Sunday, 17 June 2018

TL:DR: The Genesis Question part eight

Hi, Everybody!







And if you're looking for Dave's Stuff, search for "Cerebus Archive.

Sunday Funday:

1 April 18

Hi Matt!

You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…

23 March 14

Hi Troy and Mia!

Well.  "The best laid plans of mice and men…" 

I'm going to try to get back to Appendix A, but my Torah reading this morning necessitates, first, backtracking a couple of letters to the discussion about the "heavens and the earth", conceptually -- and my own opinion that the YHWH's view of same has always been inaccurate and has only been modified in recent years as scientific evidence has become irrefutable that Total Reality doesn't consist merely of the earth, earth's atmosphere, two celestial lights (the sun and the moon) and a bunch of sparkly stars for decoration. 

The best Scriptural evidence of the on-going discussion is (what seems to me) God's interjection in The Book of Isaiah, addressing the YHWH (who otherwise dominates all 66 chapters of Isaiah in ranting about how the Hebrew people deserve what they are getting in the events leading up to the destruction of Solomon's Temple)Isaiah 14:12-21:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?  Art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the nations?  For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the North.  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High. 

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? if you are looking for evidence of a being -- to me, YHWH -- which perceives the construct inaccurately and seeks to supplant God this encapsulates it in a nutshell.  Particularly "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God".  

As an aside:  it definitely threw me for a loop when I first read the Bible eighteen years ago that there was no Scriptural reference to the War in Heaven where Lucifer and his angels were cast out.  This passage from Isaiah, thousands of years into the history of this epoch, is the earliest and most extensive reference to Lucifer.

Which reference -- being, at best, "in passing" -- suggests the "war" is non-canonical and, I would infer, a misconstrued legend used to express the concept of the Big Bang (as is the canonical, scriptural Exodus of the Hebrew people out of Egypt):  that is, I'm not sure that "Lucifer" was "cast out" so much as "let go" at his own behest and at the behest of his rebel angels.  They wanted to get away from God and God obliged them to the extent that was possible.

[Enacted on earth in our epoch this led to the Joseph enactment:  Joseph (at the YHWH's behest) seducing Jacob and his brothers into Egypt and pagan domination and then the Moshe and Aaron enactment:  the Exodus back into monotheism with Aaron (at the YHWH's behest) corrupting monotheism with Egyptian constructs:  the tabernacle, personal adornment, sacrifices, etc.]

The "Lucifer concept", a concept which, I think, itself bears examination in light of our far more accurate  perception of Reality here in 2014:  Lucifer, the "light bearer" is a Latin name which was originally used by pagan Romans to describe the planet Venus, the "morning star".  Blasphemously seeing the "morning star" as a goddess.

 In Isaiah 14:12, it's used to translate helel "shining one" which -- according to my New Bible Dictionary --

"is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon, who in his glory and pomp had set himself among the gods. This name is appropriate, as the civilization of Babylon began in the grey dawn of history, and had strong astrological connections."

Well, yes. I would agree, in a metaphorical, enactment sense.  But in terms of the narrative it doesn't make narrative sense for the king of Babylon to be deprecated in this way at this point in the narrative in the lead-up to his absolute victory over Israel and Judah. 

By the time of Jesus and by the time of John having Revelations dictated to him late in the first century AD? Yes, because Babylon, irrefutably and irretrievably, had fallen by then.  But early in the Isaiah narrative?  It doesn't make narrative sense.

Except, in my view, as a way of asserting the actual construct:  that the king of Babylon is, essentially, an enactment of the YHWH and the YHWH's unreasoning hatred of Israel, that "back-sliding heifer".  A reflection of the YHWH seeing, inaccurately, in his/her/its self false omnipotence -- which the Book of Isaiah is filled with and which, as I say, this passage in the midst of chapter 14 only serves to, briefly, contradict.  The idea being, as I see it, for God to mark the YHWH's ultimate fate as being similar to the fate of the king of Babylon:  as powerful as you see yourself being now, as much as you see yourself having Absolute Overview of the situation -- like Nebuchadneser -- you are just as limited in your overview as he is:

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, consider thee, this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?  That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Except for the "man" part, this is a very good description, I think, of the fate that is gradually overtaking the YHWH, given that -- at the time of Isaiah -- the YHWH seemed to have the ability to bring devastating conquest at will. 

And did so, in our epoch, by means of the Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans.  But that isn't monotheism, that's pantheism.  The Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans didn't worship the YHWH or God -- certainly not by those names.  God is prevailing all along, while granting the YHWH license to enact his/her/its multiplicity of delusions (I am YHWH, I am Jupiter, I am Palas Athena, I am Belial, I am Ashtaroth -- the last two are also names for the planet Venus, the "morning star") but, ultimately, by this means, the YHWH effectively just cancels his/her/its self out:

All the kings of the nations, all of them lie in glory, every one in his own house.  But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit as a carcass trodden under feet.  Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because...

And here, to me, is the point where the YHWH is indicted, specifically, of the charge of malfeasance -- and of betraying the faith that Israel has placed in the YHWH (to Israel's detriment and to God to Israel's benefit) -- by engineering the successive destructions of the Temple:

….thou hast destroyed thy land, slain thy people: the seed of evil doers shall never be renowned.  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers, that they do not rise nor possess the land and fill the face of the world with cities. 

I realize that no one shares my perspective on this, but I think mine is the only way of resolving what would otherwise be a monstrous Scriptural inference.  As the New Bible Dictionary puts it at the end of its "Lucifer" citation:

The similarity of the description here with that of such passages as Luke 10:18 and Revelations 9:1 (cf. 12:9) has led to the application of the title to Satan.  The true claimant to this title is shown to be the Lord Jesus Christ in his ascended glory.

The mind boggles.  You have a single title with three claimants and your seriously think those three claimants are Lucifer, Satan and the Lord Jesus Christ? 

It does make sense, but only if you see God and YHWH as separate beings and the Lord Jesus Christ as God's means of "supplanting the supplanter". 

That is to say, in a larger sense, we now know for a fact that Venus isn't a star -- "morning star" or otherwise.  Venus is a planet, like the earth so if, as I theorize and as the evidence, I think supports, the YHWH is actually the earth, then that casts Lucifer and the "morning star" in an entirely different light: as analogues of the earth and therefore as analogues of the YHWH.  And this sure knowledge only comes to us after the Lord Jesus Christ has, indeed, supplanted the YHWH as "alternative God" and become the "morning star" -- the YHWH's analogue but serving God (either as Christians have it, as God's Son, or as the Muslims have it as God's prophet and messenger) instead of seeking to supplant God.  The "morning star" now symbolizes the right relational construct between God and YHWH in a way that belief in a deistic YHWH could never do.

Next Time: Back to Appendix A.


Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Dave's really hung up on the big bang. And his last paragraph -- "evidence". Heh. Heh heh.

-- Damian

Tony Dunlop said...

He's (ahem) missing some nuances of Trinitarian theology, too, but it's not important enough - in this context - to comment on (unless someone asks).