Genesis 1:1, Exodus 3:14, Mark 1:1, and John 1:1-18: The Question Is The Milta: Are Systematic Theologies Wrong?
We translate the Scriptures and interpret what we think they say (or think they ought to say) according our own preconceived ideas. This has given us a completely invalid concept of what the true metaphysical reality is. What the recorders of the original scriptures meant in their language certainly is not what is coming through in the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament. Our trajectory is far worse than a tangent; it's a complete 'tain't.
Our 'tain't began with a bunch of things misread and misunderstood in Genesis 1:1. Our traditional understanding of it is a complete mess. We come to the party with notions of an eternally perfect, self-existent, all-knowing and never changing "I AM BECAUSE I SIMPLY, FROM ALL ETERNITY, AM" (Exodus 3:14) SuperGod. Yet the whole point of creation is that God is changing and is improving from what It was. The ongoing generation of that refinement is our existence. Genesis 1:1 introduces the fact that an uncompleted process is going on.
So when we get to Genesis 1:1, we already have a invalid picture of God in tow. In '"Ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh" (Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh in the ancient Aramaic), God was not saying, "I simply am that I am - that is my name;" i.e., that It is uncaused. Moses was searching for God's excellence, jethro. Jethro is a little trippy; it is more like how life works. What are we supposed to do to have a good life? What are the underlying mechanics? What is it that is really going on?
To this God replied, "I am that (your) 'I am' - this process is my nature.” I.e., It, "God," was Moses’ “I am.” It is your “I am,” and It is my “I am.” It is our consciousness, our imagination, our awareness of being existent as "me"--the thing having that perspective in our mind. It is our perspective of self, and by this consciousness/awareness It becomes. That is "His Excellence"--the kingdom (naturally operating power) of God. The Hebrew ehyeh, it is well known, means "will be" or "become." Does "will be" or "become" sound like they mean God is already finished and perfected? They mean God is a work in progress. The kingdom is Its working.
Well, who was working in Genesis 1:1? Let me bring in the idea of Ein Sof. The words are Hebrew for "Without End;" i.e., It is the incomprehensible, infinite Endlessness, The Limitless. Ein Sof is God before any manifestation by or of Itself. Everything that is ... has come from Ein Sof. If you want to know more about Ein Sof, you really have got to read Rabbi David A. Cooper’s God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism (1997, New York: Riverhead Books), pages 66 thru 72.
I am inclined to suggest, however, that the active agent in Genesis 1:1 was the Ineffable No-thing which is beyond Ein Sof. The Ineffable isn't really beyond Ein Sof, of course, It is Ein Sof. Ein Sof is Itself in and of the Ineffable, for it is the Ineffable's ACTION (I'm serious about this verb stuff--all of "God" is forces doing stuff). The Bible says, if we will listen to it, Ein Sof is the Philosophical Child of Its incomprehensible, unimaginable Bigger-Package-Parent, the Ineffable. And Ein Sof is the Milta, which is not the Manifestation of Ein Sof, but of Godhood--the entire Godhead--the Ineffable Itself ... which includes us!
This is important, because Milta is the word used in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Milta," which parallels Genesis 1:1. Milta is John's great insight--THAT's what he was preaching. The concept of Milta explodes every idea we have had about John's prologue in the first 18 verses of his Gospel. Instead of the Greek word logos, which means word, expression, or meaning, the Aramaic word was Milta--the Manifestation of the entirety of the Ineffable. Logos is an idea, a reflection. Milta is a deed, the whole thing from beginning to end. Our theologies are all screwed up.
Okay. Now we are ready to get down to starting on the first word in Genesis 1:1, which is b'reshith in Hebrew, brasheeth in Aramaic. It is translated into English as a time: "In the beginning." The thing is, it wasn't a time; it was a person. The Beginning--capital 'B'--was the Ineffable intending to become. That act of intention was Its "Son," The Beginning. An intention proceeds before an act. The Ineffable's action was imagining (the only action spirit can take). The Ineffable's imagining is what we call "God." Therefore the Hebrew version of Genesis 1:1 can be translated "By means of (or 'With' or 'As') a Beginning [It (the Ineffable)] created God (Elohim: "Over the Flames," Its action of imagining[!]), the heavens and the earth" (Cooper, pages 66 and 310, note #83, with some of some of Victor Alexander and my take on them both). Per Cooper's note, the Zohar says "By means of a Beginning [It] created Elohim." Elohim was not the person, it was the person's action.
So in the beginning was the Beginning, the "Son," the Manifestation of the entirety of the Ineffable, who created the action which is the imagining of the Ineffable. We call that imagining action Elohim, God the Father; in Aramaic, Allaha. Kind of a different stack-up, isn't it? And still all one Ineffable Being.
This same brasheeth occurs in John 1:1. Let me tweak it: "As the Beginning of creation there was the Milta; and that Milta was with Allaha; and Allaha was [the embodiment of] that Milta" (my melding of Alexander and Cooper/Zohar).See how different this order is? Instead of the "Word" expressing the meaning of God, "God" is the embodiment of the Ineffable's deed--It's Manifestation. THAT MANIFESTATION WAS AND IS "JESUS CHRIST," EASHOA--THE LIFE-GIVING LIVING BRANCH OF THE INEFFABLE.
I close with this possible revelation from Mark 1:1 and John 1:18. The first word in Mark's Gospel, according to Alexander, should be translated "He reveals." The verse is: "He reveals the Anointed Life-Giving, Living Branch." The question that went through my mind when I discovered and wrote about this was, "He who?" Jesus? The Holy Spirit? (The Holy Spirit eliminated due to gender--it is always feminine in Aramaic.) God the Father? A couple of nights ago I looked at John 1:18. The Gospel of John was written many years after Mark. Now, I know from some study that the last Greek word in John 1:18, because there is no object to it, MUST be translated as 'revealed.' "No human being ever saw Allaha, except for the only born Allaha, He who existed in the bosom of his Father, [Who] proclaimed Him" (Alexander).
I DO NOT NOW IF IT IS ALLOWED IN THE GREEK AND ARAMAIC, but I wonder if the verse can be read: "No human being ever saw Allaha (the intention of the Ineffable in action), except for the only born Allaha (the Milta), He (the Milta) who existed in the bosom of his Father (the Ineffable), [Who] proclaimed Him." Who reveals, proclaims the Milta, the Manifestation of the Ineffable which Allaha embodies? THE INEFFABLE! This is all Its doing. So it might not be Jesus, the Milta, revealing God, but God revealing Jesus. The Son is the deed of the Ineffable's manifestation from beginning to end. As such, It incorporates the whole of the Ineffable. The Son alone can thus “see” the Ineffable and still live, because the Son is actually the Ineffable doing it. The Ineffable brought forth Its revelation of Itself at the fullness of time, at the end of the Season of Grace.
PS: Do not be surprised if I come back and do some editing on this.
Our 'tain't began with a bunch of things misread and misunderstood in Genesis 1:1. Our traditional understanding of it is a complete mess. We come to the party with notions of an eternally perfect, self-existent, all-knowing and never changing "I AM BECAUSE I SIMPLY, FROM ALL ETERNITY, AM" (Exodus 3:14) SuperGod. Yet the whole point of creation is that God is changing and is improving from what It was. The ongoing generation of that refinement is our existence. Genesis 1:1 introduces the fact that an uncompleted process is going on.
So when we get to Genesis 1:1, we already have a invalid picture of God in tow. In '"Ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh" (Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh in the ancient Aramaic), God was not saying, "I simply am that I am - that is my name;" i.e., that It is uncaused. Moses was searching for God's excellence, jethro. Jethro is a little trippy; it is more like how life works. What are we supposed to do to have a good life? What are the underlying mechanics? What is it that is really going on?
To this God replied, "I am that (your) 'I am' - this process is my nature.” I.e., It, "God," was Moses’ “I am.” It is your “I am,” and It is my “I am.” It is our consciousness, our imagination, our awareness of being existent as "me"--the thing having that perspective in our mind. It is our perspective of self, and by this consciousness/awareness It becomes. That is "His Excellence"--the kingdom (naturally operating power) of God. The Hebrew ehyeh, it is well known, means "will be" or "become." Does "will be" or "become" sound like they mean God is already finished and perfected? They mean God is a work in progress. The kingdom is Its working.
Well, who was working in Genesis 1:1? Let me bring in the idea of Ein Sof. The words are Hebrew for "Without End;" i.e., It is the incomprehensible, infinite Endlessness, The Limitless. Ein Sof is God before any manifestation by or of Itself. Everything that is ... has come from Ein Sof. If you want to know more about Ein Sof, you really have got to read Rabbi David A. Cooper’s God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism (1997, New York: Riverhead Books), pages 66 thru 72.
I am inclined to suggest, however, that the active agent in Genesis 1:1 was the Ineffable No-thing which is beyond Ein Sof. The Ineffable isn't really beyond Ein Sof, of course, It is Ein Sof. Ein Sof is Itself in and of the Ineffable, for it is the Ineffable's ACTION (I'm serious about this verb stuff--all of "God" is forces doing stuff). The Bible says, if we will listen to it, Ein Sof is the Philosophical Child of Its incomprehensible, unimaginable Bigger-Package-Parent, the Ineffable. And Ein Sof is the Milta, which is not the Manifestation of Ein Sof, but of Godhood--the entire Godhead--the Ineffable Itself ... which includes us!
This is important, because Milta is the word used in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Milta," which parallels Genesis 1:1. Milta is John's great insight--THAT's what he was preaching. The concept of Milta explodes every idea we have had about John's prologue in the first 18 verses of his Gospel. Instead of the Greek word logos, which means word, expression, or meaning, the Aramaic word was Milta--the Manifestation of the entirety of the Ineffable. Logos is an idea, a reflection. Milta is a deed, the whole thing from beginning to end. Our theologies are all screwed up.
Okay. Now we are ready to get down to starting on the first word in Genesis 1:1, which is b'reshith in Hebrew, brasheeth in Aramaic. It is translated into English as a time: "In the beginning." The thing is, it wasn't a time; it was a person. The Beginning--capital 'B'--was the Ineffable intending to become. That act of intention was Its "Son," The Beginning. An intention proceeds before an act. The Ineffable's action was imagining (the only action spirit can take). The Ineffable's imagining is what we call "God." Therefore the Hebrew version of Genesis 1:1 can be translated "By means of (or 'With' or 'As') a Beginning [It (the Ineffable)] created God (Elohim: "Over the Flames," Its action of imagining[!]), the heavens and the earth" (Cooper, pages 66 and 310, note #83, with some of some of Victor Alexander and my take on them both). Per Cooper's note, the Zohar says "By means of a Beginning [It] created Elohim." Elohim was not the person, it was the person's action.
So in the beginning was the Beginning, the "Son," the Manifestation of the entirety of the Ineffable, who created the action which is the imagining of the Ineffable. We call that imagining action Elohim, God the Father; in Aramaic, Allaha. Kind of a different stack-up, isn't it? And still all one Ineffable Being.
This same brasheeth occurs in John 1:1. Let me tweak it: "As the Beginning of creation there was the Milta; and that Milta was with Allaha; and Allaha was [the embodiment of] that Milta" (my melding of Alexander and Cooper/Zohar).See how different this order is? Instead of the "Word" expressing the meaning of God, "God" is the embodiment of the Ineffable's deed--It's Manifestation. THAT MANIFESTATION WAS AND IS "JESUS CHRIST," EASHOA--THE LIFE-GIVING LIVING BRANCH OF THE INEFFABLE.
I close with this possible revelation from Mark 1:1 and John 1:18. The first word in Mark's Gospel, according to Alexander, should be translated "He reveals." The verse is: "He reveals the Anointed Life-Giving, Living Branch." The question that went through my mind when I discovered and wrote about this was, "He who?" Jesus? The Holy Spirit? (The Holy Spirit eliminated due to gender--it is always feminine in Aramaic.) God the Father? A couple of nights ago I looked at John 1:18. The Gospel of John was written many years after Mark. Now, I know from some study that the last Greek word in John 1:18, because there is no object to it, MUST be translated as 'revealed.' "No human being ever saw Allaha, except for the only born Allaha, He who existed in the bosom of his Father, [Who] proclaimed Him" (Alexander).
I DO NOT NOW IF IT IS ALLOWED IN THE GREEK AND ARAMAIC, but I wonder if the verse can be read: "No human being ever saw Allaha (the intention of the Ineffable in action), except for the only born Allaha (the Milta), He (the Milta) who existed in the bosom of his Father (the Ineffable), [Who] proclaimed Him." Who reveals, proclaims the Milta, the Manifestation of the Ineffable which Allaha embodies? THE INEFFABLE! This is all Its doing. So it might not be Jesus, the Milta, revealing God, but God revealing Jesus. The Son is the deed of the Ineffable's manifestation from beginning to end. As such, It incorporates the whole of the Ineffable. The Son alone can thus “see” the Ineffable and still live, because the Son is actually the Ineffable doing it. The Ineffable brought forth Its revelation of Itself at the fullness of time, at the end of the Season of Grace.
PS: Do not be surprised if I come back and do some editing on this.
posted by Daniel C. Branham-Steele at
1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home