I've talked about the Gap Theory before on this Blog. Starting with my Fall of Satan post. Where I discussed it's ancient's precedents. But the key difference between the Ancient and Medieval versions, and the more Pseudo-Scientific version that emerged in the late 18th Century. Is where the Gap is.
The idea of a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 you won't find in any pre-modern concepts. Instead the Gap was usually placed between Genesis 2:3 and 2:4. It's tied to the idea that the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 were not the same Adam.
Sometimes there is an attempt to gain New Testament support for such a doctrine by quoting when Paul called Jesus the Last Adam, saying the first Adam created was the last to enter our world. However Paul was just talking about typology here, Jesus is another Adam because as in Adam all die, so in Jesus all shall live again.
In Kaballah and Gnosticism and other mystical traditions. The Genesis 1 Adam is often called something like Adam Kadmon. He might be a sort of Cosmic Man, or an ancestor of the gods like Izanagi. Philo of Alexandria linked Adam Kadmon to the Logos. But there may also be versions where he's just the progenitor of what we would now call a Pre-Adamic race. Adam Kadmon is also sometimes defined as being the pre-incarnate Messiah.
There are two main philosophical ideas that are important to understanding the Creation of Adam, being made in God's Image, and being made from the Dust of the Earth. But when you make the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 separate, those two ideas no longer refer to the same creation. Genesis 1's Adam is the Image of God, and Genesis 2's is made from the dust of the earth, with the word for earth being Adamah. This is how the Genesis 1 Adam can become a Cosmic Man, or tie into a Platonic idea that our world is just in inferior replication of a Spiritual realm.
This two Adam theology can also be analogized to Egyptian mythology. Where the Genesis 1 Adam could be identified with Atum, who's name has a phonetic similarity to Adam, and who has some Cosmic Man traits with the Sun being one of his eyes. And every soul was believed to come from his Ka. While the Genesis 2 Adam could be identified with Geb/Keb/Seb, who's name has a similar meaning to Adam, Earth. And who had a son named Seth and another son who was murdered by his brother.
Today the standard Young Earth Creationist approach to explaining how the allegedly separate Creation accounts fit together is to call Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 a more detailed account of part of what happened on day 6. I kind of lean toward that still, but have considered that the day refereed to in Genesis 2:4 could be the Eight Day. But I will never consider any compromise that has death before Adam Sinned in Genesis 3.
This dual Adam theory can also play a role in false belief systems where Jesus does have a Pre-Existence but is a created being, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Origen. It may not always be brought up in such systems, but the door is there to say that the Genesis 1 Adam is Jesus. And that's the main reason I'm uncomfortable with making Genesis 2 the eight day, because it leaves that door open. But I would never use that Adam was created "male and female" in Genesis 1 as an argument against that, since I have argued Jesus has a Feminine aspect.
Yet on the other hand I tend to oppose the Pre-Exstence of Human Souls in general as much as I support the Pre-Existence of Jesus. So I also wouldn't like saying Genesis 1 was the creation of Adams' Soul and Genesis 2 of his body. That can also lead to Gnosticism. So that's a second reason to not go with the 8th Day theory.
The idea that Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 is the Eight Day of creation, is one I'd consider only in the context of how that might fit Traducianism. The view that Adam's was the only Soul/Spirit directly Created by God from scratch, just as obviously his Body was the only one directly created by God from scratch. And that other souls are formed from the Souls of their parents, just as their bodies are, basically that Souls reproduce like bodies do. And Eve was cloned from Adam. A view I'm kind of leaning towards at the moment.
When studying these issues you'll find the word "Creationism" used with a different meaning, referring not to belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. But to belief that each individual Soul/Spirit is directly created by God from scratch at the conception or birth (or somewhere in-between) of every individual person.
But either way, Jesus individual Pre-Existence is because He is God, it's part of how He's distinct from other humans. In John 1 The Word created everything, while in Genesis 1 Adam was the last thing created on Day Six.
I want now however to address those who think viewing most of Genesis 2 as more details on Day Six is somehow an absurd torturing of the text.
It makes sense when you understand that Genesis was mostly much earlier accounts edited together by Moses. Genesis 25 records the Death and Burial of Abraham before the births of Jacob and Esau, even though the timeline based on math from this same chapter tells use they were born before before Abraham died. Genesis isn't always strictly chronological.
Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth". Occurrences in Genesis of "These are the generation of..." are often taken to indicate a change in the Pre-Mosiac source text, though I think they may not quite account for all of them. There seems to be disagreement on if these verses should mark the end of the previous section or beginning of the next section. Either way, we have one right here where it should be.
If you want to consider how these doctrines might play a role in the End Times deception. The Two Beasts of Revelation may be an attempt to echo two Adams. The second Beast comes from the Earth, and then gives life to the Image of the first Beast. Either way, I have already considered how The Image of the Beast doctrine could tie into an attempt to make "The Antichrist" a counterfeit "Last Adam". In my Which Beast is actually in control post, and my Can Sunday Worship be the Mark of the Beast post, where I explain that if you want to tie the Mark to a day of the Week, it should be the Sixth Day not the first.
Update December 7th 2017: The Image of God
In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul calls Christ the "Image of God". That is an aspect of the Jesus as Genesis 1 Adam argument I wasn't aware of before. And now it's enough to totally recalibrate how open I am to it. And he says it again in Colossians 1:15.
However, Genesis 9:6 uses the phrase "Image of God" for the Adam who's blood is shed when you commit murder. So that ties that title to the same Adam we descend from. So what Paul is talking about is probably still just in the context of Jesus as the Son of Adam.
Update August 10th 2018: Genesis 5 also makes it difficult to separate the Genesis 1 Adam and Genesis 2 Adam.
And Psalm 8 clearly talks about the Dominion given to Adam in Genesis 1 and attributes it to Enosh Ben Adam from Genesis 4 and 5.
Showing posts with label Image of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Image of God. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Which Beast is actually in Control?
I'm still highly skeptical that the Islamic Anitchrist model will be how things play out. But I also remain firmly confident that the Mahdi prophecy was made for the purpose of being a potential seed for the Antichrist. The Abomination of Desolation itself shouldn't be expected in such false prophecies though, these are merely potential plans to set the stage for it, the Abomination is when the mislead ends and the real agenda is revealed.
Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi. And all that is very good.
Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?
For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice.
The First Beast is defined as the object of worship. But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power. In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead. He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.
The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual. So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all. The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.
The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important. But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.
At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast. But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast". It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice. He's the architect of the Mark system.
In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet. Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet. I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.
I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together. John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ. So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God. And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.
At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David. But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.
Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast. Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet. I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory. But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.
Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image. Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God. So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.
And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.
What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17? One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".
It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event. But what if those are not separate things at all?
In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection. Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).
What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)? A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.
Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi. And all that is very good.
Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?
For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice.
The First Beast is defined as the object of worship. But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power. In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead. He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.
The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual. So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all. The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.
The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important. But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.
At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast. But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast". It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice. He's the architect of the Mark system.
In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet. Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet. I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.
I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together. John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ. So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God. And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.
At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David. But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.
Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast. Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet. I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory. But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.
Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image. Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God. So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.
And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.
What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17? One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".
It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event. But what if those are not separate things at all?
In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection. Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).
What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)? A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Arguing for the Divinity of The Messiah
The thought has occasionally entered my mind, of a Jewish person
possibly hypothetically saying the following during a debate with a
Christian.
"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."
Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.
So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.
I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.
The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.
But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?
Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.
The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34
Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.
What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?
Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.
Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.
The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."
Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.
The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.
And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".
Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.
Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President. Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.
The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.
Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."
That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."
Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible. Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9. And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.
"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."
Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.
So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.
I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.
The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.
But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?
Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.
The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34
Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.
What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?
Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.
Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.
The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."
Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.
The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.
And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".
Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.
Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President. Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.
The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.
Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."
That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."
Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible. Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9. And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.
In Genesis 3:20 Adam names the Woman Eve because she is " the mother of all living". Deuteronomy 5:26 calls YHWH the "Living God". Mean Eve through one of her many daughter has to become the Mother of God.
Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.
The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.
Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.
I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.
Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.
The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.
Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.
I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)