Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[allodial]

Xparte; Thank you! This is why I post - that kind of mindful input!

Allodial; Pragmatism is a radical interpretation and like the euphemism of Abraham and Sarah's incest, I find so much interpretation like you share to be rationale and justification. Thank you for bringing in the Bar Kokhba Revolution in. I had nearly forgotten about that very embarrassing episode in Jewish history.

I think this might be more along my line of thought. But please don't assume I have adopted this as mine.

The Worthless Shepherd.

The Sop.

When forming my impressions about the Last Supper I presumed that Jesus knew how his life and recently his ministry had been fulfilling prophecies from the writings of Israel. Things had taken a turn for Jesus. He had been brought up knowing he was the son of the King, Archelaus HEROD but that he was an embarrassment bastard. Now with John, Archelaus' prophet channeling Elijah crowning him King, Jesus felt that he would be executed by sword and then somehow be resurrected in three days.

This brings a lot of other passages into congruence. Like Peter finding two swords...

I will give your post some time and enjoyment too.

Thank you for the The Worthless Shepherd.pdf link. Very insightful. I have come to suspect that "the Messiah System" has a cherubimic aspect. Why? The design of the Ark with the two cherubim on the mercy seat and the temple itself having cherubim incorporated. In other words, Messiah protects the Holiness in two ways, one of which is keeping the stranger out.

I am uncertain which prophecies they suggest Jesus to have failed to fulfill--I'm referring to page 642 of that link--I perhaps need to take another look. The irony is that it is the very book of Deuteronomy--chapter 28 in particular--that serves as the basis for the consequence of rejecting Jesus and also for disobeying the commandments. Those who followed the Good Shepherd System were led into paradise (the fled to Pella, etc. and escaped the Deuteronomy 28 curses). Those who rejected him therefore could only expect captivity (i.e.the 'negative side' of the Cherubimic duty)--the curses of Deuteronomy to befall them. Around the time James the Just was killed (almost immediately as if that were the triggering event) the hedges of protection were removed from Jerusalem, etc. and the Romans were allowed to proceed with judgement 66AD through 70 A.D. in fulfillment of Daniel 9:26. That is, to look at Deuteronomy as a basis for designating Jesus to be a false prophet is one thing--the evidence? Its an entirely different matter to wholly ignore Deutoronomy 28 and fail to see what was called Roman-Jewish War wasn't mere secular war it was Deuteronomy 28 grade judgement and the captivity that followed likewise.

However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today ...The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. --Deuteronomy 28:15-26 in part

Deuteronomy 28:49-57 in a sense fortells what came at the hands of Rome after Christ was rejected:

Attachment 3131

49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.

53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

Josephus and other historians wrote about the horrible consequences of the Roman invasion (Rome is often equated with Edom who characterized as being pitiless!) The outcome of the Roman-Jewish wars seems to almost eerily have been a rote fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28 curses with the consequences of the Bar Kochba revolt were reverberations of the same with the Worthless Shepherd prophecy woven in through it all.

Among the residents of the region beyond Jordan was a woman called Mary, daughter of Eleazar, of the village of Bethezuba (the name means "House of Hyssop"). She was well off, and of good family, and had fled to Jerusalem with her relatives, where she became involved with the siege. Most of the property she had packed up and brought with her from Peraea had been plundered by the tyrants [Simon and John, leaders of the Jewish war-effort], and the rest of her treasure, together with such foods as she had been able to procure, was being carried by their henchmen in their daily raids. In her bitter resentment the poor woman cursed and abused these extortioners, and this incensed them against her. However, no one put her to death either from exasperation or pity. She grew weary of trying to find food for her kinsfolk. In any case, it was by now impossible to get any, wherever you tried. Famine gnawed at her vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves. --Josephus on the Siege of Jerusalem

Zechariah in a sense could have been said to 'act it out' before it happened, as in: "If you will have no part in my right hand, then here is my left".



To reiterate they refer to Deuteronomy 22, but SIX chapters later is Deuteronomy 28 which attributes the calamities to judgement or curses. The kingdom DID come then, though it is not a secular kingdom. Jesus has been in session since ~30 AD.

“And the name of the city from that time on will be: the Lord is there.” --Ezekiel 48:35 in part

Some interpret it: "I am is there" or "I am there".

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. --2 Corinthians 3:17

[David Merrill]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses Allodial.

I actually use this and other forums to hash through my recent hypothesis and usually project the conclusions as I go; so it is a welcome read to find somebody questioning me on my way into convincing myself my interpretations are correct. The recent formulation that seems inconclusive is about Jesus and adopting his Kingship as if that is the bastard son, or his spiritual inheritance, while he was indeed a bastard embarrassment reminding Archelaus of his pubescent recklessness - bedding the Braider maidens.

So is the impact in that Archelaus, upon realizing that the Tetrarch in Jerusalem bedding in adultery the other Tetrarch in Syria's wife (Antipas TETRARCH was in the Jerusalem throne sleeping with Herodias, Philip TETRARCH's wife). This presented an opportunity to impeach Antipas and launching the accusation cost the King (Archelaus) his prophet (John BAPTIST).

So in the Spirit it seems beneficial to understand the truth and adopt Jesus CHRIST for his reconciliation of one with the other. He preached a spiritual inheritance while he was the embarrassing and disowned bastard, and then when reclaimed for political reasons he was willing to dance up the King's Road in the underwear of David to claim his place - even kicking the moneychangers out of the courtyard! - Which might have been a poor political choice of coronation policies...

[allodial]

I'd say the kind of bastardy to be shunned is one where God the Father abandons one as a Son. As in the 'observable model' points to something undesirable on another level even to the extent is calls for a brother to cover his brother's wives and children--ala doctrine of coverture--should he pass away or the like. This kind of coverture is expressed through Jesus too.

If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother to her. --Deuteronomy 25:5 {Clearly, polygyny is not prohibited.}

Nonetheless, the 'faith contract' that was presented to Ahaz gives OT evidence of God's ability to facilitate a virgin birth.

I am convinced that Joseph and Mary were rightly betrothed. If Adam was formed from clay, God can in his Providence form a babe from the 'clay' of the womb (the womb is essentially a fertile field for planting man-seeds). Even among sorcerors and witches, the idea of a homunculus is well-known and found acceptable. Why demote God? Mary had faith in what Gabriel said thusly it came to pass: faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thing not seen. Mary's (some suggest her to have been a northern (Mt. Carmel) Essene) participation in the process was not merely physical.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. --Luke 1:26-38

When Jesus approached people who wanted to be healed, their faith was important. For a moment, consider Gabriel approaching Mary concerning the birth of Jesus and how it paralleled how Jesus approached those who sought salvation through healing. Mary gave positive confession and faith. With Jesus healing someone or with Gabriel approaching Mary, both were creative acts bringing a desired result or vision into manifestation: born from above through faith (rather than from below--through fleshly reliance)--get it (even Abraham's story lucidates this in the Isaac vs. Ishmael paradigm)? Faith and works go hand in hand which is why faith without works would be considered to be 'dead' (doubt? debt?--consider the parable of the talents and failure to use the talents (or gifts)).

The thing about Jesus is that a savior was hoped for and faith was held in the manifestation of the Savior for thousands of years. Mary of course, had faith and confessed her faith.

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 Now a centurion had a servant[a] who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. 3 When the centurion[b] heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” 6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well. --Luke 7:1-10

Consider the faith of the Centurion and the doubt among Israel and Judah. Consider thousands of years of collective faith going all the way back to Abraham in support of the manifestation of Jesus (Salvation). Now lest someone make presumptions, I would not be so quick to suggest that Isaiah 7 prophecies the birth of Jesus because effectively unlike Mary, Ahaz and company may have rejected the 'offer' back then.

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.h 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” --Isaiah 7:10-17

Did Ahaz have faith? Remember, the model of Jesus healing and requiring faith from the healed or from the requestor? If Ahaz rejected then the offer would have been foreclosed., no? Like Abraham, Noah, etc. Mary accepted and gave faithful confession. Thusly, I would not tend to suggest Isaiah 7 to be a direct prophecy about Jesus because it seems the sign to Ahaz was to come in his lifetime. However, one key point that many might miss is that nothing stopped God from making a similar extension of offer to someone else in the future. Similarly, where does it say in the Tanach that God couldn't or didn't approach others similarly as he approached Abraham?

[xparte]

Secular Patriotism gets betrayed and the heathen peasantry gets oppressed THE NON HEROICS HAVE THE GREATEST HEROIC HISTORICAL MEMORY YET THE HEROIC PEOPLE HAVE NO MEMORY Was i hollerin one underdag maccabee vs antiochus dead elephant make some room . I will impart thank you to the HEROIC on the site those elephant droppers

[David Merrill]

Thank you Xparte. The writing of Pragmatism was in the spirit of radical.

So Allodial, my faith is that God had no need for supernatural stunts. Ergo my post about the supercomputer. I tweaked resonance in reality, the material time-space continuum and out popped the Name of God and the Name of Jesus CHRIST. So I might be biased. The whole thing is supernatural because the natural state of mankind is unity with God.

Thank you though, for somebody as studied as you to support Virgin Birth of Jesus is really worth considering. I have been around Christians lately who are confused on that. They want to give it lip service but as I see it, they detect ritual magic there at some level. - Like a God who toys with the man trying to get into the pool before the Holy Spirit leaves it. How many young women wonder if they can be good as can be and have the God they worship knock them up while they sleep?

[allodial]

Thank you Xparte. The writing of Pragmatism was in the spirit of radical.

So Allodial, my faith is that God had no need for supernatural stunts. Ergo my post about the supercomputer. I tweaked resonance in reality, the material time-space continuum and out popped the Name of God and the Name of Jesus CHRIST. So I might be biased. The whole thing is supernatural because the natural state of mankind is unity with God.

Thank you though, for somebody as studied as you to support Virgin Birth of Jesus is really worth considering. I have been around Christians lately who are confused on that. They want to give it lip service but as I see it, they detect ritual magic there at some level. - Like a God who toys with the man trying to get into the pool before the Holy Spirit leaves it. How many young women wonder if they can be good as can be and have the God they worship knock them up while they sleep?

Perhaps one could rightly say: "Everything is supernatural" or .. "Divine mind is supernatural." As for Virgin Birth, I'd say that findings about quantum physics supports the idea. As for God using supernatural intervention, consider what worldly judges or courts do when they intervene, they use powers typically unavailable to the 'subjects', don't they?

Regarding maidens hoping for in-sleep knockup. Mary was made aware ahead of time of what would transpire, it does not take a knock up in the physical sense. The eggs (passively) are already there awaiting external action. I suspect the Romans and others tried to impose their idea of Zeus' 'travels' upon Isaiah 7 and Luke 1. Over at jewsforjudiasm Isaiah 7 is discussed, but the discussion seems slanted toward being hostile to Roman Catholic interpretation. The saints are saints--they aren't Biblically designated as Protestants or Catholics AFAIK.

Nonetheless, consider this: a pure and holy mind being fertile ground for virgin birth.

“But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb {beten} and will help you... --Isaiah 44:1-2 in part

Consider also Isaiah 44:1-2. Consider the word beten and this comes to me now, the word for virgin in Hebrew is betulah.

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)


Remember, the cherubim still guard the way to the Tree of Life--they were part of the temple and atop the Mercy Seat.

Related:
Secrets of the Cherubim

[Michael Joseph]

I want this tied back to the guilt trip - Abraham being real or not - that would bring him to the edge of killing Isaac on the Temple Mount (before construction), Mount Moriah. That this was happening at puberty for Isaac brings the Key into focus. This whole deal about sacrifice is upon guilt. In the Bible, because Abraham was half-siblings with Sarah.

I think when the argument is framed within carnality then you might be right in regard to guilt. But to say that one sacrifices only upon guilt, or at least to imply, is not the whole story. When I consider how many times the Scriptures declare that the "heroes" were in some sort of trance it is simply amazing. And we see that there was always a "vision" - such that the prophet or apostle was "in the Spirit". And furthermore, we read that there used to exist "Schools of the Prophets".

But I digress. Upon this concept of sacrifice and guilt - I would propound that there is a higher outworking of this Abraham/Isaac relationship. Notice at once that the story does not speak of Abram but rather Abraham. At this point Lot has been sent away and this Abraham is "climbing the mountain" in consciousness.

Have you ever looked at those pictures that superficially just look like random geometric shapes, that is until you somewhat blur your vision then at once the image appears? And consider that once one sees the image there is no going back. And the one who can see wonders why others cannot see. And yet that is just the way it is. Lot or the Veil remains upon the eyes of many. In regard to Lot, I speak to the "eyes of understanding".

Abraham had to send away Lot. So must everyman [mind]. Now then Isaac is that child of promise birthed by the Higher Self [Abraham]. For Jacob had a ladder. And that ladder went from the Earth to the Heavens. A ladder represents a lower and higher state. Now then in my life I am willing to sacrifice my Isaac [the thing most dear to me] in love. What is the one aspect of man that is most precious? His Own? Is it not his mind which births his will? Are not the thoughts of man as spotted cattle before the Lord?

And how will man sacrifice spotted cattle to the Lord? The sacrifice is unclean! Nevertheless, how can I rationalize God? I can't! Therefore I too tell my servants and my donkeys [carnal stubborn nature] to remain at the base of the mountain - whilst I, and my Isaac climb the mountain.

For how can the student know absent a teacher? And whereof did the teacher obtain? Thusly Abraham climbs the mountain this day with his precious Isaac, to sacrifice in Love in order to know as he is known. There is an Abraham aspect in every single one of us. Just as there is a Sarah aspect in every single one of us. Does not a woman give birth?

But look at this barren woman in Sarah. Hagar is certainly not barren for she is emotion. But Sarah being Spirit is seeing the means to birth the child of promise into mankind - Christ be formed in you. Abram could not impregnate her - only Abraham could get that done!

Poor old Abraham was 90 when he was circumcised in his flesh. Ouch! Look again. 9 is the number of consciousness. Circumcised in his flesh is analogous to being circumcised in the heart. The "tale" speaks to the Mind.

Nevertheless in carnality/guilt one is bound in emotion. For guilt is certainly an emotion. The child of emotion is not Isaac. Emotion births children of desolation - and many are her children.

Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

Isa 54:2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

Comment: The place of thy tent is thy Mind. Is it not time to send Lot away? Look at the many desolate children birthed from the emotion guilt. See all the ornate buildings - to what end do these structures improve the psyche of man? Does she [guilt] not enrich other men? She indeed brings an apple to the mind- but it is poisoned.


This song comes to mind

[BLBereans]

I find the use of the word "bastard" when describing Jesus of Nazareth quite curious...

bastard (n.) "illegitimate child," early 13c., from Old French bastard (11c., Modern French bâtard), "acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife," probably from fils de bast "packsaddle son," meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling), with pejorative ending -art (see -ard). Alternative possibly is that the word is from Proto-Germanic *banstiz "barn," equally suggestive of low origin.

Not always regarded as a stigma; the Conqueror is referred to in state documents as "William the Bastard." Figurative sense of "something not pure or genuine" is late 14c.; use as a vulgar term of abuse for a man is attested from 1830. As an adjective from late 14c. Among the "bastard" words in Halliwell-Phillipps' "Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words" are avetrol, chance-bairn, by-blow, harecoppe, horcop, and gimbo ("a bastard's bastard").

Also, the modern "knocked up" choice of phrasing for describing Mary's situation, is quite curious as well. I don't quite get the intent or motivation behind that type of derogatory labeling while discussing this topic. It seems you either have averse feelings towards the idea of Jesus as God incarnate or you are just trying to get a rise out of someone. Either way, it is quite a manner you have there. I guess most, like I, just found your commentary as only a slightly amusing take on that specific subject matter.

You manner is akin to a professor who looks over his glasses at the lowly group of initiates who you desire to "teach" and insult at the same time, all the while attempting to mask that tactic with highly polished rhetoric and visual aids. Fascinating stuff.

[David Merrill]

Last night in Christianity Explored I brought up the crux of the religious notions, that Christianity is a guilt based religion.

The churchman in charge insists that the Passover Lamb is a sacrifice. I disagree. If you did not have a big enough family to finish the lamb, then you pooled with your neighbor so to finish the lamb in one sitting. Then again, if there were leftovers the remains were to be burned to ash by morning light. So you have a prescribed menu of lamb, with special instructions to use the blood at slaughter for IDENTIFICATION purposes only; which is to say that the Angel of Death would pass the house over, seeing the lamb's blood on the doorposts. So there seems to be a default condition around human error. If your eyes are bigger than your stomach, the excess is burned like sacrifice.

So I must concede that there might be room for the guilt/sacrifice model around the Passover Lamb, and so the Christians will tell you Jesus fulfilled the Law by his sacrificial Blood after the model of the First Passover. Interestingly the fellow resorted to making my point, by resorting to Hebrews - that passage about Melchizedek. That is my point - a choice - the Levite priests were all about guilt and sacrifice while Melchizedek is Elect of God, pleasing to God.

[David Merrill]

That post sat for a few hours. I was interrupted.

Looking at it, to finish it, I realize it was finished.

That is one source of guilt - letting good food go to waste. I suppose that you could cook it well and it might be good for breakfast or lunch...

This is really the point that jumps out for me though; as I look at the post above. Guilt is the cause of all feelings of separation from God - please call it sin for a moment. We have it ingrained to think of sin as actions but a leopard can viciously kill a baby zebra without sin. Even leave most of it for subsequent animals of the jungle all the way down to the bacteria carried by the flies. There is no associated guilt.

Therefore the LORD gave instructions to sacrifice, should you feel the guilt. Otherwise the natural state is unity. Identify yourself to be of God and in the condition and character of His MESSIAH - Jesus Christ of Nazareth - by whatever name, this condition of balance between the base and the divine.