xjwsforChrist

Non-Religious Christian Spirituality
It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:00 am
Posts: 303
Greetings, One and All: May you have Peace as our Lord gives it.

For the past few days I have been thinking on a subject that has troubled me for a time. It concerns a number of facets in relation to our God, the Most Holy One of Israel, Jah of Armies, and, of course, our Lord, Jaheshua, the Anointed of Jah. I pondered these questions for a time, and even asked our Lord about them. And while I have received a response from him, it was not necessarily a “complete” response or, rather, it seemed a partial response, such that I would have to wait upon him for further clarification, which I am happy to do (I think). In the waiting though, sometimes I get a bit impatient (my Bad).

This past Sunday morning, my wife and I had a conversation, initiated by me, where I asked her for her input regarding this subject: “How does one (like a child for a father) defend the father when others/unbelievers/atheists, etc., berate, tongue-lash, curse, execrate, excoriate, lambaste, castigate, revile, vituperate, and inveigh against the Most Holy One of Israel,” even to the point of denying his very existence?” Certainly, we love our heavenly father, and would wish to defend him when he is spoken of abusively, right? We had an interesting discussion that was rather short and sweet—to the point and quite succinct.

There were a number of questions raised, such as: Does the father “need” defending? And, if so, by whom? Me?

Certainly, in speaking to others about our father we would wish that they be “convinced” or “persuaded” by us to reconciliation with our father, yes? But then it was brought to my attention that might there not be “ego” involved in the wishing/hoping of this outcome?

By the way, the ‘partial’ response I received from our Lord was: “They [unbelievers/atheists, and the like] are illegitimate children.” Remember to whom the writer of the Book of Hebrews was writing:

4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.—Hebrews 12:4-8.

How does “ego” become part of this? By being hurt or offended and irritated that those to whom we are speaking don’t get what WE are declaring to them and, thus, WE become offended or hurt. I learned it’s not ABOUT US. Remember, our Lord stated: “No one comes to the father except through me [meaning Christ].” And, “No comes to the Son, unless the father draws him.” So, unless these two things are in place, what we say or do is futile, yes? So, while we can speak, and at times should speak, never—EVER—do we need to become offended, hurt, or incensed at the unbelief of another as though WE are anyone important. We point the way to WHOM they should go—the Christ. Point to him, tell them to listen to him. They are not rejecting us, they are rejecting Him and His Son.

“For many [but not all] are called, but few are chosen.”—Matthew 22:14.

When we speak, if we choose to speak, regardless of to whom, we need to simply speak “truth.” As Paul wrote, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:6) We may sprinkle the truth with salt, so to speak, but it must be truth regardless of whether what we say to them is palatable or whether they hear or refrain from hearing us.

In that way, we won’t get hurt feelings if they shouldn’t hear us, listen to us, because the TRUTH is, they need to “hear” him, “listen” to him—not us. All we can be is a “Yad” (to steal a phrase), pointing to Christ (not Torah).*

Come! Take Life’s Water (that He is offering)—FREE!

--Armand


*A yad (Hebrew: יד‎‎, literally "hand"; Yiddish: האַנט‎) is a Jewish ritual pointer, popularly known as a Torah pointer, used by the reader to follow the text during the Torah reading from the parchment Torah scrolls.

https://www.google.com/search?q=torah+p ... YJFkrwM%3A



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3165
Yes, dear Armand! I remember learning this from my Lord some time back also. How sad I was when He said to me that it was not me that they (whoever they happen to be) are rejecting, but Him that they are rejecting. I think it was when I was at the memorial a couple years back, and I realized how sad it was that none were listening to Him, obeying Him, accepting Him. It was just so sad.

If we are speaking on our own and not in truth or in love, and we are rejected, then that is on us of course. But if we are speaking as He has given us to share, in truth and in love, then it is not us, but Him who is being rejected. If He can take it, and keep calling and inviting, and sending us out, even though He is often rejected, then how can we tire or take offense or give up?

Love never fails.

We serve HIM, and also anyone that He sends us TO.


Your post is a good reminder though. Thank you for sharing it, and for sharing the meaning of the word "Yad". We are 'yads' to Christ : )


Peace and love to you, my brother, and to your household,
your sister and servant, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:07 pm
Posts: 2151
Yes! And thank you for this reminder...(peace to you brother)


How does “ego” become part of this? By being hurt or offended and irritated that those to whom we are speaking don’t get what WE are declaring to them and, thus, WE become offended or hurt. I learned it’s not ABOUT US.


I too was reminded a couple memorials back as well dear Tams, that whatever the response, how they treat us ( the eye rolls etc) ....that it is NOT ABOUT US!

Thank you again for sharing this info and conversation, love and peace to you both and your households, your sister in Christ, Kim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:20 pm
Posts: 1208
I can identify with this Armand. I have felt often felt aggrieved when some have rejected the existence of Jah & Christ, have mocked or been offensive. This is a good reminder once again that it's NOT about US.

Peace

Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 4484
I am glad you posted this, dear Armand (peace to you, dear brother!). First, for the truth as to "it" not being about us. It is not OUR message; we are only instruments. Can the flute take offense when the audience doesn't like how the musician plays it? Can the piano take offense because the "notes" its player touches on "irritate" the ears of the hearer? If the "note" is "sour" to them, one must ask: was it really the musician... or did the hearer not appreciate the melody? Some love classical music; some abhor it. Some adore country music; some are irritated by it. Some prefer rap; others are repulsed by it. In all of these instances, the musician is considered genius by some, a total imbecile by others. They never, however, blame the keyboard or guitar - LOLOL!

True, a guitar plays MUCH better when the strings are properly tightened and in tune... a flute, when it's cleaned and the reed has been prepped... a piano, when the keys are properly tuned and played with the right emphasis and timing. When those things are out of whack, the sound an instrument makes can be abhorrent. A PROPERLY, CORRECTLY, and ADEQUATELY tuned instrument, however, always makes a sweet sound. Even it's off notes aren't that bad. And give the instrument a trained player?

For us, we have THE Maestro to properly, correctly, and adequately train, tune, prep... and "play"... us. IF we listen to HIS voice as to the "sound" we should make. If we do that and someone is irritated or even angered by the sound... or chooses to ignore the sound, regardless of its "sweetness," then that is between the audience... and the player, yes?

The only time the instrument should take offense is if that instrument has not been properly tuned but yet still tried to emit a sound. In that case, the "sour" note IS on the instrument and the instrument should be offended... but at no one other than itself. Because what... or rather, who... "possessed" it to try and make a sound on its own, anyway? Presumption... and ego.

The second reason I'm glad you posted this has to do with the term "illegitimate sons." I know we've discussed this here before, but perhaps we should again because of what came out of this this time.

When I first read your post, I thought, "Wait... are illegitimate sons sons, too?" I mean, there are legitimate sons... and illegitimate sons. But both are sons... yes? Yes. And the issue is not as to the father - both are HIS sons. Their "legitimacy" is about the MOTHER.

"Legitimacy" has to do with legality... which has to do with "law." A "legitimate" child was one whose mother was a "lawful" wife (one lawfully wedded... wedded under/by whatever law oversaw marriage... to the man in question). An "illegitimate" child was one who mother was NOT (lawfully) wedded to the man (i.e., a slave, concubine, whore, passing fancy, etc.). While the initial "law" in question was the Law Covenant, the "law" later became whatever church doctrine had jurisdiction (i.e., RCC, Protestant, Jewish, etc.). Now, it is primarily whatever CIVIL law has jurisdiction (hence, the need for a marriage license in most US states... or co-habitation for some time, which constitutes a "common law" marriage, living together for a time being presumed marriage under English common law... or law for the "commoners". It was different for the aristocracy - they had to have the consent of the king to marry, due to the potential liabilities as to land grants - can't have a million acres falling into the hands of the enemy simply because your son married his daughter. I digress. )

The primary reason legitimacy was a concern was property inheritance, especially land, but including titles. Until the last century, under the law of inheritance, only legitimate children could inherit parental property. Today, in every state of the US except Louisiana, illegitimate children are entitled to the same share of parental property as are legitimate. This, of course, is a problem... for lawful(ly wedded) wives.

A lawfully wedded wife is entitled to the property of her husband. That is one of the main purposes of the marriage "contract" - what's your's is mine, what's mine is your's. And so, her children are entitled to inherit, both from their mother and their father. And so, say, four children... four portions. If, however, there are other children NOT of this (lawful) marriage, HER children would have to split their share with such. So, say, four (of her) children, and two of another woman's... now there must be six shares. Making the initial four childrens' shares smaller. Not fair. [This is, of course, not counting any other legitimate children the man might have, say, from another lawful marriage (i.e., children of a wife who has died, children of a woman the man was lawfully divorced from, of children of a new wife after the previous one has died or been divorced).]

So, laws were created to protect the property and title rights of "legitimate" children (i.e., the children of lawful wives). That law goes at least as far back as Abraham and Sarah. It is the reason why Isaac was the heir, and not Ishmael. Isaac's mother, Sarah, was Abraham's free and lawful wife. Hagar, Ishmael's mother, was Sarah's housemaid, a slave/servant, and given to Abraham by Sarah (as a concubine to bear him children, as Sarah believed herself barren and never to have a child). As Abraham's son, Ishmael would have received SOMETHING... even a share of land... but he would not have been Abraham's HEIR. And thus, not received Abraham's TITLE.

Why was this important? Because of the law of land grants: as Abraham's son, Ishmael would have received land as his own... BUT... subject to Isaac. Meaning, although Ishmael would be a GrantEE (receiver) of some of Abraham's land, as heir Isaac would fall into the position of GrantOR. And the grantor... virtually always holds the land. The grantee can sell encumber it, even sell it. But when it all shakes down, it can still be revoked/escheat back to the grantor. As ultimate "king" of the land and owner of the property. It is the same today - if there is no one to step up and claim land or property... including money... it escheats... back to the state (government/king).

There are stricter rules around this today that there were before. Before, the king could just come in and take back the land, at his own whim. And he didn't have to pay for it - it was always his; he just "granted" some of it to others... to use (i.e., farm, mine, reserve, etc.)... at his will and whim. He can come in and take it back today, too. Under the law of what's called "eminent domain." The king... or government... or, in Abraham's day, Abraham (because he got HIS grant directly from God)... is the "eminent" owner and thus has "eminent" domain... ownership/domicility... over the land/property. Today, though, he (the government) can't just take it - he/it has to offer "just compensation" (big eye roll here, as to what is considered "just". I digress, again).

EVEN so, whether a son was legitimate (and so a rightful, because of being lawful, heir)... or illegitimate (and perhaps not entitled to anything at all)... he was, by BLOOD... still a son. So, when dear Armand wrote:

Quote:
I received from our Lord was: “They [unbelievers/atheists, and the like] are illegitimate children.”


I was a little bit confused. Because this is saying that they ARE children (of God), although illegitimate children. Okay, no worries. Except, that seems to imply that one is either a legitimate child of God... or an illegitimate child of God. But... a child of God. That, though, couldn't be right. Because these are only two choices. Surely, though, contrary to what many BELIEVE... not EVERYONE is a child of God. There is a third choice:

"You are from YOUR father, the Devil." Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10

So, how could this be, how could he have heard that these unbelievers/atheists, etc., are illegitimate children? And then I heard that the word used for "illegitimate" does not mean what dear Armand and perhaps others think it means. And what I heard comports with what dear Armand posted next, that:

"... you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all..." Hebrews 12:8

The Greek word used for "not legitimate" is nothos and means:

Quote:
illegitimate, bastard
one born, not in lawful wedlock, but of a concubine or female slave


And so, in most Bible translations, quite understandably, the rendering is "illegitimate". Or "You are illegitimate (non-, not legitimate) sons and daughters." And that is what dear Armand also heard. BUT... is that what was MEANT, "illegitimate", as we usually know the word? This is what concerned me at first. And I HEARD that this, the way we know the word, is not what was MEANT. What WAS meant, though? The verse in Hebrews answers that:

"...not true sons and daughters at all..."

What dear Armand heard our Lord say... and what the verse means... with the word "illegitimate" is not as to someone who is not LEGALLY a son... because even if not legal, by BLOOD such one is still a SON... but to one who is not a son AT ALL.

I brought this to dear Armand's attention. And, looking up the LATIN word (from which the English and modern Greek Bible terminology is taken - the Hebrew parts are of Hebrew translated from Greek which was translated from Hebrews... and the Greek parts are of Greek translated from English and/or LATIN)... he learned and shared with me that there is another word (which he will have to share) that while perhaps comports with "illegitimate" isn't quite the same meaning. The word is ACCURATELY translated as "FAKE, FALSE".

In other words, the verse SHOULD read:

"You are FALSE (fake) and not really (truly) sons and daughters at all."

In THIS sense, the word that translates as "not legitimate" is correct. A false/fake thing is NOT legitimate (valid, true). But the word "illegitimate" is not fully accurate. If we were to use a word that includes the lack of legitimacy, then "NON-legitimate" would be accurate, whereas "IL-LEGITIMATE" is not quite.

The point? There are three groups:

Illegitimate children (of God) - Those (1) who are descendants of Abraham, most particularly through Isaac, then Jacob (Israel), but including through Ishmael, Esau, the sons of Keturah, etc., AND those of the nations who join with them (thus, becoming "Israel") and claim to be sons of God who (2) seek God but have not yet been "legitimized" through receiving His blood... holy spirit... by means of which they are adopted by Him so as to BE legitimate sons because they ignore or even deny the voice, leading, and discipline of God's Son and Word, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH)...

Non-Legitimate or False/fake "children of God" - Those "seed" who either (1) outright deny God; or (2) make the false claim that they are of God but, by their works (i.e., delivering up the legitimate sons to death) show themselves to be children of the Adversary - "You are from YOUR father, the Devil")...

Legitimate children (of God) - Those who listen to the voice, follow the leading, and do not belittle the discipline of God's Word and Son, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH), so as to be led to be the "seed" (children) of the free woman "Sarah," the "Jerusalem Above," who are legitimized as sons through having received and been "fertilized" by GOD's blood and seed... holy spirit... which blood/seed is granted them by that Word and Son, through his OWN blood... which he pours out upon and puts in them... as a group, constituting the NEW Jerusalem, the Bride of the Spirit that is Christ (2 Corinthians 3:17).

My point is, as I've shared before, words are important. If we are to be able to withstand the "questionings" of others, we must sometimes listen longer, focus more acutely, look deeper... so as to get the true meaning. So as not to mislead others, or be misled. While this was not necessarily a big issue, I am sure there are some "wordsmiths" who would take issue with hearing that an "illegitimate" son is not a son. Because that is not accurate. Such one is not a son by LAW, but is certainly a son... by BLOOD.

I hope this helps... and, as always, peace to you all... and to your dear households!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:37 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:34 pm
Posts: 1261
Not all of us Unbelievers..
Are going to Hell in a Shopping Cart..
Doing 70mph down a Pot Holed,Gravel Road with One Wiggly Wheel..LOL!!!!!..Image



.......................Image...OUTLAW

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:45 pm
Posts: 39
THE ETYMOLOGY OF 'POTHOLE'

1. A hole or pit, especially one in a road surface. Also called chuckhole.

Contrary to a popular urban myth, the term 'pothole' doesn't date back to Roman times, or even to the time when the first roadways were built (historians believe that to be about 4,000 BC).
In fact, the term is barely over 180 years old, only describing pesky pits in roads since about 1826.



POTHOLES DID NOT GET THERE ON THEIR OWN. WHO CREATED THE POTHOLES?

A pothole is a type of failure in an asphalt pavement,[1] caused by the presence of water in the underlying soil structure and the presence of traffic passing over the affected area. Introduction of water to the underlying soil structure first weakens the supporting soil. Traffic then fatigues and breaks the poorly supported asphalt surface in the affected area. Continued traffic action ejects both asphalt and the underlying soil material to create a hole in the pavement

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pothole>


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 4484
Quote:
Not all of us Unbelievers..
Are going to Hell in a Shopping Cart..


Indeed not, dear Sher'f (morning and peace to you, our dear friend!). Just as my dear Lord's words recorded at Matthew 25:31-40 tells us! YOU, dear one, have no need to worry at all. You nor your dear household, as is also recorded for us. Joshua 6:17. 23, 25

As always, the GREATEST of love and peace to you, my dear, dear friend.

YSFS of Christ,

Shel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:35 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:34 pm
Posts: 1261
Awwwwww..
Your such a SweetHeart (((Shelby)))..

...........................Image...OUTLAW

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:00 am
Posts: 303
Greetings: May you have Peace.

In the Oxford Latin Dictionary the biblical verse of Hebrews 12:8 is referred to under the word “adulter” and “adultera.” Under these two words are numerous similar definitions, including the following: III. The offspring of unlawful love; nothus, a bastard (eccl.): [and it quotes the biblical text] adulteri et non filii estis, Vulg. Heb. 12, 8.

Note also, however, that “adulter” / -tera, and –eterum is also defined as: II. Transf., counterfeit, false: imitatio solidi, Cod. Th. 9, 22, 1.

Further down the listing the word is also defined as: not genuine, false, counterfeit, etc.

Come! Take Life’s Water—Free! May Jah bless.

--Armand


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:17 pm
Posts: 719
Well, now... this was a very interesting thread to read. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:45 pm
Posts: 230
My wife use to be on the boarderline of athiest/believer. She didn't know what to believe in.

I once told her 'I don't understand, i mean in a certain way, I can, but really how can someone say they don't believe in God but then go to their wife/brother/dad/mother/sister etc.. and say 'I LOVE you' ...it doesn't really make much sense. "

It's like saying "I don't believe in cars, but let me go to the store in my new honda" ...It means most of the time, people don't know who..or WHAT God is. Although this may be a 'fundamental belief,' it really was a new epiphany.

I remember when they use to quote 1john 4:8 where it says ' God is love' ...and I realized one day that I was being taught in some ways by Jw's on their understanding of it: God is loving. But that's not what it says...and then the spirit revealed to me that 'LOVE is God' ... Just changing the order of the word brings a new perspective on it. The source of all love in the entire world, seen and unseen is God. and It has a voice. It flows out of him and goes to everyone that is pure and clean where it may reside.

And in some ways it differentiates between the world's definition of love, vs 'love your enemy' love. And of course there's the idea that God and his Son are not hypocritical. Does God love the Adversary? He may not like what he has done and rebuke him because he knows the advesary's heart. The point is he still LOVES him. It would be hypocritical to say 'love your enemies, but my father and I don't.' How much of a God or loving God and loving son would you have to have in order to LOVE people that don't believe in you or the very person that not only killed your SON but is trying to kill your FUTURE SONS.

Food for thought.
Me


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 4484
Quote:
I realized one day that I was being taught in some ways by Jw's on their understanding of it: God is loving. But that's not what it says...and then the spirit revealed to me that 'LOVE is God' ... Just changing the order of the word brings a new perspective on it. The source of all love in the entire world, seen and unseen is God. and It has a voice. It flows out of him and goes to everyone that is pure and clean where it may reside.


YES, dear V (peace to you!), and SO glad to see that you "see" this!!

Quote:
And of course there's the idea that God and his Son are not hypocritical. Does God love the Adversary? He may not like what he has done and rebuke him because he knows the advesary's heart. The point is he still LOVES him.


Well, that's not actually true, dear one. God does NOT love the Adversary nor does He love the wild beast, the false prophet, the World of the Dead (Hades), or the last enemy... Death. But UNLIKE us, HE doesn't HAVE to love His enemies. WE do... because WE are all "sinners." So, just WE wish to be forgiven OUR trespasses (against God, which makes us HIS enemies and yet, due to His love... which compels His MERCY), we must love OUR enemies. IF JAH loved the Adversary, however, He would HAVE to forgive that one. But that will NOT occur. That one will NOT be shown mercy... because he did not SHOW mercy, particularly to the "holy ones."

The MOST Holy One of Israel is not under the same "law" that we, who are flesh with its blood, are. He really is OUTSIDE of that Law and so cannot be held to the provisions of it. Even still, He DOES show love to His enemies in making it rain/the sun shine on both the "righteous" AND the "unrighteous." These, however, are His enemies by means of being enemies of His Son... and those of that Son's Body.

You are making a serious error in trying to compare us to God - there is no comparison. If WE don't love our enemies, there is repercussion: the loss of eternal life. The MOST Holy One of Israel, though... cannot die. What "repercussions" are there for Him, then? It is just as with the animal kingdom: while having a covenant (Law) with JAH, they are not held to the same covenant that mankind is. And mankind is not held to the same covenant as the animal kingdom is.

The MOST Holy One of Israel's covenant with HIMSELF... is NOT the same as His covenant with MANKIND. So, we should not deign to try and hold Him to such. When we do that, try to hold Him to the same tenets as we are held to... we are trying to bring HIM down and ourselves UP. Which cannot be done, same as bringing those of the animal kingdom up to OUR "level" and ourselves down to their's. Because the beings involved are not the same, the covenanting cannot be the same - it would be unequal. It would be UNEQUAL, then, for the MOST Holy One of Israel to be expected to love ALL of HIS enemies. Because in doing so, He would have to perpetually ALLOW the Adversary... the wild beast... the false prophet... the World of the Dead (Hades)... and Death... to remain. Indefinitely.

JUSTICE, however, MUST eventually prevail. While mercy is BETTER than justice, yes... FOR THE SAKE OF THE HOLY ONES and those who do good to such ones... the Adversary, wild beast, false prophet, World of the Dead... AND Death... MUST be dealt with, even destroyed.

This, dear one, is the playing of the GREATER love... vengeance... which belongs to JAH alone. And He wields it in RIGHTEOUSNESS... ALWAYS. We don't and wouldn't. So, there must be a law of LOVE - to keep us from misusing vengeance.

Quote:
It would be hypocritical to say 'love your enemies, but my father and I don't.'


No, it wouldn't. This is bringing God "down"... to the realm of mankind. It is the same as the Father being "a JEALOUS God"... yet, admonishing us against jealousy. Why the difference? Because, of the way DYNAMIC ENERGY... or HOLY SPIRIT... WORKS. For US, flesh with ITS blood, engaging in either of these, hypocrisy or jealousy, could cost us our LIVES. The MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, however... and now His Son, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH)... CANNOT DIE. And so, a law the BRINGS death... CANNOT apply to them. For US, "what GOES around," very well may... and more often than not... "COME around." "Karma," if you will.

But what can such do to JAH and Christ? What goes forth from JAH's mouth WILL occur; however, it CANNOT come back to harm HIM.

Quote:
How much of a God or loving God and loving son would you have to have in order to LOVE people that don't believe in you or the very person that not only killed your SON but is trying to kill your FUTURE SONS.


A GREAT God, this is true, but the latter part is inaccurate. Indeed, love... AND VENGEANCE... would cause you, if it were in your power... to eventually do AWAY with the one who killed your Son AND is trying to kill your FUTURE sons.

I hope it's now (more) clear to you and that it helps.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "Yad" (to Whom)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:45 pm
Posts: 230
Thank you for clearing that up Shel. I'd have to 'meditate on it.'

Someone might wanna tell Kes this.

Me


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group