Legalism (roots of the gospel)

 

I have heard it said over and over again, Legalism is bad and that Legalism is not of Christ. That free will and knowledge of one’s self identity and relationship to God is what is required in the church. Let’s look at what legalism is, because for myself alone I really want to know since I have heard it used to vilify many denominations including the Catholic Church. People who have limited understanding of what legalism is or have a slanted view of legalism, really don’t offer a fair perspective upon which people can make a sound decision on the matter.

Legailsm - Legalism preached “rule” by law, not the moral suasion of Confucianism or the antiauthoritarianism of Daoism. It was concerned with how to make the state prosper and continue expanding until the realm was unified. It was a mixture of extreme rationalism, antihumanitarianism, and totalitarianism. Some Legalists stressed administrative bureaucracy, others strict laws.

*rationalism is the approach to reasonably validate any and all perspectives in an analytical or logical approach. (everything must be validated)

* Antihumanitarianism – the practice of implementing laws and rules with the objective to demean, disgrace, de-humanize people. (create unneeded suffering for a cause) “molech”

*Totalitarianism – The practice of imposing absolute obedience to authority. Absolute ruler, prohibits cultural expression and opposing viewpoints.  (church law, apostolic succession)

In all this we can sum this up in the terminology of the church as “Nicolaitane” churches.

Nico-lait-anes = conquer (laity) people (anyone who dominates,manipulates, intimidates others;seeking control over one's spiritual life)  (false prophets)Now does this mean that one cannot say that there is only one way to god and all others are ill-advised and the rewards are of death? Think back to the apostles, and their doctrine.

Does it not state that there is One lord one faith and one baptism? (Ephesians 4:5)

If the apostles stated there was only:

“One faith” how then is it reasoned that by a man’s faith and each mans belief in the lord reconciles him to Christ for it is counted unto him as righteousness.  (pelagianism-, semi-pelagianism, adopted by the ecumenical churches)

“One lord” how then is it reasoned that there are three in heaven that bear witness, and that these three are one God?  (trinitarian renderings – adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

The practice of bearing witness was of three bringing up charges unto death and incarceration, and one stepping forward to either take the place of the other or contradict the three in true witness thus removing the subject from sentance. In trinitarianism the father the word and the spirit bear witness of mans transgressions, the one resolves the transgressions, therefore God resolves the transgressions made known by creation, the laws of God and the power of God.

“ONE baptism” how then is it reasoned that there is a baptism acceptable and practiced within the church that is contrary to any baptism performed within the bible by the apostles themselves? (trinity- adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

If at any time the originators of the gospel practiced any one of these things, yet we have accepted the nicolaitane doctrine of stating, believe as I do or you have no part in salvation in the mannerism of the catholic church’s adaptation and the Trinitarian following churches. Even though not one Apostle, deacon or bishop established by an Apostle ever taught that particular doctrine at all.

The argument is that the revelation did not present itself until as such time we were ready for it. My statement is that We recieve glory by extreme grace, not by inheritance. We are not owed salvation because we are mankind. So then through grace we have an inkling of righteousness. What came by the manner of christ unto the first men must be maintained throughout unto the final ones. With that said, any revelation considered new MUST be in concert with what was old and even what was ancient.

But I digress. That must be saved for a different writing where history must reconcile to the church.

Back to legalism, we see the church does not practice legalism in its inception. God does require certain methods to be performed in order to obtain salvation or redemption. The Old Testament had the "LAW" given to Moses, which we are all familiar with. These outlined everything that followers of God were to do, even unto a daily regimented level anywhere from how to prepare food, when to have sex, everything so as you can tell these laws were considered very “legalistic” and burdensome as far as obtaining salvation went. If you failed at any part you didn’t receive redemption and had sinned.

Yet now it’s different, or is it? We have the holy-ghost which leads us correct? But many don’t, they have the bible and they’re salvation is relative to strict adherence to the interpreted perspective contained within it.

(*Notice I said “interpreted perspectives”. If we all had the same perspective there would not be splintered denominations, thus validating my analysis)

As we hold these perspectives we also adhere to what we consider acceptable and discard what we hold as unacceptable based upon our experiences in life. There are no churches that practice legalism today. Why can I say that? Because at no time is a person dominated within the church so much so that they cannot leave the church. There are however legalisms in mystery churches (cults, FLDS).

I would say, the practice of following the doctrines of false prophets can be legalistic in the sense that the false prophet demands that his/her perspective is the only perspective that provides salvation or that he can provide you salvation in place of Christ. (Islam, Buddhism, tribal beliefs, Hellenism, paganism, radical Christians) and If we use hatred of legaism in its correct terms then I believe we could state that we as members of the church are in concert with God himself, when we say we hate the doctrine of blasphemers who practice Nicolaitane-Legalism.

 That’s a lot to state in one mouthful, but it’s a way of looking at it using the terminology complimentary with people who like to theorize high mindedly.For us simple folk however, we can simply say, “I don’t listen to false prophets”.

The Sanctity of Marriage?

Well, the moment I figured would come eventually has finally arrived. I had began a writing of “Homosexuality and the church” a while ago but I was stopped during that writing. It was covering the issue that the Anglican churches in Europe and American had regards homosexual marriages being performed in the church. As you can see, there is no huge Curse coming towards the Anglican church in America because they have adopted the practice. Main reason, they’re not of the kingdom of god anyway, so no issue. Yet the reason God came upon the people of Babel has once again surfaced in proof that mankind will achieve whatever it sets its mind to achieve and thus without thinking of the damage it will do to itself. Gay and lesbian marriage is legal in the state that the entire country, not only the entire country but the entire world eventually follows suit, California.

I often believed that people, when they put their minds to something can achieve great things both for good or evil. This is something that was inevitable as even the proponents against the legalization for gay and lesbian marriage had to know deep down inside that they couldn’t stop it, but they could delay it until such time more people would accept it in our Judeo-Christian society.

 Still, as we move on with our daily lives we recognize that God  really hasn’t come out and stated that he was against it, only that those in the church based upon teachings felt, or convinced themselves that God is against this activity.

If we as “saints” are aware of the situations we could have called this with Braille, So why the uproar? If you know the actions of a certain individual would invoke a certain reaction on your part, why be upset when it occurs? You knew it was coming. The main problem is “incorrect understanding regarding the areas of church authority.

I’m not saying to embrace it, but what I am saying is to let the world do what the world will do. You can’t stop it, we were not called to halt all the sin of the world, but to call people out of it. Therefore let me approach the marriage questions with this mind. There is no loss in this battle because it is not a battle that God is undertaking because it is his to put together and his to tear asunder.  Regardless most people are not brought together by him anyway either in the church or out of it for that matter, so what’s the difference. If you get married on your own merit, you take the risks associated with that choice of union. The divorce rate is so high not because God put the wrong two people together, but because people put themselves with the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

                        Moral compass

So the question now becomes, is it “morally correct”. Biblically speaking there is no statute in all honesty in the messianic laws or rabbinical laws nor Christian apostolic successive rights that outlaw gay marriage, because it never occurred. There were homosexual relationships since homosexual relationships were just as normal an activity as any heterosexual relationship. In many cases they were synonymous with the expectation of marriage.  Yet the apostles and Judaism had an entirely different perspective on the matter. The pursuit of “strange flesh” was condemned by God in his judgment upon the cities of “Sodom & Gomorrah”. (Jude 1:7)

When we look at Homosexuality we must take into account the churches exposure to the core lifestyles from the beginning that encompassed homosexual activity in it’s arguments to the apostles.

1.       The Epicureanism – Neutrality of Gods, that gods do not interfere in the lives of humans (soft atheism). That man is materialistic in nature and that this is justifiably acceptable. Thus the pursuit of pleasure of the body and mind, without the aversion to violence or suppression of others freedoms is the ultimate sense of moral stability and happiness.

2.       Stoicism – Cosmic determinism and human freedom. Virtues reside in the will of each human, either Good or bad depends only upon a man himself. The poor can be just as virtuous as any rich man and hardships can be endured in happiness and in harmony with nature. In death he can die nobly and with honor, and such every man has perfect freedom, as long as he cuts himself off from mundane desires of the flesh. Self control and fortitude.

In Athens the apostle Paul is said to have disputed with these philosophers on these and other matters of the origin of life and since these men were simply consumed with the philosophical ideal of humanism, the doctrine of Paul intrigued them so that they heard him in deeper relativity.

How does this flow into Homosexuality?

Well, the main theory behind Epicureanism is thus- defined justice as an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed." The point of living in a society with laws and punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free to pursue happiness. Because of this, laws that do not contribute to promoting human happiness are not just.

So from this we see that Gay/lesbian activist promote this position continuously throughout their fight. That laws which prohibit the pursuit of happiness are not justifiable laws and should be revoked.

Simply because Christians do not like homosexuality does not mean that those non-Christian should endure the principles of those who are. That is domination.

Stoiks  - teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature."This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy", and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God.

How many times has this been used to justify homosexuals as simple people equal to heterosexuals who just choose to engage in relationships with other men. At one time the fear was that homosexual men force themselves on heterosexual men thus converting them into homosexual men. In my understanding of the events, many heterosexual men who have engaged in relations with women are not accepting of any relationship with homosexuality even if thrust upon them and so do not change unless willing to do so.

Yet children can be influenced to accept the activity as normal if the life experience forces the choice upon them too young. Generations are influenced into homosexuality if acceptable levels of the practice reach acceptable terms. Yet without these levels of acceptance I can’t see where homosexuality can flourish to unacceptable levels.

But like I have stated before, the heart of man is wicked beyond his means. The fears that people have concerning this particular sin is warranted, mainly because man knows man simply because man will without a doubt “push the envelope” of acceptable levels. Yet we cannot determine things based upon justifiable fears, only on substantial truths of the matter and this is that Homosexual humans have every right to the pursuits of happiness that heterosexual people do based upon our laws as a nation.

Marriage?

 What of the marriage question? The position is that marriage is an “institution of god” and thus is sacred. Yet the truth is that people were being joined in marriage prior to the Christian churches influence into the matter. Gnostic priests, pagan priests, priestesses and others were marrying people before the Christian church, during the inception of Christianity, and even afterwards. Yet now we have standardized the arrangement of marriage for human beings under the rites of the church for us civilized peoples.

So now people arrogantly state that marriage is an institution of Gods making validated through the church alone. Yes it is of gods making, but it is in regards to mans first law….”be fruitful and multiply”. That’s it. There is no law that says that the carrying out of marriage vows must be done within the church. This we acknowledge with the resident “justice of the peace” district judge, the captain of vessels upon the high seas all legally able to perform legitimate marriages even though they are not ordained pastors or priests.

In each regards to Homosexuals however they are excluded in the church regarding the ordaining of marriage. This is perfectly acceptable, as the church is an entity that ministers it’s self unto the statues of its tenants. If a homosexual wishes to be married, a church should not be “forced”, “induced” nor convinced into agreements. The church has its own manner of disposition on the matter so as sinners frolic so let them.

The concern is that the government forces churches to accept or recognize homosexual marriage as an institute acceptable by God and the church. This is where a state or local government agency will cross the line into slapping god in his face and this is where the Christian fight can be justified. Yet Short of this activity being performed, the church has no moral leg on which to stand. It is all hoopla that should not be used to justify ones commitment to God.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:21

                                    The Laws and their applications

 

Good day, I am engaging in a difficult and most peculiar subject. By no means am I to find documentation to support the overall concept of what I am delving into, so the grace of the lord shall need to define what is to be thought upon and what is to be delved into. I was in the process of researching other writings on heresies and this topic came to mind.

The laws of spiritual attributes concerning gifts and denizens, has been a mystery to many people for quite some time. For some time people have tried to develop a way of identifying ghosts and other phenomena as either real, superstitious hoax, ignorance, charlatans, Hysterical or some other intuitive undercover activity that causes people to believe in things they cannot see.

Short of becoming one of those purveyors of false belief’s in something that has little or no merit I am attempting to simply begin identifying what Laws are.

As we begin I don’t ask anyone for an open mind, keep it closed or open it, as you see fit, but prove what I write on your own merit, I will try to cover both pro and con, and not attempt to sway opinion to my findings. Simply accept what it is you wish to accept and accept what god provides your eyes to see.

Let us begin

What is a LAW?

We as a society live by a certain rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is a general code, not perfect as the human mind can become desperately wicked, the golden rule. It is based on the thought that no one likes to be treated poorly, so don’t treat another poorly. Sort of an, “Karma” type of retribution is that if you do something to someone bad then bad will come to you. Now why am I mentioning this? Laws are accepted and rejected based upon this type of a premise in the land of men. But in Gods kingdom, bad things occur as well as good things. God is not biased, so both good and evil and the ability to perform both are in his power to determine and use as he sees fit.  So you will find both acceptable laws and unacceptable laws in the study of God. Anything in the MIND of god is not a law, because it is not a created thing. Everything that is created is created not out of the mind of god, but in Gods “speaking it into existence”. Thus every animal, plant, insect, element is spoken into existence and placed in its place and determined what to do by God. This “speaking” brings us into the laws of creation. The Law is our pendulum for salvation, There is both obedience and disobedience thus both life and death in the law.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Law of creation

Now regarding everything that is created there is a law that keeps this created thing from being and doing something that we don’t find natural as we see it today? Why doesn’t a poppie flower hunt down and kill and eat an antelope, or why doesn’t an elephant bubble up from beneath the earth and spew and become the formation of land? Why doesn’t the wind simply one day just stop moving across the planet and simply hurl itself into the ocean. It is not enough to be created. But the thing that is created must have a design to it’s creation. It must have a reason for it’s creation.

(Psalms 33:1-9)

 Everything that comes from god comes with a law of what it is to do and how it is to interact with it’s environment.

(genesis 1 – God said, then at the end God Saw)

Piranha are fish that swim in the water and eat flesh, they keep the waters cleaned and remove decay.  Lions kill and eat prey keeping the destruction of herbivores down on the land sustaining both predator and prey. Even though gods initial law in creation to the animals of the planet were for them only to eat the “green herb. I submit:

Genesis 1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so

 These things we as human observers call “nature” or natural instinct, but why doesn’t a lion eat grass? Well it must eat meat, because it’s body is designed to kill and eat. The garden of Eden was a beautiful place, God is said to have placed both animals, plants and insect including mankind in one location and they existed together. It never stated that lions or wolves a something else killed something and ate it in order to survive. We just pretty much assumed that the rich cluster of herbs and game was ideal for each animal on the planet at the time to sustain them.

That’s just the earths/gardens environment since it seems that God created everything on the planet as we see it now demonstrated in nature. Not true, God populated the planet with animals then God moved mankind into a certain place and gave both man and animals the same law to eat the herb. So when did this law change? After the fall, when god had to “kill” the two animals in order to cover mans sinful presentation. When mankind died in the garden after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, what kind of death was it? The serpent told them they wouldn’t “surely” die but since he didn’t tell them what would die in them, he committed a great sin and in honesty killed off mankind from the law he was created with. Not only did he enable the breaking of mankind’s law but he destroyed the law given to the beasts and fowl and fish in the sea as well. It opens them up to be used and to perform activities not in their original design.

I will state once again that everything created has a law, because of gods speaking that thing into existence. Mankind was created with a law spoken by god to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion upon the earth.  We have a basic fundamental law in our creation bestowed upon Adam .

(Genesis 1:28)

This law was passed down through the generations of eve in the command”….be fruitful and multiply”. Thus any law given to Adam from creation was our law as well. In speaking Adam into existence the law given to Adam was in place in Adam. He instinctively knew how to interact in the manner of the law of creation upon the physical form of mankind’s creation. The animals all ate the herbs and so did man.

Through the Creation of man we are indwelled with our law. Man was to have dominion over the earth, tend to the needs and desires and to care for everything upon the earth, and man was to multiply upon the earth so that as the earth’s denizens grew greater in number man would be able to compensate.

 

The laws apply to the denizens of the lords hosts as well. As these laws determine the overall functionality of Gods kingdom, the sons of God are created with the expressed intent that they will willingly perform the will of god in their creation.

Strong angels can hold the other angels in check while the others perform the desires of god as he intends. No angel operates outside the will of God by their own desire to do so.  God has never forced even those created with the expressed intent to operate within the guidelines of their created laws. They all have the ability to do that which is not desired of god. They must reap the rewards of their actions however. Thus taking us to what happens when they break that simple law of creation. We all die when the law of god is broken. The form of death varies however.

Laws of perspectives

What is meant by the laws of perspectives? The perspective is that which is defined by the one performing the viewing of an action, also the relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole. If one man see’s an event he interprets that event in his mind as one thing or another. He may apply many different possibilities but once the dust settles, he generally chooses one road or the other. He establishes his belief of the situation based upon what he sees as the most valid position on the matter. Two men viewing an event may come to the same conclusion on the matter or two completely different conclusions altogether, or two similar positions but expressed differently. The ability to determine for ourselves the best course of action in any given scenario is the law of choice, or the law of perspectives. Everything created has a choice in its life and that choice comes with ramifications of one type or another, it is the pendulum. A lion was created by God to eat an herb. Now we see lions eating other animals, thus the lion changes position in perspective and begins to slay and eat other animals. This goes against the initial intention, because it is against what god told the beasts of the earth to do. So what does god do? Does he slay all animals? YES

Remember the story of Noah, his vengeance covered both man and beast and he did save every beast on the planet, he probably didn’t even kill every animal on the planet, but what he did do was exact vengeance upon creation and then gave the surviving creation new laws.

Whether you allow a belief of the flood in “Gilgamesh’s version or in the Moses biblical account, the fact remains that in relation to God, The world went through a “cleansing. Through that flood, thus it is important to note that the perspective of the indented laws to mankind and beast was altered.

The laws of eating herbs was closed, they could now eat meat, the laws of multiply upon the earth was closed and thus the ability to choose not to have children was available “so to speak” the law of eating of the tree of knowledge was closed and thus men could seek knowledge on their own behalf.  These things were commenced through the flood.

One of the things about baptism is that it is an “emulation” of the flood. The flood itself represented a commencement of LAW, In other words all that was given the law, and had broken the law died in the flood, as far as god was concerned. Since Noah and his sons were redeemed through their obeying the law, they were spared the judgment of the law. Yet because they were products of creation they were still subject to sin, and could therefore break any law given there after. What laws were given to moses?

Genesis 8

1. I will not again curse the ground anymore because(for mans sake) of man. Why-because the imagination of mans heart is evil from “HIS” youth. (reference to the curse upon Adam as being revoked here)
2. Neither will God smite (kill) every living thing again. (he will not cleanse the earth by killing everyone again)
3. As long as the earth exists God will tend to it.

*People there will be no nuclear holocaust on the scale of the devastation to the entire planet.  

 Genesis 9

1. And the fear and the dread of man will be upon every beast and every fowl of the air and all that moves upon the earth and upon the fishes of the sea and into the hand of man are they delivered. (The beasts of the earth are ours to eat)
2. He told Noah and his sons to be fruitful and multiply as his seed will be blessed. (this is different than the law given to mankind)
3. Every living moving thing shall be meat for man, as well as the green herb.
4. The flesh of men we are not to eat and if you do kill and eat man, then every beast and every man can be used to kill that man that does this thing. (cannibalism is unacceptable) My guess is that prior to the flood this must have been occurring to some unacceptable scale. Historical evidence suggests that many early peoples practiced cannibalism. Perhaps certain groups were given titles and names, which is a consistent documented event in the bible (genesis 6:4), associating them with these practices and many mythological stories grew out of peoples interaction and migration of these tribes. This gives rise to the belief of “devourers of souls” structure in demons on earth.   Just a thought mind you.
5. Whoever murders a man, his life is forfeit, because God made man to live.
6. And “YOU” now be fruitful and multiply. (this is to mankind when he used “you” he is stating “everything that you are” so to speak.)
7. And the covenant was established with Noah his sons and their seed (meaning mankind, and all beasts that existed afterwards,
8. That the Bow would be the token covenant that signified God will no longer kill all things in a  flood again.

These are the laws and covenant upon the flesh of every man that exists today, be they believers or non-believers they are the basic laws upon mankind, these are life. They are not much different in overall structure from the laws given to the “children of Israel”, but there are definitely fewer.  

He also gave Laws to Abraham after he was called out.

Genesis 17

1 Walk before me and be thou perfect (now looking into this a little more is a whole sermon that may take like two days of intensive listening, but I will be brief…he was to be perfect because the instructions god was giving him were perfect. So if he “obeyed god” we would not err.

 

2. Covenant, He would multiply the seed of Abraham

a. Father of many nations…. (source of the believers of god in both Judaism and Christianity)

3. Covenant – there will be a continuation of the covenant with the seed of Abraham, and it won’t stop with his initial children but commence with his children’s children.

4. Covenant – All the land of canaan will be the inheritance of the children of the seed of Abraham in which to dwell.

5. Token that the covenant is remembered by God will be that every man child will be circumcised.

Now I won’t go into all the laws given to Moses, because they are too numerous to mention, But you get the gist of where I’m coming from. Laws are established by god in the basic of format for mankind through Noah, then to the children of Israel through Abraham then to the nation of Israel through the LAW Messianic.

  

So what of Christ?

As I’m speaking of laws and such, what about the Christians, what laws are we given?

Well we all as being mankind are subject to the laws given to mankind through Noah. That is that God expects those laws to be followed by mankind. If we sin it is because we as humans have broken one of those laws.  Now looking at the laws given to Moses, one would ask where have I broken a law unto God to be called a Sinner?

I state the following which has made us all sinners, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Now, one would say OK, but you never mentioned there was a law that covered this. I say to this, yes I did, I just didn’t mention it directly. The bible states that, God will no longer curse the ground because of man’s evil thoughts. In other words, because mankind will break any law given him by God, then God considers all mankind evil and sinners from their youth.

This seems a bit of a stretch for those who are looking at it, because it seems that I am saying “because you are going to do evil, god considers you evil”. Gnostics believed in this manner which was why it was easy for them to come up with the Valentinism and the Marcionite doctrines.

What I am stating is that the flaw exposed (nice way of putting it) of mankind in the garden and the laws given thereafter are still in effect not because of what God placed on man, but of what Man has come to be because of the knowledge he has acquired. Is this to say that Knowledge is the root of all evil, NO, but the pursuit of knowledge, leads one down the road of evil intentions.

 What knowledge? Gnosticism is the pursuit of knowledge. Now am I stating that God wants us “ignorant” of things in this life? NO, the knowledge we are to seek is in God himself. Through our pursuit of God we are to approach his word as children ready to be taught by the spirit he has imparted unto us through Jesus Christ. There is what man can glean of god, and what God can teach of himself. These are two separate paths of obtaining knowledge, not the same knowledge however. Two separate ones.

Wide is the path of the unrighteous, but straight and narrow if the path of the redeemed. Why? Is it because more people are evil? No, Its because righteousness is defined by the validation of the holy ghost in logical reasoning. While non-validated conclusions based upon self validated points are the stuff of unrighteousness, or non-validation.

If a man is righteous, he is righteous because of what? Because the law outlines is actions as such? No, because the spirit of God agrees with the actions taken.

You say, but we have teachers, preachers, deacons, ministers that bring the word of the lord unto us, Do we not need a church in this case?

We are instructed by the apostles to adhere to the ministry of the church, for it profits us well in our understanding of the kingdom of God, nevertheless we are also encouraged in learning of the very same holy spirit imparted unto us by our king. Knowledge of another is that mans knowledge, your knowledge must be sound and founded, it must be validated by the holy-ghost, Not your own logical conclusions.

The under-Shepard job is to assist the Shepard. The flock belongs not to the assistant but to the owner of the flock. We do not lend such title of nobility in the kingdom to anyone other than the shepard. Too many people get caught up with the under-shepard rather than with Christ, yet they relegate within themselves that they have a relationship with Christ.

If you can’t distinguish between the voice of the law-presenter and the law-maker, then you have a serious problem. The emissary is not greater than the king who sent him.

This writing is to explain a reasoning that some churches have a conceptualized view of how the “bringing down” of the Holy ghost is established in the being of men.

That the grace of salvation seen in the form of “tongues” was just, a simple gift or a gift as other gifts or talents, and that God established man in the second birth called Jesus the messiah in a prescribed, wholly defined manner that is “consistent” with established Torah as well as established practices of the Apostles themselves. When doing a study of certain mysterious areas of the doctrine of the apostles, I always tend to fall back on the orif=gin of thought of those who produced the doctrine we have today, Judaism. It is here that I find the truth of the matter so to speak, not so much in peoples philosophical interpretations of things occuring in the church. My position is that if the Jews didn’t do it in some way shape or form, it could not be of god, because of all that christians are, the Law was.

 

The scriptural basis for the origin of the argument is originated from the passages of the Book written by a traveler with the apostles, called  “ACTS of the Apostles”, aptly named because of detailed information contained within the writings regarding actions performed by the apostles throughout recorded history.

 

The first sermon was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, which was a Judaic feast day, occurring before the “Day of atonement”. On this day, the recorded moment that the Holy spirit “comforter” sign of the spirit of God, was made evidenced by those Jews and strangers that heard these people speak with tongues or languages that were not native to the individuals doing the speaking.

 

The precursor to this act is found in the early portion of the book, chapter 1

 

• This passage is written as it was spoken, but the later highlighter portion before the comma is the actual event that was expected to take place before the prior. So the actual interpretation is that the Holy Ghost would come and they would then receive power. This is evidenced in old testament passages concerning the reception of the Holy Ghost and power. One of the things that people have failed to do is to equate the reception of Power, to the reception of the holy ghost in the manner displayed by the apostles.

 

This is the actual event recorded that took place.

Now the above passage displays what actually occurred on the day, some people state that what actually occurred wasn’t a mysterious unknown language as the scripture leads to suggestion because of the latter scriptures afterwards that states that people “understood” what was being said.

Lets look at this for a moment?

   

These people who as the passages state, were “JEWS” who were present for the feast days, so they should have had a understanding of events as they occur in rabbinical practices, while some were from gnostic backgrounds, especially in regards to the rabbinical practice of “Shekinah” which is defined as the following:

 

Shekinah - dwelling, presence (used in the Targum (Jewish translation of the Hebrew bible) Indicates the manifestation of the presence of God among people (included both the cloud and pillar of fire in the old testament). Whenever the Hebrew text speaks of the presence of God in a way that implies certain human limitations, the Targum paraphrases by substituting the word Shekinah for the word God. The word is sometimes used in such a manner that it cannot be identical with God, e.g., “God allows his Shekinah to rest”, yet even in this the dwelling presence of God is still equal to God himself.

 

Another definition

Shekinah - Shekinah is a Jewish term for a divine presence - essentially the equivalent of the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit, except without the implication of the Trinity. In Kabbalism, it sometimes takes on a feminine aspect. Talmudic definitions of the Shekinah *there are so many, but I will only give 3 or four examples to solidify my particular point on the matter.    

6) Tractate Shabbath.

(b)319 [Folio 67a]: The fire at the burning bush was the Shechinah resting upon it.

7) Tractate Hagigah.

(c)98 [Folio 15b]: The Holy One gives utterance through the Shechinah.

*I found this particularly interesting because the bible does not mention "utterances" other than after the event in acts. Yet the Talmud makes reference of the activity being a sign recognizable by those witnessing the shekinah. The rule of thumb by most people is that the events of Acts 2, only occured by the invoking of truley pious disciples of jesus christ or the apostles themselves. Yet, this lends credit to the fact that the shekinah is imparted to humans in this manner,my next question was, How often in the old testament did people speak in tongues and who did?

(8) Tractate Sanhedrin

(c)83 [Folio 17a]: The power of the Holy Spirit is given through, or indicated by, the Shekhinah.

(d)121 [Folio 22a]: God is present when His Shechinah is present.

(g)271 [Folio 42a]: Shechinah is any manifestation of God, even in nature.

(h)304 [Folio 46a]: God speaks through the Shechinah.

 

Of all these expressions

It is believed by some that the Shekinah and God are two separate things, that the Shekinah is one entity while God is another. I disagree with this belief because, God is one, and the glory of god is God, while that glory is not the principle force of creation, it is the reason For creation, and thus is the “inspiration” of gods intention. If Glory is the inspiration of God, and the shekinah is the “manifestation” of gods glory in a “person, place or thing. Then the glory of god must be equal to the shekinah which is the presence of god.

 

Glory = Inspiration

Shekinah = Dwelling

God = ?

Glory x Shekinah = God

1 x 1=1

If we add in the holy spirit then

Glory x Shekinah x Holy spirit = God

1 x 1 x 1=1

This is not to mean that I am speaking of 3 or four separate entities, rather I am showing the one entity and the attributes of the one entity as they are witnessed by men in multiple forms at different times, with different viewpoints, it would have been so much easier if god had maintained a distinct visage of the shekinah so that we would be able to recognize it more clearly, but that would mean we worshipped a man made idea with limitations rather than a mulifaceted, many glorious intricately minded god..

 

One note:

Many people mistakenly made an unguided connection in the New testament churches of today that equates the Shekinah biblical divine presence among mankind, with the indwelling presence of the Holy ghost. By stating that God “guides us as he guided the children of israel from within our hearts, and the form of this guiding is made manifest in our walk with christ alone, and not in any manifestations of tongues which were present in the past.

 

The answer is two fold, Yes it is truth, that God displays his presence in us through our walk, but it is also true that GOD’s PRESENCE is in the tongues.

We will not be given a burning bush, nor is there a physical temple where upon the cloud of the lord will rest, nor are we going to be shown the way by a cloud by day or a pillar of fire by night. The only thing we get are moments in which the sign spoken of by Paul the apostle that the shekinah is present is in tongues, for tongues are for a sign, 1corinthians 14:22, in dealing with gnostic heretical doctrines vs the doctrine of the apostles.

if someone states that man displays the shekinah by theyre works they are incorrect, the holy spirit by the oldest of definitions is the shekinah or the dwelling presence of GOD himself, it is not a feeling or an attached third party agent. I apologize to those who beleived otherwise.

 “Back to the study”

In regards to Shekinah. If Jesus was the word indwelled or “shekinah” in Mary placed by god, then Mary was the personification of the temple, tabernacle or children of Israel, that god placed his spirit within. She was the dwelling place of god. No tongues included. So then am I to justify a statement that the holy spirit only manifests itself in the manner of tongues? Yes, but not in unknown tongues completely, but in “speech” the shekinah manifests itself, as the spirit of god was spoken into the womb of the woman. Not created as he would by mud or clay, but rather moved into by inspiration or the glory of god.

 

As the presence was moved into the tabernacle or the temple, it was moved into the woman. The production of this was Jesus. In essence, Jesus was the inspiration, the expressed will, the dwelling presence, the shekinah of god in flesh. He was the vision of Ezekial, in 1:4-28. in which God presented himself to that prophet, and we was the one spoken of as being the comforter in Ecclesiates and lamentations regarding it’s removal from the children of Israel because of it’s sins. And the one prophesied as returning unto Israel.

 

The last sentence is a clue to the distinction of Jesus Christ.

 Let me explain. God is a supreme being, he remains upon the throne of god at all times. Yet he places his “PRESENCE” his dwelling in persons, places or things while he remains on the throne and these things are indeed god not GODS as meaning that everything god uses is then a holy vessel worthy of veneration. The only reason the arc of the covenant was considered holy was because the shekinah of god rested upon it and the same with the temple.  Now this presence as termed, can be deciphered as, Gods explicit intention, Gods glory, Gods law, Gods heart, but in all actuality it is God himself performing the functions.

Jesus Christ is defined as being born of a virgin, in this understanding of Shekinah, In other words Mary was the vessel that god’s shekinah rested upon. That shekinah bore fruit as it was gods will for it to perform, and it became a male child. This child being the expressed will of god was God’s shekinah in the flesh, or God’s presence in flesh. Some scholars will state that gods shekinah is not god, but according to Ezekiel it is.

 

The Jews were aware that the “Messiah” would be one who was the fleshly incarnation of gods shekinah.  They knew what to look for, those who knew the torah and had it interpreted correctly, believed that only priests were allowed to received the shekinah, or ever had received it. Even though others could, they had never seen or heard of anyone other than the priests receiving it up to this point. And as the overwhelming majority of Judeans began to migrate into roman culture which included Gnosticism and paganism, the phenomenon was dwindling even further from rabbinical practices, being reserved soley for the priesthood.

My submission is that the Shekinah = Holy ghost, that the Holy ghost and the cloud are synonymous with one another. And that the holy ghost or the reception of the holy ghost is synonymous with the priests of the Judaic law receiving the shekinah in bodily manifestations of utterances by god as recorded of being performed in the talmud.

 

 So when the people gathered who were Jews, head the goings on in the place of the falling, they didn’t know what it was because of one very important thing. The passage states that “…in the places they were born in. or more accurately …And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

This shows one very important thing, that the Jews had lost touch with the core teachings of the law. They had lost touch with the evidence contained within the law regarding the presence of god when God left the temple. This did not mean however that they lost the knowledge of what to look for in regards to the presence of God.

-peace