Religion II

[VigorsTheGrey]

Boxcar,

Please find below an interesting book by William Williams. It was written in the 1800's from a Christian perspective. The typesetting, as you probably know, at the time period uses a letter that resembles an "f" where we would use an "s", and a double "ff" where we would read a double "ss"...

Start at the bottom on page 395 (423 on the electronic cursor) of the book. There you will find another version of the quote regarding the beloved son being sacrificed...

...this book is a forgotten masterpiece and should be of great interest to you and others, provided we have the patience to struggle a little in reading it....there are many biblical narratives and wonderful details...since you are very familiar with Scripture, I thought you may enjoy it...regards, Vig.

https://archive.org/stream/primitive...goog#page/n423

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is this book now to be elevated to the status of scripture?

I'm thinking of nominating it for cannon status.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Boxcar,

Please find below an interesting book by William Williams. It was written in the 1800's from a Christian perspective. The typesetting, as you probably know, at the time period uses a letter that resembles an "f" where we would use an "s", and a double "ff" where we would read a double "ss"...

Start at the bottom on page 395 (423 on the electronic cursor) of the book. There you will find another version of the quote regarding the beloved son being sacrificed...

...this book is a forgotten masterpiece and should be of great interest to you and others, provided we have the patience to struggle a little in reading it....there are many biblical narratives and wonderful details...since you are very familiar with Scripture, I thought you may enjoy it...regards, Vig.

https://archive.org/stream/primitive...goog#page/n423

I'll see if I can get to it later. I'm having a tough navigating that page. Is the entire book on there!?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In your view what is the function of the brain?

I thought I knew the answer to that until I met you.

[boxcar]

Households of God

We're just at the beginning of our journey but we've learned some key concepts already -- concepts that will emerge elsewhere in the bible to form patterns. Other ideas will accrue to these concepts, and the mosaic will start to take form.

There are several takeaways from this first section of the book that will take on more shape and definition as we proceed.

First, God has a divine family -- a heavenly assembly or council of elohim (1), but he is superior to all other elohim. He is their creator and sovereign master. He is unique. Since Jesus is Yahweh in flesh, he too is distinct from and superior to all elohim. While God has no need for a council, scripture makes it clear that he uses one. His divine family is his divine administration. The elohim serve him to carry out his decrees.

God also has a human family and administration. Their status and function mirror the divine family-administration. Just as with the members of the divine council who represent God in what they are tasked to do, so humans are God's imaging representatives. Just as God doesn't need a divine council, he doesn't need humans either -- but he has chosen to use them to further his intentions for Earth.

Heaven and Earth are separate but connected realms. God's households operate in tandem toward a mutual destiny. Their points of intersection along the way inform many other threads of biblical theology.

With Eden the divine had come to earth, and earth would be brought into conformity. Humans were created to enjoy everlasting access to God's presence, working side by side with God's loyal elohim. But this yearning of God's came with a risk, a risk that was fully known by him and accepted. Free will in the hearts and hands of imperfect beings, whether human or divine, means imagers can opt for their own authority in place of God's.

Sadly, that will also become a pattern. Both of God's households will experience rebellion. The result will be the commencement of a long war against God's original intention. The good news is that there will be an equally committed effort on God's part to preserve what he began.

(1) Hebrew for God, can be in plural or singular.

Footnotes will be added as need for definitions or clarification.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

There is no contradiction. Just because God knows the end from the beginning doesn't mean that his tests aren't fair.

AGAIN...what would be a contradiction is if God made man to be unlike him, after telling us that we're made in the image and likeness of God. If God did not give man free will and yet God has free will, then that would be a contradiction.

Or if God tested Adam and Eve's loyalty to him and God stacked the deck by imposing his will upon them to get the outcome he desired.

And you call this god's JUSTICE?

Let's see. Your god, is the judge, jury and all the witnesses. I'd say at at least jury tampering. The scales of justice with a rather heavy thumb on the scale.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

And you call this god's JUSTICE?

Let's see. Your god, is the judge, jury and all the witnesses. I'd say at at least jury tampering. The scales of justice with a rather heavy thumb on the scale.

Quit babbling and prove your contention that God's omniscience and his test for our first parents for moral righteousness are mutually exclusive. Apply the Law of Noncontradiction against your premise. See how that works out for you.

And by the way, God wasn't the only witness in the Garden. His divine council witnessed everything!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Quit babbling and prove your contention that God's omniscience and his test for our first parents for moral righteousness are mutually exclusive. Apply the Law of Noncontradiction against your premise. See how that works out for you.

And by the way, God wasn't the only witness in the Garden. His divine council witnessed everything!

You know what I think of your "law of non contradiction" and how you misuse it.

Why can't you simply address my contention that your god knowing and doing everything, is unjust?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Households of God

We're just at the beginning of our journey but we've learned some key concepts already -- concepts that will emerge elsewhere in the bible to form patterns. Other ideas will accrue to these concepts, and the mosaic will start to take form.

There are several takeaways from this first section of the book that will take on more shape and definition as we proceed.

First, God has a divine family -- a heavenly assembly or council of elohim (1), but he is superior to all other elohim. He is their creator and sovereign master. He is unique. Since Jesus is Yahweh in flesh, he too is distinct from and superior to all elohim. While God has no need for a council, scripture makes it clear that he uses one. His divine family is his divine administration. The elohim serve him to carry out his decrees.

God also has a human family and administration. Their status and function mirror the divine family-administration. Just as with the members of the divine council who represent God in what they are tasked to do, so humans are God's imaging representatives. Just as God doesn't need a divine council, he doesn't need humans either -- but he has chosen to use them to further his intentions for Earth.

Heaven and Earth are separate but connected realms. God's households operate in tandem toward a mutual destiny. Their points of intersection along the way inform many other threads of biblical theology.

With Eden the divine had come to earth, and earth would be brought into conformity. Humans were created to enjoy everlasting access to God's presence, working side by side with God's loyal elohim. But this yearning of God's came with a risk, a risk that was fully known by him and accepted. Free will in the hearts and hands of imperfect beings, whether human or divine, means imagers can opt for their own authority in place of God's.

Sadly, that will also become a pattern. Both of God's households will experience rebellion. The result will be the commencement of a long war against God's original intention. The good news is that there will be an equally committed effort on God's part to preserve what he began.

(1) Hebrew for God, can be in plural or singular.

Footnotes will be added as need for definitions or clarification.

Boxcar, you do realize how FANTASTIC this all sounds don't you...? I suppose if I went into my therapist and got into a rational debate over the heathyness of organizing my life based on the devine plot above...he might have some doubts, right...?
The whole Elohim scenario is just as fantastic as Marvel Universe IMO, I'm beginning to think that the Elohim have been repurposed for the benefit of Hollywood....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vil_War%29.jpg

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You know what I think of your "law of non contradiction" and how you misuse it.

Why can't you simply address my contention that your god knowing and doing everything, is unjust?

How can I address your incoherent premise? The burden of proof is on you to prove that God's omniscience and his moral test for Adam and Eve are inherently contradictory. And you can only do that by applying the Law of Noncontradiction to your premise.

You're doing the same thing Light has done in the past when he has said that God's love and justice are mutually exclusive attributes;- yet, he has never proved his premise either.

You guys talk a good game and do a lot of flailing and arm-waving, yet when it comes time to put the rubber to the road, you come up empty.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Boxcar, you do realize how FANTASTIC this all sounds don't you...? I suppose if I went into my therapist and got into a rational debate over the heathyness of organizing my life based on the devine plot above...he might have some doubts, right...?
The whole Elohim scenario is just as fantastic as Marvel Universe IMO, I'm beginning to think that the Elohim have been repurposed for the benefit of Hollywood....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vil_War%29.jpg

You haven't seen anything yet. "FANTASTIC" doesn't do justice to how all this ends. God's original intent for Adam and Eve in the Garden will be realized through man's free moral agency, as God always intended.

Stay tuned...

[boxcar]

Divine Transgressions

God's plan that all the earth be Eden came to a screeching halt almost as soon as it began. The nachash (1) arrogantly sought to be the Most High. His transgression succeeded in undermining the fulfillment of God's original intention for humanity but failed to result in human destruction. The rebel inserted himself into the role of the Most High, casting himself as God's mouthpiece, but wound up as lord of the dead.

In some respects the nachash took humanity with him when Adam and Eve were barred from the presence of God and the tree of life, imagery that telegraphed the theological message that humans are mortal and everlasting life in God's presence could come only through God's grace and mercy. Without saving grace, humanity was now the rightful property of death and its lord.

God, the Life-giver, forgave Adam and Eve. (2) They were not destroyed. Humanity would survive. They would bear children to perpetuate their line and, with it, keep God's original intention alive. The rule of God would someday return to earth -- in his time and by his methods. Evil would impede, but not defeat, God's purpose. This new circumstance -- this gracious good news (3) -- would demand that humanity make the choice rejected in Eden. From this point forward, dwelling forever as a member of God's family-council requires choosing loyalty to him above any other divine voice.

Free-will rebellion didn't end with Eden. It was only the beginning -- for both divine and human imagers. Transgressions before (Gen 6:1-4) and after (Gen 11:1-9; Deut 32:8-9) the flood are cases in point, as well as points of reference. They set the stage for the rest of the Old Testament.

Yahweh's portion would be Israel. He cast off the other nations and assigned them to lesser gods. Those gods would become divine rivals, not servants of Yahweh. Their rule is corrupt (Psalm 82). The rest of the Old Testament pits Yahweh against those gods and Israel against their nations. To make matters worse, the residue of Genesis 6 lived among the inhabitants of those nations, on the ground that Yahweh had promised to Abraham. Yahweh's chosen portion of land would be contested. War loomed.

But first, Yahweh's portion, his people, would have to take root. Yahweh would initiate a relationship with Abraham, and that required a meeting. That presented a fundamental problem for God. He is so unlike anything in human experience that his pure presence cannot be processed by the human senses. It would, in fact, be lethal. God's solution was to veil himself for human protection and detection. This was necessary even in Eden where the writer casts God as a man, walking through the garden, searching for his fallen imagers (Gen 3:8). That, too, will emerge as a pattern hidden in plain sight.

(1) Hebrew for serpent or snake.

(2) Debatable. I disagree with respect to Adam's salvation.

(3) Author is alluding to Gen 3:15, also known theologically as the Protevangelium (Gospel in kernel form).

[thaskalos]

Question:

Must a believer agree with Boxcar in order to be "saved"?

[boxcar]

Yahweh And His Portion

The judgment at Babel made the world a very different place. Before Yahweh's disinheritance of the nations, he had been in covenant relationship with all the descendants of Noah. God had told Noah's sons to be fruitful and multiply and overspread the earth (Gen 9:1). It's no accident that these were the also the words given to Adam and Eve (Gen 1:22, 28). The sons of Noah were to expand God's human family and carry on the original goal of an Edenic world. Babel undermined all that.

In response, Yahweh made the nations outsiders. If his will was too burdensome, then they could serve other gods. Yahweh would transfer the Edenic dream to someone else -- a people who didn't yet exist, but soon would.

Yahweh came to Abraham in human form, just as he had with Adam and Eve (Gen 3:8). The contact was personal because the interest was personal. Yahweh's kingdom rule would be built on covenant loyalty. He would remain faithful, and beginning with Abraham, all who wished to participate could do so, if they, like Abraham, believed the covenant promises and turned away from the other gods.

The promises would pass from Abraham to Issac and then to Jacob (Israel). Yahweh's family would be preserved through Joseph, and delivered through Moses. The deliverance, of course, was a means to an end. Yahweh wanted what he wanted from the beginning: a mingling of his heavenly and earthly families on the earth that he had called into existence. To that end, he brought Israel home to Sinai. One element of the original pact with Abraham had come to pass. Israel was numerous. But as of yet, Yahweh's people had no land and had yet to fulfill the role of blessing the nations, drawing them back to the One who had cast them aside.

One task, therefore, remained. Yahweh would bring Israel to Canaan where these two covenantal promises would be fulfilled. He would also live among them in the land. To those ends, the covenant for living in the presence of God, remaining in the land and being a kingdom of priests was enacted in the presence of witnesses, Yahweh's divine council.

When his people were threatened, whether by gods or men, Yahweh would intervene visibly as the Angel in the burning bush, as the embodied Name leading Israel through the wilderness, and as the Commander of Yahweh's forces on the field of battle. In a conflict between gods and men, Israel was hopelessly outnumbered, but had the God who mattered. All that was needed was believing loyalty -- trust and obey.

What could go wrong?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Question:

Must a believer agree with Boxcar in order to be "saved"?

I am praying for Dr. Heisler because he doesn't agree with me with respect to Adam's salvation.