Refugee

[jasd]

quote by jasd

Quote:

---

…fire of sorts, which consumes or doesn’t consume. Which is it? If it consumes, how entirely and exactly

what

? does it consume, as to allow the ‘permanency’ of ages unto ages… ad infinitum? Is it semantics?

---

2 Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.

Has anyone, these boards, seen a soul? Might we not then infer, per St Paul, --that a soul, unseen, --is eternal? Uhh, umm, bbbut, --y’know, everything is understood only by its context. Schmext.

Context? with St Paul? I, like St Peter, confess to sometimes being somewhat discombobulated, where the subject is --St Paul.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Mebbe, Acts 9 was another ‘voice’, that of the narrating author …? Hopefully not, for was it not St Luke who wrote Acts?

…Separate voices?

There was an apostle, who wrote an epistle,

strange faith did he jostle, and scriptures entwistle.

His doctrines pentacostal, made GOD's people bristle,

and blapshemy collosal, led to his dismissal.

Apostle, epistle, collossal, dismissal,

His writings bescissel, make faith so afissile. —Anonymous

The above is meant to be pointedly taken, as “Confusing, isn’t it?”

So, what exactly, is consumed in the lake of fire?

[jasd]

Quote:

---

So, what

exactly

, is consumed in the lake of fire?

---

Well, we know that the righteous shall trod upon the ashes of the wicked, don’t we? or do we?

Is that, in fact, a verity? I think the Bible allows only that it is the remains of the corporeal ‘tent’, which is trod upon, unless the soul also, can be made ashen. But remember, St Paul said that the unseen is eternal. Can we accept that, as verity? or are we better advised to presumptively interpret...?

Anyway, what then of the soul?

One, thinking that my query lacks relevance ought to remember --EGW proposed that a soul could be both separate and cognizant apart from its physical ‘tent’. Nevertheless,

how does Writ address the matter?

Could Gd-inspired Gen 15:12 be relating anything other than exactly what it implies, that is, When Gd caused that “a deep sleep fell upon Abram … lo, an horror of great darkness…” , well,

did Gd covenant with the tabernacle Abram --wherein he doth groan, if you will, --or with his spirit (the animate vitality, the constituent man)? What does Writ say?

Gen 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. v10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. v11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. v12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. … v17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,…

Wow, THAT! is some kind of BLOOD convenanting!

Gen 15:12 …a deep sleep fell upon Abram … lo, an horror of great darkness… (‘valley of the shadow of death’?)

Gen 15:17 …behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. (…’pears to bear the somewhat syllogistic hallmark of an OBE)

Prov 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle {5216} of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

candle: Strong’s #5216. … nerah, nay-raw; from a prim. Root [see 5214; 5135] prop. Mean. to glisten; a lamp (i.e. the burner) or light (lit. or fig.):--candle, lamp, light.

Alternately: -- Gen 15:17 …behold Gd (a smoking furnace), and the spirit of Abram (a burning lamp) that passed between those pieces.

Bbbut, “…rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat 10:28)

Will destroy? or, able to destroy? Which is it?

[jasd]

Heb 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Strong’s concordance provides the evidence that the above text employs a conjugal conjunction in the phrase ‘soul and spirit’. Because Gray’s Anatomy tells me so, the ‘soul and spirit’, the innate sense of man, is contrasted against [an] employed figurative(s) for the body/tent/tabernacle, this mortal coil (apologies), --of man; Gd stating, that they, both the corporeal and the spiritual, --can be piercingly divided asunder. This seems to be

reiteratively amplifying upon the Genesis 15 narrative, --should we have missed its import earlier-on.

It is my intent herein, only --to countenance the idea that there is more in Writ than dreamed-of by mortal man

[jasd]

I’ve been waiting for the opportunity this particular day provides to submit the following...

Jn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: v26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

There are those who believe in the sentient spirit, having an animate vitality whilst separate from its ‘tabernacle/tent’, that is, its corporeality; and there are those that believe in the ‘sleep’ of the spirit.

It seems to me that the above bolded provides an enigma needing to be answered convincingly --by those believing that when the body dies the spirit ceases to exist --except as an indefinable and nebulous ‘breath’.

I perceive the words of Jesus, though, in a sense paradoxical, --as severely straightforward: “…shall never die.” Rather than attempting to conceptualize those words as, together, a misaligned chair, as it were, --having to be forced into the conformity of other ‘chairs’, I suggest that

all other texts and passages instead, have to find their own place vis-à-vis the explicit declarative of Jesus in the above passage --bolded.

It may be that the 'chair' of the above text is the initial chair beginning a new line of 'chairs', that is,

it may be that subsequent 'chairs' form a new line of 'chairs', if you will.

[jasd]

Well, the ‘chairs’ analogy seem to suit those on the Seminar circuits but they proved a bit cumbersome for me. Saying that,

I’ll stay with my own habits, for what they are, at that… acchh, intrepid jasd, intrepidly, for the Queen’s colors.

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. v15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. v16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Why does St Paul transition and make the differentiation between ‘sleep in Jesus’ and ‘dead in Christ’?

What does St Paul mean by ‘even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him’?

What does one make of Jesus will God bring with him’?

Does Gd come with Jesus at the Second Advent? or is Gd/him an intensive of Jesus?

Most saliently, what of those who Jesus-Gd(?) bring with him? from where? Heaven? surely not! However, from whence then? Do the dead in Christ who rise first, --meet Jesus somewhere distant enough that there is the appearance of being brought with Him at the Coming? Does

Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

mean that the elect are really gathered from the fields of time and space, --from ‘one end of heaven to the other’, that is, the uttermost extremity along the path of earth’s passage through the thousands-years of its orbiting flight? Or does it really only mean the horizon, as some put it? If Matthew 24:31 means the end of heaven is simply the horizon, then those that Gd brings with Him must really have come with Him from an originating point before arriving in the atmosphere of earth.

I believe there is/are text(s) in Revelation, which support the latter posit (providing the blessing promised in Revelation 1:3); --without nullifying a quantum theory of sorts.

“Say what?” --Pogo

[Clio]

There's a women's forum?

[jasd]

Quote:

---

…

sleep in Jesus

…

…

dead in Christ…

---

Hebrew parallelism? Would St Paul have preferred to incorporate Hebrew parallelism for the almost-entirely Greeks of the church in Thessalonica --assuming that the few Jewish converts would teach the Thessalonians appreciation of Hebrew parallelisms? Doubtful.

In employing “…sleep in Jesus…”, why would he not have instead written, “…them also which are dead in Christ will God bring with him”? I propose that

St Paul made that distinction to purpose; and, it was not a nod to parallelism. So, what was his ‘sermonizing’ point? Perhaps…? he was

acknowledging the ‘inherent order of tagma’; the firstfruits of the “dead in Christ” and only the firstfruits of the “dead in Christ”, had already ascended with Christ upon or coincident --His ascension. Thenceforeward, commenced the NT (tagma 1 Cor 15:23) harvest of souls according to St Paul’s precept;

"we" ... “[absent from the body]" … "not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” (2 Cor 5:4) That is, “swallowed up of life”; not of an interim ‘deathsleep’ of the constituent self until Christ Jesus’ return in the clouds. (keeping in mind… the text of Isaiah 66:15 and the possible {probable?} appropriation of it by the one who can even transform himself as --into an angel of light, --which cometh in the skies in [unidentified flying chariots] of fire ;-)

Quote:

---

Most saliently, what of those who Jesus-Gd(?) bring with him? from where? Heaven?

surely not!

---

Indeed, surely, Yes! New Testamentally creedal.

[Clio]

Jasd -

You may be absolutely certain that you are here because of your mother's prayers. Mother's have a unique spiritual authority for their children, terminated only when the mother herself deems the child to be an adult.

As far as the silver umbilical cord goes, you are fortunate indeed to be no longer using that power.

The Chupacabras that have been sighted both living and dead across the US are manifestations of the antithesis to the silver umbilical cord. Their job, in the spiritual realm is to "eat" the silver umbilical cord, making it impossible for the traveler to find their body.

I showed a picture to someone who had been progressed farther along that path than you appear to have gone. She told me that when she was tasked with something involving the silver cord, when she was of the dark, a protector was always sent along to protect from the Chupacabras.

That they now walk in the flesh, she told me, is a very good sign. It means the time of Abba's Will upon the earth is NOW... time is very short.

She was shocked to see photos and videos of them... The releasing of hell has begun.

Clio

[Clio]

Quote:

---

idea that there is more in Writ than dreamed-of by mortal man

---

Jasd, of course there is. It is the spiritual principle guide book that allows us to counter and survive and take advantage of all Abba's weapons against the Adversary...

But my point. Jesus recently created a blood covenant between me, and Himself, and someone else... with their knowledge and full understanding. I have been tasked with her protection.

Clio

[jasd]

I wonder, for all the noise I made regards Leviticus 26 --adverbial modifier, adjectival, etc, if

anyone checked it out... Why is

‘times’ in verses 18, 21, 24, 28 not given a number in Strong’s? supplied? if so, why are they not italicized in the those texts? latent? inferred? other? And why

chapter 26 employs particularly, the inflectional form (supposedly); whereas, in the other instances in Leviticus ‘times’ is spelled out by its author? Example:

Lev 4:6 …and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD,

“The absence of a number at the end of a passage shows that the word in question is not there the rendering of any particular term in the original, … representative … of some inflectional form (auxiliary, preposition, adjunct, etc., or peculiar idiom of a Hebrew … term.” --Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible

Or, if anyone wondered why ‘more’ was used only in verses 18 and 21; and not, in verses 24 and 28? or if, tangentially, anyone acquired from the passages in the chapter an appreciation for 'the cardinal and the ordinal'?

[Stan]

bump

[Bravus]

Thanx big guy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[jasd]

Suspecting and understanding an averseness seemingly bleeding through…, much more,

the appreciation expressed: Thanks, lots.

It was important to me that I submit another post, as I'd given my word to expand a bit upon my observations regard the year '82-'83 to two respected persons... and wanted to do so within the originating framework.

Foregoing a monologue upon anticipated objections to my position vis-à-vis the ‘times’ prophecies, such as,

/ the words employed differ, ipso facto, --nullity (how many different Hebrew words conceptualize and define ‘Law’?)

/ parallelisms

/ poetic, rather than literal reading

/ the seeming paucity of relative references

/ synecdochic, really

/ others…

in deference, I’m submitting, after this one, a final post (or short series thereof) addressing ‘82-’83 before letting the thread fall off the page.

Thanks, again.

[jasd]

It’s been awhile since I’ve visited this subject…, I’d surmised that when I put forward --that Nebuchadnezzar was a prophet of Gd,

whoever was interested --anticipated me and where I was headed with the matter. So, I sloughed-off, you know, …phlegmatic personality, really, literally, --not that psychoanalytical profundity about temperaments.

Anyway, I’m picking it up that I might finish, --with a few observations.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin*

Why did Gd elect to write 'those' words when, being the linguist He obviously is, He might have simply written, to effect, “Listen-up, goodfella, tonight you will, justifiably, lose both your life and the kingdom”, or some other equally well-expressed sentiment.

Were Gd to have written, “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”, with an implicit meaning in the Aramaic, ‘number(ed), weigh(ed), division(s)’, --would that have sufficed? --without the redundant "Mene"? to convey

what Gd intended that it should convey --to both Belshazzar and --to those for whom the book of Daniel would eventually be unsealed? In other words,

how is the intent of the message better served by repeating “Number(ed), Number(ed),…”? that is, “Mene, Mene,…”? unless…

Aramaic

Mene

Mene

Tekel

Upharsin

Hebrew

Minah = 1000 gerahs

Minah = 1000 gerahs

Shekel = 20 gerahs -- (shekel, a fiftieth part of a thousand)

Peres = 500 gerahs -- (peres, a half part of a thousand)

_______________________________

'seven times' = 2520

The ‘coinage’ in the two columns above and the redundancy of "Mene" (without which there would have been only a configuration, in the Hebrew, of 1520 --best defined as meaningless) suggests to me the use of a form [Hebrew] within a form [Aramaic] by Gd; its meaning readily apparent to Daniel. Also,

given what I have suggested in the above, Gd apparently, took some care in composing the message, which was written on the wall at the feast of Belshazzar… Otherwise,

if Gd had employed straightforward language, much of what [i take] to have been concealed (per Dan 12:4 …shut up the words, and seal the book…) should have been readily understood, without need of sending for Daniel to interpret the writing.

It might be of interest to those unawares, that the Babylonians used a sexagesimal number system, that is, their base [number] was 60; whereas; we tend use a decimal system. That may have been why

they could not decipher the ‘numbers’, which appeared on the wall. Anyway,

note that Belshazzar asked Daniel for an interpretation -- not a translation. Daniel acceded and provided Belshazzar with the sense of the writing. That being said,

Daniel interpreted (paraphrased) the writing utilizing, according to the KJV, twenty-nine words where there were four upon the wall. Though we have had the ‘sense’ of the writing on the wall per Daniel 5:25-28, we’ve really not had what might be a literal translation of the writing on the wall…

Is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin/Peres important?

*two minas, a shekel, and a half-mina: There are some who suggest that Upharsin and Farsi [meaning Persia(ns)] are etymologically related. That may be so, but I’m not inclined to agree. I mention it only in passing, as someone might be interested.

[jasd]

Someone, or the other, might be interested in a contrarian (well, not entirely) view.

Re: Daniel 5

“On the old Aramaic documents of Egypt and Assyria, it is with one exception spelled sheqel. In the Targum of Onkelos, sheqel is always rendered by cela`; in the Peshitta and Arabic VSS, by mathqal; in the Samaritan Targum, by mathqal (except only perhaps in Ge 23:16, where we have ethqel). In the Targum of Onkelos, wherever tiqla' occurs, it translates the Hebrew beqa` (Ge 24:22 and Ex 38:26 only). Mene', to be sure, may have meant the mina, and perec, the half-mina. The parash is mentioned in the inscription of Panammu and in an Aramaic inscription on an Assyrian weight. Besides this, it is found in the New Hebrew of the Mishna It is not found, however, in the Targum of Onkelos, nor in Syriac, nor in the Old Testament Hebrew; nor in the sense of half-shekel [sic] in the Aramaic papyri. While, then, it may be admitted that Daniel may have read, "A mina, a mina, a shekel, and two half-minas [sic]," it is altogether unlikely, and there is certainly no proof that he did. Yet, if he did, his punning interpretations were justified by the usage of ancient oracles and interpreters of signs, and also by the event.” [ed.]

[jasd]

Take your pick, 536,37,38,39 BC. Each date has its advocates for the year Babylon fell. I prefer 538 BC because it simply suits my hypothesis. It’s as honest as many other approaches I see put forward regard theological principles.

Takeaway, add, or ignore (each has its adherents) the pivotal year between the BC and AD, I’m not overly concerned with the druthers of that exactitude in this instance. I’m interested only in the general, and if necessary, broad applications of a 2520 years time-span. Should there be others persuaded to exactness, let them dwell upon the exact day, hour, calendar, or reckoning. For that,

and considering that the Jewish/COI year has a span which overlaps a portion of two Gregorian years -- is the reason that I reference a hyphenated ‘82-‘83. Work the numbers either forward from the fall of Babylon -- or do the takeaways (that is, subtract -- how old are you? [/reminiscing]) from ‘82-’83; either way results in a seeming significance or confluence between AD 1983, 2520 years and the 538 BC fall of Babylon. Of course,

one ought consider the question regards transitional factors in the cross-over from BC to AD. I, arbitrarily, add a year --per the most prevailing orthodoxy.

Why do I take this tack with Babylon of prophecy? because of the enigmatic Mene, Mene… of Daniel 5.

For that, and a few other reasons, I’ve put forward that I believe the ‘end times’ (be they what they may be) had their beginning approximately at or about the year(s) AD 1982-3. One can hardly have the final chapter unfold without the principals, can one? that is, namely, [spiritual] Babylon and [spiritual] Jerusalem (‘spiritual’, as employed here, does not necessarily connote a sense of the religious).

Is the Babylon of prophecy literally the city of old? Doubtful. Is the Jerusalem-as-prophesied-end-time-principal any more literal than its counterpart the non-literal or figurative Babylon? It isn’t. It is also not the literal old city Jerusalem. It is, in fact,

a transcendent and transposed Jerusalem.

Well, I shouldn’t be so unequivocal; there are the exceptions…

[jasd]

Quote:

---

…in deference, I’m submitting, after this one, a final post (or short series thereof) addressing ‘82-’83 before letting the thread fall off the page.

--jasd

, Sat May 21 2005 06:34 PM

---

Okay… unequivocally per the above 536-39 BC, can anyone offer the exact date and its substantiation --for the fall of Babylon? I’ve seen reasons why the fall should be any one of those four years I’ve provided…

Can anyone state to a certainty why we should add, subtract, or ignore a transitional year between the epochs BC and AD?

Those far and away years inherently bear a bit of uncertainty, do they not? I chide again... should the chronicles of Ezra be set forth as foundational to the setting of two very [most] important prophecies; when, in fact, Nehemiah more fittingly applies to one of those prophecies --both by solar reckoning as well that of a lunar reckoning?

I suppose that for the matter of infallibility, lately discussed upon this forum, it may behoove us to sometimes attempt the broader application than that of the absolutely finite. That said,

perhaps we ought also to recognize that much of what passes for doctrines have been and are -- a work in progress…

While living in the greater Los Angeles area (Santa Monica), I chanced upon an article in the Religion Section of the Los Angeles Times -- the week(end) prior to Yom Kippur Monday, 27 September ’82; (bear in mind that for memory lapse --I may be somewhat inexact).

The relevant point upon which the article turned was the gematriac (don’t y’all be getting excited ‘bout now, y’all been using gematria forever -- for purposes of divining 666) _400*, 300; 40; 3;_ = the year 5743 in the Hebrew calendar. The numbers are representative of letters in the Hebrew alphabet --forming an acronym which translates, paraphrastically, --“the year of Redemption (from exile)” or “the year of Moshiach/Messiah (whom we, the Jewish people, are**)”.

(*the hightest letter-to-numerical gematria value is 400; to denote 700, 400 and 300 are summed.)

** “These are the throes of Mother Zion which is in labor to bring forth the Messiah – without metaphor, the Jewish people.” [ed.] --Kethuboth 111a)

The substance of the LA Times article dwelt upon the significance of 5743, that is, as signifying Redemption/Messiah… meaning, according to the two rabbis interviewed, “that year, the Jews entered into their [Messianic] kingdom, as Moshiach/Messiah” -- our Gregorian AD 1982. They further expanded upon the theme of ‘exile and redemption’ of the Jewish people with what might be considered the foundational or relevant passages being Isaiah 43 with chapter 52 as prelude to chapter 53’s lament, that is, ‘the suffering servant’, that is, the singular pronoun national Jew.

“Judaism alone via its Jewish Religious Legal system and its qualified Rabbis will decide who Judaism's (and mankind's) King Messiah is and will be.” --Rabbi Moshe Yess

And contrastively...

there is that belief attributed to Maimonides, “…one day there will arise a dynamic Jewish leader (Melech Hamashiach, [the King Messiah]), a direct descendant of the Davidic dynasty, who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and gather Jews from all over the world and bring them back to the Land of Israel…

in the End of Days.” [/paraphrased]

Not “Revelation”—’tis—that waits,

But our unfurnished eyes—

--Emily Dickinson