Nazarene Space

Patriarchinity Chapter 12: Covering vs. Cover-ups

Patriarchinity Chapter 12: Covering vs. Cover-ups

by Chris Jacob Schaefer ©2009


Up till now, much of this book has focused upon the identity of the Ruach HaQodesh. Why? She is perhaps the most mysterious Divine Being, and yet most often misunderstood. While it does not necessarily prevent someone from becoming a believer, misunderstandings of Who the Divine Elohim is (and are) can hinder us from the intimacy that we as priestly families need with our Elohim.

So why the secrecy? Why is the gender of the Ruach HaQodesh hidden from plain view, or more accurately, hidden in plain view?

It must be remembered that the husband is a covering over the wife. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, the husband’s name-covering was applied to his wife-- Example: “Mrs. Thomas Edison.” Where did such a practice come from? From the understood subordination of the wife to the husband and husband’s protection over the subordinate wife. So how does that apply to our perceptions of the Ruach HaQodesh? After all, She does the Father’s will, She acts in accordance with Him, She goes where He sends Her, and She serves as His eyes/scouts (Zech 4:10).

Timtheos Aleph/First Timothy 2:12
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Timtheos Aleph/First Timothy 2:12 (Lamsa translation from the Aramaic)
“I do not think it seemly for a woman to debate publicly or otherwise usurp the authority of men, but she should be silent.”


The main point is that Shaul/Pallu is affirming the divine order of things-- a husband is over his wife. Naturally it would follow that another man’s wife or a single woman is not an authority over another man (not her husband). [The context is that of handling theological disagreements in an assembly of mortals where both genders involved are subject to imperfections (very unlike divine Elohim). So basically a woman is not to cause a scene.] The overarching principle though is that the man is the default authority over his wife.

To get a grasp on this, it is important to learn about the nature of women’s headcoverings, and then apply that to understanding the Ruach HaQodesh, based upon Her role(s).

Beresheeth/Genesis 24:65
65 For she had said to the servant, What man is this that walks in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil* and covered herself.
* (RSTNE Note): Sign of authority and submission.


So, we can see that before Rivkah was married to Yitzchak, she considered it important to show that she was yet under her dad’s authority and protection.

Root/Ruth 3:9
9 And he said, Who are you? And she answered, I am Root your female servant: spread your covering [kawnawf’] over your female servant; for you are a near kinsman redeemer.


And in this instance, Root made a request of Boaz for marriage. Kawnawf literally means an edge or extremity of a wing, garment or bed-clothing; a flap-- which implies that the covering that Root desired, was a part of the covering of which Boaz was covering himself -- either his mantle/cloak or blanket. So in essence, Boaz’ identification was the same identification that Root also wanted for herself. If someone saw Boaz lying down in the moonlight, he would identify the shadowy figure(s) as Boaz even though in reality it would have been both Boaz and Root.

Could it be that the story of Root and Boaz gives us a hint as to why YHWH allowed masculine pronouns to “cover” the Ruach HaQodesh in the Greek manuscripts and Aramaic Peshitta of the Gospel of Yochanan/John?

Song of Shlomo/Song of Solomon 5:7
7 The watchmen that went around the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.


Here the forcible removal of the woman’s veil by men not her husband nor her children was considered a violation on par with a beating.

Devarim/Deuteronomy 21:10-13
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and YHWH your Elohim has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,
11 And see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her, that you would have her to be your wife;
12 Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head, and trim her nails;
13 And she shall put off the garment of her captivity, and shall remain in your bayit, and bewail her Father and her mother a full month: and after that you shall go in to her."


When a woman was captured, her hair was shorn to show that the covering/protection/authority of her former husband had been removed. Additionally the covering/garment that she wore in her native country was to be removed (and susbsequently replaced by the garments of her new residence). It is significant that her former life in her native country was dually considered “her captivity” (as also with the act of capturing her in time of war). But it wasn’t until her new husband brought her into his house that she was no longer considered a captive. So once she was brought into the freedom of her new husband’s house, then that is when her natural covering of her hair was removed, and it is also when the garments of her former captivity were removed. She wasn’t walking about the house naked for a month, so of course she had a new covering on her body and her head; in the meantime, her natural hair covering was growing afresh. When the woman’s hair grew anew, it was a tangible acknowledgment of her having a new husband and her newfound glory. So before wartime, the foreign woman’s hair and garments (which would include a headcovering) represented her original husband’s authority and protection over her; after she was taken by a Yisraelite man, then her replacement garments and new hair represented her new husband’s authority and protection

In the following passage we shall see that in the assembly of believers, when a woman prayed or prophesied without a head covering, it was as if she were taken captive. The question is then: taken captive by who or what?

Qorintyah Aleph/First Corinthians 11:5-15
5 But every woman that makes prayers, or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is the same as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman does not have a head covering, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn, or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to veil* his head, because he is the image and glory of YHWH: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the unclean fallen demons.**
11 Nevertheless neither is the man independent of the woman, neither the woman independent of the man, in YHWH.
12 For as the woman is from the man, even so is the man also through the woman; but all things are from YHWH.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper that a woman prays to YHWH uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair***, it is a shame to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory for her: for her hair is given to her as a covering.

*(RSTNE note) With a hang-me-down veil, or long hanging frontal hair.
** (RSTNE note)T his is a clear reference back to Beresheeth/Genesis 6 where women who were not under a spiritual authority, or covering like the one provided for them by Noah, were molested and had demons that cohabitated with them. Due to the reality of unclean demons desiring to physically violate and emotionally scar women through vaginal entry, women are strongly urged to do
what is proper and not make this a contentious issue
like some who feel this is not important.
*** (RSTNE note) Worn like a woman, but OK for Nazarite vows and such other pursuits of YHWH.


Since a woman’s long hair is her glory, and the shaving of her hair is her shame, then it is obvious that her hair is a clear identifier of her femininity.

Now there is a hidden phenomenon in cultures where women wear headcoverings that is not apparent to the general public. When a wife is in and at home, her husband and children frequently see her without her headcovering-- she has to take it off sooner or later for basic hygene, sleep and other transitions. Other than during the special activities of praying and prophecying, if the wife’s head is occasionally uncovered, it is truly a sign of intimacy between her and her husband and motherly intimacy between her and her children. And when her hair is fully visible to those closest to her, that is when her femininity and glory are most visible.

Likewise, when we as children of Father YHWH are are “at home” and intimate (trusting and obedient) with our Heavenly Mother, that is when She reveals Her Motherly femininity and glory to us in a way that outsiders and even “close relatives” cannot yet see!

When a woman’s hair is covered, there’s a lack of visibility; the essence of her femininity is not as intense as when her hair is fully revealed. Cultures where headcoverings are the norm, are especially attuned to this fact. So similarly, there’s a lack of visibility of the Ruach HaQodesh’s femininity-- this is achieved by the absence of pronouns, specifically feminine pronouns in the majority of Scriptures where She is spoken of. By design, that phenomenon serves as a covering of sorts, because She is under the Father’s authority and direction. Her femininity is really only for Her children to see-- if they are willing to search it out.

However, it is an entirely different thing to altogether cover the woman’s face as is done in some Muslim nations, some of which even cover the eyes with a cloth screen. Hypothetically, if I (as a bearded male) wanted to disguise myself in Saudi Arabia, without shaving my beard, I could easily pass for a woman-- Afghanistan, even easier. The point in such an illustration, is that the woman’s face is also a key identifier to a woman’s femininity. If the face isn’t visible, then neither is her femininity-- especially with the draped garments and eye screens. Western nations and even less fanatical Islamic nations view the practice of covering the woman’s face as oppressive. Oddly enough, there are some instances where the scribes and translators oppressed Scripture by censoring the familial references to Elohim, and in doing so effectively tried to cover the Ruach’s face (so to speak). Let’s take a look at some examples. [In using the ISR in the following examples, I’m not trying to pick on the ISR, it’s generally a good version-- however with the selected verses, nearly all other versions have similar errors.]

The tranlators told us that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5 supposedly said:

“For your Maker is your Husband, YHWH of hosts is His Name, and the Set apart One of Yisrael is your Redeemer. He is called the Elohim of all the earth.” (ISR)


But Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5 actually says:

“For your Maker is your HusbandS* YHWH tzevaoth is His Name; and your RedeemerS** the Kadosh-One of Yisrael; The Elohim of the whole earth shall He be called” (RSTNE)

* (RSTNE note) Hebrew: ki baalecha asechah, or “because your Husbands are your Maker.” We see the plurality of one again in the term “husbands.” Also the Maker is YHWH, and His Redeemer, which in the Hebrew is ve goalecha, or literally “your Redeemers.” We see the Father and Son in this verse.
** (RSTNE note) Goalecha, or literally “your Redeemers.”


Most translators never render those key words plural, because, they cannot make sense of it while they remain stuck in the man-made systems of monotheism, untitarianism, or trinitarianism.

So what that passage means by using the term husbandS, is of course consecutive husbands for the WHOLE house of Yisrael. How can this be?

The Torah is the covenant with the Yisrael as a unified Whole house where YHWH is the King and metaphorical Husband of all of Yisrael as a Whole.

In 1 Schmuel/1st Sammuel 8, the entity of the Whole house of Yisrael rejected YHWH as King, but was not yet metaphorically divorced from YHWH, the metaphorical Husband.

Significantly, in 1st Kings 12 The entity of Yisrael as a unified Whole ceased to exist as it was split into the two sovereign kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephrayimic Yisrael. Even though the metaphorical bride of Yisrael became two brides, YHWH did not yet divorce them from Himself at that point, and honored His part of the covenant with each metaphorical bride.

Through idolatry, the entity of the sovereign kingdom of Ephrayimic Yisrael completely broke the covenant with YHWH. So, because of that, YHWH metaphorically divorced the entity of the Ephrayimic kingdom of Yisrael from Himself (Yermeyahu/Jerimiah 8:3).

In Yehezkel/Ezekiel 16 The remaining entity of the kingdom of Yahudah was recorded as becoming even worse than Ephrayimic Yisrael. YHWH sentenced the kingdom of Yahudah, to death for idolatrous adultery-- specifically v 38 and 40. Yahudah no longer existed as a sovereign kingdom, but only existed as a remnant house in exile (Yehezkel/Ezekiel 14:22).

Yehezkel/Ezekiel 23 affirms the capital punishment of the kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephramic Yisrael (hovever a remnant house of Yisrael (Ephrayim but more specifically Yahudah) does remain in v 48 but but neither as a kingdom.

In Yehezkel/Ezekiel 37, the deaths of the kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephramic Yisrael are affirmed as complete where the Yisrael as Whole house is acknowledged as dead in v. 11.

Yisrael as a Whole house is prophesied as being resurrected and re-unified (Yahudah and Ephrayimic Yisrael echad) via the Ruach HaQodesh (Yehezkel/Ezekiel 37). The Shepherd-King [Yehoshua] is central to this reunified and resurrected Whole Yisrael.

As is summarily communicated in the Whole B'rit Hadashah, the resurrected Yehoshua is indeed the metaphorical Husband for Yisrael as a Whole.

So the first covenant was between YHWH and Yisrael as a Whole.
Yisrael as a Whole died (not the remnant). The covenant, while intended for Yisrael as a Whole, then only existed with the remnant. Yisrael as a Whole gets resurrected and re-unified. The faithful remnant is then one with the resurrected/reunified Whole. The New/Renewed covenant was sealed with the blood of Yehoshua, the resurrected Husband. So Father YHWH was the first metaphorical Husband and Yehoshua the Son is the second metaphorical Husband. There is no breaking of Torah when the Whole House of Yisrael has two consecutive Husbands. Yisrael as a unified Whole entity was dead and then is made alive. Yehoshua, the second Husband was dead, and is made alive. So death and resurrection on both fronts make it possible and kosher for the Whole of the commonwealth of Yisrael to have Two consecutive Husbands.

There is another possible explanation for the word Redeemers in Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5. To explain this we must re-examine the word “Comforter” (describing the Ruach HaQodesh) which occurs in Yochanan 14:26 and 15:26.
From Younan’s interlinear Aramaic translation):

1. PRQL+A has been confused with the Greek ‘Paraclitus’, meaning ‘Advocate.’ The Aramaic construct PRQL+A is derived from two Aramaic roots: PRQ (‘To end’, ‘To finish’ or ‘To save’, see Strong’s Concordance entries 6561 and 6562) and L+A (‘The curse’, cf. Marqus 11:21, Matti 5:44, ‘A Compendious Syriac Dictionary’, page 236, and Oraham’s Dictionary, page 250). PRQL+A means ‘One who ends the curse.’ By the indwelling of the Ruach HaQodesh, our
fallen nature has been redeemed from the curse of Adam.


So Redemption is completed both by Yehoshua and the Ruach HaQodesh. Yehoshua by His life, death ,burial, and resurrection; and the Ruach HaQodesh by Her part in the Resurrection of Her Son Yehoshua, and by Her active residence in the bodies of believers. That would make both Yehoshua and the Ruach HaQodesh the Redeemers.

Here are some more examples of censorship.

The Translators told us that Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 12:1a supposedly said:

“Remember your Creator in the days of your youth...” (ISR)


But Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 12:1a actually says:

“Remember your CreatorS* in the day of your youth...” (RSTNE)


*(Hebrew: Et Borecha: your Creators” not just “Creator”).
בוראיך
Eth= Alef Taf
Borecha= Bet + Vav + Resh + Alef + Yud and + Kaf

The scribes told us that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:9-10 supposedly said :

“Woe to him that strives with his Maker! (a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth.) Does clay say to him it, ‘What are you making?’ Or your handiwork say ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you bringing forth?’ Or to the woman, ‘What are you labouring over?’” (ISR)


But Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:9-10 really says:

9 “Woe to him that strives with His MakerS!*(RSTNE) An earthenvessel that strives with Him who made it! Shall the clay say to Him that fashioned it, 'Why did you make it like this?' Or, the handiwork saying to the Maker of it, 'He has no hands?'
10 Woe to him that says to his Father, 'Why did you beget me?' Or, to a Mother, 'Why have you birthed [khool ] me?'”

*Dead Sea Scrolls


Did you catch that? The scribes who came after the Dead Sea Scrolls, REMOVED the plural reference to suit their own preconceived monotheistic notions instead of preserving YHWH’s own henotheistic words!
And with the remez (hint) of verse 10, it is clearly a reference to both the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother. The word birthed (often poorly translated as conceived in most other translations) is the Hebrew word khool which means: to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance, to writhe in pain especially in birthing. Born again believers are not conceived nor are they re-conceived by the Ruach HaQodesh, but rather, they are re-born or re-birthed by the Ruach HaQodesh.

Most bible translations will claim that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 48:16 supposedly says something like this:

“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Master YHWH has sent Me, and His Spirit” (ISR)


But what Yeshayahu/Isaiah 48:16 actually says is:

Come you near unto Me, hear you this; From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time that She was, there am I; and now the Master YHWH has sent me and His Ruach. (combination HRV/RSTNE)
[This verse is covered more in depth in Patriarchinity chapter 6]


As for the "I" speaking in various Tanakh passages, that does not necessarily prove singularity, because One Being can be speaking for the Group and representing the Group-- especially in a Patriarchal system. Not to mention that there are several sections of "I, even I" or "I, and I" which would indicate Father and Son (Beresheeth/Genesis 9:9; Yeshayahu/Isaiah 43:11, 43:25, 48:15). If there is a Father and Son, then Mother is clearly implicit (Yeshayahu/Isaiah 51:12).

Most bible translations will claim that Isaiah 42:5 says something like this:

"Thus said the El, YHWH, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk on it:" (ISR)


But according to the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Yeshayahu/Isaiah 42:5 actually says:

“Thus says the El AND Elohim who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread the earth and its produce, who gives breath (neshamah) to the people upon it, and spirit (ruha) to those walk on it.”
(The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible – The Oldest Known Bible Translated For The First Time Into English, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich [HarperOne; 1 edition, November 17, 1999], p. 337; ) [bold and capital emphasis mine]


So in the copies that came after the Dead Sea Scrolls, the scribes added the name of YHWH in place of Elohim in that verse (while substituting the name of YHWH with Adonai in many other verses)! The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll distinction between El and Elohim, in the same verse, DEMOLISHES the popular but erroneous allegation that the word Elohim is supposedly limited to majesty while excluding plurality.

There seems to be a disturbing pattern where Bible translations are all to often distorted to HIDE the obvious plurality of Elohim. This was accomplished both on the part of Jewish Scribes and Trinitarian translators who obeyed their own pre-concieved monotheistic notions rather than the actual henotheistic text!
Just as the Talmudic Jews overcompensate by adding laws that are not in Torah, so did the scribes and translators overcompensate by forcing singularity on a text that did not have singularity. They ripped us off!

So all throughout the entire Tanakh, the Ruach HaQodesh is almost entirely unaccompanied by pronouns, but the lone location where a pronoun does accompany Her, the actual text has the Hebrew feminine equivalent of She (Yeshayahu /Isaiah 48:16).

How does this play into the Gospels? The best testimonies are often from one’s enemies. According to Talmud Shabbat 116A (see suggested reading), there was a discussion how to destroy the Gospels because they contained The Name [YHWH]. So the rabbis debated which was better: meticulously first slicing out every occurrence of The Name from the Gospels and then burning the remainder of the cut up scrolls; or just burning the Gospels flat out. This unmistakably shows that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, not Aramaic nor Greek-- otherwise there’d be no discussion about cutting out of The Name). Now Mattityahu/Matthew, Moshe Yochanan/Mark, and Luka/Luke have no pronouns describing the Ruach HaQodesh anyhow. Yet in the Greek and later Aramaic manuscripts of Yochanan/John, there suddenly turns up masculine pronouns for the Ruach HaQodesh? Would that pattern be consistent with the Tanakh? Absolutely not! And it is especially not consistent with the key Tanakh verses that have been restored in spite of the scribes’ and translators’ selective sabotage. Additionally, the Old Syriac Aramaic Manuscripts for Yochanan have feminine pronouns for the Ruach HaQodesh (See Patriarchinity Chapter 11). Certainly the usage of The Name wasn’t the only thing that the unbelieving Jewish establishment found objectionable in the Gospel of Yochanan. Prediction #1: If and when the Hebrew manuscripts for the Gospel of Yochanan are found, there will either be no pronouns describing the Ruach HaQodesh; or if there are pronouns describing Her, they will be feminine pronouns.

As demonstrated in Patriarchinty Chapter 11, there was a 5th Gospel: The Gospel According to the Hebrews, and in fact there is evidence that it was the source gospel (often called the Q gospel) for the other synoptic gospels. And in it the Ruach HaQodesh was referred to by Yehoshua as His “Mother”. The church “fathers” apparently had access to this portion of Scripture and were sure to scoff and criticize it in their writings (despite it being a favorite of the Nazarenes). Well, what did they do with it? Why is it gone? Did they destroy it with the same hostility as the unbelieving Jews destroyed the Hebrew Gospels? Did the Nazarenes bury it or hide it from their persecutors? Prediction #2: If and when an authentic manuscript of the Gospel According to the Hebrews is discovered, there will be feminine pronouns/words describing the Ruach HaQodesh.

So the questions are: how intimate are we with our Elohim? Are we “at home” enough in the Scriptures that we can see (discern) Mom for Who She is? Can we recognize the Mother who re-birthed us? Or are we relying on the deceit of those who’ve tried to obscure Her identity and glory?

next chapter
Previous Chapter
suggested reading:
How they destroyed the Hebraic Gospels.

Views: 164

Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on June 7, 2009 at 8:49am
Mountains of contextual evidence to support the femininity of the Ruach HaQodesh.
Be sure to read the following:
6 Derived vs. Created
7 Divine Kind Before Time Could Unwind
8 Given: Father, Son, Solve for X
9 Required Prerequisites for the Gospel of Yochanan
10 Using The Compound Lens
11 Verifying Witnesses

The reason that "Queen of Heaven" worship was so insulting to YHWH, is that the "Queen of Heaven" that the Israelites were worshipping was NOT the Ruach HaQodesh. Just like the other pagan so-called deities in the Mideast who are called "Yah" are NOT Father YHWH.
Besides that, there are no places I'm aware of in Scripture where we are commanded to outrightly worship the Ruach HaQodesh.
On the other hand, the flip is that each of our bodies are temples-- temples of Who? The Ruach HaQodesh.
All believers are priests and priestesses-- where do these preists and priestesses live and service?
In their own bodies/temples. I will eventually be covering this in Chapter 13
Comment by Mikha El on June 7, 2009 at 1:31pm
Another excellent chapter Chris. Thanks for your inspiration.

One question I have concerns this statement:

So what that passage means by using the term husbandS, is of course consecutive husbands. Father YHWH had given a get (certificate of divorce) to Yahudah and Ephrayim, and so YHWH's Son Yehoshua is the only One who can redeem and metaphorically marry the two houses.

I have found where Ephrayim is divorced by YHWH here:

Jer 3:8 “And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.

I have not seen in scripture where Yehudah is divorced. Plays the harlot, yes, but not divorced. Any comments?

Mike
Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on June 7, 2009 at 1:58pm
If Yehoshua marries both houses in the Millenium, and if Yahudah was never divorced from YHWH, then you would have polyandry where Yahudah is married to both Father YHWH and Yehoshua (The Son) at the same time-- unthinkable and without any biblical pattern or type. With that type of assymetrical polyamorous "marriage", how would there be any hope of unification of the two houses?

I'll have to get back to you on some more references.
Comment by James Trimm on June 7, 2009 at 2:03pm
Any allegory breaks down when applied to closely.
Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on June 7, 2009 at 7:03pm
Todd, you said, "i forgot to mention that every reference you made was semantics...not descriptive but the structure of language."
Huh? A key structure of language is semantics, the study of meanings-- and meanings can be and are descriptive.

Todd, also, have you yet read Patriarchinity Chapter 11: Verifying Witnesses?
It shows that the historical Nazarenes did indeed have a familial concept of Elohim-- that is a key reason why the Christians, Ebionites, and unbelieving Jews hated the Nazarenes. (And also the reason that 2 of those antagonistic groups-- the Ebionites and Unbelieving Jews, rejected the Deity of Yehoshua!)

There is no reason to default that classification of gender is automatically results in human mortals such as man or woman. To assume that there is no gender in the Spiritual realm is to redefine the concepts of Father and Son., and if you held to the Gospel according to the Hebrews/Gospel According to the Nazoreans, you would also have to redefine the concept of Mother.

Yes, of course there are pagan religions that have had quasi-familial concepts of their idolatrous deities, but that is not suprising, the adversary will always try to make a convincing counterfeit.
By the way, I don't see any Talmudic Jews rejecting their monotheism on account of the Muslim's monotheism.

Also, questions about the distinctions between Father and Son, and Ruach and Son, etc.,are addressed in Patriarchinity Chapter 3: Echad-ness vs. Multiple Personality Disorder
and Patriarchinity Appendix 1.
Comment by Brian Forbes on June 9, 2009 at 10:42am
Thanks for this, it was really interesting!
Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on June 12, 2009 at 6:04am
Todd, a friend of mine had summed up what is at issue, so here is a quote by him:

"The kind of faith we live is, I firmly believe, influenced dramatically by our belief in the Elohim-head/Godhead and how we view it. Every perversion of it has led to murderous religious institutions, whether of the hand or of the spirit. A familial structure, but its very nature, is constantly expanding, and its driving force is improvement and betterment of each generation, where fathers want their sons, and mothers their daughters, to exceed them. This love-imperative is what I have called the "multiplication principle" for love propagates and multiplies. YHWH's Great Heart wants love to multiply and expand throughout the Cosmos and for His children, released to free agency, to find its way home. He is in every sense of the word "Family".

In strictly monotarian
[unitarian/oneness] systems everything reduces to the Father who stands alone and becomes progressively more brutal. In polythesistic systems there is always competition among the "gods" and what results is a giant battle of egos. Then there's all the strange stuff inbetween. All-male Trinitarianism with Mary thrown in as a fourth Elohim to add some femininity (Catholicism) and a Heavenly Mother thrown in for the same (Mormonism). In reality, though, the 'Mary' of Catholicism is a rival pagan deity and is Matriarchal (what could be higher than the 'Mother of God'?). The Mormon Heavenly Mother is just a breeding machine. All the while the Ruach is some sort of "second father" principle: and what do you get when there are two fathers and no mother? What kind of a 'son' is raised by such?

Finally, you have the harshness of Islam's and Judaism's monotarian
[unitarian/oneness] 'God' and all-male totalitarianism. We have seen the fruits. We are seeing them today.

The Elohim or Powers of Heaven are a love-multiplying family to which we are grafted in as little elohim along with the faithful malakim/angels. Family is glorious!
" -- Lev Tsiyon


Regarding your other question,
I cannot answer for other believers who are using the terms of "Jesus" or "Lord." Personally I don't use those terms. I think it is important that we don't go too hard/harsh on those who are in the process of coming out of the church system.
Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on July 1, 2009 at 5:29pm
Mikha El, you said, "I have found where Ephrayim is divorced by YHWH here:

Jer 3:8 'And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.'

I have not seen in scripture where Yehudah is divorced. Plays the harlot, yes, but not divorced. Any comments?"

The Two sisters of Yahudah and Ephraim represent two sovereign kingdoms. Ephraim/Israel as a sovereign kingdom was divorced as you had pointed out. So then what of Yahudah as a sovereign kingdom?

Remember, sovereign nations were sometimes identified by their key city. So Yahudah is identified by Yerushalayim, and so in Yehezqel/Ezekiel 16 it starts out:
"Again the word of YHWH came to me, saying,
Ben-adam, cause Yahrushalayim to know her
abominations,"

If Yahrushalayim falls, Yahudah falls.
So for most of the 16th chapter of Yehezqel, it is spent listing Yahudah/Yerushalyim's sins.

Here's are a few key points (From Yehezqel/Ezekiel 16: 30, 34-35, 38)
30 "How weak is your heart, says the Master YHWH, seeing
you do all these things, the deeds of a shameless whorish
woman;...
...
34 You are different from other women in your whoring,
whereas none follows you to commit whoring: in that you
give payment, and no payment is given to you, therefore
you are different.
35 Therefore, O harlot, hear the word of YHWH:...
...
38 And I will bring judgment upon you, as women that
break wedlock and shed dahm are judged; and I will give
you dahm in anger and jealousy."


How are adulterous women judged? Divorce at the very least, Execution at the most.
How are murderous women judged? Execution.

And so we see in verse 40:
40 "They shall also bring up a company against you, and
they shall stone you with stones, and thrust you through
with their swords."

So Yahudah as a sovereign kingdom is either divorced and then executed, or simply executed.

All that is left is a remnant in exile. A remnant in exile is not a sovereign nation. So therefore YHWH was no longer metaphorically married to the sovereign nation of Yahudah. The remnant has grown up and matured into Yahudah too (or Yahudah II), but as of yet there really is no sovereign earthly KINGDOM of Yahudah. Both remnants of the diaspora (including ger converts) are now betrothed to Yehoshua (The Son of YHWH), and are identified as "the Bride".

The intrigue-laden entity of the modern political secular state of Israel is not really the sovereign KINGDOM of Yahudah.
Comment by Mikha El on July 9, 2009 at 8:15pm
Chris,


Thanks for your reply. We still differ slightly, please allow me to explain.

The premise of your position regarding the status of Yehudah begins with a term I cannot find in scripture. That being “sovereign kingdom”. Drawing conclusions from this new term I feel is amiss when you then associate it with “key cities”.

I think we can both agree that the Kingdom of Israel did cease to exist. When Ezra and Nehemiah returned, they did not establish a Kingdom. (No King) This does not mean that the House of Israel and the House of Yehudah ceased to exist. There is a big difference between a “House” and a “Kingdom”.
The House of Israel predates the Kingdom of Israel. The original House of Israel began at Sinai with no King other than Yahweh. They then made the mistake of desiring a King they could see right then and there. This began the Kingdom of Israel. Yahweh's intent was for them to have no King other than Messiah who would come at the appointed time and reign over Israel.

The Kingdom died. The Houses did not die. This is why we say we are looking forward to the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. The people of Israel continued. The remnant of the true Yehudah and the House of Israel has continued and has not “died”. If your trying to make a House equal a Kingdom, please show me the passage.

Furthermore, we see from this verse that not everyone was killed in Yerushalayim.

Eze 14:22 “But see, there shall be left in it a remnant who are brought out, both sons and daughters. See, they are coming out to you, and you shall see their ways and their deeds, and shall be comforted concerning the evil which I have brought upon Yerushalayim – all that I have brought upon it.


The House of Judah continued under Ezra and Nehemiah and Malachi and Zechariah and even Ezekiel himself. I'm not sure if a "Judah 2" is correct as you state. It doesn't make sense. A remnant in exile is not a nation, as you state. It is however still a “house”. If it wasn't, how did those turning to the one true faith in Ester “become Jews”?

The end of the Kingdom did not mean the end of the House of Yehudah. If it did, why does scripture go forward, long after Ezekiel, with Ezra and Nehemiah and Ester and Zechariah and Malachi? Those people should all be shunned if they are the divorced of Yahweh!

Yeshua is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Not the reborn tribe of Judah or "Judah 2". Yeshua was not divorced from YHWH. Paul even said he was a “Jew”. Paul wasn't divorced from YHWH either.

Might I suggest you review the lesson rabbi Trimm has written posted here on Nazarene Space called,
“Is Judah a dried up Olive tree”.

Still love your book. Only this one hang-up exists with me if published promoting the divorce or death of Yehudah.

mikha El
Comment by Mavryk Chaparral on July 9, 2009 at 9:21pm
i think we are actually in agreement here.
The remnant-house of Yahudah of course continued onward, but not as a Sovereign Kingdom.
Also see Yehezqel 23.

Comment

You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service