The Jesus Secret

11/13/2017

The enduring question is this: How can a religion be built around someone who does not figure prominently in that religion’s holy book? I’m talking about Christianity and Jesus, of course.

In order to better understand this question, one has to first go back to the beginning – to Qumran and the origins of Christianity. In biblical times, a small, monastic group of Jews (usually referred to as Essenes) lived in isolation, in the wilderness near the Dead Sea in a place called Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found there some 60 years ago, make quite clear that the origins of Christianity lie in Qumran.

The Essenes were very religious and lived their lives strictly according to the Torah, the first five books of the Jewish Bible (Old Testament). It was out of this community that Jesus and most of the disciples would come. Jesus is commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, but Nazareth is a corruption of the term Nazarene as the Qumran people were sometimes called Nazarenes.

 

Fast forward to immediately after the crucifixion

At that time, the Nazarenes carried on the teachings of Jesus through what was called the Jerusalem Church, which was under the direction of James, the brother of Jesus. It was called the Jerusalem Church because Qumran was considered by the Nazarenes to be the “New Jerusalem.”

After the crucifixion, there were competing versions of the story of Jesus (see Luke 1:1-4). For example, the Jerusalem Church was highly critical of Paul for his false teachings (see the Book of Acts).  In 325 AD, some three hundred years later, a vote of sorts was taken at the Council of Nicaea to finally settle the debate between the competing factions as to which version of Jesus would make it into the Bible. The losers in the vote got branded as heretics.

 

The resurrection

Central to church theology is the story of the resurrection. The mystery of the resurrection is a riddle wrapped inside of an enigma. The only meaningful resurrection account in the Bible is found in the Gospel of Mark and that account does not include any details with respect to the actual resurrection itself. This is where the mystery deepens as almost no one during the time of Jesus believed in a physical resurrection. Yet, there it is anyway in the Gospel of Mark. So, let’s look at what the beliefs of the time about the resurrection actually were:

The disciples

The disciples, themselves, were Jewish and they lived their lives by the Torah. According to prophecy, the messiah that the disciples were expecting was a flesh-and-blood man (like King David), rather than a divine messiah who could resurrect himself after he had died.

Paul

Paul did not believe in the resurrection of the physical body, but rather the spiritual body alone (e.g. he never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh). Given Paul’s concept of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, the resurrection becomes simply an article of faith – a path to inner spiritual knowledge. For example, Paul stated that the body that rises is a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 44) and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 50).

Origen

Early Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria (in On First Principles) said that the resurrection related to the spirit, not the mortal body. He considered the concept of a physical resurrection to be for those that did not have eyes to see and ears to hear. The eyes to see and ears to hear, of course, is a famous parable attributable to Jesus. In other words, the resurrection of a physical body was strictly a surface story for the unenlightened.  The real story of a spiritual resurrection could only be understood by those that were very enlightened (and had been initiated into the Mysteries).

Other biblical writers

The gospels of Luke, Matthew and John do not have a resurrection story nor do the epistles of James and Jude, both brothers of Jesus. Of course, there are stories of appearances of Jesus in the gospels but there is no way of knowing if he had died and had been resurrected or if he had simply survived the crucifixion.

Jesus

According to Christian theology, Jesus was crucified, dead and buried (in a tomb).  Later, the tomb was mysteriously opened and Mary Magdalene was told that Jesus had risen. However, immediately thereafter, Mary Magdalene saw Jesus outside of the tomb and Jesus said that he had not yet risen (John 20:17). Obviously, then, he was still alive.

 

Even the one account of the resurrection in the Gospel of Mark has been called into question. The oldest bibles, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, do not include a resurrection story in the Gospel of Mark (the resurrection story in Mark can only be traced back to the Vulgate which is a late 4thcentury text). Further, the authors of the gospels of Luke and John do not contain a resurrection story even though they used copies of Mark (an earlier work) as a source. Therefore, the original Gospel of Mark could not have had a resurrection story in it. It had to be added very late in the game (after the Council of Nicaea in AD 325). Therefore, a central tenet of Christian faith is essentially missing from the Gospels.

Aside: The additional verses added to Mark say that Jesus ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. One has to ask the question: Who observed this? Exactly who was in heaven to know that Jesus sat next to God and that he specifically sat on the right side of God? Furthermore, how could you possibly give such a commentary without covering the real story – describing God himself?

So, why does any of this matter? Well, without a resurrection, there is no proof that Jesus was divine. The secret concerning Jesus and Christianity is that the church didn’t need the spiritual teachings of Jesus. They simply wanted a messiah in order to sell their religion to the masses.  Accordingly, Christianity would become the new pagan religion of the gentiles.  To gain new converts, they offered up the idea of a universal messiah who they said had come to save the entire world.  In stark contrast, the prophets wrote about the coming of a Jewish messiah who would come specifically to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know…but, of course, now you know.

 

Epilogue

Incidentally, an empty tomb (see above) proves nothing other than Jesus’ body was not there. There is nothing mysterious about his body being “missing” since when Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb, the tomb was open and immediately thereafter she found Jesus standing outside of the tomb. So, his body was not inside the cave/tomb as he was already outside of it. Obviously, he could have been risen at that time only if he had already died first. However, as the Gospel of Philip says, “Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then died.”  To understand that passage from the Gospel of Philip, you need to know that the author was concerned with the spirit rather than the body. The physical world was simply something that had to be overcome by resurrecting one’s spirit while they were in the physical world.

So, too, the message of early Christian luminaries like Paul and Origen were hidden under a veil of allegory and symbolism. Only the highly enlightened who were initiated into the Mysteries might be able to comprehend the underlying message.  Similarly, Jesus’ teachings were disguised as parables.  The bible clearly shows that even the disciples could not understand his message. So, why do Christians today believe that they understand his teachings when the disciples didn’t. After all, for the last two thousand years, all that Christians have ever gotten is a bible.

 

 

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:”

    – Paul (1 Corinthians 2:7)

 

“He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them (the masses)…This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.'”

    – Jesus (Matthew 13:11,13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

How was man created? Apparently, in this country there are only two schools of thought – evolution or creation by the Christian god. However, there just might be a third way.

To start with, I disagree with Christians who say that God created the world in seven days and I disagree with atheists who say that there is no God and that we are, therefore, some random, unexplained cosmic accident. So, at the risk of alienating everybody, here’s why I disagree…with just about everybody.

Christianity is a fine religion. I should know since I was raised in a Christian family.  However, there is just one small problem with Christianity. It does not agree with the Bible. Yeah, that’s a problem, isn’t it?

The history of the Church’s teachings has all of the twists and turns of a Dan Brown novel. As Christian theologian Brian McLaren put it, “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.”  So at the risk of oversimplifying, here’s just a few of the problems with Christianity:

  • The concept of Original Sin is disputed by the Bible itself (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21).
  • The teachings of Jesus are, for the most part, missing from the Bible.
  • The idea of a messiah was hijacked from Judaism. In the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), Jewish holy men proclaimed the coming of a messiah but their messiah was totally different from the one that Christianity later promulgated. For example, the messiah of the Old Testament was to be a man, not a divine being, and he would come not to save the entire world but rather to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.
  • The concept of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible at all.

The Bible, itself, isn’t even an original work in at least one important aspect. The stories about the Garden of Eden and The Flood in the Book of Genesis, which are central to Christian theology, were based on older Sumerian writings, namely the Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Enuma Elish, which is sometimes referred to as The Seven Tablets of Creation, was written on seven tablets with the seventh tablet devoted to honoring God. Thus, the origins of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, from the Hebrew word shabbath (that means day of rest). The use of Sumerian literature by the Hebrew scribes in penning Genesis is quite logical since the Israelites were descendants of the Sumerians through Abraham (as stated in the Bible).

What about atheism, then, and their argument that creation was accomplished through evolution? The interesting thing about the atheists’ argument is that they state that if the Christian god does not exist, then God doesn’t exist. However, they don’t make the same claim about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any of the other thousands of different religions. Only Christianity? Why?

The answer as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the goal of atheism is actually to replace Christianity as the preeminent religion in this country. Why? The answer is that atheism is in reality a political ideology dressed up as an argument about how we were all created.

In that ideology, God must not be allowed to be a part of people’s belief systems. The reason as geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” So, there it is – atheists cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, especially in the field of science with respect to their theory of evolution.

Therefore in this debate, Christianity must be put asunder so that another ideology can take its place, an ideology where men have no inalienable rights that come from God, only rights that are specified by the State. And who exactly would the State be in that event? Well, they would mostly be those of white privilege, some of whom who are calling for the extinction of their own white race. Call them the elite, the 1% or whatever…of course, I’m pretty sure that, although they are calling for the extinction of the white race, they are not really calling for their own personal demise. You can’t rule from the grave, now can you?

 

Epilogue

So, if Christianity has these shortcomings, where does that leave us with respect to the existence of God. Well, in this country, many atheists would argue that if Christianity is wrong about the Bible, then God doesn’t exist. That’s such a stretch of logic, or in this case lack thereof, that it doesn’t deserve a response. However, I’ll give one anyway. That is, just because Christianity is wrong about their god, it doesn’t mean that a Creator isn’t responsible for the universe. I’m simply saying that there might be a third way. Now who can argue with that? Well… apparently everyone.

 

 

“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

– George Wald, scientist and Nobel laureate

 

P.S. Wald said there are only two ways, but he didn’t say anything about a Christian god – only supernatural (divine) creation or evolution. He must be in agreement, then, that you can have divine creation without having a Christian god. It’s what I refer to as a “third way” – an explanation for creation that has nothing to do with evolution or original sin.

 

 

The End Times

11/02/2017

Most people, whether religious or not, probably have heard about what is referred to as the End Times.  What few realize, however, is that it should be more aptly called the End of Time.

The reason for this is that when the earth and its inhabitants transition through the End Times, the new reality will not include time. Also, many of the laws of physics will no longer apply. This is a natural occurrence which has been written about in the ancient Mayan and Hindu texts. Life will not end.  It just won’t be the same as it was before. That’s a good thing – believe me.

Everything is energy which is constantly vibrating. The earth, and everything in it and on it, is electro-magnetic energy, including air, water and all life forms.  The rate that this electro-magnetic field vibrates is generally referred to as the Schumann resonance, named after German physicist Winfried Otto Schumann.  In the future, we will simply vibrate faster.

However, what is one to make of Bible prophecy, then, with respect to the End Times?  Well, if  one were able to ask Christian theologian Albert Schweitzer, he would say that the Christian interpretation of the Bible is wrong! The reason is that, according to Schweitzer, is that the Bible actually states that the End Times would occur in the lifetime of the disciples, and not some 2,000 years later. He would also say that Jesus said that God would send someone who he (Jesus) referred to as the Son of Man to save mankind (rather than himself).

Of course, this may sound like blasphemy to some, but, if you like, you can read it in the Bible for yourself.

 

“Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet who anticipated the imminent end of the age and who warned his Jewish compatriots to repent in view of the cosmic crisis that was soon to come. God, Jesus proclaimed, would intervene in the course of history to overthrow the forces of evil, sending from heaven a divine-like figure called the Son of Man in a cataclysmic act of judgment.  This Son of Man would bring a new order to this world, a utopian kingdom to replace the evil empire that oppresses God’s people.   And this was to occur within Jesus’ generation.”

  – Bart Ehrman, biblical scholar and theologian

 

Occasionally, scientists actually call their own theories into question. This happened recently with experiments performed by CERN scientists using the CERN collider.

They were doing experiments looking for asymmetry in the universe. Instead of finding asymmetry, they found that there was complete symmetry between matter and antimatter in their experiments. Their conclusion was that, under those circumstances, the universe should not even exist! What’s left unsaid in all of this is why they were looking for asymmetry in the first place and exactly what did they mean that the universe should not exist? Here’s the backstory.

There are only two kinds of scientists. Stop me if you have heard me say this before. Two kinds of scientists – those that believe that God exists and those that don’t. Those scientists that do not believe in a creator god would go looking for asymmetry in the universe; those that do believe in God, would go looking for symmetry. Again, the CERN scientists went looking for asymmetry. Why? Obviously, because they do not believe in a creator god.

The reasoning for why the universe shouldn’t exist goes something like this. A universe formed by Nature (i.e. The Big Bang) would produce something that is asymmetrical. Otherwise, the matter and antimatter would cancel each other out and the universe would not exist.

However, if the universe is symmetrical as the CERN scientists found, why does the universe exist at all? How is that possible? The answer is that there would have to be some unseen force that holds it all together. Here are a few explanations of that “force” from some well-known scientists:

  • French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat claimed that the true reality of creation was outside of space and time.
  • Theoretical physicist James Gates says that his research demonstrates that the equations which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes. In other words, we exist in a virtual reality matrix.
  • The book The Holographic Universe which is based on the work of physicist David Bohm, a protege of Albert Einstein, and quantum physicist Karl Pribram theorizes that our reality is based on frequencies that have been projected into our universe from a realm that is beyond both space and time.

So, the CERN scientists went looking for asymmetry and instead they found what, Mister Goodbar? Well, some will surely argue that they found evidence that God exists. Why don’t the CERN scientists just state the obvious, then? Well, because they don’t believe in God as I mentioned before. Their scientific theories are based on an ideology; namely, that God does not exist. So, the result of their experiment that the universe is symmetrical will be discarded in due course as just another unexplained anomaly because as evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin admitted …”we can’t allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

 

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

   – Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, my last post Between Science and Faith brought a chorus of boos from both sides of the aisle. Too bad, because in my opinion you deserve it…and each other. So, let’s review the bidding.

At least in this country, the battle between science and faith boils down to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I refer to it as “Dueling Delusions.” The main sticking point has to do with which side is deemed to be more tied to a “preconceived ideology”. In my opinion, that’s a toss-up since Christianity believes in talking snakes while at least some atheists, who rely on science to describe all things big and small, apparently believe that science can observe beyond space and time and that scientific formulae written on a chalkboard constitute proof.

The underlying problem for Christianity is that it is based on a reinterpretation of scriptures written by Jewish holy men whereby Christianity claims that the writers of the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) didn’t understand what they were writing.  Opposed to that, we have atheism which is an ideology centered around materialism, evolution and naturalism, and which uses cherry-picked scientific theory (not fact) to support its ideology. I say “cherry-picked” because as Nobel laureate George Wald admitted, “Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

The larger question in this debate is why is there a debate at all and why is it only between  atheism and Christianity. Why aren’t the other world religions (of which there are several thousand) included in this discussion? The reason as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, said, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the debate is not necessarily about who is right but rather it’s about whether atheism can replace Christianity (as the prevailing religion).

As to where I stand in this debate, I simply contend that both sides are based on preconceived ideology. This has resulted in a debate that has gone absolutely no where. Both sides believe in their own dogma, a dogma which is impervious to falsification. As Mark Twain once commented, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

 

Epilogue

This debate, however, is merely a microcosm of the contentious, divisive social arguments one can witness in society today.  In the end, it is not so much an intellectual argument as it is really about who gets to rule and the social/political/economic ideas that each group endorses. It’s “identity politics” at its finest. It’s ultimately about whether the rights of man come from God or the state. That’s why I say that America is at war with itself: verbally, spiritually and politically. You might want to think of it as a Second Civil War. Hang on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

 

 

 

This is kind of a tired, old discussion, however, people keep posting about it so I guess I have to put in my own two cents (once again).  That is, which is better…science or faith.

Although, both have their place, I would say neither.  While I don’t accept the biblical explanation of creation, I don’t accept the atheists’ version of it either.  That was the essence of my prior post Dueling Delusions.

So, here’s some people, obviously atheists, who commented on a recent post on this subject:

Quote #1:

“Neither our observable universe, nor possibly a larger cosmos, require some intelligence or higher power for their ‘creation.’ Such rationalizations simply reflect ignorance or are designed to support some preconceived notion in lieu of factual evidence.”

My comment:

That’s true, but incomplete. In fact, it’s totally one-sided. As physicist David Bohm succinctly put it, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”  Bohm was talking about everyone but in this case I would especially apply his quote to the person who made the above comment where they said that “…such rationalizations simply…are designed to support some preconceived notion.” For example, this person believes that the unobservable cosmos does not require a higher power for its creation. Obviously, that’s a preconceived idea since there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained just how the preconceived thought process works with respect to science vs. faith: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

Quote #2:

“Evolution is fact as the evidence tells us.”

Perhaps, this person should read up on evolutionist Steven Jay Gould who said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history; yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Or maybe scientist and Nobel laureate George Wald who said:

When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.

Or maybe agnostic scientist Michael Denton who said:

“Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”

Or maybe Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who said:

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

Or maybe evolutionist Michael Ruse, who said:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

 

Quote#3:

… “I see no reason for a deity or god. Everything has a scientific explanation or a set of working hypothesis good enough for me.”

My comment:

As to this person’s opinion that…”everything has a scientific explanation”, I would simply say that science doesn’t hold the key to creation.  Some scientists even freely admit it. For example:

Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Astrophysicist Martin Rees

“If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match”  – Dr. Michael Turner, cosmologist at the University of Chicago

“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.”  – Albert Einstein

“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.” – David Eagleman

“Science has proof without certainty” – Ashley Montagu

“We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”  – Robert Lanza

“A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.”  – Prof. Andrew Strominger, Harvard University

 

So, the science that the above people are no doubt referring to as the same one that Paul Feyerabend commented on when he said, “Thus science is much closer to myth than scientific philosophy is prepared to admit… it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits.”  The ideology in question is materialism as Richard Lewontin stated (see above).  It’s no accident that atheism, evolution and materialism go hand-in-hand.  That’s because, they are all part of the same ideology.

So, yes, it’s a tired debate between two camps (atheists and deists) who both have a preconceived notion that they are right. As Stuart Chase said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”  Perhaps, however, the debate continues on (and on) because both sides are, in reality, trying to convince themselves that they are right.

 

“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses. It is an idea that possesses the mind.”  – Robert Oxton Bolt

So, Christians believe that they are living in sin. Naturally, since, it’s part of Christian theology, which is supposedly based on the story of Adam and Eve. Too bad that the Bible is in disagreement.

According to the Bible, no less than Jesus and God made statements that they disagreed with the concept of Original Sin (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21, respectively). Of course, the whole issue is probably moot anyway because Judaism doesn’t believe in Original Sin and they wrote the Old Testament – it’s their bible. Enough said.

Heaven and hell is another misconstrued part of Christian theology. It’s somewhat true, although woefully incomplete. At the risk of oversimplifying, heaven is our natural state of existence (where we originally came from if you will) and hell…well hell is right here on Earth. The story of the Fall is loosely based on how man stepped down from a higher plane of existence into this material world.

Keep in mind, the “natural state” of existence is non-physical. That is, life is energy and energy is life and, of course, energy is non-physical. As Einstein put it, energy can neither be created or destroyed. However, it can change form. Thus, if you reduce the vibration rate of energy it will condense, eventually into matter. That’s how man went from Heaven to Hell.

So, if there was no Original Sin and we are already in Hell, why did Jesus come? The better question, however, is this, “If Jesus didn’t preach the concept of Original Sin, why does the Church believe in it?” The answer to that question is that it has to do with the basis of all religions. I call it the selling of salvation. In effect, religion is a barter. You put money into the church coffers and in return you are given the so-called keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The bottom line is essentially this: If there is no Original Sin, there is no need for salvation and, therefore, no need for a messiah.

All religions are based on a common source of abstract beliefs in the Divine.  Jesus, like other prophets before and after him, taught these “truths” under a veil of allegory and symbolism (and parables in Jesus’ case). The disciples believed that Jesus was the messiah who was prophesied by Old Testament prophets who were expecting a real flesh-and-blood messiah (like King David) who would deliver them from their enemies and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. Of course, it never happened.

Some two thousand years later, we’re still waiting for the Old Testament prophecies to come true. According to prophecy, all we need is a messiah named Immanuel; for the entire world to accept the Jewish god; and for all the Jews to return to their homeland. That last one is a bit problematic as the Jewish homeland, according to the Bible, is Judea and Samaria while the present day state of Israel for the most part does not encompass those territories.

If you believe in the Old Testament prophecies, it looks increasingly unlikely that a messiah will ever return. If one could ask twentieth century Christian theologian Albert Schweitzer, he’d no doubt say that Jesus should have returned in the lifetime of the disciples (if he was the messiah). At least, that was what he said in his book The Quest for the Historical Jesus. 

…and that was not just his opinion, but rather what the Bible, itself, said.

 

 

“One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.” – Christian theologian Brian McLaren

America At War

09/20/2017

The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind”. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

Winston Churchill supposedly said that history was written by the victors. I guess Rousseau would have agreed with him. The point is – history contains a lot of fake news.

Let’s take another look at the current left vs. right political conflict which has been characterized by extreme partisan politics. While it’s true that the two diametrically opposed camps don’t like one another (to say the least), you now have one side identifying themselves as The Resistance. Resistance to what, though, I might ask as the two parties are constantly either in or out of power.

Because of the polarization of the respective political positions, a number of commentators have said that it appears that civil war may be inevitable. I believe that statement may be true, although woefully incomplete. Here’s why.

I think that it would be more appropriate to view the American Revolution as a defining moment in world history that represented the triumph of the individual over the state (and over the people and institutions that control the affairs of states). However, with the founding of the American republic, the real war was only just beginning. As can be seen from the 2016 election results, people hate losing power.

Accordingly, I would argue that after the War of Independence had been won, the Republic has been constantly under attack ever since. Some of the significant events in American history need to be revisited and looked at through the prism of America At War. For example, here’s a short list:

  • The War of 1812
  • The American Civil War
  • The Act of 1871
  • Founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913
  • The White House Coup of 1933
  • Establishment of American intelligence operations (the CIA) under the leadership of former Nazis.
  • Establishment of the American space program (NASA) under the leadership of former Nazis.
  • The assassination of four sitting U. S. presidents

Today, the battlefield of partisan politics has moved to some strange arenas like the football field and The Emmys. On college campuses, many students are against free speech and feel that violence in support of their own agenda is permissible because it constitutes self-defense. The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations of 2011 proved that sometimes demonstrators don’t even know what they are demonstrating for. They protested against the rich who they labeled as the 1% but what they didn’t realize is that the most of the super-wealthy people in America are on the left, starting with the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook. Further, Millennials oppose capitalism but it’s not the system that’s really at fault, but the people (including Wall Street) who run the system. Accordingly, the American system should be more appropriately labeled fascism rather than capitalism.

Now, today, we have Carol J. Baker M.D., an infectious disease expert, who said that an overwhelming majority of people who refuse to take vaccines are white people, and a good way to resolve the problem of people refusing to take vaccines is to simply “get rid of all the whites in the United States”. Of course, Dr. Baker herself is white. Given that kind of mindset and the great divide between the factions, a civil war is perhaps inevitable…but it’s been over 200 years in the making. Regardless, America is already at war.

 

History is a pack of lies we play on the dead.”Voltaire

 

 

In a world full of racism, a curious thing is happening. One particular race is calling for the extinction of its own race. How can that be?

The race in question is the “white race.” Of course, there is no such thing as a white race, only white people. By that, I mean that white people belong to the Caucasian race, as do Jews, Arabs and many Hispanics. However, I digress.

Everything today is seen through the narrow, dimly-lit prism of race. The thing is – all races discriminate. All. In a recent study in England for example, one-third of the “white” population said that even they had been discriminated against. Further, the Japanese, who are generally wonderful people, discriminate against anyone who is not Japanese. They have a word for all foreigners, gaijin. It’s a derogatory term the way that it is often used. I should know as I lived there for a couple of years.

So, why are white people calling for the extermination of their own race. It’s simple, really. These people are the “elites” who want to rule the world and other white people are a threat to their power. This conflict between white people has been going on since the time of Cain and Abel (which I’ve written about previously). Fake race wars like we have today have very little to do with social justice. It’s simply a means to a political end, a tool to divide and conquer.

However, if some people have their way, the white race might some day disappear altogether.  In that case, I can just see the last white boy standing complaining about racism and the lack of social justice. It would be only fitting.

 

“Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibility for each other’s welfare, social justice can never be attained.”  – Helen Keller

 

Arab Israel

07/24/2017

Sounds funny, doesn’t it? Arab Israel. Isn’t Israel suppose to be the homeland of the Jews? What’s wrong with this picture?

The other day, terrorists at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem attacked and killed two Israeli policemen. What is not widely reported, though, is that the two Israeli policemen were actually Arabs, members of the Druze minority sect. Yes, Arab Israeli policemen.

People who have not visited Israel recently would never suspect that Israel has become such a boiling pot of diversity.  It’s one of the few  places in the world where diversity actually has had some success. Two of the largest groups of Israel citizens, about 20% of the population each, are Arabs and people of Russian ancestry. Those of Russian ancestry are generally not religious which means that nearly 40% of Israelis do not practice the Jewish faith (Judaism). In addition, there is a large group of secular (non-religious) Jews as well as atheists, Christians and a plethora of minor faiths such as Bahai. It’s fairly safe to say then that a majority of Israeli citizens do not practice the Jewish faith.

As for Israel being a Jewish homeland, that’s true but incomplete.  It is a homeland for Jews, but it isn’t the “homeland” of the Jews. The homeland of the Jewish people is actually the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Samaria which lie next door (immediately east of what is now Israel). Israel was formed by the United Nations out of a swamp-infested tract of land that ran along the Mediterranean plus the Negev Desert. It wasn’t much to write home about and it certainly wasn’t the historical Jewish homeland.

That true homeland of Judea and Samaria for the most part encompasses what is referred to as the West Bank (the lands lying immediately west of the Jordan River). For example, Bethlehem, Masada, Jericho, Qumran and Jerusalem were part of ancient Judea and Samaria. Of course, the West Bank was ceded by Jordan to Israel as the result of Jordan losing the Six-Day War in 1967 and have effectively been part of Israel ever since, a period of 50 years.  Does anyone really think that Israel will give up their homeland after having these lands for the last 50 years?

As for the Arabs who live in Israel and are citizens of Israel, with all the rights of Israeli citizens, they enjoy a better life than in any Arab nation in the Middle East.  Second place isn’t even close.  Arab women, especially, have freedom in Israel that is unparalleled throughout the Middle East. I recently met an Arab waiter in Israel who was moonlighting from his day job as a school teacher to pay for his daughter to go to medical school. Education for an Arab woman! Are you kidding, and a doctor to boot.

Arab Israel isn’t what you think it is nor as it has been portrayed by the media. Some Arabs are Israeli policemen who sometimes die for their “country.” They are represented in the Israeli Knesset (Congress/Parliament) and an Arab sits on the Israeli Supreme Court. Maybe, the world should take notice of the Arab Israeli dynamic.  They just might learn something from it.