TL:DR: The Genesis Question part fourteen

Hi, Everybody!

Courtesy of CerebusDownloads.com

Dave:

27 April 14

Hi Troy and Mia!

Mr. Ross next cites Romans 11:36.  This is one of those rare instances where Paul actually references God pretty extensively, so I think it's important to cite several of the preceding verses.  This seems (to me, anyway) to align with what I was saying about the overall context of the earth (being the YHWH) and we, as human beings, sharing that context:  

Romans 11:30-35 - [30] "As-even for you sometime you disobeyed to the God, now however, you were shown mercy to the of them disobedience,

This seems to me to be central to God's attitude towards His creations.  "As for you sometime you disobeyed to the God" simultaneous with "Even for you sometime you disobeyed to the God" -- the Greek "as-even" concept.  Basically: disobedience is inescapable, no matter how obedient you're trying to be.  And the really core reality: no one is even seriously trying to be obedient all the time.  Relative to the sure knowledge of Reality generally and our own Reality specifically we'll awaken to on Judgement Day, we are not taking our personal redemption as seriously as we need to.  Universal condition.

[31] thus also these now disobeyed to the your mercy in order that also they now might be shown mercy;

That's all, as I read this verse, in God's plan.  It's all factored in:  the degree of difficulty implicit in maintaining faith and endurance IN faith.  It is the nature into which we were created and the way we have incarnated physically and its the purpose behind that incarnation: no one will be sufficiently obedient ALL the time but everyone has a specific capacity to be much better than they are and "as-even" choose to be.  That's, I suspect, where the most relevant measurement of "how we did" takes place.  All of us will require mercy and all of us will be shown mercy but it's going to depend to a great extent on how much we extended ourselves as to how much mercy we're going to require.

The Muslim part of me is far more aware of this than the Christian and Judaic part of me, mostly because of the prayer times.  It creates a self-evident, self-aware hierarchy of faith.  Do you ACTUALLY hit the five prayer times exactly?  What's your track record?  60%?  90%?  Even if it's unknown to everyone else, it's known to you. What do you choose to do instead of pray?  Work?  Socialize?  It's the reason that the most intolerant Muslims tend to take a lead role as we're seeing in Syria.  It's literally "holier than thou" but without the negative connotation we've given that phrase here in the West. The more devout Muslims judge the less devout Muslims and the less devout Muslims accept, at one level or another, that the more devout Muslims have the moral high ground.

[32] shut up together for the God the all into disobedience in order that the ___s all he might show mercy to.

As I read it:  We're all in this together, all of us incarnated spirits here on -- and in -- planet earth.  Our larger purpose is to be shown mercy that we don't deserve and (in my view) to be made aware of how extensively we will be relying on that mercy on Judgement Day.  "All have fallen short of the glory of God".

[33] O depth of riches and of wisdom and of knowledge of God; as unsearchable the judgements of Him and untraceable the ways of Him. 

This is something that we'll have to face, as well, on Judgement Day.  Although we will have, I think, -- instantaneously! -- exponentially greater awareness of our personal culpability: that we will awaken into that surer knowledge in the same way that we awake every morning from the incoherent reveries of our dreams into a lucid, irrefutable continuous context of our lives, our greater awareness will still be far less than omniscience.  God's "depths of riches and wisdom and of knowledge" will be thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that we will be exponentially aware of so much more and at a far greater depth and all that will show us is how little we actually know STILL.  It will be an interesting experience (alluded to frequently in the Koran):  we will indict ourselves based on our greater, expanded knowledge.  "You will need none to make out account against you in that day".  Our individual knowledge of our individual selves will be near to absolute, but taper off into the distant horizons of God's judgements and God's ways.  Unsearchable judgements and untraceable ways.

[34] Who for knew the mind of YHWH or who counsellor of him became?

Obviously, I'm the only person on planet earth who thinks this way, but this verse seems to point in the very specific direction of the whole purpose of the entire exercise:  bringing the YHWH to a more realistic and sensible awareness of self.  Who knew the mind of YHWH?  Only God.  Or who counsellor of him became?  Only God.  The Torah and the Gospels are like one extended YHWH therapy session, to me, God interjecting Himself very, very rarely and only where there is an opportunity to correct and amend.  As I think is the case here.  Only the YHWH would have caught the reference at the time -- and since! -- but it seems a definite plateau is reached.

[35] Or who gave before to him, and it will be recompensed to him?

It seems to me that this is, again, on one level, God's undeserved kindness that is being referred to, that this is what God has given to the YHWH -- as He has given it to us all -- and that He will receive a recompense for it.  This ties in with my own theory on "the fear of God": that "fear of God" is actually "fear of self".  If you are obedient to God, you have no need to fear Him (I suspect that's true even when your obedience -- the point of this whole passage from Romans -- is actually disobedience: the measurement is in your personal intent. Did you intend disobedience and lie to yourself about it, pretending to be obedient? or did you intend obedience and get it wrong because of misconstruing God's word? I would guess there are two different levels of culpability there.)

On another level, it can be read as the YHWH who "gave before to" God -- was,that is, at one time, obedient someWHERE, someTIME in the cosmological chronology going back to before the Big Bang to God and will be recompensed for that obedience.  As the YHWH will also be recompensed for the extent of his (her/its) own disobedience and, I suspect, on the same basis that we human beings will be recompensed:  intent.  Romans 11 concludes with Mr. Ross' cited verse: 

Romans 11:36 - "Because out of him and through him and into him the all; to him the glory into the ages; amen."

A simple assertion of God's context:  because everything came out of Him and through Him -- He is the sole point of origin of all creation and the sole means by which creation came into being -- and, as it says in The Koran, "we came out from Him and to Him we are returning" -- this is why He is/will be the sole recipient of "the glory into the ages".  Only He determines the extent and manner of redemption, precisely measured, even though all redemption is, in the larger sense of achievement, undeserved.

Mr. Ross next cites  1 Corinthians 8:6.  I may be wrong, but I think it requires going back as far as verse 4 and continuing on through verses 7 and 8 to get the full idea Paul is expressing

[4] About the eating therefore of the ____ sacrificed to idols we have known that nothing idol in the world, and that no one God if not one.

That is, that idols don't represent anything except for the misapprehension behind them -- "nothing idol in the world" -- and that "no one God if not one".  A simple statement of monotheism.  Only God is God.

It's more than a little ambiguous which is the problem I have with Paul whenever he isn't specifically discussing God.  There is actually a great deal of "idol in the world", then and now.  Calling a television show American Idol seems to have passed almost entirely without comment over however many years it's been in production.  It's a bad idea but, contrary to Paul's assertion, it does actually exist. 

[5] Also for if even are ___s being said gods whether in heaven or upon earth, as-even are gods many and lords many

This only, it seems to me, amplifies the ambiguity.  I think that was part of the idea behind Paul's ministry -- that he would phrase things in such a way as to allow for different and contradictory inferences, very like the Synoptic Jesus in that way.  "Being said gods" being different from gods or Gods.  It's just what they're being said to be.  But then the conclusion "are gods many and lords many" doesn't appear to share in the same qualification.  Which I assume that the YHWH would have found a gratifying sentiment. 

And then the actual citation:

1 Corinthians 8:6 -  "but to us, one God, the Father, out of whom the all and we into him, and one out of whom the all and we into him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the all and we through him."

Which is theologically sound from a Christian perspective.  I would take issue with lumping in The Father (which I think of as "the father", non-capitalized, one of God's creations) with God but the assertion that there is one Lord seems pertinent and valid to me:  Jesus Christ, God's creation who was created to take the place of the YHWH as the "one Lord". Jesus Christ as a creation, being the intermediary step between God and "the father".  "The father" couldn't have been created without the entity described in pretty meticulous detail in the first chapter of John's Gospel. "through whom the all and we through him" resonating with "All through him came to be and apart from him came to be not-however one" of John 1:3. 

But I certainly share in the theology that I infer from that:  that the YHWH, even the seminal YHWH prior to the Big Bang, came much later in the process than either "the father" or the seminal, cosmological form of Jesus Christ. 

[7] But not in all the knowledge; some however to the custom until right now of the idol as sacrificed to idol they are eating, and the conscience of them weak being is being defiled.

This appears to me to be Paul trying to get a handle on what it is that he's trying to say about idols, generally, and just ending up being even more confusing.  Although he ends the verse well:  "the conscience of them weak being is being defiled."  That's the problem with not being strict with yourself in these areas.  If your conscience is weak -- which is a personal choice, a choice to be undisciplined when it comes to choosing right instead of wrong -- all you're going to accomplish is to defile your own conscience, eroding your own ability to perceive and choose accurately.  You get into a "feedback loop".  The more you choose to have a weak conscience, the weaker your conscience gets and the more defiled it gets until you literally don't know right from wrong any more and make more and more wrong choices.

[8] Things eaten however us not will make stand beside to the God; neither if ever not we should eat, we are coming behind, nor if ever we should eat we are abounding.

Paul's syntax tends to go this way.  He makes what seems to me a very lucid and pertinent observation -- "the conscience of them weak being is being defiled" -- and then immediately amplifies it with ambiguous-verging-on-incoherent qualifications.  The net effect of verse 8, to me, is to suggest that what you eat has very little to do with anything.  Which isn't true, I don't think.  Again, it comes down to intent. If you are eating flesh sacrificed to an idol, knowingly, and are looking at it as: it doesn't matter whether it was sacrificed to an idol or whether the name of God was pronounced over it (this is the Muslim part of me talking), it's just food, then I think you have already eroded your own conscience and are choosing unwisely. 

Of course, it was Paul's role in the development of Christianity to be the ambassador to the goyim so I would imagine this was all built into God's plan as well.  Christians would become entirely philosophical about Judaic dietary restrictions and then completely unmindful of them.  What Christian so much as thinks twice about eating pork, bacon or ham?  Is it even possible for someone who eats swine flesh to enter the kingdom of God?  The notion is so bizarre to Jews and Muslims that it casts all Christians in an infernal light.

We'll find out on Judgement Day how accurate that one is.

Best, 

Dave

Next Time: Collected Letters: Dave Sim? 

Collected Letters: Me!

Hi, Everybody!

So, today let's look into Dave's "Collected Letters 2004"

Yeah, that one.

 Specifically, a letter to Me:

If you look in the index, I'm there. Right between Dostoevsky and Dragonball Z.

Which is where I belong...

Here's Dave's ACTUAL letter to me:

Click to make it big and readable.

Click to do the same. 

Okay. That's page 139.

It's also Cerebus in Matt's Life: Part the Sixth.

Page 372? That's a future Cerebus in Matt's Life.

Next Time: Not my next letter from Dave, I tell ya that much...

Promises, Promises (Dave's Weekly Update #246)

Hi,  Everybody!

Heeeeeere's Dave:

Problems viewing this video? Watch directly on YouTube...

http://www.colinupton.com/
http://www.promisescomic.com/

Donate here, if you're amicable.


Next Time: Mugs. Mags. Megs? (Migs?)

Issues Summaries

MARGARET LISS:

A few years ago I scanned all of Dave Sim's notebooks. He had filled 36 notebooks during the years he created the monthly Cerebus series, covering issues #20 to 300, plus the other side items -- like the Epic stories, posters and prints, convention speeches etc. A total of 3,281 notebook pages detailing his creative process. I never really got the time to study the notebooks when I had them. Just did a quick look, scanned them in and sent them back to Dave as soon as possible. So this regular column is a chance for me to look through those scans and highlight some of the more interesting pages.

Dave Sim's notebook #17 covers Cerebus #127 to 135 and there were 72 pages scanned. We've only looked at pages from it four times, the most recent being Front and Back last August.

On page one of the notebook Dave has some plot points written down for Cerebus #127, 128, and 129.

Notebook 17, page 1

Then skipping ahead  to page 36 there are number boxes written down for issues #131 through 136 and some plot points for each written down.

Notebook 17, page 36

I can just hear Mrs Snatcher's voice in the quote from Cerebus #135.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Cerebi... OUT TODAY!

Benjamin Hobbs:

It may not be the Last Wednesday of the Month... but it's close! Time to run out to your LCS and pick up as many copies of TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA CEREBI as you can carry!

My record for copies carried at one time from the store to my car? 253! Try to top that!  Send in a photo for full credit!

Your friend and mine, Sean Michael Robinson, tells me this is the LAST week to place your orders for CRISIS OF INFINITE CEREBI. So if you haven't done so, make sure you do so today. 

This issue is one of the funniest CIH? issues yet.  Check out this amazing teaser:

And things get worse for the Cerebi as the CRISIS gets darker:

Next Week:The results of last weeks Jingles/Un-bedable Vark poll!

ERROR 404: Post NOT Found

We're sorry, but the post you are looking for does not exist.

(Probably because Matt is either too busy, or too lazy.)

Come back tomorrow, and we're sure Matt'll have gotten his shit together by then. (We hope...)

That's a nice looking mug though...

Pst: don't  tell Matt, Margaret here, I'm hijacking his post to tell you that the mug that Cerebus is holding? Yeah, Matt made a mug just like that:

There were even some "variant" mugs, as seen by the backwards mug on the left. If you ask nicely, perhaps Matt will sell you one. If he has some left.

Cerebus Figurines: A Review

Hi, Everybody!

Michael R. sent in the following to the Ol' AMOC Mailbag at momentofcerebus@gmail.com:

Hi Matt!

I was one of those who purchased 6 Cerebus figurines from George. He asked me to send you a review to post on AMOC. So here's a quick review. I'll send multiple emails with a
couple of photos in each.  He had a bit of a problem shipping them, but I did receive them on Monday, July 23.

From George---

"Hi Michael,

Update to your Cerebus Figurine order. It’s in the mail! Sorry for the delay. It should have been in the mail, a month ago. What had happened was: I
got the wrong boxes that I ordered to mail out the figurines. Didn’t notice the problem until I was ready to ship out the figurines and one box broke. This delayed everything. I had to order NEW bubble wrap and along with waiting to get the correct boxes sent to me. But, finally everything is repacked and in the mail. Please look out for the package. IT’S BIG! You really can’t miss it. . . or eat it. :)" 

I had a few days to really digest viewing the Cerebus figurines, here's what I think.

The 6 Cerebus figurines arrived in excellent condition in 2 boxes taped together. 3 figurines individually bubble wrapped in each box.

The first I noticed was that they really weren't that big. They're light weight. The accuracy and details are spot on. I'm not a chess player, but my daughter's boyfriend is, he noticed right away the chess symbols at the base. I guess that's a plus. I'm
glad that I bought them.

 

Click to embiggen

Now the nit picking. Haha, I couldn't let George off too easy.

The first thing I did notice and I'm sure everyone else will pick up on is the back of Cerebus' head. There seems to be some unfinished business there. It looks like that you
glued Cerebus to the base and left some residue. … and if you really,  really
look at Cerebus' head, I swear there's a bullseye there. I'm sure when I was
emailing George on these issues he was taking it as constructive criticism and
not a knock on his product.  Other than that, I think they are GREAT!

 

A close-up...of NOT the back of the head.

The 6 Cerebus figurines shipped to my house was perfect inside. I know George gave me a discount for shipping by getting all 6, but each figurine averaged $40
Canadian. That's an awful lot of money especially now that he seems to be
cranking new figurines almost every week. I'm going to need more expendable
cash if I'm going to keep purchasing them. I think that's going to be a huge
decision for me and everyone to make if they going to but them from George.

"this might be the final place where all 6 will be displayed" click to embiggen

Michael

" I might be the only person who has the world largest and smallest Cerebus' side by side. lol." Not to be a pedantic shit-head, but there ARE smaller Cerebi in the world (namely the Ral Partha knock-off pewter miniatures.)

 You can order your very own set of Cerebus figures here. Tell 'em AMOC sent ya and get...nothing. Not a effin' thing. We don't have a deal in place or anything. Maybe in the future.

Next Time: I don't know. Something with an Aardvark I bet.

TL:DR: The Genesis Question part thirteen

Hi, Everybody!

The party was a success, here's today's post:

20 April 14

Hi Troy and Mia!

Okay, back with more of Mr. Ross' Scriptural citations which he says support his thesis that "God alone, not Satan or any other created being, has the power to create and destroy what God creates."  More but not all -- it's going to take me a while to get through these.  And it's all under one citation!

Isaiah 37:16 - "O YHWH of hosts, God of Israel that dwellest the Cherubims, thou art the God, thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth"

Well, to me, this is the YHWH who is being addressed, not God.

The "hosts" reference, as a defining characteristic of the YHWH, I think is best reflected in Christian scripture by the episode in the Gerasenes in Matthew 8:28 (where, significantly, the demon-possessed is cited as being TWO men) and Mark 5:9 where there is only one demon-possessed and the Synoptic Jesus "was inquiring upon him What name to you? And he is saying to him Legion name to me, because many we are."  Self-confessed, in other words unlike the version in Luke, 8:30, "Inquired upon, however him, the Jesus what to you name is?  The ____ (however ____) said Legion, because entered demons many into him."

 I think I think the Cherubims -- or, rather, cherubims -- which adorn the ark of the covenant and held a central place in the Temple are particularly emblematic of that dichotomy: that God is seen as being represented by one cherubim and the YHWH by the other and, in the YHWH's view, what they are doing is contending for primacy of place in the Judaic faith, between the two cherubims.  And note the "between" is interpolated into the text, largely, I suspect, because "that dwellest the Cherubims" seems to be lacking a preposition.  Between?  Within?  Atop?    

Isaiah 44:24 - "Thus saith the YHWH thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb; I am the YHWH that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by my self"

It seems to me significant that the YHWH, narrating here, feels compelled to append "alone" and "by my self" to the assertions.  The passage continues in an interesting theological vein:

"That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad, that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish"

I certainly have no difficulty picturing the YHWH expending a great deal of time and energy "frustrating the tokens of the liars" but I have trouble picturing God doing so.  It seems to me that liars frustrate themselves and that that's a major part of God's construct and a functioning property of free will.  "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" as the Bard said.  And tokens are just that, tokens.

"…and maketh diviners mad".  Well, again, I think that those who use or attempt to use divination -- to see the future and to shape it or use it for their own purposes -- are mad already, because they're all just human beings, so whatever it is that they think they are seeing or think they are making use of is probably just a small part of the interacting realities of which God alone has knowledge and over which God alone has dominion.  Complexities multiply in such a way that the human mind can't even conceive of them, let alone control them.  That, to me, is what God and faith in God is all about:  only absolute faith in Him can see you through the manifold mazes you inhabit. 

Isaiah 45:7-18 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the YHWH do all these things."

Isaiah 45 -- which, coincidentally, was part of my Torah readings last Sunday -- seems to me to be an especially pertinent text regarding the God/YHWH dichotomy so I'm going to go verse by verse in Mr. Ross' cited passage.

45:7 is one of those YHWHistic passages where I really have to ask: do you REALLY think that God creates evil?  Personally, I think that's the entire point of Genesis 1:  God "created to make" everything and pronounces everything that He created to be good.  Well, He should know, shouldn't He?  No, it is the unwise exercise of free will, alone, I think, that creates evil.  I also don't think that God makes peace.  God can, I think, deliver peace to those who seek it from Him if He deems them worthy of it.  But, to me, that isn't the same thing as "making peace".  Everything is structurally, good, by God's own declaration.  If you keep evil and malice away from Everything, peace will result where you have effectively separated the one from the other and I think that's what we are here to do, individually and collectively -- but that, it seems to me, has more to do with human agency and free will choices which make peace possible rather than "making peace" like some sort of spiritual mudpie.

"Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation and let righteousness spring up together: I the YHWH have created it."

As I've said before, I think the YHWH as a being of spirit inhabits both the earth and the heavens but is far more OF the earth than OF the heavens.  I think this verse gives evidence of the YHWH's notion (in my view, misapprehension) of righteousness as an external reality, something that created beings can be immersed in, like a cloudburst.  Which seems to me true in a way, but only in the sense that righteousness can come forth, collectively, from within human beings in response to a specific event (9-11 comes to mind) in such a profusion that it does, indeed, "bring forth salvation" -- however temporarily -- and that righteousness then seems to "spring up together".  I don't think that that can be said to be "created" however.  More "chosen" or "incarnated".  It seems to me that it's a misconstruction of God's "undeserved kindness" -- more conventionally, in English, called grace or Grace.

It also seems significant to me that it is phrased as "let THE earth open and let THEM bring both salvation" pointing towards the plural aspects of the YHWH.

"Woe to him that striveth with his maker: let the potsheard with the potsheard of the earth: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?  or thy work, he hath no hands?"

This sentiment which is reiterated in the latter Prophets pretty extensively seems to me to be centrally pertinent to the discussion since, to me, that's exactly what the YHWH is doing.  The YHWH is the pot shard of the pot created by God;  the YHWH is the clay saying to the God that fashioned it, What makest thou?  And the YHWH is part of God's work, saying to God, "He hath no hands". 

"Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What beggetest thou? or to the woman, What has thou brought forth?"

This cuts, I think, a little too close to the theological bone.  I don't think The Father is God -- I think God created The Father -- but that, it seems to me, only makes the observation more (intentionally?) wounding, suggesting as it does that the YHWH had either an interchangeable father/mother or a father and a mother.  

Woe unto him, indeed.  And here we go:

"Thus saith the YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, and his maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me."

"His maker":  that is, here we have two voices:  I suspect, the YHWH and The Father, The Father both speaking on behalf of God and referencing God.  That is, speaking to the YHWH as a fellow creation of God, but as an obedient one, a son of God.  "Ask me of things to come concerning my sons".  That is, the sons of the Father, the physical sons created of carnality, and the sons of God, the spiritual sons who are sons by virtue of obedience and submission to God's will -- unlike the YHWH.

"I have made the earth and created man upon it: I my hands have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

This is claimed by both the YHWH and by God.

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the YHWH of hosts."

On the surface of it, in the context of Isaiah and the events being discussed, this is in reference to Cyrus. Which is how the YHWH intends it.  But, for God, it's also an answer in a much larger context.  Yes, it refers to Cyrus, God created Cyrus for the exact purpose of assisting in the rebuilding of the Temple, but in the longer term it is also a reference to the Christ ("Ask me of things to come concerning my sons") and the Meschiach, in Christian frames of reference -- OR the Meschiach, if the Jews are right and he hasn't yet come.  The city is Jerusalem, or the New Jerusalem of John's Apocalypse or an even yet further context of a spiritual city.

"Thus saith the YHWH, the labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia, and of the Sabeans, men of stature shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine, they shall come after thee, in chains they shall come over: and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, Surely God in thee and none else, no god."

This, it seems to me, is the point in the narrative, where the YHWH suddenly finds his/her/it self flying solo.  This is purely about Cyrus and while also speaking of future events of which the YHWH is aware, no longer speaking of the extended future of the Christ and/or Meschiach and/or New Jerusalem.

"Verily thou a God that hidest thy self, O God of Israel the Saviour."

This is the YHWH's reaction to God's sudden absence from the narrative.  God -- the God of Israel the Saviour -- isn't hiding (and the YHWH must have wondered at his/her/its own words -- "Israel the Saviour"?  "God the Saviour"?  "God of Israel the Saviour"? If you don't know what the Christ is and have no concept of a New Jerusalem, the phrase would just sound odd).  It's just that the Larger Narrative had been departed from.  This was about a lot more than Cyrus' role in theological history.

"They shall be ashamed, and also confounded all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols."

God, I think,  rejoins the narrative here.  This is a general observation on the part of the YHWH of the immediate context: the disposition of those who Cyrus will save.  The Larger Context, however, to me, includes God, the YHWH as God's creation, the Jewish people as the Chosen People, Christ, the followers of Christ, the doubters of Christ, those who have made Christ himself an idol, monotheistic idolaters, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem. 

There are a lot of species of idolatry is what I suspect God is saying here:  even in the deepest forms of monotheism, there is and will be idolatry.  Ultimately, on Judgement Day, the idolaters -- even, and perhaps, especially those who were unintentionally idolatrous:  how idolatrous is a crucifix? -- will be ashamed and confounded ("THAT was idolatry?" followed swiftly by "That WAS idolatry!" -- ashamed and then confounded).  Their final destination: confusion ("they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols").

"Israel shall be saved in the YHWH with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."

This seems to me to be the YHWH trying to enunciate, to amplify, the previous verse and, inadvertently, pronouncing self-judgement.  Israel will be saved IN the YHWH.  Just as the YHWH, hopefully, will be saved IN God.  It's a matter of accurate awareness and, more importantly, accurate SELF-awareness.  If you perceive accurately, you can't be idolatrous because it's a ridiculous choice.  That applies to the Jewish people, to Jerusalem, to men generally and to the YHWH.  You will only be ashamed and confounded if you have been inadvertently or intentionally idolatrous.  This seems to promise a general salvation as an inevitability.  Seems unlikely in the 21st century, but who knows?  The earth has billions of years left to live.

"For thus saith the YHWH that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it, he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited, I the YHWH and none else."

The YHWH's is a misapprehension, God's is an assertion of the Truth, serving as a signature to the passage, the two beings identifying themselves, YHWH by his/her/its misapprehension and God by His Truth and then asserting "he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited".  Again, the YHWH's misapprehension regarding the heavens, but God's Truth regarding the earth: "He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited." 

"I the YHWH and none else" has a double resonance.  YHWH misapprehended assertion as "Creator" and the YHWH's truthful assertion that God established the earth/YHWH, God did not create the earth/YHWH in vain and God formed the earth to be inhabited by….?  "I the YHWH and none else."

Next week, on to Romans 11:36.

Best,

Dave

Next Time: I dunno, I just got a huge stack of Cerebus comics... 

The Ol' AMOC Mailbag: David Birdsong

Hi, Everybody!

The Ol' AMOC Mailbag got a number of items from Superman's frenemy, David Birdsong:

Dave’s solution to spotting the counterfeit Cerebus #1

From the Cerebus covers book. 

Click to make it big enough to read the tiny print...

He also sent in: 

Dave Sim in 2005:

I have my suspicions as to who did the counterfeit but, no, the FBI never managed to catch the guys who were selling them-the "mules" folded their operation as soon as word started to spread-and therefore there was no route to anyone who was behind the scam. I certainly wasn't about to accuse anyone publicly without evidence to support it but, yes, I'm pretty sure I knew who did it.

Margaret Liss' has a great page on her site with several examples:

 http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/counterfeit.php

And finally a REALLY BIG image of the two side by side from Heritage Auctions:

I shrunk it down, because the image doesn't really show the difference. So, this is more to show that CGC KNOWS about the counterfeits, and slabs them accordingly.

 Speaking of CGC, back here, I said:

One of the BIGGEST problems, with the whole "counterfeit" issue, is that we don't know EXACTLY how many copies of Cerebus #1 there are. There WERE 2000 copies of the real Cerebus #1. (If I'm remembering right.) Now there has to be an attrition rate of copies that were bought and thrown away/read to pieces/lost in "misadventure". So that means there's <2000 copies that are real.

And, as far as I know, no one really knows how many copies of the counterfeits there are.

It would be really awesome if somebody (not me), set up a census of Cerebus #1s.

Well over on the CGC website, they have a census of everything they've slabbed. Including Cerebus #1:

So that's 219 real copies.

And 58 no-good-dirty-rotten-"worthless" fakes.

And finally, David sent in:

I'm pretty sure this one is fake...

cerebus-reboot-cyberpunk

"The warrior aardvark of legend returns in an all-new series that catapults Cerebus into a dark, dystopian future to face the most terrifying enemy he has ever known: The Voids. A parasitic race of creatures driven only by base emotions of fear and hunger, the Voids have infiltrated the city at nearly every level, binding men of power and influence to their vampiric will. Can Cerebus stop the Voids before they consume every man in Iestopolis with their unspeakable hunger, or will they continue their rampage unopposed until the very last Male Light goes out?"

 Alright, everybody say "Thanks David!"

Next Time: Dave on "The Genesis Question" part the next...

Remembering Harlan Ellison Pt. 2 (Dave's Weekly Update #245)

Hi,  Everybody!

Heeeeeere's Dave:

Problems viewing this video? Watch directly on YouTube...

Donate here, if you're amicable.


Next Time: I don't question what Dave did with all the copies of glamourpuss #5 he had. I also don't send an e-mail to Ted Adams at IDW asking where they are. Really, I don't. Truly. Swear to God...