Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Four, Part Two

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter four, part two

     So, we have discovered the basic state of play for mankind in the time of Jesus.  It was to this broken, fallen world that He came, draped in human flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.  He ministered to the Hebrews, to the tribes of Abraham, to the Great barge, because only they could
know who He was.  No one else would have understood His miracles, His sermons, His sacrifice.  Having ministered for three years, He established His church, and prepared her to got out into the rest of the world, to make disciples of all men, in preparation for the day when the rivers merge again.

     He explained by parable, that He wanted His hall filled, for the great day of His marriage, and that the disciples were to go and preach, ‘whosoever will’.  From Matthew 22:

Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with [e]dinner guests.

     This stands in stark contrast to the first journey on the Euphrates.  The requirements were harsh, terrifying and immutable.  There was no grey area for behavior under the Law.  This seemed like a bum deal to the Hebrews; after all, they bore the Torah through the desert, and suffered greatly for it.  We see the mind of Judah in the parable of the Prodigal: the older brother, the one who remained, was angry that the profligate was received.  And in the parable of the vineyard, those who worked all day were angry that the wage was the same for those who worked an hour.  To be honest, they kind of have a point.

     It seems grossly unfair that the gentiles would be treated as family by El Shaddai.  What was the point of separating out from the nations, if those nations are welcomed in anyway?  I sympathize with the Hebrews in this: like Jonah, I have to call BS on what must be called as such.  The Ninth commandment compels it.  I can understand the older brother: why did he remain and work, if the younger could party and come back like nothing happened?

     Well, as the story goes, the older brother, Judah, did not get shorted after all.  The Father comforts him, and says, clearly in Luke 15

29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never [k]neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your [l]wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you [m]have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

     Yahweh has never left Judah, not even in the worst of times.  He cannot, for Judah is His inheritance.  While the Gentiles were welcomed in, to be loved, restored, and uplifted, he has no portion on the farm.  It is, in fact, Judah’s farm.  Now, please pay close attention to the following words:

     This not about the love of God: this is about the proprietorship of the farm.  Jesus loves all mankind, no exceptions.  He paid for the sins of all people, no exceptions.  He sent His disciples to all the world, no exceptions. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is supernumerary to all barriers, all thoughts, all constructs of matter or will than do or can exist.  There is no power, in hard or limitless reality, that can interpose between the soul reaching to be saved, and mighty hand Yahweh to do so, as he attests in Isaiah 59. 

     That love belongs to all His progeny, no exceptions.  However, the administrative functions of the farm-those are not handed out to the wedding guests.  Those belong to Judah.  This will rankle a few people-and let me state that I am a gentile by birth-but the facts are intransigent.  The older brother has, as his portion, all the Father has.  This is established by the leadership team of the next reality, the final one, immortal, impervious to darkness.  Eternity is going to be run by thirteen Jewish men.  One Messiah, Yeshua, and His twelve friends, the Apostles.

    If you think that is incidental, try this.  Flip a coin thirteen times in a row, and try to get all heads.  Unless you have an Altered Carbon download, you will die of old age before that happens.  A permutation of 2 to the 13th power is pretty huge; it’s a series circuit that fails the first time you flip tails-and that just represents that they are are males.  That they are all Hebrew males-the chance of that event occurring is so  astronomical that I can’t calculate it.  It would be a theta value, which in Trigonometry is a number so small, it can be said to be 0, even though it is not.

     So let’s face the facts: Judah has not been subjected to ‘replacement theology’.  El may add to that number-after all, there were Ger who followed the Law, and were counted as native born, with an inheritance (ezek 47).  But Judah is given reign over the estate.  When all things come to an end, when the Millenium is over, and this world obliterated, the leadership team of New Jerusalem, which has a gate for each Tribe of Israel, will be Hebrews, and those who joined them on the Great Barge. 

     If this chaffs you, please remember that if you attending the wedding of the Lamb, you are not on fire.  That is a benny worth-well, anything.  If you are on fire, that is your job.  Not being on fire is an amazingly  good deal, especially when we earned it.  So, I am alright if I say ‘Sir’ to a Hebrew-considering that I could be saying “AHHHHHHHHH!” as I run around perpetually immolated.  Perspective, at times, is a virtue worth pursuing.

     This segue will lead us right to where Paul discusses the Jew and the Gentile, in Romans 3, where he explains that Hebrews have lost nothing.  Rather, the goyim have gained life, and the love of God, which can be spread around to as many as will receive them.  Now, we have returned to Romans 4 again, where the circumcised and uncircumcised children of Abraham are being brought in their vessels.  We will discuss the Kalak one more time, so that we can envision the day when all the vessels of faith join up in that happy armada, the Marriage of the Lamb.

Some Problems with the Brad Scott and Walid Shoebat Theories on the Number of the Beast

Notes: I can’t find this particular Brad Scott presentation online so I’m writing this from my memory of it. I want to acknowledge Richard Bartholomew and his post on a similar topic which was of great help to me: http://barthsnotes.com/2008/06/30/cufi-speaker-666-is-in-the-name-of-allah-2/
Brad Scott claimed that the Greek letter “Xi” looked like “in the name of Allah” or “bismallah” in Arabic. The first problem with this is that the Arabic is significantly longer. In modern script it is something like:
بسم الله
More often it is written with a long line in “in the name of” http://aboutislam.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RememberAllah-is-Most-Merciful.jpg
However, this is not how it was originally written. When you get into the relevant scripts (the earliest Qurans) the comparison is even harder to make. In the 8th century script you can see “Allah” الله the second word from the right below the orange line of Arabic text in the picture:
another version here:
As a side note you can see how the writing evolved by 1154 where “in the name of” is the word with a long line in it followed by the word “Allah” at the beginning of both covers/pages:
The Greek and Arabic comparison is further made different by the fact that the ancient Greek Xi looks very little like the script Brad Scott used. Here is a comparison someone made in their post (compare the three examples to the last inserted picture)
You can double check this in the image of the original Codex Sinacticus although it is hard to see: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=13&lid=en&side=r&verse=13&zoomSlider=0
This is partially because Greek was originally written in all capital letters (majuscule) and minuscule (lowercase) script only emerged in the 9th century but Brad Scott was using minuscule (lowercase) script for his comparison:
Lastly, what Brad Scott was actually doing was comparing later Greek lowercase script not to “in the name of Allah” but to “Allah,” (which looked like it was not in the original Arabic script of the Quran) الله
I’ve compared below “Allah” and lowercase “xi” in modern Greek. I don’t have the script that he got “Allah” from.
الله  ξ
In addition to what I already stated there is another problem here: “Allah” generically refers to “God” in Arabic and can be found as the name of God in Arabic Christian bibles. You can see it here as the fourth word in Genesis (from the right): http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?version=SVD&r=Genesis+1 This would label Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians together.
Brad Scott says he got this theory from Walid Shoebat but contrary to Brad Scott, Shoebat alleges that letters in Arabic were inserted in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and this is what scholars (mistakenly) read as “666”
In this video Walid Shoebat asserts that the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and “other codexes” don’t have the number 666 in Greek but instead just the three Greek letters (which he asserts are actually Arabic and an Islamic symbol). . . However, the Codex Sinaiticus has the numbers written out in Greek (not in the form of the three letters: chi, xi, and stigma) while Codex Vaticanus did not originally include The Book of Revelation which was added to it in the 15th century.
Here’s confirmation of this from Sinaicticus if you look at verse 13:18 (I don’t have a font for the ancient script so it is displayed in modern)
“εξακοϲιαι εξηκο τα εξʼ”
“The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the GospelsActs, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 and 2 TimothyTitusPhilemon and Revelation. These missing leaves were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (folios 760-768), they are catalogued separately as minuscule codex 1957″
Shoebat says he read the Codex Vaticanus and saw Arabic words (and an Islamic symbol) instead of Greek letters. However, the Greek script he saw is minuscule 15th century which does not represent how the original Greek would have looked in majuscule. Irenaeus wrote in the second century that the number was 666 (he alleged that 616 which is in the earliest documents we have was a scribal error) when they were still writing in capitals in Greek and this is before the manuscripts that Shoebat mentions: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm In fact I don’t believe there is an extant manuscript that predates Irenaeus’s assessment of the Greek characters being a number.
The 15th century addition (which shouldn’t be relevant) of the Codex Vaticanus contains this for the number of the beast:

of which Shoebat is trying to say the middle letter is this in Arabic:

pictures from here: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2009/12/04/on-remaining-sound-in-islamic-apologetics/

Abraham, river of faith: interlude on bifurcation

This is a short rest on our journey, a place to cool our heels. In the old West, cowpokes would use these reprieves to tell stories, and pass around some grub or coffee.  In keeping with the traditions of the land where men were free, I too want to spin a yarn-not a tall tale of epic daring-do, but, rather, about a thematic element in the writing of Yahweh.  This element is bifurcation.

Some will beef with me on this.  How can I, a mere man, critique the words of the Almighty God?  Well, I am made in His image, Regenerate in His royal blood-and I have a university education.  Image, by the way, should be rendered likeness, or similarity.  Yahweh doesn’t have a body-He is supernumerary to the conventions He created (time, space, matter).  Our likeness to Him is our reason (or wisdom, in Psalms 8).  His mind works like ours, because ours works like His.

His writing can be deconstructed, just like any literary form.  El has themes, a plot, symbolism, and a conflict.  He has styles which He favors, that flavor His work, like any human writer does.  Accordingly, we can examine one of His primary thematic elements, which is bifurcation, the splitting of something into two parts.  This works in tandem with His consistent use of the symbolism of two in His work.

From the beginning, Yah divides the universe.  He makes water and land; earth and heaven; sun and moon; and, when HE makes His children, He makes them ‘male and female’.  This particular bifurcation, along with providing fodder for most music and writing, is considered by some cultures to be the fundamental substance of existence itself (Yin and Yang, Shiva/Shakti).  This is a curious situation, since El reveals Himself in the masculine primarily.  There does not appear to be a feminine aspect of Elohim (a fact which the Babylonians derided, as their religion was based on gods and goddesses having sex).

The theme of two repeats itself throughout the Bible.  Proverbs are phrased in couplets, for instance.  Some of the major overtures of the Bible come from two brothers in conflict: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ismael, Jacob and Esau, and even Judah and Israel.  If we examine history, we can see that Jew and Greek are not just terms of Paul’s day, but, rather, represent the perpendicular patterns of life between the Hebrew pattern-superintendence- and the Greek, which is inquiry.  The latter would build civilization to answer the great questions, and the former would come from the wilderness to bring them the sacred scroll, Torah.

Paul refers to this continually in his missives.  As we saw in Romans, he discusses the two sons of Abraham: the Circumcised, and the Uncircumcised.  This pattern is consistent with flow of the Bible.  Although the Shmei tells us ‘El is one’, he often has two sons that He loves equally.  Even when He separates out the Hebrews, and the Prosyltos with them, to make Israel, He also provides hope that He will one day tear down the walls, and bring the Gentiles home to Him.

In the end, there is only one.  When all is settled, there will be divisions no more.  This is the power of a well written story: when the end almost entirely resembles the beginning.  The circle completed is a hallmark of masterful writing.  In the Bible, we see this.  All was one, then divisions occurred.  But when the final second of the clock of this reality is struck, we will reunite forever in El.

Now that we have chewed the fat, and sat a spell, I will pick up my tack and head back out on the range.  The theme of two will recur often in this work, so I wanted to hash out the details before we hit the trail.  Let us take our kalak, now, into the swift, roaring waters of the Tigris.  The Great barge is still rumbling along, chugging inexorably to the end.  Let us see, then, what the trip on the Tigris entails.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 3, Part 4

Now, let us turn to the narrative of the Scriptures on the the tribes of Israel.  The origin, the Exodus, immediately shows a faultline in the Hebrew peoples, that will manifest time and time again.  Stephen died pointing out this flaw: ‘you received the law as by Elohim, and you did not keep it.”  Without regard to the miracles done to show them that, as Yul Brenner said, ‘Moses’ God IS God’, they still ran the other way every chance they got.  It is irony of the first order that the Egyptians were willing, at the very last, to accept that this was so, and the People of Yah would reject it time and time again.

The first generation was condemned to die in the desert, because of their apostasy.  They were nearly obliterated from existence, by the wrath of Yahovah.  Only Moses saved the Godly line from ablution, a man who was a prince of Egypt, who murdered an overseer, and fled his country to the wilderness.  This man learned righteousness, and his character was testified to, not by men, but by El Himself.

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
“Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?  (num 12)

Yet the people did not.  Even as the Promised Land came into sight, the people were struck with terror, for the dreaded Annakim were amongst them.  Having forgot that El cowed the army of Pharoah, an army that won a pyrrhic victory against the mighty Hittites, and drowned that army, they still feared the giants.  It was the courage of Joshua, for whom Jesus was named (Yahoshua, God saves His people) that led them forward, in the promise of El for the land.  Yet it was not long before the troubles came.

Aachan scarred the victory at Jericho, causing the Holy Camp to obliterate him, and his family.  This would scar most people, watching the children die with him, as rocks cascaded over their frames, until at last, the stony rain washed away the last of their vitae, whose remains were then purged by holy fire.  Then, for  a time, things ran well. Joshua oversaw what seemed to be the Promise that they had been given, of a land of milk and honey.  This, unfortunately, was the calm before the storm.

In the accounts of Judges, we see the development of a dreaded cycle: Israel chases after other gods, is chastised by El through the scourge of the Nations, and then when they have been purified by anguish, they are delivered back to the Land.  There,  they promptly abandoned their vows to be holy, and went into ‘rinse and repeat’ mode.  Time  and time again, they put of the Asherahs, the Baals, Chemosh-then were punished for it, and thence delivered again.  It became a vaudeville, like the old Benny Hill show, where the whole world ends up chasing him to the burlesque music, but he ends up back home, safe.  On next weeks show, you know it will happen again; after a while, you get to expect it.

Finally, a Judge named Samson ends the parody-with the greatest life that was ever lived.  Samson was not the holy men of the past; he was a drunken fornicator, who had some character flaws (animal cruelty, and excessive egotism).  He also killed-not murdered- tons of people, which leaves some people in an ethical quandary, since these homicides occurred under the auspices of the holy Spirit.  Eventually, he committed suicide, to escape his nagging broad.  But even as death came for him, ‘them which he killed in his death, were more than those killed in his life’.

Then comes Samuel, who watched as Israel divorced Yahweh, to have a King like the nations around them.  They clamored for political power and intrigue, and they got it in spades.  The first king turned against El, and tried to murder his successor.  Then the righteous David murdered his loyal friend Uriah out of covetousness.  His son Solomon brought idolatry back to Israel, where it was consistently a problem until the Assyrians and Babylonians resolved it for them.

When the Hebrews got back to the land, they revolted against the Seluccid Greek rulers, were free a while, and then got a sweetheart deal with Marc Anthony that irritated Rome until they diaspora.  It was this special status, against bowing before the Paterfamilias, that the Pharisees and rulers wished to protect in the time of Jesus.  The men responsible to bless the one comes in the name of El instead wanted Him gone, to protect their privilege in the kingdom of the Gentiles (note: this is not Jew blaming, it is Sanhedren blaming).

This is how the journey progressed.  Though the Law was given as by Elohim, a Law declared not be beyond reach (deut 30), a Law that revealed the light of God, the chosen people not only did not keep it-they did not want it.  Yahovah called Israel His bride; and like most spoiled women, she only wanted what she didn’t, or couldn’t have.  Like Aphrodite in Baron Munchausen, as many diamonds as Vulcan fused from his bare hands, the same were tossed over her shoulder as she complained ‘ANOTHER diamond’.

Finally, the Temple is smashed by the Romans, the Hebrews scattered, and the veil torn by Christ, ending the priesthood of Aaron.  It would seem, then, that the river had dried up, the journey ended.  But the Euphrates is the Great River; it is history.  It has one final appearance to make, in the end of days, when the run of the Tigris is complete.  No, the Euphrates was not ended, or abolished.  It was suppressed, as per Eph 2:15; Paul uses the word Katagero there, to explain that the dividing wall was pushed down, deflated, so that those who were far could be brought near.  This was to bring in Abraham’s other children, those of the Uncircumcision, whose river we will now explore.