Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Da Vinci Doo-Dah...And Devilry, Part One


Dan Brown's international best-seller The Da Vinci Code has been soundly debunked by both academic historians and exegetical scholars--as well as by the learned clergy-- not long after it made its explosive literary debut in 2003 (which was not the first time such notions were debunked: similar contentions were set forth--and debunked-- in the 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , but, as they say, "If at first you don't succeed..."), but the arguments had been more or less confined to scholarly journals and ecclesiastical denunciations.

The defensive reaction from the faithful in Christendom with the release of the film adaptation this May of 2006 is not because it is a fictional, "fun," religious romp--as now defensively asserted by its self-consciously guilt-ridden promoters--but because it has "fun" with foundational Christian tenets by undermining them with fiction premised as history (or at least "quite possible"--if not "probable"--history, and in any case leaving the historical veracity of the entire New Testament open to question and even endowing the time-told idiom of "the gospel truth" with a tongue-in-cheek quality, if not an anachronistic hokeyness).

Republicus will now have his own fun and turn the tables by using real history--and common sense-- to undermine the foundations of the fiction on the two most salient--and controversial--points (and consider it all in the context of the Culture War in the process):

1)The contention that Christ's divinity was not widely accepted until the Roman Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea he convened in 325 imperiously made it so (Part One)

[Constantine, incidentally, has the same birthday as Republicus]

2) The notion that Christ indulged his sexual desire, married, and procreated (Part Two)

I. Was Jesus Christ as Son of God a Late--and Novel--Fourth Century Contention?

True: There were competing schools of thought at the first ecumenical conference in 325, but Jesus' exceptional, superhuman status--i.e. Him being the prophecied messiah and the Son of God--was not in question.

Rather, the debates were about such metaphysical niceties as to whether Jesus as the Son of Man was--as the Son of God-- the same or of similar substance with God the Father.

The Arians argued on behalf of the latter.

They lost the debate and became the first official heretics after co-substantiality with the Father was rubber-stamped.

Brown uses that conference as the Scene of the Crime of the Millennia, where the Great Cover-Up was supposed to have been orchestrated to put forth and notarize the allegedly novel, minority notion--which supposedly came as somewhat of a surprise to many of the bishops there-- that Jesus of Nazareth was Jehovah, the Son of God.

But you don't need to go sleuthing through secret Vatican vaults and catacombs and the Musee du Louvre to get an idea of what the first generation Early Church thought.

You can figure it out in The Bible (which is the last place anti-Christian secularists care to look, kind of like the old joke of the filthy, smelly house-burglar unable to locate the key to a safe because it was hidden under a bar of soap).

In exegetical academia--which is hardly an ecclesiastical ally-- the earliest text in the New Testament is roundly believed to be The First Letter of Paul To The Thessalonians, calculated to have been written--or at least dictated-- by Paul himself (an academic conclusion not extended to all of the epistles traditionally attributed to him), well within the First Century, around year 50, less than a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus, and 275 years before the First Council of Nicaea.

He opens his letter with this greeting (bold by Republicus):

FROM PAUL, Silvanus, and Timothy to the congregation of Thessalonians who belong to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and Peace.

Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians 1:1

And here he says:

We believe that Jesus died and rose again.

Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians

So the belief that Jesus was the Divine, Resurrected Christ was already at the vanguard of the Christian Movement very early on, with Peter--who had been the chief disciple of Jesus-- and the apostle Paul (both of whom were the "Boys-on-the-Board," if you will) the authoritative copywriters of the Faith.

True, there were plenty of competing--and outright alien-- takes on the young, revolutionary movement at its earliest phase (even Peter and Paul had their differences) producing sub-sects of what was originally a Jewish sect, cults (like Gnosticism), and money-making counterfeit movements, but orthodox Christianity--as agreed to by Peter and Paul--won out and was formally notarized over two centuries later at the First Council of Nicaea.

[Christianity was indeed, originally, a sect of Judaism, and in the earliest days of Palestinian Christianity (headquartered in the Jerusalem church and presided over by Peter and James, the very brother--or half-brother-- of Jesus) the Christians worshipped in Herod's Temple. The irreconciliable differences with the conservative Judaic religious establishment and the fledling--but rapidly growing--movement, and the parting of ways, was partly because the Christians (the earliest of whom were Jewish, like Jesus himself and his disciples) indeed believed that Christ was not only the prophecied political Messiah for the Jews, but a cosmic one for all mankind, the manifestation of God as Man, which was anathema to strict, monotheistic Judaism.]

But what Brown does--as do many others in his train of thought before him and will continue to do so after him--is recognize the existence of the sub-sects and cults and say: "Ah! These rejected and suppressed heresies are the true Christianity, or are 'just as true,' and were rejected and condemned not because they were 'false,' but, maybe--who knows?--because they were the true Christianity and rubbed against the grain of what it was radically transmogrifying into!"

And, at the time, they were the mainstream keepers of the faith!

(Yeah! Like the Gnostics!)

After all, isn't that why it took so long to make Christ's theogony and/or theophany official, because it took that long to make a minority belief a majority, abruptly accelerated and helped along by imperial decree, i.e. because the Emperor Constantine wished it?

No. It was not made "official" for so long simply because the belief was taken for granted while the faith grew in power--as driven by that very belief-- albeit lacking a coherent creed and "constitution."

True, the trinitarian Father, Son, Holy Spirit credo came out of the First Nicene Council, but again, that was just a formal meeting of monotheistic minds to reconcile theological conundrums (e.g. How can God be One and simultaneously Three?) and to formally notarize the phrasing (hence the Nicene Creed).

The historical dynamic is similar to this:

The United States of America was originally a set of thirteen British colonies that overwhelmingly spoke English.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written, in English, by speakers of English (i.e. Thomas Jefferson, with suggestions by Benjamin Franklin).

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, was likewise written in English by a speaker of English (i.e. James Madison).

True, there were plenty of Dutch, French and Spanish speakers even then (here and there), but English was the primary--though not "official"-- language.

It was taken for granted.

And yet, today-- well over two centuries later--with the undermining of English primacy by alien influences--we have the United States Congress finally coming around and trying to make English "the official language"...

...with detractors arguing on behalf of the "equal legitimacy" of 18th, 19th, and 20th Century multilingualism.

Christianity, like any organization, went--and still goes--through the same pressures by competing interests and reactionary, streamlining processes.

Others--within as well as from without Congress, and among the American population, Leftists all-- are arguing in much the same way as to the historical "legitimacy" of English as Brown in his book and others argue about the historical "legitimacy" of the belief that Jesus was Jehovah the Christ:

They're arguing on behalf of minority--even anomalous--opinion that had been rejected but are now crying foul about conspiratorial "oppression" and blaming that for its own inferior status.

In short, the Son-of-God Constantine crowd must have cheated, and, of course, lied, to put forth their credo.

Isn't that the only possible reason why anti-Christian and anti-conservative liberalism is on the losing end, because it would otherwise "win" in a "fair fight" of ideas?

And isn't that how they justify their own cheating and lying, because the conservatives "started it?"

This is all part of the times, a cultural current among the loud, Leftist segment of the population that is angrily anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-war, anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-English, and all-in-all anti-American mainstream and made more noisy because that left-bank rivulet was backed up and now spins in an eddy and frothily churns and foams behind the dam made by the four boulders of the historic takeover of the U.S. Congress in 1994, Clinton's Impeachment in 1999, and Bush's election and re-election to the presidency in 2000 & 2004...

...all enabled--in part--by the conservative "Red-Staters..."

...From "Jesus-Land."

And so the legitimacy of the mainstream, majority establishment--its political (conservative) and religious (Judeo-Christian) ideology and value system--is now peevishly challenged and undermined for the sake of the legitimacy of a social-climbing minority-- i.e. leftist, liberal, and anti-Western secularists (who have the decibel advantage of the "mainstream" media being liberal).

This is not new.

Jesus Christ has always stood in the way of Leftists--Conservative Jesus, that is, the pious Jew who championed the glory of the Living God and the Ten Commandments and Promised Justice--which necessitates Judgement--before being crucified and then Resurrecting (as Justified).

Liberal Jesus they have no problem with, who is--supposedly-- an anti-establishment hippy of sorts (he was actually a straight-laced conservative in his behavior and understanding of Scripture), who hung out with prostitutes and other riff-raff (though he didn't really "hang out" with them--especially if they were unrepentant), championed wretchedness and poverty (no he didn't--he assured the wretched and poor that they had the power to uplift themselves), said "Do not judge" (although he said that in the context of not being hypocritical when judging), married a prostitute (whatever), and was a victim of cruel and unusual Capital Punishment as imposed by imperial, militant fascists because they didn't like his subversive, antiwar, "Peace & Love, dudes!" shtick (again, whatever).

That's liberal Jesus.

It's the liberals making God in their own image--whereupon, of course, he ceases to be godly.

And that's why he's dead (if he ever existed, that is).

We are indeed in the midst of the Culture War, and the most anti-Christian of Leftist among The Da Vinci Code defenders and cheerleaders know very damn well--like the Church does-- that it is more than a "fictional, 'fun,' religious thriller" and is actually an insidious undermining of foundational, conservative Christian tenets by presenting the fiction --with not too subtle subtlety-- as the "quite possible" and even "probable" non-fictional situation that the fictional drama plays on.

Republicus is not accusing Brown, Howard, or even Hanks of colluding with some Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy to undermine the conservative, Judeo-Christian fabric of American society (Hanks, like Republicus, is a Greek Orthodox Christian, and the Greek Orthodox Church recently followed up on the Roman Catholic Church's call for a boycott with its own), only that the source of that line of thinking indeed comes out of the Left, which views the "legitimacy" of the conservative establishment itself in much the same way as the book and film view the religious establishment:

Illegitimate.

For example:

"Al Gore (i.e. analagous here to Brown's "Holy Grail Magdalene" crowd) would've been president if the Supreme Court didn't contrive a deus ex machina fiat and intervene-- a la the political machinery of Constantine's flexing of cuius regio eius religio muscle on behalf of the "minority" Jesus-Son-Of-God crowd at Nicaea...

...and Kerry would've won out if it wasn't for those blasted Diebold machines!

Like the conservative Christian Church, the conservative Republicans--from the very beginning-- must have "Cheated" and "Lied" to advance their agenda and gain supremacy, just like all must who manage to get ahead in a corrupt system--i.e. the American one-- that favors liars and cheats!

It's all done in a spirit of peeved sore-loserness and anti-Americanism.

Bush won Florida fair and square in 2000.

He won Ohio fair and square in 2004.

And the belief that Christ is the same substance as God the Father won out fair and square in 325.

And all three of those events were enabled by popular precedent and majority consensus...

...pushed over the top by groundswells of conservative Christians, who therefore must be undermined and discredited religiously as well as politically.

Note that of all the 50-million-plus fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, Reagan Democrats, libertarians, moderates, Republican loyalists, etc. who voted for Bush, it was the "Red-State Religious Right" who were viciously attacked and maligned by the Left for "causing" Bush to win.

The Left was so hatefully unhinged by the debacle of the 2004 campaign that there was internet chatter--astonishingly quite serious "discussions"-- about "Red-Staters" being henceforth forbidden from deciding the nation's president (because they're "stupid, homophobic, racist, Christo-fascists"), the "Blue-States" spitefully seceding from the "Red-States," the Left's willingness to foment and fight a Civil War (against the hated "Red-State Religious Right"), etc.

They presented calculations on which states--blue or red--had the wealthiest residents (the Blue States!) and paid the most in taxes (the Blue States!), where the most educated resided (the Blue States!) etc, as if they were generals sizing up the enemy and his resources.

It's true. They were seething like that for a long time.

Meanwhile, they blame Bush--and his Religious Right constituency, of course--for being "hateful" and "divisive."

But that's just all crazy lefty talk.

First of all, the margin of victory by the popular vote was thin enough (like 3-4% or something very close to that) to spread the blame around to all of the other voting blocs (i.e. anyone of them could have made the difference if they stayed home or voted for Kerry), but the Left chose to scape-goat the conservative, Religious Right.

Second of all, a conservative would whup a liberal in a fight any day.

So they should shaddup.

Anyway, that's what's going on here. The leftist can not hope to scale and overcome the towering, cultural bulwarks of Western, Judeo-Christian Civilization constructed--by trial and error-- over millennia, so they dig tunnels underground (where they feel most at home) and try to sap the foundations and replace the anchored feet of bronze with feet of clay and hope for a collapse of the entire superstructure.


To be continued in Part Two.

76 Comments:

Blogger Kelly said...

"True, the trinitarian Father, Son, Holy Spirit credo came out of the First Nicene Council, but again, that was just a formal meeting of monotheistic minds to reconcile theological conundrums (e.g. How can God be One and simultaneously Three?) and to formally notarize the phrasing (hence the Nicene Creed)."

This is one place where Mormons differ with Christianity at large. We don't believe in the Trinity as outlined by the Nicene Council.

We believe they are separate, but one in purpose. As two people can be united are considered 'one'.

'one(a): having the indivisible character of a unit; "a unitary action"; "spoke with one voice"'

It is interesting that the whole Da Vinci thing overlooks the earlier assertions of the divinity of Christ.

7:09 AM  
Blogger Seven Star Hand said...

Hello John and all,

I have produced proof beyond disproof that your opinions about me are not infallible. You will not initially agree with everything I reveal, but be a little patient with my long-winded presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.

Peace...

Here is the key to understanding what the Vatican and Papacy truly fear...

Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...

Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...

There's much more to the story of the Vatican's recent machinations than meets the eye. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have now been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. These recent controversies are spurring people to reevaluate the Vatican/Papacy and the religions that Rome spawned, at the worst possible time for them.

Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?

The DaVinci Code novel and movie are no more inaccurate as literal versions of history than the New Testament. The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. In other words, none of these stories represent the literal truth. This is the common and pivotal fact of all such narratives about ancient Hebrew and Christian history. Debating whether the DaVinci Code, Gnostic texts, or the Bible are accurate history is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth by directing your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.

There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else. It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. The Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.

If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, Quran, DaVinci Code, and other related sources. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!

It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity. This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican's long-term deceptions.

Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful. When you combine proof that the New Testament Gospels are not wholly literal with proof that these texts were heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity, you are left with only one possible conclusion. The Vatican has long lied to everyone about the central tenets and history of Christianity. This revelation also proves they are not the Creator’s representatives but Her long-time opponents. The recent hoopla over the Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code demonstrates they are still desperately trying to deceive the world and obfuscate their true nature and activities.

It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth?

Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)

Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
Here is Wisdom!!

Revelations from the Apocalypse

7:16 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

"Anyway, that's what's going on here. The leftist can not hope to scale and overcome the towering, cultural bulwarks of Western, Judeo-Christian Civilization constructed--by trial and error-- over millennia, so they dig tunnels underground (where they feel most at home) and try to sap the foundations and replace the anchored feet of bronze with feet of clay and hope for a collapse of the entire superstructure."


This brings a comment I made on my blog about "information" that gets circulated that appears to be true on the surface, but in further examination proves to be false.

You asked the question, basically, "Why do people circulate such stuff."

I said,

"His intent was to mix a little truth in with his lies so that people would believe his attempts to discredit us.

Why they do it...I don't know. Perhaps it is because they believe so strongly that we are wrong that they will do anything to discredit us. All it takes is enough doubt and truth be damned.


Hence we get the Da Vinci Code, et al.

7:24 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Clement's First Letter ca. 96 A.D.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all everywhere whom God has called through him. Through him be glory, honor, might, majesty, and eternal dominion to God, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen."

The Didache ca. 2nd century A.D.

"Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and the 'baptize' in running water, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'"

A second century Homily, ca. ~170 A.D.

"So, my brothers, by doing the will of God our Father we shall belong to the first Church, the spritual one, which was created before the sun and the moon. But if we fail to do the Lord's will, that passage of scripture will apply to us which says 'My house has become a robber's den.' So, then, we must choose to beling to Church of life in order to be saved. I do not suppose that you are ignorant the living Curch is the body of Christ...Indeed, the Church which is spiritual was made manifest in the flesh of Christ..."

9:09 AM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly blasphemed:

"This is one place where Mormons differ with Christianity at large. We don't believe in the Trinity as outlined by the Nicene Council."

Heretic. :)

Phelonius: Yeah, the belief in Christ's divinity--and even the formulation of the Trinity concept--was not a 4th Century rabbit pulled out of a hat.

It just took a while to get everyone together and notarize it.

Seven Star Hand: You speak in riddles. Did I hear you correctly, that you, yourself, are Melchizedek?

Yo, Bargholz: Haaaaaalp! :O

9:38 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

We do believe that Baptism is performed, as you said, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'"

I am not clear on your meaning...

"I do not suppose that you are ignorant the living Curch is the body of Christ...Indeed, the Church which is spiritual was made manifest in the flesh of Christ..."

I do believe that Christ is the head.

Clements, Didache, and Homily are not even discussed in my Faith.

We believe there was a 'Falling away' after the death of the apostles.

I am not going to tell anyone else what they can believe. I am just saying what I believe.


At any rate...the gist of this entry was 2 fold...

Was Jesus Christ as Son of God a Late--and Novel--Fourth Century Contention?

As John said, "True: There were competing schools of thought at the first ecumenical conference in 325, but Jesus' exceptional, superhuman status--i.e. Him being the prophecied messiah and the Son of God--was not in question.

Rather,the debates were about such metaphysical niceties as to whether Jesus as the Son of Man was--as the Son of God-- the same or of similar substance with God the Father.


The whole foundation of my beliefs lay in the nature of God...

"(John 17: 21-23)

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
"

and then...(Joseph Smith History 1:17)

"When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

I will say that they are individual beings not of the same substance but one in purpose.

Ya,,A heretic am I ;)

9:45 AM  
Blogger John said...

Perhaps a fortnight in the dungeon will convince you of the folly of your thinking, milady. GUARDS!

9:52 AM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly: James was just providing evidence of pre-Fourth Century belief in the trinity.

9:55 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Kelly,

Exactly. The Didache is a set of instructions on how to run a church that dates to the second century. Clement was most likely the third Bishop of Rome, and his letter to the churches in Corinth were considered canonical for a while. The sermon I quoted is frequently called the Second Letter of Clement, but it is likely that he did not write it, and it is not a letter at any rate. It is a sermon that calls for repentance.

Like John says, all I was doing was providing sources prior to the fourth century that talk about the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.

If you have been to my blog of late, you know pretty much how I feel about the whole Da Vinci Code thing. John, have you ever read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"? I read it years ago, and my reaction to it then was ....WOW......and it still kind of is.

10:14 AM  
Blogger John said...

Tin foil hat stuff...(lol)

10:16 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

JB,

I understand and Yes, I have been to your site and read your views of the whole Da Vinci thing.

I was trying to back up what you all were saying with the beliefs I have that have nothing to do with the Nicene Council.

I am sorry it came out the way it did.

To be fair, let me argue this with you all from the view point that the Da Vinci code takes...that the whole thing was made up three centuries after Christ.

As JB says, the voices of Clements, Didache, and Homily predate that council and offer evidence that the council did not concoct the divinity of Christ at that time.

10:29 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I was offering other evidence of Christ's divinity....which I firmly believe in.

10:32 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

seven star said,

"Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity."

The whole of Jewish Law was symbolic of the coming of the Messiah (Jesus Christ). He came to fulfill the law of Moses.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

The law was to prepare them for the His coming. But, they did not recognize Him when he came. Paul, Peter, James et al were among the few who saw Him for who He really was/is.

Christianity is not merely an offshoot of Judaism. It is the fulfillment of that law and a continuation of it.

10:48 AM  
Blogger John said...

"The Word made flesh."

11:00 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Right!

11:05 AM  
Blogger John said...

Anyway, Christ's divinity had to be undermined first--

--so as to allow sexual behavior...

...because he was "just like everyone else"--and what's wrong with that, anyway?

Christ was no better than any other Teletubby (because if he was, that would give Teletubbies something to aspire to beyond their Teletubbiness, and we wouldn't want THAT).

11:08 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Hey Kelly, it is all good. In no way was I trying to talk down at you or anything. I was teaching some trigonometry at the same time that I was thinking about what to write back. If I came across as terse, well, my bad. I need to concentrate on how I come across. I was pleased to have you visit our little site, by the way.

Recently I have been re-reading a book called "Medieval Heresy" by Malcolm Lambert. A lot of what is posited in Dan Brown's work of fiction just strikes me, as it did you, John, as a re-hash of the Arian heresy. As to turning Christ into a left-wing politicical figure, I have a quote from Orwell:

"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

George Orwell

11:09 AM  
Blogger Digital Diet 365 said...

The Da Vinci code movie is a tool to get people to to believe (the lie) that Christ and Mary had a child...

Why?

To condition people into believing that one day the “heir” will make himself known to the world. The movie tells us (a few times) that the "heir" will make himself know to the world.

I bet that “heir” is none other than the antichrist.

Luciferian world emerging…Wake up America!

Leaders tell us there will be a one world Government:

“By the end of this decade (2000 AD) we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations … a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of human survival. One world government is inevitable.” Pope John Paul II quoted by Malachi Martin in the book “The Keys of This Blood”

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

This “new world” is Luciferian based:

Those promoting the New World Order, global society, want Christianity removed to make way for people to accept Lucifer:
“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.” –Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoagland, speaking on radio in 1983.
How do you prepare people for this coming one-world global society?
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

How would one enter this new society?
“No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation.” David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

The Bible predicted and warned us about this a couple thousand years ago:
Rev 13:16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.(666)

Did you know the technology to do this is here and ready?
“Is there a number or mark planned for the hand or forehead in a new cashless society? YES, and I have seen the machines that are now ready to put it into operation.” Ralph NaderThis technology is being used in Europe. People are already buying with RFID (radio frequency identification chips) implanted in their hands/arms.

What is so wrong with this?
Revelation 14 warns us:9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

This Luciferian initiation, that David Spangler, UN, speaks of could very well be the mark of the beast, the Bible warns us about. And the mark of this man…who will it be? Could he emerge from the following?:

“We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.” -Paul-Henri Spaak,The first president of the United Nations General Assembly, who was also a prime minister of Belgium and one of the early planners of the European Common Market, as well as a secretary-general of NATO.

“I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election….It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!” –George W. Malone, U.S. Senator (Nevada), speaking before Congress in1957.

“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it” ~ Albert Einstein

11:21 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said,

"Anyway, Christ's divinity had to be undermined first--

--so as to allow sexual behavior...

...because he was "just like everyone else"--and what's wrong with that, anyway?
"


They are making God in their own image.

It helps to justify their own actions.

11:28 AM  
Blogger John said...

Wow. Return to Righteousness and Seven Star Hand are like Superman and Bizzaro-Superman.

11:42 AM  
Blogger John said...

Are they gonna fight? It'd be like the Clash of the Titans.

11:45 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I've got my pop corn and soda...ready for the show ;)

11:50 AM  
Blogger John said...

I think I know what Seven Star is talking about, though, in regards to New Testament miracles.

For example, in the Gospel of John, we have Jesus healing a man born blind by spitting on the ground, making mud, and applying it to the blind man's eyes, who is then told to go rinse. He does so, and can see.

Seven Star--I would presume--would read that as a metaphor meaning that the Word of God (the spittle from the mouth of Jesus) comes down to earth (the dirt), mingles with and animates it (made mud) and "opens eyes"--i.e. insight-- via epiphanies of knowledge and wisdom, and is not to be understood literally as a healing of optical blindness (the corresponding Old Testament prophecy meant to be understood in those terms as well).

Izzat it, satan I mean Seven? :)

11:59 AM  
Blogger John said...

As for you, Return, stay tuned for the third part of this trilogy, where I examine the devilry behind the Da Vinci doo-dah (just in time for *The Omen,* at theaters everywhere June 6, 2006--or 666). :O

12:02 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

"Seven Star--I would presume--would read that as a metaphor meaning that the Word of God (the spittle from the mouth of Jesus) comes down to earth (the dirt), mingles with and animates it (made mud) and "opens eyes"--i.e. insight-- via epiphanies of knowledge and wisdom, and is not to be understood literally as a healing of optical blindness (the corresponding Old Testament prophecy meant to be understood in those terms as well)."


I have no problem with that concept. Christ did come to open the eyes of the spiritually blind as well as physically blind.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

JB said,

"Recently I have been re-reading a book called "Medieval Heresy" by Malcolm Lambert. A lot of what is posited in Dan Brown's work of fiction just strikes me, as it did you, John, as a re-hash of the Arian heresy. "

I bet that would be an interesting read.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous douglass said...

John,

Can your left-right split be traced back to the scopes trial? Earlier?

Anyway,

You skewered Brown over the conspiratorial aura he throws over the victorious parties in history.

(The idea that conspiracy is the only possible explanation for a political defeat is not a new technique in propaganda)

I'm curious. If, as a Christian you believe in Satan (the existence of a foil to Yahweh/ metaphysical devil god)

How is Christianity monotheistic??

1:31 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Douglass said,

:I'm curious. If, as a Christian you believe in Satan (the existence of a foil to Yahweh/ metaphysical devil god)

How is Christianity monotheistic??
"



Interesting thought...

It is monotheistic in that Satan is not considered to br a god...

Even in the LDS view (God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost) all work together rather than against each other as in Greek, Roman or Norse mythology.

1:58 PM  
Anonymous douglass said...

Kelly,


You said,

"It is monotheistic in that Satan is not considered to br a god...

Even in the LDS view (God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost) all work together rather than against each other as in Greek, Roman or Norse mythology."

Interesting perspective.

Sure the trinity works together, the question is whether or not Lucifer and God work together

Has god sent his angles to raid the lair, kill Lucifer and free his hostages?

Do they have some sort of détente or quid pro quo?

Does Lucifer do God's dirty work of punishing sinners?

Does God fight Lucifer?

I think the role of Angels and demons is the grey area in Christianity that has polytheistic implications.

Angels (like Michael) and demons (like Lucifer and Morningstar) are technically deities of which there is a father (son and holy spirit).

There might also be implications of ancestor worship from the concepts of heaven and angels.

4:59 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Seven Year Itch,

you are a gullible imbecile. The Bible is full of literal truths, including historical figures and locations. Your plagiarized insinuation that it's all apples, serpents, angels and burning bushes is idiotic. If you had actually read the Bible instead of left-wing hatchet jobs against it, you would know this.

Every miracle purported for Jesus DOES NOT have multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Not even by happenstance, which in itself would prove nothing but your willingness to be deceived about a religion you obviously hate--if it were true.

"Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover."

By all means, verify it, Indiana Jones.

The Gospels were NOT heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity or the later eras. One thing theologians and Biblical scholars both marvel at is how accurate even the King James Bible is, and how little was lost in translation.

You're pasting the words of ignorant fools and outright liars.

You reveal yourself as a buffoon when you refer to the Creator with a feminine pronoun ("she") and suggest that the God of Abraham is the moon god allah.

The Catholic Church does indeed preach the word of Jesus. The notion that it fears your codes is risible. Only a fool or a liar would claim otherwise. You're obviously a willing fool who has been gulled by malicious liars.

All of the frothing, twitchy nonsense you regurgitated about evil conspiracies and secret truths have been thoroughly debunked and exposed as the work of charlatans.

Try not to soil your pants during your next seizure, nitwit.

5:23 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Kelly,

the secular left hates Christianity and Judeo Christian values because American culture is based on them. They want to replace a society based on personal responsibility with their own failed model of a Marxist nanny state.

It infuriates them that most Americans use Christian principles to guide their lives. They're contumacious, pure and simple. If America were a Hindu country, they would focus their ire on Hinduism and praise all competing religions. They attack Christianity relentlessly while praising other religions--especially the death cult of islam--because it's the most influential. The fact that that influence is positive is dismissed as being too painful to be true. After all, the left knows what's best for us. They say so all the time.

The comment on your blog about specious argumentation applies to these goons in spades.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Doug,

"Satan" is not a deity and he certainly is not a foil to God. The Bible does not describe any struggle between God and Satan, Lucifer, or any other. Impending or otherwise. God has no peers. The Bible is very clear on this.

Humanity struggles with sin--God does not.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous douglass said...

Jeff, (B)

I'm sure that is true.

But nevertheless, it's a grey area to me in terms of what I have heard and seen from practicing Christians; especially those of the fire and brimstone variety.

On a side note, I think you would enjoy this:

http://kurgman.blogspot.com/

6:01 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Doug,

most of the Christians who talk about "Satan" and "Lucifer" do so from ignorance.

According to the Bible, "Satan" wasn't the snake in the Garden of Eden. He tempted Jesus but that doesn't mean he was meant to be taken as a literal figure. Maybe he was, but nobody knows. He doesn't lord over "Hell" and he doesn't have any special powers over men.

The temptation of Jesus was a temptation to embrace power and submit to sin. Was Satan a physical being? Who knows?

"Lucifer" is just a character from Milton's book, and the war in Heaven and his subsequent expulsion gave the book a spiffy title but it was about as factual as the "Lord Of The Rings."

6:34 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jeff B,

I am not sure what you mean by ...

"The comment on your blog about specious argumentation applies to these goons in spades."

please explain

8:12 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jeff B,

It is good to see us on the same side of an issue...for the most part. :)

8:14 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Kelly,

You wrote about "information" that: "appears to be true on the surface, but in further examination proves to be false."

This is the textbook definition of "specious."

The goons trying to discredit Christianity use specious arguments to make their case. In spades.

I wasn't slamming you.

8:26 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jeff B,

I was just asking for clarification... I couldn't remember what I had said... the whole 'truth be damned' issue.

I agree.

8:44 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Jeff B.,

Right on the mark. The gospels were not heavily re-worked. In fact, in one of our translation classes we used the King James version because of its extremely close and loyal translation from the Greek and the Latin. What we learned from sources like the Dead-Sea scrolls is that the Torah had likewise been preserved very accurately even at the time of Christ. I do not know where these guys get the idea that the scriptures were treated so loosly that they were altered all the time.

Satan was very much believed in as a physical being by a large number of people in the early church, but the idea of him (it?) being a co-equal with God was frequently condemned by the Church as belonging to the dualist-type heresies.

9:20 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

The KJV of the Bible is the one my Faith claims as the most correct and is considered the official LDS Bible.

We do believe that there are minor errors, but nothing glaring. There was definitely no "reworking" of the text.

9:56 PM  
Blogger John said...

Douglass asked:

"Can your left-right split be traced back to the scopes trial? Earlier?"

I dunno.

Are you trying to make a monkey out of me?

"I'm curious. If, as a Christian you believe in Satan (the existence of a foil to Yahweh/ metaphysical devil god)

How is Christianity monotheistic??"

As Kelly touched upon, satan--in mainstream Christianity--is not a god (rival or otherwise).

The whole hierarchical framework of demons, devils, and angelic orders were created by God.

We are to worship the Creator, not the created.

They are not co-regents--to be worshipped-- in some Olympian and sub-Olympian pantheon.

Angels--no less devils--are not be worshipped and prayed to in mainstream Christianity.

A simplistic but legitimate analogy from the POV of mainline Christianity would be likening the status of the angelic orders with Santa's elves.

But to say that their very existence *ipso facto* indicates polytheism slouches towards idolatry.

Luther and ensuing Protestantism had--and still have--a big problem with Roman Catholicism (and, by extension, Eastern Greek Orthodox) not because of any acknowledgement of angels, satan, and demons-- which all share-- but because of the latter's systems of sainthood and the status of saints (deceased ones) as intercessing "mediators" to God who can--and should--be prayed to, and indeed worshipped (and carried around like good luck charms).

That seems to be an appropriation of the ancient Roman lares and pinates (household gods and such) and an Olympian Order "baptised" and given Christian veneers (to facilitate the rather abrupt transition from pagan polytheism to monotheism), so, in that sense, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths can arguably be accused of carrying polytheistic--i.e. pagan!--baggage.

Indeed, stuff like that goes a long way in explaining why some Protestant Dispensationalist denominations identify, not the Soviets (in their day), or Islam, or the "Revived Roman Empire" EU, or even the spirit behind liberalism in general, but the Roman Catholic Church as being the satanic "Whore of Babylon" from Revelations!

And, of course, inviting all sorts dastardly speculations and bastardly conspiracy theories about the organization in the process-- which isn't really fair for a religion that's as materially wealthy--and stingy-- as Pluto (the god of Hades) and churns out homosexual, pedophile priests, mafiosos, and John Kerry. ;)

BTW: "Morningstar" and Lucifer are one and the same--though they, as satan, seem to be read into the referenced passages of Isaiah wherein he nevertheless seems to be talking about--if you're minding explictness-- an earthly king and the folly of Pride.

10:06 PM  
Blogger John said...

James said:

"Satan was very much believed in as a physical being by a large number of people in the early church, but the idea of him (it?) being a co-equal with God was frequently condemned by the Church as belonging to the dualist-type heresies."

Correctamundo.

10:08 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I do not believe that there is "one" church that is the "whore" of Babylon.

I found this statement on the official LDS website.

"The church of the devil: Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God."

Isn't THIS what we are talking about.

10:19 PM  
Blogger John said...

Right. The Democratic Party. :)

10:37 PM  
Blogger John said...

DOUGLASS!

LOL

I checked out Kurgman's blog!

GO GET HIM BARGHOLZ!

--but be warned: He has THREE PhD's!

3:46 AM  
Blogger John said...

James said...

"Right on the mark. The gospels were not heavily re-worked."

The verbatim consistency from copy to copy, separated by centuries, is astounding.

6:28 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

John,

You said:
Luther and ensuing Protestantism had--and still have--a big problem with Roman Catholicism (and, by extension, Eastern Greek Orthodox) not because of any acknowledgement of angels, satan, and demons-- which all share-- but because of the latter's systems of sainthood and the status of saints (deceased ones) as intercessing "mediators" to God who can--and should--be prayed to, and indeed worshipped (and carried around like good luck charms).

There have been abuses in the Catholic Church on these grounds. I do not refute that. The official position on the Communion of Saints is a little different than that though. The Church has maintained that those that die in a state of grace (i.e., as a good christian) are not dead, but alive. (God is God of the living, not of the dead, etc.) As a result, we can still talk to them, and *ask for their prayers.* That is how it is supposed to work. In the most ancient Litany of Saints, the saaints are asked "intercedite pro nobis," that is, to intercedite (pray) for us. The Vatica II warns us against using the saints and, indeed, even Mary as objects of worship or superstitution.

I am not knocking Luther, believe me. The Vatican II lifted the excommunication with him and just about everything he said needed to happen in his 95 Thesis at Wittenburg has come to pass. Luther pointed out some important reforms that were badly needed at the time.

8:07 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said,

"I checked out Kurgman's blog!

GO GET HIM BARGHOLZ!

--but be warned: He has THREE PhD's."



INDEED!!

8:40 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

John,

Oh yea. I know because I was raised in one of those churches. I am the first Catholic in my family for probably 400 years. I left christianity altogether for a number of years afterwards, and was a Heinlein quoting, Azimov reading Carl Sagan Humanist Manifesto believing atheist. I could do it with the best.

Then I went to a college that challenged me to think about a great many things, and my relativistic philosophy began to crack apart at the foundations. After a long road of searching I finally found my place, and of all things I was a Roman Catholic. My relatives and I have come to amicable agreement, though, after they realized that their faith and mine are really not all that far apart. They appreciated the Church a lot more than they appreciated atheism at any rate.

The 400 some odd years of the Reformation wars ripped european civilization apart and created rifts that are still being fought over. Personally, I am done with that war. As Jeff B. pointed out, the Relativists are at odds with all of the faithful, and we should be concentrating on raising our own kids in this atmosphere of antagonism against christian sensibility, in my view.

9:25 AM  
Blogger John said...

James, in response to your previous comment:

Indeed, but there are strains of Protestanism that still bash Roman Catholocism.

As I've mentioned, therer are those who think it is in league with satan.

(Don't look at me; I like the Pope--and appreciate Roman Catholicism's strong stances on moral issues.)

Kelly: PhD's in what, though?

From what school?

James said:

"I am the first Catholic in my family for probably 400 years."

Wow.

"I left christianity altogether for a number of years afterwards, and was a Heinlein quoting, Azimov reading Carl Sagan Humanist Manifesto believing atheist. I could do it with the best."

lol Bargholz must've picked that up!

"As Jeff B. pointed out, the Relativists are at odds with all of the faithful, and we should be concentrating on raising our own kids in this atmosphere of antagonism against christian sensibility, in my view."

Agreed.

9:34 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said,

"
Kelly: PhD's in what, though?

From what school?"


PhD in Self from EGO STATE ;)

11:22 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

I think Mr. Bargholz and I had an unfortunate run-in that was not called for. I regret baiting him just because I was feeling like doing it. I have been to his blog and LO!.....we are not so far apart......

11:24 AM  
Blogger John said...

I'm still laughing at Bargholz calling Seven Star "Indiana Jones."

11:38 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Well, as far as seven star said:

"As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia."

WTF? Over the millennia?
*reaching for my tin hat* You have to 'adjust' the tin hat for it to work properly.

1:38 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Phelonius,

"Over the millennia?

*reaching for my tin hat* You have to 'adjust' the tin hat for it to work properly.



I would think that it would take more than just an adjustment to make that work. Can we really take Seven Star Hand seriously??!

Where in the world is he coming from?

I don't even think I had gotten that far down in his "oration" before tuning out.

LOL, what a laugh!

3:10 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Well, Kelly, when you meet someone that has lived for millenia, you should show a modicum of respect, no?
After all, his biography shows that he is 50 years old, but his statement shows that he has been around a LOT longer than that. I find that if I shift the tin hat to exactly -15.5 degrees to NNW, the voices are not so intrusive.

3:26 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Well, Kelly, when you meet someone that has lived for a millenia, you should show some respect, no?

I find that if I shift the tin hat to -15.5 degrees NNW the voices diminish.

3:27 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

trying one more time....

This blog has been actin up today. I really did not mean to publish twice....

3:29 PM  
Anonymous douglass said...

John

You said,“The whole hierarchical framework of demons, devils, and angelic orders were created by God.”

I liked the Santa’s elves analogy,(that might have been a Freudian slip on your part).

But still I think that the mythology of Chritianity beyond the trinity is shady territory, it seems off to me, I can’t honestly say I believe in the “The whole hierarchical framework of demons, devils, and angelic orders”

I also liked your analysis of intra-Christian rivalries.

Anyway, this struck me:

John said: "Morningstar" and Lucifer are one and the same"

That can't be right.

Revelation 22:16 (kjv)

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star."

There has to be some sort of translation issue, because otherwise….

4:12 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

douglass,

Lucifer is a term that means "bearer of light." As Jeff B. pointed out, that term was assocoaited to him largely by Milton. In 2 Corinthians 11:14 Paul says that "if Satan himself goes disguised as an angel of light, there is no need to be surprised when his servants, too, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

In the old Jewish tradition and into the christian era, many of the angels and Christ himself bore the title of "Light-bearer" (or morningstar).

4:49 PM  
Anonymous douglass said...

Phelonius

Hmmm.

I don’t know about that.

Specifically, I question your conclusion in light of the usage of the term in discussion (son of the morning/Lucifer/light bearer/Morningstar/daystar) in Isaiah chapter 14.

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

22For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.


In this context, I would think that (son of the morning, also translated as morningstar or daystar) was not a name for an angel of god, but a name of a Babylonian god, perhaps even a god worshiped by the tyrant keeping the Israelites in Babylonian captivity.

Regardless, I would assume that the terms are used differently in the old and new testament and the root of the problem is meaning lost in translation between Latin, Greek, and Hebrew before I would assume that the term is a blanket definition for an angel ‘in the old Jewish tradition’.

5:50 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Phelonius,

" trying one more time....

This blog has been actin up today. I really did not mean to publish twice....
"

Actually, it was funny that it came across twice...like you were still trying to get your tin hat to compute.


Ya..I must remember to show a little more respect for the aged...especially when they have lived longer than Methuselah.

9:04 PM  
Blogger John said...

douglass said:

"You said,'The whole hierarchical framework of demons, devils, and angelic orders were created by God.'”

Right, as opposed to having simultaneously co-existed, as fraternal, rival twins, which is proper Dualism.

"I liked the Santa’s elves analogy,(that might have been a Freudian slip on your part)."

lol Not at all.

Republicus believes in Santa Claus, too. ;)

Seriously, I was well-aware of the insinuation whe I wrote that, and had my tongue fully in cheek.

"But still I think that the mythology of Chritianity beyond the trinity is shady territory, it seems off to me, I can’t honestly say I believe in the “The whole hierarchical framework of demons, devils, and angelic orders.”

I wouldn't call it "mythology" so much as philosophy, as it has it's conceptual roots in ancient Greek philosophy (strands of which, nevertheless, echo or play off of their own cultural, religious mythologies) and Mediaeval Scholasticism (which itself echo or elaborate on Classical, philosophical outlooks--the translations of which were provided by Islamic falasifas-- but were superimposed over Judeo-Christian monotheism, creating the hybrids we speak of--which doesn't necessarily qualify illegitimacy).

"Anyway, this struck me:

John said: 'Morningstar' and Lucifer are one and the same"

That can't be right."

I remind you of what I said above:

"BTW: "Morningstar" and Lucifer are one and the same--though they, as satan, seem to be read into the referenced passages of Isaiah wherein he nevertheless seems to be talking about--if you're minding explictness-- an earthly king and the folly of Pride."

And as you yourself seconded and referenced:

"...Specifically, I question your conclusion in light of the usage of the term in discussion (son of the morning/Lucifer/light bearer/Morningstar/daystar) in Isaiah chapter 14..."

You then ruminated:

"In this context, I would think that (son of the morning, also translated as morningstar or daystar) was not a name for an angel of god, but a name of a Babylonian god, perhaps even a god worshiped by the tyrant keeping the Israelites in Babylonian captivity."

Whatever the case, therein lies the origin of "Lucifer" and the very source of Milton's satan.

Kelly said: "Ya..I must remember to show a little more respect for the aged...especially when they have lived longer than Methuselah."

Seven Star claims to be the High Priest Melchizedek.

(conflated with the mutant Apocalypse from the X-Men)

What if he is, though, and we're just the obligatory scoffers? ;)

2:34 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said, "Seven Star claims to be the High Priest Melchizedek."


Yet he is contradictory in doing so. He may claim such things while denouncing religion.

I think HE is being blasphemous!

"I am the ancient sage and symbologist who labored through many lifetimes authoring much of the ancient wisdom and prophecy that religious leaders recast to serve their own greedy and deceptive purposes."

One must ask, "What drug is he taking?"

7:15 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

If you look at Seven Star's bio..

"Occupation: MessiahM"


Almost leads me to swear.

7:22 AM  
Anonymous douglass said...

"One must ask, "What drug is he taking?""


Kelly, my bet is that Seven star is on a combination of hallucinogenic mushrooms, LSD and Xanax.

7:38 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

hallucinogenic mushrooms, LSD and Xanax...

LOL


His bio says he Occupation is "Messiah" but his blog entry says he is Melchezideck.

Kelly bows to "Seven Star" and then rolls on the floor laughing OUT LOUD!!

Sorry, I should let him worship himself as he chooses. After all, isn't that what I have been taught...to allow all men the right to worship how, where or what they may.

I must draw the line, however.

My eyes hurt from all the rolling.

9:16 AM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

John,

you forgot the Catholic preoccupation with the virgin Mary. Praying to her is a big no-no, and much more common than praying to "saints."

The idea that manipulative medieval Popes are saintly is a subject that would make a nice entry.

I used to look at their portraits for fun, just to see which ones looked the most evil and scheming. Sure, they weren't all bad, but there were some real stinkers. Despite the adage about judging a book by its cover, you usually can tell a lot about a person by looking at their face.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

I'm pretty sure Kurgman's blog is parody.

4:28 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

What makes you think its parody, Jeff?

5:40 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Doug,

the passage in Isaiah refers to the King of Babylon. I don't remember what his name was supposed to be, but it doesnt really matter. Babylon itself was seen as a place of great iniquity by most of the Israelites and historical names are seldom the same as the modern versions.

John, you're right about Milton getting his inspiration from Biblical passages.

Nowadays, a lot of what people believe to be Christian doctrine is actually "Christian mythology." Traditional Christian fables is a more accurate description, because "CM" is used by Atheist hatemongers to bash Christianity and its followers.

People often read too much into the Bible. They also confuse stories from authors like Milton and Dante with the real deal.

Most atheists don't know jack-shit about the Bible. Most of them get all their distorted information from Christian bashing moonbats. Of course, they tend to get ALL of their information from moonbat sources: History, politics, economics, science, etc. No wonder they're so screwed up. Primary sources are largely ignored. Ideology is all, to those morons.

Even normal people (conservatives,) ignore primary sources too often. I know I do. Research can be tedious and most information on the internet is relayed without authoritative sources at best, and is absolute horse-shit at worst.

6:21 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

Pity. Hope. Concern for his sanity.

6:23 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

That last one was in answer to your question, Kelly.

God help him if he is serious.

6:24 PM  
Blogger John said...

Dante had a special place in hell for a pope.

9:27 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Indiana Jones." lol

9:43 PM  
Blogger Jeff Bargholz said...

The Pope Dante wrote about was less than pleased. He was still alive when the book was written.

Dante had balls.

5:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home