Lucifer convinced Eve there was a shortcut to being like God, that things could be manipulated to skip all the hard work. It makes me think once again that Lucifer’s issue was that as highest angel he knew that God intended humans to share in the divine nature and “be like God”, but that this was something to which no angel could aspire.
2 Likes
I love that quote! It ought to be in every science book from 5th grade through 12th – that way it might sink in.
3 Likes
That work wasn’t so hard before the fall 
And there’s something about non-dualism that reeks of the serpent’s description for how “we are all” capable of it
Said the librarian who would know everything if only there were so many hours in a day.
2 Likes
I question that, at least without specifics, as I do the idea of theosis (the fatherhood of God being a current – and lasting – topic of discussion). We can only share in our fathers’ nature – and our Father’s – in specific and limited ways, likewise any ‘union’. Mormons, for instance, have a rather different concept.
- Me, too; at least in this world. In the next, followers are going to have their work cut out for them. As the deceased father of my sister-in-law used to say (note: he was a fireman, and his motto, or perhaps all firemen’s motto was) “Suit up! And showt up!”
- Personally, I’ve become enamored of the ancient practice of invoking a god’s spirit into a graven image, wherein the god was supposed to reside.
- God early forbade His chosen people to worship lifeless idols. We humans however are not idols, but–I think we may be called to be θεοφόρων in the world to come. Till then, maybe we’re supposed to learn and practice.
As joyful as the donkey entering Jerusalem, no doubt.
1 Like
I relate. 
Thanks for posting this, Dale! I thought it was a really great read and appreciated the diversity of stories.
2 Likes
“The gospels to not contain apocalytpic. They are apocalyptic.”
N.T. Wright - quoted from the fourth of his Gifford lectures series (2018).
I’ve learned so much from listening to those, and yet so much of it also went over my head, that I plan to listen to them again. But the fourth and final one really brings it all together. Our contemporary take on escatology and apocalypse has been shaped more by Epicurus (Wright says) than by the scriptural writers themselves as understood by 1st century Jews. We think that end-times must mean end-of-the-world; and yet the themes delivered by the apostles, the prophets and the psalmists before them (not to mention Christ himself) are very much about the redemption and transformation of and within this world rather than the destruction and displacement of it in favor of some etherial heaven. Only our Epicurian shaped notion (also now known as Lessings Ditch) which has the world of the gods (the so-called ‘supernatural’) as being entirely separate from the world of men - (the so-called ‘natural’) - only that modern invention with its ancient Epicurean (and Platonic) roots has us thinking that the present (natural) age is obliged to disappear before the age-to-come can arrive to entirely displace it.
All four lectures are worth taking in. But these have been my main take-aways from it so far as I’m finishing the fourth.
[I was mistaken about the fourth one being the final one … am delighted at the end of the fourth to hear yet another one mentioned … bring on the fifth! …and however many after that - school is still in session!]
3 Likes
I think he has to be playing fast and loose with the definition of “apocalyptic”, since as a literary type the Gospels as a whole don’t fit it.
I remember in Greek class when we reached the “little apocalypse” in Mark and referenced the parallel in Matthew learning that “end times” doesn’t refer so much to a specific period of time as on a calendar but to the “flavor” of a period of time, and that thus the end times began with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. That definitely helped make sense of the fact that one big reason that Revelation made it into the canon was that Christians back then read it and saw what it described happening around them yet following generations could read it and see it happening around them as well.
“Fast and loose” isn’t a descriptor that I would apply to Wright - though you certainly could apply it to the blurb I wrote about what he said, or my single line of quotation in its isolation. You should listen to his whole lecture (again - I think the fourth one is where this happens). He does take the time to look at the different usages of the concept of “apocalypse” and states which one(s) he is favoring and why. I suspect you might enjoy his lectures in that he more than addresses (I think) the questions and challenges you raise.
1 Like
I found them on YouTube and set apart much of my evening to watch at least one.
Are they dependent and need to be watched in order?
Yes… I would watch them in order. But if you don’t have that much time, or can’t wait for him to get to specifically what we were talking about, try talk #4, and then #6.
Thanks for mentioning these lectures! I will listen to them.
I’m assuming that Wright means that the Gospels provide an “unveiling” which makes them apocalyptic.
1 Like
[Oh … sorry! This is what I get for skimming and reacting too fast … now I realize you were sharing a nicer link to the whole lecture set. Thanks! - I’ll edit your post and make the link.]
Warning - they are academically dense (which for me was most apparent in the very first one where I found myself reeling from all his name-dropping … ‘Heidegger this’ … and ‘Hegelian that…’) I felt like I was a fish out of water who had just dropped into a philosophy class without having taken any of the necessary pre-reqs. But it got better a few lectures in when I warmed up to his major themes and they became much more apparent. Even though I’m not through the sixth one yet, I already know I want to go back and listen to the first one again now.
[It might also be a good drug if you’re ever struggling with insomnia. Because despite my intense interest in the subject matter - one hour is just a long time to listen to even the most delightfully stuffy British accent, and I find my lids getting heavy. ]
2 Likes
I started with #2 since it was about the Gospels. I am presently cheering his analysis of Schweizer a la Wagner.
Boy, he’s referencing a lot of scholars I used to be able to talk about knowledgeably, but now they’re just names I recognize.
Love this: “. . . to think into the minds of people who think very differently from ourselves”. That’s where YEC totally fails: there is no attempt whatsoever at understanding what any of the writers of the scriptures understood concerning the words they were writing.
I also love his depiction of fans of historical criticism doing altogether too much criticism and not enough history, in part because that puts into words some of the misgivings I had in grad school about the whole historical-critical endeavor.
3 Likes