#posting is indicative of them proving just how much canon potential the ship has. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mcmactictac · 3 years ago

Note

is wolfstar canon

Hello and welcome back to another episode of I analyze your favourite ships and let you know if they’d be canon if a coward wasn’t writing them.

I have read all the Harry Potter books and watched all the movies, I have not read All the Young Dudes but I have consumed lots of mauraders content so I’m really hoping all of these points I’m making are canon.

Let’s start with Remus Lupin. That’s a queercoded bitch if I’ve ever seen one. Now I’m always a sucker for queer coding within magical worlds, as there’s a lot of really subtle things to do with it. Now with Remus being a werewolf, there’s a lot to examine there. When examining queer coding we will ignore the shitty implication that it’s a disease that can be given to you by others because that’s dumb and Rowling sucks. We do not stand for homophobia in this household so I want to make extra clear I don’t want to imply any of that.

That being said, being a werewolf is a thing Remus is ashamed of and feels the need to hide. He hides it from everyone around him because he doesn’t want them to look at him differently. You also have to keep in mind the time period this would be set, being gay can be incredibly unsafe and life altering in a negative way. So he hides it to protect himself, despite the fact he is a child struggling with all this internal self loathing. The constant narrative of being a monster that just pushes you further and further into hiding because you have no idea what would happen if they found out. And eventually he finds close friends who figure it out and they support him, they want to help so he feels less alone. And yes he has this outlet now but it’s still a tightly guarded secret. Something he’s only open with to the people he trusts. His lycanthropy is a clear parallel to being gay and although I hate the implication that it’s a “disease” like. Metaphorically most of the things you look for in queer coding are right there.

You also have to keep in mind that Remus was literally never in a relationship and showed no interest in anyone until like the end with Tonks. And it’s pretty clear to me that Rowling threw that in so people would stop saying he was gay. I like Remus and Tonks and the dynamic they have but like. They seem more like friends, the age gap is weird, there’s no build up, it doesn’t make sense for Remus’s character and it’s just like. Not great? Tonks and Remus are great friends but I don’t really see them together romantically.

I’m going with the fact that Remus is just straight up gay. Tonks seems like a cover, and if I was a person who wasn’t a coward writing this, Remus and Tonks are both aware neither of them are straight and are covering for each other. It’s giving me very “let’s get married so you don’t get drafted to the front lines even though we arent in love” like people did during like the Vietnam war. They get along really well but Remus has no romantic chemistry with any woman ever. That is not a straight man.

Sirius Black. This is another fun one. Since the start of his time at Hogwarts he is marked as “different” from the rest of his family because he isn’t a slytherin. We need to keep in mind the Black family is very wealthy, has a high value on their reputation, and are basically just racist, homophobic and classist people. Difference is not accepted, and Sirius already starts out by breaking that mould. Now l honestly don’t remember how much of his interactions with Marlene are canon so I don’t know if I can argue that but like. Yes I am thinking about it, much like JJ, Sirius overcompensates with being a huge flirt with everyone despite having no real feelings attached to any of them. Throughout growing up he continues to break away from his family, and break away from their problematic views. Being raised in an environment like that instills a sense of fear around you. So even if Sirius knew when he was younger, it’s likely he denied it or never said anything because of fear. By the time he leaves he’s pretty much kicked out of the family. Through his school we can also see how supportive of Remus he is, trying to help him and make him feel as comfortable as possible. Giving him support and love he was never given.

If a coward was not writing this Sirius black should not be straight. I’m not certain if he would be bi or gay, but he for sure likes men. It would fit well and be interesting for his character and story.

So how do they work together? Objectively, really well. I’m going to look at this through a canonical lense, so trying to keep what I can of the story but adding these sexuality headcanons in mind.

Remus and Sirius were ABSOLUTELY together in school. I don’t think they were public about it in the slightest. But this is another gay person you’re close with, you care for who fiercely cares for you despite your family or your “disease”. Remus was totally out first, but just to the Mauraders. Sirius never really comes out. He probably tells James first, mentions it quietly one night after thinking about his family. He knows James will be ok with it because he was always ok with Remus. And James is supportive and never says anything, never treats Sirius any different. That’s still the man who is basically his brother. But he sees how Sirius looks at Remus the same way he looks at Lily. He knows, even if they never tell him. But if anyone were to know, it would be him.

They have the chemistry, the stories line up, they’re good friends and it would make sense. Because of the time period it’s quiet and guarded, a relationship kept from prying eyes. They might love each other but they don’t want anyone to know about their relationship because neither of them are really comfortable or ready being out.

Now after school there’s probably a bit of a splitting apart, knowing they can’t maintain what they had forever. The future isn’t made for them and they know that. And then James is dead, and Peter is killed and Sirius is in prison and Remus is forced to pull himself together and do the best he can to move on without them. Now if we were in a timeline where Sirius didn’t go after Peter, and him and Remus could potentially take Harry? I don’t know. They sure as hell wouldn’t let the Dursley’s take him, but dumbledore also isn’t going to just let them live in peace. They would have to go totally off grid, making sure Dumbledore never took him. The priority here would be keeping Harry safe, not on their own relationship.

Now after POA is where things get messy. Because you essentially have two years here before Sirius dies. Even though Remus knows he’s innocent he went 13 years thinking he wasn’t. That trust isn’t going to magically return overnight, he’s going to have to unlearn all of the wrong things he figured out over the past decade. And this Sirius is different. This Sirius doesn’t need a relationship, he needs support, love and someone to help him. And Remus is there for that. They both still care for each other but they aren’t at a point where they work anymore. They just appreciate the comfort that the other provides. Remus takes care of Sirius the way Sirius took care of him so many years ago. It isn’t about a relationship, it’s about love. That love for each other is still strong, and it’s still there. Nothing is going to change that, they’ll always be a part of each other.

So no I don’t think they got “back together” before Sirius died. Or even if Sirius survived, before Remus died. If by some miracle they both survived the war down the road? Maybe. They’d still have that tight bond with each other and over time and as they heal it might develop again. But no I think they only really “dated” in high school. But that love for each other never really went away. It’s still a huge part of each of them, and even if they aren’t in a relationship that doesn’t mean they aren’t in love.

So in summary:

-Remus is gay. His story is queercoded but in a homophobic way.

-Sirius likes men. It further distances him from his family and is something he has a lot of internal problems with

-they’re secretly together in high school. James probably knows but he never pushes

-post POA they don’t get “back together” but they are still fiercely attached and care about the other deeply. The lack of a relationship is not an indication of no love. They don’t really care about labelling it as much they’re just Remus and Sirius and they just. Need each other

-if allowed to survive till the end they may get back together

So I would say yes, Wolfstar is canon. We have nothing to prove none of this didn’t happen. They could have been together in high school and Harry would never know. And even if the relationship fizzles out, that love is always still there and that never goes away.

If you’re still here this is part of a series I’m doing, and I’m going to be doing this with a bunch of other stuff! It’s all going to be under #deathoftheauthorbirthofthemcmac so if you like this one I’ve got a jjpope one up and more to come!

#deathoftheauthorbirthofthemcmac #harry potter #wolfstar #Remus lupin #Sirius black #James potter #wolfstar canon #remus and sirius #hp #mauraders #the mauraders #mlm ships #queer coded characters #prisoner of askaban

34 notes · View notes

the-ghost-king · 4 years ago

Note

I know this isn't an official study or whatever, but if you want to examine the fandom trends and critiques surrounding straight vs gay ships, you're study is automatically flawed if you just use two random ships. If soloangelo is criticized more than percabeth that doesn't necessarily indicate causation, as in it is because they're gay. There are so many factors involved that it's just not fair, you could say. You would have to look at multiple straight ships and multiple gay ships to get an overall indication but even then it's a wonky study.

One basic example is age. Nico and Will are a lot younger than Percy and Annabeth so people might be uncomfortable drawing/writing intimate things (even kissing) or are afraid to do it because of potential discourse (people can go pretty extreme about sexualization/fetishization).

Another example is that percabeth has been the main flagship ship of the franchise and soloangelo have less canon material, less character development overall. They are also entirely different sets of characters, and not all people might like these characters to the same degree, which might impact the way they see their relationships, and you would have to prove that the dislike of these aspects is directly related to them being in a gay relationship and not another factor like how well known they are, or likability, or past behavior.

If you can find a way to account for that then going forward isn't a problem, but there's just so many factors influencing the outcome that you might come to a false conclusion based on your data.

Personally not interested in studying gay vs straight ships, if that was the case I would be studying from a much larger sample size. I'm interested mostly in the fact that solangelo as a ship "appears" to get more scrutiny than percabeth and I'm looking for a way to try to determine whether or not that is true.

I do recognize that people have different wants and interests in relationships between characters, and that's by no means debatable. I outline the nature of what I'm talking about a little more in that post above, how people always talk about Nico being reduced to just Will's boyfriend, but I feel it's also easy to see how often (in a similar way) to see how Percy and Annabeth are also reduced to just each other.

I hadn't considered age of the characters as a factor, so I do appreciate you pointing that out because that would be a bias in the situation. So I do appreciate that, thank you!

I'll have to consider the possibility of finding a way to reduce the study more if possible or perhaps not do it... Like I said in the original post as well, I'm not 100% sure that this is what is happening (and if it is it's unintentionally occuring) but I am interested in trying to find a way to determine if it's possible that's something that might be going on.

Once again I thank you for pointing out the unintended bias in the proposed method!

#asks #anon

7 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 5 years ago

Note

I was watching RWBY V6ep9, and Tyrian tells Emerald and Mercury something about plans changing - and then that if Ironwood comes to his senses and calls Vacuo for aid that all may be lost. Which, first of all, makes me wonder what Vacuo could possibly have that would defeat Salem - numbers? the most powerful Maiden? And now I just feel really bad about the rest of the Atlas arc bc apparently in canon Ironwood could have stopped this? idk how but I'm sure RWBY will let him know soon enough

Thank you! :D

Hmm... given what we know I think it’s potentially less about what Vacuo specifically has and more that Vacuo is what’s left. The Fall of Beacon was a devastating blow to Vale and we saw in Volume 4 that although there was a lot of blame shifted on Atlas for failing to prevent the attack, the other kingdoms were also looking to them as a new leader, especially with Ozpin “dead.” Vale is no longer the power it once was. Mistral, we learned in Volume 5, isn’t much better off. If Ozpin and Ironwood are any indicators of a trend, the headmasters of each huntsmen academy are also akin to the kingdom’s overall leader (despite not being an official position)... and Lionheart was loyal to Salem. To say nothing of the whole list of huntsmen he helped kill off. As Clover makes it clear right before the Battle of Mantle, ordinary soldiers really can’t do too much against the more powerful grimm. They’re a decent first wave in a fight, but you 100% need the professionals to survive. Vale’s professionals, as far as we know, scattered to the wind when their school fell, a good chunk of them not fully trained. Mantle’s has largely been killed off. Who do you call then if you need backup? The one kingdom that’s remaining. Which isn’t to say that Vacuo necessarily has something super powerful that Ironwood willfully ignored, just that they’re the last untouched kingdom, so to speak. They’re the best potential support if we’re talking unification.

Which, I continually feel the need to point out, Ironwood intended to do. To use Tyrian’s words, he came to his senses (very quickly) and chose unity over division. I don’t agree with the specifics---unifying through telling the world about Salem---but there was no doubt that he intended to contact what was left of the forces across Remnant, including Vacuo, and ask everyone to work together. That’s his plan and the intent of that FAR outweighs smaller divisions he’s created in his attempts to complete it (aka the embargo). I’ve noticed a lot of posts the last few days cheering over Ironwood’s presumed defeat because he’s the fool choosing division over unity... except we haven’t seen that at all this volume. Ironwood immediately shared everything with Team RWBY. He was open to communication with Robyn (during that conversation at the training facility he merely pointed out that reconciliation requires both of them to be on board). He makes nice with Jacques Schnee of all people in the interest of maintaining peace. He tells the council at Ruby and Oscar’s urging. He then goes a step further and tells Mantle all on his own. Time and time again Ironwood has chosen that unity, with the one exception being the diverted resources that caused Mantle to distrust him. But as we know, that was entirely in service of uniting the whole world.

It’s only in the last hour of in-world time that Ironwood has shifted towards division.... and he has every right to. He just learned that while he was entirely open his supposed allies have been lying to him from the start (and given the Ozpin situation of Volume 6, every viewer should remember how horrific that betrayal supposedly is). He then figured out that not only have they been lying, but two of them deliberately sabotaged him and proved without a doubt that they could not be trusted to have his back. Then he’s faced with a situation where uniting Remnant as a means of defeating Salem is literally not possible. Not based on what anyone currently knows. Amity is not complete yet. It can’t be completed in the next half hour, or however long they have. They have to presume they don’t have long at all because of the perimeter being (potentially) taken out. And as for flying ships out for aid, Vacuo isn’t exactly nearby.

“What would Mantle have done in the meantime?” ... die. Again, based on the characters’ current knowledge Team RWBY’s “plan” dooms Mantle just as much as Ironwood’s does. The difference is that Ironwood’s has the hope of saving everyone in Atlas, a decent chunk of Mantle’s population, two relics, and a Maiden.

Ultimately, that really is a good way of putting it. Ironwood has the responsibility of acting whereas the group has the luxury of reacting. You need to fix the problem while we get to criticize the solutions you come up with. Which is precisely what we saw with Mantle: you bear the burden of taking their resources while we both simultaneously push you to finish Amity faster and demonize you for doing what’s necessary to complete that request. The group is really happy to let Ironwood get his hands dirty while they just yell about his choices, rather than coming up with something better, admitting they can’t come up with something better, and/or actually shouldering some of that burden themselves. Team RWBY is just really stuck in a rut of, “But your plan is evil” and ignoring Ironwood’s counter of, “Well your ‘plan’ dooms both Mantle and Atlas, so...” It comes down to active vs. passive interaction. Ironwood is willing to be active and make the horrifically hard call in order to hopefully keep the fight alive. Team RWBY would rather be passive, just face whatever happens to come their way, because they’re not capable of taking the tough, morally messy stances that Ozpin and Ironwood have. The stances that have ultimately kept the world turning for the last 1,000 years. Did Ozpin create a time of peace by literally standing his ground against unbeatable odds? No. He lied, kept secrets, made sacrifices, and frequently retreated. That’s what gave him the time and space to build things like the huntsmen academies, not “you never back down from a fight.”

But you know it’s Team RWBY’s story so obviously the plot will keep twisting and turning to make sure their “plans” miraculously have the best outcomes, logic aside. That’s just inevitable at this point.

#rwby #rwby volume 7 #rwby volume 7 spoilers #mymetas #smallerthanzer0

42 notes · View notes

ilosttrackofthings · 5 years ago

Note

So do you prefer Logan to Jess? and if so would you mind explaining why?

First off, I was older when I started watching GG. Which isn’t to say that preferring Jess is immature, just that I had a different mindset seeing it all than I did when, say, I watched Roswell, for which I still hardcore ship those endgame couples that were being pushed from the start. I also didn’t start at the beginning with GG. So my perspective going into the Jess/Rory relationship for the first time was different. I saw their end before I saw their beginning and that changed things.

Also I’m not going to include the revival in this answer/rant/essay because, as a rule, I don’t consider any revival/reboot of an old property definitively canon.

But getting to your ask, I’m gonna take it as two questions - do I like Logan more than Jess? and do I like Logan more than Jess for Rory? - and I’m gonna try to separate them as much as possible because while the answers do feed into each other, I don’t want this to turn into an “I hate Jess and that’s why he’s bad for Rory” post because that’s not how life works. For example in one of my favorite ships, I didn’t like one character for a while, but he was so good for his romantic partner and she was so good for him that I couldn’t help but love him by the end.

Do I like Logan more than Jess?

Yes. I could list a lot of reasons why, in the early seasons, Jess is just a crappy person, and I imagine a Jess fan would either own up to those and point out that he was a dumb teenager or they would point to Logan’s own personal crappiness. And both would be fair defenses. Jess was a child and he did grow up. The problem is that we didn’t see that happen. Jess’s growing happened entirely off-screen and we have very little screen time with him after those early, crappy years to get to know his character. Whereas Logan is a crappy kid who we see grow. I know how the child he was plays into the man he became because we got to see it happen. We saw how he reacted to setbacks and trials and how that shaped him as a person. I can look back on young Logan’s actions with a bit of schadenfreude because I know how this bad behavior will come back to bite him later. But with Jess I have none of that. I have no idea how much of young Jess is in adult Jess because all we get are the start and end points of his journey to manhood, so I have no idea how those rough edges were worn or whether he’s even really grown at all. He certainly wasn’t a monster of a person when he was younger and it could just be that he’s on his best behavior when we see him in later seasons because it’s a special occasion or he’s trying extra hard because Rory.

I’m not saying I actually believe any of that, just that the possibility exists and hurts my opinion of Jess. I actually think his arch parallels Lorelei��s. Both were kids who threw away their chances and their opportunities in order to make their own way in life. Which, frankly, isn’t a move I respect a whole lot given that both involve a lot of emotional (and, in Lorelei’s case, potential physical) harm to others. But Lorelei grew up into a good and decent person and it’s very likely Jess did too. Probably the show is giving us glimpses of Real Grown Jess whenever it can and that’s fine. But, again, we didn’t get to see that growth and while with Lorelei my annoyance with her earlier actions is tempered by a wealth of evidence as to her adult character, with Jess I have a wealth of crappy early behavior to compare to not a whole lot of adult character.

Do I like Logan-and-Rory more than Jess-and-Rory?

Also yes. Again, this has something to do with timing. When we see Rory and Jess together, they’re both teenagers still trying to find their feet. They do a lot of hurting each other and those around them in pursuit of their relationship (both before and during). She spends a lot of her energy trying to Fix Him, when really what he wants from her is respect for the person he is. Unfortunately he also has this conflict where he wants her to be herself because that’s who he fell in love with, but he doesn’t get that in order to be with her while she’s being herself, he’ll have to grow with her. So that leads to some conflicts where he tries to pull her away from being herself because he naturally wishes that she’d grow with him instead. And that comes back to Rory changing him because that’s always been her MO with him from the very beginning. She wants to buckle his train car to hers on the higher education express and make him better that way, which was never gonna work for Jess. They’re both just two stupid kids trying to pull each other in opposing directions, not realizing that to make it work you’ve got to give as much as you gain and you’ve got to grow together.

So in that way they just got together at the wrong time in their lives. But a wrong time does not necessitate a right time and, like with Jess’s character growth, there’s nothing we’ve seen in his later appearances to indicate things would work out any better now. In fact, I’d argue the opposite. When Jess reappears, it’s always more of the same. Either trying to pull Rory along with him or pushing her to be herself. While the latter is always positive, it doesn’t quite work coming from someone who, at that time, hasn’t really known who Rory is since high school. His idea of Rory being herself is still the idealized version of her he had in his head all those years ago and his assumption that she is still, at her core, that person displays arrogance rather than true understanding. (I mean, can you imagine someone who knew you three years ago and hasn’t seen you since except to have you tell them to leave you alone thinking they know who you are now?)

As for Rory and Logan, I’ve gotta admit that my example up there of a ship that caused the guy to grow on me was this one. If anything I like Logan more than Rory now. He starts out shitty, I’m not denying that, but frankly so does she. She has very definite ideas of how relationships should go based on her experiences with Dean and Jess, but Logan makes her reevaluate not only relationships in general but where she should stand in a relationship. He doesn’t doggedly pursue her the way the others did and that gives her a much needed dose of humility. But Logan doesn’t use that to his advantage the way a more stereotyped rich white male would. Rather than tear her down, use her desire to be with him to add her to his list of potential booty calls, he recognizes that she is a girl worthy of pursuit and honor. Wanting her forces him to become the kind of guy who would be in a relationship. It also gives him the chance to finally shrug off his family’s expectations in a way both he and they see as more than just youthful rebellion. Because of her, he takes his first meaningful steps towards independence and responsibility. Meanwhile Rory gets to let loose and enjoy life in ways she’d never dreamed. When she goes into her funk, he stands by her. He proves that he really has become relationship guy and uses his own experience as a screw-up to recognize she needs the space to make those mistakes and, maybe, to change and grow in ways she didn’t expect. He gave her the space to change who she was, to be herself in ways that were outside the mold she’d cast for herself years earlier before she really knew herself at all.

I’m not saying Rory and Logan weren’t messy, there was plenty of that happening. But theirs was an adult relationship that changed both parties for the better.

tl;dr Yes because Jess was an entitled child and Logan was an entitled child who we got to see become a man.

#wow that got long #rogan #logan x rory #gilmore girls #talkytalktalk #anti jess #i do not mean 'child' in the teal deer as an insult #it's just facts #he was a kid #anonymous

40 notes · View notes

timeisacephalopod · 7 years ago

Text

Echo

Ok so this is a slight canon divergent AU post Infinity War. Drax and Mantis are still alive post-snap and they’ve teamed up with Nebula and Tony. Featuring Mantis & Tony and Tony & everyone else too.

Tony looks out over the stars, unfamiliar with the systems he’s staring at. Quill is dead, so is Strange and Tony still can’t fucking believe he gave up that stone for Tony’s life, and Peter. Peter is dead too. I don’t feel so good has played on a loop through his head for so long its just background noise to him now, lost in the grief of not knowing who else is alive or dead. The rest of the Avengers? Tony doesn’t know. Pepper? Rhodey? No clue. Drax is worried about Groot and Rocket, a couple Guardians he hasn’t met yet, and Mantis feels her own grief plus everyone else’s. She’s got the shittiest end of the stick as far as Tony is concerned.

A hand slips over his arm and he looks over, finding Mantis staring at him in that slightly unnerving way she has, antennas glowing. It indicates that she’s channeling her ability to feel, he’s learned. She frowns a little- aliens apparently closely mimic human emotions or repeat them easily- and leans forward a little. “Are you okay?” she asks softly. Strange considering she can feel how he feels. She’s been wandering the ship for days carefully monitoring everyone’s feelings, even Nebula’s. The first time Mantis tested her power on her Nebula tried to kill her but she’s since seen the light of Mantis’ ability to control emotions. Probably for the first time in his life, and Nebula’s too, they both have regular sleep patterns and they don’t dream. Its a fucking blessing.

“You know how I feel, Mantis,” he tells her but she shakes her head.

“No,” she says softly. “You don’t feel anything at all.”

“Its grief, Mantis,” Drax says softly from behind them. Mantis jumps a little- skittish after her rather brave attack on Thanos- and turns to face him. Drax steps out of the shadows and gives Tony a pitying look that, for a moment, makes him resentful but it passes fast. Almost too fast for Mantis to catch it. “Sometimes its easier to turn off your ability to feel,” Drax tells Mantis. “Grief is hard on a person.”

Something he’d know. He lost his wife, his child, half his crew- he’s been through more than Tony has and in a shorter time frame. Mantis removes her hand from Tony and places it on Drax, antennas glowing. “You don’t feel the same way he does,” she says softly.

Drax shakes his head. “I’ve been numb too long. That’ll pass eventually and when it does I’m sorry. So sorry about you child,” he says and Mantis tears up, indicating Drax’s feelings better than Drax himself. Tony feels his face twist for a moment, grief making a break through his carefully constructed walls before he sniffs a little and stands up straighter. Rhodey used to tell him it was a tell he had, has he guesses, that’s a sure fire way to know he’s upset. Beyond that there’s usually nothing. Tony doesn’t know if Rhodey can tell him anything anymore.

He opens his mouth to say that Peter wasn’t his child but the words stick in his throat. Instead he says, “thank you,” softly and Mantis pulls her hand from Drax, moving it back to Tony to retest his emotional state. When she places her hand over he heart- or where Tony’s heart would be considering he has no real idea what her anatomy looks like- and lets out a loud sob he quickly pulls away. No need for her to suffer too and he feels bad enough watching her gasp her way through his residual emotions as it is.

“Hey,” Tony says to Nebula, earning a sharp glare from her. She’s trying with minimal success to fix her own arm but that’s difficult to manage with one hand. Tony takes her tools and starts doing the work himself and Nebula slowly relaxes into it. “Are there like... I don’t know, some space version of puppies?” he asks and she glares at him again.

“I don’t know what a puppy is,” she tells him in that slightly mechanical, harsh tone she has.

“Um. Fresh version of dogs. Kid dogs. Dogs are furry animals, generally very social, like to be pet, happy all the time unless they’ve gotten into the garbage, then they’re guilty. Or space cats, those would work too. Also four legged, less social but still cute, they purr. Anything ringing a bell?” he asks. Explaining human pets is surprisingly difficult.

Nebula shrugs, “I’ve never paid attention to things like that. Never worth my time,” she says. Never worth Thanos’ time, she means. And Tony thought his father was bad- Thanos is a thousand times worse. The way he could do such cruel, horrific things while displaying a shocking amount of empathy... fuck, that’s got to mess a person up living with that.

He sighs, “I’ll ask Drax,” he says.

Drax is entirely unhelpful, producing these ugly drooling lizards and insisting they were space puppies. They at least make him happy and they occupy his time, giving him something to focus on besides his grief and the potential of losing what little of his crew he has left. Tony isn’t looking forward to a return to earth either if he’s honest. But Drax at least enjoys his ugly lizards enough to not think about it.

Nebula comes up to him three days after Drax’s attempt at space dogs with the weirdest looking creature Tony has ever seen. Its sort of in the shape of a sphere with one eye and six legs and its blue but it is furry and it is cute. “It has too many legs but I think its a dog,” Nebula says and Tony can’t help but laugh.

“This isn’t a dog, but it is cute,” he says, pulling the small animal from her grasp and petting it. It starts making this... noise and Tony frowns. “Is that a good thing?” he asks, unsure if Nebula would even know.

“I’ve been told it is. I’ve also been told that it hates me,” she says, glaring at the furry creature. It stops making its strange noise and Tony can feel it tense a little.

“Stop glaring at it, you’re scaring it,” Tony tells her. “Poor thing,” he says softly, petting it again until it relaxes and starts making its happy noise. “Can you show me where you got this?”

Tony discovers that this is, in fact, basically a space dog but its got behaviors that blend what he’s used to from cats and dogs. The animal is social, but usually begins to prefer one specific person best like cats. They’re also highly attentive to emotions like both dogs and cats, hence it not liking Nebula, who doesn’t like it either, and they eat copper. That had thrown Tony for a loop but he ends up with a whole box of them and a massive amount of copper, which isn’t at all expensive on the planet he’s on, hence it being used as food for the space dogs.

When he brings them all back to the ship he finds Mantis, who perks up when he sees him. He smiles and dumps the box of space dogs on her. She frowns for a moment before reaching out to the creatures, who are now sniffing her much like earth animals do, and runs her hands along them. Her antennas light up and she smiles blissfully. “They’re so happy,” she says, petting two new space dogs. “They like me! They like you,” Mantis says, looking over at him. A couple of the little balls of fluff have jumped ship from Mantis’ chair to his feet and he can feel several paws on his legs as the little creatures vie for his attention. he bends down to their level, petting the soft little guys while they all squeak happily in response.

“You’re always feeling what we do,” Tony tells Mantis softly. “I figured that has to be hard. So I brought you these. They’re happy, I thought maybe they might be a good break for you when we get to be too much,” he says. A couple of the balls of fluff go running back to an enthusiastic Mantis, who lifts them into her lap.

“They’re wonderful,” she says, petting as many of the fluffy creatures as she can manage. “Thank you.”

Tony smiles as the first of the creatures Nebula has brought to him comes running over, six legs moving fast, until he literally runs head first into Tony’s leg. He smiles and pets it too, pleased when it makes that happy space dog noise. “You’re welcome, Mantis,” he murmurs.

Drax has taken a surprising liking to the space dogs, training them to help wrangle his lizards. Nebula had reluctantly taken in one of the furry creatures when it proved to be too antisocial for the rest of the group and for Tony and Mantis though it didn’t hate Tony like it did everyone else. It mostly just tolerates him. But it loves Nebula. She loves it back even if she tries not to show it.

Tony and Mantis are the two the social fuzzy creatures like the most though and they spend their time splitting themselves between the two and switching with surprising efficiency minus the one that has taken a strict liking to Tony. They make things at least a little brighter on the ship, they give all of them something to focus on besides Thanos, their loss, and the unknown.

#alternate universe #tony & mantis #tony & nebula #Tony & Drax #fanfic #fanfction #writing

29 notes · View notes

eksbdan-blog · 5 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://passingbynehushtan.com/2020/01/07/what-is-the-word-of-god/

What is the Word of God?: A Prophetic Think Tank

What is the Word of God? A very dangerous question.

“This is a very simple question, and one to which a Calvinist, it would seem, could give a very simple answer. And yet that simple answer would hardly be adequate for an occasion of this kind, since the query to which a reply is sought involves such questions as these: Is it a natural or a supernatural Word? Is it a communication of truth, addressed to the intellect, or a behest or command, addressed to the will? Is it a written or a spoken Word or both? Does it represent a verbal or a factual revelation, or one that is both verbal and factual? Is it a Word spoken in the past, and now a finished product, or is it rather a continuous speaking of God? Is it wholly or only in part identical with the divine revelation? Is the Bible the Word of God or is it not?”1

The novelist Thomas Pynchon said, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Not that the question “what is the word of God?” is the wrong question. I would say that this question to Christians, and the World, is probably the most critical possible. But it’s the wrong question because we don’t use it to get an honest answer. We use it to stand for a pious intention for which no answer warrants unless it leads us into another red herring ever further from the Messiah.

Of course, it’s mere rhetoric if you are asking it to a people who already claim to know its answer. Rhetorical queries are fine for the great and most consequential questions, but only if the answer you wish to receive reflects reality. If it’s not, they are careless and empty, haughty, platitudinous, pretentious, and misleading of where we really are want to be in having real knowledge.

“Is it true that scientists said on Foxnews that in one week a two-kilometer asteroid is going to hit the earth and all life will dies.” “Yes, and our saviors, the spacemen, will land their rescue ships on Tuesday and will start to load passengers for the trip to Zeta Reticuli.”

That’s not really a serious question. Its meant to be funny by pretending to be serious, knowing that the answer you get can only be a funny retort or one of a serious but funny panic attack. What makes it the wrong question for a real searcher of truth and a real possessor of truth is that its meant to be a kind of ruse, prepared for an emotionally motivated disarming of the whole idea of spiritual threat by discharging it into something inert and harmless. “What is the Word of God” is asked today for no other purpose than misleading not for comedy, but feelings of piety. Asked so that a certain answer is forced, so that the implied threat about that Word, which is well known subconsciously, gives up a Holy turd instead of a Holy, but very uncomfortable truth.

That’s how it’s the wrong question. Not for the question itself but because of a wrong asker and receiver. What you need is the same question formulated so that the crucial, eternal, potentially deadly, and potentially saving answer cant be avoided and lost in manipulable conceptual generalities.

As Berkhof unintentionally demonstrates above, some questions, like what is a thing essentially, should not even be asked if the answer is too obvious. It’s like asking, “what kind of car do you have?” You answer, of course, a particular kind of Chevrolet sedan. But in Christianity, we don’t like the deepest exclusivist claims in our exclusivist faith. So, we then have to veer down into a rabbit hole and ask in our purely rhetorical, dissociative faith, “is it made of metal or wood?” “Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?” “Is it objective or only subjective?” We never do get to taking on directly “Chevrolet sedan” in our philosophy and theology.

Another way is that of the common pew sitter. “What kind of car do you have? The answer is “Car.” In such a manner do we ask “what is the Word of God”: something demanding a certain model, but we get either “the whole Bible” or “a document purported to be from a supernatural source developed over time by a certain culture in the ancient Middle East.”

We know and believe there are all kinds of claimants to “the Word of God” type of scripture in the world. Their unattested version is very attractive when the idea of supernatural proofs scare us, or we just can’t accept them in any case. But if you think you’re in a religion that is represented primarily by its whole instead of its miraculous part, like in our Christian “culture war” idea of us against the World, you will be inclined to circle the wagons and want to defend the whole instead of allowing its leading edge to defend itself. To us, “go to the ant, thou sluggard” and “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities” are both the Word of God, and so they are. But for what reason in our consciousnesses do we dare to think we are obligated to choose something else as this leading-edge of the Word of God when Christ and the apostles certainly, unequivocally, demonstratively, all day and all night, made it messianic prophecy?

Talk about a dissociate disorder.

The question is not crucially whether the Word of God is spoken or written, or whether it is that which was spoken in the past or spoken now. They are misleading questions, especially the one about whether the Word of God is historical or contemporary. Such genera of questions about the Word of God will not give you the answer to what is the Word of God because this is asking for only for its exterior categorical qualities. What we want to do is construct a question that forces an answer that goes to its particular content, and that content in which the New Testament writers, particularly Jesus, took for granted as being at its heart.

Here is our question: “what of/in the Word of God is required to use as a collective symbol of the whole thing?”

We all do it. We all have a conceptual point of contact in our minds with the idea “Word of God,” so this question is appropriate on a lot of levels if we ask honestly and are willing to answer honestly. But let’s not excuse ourselves for the corrupt natural tendency of defer-deny-misdirect-reconceive when the results of our natural tendencies are supposed to be 180 degrees opposite from what we are supposed to love. It’s about the single superior thought or impression we get when we ask or think about the Word of God and if it aligns with Christ as he revealed himself.

The far better question, again, is “what in the Bible, what scriptural stream of revelation, regardless of who is speaking, whether it is addressed to the will or the intellect, verbal of factual, is that which the New Testament writers took as what best represents the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah.” I beg you to remember that if Jesus is not Messiah, there may be some god out there, but he’s not Jehovah, and there is no indication that he cares about us or is not more inclined to come down and start plunking us with his cosmic pellet gun. If he’s not Messiah, then you’re still in your sins. If he’s not messiah, there is no Christianity, only another podunk world faith. This question for the Church is perfect because the “Messiah” is an exclusive propriety possession of the Bible. If you were to pick one name for “Bible,” that would be it.

Since it is Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2), what about Jesus makes him the Christ to our faith is what should also first be treated as the Word of God in the capacity of an informational gatekeeper to our faith, without which knowledge and faith we miss in Jesus, the person. So, it’s not even about whether something in the Bible might not be the Word of God, but to what extent can we say what we first give attention to in the Word of God is Jesus.

Along this line, here are some questions to consider that will give us our answer.

1. What was the only possibility for the “phrase “Word of God” being used as one-part-of-the-whole according to the NT writers by the historical timing of their writings?

This one is easy, and we all know it.

We use “Word of God” as the whole of the Bible, but it’s not used that way in the Bible.

To the extent that the New Testament is primarily about merely reporting on the operational success of messianic prophecy in fulfillment and through that the clarification of previously unsettled questions, this is the extent to which the Word of God is single stream, namely, messianic prophecy. In other words, the extent to which it can be said the New Testament is following these prior prophecies instead of creating out of whole cloth new ones for own truth narrative is the extent that we can say that “the Word of God” is a single stream. Quintessentially, the words of the prophets fulfilled by Christ.

For the NT writers, the corpus of the NT was not written yet and established canonically. For all the writers of the NT, when they spoke of the Word of God, they were speaking about the Old Testament. The New Testament does not much explicitly quote itself. When the NT writers and Jesus quoted, they quoted the Old Testament, and they overwhelmingly quoted Messianic Prophecy. They referred not to its own unattested authority, neither does Jesus (John 5:31-32, 37, 39) to His own, but to the ability of the Tenach to prove their reports are not self-serving and their faith as divinely inspired by the worlds of the prophets.

2. What of this Word of God is quoted, and does it align with our operational definition of the Word of God?2

Bring up my web page here. Look at what of the Old Testament was quoted, and for what purpose was it quoted.

254 separate NT verses citing 231 OT verses

190 Combined OT quotations in the NT, conflating repetitions

137 OT verses are marked clearly prophetic, 30 are used in a strong prophetic argument, making a total of 167 out of 231 OT verses strongly prophetic.

Bring up this web page here. This page is a collation of Jesus’s words in the Gospel of John, giving an example of the pattern also found in the other gospels. Here is a more meaningful interpretation of the true NT prophetic content (Note: “PW” in the document, as I used it, stands for Prophetic Word, an appellation I give as a more instructive alternative to “Bible” or “Scripture,” or even Word of God if it is used in a sense too general to make messianic prophecy its heart).

“In John, there are 879 verses. Jesus speaks in 423 verses. Jesus cites OT prophetic scripture 33 verses. He states or implies a fulfilled prophecy in 120 verses. In other verses, he speaks eschatologically or speaks of prophecy yet to still set for fulfillment. This is 209 verses of the 423. The total is 362 of the 423. The total is 85.5%. The missing collation is in the verses where he expounds on a prophetic theme, explains how it works to faith, speaks of its importance, or generally where it is the root topic of discussion. In this category, all can fall into. All are essentially about Christ, His Word, its fulfillment, its application to faith, and its future. Speaking conservatively, these verses alone are at least 345. Most of these verses combine one category with another, making every verse in the service of the prophetic subject.

For example, in John 6:44, Jesus says: ‘No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.’ This combines the M category with the F category since it speaks of the future resurrection and also that no one will take part in it but those who believe the PW/Person of Christ.

The next verse, 45, we have: ‘It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Jesus cites OT prophecy and states that this faith in the word of the prophets is the way to Him, meaning that it is in the M-S category. To this could easily be added the F category as well, since he still speaks of future fulfillment by future believers.

John 3:14 combines all four categories: It refers to Numbers 21:8 (S), cites it as prophetic and fulfilled by Christ (E), speaks of the supreme present and future importance of the PW and faith requirement in the PW (M and F)”

Now, this is my own work following my perspective, but I ask you to use the same model and come up with your numbers. Any way you do it, the Word of God, whether OT or NT, is the messianic, prophetic phenomena of God.

What is more than natural is that the Person of messianic prophecy would put it of first importance, found all his arguments on it, predicate all His theology on it, speak it almost exclusively and then die to fulfill it? That is because the Word of messianic prophecy is Christ.

That is what the NT writers called the Word of God. Unlike our view of the Word of God, it’s not pithy proverbs, philosophical principles, motifs and themes, stories, an instruction manual about how to pray, or even mainly about how to treat your fellow man or a dictionary of theological ideas. It’s not mainly about “Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.” It’s not about us. It’s about Jesus, but not about the Jesus we want Him to be or even only about the person of Jesus. It’s about Jesus the Messiah, and if it’s about Jesus Messiah, it is about how the prophets foretold Him and how he fulfilled that Word of God.

Every verse in the New Testament, including “Jesus wept” (John 11:35), is recorded for some kind of teaching of that truth long before we apply it to our own lives. An example of the deprioritized interpretation is this one: “Jesus Christ tenderly and deeply sympathizes in human sorrow” (Family Bible Notes). I don’t mean that the Bible is not for us, that it’s not showing Jesus demonstrating a mandatory capacity for human emotion or care for us, I mean that “Jesus wept” is for the main purpose of recording Jesus’s fulfillment of Isa 53:3 and Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17. The spiritual power of fulfilling Isaiah 53:3 and the implications for our faith through it is far more important than “Jesus Christ tenderly and deeply sympathizes in human sorrow.” But this kind of thing is what we like to call the main meaning of the “Word of God.”

3. In the NT, what kind of texts are used, and from where are they taken for positing theological arguments?

The better question is, “what of the fundamental theological NT propositions don’t come from Old Testament prophetic texts?” The answer is none. We will use an example from the Book of Romans.

For example, there are about 41 direct OT quotations in Romans (Romans 3:10-18 quotes directly eight total OT texts). There are many doctrines, but a good way to divide it by “righteousness needed” (Sin), “1:18–3:20; righteousness provided” (Faith), “3:21–8:39; righteousness vindicated” (The Cross, Atonement), “9:1–11:36; righteousness practiced” (Sanctification), “12:1–15:13.”3 If not prophesied, then it’s not theology.

1:18-3:20 Righteousness needed (Sin)

Paul established the doctrine of sin and what cure is needed. Paul here seems to be making a statement about the sin problem without stating what this sin is. Perhaps he is speaking of sins of performance? But that is not what he is talking about as the most important kind of sin.

Overlooked is that Paul opens the letter with a scriptural predicate that is to remain to establish his doctrine of sin by contrast. In Romans 1:1-4, we read, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures). Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” That is a wholly, unabashedly prophetic statement.

He even says that the gospel was prophesied, and is, therefore, a prophetic gospel. It defines the basis for the new righteousness through a prophetic knowledge that sin is against (knowing and believing is righteous, not knowing, and not believing is the opposite).

Starting in 1:18, being that holding this knowledge of the truth unrighteously is the real sin, the baseline example for this sin against revelational knowledge is a sin against natural revelation “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” In man’s religious history, this led to a fundamental corruption of something so basic as the knowledge of the divinely established form of sex between men and women, effectively what we might call a kind of intellectual and biological inbreeding (as opposed to looking outside the human sphere for knowledge).

Paul continues not to talk about sin as ultimately against natural revelation, but by its example talking about the sin against Christ and his prophetic revelation.

In Vss. 29-31 Starts to talk more directly, using examples closer to home. He lays out a list of sins that flow from, as indicative symbols, of the great one. The problem is those deceived into thinking that they will not be judged by the Law when they are religious (circumcised). Not judged according to the law, but who judge those who are committing the same sins they are. But those who are not circumcised will be counted as righteous who keep the law these people are not following, which is true “the righteousness of the law” in v.26.

What is this? There is the false righteousness that comes from bodily movement around religion and natural affections and the true righteousness of the Law that is spiritual and faith in the prophetic revelation of Christ. Here is the whole of the thing Paul is talking about, that spiritual one, not any other primitive form. Its opposite is, again, quintessential sin, not the basic sins that Paul mentioned against the basic knowledge of God. (In Romans 8:4 he says the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us who live not according to the flesh but to the Spirit)

He says that this righteousness is not carnal but spiritual: Romans 2:29: “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” The advantage between the gentile and Jew is that the Jew is superior in that “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (3:2). The Jew has a better foundation upon which to be properly instructed. That is, by fulfilled messianic prophecy. Now we know what this inner, essential, righteousness of the Law is.

Continue to the next page…

Paul answers some questions that obviously raised in his time about how this righteousness of God can be effective to salvation if some of the Jews did not believe. About how God’s grace can abound more to His glory the more sinful we are, suggesting that more sin is better to show God’s grace and why we who believe are still considered sinners. He says everyone is a sinner (3:9) without having the righteousness of the Law. The Law of works (v.27) only shows how sinful we are and how impossible it is by our effort to satisfy it (3:19-20).

Paul cites the Old Testament scripture between vss. 11 and 18 to define sin eight times. This is not an enumeration of only carnal sins, but spiritual ones (not righteous, of no understanding, none that “seeks God,” “out of the way,” “unprofitable,�� “none that do good.”). Paul cites the OT that applies to the present time in a way that it could never apply to the past because Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets, therefore using Old Testament passages that we would not consider prophetic as prophetic texts. It suggests that we might be wrong in our consideration of what scripture is prophetic and what is not.

This spiritual righteousness of the Law “without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference” (emphasis mine). Justification by faith without the deeds of the Law is through “faith in his blood” (v.25), “to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (v26). What is clear is from where the knowledge of this sin and curative righteousness comes: Christ and the Old Testament scriptures that speak of the Messiah. Faith in Jesus is through His oracles and in their fulfillments; faith in His blood is not a faith in His actual blood, but the blood represents His prophesied, propitiatory death.

We establish something quite different than our operational conception of this sin as a sin primarily of physical works and the reason why we would commit such sins, or for that matter what righteousness means, how we can have it and why we would follow it. In our way of thinking, sins are primarily of physical expression, and the reason we sin is that we don’t believe in “God” or “Jesus” or the “Bible” like we should. Or, it’s because we don’t know or understand the propositional “doctrines” and apply them. Perhaps because we don’t recognize that we are sinful. But if sin is spiritual, it is sin of spiritual activity. If it is so, it is a sin of not knowing, having no confidence in, relegating, misappropriating, obfuscating, or being primarily unmotivated by or denying the oracles of Christ. Any conception of righteousness coming through the performance of the law is the opposite.

3:21–8:39. Righteousness provided (Faith)

Romans 3:21: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.”

Paul uses 5 OT texts to establish Abraham as the prototypical man of faith, starting in 4:1. What was the basis of Abraham’s faith?

Romans 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” This promise was prophetic that he would be the father of many nations (v.17 and 18).

Romans 4:21: “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.” He was convinced of God’s faithfulness to fulfill the prophecy.

Not intended just for Abraham but for us, who also believe in God’s promises concerning Jesus, who is the one that Abraham believed would come to establish such faith: Romans 4:24-25: “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

Romans 5:6: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” “In due time” refers to the oracles.

All of Paul’s arguments use this understanding of prophetic faith as the basis of why it is superior to the law, why there is now no condemnation for those that are in the law of faith in Christ. Why it makes us dead to sin but alive to God, and how God can give us eternal life though we are sinners.

Again, all of our theology comes from the messianic stream of scripture.

9:1–11:36: Righteousness vindicated” (The Cross, Atonement)

“So this section is an attempt to explain God’s dealings with Jews as a vindication of righteousness. Paul does it by a clear exposition of the Scriptures. He will show that Israel’s rejection is related to the spiritual pride of the Jews (9,10), that Israel’s rejection is not complete because some are being saved (11), and that Israel’s rejection is not final because it will be reversed before the coming of the Lord (the end of chapter 11).”4

The problem with the above interpretation is there is no effort to define the scriptural basis of this “rejection” by the Jews. What did they reject, precisely, and what were they arguing was not true scripturally that these Christians believed? Well, their interpretation of the oracles of Messiah as applying to Jesus, of course. We can’t talk about “righteousness vindicated” without knowing what righteousness is and what it is not.

Romans 9:7-8: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

Paul uses no less than 20 Old Testament scriptures in this section. Ishmael was from Abraham as well, but Isaac was a prophetic type of all righteous Israel. Not all the Jews are saved, but only those of the promise. Paul is using a prophecy of these righteous Jews to argue that all those in Christ are among them. Christ is not merely telling them, “don’t’ worry, I say on my own authority you’re saved” or “if you have confessed your sins and say you believe in me to save you, you will be saved.” Paul used an exclusively prophetic argument that righteousness is through belief in what the prophets said would come in Jesus of Nazareth. You have to know it to believe it, and the more you know it, the more you believe it.

12:1–15:13. Righteousness practiced” (Sanctification)

Now, this is a no brainer after the preceding. What sanctifies? Why?

Everything about how we should behave is because of the kind of scriptures above. We are not honest if we say it’s because of anything else. We are not honest if we say the Word of God has anything else in it to accomplish this.

4. What of the Word of God is to be used in NT evangelism?

Again, easy.

In John 1:15 and 5:33, John and Christ use the phrase that John the Baptist “bare witness” of Jesus, the Truth.

We don’t interpret this witnessing just as gushing about how much Jesus loves us, how logical Christianity is, how it is compatible with science, that we had a dream or that we speak in tongues, or simply that “I believe in Jesus.” That is not biblical witnessing. Biblical witnessing is quoting the words of the prophets and proclaiming and explaining how Jesus fulfilled them. Quite a different kind of evangelism we preach today.

John’s witnessing is like this in John 1:23: “He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5. It’s not his biblically and supernaturally disconnected theological proposition. He did not say, “I am John, and I am…” he equated himself with an Old Testament oracle. This Jesus also did:

John 5:31-32: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.”

John 5:39: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

John 5:46: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”

The Book of Acts is the best place to see 1st-century evangelism at work. Nineteen verses use Old Testament texts. There is not a glimmer of a case to be made out of a single evangelistic encounter where Paul used our bromidic form of evangelism.

5. What of the Word of God is used as the symbolic meaning of Jesus so that when we talk of one, we talk of the other and nothing else?

We need only to make one point to bring this home. By far, the most obvious and hardly even worth trying to defend.

John 1:1-5: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

It is interesting how close this statement is to the opening of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-8: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

What does this tell us? In John, Jesus is the Word. What is this Word? Hebrews clarifies it. Jesus’s place is at the right hand of the Father, the Son of God, not as some angel, but because he fulfilled Psalms 2, Psalms 97:7 and Psalms 45:6-7. He adds in 1:13: “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” That the fulfillment of Psalms 110. That book of John says explicitly that Jesus is the Word of God should close the question. Still, it’s closed even further, if that were possible, when Hebrews says the same thing by quoting the Word of God instead of just making the statement (which, by the way, John subsequently and consistently does throughout his gospel). If Jesus is the Word of God, he is the Word of the prophets quintessentially.

What is the Word of God? Why is it so important?

I beg you to please meditate on this question very, very carefully.

If you are a believer and are at least of the mind to think that apologetics is important, I ask you this. Is occultism, adultery, murder, and any other form of sin you can think of coming anywhere near the importance of one which would allow them to be falsely claimed as ultimate examples, and hide as the mother-of-all-apostasies? Can you think of one more qualified as this one for that title, which allows you to have a relationship with Christ, but only by a useless half?

“But all sin is sin?” Yes, surely, but some represent, indicate another, far more profound and damning one of which there is no forgiveness. Because it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit, that that Spirit is sort of a non-threatening abstract, do you think that it’s rare and you are not a part of it until you know what it is, and before its too late?

If you use the phrase “the Word of God,” be careful that what is demonstrably and unequivocally and emblematically Christ is the same as what you know, or maybe he will say “I never knew you.”

Salvation is not only a matter of Christ knowing you, but you knowing him.

Christ and the Norming of Transcendence: Passing by Nehushtan

Prophesying, Preaching, and the Prophetic: Passing by Nehushtan

Matthew 5 and the Adultery of the Heart: Passing by Nehushtan

http://www.bible-researcher.com/berkhof1.html ↩

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html ↩

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Romans.html ↩

https://bible.org/seriespage/vindication-or-god%E2%80%99s-righteousness-his-relationship-israel-romans-91-1021 ↩

0 notes

ramajmedia · 5 years ago

Text

Marvel Shouldn't Have Recast Edward Norton's Hulk As Mark Ruffalo

The Marvel Cinematic Universe may have been better if Edward Norton had continued to portray Bruce Banner. Norton first played Banner in 2008’s The Incredible Hulk, the second film in the MCU and, to date, the Hulk’s only solo film in the entire franchise. The notorious creative clashes that took place between Norton and Marvel Studios on the film eventually led to Bruce Banner being recast, with Mark Ruffalo first assuming the role in The Avengers.

In the years since, Ruffalo has reprised the role several times in the MCU, and while the Hulk has yet to appear in another solo film, Ruffalo’s portrayal has generally been well-received among audiences and critics alike. Norton, meanwhile, has occasionally dipped his toes back into both the comic book and science-fiction waters with appearances in the superhero satire Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and a surprise cameo in Alita: Battle Angel.

Related: What is the Hulk's Future After Avengers: Endgame?

As the franchise became a dominant Hollywood force, The Incredible Hulk has arguably become the black sheep of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with William Hurt's General Ross being the only character to return in another movie (and even then, it was a full eight years later in 2016’s Captain America: Civil War). But while Ruffalo’s tenure as Bruce Banner has become a cornerstone of the MCU, there’s a lot to suggest that the series would have been better if Norton's performance as Banner had not been a one-and-done.

Why Marvel Recast Edward Norton

Back when The Incredible Hulk was in production, the MCU wasn't the juggernaut franchise that it is today. With Marvel and Universal still wincing from the disappointment of 2003's Hulk, and The Incredible Hulk itself being only the second film in the loosely-defined series, the MCU ship wasn't run nearly as tightly as is the case today. These days, the buck now stops with Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, but Edward Norton sought to have far more creative say in the sophomore MCU project. Norton, having done a rewrite of the script, is said to have clashed heavily with Marvel on the tone and direction of the film. The relationship between Norton and Marvel grew tense enough for the actor to be largely absent from the film's promotional tour prior to its release in June 2008.

While Norton appeared set to reprise the role in The Avengers, the creative friction with Marvel Studios proved too great, leading the studio to re-cast Mark Ruffalo in the role for the then-upcoming superhero ensemble. This wouldn't be the last fans would hear of Norton and Marvel's falling out, with both camps giving at-times conflicting reasons behind Norton's departure. Norton himself has made his feelings on the situation known in recent years, including comments taking issue with The Incredible Hulk script, and specifically the loss of his contributions to it.

But even as fans of the MCU continue to debate whether to side with Marvel or Norton, Mark Ruffalo's subsequent performance in the role has been warmly received by audiences and critics. However, looking back on The Incredible Hulk, Norton's departure from the role of Bruce Banner has cost the MCU dearly.

Related: Why Mark Ruffalo Replaced Edward Norton As Hulk In The MCU

Why Edward Norton Was Good As Bruce Banner

One thing that distinguishes Norton’s portrayal of Bruce Banner from Ruffalo’s is the man-on-the-run aspect of The Incredible Hulk. The film opens with Banner hiding a Brazilian favela, working in a bottling plant while trying to cure himself of transformations into the Hulk. The South American setting of the film is the only holdover from 2003’s Hulk prior to The Incredible Hulk being retooled into a complete reboot, but it lays the groundwork for much more personal and intimate stakes than Banner has received in any of his subsequent MCU appearances. Norton’s Banner is a man constantly on edge, going to great lengths to remain out of public view, and even greater lengths to keep his anger in check with martial arts and meditation.

Norton’s voice and slight build also aided him immensely in embodying the kind of diminutive character Banner is, but more than that, Norton was able to channel the constant sense of dread Banner lives with every day. His transformations into the Hulk feels like genuine monster movie moments, with Bruce petrified by his own immense power. What’s more, when Banner finally decides to intentionally transform into the Hulk to stop Abomination’s rampage, there’s a genuine feeling of sadness in Banner effectively trading his military captivity in order to inevitably go on the run again with the monster lurking within him. All of it works because Norton has so convincingly embodied a cursed man throughout the film, while the ending teases that he may have finally mastered his rage.

Mark Ruffalo's Hulk Has Lacked Definition

When Mark Ruffalo stepped into Norton’s shoes in The Avengers, he had his work cut out. Thankfully, like Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard as War Machine, he rose to the occasion. The film continued Banner being on the run from the military and S.H.I.E.L.D., and with his performance, Ruffalo largely maintained the tragic underdog that Norton embodied, while ramping up the character’s anger to the point of being barely suppressed. That would prove to be a major plot point in the film’s climactic battle in New York City, with Banner revealing that he’s kept the Hulk in check because he is now “always angry”. Add in the characters unforgettable run-in with Loki and banter with Tony Stark, and Ruffalo’s debut performances as Bruce Banner and Hulk were arguably the best things about The Avengers.

Unfortunately, Banner has never risen to those same heights again in his subsequent MCU appearances, with the man terrified of the destructive consequences never seen again. Following an end-credits cameo in Iron Man 3, Ruffalo began leaning more heavily into the increasingly comedic tone the franchise as a whole was adopting. His portrayal still didn't abandon his connective tissue with Norton's earlier work completely, as seen in Avengers: Age of Ultron when Banner struggles with the psychotic rampage he'd been sent on as the Hulk by Scarlet Witch's mind-manipulation.

Related: Hulk's Three-Movie Arc Didn't Fix The Character's MCU Problems

But, by the time of The Hulk's return in 2017's Thor: Ragnarok, Ruffalo's portrayal was beginning to feel increasingly campy. The MCU's tale of Bruce Banner was no longer that of a man cursed to forever live on the run or a volatile outsider who finds a family with The Avengers, but a comic relief mascot. This continued in Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, where it's simply impossible to believe that Ruffalo's Banner is the same character as Norton's. Indeed, its arguably a far cry from even Ruffalo's own earlier performance in The Avengers, with Banner now perpetually light-hearted and cheerful. The new Banner-Hulk hybrid casually tossing a motorcycle aside and meeting his old friends in a diner while clad in glasses and a bathrobe would prove indicative of just how much Ruffalo's performance now felt awkward and out-of-place compared to where the character had come from his earlier appearances.

Should Marvel Have Kept Edward Norton?

With Bruce Banner now having made a total of seven appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (counting Iron Man 3's post-credits stinger), the franchise feels like it would've been better off if Norton had continued in the role. While his creative clashes with Marvel had left some bad blood between both camps, Norton clearly had a solid grasp on the character and where he wanted to take Banner. His portrayal of the character was that of a meek man always sitting on pins and needles, the exact traits most readily associated with Bruce. However, he also was able to present Banner as the perpetual underdog, the guy who never catches a break and who the audience can't help but cheer for, and who had the potential to turn his curse into a gift and become a true hero. That's without even getting into technical aspects like the impossibly shredded design The Hulk was given, by far the best the character has ever seen on film.

Ruffalo was able to carry all of that over into The Avengers and even make the character feel a little darker in some respects. However, his subsequent appearances jettison the clear PTSD he's saddled with, and by the Infinity War-Endgame double-header, Banner hardly feels like a guy who's ever had anger issues or been through the kind of hell we know he's experienced. Smart Hulk also feels disjointed from even Ruffalo's own initial performance in the role, and heavily leans into the comedic tone the MCU has taken on in a way that feels out of step and inconsistent with the character.

Both Norton and Ruffalo excelled in their initial appearances as Bruce Banner, but Ruffalo's follow-up portrayals haven't had the same kind of weight as his first. In many ways, Norton felt tailor-made for the role of Bruce Banner, an effete, subdued victim of terrible circumstance with the potential to turn his ill-fortune into his greatest strength. In the years since The Incredible Hulk, Marvel's decision to recast Bruce Banner has yielded them plenty of acclaim from critics and audiences as a result of Ruffalo's time in the role but, in hindsight, the MCU would've been better off if they had stuck with "the other guy."

Next: All References To The Incredible Hulk In Later MCU Movies (The Prove It's Canon)

source https://screenrant.com/marvel-recast-hulk-edward-norton-mark-ruffalo-bad/

#screenrant

0 notes

ashbash4man · 8 years ago

Text

Is Victuuri canon?

Hey everyone! Time for another one of my opinions. This time it’s about the very popular show that literally took over the world for a time, Yuri on Ice! I love this show and seeing all of the fan art and fan postings on Tumblr gives me life, but my opinions about the show as a whole can wait for another time. Today I’d really like to discuss the Victuuri ship. I know everyone loves Victuuri and I do too, however I have some mixed feelings about the legitimacy of this ship. Okay, I’ll just come out and say it: I don't think Victuuri is canon.

Do I think there are strong implications about there being a deeper relationship between Victor and Yuri? Absolutely. Do I think this makes it canon? Nope. At it’s core, this is a show about relationships and the most important relationship in the show is between Victor and Yuri. I absolutely love their dynamic. Yuri’s undying commitment to prove himself to Victor is incredibly admirable and Victor’s faith in Yuri’s abilities makes me wish Victor was real and my coach (though I am so incredibly unathletic that it’s ridiculous). Their relationship has so much depth to it and I absolutely love attempting to unravel their feelings for each other, because no one can refute that they feel something towards each other (whether it’s entirely romantic or not is a different story).

I think the biggest reason that I don't think Victuuri is canon is that their relationship is so complex and cannot be defined with the simple descriptions of relationships that we have at our disposal. Their dynamic is a mixture of so many different relationships that it’s hard to define it as one single label. First off, they have this unbelievable friendship that makes it seem like they’ve known each other for forever, although they have only truly known each other for a short amount of time. They also have this very strong teacher-student relationship. Clearly, Victor is the more experienced of the two of them and Yuri is completely infatuated with Victor like a superfan is with the object of their admiration. Now that he has the opportunity to work with his idol, he’s trying to do everything that he can to prove to Victor that he isn't wasting his time. So the admiration accounts for part of what people could see as “love.” There may also be an element of romantic attraction between the two to further the complexity of their relationship, though I do not believe it goes as far as some of the fans make it out to be.

The distinction between Eros, sexual love, and Agape, familial love, is a huge theme in the show (Kinda spoiler alert? And some kinda spoilers ahead?) While Yurio, who clearly starts out as the more Eros between him and Yuri, struggles to figure out what Agape means to him throughout the show, the tables are turned for Yuri. Yuri already understands the meaning of Agape, but he has to learn how to channel elements of Eros into himself in order to become a well-rounded individual. Yuri’s challenge to channel his inner Eros is just as much about him gaining self confidence as it is learning the meaning of sexual love. There are three ways you could look at Victor’s choice to give Yuri the song about Eros for his program:

1. Victor was being Victor and decided that it would be fun to challenge Yuri and that the best way to approach a competition is to go into it with the intent of surprising the audience. Eros would be the perfect song to allow Yuri to shock the audience.

2. Victor is attracted to Yuri and wants to teach Yuri the meaning of Eros in order to get Yuri to fall for him.

3. Victor’s sneaky and knows that this will help Yuri gain the self-confidence he lacks.

Honestly, I think this choice was a mix of each of these three points, so yes there is some romance involved.

Now, another reason that I think that Victuuri isn't canon is because I believe that the writers of the show purposely wrote this relationship to be ambiguous with no clear answers. This keeps the audience engaged and constantly guessing. It also allows for Victor and Yuri’s relationship to be much deeper and more complex than it would be if it were just a simple romantic relationship. After I was left infuriated by the lack of clarity in the first few open-ended scenes, I started to notice that the writers weren't giving me answers on purpose and that I should get used to it. Am I still bitter that I don't have clear answers about a few pivotal scenes? Yes. Do I respect the ambiguity of the show? Also yes.

Okay so I’ve kinda avoided some of the really obvious indicators of potential romantic undertones. So I’ll give my opinions on them here: *WARNING: SPOILERS. SPOILERS EVERYWHERE*

1. The scene where Yuri basically tackles Victor after finishing his routine. So this is literally just Yuri being super super excited about how well he performed his program and wanting to show Victor just how happy he was. This was honestly so cute I can't.

2. “The Kiss.” Okay I’ll just say it: there wasn't a kiss. They just hugged. And the writers, being ambiguous, hinted at there potentially being a kiss, but there is no real evidence that they did actually kiss. Besides if they did kiss, there definitely would have been more said about it by the press and the other characters in the show, since it happened you know on the ice at a major competition.

3. The “engagement” rings. Okay this is kinda convincing but A. They’re on the wrong hand!, B. Yuri denied it vehemently and yeah people deny being in love but if they were engaged I feel like Yuri would have been happy/proud of that so clearly he did not intend for the rings to be engagement rings or he’s not ready to be engaged yet and C. Yuri’s really weird about how he shows friendship/gratitude.

Am I opposed to Victuuri being canon? OF COURSE NOT. I ALREADY SHIP THEM AND I WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO BE A THING, but sadly they technically aren't, at least in my opinion. I definitely do ship Victuuri, but I refuse to say that it’s canon without undeniable evidence that they are in fact in a relationship. I really wanna see how their relationship deepens and strengthens in the next season, if they have another season. I’ll make sure to write more about my opinions on the show as a whole and the characters later! I didn't even get into my feelings about Yurio x Otabek, but I’ll save that for another day.

~Ash

#yuri on ice #yuri!!! on ice #yoi #yuri katsuki #victor nikiforov #victuuri #Ash's blog #reviews and opinions #is it canon?

7 notes · View notes