The Potter and His clay & El Elyon

[sheila]

 He declares something new....

   a mere woman shall encompass/surround a man.

   ribs/bride surround the heart of man,bone with much marrow

   that produces the blood of eternal life

   when you are one flesh,he dwells in you and you dwell

   in Him.

   How does a mere woman surround a man? when she gives

birth to the manchild, she has surrounded the promised seed in

her womb

  1 Cor 11;12 For as woman came from man,so also man is born

  of woman....the woman shall be kept safe through childbearing

[born in Christ] as long as she remains a worker at home.

[remains in Christ as His rib]

[IceDash]

I noticed that in the old testament, man treat woman unfairly, like the baby boy only unclean a few time while a baby girl is unclean longer, and I remember something like "I am glad I am a man, not a woman" somewhere in the old testament, when I see that, that's wasn't very nice!

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Amen Sheila. And since all flesh is female to God, then all have that "woman" that encompasses a "man", ie. Christ is that man in Spirit. Blessings....

[Molly]

the life was in the blood, Adams life was taken from him when

  he ate of the tokogae..so he could not redeem Eve.

  that is why Jesus Christ had to come and lay his down willingly

   so that the power of an eternal life could be imparted and

   redeem

  death can not redeem death, but the power of an

indestructable life  Now that BLOOD CAN AND DOES REDEEM

In that sense, Adam is like the firstborn lamb without imperfection that they are sacrificing as soon as they leave the garden (the story of Cain and Abel).  I do think he does provide a covering for Eve, as that sacrifice does for the sons of Adam.

[sheila]

ID

  when the baby boys had to get circumcized I was glad I

  wasn't a boy!!! lol! :mblush:

   and when I as a nurse watched it,I was really glad!! :mshock:

  I felt so sorry for them..

  Amen cardinal,

  there is neither male nor female in christ..for they are ONE IN

  HIM a new creature Rev 14;4  they are not defiled with women

  [sanctified male] ;for they are virgins[sanctified female]

   in Christ.

   

[Molly]

It's interesting you should say the flesh is considered female by God, Cardinal.

There is a masculine form of the Hebrew word, salvation, but our Y'shuah is in the feminine form.

Genesis 49:18
I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.




"thy salvation"

H3444
ישׁוּעה
yeshû‛âh
yesh-oo'-aw
Feminine passive participle of H3467; something saved, that is, (abstractly) deliverance; hence aid, victory, prosperity: - deliverance, health, help (-ing), salvation, save, saving (health), welfare.

[sheila]

 Hi Molly,

 well the head of the woman is the man[that is a covering]

and the head of the man is Christ....they were both without

covering and naked in a sense. The anointing[head covering]

 was in the tol which was promised to them[allowed to eat]


  Sheep without a shepherd,

        skinned and thrown about,are men without Christ

      [anointed one]

   Father brought skins and covered them both, I wonder if

 those skins were of the slain innocent Lambs that they were?

  slaughtered

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I know Molly, good post. That's because Christ Jesus was/is the heart of the Father and came out of the Father's side (and that's why He returned to His side) just as Eve was taken out of the side of Adam and was his "stony heart". But this heart is a heart of (celestial) flesh; not stony/hardhearted.

And David was a man after God's own heart; I believe he saw it, but knew he was a man out of season.

The reason all flesh to Him is female is because the Spirit plants the seed, therefore even males (after the flesh) are part of the "bride". The natural bears this witness, as all babies are female in the womb first, and change later in development in the womb, if they are to be males. Blessings....

[pneuma]

Which Paul calls the "ministration of death, written and egraven on stone" and which Paul says WAS TO BE done away with.

Yes, but the only way the law is to be done away with is through fulfillment, which = obedience

You are mixing together the letter and the spirit as if the shadow and the reality are one and the same.  Chirst's sacrifice was the perfect example of obedience, love, and mercy.  That is exactly the sacrifice God desires, desired, and will desire.  The sacrifices that God did not desire were the outward sacrifices, the shadows of what Christ did.  You have lumped both the shadow and the very image under one label "sacrifice"

Sacrifices, offerings, tithes, circumcision, etc. are all shadows of righteousness typifying real inward righteousness.  God does not desire any of the shadows but God does desire the very image.

For example:
God does not desire physical circumcision.  God desires & requires circumcision of the heart.
God does not desire us to obserive a physical days like the weekly Sabbath.  God desires and requires us to cease our own works of the flesh and enter into His rest.
God does not desire us to kill the best of animal we have.  God desires and requires that we give up what we love the most to follow Him.
God does not desire us to phsycially sacrifice.  God desires and requires that we present our bodies a living sacrifice.

Jesus Christ came to show us the Father by living out the righthand side of the above list.

Greater LOVE hath no man than this, to LAY HIS LIFE DOWN for his brothers.  There is no greater love than Christ's sacrifice.  But God did not desire it?
Jesus Christ was OBEDIENT unto death.  Christ's sacrifice was perfect obedience.  But God did not desire it?

Nope not mixing them together bro, pointing out two things.

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

Second, that God did/does NOT desire sacrifice but sacrifice became necessary because man refused to obey.

Now as God does not change and God did not desire the sacrifice of innocent animals how much more would God then not want to sacrifice His own son.

There is a difference between God accepting the sacrifice and God desiring sacrifice.

God was well pleased with the sacrifice of His son, just as He was pleased with the sacrifice of the animal for they made a way for man to come before Him. One forever the other year by year.

God was pleased with this outcome, He is NOT pleased with the need or desired the need, which brought that outcome into effect, He did not desire the death of His son, nor did He desire the death of animals in times past. God cares for that sparrow that falls to the ground, and we are much more precious than many sparrows.

Why do you think Jesus said to the people that the Father sent his servants unto the people but they kept beating and killing them so He then sends forth His son saying I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

If God wanted to sacrifice His son from the get go why did He bother to first send out His servant? God sent these servant because He wanted the people repent and obey His voice, if they had of been obedient He never would have had to send forth His son for obedience is BETTER then sacrifice.

What you are essentially saying is that God did not want sacrifice originally,

That not essentially what I am saying Bob that's exactly what I am saying.

but after man sinned, God made a second-best provision to save man and then God starting wanting sacrifice.

There is no second best provision Bob, God wanted obedience plain and simple, but man refused to obey His voice and because man refused to obey His voice we see the potter responding to the clay.

That response being the provision of sacrifice.  Sacrifice was not in God's plan, but in response to the clay sacrifice became needful.

Not true at all.  God still did not want sacrifice even when Jesus was walking on the earth.  Jesus while on earth even quotes the verse that says God does not want sacrifice.
•   Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Christ was reproving the pharisees because they specialized in fulfilling the shadows & outward sacrifices will ommiting the sacrifice God truly desired.

Again, Hosea 6:6 was still true when Christ walked on the earth.  If you use that verse to prove that God did not want to sacrifice His Son then God did not want to sacrifice His Son when Christ walked on earth.

Is that not what I have been saying all along Bob? Have I not been saying all along that God did NOT want to sacrifice His son? Yes, yes and again yes that is what I have been saying.

God did not desire the sacrifice & offerings of the pharisees but God did desire Christ's sacrifice and offering.  Those two sacrifices & offerings are miles apart.

God does not change brother so if He did not desire the shedding of the blood of innocent animals, how much more then the shedding of the blood of His innocent son?

Proverbs 6:16-17
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:  17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 

The Lord hates the shedding of innocent blood,it is an abomination unto him, yet you believe He desires that which He hates, not only that bro you believe that God planned the shedding of innocent blood from the very beginning. 

[pneuma]

Pneuma and Zeek

  you can take that all the way back to the garden..

  and the commands God gave to A&E..a command unto life

  that they should not partake of death[tokogae]

  they was innocent lambs too, til a false-prophet arrived

and eve was deceived..and led to partake of that which brought

death.

   Mercy triumphs over judgement[tokogae] or that promised

  seed wouldn't have been prophesied about by GOD.

  the serpents seed 'bruises' the heel [earth,God's foot-stool/flesh]

   'the womans seed would crush the serpents head beneath his heel

Hi sis that is what I have been doing all along, taking it back to the garden because what took place before the disobedience of man is different then what we have now.

[pneuma]

The alternate conclusion is that Adam had "special" flesh wherein unlike Paul dwelt good.  And Adam could not have said "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me".  No, no sin dwelled in Adam.  He sinned in a different way than we all sin.

Where is the scripture that says man's nature changed after Adam sinned?

Bob it is NOT the flesh that corrupts the man, its the sin in the flesh that corrupts. Sin knocked at the door, Adam opened himself to sin and became a sinner.

[pneuma]

If Adam layed down his life for Eve out of love then perhaps he disobeyed the letter of the commandment only since love fulfills all the law.  I wonder how else Adam could have been a type of Christ.

Where in any scripture do you guys see that Adam laid down his life for Eve?

Eve was deceived she did not commit a sin that was unto death, all Adam had to do was pray for her.

Adam was not deceived thus he committed a sin unto death.


So it was NOT Adam that followed Eve into death, it was Eve that followed Adam into death that she might through child baring save him.

[claypot]

The Lord hates the shedding of innocent blood,it is an abomination unto him, yet you believe He desires that which He hates, not only that bro you believe that God planned the shedding of innocent blood from the very beginning. 

It's just so interesting how God set up a world where He has to hate so much.

cp

[claypot]

The alternate conclusion is that Adam had "special" flesh wherein unlike Paul dwelt good.  And Adam could not have said "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me".  No, no sin dwelled in Adam.  He sinned in a different way than we all sin.

Where is the scripture that says man's nature changed after Adam sinned?

Bob it is NOT the flesh that corrupts the man, its the sin in the flesh that corrupts. Sin knocked at the door, Adam opened himself to sin and became a sinner.

Not to excuse Adam and Eve but I see the makings of a 'sinner' in people (A&E) right from the get go........

  And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was]  pleasant  to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.gen 3.6

and

For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.jn2.16

All this lusting and pride is said not to be of the Father but it seems it is the natural consequences of the way we are made from the beginning. Satan is a murderer from the beginning and he sure seemed part of the make up of man right from the start. Right there in the garden, subtle and quiet, but there none the less.

Satan was there BEFORE any outright disobedience just as was the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

We just have to deal with it.

cp

[claypot]

If Adam layed down his life for Eve out of love then perhaps he disobeyed the letter of the commandment only since love fulfills all the law.  I wonder how else Adam could have been a type of Christ.

Where in any scripture do you guys see that Adam laid down his life for Eve?

Eve was deceived she did not commit a sin that was unto death, all Adam had to do was pray for her.

Adam was not deceived thus he committed a sin unto death.


So it was NOT Adam that followed Eve into death, it was Eve that followed Adam into death that she might through child baring save him.

I think we see this facet of the Diamond in relation to Jesus dying for creation. Adam seems to be a type of Jesus and as Jesus willingly walked into death to save creation I kind of see Adam willingly doing the same for 'Eve'.

Some of us tend to see Adam as representing spirit while Eve represents soul. I am not totally clear on this but it seems when a person is dominated by soul, sin erupts and when the spirit dominates then there is no sin. The story of A & E when she ate of the tree is the story of a soul led person as we all get the 'privelage' of being it seems!

cp

[claypot]

The story of Jesus Christ is the story of a spirit led person!

cp

[Molly]

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

--Gen 1


I've often thought, what was God creating there?  Let there be light happens before the sun is created.  Yet God separates it from the darkness.

Could it be an enlightened consciousness?  We see Adam, too, set apart in a garden made just for him.

The light is set apart from darkness, and when a helper is needed for Adam, she must come out of his own body.  Nothing from outside the garden (not set apart) will do.

So, Eve had her own brand of enlightenment--but at a lower (soul) level than Adam (spirit).

But, the first thing God creates on the dark and formless earth is "light."

He makes the creation conscious of itself.

[claypot]

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

--Gen 1


I've often thought, what was God creating there?  Let there be light happens before the sun is created.  Yet God separates it from the darkness.

Could it be an enlightened consciousness?  We see Adam, too, set apart in a garden made just for him.

The light is set apart from darkness, and when a helper is needed for Adam, she must come out of his own body.  Nothing from outside the garden (not set apart) will do.

So, Eve had her own brand of enlightenment--but at a lower (soul) level than Adam (spirit).

But, the first thing God creates on the dark and formless earth is "light."

He makes the creation conscious of itself.

I hear ya Molly. I'll stick to my guns and say people start out with the lust of the flesh and so forth ingrained in them................darkness and void. And then God sends forth His Son into our worlds.........let there be light.

And, eventually, it was very good.

cp

[CHB]

The alternate conclusion is that Adam had "special" flesh wherein unlike Paul dwelt good.  And Adam could not have said "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me".  No, no sin dwelled in Adam.  He sinned in a different way than we all sin.

Where is the scripture that says man's nature changed after Adam sinned?

Bob it is NOT the flesh that corrupts the man, its the sin in the flesh that corrupts. Sin knocked at the door, Adam opened himself to sin and became a sinner.

Not to excuse Adam and Eve but I see the makings of a 'sinner' in people (A&E) right from the get go........

  And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was]  pleasant  to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.gen 3.6

and

For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.jn2.16

All this lusting and pride is said not to be of the Father but it seems it is the natural consequences of the way we are made from the beginning. Satan is a murderer from the beginning and he sure seemed part of the make up of man right from the start. Right there in the garden, subtle and quiet, but there none the less.

Satan was there BEFORE any outright disobedience just as was the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

We just have to deal with it.

cp

Claypot,

Your post made perfect sense to me.  :thumbsup:

[Cardinal]

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

:cloud9: Question pneuma....how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, ie. no commandment yet,no disobedience yet? Not trying to be critical, this is just my "brake". Blessings...

[bobf]

Yes, but the only way the law is to be done away with is through fulfillment, which = obedience.

No argument there.

Nope not mixing them together bro, pointing out two things.  First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

When you draw conclusions about God's desire for the sacrifice of Christ from God's desire for the sacrifice of bulls and goats you are mixing the shadow and the very image.

Now as God does not change and God did not desire the sacrifice of innocent animals how much more would God then not want to sacrifice His own son.

See you just compared God's desire for the shadow with God's desire for the very image.  You just concluded that if God did not take pleasure in the shadow then God takes even less pleasure in the very image.

Here it is right here Scott in the passage below.  God did not take pleasure the sacrifice of bulls and goats, BUT IN CONTRAST God did want the sacrifice of His Son: God prepared Christ a body to be an offering to God by laying down His life.  Christ came "Lo to do THY WILL" by sacrificing Himself.

• Hebrews 10
  
  4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 
  5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, BUT a body hast thou prepared me: 
  6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 
  7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 
  8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 
  9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 
  10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
  

Why do you think Jesus said to the people that the Father sent his servants unto the people but they kept beating and killing them so He then sends forth His son saying I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

As if God didn't know whether they would or would not reverence Christ.

Matthew 21:37 actually says "They WILL reverence Him" as opposed to "it may well be..."

The parable is showing God as a man without foreknowlege.

If God wanted to sacrifice His son from the get go why did He bother to first send out His servant? God sent these servant because He wanted the people repent and obey His voice, if they had of been obedient He never would have had to send forth His son for obedience is BETTER then sacrifice.

The same way He gave Israel commandments He knew they would not obey when He was giving them.  God gave commandments so "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

That not essentially what I am saying Bob that's exactly what I am saying.

Thought so.

That response being the provision of sacrifice.  Sacrifice was not in God's plan, but in response to the clay sacrifice became needful.

That's what "second best provision" means to me.  If it was not God's original ideal plan, then it was not His 'best' plan.  And it was a provision.  So to me that's a provision which is second best.

Is that not what I have been saying all along Bob? Have I not been saying all along that God did NOT want to sacrifice His son? Yes, yes and again yes that is what I have been saying.

At the time Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 God DID want to sacrifice His Son so how can Hosea 6:6 prove God did not.

God does not change brother so if He did not desire the shedding of the blood of innocent animals, how much more then the shedding of the blood of His innocent son?

Yes, God does not change.  God is never pleased with the shedding of innocent blood.  Not before man sinned or after.

You can look at the death of Christ from two perspectives:
1. Christ laying down his life for the sins of the world
2. Christ being murdered, innocent blood being shed

God was well pleased with the sacrifice of His Son but was never pleased with his murder.

Christ's sacrifice was a "sweet smelling savour" to God.  And God does not change.  So how are you saying God did not desire it but later God did desire it?

• Epesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Proverbs 6:16-17
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:  17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 

Yes, God hated them murdering His Son.  Yet God sent His Son into the world for the purpose of be murdered.   Desire vs Intention.

The Lord hates the shedding of innocent blood,it is an abomination unto him, yet you believe He desires that which He hates, not only that bro you believe that God planned the shedding of innocent blood from the very beginning.

Yes, God planned the shedding of innocent blood.  Jesus said "not my will but thine be done".  But God did not desire what He hates.  Desire vs Intention.

Have you ever intended to put yourself through something you hated for some greater good?  Then you intended to go through what you hated without desiring what you hated.

[Molly]

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

:cloud9: Question pneuma....how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, ie. no commandment yet,no disobedience yet? Not trying to be critical, this is just my "brake". Blessings...

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.


"from"

G575
ἀπό
apo
apo'
A primary particle; "off", that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

[claypot]

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

:cloud9: Question pneuma....how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, ie. no commandment yet,no disobedience yet? Not trying to be critical, this is just my "brake". Blessings...

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.


"from"

G575
ἀπό
apo
apo'
A primary particle; "off", that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

Even better.

cp

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: You know Molly, what you posted here and the word "sacrifice' actually are connected. The Hebrew thought behind sacrifice is more closely, "the means to bring something (us) near (to God)". Christ IS the means to bring us near. Blessings....

[bobf]

Bob it is NOT the flesh that corrupts the man, its the sin in the flesh that corrupts. Sin knocked at the door, Adam opened himself to sin and became a sinner.

The flesh is a problem.

• Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

<br>

• Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

I think Adam & Eve shared in having that problem.  Eve was deceived because she started thinking about how this fruit would benefit her flesh - pleasant to the eyes, desired to make one wise, good for food.