Genesis Series Highlights - Part 4

Welcome to the fourth installment of the Genesis Series Highlights, where we dive deep into the book of Genesis, exploring its rich narratives and profound teachings. This podcast is taken from a live stream where we read through Genesis and study it as we go, offering insightful commentary and thoughtful reflections.

In this episode, we cover a variety of topics, including:

• Intro to Genesis Series: Setting the stage for our journey through Genesis.
• Tend and Keep the Garden - Genesis 2:15: Understanding the significance of tending and keeping the Garden of Eden.
• Of Which Trees Shall We Eat - Genesis 2:16: Delving into the choices presented to Adam and Eve.
• LXX uses 'God' and 'Lord God' Interchangeably. Masoretic Doesn't: Examining the differences in translations and their implications.
• Is the LXX More Accurate: Discussing the accuracy of the Septuagint compared to the Masoretic text.
• The Cross is an Inversion of The Garden of Eden: Exploring the theological connections between the Garden of Eden and the Cross.
• Ezekiel 18 - The Soul The Sins Shall Die: Reflecting on the teachings of Ezekiel and their relevance to Genesis.
• The Just Shall Live By Faith: Understanding the concept of faith in the context of Genesis.
• You were Dead in Your Sins - Ephesians 2:1: Connecting the teachings of Ephesians to the narratives in Genesis.
• The Prodigal Son: Drawing parallels between the story of the Prodigal Son and the themes in Genesis.
• We Passed From Death to Life - 1 John 3:14: Exploring the transition from death to life as depicted in Genesis.
• The Dead HAS Heard the Voice of God - John 5:25: Reflecting on the significance of hearing God's voice.
• Identifying with Christ - Colossians 3:1-2: Understanding our identity in Christ through the lens of Genesis.
• Ishmael vs Isaac: Comparing the stories of Ishmael and Isaac and their implications.
• In the Day You Eat of It You Shall Surely Die: Discussing the consequences of Adam and Eve's choices.
• Hab 2:4 - Just Shall Live by Faith: Examining the teachings of Habakkuk and their relevance to Genesis.
• Why I Believe This is Spiritual Life/Death - Summary of Reasons: Summarizing the reasons for interpreting life and death in Genesis as spiritual concepts.
• Modern Figures of Speech for 'Day': Exploring contemporary interpretations of the term 'day' in Genesis.
• Literal Death Doesn't Work in Eden: Discussing the challenges of interpreting death literally in the context of Eden.
• Genesis 2:18 - Not good for man to be alone: Reflecting on the importance of companionship as depicted in Genesis.
• Genesis 2:19 - Adam named the animals: Understanding the significance of Adam naming the animals.
• God Gave Man Dominion: Exploring the concept of dominion and its implications in Genesis.
• Original Sin: Discussing the doctrine of original sin and its relevance to Genesis.
• Genesis 2:24-25 Marriage and Both Naked: Reflecting on the themes of marriage and nakedness in Genesis.
• Jesus Said Listen to the Pharisees: Examining Jesus' teachings and their connection to Genesis.
• Historical Jesus: Understanding the historical context of Jesus' teachings and their relevance to Genesis.
• James is Against Paul (at least in its common interpretation): Discussing the perceived conflict between James and Paul and its implications for Genesis.

Join us as we continue our journey through Genesis, uncovering its timeless wisdom and profound truths. Whether you're a seasoned scholar or a curious newcomer, this podcast offers something for everyone. Tune in and be inspired by the rich tapestry of Genesis!

TimeStamps:

00:00:00 Intro to Genesis Series 00:00:00 Welcome 00:00:34 Setup 00:00:34 Tend and Keep the Garden - Genesis 2:15 00:00:34 Intro to Part 4 00:

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
We're in the midst of a serieson the book of Genesis.

(00:02):
I'm going to be digginginto the scriptures like never before.
We are going to be comparingthe manuscripts.
We are going to be, comparing the Mesozoicwith the Septuagint
and the, the Samaritan manuscriptsas well.
As well as digginginto some of the ancient legends
and documents of the Jewish peoplein regards to this story.

(00:22):
It's going to be very interesting.
Buckle your seat belts. Get ready.
I'm going to start by reading the storyof the creation of Eve
or talk a little bit about this.
But the majority, the primary subjecttoday would be the fall of man.
This is Genesis chapter two, verse 15.
this is from the new King James Version,based on the messianic text.
It says, then the Lord God took the manand put him in

(00:44):
the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
We spoke about this last night,according to the legends of the Jews,
this phrase to tend and keepit it's actually talking about, tending
to the Word of God and keepingthe commandments of God Verse 16.
And the Lord God commanded the man,
saying of every tree of the gardenyou may freely eat,

(01:04):
but of the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil you shall not eat.
For in the day that you eat of it,you shall surely die.
Okay, so notice right off the bat,comparing it with the Septuagint.
The Septuagint all of a suddennow includes the phrase Lord God.
Now before that it didn't do that right.
It just said God
like we have, up here in verse eight,and God planted a garden eastward.

(01:26):
Now in this messianic, it said,the Lord God planted a garden eastward.
Same with verse nine, of the Septuagint.
And God is simply God made a spring
in verse, verse nine, out of the miserysays the Lord God.
So in the Septuagint, for some reasonnow it goes to the phrase Lord God,
instead of just God,the Lord God took the man whom he informed

(01:48):
and placed him in the garden of delightto cultivate and keep it.
So you might say, well,is this more accurate?
Is this more accuratethan the messianic text
which this is consistent,Lord God, Lord God, Lord God.
so here we got God, simply God in verseeight,
God in versenine, and Lord God in verse 15.
Now one of the theoriesis that the word Lord, especially

(02:12):
in all capitals, is a covenant name.
Okay? You'd hey, wow, hey!
it's more of a personal name.
So in the Septuagint we don't havethat personal covenant name in there.
So. one could say Well, in this context,
especially the first phrase God planted.

(02:32):
A garden eastward in Eden there'sno real need for the covenant name.
I guess.
You know, somebody could argue.
And same with in verse nine.
It's not really talking aboutanything specific or intimate between God
and his man or, you know, his, his people,his covenant people.
But down here in verse 15, it is.
And the Lord God took the manwhom he had formed
and placed him in the garden of delightto cultivate and to keep it.

(02:56):
So it's a little bitmore of an intimate, statement here.
Verse 16, the Lord God gave a chargeto Adam, saying, of every tree
which is in the garden,thou mayest freely eat,
but of the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil of it you shall not eat.
But in whatsoever day you eat of it,you shall surely die.
Right here of every tree which isin the garden, thou mayest freely eat.

(03:20):
Now take note of that phraseology.
Take note of how it is. worded here.
It doesn't saythat you cannot eat from every tree.
It says you can eat from every tree,but one.
You can eat from every tree,just not this one.
This is important because we'll see lateron in the temptation of Eve.

(03:43):
How the serpent twisted that.
Now, in the Samaritan text, it says,from any tree of the garden you may eat,
and from the tree of the knowledge of goodand evil, you shall not eat from it.
Okay. So this is very important.
did you know that the Garden of Edenin the in the story of
the fall of man, is an inversionof what happened at the cross.
Yeah.
So we'll get into a little bit moreof the deeper things here as we go on.

(04:05):
So the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil.
Now it doesn't say the tree of knowledgeperiod.
Like as if knowing something is wrong.
No, actually it is for lack of knowledgethat my people are destroyed,
says the Lord. Right.
So God wants us to have this knowledge,right?
He teaches,this is what rabbis are for, right?

(04:27):
Rabbis and teachers are for.
He says teachers God wants usto have knowledge is just that.
What kind of knowledgeare you talking about?
that's where it's all at.you know that yashua.
Jesus in the Gospels, he rebuked peoplefor not having knowledge.
Like, don't you know this?
Have you not read this?
don't you understandthis? knowledge is not bad.
knowledge is good.Knowledge is light, right?

(04:47):
Knowledge is.
the teaching, the doctrine of the Lord,the doctrine of God.
God wants to illuminate our heartsand our minds with
with the knowledge of heaven,the knowledge of the scriptures.
But there is an evil knowledge too, right?
There is a knowledge that's not so good.
It's the knowledge of the evil.
not just knowing it in your head,but rather in experiential knowledge,

(05:09):
like how it says in the scriptureshow a man knew a woman.
You know, Adam knew his wife Eve.
Oh, wait a second. Weren'tthey together for a while?
And Why wouldn't he know her?
But, you know, it's talking aboutan intimate experience, right?
So the knowledge of good and evil.
it could be interpretedin many different ways.
And I'm open to,
to hear all your guys, different, ideasabout it and interpretations of it.

(05:31):
I think that's awesome to, tobring all the points of view to the table
and talk about it.
however, I would just like to submitthe idea that this is possible,
that this knowledge of good and evilis not just the knowledge of good,
which is good,but the knowledge of good mixed with evil,
or the knowledge of evilis the experiential knowledge of evil.

(05:51):
In other words, actually
committing the evil,actually transgressing the law of God.
And this is the knowledge
of good and evil, when you knowthe devil comes in tempt, right?
He doesn't always tempt with just all evilor evil or evil,
just like someone lies is not alwayslying.
it's not like everything they say isa lie.
It's always mixed in with truth.

(06:12):
So there's this twilight zone,so to speak.
There's this knowledge of good and evil.
Not all evil is not all. good.
It's It's not all dark.
But it's this twilight zoneknowledge of good and evil,
where it says, in the daythat you eat of it, you shall surely die.
So I used to believe thatthis meant physical death,
like most Christians believe.

(06:34):
And a lot of people believe I have sense.
After 32 years of studyingand thinking about this
and reading through the scriptures,I have sense come to believe
that this actually means,as in the soul, that sin shall die.
Not necessarily physical death,but spiritual death.
in Ezekiel chapter 18,
where it says that, if you are righteous,you will live per se.

(06:57):
Okay.
So that's like the,the eternal life, this salvation,
the just shall live by faith,you know, the just shall live by faith.
Meaning that the just, the Siddiq,those who are obedient to God
will be filled with the life of God,which is the salvation of the soul,
the eternal lifethat's spoken of in the Gospels.

(07:18):
if we are sinning,if we're a sinner, then according to,
the Torah and the prophets,especially Ezekiel chapter 18,
the soul that sin shall die,you sin, you die.
You don't have the life of God in youanymore.
You don't have the breath of God in you,the Spirit of God, animating you anymore.
So you are basically like a zombie,like you're not physically dead.

(07:41):
So in Ephesians.
chapter two, verse one.
And you hath he quickened,
who were dead in trespasses and sins,
wherein in time past you walkedaccording to the course of this world,
according to the princeof the power of the air,
the spirit that now worksin the children of disobedience,
among whom also now we havehad our conversation in times past

(08:03):
in the lusts of our flesh, fulfillingthe desires of the flesh and of the mind,
and were by naturethe children of wrath, even as others.
But God, thank God for that.
Thank God for God.
But God,who is rich in mercy for his great love
wherewith he loved us,even when we were dead in sins,
has quickened us together with Christ.

(08:24):
by grace you have been saved.
So let's check it outin, let's say, the NIV,
just for just for comparison here.
again, verse Ephesianschapter two, verse one.
As for you, you were deadin your transgressions and sin.
So Paul is talkingto people who were alive, of course.
they were physically alive.They can go see their doctor
and their doctorand give them a clean bill of health.

(08:46):
But they were dead. They were dead.
You were deadin your transgressions and sins.
So it's like the soul that sins shall die.
You were a sinner,therefore you were dead.
the story of the prodigal son,where he got the older son
and the younger son,the younger son decides to just take
his share of his inheritanceand then go and blow it on sinful things.

(09:08):
So he goes and he enters a life of sin,and then he comes back after a while.
And what did the father say?
The father said,my son was dead, but now he's alive.
What do you mean, he was dead?
Well, not physically,he didn't die physically.
You know.
He was still in good health.
However, he was dead God is not limitedto a carnal perspective.

(09:31):
God is a spirit.
And as a spirit, he sees thingsthrough the lens of a spirit.
So if you are dead spiritually, God
looks at you as if you're dead, but youyou are dead.
Oh, but my heart is beating.
And, all my vital signs are good.
And I'm feeling great. You're dead.
Just like how Paul says you were deadin your Transgressions and sins

(09:52):
in which you used to live.
When you follow the ways of this worldand the ruler of the kingdom of the air,
the spirit who is now at work in thosewho are disobedient,
all of us who lived among themat one time, gratifying
the cravings of our fleshaccording to its desires and thoughts.
Like the rest,we were by nature deserving of wrath,
but because of his great love for us, God,who is rich in mercy,

(10:14):
made us alive with Christeven when we were dead in transgressions.
For it is by graceyou have been saved. So.
So this is a good example of the concept
from the Torah that you sin.
You're in the state of sin,your status sinful.

(10:34):
if that's the case, you're dead.
I don't careif you just come from the doctor
and your doctor said in great health.
you're dead in the eyes of God.You're dead.
The soul that sins shall die.
there's a few other, examplesof this as well.
Now, remember the storywhen Jesus was talking to this man who,
you know, say, come follow me.
And the man says,let me go bury my father first.

(10:55):
And and Jesus said,let the dead bury their own dead.
What was Jesus talking about?
I think he was talking about the deadwho were not really,
like, physically dead. They were alive.
they were not spiritually alive,but they were dead in God's sight.
They were dead.
So this man had the opportunity to, quote
unquote, live, come and follow me,and you shall live.

(11:18):
But, you know,let me go bury my father first.
And so you see what Jesus said.
Let the dead bury their own dead,like these people who are sinful,
these people who do not know the light,let them bury the dead.
So there's a play on words, this pun
going on, Let the deadspiritually bury the dead physically.
But first John 314.
We know we have passed from death to lifebecause we love each other.

(11:41):
Anyone who does not love remains in death.
So again,speaking from the point of view of God.
The. Deathis is talking about people who are in sin.
John chapter five, verse 25 says, verytruly, I tell you, this is Jesus speaking.
A time is comingand has now come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of Godand those who hear will live.

(12:03):
Now, I know a lot of people, interpretthis to mean,
you know, this is talking about the realliteral dead that are in the grave.
okay. You could say that.
However,I think this could also be talking
about those who are quote unquote dead,just like the prodigal son,
just like the Ephesians were, Colossianschapter two.
Verse 13.
When you were dead in your sinsand in the uncircumcision of your flesh,

(12:26):
in other words, you were not obeyingTorah, you were not circumcised.
And you wereyou were sinning, you were dead.
You were dead in your sinsand in the uncircumcision of your flesh
God made you alive with Christ.
He forgave us all our sins.
So again, there's this idea of being deadspiritually versus.

(12:47):
Being alive spiritually.
So those who are made alive in Christ,
of course, are those who are quoteunquote saved and those who have passed
from the kingdom of darkness tothe kingdom of light, from death to life.
Verse 14, having canceled the chargeof our legal indebtedness
which stood against us and condemned us,he has taken it away, nailing it

(13:07):
to the cross, and having disarmedthe powers and authorities,
he made a public spectacle of them,triumphing over them by the cross.
The next chapter goes into a little bitmore detail
in regardsto this whole idea of death versus life.
Colossians chapter three, verse one.
Since then,you have been raised with Christ.

(13:29):
Set your heart on things above, whereChrist is seated at the right hand of God.
So a little bit of background here.
Paul is bringing this ideaof identifying with Christ.
I am crucified with Christ.
Galatians 220 I'm crucified with him,I died with him.
I was buried with him, I rose with him.

(13:51):
I have been raised with Christ.
Ephesians it says, we are seated withChrist right now in the heavenly realms.
So Colossians is speaking a little bitkind of like it along those lines as well.
You have been raised with Christ,Since you've been raised with Christ, set
your heart on things above where Christ isseated at the right hand of God.
Set your mind on things above,not on earthly things.

(14:12):
For you died.
Your life is now hidden with Christin God.
When Christ, who is your life, appears,then you will also appear with him
in glory.
Yeah, so there's this idea that.
Quote unquote, death is not talking
about physical death as you might assume.
It's talking about spiritual death.
And this is what God sees,this is the primary concern of God.

(14:35):
Again, God being a spirit,he doesn't see the fleshly so much
when he doesn't recognize itthat much, as much as the spiritual,
because he has a spirit and he looksat everything through the spiritual eyes.
Another example, this is we have,the story of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac.
Ishmael was the quote unquote,
son of the flesh, if you will,whereas Isaac was the son of the spirit.
Okay.
Ishmael came by the works of the flesh,if you will, whereas Isaac

(14:59):
came by the works of the spirit,if you will.
The, miracle working power of God.
So Ishmael came first, then Isaac.
So Godcommanded Abraham to go and sacrifice
his only son, was referring to Isaaconly son.
What?
What do you mean, only son?
Ishmael was the firstborn son.
according to the literal interpretation

(15:21):
the biological, perspective,if there's any son
that would be consideredto be Abraham's son,
it would have been the firstbornof Abraham.
Ishmael.
But according to God, Isaac wasthe firstborn.
Isaac was his only son.And how can that be?
Because God sees the spiritual.
So when it says, here.
When you partake of sin

(15:45):
in the day that you eat of it,you shall surely die.
I believe this is talking aboutspiritual death,
the opposite to spiritual death is to livethe just shall live by faith.
Habakkuk.
Christians, would tell youthat the the whole thing about
the just shall liveby faith is talking about eternal life.

(16:05):
salvation.
You know, you're saved by faith,this kind of thing.
So that word life or liveis talking about spiritual life,
not physical, not literal, but spiritual.
There are of course, always there areseveral different interpretations of this.
Number one is that it's spiritual,which I do believe that to be the case,

(16:26):
all things considered, you look atthe whole entirety of all Scripture
and the law and the prophets,and how it is present, and how the soul
that sin shall die and when you're in sin,you're you're in death.
You were dead in your trespasses and sins,but now you're made alive
because you have repentedand you got saved.
Ezekiel 18.
Ezekiel 33.

(16:46):
in the Torah, will live by this.
Do this, and you shall live, these kindof, implications of spiritual life.
The story of the prodigal son,
the book of Ephesians,the book of Colossians,
so I believe it's talking about spiritual.
Now, of course, there are peoplewho believe that it's literal,
as in a literal day, like a time frame.

(17:07):
so there are people who believe that,it means literally a 24 hour a day.
that could be possible in the sensethat in the day, in the 24,
in the actual,in the day that you eat of it,
we we've spoken about thisthe other day as well, the other day,
how we use,even in English, how we use the word day.
You know, back in my day, back in the dayyou know, in my day
and age, in our day and age, we talkingabout a literal 24 hour period? No.

(17:32):
Back in the day, are we talking abouta literal 24 hour pain?
No, but we're actually talking about,in the time basically,
as it's not it's not necessarily talking
about a, specific measurement of time,but rather just talking about,
generally speaking, in the time of
so in the time of your sin, you will die.

(17:52):
For in the day that you eat of it,you shall surely die.
it's can be rootedback into the Book of Jubilees,
where this word dayis talking about a thousand years.
the author of the Book of Jubilees takesthis literally,
takes the word die literallyand takes the word day literally as well.
And and so they say, well,
Adam didn't die physically,you know, in the, in the very day

(18:16):
that he sin,but he died within a thousand year period.
So therefore a day equalsa thousand years.
Now, the anonymous author of Second Peter,not Peter, by the way,
Picks up on this Book of Jubilees concept.
second Peter is full of the Apocryphaand Suda Pinker for
we know this because there are many thingsthat Second Peter talks about

(18:39):
that's not found anywhere in the lawand the prophets,
not found anywhere in the quote unquote,
Old Testament is only foundin the Sunni epigraphy.
And this is one where in the second,Peter talks about a day,
as is a thousand years,in a thousand years, this is a day.
This is from the Book of Jubilees.
That's where the author got that from.
I do believe because of a few things.
Number one, the author of Second Peterdoes not say that he got it from the Lord

(19:01):
like we read about it so oftenthroughout the throughout the scriptures.
You know, the Lord showed me this.
The Lord showed me that,
we have the prophet saying, you know,the Lord said this to me.
The Lord spoke this to me.Thus saith the Lord.
Oh, I heard the Lord's.
And the word of the Lord came to me.The burning.
The Lord came to The oracle of the Lordcame to me.
But the author of Second Peterdoes not say any of that.

(19:22):
He does not claim anything like that.He doesn't say.
And the word of the Lord came to mein the in the Lord said to me, A day
is, is a thousand yearsand a thousand years is is that.
He doesn't say that.
So why should we assume that just because
our little corrupt pastor over here,our little corrupt
evangelist over overthere, said that it's the Word of God.
Therefore it has to be the Word of God.Because the man.

(19:44):
Because man says it's the Word of God.
No. SecondPeter is all about a suit of pickle work,
a forgery of Peter,as most scholars would believe,
and has evidenceto present to that conclusion.
I'm not going to get intothe whole study of Second Peter.
But if you, you know, if you check it outsecond Peter you go through it
line by line, concept by concept,and you ask yourself a question,

(20:07):
where did this come from?Where did that come from?
Where did this idea come from?
A lot of these ideas and conceptsdo not come from the scriptures.
They do not come from you know,it wasn't Peter that got it from Jesus.
We don't find it in the, in the Gospels.
Jesus didn't say to Peter,oh, by the way, Peter,
I just want to let you knowa thousand years is is a day.
No, we don't see this in the Gospels.

(20:28):
we have a fair amount of evidence,a sufficient amount of evidence,
in my opinion,to conclude that much of the things
that were spokenwere taken from other sources.
We know that Second Peter chapter twowas taken primarily from Jude okay.
He copied from Jude and just added to itand expounded upon a few things,

(20:48):
changed a few things, but other thingsthat Second Peter says is from the suit.
Apocrypha is from bookssuch as the Book of Jubilees.
So how do you know that Christopher?
we know that the Book of Jubilees existedin the day that Second Peter was written,
and we know that the Book of Jubileeswas in circulation in the day in the day.
Here I go.

(21:09):
In the day that second Peter was written.
How do you know that, Christopher?
Because the Book of Jubilees in the DeadSea Scrolls.
Okay.
The Book of Jubilees.
is dated, before the first century.
So the Book of Jubileeswas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
which pre-dates the author of Second Peterby hundreds of years.
So that proves to us we have hard evidencethat the Book of Jubilees

(21:31):
was in circulation in the Holy Landor in about the Holy Land
long before Second Peter ever came around.
when Second Peter sayssomething like a thousand years,
this is a dayand this is a thousand years.
The people who read that
in the first century or a second century,whenever a second Peter was written,
the people who read that backin those days,
they understoodthis is from the Book of Jubilees,

(21:52):
just like they understood
a lot of other things that Second Petersaid is from the Apocrypha and some other.
It's justlike today, if if I were to write a letter
and in this letter I would say, Romeo,O Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
If I were to write that today in a letter.
And 2000 years from now somebody finds it.

(22:13):
are they going to say? ThatChristopher got this from God?
Are they going to say,oh, wow, this is awesome, Christopher,
what kind of a poetic Christopherwe have here?
Right?
I think I say that
I hope not, I hope they say,oh, of course, this is from Shakespeare.
And we know thisbecause this is Shakespeare existed
long before Christopher did, and it was incirculation and quite well known.

(22:33):
And we know it's justthe evidence is pretty clear
that Christopher is actually quotingfrom Shakespeare.
Right.
You know, so in the same waySecond Peter is quoting from Jubilees.
Capiche? Comprehend, understand.
You see.
So I don't believe that this day I believe
against the Book of Jubilees that this dayis not talking about a thousand years.

(22:58):
and I say that because of the factthat I don't believe that this word die
is talking about physical death,but rather spiritual death
in the full contextand the full scope of Scripture.
Whenever you talk about sin,whenever you talk about
transgressing God's commandments,especially death in the eyes of God.
It's spiritual death.
you know, later on in the Torah,
we come back to this whole,concept as well as, you know, sin

(23:23):
causes spiritual death repentanceand righteousness cause
the spiritual life, you know, brings outspiritual life, life versus death.
The just shall live by faith.
You do this and you will live,So I believe that
this is talking about spiritualdeath and not physical death.
to those who would cling loyallyto the Book

(23:44):
of Jubilees and its interpretation,I'm going to question a question.
My question is, how do you know thatthe author of the Book of Jubilees
didn't make that up
just to support his literal theory?
I'll ask this againmy question to you is how?
Like, seriously,how do you know that the author

(24:06):
of the Book of Jubileesdidn't make that up?
Just to support and justify his theory
that this die in Genesis
two verse 17 is literal,physical honey? No.
In other words,could it be that the author of Jubilees

(24:27):
read that and just took it literallywhen he shouldn't have taken it literally?
Could it be that the author of Jubilees
read that and took it literally,when he should have taken it spiritually?
And itoh well, Adam didn't die, like literally
the very 24 hour periodthat he actually said. So.
Let's see if we can try to make this worksomehow.
Can we make let's,let's we'll make or make something.

(24:49):
We'll make it so it has to be somethingother than 24 hours.
So maybe it's. Well, let me see how.
When did Adam die?
Well, he died in year 930,depending on what manuscript you go by.
By the way, different manuscripts,you got different, different years.
But the master attic, for example.
so Adam died in his 930 first year. So.
Oh, so day has to be at least shorterthan or a little bit longer than not,

(25:13):
because it has to be in the day, withinthe day before the closing of the day.
So therefore,I guess a day must mean a thousand years.
This is my question.
I suspect I might be wrong,but I suspect that the author of Jubilees
made it up to support his theory thatthis death is literal and not spiritual.

(25:35):
Why would I say that this is spiritual,not literal?
How can Christopherbelieve that this die is not physical?
Because we know Adam died, right?
Adam died my position on this mattercomes from an enormous amount of thought
that's put into storyof the Garden of Eden and the fall of man.
So I was told, that, death did not comeinto the world until Adam sinned.

(25:59):
Right.So death didn't come into the world.
So there's absolutely no death whatsoever.
There was not a leaf on any treethat died.
There was not a brown leaf on any tree.
There was not a brown blade of grassnot one bacteria that died.
There was not one germ that died.
There was no death at all.
Not one cell of a living organismthat God created died

(26:21):
because, hey, back before the fall,there was no death, right?
until I put some thought to this.
So if the Garden of Edenwas a literal garden,
as in like a vegetable gardenwith vegetables and fruit trees
and all kinds of other stuff like that,where Adam could live and, you know,
so if that's the case, it would be.
Virtually impossible for Adam

(26:42):
to eat from the gardenwithout inflicting death.
and say, Adam wakes up one morning,It's day 16 of creation, okay?
He wakes up one morningand he's hungry, and he,
I think I have some lettuce forfor breakfast this morning.
So he goes out to the gardenand he pulls off a leaf of lettuce.
Guess what happens?
That entire leaf and all of the thousandsor hundreds of thousands

(27:04):
of cells, living cells in that leaf,just got the death sentence.
Every cell,every living thing in that leaf would die.
Time goes and he picks.
He pulls a carrot up from the fromthe garden washes it off and eats it.
Guess what?
There goes another million cells of life.
Dead. Death.
Nothing can live on Earth without death.

(27:26):
Those of you who are a little bit familiar
with gardening,you know that unless you have hydroponics
and I don't necessarily believe that thegarden of Eden was a hydroponic system,
unless you have hydroponics.
Even if you did, I mean, you still have tomimic the death of organic matter.
Every physical plant, tree, herbs, shrub,

(27:46):
everything lives off of deadorganic matter.
Good soil is literally soilthat has been composted.
It's dead organic matter.
Death existed.
Death existed.
If the Garden of Eden was literal.
Even if it wasn't literal, deathstill existed before the fall.
Because the idea is,if there was no death in the world

(28:09):
until the fall of Adam,then is it just to believe that?
One man messes up on one commandment,
and all the animals have to die foreverbecause of that.
All the plant kingdom,all the animal kingdom,
everything has to die because of one
man who messed up on one commandment.

(28:30):
Is that just?
Is that what a just God would do?
There'sabsolutely no way that a man or animal
or plant can livewithout the death of something else.
The only way that's possibleis in the spiritual realm, right?
The only way that's possible isif Adam and Eve were not,
physical beings at all,but rather spiritual beings,

(28:51):
then you can say, oh, yeah, okay,so there was no death in that world
because that's just a spiritual world.
So it would be all eternal.
So I've spent an immense amount of timethinking about this
and looking at the evidence that we havein scientific evidence
do believe that God is a God of evidence.
And I believe that
God uses science as a toolteach us how he created, the universe.

(29:12):
if this die in verse 17.
Is what Christians sayit is meaning that this is the first time
death entered into the world.
And before this nothing died.
physically, literally.
If this death is this literal.
Then.
It really wouldn't workvery well in my opinion.
with the big picture.
If this death is spiritual,it works perfectly In my estimation,

(29:34):
this is talking about spiritual death,
as in the same spiritual deaththat the prodigal son experienced.
The Colossians experience,the Ephesians experience,
the sinners of Ezekiel chapter 18,Ezekiel chapter 33.
The soul that sins shall die.
This is a spiritual death.
Then it works perfectly.
It seems to methat God created the physical realm.
So everything is corruptible,everything's corruptible.

(29:56):
Genesis chapter two, verse 18.
And the Lord God said, it is not goodthat man should be alone.
I will make a helper comparable to him.
by the Septuagint, the Lord God said,it is not good that man should be alone.
Let us look at this.
Us all of a sudden shows up here again.
Look at that.
Let us make for hima help suitable to him.

(30:17):
This is the same kind of us that we readof in Genesis chapter one, verse 26.
Right.
Let us make man in our image.
Let us make man in our image.
Verse 19 of the new King James,based on the messianic out of the ground,
the Lord God formed every beastof the field and every part of the air,
and brought them to Adamto see what he would call them.
And whenever Adam calledeach living creature that was its name

(30:40):
in the Septuagint and God,now all of a sudden it just says
God instead of Lord God. Again.
And God formed.
Yet farther out of the earth
all the wild beasts of the fieldand all the birds of the sky.
And he brought them to Adamto see what he would call them.
And whenever Adam called any livingcreature, that was the name of it.
this is an indicationthat God gave dominion to man.

(31:03):
And in so giving dominion to man,he also gave man the responsibility
not just to subdue the earth and,dominate it and all that kind of thing,
but rather that God basically gave
man the power and the responsibility
to even name the animals so he,God could he did this himself, right?
Okay, Adam.

(31:24):
Sit down.
I'm going to teach you. Okay. Here.
This is what you call this animal.
This is what you call that animal.
But this is not what God did.
According to this, God left it up to AdamTo name All of these creatures.
A man and says.
But because our father and motherate from the tree and gave birth to sin.
Death? We were condemned throughout time.
No human was able to overcomeuntil Jesus of Nazareth.

(31:46):
So this is what they call it.
Like this would be the, incompatiblewith the doctrine of original sin.
I don't necessarily, subscribeto the doctrine of original sin.
I don't believe that it is really inaccordance with the Torah or the prophets.
Now, the doctrine of original sin,a little bit of history as I understand
it, really was promotedby the corrupt Saint Augustine of Hippo.

(32:08):
Roman Catholic father.
he's the one that really tookthe doctrine of original sin.
Like we're all condemnedbecause of Adam and Eve.
And he ran with it,and he publicized it a lot.
and in my opinion,it was an unfortunate thing, along with,
several other things that Saint Augustinedid, which I think is very unfortunate.
Not in accordance with the truth.
I believe that his contemporary,Saint John

(32:31):
Chrysostom, of the Orthodox, church,
is more in line with the truthas opposed to Augustine.
The idea here
is that the Torah and the prophetssay that the soul that sins shall die
not the soul of the child, of the onewhose sins shall die,
not the soul of the grandchild,of the one who sin shall die.

(32:52):
But it's the soul that sins shall die.
where is justice in punishing
somebody else for doing a crimethat somebody else did?
again, it's like,
Johnny, he was born in prison,and he never escaped prison, you know.
How old is he now?
Well, he's why he's he's ten now.
He's ten years old now.

(33:13):
Johnny, what did you dojust to deserve being in prison?
All your life? From birth?
I'm here because my great, great greatgreat great, great great great greatest,
really great, extremely great grandfathercommitted a crime.
And that's the reason why I'm here. isthat good?
Is that justice?
Is that something that, you know? Is it.
Oh, yeah.
Johnny, you deserve that for sure.

(33:34):
Definitely.
You deserve to be born in prisonand to be kept in prison all your life
because your super great, extremelygreat grandfather was a criminal. No.
the criminal pays for the crime,not the son of the criminal
or the grandson of the great grandsonor any of the.
It's the criminal himselfthat pays for the crime, right?
you know, the soul that sins shall die.

(33:55):
know somebody might say, well,it says in Psalm 51, I was born in sin.
There's a big story behind that.A lot of Christians don't know.
A lot of Christiansdon't know the story behind Psalm 51.
And David, to give youa little bit of a background of it.
Okay. David, this is David writing it.
He's not saying we're all born in sin.
He looked up the,

(34:16):
live streams that we did on Original Sin,and, David's mother knits.
Evet.
as the story goes, David'smother was accused of, being unfaithful.
And so, David,you know, one of the theories
is that David believed for a whilethat he was basically a more or less
an illegitimate child, So he thought thathe was conceived in sin, if you will.

(34:36):
and so this is why he wrote that it's
similarto the story of Mary and Jesus, right?
Because David and Jesus are very,very similar.
Like,they're almost, like mirroring each other.
You know this as Jesusis the Son of David.
It really David really, reflects Jesus.
Or vice versa,however you want to look at it.
you know, the story goes thatthe rumor had it that Mary was unfaithful.

(34:57):
And, you know, Josephwanted to divorce her because of that.
And, you know the whole story. Right?
So, a similar story like thatis surrounding David and his mother.
Okay.
So apart from that,my question is where in the Torah
does it say that original sin is a thing?
Where does it say that?
If one person sins,all of your children pay for it.

(35:20):
If that's the case,we're in so much trouble.
think about this for a minute.
original sin is true,and sin can be transferred down
all the way through to all the generationsthat, succeed,
and Adam transgressed one command,and now the world is all condemned.
What would happenif his son Seth transgressed one command?

(35:41):
So that would be a snowball effect, right?
A compounding effect.
So if the doctrine of original sinand the concept of sin,
the condemnation of sinis passed down to descendants
as the doctrine of original sinwould imply?
If that's the case,we're all super bad shape, right now
because we've had how many thousands ofor hundreds of generations

(36:04):
since Adam all of our fathersand forefathers, all the way
down, all the way from Adamtill today have all sinned,
and that would multiply and come compoundand exponentially
increase the condemnationupon the next generation, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't it?
So the doctrine of original sin, inmy estimation.
Is false.I believe that a baby is innocent.

(36:26):
A baby is not a sinner because a sinner issomebody who commits sin.
And babies don't commit sin.
A newborn baby is without sin.
Because sinis the transgression of the law,
sin is not some inheritancethat you inherit from your parents
and all the way from Adam.
Sin is a transgression of the law.
In first John three four. Hubert says.

(36:48):
Could it be just talking aboutman's death?
it could be. Yes. Yes, it could be.
That's a possibility.
speaking about the whole ideathat death came into the world.
You could say thatit's just in the context of man's death.
but then the question would be,why would the animals die?
Why would the trees die?Why would they have to die?
every creature, would have to die?

(37:08):
but, man, if man was the only onethat live forever and everything else
had to die,and why that that would be my question.
Hubert says that's injustice. Yes.
Can you imagine being punishedfor something that somebody else did
they had no control of?I don't think that's justice.
Genesis chapter two. Verse 20.
So Adam gave names to all cattle,
to the birds of the air,to every beast of the field.

(37:30):
but for Adam, there was not found a helpercomparable to him.
Septuagint.
And Adam gave names to all the cattle
and, to all the birds of the skyand to all the wild beasts of the field.
But for Adam there was not found a helplike to himself.
New King James the Lord God, causeda deep sleep to fall on Adam.
and he slept.

(37:50):
And he took one of his ribs and closed upthe flesh in its place, the Septuagint.
And God brought a trance upon Adam,and he slept.
And he took one of his ribs,and filled up the flesh instead thereof.
Verse 22.
Then the ribwhich the Lord God and taken from man,
he made into a woman,and he brought her to the man.
Septuagintsays, And God okay, not notice again

(38:13):
we have we're back to this whole thingas the Septuagint just says simply God.
Whereas the messianic says, LordGod in verse 22, And God formed the rib
which he took from, Adam into a womanand brought her to Adam.
there is this theory that we have, God.
putting Adam to sleep, per se.
And when Adam was asleep,he took from his side, took from his rib,

(38:35):
took from his side, and,created his wife from that.
So there's this theory that we haveYeshua.
We have Jesus on the cross.
when he died, when he slept.
Because, you know, the word sleep or sleptis a euphemism for death,
especially in the New Testament, althoughin the, actually in the Tanakh as well.

(38:56):
you know, wake up, old sleeper,that kind of thing.
the word slept, meaning death.
So just as Adam slept,
fell asleep, and God took from his sideand created a wife for him,
the idea is that, Yeshua Jesus,
when he died on the cross, when he slept,the spear that went into his side.

(39:18):
And this was basically sealingthe deal of his death, which,
figuratively speaking againout of his side or out of his death
came his bride, if you will, you know,his quote unquote, church, if you will.
So the church of the bride of Christ
came from his sidejust as Eve came from Adam's side.
Genesis chapter two,verse 23, in the messianic.

(39:42):
And Adam said, this is nowbone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.
She shall be called woman,because she was taken out of man.
Septuagint Adam said, this is nowbone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.
She shall be called woman,because she was taken out of her husband.
In Ephesians chapter five, verse 30.
similar to this. speaking of.

(40:02):
The Ephesians, the believers of Yeshua,speaking about Jesus.
We are members of his body, of his fleshand of his bones.
Verse 31, It's Ephesians 531 for thiscause shall a man
leave his father and mother,and shall be joined unto his wife.
And they too shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery.

(40:23):
But I speak concerningChrist in the church.
This is awesome.
So it seems like the, author of Ephesiansor quote unquote, Paul is kind of
alluding to this whole thinghere in Genesis chapter two, verse 23.
Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.
she shall be called woman, forshe was taken out of man.
So again it goes, it kind of reflectsback to the idea That this whole story

(40:46):
of Evebeing created out of Adam is, repeated,
or at least the story of the crosswhen yashua when Jesus
was hanging on the crossand he died when he when he slept.
And there was a spearthat was thrust into his side,
that this is the seal of the covenant.
The covenant was sealed here becausehe for sure died at that point in time.

(41:09):
and so because of that,the covenant people of Yeshua
came from that,just as Eve came from Adam.
And that just as Eve was Adam'sbody, bones and flesh.
So quote unquote, the church is the body,the bones in the flesh of Jesus,
as we just read there and in Ephesianschapter five, verses 30 and 31.
verse 24, therefore a man shall leavehis father and mother

(41:32):
and be joined to his wife,and they shall become one flesh.
Okay. Verse 25.
And they were both naked, the manand his wife, and were not ashamed.
So look at we got something a little bitdifferent here in the Septuagint.
this is Genesis 224.
Therefore shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,and they two shall be one flesh.

(41:54):
And the two naked.
Both Adam and his wife,and were not ashamed.
But notice here in the Septuagint,
where it says, the two were naked, bothAdam and his wife, and were not ashamed.
that is not in chapter two.
But that's literally in chapter three.
So the entirety of chapter three,Is one verse different?
In the Septuagint in my opinionthis works better

(42:17):
because the whole ideathat Adam and his wife were naked
and were not ashamed should actually beput in a different chapter.
beginning the story of the fall. Right?
It's talking about how, no,they were naked, they were not ashamed.
And then, story of the fall of man,concluded with them.
clothing themselves.
Right.
we got the Bible is unbiblical.
The Bible is unbiblical here, you know.

(42:39):
So, you say, Christopher,What's wrong with you?
Christopher?Why are you wearing something like this?
What does this mean?
the thinking behindthis statement is the Bible canon.
Okay? I'm not talkingabout the contents of the Bible.
I'm talking aboutthe structure of the Bible.
I used to go to different churchesand fellowships that they would always
say, this is unbiblical.That's unbiblical.

(43:00):
Oh, don't go there.
Oh, don't do thatbecause that's unbiblical.
And once they what they meant wasthat's not in the Bible.
You know, well this church they dosome weird things that's unbiblical.
It's not in the Bible.
or they teach somethingthat's really strange, that's unbiblical.
That's not in the Bible.
The word unbiblical is definedas being not in the Bible.
So the thinking behind this is that

(43:22):
the Bible is a very ambiguous statement.
And any given Bible is a library of bookscontaining certain books,
depending on what Bibledepending on the publisher,
depending on the churchthat's behind the Bible.
Some churches have decided to excludecertain books, and some churches
have decided to include certain booksyou know, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,

(43:45):
very large church, by the way, 50, 45,50 million members, registered members,
from what I understand, they includedthe Book of Enoch in their Bible,
They have likeat least 81 books in their Bible.
we have all kinds of different Orthodoxchurches that have all kinds of different
books in their Bibles.
And of course, the Protestant churchhas their 66 book Bibles,

(44:08):
this came out of a long, studyand thought process
that I went through years agoas to what Bible is the true Bible?
Which Bible is right?
What Bible canon is the true one?
Why did this one exclude these books?
Why did this one include the other ones?
And I've come to the conclusionthat every one of these Bibles,

(44:31):
Protestant, Roman Catholic and manyOrthodox Bibles and some of these other,
stranger Bibles as well,there's some strange Bibles out there
that have their own canon.
They're all based on man's decision.
Certain men, have decided to includeor exclude certain books.
Just to, support their theology.
don't like that book.

(44:51):
not going to print our Bibles.
with that book included in it,we're going to exclude that book.
Why don't you like that one?
that doesn't jive with their theology.
Well, we don't like this other book.
I've come to the conclusionthat No Bible publisher that I am aware of
has ever claimed the table of contentsof their Bible has been dictated by God.
66 books, 73 and 74,75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 88.

(45:15):
So many different Bibles,but so many different books.
So looking at history as well,and how the Bible came about
and how we have so many different Biblesone of the most ancient Bibles.
The Codex
Anonymous has books in it that we don'teven have, such as the Shepherd of Hermes.
In the New Testament we have the scepterHermes, but not in the New Testament.
And then, other books like the
the Epistle to Barnabusthat was also in the New Testament.

(45:36):
You guys know that the Shepherd of Hermesand the epistle Barnabas
was originally in the New Testament.
Now thumbs up for the Shepherd of Hermes.
I got to say that,
you know, not a believer in Bible canon,I don't like Bible canon.
because I believe that it'stoo conducive to biblical story
because everybody's got their own Bibleand everybody dies.
And idolizes their Bible canon.

(45:57):
And as if it's perfect.
And we know that there is no Bible canonthat's perfect.
Actually,there's not even a Bible manuscript
that's perfect,let alone a Bible canon. This perfect.
this particular t shirtspecifically is for Protestants.
Evangelical fundamental Protestantsthat believe
that their 66 book Bible is inerrant,all authoritative.

(46:18):
Perfect. It's the Word of God.
to be interpreted literally, and it'sscientifically and historically accurate.
Those people this is for them If you claimthat your Bible canon is perfect,
66 books, no more, no less, then whatscripture do you have to back that up?
That's what this is all about.
when I'm talking about hereis the 66 book idol.

(46:40):
This idol is not biblical.
Should we study the Torahand all the prophets and all the catechism
and all those books?
Absolutely.
And this is what we're doing rightnow, right? Absolutely.
Should we study the New Testament?Should we study the Apocrypha, the Suda?
Sure, absolutely. Lord willing,we'll do it all.
We'll do it all. Absolutely.
I think we need toI think that you shoot himself.
would love it,you know. Have you not read.

(47:01):
Don't you know have you not read?I didn't just study about this.
I think that he wants us to do this.
This is the reasonwhy we're doing it right.
So he loves this kind of he loves study.
I think that if you saw was on Earth,know, hey, we're people that just want
the truth of the scriptures, regardlessof how we feel,
regardless of, whether or notit steps on our theological toes.

(47:24):
Even if it hurts us,we want the truth of the scriptures.
I like what Doctor Price said.
A few years agowhen we had Doctor Price with us,
he said the table of contentsis not inspired.
Amen to that, Doctor Price. Definitely.
It's once she got all these Biblesin front of you, like dozens of them.
It's like, well, which one?
Which books to include,which books not to include?

(47:45):
Which one is the right one?
Well guess what, none of them are,
because the table of contentsand all these Bibles are not inspired.
every book has its own placein the hierarchy of Scripture.
This is the reason why we have the TMK,the Tanakh,
the T and the Torah at the top,the nav ame, the prophets,
under the Torah,and then the of him under the prophets.

(48:07):
I think Jesus knew this.
I think you're showing you this
because you talkedabout the temptation of Christ,
when the devil came to Yeshuaand tempted him in all three
areas, the same areasthat the serpent tempted Eve.
By the way, when Jesus was temptedin these three areas, what did Jesus do?
What did he do to combat the devil?
He was the Torah. Every time.

(48:27):
He used the Torah every time.
He used the Book of Deuteronomy.Specifically.
Every time I heard thatin the Jewish mind,
the Torah is the only wayto effectively defeat the devil.
and apparently Jesus himself also believethat because he used Torah as well.
Torah always Torah to defeat the devil.
It is written Deuteronomy, it is writtenDeuteronomy, it is written Deuteronomy.

(48:50):
So he he picks from the cream of the crop.
He picks from the top,the top in hierarchy, the T, the Torah
in pick from the end.
And he didn't pick from the bottomthe catch of him.
NK in that order.
Notice when the devil quoted scriptureback to him, the devil didn't
dare touch Torah.He picked from the bottom.
He picked from the bottom of the barrel.He quoted Psalms.

(49:11):
Psalms, compared to Torah, is like,well, Psalms was actually like the hymn
book, right?
Can you imagine?
Sitting in a churchand having the devil tempt you.
And instead of using,quote unquote, the Bible,
you pull out the hymn bookand you quote the hymn book to the devil.
The Book of Psalmswas basically the hymn book the day.
The Book of Psalmsdidn't have the authority of the Torah

(49:33):
just as much as in thein the mind of a Christian.
The hymn book wouldn'thave the authority of the Bible. Right?
The hymn book is just the hymn book, forthe Bible.
Is the Bible the word of God?
The hymn book is not necessarilyWord of God.
It's just the hymn book.
And that's the way it was viewed,back in those days,
is the catch of especially the the Psalms.
It was just the hymn book.
It wasn't the quote unquote Torah,Jesus knew it.

(49:55):
He knew his stuff, right?
He knew his stuff.He knew how to use the Torah.
How many Christians todayuse the Torah to defeat the devil?
How many Christians today use the Torahto combat the disputes that they're in?
Christians just use Paul, right?
That's why I say they should callthemselves Paul instead of Christians.
John says if a Christian were to readonly one book of the Bible
and none of the others,which book would you recommend?

(50:18):
Which book is the most essentialin your opinion?
Deuteronomy.
Like, did you know that when youwhen you talk about the word of God
in first century, context,everybody would say Torah's word of God,
but not everybody would say that the, the,the prophets are the word of God.
Not everybody would say thatthe catch of him is the Word of God.
Like the prophets in the catch of himwould be all the other books, the 34

(50:40):
books of the quote unquote Old Testament,apart from the books of Moses.
So the books of Moses would be consideredto be the Word of God right
across the board.
Doesn't matter you talk to, the books ofMoses would be the words of God.
But the prophets and all the other books,the books of as Christians
would call them, the books of wisdom,
the books of history, poetic books,and all these other books.

(51:03):
They can't have them.
They were not consideredto be the Word of God by some people.
in fact, a fair amount of people actually,in the first century,
including the Samaritans,this is the Samaritan Bible.
This is all they had for their Bible.
it was just the books of Moses,just the Torah alone.
The Samaritans did not considerthe prophets

(51:26):
or the books of wisdom,the books of, the history,
the books of the poetic books,all these other books they kept on them.
They did not considerthose to be anywheres
near the same inspiration levelas the Torah.
You have the Samaritansthat only accepted the books of Moses.
You had the Sadducees as well.
That only accepted the books of Moses.
the Pharisees were a lot more liberalin their theology.

(51:48):
They accepted the books of Moses.
They accepted the prophets.They accepted the Catechism.
They accepted the Apocrypha.They accepted it.
They accepted the traditions.They accepted lots of stuff. Right?
they basically took it all.
Smorgasbord of scripture.
it's interesting that, Yeshua in Matthew23 commanded everyone to observe
and to do whatthe Pharisees teach to observe
and do not following their example,of course, because they're hypocrites, but

(52:11):
following their teachings.
Yeshua did not sayfollow the teachings of the Sadducees,
which is just Torah only,or books, and Moses only.
He didn't say follow the teachingsof the Samaritans, which again is just
books of Moses only, but ratherhe said, follow the teachings, observe
and do all that the Phariseestell you to observe and do.

(52:33):
If Matthew 23 is historical,which I do believe it probably is.
In other words, Jesus actually said thatthat means that he commanded everybody
to follow the observancesof the Pharisees, the teachings,
the the doctrine of the Pharisees,which includes apocrypha.
even some of the pseudo epigraphy,because Pharisees accepted all the stuff

(52:55):
If Jesus observed and taughtTorah perfectly,
then he would be quote unquote,Torah in the flesh, in a figurative way.
According to the Synoptic Gospels,I don't see anything that he would say
that's against Torah,especially in the book of Matthew.
Matthew is really goodwhen it comes to Torah.
I think we need to keep in mindthat in the Jewish mindset,

(53:15):
that any Jew that observed Torah perfectly
was considered to be, the personificationof Tor or Torah in the flesh, I think.
Do we need to keep that in mind?
If you're Jesus is not compatible
with the written Torah,something is desperately wrong.
It's eitherthe written Torah is not accurate.

(53:36):
It's wrong.
The transmission of it got messed upsomewhere or your version of Jesus
is wrong.
Or I guess the other option would beif you believe that Jesus
wasn't compatible with Torah at all,that Jesus didn't obey the law of God.
Therefore,
if that's the case, if you believe that,then you can't say that Jesus was sinless.
It seems to be an oxymoron,because a lot of Christians say that

(53:58):
Jesus is sinless, always was sinless,and always will be sinless.
But then they say, oh, but he broke Torah.
You know, he broke the Sabbath.
He did other stuff that he broke.He he changed Torah.
We can't change Torah.
He can't transgressedor he can't change it,
because in the Torah itself,it says, you're not supposed to change it.
Deuteronomy chapter four, verse two.
So if you change Torah, if you add to itor take away from it, that is sin.

(54:20):
So if Jesus did that, then he sinned.
If he actually broke the Sabbathaccording to Torah, then he sinned.
did your Jesus actually transgressthe law of Moses?
Did he obey the law of Moses fully?
Yes or no?
If your answer is yes, okay.
Perfect. Awesome.
Then you can say Jesus was wasn'the didn't sin.
Okay, fine.
But if you say that Jesus is sinlessand yet you say that

(54:43):
he broke the Torah, or he changed it,then that makes no sense
because you're actually sayingthat he did sin, although he's sinless,
because sin is a transgression of the law.
believe that the true historical Jesus.
is a lot different than whata lot of people believe Jesus to be today.
If Jesus actually did some time traveland brought his physical self from,

(55:06):
you know, 30 or 29 A.D Before
he was crucified, before any of that stuffhappened, if he came into our day.
I think than a lot of Christianswould reject him.
Almost every Christian would reject him,because.
I don't think he was likea lot of people think.
I think that he was a lot more JewishI think that he was a lot more in tune
with Tor than a lot of people thinks.
I don't think that he cameto start a new religion.

(55:28):
Even he said it in the gospel.John. Right.
I come just to speak my father's wordsand that's it.
Who was his father?
His father's the God of Moses.
His father's the God of the Torah.
The words of the father.
Our Torah,the Torah is the words of the father.
So when Jesus said,I come to speak the words of the father

(55:49):
that would mean he came to preach Torah.
So I would say, and what would Jesus do?
Read Torah, you'll find out,because that's what Jesus would do, right?
what would Jesus do?
WiDi what would you sayyou would do? read the Torah?
You'll get it all there.
Well, you know, we only got four Gospels.
And the Gospel of John says
that if everything that Jesus saidand did was written down,

(56:10):
not even the whole entire world would beable to contain the books Okay, fine.
So you want to know more about Jesus?
You want to know more about what he said?
First of all, read and study the Torah.
That's it right there.
Then, apart from that, readthe Psalms, too. Right?
We're talking about that over the pastfew weeks, reading the Psalms
as the first person,Yeshua, speaking through the Psalms.
It's amazing.

(56:30):
Going nowhere, says Dean MartinLuther disliked the book of James
and think it shouldn'tbe in the Bible. Yes, he absolutely did.
Just like the book of James.
He called it an epistle of straw.
And commanded it to be burned.
he didn'tthink it should be in the Bible. Yes.
I gotta give some creditwhere credit's due, though. Martin Luther.
At least Martin Luther had the hood spot
to acknowledgethat the book of James is against Paul.

(56:53):
At least he knew that now, today,because of, a lot of Christians
in their idolatry of their Bible canon,they refuse to acknowledge
that they said, oh,but James, not against Paul at all.
No, they both work together.
James is just saying that, worksas a byproduct of faith.
Give me a break. No,that's not what he said.
No, what?
He said he was against the doctrinethat people

(57:14):
preach today, that they derivefrom the epistles of Paul.
the question is, how do you interpret Paulif you interpret Paul the way
most of the mainstream church does today,then the answer is yes.
James was certainly diametricallyopposed to that.
Martin Luther knew it. Marcion knew it.
And that's the reasonwhy they did not accept the Book of James

(57:36):
in any way, shape or form, but King Jamesas well as other books as well.
Yes, book. Matthew Book of Revelation.
there's other books as well.Several other books.
Once again, if you haven't already,
please leave a like subscribe, followif you're new here, As always.
You guys are awesome.You guys are world changers.
Keep on keeping on.
Keep on calling on him as it says.
And he will show yougreat and mighty things.

(57:58):
Love you guys.
We'll see you guys tomorrow. As always.
I pray the Lord bless you and keep you.
Make his face to shine upon you.
Lift up his countenanceupon you and give you wonderful,
wonderful shalom.
Amen, Amen. We'll see you guys tomorrow.