ACBM: Spoiler

I’ve decided to follow right behind the introduction with a spoiler, a sort of summary of where the whole thing is going.

********
Spoiler

Maybe you don’t want to read all the stuff listed in this syllabus. Maybe you agree with what you have read so far and don’t need the supporting sources. Or perhaps you simply want a preparatory digest of where this whole thing is going. What follows is the spoiler, giving away the plot and ending of the story.

The Western view assumes, often without stating directly, that the entire universe is the full extent of all existence. With this is the assumption all reality is theoretically within reach of the human understanding. Not so much in the sense of knowing all things about it, but that humans can eventually know enough to make rational choices that are unlikely to fail the underlying intentions. Thus, humanity is fully capable of knowing, understanding, and rightly judging what is and what we can do with it. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, we humans can eventually fix everything if we simply try.

The Bible assumes Creation is far more extensive than this universe. This universe is but a temporary bubble, a small intrusion of sorts, into the greater ineffable reality. This universe as we know it is fundamentally false; it is under the Fall. It is inherently flawed and unworthy of preservation in that human sin pervades the whole thing. At some point ahead of us, this will all come to an end and in this way alone will human suffering end. Humanity itself is fatally flawed and incapable of understanding even the full extent of what is here, never mind what is beyond. However, mankind has the potential for connecting to what is beyond, a faculty which is far above the human intellect. The intellect does not easily surrender to the higher capacity, but actively fights it.

The difficulty is the Western view is deeply burned into human consciousness. Even when people understand intellectually the difference in cosmology and anthropology, the reflexive thoughts and expectations still operate on the assumption of the unitary universe. In terms of how this damns Christian religion, people keep expecting God to redeem human space, when He pointedly said this was not a priority. They keep trying to create an ideal “Kingdom of God” on this plain of existence, when it simply is not possible. Humans cannot possibly be perfected in any real sense, and our world cannot be fixed, and God promised He most certainly would not fix it. He intends to replace it, and that process is so utterly cataclysmic that we cannot possibly imagine it.

Scripture does offer an optimal existence. Something in how God made things still responds to His moral standards. Whatever “Truth” is possible for human understanding, it is defined as this moral fabric, which is a direct reflection God’s very personal character. It is utterly impossible to discern from mere human reason; it is only knowable by revelation. Further, the full implications of revelation cannot register in the mind, but in that higher faculty. In the human consciousness, revelation is but a shadowy indicator of ineffable truth. Human thought and communication can never be more than a shadowy reflection of some higher reality. Revelation took place historically within a series of covenants, contextual statements of how to live in pursuit of that optimal existence.

If there was a single fatal element in this false worldview of the West, we could probably point to the logical structure upon which the entire Western world is built. Even while Western wisdom cynically doubts humanity might ever actually rise to the standard, Westerners cling to some rational pursuit of objective truth that serves as a god in effect. Whatever good there is that we could have is contained entirely within this universe. Thus, most Christians imagine God as somehow constrained by reason, when He has bluntly stated in His revelation that reason is a poor substitute for moral truth. The Western mind imagines something impersonal and objective as the ideal. The biblical mind asserts there can be no objective truth, that all truth is merely a reflection of God’s Person.

He can remake the universe on the fly to suit His whims, and has been known to do so just to prove the point. Whatever it is we imagine we might someday know about the rules and laws of our physical existence, they will never fathom the full truth, because God seems to suspend those rules and laws of nature. If you imagine His activity as a suspension of the rules, an intrusion into a stable and active system, you would miss the point entirely. It is more the case He is forcing a broken system to conform to His higher rules and laws. So called “miracles” are simply a restoration of justice.

To summarize the differences in academic terms: Western logic is first analytical and the language is descriptive. Biblical logic is symbolic, with the meaning of the symbols rooted outside this universe. Biblical language is parabolic and indicative.

This entry was posted in meta and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to ACBM: Spoiler

  1. Michael says:

    Says Ed, “This universe is fundamentally false. It is inherently flawed, and unworthy of preservation.”

    Nuts, I say.

    The Creator, according to Ed, effed up his creation. Either deliberately, or from sheer incompetence–don’t know which–Ed doesn’t explain. And why not? Why not, as a prophet of God, clearly explain whether the Creator is incompetent or mendacious?

    Because He’s neither.. Ed is just wrong, that’s all. Creation is not flawed at all. It’s performing exactly as its Creator intended.

    But he continues: “At some point ahead of us, this will all come to an end and in this way alone will human suffering end.”

    Creation will come to an end? Need I point out the many scriptures which contradict this? Anyway, how can the second part of that statement possibly be true, Ed, since you teach an ‘ETERNAL punishment of HELL’ for MOST of humanity? How will their suffering ever end? Or are they no longer human in your view? Sorry to put you in check, but it really must be one or the other.

    I do read your responses, Ed. Some explanation would be appreciated, because this logic is really hard to follow.

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Separate between Creation and universe, as the first sentence in the 3rd para. of the Spoiler indicates. However, you are correct in that my choice of words leaves the wrong impression. I added some verbiage to to clarify: “This universe as we know it is fundamentally false; it is under the Fall. It is inherently flawed and unworthy of preservation in that human sin pervades the whole thing.” The New Testament describes the destruction of the universe (2 Peter 3:10).

  2. Ed Hurst says:

    Forgot to mention Romans 8:20 specifically refers to the universe (the Greek word can mean creation or universe) as subjected to the effects of the Fall.

  3. Michael says:

    I’ve heard about this “Fall” taught in the hallowed halls of churchianity since I was a child. But I’ve never read about it in scripture. Where is the “Fall of Man” taught in the Bible? I mean specifically. Really, Ed, you and I both know this is merely a label put on a concept which is proffered in the western church of Babylon. Backed by nothing but a philosophical tradition (of men). And nothing else.

    There was no Fall. You make this very point in citing Roman’s 8:20: “for to vanity was the creation made subject — not of its will, but because of Him who did subject [it] — in hope..” (YLT)… Was MADE subject. NOT of it’s OWN WILL. But because of HIM who subjected it.

    This is plainly taught right here in this scripture and you don’t even see it! GOD subjected His creation to vanity! (G3152, ‘ what is devoid of truth and appropriateness;
    perverseness, depravity; frailty, want of vigour’). His Creation did not/DOES not want it, but it is God’s will and plan that it shall be (for now). We’re trapped in this Matrix of evil. Our Creator put us here, in this predicament, on purpose. And almost everyone is entirely unaware of this. Just like the movie.

    But to the greater point, you digress. Again. Seems you are avoiding this sticky wicket, Ed. I’ll repeat the question: “1) How will the suffering of humanity finally come to an end in this new creation, when 2) the vast majority of us will be in PERMANENT TORMENT of hellfire (‘and the smoke of their burning shall ascend forever and ever’–according to some of the more self-serving state sponsored translations, anyway!) ? How can both of those statements be true? This IS confusion. This IS Babylon. Study the meaning of the word. Do the scriptures contradict themselves, Ed? I hope you know they do not. But one of us is clearly confused.

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Where do I start? You’ve got a pretty twisted mess there, and I can’t easily pull it apart in a few words.

      The Fall is a modern term we use to describe what happened in Eden when Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit. Whether or not readers want to be pedantic about how literal the story is in Genesis 3, the point is rather obvious: Some time after Creation, humanity chose something contrary to God’s command. In a previous post, I explained the spiritual event in less parabolic terms. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 15 talk about what we call the Fall.

      You can be pedantic about the precise wording of Romans 8:20 as translated in English, but your analysis runs the risk of eisegesis (building too much from a single phrase or verse and ignoring the wider context). Right here in the middle of working on a project to explain the wider intellectual context of the Ancient Near East, and then something of the unique view of the Hebrew people within that context, I do my best never to forget the intellectual context in the first place. I would challenge you to spend some time looking into that, because I think it’s missing from your analysis. Be aware that I am not the originator of this idea; I got it from a significant amount of scholarship both Christian and secular. This was the tradition in which Abraham operated; with Moses we get a bigger dose of Egyptian mythology from his education. That forty days on Sinai was where God helped Moses winnow out the stuff that didn’t fit into His revelation, but the entire following Hebrew Scripture from his time still assumes a discernible intellectual bias that I am trying to reconstruct.

      Which leads to another cautionary note: Western Christianity is misguided, but not totally wrong on every point. Just because it shows up in creeds and theologies doesn’t mean it has to be wrong. For example, I give Calvin credit for getting the concept of predestination half-right. I don’t have too much trouble slicing out the Western rationalist fat, and the Westminster bunch with their TULIP is even easier to pick apart. But there is some truth in what they say about some things. Paul bluntly states in pretty plain Greek that mankind in his current default is not capable of desiring redemption; it requires God’s initiative before redemption takes place in each individual.

      I suppose it’s possible other readers conflate my choice of images and terminology the way you do, but there are a half-dozen folks who comment often enough for me to know they get it, but you don’t. Their comments indicate they don’t struggle with my notion of Two Realms, roughly analogous in some ways to Augustine’s Two Cities. He took it all in the wrong direction, but at least he had a solid grasp on the difference between this fallen realm and the Spirit Realm. All of Hebrew Scripture presumes it without discussing it, because it was the default understanding of everyone the Hebrews encountered until rather late in their history. You’ll find the concept reflected in the wider collection of literature in the Ancient Near East. Augustine simply adjusts the concept to fit his educational background and what he thought his audience might understand.

      Again, I distinguish between Creation and the universe to avoid confusion. The English translations of Paul do not so distinguish, but I believe I can make the case for keeping track of the implications of his choice of words. Paul is addressing a collection of Gentile congregations in Rome that would have featured a heavy Jewish Christian presence. They would have been familiar with heavy references to the Old Testament, both in direct quotations and in broader concepts. It’s hard to make sense of Romans itself, much less Chapter 8 unless you see his efforts to distinguish between the flesh and the spirit. They stand in two entirely separate realms of existence. The chapter is loaded with Hebrew parabolic use of language; despite being written in Greek, Paul clearly thinks like a Hebrew and uses Greek accordingly — you have to keep it all in context.

      People who know Greek better than I suggest verses 18-25 should be taken as a single paragraph. Paul uses words to draw an image of all Creation anticipating this temporary situation passing some day when God is through with whatever He’s doing. It’s all contrary to the nature of Creation, and by extension the character of God, for any part of the Creation (the universe) to be subjected to “futility” — a Hebrew concept most often used to describe pagan idolatry. In the broader view, it means a large number of Created beings perverting things contrary to what I call the moral fabric of Creation. The Law Covenants describe a life consistent with that moral fabric, and all that pagan crap was a perversion of the truth. God alone had the authority to keep some portion of His Creation under that lack of moral restraint, in the sense He allows humanity to choose to ignore His revelation. It creates a tension, but Paul likes to use the image of a woman in childbirth — it’s bad now, but it will pass.

      Adam and Even became aware of a sin nature they didn’t previously have. Their use of leaves to make aprons to cover their nakedness has vast symbolic implications, but that includes the first act of pagan religion. It was an attempt to protect themselves from that sense of impending doom and the misery of the human condition after choosing something God said would be a mistake — symbolized by eating from the tree of the primacy of human rational thought (no caps, but I consider it a valid translation of the concept). Choosing human reason over God’s revelation as the means to living in this world is the nature of the Fall. The image of kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden means, in more clinical terms, man and his ecosphere is now subject to time and space constraints which don’t exist anywhere else in Creation. The mere use of words translated “eternity” should indicate time is not a factor outside this little bubble of human existence.

      With a perverted orientation to mere human intellect comes a vast wealth of sorrows. God placed some portion of His Creation under the time-space limitations for reasons only He knows, but it has to do with letting mankind continue on in their fallen condition for a time. I believe that explains adequately what Romans 8:20 is saying.

      Jesus refers to Lazarus as “in torments” and talks about the Valley of Hinnom as an image of what it’s like to live without God’s favor. The various letters of the apostles use similar imagery. There is a sense in which that image applies to this life, as we are under the Fall, but it’s also true in the Spirit Realm where souls are in God’s divine Presence without the covering of His Son’s blood. It’s Hell, not literally so much as conceptually. John talks about the Lake of Fire as an amplification of the idea, simply because there is no way to describe something outside our realm of existence. (I see no need to pursue here what it means for death and hell to be thrown into that lake of fire.) Why it is you conflate my discussion of human suffering on this plane with eternal torment, I don’t know. You’re the only person who has done that. I don’t believe I’ve ever used the term “human suffering” as anything but our fallen condition inside this temporary bubble of sorrow that is our universe. Folks talk on and on about ending human suffering here in this realm, but the suffering is built into the context. So I suggest in my project summary that human suffering won’t end until this universe ends.

      When your body dies, some portion of your being continues to exist. The Hebrew people and all their intellectual and linguist neighbors believed in another realm beyond this universe. It’s a uniquely Western problem to struggle with that, as only in Western mythology do you find a unitary concept of all Creation. They actually believed the River Styx was a literal place in this universe, as was whatever stood on the other side. The biblical concept is that you cross the boundary out of this universe into eternity. Apparently there is more to it than that, but there is no human language for what is beyond the boundaries of human existence. Whatever “hell” is supposed to imply is there in that other realm. The same can be said of whatever “paradise” was supposed to mean.

  4. Michael says:

    It is indeed a twisted mess, but not of my own doing. What the ‘church’ (Babylon) has done is merely continued in the path of the scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, whom he decried with great vigor: “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

    You went long,so I’ll go long..

    I think one must be highly guarded as a self professed “teacher” that one is not “hindering those who would enter in”. That is why I think I continue to bother with these types of discussions, Ed…more for your sake (and for the sakes of your readers) than for mine. At least I want to believe that. But to the point, it seems you are sincere in your beliefs, which is somewhat rare these days,and much of what you say attracts readers like me because we DO see some (very anti-establishment) truth in your words. My problem is with the very serious error you also teach (or suffer from) for which you admittedly appeal to scholarship and tradition. Interesting to me especially, you say, “Western Christianity is misguided, but not totally wrong on every point.” Because, I believe they ARE wrong on every point. At least every major doctrine of Christ–every thing that is actually Truth–they get wrong. Every time. That is my experience , Ed. Probably, in your eyes, that disqualifies me for further discussion, but let’s just get these examples cleared up once and for all and you can prove your point to me. Or, conversely, you can concede the church is wrong about this, as are you for repeating such nonsense. Remember, you will be held accountable for what you taught others, especially babes in Christ.

    First, you speak of the Fall as it was some event outside of God’s control, some loss of perfection He either didn’t foresee or was powerless to prevent. You repeat the nonsense that Adam and Eve were some perfect beings that made a mistake and thus subjected themselves (and all of Creation) to the consequences–which you call “the Fall”. But if they were created perfect, then how could they have sinned? After all, where does scripture declare sin proceeds from? (See Mark 7:21). Scripture plainly teaches that man was created weak, having weak hearts (Jer 17:9), and forever (while in the human carnal condition) susceptible to sin. Indeed God made us that way. He made Adam and Eve that way (whether they were actual individuals or symbolic for a created humanity–‘Adam’ means “mankind”) from the beginning. He KNEW they would ‘fall’; It was not within their power to avoid it. It was indeed part of His plan, and He takes full responsibility for it and it’s consequences (that’s what redemption is all about).

    Incidentally, the Tempter there in the Garden, the Serpent, the church also loves to teach was a “fallen being” originally created perfect, but, alas, God just couldn’t keep it all together and “Lucifer” willed himself to become “Satan” and dragged off a third of God’s ministers with him, thereby leading to the corruption of all of His “very good” Creation. (Satan’s first order of business, of course, was in corrupting the Woman, who then corrupted the Man). More nonsense.. They deny the Scriptures with this lie; for “His hand hath formed the crooked serpent..” (Job 26:13, also John 8:44, 1John 3:8, etc.). God by his OWN HAND hath created the Adversary. Satan was ALWAYS the father of lies. Don’t bother spewing the same vomit about Ezek 28 and Isa 14 being proof of the ‘fall of Lucifer’; it’s neither.. As usual,just deliberate poor translation following the traditions of men…and also as usual, contradicting the rest of scripture. It’s a false doctrine–a doctrine of devils, in fact.

    So to wrap up this first question, “How could the first family in the Garden have sinned if they were created perfect?” Is it possible for God to sin? Were they then made like God, or not? And if they were not made ‘perfect’, but in fact had weak hearts–as the Bible plainly declares, and God then allowed the devil to tempt them, knowing He’d made them susceptible, then the church’s Fall falls apart. In light of this, Romans 8:20 makes perfect sense just as it is translated in many English Bibles, without the need for any mystical, parabolic, or Augustinian interpretations.

    As to the second question, you waffled and avoided, but I think I can help clarify your position: Q: “how will human suffering end when the new creation is finally formed,while the vast majority will be in eternal “Torments”. A: “they won’t be in the new creation” Problem solved!

    Did I get that right? Because you don’t reject the “eternal” part, or the “Torment” part… that our Father of Love will take pleasure in forever torturing his children that either never knew him or loved him in this short vapor of a life, you do not deny (nor discuss, but I don’t blame you for that–what a monstrous teaching!) H.L. Menken once said, “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under”. I would add, “and his church doctrine” . Such hideous teachings have caused me to be ashamed to be called a “christian”, in fact. So much so that I now shy away from that label entirely.

    But you have brought up the parable of Lazarus before, and I’ve addressed it before, and once again, it is a parable. One deep with meaning that Jesus’ audience, the Jews no doubt got! Hint: re-read the parable, but this time PAY ATTENTION to the symbolism…note first the parable preceding it: who was the rich man? Who was the unjust steward? …”And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him (!)” Hint no. 2, All the parables are the same! Who was the “certain rich man” of the Lazarus parable? What was he arrayed in? What does its color allude to? Who are the “dogs”? Why did this certain man have “five brethren”, and who might they be? (‘They’ had “Moses and the prophets”!) It’s a parable, Ed. The rich man REPRESENTS some (group). Lazarus REPRESENTS some group (the name literally means “the poor man”…who are the “poor in spirit” according to Jesus?) Finally, Jesus says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Who was not persuaded after Christ had risen? Who is STILL not persuaded?

    You said, “When your body dies, some portion of your being continues to exist.” The scriptures say, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” The “some portion,” Ed, is the “spirit” which is God’s. Not yours. Think of ‘spirit’ as the animating force. Because that’s literally what it is. And God IS Spirit. Indoctrinated christians can’t ever wrap their minds around the thought that the body, without the spirit is dead–it ceases to be. Because they have the long held bias that they must “go somewhere” once their body is no longer. I’ve often asked them where they think the “were” before they were born? (Crickets). But some say, “nowhere..I didn’t exist”. Now take the leap to imagine this is EXACTLY the state to which you return.. just as the Bible declares: “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.” (ecc 9:5,6) That your disembodied “soul” “goes somewhere” after death is as pagan a notion as any. Totally Un-scriptural nonsense. UNTIL there is a resurrection, and your body is re-united with the spirit God gave you, you are, plainly, dead. Christ likened death to “sleep”. See above scripture to understand what he meant by “sleep”.

    So, for question 2, you answered with ,”So I suggest in my project summary that human suffering won’t end until this universe ends.” By that you mean, “a Christian’s suffering won’t end until then” (because they’ll move on to the New heavens and earth.) Those suffering in THIS “bubble of sorrow” will, unfortunately, have to remain in torments “forever”. Or do you subscribe to the ultimate annihilation theory of most of mankind?

    I should add, the original scriptural words translated as “eternity” in English are another great Babylonian error, Ed. You should be aware of that. There is no Greek or Hebrew word or phrase which means ‘Time never ending’. Study the word “forever”. I’ll help:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=forever&x=7&y=7&st=any

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I’ve come to the conclusion you are either intentionally misreading what I write or incapable of following it. I lean to the latter and give up trying to answer your questions. This doesn’t mean I refuse to post any more of your comments and use it to teach, but I can’t pretend I’m actually talking to you.

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    For my regular readers: I never said God was caught off guard nor unable to prevent anything that happened with Adam and Satan. He remains inscrutable in His motives even as He asserts unequivocally that He is sovereign. It doesn’t have to make sense logically. I’ve also said Satan is God’s servant, an angel whose mission remains largely incomprehensible to us, but it includes serving as God’s lictor. It’s his job to be our enemy so long as we remain in his power, but that clinging to the moral imperatives of God takes us out of his power. For my regular readers, if you wonder about anything, please ask. I tend to believe most of you already know what’s wrong with Michael’s comment.

    Edit: No church is my enemy, nor is any man — “we wrestle not with flesh and blood.” Churches and their leaders have made it clear they don’t want me around, but they are generally not my concern. Your comment about the words “eternity” and “forever” is what makes me think you are being dishonest, but I had to double check. I’ve always said “eternity” typically means “outside of the time and space continuum”. I’ve even bluntly said it does not mean “time without end.” While “forever” is not used in very many translations, “eternal” and “eternity” are easily found. The Hebrew words so translated typically mean “always been there.” The Greek word typically translated “eternal/eternity” in English Bibles (aionios) is pretty much the same as “forever” but is about the only choice in Greek words that approximates the Hebrew meaning.

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I am accountable to God alone, not to any man or even the whole world of humanity. This blog is my virtual place of ministry and it is my duty to have the last word.

      Michael, during the past few weeks you have come here with a nasty attitude. According to my stated policy for approving comments, I try to overlook rudeness if there is some chance of substantive exchange on the topic at hand. I even tolerated you consistently ignoring my philosophical boundaries on things I choose not answer since they are amply explained. Direct attacks on my epistemology are, by definition, off-topic. I reserve the choice to answer, but have stated a general refusal to debate.

      Who made you the truth police? What is that necessitates you waste time attacking my posts? I can understand a prophetic urge to address something that seems amiss, but there comes a point when you’ve had your say and God says I don’t have to put up with any more. You rejected my olive branch more than once, when I respectfully declined to dispute with you things where it seemed we were at an impasse. You were welcome to come here and comment until you burned through all the available good will I could muster.

      I’ll elaborate on the charge of intellectual dishonesty so that there is no question in any reader’s mind. You assert conflicts when our positions are quite similar, and you assert I said or implied things no other reader can find in my words. This makes it seem you are a troll, enjoying the dispute rather than seeking the truth. This constant picking and bickering over precise wording is the practice of Pharisees, not of Christ nor any of the Apostles. It’s what Paul called senseless wrangling over minutiae. Yeah, I reworded that because the Hebrew Scripture is loaded with such restatement.

      Appeal to human authority? You cannot read any English translation of Scripture with letting some human authority make choices for you. Just because I find a different answer for the meaning of the words in the text of Scripture does not mean I don’t know anything at all. I can translate Greek and some Hebrew myself. I don’t wave my scholarship like some battle ensign, but with nearly forty years of steadily researching these things from a wide array of scholarly sources, you’d be a fool to imagine I get all my answers from a narrow shelf of books. You can’t imagine how many scholars have already picked over the question of what we might say about words variously translated as “eternal” and “forever” — of is “for ever”? What difference does it make when our English language is so rich and lyrical? I am unmoved by what you find on this topic.

      My readers deserve better.

Comments are closed.