Christian Laws

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope things are well with you ... [emphasis added]One may expect to find the text reading, 'No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother saying, 'Know the ToRaH', providing the text was suggesting that ToRaH would be 'magically embedded' in our 'minds' - lol.The word in the text used for 'know', or knowledge, yada appears to be referencing the identity of the God of this particular series of covenants (ie. no one in the Covenant will have to teach anyone a name for the God).Athough that is not what we find in church, is it mostly what we find in Gospels chosen by the RCC? I know of verses saying things along the lines of 'call no one your father, because One is your Father and He is in Heaven', etc..What verses do the RCC Gospels provide to support standard and principles, or laws, for teaching God's name? I like the way this sentence was structured ... very salient.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn ...
Hope things are well. This was an interesting interpretation which inspired me to share some feedback and critique.I might add, the Hebrew word translated as heart and mind is often translated as 'inner parts', or the likes, as well. Strong's has it as a form of 'lebab' ...

quote:

---

1) inner man, mind, will, heart, soul, understanding
1a) inner part, midst
1a1) midst (of things)
1a2) heart (of man)
1a3) soul, heart (of man)
1a4) mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory
1a5) inclination, resolution, determination (of will)
1a6) conscience
1a7) heart (of moral character)
1a8) as seat of appetites
1a9) as seat of emotions and passions
1a10) as seat of courage

---

Also, the Complete Jewish Bible w/ Rashi gives us 'heart', yet opts for 'in the midst', as opposed to 'mind' ...

quote:

---

30) Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.

​

31) Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.

​

32) For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.

​

33) And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

​

34) So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the law of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name.

​

35) If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time.

---

Ultimately, this may reinforce a notion that, at birth, the Father will 'write' or 'inscribe' His towrah, or law, within a human being.However, an 'implication' being 'that the laws would then be instinctive' (aka, magically embedded) with 'no need for teaching seems to be only one interpretation.Again, the word in the text used for 'know', or knowledge, yada appears to be referencing the identity of the God of this particular series of covenants (ie. no one in the Covenant will have to teach anyone a name for the God').One may expect to find the text reading, 'No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother saying, 'Know the ToRaH', providing the text was suggesting that ToRaH would be 'magically embedded' in our 'minds'.

quote:

---

hrwt towrah or hrt torah
1) law, direction, instruction
1a) instruction, direction (human or divine)
1a1) body of prophetic teaching
1a2) instruction in Messianic age
1a3) body of priestly direction or instruction
1a4) body of legal directives
1b) law
1b1) law of the burnt offering
1b2) of special law, codes of law
1c) custom, manner
1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law

---

So, if the Father is writin' and inscribin' on everybodies hearts, one may imagine a direct inference for people with hearts, or who 'have the heart', to do some reading. Perhaps one could say the people in the season of the Covenant being prophecied about may be required to align their 'conscience', 'hearts', 'inclinations', 'inner most parts', etc., with the 'towrah' that is declared to be placed 'in the midst' of them.Yeshua HaMashiach is depicted as confirming that the Father will abide with a new Covenant obligation requiring Him to provide access to ToRaH, Nevi'im and Tehellim, as well as assist and instruct in the understanding of these readings to all who enter Covenant. He tells us not to be 'called Rabbi; for One is' our 'Teacher, and' we 'are all brothers'. Next we are admonished to call no one 'on earth' our father; 'for One is' our 'Father, He who is in heaven'.Finally, we are advised against being 'called leaders; for One is' our 'Leader, that is, HaMashiach'. Yeshua HaMashiach is depicted as authoritatively defining a new Covenant through a reinterpretation of existing Hebrew documents, as the originals had been forged. It goes, simply, as follows ...

quote:

---

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?

​

He said to him ...

​

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

​

This is the greatest and first commandment.

​

And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

​

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

As various Torah documents were forged, accordind to Yirmiyahu, Yisrael is eventually driven into the ground. Through the prior Covenant, the people are no longer able to keep their obligations to the Levite priesthood, or their God - as the priesthood in authority seemingly determines such a principle or standard.The Deuteronomic & Mosaic laws, at this point, have been edited in such a way that the burden is much to bear upon the people and a new Covenant is prophecied by Yirmiyahu to replace the one 'that they broke'; the one the Father 'formed with their forefathers on the day' that He 'took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt' .The thing is, the Father did not speak 'unto [their] fathers [the Levitical priesthood] nor commanded them in the day that He brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. These were the original requirements: Obey my voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my people and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you that it may be well unto you.It appears that the strenuous burden of the excessive burnt offerings and sacrafices that were implemented outside of the authority of the Covenant were partially responsible for the collapse of the Levitical covenant and priesthood. In the end of matters, the fact that the prior Covenant agreement had been tampered with appears to be a significant factor, imho, in Yisrael's inability to become pleasing to God in their quest to serve and represent Him to their fullest extent.I might suggest striking similarities in the dynamic between Yeshua's Covenant and the later covenants and creeds added through Pauline theology in our present landscape. Not that I really know that the Father is displeased, yet it is difficult for me to imagine He appreciated the Inquisitions presented in the name of HaMashiach as Pauline theology took root.I gotta go get some strawberry shortcake ...If you were here I'd make you one too One Love

Thanks for the exchange ...
Hope things are well. Three quick questions ...What are the implications of classifying Paul's 'rule', 'Love your neighbor as yourself', as a principle or standard?Also, what are the implications of classifying a commandment from the Anointed One as a law?Should a commandment from the Anointed One be relegated as a standard or principle, or otherwise?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good for you. I just puked in my mouth a lil' bit ... (tastes a bit like strawberry shortcake)Disciples are not preachers.One Love

Thanks for the exchange ...
Hope things are well. I agree entirely. Phrases such as 'saved', 'hell', 'repentance', 'HaSaTaN', and the likes, are often watered down to the point that their original meaning becomes all but completely ambiguous. At that point, while intercepting any hope at coherency, imaginations may easily take over.We can hash over some examples, if necessary, to make that point. The definition of a 'Law', as you've provided, suggests that, in order to make any substantive progress, we need to first address and identify, and agree on, the 'controlling authority' that is actually responsible for 'prescrib[ing]' the 'formally recognized' 'binding custom[s]' or 'rule[s] of conduct' in the first place and to that I'll agree.Perhaps I need to do this before any honest considerations of what laws are stated and what laws are valid within the Covenant presented in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach are attempted. If you don't mind, can you fill me in as to what premise Peg and yourself are working under exactly in this thread or whether that has been firmly established or otherwise? lol - chapter and verse please.Supposedly the 'Christian God' is not a God of mystery religion babylon.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchanage.
Hope things are well ...I'd really like to take this step by step as best we can. Seems that there is some interesting points being raised. I'll try to do the best I can ... lol - I thought you may pull that out. That's a good one - lol. I don't know that I'm yet ready to agree that God is confusing though.Then again, by 'technical standards', I am 'not a christian' ... that is to say, 'an anointed One'. (at least, that's what they tell me most often).The other side of that coin is that many christians don't know God, HaSaTaN or the FsM.lol - anyway, I'll have to take a closer look at those statistics I suppose ...On another note, what verse[s] or argument[s] are being used to support that the new covenant may have a written or oral law code? [qs=purpledawn][qs=weary]... we need to first address and identify, and agree on, the 'controlling authority' that is actually responsible for 'prescrib[ing]' the 'formally recognized' 'binding custom[s]' or 'rule[s] of conduct' in the first place ...If you don't mind, can you fill me in ...[/qs] See my comments in Message 6 which give a link to the start of the law issue. [/qs]I'll take that as a no.Is it fair to say that a firm authority has not been recognized or established within the premise? Her arms gotta be gettin' tired - lolAhhh ... sorry. We'll have to get to the bottom of this ...Peg ... What say ye? Some ToRaH documents were forged supposedly.Is everybody on board with that? This discussion is working off the premise that they are not clearly available. Correct? So, is it fair to say we are working off the premise that a written law is required? This is certainly debatable. There are, at least, three authorities that are often distinguished.As well, many take dating and authorship into account to variable degrees.Are we starting with the apostle route?1) That they had an obligation to establish written law ...2) And the authority to perform this task for the Father?Or, first, tackle HaMashiach and Paul?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thanks for the exchange.
Hope all is well ...Peg, if you get a sec, please disclose what verse(s) or argument(s) are being used to support that the new covenant may have a written or oral law code. Very ambiguous. Within our premise, what constitutes the 'christian congregation' in the story and what constitutes a modern 'christian congregatiion'?I'd like to take in, at least, Peg's perspective on this too. That should be something we all can agree on, right? I have a couple ideas to work from. According to the story, the authority may be in 'the law and the prophets'. Within the story, the prophets constantly correct and critique the subtle, and not so subtle, variance of tradition. What do you guys think, do the prophets in the story have authority? Or just 'apostles'? Altered texts, forged documents, corrupted traditions ... these phrases should all suffice.Within the story, Yirmiyahu states that burnt offerings and sacrafices were added to the ToRaH through some form of redaction on the part of Levite scribes. That is the premise of the story, right?If so, I would just assume work from there. Perhaps the documentary hypothysis was the event in question. It does support the story to an extent, but that seems like a bonus or whatever. Something seemingly tangible.When we suggest that burnt offerings and sacrafices were implemented when the Father brought the Hebrew people out of Egypt, as opposed to a later time that was unauthorized, we divert from the plain text in the story (ie. we begin changing the story). I just want to know if we are going to do that or not.Peg, what's your take for now too? Peg, if you get a sec, can you tighten up a response to the question I present here. Something succint and salient please. Peg, within our premise, where are we at here exactly? The first question at the top of this post may dictate the answer to this. Me too. Perhaps we can examine the texts referencing the new covenant and see if the form is disclosed. Besides Yirmiyahu, I know of some texts from Ezekiel that are employed here in Pauline theology in refernce to the Ruach HaKodesh or 'set apart spirit'. We need to get the various references being considered within our premise into one group, so post 'em if ya got 'em I guess. One step at a time.You may wanna grab a cup of coffee or something for this next bit. Maybe some Tylenol too. Some of the following may or may not prove to be off topic to an extent, but I'm throwin' it out there to see what sticks. In the story in the RCC texts, the evangelism of the apostles seems to have revolved around three main notions which may, or may not, tie into the new covenant somewhere along the lines ...First, the apostles seem to speak of 'Hope'. When they do, it does not seem to me that they are referencing 'eternal life in ghost heaven for believers' or whatever it is I usually hear modern christians blather on about. The hope the Hebrews in the story refer to appears to be the idea that, what the Father had done to Yeshua already (ie. bodily resurrection), the Father would do to everyone later.As you know, when we understand the culture of 1st century CE, we may easily understand why this Hope is so exclusive to anointed Ones or 'christians'. Some Yuhdeans believed in a bodily resurrection that would occur far in the future, and many Yuhdeans did not. Those outside Yuhdaism generally did not believe in a bodily resurrection at all.Apparently, what no one believed was that HaMashiach would come, get murdered, and then be resurrected before everyone else. Not even Yeshua's disciples are depicted as making this connection, which is likely why they desert Him. HaMashiach was supposed to kick everyone's ass and lead the Yuhdeans to victory over zee Romanz (lol - and everyone else who had oppressed them to, for that matter ... Luke 1:71). Now, how was He gonna do that all mutilated on a torture stake?This must be why they are depicted in Mark 9:10 wondering wtf Yeshua means, since He cannot possibly mean He is going to die ... literally.This idea also seems to come through loud and clear in Luke 24:20-21, they had hoped (but no longer seemingly) ... and what did they hope for - that HaMashiach would redeem Yisrael, of course. In the fashion of ol' uncle Dave, theses Hebrews were waiting for Yeshua to take His position as true King. And so, as they did not understand anything in the story about a death at all (John 20:9, Luke 24:25,26,27), the beliefs of the followers of Yeshua are crushed as He is murdered before their very eyes.So, in the story, it seems that the resurrection not only proves that the Father of the Anointed One lives, but also lends hope in each Covenant members own resurrection later. Note the wording of Acts 4:2 and Acts 17:32 - this seems to have been the central message of their evangelism (as well as Yeshua as HaMashiach and Yeshua as Judge, etc.). Paul also pipes in that belief in resurrection of the dead is absolutely required of believers (1st Corinthians 15:12,13,14). Remember though, in the story, Paul is a Pharisee who only saw ghost jesus.Nevertheless, this Hope in the resurrection of the dead appears to be the main reason Paul was in so much hot water in Acts. It was, after all, directly opposed to the beliefs of the ruling sect of Yuhdaism (Acts 23:6, Acts 24:15, Acts 24:21, Acts 26:6,7,8).Moving on, the phrase 'a free gift' seems to be tossed around quite freely in today's evangelism, yet for the authorized apostles within the story, and Paul, the term seems to have had a different meaning. 'The Gift' appears to be nothing less than the Ruach HaKodesh as far as I can tell.Yeshua is depicted employing this term in reference to the Ruach HaKodesh in John 4:10. Kefa seems to reference HaKodesh as 'The Gift' three times in Acts alone within the story (2:38, 8:20, 11:17). Similarly, Luke is depicted employing the term in this way at Acts 10:45, and Paul does so in 1st Timothy 4:14, and 2nd Timothy 1:6. The writer of Hebrews follows suit in Hebrews 6:4.Then we come to an interesting term ... 'The Promise'. Early in the story, the Father promises Abraham to bless the world through his seed, yet how this will be accomplished appears to remain ambiguous to an extent. Later in the story, it appears that Kefa may have answered this question for us within Acts 2:33. This seems to be the same promise Yeshua makes reference to in Luke 24:49 and in Acts 3:26 it seems one may find that it is, in fact, the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.The Ruach HaKodesh appears to be further referenced as 'The Promise' in Acts 2:39, Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 1:13 and Ephesians 3:6. Also, in Hebrews 9:15 it seems as though the author views us as receiving the Ruach HaKodesh as an inheritance from HaMashiach. If you note Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:8, and, most notably Hebrews 11:39-40, you may find that HaKodesh is once again referred to as what was 'promised' and that this may likely be referring to the Ruach HaKodesh now available, that may indeed not have been available earlier in the story before Yeshua was murdered.Yet, it seems as the Ruach HaKodesh is not simply the fulfillment of a promise in the story, but it also acts as a promise of sorts ... a reminder of a more abundant salvation available perhaps. lol - maybe when bodies are transformed or New Yirusalem arrives (Unveiling 21:2). The Ruach HaKodesh, by supposedly granting one power over the desires of a flesh set against the Father (Romans 6:6), seems to be portrayed as breakin' us off a lil' slice of our transformed future, thus allowing us to begin living, already, the life of the world to come ... today.Perhaps one catch though; that being, Covenant members no longer live selfishly at this point, but rather live HaMashiach style. Seems like, in this way, the Ruach HaKodesh is then a Promise itself. Not on an individual basis wherein we 'know we are going to heaven because we have the Spirit'. HaKodesh allowed those in Matthew 7:22-23 to toss demons and prophesy in HaMashiach's name, but it did not necessarily see them through the Judgment, and Hebrews 6:4,5,6, Hebrews 10:26-27, and 2nd Peter 2:20-21 all appear to be establishing that HaKodesh is not a personal guarantee, but a global one.Altogether leading me to believe the Father will not be mocked.Please, feel free to critique and, up front, lil' attention was paid concerning extant dates with scripture texts or authorized apostleship concerning Paul. How many authorized apostles actually speak throughout the church testament story and are we going to account for the extant dates or otherwise?We will deal with Paul separately, since he is not listed as an authorized apostle within the church story and only met ghost jesus. Fair enough? I'm with ya ... perhaps we may all learn together.One Love

Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ...

quote:

---

Abba Father writes:

​

child writes:

​

Does it mean that the heathens and the Jews and all of us are brothers?
Does it mean that we must be kind to one another like brothers?

That's it, my child. That's the meaning of the whole Torah.
All the rest is only an explanation of that.
Go, go, my son. Go and study it ...

---

Thank you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : title edit

Thank you for the exchange Hyroglyph.
Hope things are well for you today ... Pious followers of various traditions often irritate the hell out of many - lol.Hopefully all the hell finally irritates its way out soon, cuz that is the Law. Or idolized the venemous murder of a Prophet ... oh wait, wrong tradition. My bad. It appears that 'no pig' laws, and the likes, had come to be installed within a form of ToRaH employed in Yuhdaism in an attempt to separate and distinguish Yisrael's economy. They are obviously smart enough to know a lil' pig meat, and the likes, won't kill ya. Superstitions, huh ... speaking of them, didn't the trinity god enact a christian law about a magic blood ritual?Silly superstitions - lol. Or is that a standard or a principle?? It appears as though RCC traditions, and their illegitimate step daughters, have no such ordinance for one in favor of the other either. Under what premise would you suppose a religious tradition be adulterous before superstitious, whether Yuhdaism or various RCC traditions? Not to say I necessarily disagree or otherwise ... more curious to know why you would suppose it.Chapter and verse, perhaps? Why, that's the nicest thing you've expressed all day. The Father loves you. That is the Law. That just seems like a silly thing for a christian to say, not that I'm attempting to offend you or assume that you are one or anything, its just that, the entire magic blood ritual hocus pocus associated to variant RCC traditions that 'christians' attempt to perceive is a carry over from a corrupted Levitical tradition.Regardless, even christians must know that not a jot or a tittles' goin' anywhere 'til the ToRaH and the Prophets, who belong to no tradition, are fulfilled. E'vry body knowzdat, but more to the point, admirers of HaMashiach have been taught to suppress ToRaH much in the same fashion that Yuhdaism had been taught to suppress GrAcE. Everything will come full circle though and that's gonna be intense no matter how ya look at it. Trust me.lol - don't trust me. Have faith and trust the Father. That, too, is the Law. lol - you should see it if you decide to peruse the thread. Another way this may become evident is by making any attempt to differentiate RCC traditions and the multiude of traditions that have come down to her through the halls of time. Purpledawn has been blessed in exposing various inadequacies imho.Be encouraged and take advantage, or 'another vantage' point, and educate. Why should you, perhaps, you say ...You guessed it -The Law.One Love

Thank you for the exchange.
Hope things are well. Is there anyone participating within this thread in disagreement with this?If so, what is the reasoning? What did Yeshua teach, if not HaToRaH interpreted through aGaPe?It appears as though HaMashiach, fashioned in a similar light as the Prophets before him, taught that ToRaH had become maliciously corrupted, and so, such texts may offer limited blessings in their existing state. Under the weight of their corrupted laws and traditions, the theocratic nationstate of Yuhdea continued to steadily fold in around itself, as is the destiny of all that which is lead on by forgery and corruption. Anyway, I'm sure it is easy to imagine that this would have likely been a difficult indoctrination for those who embraced their, oh so priceless, ToRaH version as their only golden calf.Difficult, perhaps, yet not impossible.The anxiety derived from the onslaught of indoctrination that followed was likely a challenge for those sitting on the fence questioning whether, or not, Yeshua's seemingly unverifiable authority superceded that of the powerful and proud ruling sects of Yuhdaism now responsible for defiling the tradition, as well as their nations. One may come to understand that, in time, many innocent practitioners undergo a birth into corrupt traditions which freely demand that it is wiser to place a higher value upon documented and potential forgeries, rather than to simply accept them at face value and address this issue.There is also a sense that any 'authorative' rewritten form of ToRaH would have soon become destined to attain a value comparable, or equivalent, to the existent corrupted texts, that is to say worthy of causing destruction. Such a gamble would have most certainly taken to corruption, once again, through the 'short hands' of all the various vipers throughout the lands and within a short period of time at that. As we contemplate, it should come as lil' surprise, if this is what takes form through the Levitical Catholics within five short centuries of the event. lol - them lil' rascals ...There is truly little reason to expect that the Father would have pissed away His valuable time and energy on such a task, considering His efficiency and all. Long and short, Yeshua seems to have encouraged the critique of dubious ToRaH passages in order to restore the authenticity, which had been removed by imposters who dared to corrupt the holy Levitical priesthood; He then shares such fine treasure with anyone who would receive and abide by it.Imho, that is, perhaps, a Law to live by. However, living it can be accomplished without learning to read. It seems as they are not, nor would it seem as Rome's tOrAh/bible foots the bill. Do you suppose the Father will not convince us what is right? Perhaps, questionable at least and considerable at best? I may agree Paul's depiction is equal in authority to any other Pharasidical teachings. Your so mean sometimes - lol ... though I, too, am a little perplexed that so many traditions would expect the Father to color their Judgement.It continues to amaze me.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are well with you. Teach them to observe. Nice. lol - if you don't mind, may I call you Surely?Perhaps one may wonder how come it seems so few laying claim to the magical properties of innocent blood take time to observe the Torah (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms) in their fullness? At least, considering, those are the items a disciple of HaMashiach is admonished to observe.The doctrine of the Prophets has challenged many traditions through our halls of time. Perhaps we will all have a chance to explain how one may come to assume that the final RCC testament texts, authentic as some may be, were equivalent, and 'indeed' superceded in wisdom, to the Law and the Prophets.Surley, one can hope ...

quote:

---

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

​

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

---

​

quote:

---

In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

---

​

quote:

---

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?

​

He said to him ...

​

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

​

This is the greatest and first commandment.

​

And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

​

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

​

quote:

---

The law and the prophets were in effect until Yochan came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.

​

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

---

​

quote:

---

Then he said to them ...

​

These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you - that everything written about me in the law of Moses', the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.

---

​

The modern term 'preaching' appears ill equiped to denote the duties assigned to an anointed disciple of HaMashiach. As can be easily confirmed, wannabe disciples must first request, and rather matter of factly demand, that no practitioners of the tradition may refer to an anointed disciple as a Pastor or Rabbi. Seems though, as of yet, many ego's are far too chilled to remove that outer garment, and so, all of the jesters don their King's robe to stay warm.No worries though ... they are bound, though perhaps undetermined, to warm up sooner or later. lol - He sent them preaching? Perhaps, more to the point, HaMashiach sent them beseeching.It seems as though their primary charge was to, in the face of death and ridicule, encourage and indoctrinate - free of charge - those who had come to believe, at times through (documented) forgery, others through bitterness and resentment and still others by way of naivety, that blood revenge was acceptable to the Father. They were certainly busy beavers. After all, magical blood revenge techniques were, perhaps, some of the most prevalent forms of atonement provided for within the landscapes of indigenous earthly traditions, as well as the cause of much destruction.It appears that many cultures indeed paid heed to the serpent whispers from below, encouraging them to abuse innocent Life.The economical implications and incentives to keep up this charade are, though seemingly unfortunate, still quite a magnificent piece of machinery nonetheless. More to the point, the dynamics of supply and demand do not lend favor to a remission of sin through teshuva and emunah, and perhaps a lil' water baptism, which were effectual well before the Father's slave was murdered. In the end of the matter, anointed disciples do not appear to have 'preached' or promoted magical blood revenge, as chances are, they did not want to take food from the mouths of biblical babes ...After all, they were supposed to feed the hungry ... not starve and rob 'em.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Hope all is well ... ... that makes all of us.btw, this is the most inspiring post I've read all week.Thank you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange ...
And for the different thoughts.This is an interesting thread. Suggesting that Yeshua lived as a jew is perhaps a tad ambiguous, imho. Yuhdaism carried on at least four distinct traditions within the confines of Rome. Of the separate, yet interrelated, traditions readily available for our consideration, perhaps being the traditions of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Prophets, I would say the latter is the most appropriate perhaps.As evidence of such a claim, one may cite the clear distinction in HaMachiach's interpretation of HaToRaH. With this in mind, it may not be wise to compare Yeshua's religious tradition as strictly, or even 'basically', an orthodox or traditional form of Rabbinical Yuhdaism, etc. All of the traditions are in stark contrast to one another. By identifying what dignifies each tradition independently of one another, we may be able to better suggest 'how jesus lived'.What characteristics and traits identify the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Prophets from one another?One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange brutha jaywill.
Did you forgive me yet? I hope so ... What would your response be if I suggested that the spirit of Kingdom living for an Anointed disciple may be better described by one displaying mercy towards the Father and graciousness towards one's fellow, as well as themselves?It seems there are distinctions, perhaps quite available, to be made. Would you care to address an inquiry I put forth in Message 169, as well?

quote:

---

What characteristics and traits identify the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Prophets from one another?

---

Thanks for the consideration ...One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I thought I may have perhaps inadvertently offended you within one of my sudden tangents. Sweet. lol - carry on ... Until then ... rest easy.One Love