Tag: manifestation

Twisted

Posted on

Twisted

I have posted this video again because I thought that it was important and I have added my own notes (see below).

Twisted Doctrine

The tares and the wheat grow together until harvest time…

MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE! doctrine so twisted it’s backwards! Links below 👇 (39 min)

The Magical Mystical Church does all Christians a service by exposing the twisted and misconceived doctrines of the NAR and the false prophets who are nothing more than New Age theosophists and Gnostics. According to them the cardinal sin is “separateness” and willfully keeping ourselves sperate from God and the world. Scripture teaches us that we can only become united with God (reconciled) through Christ (by taking on his identity in baptism or being “born again’). The New Agers argue that we can all become God and that Jesus was sent to show the way. Accordingly, Jesus was an ordinary man and the Holy Spirit allowed him to become one with God and we can also become one if we simply open ourselves to the Spirit.

This was the sort of Pentecostalism practiced by the Toronto blessing and is associated with the “Kundalini intelligent force” which is equated with the Holy Spirit but is actually mass hysteria causing shaking, trembling, convulsive movements, falling to the ground, and apparent drunkenness and uncontrollable demonic laughter and cackling. It is some sort of disassociated state.

Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was the son of God through the inworking of the Spirit in a creative act:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35 ).

The overshadowing ἐπέρχομαι (eperchomai) of the Spirit in Luke is obviously meant to recall the Spirit of God moving ἐπιφέρω (epipherō) over the waters in Genesis 1v2 (Greek LXX) so this was no ordinary conception. Jesus was therefore unique and the beginning of a new creation.

The New Agers believe that Jesus became the Son of God when he received the Spirit. The argument then goes that we can all become “God” by stepping up and realizing and accepting (activating the Spirit etc.) and realizing our potential rather than keeping ourselves separate. However, it is our Sins that separated us from God, who is himself Holy (separate), emphasizing the fact that the creator is not the same as the creation (even though everything lives and moves and has its being in him). The New Agers (theosophists) are reverting back to an old doctrine known as Adoptionism, which is a Christian theological doctrine that states that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. It is also known as dynamic monarchianism. That doctrine was rejected by the Church as a heresy.

After his baptism, at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus received the Spirit without limitation and was tested as to whether he would employ it for selfish reasons or in order to further his mission. It had nothing to do with him being “adopted” as God pronounced in Matt 3:17; “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” obviously reflecting Isa 42:1 a chapter based on Hezekiah as the suffering servant (and representation of the nation) and a foreshadowing of Christ. Although the birth of Hezekiah was unusual (Isa 7:14) the young woman (the Hebrew is flexible) in question was not (unlike Mary) a virgin  the birth by the young woman in Isaiah’s day was nevertheless a foreshadowing of the virgin Emmanuel birth.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 110

Psalm 2 is also often cited in support of adoptionism.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:6-7)

In Acts 4:23-28 the first verse of Psalm 2 is given detailed and specific interpretation:

Heathen
the Gentiles
People
Israel
Kings of the Land
Herod
Rulers
Pilate
The Lord’s anointed
Jesus

The verse has therefore an obvious application with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ but the original context of this Davidic Psalm (adapted/reused by Hezekiah) is 2 Samuel 6. There the details emphasize that when the ark was brought to Zion, David took on himself (with God’s approval) the role of priest-king and became a Melchizedek (not Aaronic) King-priest.

a. He was girded with a linen ephod: v. 14.
b. He offered sacrifices: vv. 13,17.
c. He blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts: v. 18 (Num. 6:23).
d. He brought forth bread and wine: v. 19 (Isa. 25:6; Luke 22:17,18; Matt. 26:26-29!).
e. He sat in the presence of the Lord: 7:18.
f. And there he offered prayer: 7:18-29.

All the foregoing (except, an intimacy which not even a high priest was permitted) were normal priestly functions, the bread and wine being specially associated with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1). Hebrews 1:5 applies the words This day have I begotten thee to Christ when he was glorified to be made an high priest; that is, this day means the day of his resurrection (not the day of his birth). The next outstanding event in the reign of David is described in 2 Samuel 8: concerted attempts by the kings of all the surrounding nations to destroy this kingdom of God in its early stages. Instead, the outcome was a series of God-given victories granted to David and his people, with the result that this new kingdom of God was all at once an empire.

And so Psalm 110 is also firmly placed in the same context:

“Sit thou at my right hand [2 Sam. 7:18!], until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies [2 Sam. 8]… The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries” (vv. 1,2,5,6).

“The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adon)      (Psalm 110:1)

This Psalm (110) and Psalm 2 are about the inauguration of a new priesthood that supersedes all others:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

In John 20:28 Thomas , with his unique exclamation “My Lord and my God”, in the first phrase expresses (by means of Psalm 110) his suddenly-awakened conviction that only a risen Jesus could fulfill such a priestly work in heaven. The two phrases together make a confession of great insight with their allusion to Zechariah 12:10: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced [the wounds in his hands and side], and mourn for him” — both Father and Son, Lord(Yahweh) and Lord (Adon) are referred to here.

This is confirmed by Hebrews 7:1-24 as in the last verse of ch. 6 there is emphasis that Jesus was made (and not born) a high priest, and this for ever (no mortal man can be an eternal priest). Then follows a sustained sequence of arguments centering round Psalm 110:4.

So, Jesus was more than a mere man, but was he “fully God”? I will repeat what I have written elsewhere:

I would critique is the use of formulaic or credal language to describe Christ as fully God and fully man as I prefer a more nuanced position such as presented by John A. T. Robinson who interprets the incarnation to mean that Jesus was “totus deus, the one who is utterly expressive of Godhead,” not “totum dei, the exhaustive revelation” of God (Robinson, 1979: 104, 120).

"Further, if Jesus Christ is totus deus - if, that is to say, God has wholly and not merely partially vested himself in Christ - he is, again, not totum dei. Jesus Christ does not represent everything of God in the sense that there is no revelation of God outside him. If he is final, it is because ultimately everything is summed up and included in him, not because he is exclusively the expression of God.  The Christian who asserts that for him Jesus Christ is the all-embracing principle of interpretation is asserting that there is nothing in his experience that requires any other explanation; for everything 'coheres' in him. He makes this judgment - and calls himself a Christian - because he does not find this is true of Buddha and Mohammed, not because he does not find any truth in them. For him Christ represents the definitive revelation of God - and this is a less misleading word than final - because it is inconceivable to him that there could be any higher revelation of God in human terms of 'pure, unbounded love' " (p.221-222).  Robinson, John A.T., 1973, The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: Philadelphia, Westminster Press

I prefer the Greek description manifestation (phanerosis) rather than the Latin verb incarnation (The verb incarno does not occur in the Latin Bible but the term is drawn from the Gospel of John 1:14) derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh”. Incarnational doctrine is thought to imply the personal pre-existence of Christ rather than ideological preexistence, however, all believers are said to be chosen in him from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

God’s work of manifestation is not complete as he is calling out a people for his name (sons and daughters) therefore although the Christ event is definitive (Eph 1:23) it is not exhaustive because God manifestation is an ongoing process that can only be achieved in and through the Christ event. Divine manifestation is the telos allowing Timothy to exclaim “My Lord and my God!” in the presence of the resurrected Christ.

First the Natural then the Spiritual

On the principle first the natural, then the spiritual I would add that I am neither fully my father or fully my mother. I could say that my “father is in me” because I owe my genetic make up to him (and my mother) but I am not my father even though I share many characteristics with him (and my mother). I am a unique individual…but Jesus was even more unique. To be fully God and fully man is a contradiction. God cannot die nor can he be tempted. Jesus was called the second Adam (1 Cor 15:47) not the second God, and Jesus always referred to himself as the Son of Man. But he was no ordinary man. He was the “express image”.

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3 )

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,
charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou
carving of-the under-STANDing of-him
image of-the assumption of-him
image of -the express of-his (person)

* the ordinal value of this phrase is 367 giving the palindrome 1441. The first three integers read as 144 from either end and the number reduces to 1. Jesus then represents all the redeemed from the beginning of time… the 144,000 and the “great multitude” that become one in the Lamb (Rev 7:4-9)

The KJV gives (in my view) a good rendering as Adam had been made in the image of God but now Jesus is the express (hypostaseōs ) image, reflecting the character (charaktēr ) of him (the divine personhood). This is the perfect manifestation of God in the flesh. I use the word manifestation and not incarnation because an image is a reflection or representation of the object (it is not the object itself). The apostle Paul says that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (shines) in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6) and Jesus could say that, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). So Jesus was the unique and express image of God and Jesus was the creator of a new creation (the church) and the resurrected Christ is now the King-Priest and bearer of the divine name, for he has been given the name that is above every name.

Moreover, reconciliation and atonement between God and man could only be achieved by an individual that represented both parties. Jesus was the only person who could represent both God and man. God cannot be tempted neither can he fail. Jesus could have failed in his mission (that possibility existed) and what would then have happened to God? Nothing would have happened. Jesus did not fail (and God knows the beginning from the end) but without freewill Jesus’ victory would have been meaningless and hollow. How you think about the nature of Jesus determines how you think about the atonement. Jesus’ death is not a substitute for our death (we still all die) nor is it a “bet with the devil” (lolz). Jesus opens up a new way of access to God because we now have a representative. When we look at Jesus we see God and when God looks at Jesus he sees us (God be praised) and God knows that somewhere in the spirit of man (despite our weakness) their is a love for him that passeth understanding. Through baptism believers fully identify with the death and resurrection of Christ and have been extended fellowship and forgiveness. And the salvation that was offered to us was done by God (his arm wrought salvation) because he “created” Jesus, moreover, the Father and the Son are that intimate that God shared in the suffering of the world through him, just as we will share in the victory through Jesus. World without end. Amen

And, so, little children, may you contemplate the greatness of God’s work in Christ without falling into dogma. And, yes….the video is correct….they are false prophets and the NAR do twist doctrine.  These “Christians” will kill anyone who stands in their way and they will think that they are doing God a service.

"The time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God" (John 16:2)

Seven Mountain Awakening (2 min)

 

 

Anunnaki

Posted on

Anunnaki

This was brought to my attention and is typical of the sort of attacks that Christianity is under where the Old Testament is used in a “bait and switch” to cast doubt and confusion and drive a wedge between the testaments. The problem is that many Christians are ignorant of scriptures or only have a superficial knowledge of the texts and are easily swayed by those who are willing to conflate mythology and distort the texts for their own ends. There is a reason why they are trying so hard to destroy Christianity.

Anunnaki Ancient Mystery

The most important video on the channel | God or Gods? The Many Faces of God in Ancient Texts (23 min)

This video refers to Zecharia Sitchin the author of several books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. The Anunnaki are the Sumerian gods discovered on the clay tablets of libraries excavated at locations like Nineveh. The Bible story is said to depend on these older myths. Ironically, Nineveh and its prophesied Biblical destruction were thought to be exaggerated or fictitious until the ruins were discovered and subsequently excavated by Austin Henry Layard in 1846 and 1847. Now those very same texts are used to demonstrate Biblical dependence (sic).  We might ask what the most likely direction of influence and/or corruption is?   Myths always grow by accretion and become more epic in the telling, moreover they suffer from assimilation and syncretism. The further back in the past the historical event lies, the more likely that this has occurred.

Dating ancient flood narratives is often a complex and multidisciplinary task.   The techniques employed are linguistic analysis (syntax language development), historical context, cultural references, archaeological evidence, comparative mythology, radiocarbon dating (papyrus), documentary evidence (cross-references), oral tradition and folklore and carbon dating of geological evidence (sediment layers). There are many flood myths even among the Greeks, Indians and Chinese but concentrating on the Mesopotamian myths we arrive at the following agreed upon dating.

The Sumerian Flood Story – c. 2100 BCE or earlier.    One of the oldest known flood narratives, possibly dating back to around 2100 BCE or even earlier. Atrahasis Epic – c. 18th century BCE.   This is an Akkadian text that is believed to have been composed in the 18th century BCE, although it draws on older Sumerian sources. Epic of Gilgamesh – c. 18th century BCE.   The standard Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh that contains the flood story is dated to the 18th century BCE. Ziusudra (Sumerian) – c. 19th-17th century BCE.   Ziusudra is the Sumerian equivalent of Noah. The story of Ziusudra is considered one of the earliest known flood narratives.

The multitude of cross-cultural myths is evidence that something catastrophic happened and the scientific evidence points to a Heinrich-Bond event with rapid changes to the jet stream and glacial melt probably occurring approximately 6,000 years ago  which (if correct) is some  2,000 years before the oldest flood accounts appeared. This allows plenty of time for the account to be mythologised and to become an epic tale.     The biblical account of the Great Flood is found in the book of Genesis, which is generally believed to have been written down during the Babylonian exile in the 6th or 5th century BCE.  It is thought to be the most recent but that is based on several false assumptions the first one being the early date assigned to Genesis.  We know that Genesis predates the exile and was known to the prophets etc before 700 BC. Of course, that is nowhere near the 2000 BC date of the Mesopotamian accounts but the appearance of the other ANE myths occurred around the same time slot as the Exodus from Egypt which coincided with the development of the alphabet.  Unlike clay, papyrus documents leave very little trace ,compounded  by  the Jewish custom to destroy old scrolls when new copies were made.    The Genesis account has the least mythological elements giving us dimensions, time periods and the landing place of the ark on Ararat which happens to be located very near to the oldest vineyards in the world giving credence to the story that Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk (lolz).  There is no reason (except academic bias) that the Genesis account cannot be earlier than the other myths.  They probably developed independently from one another based on cultural memories and oral traditions.

The video makes the false equivalency that the Sumerian Anunnaki = Elohim and the basic error of employing the Book of Enoch (a late pseudepigrapha) to demonstrate that the offspring of the Anunnaki are the “sons of God”.  Using the book of Enoch written at the very  least a millennia after Genesis to explain the “sons of God” is like using one of Isaac Asimov’s books to interpret Scripture. (lolz). The video (@7.45) states that all the terms are translated as God (not true), as the KJV translates Yahweh as LORD and Elohim as GOD

Whatever explanation is offered, must consider that men and rulers are also referred to as Elohim in Scripture, so the delineation is at times ambiguous (Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8,9,28; 23:20,21; Psalms 58:1(?); 97:7; 138:11; 1 Samuel 2:25; 28:13). I find myself in agreement with Michael Heiser  [i]

 Our Terminology IS NOT Adequate to Describe the God of the Bible (5 min)

Note the famous shema of Deut 6:4 (שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד)- Hear O Israel The LORD our God is one LORD (KJV) or, Literally: Hear O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim (’ĕ·lō·hê·nū) is one (echad) Yahweh and  compare Zechariah 14:9; And the LORD (Yahweh) shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one (echad) LORD  (Yahweh), and his name one (echad).

Moreover, just like Elohim the phrase “Sons of God” is also used to describe humans (and angels) adding to the ambiguity. The nation of Israel is described as God’s son (Hos.11:1). In fact, Solomon is called the “Son of God” and the account has intertextual parallels pointing back to the apostacy in Genesis 6:4 which I demonstrate in this article Solomon as the Son of God .  Moreover, the reference to “giants” in Genesis is literally “mortals of the name” or as some translations render it “men of renown” which are the “demi-gods” legendary hero figures of antiquity like Nimrod who established the city-states and hunted before Yahweh and is called a “mighty (גִּבֹּ֖ר gibbor) one.”  For example, although the Egyptians recognized that the pharaoh was human and subject to human weakness, they simultaneously viewed him as a god, because the divine power of kingship was incarnated in him. He therefore acted as intermediary between Egypt’s people and the gods. Many ancient Mesopotamian kings viewed themselves as living gods.

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.   He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.  And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10)

Another classic error (@ @8.45) is a failure to distinguish between names and titles.  El Elyon (Most High God) is not a name it is a title or epithet. Like calling someone a CEO or King of Kings. They are not names. in contrast with Yahweh (YHWH) which is a NAME. And the situation is further complicated by the concept of agency in which Yahweh places his name and authority in an angel (Exod 23:21) or in a human (cf. the king). The nation of Israel was told at Sinai that collectively they were meant to bear the Yahweh name and not take it in vain. The Hebrew word for “take,” nasa, means to bear or carry. God’s name had been placed upon the Israelites (Num 6:27), enter Jesus, whose name means Yahweh saves. He is one who fulfills the name bearing at which Israel (chosen to be a holy nation) so miserably failed. In fact, Jesus is able to use the name shown to Moses in Exodus 3:14 expressed in the Greek Septuagint as I AM [ii] when Jesus declares, Before Abraham was I AM” (John 8:58) this is a reference to manifesting the Yahweh name (not a reference to pre-existent equivalence) as the blind man is also able to manifest the I AM through being a recipient of healing power: Jesus answered, Neither hath this [blind] man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest (phaneroo) in him (John 9:3)….Some said, This is he [the blind man]: others said, He is like him: but he [the blind man] said, I AM (John 9:9).  So, Jesus bears the Yahweh name and manifests him, which is why he can say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).  Jesus becomes the name bearer:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Philippians 2:9).

The assertion that either Jesus or the NT is somehow confused about “which of the gods (plural) is his Father (lolz) is utter nonsense. As to the other assertion (@ 15 mins) that Abraham only knew God under the title El Shaddy but not under the Yahweh name, it is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Exodus 6:3: “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them. ” The context as demonstrated in my article El Shaddy is that the epithet is linked to blessing and fecundity [iii] and the irony is that it was the very fulfillment (Exodus 1:7) of the promise inherit in the title that caused the Egyptian genocide. The crux interpretum is the word “known” which is about revelation. It is about experiencing the full implication and meaning of the name and character. Abraham had a glimpse at the place he called Yahweh-Yireh (יהוה יראה) or Yahweh will be seen when he “saw the place afar off” [iv]– “Your father Abraham rejoiced [v] to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). However, the full implications of Yahweh manifesting himself as saviour was the Passover Exodus (Gen 15:13-14) and then later in history the Passover crucifixion of Jesus (Yah saves) when the full revelation of the name is made known.

The video is full of errors suggesting that the Elohistic (E) and Yahwistic (J) accounts of the flood denote different gods such as the Mesopotamian gods Enlil (destroyer) and Enki (the saviour). Not only is the Wellhausen Documentary hypothesis of differing sources (E, J and P) increasingly being rejected by many scholars (in favour of a holistic approach) but the theology of the Old Testament (and New) rejects the notion of dualism found in much of of the ANE mythology and religions (such as Zoroastrian). As the prophet says; “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7 ). There is not a God who brings good and a different God who brings evil circumstances. God both kills and makes alive; “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39). This was even recognized by Job in all his misery: ” And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21).

Furthermore, syncretism  of proto-Indo-European “father gods” such as Dyauspitar the Ṛigvedic sky deity which is cognate with the Greek Διας – Zeus Patēr and the Latin Jupiter and the Proto-Italic djous “day, sky” and patēr “father”, thus “sky father” Greek: Δίας or Ζεύς), also known as Jove of ancient Rome is an expected cross cultural evolution but the Semetic tetragmaton (YHWH) is semantically a verb that is treated as a noun. Unlike the cosmogony of the pagan gods the Hebrew has a unique existential meaning and teleological projection and is therefore not derivative.

Conclusion

At one point the video states; Actually it is necessary to highlight here a great confusion is Jesus the Messiah or not is Jesus’ Father Yahweh or not?  We can have different interpretations and different readings as well as different theological explanations for this. But invariably, the truth is only one, even though we may not be able to fully grasp it….   the fact that we do not have access to the truth…

The only person who is confused is the producer of the video. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Cor 14:33).  Moreover, we have direct access to the truth, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:16) and a promise to guide us into all truth and show us things to come (John 16:13). The video states that such knowledge is unobtainable, it is too far too high that it cannot be reached, which is contrary to the apostle Paul who says the opposite in Romans 10:6-8 that it is not too high or unobtainable. The video producer then levels the petulant accusation that “They (the gods???) blame our humanity for terrible and sinful acts” (Really?  Time for you to wake up and smell the coffee boyo.  Take a look around).  Man rebelled against God and is still in opposition to him with the Homo Deus transhumanist project. He continues by lamenting that “God is all powerful and we should fear him” (however the transhumanist and neo-Bolsheviks use fear as a programming tool).   I would rather fear the Lord than fear man. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom (Psalm 111:10, Prov 1:7) but not the end of Wisdom for perfect love rules out fear; There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.   We love him, because he first loved us (1 John 4:18-19). He ends the video by saying that he thinks we are divine, and he talks about “illumination of the darkness of ignorance” a sure sign that he is a gnostic (one with hidden knowledge that we do not have).  No, you are not illuminated, you walk in darkness (like the blind man in John 9//darkness Ps 82) and although you are gods in your own mind, you will die like Adam (Jesus quoting Ps 82 at the Sanhedrin “gods” in John 10).

Notes

[i] Although I disagree with Michael Heiser on his interpretation of Psalm 82:5-8:

They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.   I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  But ye shall die like men (adam), and fall like one of the princes.   Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalm 82:5-8)

The question is whether Psalm 82 is talking about gods or men. Michael Heiser would argue for the Elohim here being gods, but gods are immortal and these elohim are threatened to die like men or more specifically to die like Adam, having failed the test as he did. Or — more precisely — having sought for higher position than God permitted. The reference to “arise” is to the resurrection because Hezekiah recovered from his mortal illness on the third day and addressed the council (the Sanhedrin or 70 Elohim).  They had rebelled and attempted to usurp power during his illness and the Assyrian siege. They attempted to betray him and cut a deal with Sennacherib. The prince Shebna was cast out (cf. Isaiah 22).  The parallels between the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 (King Hezekiah) and Christ are obvious. Christ quotes this Psalm when challenged about his status by the Sanhedrin refer to my article Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel. And further reading, see my analysis of Heiser’s critiques in the article Sons of God

[ii] Ego eimi (Ἐγώ εἰμι) is the transliteration of the LXX Greek in Exodus 3:14. The name of God expresses a past, present, and future tense. As such God is the ground of all being (I AM) but Yahweh is also constantly manifesting who he will be (WILL BE) the one who was, is and will be. On this see God Manifestation

[iii] The Stark Trek greeting “Live Long and Prosper” is based on making the Shin sign (the letter- Sh ש in Hebrew) with the hand the first syllable of Sh-addy in the El Shaddy rabbinical blessing.

[iv] Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (Genesis 22:4).

[v] The name of his son Isaac (that he was told to sacrifice) means laughter or rejoicing.

 

The Virtual Abyss

Posted on

The Virtual Abyss

A tour de force. Powerful Christian apologetic.

I loved this analysis and discussion of Richard Grannon’s video on the collapse of modern civilization. This really was a tour de force looking at truth claims in the post modern world the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and ontology of different world views as contrasted with Christian anthropology. Employing logic, reason and rationality which form the basis of Christian truth claims. Their philosophical premise is based on first cause which is always difficult to refute because it is logically consistent. This video is 3:46 hours long and worth watching (listening too) underneath  the original video by Richard Grannon is posted. He has a  BSc in Psychology and a Master Practitioner certification in NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), Richard is “The Spartan Life Coach” — an expert in applying the Spartan values of strength, self-discipline, and bravery to psychological training.

"For, although we are in the flesh, we do not battle according to the flesh,  for the weapons of our battle are not of flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5 NAB)

THE COLLAPSE OF MODERN CIVILIZATION | The Virtual Abyss (3:46)

https://youtu.be/2d-mu-PKVCs

The Collapse of Modern Civilization | Richard Grannon (47 min)

The only part of the Dayz of Noah video that I would critique is the use of formulaic or credal language to describe Christ as fully God and fully man as I prefer a more nuanced position such as presented by John A. T. Robinson who interprets the incarnation to mean that Jesus was “totus deus, the one who is utterly expressive of Godhead,” not “totum dei, the exhaustive revelation” of God (Robinson, 1979: 104, 120).

"Further, if Jesus Christ is totus deus - if, that is to say, God has wholly and not merely partially vested himself in Christ - he is, again, not totum dei. Jesus Christ does not represent everything of God in the sense that there is no revelation of God outside him. If he is final, it is because ultimately everything is summed up and included in him, not because he is exclusively the expression of God.  The Christian who asserts that for him Jesus Christ is the all-embracing principle of interpretation is asserting that there is nothing in his experience that requires any other explanation; for everything 'coheres' in him. He makes this judgment - and calls himself a Christian - because he does not find this is true of Buddha and Mohammed, not because he does not find any truth in them. For him Christ represents the definitive revelation of God - and this is a less misleading word than final - because it is inconceivable to him that there could be any higher revelation of God in human terms of 'pure, unbounded love' " (p.221-222).  Robinson, John A.T., 1973, The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: Philadelphia, Westminster Press

I prefer the Greek description manifestation (phanerosis) rather than the Latin verb incarnation (The verb incarno does not occur in the Latin Bible but the term is drawn from the Gospel of John 1:14) derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh”. Incarnational doctrine is thought to imply the personal pre-existence of Christ rather than ideological preexistence, however, all believers are said to be chosen in him from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

God’s work of manifestation is not complete as he is calling out a people for his name (sons and daughters) therefore although the Christ event is definitive (Eph 1:23) it is not exhaustive because God manifestation is an ongoing process that can only be achieved in and through the Christ event. Divine manifestation is the telos allowing Timothy to exclaim “My Lord and my God!” in the presence of the resurrected Christ.