The Kingdom of the Heavens is like Leaven Mt13:33

[apollos0fAlexandria]

Although you don't reply to most points in my posts I feel obliged to keep pointing out where you are just making leaps in logic and/or statements as fact without providing support.

I wonder though what kind of litany of errors a Muslim would list using Islam and the Quran as a benchmark. I seem to remember hearing that one reason they do not approve of translating the Quran is that translations cannot accurately render the message of the original and they say the same about the Bible which is quoted in the Quran. And of course it is quite true that translation does distort.

Yes, a person has to determine a benchmark first. You're clearly saying that the Christian benchmark is in no way more accurate than the Islamic one. In that case I don't really think there is any basis for discussion. The site is for those who have a Christian faith, or are genuinely interested in it. If you are only here to undermine Christian faith then it'd be preferable that you take your rhetoric elsewhere.

It must also be remembered that what Paul wrote Timothy with regard to 'the writings' Timothy had learnt from infancy could not have included NT writings since Timothy’s infancy would have been in the 30s shortly after Jesus died (2Tim 3:14, 15). But that does not mean that the NT is not inspired but simply that Paul was not talking about the Bible as we have it today when he said, … all writing is inspired of God… (2Tim 3:16) ...

Sure, we've had those discussions more than once here before.

... and those writings he had in mind would have included some manuscripts that today are thought of as apocrypha.

Really? How do you know this so as to state it as fact?

But this thread is not about attempting to yank the straw from Judaism’s Christendom’s or Islam’s eye, which is a form of one upmanship - we have God’s blessings you don’t. Epithets - goy, worldly, infidels, heretics, heathens and others such as these have been man’s excuse for subjugating and plundering fellow man from the year dot.

And Satan's response to God's choosing of a nation was to try in various ways to make them no different to all others. You are in essence doing the same. The idea that God could choose a people for his name appears entirely foreign to you, even though it is clearly expressed in the Old Testament.

But this thread is about what constitutes the leaven that ferments the flour, and coming to terms with sin – our sin - missing the mark and failing to face up to how we personally contribute and perpetuate this error that originated with Adam. The path they chose was a deviation from the narrow path that leads to life, and that is the literal meaning of sin, to miss ( H2398) When Cain became jealous of his brother he like his parents had a choice, if he backed off from his self righteous indignation, and he did a good deed an inner change would occur that would lift up his spirit. But if he did not, sin, the deviation off the narrow path would gain mastery over him (Gen 4:6,7). Emulating his parents he let the desire of his heart (in his case anger) rule. His righteous indignation would not have been insurmountable, his heavenly father had told him what he needed to do to gain mastery of it – do the exact opposite from what he wanted to do.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. Cain did have a choice. But you seem to want to extend the idea of free will to the idea that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they would only try hard enough. From a scriptural point of view that's just pure heresy. No New Testament is required even. But you are going to great lengths to bend even the Old Testament to fit your viewpoint.

In time Cain proceeded to bring some of the fruitage of his labour as a ‘gift’ or approach offering - much like an apple a pupil brings to a teacher to garner favour – Jehovah had not asked for this, it was something Cain did of his own accord, kindling a fire and making the smoke of it rise heavenward.

This is conjecture. The reasons that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices is not stated one way or the other. We can't state categorically whether God asked for it or not. But you are stating it categorically. What is that based on, other than the mission to deny atonement theology?

Abel his little brother followed suit, ...

Nope. The Bible doesn't say he followed suit. It simply says that each brought a sacrifice. It makes no reference to Abel imitating Cain in some way.

... he brought some the fat firstlings (plural) of his flock - being a sheepherder Gen 4:2 firstlings would most likely have been young rams and ewes and we are told that … while Jehovah was looking with favour upon Abel and his offering he did not look with favour upon Cain and his offering… A more literal reading of this verse is Gn 4:4... And heed is Yahweh giving to Abel and to his present offering ...yet to Cain and to his present offering he gave no heed... Note that in Abel’s case he gives heed, something he had not done when Cain had offered up his gift - there appears to be a time lag. Cain had offered up his gift first which Jehovah ignored, whereas later when Abel offered up his gift he paid attention.

You're imposing a time lag on the passage which is not stated in scripture.

The Hebrew word rendered heed is H8159 sha`ah shaw-aw' a primitive root; to gaze at or about (properly, for help); by implication, to inspect, consider, compassionate, be nonplussed (as looking around in amazement) or bewildered. Since Jehovah would not be gazing about for help, the extended definition would apply – namely that Jehovah was amazed nonplussed, and paid close attention to what Abel was doing.

This makes no sense. You've said yourself that "inspect" and "consider" are among the options. And yet you make a logical leap to say that if the context cannot call for definition (1) then it must be number (5) without giving any reason why it can't be (2), (3), or (4).

What was different about Abel’s approach gift that made Jehovah pay attention, something he had not done when Cain had offered up his gift? It is important that we arrive at an accurate understanding of what happened as this verse is a foundation plank for atonement theology.

When God had told their parents to subdue the earth, the Hebrew word rendered subdue is H3533 kabash kaw-bash' a primitive root; to tread down… http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3533.htm. The same root word is the Hebrew word for lamb, but by giving it a different Strong’s number it is well hidden. H3532 a ewe. KJV: (ewe) lamb … http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3532.htm - scroll down the left hand column to the heading ‘Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance’ and you will see it has the same meaning. Take note of the Hebrew letters not the transliteration, also compare H3534. All these words have the same root, meaning of dominate, subdue, tread down.

Is this the reason God paid attention to Abel’s gift offering, had Abel interpreted God’s original instruction to his parents to subdue ( H3533) the earth by offering sheep (kebes). We know Cain misinterpreted God’s puzzled stare as being God’s approval of Abel’s offering; but should we?

You're already working on a questionable premise as stated above. Cain interpreted the situation as God's approval of Abel's sacrifice. You say that this was a misinterpretation. I would think that the burden of proof would be heavily upon you to justify that, and I certainly don't think you've done so.

Now as to the theory that Abel mistook the word "kabash" for lamb, let's be clear that Gen 4:4 (which describes Abel's sacrifice) doesn't use any word related to it at all.

From that time forward sacrificing animals as approach gifts to God became common practice.

And never once does the Bible suggest that it was all a big misunderstanding starting with Abel. What does that tell you?

The Mosaic Law regulated practice. Besides being an approach gift it served as a tutor teaching them God’s standards of right and wrong, the sacrifice acting as a fine or penalty when they transgressed (Rom 7:7)

No. It wasn't "a fine or a penalty". Check out for instance Leviticus 16:9,10. " And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel."

It could not be clearer. How could an individual goat on behalf of the nation be a penalty payment for the some person's specific sin? And what was the purpose of the scapegoat. And why is the word "kaphar" used as part of the Law if atonement is just a man-made theological construct?

Apollos

[Get out of her]

Hello again Jo-el and everyone:

Looks like I am going to have to start copying and pasting to post my replies. Apparently I am taking too long to finish them and am getting timed out on the reply box.
Okay, with regard to this subject of Matthew 13:33: and it's "three large measures of flour."
I think I have already mentioned that this is one of those scriptures that I always found intriguing and finally began to meditate and pray on as I had never heard or read an explanation on it that made sense to me and seemed to actually stand up to any serious scriptural scrutiny. Happy to see that I was not the only one who thought this parable deserved a closer examination. Anyway, I hope at least someone here appreciates my personal take on the possible meaning of this scripture.

Now that I think about it again, there were actually a total of four possible explanations that eventually came to my mind on this. I noticed so far (I am brand new here and have not had time yet to read too many postings) that at least two of my ideas on this also occurred to others that are currently posting on this topic. Of the four, at this point I am personally only prepared to continue seriously considering two as potential candidates. However the main reason I wanted to join in with this discussion is because the explanation that I am currently taking the most seriously does not appear to have even been brought up here yet. Before I get into exactly why I am now considering this particular interpretation however, I think it would be best to explain what I see as the problems or at least potential downfalls of the first three.

Now to begin with, particularly in view of scriptures such as Romans 12:1 and Acts 17:11, I am starting with the premise that Jehovah would never use the very same scriptural symbol to simultaneously represent two diametrically opposite things. Jehovah's goal here is ultimately to reveal the deeper things of his word to his true servants by means of his holy spirit. He most certainly knows that being downright inconsistent with his symbolisms would only serve to confuse people. So the first question that I believe we should be considering is exactly what do the scriptures reveal and establish as to the symbolic meaning of this "leaven" used in these "three large measures of flour."

Well we of course are aware that the perfect and sinless Christ Jesus of the first century was also scripturally associated or identified with the unleavened or "unfermented bread." Moreover he is also identified scripturally as the "word of God" while at the same time his true followers were admonished to actually "eat" this "unfermented" "body" of the Christ. (Joh 1:1) (Joh 6:53) (Mt 26:26) All of this would of course clearly indicate that the lack of leaven in this bread or flour would symbolize a lack of corruption, and by extension that the addition of leaven would represent just the opposite.
To really begin appreciating the big picture here however, I think it would be good to bear in mind that from a symbolic perspective it would appear that perhaps the main thing being represented by the entire 40 year sojourn in the wilderness of the ancient Hebrews where they ate the "manna" (bread from heaven), was ultimately to escape the spiritual corruption of God's people or "leaven" that was in turn represented by Egypt. (Re 11:8) This particular facet comes to the fore all the more when we factor in that the leaven mentioned here in Matthew 13 was specifically said to be "hidden." In a scriptural context, things that are hidden such as the "man of lawlessness" or the "leaven of the Pharisees" are always things that Jehovah intends to "reveal." (Lu 8:17) (2 Th 2:3) Jesus in fact commanded his followers to "watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees." (Mt 16:6) This I believe should in turn direct our attention toward scriptures such as the one where Jesus commands his Apostles to "keep on the watch" and exactly how such a command might tie in with this "revealing" of the "man of lawlessness." Now particularly in view of the fact that Jesus made it clear that there would be more than one or two times that his earthly followers would need to "keep on the watch" for these very things, please try to keep these points in mind as they are intimately tied in to the reasons why I ended up in a place I never saw coming with respect to understanding this parable here in Matthew 13. (Mt 14:25) The main point here once again to reiterate, is that the symbolic meaning of leaven in the scriptures has always clearly been with respect to spiritual corruption. So how would this affect the possible explanations of Mt 13:33?
Well one of the possible explanations for the "three large measure of flour" that came to my mind a few years ago was this very same idea that they might represent Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively. The reason I eventually rejected this idea however is because for something to become corrupted, it would of course initially have to be clean and pure. Now in the case of true Judaism as well as true Christianity, that certainly was the case. However, could the same be said for the nation of Islam?

Actually the more deeply that I dig into the scriptures along with much prayer and meditation, one of the many things that continues to seem more and more apparent to me is that both Christendom as well as the nation of Islam were in fact prophetically pictured in the Bible. More importantly however, (assuming I am correct) they were pictured as completely separate and distinct nations from God's true people even from their inception. I don't intend to go into detail at this time, but I would like to humbly submit that we all give some consideration to the following proposed scenario:
Let's assume for arguments sake that Jehovah did in fact intend to use ancient Israel and it's surrounding nations to (among other things) represent or prophetically picture the current political and religious institutions that Jehovah's people would be confronting as they stood before the Jordan River expecting to soon be ushered into the Promised Land. Was not the Promised Land a symbolic representation of the new world that we are now eagerly anticipating? Was not the apostasy represented by Moses at the waters of Meribah along with his death and the subsequent transfer of his and Aaron's shepherding authority to Joshua and Caleb a fitting representation of exactly what is going on today with the JW organization. Are we not at this very moment in a kind of spiritual "wilderness" seeking the "manna" or "unfermented bread" due to yet another of the "seven" foretold "strikings of the shepherd and scattering of the sheep?" (Mr 14:27) (Le 26:18-28) Did we not "flee to the mountains" in a spiritual sense upon "catching sight" (with our eyes of spiritual understanding) of something "disgusting" that was "standing in the holy place?" (Mt 24:15) Are we not right now in fact at this very moment expecting the very same "prince of the army of Jehovah" to "come" with a "sword" just as Joshua encountered as we now approach a "great city" that happens to contain a "harlot" and also just happens to be facing complete annihilation? (Jos 2, 1 5:13, 14) (Re 17:1, 18) Isn't there something familiar here as if there were a scriptural pattern of an army coming from the east and crossing a river just before overthrowing a great city that somehow seems to consistently be represented with a harlot or otherwise as a Babylonian entity? (Is 44:27 45:1) (Re 16:12) Well if in this exact context and setting Jehovah were to also choose to represent Judaism, Christendom, and the nation of Islam along with their current spiritual condition and the relationship or lack thereof that we should have with them at this time, how might he do so?
I find it extremely interesting that in this exact setting or prophetic time frame that appears to be represented here, we find exactly three nations that while clearly separate and distinct from Jehovah's people, (in the specific prophetic time frame that I am proposing here) are nonetheless represented as related. One of these three (Edom) is identified as directly related while the other two (Moab and Ammon) are described as a more distant relation. (De 2:4, 5, 9, 19) While these three nations were clearly not represented as God's people, (at least not during this prophetic time frame) they were nevertheless to be recognized and even respected in a way that no other nations at this time seem to be. While in the case of Moab and Ammon the Israelites were simply counseled not to "molest" or "engage in strife" with them, the commands regarding the Edomites were taken to a whole different level. These Edomites, while obviously distinct and separate from God's people, were nonetheless identified here as "brothers" that the Israelites were to be "very careful" with. Moreover, Jehovah's people were even allowed to "purchase food and water" from them that they then in turn "must eat and drink." (De 2:4, 6)
If the term "brothers" would seem confusing or contradictory to the idea that the "Edomites" do not represent God's people, bear in mind once again the exact prophetic time frame that I am suggesting is being represented here. The timing of this account appears to fall into the interim period between the apostasy represented by Moses' actions at the "waters of Meribah," and that of the reinstatement of shepherding authority that was later assigned to Joshua and Caleb. Until such time there actually exists no authority among the people. In turn, since its authority is technically what constitutes a nation, no authority means no nation. The spiritual status of these descendents of Jacob along with their "vast mixed company" of Egyptians was actually no different at this time than the descendents of Jacob's brother Esau. (The Edomites) Moreover, until shepherding authority would be reinstalled to these Hebrews, their status as mere "brothers" of the Edomites would remain.

I will submit that we all consider the possibility that these three nations, (Edom, Moab, and Ammon) might in fact have been used to represent Judaism, Catholicism (which basically morphed into Christendom eventually) and the nation of Islam respectively. Correspondingly, it has been my experience that while Christendom and the Muslim faiths have not been able to offer anything of value to me in coming to better understand the deeper things of the Bible, this has not at all been the case with the practicers of Judaism. Quite to the contrary, their understanding and knowledge of the Hebrew language alone has proven to be extremely helpful to myself personally over the years in better understanding Jehovah's word. (De 2:4, 6) It may very well be that this exchange of scriptural knowledge is exactly what Jehovah means here when he speaks about "purchasing food and water" as well as "eating and drinking" what has been purchased from these "Edomites." But what is the point here?
One of the things that this might indicate is that unlike the other two nations, what Edom represented actually was clean and undefiled at least at its inception, and therefore was at some point in a position to actually become corrupted with a kind of "leaven." In my case at least, the more that I have investigated the symbolic meanings of both Jacob and Esau, the more it seems that they actually represent the two sides of the same proverbial coin. In other words, it seems to me that while Jacob represented God's people in a clean and approved standing with Jehovah, Esau represented them while in a cursed and disapproved or "leavened" standing. By extension, the nations of Israel and Edom would ultimately represent the very same things.

In direct contrast however with what was initially a clean inception or beginning of Judaism, in both the case of Moab and Ammon, just the opposite was illustrated or symbolized in the scriptures. Bear in mind that the very inception of these nations was pictured with the incestuous sexual relations between Lot and his two daughters, along with the two resulting sons that were born to them. (Ge 19) The descendents of the older son occupied Moab, and the younger the land of Ammon. Catholicism is of course a bit older than the Muslim faith, and in both cases at least some of their core doctrines or teachings can be traced back to the same roots as if they were "related" to Jehovah's people in some way. Assuming this line of reasoning is not completely out in left field, I think we might in fact do well to bear in mind that the entire context or setting of these unclean relations between Lot and his daughters was in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. At a later time Jehovah helped us to understand that these very cities were among the scriptural symbols used to represent an unclean and spiritually dead condition. (Re 11:8) In fact even caves themselves (these sex relations took place in a "cave" in the area of "Zoar") appear to consistently be used throughout the scriptures as a symbol of death. Bear in mind that all this is only a portion of what I view as scriptural evidence of this possibility that these three ancient nations might in fact have been used to foreshadow Judaism, Christendom, and Islam in a symbolic way. To stay on point however, these are among many scriptural symbolisms that tend to direct me away from the idea of these "three large measures of flour in Matthew 13:33 representing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Only one of these three appears to even be in a position to begin qualifying as a potential candidate for what Jesus might be trying to represent here in Matthew 13:33. But what about this idea of the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles comprising what was actually being represented here in Matthew 13?

I will admit that I see this idea as a stronger candidate here for these "three large measures of flour." There are however at least two things that might be problematic for this line of reasoning. First of all the descriptive word used here with respect to all three of these "measures of flour" was "large." When we factor in things like the fact that the setting here was after all the very founding of the Christian congregation or even "Kingdom of the heavens," and that the "Jews" specifically (as opposed to the Samaritans and Gentiles) were shortly thereafter identified in accounts such as Luke 18:24, 25 as simply representing or foreshadowing the shepherding or spirit anointed class of Jehovah's sheep, this word "large" seems to pose a problem. The only kinds of terms that are ever found in the scriptures to describe this sheep class or spirit anointed ones who would comprise this "Kingdom of the heavens," are terms such as "little flock." (Lu 12:32) The other potential problem here is that if we continue to trust that Jehovah would remain consistent in his use of symbolisms, things would appear to be working backwards here with this parable. The very function of this "kingdom of the son of his love" that was established immediately after Jesus' words here in Matthew was that of cleansing what had already been corrupted by this "leaven of the Pharisees." (Col 1:13) The term "Gentiles" (sometimes translated as "heathen") in particular seems a bit problematic with this line of reasoning. The "Jews" or the very audience that Jesus was addressing these words to in particular viewed these ones as anything but pure and unadulterated in a spiritual sense. If anything, addressing a group of people as Gentiles (particularly in that context or setting), would seem to accomplish the very opposite of identifying a "large measure" of Jehovah's people.

I am well aware that perceived obstacles such as this are likely what led the organization to reach the conclusion that in this particular parable the leaven was used as a symbol of how the Christian ministry would gradually be spread throughout the earth to all the nations. However the issue of Jehovah thereby being inconsistent with his symbolisms is not the only problem with this proposal. This leaven that was used in this parable was identified once again as something that was "hid" or hidden. In absolutely no way whatsoever could the Christian ministry be identified as something "hidden." Quite to the contrary, the light of scriptural truth was something that was clearly identified in the scriptures as the very antithesis of hidden. (Mr 4:21) And this would be all the more so the case in the context of the ministry to the "Samaritans and Gentiles."

So what about some other possible explanations here for these "three large measures of flour" in Matthew 13?

One of the ideas that came to my mind on this was the possibility of these "three measures of flour" representing the three groups of people that over the millenniums fell under the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and "New Covenant" respectively. We realize of course that both the Ancient Israelites as well as the Christian congregation were foretold to experience periods of corruption that would ultimately result in exactly what always happens when "measures of flour" are finished being fermented. Yes, they are of course then thrown into the oven or what in a spiritual sense would be a cleansing or a "baptism of holy spirit and fire." (Mt 3:11) (Mal 3:2, 3) This idea seems to come unraveled however when you try to include the Abrahamic Covenant. After all, in order for this foretold "man of lawlessness" to begin this leavening process of the "flour," there would first have to be a law for him to break. In turn there actually was no law until the Mosaic Law Covenant was established. The Abrahamic Covenant never established a law or authority, and by extension neither a nation or kingdom. It only established a promise of such for Jehovah's people. So where might this all leave us on the issue of the contenders for these "three large measures of flour" here in Matthew 13:33?

From my experience at least, the only idea that ever came to me on this that continues to stand up to all scriptural scrutiny so far would be the following: And before I even get into it I will admit that I never saw this one coming. So I certainly understand if anyone struggles a bit with it and wants to challenge it or otherwise prompt me to begin elaborating on the scriptures and line of reasoning that brought me here.
At this point I am quite inclined to view this parable in Matthew 13 strictly in the context of the specific time frame that it was spoken or written. One of the reasons for this is because this scripture was among ones that were pre qualified with the words; "The Kingdom of the heavens is like…" In other words, Jesus simply is no longer speaking about any previous covenants, which of course would include the Mosaic Law Covenant with its corresponding Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. Rather, he is speaking about exactly what all these things foreshadowed, which was once again "the Kingdom of the Heavens." The establishing of this heavenly kingdom was after all one of the main things his first century "coming" or presence/arrival was all about.

One of the things however that had already been well illustrated/demonstrated or prophetically pictured with the more earthly or fleshly Judean Kingdom, was that there would be even a number of times that it would experience this very "leaven of the Pharisees" (if you will) that of course always resulted in a spiritual cleansing or "baptism." (A throwing of it into the proverbial oven) A baptism in turn is of course ultimately both a spiritual death as well as a rebirth. To fully grasp the key points here however, we want to stop thinking of baptism in terms of our individual water baptisms and start thinking of it on a national level, as in a death and rebirth of a nation or kingdom. There was always a priestly as well as a kingly aspect to these baptisms. It was this very priestly atonement (or blood atonement) that was represented by things like the way in which Moses and Aaron were put to death while Joshua and Caleb were subsequently appointed as new shepherds. In fact even the chastisement in the form of the extra 40 years that the Israelites had to remain in the wilderness for their rebellion essentially symbolized this very same thing. Bear in mind that over these 40 years, all of the ones that were alive at the time of the rebellion in connection with the 12 spies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb) were deemed to die before the entry into the Promised Land. This evidently represented that this spiritual death which occurred at the highest level of the nation was assigned or attributed to the entire population. (A kind of community responsibility) This sparing and subsequent appointing (as opposed to merely anointing) of Joshua and Caleb in turn was a representation of the way in which the gold is recovered from this "fire of a refiner" as opposed to the "scummy dross" that is thrown away. This represents the "harvest" of this metal or more specifically the "firstfruits" of this harvest. This is the "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego that are thrown into this "baptism of holy spirit and fire" right along with the "foolish virgins." However unlike their "wicked and sluggish" counterparts, they emerge from this fire and are subsequently appointed to positions of great authority. This is a death and rebirth of the nation or kingdom (a baptism) as it is actually the authority (or lack thereof) that constitutes or disqualifies a nation. The very reason that the "sheep are scattered" when Jehovah "strikes the shepherd," is because by the act of spiritual adultery or harlotry, the shepherd loses its authority over the sheep. This in turn is the very reason the sheep now are in need of a new appointing among the remaining or even resurrected anointed ones.

We might recall that the timing of the "burning bush" encounter of Moses while in the wilderness, corresponded with his appointing (as opposed to merely an anointing) to now commence with a ministry that had an infinitely greater level of power and authority behind it. His initial attempts to sway or help his brothers in Egypt as well as even his time in the wilderness apparently represented the relatively weak and ineffective ministry of the anointed ones that have humbly, repentantly, obediently, and even openly acknowledged their loss of shepherding authority due to the latest apostasy of the nation by "fleeing to the mountains" in a spiritual sense. (Mt 24:15) (2 Cor 6:17) (Re 18:4) In other words, this action in the context of learning ("catching sight of") the fact that you now (due to a community responsibility) actually qualify technically as nothing more than a Chaldean entity (such as the "king of Nineveh") or a spiritual prostitute, is exactly how you in effect now humbly and repentantly "rise up from the throne, put off the official outer garment, cover yourself with sackcloth, and sit down among the ashes. (Jonah 3:5- 7) The "cry" that is now spoken of in verse 7 is actually now the proverbial "voice crying out from the wilderness to prepare the way of Jehovah." (Mt 3:3) It is actually a call to everyone to stop eating what are now the "dainties" or "delicacies" and the "drinking wine" of the king of Babylon. (Da 1:8 10:3) compare (Re 18:14) This "polluted" spiritual food is none other than the very same "leavened bread" spoken of in accounts such as Matthew 13:33. This "king of Nineveh" represents the very same thing as the repentant and cooperative "Rahab" ("the harlot") of Jericho. This is the "discreet virgins." They are identified as spiritual "virgins" because the spiritual adultery of the nation has broken their marriage covenant with their heavenly master. Their "wicked and sluggish" counterparts on the other hand, now do exactly what was represented in prophetic pictures such as with the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees in the first century, namely; they "wickedly" and "foolishly" cling desperately to their now imaginary thrones and in effect declare; "I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning." (Re 18:7) (Is 47:8)

When Jehovah "strikes the shepherd," this entity is actually split in half just as illustrated with the giant rock in the wilderness at "Meriba," or with the entire people now standing between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim shortly before the appointing of Joshua and Caleb. (Is 48:21) (De 27) Compare Zec 14:4, 5) One mountain is now "cursed" by this apostasy or act of spiritual harlotry, while the other is now blessed by their humble repentance and cooperation that was also illustrated by "Rahab the harlot" in Jericho or the "king of Nineveh." Yes, due to this community responsibility they are technically just as much a spiritual harlot as the "foolish virgins," and due to this spiritual death and resulting loss of their marital status with their heavenly master, they are now spiritual "virgins" as well as "widows." As these ones were themselves in fact part of the "body of the Christ," and have also once again experienced a spiritual death, they are also spiritual "widows" once again. Since in turn these same ones have also lost their shepherding authority over the "other sheep" and as "Christ's brothers" were also in a fatherly spiritual relationship with these ones, they also by extension now "know the loss of children." The only real difference here with the "discreet virgins" is that they now humbly and repentantly acknowledge these things, as well as demonstrate this repentance by their obedient actions. Because of this, they will now experience exactly what Rahab subsequently did, namely; a marriage to a Judean prince. (Mt 1:5) (Mt 25:10) Note here in Matthew 25 that the very last "sign of the times" is actually a final spiritual "sleep" as well as an "awakening" of these spiritual "virgins." In other words, this is the final death and resurrection or rebirth of the nation or Kingdom. (Baptism) But to stay on point here, when we think in terms of these foretold "strikings of the shepherd and scatterings of the sheep," we should also bear in mind exactly how many of them were foretold.

Well when we consider scriptures such as Leviticus 26:18-28, we find that there were foretold to be a total of "seven" of them. The reason that Jehovah's "woman" would ultimately need to "give birth to seven," is because there would correspondingly be a total of seven spiritual deaths of the nation or kingdom. (1 Sa 2:5) (Jer 15:9) In turn these spiritual deaths of the nation were ultimately due to a failure to "keep on the watch." (Mt 16:11, 12 24:42, 43) Once again, what exactly was the slave class commanded to "keep on the watch" for? In scriptures such as Luke 12:1, we find that this was none other than the "leaven of the Pharisees," and we can be sure it was no coincidence that in the very next verse here, we find this leaven in the very same context of Matthew 13:33, in that it was associated with something "concealed or hidden." (Lu 12:2)

Now when we factor in that there were foretold to be a total of "seven times" that the shepherd would need to be "struck" due to this failure to "keep on the watch" for these proverbial "teachings of the Pharisees," we might want to begin thinking in terms of how many of these failures had already occurred by the time of Jesus' words here in Matthew 13:33. (Mt 16:12) By extension, how many of these apostasies of the nation would be left remaining for what was now soon to be "the kingdom of the heavens" as opposed to the kingdom of Judea?

We of course recognize that by the time that Jesus uttered these words in Matthew 13, Jehovah's "woman" had already prostituted herself with the Roman world power. While the spiritual harlotry of Jehovah's "woman" of course began with the Babylonian world power, the prophet Daniel had already identified this Roman Empire as the "fourth beast." (Da 7:7) In turn, we of course realize from scriptures such as Revelation 17:3 that there were to be yet three more manifestations or "heads" of this "wild beast" that Jehovah's "woman" would commit spiritual adultery with before Armageddon.
When we begin to piece all these things together, there seem to be many other scriptures that begin to fall into place and make perfect sense. For just three examples:

It is rather likely that we would no longer wonder about things like the fact that Jesus seems to equate the prophetic time period of his earthly ministry with what he referred to as the "fourth watch." (Mr 6:48)

It will now seem as likely no mere coincidence that Jesus' apostles actually seem to be prophetically pictured in the case of Peter as "denying" the Christ exactly "three times." (Lu 22:34)
We will now likely understand that this exact same phenomenon was being prophetically pictured with the way that (as opposed to "staying awake" and "keeping on the watch"), in the garden of Gethsemane the Apostles fell asleep exactly "three times."

This proposed explanation of Matthew 13:33 I will submit as not just the strongest contender for these "three large measures of flour," but also as an example of or even an exercise in simply allowing Jehovah's word and spirit to do exactly what it was always foretold to ultimately do in scriptures such as Genesis 40:8, namely; interpret itself. (Da 2:28) I would be quite happy to accept questions and even challenges on this nevertheless. Getting answers to questions always seems to lead to more good questions. Moreover as far as I'm concerned, if being proven incorrect brings us all closer to an accurate knowledge of Jehovah's word, I'd like to be first in line.

Regards:

Sol

[jo-el]

Hi Sol,

Losing that length of a post is very disheartening, so really appreciate you taking the time to patiently reconstruct it and you definitely make a lot of interesting connections.

I do believe that in the scriptures, no stone should be left unturned. I would say that your study really moves past types and antitypes, one or even 2 layer prophecies to something that we might even call "hypertypes". On the one hand if it allows one to see a more complicated and precise use of shadows and types and how they fit the whole picture - the outworking of Gods plan, then as you alluded to at the end it can be among those eye opening moments.

On the flip side, the interpretive principle has to be greatly expanded, to include more variables and actors as the time and focus shift forawrd. I think i some cases it requires stretching out the interpretation quite a bit. If I may give a small example, I would not hang the word "apostasy" on the event where Moses strikes the Rock. Moses did fail to give glory to God on this occasion. Moses was angry with the people, whereas God did not tell him He was angry, so Moses misrepresented Him. God does say to Moses "you did not believe", so I suppose you could make that point of a failure to take the Almighty at his word, but I do not see an "apostasy" here. I believe a major issue is that Moses probably interfered with the type of the Rock from which life giving water would gush forth. The first time he was told to strike it, the 2nd time he was told only to ask, but he did not listen and struck it anyway. You might also say that Moses leaned on his own work in thinking it necessary to strike the Rock versus having faith that God was going to bring the water forth without any action on his part. God was angry/disappointed with him, but allowed him to see the land and also gave him more revelations before he went to sleep - so, why an apostasy? I'm just trying to highlight that by applying a different interpretive principal, the other significance of the incident at the rock and the other events surrounding it are being filtered out. Perhaps you simply believe that these threads co-exist alongside - that's fine - but I just wanted to point it out. However, in pointing it out you have caused me to review what we can take away from this account.

You mentioned a rule you believe in that God always uses the same symbolism - I think that is important, because I have some questions about how to consistently apply the symbols.

So far I remain unconvinced about the Judaism, Christian and Islam hypothesis - it is an interesting idea and of course even more interesting that you shared it in common with LRW~. The very basic issue that I see with it, is the same as the one you made with regard to Judea, Samaria and Gentiles - that Judaism, Islam and Christianity are being equated with 3 measures of flour. Judaism is by no means as large as Christianity or Islam have become. In fact, Judaism was almost wiped out. How do we decide that "religious grouping" is represented by flour - is there a precedent for that?

On the parable itself - this is really a very small parable. I'm just wondering how you handle these points?:
There are 3 measures, but they are all ONE lump
Religions and/or nations are not and never have been one, nor did they co-exist side by side in even measure.
There is flour
I noticed that you made a comparison to Christ as being unleavened bread, however, flour is not exactly the same as bread. Flour also cannot be simultaneously the Body of Christ and religions and nations.
There is leaven
Leaven is being linked to Jesus statement "leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy". However, leaven is also likened to "sin" in general as evident by Christ being unleavened bread - the purpose was not to say Christ is "without Pharasaical hypocrisy", the purpose is to say "without sin/blemish". Then there is the problem presented by the reading of the text which says that the kingdom is "like" leaven. By accepting that leaven actually means something IN the kingdom, not "like" the kingdom, we need to assume that the kingdom is now is being better represented by the flour. Yet this is contrary to Jesus statement - the kingdom is not coming with "observation" and also brings us back to what the flour actually represents.
which is hidden
So the leaven out of necessity becomes hypocrisy that is hidden in the kingdom (flour) and grew and grew.
by a woman
If a symbol always means the same thing, who is she? Is she Eve? Is she Israel? Is she Babylon? Is she the bride of Christ? and so on.

That is the parable itself. The next issue, is that by introducing a connection to Jesus statement about the leaven of the Pharisees, we have to make additional connections. Here are a couple:

First, what is the significance of the reference to Pharisees? i.e. should great weight be given to Jesus focusing on the Pharisees, or was the "hypocrisy" alone in scope? Does this have any relevance to the interference of those who were from the sect of the Pharisees as recorded in Acts 15? If not, what application does the Pharisee have in Christianity? and there is surely none in Islam?

Second, if it is concerning the scenario where you link back to the role of respective nations in the type, what role does "hypocrisy" play vs "apostasy" as typed by leaven?

There are a few examples of statements that I have to put in the parking lot right now for example:

Now when we factor in that there were foretold to be a total of "seven times" that the shepherd would need to be "struck" due to this failure to "keep on the watch" for these proverbial "teachings of the Pharisees

You seem to have made this connection between the nation of Israel being struck seven times and the shepherd being struck seven times, whereas Jesus related the prophecy of the shepherd to himself and his apostles and in that prophecy the shepherd is struck, but not seven times. This is something I was trying to point out to coccus ilicis (LRW~) in that I don't feel it is possible to take a word byitself and cut it out with scissors and start matching up with the same word in another setting - does that make sense? The problem here again as with the flour, is that the shepherd must become representative of someone else in order to be failing to keep on the watch, so we are essentially talking about leaders. However, leaders in Christendom are not even recognisable as a single entity, let alone across all 3 main Abrahamic faiths. Finally, once again we have introduced the "Pharisees", only this time as I mentioned earlier, it is the "teachings" that come back into focus, rather than the hypocrisy.

I'm not knocking your well thought out interpretation at all, I'm just asking if the threads do really hang together when we start tugging at them?
However, I really appreciate that you made many fine and interesting points in this post such as

Because of this, they will now experience exactly what Rahab subsequently did, namely; a marriage to a Judean prince

Amen!

[Get out of her]

Greetings Jo-el;

Yeah I appreciate the sympathy here for the hours I spent kinda spinning my wheels. My biggest consolation was that the first two attempts were more abbreviated. Once I began writing on a program I had more faith in I dug in a little deeper.

I was happy to hear that you enjoyed my efforts on this topic. I really liked that word "hypertypes" as well. Has quite a ring to it. Did you come up with it yourself? I never heard it before. Anyway I am quite happy to go over your questions and input here on my post. And I greatly appreciate the time and effort that you obviously put into both reading as well as analyzing it. That's what it's all about after all. Does a post or commentary actually appear to harmonize with God's word, or not? If in turn even one thing seems out of place, is it because we actually need to increase our personal level of Bible understanding, or is it in fact something we could effectively disprove with the scriptures? It is my earnest hope that even everyone here would agree, that's all that really matters in the end.

First of all I greatly respect the fact that you are struggling with the idea of assigning or associating the word apostasy with the historical events that occurred with Moses at the "waters of Meribah." I hope that we would all find it very distasteful for anyone to ever accuse Moses of becoming an apostate. Also I would insist that he in fact never did. After all, If losing your cool in the heat of the moment and saying something stupid amounted to apostasy, I'm sure we would all be in big trouble. So what am I saying here?

If you were to take a closer look at what I said, I think you will find that I am only suggesting that when you carefully examine the actions of Moses on this occasion in light of the prophetic time frame being represented and all the subsequent events that this mistake triggered, it seems rather clear (to me at least) that not only was an apostasy of the nation represented in a symbolic manner, but even the final one that would occur just prior to the great tribulation. This in fact is exactly why I qualified this distasteful word as "the apostasy that was represented."

You may find it interesting in fact that the final nail in the coffin (as it were) to my awakening to the dire spiritual condition of the JW organization, (or perhaps the "catching sight of the disgusting thing standing in the holy place") was the statement by Anthony Morris (governing body of course) sometime around 2014 in a talk dealing with modesty when he said: "Now don"t get mad at me, this information is in our publications so it is coming straight from Jehovah." Since around 2008 I had been becoming increasingly suspicious of the organization. (Just a gut feeling that something was dreadfully wrong as I had not yet done any independent research) By this time however I was actually "keeping on the watch" (if you will) for anything like this. The reason I was so struck by this sentence is because I already recognized prophetic dramas such as with Moses at the waters of Meribah as a kind of encrypted message to the slave class as to indicators that they should be on the lookout for to identify when the "man of lawlessness" had officially arrived.

The very next day I was in field service with a brother and I said to him: "How is that statement by the governing body not tantamount to exactly what Moses expressed at the waters of Meribah? They are now putting their own publications on the same level as God's word. Isn't that exactly what the scribes and Pharisees were doing in the first century?" Moses had of course accidentally taken credit for the water (which of course represented spiritual teachings) that was miraculously provided instead of assigning credit to Jehovah. In his case this was of course only a slip of the tongue in a moment of frustration. However by the time I heard basically the same exact expression out of the mouth of the governing body, I knew it was no mere mistake. It should come as no surprise to you that I then quickly ended up in front of my third investigation committee on the issue of my potential status as an apostate.

I was already somewhat "irregular" by this time with my meeting attendance because of discouragement and suspicions, and this had basically caused me to miss the "annual meeting" that had occurred a year or two before. I was remodeling a bathroom for a brother in a nearby city shortly thereafter and it turned out that he was among the ones that had already heard rumors of me possibly being an "apostate." As it turns out he was just as troubled with the organization by this time as I was, and he began to probe me for my input on a couple of "new understandings" of the organization that had been announced at the annual meeting a year or two earlier. Obviously he then had to inform me about the fact that they officially are no longer willing to accept any proposed "types" or "antitypes" of scripture unless specifically identified as such in the scripture in question. Also it turns out that this was the same assembly where they brought out their "new light" that basically there is actually no such thing as an "evil slave" after all. "Just a little story to warn us (governing body) not to be bad boys" essentially.
Not only did I know that both of these teachings were unscriptural, I knew that they knew better than that. Up until this time I was still trying to chalk up what I knew to be several false teachings to mere ignorance. This was basically the moment I completely disconnected myself from the organization. (2 Cor 6:17) I guess I'm rambling a bit here and taking up too much time. I suppose I'm venting. Anyway I will plan to address the remainder of your reply very soon when I have more time. Thanks again.

Sol

[coccus ilicis]

Hello Apollos

Although you don't reply to most points in my posts I feel obliged to keep pointing out where you are just making leaps in logic and/or statements as fact without providing support

Thank you for you reply, I have numbered your queries so that I don’t miss any.

1

Yes, a person has to determine a benchmark first. You're clearly saying that the Christian benchmark is in no way more accurate than the Islamic one. In that case I don't really think there is any basis for discussion. The site is for those who have a Christian faith, or are genuinely interested in it. If you are only here to undermine Christian faith then it'd be preferable that you take your rhetoric elsewhere

When Jesus was alive he set the benchmark. Before 70 CE a group of men in Jerusalem set the benchmark and since then numerous individuals or groups of men in different places set the benchmark. At the beginning of the last century a group of men in Brooklyn set the benchmark for JWs. For Islam Ayatollahs set the benchmark, for Catholics the Pope in Rome sets the benchmark. Who sets the benchmark for born again evangelicals who believe atonement theology? Where do these faceless men sit and decide what is orthodox and what isn’t? The issue is not about whether we believe in Jesus or not, the issue is whether Jesus or the Bible teaches atonement and possibly Dispensationalist theology.

Jesus was quite clear in what he would be looking for when he returned, he said … everyone that hears these sayings or mine the ones he had just described Mt 7: 1-14 and does them will be likened to a discreet man who built his house on the rock-mass… furthermore everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be likened to a foolish man who built his house upon sand… and the rain came and the winds blew and struck against that house and it caved in and its collapse was great… Mt 7:24-27 And that storm is sitting on the horizon.

So the issue is whether we obey what Jesus said at (Mt 7:1-28) or believe in atonement theology, they are mutually exclusive – one must choose between them, we either believe one or the other. Nowhere does Jesus say or imply that he will change our natural inclination on the basis of his sacrifice. If that had been God’s purpose he could and would have done it long before then. Atonement theology effectively invalidates Jesus’ teaching, which is exactly purpose for which it was proposed in the first place. The harlot purposes is to destroy all memory of Jesus and all those who believe in him and what he teaches. At Rev 17:14 it says … they will battle with the lamb (Jesus because he stands in the way of the beast that had the death stroke and healed) … but because he is lord of lords and king of kings he will conquer them. And those called chosen and faithful with him. So regardless of her temporary success in conquering God’s people she will ultimately fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------

2

... and those writings he had in mind would have included some manuscripts that today are thought of as apocrypha

.

Really? How do you know this so as to state it as fact? .

The writings of Enoch for one (see Jude 14) and if the early church did favour the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew manuscripts, you can add quite a few more to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Table_of_books
-------------------------------------------------------------------

3

And Satan's response to God's choosing of a nation was to try in various ways to make them no different to all others. You are in essence doing the same. The idea that God could choose a people for his name appears entirely foreign to you, even though it is clearly expressed in the Old Testament

.

I gather you refer to Isa 43:1-28. The WT Society applies this to themselves, who do you think it applies to?

When Rebecca was pregnant two boys in her womb began to struggle with each other and Jehovah said to her … two nations are in your belly, and two national groups will be separated from you inward parts, and one national group will be stronger than the other national group, and the greater ( H7227 ) will serve the inferior/lesser ( H6810) … Gen 25:22, 23. The one born first they named him Esau and his brother was holding on to his heel and he (the he apparently referring to Jehovah as Isaac would not have been present at the birth) named him Jacob (H3290 heel catcher [i.e. supplanter] ).

Later when Jacob was returning to Canaan and had sent his wives, livestock and servants ahead of him to meet up with Esau with an approach gift (Gen 32:18) he remained behind alone and during the night a man attacked him and he grappled with him until dawn. When the man saw he had not prevailed he said … let me go, for dawn has ascended Jacob said that he would not let him go until he blessed him. And the man asked him his name and Jacob told him his name. And the man said Your name will no longer be called Jacob heel catcher but Israel for you have contended with God and men so that at last you prevailed… Both names have a literal meaning and application in prophecy.

H3290 Yisra'el yis-raw-ale' from H8280 and H410
H8280 sarah saw-raw' a primitive root; to prevail
H410 'el ale shortened from H352; strength; as adjective, mighty commonly translated god in English. So the name is prevailed with God … for you have prevailed with God and man

So when prophecy speaks about Jacob and/or Israel it can be a reference to persons who prevail or persevere with God and man during mankind’s long night, or it might refer to fleshly Israel. So which is being referred to in Isaiah chapter 43?

Some imperfect/incomplete verbs at Isaiah 43:1-21 are translated as (perfect complete) past tense, as is the case with Isa 43:1 thus says Jehovah the one creating you Jacob and the one forming you Israel... Is he talking about literal fleshly Jacob/Israel or is here talking about a creation in progress, the formation of a people who will be a heel catcher or supplanter and who would contend with God and earthling man through mankind’s long night and prevail? The account goes of to describe a time of restoration when … wild beast of the field will glorify him Jehovah, with …water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert to give to drink to my chosen people… Isa 43:20. At that time the forming of his people, Jacob/Israel is complete as it says, a people I have formed for myself shall recount the praise of me … Isa 43:21 These people are distinct from fleshly Jacob/Israel spoken of at Isa 43:22-24 … but you have not called even me, O Jacob, because you have grown weary of me O Israel. You have not brought me your sheep of your whole burnt offerings, and with your sacrifices you have not glorified me. I have not compelled you to serve me with a gift … in reality you have compelled me to serve because of your sins; you have made me weary with your error… So I shall profane the princes of the holy place, and I will give Jacob over to doom and Israel over to words of abuse …


So Jacob/Israel of Isa 43:1-21 is distinct from literal fleshly Jacob/Israel of Isa 43:22. When would what he says about them in verse 25 take place … I am the one that is wiping out your transgression for my own sake… Isa 43:25. When does God complete the forming of Israel and repurchases them? Well from the description Isa 43:14-21 it appears that it will happen at the restoration of all things and not before. But before that can come about he … shall profane the princes of the holy place, and I will give Jacob over to doom and Israel over to the words of abuse…

Doom H2764 cherem khay'-rem or (Zecheriah 14:11) cherem {kheh'-rem}; from H2763; physical (as shutting in) a net (either literally or figuratively); usually a doomed object; abstr. Extermination H2763 charam khaw-ram' a primitive root; to seclude; specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction); physical and reflexive ...


So, yes I do believe God has been and still is creating a people for his name, but the process of forming a people for his name is not complete until Jesus returns and he will reveal who are a people for God’s name, chosen from among those who have been listening and heeding God’s commandments, the ones Jesus taught when he was on earth … the word I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak and what to tell, also I know this commandment means everlasting life … John 12:49, 50.

Jehovah’s witnesses were premature they, like many evangelicals today, bought into the Zionist dream of world rule by means of their Messiah. If you have not read Zion’s WTs from the 1880s onward they are still available online and you will find they feature regular articles from the Zionist camp. JWs were in effect serving as their mouth piece for promoting the establishment a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They have toned down their stance on this in recent years, and their role has now largely been taken over by American evangelical Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism If evangelical (saved) born-again Christian Zionist teaching (believers in atonement theology) serves as your benchmark for Christianity then count me out, but if the application of the teaching of Jesus identifies me as a person following Jesus then count me in. Because I know that the current restoration of Israel is not from God but emerged from the little horn of Dan 8 that … in a wonderful way he will cause ruin, and he will certainly prove successful and do effectively. And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin, also the people made up of the holy ones. And according to his insight he will certainly cause deception to succeed in his hand. And in his heart he will put on great airs and during a freedom from care he will bring many to ruin. And against the prince of princes he will stand up, but it will be without a hand that he will be broken… Dan 8:24, 25 (comp Rev 17:14)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Jesus when he says that prior to his return he will be looking for those ones that hear and heed his sayings, if that undermines your faith I am sorry, but that is where my allegiance lies

4

I don't entirely disagree with you here. Cain did have a choice. But you seem to want to extend the idea of free will to the idea that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they would only try hard enough. From a scriptural point of view that's just pure heresy. No New Testament is required even

That’s not exactly what I had in mind, what I mean is that the father wants mankind to face up to their error and make an effort to change, even as he told Cain. None of us can do this on our own, we need help without it we can do nothing at all. In speaking of the time of the end Jesus says …and whatever you are asking in my name that I will be doing …that the father may be glorified in the son… and whatever you ask of me in my name I will do it… (John 14:12,13)… I take full advantage of this provision and ask for help and I don’t see this as heresy from a scriptural point of view, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

5

In time Cain proceeded to bring some of the fruitage of his labour as a ‘gift’ or approach offering - much like an apple a pupil brings to a teacher to garner favour – Jehovah had not asked for this, it was something Cain did of his own accord, kindling a fire and making the smoke of it rise heavenward.

This is conjecture. The reasons that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices is not stated one way or the other. We can't state categorically whether God asked for it or not. But you are stating it categorically. What is that based on, other than the mission to deny atonement theology?

You are right I do deny the veracity of atonement theology.
The gift is an approach present H4503 minchah min-khaw' from an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary). It was voluntary and called an approach present or gift - it is the same as a gift a persons might bring to a king to gain a favourable hearing - something that God does not require, and the Bible clearly sates that God does not want sacrifice or gift offering in many places. I can draw up list for you if necessary, let me know if you have trouble finding scriptures that say this.
------------------------------------------------------------

Abel his little brother followed suit, ...

Nope. The Bible doesn't say he followed suit. It simply says that each brought a sacrifice. It makes no reference to Abel imitating Cain in some way

Valid comment, it says 'also'
-------------------------------------------------------------

6

... he brought some the fat firstlings (plural) of his flock - being a sheepherder Gen 4:2 firstlings would most likely have been young rams and ewes and we are told that … while Jehovah was looking with favour upon Abel and his offering he did not look with favour upon Cain and his offering… A more literal reading of this verse is Gn 4:4... And heed is Yahweh giving to Abel and to his present offering ...yet to Cain and to his present offering he gave no heed... Note that in Abel’s case he gives heed, something he had not done when Cain had offered up his gift - there appears to be a time lag. Cain had offered up his gift first which Jehovah ignored, whereas later when Abel offered up his gift he paid attention.

You're imposing a time lag on the passage which is not stated in scripture.

Abel ... brought some the fat firstlings (plural) of his flock - being a herder of quadrupeds Gen 4:2 firstlings could have included other quadrupeds such as goats as well as sheep, but it was the sheep, young rams and ewes that caught Jehovah’s attention. We are told that … while Jehovah was looking with favour on Abel’s and his offering he did not look with favour upon Cain and his offering… A more literal reading of this verse is Gen 4:4... Yahweh is giving heed to Abel and to his gift offering ...yet to Cain and to his gift offering he gave no heed... Note in the first instance he gives heed (imperfect incomplete action), he is doing this while Abel’s presentation is in progress, something he had not done when Cain had offered up (perfect, completed action) his gift offering. There is a time lag that is lost in translation. Cain offered up his gift first which Jehovah ignored and later when Able offered up his Jehovah pays attention
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7

The Hebrew word rendered heed is H8159 sha`ah shaw-aw' a primitive root; to gaze at or about (properly, for help); by implication, to inspect, consider, compassionate, be nonplussed (as looking around in amazement) or bewildered. Since Jehovah would not be gazing about for help, the extended definition would apply – namely that Jehovah was amazed nonplussed, and paid close attention to what Abel was doing.

This makes no sense. You've said yourself that "inspect" and "consider" are among the options. And yet you make a logical leap to say that if the context cannot call for definition (1) then it must be number (5) without giving any reason why it can't be (2), (3), or (4)

Valid comment, see my reply 6 above
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

What was different about Abel’s approach gift that made Jehovah pay attention, something he had not done when Cain had offered up his gift? It is important that we arrive at an accurate understanding of what happened as this verse is a foundation plank for atonement theology.

When God had told their parents to subdue the earth, the Hebrew word rendered subdue is H3533 kabash kaw-bash' a primitive root; to tread down… http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3533.htm. The same root word is the Hebrew word for lamb, but by giving it a different Strong’s number it is well hidden. H3532 a ewe. KJV: (ewe) lamb … http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3532.htm - scroll down the left hand column to the heading ‘Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance’ and you will see it has the same meaning. Take note of the Hebrew letters not the transliteration, also compare H3534. All these words have the same root, meaning of dominate, subdue, tread down.

Is this the reason God paid attention to Abel’s gift offering, had Abel interpreted God’s original instruction to his parents to subdue ( H3533) the earth by offering sheep (kebes). We know Cain misinterpreted God’s puzzled stare as being God’s approval of Abel’s offering; but should we?

You're already working on a questionable premise as stated above. Cain interpreted the situation as God's approvalof Abel's sacrifice. You say that this was a misinterpretation. I would think that the burden of proof would be heavily upon you to justify that, and I certainly don't think you've done so.

See my reasoning in answering your query No.5, also note that Hebrew 'heed' H8159 sha`ah does not mean 'look with favour'
-------------------------------------------------------------------

9

Now as to the theory that Abel mistook the word "kabash" for lamb, let's be clear that Gen 4:4 (which describes Abel's sacrifice) doesn't use any word related to it at all.

Valid point, it says he was a herdsman, see my answer to your query No. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
10

From that time forward sacrificing animals as approach gifts to God became common practice.

And never once does the Bible suggest that it was all a big misunderstanding starting with Abel. What does that tell you?

No it does not, but the ending of this account Gen 4:1-24 indicates that this account was taken from Cain's personal history and later included in Adam’s historical account Gen 5:1 (the toledoth at 5:1 concludes the family record starting at Gen 2:5) this segment (Gen 4:1-24) would have been part of Cain's family history as Adam would not have been aware of Cain’s doings after his banishment from the family group. And according to his account of events he ever conceded that he might have been wrong. From this we might conclude that he never looked for or found the rafter in his own eye.
-------------------------------------------------------------
11

The Mosaic Law regulated practice. Besides being an approach gift it served as a tutor teaching them God’s standards of right and wrong, the sacrifice acting as a fine or penalty when they transgressed (Rom 7:7)

No. It wasn't "a fine or a penalty". Check out for instance Leviticus 16:9,10. " And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel."

It could not be clearer. How could an individual goat on behalf of the nation be a penalty payment for the some person's specific sin? And what was the purpose of the scapegoat. And why is the word "kaphar" used as part of the Law if atonement is just a man-made theological construct?
Apollos

H3722 kaphar kaw-far' a primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel

I can see why you might interpret it this way, but a fine or penalty also cancels out or is cleared once the law breaker has paid the fine, the crime is covered over. That is why they had to do it from year to year, because they could not obey the Law perfectly. The killed goat served to pay the fine, with the other one that was allowed to live and sent into the wilderness representing God’s ongoing mercy toward them. But these two goats may have a yet-undisclosed explanation that will not become apparent until Jesus returns.

In conclusion, if my believing in Jesus and what he taught makes me a heretic in your eyes, so be it. But that the two teachings, atonement theology and the teachings of Jesus, are incompatible is demonstrated also in the early church where some were already misinterpreting the things Paul wrote … furthermore consider the patience of our lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul wrote… speaking about these things as he does also in his letters. In them however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting as they do also the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction… 2Pet 3:15, 16. And James refers to the confusion the emergence of the atonement seedling was causing at that time … accept with mildness the implanting of the word which is able to save you souls… however become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning… This implanting of the word was the teaching of Jesus that they had to do, or obey, if they wanted to be saved. As can be seen from this, James did not believe that Jesus’ body served as a sin atoning sacrifice that would save them. The two teaching simply cannot stand side by side, you either believe one or the other.

That is why I believe atonement theology is a component of the leaven the woman hid in the flour.

[Get out of her]

Greetings Jo-el

Okay, to continue the discussion.
Another thing that just occurred to me while reading your comments is that Jesus was also referred to as the rock or "foundation cornerstone" of the temple. By extension we might recognize this "striking of the rock" at Horeb as yet another symbolic as well as a prophetic expression of the "striking of the shepherd." The fact that this rock was subsequently split in half would only seem to confirm this suspicion since this very same thing appears to manifest itself in a spiritual sense or in the way in which this same "striking" is apparently what subsequently creates the division between the "foolish" and "discreet virgins" as the discreet ones obediently "flee to the valley of my mountains" during these prophetic time periods. (Ze 14:1-8) Once again this very same phenomenon of "striking" or even "chastising" Jehovah's nation is found in the exact same setting or context of a punishment basically for the sin of apostasy. (Ze 14:2, 5) Verse 5 in fact directs our attention to a spiritual "earthquake" (if you will) that was caused by the rebellious act of ancient King Uzziah which prompted Jehovah to (interestingly enough) strike him with leprosy. Particularly when we bear in mind that the matriarchs of ancient Israel (the "woman"?) were actually Syrian, the prophetic drama of this Syrian army chief essentially baptizing himself "seven times" in the Jordan River (of all places) to cleanse his leprosy (of all things), begins to become quite interesting. (2 Ki 5:14)

When you consider the reference to Zechariah 14:5 that is found in Amos 1:1, not only is this word "earthquake" once again found in a context of a revolt of God's nation, but interestingly enough, specifically Syria, Edom, Ammon, and Moab are included among the nations that will now Jehovah's adverse judgments. It's beginning to appear to me that Jehovah is not simply making reference to the spiritual harm that is often done to his people by both persecution as well as false teachings that emanate from what these nations seem to represent. But even to the way in which during the periods of these "strikings of the shepherd and scatterings of the sheep" or spiritual "earthquakes" (earthquakes of course also being notorious for splitting rocks interestingly enough), many of these "scattered" and bewildered "sheep" often end up as part of these very same nations. In turn (at least if they remain there) when Jehovah brings his judgments upon them, he is by extension brining his adverse judgments upon those nations.

I find it interesting in fact that when the ancient David "fled into the wilderness" to escape the murderous intentions of the apostate King Saul, the first place he fled to was a Philistine City. It should be no surprise that he quickly ended up in a captive condition. (Perhaps even a Jailhouse) (1 Sa 21:10-15) The next thing we find here is that he begins acting as if he had lost his mind and (of all things) "making cross marks." Fortunately he made his escape, but what really is the message that God is sending here? See I can assure you that the more time you spend in prayerful meditation and reading of God's word, the less you will continue thinking in terms of mere coincidences. Not one word is wasted in the scriptures and all of it has deep symbolic meaning. Moreover you will soon begin to observe patterns that will then begin to uncover even multiple layers of types and interconnected symbolisms that will soon begin forming a big picture that you never even saw coming. After a while you will even come to expect or anticipate finding additional symbolic meanings and revelations that will absolutely blow your mind and put you in absolute awe of God's word in an ever increasing way. You may even become one that is accused to seeing or inventing "hypertypes." (lol)

From my perspective Jehovah seems to be alluding to one of the very things that I continue to observe from these "scattered sheep" that are "skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd." At least initially they are so rattled and shaken by their sudden recognition of the dire spiritual condition of Jehovah's nation, they begin thinking that the nation never even was God's nation. They begin reasoning in the following way: I guess the born again Christians (or whatever) were right about the JWs after all! If they were right about that, maybe they were right about everything! You see where I'm going with this? If we fail to continue relying on Jehovah at this point with all the more prayer and study of his word, we will very quickly start acting like a crazy man, and end up in a very vulnerable and dangerous spiritual place, such as a spiritual Philistia. As illustrated with David, we have now simply succeeded in exchanging one form of spiritual bondage or captivity for another. The "cross marks" in this particular prophetic picture appear to point to the way in which many of us will actually end up in Christendom for at least a period of time. But actually more than one religious faith seems to be implicated in this same prophetic drama. Did you notice who was serving as the "principle one of the shepherds that belongs to Saul" at the time? Of all things, it was "Doeg the Edomite." (1 Sa 21:7) He in fact was identified as one of the ones most directly responsible for the killing of 80 priests at that time that gave assistance to David and his men. We should of course recognize that the fleshly wars at that time represented the spiritual warfare of our time. So what really are all these things being used to symbolically represent? Even if I am incorrect on some of the conclusions that I continue to draw, I can assure you that there are no coincidences here or anywhere in the scriptures, and that they are absolutely inundated with intricately interconnected symbolisms and deeper spiritual meanings. One of the (somewhat cryptic as always) (Mt 11:25) messages that Jehovah seems to be relaying for the sake of his "lost sheep of the house of Israel" during their time in the spiritual "wilderness" is the following: Rather than obeying Jehovah's command to limit their interactions at this time to merely "purchasing food and water" from these spiritual "Edomites," and eating and drinking what was purchased," many of them will go too far and effectively become spiritual Edomites in many cases. (De 2:2-6) Whether it actually be a member of Christendom, Judaism, or even the nation of Islam, hopefully as was demonstrated or illustrated by David, they will at some point adjust their thinking and become more reliant once again on Jehovah.

I may very well be digressing or getting off point here once again, but in my defense when I at some point began making what eventually became even exponentially increasing scriptural connections and seeing an ever growing big picture, one of the things that seemed to also become a part of this process was that my dialogue and writing seemed to begin taking on a mind of its own. It's as if I am no longer in control, and hopefully this means that Jehovah's Holy Spirit has taken over. Rest assured my intention here is to continue getting back to your reply and what I happen to view as some very good thoughts and questions. Talk to you soon.

[jo-el]

"Hypertypes" really just popped into my head because of the additional layer (dimensional), connections requiring instead of travel a "hyperjump" between one person/word/verse/thought and another

I have already accepted plenty of evidence that very small details in the scripture are often very significant. It is also commonly understood that certain situations described in scripture contain a certain amount of prophetic play acting about later events, or that names of persons have a significance. A few examples would be that Moses name means he was drawn from the water - i.e. baptism of Moses, Abraham sent his unnamed servant to fetch a wife for his firstborn Son Isaac and the unnamed servant was likely Eliezer which means - Comforter. So we have the Father, sending the unnamed Comforter to fetch a wife for His Son. The names of the sons of Israel, became the tribes of Israel named in a given order so that a gospel message is communicated based on their names in Rev 7. Joshua leading his people into the promised land (rest). And there are many more.

Christians have been given to understand this from the beginning - Paul describes one in 1 Cor 10:3,4 - They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Another example is when Paul refers to the Law - "you must not muzzle the Bull while it is threshing" and asks (paraphrasing) "is it for the benefit of the animal that God says this - NO it is for OUR benefit - a spiritual worker for the kingdom is ENTITLED to share in common things". Similar references are everywhere in the NT and the early Christian writings are also full of such spiritual understanding of scriptures. So you will perhaps start to understand where I am coming from, when I question statements about the wealth of "Judaism"'s knowledge and also that Islam is also on the path even though BOTH deny almost every facet of his Sons person and ministry. Quite honestly, it seems to be always fashionable to be anything but a Christian. Yet as we can see and as Jesus Himself stated quite clearly - without Christ you can read all day and night every day and you will never understand those scriptures which are written of Him.

I still think when making these spiritual connections literally everywhere though, that there is also a need to analyse the threads and make sure they are not being plugged into the wrong switch port. I'm personally fine with multi-layers, multi-fulfilments, prophetic antitypes, but I think caution is still needed when connecting this point, to that point - we might cause a short circuit.

They begin reasoning in the following way: I guess the born again Christians (or whatever) were right about the JWs after all! If they were right about that, maybe they were right about everything! You see where I'm going with this? If we fail to continue relying on Jehovah at this point with all the more prayer and study of his word, we will very quickly start acting like a crazy man, and end up in a very vulnerable and dangerous spiritual place, such as a spiritual Philistia.

We are drifting off the Kingdom topic, but I hope I am right in thinking that your concern here is a "baby" -> "bathwater" scenario? I noticed a few of your typological fulfilments concern the modern day spiritual outlook and I'll try to answer some of those, but for now just to say something generally -
I can sympathise with a lot of what you say about drifting away from the organisation. Part of the reason for this is that JW's are and have been wrong about a great many things, probably just as many as Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians. It just so happens that JW's were also right and implemented a great many things which I think probably do matter - a stance on war, pagan observances and so on. Unfortunately though, the JW organisation itself is built on a soapbox made out of deceptions, so where does that leave everyone who thought they were "better"? Would be interested in some thoughts on this as well.

[jo-el]

using Christendom’s teaching as your benchmark your list of what Islam does and doesn’t believe about Jesus is quite extensive

I don't think I would characterise the list that way. It really does not require any kind of benchmark to just provide a core of what Islam teaches about Jesus. I refrained from supplying any interpretation except to point out that Muhammed has been given a role by Islam, which the Father gave to Jesus alone. That is what the scriptures teach - if you happen to agree with the teachings of Islam about Jesus, then why not just come right out and say it?

I wonder though what kind of litany of errors a Muslim would list using Islam and the Quran as a benchmark

I'm not sure using the Quran as a benchmark would be terribly useful, since the Quran is a 7th century document and not the original writings of eye witnesses and their contemporaries who actually walked with Jesus. As such, anything that Islam knows about Jesus is derived from scripture and various stories which the gospel writers did not think important. In contrast with the Quran and various other texts which have Jesus speaking as a baby, or creating living birds out of clay, the accepted canon is grounded and tells us for example, that Jesus, as a young child of 12 was reasoning with his elders from the scriptures in the house of His Father and that it was THIS event Mary stored in her heart.

I seem to remember hearing that one reason they do not approve of translating the Quran is that translations cannot accurately render the message of the original and they say the same about the Bible which is quoted in the Quran. And of course it is quite true that translation does distort.

Yes, for example it might be suggested to someone that the Quran speaks about "atoms" rather than the "ants" or something like that.

that does not mean that the NT is not inspired but simply that Paul was not talking about the Bible as we have it today when he said, … all writing is inspired of God… (2Tim 3:16) and those writings he had in mind would have included some manuscripts that today are thought of as apocrypha.

True enough, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with Islam?

What was different about Abel’s approach gift that made Jehovah pay attention, something he had not done when Cain had offered up his gift? It is important that we arrive at an accurate understanding of what happened as this verse is a foundation plank for atonement theology.
Is this the reason God paid attention to Abel’s gift offering, had Abel interpreted God’s original instruction to his parents to subdue ( H3533) the earth by offering sheep (kebes).

It is very interesting that in this short account, God told Cain exactly what the problem was -
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Notice, that God was on speaking terms with Cain and appeals to him to repent. He didn't say anything like : well I'm afraid your little brother is smarter than you are and has solved my "sheep" puzzle

By the time Jesus came the Law was so corrupted by the voluminous record of legal wranglings of administrators looking for legal loopholes that it no longer served any useful purpose. And this is why Jesus, the son, was killed (Mt 21:37, 40)

So Jesus was killed because there was just too much red tape around?

and this is also why Caiaphas reasoned It being expedient for one man to die in behalf of the nation (John 11:49, 50)

Because Caiaphas realised that the Law no longer served a useful purpose?

Jehovah God had known that it would come to this and it is foretold it at Isa 53:1-12, Jesus knew and had agreed to this,

I am quite amazed you would appeal to this passage of scripture in order to refute the atonement.

the cup that he didn’t want to drink was the knowledge of what those that followed him would teach with regard to his death thereby effectively covering over and hiding all of God’s further instruction for mankind for millennia in order to allow their error to come to a completion (comp Gen 15:16) – to allow time for the leaven to do its work and make the dough rise.

Jesus has already mentioned his cup in Matt 20:22,23
22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”
They said to Him, “We are able.”
23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”
If the cup was as you say it is once again something completely absent from any part of the text or the rest of scripture and how would James and John become sharers in the cup of concern over "false" doctrine for 2 millenia?

With regard to Ps 40:6 I had initially included this link http://biblehub.com/psalms/40-6.htm but removed it because I had too many urls. The right hand cross reference column shows how it plays a key roll in atonement theology.

Yes, I understood the cross reference but you seemed to indicate a belief that the LXX translation of Psalms 40:6 quoted was some kind of a deliberate corruption, the implication being that it was "misapplied" by the author of Hebrews in support, as you say, of "atonement theology". Incidentally, this proves that the author of Hebrews was teaching atonement in the 1st century long before Origen, because as you yourself point out every single cross reference is in support of the same. Therefore, my question is still - how does this single LXX quote undermine the teaching of the atonement?

No, the woman did, the woman referred to at Isa 53:10 … but Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him… If you (should read) she will set his soul a guilt offering… The feminine form of the verb set/put/place H7760 is also used at Ex 2:3 in connection with Moses’ mother when… she is placing the child in the ark as well as in 8 other verses.

An interesting side-point, but when viewing parallel translations I could see none that supported this translation. The only one I could find in a quick search that supported this translation was Lexham. It is also not the same form of the verb in Exo 2:3 - the verb in this form tā·śîm. "She" is not present in Isa 53:10, whereas "she" is in Exo 2:3. There are 583 occurrences of this verb and only 3 of those have "she" doing the action. Next I would probably compare the NASB and Lexham side by side, showing the flow of the verse in context.
NASB
But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand
Lexham
Yet Yahweh was pleased to crush him;
    he made him sick.
If she places his life a guilt offering,
    he will see offspring.
He will prolong days,
    and the will of Yahweh will succeed in his hand.

You propose that "she" - the woman (whoever that is in this verse) - plants the "false" doctrine of atonement after Messiah. Now according to this verse, as a result of this "error" will be the resultant offspring, long life and success ..... ???? This requires a switch of subject and the negative consequence you imply is completely absent.

However, in the normal translation, He will make himself a guilt offering, will have offspring, long life and prosperity. The subject never changes and the recipient receives the promises. There is no third party.

Yes, as one of its constituents.

I thought leaven was hypocrisy?

I do not know what the apostles taught, we only have their letters that dealt with problems in early church and methods used to promote the teachings of Jesus amongst peoples of different cultural and religious backgrounds. From this we get a little insight into their thinking,

Yes, insights such as: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Propitiation - Greek: hilasmos - appeasement == atonement

1 Pet 1:18,19 -  knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
(redemption)

Rom 5:9 - Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
(atonement)

Matt 26:28 - for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
(atonement)

Col 1:20 - and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
(atonement)

Heb 9:12 - and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
(redemption)

1 John 1:7 - but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
(cleansing)

Eph 2:13 - But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(atonement)

That is what the apostles John, Peter and Paul taught.

but it must be remembered that modern translation is skewed in favour of atonement theology

Translation is translation - if a word means propitiation, atonement, forgiveness, ransom and blood - then that is what they mean. The mistranslation argument is far too easily used by many groups to underpin their all too often faulty doctrine.

and that Paul himself considered what they believed as partial knowledge that would be discarded.

I just want to point out that Paul did not actually say "what they believe" would be done away. in verse 12 he continues:
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
So Paul continues to refer to himself and to them, not to other people. If I may, chapter 12 ends - But earnestly desire the greater gifts.
      And I show you a still more excellent way. Paul then proceeds with a brief chapter on Love - the more excellent way and then afterward returns to an exhortation about seeking spiritual gifts, only now being filtered through Love. So, it seems to me, that Paul is saying for the present we "hope", because Love "hopes all things" and we see things dimly as in an old distorted imperfect mirror, but eventually we will see clearly when Love is perfected in us.

Interestingly in chapter 15 is where Paul defines the "gospel"

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures


I find it peculiar that you quote Paul to arrive at the idea his partial knowledge and therefore, his teaching would be dispensed with, but when he states as clearly as can be that the gospel by which ones are saved is that Christ died for sins.

You continue:

I personally do not think they formulated any doctrine with regard to Jesus life being a ransom atoning for mankind’s sin. The ransom atonement doctrine as it is generally understood today first emerged toward the latter part of the 2nd century.

No - I don't think so. It probably depends on exactly what you mean by "as understood today".

Essentially "atonement" means AT-ONE, therefore bringing into a relationship. The scriptures clearly teaches that Jesus blood serves as a means of propitiation, that we have peace with God the Father in Jesus Christ. That is the very essence of atonement.

The scriptures also teach that Jesus blood serving as a ransom price which bought men for God

The further action of Jesus blood is the washing, or cleansing power of his blood on the believer and their sanctification.

Ransom and atonement are not necessarily the same thing of course and since Jesus blood also has the power to cleanse we can understand that Jesus sacrifice has more than one purpose. That doesn't change the fact that it is by means of his blood all of these things take place.

[coccus ilicis]

"Hypertypes" really just popped into my head because of the additional layer (dimensional), connections requiring instead of travel a "hyperjump" between one person/word/verse/thought and another

I have already accepted plenty of evidence that very small details in the scripture are often very significant. It is also commonly understood that certain situations described in scripture contain a certain amount of prophetic play acting about later events, or that names of persons have a significance. A few examples would be that Moses name means he was drawn from the water - i.e. baptism of Moses, Abraham sent his unnamed servant to fetch a wife for his firstborn Son Isaac and the unnamed servant was likely Eliezer which means - Comforter. So we have the Father, sending the unnamed Comforter to fetch a wife for His Son. The names of the sons of Israel, became the tribes of Israel named in a given order so that a gospel message is communicated based on their names in Rev 7. Joshua leading his people into the promised land (rest). And there are many more.

Christians have been given to understand this from the beginning - Paul describes one in 1 Cor 10:3,4 - They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Another example is when Paul refers to the Law - "you must not muzzle the Bull while it is threshing" and asks (paraphrasing) "is it for the benefit of the animal that God says this - NO it is for OUR benefit - a spiritual worker for the kingdom is ENTITLED to share in common things". Similar references are everywhere in the NT and the early Christian writings are also full of such spiritual understanding of scriptures. So you will perhaps start to understand where I am coming from, when I question statements about the wealth of "Judaism"'s knowledge and also that Islam is also on the path even though BOTH deny almost every facet of his Sons person and ministry. Quite honestly, it seems to be always fashionable to be anything but a Christian. Yet as we can see and as Jesus Himself stated quite clearly - without Christ you can read all day and night every day and you will never understand those scriptures which are written of Him.

I still think when making these spiritual connections literally everywhere though, that there is also a need to analyse the threads and make sure they are not being plugged into the wrong switch port. I'm personally fine with multi-layers, multi-fulfilments, prophetic antitypes, but I think caution is still needed when connecting this point, to that point - we might cause a short circuit.

They begin reasoning in the following way: I guess the born again Christians (or whatever) were right about the JWs after all! If they were right about that, maybe they were right about everything! You see where I'm going with this? If we fail to continue relying on Jehovah at this point with all the more prayer and study of his word, we will very quickly start acting like a crazy man, and end up in a very vulnerable and dangerous spiritual place, such as a spiritual Philistia.

We are drifting off the Kingdom topic, but I hope I am right in thinking that your concern here is a "baby" -> "bathwater" scenario? I noticed a few of your typological fulfilments concern the modern day spiritual outlook and I'll try to answer some of those, but for now just to say something generally -
I can sympathise with a lot of what you say about drifting away from the organisation. Part of the reason for this is that JW's are and have been wrong about a great many things, probably just as many as Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians. It just so happens that JW's were also right and implemented a great many things which I think probably do matter - a stance on war, pagan observances and so on. Unfortunately though, the JW organisation itself is built on a soapbox made out of deceptions, so where does that leave everyone who thought they were "better"? Would be interested in some thoughts on this as well.

Hello jo_el

Just read your post quickly and will go through it in more detail later, but perhaps I might just make one little point clear, so that we are not talking at cross purposes. I believe Isa 53 applies to Jesus being sent to pay the penalty for the (Mosaic) Law once and for all, so as to bring and end to endless penalty payments. Jesus came to teach mankind a new way of thinking about God's ways to further man’s course on the road leading to life – which the tree of life in the middle of the Garden represented. I find it interesting that they were told not to eat from the tree knowledge of good and bad but the tree of life was not forbidden. When they decided to make their own rules with regard to what is right and wrong they were banished from the garden so that they could not eat from the tree of life during mankind’s long dark night, the period when they were doing their own thing.

What happened in the early church is that some applied Jesus sacrifice in retrospect to Adam's sin and as that teaching took hold it had the effect of nullifying that which Jesus taught. James warned them about deceiving yourselves with false reasoning James 1:22,23. What was that false reasoning??? It doesn’t say, but whatever it was it took hold and caused them to ignore the things Jesus had taught. Similarly with universal atonement, those who believe in it generally react quite strongly when I say we the need to listen and apply to ourselves what Jesus taught. Why is that, what nerve does this touch, what is it that makes them react with indignation and anger even?

Applying what Jesus taught to myself I try not to make judgements with regard to Islam or any other religion – it’s not my place, God is their judge even as he is of me. What Jesus taught are universal truths that can be applied by anyone regardless of culture or religion; if Jesus says that the application of his sayings are the measuring line he will use when he returns, that’s fine by me.

All I see is that I need to do is pass on what Jesus taught and what I am learning. What others in the past or present believe he teaches is not my concern, it is useful for understanding what happened and for setting things straight but I remember I, like everyone else past and present, am only doing my little bit to pass on what I see and understand from scripture.

If we are indeed in the time of the end (the complete end) and I am completely wrong in what I find as scripture opens up God will make sure I become aware of my error (just like he did with Cain). He has not told me there is sin crouching at the door because I no longer believe in the universal atonement doctrine, on the contrary scripture is opening up to an extent it never has before. That is why I thank you and others that reply as it makes me dig out more rubble and expose more of the secret treasure of God’s kingdom.

I am sure there are many others out there having similar experiences, but patience is needed the ingathering will come, it will not be late.

[AmosAU]

Hi Coccus Ilicus,

I've been following your thoughts & the responses of others with great interest. I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from.

Could you please give a brief definition of your view of, "universal atonement."

Is this related to "universal salvation?"

Thanks in advance,
Regards, Amos.