Things Learned in Romans

                                                                                      Part 4

We must remember that everything that came forth into visibility had its origin in the invisible realm of spirit.  Spirit does not change its form, but, form will change to  what the Spirit chooses to live in. In other words, God was a Spirit (so were we), He is Still a Spirit form or Being (so are we), God doesn't change WHAT He is because He enters a flesh body. (neither did we, just our thinking changed.) But, since God's goal is to LIVE IN THE VISIBLE FORM, that visible FORM has to change, and it will , the body will see imortality, because it will change to what is living within it.

Think about this: can illness and disease touch God?  As we meditate, constantly, on who we are, whose life is being lived through us, we are seeing more and more, that as we remember who we truly are, those things are dropping away. In a people TODAY who are remembering who they are, are seeing some changing taking place, within the flesh body that they live in. . If we WERE Gods' substance, WE ARE STILL HIS SUBSTANCE, HE CANNOT CHANGE!!  But, thinking as EVE would have us to think,  about who and what we are, is the opposite of who we truly are. Eve has had us believing that we WERE His Substance, but, somewhere along the way we changed and now we are RE-changing!!  That sounds like the rapture people, they have Jesus coming and gong, coning and going on a cloud! We are what we have always been, we cannot change from that being. But, our THINKING can change, and it is.

And that's what is happening with our understanding His written Word. He is awakening us to stop being RELIGOUS NUTS and, instead become aware that we ARE THE TREE!!  I want to make it perfectly clear; I AM NOT SAYING TO STOP READING THE BIBLE!!  I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT HAVE IN IT, INSPIRED WORDS!  But, I am saying that along with everything else in this natural world, when MAN WROTE the bible, he polluted it!!  And it's time that we woke up to that fact, instead being afraid that we'll make someone mad, by admitting the truth of it.  It takes the Holy Spirit to show us what is polluted and what is not, in the bible.  You know, to some, this is blasphemy, to speak these words.  The WRITTEN WORD, has became an IDOL, and Father is bringing forth some INTERRUPTIONS, to wake us up.  We keep saying, that the church system is RELIGION. Well, I have news for you, SO ARE MOST CHRISTIANS!!  He doesn't want RELIGION!  He wants us to KNOW WHO WE ARE and what is true and what is not true!  As I said, in the last part, this is not a teaching. This is something that you will have to take to Father and allow Him to show you the truth of it.  I am not condemning the bible. I am showing that Eve's influence has even reached the bible.

I will tell you right now, most BIBLE INTERPRETERS will NOT agree with me, but, so be it.  Think about it; would you agree with something that is going to put you out of a job!!!  And would PRIDE be so strong that you would be unwilling to admit, "I didn't realize this truth"?  No, they go right on teaching us, IN THE NATURAL , what words mean. But, they go by how the Greeks spoke or how the Hebrews spoke. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HOW ANYONE SPOKE, I WANT TO HEAR FATHER SPEAK. Does He speak to you in Greek or Hebrew? HE HAS NO LANGUAGE that can be interpreted by MAN, ONLY BY HIS SPIRIT !!  Sure, knowledge is good, but, it is not something to base your BEING on.

There are scriptures in the bible that speak in the PRESENT; but, bible teachers, scholars and interpreters keep telling us, "Yes, BUT....that's for another time".  If Father says, "YOU ARE", then you ARE!  Short and sweet. And when man points out to you, "well brother/sister, I see this or that working in you", UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!!  Look at Jesus. The people couldn't see Father in Him, for looking for something that they could accuse and condemn Him for. It's the same today.  YOU WILL NOT BE ANYMORE OF FATHER THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW. The problem is Eve has painted us a picture of what He is, and we've kept that picture over our eyes and our minds.  It's the same old example that we've been shown for years;  if you're hungry and can't buy food, yet someone told you that they had deposited a million dollars in your bank account, and for whatever your reason is, you won't go draw it out, whose fault is it that you're hungry?  It's the same old reasoning of Eve. "Oh who would deposit a million dollars in my account"?  Well, Father tells us that we ARE complete in Him. And either He lives in this flesh body or He doesn't. IF He does, then ALL that He IS and HAS is also in this body!!  We need to sit down for just an hour and think on that statement. Forget what the natural eyes see. Believe me, when you meditate on that alone, you'll feel stronger, more sure, and feel like a different person.  But, when you allow your thoughts to come back to what Eve tells you, you'll be that same old down and out person that she wants you to believe you are, and keep you WAITING for  "His promises" to come to you.  It's sad!!

Before I get into some things that I've been seeing in the scripture, I want to share a couple of things that are written about the bible.

"Quote: MORE Context Free Bible Errors
P. Wesley Edwards

Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to that one Book. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error, which falsifies the infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version). A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English; if no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "someone has seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow that an error was introduced by a translator or transcriber, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy would be completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark. In such a situation we would be left only with an error-prone copy of the originals, which renders the claim of infallibility completely vacuous since the supposedly infallible Bible no longer exists. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong." Unquote

I want to say, I don't know who the author is, or what he teaches. But, this article is true. This is the situation , regarding the bible. IF we had a copy of the original writting, chances are that there would still be arguements about what words mean.  And the arguements could come to and end IF ONLY we would allow Father to teach us.   Let's look at another writting.

QUOTE:       "

There are a number of materials available to assist any endeavour to determine the form of the earliest N.T. writings.
There are nearly 5000 Greek MSS and thousands of Biblical quotations in the writings of the church fathers; the Greek material falls into four categories:-
1. Papyri. This was used until the early fourth century. Papyrus texts are denoted with a 'P' followed by a designated number; among the most important of these are:-
(a)P52 (Rylands), containing John 18:31-34,37-38, usually dated ca. 130 CE. (b)The Chester Beatty papyri; P45, fragments of the Gospels and Acts, 3rd cent; P46 containing Rom, Heb, 1 and 2 Cor, Eph, Gal, Phil, Col and 1 Thess - in that order, dated early 3rd cent; P47, containing Rev 9-17, dated late 3rd cent. (c)The Bodmer papyri; P66, most of John 1:1-14:26, dated ca. 200 CE; P72 containing Jude, 1 and 2 Peter, dated 3rd or 4th cent; P75, parts of Luke and John, dated early 3rd cent.
2. Parchment (or vellum) MSS were either written in large-capital letter style, where the words were not separated; these are called uncial MSS or majuscules and were used between the fourth and eleventh centuries; miniscules were MSS where the writing was smaller and in a running-hand style and this was used from the ninth century onwards. The earliest extant MSS from this type is from 835 CE. This MSS in this group are enumerated by Arabic numbers and now reach, because of their number, into the 2000's; many of these only contain the Gospels and 90% are Byzantine in text.
From the 3rd cent. only a few fragments of parchment MSS been preserved - one of the most important being 0189 - a leaf with Acts 5:3-21 from the 2nd/3rd cent and 0212 a 3rd cent witness for the Diatessaron. From the 4th cent., there are other MSS of importance.
(B)Vaticanus. Not complete having O.T and incomplete N.T; early 4th cent.
Sinaiticus. O.T nearly complete and complete N.T but includes apocryphal Barnabas and part of Hermas; middle 4th cent.
(A)Alexandrinus. Once a complete Bible, but includes apocryphal 2 Clement; probably 5th cent.
(C)Ephraemi. 5th cent and a palimpest written in the 5th cent but erased in 12th; only 5/8 of NT still present in MS.
(D)Two MSS called Codex Bezae and Claromontanus from 5th/6th cent.
(G)Boernerianus. Ninth cent; rep. Western text of Paul's letters - but omits Heb.
(W)Freer Gospels. 5th cent from Egypt. The text varies.

Uncials are originally denoted by a letter of the alphabet in English, Greek or Hebrew. Now, over 260 uncials are known and because of the number, the system for identifying them is a zero prefixed to a number.
3. Lectionaries. These are service books for liturgical use in church services, containing N.T passages to coincide with the church's year; some 2000 have now been catalogued and there are four times as many with the Gospels as for Acts with the letters combined. They do not contain the whole N.T. They are indicated by a 'l' followed by a number.
4. Quotations by the church fathers. The fathers did not always quote the passages they were using accurately; furthermore it is probable that the MSS containing their writings have also suffered the same problems that other MSS have done in their transmission. Furthermore, they used the 'version' popular in the geographical area in which they wrote. It appears that Tertullian and Cyprian used the Western text whilst Clement of Alexandria primarily used an Egyptian text, and Origen used both Egyptian and Caesarean texts.
Because of the 'families' that exist, groupings have been made for the different text types. The types are usually classified as Syrian (those which arose in or near Antioch); the Western text (Old Latin and Old Syriac); Alexandrian (this is not represented continuously in any one MS, and is really only found by scattered readings in MSS which really belong to other groups; they are in sum, readings that are neither Western, nor Syrian, but differ also from what was most likely the earliest form of the text). Lastly, as Dr Hort termed it, the 'Neutral' text. Other groups however do also exist, e.g. the Caesarean; this was the title given by Dr Streeter to the text that stood midway between the Neutral and the Western, as used by Origen in certain writings when he lived at Caesarea.
The mixture of text that can arise is well demonstrated by the Chester Beatty pap. P45 from Egypt; when this was discovered, it was found that this included writings that were nearer to the Caesarean than any other type, other parts that lay between the Neutral and Western, and also parts that were nearer to the Neutral, but also with a few minor Western characteristics.
The divergences in these different types is discernible, e.g. the Western text is characterised by the freedom of addition - and sometimes omission - and whole verses or even longer passages are found in this which are absent from all other text types. In the case of the Alexandrian, these are found most regularly in the quotations of Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and other Alexandrian fathers, hence the title given to this type. It is interesting to note that it is clear that a principle desire was the correctness of language; because of this, this group is not considered to be of major importance.

There was a long dark 'tunnel period' between the writings of the N.T (New Testament) and these being treated as Holy Writ.
The first earliest papyri is Rylands P52 usually dated ca. 140 CE but this only has just 6 verses of John. In fact the first complete MSS of the N.T are 4th century (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). All N.T writings were apparently written in Greek - not the language that Palestinian Jews would have used.
Moreover, tampering with the text clearly occurred in this tunnel period. The differences between the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Caesarean texts show copyists changed the text (e.g. Acts 2:17 in the Western text). The 3rd cent. Christian writer Origen condemned those Christians for "their depraved audacity" in changing the text and Jerome told Pope Damascus of the "numerous errors" which had arisen in the texts through attempted harmonising. In 1707 John Mill of Oxford listed 30,000 variants in the different NT texts, and at the beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts, the scholar Hermann von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the N.T texts illustating how they were altered. Even in the 4th cent. Codex Sinaiticus, containing all the N.T, Professor Tishendorf, the discoverer, noted that it had been altered by at least three different scribes. This demonstrates that the present-day Bible is not and cannot be an "inerrant copy" of the original writings.

Examination of different MSS shows the variants which have occurred in the time of copying.
In 1707 some 30,000 variants were listed from Greek MSS by John Mill; early this century von Soden printed evidence of some 45,000 variants that he had found in N.T MSS.
There are a number of reasons for these variants; many of them are unintentional. One example being mistakes caused by an error of the eye, ie. misreadings that resulted in omissions, repetitions and transpositions of letters, words and even whole lines; this type of variant was really inevitable not only because the copyists were subject to normal human error, but because the task of copying was not particularly straightforward; one example of this being that Hebrew consonants look similiar to Greek uncial letters, particularly when they are carelessly written.
(1)If the eye skipped over a word, letter, word or line(s), the error is 'haplography' ("single writing"); (1a) If it was a case of seeing something twice, the error is termed 'dittography' ("double writing"). One example of this can be found in 1 Thess 2:7 - the difference between 'we were gentle' and 'we were babes' (as per RSV footnote), is whether one or 2 'n's' belong in the Greek. In Matt 27:17, the insertion of 'Jesus' before 'Barabbas' in some MSS may arise through repetition (dittography) of the last two letters of the Greek word 'for you' which in fact was the regular abbreviation for 'Jesus'. In contrast to this, it may in fact be a case of haplography where 'Jesus' has been omitted.
(2)If the confusion is due to similiar endings on two words or lines, so the intervening words are omitted, this error is termed 'homoeoteleuton' ("similiar ending"); if it is the case of omission due to a similar beginning, it is termed 'homoeoarcton'; an example of this arises in the O.T, ie. 1 Sam 14:41 where several clauses have dropped out in the Hebrew between 'Israel' - the LXX and the Vulgate preserve another, possibly the correct reading.
(3)A cause for another type of error was simply the copyist mishearing; if a letter was being dictated it would be inevitable that a scribe would mishear things; such a situation appears to have arisen in Rom 5:1 - 'we have peace' and 'let us have peace' (RSV Footnote) which sounded the same in first cent. Greek. This error was possible in N.T copying but not for the O.T, as there are no rabbinic references to a practice of reading aloud to a copyist.
(4)There were also errors through poor judgement. A copyist might misinterpret the abbreviations that were often used in MSS, especially for 'God' and 'Christ' which were frequently abbreviated. The variants found in 1 Tim 3:16 undoubtably involved this point.
On occasion a copyist would have to divide a word; as Greek uncials were written continuously, without a break, a scribe introducing his own word divisions would have to decide upon the position of the word-break. It is was not always clear where a sentence ended; Rom 9:5 is a good example of this and is important as it may be a rare occasion of when Paul appears to call Christ 'God'.
(5)Liturgical instructions also appear to have been added in some cases, e.g. Acts 8:37 (RSV footnote) which most likely reflects the baptismal confession in the church of the second cent. copyist.
1 Cor 4:6 is a good example of the errors that could arise when notes were added in the margin or under the text; the phrase 'to live according to the scripture' is literally 'not above what is written'; it is suspected that a copyist made an error in the first verses of 1 Cor 4, then made a note for the next copyist not to repeat this error, but instead, the next copyist not only did this, but also included the instruction which had been left for him.
(6)Deliberate alterations also occur in the text; this is due to a number of reasons.
Copyists made changes for theological reasons, e.g. to remove what appeared to be a contradiction, to expand upon something that he felt was important, to change the meaning to suit his own viewpoint, or changing the statement simply to clarify the meaning. On occasions the copyist might simply make changes to supply a more familiar word, e.g. the unusual verb in Mark 6:20 when Herod was 'perplexed' was changed in later MSS to 'did'. Clarification of a verse can be seen by Mark 14:12 'lest...it be forgiven them' becomes in certain MSS 'their sins should be forgiven them'. In John 5:3b-4 (RSV footnote), there is an insertion to explain the conversation that follows.
When Matt (27:9) quotes an O.T passage which is mostly from Zechariah but it is attributed to Jeremiah, some MSS show that a copyist has attempted to remove this. In Mark 1:2, two statements are brought together, one from Isaiah and the other from Malachi, but Mark attributes both to Isaiah; again some MSS omit 'Isaiah' to try and remove this error.
In time, some copyists felt it would be useful to add further details, e.g. in one Old Latin MS, the two thieves being crucified with Christ are given names in Mark 15:27. In Matt 24:36 Jesus states that even the Son did not know when the parousia was to occur and obviously some copyists felt this impugned Jesus' omniscience, and in some MSS 'nor the Son' is missing.
It is suspected a copyist's marginal protest note has been included in Luke 16:16-18. In v.16 Jesus states that the law and the prophets were only until John, and in v.18, Jesus forbids divorce (against the Deut 24:1-2 ruling), but in v.17 he states that not one dot of the law will pass away; some feel a marginal protest against 16:16 (and possibly v.18) by a Jewish-Christian copyist has been incorporated into the text and hence the contradiction.
The view of the copyist towards Jesus' status is reflected in the MSS; in John 1:18 'the only Son' becomes 'the only God' in some MSS; therefore the Christology of the copyist sometimes led to changes being made on occasion. Heb 1:8 has two different renderings and one of these has the Son being addressed as 'God'. The personal view of the copyist could sometimes result in word changes that drastically altered the meaning of the sentence; in the Western text, the Jews 'act evilly' when crucifying Jesus, but in the Codex Vaticanus, the Jews merely act 'in ignorance'. In Acts 2:17 when Peter explains about the prophecy of Joel - that the spirit would be poured out on all flesh - the Codex Bezae has the noun for flesh in the plural to stress that this promise was for all nations and peoples, and not just the Jews. In Vaticanus, the wounded side of Jesus, as detailed in John 19:34 is also introduced at Matt 27:49.
One of the most significant additions to N.T writing is Mark 16:9-20; here the abrupt ending of Mark has been continued to include post-resurrection appearances by Jesus to his disciples. The critical time for this was most likely ca. 70-ca. 150 CE; at this time Christian writings were not seen as 'Scripture', but 'guides to Christian living' so there was no real difficulty in making changes. Later on, Origen condemned copyists who made deliberate changes for their 'depraved audacity' and Jerome reported to pope Damascus that 'numerous errors' had arisen through attempted harmonisation by copyists.

One rule adopted by those endeavouring to ascertain the original reading is to choose the reading that (a)is the most confused (ii)contradicts or is least likely to agree a statement in another N.T. writing (iii)is shorter. It was usual for a copyist to change a statement to make it clearer, or if it contradicted another passage, or if it could be made to support another passage; a longer passage is therefore most likely the one that has been changed as a copyists would tend to lengthen it to include an explanatory note. The general rule is 'Lectio difficilior probabilior', ie. it affirms the more difficult expression as the one to be regarded as more likely the original.
However, the salient point is if the Bible is meant to be God's infallible guide to humanity, why did so many errors arise, and secondly the fact that copyists felt able to make alterations surely demonstrates the early Christians did not regard the New Testament as 'holy writ'.

The N.T does not present a dogmatic system - it is adapted to its changing environment - Palestinian, Hellenistic Judaism, the Gentiles, sub-apostolic Hellenism and ranging over 75 years; therefore there are many variations and these exist even in Paul's writings, e.g. 1 Thess with Rom.
The earliest collection of sacred writings in the church was the Hebrew Scriptures; Christian preachers based their arguments upon these; they were read in services; the LXX was used in Greek Christian circles.
There is evidence there was a collection of O.T passages that seemed to relate to Jesus - these were quoted as 'proof-texts' by preachers; it is possible that the writing referred to by Papias, supposedly written by Matthew, was such a collection.
Sayings attributed to Jesus, not in the Gospels, have been found on papyrus sheets in Egypt - these are known as 'Agrapha' - unwritten sayings. The title of one sheet begins 'These are the sayings which Jesus the living Lord spoke...'.
Letters of Paul were treasured by the church; they were read in services and collections were made of these; when the Gospels were written, they took their place with Paul's letters although these writings were not deemed equal to the O.T.
About 150 CE, the church began to distinguish between the books that could and could not be read in the church; the basis of recognition was the belief it had been written by an apostle or personal disciple; they should also conform to the orthodox teaching - this was a somewhat circular argument.
The church did not have any uniform agreement though. Heb, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and James and Rev are omittted from some lists. It was not until the mid-4th cent. that there was agreement; the 27 books appear in the proceedings of the Synod of Laodicea (363) and the Synod of Carthgage (397). However the 'Syrian' church of South India still does not have II, III John and Rev. The Ethiopian church has an additional eight though.

One clear indication of how the church was unable to select its canon for literally hundreds of years is shown by the third century apologst, Origen. He had 3 classes of writings - (1)Those uncontested - the 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Acts and Rev. (2)The doubtful - 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Heb, James and Jude. He cited Hermas and the Didache but does not appear to have accepted them into the canon; he does list Barnabas within the N.T though. (3) Those that were rejected.
In Codex D, Phil, 1 and 2 Thess are missing, as are the 7 Catholic letters, Rev, Acts and Heb. However Hermas, Acts of Paul, Rev of Peter are included. Methodius of Olympus, an opponent of Origen, quotes all the N.T writings as canonical but also the Rev of Peter, Barnabas and the Didache.
Eusebius (330 CE) had three classes of writing - accepted, disputed and those completely rejected. The first set was the Gospels, Acts, 14 letters of Paul (ie. Heb included), 1 Pet, 1 John, and 'if one will' Rev. In the second class, this is broken into two groups - the first set that are still esteemed - James, 2 Pet, 2 John; the second group included the Acts of Paul, Rev of Pet, Hermas, Didache, Barnabas and 'if one will' Rev. He says that some accepted the Gos of the Hebrews. In Eusebius' day, the Catholic letters were still disputed and so was Rev. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. 350, in the 59th or 60th canon of the synod of Laodicea (after 360) and Gregory of Nazianus (d. 390) there are 26 writings - Rev being omitted. In 367 Athanasius issued his Easter letter and lists 27 writings as the only canonical ones: but in addition to these and rejected writings, he mentions a 3rd group - those that could be used in instruction - Didache and Hermas. Athanasius was the first to name this collection as the 'kavwv' (Canon) and his authority was such that the canonicity of the 7 Catholic letters was rapidly established although Rev was still disputed even at this time. A number of leading Christians did not accept it. There is a list from the 9th cent that omits it and in reality, it was only from the 10th cent that the number of 27 prevails in the Greek church. In the upshot it has taken the church about one thousand years to decide upon its own scriptures. In view of the claims made for it, this is remarkable, to say the least"  UNQUOTE.

We can go on the internet and find thousands of different opinions about the bible. All the denominations, alone, show us that man is not living by allowing the Holy Spirit to do the teaching!!  Why, man has even decided, what books SHOULD be in the bible, and what books SHOULDN'T be in the bible. At one time, they all were, and supposedly, all were inspired by God. But, man said " no, not this one, yes we'll allow this one....".  EVE'S LEADING!!!   And think on this; IF God gives us a truth about who we are, and we teach "well, we're not YET...", then how can we say that the Holy Spirit is saying, "NO, you're not yet, but, someday.." ? Folks, the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, just because we WON'T accept the truth of who we are, because we base everything on appearance and action. We need to wake up, it's time!!

Ok. Now, I want to look at some scripture. Remember, I am just putting this out there for you to think about. Take it before Father. Let me know, what you hear.

IS 45:7-8, "I form the light, and create darkeness: I make peace, and create evil: I THE LORD do all these. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: le the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I THE LORD HAVE CREATED IT."

Now, let's remember the names of God. OK? HE said, "I AM". Tell my people that I AM sent you".  This was God talking to Moses. He told Moses what His name is, "I AM".  Also, remember that Adam and Eve were made in His Image; out of exactly what He was; and they were just like Him. The only thoughts that they had, were His thoughts. UNTIL, Eve decided she wanted to APPEAR as He was. Her thoughts changed, she (the real her) did not do the changing. She still had all that He was, because she came forth from Him, when He made Adam both male and female. (and I do hope that you know this has nothing to do with the gender). She still had/has His POWER, everything that He made her with, is still within her. That makes her a creator. WE ARE creators!

Now, this word "LORD", used here in IS 45 is defined in Strongs as: "the) self-Existent or Eternal;  Jehovah, the JEWISH NATIONAL NAME OF GOD, the Lord."

Now, does this say, "the name that God gave Himself?"  No, people, Jewish people gave Him this name! IF Jewish PEOPLE gave Him this name, then IT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL WRITTING, THE INSPIRED Word that God gave. It is MAN-GIVEN.  Pollution has entered in. But, let's go on.

"the Eternal"    John 3:15, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE.

1Tim 6:12, "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called..."

Question:  There are people who do not believe in God. They also believe that there is no life after, they pass from this natural realm. Does what they THINK, change the fact that ALL have ETERNAL LIFE?  No. No, it doesn't. We ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. We've ALWAYS BEEN, ARE and ALWAYS WILL BE!

"Lord"  Rev 19:16, "And he hath on vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

Rev. 1:6, "And hath made US kings and priests unto God...."

Question:  Lord of LordS. Plural. This shows me that there are more than one Lord. (although we are ONE in Him, still a many membered body of Lords).  He also made us KingS. Same thing.  Let's look at John.

John 15:5, "I AM the vine, ye ARE the branches, He that abideth in me, and I in him, THE SAME bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing."

Ok, who is this speaking through Jesus? It is Father. And HE said that WE are the branches. He is the vine. Right? Ok , let's look at Jeremiah.

Jer.23:5-6,& 33:15-16,  "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord that I will raise unto David a righteous BRANCH and a KING shall reign and prosper, and shall execte judgment and justice in the earth.  In his days Judah shall ve saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and THIS IS THE NAME WHEREBY HE SHALL BE CALLED, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS".

Now, look closely at this. Who is it that is called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS? The Branch. Who is the Branches? WE ARE!  Whose IMAGE are WE created in? Father! The Branch and the Vine are One. Connected. We cannot be a branch, without a vine. And the Head cannot be separated from the Body. As I said, before, we are as much Father as Father is of Himself. We came out of Him. There was NOTHING FOR US TO COME OUT OF EXCEPT HIM!! What does that make us? Him. The Head does the thinking, the Body does what the Head says. Now, who did Father tell us, in John, that we are?  The branches, right?  And what does Jeremiah tell us this branch shall be called? LORD!!!  Notice, in Jeremiah, the "he" that shall be called Lord, "he" is NOT CAPITALIZED!  This is fortelling us and who we are. God back over it. Meditate on it. Allow Father to show you. Don't let the threat of "religeous blasphemy" keep you from the truth of yourself.  This is a people who know that they are ONE WITH AND IN I AM.

We are Kings; Priests, Eternal, self-existent (because we are one with Him), and we are called LORD, and also, our true name is I AM!

Now, what I want to leave you with, in this part, is this:  ALL things were created OUT OF (of, means OUT FROM WITHIN) God, right?  Aren't we told that there IS NO EVIL IN GOD?  So, the "LORD" that created the evil, spoken of in Isaiah, which "LORD" created this evil, our Creator, in whom there is no evil, or the "LORD" which we are, while listening to Eve?  Keep in mind that she still has that same power that God placed in her, in the beginning.

to be continued.....

Think on these words:

John 1:16

Col. 2:9-11

Heb 10:39

Heb 13:9-11