"holy thing"

[Sunesis]

Great discussion.

This pure blood, so to speak, blood is extremely important. We are told by God it cleanses, it crys out, and it atones. Why this is, we don't know. It is the way God set it up.

Also, it is the one substance angels, spirit beings, and God's other creations, do not have.

I believe Satan and his fallen ones would love to have a body. Thus, in Satanic worship and worship of other gods, spilled blood rituals are so important - another imitation of the True God and how he uses it. Plus, it is by the blood of the Lamb - Christ, that he was defeated for eternity. The perfect Blood.

We know, that in order to "live forever" Adam and Eve had to eat from the Tree of Life, else, they would die. What was this tree? Something that kept their bodies cleansed? Was that tree the prototype of Christ? Is this why Christ said at the last supper, take, eat of ME? eat my flesh, drink my blood, do this in remembrance of me? i.e., I am the tree of life?

When they "ate" from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I believe something, a virus, whatever, something died, something was corrupted. We know they lost their holiness, their outer covering of spirit, that was probably magnificent - now they looked like other animals - that covering that was evidenced at the transfiguration, that we shall again someday have. They yearned for restoration.

I've been thinking about it. I still tend to think that Christ's body was totally prepared by God, "a body thou hast prepared me." Heb.

If he had had Mary's DNA - he would have been inheriting corruptible, fallen, flesh.

Fallen flesh is not holy, it cannot stand in the presence of God, as Adam once did.

Once Adam's flesh, blood was corrupted, he was no longer in God's presence because he was no longer holy and could not approach God.

Also, the blood had to be pure, because, as satan had defiled God's heavenly temple during his fall, we read in Hebrews it was Christ's blood, when he ascended after his death, that cleansed the heavenly temple of this defilement in heaven - only his pure blood could do this.

Sometimes we forget, God is Holy. When he created Adam, Adam was holy - he could stand in God's presence and commune with him. That was lost.

We also see Christ, at the transfiguration, when Peter and 3 others were given a "sneak preview" of Christ in his glorified body. Corrupt flesh probably could not have withstood that.

Both of his parents were of the line of the Aaronic priesthood, but the old order was now going to give into the new order of the new priest and King after the order of Melchesidic whose father was God. His flesh came through Mary, but I believe the "body thou hast prepared me" was of God. He was the new creation, the second Adam.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Sunesis

[ChattyKathy]

I would like to add that if folks are relying on what twi taught about the trinity they didn't know what they were talking about.

[Jeaniam]

I would like to add that if folks are relying on what twi taught about the trinity they didn't know what they were talking about.

I am relying on what I believe the Bible teaches about the trinity, and even trinitarians concede that the Bible doesn't mention the trinity, but the doctrine of the trinity is a doctrine that 'evolved over time', but somehow they don't see anything wrong with that.

Sunesis, you make some valid points in your post, but I don't think the tree of life is a prototype of Christ, because if they had eaten thereof they would have remained forever in an unredeemed state. The tree of life conferred eternal life but had no power to redeem, at least as far as I understand it.

[WordWolf]

“Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.” Guzik.

Is this how you understand it, Wordwolf? If so, then as I was….if not, would you please explain?

The thinking thing: after spending so many years in twi not thinking at all, it is rather important to me now to think, and to do my own thinking as much as possible. Then I need you guys who have spent more time at sorting out the chaff from the wheat than I have. It is quite a large task to do alone. (I sometimes wonder if there was any wheat in twi).

Here's how I see it.

A figure of speech is not literally (and generally, obviously) not-true-to-fact.

Mel literally had parents- a mother and father. I expect the Jews had no problem understanding that.

However, priesthoods in Israel were by family line- one tribe-Levi- produced the direct servants of God.

(IIRC, one was delegated to cover 12 because the 12 refused to cover the planet.)

So, AFAIK, priests were specific Levites who were so delegated, generally from generation to generation.

Remember, back then, professions were generally handed down, father to son, father to son, ad infinitum.

In contrast, Mel didn't come from a long line-before and after him- of Levites, priests, rabbis,

or otherwise servants in the temple or whatever.

Mel just shows up, and then doesn't show up.

Mel was mortal, and was born, had parents, lived, got older, served God, got old, and died-if one is speaking

LITERALLY.

If one is speaking FIGURATIVELY, he appears and vanishes.

[WordWolf in boldface.]

Homophobes are the ruling class demons of the devil spirit kingdoms of this world [Law]

I suppose then, that homonyms are gay nyms?

The only greater enemy [hate] of liberty is capital punishment...

And SIN has nothing to do with it? "The wages of sin is death"

Homophobes and capital punishment have committed the greatest crimes against the law of liberty...

So, which was the devil- a homophobe or a capital punisher?

What was Adam-a homophobe or capital punisher?

For the last enemy to be destroyed will be capital punishment.

Right.

Right after every single person who isn't worth keeping around is destroyed-

by capital punishment- with the lake of fire.

(Unless you think they suffer eternally and consciously in the lake of fire.)

:)

Edited June 7, 2007 by WordWolf

[DrWearWord]

DrWearWord: Homophobes are the ruling class demons of the devil spirit kingdoms of this world [Law]

WordWolf: I suppose then, that homonyms are gay nyms?

DrWearWord: You seem certain you know... What need is a God if you have already judged them?

This judgment only reflects back into you and the state of your mind.

The reason Jesus Christ came was to save the spirits of those who are unworthy

But it seems your spirit is worthy on it's own... Based on works OF THE FLESH. The thing you condemn you have become.

DrWearWord: The only greater enemy [hate] of liberty is capital punishment...

And SIN has nothing to do with it? "The wages of sin is death"

DrWearWord: And the wages of liberty and the spirit is life...

Yet you seem yoked to the ways of this world rather than being yoked to the master who knows "the way" and the walk of the spirit. Insult over laws that were used to murder Jesus Christ and set a criminal free in the same breath are too constraining even for the conservatives.

Yet liberty never crosses your mind... Are you sure liberty has crossed God's mind concerning your own ticket to ride?

DrWearWord: Homophobes and capital punishment have committed the greatest crimes against the law of liberty...

WordWolf: So, which was the devil- a homophobe or a capital punisher?

What was Adam-a homophobe or capital punisher?

DrWearWord: The devil fell for worshiping his own image of law over God's image of liberty. Adam and Eve picked the "wrong way..."

The law is the wrong way. For they relied upon laws to walk instead of the perfect spirit and this was their first sin.

You seem to do this "sin" on a daily basis. It makes me wonder how much of Christ you really do have in you?

DrWearWord: For the last enemy to be destroyed will be capital punishment.

WordWolf: Right.

Right after every single person who isn't worth keeping around is destroyed-

by capital punishment- with the lake of fire.

(Unless you think they suffer eternally and consciously in the lake of fire.)

:)

DrWearWord:The lake of fire is for those who have condemned the innocent.

You condemn your own spirit by condemning another's spirit.

That is the unforgivable sin.

For if you have condemned the invisible spirit that they freely have received then you have condemned your own gift in the process.

To take the Lords name in vain is to confess him and not walk in his liberty.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Comment: Sexist wars are still being fought in the flesh though liberty has been proclaimed as the law of the land..

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[dmiller]

Jeez!!! -- I had best go back to page 1, and read this whole thing!!

Having said that -- I'll say this --

Docvic *lived the law of liberty*, to it's fullest extent.

Not trying to denigrate you dr. Wear (there are two WW's here,

so that will be my *monicker* for you, dr. Wearword), but everything you said ----

(from what I've read so far), validates what docvic, and lcm did -- in spades.

And to put it bluntly -- that ain't cool. They messed with the believers -- in the name of liberty.

Abuse of such a *law* was much more rampant in twi, than it will EVER be here at GSC.

Make your accusations -- Paw is a firm believer in liberty, and you will be allowed to do so.

Neither docvic, nor lcm were as gracious as that.

You make some strong *claims* as to what the original sin is and what the unforgivable sin is.

Yet you haven't PROVED that by scripture. All you have offered are YOUR opinions.

And you are making assumptions about folks you haven't met,

and treating it as Revelation from the Lord (would that be docvic talking??).

OK -- I'm signing out here now. Going back to page one, to read this thing in it's entirety.

I hope it makes sense when I peruse the pages, but somehow I doubt it will.

(P.S. --What the heck does *capital punishment*/ and *law of liberty* have to do with a *holy thing*???

That's one thing I'd like to find out in my scanning of the previous posts).

Edited June 7, 2007 by dmiller

[ChattyKathy]

I am relying on what I believe the Bible teaches about the trinity, and even trinitarians concede that the Bible doesn't mention the trinity, but the doctrine of the trinity is a doctrine that 'evolved over time', but somehow they don't see anything wrong with that.

You are correct about trinity not being in the bible and even the Catholic faith admits that. But there is true essence of all three in one God and that was something that I think twi missed out on because they lessoned the importance of who Christ was even when they beat their chests at how we were to be like him. They left him out of the equation when it suit their doctrine because Christ would not have done the things they did and taught were right to do to each other.

I'm glad you go by the Word and not the false teachings of twi.

[Larry N Moore]

But there is true essence of all three in one God

Chatty, I'm with Jeaniam on this one. I don't see what you see but, then you don't really expound (at least here) on how you come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.

and that was something that I think twi missed out on because they lessoned the importance of who Christ was even when they beat their chests at how we were to be like him.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. If anything, the importance of Jesus Christ became more evident when I learned that he was not God. Not that I ever really believed, prior to TWI, that he was even though I came from a Catholic background.

[another spot]

I am hoping this thread doesn’t become a trinity debate, mainly because those tend to get long. On the other hand (I have different fingers.).

We’ve established to my satisfaction, anyway, it was a virgin birth, took a PART as in flesh but not blood is false, sin isn’t in the blood, and doubt in my mind about the genealogies as taught by twi. If memory serves, we haven’t come to complete agreement on all these issues, but this is where I’m at.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom 1:4And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

To me, this establishes Mary was the genetic mother. “If he had had Mary's DNA - he would have been inheriting corruptible, fallen, flesh.” (Sunesis). I can see why you would say that, but the only thing is the tree of life was withdrawn (eternal life). Is death in the DNA? Worth looking into. Meanwhile…

Act 13:33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Act 13:34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Act 13:35Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Act 13:36For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Act 13:37But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Wordwolf: Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. It is a good explanation.

[cman]

Rom 1:4And declared [to be]the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

As we all are and will be and have been.................

[Jeaniam]

I am hoping this thread doesn’t become a trinity debate, mainly because those tend to get long. On the other hand (I have different fingers.).

We’ve established to my satisfaction, anyway, it was a virgin birth, took a PART as in flesh but not blood is false, sin isn’t in the blood, and doubt in my mind about the genealogies as taught by twi. If memory serves, we haven’t come to complete agreement on all these issues, but this is where I’m at.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom 1:4And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

To me, this establishes Mary was the genetic mother. “If he had had Mary's DNA - he would have been inheriting corruptible, fallen, flesh.” (Sunesis). I can see why you would say that, but the only thing is the tree of life was withdrawn (eternal life). Is death in the DNA? Worth looking into. Meanwhile…

I have no intention of getting involved in a trinity debate, because, in addition to their length, they become somewhat acrimonious and usually nobody convinces anyone of anything. I'm not really interested in budging and I would guess ChattyKathy isn't either. I am still of the opinion that Christ had Mary's DNA. It seems to me that one fact that supports that position is that Jesus Christ, during his time on earth, grew older. It seems to me to be logical that if he had chosen to not die on the cross that it is at least possible that he would have experienced old age and died in the natural course of events; so it seems at least possible that he had corruptible flesh during his time on earth. Is death in the DNA? Off the top of my head, I would answer 'Yes".

[DrWearWord]

I am hoping this thread doesn’t become a trinity debate, mainly because those tend to get long. On the other hand (I have different fingers.).

We’ve established to my satisfaction, anyway, it was a virgin birth, took a PART as in flesh but not blood is false, sin isn’t in the blood, and doubt in my mind about the genealogies as taught by twi. If memory serves, we haven’t come to complete agreement on all these issues, but this is where I’m at.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom 1:4And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

To me, this establishes Mary was the genetic mother. “If he had had Mary's DNA - he would have been inheriting corruptible, fallen, flesh.” (Sunesis). I can see why you would say that, but the only thing is the tree of life was withdrawn (eternal life). Is death in the DNA? Worth looking into. Meanwhile…

Act 13:33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Act 13:34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Act 13:35Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Act 13:36For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Act 13:37But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Wordwolf: Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. It is a good explanation.

I don't know yet if I agree with this logic you have presented here...

It seems to break the structure of body, soul and spirit.

I am not sure how yet.

What I am getting from this is that you are saying that life is physical.

A part of DNA.

The male half of the DNA strand...

Where life is passed on through the male half and born through the female half but even though the male half is a set of physical chemicals aligned in a long serial string life is somehow passed through this mechanism. That life that is passed on through this set of numbers is another thing. The male half of the DNA is passed from male to male. Even though the female half of the DNA is alive also, life is not passed this way.

So in order for a man to not have his father's DNA he would have to be a woman. For what makes a male physically is the Y chromosome. So to not have a father involves the physical domain of life itself. The Y chromosome would have to theoretically have been either created or passed on to be inherited from a father.

The father's "flesh" is what would have differed in Christ. Mary could not have passed down the genes from her father's line of patriarchs. Jesus was not of the seed of David.. The only way he was the seed of David was that, God was Adam's father so ultimately God was also David's father. So he was of the seed of God.

So did he fulfill the law? Was he the seed of David? When we understand that his life was from God also as David's life was from God then yes he was of the seed of David (he was human). For Jesus atoned for the life of David and his seed. He atoned by not bearing his fathers seed of law but by having God's seed of liberty. The stone that the builders rejected.

Mary does not have her father's genes that carry the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome would have carried the royal lineage of Christ. THE CHRIST LINE.

So this intervention by God would have severed this "blood line"...

So that the life part was neither corrupted by the sin's of the fathers nor the the law of the fathers.

Life is something we may never be able to "unmake".

Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Comment: We are saved by Jesus' blood. Life is part of God's initial creation.

For even blood can die.

So this life could be considered as oxygen but you know that life is not as simple as oxygen. For animal life cannot live without plant life.

For when life loses it's oxygen or carbon dioxide then it dies. When it is physically disassembled it dies. So the flesh maintains life as long is the flesh remains within the parameters of life. It is while we have this life that we transcend this life for eternal life.

But blood can die from too much heat and just not being within it's living host for too long a time.

It is sensitive to the world around it..

It's seed is within itself and once you destroy the self the seed is lost.

So life is more than physical.

Life is part of creation.

It is Christ who is the tree of life. A tree is part of creation. Just as the spirit is part of creation. As Christ is the tree of life and we are his fruit. As Christ is the host bright and morning star and we are his body of the third part of the heavens. Our bodies souls and spirits are quickened.

And the domain of life is outside of the creation's sphere of control..

The only control we have over life is through Christ. For "God" raised Jesus Christ from the dead...

We can kill life but it does not cease to exist.

It remains upon the earth in a cycle just creating more seeds and these seeds and fruit fall down from branches and mingle with the earth can produce more trees with branches.

Life is within the blood because it was the blood that atoned for sin.

For sin was justified to slaughter and murder life.

And God was the judge of life.

This is the wisdom of man.

So God came down to the level of man's wisdom and he prepared a life to atone for all life.

Ephesians 5:2

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Comment: So this life atoned for the spirit.

Isaiah 57:14

And shall say, Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people.

Comment: body, soul and spirit.

The life of the spirit in Christ Jesus is eternal.

It is the flesh around the life that is an illusion it is the sins of the fathers and the spirit that changes the life within.

And the new body is created in the linage of God which the word [law] of truth [liberty].

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[DrWearWord]

IN the beginning was the law of liberty and the law of liberty was with God and the law of liberty was God.

[markomalley]

IN the beginning was the law of liberty and the law of liberty was with God and the law of liberty was God.

WTF????????????????

[DrWearWord]

WTF????????????????

All things must be reconsidered in light of the law of liberty.

...for it is by the word of God that we have the law of liberty.

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[DrWearWord]

Luke 8:5

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

Comment:

The "way side" are those (often within the faith) still lost in the law...

Only the word of liberty "has no defense"...

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[DrWearWord]

I am sorry that the way I communicate is not always what you might expect.

It is my style and for this I cannot really fault you. Sometime it is just a jumble and a word soup I just toss what ever is still fresh in the fridge. (sometimes I even microwave it) :)

But it is not the style but the content the inner truth that the style and flair is trying to relay.

I have for this discussion written several things and just decided not to post them.

I don't want to overload you all and I don't want to talk myself into a blitz.

I just want to as quickly as possible see if we are all on the same page.

I know what page I am on.

I have made myself perfectly clear.

So you should know my intent without any possible doubt.

I have not only confessed my Lord but I believe in the law of liberty with which we have been called with every fiber of my being.

I look to the spirit and not the flesh.

I see the truth and not the lie.

I refuse to believe the lie.

For I know what God has created in us even as I am known.

1Corinthians 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Comment: Some do not see the law of liberty clearly but some see this liberty even as the perfect liberty reflects within them.

Some see in part and some clearly...

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[Larry N Moore]

Some see in part and some clearly...

And some just don't see at all. DrWearWord, I'm sure your heart is in the right place but, your words are difficult to understand. May I ask how much time you actually take thinking through how you want to communicate what's in your heart? I've looked at some of your posts over and over again trying to discern your meaning but, frankly my dear man I'm having trouble being successful at it. However, I do find that to be an interesting challenge. You sorta remind me of Kenyon's writings. He, also, had some very enlightening things to say but, unfortunately for some of us it took more effort trying to decipher his meaning. I'm one of them.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Larry N Moore

[DrWearWord]

Again it is what you are yolked to...

To travel light is to not be weighed down by burdens of what some people endure.

The only way is the law of liberty.

The declaration of independence and equality.

It is every believers standing in the family of God, this thought has to permeate every other consideration that precedes.

For if we always stand as sons then no matter where the mind strays we shall always be free from judgment.

For our judgment has already been signed, sealed, delivered and the verdict is innocent.

Until the church learns this they will never discern the law. For we are under the LAW of liberty...

The true God is revealed.

Edited June 7, 2007 by DrWearWord

[Larry N Moore]

Well . . . OK, if you say so.

[Ham]

The only way is the law of liberty.

excuse me a moment.. but this sounds an awful lot like these folks..

http://www.crystalinks.com/crowley.html

Just seems to be covered with christian terms.

"do what thou wilt.. is the whole of the law.."

One thing you could say for Crowley, at least he was honest..

vic on the other hand, could not entirely shed his religious exterior.

But they had the same ideology. vp didn't OPENLY espouse it..

but for the "inner circle".. they had "liberty".. all things were "clean" to them.

[DrWearWord]

Well . . . OK, if you say so.

It seem you are sharp now too.

[ChattyKathy]

Larry,

I agree with others on not making this a trinity thread so will expound on that another time where and when appropriate.

But as to thinking more or less of Jesus Christ based on if he were a part of God in flesh form my experience with twi was they said with their lips they respected and wanted to be like him (or do greater works was stated also) but they conveniently forgot him when it served their purposes to teach things that would not be his example. I was a part of that group for over 18 years and saw a few things. I don't know you or when you were a part of them so I can't speak for what was taught when you were a part of them.

Jean,

Without question he was of Mary and had corruptible flesh and agreed, he could have lived to be an old man had he not done his Father's will.

[Larry N Moore]

Larry,

I agree with others on not making this a trinity thread so will expound on that another time where and when appropriate.

At your leisure my dear lady.

But as to thinking more or less of Jesus Christ based on if he were a part of God in flesh form my experience with twi was they said with their lips they respected and wanted to be like him (or do greater works was stated also) but they conveniently forgot him when it served their purposes to teach things that would not be his example. I was a part of that group for over 18 years and saw a few things. I don't know you or when you were a part of them so I can't speak for what was taught when you were a part of them.

I would never think of discounting your experiences. I was not in your shoes, so I can only see things from my own perspective. Fwiw -- I was introduced to TWI when I was 15. Took the PFAL when I was 16 and left TWI in 1995. I'm now 52 years old (and some might say old and senile. ;))

[ChattyKathy]

So you have some time in I can see. :)

I need to finish dinner but we will have that other chat in time I'm certain. :B)