Check out this gibberish from Wade Cox, the other Great Bwana to Africa, Islam, and a few Caucasians in Arkansas about the four Yahovahs and Jesus being an actual physical son of the Eloah (the Father) who is subservient to him and the elevated one of thousands.
Wade got his self-righteous Christo/Islamic undies in a huge knot over a sermon by Frank Nelty in 1994.
It is true that Yahovah is a name used for multiple sons of God and Genesis 18 and 19 refers to four Yahovahs at the same time. One stayed with Abraham and two went to Lot at Sodom and then they called fire down from the Yahovah in Heaven. This is explained in the paper The Angel of YHVH (No. 024).
Thus the language of the text can admit of a subordinate Yahovah of Israel; however, if the wording of the First Commandment were to apply to Christ or another Yahovah it is direct idolatry and the Sin of Satan.
Such a view comes from the false assertion that the God of the OT was Jesus Christ which is the false theology of Armstrong running directly against the OT texts. Were the claim to be made that the Yahovah here refers to Christ and not to God as Ha Elohim then we are faced with the fact that this text, being singular, makes Christ demand that he is the object of worship in Israel and not the One True God.
The text linguistically cannot refer to two beings, although the claim that they were two beings as one is obviously the false premise on which they rely. The real understanding of the OT is clouded by the error of Armstrong being perpetuated by his advocates blindly accepting the false assertion and building on it as we see here. We have no doubt that Armstrong himself would have censured this view re the First Commandment referring to Christ.
As was also pointed out here, the point should be obvious to anyone that if those were the commandments of Christ, then worshipping the Father would be a transgression because we would be worshipping the Father in the place of Christ. It's absurd. When we read Ezra chapters 4-7 we see that the Temple belonged to The Deity (SHD #433 Eloahh, Eloah), and the laws were those of The Deity, and in John 17:3 Christ called this Deity the One True God. Christ also identified this Deity as his God in John 20:17 and as such this would make this God Christ's Creator and it makes Christ a subordinate elohim who acts at the behest of his Creator. So those laws can only be the laws of God the Father and that would also explain why the First Century Church considered Christ the Great Angel of the OT who gave the law to Moses, as the Bible states.
Our God is Christ's God. We only have One True God. We serve Him, as does Christ.
This insidious heresy of two true Gods and the lie that the Father is not mentioned in the OT has been spread by these people to the extent that we see that one or two COG people in Africa have been approached via the Internet by one or two other ex-WCG people, seemingly in South Africa, who are trying to advance the possibility that the First Commandment applies to Christ. Fortunately it is being rejected as utter heresy by those of whom we are aware.
The Bible is quite clear that there is One True God and that God is identified in the OT as the Father and creator and His name is Eloah, and he has a physical son. Proverbs 30:4 directly challenges anyone who thinks he has understanding of the texts to declare the name of the Father and the name of his Son. The text then proceeds to identify Him by name as Eloah which is a singular name that admits of no plurality and it refers to the Father only. Understanding this name of God is the test of understanding in the Holy Spirit. Ditheists or Binitarians fail this test. They deny or misrepresent its application.
A little later this is this absurdity:
He is the Most High (Eleyon or Elyon) and there can be only one Most High by definition and the logic of language. He divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God (Deut. 32:8 RSV and DSS). He gave Yahovah's portion to be the Children of Israel. Thus Elyon and Yahovah, as God and son of God, are set in place here in the Torah where Yahovah of Israel is one of the sons of God and Eloah is set as the creator. For this reason the MT was forged in this text in the post-Temple period and that is why the KJV is false.
Job mentions Eloah in 45 places. The redeemer is listed as one of the Thousand and is not Eloah in Job (Job 33:23).
As you can see, Wade Cox is not the brightest bulb in the package.
Christ has partners or comrades in association with him that shared in his position and above whom he was appointed or anointed. The absolute requirement of this position logically is that he cannot have always been above them. He was one of them until he was anointed above them.
The asshattery just gets worse and worse:
What is it then that sets Christ apart from the other sons of God in the Angelic Host? The answer is that he was elevated above the other sons of God from his resurrection from the dead and his appointment as High Priest of the Host after the order of Melchisedek. We will all become elohim (Jn. 10:34-35) and be equal to the Angels (SGD 2465 i.e. SGD 2470 + SGD 32 equal or like an angel) (Lk. 20:36; Mat. 22:30; Mk. 12:25) who are also elohim by definition and as sons of God and the Council of the elohim of the OT texts. Christ will confess us before these angels of God (Lk. 12:8). They are referred to as sons of God in numerous places in the OT and we as sons of God will be as elohim as stated in both the OT and NT. They are sent with Christ to the earth at his return (Mat. 13:41; 25:31). Christ confesses us before them in order that we may be accepted among them as elohim.
You can read this complete mess by Wade Cox here if you dare: Effects of 20th Century Churches of God Doctrines on the Nature of God
-----------------------
For the grammar police
27 comments:
‘ You can read the complete mess by Wade Cox here if you dare…’
You have got to be JOKING.
I thought Bob Thiel was scrapping the bottom of the barrel, but Cox takes it to the entire bottomless pit. What utter nonsense. It is no wonder Armstrongism has a bad name. I know some of his crazy followers in Arkansas. Nutjobs!
It's no wonder Armstrongism has a bad name?
It's no wonder religion has a bad name.
Hah!
Same ol' "I have special knowledge that you need to know" scam. Just a slightly different wrinkle.
Cox is correct in refuting the idea that Jesus was God "the Father" of the OT and the first commandment. That "Jesus was YHVH" not so much. The theology of the NT weaves Jesus into the OT but that's just theology. It is not what the OT says about El or YHVH who were two distinct Gods in the beginning.
===========================
"Recent archaeological, biblical, and extrabiblical research has led scholars working in the area of the origins of Israelite religion to assert rather boldly and confidently that the original god of Israel was in fact the Canaanite deity El.1 Just exactly how has this come about you ask?"
NOTE: This is probably the best explanation I have read on the Polytheism of Ancient Israel in the evolution of the Canaanite God "EL", adopted by Israel at first to YHVH, who originally as seen in Deut 32, was a member of the Council of the Gods, as was the Ha Satan originally and placed over Israel by EL as Israel's national God.
New Testament theology aside, no Jesus is spoken of in the OT. No Jesus was "the God of the Old Testament". It was El and YHVH and eventually YHVH usurped the qualities of El, but YHVY was never Jesus IMHO. That's NT theological musings.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/
"...Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.
When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
There are two points to take away from this passage. First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received.
Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet “the Most High.” In other words, the passage depicts two gods: one, the Most High (El), is seen as assigning nations to the divine beings or gods (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”) in his council; the other, Yahweh, is depicted as receiving from the first god, the Most High, his particular allotment, namely the people of Israel. Similarly, in another older tradition now preserved in Numbers 21:29, the god Chemosh is assigned to the people of Moab.
Other biblical passages reaffirm this archaic view of Yahweh as a god in El’s council. Psalm 82:1 speaks of the “assembly of El,” Psalm 29:1 enjoins “the sons of El” to worship Yahweh, and Psalm 89:6-7 lists Yahweh among El’s divine council.
Thus there seems to be ample evidence in the biblical record to support the claim that as Yahweh become the supreme national deity of the Israelites, he began to usurp the imagery, epithets, and old cultic centers of the god El.
This process of assimilation even morphed the linguistic meaning of the name El, which later came to mean simply “god,” so that Yahweh was then directly identified as ’el—thus Joshua 22:22: “the god of gods is Yahweh” (’el ’elohim yhwh)."
In reply to Dennis 5:29
The ancient Israelites believed in monolatry. The God they worshipped was the greatest God in the pantheon of gods. This is an intermediate step between polytheism and monotheism. When God said in the First Commandment, “you shall no other gods before me”, I believe this statement was made in the context of Israelite monolatry at that time. What this conveys to me is that God engaged in progressive revelation rather than precipitate revelation. It was some time before the Israelites understood that God was unary and of a different category than the other gods they might have known about. Finally, in Christianity, Paul refers to Thrones, Principalities sand Powers and this is understood to refer to angelic forces that were originally created by God. Much of the fog is lifted in the New Testament.
My critique of Dennis’ view is that it is not longitudinal. It is a point in time view. It is the view from the Bronze Age and does not equate to the view in Second Temple Judaism and later Paul. It does not encompass the full arc of the development of the understanding of God reflected in scripture. We cannot take a cross-section and generalize it to the whole. We must be informed by the whole arc.
God is the same over time but his self-revelation is progressive. And this is an issue for some quarters of Western Christianity and evangelicalism. I think the idea of progressive development is objectionable to them. They want to see a consistent and full presentation of God through all the pages of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. So, somehow God as presented in the pages of Genesis must be made to conform to God as presented in the pages of 1 Corinthians. And this becomes the occasion for a flourish of apologetics.
This denial of progressive development in the understanding of God underpins Biblical Literalism. Because Biblical Literalism cannot accommodate the idea that an early revelation of God can be true and a later differing revelation of God can also be true. But it is painfully obvious that God reveals himself progressively. In Second Temple Judaism God had a Temple and in Christianity God is the Temple.
Can we equate the El of the Canaanites to the El of ancient Israel? This equation is an assumption in Dennis’ argument but it is itself an issue of debate. Scripture presents the idea that El is just a semantic term. Rather than referring to a single deity uniquely and forever, it can be redefined. El is the word for God in the Northwest Semitic language. In fact, it has a Proto-Semitic origin. What might it have referred to in the pre-Canaanite days - before the Canaanites decided that it referred to a specific deity of their own devising? It may have bifurcated in meaning many times before it ever became loaded with the meaning favored among the Canaanites.
We know of one great bifurcation. For the Canaanites, El was a god who lived in the desert, had a couple of wives and a bunch of kids. Whatever El meant to ancient Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, it suddenly acquired a radically different meaning through Moses and the events surrounding the Exodus. The new God revealed to Israel and to whom the term “El” could be applied, found the Canaanite religious practices detestable. It is illogical to equate the El of the Canaanites to the El of ancient Israel.
Some of the confusion can be cleared up by realizing el, or Elohim, is incorrectly translated with the modern god or gods.
A better translation is mighty one, or mighty ones.
In the Hebrew Scriptures el or elohim applies to men, judges, rulers, etc. That is, el/elohim. Persons of authority.
So Yahweh, for example, is not a god, but a mighty one, that is a being of authority. What makes Him a deity is His name, Yahweh, not His title Elohim. His name means Was/Is/Will Be.
This is also why the Messiah was able to say “Ye are gods.” That is mighty ones, persons of authority. He wasn’t saying Ye are deities.
Just think of it, and the complex becomes simple.
" It is illogical to equate the El of the Canaanites to the El of ancient Israel."
Although a huge topic, it is not illogical. It is historical fact. Israel's God did not arrive in a vacuum. It was first borrowed, then evolved, then tweeked as in all cultures. Israel evolved from its original polytheism to monotheism over time which is how it always works. The NT tale went further blending the story of Jesus as Messiah, then "God's only begotten son" into "fully man and fully God" which is just doubletalk to be taken on faith, no questions allowed.
This would be my view in a nutshell
According to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology,
It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the "God of Abraham" ... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect "divorced" in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15.)[50]
Of course, the history and evolution of God in the scriptures is what is interesting to me. In fact, to me, there are no gods as they are merely made up to fill in the spaces of what is not yet understood about reality etc.
So, plain English. Was this a good evolution, or a bad evolution? Did we receive a good God, or a bad one? Or, does this evolution refute the entire Bible, meaning we should all be atheists?
What does it say when a total Kook-a-boo like Wade Cox is said to have come up with the best explanation of all times for the God of the Old Testament?
Progressive revelation is something I've always trended towards, because it is the only concept which makes sense when one considers the growth of humankind from hunter-gatherers to beings capable of space-exploration. This raises the question as to why "the book" stopped 2,000 years ago. Perhaps that is when humans became ready for further revelation from media other than a book? Regarding God, it is also axiomatic that an organism or entity which ceases to grow is actually dying or dead. Can we not infer the growth of God from the growth capabilities of His created beings (us)? Isn't that part of being created "in His image"? So, yes, I do also believe in the continued growth of God. The ability to grow can be a constant of God, and still be compatible with perfection. A God with the constant propensity to grow would also be described as "changing not" unless He suddenly ceased growing.
The concept of angels evolved from polytheism. Angels are basically gods. The bible even equates demons with the gods of the gentiles.
To say that all the gods we know are make up (probably true) does not imply that there are no gods. It is an atheistic fallacy to jump to that conclusion.
A lot hinges on the historicity of the exodus. If Ambassador University had not gone broke they could have proved the exodus by sponsoring another "Dig" (like AC's famous work in the 1970s)?
8:18 wrote:
“ It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El,”
Look and learn. Typical “scholarly writing.” Quoted as fact. But, is written as a guess. So, is it a fact, OR, is it just “ALMOST CERTAIN?”
Looks like certain guesswork to me. Read all the scholarly, historical and scientific literature and one discovers an interesting language written as guesswork, but presented as fact. You know, like: maybe, must be, appears as, implies, has to be, more than certain, must have been, surely must be, seems to be, possibly, most probably, etc., etc.,etc.
That is the basic writing style used to preach deception. Don’t be fooled by the art of deception.
9:55 said:
"Looks like certain guesswork to me. Read all the scholarly, historical and scientific literature and one discovers an interesting language written as guesswork, but presented as fact. You know, like: maybe, must be, appears as, implies, has to be, more than certain, must have been, surely must be, seems to be, possibly, most probably, etc., etc.,etc.
That is the basic writing style used to preach deception. Don’t be fooled by the art of deception."
That is the best description of the Church of God's scholars/ministers yet. COG writers and ministers are artists of deception, possiblies, maybe's, and seems to be. None of them have ever understood the Bible they claim to know intensely. All agents of fraud and deception. Is there a COG leader today that has ever told the truth and actually knows their Bible?
People,
You have to go back to the very beginning at Adam's creation. When Adam sinned, the truth would take a fall, meaning that the nations would receive only bits and pieces of the truth about God and His name. (He even had to introduce Himself to Moses as Yahweh but before that it was well known that He was El; Ex 6:3) That's why your concept of God, El, Allah or Yahweh is different from someone else's version. Diehl's quote from the website mentioned above does scratch the surface of this deep truth but still falls short. Cox presents some good points but misses as well (for example, does he quote Heb 1 where it is clear that angels cannot be called sons or were begotten as sons?).
As for Yahweh "evolving" from the Canaanite El? Come on, who came first? Like you and most people today, you might know something about God (even about His name) but you don't know Him personally. Yes, the title for God, "El", existed among the ancients before the name "Yahweh" but that is because the Lord chose to reveal that later. First, you have to fear and obey Him (which the name El invokes), then, you begin to understand Him and His name (invoked by the name Yahweh).
"..a COG leader...knows their Bible?" Highly doubtful.
******
There are only three festivals-Ex 23:14-16. "Times" does not mean seasons but a stroke, or step, in time.
Israel was to stay in their homes until morning after the passover service-Ex 12:22. Yet they left Egypt at night on the 15th-Ex 12:42; Num 33:3. Therefore the passover service WAS at the beginning of the 14th. Calendar days are sunset to sunset. (COGs have taught this but some now think passover is end of 14th).
The 14th passover is not a separate festival b/c there are only 3 festivals. Because there are only seven days of unleavened bread, the first festival listed in Ex 23, the 14th passover is the first day of the 7 days-Deut 16:2-4; Eze 45:21; Mat 26:17; Mark 14:1, 12; Luke 22:1, 7. DUB is til the beginning of the 21st-Ex 12:18.
Ex 23 lists feasts, Hebrew chag. Lev 23 lists fixed times, Hebrew moed.
The 8th day, a sabbath, is not of the feast which has only 7 days. Therefore the last great day Of THE FEAST is the 7th day-John 7:37.
The law of tithing was removed-Greek word is the same for "change"-Heb 7:12b, and "removing"-Heb 12:27 KJV. Another Greek word is for "changed"-Heb 7:12a. There is no third tithe, only a third year. There is no command to tithe on money.
Here's a little point to ponder for you all.
"A" means without. A-theist, "without God". A person who has found no evidence that there is a God.
"A" (same) A-gnostic. "without knowing". A person who does not know if there is a God.
Atheists are pretty definitive about their nonbelief. However, there seems to be a scale for agnosticism which deals in percentages, not unlike the Aspergers scale. For those whose brain has been switched to I-O mode, I am not implying that agnostics have Aspergers Syndrome, just that there could be scales measuring the extent of their individual conditions. There are agnostics who behave, absenting further evidence, as atheists, meaning that for all practical purposes, they are atheist. Now, could there have been WorldwideChurchofGoddians who, deep down, did not know if the teachings of HWA were inspired and true, but were compliant with all of the doctrines just in case? Agnostic, wait and see, but unlike the agnostic/functioning atheists were agnostic/functioning WCG (or splinter) members? HWA made numerous statements about not being sure most of the people "got" it. From my perspective, this is all hypothetical, because to me, the Disappointment of 1975, and the continued non-participation of Jesus in the HWA prophecy mold proves that there was nothing of substance to "get". However, isn't it interesting that even the concepts of membership or nonmembership defies binary thinking! By no means is it restricted to on or off
What does this say about pure membership in any given group, and the fragility of these groups? Are the people who come here present to defend their faith, or are most of them defying their leaders to come here because they are looking for better evidence to support future decisions? Food for thought as we try to help them.
10:05 thanks for a bit of over exaggeration on the cog groups. Seems like you have been bitten by all the rumors, etc.
Instead of generalizations how about some factual (real ones) points for a change.
And, don’t forget that description also applies to much of the criticisms here. Biased, general, rumors, hearsay, complaints, disinformation, exaggeration, etc.
We are all fallible, you know, being humans.
What if the Old Testament was written by a bunch of pranksters or Rabbis on hashish? Then all of Wade's analysis is worthless. Something to think about.
"Whatever El meant to ancient Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, it suddenly acquired a radically different meaning through Moses and the events surrounding the Exodus."
As I understand it, Jewish scholars have determined that the Exodous narrative is a myth. There was no person named Moses, and no Exodous. The Moses character was derived from a pagan narrative.
The Rabbis invented stories to give Jews a sense of identity separate from Cananites so that the Jews would remain under the control of the Rabbinical system/religion.
Reply to Dennis 8:18
You cite "It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the "God of Abraham". That is called begging the question - it assumes what has yet to be proved.
Here is a piece of mythology concerning El of the Canaanites from the Ugaritic texts:
The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) ʼĒl came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. ʼĒl was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk").
Really sounds a lot like El of the Hebrews. Pardon my sarcasm.
Right, 6:06, that's the story of mankind. In order to get God out of the picture they invented such myths to explain how the creation came into being but in the beginning it wasn't so. Adam knew firsthand from the Lord that God was the one who created the dawn, dusk and all of creation.
Please who/where is Wade Cox? Is that a 7th-Day group in Australia?
Actually this is the first time I've see the name Eloah, as the one head of the Elohim. That is helpful.
Elohim were here since the start of Earth history. What's this about El of Canaan?
Knowledge from other sources: Earth was the first place in the universe where humanoids were created. The Abraxas were first. We humans were the only ones made to need food and oxygen. The Elohim are one group from one planet in the galaxy.
Ancient Israel broke the Covenant with God which made them "God's people". Judah and Levi went into Satanism (Canaanites?). God ended the relationship, divorce. The other ten tribes resisted the change, as I understand, and Israel warred. Are Jews "God's people"?
Wade Cox is a splinter cult leader of Armstrongism. He is completely off his rocker and blasphemous in his teachings. He also claims Islam is a better interpretation of Jewish scriptures. The man is an idiot.
Stay far away, Far, far away. You do not need to be exposed to his apostasy. Demonism at its finest.
Patterns of Exodus series gives a solid refutation of those who claim that there's no evidence whatsoever for Moses or the Israelite exodus from Egypt etc I highly recommend it!
Someone has not learn how to use apostrophes. I only got as far as the title and saw two abuses, and decided not to read the article.
"Someone has not learn how to use apostrophes. I only got as far as the title and saw two abuses, and decided not to read the article."
Aw, poor little thing. Do you need mommy to kiss your boo-boo and make it all better?
Post a Comment