The Gift

[doug555]

Rev 5:9-10

9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

Zech 14:4, 9, 16

4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.

16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

Rev 20:6

6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Rev 3:21

21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

These Scriptures indicate to me that the "overcomers", the "Firstfruits", the "Bride", will sit on Christ's throne on the earth, and reign with Him on the earth for 1000 years, the Millenium, on the earth, and all nations on earth will keep the Feast of Booths, Holyday #6, at Jerusalem on the earth, so that all people on the earth will understand that they comprise the generations that are literally fulfilling that Holyday #6 event in the Creator's 2-Phase Harvest Plan to transform man-kind into the God-kind through 7 BIG EVENTS - the 7 ANNUAL HOLYDAYS of Lev 23.


So again, I ask...

What is so wrong about having a literal kingdom of God governing this earth for 1000 years?

And what greater Gift could be granted than to be part of The Bride that is literally sitting with Christ on His Throne on the earth!?

This is incomprehensibly AWESOME!!!

Why are we not rejoicing as Mary did in her "Magnificat"?

And humbly, in faith accepting this Gift, and responding with "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."?

[doug555]

I just began an eleven-week course Kingdom Builders.

Auspicious.

Pragmatist revelation leads me to believe that Archelaus HEROD was likely bedding Levite maidens when afforded the opportunity, as a mentally ill King of Israel. (I remind the reader that Herod THE GREAT's three sons were Archelaus (KING), Antipas (TETRARCH) and Philip (TETRARCH). Somebody blurted out in a Bible Study that Christmas (December 25) was Jesus' "conception birthday". I did not inquire how but being born September 11, 3 BC, December 25, 4 BC would put Mary about two weeks overdue - which is entirely possible.

This indicates the timeline to be that pregnant Mary was dumped on Joseph ARIMATHEA*, a wealthy and politically active silver miner to raise the unwanted bastard. During Jesus' birth Jupiter went into retrograde motion and in conjunction with Regulus not only caused the brightest star the people had ever seen in their lifetimes, caused it to linger for several nights that way. Then fifteen months later a delegation of three dignitaries traveled to Jerusalem from Babylon during the retrograde motion of Venus moving backward in the sky and alerted Archelaus that the next King of Israel would be that toddler he had sired from the virgin priest-maiden from a few years earlier.

In a rage Archelaus began a campaign of infanticide that got him exiled by 6 AD and so we find him thirty years later still King of Israel but living in the wilderness with John BAPTIST as his Prophet (channeling the Spirit of Elijah) and finally accepting Jesus' coronation as King of Israel.

Regards,
David Merrill.


* Albeit there are degrees of freedom unmentioned, the strict reading indicates that Joseph, Jesus' adopted father was Joseph of Arimathea on the premise that parents would not name two of their sons by the same name Joseph.

Hi David,

First, some GOOD NEWS about lawful money refunds working for me for now the past 4 years, both State and Federal! How's that for LITERAL PROOF about the Federal Reserve Act Remedy! At least the way that I am doing it! (P.S. For you skeptics out there, David has proof of my past refunds in hand... so you are going to have to just take our "Word" for it that this is true. The only way YOU skeptics will have proof is to DO IT YOURSELVES! Hmmm... that sounds familiar doesn't it... see Jn 7:17)

Now, about your secular historical commentary above...

The December 25 date for Jesus Christ's birthday is a MYTH. Just Google "december 25 birthday" to see where that date originally came from... it goes way back to sun worship. The RCC merged that paganism with "Christianity" for political purposes.

But I am glad you posted the above commentary. It will help expose the real issue at work here.

Let me explain...

The "story" above sure makes true Christians look foolish and gullible for believing the literal Biblical account of these events.

And the Apostle Paul even agrees that Christians certainly are "...of most men most to be pitied" if theses events aren't really true, especially if the BIGGEST EVENT, Christ's resurrection, was a mere fabrication (1 Cor 15:1-19).

But isn't it interesting that this exact same charge about us being gullible to believe "God's" Word goes way back to the story about the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1.

"Adam" certainly was made to feel gullible, ashamed and naked, both physically and existentially, for taking "God" at His Word... literally.

But then how can any of us, even now, prove "God" is telling us the truth?

Doesn't our very attempt at "proving" presuppose that we must occupy the position of a "God", having an absolute frame of reference and all knowledge of eternity and infinity from which to determine and declare absolute truth?

NOW who is the one that is more foolish and gullible - the one believing, or the one proving?

Quite a dilemma, isn't it?

For us, both positions require trust, don't they?

Either we trust "God's" Word or we trust we can be "God" and determine absolute truth, "reality", by ourselves.

I choose to believe "God's" Word, because:

1. It is NOT reasonable to believe in evolution without the fossil record being completely reversed, with imperfect creatures in abundance everywhere, and very few perfect interdependent creatures, that is, IF everything is solely a matter of time, chance, and probability without any outside intelligent intervention. (BTW: Evolution is about God - NOT nature)

2. It is reasonable to believe that intelligent life could exist in outer space.

3. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that such an intelligence could be of a nature and magnitude that it far surpasses our wildest imagination.

4. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that such an intelligence could not have created the earth, the galaxies, even the entire universe.

5. It is reasonable to believe that the witnesses of Christ's resurrection were so certain that it was a fact that they were willing to die for it.

6. It is reasonable to believe that Christ in fact did rise from the dead because it fits with the Holyday Plan declared in Lev 23 dealing with the Passover as Holyday 1.

7. Given #6, it is then just as reasonable to expect that Holyday 2 will be just as literal and dramatic.

8. Given #7, it then becomes reasonable to believe that a pattern is emerging that indicates that this 7-Step Holyday Plan is indeed being implemented by a supernatural intelligence who can declare and then perform events over thousands of years in time.

9. Given #8, then it becomes reasonable and imperative that we respond as Mary did to "The Gift" - this "once-in-an-Eternity" of becoming "The Bride" that marries Christ on Holyday 3, Pentecost, and then sit with Christ on His Throne as "His Wife" - FOREVER! (Notice that those who live during the Millenium and Last Great Day periods do not have this special position offered to them.)

10. Given #9, then it is more reasonable to believe than to prove. If one reads between the lines in the account in Mt 4:1-11 about Christ's temptation, one can see that this was the real issue - believing vs proving. Christ reversed the mistake Adam made in the Garden of Eden. Let us do the same today. The time is short and the reward is incomprehensibly AWESOME.

[Michael Joseph]

Awesome regarding your returns.


Regarding the latter: We know that Wisdom is known of her children. Now once one comes to a face to face relationship with Christ is there any need for faith? No. So then, we now understand that St. Paul writes LEAVING the principle doctrines let us push on now towards perfection. Hebrews 6:1-3.

Now if you believe the literal word, then you cannot deny that Jacob had a face to face relationship as did Moses. And since God is not a respecter of persons, what is given to one man is available to any other! Therefore I too can have a face to face relationship. Can't have that one both ways!

Therefore there is no need to prove God - there is however a response in Trust to follow The Way that Jesus made so plain. For instance, my friend told me the other day that Jesus came to show the Kingdom was one of consciousness and that the blood sacrifices were no longer required. I rebutted with I don't agree. I believe that the blood sacrifices were NEVER required. But that the Church in its vain religion got it wrong. Along comes Jesus to set it right. Is it no wonder those holy rollers killed him? Is it? These are the first to hurl accusation of antichrist upon anyone or anything they don't understand within the scope and concepts of their own reasonings [religion].

Once hope is realized, there is no need for faith. Therefore once one has been baptized with fire and tasted of the power of the Holy Spirit as all of his five senses come alive to the realms of the Spirit - yes in this life - then if that one chooses another direction - then Hebrews 6:4-6 kicks in.

Most in modern religion can't even vaguely grasp what it means to be baptized by fire in the higher realms of consciousness so it is impossible for them to quench the Holy Spirit for they were baptized with H20 and lucky they did not catch a cold - but they lack the baptism by Fire. For the Shulamite woman said "our bed is green" - and this is totally unknown to religion.

Therefore if you are bent to a literal understanding then you cannot deny that we all have the same opportunity Jacob or Moses had. The Scriptures I read tell me that Christ is in EVERYONE. Immanuel - God with us. Interesting. Interesting indeed. How most are looking for an abomination that causes desolation to stand in some physical temple. Absurd.

The abomination is the horror that my carnal mind has been ruling in the temple of my conscious mind and that me, my self, has stood in the way of the Higher Mind. I have showed myself to be God by undertaking my entire life under the will of my carnal mind. It must be put to death! That is the sacrifice acceptable to God. It takes discipline.

Daniel prayed three times a day - Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. All three can be celebrated within my consciousness. And yet men are content to never look to the how - they await a "some day" this will happen. Armageddon is the war fought between my Carnal Mind and my Higher Mind. The blood is the death to my Carnal Mind. Nevertheless religion has their bloodthirsty God seeking revenge on the ignorant. Kill em all I say - those ignorant fools should have known better.

Of course, I write in jest. Where is Love, Mercy, Charity? Since Jesus showed us God - I never saw Jesus kill anyone. I never saw Jesus putting down the ignorant. I never saw Jesus angry - save once the driving out of the money changers - which ALLEGORICALLY stand for the Carnal Thoughts of the Lower Mind. Nevertheless, let religion have their angry Jesus. So be it.

I can tell you for a fact that I did not write the Bible so it is an impossibility for me to understand any of it. And it is even a greater foolishness to sit at the feet of other men to hear/read what they think - even this man [me - Michael Joseph]. I trust only what is granted to me by the Holy Spirit to know. This is The Way of God - Wisdom She has built herself a House. Therefore, why does religion seek its own? Same reason the State seeks it own? SELF PRESERVATION and CONTROL.

This is against the Way of God - we are to be a kingdom of Priests. Why wait? Christ told Martha we have no need to wait!

The Gate Keepers bar the way. They do not enter in - if they would they would not be talking about some future event! Attached find a bit of a study I did a few weeks back. Enjoy.

Attachment 2370

Shalom,
MJ

[David Merrill]

I believe it is obvious by rules of evidence that I am not asserting Jesus' conception date was December 25. I did not even ask the woman her source for believing so. My studied belief is that Archelaus laid with Mary, Jesus' mother but I was thinking it more likely on a cold January night, 3 BC.

[doug555]

I believe it is obvious by rules of evidence that I am not asserting Jesus' conception date was December 25. I did not even ask the woman her source for believing so. My studied belief is that Archelaus laid with Mary, Jesus' mother but I was thinking it more likely on a cold January night, 3 BC.

Yep, my mistake, I did not read that closely enough. I should have known that you do know about the Dec 25 error. Forgive me. I am glad you think Christ's birth was sometime in September. That agrees with the time that shepherds could still be in the fields with their sheep - December would be too cold.

Of course, if Jesus was the son of Archelaus, then the whole Bible is a fraud isn't it, since its foundation is that there is a God who claims to be the literal Father of the man Jesus, who was the Christ. But it is hard to believe that this scandal was not known by the people in that area who later became martyrs for a "fraud".

I can respect your choice to believe secular sources over the Bible, but I hope the literal fulfillment of Holyday #2 in the near future will lead you to reconsider that choice.

[Michael Joseph]

Awesome regarding your returns.


Regarding the latter: We know that Wisdom is known of her children. Now once one comes to a face to face relationship with Christ is there any need for faith? No. So then, we now understand that St. Paul writes LEAVING the principle doctrines let us push on now towards perfection. Hebrews 6:1-3.

Now if you believe the literal word, then you cannot deny that Jacob had a face to face relationship as did Moses. And since God is not a respecter of persons, what is given to one man is available to any other! Therefore I too can have a face to face relationship. Can't have that one both ways!

Therefore there is no need to prove God - there is however a response in Trust to follow The Way that Jesus made so plain. For instance, my friend told me the other day that Jesus came to show the Kingdom was one of consciousness and that the blood sacrifices were no longer required. I rebutted with I don't agree. I believe that the blood sacrifices were NEVER required. But that the Church in its vain religion got it wrong. Along comes Jesus to set it right. Is it no wonder those holy rollers killed him? Is it? These are the first to hurl accusation of antichrist upon anyone or anything they don't understand within the scope and concepts of their own reasonings [religion].

Once hope is realized, there is no need for faith. Therefore once one has been baptized with fire and tasted of the power of the Holy Spirit as all of his five senses come alive to the realms of the Spirit - yes in this life - then if that one chooses another direction - then Hebrews 6:4-6 kicks in.

Most in modern religion can't even vaguely grasp what it means to be baptized by fire in the higher realms of consciousness so it is impossible for them to quench the Holy Spirit for they were baptized with H20 and lucky they did not catch a cold - but they lack the baptism by Fire. For the Shulamite woman said "our bed is green" - and this is totally unknown to religion.

Therefore if you are bent to a literal understanding then you cannot deny that we all have the same opportunity Jacob or Moses had. The Scriptures I read tell me that Christ is in EVERYONE. Immanuel - God with us. Interesting. Interesting indeed. How most are looking for an abomination that causes desolation to stand in some physical temple. Absurd.

The abomination is the horror that my carnal mind has been ruling in the temple of my conscious mind and that me, my self, has stood in the way of the Higher Mind. I have showed myself to be God by undertaking my entire life under the will of my carnal mind. It must be put to death! That is the sacrifice acceptable to God. It takes discipline.

Daniel prayed three times a day - Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. All three can be celebrated within my consciousness. And yet men are content to never look to the how - they await a "some day" this will happen. Armageddon is the war fought between my Carnal Mind and my Higher Mind. The blood is the death to my Carnal Mind. Nevertheless religion has their bloodthirsty God seeking revenge on the ignorant. Kill em all I say - those ignorant fools should have known better.

Of course, I write in jest. Where is Love, Mercy, Charity? Since Jesus showed us God - I never saw Jesus kill anyone. I never saw Jesus putting down the ignorant. I never saw Jesus angry - save once the driving out of the money changers - which ALLEGORICALLY stand for the Carnal Thoughts of the Lower Mind. Nevertheless, let religion have their angry Jesus. So be it.

I can tell you for a fact that I did not write the Bible so it is an impossibility for me to understand any of it. And it is even a greater foolishness to sit at the feet of other men to hear/read what they think - even this man [me - Michael Joseph]. I trust only what is granted to me by the Holy Spirit to know. This is The Way of God - Wisdom She has built herself a House. Therefore, why does religion seek its own? Same reason the State seeks it own? SELF PRESERVATION and CONTROL.

This is against the Way of God - we are to be a kingdom of Priests. Why wait? Christ told Martha we have no need to wait!

The Gate Keepers bar the way. They do not enter in - if they would they would not be talking about some future event! Attached find a bit of a study I did a few weeks back. Enjoy.

Attachment 2370

Shalom,
MJ

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.


G4717
stauroo

From G4716; to impale on the cross; figuratively to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness: - crucify.

[allodial]

Carnal passions, carnal desires and carnal lusts would be crucified ("mortify" is a term also used similarly --as in "mortifying the deeds of the flesh"). To knowledge, the primary if not only means of dealing with carnal lusts or carnal desires is through scriptural spiritual means rather than mere will power. It does not appear that carnal man was called to change himself through carnal means but with God's help (spiritually).

However, it is important to note that not all all lusts or desires would rightly be classified as carnal. I would not, for example, view a man's desire to bed his wife to be a carnal desire. On the other hand, if the same man were to desire to kill his boss in secret knowing he would get away with it and reap wealth, promotions and notoriety for it, I would likely view such as a carnal desire or carnal lust because it pertains to putting worldly and carnal objectives over and above higher spiritual objectives.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh... (Galatians 5:17 KJV)

As many know, the word 'lust' is not particularly sexual. Its refers to most any kind of strong desire. While, various Gnostics philosophers and those with non-scriptural ideas of piety have promoted the notion of it being scriptural or "Christian" to suggesting every good or pleasant desire or lust to be 'sinful'--such notions don't necessarily have basis in scripture. Perhaps someone that might wish to mix original and organic doctrine with Buddhism's concepts about desire might do such a thing? Having passion, desire or lust for right kinds of things--per scripture--is clearly scripturally sound. (Hint: even the desire to be free of desire..is a desire.)

Yep, my mistake, I did not read that closely enough. I should have known that you do know about the Dec 25 error. Forgive me. I am glad you think Christ's birth was sometime in September. That agrees with the time that shepherds could still be in the fields with their sheep - December would be too cold.

Of course, if Jesus was the son of Archelaus, then the whole Bible is a fraud isn't it, since its foundation is that there is a God who claims to be the literal Father of the man Jesus, who was the Christ. But it is hard to believe that this scandal was not known by the people in that area who later became martyrs for a "fraud".

I can respect your choice to believe secular sources over the Bible, but I hope the literal fulfillment of Holyday #2 in the near future will lead you to reconsider that choice.

Re: December 25th
As for a December 25th birthday, its interesting how those who aimed to introduce the likes of Mithraism for the purpose of destroying (through syncretism or 'subjugation through incorporation') the organic and original teachings of Christ Jesus could have the audacity to hold out the fallacy of things introduced being rooted in original doctrines. There are many believers who do not celebrate Christmas and who do not hold December 25th to be Jesus' birthday and only view the period of the year as a time for thanksgiving fellowship, family and continued charity.

Note: There are those who suggest 15 Tishri (September - October) to have been the appropriate day if birth.

On the same note, Christmas was banned in the states of America! The Puritans were against celebrating Christmas (even in England). Also, Christmas wasn't even recognized as a holiday Federally until....(you might not be surprised)...

... after the Civil War in 1870.

To knowledge it was Coca-Cola's 1930s advertising that brought the pop culture notion of Santa Claus decked in red and white to be so widespread. But yet many Muslims and others have blame "Christians" for this or that or have insisted that "all Christians" celebrate Christmas. Question is: what do they mean by "Christians"?

Prior to the Victorian era, Christmas in the United States was primarily a religious holiday observed by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans. Its importance was often considered secondary to that of Epiphany and Easter. (Wikipedia-Christmas Controversy)

Re: Immaculate Conception / Virgin Birth
Also, it seems puzzling that while even atheists and others might believe in the idea that men came "from the dust" and "return to the dust" by some means (mind, will, biological (will) evolutionary drive, etc.) and while the same might believe men to have been created from the dust, clay or soil by supernatural means that the same could possibly deny that a babe could be formed in the womb (part of a 'jar of clay', that same 'clay') by supernatural means. Likewise that same could believe the Genesis concept of man being created/formed from dust/clay could deny that a babe could be formed in the womb through supernatural means. Wouldn't it be easier to formulate a babe in the womb (of a "jar of clay") than in clay/soil?

Re: sorta related "Jesus as the only Son"
Similarly, the "Jesus Christ is the only Son" concept is held in a accusatory and weaponized sense against believers as if it were based on scriptures when it is clearly not. Many books have been written on that concept and cast a negative light on original and organic doctrine to the extent that its challenging to believe such books aren't written outright with deceptive intent. There are even songs about how God gave his only son...but the scriptures suggest "only begotten Son".

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name... John 1:12

[Keith Alan]

About Luke 17.21, I thought some of you might find the Halleluyah Scriptures translation interesting.

20 And having been asked by the Pharisees when the reign of Elohim would come, He answered them and said, "The reign of Elohim does not come with intent watching, 21 nor shall they say, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' For look, the reign of Elohim is in your midst!"

[doug555]

About Luke 17.21, I thought some of you might find the Halleluyah Scriptures translation interesting.

20 And having been asked by the Pharisees when the reign of Elohim would come, He answered them and said, "The reign of Elohim does not come with intent watching, 21 nor shall they say, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' For look, the reign of Elohim is in your midst!"

Now notice the key words I highlighted. THEM refers to THESE PHARISEES. Christ's answer was for them. The Mt 24 "signs" are meant for the End Time generation.

Thanks for your post Keith.

[allodial]

Now notice the key words I highlighted. THEM refers to THESE PHARISEES. Christ's answer was for them. The Mt 24 "signs" are meant for the End Time generation.

Thanks for your post Keith.

I suppose there can be much significance in paying attention to who is being spoken too. Consider the Samaritan woman and her "five husbands"-- the Samaritan's AFAIK had five gods. Some people try to universalize thing that are specific to the audience being addressed.