Special Guest Editorial by "Dios the Martyr"
There will be many offended by this article but, I hope it will offend all equally. I have penchant for philosophy, esoteric studies, and world religions and have found it strange how these subjects are becoming increasingly similar to modern politics. This is not a new phenomenon, but during the Crusades religion was your politics and philosophy.
In more modern times Hitler amalgamated all of these components to take a Germanic people with a suffering economy, and still hurting from WWl to unite in this strange uber-cult of racial purity and the need for world domination so the pure Arians could begin the 1000 year reich. There is much speculation that Hitler was part of the Thule Society, an esoteric and some say Satanic organization. The point is mute as Hitler's plan whether Satanic or otherwise damn near worked.
What is interesting about all demi-gods, gods incarnate, or charismatic politicians is they are looked upon as Saviours. Another interesting thing about these so called "Saviours" is there seems to be a repetition in history or a mythos that raises them to a quasi-deity status. Their demise, or rather the story of their demise puts them in a pantheon of a select few.
I will not bore you with the story of Krishna. It is very ancient and its veracity could be questioned, but he was sacrificed on a cross and became a god. This occurred at least 1000 years before Jesus Christ suffered the same demise. Now was the Christ mythos used to spring-board Christianity from a small Jewish cult to a new religion which may eventually lead to power and dare we say it riches. Let us first examine what the political and cultural atmosphere was during the life of Jesus.
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll and the Qumranian texts, most of what we had to base the life of Jesus on was the Holy Gospel and some historians vague writings 100 years after the crucifixion. However, we now have learned that Jesus was part of the Qumarnian society, what would now be considered something similar to a monastery. Some say the society at Qumran was in fact the Essenes, but lets leave that discussion for another day as there is something much more factual and interesting concerning what appears in our bibles.
Several time Jesus was referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars have combed through the detailed Roman records of 30AD and there is no record of a town called Nazareth. So why was Jesus tagged with this moniker? Jesus was a Nazarite or more correctly a Nasorean, a holy man that kept very strict cleanliness laws. Another interesting dichotomy is the use of the word Messiah. In our modern English Messiah means a saviour that is sent from Heaven to save the world from the edge of destruction. However, to the Jews of two millenniums ago messiah meant a leader that would lead them from subjugation of the Romans, Babylonians, Hittites, etc. Was Jesus considered a Messiah--yes. He was a holy man that was intent on rallying the Jews to accept the Testament that was passed down from Jehovah to Moses and through the line of David.
In light of these new discoveries many Christians may go ballistic at the thought that Jesus was not the Son of God, the Holy Spirit and God. My purpose of this essay is not to demean Jesus or Christians, but to perhaps the veracity of the early church fathers who seemed to look at the Christ mythos of Krishna, Adonis, Mithra and many other "deities" that preceded Jesus. In point of fact, setting aside the matter of Jesus' divineness his teachings that are being extracted from the new found scrolls are thousands of years ahead of his time. He taught that all humans had the right of citizenship, yes including women. He believed that if mankind lead a pious life and the leaders acted in an ethical manner there would be a balance and peace that would be very similar to what many Christians will be established with the second coming of Jesus. Divinity or not this was a brilliant man and we should strive to establish his teachings, just as the founding fathers and many others have fought for.
So what does this rather esoteric history lesson have to do with American politics of the last fifty years? John F. Kennedy was a charismatic leader that was witty, attractive and showed leadership. He was also a philanderer and would pursue victory no matter the cost. Simply, he was human he had many excellent talents but had some faults also. Kennedy's presidency was not particularly outstanding, but he did avert the Cuban missile crisis and passed a Reaganesque tax cut (I know that is heresy to many of our left leaning partisans). Yet, Kennedy is thought of as one of our most inspiring Presidents--why?
Most of the credit should go to Jackie Kennedy--she instituted a Christ mythos, Camelot. King Arthur another mythical Christ like figure who had many years of peace and prosperity. Another, astute action by Mrs. Kennedy was mimicking the funeral of Abraham Lincoln. This subconsciously linked JFK with another great President that was lost too early. Again, a Christ mythos from the past elevates a person to the pantheon of the superior humans in history.
Barack Obama has many of the talents that JFK had. Will he become President? Who knows, but my fear is if he becomes President will we have another candidate for entry into the pantheon of the Christ mythos. While the radical race-haters have diminished in numbers, their intensity of hate has grown. I, like many, fear that Mr. Obama would not survive his first term.
Which brings us back to the teachings of Jesus. A people that live a righteous life in partnership with an ethical and non-self serving government could have a form of heaven on earth. That does not seem probable in the near future. My hope is their really is a Saviour in the pantheon of the Christ Mythos that will intervene. For now our politicians make the Sanhedrins look like the Red Cross. God have mercy on our souls.
Note from Victor: This is some pretty volatile stuff that "Dios the Martyr" has written so I welcome all guest editorials that are well thought out and not demeaning or just rants about fire and brimstone.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Question of National Pride
As the only state or republic that can fly its flag at the same level as the American flag, I am troubled by the recent capitulation of Oregon to the Republic of Mexico. When Texas fought for its independence from Mexico, it was not just white Anglo-Saxon settlers that joined in the battle. A quick visit to the sacred shrine of the Alamo proves that there were numerous heroes of Latin descent that fought the despot Santa Anna (not the legendary guitar shredder, Santana, but the General of the Mexican Army).
While Spanish was spoken by most Texican settlers, no Texan patriots felt the need to fly the Mexican flag over their captured territory. One wonders why Oregon is compelled to escalate the Mexican flag over the sovereign American flag of the republic to which they belong; especially, when this stature in flag position is based on the simple fact that some people at the Oregon Employment Department speak Spanish.
The fact that they are flying the Mexican flag is extremely insensitive and in fact racist. While Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Panamanians and Hondurans have a similar racial composition, a mixture of Spanish conquistadores and native tribes they have neither pride nor interest in seeing the Mexican flag elevated over the Stars and Stripes. Moreover, if one insinuated that a Cuban, Dominican or Puerto Rican was Mexican or had any interest in La Raza would probably receive an insult in the most rapid Spanish spoken on the planet; damn they can speak Spanish fast. Finally, if one has a death wish call a Spaniard a Mexican, it would be safer to do the running of the bulls blindfolded with a gallon of sangria in ones stomach. The Spanish language does not equate to Mexican heritage.
To assist the Oregon Employment Department in a lesson in American sovereignty and multi-culturalism a contingent of Texans; White, Hispanic, Black and Vietnamese are prepared to descend upon the Department in question and enforce the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10. This action by Jean Work is arrogant and an insult to all Americans and all Latinos not of Mexican heritage. Ms. Work I suggest you remember the Alamo, Guadal Canal, Iwa Jima and the soldiers in Iraq. See you in a couple weeks when we lower the Mexican Flag and raise that of the Lone Star State. Maybe that will shock you into some sense of sanity or reasonableness.
Recordar el Alamo! Recordar Goliad!
James Austin Bonham
While Spanish was spoken by most Texican settlers, no Texan patriots felt the need to fly the Mexican flag over their captured territory. One wonders why Oregon is compelled to escalate the Mexican flag over the sovereign American flag of the republic to which they belong; especially, when this stature in flag position is based on the simple fact that some people at the Oregon Employment Department speak Spanish.
The fact that they are flying the Mexican flag is extremely insensitive and in fact racist. While Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Panamanians and Hondurans have a similar racial composition, a mixture of Spanish conquistadores and native tribes they have neither pride nor interest in seeing the Mexican flag elevated over the Stars and Stripes. Moreover, if one insinuated that a Cuban, Dominican or Puerto Rican was Mexican or had any interest in La Raza would probably receive an insult in the most rapid Spanish spoken on the planet; damn they can speak Spanish fast. Finally, if one has a death wish call a Spaniard a Mexican, it would be safer to do the running of the bulls blindfolded with a gallon of sangria in ones stomach. The Spanish language does not equate to Mexican heritage.
To assist the Oregon Employment Department in a lesson in American sovereignty and multi-culturalism a contingent of Texans; White, Hispanic, Black and Vietnamese are prepared to descend upon the Department in question and enforce the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10. This action by Jean Work is arrogant and an insult to all Americans and all Latinos not of Mexican heritage. Ms. Work I suggest you remember the Alamo, Guadal Canal, Iwa Jima and the soldiers in Iraq. See you in a couple weeks when we lower the Mexican Flag and raise that of the Lone Star State. Maybe that will shock you into some sense of sanity or reasonableness.
Recordar el Alamo! Recordar Goliad!
James Austin Bonham
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Only the Jews Written in Adam's Book can Be Saved
My continuing swapping of e-mails with an Australian Pentecostal pre-millenialist has taken a mind blowing turn. Our discussion evolved to who can be saved. I posited that if a Jew accepted Jesus as his personal saviour, was baptised and confessed his sins he could be accepted into the Kingdom of God. My all-knowing sacerdote proclaimed if they were from the seed of Adam they would be accepted, but if descended from Cain they were doomed. For all Christians that may be reading this blog please forgive me for my following comment--What the Fuck?!?
First of all, most scholars agree that the myth of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a derivation from a Sumerian origin myth. So who is the uber-genealogist that has kept track of those in the Book of Adam and the Book of Cain. Likewise, recent research has proven that their is no racial genetical link between those that call themselves Jews. Which makes sense since the Jews have been scattered all over the Mid-East, Europe, Africa and Asia.
Now I know that the Jews are a holy people, but I think it would be a safe assumption to say that many Jews had relations with their hosts/captors/slave-owners. So maybe a once pure Semite blood line was now intermingled with peoples from the known ancient world. So my query is if there is a "Jew" that is in the Book of Cain, but he has Teutonic, Mongol and Greek blood, is he condemned from the Kingdom of God?
Another interesting aspect of the all-holy, all-knowing, Jew hating, "Minister of God" is his assertion that the Holy Bible is canonical and all words are inspired by the Almighty. When I asked him how many books are in the bible he quickly proclaimed 66. But, a quick search on Wikipedia shows that the Catholics, Lutherans, Coptics and King James have a hard time on agreeing with which books should be in the Bible. Combine this with the infighting among the early Christians, which contained factions of Gnostics, those that believed Christ was a holy man but not the Son of God, and those that believed in the Divinity of Jesus. Much allegations of heresy were thrown around and Constantine finally put the sandal down at the Council of Nicene, which for the most part gives us the extant version of our current bible, with a bit of tweaking.
One troubling issue is the discovery of the Qumranian scrolls in the mid 1900's which were written during and shortly after the time of Christ. Some things that negates the supposed "accepted" bible is James the Just was the first leader of the Church of Jerusalem not Peter. "St." Paul was not following the teaching of Christ but inventing a "Christian" mystery religion that appealed to the Hellenic/Roman culture of the time. The magical actions of the Christ put him in the pantheon of the Hellenistic Gods. However, the Nasoreans or proto-Christians knew that Paul's teaching had nothing to do with the Messiah's gospels. Witness Paul's abduction when he brazenly entered the Jerusalem temple to address his "followers" when they started to stone him but eventually just imprisoned him in a shack on a hill overlooking the Temple. The true believers knew that Paul was the "Spouter of Lies" that was repeatedly mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jesus' teachings were 1700 years before his time. He believed that all men AND women had the right to salvation. He believed as long as the faithful worshipped correctly and the King lead righteously, life would be in balance or Shalom. Teachings of great wisdom. I find it hard to believe that he would forsake his own "race" into the kingdom of Shalom.
And for those that still have a problem with this treatise ponder these two points. If the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Jesus was not resurrected but died as a mortal, all of Christianity comes tumbling down on the one thing that made Christianity a religion--the Divinity of Christ. Likewise, Jesus of Nazareth was thought to be from Nazareth, but Nazareth did not exist until well after his death. Oh and one final point if Jesus was a Jew how did he get a Mexican name.
First of all, most scholars agree that the myth of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a derivation from a Sumerian origin myth. So who is the uber-genealogist that has kept track of those in the Book of Adam and the Book of Cain. Likewise, recent research has proven that their is no racial genetical link between those that call themselves Jews. Which makes sense since the Jews have been scattered all over the Mid-East, Europe, Africa and Asia.
Now I know that the Jews are a holy people, but I think it would be a safe assumption to say that many Jews had relations with their hosts/captors/slave-owners. So maybe a once pure Semite blood line was now intermingled with peoples from the known ancient world. So my query is if there is a "Jew" that is in the Book of Cain, but he has Teutonic, Mongol and Greek blood, is he condemned from the Kingdom of God?
Another interesting aspect of the all-holy, all-knowing, Jew hating, "Minister of God" is his assertion that the Holy Bible is canonical and all words are inspired by the Almighty. When I asked him how many books are in the bible he quickly proclaimed 66. But, a quick search on Wikipedia shows that the Catholics, Lutherans, Coptics and King James have a hard time on agreeing with which books should be in the Bible. Combine this with the infighting among the early Christians, which contained factions of Gnostics, those that believed Christ was a holy man but not the Son of God, and those that believed in the Divinity of Jesus. Much allegations of heresy were thrown around and Constantine finally put the sandal down at the Council of Nicene, which for the most part gives us the extant version of our current bible, with a bit of tweaking.
One troubling issue is the discovery of the Qumranian scrolls in the mid 1900's which were written during and shortly after the time of Christ. Some things that negates the supposed "accepted" bible is James the Just was the first leader of the Church of Jerusalem not Peter. "St." Paul was not following the teaching of Christ but inventing a "Christian" mystery religion that appealed to the Hellenic/Roman culture of the time. The magical actions of the Christ put him in the pantheon of the Hellenistic Gods. However, the Nasoreans or proto-Christians knew that Paul's teaching had nothing to do with the Messiah's gospels. Witness Paul's abduction when he brazenly entered the Jerusalem temple to address his "followers" when they started to stone him but eventually just imprisoned him in a shack on a hill overlooking the Temple. The true believers knew that Paul was the "Spouter of Lies" that was repeatedly mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jesus' teachings were 1700 years before his time. He believed that all men AND women had the right to salvation. He believed as long as the faithful worshipped correctly and the King lead righteously, life would be in balance or Shalom. Teachings of great wisdom. I find it hard to believe that he would forsake his own "race" into the kingdom of Shalom.
And for those that still have a problem with this treatise ponder these two points. If the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Jesus was not resurrected but died as a mortal, all of Christianity comes tumbling down on the one thing that made Christianity a religion--the Divinity of Christ. Likewise, Jesus of Nazareth was thought to be from Nazareth, but Nazareth did not exist until well after his death. Oh and one final point if Jesus was a Jew how did he get a Mexican name.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Gospel According to Self-Righteous
I had a very interesting exchange of posts with a former Mason who became born again and was now in the most infallible correct church of God Almighty. Our discourse was civil and for me enlightening. The Pastor was under the impression that the United States of America was under the evil influence of communism. I did not completely disagree with him as the Socialist movement especially the Radical Environmental Socialist Movement was becoming a threat to society.
What started the rhetoric was my contention that most Masons I knew were very moral men and gave great and good effects on the society. It seems that the biggest issue in most of the charismatic/Pentecostal groups is they literally translate the word of the Gospel. They have problems with Masons because they do not view the Godhead as a triune. In fact they actually conduct rituals and worship what would be blasphemous in the strictest sense of hard-core Protestants and Catholics; and to add another category Charismatic/Pentecostals whom believe the gospel is the literal translation of the word of God and Constantiniun Council of Nicene did little to change the inspired word of God.
Aside from the extant apocryphal writings that have been around for several centuries, the scroll from Qumran have enlightened scholars to the political, social and spiritual atmosphere of around AD 30. There was great lost when John the Baptist was done away with and this left a void in the Qumranian structure. A figurative pillar on the right was meant to be that of the King and the figure on the right was that of the High Priest. These things have been discovered and many cases refute the writings in the "Holy Gospel".
My quasi/seminarian/historical rant is meant to warn those that are cornered by enthusiastic Christian types. There is a whole new work of the time that alters and frankly demystifies the so called Magical works that Jesus did. In fact, Jesus was more of a revolt leader against the Romans and Sanhedrins...most wont believe that, but if you want to blow their mind ask them why he was called Jesus of Nazareth. Most will proclaim he lived in Nazareth. Ask them to find to find Roman or Hellenic presence of Nazareth before 60 AD. Jesus was a Nasorean or Nazarite--see Samson, a holy man.
This rant is not to take away from the incredible teachings that were passed along by Jesus and his brother James the Just. More simply, it is to ask those that spew gospel from a 2,000 year old bible with numerous translations and derivations to simply agree there is a truth out there, but are we, no matter how much faith, equipped to truly proclaim on high this is what God meant!
One post script that differentiates Christianity from most other religions is, if Jesus did not arise to heaven on the third day we are dead in the water. But, does this negate the teaching of love, charity, prudence, aid to ones fellowman? I think not. Buddha died, Mohamed died (or went away), Krishna was crucified, and rose again. Could it be that Jung was right and there is an archetype that pervades the human psyche that connects certain emotional, spiritual and even sexual sub-conscious emotions.
I ask our charismatic/Pentecostal/Assembly of God and all other sects of the Gospel that proclaim the bible is the virtual history and word of God to briefly suspend their enormous faith and investigate if just possibly that 3000 years of verbal communication and multiple translations into various languages may have lightly alter what was meant to be the true Gospel?
What I am learning is, when all the myths and early church cover-ups are sifted through--there was a true Jerusalem Church that was motivated and infused with the teaching of Jesus and James the Just carried on this true holy Gospel, until the Paulians bastardized it with an Hellenic Mystery Religion that has little to do with the true Gospel of Jesus. Thus, Pauls condemnation of the Phillipians, Galations; etc..
Open your eyes! Yes, use the bible as a reference, but also look at the writings that were rejected by the later church but were written during or shortly after Jesus' deaths. Likewise. become familiar with parlance of the Jews of that time. The English translation cannot be taken at face value. One must put the scriptures in the meanings of the Jews and Romans of that time.
I don't plan to convert anybody, hell I don't have anything to convert anybody to, but I would like some people to open their minds and look beyond the written scripture. The thought that a Levitical Jew would, in the case of Lazarus, touch a rotting putrefying corpse to bring him back to life, simply goes against all cleanliness rules of that time--especially that of a holy man. THINK ABOUT IT!
What started the rhetoric was my contention that most Masons I knew were very moral men and gave great and good effects on the society. It seems that the biggest issue in most of the charismatic/Pentecostal groups is they literally translate the word of the Gospel. They have problems with Masons because they do not view the Godhead as a triune. In fact they actually conduct rituals and worship what would be blasphemous in the strictest sense of hard-core Protestants and Catholics; and to add another category Charismatic/Pentecostals whom believe the gospel is the literal translation of the word of God and Constantiniun Council of Nicene did little to change the inspired word of God.
Aside from the extant apocryphal writings that have been around for several centuries, the scroll from Qumran have enlightened scholars to the political, social and spiritual atmosphere of around AD 30. There was great lost when John the Baptist was done away with and this left a void in the Qumranian structure. A figurative pillar on the right was meant to be that of the King and the figure on the right was that of the High Priest. These things have been discovered and many cases refute the writings in the "Holy Gospel".
My quasi/seminarian/historical rant is meant to warn those that are cornered by enthusiastic Christian types. There is a whole new work of the time that alters and frankly demystifies the so called Magical works that Jesus did. In fact, Jesus was more of a revolt leader against the Romans and Sanhedrins...most wont believe that, but if you want to blow their mind ask them why he was called Jesus of Nazareth. Most will proclaim he lived in Nazareth. Ask them to find to find Roman or Hellenic presence of Nazareth before 60 AD. Jesus was a Nasorean or Nazarite--see Samson, a holy man.
This rant is not to take away from the incredible teachings that were passed along by Jesus and his brother James the Just. More simply, it is to ask those that spew gospel from a 2,000 year old bible with numerous translations and derivations to simply agree there is a truth out there, but are we, no matter how much faith, equipped to truly proclaim on high this is what God meant!
One post script that differentiates Christianity from most other religions is, if Jesus did not arise to heaven on the third day we are dead in the water. But, does this negate the teaching of love, charity, prudence, aid to ones fellowman? I think not. Buddha died, Mohamed died (or went away), Krishna was crucified, and rose again. Could it be that Jung was right and there is an archetype that pervades the human psyche that connects certain emotional, spiritual and even sexual sub-conscious emotions.
I ask our charismatic/Pentecostal/Assembly of God and all other sects of the Gospel that proclaim the bible is the virtual history and word of God to briefly suspend their enormous faith and investigate if just possibly that 3000 years of verbal communication and multiple translations into various languages may have lightly alter what was meant to be the true Gospel?
What I am learning is, when all the myths and early church cover-ups are sifted through--there was a true Jerusalem Church that was motivated and infused with the teaching of Jesus and James the Just carried on this true holy Gospel, until the Paulians bastardized it with an Hellenic Mystery Religion that has little to do with the true Gospel of Jesus. Thus, Pauls condemnation of the Phillipians, Galations; etc..
Open your eyes! Yes, use the bible as a reference, but also look at the writings that were rejected by the later church but were written during or shortly after Jesus' deaths. Likewise. become familiar with parlance of the Jews of that time. The English translation cannot be taken at face value. One must put the scriptures in the meanings of the Jews and Romans of that time.
I don't plan to convert anybody, hell I don't have anything to convert anybody to, but I would like some people to open their minds and look beyond the written scripture. The thought that a Levitical Jew would, in the case of Lazarus, touch a rotting putrefying corpse to bring him back to life, simply goes against all cleanliness rules of that time--especially that of a holy man. THINK ABOUT IT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
