Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
some found a "profit"
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Timothy Sutter
Jun 6, 2012, 5:02:34 PM6/6/12
to
someone tells you that walking through
an empty space does a "violence" to
the serene empty space.
what does your memory trigger?
do you suppose that because you
have a done a "violence" to the
serene empty space that you have
done an inherently 'bad' thing
and therefore, you and your
walking are 'bad'?
you -did- do a "violence"
to the serene empty space.
and to your mind, "violence" is a 'bad' thing.
so, you say to yourself;
"everything i do is inherently 'bad'
because everything you -do- disturbs the
peaceful state of the serene empty space.
the punchline begins to center
around how your mind can be hijacked.
it has, first, become so ingrained in your
mind that "violence" is 'bad' that you
are, now, willing to accept a notion that
-you- are, therefore, inherently 'bad'
when you are apprised of the simple fact
that when you walk thru the empty space,
you are doing a violence to its serenity.
that's how you get your head
handed up to you on a platter.
you casually allow the memory triggers
of someone else's invention spring the
mousetrap in your own mind.
but you have no memory of God
so, it would be quite simple for someone
who wanted to interfere with your understanding
of God to associate the words with negative stimuli.
that is to say; for example
you may, as yet, have no conscious memory of God
and some other agency has associated the word "God"
with phenomenological constructs which are by nature
-not God- but which are immediately associated
with a negative response in your mind, and
-your- associations present a barrier to
-your- personal knowledge of God.
clearly, the words "Jesus Christ"
would be just as easy to associate
with negative stimuli.
so, you hear "Jesus Christ" and
immediately, you think negative,
and you don't even know Jesus Christ
and have never met Jesus Christ.
so, Y'shua was not passing out glazed donuts
when he said, "this is my body"
he was, for all practical purposes,
passing out 'unleavened' bread.
because the meal eaten on non-HD 14 is still...unleavened...
and restricted so, and could not
have been glazed donuts.
so, he passes out unleavened bread,
and refers to that bread as his body.
so, we can probably suggest that Y'shua was not
'leavened' in his heart...
like in that Psalm i keep showing.
oh, but anyway, as a side remark,
it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
conceived as some sort of unaccomplishable goal
that could not never not nohow ever be met.
not at all.
cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
him with Torah quotes
so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
sort of ill mannered behaviors.
and i keep looking at this;
==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners
Before the LORD of hosts?
==
these particular people didn't say;
"why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
some goal that nobody could possibly do?"
no, they said;
"what's in it for me?"
"why should i walk around like a man in mourning
when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"
that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.
what's in it for me"
"it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"
they don't say;
"we can't do this"
=but= evidently, one -can- "do this"
and not be a man cleansed of all leavening
or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.
and, in fact, =could= be, harboring
enmity towards YHWH all the while,
following the ordinance to the letter.
yes?
i think =yes=
so....
so,...hold that thought....
not an "damnation" of "Torah"
but something ever so subtly distinct...
in other words...
a none too subtle distinction...
you -can- abide in teh letter
and walk away =thinking=...
"why? what's in this for me?"
...[just a moment, or several...hmmm...majic crackers...
i like it, it's catchy...
but i did also say this;
> but there's a reason i once said this;
>
> ==
> what is love like?
>
> well, it's sort of bland and
> doesn't have a lot of flavor,
> but it is crunchy.
> ==
that in some respects, the unleavened bread
was a sign of YHWH's 'Love'
and this impression i got from reading the exodus account.
perhaps i'll have to read it again,,,
and see if the same impression arises...
cuz if that's so,....
> it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
> conceived as soem sort of unaccomplishable goal
> that could not never not nohow ever be met.
>
> not at all.
>
> cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
> Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
> him with Torah quotes
>
> so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
> sort of ill mannered behaviors.
i did mean,
"so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, -any-
sort of ill mannered behaviors."
my typing is still miserable...
"so Torah did not breed -any- sort of
ill mannered behaviors in Y'shua"
> and i keep looking at this;
>
> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==
> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==
> these particular people didn't say;
> "why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
> some goal that nobody could possibly do?"
> no, they said;
> "what's in it for me?"
> "why should i walk around like a man in mourning
> when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"
> that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.
> what's in it for me"
> "it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"
> they don't say;
> "we can't do this"
> =but= evidently, one -can- "do this"
> and not be a man cleansed of all leavening
> or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.
> and, in fact, =could= be, harboring
> enmity towards YHWH all the while,
> following the ordinance to the letter.
and ten we see Y'shua saying;
"beware of the leavening" -in- the =doctrine= of people
some of whom, may be -at- the "seat of Moses"
> yes?
> i think =yes=
> so....
> so,...hold that thought....
> not an "damnation" of "Torah"
> but something ever so subtly distinct...
> in other words...
> a none too subtle distinction...
> you -can- abide in teh letter
> and walk away =thinking=...
> "what's in it for me"
but -something- about Y'shua
was -alluring- people to actually consider that;
=eternal Life= was =possible=
and -still- walking away "crestfallen"
when the suggestion was made to "give to the poor"
which thing Torah suggests also,
and -then- come and follow "Me"
and -sometimes- i get this strange tingling feeling that
"the rich young ruler" who approached Y'shua
and said;
"all these have i done, what -more- must i do..."
was... Saul of Tarsus...
and he walked away =mad=
cuz, like he was abiding to the letter,
and even had lots of possesssions,
but -still- =something= was missing
but he -wanted- =more=
but missed the beam in his eye...
as an aside remark,
no, i do not say for a certainty that the
"rich young ruler" =was= in fact,
Saul of Tarsus...
but the -smilarity- is there....
but, i -do- believe that Saul's -conversion-
was genuine, and that half the time, he is explaining
how poorly =he= and some of his pals had
missed the mark so utterly
even with Law in hand...
if you catch my drift...
because -certainly- =some= if not =many=
fell by Malichi's accounting...
==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners
Before YHWH Defender?
==
some found a "profit"
etc.
an empty space does a "violence" to
the serene empty space.
what does your memory trigger?
do you suppose that because you
have a done a "violence" to the
serene empty space that you have
done an inherently 'bad' thing
and therefore, you and your
walking are 'bad'?
you -did- do a "violence"
to the serene empty space.
and to your mind, "violence" is a 'bad' thing.
so, you say to yourself;
"everything i do is inherently 'bad'
because everything you -do- disturbs the
peaceful state of the serene empty space.
the punchline begins to center
around how your mind can be hijacked.
it has, first, become so ingrained in your
mind that "violence" is 'bad' that you
are, now, willing to accept a notion that
-you- are, therefore, inherently 'bad'
when you are apprised of the simple fact
that when you walk thru the empty space,
you are doing a violence to its serenity.
that's how you get your head
handed up to you on a platter.
you casually allow the memory triggers
of someone else's invention spring the
mousetrap in your own mind.
but you have no memory of God
so, it would be quite simple for someone
who wanted to interfere with your understanding
of God to associate the words with negative stimuli.
that is to say; for example
you may, as yet, have no conscious memory of God
and some other agency has associated the word "God"
with phenomenological constructs which are by nature
-not God- but which are immediately associated
with a negative response in your mind, and
-your- associations present a barrier to
-your- personal knowledge of God.
clearly, the words "Jesus Christ"
would be just as easy to associate
with negative stimuli.
so, you hear "Jesus Christ" and
immediately, you think negative,
and you don't even know Jesus Christ
and have never met Jesus Christ.
so, Y'shua was not passing out glazed donuts
when he said, "this is my body"
he was, for all practical purposes,
passing out 'unleavened' bread.
because the meal eaten on non-HD 14 is still...unleavened...
and restricted so, and could not
have been glazed donuts.
so, he passes out unleavened bread,
and refers to that bread as his body.
so, we can probably suggest that Y'shua was not
'leavened' in his heart...
like in that Psalm i keep showing.
oh, but anyway, as a side remark,
it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
conceived as some sort of unaccomplishable goal
that could not never not nohow ever be met.
not at all.
cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
him with Torah quotes
so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
sort of ill mannered behaviors.
and i keep looking at this;
==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners
Before the LORD of hosts?
==
these particular people didn't say;
"why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
some goal that nobody could possibly do?"
no, they said;
"what's in it for me?"
"why should i walk around like a man in mourning
when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"
that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.
what's in it for me"
"it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"
they don't say;
"we can't do this"
=but= evidently, one -can- "do this"
and not be a man cleansed of all leavening
or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.
and, in fact, =could= be, harboring
enmity towards YHWH all the while,
following the ordinance to the letter.
yes?
i think =yes=
so....
so,...hold that thought....
not an "damnation" of "Torah"
but something ever so subtly distinct...
in other words...
a none too subtle distinction...
you -can- abide in teh letter
and walk away =thinking=...
"why? what's in this for me?"
...[just a moment, or several...hmmm...majic crackers...
i like it, it's catchy...
but i did also say this;
> but there's a reason i once said this;
>
> ==
> what is love like?
>
> well, it's sort of bland and
> doesn't have a lot of flavor,
> but it is crunchy.
> ==
that in some respects, the unleavened bread
was a sign of YHWH's 'Love'
and this impression i got from reading the exodus account.
perhaps i'll have to read it again,,,
and see if the same impression arises...
cuz if that's so,....
> it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
> conceived as soem sort of unaccomplishable goal
> that could not never not nohow ever be met.
>
> not at all.
>
> cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
> Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
> him with Torah quotes
>
> so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
> sort of ill mannered behaviors.
i did mean,
"so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, -any-
sort of ill mannered behaviors."
my typing is still miserable...
"so Torah did not breed -any- sort of
ill mannered behaviors in Y'shua"
> and i keep looking at this;
>
> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==
> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==
> these particular people didn't say;
> "why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
> some goal that nobody could possibly do?"
> no, they said;
> "what's in it for me?"
> "why should i walk around like a man in mourning
> when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"
> that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.
> what's in it for me"
> "it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"
> they don't say;
> "we can't do this"
> =but= evidently, one -can- "do this"
> and not be a man cleansed of all leavening
> or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.
> and, in fact, =could= be, harboring
> enmity towards YHWH all the while,
> following the ordinance to the letter.
and ten we see Y'shua saying;
"beware of the leavening" -in- the =doctrine= of people
some of whom, may be -at- the "seat of Moses"
> yes?
> i think =yes=
> so....
> so,...hold that thought....
> not an "damnation" of "Torah"
> but something ever so subtly distinct...
> in other words...
> a none too subtle distinction...
> you -can- abide in teh letter
> and walk away =thinking=...
> "what's in it for me"
but -something- about Y'shua
was -alluring- people to actually consider that;
=eternal Life= was =possible=
and -still- walking away "crestfallen"
when the suggestion was made to "give to the poor"
which thing Torah suggests also,
and -then- come and follow "Me"
and -sometimes- i get this strange tingling feeling that
"the rich young ruler" who approached Y'shua
and said;
"all these have i done, what -more- must i do..."
was... Saul of Tarsus...
and he walked away =mad=
cuz, like he was abiding to the letter,
and even had lots of possesssions,
but -still- =something= was missing
but he -wanted- =more=
but missed the beam in his eye...
as an aside remark,
no, i do not say for a certainty that the
"rich young ruler" =was= in fact,
Saul of Tarsus...
but the -smilarity- is there....
but, i -do- believe that Saul's -conversion-
was genuine, and that half the time, he is explaining
how poorly =he= and some of his pals had
missed the mark so utterly
even with Law in hand...
if you catch my drift...
because -certainly- =some= if not =many=
fell by Malichi's accounting...
==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God;
What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners
Before YHWH Defender?
==
some found a "profit"
etc.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 24, 2012, 11:10:40 PM9/24/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Oct 5, 2012, 10:08:41 PM10/5/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Dec 29, 2012, 8:57:42 AM12/29/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Mar 21, 2013, 3:55:51 AM3/21/13
to
Timothy Sutter
Apr 28, 2013, 5:09:48 AM4/28/13
to
> > > > > and said;
> > > > >
> > > > > "all these have i done, what -more- must i do..."
> > > > >
> > > > > was... Saul of Tarsus...
ykuykgkghtymftnym,ksrsyumrq3534hfgmghkgykuykgkghkuykgkghgkuykg
> > > > >
> > > > > "all these have i done, what -more- must i do..."
> > > > >
> > > > > was... Saul of Tarsus...
> > > > > and he walked away =mad=
> > > > >
> > > > > cuz, like he was abiding to the letter,
> > > > >
> > > > > and even had lots of possesssions,
ykuykgkghtymftnym,ksrsyumrq3534hfgmghkgykuykgkghkuykgkghgkuykg
> > > > >
> > > > > cuz, like he was abiding to the letter,
> > > > >
> > > > > and even had lots of possesssions,
Timothy Sutter
Jul 6, 2013, 8:15:35 PM7/6/13
to
38) Jesus said, "Many times have you desired to hear these words
which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them
from. There will be days when you look for Me and will not find
Me."
39) Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the
keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not
entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You,
however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them
from. There will be days when you look for Me and will not find
Me."
39) Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the
keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not
entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You,
however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
°¤ª
Sep 11, 2013, 4:07:34 AM9/11/13
to
°¤ª
Oct 7, 2013, 11:11:35 PM10/7/13
to
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send
to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth
who proceeds from the Father, He will testify
of Me. And you also will bear witness, because
you have been with Me from the beginning."
John 15:26-27
0 new messages