Derek’s (KC) Opposition

Derek’s (KC) Opposition

++Derek Limbaugh
**DrDave

++I (Derek Limbaugh) have quite a few questions and sticking points with this, will you please do your best to answer these:

**We will deal with theses your now 8 questions 1 at a time 1 day at a time until that question has played out only then moving on to the next question or until you say next – unless your intention is to overwhelm in a ‘bum rush’ litiney dump of which I am not interested.

(it has been 5 days with no response to my post concerning the content of my post in response to your questions – I now will make it easy on you and end this and will post my findings – 4/14)

++1) what is the deal with eternal vs. everlasting…the word used in Hebrews 13 can be used for either?

**This question is quite frivolous as well as incomplete – along with your loaded opening condescending statement “please do your best to answer these” does set a certain tone as Matthew said concerning ‘Elevation and Denigration’ aggrandizing yourself that I do not appreciate; however

It is self-apparent that we are to seek truth – We need to understand the terms used and what they mean. Matthew was correct – Eternal means No beginning with No end – Everlasting has a beginning with No end. ‘Forever’ taken to include Eternal actually from our obvious human perspective can only most correctly mean Everlasting. The Hebrew ‘Olam’ asserted to wrench an Eternal incontestable ‘gotcha’ commanding position while including the idea of Eternal & Everlasting can also include the 1st place priority definition ‘concealed to a point out of mind’ which suggests an unperceived ending point.

05769. Mlwe `owlam, o-lawm’ or lolam {o-lawm’}; from 5956; properly, *concealed*, i.e. *the vanishing point*; generally, time *out of mind* (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:–alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare 5331, 5703.

We must also realize that English or even Greek has no in a word/concept to capture olam’s alternate definition of ‘concealed to a point out of mind’

So it is apparent that the all intelligent Yahweh did not ‘box’ Himself in – He has and always had ‘options’; Hence Gen.49:10 and others. To demand ‘Olam’ only or always mean ‘forever’ is just plain ignorant.

++2) Was the first set of stone tablets part of the levitical law (book of the law)

**Short answer No; now here is the longer reason why. Because of your KC/BEC leaning I now have to split hairs and reiterate that what became the Levitical Book of the Law is the Law that Gal.3:10 ID’s at Gal.3:17 as coming in the same time proximity as the Melkizedeq Book of the Covenant – Both were after the Promise (Gen.15) by 400+yrs – Both ID’d at Ex.24. If you look closely the 2nd set of stone tablets are not even part of the levitical law (book of the law) either – Ex 34:1 ‘the words that were in the first tables’ ID’s Ex.24 that’s why they could placed ‘in’ the Ark of the??? (complete Ex.24:3) ‘Covenant’ and not outside it (Dt.31:26) as the Levitical Book of the Law was; that was later ‘added’ to (Gal.3:15) by Joshua (Jos.24:26).

To more fully explain – “The setting of the Exodus Book of the Covenant (Ex.19:5-24:8) was the last time Moses ever saw a Melchizedek Israel keeping the Melchizedek Covenant (Yahweh’s Plan ‘A’). For after promising to keep the Covenant – Moses goes up the Mountain – 40 days later Israel makes the Golden Calf (Ex.32); breaks the Covenant, defiles themselves and is no longer eligible to be that ‘Firstborn’ Melchizedek Priesthood (including Aaron and his sons).

We must understand that when Moses broke the Stone Tablets Ex 32:19 (the achronological narrative of Moses’ Mt. Descent); that is the point when the Covenant was demonstrated as broken. Ex.32:1-10 (the achronological narrative of what Aaron & the people did) is the point when ALL Israel (including Aaron & Sons) were judged to receive complete and utter annihilation thus loosing not only their lives but their Melkizedeq standing for breaking the (total) Covenant as well, not just the 10 Com’dts Ex24:3. Judgment by sword Ex 22:24 is by Covenant, not just the 10 Com’dts! This Judgment of a broken Covenant went back to the point of 1st acceptance Ex.19.5-8. Back to the point of the Covenant origin that cannot be altered Gal.3:15 – also Back past the point (law of 1st mention) of a Not Ratified ‘added’ Gal.3:10;19 ‘law’ Ex24:12 outside of Covenant Gal.3:17-18 that could be altered. The Ex24:12 conception point of Law that was now under the Levitical Priesthood Heb.7:11.

So – Moses started up Mt. Sinai with a Melchizedek intent -but- came down to a Levitical Plan ‘B’ reality (Num.3:12). This ineligibility reigned for the next 15 centuries in the form of the Levitical Priesthood (and the category of Levitical Law Heb.7:11-15) till Yahshua’s death and resurrection, – releasing Him (Rom.7:1/Gal.4:4) from the Levitical law of Torah that no-one but a Levite could be Priest (and other issues as well) to be – the Melchizedek High Priest (Heb.2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21). See the book – Back to the Melchizedek Future”

See – https://torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress.com/books

++3) Was the levitical law (BOL) imposed at when Moses brought down the stone tablets from the Mountain

** No – See 2
++4) In Hebrews 6 it says that YHWH swore by himself…and then quotes the scripture from Gen 22…Now I know you say the law of first mention but nowhere does it say in Gen 12 that YHWH swears by himself…only in Gen 22…so based on the context it seems as if Hebrews is referring to Gen 22 not Gen 12

**@ I know you say the law of first mention but nowhere does it say in Gen 12 that YHWH swears by himself…

But – That is of course what YHWH does/demonstrates at Gen.12

The context of the plain to see evidence Prv.25:2 proves Hebrews 6:13-14 speaking of Gen.12:1-3 – Gen.12:1-3 is the 1st place mention that YHWH ever spoke to Abr’ah’am. There is No Gen.15, Gen.17, Gen.18, or Gen.22 without Gen.12 first.

Heb 6:14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Is the virtual exact match to

Gen.12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Gen.12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Regardless of the verbiage similarities

Gen.22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
&
Gen.22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Gen.22:2 And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

YHWH did not just pull this from the air – He had the Gen.15 Covenant Legal right to do so

“hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:” “because thou hast obeyed my voice” has to do 1st with Gen.12 and with the trade of personal items required by the Gen.15 Promise Guarantee Covenant – Melkizedeq Mantel (From the Melek/King YHWH), Name, Scars, Family AND Firstborn, etc. – Which extends further Covenant implications concerning Mary/Miriam surrounding the birth of Yahshua in answer to both Prophesy of Gen.12 & the Gen.15 Covenant .

Gen.21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which Yah had spoken to him. –

In direct answer to

Gen.15:4 And, behold, the word of YHWH came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir –

in direct answer to

Gen.12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Gen.18 is about the Covenant confirming meal required by the Gen.15 Promise Guarantee Covenant

To remind you; the Gen.15 (v:8) Promise Guarantee Covenant & ‘Death Position’ was to Guarantee the already given Gen.12 Promise – Promised by YHWH by ‘Oath’ with NO ‘Death Position’

Therefore Gen.22 is a reaffirmation previously made at Gen.15 but most originally at Gen.12
++5) Matthew says Abrahams name change happened in Gen 15 (and he goes on to describe how this is an important part in the covenant…this is wrong…it happened in Gen 17…in which he says is not a covenant.

** From Answer 2 – Gen.22:2 And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

YHWH did not just pull this from the air – He had the Gen.15 Covenant Legal right to do so

“hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:” “because thou hast obeyed my voice” has to do 1st with Gen.12 and with the trade of personal items required by the Gen.15 Promise Guarantee Covenant – Melkizedeq Mantel (From the Melek/King YHWH), **Name**, Scars, Family AND Firstborn, etc. – Which extends further Covenant implications concerning Mary/Miriam surrounding the birth of Yahshua in answer to both Prophesy of Gen.12 & the Gen.15 Covenant.

Gen.15 is the origination point of these exchanges; entering both gave the Covenant right that demanded the Covenant obligation.

Even Rico Cortes in his ‘Covenant of the Pieces’ tells how the Gen.15 Promise Guarantee Covenant required the exchange/trade of personal items; as significant as the **Name** exchange is there are factors that are of even more significance namely the bestowing of the Melkizedeq Mantel, the exchange of Scars – Circumcision is gonna leave a mark so will Crucifixion – and the supreme exchange of the Firstborn – Abr’ah’am was to offer Isaac; YHWH did offer Yahshua by that same Scar leaving Crucifixion.
++6) Matthew says the covenant with Noah, Adam, Law of Moses, etc did not happen because they did not agree to it (ex such as how could the animals agree to the covenant)…but then goes on to quote the fact that YHWH broke the covenant He made with the Night and the Day…How could the Night and the Day accept YHWH’s Covenant if what Matthew says is true?

**You are twisting your jump to conclusion couched in your assertion – Matthew did Not say that the oration decree with Noah, Adam, Law of Moses, etc. did not happen. Just that to say covenant implies the minimum of proposal & agreement which is not there. You also conveniently gloss over ‘covenant’ in the word ‘brit’ <B@riyth> to only and always mean covenant

covenant, alliance, pledge, compact, confederacy, treaty, league, constitution, ordinance, agreement, pledge, bond, to bind, pact, promise, pledge (supporting the idea of ‘oath’)…

The obvious is that concerning the Night and the Day this is another of YHWH’s ‘Oath’/s that is an autonomous (self) Covenant.

++7) He says that the covenant confirming meal never takes place before the bloodshed, therefore the meal with Shem (Melchizedek) could not have been the covenant confirming meal with Abraham in Gen 14…however that is a Major problem because Yeshua’s covenant confirming meal took place Before His bloodshed occurred.

**You Again are twisting your jump to conclusion couched in your assertion – Matthew did Not say that the @ “meal with Shem (Melchizedek) could not have been the covenant confirming meal with Abraham in Gen 14”

1st off Gen 14 is Not a covenant in a covenant ratifiying setting

2nd – Matthew did say that the @ “meal with Shem (Melchizedek) could NOT have been the covenant confirming meal with Abraham in connection with Gen **15**

3rd You say @ “a Major problem because Yeshua’s covenant confirming meal took place Before His bloodshed occurred.”

Not so – Lk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of YHWH shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the **new testament/(covenant) in my blood**, which is shed for you.

We must understand that Yahshua instituted this substitute for His death (bloodshed) that ratifies the New Covenant DURING the / in Connection with His last Passover ‘covenant confirming’ meal – Pointing to/Foreshadowing His actual bloodshed.

++8) Also, how is using the word ‘Restoration Covenant’ controlling and part of the New World Order? I mean isn’t YHWH’s plan to restore us back to the garden? And He’s done this via covenants (and continuing to do it). That statement seemed to be out of line.

** the New World Order is after all the reinterpretation and remix of established values with those not seen before – Hence ‘ New’

In the same way – We must weight all extra biblical jargon that vies finding its way into accepted mainstream understanding – The term ‘Restoration Covenant’ is suspect from the start not being a biblical phrase. The term ‘Restoration’ in this context has the direct sense of re-biulding/re-making this very same Covenant which closely associates to ‘ReNewed’ which is strictly also Not so –

Exert from (Kirk Carmichael’s) Threat in Love

267++(Quote KC) … Neos is the second most common word for new in the New Testament, occurring in its root form over 20 times. Thayer identifies its primary meaning as “recently born, young, youthful,” Neos . has the sense of belonging to the present moment, and not previously existent, just now appearing. So what is difference? Both the Hebrew chadash (Jer. 31:31) and the Greek kainos (Heb. 8:8) words for “new” may be more properly translated “renewed” as opposed to “brand-new”.

**(My answer) What? Are you High? In your own schizophrenic imagination!!! – See you yourself … freely state – 2537 kainós – **properly, new** in quality, **fresh in development or opportunity** – **”not found exactly like this before.”** – STRONGS NT 2537 – as respects form; **recently made,** **fresh**, **recent**, **unused**, **unworn** and *+*new*+*, **which as recently made is superior to what it succeeds**: – Thayer identifies its primary meaning as **“recently born**, **young, youthful,**” Neos . has the sense of belonging to the **present moment,** and not **previously existent**, **just now appearing**. – All these words example “not previously existent, just now appearing” as in “brand-new” and NOT “renewed” which agrees with ‘not like’ of Jer.31:32 “Chadash and therefore Kainos may mean new in quality. It can mean to renew or repair.” Thankyou for that limp wristed attempt at honesty. Chadash does Not only or always means ‘renew’ it most correctly means as is evidenced by your definitions ‘New’ as in “brand-new”…

https://torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/threat-in-love/

PS – It has occurred to me that the Kirk Carmichael / BCE premise and those taken in by it have another glaring loop in logic absurdity to contented with and answer for. If as Kirk Carmichael incorrectly says that ‘The Book of the Law’ does Not start at Ex.24:12 as Gal.3:17 substantiates and is only Deuteronomy and that the ‘Law of Moses’ is Ex.34 to Num.36:13. He and His Group including Amy and You must answer this insurmountable observation – Ex.34:1 says

Ex 34:1 And the YHWH said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and **I (YHWH) will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables**, which thou brakest.

The ‘first tables’ were the hard copy of what had been ‘Blood Ratified’ (Ex.24:7-8); beginning at Ex.19:5-8 confirmed by Ex.24:3, Covenant Meal confirmed at Ex.24:9-11. Meaning that these replacement tables replacing the first tables of the ‘Blood Ratified’ Covenant were the ‘tables’ that were place ‘in’ the Ark – The Ark of the …??? ‘Ten Com’dts’?; ‘Law of Moses’?; of Deuteronomy? Or the obvious the entire Ex.24:3 “Covenant”? Showing that these 2nd replacement tables replacing the first tables are attached to the ‘Blood Ratified’ Book of the Covenant (Ex.19:5-24:8-11).

Since; the replacement tables replacing the first tables of the ‘Blood Ratified’ Covenant were the ‘tables’ that were place ‘in’ the Ark -AND- the alleged (KC) ‘The Book of the Law’/ Deuteronomy only (Covenant???) was placed ‘by’ the Ark (Dt.31:26) – Where is your ‘Law of Moses’? If it is as you say something different not inclusive of ‘The Book of the Law’ starting at Ex.24:12 confirmed by Gal.3:10 & :17 -AND- If ‘The Book of the Law’/ Deuteronomy only was a (Covenant???) – Why is it then Added to by Joshua at Jos.24:26 in Covenant violation of Gal.3:15?

Your (& KC’s) ‘The Book of the Law’/ Deuteronomy only premise is ruptured and blown at both ends! And is also proved Not to be that “Covenant” you imagine; but a Not ‘Blood (or any other mode) Ratified’; Not Proposed; Not Agree to “Covenant” at all BUT; a – decreed alliance, pledge, pact, ‘compact’, etc. and all that together; let alone your ‘Law of Moses’ premise that has no-Ark-where/place to go. Unless the designation ‘Law of Moses’ is part&parcel of the entire ‘Book of the Law’ retro starting at Ex.24:12 confirmed by Gal.3:10 & *:17* – Added to by Joshua at Jos.24:26. Which more completely captures the whole of evidence relayed to us by the Bible.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Derek’s (KC) Opposition

  1. Well taught Dr Dave. Like Bruce Lee said – “there are no fixed positions” An eastern concept that we need to understand when rightly dividing.

  2. From FB
    Charlene Basson

    Hi Doc, I have just read your recent post on the your blog – Excellent!! Just remember not all Solar-Lunar Calendar people… Truth is scattered among wheat and tares!!

    I meant to say not all “lunar-Solar” Shabbat keepers are the same, they are scattered amongst everyone… great job answering those questions and Matthews teachings!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s