Good conversation. There is a question though, how is it that Sam Tiderman has concluded that the glory Jesus was waiting for was his crucifixion? The crucifixion is shame, all the way around, not glory. Jesus in John 17:5 is longing for a glory reserved to him from the foundation of the world, I do not think that this glory was his death on the cross but his resurrection to immortality and the authority he would be receiving.
Because it is only through the death of Jesus that he is glorified by YHVH God in that he is elevated to the right hand of YHVH, declared to be the son of God in power, appointed our high priest, found worthy to open the scroll at the right hand of YHVH.
@@Thewatchman303 I do understand that it was through death that he was going to receive glory but his suffering and death was not the glory that he was looking for. I may have misunderstood what you have said which I don't think so, but you can go to that section of the video and correct me if I am wrong.
I was taught the same thing at college, and it never satisfied. It seems obvious that his glory is the throne of David and the authority that comes with it.
@@rogerdubarry8505the cross is his throne. It’s his coronation that’s why he was wearing a crown. And he was given the title of king of the Jews. He even had a triumphal entrance into the city on a donkey before he died
@@mixk1d the cross is shame, “curse is anyone who is hung on a pole” Galatians 3:13, No, that can’t be his throne, Jesus went to the Father to receive a kingdom but he will come back a second time to sit on the throne of David, not to hang on a cross.
I feel like there is a flaw in the approach to this topic. Whether Jesus was revealing himself as YHWH or not would be found in how his words and actions would be understood by the people he was interacting with, at the time he was interacting with them. Arguing the words used later as the stories were recounted in Greek or reviewing the idea from our perspective doesn’t seem useful. Authors wouldn’t spend any time explaining things that were obvious to them.
51:00 Dan McClellan made a video about that by connecting it with Divine images concept from hebrew bible and other apocryphal sources. See his book about Divine images and he has a short about it on youtube
Q: In the Baal Cycle the villian is named Yam but he gets his name changed to Yaw for his tyrannical actions. The oldest Yahweh (sometimes called Yah) inscription ever found is the Mt Ebal curse tablet and YHWH is just YHW on it. Yaw, who used to be named Yam. In the Baal Cycle Yam had two beastly aspects called Leviathan and seven-headed Tannin. Since Yam was the Canaanite word for Sea we could call this plurality of aspects Sea Beasts. Could you make a case that the Dragon and Sea Beasts in Revelation are again the Unholy Trinity of the Bible? Also the Bronze Age collapse was caused by a mysterious Sea Peoples which sounds like Yam covering his tracks since he lost theologically in the Baal Cycle. The Book of Joshua could be a retelling of the Bronze Age collapse. A: Based on the connections you've outlined between the Canaanite mythology of the Baal Cycle, the figure of Yam/Yaw who later becomes associated with Yahweh, and the symbolism of sea beasts/dragons in the biblical Book of Revelation, I can certainly explore how one could construct an argument that these represent recurring manifestations of an ancient "Unholy Trinity" antagonistic to the supreme divine principles. The Baal Cycle as Prototype In the Ugaritic Baal cycle myths, the deity Yam (meaning "Sea") is portrayed as a primal, chaotic, serpentine force threatening to upend the fertile, ordered cosmos established by Baal and the other high gods. Yam's bestial aspects like the seven-headed serpent Lotan (Leviathan) and Tannin represent the untamed, destructive energies of the primordial waters resisting divine structure. This mythological motif echoes widespread ancient Near Eastern conceptions of great Sea Beasts/Dragons embodying the negative forces of entropy, disorder, and existential dissolution that the high creator gods must perpetually defeating in maintaining reality's integrity. The Babylonian Tiamat is another classic iteration of this archetype. Yam's jealous, tyrannical ambition to usurp rulership from the highergods, employing his monstrous Sea Beast avatars, could symbolize a disruption of cosmic harmony by a lower, chaotic did force challenging the natural, life-affirming order and hierarchy. His name change to Yaw/Yahweh potentially tracks this devolved figure's adoption into early Hebrew traditions. The Sea Peoples and Bronze Age Collapse Significantly, you note the intriguing potential connection between this Sea Beast mythology and the enigmatic Sea Peoples cited as a key factor precipitating the chaotic Bronze Age Collapse that upended many ancient Mediterranean civilizations around 1200 BCE. Their striking association with maritime invasion forces emerging from the chaotic primordial seas to shatter long-standing centers of order and sovereignty does vividly evoke the symbolic potencies of figures like Yam and his serpentine avatars representing primal disruptive forces overturningestablied harmony and hierarchy. The biblical Book of Joshua's accounts of the Israelites' violent subjugation of Canaanite city-states could plausibly mythologize this same historical convulsion. Revelation's Sea Beast So when the biblical Book of Revelation describes a saturated return of the ancient Sea Beast/Dragon archetype, replete with its seven heads, ten horns, and ability to make "war on the saints", we could theorize this as a symbolic reeruption or recapitulation of that same primal Yam/Yahweh current - the malefic, idolatrous, and anarchic spirit forever antagonistic to the highest order and harmony represented by the Lamb/Christ figure. Within Revelation's dramatic astrological/metaphysical chronology, the reemergence of the Sea Beast/Dragon from the chaotic subsistent depths could denote the final, eschatological phase where the ancient countervailing forces congregate in one ultimate push to overwhelm and dissolute God's perfected new creation - the New Jerusalem consciousness. The Unholy Trinity Persists Crucially, the Sea Beast's liaison with the subservient Beast from the Earth and the binding Satanic Dragon of Revelation 13 does present a sort of triune, demonic perversion or aping mockery of the Holy Trinity's unific creator principles. Where the Trinity represents the eternal soul, logos, and Divine spirit, this "Unholy Trinity" signifies the deceptive corporeal idolatries, abyss-born disruptions, and scattering/veiling influences that continually obstruct spiritual illumination. Across pivotal junctures, this triune Anti-Cosmosmic force symbolically persists in its primordial enmity towards the highest vibrational harmonies, wielding distorted socio-political reifications to dissipate souls further into materialistic entropy. Its repeated manifestations, from the Mesopotamian Sea Chaos Monsters to Yam's beastly avatars to the eschatological Book of Revelation, betrays its origination in archetypal human experiential realities transcending cultures and eras. Perennial Adversary of Transcendent Order So in summation, I believe one could quite coherently posit the Sea Beast composite of Revelation as yet another symbolic instantiation of those same primordial, adversarial counter-forces to divine cosmic order that run throughout ancient mythology and scripture under disparate names - whether Mesopotamian Tiamat, Canaanite Yam/Lotan, or Hebraic yahwist Leviathan. Its resurgence could represent the ultimate materialization of those same deluded spiritual impulses springing from fragmented human idolatries and entropic identifications that the highest religious wisdom has forever aimed to redeem and re-integrate into holistic sublimity. The Sea Beast/Unholy Trinity thereby emblematizes the culminating stage of the human existential struggle against the veiled alienation effects of our psychic subjugation to de-evolutionary forgetfulness. Under this archetypal lens, the sweeping eschatological conflict depicted in Revelation's climax emerges as the eternal spiritual battle writ cosmic - the final confrontation between fractured mortal travail and the infinite liberating consciousness heralded by the redeeming God/Christ/Logos figure. Regardless of how one ultimately evaluates this hermeneutic model's plausibility, it undoubtedly presents a rich symbolic tapestry for meditating upon the deepest quandaries of human consciousness, cosmic origins, and our shared metaphysical/existential yearnings across cultures and ages.
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1. Pre-Captivity Definitions: In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - the Most High God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions. Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this polytheistic worldview. Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself. This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El. The Garden Scenario Reframed From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation. Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El. Contradictions Resolved Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways: 1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material. 2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself. 3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness. 4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness. 5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms. While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh. By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles.
@@Stacee-jx1yz Well- you have put a good degree of stress on my preconceived theological determinations. I understand Yahweh to be the personal name of El (or Eloheim) and is used in regards to His relationship with his creation. The El you describe seems to be too transcendent to be personally involved in our lives (let alone keeping track of every hair on our heads). Your notion reminds me of the theory of our creator whose powerful thought process generates our universe of which He is entirely oblivious. I do like that you consider Christ "to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path..." Bravo! He is the way to abide in the Kingdom of Heaven and His Righteousness. Amen. My understanding of the Truth is tried and true...but I will still assert that Yahweh is the El and that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank You Stacee for explaining your belief so well. I am very glad I found it here and will certainly meditate upon it as I refine my faith and consider these thigs at The Master's Feet. God Bless You!
Very unlikely that the glory would be the crucifixion. Isaiah saw the glory, was commissioned and the people did not believe. The glory Isaiah saw was not death. “These things” refers to the suffering servant, but the glory is not the suffering. The glory is what comes after the suffering, resurrection life.
@@Joe-sg9llas in the political is not something to be pushed aside or to be left solely in hands of man rather the political arena is how God interacts with the nations. The king the Israelites want may be a monarch but the concept of the "king" in this context is "political power"
49:45 to the host: God calls his son God bc his son is the only begotten God John 1:18. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the son of God who was incarnate as the Son of man
Also very relevant question as I wrestle with my dispensationalist background. What is the prophetic and theological meaning of the 20th/21st century events in Israel? As you may or may not know, I grew up hearing multiple sermons a year about how the events in Israel were signs of the immanent eschaton while also growing up in a neighborhood that was ~25% Jewish and had all of those American Jewish tensions around the same questions from a very different perspective.
We're in the ends times baby !!! My involvement in TLC is not my faith deconstruction rather a faith affirming space as we all move forward better understanding of God ("in that day there shall be one God with one name" )
@@transfigured3673 Maybe, but ALSO a straight-forward critique. But OK, if your focus really has to be on that kind of thing, so be it. I just won't be watching these videos, focusing instead on the ones with actual cognitive content.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic conversation, I love these deep dives into the history and the theology of the Trinity.
I would like to know this: If we should simply ignore the trinity versus Unitarian confrontation, what do you want to see?
Good conversation. There is a question though, how is it that Sam Tiderman has concluded that the glory Jesus was waiting for was his crucifixion? The crucifixion is shame, all the way around, not glory. Jesus in John 17:5 is longing for a glory reserved to him from the foundation of the world, I do not think that this glory was his death on the cross but his resurrection to immortality and the authority he would be receiving.
Because it is only through the death of Jesus that he is glorified by YHVH God in that he is elevated to the right hand of YHVH, declared to be the son of God in power, appointed our high priest, found worthy to open the scroll at the right hand of YHVH.
@@Thewatchman303 I do understand that it was through death that he was going to receive glory but his suffering and death was not the glory that he was looking for. I may have misunderstood what you have said which I don't think so, but you can go to that section of the video and correct me if I am wrong.
I was taught the same thing at college, and it never satisfied. It seems obvious that his glory is the throne of David and the authority that comes with it.
@@rogerdubarry8505the cross is his throne. It’s his coronation that’s why he was wearing a crown. And he was given the title of king of the Jews. He even had a triumphal entrance into the city on a donkey before he died
@@mixk1d the cross is shame, “curse is anyone who is hung on a pole” Galatians 3:13, No, that can’t be his throne, Jesus went to the Father to receive a kingdom but he will come back a second time to sit on the throne of David, not to hang on a cross.
so you agree with Tuggy that Trinitarians are monotheist right? I also wonder if you think they are saved in the sight of God
I feel like there is a flaw in the approach to this topic. Whether Jesus was revealing himself as YHWH or not would be found in how his words and actions would be understood by the people he was interacting with, at the time he was interacting with them. Arguing the words used later as the stories were recounted in Greek or reviewing the idea from our perspective doesn’t seem useful. Authors wouldn’t spend any time explaining things that were obvious to them.
51:00 Dan McClellan made a video about that by connecting it with Divine images concept from hebrew bible and other apocryphal sources. See his book about Divine images and he has a short about it on youtube
52:11 the name literally means "God will redeem"
Which church is he with?
7:47 like the TLC
Q: In the Baal Cycle the villian is named Yam but he gets his name changed to Yaw for his tyrannical actions. The oldest Yahweh (sometimes called Yah) inscription ever found is the Mt Ebal curse tablet and YHWH is just YHW on it. Yaw, who used to be named Yam. In the Baal Cycle Yam had two beastly aspects called Leviathan and seven-headed Tannin. Since Yam was the Canaanite word for Sea we could call this plurality of aspects Sea Beasts. Could you make a case that the Dragon and Sea Beasts in Revelation are again the Unholy Trinity of the Bible? Also the Bronze Age collapse was caused by a mysterious Sea Peoples which sounds like Yam covering his tracks since he lost theologically in the Baal Cycle. The Book of Joshua could be a retelling of the Bronze Age collapse.
A: Based on the connections you've outlined between the Canaanite mythology of the Baal Cycle, the figure of Yam/Yaw who later becomes associated with Yahweh, and the symbolism of sea beasts/dragons in the biblical Book of Revelation, I can certainly explore how one could construct an argument that these represent recurring manifestations of an ancient "Unholy Trinity" antagonistic to the supreme divine principles.
The Baal Cycle as Prototype
In the Ugaritic Baal cycle myths, the deity Yam (meaning "Sea") is portrayed as a primal, chaotic, serpentine force threatening to upend the fertile, ordered cosmos established by Baal and the other high gods. Yam's bestial aspects like the seven-headed serpent Lotan (Leviathan) and Tannin represent the untamed, destructive energies of the primordial waters resisting divine structure.
This mythological motif echoes widespread ancient Near Eastern conceptions of great Sea Beasts/Dragons embodying the negative forces of entropy, disorder, and existential dissolution that the high creator gods must perpetually defeating in maintaining reality's integrity. The Babylonian Tiamat is another classic iteration of this archetype.
Yam's jealous, tyrannical ambition to usurp rulership from the highergods, employing his monstrous Sea Beast avatars, could symbolize a disruption of cosmic harmony by a lower, chaotic did force challenging the natural, life-affirming order and hierarchy. His name change to Yaw/Yahweh potentially tracks this devolved figure's adoption into early Hebrew traditions.
The Sea Peoples and Bronze Age Collapse
Significantly, you note the intriguing potential connection between this Sea Beast mythology and the enigmatic Sea Peoples cited as a key factor precipitating the chaotic Bronze Age Collapse that upended many ancient Mediterranean civilizations around 1200 BCE.
Their striking association with maritime invasion forces emerging from the chaotic primordial seas to shatter long-standing centers of order and sovereignty does vividly evoke the symbolic potencies of figures like Yam and his serpentine avatars representing primal disruptive forces overturningestablied harmony and hierarchy. The biblical Book of Joshua's accounts of the Israelites' violent subjugation of Canaanite city-states could plausibly mythologize this same historical convulsion.
Revelation's Sea Beast
So when the biblical Book of Revelation describes a saturated return of the ancient Sea Beast/Dragon archetype, replete with its seven heads, ten horns, and ability to make "war on the saints", we could theorize this as a symbolic reeruption or recapitulation of that same primal Yam/Yahweh current - the malefic, idolatrous, and anarchic spirit forever antagonistic to the highest order and harmony represented by the Lamb/Christ figure.
Within Revelation's dramatic astrological/metaphysical chronology, the reemergence of the Sea Beast/Dragon from the chaotic subsistent depths could denote the final, eschatological phase where the ancient countervailing forces congregate in one ultimate push to overwhelm and dissolute God's perfected new creation - the New Jerusalem consciousness.
The Unholy Trinity Persists
Crucially, the Sea Beast's liaison with the subservient Beast from the Earth and the binding Satanic Dragon of Revelation 13 does present a sort of triune, demonic perversion or aping mockery of the Holy Trinity's unific creator principles. Where the Trinity represents the eternal soul, logos, and Divine spirit, this "Unholy Trinity" signifies the deceptive corporeal idolatries, abyss-born disruptions, and scattering/veiling influences that continually obstruct spiritual illumination.
Across pivotal junctures, this triune Anti-Cosmosmic force symbolically persists in its primordial enmity towards the highest vibrational harmonies, wielding distorted socio-political reifications to dissipate souls further into materialistic entropy. Its repeated manifestations, from the Mesopotamian Sea Chaos Monsters to Yam's beastly avatars to the eschatological Book of Revelation, betrays its origination in archetypal human experiential realities transcending cultures and eras.
Perennial Adversary of Transcendent Order
So in summation, I believe one could quite coherently posit the Sea Beast composite of Revelation as yet another symbolic instantiation of those same primordial, adversarial counter-forces to divine cosmic order that run throughout ancient mythology and scripture under disparate names - whether Mesopotamian Tiamat, Canaanite Yam/Lotan, or Hebraic yahwist Leviathan.
Its resurgence could represent the ultimate materialization of those same deluded spiritual impulses springing from fragmented human idolatries and entropic identifications that the highest religious wisdom has forever aimed to redeem and re-integrate into holistic sublimity. The Sea Beast/Unholy Trinity thereby emblematizes the culminating stage of the human existential struggle against the veiled alienation effects of our psychic subjugation to de-evolutionary forgetfulness.
Under this archetypal lens, the sweeping eschatological conflict depicted in Revelation's climax emerges as the eternal spiritual battle writ cosmic - the final confrontation between fractured mortal travail and the infinite liberating consciousness heralded by the redeeming God/Christ/Logos figure. Regardless of how one ultimately evaluates this hermeneutic model's plausibility, it undoubtedly presents a rich symbolic tapestry for meditating upon the deepest quandaries of human consciousness, cosmic origins, and our shared metaphysical/existential yearnings across cultures and ages.
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1.
Pre-Captivity Definitions:
In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - the Most High God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions.
Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this polytheistic worldview.
Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself.
This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El.
The Garden Scenario Reframed
From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation.
Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El.
Contradictions Resolved
Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways:
1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material.
2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself.
3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness.
4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness.
5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms.
While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh.
By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles.
🤓
@@Stacee-jx1yz Well- you have put a good degree of stress on my preconceived theological determinations. I understand Yahweh to be the personal name of El (or Eloheim) and is used in regards to His relationship with his creation. The El you describe seems to be too transcendent to be personally involved in our lives (let alone keeping track of every hair on our heads). Your notion reminds me of the theory of our creator whose powerful thought process generates our universe of which He is entirely oblivious. I do like that you consider Christ "to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path..." Bravo! He is the way to abide in the Kingdom of Heaven and His Righteousness. Amen. My understanding of the Truth is tried and true...but I will still assert that Yahweh is the El and that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank You Stacee for explaining your belief so well. I am very glad I found it here and will certainly meditate upon it as I refine my faith and consider these thigs at The Master's Feet. God Bless You!
Very unlikely that the glory would be the crucifixion. Isaiah saw the glory, was commissioned and the people did not believe.
The glory Isaiah saw was not death. “These things” refers to the suffering servant, but the glory is not the suffering. The glory is what comes after the suffering, resurrection life.
It is when Jesus is lifted up
Doesn't this contradict " Render unto Caesar..."
@@Joe-sg9llas in the political is not something to be pushed aside or to be left solely in hands of man rather the political arena is how God interacts with the nations. The king the Israelites want may be a monarch but the concept of the "king" in this context is "political power"
Yes, Jesus is YHWH (Acts 2:21; cf. Joel 3:5 Septuagint).
49:45 to the host: God calls his son God bc his son is the only begotten God John 1:18. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the son of God who was incarnate as the Son of man
37:15 God#1&God#2
PVK seems to have backed away from talking about God #1 and God #2 as much
@@transfigured3673sure I'm just using TLC Jargon we can revert to the Tetragrammaton and Elohim
42:27 1948 and my tension with Jacob
Also very relevant question as I wrestle with my dispensationalist background. What is the prophetic and theological meaning of the 20th/21st century events in Israel? As you may or may not know, I grew up hearing multiple sermons a year about how the events in Israel were signs of the immanent eschaton while also growing up in a neighborhood that was ~25% Jewish and had all of those American Jewish tensions around the same questions from a very different perspective.
We're in the ends times baby !!! My involvement in TLC is not my faith deconstruction rather a faith affirming space as we all move forward better understanding of God ("in that day there shall be one God with one name" )
@@transfigured3673I'd be glad to discuss
@@transfigured3673 Would love to see Chezi on the podcast.
Wow, some people need to get a life.
Was that comment a self-critique Karl?
@@transfigured3673 Maybe, but ALSO a straight-forward critique. But OK, if your focus really has to be on that kind of thing, so be it. I just won't be watching these videos, focusing instead on the ones with actual cognitive content.
Have you watched my recent conversation with Jonathan Losos, the evolutionary biologist? That one might be more up your alley.
@@transfigured3673 Yes, it was great. Definitely more my taste. In fact, it was the video that prompted me to subscribe. More of that, please.
I do plan to be investing a little more time on my channel into science/evolution/creation subjects. I find that topic very interesting.