Bombastic Scholastics
Comments
-
David Paul said:
You may choose to reject that view, but what you can't do is say that isn't EXACTLY what the language, figurative or not, indicates. It may not be a literal intercourse of the physical sort, but it is profoundly obvious and inevitable for all to conclude that YHWH has chosen precisely the language of marriage, virginity, wedding chamber, and consummation to describe what IS going to happen. You want to say it won't be "literal"? Okay...but I know this for an absolute fact: you can't say it will be anything other than a "spiritual" fulfillment which YHWH Himself deliberately chose to convey with language that repeatedly draws the same picture over and over and over again--a wedding bed. In other words, it will be "as good as" or "the equivalent of" a wedding bed in His sight. To say otherwise is call Him a pathological (and probably psychotic) liar.
I totally agree with you that the language of marriage and sexuality is used (Song of Solomon, ahem!) but it is figurative. Your suggestion that God having union with his Bride would be akin to bestiality if humans and God were not of the same nature was an abasement of that figurative language. Yes, that union will be better than a wedding bed, and I was not claiming otherwise. What I was objecting to was the literalizing of it that you were doing, and the implication that it was God mimicking humans rather than the other way around. Objecting to your understanding of the Word of God does not equate to calling God a pathological (and probably psychotic) liar.
This hymn by John Wesley gets it:
1 JESUS, the all-restoring Word,
My fallen spirit’s hope,
After Thy lovely likeness, Lord,
O, when shall I wake up!2 Thou, O my God, Thou only art
The Life, the Truth, the Way:
Quicken my soul, instruct my heart,
My sinking footsteps stay.3 Of all Thou hast in earth below,
In heaven above, to give,
Give me Thine only Self to know,
In Thee to walk and live.4 Fill me with all the life of love;
In mystic union join
Me to Thyself, and let me prove
The fellowship Divine.5 Open the intercourse between
My longing soul and Thee,
Never to be broke off again
Through all eternity.6 Grant this, O Lord; for Thou hast died
That I might be forgiven;
Thou hast the RIGHTEOUSNESS supplied
For which I merit heaven.David Paul said:What you are saying is obvious, Rosie. I think it also misses a rather obvious point. Yes, you are correct. All of what happens in the Book is YHWH's plan and doing, even when He farms out some of the work to others. But my point doesn't rely in any way on "Adam thinking up" anything.
Well then we are both understanding this the same way but speaking about it differently. Your words are very misleading. You said YHWH is "following their example" but they didn't set an example which he followed. He created them and their "example" (if you want to call it that) as a precursor to what he was already doing in the future. The shadows (and I agree that God created them and they are good, not Satan's spawn) are precursors that were put in place to foreshadow something already foreordained. Consider an author of a book: in creating the story, he has already written the major plot points in his mind (or even on paper). If he puts in a hint early on in the book that "the butler did it" it isn't that the butler later on in the book does it because the hint was there to set him up for that. The hint was put in to give us an idea of what was already in place in the end of the story.
I don't think I'm saying anything you would disagree with strongly (perhaps just some minor semantics), but you need to be very careful in choosing your words. By saying that YHWH was "mimicking the creature" you were essentially saying that the creatures' action spawned the Creator's, which is not the order of how it happened in eternity. God's action came prior (not in a temporal sense but in an ontological sense) and the creature's action was a copy of that. Eph 5:21-33 makes it clear which has the priority.
0 -
If I recall correctly, There are 3 words translated "Love" from the original. None of which is directly linked to sex. Unfortunately In modern English, There are a multitude of words translated "Sex" .Our culture seems to relate almost everything to Sex.
Intimate=Sex
Love=Sex
Friendship=Sex
Compassion=Sex
Kiss=Sex
Hug=Sex
I agree with you, Rosie, Attempting to shoehorn the attributes of God into the physical nature of man borders on Heresy.
And if we are not meant to have a "Non Sexual" intimate relationship with God. I have totally missed the message.
0 -
Paul C said:
If I recall correctly, There are 3 words translated "Love" from the original. None of which is directly linked to sex. Unfortunately In modern English, There are a multitude of words translated "Sex" .Our culture seems to relate almost everything to Sex.
Intimate=Sex
Love=Sex
Friendship=Sex
Compassion=Sex
Kiss=Sex
Hug=Sex
I agree with you, Rosie, Attempting to shoehorn the attributes of God into the physical nature of man borders on Heresy.
And if we are not meant to have a "Non Sexual" intimate relationship with God. I have totally missed the message.
You may have missed the message. Doing a study on sexual metaphor and veiled or double entendre in the Bible may enlighten you...or given what you've said above, it may just shock you right out of your shoes. One of the books I intend to write, way down the road, will be called The Sexual God. I won't be the first, though. Others have already weighed in on this topic. It is a persistent concept throughout the Bible, and not nearly as hidden as some might expect--much of the ignorance has to do with the discomfort of translators to say what's been said.
Let me be clear...I don't know exactly what YHWH has in mind for the bridal chamber. However, I do know that only a blind liar can say that YHWH's language is not pointing to something that He, in His providential sovereignty, persistently describes as building toward intimacy that we only have one conceptual (pun intended) equivalent for--and that is sexual union. Will it be something else? Saying "yes" is a guess, or something more willful and obstinate. Other than just having a blank empty space filled with "I don't have any clue but I refuse to believe or accept that it is sex", there is simply no other kind of evidence, other than what we know as marital union, that has been revealed.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
You know, I think it's OK with me that it will take a while.David Paul said:One of the books I intend to write, way down the road, will be called The Sexual God.
0 -
David, you would have enjoyed the play I saw the other night: Espresso by Lucia Frangione. In it God, incarnate as "Amante" ("Lover" in Italian), woos a woman in a very sensual, even sexual, way. Very provocative. Mature Christian audiences in Vancouver love it. But they don't for a minute believe that's really literally what it's like to have a relationship with God. Powerful metaphor, yes. But sex pales in comparison to what union with God will be. That's about the only thing we can say for sure.
Why do you call a person who challenges you a liar? (Mind you, I'm not letting that label apply to me, because I do agree that God uses sexual imagery to represent the intimacy of relationship with him; though it isn't the only metaphor he uses.) I may disagree with you, but in doing so I merely think you're mistaken or an ultracrepidarian (*), but not a liar. Liar implies intentional deception. You have no reason to accuse someone who understands Scripture differently than you do of intentionally obfuscating the truth.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
But sex pales in comparison to what union with God will be.
“THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”0 -
Paul C said:Rosie Perera said:
But sex pales in comparison to what union with God will be.
“THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”You are describing the honeymoon.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:David Paul said:
You may choose to reject that view, but what you can't do is say that isn't EXACTLY what the language, figurative or not, indicates. It may not be a literal intercourse of the physical sort, but it is profoundly obvious and inevitable for all to conclude that YHWH has chosen precisely the language of marriage, virginity, wedding chamber, and consummation to describe what IS going to happen. You want to say it won't be "literal"? Okay...but I know this for an absolute fact: you can't say it will be anything other than a "spiritual" fulfillment which YHWH Himself deliberately chose to convey with language that repeatedly draws the same picture over and over and over again--a wedding bed. In other words, it will be "as good as" or "the equivalent of" a wedding bed in His sight. To say otherwise is call Him a pathological (and probably psychotic) liar.
I totally agree with you that the language of marriage and sexuality is used (Song of Solomon, ahem!) but it is figurative. Your suggestion that God having union with his Bride would be akin to bestiality if humans and God were not of the same nature was an abasement of that figurative language.
No, not really...not at all. It is incredibly germane...because again, no, the language isn't figurative, it is prophetic. Prophetic language often is figurative, but it is figurative in a literal way. I mentioned this before in this thread, I think, but when YHWH goes out of His way (that is figurative language) to say something, and He does so in consistent, clear, repetitive language, it is brazen idolatry to say He doesn't mean what He is saying. That isn't intended as a dig or an insult; it is a warning. Might He mean it in a figurative way? Perhaps. Perhaps not. My point is, ALL we have to go on, all we have to process, is clear language that speaks to us prophetically. It isn't for us to judge whether YHWH really means what He says or not--and yet, you (and pretty much everyone else) assume that whatever He means, it ISN'T the only thing He actually said--it has to be something else. Are you aware that what you are saying is, "The one thing I know for sure is that YHWH didn't mean what He said"? That is so crazy dangerous, I'm shaking just thinking about it.
Rosie Perera said:Yes, that union will be better than a wedding bed, and I was not claiming otherwise. What I was objecting to was the literalizing of it that you were doing, and the implication that it was God mimicking humans rather than the other way around.
Again, to start with, prophetic language may be figurative, but it always speaks to a literal condition. Take Jn. 2:19, 20, 21, 22 for example. Yeishuu`a was speaking "figuratively" (more accurately, prophetically), but it wasn't some "mystical" mojo hullabaloo that bears no connection with reality. He literally (while speaking of His body as the temple) meant that the temple would be destroyed and raised up in three days. That's what prophecy is. It isn't "just" figurative language meant to convey a mystical figment that can't be known. That is MYSTERY, if you know what I mean. You err greatly in suggesting that there isn't to be some kind of literal fulfillment of what YHWH says. No matter what the circumstance or scenario may be, if He said something will happen, something will happen, just like with His veiled death and resurrection reference. Without fail, something that He prophetically considers to be the equivalent of sexual union WILL take place...lliterally.
Okay...regarding "mimicking humans", what I said was...
David Paul said:What is in the Scripture is this...Adam was made in YHWH's image. YWHW says it isn't good for man to be alone. He gives Adam a bride. YHWH reveals He will be taking a bride for Himself. If Adam and Eve together make one, were they less than one before...or just not...um, complete? If YHWH is following their example, what does that mean?
It may be a philosophical question rather than a biblical one--but perhaps not...can someone (or Someone) be complete if they are going around "wanting" things? Can Someone be complete if they are mimicking the creature who needed two to become one?
First, I am in full agreement with your "ontological sense" of YHWH's actions (you mention it below). I have promoted that concept on the forums many times, often in the context of Yeishuu`a's being "slain from the foundation of the kosmos." That fully preceded all else that is, but in the same breath, it didn't really happen until it happened, which is why it had to actually happen, even though prophetically...it had already happened. How do we pound all that out? We don't, because we haven't been asked to. Rather, we just register what's been said and then take care of our business which we've been assigned. I'm a little surprised you thought I had not considered and was not considering your ontological concern.
That, however, is not what I was addressing. I was addressing what "actually" happened. Again, as I said, YHWH absolutely is following the example of Adam and Eve, because His marriage comes later. Yes, it is His own plan, and yes, it is His idea to have Adam and Eve "go first". But that isn't a spoof...it is quite clear that He is intending by the sequence of events to telegraph and foreshadow what He is trying to convey about Himself. What He has brought to pass with the first Adam conveys what will happen with the last Adam, the second man--who DOES, in concert with the prophetic nature of Adam and Eve's example which came before, mimic their prototypical union with His remnant bride. "Mimic" is just another way of saying prophetically"fulfill". It's not some thoughtless reference that robs Him of His sovereignty. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I am not entirely off the reservation.
Picking up the thought train, maybe you will see it differently this time...
David Paul said:What you are saying is obvious, Rosie. I think it also misses a rather obvious point. Yes, you are correct. All of what happens in the Book is YHWH's plan and doing, even when He farms out some of the work to others. But my point doesn't rely in any way on "Adam thinking up" anything.
Rosie Perera said:Well then we are both understanding this the same way but speaking about it differently. Your words are very misleading. You said YHWH is "following their example" but they didn't set an example which he followed. He created them and their "example" (if you want to call it that) as a precursor to what he was already doing in the future. The shadows (and I agree that God created them and they are good, not Satan's spawn) are precursors that were put in place to foreshadow something already foreordained. Consider an author of a book: in creating the story, he has already written the major plot points in his mind (or even on paper). If he puts in a hint early on in the book that "the butler did it" it isn't that the butler later on in the book does it because the hint was there to set him up for that. The hint was put in to give us an idea of what was already in place in the end of the story.
I don't think I'm saying anything you would disagree with strongly (perhaps just some minor semantics), but you need to be very careful in choosing your words. By saying that YHWH was "mimicking the creature" you were essentially saying that the creatures' action spawned the Creator's, which is not the order of how it happened in eternity. God's action came prior (not in a temporal sense but in an ontological sense) and the creature's action was a copy of that. Eph 5:21-33 makes it clear which has the priority.
While I do pretty much agree with what you say in the last paragraph above, I don't concede that my phrase "mimicking the creature" is "essentially saying that the creatures' action spawned the Creator's", pretty much for the reasons I outlined above. What I'm saying is that He (as Director) purposefully had the creatures play out a scenario that is intended to convey a precursor role in relation to His own later activity (as Actor). I admit that what I say is occasionally difficult to absorb, sometimes because it is unfamiliar and other times because I'm trying too hard to be pithy and concise and end up clipping my points too close to the scalp. [:S]
Regarding the play you mentioned, I'm not so sure I would have liked it. Maybe so. However, there is a real sense in which this is intended to be a private affair. On an issue such as this, I generally believe in saying enough to convey what He has said about the issue, and not saying much more. I'm also not a big fan of depictions. I think He is called the Word for a reason, and I tend to prefer words where He is concerned. That's why I'm not a big fan of the Logos slides of the daily quote.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
While I am not really following this thread, it appears as if the title is quite accurate. It appears to me as if most participants, particularly David Paul is quite bombastic in their views, no matter what the view is [:P]
0 -
Bombastic? Yes ! Scholastic? The jury is still out !Sarel Slabbert said:While I am not really following this thread, it appears as if the title is quite accurate. It appears to me as if most participants, particularly David Paul is quite bombastic in their views, no matter what the view is
0 -
Now we're getting somewhere ! [:P]David Paul said:No, not really...not at all. It is incredibly germane...because again, no, the language isn't figurative, it is prophetic. Prophetic language often is figurative, but it is figurative in a literal way.
0 -
VERY good, Mr Scott!
I never thought we'd be resurrecting the greek pantheon in the 21st century.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Willard Scott said:
Now we're getting somewhere !David Paul said:No, not really...not at all. It is incredibly germane...because again, no, the language isn't figurative, it is prophetic. Prophetic language often is figurative, but it is figurative in a literal way.
[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]
0 -
David Paul said:
... yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables.
David Paul,
Thanks for all your posts... I have read though the thread and I don't think I understand what the basis of criticism is. Referring to enlightened conclusions of scholars ... "the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables."
Hmmm. I'm thinking there is something that is not agreeing with your understanding or approach.
?
Steve
0 -
Steve said:David Paul said:
... yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables.
David Paul,
Thanks for all your posts... I have read though the thread and I don't think I understand what the basis of criticism is.
I'm assuming you mean you don't understand what the basis of my criticism of certain scholars is. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you.
Steve said:Referring to enlightened conclusions of scholars ... "the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables."
I am not speaking here of everyone who has an advanced degree in Bible-related concerns. I am talking about those who do not accept that the Book is a living and active whole, but rather feel entirely comfortable picking it apart as though it is just a compilation of loosely related legends and historical half-remembrances pasted together by a group of whozits who were motivated by quasi-religious but primarily provincial political concerns. Almost nothing of value (by which I mean "anything that still has a living pulse") can be extracted from such a discombobulated approach to the Scriptures.
As I said at the outset, my frustration is that I have a variety of resources in my library (much of which has come to me in prepackaged collection form) and among these resources I may come across an intriguing title hinting at the promise of a genuine insight or two...only to find that the author(s) are of the "low view" school that I just described. Result? Anticipation denied, and one more title in my rather expensive collection goes into the figurative burn pile, useless to me. That's my frustration. In some ways it is a frustration unique to Logos, considering that most folks who acquire books piecemeal wouldn't have this same cause of irritation...it stems from collection and bundle purchases.
Steve said:
Hmmm. I'm thinking there is something that is not agreeing with your understanding or approach.
Perhaps...though I am not entirely sure what you are driving at, so I will have to ask you to be a bit less cryptic, if you don't mind.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Steve said:David Paul said:
... yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables.
David Paul,
Thanks for all your posts... I have read though the thread and I don't think I understand what the basis of criticism is.
I'm assuming you mean you don't understand what the basis of my criticism of certain scholars is. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you.
Steve said:Correct, I don't understand.
I am not speaking here of everyone who has an advanced degree in Bible-related concerns. I am talking about those who do not accept that the Book is a living and active whole.
Yes. Living and active whole is a confusing term. What do our mean?
s I said at the outset, my frustration is that I have a variety of resources in my library (much of which has come to me in prepackaged collection form) and among these resources I may come across an intriguing title hinting at the promise of a genuine insight or two...only to find that the author(s) are of the "low view" school that I just described. Result? Anticipation denied, and one more title in my rather expensive collection goes into the figurative burn pile, useless to me. That's my frustration. In some ways it is a frustration unique to Logos considering that most folks who acquire books piecemeal wouldn't have this same cause of irritation...it stems from collection and bundle purchases.
Steve said:
Hmmm. I'm thinking there is something that is not agreeing with your understanding or approach.
Perhaps...though I am not entirely sure what you are driving at, so I will have to ask you to be a bit less cryptic, if you don't mind.
0 -
Steve said:David Paul said:Steve said:David Paul said:
... yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables.
David Paul,
Thanks for all your posts... I have read though the thread and I don't think I understand what the basis of criticism is.
I'm assuming you mean you don't understand what the basis of my criticism of certain scholars is. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you.
Steve said:Correct, I don't understand.
I am not speaking here of everyone who has an advanced degree in Bible-related concerns. I am talking about those who do not accept that the Book is a living and active whole.
Yes. Living and active whole is a confusing term. What do our mean?
Steve said:
Hmmm. I'm thinking there is something that is not agreeing with your understanding or approach.
Perhaps...though I am not entirely sure what you are driving at, so I will have to ask you to be a bit less cryptic, if you don't mind.
0 -
Were you intending to post something? You can probably delete one of those double posts.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Were you intending to post something? You can probably delete one of those double posts.
I am totally lost. Sorry. Yes, I am lost.[:S]
0 -
David Paul said:
Were you intending to post something? You can probably delete one of those double posts.
Sorry. Yes, confused on posting something ,,, I guess my mother has decided something else... about posting something about way back before I was on the radar.
0 -
I'm thinking she was there before I was was long time ago. that was then.
0 -
9-1-1...use it if you need it. You may want to ask your mom about upping your dosage. I think they make GPS apps for smart phones these days, if you have one.
[I] [;)]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0
