Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc From: [b 645 zaw] at [utarlg.uta.edu] (stephen) Subject: Mt Carmel and Faith // pt 3 of 3 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 06:46:00 GMT Transcript of phone conversation between myself and Livingstone Fagan from Saturday evening, July 24th. --- Beginning of Part 3 of 3 --- l: ...Stephen? s: I'm with you. l: I ask you a question before we got cut off, "How many times did Moses strike the rock?" s: You know, I honestly don't recall. l: Alright. Well the story goes back to the Wilderness Wandering, when Moses actually struck the rock twice... [Numbers 20] s: ok l: ...which was an indication of what was to take place. [1st Corinthians 10, note verse 4] s: That's looking for water in the wilderness? l: That's right, "in the wilderness." And the wilderness represented a *dry land* with *no trees*. A desert -- a darkness, effectively. And you remember also in John, there was a statement made by Christ himself, to the effect that ah, in regard to what was being done to him, `if they do these things in a green tree, can you imagine what they'll do in a dry tree.' s: That's right. [actually Luke 23:31] l: You remember that statement? s: That's a good point. Yes, scripturally that's a very good point. Go ahead. l: There was also highlighted, when the children of Israel was traveling through Egypt to Canaan... And note, I make reference to the Law of Moses, and the writings of Moses too, because there is much that is contained in there that pertains to this reality, just as though in The Prophets. But, do you remember the time that God permitted the serpents, to bite them? To address the bite, because when the serpents bit them they actually died. But uhh, Moses was instructed to actually take a brass... to make a serpent of brass, and put it up on a stick. s: Yes, I think it's called "sherutan." l: Right. Well, what's intriguing about this is -- why would God choose a brass *serpent*? You know what the symbol of the serpent is don't you... s: Yes. l: ...going back to the Garden of Eden. I t's supposed to be satan. You will also notice, that ahh, God did cause Moses (and I'll come back to that other statement) God did cause Moses to ahm, employ his rod, which turned into a serpent... s: True. l: ...which ate up the other serpents of the other magicians. [Exodus 7] Interesting. In going back to the "brass serpent on a stick," the serpent is a symbol of the devil. [cf. Numbers 21] But what is brass a symbol of? Well, that goes back to the book Daniel, that talked about an image in volume two [ie chapter 2], which had a head of gold, breastplate made out of silver... [In text it's "arms of silver." Over the phone there were loud noises making it hard to hear.] ...belly of brass, and uhhh, that's right... belly of brass, thigh of iron, etc. etc. going all the way down. [Actually, belly and thighs(sides) of brass, and legs of iron. see verses 31 through 45.] Now, the brass, as we know, represented the kingdom of the grecia... of Greece. Do you follow? s: Brass was Greece? l: You'll have to read the story in Daniel 2. s: Ok. l: The brass was Greece. Now what's Greece noted for -- its *philoso- phy*... s: Very much so. l: ... and sophistry. s: Sophistry, and eventually to today's time, it's logic, and worship of reason. l: Precisely, "human reason" at that. s: Yes. l: Ok. Now, the objective of the brass-serpent, was that Christ was to be lifted up, but there was another aspect of that lifting up -- in what was visible -- that is to say the serpent. There was supposed to be something about that which is contrary to the perceptions of men... [The situation arises around complaints about lack of substantial food and water.] So this was a maxim that was going to take place, just like 2000 years ago when they expected Christ to come as this, this uhhh, I don't know, this... this messiah that was going to destroy the Romans with some kind of army of some sort. But what would be the point to destroy the Romans in front of a kingdom that is still built upon the feelings of humanity? s: Well, He could have done it! He could have called legions of angels down to destroy the Romans, and He chose not to. l: Precisely... s: Because Christ came, because Jesus was focussed on love, and grace extends from His love. Much as Moses... when God sought to uh, destroy the children for their wickedness in the desert; Moses said "blot my name out..." [Exodus 32:32, Numbers 14] l: Right. Yes. He [Christ] could not set up a kingdom. The Jews at the time, in their thinking, were no different than the Romans. So, the Romans were left to continue ruling... s: Yes, if Christ had come in power, as Jesus, then it would have killed us all. l: Oh, exactly. If he were to come in power right now, to humanity... (ok, we'll tie it into the event of Mt Carmel) the same thing would've happened, because christianity today is *no* different. It's a known fact. I mean, you observe what we in the western world call christianity. It's just a part of this political process. For God to come down at this moment -- humanity would be destroyed, because of it's so... sinfulness. I mean right now humanity has no perception of the meaning of the book of Reve- lation. s: Are there exceptions? l: At this present moment, no. I used to be a minister before I was ahh, introduced to David... s: Let me ask you a question about that -- do you have divinity degrees? l: I have a Masters in Theology. s: Go ahead. l: When I came, David even showed me the fact that, there was to be *somebody* to come into the earth (as Revelation 22 pointed out) where even the concept of The Judgement, as declared by John... I have to admit, that that knowledge had escaped me! [Rev. 22:17,16,2 and cp. Numbers 14 esp. verse 21] And I have to admit, that outside of that knowledge, everything else that I had and was taught, was of very little significance. Remember, the last book given to man was the book of Revelation. In truth, you can preach everything you want, about Jesus Christ being the Savior, but without the knowledge of Present Truth which depicts to us where we should be in relationship to the Divine Purpose... s: In the last times. l: Yeah. ...then it's of no significance. Christ is of no significance without a knowledge of what He's doing. s: Well, one of the things that was always apparent to me was, anyone who was drawing upon the material from the Gospels, and drawing upon the material from Revelation, was pointing to those things which dealt very frankly, and very definitely, with Jesus Christ. Now that comes from my background of course. l: Let me make a point in respect to that. You recall in Matthew 24, Christ makes a statement to the disciples that "many shall come in my name..." saying that I am Christ. Not saying that they are Christ, but saying that the person who lived 2000 years ago is Christ, "and shall deceive many." [Matt. 24:5] Now, that's exactly what's happening today. Virtually every Christian denomination teaches that the person who lived 2000 years ago is Christ, yes? s: Yes. l: Now, that's what Christ warned about, in His statement that they will deceive many. In essence the deception is this, they do not teach *the Message of Christ*, but rather teach -- *His historical presence*. Do you follow. s: Yes, yes. They do not do His commandments. l: Well, in not teaching the Message of Christ, what He came to say, from "focussing people's minds on the fact that He lived 2000 years ago", and "establishing church denominations," and yet, these denomina- tion churches doubtless are the basis of this. So that particularly, a denomination can be isolated from others, which merely just sets up a situation where rites, and buildings, and rituals, and tithes, and all the rest of it -- is not the essence of Christ's purpose 2000 years ago. And to that degree, there is deception. Furthermore, it's interesting to note... s: Deception on who's part? l: On the part of humanity... s: Yes. Yes I know. I needed to ask the question, go ahead. l: They're deceived. Without the knowledge of The Message Christ came to give, which in Luke chapter 3 makes clear, mankind was in need of. And that knowledge which is His Spirit was commended into the hand of The Father. Without that knowledge, then mankind is lost back there 2000 years ago, on what is recorded by the uhh, the Gospels. But the truth about it, no one really needs another human being to come and teach them what is so plainly stated in the Gospels. s: That's right. l: And certainly, you don't need to pay someone to teach you that. s: That's right too. l: I think it would be easier for you to spend your money gaining a basic knowledge of written English. Or developing your reading skills, and read it for yourself. s: There's a better coin-in-trade than money, anyway. Ok. Livingstone on the point of Jesus, who Jesus is. Jesus went through a very unique experience, and there will be those who want to ask how Jesus plays into this? From my perspective, what I want to ask because this is an expression of my belief... Jesus became part of God, in a sense Jesus became united with, uhm, joined with God... After the resurrection. l: Ok, let me demonstrate. s: ok l: That's true, but there was an experience while He was on earth... s: Yes. l: ...that made Him One with God before that... s: Yes. l: The uhm, 40 days in the wilderness... s: Was it that Livingstone, or was it The Baptism? l: Well, actually it was that. The Baptism was significant as an outward show. To those who were receptive enough to see the right things, like John and those around him. s: Well, didn't we have two Manifestations occurring at that point, in other words, we saw the Spirit of God come into Christ at The Baptism. However, in The Wilderness, what was given to Christ, was it The Word? l: Well, in The Wilderness, let me present it this way -- can a human person, a human body, live for 40 days without food? No. Christ went in there... I mean up to that point He had come to appreciate, that ahh, He was divine. But we have to prove that. Cause if The Word dwelt in Him, It most essentially means that He was eternal... so, that He could go to The Wilderness, He could live 40 days without food, and yet He would not die. That was a test for Him. That He had appointed to complete, that He was indeed called of God. s: Now you understand, many will say that's not scriptural. l: What? s: In respect to there being any evidence of Him not taking food during that time. l: Well, ok, I can accept that statement. If people find difficulty with that, then I'd have to use something else to demonstrate to them, the truth of that. But... I mean, 40 days in the wilderness -- where's He going to get food from? s: Well, we have the instance with hmm, was it the prophet Isaiah that was fed by ravens, and we have the instance of manna for those on The Exodus. Are those [some examples] that would be pointed out. [I was wrong. It was Elijah fed by the ravens.] l: But there is nothing to prove that. One thing that's certain is that while He was in the wilderness, and satan came to him, one of the things that satan *tempted* Him on was (as you know) -- food. s: Yes. [Matthew 4 and Luke 4, esp. verse 3&4 in both cases] l: Now, why would he do that, if Christ was being taken care of as far a food was concerned? It certainly wouldn't be a temptation. s: Yes. He had to hunger. l: I'm not absolutely sure, but I understand that He was led away into the wilderness to be tempted. Now it states in the text itself that he was a hungered. [Matt. 4:2 and Luke 4:2] The point I'm trying to make from that I think you perceive already -- is the fact that Christ needed proof, of His divinity, whilst He was in humanity. And it had to be that way, because of the fact that if He was totally 100% ahmm, aware of His divinity, then there would be questions as to whether or not He was fit to be a Redeemer for humanity. Remember the statements about His being in all points tempted as we were? s: Yes. [Hebrews 4:15] l: And his being able to succour us? s: Yes. [Hebrews 2:18] Many point to that, to Him being tempted in affairs of sex as well. l: Precisely. That had to be. Otherwise, there is questions about His fitness. Now there was the former argument, that, "Well, it's alright being tempted...", and it's fine, to be able to meet humanities needs, for those of us who have only suffered temptations. But as men have fallen as a consequence of temptation, ah, satan would argue, and quite reason- ably, that all human beings who have in fact fallen in temptation, are his. And outside of the redeeming, or the salvation process of God, then we'll have to come down a step lower to address that argument, yes? s: "All would have to come down a step lower to address that"? l: Yes.. s: Yes, they don't have their eyes on the Power of God. l: In other words, what I'm saying to you is that, God would have to meet fallen man where he is at any point in the process to be able to show Himself as being a redeemer of mankind. There is no depth of degradation that man can reach that God can not save him. s: That is what Paul guarantees us in that we have a High Priest (in Hebrews) a Priest of the Melchizedek [Heb. 5-8], Who is there, Who has paid the blood sacrifice, for us to be in The Holy of Holies, *continu- ally*, as an intercessor for us. l: But the point being is that if Christ is not... can not... Christ's ability as a high priest, Christ's ability as a redeemer, must be corre- lated to His experiencing or the depth of experience encompassing those He seeks to redeem. Now if my sins are outside of Christ's redeeming abilities, his redeeming qualities, then He can not save me. s: Say that all again. l: Christ's redeeming qualifications rests upon His abilities to encom- pass the extent of humanities sins. s: That's right. l: If I personalize it, what I'm saying is that, Christ, can not under- stand, or can not appreciate sins committed, rather than temptations. And this is by virtue of His own experience. Now, there is a question that must arise, as to whether or not He is fit enough to reach down and meet somebody who is fallen into sin. s: I understand that you're leading up to Koresh. Let me stay with Christ for a moment. Christ made the assertion that, if you lust in your heart, it's the same as if you had the sex act... [Matthew 5:27-28, regarding adultery] l: That's right. s: ...and if you hate it's the same as if... l: You commit murder. s: ... you killed. [Matthew 5:21-22] l: Alright. s: So that, to Him there was no distinction between... l: Ok. Fine. s: Ahh, yes. Uh huh. ok Is the justification important to man in that the sentence be carried out? In that, The Judgement be carried out? l: For man yes, because at the end of the day, every man will stand before God -- without an argument. The truth about it is that if God never came down to the level of mankind, then essentially you could argue with... mankind could argue, "Well, God, it's alright, that talk about being able to suffer me, but listen -- You didn't sin." I recommend that you read Psalms 40, in respect to this issue. Now there is spoken of a person there. That a body was prepared for. It speaks about him in the volume of the book. Now, if you read that chapter in it's truest context, something very significant is brought out about the *person* spoken of in the chapter. s: You say this is Psalms 40. l: That's right. Preferably with Psalms 139 and Psalms ahmm, Psalms 89. s: 139 & 89 ?? l: That's right. What I need to do to be able to develop this argument... now, hold on a second, all that we're doing is developing an argument. At the end of the day you must decide based on information presented, what position you take. Do you follow what I'm saying? s: Oh, yes. l: But, what I feel is, [it's] necessary for you to be able to perceive the frame of reference that I'm operating in... there is a certain con- ceptual reality that is necessary for you to understand, for us to build our discussion. Do you follow? s: To build on... ? l: To build our discussion. s: To build the discussion. l: That's right. And some of this information I'm now giving to you. With your having a background in those things we can then proceed, in our discussion. But until that is so, I can not assume, as I said in the article, that we're actually operating in the same conceptual frame of reference. Cause I know that we're not. s: Yes. I understand. l: I really do know that we're not. s: To me it's a simple matter of "impedance matching." I think in terms of signals and antennae and such. l: Right. s: We've got to have that bridge, that right framework, and mesh-up before the best and most accurate transmission of power can occur without reflections. ["self-reflections"] l: That's exactly it. So at the moment, even as we have been discussing over the past, I think roughly, an hour now. In our discussion thus far there are many things that I have said that I know do not... are not received in the context of my expression. You are still viewing them in the context of where you're at. s: Yes. l: Now, I understand in my there is a lot of individuals who do that to protect themselves. But the truth about it is, if I'm showing you Truth, you really do not need to protect your self, because it's really... we're talking about freedom. s: Yes, truth is the way by which I know how to correct those things which are wrong. l: Sure. Anything that is in error is enslaving you. s: That's right. Amen. That's right. l: So with the basic conceptual reference that we're operating in, you can enter in there for your self, and judge it. Your mind and your free will is not in any way, ahmm, sacrificed. It is necessary for you to demonstrate an element of trust, to facilitate the discussion. Nobody forces anybody, (certainly not where we're coming from), to be able to understand this truth. Everybody that's here, that is currently being identified as Branch Davidian, adopts this position out of absolute free choice. s: They voluntarily entered into whatever the situation is? l: Voluntarily. s: They were not coerced by anybody? l: Yes. s: Would you say that for the children as well? l: Well the children go with the parents. s: Yes, it's so. l: So from that premise, it's likely what the government would be saying is that, "Ok, you can do what you want, but don't take your children along." BUT THAT'S A RIGHT. That's a PARENTAL RIGHT! It's your right, if you have kids, that you should take a responsibility to ah, ahm, take care of the temporal; as well as the eternal, destiny of those children. Now listen, I'm going to have to conclude now. We've got a problem right here. Somebody else wants the phone. s: I understand. One thing more for me and I'm not recording this. l: What's that. --- End of Part 3 of 3 --- | -- J -- "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples | indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth | stephen shall make you free." (Jesus to the Jews who believed on him. John 8:31-32)