Archive for February, 2013

Power to Become the Sons of God

Posted: February 15, 2013 in Uncategorized

It was in the middle years of that war when an image out of Winslow Homer, a man in rowboat on a dark sea, buffeted at the bottom of a rectangle of storm clouds, swirled with twisted faces.  Supercharged as the War of Neptune to concoct deception of the Bohemian Grove-Mammon-Ishtar killers, suddenly the whole image was rent down the middle, destroyed by a figure of light, a man. These forces had raged over my citation of the proposition that to them gave he the power to become the sons of God. I was reciting this New Testament psalm as these surrounded me, as it were Psalm 1 of the Old.  I cannot say exactly what they were, phantoms, spirits in the  night. Defending against these attacks, but not happily or much successfully, the only proper defense being their annihilation, right in the middle of this psalm-saying, I called out the name of Jesus (the Blessed). In an instant there was such peace that my son’s chow, an overnight guest, came and lay beside my bed, such peace as I have not felt in sleep for years, stillness and peace that I carry along with Jesus the Blessed.

Not for the first do I think we under estimate the man woman if these images come in their sight, or wonder how they are so ill prepared to fight. Satanists, illusionists train their children in ritual and pain-divided alters from before birth. Christians do no such thing but await the spirit to turn the hearts of the children toward the Father. Free will they call, many are called, few are chosen. Antagonists cry foul every time repayment falls on them, and that’s how the world will end, to general applause from wits who believe it’s a joke, then they claim to be pacifists who inhabit a controlled universe which they ordain, self-initiated burglars, but Christian gets no sort of “hel” “p,” is just left to be and to be. So these spirits swirl round and round the man which he can’t see, a Screwtape live, Pilgrims’s Progress or Dante Inferno taken as fiction when in image and fact, whatever that is, they are real. Then the man calls on the name of Jesus the Blessed and the heavens cleanse and he is flooded with peace. It makes you think more is going on than meets the eye. AS if the appalling human evils and inquisitions and archipelagos were not enough, but that all asylums, prisons are modeled upon the fallen spirits of these Neptunean kings.  Spiritual wickedness in high places. We’re a lot more important than we think we are, and Jesus Blessed is our victory.

The rest of this here

Commentary on John

The opening of John 1-14 stands beside the opening of Genesis as a terse cosmology of kind.  There could be no more comprehensive statement than saying The Word was Yahweh, the original and only term for this most intimate name. Do not say the word was God; the Word was Yahweh, which to vastness of image and person is an ocean. I wanted the taste of a word in my mouth. He, the Word, it says, made every thing, everyone. Nothing is left out. In the face of this magnitude an opposition of light and dark occurs, as Genesis. That opposition will deeply concern the Word and all its word beings, for the Word-Light that made the world and all is its inspiration, Lights Every One Who Comes Into the World. This Lighting is of a people and their birth, tribally, universally for sure, but individually. They become children of Yahweh Word Light and this is by their birth in belief. So belief is the transformative power, but not belief in itself, but belief in receiving Yahweh’s Word. This is the light that Lights Every One Who Comes Into the World. Belief bears them, bridges the two, connects one to the other and then they are born. They incarnate Yahweh. They bear Yahweh in themselves in a way understood as this: they are born, they are children of Yahweh, which implies also that they mature in him. It is a triangle. Yahweh, the Word, the child. That the word is a child too is a denser gravity. The Word repeats again, again in the world.  The Word is named for Yahweh as the child is named. The Word’s name is Yahshua.

This is the record of John (the Baptist) by John (the apostle) in which there are echoes and reechoes of naming. So he is not Elijah or Messiah or that prophet? What prophet? Echoes. Water. Spirit. First the world “knew him not”  even though he made it, then John knew him not (1.31), which he repeats (33). John refers to”He that sent me” and “the same said to me,” echoes, oppositions of water and spirit. 2 Oct 2012

Meister Eckhart. The Book of Divine Consolation, I. Tr Oliver Davies:
“Everything which I have just said concerning a good man and goodness is no less true of a true man and truth, a just man and justice, a wise man and wisdom, God the Son and God the Father, indeed of all that is born of God and has no father on earth, in which nothing created is born and in which there is no image but only God, naked and pure. For John in his gospel states, ‘To all of them is given power and strength to become sons of God, who were not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God and from God alone’ (John mf). By ‘blood’ he means everything within us which is not subject to the will. By the ‘will of the flesh’ he means everything within us which, while being subject to the will, is so only with struggle and conflict, which inclines to the desires of the flesh and which properly belongs to both the soul and the body together and not to the soul alone, on account of which these lower powers of the soul grow old, tired and enfeebled. By the ‘will of man’ John means the highest powers of the soul, whose nature and activity is wholly independent of the flesh and which are located in the purity of the soul, detached from all time and space and from all those things which look to time and space or have any taste for them: that is, powers which have nothing in common with anything else at all, in which we are formed in the image of God and are members of God’s race and family. And yet, since they are not God himself, being created in and with the soul, they must lose their own form and be transformed into God alone and be born into and out of God so that he will be their sole father,since they will thus also be the sons of God and God’s only begotten son. For I am the son of all that forms me and gives birth to me as identical to itself according to and in itself. In so far as such a person, God’s son, who is good as the son of goodness and is just as the son of justice, is the son solely of  justice, to that extent justice is unbegotten-begetting, and the son to whom it gives birth has the same being as justice has and is, and possesses all the properties of justice and of truth.
It is all this teaching, which is written in the sacred scripture sand is known with certainty in the natural light of the rational soul, which gives us true consolation in all our suffering.St Augustine says: ‘There is nothing which is far or remote from God.’
2
“If you wish that nothing should be far or remote from you, then join yourself to God, for then a thousand years will be like a single day. Thus I say that in God there is neither sadness, nor suffering, nor distress, and if you wish to be free of all distress and suffering, then turn to God and fix yourself on him alone. It is certain that all your suffering comes from the fact that you do not turn to God or not to him alone. If you were formed and born solely in justice, then truly nothing could cause you pain, any more than justice can cause God pain. Solomon says: ‘The just will not grieve whatever may befall’ (Prov. 12:21). He does not say: ‘the just man’ or ‘the just angel’ or this or that He says: ‘the just’. Whatever belongs to the just man or woman, whatever it is that constitutes his or her justice in particular and the fact that he or she is just, that is the son with an earthly father, and is a creature, both created and made, since its father is a creature, either created or made. But suffering and distress can no more affect ‘the just’ pure and simple than they can God, for it has no father, whether created or made, since God and justice are entirely one and justice alone is its father. Justice can cause no suffering to the just since all joy, delight and bliss are justice.Indeed, if justice were to cause the just pain, then it would be causing itself pain. Nothing which is dissimilar to itself or unjust, which is created or made, can cause the just pain, for all that is created is as far beneath them as it is beneath God, and it cannot affect or influence the just nor reproduce itself in those whose father is God alone.”

Number of the Gods

It’s easy to manipulate a casual reader into something partially true, in this case that, “most books of the Old Testament speak of “the gods” as existing realities—real spiritual beings with minds of their own” (Gerald McDermott. pdf), “divine reality.” So what to make of  these gods?  The superstructures of this view tower over the shadow landscape. They are inhabited by a diverse group from Richard Dawkins to Creational Monotheists, whoever they are, and seek in their buildings of rhetoric to circumscribe even Isaiah (note 2), conflating elements into their own hybrid. But  cut to the chase:  “O Yahweh our Elohim, Adonim (Lords) instead of Thee have had dominion over us; but by Thee only will we make mention of Thy name. They are deified men, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast  thou visited and destroyed them, and made all memory to perish” (Isaiah 26. 13-14, A. B. Traina and KJV). Not to disrespect the gods, these adonim  are compared to men, sometime called false gods, who do not rise, as opposed to men and Messiah who do. Ezekiel says, “in the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seasBut you are a man and not a god… will you then say, “I am a god,” in the presence of those who kill you? You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you” (Ez. 28. 3f, 9, NIV)  This concerning the king of Tyre is all the more addressed to the chief god of Mammon, Baal and Saturn, the one who was “in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you…among the fiery stones…blameless in all your ways from the day you were created, till wickedness was found in you…and you will be no more” (13 f, NIV).

1. Deut 32. 8-9, ” the gods” cited by RSV, Richard Dawkins, et al as proof of Canaanite influences are otherwise translated in  “Deuteronomy 32:8 as “according to the number of the children of Israel. ”  Brandplucked, here

“In the King James Bible we read: “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.” “The number of the children of Israel” is the Hebrew Masoretic text reading.

“However the RSV 1952 and the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version” read: “he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of THE SONS OF GOD.”  The Holman Standard footnotes tell us that the reading of “the sons of GOD” comes from ONE Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, but that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “children of Israel”.  The Greek Septuagint reads: “according to the number of the ANGELS OF GOD.” It is interesting to look at the NRSV of 1989.  It reads: “he fixed the boundaries of the people according to the NUMBER OF THE GODS.” So, which is it?  “the children of Israel”, “the gods”, “the angels of God”, or “the sons of God”?  The scholars can’t make up their minds, and you too will only be confused if you follow them.”

The writing of these schools of textual critics is tainted from the first by ulterior designs and rhetorical sleights of hand, selective reading, equivocation, taking the part for the whole, the whole range of fallacies taught in classical rhetoric (see Corbett) to be avoided. I call this mishandling of language, bringing differing statements into conflict to implode the essential into a contradiction of itself, as if it were a presidential debate where zingers were the main capital and investment managers and journalists conflated them with their own emphases into sensational claims for profit. This is a superficial deception but works well online. In this the words, implication, suggestion often occur so as not to require real evidence or discussion, so they say,  “The implication [of the RSV reading of Deut 32.8-9] is that Yahweh delegated supervision of other nations to other (in the context “subordinate”) gods, while he exercised direct supervision of Israel” (McDermott 3). The  nonsense of this thought is in the writing, as the online Baptist, Brandplucked, above seems to show. Reading “the Gods” for the Masoretic  “children of Israel” is partial and arbitrary, so when McDermott cites further passages of his own choosing, their backgrounds must be searched to see if  true.

2. So, in Judges 11.23-24 McDermott cites: “Should you not possess what your god Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not be the ones to possess everything that Yahweh our God has conquered for our benefit?” He intends by this to prove a “scholarly consensus that Jephthah was assuming the reality of Chemosh.” But such naivete, mistakenly reading sarcasm as  pleading for acceptance, instead of rejection, indicates rather that the critics are tone deaf, as has been said, a critic resembles a poet to a hair, except he has no anguish in his heart and no music on his lips (Kierkegaard) that they reduce multi-layed nuances to a single fact, the chord to its note, made worse by selecting what translations best suit their rhetoric. I hear much irony in these statements about Chemosh, where the word “reality” is equivocated, especially when followed by reference to Balak, who hired Balaam to bad ends. When the scholars become the protagonists in the debate they provoke disbelief, as if they themselves want to be a part of the ancient world. See how McDermott begs the question, assumes to be proven what he tries to establish, when he says, “Furthermore, the text also assumes that each people or land has a different god assigned to it—which is what we saw in Deuteronomy” (4), but we didn’t see it in Deuteronomy 32; it was manufactured, not mined.

3. I Kings 8.23.  McDermott glosses Solomon’s prayer of dedication (4), “Yahweh, God of Israel, there is no god like you in heaven above or earth beneath” (8.23)  as “that Solomon believed in the other gods is clear, for the author chastises him for worshiping “Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites” (11.33). To say “Solomon believed” is a total misnomer, for it says Solomon “worshipped” these gods of his wives, an utterly different category from belief, full of the irony of seduction and depravity, like the worship of Baal Peor, taking a dump in front of an idol in order to get laid with a whore. That’s not a belief, that’s a dissociative  compulsive addiction. These critical failings might simplify the inability of a critic to comprehend prophetic speech, so often satiric, sarcastic like with Elijah, “call louder, maybe your gods are out to lunch.”  Elijah doesn’t tacitly acknowledge such gods, he mocks them, so McDermott stands in for a whole bunch of single strand scholars who take their own piety seriously when he cites:

4. 2 Kings 1.3 “Is it because there is no god in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?”  “But even the author (or editor) of Kings seems to believe that these other gods existed. Ahab’s son Ahaziah injured himself by falling, and sent messengers to ask of the Philistine god, Baal-zebub, whether he would recover. An angel of Yahweh told the prophet Elijah to meet the king’s couriers with that message” (McDermott 4). Editor or not, the message was that Ahaziah would die more from the inquiry than from the fall, as do his captains and their fifties twice from his inquiry about the inquiry. This bookish sequence takes the whole first chapter. Its point is not that there are other gods, but that  Ahaziah mistakenly sought healing from them and not from Yahweh. Editor of Kings indeed! See this interpretatio europeica moderna,” European desk scholar, here. Elijah continues to mock these gods.  he disacknowledges, disbelieves their existence and powers that the scholars line up to worship.

5. In 2 Kings 3.27 McDermott gives his putative QED of the gods in a similar misconstruction to Ahaziah, to the effect that Moab  “took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. ” Scholar McDermott, doesn’t believe in these gods however or any god for that matter, so he finds it appalling that Judah so responds. He has all along constructed a false either/or argument with the usual Hegalian oppositions, but cannot fathom how mutual and conflicting realities exist simultaneously in the same time and space. The whole OT is predicated that such gods and powers exist to be defeated, so his point that they do is so commonplace, except for his wrong headed rhetorical purpose to show 1) that Judah “believed” these existed and 2) this invalidates their belief in Yahweh and invalidates their contradiction of Edom, etc. Get out in the street boy. The point is to defeat the powers of the gods. Believe only insofar as you disbelieve in order to execute them: Reafo His Todaelde. Read all of Isaiah 14. Still the enemy and avenger! Defeated by the mouths of sucklings! (Psalm 8).

II.

1. “They sink a shaft far from the inhabited surface, they go down swinging to and fro, hanging by a rope.” Job 28.2

He cuts out canals [Yeorim] amid the rocks; and his eye sees every precious thing.

Seeking whether yeorim was rivers, canals or channels , searching for, “yeorim in hebrew,” this link appeared, which says, “It is my hypothesis that the Hebrew words ציים siyyim (or tsiyyim) and צים siym ….. maqom-naharim – “a place of rivers”, yeorim -, rachabi – “wide”, yadim…” 26 Oct 2012

Advertisements