Yuku free message boards

History is a trial over which God presides, and the trial requires many stages, to show to man all of man's guilt, from the first to the last. Contrary to what even many Christians have been brainwashed to believe, you cannot much understand what God is about in relation to fallen men without first knowing what God is up against. God knows the 'Murphy's law' of the human heart and mind. This bears on every controversy involving the question of God's modus operandi: what God would and wouldn't do, and why, in regard to a given controversial subject; what God has done and said, and why. The Bible is not a Complete Idiot's Guide To Truth And History. Atheist biblioskeptics demand that, if God exists, then God should have given us all the Foolproof Version. But, such a demand is essentially to demand that God be the programmer and oneself the computer, so that one is given every truth by way of absolute specificity. To assert that this is what God should have done is to implicitly argue as if one should not need to think for oneself. A wise father seeks to delegate his authority to his sons, but he will not give it to those sons who, in ignorant or proud argument with their brothers say, "Daddy said so, so I'm right and you're wrong!"

What is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it? Answer it, if you can. Is the creature greater than the creator?

In any contest between mutually opposing parties, both parties are on trial, and in three 'courts' at once: the 'court' of one party, the 'court' of the other party, and the Court of the true Jury-and-Judge. When the disciples asked Jesus about the time of his return, he gave an answer which almost any Jewish disciple of the time would have readily understood: "It is not for the intimate friends of the father of the groom to decide, nor even for the groom to decide, as to when the groom has made ready to steal away the bride, but only for the father of the groom to decide." It was an answer which gave more, and other, information than what the non-Jewish-cultured mind thinks was asked for. You cannot get to the truth of the answer with a bland Western philosophical mindset, as if Jesus' answer constitutes a theological problem. If Jesus is God, then did he know the time of his return or not? Or, perhaps, Jesus is not God if he did not know (but, what is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it, and, if Jesus is God, he was yet surely playing the role: that of a man, for an example to us). But, Jesus gave so many things for his disciples to look for as signs of his return, so what were these disciples asking for here? There is such a thing as giving away the store: God will not give answers that let slip any advantage from his hand.

History is about due process. That is, God is not like a man who vainly repeats himself. God doings are not like that of a small child who, after his stack of blocks gets kicked down, builds the stack again exactly as it was before, only to get it kicked down again and he build it again. God's doings are not vain like this. For example, in the world before the Flood, God left man to his liberty until none but eight people would be saved from their own corruption. God thus proved, to whom it may concern, that fallen man, left to himself without God's input, is incapable either of saving himself or of seeking God. After the flood, God proved, to whom it may concern, that the flood was no deterent warning to proud man: God let man go to the last inch at Babel and then he confounded their language. There were thus multiple competing nations on the earth instead of just one economic/technologic State, and this allowed human history to be extended. God would have destroyed in vain the pre-flood world had he not changed his tactic and instead simply destroyed the post-flood world of Babel with another Flood. With the world thus divided into nations, God could begin to make some even more important points, among them these: 1)God judges each nation individually by the same standard that he judged the pre-flood world. 2)Once the nations had sorted themselves out and made themselves wealthy and enviable, God made a nation *of his own*, and made the world know a true difference between His nation and all the others---a difference the cultural effects of which have continued to the present day. As a way to put a check on human pride, there were thus specific and wise reasons why God acted to confound the language, and not as if he picked this particular action at random.

There was a wise and powerful king who wished to prove, for his royal court, as to the loyalty of all his subjects to his laws for the poor. So, he disguised himself as a pauper and went through his kingdom living as a pauper. The pauper began his life by asking many questions to all the judges which the king long ago had appointed, and later began teaching and caring for the poor like himself. He quickly became very famous among the poor, and was to them as the king himself.

At some point the pauper charged some of the wicked judges with the intent to condemn him to the dungeon and throw away the key. They denied this, of course, because they had no reason, they thought, to condemn this good pauper to the dungeon---and now they wondered at his sanity for making such a charge.

The more the pauper taught and healed, the more the people of the kingdom asked, "Who is this pauper?" Some of the people realized that the pauper was the king, for no one but the king could say or do the things that the pauper said and did. As the fame of the pauper grew, the wicked judges felt threatened, because the people saw in the pauper something greater than what the people saw in these wicked judges. The pauper even seemed to claim to have perfect authority over the judges, and this made the judges mad. How dare the pauper presume to be equal to the king. Even the king himself had said, long ago, that "The king is not a pauper", and these wicked judges stuck to this truth---or, so they thought.

Many of the people who realized that the pauper is the king wondered when he would take his throne and punish these wicked judges. Others, who did not believe that the pauper is the king, yet expected the pauper soon to assume military power and free the kingdom from oppression, just like other men of old had done. Just like old times. But, the king is no simple man, and will not repeat himself in vain.

These wicked judges came so to hate the pauper's truth that they began conspiring to condemn him to the dungeon. Indeed, eventually they were able to trick up enough support to have the pauper condemned to the dungeon. So, to the dungeon he was condemned, and he stayed down there for a little while. He stayed down in the dungeon just as many days as there are realms of proof, as yet another reminder to those who would become worthy to be made true delegates of the king's authority. Now, finally, the king has proved the full extent of the wicked pride of the judges and of the selfish willingness of the people to be mislead. The king has now allowed them every last measure of liberty to have a change of heart. Guess who has been wearing the royal key?

Now, what purpose, or office, did the pauper serve? Answer: The purpose of a living filfillment of the king's laws. The Logos. The king sacrificed his life as the king, and even allowed himself to be condemned to the dungeon. All to make a point, to produce an exhibit to the royal court, in the trial held over the kingdom. The kingdom has now been tried according to the king's laws. There is yet another stage in the trail before the verdict is pronounced, but I digress.

The pauper always referred to the king as other, never did the pauper refer to himself as the king. This was only proper, and also for the fact that the full power and authority of the king would be misrepresented were the pauper (who is the king) to claim the king's throne. Only the king has the right to the king's throne, and the king will share it with only whom he will.

So, now, on to the subject at hand. The pauper is the king and the king is the king. Each of two people is the king. But, is the king therefore two people? Of course not. How would anyone get this idea except by a corruption from the kingdoms where there are two kings each with equal authority. The significance of the whole scenario is not in the fact that each of two people is the king. There is only a certain, limited, significance in that fact, namely, that the king has the power to live as a pauper. The greater significance is in the common sense of the thing: the king tried his subjects according to his laws. The king is the highest authority and the highest power in the kingdom. He had became king of this kingdom because he had defeated the power of the kings of the wicked kingdoms round about, and had carved out a kingdom for himself. He would later begin to conquer the rest of the world by his sovereign wisdom (as a pauper), but what he had done at first was to prove to the world that he was the true sovereign of power.

John 1:1 does not call the pre-incarnate Christ 'son', but rather 'logos'. There is no 'God the Son', there is only the '(only begotten) son of God' (where 'only begotten' has to do with the fact that the flesh-man of Christ was begotten by (the spirit of) God and not by a son of fallen Adam).

There is a reason why Mary was told that the 'spirit of God', and not the 'God the Father', was to be the agent of conception. The same reason why it says "and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters", and not simply 'God moved upon...'. The term 'spirit of God' always refers to God moving within the creation, and the term 'Father' to God as the transcendent source of all power and authority outside all creation.

If you repeat, long enough, faithful words without understanding, then you will come to have a wrong understanding of the words. Apart from understanding, true traditions are bondages. Any tradition whatever, not only those concerning theology.

In the center of history was the only begotten son of God, and the only begotten son of God was with God, and the only begotten son of God was God. When God created the angels (his royal court), did he leave them to loiter around for awhile before he manifest to them? Or, was he manifest to them from the beginning? He was manifest to them from the beginning. The Logos. (Or, so it seems to me---and I feel that I need to do a lot more thinking about it anyway)

Unless I paint the *entire* picture in all its details (which I think would be quite a bit more text than you could read in an afternoon), there will always seem to be fatal weaknesses to my view in the minds of those who lack most of the fundamental ideas of the thing. Whether what I have said in my post is true or not, the principle is this: The truth of any matter is irreducibly complex, so that, for those who lack insight of the basics of that matter, and who are predisposed against the truth of the matter, they will find it rather easy to remain in opposition to that truth. Any subject under the sun.

Hi JR,

I have some questions:

So, do you believe that Yahweh was manifest to Moses? If so, then do you believe that Yahweh is by definition visible, and can merely chose to be invisible? I seem to recall a passage that says that "God (Yahweh?) is a spirit, without form", so, if that is true, then do you believe that Yahweh has no specific form? It seems to me that to say that if Yahweh has no specific form, then this means that Yahweh is invisible by definition. My main question is, can, and would, Yahweh himself become robed in flesh? Why does Yahweh need some creature (Yahshua) to do it? Abraham's son was as fully a human as was Abraham. Zero difference there, which is odd to me if Yahweh meant for us to understand that the true sacrifice which Abraham modeled was that of the creator sacrificing a creature (a man sacrificing an animal would be all that's needed as a model, not a man being asked to sacrifice the man's ontologic equal). Also, if Yahshua (Jesus) is not Yahweh robed in flesh, then it seems to me that every word of the New Testament is remiss, because I believe that people readily believed that Yahshua is Yahweh robed in flesh. Do you believe it is blaspheme to assert that Yahshua is Yahweh?

What is flesh, that the Creator cannot be robed in it? What was the ark of the covenant a type of, if not this?