The Rabbit Hole-- theological deep exploration

Theology
41

Mr E

Thanx for the thorough reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I learn so much by listening to the counsel of others. Your thoughts and personal perspective are genuinely appreciated. I apologize in advance for, I admit, is a response that is too long.

Indeed!

You have mentioned Michael Heiser several times recently. I have read Heiser, not his fiction, but his more popular works. I was sorry when he passed. Cancer is a mystery to me. I admit his rhetoric is very convincing. I was impressed with the depth of his scholarship while maintaining a writing style that is accessible to a wide audience. He writes as if you are having a pleasant discussion with an old friend. I admit he is by-far more brilliant and more studied in his specialty than I am. He is a teacher; I am a learner.

Would you say reading the thoughts of brilliant men is your primary path to spiritual scholarship? I’m just wondering if you could share what personal criteria you employed that brought you to accept the conclusions of Mr. Heizer at the rejection of others. I think you may agree that his understanding of the spiritual realm is fairly esoteric, right?

You mentioned again in this last post that “there are few pastor-teacher-preachers” who handle this psalm in their exposition. While I did originally agree that I have never personally “heard” a sermon specifically on this Psalm, I did not intend to imply that I have had no teaching on it. The literature on this psalm is extensive. Just for fun I did a quick search of the sermon databases and found that this Psalm has not really been neglected. If some do shy away from speaking on this Psalm to their Sunday morning congregations, I can imagine a number of reasons why they might do so that are positive.

If you would like to hear some sermons on this Psalm, I’ll include a short list that I came up with. I have not personally listened to (or read the transcript) of all of these, so you are pretty much on your own out there. I think you will find a wide variety of approaches to this specific Psalm from just these sermons.

Sermons on Psalm 82

  • Paul Apple 10/18/2000
  • Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III 1/1/2006
  • Adeolu Akin-Abraham 12/2/2009
  • Don Ruhl 2/12/2013
  • Doug Wilson 1/15/2017
  • Douglas White 3/17/2019
  • David Platt 10/21/2020
  • Scott Kercheville 11/1/2020
  • David Guzik 3/13/2021
  • Garrett Tyson 2/14/2022
  • Christopher Hodsworth 4/12/2022
  • Nick Holden 7/26/2022
  • Paul Tripp 1/8/2024
  • David B. Curtis 1/28/2024
  • Johnathan Parnell 8/11/2024

A quick search for these names and dates shouild bring you to their sermon. This was a quick search; I’m sure there are hundreds more. Do you think so?

You seem to have studied this subject at length; no doubt much more than I have. I hope I’m not asking too much, but if you could, would you please share some of your insight with me on one thing?

In your personal studies, In the John 10 passage you mentioned, what precisely do you think Jesus was helping the Jews to understand when, after His quote, he added: “If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)…”? (I can’t remember off the top of my head how Heiser handles this).

Jesus identified the beings that His Father called “elohim” to be the same beings that His listeners knew to be recipients of His Fathers Word. Right? I’m sure sound exegesis of this point pivots on what we think “The Word of God” entails. But, notwithstanding, Jesus said His Father was addressing the ones “to whom the word of God came” when he called them gods as recorded in Psalm 82. What group was Jesus identifying as “the ones to whom the word of God came”? Do you remember if Heiser shows how “the word of God came” to a group of spiritual beings; i.e. “The congregation of the mighty”, which Heiser calls a “divine counsel”? If so, what exactly is implied that the word of God “came” to a divine spiritual counsel? He does NOT say of this group that they are simply ones “over whom the Word of God has authority”, or created beings who “have heard The Word of God”, but they are the ones “to whom The Word of God “sprung up” (Gk:gínomai)” i.e “came into existence” or “began to be”. This I don’t understand how this phrase might apply to a group of powerful spiritual beings; maybe you do? BTW, Paul DOES identify the Jew as “those to whom the Word of God came” when he says :” What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1-2). That doesn’t prove that the word of God arose only in them, but I was looking for somewhere in scripture that supports Heiser’s premise and specifically addresses this saying of Jesus. Help please.

In His Service, with you
KP

42

ha ha :rofl: yes, a many-layered post. I’ll try to break it down a little and respond as carefully.

-I have not read Heiser’s novels either. And I like him too, because he isn’t stuffy. I never really thought of him as a brilliant scholar or approached his material that way. Call it my own hubris, but I probably was attracted to him because when I discovered him, only a short time ago, I found his insights to be in common with things I already believed. In my own private study, I would notice odd things that I’d then investigate and in Heiser I found a languages expert who noted— “If it’s weird, it’s important” — that was an instant magnet drawing me to his works.

If by esoteric, you mean— only a few people grasp these concepts, I wholly agree. That’s why many and most of those sermons you googled have little or nothing to do with Jesus’ quoting of that portion of Psalm 82 and virtually none of them even attempt to consider what it was he was pointing at.

43

Though the NT Greek ignores it, we can see clearly that Jesus didn’t, because he quotes directly and further makes the point that— you can’t change what scripture actually says. That’s important. Because of this emphasis that Jesus insists upon, you have to carefully consider the text he is quoting.

Jesus references elohim and ben elohim (sons of God) as commonly interpreted, but doing so you completely ignore what elohim actually means within the wider construct of Heiser’s divine council setting and that unseen realm that the Psalm recognizes. It’s not to be understood as generic “God” or even one God, but a conglomerate of spiritual (divine) beings.

With respect to your other questions- Heiser doesn’t dance around the “word of God” as being anything other than the very spirit of God, manifest in a physical being. “The word became flesh” people affirm when they read it in John 1, but ignore it in Genesis 15, or the story of Samuel.

Yet scripture explains the concept clearly and repeatedly. God with us. God in us. We in Him. This unseen and poorly recognized spiritual realm where He dwells in houses not made by men.

44

I’m finally back from my travels and able to continue the conversation…

The word of God-- is not a book. You correctly point to “oracles” or actual utterances of God-- the things God said. And how does God speak to us? Well, this takes us a little deeper down the rabbit hole, but God speaks directly at times to certain people through dreams, visions, or otherwise spiritual encounters with God-- himself spirit. It’s communication in the spirit, in and with the spirit of God. I have no trouble interposing “spirit” where ‘the word’ or ‘logos’ is used. The word/oracle/utterance of God comes to people in this way by the spirit. You can consider this differently, but it’s akin to the message of God coming to you via a messenger of God. In spirit, through spirit, by spirit. Call these spiritual messengers- angels if you like-- for that is what they are and they deliver God’s word to men. The word of God came to… fill in the blank. The oracle of God came to…

And these receivers of the word are as vessels, but in pronouncing what the message was, they become spokespersons for God-- aka prophets. Scripture is full of examples.

I really like your reference to “sprung up” concerning the word of God- manifesting (coming into existence) in the same manner as the Genesis account of creation. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek-ginomai is ‘hayah’—

Now no shrub of the field had yet grown (hayah) on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

It puts the context in perspective as something that ‘becomes’ something that sprouts and grows and manifests. We see the concept employed in John 1 where the word becomes flesh.

With respect to Heiser’s divine council-- it’s not as unfamiliar as one might imagine. Or-- one can imagine this beyond Ps 82. In the heavenly visions revealed to John in his book, we see a divine council mentioned in Chapters 4, 5, 7, 11, and 19.

But way back in the original book of things coming into being-- in Genesis, it is here at the beginning that we read the story of a man being formed from the soil and springing up-- receiving the breath of life (spirit of God) and being placed in the garden of God-- a living being.

45

Alice’s upside down rabbit hole world meets Neo’s Matrix world of illusion.

Take the red pill-- stay in Wonderland.
Take the blue pill- the story ends.

Take the red pill-- stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

The choice is ours-- choose your comfort level.

image
image292×400 24.4 KB

46

Mr. E
While I admit I am completely flummoxed by your regular reference to one fictitious “Alice, who followed a talking rabbit down a hole”, nevertheless, I am still engaged with your ideas; specifically your personal adherence to unconventional interpretations of creation and your ideas regarding extraterrestrial beings. (I hope you don’t find my portrayal offensive; it’s not intended to be).

Reading your responses to some of my questions, in my mind at least, there remains three that have not been explained satisfactorily.

  1. In the John 10 passage Jesus identified the beings that His Father called “elohim” to be the same beings that the Jews, who wanted to stone him, knew to be the ones “to whom the Word of God came”. There is nothing in this passage to suggest those Jews thought he was talking about anyone other than their human ancestor leaders. This understanding of Jesus’s retort is the only way it makes sense. Essentially Jesus was saying “If God called your ancestral leaders “mighty” because He made them mighty, why do you complain when I say I am the son of God”. IN your thinking, why would we think Jesus was saying “the word of God came to” some incorporeal beings? That interpretation makes Jesus’s retort nonsense. That interpretation is saying essentially “If God called a group of mighty spirit-beings God, why do you complain when I say I am the son of God?” See, I think if that is what they thought he was saying they would all be scratching their heads in disbelief.

  2. Psalm 82 says “God stands in the congregation of the mighty”, and you (and Heiser) interpret that “congregation” to be mighty incorporeal spirit-beings, beings who somehow “stand with God”. The Psalm says “God Judges among the mighty”, i.e God calls the mighty into account for their actions. Among their actions that God is judging is that they “judge unjustly”, “show partiality to the wicked”. How do incorporeal spirit-beings do this? Then, later the Psalm says “arise oh God and judge “the earth”, for You shall inherit all nations”. In order for this Psalm to make sense, the “gods” God is speaking to are mighty ones of “the earth”, yet they are ignorant (walk in darkness) and as foundations of the earth, are unstable. God gave these leaders their “might” but they have failed to use their might in obedience to the dictates of God. I can’t make sense of what God is saying or judging if this “congregation of elohim” are not men.

  3. You referenced the phrase “Sons of God”. Jesus called Himself “The Son of God”. I know our culture thinks of “sons” as “offspring”; descendants, progeny, and little else. So when we read “the sons of God” we think of the offspring of God, , i.e. someone who God made, and little else. But, in the ancient Hebrew culture (all the Bible will bear this out), the idea of “son” carries the primary meaning of “replicate”; i.e. a son is the one who is most like the father. When God creates mankind, He says he creates them “in His image”. Not the same in substance, but like Him in a profound way, not like anything else He has created. We lost our “image” in our rebellion to The Father, as we stopped reflecting Him, we stopped being “like Him”. God, in His way, restores the image of Himself in His chosen, and calls them Sons. (think Rom 8:15, and 1 Jn 3:1). Where, in the Bible is there any reference to incorporeal spirit-beings being made in God’s image; where are incorporeal beings ever called “sons of God. (I know of the references to “sons of God” in Genesis, and in Job, but even these do not point to incorporeal spirit beings without a fair amount of imagination.) There are many places where the bible clearly calls men sons of God.

If you care to address these three concerns, I’m happy to carefully consider your point of view. Take them one at a time, or all together, it doesn’t matter to me.

I appreciate your thoughts.
KP

47

lol… no offense taken at any time. I don’t recall ever referencing extraterrestrial beings per se. At least not in a physical sense as if beings from another world, but I actually like the association with beings not of ‘this’ world. I speak of spiritual beings in these terms-- as did Christ himself, when speaking of the Father’s realm.

I’ll address your three questions individually, before trudging along.

Yes, and more. Jesus is pointing out first, that God called the elohim-- gods. That is, he is speaking specifically of divine-- spiritual beings. If you have trouble wrapping your head around this idea, it follows that you then have to insist that he is talking about physical, genetic ancestors, to make it make sense, rather than spiritual beings. But it’s clear he is speaking about elohim. Unless you also insist that it was genetic Jewish ancestors that did the creating in Genesis 1, your insistence in John 10 doesn’t compute.

“The ones to whom the word of God came” doesn’t insist upon a physical interpretation at all. Let me ask you-- is the word of God physical, or spiritual? God is spirit, and his word is spiritual. His annointing is spiritual and this logos becomes flesh in a manifestation, but that logos/word is not physical. It is sent and it is delivered and it is received.

The connundrum you suggest is solved by one simple understanding. The divine elohim in a spiritual sense are one and the same (imaged) in humanity— made in the image of elohim, the physical a reflection of the spiritual. On earth as it is in heaven.

In Genesis, the promise to Abraham in a dream was that he would have many descendants-- as many as there are stars in the heavens. To perceive of this, one has to understand what the stars are, in the spiritual sense, and also the meaning of descending.

Jacob, also in dream caught a glimpse and in the telling of it, put it in proper context:

Jacob left Beer Sheba and set out for Haran. He reached a certain place where he decided to camp because the sun had gone down. He took one of the stones and placed it near his head. Then he fell asleep in that place and had a dream. He saw a stairway erected on the earth with its top reaching to the heavens. The angels of God were going up and coming down it and the LORD stood at its top. He said, “I am the LORD, the God of your grandfather Abraham and the God of your father Isaac.

48

Mr E
Thanx. I’m thinking about what you said…

49

p.s. I didn’t mean to throw a wrench into the discussion with the term “extraterrestial”. I meant it as you took it. (not aliens from another planet, but beings who are not “earthly”, ,not bound to the earth, like mankind). I think you worked your way through my poor choice of words. I am fully accepting of non-earthbound created beings, as you say “Spirit beings”. That is not in question with me. I am sure they exist.

Ephesians 6:12 (NKJV)
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I’ve been told some of them are our enemies; I also assume some are not.

1 Like
50

Heiser notwithstanding, I keyed in on the phrasing in Ps 82 before anyone every introduced me to the good doctor. I came to in earnestly, first from the words of Jesus when quoting from Ps 110. It puzzled me-- The LORD said to my lord. I wondered at Jesus quoting this, and further wondered at what it was David meant. In generic terms-- God said to my Lord… it’s a strange way of saying things and it creates a distinction between “God” and David’s “Lord.” Reading through the Psalms, David is often speaking to a spiritual Lord, who leads and guides him like a shepherd. I think it’s proper to think of this as a holy spirit, or as some associate-- the Christ/spirit/son of God-- aka, the word, or logos of God that David connects with.

In texts from Deuteronomy, we read – “I am Yahweh, your elohim” and in Ps 109, David pleads-- “Help me oh Yahweh, my elohim.” It’s clear that elohim is not just another name for God, and not some kind of descriptor to assign to human judges or elders. The simplest explanation that I can come up with, knowing Moses knows that this Yahweh he communicates with, is in fact one of these divine elohim (spiritual beings) is that we should differentiate and consider the distinctions the same way he did. He wrote in Gen 5–

When elohim created humankind, they made them in the likeness of elohim. Genesis, and elsewhere in scripture, the connotations reveal a making and molding and forming from earth-- men, in the likeness (image) of elohim. The physical being, made to be a likeness of that spiritual counterpart. The spirit first, then the human counterpart, then the spirit “descending” (falling) and breathed into the human being.

To address your question more directly-- the gods that God is addressing in that Divine assembly are, like Him-- spiritual. They have human counterparts on earth. Again-- on earth as it is in heaven -a theme continued… the temple, the lamb, even the snake— the things below are all associated with the things above-- not as exact copies, but associations… a likeness.

51

You might think that Jesus is singling himself out as unique. I happen to think that he’s doing the opposite— that he’s saying- God Himself calls us all His sons. I’m no different. So why do you take such exception to me claiming the same title he gave us all?

Offspring of God, children of God, fruit… descendants. But here’s the thing. God is spirit. His offspring are ‘of a kind’ --spirit. In Romans 8 we read that His son was sent ‘in the likeness’ of sinful flesh, the son who was sent was spirit.

Spirit gives birth to spirit, flesh gives birth to flesh. (John 3) They are not one and the same, but one, a likeness of the other. This precedes that most famous new testament verse and follows a thorough explanation of how it came to be.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. Pretty run of the mill in English-- but if you have followed the concept from inception, including those things Jesus quotes, the principle is clear-- the sons are of the same divine nature as their Father-- and their Father is clearly spiritual, not physical.

I don’t know what you mean, or how a son would cease to be the image of his Father through rebellion. The prodigal falls and returns, never ceasing to be a son. And this is true of our spiritual nature… the flesh dies and is no more, and the spirit returns to God.

52

-Alice is a type of Christ. The mad hatter is his forerunner. The white rabbit represents the saints awaiting his return.

-And so it is with Neo and the Matrix movies.

Good cinema all. A likeness.

53

Moses too, is telling a story. Like cinema, he’s constructing a kind of dramatic recounting of how the world came to be. It’s not historical. It’s not chronological. He wasn’t there as a witness to any of it. At best, one might say it is perhaps based on a true story as Moses was inspired to write, or it could be argued equally as well, that Moses was the author and creator of a story based upon his education and upbringing in Pharaoh’s household in Egypt. Legend and lore, the Egyptian understanding of the nature of things, salted with the Hebrew influence that was part of his unique set of circumstances. We just don’t know.

Yet I believe the story as written. I believe it to be a reliable and trustworthy account of what Moses knew and believed to be true. I just happen to believe also that we’ve lost a significant portion of the principles and premises required to understand what he was saying. Millennia of travel, just a half of one degree off course will take you far away from any intended place of rest. Small error over time takes us into a wilderness-- a bewilderment of error not in the text, but in our understanding of it.

54

OH, thanx.

I will keep thinking about what you have said. It is interesting. I think I understand much better now where you are coming from; that is, I think I see on what you rely, and from where you source the data on which your theories are built. Your unique point of view is beginning to clarify in my mind; I’m beginning to understand how you arrived at your conclusions. (I could be mistaken though)

I get this. I agree here, and appreciate your sharing it.

Notwithstanding what you have said, I personally have come to
accept that the entire bible is “revelation”; it is a written record from God, that God Himslef has given us, by “moving holy men” to speak “as they were moved by God Himself” (in the person of THE holy Spirit).

“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)

I believe God also accurately preserved His revelation. No other work has withstood the entropy of time and revisionism like this one. Our modern Bible translations are very accurate replications of ancient writing and thought. But, it IS a spiritual document, written in such a spiritual way that we, only with personal internal instruction from The indwelling Holy spirit (the author), can begin to understand the holiness of God’s heart, and embrace His gracious plan to redeem a rebellious, lost, and dead mankind.

The record shows that God actually demonstrated His ultimate plan to rescue His people from slavery, release his people from bondage, redeem his people from exile, throughout the history recorded by Moses and others. God further demonstrated his plan to prepare a place where His people could dwell with Him while enjoying "the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus". The promised land was the demonstration, the new heaven and new earth is the final reality.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

It was God Himself (In the man Jesus) who personally defeated death, rose from the dead, to prepare a way (and a place) that we too could be freed from slavery, released from bondage, redeemed from exile, and be risen with Christ from the dead to newness of His LIFE.

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:4-10)

I believe God himself (through the one-&-only Jesus the Messiah(Heb 1:2)) “made the world and everything in it” (Act 17:24). I believe God Himself also made all unseen created things, including those beings who are principalities, who may hold power, and are by nature incorporeal spirit-beings. They are also His workmanship, and God has set Himself “far above all principalities and power and might and dominion” and far above “every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come” (Ephesians 1:21)

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:16-18)

God inspired men and commissioned them “to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ”. Why? It is His intention to demonstrate, “that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” Ephesians 3:9-11 (NKJV)

It is God’s intention that those principalities, (that I believe you erroneously label as “elohiym”), are to be taught the manifold wisdom of God, by the Church. I understand the “masculine plural noun” “elohiym” is rooted in the word for “mighty” and confers the idea of The Mighty One. When it is translated “God” it is because the context and the prefixal markings indicate that is the best contemporary translation of the word; the best way to convey the original meaning to a modern audience. The Bible is “revelation”, it is not “enigma”; it is intended to be understood, not intended to be a cypher to break (IMHO).

“And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of Requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

In our pursuit of truth, and understanding of all things, seen and unseen, our only possible path is through the narrow gate. "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14).

No one enters the sheepfold, except by the door of the sheep, (John 10:7),

No one comes to the Father (comes to Truth) except through “The way, The Truth, and The Life”; “Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." (John 14:6-7)

There is simply no other way to arrive at a comprehensive truth except through The One who is The Truth. Your analogy of being off by inches at the start causes one to be off by miles down the road is a good one. I appreciate it. I’ll add, likewise, if one misses the narrow gate by inches, one will miss the truth by many miles down the road. I do not know you, and I do not know if you have passed through this narrow gate or not. I do not know if you have accepted the free gift of redemption or not. I do know that you and I will never arrive at understanding difficult things without beginning here.

Thanks for your thoughts, thanks for entertaining mine.

I have enjoyed this conversation.

1 Like
55

An excellent and thoughtful post. I enjoy and appreciate the conversation as well.

Rather than address each part specifically, I intend to trudge along the proverbial rabbit trail which doesn’t really run in a straight line, and from which there are a great many sideways paths where you or me or anyone interested can follow a different track. I love the mystery of scripture and it is what birthed my username. Not as something to be cyphered as you suggest, but as something to marvel at and to be revealed in proper time.

It doesn’t bother me that you hold my views to be erroneous regarding the understanding of elohim. Neither your opinion or mine hold sway over whatever the truth is. I do know that Moses wasn’t confused in his choice of words, knowing what elohim he was referencing, and the differences he employed in the telling of his story. And his story ended in shame, being denied access to that Promised Land you mention. -Of course that wasn’t the actual end of his story, but merely the end of a chapter of it, just as the beginning of his story in Genesis was only the beginning of a chapter-- this too I believe to be evident in his telling of it.

For there are two stories being told at once. One, we understand in a physical sense of nature, and the other that mystery of another realm. Another principality shrouded in mystery of which we only get small glimpses, revealed by only a handful of witnesses who have seen and heard and experienced things in spirit that are not physical in nature, but comprehended in dreams and visions that they have shared and revealed to us. Apart from those revelations, we would know even less than the little we know now.

In my opinion, it’s more foolish to ignore rabbit trails than to explore them and discover where they might lead. It’s an adventure of the best kind.

56

Great! I Love this!

Oh and MrE. I didn’t get it until now. I’m glad you “revealed” the MrE behind your screen name. Sometimes I can be obtuse.

Thanx for your thoughtful response.
KP

1 Like
57

No worries! I’m not even going to take a crack at KPuff.

I will jump the shark however regarding what I believe to be the over-arching story of scripture from beginning to beginning.

58

Let’s begin again.

Some think of scripture as “the word of God” – and indeed, the words of God are recounted within the words of scripture. I’ve painted with rather broad brushstrokes, the idea that Genesis and all ‘the books of Moses’ are in fact the telling of a story-- a story according to Moses. But the larger point is that ‘the story’ though “according to Moses” is a story “about” God. And God is by nature-- spirit. Scripture then, becomes a spiritual book and a collection of spiritual stories.

It’s easy to understand Moses within this concept. His story is based upon his understanding and told from his personal perspective. It could well be called- The Life and Times of Moses and the Israelites. Within that story, as movie-makers so often employ- we are given a kind of flashback… a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away… and in this manner, Moses presents a narrative of how he thinks it all began.

Can you see that? Can you accept that?

Some might argue that Moses’ knowledge and his story came from God. That is, that the words of God came to Moses and like any good prophet (spokesman) -Moses relayed the story he was given and so by this way of understanding, the books of Moses (and all the prophets) are much more than individual stories presenting individual perspectives. I agree.

My agreement comes from an understanding that all scripture is God-breathed-- and while the authors tell their stories, they do so having been inspired by God.

Inspired.
God-breathed.

And so the words of God come to us, not as from a pen put to paper, or even chiseled on stone tablets, neither by any clacking of fingertips on a keyboard, but by the spirit.

59

M2r.E (Mystery)
OK, I’ll bite (he writes with trepidation)

I hear what you are saying; I understand your various personal postulates. I’m unsure if you are really just “restating” what you have previously shared in this thread, or if you are setting us up for something fresh. Let me see if I get what you are suggesting in this recent post (so far). Correct me if I’m wrong….

  1. You say “The Word of God” is more than what has been recorded in The Holy Scriptures”. In your understanding, “The Word of God” entails all that God has expressed in one form or another. (How am I doing?)

  2. You understand The Torah, also known as “The Pentateuch”, or “The Books of Moses” can be seen as “The story of Moses” or as you say “It could well be called- The Life and Times of Moses and the Israelites”.

  3. You are suggesting that in the first of Moses’s five books, he writes about things that predate him; he writes from his personal perspective about events that occurred before his time, or as you say ”a narrative of how he thinks it all began”.

  4. You further “agree” that the creation story Moses wrote about came to him from God The Father, through the inspiration of The Holy Spirit of God.

I think you are surely heading somewhere with this; i.e. I discern your trajectory, but I am unsure of your target. Maybe your objective has not been unveiled yet. I should just be patient.

That notwithstanding, and just so I can help keep this missile heading toward truth, and our common Christian objective, let me say AMEN to numbers one and four (above). Surely most of number three (above) is also a given, although I might add a minor course correction; I doubt the Book of Genesis is technically “how Moses thought it all began”, but rather how the beginning of all created things was revealed to Moses.

Number 2 (above) needs a little massaging I think:
You quoted part of 2 Timothy 3:14-17
“But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

You have said “It’s easy to understand Moses within this concept. His story is based upon his understanding and told from his personal perspective.” I might refine that a bit. My spiritual understanding of Holy scripture is that it is primarily “revelation”; it is telling us TRUTH from God’s own perspective; it is revealing how God thinks about things; it allows fallen mankind to be gifted with some insight into the mind and heart of our creator God The Father. Among other literary devices (chronicle, poetry, prophecy, gospel, epistle, etc) God’s Holy revelation does also employ “storytelling” as a narrative device to accomplish His objective, and to impress the details into the minds He intends to transform (renew).
"For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:10-11) “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.“(Philippians 2:13).

I am sure Moses was as profoundly affected by learning from God how He had generated “everything” “in the beginning” as you and I were the first time we heard it. I am equally sure the relating of the creation event was as mystical, metaphysical, supernatural, and bewildering to Moses as it is to you and I today. Faith is “taking God at His word”, and I believe Moses did just that. Moses didn’t have to be able to explain it all intelectually and scientifically before he could accept it from God as True. The “accepting” came first, and the “explaining” (as much as possible) followed after. When Moses received the account of Creation from God The Holy Spirit, he did not consider it some flight of fancy, some smoky imaginary fiction, or some detailed phantasy. It did not settle on him as a believable fiction, or the somnolent effects of eating a heavy dinner, or some bad mushrooms. Moses received God’s Word the same way believers who are indwelt with The Holy Spirit receive it today; through faith. Any other way ends up creating a foolish phantasy; a mental process of intentionally creating unrealistic or improbable images to soothe and satisfy a besetting psychological need.

We (Christians) search, study, and intentionally yield to God’s Holy written Word to learn of Him, to renew our minds, to better yield to His sanctifying work in us; to “sanctify the Lord God in our hearts, being always ready to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear…”(1 Peter 3:15) We purposely do NOT try to master The Word of God, but intentionally expect it to master us.

Hope this response finds you well, and receptive to other perspectives.

Resting In The Living-Loving ONE.
KP

1 Like
60

Another thoughtful response, and appreciated. Since “we agree” on several points, for the moment I will focus on the ‘massaging’ you suggest.

Yes-- I understand Moses to have been inspired. That is, in-spirited as a source and means of those things he revealed to us in story-form that we know as scripture-- that collection of sacred writings. As far as what Moses wrote-- just as you have been influenced by your experiences, upbringing and education, Moses would be no different. He would have had the best tutors being raised in Pharoah’s household and his personal perspective and understanding of ‘how it all began’ would include all those things he’d been taught. I’ll bet you a nickel that Pharoah’s house included a library.

As for his experiences-- God is spirit and is met in spirit. In this opinion, we might differ but there are certain principles in play that are necessary for understanding, and this is one of them.

You might hold Moses in some kind special regard and think that because he was inspired his narrative might then be in some manner, infallible and error free. His life and in particular his end betray that kind of premise. He made ‘grave’ errors, for which he was held accountable and an entire nation suffered for 40 years, an entire generation punished for his misunderstanding and disobedience. But you have the Jewish people in common if you want to contend that he was beyond reproach… I mean 16 million people can’t be wrong, can they? They still cling to every word he wrote as incontestible. I consider his story, not as any kind of complete history, but like all history, contained within his story, there are lessons to be learned.