If there's one certainty about our post- modern world which the recent and ongoing Covid- 19 scam-demic renders unavoidable, it's the fact that we live in 'The Land of Confusion.' We-- like Moses in the wilderness-- herald our confusion of face by covering our faces with it, and-- also like Moses-- we consider it a virtuous thing to do so. Today, the only thing more omnipresent than confusion is God, and he's relatively unknown to humanity-- in spite of ubiquitous omnipresence and churches on nearly every street corner proclaiming him-- compliments of worldwide confusion.
The most popular President in American history is made to work eighteen- hour days protecting himself from endless frivolous harangue, instead of doing the job we elected him to do: and this in spite of the fact that he-- unlike the money- and power- grubbing thieves harassing him-- works for free, motivated by love of country; not by the "love of money [1 Timothy 6:10a]" which obviously animates his foes and ours on both sides of the aisle: passive and aggressive. These same thieves-- passive and aggressive-- steal the largest landslide election victory in American history from America's Most- Popular- President- Ever for all to see, while crying out against bullies and bullying in a screaming, screeching wail that reaches to heaven: and even the courts of the land-- i.e. the perverse judges-- deny any semblance of fraud or wrongdoing in this charade of election more thinly- veiled than the pasty faces of 'The Swamp' defending it, passively and aggressively.
Even biblical theology-- a thing which should seemingly be relatively simple and straightforward, if the purpose of prophesy is revelation; and not obfuscation-- is fraught with confusion; and for good reason. Biblical theologians agree: there's one true God. The problem is, which one is the One? There are many Gods in the scriptural canon-- a fact most believers seem completely unaware of. For instance: there's the "most high God" of Melchizedek [Genesis 14:19] who possesses the heaven and earth God created; the "God of the dead," spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth [Matthew 22:32]; the "God of forces" written of in Daniel 11:37; the "that God" of Genesis 22:1, who lost count of Abraham's sons at two; and Aaron's God, Moses [Exodus 4:16]. That's five off the top of my head: neither of which is the One. And the list goes on. It's simply not possible that humanity could be so confused about worldly things if our understanding of God and his word were as clear as the pastors and their congregations presume it to be.
Indeed, thanks entirely to confusion, Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was turned-- by scientists and believers alike-- into something the author never intended it to be, and would likely have declined to write had he known it would be: the presumed bellwether of all authoritative, scholarly refutation of God and the creation narrative of Genesis. This is one- hundred- eighty degrees out- of- phase with the author's intent in writing this volume of singular scientific curiosity. 'Origin of the Species' was, in fact, Darwin's attempt-- not to prove or disprove the creation narrative, but rather-- to describe the way in which God creates.
Ironically, the weakness believers perceive in 'Origin of the Species' is the amount of time the author declares these creative processes required. They contend that each "day" of Genesis 1 & 2-- even the ones antedating Earth's existence-- was an earthly twenty- four hours; and this in spite of the fact that the Doctrine clearly states God's clock is uniquely his own. As the apostle Peter writes: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day [2 Peter 3:8]." Talk about "science falsely so called [1 Timothy 6:20d]." This sort of thing begs the question: Do believers read the Doctrine they profess belief in-- ever-- even when they read it? Are all eyes wide- shut? Why are there more laws for a presumably 'free' man to live by than a man can count in a lifetime; much less be cognizant of? Something is fundamentally flawed.
In all this murky void of confusion, one thing is obvious, stark, and clear: the North Star by which our leaders on every front set their compasses is the proverb, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? [Psalms 11:3]" and this in the negative sense, inasmuch as their chiefest desire is to destroy the foundations; not to protect them. When, as now, the reservoirs of truth-- science, law, and the prophets-- are confusion and altogether confounding, we should know the water is bitter; the reservoir wormwood. The fact that, in the present scam-demic, everyone is losing their temporal souls (i.e. their possessions and the means by which they obtained them) protecting their temporal lives from a threat that doesn't exist is clear indication-- in light of the fact that we murder the unborn in the name of Convenience and Quality- Of- Life For All-- that we're lost- in- the- dark concerning all things: eternal and temporal; is it not? If we're not going to burn the house down and raze the foundations thereof right now: we should at least revisit them, shouldn't we?
The oldest book in the canon of scripture is Job-- not Genesis. Genesis was written by Moses long after the earliest events described therein were faded memories. Besides the things recorded in the book of Job, we know nothing of Job personally, that I'm aware of. Some say the book of Job is an allegorical work, written about fictitious events and individuals: a lesson book; not a historical record. Be that as it may, the 'Rule of First Mentions' applies to the book of Job, if it applies to the canon at all. As such, the book of Job could be referred to as 'the canonical cornerstone', even if it makes us a bit squeamish to do so. Therefore, if we revisit the foundations of our beliefs, we must take a look at the book of Job, inasmuch as it almost certainly sets the tone of prophesy throughout history.
The book of Job begins with a conversation between God and Satan, after 'setting the table' with a short description of Job and his lifestyle. In this conversation between God and Satan, we see that Satan's principle concern is playing 'God' for the benefit of God's children: that he might, through great tribulation, manipulate them into damning themselves by cursing God. [If we curse 'God,' do we curse God? do we not rather condemn Satan as a false witness against God?] Through the 'miserable comfort' afforded Job in his great tribulation by his three friends, and the utter devilishness of the ever- enigmatic 'Elihu', we see how, through envy, malice, and ignorance, man is manipulated into playing 'Devil's Advocate' so that Satan might play 'God.'
We see some other trends asserting themselves in the book of Job, among them: the fact that Satan is not a son of God, though he companies with them. Also, God calls Job, "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," twice [1:8 & 2:3, respectively], a judgement echoed by the author of the book in the first sentence thereof. So it is possible for a man to be perfect, even though the North Star which guides his would- be judges says otherwise; and God accordingly lies: in their would- be judgement of him.
We also note the presence of lies in 'the word of God', inasmuch as the LORD tells Job's miserable comforters, "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath" once for each time he called Job perfect [42:7e,f & 8g,h, respectively], though their words make up nearly half of the book in question. Furthermore, we understand that the end which those devils who lie in the name of the LORD have in view is to damn God's children from partaking in the divine economy-- i.e. from God himself-- and likewise to disallow God any- but devils for company. We also see in the book of Job the holier- than- thou nature of those who so take the LORD's name in vain as to 'help' him by telling the lies he presumably "cannot [Titus 1:2]." In short: in the book of Job, we encounter a worthy allegory for the only portion of history we may know intimately-- the present.
In the book of Genesis, the beginnings of many things are described; among them: prophecy and organized religion. Unlike Job, we know much of Moses, who wrote Genesis. One thing we can't possibly know about Moses is: who he is, inasmuch as Moses' pedigree is one of those lies told by 'the word of God.'
Moses' and Aaron's (and, most likely Miriam's) pedigrees are more counterfeit than Barry Obama's birth certificate. Moses, according to the scriptural account, was of the line of Levi through Kohath, Levi's second of three sons. According to Genesis 46:11 ["And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari."], Kohath and his younger brother Merari were already born when Jacob packed the family on the carts sent to him by Joseph, and moved to Egypt.
Moses' presumed father, Amram, is recorded in Exodus 6:18 to have been Kohath's first son, which Kohath lived a total of 133 years. It may safely be assumed Kohath was at least two years old at the time of the move to Egypt, inasmuch as his younger brother was already born when they moved. This allows perhaps as many as 131 years for Kohath to have begotten his sons while in Egypt-- if he was still procreating in his one- hundred- thirty- third year. However, being as Amram was his firstborn of four sons, it's safe- enough to assume Amram would have been born at least six years before Kohath's youngest son was born. This, in turn, indicates the very latest date at which Moses' father could have been born would have been 125 years into the Egyptian sojourn.
According to Exodus 6:20, Amram lived a total of 137 years. This means that, if Amram was begotten six years before his father Kohath died, and in turn begat Moses the last year of his life, Moses would have been born 262 years into the sojourn in Egypt.
We know, from Exodus 12:41 ["And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."], that the sojourn in Egypt was exactly 430 years in duration. And we know that, after wandering 40 years in the wilderness, Moses died at 120 years of age [Deuteronomy 34:7a].
This means Moses was eighty years old when the children of Israel departed from Egypt. But if you add 80 to 262, the sum is 342: meaning the pedigree given for Moses and Aaron is impossible by no less than 88 years, and most likely much more than this-- well over a hundred years, almost certainly.
Therefore, one does well to be skeptical of Moses, and liberal with the "salt of the covenant of thy God [Leviticus 2:13b]" when partaking of his 'word of God.' In fact, Moses' 'word of God' is so chock- full of lies that, if I were to hazard a scriptural guess as to Moses' identity, my answer would be that Moses is the "lying spirit in the mouth of all [the king of Israel's] prophets" spoken of by the prophet Micaiah [in 2 Chronicles 18:21] in reference to a vision he saw in 'eternity.' Moses may also be the second beast spoken of in Revelation 13 [verse 11].
One of the revelations in Genesis has to do with what professing Christians call 'the rapture.' In his account of beginnings, Moses makes it clear-- only by implication-- that those who await rapture as a calendar event (like Christmas or a birthday, for instance) don't know what time it is, and never did: inasmuch as the rapture is, was, and presumably always will be extant and ongoing: "world without end. Amen [Ephesians 3:21b & c]."
When we encounter Adam, he's in Eden; and it is from Eden that he is driven in the day he dies. Genesis 3:23 states clearly that Adam's beginning was literally "in the earth [Job 1:8c, et. al.]," in that, when he "as lightning [fell] from heaven [Luke 10:18b]," it was to return to "the ground from whence he was taken." This means Adam was raptured before being cast out: perhaps as soon as he was created.
This, in turn, implies that, though one may "sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 8:11c, d, & e]," one is not necessarily staying; and the same applies to the aforementioned 'patriarchs.' After all, Abe's boys like to get naked in the presence of the LORD, as is attested to so many times in scripture as to make a listing of the proofs thereof prohibitive; but the most troubling and recent evidence would be in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the eve of his murder by crucifixion, which can be found in Matthew 21 and Mark 11. Peter at least put his clothes on in the presence of the Lord, once [John 21:7].
Though this may be beside the point, it bears mentioning, here-- concerning Adam, and Abe, and sitting down and staying at the table in the kingdom-- that Adam should have been clothed in Eden (of all places) if he were, as Luke alleged, "the son of God [Luke 3:38d], "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints [Revelation 19:8c]." Also, in the parable of "the marriage supper of the Lamb [Revelation 19:9b]," the Word of God spoke of one who-- like Adam-- "had not on a wedding garment [Matthew 22:11b]": and the king whose son was 'getting hitched' addresses that one by Abraham's name, saying, "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? [Matthew 22:12b & c]." My guess is that the reason that particular 'Abraham' was "speechless [ibid.]" is because it's his family tradition to 'honor' God as Davey, "who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself [2 Samuel 6:20d - f]!" before the ark of the covenant.
Speaking of Adam's fall raises the specter of what Moses refers to as 'the serpent' in Genesis 3. We know that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy [Revelation 19:10g]," and we know that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life [John 14:6b, c, & d]," and we know the 'serpent' in the garden told the liar Eve no lies, inasmuch as his prophecy of divine revelation in it's entirety was "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:4b - 5]," all of which is testified to as truth by the LORD God in Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" meaning that if Adam and 'his wife' [Genesis 4:17a, et. al.] had ever had a stomach for the fruit of the tree of life (instead of fig leaves for sewing, for instance): they would have lived and not died. In so scorning the fruit of the tree of life, they scorned the Word of God, for "In him was life [John 1:4a]."
In contrast to the so- called "serpent's" truth, we have the lies of Eve. God had not said, "neither shall ye touch [the tree or its fruit (Genesis 3:3d)]." In saying he had, she bore false witness against the word of God. Nor can it be truthfully said that one who, like the 'serpent,' tells "the truth-- the whole truth-- and nothing but the the truth: so help me God" beguiles the hearer thereof. So, it follows that she bore false witness against the Word of God, also, when she said, "The serpent beguiled me [Genesis 3:13d]." We see in Eve's 'beguiling' protest the power of the statement, uttered by the Word of God, that "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God [John 8:47]."
We know this to be more than mere conjecture in that "Moses' disciples [John 9:28c]" called the Word of God "that deceiver [Matthew 27:63c]" because of his words. Is this not how serpents are referred to, et. al., in scripture: as deceivers? and vice- versa? Notice how the 'serpent' killed Adam and Eve with the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God [Ephesians 6:b & c]:" "which sword proceeded out of his mouth [Revelation 19:21b]." As far as I can tell, Jesus is certainly "more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made [Genesis 3:1a]." "Never man spake like this man [John 7:46b]." Thus, according to the 'Law of First Mentions,' the precedent of calling the word of God lies and the Word of God a deceiver is set in the third chapter of Genesis: one chapter before the establishment of organized religion is recorded.
In Genesis 4:1, we read that "[Eve] conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Notice: Eve did not call Cain a child, or a man child, but rather "a man": when he was yet but an infant. Does this-- as it seems to-- indicate that the 'his wife' with whom Cain procreates in verse 17 (ibid.) is the only "his wife" mentioned in scripture before it: his own mother, Eve? Notice also, that Eve-- not Adam-- is the first and only original progenitor to mention 'the LORD.' If Adam ever spoke [that is to say, prophesied] of the LORD, his words are not recorded in scripture.
Thus, according to the precedent- based 'Law of First Mentions': seductress Eve, as Adam's "mother of all living [Genesis 3:20b]," is the 'Seat of Wisdom' in his family. It is in defense of himself that the Word of God says, "wisdom is justified of all her children [Luke 7:35]," thereby confessing wisdom to be his mother, after all; and it is wisdom who "[leads] in the way of righteousness [Proverbs 8:20a]." This raises the question: If not Eve, who was it that got her 'man from the LORD' and his brother- from- another- mother worked- up to offer sacrifices to the LORD (or the 'LORD,' as the case may be)?
In verse 3 of Genesis 4, Cain-- most likely motivated by the voice of his 'wisdom, mother of all living'-- brings a sacrifice to the 'LORD,' followed by Abel in the next verse. Cain sacrifices from his belly: "of the fruit of the ground." Abel, in verse 4, sacrifices from his soul: "of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof."
Every Protestant I've heard speak about this beginning of religious practice says Cain was a bad boy for bringing fruit, and Abel was likewise a good boy for shedding blood. Thus: God could not respect Cain's offering, because it had no blood; and it wasn't possible for God to not have respect for Abel's sacrifice, because it was 'bloody.' While I can agree-- with some reservation-- that Cain's sacrifice was itself unpleasant; I find their hermeneutic on Abel's sacrifice-- in a word-- sacrilegious.
One can certainly say Cain's sacrifice was-- perhaps itself-- undesirable: inasmuch as it likely "[served] not [God], but [his] own belly [Romans 16:18a & b]," but the postulation asserting God was displeased with the lack of blood on Cain's offering is intellectually dishonest as an explanation-- especially from those who subscribe to the 'Law of First Mentions,'-- for the obvious reason that the text of verse 5 mentions Cain before it mentions his offering, saying, "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." And again, it is written, "the plowing of the wicked is sin [Proverbs 21:4c & d].
As for Abel's 'bloody' righteousness: the only blood explicitly offered in Genesis 4 is Abel's. Not only is no blood or killing mentioned in respect of Abel's sacrifice: there's no mention of any altar besides. Not to mention: mutton wasn't anything a man was allowed to eat, at this time. Why would a man offer the LORD a thing had in abomination to God and man alike? and why would it please the LORD if he did? My guess is that the sacrifice offered by Abel was the thing that, peculiarly, Adam found not meet to help him in his nudist colony in Eden, and the only part of a sheep a man could use at the time: the fleece. Wool, to this day, is more valuable than mutton, after all.
All the above notwithstanding: we know Cain-- in a pouting [verse 6, ibid.] rage-- murdered his brother- from- another- mother in the 'field that is the world [Matthew 13:38],' and-- inasmuch as he was his mother's "man from the LORD"-- I sense his mother's 'worldly wisdom [1 Corinthians 2:6 - 8]' in this decision. It is this murder which, after all, became the cornerstone of organized religious observances thereafter.
Proving that-- as Paul said-- "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [2 Thessalonians 2:11]:" the LORD says to Cain [verse 15, ibid.]: "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark [Revelation 13:16] upon Cain, [presumably,] lest any finding him [out, perhaps] should kill him." The 'delusion,' in verse 15, as I read, is the second "him," which is generally 'understood' to indicate Cain's killer -- not the murderer himself-- perhaps 'simply' because the great- great- great- grandson of the murderer so apprehended it: as recorded in verse 24 [ibid.].
In verses 23 & 24 of Genesis 4, Lamech-- the aforementioned great - great - great- grandson of the 'murderer from the foundation of the world [Revelation 13:8]'-- describes for the benefit of his wives a religious epiphany of his 'own,' thus: "[LORD] Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
It probably bears mentioning, here, that the prophetess Eve was likely still alive and conversant with the wives of her sons' sons: thus the plea of Lamech to be heard of his wives. At any rate-- and after what seems to me to be the parenthetical inspiration of Davey's 'calling home [2 Samuel 11;11]' of Uriah the Hittite-- we read, in the last word of chapter 4, of the establishment of organ-eyes'd [Ezekiel 21:21] 'religion': "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."
Skip ahead, to the twenty- second chapter of the same book of beginnings: and we discover Abraham's soft, beastly underbelly of envy- driven religious homicide, inherited from his ancestors and passed on -- through his descendants -- as 'faith [Hebrews 11:17]' and 'good works [James 2:21];' when-- having argued vehemently for Sodom-- he quietly aquiesces to 'that' God's injunction to murder the child who displaced him as the one 'holding the bag [John 12:6]' of promises.
This brings to attention the central dilemma of scripture: redemption versus repentance. Abraham-- like Cain and Lamech before him-- sought redemption. In particular: Abe desired the redemption of the promises made to him [recorded in Genesis 12:2 & 3; and 15:18]; which were removed from him and passed on to Isaac [Genesis 17:21] before Isaac was born; immediately before "[God] left off talking with [Abe], and... went up from [him -Genesis 17:22]. Abe's willingness to murder his own son out of a desire to regain the promises of the covenants is akin to the way some beasts eat their young because of the threat they represent to the progenitors' power and control of territory.
In Exodus, we encounter Pharaoh's false god [Exodus 7:1], Moses; and his prophet, Aaron; and the facelift they gave this modus operandi of murdering the young and innocent to redeem the 'mature' wicked from responsibility for their wickedness: in what is referred to as the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law replaces-- or, at least, attempts to-- child sacrifice with the sacrifice of beasts; but the principle is the same: reject repentance; and sacrifice for redemption. "Baptize your sins in a Jordan River of blood," essentially.
The error in the 'Redemption Way' is exposed by Ezekiel, when he writes: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son [Ezekiel 18:20a - c]." Likewise, Zeke exposes the lovely truth of the 'Repentance Way,' when he writes: "But If the wicked will turn from ['repent' is what this means] all his sins that he hath committed... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness which he hath done he shall live [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22]." Enter Jesus of Nazareth.
The first word in Jesus' hermaneutic-- as recorded by Matthew-- is, "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." At no time does the Kid from Nazareth say, "Murder me, or no one gets into the kingdom of heaven." Quite to the contrary, he says-- before going to Calvary-- "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [John 14:6b - f]."
John Baptist perverts this word, "Repent," as recorded by Luke, by turning it into a ritual-- like sacrifice -- "for the remission of sins [Luke 3:3]." Repentance doesn't require ritual. Nor does repentance require prayer. Repentance is a commission of omission. Repentance requires only the death of ritual transgression. No announcement needs be made for "thy Father, which seeth in secret [Matthew 6:18d & e]" to notice the repentance, and "reward thee openly [e, ibid.]," with remission of your sins. Just stop sinning: that's all that's required to fulfill every requirement of repentance.
I say John Baptist perverted the doctrine of repentance with the addition of baptism, for two reasons: 1) The ritual itself was apprehended and espoused-- even by the apostles of Christ-- as the act of repentance; which it is not. Repentance is an omission of wickedness: not a commission of righteousness. 2) "Jesus himself baptized not [John 4:2a]," and if it were the necessity it's been perverted into being perceived as being: he would have. "Trust Jesus;" not Johnny Beelzebub. Trust repentance; not 'beastly' sacrifice.
No comments:
Post a Comment