Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Are We NOW Living Under Stupidity?
Super Grace Me
Would You like Obedience with that?
By Jason Jordan
(This is a chapter from his upcoming book, Lightning from the Master's House)
Standing the Test of Fire
By Coffey J. Marie
Restoring HaShem
The general religious definition of the term “grace” is misleading. Its
perception as being YHUH’s longsuffering patience and its subtle use as
a license to go on sinning unwittingly robs many believers of a
relationship with their Heavenly Father. Grace is a transliteration of
the Greek word “charis” (pronounced Khar’-ece) and is misunderstood by
most Christians as meaning “unmerited favour.” The true definition of
grace is, “divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in life”
(see Strong’s Concordance [5485]) or more specifically it means,
“unmerited power given by YHUH to enable man to do His will.”
Translators have also superimposed the term “grace” over more specific
words that mean “charm,” “beauty,” “lovely,” and “well favoured.” It
appears seventy times in the TaNaK (Old Testament) as the Hebrew word
“chen” (pronounced khane) and two-hundred and thirty-three-times in the
Brit Chadasha (New Testament). The real word that means “unmerited
favour” in Scripture is “mercy,” and is transliterated as “chesed”
(Hebrew) or “eleos” (Greek) and appears two-hundred-and-fifty times in
the TaNaK and only fifty times in the Brit Chadasha. This means that
“unmerited favour” ([mercy] what most Christians actually mean when
they speak of grace) appears in the so-called Old Testament more
frequently than in the New Testament.
The Same from the very Beginning
The concept of grace (charis) and the descending of the Holy Spirit
(Ruach Ha Kodesh) were not inventions cooked up as some
crisis-reaction-solution-afterthought for a planet of people that
couldn’t cope with the rules of an overly demanding Creator! Nor is the
concept of the New Covenant something that appears exclusively in the
so-called New Testament as a band-aid replacement to an imperfect Sinai
Covenant. YHUH did not go into crisis mode and elect Yahusha to die as
a plan-B response to a strayed nation and nor were the Messiah’s
talmidim (disciples) the first followers to receive the tongues of fire
(aka Ruach Ha Kodesh).
Salvation is the greatest concept a man can ever contemplate (Acts
16:30). The Scriptures refer to it as, "so great a Salvation" (Hebrews
2:3). Yet a man should not ask how will YHUH save him, but how will he
respond in thought, word and deed to receive YHUH’s salvation?
Many religious and non-religious Western people believe or quietly
suspect that the Jewish Messiah Yahusha (most call him ____) is the
true key to salvation, but many of these same people can’t seem to
agree on a unified response to his teachings. The major stumbling block
to grasping the absolute truth of his message is the current generally
accepted view of what grace is and how one receives it. Unfortunately
there are many accumulated misconceptions on a set of other
interrelated Scriptural subjects that need to be clearly defined first
before grace can be properly explained so this analysis is quite
extensive, but hopefully rewarding.
Please bear in mind that no matter how convincing any commentary may
sound on any Scriptural subject or how compelling the sources it draws
on may be, a reader will not be convicted by its message unless the
Ruach (Spirit) moves on him or her to accept it. With this in mind a
short prayer for a revelation of the truth and the courage to follow it
is encouraged before reading any further.
News Flash - The Jews were one of Twelve Tribes!
For hundreds of years legions of people have believed that the majority
of the 613 laws in the Old Testament were just for the Jews.
Furthermore it is widely believed that the Jews couldn’t keep them and
so became replaced by the church who ironically didn’t have to keep
them either. This view has been relentlessly administered through the
teaching of selective verses that are espoused from a myriad of diluted
Bible translations. How could the Sinai Covenant have been promised to
the tribe of Judah only when eleven other Israelite tribes and droves
of sojourners stood with them at the base of the mountain saying, “All
that YHUH has said we will do, and be obedient”(Exodus 24:7)? Over time
the Torah, grace, animal sacrifice, flesh circumcision, the New
Covenant and the role of the Holy Spirit have all been disarranged in a
neat little wall around the truth. This chapter will attempt to return
a few of these concepts to their rightful place.
A Sore Subject
The phrase, “Perform brit-milah (circumcision) therefore on the
foreskin of your lev (heart)…” or more commonly translated as, “You
shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart” first appeared in the
Torah (first five books of Moshe) in Deuteronomy 10:16 and is not a new
teaching by Messiah Yahusha. The pervasive thinking that physical
circumcision has been completely replaced by a poetic circumcision of
the heart comes apart at the seams when one studies the Book of Romans.
Sha’ul says very clearly, “What advantage then has the Yahudi (Jew)? Or
what profit is there in brit-milah (circumcision)? Much in every way:
primarily, because they (The Jews) were the first to be entrusted with
the oracles of YHUH and the first to believe His word” (Romans 3:1,2).
Somehow the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:19 that describes physical
circumcision on its own as being worthless gradually morphed into
circumcision PERIOD as being worthless. Rabbi Sha’ul states that it is
a sign of righteousness in Romans 4:11 as opposed to an affliction for
“sins and the hardness of heart” as described by the Anti-Semite Church
Father Justin Martyr (135-161CE). Circumcision of the heart has always
been a prerequisite for physical circumcision (if the circumstances
allow). If YHUH expected Abraham’s herdsmen to be circumcised (Genesis
17:12) and was prepared to kill Moshe because his own son was not
circumcised (Exodus 4:24,25) and persistently commanded all the men of
Israel to be circumcised (Exodus 12:48, Leviticus 12:3, Joshua 5:3)
then there is a good chance that physically uncircumcised male
descendants will be expected to undergo the same ritual during the time
of the second Exodus.
The Illusion of Dispensationalism
Like breaking the foreskin of the heart the “that was then, this is
now” dispensationalistic view must also be broken. The half-understood
message of circumcision is just one of several barriers that block the
full messianic message of the Scriptures. The next barrier that I wish
to dislodge is the false notion that “animal sacrifice” was for
generations past.
To believe that right standing before the Creator was once attained by
animal sacrifice and later changed by acknowledging a single miraculous
event is to believe that there were two ways of salvation - The former
way through presenting offerings to YHUH and the later way through an
intellectual belief in Messiah’s death and resurrection. In plain
English this is what is being preached to a greater or lesser extent in
nearly every church across the face of the earth for the past eighteen
hundred years. To believe and subsequently preach that animal sacrifice
ever atoned for man’s sin is either a sign of unfamiliarity with the
Scriptures or an act of willful misconstrue.
Animal Sacrifice was Never a Load of Bull
By the council of two or three witnesses all truth shall be established
(2 Corinthians 13:1). So with this principle in mind let’s look at the
so-called Old Testament and see what it has to say about animal
sacrifice?
King David writes in Tehillim (Psalms) 51:16-17; "For You (YHUH) do not
desire sacrifice, or else would I give it: You delight not in burnt
offering.”
The prophets also write in Hosea 6:6; “For I desire rachamim (mercy),
and not sacrifice; and da’at (knowledge) of Elohim more than burnt
offerings.” And in Isaiah 1:11; “‘To what purpose is the multitude of
your sacrifices to Me?’ Says YHUH. ‘I am full of burnt offerings of
rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the burnt offerings
of rams, and the fat of feed beasts and I delight not in the dahm
(blood) of bulls, or of lambs or of goats.’” Some Bibles exhibit the
words, “had enough,” which is not necessarily a mistranslation. It is
important to realize that this verse is not insinuating that animal
sacrifices were once acceptable, because in context it refers to YHUH’s
response to Israel’s corrupted mindset that sin could continue provided
that the quality and quota of sacrifices was regularly met.
And in Micah 6:6-8; “With what shall I come before YHUH, and bow myself
before El-Elyon (Most High) Elohim? Shall I come before Him with burnt
offerings, with calves of a year old? Will YHUH be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give
my bachor (first born male) for my transgression, the fruit of my body
for the sin of my being? He has shown you O ish (man) what is tov
(good). What does YHUH require of you? But to do tzedakah
(righteousness), and to love rachamim (mercy), and to have a humble
halacha (walk) with your Elohim.”
Question: But what about the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament,
doesn’t that teach that we now give sacrifices of praise from our lips?
Hebrews 13:15; “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of tehilla
(praise) to YHUH continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving
hodu (give thanks) to His Name.”
Answer: Well, the Book of Hosea, located in the so-called Old
Testament, says the same thing in verse 14:2; “Take with you words of
Torah, and make teshuvah (repentance) to YHUH: and say to Him, Take
away all our iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the
bulls, the fruit of our lips.” The reality is that the blood of an
unblemished animal in of itself never had any power to atone for sin.
Hebrews 10:4; "For it is impossible that the dahm (blood) of bulls and
goats can take away sins." The power was in the expectation of the one
who brought it in the recognition of Messiah’s future atoning
sacrifice. These offerings were a demonstration to instill in those
bringing them the cost of sin and evoked their mouths to praise YHUH.
Sha’ul illustrated this by pointing out that Abraham was not justified
by works (adhering to the ritual of sin offerings), but through faith
in Messiah (Romans 4:1-5; Galatians 3:6-14). Yahusha rebuked the
Teachers of the Torah for their unbelief in the day that Abraham longed
for (John 8:37-58), that is to see Messiah in the flesh. Even Moshe
wrote plainly about Messiah (John 5:46) who the teachers of Torah
professed to believe, but through demonstration denied. Christianity
preaches that the requirement changed as YHUH gave more revelation.
This causes most church goers to think that prior to Messiah’s
crucifixion at “the place of the skull” (Gulgoleth), salvation was
attained through works, or by faith in YHUH as opposed to faith in the
coming Messiah. Scripture clearly demonstrates that nothing has really
changed; just that some believers existed in a state of looking forward
to Messiah and other believers existed in a state of looking back to
Messiah. Salvation has always been conditional to faith in Messiah. In
other words pre-Gulgoleth believers looked ahead and post-Gulgoleth
believers look back.
Ultimately Scripture interprets itself. Sha’ul demonstrated this by
using Abraham and David to show his audience that their faith alone was
always sufficient for eternal life (Romans 4:1-8). But if YHUH wills
it, characteristics such as works and circumcision may eventually
manifest themselves as physical evidence of righteousness in those who
proceed in His ways. This is why unmerited power (grace) and unmerited
favor (mercy) can be evident in the uncircumcised and circumcised
alike (Romans 4:9-11).
Question: ‘If the above is true, are animal sacrifices acceptable today
and if so, why don’t we still do them?’
Answer: The correct understanding of what a living sacrifice is must be
defined before a simple yes or no answer can be delivered.
What is a Sacrifice?
Amazing as this may sound, the Western or secular definition of a
sacrifice and the Biblical definition is not necessarily the same
thing? When most people hear of a blood sacrifice they normally think
of barbaric occult practices or an old form of worship required by the
Creator in a primitive era for a primitive people. Pagans were the
first to write down their rituals, though most of the modern scholarly
world believes the opposite to be true. Just because something was
written first doesn't mean it was practiced first! An instruction has
to be made airborne (i.e. oral) before it is written down. Israel
resisted making records of their ways for as long as they could. This
was because learning by real-time verbal instruction was less likely to
be misinterpreted than reading written instruction alone.
According to Webster's Dictionary Sacrifice means: (1)an act of
offering something precious to a deity; specif: the offering of an
immolated victim (2)something offered in sacrifice (3a)destruction or
surrender of something for the sake of something else (3b)something
given up for lost. ... {the sacrifice made by parents}
LOSS, DEPRIVATION
The Hebrew word Korban (le-hakriv), which is translated “sacrifice,” is
from the same Hebrew root as “to come near,” to “approach” or to
“become close.” This is the essence of what happens when an offering is
accepted as a sacrifice by YHUH. No word in the English language
adequately renders the Biblical meaning of the Hebrew word “Korban.”
To a Hebrew the commandment to present offerings was like a life-line
and if an offering was accepted as a sacrifice this was a blessing.
Noah built an altar as soon as he hit dry land to see if YHUH’s anger
had subdued and if his family would continue to be blessed (Genesis
8:20,21). Acceptable offerings consisted of clean and unblemished
animals or the finest grain or wine offerings. Animal or blood
sacrifices were divided into three types. They were burnt offerings
(where the whole animal would be burned) or guilt offerings and peace
offerings (where only part of the animal was burnt and the other part
was consumed by the High Priests). The prophets point out that if an
offering was made without a suitable feeling of inner morality and
goodness it would be unacceptable as a sacrifice (see Cain’s attitude
in Genesis 4:3-8 & 1 John 3:12). Yahusha also preached on this
in Matthew 5:23,24, but more on Yahusha’s view of offerings will be
discussed shortly.
Did Human Sacrifice Originate from YHUH?
Deuteronomy 12:31; “...for every abomination to YHUH, that He hates,
have they done to their elohim; for even their sons and their daughters
they have burned in the fire to their elohim.
Jeremiah 32:35; "And they built high places of Ba’al, which are in the
Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to
pass through the fire to Molech; which I commanded them not to do,
neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to
cause Yahudah (Judah) to sin."
It is widely known and accepted in the heavens that first born male
sacrifice is the highest act of servitude by a mortal. With this in
mind the dark forces ministered to men a twisted version of first born
animal sacrifice to include the routine immolation of human infants as
an attempt to outdo YHUH.
YHUH considers human infant sacrifice, first born or otherwise, as an
abomination. Unnecessary adult human sacrifice without a victim’s
consent and not according to YHUH’s will is also forbidden. His testing
of Abraham, the acceptance of Jephthah’s vow and the willful offering
of his only Son were all particular cases and not part of a routine
ordinance. Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter is an interesting case
that has weathered much debate over the centuries. Some commentator’s
(mainly Christian) even suggest that his vow was fulfilled by his
daughter remaining a virgin, but even Jewish historian Josephus writes
that his promise was literal and was faithfully carried out.
The Torah delves into great detail on taking vows because they are
promises to YHUH that can run contrary to His Word. For example if a
man was to make an acceptable vow before the Almighty that he will
never dwell in a booth (sukkah), his vow was not expected to be broken
even during the festival of Sukkoth. So too is the case with Jephthah
who kept to his word and sacrificed his daughter, which would normally
not be acceptable to YHUH. Honoring his word is like YHUH keeping his
promise to us by sacrificing His only Son for our sins.
The Almighty even accepted the sacrifice of a Moabite king’s own first
born male by allowing him not to be defeated by Israel in battle (2
Kings 3:27). On this occasion the king’s faith in his false elohim
exceeded Israel’s faith in their true Elohim and therefore his
sacrifice caused YHUH to deny Israel victory.
It is important to realize two things when considering the Almighty’s
view on infant sacrifice: They are that Isaac, Adah (Jephthah’s
daughter) and Messiah Yahusha were not infants. And they were all
willing to give up their lives. The Scriptures record no objection by
Isaac, Adah or Yahusha to being offered up. In fact the Chumash,
quoting from Midrashic teachings, reveals a more detailed account of
Isaac’s willingness:
Isaac said: “Father, I am a vigorous young man and you are old. I fear
that when I see the slaughtering knife in your hand I will
instinctively jerk and possibly injure you. I might also injure myself
and thus become unfit for the sacrifice. Or an involuntary movement by
me might prevent you from performing the ritual slaughter properly.”
The following verses in John 10:15 & 17,18 not only emphasizes
Yahusha’s deep resolve in his mission, but his complete control of the
situation even after his capture and impaling. "As the Abba (Father)
knows Me, even so I know the Abba (Father), and I lay down my chayim
(life) for the sheep....Therefore does my Abba (Father) love me,
because I lay down My chayim (life) that I might take it again. No man
takes it from Me, but I lay it down myself. I have power to lay it
down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment I have
received from my Abba (Father).”
Believers never ever brought sacrifices to YHUH. They brought offerings
that were to be a foreshadowing or object lesson of the perfect
sacrifice that was offered up before the very foundation of the world –
Yahusha. Only if an offering was accepted by YHUH was it then
considered a sacrifice.
One should not look on YHUH as being the author of human sacrifice but
the author of love - The ultimate act of love being to give up one’s
life to save another. John 15:13; "Greater ahava (love) has no man than
this that a man to lay down his chayim (life) for His chaverim
(friends)."
Is the Sacrifice of Animals a Cruel Concept?
But what of animals, is it cruel to offer them up to YHUH on our
behalf? At least a human, sacrificed against his will knows of his
fate. Is Judaism inhumane?
Judaism’s most prominent forefathers Jacob, Moshe and King David were
all at one time shepherds for a significant period of their lives. The
Talmud relates that one of the reasons Moshe was chosen by YHUH was
because of his skill in caring for animals. It was no coincidence that
he received forty years training as a shepherd before spending forty
years in the desert leading his people.
Firstly, the sacrifice of animals as part of a larger process that
assists a person to gain intimacy with the Creator is as equally
important as slaughtering an animal for food to provide nutrients to
the body. Yahusha demonstrates that meat is a perfectly permissible
food by catching, requesting and eating it on several occasions (Luke
24:42, Matthew 15:37, John 21:10). Vegetarianism on the grounds that an
individual dislikes the taste of meat or if it makes them ill is
perfectly acceptable. But vegetarianism looked upon as a form of
attaining superior righteousness is a doctrine of devils.
Kosher Slaughter for a Romantic Candlelit Dinner with the Creator
One evening I, too, browsed through some paintings depicting an offering
in the Temple and I noted that many of the priests seemed to be dressed
like chefs. This got me thinking. Much of their duties seemed to
consist of carefully preparing types of foods similar to the atmosphere
in a kitchen of a top class restaurant. Even down to the menorah in the
entrance to the Qodesh of Qodeshish setting the candle lit mood added to
this theme. Indeed every service was approached with the same
expectation as a lover preparing an intimate meal with his bride. In
Judaism teaching and instruction often revolves around food.
In Jewish law all animals, whether to be consumed as food or presented
as an offering, are killed humanly. The practice of animal slaughter
whether for food or offering purposes is part of the kashrut laws,
which comes from the Hebrew root Kaf-Shin-Resh, meaning “fit,” “proper”
or “correct.” This word shares the same Hebrew root as the word
"kosher," which describes food that meets a certain level of purity.
Kosher Laws emphasize the sharpness of the slaughterer’s knife,
accuracy, precision and skill to slit the jugular vein of an animal
with an absolute minimum of pain and suffering. Unnecessary suffering
by an animal corrupts the meat and disqualifies it from being kosher.
Also making the animal unconscious by anesthesia or any other means
increases the risk of damaging the quality of the meat. In Judaism the
optimum method of kosher slaughter is performed by holding the animal,
praying softly into its ear and gently massaging the jugular vain
before cutting. Finally the animal’s blood is to be completely drained
and returned to the earth. It must be noted that there was a much
publicized incident in the US where a major kosher slaughter house was
exposed for not adhering to this practice. See PETA verses
AgriProcessors.
Judaism has been criticized by animal rights organizations as being
inhumane despite secular slaughter houses retaining the use of batons
for smashing the hind legs of pigs to get them to ascend ramps and
killing cattle by firing a violent bolt into the brain or by electric
shock to the head. More detailed information is available in Gail A.
Eisnitz’s book, Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect,
and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry. Know this, if you
are not eating Kosher meat or growing and preparing livestock yourself
you are exposed to an industry where virtually every piece of meat
available within a supermarket with or without a safety stamp has not
been inspected for feces, urine, pus, mucus, hair, dirt, grease, rat
droppings or blood clots. Contamination control only extends to
examining organs for gross malformations.
Yahusha was in full Support of the Sacrificial System
Yaakov (James), Sha’ul and Yahusha were all in full support of animal
sacrifice and never taught against it. Their endorsement of offerings
is demonstrated in the following examples:
Yahusha taught on the correct attitude and resolution method for
disputes concerning fellow covenant members who wished to present
offerings. Matthew 5:23,24; “Therefore if you bring your gift to the
altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you;
Leave your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled
to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” He also instructed
a man who he had just healed to present an offering in Matthew 8:4;
"...go your way, show yourself to the kohen (priest), and offer the
gift that Moshe commanded, for a testimony to them.”
Even after Yahusha’s ascension animal sacrifices continued to be
endorsed by supporters of the Messiah. Yaakov (James) was attempting to
rectify rumors that Sha’ul had taught against the Torah by asking him
to assist some men who were about to concluding their Nazarite vows,
which involved making offerings.
Acts 21:18-24, 26; “And the day following went in with us to Yaakov
(James); and all the Zechanim (elders of the nation) were present. And
when he greeted them, he declared particularly what things YHUH had
done among the nations by his service. And when they heard it, they
gave tehilla (praise) to YHUH, and said to him, you see, brother, how
many tens of thousands there are who believe among Yahudim (Jews); and
they are all zealous for the Torah: And they are wrongly informed about
you, that you teach all the Yahudim who are among the nations to
forsake Moshe’s Torah, saying that they should not brit milah
(circumcise) their children, neither walk after the halacha (way) of
Torah. What is this therefore? The multitudes will hear that you have
come. So do what we tell you: W have four men who have a nazarite vow
on the: Take them, and cleans yourself with them, and pay their
expenses, that they may shave their heads: and then all will know that
those things, of which they were informed about you, are false and
nothing ; but that you yourself also have you halacha orderly, guarding
all the Torah…Then Sha’ul (Paul) took the men , and the next day
cleansed himself with them and entered into Brit HaMikdash (Set-Apart
place), to signify the completion of the days of their separation ,
UNTIL THE OFFERING SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR EVERYONE OF THEM.” The details
of what is involved in a Nazirite vow very clearly involve a burnt
offering (Numbers 6:13-18).
The earth shattering reality is that if animal sacrifice was done away
with as most Christians believe then, Yahusha, Yaakov and Sha’ul were
not aware of it. But the reality is that animal sacrifices were never
done away with.
What were Animal Sacrifices for?
The average Christian is educated to believe that nearly every time
someone sinned in the Old Testament an animal sacrifice was required.
The fact is that few sins required offerings brought by an individual.
If this was the case the Temple Priesthood would have had to work a
twenty-four hour pit crew and Israel would have very quickly run out of
animals. There was a single blood atonement made on Yom Kippur (Day of
Atonement) by the High Priest, which would corporately atone for all
the intentional sins of Israel for that past year (Leviticus 16). Each
individual Israelite (and sojourner within their dwellings) was still
required to seek constant teshuvah throughout the year and certainly
also on Yom Kippur. According to the prophets, forgiveness for
intentional sins was only atoned for through teshuvah (repentance)
rather than through the blood of animals (Tehillim [Psalms] 32:5,
51:16-19). But the value of an offering was also a form of outward
physical evidence of an inner departure from sin and a return to
observance by the individual or the High Priest who offered it on
behalf of the whole nation. Most people are surprised to learn that the
most consistent type of animal sacrifice was principally designed for
unintentional sin (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers
15:30). The only offering that was brought for intentional sin (aside
from on Yom Kippur by the High Priest) was if an individual, accused of
theft, had sworn falsely in an effort to acquit himself (Leviticus
5:24-26). The accompanying emphasis on teshuvah with animal sacrifice
in the Old Testament further rattles the dispensationalist view of a
new verbalized praise form of sacrifice.
Why Did Animal Sacrifices Stop?
In Deuteronomy 12:4-6 YHUH states emphatically that offerings are to
only take place in one location – the Temple Mount or Mount Moriah
region in Jerusalem. Deuteronomy 12:13-14 further warns against making
offerings in any other geographical location. I Kings 8:46-50 describes
King Solomon obeying this ordinance by requesting prayer (as opposed to
animal sacrifice) from those who could not make a pilgrimage to his
newly completed Temple.
There were altogether built and re-built three Temples on the same
location, however only the First and Second Temples are acknowledged.
The first was built by King Solomon and the second was built by
returning Jews who came back from the Persian Exile, led by the
prophets Ezra, Nechemiah and Zerubavel. The third Temple was more of a
renovation by King Herod. Josephus does record that a Temple was
attempted at Leontopolis in Egypt, but it was closed by Rome in 74CE.
There is some speculation of a Tabernacle at Qumran but this evidence
is not reliable. There was an aborted Temple under Roman emperor Julian
who planed to restore local religious cults as part of a program to
strengthen his empire. The leading rabbis of the day were concerned
with Gentile involvement in the Temple’s construction and its ultimate
function if it was built.
Sacrifices, the Land and the Temple – All One Living Organism
The last Temple was destroyed and plundered by Roman soldiers in 70CE.
The Jews were driven from the site and did not reclaim it again until
1967 when Brigadier General Shlomo Goren exclaimed, “The Temple Mount
is in our hands! Repeat, the Temple Mount is in our hands! All forces
stop firing!” During the Six Day War Israeli defence forces had
liberated the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount from enemy
Arab forces after nearly 1900 years of exile. The Jews then turned over
97% of the Temple Mount back to the Arabs. This trend of trying to out
mercy the Creator continued as the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces)
withdrew from much of their conquered territories in exchange for vain
peace settlements that continue to this very day.
Animal sacrifices, the geographical location of Mount Moriah and the
Temple structure itself were are all interdependent of one another. The
Temple was not constructed for YHUH’s benefit (as in a house for Him to
dwell), but for the benefit of mankind. Ezekiel 37:26-28 clearly
establishes that there will be a Temple during the millennial reign of
Yahusha and thus offerings will resume as in ancient days.
Today Jewish prayer services parallel the former sacrificial practices.
For example on Shabbat (Sabbath) they add an extra service to parallel
the Shabbat offering. All Orthodox prayer services contain prayers for
the Temple's restoration and there is constant recitation of the order
of the day's sacrifices in the daily readings of the psalms, which
would have been sung by the Levites. Animal sacrifices were never
introduced to man as an exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, and
they were never in of themselves meant to do so. The only reason they
do not occur today is because there is no Temple on Mount Moriah and as
such their absence is not a supporting pillar to prove
dispensationalism. Yahusha and Sha’ul never taught that animal
sacrifice was to be done away with in their day or in the future.
New Testament, New Covenant – What’s the Difference?
The concept of a New Testament (novum testamentum) and the selection of
books that encompass it were invented by Early Church Father Tertullian
around the 2nd century. In addition the so-called grace theology of the
New Testament (more accurately referred to as the brit chadashah or new
covenant) can be found in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:16), the Prophets
(Jeremiah 31:31–32 ) and later in nearly every book after Malachi. This
clearly shows an equally measured application of mercy and grace
(unmerited power) extended by YHUH toward man that runs the entirety of
Scripture, rather than confined to a latter super-grace golden era.
The extent of the average Christian’s familiarity with the concept of
the New Covenant can be testified to by asking them to flick to the
introduction of the New Covenant in their Bibles. Invariably they will
go to the first book behind the introduction page entitle, The New
Testament.
James Hastings, in his Dictionary of the Bible states that the earliest
compilation of the New Testament was over a century after the Messiah’s
death. The first written reference to a collection of New Testament
books was compiled by the Heretic Marion, who issued a canon of
Scriptures consisting of a gospel of Luke and the epistles of Sha’ul in
about 140 A.D. (p. 123). However a further canonisation of additional
books and a solid definition of the New Testament didn’t occur until
1546 at the Council of Trent.
Question: Why does it mater that the Scriptures were divided into two
parts?
Answer: Actually the Scriptures were divided into many parts. They
consist of The Torah, Writings of the Prophets, Books of Wisdom, Major
Prophets, Minor Prophets, Writings, The Gospels, The History (Acts),
Pauline Epistles, General Epistles and The Apocalypse (Revelations).
The problem is if you divide this set of teachings into two distinct
parts and call the first part “old” and the latter part “new” an
implication that the latter part holds precedence or superiority over
the former is set in motion. In actual fact the so-called Old Testament
is very important because it serves as a strong foundation and
reference point to interpret the writings of the so-called New
Testament. If you meld the dogmatic use of the name, “New Testament,”
with a belief in its Greco-Roman interpretation of a Torah breaking
Messiah, you are perpetuating two key ingredients that have helped keep
alive one of the greatest deceptions in the history of mankind.
Mainstream Christianity’s general lack of interest in the Old Testament
is evident when one listens to an average Christian’s attitude toward
it. I, also, recall attending a Bible study class where it was seriously
debated as to whether there was any merit in studying the Old Testament
at all – I kid you not! Using terminology that consists of “old” and
“new” sets a premise for students to develop a false dispensationalist
view of the Scriptures. In its full grown state this reckoning leads to
all kinds of theological mayhem such as belief in the trinity, New
Testament confined grace and the Rapture.
The Power and Presence of the Ruach HaKodesh
The manifestation of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) in chapter 2 of
The Book of Acts has been so frequently and unashamedly used as a
catalyst to support the authenticity of the Church that its many prior
manifestations in Scripture have been all but forgotten. Its prior
descent on the 70 elders in Numbers 11:17 & 29 is overlooked
and its afore mentioned descent on the talmidim (disciples) in the Har
HaBayit (Acts 2:1-4) and its exact timing with Israel’s deliverance
from Egypt that ended at the giving of the Torah in Exodus 19:10-16 is
unknown or has little significance to the average Christian.
The Ruach’s identity as a man, woman or ghost and its attachment to a
pagan triune-____-head (trinity) concept has further served to alienate
its origin, purpose and meaning from a Hebrew context. There is no
Scripture that supports a gender specific Holy Ghost that is divine in
unto itself and there is no description of it as an extract from a
triune body. YHUH and any aspect of His kingdom is one, not three.
The Ruach would descend and fill men to varying degrees to achieve
specific purposes such as comforting, ministering, prophesying,
teaching, praying, fighting, protecting and articulating an individual
or mass of individuals in any way seen fit to achieve the Father’s
purpose. One of the earliest manifestations recorded in an individual
is found in Exodus. The architect and builder Betzal-EL from the tribe
of Judah (Yahudah) was selected and filled with the Ruach HaKodesh in
Shemot (Exodus) 35:31 to build the Tabernacle.
All the books of Tehillim (Psalms) were compiled under degrees of the
Ruach HaKodesh’s abiding presence as was every Word of Scripture that
came from the pens of its original scribes.
Twelfth century Jewish Scholar Moshe ben Maimon or Maimonides who wrote
The Guide to the Perplexed lists the Ruach HaKodesh as delivering
degrees of prophecy and as a certain thing that descends upon an
individual, “so that he talks in wise sayings, in words of praise, in
useful admonitory dicta, or concerning governmental or divine matters -
and all this while he is awake and his senses function as usual.”
According to Tosefta, Sotah 13:2; Sanhedrin 11a the Ruach HaKodesh
departed Yisrael (for a time) with the passing of the last three
prophets Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi and states that all subsequent
revelations were given by “a mysterious heavenly voice.”
When the Ruach abandons an individual it causes great grief and
anguish. It is not usually recognised as gone until a grave sin is
uncovered or if a crucial situation such as a battle goes poorly. King
David cries out for its return in Tehillim (Psalms) 51:11,12; “Cast me
not away from Your shechinah (divine presence); and take not Your Ruach
HaKodesh from me. Restore to me the simcha (joy) of your Yahusha (YHUH
style Salvation); and uphold me with Your free Ruach.”
The Many Movements of the Ruach HaKodesh
The following is a short list of unusual and outstanding abilities that
are manifested from the outpouring of the Ruach HaKodesh. This is not a
closed ended list of its powers. The Ruach of YHUH has no limitations
and can cause such wonders as flesh, soul and spirit to reconstitute
over dry bones, melt a mountain like wax down to sea level, impregnate
a virgin or enable a woman well advanced in years to produce a
perfectly healthy child.
The Ruach enhances and guides combat efficiency - Judges 3:10; “The
Ruach (Spirit) of YHUH came upon Othni-El, and He gave mishpat
(judgement) to Yisrael, and went out to war: and YHUH delivered
Khushan-Rishathayim melech (king) of Aram-Naharayim (Mesopotamia) into
his hand; and his hand prevailed against Khushan-Rishathayim.”
The Ruach enables greater lung capacity - Judges 6:34; “But the Ruach
of YHUH came upon Gidyon, and he blew a Shofar; and Ave-Ezer was
gathered to him.”
The Ruach increases physical strength - Judges 14:6; “And the Ruach of
YHUH came mightily upon him, and he tore him as he would have torn a
young goat, and he had nothing in his hand; but he told not his abba
(father), or his eema (mother) what he had done.”
The Ruach enables foretelling and alters molecular structure - 1 Samuel
10:6; The Ruach of the YHUH will come upon you, and you shall prophesy
with them; and shall be turned into another man.”
The Ruach elevates King David to a new spiritual level - 1 Samuel
16:13; “Then Schumel (Samuel) took the horn of oil, and anointed him in
the midst of his brothers, and the Ruach of YHUH came upon Dawid
(David) from that day forward. So Shumel rose up, and went to Ramah.”
The Ruach enables 100% accurate Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) -
Ezekiel 11:5; “And the Ruach of YHUH fell upon me, and said to me,
Speak; this says YHUH; This have you said O Beit (House of) Yisrael:
for I know the thinks that come into your mind, every one of them.”
The Ruach enables mass discernment on physical and corresponding
spiritual matters - Numbers 11:16; “And I will come down and talk with
you there: and I will take of the Ruach which is upon you, and will put
it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you,
that you bear it not yourself alone.”
The Ruach enables mass prophesy - Numbers 11:25; “And YHUH came down in
a cloud, and spoke to him (Moshe) and took of the Ruach that was upon
him, and gave it to the seventy Zechanim: and it came to pass, that,
when the Ruach rested upon them , they prophesied, and did not cease.”
The Ruach enables aerial transportation or levitation – Ezekiel 37:1;
“The hand of YHUH was upon me, and carried me out in the Ruach HaKodesh
of YHUH, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of
bones…”
The Ruach HaKodesh is not a Person!
Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Ruach HaKodesh is a third divine
person of a triune or Trinitarian entity. The Biblical support of this
view comes from the following verses: It can be resisted (Acts 7:51),
grieved (Ephesians 4:30) and lied to (Acts 5:3). It speaks (Acts
21:11), teaches (Luke 12:12) and thinks (Acts 15:28). It is all
powerful (Luke 1:35-37), eternal (Hebrews 9:14), all knowing (1
Corinthians 2:10,11) and it was involved in creation (Genesis 1:2, Job
33:4). It brings new birth (John 3:5), resurrected Messiah (Romans
8:11) and caused the Scriptures to be YHUH breathed (2 Peter 1:20,21).
Because the attributes of mind, will and emotion are covered in some of
the above verses this is supposedly a secure enough premise to support
a case for the Ruach's personage. Let's have a closer look.
Describing something that has an intricate response mechanism, performs
highly sophisticated miraculous functions and is able to negotiate
infinite situations is no more a qualifier for a self conscious being
than describing the latest artificially intelligent simulation program
used by NASA.
With the extensive list of credentials displayed in the above verse
references, it should make a rational person wonder what YHUH and
Yahusha are left to do with this mysterious Holy Ghost running around
covering the whole spectrum of divine acts. The truth is that none of
the above verses define the Ruach as a person! I’ve never read a verse
that reads, “The Holy Person filled the Tabernacle,” and there is no
record of it being worshipped like the Father and the Son anywhere in
Scripture. In fact the doctrine of the Ruach as a person causes some
denominations to have to deal with the annoying question as to whether
or not it should be worshipped. This becomes a case of a
misappropriated doctrine eroding away one sound teaching and
contaminating another by way of natural deductive reasoning. i.e. If
the Holy Spirit is a person, why then cannot it receive worship? Pretty
soon one superimposed doctrine falls away from another and the
Scriptures appear to collapse like a house of cards and the faith it
promotes becomes easy pray to the well prepared atheist.
Question: What about the verses that seem to give the Ruach a mouth and
gender?
Answer: Consider the language used in the following verses in terms of
a mouth emitting speech to justify a person attached to it: 1
Corinthians 12:15,16; “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the
hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not the body? And if the
ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not the body?” And Psalms 96:11,12; “Let the shamayim
(heavens) gilah (rejoice), and let the earth be in simcha (gladness);
let the sea roar, and the fullness of it. Let the field be full of
simcha, all that is in it: then shall all the eytzim (trees) of wood
gilah…” For further examples read Isaiah 55:12 for singing mountains
and hand clapping trees.
A masculine gender reference attributed to the Ruach as evidence to
support a self conscience entity is as sane as suggesting a sailing
ship is a woman based on a constant feminine gender reference.
The Ruach - Don’t Leave Home without it!
The Ruach HaKodesh is a power that proceeds out from YHUH and perfectly
articulates His will. It can respond to direct instruction by Him or
any being that works in (or is faithfully working toward) perfect unity
with Him to potentially achieve any objective, no matter how great or
small (as long as it aligns with the flawless will of the Father). The
Spirit can quicken or give actuated life through the verbal resonance
of a command. It simultaneously manifests itself, to different degrees,
for different purposes and at different times in the lives of believers
from all walks of life. It is prophesied in Joel 2:28 to be poured out
onto all Yisraelite flesh (see context Acts 2:16) in the Messianic era.
Yahusha became the first flesh and blood example of a constantly Ruach
filled vessel from the time of his water immersion (John 1:33).
The Ruach is the Father’s life-giving breath. It is the aspect of Him
that is truly omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11) and
manifest as a guide and comforter to all who are beneath the shadow of
the Father’s merciful and protective wings. Angels are appointed as
Watchers of creation, as silent observers, intercessors, ministers,
messengers, transporters or full blown combatants. This is why YHUH
responds to an angelic report of anguish not unlike a police chief
responds to an incident after being informed by his subordinates in
Genesis 18:21; I will go down now, and see whether they have done
altogether according to the cry of it, which is come to Me, and if not
I will know.” This opens up the question of YHUH’s omnipresence as
viewed by general Christianity and is discussed in my first book.
The bottom line in considering whether the Ruach HaKodesh is a person
or not is this: If the Ruach is a person then Yahusha is the Son of the
Ruach HaKodesh, not the Son of YHUH and this view walks a fine line in
suggesting the most uncomfortable thought imaginable; That the Ruach as
a person entered Miriam’s bedchamber and conventionally laid with her.
Think about it. If one views the Ruach as a person and someone else
tries to suggest the above scenario, how could you blame them?
The Ruach HaKodesh cannot be rationally sighted from Scripture as a
person.
Grace Wonderland
Now that flesh circumcision, animal sacrifice, the new covenant and the
workings of the Ruach HaKodesh have been discussed and their place
within the greater plan of YHUH outlined, the reader should be primed
enough to consider the role of the Creator’s mercy and unmerited power
in the post resurrection phase of the great struggle between the forces
of good and evil, without the baggage of Christian theology getting in
the way.
Have you ever heard the comment, “Now we are under grace,” as to
suggest believers prior to Yahusha were under something else? I have,
and it is endemic within the church. There are two predominant schools
of thought regarding mercy (which most Christians actually mean when
they say grace) in the Old Testament held by Christianity. They are
that it was either not evident before the resurrection or that it was,
but it was misunderstood by the Jews. Both these views are completely
false, but are supremely important in maintaining the church’s
authority and identity. The church does not want you to bridge the
dispensationalist gap between the teachings in the Old Testament and
the teaching the New Testament.
Through my own experience most of Christianity teaches that working out
of one’s salvation is the responsibility of YHUH and a believer’s role
is primarily passive. This stands in complete opposition to Philippians
2:12 where it clearly describes salvation as something that should be
worked out “with fear and trembling.” Have you ever heard the phrase
“Salvation is by grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone?” This view
places emphasises on YHUH to do something rather than man to do
anything apart from having intellectual belief and acceptance of a
single miraculous event. This phrase has no focus on love or obedience
to YHUH’s will. In contrast Yahusha’s advice is, “If you love me, keep
my Commandments.” (John 14:15)
The Father’s Favour in Action
YHUH’s mercy and equipping of man to do his will (grace) is evident
from the first fall. Even Early Church Fathers believed that Adam
received grace. “What then? Did not Adam have the grace of ____? Yes,
truly, he had it largely...” - AURELIUS AUGUSTIN (426CE) Abraham
received YHUH’s grace as Sha’ul points out in Romans 4:1-5; “What shall
we say then about Avraham our abba (father), who lived in the flesh
before Eloah (Elohim) called him? For if Avraham were justified by
mitzvoth (love deeds) alone, he has something to boast about; but not
before YHUH. For what says the Katuv (scriptures)? Avraham believed
YHUH, and it was counted to him for tzedakah (righteousness). Now to
him that performs mitzvoth (love deeds) alone is the reward not given
as...” charis (divine influence on the heart)..., but as a debt. But to
him that works not, but believeth on Him that makes tzedakah
(righteousness) the unrighteous, his emunah (faith) is counted as
tzedakah (righteousness).” Noah and his family found grace (Genesis
6:8), Joseph found grace (Genesis 39:4), Moshe found grace (Exodus
33:12), Jacob appealed to YHUH and received His grace (Genesis 33:10),
Shechem having rapped Jacob’s daughter appealed for grace and was
granted it in accordance with YHUH (Genesis 34:11) despite later
falling by the sword of dissenters. Whenever an Israelite committed an
offence and was given the opportunity to right that offence it was
considered merciful. King David received unmerited favour (mercy) and
unmerited power (grace) even though his transgressions where greater
than Saul’s, because he earnestly sought YHUH. When Saul got into
trouble he sought the council of a witch. The Book of Ester mentions a
favourable attitude (grace) in the eyes of YHUH six times. Proverbs 1:8
encourages the wearing of an ornament on the head as a reminder of
grace whilst heeding instruction and contemplating the Torah.
Bad Grace?
Proverbs 31:30 describes grace (in this instance referring to favour)
as “deceitful” and beauty as “vain.” This verse is referring to a woman
who has been favoured by YHUH with exceptional physical beauty and how
this favour is vain without the fear of YHUH. The Talmud contains
various opinions on the meaning of this verse that are worth presenting:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 20a - “‘Grace is deceitful’
refers to [the trial of] Joseph; ‘and beauty is vain’, to Boaz; while
'and a woman that feareth ****, she shall be praised', to the case
of Palti son of Layish. Another interpretation is: ‘Grace is
deceitful’, refers to the generation of Moses; ‘and beauty is vain’ to
that of Joshua; ‘and she that feareth the **** shall be praised,’ to
that of Hezekiah. Others Say: ‘Grace is deceitful,’ refers to the
generations of Moses and Joshua; ‘and beauty is vain,’ to the
generation of Hezekiah; while ‘she that feareth **** shall be
praised.’ refers to the generation of R. Judah son of R. Ila'i, of
whose time it was said that [though the poverty was so great that] six
of his disciples had to cover themselves with one garment between them,
yet they studied the Torah.”
Yahusha Never Preached on Grace
Amazingly as this sounds Yahusha never preached specifically on grace.
In fact in most modern Bible translations he only uses the term
“favour” twice and never in a promotional sense like we hear preachers
speak about it today. As a side note Yahusha spoke more about +!@#$
than he talked about heaven, he sometimes made statements to people who
came to him for help like, “…you have little faith…” and he also
occasionally added comments like, “…how long will I have to put up with
you?” (Matthew 17:17) and he professed to come as a man of war to bring
about division as opposed to a man of peace to bring about unity in
Luke 12:49-51.
Did you say "What"? Where's the "W" at? Maybe we should wear another hat...
Yahusha teaches that if believers are only good to those who are good
to them, they will be found without favour. Luke 6:32; “For if ye love
them which love you, what thank (or grace) have ye? for sinners also
love those that love them.”
Luke17:9; “Doth he thank (give grace to / have a favourable attitude
to) that servant because he did the things that were commanded him?”
This verse highlights why going the extra mile is important.
Sha’ul (Paul) Graces the Stage
In apparent total contrast to Yahusha, Sha’ul mentions grace around 97
times in the Nazarene phase of his ministry. Having been given mercy
and power so undeservingly by YHUH, Sha’ul was so permanently marked by
an overwhelming awareness and appreciation for the Creator’s grace,
that it permeated his teaching.
Believe it or not, at the time of Sha’ul the Jews believed that the
Torah was completely compatible with grace. It wasn’t until a breakaway
movement of Natsarim (offshoot branch watchmen) started gathering
non-Jewish converts that a division grew. Torah observant believers and
non-Torah observant believers began to clash as pagan customs seeped
into various congregations. A sincere attempt at appealing to wider
audiences by many groups caused the Torah to be gradually discarded.
The issue wasn’t law verses grace it was Torah verses no Torah. Grace
began to be used as a mechanism to cause disillusion in the Torah. The
rabbis where concerned that Sha’ul’s message fuelled this perception,
but careful study of his teachings proves that he was a man with
zealous love for the Torah.
The Torah by definition is grace. In essence it is a counsellor, a
teacher, a right ruling of measure, a light that reveals error and
directs us into all truth. It is YHUH’s gift for humanity. The Torah
cannot correctly operate without grace. Obedience to Torah and the
desire to happily perform mitzvoth gets YHUH’s attention. Not
continually cradling the abundance of His grace to avoid exerting any
energy to attain mastery over the evil inclination.
Conclusion
Today since Yahusha’s death and resurrection nothing has changed. The
only thing that has changed is the absence of any Torah ordinance that
is contingent on the Temple, but even this climate will cease shortly
at its restoration. The faults of the first Covenant were with Israel,
(Hebrews 8:8; “For finding fault with them …”) not YHUH therefore it is
through their transgression (and ours today) that a second Covenant was
necessary. The Torah appoints immortals without fault as High Priests
for service in the Set-Apart place, so the formation of the Aaronic
Priesthood being temporary (fulfilled by mortals (Hebrew 7:23;
“…because they were prevented by death for continuing [i.e. died of old
age]…”) was the former command which was “…set aside…” (Hebrews 7:18)
and soon to be presided over by the immortal order of Malkitsedeq
headed by the Sar (Lower Level Prince of Peace [no lesser power than
YHUH insinuated]) Yahusha Ha Moshiach (Messiah).
The Torah was not nailed with Yahusha to the tree. It was the curse of
the adulterous woman (Israel) who had gone astray that had been done
away with, which is established by the law of return, provided Israel
and all those who wish to be grafted in with them wish to return or
repent (seek teshuvah). YHUH’s grace is completely in harmony with the
Torah and is not a new thing that allows a believer to get something
for nothing. This is not a super grace age; this is an age of
forgiveness held forth at the same degree from Adam, though it was not
formally established until the age of Shem to now.
Remember, “grace” means “unmerited power given to man to do YHUH’s
will” and “mercy” actually means “unmerited favor.” Now go and study
it.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation
Maria Merola אריאל: The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation
Maria's Notes|Notes about Maria|Maria's Profile
The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation
Share
Today at 01:52
The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation
The Jesuit Praeterist & Futurist Theories
During the time of the Protestant Reformation (which began in the late 1500’s), it became quite obvious through Bible prophecy that the seat of the Papacy was indeed the seat of the Antichrist. The “Man of Sin” had been “revealed,” recognized and proclaimed as the Papacy by the early Reformers. Not only the Reformers, but thousands of their followers and their kings agreed with these prophetic interpretations. Their united stand against the Papacy gave the Reformers and nations the power to break away from allegiance to the Papal system.
The Papal reaction was a “Counter Reformation.” In an attempt to divert the undermining influence of the Protestant Reformation, a two-pronged counter attack was made:
1.) Praeterism: The fulfillment of Revelation is in the past only with the fall of Pagan Rome before the Popes ever ruled Rome. This viewpoint was founded by Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit in 1614.
2.) Futurism: The fulfillment of Revelation is only in the future with only one individual “man of sin” not from the Papacy. Around 1590, Francisco Ribera a Jesuit Catholic Priest published a 500-page book on Revelation, and he taught the “Pre-Tribulation Rapture” theory with the Tribulation period and the Antichrist in the distant future only. Robert Bellarmine, one of the most renowned Jesuit cardinals, taught that the Antichrist would be an individual Jew, (not from the Papacy).
Satan is an extremist who wants to create confusion with the “Rapture” theory being “before” the Tribulation so that when that final Pope arrives on the scene as the false Messiah, believers will not want to believe he could be the Antichrist, because their logic will tell them: “he can’t be the Antichrist, because the Rapture hasn’t happened yet.”
The truth is that both the Futurist and the Praeterist viewpoints contain some level of truth with regard to Bible prophecy, because history does repeat itself as I have illustrated.
Therefore, to single out only one viewpoint over another is intended to create division within the Body of Messiah. We can see that the prophecies of Revelation and Daniel have both past, present and future fulfillment as I have illustrated, but the final fulfillment will be obscured by both extremes giving way to Ecumenism between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there was no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.
The “Pre-Tribulation Rapture” theory was invented by the Roman Catholic Jesuits in order to distract believers from recognizing the seat of the Papacy as the seat of the Antichrist. If believers buy into the lie of Satan that the Antichrist will not be revealed until “after the Rapture”, then there is no need for them to understand Bible prophecy, as I have heard so many say “what difference does it make who the Antichrist is if we won’t be here when he is revealed”? That kind of logic will be just the thing which brings about the “falling away” and “strong delusion that they should believe a lie.”
History will repeat itself. One cannot apply Matthew 24 to only the Roman Siege. It applies to the Roman Siege and then the exact same scenario will play itself out again. How do we know this? In the rest of Matthew 24, it says that the "Son of Man shall gather his elect from the four winds and he shall come with a great sound of a trumpet."
Those who hold to the "Praeterist" view read Matthew 24 as if all of this has happened and that IEhoSha has already returned. The same scenario will happen all over again. In 2nd Thessalonians 2, Paul said that the "Man of Sin" will sit in the Temple of JHVH declaring himself to be G-d. This is how we know that there will be a 3rd physical temple and a literal Roman Antichrist, and another "Abomination of Desolation" (Image of the Beast) and another Siege from the United Nations that will be even worse than the Roman Siege.
This is why Y'shua said these words in the "Olivet Discourse":
HE THAT ENDURES TO THE END SHALL BE SAVED!!!
Four Layers of Understanding Prophecy
When interpreting prophecy, we must see that there are usually 3 or 4 “layers” of understanding.
We are commanded to love YHVH with 4 aspects of our being: heart (spiritual), mind (intellectual), soul (emotional), strength (physical).
In Hebraic thought, these 4 layers of understanding apply to all 4 aspects our being.
Torah is divided into four levels of teaching. They are: P’shat, Drash, Remez and the Sod. Brief explanations are below:
1.) P’shat Level: The P’shat level is the plain sense of the text. What does it actually say? Every word, phrase, and thought has a meaning, there is no word that is redundant or idle. Even if it appears to be, it is not. It is filled with meaning for us to learn. (Physical or literal application)
2.)Drash Level: The Drash level is where truth and principle are presented. Truth can only be truth if it is confirmed. Confirmation as we know must come in the form of evidence and evidence must be at least two or three witnesses. (Intellectual, or rational)
3.) Remez Level: The Remez level is the underlying theme or story that is told while speaking of other things. It is how prophecy is laid into the story of history. This level shows the plan for Yeshua’s redemption and restoration. (Emotional application or parables we can relate to)
4.)Sod Level: The Sod level is the mysterious and coded level. This involves the understanding of numbers along with the meaning associated with certain numerical values. For example, the number 1 represents “Echad” or Oneness, “Two” represents struggle, division or witness, etc. This level also involves the meanings of names. (Spiritual application or metaphor, allegory)
Matthew's Account of the Olivet Discourse Versus Luke's Account
It is interesting to compare Luke’s account of the Roman Siege in 70 A.D. to Matthew’s account of the same event, yet it is buttressed with a future event of what we know today as “The Great Tribulation” leading up to the end of all things before the return of Messiah and his Millennial Kingdom.
Now, let us look at the variations in Luke’s report, versus Matthew’s report and tracing these variations to the different objects before the mind of the writers. The prophecy itself had, like many others, a “twofold application”, referring immediately to the approaching destruction of the city and temple; and remotely, but no less directly, to the events preceding the establishment of the birth of the Messianic kingdom.
Luke’s Gospel speaks more directly to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem
Matthew’s Gospel speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem as well in the first verse, but then Yeshua resembles this event in Luke’s gospel to a repeat of these events in the end times just before his return to establish his earthly kingdom during the 1,000 year reign.
Matthew then speaks only of the later event; Luke is especially occupied with the earlier event; while, therefore, the resemblance between the two is very close, the differences are also very striking. Thus Matthew speaks of the faithful being hated of the Gentiles, of false prophets arising and deceiving many, of the love of many waxing cold, of the salvation of those who endure to the end, and of “the gospel of the kingdom” being first preached to all the nations. This agrees with what Scripture elsewhere teaches about the last days before Messiah’s appearing, but is inapplicable to the believers before the siege of Jerusalem. Luke therefore omits these parts of the prophecy, but says that “the time draweth near,” speaks of a persecution arising largely from the Jews, and records a special promise of wisdom in addressing the tribunals, while he fixes the date of the persecution before the wars previously foretold; in all which he differs from Matthew, but exactly coincides with what occurred before Jerusalem was taken by the Romans.
It is in the next part of the discourse, however (Matthew 24: 15-28; Luke 21: 20-24), that the most marked differences appear. The prophecy, as recorded in Luke, simply foretells what occurred about forty years later:
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentile Goths, until the times of the Gentile Galileans be fulfilled." (vv. 20-24.)
Nothing can be simpler. The prediction is exact, and the directions given are precisely those followed by the believers residing in the city when Titus’s army approached Jerusalem. No exhortation is given to special haste, and in fact no occasion for special haste existed. There were 3.5 years of persecutions leading up the Roman Siege in 70 A.D. and so therefore, the believers in Messiah had plenty of time to escape.
Every reader knows that the believers, forewarned by this prophecy, left the city; that the city was destroyed, and its inhabitants either killed or carried into slavery. Jerusalem then became a prey to the Gentiles, who have ruled over it and kept it in subjection ever since. This closes the earlier portion of Luke’s prophecy.
Matthew, however, speaks not a word about Jerusalem being “compassed with armies,” but about “the abomination of desolation” standing “in the holy place.”
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!”(verses 15-19.)
Some have thought that the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place referred to the Roman Dagon standards brought into the temple. But this only took place at the end of the siege, when all chance of flight had long been cut off. For the true meaning of the phrase we must turn to the prophecies of Daniel, to which reference is here made. Daniel receives a message from the angel concerning the time when “thy people shall be delivered.” (Dan. 12: 1.) Among the marks of this salvation approaching it is said that “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days:” (verses 11 & 12.) Did any special blessing come to the Jews or to the Church 1336 days after the fall of Jerusalem? Or, if the days be taken as years, was there, after that number of years, say at the date A.D. 1405, any event which is pointed to in this prophecy? If not, then the setting up of the abomination of desolation is clearly not the destruction of Jerusalem.
What, then, does it signify? Daniel, in another prophecy, names a period of seventy weeks, which is to end in the restoration of Jerusalem and the people of Israel. These weeks are universally understood, and obviously meant to be understood, as periods of seven years. After sixty-nine of these, Messiah is cut off without receiving the kingdom. This brings us to the death of Messiah, leaving one week yet unfulfilled. The series is then interrupted for an indefinite period, during which “the city and sanctuary” are destroyed by a Gentile power, and war and desolation are appointed “unto the end.”
This exactly answers to the treading down by King Alexander of Jerusalem “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” as foretold by Luke. But after this interval we read the history of the remaining week; that is, the last period of seven years, as yet unfulfilled before the restoration of the people and city; “and in the midst of the week,” we are told, some person or power “shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.” (Dan. 9: 24-27.) Now, that this is the same thing as the setting up of the abomination of desolation is clear, for in the passage already quoted that event is contemporaneous with the making of "the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." The times noted, if not the nature, of the event by Constantine is therefore obvious being eliminated in J his calendar, the middle of the last week, of about three-and-a-half centuries, before the deliverance of the Jews and the restoration of Jerusalem by the setting up of the Messiah's kingdom.
Details, giving us a fuller insight into the character of this period, are supplied in the book of Revelation, where we read that "the holy city" will be trodden down of the Gentiles "forty and two months" (Rev. 11: 2) - the half of the seven years spoken of by Daniel; that the faithful remnant of Elohim's earthly people are persecuted by a ruler who "continues forty and two months;" that this ruler receives idolatrous worship, and an image or abomination is set up to which all are required to bow down (vv. 14, 15); that the faithful then flee into the wilderness, where they are sheltered by God for the same period of three and a half years. (Rev. 12: 6, 14.) This exactly corresponds with that we read in Daniel, and with the events connected with this setting up of the abomination of desolation as foretold in Matthew. There is, however, nothing in these prophecies connecting itself with the siege of Jerusalem as foretold in Luke.
Indeed the only resemblance in this part of the prophecy, as recorded by Matthew and Luke, is that in both cases the faithful are warned to flee. But even here the differences are remarkable. No doubt, even in the less hasty flight spoken of by Luke, before the Roman army reached Jerusalem, women in the condition named in the prophecy would find escape difficult or impossible. The lament over their fate is, therefore, common to both; but here the resemblance ends. In Luke the flight is not to the mountains, nor marked by extreme haste. In fact the Christians retired with no special rapidity to the city of Pella. But when the abomination of desolation is set up, not an instant must be lost, the flight must be with all speed, and even the most trifling delay will be fatal. The place of refuge, too, is not a sheltering city, but "the mountains," for the rage of the idolatrous power will pursue them, and it is only as specially shielded by YHVH that they can escape its fury. Both the rapidity of the flight and the sojourn in the desert are typified in the Revelation, where "to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness." (Rev. 12: 14)
Of all this there is no trace in the prophecy as recorded in Luke. But if we turn to Luke 17: 30, 31, where the L-rd is speaking of "the day when the Son of man is revealed," we find the exhortation — "In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back." Here the language of the two evangelists is almost identical; but in this case Luke is not speaking of the siege of Jerusalem, but of the revelation of the Son of man. This makes it clear, therefore, that Matthew is speaking of the same time.
Matthew's prophecy goes on: "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day; for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (vv. 20-22.)
To this there is nothing answering in Luke's record. Nor could there be. We can understand the scruples of righteous Jews, under the law, such as those who will be awaiting the Messiah's return, about making their flight on the Sabbath. But what hindrance would the Covenant Sabbath have been to the flight of the Christians before the siege of Jerusalem? Again, terrible as were the sufferings connected with the siege of Jerusalem, this was not the most crisis in the history of the people. Daniel expressly says that "there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered." (Dan. 12: 1.) Our L-rd was obviously alluding to this time; for not only does He quote Daniel's very words, but it is clear that there cannot be two periods of unparalleled suffering. But the time spoken of by Daniel immediately precedes the deliverance of the people. Adonai, therefore, is here speaking, not of the siege of Jerusalem, but of His own return for the salvation of Israel. How, moreover, could it be said that the sufferings connected with the fall of Jerusalem threatened the destruction of all flesh, or were shortened for the elect's sake? It is manifestly, therefore, of another period and other sufferings that our L-rd is here speaking.
The rest of that part of Matthew's prophecy now before us warns against the deceptions of false Christs. "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." (vv. 23-28.) All this is omitted in Luke. Nothing of the kind occurred before the siege of Jerusalem, and it formed no part, therefore, of the prophecy as reported by him. On the other hand it is, as we learn from other Scriptures, exactly the state of things which will prevail before Messiah's appearing in power and glory for the establishment of His world-kingdom.
The remainder of the prophecy, as handed down by the two evangelists, refers to this great event. In Luke, however, this portion of the discourse begins abruptly, without note of time; for, in fact, he passes by a rapid transition from the siege of Jerusalem to the coming of Messiah. But in Matthew the continuity of this last event with what has gone before is unmistakably marked, for his report goes on without break " Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (vv. 29, 30.) Thus again it is clear that while Luke, in his report, has been speaking of the siege of Jerusalem, Matthew has had before him a totally different subject; namely, the events immediately preceding the revelation and kingdom of Yehoshua Messiah.
Written about an hour ago · Comment
Enrique Garcia
Enrique Garcia
this reminds me of macabees you know?. this info. is sound doctrine but it eliminates that radical life-boat off the titanic rapture theory; two in the field and one gone. I always liked matching the trumpets to Matt 24, I kinda stopped early @ the 4th trump because I simply setteled for the idea that there was going to be a greater exodus. I cant remember that script at hand. thanks for the opportunity to meander aimlessly speaking of course.
about an hour ago.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Dead Sea Scrolls
"Listen to Me, o Ya'aqob, an Yisrael, My called: I Am He, I Am he Firt, I Am also the Last"Yeshayahu 48:12
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Letter O
I found this entry in Oxford Reference Online and thought that you'd like to see it.
ref: U,V
Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language
O, o [Called 'oh`]. The 15th LETTER of the Roman ALPHABET as used for English. It originated as the Phoenician consonant symbol 'ain, representing a pharyngeal plosive (or 'glottal catch`). It had a roughly circular form and meant 'eye`. The Greeks adopted it as a vowel symbol, at first for both long and short values. Later, a letter omega (O) (that is O-mega, 'big O`) was created for the long value, with O, known as omicron (that is, O-micron, 'little o`), kept for the short value. LATIN took over only omicron, for both long and short values.
Sound values
In English, as well as long, short, and DIGRAPH values, o has some irregular values, often overlapping with values of u. In some words, the letter o has a different value in different accents. Native speakers differ as to whether log and dog rhyme, whether bother has the vowel of father, whether horse and hoarse are HOMOPHONES, and whether your is pronounced like yore or as ewer. The sound values are listed in the following paragraphs as short O, word-final long O, pre-consonantal long O, O with the value of U, O and the inflections of DO, and O with doubled consonants.
Short O
(1) In monosyllables before consonants, but not before h, r, v, w, y: mob, lock, botch, odd, soft, log, dodge, doll, on, top, Oz. The biblical name Job, however, has long o. (2) In polysyllables such as pocket, soccer, biography, geometry. (3) Before consonant plus e in gone, shone, in one pronunciation of scone (contrast tone), and before ugh, representing /f/, in cough, trough. (4) In RP and related accents, a lengthened variant of short o occurs before word-final r (or, nor), medially as in corn, adornment, and before final silent e as in ignore. The same value occurs as oa uniquely in broad, as ou in ought, thought, etc., and is sometimes heard (as it commonly was in old-fashioned RP) instead of short o in off, often, lost, sometimes facetiously or mockingly rendered as aw in 'crawss` (cross), 'Gawd` (God); the poet John Keats, a Londoner, rhymed crosses and horses. This value is also spelt au, aw, as seen in the sets sauce/source, fraught/fought/fort. (5) In other accents, this distinction does not occur: in most Scottish accents, for example, the same vowel is heard in cot, caught, ought, and sauce does not rhyme with source. (6) In RP and related accents, the vowel sound in word, work, world, whorl is the same as that in were, and the set whirled, whorled, world is homophonous.
Word-final long O
(1) Standard long o occurs word-finally spelt simply as -o in the monosyllables fro, go, so, and in polysyllabic loans (hero, piano, potato, radio, tomato, zero), but in lasso final o usually has the value of long u. There is often uncertainty whether such loans form their plurals with -s (armadillos) or -es (potatoes) or optionally either (lassos, lassoes). Those ending in vowel plus o add s: cameos, radios, duos. Syllable-final long o is found in coaxial, cloaca, oasis (compare coax, cloak, oats), poet, coerce, coeval, etc. (2) The same sound occurs word-finally as -oe in the monosyllables doe, foe, floe, hoe, sloe, throe, woe and in some polysyllables (aloe, felloe, oboe), but shoe, canoe give -oe the value of long u. (3) Long o occurs as -oh in oh, doh, soh, as -ough in dough, though (but not other -ough words), and as -ow as in some 14 words: how, blow, crow, know, low, mow, row, show, slow, snow, sow, stow, tow, throw. Of these, the forms bow, row, sow have different meanings (that is, are different words) when they rhyme with how. (4) The long -o value of the -ow ending occurs in disyllables of mainly vernacular origin, after d (meadow, shadow, widow), after ll (gallows, swallow; bellow, yellow; billow, willow; follow, hollow), after nn (minnow, winnow), and after rr (arrow, barrow; borrow, sorrow; burrow, furrow); and also in window (from a Scandinavian compound of wind + eye) and bungalow (from Hindi). (5) The diphthong value of final -ow (now, vow) is rare in polysyllables: allow, endow. (6) Some FRENCH loans have a final silent consonant after long o: apropos, depot. (7) Final long o may become i in the plural of ITALIAN loans: libretto/libretti, virtuoso/virtuosi.
Pre-consonantal long O
(1) Simple o before ld (bold, cold), 1st (bolster, holster), It (bolt, molten), ll (stroll, troll), lk (folk, yolk). Sometimes also before final st, th (ghost, most, past; both, sloth, but contrast short o in lost, cloth, etc.). The anomalous long o in only contrasts with the related forms one, alone, lonely, which all have following e; however, a parallel may be seen in nobly. (2) Before a single consonant, with a following a or a magic e after the consonant: soap, choke. (3) Digraphs ou and ow often before l or n (boulder, poultry, shoulder, smoulder; bowl, own, sown), but contrast the diphthong value in howl, down and the more usual vowel spellings in foal, sole, loan, tone. Before r in RP, this value becomes that of or in course, court, source. (4) Uniquely as oo in brooch (contrast broach).
O with the value of U
(1) The letter o often has one of the values of u, phonetically central and short as in but, close and short as in put, or close and long as in truth. (2) The short u-value is common in monosyllables, especially before n (son, front, monk, month, sponge, ton, tongue, won), and in some words with silent e (some, come, done, none, love, dove). One, once contain the further anomaly of an unspelt initial /w/. The short u-value is heard before nasals, l, r, th, v, and z in such polysyllabic words as above, accomplish, among, BrE borough, brother, colour, comfort, conjure, cover, dozen, dromedary, frontier, govern, Monday, money, mongrel, monkey, mother, nothing, onion, other, shovel, slovenly, smother, somersault, stomach, wonder. Pronunciation varies, however: Coventry, constable occur in BrE with both short o and u values. This use of o for short u has been explained as a graphic device in MIDDLE ENGLISH to reduce the confusing succession of vertical strokes (minims) that would otherwise arise in manuscript in a word such as money. (3) Longer (close) values of u, as in put or truth, occur: with simple o, in do, to, two, who, lasso; with o before a consonant plus e, in lose, whose, move, prove (contrast choose, booze, use, hose, drove); with oe in shoe, canoe; in such special cases as bosom, Domesday, tomb, whom, wolf, woman (but o with the value of short i in the plural women), womb.
O and the inflections of DO
The forms of do are highly anomalous: the long-u value of o in do, the short-u value in does (contrast the plural of doe), and the long-o value of don't, matching won't.
O with doubled consonants
When followed by doubled consonants, o often has a short value, but before double l, whether final or medial, both values occur: doll, loll, but poll, roll; dolly, follow, but swollen, wholly. Doubled l in holly distinguishes its short o from the long o in holy. Many words are pronounced with a short o preceding a single consonant, despite parallels with doubled consonants (body/shoddy, proper/copper) or with long vowels (honey/phoney, hover/rover). Other examples of single consonants after short o include colour, holiday, honour, honest, money. On the other hand, doubled r distinguishes short o in sorry, lorry from longer o in story, gory, though not in historical.
Digraphs
O is the first element in the following digraphs:
OA
The digraph oa has the values of: (1) Long o as in no (soap, cloak). (2) The open aw-sound before r in RP and related accents (coarse, hoarse).
OE
The digraph oe has the value of long o as in no (woe, woeful), or of ee in such Greek-derived forms as BrE amoeba, foetus, or of the first o in colonel in such German names as Goethe and Goebbels.
OI and OY
(1) The digraphs oi and (usually as a word- or syllable-final variant) oy are diphthongs: short o preceding short i, as in boil, boy. They are common in monosyllables and incorporate a glide before a vowel at a syllable boundary: join, noise, voice, oyster, royal, voyage, buoyant. (2) Rare final oi occurs in borzoi (from Russian) and envoi (Anglicized from French). (3) Special occurrences include: porpoise, tortoise with oi often reduced to schwa; a unique use in choir (rhyming with friar and wire and respelt from quire); in recent French loans, the value of /wa/ (boudoir, reservoir). (4) The oi combination is not always a digraph: compare coin/coincide.
OO
(1) The digraph oo is generally considered to have the value of long u as in rule (booty, choose), but with variation depending on accent. Exceptionally, it has the value of short u in blood, flood. (2) In RP and related accents, oo in some words is long u as in truth (food, soon), but elsewhere has the shorter u of put (good, hood) especially before k (book, cook, look). In room, both values occur in free variation. Similar variations occur before r: door, floor, moor, poor. (3) The form too developed in the 16c as a stressed variant of to; GERMAN has zu for both senses. (4) Occasionally, oo corresponds to French ou (contrast cognate troop/troupe), and -oon to French -on (balloon/ballon). (5) A few oo words are exotic: bamboo (probably Malay), typhoon (Chinese), taboo (Tongan). The digraph formerly occurred in Hindoo, now Hindu, and the alternative tabu exists for taboo. (6) Zoo is a clipping of zoological garden, but uniquely in zoology the second o functions simultaneously as part of the oo digraph and as a normal short o. (7) Oo becomes ee in the plural of foot, goose, tooth: feet, geese, teeth.
OU and OW
(1) The digraphs ou and (usually its word-final variant) ow can represent a diphthong, as in cow, cloud, flour, flower. Word-final ou occurs exceptionally in archaic thou, but ow is sometimes used medially. It is contrastive in foul/fowl, and is an alternative spelling in to lour/lower and formerly in flour/flower. (2) Ou has other values, as in soul (rhyming with pole), sought (with bought), source (with course), soup (with loop), scourge (with urge), and touch (with hutch and much). See U. (3) Final -ow as long o in know occurs in some 50 words as compared to some 15 with final -ow as in bow, brow, cow, dhow, how, now, AmE plow, prow, row, sow, vow, wow, allow, endow. (4) On its own, the form wound is ambiguous: the past tense of to wind has the standard diphthong value, but the noun has the value of ou in soup. (5) Exceptionally, ow has the value of short o in knowledge, acknowledge. (6) Ou becomes plural i in the plurals of such pairs as louse/lice, mouse/mice.
-OUGH
(1) Some -ough spellings have the standard value of ou (bough, drought, BrE plough). Variants are AmE plow and archaic enow, which was an alternative pronunciation of enough. (2) Other -ough spellings give o different values: short o in cough, trough; in RP, the aw sound in ought, bought; long o in though; schwa in thorough, borough in BrE, sometimes long o in AmE; and silent o in tough, rough, through.
O and schwa
(1) Unstressed o may be more or less reduced to the value of SCHWA, or elided altogether. In pronunciations of the word police, the full range can be heard, from long o, through short o and schwa, to zero value with initial consonants as in please. (2) There is also often variation between AmE, in which the o in omit, cocaine, testimony, territory, phenomenon (second o) may have one of its full values, and BrE where it is normally reduced. (3) Most typically, o (like other vowel letters) has the value of schwa after the main stress in polysyllables, especially in words ending in l (petrol, symbol), m (fathom, bottom), n (cotton; cushion, fashion; ration, and -ation words generally), r (error, doctor). (4) Homophones sometimes occur as a result of such reduction: baron/barren, gambol/gamble, petrol/petrel, lesson/lessen, minor/miner.
O and stress shift
In polysyllabic derivatives, the value of o may shift between long, short, and schwa (in unstressed position), as the spoken structure of the word changes: (1) Atom has schwa for its o, but in atomic has the short-o value. (2) Colony has the short-o value for its first o, schwa for its second, but colonial has schwa for its first o and the long-o value for its second. Such effects occur before suffixes like -(i)al, -ic(al), -y, -ety, as in colony/colonial; atom/atomic; economy/economic(al); symbol/symbolic; tone/tonic; geology/geological; photograph/photographer/photographic; proper/propriety; social/society. See SUFFIX.
Agentive -or/-er
The suffix -or is mostly used with Latin roots (doctor, professor), especially after verbs ending in -ate (dictator, perpetrator). It is normally pronounced with schwa, although occasionally the full value of -or is heard: actor, vendor. However, -or varies with -er in a number of patterns. BrE legal spelling may use -or where lay writing has -er: grantor/granter. A technical device may be distinguished by -or from a human agent with -er: adaptor/adapter, conveyor/conveyer. In other cases, -or and -er are in free variation: advisor/adviser, impostor/imposter, investor/invester. Caster/castor sometimes differ in meaning, and censor/censer always do.
Silent O
(1) In jeopardy, Leonard, leopard, people, but the o in yeoman has long value and the e is silent. (2) The second o in colonel.
American and British differences
(1) The once widespread unstressed ending -our (as in emperour) has since the early 19c been increasingly rewritten -or: universally in emperor, governor, horror, terror, and in AmE in such forms as ardor, behavior, candor, dolor, endeavor, favor, harbor, labor, odor, parlor, rigor, savior, vapor. Glamour and saviour are, however, still widely written with -our in AmE. AmE has o in all derivatives, while BrE has o alone in many (honorary, vaporise, vigorous), but not all (behaviourism, favourite, honourable, colourist). In many rarer forms, such as torpor and stupor, -or is universal. (2) AmE writes BrE amoeba, foetus, oesophagus, moustache without the o and manoeuvre as maneuver (but note the common spellings onomatopoeia, subpoena). (3) Contrast AmE mold, molt, smolder, BrE mould, moult, smoulder. (4) AmE has plow for BrE plough.
How to cite this entry:
"O" Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Ed. Tom McArthur. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Pellissippi State Technical CC. 28 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Hebrew Alphabet Click pic
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
