Contradiction? Salvation by faith or works?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Don't worry about that. It might take me a while to understand whatever it is that you are thinking needs to be proclaimed.

That doesn't mean I can not be persuaded, just that enigmatic one liners don't do much for me. I may be a bit cynical, and forgive my insolence.

Obviously, I used up any little wisdom I had, and kept going anyway.
It's personal frustration really. I see bad things getting worse and know I can't stop it. I'm lashing out in all directions hoping someone else will stop it. There is no message that will. If the powers that govern the world are bent on destruction they simply ignore every reason to not destroy. So you are correct that anything said should be said to help people cope. The beast isn't listening anyway.

I probably should edit some things I wrote, but then again people are smart enough to pass by what doesn't track.

The subjects you wanted discussed weren't even the subjects that have me frustrated. I'm kicking the dog because the boss sneered at me.

Mohammad. Maybe he had to fix some of those people who were falsely worshipping idols, and that would turn them to the god of Abraham

It was kind of like the northern tribes religion which was decentralized. Some prophet would come along to some site and notice gnarly things going on and set about correcting things, often quite violently. Same with Arabian Peninsula. Though there were mosques already there, with some form of worship, things were out of hand. The message came in Arabic for the first time. They didn't have to use forms or words adopted from other cultures.

I really can't fault Paul, he only had available to him what his background and education provided him.

The small things and blown out of proportion things has to do with my view of the Bible as a whole. Even though the Jerusalem temple worship was of relatively short historical duration it managed to dominate the whole Bible, the major and minor prophets, large portions of the Psalms, most of the New Testament. Paul couldn't explain forgiveness without harking back to Levitical practices.

Paul explains how he got the call and basically went off by himself to work out what his message to the gentiles should be. When he thought he had it worked out he submitted it for approval or rejection by the Jerusalem leadership. He plainly says he really didn't care what they had to say anyway, after all he was this genius who had had a vision.

Conflicts between personalities can really cripple things. He would have had a more convincing message if he had stayed in Jerusalem and listened to what they had to say. James actually does seem to have a better message.

Before I can even discuss an eternal plan involving a pre-existing Christ I must first be convinced of a pre-existing Christ. I haven't yet, and I don't know how I can be.




[edit on 25-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena

It was kind of like the northern tribes religion which was decentralized. Some prophet would come along to some site and notice gnarly things going on and set about correcting things, often quite violently.

Speaking of all that, I ran across something reading one of my books about John Hyracanus. I studied Josephus 25 years ago pretty thoroughly but somehow this one part escaped my best attention. Mark S. Smith was talking about how little difference there was between the Samaritan and Jewish "Bibles" and he mentioned John Hyracanus had leveled the city along with their temple, I guess out of spite or "God's will" or something. Anyway, I see this character as the type of the Messiah (last of the Hasmoneans), so when Jesus shows up at the well the Samaritan woman could have been rightfully apprehensive about anyone in their country claiming to be the Messiah. That could mean their doom, if he took after his predecessor.

Before I can even discuss an eternal plan involving a pre-existing Christ I must first be convinced of a pre-existing Christ. I haven't yet, and I don't know how I can be.

YHWH was the son of El, being somewhat analogous with Baal. That's the way I am leaning, right now. El is the Father, that's kind of His title.
There was a burning bush and inside was an angel and out of the bush came the voice of YHWH. "You had previously known me as. . .". Who is "Me"? The one who actually bodily showed up as the representative of God, to Abraham? Maybe he meant, "You know me, or about me from the stories of old, that I came and appeared to your ancestors as I am to you now, but as ambassador for El, but now you will know me personally for who I actually am."


[edit on 25-11-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

little difference there was between the Samaritan and Jewish "Bibles" and he mentioned John Hyracanus had leveled the city along with their temple, I guess out of spite or "God's will" or something. Anyway, I see this character as the type of the Messiah (last of the Hasmoneans), so when Jesus shows up at the well the Samaritan woman could have been rightfully apprehensive about anyone in their country claiming to be the Messiah. That could mean their doom, if he took after his predecessor.

The Torah is close because it came from the same place. Final edit, Babylon. Torah's were sent to northern tribe(maybe prefinal edit), because lions were tearing people up; solution: get the people back to the god of the land. (one of the historical books, maybe II Kings or Chronicles

I didn't read much Josephus.

YHWH was the son of El, being somewhat analogous with Baal. That's the way I am leaning, right now. El is the Father, that's kind of His title.

That would be about opposite from, 'not gonna tell you' more like personal (sometimes viewable)
That would make him the one in the cloud, like Paul wrote in (I Corinthians?).

I tried to find where your posting in ATS, couldn't. I did see some posts from September, defending Ellen White and SDA. It would have been appropriate for you to come back at me with, "Get behind me Satan."

The voice you hear in Hebrews is God. "In the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times, and in various ways." Not just prophets, but also the tabernacle. People can't understand what is not in their language. Imagery as language is very powerful too. As an SDA, sanctuary imagery is part of your native language.

I've got a theory that someone was preaching the gospel in Greek to the Diaspora before the Christ came. Various congregations, whole synagogues maybe, accepted this gospel and were waiting for the Christ. They already knew the earthly temple was irrelevant. Their focus was to the heavenly. The basis could have been from book of Daniel, the Son of Man vision. Whoever it was presented the pre-existing Son,who had participated in creation, who would come, fulfill Levitical Law requirements through sacrifice, return to God as High Priest, receive the kingdom from God, then bring it back to earth. All this, before Saul even started persecuting. The earthly was the blueprint to be fullfilled. All the imagery of the Son at the right hand of God comes from this group of waiting ones. Once Jesus actually did all he did, suffered and died as he did, and was taken from the earthly realm, they knew they had their man.
They understood the Law as primarily tabernacle rites upon which the law of 'do this, don't do that' was secondary and subservient (7:11)
This school could exist just fine without reference to the Jerusalem Temple, since the imagery is based on the tent, not the temple, doesn't matter where the tent is since tents move.

Saul was a Pharisee, also not reliant on Jerusalem temple, but in a totally different way. Pharisees saw the Law as set of rules to follow to be approved of God, without reference to the temple, existence of which at any given time didn't matter. Whether a temple stood or not devotion to the Law was all important. The imagery of sin sacrifice and pre-existing Son, and the right hand of God are not his native language, hence when speaking of them he is unconvincing, speaking foreign words.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by pthena]

Continuation of previous post.

I read the book 'The Jesus Party' back in the 80s after it was sent to me. I don't remember much from that except the description of what kind of rabbi Jesus would have been, a variant of Pharisee more attuned to the needs of common people, sympathetic toward everyday struggles, looking for loopholes in the Law in favor of people over strict observance. Kind of "do what you can, don't be a fanatic, and don't worry too much about the Law, God cares about you anyway."

I can imagine some of his sayings were from the time before he "lost his mind" and set about fulfilling the Law. James would have been of the "for the people" outlook of the Law also, the "two main laws" school; not a lot of concern about temple observance or its imagary.

So none of the early Christian schools (Hellenistic Diaspora, Paul, James) were much concerned with Jerusalem temple, contrary to my former view.

The

[edit on 25-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena
You should be able to click on my name and a new window will open on my profile. At the top of the page, in the center, is a colored "Posts". Click on that and it lists my posts going back to June 20.
The one in the cloud. I think Paul realized it was not really God who was manifesting himself with Moses and was an angel. I don't think he was compelled to make a leap of logic to associate that being with Jesus but it might be hard to tell, since we do not have his original manuscripts. There might be an argument from analysing the scribal shorthand for holy words that when Paul said "Lord" he may have meant YHWH. You would think that if that were true, there would have been some sort of other evidence. What we see are statements like, "There is one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ" without any further elaboration. It may be that he felt it was enough to leave it at that without getting any more controversial, there being enough controversy already, and not seeing how adding to it would be especially beneficial. I think Jesus himself had to deal with the idea that was pretty much universal at his time that the Messiah was already in existence with God and that he would just suddenly show up to declare himself. Jesus said, I was with God and was anointed by God and sent into the world, with the idea that no one had to look any further, being the one who was expected.

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

This tells me that Paul would equate Jesus with "the one in the cloud".




[edit on 26-11-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think Paul realized it was not really God who was manifesting himself with Moses and was an angel. I don't think he was compelled to make a leap of logic to associate that being with Jesus

I just looked it up 1 Cor.10:4 Paul equates the rock with Christ. I don't remember a rock following them around.

Acts 2:41 3,000 added to believers from the diaspora on Pentecost. So evidently very many waiting in expectation. The lack of any written record is noteworthy, maybe kept as oral teaching. The hymn that Paul recorded in Philippians 2:6-11 is considered an old hymn adapted to include the name of Jesus. This hymn could be part of oral story.

So Jesus goes to John the Baptist to get baptized, and God says "Dude, you're the one" and he proceeds to do what was expected of him as the one to come, even though that wasn't his tradition. That's why his family worries about his sanity. Instead of being glad and saying "the Messiah is here, oh joy!" they say "what's going on? We better take shifts watching out for him, make sure he doesn't get into too much trouble, maybe just a phase he'll get over soon."

The calling of the disciples recorded in John 1 indicates expectation.
Day of Pentacost 3,000 added to followers from among the diaspora.

Major split in Judaism

If you wanted authoritative here it is!

1)The aliens on the earth form that grew up in the wanderings, tent people.
2)The earth dwellers, land centered, Jerusalem centered, temple centered.

Hebrews 11:13-16 Indicates the true. Jesus said 'here, there, won't matter, spirit and truth is what matters' to the Samaritan woman.
Daniel's writings were included in Septuagient long before it got in Hebrew Bible. Daniel cared not a bit about going back to Jerusalem. Heaven mattered, not Jerusalem.
The only time Jerusalem was of significance in truth was when the Tent was there. Once the temple was built Jerusalem was nothing to the divine plan.

I've hated Ezra and Nehemiah for a long time. Now I know why. They brag and boast about how wonderful and righteous they are and kick everybody else out. The boasting about his own righteousness guy from the Parable of Jesus reminds me an awful lot of Nehemiah. The whole damned project ended up with Zachariah foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and getting killed for it. The prophet Ezekial? Mostly rubbish.

True Christianity versus Bogus

1)Seventh-day Adventist
This is listed as merely an example of what true Christianity would look like, not by any means meant as exclusive.
a)no foolish nonsense about inerrancy of anything written. God uses human people to communicate sometimes. 'The spirit of the prophet is under control of the prophet'(Paul somewhere) If it's under the prophet's control the message comes out as tainted as any other human activity.
b)Heaven-centric The focus for worship is heaven where Christ is at God's right hand. Citizenship in heaven. Aliens on the earth. National boundaries completely irrelevant, including the land of Israel.

2)American Nationalist Christianity
a)Inerrancy of Scripture. This is the most heinous lie ever perpetrated upon the human race ever by the father of lies. It causes insanity for those trying to prove it's 100% true, with no contradictions. It causes suppression of rational thought to those who must accept propositions unchallenged, no matter how ridiculous. It puts people under control to those who go around quoting verses the most. It takes a heinous person like Nehemiah and makes him a righteous man, because he said so, and wrote it down himself.
[edit on 25-11-2009 by pthena]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena
I wonder what this part means,

and gave him the name
that is above every name,

He doesn't mention the name, but I think someone could guess what it is. It could only be one thing.
Now that I have completely side tracked this thread, with what I seem to be obsessed with, which is, "who is this person, Jesus, exactly?".
The Jesus from the Gospels seems to be someone to make everyone happy.

Continuation of previous post

b)Earth centered, Nation centered, race centered
The notion that 'good patriotic American' and 'real Christian' are somehow synonymous. The notion that some racial identity is superior to another. The notion that some particular form of government or set of laws about killing somehow secures God's blessing for the nation. That wars in other lands for the 'good of the country' are somehow a Christian duty. That securing the territory of 'Israel' for the exclusive habitation of the Jews is somehow a service to God. That somehow setting up all the conditions for the 'anti-christ' to arrive earns them a place in heaven.

Concluding remarks
I can't think of any written source for pre-christian diaspora literature, there is evidence that these teachings existed, the closest thing I can think of would be the Hebrews letter which could have been written earlier than thought by scholars. There is no compelling reason to think that it had to be written after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the contents would have been the same either way.

Paul learned more about Christianity by associating with the diaspora congregations than he did cogitating alone. He learned the imagery that he used to preach to the Gentiles from these people. I would say that he had nothing to add to their understanding.

The most compelling evidence for a pre-existing Christ comes from this group, not from Paul, who was repeating what he heard from them.

The continuity of God's covenant people goes:
wandering Abraham - wandering Israelites with wandering tent - wandering diaspora - wandering Christians and all fellow travelers including but not limited to Shia Muslims


[edit on 26-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena

It causes insanity for those trying to prove it's 100% true, with no contradictions. It causes suppression of rational thought to those who must accept propositions unchallenged, no matter how ridiculous.

That was making me laugh.
One of my new books is "The Lost World of Genesis One". There is a lot of books out on how Genesis is actually very scientific if you just understand it correctly. This book I just got is one that says, Whatever the revelation is in Genesis, it uses the world as it was known by the people of that time, to explain some specific principles, none of them scientific. The author gets into the actual meaning, compared to all those other books that waste their time trying to prove that it is all true history.

"The World is Not Our Home" is one of the hymns we would sing in church. We are only sojourners here and heaven is our true home.
I think Jesus wanted to assure the Samaritans that when he came into his kingdom, he was not going to punish them over some sort of turf war, and kill them all. That actually is one of those prophecies, that all the Samaritans are wiped out. That would tend to make them not especially look forward to the coming of the Messiah. Actually, the Tabernacle was in the North, so it was kind of a bit of robbery on the part of David to move it into the area he controlled directly and created a resentment that never quite went away.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think Jesus wanted to assure the Samaritans that when he came into his kingdom, he was not going to punish them over some sort of turf war, and kill them all. That actually is one of those prophecies, that all the Samaritans are wiped out. That would tend to make them not especially look forward to the coming of the Messiah. Actually, the Tabernacle was in the North, so it was kind of a bit of robbery on the part of David to move it into the area he controlled directly and created a resentment that never quite went away.

What prophecy is that?
There's alot of deceiving prophecy out there (the story probably in Kings where 2 kings make an alliance to attack another king and all the prophets say 'go, the victory is yours', then another prophet gets called in and tells the story of God sending the spirit to deceive)

When was the tent there?
was that when it was being moved and someone touched the arc and died, and the movers decided to leave it there and the crops grew better and everybody was better off?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena
I am probably thinking of Shiloh, north of Bethel, where the ark was at sometime. Anyway, there was some animosity caused whenever the local priesthood was deprived of the sacred relic. Eventually the people of Israel set up there own sacred objects.
There's a couple at least that prophesy about the destruction of Samaria. Like I said earlier, I was reading about it in Mark S. Smith's book on the Early History of God, and he was showing how all the dire predictions of their utter extermination did not happen, at least when it was foretold it would happen.
The point I was trying to make was something I thought was along the lines of what you were saying about true religion, not being attached to a particular place. I don't think Jesus came to overturn everything that was not centered on Jerusalem.

BTW: I think I already just used up my book allowance for December. I was browsing on Amazon and found, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Seemed like a smart choice. It's like over 1200 pages. I could look through the index and it seemed pretty extensive. Anyway, I thought it might come in handy to try to deal with some of these questions.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60
I think there is still value in divine artifacts, shrines, rites etc. It's right there in Hebrews. And back to your answers to my question about what God expects and your answer was go to the shrine yearly. I think now maybe go to shrine at least once in your life, and the Christian rite of baptism replaces that, so that Christianity is not tied to geography at all. But there still is value in holy sites, just not some "you must go here, or God won't like you," sort of thing.

I can start my own thread now, so I will do research first, enough so that my theory wont collapse emediately like with the Paul authorship of Hebrews did, that only took reading first couple of paragraphs.

Is ATS or BTS better for something like "The rock that is Christ and the Muslims who visit it"?

Also, I'd like to look into exactly what does "He died so that ..." actually means to Hebrews, Paul, and other writers. I'd like to be able to conclude that such language is optional, and may be ignored if the use of such phrases leads to confusion.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena
I would not think ats would be appropriate, unless what you are trying to prove is that there was a conspiracy to hide the truth of the matter.
I think visiting a place has to do with looking at something that reminds you of a particular covenant and you might be right about baptism taking the place of that. Also there is the Lord's Supper which I privately told you was a serious reason why I bailed out of that one particular congregation because of how they changed the ritual to where to me, it changes the meaning of what the ritual represents. It makes it more about the sacredness of the actual thing to be consumed, than the bond between the people. If all of Israel gathered in one place every year, then they could look at each other as being all brothers, and not so much that this piece of ground was especially sacred in itself. The sacred thing is the congregation and that would be the reason to consecrate yourself rather than the place. The "relic" would be like the water that you were baptized in, always moving.

reply to post by jmdewey60
I also bailed because of Lord's Supper. The last time I tried being part of a Christian church was just prior to the invasion of Iraq. The first Sunday after the invasion, the song of the day was 'Onward Christian Soldier'. When it came time for communion the preacher got up and said, "This is not really the blood of Christ. This is not really the body of Christ. Let's think of and remember our President." I looked around for the horrified looks from the congregation. There were none. Nobody got up to leave in protest. The next week I called the head elder and told him I could never go back, and told him why. That's when I started pretending to be an atheist. The church later was taken over by that Baptist minister who had kicked me out of his Bible study.

If you read what I posted on your Return of Akhenaton-Obama thread you will see that I actually am a Pagan. In my mind though there is no inconsistency in considering Yeshua as LORD (thank you for telling me what that name means, it's more a title than a name) and God as one. I do believe now in pre-existance of the Son of God, but not in any way I've ever heard explained before. I find that there are very many humans in heaven, standing as representatives of various groups of people; tribes, nations, other undefined groups. These are the ones Jesus referred to when he said something about, 'don't hurt the little ones, because their angels see God'. Enoch represents a city that went by that name, Elijah represents maybe the Northern Tribes, Moses represents a group, Prometheus represents Greeks, 12th Imam represents Shia Muslims, etc. 100% human, angels in the sense of messengers shuttling back and forth between God and the people they represent, providing aid and comfort, quite similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of saints.

The pre-existing only begotten Son of God was a divine being, YHWH to the Moses people, the 'Prince of your people' to Daniel. Though he was God's son, himself a god, he filled in as angel(representative/messenger) for the line until the seed, passed down by birthright, Abraham-Issac-Israel-Judah-David-Jesus, was born. When the time came, the Son of God gave up His position to Jesus, 100% man, this is the 'Gave His only begotten Son' Jesus is now the Son of Man, Angel to all people, especially to those with no other angel. As for the actual Son of God, He's gone, sacrificed Himself in the same way Chiron sacrificed himself for Prometheus. The Son of man is now the Son of God by adoption.
Now that I think of it, some Christian "heresies" taught something like this, suppressed by orthodoxy. The Son of God, who sacrificed Himself is probably the Holy Spirit now. Father(God) - Son(son of man) - Holy Spirit(former Son of God)

The rock in the desert is an actual divine relic, physical remainder of a divine presence. Similarly the physical tent is a divine relic, if any could be found, for from Hebrews, it's the tent which was the body of Christ, not the arc, or any of those other accouterments. If the arc were ever discovered and became the focus of a grand religious revival, that would be false. I know this contradicts what Ellen White wrote. I think she was mistaken on this point. I also could be mistaken. We have to be alert. It could go either way.

If all of Israel gathered in one place every year, then they could look at each other as being all brothers, and not so much that this piece of ground was especially sacred in itself. The sacred thing is the congregation and that would be the reason to consecrate yourself rather than the place. The "relic" would be like the water that you were baptized in, always moving.

Yes, exactly. Fellowship and congregation







[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

So all of your conditions of what the one true God expects of us as His tribe have been met.
Monotheism is retained.
For the Father is the Only One appropriately worshipped as God.
The Son of Man, son of God by adoption is 100% human, so not god
The Holy Spirit, once the Son of God and God, sacrificed it, hence no longer God, now a comforter and councilor and teacher, and a lot more besides, but not God.

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. Not three persons making up one God. The Father alone is God.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong to call the Father Jehovah, because Jehovah is the Son of God who sacrificed Himself and is now the Holy Spirit. And I don't think we were ever told to call on the name of the Holy Spirit, or pray to the Holy Spirit.

Jehovah may just be an obsolete name after all, applying to a time before the baptism of Jesus.





[edit on 27-11-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena
Thanks for putting all the pieces together and, frighteningly, you may be absolutely correct. There's that little twist that I was missing, about what got sacrificed and of course it had to be the Son of God.
EGW says the ark was taken up, off the earth, and also the Garden of Eden, at the time of the flood.
Anyway, I asked you to help me out, being at a kind of impasse myself. Seems you kind of broke through that. Now that there is a new theology. . .God is who He has been all along, and that sounds pretty good to me.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60
The EGW reference was an obscure, most likely out of context, snipit published as appendix to SDA Bible Commentary. Taken away sounds appropriate. Idolatry shouldn't be encouraged.

I don't know if the Theology is new or not. Could have been exactly like that in some group that got put down.

reply to post by pthena
I'm not too worried about it anyway, really.
If an ark showed up one day and they built a temple for it, I would not be worshipping it.
I am kind of of the belief that revelation gets evened out and there is not one particular group, or time that is going to have a big advantage over everyone else. So if it was some sort of big deal going on at a particular location, I would assume it was one of those things that Jesus warned against.

reply to post by jmdewey60
yep, warned we are. What did he say? "Don't go ..."

reply to post by jmdewey60
I think we can wrap up the remaining issues now. I'll be speaking in tongues. A pagan speaking the native language of Seventh-day Adventism. I am afraid the stumbling block is never fully removed, as per your requirement that nobody have an unfair advantage over any one else.
As has been said before, there are very many humans in heaven. Samuel represents the Moses tent people. Peter represents the Greek speaking Diaspora, though he was not Greek speaking except through gift of tongues. Ellen White represents the lost, disappointed band wandering to find their own way; talk about a stumbling block. Yes, we are/were both hunters. It's more appropriate for a pagan wolf to hunt with fangs and claws. Read 1 Peter 1:10-12.

Whereas in former times sacrifices were made and eaten for the purpose of fellowship between people-people and people-God, except in the case of very solemn covenants, Genesis 15, when the animal was cut in two (may it be unto the oath breaker as it is unto these animals) and left later for the carrion eaters, to Moses(the greatest prophet) was revealed a new kind of sacrifice, which was in fact a prophecy of what was to come. The new sacrifice was tied in with a tent, as appropriate to nomads. To demonstrate the extreme seriousness of the covenant and all that was being foretold certain sacrificed animals were not eaten but burned. This would be a major waste of precious livestock for nomads, that's the gravity of the prophecy; with also the element of 'may it be unto the oathbreaker as it is unto this animal', an expectation of fire.

To the prophet Samuel fell the task of keeping the prophecy alive. He founded the school of prophets to keep an oral tradition alive. In advanced old age he dictated to a scribe the major portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Being a prophet chanelling channeling Moses, he was open to another influence also, a not good influence. The scribe just wrote what he heard. An example of mixed message would be: In the time of Moses the Amorites were an alien group who through conquest were taking over the territory and making a sort of empire. This had to be stopped, in the same manner as later the Third Reich had to be stopped. The other influence took the opportunity afforded by the necessary violence described to sneak in a lot more unnecessary and destructive violence and exclusions of other people who had every right to be included in the covenant. And the scribe just wrote it all. So the Law is a mixed bag, as was Samuel himself who unnecessarily slew with his own hands those who could have been allies and sharers in the Covenant.

When Saul went to the necromancer of Endor, he received no comforting words from Samuel, for any further revelation had nothing to do with him. The birthright and continuation of the Covenant was for David and his seed. The word came to David through the prophet Nathan. (2Sam7)

After David came Soloman, who built the temple in Jerusalem. Solomon was not the son meant to build the temple, but a future son.The message of the all important tent prophecy and Covenant was seriously compromised, for God does not dwell in temples made of stone, neither is He stuck in one place. God kept sending prophets to warn those in danger of breaking the Covenant and loosing their relationship to God. The Jerusalem authorities kept killing them.(Hebrews 11:35-40)

Finally God sent His Only Begotten(through adoption) Son, the foretold prophet greater than Moses, Yeshua the son of David. Although he had been fulfilling the Law and the Prophets from the time he was baptised, Jesus only learned at the Transfiguration what it all meant, and the tremendous cost involved, not so much the cost to himself, but the cost to God the Father, and God the son, and all the prophets who came before him.




[edit on 28-11-2009 by pthena]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by pthena]