Posted by: mystic444 | July 13, 2014

Israeli “Self Defense” and Pursuit of Peace

Imagine the situation where organized crime (let’s call it the Mafia) has taken control of a neighborhood or town. Mafia agents have by illicit means gained control of houses and businesses and have evicted or murdered legitimate residents or business people. Those whom they have allowed to stay are subject to a ‘protection racket’: the Mafia promises ‘protection’ in exchange for a fee. The only problem is that the violence from which the people are being ‘protected’ is the violence the Mafia will perform if the people don’t pay the ‘protection’ fee.

Now imagine further that some of the oppressed people (whether those who were evicted and the families of those who were murdered, or those who have been permitted to remain) decide to resist the powerful Mafia; they refuse to pay the ‘protection’ money and meet the Mafia collectors with weapons – or those who were evicted form armed militias to take back their former possessions. Question: does the criminal Mafia have a legal right of ‘self defense’ against the resistance of the oppressed residents/former residents and business people? Are the residents/former residents ‘terrorists’ for violently resisting the oppression of the criminal Mafia?

I would think that anyone possessing any ‘common sense’ would join me in answering with an emphatic “NO” to those questions. The resistance of the oppressed against the Mafia is the legitimate act of self defense; and the agents of resistance are brave and ‘heroes’ even if their resistance is weak and mostly futile. The so-called ‘self defense’ of the Mafia is instead just a continuation of their criminal aggression. The only ‘right’ the Mafia has is to cease and desist from their oppression and terrorism.

This is precisely the situation with the “Jewish State of Israel” and Palestine. The “Jewish State of Israel” is organized crime. From the very beginnings of “Zionism”, the Jewish Zionists sought to evict or kill the legitimate occupants of Palestine and form their own nation of “Israel”. In this effort they have been partially successful, forming the nation of “Israel” in 1948. Thus far, though, they have not managed to steal the whole “Promised Land” (from the Nile to the Euphrates); so far they have been forced to allow a portion of the land to remain in the possession of Palestinians – though even that portion is actually under “Israeli” control. Palestine is still not formally recognized as a “State” – though “Israel” demands their own right to exist as a “Jewish State”. Palestine is not allowed to form their own military and “legally” obtain weapons; those resistance groups who sneak in weapons and make weak and mostly ineffectual efforts at active resistance are labeled “terrorists”.

The organized crime family of “Israel” has duped “Western” nations into accepting the idea that they had a right to murder or evict the residents of Palestine; and that their present continuation of aggression against the Palestinians is simply ‘self defense’ in pursuit of their supposed “right” to exist as a nation in stolen territory. Just as the Mafia had/has ‘bought and paid for’ representatives in police and government who cover for and protect Mafia activities; so “Israel” has “bought and paid for” representatives in “Western” government, military, media, and entertainment who loudly maintain the ‘justice’ of the “Israeli” cause, and make sure “Western” governments continue to support “Israel’s” ‘right of self defense’ against those Palestinian ‘terrorists’.

That, of course, is as much a load of excrement as the Mafia claiming they have the right to “defend themselves” against the people whom they oppress. I for one simply will not acknowledge such a “right” for the “Israelis”; but I will most certainly grant that right to the oppressed Palestinians who have the courage to resist “Israeli” crime and corruption – whether that resistance is labeled “Hamas”, “Hezbollah”, or just simply “Palestinian resistance”. Long live that resistance, and may the “Jewish State” be dissolved and government of the whole land (currently divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”) be returned to the Palestinians.

Another deception of the “Israelis” is the idea that all they want is “peace”. Jewish propagandists repeat over and over that “Israel” has continually pursued “peace”, but those awful Palestinians just won’t accept it! This is another load of excrement. Those Jews who genuinely do desire to pursue peace are those who are siding with the Palestinians – with varying degrees of consistency, however. The most consistent are those such as “Neturei Karta” who openly proclaim that “Zionism” was an evil thing from its beginnings toward the end of the 19th century, and the consequent “Jewish State of Israel” has absolutely no legitimacy. They agree that the “Jewish State” should be dissolved, and the land and its government be returned to the Palestinian people from whom the land was stolen. The less consistent somehow adhere to the essential “right” of the “Israeli State” to exist, but denounce present day atrocities committed by that State (such as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and the vicious military attacks against Gaza).

In reality, though, the pursuit of peace with “Gentiles” by the Jews is quite opposite to the teaching of the “Torah” (“Law of Moses”) which forms the foundation of Jewish religion and culture. In fact, the “Torah” specifically forbids such a pursuit! Listen to what the supposed “Word of God” says about the Jews’ relationship to the Ammonites and Moabites. Because those peoples didn’t welcome the invading Israelites with open arms, Deuteronomy 23:3-6 says that no member of those peoples may ever enter the assembly of the LORD. In fact, this emphatic command is given (verse 6): You shall not seek their peace or prosperity all your days forever.

Then there was this commandment concerning 7 “nations” whom the Israelites would encounter when entering the “Promised Land” of Palestine (in other words, the legitimate occupiers of that land): … when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them (Deuteronomy 7:2). There is certainly no basis for pursuing peace with Palestinians there!!

Once again, consider the supposed commandment of God concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31. The LORD, we are told, commanded Moses to get revenge on those evil Midianites because they had been complicit in the hiring of Balaam to “curse” Israel. Balaam came up with the idea of having the Palestinian women seduce the Israelite men – thus causing the Israelite men to ‘sin against God’. So, in keeping with “the LORD’s” commandment to get revenge, the Israelites attacked Midian, killed all the men, and took the women and children captive. But Moses became extremely angry that the women and children had been permitted to live; so in verses 17 and 18 (of Numbers 31) Moses commanded that all the male children should be killed, and also all females who were not virgins! All the virgin female children, though, they could keep alive for yourselves! My, what a peace loving, moral “LORD”! :roll:

No, Judaism has no place for seeking the peace of Gentiles. And “the Jewish State of Israel” has not been in pursuit of such an ideal since its founding, despite their lying, deceptive propaganda to the contrary. Even those “Jews” who are atheists have still had this Biblical antagonism toward the Gentiles firmly planted in their consciousness (or subconscious); so it’s there even if they don’t have “God” as an excuse for it.

Still, the Bible is very contradictory; so a Jew who truly has a good heart can find indications here and there in the Hebrew Scriptures that there at least once existed a more open and less vicious Israelite teaching. That would have been before the scribes falsified the “Law of the LORD” so that the true “Law” ceased to exist among the Jews (Jeremiah 8:8) – and thus ‘Judaism’ came into being. Jews who are truly uncomfortable with, or offended by, the atrocious teachings in their “Scriptures” can indeed find hints of this early form of religion and grab hold of them. How they deal with the more usual evil teachings I don’t know; I’ll leave that to them to figure out.

So, for instance, one can point out that the wife of Moses was a Midianite woman; and her father was the priest of Midian (Exodus chapters 2 and 3). In Exodus 18 we are told that Moses honored his Midianite priest father-in-law Jethro and was quite willing to accept and put into practice some sound advice he gave to Moses. This is quite a contrast to the vicious treatment of Midianites attributed to God and Moses in Numbers 31.

It can also be pointed out that King David’s grandmother was a Moabite (despite the strong injunctions against Moabites and Ammonites in Deuteronomy 23). Her name was Ruth, and she has a book in the Hebrew Scriptures named after her (and dedicated to telling her story). It seems that Ruth’s Jewish father-in-law Elimelech and Jewish mother-in-law Naomi moved to the land of Moab when there was a famine in Israel. In Moab, their 2 sons married Moabite women (Ruth and Orpah). Apparently they weren’t familiar with the supposed commandments in “the Law of Moses” against seeking the peace and prosperity of Moabites, and against permitting a Moabite to “enter into the assembly of the LORD”! (I’m sure they weren’t, because it was much later that the scribes falsified the “Law” and inserted their lies.)

Elimelech and his two sons died in the land of Moab, and eventually Naomi decided to return to Israel when she heard that the famine was over. Orpah was persuaded to remain in Moab with her people and gods; but Ruth was determined to stay with Naomi and adopt the Israelite people and their God as her own. In Israel, Ruth met and married Boaz, who was a kinsman of Elimelech (Naomi’s deceased husband). Boaz and Ruth had a son named Jesse; and Jesse was the father of David.

As pointed out in a previous article (Is God the Author of “the Law of Moses”?) a number of the Prophets repudiated the Torah, saying it did not represent the true Law of the LORD. I’m sure that it is quite possible that there are Jews today who are more in line with those Prophets in repudiating “the Law” and the Talmud, than they are with Judaism. They would perhaps agree with the Prophet Micah (6:8): He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Such Jews will side with the Palestinians against the viciousness of the “Israeli” State – even if they believe that the existence of the “Israeli” State is legitimate.

Posted by: mystic444 | June 15, 2014

The New Testament’s View of ‘Israel’

One has to wonder whether ‘Christians’ have lost all ability to read with comprehension the New Testament ‘Scriptures’ which they claim to believe. These days, we have ‘Christians’ ranging from ‘far right’ Conservatives and Evangelicals like Baptist pastor John Hagee to the Roman Catholic Pope, openly and unblushingly proclaiming that the Jews/”Israel” are ‘still’ “God’s chosen people” with special covenants – particularly a covenant granting possession of a piece of real estate in the Middle East – which belong to them alone (as opposed to all non-Jews/Gentiles). We know that this is so – we are told – because the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:29 that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”. Yet no one seems to comprehend that such a notion of racial Jews and national “Israel” having irrevocable claim to such materialistic covenant blessings peculiar to them alone is completely contrary to the argument of Paul and the teachings of Jesus Christ! :roll:

It’s true that in that very interesting portion of Romans – chapters 9-11 – Paul began by expressing his concern and sorrow for his brothers ‘according to the flesh’, the Israelites who have been given wonderful covenants and promises (9:1-5). In chapter 10 verse one Paul said my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved; and by the end of chapter 11 he has reasoned to the conclusion that and so all Israel will be saved (11:26) because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (11:29). But this conclusion concerning “all Israel” at the end of chapter 11 has been reached by qualifying and restricting the concept of “all Israel”.

The apostle Paul consistently denied that being a Jew was a matter of racial descent/genealogy; or that being “the Israel of God” was a matter of national affiliation. Near the beginning of the letter to the Roman Christians (2:28 and 29) he wrote: For he is NOT a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. In Romans 9-11, after expressing his concern and sorrow at the beginning of chapter 9, he essentially followed that up by admitting that his sorrow was misplaced because despite all appearances God’s promises to “Israel” were not failing to be accomplished. That is because …they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham… (9:6 and 7). He then began to develop that very controversial concept of “election”, and the “remnant” to whom the promises belong.

I’m not going to get involved in the controversy between ‘Calvinists’ and ‘Arminians’ concerning election and predestination. For my purpose, it is sufficient to point out that in Paul’s theology, the ‘elect remnant’ are those who at some point in their lifetimes come to embrace the faith of Abraham, and in particular faith in Jesus as the Christ and in the things he taught. Whether these people are ‘elect’ because they believe, or believe because they’re elect, they are nevertheless the same people; and one can pretty much refer to them as “believers” and “elect” interchangeably – in Paul’s theology at least.

The point is that in Romans 9 and 11 Paul insisted that “all Israel” to whom the covenants and promises were made were the elect/believers, not everyone who is born Jewish. In fact, God’s gifts and calling extend to people of all nations so that Gentile believers/elect obtain the same promised covenant blessings as Jewish believers/elect. Gentile believers in Jesus Christ are as much the “children of Abraham” as are Jewish believers in Jesus Christ; and those who reject the ‘Messiahship’ and the teachings of Jesus are not “children of Abraham” and heirs of the covenant promises no matter how pure is their physical genealogical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So when Paul said in 11:26 all Israel will be saved he was not talking about all those who are physically descended from Jacob/Israel and are physically Jews (he specifically said in 9:6 that such physical descendants of Israel are NOT “all Israel”); rather he was speaking of the elect remnant who receive the promises as opposed to “the rest” who were hardened (11:7).

But despite everything Paul has said by way of contrasting the ‘elect’/believers with Israel “according to the flesh”, those who lack the ability to read with comprehension will claim that Romans 11:28 nevertheless teaches that all physical Jews are beloved for the sake of the fathers! Here’s what the verse says: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. See, we are told, those who are enemies of the gospel are nevertheless beloved for the fathers’ sakes because of election. Never mind that this flagrantly contradicts everything which Paul has said previously!

The question should be asked, “what does ‘the election’ mean in this verse”; or rather “who are ‘the election’”? Many people read it as if ‘the election’ means simply “God’s choice”; in fact a number of translations (such as the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version) even delete the article (“the”) preceding “election” so it reads “as concerning election…” and will sound like it means “concerning God’s choice they [the Jews] are [all] beloved”. The problem is that Paul had already defined what he meant by “the election” in 11:7 – although this is obscured in all English translations I have consulted except the King James Version and one literal translation. For this reason I used the KJV for verse 28 quoted above, and will use it for verse 7 which reads: What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The same phrase – “the election” – was used in both verses; both cases included the article “the”. The Greek word for “election” (ekloge), as in English, is not the same word as is usually rendered “elect” (eklektos) though it is a cognate. “Ekloge” can be rendered “election”, “selection”, or “choice”. Since, in verse 7, “the election/choice” is contrasted with “the rest” who are hardened, it fairly obviously is synonymous with “the elect” or “the chosen” in Paul’s usage. For this reason, all English translations I have consulted (with the 2 noted exceptions) translate “the election” in verse 7 as “the elect” or similar phrases such as “the chosen” (Young’s Literal Translation); “God’s chosen servants” (Weymouth); and “the selected group” (International Standard Version).

Instead of being consistent in translation, however – except for the KJV – the English translations render the phrase in verse 28 variously as “the election”, “election” (without the article), “the selection”, “the choice”, and “God’s choice”. This prevents the reader from realizing that “the election” in verse 28 is the same as those who were contrasted with “the rest” in verse 7. In reality verse 28 has the same meaning as verse 7 and all of the rest of Paul’s teaching in Romans: “As concerning the Gospel, they [Israel ‘according to the flesh’ – ‘the rest’ of verse 7] are enemies for your sakes; but as concerning the election [the elect/chosen ones], they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes [they have obtained the promised blessing which ‘Israel’ seeks as in verse 7].”

According to Paul, Gentile believers/elect are also beloved “for the sake of the fathers” (the promise to Abraham was that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him); and they inherit the very same covenant promises and blessings as do the Jewish elect/believers. They are grafted into the same “good olive tree”. This remains true even in that future ‘golden age’ when “fullness” of blessing for the Gentiles arrives and the whole world is blessed (if that ‘postmillennial’ interpretation is correct). Paul does not foresee a time when things will return to the way they used to be (according to Paul’s theology), with the Jews being “God’s chosen people” and the Gentiles cut off from God, the covenants, and Christ. Nor does Paul foresee a day when the Jews will have their own covenant blessings separate from those of the ‘saved’ Gentiles. In Paul’s theology, all believers (Jew and Gentile) are one “in Christ Jesus” and participate in the same blessings.

This by itself should indicate what kind of blessings Paul considered to be inherent in “the covenants” and “the promises”. Just as the “Israel of God” is not the physical “Israel”, so the “promised land” is not a physical piece of real estate. The blessings belonging to God’s elect/believers are “spiritual blessing[s] in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:3), and the “promised land” is a “heavenly” country (Hebrews 11:16). Our struggle in obtaining and keeping our “promised land” is not against “flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12) – in contrast to the struggle of “Israel according to the flesh” against the Palestinians in order to steal their “promised land” from those Palestinians; and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4) in contrast to the guns and bombs used by racial Jews against the Palestinians.

This is consistent with Paul’s insistence that Jewish and Gentile believers all partake of the same covenant promises and blessings. Certainly I am not aware of any Zionist who will accept the notion that “the land of Israel” (the physical land) belongs to all believers – both Jew and Gentile – and that Jewish non-Christians (or simply non-believers) have no claim to that physical land! :lol: Nevertheless, “New Testament” theology does insist that no unbeliever (even though Jewish) has any inheritance in God’s covenants; while ALL believers (both Jewish and Gentile) have full inheritance in all of God’s covenant blessings.

All of this has been about Paul’s theology; but many people believe that Paul was more “anti-Christ” than “Christian”. So what did Jesus have to say about racial Jews and Israelites? Let me just give a couple of examples of Jesus’ thought on the matter.

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:10-12). This was said after a Roman centurion had expressed faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his servant without even coming to his house and being physically in the presence of the sick person.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:42 and 43). This statement was made after telling a parable about the leasers of a vineyard who continually refused to render to the owner his share of the produce (lease payment); they beat up and killed the servants the owner sent to collect his payment, and finally killed the owner’s son. This was a parable about the Israelites’ continual rejection and sometimes murder of the prophets who came to warn the people and to get them to ‘render to God His due’ by turning from their evil ways and properly serving God. In both passages, the teaching of Jesus seems very similar to the teaching of the apostle Paul! :shock: He taught the “replacement theology” which modern so-called Christians so despise in deference to Jewish fables!

Those who call themselves ‘Christians’ and claim to believe in the “New Testament” as “Scripture” need to wake up and read their “Scripture” more carefully. Then they need to decide whether they will believe it, or Jewish lies and myths!

As for myself, I don’t believe in a “personal” God, especially one who has ever chosen one people over everyone else; and who gives them a piece of land as their own, calling on them to murder or drive out those people who already occupy that land. “The Force” does not make ‘covenants’ with people, and especially with one people to the exclusion of all others. I believe it was wrong of early Christianity to give any credence at all to such an idea – even though they maintained that God “used to” have a favorite but doesn’t any longer.

 

Posted by: mystic444 | May 23, 2014

The Bhagavad Gita and Hinduism

Several years ago I attended, on a fairly regular basis, an Evangelical and somewhat Pentecostal Christian church of which some of my family are members. I attended those meetings despite the fact that more than 20 years previously I had repudiated evangelical Christianity. At one of those services a missionary was the visiting speaker. I will refer to this missionary as “Don” – though that’s not his real name – since that will be easier than continually saying “the missionary”. :grin: “Don” is an energetic man who is considered to be adept at using humor in presenting his message; and the members of the church love him.

On this occasion “Don” asked if anyone in the congregation had read the Bhagavad Gita, and I raised my hand to indicate that I had. I don’t remember whether there were any other hands raised, but I’m pretty sure that there weren’t more than a couple of others if any. “Don” then launched into an attempt to ridicule the Gita. The problem was, he ridiculed how “Bhagavad Gita” sounded to his ‘English ears’, rather than the content of the book. My memory doesn’t work all that well, so I don’t recall precisely what he said “Bhagavad Gita” sounded like to him; it was probably something like an Italian pasta or sandwich. :lol: Whatever it was, it was not vulgar, but it certainly wasn’t meant as a compliment! He then went on to contrast this with how beautiful the sound of “Bible” is. (“Don” likes to go into public places like restaurants and shout out the word “Bible” several times: Biiiible; Biblllle; etc.).

I could only roll my eyes at the absurdity of this attack. As I said to my son afterward, that was not an attack on the Gita, but on the language spoken by people in India. Sure “Bhagavad Gita” may sound ‘funny’ to ‘English ears’; but ‘Bible’ probably sounds ‘funny’ to some ‘Hindu ears’. The real question, though, is: what do those words mean?

“Bible” is derived from the Greek word “biblos” and the Latin “biblia” – both of which mean “book”. The Bible, then, is considered to be the “Book of God”. According to this Wikipedia article “Bhagavad” comes from “bhagavan”, which literally means “possessing fortune, prosperous”. Some further derived meanings are “illustrious, divine, venerable, holy”. This term is frequently used as a descriptive designation of the Lord Krishna or God. “Gita” means a poem or song. So “Bhagavad Gita” is usually translated “Song of God” or “Song of the Lord”.

As I told my son (and as he knew without me telling him), I really love to read books; but I love music even more than I love to read. So to my ears, “Song of God” has a more pleasant sound than “Book” of God! :grin:

But there’s a whole lot more that I like about the Gita than just the sound of the name. The Gita records a conversation between Krishna (who is viewed as an ‘avatar’ or ‘incarnation’ of the Divine – Brahman – or the Universal Soul/Lifeforce/’Atman’) and his disciple Arjuna. Arjuna is also the military leader of his people (perhaps a ‘General’?). Arjuna has been preparing his army to fight a battle in a civil war, and Krishna agreed to be his charioteer. However, as he surveyed the forces on both sides assembling for battle, he became dismayed at the thought of fighting and killing – because the opposing forces were friends and kinsmen of each other. There were fathers, sons, brothers, cousins, and nephews arrayed for battle against each other. Arjuna was so dismayed that he threw down his bow and arrows and declared he would rather be killed himself than be responsible for slaying kinsmen and friends. Krishna then undertook to revive Arjuna’s courage to fulfill his duty as military commander of his people. This provides the setting and backdrop for some of the most profound religious or spiritual philosophy ever written (in my estimation, at any rate).

It should be noted here that the historicity of the characters and the battle is not the really important thing for Hinduism. Some Hindus may believe the whole of the Gita to be literally and historically true; others may believe it to be historical fiction – partially true and partially fiction. That is, perhaps Krishna and Arjuna were true historical characters, but the battle scene being depicted was a fictional story built around those characters to serve as a backdrop to present the teaching of Krishna. Still others may consider the Gita to be entirely allegory, and believe that Arjuna and Krishna were fictional constructs. Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi said that from his very first reading he realized that the Gita was allegory. Whichever view one takes, even the most literalistic, it is still the teaching of Krishna which is the important thing.

Now I’ll attempt a brief summarization of a few of the major points of the Gita. For someone who has studied deeply and internalized the teachings of Hindu Vedic writings, this will certainly be very superficial. But perhaps it can furnish at least a simple introduction for those who are entirely unfamiliar with the subject.

Krishna told Arjuna that his concerns about fighting and killing were wise, but nevertheless useless. There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings. Nor is there any future in which we shall cease to be. Just as the dweller in this body passes through childhood, youth and old age, so at death he merely passes into another kind of body. The wise are not deceived by that… That Reality which pervades the universe is indestructible. No one has power to change the Changeless. Bodies are said to die, but That which possesses the body is eternal. It cannot be limited, or destroyed. Therefore you must fight.

“That which possesses the body” is the Universal Soul/Atman. There is only the One Atman which inhabits all bodies; each individual atman/soul is but a ‘part’ of the Whole. The ‘part’ is of the same nature as the Whole. Some say this Atman is slain, and others call It the slayer: they know nothing. How can It slay or who shall slay It? Know this Atman unborn, undying, never ceasing, never beginning, deathless, birthless, unchanging forever. How can it die the death of the body? … Worn-out garments are shed by the body: worn-out bodies are shed by the dweller within the body. New bodies are donned by the dweller, like garments. Not wounded by weapons, not burned by fire, not dried by wind, not wetted by water: such is the Atman.

Each of us is a part of the One Soul; but we have entered into the illusion of separateness and mortality. We must keep coming back in human bodies until this illusion of mortality and separateness is overcome, and we truly know and realize the Oneness and eternity of Reality. When we have reached this realized knowledge, we are in ‘Nirvana’ and have reached the point of “no return” – we will no longer be subject to the “wheel of rebirth”.

The teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is also as broadminded as it is possible to be religiously. It does not denounce any religious beliefs, even though they may be deluded and fall far short of Reality. Whether a person is polytheistic, monotheistic, or pantheistic, he is accepted by the One Soul if he is sincere in his beliefs.
Men whose discrimination has been blunted by worldly desires, establish this or that ritual or cult and resort to various deities, according to the impulse of their inborn natures. But it does not matter what deity a devotee chooses to worship. If he has faith, I make his faith unwavering. Endowed with the faith I give him, he worships that deity, and gets from it whatever he prays for. In reality, I alone am the giver.

And again: But if a man will worship me, and meditate upon me with an undistracted mind, devoting every moment to me, I shall supply all his needs, and protect his possessions from loss. Even those who worship other deities, and sacrifice to them with faith in their hearts, are really worshipping me, though with a mistaken approach. For I am the only enjoyer and the only God of all sacrifices. Nevertheless, such men must return to life on earth, because they do not recognize me in my true nature. The only ‘punishment’ for mistaken beliefs and worship is the necessity to keep returning to earthly life until our illusions and delusions are cleared away and we become ‘enlightened’.

It should be understood that in passages like these where Krishna is reported as saying that he is the giver of all gifts, the true object of worship even of those who worship other deities, etc., he is referring to himself not as the individual person known as “Krishna”, but as the Universal Soul/Atman incarnated in the body and person of Krishna. It can be confusing sometimes trying to distinguish between the individual called “Krishna” and the One inhabiting that body; but it is an important distinction to make.

According to this Vedic philosophy of the Gita, Krishna is not unique as THE one and only incarnation of the Universal Lifeforce. When goodness grows weak, when evil increases, I make myself a body. In every age I come back to deliver the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, to establish righteousness. This means that such wise men and prophets as Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) and the man we know as Jesus (the Christ) are recognized by Hinduism as equally ‘avatars’ or ‘incarnations’ of the Great Mystery, the One Soul – Brahman. This does not mean that they are the same individual soul (or the same ‘part’ of the Whole) as was incarnated as Krishna. They may be other ‘parts’ which have evolved to the point of enlightenment – the realization of their identity with the Whole – and therefore manifested the Whole, free from illusion and delusion, just as the ‘part’ known as Krishna did.

This is the teaching of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita; and it is a spiritual philosophy that I embrace with all of my heart. As I have said several times in various blog posts and comments, this “Eastern” spirituality comes closest to expressing what I believe, even though I say that I am Christian and Muslim as well as Hindu and Buddhist. Therefore, you won’t find me mocking the Gita either for its ‘sound’ or its content. :grin:

Republican political candidates seek to see which one can outdo the rest in showing allegiance to “Israel”  – and Jewish causes in general – in order to gain the financial backing of Jewish Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Now it appears that Mr. Adelson is being investigated for money laundering. I am reposting the following article from Truth Jihad. It was originally posted at “Chip” Tatum’s WikiArmy.com.

 

Money-laundering probe targets Republican “godfather” Sheldon Adelson

This just in from my recent radio guest Gene “Chip” Tatum! (Literally seconds ago…)  Sheldon Adelson, the ultra-Zionist “Las Vegas godfather” who owns the Republican Party and wants to nuke Iran, is the target of a federal money laundering probe. A key witness, Curtis Pope, is afraid for his life. You read it here first!  -KB

Plight of a Strawman – The Adelson Secret Grand Jury

by Gene “Chip” Tatum, WikiArmy.com

Last year, while I was still in Miami Federal Prison serving 9 months for leaving the country without the courts permission, I was housed next to a very interesting fellow. His name was Curtis. Looking at him, you would have never known who he was, or what he had been involved in. Curtis was attending GED classes during the day in prison. You see, he had never finished high school.

Being neighbors, we would sit and talk in our free time. In prison there is a code. You share your papers. Meaning your document, which shows what you were charged with. A person who claims they have no papers usually indicates they are hiding something,whether it be snitching, pedophile, or other undesirable charges. Well, Curtis and I shared our documents. Mine were not so impressive. It was a simple violation of federal probation by leaving the area. But his papers …now they surprised me.  Looking at him, you would have never guessed who he was or what he had been charged with!  It seems that Curtis was a star!  Well, so to speak. He was charged with laundering 326 million dollars.  That’s right, 326 MILLION!  He was associated with Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, Intabill, Check Cashing and several other enterprises that were run through Vegas, fronting for what I would later find out was Adelson’s off the top shelf businesses. I was shocked when I saw the indictment!

Pope's Family an Friends boarding a jet supplied by Sr. Partner Sheldon Adelson

We remained neighbors, and usually sat and talked when he wasn’t in GED classes. After spending time with him and hearing of the good life provided by his partners, flying him around the country in private jets, housing him in the best suites in the country and overseas, I realized that someone was using Curtis’s naive nature against him. They enlisted him as their Straw Man or Front Man.

Curtis laid out for me the ventures and each of the partners parts in the enterprises. He was comfortable now, as he was soon to be released from federal prison to go to a half-way house in Tampa, and then home to serve a term of federal supervised release (that’s the feds fancy name for probation).  About two weeks before he was to be released, he came to me with tears running down his face. He had no words, just a paper which he handed to me. His attorney had written and advised him that the FBI out of Las Vegas had an Information filed against him for Money Laundering. Now an Information is a document used as the first step in gaining a Grand Jury indictment. The FBI files the Information and the US Attorney takes it to the Grand Jury for the Indictment, which in 98% of the cases is granted. After all, the Grand Jury assumes that if the FBI and U.S. Attorneys office says someone is a bad guy, well then they probably are.

Curtis was told that he is facing a minimum of 25 more years in prison. The attorney further stated that there is the opportunity to avoid prosecution, if you turn federal witness against your former partner.  Curtis wanted my advice. A Secret Grand Jury was to be put in place to investigate his former partner. Well, Curtis Pope is not a healthy man. He lost a portion of his foot to Diabetes, has heart problems and other health issues. Twenty five additional years in a Federal Prison with the lack of healthcare provided was a death warrant. I normally would not advocate testifying for the Feds, but in this case, I did so without explanation.

“NO!”, he said. “I can’t. You don’t understand. The man I told you about and explained his place with us is too important”. “Curtis”, I started… “No!”, he stopped me. “You don’t understand. He will kill me”.

Now, he didn’t know my background, and I questioned his ability to think this out. “Curtis, no one is going to hurt you.”, I began. “You will have protection from the government (as much as it is), and they will not let anything happen to you.”. “No Gene”, he retorted. “He will kill me, my wife, my family, everyone.”. “Damn Curtis”, I said. “Who do you think it is? Bush!”. He looked at me quizzically. “No Gene. It is Sheldon Adelson!  They want me to testify in a secret Grand Jury against Sheldon Adelson”!

DAMN, I thought! (I don’t think I said it out loud).

Days passed and we discussed many options. Finally we had both come to the conclusion that if he had to spend much more time in prison, he would die.

So we decided that when the time came and he was headed to Nevada to testify, I would start publishing information on the internet to heighten awareness of his decision, and to alert the masses that if anything happened to him or his family, Sheldon Adelson was behind it.

Little did I know that I would end up in such a wonderful position to help my unsuspecting friend.

Thanks, Alt Media! Please help get the word out!

Posted by: mystic444 | March 25, 2014

Should Christians support “Israel”?

Recently a Christian minister, whose blog I read sometimes, made a trip to “Israel”/Palestine as part of a Christian tour. I was afraid that he would succumb to Zionist propaganda while there, and come back spouting nonsense about the Jewish “right” to the “holy land” and the evil of Palestinian resistance. I am quite pleased to report that I was wrong. On the contrary, the tour enabled him to have his eyes opened to the Palestinian plight and the justice of their cause; and he wrote about it in a couple of blog articles (here and here).

He still says that he seeks not to “take sides” on the issue, because there are certainly wrongs which have been committed by the Palestinians as well as the “Israelis”. But some Christians think he most certainly did “take sides” in favor of the Palestinian cause, and would reprimand him because he doesn’t seem to realize that the Bible declares that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and the land belongs to them by “Divine right”.

My contention is that for Christians the “New Testament” portion of the Bible is supposed to be their primary authority; whatever authority may be attributed to the “Old Testament” is secondary and it must be interpreted “in the light of” the “New Testament”. The foremost question for the Christian, then, should be: what do the “New Testament” writers have to say about “Israel” and “the land”? As a matter of fact, the “New Testament” either flatly repudiates the “Old Testament” assertions, says they are “no longer” valid, or reinterprets them in a ‘spiritual’ and symbolical manner. So let’s look at some of the “New Testament” teaching about “Israel” and “the promised land”.

No doubt most readers will be familiar with the story in Acts 10 about the apostle Peter and the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius. Peter had a vision (shown to him three times) in which he was presented with all kinds of animals considered ‘unclean’ by the law of Moses (and therefore supposedly by the law of God). He was told to kill and eat those animals; but being a good Jew, he refused saying he had never in his life eaten anything ‘unclean’. In response, he heard a voice telling him: “What God has made clean, do not call common.” When Peter told Cornelius about this vision, he said: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Verse 28). Again in verses 34 and 35 Peter said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Notice that Peter did not say that God “no longer” shows partiality; it was just a flat statement that God doesn’t show partiality. When the voice told him that he should not call “common” (or “unclean”) what God has “made clean”, this was in fact an explicit repudiation of the “law of Moses”. It was not that God had purified what was previously impure, so that Peter should not now pollute it; it was that Peter should not say things were unclean when God says they’re clean. When did God say those animals were clean? Well, Biblically speaking, it was “in the beginning” when God created everything. After each act of creation, God is said to have proclaimed that His creation was “good”. When he had finished all of creation, He proclaimed that it was all “very good” (Genesis 1:31). So the “law of Moses” contradicted the express declaration of God.

This was precisely the same as when Jesus (PBUH) said that divorce was contrary to God’s law (except in the case of sexual immorality). When it was pointed out that Moses’ law allowed for divorce, Jesus acknowledged that fact but then said that “it was not so in the beginning”; Moses’ permission was in violation of God’s law! (Mark 10:1-9). In the story in Acts about Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with ‘unclean’ animals, the statement about God calling those animals ‘clean’ was another repudiation of the “law of Moses”; it was the “false pen of the scribes” (Jeremiah 8:8) which had changed God’s original law into an untruth. Just as Jesus said about marriage, “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder”; so the vision said. “what God calls clean [good], you must not call defiled [common/unclean]“.

Peter realized that the meaning of the vision was not just about animals, but actually meant that the arrogant Jewish claim of being “God’s chosen” while the “Gentiles” were “unclean” was also a falsehood. God never said any such thing; the scribes had falsely inserted that notion into “the law”. God does not show partiality, but treats all humans the same way.

How I wish that the “New Testament” writers had consistently followed through on statements like this, that the “law of Moses” was deeply flawed due to scribal lies – or as Jesus is reported to have said concerning marriage and divorce, because Moses gave in to the ‘hardness of heart’ of the Jews and permitted what God had forbidden. Unfortunately the apostle Paul, who was in fact the chief ‘architect’ of the Christian church, was not able to completely abandon his Pharisaic attachment to the “Old Testament”. Instead, he worked out a ‘compromise’ whereby he taught that the Jews formerly were God’s chosen people, with special covenants from which ‘Gentiles’ were  excluded; but now that is no longer the case.

For instance, in Ephesians 2 Paul wrote: Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ... Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

That is, God used to show partiality; but He has changed His mind and decided not to any longer! :roll: Wow! How gracious of God! We lowly Gentiles should be overcome with gratitude! (Sarcasm intended). However, at least – now that the “middle wall of division” (Ephesians 2:14) which separated Jew and Gentile has been demolished – Paul never envisioned a future time when God would rebuild that demolished wall. There is (now) no difference between Jew and Gentile; and there will never again be one so far as Paul’s theology is concerned.

Paul does seem to indicate, in Romans 11, that there will be a ‘golden age’ when there will be a ‘fullness of blessing’ for both Gentiles and Jews. Postmillennialist Christians in particular like to refer to this passage. However it should be pointed out that there is no indication at all that when that ‘fullness’ arrives the Jews will have a more elevated position than the Gentiles. Jew and Gentile together will still be “branches” on the same “good olive tree” – the “good olive tree” representing the covenant blessings promised to “the fathers”. In the meantime, according to Paul, only the “elect” (believers) from both Jews and Gentiles inherit God’s blessings. Being a Jew “according to the flesh” never made anyone an ‘heir’ of God’s promises. There was an “election” from among the Jews who were the promised heirs; “the rest” are rejected and “hardened”. The failure of “the rest” to obtain the blessings did not invalidate God’s promises, because they were never intended as the heirs of those promises.

What, then, are the covenant  promises made to “the fathers”? Jews, and “Christian Zionists”, will no doubt claim that the covenants to Israel involved an earthly parcel of land to call their own, from which the Jews will rule the world. Paul nullified that idea by proclaiming that the Gentiles are now fellow heirs of the covenants and promises which formerly belonged only to the Jews. So if there is an earthly land involved in those covenants and promises, then according to Paul the Gentiles have equal claim on that land. Do you suppose our “Christian Zionists” who are so infatuated with “Israel” according-to-the-flesh will be willing to acknowledge that the Gentile Christian believers have equal claim to “the land of Israel”? I don’t think so!!! That land, according to them, belongs by Divine grant to the Jews alone. The Christian apostle Paul disagrees with them – all the covenants are equally shared by Gentile and Jewish believers, because all belong to the same Godly household; but they blindly and blithely keep spouting their nonsense about the Jews as God’s chosen ‘earthly’ people with their own special covenants and blessings as if it were “Christian” teaching. I wish that the eyes of Christians would be opened to the teachings of the very ‘Scriptures’ they claim to honor. Then they would repudiate all ideas of Jewish privilege.

I, of course, simply reject the notion that ‘God’ has ever showed partiality in his dealings with humanity; there has never been a ‘chosen nation’ having the right to murder those who weren’t so ‘blessed’ as to belong to that ‘chosen nation’, and steal their  land; and there never will be in the future. The “Old Testament” statements to the contrary are arrogant lies of the Jews, and their “Torah” (Law) is “the commandments of men” coming from “the false pen of the scribes”. I hope that Zionist “Christians” will one day see this truth, and acknowledge that Paul was mistaken when he compromised by unwillingness to go all the way with the truth (maintaining that God used to show partiality but now he doesn’t).

I also believe that all souls are equally ‘part of’ – and equally loved by – the Universal Consciousness/Source of All; and all souls will at some point consciously realize their oneness with the Source through the evolutionary process of reincarnation. May that time arrive soon!

 

 

 

 

Posted by: mystic444 | March 13, 2014

Is God the Author of “The Law of Moses”?

For Christians in general (and of course religious Jews) the answer to the question in the title of this article is an obvious and emphatic “yes!” The Jews as “God’s chosen people”; the Tabernacle (and later Temple) worship; the commands to totally destroy the enemies of the Jews; and most certainly the system of sacrifices and offerings; all of these things were inculcated in “the Law of Moses” and are to be taken as “the Law of the LORD [Yahweh or Jehovah]”.

Yet for the Prophets of the “Old Testament” the answer was totally different; it was an emphatic “no!” All of those animal sacrifices and grain offerings were innovations invented by Levites and scribes and falsely put forward as God’s Law; and the Prophets very boldly denounced them. (Those Prophets were consequently hated, persecuted, and killed by the ‘orthodox’ leaders and their followers, of course.)

Listen to the Prophet Jeremiah in 7:22-24: 22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did NOT speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

 

Jeremiah said that God commanded them to obey His voice; but burnt offerings and sacrifices were no part of what that “voice” said to them! So the Levitical sacrificial system was not an act of obedience to the true law of God! In order to try to get around this explicit declaration that the “Torah” was a result of “the false pen of the scribes” and was a lie (Jeremiah 8:8) one modern English translation has deliberately falsified Jeremiah’s statement in 7:22 by adding just one word (which nevertheless completely reversed the meaning of the Prophet). The New International Version (NIV) rendered the verse this way: For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

 

The translators of the NIV were so convinced that the Biblical writers could not contradict each other, that when they came across this flagrant contradiction in Jeremiah they felt they had to ‘piously’ correct the Prophet! Instead, they have opened themselves up to the denunciation of Jeremiah in 8:8 – their ‘pen’ became a ‘false pen’ and they turned the Prophet’s statement into a lie! Because they agree with the lying scribes, they themselves become liars!

 

Here’s Jeremiah again in chapter 6:16-20: 16 Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ 17 I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’ 18 Therefore hear, O nations, and know, O congregation, what will happen to them. 19 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not paid attention to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. 20 What use to me is frankincense that comes from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

 

 

Jeremiah called on his hearers to return to old ways, the true “Law of God” of which the sacrifices and offerings formed no part. Those were the “ancient paths” before the scribes falsified them with their lying pens.

 

What were those ‘ancient paths’? The Prophet Micah gave a brief summary, again in contrast to the false ‘Torah’ given by the lying scribes (Micah 6:6-8): 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

 

Again, all of those sacrifices and the anointing with oil were not part of God’s requirements of people; only justice, kindness, and humility were required! Hey, no wonder the Prophets were persecuted and killed: they exposed the whole false corrupt system imposed on the people by liars who claimed to represent God!

 

Now read what Isaiah had to say about God’s attitude toward the Levitical system (1:11-15): 11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.

 

Who has required of you this trampling of my courts?” Just as Jeremiah and Micah said, it was NOT God who made this requirement. Jeremiah told us it was the false pen of the scribes which introduced those lies; and Isaiah (29:13) says it is “a commandment taught by men”.

 

Would to God that the early leaders of Christianity (such as Paul and the other apostles) had just as clearly repudiated the “Law of Moses” as being falsehood introduced by lying scribes and Levites. Jesus certainly did in the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7, particularly chapter 5). He said that he did not come to destroy the true Law of God; rather he came to restore and complete it by correcting the falsehoods found in the supposed “Law of Moses” and the traditions of “those who sit in Moses’ seat”.

 

His followers, though, either accepted the ‘Law’ as being truly of God; or they at least felt like they ought to treat it as such in seeking to convince the Jews of the gospel they preached. But they at least treated it, for the most part, as metaphorical and typological, and as being “no longer” in effect since Christ had “fulfilled” the types and symbols. They also maintained that the Jews ‘used to be’ exclusively God’s chosen people, and the Gentiles ‘used to be’ excluded; but that was no longer the case. Now Jews and Gentiles together constitute the people of God – so long as they’re believers. God had “broken down the middle wall of partition” separating Jews from Gentiles.

 

Unfortunately, this treating of the so-called “Law of Moses” as formerly valid, and God’s Law, has left the door open to all sorts of nonsense in the Christian churches and those who are influenced by Christianity even though they may not claim to be actual adherents of the religion. There remains the suspicion – frequently stated as a clear truth – that the Jews are ‘still’ in some way God’s chosen and special people. Some actually teach that “the Church” will one day soon be ‘raptured’ out of this world, and the “Old Testament” Levitical system will once again be restored – with the Jews ruling the world from Jerusalem, having a restored Temple, and practicing all of the sacrifices which the Prophets said God not only did not require or command, but actually detests! They claim that the Jews absolutely had a right to kick the Palestinians out of their homes and lands, destroy their crops, and continue to have a right to wage destructive wars against all “Israel’s” ‘enemies’ (using other nations such as the USA and the UK as their proxies, of course) – all because (despite the denials of the Prophets) they maintain God chose the Jews as his own special people, gave them the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, and commanded all of those strange and horrible things found in the “Torah”. And the fact that the Christian writers said this was ‘no longer’ the case (though it ‘used to be’) for some strange reason does not prevent it from once again becoming valid.

 

It’s high time we all came to realize that all of that is nonsense and lies. God is not “a respecter of persons” (has no favorite people), does not dwell in Temples constructed by humans, does not grant a ‘holy’ land to his supposedly favorite people, and hates sacrifices (both human and animal) and religious rituals. Those sacrifices were not part of God’s Law at any time, and they were most certainly not ‘types of Christ’, fulfilled in his supposed ‘vicarious atonement’. Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death (or at least apparent death) was a vile act of murder (or attempted murder); and while it may certainly serve as an example to us of “turning the other cheek” and praying for those who mistreat us – as well as being a metaphor for us of the need to “die to the world, that we may live to God” – it most certainly is not intended to propitiate the wrath of an angry God! May our minds and hearts be enlightened to come to know the truths of the Universal Life, and depart from the errors and lies we formerly believed.

Posted by: mystic444 | February 3, 2014

Happy About the Super Bowl

I’m extremely happy about the outcome of the Super Bowl yesterday (February 2, 2014); but I don’t mean that I’m happy because Seattle won. I’m not much of a sports fan, and simply had no favorite team in this Bowl game. I guess you could say that I’m happy for Seattle, but sad for Denver. If the situation were reversed, I would be just as happy for Denver and just as sad for Seattle.

What I’m really happy about is simply the fact that there was an outcome to the game – rather than the major false flag attack which some had claimed was planned for that event, and which I referred to (and linked to) in my last article. The predictions had called for bombs which would close off exits from the stadium, and the release of toxic gas to cause tremendous pain and death among both players and spectators. I am so happy that this did not in fact happen!

I will assume that the prediction was a hoax to instill fear in people, and to try to make fools out of ‘conspiracy theorists’ who would fall for the deception. However, I’m also willing to make allowance that the terrorist event was actually planned, but was cancelled when the plot was exposed; or that heavy security measures prevented it. I’m also even willing to allow for the possibility that extraterrestrials from the Galactic Federation worked in secret to prevent the attack.

Yes, someone may claim that the fact that the plot was ‘exposed’ prevented it from actually being implemented. But I guess one might respond by saying that’s like the man carrying a big stick while walking in New York City. When someone asked him why he had the stick, he said “that’s my elephant stick”. When the objection was made that there are no elephants on the streets of New York City, he responded: “See, it works!”

Someone else may say that the extreme security measures implemented by law enforcement at the Super Bowl prevented any terrorist activity. One could respond to that idea, though, that that’s like the mafia style ‘protection’ rackets: they protected people from their own thugs – for a price. In this case, the “price” is the willingness of US citizens to submit to those very oppressive, freedom-violating, and unconstitutional ‘security measures’. If we’ll pay the price of the loss of liberty, our Government and law enforcement will ‘protect’ us from their own terrorists!

One is reminded of Saudi Prince Bandar telling Russian President Putin that he (Bandar) would ensure that ‘Muslim terrorists’ would not attack the Sochi Olympic Games if Putin would just agree to cease his support for Syrian President Assad. He said that he could offer this protection because he controlled those terrorists! That of course is simply the same as saying: “Mr. Putin, if you’ll pay the price, I’ll protect you from my thugs!”

Well, whatever may be the case – hoax; prevention by exposure; or prevention by heavy security measures (or by hidden ET intervention) – I’m just glad the false flag event didn’t happen. And I hope that future terrorist events (whether genuine or false flags) will also be prevented – or predictions of such events turn out to be hoaxes.

Posted by: mystic444 | January 27, 2014

False Flag Terrorist Event at Upcoming Superbowl?

A couple of days ago I came across a link – in the members’ area of Dr. Kevin Barrett’s “Truth Jihad” blog site – to an article concerning a planned false-flag terrorist attack on the upcoming (February 2, 2014) ‘Superbowl’. I don’t know whether this is legitimate, or disinformation designed to make “conspiracy nuts” like me look foolish when it is exposed as a hoax. Either scenario is to me quite believable.

Because it is such a serious thing if it is indeed true, I decided to go ahead and post the link: http://www.citizensamericaparty.org/TreasonBowl.htm . Check it out and decide what you think.

I suppose that if it is true, it is useless to propose a major investigation beforehand to try to stop it; so many “Intelligence”, military, and law enforcement agencies would be involved in the plot that no true investigation would be permitted.

Quite naturally I hope that this “terrorist” event does not take place. It’s too horrible to really think about. Whether it’s all a hoax; or the plotters call it off because the plot is being exposed; or ET’s from the “Galactic Federation” intervene (secretly or publicly) to stop it (!); whatever, I sure hope it never happens.

But if such a horrible event does occur, you may be sure that the true story of what happened will be quite different from what our treasonous Government tells us!

Posted by: mystic444 | January 23, 2014

Jesus Christ and “The Law”

And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men(Isaiah 29:13, English Standard Version)

 

Or as the Jews themselves translated this verse in the Greek Septuagint Version: And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men. (Brenton translation. If you read Greek, that underlined phrase is:  μτην δ σβοντα με διδσκοντες ντλματα νθρπων κα διδασκαλας.)

 

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8).

 

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?… So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matthew 15:3, 6-9)

 

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19).

 

From the above quotations, it can be seen that the Hebrew prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah did not think much of what passed for “the Law” (Torah) among the Jews. Isaiah said that what was taught as “Law” was in fact “the commandments of men” (or the Jews’ “fear of God” was learned from “a commandment taught by men”); while Jeremiah said that the Law of God did not exist among the Jews, because the lying pen of the scribes had turned the Law into a lie.

 

Jesus clearly agreed with them, because he said that the Pharisees and scribes “broke” and “made void” God’s Law by their traditions and teachings. He also quoted Isaiah’s statement that what they taught was “the commandments of men” rather than the Law of God.

 

Yet it is very frequently asserted that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5 about every bit of “the Law” remaining inviolate until heaven and earth pass away means that nothing of Moses’ Law found in the Bible will ever pass away until the end of the world (until all be ‘fulfilled’, at any rate)! (And most certainly the “Law of Moses” found in the Bible was among the commandments and doctrines taught by the scribes and Pharisees, as well as their interpretations and expansions of “the Law” which we today know as the Talmud). How could Jesus be teaching that he did not come to break – but rather to “fulfill” – the “Torah” which the Jews had, when Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus on other occasions, all said that the “Torah” in the Jews’ possession was not the “Law of God” but the lying commandments of men?

 

The answer, of course, is that when Jesus spoke (in Matthew 5) of “the Law”, he was not speaking of “the Torah” as the Jews knew it (whether that be the so-called “Law of Moses”, or the Law of those who “sit in Moses’ seat”). He was speaking of the true law of God which existed and was known long before the so-called “Law of Moses” came into being, and is universal and spiritual. This was the law which the Levites and scribes had distorted and mutilated into lying commandments of men.

 

So Jesus was saying that he certainly had not come to destroy God’s Law – no, the Jews had done a fine job of that already; he came to restore God’s law to its perfection. God’s law certainly will never pass away; but much of the so-called “Law of Moses” and the law of those “who sit in Moses’ seat” would most assuredly pass away, because such laws actually violated God’s law! It’s true, of course, that bits and pieces of the true “Law of God” still existed within that which passed for “the Law of Moses”, and perhaps more than just a bit of truth still existed in “the prophets”. The spiritually discerning can no doubt pick out those ‘gems of truth’; and Jesus willingly recognized them and promoted them (“you shall love the LORD your God… and your neighbor as yourself” for instance). Nevertheless, most of the laws and traditions of Judaism were at the very least inadequate, and at worst were outright lies falsely claimed to be God’s Law.

 

So when Jesus said (Matthew 5:19): Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, he was referring not to the “Law of Moses” and the “traditions of the elders”; rather he was referring to his own restoration and perfecting of the true Law of God which he proceeded to give in the remainder of Matthew 5, and chapters 6 and 7.

 

In the rest of chapter 5, Jesus deliberately contrasted the true “torah” of God with the written and oral laws of Judaism. He said that the laws about murder and adultery were inadequate because they focused on the outward act; whereas God is more concerned with the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

According to Jesus, the law permitting divorce was outright contrary to the Law of God, except for the cause of “fornication” or “sexual immorality”. The same was true concerning the swearing of oaths: whereas the Mosaic Law allowed such oaths and insisted that one be sure to keep his oaths (depending, though, on what one swears by – see Matthew 23:16-22), Jesus said the true Law of God was that one should not swear any oaths. Whatever went beyond a simple “yes” or “no” was of the evil one!

 

Also contrary to God’s Law was the famous “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” found in the written Law of “Moses”. According to Jesus’ restoration and perfecting of God’s Law, the truth is that one should “turn the other cheek”.

 

Then notice in verse 43 a law having two parts: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ “Love your neighbor as yourself” is certainly in the written Law (Leviticus 19:18), but people sometimes say that “hate your enemy” is not; it’s only in the “traditions” (known today as the Talmud). Technically that is true; but those “traditions” simply summarized what the written “Law of Moses” most definitely taught. Consider, for instance, Deuteronomy 23:3 and 6 – No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever… You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.That can certainly be correctly summarized by “hate your enemy”.

 

Consider also Deuteronomy 7:1 and 2 – When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you…and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. Certainly the scribes were very accurate in summarizing such a statement as “hate your enemy”. In other places the instruction to “devote them to complete destruction” is even more emphatically stated by saying to kill everything breathing: men, women, children, and animals. Joshua’s total destruction of the people of Jericho is one instance of a Biblical account of such total destruction.

 

Jesus Christ simply repudiated such commandments, and said that instead God’s Law is (Matt. 5:44-48): But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

This statement not only repudiates the “hate your enemies” portion of the Judaic law; it repudiates the “love your neighbor” portion also, as it appears in the written and oral law of the Jews. Leviticus 19:18 says: You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Obviously, “neighbor” is the equivalent of “the sons of your own people”; so the scribes and elders of the Jews were quite accurate in explaining that this didn’t apply to “Gentiles”. But Jesus said: if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? In the famous story of the “Good Samaritan”, of course, Jesus emphatically extended the commandment to “love your neighbor” far beyond the Jewish limitation of “the sons of your own people” or “your brother” (to the exclusion of the “Gentiles”). In the teaching of Jesus Christ, such distinctions as “Jew” and “Gentile”, “male and female”, “slave” and “free” lose all significance when it comes to love and laws of justice.

 

When Jesus said that not even the least part of the Law would perish until heaven and earth pass away, he most certainly was not talking about the laws of Judaism (the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of those who sit in Moses’ seat”)! He was talking about the true Law of God which the Jews had done their best to destroy with their “lying pens”, but which he was restoring and bringing to perfection.

Posted by: mystic444 | December 27, 2013

Jesus Christ versus the Scribes and Pharisees

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, Mat 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, Mat 23:3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. Mat 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

 

Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them…Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

 

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared…Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

 

 

In the first quotation given above, the portion of verses 2 and 3 which I have placed in bold print is usually taken to be as much the teaching and commandment of Jesus Christ (peace be to him) as is the rest of the passage in chapter 23. That is, Jesus is thought to be instructing his disciples and the crowd – as part of his own teaching – that the Scribes “sit in Moses’ seat” (speak with Moses’ authority) and therefore ought to be obeyed.

 

I find this simply impossible to accept. How is it possible that one can seriously believe Jesus was telling his disciples and the other hearers that they should accept the teachings of people whom he immediately began to castigate and ridicule? He calls them hypocrites who don’t ‘practice what they preach’, and who only do things in order to be seen and acclaimed by other people. He says they neither enter the kingdom of God themselves nor permit others to enter it. Those who convert to the religion of the Scribes and Pharisees become “children of hell” – in fact, twice as bad as the Scribes and Pharisees themselves.

 

In verses 16-26, Jesus (PBUH) called the Scribes and Pharisees “blind” 5 times (blind guides twice, blind fools, blind men, and blind Pharisees). They are like whitewashed tombs – beautiful on the outside, but inside full of the rotting flesh and the bones of dead men; they are outwardly righteous, but inwardly full of hypocrisy and iniquity. They are serpents and vipers, and are unable “to escape being sentenced to hell”.

 

Regarding the Scribes being “blind guides”, it is interesting to note what Jesus, on other occasions, had to say about following such guides. In Matthew 15, verses 1-11, we are informed of an incident when Scribes and Pharisees challenged Jesus (PBUH) about the practice of his disciples – who, contrary to the “traditions of the elders”, didn’t wash their hands when they ate. Jesus responded by asking them why they violated the law of God by means of their traditions! He gave an example of how the “traditions of the elders” violated God’s law, quoted from the prophet Isaiah (peace to him) to say that the Scribes and Pharisees taught “the commandments of men” rather than the law of God, and then explained why eating without washing one’s hands does not “defile” a person in God’s  sight. The disciples then (verse 12) ‘informed’ Jesus that what he said had offended the Pharisees. Here is what Jesus said in response:

 

Matthew 15:13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Mat 15:14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

 

Instead of telling his disciples that they ought to obey those “blind guides”, he told them not to do so – since they would wind up falling into the pit along with their guides if they obeyed/followed them. How could one even imagine that Jesus would tell his hearers to obey teachings which he said violated the law of God?!

 

Luke 6:39, 40 gives another instance of Jesus talking about following blind guides:  Luke 6:39 He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? Luk 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

 

If you take a “blind person” (obviously figuratively speaking) as your teacher/guide, you can only wind up “blind” yourself – and in the same pit. You won’t wind up better than your teacher. So surely Jesus would never instruct people to obey the teachings of “blind guides” and “blind fools”!

 

In the verses quoted at the beginning of this post, Jesus and Peter (peace to both of them) had commented on how heavy the burdens and the “yoke” of the Scribes and Pharisees were. Peter commented that the Jews had been unable to bear that yoke. In contrast, Jesus called on his heavily burdened hearers to take his yoke and burden instead, because my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Again, how can one imagine that Jesus would ever instruct anyone to bear the heavy burden or “yoke” of the Scribes and Pharisees (Judaism), when his message was that they should take his “yoke” and burden instead?

 

What, then, did Jesus mean in Matthew 23: 2 and 3? It was another instance of Jesus quoting the teaching of “the Jews” in order to contrast it with his own teaching. Just as a Christian preacher may begin his sermon by reading or quoting from the Bible; or a Muslim teacher may begin a message with a quotation from the Qur’an; so Jesus on this occasion began his message with a quotation from the traditions of the Scribes – a quotation with which his hearers would be very familiar, and would have no trouble recognizing for what it was. The obvious difference, though, is that instead of treating the quotation as Divine Truth, he immediately began to demolish it as ‘a lie of the Devil’. Instead of honoring the Scribes for the sake of their supposed position as representatives of Moses (and consequently of God), he repudiated and mocked them in all of those vivid terms which I noted earlier.

 

So in effect what Jesus was saying was: You have been taught: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you”; but let me tell you, you sure don’t want to do the things they do! They say one thing and do another. You should be sure that your actions match your words. They seek public acclaim; you should only seek the ‘acclaim’ of your Father in Heaven… This was the same sort of “compare and contrast” statement Jesus had made to the Samaritan “woman at the well” in John 4. There he inserted a quotation from “the Jews” into his own teaching (You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews) in order to contrast it with the truth of his own teachings. Here in Matthew 23 Jesus began his ‘sermon’ with the quotation he wished to repudiate.

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers