So, I’ve had a plethora of questions about my recent post, “ Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat.” It’s a tricky question about Schrodinger’s cat.  Was it alive or dead? Before I give you the answer, though, a little background is probably in order.

The universe is made up of atoms, right? Then there are electrons and quarks which are the basic building blocks of the atom (i.e. sub-atomic particles). However, scientists say that even with the electrons and quarks, the atom is essentially empty space. So, what does the universe consist of if everything is empty space?  The thing is, though, that empty space isn’t really empty. You see, empty space is teeming with life.  Teeming. It is a hotbed of constant creation and destruction which is the very fabric of reality (and all matter).

Let’s backtrack, though, for a second. Science is fundamentally a process of observation and measurement. In that regard, science has what some scientists refer to as a measurement problem. It’s all the fault of the atom. You see, the atom is the most mysterious object in all of creation.  That is, it only appears after it has first been observed and measured!!!

Aside: You might recall that an observation and measurement were at the heart of the Double-Slit Experiment that I mentioned in “Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat” which prompted many of your questions.

Here’s the conundrum. An atom does not exist, as an atom, until an observer looks at it.  That is, the act of observation and measurement creates the atom, and by extension the whole universe. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

So, how does it all work, then?  Putting aside all the theories, the fancy formulae scribbled on chalkboards and the myriad of science textbooks, what exactly is reality? Well, physicist David Bohm says that the quantum field is the true source of our reality. However, according to this theory, our physical world is a projection from another realm, a deeper source of reality which is beyond space and time.  A projection you understand.  Holographic no doubt.  As John Horgan explained though in his book The End of Science, it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time by simply observing nature. Ah, yes, there’s the rub. The really scary thing is that scientists will never be able to prove what lies beyond space and time since they can’t observe beyond space and time.

Since science has reached it’s physical limitations, we live in a time when the great geniuses of science are, by necessity, theoretical physicists. That inevitably will probably lead to a philosophical discussion about God. However, at the moment, scientists typically avoid addressing the God question, especially since many scientists are atheists, though it does come up if only through some oblique references. Here’s a few examples:

  • “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.” – Martin Rees, astrophysicist (and an atheist)Aside: That’s exactly what we all have been doing since at least the time of the great Greek philosophers. Pondering our existence.  Needless to say, it takes intelligence to ponder one’s own existence.  That’s what sets man apart from all the other species.
  • “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” – Carl Sagan, astronomer (and an atheist) Aside: How does the universe know itself without intelligence?
  • “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” – Antony Flew, a former atheist

So, one does not have to mention God (or even believe in God apparently) in order to understand that Creation could only have been facilitated through intelligence.

 

Epilogue

Back to Schrodinger’s cat. Actually, quantum mechanics says that Schrodinger’s cat was both alive and dead.  Both, you understand.  That’s because unobserved phenomenon can exist in dual states, or, as I would prefer to say, in an intricate web of infinite possibilities. That is, an atom is merely a possibility until it, the atom, is observed.  Pretty cool world, right? Of course, quantum mechanics also has the “many worlds” interpretation but that may be a bridge too far.

In the end, Schrodinger’s cat is all about choices since, as John Wheeler said, we are the observer. You have to choose.  You can either choose the blue pill or the red pill, but either way, it’s your choice.  As Morpheus said, “But I can only show you the door.  You’re the one who has to walk through it.”

 

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”  – Bernard d’Espagnat, physicist

 

 

Advertisements

Despite previous posts, I continually get questions as to who the Sumerians were. Same goes for Caucasians. To clarify, they were, more or less, one and the same thing.  That goes for the Yazidis as well. Ditto King Tut. Ditto most North Africans. Ditto the ancient Israelites.

However, let’s first define some of these names so that we are perfectly clear. The term Caucasian is generally applied to the white race or someone of European ancestry, although it has a much broader meaning.  According to Wikipedia, the Caucasian race is a group of people including some or all of the ancient and modern populations of EuropeWestern AsiaCentral AsiaSouth AsiaNorth Africa, and the Horn of Africa (mostly settlers from Holland and other parts of Europe); in other words, white to brown skin, light to dark eyes and blonde to dark hair. More specifically, a Caucasian refers to a person with a Caucasoid skull, of which the commonly known Nordic skull is one of three Caucasoid types.

The term Caucasian came about because of the belief that Caucasians originated from the Caucasus Mountains in West Asia, in the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea (which currently includes countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan and the southernmost part of Russia).  While many Caucasians lived in this area at one time (and still do), their history goes much deeper than what is in the history books.

It’s important to note that the Sumerian civilization preceded the Greek Civilization which is widely credited as the birthplace of modern/Western civilization.  However, the Sumerian Civilization was far greater than the Greek Civilization ever was and the origins of civilization actually go back to Sumer. If you want to read up on the Sumerian Civilization, I would suggest Stanley Kramer’s book History Begins at Sumer.

Actually, the Greek Civilization was a remnant of the Sumerian Civilization.  People like Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were all descendants of the Sumerians, who migrated westward thru the Mediterranean to places like Crete, Cyprus and Greece (which are a stone’s throw from Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Sumerians).

When the Sumerian Civilization dispersed, it went in all directions including east to China, as the Caucasian mummies of the Tarim Basin are a testament to. Their descendants were some of the great figures of ancient history, including Alexander the Great, Abraham (from the Bible), the Roman emperors, the European kings and some of the Egyptian pharaohs/royalty (like King Tut, Akhenaten and Nefertiti). The Sumerians were eventually known by many names.  For example, the Israelite tribe of Dan migrated through Russia to Germany, to Scandinavia (the Vikings) and eventually on to the British Isles.

One of the legacies of Sumerian Civilization is language. The languages of the Sumerian descendants is referred to as the Indo-European family of languages – everything from Sanskrit in the east (India) to the Romance languages of Europe in the west, as well as two of the great languages of the past three thousand years (Greek and English).

So, perhaps this has answered the questions of some of you and peaked the curiosity of others.  Yet, some will no doubt ask what the relevance is of this look-back in history.  Well, there is a link and it’s this: In some circles, descendancy from the Sumerian kings gives those people what they feel is a divine right to rule. You might be surprised to know that a majority of Americans are Sumerian by ancestry and all U.S. presidents are descended from European/Irish/Scottish kings (even Barack Obama) and are therefore descendants of the ruling Sumerian elite.  They all have what I call the DNA of the gods.

This history is also tied in to a recent call by some to eradicate the white race. This rhetoric, oddly enough, comes from other white people. Of course, this is simply a ploy since those whites calling for the eradication of their own race are not going to set an example by killing themselves first; far from it.  The real reason is… well, I’ll let you connect the dots.  You see, it’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about, although, now I think you know.

“With stunning abruptness… there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden… the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.”

   – Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God 

 

The Chosen People

04/08/2018

Why were the Israelites the Chosen People? The real answer may surprise you.

Some Christians would say that God (Jehovah) chose the Israelites because he loved them more, and the Bible does actually say something to that effect. Some would say that there were other reasons, to be sure. However, here’s the real reason, according to the Bible itself, and I’m pretty sure that you will not hear this preached from the pulpit.

In Chapter 10 of Genesis, the Bible says that mankind was scattered across the globe after the Flood and separated into nations (from the families of the sons of Noah).  It’s sometimes referred to as the “Table of Nations”.  As for Yahweh, he was allotted Israel by the Most High (presumably God), as can be seen in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, as follows:

“When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s (Yahweh) portion is his people; Jacob (Israel) is the place of his inheritance.”

So the Israelites were in fact a Chosen People, chosen for Yahweh as opposed to having been chosen by Yahweh.

When Yahweh said that he would promise to be the god of the Israelites if they would promise that he (Yahweh) would be their only god, that was a mischaracterization of what actually happened. Yahweh/Jehovah had already been selected to be responsible for Israel. It had nothing to do with the covenant on behalf of the Israelites to accept Jehovah as their one and only god.

By the way, you either are God or you are not. If you are, then by definition you would be the god of everyone, including the Israelites. No covenant would ever be necessary.

 

Epilogue

The inconvenient truth is that Yahweh/Jehovah was not God (the Most High) who is mentioned in Deuteronomy 32. With that in mind, it now makes sense why the Creator was called “God” in Genesis 1 (from the Hebrew name Elohim) and why God was called “Lord God” in Genesis 2 (from the Hebrew names Jehovah and Elohim). That is, the God of Genesis 1 was the Prime Creator and the god of Genesis 2 was an altogether different entity, a lower god.

In the immortal words of Eddie Murphy, “Chosen One, my behind”, from the movie The Golden Child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, I just got back from sunrise Easter services and I’m reflecting back on what I was doing there.

Was it because I was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus? Well, no on two counts.  While as  Paul said that Jesus was resurrected in the spirit, he never said that he was resurrected in the body.  In fact, he said that it was impossible for the physical body to inherit the Kingdom of God. Secondly, Easter originally was the pagan festival celebrating the sun god (not son god).

So, Christianity is, in reality, a corruption of astral theology.  The pagan festival celebrating the sun god (later named Sol Invictus) was held on December 25th, followed by a festival on the spring equinox celebrating his resurrection. It was only later, we got Christmas and Easter.

 

“The pagan belief was that the sun died on the winter solstice (December 22nd) because on that day the sun reached its lowest point in the heavens. The sun was then considered to be “dead and buried” for three days because it stayed at this lowest point on the horizon during that time. When the sun once again made its way higher in the heavens on December 25th, it was said to have been born again (resurrected)” 

    – The Ethical Warrior, Why Are Christians Leaving the Church?

The world’s oldest cold case is now almost two thousand years old and counting.  What makes this case peculiar is a lack of information, the lack of a victim and possibly the lack of a crime being committed. I’m talking about the missing body of Jesus, of course.

 

The crucifixion

After the crucifixion, the body of Jesus was presumably placed in a tomb near the crucifixion site. A couple of days later, the tomb was found open and the body was gone. I refer to it as “The Case of the Missing Body.” Not long after the body went missing, Jesus was seen by some of his friends (and others) but from there the trail went cold and Jesus was never seen or heard from again. From a forensic standpoint, the missing body makes it impossible to determine the cause of death (assuming that there was one). It’s circumstantial evidence only. So, let’s see if that evidence might lead somewhere.

For starters, we should consider some strange facts in the case, as follows:

  • On the cross, Jesus was given a sponge soaked in vinegar because he was thirsty.
  • Jesus died after just a few hours on the cross.

Observations: The point of a crucifixion was for the person to die a slow, painful death.  It’s, therefore, inconsistent that the person would be given something to quench his thirst; and Pontius Pilate couldn’t understand how Jesus could have died so soon when people take days to die on the cross.  Even the other two men crucified with Jesus were still alive when Jesus supposedly died.

The crucifixion, itself, doesn’t make sense on several levels. First of all, the crucifixion took place in a private garden that was at a distance from any onlookers (Luke 23:49). The reason that doesn’t make sense is because a crucifixion was always done in public to dissuade others from also being troublemakers.

Aside: The fact that the crucifixion was not public meant the it would have been possible for someone to manipulate the events. Certainly, the fact that onlookers were kept at a distance means that any testimony concerning the crucifixion is suspect.

Secondly, after Jesus was given the sponge, he lost consciousness.  So, whatever was on the sponge probably caused him to lose consciousness if not, in fact, kill him. There are probably only two possibilities for what was on the sponge – a drug or a poison. So, we should be asking who had access to the spear that was used to give Jesus the vinegar. Who was at the foot of the cross when the crucifixion was taking place in a private garden when onlookers were only able to watch from a distance?

Aside: According to the gospels of both Matthew and Mark, it wasn’t Mary or Mary Magdalene as they watched from afar.

Finally, according to Mark 15:42, Jesus was crucified “the day before the Sabbath.” The crucifixion began just hours before sundown, at which time no Jew could then handle a dead body.  Since it was highly unlikely that anyone would expire on the cross in just a few hours, there was no point in starting a crucifixion at that time…unless you expected that you would be able to take that person down early from the cross because of the approaching Sabbath.

 

The mystery

A mysterious figure surrounding the crucifixion was someone referred to in the Bible only as Joseph of Arimathea. The Bible says that he was a wealthy and influential man, a member of the Sanhedrin, and that the crucifixion took place in a garden on his private property (as was the tomb). Strangely enough, though, the crucifixion is the only time that the Bible mentions such an important figure. Here’s what little the Bible does tell us about the man. It was Joseph of Arimathea who brought a very large amount of myrrh and aloe (75 pounds by one account and 100 pounds by another), which also have medicinal uses, to the tomb wherein the body of Jesus was laid. It was Joseph of Arimathea who was referred to as a secret disciple of Jesus (John 19:38).  Lastly, it was Joseph of Arimathea who asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, which was contrary to Roman law.

Aside: There is no proof that the body of Jesus was ever inside the tomb.  Remember it was Joseph of Arimathea and another disciple, Nicodemus, who supposedly put the body there and rolled a stone in front of the entrance to the tomb, with no witnesses to that event. Furthermore, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were arguably the last persons to see the body of Jesus when they brought the myrrh and aloe to the tomb.

The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus adds another layer of mystery to the investigation. You wonder if anyone truly recognized Jesus; certainly not Mary Magdalene who thought he was a gardener, not the disciples who spent two days with Jesus and yet thought he was a total stranger, and not Paul who only heard a voice which he could not recognize.

 

Beyond the Bible

Given that the New Testament accounts were written by anonymous authors years after-the-fact and given that the gospels contradict each other on key “facts”, it was necessary to look at other religious scriptures of the day, which were excluded from the Bible, for possible clues.

Gnostic writings indicate that Joseph of Arimathea was, perhaps, James, the brother of Jesus. In that case, the name Joseph would have actually been an Essenes title given to the second born of a dynastic succession.  That would make some sense, then, that Pontius Pilate might have released the body of Jesus if it was to an important member of Jesus’ family.  With respect to the crucifixion being held on private property, that also makes sense only if (1) Joseph of Arimathea was the brother of Jesus and (2) that Joseph and Pilate were friends, as it states in the Gospel of Peter.  As for Joseph of Arimathea being Jesus’ brother, Joseph of Arimathea was said to have been a secret disciple of Jesus and James, the brother of Jesus, did become the leader of the Nazarene movement post-crucifixion.  It all sort of ties together.

However, the biggest find might just have come from the Gospel of Peter, a work that was held in high regard during early Christianity but was left out of the Bible. In the Gospel of Peter 37-38, we find that the soldiers guarding the tomb reported back to Pilate that, “…and the sepulchre was opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw… again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other….” So, perhaps we have the smoking gun. Someone took the body of Jesus, seemingly alive, out of the tomb.  It was shortly thereafter that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found that the body, and the guards, were missing.  The guards were missing because they presumably had gone back to report to Pilate that the body was taken out of the tomb.  Soon thereafter, Jesus, or someone pretending to be Jesus, made an appearance to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb. So, that sequence seems to fit together nicely.

Aside: Lending credibility to the report in the Gospel of Peter is the fact that in early Christianity some Christians believed that the body of Jesus was stolen out of the tomb. Therefore, the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt it was important to try to deflect that story (see Matthew 28:11-15).

 

Solving the case

There is no proof in the Bible of a resurrection. The only account in the Bible of the resurrection is in the Gospel of Mark which even the Catholic Church admits is a very late addition.  Validating that admission is the fact that there is no account of a resurrection in the oldest versions of the Gospel of Mark (e.g. the Sinai Bible). If there was no resurrection, then Jesus did not rise up to Heaven and as Paul rightly concluded, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile….” (1 Corinthians 15:17).

So, where’s the body? Well, there are only two possibilities as to what happened to the body of Jesus – either he died on the cross and someone stole the corpse or he survived the crucifixion and died, and was buried, sometime thereafter.  Both are plausible possibilities.

Of course, it is possible that Joseph of Arimathea took the corpse since he had access to it (and presumably put it in the tomb), although we have no way of knowing whether he did put the body in the tomb or not.  So, it’s possible that the guards might have been guarding an empty tomb the whole time.  Then again, maybe the rumors of someone stealing the corpse from the tomb is true.  I have to presume, however, that there would have been some account somewhere of someone stealing a corpse – and there isn’t.  In addition, the body of Jesus has never been recovered.

It was Sherlock Holmes who once said that, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” So, the only possibility that we are left with is that Jesus survived the crucifixion. The question is whether or not there is enough evidence to convince us that he did survive the crucifixion.  So, let’s recap.

  • There is no proof that Jesus died on the cross.  In fact, even Pilate doubted the report of Jesus’ death.
  • There is no proof of a resurrection.
  • Jesus could have been helped from the tomb, as it was reported in the Gospel of Peter (or, perhaps, his body was never in the tomb in the first place).
  • Jesus was seen by a number of people after the crucifixion.

So, how did the events unfold, then? Although it cannot be conclusively proven, the logical choice for the person who gave Jesus the drug while he was on the cross is none other than Joseph of Arimathea, especially given that he was possibly the brother of Jesus. It was his garden so it would only be natural that he might be there, and since he was friends with Pilate he would undoubtedly have had access to the proceedings. He’s also the one that asked Pilate for the body, he’s the one that buried (or disposed of) the body and he’s the one who brought the myrrh and aloe to the tomb (or wherever the body was laid). If two men did help Jesus to get out of the tomb, what better candidates do you have than the two disciples, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. After all, these events took place on the private property of Joseph of Arimathea.

However, the clincher appears to come from none other than early church father Irenaeus. In his famous work “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus wrote that Jesus went to India after the crucifixion and lived to an advanced age. Jesus’ return to India, after the crucifixion, is confirmed in the Acts of Thomas which is based on the evangelistic mission to India of the disciple Thomas.  Further, the 15th century Persian historian Mir Khwand wrote that after the crucifixion Jesus lived for a while near Damascus, Syria at a place referred to as Mayuam-i-isa, which literally means “The place where Jesus lived.”

Any number of people were reported to have seen Jesus after the crucifixion. If there was no resurrection, he therefore must have survived the crucifixion. This is confirmed by the Bible, itself. It says that Jesus told Mary Magdalene at the tomb that he had not yet risen. Maybe, Sherlock Holmes was right. As improbable as it may have seemed originally, Jesus apparently did survive the crucifixion.

 

Epilogue

I do believe, however, that there is a deeper mystery that is disguised by the gospel stories. It’s a story about an apocalyptic prophet whose own religious mission had failed. The claim that Jesus was the messiah fell on deaf ears among the Jews since clearly Jesus did not fulfill Old Testament prophecy, prophecies which were written by Jewish holy men.

Therefore, he tried to become relevant by faking his death and then directing some of his supporters to claim that he was resurrected, and therefore divine. Jesus turned his attention to the West and convinced Paul to preach, what was essentially a blend of Judaism and paganism, to the gentiles. That’s the backstory about the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus. Paul actually met with and then became an apostle of a flesh-and-blood Jesus who had survived the crucifixion. Paul needed to have a cover story as to why he started to preach Christianity when he was previously persecuting Christians. He couldn’t just say that Jesus was alive because people would then come looking for him. So, he concocted the story of a vision with a Jesus.

Through Paul’s efforts, the divinity of Jesus would eventually become an accepted fact within the Christian community. Thereafter, Paul went on to martyrdom, Christianity went on to conquer Western Civilization and Jesus… went on to India.

 

“The real Jesus would not have died for a cause, but he might have faked his death to promote such a cause.” – The Ethical Warrior, The Real Jesus

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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 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.