Bible Study Cover to Cover

I apologize, in advance, if it seems I’m splitting hairs . I actually admire your diligence. God has already told Adam death was an effect in Gen 2:17, granted Eve could not have heard this bit seeing as she wasn’t created ”til Gen 2:22.
“ . but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."Nevertheless, Eve affirms she knew of the consequences before her decision to partake in the forbidden fruit, although we don’t know if God or Adam brought her up to speed . Gen 3:3
“ . but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "In their lack of foresight (natural death by means of old age), did they think God was full of it because they were able to see the sun set that evening and rise the next morning? Was God’s grace displayed by allowing them to die later in life as opposed to that literal day? I read this as Adam blaming the woman for giving him from the tree, not blaming God for giving him the woman. He doesn’t say ,”Never mind what tree I ate from. Wudju gimme that woman who gave me from the tree in the first place anyway.” Where does it assert they speak different languages or that they were separated by language. Seems as the nations (Noah’s families) were separated on the Earth geographically after the flood...by distance or water I would think. The Tower of Babel may be an inserted tale, but this verse seems to do nothing to bolster that thought or any contradiction here. I dunno. You can be sorrowful and grieve w/o regret. My family grieved at my grandfathers passing, but didn’t experience any regret. We knew he was on his way out. It was comforting to know he had graduated to the next part of his life. I was grieved, felt sorrow, yet also a sense of comfort and relief. But maybe God was regretful. As well the root and beginning of the greatest blessing. People who are nave cast judgments on Muslims. Nowhere does the Jewish God tell anyone Ishmael and his descendants are infidels and command for them to be terrorized and murdered at any cost. People suck. No, I’m sorry . religion sucks. Epiphany, people trying to practice religion suck (emphasis on trying). Oh wait, that’s no epiphany, Jesus said something along those lines a long time ago (He was a bit more tactful though). God doesn’t express they should be treated differently than anybody else. Granted, he does call him a jackass. Or ”cause he spunked on the ground?It’s been fun.
Gotta go . dinner’s ready.

I’d be willing to bet we agree people have been misrepresenting The Word of God since the beginning of mankind. Refer to this topic, for example, here on EVC; Bible Question: What was the First Sin? . There are plenty of examples we could share. God seems to deal with people, to their own measure, who represent the Word falsely. Consider Luke 17:1-2. What I mean is I believe it carries a penalty. Possibly at their followers expense as well sometimes? Kinda like everybody missing recess for the shenanigans of one class clown.
Consider this hands on example, by a historically proclaimed “great man of God” later in Numbers Here we have a sobering example of one of the greatest snares to walking in spiritual power and authority. Moses is pressured greatly by the people complaining of no water. God commands Moses to take his rod, a symbol of authority given to him by the Lord, and simply speak to the rock to bring forth water. Whether he misunderstood the Word God spoke, was on a power trip, or was simply frustrated and disobeyed it, instead of speaking to the rock, Moses struck it with his rod. Even so, by the Grace of God, water came forth in abundance, but it would seem at a grave cost. The Lord’s discipline was most severe: Moses (and Aaron by association) take(s) credit ("must we bring you water...") for this even though God performs the miracle. God didn't call the Israelites names, but Moses calls them rebels...yet Moses is supposed to be bearing the responsibility of representing God. Not a very accurate representation if you ask me. Moses seems condescending towards those people, to me, in his tone and even more so by hitting the rock (not once, but twice) instead of just speaking to it like commanded. Maybe a better representation of God’s Word and Grace could have been relayed to the Israelites by Moses simply saying ,”Rock, in the Name and the Power of the God of our Deliverance and Provision, please release water for those who God loves.” Here, a penalty is accrued for misrepresenting the Word and Heart of God. The Israelites would not have only received the blessing of the provision of water, but Moses would not have been forbidden to enter the promised land. If great men of God misrepresent his character, how much more so are we inclined?
I’m with ya. Probably not. Though, to me, the cause (“he wasted his seed on the ground“) and effect (“in order not to give offspring to his brother.”) presents two offences. Maybe both were “displeasing in the sight of the LORD”. It may be different (I doubt it though) if he was tossin’ off to a stone carving of a naked lady, but he was hittin’ skins. Either way it seems like tossin’ in the sand is being a poor steward of a God given resource for the creation of human life (no matter how its disposed). Onan had to go out of his way, no doubt, to accomplish this offence regardless. I know people who won’t pull out even when faced with the consequence of fatherhood or child support. Just havin' some fun within the context.These are our thoughts in light of the Scriptures. Who am I to judge a thought the Spirit of God has allowed within you . I was just wording my thoughts as to these Scriptures. Your opinions are a pleasant contrast to me. I apologize if I offended you. Keep up the good work.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This may not explain the incompletion or mysteriousness but I hope it helps. Consider this analogy. Providing you have a good relationship with your Father, would you rather know where he was from or what he represents in his character. What is in his heart. By leaving out the irrelevant, the importance of the things included are magnified. To me the Scriptures, when compiled, are a sort of love story concerning God and us, the people. A Divine creation. A tale of God’s epic desire to be with us, forever, in Spirit and in Truth. As he realized through the unfolding centuries no man close to him, or otherwise, could or would convey this indiscriminately and without confusion, He sent His Son, that is himself, His Heart, to set the ultimate precedence once and for all. Finally a man, Jesus, got it right. That’s why he has not communicated through another for the purpose of establishing scripture since the times of the Resurrection and Ascension .There is nothing to say, of relevance, that cannot be summed up in within the life of his Son. From Genesis to Revelation, along with man’s inability to comprehend or communicate God’s love for us all, the adventure of life,death,and life again have been revealed.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

The tree of knowledge offered the process of self-differentiation between good and evil. A separation from God's absolute wisdom. We resided in this wisdom with Him in the beginning. There is no suffering except when one departs from this wisdom. Elohim cannot reside outside of this wisdom. Nobody without it can reside with Him.Adam and Eve had a choice of the self-process of differentiation between good and evil without immortality, or immortality with God’s absolute wisdom instinctually. The self-process of differentiation between good and evil immediately started causing people to kill each other . (ex. jealousy, murder, war, blah, blah, blah . see Cain and Abel). Suffering ensued.Just some thoughts...

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Jaywill, we have been over this numerous times.The couple in Eden were not 'placed before the Tree of Life', nor were they ever informed of its existence.Please, in the name of Yeshua, be honest in your creative interpretations.One Love

lol - don't play coy purpledawn ... you have displayed enough honesty in your posts to indicate you maintain an understanding of why fundamentalists devise and employ creative symbolism. There is, seemingly, no other way for the words of scripture to be shoehorned into fitting the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of the Grace, the Law, the Prophets, the Anointed One and the God.Fluidity of definition gives way to, first, creative interpretation which often leads to confusion and eventually, perhaps, dishonesty.Creative symbolism gives way to fluidity of definition.Your humility is admirable at times ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

You brought this up - I simply suggested you were mistaken in regards to whether the Lovebirds were, in any way shape or form, aware of the Tree of Life before they tasted the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge; they were not, but I understand that this is your set up for 'the phall' and it cannot be contrived any other way. That the Tree of Life is significant within scripture is a given as far as I am concerned.The idea that the Lovebirds somehow snubbed their nose at the Tree of Life or, as many suggest, 'chose the wrong tree' is simply a fallacy. We both know it.The Lovebirds were told of one specific tree; you may safely debate that they should not have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, but suggesting they could have eaten from the Tree of Life instead is "Jaywill's Bible"; not the Holy One. That said, being that the Lovebirds were not aware of the Tree of Life, they could only have eaten from it accidentally. I stress this only to drive home the point that eating from the Tree of Life was not a conscious option for the couple during their stay in the Garden.You suggest they were 'placed in front of the Tree of Life' within the Garden and, so, you apparently enter into agreement with a small powerful group of stoic ascetic war-mongering celibates with a knack for abusing the power attached to hierarchical authority. Unfortunately, you exit a plain, logical, honest understanding of God's words; one that God may desire to bestow upon you.The war-mongering stoic ascetics suggested the interpretation to create their guilt trip. If you are a free man in the grace of Yeshua's Almighty Father, you do not need to accept or peddle the ascetic guilt trip. You do not need to 'make God's word null and void' by 'maintain[ing] your traditions' 'handed down among you'. Let the scripture speak to you for a change, instead of telling it what you heard it wanted you to say. Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.In both Mark and Matthew's gospel Yeshua is portrayed as rejecting the 'clean-unclean' and food laws associated with books such as Leviticus, calling them, like Jeremiah before him, 'human commandments'. Granted, these passages are likely purged from Luke's gospel, who's author proves not to be one of those who supported radicalism, but rather, as his treatment of Paul proves, a backwards looking reactionary when it came to dogmas of all sorts. Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.It was Augustine's dogma, being a dogmatic and a theologian, that suggested Yeshua died as a 'righteous' Levite animal sacrafice to establish another tyrannical reign of orthodox dogmatism over the planet; and that the sacred instructions of the crucified HaMashiach, it naturally followed, were that the church should learn a lesson from the crucifixion, noting carefully how it was done, and thus be well equipped to start crucifying, according to estimates, between hundreds of thousands or even millions of human beings for the sake of church dogmas.Augustine set the stage for the future witch hunts and crusades of the church, by demanding the death penalty be imposed on those who questioned church dogmas. After all, what church would ever be fully equipped without sacraments and rosaries and the ever present, and required, hammer and a box of nails. Augustine was no radical, but rather the reactionaries reactionary and a dogmatic to the core, truly earning any acclaim as the father of 'original sin'.His theology of the 'the Levite whole offerings sacrifice of Christ' to institute a system of dogma and sacraments into the church completely missed the obvious point in the Gospels, the Prophets, and the epistles and smacks of insult towards the life works of Yochan the Immerser and Yeshua the Anointed One who were clearly given authority to, once again and finally, establish the remittance of sins through repentance and water baptism. That many 'church fathers' were entirely void of the Ruach HaKodesh goes without saying.But, as the gospels themselves stated, God hid the truth about the crucifixion from the wise and the clever and revealed it all to those who were as simple as little children, and that excluded Augustine. Hopefully it does not evade all who try to reconcile his words and deeds with the words and deeds of Yeshua the Anointed One.Speaking of lil' ones, even the tiniest of infants was not safe from the cruel damnations of Augustine, who preferred church dogmas to human babies, and would rather have preserved the meaning of a church sacrifice than allow even one helpless infant to escape the fires of hell without being required to participate in dogmatic church rituals.He, and all who follow in his footsteps, practice nullification of the radical prophetic traditions of the Bible in favor of the doctrine of 'divine inspiration of Holy Scripture'. Even though it may be true that this belief is carried on today in many churches, it is no less true that it was this dogma that got Yeshua HaMashiach, and others, crucified and prophets dispatched to the wilderness; apparently a small detail that did not bother Augustine, and does not bother certain churches either, or so it would appear.As far as your desire to place the Lovebirds in front of the Tree of Life within the Garden narrative, the Bible itself disagrees with the interpretation regardless; in as much as such an interpretation is not supported within a plain reading of the text or without the power of suggestion.There appears to be a way to partake of the Tree of Life, but by the looks of things, it cannot be done without first partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and becoming more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua. You are, of course, free to provide any verse that remotely suggests the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life. Genesis 2:9 confirms the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was pleasing to look at and good for food. The conclusion of the Bible confirms the last tree cannot be had without the first ... One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Hope all is well with you ...I will attempt to deliver my points in a more succinct and salient fashion, as I have an obvious tendency to swerve all over the road, and hopefully you will not shy away from difficult and challenging facts and questions. Further points may be addressed in a separate post, providing time allows. By the Grace of God, the Augustinian doctrines and rational you seem to have consciously adopted in place of the words of Yeshua the Anointed One, and His fellow prophets, continue to evade me.Where do we stray, if not into the confusion of religion? Yet, without this painful lesson delivered by the confusion of religion, mankind may always assume a serpent is as wise as their Father. It is hard for me to imagine that God desires such a scenario, that being naive children, else He may have created/adopted various cherubim as family members instead of creating a new creation in His image.What is lost besides, as you often say, 'neutrality'? If God desired more 'neutrality', again, we may suppose He could have manifested more cherubim.I will tell you what is gained by the Almighty's choice to allow the serpent to deceive/beguile Eve, as well as Adam's choice to keep his Promise to his Father and not abandon his wife (even when faced with death) - the opportunity for the Almighty Father of Yeshua the Anointed One to begin displaying the Grace He freely offers, to those who will recognize and accept it for what it is.That such an awesome opportunity cannot begin to transpire until after the usurper/serpent/religion/HaSaTaN lays the tracks for the railroad of deception, and causes the ones the Father loves to transgress His Law, is seemingly a given.It appears as though the Almighty Father desires for us to recognize the Grace He freely offers, yet, how can it be recognized without, first, a 'sin'. I can assure you the Grace of God is not often recognized as such when painted and peddled as punishment by the innumerable disciples of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/relligion. Do you recognize that the Grace of Yeshua's Father is as prevalent in early Genesis as it is in the latter Unveiling?lol - the Lovebirds are threatened with immediate death, yet they do not immediately die! Nevertheless, mankind begins his escapades of murder and mayhem, yet the Almighty Father of Yeshua the Anointed One insures murderers cannot ascertain continuous life without undergoing metanonia, and in doing so, saves many lives. If The One Who Loves His Children did not shoo the Lovebirds from the Garden, that confused lil' boy Cain they spawned may have murdered either (or both) of us. Providing the Almighty Father did not employ a cherubim to guard the Tree of Life, we may be in a similar situation. If the cherubim did not light the Tree of Life up like an emergency beacon, what is to say it could ever have been located? The Grace of God abounds - can I get an amen!We see, shortly after the 'phall' of all mankind - and well before the faith of Abraham, that God immediately recognizes the righteousness of various characters such as Able, Seth etc.. The list goes on ...More importantly, all future individuals now have a viable chance to differentiate the Father from the usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion.Why would the Father desire to put mankind 'back on the track' of 'neutrality' 'from which [mankind] strayed', when this is the state that fostered the Lovebird's original deception? The fact that the Two Trees are rooted next to each other and never separated from one another, but rather mankind is separated from them, seems to indicate that they are both necessary to a process that the Almighty has initiated. The fact that both, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, are mentioned specifically as being pleasing to the eye and good for food shows me that both Trees in the Garden were just AS important in the BEGINNING as they are in the END.Point blank, all who deny that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is any less 'good for food' than the Tree of Life contradict scripture.It seems many have been taught, and continue to teach, that the diploma (ToL) can be received without partaking in any classes (TotKoG&E); evidently, life does not appear to work that way. Until this is realized, or the Father finally loses His temper (which isn't likely, considering his patience and all), the religious doctrines of HaSaTaN will likely continue to vilify the siblings of Yeshua HaMashiach.What is it, exactly, that you so vigorously disagree with about Yeshua's statements below?Are you so dull?

​

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange jaywill. Agreed. There is, as well, no verse indicating that the Lovebirds were at all aware of the Tree which yields fruit that causes continuous living, as you seem to vicariously acknowledge. I am assuming their unawareness as a logical conclusion indicated by their not 'partaking'; kinda like you somehow assume the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life, only a lil' more logical - lol.I say this to you in a loving spirit, however it is received, yet with a certain amount of confidence that I mustered up when you said, 'Why Adam did not first partake of it is, I admit, a mystery.'. You followed with, 'But I don't think that unawareness was the reason.'. I would politely disagree and further suggest this scenario as a perfectly logical conclusion that does not contradict scripture, plain reason or the spirit that the Father has given me. I think it is clear to you, as well as an honest audience, that if that is the case, that is, at best, all either of us have going on here.My primary point here is the Lovebirds were directly, and perhaps more assuredly, aware of One of the Two Trees specifically mentioned by name to the reader; this scenario being the case at the time of the fulfillment of the decree for Adam to leave his Mother/Father to join his wife which occured at Eve's deception. It should be recognized that in Adam's doing so, a decree was fulfilled and, additionally, Eve was not abandoned.There seems little reason to ignore these conclusions. Ok. Let us think logically together, if you are not so opposed as many fundamentalists are.Does the Bible hint at or indicate, at all, as to what color the robes will be after they have been washed?If so, may the color of the robes better enable one to suggest the substance that they have been washed in?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
My responses here will be brief ... Why must it be a genuine possibility that the Lovebirds were aware of the Tree of Life - simply because the Father expressed concern?An expression of concern on the Father's part does not indicate awareness on the children's behalf. Consider the Tree of the Knowledge; the children are, first, unaware of it's existence, and, secondly, the Father expresses concern and informs them of it.In these regards, the Almighty's concern seems to suggest that, as long as the couple remain in the Garden, a genuine possibility must exist for the Lovebirds to eventually stumble upon the Tree of Life and then take from it unwittingly; and that the Almighty cares enough about the confused children to prevent that from taking place.I am suggesting that the Father may express His concern, perhaps even more so, providing His children were unaware of the Tree of Life and the dangers it currently presented to them.Without any indication from scripture, as you freely admit does not exist, why should one assume the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life before their Father expresses His concern for them and informs the couple of the Tree? lol - it should be recognized that the first part of the sentence above is 'my theory' (Adam was not aware of it didn't even know about it or that it was there)...And that the second part is jaywill's logical extention thereof, of which, I agree, would surely seem to make little sense (God should not have been concerned. Adam should have just continued in unawareness).Your supposing that the Father should not have been concerned, if the children were unaware, seems to suggest that you are privy to at least two baseless assumptions ...1) the Lovebirds could not have unwittingly stumbled upon the Tree of Life while out exploring the Garden.2) the Father could care less if they did.Yet, we know the Father is concerned about the possibility of accidents via unawareness, as He clearly makes the Lovebirds aware of obstacles in the Garden, as well as various obstacles that will be encountered outside of the Garden. The above comment appears to, agreeably, makes lil' sense; hopefully you are not attempting to pawn those sentiments onto me - lol.It appears fairly obvious that the Lovebirds become aware of the Tree of Life, and the danger it presented to them, when their Father first informs them (Gen. 3:22-24).I would further suggest that the Father decided to finally inform His children of the Tree of Life, although more importantly - the danger it presented to them, so they did not think they were being punished as they were led out of the Garden.In light of this, it becomes easy to assume the Lovebird's exile from the Garden was a protective measure, as they would have likely percieved it, and not a punishment in any capacity, as usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion often suggests.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited 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

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Hope all is well with you & yours ... It is. No. It simply makes you a disciple of Augustine, or at least Augustinian doctrine ...I would also add that 'exclusion' (your term) and 'unaware' (my term) are not interchangeable. The definitions have separate meanings and each will provide distinct implications.I do not suggest the Lovebirds were 'excluded' from the Tree of Life before Gen 3:22-24, but rather that they were simply 'unaware' of that Tree until those verses.You were probably not aware that I just passed gas (pardon me); that does not imply I was somehow excluding you from this fact. lol - I said you 'entered into agreement' with the war-mongerers ... not that you are one!There is a decision everyone, who appreciates the life work of Yeshua, must make for themselves ...Follow the Anointed One, or follow the war-mongerers who usurp His authority. The two are mutually exclusive. Ok. Yet, preaching Augustine's slanderous theory, that a piece of fruit can - and has - cast mankind into damnation, completely disagrees with the plain and faithful teaching of Yeshua HaMashiach. This is important ...There is little doubt, in my mind, that a few points are ot and that the presentation could have been delivered in a more tactful fashion.Nevertheless, please share with me, exactly, which 'comments below' you find to be irrational and, more importantly, untrue:1) You do not need to 'make God's word null and void' by 'maintain[ing] your traditions' 'handed down among you'.

​

2) Let the scripture speak to you for a change, instead of telling it what you heard it wanted you to say.

​

3) Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.

​

4) In both Mark and Matthew's gospel Yeshua is portrayed as rejecting the 'clean-unclean' and food laws associated with books such as Leviticus, calling them, like Jeremiah before him, 'human commandments'.

​

5) Granted, these passages are likely purged from Luke's gospel, who's author proves not to be one of those who supported radicalism, but rather, as his treatment of Paul proves, a backwards looking reactionary when it came to dogmas of all sorts.

​

6) Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.7) It was Augustine's dogma, being a dogmatic and a theologian, that suggested Yeshua died as a 'righteous' Levite animal sacrafice to establish another tyrannical reign of orthodox dogmatism over the planet ...

​

8) ... and that the sacred instructions of the crucified HaMashiach, it naturally followed, were that the church should learn a lesson from the crucifixion, noting carefully how it was done, and thus be well equipped to start crucifying, according to estimates, between hundreds of thousands or even millions of human beings for the sake of church dogmas.

​

9) Augustine set the stage for the future witch hunts and crusades of the church, by demanding the death penalty be imposed on those who questioned church dogmas.

​

10) After all, what church would ever be fully equipped without sacraments and rosaries and the ever present, and required, hammer and a box of nails.

​

11) Augustine was no radical, but rather the reactionaries reactionary and a dogmatic to the core, truly earning any acclaim as the father of 'original sin'.

​

12) His theology of the 'the Levite whole offerings sacrifice of Christ' to institute a system of dogma and sacraments into the church completely missed the obvious point in the Gospels, the Prophets, and the epistles and smacks of insult towards the life works of Yochan the Immerser and Yeshua the Anointed One who were clearly given authority to, once again and finally, establish the remittance of sins through repentance and water baptism.

​

13) That many 'church fathers' were entirely void of the Ruach HaKodesh goes without saying.

​

14) But, as the gospels themselves stated, God hid the truth about the crucifixion from the wise and the clever and revealed it all to those who were as simple as little children, and that excluded Augustine.

​

15) Hopefully it does not evade all who try to reconcile his words and deeds with the words and deeds of Yeshua the Anointed One.

​

16) Speaking of lil' ones, even the tiniest of infants was not safe from the cruel damnations of Augustine, who preferred church dogmas to human babies, and would rather have preserved the meaning of a church sacrifice than allow even one helpless infant to escape the fires of hell without being required to participate in dogmatic church rituals.

​

17) He, and all who follow in his footsteps, practice nullification of the radical prophetic traditions of the Bible in favor of the doctrine of 'divine inspiration of Holy Scripture'.

​

18) Even though it may be true that this belief is carried on today in many churches, it is no less true that it was this dogma that got Yeshua HaMashiach, and others, crucified and prophets dispatched to the wilderness; apparently a small detail that did not bother Augustine, and does not bother certain churches either, or so it would appear.

​

19) As far as your desire to place the Lovebirds in front of the Tree of Life within the Garden narrative, the Bible itself disagrees with the interpretation regardless; in as much as such an interpretation is not supported within a plain reading of the text or without the power of suggestion.

​

20) There appears to be a way to partake of the Tree of Life, but by the looks of things, it cannot be done without first partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and becoming more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua.Hopefully you will brave a reply, but if not I would encourage you to meditate on this verse from the church testaments (1 John 3:10) ... This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope all is well in your camp ... This is true and often times we can easily pass over certain curiousities, perhaps otherwise given credence, by extending to our interpretaions of scripture the many courtesies various heterodox literary techniques can afford. Other times, even when we are making attempts to be honest in our interpretations as opposed to simply parroting ingrained cultic assumption, we may hastily overlook certain curiousities which seem to sneak by almost unannounced.For example, after all that took place on the second day - if that day was good, why was it not worth being commented on in regards to as such? Even the day jaywill's ancestors supposedly joined forces with usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion was blessed by the Almighty.What was it about the creation of that ol' firmament and its employment in distinctly dividing those various waters that caused Monday to pale in comparison to the rest of the week? Why did the Father name the firmament and decide against naming the distinct waters; what may the notion that Heaven separates them mean to us? What exactly are those distinct waters doing north and south of Heaven and what may be going on in this Heaven within the midst of those waters?These may or may not be valuable insights and questions, being that value is in the eye of the beholder and all, but I believe it to be true that there are many more, finer quality, gems within scripture that are available to those who are willing to thankfully sift through the seemingly endless mines of dogmatic assumption. Let us not be fearful in all things, but instead, encouraged and thankful ... as were the Prophets before us. Indeed. It is not obvious or clearly indicated that the Lovebirds knew of the Tree of Life's intrinsic properties or its location, though the reader is informed of the Two Trees location side by side. The couple is spoken to briefly in regards to one specific Tree and that Tree, as we all know, was not the Tree of Life.I have noticed many fundamentalists often maintain a tendency to object scripture in these points and, I personally think, this occurs more often out of a spiritual complaceny or anxiety than spiritual or intellectual honesty and discipline. At times, it is almost as though they feel that musty ol' 'phall' doctrine must be defended at all costs, and so these obvious facts are refuted - and exchanged for speculation and assumptions - as if that theoretical foundation of incoherence was somehow hinging on the Lovebird's choice between the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge. In this vein of reason, though it may be a clotted vein, the couple in the Garden must consciously reject the Tree of Life to become the ultimate filthy lil' satanified pigs.If we are honest we see this is not the case at all, but rather that any 'wrong' decision must be made between the Lovebird's two obvious choices; eat from the Tree of the Knowledge or do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge. If we are extra honest - and lend any credence as to what Eve and her Father felt transpired - we may acknowledge that the choices were, ultimately, be deceived or do not be deceived - which can be a tricky predicament for any naive children. And so, we begin to see that, removing any awareness about the Tree of Life from the Lovebird's perception does not interfere with the dearly beloved 'satanic filthy pig' doctrine.It is of course, first, the very words in Genesis, telling us that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was good for food, as were the entire variety of other Trees in the garden, such as the Tree of Life, etc ...The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)... in addition to a, second, less ambiguous and more final declaration, attributed to Yeshua the Anointed One, that devour the 'original satanified filthy sinful pig' theory peddled by many of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion's confused disciples.Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?The curious, yet seemingly awkward, dilema that seems to present itself is; who have so many Christians believed and who will they continue to trust, if they will not trust the Judeo-Christian Holy Book or believe the words attributed to the world's Mashiach, Yeshua? lol - if we are not careful! It seems unfortunate, but have faith ...It may not pass by continuously.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

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
I hope your holiday was blessed ... lol - although you may be correct in noting a certain passion involved in my blathering at times and while I admittedly exercise a generous bit of sarcasm, there is no need to trivialize, or mistake, various attempts to emphasize particular points, as simply emotional drivel.Even before I began to see, I had to forgive to open my eyes. That is true. I will boldly take this realization one step further and assert that man is not 'satanified' as you say. Much more like a work of art in progress ...That's not to say there won't be casualities, but maybe rather that nature is casual and, at times, causal. Yes, this is reminiscent of few exchanges thus far ... lolSeriously, this type of behavior you describe here is the behavior Yeshua exposed within various religious sects. I can see the point in that regard. Perhaps you are right - for instance, it doesn't seem as though all religious practitioners, or even non-religious people, have been thoroughly depleted of righteousness. Festidious rules about hand washing? These were veiwed by many Judeans as sacred ceremonial cleansing rituals, albeit perhaps unnecessary in the end of the matter. Nevertheless, these were oral rabbinic traditions that had been extracted from the Torah by those who usurped the authority of Moshe. Yet, in a unique way, to make light of them is to make light of the 'original filthy sinner' theory, so - carry on. Your story is seemingly about how filthy satanified sinners go on a rebellious rampage, poopin' in God's Garden and standing in opposition to their Creator 'til the end of time, while the one that I suggest the Bible has presented appears to be more about how and why the Almighty permits, empowers and encourages the Lovebird's, since they are one, to finally stomp usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion in the head. This is simplistic, yet it begins to get the point across.So basically, the standard theory apparently has faith that mankind has willingly joined forces with a defective cherubim and is in staunch opposition to God, while the opposing theory has more faith that the Almighty Father has joined forces with His children, Whom He Loves, against the forces of naivety and mischief; otherwise known as usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion.I do not mean to discard your appeal to Paul, but that is a matter for a future post as well; in the meantime, I hope you will understand that I cannot place various ramblings which have been attributed to him, however heartfelt and poetic, in the same light as the declarations that have been attributed to Yeshua HaMashiach, anymore than you can replace the esteemed Paul's blathering with mine own. I would also encourage you to take heed and beware of the leverage, or rather leaven, of the Pharisees.I hope to post something that may better clarify our positions soon. Neither do I brother jaywill ...Neither do I.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammar/titleEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited 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 exchange jaywill.
Don't have much time, but I wanted to get back to this.
Sorry for the quickened post & I hope things are well with you ... I tend to agree with this, although I have found that my definition of 'the church' does not jive well in a corporate setting. Again, I would like to concede, only adding that the Gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach seems to provide a much stronger preservative effect than the confused collection of Gospels that Yeshua's various usurpers attempt to provide. Consider, if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.It is a fact that the doctrine of atonement in its current state didn't even exist until the 11th century, and early believers did not have the trinitarian formulas the modern church holds so dear. What preservative effect does confusion and spiritual adultery have? Indeed, Origen, the most important christian theologian of the 2nd century, would not even be allowed in the church today by the latter devised standards.Far too many do-gooders outright dismiss the fact that no one knew Yeshua HaMashiach was going to die until He was taken away (see John 20:9 and Luke 24:20-21), and for the vast majority of His ministry, hardly anyone even knew He was HaMashiach. Yet, the bible says He preached 'the Gospel' ...What Gospel did He preach for three years if it did not include anything about His death? That is true. There have been many usurpers of Yeshua's authority, and many more are still at work, within the 'church' who desire to disarm the Father's children. The ones in this 'church' who realize they are not fighting the good fight must undergo metanonia or face the furious winepress ... I agree, but much more is lost when one leaves a hole in their pocket and overlooks the reality of the CE historical data and chooses to nullify the radical prophetic traditions canonized in scripture. I have said this before, although perhaps not to you; the story of progress - that each generation is better than the one before it - looks to be about two hundred years old. These two hundred years appear to have been the most tumultuous and destructive years in the history of the planet, with the possible exception of the venomously murderous Inquisition that was presented in the name of Yeshua by His various usurpers. And here we part ways ...The Bible does not appear to me to provide a clear picture of man falling, lower and lower, away from goodness at all. However, it does paint a fairly nice picture of religious and government entities undergoing the process you suggest. In fact, the hiStory of civilization does not appear to be a story of progress in very many ways, but a story of continuous decline in the government of religion shines through like a rainbow after the rain. It is not every individual man, but rather society collectively, that appears to be degrading; civilization and society at large are on the leash of government and religious aggression. Some, who do not take pride in an assemblence of coherency, may say this outcome is the result of more men having been evil than having been good.That is likely bullshit.Remember: beta males will not fight back and are often forgotten because the victors, alpha males, scribe their fanciful versions of embellished hiStory. One alpha male can produce the aggressive force of many betas and as this dynamic becomes more readily understood by religious practitioners, the convoluted doctrine of 'original sin' will wither away just like any ol' dead fig tree would.In the beginning we have Abel and Seth, who may both be viewed as beta males, and then thousands of years later, by the time we get to the synoptics, we are presented with many others who are comparably submissive straight away. Now, another couple thousand years later we find many who would not dare be called a 'Christian', after learning what such a term as come to be defined as to many people, yet many of these fine folk adore Yeshua and His Way and would give you the very shirt right off their back if they thought it could help you. That is the thing though; these folk aren't circumsing their behavior for a heavenly reward or to get into God's good graces. They have already resolved themselves to the fires of hell, yet, as unknowing children of God, they have chosen to serve the hungry, homeless and widowed. I tell you the truth: they will pass judgement on those who claim to be children of God, yet do not act in a similar fashion and our friend Paul confirms that fact.There has been no steady degradation in man, but instead, rather simply, an apparent increase in the aggressive force of alpha males and an equivocally apparent increase in the resolve of the beta male.It should be apparent that it is the sheer force, and I do not mean in numbers - but rather in terms of the aggression, of the alpha males that has overpowered the beta males and apparently produced a fertile soil for storytelling. These stories of 'man's inherent sinful nature' seems to cleverly give the illusion that 'all men are satanified by default'. It is all but obvious that such blasphemy is not in accord with reality, for if it was, more children would scorn puppies and kittens instead of adoring them and it has been my experience while traveling the earth that such a scenario is indeed not the case.Usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion cannot snatch any man from the Father's hand, but any man can step away from the Father and the Way of Yeshua HaMashiach; this is the choice every person makes.You should know there is only one way to foul up our day of discernment, and that is by war mongering against the Ruach HaKodesh ... It does, indeed, smell like rain ... Everybody has already been saved jaywill - that is the Gospel.All they can do now is attempt to kill themselves by warring against an invincible ally ... lol - I have not come across too many fundamentalists that want me for a brother!I hope we are brothers too brutha jay. If you love the Father with all your heart, all of your being and all of your force, and you love every other human as you love yourself - we are brothers in the Spirit of Yeshua HaMashiach.May peace rest upon you.One Love

---

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