a reply to: arpgme
I really like this thread. It also points out something that I have tried to find from the OT Yahweh. The Lord of the Old Testament is precisely the
opposite of what is promoted here by Jesus. My conclusion on this matter is to see that Elohim in Genesis 1 is the Father. Ruach Elohim is the
Mother. God's image is both male (strength / head) and female (love / caring / nurture). The balance between the two is the nature of God's
strength. Yahweh, in Genesis 2, is the Lord that engaged a secondary creation, split Adam into a division of the image, then restricts the garden
fruit. To me, he is the Son of God as a prodigal. The Names of God Bible must be used to see the divisions in conversation and action. If you read
a traditional Bible, God is Elohim and Lord is Yahweh. The true relationship does not emerge until you read the true names.
It is not until He is humbled by God as a man that he sees the results of his own misguided creation. By willingly separating himself from God,
splitting and dividing mankind, he necessitated the incarnation of his own substance into that of mankind. The error was his. Paying for this on the
cross seems to be the true story pointing us all back to the true origin of mankind. At baptism, we see the Elohim (Father) say well pleased. We see
the dove descend in peace as the Mother (Ruach Elohim), or Spirit of God, making peace with the Son.
Job knew this:
25 I know that my redeemer[c] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
28 “If you say, ‘How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,’
29 you should fear the sword yourselves;
for wrath will bring punishment by the sword,
and then you will know that there is judgment.”
The root of the trouble lies in him. The subject here is the Redeemer. The Redeemer is Adam first and last, or the incarnation of the Son of God
into mankind. In other words, it is not mankind that needed to be saved, but the one that was bonded to us from the beginning. I believe we have
been misguided to believe that we are the ones with the error. In reality, it is Adam who has Redeemed the Son. Ezekiel 28 also hints at this fallen
nature, ending in the book of Revelation as the mirror to the commerce system that caused the fall (Desire / Selfishness). In the end, we cannot
hound him about it. We are him broken into shards of one soul.
As you compare Jesus and Yahweh, you see a contrast of extremes. One is arrogant, judgmental and vengeful on enemies. The other is humbled to the
point of becoming servant to enemies. Unless they are the same entities, then we have a story that makes no sense. If we see that we are the Son's
body, then the story starts to emerge that all of humanity is the Story of the Bible. The imagery of the Son is a metaphor for all of us nailed to
the cross until we recognize the Father and Mother. Two become one. Each saves the other as the corpus is remade. If they are two entities, then we
worship both from the Bible. Again, makes no sense.
Like all Greek Tragedy, the development of Pathos (serving rather than being served) is the development of sympathy and empathy over selfishness
(apathy for others). Regardless of the actual truth behind the story, we see the same ending we see in every good play, book, movie and story from
the lives of men. Is this simply the Mysteries of Paganism emerging as just another myth connected to the root mystery? How could we know? The
point of the story, however, is universal. The troubling aspect of all this is the fruit it bears. Mankind has not changed as a result. We have, in
fact, become much worse in our apathy toward each other and the planet that supports us. In this, we are failures and so is the communication we have
The quality of communication is the response you get. This is true for God more than it is true for us. His obligation is to succeed 100%. As his
fallen creation, we must be held harmless. Who's choice was it to Babel our only lifeline to the actual truth? Who created the snake?
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat
from any tree in the garden’?”
In my own mind, I must flip this back to the source. He spent the entire first 4000 years blaming mankind. In reality, it was his error to begin
with. Aside from this being defined to us, we can only know what we are told in allegory. Ignorance holds us harmless by law. It all depends on who
we are in relation to the Son of God. The NT seems to say we are his body. The head rules the body as far as the rest of the NT is concerned. The
last 2000 years has shown that we have not reflected the truth spoken by the head. If we had, this would be a different world. God writes destiny,
so I must simply trust that the Father will not fail in raising his Son. If he does, then I cannot be blamed.
Can God blame us for being HIS image? We can only reflect the original in the end. For good or bad, we are the image of the one that created us.
The Son is the image of his Father. It can be no other way. God sees Himself in us.
edit on 20-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)