Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[allodial]

And so this is why the question: Where is the proof that Abraham was under Mosaic law? Where is there proof of the Melchezidek and the Mosaic-Levitical systems being the same? Why are so many people comfortable imposing ex post facto laws on the past? Consider, if the age of consent in the State of Florida were 21, then after some time people might start reading the Bible or other texts through the mental lens of what is legal under the laws of the State of Florida. I am unaware of Abraham being under the Mosaic-Levitical system which did not come about until hundreds years after his life.

[xparte]

[xparte]

I am unaware of Abraham being under the Mosaic-Levitical system which did not come about until hundreds years after his life.Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."Gods then traditional Mosaic-Levitical system is being de facto if God never had to tell Abe Do not have sexual relations with your sister,it wasn't his sister.

[allodial]

That gets to the psychology where some people justify or exalt themselves by projecting laws to which they are subject onto others. "We have a law requiring that 'all' wear lederhosen so those who don't wear lederhosen must be infidels!" I'm not sure how anyone can read Exodus and Numbers and come to the conclusion that the Mosaic-Levitical system was at that time implemented by Moses on a planetary basis or was implemented as a means of rewarding the Israelites for the Golden Calf incident.

The proponents of "tabula rosa" or the "blank slate" theory would have one believe that babies are born without any innate nature or conditioning whatsoever. It was well known prior to the 1930s that babies at the least took on neurological/subconscious characteristics of their parents--especially their mother--during the 9 months of gestation.

[xparte]

This is when folks get upset its to obvious what law Abe was under not his Sisters is the point is its people we are talking about thats all the old testament had was its people .Like Sodom like Vegas those people are all out of towners. Adam blamed Eve blamed choice. Sarah and Abe are out of towners Abe had a choice yet Egypt had no choice in the boils that prevented sex with Sara look at the wealth Abe traded sara for .God wants fidelity if Egypt was incestuous. Abe was industrious

[xparte]

Again what option does Abe have if he is fathering nations without God forget Moses how does Abe not know he cant marry his sister?

[xparte]

What can we read into a Man that claims he married his sister then Moses says its against the law was it that bad for incest homosexuality in Sodom lot abram sari never turned back moses put it on the books for a reason help me distinguish how morality needs no law but gets one just in case.

[David Merrill]

What I was looking for projected back through filters of conditioning. I found the guilt trip. It did not need to have law. The recombining DNA would probably not be such a problem in itself.

Therefore I also contribute allowing Sarah to kill Hagar on a bitchy jealous whim, alienating his genetically sound son; that was also a big guilt trip.

The presumption is that guilt causes that feeling of separation called sin. DEBT/DEATH/DOUBT are virtually the same work in an alphabet that has very few vowels. Doubt that you have God's love? That is sin.

[xparte]

Truth and humility and suffering without sin the education.Guilt is mans institution written down time has a way of changing everything truth has no way of changing time.If Paul had a Damascus he left us understanding guilt where All guilt is in still the book whats a relationship without God but internal suffering.how can one find God without Sin humility self empting is my understanding guilt. What offends God is in the book I have no dream to take you to
I have no ring for you to kiss
Truth, all I have is this
I have no way to hold you now
I have no time to show you how
I have no gold, nothing to risk
Truth, all we have is this a journey how the truth falls is what your willing to risk humility and suffering shared with God the world suffers guilt for Gold.

[xparte]

The recombining DNA would probably not be such a problem in itself. My Sister is it only used to save Abraham's life and Sarah's virtue or exploitation do we conceal truth from God suffer some boils and find out Take your wife back take the silver back is the temple being rebuilt check with the internal carpenter. Christ is the other gold heist the truth and humility is you're already been caught hiding from the truth.

[Michael Joseph]

The recombining DNA would probably not be such a problem in itself. My Sister is it only used to save Abraham's life and Sarah's virtue or exploitation do we conceal truth from God suffer some boils and find out Take your wife back take the silver back is the temple being rebuilt check with the internal carpenter. Christ is the other gold heist the truth and humility is you're already been caught hiding from the truth.

In my humble opinion - at Genesis 5:2 He called their name Adam.....

Thusly in my estimation Adam/Eve were metaphysically the same being. Adam being the Mind and Eve [Spirit or Emotion]. The Serpent is the Central Nervous System. Thusly in Abram [mind] he would find his 1/2 sister in Sarai [Emotion]. Notice that Abram could not impregnate Sarah. Only Abraham [higher Mind] could get that done. For Sarah is the barren woman of Isaiah 54 [one of them - depends on the tale]. Abraham experienced his Armageddon at the battle of the Kings whereof the lower aspects fell and the Higher came with peace [dove/olive twig].

In Adam - mind always proceeds matter. He's inside you and Me. For the letter of the law is dead - but the Spirit gives light/life.

"The bloody Church of England
in chains of history
requests your earthly presence at
the vicarage for tea.

Confessing to the endless sin
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying till next Thursday to
all the gods that you can count." - Jethro Tull

Musical Interlude....

The children of desolation are born of the lower mind and emotion. The lower mind cannot impregnate Spirit. But when Rachel brought forth for Jacob she produced the Christ type and the son of His Strength [right hand]. And Joseph [Christ type] told Judah [Spirit] bring me the Child - get back to daddy and bring me the Child Benyahmin.

This is true today. For Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me.

MJ - out.

[allodial]

Additional history in the Bible is found at Ezra and Nehemiah. There was an eleven-year civil war when the Jews returned to Israel. The war was between the newly created Jew (Babylon) and the People of the Land - the Israelite. This seems downplayed in current thought. In my understanding among the Christians (we) feel that the only occupant outside the Jews of Israel was Rome. Babylon/Jew had been a foreign occupation for hundreds of years by then. This is why I believe that the Magi visitation was a common commercial oversight. These "kings" were wealthy merchants visiting their colony on the Temple Mount. Tyre, (Tel Aviv) was and maybe still is their coastal colony. This is the essence of METRO (now lately the City of London) - conquer the mind and territorial matters are moot.

The Jews were the conqueror state. The Israelite population lost the war for the Temple Mount. That occupation was too far from Rome so Caesars left it alone, satisfied with a statue or two... and eagle here and there.

Meant to add that I had always had the impression that the Zoroastrians had also picked up a few things from Israel as well, rather than one way around--two way 'rubbing off' you could say. That it wasn't a one-way street, especially considering the 'syncretism as a way of governing' methodology. Afterall, wouldn't Israel's prophecy to his sons about the timing of when the scepter would depart from Judah predate Zoroastrian some thousand+ years (maybe even over 1,500 years?), that could not have been borrowed from someone a thousand+ years before they existed, no? Zoroaster is typically pegged to have lived around 600 B.C. The irony is that all of those writers who suggest "Christians" to have borrowed from the Egyptians are basically admitting the prophecies of the coming Messiah were known of as far back as Israel's time. Perhaps it was the Babylonians that were borrowing things?

Keeping in mind of course, it was kosher for others to borrow from Israel and the Hebrews, but not Kosher for the Hebrews to incorporate 'foreign gods'. Also, unlike Gnostic offshoots, neither true pure Bible saints' doctrines nor that of the ancient Hebrews subscribed to a 'duality' of good and evil equally matched.

Consider also, the significance of Daniel having rejected the 'bread/meat and wine' from the Babylonian king. Consider the parallel between bread and wine, Abraham and Melchizedek (~Genesis 14:18) and the Daniel and company and Babylonian king who was also a priest-king. If the Babylonian system was of the same system as that of Melchizedek when why would Daniel & co. reject it. Were they aware that the bread and wine was from not only from a priest and king (i.e. that Nebuchadnezzar was also a priest), but also from a foreign system? Hmmmm, might there some kind of parallel with Daniel & company's two distinct choices for food and the choice Adam and Eve were given: a choice between the Tree of Life etc. and the Tree Knowledge of Good and Evil? The Tree of Life has been said to be symbolic of a priest or priesthood (the Christ--that is, the Anointed). If the Babylonian king represented a priest-hood, clearly it was not one that Daniel and company recognized as of their own? (~Daniel 1) Remember, that Assyria was likened to a tree in sepher Ezekiel.

IMHO, Daniel 1 is testimony that all gods aren't the same--that are multiple potential gods or objects of worship, though there be only one truly worth such worship. Daniel skids in the face of syncretism and related idolatry. If there were only one god why would Daniel refuse bread/meat and wine from the Babylonian priest-king? CLEARLY DANIEL'S WAS NEITHER A PANTHEISTIC NOR A UNIVERSALIST VIEW! How could food be dedicated to an idol or to a foreign god and be inappropriate if this idea of 'all gods are the same' were true? Is it not evident that the imaginations of men, however elaborate, can become objects of worship? Can one be so sure of Allah, Zoroaster and the God of Israel being one in the the same?

Thank you for such a simple take on R4C!

This is what is helpful to me. To be able to speak truthfully in simple terms and in a short enough time to keep the listener's attention.

The conflict of laws is METRO organization public policy verses constitutions and statutes. Like I brought up about the oaths of office. One might use the emotionalism of cyberspace, social media, to sway the audience to persuade the judge that this is the best thing, NOT to hear the case at all.

So METRO could accurately be described as an admiralty, contract-enforcement venue resulting from 'syncretism' and conflict of laws or the 'resulting venue' ( like a resulting trust) arising out of deep conflict of laws? Interesting, so if a something "rises out of the sea", is that to say it to be a by-product of certain conduct of certain multitudes or 'mixed multitudes'?

So.... could it be that Daniel and company exercised refusal for cause (i.e. right of avoidance) with respect to staving off adverse consequences of conflict of laws by refraining from partaking in the meat/bread and wine of the Babylonian mystery schools--they R4C'd merger of Babylonian mystery school rites with those of the bread and wine of Melchizedek or subordinates thereof? I suspect that if Daniel & co. had participated in the rite, Daniel may not have been of much use as a dream interpreter.

Re: Darius [II] and "the Jews"
It has been suggested that Darius was making political moves by aiming to incorporate Hebrews doctrine into the system he was part of--standard government by syncretism methodology. The "Jews" of the day may have seen it as a positive, Darius ulterior motives being missed.

Judaism was the religion of the Juddin, a syncretic religion for cooperative people set up by the Persians. Yehud was set up as the center of it, and their presence elsewhere was explained by the Babylonian captivity. Few of them wanted to return to a place they had never known, but they accepted Yehud as their origin, the Temple priesthood as their leaders, and the myths planted by the Persians as their own. By the time of the Sassanids, they had forgotten or abandoned the earlier policy of syncretism in the fear that the children were overwhelming the parent. (source) [Warning: slanted site but he gives a very detailed look at how calculating the Persians were in designing their system of rule.]

Oddly enough, the Islamic/Muslim perspective on Christians and Jews is startlingly similar to the Zoroastrian view: tolerated or acceptable helper religions. But where there are those who are free of the syncretism, the nexus is lacking for the 'foreign gods' to latch on. Thusly, jurisdiction is lost. Perhaps this is why they make a stink over doctrinal purism (such an approach throws out their jurisdictional nexus for lack of conflict of laws and for lack of 'strange gods' from the Hebrew/Judean/Messianic perspective)?

Massoume Price in The Iranian confirms that Zoroastrianism made a place for certain foreign gods as helpers of Ahuramazda. The ruling principle was the advancement of reliable communities and the punishment of disloyal ones. Persian kings were ruthless with rebellions, including ones by the Persian satraps and members of the royal household. Groups which rebelled were punished irrespective of race or religion. The Jews were usually loyal and so were prosperous.

Re: New Testament doctrine and Zoroastrianism
Some try to suggest the doctrine of the saints (as distinct from Gnostic 'innovations') to be derived from Zoroastrianism. I wouldn't be so quick to arrive at such a conclusion as some have--which seems possible if one makes lots of presumptions. Some say that baptism (mikveh it is said was practice at least since the time of Moses!), breaking bread, etc. to be Zoroastrian. However, it is clear that Abraham had bread and wine ala Melchizedek, Israel foretold the coming of Jesus over 1,000 years before Zoroaster lived. So many throw Zoroastrianism at the doctrine of the saints when its likely (because Daniel's and Joseph's impression on Egypt and history) that the Babylonians would have borrowed from the Hebrews than vice-versa. Thusly, it seems that Abraham and the Israelites were Hebrews rather than "Jews" in the Darius sense. Judah of course, like Israel, was Hebrew, no?

Also, many seem to speak of the Essense without mentioning the existence of two or more variations.

Related:

• When the Scepter Departed from Judah (Genesis Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled)
• Yehud (Babylonian Province)
• Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)
• Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOT Supplement)
• The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOT Supplement Series)

[allodial]

A link: Jesus and the Pharisees. If Jesus was a Zoroastrian, why was he so very much opposed by the Pharisees/Persians/Farsis who are said to be most Zoroastrian influenced of those around at time? That is because the doctrines of Israel go further back than Darius I, Darius II, Daniel and Babylon. As indicated above the prophecy Israel (fka Jacob) gave to his sons at Genesis 49:10 concerning the scepter departing from Judah (the house of his son named Judah) was over a thousand years before Zoroaster and during Joseph's (Imhotep's) life.

It seems that Babylonian and Persian systems liked to claim to be the origin of the doctrines that they acquired from people they believed that they conquered. Likely, as the result of captivity an exile of Israel, they made the error of believing they took ownership of the God of Israel in consequence of having taken Israel into captivity.

Related:

• Meet Joseph aka Imhotep

[David Merrill]

So METRO could accurately be described as an admiralty, contract-enforcement venue resulting from 'syncretism' and conflict of laws or the 'resulting venue' ( like a resulting trust) arising out of deep conflict of laws? Interesting, so if a something "rises out of the sea", is that to say it to be a by-product of certain conduct of certain multitudes or 'mixed multitudes'?

Merovingians - MER - brine, bitter water. of the sea.

The first Merovingian King allegedly was spawned of a sea monster impregnating his mother when she swam in the sea.

Mary MAGDALENE fled to France to preserve the Bloodline.

Jesus fled to Damascus.

Then the Forgiveness and Judgment began in METRO (NY Stock Exchange).

It feels like the death rattle of commercial priestcraft.

[xparte]

The 72hrs three clear day,s Did Christ just evidence this as it was invented before Crucifixion isnt Crucifixion just a bank term bankrupted Thief and bad loans Christ is CEO fine print who does your books