What kind of theist was Moses?

[BroRoyVa79]

I’ve been focused elsewhere of late. Apologies for my delay. Perhaps I should also be briefer.

Ex.3:15 is, IMO, one of many places (eg v6) where a monotheist can think the text to be monotheistic, even if it is not. If we presume elohim to always mean nondeity, unless where it clearly defines Yahweh (however we put the tetragrammaton), that makes it easy enough. This is the Divine Council argument of Heiser, if memory serves, and I gather this forms part of your hermeneutical glasses. My POV, allowing elohim to have a range of meaning, is that where Yahweh is mentioned as elohim alongside elohim (eg Ex.20:2-3), particularly in pagan circles, no qualitative distinction is to be presumed. Would, say, Joshua’s hearers have ‘heard’ him say that they could either choose God—the sole creator of the universe and all life and spirits—or the miscellaneous spirits created by him (Jos.24)? No competition. Given an option of marrying a woman or a Barbie Doll, I was always gonna marry a woman (put poetically): put philosophically, I could not have married other than a woman—lol, it’s just an illustration. If elohim to Joshua’s audience, had sounded like real alternatives, that to me makes better sense of the text, akin to marrying woman A or woman B. And if that was what Joshua’s audience ‘heard’, again we may ask, What had Moses taught Israel re elohim?

I do not merely say that Israel fell away—though it did—but that Moses himself never quite kept his head above polytheistic water.

Murder vs. Manslaughter might be semantics to you, but in ancient days folk appreciated having a city of refuge, just in case. And, one might ask, did Yahweh prohibit murder yet command the murder of the Canaanites? C S Lewis: “All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”

I would be chary to use the term [the Lord], unless adonai is intended, and not Yahweh. But on the point discussed, I would suggest that if Moses was raised decisively above the polytheiism/polytheism of Egypt, it does not strike me that he was mandated to raise his people out of it, as if it was deemed relatively unimportant—what you might call semantics. For my money, strands above and below that waterline, appear in the Pentateuch, and we should not hide either. You say: I see no real evidence; I say: I see real evidence. Like Captain Wentworth (Jane Austen’s Persuasion), I think we can disagree world without end: “When once married people begin to attack me with,—‘Oh! you will think very differently, when you are married.’ I can only say, ‘No, I shall not;’ and then they say again, ‘Yes, you will,’ and there is an end of it.”

On the original autographs, differentiations between majuscules and minuscules were not used within those writings, which is my context. On Mk.2:7, I had simply looked at the MT reading, but see what you mean in the WH about a third person singular, and agree that if using the WH, λαλει need not be addressed, although one might expect that since it is also about Jesus, it too might have been capitalised. Anyway, I should have checked before firing off. I’m unsure why you actually quote it in lowercase [βλασφημεῖ τίς…], when you are arguing for upper case [Βλασφημει τις…]. That said, my question stands: So what?

I do not subscribe to the Two Powers concept, which to my mind is more bitheism than binitarianism. Systematising the NT data on trinitarianism, was quite a history of trial & error, suggestions and rebuttals. Do you, BTW, subscribe to trinitarianism, one eternal being/society, of three uncreated persons? Some good Christians don’t; I do. I reject the concept of false deities, since I reject the concept, deities, though it looks to me as though Moses did not, though he will now. I do think that The Silmarillion has a useful take of any Divine (not deific) Council.

By poetical, I comprehend even terms in isolation. I would argue that ANE polytheism (poetical) was in fact more polytheiism (philosophical)—ie that their conceptual thinking/talk was as if many deities, but at best were really about many divinities (created spirits). I argue that Sinai was Level 2 education, while the NT carries tertiary Level trinitarianism.

Re. capitalisation of elohim/theos, I do not say that monotheism is based on it, but that polytheism can be hidden by it.

Shalom

Given the length of time between replies and since I have no intention of making this an endless back and forth for disagreement's sake, I'm just going to say that we disagree on many things and I still think you are reading polytheism, etc. in places that are not there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

?

Moses was a Levite, born to Amram and Yocheved.


Vinnie, your responses are getting strange. My definitions are commonly understood.


Ok, I'm out, Lol.

God bless, Vinnie, and maybe next time.
- H

I read Vinnie’s long treatise and thought 5 minutes with the real God of Moses will blow all his theory away like chaff.

 

[Vinny37]

Since God said he does not talk to Moses in dreams and metaphors (more or less) but straight face to face as a man talks to his friend, he was the best kind of theist. Moses understood so much more of God than most if not all theologians today, it is not funny. Few theology even hear from God at all in any way, shape or form. Moses knew Jesus was coming. He knew the time of Jacobs trouble (great tribulation) was some and a whole lot more.

You offer no proof, only presumption, an a priori. I have listed verses where Moses spoke in polytheistic terms, and shown that his people were left in polytheism, although a subset of exclusive worship/obedience of one they deemed a deity among many. I also argued that Moses gleaned insights above mere polytheism (eg Creation A/c).

As to God speaking to him, that was relative to his day & age—what if God desired his people to continue with polytheism, and test their loyalty as if he were but one option on the table? Similarly he wished pagans to continue in polytheism (Level 1), until Christian times (Level 3).

Other big OT names: unlike Moses, Jacob actually saw God’s face—yet his wife sat on the family ‘gods’. Balaam also, arguably, had true revelation of the future, but he lacked as a theologian (Nb.24:17?). I doubt that Moses had any more understanding of messiah, than had John the Baptist (Mt.11:11), who knowing Jesus, nevertheless misunderstood messiahship. Perhaps we who are least in the NT kingdom, have more theology proper (potentially) than had Moses in the OT kingdom? Granted, Moses will now be up to speed beyond us mortals.

 

[Vinny37]

I read Vinnie’s long treatise and thought 5 minutes with the real God of Moses will blow all his theory away like chaff.

I would say, that to any extent I have a god, I have not God. Moses did not have a god, but he had God. I would read the OT polytheism as polytheism, but argue that we now have a better way to speak.

 

[Vinny37]

Given the length of time between replies and since I have no intention of making this an endless back and forth for disagreement's sake, I'm just going to say that we disagree on many things and I still think you are reading polytheism, etc. in places that are not there.

Your call.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I would say, that to any extent I have a god, I have not God. Moses did not have a god, but he had God. I would read the OT polytheism as polytheism, but argue that we now have a better way to speak.

Well, since Moses talked face to face as a man talks to his friend, I would say he had a profound better way to speak. Besides the writer of any book that has unique knowledge, knows more than they who read it. Moses knew God way better than any theologian you can meet today.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You offer no proof, only presumption, an a priori. I have listed verses where Moses spoke in polytheistic terms, and shown that his people were left in polytheism, although a subset of exclusive worship/obedience of one they deemed a deity among many. I also argued that Moses gleaned insights above mere polytheism (eg Creation A/c).

As to God speaking to him, that was relative to his day & age—what if God desired his people to continue with polytheism, and test their loyalty as if he were but one option on the table? Similarly he wished pagans to continue in polytheism (Level 1), until Christian times (Level 3).

Other big OT names: unlike Moses, Jacob actually saw God’s face—yet his wife sat on the family ‘gods’. Balaam also, arguably, had true revelation of the future, but he lacked as a theologian (Nb.24:17?). I doubt that Moses had any more understanding of messiah, than had John the Baptist (Mt.11:11), who knowing Jesus, nevertheless misunderstood messiahship. Perhaps we who are least in the NT kingdom, have more theology proper (potentially) than had Moses in the OT kingdom? Granted, Moses will now be up to speed beyond us mortals.

You never heard of the scriptures that say Moses talked to God face to face as a man talks to his friend but think I am making that up a priori? Really?

Now I know God a lot better than others but not nearly as good as Moses. So I can understand the difficulty of expressing the nature of God being restricted to our human language. Words are inadequate. So what you see as polytheistic is likely the limits of human language to express the divine. But the fact is, Moses knew God as a friend, not as a theological construct.

Now God spoke to Moses as a man speaks to his friend was NOT the experience relative to his day and age. It was very unique and the Bible indicates this. It is an odd thing to think the God spoke as a man speaks to his friend in that day and age when it is clear that most did not hear his voice and many did not want to hear it. Do you not believe that they had this kind of relationship?

Why do think Jacob saw the face of God? No references and you need them for that a priori assumption. It is likely that you do not believe that talking to God face to face is an extremely unique privilege. Maybe you think it is just religious words and do not mean anything. Is that your position?

 

[Vinny37]

You never heard of the scriptures that say Moses talked to God face to face as a man talks to his friend but think I am making that up a priori? Really?

Now I know God a lot better than others but not nearly as good as Moses. So I can understand the difficulty of expressing the nature of God being restricted to our human language. Words are inadequate. So what you see as polytheistic is likely the limits of human language to express the divine. But the fact is, Moses knew God as a friend, not as a theological construct.

Now God spoke to Moses as a man speaks to his friend was NOT the experience relative to his day and age. It was very unique and the Bible indicates this. It is an odd thing to think the God spoke as a man speaks to his friend in that day and age when it is clear that most did not hear his voice and many did not want to hear it. Do you not believe that they had this kind of relationship?

Why do think Jacob saw the face of God? No references and you need them for that a priori assumption. It is likely that you do not believe that talking to God face to face is an extremely unique privilege. Maybe you think it is just religious words and do not mean anything. Is that your position?

“Although v. 11 states that Moses [was] able to speak face-to-face with YHWH, the context implies that Moses [did] not see God’s face directly: the tent wall [stood] between Moses and YHWH” (Desmond Alexander’s Exodus (Apollos Old Testament Commentaries) (2017:634)).

The Bible does not say that Moses knew Yahweh as a friend—nor can we—but that the contact was direct, ie as a friend speaks to another. You can know God better than did Moses; Moses will now know God better than you & I. Prior to the upgraded relationship we are open to (Jhn.3:3), Moses had an incredibly close fellowship, but it was submessianic.

Re Jacob & Yahweh’s face, will Gen.32:30 suffice?

 

[Vinny37]

Moses talked face to face as a man talks to his friend

I am unaware of a text that indicates that the face-to-face talk was symetrical, and had assumed it asymmetrical. I do not see any biblical text saying that God is a friend of anyone.

PS: you said, "Maybe you think it is just religious words and do not mean anything. Is that your position?" I do not disparage religious words; they can and should be, meaningful.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

“Although v. 11 states that Moses [was] able to speak face-to-face with YHWH, the context implies that Moses [did] not see God’s face directly: the tent wall [stood] between Moses and YHWH” (Desmond Alexander’s Exodus (Apollos Old Testament Commentaries) (2017:634)).

I have a Heavenly Father who is God. I am not a Hebrew so YHWH, which no one can pronounce has no meaning for me. But I have traveled extensively and the name other languages use for Him also has no meaning for me so that is not knew. "Dios" has no meaning for me, for example. What Moses saw or tasted or heard or felt is not described so we cannot address it. But he had a very close relationship with God Almighty. Abraham too was a friend of God. That has its privileges but also its responsibilities.

The Bible does not say that Moses knew Yahweh as a friend—nor can we—but that the contact was direct, ie as a friend speaks to another. You can know God better than did Moses; Moses will now know God better than you & I. Prior to the upgraded relationship we are open to (Jhn.3:3), Moses had an incredibly close fellowship, but it was submessianic.

When it says God spoke to him face to face as a man speaks to his friend, that means Moses knew God as friend. How can you say they were friends? I guess you say so because it was before Jesus. Does not seem to bother either God or Moses but the "rule" says no friendship with God before Jesus, I guess. Don't think God knows or or at least respects that theological construct.

And while it might be possible to know God better than Moses, I highly doubt it and have never met anyone close to this and rarely met christians whom God would call his friend. If you asked most, they would probably say that God has to call them "friend" because of Jesus no matter how unimportant God is in their thoughts and life. There are a few who really are friends of God but the price is quite high. Modern Christians like to assume they are entitled to all the honors awarded anyone in the Bible at any time no matter how they actually life. The current prevailing view is to say great things of oneself, no honor being too high.

Re Jacob & Yahweh’s face, will Gen.32:30 suffice?

First Jacob said he saw the face of God which is not the same as God saying it and secondly, Jacob said seeing Esau was seeing the face of God. Jacob wrestled with an angel not God. So he was using the Hebrew Metaphor both times. It was not literally true nor did the description fit literally true.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I am unaware of a text that indicates that the face-to-face talk was symetrical, and had assumed it asymmetrical. I do not see any biblical text saying that God is a friend of anyone.

James 2:23 (you are dealing with a believer who not only knows the Bible fairly thoroughly, but lives it and so I know what it says.)

PS: you said, "Maybe you think it is just religious words and do not mean anything. Is that your position?" I do not disparage religious words; they can and should be, meaningful.

Being meaningful is not the measure of good in the eyes of God.

 

[Vinny37]

James 2:23 (you are dealing with a believer who not only knows the Bible fairly thoroughly, but lives it and so I know what it says.)

Being meaningful is not the measure of good in the eyes of God.

I would not boast the same, but am pleased that you live it & understand it.

 

[Vinny37]

I have a Heavenly Father who is God. I am not a Hebrew so YHWH, which no one can pronounce has no meaning for me. But I have traveled extensively and the name other languages use for Him also has no meaning for me so that is not knew. "Dios" has no meaning for me, for example. What Moses saw or tasted or heard or felt is not described so we cannot address it. But he had a very close relationship with God Almighty. Abraham too was a friend of God. That has its privileges but also its responsibilities.

When it says God spoke to him face to face as a man speaks to his friend, that means Moses knew God as friend. How can you say they were friends? I guess you say so because it was before Jesus. Does not seem to bother either God or Moses but the "rule" says no friendship with God before Jesus, I guess. Don't think God knows or or at least respects that theological construct.

And while it might be possible to know God better than Moses, I highly doubt it and have never met anyone close to this and rarely met christians whom God would call his friend. If you asked most, they would probably say that God has to call them "friend" because of Jesus no matter how unimportant God is in their thoughts and life. There are a few who really are friends of God but the price is quite high. Modern Christians like to assume they are entitled to all the honors awarded anyone in the Bible at any time no matter how they actually life. The current prevailing view is to say great things of oneself, no honor being too high.

First Jacob said he saw the face of God which is not the same as God saying it and secondly, Jacob said seeing Esau was seeing the face of God. Jacob wrestled with an angel not God. So he was using the Hebrew Metaphor both times. It was not literally true nor did the description fit literally true.

I have that same heavenly father, PTL. Yahweh, God’s only personal name (so F F Bruce), has meaning to us all, whether we understand it or not. It is also factored into the name, Yeshua/Iesum/Jhesus, even if we prefer the more current English, Jesus. A personal name is a personal name, however languages render it. I am a Yahwist-Christian, Christianity being a subset of Yahwism (not of Sinai). Marcion went the whole hog, and not being a Hebrew ditched the Hebrew scriptures as having no meaning for him. Yahweh is God, the tripersonal being of father, son, and spirit.


We read of Abraham having been a friend of God, but not of Moses having been so. I argue not that Moses was not, but simply that we are not told that he was. Even so, it’s good to note that such friendship did/does not work both directions.

You said: “…privileges but also its responsibilities”. Spot on.

A total stranger might speak to me in a friendly way. What is it that makes one a friend? Indeed, what types of friendship exist? Apropos Moshe, the biblical text merely describes a style of address, and I do not read into that either a symmetrical, or nonsymmetrical, friendship. (Incidentally, the friendship Jesus spoke about probably applies, I think, to all Christians, but was neither a pally friendship nor a symmetrical one.) Anyway, to me it seems like unending headbanging to argue re whether Moses had been a friend of God in an OT sense. In the Yeshuic, at least, Jhn.15 friendship meant obedience upline, and messianic revelation downline (nonsymmetrical).

I assert that the then future abundance of NT revelation, was far beyond Moses, even as it was far beyond the Baptist, the ‘greatest’ (?) of the OT prophets (Mt.11:11). You assert the contrary.

You said: “The current prevailing view is to say great things of oneself, no honor being too high”. I don’t think that I’ve heard such in Christian circles (except in songs), but then, our circles are different and your ears may be more finely attuned (my ears are dull). But I have some I call friend (buddy-friendship), with whom I have not connected for years. If as I think, all Christians are biblically defined as friends of Jesus, it could analogically follow that some are feeble friends, even as all Christians being children of God, some are feeble children. Thus, in my reckoning, such would be feeble in obedience upline, and understanding downline.

Fair point: “Jacob said he saw the face of God which is not the same as God saying it.” For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jacob lied and that Scripture didn’t waste time in telling us that. It’s still the closest Scripture got to saying that any mortal saw God’s face; arguably Moses only heard God’s voice spoken (though behind a safety veil) as a friend would speak.

Like you, I hold that Jacob wrestled with God only indirectly (God has no literal arms), by wresting with an angel who was disguised as a mortal. In seeing the literal face of Esau, we could say it was like Jacob seeing God’s face—meaning something of God’s plan/graciousness? (Likewise I might say to person B, that meeting them reminded me of meeting person A: “For to see your face is like seeing the face of God”: NIV (Gen.33:10)). It need not follow that because in one setting a phrase is a metaphor, that in every case it is metaphorical, but I certainly would argue against Jacob having seen a literal face of God, since God hasn’t a literal face.

My focus, however, remains on Moses, and to what level he understood God. I still do not assume that his honoured status meant that he was a dyed-in-the-wool philosophical monotheist, and I hold that his writings (and mission) reflected oscillation between monotheism & polytheism.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have that same heavenly father, PTL. Yahweh, God’s only personal name (so F F Bruce), has meaning to us all, whether we understand it or not

Not true. He was called other “personal” names in other languages and besides, the offspring who use their father’s personal name instead of Dad is not very close to their father. It’s generally an insult.

. It is also factored into the name, Yeshua/Iesum/Jhesus, even if we prefer the more current English, Jesus.

Jesus never ever used that word. Not once. It isn’t actually Gods personal name like Zeus or Chiva or Allah.

A personal name is a personal name, however languages render it.

We who are many need personal names. God who is one doesn’t. He hasn’t one. It’s rather insulting to put Him in the level of Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. One of many.

We read of Abraham having been a friend of God, but not of Moses having been so. I argue not that Moses was not, but simply that we are not told that he was.

Wow, you’re making yourself blind to the obvious. God talking like a man speaks with his friend doesn’t make Moses his friend??

Even so, it’s good to note that such friendship did/does not work both directions.

It worked both ways.

You said: “…privileges but also its responsibilities”. Spot on.

A total stranger might speak to me in a friendly way. What is it that makes one a friend? Indeed, what types of friendship exist? Apropos Moshe, the biblical text merely describes a style of address, and I do not read into that either a symmetrical, or nonsymmetrical, friendship. (Incidentally, the friendship Jesus spoke about probably applies, I think, to all Christians, but was neither a pally friendship nor a symmetrical one.)

God doesn’t use “styles of addresses.” He spoke plainly to Moses, no metaphors and no “styles.”

Anyway, to me it seems like unending headbanging to argue re whether Moses had been a friend of God in an OT sense. In the Yeshuic, at least, Jhn.15 friendship meant obedience upline, and messianic revelation downline (nonsymmetrical).

I assert that the then future abundance of NT revelation, was far beyond Moses, even as it was far beyond the Baptist, the ‘greatest’ (?) of the OT prophets (Mt.11:11). You assert the contrary.

That’s because Moses saw God as no NT person did, No theologian could write as Moses did. Most theologians have decided God doesn’t even speak to anyone anymore because they don’t know His voice. Their deafness is changed into his being dumb (silent.)

You said: “The current prevailing view is to say great things of oneself, no honor being too high”. I don’t think that I’ve heard such in Christian circles (except in songs), but then, our circles are different and your ears may be more finely attuned (my ears are dull).

Take a look at the lofty names posters have awarded themselves. I rest my case.

But I have some I call friend (buddy-friendship), with whom I have not connected for years. If as I think, all Christians are biblically defined as friends of Jesus, it could analogically follow that some are feeble friends,

God decides who his friends are. We don’t legally bequeath that honor upon ourselves.

even as all Christians being children of God, some are feeble children. Thus, in my reckoning, such would be feeble in obedience upline, and understanding downline.

Fair point: “Jacob said he saw the face of God which is not the same as God saying it.” For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jacob lied and that Scripture didn’t waste time in telling us that.

He didn’t lie. He used the Hebrew metaphor.

It’s still the closest Scripture got to saying that any mortal saw God’s face; arguably Moses only heard God’s voice spoken (though behind a safety veil) as a friend would speak.

Like you, I hold that Jacob wrestled with God only indirectly (God has no literal arms), by wresting with an angel who was disguised as a mortal. In seeing the literal face of Esau, we could say it was like Jacob seeing God’s face—meaning something of God’s plan/graciousness? (Likewise I might say to person B, that meeting them reminded me of meeting person A: “For to see your face is like seeing the face of God”: NIV (Gen.33:10)). It need not follow that because in one setting a phrase is a metaphor, that in every case it is metaphorical, but I certainly would argue against Jacob having seen a literal face of God, since God hasn’t a literal face.

Jesus said without holiness shall no man see God. Ergo, He didn’t.

My focus, however, remains on Moses, and to what level he understood God. I still do not assume that his honoured status meant that he was a dyed-in-the-wool philosophical monotheist, and I hold that his writings (and mission) reflected oscillation between monotheism & polytheism.

And I hold to walking with Him such that he will talk to me like a friend.

 

[Vinny37]

Not true. He was called other “personal” names in other languages and besides, the offspring who use their father’s personal name instead of Dad is not very close to their father. It’s generally an insult.

Jesus never ever used that word. Not once. It isn’t actually Gods personal name like Zeus or Chiva or Allah.

We who are many need personal names. God who is one doesn’t. He hasn’t one. It’s rather insulting to put Him in the level of Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. One of many.



Wow, you’re making yourself blind to the obvious. God talking like a man speaks with his friend doesn’t make Moses his friend??

It worked both ways.

God doesn’t use “styles of addresses.” He spoke plainly to Moses, no metaphors and no “styles.”

That’s because Moses saw God as no NT person did, No theologian could write as Moses did. Most theologians have decided God doesn’t even speak to anyone anymore because they don’t know His voice. Their deafness is changed into his being dumb (silent.)

Take a look at the lofty names posters have awarded themselves. I rest my case.

God decides who his friends are. We don’t legally bequeath that honor upon ourselves.

He didn’t lie. He used the Hebrew metaphor.

Jesus said without holiness shall no man see God. Ergo, He didn’t.

And I hold to walking with Him such that he will talk to me like a friend.

Well, Yahweh said that that was his name (eg Ex.20:7), but I at least am open to your correction: “We who are many need personal names. God who is one doesn’t. He hasn’t one.” He stands duly corrected, and should never have had a name, let alone inspiring his name being over 6,000 times written into the OT, and we should have nothing to do with him if he did. Even Tyndale was wrong to mess with Wycliffe by introducing God’s name as a name. And F F Bruce was but a fool.

Sadly some still believe that there was one personal name for him (I’ll not mention it), many generic terms for him (eg adonai, shaddai), and compound names (eg Yahweh-nissi), and that to Ethnic Israel he was father at a corporate level (Hos.11:1), finally individualised as father by the Yeshuic covenant.

Whether or not Jesus ever addressed God as Yahweh, we don’t actually know. Many a time, in its LXX former, κυριος, it was used in the NT (most EVV don’t reveal this). We do know that Yeshuism was the fulfilment of Yahwism, ie Yahwism as it was meant to be. And we do have abba individualised, a feature so deep that it was kept in its Aramaic, even though needing translation into Greek.

I guess I must, since you have said it, be blind to the obvious, unable to read the text. May God open my eyes. But on the question of symmetrical friendship, consider how Jesus made friendship provisional on his disciples’ obedience, and offered them a revelational upgrade (which I suspect meant Christianity). If symmetrical, the logic would (as Augustine, C S Lewis, D A Carson, and such fools have pointed out) say that Jesus would be their friend if he obeyed them, and that they would no longer treat him merely as a servant in their plans. That’s a big ask. Lewis suggested a humbler idea of friendship, even as a superpower can be a friendly ally of a weak island nation. In fact the Sinai covenant was a suzerain-vassal treaty (nonsymmetrical), not a parity (symmetrical) covenant. But, as you say, all this is blindness.

If you wish to stick to OT theology, fine, bin the NT. If you believe that the NT theology is an upgrade to Moses, again fine. As Joshua said to his people, the choice is yours (Jos.24).

I agree that the honour of Yeshuic friendship, is not a hand-me-down Christian to child thing (as David du Plessis nicely taught). But if it is another picture for being children of God, then each Christian is a child/friend of God.

You said: “And I hold to walking with Him such that he will talk to me like a friend.” That sounds to me as it should be, walking with the spirit under messiah’s lordship, and being directed by him. But biblically, no buddyism is, IMHO, vouchsafed by him treating you (or me) as a one-way ‘friend’.