Sheep vs Goats

Sheep vs Goats
Mat.25:32 And before him (Yahshua v:31) shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
John.10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (v:3-4; 16)
Shema = Hear or Listen – Intelligently with the Intent to Obey
We know that there will be a separation of the ‘sheep’ and the ‘goats’. When I say ‘we’ this includes the Sunday go-ta-meet’n Christians (all stripes), the Sabbath only Christians (all stripes), the Messianic (all stripes) and even the ‘Jews’ at certain points.
We are seeing that very thing taking place on the world stage. What most don’t consider is what I call ‘dedicated phrasing’ peppered all through the Bible – Torah to Revelation.
The term ‘my voice’ is a Covenant charged phrase that we all need to wake-up to. Example;
Ex.19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey *my voice* indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Not to belabour the point but Ex.19:5-6 are the opening lines to the ‘Book of the Covenant’ Ex.19:5 thru 24:8-11. We could go all kind of different ways from this point – The opening lines of this Melkizedeq Covenant identifies the Melkizedeq kingdom of priests, and ‘an holy nation’ Priesthood for openers – That is identified at 1Ptr.2:9 that uses the past tense “you have been ‘called’” which naturally indicates the use of a ‘voice’ – ‘called’ also being then a Melkizedeq Covenant charged phrase.
1Ptr.2:9 just so happens to connect back to a ‘royal’ or kingly – Melek-Zedeq Priesthood – Just as Heb.7:12 reveals. But then there’s the ‘rub’ – which brings us to the issue.
The ‘Sheep’ (His ‘Sheep’) will be listening for and will recognize both His Voice and what He is saying is scriptural (Jn.14:26) and has always said. Bluntly – His ‘Sheep’ will recognize His Covenant and Melkizedeq instruction – The ‘Goats’ will not.
His ‘Sheep’ will recognize His Melkizedeq ‘voice’, speaking His Melkizedeq Covenant, with its Melkizedeq Law and Priesthood they will graft into Israel and the Covenant – ‘Goats’ will not! – ‘Goats’ for all that can be said good about them will remain ‘Graft Dodgers’. (Thankyou – Linda Sacks)
Ex.12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
From this verse it is apparent – that the dividing of ‘sheep’ & ‘goats’ from the nations presents a 3rd choice; that of out-right unbelievers among the nations.
The ‘sheep’ will hear, seek to listen to and obey His voice. The goats will go about to set up their ‘own righteousness’ just as Rom.10:2-3 says. The un-believers among the nations don’t even read let alone think about or follow; some even rejecting the Bible ie Scriptures – they remain without hope just as Eph.2:12 states.
1] The Christian Goats do not see the division between Melkizedeq Priesthood and Law (Heb.7:12) and Levitical law (Heb.7:11). Despite the fact that Yahshua is our (Heb.7:21) Melkizedeq High Priest – They operate in a reverse Levitical ‘mind-set’ nonetheless exported to them by the ‘All-Law’ Orthodox and/or Rabbinic Judaism. They then knee-jerk claim a ‘grace’ that rejects all law – Including the 7th Day Sabbath, the Annual Sabbaths, Clean meats, etc. Despite Mt.7:13-23, Rom.10:2-3, 1Jn.2:3-6 and the like.
2] The Messianic Goats are spoon-fed the ‘Messianic Mix’ while dragging forward their respective old ‘church’ baggage. They also do not see the division between Melkizedeq Law (Heb.7:12) and Levitical law (Heb.7:11) as well but for a completely opposite reason. They validate everything through a Levitical ‘mind-set’ lens that’s been exported to them, that they fully embrace by the ‘All-Law’ Orthodox and/or Rabbinic Judaism. And in that the Messianic have & do compromise themselves at both ends.
3] The Jewish (including Anti-Missionary) Goats reject Yahshua and the New Covenant/Testament. They do not see the division between Melkizedeq Law (Heb.7:12) and Levitical law (Heb.7:11) even from Torah as well. They see everything through a Levitical ‘mind-set’ lens that’s been spoon-fed them from infancy despite the fact that there is no Levitical priesthood; its all been usurped by the Rabbis.
And a host of other pseudo Biblesq non-sense from each of these ‘goat’ groups.
So you tell me which is better? 1] To claim ‘Jesus’ but not His Laws or His Name? 2] To claim ‘Yahshua’ with a Levitical/Rabbinic/Church mix version of His Laws? 3] Or out-right not claim ie reject Him – but keep a Levitical/Rabbinic version of Torah, that includes a made-up version of Laws mixed with your own stuff?
As before stated – There are 2 reasons why People (including Pastors to Rabbis) get and stay lost. 1] No remembered Biblical awareness. 2] Disregarding those points that Biblically indicate direction.

Remember – The ‘Sheep’ obey what Yah has set in Covenant & Instruction (Jn.7:16). ‘Goats’ obey what they have set regardless of; yet seen as & elevated to the level of Covenant & Instruction. The ‘nations’ have yet to grasp Yahweh, embrace His Son Yahshua, the Covenant or its Instruction.
Realize its not enough to confess that you are not your own – You need to realize who’s you are and follow Him – Jos.24:15 (Know that ‘LORD’ in your English Bibles hides the Creators Name “YHWH” -Yahweh)
YHWH’s permissive ‘fix’ of the Plan ‘B’ Levitical Priesthood was ‘glorious’ (2Cor.3:11); certainly much better than complete annihilation (Ex.32:10).
So – You can accept what is; what YHWH has done for His ‘sheep’ and operate under the Melkizedeq Plan ‘A’ feather-weight (Mat.11:30) or you can continue in; while shackling others to, the Levitical (Rabbinic) Plan ‘B’ anchor-drag (Acts 15:10/Gal.3:19/Ezk.20:24-25); for Covenant disobedient ‘goats’ – your choice.
May all that read this and share the concepts – Seek to obey as His ‘sheep’


Melkizedeq Attack 10

Melkizedeq Attack 10

Presenting our Covenant Case

Part 1 – Introduction

— Jason Fields (Kirk Carmichael’s leftenant) the core group now living in South Afrika from So. Calif ???

**Answers by DrDave

–- I cannot say that it brings me joy to write this article but it was one of those things to where I believed that I truly didn’t have a choice. ** In other words you just could not contain yourself Part 1? 2, 3, …?

**Notice JF (& Group ?) because of KC throughout this rant avoids using the term Torah.

Now, I am not going to be one that says, “well the Ruach (Spirit) truly showed me that I must write this” because everyone that tries to state their case for truth thinks they are being led by the Ruach, and if they didn’t they should be worried. A very close brother of mine (** Captain Kirk Carmichael) in Messiah had reached out (**See – Threat in Love – to Matthew and his associates and tried to share some things that had been revealed (**confused by) to us about covenant.

**Funny – everyone on your side is a ‘brother of mine in Messiah’ what say you about Matthew & Group?

–After our attempts to show what we had been revealed we were met with (** Sound biblical) opposition and we were resigned to just move along and not push the issue.

Then, I saw that Matthew interrupted his normal weekly Torah portion study to do a study called “Clearing up Covenant Confusion” so I was very curious as to what “clearing up” he would actually do. After watching the teaching it became very clear that the reason for the study was to paint our covenant findings as “a pet theology” or “man’s doctrine” and then show how he in fact has the rightly dividing points in viewing covenant. (**JF/KC thinks this is about them – it is about any that twist the values including them)

Look, I don’t think anyone sets out to create “a theology” or “a doctrine”, as I’m sure Matthew would consider himself simply a pursuer of truth. This is an exploration to find truth and to continually come out of error. Not sure about the reader, but I believe truth is that important. (**Can agree on that point)

The best way to go about this is to present my case in a way that doesn’t take potshots at or belittle those who have opposed (**after already and continuing to do just that?) the things that we have tried to share about covenant, because it doesn’t give the reader a chance to simply look at what is being presented and make their decisions on what is true and not true. I think it is manipulative and very immature. If something is true it will rise to the surface eventually no matter what source (**you or I) it comes from. (**Can agree on that point)

2 CORINTHIANS 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

As we are told to “worship Him in Spirit and Truth” and that “he who practices falsehood will not inherit the Kingdom of Elohim” it becomes imperative that we all remain humble in our pursuit. I can speak for myself, the last thing I want to be doing is teaching error, and I’m sure that goes for the rest of you as well. (**Can agree on that point)

PROVERBS 11:14 Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

Well, after all of that being said I believed it was very important to plead my side of the case in breaking down (**thought you just said you weren’t gonna “take potshots at or belittle”) Matthew’s “Clearing up Covenant Confusion”. I believe this is essential and fair to present to you the reader a different perspective of covenant than the way Matthew sees it.

Breaking down (**There it is again – Who you trying to convince? Hello – this is a ‘potshot’ – ‘belittling’ – leading assessment!)“Clearing up Covenant Confusion”

I think the best way to go about this is to start at the beginning of his teaching and move forward from there and give my (**& KC’s) perspective on how I (**& KC) see the (**our assumption of) errors of his findings and conclusions. May we all move away from prequalifying (??? you already have! – & persist in still doing so) ourselves in giving each other our resume’s (**all you have done is to present your not-so-glowing KC report – where’s any others?) and just try and present the pieces and let the Ruach lead and guide us into all truth?

** let the Ruach lead and guide us into all truth – Great – if you can do that without your proviso leading commentary!

–1 CORINTHIANS 3:7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only Yah (God), who makes things grow.

Now, Matthew began his teaching explaining how “this journey is not a journey with a destination, but one of Biblical exploration”. This is where he and I MAJORLY differ on the driving force of why we explore in the first place. I personally believe that THE DESTINATION is everything – (**That is where you are ‘personally’ wrong), meaning, what is the end game of our exploration. What does being in right standing and obedience actually mean as part of our ‘New Covenant’? Right standing and obedience became glaring to me as we continued digging into the foundation of our beliefs.

**”continued digging into the foundation of our beliefs” are you kidding me? Your own words speak of the continued journey – And that is the point you while saying it miss – In Hebrew thot the point of the journey is the journey and not some ‘I have arrived’ destination. You need to understand what Php.1:6 means!

–What I have come to find in Scripture is it has everything to do with who “will inherit His Kingdom” and “who won’t”. Who will be the faithful bride that takes part in the first resurrection and gets to reign with Him on His throne?

REVELATION 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of Yah (God) and of Messiah (Christ) and will reign with him for a thousand years.

I mean, didn’t we leave the “wide road mainstream Christian teaching” to truly understand what it means to be in a relationship with a covenant Elohim? That He means what he says and there are consequences for our lack of obedience to His covenant. I know I did.

REVELATION 22:12-15 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

**Blah, Blah, Blah, – Thanks for the Bible read – what does that have to do with your covenant error rant? You think you have the perfection of knowledge – Flash – You don’t – You have many errors you insist to push – “everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” – See any reflection yet?

–Not sure about you but the way I see it, is it has everything to do with “the destination” and the last thing I want to be doing is practicing falsehood because this scripture clearly states that by doing so we will be outside the gates to the city. May we not reason these scriptures away in any way? The question that remains is will we overcome our sinful nature by the power of the Ruach (Spirit), as we remain in a continual STATE of righteousness. This state of righteousness is a process of allowing ourselves to keep in step with the Ruach as we overcome sin to actually finish the race. And, will we allow the Ruach to lead and guide us into all truth…

**We all have ‘free-will’ – If we will allow it – including you!

–JOHN 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

…Or how about Paul’s statement to Timothy about how important your doctrinal interpretations are…

1 TIMOTHY 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

**Or how ’bout Jms.3:1 – Would be Teacher?

–Matthew then states how we have to be careful about “just because we see the word covenant in the text does not mean that it is a covenant”. I think this is a completely erroneous statement that deemphasizes the extreme importance of why covenant is so important.

**This is where you deny evidence

–I hope to show you that there is a major reason why covenant is in the text exactly where it is. I will not be just knee jerk reacting to the strong’s, as Matthew mentioned many do, to look and see where covenant is mentioned. The goal for anyone should be to see the big picture of exactly why Yahuah continually went into covenant relationship with mankind. On the flip side, if the text doesn’t say covenant, we can assume pretty clearly that it’s not a covenant right? We’ll come back to that thought here shortly. The Hebrew word for covenant is Beriyt. First let’s explain what a covenant is by definition.

The 1828 Webster’s dictionary definition of ‘COVENANT’ is:

COVENANT: To enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind one’s self by contract.

Explained throughout the Scriptures, a covenant by definition is a contract. A covenant, however, also has an emphasis on the relationship between the parties. “Relationship” in its very definition carries the fact that there is mutual respect and moral obligations between each party. Simply because a relationship exists though, does not mean there is a covenant. When digging out the meaning of covenant in Hebrew, especially blood covenant, it is the deepest of agreements you can make, especially with our Creator, and the depth and severity of it will change your life.

**”Simply because a relationship exists though, does not mean there is a covenant.” – What!!! – this is so twisted its confusing – that was your initial complaint – Here let me remind you – “Matthew then states how we have to be careful about “just because we see the word covenant in the text does not mean that it is a covenant”. I think this is a completely erroneous statement that deemphasizes the extreme importance of why covenant is so important.”

**Then you turn around & say out the other side of your mouth – “”Simply because a relationship exists though, does not mean there is a covenant.”” – So which is it Einstein???

**…continually went into covenant relationship with mankind – COVENANT: To enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind one’s self by contract. Your own definition shows your fallacy.

** a covenant by definition is [more than just but does include the notion of] a contract

**At every point when did this happen? Both/All parties enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind [themselves] self by contract – Meaning the proposal & the agreement (???) which you consistently overlook or deny not to mention the blood ratification & the covenant confirming meal

–Within the very meaning of covenant lies the essential fact that there are conditions. A covenant is made up of conditions which each party has agreed to uphold otherwise there is no covenant.

**Get a load of this “A covenant is made up of conditions which “’each party’” has agreed to” – so where is it? – you said correctly now show it!!!

–They are always conditional upon each party’s commitment to fulfill their part. There is no such thing as an unconditional covenant between men or between men and our Creator.

**The thing about absolute statements is they are rarely absolute

–Unconditional means that there is no standard (**on 1 [our] side) to the relationship. This in and of itself would negate the very use of the word covenant. It will be important as we move along to explain the key differences with covenants, oaths, and promises and how they all intersect. Defining and refining our terms is so important as we explore the Scriptures for truth.

**You make this goofy short-sighted absolute statement – then with the other breath you say your gonna “explain the key differences with covenants, oaths, and promises and how they all intersect”???

–Our (KC) group has chosen the title Blood of the Eternal Covenant for our Facebook group page based off of this scripture…

HEBREWS 13:20 Now may the Eloah (God) of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Master Yahusha (Lord Jesus), that great Shepherd of the sheep,

**Not discerning that the title Blood of the Eternal Covenant has to do with a Covenant of Promise that includes a Proposal, Agreement, Blood Ratification & a Covenant confirming meal

–Now Matthew, in his teaching, wanted to point out how there are “no eternal covenants found in scripture” and I assume he pointed this out because he saw what we had named our page.

**There it is again – All about you and your KC group – Flash you don’t hold the corner on the market for error.

**Besides all that you really must do your own research – It seems you have run afoul of your own English word injunction. Remember?

G166 – eternal – only? Always? From HEBREWS 13:20




From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): – eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

perpetual from that which is perpetrated speaks of a beginning – Therefore everlasting and Not a no beginning eternal – Man had a start Gen. Therefore so does everything attributed to or involving man.

–Whether he did or not, either way, let’s first address the reasoning Matthew gives on why there are no eternal covenants in scripture. The definition that he gives for eternal is that “it has no beginning and no end and covenants have a beginning and an end”. This sounds very simple and straight forward and would seem to clear this issue up. The first thing to realize though is that we are dealing with English words that are chosen to try and explain the Hebrew Scriptures. I would hopefully think we can all agree on that. Now, this was the first time the term eternal covenant was chosen by the translators which we just saw in that verse there listed in Hebrews. I would like to give you a breakdown of the many uses of the word eternal as we take it back to the Hebrew. You can’t just take a definition of the English word eternal to state your case without going back to the Hebrew and Greek words that were chosen and the definitions that are given for the use of those words.

**Blah, Blah, Blah – you can’t do – dis, dat or the other ding – Of course JF is using English words to convey/confuse his position.

–Let’s key on three English words that were chosen in our text such as eternal, everlasting, and forever. I think we can all agree on the fact that these words do not give us the correct understanding alone. Now, these Hebrew words that I will share are simply the phonetic sounds of using English letters to help create the correct sound to speak out the actual Hebrew word. Some of the Hebrew words that those English words stem from are: oh-lahm, neh-tsahkh, ne-tah-meed, leets-mee-toot and they can mean age to age, or distant time, or past time unknown, or can even mean always and permanently. Some of the Greek words chosen to replace those Hebrew words were: ah-eye’, ahee-ohn and these words are defined as always, ever, forever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity, age. I hope you see why those English words were chosen. They were simply going off of what had been defined in the Hebrew and then the Greek.

You can’t just throw a simple definition of the English word eternal out there and say that’s the end of it when the Biblical root words have many meanings.

**Agreed – This is fair

–I will now give my opinion on why I believe Hebrews 13:20 was the perfect time to use the term eternal covenant. Let’s remember that our Heavenly Father and His Son were and are outside of what we call time that is determined by the sun, moon, and the stars. These time pieces were created for us to help us determine the different seasons (moeds) and ages we are in. So, if the Father and the Son are outside of that construct, wouldn’t the fact that the Messiah shed His blood once and for all and rose again once and for all, to eventually bring His faithful servants to himself to never leave His Presence ever again,

**Oh – would that include Brother Matthew? Me? The others? Or only you guys?

–be summed up pretty well with the English term blood of the eternal covenant. But I’ll let the reader decide that for themselves.

Matthew goes on to list 10 points that he says will “clear up covenant confusion”. But before we begin going into his 10 points it is very important to establish the foundational basis by which Matthew will be making these ten points. His biggest foundational basis is taken from Galatians 3:15 which is…

GALATIANS 3:15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.

**What version are you reading? Yet this is the point between the BotC and BotL – Ex.24:8 vs :12 you (& KC) deny.

–Now, Matthew would say by this verse alone, you can’t add to any covenant. The first thing to notice is Paul’s exact words are “you can’t set aside or add to a covenant that has been duly established”. Isn’t it very important then to look specifically at the events that DULY ESTABLISHED the covenant that was made? Aren’t covenants made between two parties and it is they who determine how they are duly established. For instance, if two people decided to rearrange the parameters of their given covenant agreement, are we allowed as an outsider to come in and say, wait a minute, hold on a second, the rule says you can’t add to that covenant. Who’s rule, the covenant agreement is between them, who am I to say that they can’t further establish their covenant.

**That is just too greasy – The verse says 1ce a covenant (being arbitrated) agree to / confirmed (or your DULY ESTABLISHED) you cannot add to or subtract from that agreed to ESTABLISHED arbitration.

— Remember the key phrase once again is duly established. You cannot make a “blanket rule” (**Funny Paul was very clear – But you and your KC group know better – with your own NT version ta boot?) without knowing the events that duly established the covenant you are speaking about. Especially given the fact he mentions “so it is in this case”. (**Those are your added English wish it were so words)

–We would need to specifically know what exact case Paul is referring to right? There is no question Paul is referring to something specific, right? Yes, when looking at when a covenant is made in scripture these principles are very apparent, but once again, it would still be very important to clearly see how the covenant specifically in question was duly established by Yahuah and those He is making the covenant with, and not by our own (**KC group) preconceived ideas of how we believe the immovable standards of covenant are based on how we interpret Galatians 3:15.

So, as we get into Matthew’s points, let’s use that exact method of covenant and see exactly how they are DULY ESTABLISHED between each party. There is one major factor to bring up before we continue and that is the fact that every covenant agreement Yahuah sets up for mankind is for the 100% benefit of mankind to lead them back to Himself. If this is not an unbendable rule, we are all in trouble.

** every covenant agreement Yahweh sets up with Israel is for the 100% benefit of Israel & thru Israel mankind – Eph.2:12

–Point #1 – “Adam was not in a covenant with Yahweh but only a relationship”. He states that “this was not a covenant because it was imposed and not proposed”. This explanation does not take into consideration about the state that Adam was in when He was created. Adam was in a glorified state so he was created in perfection. He was actually in the ultimate covenant relationship with Elohim.

**This is another double-speak – or did you forget – “**”Simply because a relationship exists though, does not mean there is a covenant.” – What!!! – this is so twisted its confusing – that was your initial complaint – Here let me remind you – “Matthew then states how we have to be careful about “just because we see the word covenant in the text does not mean that it is a covenant”. I think this is a completely erroneous statement that deemphasizes the extreme importance of why covenant is so important.”

Then you turn around & say out the other side of your mouth – “”Simply because a relationship exists though, does not mean there is a covenant.”” – So which is it Einstein???”

–Adam actually KNEW in full.

**Let me enlighten you – KNOWING even in full is Not agreement – Hence the fall of sin.

–I would hardly say that this was imposed on Adam.

** I would hardly say that Adam had a choice – except to obey or Sin.

— Adam actually walked with Yahuah in the cool of the day. You may not be aware of this but Adam was actually considered to be in a marriage with his creator.

**And where is that clever little marriage verse?

–When we look into THE worst event in human history, Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden as death entered the picture for humans from this fall, it is the phrase “He drove them out” from the garden that we should pay close attention to. The Hebrew word there for the phrase ‘drive out’ is ‘garash’ and is strong’s # 1644 which can equally mean divorce. Leviticus 22:13 and Numbers 30:9 are two instances that speak of divorce and have the same Hebrew word garash that divorce stems from. So the Hebrew text is in support of the term describing Adam’s exit from the garden as being a divorce. Also, are we to say that the ultimate destination for a believer which is to be seated at the marriage supper of the Lamb in a consummated marriage covenant relationship was not the same situation Adam was in before he was ‘driven out’? I surely hope not. So, I will propose to you again that Adam was in the ultimate covenant relationship with the Creator and that is the hope for all of us to be found worthy to take part in the wedding supper of the Lamb and to be back in that glorified pre-fall garden like state with our Elohim.

**H1644 – Does NOT only or always mean what JF is pushing – leading you to accept his conclusion – Notice the initial definition is “to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate”




A primitive root; to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce: – cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely put away, trouble, thrust out.

–Also, here is a scripture explaining that Adam was in a covenant with Yahuah. The prophet Hosea is discussing the unfaithfulness of marriage with the children of Israel throughout his letter when, in chapter 6 verse 7, he states…

Hosea 6:7 Just like Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.

The King James Version puts ‘men’ there for ‘Adam’ but the Hebrew word ‘adam’ is in the original text and as we know adam means man. Hosea has to be talking about Adam because the only other time anyone broke covenant with Yahuah before the children of Israel were unfaithful to their marriage covenant at Mt. Sinai was Adam.

**Again what version is JF using?

Hos 6:7 But theyH1992 like menH120 have transgressedH5674 the covenant:H1285 thereH8033 have they dealt treacherouslyH898 against me. KJV

**This speaks of they (Ephriam & Judah) like other men – after all this is Hosea many transgressions have already occurred.

**H120 – Again Notice the initial definition is a human being (an individual **or** the species, mankind




From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): – X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

–If Matthew himself, in his teaching, states that Adam wasn’t in a covenant with Yahuah then ‘men’ as a whole most certainly weren’t before Mt. Sinai other than Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew even states that Noah wasn’t in a covenant with Yahuah which we’ll get to shortly. By the way Noah never broke covenant with Yahuah and neither did Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob for that matter so

** This is a greasy board brush all inclusive stroke – So you say so– Show the Covenant proper Proposed&Agreed to chp&verse by Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah … to Noah, Shem – Now when you say Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob they had did have Gen.12&15 of which you can say they Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ‘never broke covenant’.

–this verse cannot be talking about them. So, the context of Hosea is all about marriage which is why he explains “like Adam” they have broken covenant, they were unfaithful to me there (at Mt. Sinai) because both Adam in the garden and the Israelites at Mt. Sinai were marriages. Hence the term, Yahuah ‘divorced’ (drove out) Adam from the Garden.

**In your fantasy want it to be so imagination

–It should be mentioned that Matthew believes that Adam only received an “oration” or a “decree” from Yahweh for the Garden. This would mean that He only gave Adam a formal speech on a special occasion (oration) or He just gave an authoritative order (decree). Can we agree to cancel out a formal speech on a special occasion? As far as an authoritative order or decree being given is absolutely true.

**Thank you for this agreement – Now the take away.

–But, what constitutes the covenant nature of what Adam was in with Yahuah though, is that by not obeying His instructions Adam would be separated or divorced from Yahuah’s presence, so this was way more than a decree only.

Let me give my last summation (**Oh joy of joys let it be so; I can hardly wait) of Adam’s covenant with Yahuah. Yahuah’s covenant with Adam is the only covenant with Yahuah where man did not enter, stipulate, or bind himself by contract,

**So Einstein you’ve gutted your own point – So by your own admission there was not a Proposal, Agreement, or Confirmation/Ratification.

— but rather his covenant relationship was dictated by Yahuah (God). He was created into the perfect covenant relationship. We do find though that Adam did have commands/instructions to obey regarding this special place in the Garden that was designed for him.

GENESIS 2:15 Then Yahuah Elohim (the LORD God) took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

**So let me be clear Einstein you’ve gutted your own point – then you make this dizzying head-spin saying ‘his covenant relationship was dictated by Yahuah (God).’ Hello you make your ‘god’ to be a mobster – ‘I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse’ and call it a covenant agreement? You can’t impose an agreement in Yah’s Kingdom economy.

Matthew said the same thing except your covenant agreement part – and this is your beef?

— Adam’s commandments (instructions) to tend and keep the Garden were to protect his covenant relationship with Yahuah (God)…

Man was also given the instructions of being fruitful and multiplying while tending and keeping the garden. There was one other command given to Adam and that was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or he will die. Yahuah’s (God’s) commandments always protect us.

GENESIS 2:16-17 And Yahuah Elohim (the LORD God) commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

This command was for their protection from knowing evil. I would say that this was a duly established agreement to protect them from losing this perfect state that they were in, as this was hardly imposed upon them.

**Helloo – That they did not keep – If it was not agreed to in a covenant (again chp&verse) the only other choice is ‘impose’

–Knowing evil is always associated with breaking Yahuah’s (God’s) commandments.

**Well at least you didn’t say covenant

–When we look at this word know in the English we completely miss the tremendous significance in the meaning of what happened to Adam and Eve when it says they “knew evil”. The Hebrew word here is “yada” which is the same intimate word used to describe sexual relations between husband and wife.

**Again not always or only

–This knowledge (yada) that they became acquainted with was a completely intimate and experiential knowledge and most certainly not just a knowing of the mind. You could even say they were now married to evil. We also miss the importance of “to keep the garden” with only the English word “keep”. The Hebrew word is “shamar” and it means “to guard or protect”.

So, one of Adam’s commands was to guard or protect (shamar) the Garden which included not letting the enemy in and more importantly to equip his wife the same way, protecting her from the schemes of the enemy. Remember it was only Adam who was given the instructions for the Garden so it was Adam’s job to guard over it, which included Eve. Mankind has yet to have it as good as Adam and Eve before the fall. Not even close. So in closing I’ll say it again, Adam was in the ultimate covenant with the Creator, one that we all hope to get back to.

**Again “ultimate covenant ”/ agreement – and the Bible Chp&Verse is? – You even in your own family have a relation bond with each member but that does not necessarily include agreement – ie. covenant.

–Point #2 – “Yahweh did not make a covenant with Noah but gave him an oath. It was an ‘autonomous type’ covenant that Yahweh made with himself”. There is no question that Yahuah made a covenant with Noah and didn’t just give him an oath as I will clearly display here shortly. Let’s look at this term autonomous as it is defined as Self-governing; Independent. So Matthew says that Yahweh made a self governing or independent covenant with Himself and one of the main reasons he gives, is because “how could the plants and animals have agreed to a covenant”. We’ll come back to this comment in a second as it really has no basis on what was duly established with Noah and creation.

**”no basis”??? Look closely at Gen 9:9-11 and see ‘My covenant’ not ‘our’ covenant.

–Matthew also keys on the phrase my Covenant which he believes means “He made a covenant with Himself”. This is not true as I will show throughout this document because of how Yahuah duly establishes His covenant with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites. Even in Exodus 19:5, which is a staple covenant in one of the Covenants of Promise in Matthew’s teachings, it says the phrase my covenant, and we know that this covenant for sure had an official agreement between the parties and was blood ratified. So, you absolutely cannot say the term my covenant means “He makes a covenant with himself”.

**you say “you absolutely cannot say the term my covenant means “He makes a covenant with himself”. You and your KC bunch are over and over again wrong!

**This phrase my covenant speaks of the Gen.12 covenant/oath He has already “made” with himself.

**You compare apples with oranges – the Book of the Covenant starting with Exodus 19:5, is a bona-fide Covenant unto itself closing a Exodus 24:8 – show me the formal proposals to, agreements with, and Covenant Blood Ratifications of Noah, Isaac, Jacob, and even the Israelites before the Book of the Covenant that did include YHWH’s Autonomous Covenant ie my covenant

–As we play the story forward we discover that Yahuah (God) systematically starts removing the curses from His creation as He begins to restore mankind through this wonderful thing called covenant relationship.

** called covenant relationship by who? You? Chp&Verse please? – Thot we were gonna stick to the Bible not the seat of your pants.

–Of course, the start of this restoration plan begins with a man named Noah leading to a promise given to a man named Abram and his descendants.

We read in Genesis 5:1-29 the lineage of the righteous SEED carrying from Seth to Noah.

**Actually you mis-speak again the start of this restoration plan begins with an un-named seed of the woman Gen.3:15

–It is very important to note that this SEED had to move forward as it was promised in an oath by Yahuah that the SEED would come and crush the head of the serpent. This was the only ray of hope from the garden. We know that this eventual SEED would be the Messiah who would be in the order of Melchizedek. That is exactly what this SEED is, the “melek” and “zedek”, the righteous (zedek) Kingship (melek) order that must be passed along through the righteous SEED.

**Can agree

–After Yahuah decided to destroy all living things because of continued wickedness we come to the righteous seed Noah.

GENESIS 6:7-8 YHUH (The LORD) said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of YHUH (the LORD).

Genesis 6:9 records that Noah was righteous, blameless and that he walked with Yahuah (God). Noah received instructions (commands) from Yahuah (God) to build an ark and he did as he was told. This began Yahuah (God) duly establishing His Covenant with creation once again and it would take obedience to what was commanded for it to be established. I’d say that Noah building the ark in obedience was leading to much more than Yahuah making a covenant with himself.

**You ball many things together – 1st ‘my covenant’ at the point of Gen.6 could only include the autonomous promise/covenant/oath of Gen.3:15

–GENESIS 6:18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.

Let us not confuse the clear text that states that Yahuah will establish His covenant WITH NOAH.

**His/my covenant WITH NOAH – still is His/my covenant before NOAH and since.

–Noah is given other commands in Genesis 6:19-20 of storing every kind of food that could be eaten and also he is told to bring both clean and unclean animals on the ark. Noah obeys Yahuah’s (God’s) commands:

GENESIS 6:22 Noah did everything just as Yah (God) commanded him.

**And your point would be? An obeyed directive does not a covenant make. This in your mind does away with all the formalities of establishing a covenant?

–We can clearly see, displayed in our Bibles, the importance of these genealogies of this righteous SEED being passed on from one generation to another. The reality is because Yahuah (God) never goes back on what He says, He always makes a way. Yahuah (God) always seems to have that one true servant lined up for that very narrow situation when all seems doomed. Yahuah (God) knows the thoughts and intent of a man’s heart since it was He who created all men.

EPHESIANS 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Is this not exactly what he said of Noah, Noah was blameless in his generation. We must do the same thing in our generation, be found holy and blameless. That is the whole point Yahuah establishes His covenant back to mankind is for us to walk blameless and to eventually be restored back to the pre-fall Adam like state, fully glorified.

HEBREWS 12:14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see Yahusha (the Lord).

To be holy is the Hebrew word “kadosh” and it means to be separate or set apart. As a strong side note this scripture was written to those who had already received the SEED of salvation (accepting Messiah). This then is also speaking to us now about how without Holiness no one will see Him ON THE DAY HE RETURNS.

Yahuah’s (God’s) plan would continue moving forward. The earth and all humanity received a new beginning and went through a baptism.

1 PETER 3:20-21 …In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—

In the same way a soul baptized into Yahusha Messiah’s (Jesus Christ’s) death gives a new beginning, the baptism of the flood waters to earth did the same thing on a macro scale. So, Noah is actually the major pivot point to a new covenant plan by Yahuah of which we will start to see our eventual covenant with Messiah come to fruition.

**That’s fair you can say that – but it does not change the fact that this whole Messianic drama started with Gen.3:15 after the fall into sin.

The Curse of the Ground Removed

The first curse Yahuah (God) removes is the curse of the ground of Genesis 3:17. Remember in Genesis 3:17 all the ground of the earth was cursed for Adam’s transgression and through painful toil he would eat of it all the days of his life. There was something about the ground that made it very difficult to get food from for people living up unto the time of the flood. Removing the curse of the ground is also very important to do before a future LAND can be given to Abraham and his descendants, to eventually be occupied by Yahusha (Jesus) and His faithful bride and servants. With a cursed ground there can’t be a blessed LAND to give.

GENESIS 8:20-21 Then Noah built an altar to Yahuah (the Lord) and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. Yahuah (The Lord) smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Did you notice how Yahuah makes His oaths after He was pleased with Noah’s sacrifice? The whole point I bring that up is there is always a back and forth we see between mankind and Yahuah which establishes the basis for Yahuah to continue establishing covenant relationship with us. Now that the curse of the ground is removed Yahuah (God) further establishes His Covenant with Noah:

GENESIS 9:7-11 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” Then Yahuah (God) said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

Did you notice that Noah is given the same command to be fruitful and increase in number as Adam and Eve were in the garden? Also after Noah builds an alter and makes a sacrifice, Yahuah establishes His covenant with Noah and all of Noah’s descendants and all of creation as well. To deemphasize these events as a covenant is to minimize what Yahuah is establishing. The next thing Yahuah sets up is a sign of this everlasting Covenant He is making with all of creation:

GENESIS 9:12-13 And Yahuah (God) said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

**Bingo that’s the transition from solely Yah’s oath/covenant ‘my covenant’ to I am making between me and you (now our covenant’ ) and every living creature with you, … I have set my (not our) rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and **the earth**. Helloo not just Noah & crew. – not just people, but animals too & the earth to include plants

–Matthew said that this was the sign of the oath that Yahuah made with Noah. Actually it was the sign of the covenant He made with the whole earth as was just stated. You cannot argue that there was a covenant established with Noah and there is no reason to say, simply “because the animals and the plants didn’t agree to a covenant” therefore it can’t be a covenant. I’d say the plants and animals themselves, if they could speak, would be 100% ok with this being called a covenant wouldn’t you.

**It just gives me the warm&fuzzies that you can speak for the animals, plants and all. And this is supposed to be some kind of gotcha end all?

–By looking specifically at the established events as the story plays forward prevents anyone from making blanket statements that the whole situation with Noah was only an oath.

**Oh you say and that somehow makes it so? As stated so many times before – Where is the formal covenant cutting as you see in Gen.15, Ex.24:7-8 ???

–There were two oaths actually made by Yahuah which were I will never again curse the ground again because of man and I will never again destroy all life by a flood. These oaths actually become established by covenant as we can clearly see with the unfolding events laid out in scripture. This word sign in Hebrew is “owth”, pronounced ‘owt’, and it means a signal, a distinguishing mark. The term sign or owth will be important to remember as we move forward towards our covenant in Messiah.

Before we get into how the righteous SEED would continue on after Noah I would like to refresh us on a very important curse that Yahuah (God) had placed on mankind regarding the SEED. If you remember in Genesis 3:15 Yahuah (God) said that the offspring, the SEED of the woman and the SEED of Satan would be at enmity with each other. This very thing played out with Adam’s boys as Cain killed Abel. Cain was the natural firstborn SEED (Satan’s SEED) but Abel was Yahuah’s (God’s) choice as he was the righteous SEED (Yahuah’s SEED). This same dynamic struggle between the SEEDS plays out the rest of the story in the same way until the SEED (Messiah) will come to crush the head of the Serpent. The fact remains that even now we in this day continue to battle Satan’s SEEDS (lies) to the point that even some of the elect (chosen) will be deceived (MAT 24:24).

I truly find it incredible that in all three of Matthew’s teachings that I have seen HaSatan (Satan) isn’t mentioned once.

**Are you for real – anything to make a less-than point – Matthew is teaching about Covenant – a realm where haSatan should not even exist.

—I’m sure he has mentioned him in some of his teachings, but to go through three full teachings and not hear him mention our enemy once is telling to me. I mean, isn’t that the real war that we are in, which is the fact that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the prince of the power of the air and the hosts of wickedness (demons) in heavenly places. Knowing that we are not at war with each other but with Satan and his demons it’s important to realize that he will stop at nothing to keep us from the truth as he has been called “the father of lies”.

**Oh count them – 3. Oh the bane of it all – That your best point – Pathetic

–JOHN 8:44 …He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Satan is the master liar and the Bible says that “he leads the whole world astray” and “he never sleeps knowing his time is short”…

REVELATION 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

REVELATION 12:12 …But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”

Last time I checked we’re still living in this world, so he’s not done attempting to lead anyone astray. I’m sure he’s very satisfied that there are many teachers who continue teaching and somehow never factor him into the equation. Especially when most teachings also never mention the major reasons why we are searching the scriptures in the first place, to understand how it is that we inherit the Kingdom exactly. I see it being a major problem in any teaching when overcoming sin, how we overcome sin, and how we overcome HaSatan and his lies to one day be found worthy to stand before the Son of Man are never mentioned, especially when it involves covenant. I hope you would agree with that assessment.

**Is that your best Sunday School lesson for the day?

–In Part 2 and Part 3 I will go into Matthew’s remaining 8 points which cover Abram to the Messiah.

To recap, I believe it is impossible to ignore that Adam before the fall, and Noah after the flood were in covenant relationship with Yahuah.

**I’m sorry most do not care what you (JF/KC & group) believe – We want to know what the Bible / Torah (KC’s favorite put down hot-button) actually says.

Messianic Bible Email

Messianic Bible Email
On 2015-11-06 04:06, Messianic Bible ( wrote: …
> Shabbat Shalom David!
> Welcome to this week’s Torah study, which is called CHAYEI SARAH (Life of Sarah).
> Please join with us as we study the portion of Scripture that will be read in synagogues around the world this Shabbat (Saturday). We know you will be blessed by this Parasha (Torah portion) as it highlights how we can live lives worthy of leaving a legacy for future generations. …
My Reply
“THE LEGACY OF SARAH” ensured by Abraham includes the legacy of Abraham continued thru Yitzhak (Isaac), Yakkov (Jacob), Israel and that thru us (Gen.48:19/Rom.11:25) – AND – The return of the Melkizedeq Priesthood that SARAH, Abraham, Yitzhak (Isaac), Yakkov (Jacob) & Israel knew before Ex.32 before the nation of Israel broke the Melkizedeq Cov’t with the sin of the Gold Calf (Ex.32/Num3:12) that thrust them under the Levitical Priesthood.
My offering to you and those you affect is the Truth which is more precious than gold (Prv.20:15) of the Melkizedeq Priesthood and its return (the feather weight Mat.11:30) VS the Levitical Priesthood (the anchor drag Acts 15:10 – 2Cor.3:11, Heb.7:11-12)
My offering is my labor which includes money, time, effort, research, midrash, prayer and thought contained in;
But you can start with the article
Shalom & may Yah bless you with the continued desire for His more fully accounted for Truth – DLPerry

Melkizedeq Attack 9

Reply to this 5 hr+ error teaching to be posted as possible on TWR

Torah Without Rabbinics . WordPress . com

Search – Melkizedeq Attack 9

MALKI ATTACK FROM UK – from – not accessible ??? – FB by – John-Paul McMahon <>

FROM: Matthew Nolan

>> DATE: November 2, 2015 at 7:11:38 AM PST

>> TO: yst


Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1 (of 3) 2.12.21 – Introduction and a Common Misunderstanding of Galatians – 29/10/15 (England) – YouTube posted – 10/29/15 (America) by; an individual only Iding himself as “J.P.” from ‘the way biblical fellowship’.

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 (of 3) 2.23.33 fixed/edited to .31 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 – Scriptural Misunderstanding and Serious Error – 29/10/15

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 (of 3) 33.04 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 – Heretical Statements and Conclusion – 29/10/15

As you can see this “J.P.” escalates from the benign to the unmasked attack to the ‘lashon harah’ of labeling character assassination statements.

ETA – Video Elapsed Time

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1

1/ ETA :22 – Claiming a ‘thorough look’ but yet in error of his own conclusions just as 1Tm.1:7 reveals.

2/ 5:41 – He actually says – “we’re called to be kings & priests certainly” – what does he thinks that means? By Torah Num.3:12 – you cannot be a priest with out being Levite – yet it was not so to begin with Ex.19:5-6. The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 ‘instead’ (1 of many chances in Torah) is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!

3/ 5:46 – Claiming that 1Ptr.2:9 ‘Royal Priesthood’ is a ‘leap’ – to the Melkizedeq Priesthood – even tho it is the same verbiage as Ex.19:5-6 – :6 ‘…a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation…’which also does not directly say ‘Melkizedeq Priesthood’ either even tho the only Priesthood at this point this could be speaking of is Melkizedeq. – Note ‘a nation of priests’ would be a ‘Priesthood’ – Read Prv.25:2

4/ 6:01 – “one of the most dangerous doctrines” – He is barely 5mins into this; and makes this leading conclusion statement at this point void of any facts? This reveals his ‘Levitical Mindset’ complete with the desire to protect what he thinks he knows; desiring to lead you to his ‘spoon-fed conclusion’.

5/ 6:28 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is done away with” – this is an all or nothing misleading statement. This does not recognize many direct Bible statements – Ezk.20:10-25, Acts 15:10, 2Cor.3:11, Heb.7:12, etc.

‘God’ (“J.P.’s” xtian word – has not recognized the Torah Covenant Name of Yahweh – Com’dt #3)

6/ 6:42 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is not really Torah” – This is a confused statement – Melkizedeq Law & Covenant is Torah so is Levitical Law – They are different for different reasons Melkizedeq for Obedience – Levitical for Dis-Obedience as Ezk.20:24-25 shows.

7/ 7:32 – “J.P.” says “there was a priesthood before Mt. Sinai” – Sighting Ex.19:24 but he does not realize the word kohen does not only or always mean ‘priest’ – That this comes from Ex.18 where Jethro advises Moses to set ‘captains’ of 10’s, 50’s & 100’s –

H3548 Kohen – ko-hane’

Active participle of H3547; literally one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman): – chief ruler, X own, priest, prince, principal officer.

8/ 9:05 – Then he does this board bush skip to Ex.32 even quoting Num.3:12 not savvy enough to realize that the “firstborn” are the Melkizedeq ones spoken of at Ex.19:5-6 from all tribes & that ‘instead’ is a change in Torah (among many) to the 1 tribe of Levites. See 2 – The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!

9/ 10:29 – Then he tries a stab at ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ saying this only means in the same way as or in the same manner as (actually making the admission that the 1st born were originally the Melkizedeq Priests); not allowing ‘order’ can also mean ‘in the succession of’ which makes more sense or the possibility of both being in play which would fit the ‘block logic’ thinking of the Hebrew mind and the Prv.25:2 thoughts of YHWH.

Making the mistake of reading his English Bible and basing his errant conclusions on that English translation

H5921 –al – after Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: – above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.

10/ 11:35 – Then he appeals to a double speak song and dance flubdubbery of Heb.7:11 ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ … ‘after the order of Aaron’. Not realizing he has just painted himself in a corner for Heb.7:12 speaks of the ‘change of the priesthood’ – not the likeness of or the manner of, but the priesthood itself. After all there are only 2 in the Bible the Levitical and the Melkizedeq; ergo Heb.7:11.

11/ 12:08 Then he does this amazing head spin razzle-dazzle; 1st correctly telling that Noah was a Melkizedeq Priest then turns to make this absurd statement that Melkizedeq was a priest after the order of Noah ??? And the Bible verse would be? Going on to demand that “order of does not and cannot ever mean in their priestly order” – which would be true for an ‘order of Noah’ conjecture but not so of the order of Melkizedeq. And what is more Melkizedeq is a designation title that Yahweh Himself uses (Ps.110, Heb.7:21).

12/ 12:47 Then he WOWs everyone using the amped words exegesis & eisegesis not realizing he consistently reads in his own thots and/or the ones he’s accepted that sport a Levitical mindset (eisegesis) not allowing the Bible to say what the Bible says the way the Bible says it. The British have a wonderful saying that fits this situation very well – Since “J. P.” is British, he will understand that he then is ‘hoisted on his own petard’.

This is only 12+ mins into J.P.’s 5hr+ error rant. We will deal with this and the balance of; on subsequent installments of Melkizedeq Corner to be posted here as they come available

As a observational side note; This guy ‘John Paul’ claims to champion the unchanged law of Torah and TaNaK – Yet – does not keep the unchanged law he champions. You can view this for yourselves on his/these videos – He has shaved his head and his beard. Most would recognize this as hypocrisy.

Note – His ‘John Paul’s’ version of ‘law’ mirrors the Rabbinic, Jewish, Messianic and Anti-missionary version of ‘law’ to include undivided&undiscerned  Melkizedeq Law mixed with Levitical law, that includes the Christian Church – of which in opposition the Christian Church flatly rejects claiming ‘No Law Grace’ despite the fact that Yahweh says that Melkizedeq Covenant & Law is grace.

The following is Levitical law.

Lev.19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Ezk.44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

Poll – to gather the hair in back by hand – cutting off the excess

Until then please see;
* Addendum YouTube Melchizedek Corner Video’s
Of Video 1
1 – 0 to 6:15 –