustard seed is a very fast growing plant and sprouts leaves in 24 hours. This is indicative of the speed of the restoration of the Theocracy during the trib. I remind you that mustard is used to induce vomiting (Rev 3:16).

This, then, clears up the Parable of THE DRESSER of this same "garden" or "vineyard" ("The Least in the Kingdom" Mt 11:11) who persuades his Lord (Y'shua) to hold off cutting down THE NEW FIG TREE (the third year of the trib after confirming the Mosaic Covenant at the start of the trib - Lev 19:23-24, Mt 24:32 where "generations" should read "age") until it has been fertilized into the fourth year (of the trib when the Antichrist breaks "The Holy Covenant" Dan 9:27). This individual, than, is THE PORTER Mk 13:34 who watches for the Lord and opens the door for him; the Doorkeeper of the Psalms which means, literally, "to snatch away"; as well as possibly THE GOOD SERVANT of Lk 12:39; and THE FAITHFUL SERVANT made ruler over the Household in Lk 12:42 see next section for more on this aspect).

And, is not the ministry of the 144,000 to the left-behind Christians portrayed by the Parable of THE PERSISTENT FRIEND (Lk 11:5 where "children" are again engrafted Gentiles and New Converts of Lk 18:16 etc - The Children of the Kingdom), as well as in the third sending of the servants in the Parable of the supper (Lk 14:17) after the second group was already gathered into the wedding hall (vs 22 at the Pretrib Rapture -i.e. first group was the disciples to Israel with the second group being the Apostles to the World and thus this third group can only be the 144,000 to the World during the trib).

And here we have a marked contrast from THE GREAT SUPPER and THE MARRIAGE FEAST of Mt 22:1, which indicates the two stages of the Return (as a close study of the context of Luke will confirm - emphasizing both a "supper" and a "feast" twice each), as well as the sequence of events for both houses of Israel. However, this can only be seen by a very close comparison between the two, as a running synopsis. The clue to unraveling these is the two phrases "poor, maimed, lame and blind" which is repeated (Lk 14:13 and 21) for a specific reason, and "come, for all things are now ready" (Mt 22:4 and Lk 14:17).

These are two separate accounts (Luke's takes place at a dinner in a Pharisee's house and Matthew's after the triumphal entry has occurred), showing that he gave two separate and distinct Parables, giving us two different aspects of the return. You have the Marriage Feast at the end of the Tribulation, and the Great Supper at the beginning of the trib. And here is the breakdown (necessary, especially now, as this Parable is, perhaps, the most important one in the precise time we are at and because this account in Matt. is the passage that contains the transferral of the Kingdom which is the Key to the Kingdom, if you will, without which the Bible is left in the obscurity of the parabolic.

In Luke's account a certain man makes a Great Supper and sends his servants to bid his quests saying "Behold all things are now ready." They made excuses and would not come. The servants returned to the Lord and told him and he was angry. This was the first offer of the Kingdom to Judah (by the 12 and the 70 in the Gospels) which they rejected, resulting in the postponement of the Kingdom (or the supper if you will). This is synonymous with the first sending of the servants in Matthew's account (22:1). So then, (in Luke), he sends the servants the second time into the streets and lanes to get "the poor, maim, lame and blind" which they do, proclaiming the second time "all things are now ready," and gather them in (Pretrib Rapture), but there was still room. This is the offer of the Kingdom (or supper) to Ephraim and the Gentiles during this Church Age. However, in Matthew's account there is now a significant change in the result of the second sending of the servants and that is that they made excuses and some even killed some of the servants (one of the Doves just posted on this very subject), which caused the King to send out his Armies (plural - Hos 13) and destroyed the murders and their city. This is referring to Ephraim and not Judah, which is proven by the fact that there is no postponement this time, but the king specifically re-iterates that at that time (of this destruction) "the wedding is ready" and he then sends out the third set of servants into "the highways" (both accounts) to compel them in, which is the 144,000 during the trib (after some had already been gathered in). Luke's account very accurately records the postponement of the Kingdom and the transferral of the Kingdom from Judah to Ephraim and Matthew's account records the loss of the Kingdom by Ephraim and its return to Judah. This is further proven by the context of Matthew. He tells us about the two sons showing Judah's non-repentance, which resulted in the vineyard parable and the death of the Son (and their destruction by their own words) then the transferral of the Kingdom is stated along with the Stumbling Stone (to both houses of Israel) which reminded Y'shua that in the future Ephraim also would stumble over him, prompting this Parable of the Supper, which shows the rejection by Judah and the rejection by Ephraim which results in their judgment. The judgment of Judah is not repeated in this Parable because he just go done describing it in the vineyard Parable.

This is a very precise and detailed description of our Lord and it further supports all I have said in this section and, for those who do not generalize the precise Word of God, but take every word as inspired, then there is no other way to reconcile the differences in those two feast Parables then what I have set forth here. The Holy Spirit will bear witness to those who "have ears to hear." However, this view will only be strengthened as we proceed.

The attitude of THE PRODIGAL (America) and THE RICH BARN BUILDER (Lk 12:16) with the ground that brought forth "plentifully" (the breadbasket of the world - I hear that interest rates are at an all time low for those who are interested in refinancing their barns). It is terribly ominous that the owner of the barns was planing on tearing his old barns down so he could build a new one, which explains the judgment on that "night" ("The Morning Comes" the Rapture, "but also the Night" the trib). They will feel the edge on that one.

THE STORM CLOUD that rises in the West (Lk 12:54 probably began to rise around Nisan of this year - note the south wind that brings the judgment in the summer/fall/hurricane season - i.e. West of Israel is Europe and this is probably a veiled reference to the revival of the Roman Empire in the near future by the people who run this world described as "They" in Daniel's Vision of the Four Beasts and these are the ones who are planning the New World Order out of Chaos and thus equate to the Rich Barn Builder above), is very probably this judgment on Ephraim at the start of the trib - "judgment begins at the house of the Lord" - Church at Rapture, Ephraim at the very start of the Trib, Judah at the halfway point and the Gentiles at the end), and this transferral back to Judah.

The ONE LOST SHEEP is assuredly a reference to Ephraim as the leader of the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel (Lk 15:4), confirmed immediately by the Parable of THE TEN LOST COINS (the ten northern tribes under Ephraim), just before the Parable of the Prodigal which further emphasizes this conclusion.

These ten tribes, many of them which get left behind, are also clearly seen in THE TEN VIRGINS (Mt 25:1), who are no longer part of the Bride, but would be considered friends of the Bride and, therefore, children of the Bride chamber. According to the ancient custom (see post in achieves The Wedding Procession) these virgins would wait for the Groom and Bride to "return from the wedding" (THE WAITING SERVANTS - Lk 12:35) that took place at the Bride's parent's house. These children of the Bride chamber would be waiting near the Groom's new house, at which point they would enter in and have a Marriage Supper (there had already occurred a Feast at the Bride's Parents house). Many confuse the oil with the Holy Spirit, however, a Lamp is a type of the spirit of a man (Prov 20:20). Now, the wise virgins took extra oil with them in a separate vessel, as well as the oil already in their lamps. The unwise only took the amount of oil that they thought would be enough. The attitude of complacent believers who only do enough "good works" ("Let you light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify you father which is in heaven" - Mt 5:16), to earn the name "Christian" or in this case, "A child of the Kingdom" or "Friend of the Groom." By their attitude they show that they are really not believers. The wise, however, continue to produce good works continually, regardless of circumstances, because they love the Groom. However, this indicates that the Ten Lost Tribes themselves may be left out of the Kingdom Proper (like some from Judah - Mt 8:11 etc), if they are not totally committed to the Lord, which is the purpose for the Parable of THE WAR (Lk 14:31), indicative of this very 'wedding' procession, from Sinai to Armageddon.

It was Judah who, in the Parable of THE SHREWD SERVANT, after rejecting Y'shua, got kicked out of his position of authority (Lk 16:1) and sought "everlasting habitations" among the nations that they had previously traded with in imports and exports. And they are also seen in the Parable of THE RICH MAN (Lk 16:19) with poor Lazarus typifying the Remnant of Judah (1 Cor 16:3). This remnant itself is pictured in the Parable of THE PERSISTENT WIDOW (Lk 18:1) which represents a city (Jerusalem) that is destroyed by foreign invasion (Lam 1:1). It may also represent widowed America shortly after the Trib. Perhaps the immediate context might yield more insight for those interested.

"A Christian cannot thus object, because God, who is all-wise and merciful, undoubtedly selects the best methods by which (in the briefest time, consistent with man's moral freedom and His own Purposes), to attain to the ultimate Redemption of the world with the least loss and with the greatest honor to His moral government. Hence we, unable to grasp the innumerable details and principles underlying a Divine Plan only partially unfolded, should not set ourselves up as judges and arbiters of the matter, but simply receive the mode indicated by the Word itself." (Vol 1 pg 410)

And when we follow Mr. Peters advice, and lay aside our preconceived Theological blinders, and search the Scriptures in faith, waiting for the Illumination of the same by the Holy Spirit, then most, if not all, questions will be more than wonderfully answered.

Look at one last parable with me (Lk 19:11). A Nobleman (Y'shua) went into a far country (Israel at the reorganization at the start of the trib - Rev 4-5, Dan 7:13 when the Ancient of days "came" - as seen from Ephraim's perspective at "the ends of the Earth" where Y'shua knew they would wander to) to receive a Kingdom and commanded THE TEN SERVANTS (The Ten Lost Tribes via the 144,000) to occupy. Notice there is no death of the Nobleman and/or his son, only that "his citizens" hated him, and said we will not have this man rule over us. After he received the Kingdom and returned (end of trib) he commanded the servants be called (gathering of the elect by the angels at the end of the trib Mt 24:31), they are rewarded and then his enemies slain. Now notice the other differences between this parable and the other one in Mt 25:14.

One is given before he entered Jerusalem (which, like Zacheus and his friends represent the ten lost tribes who also are "the children of Abraham" Is 63:16, and any Gentile converts), and the other to the disciples on the Olivet discourse (representing the remnant of Judah - notice no specific number of servants as the other account). This latter represents the preaching during the Church Age when Ephraim was still lost and the former, after the Pretrib Rapture, when Ephraim's identity (America and other Anglo-Saxons countries and other small groups scattered to the four winds) is manifested (as Joseph was to his brothers during the Seven Bad Years). Also note the "long time" of Matthew's (The 2,000 yr long Church Age) is lacking from Luke's account, and nothing of the citizens (remnant of Judah) hating him and not wanting him to rule over them (when they receive him as Messiah at end of trib). The reference to the reception of the Kingdom is lacking from Matthew's account because he does not receive the Kingdom during the Church Age (as Peters proves) but only during the trib (Rev 4-5).

The reason for the second one (in Luke) was not as a witness against the rejecting nation, but because his disciples thought that the Kingdom was to "immediately appear" so he showed them when they could expect the Kingdom - after the Ten Lost Tribes had been identified in the end days (see also Lk 17:12).

Thus is the incredible detail and accuracy in the Word of the Holy Spirit. For Matt was to the Jewish Nation and Luke to the Northern Nation. Notice also that the first servant in Matthew only doubled his talent but the one in Luke multiplied his pound by tenfold. The pound is only about 1/6th of a talent and this shows the foundational work of the Apostles as compared with the 144,000 (compared to the wall of the city where the gates in the wall are made of Pearl - Gentile engraftees). This indicates the success of the Gospel preaching of the 144,000 assuredly harvesting the results of the shock of the Pretrib Rapture on a sleeping world caught unawares. The previous servants are rewarded as rulers over many things, the latter over cities (assuredly in the countries they ministered in). This is the Apostles ruling over the 12 Tribes at the Rapture (rewarded - proven by "enter into the joy of your Lord" - reception of Glorified bodies), and not to the 144,000 (who are possibly still mortals at the end of the trib - Rev 14). Thus compare Lk 17:10 (Church Age Saints at Rapture) and Luke 12:37 (Trib Saints at Return) "after the wedding." One group he reckoned with (directly at Rapture) and the other group in Luke's passage he called to have brought before him at the end of the trib (gathering by the angels of the elect).

This last Parable leads me to believe that judgment upon America will occur, not when we turn our backs on Israel per sae, but when we stumble over the Scandalon and publicly and politically and religiously as a nation reject God as our "King" or "Messiah" which God being Y'shua bar Y'hova (How is the Ten Commandments thing coming along?). Thus, when we say, "we will not have this man rule over us" then the transferral back to Judah will occur and judgment will fall on Ephraim (see 1 Pet 4:17) at the Rapture and start of the Birth pains or "The Beginnings of Sorrows."

Theocratic Covenant : Suspension

2009-12-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (10)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

S U S P E N S I O N :

"So that, in the very nature of the case, the Mosaic Covenant being also a legitimate, but yet inferior, resultant of the previous covenant, it must itself, when the original covenant is to be fulfilled, give place to its superior." (Vol 1, pg 312)

We have previously shown that the Mos. Cov., as the Ab. and Dav., is a perpetual oath-bound covenant that initiated the Theocracy. Thus, in these particulars, the Mosaic Covenant is equal to the latter two. So, we must understand how Peters equates this covenant as being "inferior" to these others, or that it will "give place" to its superior (which statement is unsupported by Scripture, being pure inference).

"God's purpose to establish a Theocratic Kingdom will not fail because of its being conditionally set up at Mt. Sinai; that if the Jews rebel against their King and He gives them up to punishment, yet His promise to Abraham - which we see here already takes the form of an outward, external, real Theocratic Kingdom - will ultimately be carried into successful accomplishment." (Vol 1, pg 312)

The only inferiority presented by the author is that this Mos. Cov. is not currently being fulfilled and thus implies that it never will be, but that the Ab. and Dav. will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. This argument can be overturned by two points; that neither the Ab. or Dav. covenants are currently being fulfilled EITHER, and that non-fulfillment is no proof of dis-annulment of a covenant (his own proof - Vol 1, pg 303 etc).

"The fact of his [Abraham's] not inheriting is plainly stated in the Scriptures, and that we are directed to the future, to the resurrection period, for its fulfillment...to say that all this was fulfilled in the occupation of Palestine by the preparatory or initiatory possession of it by the descendants of Abraham, is not only contradicted by Scripture, but is a virtual limiting of the promise. Kurtz...observes, what History attests, that the descendants never possessed the land promised to Abraham from the Nile to the Euphrates...It is only by a perversion of facts that a fulfillment can be made out, although it is attempted under the reigns of David and Solomon." (Vol 1, pgs 297-8)

Here we note that the Ab. Cov. is not currently being fulfilled, nor was it fulfilled in the time of Abraham, and it was not fulfilled under the Mosaic Economy (which is his point for the inferiority of the Mosaic Covenant), nor was it fulfilled under the Davidic Economy. This, by his reasoning, implies the inferiority of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants and their dis-annulment similarly to his view of the Mosaic. Taken altogether, however, it shows us that they will all be fulfilled in God's time - not that one is inferior to the other, for they all failed by unbelief, which failure required the advent of One who would not fail and thus would fulfill all the covenants.

It would be well to point out that the arguments in the New Testament concerning the Mosaic Covenant and the Church's relation to the same, were designed to show that the Church was not subject to the ordinances and not to prove that it had been "abrogated" (to abolish by authoritative action). To try and prove the latter design, using the arguments from the former is to take liberties with the Word that he (and all others) doesn't have the Scriptural Authority to do, as he himself admits (Vol 1, pg 634) stating that there was no "direct verbal abrogation of the Mosaic institutions" which is conclusive, for, if the Mos. Cov. was confirmed forever by the oath of God Himself, then it would require (Gal 3:15) a direct command from God Himself to abolish it, which the author states elsewhere as "the most precise and determinate instructions should be presented, affirming the same. Now the lack of these is evidence of the correctness of our position." (Vol 1, pg 230), in reference to the abrogation of the Ab. Cov. that some teach.

Since this command was never given, then it is folly to suggest that the Mosaic Covenant has been repealed or abolished, just as it would be of the Abrahamic or Davidic or even of the New. Thus, as far as Israel goes (Judah), they are "estranged" from God (Ez 14:5, Jer 19:4), and all three covenants are held in suspension or abeyance, as the alloted curses run their course. But none of the covenants have been voided, nor can they ever be.

Theocratic Covenant : Conditionality

2009-12-19T13:56:00.000-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (9)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

C O N D I T I O N A L I T Y :

"Its provisionary and initiatory character has already been noticed, while its conditional nature is evident from the blessings and curses pronounced by Moses in Lev. and Deut...While it was the bond under which the Kingdom of God, as an earnest, was bestowed, it embraced many things which were only temporary and provisionary." (Vol 1, pg 311)

The rejection (Doctrinally) of the Mosaic Covenant is based upon a misunderstanding of the provision of the Levitical sacrifices, which they must spiritualize away. But, to authorize this process they must, in turn, prove that the Mos. Cov. itself was only temporary and thus done away with. The only way that they can do this is to over-emphasis the conditional nature of the Mosaic Covenant.

A casual reading through his section devoted to the Mos. Cov. will prove this, for, if the Mos. Cov. was inferior and to be done away with, this is the section where Scriptural proof should have been set forth. In the mere two observations under this section, no Scriptural proof is given to this belief except one reference to Hebrews which the author does not develope. Thus, his whole argument on this point is summed up in the quote above. This alone should cause one to ponder the correctness of this view which is held by most, if not all, in the Church. This, more so, coming from a writer of Peters' caliber, from a work that is exhaustive, and considered by experts to be the classic of the premill faith. This error can be easily refuted by noting that the restoration of the blessings of the Mosaic Covenant in the Kingdom prove that the covenant has not been done away with.

"Nearly everyone, in this connection, point out two things: (1) That a return to God with full allegiance to Him in the Theocratic Order, would secure a return of God's blessing (thus showing God's purpose to be a continuous one), and (2) That upon such a return at some period, indefinitely stated, in the future, this Theocratic Rule - a special distinguishing privilege - is invariably connected with the nation, where God chose to place it." (Vol 1, pg 225)

And note that the "Theocratic Rule" is the Mosaic Covenant. Secondly, the fact that the Jews, to this day, are still suffering under the curses of the Mosaic covenant prove that it is still in effect. This point, actually, is not refutable. For, if the Mos. Cov. is now null and void, then the Jews would not receive either the blessings or the curses of the same. That the nation is currently suffering under the curses of the Mosaic Covenant Peters himself points out.

"Although the Jews are dispersed, under punishment for unbelief, yet there is something so distinguishing in their national relationship to the Divine Purpose that God, foreseeing all that has occurred in the past, still most graciously declares (Lev 26:44), "Yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God." Whether they believe it or not, mercy follows them for the sake of the covenant, and mercy will yet verify that covenant in the history of the nation, for "their God" has sworn it." (Vol 1, pg 288)

Note that, "That Covenant" is not the one he made with Abraham, but the one he made with "them" the nation of Israel at Mt. Sinai, which Peters, unknowingly, just stated had been sworn to by God. No further proof is necessary for this point.

"The preservation of the people is distinctly predicted, not in the possession of King, government, etc., characteristic of a nation properly organized but, in a dispersed and utterly disorganized condition, retaining national peculiarities, such as rites, practices, customs, doctrines, etc...dispersed among powerful nations, they continue to exist, while these nations disappear. Denied the privilege of living under their own magistrates, etc., debarred for centuries from all civil rights; suffering frequently the most terrible persecutions that ever afflicted a people; driven from country to country and made a "hissing," "by-word," etc., among nations not wise, but cruel; in brief, enduring, as history shows, what no other nation on earth has ever passed through, yet they still remain a peculiar, distinctive people...the same nation which experienced this heavy tribulation is also, to realize the blessings of restoration. There is nothing so sad and absurd in the interpretation of the Bible as that, alas! so prevalent with many, to give all the threatenings, curses, and afflictions to the Jews, and appropriate the promises and blessings to the Gentiles, or to the Church. It is not only wrong but dishonoring to the Word, and opens a wide field of arbitrary exposition. The threatenings and reverses have been literally fulfilled, even to the minutest particular, so also must the predicted blessings, standing as they do in the same connection with this scattered, etc., people." (Vol 2, pgs 56-7)

The fact that the Gentile world and Church have unanimously labeled the wandering Jew cursed of God, is an incredible and powerful statement to the fact that the Mos. Cov. is still in force for the nation; that the conditionality relates to the blessings and curses and not to the covenant itself; and that this conditionality was designed by God to keep the Jews a distinct people wherever they wandered, and in so doing, provided for Himself a permanent witness in the world to His own existence, which was the major reason for forming them into a nation in the first place. Thus, faithful or not the intended purpose of the Mosaic Covenant is fulfilled in the nation perpetually.

Theocratic Covenant : Necessity

2009-12-19T13:54:00.002-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (8)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

N E C E S S I T Y :

"In turning back to the fountain head from whence this doctrine, this faith in a Messianic Kingdom proceeds, we only reiterate what others have most aptly stated when we invite for the covenants an absorbing interest in view of their living fundamental connection with final salvation in Christ's Kingdom...Indeed, it is universally admitted, however explained afterward, that the covenants are the proper basis of future Revelation, and that they contain in epitomized form the substance of God's purpose in reference to man's salvation, the Messiah's Kingdom and Glory, and the perfected Redemption from the curse. Hence, men of all shades of opinion agreeing in this matter, it is essential for anyone who desires to become a real student of God's word to make himself familiar with these covenants, seeing, that, in the nature of the case, all things following must correspond fully with these previously given pledges and guides. While the covenants are necessarily primary in a proper conception of the Divine Plan relating to Redemption, presenting a central idea, the reader will observe that they are Scripturally based and grammatically founded on direct oath-bound promises." (Vol 1, pg 285)

It need not be understated that the blessings of all the covenants will come to us through Y'shua Messiah who submitted Himself to the Spiritual Law of the Mosaic Covenant so as to righteously "fulfill" them and thus legally purchase our salvation. More on this will be said in the section (13) on the New Covenant, but one should deeply ponder this; that our salvation is intimately (not typically - as he proves Vol 1, pg 290-5) tied eternally to the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, the very title Messiah is proof of this for it means anointed and, "the very title implies faith and hope in the Fulfillment of the covenants" (Vol 1, pg 385), which anointing (of Kings and Priests) is a direct result of the Mosaic covenant, and not the Abrahamic or Davidic (see also Vol 2, Pgs 556-7 etc).

The ordinance of the Lord's supper alone proves this, drawn, as it is, from the Passover Supper (1 Cor 5:7); as does the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2 - Jer 31) which occurred on Pentecost - The Feast of Weeks (Lev 23) - both of which are a result of the Exodus and the Mosaic Covenant and not the other two. These Holy Days for the Church, together, prove the perpetuity - forever - of the Mosaic System regardless of any changes that may, eventually, occur in the Sacrificial system itself ("I will drink this anew with you in the Kingdom").

"Approaching the covenants and seeing how they form great central points around which revelations cluster - yea, the foundation stones upon which the Christological structure is erected - we are not surprised at the efforts made to undermine their force, either by separating the Old from the New, as antiquated, or by elevating the New far above the Old as only worthy of reception, or by a rejection of the Old as not authentic, etc." (Vol 1, pg 286)

The author does not realize that, in so far as he undermines the Mosaic Covenant, he also undermines the entire Old Testament and its covenants including the New Covenant.

"God is jealous of His Covenanted Word, and after having confirmed it by oath, by the sending of His Son, etc., He presents it in a form, through additional revelation, admirably adapted to test the faith of His people. Much of it, the most precious portion of it, the distinctive features of it, still belong to the future and are dependent upon the Sec. Advent of Jesus the Messiah." (Vol 1, pg 338)

The fact that there are contained in the Mosaic Covenant, prophecies that are yet unfulfilled (The Restoration Dt 32, The blessings of the tribes Dt 33, The prophet like Moses to be fulfilled perfectly by Y'shua at the reinauguration Dt 18 etc - Vol 3, pg 28, 426 etc), requires a restoration of the Mosaic economy to do so (as with the unfulfilled prophecies of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants), which is specifically stated throughout the Word (The Covenant Dan 11, The Temple Ez 40, The Priesthood Mal 3 etc). The author's unfortunate rejection of this feature is addressed by himself in reference to those who reject the other two covenants.

"One reason why so many Messianic predictions in the Old Test., especially in the Psalms, are explained away as relating to David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc., arises from the fact that the prophecies do not agree with the writer's preconceived notions of the covenants and of a spiritual kingdom. The covenanted foundation of the predictions is overlooked or perverted, and, of course, the superstructure is correspondingly untenable. Thus valuable Scripture is given up to unbelief. Even pious and able writers, who recognize such passages as Messianic, under the influence of the idea formed of the covenants and Kingdom, will call the very words given (as they admit) by God very "one sided"...because they seem to them too earthly or too Jewish, forgetting that the Theocracy proclaimed pertains both to this earth and to the Jewish Nation." (Vol 1, pg 340)

This is exactly the case with Peters' treatment of the restoration of the sacrificial system during the Mill as recorded in the closing chapters of Ezekiel. Because of his view of Christ's atoning sacrifice, he renders these sacrifices irrelevant, spiritualizes them to the Church, then works back to the Mosaic Covenant and deems it null and void. A proper view, however, of these sacrifices (taking the prophecy literally as he admonishes in several of his propositions - 4, 48 etc) will rectify any perceived contradictions or difficulties and restore the Mosaic Covenant back to its original, vital, position in the Covenant chain.

"The knowledge of the future is an essential element to a correct apprehension of the Plan of Salvation. The Covenants themselves, in their most precious aspects, relate to the future, and now for any additional information respecting them, we are dependent upon that class of men to whom God by His Spirit vouchsafed a knowledge of the future...for it is a communication from God, a prehistoric record of Divine purpose, and if properly linked together forms a continuous chain of evidence, evincing the unity of the Divine Plan in establishing the Kingdom. To perceive this unity, so confirmatory to faith, a knowledge of the future is indispensably necessary; hence it is graciously given, that we may, beholding the future as present, see the unfolding of covenanted grace, realize the evidences of a prevailing sovereignty of the Most High, and have excited in us faith, childlike trust, hope, and love." (Vol 1, pg 340)

For more info on the Millennial Sacrifices see my post the Theocratic Sacrifices.

Theocratic Covenant : Nature

2009-12-19T13:53:00.000-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (7)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

N A T U R E :

"The Theocracy was not simply preparatory but initial, in the sense of it being a real Kingdom of God, which was established in order to show forth to the nations of the earth the distinguished blessings flowing from it...the Theocracy did not adumbrate something else but was itself the Kingdom of God in its initiatory form - a commencement of that rule of God's as earthly King...It is the beginning of just such an infallible rule as humanity needs; and in its permanent distinctive features is indicative of wisdom transcendently superior to that established in all other forms of government." (Vol 1, pgs 223,219)

It should first be stated that he breaks the force of his statement above by adding "in its initiatory form" which he does solely in light of his view of the inferiority of the Mosaic Covenant. This was not the "initial" establishment of the Kingdom proven by the full intention of God on making it permanent. It was the Kingdom of God on Earth, and, as he proves, it is the same Kingdom of God that will be restored. They lived under its Divine Rule for over 400 years before they asked for the King, during which time they did honor the Jubilee system (see the History of the Jubilee) as the sounding of the Trumpet in 1 Sam 13:3 "throughout the land" indicates (compare Lev 25:9). It was the establishment of the Monarchy under Saul that ended this period of the Judges and the honoring of the Jubilee. This is hardly initial as the average lifespan of a country of prominence is about 200 yrs. The Monarchy itself lasted approximately another 400 yrs after this. So, there was an eight hundred year period allotted to this "initial" establishment of the Kingdom showing that it was much more than that, and that God fully intended (and still does) on making it permanent (See Vol 2, pg 453 for his opinion of the history of the Jubilee cycle in Israel).

Now, the Mosaic Covenant did not just form Israel into a nation, important as this was. It was the establishment of the Theocracy on this earth with God "married" to the Nation in an Eternal, oath-bound, covenanted relationship. It is incredible to me, after pondering his work for years now, that the very subject of his book, should be divorced from the covenant that God used to institute that Kingdom. You cannot separate the two, and the restoration of the Theocracy demands the restoration of the National Mosaic Covenant.

"The simple fact is, that since the overthrow of the Hebrew Theocracy, God has not acted in the capacity of earthly ruler, with a set form of Government, for any nation or people on earth; and the application of the word to any Nation or people, or organization since then, is a perversion and prostitution of its plain meaning." (Vol 1, pg 217)

As intimated in the above quote; every nation that has ever been, or ever will be, has had a Law to govern its people and its society. This is also true of those nations in the Millennium (note especially the Law of Tabernacles in Zech 14:16-19). As stated by Moses himself by the Spirit (Dt 4:5-8) and echoed by Paul (Rom 7:7-14), there never has been, or ever will be, a more perfect National Law than that established by God at Mt. Sinai. This is even extended to the before mentioned Jubilee system embracing the financial affairs of the nation, which one author ("Jubilee on Wall Street") showed would have basically driven poverty out of the nation. And, even this very law Paul said was "spiritual" in the reference above, that sets it apart from the Laws of the worldly nations, and elevates it to the Law of the Theocracy. Thus, when the Theocracy is restored (under Moses and Elijah and Y'shua himself at the end of the trib), could a greater law be found than this one which shall, then, be "written on the hearts" of every citizen of the Kingdom?

"The welfare of the whole community was assumed as the great end in view. This is true, for the lowest as well as the highest, the poorest as well as the richest, was protected in his rights, and oppression, tyranny, etc was impossible (Dt 16:18-20 etc) under its constitution. But it was far more than a mere "step" in the right direction - it was the form of government, given with broad outlines, which God - who knows best - regards as most desirable for man, indicated (1) by its first establishment, and (2) by its final reestablishment. To have God directly for a Ruler, is both an unspeakable honor and inestimable blessing." (Vol 1, pg 219)

Note that in the author's words, he specifically states that the form of government established by God (who is "the same, yesterday, today and forever," and "who changes not") through the Mosaic Covenant, will again be established at the end of the trib and beginning of the Mill. Without realizing it, he has proven that the Mosaic Covenant has not been abolished (as he claims - Vol 1, pg 327). Thus, the restoration of this government demands the restoration of the covenant itself, that forms and regulates the same, under, once again, the benevolent rule of the Great I AM, which the author shows, even in particulars.

"The blessings annexed to the Theocracy are numerous, and precisely such (e.g. Lev 26, Dt 20, 30 etc) as a people here on the earth earnestly desire to attain. They culminate in the expression (Lev 26:12): "I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people," which is again reiterated (Rev 21:3) at the restoration of the Theocracy." (Vol 1, pg 220)

These blessings show the superiority of this Law to that of any other nation, and they were originally given by the Mosaic Covenant, and the restoration of the same (and those of the Abrahamic and Davidic) prove the restoration of the Mosaic Economy as well. This is even seen in the blessings of Moses to the tribes being drawn from, and eternally tied to, that of the blessings of Jacob over the tribes (Gen 49, Dt 33).

Theocratic Covenant : Nationality

2009-12-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (6)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

It has been necessary for me to recreate, if at all possible, the sixth section of my critique of Peters work for the copy of it in the Wayback Machine has now come up missing which is strange, to say the least, since I originally salvaged it from them when I started my website up on the Theocratic Kingdom.

Be that as it may there were two main points that I wanted to make with this Section and some of the quotes from his material I was able to include below which was in the original posting and is, assuredly, what caused my enemies to delete it - I'll put it in Bold Type for ya.

N A T I O N A L I T Y :

The Kingdom is offered to an elect nation, viz.: the Jewish Nation.

"This election is so plainly stated in Scripture, and it is so currently admitted in our theological works, that it needs no proof. Such passages as Deut. 7:6 and 14:2, Rom. 11:28 and 9:11, etc, are decisive, that the sovereignty of God chose in the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, a people through whom should be manifested his Divine purpose in the salvation of man.

This election is not to be regarded, as some tell us, an act of favoritism, but as founded in that wisdom which adopted it (as the end will manifest) as the best means, under the circumstances in which fallen humanity was placed, to reach, consistently with moral freedom, the largest portion of mankind, having in view the ultimate establishment and triumph - in opposition to depravity - of God's Kingdom."

If memory serves, I used the quote above in the original to emphasise the fact to the reader that it was the Mosaic Covenant that forged this people into the Theocratic Kingdom at this time and it is impossible to divorce the Nation - verily the Theocratic Kingdom - from the Mosaic Covenant.

It is, to some extent, similar to the Constitution of the United States that forged those original thirteen colonies into an independant nation and you really cannot separate this country from its constitution.

"The Kingdom was offered to this chosen, elected nation, as is evinced, e.g., in Ex. 19:5,6, where it is declared that if faithful and obedient, it should be God's 'perculiar treasure above all people', and it should become 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'"

Though I doubt he intended it, the reader could draw the conclusion that the nation did not fulfill the description and, therefore, they failed to be God's chosen people however, the statement was made by Moses that, in fact, they had become God's Chosen People, a Kingdom of Priests and even, a Holy Nation and thus there is no room for discarding the fact that the Theocratic Kingdom was established by Y'hova at Mt. Sinai (Dt. 14:2 see also 26:18 and Ps 135:4).

"The Kingdom itself thus offered to them is a divine-political (church and state united) dominion, over which God Himself, as an earthly Ruler, presides or rules as the Supreme. Moses and the Prophets clearly show this by constantly uniting the divine and the political in their instructions; by making God's commands, both civil and religious, the sovereign law; by stating that the object of the nation's call, and the bestowment of peculiar privileges and power, was the overruling and superseding of all earthly governments, thus exalting their God and King over all; and by teaching that through the Kingdom thus established, all nations should ultimately be brought under the subjection and allegiance of the great King."

"It is a refreshing omen to see men hostile to our views, still admit, as Neander, etc, that God's purposes in relation to this Kingdom must inevitably - if Scripture is fulfilled - exhibit itself in a great, outward political world dominion, under divine rule and guidance. Hundreds of quotations...from eminent men attest that such is the scriptural idea. Men, too, like Dr. Arnold, feel that the biblical idea of such a dominion has been kept in the background, and they strive to revive it, but mistake the time and manner of its manifestation, attributing to this dispensation and to present means what Holy Writ ascribes to the following dispensation and to Jesus Christ."

"Such deep thinkers as Rothe are nearer the truth, and coincide with prophecy, when they make the church, as now existing, but a temporary institution, making it to be united with the state in one great theocratic ordering, and the realization of such a permanent union depending on the future personal manifestation of the Saviour Jesus. Look at the end contemplated, as predicted by the prophets (e.g. Zech. 14:9, etc), and given in the last testimony of Jesus (Apoc. 11:15,etc), and this is the grand position that the Kingdom of God is to attain: absolute control over all the kingdoms of the earth - such a world-wide dominion that all nations shall bend in joyful, blessed obedience to its behests. This was the Kingdom offered to the Jewish nation."

Theocratic Covenant : Unity

2009-12-19T13:47:00.000-07:00

David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (5)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

U N I T Y :

"The view, adopted by some, that it [Mosaic Covenant] is a separate and distinct covenant, simply provisionary without a direct and vital union existing between it and the others, is justly held by many able writers to be erroneous and misleading - a violation of Scripture statements." (Vol 1, pg 312)

That there is a divinely commissioned unity of all the covenants, including the Mosaic, the author notes time and again, showing that, really (from our perspective), all the covenants were resultant from the Arahamic and simply enlarge upon it, as the nation grows. This, he himself extends even to the New Covenant.

"In the simple covenant words, in their gradually unfolded purpose, in their continuous progress in and toward fulfillment, in their fundamental relationship to Messianic hopes, etc., we have the most triumphant vindication...of the equality and truthfulness of all divine revelation, and of the significance and fundamental importance of the covenants, and also a rebuke to the foolishness of a learned display of unbelief." (Vol 1, pg 286)

He then, in contrast to this, shows that the early Church upheld the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (referencing Barnabas, Ireneus, Justin, Tertullian) and totally ignores the Mosaic (which either Ireneus or Ignatius stated was still in effect), thus weakening his own argument of the "equality" in the covenant record.

"The relation that the Kingdom sustains to "the covenants of promise," enables us to appreciate the prophecies pertaining to the Kingdom. All predictions, all promises, all preparative measures, relating to the Kingdom, are based on, and result from, these covenants. The prophecies constantly keep in view what God has covenanted and confirmed by oath and enlarge and expand the same by amplification, explanation, etc. Therefore, to appreciate the utterances of the prophets, notice must continually be taken of the foundation upon which they are erected, to isolate them is to defeat one intent of prophecy, viz.: to instruct us in the manner in which God will ultimately fulfill His covenants and establish His Theocratic Rule over the Nations." (Vol 1, pg 337)

The author shows that provision for the New Cov. was contained in the Abrahamic (Gal 3:8, Heb 4:2), as well, provision for the Monarchy, though absent from the Ab. was made in the Mosaic (Num 23:21, Dt 17) as well as the New (Dt 30:6 compare Rom 2:29 both of which found, in essence, in Jer 31). And, really, all the covenants have foretold of Messiah himself (the Seed according to Paul), so that the blessings of the Abrahamic are continued into the Mosaic and Davidic and reach their climax in the New Covenant under Messiah.

"The Messiahship of the promised David's son is delineated in the Old Test., and in deciding the doctrinal question of the Messiahship of Jesus, the question must be answered, whether the Christ of the New Test. corresponds in all respects with the Christ covenanted and promised in the Old." (Vol 1, pg 162)

You can not simply remove the Mosaic from the chain without damaging the whole. It was the Mosaic that ensured that "all God's people" would be prophets. The Levitical Priesthood was for the "healing" of the Nation. All these benefits and more, that are contained in the Mosaic (and not in the others) would be lost if the Mosaic Covenant is done away with; not the least of which being the comforting knowledge of the Eternal One found therein.

"Hence, in interpreting prophecy, it should be observed how it is founded on, and united with, the covenants; and any interpretation, however plausible, which militates against them, which contradicts or changes their promises, should at once be discarded as of foreign origin. For it is unreasonable to suppose that God will invalidate the most solemnly given of all His revelations, or that the Spirit will deliberately contradict Himself in His utterances." (Vol 1, pg 337)

His last sentence seems out of place, and the author included it because of his subsequent treatment of the promises contained in the closing, millennial chapters of Ezekiel (Vol 3, pg 83), which he spiritually applies to the Church (because of his perceived "contradiction"), which shows that his view of the Mosaic Covenant is faulty and needs to be corrected.

"Hence, the predictions of the Old and New Test., unless viewed in the Light of the Covenant, cannot be duly apprehended. They only form additional links to a previously forged chain, and the places in which they fit must be found and matched. God having supplied the material, and given the Key for placing them in the covenants, is pleased with the faith that honors His oath-bound word." (Vol 1, pg 338)

It is, after all, the faith of His Son (John 18:11, Phil 2:5, Heb 12:2).

Theocratic Covenant : Perpetuity

2009-12-19T13:45:00.000-07:00

David Hill (26 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (4)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

P E R P E T U I T Y :

"Let it be observed that in approaching the covenants we are not at liberty to receive one and reject another, nor are we authorized to take just as much as may suit our Theological views out of one and refuse to believe in the rest. Here is where many Theological writers make the fatal mistake: They are willing to receive the Abrahamic Covenant as a perpetual one, but not the Davidic, when the same perpetuity is asserted of both; they are agreed to receive part of the Abrahamic or part of the Davidic Covenant, but not all that is written. No wonder that A diversity is thus produced, and an antagonism to the Old Test." (Vol 1, pg 285-6)

The two main points that Peters presents to prove the importance of the Ab. and Dav. covenants are that of their eternal nature and that they were confirmed by an oath from God himself. These same two points apply with equal force to the Mosaic Covenant, confirming its importance to the nation of Israel today. We have already shown that, indeed, contrary to popular opinion, the Mosaic Covenant was in fact ratified by the Solemn Oath of Y'hova, the Eternal Covenant Keeping God. Now we can also show, easily I might add, that the Mosaic Covenant, like the Abrahamic and Davidic, is also specifically stated to be perpetual (Dt 4:40).

As previously stated, God's Eternal Name is also His Covenant Keeping name originally given to Moses "forever in all generations" (Ex 3:15), and thus, the call of Moses to the nation is an everlasting one (compare Gen 13:15 and Mt 22:32 - seen from this point of view, this actually strengthens the belief that Moses; the one to whom the Eternal One revealed himself; will be back as one of the two witnesses). Along these lines, in reference to the alleged abrogation of the Ab. Covenant Peters says, "If the fulfillment is conditioned by the disobedience of the unfaithful portion, are the pious Jews to miss the promises of the Kingdom on account of the wickedness of others? This opens an abyss for our opponents. At present, it may only be said that such a course would neither be just to man nor honorable to the oath bound promises of God." (Vol 1, pg 186)

Thus; is the entirety of Moses' life work to be dis-annulled by the unbelief of some in the nation, or himself in a moment of anger? This question, ultimately, will be answered either by the return of Moses or some one else in his place; for Peter's statement above, as he states elsewhere (Vol 1, pg 296)requires a resurrection of the Patriarchs, including Moses which, for aught we know, occurred three days later after his death in perfect type of Y'shua's resurrection. In this same vein, keep in mind that Y'shua loved and perfectly fulfilled God's Word in the Torah and He was faithful in its complete application to his life. This alone is a strong persuasion on this point.

The Passover Sacrifice, which God ordained when He brought His people out of Egypt is a feast "throughout your generations forever" (Ex 12). The importance of this is that they were to be an Holy People unto the Lord. Holy, basically, means set apart and it is the Exodus and this Passover meal that sets them apart from the World and other nations. Thus, the Holy Nature of their God, reflects on this nation and is symbolized perpetually by this feast, which even the Christian Church celebrates to this day.

The Sign (or token - Gen 9:12, 17:7-14) of the covenant, which was to honor the Sabbath, was "throughout your generations forever" (Ex 31:16-17). Likewise, their separation "unto the Lord" was accomplished at Sinai and forever memorialized by the Sign of the Sabbath. And, it is this Sign that, more than anything else, has kept the nation itself from being absorbed back into the world and thus, in fulfillment of prophecy, has ensured the perpetuity of them as a separate people. And, as Peters has shown elsewhere, the nation itself, as a nation, is a perpetual nation. Thus, as long as they exist as a nation, so too will the Mosaic Covenant. This is further strengthened by this Sign of the Sabbath being forever linked to the original ten commandment stones which God personally carved out and handed to Moses (vs 18) just after giving him the Sign of these commandments. We know from Barnabas in Hebrews 4, that Y'shua himself is the personification of this Sabbath rest, so to the unprejudiced reader, the perpetuity of the Mosaic Covenant is, literally, carved in stone (denoting permanence). Keep in mind that Y'shua is typified by these very stones.

The Priesthood of the covenant is perpetual (Num 18, Dt 18, Ex 40), as were all the feasts (Lev 23 etc), and the Trumpets (Num 10), and Temple when built (Lev 17), in which the perpetual Menorah was to shine (Lev 24, Ex 27:21), and the twelve memorial loaves forever displayed (Lev 24), and the covenant of salt honored (Lev 2:13, Num 18:19). These all are important because they are the earthly counterpart to the Heavenly reality and reveal the same to us concerning the Wisdom and World of God. As long as the reality exists in Heaven then, assuredly, the earthly "schoolmaster" will also exist.

"The Tabernacle was made according to a pattern furnished, and that there is deep significance in it, being "a shadow of good things to come" (Heb 10:1). Now, aside from the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects, the reader is reminded that the Tabernacle was Theocratically associated, and therefore relates to the Theocratic Ordering...the personal dwelling of God there, the manifestation of His glory, His enthronement as the earthly Ruler, the patterning after the heavenlies, the place of meeting and witness, the divine superintendence and devising, the exhibition of beauty and splendor, "the seat of the divine Kingdom on earth," the accessibility to the King, the holiness belonging to it, the special consecration pertaining to it, the priesthood connected with it, the worship and homage tendered, the honorable and dignified service attached to it [Mk 11:17], the removal of the one class from all servile employment and their exclusive possession by God, the intermediatory service between the King and the subjects, the personal purity and adornment required, the clear and unmistakable revelation of the divine will - all typify a similar condition and aspect in the restored Theocracy. It is only typical (comp. e.g. Jer 3:16-17, Zech 14:20-21 etc) of a corresponding exhibition, on a grander scale, of "the Glory of the Lord," of Theocratic rule, of special nearness to the King, of required consecration and holiness, of participation in the favor and blessing of God." (Vol 2, pg 568-9)

The second giving of the Law was also forever (Dt 12:28) and even the Curses, if disobedient, were forever (Dt 28:46). And, finally, the Secret Things that God revealed in the Mosaic Covenant are ours forever (Dt 29:29).

Now, if only one of the items above were called perpetual by Y'hova, it would still, ultimately, necessitate the perpetuity of the Mosaic Covenant ("whatever God does will last forever"), but when taken altogether it actually strengthens the case for the perpetuity of the Mosaic Covenant far above' that of the Abrahamic or Davidic by shear volume alone. But, what it amounts to is that all three covenants are perpetual, on the sworn oath of God and led us to Messiah, who confirmed the New Covenant in which the curses of the Mosaic will be left in the tomb (Gal 3:13, Rom 7:2), and all covenants will find their fulfillment in Y'shua in the Kingdom.

Perhaps it would be well to state here that the belief that the Mos. Cov. was voided is primarily drawn from Heb 8:13, "in that he says, a New Covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away." Some say that this means that the Mosaic is now done away with, however, not only is the statement in the future tense (it had not passed away yet, during the Church age), but this is also in contradiction to Y'shua's words that he came to fulfill the (Mosaic) law and that "one jot or tiddle" would not pass from the Law until all was fulfilled. This will not be the case until death and hell are cast into the lake of fire at the end of the Mill, when death finally dies. It is, then, to this time that Barnabas is referring to and thus, after the millennium, when the human race, as a race, is redeemed and sinless, and the curse removed and the earth renewed, then the need for the sacrificial system will "vanish away." But even that does not make void any of the covenants as such, including the Mosaic, but it will be the ultimate intended fulfillment of them.

Our Lord's word also addresses the author's comment that the destruction of the Temple "intimated...the abrogation of the Mosaic Law." (Vol 1, pg 373). And, even if this were allowed (under protest), Y'shua "intimated" the rebuilding of the Temple three days later which, by the author's own principles of interpretation, implies the resurrection of the Mosaic Covenant itself, which gave us that Temple and Priesthood.

The other passages that are used to prove the abolishment of the Mos. Cov. are misunderstood in their real teaching. Ephesians shows that it is not the Law, per sea, that is abolished (Eph 2:14-16) but the resulting "enmity" between believing Gentiles and Jews that resulted from the Law (note vs 15 "even" is in italics and thus not part of the original and probably should read "of" and "contained" is the same verse should read "and"). Compare this with Gal 2:12-19, where this "wall" of separation (which was over emphasized by the "traditions of men" vs 1:14 and Mt 15:9 etc), was acted out by Peter who "built again" (vs 18) that wall. That this is the Apostle's reasoning can easily be adduced from an unbiased reading of Rom 2:17-20, where he calls the Law "His Will" and "the things that are more excellent," as contrasted not with the New Covenant (as the author or "Jesus the Jewish Theologian" states) but with the Laws of the other nations that necessitates "the wall" to keep Israel a distinct nation even in exile. This wall was broken down between Gentile and Jewish believers, but not between the Jewish and Gentile nations, where the enmity, obviously, still exists (Vol 1, pg 392). Note especially Rom 3:1-4 and that the Law, to this day (3:30, 4:16), continues (vs 19) to shut every mouth, and (vs 2) to witness to "the righteousness of God" (Mt 6:33), by faith in Y'shua, in which we, the Church, "establish the Law" (vs 31), not by observing the Mosaic rituals, but because the Law has been written on our hearts and we fulfill the righteous requirements thereof.