The Parable of the Fig Tree

[Anthony Joseph]

What seems a bit confusing is the assertion that the man must of had sex with Satan if we are to believe the analgous nature of these words being used.

The man said, "she gave me of the tree and I did eat."

She gave me of the tree and I did eat.

How does that translate exactly? Why does she have any power to give of the tree and how did she accomplish this?

To partake or "eat of the tree" for a woman so as to be given the "seed" is clear enough. But, to keep consistent with that interpretation, for the man to also "eat of the tree" means he engaged the "tree" in the same way, else why use the same words? So, that means that the man received the seed of the tree anally? What would that accomplish and why would the man allow himself to "partake" of such an obviously unnatural act?

What the man and woman describe as has happened in the garden is the same act for both utilizing the same words. This is what doesn't make sense to me and what makes the "Serpent Seed" doctrine, in my opinion, a bit difficult to accept, especially when it is espoused by many "crackpot types" (obviously not you MJ) who are openly racist against anyone who is not of the "white adamic race". If this doctrine is the truth, then why are there so many of these "wacko types" associated with and representative of it?

By the way, I have no protectionist feelings about any Christian dogma and I have no vested interest in the teachings of the modern Christian "church"; the truth is all I seek. In fact, that is one of the reasons I found myself among this group; I broke down and prayed to God to receive His truth above all else. My whole life was filled with a sense of uncomfortability and the "something's not right" feeling when either being taught about religion or my attempts to "learn" from the exalted and respected "preachers of the word" by attending the occasional "church service". I just thought it was me not being ready or mature enough to "act the part", or I thought I just had a bad rebellious "authority figure" problem that I needed to work on.

Now I know that those gut feelings I was having were justified, as most of what I had been taught my entire life were lies.

[Michael Joseph]

I freely admit, I too have problems with The Man partaking....

As do the racist groups, i think in part the reason why Genesis is not preached as it reads in the manuscripts is because of racism. For me, i see that the Election is in ALL races. This has to be true. Races are just duty boundaries. To say one race is superior to another is just downright hogwash. Are we not all the issue of the Creator?

The Elder son shall serve the younger. I think that the so called "Nazi" folks read the scriptures and decided that there is a chosen people, and there is, but this chosen people are chosen to DUTY to bring forth, by Works, Torah to the rest of the World, as example of how Yehovah expects us to live.

I mean just look at Korah. Who coming to Moses said you know I think me and my fellows could "help". Of course I am paraphrasing. But Yehovah demands discipline. Yehovah named the Priests and gave them strict Orders. In comes this one, Korah. So Moses said lets let Yehovah decide if your "help" is required. He and all 250 of his were swallowed up by the Earth.

So, while I maintain I am not a racist, and I know you are not calling me one, others will attempt to lump me into an "US versus THEM" scenario. That is unfair. What I would like the reader to see is that in a way - the sons of Cain "helped" to promote the doctrine of The Satan into this world. These are called to Negative Election. If that is just too much for you then set it aside.

There must be a choice for a test to exist.

Yehovah himself will hand the Sword, his Word, into the hand of The Satan. The Satan shall be booted from the presence of Yehovah to come now to this Earth, DEJURE, with His Angels. He is the Head and the ten toes are the ten Angels in charge of the ten Powers - these are NOT "enosh".

However, the angels, there will be more than ten, will again try to mix with mankind [clay and iron]. Yehoshuah saying it will be just like the days of Noah.

It is easy for men to twist the scripture to their desires. Especially in the presence of those who have no clue. Here is the thing - that term Serpent is a description of degradation. This Man is slick. He whispers dark secrets, etc. In regard to this man the trial has already occurred and he was found wanting....Son of Perdition. All else, save election are given a 2nd chance.

I am glad I am not the judge. I am also glad that I see now how absurdly ridiculous it is to sit at the feet of one man as if he is God. But people trust pastor. It is a shame. They trust Pastor so much in fact that they will even call themselves after Pastor's discipline. Now that is really sad.

One asked me the other day. How would you describe your religion. "I do not have one". Yehoshuah said I am THE WAY. Religion is the opiate of the masses. That used to piss me off. Now I see it is true. And this leads right into the Parable of the Fig Tree quite nicely.

If you "eat food" from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" - Bad Fig Tree, then that leads to Death. If you "eat food" from the Tree of Life" - Word of Yehovah - in the flesh Yehoshuah - then that leads to Life.

Yet one decided to touch this tree. Perhaps after all The Man just listened and acted on what he was told - and The Woman touched this Tree. Perhaps The Man did not Touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Or, maybe he did. I am unsure to The Man's actions, yet I am positive regarding The Woman "touched" and "ate".


Remember the Samaritan woman at the well with Yehoshuah? She represents the ten tribes Israel - their capital at Samaria. Yehoshuah saying I was sent to the lost tribes of Yisra'el. Yehoshuah said to her - I will give you water and you shall never thirst again. She "drank" [analogy to eat] of those waters. Notice she is at a well filled with h2o. Yehoshuah stands before her with KNOWLEDGE.

In a sense that well [flesh] is like a cistern. We must keep returning to it to nourish the flesh. The water Yehoshuah spoke of is Everlasting.

So in terms of "eating food" - perhaps in deed they both sat at the feet of the one they were commanded to ignore and listened and acted on said knowledge. But Chavvah, The Woman also laid with The Satan. Of that there is no doubt.

I mean lets take another hard look at Gen 3:15

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


Term of degradation. This is not a snake. "beast of the field" are peoples in this world - sixth day creation.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Now the Serpent is a Man. And the Woman is man[kind]. So I will put GREAT Hatred between the woman and the man? That does not make sense. Women and men marry all the time. The Satan and The Woman [Yisra'el and her Election]. The Woman is the progenitor of Yisra'el.

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


The Dragon, The Serpent, The Devil was in the Garden and made many attempts to make it impossible for Salvation to come into this Age. The Serpent is the Son of Perdition and is trying desperately to Nullify Scripture. He even tried to catch Yehovah, in the flesh Yehoshuah, at a weak point end of 40 fast - by quoting the very Word. Can you catch his twist. I'll give you a hint, Satan is quoting a Psalm. See if you can figure out why he stopped quoting the Psalm. How did Yehoshuah answer him?

The Serpent stood before Mother Yisra'el [The Woman] to devour the child - said child is Yehoshuah who would bring salvation, by Faith in the 2nd Age.

Rev 12 has all of time written in one chapter.

Later "the woman" is Election - go into wilderness [to be alone]. The World has it wrong. But they feel safe in their numbers. How could so many be so wrong. They were wrong in the first Age and they are wrong now.


Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


shalom,
mj


P.S. I know you, AJ would take the time to find this Psalm others will not. So here it is.

Psa 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
Psa 91:12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.



Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.


I showed you Psalm 91 and the Devils words. Can you spot the error? Are you skilled enough in the Word to be able to stand before one who will claim to be Jesus who can speak the Word of Truth better than any pastor? How did Yehoshuah withstand? He quoted Scripture - In my NAME. - Yehoshuah = Word of God made flesh.

Reader so that you can see why Satan left off at Psalm 91:12, lets continue at 91:13

Psa 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

[Anthony Joseph]

If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is "Satan", and the Serpent spoke to the woman saying in so many words, "Hey, didn't God say you can eat from ALL the trees of the garden", then aren't the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge two separate beings? It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge that spoke to the woman, it was the Serpent pointing to that Tree and deceiving the woman into partaking of it. The Serpent was a controlled agent of Satan who deceived the woman into the unholy union with him. Isn't this a more accurate account?

[Anthony Joseph]

Also, if the woman (Chayyah - Life) is the "mother of ALL living" then what of the other living beings (races) prior. Does not ALL mean ALL? I looked up the word Chay, Chi and hay for "living" Strong's H2416 and it is used and applied throughout the scripture to describe "life" except for plants.

[Michael Joseph]

Also, if the woman (Chayyah - Life) is the "mother of ALL living" then what of the other living beings (races) prior. Does not ALL mean ALL? I looked up the word Chay, Chi and hay for "living" Strong's H2416 and it is used and applied throughout the scripture to describe "life" except for plants.

Chavvah Mother of all Flesh - NO
Chavvah Mother of all Spiritual Living - Yes. [in this Age, save Election]

The Elect are presanctified and are alive in Yehoshuah [justified in 1st Age = Common Fig]
The rest are born into this flesh Age [2nd] Dead in Yehoshuah - a Test - will these by free will choose Life? The Woman bringing forth Yehoshuah [by her waters].

[Michael Joseph]

If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is "Satan", and the Serpent spoke to the woman saying in so many words, "Hey, didn't God say you can eat from ALL the trees of the garden", then aren't the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge two separate beings? It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge that spoke to the woman, it was the Serpent pointing to that Tree and deceiving the woman into partaking of it. The Serpent was a controlled agent of Satan who deceived the woman into the unholy union with him. Isn't this a more accurate account?

The Woman and The Man could freely engage and discuss with all the other trees [mankind]; but they were told do not engage this certain one. Of course they could eat food from whatever Yehovah had provided. And the Woman was told, by her admission - not to have sex with a certain man.

I believe the Man called The Shining One is the same as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

And it is obvious that Chavvah had sex with this Tree [man].

[Anthony Joseph]

When you say "freely engage", does that mean have sex? Having sex (touching, eating, etc.) with other "trees" was "okay" with God for both the man and the woman?

Gen. 2

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

When were the man and woman created then? He makes it a point to detail each day in which He created this and that, and yet, when He created the most important man and woman whereby the Son of Man Yehoshuah would be born, He is silent as to which day He created them? According to this discussion, it could not have been on the sixth day nor the seventh day (rest). When then?

Are the men and women who were created on the sixth day considered "beasts of the field"? From what seedline are they and were they deemed inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?



Gen. 2

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This was after God created the man so these "beasts of the field" were not created on the sixth day. How many different "beasts of the field" are there which are "manlike", when were they created and are they ALL inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?

[Michael Joseph]

When you say "freely engage", does that mean have sex? Having sex (touching, eating, etc.) with other "trees" was "okay" with God for both the man and the woman?

Gen. 2

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

When were the man and woman created then? He makes it a point to detail each day in which He created this and that, and yet, when He created the most important man and woman whereby the Son of Man Yehoshuah would be born, He is silent as to which day He created them? According to this discussion, it could not have been on the sixth day nor the seventh day (rest). When then?

Are the men and women who were created on the sixth day considered "beasts of the field"? From what seedline are they and were they deemed inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?



Gen. 2

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This was after God created the man so these "beasts of the field" were not created on the sixth day. How many different "beasts of the field" are there which are "manlike", when were they created and are they ALL inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?

Eve was told she could not touch just one tree. And if you have even read just a small portion of the Scripture you would know the Bloodline was the most important thing. so that Yehoshuah could come into this world - absent spot - absent defilement.

I am positive that both The Man and The Woman spoke and engaged in commerce with other beings. But they were told do not do so with The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I am equally positive these did not MIX with other races. They did not commit Adultery.


Examining contemporaneous dictionaries does not neatly resolve the matter. For instance, the 1792 edition of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun "commerce" narrowly as "[e]xchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick", but it defines the corresponding verb "to commerce" more broadly as "[t]o hold intercourse."[3] The word "intercourse" also had a different and wider meaning back in 1792 than it does now.

And we are informed that Satan was in the Garden and that his Bough [Tree] was above the other [trees] due to his traffick [commerce]. He was able to bring increase into his Bough from many different streams [commerce].


The ones that were brought before Eth-ha-aw-dawm are domesticated cattle. Remember The Man was a farmer and would need farm animals in his labor.

And Yes, some of them created on the sixth day are in fact called beasts of the field. These are with nephesh. I leave it to you to decide that one. I will just say that some of the races go back a lot longer than the Hebrews. Some as many as 10k or more years. While it can easily be shown we are in year 6000 +/- from the Garden.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


here "beast" is chay - which means - living creature. In context why would it be necessary to say a man is smarter than an animal. That just makes no sense to this writer. So yes, I accept that mankind is sometimes referred to in Scripture as "beast of the field".

--------------------------------------

You make a point, concerning sequence. Yet, clearly Yehovah Elohiym created the races of man and then later he created The Man and The Woman. Now, Yehovah Elohiym may have done that Act on the Same day or he may have done it after the seventh day. Because if you check out that word "all" that you bolded, it can just mean he rested from his work. It in no way implies that his work was over or complete.

Because when we get to The Man the second use of the word "not" CLEARLY means this man did not exist.

--------------------------------------

I shall endeaver to be more Strict with my words. But for the sake of dispelling confusion, when I wrote engage in the foregoing response, i did not mean to have sex with. Fact is The Man and The Woman were expressly told "Have nothing to do with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". And The Woman was told do not have sex with this one.

[Anthony Joseph]

The confession of both the man and the woman when confronted by God was "I did eat" not "I did touch". So, if "touching" (having sex) is different than "eating" (???), then the confessions of both were not of the sexual nature; what precisely did they confess to doing? What precisely is "eating"? They apparantly were allowed to "eat" from every tree save one; I don't believe God told them to have sex with any and all trees. Therefore, what was the actual act which was permitted with every tree except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I did "EAT" was the confessed sin.

[Michael Joseph]

By the way, I have no protectionist feelings about any Christian dogma and I have no vested interest in the teachings of the modern Christian "church"; the truth is all I seek. In fact, that is one of the reasons I found myself among this group; I broke down and prayed to God to receive His truth above all else. My whole life was filled with a sense of uncomfortability and the "something's not right" feeling when either being taught about religion or my attempts to "learn" from the exalted and respected "preachers of the word" by attending the occasional "church service". I just thought it was me not being ready or mature enough to "act the part", or I thought I just had a bad rebellious "authority figure" problem that I needed to work on.

Now I know that those gut feelings I was having were justified, as most of what I had been taught my entire life were lies.

I too share the same sentiment. I used to sit in church as a boy and just listen to the preacher and think, man this guy sounds like he is about to die. He is a HORRIBLE teacher. I would just think about what "they" were telling me and I just could not accept "their" presentments as truth.

As such, I was a non-conformist. I can remember not doing one piece of homework all the way thru gradeschool, highschool and then for the first two years of college. In fact in college I never went to class until i matriculated into Environmental/Civil Engineering school. My grade school teachers telling me "you're only hurting yourself". Whilst I laughed them to scorn - setting the curve on the mid-term and final examinations.

I have NEVER fit in and I think it is because I am not meant to fit in. I am a natural leader, I have always led. In fact I care not for two bulls in a room, I will - subconsciously - try to run the other one out. Maybe that is what you meant by my writing style. But I cannot stand a lie. I desire the truth. But i have found that the Preacher is right - "with much knowledge comes much sorrow." Once you can begin to see, you can see your brothers and sisters floundering in the mire - and while you want to help them - they cannot see they are in distress.

You touched a chord in my with your presentment. If I have gone too far, I digress.

Shalom,
mj