How Kosher?

In the time of Yeshua, a major issue between the Zaddoki (Sadducees), the Farsi (Pharisees) and the Nazori (Essenes)was the issue of how to put the Torah Mitzvot (Ordinances) into practice. The Zaddoki said that the Mitzvot should be read literally and put into practice as the Torah commanded. The Pharisees said that the Mitzvot must be made to fit practice and so they prescribed rules, traditions of practicing the Mitzvot so as to fulfill the Torah. The Nazori stood in the middle. They believed that the Mitzvot had to be interpreted to fully understand the meaning between ever ordinance, but they objected to the so-called "fence" around the Torah that would further legislate how a Mitzvot was to be carried out in practice.

Today, thanks to the Nazori, Karaism continues the Zaddoki tradition. The rabbinical Jews have continued the Farsi tradition. We, the Nasorean Orthodox Qahal seek to continue the Nazori tradition.

In the restatement and codification of the Mitzvot that we call Deuteronomy, we find this overriding principle:

"In your observance of the Mitzvot of YHVH, your G-d, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it." Deut. 4:2.

This overriding principle is the essence of the difference between the Jewish sects. The Nasoreans teach that all regulations of any sort must be interpreted to put them into practice. On that point, we agree with the Rabbinical Jews. But, we believe that we must interpret the regulations with the help of the Voice. So, we oppose the codification of the methods that each individual person or congregation uses to carry out the Mitzvot. The Voice interprets the Torah in such a way as to make it meaningful to every believer. It is inherently wrong to force the method that seems right to one on another who likewise hears the Voice. Let us see how that affects the practice.

Deuteronomy 14:21 says: "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." The passage is self-explanatory. It involves boiling a goat in milk from its mother. It does not involve boiling a calf in its mother's milk. It does not involve putting cheese on meat. It does not involve gravy in general. Yet the passage is mentioned three times in the Torah and must have been important to the Divine One. The Zaddoki would forbid the boiling of a kid in its mother's milk, nothing more. The Pharisees have constructed an entire legal system based upon separation of milk and meat. Neither is correct. One, by failing to ask the Voice why such a law exists, fails to understand the regulation. The other by building an entire legal system has firmly sentenced rabbinical orthodoxy to eventual death.

We, Nasoreans, teach that there is a spiritual bond that exists between a child and its mother. In Leviticus 22:28 it says: "You shall not slaughter an ox or a sheep on the same day with its young." The principle of boiling a kid in its mother's milk and of killing the child and the mother on the same day imply a spiritual bond between the animals based upon blood. We reject the separation of milk and meat, but we support investigation into the spiritual bond between a child and its mother. We think it is that bond that is spoken of in Torah.

Another passage that gives concern is Deuteronomy 6:8-9 which says: "Bind them (meaning the Mitzvot) at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. Write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates." The Farsi would have us put on tefellin each morning with prescribed prayers and much effort. They prescribe that a phylactery must be put on the wrist and on the forehead and the leather strap which holds them must be from a kosher animal and wrapped a certain way around the arm and the head. The passage does not require such specification. The Nasoreans say a simple prayer each morning and don a mezuzah. The point is the same, the mezuzah rests on the breast over the head and arm. How is that any different from the intent of the passage.

All in all, the Nasoreans reject the simple literalism of the Zaddoki and the complicated codifications of the Farsi in favor of a recognition of the Mitzvot and a declaration from the Voice as how to keep it.

Ultimately, it is not the act but the spirit of the act that makes any act holy. Many of the Mitzvot of the Torah are no longer important nor relevant. One has to specifically wear a robe upon which tallits or tassels may be added. But the tassels should remind us of the Mitzvot and the G-d who gave them. Are people any less observant in the simplicity of our ways than in the formalism of the Farsi ways. I would argue that we have the same spirit as they do in our concern for the Mitzvot if not in the much expanded practice. So is wrong to do what the Farsi do. There the passage is undeniable. Declaring that it is sin to eat a hamburger with cheese on it is heresy. It violates the letter of the overriding principle that one may not add to the law. How Kosher? That is for you to decide.

American Morality vs. Scriptural Morality

In America, we talk about morality, but in reality we mean popular morality, which changes with the season. The Scriptures provide a more certain morality, one that stands the test of time. We have to be aware that when we stand judgment before that Throne on High, it will not be by the morality of America, but the morality of Scripture that we will be judged.

I want to talk about two areas of Scriptural morality that are in direct contradiction to American morality at this time and place. First, I want to talk about an oil spill. Whoever is responsible for that oil spill is being required to pay for the costs of the oil spill. In the front line asking for payment are the shrimp, crab, and lobster fishermen. The scripture specifically forbids the eating of shrimp, crab, and lobster alone with all crustaceans. So, asking the oil companies to pay them for their loss of profits is sort of like asking the road construction company to pay the prostitutes for messing up their street corners. The shrimpers were immoral to be fishing for shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, oysters, etc. paying them for their lost earnings, earnings based upon immoral activity, is wrong, just plain wrong. In stead, we should rejoice that this immoral activity has ceased in the same way that we do not fret over the loss of income for a prostitute.

Second, Numbers 35:30 according to the New American Bible says:

Whenever someone kills another, the evidence of witnesses is required for the execution of the murderer. The evidence of a single witness is not sufficient for putting a person to death.

Matthew 18:16 says the words of Jesus on the subject and he says:

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, sot that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

In Kansas City, right now, we have just had a man arrested for murdering his wife; his name is Shon Pernice. His wife’s body has never been found and no one was a witness to her alleged murder. There is apparently enough evidence that, without the challenge of critics, it shows a circumstantial case indicating that she was murdered and that more than likely Shon Pernice was the murderer.

In the ancient times, it was always required that one have a “corpus delicti” in order to try a person for murder. Not so today. And even worse, despite the fact that there is no body, there is no witnesses. Scripture is clear. There must be a witness to the murder and further, for you Christians, there must be two witnesses to the murder. Trying Shon Pernice is immoral, let me say it again; TRYING SHON PERNICE FOR MURDER IS IMMORAL. We should be concerned about what is happening because there have been more than 200 people released from death row after clear evidence was presented showing that they did not commit the murder. Our system of trying people is not particular successful already and to try people without witnesses, solely on circumstantial evidence, is wrong and immoral.

The question should be asked. On the day of judgment who will be sent to Hell, the judge and jury or Shon Pernice. I trust that the Great Judge in Heaven will be just and follow His own law. The Judge and the Jury will go to Hell.

Do not mistake my desire to see morality in my country for coddling criminals. If a man or woman is convicted of murder, he or she should be punished by death, but they should not be convicted unless the State has at least two witnesses to the murder. I would rather that these people go free than stand before the Great Judge and say that I have assisted in the violation of his Law.

Balance

There is a new blog called Have You Read Balance Today? http://haveyoureadbalancetoday.blogspot.com/ In his single statement, the author bemoans the fact that the Bible is not accurate on some things, contradicts itself on others, and that Christian dogma does not agree with the Bible on other matters. He finds that his "faith" has vanished and he has to rethink everything that he believes.

While I understand what he is going through, I have several things to say about what he concludes. First, the Bible does not say that it is infallible, nor even the word of G-d. When interpreted as the Jews interpret it, the Bible comes closer to truth. Even the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 limits the applicability of the Bible to teaching, refutation, correction, and training in HOLINESS. It does not include teachings on natural philosophy and science. Second, those who believe that the Bible is literal truth have fallen into the heresy and sin of deifying a book rather than G-d and therefore have another G-d before the True G-d. Third, Science seems to change daily. All you have to do is read the science sections of magazines and the newspapers and you find ample evidence that science has either had to rethink something it previously believed or has had to expand and explain things it previously believed. Darwinists, true Darwinists, are as benighted as Creationists. NeoDarwinism rejects some basic tenets of Darwins theories, mainly the claim that evolution has to been slow and is consistent.

Scripture, throughout the pages and including those books excised or not included, supports the truth that a Voice speaks to man. Who that Voice is remains to be seen, but people are not inherently insane because they hear Voices, only when they act irrationally because of what they hear. All the Prophets heard G-d's Voice and St. John, the Evangelist, says in Chapter 10 of the Gospel that "his sheep will hear his Voice."

Balance should not been just between Science and the Bible but should have spiritual content as well and that is given by the Voice.

Rational believers should challenge every tenet of their personal faith yearly. They should ask themselves, "do I still believe this?" Rational people grow, learn, discover and that makes them better than other people. Most people do not have critical thought. They believe what they read, hear, and sense as true and never challenge it. Critical thought is not bad. It is from Doubt that Faith arises.

I agree with the conclusion that Balance comes to about the True G-d. He is not here. But he has left many very powerful entities behind that we must work with and acknowledge. The fact that YHVH is not the True G-d should not lead you to the conclusion that you can ignore YHVH, for He is In Charge. He is the King of Heaven, the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Destroyer. Now, He may not be the Ultimate, the Eternal, the Everlasting, but unlike the True G-d, HE can Learn and Grow and sympathize with those of us doing the same. His Seven Incarnations have taught Him much about Us. I believe all the g-ds of old were real and none of them were G-d. I respect and revere them today, next to YHVH, of course. Why do I come to this conclusion? I have read the same sources that Balance has read, but I have the Voice and got a different conclusion from reading those passages.

Consider if you will, how would it change my faith, based upon the Voice, if it turns out that Adam did not live on Earth and that life was seeded on earth from elsewhere. No change. I am not affected by this knowledge. The Voice that I hear, that tells me to listen to Science and the Bible, is still there. It has not gone away.

So, while I rejoice and support Balance, I urged him today to continue his growth, for it is not over.

Resurrection of the Body

Last week marked the fortieth day after the Resurrection of Yeshua ha Meshiach which is called Ascension Day. This day is important because of what it implies for all of us. I thought it would be good to talk about the doctrine of the bodily resurrection from the dead at the end of time of all persons of which this day is a precursor.

In the earliest written book of the Bible, Job, we find these words according to the New American Bible:

“I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He will at last stand forth upon the dust; whom I myself shall see: my own eyes, not another’s, shall behold Him, and from my flesh I shall see G-d.” Job 19:25-27.

With these words, the discussion of Resurrection must begin. The Prophet Job says that he has faith that he will see G-d in his own flesh and not another’s flesh. This idea does not allow for a resurrection of a spiritual body, which may well occur as well. It proposes a physical resurrection. It is this doctrine of faith that is well attested in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism.

The Prophet Ezekiel says in Chapter 37:

“Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! See! I will bring spirit into you, that you may come to life. I will put sinews upon you, make flesh grow over you, cover you with skin, and put spirit in you so that you may come to life and know that I am the Lord.” 5-6.

In this graphic form, Ezekiel continues the discussion of Resurrection. There must have been many who doubted Job, but Ezekiel added to his words and told us with graphic certainty that the resurrection would be of our bodies, just as we have them today, not some other body, not some spirit body, but the body we have today.

Paul, the heretic, raises the question again in 1 Corinthians 15:12-17 where he says:

“But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then empty too is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. Then we are also false witnesses to G-d, because we testified against G-d that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ is not raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.”

He raises the question even higher. He says that the ultimate proof of the doctrine of resurrection is found in the resurrection of the Meshiach. For if the Meshiach is raised, then the doctrine is true and all of us shall be raised as well. While I consider the way in which Paul presents the argument as spurious, nonetheless, the point is well taken. We are not saved by resurrection, nor solely by the resurrection of Yeshua, but rather his Ascension into Heaven and his ministry as High Priest of Heaven. However, that High Priesthood is dependent on the Resurrection of Yeshua and without it, we are still in our sins. Why would we fear death if we are not going to meet the Supreme Judge sometime in the future? Why would we fear death if there is no judgment on our very bodies? The judgment is reserved for the end and will not occur except in our own bodies. Therefore, the Resurrection is the proof that we will have a final reward or punishment.

In the Book of Revelation, St. John the Revelator says:

“I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Yeshua and for the word of G-d, … They came to life and they reigned with Meshiach for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over.” 20:4-5.

St. John assures that those who were the highest of saints would be resurrected first and only later would everyone be resurrected. However, his testimony is entirely consistent with the teaching of ages.

Why is this doctrine important for us? Without this doctrine the threat of judgment would have no meaning and it is the threat of judgment that keeps the world in check. Ultimately, the fear that after death is the judgment keeps the most hardened tyrants in check for fear that they will suffer the pains of Hell. Many say that this threat is bad because it creates a false appearance of holiness and makes people be good from fear. I do not agree. There is no lack of mercy in the threat, but there is a promise of justice and G-d is equally Just and Merciful.

This event of Ascension Day therefore brings to mind the real import of Resurrection which most of us ascribe to at least in passing.

El Elyon = Shang Di?

It always seemed strange to me that if G-d was truly universal, that is, the G-d of the whole world that he would not speak as clearly to one people as to another. In reality, YHVH was never a G-d for the whole world. He was the particular G-d of the children of Israel. See Deuteronomy 32:8-9. But, YHVH’s father, El, the Highest and Almighty G-d claims to be the Lord of All the World and Father of the G-ds. Surely, if this claim is true, others would have heard about Him as He would have spoken to them and would have sent his Prophets to them as well.

The Hebrew culture although ancient was not the only ancient culture. The people of Mesopotamia and of Egypt were certainly as ancient and also the people of the Indus Valley were ancient. One other people were very ancient as well: the people of that area of the world now known as China.

Ethel Nelson published an interesting article on this subject in Creation 20(3): 50-53. Here is a partial reprint of her article:
ShangDi, the Creator-God of the Chinese, surely appears to be one and the same as the Creator-God of the Hebrews. In fact, one of the Hebrew names for God is El Shaddai, which is phonetically similar to ShangDi. Even more similar is the Early Zhou pronunciation of ShangDi which is ‘djanh-tigh’ [Zhan-dai].4 Another name for their God which the ancient Chinese used interchangeable with ShangDi was Heaven (Tian). Zheng Xuan, a scholar of the early Han dynasty said, “ShangDi is another name for Heaven (Tian)”.5 The great philosopher Motze (408-382 BC) also thought of Heaven (Tian) as the Creator-God:
‘I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk so that the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and river, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man’s good or bring him evil.’ 6
How did ShangDi create all things? Here is one further recitation from the ancient Border Sacrifice rite:
‘When Te [ShangDi], the Lord, had so decreed, He called into existence [originated] heaven, earth, and man. Between heaven and earth He separately placed in order men and things, all overspread by the heavens.’ 7
Note that ShangDi ‘called into existence,’ or commanded heaven and earth to appear.
Compare this with the way the Hebrew text describes the method of creation by El Shaddai, who, we suspect, is identical with ShangDi, and the similarity in name and role would suggest:
‘… by the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. … For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast’ (Psalm 33:6, 9).
The New World Encyclopedia says:
Shangdi (上帝, pinyin: Shàngdì, Wade-Giles Shang Ti), or simply Di (帝), is the High God (or Clan Ancestor) postulated in the earliest-known religious system of the Han Chinese people. The term can literally be translated as "Emperor (or Sovereign) Above," "Lord On High," "Highest Lord," "the Supreme God," or "Celestial Lord." While such terminology implies parallels with the divinities of the world's monotheistic traditions, two important differences must be acknowledged: first, while Shangdi was understood as a patriarchal ruler deity, this conception was not conflated with a role in the cosmogony; second, He was seen as one deity (ancestor) among many.[1] In this way, Shangdi bears more similarities to the dyeus figures in Indo-European religions (e.g., Zeus, Jupiter, Tiwaz) than to the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
However, when we look at the statements in Exodus 6:2 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 we see that this view of G-d was held by the earliest Hebrews and was transmitted to us in the Torah. El Elyon is Highest G-d literally and El Shaddai means G-d the Almighty. (Note from Rabbi Albin.)
This being said, Shangdi is also the name given for God in the Standard Mandarin Union Version of the Bible, though shen 神 (lit. spirit or deity) was also adopted by Protestant missionaries in China to refer to the Christian God. Much like the ancestors, Shangdi is never represented with images or idols in Chinese tradition.
Just as the descendants of Jacob have conflated the power and authority of the Father G-d El to his Son YHVH, so we find that the Father G-d Shang Di has his power and authority conflated to Tian, the Lord of Heaven.
What conclusions can be drawn? First, that the true G-d is El or Di; that YHVH and Tian are children of El or Di: that the people of Earth have been misled into worshipping the Son and not the Father, who is the True G-d; and that we have a duty to restore the Truth to the world and worship again as was intended.

Amen

The word Amen in Hebrew means "to be true." It has come to mean, "I agree." The spiritual condition that believers must be in with the Divine Voice within them is described by the word Amen. One must accept that the Voice is speaking for G-d and react to the Voice with the kind of certainty that allows one to say, Amen.

In 1991, my family took a vacation to Hot Springs, Arkansas. We stayed in a nice condominium on the lake there. On August 26, 1991, the thirteenth Covenant Day, the Voice told me to celebrate the day by climbing Lookout Mountain in pilgrimage to the Lord. I went into the quaint downtown of Hot Springs and found a formal path a the bottom of the mountain. I knew I could have driven up to the top, but I was on pilgrimage and wanted to walk. I knew that there were less onerous paths to the top, but I chose to walk up the side of the mountain on the footpath that was most strenuous. I huffed and I puffed to the top.

When I got to the top, there was a large parking lot in front of the visitor center and the look out. I sat down on a wall that surrounded the parking lot and waited for the Voice to speak to me. After 45 minutes of waiting, I said to the Voice, "What do you have to say to me on this Covenant Day?" The Voice said, "I told you to go to the top of the mountain and the top of the mountain is on the other side of the parking lot." So I went to the other side and sat down and waited for the Voice. Finally, after 45 minutes more, I said to the Voice, "I am here. What do you want to say to me?" The Voice said, "You must quit your job."

I liked working as the Social Services Attorney for the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. I had worked part-time for them for five years. I did not want to quit. In addition, I was concerned about what my wife would say. I came back to the condo very troubled. I sat on the porch overlooking the lake and rocked. It began to rain, harder and harder, still I sat there. My son, Thomas, came out and asked what the Voice had said. I said, "Don't tell your mother, but the Voice said to quit my job." He said, "What are you going to do?" I said, "I don't know."

I did not quit my job. My wife blew up at me in October and demanded that I leave. I told her I could not at that time, but that I would on December 1, 1991. On November 19, 1991, I was fired from the job I loved so much. I often wonder how things would have turned out had I obeyed the Voice and quit my job. Would I have lost my wife? Who knows.

I learned that I had not yet perfected my Amen. I did not say yes. I just waited because what the Voice wanted conflicted with what I wanted. It is like that in life. Sometimes what we want and what the Lord wants for us conflict. We have a choice to say Amen or not. I failed that time and have tried, now that I have not had a wife for 19 years, to always say Amen. Let G-d deal with the consequences.