Revisionism

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Revisionism

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

A TBN preacher is doing a series on the book of Proverbs. Quoting one of them, he mentioned the benefits of calling on the name of the Lord.

He mentioned something about when we pray in the name of the Lord Jesus, we offer the Father everything that Jesus is, and has done for us. Or words to that effect.

By "Lord" it was clear the preacher was speaking of Jesus, not Jehovah.

For debate,

- Do you think this is what Solomon had in mind when he mentioned the name of the LORD in the book of Proverbs?

-Is this the inevitable result of Jesus-worship, the conflation of "LORD" (YHWH) with "Lord" Jesus?

-Is this a blatant example of the name of Jesus usurping the name of Father YHWH?

And finally,

-Is this yet another example of revisionism, projecting Jesus backwards (in this case into the book of Proverbs) where he doesn't actually exist?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Revisionism

Post #11

Post by Elijah John »

liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]
-Is this yet another example of revisionism, projecting Jesus backwards (in this case into the book of Proverbs) where he doesn't actually exist?

IF by "where he doesn't exist" we mean "where the author had no intention of communicating Christian beliefs" then yes. What you have called revisionism permeates all of the N.T. and the early church.
Yes, I think we mean essentially the same thing here. With the exceptions of where the teachings attributed to Jesus are essentially the same as those found in the Tanakh. That wouldn't be revisonist propaganda, but an extention of the Law and the Prophets. The Golden rule would be an example of non-revisionist NT teaching that had is prescedent in the Hebrew Bible.

The idea that every knee would bow to Jesus, (in the OT, the same was said of YHVH), the idea tha Jesus was the Alpha and the Omega, (basically said of YHVH in the OT as well), and the idea that Jesus was the Good Shepherd, (paralleled with David's LORD YHVH, the Shepherd) are examples of revisionist NT propaganda. Revisionism to the originalist, proof that Jesus IS God, by the revisionist, (apologist).

It seems to me the latter is circular reasoning.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Revisionism

Post #12

Post by shnarkle »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 7 by shnarkle]
Can you point to any evidence in Psalm 23 that David was indeed thinking of the coming Messiah as his "Shepherd" and not YHVH?
No, and I never said he was. However, there is nothing I can see that precludes that interpretation. For example, the Shema points out that the Elohim are one YHVH. When referring to the Day of the Lord, and the messianic kingdom being set up, Zechariah points out that "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name."

Again, unless you believe in a created deity, a transcendent God is the only other option, and therefore until one transcends this world, it is the messiah who is king. He is the one and only Lord that can exist. Therefore Paul's interpretation of the Shema is accurate. John's introduction makes perfect sense, and Christ is the good shepherd. He is the one who gathers all to himself according to the will of YHWH

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Revisionism

Post #13

Post by Elijah John »

shnarkle wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 7 by shnarkle]
Can you point to any evidence in Psalm 23 that David was indeed thinking of the coming Messiah as his "Shepherd" and not YHVH?
No, and I never said he was. However, there is nothing I can see that precludes that interpretation. For example, the Shema points out that the Elohim are one YHVH. When referring to the Day of the Lord, and the messianic kingdom being set up, Zechariah points out that "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name."

Again, unless you believe in a created deity, a transcendent God is the only other option, and therefore until one transcends this world, it is the messiah who is king. He is the one and only Lord that can exist. Therefore Paul's interpretation of the Shema is accurate. John's introduction makes perfect sense, and Christ is the good shepherd. He is the one who gathers all to himself according to the will of YHWH
I disagree, that the only other option is the Messiah who is King and God. And I don't think that either of us believe that YHVH is a "created" deity, we agree on that anyway.

Consider, perhaps Zechariah understood the King over the whole earth was only YHVH, God. And not the Messiah. And for Zechariah, the "LORD" was YHVH, his name YHVH. "YHVH" and "Yahshua" (Jesus) may or may not be the same person, but YHVH and Yahshua are two different names. The fact that Yahshua means "Yah is salvation" does not mean that Jesus is the same person as God. The Hebrew Bible is full of theophonic names. The variation "Joshua" too. The name of Moses' general incorporates the name of Yah, but that does not make him an incarnation of Yah.

And to cite the prologue to John as evidence for your intepretation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible is an example of the revision and circular logic I was speaking of. That seems to be reading the OT with a NT lens.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Revisionism

Post #14

Post by shnarkle »

Elijah John wrote:
shnarkle wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 7 by shnarkle]
Can you point to any evidence in Psalm 23 that David was indeed thinking of the coming Messiah as his "Shepherd" and not YHVH?
No, and I never said he was. However, there is nothing I can see that precludes that interpretation. For example, the Shema points out that the Elohim are one YHVH. When referring to the Day of the Lord, and the messianic kingdom being set up, Zechariah points out that "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name."

Again, unless you believe in a created deity, a transcendent God is the only other option, and therefore until one transcends this world, it is the messiah who is king. He is the one and only Lord that can exist. Therefore Paul's interpretation of the Shema is accurate. John's introduction makes perfect sense, and Christ is the good shepherd. He is the one who gathers all to himself according to the will of YHWH
I disagree, that the only other option is the Messiah who is King and God. And I don't think that either of us believe that YHVH is a "created" deity, we agree on that anyway.

Consider, perhaps Zechariah understood the King over the whole earth was only YHVH, God. And not the Messiah. And for Zechariah, the "LORD" was YHVH, his name YHVH. "YHVH" and "Yahshua" (Jesus) may or may not be the same person, but YHVH and Yahshua are two different names. The fact that Yahshua means "Yah is salvation" does not mean that Jesus is the same person as God. The Hebrew Bible is full of theophonic names. The variation "Joshua" too. The name of Moses' general incorporates the name of Yah, but that does not make him an incarnation of Yah.

And to cite the prologue to John as evidence for your intepretation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible is an example of the revision and circular logic I was speaking of. That seems to be reading the OT with a NT lens.
I doubt that anyone in the Old or New Testament believed that the messiah was God. i certainly don't believe Christ is God. However, I also don't believe "the Eternal" is God either because of Paul's comment in his letter to the Corinthians. I don't think John's introduction is suggesting that "the word" is God either. It is showing that there is no other way for God to be revealed except through the word.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Revisionism

Post #15

Post by Elijah John »

shnarkle wrote:
Elijah John wrote:
shnarkle wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 7 by shnarkle]
Can you point to any evidence in Psalm 23 that David was indeed thinking of the coming Messiah as his "Shepherd" and not YHVH?
No, and I never said he was. However, there is nothing I can see that precludes that interpretation. For example, the Shema points out that the Elohim are one YHVH. When referring to the Day of the Lord, and the messianic kingdom being set up, Zechariah points out that "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name."

Again, unless you believe in a created deity, a transcendent God is the only other option, and therefore until one transcends this world, it is the messiah who is king. He is the one and only Lord that can exist. Therefore Paul's interpretation of the Shema is accurate. John's introduction makes perfect sense, and Christ is the good shepherd. He is the one who gathers all to himself according to the will of YHWH
I disagree, that the only other option is the Messiah who is King and God. And I don't think that either of us believe that YHVH is a "created" deity, we agree on that anyway.

Consider, perhaps Zechariah understood the King over the whole earth was only YHVH, God. And not the Messiah. And for Zechariah, the "LORD" was YHVH, his name YHVH. "YHVH" and "Yahshua" (Jesus) may or may not be the same person, but YHVH and Yahshua are two different names. The fact that Yahshua means "Yah is salvation" does not mean that Jesus is the same person as God. The Hebrew Bible is full of theophonic names. The variation "Joshua" too. The name of Moses' general incorporates the name of Yah, but that does not make him an incarnation of Yah.

And to cite the prologue to John as evidence for your intepretation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible is an example of the revision and circular logic I was speaking of. That seems to be reading the OT with a NT lens.
I doubt that anyone in the Old or New Testament believed that the messiah was God. i certainly don't believe Christ is God. However, I also don't believe "the Eternal" is God either because of Paul's comment in his letter to the Corinthians. I don't think John's introduction is suggesting that "the word" is God either. It is showing that there is no other way for God to be revealed except through the word.
To suggest that God transcends even" the Eternal" is a philosophical, or even a theological transcendence, not a religious one. "The Eternal" is one of the designations Jews give to YHVH God. That is by contrast, is religous designation.

I don't see the Bible as deeply theological, or philosopical. Except perhaps (for better or worse) the writings of John and Paul, as you observed.

Deeply profound at times, in a religous or even a Wisdom sense? Yes. In a theological sense? Not so much, with the exceptions noted.

Personally I prefer to avoid the deep waters of theoogy and philosphy. I tend to operate on a simpler plane.;)
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Revisionism

Post #16

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]
To suggest that God transcends even" the Eternal" is a philosophical, or even a theological transcendence, not a religious one.
I was attempting to point to the reality which the word itself suggests. The terms transcendence and God are synonymous, yet they are both simply terms which is why neither one is transcendent or God. Therefore neither transcendence nor God can be revealed lest they become something less than transcendent.
"The Eternal" is one of the designations Jews give to YHVH God. That is by contrast, is religous designation.
Yep, and a designation isn't God. It's giving a name or symbol to God. A symbol is a sign. You can see the word "sign" in the word "designation". Slapping a symbol to transcendence doesn't actually identify or allow one to experience, understand, or articulate transcendence. It's nothing more than a word which represents or is substituted for an idea. God is neither a word nor an idea. Here again, I don't think it's an accident that John uses the term "word" because what happens is a sort of theological version of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First" routine. This is why Christ is associated with the word. When one becomes aware of who they are irrespective of any need for identification, the reality of the divine dwelling in Christ becomes apparent. Where do we see Christ? Dwelling in everything that exists, and yet Christ transcends or "overcomes" the created world which is essentially born to die.

Religion simply means "to bind back" to the origin. When one binds back to the origin, they see that they no longer exist. This is what I think these writers are articulating (e.g. Paul) as well as illustrating in the gospel narratives. God is the origin of existence, therefore God cannot exist apart from the ground of being.
I don't see the Bible as deeply theological, or philosopical. Except perhaps (for better or worse) the writings of John and Paul, as you observed.
I don't even see what they're writing as theological. Their writings predate theology. Universities used to offer degrees in "divinity". The writers were referred to as "St John the Divine" because they weren't simply transmitting words about God. Jesus didn't come to reveal the conclusion of a syllogism, or to change doctrines or dogmas. He communicated divinity. He says, "I am the light of the world", then soon after that he says to his disciples, "You are the light of the world". This is what Israel was tasked with doing, but they failed to accomplish this so Christ shows up and takes it to the next level and instead of a national level of revelation from God, it becomes an individual revelation from God.
Personally I prefer to avoid the deep waters of theoogy and philosphy. I tend to operate on a simpler plane.

I don't really see that what I'm posting has much of anything to do with theology or philosophy. These writings seem to indicate to me that we're operating on false theological and philosophical assumptions. I'm not looking at what these writers are saying from a theological or philosophical standpoint that I am not the things I have, or possess. Or perhaps it's that I am these feelings and thoughts which would then mean that there is no one doing the thinking or feeling. Either way, it's just as valid an assumption as these ideas that you can somehow be identified with the thoughts and feelings confined within our own minds, or that these ideas can be identified with God.

I think this is what Paul is talking about when he says that it isn't him, but Christ within him, or "Christ in you, the only hope of salvation". We are the "you" of God; the direct object, but when we see that the means of communicating God's revelation is Christ; it is Christ that places us within that same position, which eliminates us objectively from the equation. We become that equal sign. We become the "Way". That's as far back as one can go. At that point there is no need for religion or philosophy.

I see it more as revelation than revisionism, but then again there's really nothing wrong with revising one's ability to articulate reality when one sees a clearer version of reality.

This is why I don't really have a problem with something like the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't see it the same way it is sometimes articulated, but I also see that it is a better articulation of reality than some supreme being existing alone for eternity.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Revisionism

Post #17

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 16 by shnarkle]


For all that I think we agree, the name is not the thing. The symbol is not the thing. I personally, do not equate the Name of God with God Himself. For me, the Name operates in much the same way that "Chrsit" operates for the Pauline believer.

Both are links to the Divine.

Unlike many Christians, I do not think Jesus of Nazareth is the sole embodment of God on earth. I see the spark of the Divine, in all of us who are made in God's image. That image manifests in varying degrees, depending on how well tuned in any of us are to the Spirit of God, and obedient to the Spirit.

In this, we differ from Jesus ony in degree, not in kind. I realize that is "heresy" but so be it.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Revisionism

Post #18

Post by shnarkle »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 16 by shnarkle]

For all that I think we agree, the name is not the thing.
The paradox is in the fact that the name is the only thing that exists. For the New Testament authors, God and the word aren't things to begin with. These are terms which signify origin and existence.
The symbol is not the thing.
The symbol signifies essentially nothing.
I personally, do not equate the Name of God with God Himself. For me, the Name operates in much the same way that "Chrsit" operates for the Pauline believer.
How so? For Paul, Christ is the mediator between transcendence and the objective world. Christ is the name or symbol of God. For John, "the word"exists, (e.g. "was")as the conduit by which God exists; and yet for both John and Paul, eternal existence isn't really God at all. It's just the means by which God is revealed to us. God is not the means of anything. God is the source of everything.
Both are links to the Divine.
The name itself isn't a link to the divine, but what the name signifies.
Unlike many Christians, I do not think Jesus of Nazareth is the sole embodment of God on earth.
I don't even think that's what the texts indicate. They aren't saying that Christ is the body of God, but that God dwells within the body. i see it in much the same way that God dwells within the Temple. God isn't the temple, but God's presence dwells within the Temple. Even God's presence isn't really God.
I see the spark of the Divine, in all of us who are made in God's image.
Then you really aren't disagreeing with Christian doctrine because Christ is the image of God.
That image manifests in varying degrees, depending on how well tuned in any of us are to the Spirit of God, and obedient to the Spirit.
Yes, but I think it's more about how well the Spirit is tuned into those who are being conformed to obedience. It's according to God's will, not our own.
In this, we differ from Jesus ony in degree, not in kind. I realize that is "heresy" but so be it.
Then we're both heretics. I don't see that as heretical from the texts themselves. The disciples referred to themsevelves as "The Way" which for most Christians today is a title designated to Christ alone. I would have to agree in that Christians today don't live according to the tenets of Christ or his disciples.

Post Reply