The meaning of Matt 17:27 (Coin from the mouth of a fish)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And if they are the "primary type" why weren't they mentioned in the New Testament? They were enacted in the New Testament. In a former post I mentioned that at the Baptism of Jesus (by John's hand)on the day of Atonement, the Dove landing on his shoulder was showing what part of the Levfical sacrifice that was about to take place.

The 2nd Dove is dipped in the blood of the first. Jesus was being baptised into death as the 1st goat. This was the legal "cut off" point : "He will be cut off but not for himself."(but for the 2nd goat /2nd Dove)
I do not believe that is why the dove descended on Jesus. The Scripture explicitly states that the dove was a symbol of the Holy Spirit. [As an aside, there is some beautiful gematria here, since Dove (Hb: Yonah) = 71 and Holy Spirit (Gk: Pneuma Hagia) = 710.]
Now you are claiming it is also serving as some sort of symbol of Levitical sacrifice, but that seems like a leap to me. Jesus was not being "baptized into death" by John. His baptism was unto repentance. I don't really know why Jesus had to be baptized since he didn't need to repent, and Matthew seems aware of this problem when he says that John balked at baptizing Christ, but unfortunately he did not tell us why Jesus needed to be baptized so all we can do is speculate. And that's the problem I have with your focus on "typology." It feels like speculation to me because you are saying things that are not said in Scripture.

Hi Richard...I understand that you don't believe any of this...but if you want to continue to dispute it...I'd really like you to provide the biblical witnesses to explain your point of view. I'll just respond to part of your post for now because if this foundation can't be established, there is no need to continue this.

Hey there Kathryn,

I began answering this message a few days ago but got distracted by a bunch of work I had to do on the site. I think I thought I had completed the answer but just found out I had not. In any case, the Auto-Save feature kept what I had written so I can pick up where I left off.

I was confused by your response. Here is what I had written, in reference to the words highlighted red above:

Why the sudden change? I thought I gave you plenty of biblical reasons for my understanding. Why don't you respond to them? I did not say "I believe none of this." I gave you the same reasons I would have given when I was a Christian. You invited me to answer that post, so I did. Why are you now you are acting like you don't want to answer me?

Now I remember why I put off answering this ... I got the impression that you didn't really want to talk to me about it.

I can understand that. No one likes having all their ideas challenged, and I've been doing a lot of that. It can get pretty frustrating I suppose.

I'll just go into a bit more detail about the Levitical sacrifice and maybe you'll see the baptism a little more clearly. Jesus came to fulfill all the Law, which is why He needed to be baptized. Baptism is a symbol of death and resurrection. Jesus was "killed" through baptism. By that I mean death was imputed to Him, for He there presented Himself as the first dove and the first goat, committing Himself to die on the cross at the appointed time.

Leviticus 14:6 says that the first dove was to be killed in an earthen vessel (an earthly body) over running water. After Jesus baptism, the Spirit came and descended on him like a dove in order to identify the Law that He was fulfilling.

The Law tells us that the second dove was to be dipped in the blood of the first. Christ appearing as the second dove is depicted in Revelation 19:11-13: .....13: and He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called the Word of God

He is referred to as the Word of God clothed in a robe dipped in blood. "Dipped" comes from the Greek word bapto, or BAPTIZED. This identifies Him in this manner to show that he is fulfilling the law of Leviticus 14:6. I checked sixteen translations of Leviticus 14:6 and not one says "dove" in that verse. And there is good reason for that.

While His first work was a death work, the second work is a living work by which "The Word" (both the person and message) is preached to the world. He died once for our sins and doesn't need to die again. Yet the SECOND work is based on the first. The theme of LIFE completes the cycle depicted by baptism/death and life. (resurrection).

After His baptism He was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness (as the second goat was led "by the hand of a fit man" to be tempted by the devil for forty days. In His going into the wilderness, He was the antitype of the second goat. This is a fusion of the two laws, showing that they were to be overlaid upon each other. The Holy Spirit was the only One qualified to lead Him into the wilderness to fulfill the Law in Leviticus 16:21.

There is a problem with your interpretation. The Hebrew word for "dove" - yonah - does not appear anywhere in Leviticus 14:1-10. The word used there is tzippur which denotes a small bird like a sparrow. Therefore, the "two birds" are not "doves" like you say in your post, so now your idea that the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove "in order to identify the Law that He was fulfilling" has no foundation in Scripture.

But even if there were a dove in Leviticus 14:6 it wouldn't prove that your typology was correct. We can't just make up typological connections between anything and everything. And besides, Leviticus 14:6 speaks about the law for cleansing leprosy! It has no direct connection with the "law of redemption" seen in the death and resurrection of Christ. Any such connection is very speculative and the details will vary from one interpreter to another.

This is the real problem I have with your methodology. As far as I can tell, it is entirely idiosyncratic - unique to you and/or to those taught by the teacher you follow. I would never come to the same conclusion by an independent study and if we put a thousand competent Bible students in their own cells for a year, I doubt any of them would emerge with the paticular doctrines you have relating to Leviticus 14 and the baptism of Christ by John. This is the definition of a "private interpretation.

Now I hope you don't get too frustrated with me. I know folks don't like their ideas challenged. I'm not out to "sink you ship" and maybe I'm missing something. So don't let my opinions disturb you in any way. I'm just telling you how I see things. My opinions have no more weight or authority than yours.

All the very best to you, my friend!

Richard

[kathryn]

Hey there Kathryn,

I began answering this message a few days ago but got distracted by a bunch of work I had to do on the site. I think I thought I had completed the answer but just found out I had not. In any case, the Auto-Save feature kept what I had written so I can pick up where I left off.

I was confused by your response. Here is what I had written, in reference to the words highlighted red above:

Why the sudden change? I thought I gave you plenty of biblical reasons for my understanding. Why don't you respond to them? I did not say "I believe none of this." I gave you the same reasons I would have given when I was a Christian. You invited me to answer that post, so I did. Why are you now you are acting like you don't want to answer me?

Now I remember why I put off answering this ... I got the impression that you didn't really want to talk to me about it.

I can understand that. No one likes having all their ideas challenged, and I've been doing a lot of that. It can get pretty frustrating I suppose.
No...I love being challenged! I want all the sand-papering I can get! I'm pretty ruthless about pulling down vain imaginations (desire to get my sorry Ass out of the Fire as soon as possible story again:-) So...bring on the challenges! (there ought to be a little "mooning" icon with some licking flames )

Sorry I gave the impression that I didn't want to talk to you about it. I guess, again, I wasn't articulating myself properly. What I was asking for, regarding biblical witnesses to your understanding...was taking the Atonement/Leprosy sacrifice of the two goats/two doves... (which I was demonstrating as representing the two works of Christ..the Death work accomplished by Jesus Christ, and the Living work accomplished by Christ in His corporate son)....and giving me 2 or 3 witnesses in scripture, beginning with the Law (in context), which demonstrated your understanding. This is the biblical method given in determining truth...and I had asked you a few times what your criteria was, because I had given at least 3 (through the 3 phases of redemption) in former posts and you didnt respond to my question.

You were certainly giving some good reasons why you were having difficulty with it, and nothing wrong with that...but I was hoping for a more in-depth response. I had presented a pretty clear foundation of the types and showing how they progressed into the NT.
You asked why , if the goats/doves were so important...why they weren't mentioned in the NT..and I responded with a clear answer. When I did this....you just said you "didn't believe that that is why the Dove descended on Jesus..because the Dove represented the Holy Spirit. etc. The whole thread previous to this, went into alot more detail and expansion of the types...and I was assuming that while you probably didn't meditate on any of them, you had read through them even if it was a quick scan, because it was the continuation of a conversation we were having that you said you were finding "stimulating". (and, you were reading through every thread on the forum, even during the busy/new site time) Just trying to 'splain my response here.

I've noticed, in the past two years...that we will get so far in a back and forth...and it stops (and when I've made a valid point, with some valid biblical witnesses). And again...you were responding to all the others on the forum.
I said that there was no point continuing if the foundation in the Law couldn't be established...meaning that if you couldn't "see" it...there was no point in going on to explain anything else . It is the Key that unlocks the rest of the whole theme of the Atonement(and the whole process of redemption) , right into the book of Revelation.

If we don't understand where the plummet line measures the "small beginnings" in how Jesus fulfilled the Law...there is NO hope in understanding the fulfillment at the end of Scripture, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

The mistake I made, was in not opening the type wide enough, to explain the "bird" as being the Dove. To do that I would have had to go into alot more detail...and I was trying to be concise as possible, as still keep it brief.

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt before concluding that what I am saying has "no foundation" in scripture . The study of typology has to be slowly built on from that plummet line...and it takes more than one post to explain it. I have stated that I don't bring anything to the forum, without being able to substantiate it and after its gone through a rigorous testing. Doesn't mean that I don't make errors...but hopefully you'll first consider it might be a typo...or an omission before you judge it. (otherwise..I will have to whip out that "wet but still-reasonably-firm noodle, and give you a good one! So...my error...and it's good these things happen, because we are learning to know how we each other communicate and think and it's ALL good


There is a problem with your interpretation. The Hebrew word for "dove" - yonah - does not appear anywhere in Leviticus 14:1-10. The word used there is tzippur which denotes a small bird like a sparrow. Therefore, the "two birds" are not "doves" like you say in your post, so now your idea that the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove "in order to identify the Law that He was fulfilling" has no foundation in Scripture. Of course...you're absolutely right about the bird vs the dove. But, many times in typology, it is what is left out can be an important clue and leads us to a greater understanding through another type which explains the primary type in more detail. The word as you said, in the sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy, just means "bird". (not necessarily "sparrow" but that is implied too)

You mentioned that the Hebrew word for Dove is Yonah, which isn't in the Lev. account.

Jonah as a type, (Dove) reveals the TWO aspects of the TWO works of Christ..and witnesses twice to the overlapping of the two laws of the Atonement sacrifice and the sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy,( in the Baptism account). It is the Holy Spirit (represented by the Dove) who leads the second goat of whom Jesus is the antitype, who is taken into the wilderness (by the hand of a "fit man" ..Holy Spirit)to be tested.

As I mentioned..the account of Jonah (as the type of Dove), manifests both types of the death/living sacrifices (of the TWO works of Christ) of both the goats/and "birds". I will only give a brief outline of this. (there is more)

Jonah was in the stomach of the great Fish for 3 days and 3 nights, representing the death work of the 1st goat/1st bird....as Jesus who was in the "belly of the earth" for 3 days/3 nights. When the Jews asked Jesus for a sign ...He gave them the sign of Jonah 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the Fish.

They cast lots to see who was causing the trouble on the ship, and the lot fell to Jonah to be thrown overboard. (into death and resurrection (out of the fish). Lots were cast to determine which goat would die.

Jonah indwelt the great fish...The Holy Spirit (as Dove) indwells our flesh.
After Jonah's experience of the 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish (as the heart of the earth) ...He was given a SECOND call to preach to Ninevah, prophetic of the SECOND work of Christ in second goat.(type of Christ in His corporate son)

Because of the additional information given in the Jonah type, and the overlapping of the two types of goats/birds in the Baptism account , we can take from the type portrayed in the Jonah story, that the "bird"(s) were a type of the Dove who descended on Jesus' shoulder at the Baptism. Now, you should be able to see how the Atonement sacrifice and sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy, is expressing the TWO works of Christ .



But even if there were a dove in Leviticus 14:6 it wouldn't prove that your typology was correct.Well...if you want to keep studying this with me, I hope to show you differently. In the meantime...please give me your interpretation of the two sacrifices...with two or three witnesses beginning with the Law explaining the types and their subsequent enlargement/fulfillment from two or three witnesses ...preferably demonstrating the progression through the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day, demonstrating your understanding. I can demonstrate mine through all 3...and through many other examples than I've already given. Looking forward to a fruitful study!

We can't just make up typological connections between anything and everything.We surely can't! And besides, Leviticus 14:6 speaks about the law for cleansing leprosy! It has no direct connection with the "law of redemption" seen in the death and resurrection of Christ. But it does have a very direct connection! Jesus defeated mortality/death at the Cross...Leprosy represents our condition of mortality caused by the sin of Adam imputed on us (as the sins of the people were imputed on the second goat)...and very definately, it is included in the Laws of Redemption. Any such connection is very speculative and the details will vary from one interpreter to another. Again..there is no speculation in this. If you don't see the leprosy/mortality connection, let me know if you need more evidence on that

This is the real problem I have with your methodology. As far as I can tell, it is entirely idiosyncratic - unique to you and/or to those taught by the teacher you follow. I don't follow any teacher, although I certainly keep up to date with all those I know who are receiving revelation as this unfolds. Stephen confirmed what I had already been given; enlarged on much of it...but it has since been enlarged in me, in areas that he has never taught on, to my knowledge anyway

I would never come to the same conclusion by an independent studythat's an assumption I think. Have you ever done an in-depth study on the Law of Moses in how it reveals the person and work of Jesus Christ? and if we put a thousand competent Bible students in their own cells for a year, I doubt any of them would emerge with the paticular doctrines you have relating to Leviticus 14 and the baptism of Christ by John.well...we'd have to test that wouldn't we? Knowledge is increasing. We're all having the veil removed in some pretty exciting ways every day. This is the definition of a "private interpretation.Well...I can name you several who didn't know each other from a hole in the ground...but who came to the same understanding completely independent of one another. (and have witnessed it now, with 3 other people on the forum whom I didn't know, some as recently as a week ago.

Now I hope you don't get too frustrated with me.never! You're just too darn lovable! I know folks don't like their ideas challenged. I'm not out to "sink you ship" and maybe I'm missing something. So don't let my opinions disturb you in any way.I promise I won't . I'm just telling you how I see things.That's ALL I'm asking for My opinions have no more weight or authority than yours.

All the very best to you, my friend!And you!

Richard

[Bob May]

Hi Deb,
I'm a little behind the 8 ball here,
I thought everyone forgot about this thread but is rose from the dead, I guess.

After reading through this entire thread, I see a lot of revelation coming from Kathryn & Bob (ultimately pointing to the same thing, which is what true revelation will do, as opposed to our own 'intuition,' which I believe is different than revelation). I also saw some themes that seem unconnected, but I actually believe they are very connected, including:

• Talk about Jacob’s experience where he saw the ladder and angels ascending/descending
• Richard’s interest in brain anatomy…
• 'drawing out Leviathan with a hook…'
• Mt 17 including BOTH the story of the transfiguration and the coin in the mouths…
• Rick’s thoughts on satan and the battleground being in our minds (here and other threads)
• Two olive trees…

So, with all these themes in mind, and speaking on the transformation/transfiguration of the mind, and that Jesus referred to Peter as being 'satan' when he was thinking carnally rather than spiritually (as when it was revealed to him earlier that Jesus was the Christ).
Take a look at this link (and if Richard can make this animated image actually appear in the post, that would be great—I don’t know how to):

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/...of-brain.html?

This was just recently discovered, and taken from Life Science Databases, the link to that is at bottom of animation. If it’s legit, it sure is evidence of the 'natural things speaking of the invisible.' Consider the following:

Science refers to the R-complex, or reptile-brain, as the oldest part, the most primal, where all our base fears exist.

John 3:12-15
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Num 21:8 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.'

'Fiery serpents' are also the seraphim, those closest to His throne, (which speaks of the completed transfiguration/transformation process, when our carnal mind/serpent brain is completely transformed):

Isa 6:1-7
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.
6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

AND:

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 2 Cor 11:3-4

EDIT ADDITION: I forgot to add one of the most important parts. The Pineal gland is located in this general vicinity of the brain. Highly related in the account of Jacob when his name was changed to Israel (Prince):

"I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." Now the sun rose upon him just as he crossed over Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh. Gen 32:29-32 NASU

This was the place where the birthright blessing was established and confirmed by a name change, in which Jacob was called an 'overcomer.' This was the place where he saw God 'face-to-face,' and the 'sun rose upon him' as he 'crossed over…'

There is so much more that can be gleaned from this, but this should give us something more to talk about.

I will get back to this post because it is very good stuff.
I won't be able to post much this coming weekend because of prior commitments but this is really all about the Baptism of Fire/Kundalini/Serpent fire.
It is the third aspect of Baptism but it runs through all three. Hard to analyze (take apart) something that is all ONE Baptism. But that is how we understand things.
It also has to do with pulling up or sublimation of the sex energy.

God asked Moses what was "in his hand" Controling the sex energy. Lifting it up the spinal collumn.
A rod that becomes a snake (nacach means both Penis and Snake if I am not mistaken)
So a rod becomes a snake and a snake becomes a rod etc.

At the top of that Rod, Column, spinal chord there is the "Place of the Skull" Golgotha.
Hovering "over" that Place of the Skull was Jesus on the cross.
This is the Meditation that brings on the Kundalini experience. Pineal, Penuel. Seeing the face of God without dying "my life is preserved", Jacob said.
In the East the meditation is called the Thousand Petaled Lotus. In the Western Mystic traditions it is called the "Point" meditation.
Both I and my teacher have had our toungues burned as a side effect of doing this meditation. His actually had blisters on it. Mine was just bright red.
One of the side effects of Kundalini is that the entire digestive system becomes burned. It actually feels like sunburn.

Above the Skull is the equivalent to the Holy of Holies in the physical body. The Crown chakra as all the Chakras are souces of light and sensory organs. These are the seven candlesticks and the seven buds on AAron's Rod. The two witnesses Law and Prophets witness of Jesus and keep the lamp filled with oil (anointing). Because they speak of him. It is the anointing that makes it possible to see Jesus in the Law and prophets writings.
And he is the light that comes from that lamp.
The foolish virgins did not keep the lamps filled with oil. They were not seeing Jesus in the law and prophets (and all around us and within us) The wise virgins did.
And they were readyu when the bridgroom came.
It says that he will come when we "think not" That is SILENT MEDTATION. When we think not.

I've got to get ready for work. More later.

Bob

[duxrow]

Putting money where your mouth is.... a fav today expression
HE knows the end from the beginning, or is this a plant that grew into the expression?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Kathryn,

I began answering this message a few days ago but got distracted by a bunch of work I had to do on the site. I think I thought I had completed the answer but just found out I had not. In any case, the Auto-Save feature kept what I had written so I can pick up where I left off.

I was confused by your response. Here is what I had written, in reference to the words highlighted red above:

Why the sudden change? I thought I gave you plenty of biblical reasons for my understanding. Why don't you respond to them? I did not say "I believe none of this." I gave you the same reasons I would have given when I was a Christian. You invited me to answer that post, so I did. Why are you now you are acting like you don't want to answer me?

Now I remember why I put off answering this ... I got the impression that you didn't really want to talk to me about it.

I can understand that. No one likes having all their ideas challenged, and I've been doing a lot of that. It can get pretty frustrating I suppose.
No...I love being challenged! I want all the sand-papering I can get! I'm pretty ruthless about pulling down vain imaginations (desire to get my sorry Ass out of the Fire as soon as possible story again:-) So...bring on the challenges! (there ought to be a little "mooning" icon with some licking flames )

Sorry I gave the impression that I didn't want to talk to you about it. I guess, again, I wasn't articulating myself properly. What I was asking for, regarding biblical witnesses to your understanding...was taking the Atonement/Leprosy sacrifice of the two goats/two doves... (which I was demonstrating as representing the two works of Christ..the Death work accomplished by Jesus Christ, and the Living work accomplished by Christ in His corporate son)....and giving me 2 or 3 witnesses in scripture, beginning with the Law (in context), which demonstrated your understanding. This is the biblical method given in determining truth...and I had asked you a few times what your criteria was, because I had given at least 3 (through the 3 phases of redemption) in former posts and you didnt respond to my question.

You were certainly giving some good reasons why you were having difficulty with it, and nothing wrong with that...but I was hoping for a more in-depth response. I had presented a pretty clear foundation of the types and showing how they progressed into the NT.
You asked why , if the goats/doves were so important...why they weren't mentioned in the NT..and I responded with a clear answer. When I did this....you just said you "didn't believe that that is why the Dove descended on Jesus..because the Dove represented the Holy Spirit. etc. The whole thread previous to this, went into alot more detail and expansion of the types...and I was assuming that while you probably didn't meditate on any of them, you had read through them even if it was a quick scan, because it was the continuation of a conversation we were having that you said you were finding "stimulating". (and, you were reading through every thread on the forum, even during the busy/new site time) Just trying to 'splain my response here.

Hey there kathryn,

I'm glad you like challenges and having your feet "held in the fire." Me too! It's hard sometimes because this form of communication (writing) is not rich enough to convey tone of voice and body language so it's easy to miss the point. But with a little dedication, I think we will come to an understanding, and learn a lot in the process!

You are correct that I "skimmed" some of the conversations. That's necessary since I am busy and there were many words written. I was looking for the foundational points buried in the many words. That's why I ask the questions I ask. I'm looking for the main and plain things that any student of the Bible could discern for themselves. So far, I have not found that foundation.

I get the feeling that every time I challenge anything it pops like a soap bubble and you say you needed to explain more for me to understand. That's the problem. When it comes to the foundation, you shouldn't have to explain anything - you should only need to point to what's there. I've studied the Bible for many years. If you typology is not laid upon the main and plain foundation of what is actually written - but rather requires a lot of additional explanation - then it is not actually founded on the Bible at all in my estimation.

That's what I'm always pressing for. The true foundation of your typology that is actually in the Bible and so does not require a lot of explanation.

Case in point - you repeatedly said the birds in Lev 14 were doves, but they were not. Therefore, why should I believe that the Holy Spirit chose the form of a dove "to identify the law that Christ was fulfilling?" I have no reason to think that is true, but you asset it like it is a foundational truth.

Your methods are opposite of mine. I have always looked for the main and plain things taught in the Bible that can be supported by many witnesses. Your typology is nothing like that. Every time I try to talk to you about it I am told that it would require more explanation. And when the explanation is given, I get the sense that it is a private interpretation which few if any independent students of Scripture would discover on their own.

I've noticed, in the past two years...that we will get so far in a back and forth...and it stops (and when I've made a valid point, with some valid biblical witnesses). And again...you were responding to all the others on the forum.
I said that there was no point continuing if the foundation in the Law couldn't be established...meaning that if you couldn't "see" it...there was no point in going on to explain anything else . It is the Key that unlocks the rest of the whole theme of the Atonement(and the whole process of redemption) , right into the book of Revelation.

If we don't understand where the plummet line measures the "small beginnings" in how Jesus fulfilled the Law...there is NO hope in understanding the fulfillment at the end of Scripture, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

The mistake I made, was in not opening the type wide enough, to explain the "bird" as being the Dove. To do that I would have had to go into alot more detail...and I was trying to be concise as possible, as still keep it brief.

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt before concluding that what I am saying has "no foundation" in scripture . The study of typology has to be slowly built on from that plummet line...and it takes more than one post to explain it. I have stated that I don't bring anything to the forum, without being able to substantiate it and after its gone through a rigorous testing. Doesn't mean that I don't make errors...but hopefully you'll first consider it might be a typo...or an omission before you judge it. (otherwise..I will have to whip out that "wet but still-reasonably-firm noodle, and give you a good one! So...my error...and it's good these things happen, because we are learning to know how we each other communicate and think and it's ALL good

Yes indeed, I will give you the benefit of the doubt! There's no other way anyone could ever come to understand each other without that as a premise.

The Gospel begins with an explanation how Jesus fulfilled the law. But you are not beginning with that explanation. You have introduced ideas that are not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit chose the form of the dove to indicate that Jesus was fulfilling the law of cleansing for leprosy. But you made this a central point of your presentation. That's why it feels like a private interpretation to me. I never would have come to that conclusion, and even if I did, I could not think it was "foundational" to anything because the NT does not even mention it.

Thus, the "mistake" you made was to begin with an unsupported premise that the two birds had something to do with the redemption wrought by Christ on the cross. That may be true or false. That is a fact you must establish, not merely assume.

There is a problem with your interpretation. The Hebrew word for "dove" - yonah - does not appear anywhere in Leviticus 14:1-10. The word used there is tzippur which denotes a small bird like a sparrow. Therefore, the "two birds" are not "doves" like you say in your post, so now your idea that the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove "in order to identify the Law that He was fulfilling" has no foundation in Scripture. Of course...you're absolutely right about the bird vs the dove. But, many times in typology, it is what is left out can be an important clue and leads us to a greater understanding through another type which explains the primary type in more detail. The word as you said, in the sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy, just means "bird". (not necessarily "sparrow" but that is implied too)

That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Why should I believe that the Holy Spirit chose the form of a dove to "identify a law" that was not related to a dove?

It seems like you are starting with your conclusion and trying to force it to work.

You mentioned that the Hebrew word for Dove is Yonah, which isn't in the Lev. account.

Jonah as a type, (Dove) reveals the TWO aspects of the TWO works of Christ..and witnesses twice to the overlapping of the two laws of the Atonement sacrifice and the sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy,( in the Baptism account). It is the Holy Spirit (represented by the Dove) who leads the second goat of whom Jesus is the antitype, who is taken into the wilderness (by the hand of a "fit man" ..Holy Spirit)to be tested.

As I mentioned..the account of Jonah (as the type of Dove), manifests both types of the death/living sacrifices (of the TWO works of Christ) of both the goats/and "birds". I will only give a brief outline of this. (there is more)

Jonah was in the stomach of the great Fish for 3 days and 3 nights, representing the death work of the 1st goat/1st bird....as Jesus who was in the "belly of the earth" for 3 days/3 nights. When the Jews asked Jesus for a sign ...He gave them the sign of Jonah 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the Fish.

They cast lots to see who was causing the trouble on the ship, and the lot fell to Jonah to be thrown overboard. (into death and resurrection (out of the fish). Lots were cast to determine which goat would die.

Jonah indwelt the great fish...The Holy Spirit (as Dove) indwells our flesh.
After Jonah's experience of the 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish (as the heart of the earth) ...He was given a SECOND call to preach to Ninevah, prophetic of the SECOND work of Christ in second goat.(type of Christ in His corporate son)

Because of the additional information given in the Jonah type, and the overlapping of the two types of goats/birds in the Baptism account , we can take from the type portrayed in the Jonah story, that the "bird"(s) were a type of the Dove who descended on Jesus' shoulder at the Baptism. Now, you should be able to see how the Atonement sacrifice and sacrifice for the cleansing of Leprosy, is expressing the TWO works of Christ .

OK - this is a perfect example of what I am looking for. The NT presents Jonah is an explicit type of Christ. I feel I am on solid ground.

And when I read the book of Jonah I see many strong typological links. But I don't see any link between Jonah "indwelling" the great fish with the Holy Spirit indwelling believers because the great fish represents the grave, not the believer, and the Holy Spirit does not dwell for only three days.

And what justification is there for identifying Jonah's "second chance to preach" with the second goat and the "corporate" work? You have lost me completely. It all feels like your own private interpretation. I don't feel any foundation under my feet when you make these kinds of leaps.

And you are "begging the question" by assuming what you are trying to prove. First you assume that there is an "overlapping of the two types of goats/birds in the Baptism account" and then you use that assumption to "prove" that the birds "were a type of the dove." It's all circular and loopy and none of it has a solid foundation for me. How many careful students would think to identify things this way?

And most importantly - why didn't God use doves in Leviticus 14:6 if that's how he intended us to interpret it?

But even if there were a dove in Leviticus 14:6 it wouldn't prove that your typology was correct.Well...if you want to keep studying this with me, I hope to show you differently. In the meantime...please give me your interpretation of the two sacrifices...with two or three witnesses beginning with the Law explaining the types and their subsequent enlargement/fulfillment from two or three witnesses ...preferably demonstrating the progression through the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day, demonstrating your understanding. I can demonstrate mine through all 3...and through many other examples than I've already given. Looking forward to a fruitful study!

I don't understand your request. Are you saying that every detail of the OT must be "explained" as a type that was somehow fulfilled in Christ?

If we go that route, everyone can just make up whatever they want. That's exactly what Harold Camping did. He made up his own "typological" interpretation for everything in the Bible, and when he was done he had a totally idiosyncratic interpretation that had no truth in it at all.

The "understanding" that you "demonstrate" involves things that are not demonstrable, such as your assertion that the birds in Lev 14 are "types of doves." It's important to see what you did there. You took a type - the birds - and said they were a type of the dove so now we have types of types! This is really important. Typology by itself is already sufficiently vague as to allow anyone to make up anything they want. But now you have squared it making types of types! What limit is there to the doctrines that could be invented this way?

We can't just make up typological connections between anything and everything.We surely can't! And besides, Leviticus 14:6 speaks about the law for cleansing leprosy! It has no direct connection with the "law of redemption" seen in the death and resurrection of Christ. But it does have a very direct connection! Jesus defeated mortality/death at the Cross...Leprosy represents our condition of mortality caused by the sin of Adam imputed on us (as the sins of the people were imputed on the second goat)...and very definately, it is included in the Laws of Redemption. Any such connection is very speculative and the details will vary from one interpreter to another. Again..there is no speculation in this. If you don't see the leprosy/mortality connection, let me know if you need more evidence on that

Yes, I knew that you could draw a link from leprosy to redemption, but the fact that you can connect those points doesn't prove that was intended by God. It's like drawing constellations in the stars. You can make any connection you want. There are no rules to tell us which "constellation" is "real" and which is made up. This is the problem with typology.

This is the real problem I have with your methodology. As far as I can tell, it is entirely idiosyncratic - unique to you and/or to those taught by the teacher you follow. I don't follow any teacher, although I certainly keep up to date with all those I know who are receiving revelation as this unfolds. Stephen confirmed what I had already been given; enlarged on much of it...but it has since been enlarged in me, in areas that he has never taught on, to my knowledge anyway

I should have worded that better. I knew you wouldn't like the implication that you were following a teacher. But my point remains. You teachings are pretty much unique to you and/or a few who follow you or some other teacher.

I would never come to the same conclusion by an independent studythat's an assumption I think. Have you ever done an in-depth study on the Law of Moses in how it reveals the person and work of Jesus Christ?

Yes, it's an "assumption" but I think a well founded one given the evidence I have seen in the history of typological interpretations of the Bible.

Have I done a study like yours? No,not in the way you have done it because I would never make the kind of "typological leaps" required to make your system work.

and if we put a thousand competent Bible students in their own cells for a year, I doubt any of them would emerge with the paticular doctrines you have relating to Leviticus 14 and the baptism of Christ by John.well...we'd have to test that wouldn't we? Knowledge is increasing. We're all having the veil removed in some pretty exciting ways every day.

Yes, but your system requires non-obvious leaps. So that means that anyone following you would have to be directly inspired by the Spirit, and that seems very unlikely for many reasons.

This is the definition of a "private interpretation.Well...I can name you several who didn't know each other from a hole in the ground...but who came to the same understanding completely independent of one another. (and have witnessed it now, with 3 other people on the forum whom I didn't know, some as recently as a week ago.

I'm sure some aspects were agreed upon, but I would be very surprised if they agreed in the details like the dove indicate the law of leprosy.

Now I hope you don't get too frustrated with me.never! You're just too darn lovable! I know folks don't like their ideas challenged. I'm not out to "sink you ship" and maybe I'm missing something. So don't let my opinions disturb you in any way.I promise I won't . I'm just telling you how I see things.That's ALL I'm asking for My opinions have no more weight or authority than yours.

All the very best to you, my friend!And you!

Richard

Wonderful!

Talk more soon,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

After reading through this entire thread, I see a lot of revelation coming from Kathryn & Bob (ultimately pointing to the same thing, which is what true revelation will do, as opposed to our own 'intuition,' which I believe is different than revelation). I also saw some themes that seem unconnected, but I actually believe they are very connected, including:

• Talk about Jacob’s experience where he saw the ladder and angels ascending/descending
• Richard’s interest in brain anatomy…
• 'drawing out Leviathan with a hook…'
• Mt 17 including BOTH the story of the transfiguration and the coin in the mouths…
• Rick’s thoughts on satan and the battleground being in our minds (here and other threads)
• Two olive trees…

So, with all these themes in mind, and speaking on the transformation/transfiguration of the mind, and that Jesus referred to Peter as being 'satan' when he was thinking carnally rather than spiritually (as when it was revealed to him earlier that Jesus was the Christ).
Take a look at this link (and if Richard can make this animated image actually appear in the post, that would be great—I don’t know how to):

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/...of-brain.html?

This was just recently discovered, and taken from Life Science Databases, the link to that is at bottom of animation. If it’s legit, it sure is evidence of the 'natural things speaking of the invisible.' Consider the following:

Science refers to the R-complex, or reptile-brain, as the oldest part, the most primal, where all our base fears exist.

John 3:12-15
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Num 21:8 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.'

'Fiery serpents' are also the seraphim, those closest to His throne, (which speaks of the completed transfiguration/transformation process, when our carnal mind/serpent brain is completely transformed):

Isa 6:1-7
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.
6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

AND:

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 2 Cor 11:3-4

EDIT ADDITION: I forgot to add one of the most important parts. The Pineal gland is located in this general vicinity of the brain. Highly related in the account of Jacob when his name was changed to Israel (Prince):

"I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." Now the sun rose upon him just as he crossed over Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh. Gen 32:29-32 NASU

This was the place where the birthright blessing was established and confirmed by a name change, in which Jacob was called an 'overcomer.' This was the place where he saw God 'face-to-face,' and the 'sun rose upon him' as he 'crossed over…'

There is so much more that can be gleaned from this, but this should give us something more to talk about.

Hi Deb,

Yeah, there's a lot to glean here. Unfortunately, I have no time today since I am getting ready for my trip to San Francisco tomorrow.

But I'll post something as soon as I find time.

Richard

[kathryn]

Hey there kathryn,

I'm glad you like challenges and having your feet "held in the fire." Me too! It's hard sometimes because this form of communication (writing) is not rich enough to convey tone of voice and body language so it's easy to miss the point. But with a little dedication, I think we will come to an understanding, and learn a lot in the process!

You are correct that I "skimmed" some of the conversations. That's necessary since I am busy and there were many words written. I was looking for the foundational points buried in the many words.hmm...there were lots of posts(short ones)...but I only asked you to review one. That's why I ask the questions I ask. I'm looking for the main and plain things that any student of the Bible could discern for themselves. So far, I have not found that foundation.

I get the feeling that every time I challenge anything it pops like a soap bubble and you say you needed to explain more for me to understand. That's the problem. When it comes to the foundation, you shouldn't have to explain anything - you should only need to point to what's there. I have been trying to do that. But your intermittent responses and lack of time haven't been conducive to me doing this. Aside from that, the very nature of typology is that it is given in a way that is coded...so it is impossible to just quickly "point out what is there". If this defies your definition of a foundation, perhaps you could provide me with one that explains how it must be obvious immediately. I've studied the Bible for many years. If you typology is not laid upon the main and plain foundation of what is actually written - but rather requires a lot of additional explanation I missed explaining ONE thing. That's a lot of additional explanation? You haven't yet given me a chance to get past point A- then it is not actually founded on the Bible at all in my estimation. Well, that's your estimation and its wrong. You're giving a lot of opinions and estimations and very little scripture to back up what you're saying. Quite frankly, this astounds me, considering the standard you've held others to on this forum.
That's what I'm always pressing for. The true foundation of your typology that is actually in the Bible and so does not require a lot of explanation. Again..this is your opinion.

Case in point - you repeatedly said the birds in Lev 14 were doves, but they were not. Therefore, why should I believe that the Holy Spirit chose the form of a dove "to identify the law that Christ was fulfilling?" I have no reason to think that is true, but you asset it like it is a foundational truth. I explained that. I made an error. I'm so familiar with the over-all concept of the primary type as it expands as it progresses through scripture, I do it without thinking...because that IS what is represented in the aspect of the primary type I was explaining. So...you discount the whole thing for that? How many times do you assume somebody must know what you're saying, when explaining a mathematical forumla? And realize you had to go back because you had neglected one little detail ? And how would you respond, knowing that the formula could be tested and proven true...if the person threw up their hands and said..."you are basing this all on assumption because you forgot to mention that "b" is substituted for "d" for a specific reason?

Your methods are opposite of mine. I have always looked for the main and plain things taught in the Bible that can be supported by many witnesses. Your typology is nothing like that. Every time I try to talk to you about it I am told that it would require more explanation.No Richard. The few times you have, I have merely stated that it can't be done in one post. (and that was taking it from the root up...NOT the primary type in Leviticus we are discussing. You have repeatedly said to keep the posts lean and simple. I would have happily provided the whole picture, if I thought you would have read it....but you have difficulty enough with the short ones I send. When I try to bring you back to it...you say you've been busy. Again..that's no problem..we all enjoy the freedom to pick and choose what we want to respond to... But you sure find time to answer all the other posts that aren't challenging your understanding...or if they are...it is something you've researched enough to feel confident in . So lets just be honest about this...You won't offend me. Just say it isn't your thing and leave it at that! And when the explanation is given, I get the sense that it is a private interpretation which few if any independent students of Scripture would discover on their own.You're getting repetitious. I guess you are happy to stay with what you are "sensing".


Yes indeed, I will give you the benefit of the doubt!I just wanted you to give me a response that adheres to the biblical criteria of determining Truth There's no other way anyone could ever come to understand each other without that as a premise.

The Gospel begins with an explanation how Jesus fulfilled the law. But you are not beginning with that explanation. Of course I'm not! That's not where the plummet line is laid! If you want to understand what Jesus fulfilled and how, you have to start at the beginning. You're looking at the flower and trying to describe the whole plant!. You say that the disciples would mentioned the goats/doves in their writings if it had been important...BUT it was enacted in the NT. (stage 2 of it) and at that stage of the game, Paul said they were still seeing through a glass darkly. The veil has been lifted some since then. You have introduced ideas that are not in the Bible.Please..if you're going to continue to say this give us something to substantiate the claim Nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit chose the form of the dove to indicate that Jesus was fulfilling the law of cleansing for leprosy.Oy vey! So...if it isn't blatantly obvious to you..that means it isnt there? Are there no subtleties in mathematics. ? Great literature? Music? People? But you made this a central point of your presentation. Because..for the final time...it is THE key that unlocks the Atonement and process of redemption as it progresses through the 3 phases to fullfillment. That's why it feels like a private interpretation to me. I never would have come to that conclusionand you know all there is to know?, and even if I did, I could not think it was "foundational" to anything because the NT does not even mention it. you're repeating yourself again. Where are your biblical witnesses to prove it wrong?

Thus, the "mistake" you made was to begin with an unsupported premise that the two birds had something to do with the redemption wrought by Christ on the cross. That may be true or false. That is a fact you must establish, not merely assume.I did that. The "bird" type was not referred to as a dove for a very good reason. But again....I guess because it isn't in-your-face-obvious it "has no foundation in scripture".

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.then shouldn't you, who is in pursuit of truth, at least want to try to understand what I'm saying? Why should I believe that the Holy Spirit chose the form of a dove to "identify a law" that was not related to a dove?

It seems like you are starting with your conclusion and trying to force it to work. chorus anyone?


OK - this is a perfect example of what I am looking for. The NT presents Jonah is an explicit type of Christ. I feel I am on solid ground.

And when I read the book of Jonah I see many strong typological links. But I don't see any link between Jonah "indwelling" the great fish with the Holy Spirit indwelling believers because the great fish represents the grave, not the believer, We don't "die" in order to "live"? Lazarus isn't raised from the tomb/grave. ? The Ark is a coffin FIRST! Types have DEPTH. They are like a beautiful piece of music. There are harmonies going on that underlay other harmonies. They are all in the same "key"...but the variations are endless. so is typology and the Holy Spirit does not dwell for only three days.The 3rd day concept, as you know, represents many things. I know you know this...but can't for the life of me, understand why you're choosing not to . If anyone ought to understand the concept of "3" and the depth of meaning to which it is attributed and found in scripture, it ought to be you!

And what justification is there for identifying Jonah's "second chance to preach" with the second goat and the "corporate" work?because that is the WHOLE essence of the type. I can't see how I could have explained it in a more obvious manner You have lost me completely.no..you've done that all yourself It all feels like your own private interpretation. I don't feel any foundation under my feet when you make these kinds of leaps.

And you are "begging the question" by assuming what you are trying to prove. First you assume that there is an "overlapping of the two types of goats/birds in the Baptism account" and then you use that assumption to "prove" that the birds "were a type of the dove." It's all circular and loopy and none of it has a solid foundation for me. How many careful students would think to identify things this way? boy...you have sure made a mountain out of two little birds and one little omission. Is that all you have as proof that this is "loopy"??

And most importantly - why didn't God use doves in Leviticus 14:6 if that's how he intended us to interpret it? been der, done dat


I don't understand your request. Are you saying that every detail of the OT must be "explained" as a type that was somehow fulfilled in Christ? No...I don't recall ever remotely saying that.

If we go that route, everyone can just make up whatever they want. That's exactly what Harold Camping did. He made up his own "typological" interpretation for everything in the Bible, and when he was done he had a totally idiosyncratic interpretation that had no truth in it at all.

The "understanding" that you "demonstrate" involves things that are not demonstrable, such as your assertion that the birds in Lev 14 are "types of doves." It's important to see what you did there. You took a type - the birds - and said they were a type of the dove so now we have types of types! This is really important. Typology by itself is already sufficiently vagueagain..you are wrong, but this is getting tedious as we've gone over and over it as to allow anyone to make up anything they want. But now you have squared it making types of types! What limit is there to the doctrines that could be invented this way?you're getting a lot of mileage out of this!


Yes, I knew that you could draw a link from leprosy to redemption, but the fact that you can connect those points doesn't prove that was intended by God.of course it can't...but I wasn't just drawing one link. Give half a chance, I could have demonstrated this It's like drawing constellations in the stars. You can make any connection you want. There are no rules to tell us which "constellation" is "real" and which is made up. This is the problem with typology.


I should have worded that better. I knew you wouldn't like the implication that you were following a teacher. But my point remains. You teachings are pretty much unique to you and/or a few who follow you or some other teacher.hmm...there's some pretty unique stuff coming out of Quantum physics too. Guess we should shut the door on that before our mindsets are confounded with things that are challenging the "obvious"! This is Richard replying right?


Yes, it's an "assumption" but I think a well founded one given the evidence I have seen in the history of typological interpretations of the Bible.havent shown me any. If you had...we might have had something to work from. Is this how you studied in university? You did no research of your own?... or remained open enough to make a serious attempt at investigating a theory than ran contradictory to past evidence and study? How did you ever get into the leap to Quantum physics?

Have I done a study like yours? No,not in the way you have done it because I would never make the kind of "typological leaps" required to make your system work.I didnt ask you if you had done it the way I had done. I asked you if you had done an in-depth study of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Law of Moses. I believe I remember you saying on another thread, a few years ago, that you hadn't..and it was an area you would like to get into sometime. I asked this, because I would NEVER think of coming on the forum , in a topic that I knew you had researched well...and give the kind of responses you have given me in this post. Regardless of how "loopy" we may think someone may be...we should respect their scholarship enough to avoid any kind of judgement, until we've done enough research ourselves, to be able to point out their errors in an equally scholarly manner. If we can't...leave it for someone who can. If we just continue to oppose it on the basis of what is obvious...opinion and feelings...we tend to lose our own credibility along the way.


Yes, but your system requires non-obvious leaps. So that means that anyone following you would have to be directly inspired by the Spirit, and that seems very unlikely for many reasons.Well...I would say that the person would have to have the desire to learn it, more than anything else. I'm sure you would love me to say it needed direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit...because it gives those two omitted birds a bit of wind under their wings, to ask the usual: "how would you know you have the right interpretation when others with different interpretations believe the same way?...Or...and what makes you different from a Buddist or Mormon who feels that "burning in his bosom"? etcetera etcetera etcetera (as the King of Siam would say)
I didn't respond to some of the above...as I think I've said all I needed to. Not angry here.... just more than a little surprised at your responses.



I'm sure some aspects were agreed upon, but I would be very surprised if they agreed in the details like the dove indicate the law of leprosy.[B]well..on that note...lets agree to disagree. and maybe have a pint or two


Wonderful!

Talk more soon,

Richard

[kathryn]

richard:
The Gospel begins with an explanation how Jesus fulfilled the law. But you are not beginning with that explanation.

I have mentioned this countless times. I may not have begun the post this way...but it was certainly mentioned many times, in the context of this back and forth. And besides Richard....why would YOU need me to begin a post this way? We're not new at this!

[debz]

Hi Deb,
I'm a little behind the 8 ball here,
I thought everyone forgot about this thread but is rose from the dead, I guess.



I will get back to this post because it is very good stuff.
I won't be able to post much this coming weekend because of prior commitments but this is really all about the Baptism of Fire/Kundalini/Serpent fire.
It is the third aspect of Baptism but it runs through all three. Hard to analyze (take apart) something that is all ONE Baptism. But that is how we understand things.
It also has to do with pulling up or sublimation of the sex energy.

God asked Moses what was "in his hand" Controling the sex energy. Lifting it up the spinal collumn.
A rod that becomes a snake (nacach means both Penis and Snake if I am not mistaken)
So a rod becomes a snake and a snake becomes a rod etc.

At the top of that Rod, Column, spinal chord there is the "Place of the Skull" Golgotha.
Hovering "over" that Place of the Skull was Jesus on the cross.
This is the Meditation that brings on the Kundalini experience. Pineal, Penuel. Seeing the face of God without dying "my life is preserved", Jacob said.
In the East the meditation is called the Thousand Petaled Lotus. In the Western Mystic traditions it is called the "Point" meditation.
Both I and my teacher have had our toungues burned as a side effect of doing this meditation. His actually had blisters on it. Mine was just bright red.
One of the side effects of Kundalini is that the entire digestive system becomes burned. It actually feels like sunburn.

Above the Skull is the equivalent to the Holy of Holies in the physical body. The Crown chakra as all the Chakras are souces of light and sensory organs. These are the seven candlesticks and the seven buds on AAron's Rod. The two witnesses Law and Prophets witness of Jesus and keep the lamp filled with oil (anointing). Because they speak of him. It is the anointing that makes it possible to see Jesus in the Law and prophets writings.
And he is the light that comes from that lamp.
The foolish virgins did not keep the lamps filled with oil. They were not seeing Jesus in the law and prophets (and all around us and within us) The wise virgins did.
And they were readyu when the bridgroom came.
It says that he will come when we "think not" That is SILENT MEDTATION. When we think not.

I've got to get ready for work. More later.

Bob

Another excellent post, Bob!! There is a LOT to this, but it really is interesting how it all points to the same thing, when you can "see" it. I agree with the wise/foolish virgins analogy...most of the time I've heard this preached it's really butchered and leaves people in fear of being "left behind" (LOL--shameless slap on that whole series...). They are ALL virgins (believers), it's just some weren't ready for the wedding banquet, because they didn't have that oil of illumination, as you said... Also like your reference to Matt 24:44:

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." (also Luke 12:24)

All of these passages have been traditionally understood by Futurists as Jesus' second coming being "unexpected" to all... But have they considered Matt 24:50, which leads into the foolish/wise virgins parable, btw:

"...the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know."

Have they ever thought about why it says "the master of that slave..." meaning He is referring to coming to individuals...at perhaps different times...

Love yours posts!!

[debz]

originally Richard: You are correct that I "skimmed" some of the conversations. That's necessary since I am busy and there were many words written. I was looking for the foundational points buried in the many words.

Kathryn: hmm...there were lots of posts(short ones)...but I only asked you to review one.

Richard: That's why I ask the questions I ask. I'm looking for the main and plain things that any student of the Bible could discern for themselves. So far, I have not found that foundation.

Kathryn, I agree with all you're saying here, however, IMO it really isn't one of the more obvious "types" unless one is already familiar with that kind of spiritual language -- that's why it's harder for Richard to see. He is looking for things, as he said, that "any student of the Bible could discern for themselves." Yes, Christ and the "big picture" is "hidden" all throughout Moses. It is also "hidden" all throughout the Prophets. That is where the apostles got most of their revelation to begin with! Like the story of the transfiguration...Moses and Elijah (reps of Law & Prophets) were both there, with Jesus, and all three were glorified (made manifest/the consuming "fire" was displayed through all three).

In the Luke encounter, we're told: "Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. Luke 9:32-33 (bold mine...they couldn't "see" that until they were "fully awake")

We're told: "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified. And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid." And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone." Matt 17:5-8

In the end, when they "lifted up their eyes" (seeing with revelation), they saw "no one except Jesus Himself alone" -- which is what we will all see -- HIM ALONE -- throughout ALL the scriptures in the end. But we are not yet "fully awake," so we are still "seeing in part" (from that Holy Place realm, and some not even seeing in part, if still in that Outer Court realm).

Maybe, like you said, "agreeing to disagree" and moving on to some of the other types would be helpful. They may be more obvious--?? I think there's a lot to Richard's Dumbo dream that is unfolding...and that is what was spoken to him directly, so he is interested in finding interpretation, etc.

In the meantime, I'd like to join y'all with those pints: