Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

Don’t let this title fool you their is in fact to blood atonement in
the act of the animal sacrifice of a turkey during Thanksgiving, nor
is their any atonement made in grain offering during Thanksgiving.
Popular culture would have you believe that Christ fought for
religious freedom from oppressive Pharisaic leadership in order that
everyone may worship God as their conscience dictates, and not only
that but many would have you believe that by sitting around a turkey
with grains and other such things together with the family of man that
you are someone participating in communion with God through fellowship
with everyone that is related to you by flesh. Overall, the message
that comes from the turkey and the stuffing is that if we just put
aside our differences and make our Lord secondary to the governance
and rule of man that we will find that everyone’s gods shake hands and
fellowships together in peace.

If this was the case, then the cross of Christ would be a eternally
accursed thing because the following records the very words of God,
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You
shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God,
am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to
the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love
to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my
commandments." Exodus 20:4-6 (NIV) Thus if the cross of Christ was
put in place for man to worship whatever God he pleased as his
conscience dictates, then it would by its very nature be opposed to
the God of the Hebrews that is jealous toward people worshipping other
Gods. In fact the Pilgrims whom came to the United States for,
"religious freedom" received such a powerful curse from God that most
of them died, but if they would have ‘learned’ Christianity from the
Roman Christians then they would have rather been thrown into the
lions den than to acknowledge everyone’s God as being equal to
administer justice around a turkey.

The Roman Christian was a lot different than the popular Christian of
today because instead of conforming to the ways of the world and
having their God take second place in an endless sea of gods they
instead preferred to preach the gospel by making the crucifixion of
Christ real in their flesh. This means that the Roman Christian
preached the gospel in the most Satanic government in the world by
showing the world the crucifixion of Christ, and by doing so
multitudes believed the message of the cross by seeing its example.
If however the Roman Christian would have believed that everyone’s
view is equally valid and that everyone has their right to their own
opinion and that Christ came to bring peace among everyone having
their own opinion such that everyone is given the right to worship
their own gods as their conscience dictates, then the Roman Christian
would have never come into conflict with Roman authority and none of
them would have been thrown into the lion’s den. In fact if the Roman
Christian would have been like the popular Christians of today, then
they may have obtained vast material blessings without ever having
anything ‘bad’ ever happen to them during their natural lives. The
Roman Christian could have made the worship of their God such a secret
that no one else would have ever known about it all while acting just
like every other Roman citizen, but instead the Roman Christian would
rather be crucified with Christ either on the cross or in the lion’s
den.

You might thus think that the Roman Christian was saved by their
incredible works in proclaiming the gospel of Christ as opposed to the
gospel of Rome, but this is by far not the case. Even when Peter said
that he would never denounce the Lord it was Christ that quoted
Zechariah chapter 13 as recorded in Mark 14:27 and Matthew 26:31 and
then Christ said that Peter would denounce him three times. What than
does Zechariah Chapter 13 say? It says the following in context,
""Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to
me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep
will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down
and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. This third I will bring
into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like
gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say,
'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'""
Zechariah 13:7-9 (NIV) In other words God the Father himself called
upon the sward to strike down Christ the shepherd, and he set his own
hand against the children of God.

You might not think that what I say makes many since at all, but it
does. God the Father used Satan to oppose the Christians just like in
the book of Job in order that the crucifixion might be made real in
the flesh of God’s children. For the following is said, "When the
dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman
who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two
wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared
for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time,
times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. Then from his
mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and
sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by
opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed
out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went
off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's
commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Revelation 12:13-17
(NIV) Overall, when the Father set his hand against the little ones
after he told the sward to strike down the shepherd, it was then that
the dragon went after the children of God.

Regarding Vicarious Atonement as taught by Anselm that teaches that
God the Father basically brought down his wrath on Jesus Christ in
order to free the one whom believes in him from ever receiving the
wrath of God by substitution of Christ crucified on the cross for us
being ever punished for our sins, this doctrine really lacks a lot.
Scripture as I have demonstrated teaches that God destroyed two thirds
of Jerusalem, and the third that was left he threw into the fire to
remove its impurities. This means that once a person has been chosen
by God for salvation and once the blood atonement has been
administered on his behalf, then God becomes busy handing man over to
Satan like he did with Job in order that the gospel may be made real
in his flesh in order that he may be risen from the dead in bodily
form like Jesus. This means that as soon as Christ has been shown to
a person and born into a person’s life that person will be rejected by
the world until crucified so that others may see the gospel and
understand God’s salvation, and then through this process many are
able to see why God would raise us from the dead.

I have been asked to evaluate the teachings of George MacDonald (whom
is the mentor of authors such as J.R Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Mark
Twain) on his message entitled Justice, and this was given to me as I
was asked to evaluate it in order to see how God the Father could be
reasoned to be both just and all loving. The case that was given to
me is that God is love meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
are all love in completeness without any other emotion such as
hatred. Overall, George MacDonald takes the view that Vicarious
Atonement is very wrong as if it pardons sin in sinners such that
sinners can believe in Christ without any real consequence for their
sins as a result of Christ having paid for those consequences, and
George MacDonald goes on to take the view that only through men making
atonement for their owns sins by righting wrongs that they have
committed can salvation be possible.

George MacDonald has thus been used as the voice of many people that
promote universal salvation because by his views of atonement
promoting that atonement rests in the hands of men he has made the
ministry and the cross of Christ into a works based system that ushers
in a new dispensation that men according to his doctrine are to be
judged under. The problem with this view is that according to the
scripture Jesus Christ is the righteous one and like Peter all have
fallen away, and no matter how much man can struggle to obtain
righteousness it can never happen. This is why by men salvation is
impossible, but by God all things are possible.

In the writing of George MacDonald he adamantly opposes Jonathan
Edwards whom came from the teaching of John Calvin whom promotes a
version of Vicarious Atonement as was taught by Anselm. George
MacDonald does this not on the bases of the divine reason of the law
of Moses but instead he uses reasoning similar to British moral
philosophy as he says such things as, "By a just judge we mean a man
who administers the law without prejudice, without favour or dislike;
and where guilt is manifest, punishes as much as, and no more than,
the law has in the case laid down. It may not be that justice has
therefore been done. … . Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can
set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man
that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the
wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man?"1 Overall,
Christianity is not like any moral philosophy because it teaches that
everyone except for Christ is sinful, and only Christ is righteous and
only he can impute his righteousness into us giving us a righteousness
apart from the law called faith.

Now this faith is what produces the works that bring about salvation
as the gospel is made real in our flesh. As a result, the faith that
comes from God and is given to us is not opposed to making wrongs into
rights, but it is opposed to our righteousness apart from the faith
that God has given us making the wrongs into rights. I say this
because if we rely upon our own righteousness apart from the faith
that God has given us, then it is no righteousness at all as it can
only produce illegitimate children such as Ishmael whom was not
produced in accordance with the faith that God gave to Abraham but
instead was produced through the acts of man trying to obtain his own
righteousness apart from the faith that came from God.

Was Abraham saved despite the fact that his works had been corrupt?
Yes, Abraham was saved because of the faith that God has given to him,
and because that faith imputed a righteousness into Abraham that
eventually produced Isaac the chosen one whom would produce the
children of Israel that would produce God’s chosen people. Overall,
through history God the Father over five thousand years has constantly
pruned his chosen people by removing those things that are produced as
a result of man making himself righteousness apart from faith, and
more specifically any attempts that a man would make to obtain
righteousness apart from faith is only a false God used as opposition
to the union between God and man.

We even read in Ezekiel 16:8 that the following is said, "'Later I
passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough
for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your
nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with
you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine." (NIV) The
context that this was said in the chapter is that God found Jerusalem
as an infant kicking in its blood and that he raised that infant from
childhood and than when she was old enough for love God married her,
but she was not satisfied with giving her husband love but instead she
had other partners and even mated with false Gods that have no breath
in them. Overall, any making of anything for redemption and atonement
through the work of a man’s hands is a false God because it brakes
faith with the Lord. (I am not denying intercession through the blood
of Christ to atone for sins as this is different).

The point in all of this is that nothing that we can do can make us
righteous because if this was the case then righteousness apart from
the law would not be needed, but on the other hand because this
righteousness apart from the law is the judge over the law thus the
law is written about him who judges with the law. As a result, no one
whom is wicked has yet been freed from sin because sin is still a
master over them, but to all those whom have been freed by the
righteousness apart from the law they become the master over sin and
death. This is why when many came to realize by faith that they had
not been righteous and that only Jesus is righteous because he is God
that people received this faith (this righteousness), and as a result
many of them commanded devils because they become masters over sin
like Christ is a master over Satan. Overall, those saved in this way
believed God and they became crucified making the gospel real in their
flesh so that others could believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and
be given the same faith from God.

Consider yet again another of George MacDonald’s sayings, "In God
shall we imagine a distinction of office and character? God is one;
and the depth of foolishness is reached by that theology which talks
of God as if he held different offices, and differed in each. It sets
a contradiction in the very nature of God himself. It represents him,
for instance, as having to do that as a magistrate which as a father
he would not do! The love of the father makes him desire to be unjust
as a magistrate!"1 Remember however that in the gospel of John Jesus
Christ says, "my father is the gardener (or vine dresser) and I am the
vine, and he cuts off anything in my that does not produce good
fruit." Not only that but also Christ himself tells the story of a
wedding supper such that three people are mentioned namely the King,
the son of the king being married, and the servant that collects
people from the street and brings them in, and we learn from this
story that the King (the Father) throws out the one not dressed in
wedding garments at the wedding supper of the lamb.

Let us consider again another passage from George MacDonald. "A just
man is one who cares, and tries, and always tries, to give fair play
to everyone in every thing. When we speak of the justice of God, let
us see that we do mean justice! Punishment of the guilty may be
involved in justice, but it does not constitute the justice of God one
atom more than it would constitute the justice of a man. 'But no one
ever doubts that God gives fair play!' 'That may be--but does not go
for much, if you say that God does this or that which is not fair.'
'If he does it, you may be sure it is fair.' 'Doubtless, or he could
not be God--except to devils. But you say he does so and so, and is
just; I say, he does not do so and so, and is just. You say he does,
for the Bible says so. I say, if the Bible said so, the Bible would
lie; but the Bible does not say so. The lord of life complains of men
for not judging right. To say on the authority of the Bible that God
does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say
that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.
To uphold a lie for God's sake is to be against God, not for him. God
cannot be lied for. He is the truth."1 Overall, regarding the
message of George MacDonald regarding fair play and God giving it to
everyone consider the following passage, "For the Scripture says to
Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display
my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the
earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then
why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are
you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who
formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have
the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble
purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his
wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects
of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make
the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he
prepared in advance for glory" Romans 9:17-23 (NIV)

Consider yet another passage of George MacDonald, "Primarily, God is
not bound to punish sin; he is bound to destroy sin. If he were not
the Maker, he might not be bound to destroy sin--I do not know; but
seeing he has created creatures who have sinned, and therefore sin
has, by the creating act of God, come into the world, God is, in his
own righteousness, bound to destroy sin."1 Yes it is true that God
was bound to destroy sin, but if we remember the story of the fall of
man it was because God want away from Adam and Eve and thus his
presence moved away from them causing sin to abound and teachings us
like in the case of Christ crucifixion that according to Jesus despite
the efforts of Peter, "all will fall away on account of me." Overall,
the point is that God teaches us through sin that being apart from the
presence of God brings misery and that it is the will of God the
Father to demonstrate this to us such that we learn to love God and
always desire to be in his presence.

It is true that George MacDonald makes some good points now and then
as he appears to write mainly from a stand point of detesting the
works of those whom proclaim Christ while embracing all kinds of evil
in the name of Christ, but the fact that George MacDonald embraces
free will over the Lordship of God the Father to predestine all of
creation from eternity puts him at odds with the notion that salvation
is only accomplished through the work of God alone made manifest by
God into creation. As a result, George MacDonald sees the work of
Christ in a person’s life as being in addition to the good things that
man would already do apart from God. I must at this point rebuke the
teachings of George MacDonald by saying that the unbelievers have good
things and do good things only as a result of common grace, but the
believer does good things that they are saved through as a result of
the special grace of God given through Christ imputing his
righteousness and faith apart from the law being given. Overall, the
point to be made is that unlike George MacDonald would claim God is in
charge of our salvation not us.

We even read that from the work of God an entire nation was born in a
moment through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 66:8). Having
said that everything that happened prior to that moment happened in
preparation for that one moment, and everything that happened after
that moment happened as a result of it. That one moment happened as a
result of nothing other than God’s work, and as a result we should
treat our hope in our bodily resurrection from the dead the same way.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com


From Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald: Justice
1 < http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/31/
>

[Peter VanGee]

Hi all:

 

Actually, I always thought thanksgiving was about charity.  Without the help of the indians, the pilgrims would have died.  They brought wild turkey and corn.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Roy Woodsmall §§§§ Freed from Monasticism
Evan L. Hale §§§§§§§§§§§ Thankful for Whiskey
Adam Colbert §§§§§§§§§§ Jesus look alike
Mathew Enoch Mount §§§§ Conservative
===>
Together we operate Jesus on the Web
----------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed
To the Google Groups "Jesus On the Web" group.
To post to this group, send email to
===>
jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
===>
jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
For more options, visit this group at
===>
http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en
----------------------------------------------------------------

[ON EARTH Ministries]

Wow, I thought I could have a bad attitude holidays! :) Although the
truth that I am going to share with you is incredibly powerful,
striking, and awesome it is at the same time one of the most offensive
scriptural truths that I know of. Hopefully you will bare with me as
I explain this truth, and note that the reason why you may never hear
this kind of message from a pulpit anytime soon is because it is so
very extreme. Having said that I will give the message to you without
coating it, and I can imagine many upon hearing the message going into
a rage because of how true it is.

Harvest festivals and feasts are as old as harvests themselves.

Consider the Festival of Sukkot:

...On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the Festival of
Sukkot, seven days for the L-RD. -Leviticus 23:34
The Festival of Sukkot begins on Tishri 15, the fifth day after Yom
Kippur. It is quite a drastic transition, from one of the most solemn
holidays in their year to one of the most joyous. Sukkot is so
unreservedly joyful that it is commonly referred to in Jewish prayer
and literature as Z'man Simchateinu , the Season of our Rejoicing.
Sukkot is the last of the Shalosh R'galim (three pilgrimage
festivals). Like Passover and Shavu'ot, Sukkot has a dual
significance: historical and agricultural. Historically, Sukkot
commemorates the forty-year period during which the children of Israel
were wandering in the desert, living in temporary shelters.
Agriculturally, Sukkot is a harvest festival and is sometimes referred
to as Chag Ha-Asif , the Festival of Ingathering.
The word "Sukkot" means "booths," and refers to the temporary
dwellings that Jews are commanded to live in during this holiday in
memory of the period of wandering. The Hebrew pronunciation of Sukkot
is "Sue COAT," but is often pronounced as in Yiddish, to rhyme with
"BOOK us." The name of the holiday is frequently translated "Feast of
Tabernacles," which, like many translations of Jewish terms, isn't
very useful. This translation is particularly misleading, because the
word "tabernacle" in the Bible refers to the portable Sanctuary in the
desert, a precursor to the Temple, called in Hebrew "mishkan." The
Hebrew word "sukkah" (plural: "sukkot") refers to the temporary booths
that people lived in, not to the Tabernacle.
Sukkot lasts for seven days. The two days following the festival,
Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah, are separate holidays but are
related to Sukkot and are commonly thought of as part of Sukkot.
The festival of Sukkot is instituted in Leviticus 23:33 et seq. No
work is permitted on the first and second days of the holiday. (See
Extra Day of Holidays for an explanation of why the Bible says one day
but we observe two). Work is permitted on the remaining days. These
intermediate days on which work is permitted are referred to as Chol
Ha-Mo'ed, as are the intermediate days of Passover.

Building a Sukkah
You will dwell in booths for seven days; all natives of Israel shall
dwell in booths. -Leviticus 23:42
In honor of the holiday's historical significance, Jews are commanded
to dwell in temporary shelters, as their ancestors did in the
wilderness. The temporary shelter is referred to as a sukkah (which is
the singular form of the plural word "sukkot"). Like the word sukkot,
it can be pronounced like Sue-KAH, or to rhyme with Book-a.
The sukkah is great fun for the children. Building the sukkah each
year satisfies the common childhood fantasy of building a fort, and
dwelling in the sukkah satisfies a child's desire to camp out in the
backyard. The commandment to "dwell" in a sukkah can be fulfilled by
simply eating all of one's meals there; however, if the weather,
climate, and one's health permit, one should spend as much time in the
sukkah as possible, including sleeping in it.
A sukkah must have at least two and a half walls covered with a
material that will not blow away in the wind. Why two and a half
walls? Look at the letters in the word "sukkah" (see the graphic in
the heading): one letter has four sides, one has three sides and one
has two and a half sides. The "walls" of the sukkah do not have to be
solid; canvas covering tied or nailed down is acceptable and quite
common in the United States. A sukkah may be any size, so long as it
is large enough for you to fulfill the commandment of dwelling in it.
The roof of the sukkah must be made of material referred to as sekhakh
(literally, covering). To fulfill the commandment, sekhakh must be
something that grew from the ground and was cut off, such as tree
branches, corn stalks, bamboo reeds, sticks, or two-by-fours. Sekhakh
must be left loose, not tied together or tied down. Sekhakh must be
placed sparsely enough that rain can get in, and preferably sparsely
enough that the stars can be seen, but not so sparsely that more than
ten inches is open at any point or that there is more light than
shade. The sekhakh must be put on last. Note: You may put a
water-proof cover over the top of the sukkah when it is raining to
protect the contents of the sukkah, but you cannot use it as a sukkah
while it is covered and you must remove the cover to fulfill the
mitzvah of dwelling in a sukkah.
You can buy do-it-yourself sukkah from various sources online, or you
can build your own. I built my own with four 4x4 poles and four 2x4
boards, bolted together and secured by smaller pieces of 2x4 board. My
walls are made from canvas painter's drop cloth, attached to the frame
by D-rings and curtain hooks. It can be assembled or disassembled in
less than two hours by two people.
It is common practice, and highly commendable, to decorate the sukkah.
In the northeastern United States, Jews commonly hang dried squash and
corn in the sukkah to decorate it, because these vegetables are
readily available at that time for the American holidays of Halloween
and Thanksgiving. Many families hang artwork drawn by the children on
the walls. Building and decorating a sukkah is a fun family project,
much like decorating the Christmas tree is for Christians. It is a sad
commentary on modern American Judaism that most of the assimilated
Jews who complain about being deprived of the fun of having and
decorating a Christmas tree have never even heard of Sukkot.
Many Americans, upon seeing a decorated sukkah for the first time,
remark on how much the sukkah (and the holiday generally) reminds them
of Thanksgiving. This may not be entirely coincidental: I was taught
that our American pilgrims, who originated the Thanksgiving holiday,
borrowed the idea from Sukkot. The pilgrims were deeply religious
people. When they were trying to find a way to express their thanks
for their survival and for the harvest, they looked to the Bible for
an appropriate way of celebrating and found Sukkot. This is not the
standard story taught in public schools today (that a Thanksgiving
holiday is an English custom that the Pilgrims brought over), but the
Sukkot explanation of Thanksgiving fits better with the meticulous
research of Mayflower historian Caleb Johnson, who believes that the
original Thanksgiving was a harvest festival (as is Sukkot), that it
was observed in October (as Sukkot usually is), and that Pilgrims
would not have celebrated a holiday that was not in the Bible (but
Sukkot is in the Bible). Although Mr. Johnson claims that the first
Thanksgiving was "not a religious holiday or observance," he
apparently means this in a Christian sense, because he goes on to say
that the first Thanksgiving was instead "a harvest festival that
included feasts, sporting events, and other activities," concepts very
much in keeping with the Jewish religious observance of Sukkot. See
Religious Beliefs of the Pilgrims and Debunking a Popular Internet
Lesson Plan.
Arba Minim: The Four Species
On the first day, you will take for yourselves a fruit of a beautiful
tree, palm branches, twigs of a braided tree and brook willows, and
you will rejoice before the L-RD your G-d for seven days. -Leviticus
23:40
Another observance during Sukkot involves what are known as the Four
Species (arba minim in Hebrew) or the lulav and etrog. We are
commanded to take these four plants and use them to "rejoice before
the L-rd." The four species in question are an etrog (a citrus fruit
similar to a lemon native to Israel; in English it is called a
citron), a palm branch (in Hebrew, lulav), two willow branches
(aravot) and three myrtle branches (hadassim). The six branches are
bound together and referred to collectively as the lulav, because the
palm branch is by far the largest part. The etrog is held separately.
With these four species in hand, one recites a blessing and waves the
species in all six directions (east, south, west, north, up and down),
symbolizing the fact that G-d is everywhere. Detailed instructions for
this ritual can be found under Sukkot Blessings.
The four species are also held and waved during the Hallel prayer in
religious services, and are held during processions around the bimah
(the pedestal where the Torah is read) called hakafot each day during
the holiday. These processions commemorate similar processions around
the altar of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. This part of the service
is known as Hoshanot, because while the procession is made, we recite
a prayer with the refrain, "Hosha na!" (please save us!). On the
seventh day of Sukkot, seven circuits are made. For this reason, the
seventh day of Sukkot is known as Hoshanah Rabbah (the great
Hoshanah).
After the circuits on Hoshanah Rabbah, we beat the willow branches
against the floor five times, shaking loose some or all of the
remaining leaves. A number of explanations are offered for this
unusual beating practice, but the primary reason seems to be
agricultural: the rainy season in Israel begins in the fall, and the
leaves falling from the willow branch symbolize our desire for
beneficial rainfall. The following day (Shemini Atzeret), we begin
adding a line about rain to the thrice-daily Shemoneh Esrei prayer.
Why are these four plants used instead of other plants? There are two
primary explanations of the symbolic significance of these plants:
that they represent different parts of the body, or that they
represent different kinds of Jews.
According to the first interpretation, the long straight palm branch
represents the spine. The myrtle leaf, which is a small oval,
represents the eye. The willow leaf, a long oval, represents the
mouth, and the etrog fruit represents the heart. All of these parts
have the potential to be used for sin, but should join together in the
performance of mitzvot (commandments).
According to the second interpretation, the etrog, which has both a
pleasing taste and a pleasing scent, represents Jews who have achieved
both knowledge of Torah and performance of mitzvot. The palm branch,
which produces tasty fruit, but has no scent, represents Jews who have
knowledge of Torah but are lacking in mitzvot. The myrtle leaf, which
has a strong scent but no taste, represents Jews who perform mitzvot
but have little knowledge of Torah. The willow, which has neither
taste nor scent, represents Jews who have no knowledge of Torah and do
not perform the mitzvot. We bring all four of these species together
on Sukkot to remind us that every one of these four kinds of Jews is
important, and that we must all be united.

BOO-yah!

Don't make me go Hebrew on your donkey!
(giggle)

Peace, and All Good Things,

Brother Larry Roy Woodsmall
ON EARTH MINISTRIES

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Larry:

 

I didn't mean to be a downer.  From what I understand, the pilgrims got lost.  Floated around for awhile, using up all their stores, and then they hit plymouth rock.  After a month or two, they were on empty.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

I am interested to know what John Martin would say about this subject.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : ON EARTH Ministries[mailto:onearth.ministr...@gmail.com]
Sent : 11/27/2009 7:06:59 PM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[ON EARTH Ministries]

No, no! You are right.

I have a great admiration for many who would consider themselves part
of the Plymouth Brotherhood today. Their 'dispansations" format is
very fascinating. They are not UN-Quaker-like in many ways.

And the folks at who landed on the rock did manage to act like good
guests, until they started to get on their feet. Then, their
circumstantial, rather than contextual, understanding of the world
allowed for the sins of bigotry, entitlement, and conquest to rear
their ugly heads.

And if that wasn't enough, stress, ergot, paranoia, self-righteousness
and teenage mischievousness sent them into a horrifically sad
tailspin.

[mmo...@essex1.com]

< From John K >

Hey Mathew and all,
 
Like most who first read George MacDonald, you've misunderstood his point. 
MacDonald doesn't believe, as you write, that "the work of Christ in a

person’s life as being in addition to the good things that man would already

do apart from God."  He believes that it is Christ's work and His work
alone that saves us and that we have no merit in ourselves to be saved. 
MacDonald is writing in the late 1800's when a cold Reformed theology held
sway.  Many, at the time, believed they were Christians because they held to
the right list of doctrines, yet they were often cruel, unloving and selfish
in their attitudes and behaviors.

 
So MacDonald's concern was in the practical outworking of salvation.  How does
God actually accomplish it in our real lives.  To answer this MacDonald draws
the focus on the purpose for Christ's coming.  He would be named Jesus,
Matthew 1:21 tells us, because "He would save His people from their sins." 
Jesus didn't come to give us a list of doctrines to hold, or even to save us
from Hell.  He came to save us from sin.  Escaping the fires of Hell is the
outcome of our being saved from our sin.

 
But HOW, exactly, does Jesus save us from our sin?  How is it accomplished? 
There is the sense in which we are declared righteous through Christ's shed
blood on the cross and our acceptance by faith of His sacrifice.  And indeed,
we are justified in Him in that way.  But Christ doesn't just want to declare
us "not guilty" in a judicial sense.  He wants to make us truly righteous.  He
wants to build His life in us and He wants for us to grow up into Him.  He
wants us to will the will of His Father, and our Father, just as He did every
moment of His earthly life.  The only way to do that is to involve our will,
and to shape it until it is consistent with His. 

 
Let me give a real life example.  Many of us as men struggle with lust.  Now
if we have trusted Christ and accepted His payment for us, He has forgiven us
and we are clean.  But if we continue to lust can we say, yet, that we have
really been saved from our sin?  We haven't yet the Christ-life in us...we
continue to will our own will and not the will of the Father in that area. 
But the Father wants us to be His true children, just like His One True Son,
and so He is unwilling to leave us in such a state.  So he brings into our
lives some catalyst that will teach us to will His will and crucify the
fleshly desire to lust.  He, in other words, must engage our will.  When we
learn to consistently give our will over to His we won't be able to say that
our works have saved us...not at all, but we will be experiencing in
the practical sense what Jesus' work on the cross did for us in a judicial
sense.  This, MacDonald would say, is the real goal of Christ.  As we will the
will of the Father we are truly saved from our sin.

 
Jesus said, "The one who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who
loves me."  (John 14:21)  Would you say that He is appealling merely to our
intellect, or is He appealing to our will?  Mathew..if you have His commands
and keep them, you show your love for Christ.  If you will his will you show
Him you love Him.  Or do you think that it's unnecessary to actually DO the
will of the Father, as long as we believe that we're one of the predestined
elect?

 
Paul tells us that it's "By grace that you have been saved, through faith, and
that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God, not as a result of works, that no
one should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)  I'm sure you have those verses
memorized.  But so few go on to memorize the following verse, Ephesians
2:10, "For we are His workmanship, CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS, THAT WE SHOULD WALK
IN THEM."  This is the balance we find throughout the New Testament.  A neat
and tidy theology that rejects God's desire for his children to freely submit
their will doesn't fit with the scripture. 

 
As Dallas Willard says, "Grace is inconsistent with earning, it's not
inconsistent with effort."
 
There's a reason George MacDonald was loved and appreciated by some of the
greatest and most well respected Christian thinkers of the 19th and 20th
Centuries.  It would be sad in my estimation for someone to so quickly make a
decision about someone CS Lewis describes as his "master."  It's even more sad
that someone would feel justified in such a brief look to issue such a man a
rebuke.  You have such great potential in your thoughts, Mathew.  But if our
tendency is to so quickly make determinations and judgements we can easily
limit our growth.  At one time in my life I thought I had all my theological
ducks in a row.  I, like you, made quick judgements and quickly rejected
anything that didn't fit with my views.  But at the same time I was
dissatisfied with my theology.  I had many questions...there were many
inconsistencies that I just couldn't justify in my mind...so I just ignored
them.  After all, the people I respected didn't seem to have the same
difficulties.  It was because I kept seeking to know God, though, and was
willing to alter my theological framework, that I've found satisfying answers.

 
I pray that for you, Mathew.  I pray that you'll be open to the freshness of a
loving relationship with your Father, one that isn't cold and set in the stone
of predestination.  Rather, it's one that loves and responds to your love.

 
With you, in Christ,
 
John

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Mathew Enoch Mount <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:

Hello,

Don’t let this title fool you their is in fact to blood atonement in
the act of the animal sacrifice of a turkey during Thanksgiving, nor

is their any atonement made in grain offering during Thanksgiving.
Popular culture would have you believe that Christ fought for
religious freedom from oppressive Pharisaic leadership in order that
everyone may worship God as their conscience dictates, and not only

that but many would have you believe that by sitting around a turkey
with grains and other such things together with the family of man that
you are someone participating in communion with God through fellowship
with everyone that is related to you by flesh.  Overall, the message

that comes from the turkey and the stuffing is that if we just put
aside our differences and make our Lord secondary to the governance
and rule of man that we will find that everyone’s gods shake hands and
fellowships together in peace.

If this was the case, then the cross of Christ would be a eternally

man is one who cares, and tries, and always tries, to give fair play

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

When I was in elementary school in Rock Falls, instructors that I had
would all praise me and say all sorts of good things to my parents on
account of my behavior. I only answered questions with yes or no, and
I only answered questions when directed to do so. For many years in
fact I did not engage in any sort of activities of any other students
at all, and I even when so far as to only stand with the instructors
during recess time instead of playing with the students.

My parents church and my parents believed me to be ‘running with the
wrong crowd’ if I had any association with any other students as my
parents church believed themselves to be without sin, and they
believed that if they ever committed a sin then they would lose their
salvation. The world saw members of my parents church to be
incredibly righteous people and like me in grade school the world
accepted them as their own, and many of these people had multiple
homes. My father was the only one of them all that worked diligently
to serve other people without charging for his services, and he became
the poorest of them all for the most part as many people in the
community took advantage of my father. He always would get upset
whenever for example he would do a project at his church while a
majority of clergy (like sometimes 6 or more people) would agree to
help my father only to find for example that they would eat a meal as
a social gathering while he would be installing a door (or some other
activity) as they would have their ‘righteous’ conversations only to
find that they would have eaten all off the food so that when the door
was installed for example their would be nothing left to feed my
father whom installed the door (my father also attended church several
times more than any of the clergy even through for decades he was
never even a member and was never given communion all during this time
because he was baptized Methodist).

People at my parents church called themselves Saints while many
believed that a belief in any god constituted a belief in the true and
living God, and in fact many also believed that Jesus was just a man.
What however held them all together was that they had been saved by
all of their ‘good works’, and in fact they would often give testimony
to their own good works from the pulpit. They believed that they had
been saved through following the example of Jesus Christ, and they
believed that only by living his example by withdrawing into
‘righteous’ seclusion and having nothing to do with the sinner could
they keep themselves pure.

I was blessed incredibly because I was chosen for salvation, and I say
this because I can remember the Father’s strong hand against me in my
youth. A group of kids from Chicago (who’s parents came to Rock Falls
to work in the steel mill I believe) would beat be down to the ground
and kick me in the groin for what appeared to be hours every day after
school for a few years. They often targeted even elderly pedestrians
that walked the streets and they did similar to them as well, and what
was even more significant is that I believe the Rock Falls armory had
a special program that would train children marshal arts (in hope that
they would enter the military when mature) that these kids took part
of. Overall, because these kids worked in attack teams if any adult
would approach them and get them to stop, then they could attack that
adult and testify against him or her that the adult attached them
(this I believe in one of the reasons why the police never wanted to
get involved and would seldom be around after school despite numerous
complaints (I guess hauling junk cars away and making fines over
trivial things is more rewarding financially for the police department
anyway)).

During elementary school, I believed in whatever the instructors said
(as I was instructed to do), and with my first grade instructor being
atheist she taught me to be atheist as well. During my early
childhood, my mother whom become more and more depressed whom attended
her church for decades had often thoughts of suicide as nothing that
she did could ever satisfy the perfect standards that my father had
(she even envisioned taking her life in the church restroom as she
will now publicly tell you). When my mother would do something good
out of the ordinary, my father would expect that thing be done all the
time by saying in rebuke, ‘you should have been doing this all along’,
and then he would point out all the faults that my mother had in her
work. Overall, as a result of being an atheist during elementary
school, the teachings of my parents church, and my home life that was
often filled with my parents going into rages and screaming at one
another, it was necessary out of the Love of God the Father for him to
set his hand against me by sending the gang of kids to beat me to the
ground and kick me in the groin, ribs, and back with their steel toed
boots for hours every day (for the most part) for years.

You might not think that what I have to say makes any since at all,
but it does. When I was in elementary school, while everyone praised
me for my good works (in terms of adults), I actually believed that
everything around me was like a figment of my imagination and that I
was the only one that really existed. I believed that I was my own
God. If God the Father had not predestine me for salvation, then he
would have never rebuked me (with the sending of the gang of kids) but
instead would have given me all the blessings of the rich man like in
the story of the rich man and Lazerath. In fact the children betting
me to the ground as often as they did and as extreme as they did
prepared me for the time when I would become saved and set my hand
against the teachings of my parents entire church.

Only in college after about eighteen years of attending my parents
church every Sunday did I first learn about the real messiah of the
scripture from a college instructor at Sauk Valley Community College
named Kevin that I studied under and was mentored by for six straight
years. When I learned about Jesus Christ and the real story of the
gospel, I began to hate my parents church and their deception. I
fought as hard as I could possibly fight to evangelize everyone around
me, and I was admit to send all the demons screaming back to hell.
The transformation in my life in becoming a Christian overflowed onto
everything around me, and much began to change around me (after all I
was the man that for decades was silent whom like a mad man came out
of silence by screaming the words of the profits concerning God’s
justice and wrath in a community of people that sought only peace,
love, and saintliness apart from any grace).

Having said that I eventually learned that the only true way to not be
plagued with sin like in sinful desires such as in the passions of the
flesh is to constantly repent of sins, be atoned for by the blood of
the lamb, and come into the presence of God and dwell in his presence
(having communion with him). (All these things are acts of God). At
a church that was a brake from the main stream Episcopal church that I
attended (it was far more conservative than the main stream church) I
was asked by the bishop to give communion to the people on several
occasions, and I could not look at the people when I gave communion
but instead looked away because of how ashamed I was at them, the
leadership, and myself for not being in the presence of God always.
In fact the people really did not know Jesus Christ hardly at all, and
one day in front of one of the Bishop’s priests I took a member aside
and asked him who Jesus Christ was and he did not know, and the priest
sort of rebuked me saying something like, "he believes what the bishop
says." The question is that if the Bishop knows Jesus Christ, then
why is he keeping it a secret from the congregation?

At the church that I currently attend I asked a few people whom Jesus
Christ is, and many had been speechless. I was referred to the
Pastor, but if the Pastor knows whom Jesus Christ is, then why is the
message not getting to the people? The first day that I attended the
very first man that I saw at the pulpit I asked him about the church,
and he bragged that it is the best kept secret in town, so I made a
comment like, "so I take it evangelism is not very successful hear."
If God is all loving and just full of love for everyone, then why
would the ‘body of Christ’ choose to keep the message of the Messiah a
secret locked away in buildings that get visited just a few hours a
week?

Because John you publicly identified some message about Jesus Christ
to a news group that is read around the globe, I really do have a lot
of respect for you because it is hard for me to imagine someone whom
is public about Christ and having good things to say about him not
receiving incredible blessing through special revelation in their
life. On the other hand the masses of people that crowd around Jesus
when Jesus gives them good fortune are no place to be seen when they
eat and have their fill and when Christ is being crucified, and not
only that but the multitudes whom are thankful for their bread to eat
would rather have their bread than the lord. God made the multitudes
and he has a plan for them, but I would rather have a tight grip on
the cloak of Jesus and wrestle him to the ground if needed then to let
him slip away despite even the seemingly harshest words that show
himself to people such as, "unless you eat the flesh and drink the
blood of the son of Man, then you have no life left in you."

I have added your email address to the group list John, so that the
group can recognize your email address in order that you can post in
the future. Hopefully you will consider posting to our news group
more often. Thank you.

By the way no apple tree struggles to produce apples, and no fig tree
struggles to produce figs but instead they produce according to their
kind through God’s working in them. This is the way with the new
nature that when the new nature comes it produces good fruit in people
as a result of the out bursting of joy that people have such as the
prostitute that anointed the feet of Jesus Christ. Everyone whom
struggles to obtain righteousness do so because they struggle to
obtain something that they do not already have, and according to the
scripture Jesus Christ is the only one whom is righteous (that is why
he is called the Righteous One). As a result any person that obtains
Righteousness apart from the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ builds for themselves a false God because it is only through
Christ that anyone produces any good fruit at all.

Sincerely,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

> does Zechariah Chapter 13 say?  It says the following in context, ...
>
> read more »

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

I find it interesting that you find yourself contrary to just about everything you grew up with...

Also contrary to the man who ordained you.  Mary, Mary quite contrary...tell me (self...the i..a.k.a. the devil) how does your garden grow?

 

I didn't have that...but then again I was raised Catholic.  My mother used to go to church as a teenager...all by herself.  Her dad was an alcoholic and her mom wasn't around much either.  My dad was dutch reform but not religious...although he converted when I was discerning the priesthood.  A mystery, in and of itself, if you believe Freud.  Perhaps you should give up your silly idea of blood atonement and join true christianity by becoming a Catholic.  Don't believe me, perhaps you should listen to Hollywood movies.  When the crap hits the fan...who do they call...a rabbi...no...a protestant...no...a muslim...no...They call a Catholic priest.

 

Personally, I don't think you have what it takes to give up your self-created theology.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

John K and Peter V,

Scripture says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor
in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand
guard in vain." (Psalm 127:1 NIV) For Peter and John the point of
this passage is that every work apart from what the Lord is doing in a
person’s life is done in vain, and note that this is not some self
created theology or something that I manufactured but instead this is
the very words of the holy scripture. You have said Peter,

"Personally, I don't think you have what it takes to give up your self-

created theology." The point Peter is that my theology rests on the
holy scripture itself and that is why it is so offensive to people,
but if my theology was self-created or manufactured then most everyone
would embrace me and welcome me because this is how they treated the
false profits who saw noting and made their theology out of their own
imaginations.

Peter has said the following, "…if you believe Freud. Perhaps you

should give up your silly idea of blood atonement and join true

christianity by becoming a Catholic." If I was Roman Catholic, then I
would be utterly ashamed of you Peter because you bring Freud, a self
proclaimed atheist Jew, to your defense in combating blood atonement,
and not only that but also you will from Totem and Taboo find that
Freud makes the case that a primal hoard existed that had a father
that kept all the women for himself and that the young males
eventually killed the father and out of sorrow ate him and Freud uses
that non historical and non biblical account to try to disprove
Christian communion and any holy notion of blood atonement. In
Freud’s book Moses and Monotheism he makes the case that Moses
believed in a Egyptian monotheistic God and that he lead a few of his
followers away from Egypt, and then Freud makes the case that the
followers of Moses killed him in rebellion and generated the concept
of the Messiah out of guild for what they had supposedly done and that
this Messiah would return as Moses whom would be the Savior of the
Israelites. Peter, REPENT, lest you follow your father Freud into the
flames of eternal damnation, and instead believe in the truth for the
following is said, "For you know that it was not with perishable
things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty
way of life handed down to you from your forefathers [like Judas
believed], but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without
blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world,
but was revealed in these last times for your sake." (1 Peter 1:18-20
NIV)

Peter you have said, "I find it interesting that you find yourself
contrary to just about everything you grew up with...Also contrary to

the man who ordained you. Mary, Mary quite contrary...tell me

(self...the i..a.k.a. the devil) how does your garden grow?" The
phrase, "unless the Lord builds the house its labor labors in
vain" (NIV) was written about Solomon, and Solomon says the following
about his efforts in vain regarding growing gardens, "I undertook
great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I
made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them.
I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. I bought male
and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I
also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me.
I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and
provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem as well—the
delights of the heart of man. I became greater by far than anyone in
Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. I denied
myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My
heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my
labor. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had
toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the
wind; nothing was gained under the sun." Ecclesiastes 2:4-11 (NIV)
The scripture even says the following regarding adherence to tradition
and the gardening techniques of God, "Then some Pharisees and teachers
of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your
disciples break the tradition of the elders? …Jesus replied, "And why
do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
…"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by
men.'" …Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that
the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every
plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the
roots. (Matthew 15:1-13 NIV)

My point Peter and John is that just like the scripture says, "unless
the Lord builds the house its labor labors in vain" and it also says,
"Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up
by the roots." (NIV) Consider yet again even more scripture on the
subject, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this

very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name
might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on
whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who
resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me
like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the
same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common
use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for
destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory
known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for

glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also
from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people'
who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not
my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it
was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons
of the living God.' " (Romans 9:17-26 NIV) You see the message of
the scripture is crystal clear that some people are born of God and
thus born again and their works come from God because they have taken
on the genealogical nature of Jesus Christ, and from this new nature
Christ works through a person to produce fruit as this is the message
of Christ being the vine and us being the fruit of the vine such that
if we remain in him whom remains in the Father.

Peter you have said, "My dad was dutch reform but not

religious...although he converted when I was discerning the

priesthood." My Father is God but neither I nor my Father are
religious because God the King of the nation that I belong to namely
the New Jerusalem is my King and I am his subject, and having said
that the crucifixion of Christ in my life has thrown down all worldly
powers and authorities and has made me a subject of the true King to
be part of a holy nation. My point Peter and John is that I need not
speculate and theorize about what God has or has not done in my life
because I have seen that the power of God has clearly done what God
has done, and any efforts to try to bring about the work of God
without God working through a person to bring about those works is
witchcraft.

Peter you have said the following, "Don't believe me, perhaps you

should listen to Hollywood movies. When the crap hits the fan...who
do they call...a rabbi...no...a protestant...no...a muslim...no...They

call a Catholic priest." The scripture says the following, "To him
who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made
us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be
glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." (Revelation 1:6 NIV)
Notice that we have been made a kingdom of priests by his blood, and
the following is said about our work in casting down imaginations,
"the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to
the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every
high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And
having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience
is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (KJV)

Some of you like to speak against my work by indicating that if we
just do a bunch of righteous works of the commandments of God, then we
will be saved because some say that this is the message of the cross.
Many of you thus oppose me because you are against a salvation of pure
grace, and I myself may remind everyone that I am in no way opposed to
the law or the commandments of God. I am opposed to people attempting
to follow the law or the commandments of God for the purpose of
gaining righteousness for one’s self, and instead I am in favor of
Christ Jesus being received as the Righteous One and as a
righteousness apart from the law that the law and the commandments are
written about. When Christ imputes his righteousness into us, then it
is that righteousness and only that righteousness that produces the
fruits of the commandments and the law that we are saved through. To
denounce this special grace and go on to do the works of the law
yourself without "the lord building the house" is Satanic, but to not
receive this special grace of the righteousness of Christ imputed into
us and yet say that we have received it and then do so called good
works is also Satanic. The bottom line is that every plant that the
Father has not planted will be torn up by the roots for the following
is said, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard
that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.
This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but
they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us,
they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of
them belonged to us", (1 John 2:18-19) thus every branch that does not
bare fruit in the vine will be cut off by the Father whom is the
gardener.

The point is that God has loved us first for the following is said,
"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet
hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his
brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." (1
John 4:19-20 NIV) The point is that we love God (this being the first
command of Jesus to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and
strength) because God loved us first, and then that love pours out
onto others thus satisfying the second command of Jesus Christ to do
unto others as you would have them do unto you. Having said that,
every plant that the Father has not planted (everything that God has
not loved first) will be uprooted, and we know this because the
antichrists go out from us and yet have never belonged to us because
if they had been planted by the Father then they would have never been
cut off from the vine by the Father.

Let us carefully consider Deuteronomy chapter 11, "Love the LORD your
God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands
always." (Verse one NIV) Notice that love the lord is mentioned
first, and then keeping the requirements, decrees, and laws and his
commands is mentioned second. Consider the following, "if you
faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the LORD
your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul-
then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and
spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil.
I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat
and be satisfied. Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and
worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the LORD's anger will
burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not
rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish
from the good land the LORD is giving you. Fix these words of mine in
your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them
on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them
when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie
down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses
and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may
be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as
many as the days that the heavens are above the earth. (Verses 13-21
NIV) The point is that the law being fixed to the forehead and the
hand becomes a seal of those whom have the word of God living in them,
and Jeremiah prophecies the following about the subject, "It will not
be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by
the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the
covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,"
declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on
their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No
longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their
wickedness and will remember their sins no more." Jeremiah 31:32-34
(NIV) Overall, the difference between Deuteronomy 11 and Jeremiah 31
concerning the seal on the forehead and the heart is that in
Deuteronomy 11 people actually go about struggling to seal the
forehead and the heart themselves whereas in Jeremiah 31 God himself
puts the seal on the forehead and the heart.

Consider again Deuteronomy chapter 11 "See, I am setting before you
today a blessing and a curse- the blessing if you obey the commands of
the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey
the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command
you today by following other gods, which you have not known. When the
LORD your God has brought you into the land you are entering to
possess, you are to proclaim on Mount Gerizim the blessings, and on
Mount Ebal the curses." (verses 26-29 NIV) We are told the following
regarding that curse of the law, "No longer will there be any curse.
The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his
servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be
on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need
the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will
give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever." Revelation
22:3-5 (NIV) Overall, the name of God will be written on the
foreheads of those whom are saved and their will no longer be any
curse, but this seal on the forehead is not that of the mark of the
beast because we are told that his servants will serve him and they
will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun for the Lord
will give them light.

Scripture says the following, "Do not harm the land or the sea or the
trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our
God." (Revelation 7:3 NIV) Revelation 7:3 shows itself to be
expanding upon the message of Ezekiel 9:3-6 for the following is said,
"Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim,
where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the
LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his
side and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a
mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the
detestable things that are done in it." As I listened, he said to the
others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or
compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and
children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my
sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the
temple." Ezekiel 9:3-6 (NIV) The point is that the mark on the
foreheads of those who lament over the detestable things that men have
attempted to sanctify as a way of the elders trying to bless the ways
of the world is a seal given to the believers, and we know of this
seal to be the Holy Ghost that proceeds down like a tongue of fire
unto the believer whose name is written in heaven. Once God has
secured all of his own through the seal, then the wedding supper of
the lamb will occur to purge the evil from among us as all those whom
have not been planted by the Father will be uprooted.

As the scripture says, "They went out from us, but they did not really
belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained
with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. But
you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the
truth. …See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in
you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.
And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. I am writing these
things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for
you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do
not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about
all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it
has taught you, remain in him." 1 John 2:19-27 (NIV) Overall, the
point is that the anointing of the Holy Ghost is what teaches us, and
this anointing is real and if we do not have it then we would be like
the masses that know not God despite the many decades that they have
attend their local church.

We thus should not try to build a righteousness for ourselves like
Judas whom tried to earn his salvation by doing the work of the
religious leaders in exchange for money that could have brought about
temporal salvation, and this is not the administration of the blood
atonement of Jesus Christ that I am talking about. Nor should we
exchange our money for salvation and thus attempt to build a
righteousness for ourselves like the leaders of the Roman Catholic
Church have done with the sale of indulgences for this is not the
administration of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ either that I am
talking about. We know that what Judas did was necessary to occur in
order that scripture may be fulfilled (just like the sale of
indulgences), but like every antichrist Jesus says, "go and do what
you are going to do and do it quickly" only to bring about the
fulfillment of the gospel through the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Thus every plant that the Father has planted will never be
uprooted just as Jesus himself says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I
know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they
shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father,
who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them
out of my Father's hand." John 10:27-29 (NIV) Overall, my conclusion
is that we should be making intercession for one another through our
spiritual gifts out of a love for God through the special grace of the
sacraments that God performs through us, and that this should be our
works (not a self made righteousness) and thus the joy that God has
imparted unto all of us that are being saved we should share with
others by investing the talents that God has given to his servants
before he went away such that we may build the kingdom of God with
living stones upon the foundation that has been laid by the recorded
words of God given through the works of many whom believe and are
saved.

I will pray for both of you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[ON EARTH Ministries]

…for whoever is not against us is for us... Mark 9:40

Brothers Mathew and Peter –

P. - I realize you were being snarky and humorous when you suggested
that we take Hollywood’s lead in choosing a faith tradition to worship
in; however, I didn’t expect you, of all people to play the “Priest
card”. And, believe me, I know how hard it is to not get irritated
and defensive when someone constantly rebukes you, and it feels as if
they are sure they have the final word on our Father’s intentions.
BUT, to pick on Mat like that is just plain cruel. If you had the
opportunity to meet Brother Mathew you would realize what a sweet,
kind, and sincere believer he really is.

M. – I really thought your latest response, although it be eight
pages, was pretty clear, and I found that I was able to agree with
most of it, but I have to confess, your tone disturbs me at times.
When Brother Peter took a sabbatical, and then came back to JOTW, like
the father of the prodigal son, I wanted to run down and meet him on
the trail, so to speak. He seemed mellowed, and more considerate.
BUT, you knew where to poke, didn’t you? “Blood atonement, blood
atonement, blood atonement”.

BOTH – Is this a rebuke? Of course it is, but not of the ideas,
convictions, or faith. I’m taking issue with something that stems
from, what seems to be, your common ground. You have both been
wronged in the past, and someone is going to pay. And its either
going to be “Peter, the disenfranchised demon seer”, or “Mathew, the
self-made Pharisee”, as you tend to frame each other.

Sounds like atonement to me.

Do you two, of all people, have to be reminded that someone has
already paid in full for all of the sins of “Peter, the
disenfranchised demon seer”, and “Mathew, the self-made Pharisee”?
Even for my “Larry, the know-it-all old guy” sins. Must we constantly
exhibit the very kind of behavior that hammered the nails into our
Savior’s hands and feet on Calvary: The sin of persecution? Can’t we
follow even the simplest, most repeated, and plainest of His commands:
To love each other? I know you both have read the Epistles too. Did
Peter V. or Mat M. suffer for our sins?

What didn’t you get?

Your self-serving pride frightens me. Your combativeness disgusts me.
And it has gotten to the point that if I hear the phrase “Blood
Atonement” one more time I am going to cry. It’s like wiggling and
twisting the nails in His hands, and it’s beginning to affect me like
fingernails on a blackboard.

Has your belief in our Father, and Jesus the Christ become just an
intellectual construct, to be weighed, defined, and parlayed like
some…., theory? I might not be the most learned or pious member of
JOTW, but I can tell you that is NOT faith. Don’t you feel our Father
permeating all of this he has created? Don’t you feel Jesus close
enough to smell your breath? Because He is there.

For me, to be in love with our Father and Jesus the Christ, means that
I shouldn’t probably talk about him as if he couldn’t hear, for one
thing. And arguing in front of him should probably bring us to our
knees with sweet petitions of prayerful contrition.

Please Lord, forgive me for jumping into the fray of this angry
argument. Please forgive me, and all who might intentionally or
inadvertently, seem cavalier, and prideful. Humble me so that I might
better serve your Holy Will.

In your blessed son’s name we ask it.
Amen

LIVE FOREVER!

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your
bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your
spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of
this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you
will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing
and perfect will. For by the grace given me I say to every one of
you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather
think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure
of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many
members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in
Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all
the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given
us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to
his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let
him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is
contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is
leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him
do it cheerfully. Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to
what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one
another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your
spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in
affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in
need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and
do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who
mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be
willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be
conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what
is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it
depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my
friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is
mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If
your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something
to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12
NIV

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse,
whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and
makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many
crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he
himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the
Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white
horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth
comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will
rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury
of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has
this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an
angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds
flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God,
so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of
horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave,
small and great." Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and
their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the
horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the
false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf.
With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the
beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into
the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with
the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and
all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. - Revelation 19:11-21
NIV

Romans 12 and Revelation 19:11-21 both teach us about slaying demons
as well as evil being ridden from our life. The big difference
appears to be that Romans 12 is what people do as an expression of the
faith that God has given them whereas Revelation 19:11-21 really
strongly speaks about what God does. Like I have explained before
Adam and Eve made for themselves garments of fig leaves before they
had been clothed by God, and we put on the armor of God before God
clothes us with power on high. A garment of fig leaves will parish
and the armor of God will parish, but what God has done in of himself
will never parish. Overall, the point is that when God works in our
life with the sin of man, then what we produce may not be eternal
things, but God can transform those temporal things into eternal
things that will never parish or be destroyed otherwise called
glorified things.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com


On Dec 4, 3:46 pm, ON EARTH Ministries

[JohnK...@gmail.com]

Hi Mathew and All,

I've been away from internet connection and have been unable to respond to what has been said by some of your posts. I don't have a lot of time now, either, but I have a few thoughts.

I realized that the distinction you seem to be missing, Mathew is that between salvation and sanctification. I am in whole-hearted agreement with you that it's in Christ and His righteousness alone, that we're made clean and free and have open access to the Father. We're saved, justified, through Him. But, Mathew, the scripture calls us to, "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." What sense does it make, in your view, Mathew, to be told to "pursue sanctification"? To pursue something is to get after it; to work for it; to make an effort for it. That is what WE MUST DO, Mathew! In fact, what sense does it make for God to have revealed Himself through the Scripture at all, if you were predestined before the foundation of the world to be one of His elect? What sense does it make for the scripture to encourage us to live in one way or another if our choices, attitudes, behavior and actions have no bearing on our spiritual life? You cannot grow in your sanctification unless you join with God in what He's doing in your life.

You betray yourself in your words, Mathew. You have heard you say, at least three times, that you have built one of the largest online Christian discussion groups...refering to Jesus on the Web. Did you build JOTW, Mathew, or did Jesus? Did the Lord build this house, or did Mathew? Similarly, I have heard you say several times as you've told me about your relationships with others, that this person or that person has "opposed my ministry." YOUR ministry, Mathew? Is it your ministry or is it a house the Lord is building? And just today, in your 11:48 post, when you were responding to Peter, and I, you said, "Some of you like to speak against my work by indicating that if we just do a bunch of righteous works of the commandments of God..." Have people spoken against YOUR WORK, Mathew? What WORK, do you mean? Surely you can't mean any effort made on your behalf to be pleasing to your Father, can you? That would be building your house in vain.

Indeed, Mathew, you are doing a work. You are pursuing sanctification. You are TRYING, to grow and please your Father, and that is just how He wants it to be. Your efforts toward encouraging people around the world with this web group are not done because you think the are necessary for your salvation. You are doing it because it is the work to which the Father has called you, and to NOT do it would be to be a disobedient child...you would not be pursuing sanctification.

Can you not see the distinction, Mathew?

For your encouragement,

John

[JohnK...@gmail.com]

Mathew and all,

As I was returning from a retreat in Wisconsin, this afternoon, I was thinking about our relationship, Mathew, and especially about your words to this forum about our church family here in Sterling. It struck me that in almost every conversation I've had with you, and every conversation you've mentioned you've had with others, you have made a quick judgement or assessment about what the person you were speaking to had said. This isn't unusual. We all make a kind of judgement about what is being said in a conversation. What IS unusual, though, is that every judgement you make seems to be one which shows the most negative light on what the other person has said. It's as if you choose to hear what people say in such a way that reflects poorly on them.

I was thinking this before I had read Peter's message, where he referred to your reactions as "contrary." You may have taken umbrage to the way Peter wrote, but his words, I think, are ones you should consider carefully.

I can give you evidence of what I'm talking about.

You spoke condescendingly of our church family, Mathew, when you said that you asked people at our church "Who Jesus was," and "many had been speechless." I will tell you that we have few members who have the gift of evangelism...most have giftedness for "behind the scenes" kinds of ministry. Still, most of the people in our church would have no problem telling an unbeliever who Jesus is. (Some are very young believers who have come to Christ recently because it's our intention for Christ not to be a secret and they have heard through our church family.) But you were not an unbeliever asking this question. You were a believer who's intention it was to put other believers to a test; a test of your making; and a test to which only your particular phraseology, I'm thinking, would have sufficed as an answer. (I wonder what answers would have satisfied you.) But, again, you were not someone truly seeking to learn about Christ. Why would someone even try to answer a question like that if they had the sense that the questioner is only seeking a debate. It's my guess that that is the reason someone suggested you talk with me. But rather than giving them grace you chose to ascribe to them the worst possible characteristics. Your response was one of contrariness.

You did this in your response to what Tim, our song leader said to you as well. (Did you know that his name is Tim?) Tim told you that he thought that our church is "The best kept secret in town." I can't think of a more negative connotation to that statement than the one that you gave it. That we apparently don't care to get the word out about Christ, and as a result our church is kept a secret. "So I take it evangelism is not very successful here," you said. Could there possibly have been another reason for Tim to have spoken of our church in this way? Your response was one of contrariness.

You said, "If the pastor knows who Jesus Christ is, why is the message not getting to the people." Here you've ascribed failure to my ministry in this public forum. I'm not one who has a sensitive ego, but I want you to know what is the truth about my heart for evangelism and the ministry of our church. (And since you wrote it publically, I want to repond publically.)

Since I was a student at UW-LaCross, I've shared the gospel with over 2000 people, one-on-one. I shared the gospel with every guy in my dorm as a student. I then served on the staff of a Christian student organization for four years, sharing the Good News on several other college campuses including Ohio State, and UW-Milwaukee. I spent one summer in Beijing, China, and shared the gospel with students in their dorm rooms there. I've also given gospel presentations to auditoriums filled with 3500 Chinese high-school students in Hong Kong, prior to it reverting to Chinese control. I continue to share Christ with people in our community. To them our church isn't a secret.

In recent months four individuals who have had no connection with any kind of believing community have trusted Christ. I meet with them every Tuesday night because they want to grow and learn more about Christ. These are just a sampling of our commitment to evangelism.

I don't say these things expecting a pat on the back. In fact I hesitate to say such things at all, but you have ascribed unfaithfulness to me in my ministry. Why did you choose to see me in that way? Why would you be so contrary?

You did say that you respected me for one thing...you said, "Because John you publicly identified some message about Jesus Christ to a news group that is read around the globe, I really do have a lot of respect for you because it is hard for me to imagine someone whom is public about Christ and having good things to say about him not receiving incredible blessing through special revelation in their life." Believe me, though, Mathew, that it requires no special courage or boldness to write what I believe about Christ on a Christian web group. I deserve no respect for such a thing, but it says something about what you consider valuable. The fact that I have written on YOUR site, it seems, is reason for respect. Why is that?

Finally, I would ask you to remember, Mathew, that this discussion began because you had responded in a contrary way to the view I had shared of the Love of the Father. I didn't consider your rejection of this view to be an opposition of my ministry. It doesn't bother me to have someone question what I think or teach. I wasn't offended by your response. I pushed back on your response because I sensed that you hadn't fully considered how God can be fully Just and Holy and at the same time, fully loving and merciful.

With you, in Christ,

John

> > <br /

[John Kermott]

I wanted to make another comment about some of your thoughts, Mathew.

 

You seem to be fond of quoting from Romans 9.  It's understandable that you would focus on this passage believing as you do about the Father.  It was this passage that created the greatest difficulty for me in being fully able to give myself to the view I now hold.  But, suddenly, after one reading, the truth of the passage became clear, and I realized that it the proper interpretation of the passage is nearly opposite of your interpretation.

 

Your view, tell me if I'm wrong, is that the passage tells us that God cannot be questioned in His choice to harden the hearts of some, and to destroy such people, because He is their creator, and any decision He makes cannot be questioned.  (By the way, I would agree that God's actions are unquestionably right and good.)

 

But the truth of the passage cannot be read out of context.  This passage doesn't end at verse 33 of chapter 9.  Paul's thought continues through chapter 11, and concludes with this thought, "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." (Rom. 11:32)

 

The truth of the passage is not that God has the right to create someone purely for the purpose of their destruction.  The truth is that the Jews, to whom this passage is directed, don't have the right to question the Father if He would choose to have mercy on Pharoah and other "unclean vessels" who's hearts He had, indeed, at one time hardened.  They had no right to question His merciful heart.

 

Read the passage in it's context, Mathew, and see if you don't find this interpretation to be the one that is most faithful to the context.

 

You see, Mathew, the way you treat the scripture is to assume your interpretation, is the correct one.

 

I hold the scripture up as highly as you, Mathew.  To hold to an improper interpretation of the scripture is not being faithful to the scripture.  True faithfulness to God's word requires that we humble ourselves before Him and allow Him to correct our understanding.

 

With you, in Christ,

 

John

[John Kermott]

You have said so much, Mathew, in your earlier messages, that it's hard to respond to everything.  There's one more reference to which I feel I must respond.  This is the reference to the gang that attacked and beat you as a child, and your implication that God was the cause of your beatings.

 

I fully believe that God is willing to bring any discomfort and pain into our lives if it would wake us up to our need for Him.  This is of course what a Loving Father would do.  He loves us too much to allow us to remain as we are...if we reject His attempt to refine us, He, because of His love, (and His justice,) must bring another form of discipline.  He is descibed as a "Consuming Fire."  I think we're in agreement on this.

 

But I hope you don't believe that it was God's will for those boys to beat you in that way. 

 

Would it be the will of God for anyone to do such a thing to another person.  Absolutely not.  It can't be, then, that it was God's will to will something against His own will.  In other words, God couldn't will that those boys beat you up because He willed for you to repent.

 

He can, though, use even the evil that is done against his will, to accomplish His purposes.  Just as Joseph said of his brothers, in Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

 

Unless we allow for free will, though, God becomes the author of evil.  God can redeem what is done by evil people, as He did in your life.  He allowed it to occur in His permissive will, but He didn't declare it to be done in His declarative will. 

 

I'm sorry you were so mistreated Mathew.  It hurts me to think of the pain you went through.

 

With you, in Christ,

 

John

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

I am sorry John if I offended you. I did not intend to have a spirit
of contrariness (after all I am catholic), but instead I have learned
from the doctrine of the fall that all men are guilty until proven
innocent. I understand that you believe this same message as the
first words that you spoke to me had been, if I remember correctly,
"do you want to know how you can be saved?" The point is that you
assumed without even knowing me that I was not saved as if you held
within you a well spring of salvation, and thus you appeared to
indicate by this that I was contrary to Jesus. As a result, I have
been trying to determine if you are a Christian because if I am a
Christen and if you are asking me if I would like to know how to be
saved, then I was lead to believe that perhaps you are not a Christian
because how could a Christian ask another Christian if they would like
to know how they could be saved. What if for example a Pharisee asked
Jesus, "would you like to know how to be saved?" (I am not saying
that I am Jesus but you get the idea) I am now more confident that
you are perhaps a Christian like many other people that I know, and
rest assured that I was not particularly trying to say anything
against your congregation but instead I was just simply trying to
point out things that I see wrong and my understanding of those things
for the sake of the edification of a lot larger body known as the
church (or fellowship of all believers). I am glad that you clarified
many points of your faith and work as well as the work of your church
in the midst of my perceived negative connotations, and I thank you
for not taking offense at my biblical approach of assuming the other
party is guilty until proven innocent (as I note that you appear to
take this same approach for good reason).

My understanding is that God is either completely in control of the
entire universe such that he determines every action in every moment
in every form of existence otherwise their is no God at all because
God cannot be half God, and I think that scripture exemplifies this
view if you can be diligent enough to search for it. If what I am
saying is not true of the Father, then something such as nature or
randomness would be God because it would have more control or exert
itself over God, and in fact this is perhaps why a growing number of
agnostics and atheists exist today because people often promote the
Christian God as having limitations in his power. To say that God’s
work is limited to our free will to accept or reject God is to say
that God has made us judge over him and that he is not really God but
that we are God, and this is wrong and condemned by any sensible view
of God. (through years of work I have put together a twenty-five page
paper that uses scripture regarding this subject).

My understanding of God the Father is that he predetermines everything
in existence completely all the way down to the smallest thing.
Christ has not complete knowledge because he chooses not to have
complete knowledge such that this happens in order that he may grow
from the form of an infant into his glorified form (this is what is
meant by the child growing in wisdom), but than again Christ has
complete knowledge because he has access to it freely. My point in
this is that Christ can freely judge based upon wisdom instead of
predetermined knowledge, and what this means is that his body can take
on ever increasing elements until it becomes complete in terms of
special revelation (in terms of general revelation in him we move and
have our being). My understanding of the Holy Ghost is that he need
not know anything really just that he has free access to the Father’s
complete knowledge whenever he desires, and the Holy Ghost is able to
communicate this to people as need be as he also does with the son.
In conclusion although I may appear to disagree with the orthodox
teaching of the Trinity I do not.

The people who have been born again who are children of God (not to be
confused with the fallen angles who are called the Sons of God in
Geneses) are members of the administration of the justice, grace, and
mercy of God as the body of Christ. Although Christ cannot in anyway
differ from what the Father has already completely determined in any
way (not even the slightest), he has free will like we have free will
because he keeps himself back from the complete knowledge of God the
Father in order to judge with wisdom. Overall, my point is that all
those whom are part of the family of God are covered under the banner
of his name, but those whom are not in this family are not going to be
saved. (I could go through much explanation of all the things that I
have communicated by use of the scripture, but it would and it already
has taken most all of my time.)

Anyone whom studies the scripture in any depth will understand that
most people will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of
how it corresponds to scripture or not, and the reason for this is
because most people have been built up with much pride to believe
themselves to be their own God’s having authority over the scripture
more so than God himself. The Holy Inquisition would have encountered
this problem in one way or another, and I certainly respect the
ideological value of the Holy Inquisition but I find its results to be
unfortunate so to speak. I am overall glad that you have risen to the
challenge of my inquisition of your faith (if you want to consider it
that although this was not entirely my intent), and I do not find any
reason to condemn you or your church based upon your testimony.

One of my uncles and his wife believe that they are Christian as well
as his children, but in the two decades of me not being a Christian
before my conversion from atheism I do not remember anyone in his
family every giving any testimony to Jesus being the Christ. In fact
my cousin whom became an international evangelist never once said
anything about Jesus Christ to me the entire time that I knew him well
for twenty years in the midst of my atheism, and I really loved my
cousin and his family. In fact when I became older and spoke about
Jesus Christ while people had a family get together while they had
been indulging in glories of the world he spoke against me and took me
aside saying something like, "if Jesus was hear today, then he himself
would be against what I was doing." As a result, I have never wanted
to have anything to do with them again (this has been several years
now in the making), and quite frankly I would never want to be
associated with those people again having become a Christian because
like many so called Christians they constantly only think about the
world and worldly things and whenever anyone says anything at all in
any way about Christ other than what they listen to for one hour a
week on Sunday they adamantly oppose and reject it because they cannot
see how it corresponds exactly to what their church teaches.

The reason why I do not consider myself a Protestant is because I have
nothing to protest as I know that God is God and that he does whatever
he wants to do, and as a result I find it a difficult stance for a
protester to say that I have contrariness in speech because after all
is not the spirit of Protestantism that of protesting and the spirit
of protesting that of contrariness. Did Jesus communicate
contrariness when speaking to the Pharisees, or did he seek to be
agreeable? The question is what value is the truth in a world of
people whom see Jesus as being agreeable to the ways of the world to
the extent that they say that he joins forces with even openly
homosexual people that pursue ministry? What the world wants is for
lots of so called good Christians to agree with its ways to tell them
that they are saved. Overall, I have seen a few Asian people at SIU
that had never heard of the term Jesus Christ before, and they (in
terms of moral law) had the appearance of far greater righteousness
than that of most any church going people (I worry that this is also
the case with divine law as well); moreover, if my speculation is true
then in the end the vast majority of church going people will be in
the same boat as people whom never heard the term Jesus Christ being
spoken.

What I find happens is that a Protestant minister will be protesting
everything around him or her outside of his or her denomination, and
that person will establish a group of people that do the very same
thing. As a result these people become completely impervious to any
type of rebuke from outside their own local congregation because they
believe that their own congregation is the complete body of Christ.
Because these people have such a spirit of contrariness they need to
set up atheists and agnostics in government, law, and all other facets
of life to judge between them and the rest of the world because they
say to each other that they want to remain free and not be governed by
the church such that their be a separation of Church and State.
Whatever these people learn in one hour of church that causes them to
go out and set up secular leaders over them to administer authority
contrary to the church such that something like 75% of Americans claim
to be Christian while anyone whom proclaims Christ outside of a church
building outside of their local church congregation is often kicked
down and crucified (especially if they are in leadership), whatever
this teaching be it must be and will be condemned by God, and I
believe this teaching to arrive out of a spirit of contrariness.

God Bless,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com


johnk...@gmail.com

> our church isn'ta secret.

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

John K. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
fellowship today at Church. The point that I would like to make is
that scripture makes clear just in three verses that both free will
and predestination exist simultaneously for the following is said,
"When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he
sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So
Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just
as the LORD had said through Moses. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go
to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his
officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among
them." Exodus 9:34-10:1 (NIV) The point is that both God the Father
hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and Pharaoh and his officers hardened
their own hearts. (Romans 9 talks about this)

You see for God the Father to harden the heart of Pharaoh he was
showing his incredible love for his chosen people. God’s chosen
people are the ones that would benefit from the story of the Exodus
because they would see what God did to Pharaoh’s kingdom, and God’s
chosen people would understand the love of God the Father. The point
is that God the Father set Pharaoh up and made him for that very
purpose in order that he may make his glory and his power known to his
chosen people. When God redeems us from the slavery of our sin
through the blood of the lamb and the waters, then we can understand
by Pharaoh’s army coming to ruin and by the heads of the families of
God being killed that God is showing to us, the elect, the riches of
his glory and the power of his name.

What I am saying John is that just like in the story of Job when God
approached Satan and said, "have you considered my servant Job?" that
the point is that God the Father had a purpose for Satan, and the will
of God the Father was that such devils would do their work such that
God’s elect would enter greater communion with him such that they can
understand the value and enjoy the riches and power of his glory. You
might think that I am in complete rebellion to God because you might
think that I do not will the will of the Father because I say that God
the Father wills that some would be destroyed that he made in order
that he may make the glory and the power of his name known to those
whom he loves, but I must remind you that scripture says what it says
and I dare not raise my hand against the scripture on behalf of
anyone.

John you are correct that many Reformed people lack much spiritual
fruit, but I find this to be the case because many attempt to be in
the covenant of God in order to gain his reward for them (so to speak)
without having the slightest care in the world for God’s desires. For
the Christian the special will of God the Father that we should be
willing to will is contained in his testimony, and God the Father will
do his will for us through us if we are willing or not. Yes you are
thus correct that we can measure the love of God in people through
measuring them up to the commandments and decrees of God, and this
will determine how we should identify them.

Consider the following commandment, "Follow the way of love and
eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy." 1
Corinthians 14:1 (NIV) Consider the clarification of this
commandment, "At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said
to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your
brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelation 19:10 (NIV)
The way that I read these two verses is that if a person walks into a
church full of people and if hardly anyone can give any testimony
concerning Jesus Christ, then the spiritual gift that we are commanded
to desire especially is perhaps lost and if we do not see that
testimony in other people when they are out and about in the world or
if we do not see them eagerly desiring to have a testimony about Jesus
Christ then we might think them rebellious to this command.

I realize that not everyone is at the same level of development, but
if people do not desire the gift of prophase above all other gifts
then they are not doing the command of God and thus they are showing
that they do not love him. Many churches in fact will say that the
gift of prophase is lost and that it is no longer with us because now
we have our church teachers and authorities such as John Calvin,
Martin Luther, the Pope, and Billy Gram. The fact that John Calvin,
Martin Luther, the Pope, and Billy Gram do not all agree and that
their students cause division in the church in most cases tells us
that the testimony of Jesus Christ does not exist in these cases for
edifying the Church (showing itself as one body) because people are
fervent against the spirit of prophecy that would edify the church.
Instead of holding to the testimony of Jesus Christ, as the Spirit of
prophase, instead people bow down to worship at the feet of John
Calvin, Martin Luther, the Pope, Billy Gram and other such people.

Consider the following text, "since we have been justified through
faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now
stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so,
but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering
produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love
into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. You see, at
just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the
ungodly. … God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we
were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been
justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's
wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were
reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having
been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this
so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have now received reconciliation. …Consequently, just as the
result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the
result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life
for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the
many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man
the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the
trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all
the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might
reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ
our Lord. (Romans 5 NIV) Overall, if you read carefully then you
will find that his commandments and his decrees had been put in place
so that both sin and grace may abound, and not only that but we are
justified by faith and by blood as both have been given to us while we
had been still sinning as Christ died for us.

Like the conversion of Saint Paul what we find is that in the very
depth of his rebellion to God when he was on the road to kill the
Christians God showed himself to Saint Paul and at that very moment he
was given enough Faith through the blood of the cross to know whom he
was opposing (at this he was reborn Saul to Paul). In other words
while Saint Paul was still sinning the Father showed his love for him
by pouring out his love onto Saint Paul through the Holy Ghost just as
the above selection of Romans 5 says. My point is that God
administered blood atonement and gave faith to Saint Paul at the same
time and thus he was justified by both. We know that communion came
to all of the twelve, but the one whom betrayed Jesus Christ had Satan
enter him as he partook of communion as if to suggest that eleven of
the twelve received faith from God to believe whereas Judas was the
only one whom did not receive faith to believe (Judas got nether the
blood nor the faith but he received the devil instead when he drank
from the cup).

My point is that if we truly will the will of the Father and are
saved, then we must ask God to administer his sacraments upon us and
give us faith through their special revelation of his will for our
lives. These sacraments are mediated almost always by other people if
not always, and I find that those sacraments are often mediated by
angels in heaven performing temple worship as well. The problem as
many of you might guess and know is that some of the people mediating
sacraments may be falling at the feet of some great church authority
or angel to worship him when in fact the testimony of Jesus Christ is
the spirit of prophecy and prophecy is the spiritual gift that we are
commanded to desire most of all. Obviously, the spirit of prophecy
may in fact bring about much rebuke because never is their a Profit of
any type without rebuke (as noted in the Hebrew scripture), and thus
we are told of how to discern between the mocker and the wise man for
the following is said, "Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you." Proverbs 9:8 (NIV)

Of the two men crucified with Jesus one man mocked him and the other
rebuked the man that mocked him saying, "we deserve our punishment."
Of the two men one man had the testimony of Jesus Christ and the other
did not. In other words if Christ rebuked the mocker then the mocker
would hate him, but if Christ rebuked the wise man then the wise man
would love him. Overall, I say these things as wisdom and folly in
the Hebrew scripture have much to do with a difference between the one
in sin and who is considered righteous (usually the distinction is in
terms of moral law, but I use it in terms of divine law).

The part that I previously omitted in Romans 5 says the following,
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not
taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned
from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did
not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the
one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many
died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and
the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow
to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one
man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but
the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if,
by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man,
how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace
and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man,
Jesus Christ." (NIV) Overall, the point that Saint Paul makes is that
he is not indicating that we have the gift of God as a result of sin
(this being the personal choice of Adam), but instead we have the gift
of God as a result of Christ (this being the personal choice of Christ
bound by the Father’s will).

If we are condemned by the choice of Adam through birth, then how much
more are we saved by a new birth through the choice of Christ the
second Adam. I am not telling anyone that we should disobey the
regulations of God, but what I am saying is that only through Christ’s
administration of Blood and thus his giving of faith to us can we be
justified to perform any type of command or obedience through the
law. Unfortunately if I could take a video camera into every place
among the many churches and Jewish houses of worship (they are coming
to know the Messiah as well) that I have been in and if I recorded the
context and setting used whenever anyone had anything to say about
obedience then all of us would laugh out loud because of how
completely strange and different each person’s own view of what
obedience is and what that would look like, and yet for most all of
them obedience means falling at the feet of their teachers or some
other person and worshipping them over Christ Jesus the Word of God.
Rarely ever do people think of obedience as being an endeavor into the
testimony of Jesus Christ as the spirit of prophecy that edifies the
church, but instead people think of obedience as doing whatever causes
their group to be separate from all other Christian ‘faith groups’. I
will thus ask you all, "did Christ intend for obedience to result in a
divided of the body of Christ?"

Obedience does not produce love unlike what most of you might believe,
but instead obedience shows love. If I had a wife and if she loved
me, then yes she would be obedient to me, but this obedience is not
like the obedience of a dog who knows not its mater’s will and cannot
judge between following one command over another. The obedience of a
wife is that she can administer so called sacraments such as the
serving of meals and the caring of the house in a timely manner that
corresponds to my will, but if she was disobedient and kept the house
a mess and made meals that I hated at the wrong times, then would I
stop loving her? Even if the woman would not administer these so
called sacraments in any productive way and the house burnt down, then
I think that I would still have to love her none the same, but I think
that the difference in her being loving or un-loving is mainly noted
in the fact of her intentions in burning the house down or making the
meals on the wrong time or keeping the house a mess.

For the New Jerusalem as the wife of Jesus Christ we must be careful
to observe not obedience but instead true love. We know that love by
the joy that we feel and by the Holy Ghost that imparts it into our
hearts as Romans 5 indicates. Overall, my perception of your church
and its members was perhaps to extreme and for that I am sorry, but on
the other hand I certainly see a potential for growth.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

> > On Dec 4, 2009 8:42pm, JohnKerm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Hi Mathew and All,
>
> > > I've been away from internet connection and have been unable to respond
> > to what has been said by some of your posts. I don't have a lot of time now,
> > either, but I have a few thoughts.
>
> > > I realized that the distinction you seem to be missing, Mathew is that
> > between salvation and sanctification. I am in whole-hearted agreement with
> > you that it's in Christ and His righteousness alone, that we're made clean
> > and free and have open access to the Father. We're saved, justified, through
> > Him. But, Mathew, the scripture calls us to, "Pursue peace with all men, and
> > the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." What sense does
> > it make, in your view, Mathew, to be told to "pursue sanctification"? To
> > pursue something is to get after it; to work for it; to make an effort for
> > it. That is what WE MUST DO, Mathew! In fact, what sense does it make for
> > God to have revealed Himself through the Scripture at all, if you were
> > predestined before the foundation of the world to be one of His elect? What
> > sense does it make for the scripture to encourage us to live in one way or
> > another if our choices, attitudes, behavior and actions have no bearing on
> > our spiritual life? You cannot grow in your sanctification unless you join
> > with God in what He's doing in your life.
>
> > > You betray yourself in your words, Mathew. You have heard you say, at
> > least three times, that you have built one of the largest online Christian
> > discussion groups...refering to Jesus on the Web. Did you build JOTW,
> > Mathew, or did Jesus? Did the Lord build this house, or did
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Kermott]

Hi Mathew and all,

 

In your post from last night, (Dec. 5th, 10:22 PM) Mathew, you said this:

 

"I am sorry John if I offended you.  I did not intend to have a spirit
of contrariness (after all I am catholic), but instead I have learned
from the doctrine of the fall that all men are guilty until proven
innocent.  I understand that you believe this same message as the
first words that you spoke to me had been, if I remember correctly,
"do you want to know how you can be saved?"  The point is that you
assumed without even knowing me that I was not saved as if you held
within you a well spring of salvation, and thus you appeared to
indicate by this that I was contrary to Jesus."

 

I must respond to this part of your post because you've attributed to me an attitude and an assumption that I don't have.

 

While I believe that all men have guilt, I don't apply that truth in the way you describe.  It's not my job to say that anyone is guilty or innocent.  I just don't think that way about others.  I don't assume anything about anyone.  I don't assume anyone needs anything from me.  If, in conversation, someone asks a question or reveals a need, then I might make an effort to meet that need.  (My attitude toward evangelism is an intention to always be "ready to make a defense of the hope that is in [me] yet with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15) The only need I would have thought you had was a need for a church family with which to connect...(because you were checking our church out.)

 

I don't think I said what you say I said, for two reasons.  I honestly don't assume that someone is not "saved," when I meet them.  (Especially when they have come to a worship service.  If I assume anything about someone who has come to worship it would be that they DO have a relationship with God.)  And secondly, I don't think I said that because that's not the kind of language I use.

 

I certainly didn't assume that you weren't saved, Mathew.  Quite to the contrary, my impression of you was that you were someone who wanted to grow in your relationship with God...and a person doesn't want to grow unless their heart is sensitive to His leading in their lives, which, I believe, is a demonstration of faith in Him.

 

Please forgive me if I had in any way given such an impression.  It wasn't intended.

 

With you, In Christ,

 

John

[Peter VanGee]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Mathew Enoch Mount <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:

John K and Peter V,

Scripture says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor
in vain.  Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand
guard in vain."  (Psalm 127:1 NIV)  For Peter and John the point of
this passage is that every work apart from what the Lord is doing in a
person’s life is done in vain, and note that this is not some self
created theology or something that I manufactured but instead this is
the very words of the holy scripture.  You have said Peter,

"Personally, I don't think you have what it takes to give up your self-

created theology."  The point Peter is that my theology rests on the
holy scripture itself and that is why it is so offensive to people,
but if my theology was self-created or manufactured then most everyone
would embrace me and welcome me because this is how they treated the
false profits who saw noting and made their theology out of their own
imaginations.

No Matt, my point is your theology rests on your particular interpretation of scripture.   You don't have a frame work held in check by prior form.

With all due respect, you know little about my relationship with my dad.  And I call him my dad...not my father.  Maybe you should confront your own dad...wake up to what is going on and find out what the cross really is.

Maybe someday you'll figure out what I'm talking about.  To make a long story short...I was thinking of Mark 4.26-29   And Mary is the queen of heaven...I was just pointing out how the devil infiltrates everything...even our nursury rhymes.

A lot of unnecessary words.  I don't really disagree with you here.  I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.

Peter you have said, "My dad was dutch reform but not

religious...although he converted when I was discerning the

priesthood."  My Father is God but neither I nor my Father are
religious because God the King of the nation that I belong to namely
the New Jerusalem is my King and I am his subject, and having said
that the crucifixion of Christ in my life has thrown down all worldly
powers and authorities and has made me a subject of the true King to
be part of a holy nation.  My point Peter and John is that I need not
speculate and theorize about what God has or has not done in my life
because I have seen that the power of God has clearly done what God
has done, and any efforts to try to bring about the work of God
without God working through a person to bring about those works is
witchcraft.

 

I have answered questions about my dad above.

Peter you have said the following, "Don't believe me, perhaps you

should listen to Hollywood movies.  When the crap hits the fan...who
do they call...a rabbi...no...a protestant...no...a muslim...no...They

call a Catholic priest."  The scripture says the following, "To him
who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made
us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be
glory and power for ever and ever! Amen."  (Revelation 1:6 NIV)
Notice that we have been made a kingdom of priests by his blood, and
the following is said about our work in casting down imaginations,
"the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to
the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every
high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And
having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience
is fulfilled."  2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (KJV)

 

I like to think of life as a comedy...not a tragedy.

I disagree with you because you have no framework to hold your interpretation in check.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Peter VanGee]

Brother Larry:

 

I know when I'm being a blockhead.  I think thats the real difference between me and Matt.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

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

[ON EARTH Ministries]

I apriciate your honesty, Brother Peter.
But, I do have to ask, who might be held more accountable, the sinner
who is unaware of his sin, or the sinner who knows better, and
continues to sin?

--

[Peter VanGee]

Hi all:

 

Oh, I know.  Even the just man falls 7 times a day.  That being said, there are only a few things that tempt me.  I'm married, so pretty girls are out of the question.  Though I do find them easy on the eyes.  With that in mind, I often wonder why my wife takes me shopping. 

 

The other sins aren't all that appealing.  So hey, I might as well argue with Matt.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Yes John also please forgive me as well for my sharp tone, when I often speak,
that makes me appear to be not loving. Many of us whom write to each other
and on the news group have found that in person we appear more caring then we
write, and what many of us have found is that because we do not have body
language to communicate our message thus many of us over emphasize our message
with written words. Paul the Apostle of Christ had indicated before that in
writing he would appear very bold and powerful, but in person he appeared sort
of unimpressive 2 Corinthians 10:10.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : John Kermott[mailto:johnk...@gmail.com]
Sent : 12/6/2009 10:54:39 PM
To : mmo...@essex1.com
Cc : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com

Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Peter Consider the following, "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law

came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the

tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus

replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your

tradition?" Matthew 15:1-3 (NIV) If you are being saved Peter then Jesus says
these vary words for your sake.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com




------- Original Message -------

From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]
Sent : 12/7/2009 9:04:26 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :

Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

do they call...a rabbi...no...a protestant...no..a muslim...no...They

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Without the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, both will parish regardless of
knowledge. I say this because according to Genesis every inclination of a
man’s heart from child birth is evil.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com




------- Original Message -------

From : ON EARTH Ministries[mailto:onearth.ministr...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/7/2009 1:19:59 PM

To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

--

Peace, and All Good Things,

Brother Larry Roy Woodsmall
ON EARTH MINISTRIES

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

For my sake?  Holding onto tradition has never been one of my strongsuits.  For example, I would not shed a tear if they let women and married men be priests.  Which command do I break?  Am I the one throwing accusations around?

 

For example:  I do not wear shorts(and it gets hot in Miami) to church for the simple reason that my priest asked the congregation not to.  I don't agree with the request, but I do it because of who he is.

 

The simple truth is, outside of your ability to reason - and me, I see neither a check or a balance for your conclusions.  Ordained by a guy you say was a quack.  You are your own law.  A loose canon that has attacked the position of just about every other religion out there without seeing the weakness in his own(here I may be accusing buts its for your own good). 

 

You've compared me to Jews, Southern Baptists and demon seers to state a few.  Insults to all those groups, if you ask me.  You get away with it here because most of the people, in this den of vipers, aren't really interested in seeing you obtain the truth.  They flatter you and kiss your butt.  Your weakness is that you don't see the weakness in that.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[ON EARTH Ministries]

I was clipping right along with you, neither binding or loosing, even though I am trying not to imagine you with hairy Caucasian legs in church...  heh.

 

However, most of the people, (taken a survey, have you?) in this den of vipers, (I have to assume that you mean your fellow family members who participate in this group.  way to be "catholic" with a small 'c') aren't really interested in seeing you obtain the truth (actually, that's one of the reasons TO be kind and encouraging is a way to reduce defensiveness, so that ALL might surrender to the truth)  They flatter you and kiss your butt.(I want to go on record right now as saying I have not, nor will I ever kiss Brother Mathew below the facial cheek.  :)  Your weakness is that you don't see the weakness in that. (really offended by weakness and submission, aren't you?  Don't I recall someone important to this discussion mentioning giving up to get it all?)

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

In order to live you must submit yourself before God to be put to
death. Our spiritual act of worship is that we offer ourselves as
living sacrifices in order to be slain in the old nature in order that
we may live in the new nature of Christ. When we are put to death,
then we may drink the blood and eat the flesh of God without entering
into the condemnation of the law against those whom drink blood.

When we are baptized, then we go into the tomb of Christ to be joined
with his lifeless body and we are completely submersed in death as the
waters of the sea hold death in store for us only to be restrained by
the power of God for the purposes of our election. It is thus by
God’s power that we are risen with Christ from the tomb after having
offered ourselves as living sacrifices, and we are risen from the sea
to make the way to the promise land as we become a kingdom of priests
having taken the teachings of our God to heart. With great joy, we
thus proclaim the salvation of our God having joined our voices with
multitudes of angles standing in heavenly places in the very presence
of God (this is the temple or the body of Christ that Jesus said he
would rebuild in three days as he spoke, "destroy this temple and I
will rebuild it in three days.")

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon
your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you

sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and

when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on
your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on
your gates." Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (NIV) Also a few verses latter, "In
the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the
stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?"
tell him: "We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us
out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Before our eyes the LORD sent
miraculous signs and wonders—great and terrible—upon Egypt and Pharaoh
and his whole household. But he brought us out from there to bring us
in and give us the land that he promised on oath to our forefathers.
The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD
our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the
case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the
LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness."
Deuteronomy 6:20-25 (NIV)

Christ Jesus whom is the Righteous One (the only one that is righteous
under the law since he is the judge of the law) is the one whom keeps
the laws, decrees, and stipulations for us such that when he gives us
the new nature and imputes his righteousness into us thus we have the
righteousness of Christ (this is the entire law having been kept).
This righteousness thus works through us in a fallen world to produce
the things that the law requires, but since the law was given to
perverts and other such people unless our righteousness surpasses that
of the Pharisees (whom diligently tried to keep the letter of the law)
we will never enter the kingdom of God. Overall, if we see people
whom seriously differ from what the law has commanded, then be rest
assured that their is no light in them because they do not walk
according to this testimony.

For the Jews they had been brought out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery, and we are told that this is the meaning in keeping the laws,
statues, and decrees of God, but we have been delivered from the
slavery of sin and from the Egypt that opposed us so thus we out of
joy for what God has done in our life thus carefully listen to what
God says and we do it. On the other hand because the righteousness of
Christ is in us we need not struggle to listen and to do the will of
God when he has imputed his righteousness into us because we will do
it by nature namely by the new nature, and we only need not be opposed
to it (their is no reason why we would be opposed to it). God thus
circumcises our hears and seals our foreheads by the Holy Ghost
writings the law on our hearts and writing on our foreheads the name
of our God (so to speak), and this gives us the set apart spirit as we
are set apart for his special will (unlike the purpose that God had
for Pharaoh). Thus out of joy we write his laws, statues and decrees
on our door posts, and on our gates, and we out of joy teach these to
our children, we think of them when we get up or lay down and we also
talk about them when we are sitting or when we are walking. Overall,
what the act of God in delivering us from the slavery of sin does for
us is that it causes us to obey the greatest commandment ever written
as testified by Jesus Christ namely that of loving God with all of our
hearts, souls, and strength, and through that we love our brother as
our self as well as to keep the rest of the law through the one
greatest commandment.

For the atheists, women whom sell their bodies for money, and other
such people trapped in sin whom hate even themselves and realize their
depravity while they detest their emptiness and utter depression, it
is those people whom God brings out of Egypt and redeems from the
slavery of sin. These people receive such incredible joy that they
love God so much as to anoint his feet with perfume and wash his feet
with their hair and their tears. In fact when Jesus was approached
about the issue of why once ‘defiled women’ have such a attachment for
Jesus he basically asked that if someone owed him a little and someone
else owed him a lot and he canceled both the debts of the two which
one would love him more. The very worst sinner that has been forgiven
that Jesus cancels the debt of will be the most righteous person among
humans because that person has had the greatest debt canceled, and
that person because of their superior advantage in keeping the
greatest commandment namely that of loving God with all of their
heart, soul, and strength will thus be the most lawful because this
greatest commandment as well as the second that is liken to it are
what all of the law and all of the profits hinge on.

My point is that just as we are commanded to talk about the statutes,
law, and decrees when we get up, sit down, walk along, and instruct
our children thus we do so out of joy for the love that we feel for
God. Thus if you walk into a church that has a bunch of people
talking about the world all the time that are not overjoyed to be in
the presence of God we might conclude very quickly that they are not
yet freed from the slavery of sin because they are still alive in Adam
and have not yet been put to death to be born again into Jesus Christ
our lord and savior. Once a person has been freed from the slavery of
sin, if they had been an atheist like me (the worst type of sinner),
then they would not be able to contain their joy, and what the lord
would whisper into their ears they would proclaim from the rooftops.

When a atheist or other such person dwelling in utter darkness
receives the light and proclaims from the rooftops what Christ has
whispered into their ears, then soon enough everyone around them whom
had been dwelling in the darkness and had been collected together to
the former God hater will crucify that person. The point is that when
a person becomes a Christian they will perhaps be beaten, stripped of
everything they have worked for, and be crucified and utterly shunned
by their own people in most cases. The message that I am
communicating is that if we do not see this sort of thing happening to
people at our local church or if this sort of things does not happen
to people at our local church ever, then perhaps it is not really a
church at all. I should however also clarify that I realize many
people are not delivered from such incredible sin, and thus they have
not the same amount of incredible joy as what a woman anointing the
feet of Jesus Christ would have whom washes his feet with her hear and
tears.

Something like 75% of people in the United States proclaim to be
Christian, but yet abortion and homosexual marriage is legalized in
much of this country in incredible ways. Not only that but also many
churches now have openly homosexual bishops and other such clergy.
Now, I do not understand how any of these people measure up to the
woman whom has been delivered from her sin to such degree that she
washes the feet of Jesus Christ with her hair and with her tears while
braking the very instrument of her profession at his feet causing the
incredible fragrance of her prays of love to fill the room so densely
that Judas (the betrayer of Christ) sharply rebukes her. Their is
therefore a false Christian and a real one, and the false Christian is
like Judas in that he is highly offended by the woman whom anoints the
feet of Jesus because after all it is the serpent that strikes at the
heal.

Praise God,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com


On Dec 8, 10:35 am, ON EARTH Ministries

<onearth.ministries.br.woodsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was clipping right along with you, neither binding or loosing, even though
> I am trying not to imagine you with hairy Caucasian legs in church...  heh.
>

> However, most of the people, *(taken a survey, have you?)* in this den of
> vipers, (*I have to assume that you mean your fellow family members who
> participate in this group.  way to be "catholic" with a small 'c') *aren't
> really interested in seeing you obtain the truth *(actually, that's one of

> the reasons TO be kind and encouraging is a way to reduce defensiveness, so

> that ALL might surrender to the truth)*  They flatter you and kiss your butt
> *.(I want to go on record right now as saying I have not, nor will I ever
> kiss Brother Mathew below the facial cheek.  :)*  Your weakness is that you
> don't see the weakness in that.* (really offended by weakness and

> submission, aren't you?  Don't I recall someone important to this discussion

> mentioning giving up to get it all?)*

[Adam Colbert]

i just looked that verse up. seems you kinda left off verse 11.

"10 For some say, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person
he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing." 11 Such
people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are
absent, we will be in our actions when we are present."

On Dec 7, 9:11 pm, "mmo...@essex1.com" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Yes John also please forgive me as well for my sharp tone, when I often speak,
> that makes me appear to be not loving. Many of us whom write to each other
> and on the news group have found that in person we appear more caring then we
> write, and what many of us have found is that because we do not have body
> language to communicate our message thus many of us over emphasize our message
> with written words. Paul the Apostle of Christ had indicated before that in
> writing he would appear very bold and powerful, but in person he appeared sort
> of unimpressive 2 Corinthians 10:10.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mathew Enoch Mount
> mmo...@essex1.com
>
> ------- Original Message -------
>

> From    : John Kermott[mailto:johnkerm...@gmail.com]

[Adam Colbert]

it's interesting that you call the group a den of vipers. well, not so
much interesting that you call it that, but rather that you call it
that AND have repeatedly thrown yourself into this group for QUITE
sometime. "welp, time to go down yonder and hang out with that den of
vipers again for today as i've done nearly everyday for the past
several months...." if you feel this way, then what 1) keeps you here
and 2) stops you from leaving? we're not bothered by you being here,
but you seem to always be bothered by most of the people that post in
here. so the question that comes to my mind is, why do you obsessively
choose to interact? what is it that you get out of doing so? do you
get anything out of doing so? or do you simply enjoy being around so-
called adversaries? i'm really quite confused in this respect. perhaps
you take enjoyment in being around that which upsets you. perhaps to
you it is your own personal jihad, holy war. again, i'm at a loss.

adam

> > From    : Peter VanGee[mailto:petervan...@gmail.com]

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

Yes, Adam reading the entire chapter of 2 Corinthians 10 is something
that I would recommend for everyone. Some people might think that I
boast in myself regarding this news group being the world’s largest
theological news group of its type, but frankly speaking I have a case
of dyslexia that is so bad that some in my parents church expected
that I would not finish my early elementary school years (besides the
work on this group could not prosper without you and Larry and many
others). My mother’s greatest vision for my life when I was in
elementary school was that I would drop out of school early (I think
she envisioned this happening in High School) and marry some sort of
young pregnant girlfriend (neither one happened).

Not only that but in elementary school much wrath was pored down on me
by fellow students that made themselves feel important and valuable
because of their possessions, and the vast majority of these people
all throughout my public education in elementary school and High
School believed me to be the greatest example of worthlessness as a
result of my clothing being of fashions from decades prior as they
came from the local thrift store during days when the sub zero
temperatures would bring down the price of clothing articles to 10
cents. Thus on days when cars would not start and school would be
closed my mother and I would walk (as she never learned to drive a
car) down to the local thrift shop a few miles away, and we would
carry vast quantities of clothing back from the thrift store after
paying the pocket change that my father would have given my mother for
clothing. The only huge benefit that I had over other children was
that because my clothing often had other children’s names written on
them (from previous owners) thus if someone every tried to abduct me
and called me by the name written on my clothing while claiming to be
sent by my parents to pick me up from school I would know not to trust
them.

I dare not brag about myself especially since I have been tested for
object recognition and have been found to possess the object
recognition abilities of someone whom is mentally retarded. My point
in all of this is that if God was not working in my life to bring
about all of the things that I have, then I frankly would have nothing
and would be nothing. Overall, in obtaining my ten years of college
education and six degrees I thought that I would be able to do
something important in my life that would be valuable to other people,
but then I came to realize that what is really the case that so called
educated people are prepared all their lives to be paid to bless some
false God that society sets up and that the people are expected to
worship and not only that but the type of education that I have from a
secular university sends out the signal to the world that I am somehow
not a Christian and thus people would judge me thinking that I am not
a Christian based upon my education.

Just to give you an example of what I am talking about when I was
hired for a position at the local lumber yard that I worked at as a
Manager Trainee in preparation for upper level management the very
first day or two of training I was shown a uniform brochure and was
told that I could order some uniforms out of a huge selection, so I
saw some uniforms that differed a little bit and I asked what the
uniforms had been made out of. The human resource director acted
puzzled as to why I was asking as she questioned me about it, and I
told her that the reason why I was asking is because the ancient
Hebrew law condemns the weaving together of two materials. I could
tell at this point that the human resource director displayed a
profound expression that she strongly regretted hiring me, and I now
realize that the place of business that I worked at was strongly
opposed to Christianity (even for promoting Christ among coworkers
while off duty outside of the store).

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

I have seen churches that overly encourage people to be agreeable, and at
those churches Peter would perhaps eventually run the show with his views
against the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. After all the faith of the fall
comes naturally from the fall, but the true faith only comes from God. I
believe that many of us on this news group proclaim the faith that comes from
God, and when that faith comes forth from us some people oppose this testimony
that the scripture clearly proclaims.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent : 12/8/2009 10:08:11 PM

To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

> > Thank you,
>
> > Mathew Enoch Mount
> > mmo...@essex1.com
>

[Peter VanGee]

(really offended by weakness and submission, aren't you?  Don't I recall someone important to this discussion mentioning giving up to get it all?)

 

 

Hi Larry:

 

Offended?  No.  I am just pointing out to Matt and the rest of you...the error of your ways.  But if you need to question my motives...I will honestly (and as you pointed out to Matthew) say I was a little offended by the Thanksgiving day massacre.  And it was a massacre.  Makes me think we should all go vegitarian.  As far as I am concerned, there can be no excuse for such rubbish.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

 

[Peter VanGee]

Hi all:

 

To coin a phrase from Stephen King:  It may be true that Matt, as he suggests, is the lone monotheist is a pagan pressure cooker...but that being said...that doesn't make him right on this particular subject.

 

Attacking a group or an individual does not make one right.  You are doing what I said you were doing in yesterdays post.  Your logic and your biblical interpretation are highly suspect.  Which is a nice way of saying, you're full of crap.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete...actually - I consider myself to be the only true monotheist here.  By embracing blood atonement...you've bought into a secular practice...the flesh is of no avail.

[Peter VanGee]

Hi all:

 

There is something insideously evil about blood atonement because it gives us the idea that Jesus - a person - had to die in such a way.  Matt, himself, has said he'd kill Jesus because it brought about the best possible outcome.  This eliminates free will.  It is self-evident to me that such a view is stupid beyond measure.  Had the ruler of this world accepted Jesus, who knows how God would have embraced us? 

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Perhaps some day Peter you will understand the clear biblical message
regarding blood atonement, but until you read the bible and believe what it
says this message may not be for you. After all, without the shedding of
blood their is no forgiveness of sins. I have not seen to many people that
will disagree with a direct biblical quote like you while saying, "get behind
me Satan" and then aggressively working against my message almost every day
for almost an entire years as you have.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------

From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]
Sent : 12/9/2009 8:45:55 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Peter, you do not understand my message clearly. God the Father predestined
the incident with the cross thus making it the best possible outcome, and the
profits talk about it such that God would have to be false for the crucifixion
not to happen. Not only that but also if God had chosen me to crucify Christ,
then I would not have the special revelation of whom Jesus Christ is to know
whom he is in order to do any different. The profits make very clear that God
has determined things often hundreds of years in the future from the time that
the profits write at the very least, and it is your claim Peter that the best
profits are false profits as you have said. The law of Moses has something to
say about that.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com




------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/9/2009 9:11:05 AM

To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

Hi all:
 

There is something insideously evil about blood atonement because it gives us
the idea that Jesus - a person - had to die in such a way.  Matt, himself, has
said he'd kill Jesus because it brought about the best possible outcome.  This
eliminates free will.  It is self-evident to me that such a view is stupid
beyond measure.  Had the ruler of this world accepted Jesus, who knows how God
would have embraced us? 

 
Know the Lord,
 
Pete


On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Peter VanGee <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all:
 
To coin a phrase from Stephen King:  It may be true that Matt, as he suggests,
is the lone monotheist is a pagan pressure cooker...but that being said...that
doesn't make him right on this particular subject.

 
Attacking a group or an individual does not make one right.  You are doing
what I said you were doing in yesterdays post.  Your logic and your biblical
interpretation are highly suspect.  Which is a nice way of saying, you're full
of crap.

 
Know the Lord,
 
Pete...actually - I consider myself to be the only true monotheist here.  By
embracing blood atonement...you've bought into a secular practice...the flesh
is of no avail.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM, mmo...@essex1.com <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:


Hello,

I have seen churches that overly encourage people to be agreeable, and at
those churches Peter would perhaps eventually run the show with his views

against the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.  After all the faith of the fall
comes naturally from the fall, but the true faith only comes from God.  I
believe that many of us on this news group proclaim the faith that comes from

God, and when that faith comes forth from us some people oppose this testimony
that the scripture clearly proclaims.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com


------- Original Message -------

From    : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent    : 12/8/2009 10:08:11 PM

To      : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com

Cc      :

> > Thank you,
>
> > Mathew Enoch Mount



> > mmo...@essex1.com
>
> > ------- Original Message -------

> > From    : Peter VanGee[ mailto:petervan...@gmail.com]

> > Sent    : 12/7/2009 9:04:26 AM
> > To      : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
> > Cc      :

[Adam Colbert]

i asked some very sincere questions. i asked because i expected an
answer. not that i deserve an answer, but because you take great
opportunities to counter Mathew so much. in fact, you replied to
Mathew, Larry, and finally once to your own post.

surely you did not fail to see that i developed a personally stylized
post regarding questions from myself directed to you specifically?

i wonder if you didn't skip over it because you didn't want to think
about the answer.


adam

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

Actually, we only started disagreeing around March or April.  I have to remind you that it was an argument you started by disagreeing with my view on free will.  It took me almost 6 months to get you to understand what I was saying on that.  So how much longer for blood atonement?  An error even more ingrained into your psyche.

 

I made that statement 'get behind me...' because your argument was becoming an obstacle to my search for truth.  You're scholarship appears to be genuine so I think you should explore becoming a Catholic.  Why not?  You've covered just about everything else.  Caballa, evangelical protestantism, etc.  So you have first hand experince with all the junk out there.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

 

 

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

That God allows something to happen, does not mean it had to happen.  He did not destroy Nineveh even though he said he would.  If Nineveh proves anything...it proves free will. 

 

You don't allow yourself to ask these questions, "What would happen if they didn't crucify Jesus?"  "How would God embrace us?"

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Adam:

 

I have been busy, as I had a wedding to attend, and I didn't see your question.

 

Your a rocker.  I remember Bob Dylan's son singing a song about 10 years ago.  He was wondering why that girl was always hanging around this place.  What was it called?  'One light on?' 

 

Did you read my blog where I dream about the lady in the black dress?  What did Socrates say about those who see the light?  Similar to Buddhism, in that the Bodhisatvas always comeback to help those who haven't experienced enlightenment.

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

I did not say that Moses, Jesus and Jonah were false prophets.  Do not twist what I say past its meaning.  It is a waste of my time and proves that you are becoming an obstacle.

 

I gave specific examples showing where they were unsuccessful.  Do you dispute this?  That God uses their failure to show His power is something that I don't have a problem with.  If you do, your faith needs some radical reassessment.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

I believe that the dialog started when you spoke about your dream involving
stepping into a puddle and having leaches attach to your foot that you had to
burn off because your foot was numb. I told you that the leaches attached to
the body and tried to feed off the blood of the body even through they had not
been part of the body. This is the message that I received that (I believe)
began my study into blood atonement, and I say this because I did not believe
in the blood atonement before but instead only believed in substitution
atonement. Overall, in other words I do not think that I understood or
believed in blood atonement until I asked God for the meaning of your dream,
and once I told you about the message of your dream you opposed me ever since
(in other words your dream really added a lot to my faith).

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/14/2009 8:57:32 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

Hi Matt:
 
Actually, we only started disagreeing around March or April.  I have to remind
you that it was an argument you started by disagreeing with my view on free
will.  It took me almost 6 months to get you to understand what I was saying
on that.  So how much longer for blood atonement?  An error even more
ingrained into your psyche.

 
I made that statement 'get behind me...' because your argument was becoming an
obstacle to my search for truth.  You're scholarship appears to be genuine so
I think you should explore becoming a Catholic.  Why not?  You've covered just
about everything else.  Caballa, evangelical protestantism, etc.  So you have
first hand experince with all the junk out there.

 

Know the Lord,
 
Pete
 


 
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:12 PM, mmo...@essex1.com <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:

Hello,

Perhaps some day Peter you will understand the clear biblical message
regarding blood atonement, but until you read the bible and believe what it

says this message may not be for you.  After all, without the shedding of
blood their is no forgiveness of sins.  I have not seen to many people that
will disagree with a direct biblical quote like you while saying, "get behind

me Satan" and then aggressively working against my message almost every day
for almost an entire years as you have.

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

If Christ was never crucified, then he would not be Christ.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/14/2009 9:10:57 AM

To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

Hi Matt:
 

That God allows something to happen, does not mean it had to happen.  He did
not destroy Nineveh even though he said he would.  If Nineveh proves
anything...it proves free will. 
 
You don't allow yourself to ask these questions, "What would happen if they

didn't crucify Jesus?"  "How would God embrace us?"
 
Know the Lord,
 
Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

I have come to the conclusion Peter that Socrates and Buddha are not
authorities on the Christian faith or the Jewish faith (despite what you might
think). We however learn that very few people are concerned with serving God.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/14/2009 9:22:37 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Despite what you might think Peter Jesus did not fail at anything because he
is God. In fact those whom claim that Jesus fails to save those whom he tries
to save do not believe that Jesus is God. Everything that Jesus attempts to
do he actually does, and so if Jesus attempts to save someone then he actually
saves them.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/14/2009 9:31:51 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

First off, you're scaring me.  A dream vision is a personal revelation.  It should not be taken as truth until it has been established as truth by some objective authority.  I'll use an old saying here to illustrate my point.  'You don't know me from Adam.'  

 

Second, being a personal revelation - that dream was meant for me.  You have to look at it from my perspective...how my mind classifies architypes, etc.  I chose to discuss it because I thought it was interesting. 

 

Third.  If you remember, my interpretation was quite different.  More consistent with Christ teachings on the blood of the prophets.  (I forget the biblical quote - but you can go back and find it)  Where he says, by their blood the prophets can judge those who killed them.  I also likened it to Revelations and the false church(Babylon).  The harlot that drank the blood of the matyrs.  In a sense, the true church here on earth is the heel of God.  And as the quote gos...God will make our enemy our footstool.  I guess this is where they get the old saying, 'what a heel.'  I used to wonder what that meant.  Perhaps the faithful are seen as being stupid to the ways of the world.  Easily preyed upon.

 

Blood atonement doesn't enter into it ,as the leaches are burned off with my lighter.

 

If Christ was never crucified, then he would not be Christ.

 

Actually, Peter calls Christ the Messiah before he is crucified. - a personal revelation revealed to him by God.  If he were not crucified...our religion would be different...How would God have embraced us.

 

I have come to the conclusion Peter that Socrates and Buddha are not
authorities on the Christian faith or the Jewish faith (despite what you might
think).  We however learn that very few people are concerned with serving God.

 

If you can bring in animal sacrifice...a product of natural religion, a secular infusion...Why can't I bring in Socrates and Buddha.  They are, in my humble opinion, living examples of the 'son of man' architype.  I find that the only people who disagree with me here want to keep the 'son of man' from being revealed.  Do their teachings contradict Jesus in any way?

 

Despite what you might think Peter Jesus did not fail at anything because he
is God.  In fact those whom claim that Jesus fails to save those whom he tries
to save do not believe that Jesus is God.  Everything that Jesus attempts to
do he actually does, and so if Jesus attempts to save someone then he actually
saves them.

 

Quit being trite.  I merely pointed out that he was killed in the prime of his life.  How is this not, in some sense, a tragedy?...only with the help of God.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

If you read the book of Daniel, then you will find that the king of
Babylon had a dream and the meaning of that dream was given to
Daniel. Not only that but also the same was true with Pharaoh (who
had the dream) and Joseph (whom gave the interpretation through the
Holy Ghost). In the case of Daniel however the revelation is perhaps
the clearest revelation regarding the entire future of the antichrist
system so to speak. The point to be made is that even if the King of
Babylon was an incredible antichrist of his time what remains true is
that the dream came from him and then the meaning of the dream came
from Daniel.

In fact Daniel says the following about the subject, "…there is a God
in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar
what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that
passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these: "As you
were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the
revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. As for me,
this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater
wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the
interpretation and that you may understand what went through your
mind." Daniel 2:28-30 (NIV) Overall, just like Daniel said, "there is
a God in heaven who reveals mysteries", and I believe this firmly.

I understand Peter that many dreams are manufactured by the mind and
are in fact not a revelation from God, and I also understand that
dreams can be encoded in the symbolism of our own experiences. The
key to understanding a dream that is a revelation from God is by not
trying to interpret it but instead seeking God for showing the
meaning. The Holy Ghost can and does give the meaning of dreams (that
are true revelations) to the servants of God, and frankly Peter the
meaning of your dream brought together in my mind lots of scripture
passages that would have been otherwise a mystery to me in how they
relate to one another. In fact I have found that my understanding of
the scripture has multiplied greatly ever since, so I really must
thank you for sharing your dream with me.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------

From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/16/2009 9:27:14 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[Adam Colbert]

Bob Dylan's son is the lead singer of the band The Wallflowers, and
they did a song called "One Headlight." i believe this must be what
you're talking about, though i must admit that i don't recall the
particular meaning of the song, but i do recall the chorus. "come on
drive a little, nothing is forever, there's got to be something better
than in the middle. dreams of cinderella, put it all together, we can
drive it home with one headlight." again, i have no clue what the
song's actually about. my favorite line was "this place is old, it's
like a beat up truck, i turn the engine but the engine doesn't turn."

i don't remember reading your blog, but i remember you posting on here
one of your dreams. if that was the same dream you're referencing from
your blog, however, i do not know.

On Dec 14, 9:22 am, Peter VanGee <petervan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam:
>
> I have been busy, as I had a wedding to attend, and I didn't see your
> question.
>
> Your a rocker.  I remember Bob Dylan's son singing a song about 10 years
> ago.  He was wondering why that girl was always hanging around this place.
> What was it called?  'One light on?'
>
> Did you read my blog where I dream about the lady in the black dress?  What
> did Socrates say about those who see the light?  Similar to Buddhism, in
> that the Bodhisatvas always comeback to help those who haven't experienced
> enlightenment.
> Know the Lord,
>
> Pete

> > jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com<jesus-the-christ%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Adam:

 

Nietzche( and I can only guess - being born on the brightside - what he was talking about half the time)  outlines in the birth of tragedy...a (secret?) dionysian countercurrent to the god apollo in the birth of tragedy.  The god apollo (god of the sun, reason)  being represented by Socrates.  That being said, if I remember correctly - he says music is an expression of passion and will.

 

That being said, cinderella can be seen as symbolic of Jerusalem...or perhaps wisdom in general.  The world is old.  The engine - well I can only guess - but an engine is a piece of work...and we all know Adam was condemned to work.  The beast won't turn.  Won't repent.

 

There is a dominate countercurrent (antichrist) in American culture that denies its existence.  It ain't easy shedding light on the darkness.  For example, my son just shoved all my credit cards in our bedroom fan while I was writing this email.  Is that a nice way of saying the crap just hit the fan.  After all, a fan is cooler.  Like the words of Jesus, it brings a little relief for those who are caught in hell.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Hello,

I hate to tell you this Peter, but Jewish news groups quote work like your and
demonstrate how it clearly has noting to do with the God of Israel. Such
people would then generalize that work like your reflects all of Christianity
and that thus they would claim that it is a pagan religion. Overall, my point
is that Nietzche + Apollo + Socrates + Cinderella is not equal to Jerusalem
for anyone that I know whom has fervor for the God of Israel, Isaac, and Jacob.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Peter VanGee[mailto:peter...@gmail.com]

Sent : 12/18/2009 10:00:30 AM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matthew:

 

???  Sometimes I wonder if you know what I am talking about.  Take time to digest.  Cinderella is a pretty woman...a servent girl who's inheritance has been stolen...persecuted by the wicked stepmother and her two daughters.  She is symbolic of Jerusalem.

 

My point is that I am trying to identify the antichrist.   You either don't see things from their point of view, or you are a liar.  That is my point.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

According to Jesus Christ his servants comprise 10,000, but his
enemies comprise 20,000. This means that 1/3 (.333 go down the narrow
path), but 2/3 (or .666) take the wide rode to destruction. (Luke
14:25-35)

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[Adam Colbert]

that's very interesting. i've never heard Nietzche's take on all that.

as a side note, Socrates, when he's talking about music, refers to any
and all of the arts which are inspired by the muses. hence, muse-ic.
this includes poetry, song, and all the arts. at least, this is what
the Greek word for "music" refers to. it was a footnote in The
Republic, that's how i know.

On Dec 18, 10:00 am, Peter VanGee <petervan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam:
>

> Nietzche( and I can only guess - being born on the brightside - what he was
> talking about half the time)  outlines in the birth of tragedy...a (secret?)
> dionysian countercurrent to the god apollo in the birth of tragedy.  The god
> apollo (god of the sun, reason)  being represented by Socrates.  That being
> said, if I remember correctly - he says music is an expression of passion
> and will.
>
> That being said, cinderella can be seen as symbolic of Jerusalem...or
> perhaps wisdom in general.  The world is old.  The engine - well I can only
> guess - but an engine is a piece of work...and we all know Adam was
> condemned to work.  The beast won't turn.  Won't repent.
>
> There is a dominate countercurrent (antichrist) in American culture that
> denies its existence.  It ain't easy shedding light on the darkness.  For
> example, my son just shoved all my credit cards in our bedroom fan while I
> was writing this email.  Is that a nice way of saying the crap just hit the
> fan.  After all, a fan is cooler.  Like the words of Jesus, it brings a
> little relief for those who are caught in hell.
>
> Know the Lord,
>
> Pete
>

> > <jesus-the-christ%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<jesus-the-christ%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

[Adam Colbert]

although i like what you bring up about 1/3 = .333 and 2/3 = .666,
where exactly in scripture does Jesus say his servants are 10,000 and
his enemies are 20,000? i don't remember ever reading this, especially
coming from Jesus himself.

[mmo...@essex1.com]

Consider the following scripture,

"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."" Luke 14:25-35 (NIV)

The point is that the cost of being a disciple is that the disciple gives us everything he has for Jesus. The reason for giving up everything is because of the example in the above scripture of the king (Christ) sitting down and considering whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand.

Jesus in his message regarding the 1/3 verses the 2/3 is sort of like a explanation of Ezekiel 5:1-7 that talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (72 AD). Consider the following text, ""Now, son of man, take a sharp sword and use it as a barber's razor to shave your head and your beard. Then take a set of scales and divide up the hair. When the days of your siege come to an end, burn a third of the hair with fire inside the city. Take a third and strike it with the sword all around the city. And scatter a third to the wind. For I will pursue them with drawn sword. But take a few strands of hair and tuck them away in the folds of your garment. Again, take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. A fire will spread from there to the whole house of Israel. "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees. "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: You have been more unruly than the nations around you and have not followed my decrees or kept my laws. You have not even conformed to the standards of the nations around you." (NIV) Overall, the third of Jerusalem that was scattered to the wind caused the Jews to be scatted to the nations (even the early Christians according to Acts got scatted to all sorts of lands as a result of the persecution of the church and only a few got tucked away in the garments of the body of Christ so to speak).

Does this help?

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

------- Original Message -------
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]

Sent : 12/21/2009 7:36:15 PM

To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Thanksgiving Turkey Atonement

[Peter VanGee]

According to Jesus Christ his servants comprise 10,000, but his
enemies comprise 20,000.  This means that 1/3 (.333 go down the narrow
path), but 2/3 (or .666) take the wide rode to destruction.  (Luke
14:25-35)

Talk about a complete screw up.  It is generally believed that the angels in heaven cast out Satan and his angels by a 2:1 margin.  This is supported by Rev. 12.4.  Jesus is saying that heaven is approaching with an army that outnumbers those of the earth by a 2:1 margin.

 

The devil wishes to reverse this.  This is where the number 666 comes in.  That is the devil wishes to possess man (Adam) and woman (Eve- which means life) without the son of man.  This is also supported by Rev. 12. 

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Adam Colbert]

i see what and where you're talking about now. you only needed to use
2 sentences and tack on a scripture reference of Luke 14:31," and i
almost didn't see it buried in there, but i see it now.

adam

On Dec 21, 9:07 pm, "mmo...@essex1.com" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:
> Consider the following scripture,
> "Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."" Luke 14:25-35 (NIV)
> The point is that the cost of being a disciple is that the disciple gives us everything he has for Jesus. The reason for giving up everything is because of the example in the above scripture of the king (Christ) sitting down and considering whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand.
> Jesus in his message regarding the 1/3 verses the 2/3 is sort of like a explanation of Ezekiel 5:1-7 that talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (72 AD). Consider the following text, ""Now, son of man, take a sharp sword and use it as a barber's razor to shave your head and your beard. Then take a set of scales and divide up the hair. When the days of your siege come to an end, burn a third of the hair with fire inside the city. Take a third and strike it with the sword all around the city. And scatter a third to the wind. For I will pursue them with drawn sword. But take a few strands of hair and tuck them away in the folds of your garment. Again, take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. A fire will spread from there to the whole house of Israel. "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees. "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: You have been more unruly than the nations around you and have not followed my decrees or kept my laws. You have not even conformed to the standards of the nations around you." (NIV) Overall, the third of Jerusalem that was scattered to the wind caused the Jews to be scatted to the nations (even the early Christians according to Acts got scatted to all sorts of lands as a result of the persecution of the church and only a few got tucked away in the garments of the body of Christ so to speak).
> Does this help?
> Thank you,
> Mathew Enoch Mount
>

> mmo...@essex1.com------- Original Message -------
> From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamcolb...@hotmail.com]

[Peter VanGee]

Adam:

 

Are you agreeing with me or Matt.  Matt is completely off the mark here.  Christ has 20000 men.  He is setting the terms.  Give up what you have and be my disciple.  This is supported by Rev. 12.4.

 

Christ, does not, nor will He ever ask for terms.  Did the Lord ask Nineveh for terms.  No, he said in 40 days I will destroy it.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Roy Woodsmall §§§§ Freed from Monasticism
Evan L. Hale §§§§§§§§§§§ Thankful for Whiskey
Adam Colbert §§§§§§§§§§ Jesus look alike
Mathew Enoch Mount §§§§ Conservative
===>
Together we operate Jesus on the Web
----------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed
To the Google Groups "Jesus On the Web" group.
To post to this group, send email to
===>
jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
===>
jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

First of all Peter lots of people existed in the time of Noah when
Noah and his family entered the ark, but only Noah and his family
(this included extended family and animals had been saved). I could
imagine Peter that if Noah did his thing with the ark in our current
time that you would call him a Anti-Christ as a result of separating
from the main stream church. One third thus is a huge number of
people to be saved compared to Noah and the ark. Second of all Peter
Adam can remember me from having attended my congregation, and during
that time I do not remember encouraging him to separate from the rest
of the Christian community as I would not do this and this is evident
from this group that I do not do this kind of thing.

The problem with all the Anti-Christ people that came away from the
early church is that things at that time had been much different than
today. For example during the time of Saint Paul he was clearly
called, clearly had the power of God working in his life, and clearly
gained following through God giving him people to care for. Now
things are a lot different as a result of the fact that almost all
Christian churches inherent members from birth and division exists
prior to members having entered the church.

The fact Peter that I am not in favor of indulgences would for example
separate me from the Roman Catholic Church in one way or another.
Since Adam does not attend the Roman Catholic Church I would not be
pulling him away from your church if he attended any congregation that
I may have (the same goes with Larry). Overall, I think that your
view of everyone outside of the Roman Catholic Church being a anti-
Christ shows much more pride than it does reality.

As far as I know Bishop Curran that came away from the Roman Catholic
Church as a ordained priest prior to his Bishop dying according to his
testimony did not separate from the church out of schism but instead
he claimed that he just no longer participated in the duties that he
once had as a result of many factors including disability (this is
what he called being retired). The fact that Bishop Curran either
took his life accidentally or purposely (most likely purposely) may
have much baring on his eternal dwelling. Also the fact that this
type of situation can occur in the Roman Catholic Church among people
in active service tells us that people can be dedicated Catholics
under a bishop that does such a thing and then those people according
to my understanding of your theology would join the anti-Christ system
as the Bishop would end his communion with the Church as a result of
becoming a Anti-Christ through suicide. The problem that I am talking
about is that the faith of the believer in the bottom of the pyramid
is not even considered to be different than that of the people on the
top because the people on the top are believed to the be possessors of
the faith that supposedly permeates all the way down to the bottom.

The truth of the matter is that God’s children are scattered in all
sorts of places because the angels actively seal the servants of God
as the servants of God detest those things that are detestable, and
this means that the Holy Ghost does not necessarily always proceed
down to everyone through the laying on of hands. Scripture should be
clear about these points, but as you have stated before you do not
believe the scripture to be infallible. You have said this before
because you have so strongly opposed the blood atonement of Jesus
Christ as to indicate that both the Jews of the Hebrew Scripture and
the book of Hebrews itself is according to you wrong in stating that
without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sin. My
conclusion Peter is that if an Anti-Christ exists on this news group,
then I certainly know who it is and it would not be me.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

On Dec 24, 10:31 am, Peter VanGee <petervan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam:
>
> Are you agreeing with me or Matt.  Matt is completely off the mark here.
> Christ has 20000 men.  He is setting the terms.  Give up what you have and
> be my disciple.  This is supported by Rev. 12.4.
>
> Christ, does not, nor will He ever ask for terms.  Did the Lord ask Nineveh
> for terms.  No, he said in 40 days I will destroy it.
>
> Know the Lord,
>
> Pete
>

> > jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com<jesus-the-christ%2Bunsubscrib­e...@googlegroups.com>

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > ===>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matthew:

 

Again, you don't know what I'm talking about.  You're making classifications about my own personal faith, a subject in which you know nothing.  Hi have to ask, are you kidding?  Just so you know, I count those who are kidding among the antichrist.  I count Socrates and Buddha among the living.  An act you chastised me for, and kind of contradicts your whole statement below.  I have to go on vacation, so I can't deal with this now.  But do us both a favor, think before you write.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

I guess Peter that I have a tendency to try to understand how your
views may differ from mine as a result of you reading the scripture
with different basic assumptions, and now I realize that the problem
is that you probably do not read the scripture perhaps at all.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[Peter VanGee]

Hi Matt:

 

Again, think before you write.  Socrates was killed for righteousness sake?  Prove to me that he wasn't.  I didn't say he was a prophet, I said he was a 'son of man.'

 

Why the tit-for-tat response?  I'd think you'd be thankful.  At least I have the honesty to tell you when you're being stupid.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

The way that a majority of churches today act we would have to wonder
if the sacrifice of Socrates is being substituted for the crucifixion
of Christ and blood atonement. I say this not only because of the
over zealousness for openly homosexual ministry but I also say this
because of the ever increasing embrace for Pharisaic attitudes toward
sin, salvation, and redemption. The big difference between the
sacrifice of Christ and Socrates is that one involved the shedding of
blood while the other did not, and one involved the resurrection of
the dead and the other did not. I would rather be in the shedding of
blood resurrection of the dead group than in the other any day, and I
say this not because I desire to obtain a eternal reward for having
invested the smallest possible effort into the greatest possible
reward namely eternal salvation. Overall, the sacrifice of Socrates
teaches us more than anything the necessity for Christ to purchase us
with his blood and by his blood make us clean, and it also teaches us
that despite our many efforts to obtain righteousness if God has not
chosen us and thus paid the price for us then the best that we can do
to offer ourselves as living sacrifices is to be killed like Socrates
and Judas to prove to the world how firm we hold to the wrong doctrine
as to put ourselves to death to try to prove ourselves correct even
when we are wrong.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

[Peter VanGee]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Mathew Enoch Mount <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:

Hello,

The way that a majority of churches today act we would have to wonder
if the sacrifice of Socrates is being substituted for the crucifixion
of Christ and blood atonement. 

 

I didn't say this.

 

The big difference between the
sacrifice of Christ and Socrates is that one involved the shedding of
blood while the other did not, and one involved the resurrection of
the dead and the other did not.  

 

You don't know if Socrates is in heaven.  This isn't a question of greater or lesser.   These are worldly ambitions.  We can even argue that some men have had it harder than Christ.  Two days and his ordeal was done.  I don't think Christ would consider how he was killed, only that he was killed unjustly...the flesh is of no avail. 

 

I would rather be in the shedding of
blood resurrection of the dead group than in the other any day, and I
say this not because I desire to obtain a eternal reward for having
invested the smallest possible effort into the greatest possible
reward namely eternal salvation.  Overall, the sacrifice of Socrates
teaches us more than anything the necessity for Christ to purchase us
with his blood and by his blood make us clean, and it also teaches us
that despite our many efforts to obtain righteousness if God has not
chosen us and thus paid the price for us then the best that we can do
to offer ourselves as living sacrifices is to be killed like Socrates
and Judas to prove to the world how firm we hold to the wrong doctrine
as to put ourselves to death to try to prove ourselves correct even
when we are wrong.

WOULD WE HAVE THE BOOK OF HEBREWS W/O PLATONIC IMAGERY?  Your problem is one of pride and competition.  As if somehow Socrates takes away from Christ...the sum of the parts equals the whole.

 

Know the Lord,

 

Pete

[Mathew Enoch Mount]

Hello,

After having considered your statement, I think that you are correct
Peter in that some perhaps do suffer more than Christ during this
earthly ministry. For example consider all the people that suffered
as a result of Jim Jones the leader of the Peoples Temple as they
moved to a strange land in order to participate in Jonestown. Like
Socrates both Jim Jones and his followers drank from the cup in order
to go to their deaths as a result of having the feeling of
persecution, but I do admit that Jim Jones and his followers may have
jumped the gun a little bit so to speak. Overall, despite the fact
that the followers of Jim Jones may have suffered more than Christ and
may still be suffering in hell, I do not think that Jim and his
communion of people are all happily in heaven today with the lord.

By the way in regard to this topic I see the administration of
Thanksgiving Turkey to be a similar type of communion as what Jim
Jones had in his Jonestown. I say this because communion around a
turkey as celebrated as a secular event is like renouncing communion
with Christ for the sake of embracing communion with people that do
not necessarily believe in Christ. Overall, what I am saying is not
always true, but I know that in many cases people do have secular
turkey communion administered by a family head in such a way that the
gospel is removed for the sake of putting aside difference for the
sake of godless peace.

Thank you,

Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com

> Pete- Hide quoted text -