Charlemagne is the Head of Gold (Daniel 2:31-45)
Charlemagne is the Head
of Gold (Daniel 2:31-45), and the Second Opening of the First Seal (Revelation
6:1-2), corresponding with Nebuchadnezzar, but on the Image of the Beast (Revelation 13:15), to which the Vatican had given life
on Christmas Day,
800 A.D. This Image is also an Eighth Beast (Revelation 17:11), with Seven
Heads and Ten Horns. Another structurally inherent element to more
clarifyingly, less confusingly consider, with relation to the First Opening of
the First Seal; is the extent to which the Fourth Beast (Daniel 7:7), that is,
Rome, constitutes a composite of all the others (Revelation 13:1-2); so that,
in effect, to speak of Nebuchadnezzar, here, is to speak,
interchangeably, of Julius Caesar as well. Correspondingly, on the Mirror Image
of the original Seven Heads and Ten Horns, all the Heads and Horns are situated
on One Head, One Empire; one Eighth Beast, the "Christian" or
"Holy" Roman Empire, which
is itself both part of and not part of the original Seventh (explicitly
anti-Christian) Head. Next, and last, or
for the Third Time, Anti-Typally (666), all of the Six Seals will unfold on
just One Head, rather than, again, on
Six Heads of just One Head. Just as there is no head like the seventh, there is
no head like the seventh of the seventh (Daniel 7:7), or the eighth of the
eighth, which both is and is not part of the seven(th) (Revelation 17:11).
So, then, to whom does Hitler structurally correspond on the original Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns? With Antiochus Epiphanes. Of course, however, on the same false paradigm which situates the Millennial Rule of Christ from 800 A.D. until 1806 A.D., Napoleon would correspond with Nebuchadnezzar instead of Alexander the Great, just as Hitler would correspond with Haman! Who, then, would Charlemagne be? Actually, from a Roman Catholic perspective, Charlemagne would be the anti-type of King David, the Old Covenant "Shadow" of Christ's Millennial Rule, just as Napoleon would constitute the beginning of Revelation 20:7 (and, again, Hitler would more closely correspond with Haman, who also aspired to exterminating all the Jews), instead of the actual end, in 1814 A.D., of the 2520-year Divine Chastisement (Leviticus 26) of the original Northern Kingdom (lost ten tribes) of Israel, for its breach of the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28).
The Omen (1976)
The Main Story Line is Anything But Fantasy!, 19 November 2006
10/10
Mr. Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?, is much more carefully reasoned and impressively researched than the movie, here; but, with a dangerously misleading limitation which ultimately and ironically serves to make it the fulfillment of II Thessalonians 2:11!!! Is George Bush the Antichrist? The answer is, paradoxically, both yes and no--but, more basically, the answer is no!--Just as the selfsame description applies to Hitler! Embodying the true configuration of Biblically Prophetic Patterning (but without being able to elaborate adequately, in this brief space, upon most of the finely and scripturally/historically demonstrable details) is a comprehensively paradigmatic unfolding of the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), from the time he was sold into slavery by his eleven brothers (the other sons of Jacob), until the time of the Exodus, subsequent to his death. His having been sold into slavery was a prophetic foreshadowing of Exodus 1:8-14. His having become a servant in the Egyptian house of Potiphar represents the physical nation of Israel under the Old Covenant Law. His removal, from there, to Pharaoh's prison (but, in his case, like unto Christ's, whom he foreshadows, on a false charge) represents the numerologically and historically decipherable (Leviticus 26) 2520-year period of national punishment inflicted, first, upon the even hitherto displaced, but not for much longer (Ezekiel 37:15-28), and "lost" ten tribes of Israel at Samaria (II Kings 18:9-12), and, then, over one-hundred years later, upon the Kingdom of Judah at Jerusalem (II Kings 25), for Israel's breach of the Covenant of Deuteronomy 28. The first half, or 1260 years, of these world-ruling empires, or seven heads, of Revelation 13:1, culminates with the wounding of Rome, the seventh head, or fourth beast (Daniel 7), in 476 A.D.; just as the second 1260 years, from 554 A.D., with the healing of Rome's mortal head wound, by Justinian, to 1814 A.D., with the fall of Napoleon, consist of the "Christianized" or "Holy" Roman Empire, an eighth beast (Revelation 17:11), which both is and is not of the seven, in that it is and is not Christian (Galatians 1:6-9), but fundamentally and ultimately is not (Matthew 6:24) (Mark 9:38-50) (Revelation 3:15-17; 18:4).
Moreover, this eighth beast is, not only on the seventh head, but is also an image or reflection of the original beast, with still another seven heads and ten horns. Charlemagne, for instance, is, as the third horn and first head on the resurrected or eighth beast, a mirror image of Nebuchadnezzar; while, at the other end, Napoleon is a mirror image of Alexander the Great, and Hitler is an image of Antiochus Epiphanes. Most intriguingly, though, just as there is no head like unto the seventh, there is no head like unto the seventh of the seventh (Daniel 7:7). With the fall of Napoleon, is to be found the benchmark date of the restoration of the birthright promise to Israel, originally bestowed, by God, through Jacob (Israel), to his two half-Egyptian grandsons (the sons of Joseph), Ephraim and Manasseh, the "Company of Nations" (British Commonwealth) and the "Great Nation," respectively, existing today (Genesis 48). The concept of American Manifest Destiny is biblically-rooted, but also bitterly betrayed by those blessed and honored with the duty of fulfilling it, as a virtuously magnanimous example and inspiration to the world! Because of this tragically modern repetition of the ancient breaking of the Covenant by Israel, the Birthright Nations shall again be taken captive, but, this time, for 2520 days instead of years, divided, again, into two 1260-day intervals (Revelation 13:5), which structurally reflect the 2520-year intervals, but in reverse order. The "Man of Sin," in II Thessalonians 2:1-8, who was finally revealed, when the explicitly pagan Roman Empire had been moved out of the way, ruled for 1260 years. Currently, she (Rome) is a widow (Revelation 18:7), minus her "Holy Roman Emperor" upon whom to ride, just as she had become a widow in 476 A.D. However, She shall be uniquely, overshadowingly preeminent, once again, when the ancient beast rises, one last time, over the ashes of the Birthright Nations.
In that particular vein, here's just a small structural indication of how history repeats itself, but not exactly in the same ways, although unaccidentally close enough--here--to be Divinely-instructive, teleologically as well as axiologically! Compare Hitler's invasion and carving up of Czechoslovakia to the current occupation of Iraq; just as Iran shall be, for America, what Poland had been, for Hitler, and Germany--and the world! Obviously, then, Joseph's removal from prison in Egypt, and appointment by Pharaoh as the second most powerful man in Egypt, represents the crushing of the head of the eighth beast, in 1814, and the reinstatement of the ancient Birthright Promise to Ephraim and Manasseh, a material and national blessing, to be distinguished from the Scepter Promise to Judah (Genesis 49:8-10). And, of course, the shortly-upcoming dissolution of the Birthright Nations (Revelation 12) is anciently symbolized in the Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8), and the bitterly tragic consequences of that! The ancient "Apocalypse" which God, through Moses, had brought upon Egypt, was a type of what shall shortly occur on a global scale, when the seventh seal opens, as it does only once, at the beginning of the latter 1260-day interval shortly to come; while the first six seals open three times, with the last, or "Anti-Typal" opening shortly to occur, at the beginning of the first 1260-day interval. . . . For a continuation of this critique, go to the first sequel to this film, Damien: Omen II.
Damien: Omen II (1978)
Another Thought-Provoking Springboard to the True Configuration!, 19
November 2006
10/10
Although this account is also a sequel to the one I'd begun (with a most relevant cross-referencing of Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?) in commenting on The Omen, I am trying to keep it as briefly albeit indispensably and crucially cogent as possible, as a means of structurally outlining the wider pattern within which Mr. Hanchett's fits, as well as the corresponding actual meaning of his. Because America has betrayed its Divine Mandate, God has structured the scripturally prophetic patterning to where the current president can indeed be plausibly argued to be the Final Antichrist!--In accordance with a scheme wherein the first six seals open only once, followed by the "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and the "Holy Roman Empire," and then the "Setting loose of Satan for a little while" (Revelation 20:7-8), in the form of the Protestant Reformation. America, as Mr. Hanchett brilliantly elaborates upon in the most unaccidentally compelling detail of his own, has become an Image of the beast! And, indeed, what more cleverly self-disguising manner for the actual antichrist to re-emerge, than in the form of the one who replaces or gets rid of the antichrist, just as Hitler had been similarly deposed! Intriguingly enough, even the previous Pope, just before his death, had reportedly been entertaining thoughts that Bush could be the Antichrist!!!--While, to be sure, Iraq (along with how many historically Roman Crusades, for that matter) hardly satisfies the Classically Roman definition of a "Just War." In Mr. Hanchett's scheme, the Roman Deception is perfectly accommodated, as the interval between the wounding of the fourth beast (explicitly pagan Rome), and the healing of this fatal head wound!
Of course, Mr. Hanchett counts Rome as the sixth head, based on the manner in which he calculates. However, a clue to his limitation, in this sense, is provided in Daniel 7:6. Not unrelatedly, the Holy Roman Empire, contrary to Mr. Hanchett, is not "one" of the ten horns on the Eighth Beast, but rather embodies them all; just as, for that matter, there is more than one way of accurately configuring many of these symbols, including, in the instance of the ten horns, those which serve to symbolize the ten major persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian. Moreover, as for Revelation 17:10? Mr. Hanchett's very popular interpretation, like unto the one which falsely identifies the Lord's ministry as the sixty-ninth week, is not the only possible one; any more than that, at least for Mr. Hanchett's purposes, it is even at all optimally desirable, let-alone necessary; as an alternative, that is (and notwithstanding all the structurally pivotal "loose ends" which are much more "accidentally overlooked" in Mr. Hanchett's historically prophetic paradigm), to calling explicitly pagan Rome the seventh head, and America, the "Eighth Beast!" Yet, like unto all such possible interpretations (Isaiah 28:7-13), it does have a Divinely-intended usefulness. And, finally, here, at least for now: Situating the seventh seal, within Mr. Hanchett's scheme, is quite an intriguing puzzle all its own. We find it fitting most "perfectly" into place after the wounding of Mr. Hanchett's sixth head, as well as contiguously with the beginning end of the thousand years, or "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and extending, after that, no less contiguously with the unfolding of Mr. Hanchett's resurrected or seventh head, in the form of the Roman Catholic counterfeit post-millennial Eighth Beast, when Satan is set loose for a little while (Revelation 20:7), in the form of an Image of the original Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns.
Moreover, in this scheme, the recently popularized application of Revelation 8:10-11, involving "Wormwood," or Chernobyl, appears to be, in retrospect, quite chronologically, harrowingly well-timed!-Indeed, so much so, in addition to just about everything else already covered here, that one can only wonder whether Rome is still deliberately concealing, until the "proper moment," this much less "poetic" or "allegorical" version of John's "vision" or "dream," or whether even it has yet to receive this particular "revelation!" At any rate, an objectively real and physically invisible spirit being called the Devil quite consciously understands, or essentially and no less "cleverly" believes he does, exactly what he is doing! In this connection, even the historical evidence suggests that the popular "Rapture Theory" had been deliberately set-up, in advance--for an extremely useful--fall!--Save for a single, hitherto doctrinally and tragically misunderstood "snag" (Revelation 12:12-17), involving only 144,000 people (Revelation 3:7-13); while most, who vainly, presumptuously expect to be "Raptured," are, again, identified in Revelation 12:17, as well as Revelation 3:14-22; 6:9-11; 20:4, and many other places. Moreover, take one guess, if you dare, concerning which country to which the next to last application of Revelation 18, falsely posing as the very last, is quite imminently, by now, slated to apply!-Immediately followed by the final Satanic counterfeit of Daniel's Seventieth Week!-Including such parallel occurrences as that between, say, Matthew 27:51 and Daniel 9:27, or between Matthew 21:12-13 and Revelation 17:16-18!
Moreover, If we count, from 554 A.D., we arrive, one-thousand years later, at the point where the spiritual exodus, from Babylon, in the form of the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, begins! Therefore, take, say, 1517 A.D. as an approximate benchmark date (Matthew 24:36-51), and count 483 or 490 years ahead on this "mirror image!" Where does that take you? Moreover, count, from Christmas Day, 800 A.D., when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as "Holy Roman Emperor," to, again, 1517 A.D., so that all one need do is add another zero to the seventy years the Israelites had been in captivity at ancient Babylon. The next phase, now shortly as well as briefly-upcoming, shall rather necessitate the removal of both zeroes. And, again, as for the "Falling Away," of II Thessalonians 2? Within the real paradigm, this occurred, or, more accurately, came to a most pivotal form of fruition (II Thessalonians 2:6-8), when the last explicitly Pagan or Anti-Christian Roman Emperor, Diocletian, was "taken out of the way," by the "Christian convert," Constantine, early in the fourth century A.D., thus paving the way for the "Christian" Man of Sin. In the Roman Catholic paradigm, however, it is the Protestant Reformation which moves the "Christian" monopoly of Roman Catholicism and Economic Feudalism aside, thus making possible, as a result of this "Falling Away," the emergence of, as symbolically understood here, Nero's successor, following the Roman Catholic "Millennial Reign of Christ" (the Popes), and culminating in the current American president (check out even his birth date!), and the final, "Post-Millennial" Cataclysm, not of Revelation 19:15-20, but rather of Revelation 20:7-19, as the Protestant Reformation, rather than Roman Catholicism, ends with the account in Revelation 18!
In the Spirit of Elijah,
Richard O'Donnell
Exodus I (1960)
The Seven Annual Holy Days of Scripture
Just as the Lord was completing His Creation Week, He rested on the Sabbath; the last day of the week, rather than the first. The weekly Sabbath had been, at that point, formally, inalterably ordained; not just as a perpetual reminder of the Original Creation, but also in conjunction with still another, more amazingly prophetic Mystery. Just as God had rested on the Sabbath, the world shall rest, during the seventh one-thousand-year segment of man's mortal existence; when all the burdens of his earthly, sinful labors and follies shall have been lifted. Thus, each literal day of the original Creation Week symbolically represents a one-thousand-year segment of human history, just as the seventh such segment is about to begin.
However, under the Old Covenant, there were likewise instituted seven annual Sabbaths, with their own prophetically didactic significance. The original Passover had been followed, the very next day, beginning at dusk, with the first of these annual Holy Days, which is also the first day of the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread, symbolizing the release from bondage; just as the last day of this week constitutes the second annual Holy Day, which foreshadowingly symbolizes the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week (Acts 10), just as the end of Daniel's Seventieth week is structurally foreshadowed, under the Old Covenant, in Numbers, Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen!-Along with a Tragically Ironic "Twist," which only served to temporarily victimize Caleb and Joshua; just as, for that matter, all the Jews, save for a Small Remnant (Romans 11), had been temporarily left behind, at the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week! Moreover, whichever day, within that week, falls on Sunday, is the same day from which one counts ahead, fifty more days, to arrive at the third annual Holy Day, Pentecost; which, therefore, is deliberately patterned to always fall on a Sunday.
Just as the original Passover, of Moses, begins this process, with all its spiritually symbolic, prophetically-foreshadowing significance; so, also, does the third annual Holy Day signify, under the Old Covenant, the receiving of the Law, by Moses, from God, as a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, at Pentecost. The fourth annual Holy Day is represented, under the Old Covenant, by the Israelites having crossed over the Jordan, into the Promised Land; just as the fifth annual Holy Day represents the successful completion of the securing of the Promised Land, under Joshua's leadership, and the "At-One-Ment" of Israel, under God, in this sense. The sixth annual Holy Day represents the Coronation of David, which begins the symbolically-foreshadowing week of the Feast of Tabernacles; just as the last day of this week, so vividly symbolized in the reign of King Josiah, is followed, not long thereafter, by-Nebuchadnezzar!-That is, the typal foreshadowing of Revelation 20:7-15!
However, these Old Covenant events, which correspond to the seven annual Holy Days, were, again, only shadow fulfillments. But their historically one-time New Covenant fulfillments are still in the process of unfolding. Thus far, only the first three annual Holy Days have been anti-typally fulfilled. The Passover, of course, was fulfilled when Christ was crucified, on the very same day of the year the Passover itself had been annually celebrated by the Israelites; and, no less symbolically, in the very middle of the literal week, as well as in the middle of Daniel's Seventieth Week! The first annual Holy Day, which could only have fallen on a Thursday, in its historically one-time fulfillment, followed immediately, the very next day, after the Passover; just as, again, the third annual Holy Day had its historically one-time, anti-typal fulfillment at Pentecost.
After the Passover, Christ rose from the dead, three days and three nights later, right before dusk, at the very end of Saturday, the weekly Sabbath. Then, of course, counting fifty days, from the Sunday when the Lord first appeared, in his resurrected and imperishable form; one arrives at the day of Pentecost, the New Covenant anti-type of the giving of the Law, by God, to Moses and the people. The Old Covenant Law was replaced, or, more accurately, completed, in the form of a better Covenant (Hebrews 7:11-28), the Covenant of Grace, and the indwelling of each personally regenerated individual by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). Again, only the Passover, along with the first three annual Holy Days, have thus far been anti-typally fulfilled, in their historically one-time unfolding.
The fourth annual Holy Day, the Feast of Trumpets, is about to be anti-typally fulfilled (Revelation 11:15-19) (I Thessalonians 4:13-18) (I Corinthians 15:50-58) (Zechariah 14:1-5) (Acts 1:9-12), in its historically one-time unfolding; just as the fifth annual Holy Day foreshadowingly follows, ten days later, to be anti-typally fulfilled, in its historically one-time unfolding, at the point of Revelation 20:1-3. Five days after the Day of At-One-Ment, the sixth annual Holy Day, the first day of the week-long Feast of Tabernacles, is foreshadowingly celebrated, and shall have its anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment at the point of Matthew 26:29 (Revelation 19:6-9), just as again, the ancient Coronation of King David had been a typal foreshadowing of this event. The last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, foreshadowingly celebrated at the end of that selfsame week, shall, again, have its anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment, at the point of Revelation 20:7-15.
Exodus II (1960)
The Seven Annual Holy Days of Scripture
We are, now, historically in-between the one-time fulfillment of Pentecost, and the one-time fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets, that is, again, the First Resurrection to Immortality; although, of course, while being incalculably closer to the latter, now, in the last Gregorian month of 2006 A.D. Just as the third annual Holy Day occurs in the third Hebrew month, the fourth annual Holy Day occurs in the seventh Hebrew month, almost on the other side of the solar year; thus symbolizing a vast and indeterminate amount of time, between Pentecost, and the First Resurrection, yet, as well as, by now, shortly to occur. Ten days after that is what is annually celebrated as the fifth Holy Day, the Day of Atonement, symbolizing that Christ shall become, very soon, by now, "At One" with his people, the spiritual "Children of Abraham" (Romans 2:26-29); while the Devil is cast out, the way Joshua had cast out the heathen, in type, from the Promised Land!
Again, the ancient crossing of the Jordan, the typal fulfillment of the fourth annual Holy Day, foreshadows the beginning of the Last Great Millennial Day (John 7:37-38), when the Great Harvest of Souls occurs (as distinct from the Small "Firstfruits" Harvest, which is now almost complete); retroactively as well, for those who are resurrected mortal (Ezekiel 37:1-14), to complete their preparation for transformation from mortal to immortal; since, at the point of personal moral reckoning, even for those without the Law (Romans 2:9-16), they freely chose not to Decisively Blaspheme the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Love, in their hearts (Matthew 12:30-35). Moreover, what was the reason the Apostle Paul had Scripturally broken out into Ecstasy, while writing Romans 11:25-36 (but beginning in verse 33)? Paul had been given a special mandate (I Corinthians 9:16-18), as one murderer having replaced another (Judas Iscariot), to preach the Gospel (Galatians 1:11-24) (Ephesians 3:1-11); so that, just as Gentiles shall be teaching Jews, during the Seventh-Day Millennial Sabbath Rest, Paul himself, who could have been left at the end of the line (Matthew 21:31), was shown mercy, and moved to the front of the line, as one who had persecuted the Church in ignorance (I Timothy 1:12-17) (Luke 23:34).
Moreover, what can also be symbolically discerned, from the fact that the typal fulfillment of all these events preceded the Babylonian captivity, of seventy years; followed by the Decree of Cyrus, which began the Seventy-Weeks-of-Years countdown to Christ's First Coming? Symbolically and Tragically instructive, here, is the fact that, under the New Covenant, only the first three annual Holy Days were anti-typally fulfilled, before the "Mirror Image" of the seventy-year captivity in Babylon, or the roughly seven-hundred years, between 800 A.D. (the Coronation of Charlemagne, Nebuchadnezzar's "Mirror Image"), and 1517 A.D. (the year of Martin Luther's Proclamations), had intervened; that is, prior to the advent of the equally foreshadowing Image of the anciently typal events, symbolized from the crossing of the Jordan, to the captivity in Babylon, had occurred. Thus, just as the anciently typal unfolding of events symbolized in the fourth through the seventh annual Holy Days had been physical, and not spiritual (in the sense they could and should have been, which would have avoided the Babylonian intervention); the counterfeit millennial reign of Roman Catholicism had followed the anti-typal fulfillment of the first three annual Holy Days, in the form of the spiritual (the truly Regenerated Church, in the midst) which had not become physical.
Also, It was only in the midst of the "Mirror Image" (beginning with the benchmark dates of 1517-1527 A.D.) of Daniel's Seventy Weeks of Years that a "Mirror Image" of the crossing of the Jordan (this time, the Atlantic Ocean), and the securing of the Promised Land, followed by a "Mirror Image" of ancient Israel, under David and Solomon, had begun; yet, a "Mirror Image" which had been, again, in a sense, something spiritual (given the existence of, again, the truly Regenerated Church, in the midst), but not actually physical (just as even the outward forms had been "Babylonianly" twisted, as had been the case anciently, both before and especially after the Babylonian intervention). In fact, as Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong pointed out, modern America, in having symbolically abandoned the true weekly Sabbath Day (Exodus 31:13), had lost all sense of its true identity! Even worse, as a "Mirror Image" of the Ten Tribes, which had, under Jeroboam, broken away from Rehoboam, and moved, from Jerusalem, to Samaria, over the issue of taxation without representation; America, as with Jeroboam, had finally become another Image of the Beast, the very Beast which had its counterfeit "Christian" millennium under Roman Catholic Rule, during a stretch of time which can be counted, symbolically, in two ways, first, from 554 A.D. (when Justinian resurrected the wounded seventh head), to 1517 A.D. (the advent of Protestant Fundamentalism, or the Church of Sardis, Revelation 3:1-6), and, also, from 800 A.D. (with the Coronation of Charlemagne, the "Mirror Image" of Nebuchadnezzar), to 1814 A.D. (the fall of Napoleon, or "Mirror Image" of Alexander the Great). This American "Mirror Image" of the Beast shall soon be taken captive, by the seventh and last head on the "Mirror Image" of the Beast, thus ushering in the final "Babylonian Captivity," to last seven years, to be ended by the actual, historically one-time, anti-typal fulfillment of the events symbolized in the fourth through the seventh of the annual Holy Days themselves, when the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, are finally synthesized!
Exodus III (1960)
The Seven Annual Holy Days of Scripture
What we have here, in summation, is actually a patterning as intricately and exquisitely complex as it nevertheless is extremely simple and clear, in its general outlines and meanings, once it is sufficiently grasped in its totality. Basically, we can identify three "grids," which all fall synchronizingly into place, with relation to one-another, on the very temporal map of events which can be so very unmistakably discerned in historical retrospect (Daniel 12:8-10). First, there is, again, the patterning of the seven annual Holy Days, with their physical, typal fulfillment, under the Old Covenant, which reflect their spiritual, anti-typal fulfillment, under the New Covenant. But there is also, secondly, the patterning of the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, and Its Image, to configure within this scheme as well. Just as the seven annual Holy Days are followed by a "mirror image," so, also, is this Beast similarly followed by a "mirror image" of itself, the Eighth Beast, which both is and is not of the seven (Revelation 17:11), but is still on the Seventh Head, which is like no other of the heads (Daniel 7:7), as the "Christian" or "Holy" Roman Empire, with its Seven Heads and Ten Horns. Then, thirdly, there are the Seven Seals to be configured, or superimposed onto the same patterning just mentioned. According to the true prophetic paradigm, the Fourth Annual Holy Day, the Feast of Trumpets, has not yet occurred, but shall come to pass at the First Resurrection to Immortality. Yet, according to the false paradigm, which God structurally built into this selfsame fabric (II Thessalonians 2:9-12) (Isaiah 28:13), the Anti-Typal fulfillment of the Fourth Annual Holy Day immediately follows the time of the Ten Major Persecutions (and, just as symbolically, the sacking of Jerusalem, by Rome, forty years after the Anti-Typal fulfillment of the Third Annual Holy Day; contrary to the very opposite occurrence, forty years after the Typal fulfillment of the Third Annual Holy Day!), from Nero to Diocletian, when the Church of God was brought into the wilderness, subsequent to the Anti-Typal fulfillment of the third annual Holy Day (Pentecost), and the completion of Daniel's Seventieth Week, with the baptism of Cornelius. In the false paradigm, these Ten Major Persecutions represent the one-time opening of the Fifth Seal, which, in the true paradigm, opens three times.
When the falsely paradigmal one-time opening of the Sixth Seal occurs, Rome is being sacked, in 476 A.D., to the wounding and "widowing" of its by now falsely "Christian" Head. However, when this wound is healed, in 554 A.D., by Justinian, what is being represented, in the false paradigm, is the anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment of the Fourh Annual Holy Day; followed by the fulfillment of the Fifth Annual Holy Day, the Day of Atonement, which Justinian begins, and Charlemagne continues to unfold, the way Joshua had, as the land is again cleared of all the heathen, and militarily brought together under one rule; just as the Sixth Annual Holy Day commences at the Coronation of Charlemagne, by Pope Leo III, on Christmas Day, 800 A.D., during "Holy" Communion, at Mass, in St. Peter's Basilica, at Rome. This Coronation represents, in the false paradigm, the anti-typal reflection of the Coronation of King David, under the Old Covenant; whereas, within the true paradigm, this Coronation is a reflection of Nebuchadnezzar, the First Head on the Explicitly Pagan Beast. In accordance with the false paradigm, this supposed reflection of the Coronation of King David ushers in a symbolic thousand-year rule of "Christ," followed by the benchmark date of the dissolution of the "Holy" Roman Empire, 1814 A.D., with the end of Napoleon, which ushers in the fulness of the falsely paradigmal "Falling Away," in II Thessalonians 2, as the Protestant Reformation yields what is, in the true paradigm, the end of the 2520-year period of Divine Chastisement, imposed upon the Northern Kingdom, the Lost Ten Tribes of ancient Israel, as Britain and America are exalted. Remember, again, that, in the false paradigm, the "Falling Away" occurs "Post-Millennially," as Satan is set loose for a little while (Revelation 20:7-15); whereas, in the true paradigm, the Church is being brought out of the wilderness, out of a typal fulfillment of Revelation 12:13-17, for 1260 Years, which shall be anti-typally repeated with the dissolution and chastisement of the Birthright Nations (Ephraim and Manasseh, or, respectively, the British Commonwealth, the "Company of Nations," and America, the "Great Nation"), for 1269 Days. In the true paradigm, the Sixth Head, Napoleon, on the Resurrected Image of the Beast, is wounded, and shall be Resurrected, again, with the dissolution of the Birthright Nations, in the form of the Seventh Head on the Image, the Seventh Head of the Seventh Head, which is like no other head, but rather a composite of all the others, upon which the First Six Seals open anti-typally, followed by the one-time actual opening of the Seventh Seal, in the middle of that seven-year interval. Moreover, just as the Northern Kingdom had its 2520-year interval of chastisement, the same countdown had actually begun, for the Southern Kingdom, as many years later as had been correspondingly required for modern-day Jerusalem to be captured by the Jews after America gained its independence; just as, for that matter, Jerusalem shall again be sacked, by the Revived Roman Empire (the Seventh and last head on the Re-Resurrected Beast, or, more accurately, the Eighth Beast, of the Eighth Beast, into which he, in turn, shall personally Resurrect), three and one-half years after the dissolution of the Birthright Nations themselves.
Exodus IV (1960)
The Seven Annual Holy Days of Scripture
More specifically, though, what about Napoleon, just for openers? On the true reflection of the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, the Eighth Beast, on the Seventh head, which both is and is not part of the seven, Napoleon is, again, the structural image of Alexander the Great. Yet, on the very image itself, this structural reflection of the Beast, he both is and is not the Sixth head, both is and is not a "Holy" Roman Emperor, and, just as symbolically, both is and is not a Hapsburg, the sixth ruling dynasty of crowned "Holy" Roman Emperors, which had technically been dissolved in 1806 A.D.; just as Alexander the Great both is and is not the Third head, the head of the third ruling empire. Moreover, Napoleon, contrary to Charlemagne, had symbolically subdued Rome, rather than having been subdued, indeed, seduced, very cleverly and ironically, and just as symbolically, "sacredly," by it. Napoleon, for that matter, had occupied Rome, in 1798 A.D., just as Nebuchadnezzar had anciently done in Jerusalem; so that Napoleon reflects, on the false image, not Alexander the Great, but rather, again, Nebuchadnezzar! On the false paradigm, contrary to the true one, there is a gap between the Seventh head on the Beast, and the emergence of the Eighth Beast, with its structural image of Seven Heads and Ten Horns. This gap, on the false image, is, in fact, the actual Eighth Beast, the "Holy" Roman Empire, of the true image; just as the structurally and symbolically pivotal of the two true Fallings Away (the latter shortly yet to occur, as of this writing) are such INTO this empire, whereas the one Falling Away on the false paradigm is such FROM the Eighth Beast of the "Holy" Roman Empire. However, the fact that most if not virtually all professing Fundamentalist "Christian" Conservatives are followers of the current American president should help provide an extremely dismal clue as to how ironically and tragically as well as dynamically II Thessalonians 2:9-12 actually applies, although the reference to individual damnation contained therein is not necessarily one of the everlasting variety, at least not in every single instance. On the false paradigm, the reflection of the First head emerges, then, again, with Napoleon, whereas Hitler is the Ram, or, even more specifically, a reflection of Haman (Esther, Chapter Three), while the Goat which defeated the Ram is the post-WWII Ten-Horned American reflection of the Beast identified by Stephen Hanchett. Moreover, who represents Mordecai here?--And Esther herself?--Along with the ancient Persian king himself? Yet, even more specifically, Hitler can be seen to reflect characteristics of Belshazzar, whose defeat resulted in the Exodus back to Jerusalem, as had been the case with the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom Hitler is also a reflection, whereas Britain and America reflect the two asymmetrical horns on the Ram, Cyrus and Darius. Indeed, while reflecting these, America also has ten presidents, as pointed out by Stephen Hanchett, from Truman to Clinton, whom the false paradigm would, unfortunately, not so very counterfeitingly, "at least" in spirit, identify as images of the Ten Horns, or ten major persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian.
Even more, on these Ten Horns, there is another ambiguity, like unto the one where Hitler can be seen as a reflection of Belshazzar and Haman, as well as Antiochus Epiphanes. On these Ten Horns, from Truman to Clinton, there is a struggle occurring between the symbols of the Ram and the Goat. Truman has characteristics of both, but the latter increases its foothold even more overshadowingly with the assassination of President Kennedy, then, even more so, with the usurpation of President Carter, and, finally, with the usurpation of President Clinton, the third symbolically "Ram-like" image on these Ten Horns which Stephen Hanchett identifies as having been "plucked up by the roots." Yet, the Goat characteristics still quite overshadowingly or underlyingly dominate the images of all the Ten American Horns in temporal succession, as reflected, overall, again, in America's defeat of Hitler; just as this Goat-image manifests itself in a most uniquely and pivotally overshadowing way, when, as Stephen Hanchett also elaborates upon, President G.H.W. Bush strikes down the "Hitler-reflection" or "Ram" of Saddam Hussein, and is thereafter dethroned, with his image shattering into Four Heads, those of his four sons, only one of whom is to become the Eleventh or "Little" Horn, following President Clinton, and the only one of the Ten Horns which is also a Head, along with a "King of the South," another presidential aspirant whose name should be equally obvious, as analogous to the correspondingly "peninsular" Mussolini, and two others God had seen no reason to specifically highlight in the originally ancient paradigm, either. Whereas the Ten Horns from Nero to Diocletian had been followed by the actual "Little" Horn of the Pope, the Ten Horns from Truman to Clinton are followed by the "Little" Horn of George Dubya Bush, Jr., who, within the framework of the false paradigm, is currently acting out the scenario, again, beginning with Revelation 20, VERSE SEVEN. Curiously, and even quite "poetically," however, Rome, the Seventh head (with Dubya actually being number six, as the falsely paradigmal reflection of Antiochus Epiphanes), which shall replace Dubya, is not characterized, on the false paradigm, as a Beast (not until Revelation 17:16-18, anyway, or, that is, the "Middle of the Week"), but rather as the very liberating representation of Christ, but on the wrong "White Horse," foreshadowed also in the liberating image of Cyrus; whereas Dubya symbolically assumes the ancient position of Belshazzar at this point, as well as of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Diocletian--PLUS ZEDEKIAH!--Or, perhaps, Jeconiah, the very one whose hitherto only verifiably possible as well as "antithetical" successor, on the false paradigm, could be perhaps even more dramatically and "antithetically" usurped, by an "Eighth Beast," on this same false paradigm; in turn, to be replaced, until the end of Daniel's real false "Seventieth Week," on the true paradigm, and the permanent resurrection of Joseph, by the real Seventh Head, on the real "Eighth Beast," once he, in turn, plucks up his three Continentally-situated (if not rather Britain, America, and the current leadership in Israel, Zechariah 11:8) and temporally non-successive horns by the roots, until his "Middle of the Week" finally, and, again, quite "antithetically" (and more transparently) yields the real "Eighth Beast of the Eighth Beast," itself situated on the seventh and most uniquely, compositely enigmatic head! Moreover, what structural resemblances can be discerned, say, between Jeroboam and Constantine?--Or, between Jehu and Justinian?--Or, for still another formally-pivotal example, the ancient Assyrians and the Lombards?
Again, while the overall patterning is quite clearly discernible (and even more so, in this belated update on the previous paragraphs), it is somewhat flexible, with regard to certain fine details. For instance, on the False Paradigm, the Fourth Annual Holy Day can be seen to correspond with the opening of the Sixth Seal, under Constantine, while the Fifth Annual Holy Day corresponds with the opening of the Seventh Seal, under Justinian, in 554 A.D., when the True Spiritual Church is brought into the wilderness for 1260 years (Revelation 12), and the False Millennium corresponds with the Sixth Annual Holy Day, and the Coronation of Charlemagne, in 800 A.D., while the Seventh Annual Holy Day corresponds with the reinstatement of the Pope, under the Jesuits, in 1814 A.D. . . . The Spiritual Only occurrence of the Fourth Annual Holy Day can be seen to begin with Martin Luther, and the Seventy Weeks of Years Countdown (or, as configured from the Jews retaking of Jerusalem, in 1967 A.D., the Seventy Year Countdown), to the appearance of the Protestant "Messiah," or "Cyrus the Great," Trump, the Eighth Head of the Beast, on the False Roman Catholic Eighth Beast (with Obama being the Seventh Head on this Image). The Spiritual Only occurrence of the Fifth Annual Holy Day begins with the Reinstatement of Joseph's Birthright Promise after 2520 Years (from the dissolution of the Northern Kingdom to the Fall of Napoleon, in 1814 A.D.), and the occurrence of the Spiritual Only Sixth Annual Holy Day begins with the Final Consolidation of the Federal Republic of America, in 1776 A.D., while the Spiritual Only occurrence of the Seventh Annual Holy Day begins with the Ministry of the End-Time Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6) and the Final Pruning of the Tree of the 144,000 Philadelphians accounted worthy to escape (Revelation 3:7-13), plus the appearance of the False Roman Catholic "Messiah," in Revelation 12, as the False Roman Catholic "Eighth Beast" of the Protestant Reformation is dissolved, and the Seventh Head on the Image of the Holy Roman Empire Beast begins to resurrect, along with the 2520 Days, this time, instead of Years, of the True Church in the Wilderness. . . . The Physical and Spiritual Fourth Annual Holy Day Synthesis begins at the end of the Final 2520 Days of Joseph's Chastisement, and the Physical and Spiritual Fifth Annual Holy Day Synthesis begins with Christ's Judging of the Nations, in Matthew 25:31-46, while the Physical and Spiritual Sixth Annual Holy Day Synthesis begins with the Millennial Seventh-Day Sabbath Rest of Christ, and the Physical and Spiritual Seventh Annual Holy Day begins as all those who shall forever be transformed from mortal to immortal is consolidating at the end of the Seventh-Day Millennial Sabbath Rest.
In the Spirit of Elijah,
Richard O'Donnell
The Making of 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004) (TV)--
Very Well Done, 28 November 2006--
10/10--
The simple truth is that there is only one Christian God, one original Person of God, contrary to the well-founded criticism of Islam that Roman Catholicism, with its "Triune God," is indeed quite non-biblically (this being my added emphasis, rather than that of Islam) albeit ambiguously and rhetorically rather than "paradoxically" polytheistic in form. Islam, of course, blows it royally in denying God sired a Son, His Only Begotten Son, greater even than Mohammed. What about the traditionally-argued claim that God had originally been referred to in the plural, via the term "Elohim" (Genesis 1:26)? Actually, if the angels were present at the creation of the physical universe (Job 38:1-7), then it is hardly a far cry to assume that they were also present at the creation of man; just as, for that matter, it would have proved "awkward," to say the least, had God not addressed the angels themselves, directly, in the second person (or, pardon me, the first person plural), on that very occasion! But, then, what about John 1:1-15, in which Christ is referred to as "The Word," who, in the beginning, was with God, and was God? In the beginning was the Creative Power of God, and the Creative Power of God was with God, and the Creative Power of God was God. As for John 1:2? Before Christ's physical conception as a separate manifestation, He was with God, but in the same way any offspring is "with" his parents before conception (Hebrews 7:9-10), but not as a separate identity. Christ was, again, with God, and was God.
Christ represents the Creative Power of God (Colossians 1:15-19), the Distinctive Person of God; which can have no coherent meaning apart from the concept of a beginning, and His creation of that which is not God (Revelation 1:8). This Creative Power of God had eventually produced (or, more accurately, reproduced) a created and separate manifestation, or Perfect Reflection, of this very Creative Power. Christ, as a separate and mortal individual, per se, with a distinctive Identity, did indeed have a beginning. But, then, what about still other statements, from Christ Himself, which seem to indicate the "pre-existence" of a "Second Person" (John 17:5)? This is rather a reference to predestination! Cross-reference it with, for instance, Ephesians 1:4! And, if one still insists upon more, then try Revelation 13:8! Moreover, one can only praise the heavens, the way Jesus did, in Matthew 11:25-27, upon marveling no less at the, at bottom, no less merely political in motivation than childishly pseudo-religious wrangling (Colossians 2:1-10) (I Corinthians 1:10-29) of those who finally concluded the current "Trinity" Doctrine! While you're also glimpsing through I Corinthians, Chapters Two and Three, concerning even the "wonders" of the current "non-denominationalism," too, for that matter (1:12d), please try taking particularly special note of 3:10-20!
But, then, what about statements to the effect that "Before Abraham was, I Am" (John 8:58)? Actually, the Spirit is Indivisibly One, and it is only in this sense, along with the fact that Christ is an Exact Duplicate of the One who thereby became His Father, that Christ, as a separately mortal individual, had been "Pre-Existent" as such. Even scriptures such as Matthew 19:17 quite symbolically serve to reinforce this point, as Christ therein attributes His Own Goodness, distinctively enough (from Himself), to God. Moreover, Christ very explicitly disavows any claim, as a still mortal individual, to Omniscience as well (Mark 13:32). As a separately mortal individual, Christ did indeed have a beginning, when He was miraculously conceived (quite distinctively, in this sense, John 1:14, next only to the first Adam) minus a human father (although Satan had been capable of siring offspring through human females, too, Genesis 6:1-4, like right out of Rosemary's Baby!). The only real paradox, here, is that of how such a thing could have occurred per se, of how Christ could have been (the Son of) God, and yet also not God (the Son of Man), too (Matthew 26:64; 27:40); rather than in the form of how God could have been "One," and yet "Three Separate Persons," before the advent of Christ's conception in Mary's womb.
Christ, as distinct from God, rather sits at the Right Hand of God (Romans 8:34). He is God, in the sense, also, that all authority has been handed unto Him (Hebrews 1:1-6). Similarly, those who shall rule with Him (Revelation 3:9), in their Immortally Transfigured States, likewise share in this very distinction, albeit to various degrees, from beneath Him (Matthew 25:14-23) (Luke 19:11-19). The simple, rhetorically uncluttered truth, is that God the Father had a Son, with a beginning, and yet no end (Isaiah 9:6-7) (Hebrews 1:8-12). All the rest of the ultimately redeemed, with their mortally human fathers, shall yet be, each in their own order (I Corinthians 15:20-25), imperishably transfigured, but as spiritually adopted Sons (Romans 8:14-15). Unlike only Jesus Himself, even the "Natural Branches" (Romans 11) share merely in His maternally biological lineage; which ultimately, individually profits nothing, in and of itself (Luke 3:8). See the second and final part of this critique in Impact: The Passion of the Christ
Impact: The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Also Very Well Done, 28 November 2006
10/10
(This is a continuation of the critique of The Making of The Passion of the Christ.) The actual Trinity (Matthew 28:19) is a reference, not to the "Three Persons" of God, but to the Three Functions or Manifestations of God. The Holy Spirit is, not an "It," contrary to what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong contends (just as he uniquely errs in saying there were, not Three Persons, but rather Two Persons, in Eternity Past), but rather the very Spirit of the Father. That's why Jesus, in having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, is thereby the Son of the Father, rather than being the Son of the Holy Spirit instead of the Father. Consider an ordinary human being, created in the image and likeness of God, consisting of a soul (an animated body) and an individual spirit; however, not, again, as two persons, but rather as one (just as the mortally human soul and spirit are separated, at the point of physical death, Hebrews 4:12). God the Father was the separately Creative Manifestation of God, in the beginning; and, thus, the Symbolic Image of the Word, or the Son; until, that is, He became the Father. But, while the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, Jesus had an individual human spirit, which united with the Father's, after His water baptism in the Jordan; so that the two had become one, and blended, in the most uniquely, virtually indistinguishable way of all (John 14:9).
However, that very process had been unavailable to Fallen man, in the most Judicially open sense, until Jesus had become a totally Perfected and Glorified participant in the Holy Spirit, so that this Spirit was actually Their Spirit, in the most Completely Finished sense. Moreover, Scripture further confirms the extent to which Jesus had to be Perfected (Hebrews 2:9-10); in a manner which would not have been necessary, for Him, had He "simply" and "unequivocally" or "unparadoxically" been God! That's why Pentecost could not have occurred before all this was fulfilled (John 16:5-11). The most which can be said for the concept of the "Three Person Trinity" is that, paradoxically, the very language being employed, here, in defense of the Real Trinity, could also be quite logically, consistently applied to the concept of "Three Persons," too; however, in a manner to where the very question of whether "Three Persons" are actually involved becomes, at best, something hopelessly, paradoxically insoluble. Moreover, at least some of the reasons the "Three Person Trinity" is no less structurally disjointed than strictly superfluous per se, should be explicitly clear enough by now. Even the very best possible manner of defending it is necessarily as inadequate as the very thing being defended in the process, as an "adaptation" of the polytheism of pre-Christian Rome. As for, say, John 16:13? From the Divine Standpoint, the LANGUAGE of “DISTINCTION,” or “NEED” to “COMMUNICATE” PER SE, is ANALOGICAL; yet, from the HUMAN perspective, it has a more LITERAL application, as the Spirit is EXPERIENCED as a DIFFERENT manifestation from the Son. Besides, it would be quite AWKWARD to say ONE Godhead Member, OTHER than the UNFINISHED Christ, would “NEED” to “LITERALLY” be “INFORMED” about ANYTHING! What IS “LITERAL,” from EVEN the Divine Perspective, is that, while Christ, on earth, Glorified the Spirit of His Father, the Spirit of His Father, in turn, Glorifies Him!
When carefully examined, the only real difference (aside from Rome's uniquely historical predominance, as the Mother of all cults), by way of Mainstream Protestant Fundamentalist definition, between a "sect" and a "cult," is that the former embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, while the latter do not. Indeed, aside from this one essential difference, Rome fits virtually every Mainstream Protestant Fundamentalist definition of a "cult." Just to cite but one "minor bit" of such predominantly astonishing blindness in this respect, particularly among professing Christians of all "sectarian" denominations; where does, for instance, Romans 14:5-6, appear to condone the teaching that everlasting torment is the inevitable result of "unrepentantly" missing a Mass on Sunday, or a "Holy Day of Obligation," or eating a piece of meat on Friday? Such regressions into spiritual bondage are quite elaborately exposed for what they really are in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Grace, in general, as opposed to Law, is also poetically symbolized in the outline of Daniel's Seventieth Week (Daniel 9:20-27), which begins with a baptism (Matthew 3:13-17) and ends with a baptism (Acts 10). Just as John the Baptist, who symbolized Law, had said he must "decrease" (John 3:30); so, also, did the order itself symbolically "evolve," from that of the Holy Spirit following the baptism itself, to that of this same "Baptism of Fire" preceding the baptism itself. More accurately, Peter, at the end of Acts 10, is commanding, as such, not that baptism be mandatory, but rather that it not be forbidden. There's an infinity of difference, in spirit, between having to be baptized, and having no reason not to be, as beautifully ushering in as well as symbolizing the overall spirit of New Covenant obedience. A real Christian is free rather than bound to be baptized--after the fact. Of course, the repentant thief on the cross had a most unassailable explanation for his failure to comply, just as would anyone else who felt it necessary to actually refuse water baptism in order to counter with the most urgently corrective point that it's not "necessary" in the popularly-misunderstood sense at all! The same principle applies to the question of what actually makes a man and woman married in the eyes of God, minus the "absolute need" of any kind of "ceremony" to do anything but confirm as distinct from establishing such a union.
In the Spirit of Elijah,
Richard O'Donnell
Twelve Legions of Angels
There is a burning question which needs to be settled, albeit contrary to the way most professing Christians have chosen to do so, and to their most instinctively degenerative as well as rationally undisciplined reasons why. The reference here is to Matthew 26:51-54. The truth is that Christ judicially HAD to die, not only because it was the only way to open the door to salvation, and not only because His Father had ALREADY promised it; but, much more fundamentally, because of WHY even the latter promise had been JUDICIALLY NECESSARY, as well as a gratuitous act of love; in that Original Sin had been deliberately unfair to its victims, at least minus the kind of solution God is using, not only to open the way again to man, but also to much more clearly and superlatively contrast the very nature of God, as opposed to that of Satan. God HAD to MAKE the foregoing promise, every bit as much as He therefore HAD to KEEP it (Titus 1:2) (Hebrews 6:18); although what is not so necessarily clear, is whether or not He HAD to ordain Original Sin itself, as the basis of the two previous imperatives. COULD God have ordained a different method of accomplishing His purpose? It's not that one can demonstrate there's no necessity to His having ordained Original Sin, but, more accurately, that an argument for the POSSIBLE necessity of such can be made. What is QUITE CERTAIN, however, is that Christ COULD NOT have meant it would have been JUDICIALLY PERMISSIBLE, had He so rebelliously chosen to call down twelve legions of angels; but, rather, that, IF He had been JUDICIALLY permitted to do so, it would have been no PHYSICAL problem at all.
The statement by Christ as to what He could have done to save Himself rather than man was strictly HYPOTHETICAL, not only because it in fact never did occur, but because of WHY it COULD never have happened with any judicial impunity to Him. Just as it is a typical error among professing believers to assume Christ could have called the whole thing off, had He so freely and permissibly chosen; so, also, is it an error to assume God willed the Crucifixion in a totally free way, as something UNEQUIVOCALLY or NON-PARADOXICALLY gratuitous on His part, when He could rather have just destroyed the human race without giving it a second thought. The factor of God's judicial obligation is systematically denied, by the same typically professing Christians who are too BRUTALLY IGNORANT in the first place to have any rational or scriptural problem (at least not when things are going their way) about the kind of God who just plain WHIMSICALLY or "nominalistically" rather than "realistically" or RATIONALLY does whatever He wants, as if omnipotence itself could by necessary definition exist on the basis of nothing less; and, indeed, as if it would be a terrifyingly death-defying insult to God's "Ego," the very one they SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY and MASS-HYSTERICALLY continue to PROJECT onto Him, to even suggest there's something He cannot do, as one beset even with WEAKNESSES which are nevertheless greater than man's (I Corinthians 1:25), or anything He's "regretfully" BURDENED with the OBLIGATION of HAVING to do.
While it is granted that God cannot coherently regret anything He freely chooses to ordain, it is still a question, rationally open, as to whether He HAD to ordain Original Sin, in any sense, as an unavoidable judicial imperative. Yet, in either case, He certainly had a much clearer basis for regretting the fact that man chose to make sin a part of the human equation, even if He knew it in advance; and even if there had otherwise been no clear sense in which He HAD to self-limit His own options, no clear sense in which this self-limiting option really HAD to be the case, even BEFORE it was ordained. For one thing, assuming Christ HAD to have had an UNCONDITIONALLY FREE CHOICE, in the HIGHEST SENSE, in order for the FREE NATURE of His SACRIFICE to have COHERENTLY MEANT ANYTHING (John 10:17-18); there becomes the question, more specifically, of WHEN this particular decision had been made. Was it at the point where Original Sin, and the PATTERN of LOGIC to NECESSARILY follow, in unfolding all the most ESSENTIAL axiological lessons involved, had nevertheless itself been GRATUITOUSLY rather than NECESSARILY ORDAINED?--Or, COULD we go back another step, in fact, all the way to the very BEGINNING, by asking whether God HAD to have MADE ANYTHING, least of all MAN; rather than having done so in a TOTALLY GRATUITOUS WAY, FOR ONE THING, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS ALONE. But, then, it is ONLY LOGICAL to PLACE THE FREE DECISION, OF DYING ON THE CROSS, THAT FAR BACK (Revelation 13:8). If nothing else, it MUST go back at least as far as when God PROMISED (Genesis 3:15) that the Sacrifice would be SUCCESSFUL; either because the result had been NECESSARILY PRE-ORDAINED, by the SENSE of Christ's IDENTITY with God; or else because God KNEW His Son would make the correct decision, even though, if possible at all, not necessarily, due to the HUMANITY in him. Of course, God COULD NOT have ORDAINED ORIGINAL SIN, in the ABSENCE of an ABSOLUTELY-BINDING GUARANTEE THAT CHRIST WOULD SUCCEED! God had to demonstrate, for example, and contrary to Satan's original accusation, that it is He whose nature is SELF-SACRIFICIALLY EVER-GIVING, even in its most JUDICIALLY BINDING FORMS; while Satan's nature is rather to self-glorifyingly take, exploit, and tyrannize. But, IF He COULD have accomplished this in some other way than the Cross, I fail to coherently see any such equally superlative possibility by nature; even to the point where the Cross appears to have been the ONLY acceptable way of accomplishing such a virtually necessary purpose, minus the easier way originally forfeited by Adam.
Thus far, we have succeeded at establishing that Christ had no judicial basis for calling down twelve legions of angels, just as His Father would have had no judicial basis to send them, even if He had. Similarly, had Jesus yielded to Satan's temptation, in the wilderness, that He bow down and worship him (Matthew 4:8-10), it's quite "possible" that Satan, who is the father of lies, and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), would have had no reason to refrain from murdering Him on the very spot, save perhaps on the basis that He would thereby have gotten off far-too-easily; just as, for that matter, if Adam had not rebelled, then God undoubtedly would have had no use thereafter for Satan! Then, on the other hand, Satan might have been EXTREMELY GRATEFUL, THAT CHRIST HAD DISGRACED HIS FATHER SO, AND ADOPTED SATAN AS HIS FATHER INSTEAD! In either case, to be sure, Satan had FIRST utilized the proverbial "carrot," at the very BEGINNING of Christ's ministry; and, when that failed, he turned, at the END of Christ's ministry, to the STICK!--The ISSUE having been, in BOTH instances, one of whether Christ would SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO GOD OR SATAN! After-all, Satan, WHO KNEW THE SCRIPTURES VERY WELL, COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO HELP SAVE THE WORLD! Rather, he was TORTURING CHRIST TO DEATH, IT WOULD LOGICALLY FOLLOW, IN A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO--GET HIM TO CAPITULATE! There had been ONLY ONE SOURCE of POSSIBLE "MERCY" here for Christ, which thus serves to highlight the IRONY in Christ's statement that He could have CALLED UPON HIS FATHER FOR DELIVERANCE! But, then, COULD Christ have REBELLED? God promised IN ADVANCE that He would NOT fail (Genesis 3:15), but was this His PREDESTINATION speaking , or rather merely His FOREKNOWLEDGE?--For, there is rationally as well as scripturally a difference between the two (Romans 8:29), albeit a difference INHERENTLY and INSOLUBLY embodying the element of LOGICAL PARADOX. IF it is the latter, in accordance with the SENSE in which He was NOT God, so that it would have been Jesus, as DISTINCT from God, who would have been CAPABLE of BREAKING a PROMISE of God, THEN Jesus COULD have freely chosen to rebel.
In fact, let's take it a GIANT STEP FURTHER, while likewise providing a GOOD ILLUSTRATION of what it means to MAKE SENSE of the Bible, to REASON THINGS OUT; as well as learning to FORMALLY UNDERSTAND the difference, between LEGITIMATE REASON ITSELF, and the kinds of PARADOXICALLY-INSOLUBLE MYSTERIES which Roman Catholicism not only INCOMPETENTLY, ILLITERATELY claims to have "SOLVED" (as in the case of the "Trinity"); but which (PRINCIPLE of PARADOXICALLY-INSOLUBLE MYSTERY, coupled with a TWISTING of the REAL MEANING, from Paul, in I Corinthians 3, of the "FOOLISHNESS" of "HUMAN WISDOM," beginning, AGAIN, with its "SOLVING" of the "MYSTERY" of the "HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC TRINITY!") it also utilizes to TRICK the MIND ITSELF, THROUGH THE THREAT OF EVERLASTING TORMENT, EMBODYING A PROGRAM OF THE MOST INCESSANTLY, VIOLENTLY, CRIPPLINGLY BEHAVIORISTIC INDOCTRINATION, MOST "IDEALLY," FROM THE VERY PHYSICAL WOMB ITSELF, "INFANT BAPTISM" AND ALL; into SUBSTITUTING WITH "DIVINELY AND INFALLIBLY PAPAL REVELATION," AND A MINDLESS SUBMISSION TO THE "FACT" THAT SCRIPTURE ITSELF CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN NO OTHER WAY, APART FROM THE "PAPACY," AND WHATEVER PERIMETERS OF "LEGITIMATE REASON," AS WELL, TO BE SURE, IT ALONE FORMALLY-SANCTIONS, RATHER THAN PRESUMPTUOUSLY OR "INFALLIBLY" ANATHEMATIZING; AT THE VERY ESPENSE, ONE MUST ADD, OF BOTH TOO MUCH LEGITIMATE REASON AND SOUND DOCTRINE--AND THAT'S WAY--OVER AND ABOVE--THE FACT THAT--ANY--SUCH--COMPROMISING--IS--WAY-TOO-MUCH!--PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS SO DELIBERATELY AND SYSTEMATICALLY WELL-CALCULATED IN NATURE, AND DESIGNED, MOST GENERALLY, TO FACILITATE A LIFELONG HABIT OF COWARDLY, "DUTIFUL" SUBMISSION TO ANY "INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY" OTHER THAN THE VERY SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES, WHICH CAN BE RATIONALLY DEMONSTRATED--BEYOND ANY PLAUSIBLE DOUBT!
In any event, let's RATIONALLY SPECULATE, as to what MIGHT have occurred, from between MANY CONCEIVABLE POSSIBILITIES; had Christ decided to CAPITULATE, in the Garden, NOT to His Father's Will, but rather to that of the FLESH. Let's also, in the process, RATIONALLY PRESUME that the very ENDURANCE TEST, of Christ's Temptation, during the LAST TWELVE HOURS, would have MEANT NOTHING, MINUS AN "ESCAPE VALVE" which REALLY PROVIDED A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, AT LEAST FOR THE FLESH ITSELF! After all, what PRACTICAL INCENTIVE would Christ have had, for SEEING IT THROUGH, IN THE MOST GENUINELY VOLUNTARY SENSE (rather than, let us say, in that it had been "TOO LATE" TO "BACK OUT," thus leaving Him "NOTHING TO LOSE," by SUCCEEDING); if His MOST VIABLE ALTERNATIVE had been, let us say, MERELY TO BEG FOR HIS LIFE, WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF RENOUNCING THAT HE WAS THE MESSIAH, AND ADMITTING HIS ACCUSERS TO BE RIGHT ABOUT HIS BLASPHEMY? Perhaps MOST ORDINARY MEN would have AUTONOMICALLY BROKEN, ON THOSE TERMS ALONE, UNDER SUCH A TERRIBLE STRAIN! But it seems CLEAR that Christ would have NEEDED MUCH MORE, A MUCH BETTER "DEAL," in order to COP OUT! Thus, perhaps Satan would have, like unto Jesus's new "Godfather," made Him "AN OFFER HE COULDN'T REFUSE!" Moreover, perhaps even God the Father would have INTERVENED, to GUARANTEE that Satan, A LIAR AS WELL AS A MURDERER, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, KEEP HIS PART OF THE BARGAIN; SO AS TO INSURE THAT JESUS NOT BE SEEN TO REJECT THE DEAL ON THE BASIS THAT SATAN COULD NOT BE TRUSTED, THUS INSURING THAT THE REJECTION CAME FROM HIS HEART! Of course, many will argue that THIS IS THE VERY REASON GOD HAD TO GUARANTEE TWELVE LEGIONS OF ANGELS, IF REQUESTED. But, clearly, it was SATAN, trying to GET HIS GOAT; NOT ONLY WITH THE INCESSANT BEATING {and a Lord who was NO "PUSSY," EVEN IN JOHN WAYNE'S TERMS!), but PERHAPS even with a POSSIBLE PROMISE, that Jesus could "GET EVEN" with those WHOSE TEETH HE PROBABLY FELT LIKE SMASHING! In any event, had Jesus wanted to DEFECT, He did not NECESSARILY need God, to provide the FLESH {and NOTHING MORE, IN SUCH AN INSTANCE!} an ADEQUATE--ESCAPE-VALVE! Of course, this is a STRICTLY HYPOTHETICAL course of speculation, or, if nothing else, an exercise in taking the "psycho-logic," here, regardless of how SOBERLY OR PARADOXICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE, to its very limits.
But, what would have been the case then, had Jesus actually defected? Contrary to most professing Christians, who, again, worship the kind of EGOTIST of a "God" who would have accepted His Son's rebellious decision, without considering His Son to have judicially compromised himself in any way (something they would argue to be NECESSARY, as the very PREREQUISITE of the POSSIBILITY of a FREELY, LOVINGLY SELF-SACRIFICIAL gesture); the only outcome which JUDICIALLY adds up, as nothing short of a NECESSARY consequence, is that, if Jesus had rebelled, He would have become like any other man, living out his miserable life span, and then dying PERMANENTLY at the end of it; just as the very POSSIBILITY of such an occurrence, let-alone any extended duration of His life thereafter, in an ordinarily fallen form, would have depended, for that matter, upon the INHERENTLY INDISMISSIBLE as well as HOPELESSLY INSOLUBLE PARADOX of whether Christ's spirit, as a human individual, had been something DISTINCT from THE HOLY SPIRIT ITSELF. Yet, to be sure, the FUNDAMENTAL PARADOX does remain, or rather the ANTINOMY, of which the LOGIC expressed above constitutes only ONE side. The OTHER SIDE would, of course, be the argument that, in the case of God, and, by extension, His UNIQUELY Begotten Son, the CHARGE of SIN, in case of DEFECTION, simply DOES NOT APPLY, and CANNOT apply, for one CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE thing, because there would be NO OTHER WAY to GUARANTEE THAT THE GIFT OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE HAD BEEN TOTALLY GRATUITOUS. However, this ANTINOMY, as UNTESTABLY HYPOTHETICAL as it INHERENTLY is (including as per the question of whether Christ COULD have DEFECTED AT ALL, let-alone WHAT the RESULT would have been), is something CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE from the issue of what really MOTIVATES the average professing Christian to INSIST that Christ COULD have DEFECTED, and been thereafter nevertheless heartily welcomed, back into the Father's Arms. And, of course, speaking of a God who has NO RESPECT OF PERSONS, that's the very mistake the Jews made, of assuming they could GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING THEY WANTED, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE INHERENTLY BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE! That's why God shattered their subjectively bigoted delusion, by leaving His Inheritance, and a much better one at that, not to the natural branches, but rather to total strangers; in order to make the former jealous of the latter, or wild branches (Romans 11), which shall be used, instead, to later instruct those who should have rather been instructing them!--Although, BY NOW, and no less IRONICALLY than TRAGICALLY, or rather quite PATHETICALLY, the average professing Christian has AT LEAST as much to learn from the Jews!
But, still, if Christ was God's Son, a TEMPORAL EXTENSION of the very ESSENCE of God, COULD He nevertheless THEREBY have sinned?--For, if His individual human spirit was UNEQUIVOCALLY SYNONYMOUS with the Holy Spirit, then ONLY the TEMPTATION to sin could have been experienced by Him, but MINUS even the POSSIBILITY of yielding; just as, for that matter, there is one very important sense in which the Bride of Christ can be seen very clearly to be completing a part of Christ's experience He could never have known, to the extent that He never had to struggle against a sin nature. Assuming, again, that Christ's individual human spirit was DISTINCT from the Holy Spirit, AT LEAST in a MANNER which would have ALLOWED for Christ to sin, and thus cause His individual human spirit to be separated from the Holy Spirit (a form of separation which AT LEAST did in SOME SENSE occur, while Christ was in the process of "becoming sin for us"); then it is equally and PARADOXICALLY certain that His spirit was nevertheless one in NATURE with the Holy Spirit, even to the extent of their having been UNIQUELY UNITED at the point of PHYSICAL BIRTH. More accurately, though, there is no doubt that Christ did have an individual human spirit, as distinct from the Holy Spirit; which the issue of the abovementioned paradox would only embody, in one of its conceptually-delineable forms, rather than even factually let-alone necessarily precluding; just as, contrary to the Roman Catholic attitude, which also self-projectingly, self-revealingly "apologizes" for Christ's status as the one who "merely" obeys, "assuring" us that there is, nevertheless, "no contradiction" (as though such needed to be said at all!) between "merely" obeying, and being, nevertheless, "equal" to the Father, there is NO CONTRADICTION between distinguishing Christ from the Father in this sense, and nevertheless totally maintaining His "Dignity" as such. But, in EITHER case, the question of whether He COULD have sinned brings us DIALECTICALLY to the very CRUX of the question as to how sin itself can be possible, not only in Christ's case, but for anybody at all. This is because, if Christ's having been God made His very CAPACITY to sin an IMPOSSIBILITY, then it is equally questionable as to how ANY rationally and judicially accountable being COULD ever sin; in a way which at least avoids the insolubly as well as intolerably paradoxical dilemma that God had created such a being with a defect, as opposed to the defect having been self-created by the sinner after the fact. But, if the latter, then the necessarily-unavoidable question is, again, NOT ONLY one of WHY, but also of HOW. Indeed, the Universal Mystery-of-Mysteries, the very Razor's Edge of such, axio-logically speaking, begins in Ezekiel 28:15! If even Lucifer had no choice but to become Satan, then God is certainly quite irrationally unjust; although, if Lucifer freely chose to so transform himself, this also seems to imply a defect from God in His creation, rather than merely a self-inflicted wound on Satan's behalf.
Moreover, there remains the structurally relevant though apparently quite predominantly neglected question as to what Original Sin actually is; NOT in the sense of WHY it was imputed, but, more specifically, in terms of WHAT actually causes it to manifest itself. The Reverend R.B. Thieme, Jr., of Berachah Church, in Houston, Texas, makes a specific point of insisting that the sin nature constitutes a physically genetic deformity, which apparently varies, in terms of the kinds as well as degrees of morally twisted manifestations, from one individual to another, in the "gene lottery" as such, and which is passed on through the male sperm; thus serving in part to explain how Jesus, born of a virgin, could have been born without it, as well as helping to account for, say, the apparent possibility that some are more congenitally prone to homosexuality than others. Of course, this would not necessarily serve to suggest that there had been something physically poisonous about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; since, for one thing, their having eaten it would have had no directly, spontaneously, physically causative effect, encompassing, for that matter, an entire natural patterning, including other animals, as well as the vegetative kingdom, which had consequently been cursed for man's sake. Yet, even without a directly, spontaneously, physically, or naturally causative connection, between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Original Sin itself; it nevertheless remains clear that, again, THE ENTIRE GROUND was CURSED FOR MAN'S SAKE, which gives one anything but the soundest reason to assume man's very genetic structure had been exempted from the disease of such a deformity. Of course, even though the GROUND was CURSED, Satan had to SHARE it with God's nature, to thextent that it STILL REFLECTS GOD'S NATURE, IN AT LEAST AS MANY INTRICATELY-IDENTIFIABLE WAYS AS IT DOES SATAN'S; EVEN, FOR THAT MATTER, IN THE SENSE THAT SATAN HIMSELF COULD NOT RULE OVER MAN, IN ANY INVISIBLY-ORGANIZING MANNER, WITHOUT ENFORCING AT LEAST HIS OWN TWISTED VERSIONS OF CERTAIN AMONG GOD'S OWN SOCIALLY MORAL LAWS. Moreover, even the very GENETIC PATTERNING of MAN, as well as the INFLUENCE of the Holy Spirit, upon the PRE-REGENERATED HUMAN SPIRIT {WHICH HAD BEEN NATURALLY DESIGNED TO UNITE WITH IT, INTO A SPIRITUAL ZYGOTE}; render EVERY MAN susceptible ENOUGH, to GODLY UNDERSTANDING, to where it is actually Satan, who has to WORK, MORE, DESPITE EVEN MAN'S OWN GENETICALLY EVIL NATURE, AGAINST THE GRAIN, IN KEEPING MEN BEHAVIORISTICALLY BLINDED, FROM WITHOUT, THAN MAN EVER HAS TO WORK--TO GROW INTO THE RIGHT KIND OF UNDERSTANDING!
But, then, according to Herbert W. Armstrong, now ex-Pastor-General of the Worldwide Church of God, in Pasadena, California, even the factor of genetic deformity is likewise discounted. Instead, Mr. Armstrong characterizes Original Sin, I believe quite erroneously, as nothing more than an absence of at least the outwardly-protective as distinct from the inwardly-indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, at the point of physical birth, and a corresponding openness to Satan's influence; as "The Prince of the Power of the Air" proceeds to "broadcast" his thoughts and ATTITUDES into the minds of the normally unsuspecting, thus beginning a process of individually bad habits, and erroneous beliefs, developed and reinforced over the period of an entire lifetime. Indeed, to argue that the absence of the Holy Spirit is the only problem, at least potentially though not necessarily threatens to neglect the observation that, even had Adam not Fallen, there is no coherently defensible reason to believe any of Adam's offspring would have been born SPIRITUALLY ALIVE, in the manner MOST AT LEAST INSIST the Lord Jesus Christ Himself had ALONE been (not because He had a human spirit per se, but rather because He had the Holy Spirit as well, if not unequivocally instead); for, after all, it would be entirely inconsistent with Scriptural Pattern Itself, to assume such offspring would have been individually given the Gift of the Holy Spirit prior to the reaching of God-Consciousness, and the capacity of everyone involved to make his own personal decision, just as Adam himself had to choose whether to partake of the Tree of Life. In fact, let's PUT IT INTO THE MOST PLAUSIBLY FACTUAL PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT HERE AND NOW: Picture ALL HUMANS, INCLUDING JESUS CHRIST, RECEIVING THEIR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN SPIRITS AT THE POINT OF PHYSICAL BIRTH, JUST AS "THE BREATH OF LIFE" HAD BEEN BREATHED INTO ADAM'S NOSTRILS {and, thus, with ABORTION being an ABOMINATION, but NOT because of any question of when the "soul" actually "pops into the body," rather than on the MUCH SIMPLER BASIS that a HUMAN LIFE is BEING FORMED--PERIOD!}. Moreover, let us say that the Holy Spirit IS quite DISTINCT, in SUBSTANCE, if not in NATURE, from Christ's individually human spirit; just as, for that matter, He might NOT have ACTUALLY received it UNTIL AFTER HIS BAPTISM IN THE JORDAN BY JOHN. Until then, it might just be that His PERFECT NATURE had been UNIQUELY PROTECTED, UNTIL THAT TIME; just as God had been OTHERWISE DEALING WITH HIM VERY INTIMATELY, IN PREPARATION FOR THAT UNIQUELY AND SYMBOLICALLY SPECIAL EVENT. Such DIVINE PROTECTION is UNQUESTIONABLY AND INDISPENSABLY NEEDED here, even quite accommodatingly to the extent that the only logical possibility, as to how to redeem Mr. Armstrong's perspective, is by saying that Fallen Man, though GENETICALLY UNDEFORMED, is nevertheless under the most MALIGNANTLY INTENSIFIED influence, by Satan, from outside alone; as still another manifestation of a CURSED GROUND, which would also have to account for the carnivorously (Genesis 1:29-30) Fallen behavior of other animals as well, but not on a strictly genetic basis per se. Likewise, there IS the SENSE in which the FLESH is "MORALLY NEUTRAL," as something God created, and IS, THEREFORE, GOOD; however, likewise as something which AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCES EVIL, MINUS THE DIVINELY REGENERATING POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HAD BEEN IDEALLY INTENDED TO GUIDE IT, RATHER THAN LEAVING NOTHING FOR IT TO RELATE TO OR VALUE SAVE ITS OWN FLESHLY, SELFISH DESIRES.
Of course, Thieme, unlike Armstrong, insists there is something else missing, at the point of physical birth, beside a genetically uncorrupted body and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Like most mainstream Fundamentalists, he sees a "human spirit" being added to the soul, at the same point of initial salvation which brings the indwelling Holy Spirit. But what, most concisely, is the "soul," as distinct from the "human spirit"? Is the "soul" something DISTINCT from the body, which SELF-CONSCIOUSLY separates from the latter, at the point of physical death? It seems the "soul" IS rather the ANIMATED BODY, and, more specifically, the LIFE, in the BLOOD, of this ANIMATED BODY; with the TWO being ONE, and yet entirely SEPARABLE, in that the BODY ceases to be ALIVE; just as sleep, for that matter, is a simulation of the UNCONSCIOUSNESS of PHYSICAL DEATH, save for an ability to dream, which depends upon the extent to which the PHYSICAL BRAIN is still nevertheless functioning. Indeed, is it any accident that Scripture describes even OTHER ANIMALS AS LIVING SOULS, in a way which can only be consistently accounted for on the basis of precisely this definition? But then, how can "soul sleep" be consistent with Paul's declaration that, when he is absent from the body, he is present with the Lord (II Corinthians 5:6-8) (Philippians 1:21-24)? Armstrong very coherently describes the solution to this confusion, by saying that, at the resurrection of the "soul sleeper," even if thousands of years have elapsed, HIS NEXT EXPERIENCE is that of BEING FACE-TO-FACE WITH THE LORD. The ACTUAL TRANSITION does NOT have to be IMMEDIATE, in order to render Paul's declaration consistent with soul sleep; rather, only the EXPERIENCE of such an IMMEDIACY is what Paul NEED be emphasizing here. This explanation appears at least as plausible as its more Roman Catholically or rather Babylonianly popular rival, particularly when one considers that the only LOGICAL as distinct from "etymological" defense characteristically offered, for the latter, is that the former is NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT, in precisely the sense it is NOT. Even Peter's "strange" declaration, about Christ having "preached to the spirits in prison" (I Peter 3:18-20), is quite consistently accounted for in this context--by Scofield. Also, it is PHYSICAL DEATH which accomplishes the "Dividing Asunder of Soul and Spirit" (Hebrews 4:12).
If the "soul" IS the ANIMATED BODY, and DISTINCT from the latter, at least POTENTIALLY, but ONLY in the SENSE that a DEAD BODY is POSSIBLE, and indeed VIRTUALLY INEVITABLE; then, for that matter, what is the "human spirit" itself, as DISTINCT from the "soul" as such? Just as Thieme is correct, on certain points, rather than Armstrong (for instance, as outlined above); it is the latter who proves correct, rather than the former, at ascribing to the "human spirit" the very attributes the former consigns to the "soul." More specifically, the brain is needed, by the human spirit, to think; just as the brain is no less dependent upon the human spirit in this sense, in the same way the brain is dependent upon the eyes to see, no less than the eyes are dependent upon the brain. Contrary to Thieme, there is no need of an ADDED "human spirit," at the point of salvation, to supplement the Holy Spirit. I even heard Jack Van Pimpe describing how, when Christ said, "It is finished," His SOUL AND SPIRIT were given up to the Father. But where does Christ ever say, "Into Thy Hands I commend my SOUL AND SPIRIT?" Indeed, not only is the entirely PAGAN origin of such a belief totally obliterated from view here, but likewise the very PURPOSE of God, in having created man PERISHABLE; namely, that of sparing him the drudgery of having to live forever, self-consciously, like unto the fallen angels, in a state of separation from the Lord (Genesis 3:22-24). Contrary to Thieme, even the typically degenerate unbeliever has every capacity to understand spiritual things, as enjoyed by the believer; save for the absence of the PERSONALLY INDWELLING Holy Spirit, of the Mind of Christ Himself, and the KINDS of things which CAN, BY NATURE, ONLY BE IMMEDIATELY, DIRECTLY, AND INTUITIVELY, RATHER THAN RATIONALLY, QUANTIFIABLY, AND MEDIATELY {Thieme calls it "gnostically," as distinct from "epignostically," but as if EVEN THE STRICTEST SCRIPTURAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS PER SE COULD ONLY BE "UNDERSTOOD" BY BEING "BELIEVED"} COMPREHENDED. There are indeed the most technically concise answers to these questions, and those such as Thieme need those such as Armstrong, no less than the other way around (I Corinthians 3 & 12), if such doctrines are to be FAITHFULLY AND ADEQUATELY DIVIDED, IN THEIR ENTIRETY. A real "Sherlock Holmes" of Scripture, would be able to PROVE, for instance, that, IF SCRIPTURE IS INDEED OBJECTIVELY AND EVEN QUITE INFALLIBLY TRUE, BECAUSE OF BEING AS DIVINELY-INSPIRED AS IT CLAIMS, then ALL ARE SONS OF ADAM (Genesis 3:20). We can likewise be CERTAIN that, for instance, wherever the ELUSIVE "Mrs. Cain" was, she NOT ONLY WAS BORN OF EVE {Cain having been NECESSARILY nothing more than the FIRST--MAN-CHILD--Genesis 4:1}, but likewise, AS WITH ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE, AFTER THE FALL FROM GRACE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN (I Corinthians 15:22).
Yours truly,
Richard O'Donnell
P.S. The PARADOX, again, is that, while God did not will the Fall, He knew it would happen; and that the abovementioned purpose, of demonstrating His True Nature, as DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to that of Satan's, would THEREBY have a chance of being MUCH MORE SUPERLATIVELY served. In essence, the Self-Sacrificial Nature of God is something which HAD to have been CAPABLE of what it displayed; although it was left to the choice of Adam as to whether such a thing, which NEED NOT have been UNCONDITIONALLY ACTUALIZED, nevertheless quite CONDITIONALLY had to be. To get even more "Leibnizian" here, the "compossibles," embodying the series of Original Sin, are NECESSARILY PREDETERMINED, in what William James termed a "hard" way, but only given the INHERENTLY INDEMONSTRABLE PRECONDITION that a SINGLE ORDER of such "compossibles" is capable of proving to be the BEST POSSIBLE one within the series. Assuming more than a single such order to be possible, even though certain events within the series, such as the Crucifixion Itself, would be STRUCTURALLY INDISPENSABLE nevertheless; then the question becomes one of whether its elements unfold, and are Divinely arranged, as a RESULT of individually and freely moral choices, albeit from between objectively circumstantial alternatives of a necessarily limited and thus primarily predetermined nature; or, rather, whether the elements unfold, but in a "hard" rather than a "soft" pattern of Divinely Predetermined events, even though this "hard" pattern is "arbitrarily" predetermined by God, from between more than one axiologically superlative alternative.
In the latter case, then, the SPECIFIC CHOICES made by the individual, and the INTELLECTIVE as well as PSYCHOLOGICAL series of "compossibles" which manifestly determine them, as DISTINCT FROM the BASIC MORAL PREDISPOSITION of the individual, would be the RESULT of a Divinely-Predetermined Structure; rather than this structure being woven, again, in a much "softer" way, as a RESULT of the former. Of course, the very nature of the distinction itself, between these two alternatives, is theoretically insoluble; as the kind of ANTINOMY which, though it CANNOT be ANSWERED, or even demonstrated, therefore, to be capable of one single, logically quantifiable answer, regardless of how inherently ungraspable; MUST nevertheless be addressed, as the thought-construction it is per se, if only because it CAN be. In a STRICTLY FUNCTIONAL SENSE, the individual's EXPERIENCE of being FREE, of totally identifying with the nature of his SPECIFIC choices, but in MORE than a STRICTLY PRECONDITIONED way, remains substantially unaffected. Or, can anyone, for instance, very easily, very self-convincingly manifest, in the most CHRONICALLY, INCORRIGIBLY STUBBORN kind of way, his TOTALLY, CYNICALLY CALLOUS DISREGARD, OR OUTRIGHT CONTEMPT, OF THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, and, then, proceed to BLAME GOD for what he is (Romans 9:19-21)? Assuming that WHAT you MORALLY ARE is something with which you PERSONALLY IDENTIFY, in a MANNER you EXPERIENCE to be TOTALLY FREE on YOUR part (or, in EITHER case, TOTALLY WITHOUT REGRET); then what else CAN it ACCURATELY as well as HONESTLY be CALLED, but "BAD FAITH," in the STRICTEST "SARTREAN" SENSE of the phrase, to BLAME GOD for that, assuming it turns out to have been something REPREHENSIVELY REJECTABLE--UNTO HIM? If you FREELY CHOOSE to LOVINGLY EMBRACE EVEN THE EVIL NATURE WHICH COMES IN AN OTHERWISE NATURALLY AND INVOLUNTARILY INHERITED WAY, VIA ORIGINAL SIN, UNTO YOU; then, in all GOOD CONSCIENCE, CAN YOU LOOK, UP, UNTO GOD ALMIGHTY, AND DARE TO ASK HIM WHY YOU LOVE WHAT YOU DO, AS THOUGH IT WERE NECESSARILY HIS FAULT--ASSUMING SOMEBODY HAS TO BE--BLAMED--RATHER THAN CONGRATULATED? Then, on the other hand, ANYTHING YOU WERE CREATED TO BE, WHICH HAS NO BEARING UPON YOUR FREELY-CHOSEN JUDICIAL STATUS BEFORE GOD, is, THEREBY ALONE, entirely IMMUNE to any JUST COMPLAINT as to WHY it IS the WAY it IS. In the STRICTEST JUDICIAL SENSE (the ONLY SENSE which RATIONALLY REQUIRES INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF THE WILL, EVEN THOUGH WE HYPOTHETICALLY AND PARADOXICALLY POSTULATE THE "HARDEST" DETERMINISM IMAGINABLE), it's as though, ANALOGICALLY SPEAKING, God were casting characters for a play, while selecting each person for a part so perfectly suited to his own Divinely-Foreknown as well as FREELY CHOSEN NATURE that even the specific lines and actions in his script MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE BEEN Divinely "Pre-Programmed" at all. What is NECESSARILY-INDISPENSABLE, of course, is the NEED for SOME KIND of PERSONAL MORAL FREEDOM PER SE; as anything less would be rationally and judicially incompatible with the very possibility of Everlasting Damnation, as well as with God's own stated preference for seeing everybody saved (Ezekiel 33:11) (II Peter 3:9).
As outlined in the very Biblically, Historically, Prophetically, Symbolically Teleological Structure of the above discourse, the Vatican could quite easily interpret it as an endorsement as to the legitimacy of its own claim regarding its supposed true identity, although that perspective is identified and referred to therein as the FALSE PARADIGM, the GREAT DELUSION of 2 Thessalonians 2. Richard O'Donnell
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the Vatican ever wishes to come out and make a public endorsement as to which from among the two abovestated paradigms is the true one, thus utilizing one of the best available and most intriguingly tailor-made arguments potentially at its disposal, I would agree to wait it out ONE PROPHETIC WEEK, from the START, or the very PEAK of ITS ANTI-TYPAL PERSUASIVENESS, in a FINAL RESOLUTION of the issue. Richard O'Donnell
ReplyDeleteHere's yet another structural clue to deciphering the prophetically, historically teleological patterning above: In what I call the TRUE Biblical Paradigm, Britain and America are, respectively, Ephraim and Manasseh, just as Mr. Herbert W, Armstrong taught. Yet, on the FALSE Paradigm, STRUCTURALLY BUILT INTO THE BIBLICALLY PROPHETIC ARCHITECTURE BY GOD, IN ORDER TO MORE “PLAUSIBLY” ASSIST THE MANY WHO LOVE SUCH A LIE, Ephraim and Manasseh ARE Babylon, DESTROYED at the “END” of the Apocalyptic Period instead of at the ACTUAL BEGINNING of the Final Prophetic Week! Most WASTEFULLY PATHETIC of all is the SUPERLATIVELY ABOMINABLE EXTENT to which Ephraim and Manasseh ARE BABYLON, TOO, thus enabling the FINAL Babylon to FALSELY APPEAR to have “GOTTEN RID” of Babylon! –Richard O’Donnell
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche @NietzscheTalks God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him.
ReplyDeleteA SPECIAL THANKS, FOR BEING, ALONG WITH ZARATHUSTRA, ANOTHER "UNCOMPREHENDING" AID TO AN "UNKNOWN GOD!" –Richard
Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? -Matthew 25:37
P.S. THIS WAS MEANT MORE AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS THAN A REFERENCE TO ANY PROBABLY UNGRATEFUL GIVER IN PARTICULAR. –Richard
LIKE JESUS, NIETZSCHE WROTE IN HIS OWN BLOOD, AS I HAVE DONE HERE, AS MORE THAN A MERE SCRIBE OR PHARISEE! –Richard
BEFORE TRYING TO READ, CONSIDER LEARNING TO THINK! ANYBODY CAN TAKE QUOTES AND STRING THEM TOGETHER, YET MY ORDER IS MUCH LESS MEANINGLESSLY ARBITRARY! –Richard
NOT TO DISCERN THE QUALITY OF HOW THE PAGE I'VE OFFERED IS WOVEN IS TO NEED TO LEARN TO THINK BEFORE CONSIDERING HOW TO READ! –Richard
NIETZSCHE WAS A BETTER THINKER, POET AND ARTIST THAN HE EVEN WAS A SCHOLAR, DUE TO REASONS ALREADY COVERED ON THE PREVIOUSLY-MENTIONED PAGE. –Richard
NIETZSCHE IS A PART OF MY SOUL WITH WHOM I HAVE EQUALLY DEFENSIBLE DIFFERENCES; YET, HE’S JUST AN IDOL TO MOST WHO “LOVINGLY” MISUNDERSTAND HIM, AND A DEMON TO THOSE WHO HATE HIM WITH “ABOUT” THE SAME PRESUMPTUOUSLY, TYPICALLY SELF-OVERESTIMATING “INSIGHT!” –Richard
EVEN NIETZSCHE IS NO THREAT TO SATAN, AS LONG AS HE CONTINUES BEING "CONVENIENTLY" MISUNDERSTOOD, AND EVEN TURNED TO THEIR "ADVANTAGE!" -Richard
One RARELY HONORED to be ABLE to SHARE Nietzsche's SOUL has NO DOUBT BOTH "SIDES" ALONE AS SHALLOWLY MISUNDERSTAND HIM RELATIVE TO HITLER! –Richard
Nietzsche FORESAW the TRAGIC INEVITABILITY--NOT the DESIRABILITY--of Hitler's RISE, in the SAME WAY Jesus WEPT OVER JERUSALEM'S TRAGIC FATE! –Richard
"Revaluation of All Values?" Wagner WASN'T the REAL CHRISTIAN, but NIETZSCHE! THE GOSPEL STILL NEEDS TO BE TURNED RIGHT-SIDE UP--AGAIN! –Richard
NIETZSCHE'S UNDERSTANDABLE BLIND-SPOT: A NAUSEATED REACTION-FORMATION, NEEDING TO BE TURNED--RIGHT-SIDE UP, THANKS TO TYPICAL "CHRISTIANS!" –Richard
JUST LIKE JESUS, NIETZSCHE'S STOMACH LEARNED, THE HARD WAY, TO DESPISE HYPOCRISY, THE VERY STANDARD "CHRISTIANS" USE TO "NEGATE" CHRIST! –Richard
THE TRAGIC IRONY IS HOW NIETZSCHE NEEDED, IN THE PROCESS, TO AGREE WITH THESE CREATURES--THAT THEY ARE INSTEAD THE "REAL CHRISTIANS!" –Richard
AGAIN, SPEAKING OF HOW SUCH AN INFIRMITY RUINED EVEN A GREAT PHILOLOGIST, EVEN A POOR TRANSLATION LACKS ANY EVIDENCE PAUL WAS A--BENNY HINN! –Richard
NIETZSCHE, BORN OCTOBER 15, 1844, AS PROPHETICALLY DIED ON AUGUST 25, 1900, FIFTY-ONE DAYS PRIOR TO HIS FIFTY-SIXTH BIRTHDAY. –Richard
HITLER, BORN THE SAME YEAR NIETZSCHE WENT INTO HIS "COMA," 1889, DIED APRIL 30, 1945, TEN DAYS AFTER HIS FIFTY-SIXTH BIRTHDAY. –Richard
HITLER REMAINED IN POWER THE SAME NUMBER OF YEARS NIETZSCHE STAYED IN HIS "COMA," SYMBOLICALLY BEARING HITLER'S SINS, A LA EZEKIEL, TOO! –Richard
HITLER WAS NIETZSCHE'S "ALTER-EGO" SET LOOSE! HOW MUCH GREATER FOLLY COULD THE INEVITABLE SO EMBRACINGLY IF NOT DESIRABLY EMBODY? –Richard
"DIONYSUS THE CRUCIFIED" WAS "DYNAMITE," A SYSTEMATICALLY WELL-DISCIPLINED PHILOSOPHER WHO SAW EVERY METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATION!--EITHER WAY! –Richard
Nietzsche @NietzscheTalks God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him.
https://twitter.com/Bartonesque
ReplyDelete