"I will be like the Most High."
Apprentice Joe
April 30, 2017
This introductory quote from the book of Isaiah, chapter fourteen, verse fourteen, is attributed to Lucifer, and if Lucifer and Satan are confounded in the public imagination, we are not surprised, as Scripture is not forthcoming with details pertaining to these intriguing entities to distinguish their spheres of influence.
In verse twelve, Lucifer is addressed as the “son of the morning” and the consensus regarding this appellation is a reference to the morning star. Venus and Mercury can be observed for an hour before sunrise and an hour after the sunset and either planet can be considered a morning star. Before certain advances in astronomy, it was a generally held belief that the two morning stars were not identical to the evening stars, therefore, there were nine, not seven planets.
Since Lucifer is addressed as the “son”, it follows that Lucifer is masculine and as we desire to assign a specific planet to Lucifer, it must be Mercury, since astrology describes Venus as the only feminine planet and the remaining planets may not always have a helical rising or helical setting.
In verse thirteen, Lucifer or Mercury desires to rise “above the stars of God”. The planet Mercury is near the sun, has a swift orbit, and is never far from the sun. It is reasonable to place this desire or the longing for exaltation in the person of the planet Mercury, for he is a lowly planet and wishes to rise above Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond “the stars of god”, or the eighth heaven, to be “like the most high”. Of course, “most high” is an ambiguous term that may be considered as a strange expression for God.
Verse fourteen has an interesting desire: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds”. After declaring the intention to ascend “above the stars”, we confronted with the unexpected wording of ascending “above… the clouds”. The ancient Hebrews envisioned the throne of God behind or above the stars and, as this desire has been declared, we are uncertain why the protagonist would now want to go beyond the clouds. We know of no ancient cosmology where the planets are inferior to the clouds, no doubt, since the planets are always superior to the clouds. We expect the progression from clouds, to the planets, and beyond the stars. Rather the clouds seem like an afterthought, sometimes described as a “scribal error” and duly assigned as “unimportant”, that does not follow the expected sequence. In fact, the reference to clouds could be omitted, resulting in, if not a clearer, then a more reasonable, understanding.
In verse twelve, Lucifer is addressed as the “son of the morning” and the consensus regarding this appellation is a reference to the morning star. Venus and Mercury can be observed for an hour before sunrise and an hour after the sunset and either planet can be considered a morning star. Before certain advances in astronomy, it was a generally held belief that the two morning stars were not identical to the evening stars, therefore, there were nine, not seven planets.
Since Lucifer is addressed as the “son”, it follows that Lucifer is masculine and as we desire to assign a specific planet to Lucifer, it must be Mercury, since astrology describes Venus as the only feminine planet and the remaining planets may not always have a helical rising or helical setting.
In verse thirteen, Lucifer or Mercury desires to rise “above the stars of God”. The planet Mercury is near the sun, has a swift orbit, and is never far from the sun. It is reasonable to place this desire or the longing for exaltation in the person of the planet Mercury, for he is a lowly planet and wishes to rise above Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond “the stars of god”, or the eighth heaven, to be “like the most high”. Of course, “most high” is an ambiguous term that may be considered as a strange expression for God.
Verse fourteen has an interesting desire: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds”. After declaring the intention to ascend “above the stars”, we confronted with the unexpected wording of ascending “above… the clouds”. The ancient Hebrews envisioned the throne of God behind or above the stars and, as this desire has been declared, we are uncertain why the protagonist would now want to go beyond the clouds. We know of no ancient cosmology where the planets are inferior to the clouds, no doubt, since the planets are always superior to the clouds. We expect the progression from clouds, to the planets, and beyond the stars. Rather the clouds seem like an afterthought, sometimes described as a “scribal error” and duly assigned as “unimportant”, that does not follow the expected sequence. In fact, the reference to clouds could be omitted, resulting in, if not a clearer, then a more reasonable, understanding.
Spinoza, Berry to his friends, clearly writes that one book of the Bible cannot be referenced in an attempt to clarify a passage in another book. Although adherents of the opinion of inerrant scripture would disagree, we offer a passage from the Revelation of Jesus Christ as evidence to support Spinoza’s claim.
“I [Jesus] … am the bright and morning star.” Revelation 22:16
Unless the Gentle Reader wishes to conflate Satan and Jesus, since both are the morning star, it is desirable to dismiss the opinion of inerrant scripture and accept both passages as examples of poetic licence, that is, the works are to be enjoyed as literature, they are not to be understood literally.
The following quotes are from the twenty eighth chapter of Ezekiel.
3 “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.”
The king of Tyre is wiser than Daniel, not as may be expected, wiser than Solomon.
4 “With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures.”
One tangible result of the king's wisdom is wealth.
5 “By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches.”
Understanding and engaging in commerce results in wealth and this, in turn, culminates in pride.
7 “I [God] will bring ... the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.”
Wisdom is described as beautiful and as bright. Even today, certain individuals are said to be “not too bright” or dim.
12-13 “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God”
Interestingly, “Son of man” is an expression used by Jesus and is also found in the Acts Of the Apostles. Unlike the Greek word for man, the Hebrew word allows for multiple translations, to wit, “Son of man”, “Son of red earth”, and “Son of Adam”.
Once again wisdom is associated with beauty. Since the author does not indicate why the king was in the garden, or the significance of this statement, we cannot know either the reason or significance. We caution that any explanations or suggestions that the king of Tyrus interacted with Adam and the woman in the Garden of Pleasure is conjecture with limited evidence.
14 “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and ... thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.”
The king is said to be a not only an angel, but a member of the highest of the nine orders of the angelic hierarchy, a cherub. We are confused as to the manner in which a presumably purely spiritual entity has been anointed. We are uncertain of how to understand the strange expression of “stones of fire”. We have serious reservations when certain commentators identify these fiery stones with either the planets or the stars. We can only speculate that the ancients reasoned that since planets and stars are “ bright” and fire is bright, then the planets and stars are fire. We are uncertain as to the the method of reasoning that would conclude that the stars and planets are stones.
15 “Thou wast perfect in thy ways ...till iniquity was found in thee.”
The epitome of stating the obvious is to write that one is perfect until one becomes imperfect, or a thing has a certain quality until it does not have this quality. The significance of this passage eludes this commentator.
16 “I [God] will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.”
God will destroy either the king or the cherub from among the “stones of fire”. Since the Hebrew language does not possess tenses (past, present, or future), this section may be understood as having occurred in the past: God has destroyed. Therefore, this verse presents multiple viable interpretations.
17 “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness”
Once again, wisdom is associated with beauty and brightness. If the passage references the cherub, then the past tense may be appropriate, however, if the king is addressed, then the present tense would be appropriate (“heart is lifted” and “thou art corrupted”). Unfortunately, the context cannot provide satisfactory hints towards one unambiguous solution.
Luke 10:18 “I [Jesus] beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”
In the form or appearance of lightning, Satan, the accuser, departs heaven. Lighting is bright and, as we have demonstrated, brightness is frequently associated with wisdom. In the introductory section of the book of Job, Satan presents himself before God on two occasions. While Satan, in the popular imagination, is opposed to God, the book of Job is clear that Satan is a faithful servant; faithful, because Satan complies with God’s commands and restrictions. The conventional opinion is that good originates from God, while evil has its source in Satan, is, in a word, incorrect.
“I [Jesus] … am the bright and morning star.” Revelation 22:16
Unless the Gentle Reader wishes to conflate Satan and Jesus, since both are the morning star, it is desirable to dismiss the opinion of inerrant scripture and accept both passages as examples of poetic licence, that is, the works are to be enjoyed as literature, they are not to be understood literally.
The following quotes are from the twenty eighth chapter of Ezekiel.
3 “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.”
The king of Tyre is wiser than Daniel, not as may be expected, wiser than Solomon.
4 “With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures.”
One tangible result of the king's wisdom is wealth.
5 “By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches.”
Understanding and engaging in commerce results in wealth and this, in turn, culminates in pride.
7 “I [God] will bring ... the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.”
Wisdom is described as beautiful and as bright. Even today, certain individuals are said to be “not too bright” or dim.
12-13 “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God”
Interestingly, “Son of man” is an expression used by Jesus and is also found in the Acts Of the Apostles. Unlike the Greek word for man, the Hebrew word allows for multiple translations, to wit, “Son of man”, “Son of red earth”, and “Son of Adam”.
Once again wisdom is associated with beauty. Since the author does not indicate why the king was in the garden, or the significance of this statement, we cannot know either the reason or significance. We caution that any explanations or suggestions that the king of Tyrus interacted with Adam and the woman in the Garden of Pleasure is conjecture with limited evidence.
14 “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and ... thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.”
The king is said to be a not only an angel, but a member of the highest of the nine orders of the angelic hierarchy, a cherub. We are confused as to the manner in which a presumably purely spiritual entity has been anointed. We are uncertain of how to understand the strange expression of “stones of fire”. We have serious reservations when certain commentators identify these fiery stones with either the planets or the stars. We can only speculate that the ancients reasoned that since planets and stars are “ bright” and fire is bright, then the planets and stars are fire. We are uncertain as to the the method of reasoning that would conclude that the stars and planets are stones.
15 “Thou wast perfect in thy ways ...till iniquity was found in thee.”
The epitome of stating the obvious is to write that one is perfect until one becomes imperfect, or a thing has a certain quality until it does not have this quality. The significance of this passage eludes this commentator.
16 “I [God] will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.”
God will destroy either the king or the cherub from among the “stones of fire”. Since the Hebrew language does not possess tenses (past, present, or future), this section may be understood as having occurred in the past: God has destroyed. Therefore, this verse presents multiple viable interpretations.
17 “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness”
Once again, wisdom is associated with beauty and brightness. If the passage references the cherub, then the past tense may be appropriate, however, if the king is addressed, then the present tense would be appropriate (“heart is lifted” and “thou art corrupted”). Unfortunately, the context cannot provide satisfactory hints towards one unambiguous solution.
Luke 10:18 “I [Jesus] beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”
In the form or appearance of lightning, Satan, the accuser, departs heaven. Lighting is bright and, as we have demonstrated, brightness is frequently associated with wisdom. In the introductory section of the book of Job, Satan presents himself before God on two occasions. While Satan, in the popular imagination, is opposed to God, the book of Job is clear that Satan is a faithful servant; faithful, because Satan complies with God’s commands and restrictions. The conventional opinion is that good originates from God, while evil has its source in Satan, is, in a word, incorrect.
We are grateful that we can appeal to the authority of various passages of recognized scripture to dispel these pernicious opinions that remove evil from God's universal sovereignty and domain. Job, himself, knows that both good and evil have their origin in God.
“But he [Job] said unto her [Job’s wife], Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).
Job does not make the statement that both good and evil originate from God, nor is this inquiry to be answered by his wife; the question is rhetorical only. Interrogative statements cannot offer clarification, as only declaratory statements can provide clarification, and even then, not all declaratory statements are explicit and unambiguous.
“I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:6-7)
Scripture, in these passages, is unambiguous: the Lord creates “evil”.
Certain commentators are willing, all too willing, to associate Ezekiel’s poetic licence of describing the king as the cherub with not only Satan, but with Lucifer and with the serpent in the Garden of Delight. Genesis relates that the cherubs with flaming swords were present in the garden to prevent Adam and the woman from eating of the tree of life.
The liberal application of presumptions allows the covering cherub to be identified with the serpent and additional assumptions will inevitably connect the serpent with Satan. As the Gentle Reader may surmise, this questionable type of exegesis is fraught with difficulties and concludes that the serpent is the covering cherub is Satan is Lucifer. These four distance roles are conflated into one character and we are not surprised that the conventional opinion identifies the serpent with legs as Satan. As Saint Paul correctly noted, God is not the author of confusion, however Biblical commentators are the source of unnecessary difficulties.
As a general observation, people who claim to believe in inerrant scripture engage in two types of questionable behavior.
Scripture is clear that the man was deceived by a cunning serpent with legs. For those individuals who hold the opinion that man was created perfect, it is inconceivable that a lowly serpent could be so successful in convincing the man to transgress the commandment, so it is speculated that the serpent was Satan in disguise, for only the enemy of God would attempt so diabolical feat as corrupting not only man, but all of creation, and succeed.
However, scripture explicitly states that Adam is a man and males, according to Jewish custom, become men at age thirteen. It is not so extraordinary for us to accept that a naive teenager, where few experiences are to understood as newly created, made a poor choice; the cunning serpent with legs is sufficient to beguile Adam, no bright covering anointed cherub is necessary.
In conclusion to this part, if specific passages that do not conform to certain opinions, then additional passages must be referenced to justify, to varying degrees of success, these preconceived ideas.
“But he [Job] said unto her [Job’s wife], Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).
Job does not make the statement that both good and evil originate from God, nor is this inquiry to be answered by his wife; the question is rhetorical only. Interrogative statements cannot offer clarification, as only declaratory statements can provide clarification, and even then, not all declaratory statements are explicit and unambiguous.
“I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:6-7)
Scripture, in these passages, is unambiguous: the Lord creates “evil”.
Certain commentators are willing, all too willing, to associate Ezekiel’s poetic licence of describing the king as the cherub with not only Satan, but with Lucifer and with the serpent in the Garden of Delight. Genesis relates that the cherubs with flaming swords were present in the garden to prevent Adam and the woman from eating of the tree of life.
The liberal application of presumptions allows the covering cherub to be identified with the serpent and additional assumptions will inevitably connect the serpent with Satan. As the Gentle Reader may surmise, this questionable type of exegesis is fraught with difficulties and concludes that the serpent is the covering cherub is Satan is Lucifer. These four distance roles are conflated into one character and we are not surprised that the conventional opinion identifies the serpent with legs as Satan. As Saint Paul correctly noted, God is not the author of confusion, however Biblical commentators are the source of unnecessary difficulties.
As a general observation, people who claim to believe in inerrant scripture engage in two types of questionable behavior.
Scripture is clear that the man was deceived by a cunning serpent with legs. For those individuals who hold the opinion that man was created perfect, it is inconceivable that a lowly serpent could be so successful in convincing the man to transgress the commandment, so it is speculated that the serpent was Satan in disguise, for only the enemy of God would attempt so diabolical feat as corrupting not only man, but all of creation, and succeed.
However, scripture explicitly states that Adam is a man and males, according to Jewish custom, become men at age thirteen. It is not so extraordinary for us to accept that a naive teenager, where few experiences are to understood as newly created, made a poor choice; the cunning serpent with legs is sufficient to beguile Adam, no bright covering anointed cherub is necessary.
In conclusion to this part, if specific passages that do not conform to certain opinions, then additional passages must be referenced to justify, to varying degrees of success, these preconceived ideas.
Scripture is clear: the Lord God creates evil. Yet, because of the long held opinion that only Satan creates and engages in evil, this passage from the prophet Isaiah is either ignored by commentators or, when discussed, the art of sophistry appears. The “long held opinion” applies both to individual beliefs and centuries of teaching. In our example from Isaiah, sophistry will successfully demonstrate, even prove, that God does not create evil, since, as everyone knows, Satan creates evil.
We conclude that for unknown reasons, people are attracted to Scripture, not to learn, but to seek validation for their beliefs and opinions. Instead of accepting the clear meaning of scripture and acknowledging the error of their opinion, certain commentators and promoters of certain opinions “heap coals” upon their heads by appealing to other Biblical passages, thereby compounding their initial, but easily correctable, error. Saint Paul describes these individuals as always learning the opinions of others, but never coming to the truth of scripture. We agree with Saint Paul's assessment: “The God of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not.”
In conclusion, the inability of certain individuals to accept the clear meaning or understanding of scripture leads to their manipulation of scripture into a form that is personally acceptable and, unfortunately, the resulting pleasantness is not synonymous with eternal truthfulness.
The Gentle Reader should seek independent confirmation of our observation that the truth is not pleasant. We offer the following evidence for his consideration:
If the truth were pleasant, then everyone would be attracted to it, go forth to it, and embrace it.
However, long and painful experience demonstrates that people seek the enjoyable, the pleasant, and the amusing, that is, opinions, and have neither need nor concern for truth, whether scriptural or otherwise. We suggest the reason that people are drawn to variety or opinions, is that one can not hold or believe a wrong opinion. It seems that people desire to be at all times correct regarding opinions; they do not want facts to interfere with their opinions, hence, facts are avoided. Facts are not easily subject to varied understandings and individuals can have incorrect opinions where either facts or reality are considered. Clearly, those who seek the invariable, the eternal, the truth, are one in a thousand or two in ten thousand.
We conclude that for unknown reasons, people are attracted to Scripture, not to learn, but to seek validation for their beliefs and opinions. Instead of accepting the clear meaning of scripture and acknowledging the error of their opinion, certain commentators and promoters of certain opinions “heap coals” upon their heads by appealing to other Biblical passages, thereby compounding their initial, but easily correctable, error. Saint Paul describes these individuals as always learning the opinions of others, but never coming to the truth of scripture. We agree with Saint Paul's assessment: “The God of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not.”
In conclusion, the inability of certain individuals to accept the clear meaning or understanding of scripture leads to their manipulation of scripture into a form that is personally acceptable and, unfortunately, the resulting pleasantness is not synonymous with eternal truthfulness.
The Gentle Reader should seek independent confirmation of our observation that the truth is not pleasant. We offer the following evidence for his consideration:
If the truth were pleasant, then everyone would be attracted to it, go forth to it, and embrace it.
However, long and painful experience demonstrates that people seek the enjoyable, the pleasant, and the amusing, that is, opinions, and have neither need nor concern for truth, whether scriptural or otherwise. We suggest the reason that people are drawn to variety or opinions, is that one can not hold or believe a wrong opinion. It seems that people desire to be at all times correct regarding opinions; they do not want facts to interfere with their opinions, hence, facts are avoided. Facts are not easily subject to varied understandings and individuals can have incorrect opinions where either facts or reality are considered. Clearly, those who seek the invariable, the eternal, the truth, are one in a thousand or two in ten thousand.
We remain uncertain if the bright morning star will be successful in his attempt of being like the most high. We only know that the Orthodox church teaches being “like”, or similar, to God is the goal of humanity. As far as we know, the Holy Spirit has not revealed to the Church if planets and messengers will partake of theosis and we will successfully resist the urge to idly speculate.
Certain commentators hold to the false belief that scripture is the source of Christianity. Unlike the Moderns, we are not concerned with intentions, whether good or otherwise, only in the results. If this belief that the authority of scripture supersedes the authority of the Orthodox Church were correct, then Christianity could not exist before the Age of Printing. Since Orthodox Christianity did exist before scripture, as history readily demonstrates, it follows that Orthodox Christianity cannot be based on scripture. We observe that Heterodox Christianity is based on scripture, as forty thousand denominations attest to the appeal of the variable, the temporal, and the false.
The Gentle Researcher will readily understand that false beliefs can only exist when opinions are the standard for both inquiry and discourse. Should truth be the goal, facts must be esteemed and referenced. There is no other method.
Modern scholarship suggests the first Gospel was written within a decade of the crucifixion and the remaining canonical gospels are dated within the following seventy years. The Orthodox Church long held the opinion that Christ was born in the year six thousand of the world, or the year 492 of our calendar. In light of this fact, it is not surprising that the Orthodox church does not have a dogmatic statement on the year of Christ’s birth. In the year 1516, Erasmus published the “New Teachings”.
From the preceding suppositions and facts we may conclude that the year of Christ’s birth is unknown, as the range of years extends from the year 4 B.C. to the fifteenth century. We include the late dating of fifteenth century as possibility by referencing both the date of the “New Teachings” and the scholarly consensus of the collation of the New Testament as occurring within a century of Christ’s crucifixion (A.D. 1516-100 years =A.D. 1416, or the 15th century). Should the Gentle Reader prefer the year of 1413 as the time of the crucifixion, he may be pleased to learn that the city fell forty years later, in the year 1453.
Any attempts to determine the year, let alone the day, of the crucifixion is the modern equivalent of the medieval pastime of calculating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. In the age of certainty, the fact that we can not determine the year of an event as important as the crucifixion is disconcerting to most people, especially for those individuals with opinions. We caution that the scattering of the names of national and local political leaders can not provide evidence for any specific date or a range of dates in the absence of a chronological system. The supposition that Christ lived from 4 B.C. to A.D. 30 is based entirely on the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius as formulated and expounded in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For this researcher, the opinion of Scaliger is less satisfying than the Orthodox opinion, at the least the Orthodox have a reason for their supposition, six thousand years of the world corresponds to the six days of creation.
As there is no primary evidence that a person known as the Anointed Savior lived, we are certain that we know nothing concerning the life of Christ, and we make no claims to knowledge we do not possess. As Occult Researchers cum Philologists, we are conservative and, therefore, we can only claim a belief in Christ and his work and, so there is no potential for an honest misunderstanding, we expressly state our belief that Christ did live, that is, he existed. Unfortunately for those individuals enamored of certainty, we can not claim to know what Christ either did or accomplished, if anything. We only know what is found in scripture and what the Church teaches concerning the life of Christ, for to claim knowledge that is not available to us may lead the Gentle Reader to reasonably conclude we are privileged with the rare gift of supernatural revelations. So there is no potential for an honest misunderstanding, we expressly state we have had no supernatural revelations concerning Christ.
In conclusion to this part, we have no knowledge regarding Christ nor have we experienced a supernatural revelation concerning Christ. Therefore, we are truly ignorant during a epoch that values certainty. Yet, our ignorance is not a hindrance to believing what the Church teaches regarding Christ and his mission.
Certain commentators hold to the false belief that scripture is the source of Christianity. Unlike the Moderns, we are not concerned with intentions, whether good or otherwise, only in the results. If this belief that the authority of scripture supersedes the authority of the Orthodox Church were correct, then Christianity could not exist before the Age of Printing. Since Orthodox Christianity did exist before scripture, as history readily demonstrates, it follows that Orthodox Christianity cannot be based on scripture. We observe that Heterodox Christianity is based on scripture, as forty thousand denominations attest to the appeal of the variable, the temporal, and the false.
The Gentle Researcher will readily understand that false beliefs can only exist when opinions are the standard for both inquiry and discourse. Should truth be the goal, facts must be esteemed and referenced. There is no other method.
Modern scholarship suggests the first Gospel was written within a decade of the crucifixion and the remaining canonical gospels are dated within the following seventy years. The Orthodox Church long held the opinion that Christ was born in the year six thousand of the world, or the year 492 of our calendar. In light of this fact, it is not surprising that the Orthodox church does not have a dogmatic statement on the year of Christ’s birth. In the year 1516, Erasmus published the “New Teachings”.
From the preceding suppositions and facts we may conclude that the year of Christ’s birth is unknown, as the range of years extends from the year 4 B.C. to the fifteenth century. We include the late dating of fifteenth century as possibility by referencing both the date of the “New Teachings” and the scholarly consensus of the collation of the New Testament as occurring within a century of Christ’s crucifixion (A.D. 1516-100 years =A.D. 1416, or the 15th century). Should the Gentle Reader prefer the year of 1413 as the time of the crucifixion, he may be pleased to learn that the city fell forty years later, in the year 1453.
Any attempts to determine the year, let alone the day, of the crucifixion is the modern equivalent of the medieval pastime of calculating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. In the age of certainty, the fact that we can not determine the year of an event as important as the crucifixion is disconcerting to most people, especially for those individuals with opinions. We caution that the scattering of the names of national and local political leaders can not provide evidence for any specific date or a range of dates in the absence of a chronological system. The supposition that Christ lived from 4 B.C. to A.D. 30 is based entirely on the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius as formulated and expounded in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For this researcher, the opinion of Scaliger is less satisfying than the Orthodox opinion, at the least the Orthodox have a reason for their supposition, six thousand years of the world corresponds to the six days of creation.
As there is no primary evidence that a person known as the Anointed Savior lived, we are certain that we know nothing concerning the life of Christ, and we make no claims to knowledge we do not possess. As Occult Researchers cum Philologists, we are conservative and, therefore, we can only claim a belief in Christ and his work and, so there is no potential for an honest misunderstanding, we expressly state our belief that Christ did live, that is, he existed. Unfortunately for those individuals enamored of certainty, we can not claim to know what Christ either did or accomplished, if anything. We only know what is found in scripture and what the Church teaches concerning the life of Christ, for to claim knowledge that is not available to us may lead the Gentle Reader to reasonably conclude we are privileged with the rare gift of supernatural revelations. So there is no potential for an honest misunderstanding, we expressly state we have had no supernatural revelations concerning Christ.
In conclusion to this part, we have no knowledge regarding Christ nor have we experienced a supernatural revelation concerning Christ. Therefore, we are truly ignorant during a epoch that values certainty. Yet, our ignorance is not a hindrance to believing what the Church teaches regarding Christ and his mission.
There are many opinions explaining not only the meaning, but the purpose of the Incarnation. We are rightly suspicious of claims that appear from nowhere, without a historical precedent.
The Orthodox Church teaches that man can become divine and, in technical language, the word for this transformation is “theosis”. The concept is that certain energies of God are dedicated to transforming people into divinities. The Orthodox church is clear that God's essence is not our essence and we will not partake of God's essence, yet we will changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, into our full potential. The teaching of the Orthodox Church always makes a distinction between God's essence and God's energies. The Gentle Reader may recall that in the writings attributed to the Church Fathers there are manifold references to essenses, both divine and mundane, but no indication of divine energies. When we consider the totality of the works assigned to the Church Fathers, we rightly ask: “What is the omission of such a vital topic, but the subtle denial of it?” The Gentle Reader may not be concerned with the euphemistic names of prostitutes in Rome, however, this subject is explored under the name of Saint Augustine.
As Hardouin observed, the writings of the Church Fathers, when correctly understood, are monuments to atheism. This atheism is not explicit, for it would be condemned, it is subtle atheism, so it is unrecognised, and these works are subsequently promoted as though the authors had the mind of Christ. Although the Orthodox Church quotes from the Church Fathers, it gives the proper sense and meaning to those passages, that is, the Orthodox Church does not rely upon one Church Father to explain a passage in the work of another Church Father, nor does it accept every work assigned to the Church Fathers as inspired. The Orthodox Church interprets the Church Fathers and teaches by its authority.
Just as the Orthodox Church preceded scripture and is not founded upon scripture, so the Orthodox Church preceded the Church Fathers; the Orthodox Church is not based or founded upon the writings of the Church Fathers, so called.
Saint Paul expressly writes that faith is the belief in things not seen. As the Bible is visible and consequently known, is the modern profession of faith in the Bible a subtle denial of Saint Paul?
We are a spectacle to men and angels, as we are uncertain when Christ lived, what he accomplished, the year of the Crucifixion, the claim of one inerrant version of scripture, our final destiny beyond this world, the arguments for an immortal soul, and likelihood of supernatural revelations. While uncertainties abound, we remain confident in the possibility of theosis, as far as our reason, humanly speaking, is able to understand it. Therefore, although we may be miserable men, we are not the most miserable of men, for we are not without faith; the belief in things not seen.
Perhaps our time in the wonderful world of Occult Research has prepared us to accept that some inquiries result in terrible answers, thereby allowing us to appreciate that, in some instances, research should properly be considered as the initial effort and what follows is not always the end, the answer, but a beginning.
The Orthodox Church teaches that man can become divine and, in technical language, the word for this transformation is “theosis”. The concept is that certain energies of God are dedicated to transforming people into divinities. The Orthodox church is clear that God's essence is not our essence and we will not partake of God's essence, yet we will changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, into our full potential. The teaching of the Orthodox Church always makes a distinction between God's essence and God's energies. The Gentle Reader may recall that in the writings attributed to the Church Fathers there are manifold references to essenses, both divine and mundane, but no indication of divine energies. When we consider the totality of the works assigned to the Church Fathers, we rightly ask: “What is the omission of such a vital topic, but the subtle denial of it?” The Gentle Reader may not be concerned with the euphemistic names of prostitutes in Rome, however, this subject is explored under the name of Saint Augustine.
As Hardouin observed, the writings of the Church Fathers, when correctly understood, are monuments to atheism. This atheism is not explicit, for it would be condemned, it is subtle atheism, so it is unrecognised, and these works are subsequently promoted as though the authors had the mind of Christ. Although the Orthodox Church quotes from the Church Fathers, it gives the proper sense and meaning to those passages, that is, the Orthodox Church does not rely upon one Church Father to explain a passage in the work of another Church Father, nor does it accept every work assigned to the Church Fathers as inspired. The Orthodox Church interprets the Church Fathers and teaches by its authority.
Just as the Orthodox Church preceded scripture and is not founded upon scripture, so the Orthodox Church preceded the Church Fathers; the Orthodox Church is not based or founded upon the writings of the Church Fathers, so called.
Saint Paul expressly writes that faith is the belief in things not seen. As the Bible is visible and consequently known, is the modern profession of faith in the Bible a subtle denial of Saint Paul?
We are a spectacle to men and angels, as we are uncertain when Christ lived, what he accomplished, the year of the Crucifixion, the claim of one inerrant version of scripture, our final destiny beyond this world, the arguments for an immortal soul, and likelihood of supernatural revelations. While uncertainties abound, we remain confident in the possibility of theosis, as far as our reason, humanly speaking, is able to understand it. Therefore, although we may be miserable men, we are not the most miserable of men, for we are not without faith; the belief in things not seen.
Perhaps our time in the wonderful world of Occult Research has prepared us to accept that some inquiries result in terrible answers, thereby allowing us to appreciate that, in some instances, research should properly be considered as the initial effort and what follows is not always the end, the answer, but a beginning.
Finally, on that great and dreadful day, should I be confronted with that terrible question, either singularly or, ironically, by a chorus of Apprentices, of “Did you always know?”, I can only respond:
“Oh, no.
No, I didn't.
But, I believed.
I believed.”
No, I didn't.
But, I believed.
I believed.”
“Assistant to Apprentice Denver Joe” is the penultimate occasion for Yours Truly to write this awkwardly worded title and the Gentle Reader may justly assume that its source is none other than Joe. Around the time of the creation of Apprentice Denver, Joe had no desire to study under a Master of the Occult Arts and Sciences, but wanted to be Apprentice Denver’s assistant. In the entire written history of the Occult, there was no precedent for such a position as an assistant, so Yours Truly denied Joe's request.
However, Joe being Joe, and in the fullness of time, Yours Truly acquiesced and created this position and, not willing to be overshadowed by a youth, subsequently created a position inferior to it: “Associate Assistant to Apprentice Denver Joe Isaac (Newton)”.
Therefore, without further reminisces-
However, Joe being Joe, and in the fullness of time, Yours Truly acquiesced and created this position and, not willing to be overshadowed by a youth, subsequently created a position inferior to it: “Associate Assistant to Apprentice Denver Joe Isaac (Newton)”.
Therefore, without further reminisces-
|
By the plenitude of power authorized and granted by the Ancient and Esteemed Order of Hierophants, it is duly proclaimed, declared, and exclaimed that Assistant to Apprentice Denver Joe is hereby elevated to the exalted and sublime position of Apprentice and shall henceforth be recognized as Apprentice Joe to a Master of the Occult Arts and Sciences.
All rights, privileges, and benefits associated with said position, current and future, are hereby solemnly bestowed and conferred upon Apprentice Joe this first day of May in the year of our Lord and Master two thousand seventeen. So mote it be. G.D.O’Bradovich III |
