The Becoming God

Friday, May 13, 2016

Neville Goddard's David: No Character of Scripture Was a Human Individual, So What is David Doing There?

Neville Goddard believed scripture is allegorical and symbolic: "The Bible has no reference at all to any persons that ever existed, or to any events that ever occurred upon earth . . . It isn't a secular history. It is divine history, the history of salvation. It is all psychological . . . Every man is destined to discover that scripture is his autobiography. It’s not written about individual beings like Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so on who lived unnumbered years ago, but about the individual you! . . . Everything in the Bible takes place in the mind of man: the tree, the city, the people, everything. There is not a statement made in the Bible that does not represent some attribute of the human mind. They are all personifications of the mind and not things within the world. Consciousness is the one and only reality."

Yet Neville insists repeatedly that the Promise is fulfilled when David stands before you and calls you 'Father', and memory returns. "And may I tell you, when you see him, it is David of biblical fame!"

Huh? None of the characters of scripture were human individuals, but David "of biblical fame" stands before us? Where did David come from? Did Neville goof up on this one?

No, David is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world. He is the Beloved ('David' means beloved in Hebrew), the manifestation of God we each are destined become. THAT is David of biblical fame -- our future end!

In the twists and turns of Oneness' sanity, everything exists at once. It is all one big thing, but we look at aspects of it in segments. Let me throw in here the Greek word oikonomia I learned at Melodyland School of Theology:

Oikonomia

Definition
1. the management of a household or of household affairs
a. specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others property
b. the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship
c. administration, dispensation

The Ineffable is everything, but as the Source It has its own administration. It has an e'had (one), an administration of countless kajillions of individual (yet unified) imaginings which God (a verb) everything. While this action has its own administration, it has sent itself into this dimension of "death" -- the forgetting of that administration -- to the chaos of this one. What is administrating this household? We are here to find out!

David as the Christ is God the Father sent by himself to manifest the Father. As the "Sent," he is the Son and has a more limited roll than the Father, the "Sender." We also are God the Father sent to become David, the Manifestation. We are limited in this state, but we also are David's Father. He doesn't become complete until we do. When he appears and recognizes us as Father, we realize that we are. I imagine we will then take on the administration of the Ineffable.

It seems like madness, but it all makes sense as one big thing: the Ineffable doing Its thing.

3 Comments:

  • Nice piece Dan -

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:28 AM  

  • O M G . I comfiuesd

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:21 AM  

  • Dear Anonymous at 12:21,
    Yes, it is confusing. But I ask you to try to grasp what Neville was talking about and read this post again, storing the concepts in your mind for future clarification and illumination. Neville was a believer, but he understood the Bible and the invisible spiritual world it describes differently than most. You might find it rewarding to purchase the paperback Neville Goddard's Final Lectures and then listen to Neville's voice recordings of those specific lectures on YouTube. DO NOT LISTEN TO THE KINDLE VERSION OF THE BOOK, AS THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Neville finally worked out that the Jesus and the Christ in "Jesus Christ" were, and are, two separate persons in one: YOU. I have recently noted in a post that the deal about Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is that Israel, "God's Prevailing," is IN the One that God our Lord is. We are not separate. Ignorant of the continuity, yes, but not separate.

    By Blogger Daniel C. Branham-Steele, at 2:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home