FURTHER UPDATE: Here's the Barack Obama birth certificate. Looks legally good to me! The certificate number is what we call in the legal profession "redacted" -- something done to protect privacy. When I needed my own birth certificate which I hadn't seen in years and my parents are dead, I had to go the Indiana Department of Health. Looks very similar! ConstanceUpdate to my readers: As most know, I am also a columnist for NewswithViews.com and appreciate it as a forum. I owe them part VI of my series on "THE HI-JACKING OF EVANGELICALISM" and would love to submit more on global governance. Because of not wanting to hurt Godly and innocent people in the Evangelical world whose careers have sometimes become intermeshed with those with occult agendas, it is taking me longer than I anticipated to do part VI on Abraham Vereide, the Twelve, "Faith with Action" etc. HOWEVER, I am looking at Devvy Kidd's article claiming we do not have a new president, questioning the legitimacy of the offices held by every last United States Senator. I must respectfully and emphatically disassociate myself from her views and expressed commentary which in my opinion comes very close to bordering on inflammatory hate literature. Those views are not my views. While I obviously have strong differences with SOME (not all) aspects of the Barack Obama agenda, most pointedly on right to life issues, I do not question the legitimacy of his election, his inauguration, and his Constitutional right to hold the office to which he was elected.
I have radio programs twice weekly on www.themicroeffect.com. I understand that one of my programs, at least, is now followed by Devvy Kidd. Please realize that her views are not my views. Further, I do not think our legitimate views are advanced in any way by the type of rhetoric used by Devvy Kidd, at least in her latest column. I confess I have not read her closely -- I probably should start doing so as we write for the same source and broadcast on the same internet station.
Thank you for understanding!
Constance
To: Those in Detroit area or can get there on January 30, 2009
"Hello Friends: On January 30 at 6:30 PM we will be proud to sponsor a discussion with Constance Cumbey, a lawyer, author, and radio personality, concerning the New Age Movement, Globalization, and the coming One World Governance. You are invited to attend, the cost is free. Attached is a flyer with a description of the event and a map. Please RSVP to rohmbj@aol.com, or by telephone to Alison Lorkowski at (313) 215-1167 [signed:] Ray Monsanto"
If you would like to be included in this event which has no charge and I understand refreshments and a light buffet will be served, please email me at cumbey@gmail.com, or call me at 248-253-0333 or my SKYPEIN line of 248-686-1409 and I will pass it on for you to receive your own invitation as long as space permits. Ray Monsanto and Benita Rohm are both brilliant attorneys and long, loyal friends of my work. I am happy they are in Michigan, not all that far from me.
Constance
Hope to hear from you!
276 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 276 of 276To Bro. Jason Parker (12:32 PM):
Regarding your statement:
"I think all liberals are anti God."
__________________________________
With all due respect, it is very dangerous to make a blanket statement like that.
I am a Conservtive Republican Christian, but I have MANY friends who are Liberal Democrats AND devout Christians.
My point is that not ALL Liberals are radical, gay, abortion approving pro-Communists who don't believe in God.
Many of my friends were just fed up with George W. Bush - and felt that ANYONE would be a better choice that another Republican in the Oval Office.
So, it's very important to keep a perspective here, Jason.
Let me say this as nice as I know how. Anyone who supports abortion is not a Christian. Liberals support abortion. If A liberal does not support abortion they should change parties. I am sorry if you are blind to this. You can be wrong if you want to. ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS ABORTION IN ANY WAY IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. ANYONE WHO IS HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. you are known by your fruit. The bible is not one size fits all. You cand respond to this if you like, but it will not change my feelings. You should read 1 and 2 Tim along with the rest of the bible. "they will not endure sound doctrin."
Bro. Jason Parker
It depends on what one is "liberal" about. The Bible clearly reads that one should walk neither to the right hand nor to the left, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD. I agree there is no room for compromise on abortion or homosexuality, but some people define "liberal" as "feeding the hungry, clothing the nake" -- Biblical mandates for us to do!
Constance
To Bro. Jason Parker (2:27 PM):
Well, Jason - "let me say this as nice as I know how" - not everyone who is a Liberal Democrat supports either abortion or gay rights!!!
And I am not "blind to this." I have been on this earth a long time. There are many God-fearing Liberal Democrat Christians who voted for Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson - which took place LONG before the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion.
And some of these Christian Democrats could safely argue the point that not all of THEIR Conservative Republican Christian friends are self righteous, greedy, elitist, war mongers.
Yes, there is enough SIN to go around within BOTH parties - as we will ALL find out on Judgement Day.
The world is not all in black and white. So, please reconsider your very NARROW view point.
Bro. Jason Parker:
I once worked for State Representative William A. Ryan who was Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives. He was Catholic and the most dedicated anti-abortion person I ever met. He single handedly held it back in Michigan until Roe v. Wade came down from the US Supreme Court in 1973. I have known MANY Democratic Right to Lifers. It was State Senator Lorraine Beebe, a Republican who was trying to advance abortion when Speaker Ryan was holding it back in my state.
Constance
To anonymous 12:33
Maybe that's why Constance is an attorney and you are not!
To anonymous 12:33
Do you really think that a family would choose IN 1961, a year when segregation was far from over that:
1. They had a biracial child
2. Born only 6 months after a wedding
Today they think Barack Obama is something to brag about, but I'll bet Stanley Ann Dunham's family was into keeping it as quiet as possible then. In fact it is more than conceivable that there was a home birth with a midwife. Much of that was taking place then.
The birth certificate comports with legal requirements. It does not appear to be a fake. I have a similar one which is all I have to prove my birth, or as my enemies probably speculate: hatched on a rock!
Constance
To Anonymous (12:54 PM):
Re: "Maybe that's why Constance is an attorney and you are not!"
___________________________________
I have the utmost respect for Constance as an attorney, but it still doesn't change the fact that there have been multiple legitimate lawsuits filed challenging Barack Obama's citizenship - two going all the way to the Supreme Court.
However, if (as some believe) that our new President was "selected" rather than "elected" -- that would also explain why the "fix was in" all the way up to and including the Supreme Court.
Time will tell whether he is a "puppet" of the New World Order.
Before the self-righteous people started boycotting the Democratic party, abandoning it to feminist, pro-homosexual activists in favor of their preferred Christless capitalism, things were very different. No, Joyce, I disagree with you. I have known many righteous Democrats. In many places, especially in cities, the Democratic party is the only realistic place to go just as in many rural districts the Republican Party is the only place to go.
Was it, Joyce, as Jesus in your recollection must have said, "go ye into ALL THE WORLD - E - X - C - E - P - T to the liberals and Democrats . . .
I don't recall the Scriptures that way! I wonder if you would have condemned the Good Samaritan as a hopeless Democratic Liberal!
NEITHER TO THE RIGHT HAND NOR TO THE LEFT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD ---- AND DON'T FORGET MATTHEW 25!!!
Constance
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court because the plaintiff lost at every other level and then lost again at the Supreme Court.
This doesn't necessarily mean "the fix was in." It may have been that the case simply lacked merit.
Constance
To Constance:
I would just like for someone to explain why Jerome Corsi, a highly respected Senior Investigative Reporter from World Net Daily, was blocked, threatened and arrested in Kenya while trying to investigate the truth about Obama's citizenhsip. Somebody(s) didn't want him to find out and print the real story.
Also, the day after the election, a respected newspaper in Africa printed this banner headline:
"Kenyan-born Illinois Senator Barack Obama elected the first black President of the United States." (It seems that the place of his birth is common knowledge to many others outside of the U.S.)
I would like to explain why Jerome Corsi thought things New Age were good in his book Obamanation.
In my opinion, New Age by definition can only be bad.
Constance
Maybe ignorance is as prevalent in Africa as it is here and that's why the banner headline was printed!
To Constance:
Well, only God knows the TRUTH.
I keep reminding myself that God is still in charge. So, in the meantime, I will continue to pray for our President and our country.
Oldmanoftheski you are so fascinating, these paralegal possibilities are a bureaucrats dream, and our nightmare.
YG, I’m glad your back and hope that the computers are OK.
Chuck Baldwin reminded me that some of those posting here were talking about the Rockefellers, so when I caught his latest Newswithviews I thought an exurb was in order.
“And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090127.html
http://tinyurl.com/an36b3
Hi Constance,
In all due respect, and for whatever it's worth, read the bottom of page 26 of "Dreams from my Father".
You'll find that it seems the Dunham/Obama family kept excellent family records which Barack had access to, including his vaccination records!~
(That being said, I still don't think he was born in Kenya, but I do think there's subterfuge somewhere!)
Also, Constance, I think it was Brother Jason who said all liberals are trash, not Joyce. But maybe I'm wrong as I just read through the day's comments very , very quickly.
At any rate, Bro Jason, as a liberal Christian that thinks having a tolerant, non-judgmental attitude is what Jesus Christ wished us all to have, I also think you need to realize that there are liberal- thinking Christians who are very much against abortion and also believe that homosexuality is against God's word. That being said, I have had many gay friends over the years.
So, stone me.
Good to see that birth certificate. Haven't see that. It's very interesting to see. Thanks!
). However, in fairness to Rev. Wright based on the one speech I saw him deliver via television,
his Christology was orthodox.
Moreover, I heard him with my own ears condemn Louis Farrakhan.
There is plenty with the new Obama administration which disturbs me, but I am afraid that the silly speculation will push him even more into the Solana/New World Order / Alliance of Civilizations camp and hasten our own demise.
Constance
11:22 AM
If this statement of the pastor and his church from their website is to be read as written, I find no orthodox christology here at all. Take a very close look.
Our History
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
What we believe
We believe in you, O God, Eternal Spirit, God of our Savior Jesus Christ and our God, and to your deeds we testify: You call the worlds into being, create persons in your own image, and set before each one the ways of life and death. You seek in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin. You judge people and nations by your righteous will declared through prophets and apostles. In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Savior, you have come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to yourself. You bestow upon us your Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races. You call us into your church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be your servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory. You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end. Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto you. Amen.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Mission Statement
Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
http://tinyurl.com/5sk4gq
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr
Pastor Emeritus
Joyce, I am fairly conversant with my Bible and I believe I read it with understanding . . . The Torah held many of the ordinances that are not necessary under Jesus Christ, post his resurrection from the dead. You are welcome to keep them if you want, but I am fairly certain you do not get "brownie points" from God for having done so . . . "
Of course, as St. Paul/Apostle Paul, the former Saul pointed out, "anything not done in faith is sin to you," so if you believe you are going to offend God by not keeping all things in the Torah in their entirety, by all means do so. However, the Apostles confessed they were unable to do so. Maybe you are stronger than they?
I was raised a 7th Day Adventist and frankly found reading the Bible for myself as an adult a most liberating experience. Many things I assumed were in the Bible were not. They were pure Ellen G. White. Lots of things in the Bible I had never been told were there.
I have nothing against 7th Day Adventists apart from their theology that Michael the Archangel is Jesus and their apparent belief that you get Brownie points from God for a vegetarian diet.
Why don't we stick to your valuable research on the New Age Movement and not quibble over these finer theological points for which we have agreed to disagree?
Constance
I'm just getting ready to do the radio program in another 13 minutes. Tonight I am back on my series on basics about the New Age Movement. The discussion tonight is about core teachings and doctrines of it.
Please join us and listen live at www.themicroeffect.com
Constnce
To Roma:
Apart from the perhaps overemphasis on Africa, I see in what you posted
1. Affirmation of God the Father as the Creator of us all.
2. Affirmation of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
3. Affirmation of our need for salvation.
Constance
Roma, I have seen much, much worse than that -- Rev. Wright's theology sounds comparatively orthodox. Now if you want to see something that's really off, check out the Shrine of the Black Madonna and their Pan-African Orthodox Church and beyond that Louis Farrakhan.
And it is positively holy compared to those churches embracing Rev. Moon and tearing down crosses on his behalf.
Constance
YG,
I saw my birth certificate when I was in High School too - but it was part of my mother's belongings. All of his context was Hawaii -- not Mom and Dad in Kenya . . .
Constance
Constance:
I know this is off the main theme of the blog, but I'm so concerned about Obama, on many levels, that I wanted to give one more response about the birth certificate issue.
I don't believe the live birth document is identical to a birth certificate. With such an important issue at stake, meeting the Constitutional criteria for President, it seems to me to warrant an extra effort to get a real birth certificate.
I was born at Henry Ford hospital in Detroit and now live in CA. I have not had any problems getting a certified copy (photostat with county seal embossed on it) of my birth certificate with hospital name, doctors name, dates, times, parents, etc. clearly listed.
He could, if he wanted to, resolve this issue. It leaves me with only one explanation -- he's got something to hide.
Dave in CA
There is absolutely NO reason why a president who wants transparency and the promotion of truth to the American people, would not want to provide this document to the American people to avoid continued controversy and division.
We live in the age of Photoshop. Online documentation is a joke. The original is something that the American people have a right to know has been authenticated by the proper authorities.
UNLESS... he does have something to hide.
This is resolvable, but our president refuses to resolve the issue.
Why?
To everyone: When I say liberal, I mean the left wing agenda. The liberal party. I didn't realize this needed clarification. Of course I didn't mean liberal with Godly things. I am truly sorry if I was taken the wrong way. I am just used to "liberal" as in liberal left wing agenda. I am very very right wing conservative.
This will be my last comment on this blog. I have said what needed to be said. Let me bow out with this. We are told to "come out from among them and be ye seperate." I never said that we should exclude anyone from the gospel. I do not think we should be tolerant of sin. John the baptist was killed for preaching too hard. I guess I can take a little sarcasm. We are told that "narrow is the way." I am very narrow minded. I do not deny this. My words have been totally misunderstood. I did not say all liberals are trash. I just don't see how we can follow any party that supports abortion. God's word is black and white. Truth is truth. Anyway, thank you all for your time. So long, You now have the last word.
Constance,
Can I ask you why you are addressing me? Your response seems to be directed to me, but at comments I didn't make.. Kind of confused on this one. I'll attach your post below and maybe you can explain what post of mine your referring to. I think you are mistaking me for someone else..?
Joyce
Constance Cumbey said...
Before the self-righteous people started boycotting the Democratic party, abandoning it to feminist, pro-homosexual activists in favor of their preferred Christless capitalism, things were very different. No, Joyce, I disagree with you. I have known many righteous Democrats. In many places, especially in cities, the Democratic party is the only realistic place to go just as in many rural districts the Republican Party is the only place to go.
Was it, Joyce, as Jesus in your recollection must have said, "go ye into ALL THE WORLD - E - X - C - E - P - T to the liberals and Democrats . . .
I don't recall the Scriptures that way! I wonder if you would have condemned the Good Samaritan as a hopeless Democratic Liberal!
NEITHER TO THE RIGHT HAND NOR TO THE LEFT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD ---- AND DON'T FORGET MATTHEW 25!!!
Constance
3:13 PM
Constance,
No one will ever force anyone to obey God's commands. but Yeshua IS the Torah that became flesh and dwelt among us.. He is the Word who became flesh.
If you read my post, I'd be interested in your response to what I wrote.. I took quite a bit of time to address your comments.. As you can see I'm not into British Israelism at all.. I'm talking about the Biblical restoration of ALL Israel, not only the Jews, but all 12 tribes and the nations who dwell among them . I mentioned what the New, or newer covenant is and who it is for., the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
The points I made, if you read my comments and the Scriptures carefully are often overlooked by many who claim to read the Bible.. Sometimes we read the Bible with prejudices, and overlook the actual texts...but sometimes the translations of our Bibles are just plain biased, so without good lexicons we don't see accurately.
I know you're busy, but I hope you can find some time to go back and read my long post carefully. There's actually a lot there..
Obeying Torah is not a burden, it's a blessing.. That's the biggest misunderstanding. Doing what God says in His Word is ALWAYS a blessing. All of Yeshua said to do comes right out of Torah. He cannot contradict Himself.. The artificial separation between the "Old and New Testaments" gives most people the impression that there were two different
Gods speaking instead of the same God..
Obedience to God's loving instructions is not a punishment. It's a blessing.. especially now that our violations of it have been atoned for by Yeshua.
John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
Joyce
Constance,
The comments about Rev. Wright prove to all of us that a church's doctrinal statement doesn't mean much.
His actions speak a lot louder than his doctrinal statement..
That's another Obama thing that was pushed under the carpet..
Bottom line here is time will tell about Obama. I am already very unimpressed about his comments on the Mideast conflict, his choice of an envoy, etc.
Whether his presidency is legal or not is probably irrelevant at this point because we will never learn the truth. As someone said, and I agree.. if Obama is chosen to accomplish a certain set of goals towards establishing World Government, which is my worst suspicion, the powers that control the media, the courts, the banking system etc will see to it that he does.
The best thing we can do at this point is pray a lot, read our Bibles and ask the Lord what we can be doing at this particular moment in history to make a difference for HIs Kingdom.
If Obama is there, even illegally, it's important to remember that God raises up leaders and diposes them, and even those who are evil will eventually accomplish God's plan whether they like it or not...like Pharaoh.
If Obama assists somehow in helping to setup the iron and clay kingdom, we need to realize that Yeshua is going to crush this kingdom and establish His Millennial reign very soon. All the more reason to draw close to Him, hear His voice and keep His Word.
Rev. 17:17 “For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by bhaving a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.
Joyce
Bro Jackson Parker,
You just proved my point about lawlessness.
I am against liberals too, the kind you are referring to.
Sorry to see you go.
Joyce
"The gospel, at least as I understand it is BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED"
That is true but i fear some of your fans and Herb's fans are adding to the gospel by saying " BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND ALSO 2007 AS THE BEGINNING OF TRIBULATION, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED"
What concerns me is that Constance is fighting the new age on the front door but letting the false christs creep in the back. Christ warned us to be vigilent.
"Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers’” (Mt. 7:21–23)."
Silvia
Constance,
In looking at back at some of my comments, I hope my tone didn't sound harsh.. Didn't mean to, so I apologize if I came across that way. I realize that you are quite busy apart from the blog and could sometimes misread something, or not read carefully..I don't always read everything carefully either( even my own comments) when I am pressured.
It is frustrating however, when I feel like I've answered something in a previous comment and been very clear and there is a statement about me that I know I've addressed...but no hard feelings.
I do hope you get a chance in your leisure to go back and read carefully, my long comment on the previous page.
It was many years that had been reading the Bible from cover to cover, and just missed the very important theme about Israel because it was not my focus. I was actually praying for God to explain some things to me at that time... and He opened my eyes to what was already there that I missed.. I hope everyone on the blog has had this experience with Scripture at least once.
Our English translations are reliable for big things, but when understanding more in depth things.. you have to use lexicons or you will miss too much.. There's so many tools today for good Bible study that it's a shame if we don't avail ourselves of them.
Just want to encourage everyone on the blog to be Bereans...
Joyce
Brother Jason,
I am sorry if I offended you when I asked if you were going to stone me for having gay friends. Don't leave. You make good contributions here.
Although I was registered Democrat, I did not vote for BO. I didn't vote for McCain either. I wrote in the name of Jesus Christ on the ballot. That's just how I am.
I have been in situations throughout my life (thanks to careers in the world of the arts) where I have had to work with many New Age, liberal, and oftentimes gay people. If I treat them badly, it wouldn't reflect well for Christianity would it? So therefore, love the sinner -hate the sin has been my motto. However, I have had trouble loving some people, but I have found it very theraputic in my walk with the Lord to pray for people who I don't necessarily like or agree with. Last week I spent a lot of time praying for Obama and Casey Anthony, who is accused of murdering her own little child, and some others. It's not easy when I start praying for certain people, but once I do it, I feel much closer to the Lord.
Once, it took me a very long time to forgive someone who had wronged me. I was the one that suffered during that time period for my own lack of forgiveness. I don't want to re-open the argument that sent Primegood away from this blog, but I'll just say that if God forbid someone wronged or hurt someone I love, I just don't know how I'd react. Little acts of kindness for people who are different than us, might hopefully help us get in a little practice in advance! At least that's what I hope.
Regarding my 'liberal' mentality - it has much more to do with the social issues, which Constance already mentioned. Unfortunately you are very correct about the Democratic party. The money designated for worthy organizations often ends up falling into greedy peoples' hands with little of the initial money actually going to the charity. All that being said, I think it's become rather apparent over the years that the Rebuplican party under the Bushes has done as much as Clinton did, to further the NWO agenda.
Stick around. We can all contribute here in our own ways.
Constance,
You are right. I looked at Stanley Dunham's picture and that's where his grandson got the long squared chin, etc.
Joyce, (or Rudi, or someone!)
I'm hoping you'll answer Mary's question on the previous page! She has made points that I have also thought about, that are rather confusing. I was in an art workshop yesterday and during lunch one woman took it upon herself to start preaching to me and my Jewish girlfriend about her life as a Christian Scientist. Boy, was that a struggle to listen to! It's amazing how many different ideas are all lumped into the term "Christian!"
HOLOCAUST-DENYING BISHOP SILENCED
Bishop Fellay Apologizes on Behalf of Pius X Society
MENZINGEN, Switzerland, JAN. 27, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Society of St. Pius X, publicly apologized for statements regarding the Holocaust made by one of the society's bishops, and reported that the prelate has been forbidden to speak further on the issue.
Bishop Richard Williamson, in an interview taped in November, but aired last Wednesday on Swedish television, claimed that historical evidence denies the gassing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps.
Days later Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson, along with Bishop Fellay and two others, who were ordained bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 without papal permission. The act was to be a step toward healing the division between the society and the Vatican that resulted from the ordinations.
"It is evident that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesial authority if it is not a question of faith and morals," said Bishop Fellay. "Our fraternity does not claim any authority over other questions."
"With great sadness we acknowledge the extent to which the violation of this mandate has damaged our mission," he continued. "The statements of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any way the position of our society."
Bishop Fellay said that until further notice Bishop Williamson has been prohibited from speaking on these matters.
The superior-general asked "for the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act," which said were "not acceptable."
http://www.zenit.org/article-24930?l=english
IS FINANCIAL CHAOS ALL A BIG PLOT?
Monday January 26 2009
Riots in Latvia, Greece and Iceland with more civil unrest simmering in global flashpoints, including Ireland. Never has the phrase, "out of chaos will come order" been more apt.
One wonders if this financial meltdown hasn't been contrived.
Why hasn't the world's elite of bankers, politicians and industrialists not met to steer a way out of this turmoil?
There is no reason why the highly influential Bilderberg group could not bring forward its annual conclave from the end of May to the present time.
Or is it, as one suspects, that it shares the three-legged stool approach, as advocated by its sister policy group, the Trilateral Commission, whereby the economies of America, Asia and Europe are being deliberately nobbled so that we all end up with the same GNP and GDP as the continent of Africa, along with a single monetary unit and low interest rates, all managed by the IMF?
The net result being that corporations grow wealthier while the rest of us become enslaved. If this is the New World Order I will gladly settle for the old order any day.
John Finegan Bailieborough, Co Cavan
http://tinyurl.com/bgfhn6
I wonder if the author of this letter ever heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy
ANOTHER SSPX LEADER DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM WILLIAMSON
Rorate Caeli
As District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany, I am very troubled by the words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country.
The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.
The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.
I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.
Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.
Stuttgart, January 27, 2009
Father Franz Schmidberger
http://tinyurl.com/bms9o6
NOTE: Father Franz Schmidberger was the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X at the time of the consecrations of 1988.
Shame on you, Constance. Using the liberal terminology "Hate speech." You are helping to advance their agenda - the "fairness" Doctrine. Everyone and anyone should be free to express their opinion - even your opinion that Devvy Kidd is wrong in hers, but don't advance the national socialist agenda. For the record nearly every word that comes from the mouth of a human is hate speech. "Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips." When the fairness doctrine is passed, YOU will be shut up too.
Maryanne,
As for the whole liberal business...I'll define what I mean by it.. We are to hate sin, but love sinners, so if someone is practicing homosexuality we don't hate them for their actions but we do hate the actions..
I think one of the biggest lies of homosexuality is that it is an identity when in fact it is a choice of behavior. People have come up with this idea that some are born "gay". Now, I don't doubt that some people might "feel" like that have homosexual identity or inclination, but feelings can be very deceptive.. So...without getting to graphic on the blog here, it's pretty clear how God created man and woman, and it doesn't take too much imagination to figure that out....All the rest is perversion of what God created...I am against that, and so is the Bible... but if I want to influence people that have made this choice in their lives I totally agree we shouldn't be gay bashers..
In fact most sin is a result of believing lies.. We have all believed or still believe lies at one time or another in our life.. If God is gracious to forgive us and show us truth, we don't want to go beat up others who don't as yet have that revelation.
As far as the gay business, I do take exception to gay influence in the school system and in the society. What people do privately is their business, but when they try to impose it on a society, I feel like I have the right to stand up, especially for the innocent i.e. our children who have to be subjected to rubbish in the public schools. That makes me mad and I think that anger is righteous anger.. Today all the issues are getting mixed together and it makes it challenging to sort through them.
If I say I don't want homosexual ideas taught in school, I am accused of being bigoted or a homophobe.. If that is a homophobe then yes, I am.. The schools role, as far as I'm concerned is to teach reading, writing arithmetic, etc, unless we send our kids to a religious school, in which case we authorize the teaching of religious values which presumably we agree with.
Because in the last 10 years or so, our society has accepted the idea of homosexual adoptions a situation has been created where schools feel the need to explain why "Johnny has 2 mommies".
If the politicians of our country decide to vote for things that violate God's law they will bring judgement on the country so in that sense I fear for the policies that the Democratic party will implement. That is not to say that I like the ones the Republican party implemented either. I'm less convinced than others that the party makes a difference.. The agenda goes forward in spite of the party, but the ruling party either acts like they side with it or not..
Our country will be judged for its sins regardless of which party commits them...that is just the spiritual principle of reaping and sowing.
Joyce
p.s. I'll try to answer Mary..
Dear Bro Jason Parker:
I will surely miss you. I didn't always agree (at least with my interpretation of your statements) but your questions were legitimate and forced me to do research.
Godspeed!
Constance
To anonymous 2:03
Totally inaccurate, out of context and untrue.
Constance
Jerry from Ohio:
What I referred to hate speech was the ugly and unfair references to things that WERE NOT of homosexuality, abortion -- veiled racism is hate speech -- inciting hatred against Jews is hate speech. Reminding people of biblical injunctions against homosexuality and abortion is not.
Methinks you are using hate speech in the literal sense of the word against yours truly.
I am striving very hard as well not to permit this board to be pointed to as a reason to shut all Christian speech down. We can talk about legitimate issues without making snide references to:
1. Barack Obama's birth
2. Michelle Obama's wardrobe
3. ALL Democrats are bad (definitely not true and displays ignorance of internal dynamics) -- I have seen harder fights among Democrats over these actions. It was when they were abandoned that the only remaining Democratic voices against abortion and homosexuality are inner city Christian Democrats. In those areas the Democratic Party is realistically the only party.
Constance
Well, Silvia, the New Agers used to brag that I would be shut down by a backlash from my own.
What is your role?
Constance
Hi Mary,
***I'll try to answer you.
I am kinda surprised that a blog site that is regarding the new age is discussing Trinity instead of the topic the blog is about. But since you guys are, I have a few questions.
****long story, so I'll pass on this one..
In bible studies I learn just not to talk about this. I am confused when the bible scriptures say things like these in regards to the belief in Trinity.
Matthew 26
39”Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
The two different wills makes me really think. How can the same being have different wills yet be the same being? I would think two separate wills would prove they are two separate beings? Yet with the same purpose, therefore being one in purpose as we read in John 17 in reference to Father, Jesus and the disciples.
****I don't think there are two different wills here, but remember all the fullness of deity in bodily form dwells in Yeshua, yet by coming this way, God has deliberately subjected Himself to some human limitations while still fully being God.. It was a clear choice that God made to manifest incarnate. This is truly the mystery...God identifies us in order to redeem us, which necessitates that He subject Himself to human limitations while being divine.
John 17
“11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.”
They are one as we are one? Does that mean that Jesus and Father they are one in purpose and doctrine yet two beings with distinct roles? Because we are not one being with them.
*****When we are "in Messiah" we are part of His body.. He is the head.. and we are His visible representatives on planet earth. When we are born again, we partake of His nature, so our old man dies and is no longer and we no longer live to ourselves but live for Messiah. His Spirit indwells us which is what enables us to obey Him.
.
18”As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.”
Father sent Jesus as Jesus sent the disciples….does that mean Jesus is doing what His Father did and showing them what His Father taught Him? He says that early in the verses. It does not lessen Jesus being God of this Earth but does make him a separate being.
****I kind of answered this in the first question.. Remember Yeshua's birth, supernatural as it was was God's breath creating this life in Mary, so if the breath is part of God, we can't really separate God's breath from Himself.
21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
*****when we are empowered by God's Spirit, our lives bear witness to who He is and what He has done in our lives..
25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
*****Because of how we are, God needed to manifest in the flesh to model who He is and also to redeem humanity which was doomed from the fall.
It sounds like one in purpose not body. It can not mean that we are to become one with the Father and Jesus as one being as Hinduism teaches and the new age teaches. It sounds pretty new age to me and that is scary.
*****God is God and we're not,( Hinduism is more like pantheism) but when our nature is transformed by His Spirit and when our old man is put to death, we now have Messiah's righteousness, but our mind needs to be renewed and by putting on the truth of God's Word.
John 17:28
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus say the Father is greater then Him? How can he be greater then Himself?
****I would have to say that He is only referring to the self imposed human limitations.
Matt 3
16”As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
They appear as separate personages here, so why do we think they are one being? Why is Father please with himself?
***Yeshua lives out perfectly the truth of Torah, but yet He does it in a human body, so the sense in which Yeshua lives out what Adam did not live out this is pleasing to God. By identifying with us in our weakness God can redeem us based on the rules that He set up. As I mentioned before God is not limited to our description and won't be put in a box.. If He appears as a dove, if He comes in flesh, if He comes in a pillar of fire...a column of smoke..He is still God. The composite unity of Father, Son, Spirit does model for us perfect unity. Perfect unity does not seek equality with the Father..
In my NIV bible there is no mentioned of the Godhead yet in the King James it is mentioned at least 3 times. Therefore there could be a Godhead that comprises of Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
*****that's right, the greek word is theios..
Here's the Thayer's definition of theios.
2320. qeo/thß; theoteœs, theoteœtos, heœ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de 104: Dei 7, 1)), deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.)*
(Synonyms: theoteœs, theioteœs: theoteœs deity differs from theioteœs divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench, sec. ii.; Lightfoot or Meyer on Colossians, the passage cited; Fritzsche on Rom. 1:20.)
Col. 2: 9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Acts 17: 29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Rom. 1: 20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Why does the NIV not explained in the Godhead?
****It's just a preference on the part of the translator..
****I think it's helpful to remember that we are made in God's image and likeness, just as in the Genesis account the waters above are separated from the waters below.. what we see on planet earth is a reflection of the throne room.. Creation, though has been corrupted, and as such needs to be redeemed, thus the Creator Himself came incarnate to identify with us in human form and to redeem us. When Adam and Eve started out, they were in delight, the Garden was planted in qedem. Let's look at the word qedem ( east)
6924a. M®d®q qedem [869c]; from an unused word; front, east, formerly:—ancient(2), ancient times*(2), ancient times(3), before(2), earliest times(1), east(25), East(1), east side(1), eastward(1), eternal(1), everlasting(1), formerly(1), forward(1), gone by(1), long ago(1), old(17).
The root of the word Eden is "in delight. in Him" Adam and Eve were in Him in delight.. What does God want to restore..? This very relationship..which He has gone to great lengths to do, by actually appearing incarnate to redem us from the curse.
So, let me rephrase this...from long ago we were in Him in delight...until the snake deceived Adam and Eve..This set up a whole series of chain reactions which God reversed.. Since the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, it's not that God had to think about how He would redeem Adam and Eve..He already knew..
Look what this verse in Revelations says...our names were written from the Foundation of the World.. It was already accomplished because God transcends time.. and therefore God can also transcend our ideas in the way He presents Himself. He is not limited by our human imagination:
Rev. 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
How does God wanted to restore us to delight in Him, to face to face relationship, the place in Him where He created us to be from the foundation of the earth. How awesome is a God like this? How transcendent is He? I am satisfied to know what He has already told us about Him in His Word and leave it at that..There's still so many more treasures to discover just studying His Word.
I am not wanting to argue just asking. Trinity is so much part of Christianity as defined by a council in the 4th century ad. I rather read the bible without the additional philosophy of Trinity, because I can not find it in the scriptures, but I find verses like these and it makes me wonder where did Trinity really come from.
******Yes, I absolutely agree with you.. I always want to read just what the text of Scripture says and do my best to understand just what's there.
It is interesting that the Hindu pantheon is rule over by a trinity. Also believed by Hindus to be three sides or manifestation of a single God essences. In Hindu religion the word Advatar means externalization of a deity. A god can be externalized or expressed in multiple avatars of that god. It is a mystical relationship not to be comprehended by mortal minds.
It make me think since this concept of trinity came in the church between the death of the apostles and the council of Nicaea about 300 years after Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the bible or named Trinity. You do find the word Godhead in the King James version which may be close to the idea. But could also be interpreted as a heavenly council of 3 distinct beings acting as one. I am concerned that the idea of Trinity could have come from the east. Like all the Gnostic ideas. It does not make the bible incorrect, just the word trinity and the interpretation there of intermingled with teaching of men and not the teaching of the bible. Leaving the bible as correct and perfect. But leaving me not trusting Trinity. I am not telling anyone what to believe just sharing my concerns and questions.
******I think to a great extent both Jewish and Christian Gnosticism have been influenced by the conquests of Alexander the Great and all He brought back to the Greek Empire which ultimately influenced the Roman Empire.. We as people who have grown in Western Civilization are soooo influenced by Greek thinking that we are not aware of it... When you begin to think hebraically you see that there is a huge difference and it helps to understand the what the writers of the Bible meant.. It's very hard to remove the influence that is so embedded in our culture. It's very subtile and the same is true in Christianity...Christianity grew up in a Greek culture..and so necessarily the ideas filtered in.. I think Paul was always fighting against this. You see it in his Epistles.. People assume he's criticizing Jews, when a lot of his criticisms are against Gnostics, Jewish mystics, and Asceticism.
Sorry this is another one long, but I couldn't find another way to answer you.
Joyce
To Constance:
In all fairness to Joyce - I believe that you have mistakenly attributed those negative comments about the Democratic Party to Joyce - when they should have been attributed to Bro. Jason Parker instead.
If you go back and review the previous posts, you will clearly see this error.
Maybe the Holy Blessed Trinity is a mystery that mankind was not MEANT to understand.
Okay Rudi,
This one is for you. Every once in a while I check the Common Word website ( the muslim letter signed by hundreds of Christian and several Jewish scholars)..to see what's new... and I found this:
http://tinyurl.com/cnvhe3
So I looked to see who this lady and her organization were who wants to make the World Peace Religion, uniting Christianity, Judaism and Islam and here's what I found:
http://www.thetempleoflove.com/wst_page2.html
http://tinyurl.com/cltfvo
The site itself is not very impressive, but if you look at the links on the bottom there is
Bnei Baruch Kabbalah center and the Academy of Jerusalem ( not to be confused with Jerusalem Academy )
I've looked at this one before, but it might deserve another look:
http://tinyurl.com/aogph8
This site also has plans for a "future Temple"..
I posted this on Bjorn's along with some other interesting stuff, about Cordoba Foundation.
Joyce
Here's the video at National Cathedral for President Obama, posted on the Common Word website.. Have a look, if you haven't seen it:
http://tinyurl.com/ajjuz4
Joyce
Jerusalem the ultimate obstacle to the peace plan...well this fellow has the design:
http://www.thehope.org/RHJ123.htm
Constance,
My role? The least i hope is that you think about what Christ meant when He said: John 3:3 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Being born again is the heart of christendom. Being renewed. That is the very reason Christ gave His life so that we might be forgiven, cleansed from sin and have eternal life if we choose to accept Him and stay in His word. What He did was sufficient and absolutely nothing must be added and if things are added than another christ/gospel is preached.
If someone is not born again he/she cannot enter Gods Kingdom. The Lord is very clear about that.
That is where Matthew 7:14 comes in: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be
that find it.
and
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have
we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. and the rest of Matthew 7.
To do the will of God it is of the utmost importance one is born again out of grace. Without being renewed all good works are in vain, scripture is very clear that good works by itself will not save anyone only the atoning work of Christ and the following rebirth of the sinner.
Any person/church that preaches a gospel other than the one in scripture is by definition another gospel with another christ which will not lead to the lifesaving rebirth.
So no matter how nice or moral some muslims, hindu's etc. are, the fact is they are not renewed and cannot enter according to God. God however is just above all, those who've never heard the gospel will be judged by their heart/lives (romans), but God is strict according to scripture to those who wilfully reject the one and only Christ from scripture.
So, it does makes all the difference in the world which Christ is preached. Unfortunately there are many of them but thankfully one that is Faithfull and True.There's only one Christ who can provide the rebirth for a sinner. There are numerous testimonies on the net that will tell you that because of the these false gospels people are witheld the most essential; the rebirth.
Silvia
I would note for
Silvia's benefit that self-righteousness is an evil spirit as well -- in fact a leading one behind those calling for Jesus' crucifixion.
Anonymous,
Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Just some food for thought. Be careful..
Joyce
Brother Jason is right about the "narrow way". I'd rather take that way than be on the "wide way" that leads to destruction.
As a younger woman working in a hospital they used to say I had "tunnel vision" too narrow minded I guess. It's not easy to be a Christian in that atmosphere and it's probably worse today in any. But I didn't go along with the crowd. The only way we should determine right from wrong is the only measuring stick we have and that's the Word of God. And as I told the Administrator one day; there's only black and white in the Word of God no gray areas at all, she was Jewish. They wanted to know if I was going to go with the strike that was taking place; I said "NO", I didn't believe in it.
It's important to line up with the Word of God in all we do. And appreciate your stand Constance and the value you put on it, no matter what the subject. This is what my husband Tim noticed about you as he listens to your radio program.
1/29/2009
Joyce wrote: “If someone can explain to me how God can appear in a bush that isn't consumed, a pillar of smoke, a pillar of fire, as the "angel of God" who wrestles with Jacob. Jacob says, "I have seen God and I didn't die". We have a similar situation going on with Abraham and the 3 visitors, and it says the Lord ( YHVH) appeared to him. ---
“The men and women in the Bible who walked with God, met Him in amazing ways. They didn't question, "why are you showing yourself to me in a burning bush? " You're supposed to be God, and God is not in a burning bush.. or why are you revealing yourself as a man, God is not supposed to be a man. When they heard His voice, they simply knew it and followed.”
Is your question whether God can appear in a bush or that the bush was not consumed?
You have to understand that the burning bush was a symbolic prophetic vision created by God for Moses and delivered by an angel (Exod. 3:2-6). Moses was fearful that Egypt would destroy Israel. The surviving puny bush was symbolic of puny Israel that would never be destroyed.
The prophetic vision of the bush was Moses’ first such; hence his amazement. He was drawn into it gradually, first the fire, then the angel, and finally the indwelling presence of God’s light that was to blinding to observe.
This event must not be misconstrued as being about Moses seeing God or God being in the fire. This will be seen more clearly from another event. I am particularly fond of the story of Elijah's illuminating encounter with God when he was hiding in the cave.
"[The word of God] then said, 'Go out [of the cave] and stand on the mountain before The LORD.' And behold, The LORD was passing, and a great powerful wind, smashing mountains and breaking rocks, went before The LORD. 'The LORD is not in the wind!' [Elijah was told]. After the wind came an earthquake. 'The LORD is not in the earthquake.' After the earthquake came a fire. 'The LORD is not in the fire.' After the fire came a still small voice. (1 Kings 19:11-12)"
Len
1/29/2009
Joyce wrote: “If someone can explain to me how God can appear in a bush that isn't consumed, a pillar of smoke, a pillar of fire, as the "angel of God" who wrestles with Jacob.. Jacob says, "I have seen God and I didn't die". We have a similar situation going on with Abraham and the 3 visitors, and it says the Lord ( YHVH) appeared to him. ---
“The men and women in the Bible who walked with God, met Him in amazing ways. They didn't question, "why are you showing yourself to me in a burning bush? " You're supposed to be God, and God is not in a burning bush.. or why are you revealing yourself as a man, God is not supposed to be a man. When they heard His voice, they simply knew it and followed.”
Is your question whether God can appear in a bush or that the bush was not consumed?
You have to understand that the burning bush was a symbolic prophetic vision created by God for Moses and delivered by an angel (Exod. 3:2-6). Moses was fearful that Egypt would destroy Israel. The surviving puny bush was symbolic of puny Israel that would never be destroyed.
The prophetic vision of the bush was Moses’ first such; hence his amazement. He was drawn into it gradually, first the fire, then the angel, and finally the indwelling presence of God’s light that was to blinding to observe.
This event must not be misconstrued as being about Moses seeing God or God being in the fire. This will be seen more clearly from another event. I am particularly fond of the story of Elijah's illuminating encounter with God when he was hiding in the cave.
"[The word of God] then said, 'Go out [of the cave] and stand on the mountain before The LORD.' And behold, The LORD was passing, and a great powerful wind, smashing mountains and breaking rocks, went before The LORD. 'The LORD is not in the wind!' [Elijah was told]. After the wind came an earthquake. 'The LORD is not in the earthquake.' After the earthquake came a fire. 'The LORD is not in the fire.' After the fire came a still small voice. (1 Kings 19:11-12)"
Len,
I have to disagree with you because it says that the Lord called him from the midst of the bush:
Ex. 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, aGod called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
The passages you quoted from about Isaiah, says specifically that the Lord was NOT in the wind, NOT in the fire. Isaiah sees the Lord of hosts in the throne room in Isaiah 6, where it says:
Is. 6:5 I cried, “Woe is me; I am lost! For I am a man of unclean lips And I live among a people Of unclean lips; Yet my own eyes have beheld The King LORD of Hosts.”
To me the difference between the passage of Ex 3 and 1KI 19:11-12...The key word is NOT.. whereas ex 3 says the Lord called from the "midst" of the bush..
There is another experience where the Lord passes before Moses face, on the very same mountain when he is going to receive the tablets a second time:
Ex. 34:5-6 The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as 1he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God,
Both times Moses is at the Mountain of God.. in the Ex 3 passage it's called Horeb, but later on it's called Sinai.
As you can see plainly, it's just what the text says.. the hebrew word "tavek" seems to clearly denote that the Lord was speaking from within the bush.. There are other more personal reasons why I believe this to be true, but I won't go into that..I want to stick with the text.
In the passage about Isaiah, the LORD is passing by, so the physical manifestations are from His passing, but HE is not IN them. I think you can see the difference if you read carefully...
I won't get into the business with the angel of the Lord, because often times we see the "angel of the Lord and then the Lord is speaking to the person face to face.. I'm thinking of the passage with Jacob wrestling.
Gen. 32:24 Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.
Gen. 32:28 aHe said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”
Gen. 32:30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
This time God appears as a man.. It's very clear that
Jacob was wrestling with a man, to which Jacob says.."I have seen God face to face". The man also tells Jacob that he has been wrestling with God, thus the name change..
I will repeat that God can reveal Himself anyway that He so pleases.. He is not limited by our imagination..
This may be why some of our people have a hard time believing that God can appear incarnate.. They have a set idea about how they perceive God...and when he defies their imagination, they dismiss it. Imagine if Moses had not "turned aside " to look at the bush..he might not have noticed that this bush was not consumed by the fire..Burning bushes are common in the wilderness, I understand, but not burning bushes that are not consumed.
When we can "see" with spiritual eyes, we can "see" how Yeshua is who He is...
Shalom and blessings,
Joyce
I want to ad that in the Ex 34, the Lord stood there with Moses, before HE passed by.. the word for pass by is the same word used in the 1Kings passage, with Isaiah that you cited, but the difference is the Lord descended in the cloud and rested there with Moses:
Ex. 34:5 aThe LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
I don't think the passage in Ex 3 is only symbolic..
Shalom,
Joyce
Amen, Joyce: I will repeat that God can reveal Himself anyway that He so pleases.. He is not limited by our imagination..
The word is clearly literal about the burning bush not symbolic. Too many are making the Word of God out to be symbolic when it is literal. God is God and he can do anything he pleases. It's hard for our finite minds to comprehend, so Christians are symbolizing the text to make it more understandable. God's word is clear in that passage and so many others that have been symbolized.
1/30/2009
Joyce wrote: "If you remember the story, when Israel's about to die, he adopts Ephraim and Manassah giving them the status of sonship ( even though their mother was an Egyptian). Len will argue with me on this but here it is in black and white:"
Why would I argue with what the Bible says in black and white? Where I do argue is with what you make up that is not in the Bible -- meaning the Jewish Bible. This includes the claptrap about how Jews (Judans) are not Israelites and your inventions about Jesus as being derived from all this.
BTW, the first mention of "Jew" (or Judean) in the Bible is a little earlier than you stated: in 21 Kings 16:6:
6 At that time, Rezin the king of Aram restored Elath to Aram, and drove out the Judeans from Eloth, and Edomites came to Elath and dwelt there until this day.
The word "Jew" comes from the southern kingdom of Judah which was the surviving one (temporarily) after the northern kingdom of Israel was lost and its people dispersed.
Judah also contained the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, as well as some from the defeated northern kingdom who escaped when it was defeated by Assyria.
Today no Jew but the Levites (Kohayn/priest and Levite) know which tribe they were from. Others consider themselves merely Israelites.
Why should the surviving tribes not be entitled to be included in the Israelite nation as you state? And why shouldn't converts be also so included? The Covenant was, and is, open so that a foreigner/ Gentile could become an Israelite. Recall Isaiah:
"Let not the foreigner, who has joined himself to Hashem, say: 'Hashem will utterly separate me from His people;' and not the eunich say, 'I am a withered tree.' For thus said Hashem: 'To the eunichs who observe My
Sabbaths and choose what I desire, and grasp a tight hold of my covenant: I will give them a place of honor and renown, in My house and within My walls, better than sons and daughters; eternal renown will I give them, which will
never be terminated. And the foreigners who join themselves to Hashem, to serve Him and to love the Name of Hashem, to be His servants, all who guard
the Sabbath against desecration, and grasp a tight hold of my covenant -- I will bring them to My sacred mountain and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their elevation offerings and their feast offerings shall be welcome on My alter, for My house of prayer shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples. Thus declares Hashem/Elohim Who gathers all the dispersed of
Israel: "I shall gather still more to those already gathered. (Isaiah 56:3-8)"
Len
1/30/2009
Joyce wrote: "Christianity...Christianity grew up in a Greek culture..and so necessarily the ideas filtered in.. I think Paul was always fighting against this. You see it in his Epistles.. People assume he's criticizing Jews, when a lot of his criticisms are against Gnostics, Jewish mystics, and Asceticism. "
Paul spoke out of both sides of his mouth and readily admitted it when he said in 1 Cor. 9:19-23:
19: For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20: And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21: To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22: To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23: And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Paul criticized Jews for what he considered a futile attempt to obey the Torah and said that any failure dooms them. He said that, if law could justify, Jesus died in vain. This deceit and pretence is still followed by today's missionaries as if Jewish attempted observance of the Torah, even if imperfect, is not what God really wants; that the Torah ends with Jesus and the only thing needed is faith in him. Jews who don't believe in Jesus are shamed. (Rom. 9:33, 10:4, 14) How preposterous can you get???
Len
Len,
I'm not going to search through the old comments, but when I said that Ephraim and Manassah were adopted way back when you first started writing, you disagreed with me. I remember very distinctly. but I'm glad you agree now..
Actually, according to a rabbi friend of mine, the name Jew is probably more recent than that and is a subject of some discussion.. It comes from Yehudi which referred to Judeans.. The issue is that the Northern Kingdom has largely been forgotten and they are not "Jews". One day, God is going to restore All Israel. In the meantime, Jews have preserved Torah and from Judah comes Yeshua, no doubt that this was according to God's plan in 1 Kings when Rehoboam wants to attack the Northern Kingdom, God tells him not to because the "split was from Him".
Prophetically speaking though, God will restore All of the tribes and their tribal identities. The nations can join themselves to Israel and in fact always have. I don't believe this means the nations will follow Judaism. The new/newer covenant according to Jer 31:31-33 is when the Torah is written on our minds.. I don't equate this with following Judaism.
I believe that there must be new birth as Yeshua said to Nicodemus.. a teacher of Israel... He said if Nicodemus wasn't "born again" he would not see the kingdom of God.. That new birth comes from coming into relationship with Yeshua i.e. when our "old man" dies and we are born again in Messiah.
We are then spiritually alive, spiritually alive to the things of God. Torah on our minds is not in legalistic observance but through the life giving Spirit..
No one, not Abraham, nor Moses, nor Joshua, etc, etc. were justified through Torah. They were justified through faith and belief in the promises of God. This is what Paul was always saying.
Being "under the law" is being under the death penalty that Torah outlines.. Abraham, Moses and the rest looked forward to the promised Messiah, Yeshua and so they were justified by faith .. We are now looking back...and our faith is also based on what we don't see...This faith is a gift..
Len, you're probably a very nice man, but you're wrong about Paul. He didn't talk out of both sides of his mouth... Paul was talking about a situation in Second Temple Judaism in which there were people saying that the new believers in Yeshua had to be circumcised to be accepted into the community.
Works of Law-ergo nomos is a Greek expression that indicated this. . Most people believe "works of law" means Torah observance, but it was actually something more specific than that..
Paul's point was that Abraham was justified without being circumcised and that the law was added because of transgressions.. Paul is actually pretty hard to understand if you don't pay careful attention and understand context. Even Peter says this. Being Jew to the Jew and Gentile to Gentile does not mean he was a hypocrite. If I am talking to a Buddhist about Yeshua, I'm not going to say the same things that I say to you... It doesn't mean that I am lying to them. I'm just going to focus on things that will touch them..
In Paul's actions he was very clear where he stood. He was Torah observant, but not because he thought it would save him. If Torah observance would have saved him, he would have no need to know Yeshua, because he was already Torah observant. He knew the source of his salvation and that was Yeshua.
Still praying for you to. have..
Shalom in Yeshua,
Joyce
p.s. Len, I love that passage from Isaiah and I agree with you that one of the problems that Christianity does not understand is that they are to enter into the covenant and are called to follow Torah, not for salvation though.. but because they fundamentally understand now that they are fully grafted into Israel..
The Northern Kingdom became like Gentiles in the sense that they assimilated and didn't obey Torah. This was the reason for their semi-permanent exile. God being fully of mercy, redeemed them Himself. I don't believe when God redeems the Northern Kingdom that they will continue to disobey Torah, but I believe it will be written on their minds ( leb).. This mystery of how God writes Torah on our minds, is when His Spirit indwells us which can only happen through the new birth..
I would recommend that you start by reading Yeshua's words before reading Paul's. Paul will never, ever contradict Yeshua.. He can't. Most people thing Paul started a new religion, but that's not what he did..and therein lies the confusion. Paul loved Torah, but he fundamentally understood that his salvation came through Yeshua, who he was previously persecuting...
This is great passage and will explain "born of the Spirit"..
ohn 3:2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “aRabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these 1bsigns that You do unless cGod is with him.”
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one ais born 1again he cannot see bthe kingdom of God.”
John 3:4 ¶ Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of awater and the Spirit he cannot enter into bthe kingdom of God.
John 3:6 “aThat which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born 1again.’
John 3:8 “aThe wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 3:9 ¶ Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you athe teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
John 3:11 “Truly, truly, I say to you, awe speak of what we know and btestify of what we have seen, and byou do not accept our testimony.
John 3:12 “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:13 “aNo one has ascended into heaven, but bHe who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
John 3:14 “As aMoses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must bthe Son of Man cbe lifted up;
John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
Len, I think you are a teacher of Torah.. I can see that you love Torah and really believe in it which I do too.. Try to understand Yeshua in the light of Torah and you will begin to understand what He was saying..
Joyce
clue...obeying Torah will not bring about the new birth...when we are born again, our desire will be to have God's Word written on our minds and by His Spirit we will be empowered to obey.
Unfortunately, a lot of Church teaching has obscured this and thus the confusion.. It saddens me to see how the Church has undermined God's Torah...His loving instructions to us..
1/30/2009
Joyce wrote: “I have to disagree with you because it says that the Lord called him from the midst of the bush:
Ex. 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, a God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
I welcome disagreement as it gives me an opportunity to correct misunderstandings; even my own when I am wrong. First of all your interpretation of Exod. 3:4 is incorrect. If you go back to 3:2 you will see that it says:
2 An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed. 3 So Moses said, "Let me turn now and see this great spectacle why does the thorn bush not burn up?" 4 The Lord saw that he had turned to see, and God called to him from within the thorn bush, and He said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am!"
Though the Lord called Moses from the midst of the burning bush the Lord was not in the bush; rather an angel. An angel often sands in for God as in Jacob’s wrestling incident. The point of my citation from 1 Kings 19:11-2 is that God resembles nothing on earth, in the sky or under the water as stated clearly in the Second Commandment and reiterated in Deut. 4:15-20:
15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see not any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. 16 Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven, 18 the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth. 19 And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them. 20 But the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron crucible, out of Egypt, to be a people of His possession, as of this day.
Here too, in Vs. 15, God spoke “from the midst of the fire” but God was not in the fire. Why would God be in the fire here, and in the burning bush, but not in the fire that Elisha witnessed? Does that make any sense? The fire is where the voice appears to be coming from; period.
>>Isaiah sees the Lord of hosts in the throne room in Isaiah 6, where it says:
Is. 6:5 I cried, “Woe is me; I am lost! For I am a man of unclean lips And I live among a people Of unclean lips; Yet my own eyes have beheld The King LORD of Hosts.”
But this is plainly a hypnotic vision based on what it says in Numbers 12:6:
5 The Lord descended in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the Tent. He called to Aaron and Miriam, and they both went out. 6 He said, "Please listen to My words. If there be prophets among you, [I] the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision; I will speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so is My servant Moses; he is faithful throughout My house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth; in a vision and not in riddles, and he beholds the image of the Lord.
Now that we have disposed of Isaiah 6:5 you will move your argument up to Moses from Num. 8. I am anticipating
But based on other biblical passages Moses beholding “the image of the Lord” is also allegoric because of another verse in Exod. 33: God’s response when Moses asked to see His glory:
20 And He said, "You will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live." 21 And the Lord said: "Behold, there is a place with Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22 And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back but My face shall not be seen."
This also raises questions because of apparent contradiction between Vss. 20 and 23. The logical interpretation is that God’s glory is evidenced from history; after He has “passed by.” Moses is considered the greatest prophet because, among other reasons, he was the only prophet able to communicate with God while awake or not in a trance/vision as stated in Num. 12:5-8.
>>As you can see plainly, it's just what the text says.. the hebrew word "tavek" seems to clearly denote that the Lord was speaking from within the bush..
If you mean to stick with the text of Exod. 3:4 why are you introducing the word “tavek” which is not in there? The phrase “from the midst of the thorn-bush is, in Hebrew: “meetokh ha’so-neh.”
>>I won't get into the business with the angel of the Lord, because often times we see the "angel of the Lord and then the Lord is speaking to the person face to face.. I'm thinking of the passage with Jacob wrestling.
Exactly; except for the words “face to face” which are allegoric even for Moses.
Deut. 34: 10 And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 as manifested by all the signs and wonders, which the Lord had sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and all his servants, and to all his land, 12 and all the strong hand, and all the great awe, which Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel.
>>Gen. 32:24 Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. 28 He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” --- 30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
This time God appears as a man.. It's very clear that
Jacob was wrestling with a man, to which Jacob says.."I have seen God face to face". The man also tells Jacob that he has been wrestling with God, thus the name change..
Joyce; Jews have been interpreting the Bible for 3300 years and the word “Elohim” in these verses can mean “God” but all Jewish Bibles translate it here as either “the Divine” or “God[ly beings]” (including the brackets) or “an angel.” Jewws do not make the Christian error of thinking God will Himself appear as a human in contradiction of the Second Commandment, Deut. 4:16-18, Exod. 33:20 and Num. 12:6.
>>I will repeat that God can reveal Himself anyway that He so pleases.. He is not limited by our imagination..
God will not contradict His own rules.
This is a complicated subject, easily confusing, but I hope I have clarified it to some extent.
Len
1/30/2009
Joyce wrote: Ex. 34:5 aThe LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
You could translate it this way but a better translation is:
Ex. 34:5 aThe LORD descended in the cloud and [it] stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
Either way, do not misinterpret the meaning.
Len,
You have misinterpreted my words. I did not say that Moses saw a specific image of the Lord from within the bush.. I simply said that it was the Lord calling "from the midst of the bush".. Scripture does not tell us what Moses saw, beyond the fact that the bush was burning and not consumed and the Lord was "in the midst of it" .
You and I will probably have a very different idea of the "angel of the Lord".. Many times when the angel of the Lord is there, so is the Lord Himself.. I want to suggest that this term, at times is used interchangeably with the Lord suggesting that the angel is the Lord. You are working with an assumption that from within the bush was an angelic being, I am working with the assumption that the Lord Himself showed up in some preincarnate form...Now what exactly Moses saw... I have no idea and I will not try to venture to say beyond what the passage says, but the passage flips from angel of the Lord to the Lord...and this happens elsewhere in Scripture.
In the passage with Abraham when he has 3 visitors, we see that "the Lord appeared to him"..
Gen. 18:1 ¶ Now athe LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. The Lord is among these visitors. Scripture doesn't explain exactly how it was that the Lord is having a very personal conversation with Abraham and Sarah and it coincides with this visit, but the implication of the text is that the Lord is one of these visitors.. When the visitors, angels continue on to Sodom and Gomorrah there are only 2...angelic messengers and the Lord Himself is no longer there. I do not believe the Lord went to Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather the two remaining angelic messengers did.
One verse that is very interesting in the context of a miraculous birth is what the Lord Himself says to Sarah:
Gen. 18:14 “Is anything too difficult for the LORD?
I agree that we are not supposed to depict God and Scripture doesn't tell us exactly what any of these men saw, not Abraham, not Jacob, nor Moses, so we can only imagine what these appearances are about. These are some of the verses in Torah, where I would like to suggest to you that Torah is preparing us for the fact that the messenger of the Lord is the Lord Himself.
When prophets like Isaiah are given heavenly visions like the one in the throne room, I want to suggest that God does reveal Himself in these visions, because if He had not Isaiah would not have made the remark that he did...In the second half of verse 5 of chapter 6, he says it very clearly:
Yet my own eyes have beheld The King LORD of Hosts.”
In this type of visions, which we see in the book of Ezekiel, in Isaiah and in the book of Revelations, the line between vision and reality seems quite blurred.. If it were not blurred the Prophets would not have responded with such awe of the visions that they received.. I think these visions are more than dreams.. I believe and I know that God gives people visions that are as real as reality itself.. Enough so that these men recorded in vivid detail their visions.
I suspect when Moses "saw the Promised Land" at the end of his life, the kind of seeing was not just a little image in his imagination but a kind of spiritual seeing that is reserved for great men of faith.. We know that Moses could not have literally "seen" the Promised Land, because he would not have been able to literally see from his vantage point..
Deut. 34:1-4 aNow Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD bshowed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, and the 1Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, athe city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the LORD said to him, “This is the land which aI swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your 1descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”
There is seeing and seeing..
I believe that Jacob literally wrestled with the Lord and it doesn't matter how many years Jews have been interpreting Scripture. Some of us Jews today can see that some of our brothers have been misinterpreting parts of Scripture because of their own inability to see God when He is face to face with them. That is why today, there are Jews that understand that the God made pre-incarnate appearances to some of the Patriarchs and Prophets.. Sometimes it was in human form, sometimes in a burning bush, sometimes in a pillar of smoke, sometimes in a cloud, sometimes it was in visions that were completely real to the prophet seeing them.
Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on bthe Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice clike the sound of a trumpet,
John goes on to describe the throne in heaven, the endtime events in ways that are palpable.
Paul says this:
2Cor. 12:2-5 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago — whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, bGod knows — such a man was ccaught up to the dthird heaven. And I know how such a man — whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, aGod knows — was acaught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses.
All that to say, I don't know that this visions are figments of the imagination, but something quite supernatural that certain people have experienced..
The Lord gave Ezekiel a vision that was to be given to the house of Israel.. It is a vision very similar to John's in some ways:
Ezek. 40:3-4 So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a bline of flax and a cmeasuring 1rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway. The man said to me, “aSon of man, bsee with your eyes, hear with your ears, and give attention to all that I am going to show you; for you have been brought here in order to show it to you. cDeclare to the house of Israel all that you see.”
.Jacob understood that he was face to face with God, but the wrestling match ended before daybreak so chances are he didn't "see" much.. He did understand who he was wrestling with though, that is clear from his remark.
Gen. 32:26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
This man was not going to allow Jacob to clearly "see his face" and yet Jacob says he was face to face with the Lord. Why would his life have to be preserved had he not been "face to face" with God:
Gen. 32:30 So Jacob named the place 1Peniel, for he said, “aI have seen God face to face, yet my 2life has been preserved.”
That's the word in my text and according to Halot lexicon, it is correct:
: *תוךְ, Bauer-Leander Heb. 456n, on p. 457.
A. a sbst. which is often a bound-form with a preposition; the derivation of the word is uncertain (according to Rabin Orientalia 32 (1963) 136 תׇ;וֶךְ is a loanword from Hittite tuekka body, self; Tomback Lexicon 205 prefers to find a Semitic etymology); MHeb. תׇ;וֶךְ, ת;וךְ middle: 1) inside, inner part; 2) ת;וךְ, בְ;תוֹךְ in, during (Dalman Wörterbuch 439b); DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 231) most often בתוך, rarer מתוך and אל תוך; Old Sinaitic tk (Albright Proto-Sinaitic p. 44); Ph. mtkt midst (Friedrich Gramm. §200d, 202d); bmtkt (Kilamuwa 5) in the midst, underneath in the middle (Donner-Röllig Inschriften text 24; 2: p. 32; cf. Jean-Hoftijzer Dictionnaire 172; Tomback Lexicon 205; see Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 708: mtkh either oppression or midst, with bibliography for both suggestions); Ug. tk (Gordon Textbook §19:2538, 2548; Aistleitner Wb. 2755; Gibson Myths2 159b): tk to, towards, btk in, within, tk in front (Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin Texte 1, 3:iv:41f: w tk pnh before him).
B. cstr. ת;וךְ, sf. ת;וכִי, ת;וכְךׇ, ת;וכֵךְ, ת;וכֵכִי (Ps 11619 1359 :: תכך from western variant), on this (Arm.) ending see Gesenius-Kautzsch Gramm. §91e; Bauer-Leander Heb. 251j; Wagner Aram. §15: 2 (p. 130); ת;וכֹוֹ, ת;וכֹה (Ezk 4815.21), ת;וכׇה;, ת;וכֵנו…, ת;וכְכֶם, כׇם(ֹוֹ)תֹ;, תּוֹכׇהְנַׇה (Ezk 1653), see Gesenius-Kautzsch Gramm. §91f; Bauer-Leander Heb. 252p.
Hope that helps.
I wouldn't use the word allegorical to describe the expression "face to face" but it is a Hebrew idiom to say "in the presence of".. I am not trying to say that these men saw the actual image of God's face. I don't know what image they saw, but it is safe to say that in all of these cases they were seeing some manifestation of the Lord Himself.. Moses certainly had a different relationship to God than the rest in the sense that he was on the mountain speaking "face to face" and did see God's "back".
For me that YHVH who appeared to Moses from within the burning bush is a pre-incarnate appearance of Yeshua, because Yeshua clearly identifies Himself as I AM or I will be what I will be.. to translate it more literally.
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham 1was born, I am.”
I do believe that God does not violate His Word, in the sense that He does not contradict Himself, but I don't think we always hear Him properly and when we have a set idea about what we know it's impossible to see.. If Moses had not kept looking at that burning bush, he would not have seen God or heard from God.. There was something within Moses that allowed him to enter into face to face relationship with God..
If all the Jews had all the answers, they would already all be dwelling in and fully possessing the Promise Land as a community... The truth is God is not done revealing Himself to the Jews yet.. There will come a time very soon when He will:
I have had my "burning bush" experience and have known the Lord face to face, which is why I can speak with confidence about Him.. Yeshua didn't reveal Himself to the religious leaders but to the fisherman, the tax collectors, the despised... If you have put God in your box He will not reveal Himself to you as the I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE...
You may think you have corrected my errors, and I can and do make errors at times, but I know what I know and I am not making any now...As Yeshua said to Nicodemus...Len, you are a teacher ....do you not know that you must be born again? Do you not know that you must be born of the Spirit.? Do you not know that flesh and blood will never inherit the Kingdom of God.? You know that God is holy, and so do I.. You are so convinced of His holiness, you are sure that it's a horrible sin to believe in Yeshua...and yet, you, the way you are right now cannot see spiritually what Yeshua has done for you...
The spiritual sight that God has given me ( I can't take credit, it's His grace) accounts for my ability to see Yeshua in the text where you cannot...and my ability to know Him as Adonai.
Yeshua was much greater than Moses...and Moses we agree was very special. Yeshua was the Torah, who came in the flesh.. The pre-incarnate appearances point us all to Him.. When you get to know Him, you will be able to see Him better in the text.. Until then, you and I can spend a lot of time going back and forth like this, but I don't know if much will come out of it.. I prefer to pray for you..
Ex. 13:21 aThe LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.
He is still my pillar of cloud and my pillar of fire.. I hope some day you can experience Him in all of His fulness..I'm confident you will. It's just a matter of time.. Look forward to the day when that happens.. I don't know whether we'll still be here on the blog or we'll be standing in Jerusalem...
Shabbat shalom,
Joyce
Margie,
Just saw your post sandwiched between Len's and mine. Yes, I agree with you. The snake is still saying "did God really say".. From my perspective, I know that God is able well able to reveal Himself any way He so choses.. Which is why He said I Will Be What I will Be, literally translated.. The question is do we see Him?
Unfortunately, most of the time people see Him through a grid of cultural baggage instead of how He reveals Himself.
Shabbat shalom,
Joyce
Amen! Joyce and the cultural baggage. The Word of God is clear to those who love truth. I'd love to share a couple of verses about that and they are clear and literal.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come.
The other verse is from John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.
When we love the Word of God and we love his truth; then his word will be clearly shown to us and that God will do everything he says he will do.
Margie,
Amen to that!
Joyce
Constance has not authorized this request for donations to Micro Effect towards her radio program; My Perspective. We want to help Constance stay on the air. MAKE YOUR DONATIONS TO MICRO EFFECT, JOE MCNEIL AT P.O. BOX 164, KAMIAH, ID 83536 Let Joe know in a note either by email at the station or by snail mail with your donation, you are donating to My Perspective Radio program with Constance. Any donation would be appreciated.
Also you can donate through the CHIP IN box on the main page of Micro Effect Radio. It's a paypal donation. Just let Joe McNeil know you are putting this toward Constance's show only.
Some have already donated. Thanks! Margie
Constance has not authorized this request for donations to Micro Effect towards her radio program; My Perspective. We want to help Constance stay on the air. MAKE YOUR DONATIONS TO MICRO EFFECT, JOE MCNEIL AT P.O. BOX 164, KAMIAH, ID 83536 Let Joe know in a note either by email at the station or by snail mail with your donation, you are donating to My Perspective Radio program with Constance. Any donation would be appreciated.
Also you can donate through the CHIP IN box on the main page of Micro Effect Radio. It's a paypal donation. Just let Joe McNeil know you are putting this toward Constance's show only.
Some have already donated. Thanks! Margie
Constance has not authorized this request for donations to Micro Effect towards her radio program; My Perspective. We want to help Constance stay on the air. MAKE YOUR DONATIONS TO MICRO EFFECT, JOE MCNEIL AT P.O. BOX 164, KAMIAH, ID 83536 Let Joe know in a note either by email at the station or by snail mail with your donation, you are donating to My Perspective Radio program with Constance. Any donation would be appreciated.
Also you can donate through the CHIP IN box on the main page of Micro Effect Radio. It's a paypal donation. Just let Joe McNeil know you are putting this toward Constance's show only.
Some have already donated. Thanks! Margie
This season Cambridge Satchel Bag must remind your shopping desire, so how to choose? Now he brought everyone to see the red carpet fashion show and the wonderful deduce.
There are some beautiful single product accessories, in all you need is Cambridge Satchel, embroidery, and offer flowers, etc, are not miss the details. Highlight a primitive and natural flavour, it is suitable for female people wear the fashion wind.
The reason I liked here is that this place so intimate and personable and while having astounding atmosphere! Really more suited and perfect to intimately experiencing music and having a good time.
Post a Comment