Comiclink!
STUDIO COMIX PRESS T-SHIRT PROTOTYPE
LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY CEREBI #1 FINAL PRODUCTION PROOF WITH CORRECTIONS (NOT ORIGINAL ART)
SWOON AND SNUFF SANDMAN PARODY DRAWING
SWOON SANDMAN PARODY DRAWING
TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION VOL. 2 (SIGNED DAVE SIM CONTRIBUTOR COPY) #NO NUMBER, 9.4 NM
CEREBUS VOLUME 10 MINDS REMASTERED EDITION #NO NUMBER, 9.4 NM
And if you're looking for Dave's Stuff, search for "Cerebus Archive.Sunday Funday:
1 April 18Hi 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.
2 comments:
Dave's really hung up on the big bang. And his last paragraph -- "evidence". Heh. Heh heh.
-- Damian
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).
Post a Comment