xjwsforChrist

AGUEST SAID


To the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace!

A recent discussion with a dear one reminded me that perhaps there are those among us who believe our eating from Christ, the Tree of Life, is solely an annual event, to be observed only within solemn assembly. Is that truly the case, though? I could post a long treatise on the history of the Jews, early Christians, the Passover celebration, what it was, what it became, when, etc., but there really is a simpler way to reason this out. And that is:

Per our Lord, we are to ask God to "give our 'bread' for the day." What "bread", though, would that be? Bread for our flesh? But did our Lord not say that we are not to worry about what we are to eat... because the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies "already knows" what we need [in that regard]? So why ask for something JAH already knows we need? We don't need to.

What, then, was Christ referring to? He was referring to himself, the "bread from heaven", the "manna" that his flesh is. Christ's sacrifice, dear ones, is the "daily/constant feature" that ratifies the "holy covenant" (Daniel 8:9-25; Daniel 11:20, 28-39)... and thus his flesh our daily "bread". How so? Well, how often did Israel have to eat the manna while in the wilderness? Once a year? Once a month? A week? Or... every day? And was it not this manna... and water from the rock-mass... that "preserved them alive?

As Paul (?) wrote:

"Now I do not want ​YOU​ to be ignorant, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock‐mass that followed them, and that rock‐mass meant the Christ. Nevertheless, on most of them God did not express his approval, for they were laid low in the wilderness." 1 Corinthians 10:1-5

Christ is recorded to have said we are to keep doing this "in remembrance of [him]." How often, though, do we want to "remember" him and his sacrifice? Once a year? Once a month? A week? Or... every day?

The "leaves" of the Tree of Life... the flesh of Christ, who is that Tree... is for our CURING. To undo the death-dealing "bite" of "poisonous vipers" by which we have ALL been "bitten", Israel AND the nations (Numbers 21:7-9; John 3:14-16)! As with Israel and the copper serpent lifted up for THEM in the wilderness at Sinai, WE cannot take OUR gaze the One lifted up for US. Yet, if we "gaze" upon him only once per year... what can/is our gaze [be] on the other 364-5 days?

If, however, we keep partake of him DAILY... then we are more likely to keep him before us... and our gaze on HIM... as a daily/constant feature. So that even if our flesh dies... we have done so for the preserving alive of our SPIRITS.

Yes, we can and should gather at least once per year to observe the "Passover" with our fellow Body members, with him as our "Passover Lamb"; however, if we are to preserve our spirits alive... then just as Israel did for 40 years while wandering in the wilderness at Sinai, yet, neither they, their clothes, or their shoes wore out during that time... how much more should WE partake of the "manna from heaven" DAILY... while we "wander" in the "wilderness" before US... while waiting to "cross over" into the PROMISED "land" being prepared for us?

May those who wish it be given ears to hear and get the sense of this truth. May they also hear, when the Spirit and the Bride says to THEM:

"Come! Take 'life's water'... holy spirit, the blood of God as dispensed by His Chosen King and Holy One, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... from out of whose innermost parts such "streams of LIVING water" flow... FREE!"

Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with... and a slave of Christ,

MEDEWTYSENU SAID

Since I am currently ministering to the Homeless (I being homeless myself) this isn't an option for me right now as no alcoholic beverages (open or not) are allowed in the mission, nor are you allowed in my area to carry around open bottles of any type of alcohol. Since I am also unemployed I cannot buy any wine or bake any unleavened bread.

I'm sure Yahveh understands my predicament and doesn't hold it against me but a solution would be nice.

Also I have to be careful with any type of alcohol (were I able to obtain it) as partaking of it outdoors is against the law in my area. I also cannot drink it inside the mission because there exists an Alcohol/Drug rehab facility in this mission so I'm at a loss as to how I might be able to do this at all, nuch less on a daily basis.

Thoughts? Ideas?
_________________
"Those that matter don't mind and those that mind don't matter"--Dr. Seuss

SABASTIOUS SAID

What do you think about the Mormon's alteration by switching the wine with water?

-Sab

AGUEST SAID

That's a great question, dear Sab... and I am truly sorry about your plight, dear MS (the greatest of love and peace to you, both; dear MS, please check your PMs).

You can use water... or juice... or whatever you have, in the spirit of David and his men eating the showbread. The issue is not what one uses to "remember" Christ, but that one "keep[s] on" remembering him. He knows what you INTEND. Remember... HE... turned water into wine for a wedding party. Could he not do so for you... count the water you use AS wine, if not changing it for you literally?

Our Lord is not as "exacting" as many make him out to be, dear MS, not at all. God is MERCIFUL - imagine, if you will, then, Him saying, "Oh, no, MS, your 'sacrifice' wasn't acceptable because you used water instead of wine; no, it MUST be wine!" Wouldn't happen, dear one. He will instead greatly appreciate your EFFORT... and your FAITH.

Also, if you just can't wrap your head (and heart) around this truth, yet, please know that any "product of the vine" is acceptable. Including grape juice (which is actually "new" wine)... which you CAN drink in public parks, at missions, etc.

You are in my prayers.

Again, peace to you, both!
_________________
Paz a todos!

Su sirviente, compañera de estudios, y un esclava de Cristo,

SA

SABASTIOUS SAID




While I do understand your point, what about Genesis 4? Didn't God ignore the offering of Cain in part because it was NOT the correct offering? I always got the feeling like Cain felt his offering was superior than that of Abel's which explains his emotional devastation. Like approaching your father with a bright idea and getting shut down. In the case of Mormonism they likely altered the sacrament recorded in the Bible because of the words and alleged Scripture of Joseph Smith. He commanded the Mormons to abstain from all alcohol. It could be said, then, that the Mormon's intentions are to follow the words of Joseph Smith OVER the words recorded in the original Gospels. However the account of the bread and the wine is pivotal to the stories and are the climax of a well defined theme.

I understand how one could make a personal choice to use water instead of wine, but what about calling such an official policy and enforcing it upon a populace? What if a Mormon wants to drink wine instead of water because of the account recorded in the Gospels? They would be excommunicated for such an action which doesn't seem very Christ-like to me. It sounds like they are following a man.

-Sab

AGUEST SAID



Not sure where you received that understanding, dear one (the greatest of love and peace to you!) and unfortunately I no longer remember all that the WTBTS falsely teaches. It had nothing to do with being the "correct" [kind of] offering, though - Cain was a cultivator of the land. JAH, too, is a cultivator, as well (Genesis 2:8, 9; John 15:1, so He surely couldn't have had a problem with the KIND of offering. Indeed, the Law made provision for harvest/produce offerings as well as animals offerings so for Him to have a problem with Cain's offering KIND... makes no sense.

So, okay, what WAS it about? It was about CAIN... and HIS... mmmmm... "condition" WHILE offering it: HE was not clean on the inside. So how could his offering be "acceptable"? If he was unclean, then his offering was unclean... and an unclean offering is unacceptable, right? (Genesis 4:5). But JAH tried to warn him about that and actually gave him the opportunity to FIX it:

"JaHVeH said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?” Genesis 4:6, 7 [/b]

Cain's murder of his brother wasn't something that came up in an instant, dear one, but was borne of something that was already IN him:

"When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death." James 1:13-15

Had he had the law written on his heart (as Abel apparently did!), then he would have known to make peace with Abel. He would have heard JAH's words... through Christ (yes, back at that time)... as recorded at Matthew 5:21-24:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother without cause will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be subject to the assembly. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift"

Because that's what the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, was pretty much telling him to do - "Get a GRIP on your anger... and try to make it right with your brother... before you do something stupid... and lose your life!" The account shows us, however, that Cain disregarded that very good advice. Unfortunately. For Abel AND him.



Again, dear one... it does not have be wine as WE know wine. What many overlook is that, as with say, cider, too much can get one drunk. Surely, we've all seen videos of bears and birds "drunk" after consuming berries. It's the same with grapes - back then the product of the vine was the beverage of choice (understandably, given the condition of water and no real "treatment" for contamination). So, one could drink a LOT of grape juice (which, again, many did)... or grape juice that had naturally fermented. In either case, one drank wine: either "new" wine (grape juice) or not so "new." Regardless, our Lord drank wine. John the Baptizer did not. Yet, whose Nazirite "vow" was worth the most?



None of the Body can put another "under law", dear one, nor are we to be masters over anyone else's faith... or conscience. If we refrain from "remembering" our Lord, however, because we have no wine and fear him to be SO exacting that he would take issue... then we don't know him... and we miss the point of the man who hid his one "talent."

Quote:
What if a Mormon wants to drink wine instead of water because of the account recorded in the Gospels?


Then he should follow his conscience... as well as the voice of the Master... rather than the consciences... and voices... of men.



And yet, Christ is recorded to have said that those who belong to him WOULD be "expelled from [their] synagogues, right? So, what is it to US that we are... because of following the Lamb? If we are persecuted for HIS sake... aren't we among those deemed "happy"? (Matthew 5:10, 11)



Does, doesn't it? Wonder that... I mean, aren't MOST who claim to follow the Lamb actually following some man or men?

God and Christ don't want sacrifice, dear one; they want us to LISTEN... and OBEY. If, then, Christ, said to "Keep doing this"... then we should keep doing it. Right? And if we have "turn water into wine" even in our own hearts... what's the big deal? It is what we perceive it to be for such purpose!

I hope this helps, dear one, and again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

SABASTIOUS SAID



This following is just my conjecture on Genesis 4: The difference between Cain and Abel's offering could show Cain as sympathetic to the life taken by a blood sacrifice. That's the way I see Cain's offering as an attempt to challenge the morality of God.


6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”


God was showing Cain that he had no reason to be angry. Why did he have an emotional reaction? God didn't ridicule the offering, he merely gave it no praise. Which could be what Cain was aiming for. "See? Now you don't have to kill animals! Happy days!" But he would be missing the point of blood sacrifice in the first place. Why do we have to kill to survive? Why do we have to kill to worship God? Such would be a question that doesn't have a readily available answer. Where the wise man succeeds the youth will folly. Cain was full of youthful vigor and was pushing past the ebb and flow of nature which is a gradual process (think of how loooong trees take to grow!). Just because something appears to be a solution in the short term (less animal death) can be catastrophic for the long term (societal loss of the reverence of life). Which is what God foretold for Cain and his offspring if he held onto that anger. The killing of his brother was another rash and youthful act which is how he showed God the choice was made. By killing a brother instead of a animal. This showed the sacrifice Cain was willing to make for HIS value system, which he believed surpassed God.



Yes, and Christ said in Revelation that victory must be attained. What victory can be had when bouncing off the rocks bellow the fortress you were exiled from? Death in the name of the One True God? Of course, that is always the last option on the table, but what of the one's in-between?


Again, what victory does he speak of?


Yes, but who was JS following? Before he died he cried out to "My Lord, my God", not Heavenly Father, as I have heard the Mormons call their God. Likewise, Charles Russell upon his "crisis of conscience" from the Presbyterian Church did not pray to any particular named god, but addressed him by Title only. My question is who are these men following? Are they good or bad or did they just contribute to both sides? As I study them I find highly flawed, but highly faithful and often heroic men. I cannot help but admire their passion, but as we know their movements didn't entirely turn out alright, if you know what I mean.

-Sab

AGUEST SAID



Why, though, would we need to rely upon conjecture... when we can simply ask and receive the truth from the Truth, dear Sab (peace to you, dear one!)? I mean, isn't conjecture one of the reasons so many are confused about what the Bible says/means... how God is portrayed in contrast to Christ, etc.? I guess we COULD "guess" at these things... but why do so if we don't have to?



Could.... but then that would mean Cain was in opposition to something God wanted from him. But that was not what the Most Holy One of Israel responded to, is it? Wasn't it as to what was going on "in" Cain, his anger? What was Cain angry ABOUT? That Abel was sacrificing animals? Why not just ask him to stop... rather than lure him into a field and kill him?



Yes...

.


Well, now, the account does state that God not only didn't look on Cains' offering with favor, but didn't look on Cain himself with favor. Because Cain was offering produce instead of animals? Wouldn't that have come up at, say, the very first offering, though? Why let Cain make offerings and then one day have a problem with it?
Quote:

Which could be what Cain was aiming for. "See? Now you don't have to kill animals! Happy days!" But he would be missing the point of blood sacrifice in the first place. Why do we have to kill to survive? Why do we have to kill to worship God? Such would be a question that doesn't have a readily available answer.


But Cain could have simply asked that question at the start, could he not? In the manner of Abraham as to Sodom, Moses as to Israel, etc.? What did their survival have to do with it? And why wouldn't there have been an answer? The Most Holy One of Israel couldn't explain His requirement (if, indeed, it was His requirement - Psalm 40:6). If it was, was it perhaps a way to atone for the many lives that Adham had sold to death... without actually killing a person?



Interesting take. I am not sure that was the problem, though...



Now, see, I would see just the opposite: the more animal death, the less greater loss of reverence for life... because rather than being the exception, such death becomes common place, even the rule. Which is exactly why reverence for death was lost upon Israel... and many in today's society. Death/killing is more common than it's ever been and so no longer such a big deal. Just my take, though...

Quote:
Which is what God foretold for Cain and his offspring if he held onto that anger.


Now, I'm sorry, but I didn't see that in the account nor have I heard that from my Lord. To the contrary, Cain (and thus his offspring) was actually protected from harm...


So, Cain believed he had MORE value for life than God... and showed this by killing his brother... rather than an animal? Which means (to me) that Cain had less regard for his own flesh than for an animal but thought that his values in this surpassed God's (which required that Cain give HIS life for the one he took... but for which God showed HIM more mercy... than he showed his own brother)? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?


It cannot be victory of the fleshly body, dear one, as the flesh is of no use at all. The "victory" Christ is speaking of is one preserving their SPIRIT alive. So that even if your fleshly body IS dashed on the rocks, it is the SPIRIT that lives. Those who exile us can kill the body, yes, but not the spirit. So, during the time in-between, we have the opportunity to preserve our TRUE lives... even if our flesh should perish.



Victory that does not put us in place to succumb to destruction of the SPIRIT, dear one, which, for some... is the second death (because they are resurrected from their first death - of the fleshly body - to judgment and thus, the second death: destruction of the body AND the spirit, in "Gehenna".


I have to say that I truly have no idea, dear one. That he called out or to whom. From what you post, perhaps he was calling out to Christ. But that doesn't mean it wasn't because he received some revelation, even vision, at the last hour of HIS life... that let him know he path prior was off. I mean, if a GB member... or Pope... or Muslim... or Hindu... or someone else called out "My Lord, my God" just before they died means... what? And what of those of DO cry out, "Lord, Lord!" but of whom my Lord said, "Get away from me; I never knew YOU"?



Please forgive my bluntness, here, but WHY? Did he not KNOW the name of his god? Why would his god, if real, not reveal it TO him? Christ is recorded to have said, "I have made YOUR name KNOWN.... among the men you have given me." I can personally testify that this is TRUE - he does make his Father's name... and his own... KNOWN to those who belong to him. What father doesn't... except to perhaps his illegitimate children... from whom he may actually hide himself from?


Who they are/were following... and who they SAY they're following may not necessarily be the same. Right? I mean, Christ is also recorded to have said, "Many will come... on the basis of MY name... right?



If they contributed to both sides, then they contributed to the bad as well as the good, right? Which Christ referred to hypocrisy. Right?


We are all flawed, dear one; however, that doesn't excuse us from misleading God's sheep...



I do know what you mean. Reminds me of Christ's words, as to those who seat themselves in the seat of Moses, that we are to do as they say, but not as they do. One of things every one of them SAYS... is that we are to have/exercise faith. Yet, if you or I were to tell anyone of them TRUTHFULLY... that Christ himself spoke to one of US... personally and directly... how much faith do you think THEY would exercise in that truth?

You are obviously on a journey, yet, dear Sab... and I wish you the best as you pursue it, truly. I truly hope you find what... or who... you're looking for!

Again, peace to you!
_________________
Paz a todos!

Su sirviente, compañera de estudios, y un esclava de Cristo,

SA

SABASTIOUS SAID



Conjecture means operating without all known information. I don't know the exact means of which Genesis 4 was produced so anything I conclude about the document is conjecture. However not all conjecture is created equally. For commentary to be "reliable" it must be of demonstrable use (2 Tim 3:16). That's why they were written down, to be USED. I do not subscribe to the idea that the truth can only found through some magical inquiry system. Such a system would undermine the very existence of Scripture in the first place. Asking your brain is much like asking God, you just have to realize that you are not the only entity present within the conscious process and humility must always be regarded as the highest virtue in such pursuits.



Cain was offering a REPLACEMENT system (food grown instead of food killed). His reasoning for that could have been ethical, which is what I am presenting in this thread. There is a theory that the Cain Abel story is an allegory for the switch from the Shepard/Hunters to Agriculturists/Civilians. Wikipedia mentions this:



When living within a culture where innocent animals are constantly slaughtered for God one wonders how people within it would think of such a sacrament during times of famine and great need. Would they give God the meat or give it to their children? This would pose a problem that was tied to Acts of God such as the weather. Civilization would solve this problem by using agricultural technology to produce more than is needed. Then you would take your best crops and sacrifice them to God. Hence Cain's offering being one of agriculture and Abel's being the traditional meat offering.




I get that from this verse:



This is God saying to Cain that if he takes a stand for this change, the change to civilized man, then he will fare badly. "Sin is crouching at your door; it desires you." Sin was desiring Cain because Cain was desiring the next phase in humanity. This phase was going to take place, but in God's time not mans. The parable of the Faithful and Evil slave is reminiscent of this concept as the evil slaves are fed up with the longevity of God's timeline (the master is delaying) and beat their fellow slaves. In Cain's case he beat his brother to death.




Well, I think that at first it wouldn't be a problem, but like I said as time went on there could be issues raised, such as in famine. Eventually the populace performing the ritual is going to inquire of the purpose of not only slaughtering innocent life, but life that could be used to sustain humanity. It's a deep theological dilemma that Cain had already considered and chosen a solution to. That's why he had such an outburst when approaching God with his "bright idea." Total rejection would be emotionally devastating. His heart could have been in the right place as he saw a need for progress for his people. He could have taken the advice from God and sought to understand the deeper things not readily apparent to the logical mind. Instead, he chose to go into open rebellion by killing his brother. He now looked at him as an inferior barbarian which leads to murder.


Yes, overdoing the ritual would and did result in desensitization, but making such a dramatic change from meat to wheat could result in the loss of the UNDERSTANDING of the purpose of the rituals (same result different wrong approach). Why must innocent life be taken in the name of God? When do we start phasing away from it? Obviously from a moral standpoint it has to be a means to an end. But if that end is prematurely selected by a man good will come in the temporary, but bad will overtake eternity. Which is why God didn't look on the offering, nor Cain, with favor.

-Sab

PSACRAMENTO SAID

They way I see it, when Jaheshua taught Us to pray, they prayer he said mentioned for God to give us our "daily bread" and what is that "bread" but the "body" of Christ?
When we eat we remember ALWAYS His love and sacrifice for us, how He gave ALL of Himself for Us, it is truly "saying grace" before meals.
I think that doing a "special" one at the time of passover is correct, it is the anniversary of His sacrifice for Us.
But I think that doing it ever day also is, IMO, honouring HIM who truly deserves it.

AGUEST SAID



That is my understanding, dear P (peace to you, dear one!)... and for this reason why I continue to "go up to 'Jerusalem'"... by that time a center of false worship... by attending the WTBTS Memorial. NOT to "partake from the table of demons," but to do as Christ did even after the ancient edifice and institution was rejected: to stand as a beacon of light before the people, to show them what THEY should be doing to gain life. If they never SEE it... then it's less likely that they will DO it. Because they still walk... by sight.



It is, dear one. In addition, if we can remember... and take the time... to feed our physical lives with food, should we not also feed our spiritual lives... with "true" food and "true" drink? John 6:55


Dear, dear Sab... again, the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one. I cannot comment on what you've posted because it is... new... to me; I've never heard these things, either from man OR my Lord. And I hear nothing in response... that I feel comfortable posting here... so, again, I can only wish you the greatest of peace on YOUR journey! May JAH bless you, truly... and, again, may you find what you are searching for!

Your servant, both, and a slave of Christ,

SA

MEDEWTYSENU SAID

This topic makes loads of sense and completely dispells the WTBTS's notion that only the anointed should partake since Jesus included these instruction in the Model/Lord's Prayer.

Wonderful responses.
_________________
"Those that matter don't mind and those that mind don't matter"--Dr. Seuss

PSACRAMENTO SAID

From what I understand, the issue with Cain's offering was that the intention behind it was not correct.
Much like the intention of one doing good for praise is not correct (even if the act is).
One of Christ's most important lessons was the lesson of INTENT to be what we are judged on.
Our intent to commit adultery is just as bad as the actual act.
Our intent to do good for the praise of others, nullifies our "good act".
When Able offered to God, he offered out of love for The Creator that had provide all for him but Cain offered because he "had to" and wanted something from God.

In parallel with Christ's offering to US- Hod blood and flesh- that is given for us freely, a gift that is down with no other motive but because He loved Us.

When Man's offerings were no longer acceptable to God because the intent was corrupted, what did God do?
He, in the form of His son, Offered Himself to US.

Let that sink in...

SABASTIOUS SAID



I'd be curious to hear what your Lord has to say on the matter. I don't understand why you, and PSac, insist on focusing on the intentions of Cain rather than the obvious dichotomy presented in the parable between something slaughtered and something grown. Surely, you agree that there is a morality present within all humans that would eventually grow tired of what could appear as senseless slaughtering. Much like a small child agreeing to go fishing with their parents, but upon SEEING the gruesome process, even though forewarned, feels ethically compromised. What if such a crisis of conscience took place when fishing was a means for survival? A fundamental conflict would arise and require settlement (which civilization/government provides the answer to).

Ever wonder why God allowed Abel to be murdered? Because he was waiting to see whether Cain was going to succumb to the "sin crouching at his door." Cain had a CHOICE and that's what the story is focusing on, imo. That choice was between conforming to the gruesome will of God, as shown by the particular type of sacrifice chosen by Abel, or to create a new path for himself and his generations. Killing Abel was a perfect way to show that the choice had been eternally made. It also shows who is truly behind the actions of Cain which is the Serpent. Cain would rather live in the new world (world without blood sacrifice) without his brother than the presented alternative. Yet Cain was willing to give his own blood in the process proving him a confused hypocrite and a Drinker of the Wine of the Serpent.

Now I am not going off topic here as it would seem. The story, as interpreted this way, can be applied to the changes of the Lord's Evening Meal ritual made by the likes of Joseph Smith and Charles Russell, both alleged powerful Masons. Their life stories both have them defecting from their churches because of a crisis of conscience. Which would be the same reason Cain defected from God (again, within the interpretation). Both Smith and Russell found certain doctrines of their church at the time to be abhorrent namely the existence of eternal torment in a fiery hell. They refused to believe what they saw as a wild tale and it was such a powerful force within them that not only did it expedite their exit process from the churches they came from, but it also powered a campaign against them, resulting in churches of their own.



So Cain, like you said, was given protection against death by murder. This was because there is something to making godly choices and their requirements for allowing them to play out. Smith and Russell both used the Title for a One True God and freely chose to act godly and apply godly changes to the planet's spiritual and religious landscape. Smith made changes like adding Scripture and Russell created advertising campaigns condemning the false doctrines of the church. Interestingly, both of the men changed the sacramental ritual of the Lord's Evening Meal.

With all that in mind, consider a reference to Cain in Jude:


So here Jude is connecting Korah and Balaam to Cain. Couldn't you just append to that list people like Smith, Russell, Hubbard, and Armstrong?

-Sab

AGUEST SAID



I did share that with you above, dear Sab (the greatest of love and peace to you!): that the issue was not WHAT was offered but what was IN the one offering it. If such one himself was unclean... then his offering was unclean... and the Most Holy of Israel cannot be pleased with an "unclean" offering. Because it's fake. BS. Full of it. Not offered with the right intent, regardless of pretext given by the one offering it.



Because the intent IS the issue, not any dichotomy in the offerings. Again, both produce and flesh were included in the sacrifices of the Law Covenant. If you stop and think about it, they are in the New Covenant, as well: the flesh of Christ, as signified by bread, a grain, and blood, as signified by wine. Both products of vegetation.



Oh, I must disagree. I would counter that there is... has always been... and would always be would the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, not intervene... and great "thirst" for blood among mankind. And I point to the slaughter of war, abortion, crusades, physical competitions (both for blood and for sport, the latter for sport only because doing it for blood has been outlawed, no pun intended), crime, games, movies, stories, and more... to support my assertion. We "get OFF" on it, actually... and unfortunately.



You mean like the young child who goes hunting for, say, food? Or perhaps even sport? Somehow, they grow up, don't they, and get over it? True, there are exceptions to the rule (perhaps you are one; I certainly am)... but they are exceptions.



I've seen fishing, dear one. Indeed, I've done it. My father was an AVID fisherman and so started me out pretty young. Early on, no problem. As I grew I bit older it got to the point where I developed more sympathy for the worm I had to skewer than I did for the fish I would eventually lure it with. BUT... I got over it, but the dang worm on the hook, threw out my line... and caught my fish. Then... I scaled, gutted, cooked... and ate the sucker. Why? 'Cause all that fishing made me hungry. My point? The only way a child would get to where you're suggesting is if he (1) wasn't hungry or (2) had other choices. Change either of these... and she will get over her aversions, I promise you. If she gets hungry enough, she might even eat you. Might.


I would say that, given the choices for food... and how to obtain it... that exists TODAY... sure. Prior to, say, 50-60 years ago... not so sure.



Allowed?? Why was it upon God to stop it?



Not quite, my dear one: the Most Holy One of Israel was HOPING that Cain WOULD make the RIGHT choice... and preserve his own spirit alive, as well as his brother's flesh. He didn't give Cain a choice any more than He did Adham. To the contrary, He did the EXACT same thing as He did with Adham... and gave a WARNING. As free moral agents, then, both Cain and Adham were absolutely free to CHOOSE, yes, and that is part of the story.

But for some reason I thought this discussion was about what was "wrong" with Cain... and his offering... such that neither were acceptable. Again, it was because both were unclean, not because Cain knew better than the Most Holy One of Israel as to why KIND of sacrifices one should be offering (which is what you're suggesting). To say THAT is to intimate, as some do with Adham, that Cain was punished for challenging God. That wasn't the case here OR with Adham - there was no punishment; there was only a consequence, which BOTH had received warning of.



Dear Sab... until JAH uttered an edict protecting Cain... there was no new path for himself or his generations. Because he was cast out and could have been killed by anyone coming across him later FOR killing Abel.



So Cain was in essence saying, "I don't like that you have Abel killing animals, God; my offering is actually better because it doesn't involve spilling blood, and your rejection of it is bunk and makes me mad so I'm kill my brother, so you can see what it feels like!"? I mean, that sounds like what you're saying occurred. Please let me know if I have it wrong.



So, the Serpent would rather live in a world without blood sacrifice and so enticed Cain to kill his brother (because Cain wanted what the Serpent wanted), so as to create a world without blood sacrifice?

Yet Cain was willing to give his own blood in the process proving him a confused hypocrite and a Drinker of the Wine of the Serpent.

Please accept my apology in advance for what I'm about to say, but... that's BS, dear one. Cain was no such willing! To the contrary, that lying coward (yes, lying, because he pretended to not know where Abel was after he'd killed him) began to cry like a sniveling little bi-otch when he realized that his own life was in danger! He wasn't even judged and condemned to death, as perhaps he should have been, but simply exiled:

"you are cursed in banishment from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood at your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its power. A wanderer and a fugitive you will become in the earth.”

And how did he react to that? Thus:

"At this Cain said to JaHVeH: “My punishment for error is too great to carry. Here you are actually driving me this day from off the surface of the ground, and from your face I shall be concealed; and I must become a wanderer and fugitive on the earth, and it is certain that anyone finding me will kill me.”

And it was... because Abel's blood was supposed to be avenged. BUT... unlike Cain... who could have reasoned with his brother, if not JAH, perhaps even just beat him up a little (you know, to get his point across that spilling blood should be a no-no)... the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... was MERCIFUL with this one! He did NOT do to him what he deserved! No... he PROTECTED Cain from any avenger!

"At this JAHVeH said to him: “For that reason anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times.”

So, c'mon... you're gonna have to rethink that particular conjecture, dear one.



I'm sorry, but I TRULY cannot see it as the same thing. I do not see, have not read, nor have I heard where Cain had a crisis of conscience. BEFORE he killed Abel, directly AFTER he killed Abel... OR when he was about to be exiled for killing Abel. Sorry, but just don't see it. To the contrary, I see a precursor to Israel: a hard-headed, hard-hearted, STIFF-necked (such that his gaze could not be turned BACK) man and "contender with God."



Again, sorry, but I don't see the correlation between Smith/Russell and Cain... except perhaps where the former may have themselves been issued a direct warning from the Most Holy One of Israel... which they ignored... which resulted in their being the foundation creators for the very thing they despised... which exists in their names to date: another organized religion that is "killing" God's true sheep and chosen ones. Like Cain, these did not listen either... and the result is more "slaughtering" of sheep, not less.



No, I didn't quite say that: whoever found and killed Cain would NOT have been a murderer, but a lawful avenger of Abel's blood. It was not until the Most Holy One of Israel issued His edict protecting him did it become murder for whoever killed him.



Actually, it was because JAH Himself changed the law (of vengeance) specifically as to Cain. Why? Because Cain accused HIM (God) of sending him to his death... which is not what was intended. Again, God was showing MERCY to Cain, by simply exiling him, rather than calling for his life... and extended it further to protect Cain from being killed at all.



Can you clarify, please? I'm not sure I fully understand.



I absolutely see the correlation as to Korah and Balaam - both of these had issues with JAH showing favor to someone other than them. As was the case with Cain. I don't know if Smith and/or Russell had the same issue. Maybe, I dunno. I have no idea who "Hubbard" and "Armstrong" are, sorry, so I can't even comment as to them.

We obviously have a different take on this account, you and I, dear one. Perhaps you have it accurate; I'm sorry, but I can't say that, though, based on what I've heard and received on the matter from my Lord. It'll all be brought to light at some point, though, so no worries, at least for me.

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA