TL:DR: The Genesis Question part sixteen

Hi, Everybody!

According to my calendar, tonight at sundown starts the Hajj. So to all the devout Muslims making the pilgrimage, we'd like to say:

Why are you looking at the Internet? How are you looking at the Internet? Since when does the Hajj have Wi-Fi? Aren't there better uses of your time right now?

Anyway:

Sunday. Dave:

Mother's Day 2014

Happy Mother's Day, Mia!

Hi Troy and Mia:

Ran out of week again last week, so this will be the first time I've sent three of these together.  Sincere apologies for my failed promise.

Hebrews 1:1-14

It seems to me that this indicates exactly how difficult it is to communicate "heavenly ideas" accurately and still make them understandable.  "Heavenly ideas" (as the Johannine Jesus said to Nicodemus just before the more widely quoted 3:16, "You are the teacher of the Israel and not these you have known?"), evidently, can only be explained in compound sentences which are easily misconstrued when taken out of context in "fortune cookie" theology:

In many parts and in many manners of old, the God, having spoken to the fathers in the prophets

Obviously, verse 1 isn't a finished thought, but it is a coherent thought.  Each verse builds on each previous verse, as I read it, and qualifies the previous thought.  "Parts" here, I think, has a triple meaning -- God spoke in many geographic parts, in many population parts (monotheistic and polytheistic), and in the parts of many people. 

Arguably, dancing ability, as an example, is God speaking to you through your feet.  Literary ability is God speaking to you through the language centres in your brain.  Drawing ability is God speaking to you through your hands and brain and eyes and so on.  These are, I infer, the means by which God has communicated "of old".  But pretty mundane stuff compared to where this is going:

"having spoken TO the fathers IN the prophets".  Definitely "of old" in terms of our own degraded age.  The idea that God would speak to fathers instead of mothers would be enough to get you thrown out of most churches these days, but, personally I think that's accurate.  It was, I infer, the idea behind the prophets: that God would speak THROUGH them TO the fathers of whatever time period and in whatever geographic area He deemed necessary.     

upon last of the days these he spoke to us in Son, whom he put heir of all, through whom also he made the ages

This, to me, is an interesting observation -- that the son (I wouldn't agree with the capitalization, personally: joining gods with God) represents the culmination of the previous age, "the last of the days" when God spoke TO the fathers IN the prophets. 

"whom he put heir of all".   This is a bit troublesome, depending on what "all" encompasses.  Does it include, as an example, polytheism, idolatry, evil, fornication, drunkenness, etc. etc.  Does Jesus inherit vice as well as virtue, in other words?  It's difficult to avoid the inference particularly in light of the subsequent observation:

"Through whom also he made the ages", which is quite a curveball at the end there, leading to the concept of the Alpha and the Omega, implying as it does that Jesus was pre-existent to the ages themselves -- else they couldn't have been "made" "through" him -- and (assuming that "the ages" and "the days" are the same thing which is only an inference) it does suggest that the "all" in the previous verse is a literal "all":  the good, the bad, the ugly and the infernal.

Which, it seems to me, explains the even greater degree of complexity -- several overlapping curveballs in one place -- in the subsequent verse: 

who being beamed forth from of the glory and impress of the sub-standing of him, bearing ____and the all to the saying of the power of him, cleansing of the sins having made he sat down in right of the greatness in lofty

"being beamed forth" -- the form of the verb suggests a current action (as opposed to "having been beamed forth" as an example), which I assume is intentional (it's too complicated and complicating to be an oversight in Scripture) as a further qualifier of the previous teachings:  that Jesus was the culmination of "the age" and the the pre-existent means by which "the age" came to be in the first place and that this follows into the (then) present day.  "beamed forth" being, presumably, the best way of describing how an entity can be two things at once:  the pre-existent means, the culmination "upon last of the days" and incarnating currently at the same time.

"from of the glory and impress of the sub-standing of him".  Four major curveballs packed into a single concept, as I read it: 

"from of" being the first curveball.  "FROM the glory and impress of the sub-standing of him" as well as "OF the glory and impress of the sub-standing of him".  I infer that this means, this is how "beamed forth" works.  It's both FROM God and OF God.  That is, "from" doesn't imply that it is now separate from God, because it's simultaneously "from" God and "of" God and the simultaneity of "from of" is important enough to retain even though it makes it difficult to picture for we simple-minded physically incarnated beings.  It allows of the (to me, blasphemous, but I suspect intentionally blasphemous -- like most Christian theology) inference that "him" is also or, the greater blasphemy, instead, Jesus.  FROM Jesus and OF Jesus.

"the glory and the impress".  The "glory" is pretty easy to get, the "impress" less easy.  I would infer that it implies self-limits to the "beamed forth", self-limits set by God himself.  Jesus Christ is "beamed forth" with the "glory" but not in an invasive sense.  Jesus Christ is not a mandatory spiritual inoculation.  It's not "the glory and the imposition" or "the glory and the injection" or "the glory and the invasion of consciousness", it's "impress".  There isn't anyone who won't know who Jesus Christ was and who he was purported to be.  In terms of the age succeeding his own (of which we are being informed he was the culmination), that's -- quite literally -- "impressive". 

"of the sub-standing of him".  I infer from this that what is being communicated is the nature of Jesus as having issued from, "beamed forth", from the "sub-standing" of  God.  That is, Jesus wasn't, isn't and won't be "beamed forth" from the Essence of God.  Jesus is not God Himself or anywhere or anyone close to that.  Rather he issues from a subordinate part of God (in my own frame of references, part of the theological hierarchy of God, followed by the father and then by the son as three distinct concepts with the latter two concepts substantially below that of the Deistic or even the "deistic") while arguably -- at least according to the teachings or "teachings" of this first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews --  compelling the inference that the son (whatever, conceptually, Jesus WAS, IS and WILL BE as the Alpha and the Omega of our current epoch and of creation, generally) was, counter-intuitively, preexistent to the father, the procreative function by which creation was generated.  

"bearing ___ and the all to the saying of the power of him" is a bit difficult because I infer that there's a noun missing (intentionally on God's part?) that comes before and supplements the idea of "the all".  Whatever is being conveyed, it's being conveyed "to the saying of the power of him".  The people saying or the saying itself. Jesus or "Him" if it's referring to God.

"cleansing of the sins having made" is interesting because it doesn't specify who made the sins or if the concept being conveyed is of "committing sins" (OR who committed them) OR of "creating sins" themselves (OR who created them). 

"he sat down in right of the greatness in lofty"  doesn't specifically suggest Jesus seated with God on God's right hand in God's Throne, but that is certainly the compelled inference Christians have arrived at over the centuries.

to so much better having become of the angels to how much more differing beside them he has inherited name

"angels" are a little problematic to begin with, in the same sense.  How far from deistic or "deistic" are they?  Very far would be my answer.  Paul seems to address this obliquely.  We have no idea how "sub" the "sub-standing" being referred to is (or even "'sub' to whom or Whom")  so it's like reading a compass that isn't necessarily telling you where True Magnetic North is and then having that vagueness compounded by suggesting that whomever or Whomever is being referred to, "to so much better having become of the angels" he or He is.

"Here's what you are looking at:  a position that is not necessarily True Magnetic North, but a position relative to it.  Closely related or distantly related to it, we're not saying."  It hardly qualifies as informative. 

 "OF the angels" compels the inference that that's where the "him" or "Him" originated: that Jesus was one of the angels and "to so much better having become".  It does more, I think, than allow for that implication, it severely limits any other possibility.  Otherwise (in the sense that IF that WASN'T what Paul was saying and he wanted to avoid that inference) it would have been "to so much better having become TO the angels".  Jesus, if it was phrased that way, is compared TO the angels, not as an example of an over-achiever angel who was OF them. 

Which the subsequent thought addresses without, to me, clarifying what is being communicated.  It appears to just contradict the contradiction:

"to how much more differing beside them he has inherited name".  Jesus is DIFFERING but not FROM the angels but BESIDE them (a different idea than being OF them) and the extent of this difference is the reason or motivating principle for inheriting his name.  Which is peculiar.  If Jesus is pre-existent, how can he inherit his name? From whom would he inherit it?  Who was Ur Jesus? 

I think, again, this is intentional.  It's artful, blasphemous and infernal but in a very subtle way:  it's the seeds of undermining God and usurping His place.  All you have to do is read it that way.  And I think it was intentional on God's part, a seduction of His adversary.  If men are actually evil, well, here they've got all the raw materials for putting together a Replacement God, several Replacement Gods if it comes to that. 

But they don't.  No Christian -- NO Christian -- sees Jesus as usurping the place of God even with all of the Scriptural opportunities they have to do so.

The narration tacks in both blasphemous directions, if fact in multiple blasphemous directions:

To which one for he said sometime of the angels Son of me are you, I today I have generated you, and again I shall be to him into Father, and he will be to me into Son?

"To which one" opens the door wide, suggesting as it does that God said this at some point to "one" (of course the implied answer, since it is cited as a question, could be "to no one") "sometime of the angels" stops a hairsbreadth away from blasphemy.  It's "someTIME of the angels" not "someONE of the angels".  That is, it could be referring to the age and the age could be referring to the current epoch or the age could be referring to the age of the angels.  When did the angels come to exist?  Subsequent to the Jesus who is the Alpha and the Omega?  There are a lot of fine, fine nuances in the text just built for blundering into (as I see it). 

I don't even have to look to know that Christian theology dispensed with the "I shall be to him INTO father" and translated it as "I shall be TO him Father".  The only sensible inference for me is that if a word is in the text, it's in there for a reason and that the truly devout need to try to determine the reason, not dispense with the word in order to have the text say what they want it to say.

"I shall be to him INTO father and he will be to me INTO son" seems to me to suggest far more of an archetypal relationship, the nature of how fathers relate to sons as reflecting the relationship between God and…whatever, structurally, Jesus the human being, Jesus the prophet, Jesus the angel, Jesus the not-the -angel, Jesus the sub-standing of God, Jesus the name or the Name which he inherited or didn't inherit from an Unknown Ur Jesus happens to be.

Whenever however again he should lead in the Firstborn into the being inhabited, he is saying let do obeisance toward him all angels of God.

The Koran addresses this directly in several places, suggesting that when God created Adam (who is definitely a definitive "firstborn"), He instructed the angels to fall down and worship him, which they all did save Ebliss who refused.  "Me hast thou created of fire, of clay hast thou created him".  It's an interesting question since, clearly, "doing obeisance" to anyone besides God is blasphemous.  But what if God instructs you to do obeisance to someone other than Him?  It seems to me more of a rhetorical argument on the part of God, a Reality Check for the angels who are trying to determine who is the best angel and, consequently, the most like God. 

The obvious answer (to me) is "None of you.  You're all very far away and very far below God.  Undeserved Kindness is the operative concept High and Low.  The purpose of this huge construct is to get you to see that.  Here. I, God, will create Adam out of clay and tell you to worship him and all of you will, because you aren't actually Monotheists you're just currying favour with God, as you see it.  Do whatever God tells you without even thinking about what He's telling you to do.  That's very far from Monotheism, genuine devotion to God".   

Very much like Jesus' disciples angling to see who would sit on Jesus' right hand in the next world.  It isn't a sign of devotion, it's a sign of social-climbing:  status-seeking.  It's hard to avoid:  we obviously, all of us, need to aspire to be better and to seek favour in the sight of God, we all have distinctly imperfect awareness of what "better" even is.  How do we go forward when we don't know which way we're facing?

Is God leading in the Firstborn?  That seems to me to be the question and to me, the answer is No.  It's an easily compelled inference, but a blasphemous one, in my view.

And toward indeed the angels he is saying The ___ making the angels of him spirits and the public workers of him of fire flame

I'm pretty sure that this isn't God, the "toward, indeed, the angels he is saying" since his identity is qualified by "the _____ [the Koine Greek definite article which doesn't identify its subject]  making the angels of him spirits and the public workers of him of fire flame".  It might well BE God -- God through Paul might be telling us of the actual Superstructure of creation -- that God makes His "angels of him spirits and the public workers of him of fire flame". 

But, I think rather, YHWH has inferred that the previous verses have served as an introduction to YHWH and that he/she/it is, therefore, the one identifying his/her/its infernal superstructure.  Speaking AS God, in the YHWH's own mind.  YHWH is the one leading in the "Firstborn".

Toward however the Son the throne of you the God into the age of the age, and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom of him.

That is, the YHWH, thinking the YHWH has just been introduced, is addressing the angels -- HIS angels, as the YHWH sees it -- saying "Toward, however, the Son, the throne of you the God into the age of the age".  That is, do obeisance toward "the throne of you", the throne of your imagination that you all want to be next to.  The Son is the throne and the throne is the Son. 

Well, uh, no.  A throne of any kind is nothing that you should worship. That's idolatry.  You don't worship God's "Throne" -- or even AT the Throne of God, in my opinion -- your worship God.  It seems to me that the YHWH is artfully mocking the angels here.  "and the staff of straightness, staff of the kingdom of him".  Again, well, as I see it, no.  You don't worship God's Throne and you don't worship Jesus' Throne and you don't worship God's staff or Jesus staff.  Worshipping a staff is not "straightness", its crookedness.  The same as you don't worship the kingdom of God.  God isn't a king, God is God.  This is pure blasphemy to me:  worship Jesus' staff because Jesus' staff is his kingdom.   

You loved righteousness and you hated lawlessness; through this anointed you the God, the God of you, oil of exultation beside the partners of you

Hard to tell if it is Jesus who is being addressed or the angels or the human beings reading and listening.  Which seems very much the point.  To me, unless oil just appears over your head and anoints you, I don't know how you can say that God anointed you.  I'm not sure if the Koine Greek term is as accurate a pun as the English translation but "oil of exultation" is a very different thing, to me, from the "oil of exaltation".  You can be ecstatic at the prospect that you've been anointed without having been in any way exalted.  Who is exalted and who isn't exalted, to me, is entirely up to God and known only to God.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have as partners those who would "exult" at my perceiving myself to have been anointed by God. 

As I read it, the YHWH then wraps it up with: 

and you according to beginnings, YHWH, the earth you founded, and works of the hands of you are the heavens

And God, having waited until the YHWH was finished, adds (as I read it) His own amendment:

they will destroy themselves, you (however _____) you are remaining through; and all as outer garment will be made old

That is, God is saying that God set in motion all of the events which led to creation of which the earth and the heavens are a part and which the YHWH definitely played a role in -- in the specific instance of planet earth and its atmosphere.  But the construct, I infer, isn't structurally sound.  "they will destroy themselves" because of their imperfect construction, but in so doing, the YHWH will not be destroyed but is "remaining through".  The earth and the heavens are literally the YHWH's "outer garment", physical things subject to general entropy and erosion.  They "will be made old" and pass away.  

and as if thing thrown about you you will wrap up them, as outer garment and they will be altered you (however ____) the very ____ are and the years of you not will leave out.

This is pretty incoherent which makes me think that could be the YHWH attempting to reply to God's assertion but not really having a YHWH-analogous version to offer principally because the YHWH, not being God, has no idea what the earth and the heavens are for or what happens when they pass away.

Toward which one (however ___) of the angels has he said sometime Sit you out of right parts of me until likely I might put the enemies  of you footstool of the feet of you?

This is definitely YHWHistic -- David's Psalm 110:1 as quoted by the Synoptic Jesus.  The actual text reads: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool."  It's forensically artful.  You have to look closely to see that the first "Lord" is in all caps, LORD, therefore translated as "The YHWH" while the second "Lord" is capitalized followed by lower case.  Essentially this is David saying that "The YHWH said unto my Lord [that is, God] sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool". 

Which is forensically true and essentially false.  It's a WAY of looking at the adversarial position.  If God is at the right hand of the YHWH, the YHWH is on God's left hand.  The compelled inference is that the YHWH is performing a service to God by tempting mankind, by means of temptation and corruption actually just helping to reveal God's enemies to Him and putting them under God's feet. 

Which is quite pointless with an omniscient Being.  God knows who His enemies are, He doesn't need help in either ascertaining who they are or in drawing out their adversarial qualities. 

So the "toward which one…?" question is essentially the YHWH attempting to demote God to the level of an angel by quoting the Psalm as if it was God addressing His angel.  God replies:

Not all they are publicly-working spirits into service being sent forth through the ____s  being about to be inheriting salvation.

Christians -- not being aware of the dichotomy of God vs. YHWH  -- translate this as a question.  But I don't think it's a question.  I think it's God drily remarking on what the YHWH has just said: 

 They aren't ALL "PUBLICLY-working spirits" -- referring back to the YHWH's  "public workers of flame fire" -- "into service being sent forth" (that is, delegated to the task of making God's enemies His footstool).   And then indicating that at least some of them are being sent forth "through the ____s being about to be inheriting salvation".  That is, there is a lot going on and many agencies -- presumably angelic and non-angelic -- at work of which the YHWH is blithely unaware which are about to be inheriting salvation and which/who will assist in putting God's enemies under His feet -- and in making old the temporary garment in which the YHWH has enwrapped his/her/itself.

Best,

Dave

Next Time: There will be no "Next Time," I just made fun of Muslims. I expect to have to do a "Salman Rushdie" for the next twenty years. It's been real folks!