Hebraic Perspectives and the Gospel, part 75. Michael Heiser in his Unseen Realm starts chapter 31 off as this: THE ARRIVAL OF JESUS, THE MESSIAH OF ISRAEL, IS THE FULCRUM UPON which God’s plan for the restoration of Eden tilts toward realization. He is the center of the biblical epic. Even though someone reading the Bible straight through has to wade three-quarters into it before encountering him, he’s been in the shadows the whole time. No, Jesus wasn’t an earthly man before he was born. Rather, Yahweh—the visible, second Yahweh—has been part of the biblical story in the form of a man since Eden. It is this second personage who would, four hundred years after the close of the Old Testament period, be born of the Virgin Mary as the human man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. He had to become a man to ensure that humanity, God’s imager, is not erased from the Edenic vision due to his mortal weakness and invariable propensity to use his free will to attempt to gain autonomy from God.
*********************************************************************** Ever the faithful NICENE ADVOCATE, Heiser then contradicts his own heiny by stating “the second YHWH.” This terminology by itself states, a second G(g)od in the absolute sense. It does not matter if this one is “visible.” Stating a SECOND YHWH is…anathema even to the Athanasian Creed which to me is a good culmination of Nicene…faith. A “landing” of stair-climbing. A major resting point in Christian evolution. The Athanasian Creed states clearly that a Nicene devotee cannot say, “Three Gods.” By direct logic, TWO is also anathema. But…how is stating TWO YHWHs not stating…two Gods? One is a NAME and the other term is…a TITLE? Wow, names ARE also titles and titles ARE in many senses, names. By all JEWISH reckoning, the name of YHWH is for One entity only. God, absolute. Stating “two YHWHs” is then, stating two Gods. What else can we glean from the above excerpt? There is that hated term and concept, Incarnation, again. INTEGRAL for Heiser as to FUNDAMENTAL Christianity. But not only the term, the REASON BEHIND the term. What was Heiser’s reason? ACH. There’s that dreaded FREE WILL dogma, as if it made any sense. By giving man FREE WILL, God also RISKED the condition of the condition humanity is in, that we will STEP in our OWN DUNG, so to speak. Ugh. Have I stated that the Jewish View is not…this? God WINS eventually. Over ALL evil including our own. He becomes “all-in-all.” 1 Cor 15. He judges those asleep. He takes back what he gave…that authority and dominion He gave…to Jesus. (Again, 1 Cor 15). The question then is HOW God is going to do this. If FREE WILL can REIGN, it is only for a time, or a time plus a time. But…if FREE WILL cannot reign IN THE END, then, it is not truly autonomous and…”free” as man defines “free.” But…say that we came to terms here and ignore this side of the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Does…Incarnation SOLVE the problem God perceives on earth, that man has AGAIN screwed his own booty and those booties of his progeny? God needs ANOTHER ONE GOD manifest AS CREATION is, in…humans…making HIMself, a Creator/Creation HYBRID? GOD took on flesh? Becoming…another consciousness and another one with a separate WILL and PERSPECTIVE and ROLE in the world? I am fascinated by the evolution of Incarnation in Christian thought. The leaders on unitarian have done extensive work with Justin Martyr for instance, a forerunner of Incarnation. His BRAND of Incarnation was that the Word was Jesus, but that this Logos was SECOND PLACE as a G(g)od? (Dale Tuggy, part three of his podcasts on Justin Martyr). ANOTHER one G(g)od, but LOWER and NOT EQUAL in authority and ontology? Wow this is heady stuff. Because when MODERN MEN say “incarnation” this is a direct substantial or essential extension of the GodHEAD. GodHEAD manifests in a flesh Creator/Creature hybrid after first manifesting as a subset of essential “stuff” called “word.” THEN the terminology such as “begotten” (by his God) and “beloved” (again by his own God) have to be…modified and seen in light of…EQUAL PARTNERS within…GODHEAD. Wrapping my own consciousness around THESE views is a tangle of synapses by itself. All I know again is the fact that the Creeds did not mention INCARNATION until the Nicene Creed was convened and written about. What is evident was that there was a HUGH DIFFERENCE between “incarnation” pre-Nicene, and POST-Nicene. And that the originator or one of the first originators, namely Justin Martyr had a different view from…modern view. What else did Heiser say here? Oh…that Jesus as the “second YHWH” (HUMINAH) has ALWAYS BEEN AROUND, for the Jews as a Mediator, and Facilitator. Erk. Never NAMED as such, or MENTIONED in any event in OT, or at any STRUGGLE or BATTLE or cataclysmic CIRCUMSTANCE in Bible…except as…oof, the Angel of the Lord? Heiser does in fact mention here, “born of the Virgin Mary, as a human man.” Oddly enough, the Angel of the Lord is in the Luk 2 narrative, prophesying of…himself? Does the text say this? 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Wow, Jesus was OMNIPRESENT as both the Angel of the Lord, and…HIMSELF as a baby at the same time. Woo HOO then. Oh…Heiser would say this is an EXCEPTION to the general rule he made about Jesus BEING the Angel of the Lord? Do we need to go over the TIMES he said this? All MAJOR DODGER times the Angel appeared in the OT! Let’s return to the free will “imager” idea Heiser portrays. Since man was IMAGING wrongly, the TRUE IMAGE of God had to come and imagine us…rightly? Is this FREE will after all? No…FREE will means will that can OPT not to be subject…to…God. What, was Jesus an INFLUENCER like in online media? Yeah that would make a MODICUM of sense. God came to correct man’s incorrect ways, but not in the absolute sense. INFLUENCING us, and drawing us…to himself. So what then is wrong with the scenario Peter gave after the Upper Room Outpouring? Acts 2: 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Who is “God” here in this narrative? God approved Jesus, then did signs and miracles by the authority of this same God, and then raised him up from death, because for Peter, Jesus could not POSSESS death by the sovereign WILL of this same God. These for Peter are two separate BEINGS, only one BEING GOD. Wow, how to read this any differently? How does TWO YHWHs fit in here? Is Peter even coming CLOSE to this concept at all? Sure, Jesus was an INFLUENCER. But not as…an incarnation of God or GodHEAD.
Is it then possible that PETER left out a bunch of GOSPEL fundamental…stuff? After the Upper Room OUTPOURING he did? He LEFT OUT Incarnation Doctrine?
Heiser calls the Incarnation the FULCRUM of Gospel. But this concept and term is not formally INCLUSIVE of the universal faith UNTIL Nicene Doctrine evolves? Did Peter or Paul or James or John even KNOW of this FUNDAMENTAL FULCRUM? Hellbound eh?
Like the Hounds of Baskerville or what?