A Discussion of The Grace of Elohim

[ImAHebrew]

Shalom All, here is a discussion between myself and a group of individuals concerning The Grace of Elohim. I have broken down the thread into each discussion I had with these members at TheWay. So please enjoy, and Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

First, I will start with the initial posts between Ray (Gnostic Seeker) and myself (ImAHebrew/Ken). And it should be noted that the main forum of TheWay declined for Ray and I to debate this most important topic "The Grace of Elohim" on their main forum where anyone could witness it, so they had me go to their "Private" forum, where only approved individuals could witness this debate. I initially kept my focus of this debate with Ray, but as he felt I was "ignoring" the others who were posting to me, I turned my attention away from Ray, and only addressed them, but this first segment of the debate deals with Ray and myself. As you can see, Ray's inability to defend himself, in a very short period of time (just a little over 1 day), suggested that I go elsewhere to advocate my beliefs...to me, that speaks volumes of his inability to destroy or demolish the Truth:

• ImAHebrew - Nov 9 7:12 AM

Shalom Ray, I went back through my "spam" and found your invitation, and was able to become a member, thank you. I believe for now I will not post at The Way so as to try to adhere to everyone's wish.

Now, I believe that we were discussing how by sinning, there is a "Spiritual" DOING of the Law which all sinners receive as a Gift, The Grace of Elohim. Do you know anything about Paul's teaching concerning this Free Gift, which we receive by sinning? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 10:32 AM

Shalom Ken, I am glad you were able to find the invitation and that it worked, welcome to the forum.

I believe that turning the Law/Torah inwardly, by living in accordance with its spirit and not the letter, such as the discussion of circumcision of the heart in I believe Romans, is what Paul was espousing to what he described as Spiritual Communities, which he declared to be neither Jewish nor Christian. I assume Paul uses the latter terms as the believers who ascribe to the so-called milk/letter in outer observance. Having said that, applying the Key of Knowledge and turning the scriptures within, is turning away from sin, and the capacity to do that, while it must be worked out to achieve one's own salvation, remains at the same time a free gift. In principle all of life is a gift, as its ultimate purpose is to assist the seeker of truth to know self and ultimately know the source of all of life. As I have written elsewhere, Elohim is not a deity but a verb, a sequence of events culminating in, potentially, the earth bearing spiritual fruit.

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 12:51 PM

PS to Ken - with respect to the nature of Paul's teaching, which you claim to espouse as what you perceive to be the same as what you believe he did, it is imperative to understand that Paul never knew Yeshua in the flesh, based on the evidence presented in the New Testament. Paul claimed in Romans that it is no longer he who lived, but Christ - the anointing, the pattern of the Son of Man - who lives in him. He further exhorted the Messianic Community members in different locales to follow him as he follows Christ, who follows God. You are claiming to have received the same anointing as Paul received, and unless you have achieved Soul Birth, which Paul did; and, become a MAN (not a baby or child) born from woman, ie born out of the earth, you cannot claim to speak with the same voice as of that of Paul's vibration of consciousness. You are ascribing to yourself a higher level of spiritual knowledge than you possess, which is a very common error. Fortunately, there is always a remedy for that.

• ImAHebrew - Nov 9 5:14 PM

Shalom Ray (Gary & Sidney also), I don't think you have quite ever understood Paul, and I don't mean that as an insult, because Paul is difficult to understand, and he has been totally maligned by traditional christianity with their following after those who "entered in" as Jude stated, and turned the Grace of Elohim into a license to sin. Even Paul mused over how he was slandered with those who misstated his beliefs by claiming he taught, "Let us do evil so that good may result."

Paul's teaching about Grace was hard for his fellow Jews to accept. They fully believed that righteousness came by doing the Law, and they were correct, but Paul tried to explain to them that they were doing the righteous requirement of the Law, when they sinned. But that doing of the Law was not according to the Letter, but rather according to the Spiritual DOING of the Law. What he would teach them is that instead of sacrificing a physical four legged animal according to the Letter of the Law, that they, by or THROUGH their sin, did sacrifice or slay their Spiritual Lamb/Sacrifice (Yeshua), when they were transgressing the Law. Paul taught that when transgression was increased, Grace (the free gift of righteousness) was increased all the more. Is it possible for you to see how someone would claim Paul was teaching, "Let us do evil so that good may result," with this explanation of Grace? I know it isn't easy, rather it is a hard thing to see and understand that when one transgresses the Letter of the Law, they automatically are performing the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law (sacrificing Yeshua), but this is what Paul taught his fellow Jews, and for the most part, they stumbled over this Truth.

Hopefully I have presented this in a clear and understandable manner, as what you have just heard is nowhere to be found within fundamental or traditional christianity (not with Herbert Armstrong, the LDS, Jehovah Witnesses, or even JJ), as this teaching was lost when those deceiving spirits came in during, and for the most part, after the departure of the Apostles, when the One True Church was destroyed. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 7:01 PM

Shalom Ken, This is my second attempt to respond. Speaking for myself, I find your premise that increasing transgression produces a corresponding increase in good to be completely in contravention to Paul's writing. Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just! (Romans 3:8). Paul also did not condemn the Law, but the exterior observance of it, which leads to death. The Torah does not promote animal sacrifice, as per Lev. 17:10, because the animal kingdom is already a living sacrifice to man. Likely, the seeker is exhorted to sacrifice that lower vibration of animal consciousness within himself. That is also what Yeshua encouraged. He encouraged the disciples to become whole and complete, fulfilling the Law in its entirety. (Mt. 5:18 & 5:48). You are presenting a distortion of Paul's message, in spite of what you say otherwise. Paul's work has mostly been sabotaged, true to the carnal nature of man, by transmuting the spiritual into the physical. It is just another variation of fundamentalism. Ray

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 7:35 PM

PS - the Pauline passage referencing emerging out of the physical vessel into a subsequent stage of birth:I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. (2 Cor 12:2). Smart money says that man was the Apostle himself. As for the other earlier reference:For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (1 Cor 11:12). In a subtle way, I think the latter passage speaks to the essential importance of the Divine Marriage, apart from referencing two forms of metaphysical regeneration.

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 7:43 PM

PPS - Something lost from the original response to you: Paul was essentially providing pastoral care to assist communities trying to transition into a Messianic lifestyle, transitioning from a tradition of external animal sacrifice to living spiritually, following the Yeshua prototype of lifestyle. What has happened is that the Orthodox Christian Church has taken his very Gnostic views and turned them into another form of external sacrificial system advocacy. One error was replaced by another, which is sabotage.

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 9 11:04 PM
If this keeps up, I think Someone's heel might get struck. (Comment by ImAHebrew: This is Ray's way of saying that they were stomping on me, as a snake, and someone's heel might get struck by me, the snake that is attacking them. This was one of Ray's poorer judgments in this debate.)

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

[ImAHebrew]

Continued disussion between Ray (Gnostic Seeker) and Ken (ImAHebrew)

• ImAHebrew - Nov 10 5:20 AM

Shalom Ray, no, you didn't follow what I said. I quoted Romans 3:8 several times to emphasize how OTHERS were misunderstanding Paul, and you've done the same thing. You have said, "I find your premise that increasing transgression produces a corresponding increase in good to be completely in contravention to Paul's writing." You thought that I (and Paul) was stating that increasing transgression produces a corresponding increase in good, and that is not at all what HE was trying to profess, and neither was I.

Gal 2 gives an accurate view of what Paul was trying to explain concerning how sin or transgression was required to receive the RIGHTEOUSNESS (the Spiritual DOING of the Law) that is found THROUGH Messiah's suffering and death:

Gal 2:15 - 2:21
15 “We, being Jews by birth, and not Gentile sinners,
16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Yeshua the Messiah, even we believed in Messiah Yeshua, that we might be justified by faith in Messiah, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.
17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Messiah, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Messiah a servant of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker.
19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to Elohim.
20 I have been crucified with Messiah, and it is no longer I that live, but Messiah living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of Elohim, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
21 I don’t make void the Grace of Elohim. For if righteousness is through the law, then Messiah died for nothing!”

You see Ray, IF you seek the righteousness found by faith in Messiah, which is given as a Free Gift (Elohim's Grace), you were required to be a sinner. Well, the first logical question would be, "is Messiah a servant of sin?" (Is He serving sin here)? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you are required to be a sinner to receive this Grace, would not it appear that Messiah is a servant or promoter of sin? But Paul explains himself. He tells us that he WAS a sinner, who was destroyed or crucified with Messiah, and IF he rebuilds or resurrects himself again AS A SINNER, then he truly proves he is a LAW-BREAKER.

Paul elsewhere states that when Messiah died, ALL died, and he does not view anyone as living, everyone is dead. His belief was that when Yeshua was "lifted up" on the Cross, all men, past, present, and future were there, THROUGH their sin. They were all there condemning Him, placing Him where He ought not to be placed, and this was all done "unknowingly," on the sinners part. Now, those who come to a Knowledge of the Truth concerning what their sin did, slaying/sacrifice Yeshua, can BELIEVE, in faith, that Yeshua is THEIR once and for all sacrifice. And in doing so, they are credited with fulfilling the just requirement of the Law, not by works, but through and by faith in the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law.

So please Ray, don't think that "good" resulted THROUGH your transgression, what resulted was Yeshua's suffering and death, which gives those who accept Him as THEIR sacrifice, The Spiritual DOING of what the Law required sinners to do, which is sacrifice. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 10 at 10:44 AM

Shalom Ken,
For the record, I made absolutely no statement declaring or implying that the Apostle considered sin to be a requirement. That is not something he considered to be a requirement, and likewise I share that view. You also appear to continue to cling to Elohim as a deity, which is incorrect as has been recently mentioned. You also are clinging to the notion of Yeshua being a physical sacrifice as some form of offering of reconciliation to an external deity. The Messiah is a pattern of transitioning and elevating the body out of its earthly vibration into the spiritual, so that one can draw closer to the Kingdom within. The reference of Gal 2:20 is to the sacrifice of the lower, earthly natures of consciousness within oneself to a higher purposes, and it is that pattern of thought and action which no longer lives, but a higher, more enlightened form. Do not cling to the notion of physical death as being of any value.

There is no requirement to be a sinner. The spiritual is for intents and purposes placed in the earth so that it can be regenerated out of it in an exalted form, effectively being transformed, by Elohimic means, into a living sanctuary, or temple, or place of eternal repose. The Messiah is by nature not a sinner, but again a means of transformation.

You continue to misinterpret Paul's (and other) writings because of incorrect underlying/foundational assumptions. I am of the view that this forum is not designed for the purpose of debating spiritual versus carnal interpretations of scripture, but for the purpose of exploring scripture from a purely spiritual perspective. If you wish to continue advocating your very limited carnal perspective I suggest you do so elsewhere. I suggest you should change your lifestyle and prepare your body vessel to receive higher impressions from scripture than your present capacity allows. I don't believe the forum members find this thread useful or appropriate. If you insist on putting your thoughts out there, so to speak, you should do so in your own forum, if you have not already created it. You have been going on and on in Allan's affiliated sites for many years and I no evidence whatsoever of any progression of consciousness. You are at a dead end and need to reassess what you think you know. It is no surprise to me that other forums in which you have engaged in this pattern of behavior have censored you.
Ray

• Gnostic.Seeker - Nov 10 11:03 AM

PS to Ken: I think you owe Brother Shohn the courtesy of a reply to his earlier question to you before responding to my post below. If you are ignoring the other members with some kind of underlying intent to get me to support your present way of thinking, such intent will not succeed.

TO BE CONTINUED

[ImAHebrew]

Shohn Trojacek's Participation in the Discussion on The Grace of Elohim

Shalom All, upon taking the advice of Gnostic Seeker (Ray) to stop ignoring the other posters, and especially Shohn and his question, I turned my focus upon Shohn and here is my interaction with him:

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 9 7:09 PM

Shalom IAH:
Would you mind explaining how everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is all happening right now?
Shohn

(ImAHebrew's current comment: Everyone applauded Shohn and his supposedly "remarkable" question that somehow, in his mind, was pertinent to the thread's topic. Now, Shohn has a very high perception of himself and how wise he is at asking questions, so I gave him his answer.)

• ImAHebrew - Nov 10 6:50 PM

Shalom Shohn, I had another hard day as a carpenter.

I addressed your question in my post the next day. Here is what I said to Ray in that post, but it was meant for you, to help correct how you were thinking:

"Paul elsewhere states that when Messiah died, ALL died, and he does not view anyone as living, everyone is dead. His belief was that when Yeshua was "lifted up" on the Cross, all men, past, present, and future were there, THROUGH their sin. They were all there condemning Him, placing Him where He ought not to be placed, and this was all done "unknowingly," on the sinners part."

Here is how you should look at it. All sin that has ever happened, or will ever happen, and is even happening right now, culminated in the event at the Cross, with the death of Messiah, and that when He died, ALL died, and Elohim is reconciled.

Now a question for you. How were all men/people of all time brought to one place in time and drawn into the death of Yeshua on the Cross?

Jn 12:30 - 12:33

30 Yeshua answered, “This voice hasn’t come for my sake, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this world. Now the prince of this world will be cast out.
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
33 But he said this, signifying by what kind of death he should die.

How could something of that magnitude ever happen, or ever will happen, or is even happening right now? I'll give you a hint. Sin has something to do with it.

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Shohn gave a short response just asking HOW was he thinking when he asked his question, so I responded with a quotation of Gary's first post:

• ImAHebrew - Nov 10 8:48 PM

Shalom Shohn, how were you thinking? Why don't I use Gary's words:

"Rather than ask a baited question in a way that implies you know the answer and are just looking to correct someone, based on your previously preconceived notions, why not just share what you think you know!!"

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 10 at 9:01 PM

Shalom IAH:
You indicated / implied you knew how I was thinking and were therefore correcting it.
So how was I thinking?
There were at least four perspectives I was writing about in my little myopic world. I don't see how your response addressed any of them and frankly I found it to be lacking in depth - as if you were telling a joke and expecting to be taken seriously.
Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 10 9:20 PM

Shalom Shohn, I was correcting it ONLY if your question pertained to the topic of the thread. If your question has nothing to do with the Grace of Elohim, then you need to explain your four perspectives, and why you are even asking your question.

And most do lack an in-depth understanding of how ALL of humanity could be put to death in one specific point in time, at one specific event, yet the cause of everyone's death could occur as when happened, and will happen, or is even happening right now, it just depends on WHEN the sin is committed. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn - Nov 11 9:04 AM

Shalom IAH:
You use the scriptures as a type of language for expression. Consider a police officer who has a list of codes for indicating different events.

For example, the code "10-4" indicates acknowledgment - message received. 10-One could take the police codes and use them as a medium for expression - to indicate message received, resend the message, etc. or to describe events that were occurring. If one was feeling really creative one day, the same codes could be used to encode additional messages, as a type of alphabet.
10-3 10-1 10-14 10-25 10-15 10-21 10-18 10-5 10-1 10-4 10-20 10-8 10-9 10-19 10-62
C A N Y O U R E A D T H I S ?
To any casual inspection, such a message may seem like a string of police codes, but closer examination reveals a message behind the message.

When discussing things with people, it could be compared to having a conversation with a kaleidoscope - with each little brightly colored series of fragments spinning around. Perhaps each fragment could be analagous to different life experiences that individual may have had. For you, it seems that the brightly colored pieces of glass inside the proverbial kaleidoscope are scriptural verses. Behind all of these brightly colored pieces of glass is your proverbial encoded message. It seems that no matter what question asked of you, your reply will be to spin the kaleidoscope around and find more brightly colored pieces of glass to form your reply which will roughly translate into 3 days, Jesus died, etc. There is therefore no real point in you continuing to spin the kaleidscope round and round to continually say 3 days, Jesus died, etc. etc. etc. Message received. 10-4 there buddy.

If I distilled your message down a bit, in perhaps its most simplest form it would be: we bad, God mad, Jesus glad. Much of the rest of your writing seems like a justification for what you interpret "God" to be. You seem to say the reason God kill son is God want us to be not bad - that make God that kill son good. This might even relate to some of your issues with so-called pagans.
The question asked of you was of a level of profundity beyond the context of the thread. At its core, on one level if asked of you: "why are you still going on about "we bad, god mad, jesus glad"? You can make your message with as many colorful pieces of glass as you like, it is still the same at its core. We've expressed in perhaps thousands of messages now - we've moved beyond that.
There are brightly colored pieces of glass in each of our proverbial kaleidoscopes. To me, yours represents time I spent studying some time ag, but moved on from there - noticing even bigger pieces of colored glass in the world itself and in our very lives and how they all tie together. Do the same across the dimension of time and maybe even space - extending to the galaxies and perhaps even multi-verses and the possibilties of everything that could have ever existed and has allready happened, will happen, and is happening right now!
So what are you doing and why? This is profound IAH. What are you doing?

"'Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me; and ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life;"
As I mentioned with encoding messages, consider the concept of a Matryoshka doll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll), that is, a big doll that has within it, more dolls that look the same, but are only smaller. The same pattern repeats. The same concept could be applied to the scriptures and indeed all of life. in teh above verse I quoted, who or what is the "Me"? Maybe it is a piece of glass that is interpreted, like a cloud in the sky, according to the constitution of the individual. We all get your "fire bad - cave good" arguments. There is no reason to go on repeating them. So what you are doing? At this moment in time? What is it that you are doing here, now? Do you honestly think you would be able to wage a successful argument? That it is somehow going to convince anyone? Surely, you are not this empty-headed! What are you doing - here and now!?
Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 11 12:15 PM

Shalom Shohn, it is amazing that you feel I believe "God" killed his son, apparently, I need to keep stating over and over and over again that ALL of mankind, ALL sinners did slay or kill the Son. But just maybe you are not tuned into the code, to understand truthful speech.

Why am I here? I'm preparing for something that you really don't grasp. You see, it takes training to demolish and destroy any and all doctrines, teachings, and arguments that stand opposed to the Truth of the One True Gospel. And it's really not up to me if someone has their "light bulb" go on while I train here, but you know, there is always a chance.

I thought that this venue was a safe place for your members, as you would not let "newbies" come here and be polluted by what I say. And really, all I have done is throw a couple of light jabs, as I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from "sparring" with me.

Now, are you throwing in the towel on the Grace of Elohim? I would have thought that you would have put up some kind of defense. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 11 12:33 PM

Shalom IAH:
Then how about mounting an effective argument for your cause?
Shohn

• Shohn - Nov 12 6:20 AM

Spinning the the kaleidoscope ....

CONTINUED

[Eliyah]

I do not want this off here.

I do not want this to drop off here, because I think it is very important!

Ken and Spying, why don't you both write up an article of " The Grace Of Elohim" you seem capable, and I will post it on its own page on my website, this is one of the truths that needs be restored.

[ImAHebrew]

My 4 part continued interaction with Shohn.

• ImAHebrew - Nov 12 6:28 AM
Shalom Shohn, it would help me to express my beliefs a little better if you could give me your simple explanation as to how you feel Paul taught Grace. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn - Nov 12 6:34 AM
Shalom IAH:

Grace is earned.

Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 12 11:09 AM
Shalom Shohn, that is surprising that you believe as I do. I most certainly believe that Paul taught that the gift we receive (Grace), is the free gift of righteousness we earn by sinning. It's puzzling though, why doesn't your mentor have anything written about it in the caverns of his mind/forums. Or maybe I just overlooked it. Thank you for your clear and concise explanation, I'll see what can built upon it to help you along. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 12 12:32 PM
Shalom IAH:
The kaleidoscope spins round again.
... I didn't intend my words to be received the way you interpreted them. It appears that you are taking my words and reinterpreting them in accordance with your own belief system, and arrived at the conclusion that we believe the same thing. I do not believe the same as you. We do not believe the same thing. There was a time when I considered the New Testament as history, but that time has passed.
Kindly refer to the following article to understand the source of the miscommunication:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Or alternatively, consider an analogy to our writing / speech inherent to the story of the "Confusion of Tongues" mentioned in the Old Testament or in the parable about building a house on sand.
Did this help or are you more confused now?
Shohn -

• Shohn - Nov 13 6:51 AM (Current Comment-This is Shohn’s response to a post I made to “Gary,” and I ended that post with telling “Gary” that IF he BELIEVED and KNEW the Truth, he just might be able to move me off my stubbornness, for I am very stubborn.”

Shalom IAH:
SssssssssssssssTuborn.
It almost says movement, then a sudden halting of motion or a sort of rigidity/restriction in motion.
I see the STart of that word stubborn in a lot of other words. I figure that the ST part has something to do with things being in a fixed position / movement restricted, like STar, STare, STeer, STill, STall, STale, STupor, STub, STaple, STupid, SToop, STone, STand, STymy, STore, STeel, STeal, STop, and many others.
Here's the deal, IAH. There are two kaleidoscopes in play. We both know what you want to do with yours. So there's a bit of an impasse.
There are no scriptures which could be quoted to you that could prove anything to you, because you will simply spin the ol' kaleidoscope round and round again until you find something to stay where you are at. That's what you have done over a course of years and THOUSANDS of posts, so I see that there is no reason for it to change any time soon. I have a prediction! You will do it to this post!! You know how I know that? Because you do it EVERY TIME! Tell me I'm wrong and why. If you fail to tell me I'm wrong and why, I figure that means silience is acceptance.
Now, if I went to China and wanted to speak to the people there, it might be a good idea to learn some Chinese! This is just common sense. To understand anything around here, you must APPLY it! I have yet to see you ask a single honest question about application. So that means the cycle of spinning the ol' kaleidoscope will continue - remaining STuck.
So please, distill your arguments down and try to mount an effective argument. To do so, you must attack the methods used for various experiences people have had. In my case, you would need to be able to explain the difference between waking mind, sleeping mind, and what I call split mind. You can not! This is stuff that has happened to me, personally. So, you would need to experience the same to even have a frame of reference. Otherwise, you are like a kid who doesn't want to try a new food and is quite confident that his food is just fine. If you like your food, great! Enjoy it! But, NONE of us are interested in it. We've ALL moved on from it. At this point, my grade school children form better arguments to retain and obtain candy than you have in anything you have said. That is harsh, but it is also true. Think about that for a minute, eh?
So, Ken, spin it again and pretend like all of us are too STupid to see you do it. It must very comforting to rest in being so "STubborn". Whatever you do, don't mount an effective argument. Dont' attempt to prove anything for yourself. Instead keep arguing by spinning your kaleidoscope as though it will somehow STick. Spin it!
Shohn
(Current Comment: - at this point in time, the discussion turned to the Jefferson Bible, and how another poster “Gary” was pushing it’s use. Shohn turned his attention to that topic and I will pick those posts up next).

• Shohn - Nov 13 8:53 AM
Here, now he is without excuse:

http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 13 3:05 PM
Shalom Shohn, thanks, but upon Gary's request I had already downloaded the PDF of Jefferson's bible and even read some of it. It also compelled me to research a little into Jefferson. It appears that he may have started out with good intentions, but as he grew older, he let his desire for the wealth of this world influence his direction. I realize that much has been debated about his fathering children with one of his slave mistresses, and there are differing views, but one thing for certain, he had opportunity to give emancipation to his slaves, and he didn't, based upon the almighty dollar. So I'm not certain that he is someone I want to emulate or listen to. Although, it is said that he only put into his bible what he felt was historically true, and he did put the suffering, death, and burial of Yeshua into it, but left out many things that he felt were not historically true (the miracles, Lazarus, etc.). So that surprises me that you and Gary would want that testimony against you, as you both believe Yeshua did not historically suffer, die, or was buried. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 13 4:46 PM
Shalom IAH:
You are in rare form today.
Round and round it (the ol' kaleidoscope) goes, where it stops - everyone ... knEW!
Why didn't he emancipate his slaves?
Perhaps he found a good verse or two in the Jeffersonian Bible?
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord"
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Maybe their condition would have been worse given the legal structure of the time period?
Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 14 7:07 AM
Shalom Shohn, maybe you should expand your kaleidoscope, and bone up on the history of Jefferson. First, he felt that Paul was, "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus," so I doubt that Paul's statements about slaves would override "Jesus" statements, at least in his mind.

Obviously, when he penned the Declaration of Independence, he felt that all men were created equal, and this was at the age of 33, but as he grew older, his actions proved otherwise. Here is a link to The Dark Side of Jefferson, and they do a very good job of showing his hypocritical side. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. I'm really surprised you all would use him as a recommended source for a bible.

• Shohn ♬ ♪ - Nov 14 9:13 AM
Shalom IAH:
It seems you're attempting to apply the concept of the kaleidoscope to myself now. Congratulations! Are you now prepared to put your beliefs to the test? Time to spin again!
So do you agree with Paul on the matter of slavery? Obey your masters!
And call no man ... master?
Did you not read "between the lines" of my below post?
If not, Here's a hint and a research project:
I wonder if the slavery verses I quoted would be found in the Jeffersonian bible ...
Also, your very ability to write in this forum could be partially attributed to Jefferson's actions, so I advise caution. May I remind you of obstinate David encountering Nathan's cleverness.
Shohn

• Shohn - Nov 14 10:31 AM
Shalom IAH:
Are your beliefs ... capable ... of withstanding anything beyond casual inspection? Put the kaleidoscope down for a minute? You can pick it right back up, of course.
Why is this a requirement: "historical account of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection"?
In terms of your belief system, what does it matter if it was historical or not? In other words, what other elements of your belief system - of your rules for living require that it be a historical event? If it wasn't a historical event, what does that mean for you personally? If it was a historical event, what does that mean for you, personally?
Shohn

To Be Continued

[ImAHebrew]

Continued discussion with Shohn.

• ImAHebrew - Nov 15 10:19 AM
Shalom Shohn, you are asking a very good question, and I understand why you ask it, because IF the historical account of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection is accurate, then your house of cards fall.
Simply put, demons do not what mankind to understand the Grace of Elohim, as there is great power to turn sinners from their sin by teaching sinners that their sin did historically slay or Sacrifice Yeshua. Demons would prefer sinners to become "distant" from any responsibility or association in Yeshua's suffering, death, and burial. And by doing so, this will "distant" sinners away from any hope of the resurrection, and have them look into reincarnation and necromancy for their hope.

You see, with the Grace of Elohim, all sinners (and me personally speaking) have the free gift of accomplishing or doing what the Law/Torah commanded sinners to do, which is Sacrifice. This Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law is accomplished or done by sinners through and by the historical slaying or Sacrifice of Yeshua. So, as you should be able to see, it is vital or critical that the historical account of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection HAPPENED exactly as Moses and the Prophets said it would, as written in the Gospel accounts. That was the One True Gospel, and it was LOST with the destruction of the One True Church, and a number of pseudo-gospels rose up in it's place.

The Apostle Paul taught as a basic tenet, it is not the "hearers" of the Law/Torah who are righteous, but rather, it is the DOERS of the Law/Torah that will be declared righteous. I can assure you that ALL who confess that Yeshua was killed or Sacrificed by THEIR sin, will be accomplishing or DOING the Law of Sacrifice, not by works, but rather through their Faith of Messiah being their Offering, their Spiritual Sacrifice. For this belief to be possible, Yeshua had to suffer, die, be buried, and then resurrected on the third day as an actual historical event.

Now Shohn, let me ask you a question. Why does Allan and Origen consider the historical account of Zacharias being killed between the Holy Place and Altar to be an ACTUAL event that took place, but which became severely altered by the Church of Rome, and subsequently removed from our bibles (except for the limited mention in Matthew)?

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn - Nov 15 12:19 PM
Shalom IAH:
You are here writing to us because your position is weak and will not survive anything more than casual inspection, and some part of you knows it, you are not writing the below because I'm exploring whether the NT account is historical or not.
Now with that out of the way, I find the timing of your mention of Zacharias ... interesting. Today I planned to return to an old stomping ground of mine where I was employed for a number of years. Early this morning, I asked my wife: "I wonder if there's any symbolism we might detect in this trip?".
The name of the building that I'm going to visit is called Zachary and they are tearing it down and are allowing people to claim a piece of the building. While pondering this, I asked my wife to pull up the Hebrew meaning of the word Zachary and we eventually connected it to the account of Zacharias in the Gospel of the Nazirenes (http://gospel.nazirene.org/). We noted how in the Gospel of the Nazirenes, it was mentioned how the son would avoid strong drink, eating flesh, etc. yet such passages were not present in the regular old new testament. If memory serves, the early church fathers quoted passages that are present in the Gospel of the Nazirenes that are not present in our traditional gospel of 4 books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Finding verses present in a Gospel which the world hadn't known about until recently, but are also testified in the writings may be like finding Dawkins' pre-Cambrian rabbit.
I understand Zachary means something like God will remember ... and today I'm going to go see somewhere I used to work. It's a start... I wonder what other words Zecharias would align with if I plugged it into the gematria at Biblewheel.com.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that Allan was treating that as history, so it would help if you quoted it, but in answer to your below query, while I hesitate to speak for Allan's thought process, I can tell you that when I interact with my own family, I must use terms they are familiar with and can connect with. Otherwise, I might as well be speaking in Chinese. I would speak to them as close as I could to their mindset, otherwise, anything I might say would be immediately rejected. If you want to talk to Catholics, you can't speak poorly of the Pope. Origen had a particular audience in mind, and I suspect Allan does as well. If you read things too literal, you're going to get yourself into trouble.
To illustrate this point, let me borrow from a recent film called Guardians of the Galaxy:
Rocket Raccoon: [about Drax] Metaphors go over his head.
Drax the Destroyer: NOTHING goes over my head!... My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.
You are basically telling us in response to the statement: "Metaphors go over your head", "Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast, I would catch it". That's how I see it when you try to convince me that the scriptures are a historical account. It makes me want to laugh. Please stop it, you're killin' me!
That's not to say that there wasn't some history, but surely you know that the victors write the history and the victors are rarely ... right.
Now, I believe I honestly answered your question, before you really answered mine. Oh, you tried to make it look like you answered mine, you carefully stepped around the full implications, but I'm looking for the stuff that you know will undermine your position, the stuff you know you can't defend. To attack my position, you have to attach my personal experiences. To undermine your position, I just have to demonstrate that you are merely interpreting and I believe that has been done ad-nauseum.
So, are you going to ... actually ... answer my question now? Are you willing to put your belief system to the test? How do you have knowledge of what demons think or do not think, for example? Are you or have you been one? Did you meet one? Otherwise, I'd have to consider your position as nothing more than ... hearsay. In other words, you are describing the events described to you by a witness though you yourself have not personally experienced the events nor were you even present. You could use the witness of the Bible, but when you use two witnesses in the Bible, guess what, that still rolls up hill to ... one witness. Your testimony in incomplete and I can not accept anything less than actual testimony.
We can continue to play these games but there will be nothing gained by it other than bruised egos.
Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 16 8:52 AM
Shalom Shohn, no, my position is not weak, for my weapons are not carnal, but mighty through Elohim to the pulling down of your strong holds. And if you do more than just a casual inspection of my beliefs, you will come to realize that “imaginations,” and every “high thought” that exalts itself against the Knowledge of Elohim, will be shackled into the obedience of Messiah.
The impression from Allan and Origen that the full account of Zacharias was deliberately removed or corrupted by those who did not want this event publicized, is found within what Allan wrote in his, The Missing Account Of Zacharias :

Spiritual holy men such as Zacharias, along with all other examples of Jews who were part of the Holy Nation of Israel, had to be removed from the text of the scriptures in order for the Gentile-Roman Church to rewrite history to make it appear that the Jews rejected Yeshua/Jesus, and the Gentiles became the new chosen people. Thus, in the same way that the above reference to Zacharias was removed, so also was that found in the Nazirene Gospel 5:13-19

And Allan references Origen in the same writing:

It is interesting to note that the Church Father Origen noted that the account of Zacharias had been removed from many of the biblical texts, and was only preserved in the uncanonical scriptures. Thus, in a letter from Origen to Africanus, he writes concerning the removal of this important account:

"Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders...was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders."

(This post is continued in the next section.)

[ImAHebrew]

Continued discussion with Shohn.

Continued from the previous post:

And then Allan summarizes his thoughts:

Thus, sincere Christians would look at this missing account of Zacharias -- the fact that it was noted to be removed in a letter by the Church Origen -- and the fact that it appears in the what is now called the Gospel of the Nazirenes -- and they would recognize that what they have been given is a sign from the Lord that they should question the integrity of their scriptures and doctrines of belief. Once we see the sections which were removed from our own Bibles that are still contained in the Nazirene Gospel, we can easily begin to understand what Yeshua/Jesus was making reference to with respect to the allegation that the secular Jews were guilty of the blood of Zacharias. What is clear is the fact that this revelation pertaining to Zacharias was once contained in our Bibles, but was purposely removed by the Gentile Chruch.

So Shohn, it is very evident that the HISTORY of what happened to the LITERAL Zacharias was, according to Allan and Origen, corrupted and removed by men to hide this historical event. So why do you try to hide the historical and literal suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Yeshua? Do you have an agenda likened to the "secular Jews?"

Now, Allan makes claims that the “Gospel of the Nazirenes,” for the most part does not mislead a person, and should be considered that this writing exists from the “Hand of God.”

“Having composed and seen most of the original core scriptures which were written at the time that the soul who lived as Yeshua walked the earth, my observation is that there is nothing in the Gospel of the Nazirenes that will mislead a person -- in the manner that many are misled by the translations derived via the hands of the Church of Constantine.”
“So, knowing for a fact that the Bibles which the consensus opinion finds valid, is serenely corrupted, they are (un)willing to consider the fact that the Hand of God insured that writings such as the Gospel of the Nazirenes exists for those who seek the Inner Kingdom that is beyond the error of man who is lost in the abyss of the "far country... outer darkness"

With all of that out of the way, let us look at several verses from the “Gospel of the Nazirenes,”:

Lection 75:6-8
6. And Iscariot said unto him, Master, behold the unleaven bread, the mingled wine and the oil and the herbs, but where is the lamb that Moses commanded? (for Judas had bought the lamb, but Iesus had forbidden that it should be killed).
7. And John spake in the Spirit, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, the good Shepherd which giveth his life for the sheep. And Judas was troubled at these words, for he knew that he should betray him. But again Judas said, Master, is it not written in the law that a lamb must be slain for the passover within the gates?
8. And Iesus answered, If I am lifted up on the cross then indeed shall the lamb be slain; but woe unto him by whom it is delivered into the hands of the slayers; it were better of him had he not been born.

It appears the “Hand of God” has spoken concerning the LITERAL, HISTORICAL event concerning Yeshua’s Sacrifice, doesn’t it? Or how about these verses:

Lection 82:31-32
31. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the two who were crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his heart and forthwith came there out blood and water.
32. And he that saw it bare record and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled—A bone of him shall not be broken, and again—In the midst of the week the Messiah shall be cut off.

Lection 88:4-6
4. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
5. And Jesus said, I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen and heard, and I found all men glutted with their own pleasures, and drunk with their own follies, and none found I hungry or athirst for the wisdom which is of God. My soul grieveth over the sons and daughters of men because they are blind in their heart, and in their soul are they deaf and hear not my voice.
6. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead after the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in my name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.

Didn’t Yeshua give His life and allow His blood to be shed on the Cross to REDEEM us out from our sin, as we crucify our carnal natures on the Cross, with Him, in His literal suffering and death? See Shohn, you do not confess or recognize your death WITH Him, as He was suffering and dying as a result of you and your sin. Now, ONCE you come to a Gnosis of THIS Truth, you will have the power and means to overcome your iniquity, by the Grace of Elohim. That is about as simply as I can put it. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

(Shohn's reply is continued next)

[ImAHebrew]

Final segment with Shohn.

• Shohn - Nov 16 10:43 AM
Shalom IAH:
"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
"my position is not weak, for my weapons are not carnal, but mighty through Elohim to the pulling down of your strong holds." What the heck does that mean? You're going "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" on me?
Was my earlier explanation on the 'history' somehow unclear? Why on earth are you simply dismissing the rational explanation provided? Did it not reconcile the reality of addressing two audiences at once? Again, you must learn to read between the lines. You keep getting yourself into trouble by taking everything literally. Perhaps you and your buddy JJ should have a discussion about this? Did you not notice how you started nice and soft on JJ's forum? Then you slowly started to turn up the volume to shouting. I noticed you didn't immediately challenge your buddy JJ on reincarnation or many of his other positions. Gee, I wonder why?
Let me explain again using lots of examples and patience and see if you get it this time (you will ignore again because your position is weak by the way):
When speaking to certain audiences, you must speak to them in a manner that they can relate to and connect to.
Fundamentalist Christians, such as yourself take the Bible as very literal history. In a way, this belief is a type of language - it is a mindset. What happens is when addressing a certain mindset, it will raise up a defensive posture against anything that might be perceived to harm its way of life. Why? Because acknowledgement of something greater would DESTROY IT!
Since you will naturally reject this, let's borrow from a concept expressed elsewhere. What we can do is speak about indigenous religions that may worship a coke bottle that has fallen from the sky. Perhaps such peoples have limited depth perception and would state that the airplanes flying overhead are gods about the size of a small nut. If you were to go up to such peoples and find that their whole way of life was based on worshipping the mighty coke bottle, that they may very well spear you if you were to tell them it was anything other than a gift from god.
So, what you might do instead is to speak to them in parable form. Rather than talking directly about their religion, you would speak about something else that they might find silly and use it as a bit of an allegory so as to avoid any unnecessary spears getting tossed your way.
This story about indigenous peoples and coke bottles is about YOU! Now, get your spears and start throwing them like you always do!
As you have demonstrated over the course of thousands of posts, any attempt to discuss anything other than history will be immediatley rejected by you as follows: you will go find another scripture, you will ignore the question, or you will say some empty meaningless idle words. Sometimes you and your brother have even threatened about what your gods would do to us if you didn't believe as we believe. Fundamentally, this is NO different than the tribe worshipping the ol' coke bottle. Just replace the object of worship from a coke bottle, with an interpretation of the scriptures and it is the same thing. You have formed God in your OWN IMAGE, in defiance of the commandments. Your god like sacrifice and blood, which means that by proxy, you like sacrifice and blood! Which means, your belief system is fundamentally no different than some guy walking around with a small piece of cloth covering his loins and a spear at his side.
What I have stated above is further confirmed in your response to me. You have PROVED my point through your behavior. Unfortunately, you must be blind to this - that is in severe denial, or are simply lacking the intellectual capability to even have a discussion in this manner. To remove your investment in your self from the settting for a minute and have a look at what is being said. The below response is more of your typical kaleidoscope spinning and I did not in any manner consider it a serious response.
Again, my REAL questions still stand and by your lack of any kind of REAL response, you continue to confirm the obvious, which is your position is WEAK, and will NOT survive anything beyond casual inspection. I know this. You know this. Everyone here knows this. Simply saying that your position will survive casual inspection does not make it so. It's like talking about loving everyone as your neighbor, but not actually doing it.
Third or fourth time, my questions still stand: Are you willing to put your belief system to the test - to anything beyond casual inspection?
Shohn

• ImAHebrew - Nov 16 1:05 PM
Shalom Ray, Gary, and Shohn, it appears that what I need to say would apply to what each of you wrote. There is no argument between us that WRITTEN within the Scriptures is a deeper, veiled meaning, and that just looking at the "literal," or the "by works" fulfillment, is to stumble and remain in darkness. But to not properly understand the Spiritual Fulfillment, and go off into pseudo-spiritualism, is just as bad, if not worse. You all have been in denial of what I consider to be the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law. When the Law states that no bone of the Passover could be broken, and Paul tells us that Messiah, OUR Passover (Lamb) has been sacrifice or slain, and then you have the Gospel of the Nazrienes telling us the same things:

Lection 75:8. And Iesus answered, If I am lifted up on the cross then indeed shall the lamb be slain;

Lection 82:30-32

30. Then the Jews, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross
on the Sabbath, for that was a Paschal Sabbath, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and
that they might be taken away.
31. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the two who were crucified with him. But when
they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the
soldiers with a spear pierced his heart and forthwith came there out blood and water.
32. And he that saw it bare record and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye
might believe. For these things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled—A bone of him
shall not be broken, and again—In the midst of the week the Messiah shall be cut off.

This should not be that difficult for you all to comprehend. To FULFILL the Scriptures, Yeshua was literally placed upon a Cross to be as a Lamb slain (The Passover), and they did not brake any of His bones. Also notice in John's account and here in the Gospel of the Nazirenes, that when Yeshua's side was pierced, both blood and WATER came out, and this was to fulfill what was written or veiled within the Law, and John makes it very clear that his testimony about this was TRUE.

So you Guys need to start looking at the Scriptures in a NEW and BETTER way, one that you haven't "seen" before, so that you can partake of the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law. Why continue to deny the One True Gospel that is based upon the writings of Moses and the Prophets concerning the literal events which happened to Yeshua? You are walking right down the same path as fundamental/traditional christianity, with blinders on, refusing to "see" what the Spirit was really trying to say. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

• Shohn - Nov 16 2:10 PM
Shalom IAH:
Your below post changes nothing.You have, again, spun the kaleidoscope to find another scripture. It is YOUR kaleidoscope so, of course, you find more from YOUR belief system to support YOUR belief system.
There are not enough independent witnesses to accept your below comments and I am OBLIGATED to reject your spinning of the scriptures as more hearsay. The only witness you have provided is your own interpretation and I have my own witness which I will not reject in favor of your limited, barbaric, non-sensical, and most certainly weak positions. Your belief system is not at all difficult to understand.
Shohn

• Shohn - Nov 16 2:11 PM
Shalom IAH:
Then learn to use those ears instead of your mouth! God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. Can you understand THAT scripture? Shohn

(Current Comment – This ends my conversation with Shohn and his attempt to derail the topic of this discussion, "The Grace of Elohim" by asking all of his “wise in his own eyes” questions. As this thread was hi-jacked by various “off-topic” statements and questions, I did my best to return it to the Grace of Elohim discussion. IF I continue on with this relating of what happened on that site, I will continue with “Gary” and his interactions. Gary is likened to a little dog that is constantly barking, and thinking he is more ferocious than what he actually is. So at times he can be adorable, but for the most part, he is very disruptive and irritating, and I’m not sure IF his interactions on this thread make for any profit.)

Possibly to be continued...