Mac's reply:

I just finished the material posted here on the forum, my thanks for that. I agree with the rejection of the dual nature theanthropos shiboleth. I also can give a hearty awmein to the drift (romish conquering) from the good enuff Apostolic creed to the hideous Athanasian abomination. For which Moishe Rosen told me I would personally go to heel for objecting to =:0 . But it still seems awefully strained to me that the rest of it is justified by the reasons given so far. The same outcome is arrived at through the systematic approach given above. Some points of divergence;

1. Sin = ovum....I think the blood being determined and contributed paternally dissolves this idea. Torah says the soul that sins is responsible, this is in the plasma donated by the Father. Nowhere does it talk about a mother's sins being passed on in vitro.

2. In pt 3 Ob #1 due to the illusory nature of "flesh" there is no need or importance in supplying "flesh" from heaven, a rather contradictory concept actually.

3. pt 3 Ob 2 Like 1 this seems influenced by a materialistic view of things heavenly, which again seems to be at odds with basic concepts in Torah.

4. pt 3 Ob 3 Sprang/through seems to need more study, But if this holds up WW will have a foundation as more than revelation, but as a sound doctrine not of private interpretation.

5. pt 3 Ob 4 Seems to blur the issues about soul/blood with matter as a "dusty" issue.

6. pt 3 Ob 5 Zech chp 3 comes to mind where the dusty soul of the High Priest does stand in for us n the heavenlies.

7. pt 3 Ob 6 Fuzzy on Y'shua as "human" being a false and wicked doctrine, unclear on how one kills the flesh of Yhwh, this is a big problem created by WW for me.

8. pt 3 Ob 7 Here one of the greek ideas from the Athanasian creed actually gets legs and WW doc says Ruach Hakodesh is "he" this is another problem created. Again there is a gap between what WW sees as Human ( even using an egg, which is an issue not really even touched so far as it must be, maybe in the book?).

9. pt 3 Ob 8 Here's where it gets woolly dragging in planets and laying the gauntlet down to those not "receiving" this revelation. I think anyone worth their salt would have a tough time fellowshipping where they are considered as a pagan for this. There have been similar challenges on the no moon doctrine and lately of polygamy being described as a higher marriage situation than monogamy. This kind of thing is very exclusionary and doesn't refine imho but simply isolates in a way not intended.

10. pt 3 Ob 9 "seed isn't seed" this line of reasoning, like #4 above is going to require careful exegesis, maybe no one has ever noticed before but it would be a very high level of certainty required to establish this against the normative geneological understandings.

11. pt 3 Ob 10, not many people know much about gnosticism(s), the fact that they throw it around usually is all that is needed to demonstrate their ignorance of the facts, so who cares what they say? The real issue is what is a woman's egg that makes it unfit for use here? I still don't see the necessity to have Yhwh using a new heavenly Creation of matter here, it seems to create many more issues than it proposes to solve.

Pt 2 , The normative concept is that we all DID exist in the loins of the patriarchs and hence are actually their children albeit through generations as I understand the hebraic concept. This WW idea seems to present a "glorified" body before the resurrection, again is there a real necessity or a thereotical one?

Then we are presented with Shem as Malki Tzedek, not on board with this idea, settled it quite some time ago.

Anyway, if anyone cares that's just one galut opinion. Will study more and maybe write more later.

My reply:

1. Parthenogenesis is not something hard to understand - YHWH created it in the natural world in some species - it is a straightforward comprehensible genetic sequence - so I actually have no problem with the idea of YHWH intervening with Mary/Miriam to have her produce as a virgin;

2. I'll read whatever Bible translations I please, KJV and all - I use about 30 versions, including the RSTNE and won't be brow-beaten into limiting myself to one. Do you know of any perfect translation? I don't - unless we have now joined the Onlyites and evolved from KJV-Only to RSTNE-Only? I hope not. I know I haven't.


Rabbi Simon Altaf said:
Lev,

Some things cannot be reasoned with. So now you are telling me that you will reaason with a virgin having a child? It is all about faith not reason. And stop reading the king jimmy bible. Get the one that has the correct verses.

Shalom brother

Simon

My reply:

Lots of interesting observations here, Mac, some of which I had noted but haven't articulated as well yet.

1. Sin = ovum....I think the blood being determined and contributed paternally dissolves this idea. Torah says the soul that sins is responsible, this is in the plasma donated by the Father. Nowhere does it talk about a mother's sins being passed on in vitro.

Do we know which chromosomes the blood genes reside on? If what you say is true (and I am not saying it is at this stage) then the "sin" problem is somehow connected to the Y-chromosome. (I don't even know if we have any DNA in the resurrection since no one knows what a resurrected body looks like or what it's anatomy and biochemical composition {if any} is).

I think what has bothered me is the fact that three (maybe even four) kinds of flesh are intimated in the WW doctrine - mortal human, mortal Elohim (sic.?), resurrected human and resurrected Elohim (sic.?). WW makes things unnecessarily complicated.

There is a crying need in the WW doctrine for a clarification of what material flesh and spirit/ruach are.

Avah's reply:

Ok, call me stupid, but from what I have read, this is what I am understanding.

Basically Yahweh created this "holy" wet suit if you will, made of heavenly matter and when the time was right, He sent forth His word into this heavenly cloak and it came to life, being born in Mary. ???????

I have NO desire to debate and frankly it's over my head, lol, but I gotta say, I don't view Yah'shua as some heavenly container, but that doesn't make me a pagan.

Dallas comments:

I wholeheartedly agree with you brother. Scripture states that from the "seed of the woman".
Y'shua was Son of Man (humanity) as well as Son of G-d. It seems to me that if He was not man then how could He die for all men.

Sam replies:

Shalom Dallas,

If what you are saying is correct then Yahweh would be contradicting His own Word as Yahweh forbids any sacrifice of Human Flesh/beings.

Deutoronomy 12:31-32

31 You shall not do so to Yahweh your Elohim: for every abomination to Yahweh, that He hates, have they done to their elohim; for even their sons and their daughters they have burned in the fire to their elohim.

32 Whatever I am commanding you, shomer to do it: you shall not add to it, nor take away from it.

Deutoronomy 18:10

10 There shall not be found among you anyone that makes his son, or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that uses divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

2 Kings 16:3

3 But he had his halacha in the derech of the melechim of Yisrael, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Yisrael.

Jeremiah 32:35

35 And they built the high places of Ba’al, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech; which I commanded them not to do, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Yahudah to sin.

Sacrifice of Human Flesh is forbidden in Torah, and thus the reason why Yahweh did not allow Avraham to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac and provided a ram for Him again Yahweh clearly states NO HUMAN SACRIFICE.

As far as your comment on the seed of the women:

Objection- Genesis/Beresheeth 3:15 states that the “seed of the woman” will crush the head of the serpent, or s.a.tan. How then is Yahshua not partly human, as here He is clearly seen as the “seed” of Mary prophetically speaking.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your zera and her Zera [seed]; He shall crush your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

Response-The term zera/seed here as elsewhere can mean offspring, or descendants, or lineage. In this case of the first messianic prophecy, this is clearly the case.

YHWH speaks to s.a.tan and thus is also telling the woman Chavah/Eve who is also present, that someone from her lineage will be the Anointed One and will destroy the works and the death grip that s.a.tan has on the human race.

To claim that this is the literal and immediate seed of Chavah would require that she herself be the mother of the Messiah, which she wasn’t.

She also was not a virgin as required in Isaiah 7:14. So this anointed destroyer of s.a.tan’s head, or authority over humanity, will be a descendant of Eve and later of the patriarchs of Israel and ultimately David.

This verse does not say, or even imply what many TRY to read into the text. Many have and continue to see this as a literal “seed of a/the woman” as opposed to the seed of a man.

In order for it to be literal, Mary/Miriam’s egg would have to be used by somehow becoming a sperm.

We know that in our human race, the egg is never considered the seed. Now if it is Mary’s egg being referred to here, we have another problem. YHWH allegedly promises to turn her egg into a sperm. Even if that was possible; it would still remain tainted by original sin. See Iyov/Job 14:5.

The only way this prophecy can be taken as a literal seed is if YHWH turned Mary’s egg into a seed/sperm, or if Messiah Yahshua’s mother was Eve.

We know that neither of these cases are true, or accurate.

Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that this SEED speaks not of Eve’s, or even Mary’s baby, but of a future descendant per say, an offspring, that will VISIT the human race as a descendant of Eve herself,
even though the flood would come in the days of Noach/Noah.

The term “seed of the woman,” can be seen in the exact same context of Galutyah/Galatians 3:28-29, where Rabbi Paul speaks of ALL born again, Torah honoring believers calling them ABRAHAM’S “seed.” Are you and I literally Abraham’s seed, meaning is Abraham, our actual biological father and Sarah our biological mother, with our home in Mesopotamia?

Galutyah/Galatians 3: 29 And if you are Moshiach’s, then are you Avraham’s zera, and heirs according to the promise.

NO. He is the father of the entire Yisraelite nation, but he did not personally father us. Yet we are collectively Abraham’s seed by faith in Moshiach Yahshua. Same in Beresheeth/Genesis 3:15. Yahshua is NOT Eve’s biological son as was Seth.

Therefore the seed in this prophecy is simply another term for a future descendant, the anointed King
Messiah.

Shalom

Rabbi Schmuel

Mac replies:

Rav Sam, Shalom
Issue #1
If what you are saying is correct then Yahweh would be contradicting His own Word as Yahweh forbids any sacrifice of Human Flesh/beings.
Sacrifice of Human Flesh is forbidden in Torah, and thus the reason why Yahweh did not allow Avraham to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac and provided a ram for Him again Yahweh clearly states NO HUMAN SACRIFICE.
Right, except this was not a sacrifice as we have ALL read, Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Clearly the object of a sacrifice does not control the matter, this was no sacrifice under the system of blood from bulls and goats rather, that system was under the Word, The Word being made flesh gave us a gift. He laid down His own life willingly as was the intention from the foundation of the world. So, there was no human sacrifice at all, this is the proof of the pattern that we must embrace. A sacrifice costs US something, this is a free gift.

Issue#2

YHWH speaks to s.a.tan and thus is also telling the woman Chavah/Eve who is also present, that someone from her lineage will be the Anointed One and will destroy the works and the death grip that s.a.tan has on the human race.
But the point you want to make here is that Y'shua is NOT of her "lineage" you can't have it both ways. This whole assertion seems to be straining exegesis well past the point of credulity, as you find yourself contradicting the meanings assigned in an attempt to make this whole thing "work out".

To claim that this is the literal and immediate seed of Chavah would require that she herself be the mother of the Messiah, which she wasn’t.
this is immaterial, Never have I heard of anyone taking this literally, it is simply the best choice of words to express a very novel event in a very primitive language.

In order for it to be literal, Mary/Miriam’s egg would have to be used by somehow becoming a sperm.

We know that in our human race, the egg is never considered the seed. Now if it is Mary’s egg being referred to here, we have another problem. YHWH allegedly promises to turn her egg into a sperm. Even if that was possible; it would still remain tainted by original sin. See Iyov/Job 14:5.
Here you almost get why this new idea doesn't work. First of all, the original sin idea contains the solution to what you are trying to recreate with ww, This is where it's a little confusing because the ww doctrine denies this if I remember correctly. The idea that the primitive hebrew ( a lost language btw) has these ideas you insert into the discussion is not supported by the experts in biblical Hebrew. This unnecessary canard of egg must become sperma is without any merit at all. You just argued the otherside above, claiming it was all about lineage. Friend, when this kind of thing happens it can only mean one thing, that we have been charging too hard at these windmills. Here where the text clearly is talking about lineage you want to make about biology, yet when it's inconveniant to think of these things as inherited matters they are dismissed as allegory. I simply can't comprehend why such a simple matter is to be rendered almost unintelligible by this new revelation. Better to let it go, because the next step brings in dozens of prophecies which will get extremely problematic

Sam replies:

Mac Said:

Right, except this was not a sacrifice as we have ALL read, Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Correction:

1Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even the Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us:


Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Clearly the object of a sacrifice does not control the matter, this was no sacrifice under the system of blood from bulls and goats rather, that system was under the Word, The Word being made flesh gave us a gift. He laid down His own life willingly as was the intention from the foundation of the world. So, there was no human sacrifice at all, this is the proof of the pattern that we must embrace. A sacrifice costs US something, this is a free gift.

Correct: that is because Yahshua's blood was not that from Mariam or Yoseph but His own blood prepared for by Abba Yahweh without any Human pollution in it.

Romans 3:23-25

3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of ;

3:24 Being justified freely by his favour through the redemption that is in Messiah :

3:25 Whom hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of ;

Through Moshiach's blood which was pure undefiled blood because it was the blood that Yahweh prepared without any human matter meaning that Yahshua if He got His blood from any human source would make Him a sinner also, so therefore Yahshua had to have a 100% pure blood in order to make atonmemnt for our sins etc.

Issue#2

YHWH speaks to s.a.tan and thus is also telling the woman Chavah/Eve who is also present, that someone from her lineage will be the Anointed One and will destroy the works and the death grip that s.a.tan has on the human race.
But the point you want to make here is that Y'shua is NOT of her "lineage" you can't have it both ways. This whole assertion seems to be straining exegesis well past the point of credulity, as you find yourself contradicting the meanings assigned in an attempt to make this whole thing "work out".

Rabbi Schmuel's Reply:

Mac this is clearly a prophecy concerning the Messiah, not the fact that Chavah was His actual Mother, that is like saying that Yahshua is the Son of Dawid, we know that He is not Dawids actual son as was Solomon etc, but a description of His lineage etc.

The fact is that Yahweh had to put Yahshua through a human lineage in order for Him to fulfill Yahweh's plan, man was blinded to His identity and even thought Yahshua was Josephs actual son.

Luke 3:23 And himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Luke 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

Shalom Mac






Mac said:
Rav Sam, Shalom
Issue #1
If what you are saying is correct then Yahweh would be contradicting His own Word as Yahweh forbids any sacrifice of Human Flesh/

Bruno replies:

Dear Brother Mac,
You're usually spot on in most matters... and I usually learn something from your wealth of info & knowledge on many subjects. HOWEVER, I'm afraid that this time you are "fighting a losing battle"
Rav Samuel, IMO, is absolutely 100% correct and backs it up with Torah!!

It is clear that Yahshua was the bread from Heaven as it says in Yochanan 6:33 "For the bread of Elohim is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."
Abba YHWH prepared a body for Him (Hebrews 10) and although Adam was created from the dust of the earth, Yahshua was clearly not!

See 1 Corinthians 15:47 "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Master Yahweh from heaven."

One can try to explain it away with science and human logic, but if you believe in YHWH's word, then there's really no argument at all.


Bruno

Mac's reply:

It's one thing to drag scripture for word searches and another to apply them in context. Look at R Schmuel's 1st response as he drifts away from the issue of human sacrifice (we all agree no human offered it and no human was sacrificed) to asserting that Y'shua is inferred as our sacrifice ( check the strong's that's what it says "inferred"). Fine, but the connection to humanity is missing, where is the bone of heaven? Instead we find a divine "wet suit" where scripture fails to comment on the lack of a belly button since Y'shua neither had an umbelical cord, benefitted from a placenta or even amniotic fluid. Ignoring the fact that we've already shown that merely lacking a human father obviates the "original sin" problem as demonstrated, why the hoax of having Miriam give birth at all? Where is the connection with His creation?
Hbr 13:20 Now the Elohim of peace, that brought again from the dead our Master Y'shua, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant
What blood? What covenant? Everything is up for grabs now that a separate creation as a wet suit for the Creator enters the picture. How did the Kittim kill this vessel without sin, could it be possible divine flesh (sic) could suffer?
1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.
The necessity of this deception of going "through" Mary, Abrham, David etc is unnecessary, why not just have Mary find Him floating in a basket in the Yarden? Setting up straw men in the form of Chavah needing to give birth, no physical descendancy, no conception, somehow if these were true it would be a human sacrifice etc, yet everyone up until now who has read those passages understood this verses to mean just exactly that it is not some separate specialized wet suit created for the purpose. Indeed the only thing seen created for the purpose is the doctrine.
The metaphor of bread of heaven ( no one actually noshed on Y'shua) can hardly be called on as a proof text anymore than other idioms. All of this because some medieval theologian confused the dual nature of redeemed man with Messiah? Because modern Judaism (reform) claims (but fails to deliver) a "monotheistic Elohim"? Certainly Yhwh could do this if He chooses, no question. The question arises when we compare the notion with scripture, flinging around a few metaphors and redefining seed, lineage and descendancey to fit the desired context isn't going to cut the mustard. The very fact that this new suit resembling man died tells us He had to eat, breathe etc just as we do...why? It's inconsistent with the proposed model of an impermeable membrane for in place of an amniotic sack. What meaning does the "through" aspect extract from scripture if there is nothing in common with what scripture tells us is His true "body" which is the body of believers? Why is there no answer to the fact of the scriptures clear obliteration of materialistic models, yet here we have just such a justification proposed for WW? This is the context of Torah, not superflous metaphor or idioms, but the foundational images translated from the language of the branches.

Response to the abject lack of a materialistic basis to justify the WW is a necessary proof of required by Torah, there is no way around it. Otherwise, it is less persuasive than what I would propose as the Whole Cloth doctrine. Since you haven't read the book, I will be happy to explain if more is needed. In a nutshell, since scripture says we are but vapors ( recognizing the truly illusory form of matter) the WW is not needed, but rather the reverse. The same illusory, holographical nature of matter in and of itself solves the supposed theological problems of dual nature proposed by the medieval materialists. Everything, and that means EVERYTHING points to faith and spirituality to the souls clothed in the vessels taking the form of matter, bu

cont'd well I have only a few minutes and reconstructing the end lost of the last post is impossible now. But consider this Kingdom Key principle that denies WW blood and flesh is our key to salvation but: Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim.
Mat 16:17 And Y'shua answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for FLESH and BLOOD hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.... This is the work of the Ruach which the context of Torah makes clear, it is in fact the basis for the very language of the branches which is the foundation of the Torah. This is also why blasphemy against Ruach HaKodesh may not be forgiven, this is about Ruach, not basar or dam. It is Ruach Hakodesh that awakens the basar to elevate nefesh to the neshama level where adhesion occurs and we become the body of Y'shua, new lumps if you will.


Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Messiah.....why? because they have to spiritually apprehend this truth, this isn't head knowledge doctrine. shalom

Bruno's reply:

Lev, you said... "Yah'shua came down from Heaven (His point of origin) and He is still coming down from heaven. You imply that this manna was (as Avah put it) a single-issue "heavenly wetsuit" - sent down from heaven once (as WW teaches), off the heavenly shelf of the heavenly storehouse, making it a once-only manna event, which clearly it wasn't."

Was the "sacrifice" of Yahshua a one-time event, or is he continually being "sacrificed"??

What are your thoughts??

My reply:

I wasn't referring to His sacrificial offering but to Him being a constantly available supply of heavenly bread/manna. I do not accept the RC doctrine.