Modern Christianity as the Cult of Jehovah Popularized
March 7, 2023
Apprentice Travis
1
Potential “philosophers are to be led step by step from the popular views which are indispensable for all practical and political purposes to the truth which is... purely theoretical, guided by certain... features in the presentation of the popular teaching- obscurity of the plan, contradictions, pseudonyms, inexact repetitions of earlier statements, strange expressions, etc.” Persecution and the Art of Writing, Leo Strauss
|
Strauss writes that the popular views are indispensable for political purposes, as they are practical. The truth, on the other hand, is “purely theoretical” and, it seems, not practical. The unpractical truth neither appeals nor is acknowledged by the majority. The majority is antagonistic towards the truth. The potential philosophers are “young men who like to think” and this audience is the focus of certain features in presenting the popular teaching.
2
‘Such features’, Strauss continues, ‘do not disturb the slumber of those who cannot see the wood for the trees, but act as awakening stumbling blocks for those who can. All books of that kind owe their existence to the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn: all exoteric books are “written speeches caused by love.”’
The word “cult” is ambiguous, as it can be understood as either “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object” or as “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange”. The second definitions of “cult” imply a narrow or a specific group of adherents and, therefore, a cult cannot be widespread or popular.
When a subject is the domain of a few votaries, the inevitable result will be various technical terms, shared values, and viewpoints. Therefore, whenever an idea flows from a select supporters to the general public, the concepts and terms will be altered to suit the limited capabilities of an expanded audience. The Bible, for example, offers many possible messages to the careful reader, but obedience is the repeated behavior that is continually presented as the highest end. Obedience can be understood by all audiences, including diverse groups such as dullards, children, and women.
There should not be an expectation of accuracy regarding the word “God” in this essay, as it is subject to various definitions, some of which are mutually contradictory, and, therefore, our usage of this word is inconsistent.
The word “cult” is ambiguous, as it can be understood as either “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object” or as “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange”. The second definitions of “cult” imply a narrow or a specific group of adherents and, therefore, a cult cannot be widespread or popular.
When a subject is the domain of a few votaries, the inevitable result will be various technical terms, shared values, and viewpoints. Therefore, whenever an idea flows from a select supporters to the general public, the concepts and terms will be altered to suit the limited capabilities of an expanded audience. The Bible, for example, offers many possible messages to the careful reader, but obedience is the repeated behavior that is continually presented as the highest end. Obedience can be understood by all audiences, including diverse groups such as dullards, children, and women.
There should not be an expectation of accuracy regarding the word “God” in this essay, as it is subject to various definitions, some of which are mutually contradictory, and, therefore, our usage of this word is inconsistent.
3
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, Ye are gods?’ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, ‘Thou blasphemest’; because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’” John 10:34-36
I have said, “Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High.” Psalm 82:6 |
The lack of a single definition for god in the Old Testament results in several meanings, one of which is humanity. The Redeemer states that since Scripture calls men “gods” and since it cannot be “loosed”, “unloosed”, “destroyed”, or “dissolved”, it must stand. He argues that being called “the Son of God” is not blasphemy, since Scripture declares everyone is a son of god.
One aspect of modern of Biblical Christianity is the unrestrained borrowing of unbiblical concepts, such as the immortal soul, a Roman Catholic dogma, and the Roman Catholic dating for the celebration of Easter. The appropriation of extra biblical practices include Christian and non Christian sources.
The idea of an immortal soul, an imperishable soul, is unknown in the Bible and this pious believe is explicitly denied [Ezekiel 18:20].
One aspect of modern of Biblical Christianity is the unrestrained borrowing of unbiblical concepts, such as the immortal soul, a Roman Catholic dogma, and the Roman Catholic dating for the celebration of Easter. The appropriation of extra biblical practices include Christian and non Christian sources.
The idea of an immortal soul, an imperishable soul, is unknown in the Bible and this pious believe is explicitly denied [Ezekiel 18:20].
4
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him which is able to destroy G611 both soul and body in Hell G1067. Matthew 10:28
|
The KJV translates Strong's G622 as: perish (33), destroy (26), lose (22), be lost (5), lost (4), miscellaneous (2).
The KJV translates Strong's G1067 as: hell (9), hell fire (with G4442) (3).
Since the Redeemer clearly states that the soul can be destroyed in Hell, then the soul cannot be immortal. Both the Old and New Testament deny the immortal soul.
The immortal soul was not a dogma of the Roman Church until the sixteenth century and this belief passed into most branches of Protestantism. If the immortal soul is clearly taught in any passage of the Bible, then it is difficult to explain why over a millennium passed before it was decreed. As always, the Biblical omission of an immortal soul does not prevent it, firstly, from being necessary for the possibility of eternal salvation in the Roman Church, and secondly, from finding support by modern Christians in their Bible.
The dating of Easter is commonly understood as the Sunday following both the vernal equinox and the full moon. Of course, this widespread opinion is incorrect, as one must determine the date of the Paschal Moon, an ecclesiastical term that has no present affinity to the actual astronomical full moon. The drift of the full moon is understood by astronomy and the Easter Tables coincide with the actual occurrences of the full moon in the tenth century. Therefore, the popular opinion that the Easter Tables have been in force since the fourth century cannot be true, as the full moons would consistently occur a least one day, if not two days, before the dates found in the tables.
From the examples of the immortal soul and of the dating of Easter, it can be demonstrated that popular opinions will always override facts. As demonstrated, opinions are the practical domain of the majority and facts are the theoretical sphere of the minority. Furthermore, although the minority, through long and painful experiences, are familiar with the opinions of the masses, being in the world, but not of the world, the masses will not, or more properly, cannot, accept the facts that are available to all, but only utilized by the minority. In conclusion to this part, the universal facts are subject to faulty reasoning that leads to improper conclusions. The reader can know these conclusion are incorrect, as they are often contradictory, as a contradiction always indicates either mistaken premises or improper reasoning from the correct premises.
The reason that the outlook of the majority will never align with the minority is that the former must acknowledge to themselves and before others that they were mistaken. For reasons that escape this Apprentice, the majority of mankind refuse to accept that they were ever deceived or mistaken upon any topic whatsoever, especially when the subject is presented during childhood. Therefore, the gulf between the minority and the majority is permanent; no amount of individual effort or public education will change this natural division.
Two prerequisites of being admitted into the Apprentice Program are, firstly, upholding all statements that Saint Paul writes about Hell, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, and, secondly, affirming the reward of the dedicated disciples as described in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
The inability of people to admit that their opinions are wrong is an endless source of amusement, as though being mistaken, while not a legislative crime, is, for reasons not completely understood, believed to be a grievous moral failing: Serpens decepit me et comedi. The admission of transgression is typically accompanied by actions that places blame outside the guilty party, that is, upon another person. While we are always willing to allow newly created humans this immature behavior, we have little tolerance for individuals who have interacted with reality for decades and who place culpability external to themselves.
As modern Christianity seeks an ever expanding audience to sell their services, the message of Christ must be changed and the teachings of the congregations must be altered so that “unbelievers”, those outside of and unfamiliar with the cult, can understand. These changes and revisions result in a simplification and, over centuries, a simplification so far removed from history and reality that a child can understand the formula:
The KJV translates Strong's G1067 as: hell (9), hell fire (with G4442) (3).
Since the Redeemer clearly states that the soul can be destroyed in Hell, then the soul cannot be immortal. Both the Old and New Testament deny the immortal soul.
The immortal soul was not a dogma of the Roman Church until the sixteenth century and this belief passed into most branches of Protestantism. If the immortal soul is clearly taught in any passage of the Bible, then it is difficult to explain why over a millennium passed before it was decreed. As always, the Biblical omission of an immortal soul does not prevent it, firstly, from being necessary for the possibility of eternal salvation in the Roman Church, and secondly, from finding support by modern Christians in their Bible.
The dating of Easter is commonly understood as the Sunday following both the vernal equinox and the full moon. Of course, this widespread opinion is incorrect, as one must determine the date of the Paschal Moon, an ecclesiastical term that has no present affinity to the actual astronomical full moon. The drift of the full moon is understood by astronomy and the Easter Tables coincide with the actual occurrences of the full moon in the tenth century. Therefore, the popular opinion that the Easter Tables have been in force since the fourth century cannot be true, as the full moons would consistently occur a least one day, if not two days, before the dates found in the tables.
From the examples of the immortal soul and of the dating of Easter, it can be demonstrated that popular opinions will always override facts. As demonstrated, opinions are the practical domain of the majority and facts are the theoretical sphere of the minority. Furthermore, although the minority, through long and painful experiences, are familiar with the opinions of the masses, being in the world, but not of the world, the masses will not, or more properly, cannot, accept the facts that are available to all, but only utilized by the minority. In conclusion to this part, the universal facts are subject to faulty reasoning that leads to improper conclusions. The reader can know these conclusion are incorrect, as they are often contradictory, as a contradiction always indicates either mistaken premises or improper reasoning from the correct premises.
The reason that the outlook of the majority will never align with the minority is that the former must acknowledge to themselves and before others that they were mistaken. For reasons that escape this Apprentice, the majority of mankind refuse to accept that they were ever deceived or mistaken upon any topic whatsoever, especially when the subject is presented during childhood. Therefore, the gulf between the minority and the majority is permanent; no amount of individual effort or public education will change this natural division.
Two prerequisites of being admitted into the Apprentice Program are, firstly, upholding all statements that Saint Paul writes about Hell, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, and, secondly, affirming the reward of the dedicated disciples as described in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
The inability of people to admit that their opinions are wrong is an endless source of amusement, as though being mistaken, while not a legislative crime, is, for reasons not completely understood, believed to be a grievous moral failing: Serpens decepit me et comedi. The admission of transgression is typically accompanied by actions that places blame outside the guilty party, that is, upon another person. While we are always willing to allow newly created humans this immature behavior, we have little tolerance for individuals who have interacted with reality for decades and who place culpability external to themselves.
As modern Christianity seeks an ever expanding audience to sell their services, the message of Christ must be changed and the teachings of the congregations must be altered so that “unbelievers”, those outside of and unfamiliar with the cult, can understand. These changes and revisions result in a simplification and, over centuries, a simplification so far removed from history and reality that a child can understand the formula:
5
I know I am a sinner. I believe in Christ. I believe I am saved.
This formula is uninspiring and insipid, so much so, that no Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian would ever convert to modern Christianity.
The inability to be accountable for one’s actions inexorably leads to lying, the willful denial of reality. Lying can be thought of as denying reality, denying the cause of an observation, or assigning an unknown cause to another unknown, otherwise said, “God did it.”
Eve attempts to assign responsibility on the subtle serpent, whereas Adam relates the facts of the incident: firstly, “the woman that thou gavest to be with me”; secondly, “she gave me of the tree”; and, thirdly,” I did eat.” Both Adam and Eve admit that they ate the fruit, while Adam assigns a reason, the woman. Eve endeavors to suggest her action, a supposed moral failing, to the serpent: “the serpent beguiled me”. Eve’s sincere effort does not convince the Lord God, nor should it influence the thoughtful reader.
The popular belief is that Adam and Eve defied the Lord by eating the forbidden fruit. Since this a popular belief, it is wrong. Adam was disobedient to the Lord God, while Eve was disobedient, if that is the proper word, to Adam. There is no explicit reason provided in the Genesis account that Eve should be obedient to Adam. Of course, the second creation account is to demonstrate that female humans are made from, or have their origin in, man [Genesis 2:4]. From this account, woman is allegedly inferior to man and must be obedient to men, just as men are to be obedient to the revelations from God. Since the first man was not fully obedient to the voice of the Lord God, it should not be surprising that subsequent generations who have no first hand contact with God, only stories, should ignore the laws, prohibitions, regulations, and other revelations from God. We write that Adam “was not fully obedient”, as the possibility exists that he attempted to “dress” and “keep” the garden, although this is not recorded. Therefore, Adam could be obedient regarding the keeping of the garden and yet be disobedient regarding eating from the tree.
An implicit teaching of the account in the Garden is that life can either be lived according to obedience to Divine Revelation, that is, the tradition that the truth was revealed to ancient peoples, or to be lived by the application of reason.
The distinct responses of Adam and Eve show their attempts at reasoning through “cause and effect”, with varying success. Adam intimates that the creation of the woman led to her giving him the fruit and this led to his eating. The unstated, but implied, conclusion from this reasoning is that if the woman were not created, then Adam would not have eaten of the tree. While it cannot be know that Adam would never eat from the tree in the ensuing eons of caring for the garden, it is known that the cause of the Fall is Adam’s disobedience. The result of Adam’s disobedience consists of his eyes being opened, becoming as a god, and knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:5]. This transformation is popularly described as a “Fall”.
It cannot be said that Eve’s disobedience to Adam is the cause of the Fall. However, the creation of the talking snake led to Eve eating the fruit and the interaction with the serpent is the cause of her giving the fruit to Adam and his eating is the reason for the Fall. By analyzing cause and effect, the thoughtful reader, along with Adam and Eve, will realize that the creation of the subtle talking snake is the source of the Fall, that is, the Lord God is ultimately accountable for the “Fall of man” through the creation of this snake.
It is unsurprising that the account in the Garden of Eden provides no reason for men to be obedient or submissive to men.
The inability to be accountable for one’s actions inexorably leads to lying, the willful denial of reality. Lying can be thought of as denying reality, denying the cause of an observation, or assigning an unknown cause to another unknown, otherwise said, “God did it.”
Eve attempts to assign responsibility on the subtle serpent, whereas Adam relates the facts of the incident: firstly, “the woman that thou gavest to be with me”; secondly, “she gave me of the tree”; and, thirdly,” I did eat.” Both Adam and Eve admit that they ate the fruit, while Adam assigns a reason, the woman. Eve endeavors to suggest her action, a supposed moral failing, to the serpent: “the serpent beguiled me”. Eve’s sincere effort does not convince the Lord God, nor should it influence the thoughtful reader.
The popular belief is that Adam and Eve defied the Lord by eating the forbidden fruit. Since this a popular belief, it is wrong. Adam was disobedient to the Lord God, while Eve was disobedient, if that is the proper word, to Adam. There is no explicit reason provided in the Genesis account that Eve should be obedient to Adam. Of course, the second creation account is to demonstrate that female humans are made from, or have their origin in, man [Genesis 2:4]. From this account, woman is allegedly inferior to man and must be obedient to men, just as men are to be obedient to the revelations from God. Since the first man was not fully obedient to the voice of the Lord God, it should not be surprising that subsequent generations who have no first hand contact with God, only stories, should ignore the laws, prohibitions, regulations, and other revelations from God. We write that Adam “was not fully obedient”, as the possibility exists that he attempted to “dress” and “keep” the garden, although this is not recorded. Therefore, Adam could be obedient regarding the keeping of the garden and yet be disobedient regarding eating from the tree.
An implicit teaching of the account in the Garden is that life can either be lived according to obedience to Divine Revelation, that is, the tradition that the truth was revealed to ancient peoples, or to be lived by the application of reason.
The distinct responses of Adam and Eve show their attempts at reasoning through “cause and effect”, with varying success. Adam intimates that the creation of the woman led to her giving him the fruit and this led to his eating. The unstated, but implied, conclusion from this reasoning is that if the woman were not created, then Adam would not have eaten of the tree. While it cannot be know that Adam would never eat from the tree in the ensuing eons of caring for the garden, it is known that the cause of the Fall is Adam’s disobedience. The result of Adam’s disobedience consists of his eyes being opened, becoming as a god, and knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:5]. This transformation is popularly described as a “Fall”.
It cannot be said that Eve’s disobedience to Adam is the cause of the Fall. However, the creation of the talking snake led to Eve eating the fruit and the interaction with the serpent is the cause of her giving the fruit to Adam and his eating is the reason for the Fall. By analyzing cause and effect, the thoughtful reader, along with Adam and Eve, will realize that the creation of the subtle talking snake is the source of the Fall, that is, the Lord God is ultimately accountable for the “Fall of man” through the creation of this snake.
It is unsurprising that the account in the Garden of Eden provides no reason for men to be obedient or submissive to men.
6
“Choice is an illusion, created between those with power and those without.” The Merovingian
“We can never see past the choices we don’t understand.” “You and I may not be able to see beyond our own choices, but that man [the Architect] can’t see past any choices.” “He doesn’t understand them – he can’t. To him they are variables in an equation. One at a time each variable must be solved and counted.” The Oracle |
The popular distrust of knowledge, learning, and science, as distinct from belief, has its origin in the Garden of Delights. Modern Christianity is the intellectual heir of the implicit lesson from the Garden of Eden: reason, cause and effect, and understanding are bad. The reason for this badness is that where knowledge exists, belief is unnecessary and, without belief, the acceptance of Divine Revelation is impossible.
7
Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls. Doubt it not! Morals and Dogma, XIX
|
It is expected that modern Christians who take Abraham and David as role models are not opposed to lying, lust, or murder [Genesis 12:12-13; 2 Samuel 11:15]. Such role models would explain the ongoing sexual scandals and the attempted cover ups. The hypocrisy of decrying other’s behavior, yet committing similar acts is, somehow, when brought to light, are forgiven and, with the passage of time, forgotten.
Deception is integral to, and indistinguishable from, the practice and promotion of modern Christianity. For if modern Christianity were forthright from the outset, then no one would be willing to accept it.
From the previous examples, it is understood why many people reject Christ today, as they logically associate Christ with the despicable behaviors of these self described believers. By their works, they will be known. As the Redeemer himself foretold:
Deception is integral to, and indistinguishable from, the practice and promotion of modern Christianity. For if modern Christianity were forthright from the outset, then no one would be willing to accept it.
From the previous examples, it is understood why many people reject Christ today, as they logically associate Christ with the despicable behaviors of these self described believers. By their works, they will be known. As the Redeemer himself foretold:
8
For many shall come in my name, saying, "I [Jesus] am [the] Christ” ὁ Χριστός’, and shall deceive many." Matthew 24:5
|
Despite the stated goal of the eternal salvation of immortal souls, whose effectiveness is entirely dependent upon the sincerity of the believer, which is subject to grave doubts, modern Christians wish to dominate others. Whenever “believers” become “unbelievers”, the apologists decry that apostates were never believers, yet, nowhere in Scripture does it state that Simon Magus, “the Father of All Heresies”, became an unbeliever after his rebuke [Acts 8:13, 20-24].
The control sought by individual modern Christians is predicated upon others accepting their subjective beliefs and alleged, but never demonstrated, moral superiority of those “preaching the word”. This superiority in knowing the Divine Will and the Divine Plan fails at the first instance of honest and persistent inquiry. As always in modern Christianity, these righteous ministers are self appointed.
We will never subject ourselves to the alleged authority of others based upon subjective standards, nor should any rational human. If we agree with others, then our agreement is not due to their supposed supernatural insights, but is due to our acceptance of their explanations which, in turn, is based upon proper reasoning. As always, if we realize an error has occurred or additional information is provided that contradicts our conclusion, we will altar our position accordingly.
The supposed spreading of the “Good News” by using fear and guilt is reprehensible, not that these tactics are unsuccessful. These successful schemes speak more about the recipients of these sham apologies than the pundits themselves. The emotional arguments and “reasoning” about subjects not touching upon reality are not the proper topics for men. Generally speaking, consent, that is, informed consent, requires having all pertinent information.
Modern Christianity will supposedly save immortal souls by belief, then require the novice believer to adhere to various aspects of the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After salvation is allegedly attained through belief, one must perform good works and avoid bad works. Of course, Gentiles are subject neither to the Laws of Israel nor to the Laws of the Priesthood. Since the immortal souls of the Gentiles have been saved through belief, there is no justification why anyone should attempt to follow these rules. Of course, all Gentiles fail in keeping the laws and many quit attempting and leave this form of the “Good News”.
The eventual abandonment of the practices of modern Christianity is the surest indication, not that humanity is irredeemably sinful, but that individuals correctly understand that there is nothing that they can do or abstain from to endanger the surety of their final reward, Heaven, for their immortal soul. To speak plainly: Modern Christianity sows the seeds of its own destruction. This is why, except for state supported churches, protestant congregations, generally speaking, do not last for centuries, but only endure for decades.
The inability of modern Christianity to establishment and maintain either their buildings or their teachings should be another indication that there is no Divine attribute to these groups, that is, the congregations are constantly changing their teachings or their interpretations of their inerrant Scriptures- nothing is permanent.
Even their inerrant Bible is not a constant: The Apocrypha is found in the first printed Bibles, but current Bibles omit these books which were considered to be divinely inspired. Once one knows that the Maccabees were devout Jews praying for their dead relatives, the sham arguments stating the Maccabean books are not inspired works can be ignored. The fact that the Maccabees were pious indicates that prayer for the dead is a Jewish tradition that predates Christianity and does not originate in paganism. Since no one would suggest that the Maccabees were not devout, the Apocrypha must be omitted in modern Christianity, lest the readers discover that prayers for the dead are a pious Christian tradition; not another “Papal invention” of popular opinion.
The Jews themselves do not interpret their own scripture literally, yet modern Christians dogmatically insist that the text is literally true with the expected result: confusion. Saint Paul writes clearly: God is not the author of confusion [1 Corinthians 14:33]. It follows that one can correctly, and without contradiction, describe that modern creation, the Bible, as Satan’s Book.
The story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the first edition of Erasmus’ “All of the New Teaching" in 1516 AD, although the narrative was added to subsequent editions of “All of the New Testament", later shorted to “The New Testament”. The addition of passages demonstrates that as late as the sixteenth century there was no consensus of what texts constituent the New Testament and scripture was subject to additions and alterations. The common opinion that the Bible was created at and disseminated since the First Council of Nicaea is easily refuted: The Orthodox Church has no tradition regarding the Bible before the sixteenth century and there is no Orthodox dogma regarding any Bible or the individual books that constitute it. Nor do we expect the Orthodox Church to ever issue any decrees accepting the protestant Bible anymore than we expect acceptance of the Koran, as any changes in dogma implies that the Orthodox Church did not have the fullness of the truth in the past, but they now have the fullness of truth. Therefore, any new dogmas decreed from a national Orthodox Church will be rejected, as any innovations are against the established and universally known traditions of the Church.
The control sought by individual modern Christians is predicated upon others accepting their subjective beliefs and alleged, but never demonstrated, moral superiority of those “preaching the word”. This superiority in knowing the Divine Will and the Divine Plan fails at the first instance of honest and persistent inquiry. As always in modern Christianity, these righteous ministers are self appointed.
We will never subject ourselves to the alleged authority of others based upon subjective standards, nor should any rational human. If we agree with others, then our agreement is not due to their supposed supernatural insights, but is due to our acceptance of their explanations which, in turn, is based upon proper reasoning. As always, if we realize an error has occurred or additional information is provided that contradicts our conclusion, we will altar our position accordingly.
The supposed spreading of the “Good News” by using fear and guilt is reprehensible, not that these tactics are unsuccessful. These successful schemes speak more about the recipients of these sham apologies than the pundits themselves. The emotional arguments and “reasoning” about subjects not touching upon reality are not the proper topics for men. Generally speaking, consent, that is, informed consent, requires having all pertinent information.
Modern Christianity will supposedly save immortal souls by belief, then require the novice believer to adhere to various aspects of the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After salvation is allegedly attained through belief, one must perform good works and avoid bad works. Of course, Gentiles are subject neither to the Laws of Israel nor to the Laws of the Priesthood. Since the immortal souls of the Gentiles have been saved through belief, there is no justification why anyone should attempt to follow these rules. Of course, all Gentiles fail in keeping the laws and many quit attempting and leave this form of the “Good News”.
The eventual abandonment of the practices of modern Christianity is the surest indication, not that humanity is irredeemably sinful, but that individuals correctly understand that there is nothing that they can do or abstain from to endanger the surety of their final reward, Heaven, for their immortal soul. To speak plainly: Modern Christianity sows the seeds of its own destruction. This is why, except for state supported churches, protestant congregations, generally speaking, do not last for centuries, but only endure for decades.
The inability of modern Christianity to establishment and maintain either their buildings or their teachings should be another indication that there is no Divine attribute to these groups, that is, the congregations are constantly changing their teachings or their interpretations of their inerrant Scriptures- nothing is permanent.
Even their inerrant Bible is not a constant: The Apocrypha is found in the first printed Bibles, but current Bibles omit these books which were considered to be divinely inspired. Once one knows that the Maccabees were devout Jews praying for their dead relatives, the sham arguments stating the Maccabean books are not inspired works can be ignored. The fact that the Maccabees were pious indicates that prayer for the dead is a Jewish tradition that predates Christianity and does not originate in paganism. Since no one would suggest that the Maccabees were not devout, the Apocrypha must be omitted in modern Christianity, lest the readers discover that prayers for the dead are a pious Christian tradition; not another “Papal invention” of popular opinion.
The Jews themselves do not interpret their own scripture literally, yet modern Christians dogmatically insist that the text is literally true with the expected result: confusion. Saint Paul writes clearly: God is not the author of confusion [1 Corinthians 14:33]. It follows that one can correctly, and without contradiction, describe that modern creation, the Bible, as Satan’s Book.
The story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the first edition of Erasmus’ “All of the New Teaching" in 1516 AD, although the narrative was added to subsequent editions of “All of the New Testament", later shorted to “The New Testament”. The addition of passages demonstrates that as late as the sixteenth century there was no consensus of what texts constituent the New Testament and scripture was subject to additions and alterations. The common opinion that the Bible was created at and disseminated since the First Council of Nicaea is easily refuted: The Orthodox Church has no tradition regarding the Bible before the sixteenth century and there is no Orthodox dogma regarding any Bible or the individual books that constitute it. Nor do we expect the Orthodox Church to ever issue any decrees accepting the protestant Bible anymore than we expect acceptance of the Koran, as any changes in dogma implies that the Orthodox Church did not have the fullness of the truth in the past, but they now have the fullness of truth. Therefore, any new dogmas decreed from a national Orthodox Church will be rejected, as any innovations are against the established and universally known traditions of the Church.
9
And he [God, v.1; 'ĕlōhîm] said, “Take now... thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest H157... and offer him... for a burnt offering.…” Genesis 22:2
|
The KJV translates Strong's H157 as: love (169), lover(s) (19), friend(s) (12), beloved (5), liketh (1), lovely (1), loving (1).
The first occurrence of “love” in the Old Testament is ironically found in the same passage as recommending human sacrifice. The reader unfamiliar with the Old Testament would be forgiven if he were believe that Elohim was a force opposing love, desiring suffering, and seeking murder. The Bible teaches obedience.
Of course, Isaac was not Abraham’s “only son”, since Ishmael was born before Isaac [Genesis 16:15].
The first occurrence of “love” in the Old Testament is ironically found in the same passage as recommending human sacrifice. The reader unfamiliar with the Old Testament would be forgiven if he were believe that Elohim was a force opposing love, desiring suffering, and seeking murder. The Bible teaches obedience.
Of course, Isaac was not Abraham’s “only son”, since Ishmael was born before Isaac [Genesis 16:15].
10
“Sutekh the Destroyer”
The intrepid reader would do well to list the characteristics of Set and, by perusing the 613 laws of Israel, determine those that would apply to such a god. For individuals with a passing familiarity of the laws, the emphasis on fertility and the prohibition of castration, either to animals or to humans, are regulations could easily apply to a cult of Set.
Set resented his brother Osiris, the king of Egypt, as the later brought agriculture and civilization to mankind and, for these actions, humanity was grateful. In the fullness of time, Set killed Osiris and sought the throne of Egypt. While the proper heir to the throne was being disputed among the gods, Set discovered Osiris’ body while hunting during the full moon and tore it into fifteen pieces, scattering them throughout Egypt. The rage necessary for one to dismember a body has no need of discussion.
Isis, Osiris’ wife, found fourteen pieces of his body and, with the addition of a crafted phallus, became pregnant with Horus, a future claimant for the throne of Egypt. Set was infertile and his wife, Nephthys, seduced Osiris before his death by presenting herself as Isis. Nephthys gave birth to Anubis. It is ironic that the dead Osiris fathered an heir, although lacking the male member, while Set, being whole and alive, could not.
Only the notable killings by Jehovah can be addressed in this essay: the flood. Any attempt to determine an accurate number of those murdered in the deluge is pointless, as unprovoked murder is wrong, regardless of Biblical statements and ordinances to the contrary. Since a morality exists to unequivocally state that unprovoked murder is invariably wrong, then another moral code exists, one that is unbiblical and ethically superior to the Old Testament. One needs to recall that only eight family members survived the worldwide flood.
The murder of those who are not from one’s tribe or nation is known throughout modern history. Yet, only through modern Christianity is there is the expectation that enemies of the “Church” should be exterminated, not unlike the descendants of Amalek. Of the 613 laws, one ordinance clearly teaches genocide upon the descendants of Amalek and although one could argue that this law does not apply today, yet this requirement of murder remains in the law; it has not been omitted from the Torah [Deuteronomy 25:17-19]. Either Amalek’s descendants became extinct in the far past or they exist and are unknown in the present, having married into the Gentiles. Of course, if unidentified descendants of Amalek exist, then that law remains in force and requires their extermination.
Therefore, one should not be surprised that modern Christians can burn and slaughter heretics, or those who profess different opinions, whether religious, political, or scientific, in the name of their God, which cannot be Jesus, as the Redeemer provided no examples of killing those not in agreement with either his teachings or his behavior.
And I [God, v.2; 'ĕlōhîm] appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Exodus 6:3
The meaning of Jehovah is the "the existing One" which cannot be applied to the dead Osiris, but to the living Set.
The KJV translates Strong's H3068 as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1).
We will not rely upon ancient documents that are possibly untrustworthy for the cruelty of modern Christianity, instead we will only mention certain incidents of the twentieth century which, owing to multiple sources from many countries, are more reliable.
Certain organizations seek to inflict fear. In the public mind, these institutions are administrated by “madmen” and this appellation only serves to obscure their religious roots.
The Lodges of Freemasonry claim to posses truth, yet, in over three hundred years, there is no serious allegation that Freemasonry is a homicidal group, although Freemasons were prosecuted and their lodges closed by both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The fact that all groups oppressed by Nazi Germany fully coincided with the deniers, heretics, and schismatics of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are beyond the scope of this essay. Fascist countries must be Roman Catholic, for Quisling’s Norway. Lutheran, and Antonescu’s Romania, Orthodox, are described as “authoritarian”, while Nazi Germany, Vichy France, Mussolini's Italy, and Peron’s Argentina are fascist. If academics know that only Roman Catholic countries can be described as Fascist, then there is more to the public opinion that World War II was the result of “madmen” attempting worldwide domination.
Set resented his brother Osiris, the king of Egypt, as the later brought agriculture and civilization to mankind and, for these actions, humanity was grateful. In the fullness of time, Set killed Osiris and sought the throne of Egypt. While the proper heir to the throne was being disputed among the gods, Set discovered Osiris’ body while hunting during the full moon and tore it into fifteen pieces, scattering them throughout Egypt. The rage necessary for one to dismember a body has no need of discussion.
Isis, Osiris’ wife, found fourteen pieces of his body and, with the addition of a crafted phallus, became pregnant with Horus, a future claimant for the throne of Egypt. Set was infertile and his wife, Nephthys, seduced Osiris before his death by presenting herself as Isis. Nephthys gave birth to Anubis. It is ironic that the dead Osiris fathered an heir, although lacking the male member, while Set, being whole and alive, could not.
Only the notable killings by Jehovah can be addressed in this essay: the flood. Any attempt to determine an accurate number of those murdered in the deluge is pointless, as unprovoked murder is wrong, regardless of Biblical statements and ordinances to the contrary. Since a morality exists to unequivocally state that unprovoked murder is invariably wrong, then another moral code exists, one that is unbiblical and ethically superior to the Old Testament. One needs to recall that only eight family members survived the worldwide flood.
The murder of those who are not from one’s tribe or nation is known throughout modern history. Yet, only through modern Christianity is there is the expectation that enemies of the “Church” should be exterminated, not unlike the descendants of Amalek. Of the 613 laws, one ordinance clearly teaches genocide upon the descendants of Amalek and although one could argue that this law does not apply today, yet this requirement of murder remains in the law; it has not been omitted from the Torah [Deuteronomy 25:17-19]. Either Amalek’s descendants became extinct in the far past or they exist and are unknown in the present, having married into the Gentiles. Of course, if unidentified descendants of Amalek exist, then that law remains in force and requires their extermination.
Therefore, one should not be surprised that modern Christians can burn and slaughter heretics, or those who profess different opinions, whether religious, political, or scientific, in the name of their God, which cannot be Jesus, as the Redeemer provided no examples of killing those not in agreement with either his teachings or his behavior.
And I [God, v.2; 'ĕlōhîm] appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Exodus 6:3
The meaning of Jehovah is the "the existing One" which cannot be applied to the dead Osiris, but to the living Set.
The KJV translates Strong's H3068 as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1).
We will not rely upon ancient documents that are possibly untrustworthy for the cruelty of modern Christianity, instead we will only mention certain incidents of the twentieth century which, owing to multiple sources from many countries, are more reliable.
Certain organizations seek to inflict fear. In the public mind, these institutions are administrated by “madmen” and this appellation only serves to obscure their religious roots.
The Lodges of Freemasonry claim to posses truth, yet, in over three hundred years, there is no serious allegation that Freemasonry is a homicidal group, although Freemasons were prosecuted and their lodges closed by both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The fact that all groups oppressed by Nazi Germany fully coincided with the deniers, heretics, and schismatics of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are beyond the scope of this essay. Fascist countries must be Roman Catholic, for Quisling’s Norway. Lutheran, and Antonescu’s Romania, Orthodox, are described as “authoritarian”, while Nazi Germany, Vichy France, Mussolini's Italy, and Peron’s Argentina are fascist. If academics know that only Roman Catholic countries can be described as Fascist, then there is more to the public opinion that World War II was the result of “madmen” attempting worldwide domination.
11
I am the Lord Yᵊhōvâ and there is none else. There is no God 'ĕlōhîm beside me. Isaiah 45:5
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the LORD Yᵊhōvâ do all these things. Isaiah 45:7 For I am God 'ēl and there is none else. Isaiah 45:22 |
The actions of Jehovah can be easily applied to modern Christianity, so much so, that the ancient Gnostic heresies seem, if not reasonable in comparison, then, at least, reasoned and coherent deductions from scripture. Of course, when the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, especially Irenaeus, discuss Gnostic heresies, one must not be tempted to accept these as diverse forms of early Christianity before the establishment of the “official” Church hierarchy and before the publication of the Bible.
"It is, again, clear that these heresies were feigned and fabulous, from that fact they nowhere existed in the world; none renew them, and this because they are fatuous and insane, and invented with the sole object that, by opposing them in definitions of Councils, and in special controversial writings, impiety may be suggested." Jean Hardouin
The Gnostic heresies require an accepted text that can be allegorized and freely interpreted and the texts of choice are the Church Councils. Our knowledge that the heresies predated the councils is due entirely to the chronology of Scaliger [d. 1609 AD].
"Ought not every one to wonder at the alleged fact that the Heresies sprang up in the order in which divers tracts on Religion may be arranged in schools?" Jean Hardouin
According to accepted history, the heresies were the cause of the Church Councils that defined orthodox Christianity and in this believable scenario, the church is reactive. However, the possibility exists that the church teachings were known, being universal; the dogmas promulgated, and the heresies were proposed. The idea that Jesus was not always God, but became God later, such as at his baptism or the crucifixion or the resurrection is confusing, intentionally so, as are all heresies.
The guilt offerings and sin offerings of the temple must be understood as the logical result of the anger, the jealousy, and the wrath of Jehovah. The sins of Israel were placed on the goat that would be freed and returned to the wilderness, but the innocent goat is to be sacrificed. Therefore, vicarious atonement is known from the Old Testament. The diverse fates of the two goats were chosen by chance and the interplay between randomness and choice presented in the Old Testament is beyond the purview of our essay [Leviticus 16:8].
The obedience to Jehovah in Judaism transforms, through a method not fully understood, into obedience to the self proclaimed messengers of the Good News. As always, one must be obedient to those who have insights into the ways of God, for the Holy Spirit speaks to his special followers who are always Protestants. The reason God does not speak to the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox is the same reason why Mary, the Theotokos, and the other Saints do not appear to the Protestants: the lack of tradition. The fact that certain teachings of God are identical to the opinions of an individual modern believer is coincidental.
The modern promoters of the Gospel do not realize that their “witnessing” to the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox faithful is ineffectual, as the later groups do not accept Protestant reasoning; reasoning that is either circular or non existent. Circular, because the Bible says it is authoritative, so the Bible is the final authority on Christianity, and non existent, firstly, for the Bible speaks sparingly of the practices and teachings of Christianity and, secondly, if the Protestant Bible is authoritative, it follows that it is not authoritative to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
These modern Christians have a profound ignorance of history, as modern Christianity does not need history; they are “ahistorical”. Modern Christianity is a surreal landscape where popular opinions, fallacies, and willful ignorance are formless and equally valid. Needless to say, the philologist is unwelcome in this land.
The tribalism of Jehovah is properly of Israel. National gods are historical, normal, and expected. There were no universal or popular gods until their emergence sometime during the early modern age. For example, the national god, the great god, of Russia was, in ancient times, Saint Nicholas the Wonder Worker and all Christian cities and countries had their respective gods as patrons and protectors.
The worship of national and local gods was replaced by their veneration under the title of “saints”, as the word “god” became limited to one entity. Only in the modern age have the ancient saints been either marginalized or omitted in western Christianity, creating a vacuum filled by the cosmopolitan god, Jehovah. Of course, this deity has no concern for the peoples of western Europe nor for any coverts to Christianity, only for his chosen people, Israel.
If modern Christianity is frustrated by their impotence in this sinful world, by their inability to make lasting changes or marginal improvements either in the world or in themselves, then they need search no further than their Divinity who was, is, and will always be indifferent to their plight. In conclusion to this part, modern Christians have set themselves up for failure by accepting the false premise that the protector of Israel has any concern for their welfare; cf. the universal flood, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Philistines, the Persians, the Romans, the Greeks.
"It is, again, clear that these heresies were feigned and fabulous, from that fact they nowhere existed in the world; none renew them, and this because they are fatuous and insane, and invented with the sole object that, by opposing them in definitions of Councils, and in special controversial writings, impiety may be suggested." Jean Hardouin
The Gnostic heresies require an accepted text that can be allegorized and freely interpreted and the texts of choice are the Church Councils. Our knowledge that the heresies predated the councils is due entirely to the chronology of Scaliger [d. 1609 AD].
"Ought not every one to wonder at the alleged fact that the Heresies sprang up in the order in which divers tracts on Religion may be arranged in schools?" Jean Hardouin
According to accepted history, the heresies were the cause of the Church Councils that defined orthodox Christianity and in this believable scenario, the church is reactive. However, the possibility exists that the church teachings were known, being universal; the dogmas promulgated, and the heresies were proposed. The idea that Jesus was not always God, but became God later, such as at his baptism or the crucifixion or the resurrection is confusing, intentionally so, as are all heresies.
The guilt offerings and sin offerings of the temple must be understood as the logical result of the anger, the jealousy, and the wrath of Jehovah. The sins of Israel were placed on the goat that would be freed and returned to the wilderness, but the innocent goat is to be sacrificed. Therefore, vicarious atonement is known from the Old Testament. The diverse fates of the two goats were chosen by chance and the interplay between randomness and choice presented in the Old Testament is beyond the purview of our essay [Leviticus 16:8].
The obedience to Jehovah in Judaism transforms, through a method not fully understood, into obedience to the self proclaimed messengers of the Good News. As always, one must be obedient to those who have insights into the ways of God, for the Holy Spirit speaks to his special followers who are always Protestants. The reason God does not speak to the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox is the same reason why Mary, the Theotokos, and the other Saints do not appear to the Protestants: the lack of tradition. The fact that certain teachings of God are identical to the opinions of an individual modern believer is coincidental.
The modern promoters of the Gospel do not realize that their “witnessing” to the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox faithful is ineffectual, as the later groups do not accept Protestant reasoning; reasoning that is either circular or non existent. Circular, because the Bible says it is authoritative, so the Bible is the final authority on Christianity, and non existent, firstly, for the Bible speaks sparingly of the practices and teachings of Christianity and, secondly, if the Protestant Bible is authoritative, it follows that it is not authoritative to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
These modern Christians have a profound ignorance of history, as modern Christianity does not need history; they are “ahistorical”. Modern Christianity is a surreal landscape where popular opinions, fallacies, and willful ignorance are formless and equally valid. Needless to say, the philologist is unwelcome in this land.
The tribalism of Jehovah is properly of Israel. National gods are historical, normal, and expected. There were no universal or popular gods until their emergence sometime during the early modern age. For example, the national god, the great god, of Russia was, in ancient times, Saint Nicholas the Wonder Worker and all Christian cities and countries had their respective gods as patrons and protectors.
The worship of national and local gods was replaced by their veneration under the title of “saints”, as the word “god” became limited to one entity. Only in the modern age have the ancient saints been either marginalized or omitted in western Christianity, creating a vacuum filled by the cosmopolitan god, Jehovah. Of course, this deity has no concern for the peoples of western Europe nor for any coverts to Christianity, only for his chosen people, Israel.
If modern Christianity is frustrated by their impotence in this sinful world, by their inability to make lasting changes or marginal improvements either in the world or in themselves, then they need search no further than their Divinity who was, is, and will always be indifferent to their plight. In conclusion to this part, modern Christians have set themselves up for failure by accepting the false premise that the protector of Israel has any concern for their welfare; cf. the universal flood, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Philistines, the Persians, the Romans, the Greeks.
12
[Your Father which is in heaven] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:45
|
Jehovah becoming the deity of choice is the result a long process of popular misunderstandings, that is, popular opinions, and by the application of attributes that are alien to Jehovah, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. The description of the actions of Jehovah as acceptable, proper, and righteous is the result of attempting to reconcile abhorrent, terrible, and malicious behaviors with being all good at all times.
The truth, it can be said in truth, has no need for apologetics, as truth is an aspect or a part of reality. To apologize for reality is in vain, for any effort can rightly be understood as an attempt to reinterpret reality and to deny or obscure what is evident to all. The truth seeker must admit that Jehovah does not partake of being all good at all times and, therefore, must reject him as an entity worthy of admiration, let alone being a god one would knowingly worship.
The truth, it can be said in truth, has no need for apologetics, as truth is an aspect or a part of reality. To apologize for reality is in vain, for any effort can rightly be understood as an attempt to reinterpret reality and to deny or obscure what is evident to all. The truth seeker must admit that Jehovah does not partake of being all good at all times and, therefore, must reject him as an entity worthy of admiration, let alone being a god one would knowingly worship.
13
Not giving heed to Jewish fables Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις and commandments of men that turn from the truth. Titus 1:14
|
The popularization of Jehovah has resulted in the existing world being interpreted as bad and evil, although it was created “good” in the first creation account and culminating by being described as “very good” [Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31]. If these modern Christians would repent, “to change one’s mind” is the meaning of the Greek word, then they might find joy, possibly love, in their existence and, until that time, they will only experience endless frustration and unfulfillment.
“Wisdom is always feminine, from Sophia, to MA’at, to Shekinah. That’s gotta mean something! Right?” Apprentice Levi
You are all I need: nothing said could change a thing. Where you go, I go. Just say, "I'll be", 'cause you are all I need. And you are all I need. Oh, "You are all I need.", that means so much more. Future Islands |