The Creation, Physics, and the Spirit: Understanding Yahweh, The Christ, and the Children of God

Brent R. Hurst

The Creation, Physics, and the Spirit

Understanding Yahweh, The Christ, and the Children of God

The Creation, Physics, and the Children of God

**

**

Forward

**

The intent of this book is to simplify, as much as possible, what I perceive and understand from the pages of Scripture, as they relate the creation of the Cosmos, the Garden of Eden as it speaks to the nature of the soul and Mankind, and the work of the Spirit of God as regards man’s salvation. Ideally, if we can attain a clearer picture how Creation is designed structurally, how Human Beings are designed intrinsically, and how the Spirit of God interacts with the Creation, this understanding will promote a greater simplicity to our faith, while providing self-evidence answers to questions and controversies that overshadow the nature of existence, the physical and nonphysical cosmos, and Christian faith and theology.

**

There are two ways in which to know Christ, one is through the flesh, and the other is through the Spirit, and the theology of the Church today seems to have sided with the flesh, while leaving the Spirit to the realm of metaphors. Itemized debates quite often are proven useless as I am trying to communicate something of a three dimensional cube, to those who see everything as a two dimensional squares, true Faith which comes with understanding has been traded in, for a virtuous adherence to doctrine.

**

So it is that I will start from the beginning, and build up the Creation, along with the soul, from scratch, and having established the Creation as the context, then follow the soul and the Spirit of God as they move together through time. Since my faith is built upon knowledge, science has only become another witness for my faith rather than a hindrance as it is with so much that is called faith today. Understanding the world and creation

**

Though a larger context requires a patient presentation, and a patient reception, uncluttered by endless debates over particulars, as people tend to reflexively defend their doctrines. What I am offering, is a paradigm shift, a chance to see the Creation from a much larger perspective, so that maybe you might come to truly understand, rather than the pretense at understanding that is so characteristic of our faith today. Since we were infants our universe has expanded, from our bellies and our bottoms, to parents, friends, then schools, cities, governments, the planet, the solar system, and finally the universe, becoming aware slowly as the universe has expanded within us, and assuming we have not cemented ourselves in place somewhere surrounded by defenses to protect our interests, then I am only bringing your minds a bit farther, far enough to understand God as He exists in transcendence.

**

In Chapters 1 and 2 I will be exploring the seven-day creation of the Cosmos, and establishing the broad context of the Creation, then Chapter 3 will give consideration to that context of the Creation and how it effects theology. In chapters 4 and 5, I will explore the formation of the Soul in the Garden as Adam, and follow the soul through its temptation with the Tree of Knowledge, and down into it is embodied in the flesh. In Chapter 6, using the Gospel of John, I will be exploring Christ, His work, and His salvation for those souls He has created, and how this differs or applies to many church doctrines, and in chapter 7, I make broad applications as this more expansive paradigm filters out into differing subjects of interest. I do not offer doctrines or belief systems, not even a religion, I offer only the Spirit of God as He creates, maintains, and brings an end to His Creation, and then to receive His harvest, for which purpose the Creation came to be.

Copyright © 2017

By Brent R. Hurst

Published by Pronoun

***

Dedication

**

To the children of God, my brothers and sisters in the Spirit, so that you might understand what manner of Spirit has called you, and to better understand your own self, as a creation, and the limitations of your own soul. And to my wife, for her patience and love, may she someday understand how much I love her dearly.

**

The Five Gates

**

Surely our eyes are aflutter with light

Yet the thunder resounding, escapes from our sight

Ours ears are awaken to the slightest of sounds

But a smile from a friend, no ear has been found

**

To see, to hear, to taste and to touch

Each sense is being bound, by its own design inasmuch

To know only itself, and to all else be blind

Circumscribed in their view, by their own nature confined

**

Knit within the body, wherein our soul now resides

Five fountains of knowledge, so defining our lives

How much more, of the world might there truly be

If between light and sound, we possessed senses to see

**

Could it be that the world, is more whole and complete

Awash by the Heavens, with Angels just out of reach

And these gates we suppose, to enlighten our minds

Are forever blind to the prose, forever trapped in their rhyme

**

And the soul that we are, as if lost in between

Cast down out of Eden, into darkness unseen

To sweat and to toil, beneath the shadow of death

And all our sins presumed hidden, by this mantle of flesh

**

Might death find greater dimensions, as from sense we are released

Freed from this world’s subtractions, our vision to increase

Our judgment revealed upon us, as we see through different eyes

Naked have we always been, our motives clearer than our lies

**

So tell me who is more-blind, than the man who claims to see

Lost within the forest, enraptured in his leaves

And who is more-empty, than the man who thinks himself full

And who pray tell is more-wise, than the senseless old fool

**

Brent R. Hurst

Table of Contents

Chapter I – The veil of Beginnings

Seeking Knowledge (Past or Present)

A vertical hierarchy

Understanding What Was

Elohim (Life Beyond Form)

The Infinite and the Finite (Competing Natures)

The Infinite Person\Creator (Father God)

Genesis 1:1-2 (A Biblical Outline

(The Complete Subject)

(The Finite Verb)

(The Direct Object)

(The Object Compliment)

What Do You Mean God Said

A Note from the Author

Recapping the Context

Chapter II – Creating Creation

Day 1 – TIME

Day 2 – SPACE

Day 3 (Pt. 1) – Gravity (Land)

Day 3 (Pt. 2) – Life (Vegetation)

The Seed Principle

3 Days, 4 Principles (Time-Space-Gravity-Life)

Day 4 – God Creates the Atom (Big Bang)

Day 5 – Life Abundant (The Ocean and the Sky)

-Blessing Number 1-

Day 6 (Pt. 1) – Life in the Wild (The Land Comes Alive)

Day 6 (Pt. 2) – Life Fulfilling (Mankind Rules)

-Blessing Number 2-

The Provision

Completely Completed

God Saw, Very Good

Day 7 – The Sabbath (Rest)

-Blessing Number 3-

Chapter III – Principle Considerations

Creation ex nihilo

Discerning Two Natures

God Speaks Behind a Veil, Not a Curtain

Sound and Wave

Placing the Cart before the Horse

Evolving Evolution

The Lie of the Serpent

Substance and Evidence (Faith)

Chapter IV – The Garden of the Soul

Moving into Time and Space

Personal or Impersonal, or Both

So what’s in a Name?

Setting the Stage

Adam (One and Many)

Where am I?

A Word to the Mystics

Chapter V – Temptations

To Err is Human

Existence and Loneliness

Seeking Unity

Making Two out of One

Making One out of Two

The Soul in Paradise

Catch and Release

The Trees in the Midst

I Can’t Believe I Ate the Whole Thing

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Moving Out or Moving In

Strike Three and You’re Out!

One Last Look Around

The Two Brothers

Chapter VI – Children of the Son

The Incarnation

Born of Water or Born of Spirit

Legalism or Grace

Flesh and Blood

Death and Resurrection

The Body of the Saints

The Bride and Groom

The Final Destinations

Chapter VII – Damage Control

Creeds

Reincarnation and Maya

Once Saved, Always Saved

Why does Evil Exist

The Three-Fold Universe

Angels and Demons

That’s Not Fair

Tribulation and Rapture

Twelve Arguments

Final Thoughts

Chapter I - The Veil of Beginnings

**

**

**

**

Seeking Knowledge (Past or Present)

**

**

Before I begin an analytical endeavor to explore Genesis as it seeks to communicate the Beginning of all things, first I would like to examine knowledge itself as it relates to the context of origins. When either the secular or religious engage in the pursuit of hoping to understanding the Beginning, both always seem to assume that the virtue of knowledge would lie merely in the attainment and possession of a historical or linear progression as each seeks to answer the question "how did we get here. But Genesis, as it addresses the context of Beginnings", involves ideally a movement of the Infinite as it seeks to initiate a finite, or Timelessness as it is originating the Beginning of Time. If we were to ask when in eternity (timelessness) does God decide to create we can see how such a simply question formulated from our time perspective cannot truly breach this boundary from timelessness to time because in timelessness, there is no now, or then, nor even a where. With little self-examination, we tend to impose out linear concepts of time back and beyond into a timeless reality. If timelessness does not move in a linear sequence, there is in its reality no when in which to start anything. As I seek to present an alternative context as to how Genesis communicates, it seems important to take some thought as to what Genesis is intending to communicate

**

Although the Creation week in Genesis is written in such a way that it can be read in a linear story form, a form generally appealing to most readers throughout the ages, it still has the capacity to communicate deeper realities to the experienced reader by way of symbolism and contextual formatting, thus revealing much more to those who are more familiar with the sciences and philosophies. For the simplistic reader the story form tends to not be so confrontational since deeper concepts that might prove overly disturbing to the less sophisticated mind and its more simplistic view of life and existence are not as apparent. If a man’s worldview is limited simply to his village, his nation, or maybe even his continent, the story form poses little contradictions for him and thus can be more satisfying. But with the advent of the sciences and the propagation of knowledge whereby world views have grown enormously to encompass our planet, our solar system, our galaxy and even our relative position amidst the cosmos along with much more sophisticated philosophical concepts, so does Genesis expand to meet with such a breadth of knowledge, and it does so by a careful arrangement of its symbolism and contextual format or structure. But before I go on let us look at knowledge itself, as it can be understood from more than one context.

**

Given the option of knowing what something used to be, as opposed to what it is presently, I would tend to think that knowledge of present state, status, or structure would be of greater benefit. For example if I had cataloged the supposed progression of genetic mutations of wheat that might have taken place over the eons, I would without hesitation trade such knowledge for the knowledge of a good baker. A baker, basically a food chemist, with knowledge of different grains, how such grains interacts with other elements such as salt, yeast, or vinegar, and what effectual conditions such as energy, heat, baking, may have on any particular combinations of such elements, would already possess all the knowledge he would ever need to feed and nourish others and himself. And if I desired to create a strain of wheat that was more resilient to harsh environments, maybe even more nutritious, the only knowledge that would be necessary would be the genetic structure of the wheat I have now as what it used to be thousands of years ago would be for the most part irrelevant. Historical knowledge such as when and where did the first wheat plant sprout, what color was it and what did it look like a million years ago or most importantly who planted it, all this knowledge adds nothing to the taste or nutrition of the bread which is where the true benefit lies. Knowledge that helps us to understand How things ARE and thus how things can and do work together is the only knowledge that gives practical benefit.

**

Consider another analogy, the knowledge of knowing how to tie a knot will help to hold my shoes on my feet, but a science or body of knowledge consisting of knowing the name of the worker who braided the laces at the factory or even the name or location of the factory which produced the laces offers nothing of real practicality. If I know what a lace is and I know how it functions then I know all I really need to know to use my laces to their full capacity. Furthermore if I were to receive an instructional manual with my laces, the only information I would truly require and that would equip me to use them to full capacity would be the information that they are shoe laces, supposing I might accidentally mistake them to be candle wicks, and the general art (science) of how to use them i.e. lacing and tying a knot.

**

All the analogies I could suggest as with the laces would eventually break down at some point because ultimately someone, somewhere, does have to know the weave of the lace to build the braiders, and someone, somewhere, does have to know who turns on the machines in the morning. But just as all knowledge is not necessary nor beneficial to all people, so then can knowledge be divided between that which is practical and knowledge which is essentially impractical. Let’s try something a bit simpler, let’s suppose you live in a very primitive village where in order to plant your crops you have to till the soil by piercing the ground with a sharp stick and prying it sideways to loosen the dirt. One day I come to your village and offer you a plow and explain to you that this plow was invent in 1837 by a blacksmith names John Deere but I neglect to explain to you what it is and what it is used for. A year later I return only to find you cooking tortillas on the steel blade over a hot fire and still tilling the ground with a sharp stick at great personal toil.

**

This contextual differentiation is important to me because as I seek to read and understand the biblical account of Creation what do I suppose is the intent of God as its narrator, merely that He wishes to relate to me a somewhat fragmented historical account, or maybe like the rest of scripture He seeks to enlighten me about the universe as it is just as it enlightens me about the nature of Man as he is. The scriptures from the Garden of Eden forward relate a historical account, but as it focuses on the lives of individual men just as I am, so can I easily identify with them and find lessons to be learned and thus applied to my own life, but the week of Creation seems alien to this intent, at least chronologically. In interpreting the order of the seven days of Creation in a mere linear context seems to add little knowledge that is practical at increasing my dexterity or efficiency in how I live my life, other than maybe in the simple fact that Biblical God is seen to be the Creator overall, the acceptance of which insures me a particular claim to self-virtue as I subscribe to believe this Book inspired, despite my meager ability to grasp it at any real depth or apply it to my life.

**

Perhaps God really intends to communicate something of a more practical nature and to perceive it I must be willing to shift my own focus, my own context of understanding. Such a shift was inspired as I sought to look at creation through God’s perspective, the order of which seemed nonlinear as God Himself is consciously beyond time, perceiving the beginning and the end as one, from God’s perspective the context seems one of inherent Structure rather than Historical, a structure that is ever present and maintained and the structure that it is today. Thus God is not interested in communicating what Was, but rather and more importantly what Is, whereas our initial thinking processes would interpret the Creation week in a linear or chronological progression, it can also be stood upright and vertical, shifting its context to reveal the present structured order of the creation from a timeless perspective.

**

So as I examined the context of The Beginning, the first cause that is itself without a cause, when time comes forth from timelessness, there is built into the context of beginnings a conundrum, a puzzle that must be seen and appreciated for what it is even if it makes no sense in a finite framework because it is only within the Creation that time is effectual, God creates from beyond time. As science is seeking to understand the beginning of the universe, advancing now to string theory as they have finally moved from particle base universe to one of vibrations, which by the way is more Biblical, they must ultimately face this conundrum where the very Laws of the universe break down, including time and chronology, because as we reach the beginning we are also reaching the end, timelessness and eternity takes over and Creation is merely a bubble of resonating vibrations, echoes in the bottomless abyss (nothing), just a word from the infinite creating eons of time, and the context of structure overriding that of the past or future. But just as the scientist has need of contemplating the Infinite, shame on the religious for lacking meditations on God and His nature and demonstrating pure worldly consciousness as they demand a seven twenty four hour day Creation, or even the seven eons of time, or even the worse who in succumbing to peer pressure thinks God also works through evolution as if it is anywhere close to being proven as fact. As a scientist should only understand the finite as it relates to infinity, the former dependent upon the latter, so the religious should only understand the Creation as it is dependent upon an Infinite Creator, and time only as it is dependent upon the timelessness of God.

**

Minds that have not been trained by meditating upon the nature and being of an eternal creator might through a simplistic (linear) reading of Genesis come to assume certain conclusions, irrespective of what is obviously incongruent, such as why is light and vegetation created before the sun and stars. Just as science tests theories by their incongruences, so theologians should test their interpretations by such in congruencies for by the fact of their existence whether in evolution or the biblical week of creation, so do they reveal the limits of our understanding in seeing the bigger picture, evolutionists seem unable to adapt not because there is not enough evidence to reject (Macro) evolution but rather because they are invested in it personally, either because they are afraid of the unknown or simply not knowing, or because they think somehow to proof the non-necessity of God by it. I would also imagine the religious cling to the linear as they cling to their traditional doctrine, as if by denying a twenty four hour day dooms them to hell as if they were denying their God. Cultism is capable of overtaking any mind, theistic or atheistic but incongruences should push us to look beyond our present views since the search for truth demands not only a love for truth but also the courage to seek an honest mind. Now that I have finished chiding everybody we can now look at what I mean by structure.

**

**

A Vertical Hierarchy

**

**

Logically we can all agree that multi-cellular structures exist because first there existed a single cell structure. When different multi-cellular groups are arranged together, often groups of cells that function differently and thus increasing the level of complexity, we can observe what are called Organisms. Most plants are organisms that express a fairly simple degree of complexity. Moving up to higher levels of complexity we may come to a fly, higher still a frog, higher still a fox, and higher still a human being. It is perfectly logical to assume that one degree of complexity owes its existence to those lesser degrees. Higher degrees of complexity in an organism also allows for a greater versatility in expressions of life such as the ability for the independent motion of animals over plants or the conceptual abilities of a Human Beings frontal lobes over that of a chimpanzee. But in general just as molecules could not exist without atoms, and tissues and cells could not exist without molecules, mankind could not exist without an animal kingdom and animals could not exist without a plant kingdom.

**

Likewise Life in general exists only because the sun first existed. And everything that is said to exist in the entire breadth of the cosmos does so because universal realities such as time and space and matter exist as conditional prerequisites and essentially and this is where Genesis begins. Just as scientists ask why things fall, at the same rate or different rates, they look for the underlying universal law(s) or reality(s) that produce such a phenomenon in the physical realm, so in Creation as a whole there are invisible realities necessary for the appearance of phenomenon or physical manifestation.

**

When I seek to interpret Genesis and it is structural format or context such as its seven days, the essence of my model utilizes an organization where of necessity that which was created first must exist prior to the creation and existence of that which is to follow. And so what is created on the second day can exist only because of a greater context created on the day prior (first) having allowed for such. And likewise what created on the third day can only exist because of the pre-existing creations and conditions established in the days prior to it. But remember that in a timeless framework "first" does not simply refer to a chronological or linear order but also structurally as it is revealing a vertical hierarchy, one that accounts for the dimension of environment or context. If not for the invisible reality of the infinite, there would be no visible reality of the finite, without the invisible laws of gravity there would be no visible sun, no planet and no apple falling from a tree. And so with any inspired account of Creation, assuming inherently it would not contradict basic observational principles (science), it would demand a context that speaks to the universal as in the Universe, revealing ideally the nature of the present universe, and not merely a chronological account of a single planetary eco-system.

**

Furthermore it can be noted there is an inherent division in the vertical, just as God creates the Heavens and the Earth so it seems the six days as the primary days of creating are divided into two sets of three. The first three producing necessary laws or higher potential realities as would relate to the idea of the Heavens, and the latter three having to do with the physical reality or manifest phenomenon. And by Heavens I do not intent the imaginary flirtations of Dante and his inferno, rather the consideration that behind the manifest there is are Heavenly designs or universal laws. Consider an invisible principle we can call Communication, this principle existing as a limited sphere of potentiality like a universal law; and its principle design creates the allowance and ability that if two can agree upon common definitions or meanings for certain symbols such as words, then through such a medium there can exist a transfer of information, and such a Law or Rule would exist universally and potentiality, whether or not we choose to speak. The subtle principle is that of the law of communication and it is allowance for the transmittal of ideas through shared symbols, then and only then can we manifest such a principle into a physical reality or manifestation.

**

Likewise there is Gravity (Gravitation) as it exists as a law, further defined by its mathematical principles, and then there is the actual phenomenon of a pencil falling to the floor from a desk. From our perspective, dependent purely upon the observation of the phenomenon, we trace backwards from the phenomenon to try to understand what invisible and universal law is behind it. But obviously and logically the law and the potential existed first prior to the phenomenon, the phenomenon being dependent upon the law rather than the law, i.e. gravitation, being dependent upon the phenomenon, even if both appear to be working simultaneously at the time of our observation. In short when I am holding the pencil in my hand gravity is not readily apparent, but the law still exists albeit only in a potential form. So as any scientist should know, contrary to the professed absurdities of some anti-theists cloaked as scientists, there exists an invisible realm that is only known (somewhat) as we study the effects of it in the phenomenal world.

**

And so since our physical conscious experience (and science) is dependent upon our sense perception, namely phenomenon, and also since we do not experience the realm of heavenly potentials directly, our perspective is such that we are looking upward as it were, considering the phenomenon or the effect first rather than the law or the cause. But if Genesis is truly written having been inspired from God’s point of view as He is creating, likewise it would reflect the principle prior to its resultant phenomenon, so Light would precede the sun whereby in science, from the earthly point of view might sequence the sun as a mass of hydrogen, helium and its trace elements existing before the light which appears as its phenomenal byproduct.

**

To summarize a bit so far I have touched upon God’s probable intend in relating Genesis as if His emphasis would ideally be to communicate applicable Knowledge of the present structure of Creation, rather than a rehearsal of historical and obsolete events. And also how such knowledge could be present symbolically while still interlaced within a linear story form that would also attract and not merely disturb the minds of less sophisticated reader or hearers. It might further be noted that the language of the time was also less sophisticated; lacking words to express many of the subtleties we now take for granted even as the bible does not contain the word Omniscient and yet it communicated that God is all-knowing, expressed in its contextual format rather than its phraseology. Further I have defined such parameters for this alternate context as to its sensibility of logical structure. I considered this necessary because of the extreme rarity in my interpretation for often new ideas seem incredulous simply by their unfamiliarity. But realistically I do not consider the interpretation I will present so much as new, but rather I am taking what the true mystics down through the ages have understood and making it more available to the masses because as the proliferation of knowledge has made many abstract concepts more familiar to the majority, so there are many more who should be capable of understanding more of what the scriptures have to teach.

**

I could also add that as a tool, learning to read scripture from a contextual framework would dissolve many of the theological misunderstanding that often arise. Many seek interpretations or revelations, or possibly just justifications for their theologies, from either taking too little a portion of text as in one or two sentences or verses, or conjoining verses from different parts of scripture, even different books that were not all available at specific times, to create or defend theological ideas, as if God veils His revelations in often incomplete patchworks or scriptural buffets where only the wise know what verses to pick out and string together, often nullifying the larger context engendered by a more sequential reading. It might seem obvious that latex is heavier than air and yet exceptions can always exist; I could also postulate that gravity has no effect upon latex because I have seen many balloons rising upward into the air. The greater theological truths are communicated by broader, yet sequential verses, chapters, and books, and then absorbed integrally, thus determining specific themes by their repetition throughout the whole of the bible.

**

For example in reading of the whole life of Job and considering what truths can be understood from the broad context of his life in general I can discern with greater accuracy true theological principles or truths than those I might