Christian and Rabbinical complaints about Pseudo Pictographic Paleo Hebrew being Baseless Mystical Gobbledygook not derived from the True Linguistic Context are a Double StandardPaleo Hebrew QUESTIONED!! Jesus in Genesis? with Rabbi Stuart Federow 637e100 - Tenak Talk This is a comment I made on Michael Brown’s video:
0 Comments
1Corinthians refutes the Idea that Paul’s Use of the Phrase “Under the Law” refers merely to the Curse of the Law |
|
This text shows that Paul’s phrase “under the Law” in his notoriously controversial anti-Torah statements (Romans 3:19; 6:14, 15; Galatians 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18) cannot refer to merely being under the curse/penalty of the Law. Would Paul become as if he was under the curse/penalty of the Law to win unbelieving Jews? It makes no sense. That would defeat the purpose of the Gospel. It would take away the whole point of and benefit of it in the eyes of the people he is preaching to. It would also go against his own words in Galatians that he would be causing the stumbling block/effectiveness of the cross to cease by even giving the impression that a believer could ever be “under the Law,” under the Old Covenant with its curses for imperfect obedience according to Paul's platonic absolute sinless perfectionism theology (Galatians 2:16; 3:10-14, 21; 5:11). Another indication of this fact is in the fact that “under the Law” is contrasted with “without/outside the Law” or “lawless.” You are either under the Law (like a Torah observant Jew) or you are without or outside of the Law, that is, lawless (like pagan Gentile). This makes sense because this is the way people have always understood such a term throughout history. When you are under a law, it means you are subject to that law, not merely subject to that law’s penalties, so that you can be subject to a law without being subject to its penalties. You cannot be subject to a Law without being subject to its penalties. People throughout history have generally always understood the terminology of to be under a law to mean being subject to having to obey that law as well as being subject to its penalties if one breaks that law. If a believer in God is not under the Law, what is he? Is he equal to or above in authority to the Law? Nonsense! This would make us equal to God in authority! Therefore this Judaizing Messianic Calvinist interpretation of not being under the Law only referring to justification unto everlasting life, everlasting forgiveness of sins from breaking the Law, and release from the curses/penalties of the Law but that believers are still subject to this same Law of Moses is nonsensical and false.
Are there no Righteous People which do not Sin? Do All Men Sin of Necessity?
Answering Inability Proponents’ misuse of Ecclesiastes 7:20, 1Kings 8:46 & 2Chronicles 6:36
© 2018 Inescapable Reality. All Rights Reserved
Quotations from Adam Clarke come from his Commentary on the Bible
Ecclesiastes 7:20
“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” – ESV
“There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not - לא יחטא lo yechta, that may not sin. There is not a man upon earth, however just he may be, and habituated to do good, but is peccable - liable to commit sin; and therefore should continually watch and pray, and depend upon the Lord. But the text does not say, the just man does commit sin, but simply that he may sin; and so our [KJV] translators have rendered it in 1Sa_2:25, twice in 1Ki_8:31, 1Ki_8:46, and 2Ch_6:36; and the reader is requested to consult the note on 1Ki_8:46, where the proper construction of this word may be found, and the doctrine in question is fully considered.” (Adam Clarke) |
1Kings 8:46
““If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near,” – ESV
2Chronicles 6:36
“If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to a land far or near,” – ESV
“If they sin against thee - This Seventh case must refer to some general defection from truth, to some species of false worship, idolatry, or corruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most High; as for it they are here stated to be delivered into the hands of their enemies and carried away captive, which was the general punishment for idolatry, and what is called, 1Ki_8:47, acting perversely and committing wickedness. |
The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge confirms:
“If they sin: The second clause of this verse, as it is here translated, renders this supposition entirely nugatory; for if there be no man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, if they sin, but this objection is removed by rendering the original, "If they shall sin against thee (for there is no man that, lo yechetai, may not sin") i.e., there is no man impeccable or infallible; none that is not liable to transgress.” |
Conclusion
So there’s nothing here in these texts which necessitates the Augustinian Inability proponents’ view. We have ample textual and contextual justification to view pretty much all translations of these passages as mistranslations and to change them to line up with the teaching of the whole sweep of Scripture. And so the passages should be translated as thus:
Ecclesiastes 7:20
“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and might not sin.”
1Kings 8:46
““If they sin against you—for there is no one who might not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near,”
2Chronicles 6:36
“If they sin against you—for there is no one who might not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to a land far or near,”
Answer to Argument #3 from Drake Shelton’s “The Virgin Birth Defended, Tovia Singer Refuted, 21 Arguments, Objections Answered”; Drake’s Claim that a Real Logos Person is in the Tanakh REFUTED
2nd Edition
© 2019 Inescapable Reality. All Rights Reserved
DS writes,
“The Pre-existence of the Logos or Christ is the same doctrine as the Virgin Birth and is clearly taught in the Tanach.” |
First we will deal with:
“… the Pre-existence of Christ is the same as the Virgin Birth: |
First, if someone didn’t already have Drake’s mindset where he has these Virgin Birth and Preexistent Son of God glasses on and reads everything in the Bible through, or they weren’t that educated in traditional Christian theology to have such a mindset, no one just reading this would see what he sees. He really should have given an exegesis of his proof-text here. He didn’t do so because he’s a Calvinist who just expects everyone to read his mind or else he assumes they are an evil liar from Satan.
What Jesus is saying with this text is that because the Jews are rhetorically asking, “Isn’t Jesus the son of Joseph whose parents they know,” how then Jesus can have come from heaven? Drake’s twisted mind thinks that this must mean that the Preexistent Logos and the Virgin Birth are two necessary doctrines that logically must go hand-in-hand. They are two related doctrines according to his theology, but not necessarily so logically from the text alone. If Jesus literally preexisted before his incarnation and yet was born of a woman, he could still have had a human father too. If God can turn a spirit being into a human baby by transmuting it using female human produced parts, he also can do so using human male produced parts in conjunction with the female human produced parts. What the Jews obviously have in mind is that Jesus as he is in front of them at that very moment saying what he’s saying to them, they understand what he’s saying as him having a literally divinely created origin in heaven and literally having travelled as that kind of being to earth to the Jews from heaven. They are thus asking how this could be since they know he has a human father who they know about through their relationship with his parents. That’s all that’s being said here. Drake’s making way too much of this and reading things into the text which aren’t necessarily implied, that these Jews are speaking of Jesus’ Virgin Birth, even though they had no revelation of such. These Jews are mistakenly taking Jesus’ statements about coming down from heaven literally, kind of like how those who have Drake’s mindset think that such statements necessarily must teach that Jesus pre-existed his human birth. They don’t realize he’s using symbolic illustrations to poetically illustrate the idea that he’s an agent of God sent from heaven (where God’s abode and government headquarters are—Psalm 11:4; 103:19; 115:16—from where he’s sitting supposedly authorizing and causing Yeshua’s ministry from) to intellectually, morally, and in a salvific everlasting life way nourish the people of Israel. That’s all that’s being said here. His statements about him coming down from heaven are not to be isolated from the same ones in the context of his teaching here that he is metaphorically bread. He is using the literal story of the manna sent down from heaven by God to nourish the people’s physical hunger as a metaphorical parallelism to him being sent by God to Israel to now spiritually nourish the people in a metaphorical sense. Just like his statement that he is bread is a metaphor, so is the other part of his statement that he came down from heaven. In John 16:25 Jesus states outright that he has made it a habit to speak to people, even his own disciples in figures of speech but that after his mission of redemption in his crucifixion is finished he no longer will teach that way but will teach plainly. This teaching about Jesus coming down from heaven as the bread of life is one of these instances of him teaching this way in figures of speech. There is no way one can justify him pre-existing his birth from such a text. Likewise, nothing about the Jews’ reactionary statements here necessitate a virginal birth of Jesus.
DS says, “the Tanach taught the pre-existence of the Logos,” and then proceeds to give us three lame ass proof-texts. Uh, sorry Mr. DS, Mr. Douchebag Shelton, but you are now retarded and everyone who reads and believes your words becomes retarded thereby. Let’s look at his lame and retarded view of Scripture. Let’s look at his supposedly awesome proof texts that show his Greek Platonist philosophy of the Logos in them. Now we get to peer into the mind of the dishonest and deranged mind of DS and see the desperation he’s willing to resort to without blushing:
“Psalm 33:6 By the word (logos-LXX) of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth.” |
O wow, there it is! He’s right there! The preexistent God-begotten being known as the Word of God, the Logos, who YHWH created everything through! It was right there under our noses! We just needed the gnostic mystical revelational nudge from a Calvinist spirit to see it! O thank goodness for Drake making this spiritual revelation aware to us! Nooot! Nope, that’s not what this is saying at all! All this text is talking about is God’s verbal creation decree. That’s it! WOW, it’s so amazing that everything just makes rational sense in the Bible when you stop imposing Greek philosophical assumptions upon the text and read it in its own linguistic and contextual framework! Just go back to Genesis 1 where God says, let there be something and then there is that something because he made it. Genesis 1:3, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (KJV) Look at how it mentions the heavens in his proof-text. How were they made by God’s word? By him speaking the decree and then by his power the action being done:
“And God said, Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be dividing between the waters and the waters. And God made the expanse, and He separated between the waters which were under the expanse and the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse, Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be collected to one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so.” – Genesis 1:6-9 LITV |
WOOOW, this is so fucking hard to grasp, eh?! And if you are going to be the complete piece of shit douchebag that you are, Mr. Douchebag Shelton, and so desperately and retardedly say that Genesis 1 has amar (אמר) instead of dabar (דבר), then go and have your fucked up in the head ass look at Exodus 20:1:
“And God spoke [dabar] all these words [dabarim], saying [amar]:” – JPS |
Dabar and amar are equated relationally. When you speak (amar) you are speaking words (dabarim). And if you are going to be an even bigger dumb fuck and say that God spoke plural words in Genesis 1 but it’s singular in your Psalm proof-text, then that is just the biggest desperate pile of shit I would expect from you, and so that’s why I am addressing this here too.
“Then the word [דבר] of the LORD came unto me, saying,” – Jeremiah 1:4 KJV |
The prophets often received a singular “word” from YHWH but then proceeded to speak multiple “words.” In fact, in this very text, the same singular “word” of YHWH is said to be the plural “words” of YHWH:
“Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words [דברי] in thy mouth.” – Jer. 1:9 KJV |
So we can give a statement (dabar) that contains multiple words or topics (dabarim) or something along those lines. Dabar has much broader scope of meaning than the way most people commonly in secular culture understand the word word. This goes for the Greek logos as well, actually.
And guys, this may seem like me unnecessarily going overboard in addressing this guy, but come on, look at the arguments he’s making here already and how he’s dealt with me in the past. He is really this big of a douchebag that he would resort to such desperation. He really is this big of a desperate face-saving liar to resort to such a tactic and there really are such retarded, idiotic, or lying people out there that will eat this up. He has followers that have read this stuff and still believe in his religion and feel like it establishes their faith, so I gotta basically go right down to the bottom and dumb shit down this much and be this meticulous and foresee all the douchebaggery before it happens and deal with it to not give pieces of shit like this a millimeter of room to move around and spread their lies.
And you know what’s really fucking cringe? Southern Asshole-ite thinks that the Tanakh was originally written in Greek. Like he’s quoting these texts from the LXX and then showing they use the word logos, like “Wooooo, there it is, it’s the pre-existing son of God, the demiurge!” He did the same thing with Genesis 3:15 where he tried to nitpick at some Greek grammar in the LXX to desperately try to say it has to be hinting at some miraculous virgin birth, as if the Hebrew Bible was originally written in Greek, it’s just pathetic douchebaggery at the highest level.
“Prov. 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, To discern the sayings(logos-LXX) of understanding,” |
I’ve been for a good while confused about what he was actually trying to say with this text since I read it. Until since the day I wrote this when I watched his new video E Michael Jones (Paid Anti-Semite) Logos Nonsense Exposed (listening to this video actually provoked me to finally address this because I’m so sick of him talking about this as if it is true when it is such a retarded belief yet he boldly talks about it as a positive rational truth without blushing). In this video he says in the Hebrew Bible the Logos and Wisdom are equated with each other. That has to be what he’s hinting at here in this work being now addressed because the words logos and wisdom are in the same verse here and are equated. It’s funny how he just quotes in this work without any exposition as if it just clearly says what he thinks it says and everyone is just supposed to obviously get it or else they are the blind reprobate non-Elect. This is very common for Calvinists when they give their proof-texts for Calvinism they just quote them without actually explaining them because they think what they are seeing in them is so obvious when it clearly isn’t. This is just such total desperate lying clowning around with the text of the words of God! This guy is such a piece of garbage for this! He deserves to be beaten the fuck out of the shit he’s doing right here.
So the reason there will be times that a certain word or words are equated with wisdom is because, wait for it … get this: they are wise words or words of wisdom! WOW! That’s so profound, huh?! Who could have guessed that?! All this time when I was reading the Bible I thought such things were about Jesus’ preexistence but it was about this all along! Wow, I’m so grateful I finally clued in! It’s nice to be back in the real world where we see that wisdom is equated with spoken words because that’s how wisdom is related like how this text says God gives his wisdom by speaking it to us:
“For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” – Proverbs 2:6 KJV |
Another thing that is really fucking funny is the fact that the logos in the text he’s quoting is plural, which obviously means it’s just speaking of normal words and not the one step lower than God, demiurge begotten of God concept. But no, let’s be even bigger retarded mystical metaphysicians and be fully consistent with this most retarded way of reasoning and say that there are actually multiple logoi! Yes, so the Eastern Orthodox were right all along about the energies of God! And not only that, these are all begotten sons of God and they’re all pieces of Jesus! Not only are there multiple persons in the Godhead, but the second person of the Trinity is also made up of multiple persons! Party time! Time for a logoi fest! Pass out the magic mushrooms and let’s read the Torah and see if we can find new mystical hidden meanings in the 70 layers of the Torah, woooooooooo! Nature boy Rick Flair, woooooooo! Let’s have some cocaine too! High profilin’ strofilin’!
Anyways, getting back to sanity land, this text is clearly just talking about the words of understanding that Solomon is writing so that people can know wisdom and instruction, just like it says. It’s just fucking ridiculous to read the Bible the way these Christians like DS here are doing. If this isn’t total fucking mysticism, then I don’t know what is and don’t think that such a phenomenon occurs in reality. But it does, and it’s right here in front of you being displayed by a self-proclaimed highly rationalistic person going full Dunning-Kruger. Even though he’s got high mental processing abilities, an education with a lot of valuable knowledge and some very valuable highly scholarly works that he’s authored, yet he’s not immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It’s right here, man.
Also, notice in this text how wisdom and instruction are here mentioned together. So I guess to be consistent, if he’s going to force wisdom here to be a real person, then I say instruction must be too. Yup, wisdom and instruction are both homies begotten by God. This is just so fucking dumb. O, here’s another one like it:
“To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;” – Proverbs 1:3 KJV |
O look, wisdom has more friends, justice, judgment, and equity are all persons too! Let’s throw a party and hang out, gang!
Another very retarded thing is that here in Proverbs 1:1-2 where it uses the word logos the underlying Hebrew word isn’t even dabar like in the previous proof-text. So which is it in Hebrew? Is Jesus the Dabar or the Emer or both, or was Proverbs originally written in LXX Greek again, you sad desperate dumb fuck?
“Prov. 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions...22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” |
So from this we are to have the clearest Tanakh proof-text of some being that was created before the rest of creation by God through begetting and that this is the Logos or preexistent Jesus the Son of God through whom God made everything else.
First off, when wisdom is personified in the wisdom literature, it’s as a she, a woman:
“Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:” – Proverbs 7:8 KJV |
So I guess I’m supposed literally go find Jesus and talk to him and call him my sister. And to be consistent with this hermeneutic, “understanding” being used in a parallel way, I have to do the same to understanding and call her my kinswoman. So not only is wisdom a literal begotten person of God but understanding is also a created person of God too. Wow, just fucking wow. This is the fruit of the desperation of trying to twistingly forcefully find Jesus mystically hidden everywhere in the Hebrew Bible. These people are so desperate to see him in the Scriptures that they can’t or refuse to actually be consistent and see the nonsensical consequences it leads to. But wait, there’s more!:
“8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 8:3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 8:4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.” – Proverbs KJV |
So, it is unfortunate and regretful that I have to speak this hypothetical conclusion we have to come to if we assume Drake’s position. This is essentially DS’s view taken consistently: So in ancient times, before Jesus’s incarnation, when he was still a feminine spirit being second to God, she used to stand on the tops of the high places, on the roads, at the entry gates of the city Jerusalem, as well as at people’s doorsteps and cry out to people to accept her. But, you know, this didn’t work out so well. I don’t know why. Maybe because people couldn’t see and hear her as a spirit being, so she decided to become flesh, but she also thought ahead that even then if she stayed a female and incarnated as a woman no one in a patriarchal male supremacist society would listen to her so she made herself to incarnate as a male, as a human man, the man Jesus, and thus as this new man, having had his divine transgender operation, was able to successfully preach his gospel of wisdom/logos to world. And now everyone is an effeminate Christian. But Drake thinks that’s all a failure and the Great Falling away. But what do you expect because deep down, in your view, the Messiah is still a female, the divine feminine. And just like how it doesn’t work out that transgender males enter into women’s sports, so a woman cannot give you your successful male patriarchy, bitch. Away with your transgender view of the Messiah, you cunt scab! It’s ludicrous! This is the false and blasphemous logical conclusion we arrive at when taking his view of Proverbs 8 consistently! This cunt scab would have us believe in a transgender messiah!
Now lo, there’s more in his quote! Look at Proverbs 8:12. Wisdom lives with another person called prudence. Wow, this shit is getting interesting! So all these things I thought were just concepts are actually real divine spiritual beings! AMAZING! I feel like I’m becoming a superior intellectual learning about this! I think I’m becoming an autist now who will end up working at a fast food counter or drive thru! Yaaaaaaay! “Hedo canst I dake yo oda?!’
Now let’s break down the real meaning of his quote:
“8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:” – Proverbs KJV |
All this is saying is that even before God’s ancient wise work of creation he already “possessed” wisdom, meaning he was already wise, that wisdom was already one of his established (“set up”) qualities eternally. As for the “brought forth” saying: This just metaphorically means that since God eternally was always wise, thus long before even his creation, he produced (“brought forth”) acts of wisdom from his inherently naturally wise character whether they were thoughts, words, or other activities.
Now I noticed something interesting here:
“8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;” – Proverbs KJV |
Notice how it says wisdom is there with God when he is creating everything but wisdom is not said to do any of the actually creating. God is said to give both the decree of creation and engage in the actual act of creation himself and wisdom is merely tagging along. Yet, DS and the rest of Christians say Jesus was God’s actually agent of creation. This text doesn’t agree with them. The reason wisdom is only said to tag along like this is because of the fact that wisdom is involved in all of God’s creative acts. He made everything through his wisely thought out plans, but an intellectual characteristic and its produced thoughts themselves do not make things happen. The actual wise being has to actually act on his wisdom. This is why wisdom isn’t mentioned as doing any creative work here. This proves that God through the Spirit of Prophecy in Solomon did not view wisdom as an actual person, as the person Jesus preexisting as the creating agent Son of God.
“8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” – Proverbs KJV |
And this is merely saying that wisdom by derivation from God also occurs among mankind. God has also put within us the capacity for wisdom. Wisdom is not just in heaven, something the heavenly beings attain. It is also available in the earth. In the habitable parts of the earth God’s living creatures have the capacity to execute acts of wisdom.
“But why, Inescapable, would wisdom be personified to such a high decree here?! This really sounds like Jesus to me!” It sounds like Jesus because you have the false Catholic Jesus glasses stuck on you and you can’t let them go. This whole hermeneutic of seeing a preexistent Logos being in the Tanakh is based on a fallacy called Reification. It’s trying to turn verbs into nouns, taking concepts and making them into objects in reality. All over the Hebrew Bible inanimate concepts and objects are personified poetically but the reader is expected to not take it literally:
- We just saw that in Proverbs 7:8 “understanding” is personified as a “kinswoman” alongside “wisdom” as a “sister.” |
Likewise it happens in the “NT” as well:
- Matthew 11:19 has wisdom as a woman who has children. |
So this is more than enough to show this as a common biblical phenomenon. Wisdom likewise is nothing but a concept being poetically personified. Here again we clearly see wisdom in Proverbs is contextually just that, the concept of wisdom not a person:
“3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew. 3:21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion:” – Proverbs KJV |
If wisdom here is a person by which God created the earth, then understanding is another such person he also used to create the heavens, and also God has another metaphysical dude called knowledge through which the operations of creation function. Of course all this is saying is that God's mental faculties produce acts of wisdom and understanding which includes the creation of the entire heavens and earth, and that God has the knowledge to make this creation function properly as intended. Or is Solomon’s son actually supposed to keep these three persons wisdom (Jesus), understand, and knowledge (who knows who they are?) with him and not let them escape his sight literally? O, but I’m just a hard-hearted reprobate unbeliever who has a natural mind that cannot know and understand the “spiritual” truths of God, right? I’m not “spiritual” enough to get and accept the literally preexistent Logos in Proverbs 8 and these other passages SI misquotes.
The reason Solomon uses such strongly colorful and artistic poetic personification language to describe wisdom is to show the importance of wisdom, to show how emphasized in God’s true doctrine wisdom is. It’s not a mere afterthought. Wisdom is central to our faith. Our faith is to be intellectually based. It’s not just to be a bunch of emotional touchy feely gobbledygook like with most Christians where they will make a brain and heart distinction and then emphasize good feelings and emotions of love and such over true knowledge and understanding. This is why Solomon gives this highly detailed poetic imagery of wisdom not because it’s an actual person.
So clearly it is not like DS says, that “This is exactly how John describes the Logos in John 1. This has nothing to do with Hellenistic Philosophy.” As usual, his work here is just another one of his limp attempts to prove Jesus is mystically hidden all over the Tanakh. It’s big fucking joke. And I plan on doing more works showing without a doubt that even the NT statements about the Logos do not mean what DS thinks they mean. DS’s desperate willingness to go into such a retarded defense of Platonic literal reification of the Tanakh is utterly nasty. What a lying scumbag he is. He ought to know better than this by now. But he doesn’t want to lose his justification for British Protestant supremacy otherwise his whole movement gets undermined. He’s doing the same thing he accuses the lying Christian pastors of. Look at fringe groups like the non-blood Israelite Karaites and Hard Unitarian Open Theist Messianics. Such groups are even more disenfranchised by society than him. At least he has this huge Protestant Christian movement to piggyback on which has lots of followers he can appeal to. No matter how much sense I make, most of these Christians and Orthodox Jews are not willing to hear me out. I’m a nobody to them. They don’t care. They love their comfortable la-la land of blissful ignorance. They can’t seem to accept and comprehend a reality of God without their emotional dildo version of Jesus. So imagine if DS now admitted a Tanakh only view or at least a NT theology based on trying to be fully consistent with the plain words of Tanakh, such as Open Theist attempts to harmonize the NT fulfillment quotes of the Tanakh with the Tanakh’s original context. Imagine what that would do to him. He just can’t do it because then it’s no more, “British Protestant supremacy, look at me, I’m just following in the steps of my forefathers and building on their work and correcting a few things they had wrong about my victorious false gospel but who had mostly everything right and were closest to the truth! We’re almost there in the Protestant Golden Age! Winning!” What a delusion and he’s selling such false hope to his followers.
Anyway, that concludes my complete annihilating refutation of his stupid Logos doctrine in the Tanakh defense. It’s total poop and I’ve shown it to be such. So are you going to keep believing this poop or are you going to get real and be totally consistent and fully follow the rationalistic Hebraic path no matter how hard it is? I mean, serious! How the fuck can someone be genuine and yet be able to boldly teach this kind of fallacious bullshit to masses as rational truth without blushing? This shit is so disgusting. The amount of mental games this guy had to play with himself in his head in order to officially affirm this position and then publish it must have been astronomical. DOUCHEBAG Shelton 100%! Nintendo DS, always playin' games! If you are a follower of his who has come out of Neoplatonism and has completely ditched metaphysics, how are you going to tell me I’m not being 100% consistent in the way I’m going with the foundational truths Drake and I both agree on and not admit DS isn’t but is stuck in inconsistency? How are you going to seriously ignore this if you care about what’s true? Are you doing it because you think there’s at least some hope due to the historical glorious Japhethite civilization that DS is offering you? Well, look at those who tried to conquer through lies they made up based off of hijacking and distorting the Hebrew Bible and see what happened to them. At first they really seemed like they were winning. They’d taken over so much. But the Catholic empires have fallen, the Muslim ones as well, and then Protestant ones eventually did too. These empires are not going to rise again. They’ve been judged for their fucking BS lies against God, his doctrine, as well as his people the Israelites. So just fuckin’ stop with your bullshit already.
Now I know that You fear God”; Are These The Mere Words of An Angel? Open Theism’s Use of Genesis 22:12 Defended
By Inescapable Reality
© 2019 Inescapable Reality. All Rights Reserved
[All Scripture quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise stated.]
Hebrew Roots Calvinist Drake Shelton objects claiming that God’s statement in Genesis 22:12 where he says, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” is not actually him speaking about himself newly, through confirmative testing, learning about Abraham’s fear of him being certain, because of the fact that it is an angel/messenger of YHWH speaking to Abraham, as we read:
“22:11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 22:12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”” |
What our zealously blind Calvinist is missing in the text:
“…you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” |
Who’s “me” here? Who does it say earlier in the chapter requested the burnt offering? Was the offering of Isaac to be offered to a mere angel/messenger? No, God requested it. Read:
“22:1 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 22:2 He [the same God] said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”” |
When it says it was a messenger of YHWH speaking to Abraham it’s because it was through that messenger that God was speaking. The speaking was coming from the mouth of the messenger, but the messenger’s speech was him relating the words of God that he was commanded to speak. The messenger wasn’t speaking for himself. He was speaking for God. The messenger’s words are God’s words here. This is clarified to be the case later on in the same chapter when the messenger calls to Abraham from the heavens again a second time and speaking to him in pretty much the same way, except this time adding clarification that it is actually YHWH speaking though him as a mediator:
“And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven 22:16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”” |
Once again the self-proclaimed “Top Educator in The World,” who is really The Top Douchebag in The World, displays his miscomprehension and illiteracy. Even Top Douche’s beloved Augustine and John Calvin know that it is God speaking through the angel in Genesis 22:12, even though they in dishonesty lamely explain away what YHWH is actually saying:
“Now I know that thou fearest God. The exposition of Augustine, ‘I have caused thee to know,’ is forced. But how can any thing become known to God, to whom all things have always been present? Truly, by condescending to the manner of men, God here says that what he has proved by experiment, is now made known to himself. And he speaks thus with us, not according to his own infinite wisdom, but according to our infirmity. Moses, however, simply means that Abraham, by this very act, testified how reverently he feared God. It is however asked, whether he had not already, on former occasions, given many proofs of his piety? I answer that when God had willed him to proceed thus far, he had, at length, completed his true trial; in other persons a much lighter trial might have been sufficient. (449) And as Abraham showed that he feared God, by not sparing his own, and only begotten son; so a common testimony of the same fear is required from all the pious, in acts of self-denial. Now since God enjoins upon us a continual warfare, we must take care that none desires his release before the time.” – Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible |
In case my Calvinist opponent or someone like him reads this and responds with this text: “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God,” saying that the angel that is speaking can’t actually be speaking accurately for God, speaking his words through his own mouth, because he is speaking about God in the third person here as if distinct from him, this is my response: There are many places in Scripture where YHWH speaks of himself in the third person (as if YHWH is distinct from himself who is speaking), or transitions between the first person and the third person or vice versa (often suddenly without warning). Here are some examples:
“8:13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.” – Genesis |
Do you get it? Is this clear enough for you? Sorry dear other readers, but DS (and possibly others like him) really does have a habit of resorting to tactics like this when he should know better, and so I have to basically try to predict every such move he will make as much as I can ahead of time or he’ll actually do it and then I end up having to respond to that in further works anyway. The norm is that when this happens I keep responding to him keeping on responding and eventually his tactics get so pathetic that there’s nothing left that even has a semblance of needing addressing and then I just have to ignore and avoid him in regards to the issue. It really is so bad. This is one of the major reasons I’ve come to hate him so much. He should know better than to make such an argument like this when he constantly makes the Unitarian argument of angelic representation in which a heavenly mediating agent bears God’s name, comes in YHWH’s name, to which the Genesis 22 text is related, where an angel is speaking but God is actually speaking through him, like in a similar passage, Exodus 3, in which Moses sees a burning bush, but that miraculously is not consumed, and it says that it’s an angel of YHWH appearing to Abraham in flaming fire from the midst of this bush, but then it says God speaks to Abraham out of the midst of this bush and the whole time the entity speaking is saying it is God and speaking of itself as God. I, as well as my Calvinist opponent DS know that this is an angel that God is speaking through. The angel itself isn’t God. He’s standing in the place of God as a mediating ambassador. Yet, when it comes to Genesis 22, suddenly this dishonest man changes tune and slides this truth under his bed and acts like it isn’t also here in Genesis 22. It’s utterly pathetic. How can one not want to vomit at this?
The Biggest Liar in History (an even bigger liar than the entire Papacy) says that I'm making a distinction without a difference by saying that I didn't change my position or open my mind up to the possibility to change my position based on his arguments, but, because, when considering these arguments it made me think about the issue more again and thus I started thinking about my own ways I would try to defend such if I believed it, and thus I came up with my own arguments to sway me or possibly sway me. This statement speaks for itself as did my statement earlier. I really don't know how to put it any clearer. It's very clear due to his bias of hatred for me he is intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I'm saying. If his arguments refuted me and I was believing what he believed now or at least considering their possibility, then I would follow his beliefs on those texts he supposedly refuted me on. I do not think his arguments from the serpent in the Garden in Genesis prove a rebellious Satan. I do not agree Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is talking about preexisting Jesus. And do not agree with his arguments from Job that it proves Satan is evil either. In fact, I'd have used that passage to support the opposite. Though I don't think it is 100% conclusive one way or the other, it makes more sense with the view that Satan is just an obedient agent of God that God uses as a prosecuting angel and tester of mankind in God's court in his heavenly council when you don't assume the rebellious fallen angel view. In fact, his cited source on that even felt the need to deny the clear literal historical narrative in which Satan comes back to heaven from earth among the other angelic Sons of God presenting themselves before God and debates with God and God gives Satan a chance to state his case against Job. It was totally disgusting. And this whole false accusation of making a distinction without a difference is also disgusting, along with his cheese burger belly.
So there were a few points, I think two, that Straight Outta Doucheville pointed out I was wrong about, or that I wasn't precisely correct on, that he thought I was wrong about, or all of or some of the above (I can't remember exactly and I'm not going through the entire video again to look for these precise minor points) where he called them "gobbledygook nonsense." I think there were two issues where he reacted in this way (again, I'm not going through entire long video just to find them). Anyway, the point is that he was saying I was wrong about something and then he used this terminology to say I was wrong. This terminology is not used to refer to error. It is to be used for statements and arguments which cannot be understood, which are incoherent, senseless. This terminology technically refers to that which makes no sense not to that which is false. I want to point this out to complete plebs who might grasp at this and claim I make incoherent arguments when that is not what the term technically refers to. Sometimes in colloquial speech people use the term 'nonsense' to refer to things that they perceive are wrong (I haven't really heard 'gobbledygook' used in this way though, which thus is going to be the term that is chiefly going to give the most occasion for misunderstanding and misrepresentation), but technically it refers to senseless statements or arguments.
The World's Greatest Misrepresentor says there's no way the NT authors could mystics because they do not follow monastic asceticism. However, it is my understanding such mystical ways of communication were not only used by hard ascetics. That said, before I even knew a drop about philosophy and had barely any education in theology except reading the KJV Bible, I took the NT in an incredibly stoic and ascetic way. Also, people do not always live consistently with their beliefs. I have always said, as a Tanakh only follower, that I thought the NT was inconsistently trying to sync a rational materialist Hebraic tradition with Gnosticism. Also, note, that not all Gnostics were ascetics. Some were actually hardcore hedonists. My view was that the NT was trying to take some inconsistent middle ground and following a more Stoic way of life and thus a milder progression of the Essene hardcore monasticism. Again, people do not always live consistently with their worldviews because they still have to pragmatically go along with their nature if they are going to have a functional life in this world. People often are quickly willing to compromise on their beliefs when they don't work in real life while being too prideful and pious to admit their ideologies are not correct. Examples of this are that Libertarians and Liberals should consistently go out into the wilderness and be like Buddhists but they don't. Ancient Barbarian pagans were much more patriarchal in their actual ways of life than we are today and much closer to the Bible, despite their beliefs being anti-patriarchy with their Divine Feminine and all, and despite certain of their anti-patriarchal practices. Because men by nature just dominate while females don't. It's why we believe the Brave New World will fail because human nature just won't be able to accommodate these incredibly unnatural out of this world ideological aspirations. The Dunning Krugerlite has himself in the past defended against Neo-Pagans and stated that the Ancient Imperial Roman Empire's societal practices did not stem whatsoever from its pagan cult theological beliefs but they pragmatically went with human nature and completely departed from consistency with them when developing practical governing solutions. So again, you guys think this guy's so great but he does this kind of shit all the time. He loves to look for anyway he can underhandedly misrepresent people. He's not consistently trying to get to the truth. He, like many before him, will go to a certain point, but when it gets to be too much for him, he's willing to resort to Will to Power and Noble Lie tactics to get the victory. You can rest assured and give up on the hope he will ever be willing to humiliate himself like me and admit his major errors and sins against people. His gargantuan ego could never take it.
Response to Sir Douchington's Criticism of My Statement suggesting that Plato borrowed from Moses
7/20/2019
When I say the Greek philosophers who related Logos concepts borrowed from Moses, I didn't say they all did. What I was thinking was that the Logos started as something completely separate and distinct from the Hebraic worldview, but then later guys like Plato might have seen synonymous terms in the Hebrew Bible or just hearing them spoken about by Hebrews or Hebrew proselytes around them and certain statements about them and then retrofitted their own ideas with this new info along with the idea of biblical mediatorship for Plato's mediating concepts.
Another thing that could have happened which maybe even sounds more plausible is that this could have come from way more ancient times since the Flood because the pagans always had some idea of some singular source principle that they got from melding the concept of God with Noah and then his sons are triplicated from him. Like in Hinduism they also recognized a source most "high" being but it relates to its creation or rather its emanating oscillation through a heirarchy of intermediary beings and ultimately we are all parts of this gobbledygook being but you have all these higher gods that you have to go through. So basically people have retained a single source being and mediatorship but have just really corrupted it a lot into this convoluted mishmash of nonsense and falsehood. So this idea could have just affected the minds of the Greek philosophers by inheritance.
Pope Douchebag's Guilt by Association from Genetic Fallacy regarding Gnostics rejecting Virgin Birth
7/18/2019
One other thing that Pope Douchebag, The Most High Father of Douchbaggery contradicted himself on was that he's muddying the waters in the Virgin Birth debate by pointing out that Gnostics rejected the Virgin Birth. Somehow he wants to try to cause some guilt by association based on at least trying to subtly imply a genetic fallacy where he makes it appear that because they rejected the Virgin Birth for gnostic reasons therefore our contentions lose validity and he somehow seems to hope that people will get this idea that we reject the Virgin Birth for the same reasons when really it's because there is no prophecy of it in the Tanakh and it doesn't agree with patrilineal descent for the promised Davidic line. See, the Gnostics couldn't care less about whether or not the Tanakh validated anything because to them YHWH is evil and the Tanakh is greatly corrupted with only some hidden bits and pieces of the true message among a bunch of falsehood from the Demiurge. They couldn't care less about validating their Christ with lawful restrictions based on physical human birth. While he complains about me seeing Platonism in the NT, and argues that just because it sounds like a Platonic Demiurge, doesn't mean it has any relation to one, he tries to underhandedly associate everyone who rejects or is suspect of the Virgin Birth with gnostics. Ever since people started preaching the Virgin Birth, the contention against it from Tanakh only believers, or Yeshua believers who are Torah-based, has been due to its absence as a Messianic prophecy as well as its contradicting patrilineal descent based promises. Now I'm not saying such promises are ONLY based on such as he often misrepresents me. I'm merely saying that that is one crucial criterion. Obviously the person also has to be legit in heart toward YHWH. Those conditions are all over the Hebrew Bible.
Welcome to Inescapable Reality
is a free alternative to Natural Reader that you may download and install so that you can listen to my written works if you do not have time or energy to read them.
Archives
November 2019
October 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
Categories
All
- Conspiracy Theories; NWO
- Cosmology; Beasts
- Debates With Orthodox Jews
- Miscellaneous Criticisms Of And From 'The World's Biggest Douchebag'
- Mysticism
- New Testament; Christianity; Antinomianism; Matthew 5:17-20
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Malachi 3-4
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Matthew 1 & Luke 1-3; Virgin Birth; Messianic Genealogy
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Micah 5
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Mysticism; Response To Southern Israelite's Defense Of NT Mysticism Series
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Proverbs 8; Logos
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Psalm 110
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Psalm 2
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Psalm 22
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Psalm 45
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Zechariah 11 & 13
- New Testament; Messianic Prophecies; Zechariah 12
- New Testament; Paul's Anti-Torah Doctrine; "Under The Law"
- Open Theism; Anthropology; Soteriology; Free Will; Augustinianism-Calvinism; Original Sin; Inherited Moral Inability
- Open Theism; Creation; Monotheism; Omnipotence
- Open Theism; Foreknowledge; Epistemology
- Open Theism; Foreknowledge; Predestination
- Open Theism; Foreknowledge; Prophecy
- Open Theism; Monotheism; Christianity; Eastern Orthodoxy; Jay Dyer
- Open Theism; Ontology; Monotheism; Negative Theology; Monad Huperousia
- Open Theism; Ontology; Monotheism; Omnipresence
- Open Theism; Soteriology; Foreknowledge; Augustinianism-Calvinism
- Rational Scientific Method (RSM)