Blog
From idontknownuthin
If you are new to this site, starting at the bottom of the blog may be easier than jumping in here at the top. All the shadows are observations to be held tentatively until others can verify them.
Pictures have been moved off this page because it was getting too large. They are accessible through the links below or the indexes.
Church Fathers
Ireneus suggests that the dual natured man is like twins [1] Where do you think he gets this idea?
See the Tamar story.
--Rcj 19:56, 7 August 2008 (MDT)
Bubbles
Some think the bubbling water at Bethsaida is an addition to the original text.
The first observation is that it is a parallel but opposite experience to entering his own temple. There he found those who should know better, selling the grace that God had offered freely. In the pagan pool, you had pagans anticipating free grace from Bethesda meaning " house of mercy".
The bubbling water hints at the expectation for life giving or living water. And it was Jesus is the real living water who freely gave. Without the verses, you just have a bunch of people around a pool and lose the imagery.
The second observation:
The Torah:Word pattern is summarized with hearing, seeing and walking. In the Wedding at Cana thread I showed the pattern in the first three days of Jesus' ministry. John calls our attention to it again with John 4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
The first miracle was his dealings with the woman and people of Sychar. The operative word for that experience is :"hear" and as you read through it, look for that.
The second miracle was the healing of the nobleman's son. The operative word is see as in "48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe."
The third miracle is making the man "walk" completing the Torah:Word pattern. For this imagery, the bubbling isn't required, but is a nice touch.
The third observation:
The troubled waters reminds us of the "flutterings" of the Spirit of God upon the face of the deep in Gen 1. The firmament foreshadows Christ as mediator between the waters below and those above. In this case, It was Christ who separated the pagan waters from the real living water.
The reason Jesus gave mercy in the pagan temple and judgment in his own is because judgment first comes to the house of God. But also because of the temperament of the people in each. Those at Bethsaida, were "impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting.."
They were sick, (not thinking themselves healthy and without blemish as in the temple), they were unable to "see", or "walk" but they could still "hear" and his sheep hear his voice. And they were withered or dry... waterless, even though the water was there. They were waiting for the living water... though a bit mistaken in the details... Christ.
In this observation, the bubbles help.
--Rcj 22:38, 24 July 2008 (MDT)
Wedding at Cana
This is when Jesus knew He was God. The miracle was for his benefit.
--Rcj 22:44, 23 July 2008 (MDT)
153 fish
I took up this topic because there were so many people scoffing at those who believe that every jot and tittle of God's word is important. I have been lazy and just copied the post.
--Rcj 22:14, 21 July 2008 (MDT)
Jesus wept
In one forum the question was asked why Jesus wept.
The standard answer is that he associated with humanity.
The shadows show that he was faced with his own death on the cross.
--Rcj 05:29, 19 July 2008 (MDT)
A reminder
God isn't done with me yet. I was going to rant about a couple forums. But I am reminded of the prayer associated with the Orthodox prayer rope... Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.
It seems that when people get on line, they adopt behaviors that they would not have if talking face to face.
We have Bible students (presumably preacher wanna be's) adopting a mocking and scoffing style to run people off the boards as though they were turf that needed protection. I can't imagine them leading a Bible study with such tactics.
At least I am the same jerk in person that I am on line...
--Rcj 20:16, 12 July 2008 (MDT)
Just when I am getting comfortable
I was documenting the riddle of the beast below, when a crazy thought emerged. You know this one has to be good since everything here already sounds pretty wild.
The Jews and Catholics, eastern and Roman, believe that the scriptures have four layers of meaning. We have been examining the four voices of God (prophet, priest, king and judge). By applying the four voices to the name of Cain we arrive at four interpretations for the same passage.
I have tried it with various random passages, and so far it seems to work. So I will be trying it on more stuff as I go forward. You can see the first pass at Descendants_of_Adam_through_Cain#Cain
--Rcj 20:58, 5 July 2008 (MDT)
Riddle of the beast of Rev 17
Start with Riddles in riddles
--Rcj 17:55, 5 July 2008 (MDT)
Parallel names
This person has made some excellent observations using Remez (Hints) and Drash (Comparison). He is but a hop away from Sod (Hidden). [2]
As a challenge you may wish to jump onto the verses he mentions and derive the sod. I will do some to help get a start. I am really wanting to get back to Rev 17.
--Rcj 20:01, 2 July 2008 (MDT)
Original legalism
Often overlooked in the Genesis account of Adam's sin is the tension between legalism and the intent of God's word.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Let me play sea lawyer for the defense of Adam. Your Honor, Adam is innocent since he did not eat "of" or "from" the tree, he ate "of" or "from Eve" who gave him the fruit. So he did not violate the letter of the law. If you had desired that he not eat of the fruit of the tree under any circumstances, then those conditions should have been enumerated in the giving of the law."
Such as:
"Man shall not eat the fruit, bark, leaves, roots, blossoms, nor any part not heretofore mentioned of the tree, under any circumstances particularly after harvesting directly from the tree, picking up fallen fruit from the ground about the tree, harvested by another and the possession thereof transferred to another, nor shall it be eaten under the pretense that it was harvested from another tree, the absence of the knowledge of which shall not be deemed an excuse nor used to mitigate the consequences."
Evidence of this legalism can be found in Adam's defense statement: 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
The tension between the law and grace is so predominant in both the literal and the shadows that I believe this is a better interpretation than blame-shifting as is the popular interpretation.
Now in in the shadows it is consistent that Christ would make his defense, (as in Job) saying "I am not guilty, why won't you hear my defense." Again it erroneous to impart any hint of sin to Christ, it is word-play.
--Rcj 17:45, 30 June 2008 (MDT)
Letter to Mark
Mark has been encouraging me to put together a presentation that explains all this well, and has offered to help me with it. You may see how we progress together.
--Rcj 11:42, 28 June 2008 (MDT)
An Orthodox view
"I would like to commend you on your study of the typology throughout Scripture. This method is extremely Orthodox. I can find no fault in the realization of Christ, in any line of the text." - grengliman
Compliment from the Catholic board
"You are picking up on what could be the most sublime manifestations that we can apprehend. Through the lense Christ offers they are given their true object." - benadam
--Rcj 21:39, 24 June 2008 (MDT)
Families of Cain and Seth
Prodigal
The problem of denial
It is fair that, if after examining the evidence, one decides that the shadows are not for them. However, fewer and fewer evangelicals can claim to give them a fair hearing since they have pronounced that they will not look.
You don't have to see the shadows to get saved, nor do you ever have to see them. But to deny them without looking is a shame.
Prov 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
--Rcj 15:36, 21 June 2008 (MDT)
Prov 6:16-19
Prov 6:16-19 --Rcj 16:03, 20 June 2008 (MDT)
Rich man and Lazarus
Put it here.
--Rcj 15:45, 20 June 2008 (MDT)
Good Samaritan
I was asked to look at the good Samaritan. I don't have a good place for it in the wiki yet so I will put it here.
--Rcj 18:55, 19 June 2008 (MDT)
Job as Christ
I have been trying to keep my eyes open for others who may be using the shadow methods, intentionally or accidentally.
I stumbled across this site: http://biblesecrets.org
Keith is a Mormon that lives here in Salt Lake City. I met him in person this morning. He has discovered, quite independently, that Job is a shadow of Christ. His web site is flavored with his Mormonism, as mine, I am sure is flavored by my faith. As others get proficient in the methods, together we can help each other to filter out our flavorings and discern the purity of what God says in the shadows.
He has spent 26 years studying this and I appreciate his dedication to the Word of God. I have not read the full site yet. But his discernment of the parallels is the same as we have done with other scriptures and what Dr, Gage has done in Florida. You will also notice that he uses the meaning of place names, just as we have done in our dictionary replacements.
I hope our visit this morning was an encouragement to him. He has also had difficulty in getting people to even be interested in his observations.
--Rcj 20:41, 12 June 2008 (MDT)
Some more Mad dash
While dashing through 1 Samuel, the story of David and Goliath came to life. Of particular note are the five smooth stones that David took from the brook.
Earlier in the Introduction I suggested that the boy Jesus asked "What are these stones?" differently than other boys.
David shows that Christ used the shadows ('divided stones' from the word) as strength and comfort while facing Satan in the wilderness. --Rcj 09:10, 8 June 2008 (MDT)
Judges Chapter 1
We are studying Judges in church, so I am placing our word-for-word notes here. I think I am settling into this format for presenting information since it is quicker than drawing pictures and will lend itself to automation when I can get some dictionaries working.
--Rcj 16:58, 1 June 2008 (MDT)
Too harsh
Are my words concerning the rejection by intellectuals too harsh? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics merely formalized the trend to deny God's word:
- Harnack openly admitted that he agreed with the ancient heretic Marcion that the Old Testament was part of the chaff. Though few followed him to this conclusion, Harnack was expressing a widespread belief, one that still finds echoes in unexpected places. "As long as the old covenant was in force the temporal and terrestrial blessings were a part of the promise given to Abraham," but with the advent of Christ and the coming of the Spirit, "the temporal, earthly, typical elements of the old dispensation were dropped from the great house of salvation as scaffolding from the finished edifice." These are the words not of Harnack but of Paul Jewett, a contemporary evangelical theologian of some stature. Yet the similarity is striking. For all their real differences in approach to the Bible, evangelicals are at one with Protestant modernism in their rejection of typology and, frequently enough, in their belief that Christianity is more or less purely internal, a religion of unmediated individual contact with God. Nor is this tangential to evangelicalism: every student of the movement has noted the distinctive emphasis on "new birth," understood as a private encounter with God. [3]
--Rcj 22:02, 15 May 2008 (MDT)
Mechanism of understanding
This site attempts to explain how we cognitively recognize types. This is not a casual read. [4]
--Rcj 21:53, 15 May 2008 (MDT)
Art History
Here's a brief note from Dr. George P. Landow. I highly recommend his books online.
- Dear Bob
- Since you found a chapter in my book on the British artist Holman Hunt, you might find more interesting the :Routledge book I published almost 30 years ago called Victorian Types, Victorian Shadows:
- Biblical Typology in Victorian Literature, Art, and Thought, which is
- available at
- [5]
- The first chapter, which looks at evidence from many sources, might interest you, in particular these sections:
- I. Types: Historical, Legal, and Prophetical
- [6]
- III. Images with the Stamp of God
- [7]
- IV. Type and Temporality
- [8]
- V. The Reality of Types
- [9]
- What you describe might be discussed there.
Landow not only summarizes the guiding principles behind each "genre" of typology, but gives examples making it easy to discern which one came closest to the shadows. Particularly interesting is the treatment that has been given to the rock that Moses struck. You will see some variety in its treatment but will be able to discern which ones were fanciful and which followed the rules of shadows, though possibly accidentally.
--Rcj 20:42, 13 May 2008 (MDT)
Origen
Occasionally there are attempts to link the shadow methodology to one heretic or another. I read through Origen's commentary on the parable of the sower. If he was familiar with the shadows I would have expected him to identify the link between the devil and Peter's mother sowing seeds of discontent.
Matt 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is a full end of the age, and the reapers are messengers.
Matt 20:20 Then came near to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee, with her sons, bowing and asking something from him,
(The link is discernible through the sequential parallels found within Matthew.)
Since he makes no hint of the connection I assume he is unfamiliar with it.
Origen also does not identify Christ as sun and moon, nor the children of Abraham as the stars. He misses the two treasure parables as being one, but does correctly identify Jesus as the Pearl of great price. Others who are unfamiliar with shadows also identify Christ as the pearl, so this cannot be used to support the idea that the shadows are linked to Origen in any way.
I am willing to look at the work of others to see if they match the shadows, so bring on the heretics ;-)
--Rcj 13:09, 10 May 2008 (MDT)
Parallel outlines confirmed by John Knox Seminary
You have got to see this. By discovering the parallel outlines in John and Revelation they have shown that the ones I discovered in Matthew are not unique. And maybe I am not nuts ;-)
http://www.johnknoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/index.html[10]
--Rcj 23:19, 8 May 2008 (MDT)
Mad dash
Since this is obviously going to be a long term project, I have been asked to do a mad dash through the Bible and outline it in the shadows. I am not sure how to do this quickly, nor how to format it, but I will be giving it some thought. The benefit of doing this is to point out the hints so that others may have a starting point to dig in. And to show the extent and pervasiveness of it. It is difficult for me to show that with isolated narratives, but I hope you are getting an grasp of it.
Once I have worked my way through a section, it becomes difficult for me to document it in detail for others as evidenced by my dropping off in the middle of a picture. I kind of hope others can pick up and continue them. I can talk you through them in a few minutes, but putting it down in the wiki is tedious work, especially considering how many people are prone to accuse me of things because of my casual wording.
Someone thinks I am a modalist because I said Tamar's twin's are a shadow of Mary's God-man.
--Rcj 21:17, 30 April 2008 (MDT)
Falling behind
It seems that the more shadows I document, the 'behinder' I get. Each one has threads that lead to others, so there is a geometric expansion on the number of shadows that I am seeing and tracing. I apologize for leaving some unfinished. I need to get back to the Exodus narrative, Abraham, Joseph, the stones and rocks, Japhtheh, the commentary based on Matthew's parallel outlines, Job, Leviticus, Things that split, the prostitute-bride, the Torah-revelation, the tarrying woman, now the Elgon and the keys.
I have searched on Monster.com for one of those high paying jobs as an ascetic monk, so that I can spend more time writing and researching, but I only ran across five ads where they couldn't spell aesthetic.
If you have an empty cave, drop me a note.
--Rcj 07:14, 29 April 2008 (MDT)
Playing
Tonight I was just casually reading and following threads through the shadows. I will have to go back and document them later. But here are some quick insights:
Eglon the fat king represents Christ. Fat is God's portion, and the dirty things came out of him. This shows his deity and that he had been made to be sin. He was slain by a two-edged sword::the word. The sword was wielded in the flesh but taken from the right side. So God's judgment was true, though exercised by those acting in the flesh. The door was locked and a key was required to see the dead king.
My mind wandered to the keys of the kingdom, so I looked at other keys.
1Ch 9:27 the key opens the temple, which is a shadow of Christ.
Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder;
Mind wanders, what are the things that are on people's shoulders?
- The garment that Japheth and Shem used to cover Noah.
- Hagar carried bread and a jar of water.
- Rebekah had a pitcher of water
- Israelites carried unleavened bread.
- The high priest has two stones on the shoulder of the ephod.
- Joshua had twelve men take a stone.
- Abimalech took the bough of a tree.
- Samson took the doors to the gate.
- The children of Israel bore the ark of the covenant.
- Job would take a written book.
- The child will have the government.
- Their riches.
All these were carried on the shoulder and all are shadows of Christ.
The keys all point to Christ.
--Rcj 21:43, 28 April 2008 (MDT)
New main page
I have been spending time on rewriting the presentation. Rather than just study notes, I am attempting to make a sequntial presentation for those who may pop in. The Table of Contents is becoming the structural document for the wiki.
--Rcj 07:09, 27 April 2008 (MDT)
Double banned
I made an appeal to the administrator of the forum that denies you can make finger shadows look like bunnies and they renewed my account without comment. So I continued the challenge with Japhthah, and I was immediately banned again and the thread was deleted. Fortunately, I saved copies of their actual web pages containing their nonsensical remarks so I can send them to Ben Stein for a sequel to his movie "Expelled". just kidding.
The first time they banned me was right after I posted a signature line of:
- Prov 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
They don't have signature lines on the forum now.
--Rcj 18:25, 22 April 2008 (MDT)
A kind response
An author of one the seminary text books on Biblical interpretation has sent me a kind note that I am most grateful for.
- Thanks for writing, Bob. It’s always a delight to see people take Scripture so seriously and want to extract all they can from it. I applaud your diligence.
- While certainly not pretending to understand all that you’re doing, I wonder if it might come under the ancient practice of midrash. The “shadows” you’re seeing are partially what you are bringing to the texts and seeking to find in that process (whether or not you’re actually seeking what you find). That would be my quick take on what you’re doing. You’re not finding a fuller sense resident in the texts themselves—how would they get there? As a result of your wide reading and deep immersion in the scriptures over the years, you “find” meaning (shadows) in new places and in new ways. The ancient Jews did that all the time; I think the NT writers sometimes did that in their reading of the OT; and certainly early interpreters in the Christian church regularly did that. A good example in the NT occurs in Hebrews where the writer finds all kinds of “shadows” (as you call them) of Christ in the Gen account about Melchizedek.
- Forgive only this cursory appraisal done far too quickly.
If all I can do is equal the efforts of the author of Hebrews in my exegesis, I will be happy.
It is certainly a more generous response than from the other author of a competing book on the subject who said that my salvation was in jeopardy.
Both names remain anonymous here just in case either wishes to recant. I would seek permission before using anyone's name here, with the exception of course of references to published material. Although if anyone is looking to purchase a book on Biblical Interpretation I would be happy to make a private recommendation to support kindness.
Since there have been no substantive objections so far, I will chug along assuming shadows are real and authoritative and sharing what I find.
--Rcj 22:40, 18 April 2008 (MDT)
Banned
The same forum where they said you can't make bunny shadows out of fingers has now banned me for posting a follow up on Japhthah as I had promised.
They say this about another group: "Combativeness, Scoffing..." "Indeed, but their false teaching has been so thoroughly devastated they are resorting to this kind of thing in an attempt to float their theology."
Yet fail to identify that it is exactly what they have done in their responses to me.
--Rcj 22:31, 18 April 2008 (MDT)
Japhthah
Japhthah is a troubling story since he apparently sacrificed his daughter. I was challenged to look at this story by a forum member. So I am using it as a tutorial for the method I use to see the shadows.
Someone also asked about Christ's limping side, so I have documented it here
--Rcj 17:43, 18 April 2008 (MDT)
New Main page
Since the academic world refuses to engage in a conversation concerning these shadows, I am shifting my audience.
--Rcj 13:18, 12 April 2008 (MDT)
Soul and spirit
There is much speculation about the soul and spirit because of Heb 4:
- 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The shadow hermeneutic sheds more light on this passage. Heb 4:12
Dangerous Bible
Well this last week I have heard for the umpteenth time that studying the Bible this way is dangerous. Let me address the irrationality of the statement:
- If you don't know God, you might just get to know him there no matter what your intentions or methodologies.
- If you don't know God, intentionally perverting his word won't hurt you any more than you are hurt already.
- If you do know God, and you are Calvinist, then it is inconsistent to believe that your soul would be in danger no matter how you read the Bible.
- If you know God, seek Him and actually really believe that He guides you, why would He allow you to be mislead in His own word?
- Claiming that YOUR way to read the Bible is the ONLY way denies the very priesthood of believers doctrine that the Reformation was built upon.
- Setting up a special priesthood to keep the methods pure is the very essence of Judaising.
- Claiming that reading the Bible is dangerous puts you in the good company of atheists, agnostics, theosophists, satanists, Mormons, Harry Potter fans [11], the Vatican, etc.
There is nothing in the Bible that is dangerous except to the enemies of God. If you really know Christ as the living Word of God, you will see nothing but Him in His own word.
I am more convinced today than ever that the single-intent school is a cult.
- They claim their's is the only true way.
- They attempt to isolate their flock from anyone who believes differently.
- They parrot each other rather than engage in rational conversations
- They have a creed (The Chicago statement on hermeneutics) to which you must subscribe to be acceptable in their churches.
- They have a modern day prophet whom they quote as gospel.
There are people who hold the position who are not cultist yet. But there appears to be an organized movement to squelch all who do not subscribe to their priesthood.
I am not going to fight them at all. If the shadows are from God I don't need to defend them to the cultists. I will just share them and permit God to lead us in His Word. If they aren't from Him they will all fall apart at some point. And then I will have to apologize to God for seeing Him where He isn't. Gee God, I'm sorry I was thinking about you while eating ice cream and again while reading of Tamar.
I think I just convinced myself that even if they are totally fictitious they are still OK. Thanks guys at forum _____ for helping to clarify my thinking.
- Unbelievably, one guy was actually trying to say that you couldn't make a shadow that looks like a bunny from fingers that don't, and another insinuating I was a pervert for talking about Tamar.
It only takes one real shadow to disprove the position of the single-intent cultist.
Judges 19
The narrative about the Levite and his concubine is a difficult one to read literally. It tells us that when Israel entered the Promised land that they had no king and did whatever they wanted, including some bizarre and wicked things.
But we have found that the more bizarre a scripture appears to be, the more likely it is that it contains a shadow of Christ. This study in chapter 19 is under construction, and if you wish, you may join in a discussion about it at the new forum mentioned below.
--Rcj 18:29, 9 March 2008 (MDT)
New Forum
We have opened a forum where people can discuss shadows. it is at http://bibleshadows.mybb2.com[12]
The forum is easier to use for discussions than the wiki. We will capture good stuff from there to here for easier access.
Genesis 6:3
120 years?
--Rcj 19:25, 25 February 2008 (MST)
Exodus 6
This chapter extends the continuing narrative of Christ's ministry which we started examining in Chapter 4.
The genealogy in this chapter appears to be a dictionary of shadows of those who are redeemed. We will have to see if they are consistent with the rest of scriptures.
--Rcj 20:53, 23 February 2008 (MST)
Exodus 5
This chapter shows that the works of Satan that he requires of those in bondage to him, is to make false gods. The straw is 'building material' that was originally designed for good works. Satan makes men pervert those works. Then he requires men to produce their own false gods from their own effort alone.
The Pharisees were 'enforcers'. When Satan brings a word against them, it is to accuse them before God of the very works that he required of them.
The end of the chapter hints at a very real temptation that Jesus had. All the earthly works that he did, just made the Pharisees mad who then made the burdens harder for the people as Christ's time approached.
--Rcj 18:21, 20 February 2008 (MST)
Proverbs 31:6-7
A shadow take on this "troubling" verse about giving strong drink...
--Rcj 14:37, 16 February 2008 (MST)
Exodus
In our fellowship we are studying Exodus together. We saw enough hints to persuade us that Exodus is a narrative in the shadows from the beginning to the end. One of the mileposts is Exodus 4 which appears to be the transition between Jesus' pre-incarnate involvement with the world and his incarnation.
I will trying some different ways to handle describing the shadow, since much of it will be on the word-for-word basis.
--Rcj 11:01, 16 February 2008 (MST)
How much did David pay?
There are two accounts of how much David paid for the threshing floor. To some, these make an obvious, and undeniable contradiction.
To us they paint another picture of Christ and give us a peek into the dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses.
--Rcj 19:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)
Who are the ten virgins?
It's interesting that the shadow hermeneutic almost always produces just a slightly different take on things.
The story of the Ten virgins is no exception.
--Rcj 22:01, 24 January 2008 (MST)
When will men have babies
When will men have babies? Jer 30.6 I don't believe I have ever heard a sermon on Jer 30.6.
--Rcj 18:00, 21 January 2008 (MST)
Riddles
The tutorial introduced the concept that God speaks in riddles. So an Index of riddles has been added to the navigation bar to the left.
I will start using a graphic symbol to highlight these in the drawings going forward. This is illustrated in the Keys.
--Rcj 08:35, 20 January 2008 (MST)
Oops
"A professional is never supposed to say "oops". He's supposed to say, "Hmm, interesting."
I am finally recovering from a major computer disaster. The good news is that I only lost some 1's and 0's. The bad news is that they took several months worth of work, and most of my email records with them. Fortunately this wiki is on a different machine with a raid array.
Lesson: if you can only afford one very large hard drive, get two smaller ones instead so that you have something to backup to.
All of the models for the drawings here have been lost, so now is a good time to re-evaluate them to see if there might be a more effective way to communicate these ideas. I would also like to figure out if I can create the model in such a way to automatically create the index pages and cross references. If you have any suggestions, I would be happy to hear from you.
--Rcj 19:53, 19 January 2008 (MST)
Tutorial
I have stubbed out a Tutorial page and added it to the navigation pane to the left. You will find some basic concepts to get you started. I will later add practice exercises.
--Rcj 20:44, 9 January 2008 (MST)
Problem scripture
No prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene
According to Matt 2:23, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.
But, there are no clear passages where this can be found. The solution is in the hermeneutic of shadows.
--Rcj 21:49, 7 January 2008 (MST)
Elijah as Christ
Now this may seem a bit confusing until all the drawings are complete.
The shadows must show how John is Elijah and how "This is Elijah".
The answer has three parts. John is Elijah, John and Jesus are Elijah and Elisha, and Elijah-Elisha is a shadow of Christ. The hint that this is so is that Elijah and Elisha shared the mantle and their ministries overlapped a short time. John and Jesus both preached repentance (turned the hearts of the children to the fathers) and their ministries overlapped. Tons of details will be exposed as we continue.
--Rcj 19:38, 26 December 2007 (MST)
John as Elijah 4
John's death was foretold.
--Rcj 18:38, 26 December 2007 (MST)
John as Elijah 3
John's disguise was a symbol of Elijah - not just a physical presence to remind people of Elijah, but the symbols also spoke of Elijah's ministry.
Notice the predominance of the backward pointing arrows compared to the other drawings.
Elijah had the works with a judge's authority, the righteousness of a priest, and an earthly passion for the increase of God's kingdom.
--Rcj 19:42, 25 December 2007 (MST)
John as Elijah 2
This one shows that John would adopt a lifestyle of obedience like the fathers, disguise himself, and "divide the land" for an inheritance.
--Rcj 17:56, 25 December 2007 (MST)
John as Elijah
Apparently some have difficulty in seeing why Jesus could say that "John was Elijah".
The observation is inaccurate. Jesus said "John is Elijah" and "This is Elijah". They are not the same thing, and in fact there are two shadows that Jesus is referring to.
This drawing, Dwg:1 Kings 17.1.jpg is the first in a series to explain both shadows. It shows that just as Elijah predicted a drought until he commanded otherwise, there would be a drought of the word of God until John.
--Rcj 13:19, 25 December 2007 (MST)
Gen 3.1
Just did a quick drawing on Dwg:Genesis 3.1.jpg Gen 3.1 to see how difficult it was to create the links at the same time as the drawing.
--Rcj 10:05, 25 December 2007 (MST)
Congratulations to Ralph
Ralph has tackled the Tamar story and has translated the first two verses of Gen 38 word for word. This is not quite a blind test, but it is a rigorous validation process.
A blind test really isn't required since there are no subjective aspects to the translation. Open notes permit validation. Double meaning of a word is proven by the dictionary. Double entendre and shadow is proven by pattern recognition.
--Rcj 07:59, 25 December 2007 (MST)
Zacchaeus as Christ
We've talked about parallels between Zacchaeus and Christ, so I did the word for word drawing to demonstrate that the word-for-word shadow layer exists in the NT also.
--Rcj 18:03, 22 December 2007 (MST)
proposing solutions to difficult passages
I added a section for proposing solutions to difficult passages. The intent is to demonstrate that the hermeneutic can answer problems arising from the deficiencies of our modern hermeneutic. The first one I tackled was, "Can Matthew count to 14?"
Brainstorming
We're doing some brainstorming on themes at Bible references
--Rcj 09:54, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Dictionaries in process
From the navigation pane to the left you might peek at Themes, and dictionaries. Still a lot of work to do. Dwg:Adam-01.jpg now has scriptures added to it. Eventually the scriptures will get cross referenced as well. Starting at the bottom of the blog, links to the dictionaries and themes have been added. It is interesting that the shadows are often fewer than the double entendre built into the Hebrew language. You will see that many of the drawings are based mostly on them. So you might consider the shadows as markers for digging for treasure. When you see a stone, dig to see if it is Christ.
--Rcj 21:58, 11 December 2007 (MST)
Things that split
This is another "Table of Contents" type page that will take a year to explain. But if you can "get the picture" you will just see it. Ask, seek, knock..
--Rcj 19:47, 7 December 2007 (MST)
I forgot Ruth
I have added Ruth to "A bunch of women" because I was reminded (thanks Patty) that she also has insinuations of prostitution (slept at the feet of Boaz) yet became the "bride" mother of the promise.
If our shadows are consistent, we expect Boaz to be a shadow of Christ. And indeed we see that he "ate and drank" (last supper) before sleeping (dying) and bears children of his bride after his 'death'.
A challenge: Can you find a pair of brothers who do not fit the first-second son theme (besides the NT brothers who both inherit the promise)? Can you find a 'prostitute' who did not become the bride (even among the NT prostitutes)?
The scarcity of such examples, and the predominance of the themed examples serve to prove the shadows as not being accidental or invented.
The redrawn picture is at Dwg:Bunch_of_women.jpg
First and second sons in Genesis
This drawing is like a table of contents, or a teaser. Can you figure out how each man fits the bill as first or second son?
Dwg:First_and_second_sons_in_Genesis.jpg
--Rcj 17:58, 30 November 2007 (MST)
Women by the well
I am leaving many of the details of the Samaritan woman for you to flush out. I will do the details when I get to the Book of John...
Well, at this rate, we may all see Jesus before then and He can show us the details ;-)
--Rcj 17:27, 25 November 2007 (MST)
More Abraham
I have temporarily skipped more on Abraham since he warrants a book all by himself and I presently wish to make better progress to demonstrate that the shadows comprise a second layer to the Bible and are not just an accidental phenomenon. I believe that the density and consistency of the shadows, shown thus far in Genesis, should already be sufficient to demonstrate their existence in Genesis.
--Rcj 23:45, 24 November 2007 (MST)
Jacob gets a wife
When Issac got a wife, the servant::prophet was sent to choose::take Israel for Christ. When Jacob gets a wife, Jacob::Christ, woos::calls the church himself.
Can you think of a woman by a well who is "gathered" into the kingdom?
--Rcj 19:08, 24 November 2007 (MST)
Isaac gets a wife
This is the first in a series of women by the well. The others will be coming shortly. The women by the well will be another example of chosen, called and gathered. Isaacs wife is chosen. Can you guess the other two?
I am not yet certain about 'camels'. I am sure they are related to the leadership of Israel, so my designation of camels as the tribal leaders is tentative. Other possibilities are the judges, or kings. But I tentatively believe that horses are kings. The camels were entrusted with the family of Moses, and carry bread. So I am leaning toward judges more every day. I should just buckle down and work it out.
--Rcj 15:52, 24 November 2007 (MST)
A bunch of women
- Sorry I haven't posted much recently. I have had to find work where I don't bend and lift so much.
This picture gives a preview of other shadows concerning women. These women are all telling the same story: While we were yet sinners Jesus died for us.
The way the story is told is that there is most often an element indicating that the woman was chosen ahead of time. Then there is a suggestion of 'prostitution', then a bride. Sometimes the story is told using one woman, and sometimes the roles of prostitute and bride are split between two women. We, as the church, are both women.
Some of the more difficult clues are spelled out in the drawing. The details in the Samson story are fairly well hidden and will take a picture of its own to explain them well.
--Rcj 12:38, 24 November 2007 (MST)
Tamar story
I am posting these because I invited some bloggers to take a peek.
Dwg:Leverate_-_Tamar-relationships.jpg
Dwg:Leverate_-_Tamar_-_action.jpg
Dwg:Leverate_-_Tamar_-_results.jpg
--Rcj 20:02, 17 November 2007 (MST)
Uzziah - the man with two names
--Rcj 17:47, 13 November 2007 (MST)
Melchizedek
Melchizedek is considered a "type" of Christ to such an extent that some consider him to be a pre-incarnate Christ. The hermeneutics of shadows can be observed in the author's exegesis. The author compares (drash) Melchizedek to the Levitical priests. In this comparison he notes that the Levites required genealogical proof that they had a right to serve, where Melchizedek required no such proof. Futhermore, Levitical priests needed to be replaced because they died, and there is no death recorded for Melchizedek.
Implied in the argument is that Jesus' priesthood is superior because he only had to offer a single sacrifice. Using the same hermeneutic we can mention that Melchizadek did not offer a sacrifice at the time he brought bread and wine to Abram. Implied is that Melchizedek had already offered sacrifices sufficient for his ministry and not needing more sacrifices could offer Abram communion.
--Rcj 09:10, 12 November 2007 (MST)
Day of atonement
--Rcj 14:30, 8 November 2007 (MST)
Firstfruits
There are two rituals 50 days apart. The first celebrates Christ's work on the earth, the second, his work in the church.
--Rcj 08:34, 28 October 2007 (MDT)
Feasts again
A friend said he was studying the feasts in Leviticus in Sunday school and asked if I could do some shadow drawing for him.
--Rcj 21:25, 25 October 2007 (MDT)
Gen 14:14-15
--Rcj 23:26, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
Torah - Job, Abram, Christ
Only one escapes...
--Rcj 22:15, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
Nine kings as a shadow of Christ
Their names and their countries express various aspects of Christ's ministry and hint at Jesus's "rebellion" when he stayed in the Temple. Some may balk at calling it a rebellion, but I do not place any hint of sin upon Christ. But his mother asked him, "Why do you treat us this way?"
--Rcj 18:34, 20 October 2007 (MDT)
Abraham's seed - Torah
Abram's seed is like dust. Abraham's seed is like sand by the sea and stars. These three descriptions fall into the Torah pattern. Dwg:Abram-08_Torah_-_seed.jpg
Abram and Lot separate
Here we see that Israel, although choosing to dwell with the Glory of God, does not have a heart for God, and that those serving in the temple are wicked. This may sound harsh, but what did Jesus say to them as he drove them out of the temple?
The Abram shadow promises the resurrection of Christ
--Rcj 15:38, 20 October 2007 (MDT)
Authorized shadows
According to the theologians who subscribe to the "scripture has only one literal meaning school", we may only see shadows of Christ which are authorized (mentioned) in the New Testament.
This drawing shows an authorized shadow. Notice that the shadows we are documenting have many more associations or connecting points than that of 'the Rock'. As the things recorded of what Jesus said are merely samples of what he said, and as the things recorded of what he did are merely samples of what he did, and as the prophecies mentioned in the NT are just samples of the prophecies that he fulfilled, so too are the shadows mentioned in the NT merely samples of all the shadows he fulfills.
Don't let anyone tell you not to look for Christ in the OT.
--Rcj 15:36, 20 October 2007 (MDT)
Abram as a shadow of the pre-incarnate Christ
We are unaccustomed to seeing history from God's perspective. Heavenly discussions and decisions are perhaps some of the unspeakable things, dark sayings and secret things mentioned.
- 2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
- Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
- Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
- De 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
- Da 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
dark saying - riddle, hard question, proverb
--Rcj 13:02, 13 October 2007 (MDT)
Terah as a shadow of God
--Rcj 23:33, 10 October 2007 (MDT)
Babel - Jacob's Ladder
Dwg:Babel_-_Jacob's_Ladder.jpg
--Rcj 21:35, 10 October 2007 (MDT)
Torah - Adam, Babel and Christ
This is a different layer of unpacking, which I will probably call the Torah layer.
In a Torah revelation of God there is always a word, a work and a life.
- In Genesis at creation, God spoke, he made, and life sprung up.
- At Sinai, God spoke and they refused to hear, he wrote on tablets and they refused to see, so He dwelt among them in the cloud.
- In Romans 1, God spoke to us (manifest), he worked (made all of creation to testify), and he dwelt among us as the Son (implied).
This picture relates the Adam, and Babel narratives to Christ as a Torah revelation.
--Rcj 20:08, 10 October 2007 (MDT)
Babel - word for word
Previous drawings represented ideas that were similar between Christ and the narrative. This one is a word-for-word "translation" using the hermeneutic that revealed the other comparisons demonstrated in the other drawings. This detail may be derived in the other pictures as well, but it is a lot of work to do so. I present this one as a sample.
The double entendre demonstrated in this fashion is what persuades me that there is almost a complete second Bible hidden "above" the literal one we all possess.
--Rcj 18:59, 10 October 2007 (MDT)
More Noah
--Rcj 21:45, 8 October 2007 (MDT)
Noah as a shadow of Christ
--Rcj 19:05, 7 October 2007 (MDT)
The work of Christ shown in the shadow of Abel
Gen 1 says that man was supposed to be made in the 'image' and 'likeness' of God, but it only records man being created in His 'image'.
Gen 4 shows how man was created in the 'likeness' of God. The story of Abel, Seth and Enos is a shadow of the work of Christ making the church into His 'likeness'.
Dwg:Image_and_likeness_-_problem.jpg
Dwg:Image_and_likeness_-_work_of_Christ_in_Abel.jpg
--Rcj 15:24, 6 October 2007 (MDT)
Cain as a shadow of the earthly nature of Christ
--Rcj 09:27, 6 October 2007 (MDT)
Abel as a shadow of Christ
Abel is a shadow of Christ
First and second man
It appears that the first and second man pattern is related to "The first shall be last and the last shall be first".
Jesus is both the first and the last, the alpha and the omega.
Dwg:First_and_second_-_Nature_of_Jesus.jpg
Cain and Abel follow the same pattern as Adam and Christ.
Dwg:First_and_second_-_Abel.jpg
--Rcj 08:25, 6 October 2007 (MDT)
Adam
Here is an attempt at a couple pictures:
--Rcj 17:35, 26 September 2007 (MDT)
