Spirituality introduction

Mathematics in the Book of Revelation

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 08:35:47 -0700

Here is a sword and shepherd’s staff that appears on the face of the earth when you draw a straight line beginning at the Temple Mount and in sequence through each of the assemblies named in Revelation (use the literal text, not a translation):

Spatial distances on the face of the earth (i.e., between Laodicea and Babylon) and timelines we calculate in history (i.e., between the years 1348 and 1948), are surface (area) representations that appear to be encoded like riddles in the Book of Revelation.
And reading the Book of Revelation has been intellectually stimulating for countless mathematicians throughout history (with Isaac Newton being one of the most famous, as he devoted a very large portion of his career to the study).
Important research is suggesting that in the bigger picture, the entire Book of Revelation is mathematical and physical as it testifies to the spiritual. Just as a hexagon is the shadow of a cube (from the perspective of one looking from its corner), a cube can represent the shadow of a 4-dimensional hypercube.

The power and meaning of the biblical messiah’s story and identity is mysterious to me, and so I find it logical when Yahshua invites us to be humble like children in order to enter into the reign of the heavens. Matthew 18:1-7. He also invited us to be students of his teaching, and brethren amongst one another. Matthew 23:8-10.
We are told in the gospel that the Messiah is the anointed son (see e.g., John 1:34, 10:36, 17:3). This is confirmed again in the Book of Revelation as we read for example Rev 1:4-6, “John, to the seven churches that in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and was and comes and from the seven spirits that are before his throne and from Yahshua messiah, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth, who loved us and released us from our sins by his blood and made us a priestly kingdom to Elohim [Alaha], even his Father.”
Olam is the Hebrew word often used to describe something beyond our intellectual spacetime horizon as humans, and it reminds me of the difficulty of trying to calculate the ultimate value of numbers like e (natural number). We know this number (2.71828…) is relevant and constructive in our natural world, even beautiful in its problem solving, and yet our ancestors dubbed it ‘irrational’ (not as a derogatory term, but rather just because it transcended a traditional ‘preference’ for integers). This is but one example of an historical misnomer in language that is corrected by math and physics. Or in other words, there are just some things we can’t really appreciate with depth without first calculating and physically representing them in the multidimensional world. Indeed, by seeing them only through modern language we also run the risk of misinterpreting even their surface value!
As highlighted above, spatial distances on the face of the earth and timelines we calculate in history are surface (area) representations that appear to be encoded within the Book of Revelation. In our computer era it is now possible to display the evidence that the deeper and more thoroughly we calculate and cross-reference the relevant spatial distances and relevant timelines (i.e., by mapping out the color wheel of the torus, by characterizing the wavelengths of the aleph bet), the more we will find testimony to the mathematics of spacetime (i.e., phi, pi, e) and the very structure of our universe (ie., chemistry, biology, geometry, astronomy, quantum mechanics, conceptual ethics) embedded throughout the Book of Revelation.

Revelation 11:1-2, “And was given to me a reed like a rod and stood the angel and said Rise up and measure the temple of Elohim [Alaha] and the altar and those who worship in it and the court within the temple leave out and not do measure it because it is given to the gentiles and the city holy they will trample down months forty and two”.
Revelation 12 is a key chapter providing evidence of mathematical and physical mysteries. Moreover, the concept of Revelation 12 as being ‘one chapter’ is kind of a misnomer itself, as we find that physics and math help explain its meaning in conjunction with Revelation 11, 13, 14, etc. Mystery is promised to the servants of Elohim (e.g., Rev. 10:7, Daniel 12), along with law to judge all of us. And thank goodness for the whole justice that is done, and the whole meaning and the beauty that is declared and enforced.

Now, there are countless self-proclaimed “teachers” and “chosen ones” out there right now who are wielding mere pieces of mysteries in the form of ‘sacred geometry’ and ‘secret society’ teachings. Are these individuals not trying to hack their way into the cosmos (like the scientists tinkering at CERN) and the mind of man without first establishing a guaranteed plan to declare and enforce beauty and justice in their experiments and the immediate and ripple effects of those experiments?   Come what may with aliens and demons, the inhabitants of the earth in this generation may claim that you too can wield your own ‘self-manifesting intuitive power’ to create “happiness” and “love”, or perhaps they will ask you to serve them (in order to share in their power), or invite you to change your DNA.
One of the recurring themes I’ve found in the writings of occultists is the claim that Yahweh wants to steal your power – their evidence is often just the testimony of ancient tablet writers (i.e., Ugarites or Sumerians) who worshipped ‘star gods’ and dead ancestors, etc. You will know them by their fruits. Moreover, it is written in Revelation 13:14 that people will be seduced by signs performed by the beast (of the land) at the end of the tribulation age. Learn about the relationship between signs and faith/trust in John chapter 6. Learn about YHVH in the Book of Job.
And you can observe for yourself in the world today that when a person genuinely seeks to follow the example of the biblical messiah (Yahshua), that person basically strives to be honest, to help and love other people, and to promote law & order. Obviously, a genuine Christian doesn’t advocate (as some occult researchers claim) the slave trade for alien gold mining operations! Nor did the biblical messiah do things like sacrifice animals or promote slavery or promote gold mining. Rather, he healed people, he freed the animals from their cages (thereby preventing sacrifice), and he counseled people to share with one another and work for spiritual rewards rather than for earthly gold (see e.g., Matthew 6:19, Rev. 3:18).
Now compare the large priesthoods of history and today (especially in the top echelons of the Catholic hierarchy) that promote holy wars and who hoard gold. Despite the very direct evidence of faux-religion compared to the genuine spirituality and honesty and goodwill of those who seek to abide in the words given by the messiah, many occult researchers will continue to offer claims that the “god of the bible” wants to steal your power. Don't fall for it! The ancient alien aspect of these claims is made by researchers that have usually only one source – inaccurate translations of tablet records of very ancient people like the Sumerians or Ugarites (cultures centered upon occultism and sacrifices) compiled by men like Zacharia Sitchin and repeated endlessly in flashy cover paperbacks.
I think mankind has been and is destined to experience a saga of good and evil, which is created by YHVH (Eloha (hebrew); Alha (aramaic)). Try to write any interesting story, or produce any epic film, or tell any funny joke, or raise any healthy child without an appreciation of contrast.   YHVH sets both good and evil on their course. Isaiah 45:5-7. See also, Ezekiel 14:9, 1 Kings 22:19-23, 2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Job 12:24, Isaiah 44:24-25.
I’ve found we can’t genuinely understand the good (ie., light is evidence) without contrasting the evil (ie., dark is evidence). The Revelation 12 clock I’ve been writing about (with its allegory between the special woman and the fierce dragon) embody that reasoning. Even the dragon can wield a tetrahedron, so we shouldn’t be persuaded by signs alone… but rather we are best served by first searching out virtue (honesty, fairness, natural abundance, justice, beauty). I like the idea that we can strive to gravitate to those virtues without harming them or trying to claim them as our own. That which serves destruction, is destruction. That which serves life, is life. Sounds logical to me.
Indeed we must watch our steps. A common theme I’ve found among self-described ‘teachers’ on earth who are trying to hack it the name of serving or resisting dragons is the submission to lawlessness and the rejection of the testimony of Yahshua. To find the testimony of Yahshua, I think we need ears to hear and eyes to see beyond the commentaries that have invaded priestly ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism’ and other religions. Today there is a ‘new age’ teaching too that comes from the bowels of the self-proclaimed ‘spiritual hierarchy’ that is centered upon self-exalting energy manifestation. One doesn’t need to practice their rituals to see they are preaching repackaged Babylonian doctrines.
Reading the bible in the oldest and most literal manner I am able, I think I see the biblical messiah exposed a great deal of the conventional religious teachings of his day as he directly admonished the Pharisees. And, it is written that he ejected demons from quite a few humans as well.
Personally, I feel that I am inherently an intellectual novice and spiritual novice by virtue of human limitations, so I logically am interested in finding an enlightened teacher to help me use power effectively and safely. I can’t emphasize this enough - humans need harmony, law, and order. The teachings of the biblical messiah, as read literally in the ancient language, provide that harmony, law, and order in my opinion. I’m not saying that extra-biblical learning is bad, or that meditation is bad, or that thinking outside the box is bad, or anything like that. Rather, I’m saying it is illogical to throw away the gift of a moral desire to be a law-abiding and honorable person who keeps his/her vices in check. Likewise, it is logical to be cautiously aware of rituals that try to harness human energy to feed our vices or the vices of others.
Why be humble? Read the Book of Job. I can’t create beautiful galaxies and peaceful rivers for my fellow humans to appreciate like a clock without the danger of inadvertently causing chaos. Nor can I create a Leviathan on the same torus clock and keep it in check (tick, tock). My experience is that it is hard enough managing my organic ranch productively on earth and keeping the predators in check!

I think the biblical messiah is the anointed teacher for our age. Learn from Matthew chapter 7 regarding what is expected of us. As for the next age, the millennial age, I expect it will be a time of great insight into the physical and mathematical mysteries in the Book of Revelation.  And then at the end of the millennial age, there is a final great test before YHVH provides a new earth with a new cube inside. (Rev. 21:1-7).
 Photo by Pat Marvenko Smith and used with her permission
In the end, my hope is that justice will be done, truths will be revealed through a fantastically interesting saga, and love and peace will be celebrated in a great triumph over evil. I feel these were promised by the biblical messiah, and appreciating that hope in the heart might be likened to the beginning of bliss on earth. (John 17:3).

Chasing Rainbows and Running From Bullets

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:12:46 -0700

Of all the choices we make in life, here is the mindset that may be at the essential root of decision-making: "Do I genuinely and humbly desire to love others through radically peaceful and natural actions?"

To answer this question, here are two key points: #1: lips don’t desire, hearts do. And #2: taking radical risks, even with your own life and the continuity of your nation, is necessary to radical peace.

One lesson I gather from the gospel is that radically peaceful actions cause radical effects - they invite entire societies to accept radically peaceful mindsets. And it is radical peace that serves organic communities and loving families, not wars and conflicts and debts and anger and pollution-based economy.

And yet radically peaceful actions seem so offensive to us whenever our "way of life" is threatened because, key point: we are trying illogically to preserve our violent selves. Violence in response to violence = ever spiraling violence. And we hide our violent ways like yeast in a loaf of bread. Here are some examples: (1) We support charities that actually cause great harm (such as the Red Cross, which is a drug-pushing arm of the military-industrial complex masquerading as a humanitarian organization; and Meals on Wheels, which specializes in delivering cheap tortured animal products and chemical/GMO/pesticide/etc food to seniors), (2) We "support the troops" but claim we are against the war and DU and torture, (3) We support our local church even though it pushes its own doctrines as the "word of God"...

Here's a difficult quiz:

A man owes you money but he cannot pay...
A. You forgive the debt and pray for him
B. You write a letter asking for the money and then when he can't pay, you hire a lawyer and sue
C. You threaten him with violence and then take something of his

A police officer wrongfully batons your nose during a protest...
A. You forgive the officer and pray for him
B. You sue the government
C. You break his nose

A homeless man is starving...
a. You find a way to give him organic food, or money and the information to buy organic food. You pray for him.
b. You deliver him with (or to) tortured animal food or chemical/GMO/pesticide/etc food
c. You have him taken away for loitering

10,000 Somali citizens are starving...
A. You carefully research a way to deliver support to an organization helping the Somali people achieve self-sufficient organic homesteads, and then you act passionately toward achieving this goal
B. You donate to a garden-variety charity and otherwise vote with your TV remote, dollars, and ballot box to support NATO efforts to intervene militarily while the IMF restructures the country's debt and the World Bank perpetuates dependence on chemical-based foreign agriculture and western drug medicine
C. You actively help the military-industrial complex invade the country because it is a convenient time to take their resources

The mainstream news report says that scientists confirm 'global warming' threatens the planet...
A. You independently research whether this is correct, find lots of credible evidence about the dangers of air pollution but you also realize most global warming reports about CO2 are propaganda used by the military-industrial-political complex to promote false and oppressive 'solutions' like Agenda 21 and carbon-credit trading schemes. But because air pollution itself is not propaganda, you take steps to radically reduce the pollution and unproductive energy use in your life.
B. You vote for politicians who support nuclear power as a “safer” alternative to coal
C. You agree with your friends over wine that the world is overpopulated and then the next day you go back to work within the military-industrial complex to create products that slowly kill people

A man approaches you on street with a gun and asks for all your money...
A. As you give him money you tell him that it is a gift and that you will pray for his salvation.
B. You report the assault to the authorities to ensure he is arrested and confined in prison for several years
C. You seize the gun and end his life.

An army, many of whom are pillaging rapists, invades the United States...
A. You take shelter to protect your family with pacifism. You bake organic bread and give it to the invaders, but also petition for peace and freedom.
B. You fight to the death in defense of your own army, many of whom have also been pillaging rapists in other countries
C. You let the nukes fly

A crazy man murders someone you love and is taking steps to find his next victim...
A. You detain the man, and deliver him to the custody of authorities, and you petition the authorities to rehabilitate the man in a secure but organic landscape that is free of cages/cells and prison culture. When the authorities ignore your request, you visit the man in prison and do your best to bring him organic comfort.
B. You deliver him to authorities and take solace in his misery
C. You actively find and torture the man

Some preacher tells you that if you die without having confessed that Jesus is your savior, then you are likely to suffer eternity in hell...
a. You research the literal words of the oldest gospel you can find and discover the preacher's claim is false, which your logic also confirms. So you take heed of the literal-words in the gospel, and different possible interpretations as well, even humbly accepting the natural difficulties of drawing ultimate conclusions, and then you share your experience with others that you found the doctrine of 'eternal hell' to be a false one.
b. You join the preacher's little religious cult, which is part of ever larger cults, and help spread their/your message of fear and hate
c. You actively become a satanist.

..,

I expect that many who have read the above have already jumped to conclusions and feel I am naive to suggest that answer A is always correct as 'radically peaceful', answer B is mainstream, and answer C represents a kind of sinister new world order initiate. I don't submit that answer A is always correct in the world, or that the world is as simple as A-B-C, but rather that answer A helps illustrate a radical mindset that would theoretically change the world, or at least change your world if you practiced it. Whether answer A is morally defensible in any given situation, to me depends on the question of whether it is wise (or a well-calculated risk) to trust that the messiah of the bible invited pacifism, and that YHVH will ultimately do justice for us all.

And I hear the world calling for change, though most of that dialogue is just lip service. Key point: Our lips lie, but our hearts record the violent intentions of the self. So, if you wish to be forgiven for your own violent heart, then you need to learn to forgive others. And you'll know whether you have a forgiving heart because your actions will show love. If you want to experience radical peace, then be radically peaceful even in the face of radical violence. If you want to experience a beautifully clean environment, then take actions to radically clean the environment and produce only organic biodegradable waste. Why do I feel this is correct? Because I think it generally follows logically from the gospel. Identifying who is the aggressor and who is the victim is not always easy either - sometimes we operate together.

As a hypocrite, I have major reservations about writing blog posts like this one. But I suppose this post seems logically correct to me, so I'm publishing it. I don't mean to suggest that I am actually self-righteous in my words here or actions on earth. Perhaps like the rainbow on the horizon, this is something beautiful to walk toward rather than something we realistically think we'll touch. And yet, we do touch rainbows when light interfaces with the brain.

Watch for Signs ~ A Thesis on the Book of Revelation ~

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:31:31 -0800

Download

...

Excerpt from the Introduction (footnotes omitted):

Why do mathematicians study bible prophecy? For starters, the ancient literal bible supports a high number of fulfilled prophecies and scientific phenomena, and continually instructs readers to ‘watch for signs.’

In section II.B, this thesis chronicles important calculations that point to the rise of Satan (and his chosen counterfeit messiah) in 2015-2016 (Hebrew years 5775-5776), followed by the second-coming and triumph of the real Messiah from 2018-2020 (Hebrew years 5778-5780).

But let‘s begin by suspending conclusions for a moment, and asking, “Even if all literal bible prophecies are consummated to the ‘jot and tittle,’ why draw the conclusion that the bible points to a loving and just creator of a solar system?” I think most folks come to ‘end-times’ study hoping to confirm the timeline and identity of the winning team so they can cheer and boo at the right times while wearing a colorful uniform. I’ll venture that strategy is shallow by itself. Studying the end-times begins with humility - learning how to ask the right questions and knowing our own personal skills/limitations, rather than believing in hasty conclusions. Only with a strong foundation can a man’s trust firmly weather a storm – it takes grace, and the product of grace is service.

This end-times study is non-denominational and based on independent research gathered from many sources. Though I’m sure I’ve failed to some extent, I’ve strived to incorporate only credible evidence (e.g., literal bible quotes, sound mathematical measurements, verified historical records).

Scholars often teach that most of the Book of Daniel was fulfilled in the past and is not relevant to today. I contend otherwise – probably all of the bible is relevant to today, even if some passages in context serve only as typologies, foreshadowed examples, repeated examples, correlations, warnings, etc. Indeed, prophetic history appears to be repeating itself like clockwork before our eyes today. Preterism, futurism, historicism – too frequently these terms are used to engage thinkers in a false hermeneutics debate, where one thinker claims his theory is absolutely (or definitively) right in all (or most) instances and the other theories are wrong. In my opinion, each of the above-named theories of interpretation generally have something valuable to offer. They complement one another, perhaps just as individual verses within the Book of Daniel compliment one another.

My goal is to present an end-times chronology that systematically identifies relevant events, dates, places, and living beings. Therefore, this study is based on research, logic, and mathematics.

Beyond the scope of this study is why (spiritually) the Book of Revelation is likely to be fulfilled, or why (morally) it may be a smart idea to pursue salvation in the biblical Messiah. On these two great questions, I’ll just venture that by studying the end-times, we can find a unique spiritual/personal reward - on the mountain of olives, the Messiah is quoted as saying that the love of many chills because of the abundance of injustices during the end of the age, but whoever endures/evangelizes (Aramaic = sabar) until the finality will be saved/forgiven. I find the spiritual emphasis of that message to be essential to an honest approach to end-times study. Indeed, in many ways it feels futile to completely convince oneself of any particular end-times chronology -- there are just too many variables in this world of deception, including even calendar disputes (see section II.A below for details). So the Messiah’s emphasis on the spiritual side saves the study (again) from futility in the hands of sinners, by contextualizing the focus toward personal endurance and love. Indeed, the message from Matthew chapters 24-25 connects naturally with the only other recorded sermon at the mountain of olives, found in Matthew chapters 5-7, regarding sin.

(Read More)
...

This thesis is also available at Scribd.

Constitutional Law Analysis Of Forced Vaccination During Martial Law, War, Outbreak or Pandemic

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:44:00 -0700

Full Legal Analysis Memo

Excerpt from Introduction (footnotes omitted)

I. QUESTION PRESENTED

Is It Lawful For Government Powers In A Republic, Like The United States, To Force Vaccination or Quarantine In The Event Of Declared Martial Law, War, Outbreak or Pandemic?

II. BRIEF ANSWER

No, in a Republic, the individual rights of humans to be “peacefully natural” categorically defeat a government‘s emergency powers, unless the government can lawfully establish any of the following:

(a) Right of self defense via police power – By one view, the right of self-defense can only be proven through a person-by-person inquiry. Courts here examine whether the physical danger of communicable disease is so potent that another individual in causal proximity to the infected individual would have the lawful right to immediately immobilize or kill the specific infected individual, without trial, as a matter of reasonable self-defense.

However, there is another view that goes even beyond self-defense, claiming the State “police power” allows government wide discretion to preemptively promote “the public health” through “reasonable means.” Unfortunately, tyrannical governments have routinely abused this latter view (especially in the last century) to justify mass quarantines of unpopular groups, indefinite detentions of the ill, and nonconsensual medical procedures. Accordingly, barring a civil and intellectual revolution of law in the present generation, it is expected that modern military-medical establishments will continue to define “police power” in a self-serving manner. This means that where panic deems it expedient, most governments will invoke mandatory quarantines, forced vaccinations, and non-consensual medical procedures, regardless of dissent that questions their lawfulness.

(b) Legitimate prisoners – this is a generalized inquiry, where the individuals are already legitimate prisoners or detainees (consistent with due process of law) for crimes other than simply refusing vaccination, and the circumstances of their incarceration or detainment pose a material threat of disease communicability; or

(c) Enters government property or populated public area - this is a person-by-person inquiry, where the individual enters (or expressly states an intention to enter) government property (such as a public building or park, other than natural lands / wilderness) or a populated public area in a manner posing a material threat of disease communicability.

(Read More)

The Dangers of Idolatry

Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:50:25 -0700

Honoring an idol (icon, statue) might be likened to praying to a two-dimensional shadow in the hopes of gaining knowledge of (or blessings from) the multi-dimensional universe, which could be futile or misleading in a spiritual sense. So perhaps it's a way to take prayer in the wrong direction, as shadows/idols are not alive. You might say there is a danger of investing living focus/energy in a dead idol/object, especially where your living focus/energy is a gift from your creator, given for the purpose of advancing life rather than death. Do the dead know more than the living? Do we have the power to bring the dead to life?

Idolatry appears to lead some people to reject living things that contradict or compete with their idol. Organized religion seems to rely on idols to subjugate people to ritualistic thinking and behavior. In most cases, religious ritualism leads to oppression and conflict rather than freedom and peace.

Praying to an idol appears to be like focusing the mind on a mere effect/image rather than a living cause/force. I've observed that in society when people focus on effects rather than root causes, it generally leads to useless disagreements (i.e., voting Republican or Democrat, even though both actually promote the murderous military-industrial complex), hypocritical finger pointing, and false ideologies.

An idol cannot love you back. By contrast, there are countless people on the planet who need attention and caring.

If by happenstance, an idol came to life and starting talking and moving, you'd probably be very scared, and you'd wonder whether it was possessed by a demon. And in such a case, you'd probably stop praying to idols and start praying to your heavenly father for protection and guidance. So, why not skip that bizarre process and go directly to the source now?

Bible Reading

Ezek. 16:8-19 “And I pass you by and see you; behold, your time is a time of loves: and I spread my wing over you and cover your nakedness: yes, I oath to you and enter a covenant with you — an oracle of Adonay Yah Veh and you become mine: and I baptize you with water; yes, I throughly wash away your blood from you and I anoint you with oil: and I enrobe you with embroidery and shod you with skin of badgers; and I bind you with white linen and I cover you with silk: and I adorn you with ornaments and I give clasps on your hands and a chain on your throat: and I give a nosering on your nostrils and earrings in your ears and a crown of adornment on your head: and adorn you with gold and silver; and your robe is of white linen and silk and embroidery: you eat flour and honey and oil: and you are mightily beautified and you prosper into a sovereigndom: and because of your beauty your name goes forth among the goyim: for it is perfect through my majesty which I set on you — an oracle of Adonay Yah Veh. And you confide in your own beauty and whore because of your name; and pour your whoredoms on every one who passes by — to him. And from your clothes, you take of the patches, and work your bamahs and whore thereon: such as neither has come, nor becomes. And you take your instruments of adornment of my gold and of my silver, which I give you, and work images of males to yourself and whore with them; and take your clothes of embroidery and cover them: and you give my oil and my incense at their face: and the meat I give you — flour and oil and honey to eat, you even give at their face for a scent of rest: and so be it, — an oracle of Adonay Yah Veh.”

Ezek. 35-42, “So, O whore, hear the word of Yah Veh! Thus says Adonay Yah Veh: Because your copper is poured, and your nakedness exposed through your whoredoms with your lovers and with all the idols of your abhorrences, and by the blood of your sons, which you give them; behold, so I gather all your lovers whom you pleased and all whom you loved with all whom you hated — and I gather them all around against you and expose your nakedness to them so that they see all your nakedness. And I judge you with judgments as adulteresses who pour blood; and I give you blood and fury and jealousy: and I give you into their hand: and they throw down your arch and pull down your ramahs: and they strip you of your clothes and take your instruments of adornment; and leave you naked and nude: and they ascend a congregation against you and stone you with stones and section you with their swords: and they burn your houses with fire and work judgments on you in the eyes of many women: and I shabbathize you from whoring and that you give a payoff no more. Thus I rest my fury toward you; and turn my jealousy from you: and I rest, and vex no more.”

Perspectives on Alhym (Elohim) Historically and Today

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:34:54 -0700

A. Introduction

This blog post addresses some key questions: Who are the creator beings (“we”) referenced in Genesis Chapter 1 (various transcriptions: Alhym, Elohim, Alheim, Elhym)? Is the father named in the bible (various transcriptions: Yahweh, YHVH, Yehweh, IEUE, Yah Veh, Yahweh) the same being as the one referred to as the most high (sometimes transcribed El Elyon)? Does ‘Alhym’ refer to a specific kingdom? A group of beings? Or is it just a word that can be used to refer specifically or generally to a ‘god’, ‘gods’, or a deified kingdom or authority? If it does refer to a specific kingdom (as I assume here in this post, for better or worse), is any one Alhym the almighty and omnipotent creator of the universe? These questions lead to more questions about the relationships and identities among Alhym, perhaps beginning with the origin, spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of names.

Just as I would feel like a dog by calling my dad “dog,” so too may it be futile to pray toward a name that means dog, or worse. Alternatively, because there are so many languages, perhaps word meaning is imbued by the individual perspective of your mind and heart, so that if you sincerely feel love and respect when praying to “god,” maybe that’s good enough and your father in heaven will not be too disappointed.

I don’t know, but important historical research suggests that pronunciation is a way to imbue specific meaning, because each sound may have a specific meaning. On the historical and pictographical side, see the detailed research at http://yehspace.ning.com (www.ieue.org), referring to English sounds: IEUE (pronounced roughly ee-aye-oo-aye) as ‘he secures breathing’; IEUESHUO (pronounced roughly ee-aye-oo-aye-sh-oh) as ‘IEUE saves.’

And on the physical side, see e.g. www.meru.org showing each Hebrew letter has an objective geometrical value, and therefore its own meaning that can be physically measured. See also, Matthew 15:18-19. Additional reading: The Hebraic Tongue Restored, Fabre d'Olivet; The Cipher Of Genesis, Carlo Suares; Alphabet of the Heart, Dan Winter; The God Code, by Gregg Braden.

I really like the example set by the Messiah. See e.g., Matthew 6:9-15. Assuming he spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, my research shows he may have used words like ab / aba (father) and Elohim / Alhyn (authority) - interested readers should research alternative and complimentary translations as well. It appears that Yahshua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. At the time he walked the earth, formal torah teaching and study was generally performed in ancient Hebrew (albeit with Aramaic script), whereas in general society and interpersonal matters virtually all jewish people spoke Aramaic. (Source).

So that’s the language background for why I use the following English words: father, creator, authority, and messiah.

I am only slowly learning now to read and write Hebrew and Aramaic. It’s a challenge, so I just learn as I go; hopefully with humility. Perhaps fortunately for me, I don’t recall the Messiah instructing the apostles to teach people how to speak Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew. I think these can be useful skills indeed, but the greater message it seems is to share the good news of salvation, and service. Also, Matthew 24:14 says:

And this evangelism of the sovereigndom is preached
in all the world in a witness to all peoples:
and then comes the shalam.

Naturally, the research here can be intimidating, but remember Proverbs 25:2,

“The honor of Elohim is to hide a word; and the honor of sovereigns to probe a word.”

By one view, the literal bible reads most consistently by envisioning the alhym (elohim) as an enlightened race of practically supernatural beings in the universe, enjoying a mighty kingdom that includes authority over at least some planets and stars and heavens. By another view, the Father’s power is more fundamental to physical creation (perhaps even universal creation) by way of an ability to control physical and conceptual phenomena like time and math. See e.g., There's Nothing Random About the Universe, by Jeffery Meiliken.

My research shows there are complex hierarchies among Alhym, including beings typically referred to as angels. (See e.g., Matthew 18:10). You might say that from our perspective, the name Alhym means authority. The Alhym whose name is YHVH (click here to see the hebrew letters), who also has many names, is the creator and authority over at least the earth and all the heavens above the earth. A key point: we were instructed by the biblical Messiah (some transliteration options: Yesu, Jesus, Ieueshuo, Yahshua) that a great many facts about this kingdom are beyond our reach to a certain measure, so we should try to abide in the word and listen to the spirit of truth to discern what we can. See e.g., John 3:1-8 (discussed in detail below) and John 8:31. Perhaps being born again means being adopted into an Alhym kingdom through the Messiah.

B. Sons of Someone

Especially in the last 100-years, these naming questions have led to interesting theological debates between two unique camps of Christians, generally referred to as ‘elohists’ and ‘yahwists.’ Both groups have contributed a lot to the area of study, but only a handful of researchers on either side appear openly willing to admit the textual evidence is inconclusive from today’s perspective.

For our first example of the theological debate, we read Deuteronomy 32:8, which elohists generally assert for the proposition that “Yahweh” is one of many sons of “Elyon.” But that interpretation first hinges on which translation is more accurate - ‘sons of El’ or ‘sons of Israel’? Scholars have disagreed, and the context of Deuteronomy Chapter 38 (excerpt below) appears inconclusive as well. So without that answer, both elohists and yahwists appear to just be guessing, and perhaps doubly so to the extent that bible writers and editors were unduly susceptible to bias either in favor or against (the name) YHVH, which is a running theme throughout the bible. Or if you like, we don’t even know what we don’t know.

Here is one literal-based Hebrew translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, 36-39:

"8 When Elyon had the goyim to inherit, when he separated the sons of humanity, he stationed the borders of the people according to the number of the sons of Yisra El.
9 For the allotment of Yah Veh is his people; Yaaqov is the boundary of his inheritance.
...
36 For Yah Veh judges his people and sighs for his servants, when he sees their hand disappear and no one restrains.
37 And he says, Where are their elohim? — their rock in whom they sought refuge
38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their libation? Raise them to help you and be your covert.
39 See now that I — I am he and there is no Elohim with me: I deathify and I enliven; I strike and I heal: no one escapes my hand."

So, I think this passage alone, when read literally, appears inconclusive on the status of YHVH Alhym among Alhym. We see routinely in the bible that YHVH is described as “YHVH your Elohim,” and that those on the earth chosen to love YHVH are blessed. See e.g., Deuteronomy 33:12; Psalm 83:17-18, “Shame and terrify them eternally [hebrew = “ad”]; yes, that they blush and destruct; so that they know that you, whose name alone is Yah Veh, are Elyon over all the earth.”

If our experience on earth is any guide, each living thing has only one father and one mother. I think that’s correct, but perhaps there is an exception somewhere. In any case, we can and do have lots of other family, friends, caretakers, and levels of authority beyond our direct parents.

C. Many Names

The bible invites us to consider that the authority over earth comes to men with different names at different times (in different contexts), as in this example from Exodus 6:2-8:

"2 And Elohim words to Mosheh and says to him, I — Yah Veh:
3 and I was seen by Abraham, by Yischaq and by Yaaqov as El Shadday; but I was not known to them by my name Yah Veh:
4 and I also raised my covenant with them to give them the land of Kenaan — the land of their sojournings wherein they sojourn:
5 and I also heard the groaning of the sons of Yisra El whom the Misrayim serve:
and I remember my covenant.
6 Say thus to the sons of Yisra El, I — Yah Veh and I bring you out from under the burdens of the Misrayim: and I rescue you from their service and I redeem you with spread arm and with great judgments:
7 and I take you to me — a people and I — to you — Elohim: and you know — I — Yah Veh your Elohim,
who brings you out from under the burdens of the Misrayim:
8 and I bring you to the land, concerning which I lifted my hand to give it to Abraham, to Yischaq and to Yaaqov; and I give it you for a possession:
I — Yah Veh."

Again, I think this passage alone, when read literally, appears inconclusive on the status of YHVH Alhym among Alhym. Perhaps this is why the Messiah said the way to know the father is through the Messiah first.

If our experience on earth is any example, then it is natural that we learn new things about our family over time. Not only do we learn that our dad has a first name, middle name, last name, and all sorts of names that our mom calls him, but we also learn about different family relationships and experiences. And the more we mature, the more we learn to discern the meaning of these matters, which then results in our receiving even more information. And some things are just private/hidden, at least for now.

You might say virtually the entire bible is reading on the many names and descriptions of YHVH and Elohim. Here is just a tiny sample for illustrative purposes:

Psalm 31:5, “Yah Veh El of truth” 
Deuteronomy 7:9, “Yah Veh your Elohim is Elohim - the trustworthy El who guards covenant and mercy with them who love him and guards his misvoth” 
Deuteronomy 10:17, “for Yah Veh your Elohim - Elohim of elohim and Adonay of adonim, the great El, the mighty and awesome, who neither lifts faces, nor takes bribes: who works the judgment of the orphan and widow and loves the sojourner in giving him bread and clothes.” 
Psalm 148:13, “Halal the name of Yah Veh; for his name alone is lofted; his majesty is above the earth and the heavens” 
Psalm 8:1, “O Yah Veh, our Adonay, how mighty your name in all the earth” 
Psalm 83:17-18, “Shame and terrify them eternally; yes, that they blush and destruct; so that they know that you, whose name alone is Yah Veh, are Elyon over all the earth.” 
Isaiah 42:5-8, “Thus says El Yah Veh, who created the heavens and spread them; who expanded the earth and its offspring; who gave breath to the people thereon, and spirit to them who walk therein: I Yah Veh call you in justness and hold your hand and guard you; and give you for a covenant of the people and a light of the goyim: to open the eyes of the blind; to bring the bound from the lock up; those sitting in darkness from the prison house. I — Yah Veh: that is my name: and I neither give my honor to another, nor my halal to sculptiles.” 
Isaiah 44:6, “Thus says Yah Veh the Sovereign of Yisra El, and his redeemer Yah Veh Sabaoth; I — the first, and I — the final; and except me, there is no Elohim.” 
Isaiah 45:2-7, “I go at your face and straighten the esteemed: I break in pieces the gates of copper and cut apart the bars of iron: and I give you the treasures of darkness and hidden treasures of coverts so that you know, I — Yah Veh, who calls you by your name, Elohim of Yisra El. For sake of my servant Yaaqov and Yisra El my chosen, I even call you by your name: I give you an honorary degree, though you know me not. I — Yah Veh, and there is no one else, there is no Elohim except me: I girded you, though you know me not: so that they know from the rising of the sun and from the dusk that there is no one final except me: I — Yah Veh, and there is no one else: I form the light and create darkness: I work shalom and create evil: I Yah Veh work all these.”

Joel 2:30-32 “And I give omens in the heavens and in the earth — blood and fire and columns of smoke: the sun turns into darkness and the moon into blood at the face of the coming the great and awesome day of Yah Veh. And so be it, whoever calls on the name of Yah Veh is rescued: for in mount Siyon and in Yeru Shalem is an escape, as Yah Veh says, and in the survivors whom Yah Veh calls.” 
Matthew 5:16 - “father” (‘aba)

In just about every chapter of the gospel we can find the Messiah referring to "alaha" (Aramaic); or if you mistakenly cling to the Greek translation as a primary source (I don’t, because for example see http://aramaicnt.com/research.htm), then "qeon." According to my research, the Aramaic translation ‘alaha’ comes from "Alhym" (Elohim). While conquering and plundering societies throughout history, organized religion (especially the Vatican) repackaged our father's names and identities into one word that proved convenient for converting diverse cultures, "God." Is it a doctrine a men? A form of idolatry? A form of self-exultation (to presume we are so important to the creator of the universe)? I think a key message of the biblical gospel is that because we are like children we need to trust our heavenly father (whether or not he is the omnipotent master of the universe) will show us a path home, and the Messiah is inviting us to follow him (his example) on the narrow path to our father.

Here are four Aramaic examples for emphasis:

John 1:1 (possibly referring to earth, heaven and earth, solar system, the universe, other?)
In the beginning
1671c risita nn beginning

the Word having been
71a it vv had, has, have, having
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
1008a melta nn word

and the Word having been unto God
481 hu pro he, it, she
1008a melta nn word
71a it vv had, has, have, having
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh

and God having been the Word
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh
71a it vv had, has, have, having
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
481 hu pro he, it, she
1008a melta nn word

he having been, in the beginning, unto God
500 hana pro this, these
71a it vv had, has, have, having
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
1671c risita nn beginning
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh

all through his hand became:
853a kul nn all, every, everywhere
52a ida prp through, nn hand
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

and without him
260 belad prp without

not even one being whatever became.
165a ap cn also, not even
579a had nn adj one, someone
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
977 medem nn that, what, whatever
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

John 20:17
I ascend to my Father and your Father:
1201a seleq vv ascend
116b ena pro I, we
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
2a aba nn father
2a aba nn father

and to my God and your God.
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh

Matthew 22:28-30
So in the resurrection,
1547f qeyamta nn resurrection
491 hakil cn so

of these seven, whose woman becomes she?
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
500 hana pro this, these
1722a seba nn seven
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
131 antta nn woman

for they all had taken her.
853a kul nn all, every, everywhere
354 geir cn for
1111a nesab vv take, hypocrize

Yah Shua answers them, wording,
1326 ena vv answer
811 yesu pn Yah Shua
111 emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

You err, not knowing the scriptures
722a tea vv deceive, forget, err, wander,
130 ant pro you
906 la prp lest, not
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
130 ant pro you
899b ketaba nn scripture

and not the power of God:
906 la prp lest, not
605a haila nn power, empowered
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh

30 for in the resurrection of the dead
1547f qeyamta nn resurrection
354 geir cn for
988b mita nn dead

they take not a woman, and a woman be not to a man
906 la prp lest, not
1111a nesab vv take, hypocrize
131 antta nn woman
165a ap cn also, even, not even
131 antta nn woman
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
326a gabra nn man

but have as the angels of God in the heavens.
83 ela cn but, except, unless
56a aik adv as
909 malaka nn angel
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh
1795a semaya nn the heavens
71a it vv had, has, have, having

John 20:31
but these are scribed so that you trust
165a ap cn also, not even
500 hana pro this, these
425 dein cn and
899a ketab vv scribe
110d eteman vv trust

that Yah Shua is the Meshiah the Son of God:
811 yesu pn Yah Shua
481 hu pro he, it, she
1044b mesiha tt Meshiah
289 bar nn son
85a alaha tt God, Yah Veh

and when trusting in his name, you have life eternal.
963a ma pro what, when, whatever
110d eteman vv trust
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
905 personal pronoun
1792a sema nn name
604c haye nn life, salvation
1309a alma nn eon, age, eternity, world

Here is an article discussing the meaning of ‘alaha. http://www.adeadlymisunderstanding.com/2010/05/is-allah-the-god-of-the-bible-pt-2/. And here is an interesting site about Hebrew transliteration of biblical names into English: http://yehspace.ning.com/. See also, http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/1_faqs_michaelmchugh.pdf

Some evidence suggests the name Alhym was adapted by Muslim priests to enforce the worship of one called “Allah.” Apparently most Muslims agree that the Bible and the Koran point to the same Alhym who guided Abraham. In my opinion, the Muslim religion shares similarities with Christianity, Judaism, and other modern religions – corrupted by shocking violence, elitism, and deception. Sure, it’s hard for folks to find the narrow way to salvation, but shouldn’t it be fairly obvious that “the prophet Mohammed,” whom records show to be an illiterate warmonger commanding armies of plundering rapists, was not a good role model? www.faithfreedom.org. Similarly, how many wars and genocides does the Vatican need to propagate before we recognize the hand of evil? www.oneevil.org. And I trust that Yeshua exposed the Pharisees well enough, according to the gospel record, to shine the light on much of Judaism.

Religious extremism, whether from jihadists, supremacists, or occultists has always been murderous on certain levels. A follower of war says, “You will die for my beliefs.” A follower of peace says, “I am willing to die for my beliefs.”

According to the Messiah, we can learn from the example of wheat. Matthew 13. Some of the healthiest and largest wheat grows in the midst of weeds. So perhaps we should not reject wheat based solely on its location among weeds. Rather, we will know it comes from a good stalk by its seed. Matthew 7:15-20. So even if the stalk is found in an Islamic country, worshipping “father” (‘aba’ in Aramaic), or honoring `Īsā al-Masīḥ, which is the title given to the biblical Messiah in the Qur'an (as the Messiah or anointed one), I think we should discern its fruits before we make a deduction as to its roots.

The exact name of the Messiah remains uncertain to me. Perhaps just as with the Messiah’s teachings, no human sinner can realistically claim to have definitive understanding. We can share our experiences though. Research shows the Messiah’s name has been transcribed:
* Yesu (pronounced Yeh-soo), which is an Arabic to English transcription.
* Yeshua, a well known Hebrew to English transcription
- According to Professors David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, Orthodox Jews, "Yeshu" was how the name "Yeshua" was pronounced by Galilean Jews in the first century. We know from 26:73 below that Jews of Galil had a different dialect than those of Judea. According to Flusser (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, p. 15) Galileans did not pronounce the Hebrew letter ‘ayin at the end of a word. That is, instead of saying "Ye-shoo-ah" they said "Yeh-shoo." Some people began spelling the name according to this pronunciation. (David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Clarksville, Maryland; Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996], pp. 4-5)"
* Yahshua, meaning Yah saves, a well-known Hebrew to English transcription (http://www.danielsseventyweeks.com/Daniels_70_Weeks_P1S2_html/Chapter9.html)
* Yehoshua, which is a fuller Hebrew to English transcription of Yeshua, and which means YHVH is salvation (http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm)
* Yĕhowshuwa`, yet another Hebrew to English transcription of Yeshua
* Yahuwshua, which is a Hebrew to English transcription that places the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) inside the Messiah’s name
* Yhshwh, which is a Kabbalistic spelling
* Ieueshuo (pronounced Yeh-Way-Sho), which is based on a phonetic transcription of the Tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew, meaning Yehweh (IEUE) saves (http://yehspace.ning.com/)
* Jesus, which is a modern transcription rooted in Greek (Iesous) and then translated to Latin (Iesus) and English (Jesus)

D. What did the Ugarites know?

Here is the Ugaritic text cited by elohists for the claim that “Yahweh” is a son of El:

“sm . bny . yw . ilt”

(Citations: CTA 1 iv:14; Herdner 1963, 4; Gibson 1977, 39; http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm; http://www.scribd.com/doc/7384599/Exodus)

In my opinion, it strains credibility that “yw” and “YHVH” (the modern hebrew spelling is now Yahweh) are the same name/being. Without more evidence, it may even be intellectually dishonest to make that claim. Some scholars attribute the ‘yw’ to Yam, a so-called god of the sea, but I find that to be debatable as well. We just don’t know.

So let’s ask something a bit more fundamental and down to earth - why are we relying on the Ugarites? The Ugaritic translations have been found routinely inconclusive as to identity, as another example will show. Who is “y’l” at UT 311:7, KTU 4.96:7? http://www.bibleandscience.com/languages/ugaritic.htm

Are Ugaritic stone tablets from 1300 BC a reliable record of the identities of Alyhm (Elohim)? Many Ugaritic people appeared to be very fond of worshipping their dead ancestors, and they built temples for beings they claimed visited them and brought resources (such as Baal and Dagon). (Cf. KTU 6.13-14; KTU 1.3 II 40). Realistically, who knows why they wrote what they wrote? My research shows many Ugarites were slave holders and conquerors, and did not appear to be very discerning or temperate. According to one scholar, “The rituals performed in Ugaritic worship involved a great deal of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Worship at Ugarit was essentially a drunken orgy in which priests and worshippers indulged in excessive drinking and excessive sexuality….the worshippers were attempting to convince Baal to send rain on their crops. Since rain and semen were seen in the ancient world as the same thing (as both produced fruit), it simply makes sense that participants in fertility religion behaved this way.” http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

Remember Matthew 7:15-20 instructing us that will know a prophet by his fruits:

“But beware of false prophets who come to you in clothing of lambs: and within have extortion of wolves: and by their fruits you know them. Why? Gather they grapes from thorns? Or figs from thistles? Thus every graced tree produces beautiful fruit: and an evil tree works evil fruit. A graced tree is not able work evil fruit: and an evil tree works not graced fruit: every tree not working graced fruit is cut and falls in the fire. And then by their fruits you know them.”

As David Steinberg points out succinctly, “Ugarit was a cosmopolitan state with many ethnic groups. We cannot know to what extent the religious texts reflect the indigenous culture uninfluenced by foreign cultures.…The Ugaritic religious literature might be a poor, or idealized, guide to actual belief and practice. This is particularly true because much of the most interesting material is elevated mythological poetry which may well conflate and harmonize oral traditions coming from different periods and regions which may reflect varying social, political and religious realities.” http://www.adath-shalom.ca/ugarit.htm

Please also see this insightful response by scholar Mike Heiser to this section of the article: click here.

E. Gaining Citizenship Into The Alhym Kingdom

In this section we’ll consider some key passages of the bible that refer to the grafting of foreign branches onto Israel to share in the blessings.

Israel (or Ysrael) is a name that seems to carry several meanings. In the original sense it refers to the man Jacob (whose name later became Ysrael) and his descendants (see Genesis 32:28), and it means those who are saved by El (also, ‘prevail with El’, apparently depending on how one interprets the Hebrew ‘sry’). A similar translation is ‘followers of El,’ in reference to those who comply with the law. (As a side note on the applicable law, see Isaiah 42:4 re the Messiah’s torah and Jeremiah 31:31-32 re the new covenant). Then of course in modern times it has come to be associated with the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 56:1-8
1 Thus says Yah Veh,
You, guard judgment and work justness;
for my salvation comes near
and to expose my justness.
2 Blithesome — the man who works this
and the son of humanity who lays hold thereon;
who guards from profaning the shabbath
and guards his hand from working any evil.
3 Neither let the son of the stranger,
who joins himself to Yah Veh, say, saying,
In separating, Yah Veh separated me from his people:
nor let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus says Yah Veh to the eunuchs
who guard my shabbaths
and choose what delights me and hold my covenant;
5 I give them in my house and within my walls
a hand and a name
better than of sons and of daughters:
I give them an eternal name that is not cut off.
6 And sons of the stranger
who join themselves to Yah Veh
to minister to him and to love the name of Yah Veh
— to be his servants,
every one who guards from profaning the shabbath
and holds my covenant;
7 I bring them to my holy mountain,
and cheer them in my house of prayer:
their holocausts and their sacrifices
are a pleasure on my sacrifice altar;
for my house is called
a house of my prayer for all people
8 — an oracle of Adonay Yah Veh
who gather the overthrown of Yisra El:
again I gather to him — to his gathered ones.

…

Matthew 13:24-47
24 He parabalizes another parable, wording to them:
The sovereigndom of the heavens is like a man
that seeds graced seed in his field:
25 and when humanity sleeps
his ba’al enemy comes
and seeds darnel among the wheat
and goes:
26 and when the herbage sprouts and works fruit,
then the darnel also manifests:
27 and the servants of the lord of the house approach
and word to him, Lord,
Behold, seeded you not graced seed in your field?
From whence has it darnel?
28 And he words to them,
a man — a ba’al enemy works this.
And his servants word to him,
Will you that we go and gather them?
29 And he words to them,
Lest when you gather the darnel
you also uproot with the wheat:
30 allow the two to greaten in union until the harvest:
and in the time of harvest I word to the harvesters,
Gather first the darnel
and bind in bundles to burn:
and congegrate the wheat into my granary.
31 He parabalizes another parable, wording to them,
Like the sovereigndom of the heavens
is a grain of mustard seed
which a man takes and seeds in his field
32 — and this is the least of all seeds:
and when it greatens
it is the greatest of all greens
and becomes a tree:
as the flyers of the heavens come
and nest in the branches.
33 Another parable he words to them:
Like the sovereigndom of the heavens
is leaven:
that a woman takes and hides in three measures of flour
until all leavens.
34 Yah Shua words all these
in parables to the congregation:
and with no parable he is not wording with them:
35 so as to fulfill
that worded through the prophet,
wording, I open my mouth in parables:
I speak that which was concealed
from ere the world.
36 Then Yah Shua releases the congregation
and comes to the house:
and his disciples approach him, wording to him,
Clarify to us the parable of the darnel of the field.
37 And he answers, wording to them,
He having seeded the graced seed
is the Son of humanity
38 and the field is the world
and the graced seeds are the sons of the sovereigndom
and the darnel are the sons of the evil
39 and the ba’al enemy having seeded them is Satan
and the harvest is the shalam of the world
and the harvesters are the angels
40 so as to gather the darnel
and burn in the fire:
thus is the shalam of this world.
41 the Son of humanity apostolizes his angels,
and they select from his sovereigndom
all offenders
and all who work unjustness
42 and casts them into a furnace of fire:
and there becomes weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the just enlighten as the sun
in the sovereigndom of their Father.
He having ears to hear, hear.
44 Again, the sovereigndom of the heavens is like
a treasure secreted in a field
— which, when a man finds, he secretes:
and from cheer
goes and merchandises all he has,
and merchandises that field.
45 Again, the sovereigndom of the heavens is like
a merchant man
seeking graced pearls:
46 and when he finds one pearl, precious in price,
he goes and merchandises all — whatever he has
and merchandises it.
47 Again,
the sovereigndom of the heavens is like
a net falling into the sea:
and of all kinds congregate
48 — which, when it fills, they ascend to the sea shore:
and sit and select
and place the graced in vessels,
and cast out the vilified.
49 Thus be it in the shalam of the world:
the angels go
and separate the evil from among the just
50 and cast them into the furnace of fire:
there becomes weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51 Yah Shua words to them,
Understand you all these?
They word to him, Yes, our Lord.
52 And he words to them,
because of this,
every scribe
discipled to the sovereigndom of the heavens
is like a man — a lord of the house
who ejects from his treasure new and antiquated.

F. Learning From The Paraclete

John 14:16-17 provides an amazing insight into the source of knowledge in the present day:

16 I ask the Father:
116b ’ena pro I, we
273a be‘a vv seek, search
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
2a ’aba nn father

and he gives you another Paraclete
51c ’herina adj another, other
1473 paraqlita nn Paraclete
755a yab vv give
905 personal pronoun

to abide with you to the eons:
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
1310a am prp with
1309a ‘alma nn eon, eternity, world

17 even the Spirit of truth:
1652b ruhana adj spiritual
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth

whom the world cannot take
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
1309a ‘alma nn eon, eternity, world
906 la prp lest, not
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
1530a qebal vv accuse, take

because it neither sees him, nor knows him:
994 metul cn because
906 la prp lest, not
595a heza vv see, manifest
906 la prp lest, not
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge

but you know him:
130 ’ant pro you
425 dein cn and
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
130 ’ant pro you
905 personal pronoun

for he abides with you, being in you.
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
1322a ‘emar vv inhabit
223d ’atra prp (there) (where) at, by, in, within
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who

...

The Paraclete is the spirit of truth that comes from the father. See John 15:26:

26 And when the Paraclete comes
963a ma pro what, when, whatever
425 dein cn and
219a ’eta vv bring, come
1473 paraqlita nn Paraclete

— whom I apostolize you from my Father
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
116b ’ena pro I, we
1733 sadar vv apostolize
116b ’ena pro I, we
905 personal pronoun
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
2a ’aba nn father

— the Spirit of truth who goes from my Father,
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
2a ’aba nn father
1119c nepaq vv go, defend, eject, exit, reject, spend

he witnesses concerning me:
747 hu he it she
1163a sehed vv witness
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon

...

Here is John 16:7-15 with more helpful information about power and service:

7 But I word you the truth:
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
116b ’ena pro I, we
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth
111 ’emar vv word
116b ’ena pro I, we
905 personal pronoun

It is beneficial for you that I go:
1442b paqah adj beneficial, expedient
905 personal pronoun
116b ’ena pro I, we
47a ’ezal vv go

for if I go not, the Paraclete comes not to you:
115a ’en cn if
354 geir cn for
116b ’ena pro I, we
906 la prp lest, not
47a ’ezal vv go
116b ’ena pro I, we
1473 paraqlita nn Paraclete
906 la prp lest, not
219a ’eta vv bring, come
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto

and if I go, I apostolize him to you:
115a ’en cn if
425 dein cn and
47a ’ezal vv go
1733 sadar vv apostolize
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto

8 and when he comes
963a ma pro what, when, whatever
219a ’eta vv bring, come

he admonishes the world
481 hu pro he, it, she
875a ’etkeses vv admonish
1309a ‘alma nn eon, eternity, world

concerning sin
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
601d hetita nn sin

and concerning justness
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
529i zadiquta nn justness

and concerning judgment.
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
413a dina nn judgment

9 Concerning sin
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
601d hetita nn sin

because they trust not in me:
906 la prp lest, not
110d eteman vv trust
223d ’atra prp (there) (where) at, by, in, within
10 and concerning justness
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
529i zadiquta nn justness

because I go to my Father and you see me not again:
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
2a ’aba nn father
47a ’ezal vv go
116b ’ena pro I, we
906 la prp lest, not
1854d tub adv again, repeat
595a heza vv see, manifest
130 ’ant pro you
905 personal pronoun

11 and concerning judgment
1306a ‘al prp about, above, concerning, over, upon
413a dina nn judgment
425 dein cn and

because the hierarch of this world is judged.
199b ’arkona nn arch, hierarch, monarch
1309a ‘alma nn eon, eternity, world
500 hana pro this, these
413b dan vv judge
481 hu pro he, it, she

12 Again, I have much to word to you
1854d tub adv again, repeat
1155c sagiya adj abounding, much, many, more, very
71a ’it vv had, has, have, having
905 personal pronoun
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

but you are not able take them now.
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
906 la prp lest, not
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
130 ’ant pro you
49a ’ehad vv take, hold, lease, overtake, withhold
517 hasa adv now

13 And when the Spirit of truth comes,
963a ma pro what, when, whatever
219a ’eta vv bring, come
425 dein cn and
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth

he guides you into all truth:
481 hu pro he, it, she
404a debar vv guide, lead, rule
853a kul nn all, every, everywhere
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth

for he words not of the mind of his own soul,
906 la prp lest, not
354 geir cn for
111 ’emar vv word
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1689a reyana nn thought, mind
1120a napsa nn soul

but all he hears, he words
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
853a kul nn all, every, everywhere
1798a sema vv hear, hearken
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
111 ’emar vv word

and of those prepared he notifies you.
1366b ‘etida vv prepared, ready, already
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge

14 And he glorifies me:
481 hu pro he, it, she
1718c sebah vv glorify

because he takes of my own and shows you.
994 metul cn because
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
424 dil nn own
1111a nesab vv take, hypocrize
584a hawi vv show, exemplify

15 All that the Father has is my own.
853f kul‘medem nn all, all that
71a ’it vv had, has, have, having
2a ’aba nn father
424 dil nn own
481 hu pro he, it, she

Because of this I word to you,
994 metul cn because
500 hana pro this, these
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

He takes of my own, and shows you.
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
424 dil nn own
1111a nesab vv take, hypocrize
584a hawi vv show, exemplify

To learn more from the bible about diverse works of different spirits, including YHVH’s unique spirit, see Genesis 1:2; Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:15; Job 26:13; Job 32:8; Job 33:4; Judges 14:6; 1 Samuel 11:6; 1 Samuel 16:14-16 (probably referring to bringing of plagues as punishment); Isaiah 11:2-5; Isaiah 40:7; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 63:10-14; Joel 2:28-29; Ezekiel 2:2; Ezekiel 11:5; Ezekiel 13:3; Psalm 33:6; Psalm 51:9-12; Psalm 104:24-30; Michah 3:8; Matthew 3:16; Matthew 12:28-32.

G. What Is the Heavenly Father’s Real Name?

The heavenly father appears to have many names, as does the Messiah.

A useful line of research suggests that some very important names of the father have been translated in English as “I am,” “I will be,” and “I am who I am.” See e.g., Exodus 3:14. Some scholars have transcribed the first two as “HYH,” and all three are traced back to different root letters in ancient and modern hebrew: connected in scriptural context to “ehyeh” or “aleim” or “alhym.” For examples, see http://www.quodlibet.net/foutz-name.shtml and www.api.ning.com/files/...EJd0.../Meaning_IEUE_pdf.pdf. Incidentally, here is a useful critique of the “sacred name movement” for research purposes: www.sacrednamemovement.com. And here is a commentary in a similar vain: http://www.letusreason.org/sacna5.htm

Oftentimes modern mystics are the ones leading the charge in researching these questions. Mystics typically rely on ancient texts, and their detailed research can be fascinating regardless of whether the information is correct, and even its likelihood of being incorrect! A common theme I’ve found in the research of modern mystics is the desire to chronicle angelic hierarchies. Here are a couple thorough examples for illustrative purposes:
www.fatumoperandi.org/ebooks/Kabbalah/Colin_Low_Site.pdf
www.urantia.org (note: source appears to be from within the wealthy Kellogg family in Chicago)

At first my experience was that the literal bible read most consistently when I envisioned the alhym (elohim) as an enlightened race of practically supernatural living beings who enjoy a mighty kingdom(s), and who exercise authority over earth. But the more I expand my research into the mathematics of the Book of Revelation, the more I consider it likely that YHVH commands fundamental mathematical principles and keeps our entire world in check like a clock.

Is it unreasonable to assert a likelihood that YHVH Alyhm created the entire earth and then apportioned certain areas to other Alhym, but kept Ysrael for himself? Perhaps, as for example when we cite the biblical words for “inheritance” and “allotment” and apply them over YHVH (i.e., in Deuteronomy 32:8-9). But even if we don’t make that interpretation, who is to say that YHVH didn’t inherit the domain of earth from another Alyhm, or another race entirely? How far and high do we have to search out this answer? Is our experience on earth, with our ten fingers and ten toes, perhaps suggesting that we may be limited in searching out this information? Here’s a fine place to start your search though: John 20:17 (see above). I also highly recommend There's Nothing Random About the Universe, by Jeffery Meiliken.

Or, at what point might we be willing to admit we don’t know these answers, and yet still find a way to trust that we do have a father (or parents) above who will guide us into knowledge? I think the bible is trying to tell us that our father’s name sounds like YHVH, and that because we are like children we should call him father (AB, aba) and authority (alaha, elohim), or master (mare, adonai) because we are also like servants.

I also read in the gospel that our heavenly father will use our words and actions to judge us, so we should try to humbly follow the Messiah’s narrow path in seeking knowledge and experience. Much of the bible points to the Messiah as our only channel to the father - this is the covenant for the present age. See John 14:6-7

6 Yah Shua words to him,
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun
811 yesu‘ pn Yah Shua

I — I AM the way, the truth, and the life:
116a I ’ena ’ena pro I — I AM
47b ’urha nn way
1823b serara nn true, trueness, truth
604c haye nn life, salvation

no one comes to the Father, except by me.
906 la prp lest, not
129a ’nasa nn human, humanity
219a ’eta vv bring, come
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
2a ’aba nn father
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
115a ’en cn if
223d ’atra prp (there) (where) at, by, in, within

7 If you had known me,
86 ’elu cn if
905 personal pronoun
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

you had also known my Father:
165a ’ap cn also, not even
2a ’aba nn father
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

and from henceforth you know him and see him.
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
517 hasa adv now
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
130 ’ant pro you
905 personal pronoun
595a heza vv see, manifest

See also, Matthew 28:18; Isaiah 53:12.

I’ll venture that all languages present some opportunity to find the narrow path and follow the Messiah. And we can learn, using any language, that in death we are eventually brought before the judgment seat, and the graced will experience deliverance (freedom), while the rest will experience punishment (justice) followed by a second death.

Perhaps another key message from the gospel is that to a certain measure you are what you do. So your name is who you are. Therefore, your name lives as you live, or dies as you die. And if you want to live, you need to follow the narrow path toward salvation described by the Messiah, and naturally this is the same path on which you will have any opportunity to learn the name of your heavenly father, as his names are also what he does on some level. Perhaps that’s a proper deduction from passages like Exodus 3:14 and John 8:24-30.

Maybe whatever the father works in your life, that’s his name from your perspective. And if you choose to serve someone or something other than your father (such as mammon or Baal), then that is your chosen authority and only ‘hope’ for deliverance. See e.g., Psalm 33:16-19. Mammon may provide you some comfort on earth, and even Baal may bring resources, but ultimately the message of the gospel is that you’ll be brought before the judgment seat of the Alhym. And the father may be a lot of things, but he is neither mammon nor Baal.

The Messiah is also quoted in the gospel as saying that spiritual questions require spiritual discernment. Remember John 3:8 as an example, “The spirit puffs where he wills and you hear his voice: but you know not whence it comes and where it goes: thus has every human birthed of the Spirit.”

According to Matthew 5:3, apparently it might even be a good thing to admit where you have weakness in this spiritual area. Matthew 5:3 “Graced — the poor spiritual for the sovereigndom of the heavens [is] their own.” (Aramaic: tuba meskina ruhana dil hu malkuta semaya)

For additional insights on spirituality, here is the literal Aramaic translation of John 3:1-8:

3:1 And one man, having been of the Pherisa,
71a ’it vv had, has, have, having
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
425 dein cn and
579a had nn adj one, someone
326a gabra nn man
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1474b perisa pn Pherisa, Sepratist

his name being Niqadimus
1095 niqadimus pn Niqadimus
1792a sema nn name
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

— a hierarch of the Yah Hudaya
199b ’arkona nn arch, hierarch, monarch
756c yihudaya pn Yah Hudaya

2 who comes to Yah Shua by night
500 hana pro this, these
219a ’eta vv bring, come
940 lewat prp to, toward, unto
811 yesu‘ pn Yah Shua
947 lilya nn night

and words to him, Rabbi,
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun
1631l rabi nn Rabbi

we know you are apostolized from God, a doctor:
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
85a ’alaha tt God, Yah Veh
1733 sadar vv apostolize
788c malpana nn doctor, didactic

for no one is able to work these signs you work
906 la prp lest, not
354 geir cn for
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
500 hana pro this, these
218a ’ata nn sign
1247a ebad vv work
130 ’ant pro you
1247a ebad vv work
130 ’ant pro you

unless God be with him.
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
1014c man pro who, him
85a ’alaha tt God, Yah Veh
1310a am prp with

3 Yah Shua answers, wording to him,
1326 ‘ena vv answer
811 yesu‘ pn Yah Shua
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

Amen! Amen! I word to you,
110a ’amin adv Amen
110a ’amin adv Amen
111 ’emar vv word
116b ’ena pro I, we
905 personal pronoun
* Note: the Aramaic word ‘amin (translated “amen”) appears to come from the Hebrew root word for “believe.”

if humanity is not birthed by the hierarch
115a ’en cn if
129a ’nasa nn human, humanity
906 la prp lest, not
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1671a risa nn arch, beginning, head, hierarch, original

he is not able to see the sovereigndom of God.
906 la prp lest, not
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
595a heza vv see, manifest
1013f malkuta nn sovereigndom
85a ’alaha tt God, Yah Veh

4 Niqadimus words to him,
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun
1095 niqadimus pn Niqadimus

How is a man able to birth — that old?
56c ’aikana adv as, how, like, whereas
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
787a yiled vv birth
326a gabra nn man
1182a saba adj aged, old
963b dalma prt lest, that, unless

Is he able again
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
1854d tub adv again, repeat

to enter the womb of his mother a second time and birth?
893 karsa nn belly, womb
103a ’ema nn mother
1890a terein nn two, second
526 zabna nn time
1303a al vv bring, enter
787a yiled vv birth

5 Yah Shua answers, wording,
1326 ‘ena vv answer
811 yesu‘ pn Yah Shua
111 ’emar vv word

Amen! Amen! I word to you,
110a ’amin adv Amen
110a ’amin adv Amen
111 ’emar vv word
116b ’ena pro I, we
905 personal pronoun

If humanity is not birthed of water and Spirit
115a ’en cn if
129a ’nasa nn human, humanity
906 la prp lest, not
787a yiled vv birth
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
997 maya nn water
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind

he is not able to enter the sovereigndom of God:
906 la prp lest, not
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
1303a al vv bring, enter
1013f malkuta nn sovereigndom
85a ’alaha tt God, Yah Veh

6 that birthed of flesh is flesh:
977 medem nn that, what, whatever
787a yiled vv birth
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
271 besra nn flesh
271 besra nn flesh
481 hu pro he, it, she

and that birthed of Spirit is spirit:
977 medem nn that, what, whatever
787a yiled vv birth
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind
481 hu pro he, it, she

7 marvel not that I word to you,
906 la prp lest, not
447a etdamar vv marvel
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

you need to be birthed by the hierarch.
519 wale vv need, righten
905 personal pronoun
787a yiled vv birth
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1671a risa nn arch, beginning, head, hierarch, original

8 The Spirit puffs where he wills
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind
223a ’atra nn place, where
1491a seba vv will
1138a nesab vv puff

and you hear his voice:
1546 qala nn voice
1798a sema vv hear, hearken
130 ’ant pro you

but you know not whence it comes and where it goes:
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
906 la prp lest, not
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
130 ’ant pro you
59 aimeka adv whence
219a ’eta vv bring, come
56b ’aika adv where
47a ’ezal vv go

thus has every human birthed of the Spirit.
492 hakana cn thus
71a ’it vv had, has, have, having
853b kul‘nas nn all humanity, every human
787a yiled vv birth
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1652a ruha nn Spirit, wind

9 Niqadimus answers, wording to him,
1326 ‘ena vv answer
1095 niqadimus pn Niqadimus
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

How is this possible to be?
56c ’aikana adv as, how, like, whereas
1773a ’eskah adj able, capable, possible, vv enable, find
500 hana pro this, these
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being

10 Yah Shua answers, wording to him,
1326 ‘ena vv answer
811 yesu‘ pn Yah Shua
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun

You, a doctor of Isra El, and know these not?
130 ’ant pro you
481 hu pro he, it, she
788c malpana nn doctor, didactic
65a ’isra’el pn Isra El
500 hana pro this, these
906 la prp lest, not
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
130 ’ant pro you

11 Amen! Amen! I word to you,
110a ’amin adv Amen
110a ’amin adv Amen
111 ’emar vv word
116b ’ena pro I, we
905 personal pronoun

What we know, We word,
977 medem nn that, what, whatever
754a yida vv know, notify, acknowledge
116b ’ena pro I, we
111 ’emar vv word

and what we see: we witness
977 medem nn that, what, whatever
595a heza vv see, manifest
1163a sehed vv witness
116b ’ena pro I, we

and our witness, you take not:
1163c sahduta nn witness
906 la prp lest, not
1530a qebal vv accuse, take
130 ’ant pro you

12 if I word to you of the earth, and you trust not,
115a ’en cn if
209a ara nn earth
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun
906 la prp lest, not
110d eteman vv trust
130 ’ant pro you

how, if I word to you of the heavens, trust you?
56c ’aikana adv as, how, like, whereas
115a ’en cn if
111 ’emar vv word
905 personal pronoun
1795a semaya nn the heavens
110d eteman vv trust

13 And no human ascends to the heavens
906 la prp lest, not
129a ’nasa nn human, humanity
1201a seleq vv ascend
1795a semaya nn the heavens

except he who descends from the heavens
83 ’ela cn but, except, unless
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
1090a nehet vv descend
1014d men prp by, from, of, than
1795a semaya nn the heavens

— the Son of humanity who has the heavens.
291 bar‘nassa nn son of humanity
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
71a ’it vv had, has, have, having
1795a semaya nn the heavens

* Exegesis Aramaic and Hebrew Bible Translation by Herb Jahn

Religionism (We The Pharisees)

Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:26:04 -0700

Matthew 5:20, “For I word to you, That unless your justness abounds more than the scribes and pharisees, you enter not the sovereigndom of the heavens.” (Aramaic - amr ana lkun gyr dala tatr kanutkun ytyr mn dspra uprysa la talun lmlkuta dsmya)

The issue: hypocrisy - being dishonest, elitist, and breaking the rules, including the rules we set for ourselves.

It’s a real challenge to find religious people on earth who do not act like two-faced Pharisees, acting one way secularly, and then speaking another way in matters of religion. I do it all the time, and then try to rationalize it as personal growth. But I figure ‘we the pharisees’ don’t ultimately know what we’re talking about at least half the time in either category (religion or secular), and yet we feel it’s so very important to instruct one another, and lavish praise upon ourselves for our humility, grace, insights, etc. In reality, we don’t even know what we don’t know!

An example of the need for reproof: the apostle Peter had been convinced from his childhood that the Messiah would never die (Matt. 16:22), and had to revise his theology when the Messiah (transcribed: Yesu, Immanuel, Jesus, Yashayah, Ieueshuo, Yahuwshsua, Yashua) corrected him on it shortly before the crucifixion. It seems people should always be ready and willing to do an about-face regarding the false doctrines of men whenever and wherever we are confronted with truth.

My least favorite thing about ‘religulousness’, is all that awkward behavior and speech we tend to put on, like a mask, once we’re in religious mode. For example, see Matthew 5:22 regarding the danger of calling another person a fool. I must admit I’ve written some seriously lame admonitions. In my experience, elitism (lack of humility) in religion tends to make people act awkward, illogical, and righteous.

Yes, religious behavior among men is primarily elitist behavior, even when the doctrine at issue is being humble – man routinely corrupts it and makes it awkward. An example: most Christians are cool with admitting they’re “sinners” – we’ll even bend over backwards to tell you that you’re a sinner too – but ask us for details about our sins, especially in the sexual area, and in return you’re likely to see the eyes of a “Christian” who hates and hides from the light. (As a side note, to be fair, often it’s rude to ask for details about another’s sins, as it can promote extreme awkwardness.)

So, the more I see self-righteous behavior among the self-proclaimed “chosen” people among all religions (Jews, Muslims, Christians, New Agers, etc), the more likely it seems like ‘religionism’ - a bunch of sinners starring in a reality show, as people die all around us and crime and pollution abounds.

How often do we distinguish between loving our creator versus just wanting to be on the winning team? Cookie-cutter religion is routinely about trying to draft yourself onto the winning team by putting on a uniform. Love should be different than that – somehow.

Okay, I’m a sinner obviously, so why would the creator of earth want to forgive my sins just because I think the creator is powerful and interesting? Matthew 6:14-15, “For, if ye may forgive men their trespasses He also will forgive you -- your Father in the heavens; but if ye may not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Why is this moral? Perhaps the answer can be found by analogy – teachers forgive students; parents forgive children; judges show mercy on defendants. One might say: the greater the forgiveness, the greater the love. Consider for example whether this passage from Luke 7:47 is consistent with the messiah’s teachings,“Her many sins are forgiven because she loves much: but to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”

Teachers want to forgive students because failure is part of the learning and growth process. Parents want to forgive their children for the same reason teachers forgive, and because it’s healthy for families who live together to avoid excessive grudges, and to enjoy new beginnings. And judges offer forgiveness to defendants as a vote of confidence in their reform. See, Revelation 21:5 “Behold, I work all new.”

If my sins are forgiven, am I purchased like a slave? If so, how am I supposed to love my master? Baaa? Some Christians answer this question by saying that we should both fear and love our creator, who is a loving parent that threatens to kills us if we fail to meet the standard of conduct, regardless of whether that standard appears vague from the human perspective. It makes more sense to me that whatever standard you personally use to judge, that is the same standard that will be used to judge you. Matthew 7:1-2, 26:26-27. The golden rule may even be inherently known by all people - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Additionally, I find helpful the analogy on earth that superior species (like humans) often live congruously with lower order species (like sheep or strawberries), but will readily extinguish problem members of the lower order species to maintain order. I tend to think of earth’s creator as non-human, and I suspect that I am only part human. To the extent I think and act spiritually and upright on earth, then I am like a son to my creator, or perhaps a well-behaved student, or maybe even a fig tree. But to the extent I act badly and without reform, then I may be like a pest that risks being destroyed as I draw attention to myself and burden the creator and his family while they work and play.

If a superior being can never prove that he is the omnipotent Authority over everything, then perhaps he cannot fairly require his subjects to completely surrender their choice (free will) to reject one of his orders. As a hypothetical, let’s take this quote from Ezekiel, Chapter 9:

4 And [God??] said to him, Pass through in the midst of the city, in the midst of Jerusalem, and mark a mark on the foreheads of the men who are groaning and are mourning over all the abominations that are done in her midst.
5 And [God??] said to those in my hearing, Pass over in the city after him and strike. Do not let your eye spare, and do not have pity.
6 Slay the aged men, the young man, and the virgin, even children, and women, all to destruction. But to every man who has the mark on him, do not come near. And begin from my sanctuary. And they began with the aged men who were before the house.

For purposes of full disclosure, I must admit that I have killed many aged and young insects. Additionally, I strongly suspect that it is not YHVH or El speaking in Ezekiel 9:4-6, but rather some ancient priest wrote that into the bible for some reason. See e.g., http://www.onesalt.com/p0000111.htm. The words in the bible are often analogized to food. The messiah instructed to test fruit to determine if it comes from a good tree. Matthew 7:16-20. That’s logical. And he also provided a parable of Satan sowing weeds (obstacles) among wheat (useful), and a rationale for why they should grow together for an age. Matthew 13:24-30.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume each one of the humans that ‘failed to groan and mourn at abominations’ in Ezekiel Chapter 9 were like diseased strawberries or perhaps would later go on to murderous careers, and even the children were future Hitlers. Perhaps a superior being with foreknowledge of this future would be justified in giving the advance kill order. The superior being may even be justified in killing or appropriately punishing any solider who disobeyed the kill order. But, why order soldiers to do the killing in the first place? Is a valuable lesson being learned here about idolatry, or species dominance?

Passages like Ezekiel 9:4-6 make me wonder about the possibility that a false choice is being presented: biblically jealous Yah Veh or murderous Satan? Do I have all the facts right? Is this some kind of test where I’m supposed to select another option?

When should a man surrender his moral compass to the will of a superior being? It seems the values produced would be faith and efficiency. Do these trump the value of choice, even the choice to be wrong?

As things stand, it appears that YHVH Alhym works his own will on planet earth, and there is no other being that intercedes, because he complies with his covenants.

The Mysterious Contract Offer in John 8:31

Thu, 27 May 2010 11:45:47 -0700

“So Yah Shua words to those Yah Hudaya who trust in him, if you abide in my word, then you are truly my disciples, and you know the truth, and the truth liberates you.” John 8:31-32.

John 8:31-32 appears to represent a contract (covenant) offer from the messiah (variously transcribed: Yesu, Ieuesho, Yahshua, Jesus, Yahuwshua) to his disciples listening. It’s mysterious though - in exchange for obedience, the reward is freedom? Well, imagine you are alone in the dark universe, and then a living being of energy approaches you offering light and truth and comfort in exchange for obedience on that energy’s journey of freedom through the universe. Would you accept the contract? You might want to know more about the character of this living being before you sign your name, right? Well, that appears to be one of the main reasons we’re here on earth – to learn about our Creator and the meaning of covenants.

The context of this passage is important, especially beginning at John 8:24-30:
“I word to you, that you die in your sins: for unless you trust that I – I AM, you die in your sins. The Yah Hudaya word, You – who are you? And Yah Shua words to them, Even what I begin to word with you, I have much to word concerning you and to judge: but he who apostolized me is true: and what I hear from him, these I word to the world. – they know not that he words to them concerning the Father. Yah Shua words to them again, When you lift the Son of humanity, then you know that I – I AM and that of the will of my soul, I work naught: but as my Father doctrinates me, likewise I word: and he who apostolized me has been with me: the Father forsakes me not alone: because I always work what pleases him evermore. When he is wording these, many trust in him.”

Note: According to certain translations of the ancient text, 'I - I AM' is better translated 'I am who I claim to be'. See e.g., John 9:9. Indeed, if ana ana meant “I am God” then why in John 8 would the Yah Hudaya listening to Yahshua respond to ana ana by asking, “You, Who are you?”

Abbreviated, John 8:32 has even become a pop culture icon, ‘The truth will set you free.’ I think that’s awesome -- it’s a strong seed, and can grow into a fruitful tree. To see that a covenant is presented in John 8:31-32, it helps to discern each word carefully and individually:

 If you = A choice is presented to you. Impliedly, and in the context of this passage, this phrase may suggest you have free will. Indeed, freedom (and absence of duress) is a necessary element to the ability to contract.
 abide in = This phrase represents a duty for you, which is a required element of a contract - consideration. Abide generally means to reside in, follow, or accept. The root word in my literal-based Aramaic bible translation is ‘katar,’ which can also mean to continue. So, one interpretation of ‘abide in’ is that the messiah’s offer may be accepted by performance - following in the messiah’s word. But another interpretation comes from the passage’s larger context – beginning at John 8:24 - of trusting that the messiah speaks on behalf of the Father. In the latter interpretation, the covenant is accepted by trust/faith.
 my word = In the biblical sense, words are spiritual forces that create. The context of John 8:31 appears to include John 8:24, where the messiah explains that he speaks not for himself, but for the Father. Words create covenants.
 then you are = This phrase shows there is a cause and effect relationship here that operates upon you.
 truly my disciples = In context, these words help describe that with fidelity to the messiah, a disciple shows his genuineness toward the covenant. Intent is a key element of a contract. Additionally, a contract will define the parties.
 and you know the truth = This statement appears to have two functions. First, it helps define a disciple as someone who knows the truth in the messiah. Second, it operates as confirmation that one contractual benefit (consideration) provided by the messiah is that the disciple will get to enjoy knowing the truth.
 and the truth liberates you = This statement symbolically concludes the covenant offer because this anointed son speaking these words is the messiah -- his blood mysteriously cleanses many sins, which is liberating. The liberation you receive is the second benefit (consideration) for your fidelity to the covenant with the messiah.

Making the mental effort to discern words carefully is a spiritual process. The words of the bible are frequently analogized to ‘milk.’ For illustrative purposes, see Isaiah 28:7-13.

By contrast, the larger ideas and concepts spiritually discerned from those words are analogized to solid foods, like butter and honey. For illustrative purposes see Prov. 16:24, Psalm 119:103-04.

It takes diligent work to produce butter from milk, or honey from nectar. It is said that milk is designed specially for the newborns, who are new to Christianity that is.

We read in Isaiah 8:7-10 and Matthew 1:23 that Immanuel is another important name for the messiah, as the name means “El is with us.” The name “El” is associated with Elohim (Alhym), which takes various meanings depending on the context. Click here to read more here on this topic.

Regarding the messiah’s ability to make a covenant, see Isaiah 42:4 (the messiah’s torah), and Jeremiah 31:31-32 (the new covenant).

As a side note, many Christians claim that all saved Christians become the “bride” of the messiah. Based on the scriptures, I disagree. First, if every Christian become the bride of the messiah, then who are all these formerly human servants in heaven described as guests at his wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1-14? A wedding banquet is a different thing than a wedding ceremony. Second, the messiah describes many family relationships (and other relationships) for his servants besides husband and wife. See e.g., Matthew 12:50 "For all who work the will of my father in the heavens are my brother and my sister and my mother." Lastly, we might benefit from an example (typology) from the old testament - just as the father took one rib from the body of adam to make eve, perhaps so will the father take one rib from the body of the messiah to make his bride.

To finish this post, I’ll recommend reading John Chapter 6, and say that spiritual thinking seems mysterious. It’s probably not something that’s supposed to be elitist though (i.e., only for priests and intellectuals). But rather, it seems to be achieved primarily through patience, fidelity, trust, humility, and diligent work - virtues to pray for.

Here is a translation of Matthew 25:14-46

14 For as a man journeying calls his servants,
and shelems his acquisitions to them
15 — having given one five talent weights
and having given another two
and having given another one:
— human by human as to his power:
and straightway he journeys.
16 And he who took the five talent weights
goes and merchandises them,
and gains another five:
17 also likewise
he who, having two, merchandises another two:
18 and he who, having taken one,
goes and digs in the earth
and secretes the silver of his mare (master).
19 After a vast time the Lord of those servants comes
and takes reckoning:
20 and he who had been taking five talent weights
offers another five talent weights:
wording, My Lord,
you gave five talent weights to me:
behold,
I merchandised another five talent weights above them.
21 His Lord words to him,
Very well, you graced servant and trustworthy:
you, being trustworthy over little:
I stand you over much:
enter the cheer of your Lord.
22 And he approaches — he having two talent weights
and words, My Lord,
you gave two talent weights to me:
behold,
I merchandised another two talent weights above them.
23 His Lord words to him,
Very well, graced and trustworthy servant:
you, being trustworthy over little,
I stand you over much:
enter the cheer of your Lord.
24 And he comes — who took one talent weight
and words, My Lord,
I know you — that you are a hard human,
harvesting where you seed not,
and congregating from where you scattered not:
25 and being frightened,
I went and secreted your talent weight in the earth:
behold, you have your own.
26 His Lord answers, wording to him,
You evil and lazy servant,
you, knowing I harvest where I seed not,
and congregate where I scatter not:
27 and you had been needing
to place my silver upon the table*,
*of the money changers
and then at my coming
I had been receiving my own with interest.
28 So take the talent weight from him,
and give to him having ten talent weights.
29 For to him who has, is given:
and added to him:
and to him, not having,
even what he has is taken from him.
30 And eject the idle servant into outer darkness:
there being weeping and gnashing of teeth.
31 And when the Son of humanity comes in his glory
— and with all his holy angels
then he sits on the throne of his glory:
32 and congregates all peoples in front of him:
and he separates them one by one,
as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats:
33 and indeed he stands the sheep by his right
and the goats by his left.
34 Then the sovereign words to them by his right,
Come, you eulogized of my Father,
inherit the sovereigndom being prepared for you
from the foundation of the world:
35 for I famished and you gave me to eat
I thirsted and you watered me
a stranger and you congregated me
36 naked and you covered me
sick and you visited me
and being in a guardhouse and you came to me.
37 Then the just answer him, wording, Our Lord,
When saw we you famished and nourished you?
Or thirsting and watered you?
38 and when saw we you a stranger,
and congregated you?
Or naked, and covered you?
39 And when saw we you sick?
Or in a guardhouse, and came to you?
40 And the sovereign answers, wording to them,
Amen! I word to you,
As much as you worked
to one of these my least brothers,
you did to me.
41 Then he also words to them by the left,
Go from me, you cursed, into ‘alma* fire,
Translation note: ‘alma in Aramaic is generally translated eon, age, duration, or world
prepared for the devouring accuser and his angels:
42 for I famished and you gave me no eats
and I thirsted and you gave me no drink
43 and a stranger and you had not been congregating me
naked and you had not been covering me
sick and in a guardhouse
and you had not been visiting me.
44 Then they also answer him, wording,
Our Lord, when saw we you famishing or thirsting?
Or a stranger or naked or sick or in a guardhouse
and ministered not to you?
45 Then he answers, wording to them,
Amen! I word to you,
As much as you worked it not
to one of the least of these,
you also worked it not to me:
46 and these go to ‘alma torment:
and the just to life ‘alma.

Stumbling Blocks of Desire

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:01:29 -0700

What is the root cause of our world’s problems?

From a philosophical standpoint, I'd say two things: the desire of humans to control others unfairly for undeserved power, and the absence of forgiveness.

And as all humans fail these two tests, we are the root cause of our own suffering. Sometimes it seems like elite tyrants are just extreme examples of ourselves - preventing the success of sustainable local communities, free of lies, violence, theft, and environmental contamination.

Matthew 18:7, “Woe to the world from the stumbling-blocks! for there is a necessity for the stumbling-blocks to come, but woe to that man through whom the stumbling-block doth come!”

In many ways, it seems like the only reset button you can push to return to a simple or agrarian lifestyle is the reset button of your own life. I can theorize several scenarios where forcefully resetting all of of society causes utter chaos and environmental meltdown. Likewise, I can imagine a politicized redistribution of possessions in the name of “fairness” that actually results in great injustice and loss.

As humans, it seems the best we can do is try to address our root problems directly, because once we do, we have less need for a reset button.

If not for the messiah, it is hard to rationalize having any hope at all right now. And yet, I’m also very nervous about the judgment that is coming.

Matthew 6:14-15, “For, if ye may forgive men their trespasses He also will forgive you -- your Father who [is] in the heavens; but if ye may not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Misuse of Power

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:00:09 -0800

Why have there always been wars?

How does a war machine accept money?

Where can a man find hope in an atomic age?

When will the world see the restoration of justice?

What judgment awaits our sins?

Who will judge us?

...

Regret motivates humanity, so if it is not too late for our planet, perhaps we can use our regrets like a soil foundation for the next age, to provide a moral basis for the return of civilizations to simple laws and humble lifestyles.

Restricted Movements

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:39:35 -0800

Throughout history, political underdogs with momentum always seem to prevail over the aggressor, only to be hijacked by the powers-that-be, thereby becoming the very aggressor originally opposed.

"There is nothing more common in history than for oppressed people to rise up against their masters and, at great cost in treasure and blood, throw off the old regime only to discover that they have replaced it with one that is just as bad or worse. That is because it is easy to know what we dislike about a political system but not so easy to agree on what would be better. For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power. To prevent that from happening, it is necessary to focus on the system itself, not on personalities. To do that, it is just as important to know what we are for as it is to know what we are against." G. Edward Griffin, The Future is Calling, p. 38.

Why does this pattern in history repeat itself?

Well, many researchers make the case with strong evidence (and I tend to agree, though often with less sensationalism) that certain bloodlines and financial dynasties work behind-the-scenes to orchestrate these transfers of power. It is a feat accomplished, in part, by the process of economic and political infiltration -- once momentum for a popular movement becomes difficult to stop, the powers-that-be change strategies – from resistance to infiltration. Much of this can be accomplished by infusing money and political power into the right places (the identifiable power centers in the movement), so that corruption flows naturally to the gears of change in society. Here are just a few illustrative examples:

(1) The message of the biblical messiah was hijacked and monopolized by the self-proclaimed “Holy Roman Catholic Church.” The infiltration was solidified by the Roman Empire (with effective culmination at some point around the time Emperor Constantine claimed to have converted to Christianity, since by then there were many “Christian” sects throughout Rome). To make a long story short, the Church claimed to have exclusive authority over the bible and religious doctrine, and even to the present day, this corruption of Christianity has resulted in countless holy wars and atrocities across the globe, the hoarding of vast wealth for elite purposes, and the promotion of religious ritual above compassion and spirituality. Not surprisingly, original translations of the message of the messiah warn against this course taken by the Roman Catholic Church, and like organizations who act as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

(2) And what happened to the message of “liberty” (republic) championed by slave-holding “patriots” during the American revolution of 1776? That message was hijacked and monopolized by American law and business (media included eventually) on behalf of the elite – primarily via false promises of economic stability and peace. The result has been the domination of America by the ‘banksters’ and evolving military-industrial complex (which incidentally is more accurately labeled, the military-industrial-economic-political complex).

(3) There was even a time only a few decades ago that the message of the environmental movement threatened the military-industrial complex. But today, the environmental movement too has been overtly hijacked, by the ruling breed of international collectivists dictating complex laws to subjugate the people under a new world order. Read the laws. They are anti-environment and pro-elite in many essential ways, despite being championed as ‘green,’ such as the cap & trade currency system. Just to illustrate the hypocrisy, modern militaries will be exempt from cap & trade because the purpose is not to protect the environment. The purpose is to control the population under a one-world government. Care to guess who will run this new global government?

Today it seems the only political movement with any real potential to unseat the global-eco-monopoly movement is the organic liberty movement (individual rights + justice + sustainable living = organic liberty movement). Unfortunately, I fear this political transition would only follow after another world war (with modern-weaponry), so I don’t see how the new movement would avoid repeating history… it has a fatal weakness that plays directly into the hands of the powers-that-be: lack of clean natural resources to accomplish something meaningful with liberty. In other words, the liberty movement would be impotent. Perhaps it is ironic even that left in the wake of the “environmental movement” (run by the elites) there is likely to be a wasteland of chaos. I suppose if things are circular, the elite powers that operate the Roman Catholic Church and City States from behind-the-scenes will unseat whatever movement is in power, offering a new religion (hybrid of occult and science?) to bring order out of chaos. Aliens should be publicly involved at this point as well according to my research. And this last movement (the new religion) would then be laid to rest by the return of the messiah, as prophesied. My research further shows it is not unrealistic for all (or some) of this to happen in the next ten years. See: www.LogicalHierarchy.com/Watch-for-Signs.pdf

Authority, Vice, and Virtue

Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:16:11 -0800

It seems to me that our Creator exercises wide discretion when giving benefits on earth, as some receive more than others, especially things like good looks and opportunity.

And to the extent that all benefits we receive are really just gifts, it is probably not our province as the receivers to demand more, or to take more than what we’ve been given (especially ungratefully).

And yet, in all the different areas of vice on earth, sometimes we’re not sure just what things are fair game (gifts) to be accepted. Our emotional impulses tend to impair our logic, frequently making it difficult to embrace what might otherwise be common sense - some of the most enticing vices in this world are not gifts for us to accept, sorry.

Why are they there then? Why can’t I let my emotions run wild with the money in my bank account and some new friends? Well, it just might be the case that material life itself is part of an elaborate divine test, designed to determine whether we are fit to humbly embrace our positions in life, or alternatively, whether we will take what does not belong to us. For the sake of honesty, here are some counter-arguments: death is certain, the planet could be hit by a meteor at anytime, humans are animalistic, emotions are natural, we learn some of the best lessons and make great achievements by mistakes, vice is relative, yada yada yada.

We can avoid envy by expecting heaven, a mindset that theoretically can be accomplished by honoring the virtue of Creation and respecting one another. We can avoid regrettable lust by fearing that light will be cast on all scurrilous deeds eventually. We can avoid gluttony by honoring our bodies, which is best done by laboring for a bountiful harvest. We can avoid unproductive forms of greed by reassuring ourselves we are laying up our treasures in heaven, which requires us to work everyday to create value. We can avoid sloth by seeking the approval of our Creator, and in doing so comfort each other, and meditate, and take care of our bodies. We can avoid wrath by offering forgiveness and keeping faith in divine judgment, but without withdrawing support for governments on earth to do justice. We can avoid unearned pride by remembering our place on earth, without losing sight that we may enjoy life as children of the Creator, which makes us potentially awesome.

It’s a fascinating thing that humans utilize human suffering and weakness for a great many of the things we love. We use to it propel the plots of our tragedies and adventure movies for example. All laughter has its root in weakness of some form. And sexually, we use the weakness of nakedness for delightful reasons (not to mention the cross-over with comedy). When it comes down to it, the moral standard for using weakness can be found in one’s intention. If you have love for people, you show happiness for the hero, and remorse for the fallen. You laugh with the person who is the butt of the joke. And you only partake in sexuality with someone whom you are prepared to care for appropriately. The goal in all instances might very well be to align one’s activities with virtue, so you cannot take advantage of people in any way that would violate the golden rule. Because we find people routinely building useful and diverse experiences from human weaknesses, the golden rule actually tends to allow wide latitude in human experience (depending on whom you associate with).

Virtue and honesty have an intriguing relationship on this matter of human weakness. Is it ever advisable to discuss in detail or share entirely one’s own faults? Whether the golden rule requires people to be entirely honest with one another should depend on the expectations involved. With that said though, truth may be the medium upon all real moments of life, and is something to chase even at the expense of the comfort of vice.

Civility

Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:57:28 -0800

This post is written especially for restless Americans who wish to take back the Republic.

First, let’s drop the nostalgia. It’s debatable whether there ever really was a fair Republic on this land (either with Americans or native Indians), or even a mildly simpler time - free of oppression, ignorance and corruption. And as for the entire world, historical records show that even back to the days of the Pharaoh, power has been jealously wielded by elite forces chasing occult-like goals.

Second, the new world order that commands the military-industrial complex in this country can very likely eradicate any given “patriot” group’s armed rebellion, and at this stage the United States military would be seen as justified in the eyes of the mainstream populace in doing so, especially as the media shows images of crazy-looking men with assault rifles shooting at local cops. As researcher Gerald Celente said recently (and I’ll paraphrase), it is moral corruption of both the mainstream populace and the elite that is actually at the heart of the downfall of America. In this manner, unethical behavior can be seen across all classes - from the Wall Street insiders robbing financial institutions, to the local thugs robbing bank branches, to the populace robbing the community of sustainability by making toxic choices in personal and business affairs. This lack of civility and ethics is the source of the problem that an AK-47 simply will not remedy.

Third, the elite controllers of society are logically more afraid of the things that the messiah advocated - civility, kindness, education, compassion, sharing, helping, and so forth. These things give moral legitimacy to a free society, and definitively combat corruption. Compare a wild-eyed, self-proclaimed “patriot” spraying bullets and sitting on 50lbs of Mountain House factory farm animal powder. I suspect that such a man is primarily a threat to himself and local bureaucrats, and actually helps give legitimacy to the elite-controlled new world order, at least in the eyes of the scared populace. With that said, by adhering to the golden rule I think there is a civil and reasonable way to maintain a firearm and keep emergency supplies to protect your family.

In conclusion, the ultimate way to save oneself and promote legitimate governance is to diligently follow the example of the messiah.

Here is an excerpt from the Book of Isaiah at Chapter 2, verse 4 regarding the second coming of the messiah:

And he shall judge among the nations,
and shall reprove many people:
and they shall forge their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into psalmpicks:
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

Operation Sustainable

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:12:31 -0700

We are all like children.

And civilization has reached a critical juncture of practical and philosophical importance.

The world at large is immersed in a vast and tangled web of power and debt, struggling between freedom and control. For just a sample of the evidence, you can read reports at www.globalresearch.ca, and many other independent news sources.

In this web, the primary negative forces that exert control over individuals are exponential monetary debt, violence, environmental contamination, and unjust law. The situation here is so intricately complex, it is beyond the management of any human or group.

We need a new beginning, rooted in organic homesteading, debt forgiveness, fair access to natural resources, technologically sophisticated environmental remediation, eco-friendly business, and a foreign-policy of peace and resource sharing.

And yet, a hasty revolution for “freedom” is mounting against the powers-that-be who exert control from positions of power in various military, industrial, legal, and political entities.

Those who join an armed revolution at this juncture in history might be likened to youths voluntarily entering an arena with gladiators and wild animals. Perhaps we should consider this alternative for our planet - Operation Sustainable.

Here’s how it works - individuals of every nation simultaneously endorse a simple initiative:

This declaration of independence may be enforced by civil means. It is our intent to immediately dismantle all weapons and tools designed to inflict mass casualty. It is our intent to abolish all secrecy of any kind in government and military matters. We further declare all individuals to be sovereigns unto themselves, inherently free of all nonconsensual, deceptive, or artificial bondage of any kind and character, save for criminal law enforcement via due process of law.

...
Like what you’re reading? Vote at www.CivilActionNetwork.org

Consumption and the Golden Rule

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:40:18 -0700

Consumption of resources is a rewarding but dangerous art. Indeed, of all the ways to consume this earth, it is a wondrous matter that anarchy is kept so steadily at bay. We owe this restraint mainly to two concepts evolving before our eyes: justice and the golden rule.

By way of definition, the golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is a personal rule meant to coexist with the governmental rule of justice. A world devoid of both would permit the evil desires among us to flourish without redress. Unacceptable.

I see in the world today that we have an abundance of laws, financial meddling, and corruption, which leads to over exploitation of land and resources. This is the wrong kind of consumption. It has been estimated that it would take between 2-6 earths to sustain the American standard of living for every person on the planet. I imagine if the golden rule were exercised across the board, we could live peacefully on one, healthier and more free. This is the right kind of consumption, and it leaves plenty of room for diversity.

So how should we consume resources in light of these two rules – justice and golden? Our answer is altogether philosophical and practical. Philosophically, the art of consumption is really the power of production. For example, to consume a locally grown organic apple is to promote an environment where such an apple is produced. To consume an 8-ball of cocaine smuggled into the country is to create a different kind of environment entirely. When we look only at the apple and/or cocaine on our plate, we succumb to ignorance. Ironically, it’s a state of mind too many of us deem “bliss” whether we know it or not.

And on the practical front, the answer to our question is that we should consume resources in a “sustainable” or “productive” manner. One of my favorite books on this topic is Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan:

To feed ourselves otherwise [than by the logic of nature] was ‘unsustainable,’ a word that’s been so abused we’re apt to forget what it very specifically means: Sooner or later it must collapse. (Omnivore’s Dilemma, p. 183)

Our first question is how we can use the golden rule to consume sustainably. Or taking it a step further, how do we connect good stewardship of the earth, personal responsibility, and individual rights? Well, for starters, envision the kind of world you want to live in by considering which economic system is the truest expression of the golden rule.

I’ll venture that most people, regardless of their background, would like to promote consumer freedom of choice, but still harbor great fear of unbridled capitalism. It appears that people have difficulty reconciling conscience here, which means we have difficulty following the golden rule, and are drawn to collectivist policies as a compromise. Because of this compromise (of conscience to an extent), we have too many laws, and lobbyists, and political gamesmanship. To separate the rhetoric from the research, one must remain diligent in objectivity. For additional reading on the dangers lurking behind collectivism, I would like to direct readers to the work of G. Edward Griffin.

I am continually amazed that all tools necessary for peace and prosperity in the world already exist, and yet we still see widespread destruction and poverty across the globe. Might it be that we don’t really have free markets and justice? Who and what is preventing us from achieving these goals?

To answer these questions one must look into the history of elitist control of natural resources and political power. And unfortunately, research shows that much of what passes for a "free market” and “republic” in the united states of America these days is often nothing more than a highly regulated, government-manipulated mockery of these ideals, where the same empty mantras are repeated by elite media, corporate, and government officials day after day.

Let’s take the example of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Independent research shows a history of financial and political collusion behind the FDA’s promotion of big pharmaceutical products, and an active stifling of access to natural health remedies. Fortunately, naturopathic doctors often lead the crusade to show how FDA rules passed in the name of food and drug safety actually put more lives in jeopardy than they protect. But the public is not without culpability, as many people fear and neglect health freedom in the same manner as they do capitalism, compromising the golden rule in the same way.

My hope is for the masses to see more clearly the use of natural supplements as they are meant to be - a true expression of freedom of choice, a constructive human endeavor to better mankind, a remedy.

Free markets work well in theory, and would ideally represent the golden rule in action. One powerful antagonist of the free market can be seen in government subsidies for America’s factory farms, which sell cheap product so consumers never pay the true cost of their 99-cent portion of a tortured animal, or as Michael Pollan reported:

The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost – to soil, oil, public health, the public purse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the workers in the feedlot and the slaughterhouse and the welfare of the animals themselves. (pp. 200-201)

It is manifest that industrialized factory farms pollute themselves and beyond. It may seem too logical that polluters ought to account for the true cost of the environmental harm they cause others, and that the free market provides the solution. But because of free market interference, it is the government that actually pays the polluter. Unbelievable. Examples of this pedigree help show that governments are most effective when they limit themselves to policing (redressing unfair harm) rather than subsidizing.

And as the free market is an expression of the golden rule (lest we force one another around with money), it naturally coexists with justice, such that disputes over legal rights (such as a factory farm’s ‘right’ to pollute a local river) can be resolved by courts under scientific standards for causation. In those cases where there is no market mechanism to protect a valuable resource (air and water, sadly, often fill this category), we may find that justice can be assisted by EPA-like regulatory bodies, comprised of specialists working outside of politics and financial conflicts of interest, to help gather evidence for prosecutors, provided in a responsive system of checks and balances. As a caveat, an unbridled free market (agorism) has never been tried on a large scale in human history. Nor do I recommend it, as raw exploitation of resources in the world as it exists today, given the powers-that-be, can only make things worse.

On a related matter, what does the golden rule require in politics? All markets exist in political contexts, and I’ll venture that most people would like to promote individual rights and equal application of laws. And yet we can just as easily cite the golden rule to argue for diminishing our republic in the name of national security. My own humble opinion here is that we need not compromise fundamental liberties in order to oppose terrorism, nuclear weapons, and the like. Instead, why not keep fundamental rights, promote local production of resources, employ a defensive military strategy, purge the evil within by actually enforcing criminal laws equally, and see what happens to foreign enemies?

All of this post is meant to focus upon one main point - the need to internalize the golden rule in a logical manner. How else can we connect good stewardship with individual rights and personal responsibility? I reason that it begins and ends with each individual’s conscience, where it should be. Why obey conscience? Well, is it not logical that in what measure we measure, it shall be measured to us?

So let us be responsible stewards of free markets, where as consumers we choose sustainable businesses using the greenest and most humane technologies, keeping production local, costs representative, and customer responsiveness high. As citizens, let us promote government that is willing to do justice.

Quantum Uncertainty

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:35:30 -0700

Quantum uncertainty would allow the Creator to occupy multiple states at once, answering Zeno’s dichotomy paradox. In theory, the Creator’s quantum levels/applications could even be infinite. Can the Creator create a rock so large that He can and cannot lift it? Can He then proceed to both lift it and not lift it? These opposite actions make no sense generally in our language, except perhaps under the rubric of quantum mechanics.

Is it better to assume man is using linguistics to accomplish ignorance of some fact or experience in the universe, or is it better to assume that the Creator is handicapped? According to C.S. Lewis, trying to limit the Creator’s omnipotence with mutually exclusive wordplay is illogical. Lewis would argue that a person cannot say that the Creator cannot do something that does not exist. In other words, Lewis argues that when the bible says that ‘in the Creator all things are possible,’ this means that the Creator can do all things possible, not that He can do the impossible. The impossible does not exist materially, concludes Lewis, because it is not a ‘thing.’

I see the question as whether infinite dimensions/concepts/applications can subsume the impossible. Is there a perspective one could take of the impossible that makes it ‘thing-like?’ Do you feel your imagination is thingy?

Assumption of Risk

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:00:44 -0700

The famous quote from Aesop: “Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.”

The reply by Oscar Wilde: “People who count their chickens before they are hatched, act very wisely, because chickens run about so absurdly that it is impossible to count them accurately.”

Before these is the harrowing quote attributed to the messiah, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own younglings [chickens] under the wings, and ye did not will. Lo, left desolate to you is your house...” (Matthew 23:37-38).

All three quotes relate to assumption of risk.

Risk can lead to reward or failure. And yet in routine matters we often expect only reward - as things can go correctly, too often we expect that in the absence of wrongdoing or injustice they must go correctly. Where is our routine acknowledgment that in the common experience things need not go according to our plans? No doubt there are many real victims of injustice and wrongdoing in the world, but the voices of these legitimate victims (who deserve help) tend to be drowned out by all the self-proclaimed and exaggerating victims overwhelming the justice system, refusing to even acknowledge their own risky behavior. The most prominent among society’s faux-victims bathe themselves in self-righteousness and a sense of entitlement, and sue, fight, and kick and scratch, all the way to the grave or the bank. While lawsuits do deter crime and negligence in a sense, is there any doubt Americans are going overboard? What’s worse, Americans are making the world harsher in an attempt to create a nanny state! Peruse daily examples at indy news sources like www.prisonplanet.com and www.globalresearch.ca

The lack of acknowledgement of risk (likelihood of error) is an intellectual failure of this generation, and I suspect is among the principal reasons the international upper elite are so quick to judge the populace as wayward children in need of absolute rulers. Sometimes we even read of these brandy-sipping elite describing the majority of men as “cattle.” Interestingly, this insult by the upper elite, as well as the intellectual failure of the common man to assume his own risks, both stem from the same source: a sense of entitlement.

Hypothetically, if you want people to assume your risks for you, then you should demand of everyone with whom you interact that they personally guarantee your perfect satisfaction and safety. Would anyone want to spend time with you though? Answer: No. Therefore, assume the risk yourself and enjoy what freedom teaches you naturally. Indeed, to even see the beauty of this life lesson, you probably need to dislodge that warm feeling of self-entitlement used by the nanny state to ensure the nanny’s power over you. The modern state is quite obviously manipulated by special interests. It needs to be restored to its roots where it specializes in the enforcement of only very basic laws (i.e., murder, theft, battery). Even ecological destruction of common resources can theoretically be prosecuted by the State under basic laws like theft, nuisance, and battery. A vast amount of seemingly beneficial regulation (especially economic regulation) both historically and today is mere subterfuge, designed to curtail personal liberty in favor of a future “utopia” to look eerily like an all-powerful world government of masters and servants. Read the works of G. Edward Griffin for an in-depth analysis. Outside of basic law enforcement, self-empowerment is typically the best way to promote sustainable living and achieve freedom.

In my casual observation, the two categories of people most likely to properly embrace assumption of risk are often portrayed as polar opposites in society - apologetic Christians and secular intellectuals. Both groups come to the same conclusion, but for different reasons... the Christian rationalizes that if something goes wrong, it may very well be his own fault (humility) or else it’s divine will (faith), but even if the Christian rationalizes the event is not his own fault or even divine will, he still tends to hope that the victim and transgressor can assume the risk together without further penalty (forgiveness and reconciliation). Secular intellectuals, by contrast, simply rationalize the principle of assumption of risk directly as a matter of statistics, internalizing that one should be very careful in this world filled with people bumping into one another often criminally, negligently, and for no good reason whatsoever. For at least the minor harm, the humble among these intellectuals may be similarly unlikely to sue, fight back, etc.

Generally then, it might be said that the easiest people to be around, not surprisingly, are the humble and forgiving.

Consider Matthew 6:14-15 (“For, if ye may forgive men their trespasses He also will forgive you -- your Father who [is] in the heavens; but if ye may not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”)

Dualities

Thu, 21 May 2009 19:14:07 -0700

The bible teaches that the messiah eluded his persecutors on many occasions, but ultimately suffered on the cross for refusing to retract his words. This is a cool example of standing up for freedom of speech. He suffered an injustice for our sake, in part to teach us about evil in the world. And in some cosmic mystery his sacrifice (like the passover lamb) allows us forgiveness from our father.

It might be said that if I am not willing to die for the truth, then I will die for my falsity. Indeed, other than some limited physical abilities to survive on earth, I can hardly claim to have any power over death. Only through an interpersonal relationship with greater conceptual truths do I feel even an inkling of spiritual power over death. To paraphrase certain parts of the gospel, a real relationship with life is obtained by love for one another and adherence to the truth.

From time to time love requires discipline, which is a hard truth in certain situations, but thankfully this duality of love/discipline allows us to realize the related duality of justice/forgiveness. For example, in the face of wrongdoing, we can forgive on a personal level, and at the same time delegate to government the need for justice. This is quite liberating.

To quote the gospel of John at 8:31, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you know the truth, and the truth liberates you.”

Health Freedom versus Global Hypocrisy

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:21:00 -0700

A quick question for those entrusting their health freedom to the new global power structure - how do you like the kool-aid? Is it yummy?

To better understand how the world really works in the health freedom arena (on everything from Codex Alimentarius to vaccinations), please see the Ph.D. and M.D. research articles of America’s long-standing independent health freedom organization - www.thenhf.com.

Current Events

This latest push by the World Health Organization (WHO) to frighten the public about H1N1 flu bears the mark of another orchestrated power grab. First, credible and independent medical research shows natural remedies can prevent and cure flu strains. The next flu strain will be called H5N1, or something like that, and people will assume it is worse. Second, research shows that governments rush to offer the public harmful vaccines, designed to weaken immune systems. Third, the vaccine push is coming at a time of laws restricting personal liberty and infringing national sovereignty. Thus, the WHO’s swine flu response bears the mark of a power grab, which fits into a much larger agenda orchestrated by a cabal of elite conspirators preparing the way for their future “utopia.’

Concluding Thought

Understanding the new world order (which is really just the repackaged ‘old world order’) requires the ability to recognize hypocrisy in all facets of human endeavor. For example, when the WHO tells you they are protecting public health, can you see they are harming public health? When Monsanto tells you they are securing a stable food supply, do you recognize they are doing exactly the opposite? In conclusion, a functional ‘hypocrisy meter’ is more valuable than a Ph.D., M.D., and J.D. put together.

CAFO

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:05:20 -0700

Want to be able to tell your friends you know what goes on at a CAFO?

www.meat.org

Fortunately, there are still enough real farmers out there who treat animals properly and offer humane options in certain supermarkets, like Whole Foods. However, even Whole Foods is wrought with problems as it sells products from companies like Horizon/Dean Foods. See, http://www.organicconsumers.org/. Here is a letter from the CEO of Whole Foods discussing the supermarket’s actions to ensure the humane treatment of animals and oppose CAFOs: http://ofrf.org/pressroom/organic_news_clips/060525_wfmblog_mackeytopollan.pdf

Realistically, here are the best options:
- Organic grass-fed beef from cows free to roam (www.eatwild.com)
- Organic cage free chicken, eggs, and turkey (not all that is free-range is humane). See: http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html
- Organic dairy from pasture animals (i.e., Clover Organic, Strauss). Here is a helpful site to review dairy options: www.cornucopia.org.
- Organic, local, small family-farm products: http://www.localharvest.org/
- Organic, raw wildflower honey

Thinking Logically About The False Doctrine Of An Everlasting Hell

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:40:14 -0700

1. Introduction

This post is based on research from literal-based bible sources, and written especially for the benefit of Christians who wrongly claim that torment in hell is everlasting. Read for yourself - according to ancient literal-based bible texts, as set forth in detail below, torment outside this world is described exclusively with finite terms of a limited duration. The time period of any given punishment is described in terms of an “age” (alma in Aramaic) or “eon” (aion in Greek).

I can’t emphasize this enough: if the gospel was going to suggest infinity, the apostle writer could have done so literally by saying ‘time that does not end’ or ‘time that cannot end’. Or something along those lines. But those words do not appear in the literal gospel anywhere. Accordingly, those who preach infinite time do so of their own assumptions and dogma because their assumptions are not supported by the literal gospel. The Messiah invited us to follow his word, not the translator’s word. At best, the word is written on our hearts -- I don’t think it’s possible to write a desire for infinite torment of creatures on a loving heart.

The English word ‘hell’ is derived from the words sheol and gehenna, which describe a finite prison or grave and a place of complete destruction and death by fire, not everlasting existence and torture. Granted, it is inherently challenging for us humans to use our simple letters and language to define an underworld that we have not seen. But when priests and scholars blatantly mistranslate ancient words to concoct an everlasting torture prison - that is dishonest and evil.

Indeed, due to obvious mistranslations of just a handful of words over millennia, most mainstream religious groups have been able to propagate the evil and hateful and false doctrine of an everlasting torture prison called ‘hell’ in English. Why? Because most Christians prefer modern bible translations and commentaries above the literal bible. So, I invite readers to read for themselves in context every occurrence of these words in the gospel. To help you get started, I’ve constructed two charts available here with every occurrence of the Aramaic word “alma” in the gospel of Matthew. You can literally read for yourself today what alma means to you.

Gospel of Matthew Chart Gospel of John Chart

2. The Literal Bible Shows Hell Is Not Everlasting

A. First, Make Sure You Are Reading An Ancient Literal-Based Bible

The bible may be the best-selling book of all time, but in point of fact most people spend no time actually reading the literal text of the eye-witness gospels (Matthew & John).
I encourage all readers to find the oldest and most literal bible they can access, to help them search on their own the true meaning of the Hebrew word “olam”, and the Aramaic word “alma” used at the time of the Messiah, or even the Greek word “aion” used by the churches later on.
For both historical and logical reasons, the ancient Aramaic Peshitta text is most likely the only literal-based gospel today (read it here and here), and this is why:
• The ancient ‘church of the east’ near Syria preserved Aramaic primacy through the Peshitta, by a letter counting system (here, scribes counted every letter when preparing copies of the 1st century gospel to ensure accuracy). (Source: Ktaba Qadisha). Logically, it’s a more reliable method of preservation than simply deducting that whichever copy in the hands of a fourth century wealthy Roman church survives the spoils of war must be the primary source, especially when even that oldest copy post-dates the life span of the apostles by several hundred years and reaches into the time when wealthy Greeks / Romans were commissioning gospel translations for their libraries.
• Scholars agree (as historian Josephus confirms) that the 1st century Hebrews of Yahshua’s time did not speak Greek with any meaningful fluency, let alone read and write Greek. So how would the early gospel spread in Greek? And even for hundreds of years into the millennium, the Hebrews greatly resisted speaking Greek (the language of their oppressors), just as they resisted Babylon’s corruption of the Hebrew language while captive and in exile for over 400 years.
• Scholars such as Glenn David Bauscher have chronicled probably upwards of 1,000 separate evidentiary points through interlinear works in support of Aramaic primacy. It’s a bit overwhelming. See also: Historical Proofs.
So then, why has Greek become so popular with modern churches and academics? The answer follows historical decision-making and concentrations of power:
• As a mercantile language, Greek spread throughout the developing world in the early millennium in the name of commerce, so the ‘Christian’ church had an incentive to cater to the majority and also gravitate to wealth. This still happens today – it’s the business side of Christianity that is realistically not Christianity at all. Penning a translation that catered to the desires of those with money was a way to earn income in the 1st and 2nd century A.D. (and especially in the third century church institution), just as it is today. “He who pays the piper…”
• The Romans spoke Greek, and when the Romans conquered cities and towns they forced their culture on others (with Emperor Constantine being perhaps the epitome of this recurring phenomenon throughout history).
• The oldest preserved manuscripts, such as (but not exclusively) the Codex Vaticanus, were written in Greek, and are dated in the era of approximately 300AD. Even if papyrus P52 (excerpt from the Gospel of John in Greek) was not mistakenly dated it would still be sourced to a time when Greeks / Romans were obtaining gospel translations for their libraries.
So if you want to get as close as possible to the gospel from the time Yahshua walked the earth, read the Aramaic Peshitta for yourself. Here are some independent translations that can provide a helpful start:
• Paul Younan. Available here. This translator is considered one of the foremost authorities today on the Aramaic Peshitta.

• David Bauscher. Available here. This scholar studied Greek for a couple decades and so he is well positioned to explain the evidence that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. Indeed, Bauscher spends a lot of time with footnotes in his work pointing out where the Greek texts appear (logically and empirically) to be translations of Aramaic. Very eye-opening.

• Herb Jahn. I post several of his translations on my website (next to the picture of the lion). His interlinear translations are particularly nice for students new to Aramaic because they invite you to read every Aramaic root word, one-by-one, and then compare the translation as used in the sentence. So it feels like a respectful way to read (albeit slow), and it helps you learn basic Aramaic words (before you start learning derivative words and conjugations). I’ve found this literal method of reading to be very important to a genuine study of the gospel. Moreover, I think Jahn’s translations are best used in conjunction with the following translation:

• Janet Magiera. Available here. This woman has also developed a literal-based translation, and what is especially likable is that it comes with a study guide for Aramaic words, so you can cross-reference every occurrence of any given word, and its different possible translations – very thorough.

B. Hebrew & Aramaic Definitions of Time (Olam & Alma)

“Alma” (Aramaic word) and “Aion” (Greek word) both mean “age(s)” or “eon(s)” - a finite duration. These words also translate as “world” depending on the context.

“Olam” (Hebrew word) refers to an age or multiple ages, and is also dependent for its definition upon the context in which it is used. Sometimes the context refers to unknown duration or extent from our perspective, as for example with regard to the Father’s glory.

It appears that Yahshua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. At the time he walked the earth, formal torah teaching and study was generally performed in ancient Hebrew (albeit with Aramaic script), whereas in general society and interpersonal matters virtually all jewish people spoke Aramaic. (Source).

1. Olam (a Hebrew word)

Olam = time period, a long time, age, multiple ages, horizon, out-of-sight.

Because the word “olam” requires a context in order to have meaning, the word is protected from priests who try to mistranslate it or translate it in a vacuum.   Indeed, it’s dishonest where modern bibles claim “olam” means “everlasting” in every context. Take some comfort in Psalm 12:7 highlighting that scripture is protected. Here with ‘olam’, we see it is protected by context.

Given the seriousness of the matter at issue here, if ‘olam’ ever meant ‘everlasting’ then there should be some statement in scripture defining it clearly as a time period that does not end. I have never found any such statement in the bible. By contrast, here is what I’ve found…

The evidence we have is that biblical persons such as Abraham, Job, Moses, and David did not believe in (or write about) an everlasting torture prison after death. See e.g., J.W. Hanson citing Warburton. Leland’s Necessity of Divine Revelation. Rather, it was certain Egyptian Mystics and Greek Philosophers and Jewish Pharisees who originally preached this doctrine (see e.g., Warburton, Leland’s Necessity of Divine Revelation), and it was apparently adopted by the hierarchical ‘Christian’ church sometime around the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. (many years after the Messiah warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing).  Indeed, there is no shortage of bible quotes from the Messiah railing against the Egyptians and Greeks and Pharisees.

As one researcher has stated emphatically, “Nothing is better established in history than that the doctrine of endless punishment, as held by the Christian church in medieval times, was of Egyptian origin and [ ] adopted by the Greeks and Romans.” J.W. Hanson citing: Warburton. Leland’s Necessity of Divine Revelation]; see also HyperTexts by Michael Burch (”That the Old Testament does not teach even post-mortem punishment is universally conceded by scholars, as has been seen; and that the Egyptians, and Greek and Roman Pagans did, is shown already. That the doctrine was early in the Christian church, is equally evident. As the early Christians did not obtain it from the Old Testament, which does not contain it, and as it was already a Pagan doctrine, where could they have procured it except from heathen sources?”). See also, Did the Jews Believe in Eternal Torment?, by Charles Russell.

In the old testament, ‘olam’ is frequently used to emphasize the duration of some covenant or kingdom on earth. We can also read prophecies in the old and new testament that this planet is finite in both space and time. It will not be here forever.
A good example of determining the meaning of ‘olam by context is found in Jonah 2:6. This scripture shows that ‘olam sometimes indicates a period of time with a definitive near-term end:
I went down to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its bars closed behind me olam [le’olam]; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, YHVH, my Elohim.
Hebrew Transliterated: LQTShBY HUrYM YUrDThY H’aUrTSh BUrChYH B’yDY L’yVLM VTh’yL MShChTh ChYY YHVH ‘aLHY.
We know from the scriptures that Jonah’s experience lasted for three days and three nights (Jon. 1:17; Matt. 12:40). Jonah’s case is important in understanding the true meaning of ‘olam. Shut away in complete darkness inside the great fish, Jonah would have had no means of judging the passing of time. Eternal Life v. Everlasting Punishment, by Bryan Huie
And here are some other examples where “olam” refers to a definite/limited period of time that could not logically be everlasting:
o Exodus 21:6 “then hath his lord brought him nigh unto Elohim, and hath brought him nigh unto the door, or unto the side-post, and his lord hath bored his ear with an awl, and he hath served him -- to the age.
o Hebrew Transliterated: VHGYShV ‘aDNYV ‘aL-H’aLHYM VHGYShV ‘aL-HDLTh ‘aV ‘aL-HMZVZH VUrTSh’y ‘aDNYV ‘aTh-’aZNV BMUrTSh’y V’yBDV L’yLM.
o If olam meant everlasting here, then it would make one man the everlasting servant of another man.
o Leviticus 25:45-46 “and also of the sons of the settlers who are sojourning with you, of them ye buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have begotten in your land, and they have been to you for a possession; and ye have taken them for inheritance to your sons after you, to occupy for a possession; to the age ye lay service upon them, but upon your brethren, the sons of Israel, one with another, thou dost not rule over him with rigour.”
o Hebrew Transliterated: VGM MBNY HThVShBYM HGUrYM ‘yMKM MHM ThQNV VMMShPhChThM ‘aShUr ‘yMKM ‘aShUr HVLYDV B’aUrTShKM VHYV LKM L’aChZH. VHThNChLThM ‘aThM LBNYKM ‘aChUrYKM LUrShTh ‘aChZH L’yLM BHM Th’yBDV VB’aChYKM BNY-YShUr’aL ‘aYSh B’aChYV L’a-ThUrDH BV BPhUrK.
o If olam meant everlasting here, then it would again make one man the everlasting servant of another man.
o Deuteronomy 15:17 “then thou hast taken the awl, and hast put it through his ear, and through the door, and he hath been to thee a servant age-during; and also to thy handmaid thou dost do so.”
o Hebrew Transliterated, VLQChTh ‘aTh-HMUrTSh’y VNThThH B’aZNV VBDLTh VHYH LK ‘yBD ‘yVLM V’aPh L’aMThK Th’yShH-KN.
o Just as noted above with Exodus 21:6, if olam meant everlasting here, then it would make one man the everlasting servant of another man.
o Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 and Jer. 49:6
o Zeph 2:9, “Therefore, I live, An affirmation of YHVH of Hosts, Elohim of Israel, Surely, Moab is as Sodom, And the sons of Ammon as Gomorrah, An overrunning of nettles and salt-pits, And a desolation -- unto the age. A residue of My people do seize them, And a remnant of My nation inherit them.”
o Hebrew Transliterated (Zeph 2:9) LKN ChY-’aNY N’aM YHVH TShB’aVTh ‘aLHY YShUr’aL KY-MV’aB KSDM ThHYH VBNY ‘yMVN K’yMUrH MMShQ ChUrVL VMKUrH-MLCh VShMMH ‘yD-’yVLM Sh’aUrYTh ‘yMY YBZVM VYThUr GVY YNChLVM.
o Jeremiah 25:27, “And thou hast said unto them: Thus said YHVH of Hosts Elohim of Israel, Drink ye, yea drink abundantly, And vomit, and fall, and rise not, Because of the sword that I am sending among you.”
o Hebrew Transliterated (Jer. 25:27) V’aMUrTh ‘aLYHM KH-’aMUr YHVH TShB’aVTh ‘aLHY YShUr’aL ShThV VShKUrV VQYV VNPhLV VL’a ThQVMV MPhNY HChUrB ‘aShUr ‘aNKY ShLCh BYNYKM.
o Jeremiah 49:6, “And after this I turn back the captivity of the sons of Ammon, An affirmation of YHVH.”
o Hebrew Transliterated (Jer. 49:6): V’aChUrY-KN ‘aShYB ‘aTh-ShBVTh BNY-’yMVN N’aM-YHVH.
o If olam meant forever here, then the sons of Ammon would become a “desolation forever” and “rise no more” (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27), but we see that YHVH does eventually “turn back the captivity of the sons of Ammon” (Jer. 49:6). And recorded history also confirms (according to Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (§ 119)) that the Ammonites were still a numerous people in Palestine hundreds of years later in the second century A.D.  
o Isaiah 32:13-15 “Over the ground of my people thorn -- brier goeth up, Surely over all houses of joy of the exulting city, Surely the palace hath been left, The multitude of the city forsaken, Fort and watch-tower hath been for dens unto the age, A joy of wild asses -- a pasture of herds; Till emptied out on us is the Spirit from on high, And a wilderness hath become a fruitful field, And the fruitful field for a forest is reckoned.”
o Hebrew transliterated: ‘yL ‘aDMTh ‘yMY QVTSh ShMYUr Th’yLH KY ‘yL-KL-BThY MShVSh QUrYH ‘yLYZH. KY-’aUrMVN NTSh HMVN ‘yYUr ‘yZB ‘yPhL VBChN HYH B’yD M’yUrVTh ‘yD-’yVLM MShVSh PhUr’aYM MUr’yH ‘yDUrYM. ‘yD-Y’yUrH ‘yLYNV UrVCh MMUrVM VHYH MDBUr LKUrML VKUrML LY’yUr YChShB.

Here are some biblical examples where “olam” refers to a past time, and is best translated as “old” or “of old”. Genesis 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:7, Joshua 24:2, 1 Samuel 27:8, Job 22:15.
Now consider this modern translation of Psalm 45:6: “Thy throne, O God, [is] age-during, and for ever [Heb. olam va’ad], A sceptre of uprightness [Is] the sceptre of Thy kingdom.”
• Hebrew transliterated, KS’aK ‘aLHYM ‘yVLM V’yD ShBT MYShUr ShBT MLKVThK.
• The King James Version incorrectly translates olam va’ad as “for ever and ever,” which would not be logical because the Psalmist did not say, olam va’olam. Indeed, the Bible uses this same Hebrew phrase, olam va’ad, in Exodus 15:18 (perhaps best translated as YHVH reigns -- to the age, and beyond)’. If olam meant “forever” by itself, why do we find constructs (such as va’ad) which tell us there is a “beyond” this “forever,” as in Exodus 15:18.
• And see Daniel 12:2-3 (Note the contrast between olam and olam va’ad.): `And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during [olam], and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during. And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and olam va’ad.
o Hebrew Transliterated, VUrBYM MYShNY ‘aDMTh-’yPhUr YQYTShV ‘aLH LChYY ‘yVLM V’aLH LChUrPhVTh LDUr’aVN ‘yVLM. VHMShKLYM YZHUrV KZHUr HUrQY’y VMTShDYQY HUrBYM KKVKBYM L’yVLM V’yD.
  As a concluding thought here, scholars will note that the Hebrew noun ‘olam is related or derived from the verb ‘alam, which means “to hide,” “keep secret,” or “obscure.” Knowing that, it helps confirm that this question is meant to be a saga of uncovering something hidden or confusing. Remember Proverbs 25:2, “The honor of Elohim is to hide a word; and the honor of sovereigns to probe a word.”

2. Alma (an Aramaic word)

Alma = age, eon, multiple ages, world 
Note that because “alma” (Aramaic word) means both world and age, it is showing the interconnected relationship of space and time. When we recognize the finite limitations on earth’s space, we must also recognize the finite limitations on earth’s time. The Book of Revelation and Book of Isaiah confirm the current earth and its heavens will be destroyed in due time – they are both finite in space and finite in time. Rev. 21:1-7; Isaiah 65:17-25. The place of torment, also, is described in the bible as being a place (a world) that is finite in both space and time; or if you prefer, hell is not everywhere.
If misread, the phrase age-during even fails to capture the essence of the unknown that the word ‘olam’ and ‘alma’ better captures. Perhaps only with a humble approach to studying the ‘ages’ does one realize that he does not know for certain when one age ends and another begins, let alone would he confidently predict the future (prophecy). Perhaps the humble man just recognizes that alma means alma.

So, if we are literalists (to minimize adding or subtracting from the bible), we see the words “eternal,” “everlasting,” and “forever and ever” were added (translated) into the bible by men of the hierarchical churches (Catholic & Protestant), who changed the Greek word “aion,” and the Aramaic word ‘alma,’ and the Hebrew word “olam.” Just how these false translations came into existence is covered in more detail in section three below.

So I invite readers to read for themselves in context every occurrence of the Aramaic word “Alma” in the gospel of John and the gospel of Matthew. See charts:

Gospel of Matthew Chart Gospel of John Chart

Aramaic Grammar Note. The Aramaic suffix “n” at the end of a noun makes it plural. There are very few instances where “alma” is plural in the literal gospel: EaLMiYN (see for example Matthew 6:13). Likewise,another key grammatical point is that the Aramaic definite article “a” (aleph) attached to the noun provides context. Usually there is an “a” on the end of “alma” so it means the world/age. But where there is no “a”, then the word is “alm” – meaning a world/age.   Some other useful grammar tips: (1) “Oe” at the beginning of ‘alma’ means the word is prefaced by “and” or “yet”, (2) “B” at the beginning of ‘alma’ means the word is prefaced by “in”, (3) “D” at the beginning of ‘alma’ means the word is prefaced by “of”, (4) “L” at the beginning of ‘alma’ means the word is prefaced by “to” or “unto”, and (5) when both “D” and “L” appear together at the beginning of ‘alma’, the translation “age-during” will usually make sense, but the best practice still remains to translate everything literally: “of to the age/world”.   Indeed, the literal translation better captures the idea of the subject being both “of” (springing from) and also “to” (springing toward), as we see with shapes like the torus for example.
3. Aion (Greek)
  Aion = eon, age, ages
As scholar Marvin Vincent wrote regarding the Greek translation of aionios, “The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. . . . The adjective αιωνιος in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.” (p. 59, vol. IV, Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament)
An adjective cannot have a greater meaning than the noun from which it is derived. Hourly, for example, cannot pertain to a week, or month, or year. The “ly” indicates it belongs to an “hour.” So too with “aionIOS” -- the “ios” ending tells us that it pertains to “aion” that is, an indeterminate period of time. See e.g., Commentary on Matthew 25:46, by Gary Amirault; The Greek Word Aion – Aionios, by John Hanson This amount of time can vary greatly, but it still must remain within the parameters of time.
Eternal could mean beyond time, but to say it means time continues infinitely would be an assumption. Once in an eternal state (outside the time dimension), it would also be an assumption that something (i.e., a human or angel) is indestructible or cannot be utterly transformed into an entirely new being. And assumptions are dangerous. For example, when the bible describes YHVH as living to the ages of ages, why assume that YHVH is categorically limited to that single definition? It would be like saying that because YHVH is described as "the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" that he is the Elohim of only those three men.
  4. Testing The Word “Eternal”
Even if something exists outside the time dimension (eternally), why would we assume it cannot be destroyed from whatever dimensions it happens to rely upon? Does the bible not say YHVH can utterly destroy anything?

As this article makes clear, ‘everlasting torment in hell’ is a false doctrine according to my bible research. By contrast, the concept of an eternal life for the faithful and law abiding (a life outside the time dimension of this world) is not at odds with the ancient literal gospel. As far as I can tell though, the literal gospel never used any sentence or phrase that was so explicit as to guarantee a life continuing for a heavenly infinity (everlasting time) such that the soul could not be destroyed later or converted/given back toward a finite world (i.e., if the soul later transgressed YHVH and was cast from heaven to earth).

With that said, I still rationalize that the world ‘alma’ can only be translated as ‘eternal’ if the translator is willing to make a doctrinal assumption (promise of a life outside the time dimension) that is not technically present in the text itself. There is no statement defining ‘alma’ as a life outside the time dimension. And likewise, there is no statement defining alma as a time period that is everlasting or has no end. To the contrary, there is an abundance of bible verses (many are cited in this article) that rely on the word ‘alma’ to explicitly set the context for a limited time period (see my charts for examples).

Perhaps the reason we cannot find the phrase “no end” in the gospel is because we find instead the promise in Revelation 21:5, “Behold, I work all new.”

The closest reference to “no end” in the gospel is in Matthew 24:25, and even it is qualified as I explain in my alma chart (click here).

I can find no statement or phrase in the bible that promises total immunity from punishment with no possibility whatsoever of there being an end of time for your existence. If such an immunity was provided, you’d think there would be some further discussion of it as well. There is neither mention of it in the gospel, nor discussion of it.

Note that in Hebrew the phrase for infinite is “no end” (אינסוף, which is the conjugation of אין (no) and סוף (end/bound)).

“And in ancient Greek word "ápeiron"(neuter) is composed by the negative prefix “a” , i.e. the so-called “alpha privative” used to express absence or negation, plus an adaptation of the neuter noun “peiras”/”peirar”/”peras”. The term “"peiron" does not exist in fact in ancient Greek. In ancient Greek philosophy, especially in Anaximander of Miletus ( 610 BC – 546 BC), the “ápeiron” was “an unlimited or indefinite indestructible substance, out of which individual things were created and destroyed”. Therefore the “ápeiron” was the “boundless”, the “infinite”, i.e. “that which has no boundaries”, which has no origin, because it is itself the origin of all things, i.e. the “arché”.” (Source).

The bible makes it clear that ages do indeed have an end, as we see for example in Ecclesiastes 3:11, “He made all things beautiful in their time, and indeed gave the age to their heart, yet so that man might not find what God has made from the beginning even until the end.”

For those willing to consider the first Book of Enoch (whether in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or Ethiopic), we see for example the following translation by Michael Knibb, “But you formerly were spiritual, living an eternal, immortal life for all the generations of the world.” Enoch 15:6. Notice how the immortality is put in the context of a limited duration (the generations of the world), which further suggests the word eternal is better translated as age - we see this logically by the context. Indeed, this also reminds of the finite immortality of some people during the five month locust plagues of Revelation - these people can’t die for five months, they are only immortal for five months. (It appears our Messiah recognized at least one aspect of the Book of Enoch, as we compare Enoch 15:7 with Matthew 22:29). If you do read Enoch, my experience is that it is helps to not translate “olam”. Rather, just say “olam” and you’ll understand the book better.

C. Definitions of Hell

The word ‘hell’ in most modern bible translations is actually translated from other words meaning different things, such as Gehenna (Aramaic = fiery pit), Sheol (Hebrew & Aramaic = grave or underworld), Tartarus (Greek = abyss of greek mythology), Hades (Greek = underworld). For historical background on these translations, consider the references throughout this article.

Over time, with the help of councils and emperors, the hierarchical church and others consolidated them all into one word, “hell.” In the most literal bibles, each of these different places are associated with a finite place and a finite time. Christians and Catholics accept the finite limitation in space, but too many desperately and wrongly fear a “hell” that is everlasting because that is what is often taught as doctrine.

Recall the references in the gospel of Matthew above. The messiah does not preach of an everlasting torture prison. Rather, we see in Matthew 10:28, “And awe not of them who slaughter the body and are not able to slaughter the soul: and awe of him who is able to destroy soul and body in Gihana, the Valley of Burning.” The aramaic word ‘destroy’ in this passage is ebad (NaOB’eD). Note that it is used explicitly with regard to both the body and soul. It appears therefore that Yahshua was challenging the claims of the Egyptians and their Greek progeny that claimed there was an everlasting hell for immortal souls. See also Matthew 7:13-14 (destruct); 10:42 (destruct), and 21:41-44 (pulverize). Revelation 20:14 “And death and sheol were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second/dragon death.” And remember Ecclesiastes 12:7, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto Eloha who gave it.” Ecclesiastes 3:20, “All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
An example of the need for reproof: Peter had been convinced from his childhood that the Messiah would never die (Matt. 16:22), and had to revise his theology when the Messiah corrected him on it shortly before the crucifixion. People should always be ready and willing to do an about-face regarding the false doctrines of men whenever and wherever we are confronted with truth. Ezekiel 33:14-16.

For a useful article refuting the idea that a loving Father would allow everlasting hell, and also providing an analysis of the words that were wrongly translated as “hell”, see: The HyperTexts, by Michael Burch.
“According to Basil Atkinson, 28 Hebrew nouns and 23 verbs are generally translated ‘destruction’ or ‘to destroy’ in [a common] English Bible. Approximately half of these words are used to describe the final destruction of the wicked…. Interested readers can find an extensive analysis of such texts in the studies by Basil Atkinson and Edward Fudge. Only a sampling of significant texts are considered here. Several Psalms describe the final destruction of the wicked with dramatic imagery (Ps 1:3-6; 2:9-12; 11:1-7; 34:8-22; 58:6-10; 69:22-28; 145:17, 20). In Psalm 37, for example, we read that the wicked “will soon fade like grass” (v. 2), “they shall be cut off . . . and will be no more” (vv. 9-10), they will “perish . . . like smoke they vanish away” (v. 20), “transgressors shall be altogether destroyed” (v. 38). Psalm 1, loved and memorized by many, contrasts the way of the righteous with that of the wicked. Of the latter it says that “the wicked shall not stand in the judgment” (v. 5). They will be “like chaff which the wind drives away” (v. 4). “The way of the wicked will perish” (v. 6). Again, in Psalm 145, David affirms: “The Lord preserves all who love him; but all the wicked he will destroy” (v. 20). This sampling of references, on the final destruction of the wicked is in complete harmony with the teaching of the rest of Scripture.” Hell: Torment or Annihilation, by Samuele Bacchiocchi.
The biblical person Job appears to have prayed that he might go to Sheol to be relieved of his suffering so that he might later be remembered by YHVH to be called out from Sheol. See, Job 14:13 (”O that in Sheol Thou wouldst conceal me, Hide me till the turning of Thine anger, Set for me a limit, and remember me.”)

3. The Bible Warns Of False Scribes and Religious Deception
The bible teaches that Satan is an imposter, and his methods are often religious. The bible warns of “the false pen of the scribes.” Jeremiah 8:8. See also Isaiah 10:1. And remember what the Messiah said of the Pharisees (John 5:42), who claimed they knew the word of God, but they relied on their own traditions to set aside the truth. They passed these traditions down through bible translations, based on organized religious hierarchies. (Matt. 22:29).   I think we are all deceived in measure, which is part of the saga the bible says would happen (e.g., Eliyah versus Edom).   For example, do we even know the name of the Father? Click here for a study on the various transcribed names of the Father (YHVH, Yahweh, IEUE, Yah, Yehweh) and the Messiah (for example, Yesu, Yeshua, Yahshua, Ieueshuo, Jesus).

Indeed, it appears quite clear that not all biblical texts and translations and interpretations are beautiful from the perspective of our Father. Indeed, it is widely recognized that modern bibles have been subject to certain mistranslations, edits, and additions over the years, especially by priests. Some books are canonized and others aren‘t. Even the bible itself advises that many messages are hidden (e.g., Proverbs 25:2), and that we should guard against deception by false priests, scribes, and prophets, though it‘s unclear to what extent these falsifiers were able to succeed in their deceptions (so we have to ‘test the fruit‘ of bible verses).

Examples: Ezekiel 20:25 (“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord”); Jeremiah 5:31 (”the prophets prophesy falsely and the priests subjugate by their hands”); Jeremiah 8:8 (false pen of the scribes); Jeremiah 14:14-16 (”The prophets prophesy falsehoods in my name: I neither sent them nor misvahed them nor worded to them: they prophesy to you a false vision and divination and worthlessness and the deceit of their heart…. the sword and famine consumes those prophets: and the people to whom they prophesy are cast out in the outways of Yeru Shalem at the face of the famine and the sword: and there is no one to entomb them — them, their women, their sons and their daughters:”); 1 Kings 22:23 (a false spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets); Isaiah 10:1; Isa. 28:7 (priest and prophet err inadvertently through intoxicants); Lamentations 2:14 (prophets see vain burdens and seductions); Ezekiel 14:9 (”And if the prophet, when he is deluded, and words a word, I Yah Veh delude that prophet, and I spread my hand on him, and desolate him from midst my people Yisra El.”); Hosea 9:7-8 (”the prophet is a fool: the man of the spirit is insane, because of the abundance of your perversity and the great enmity… the prophet is a snare of the snarer in all his ways;”); Jonah 3:4-10 (false 40 day prophecy); Micah 3:5-11 (prophesying for money); Matt. 16:22 (even after following him for sometime, Peter continued to falsely believe the Messiah would never die); Matt. 22:29 and John 5:42 (on the teachings of the Pharisees); Matthew 7:15-20 (”beware of false prophets…by their fruits you know them.”).

And here is additional reading for those inclined to mine these dark caves for occasional jewels of useful perspective: The Edited Bible, by John Van Seters; Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Friedman; The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe; Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman; Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible, by B.A. Robinson; Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament, by Bart Ehrman; Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, by Joseph Wheless.

Historically, the group in the Messiah’s time who claimed they were the authority on scripture interpretation were the Pharisees. They amassed much wealth and made their own rules - an example that certainly counsels in favor of personal humility on this issue, as well as caution in dealing with similar organizations and persons today. Here is what the bible has to say about entrusting teaching authority to any church or person - Matthew, Ch. 23:8-12 
And you, call yourselves not, Rabbi:
425 dein cn and
906 la prp lest, not
1608a qera vv call, plead, recall
1631l rabi nn Rabbi

for one is your Rabbi
579a had nn adj one, someone
481 hu pro he, it, she
354 geir cn for
1631a raba adj great, nn Rabbi

and you all, brothers:
425 dein cn and
853a kul nn all, every, everywhere
48a a’aha nn brother
130 ’ant pro you

and call no man on earth, father:
2a ’aba nn father
906 la prp lest, not
1608a qera vv call, plead, recall
905 personal pronoun
209a ara nn earth

for one is your Father — in the heavens:
579a had nn adj one, someone
481 hu pro he, it, she
354 geir cn for
2a ’aba nn father
1795a semaya nn the heavens

and be not called leaders:
906 la prp lest, not
1608a qera vv call, plead, recall
404f medabrana nn leader

because one is your leader, even the Meshiah.
994 metul cn because
579a had nn adj one, someone
481 hu pro he, it, she
404f medabrana nn leader
1044b mesiha tt Meshiah

And whoever is Rabbi among you
482 hau pro he, they of whom, they who
425 dein cn and
1631a raba adj great, nn Rabbi
223d ’atra prp (there) (where) at, by, in, within

becomes your minister:
486 hewa vv be, become, been, being
905 personal pronoun
1802b mesamsana adj minister

and whoever exalts his soul
1014c man pro who, him
354 geir cn for
1653a ram vv exalt, heighten, lift
1120a napsa nn soul

humbles his soul:
1003a mak vv humble

and whoever humbles his soul, exalts.
1014c man pro who, him
1003a mak vv humble
1120a napsa nn soul
1653a ram vv exalt, heighten, lift

Throughout history we see translators could be labeled as heretics, tried for heresy and burned at the stake for translating a more accurate meaning of words against a conventionally held belief. Heresy was simply going against the religious authority and its accepted views of the time. Not only is this problematic on its face, but on top of this, most people strain to grasp that translated texts are not the inspired ‘word of God’ but rather only a translation of a text. And the Bible warns us about translating in error (see quotes above), so we have biblical confirmation this has happened.
I feel that when a man desires everlasting torment to be placed on another creature, that is a man thinking in his most evil state of mind. And indeed this example of condemnation “in the name of God” provides compelling evidence that mankind as a species cannot be trusted with unchecked power over spacetime, lest the evil appetites of torturers (such as those that manifested in full splendor during the dark ages) be permitted to perfect their injustices.

4. Everlasting Hell Is An Evil Doctrine, Propagated Through Hate
It is natural that we analyze the ‘everlasting hell deception’ logically, because it allows us to check the source and strength of our faith/trust in YHVH. For starters, while it is conceivable to a human being that a superior being could transcend time and then torture the inferior population infinitely for finite crimes, even though the superior being created the inferior being with foreknowledge of its failure, why would anyone ascribe this motive to our Father, especially when there are more literal bible translations out there that require a different conclusion?

Logically, I think our ultimate Authority over earth wants bible readers to be faced with all feasible translations of “olam” and “alma” and “gehenna” etc for several reasons, such as (1) so that we learn something about the nature of fear and love, (2) so that we will take grace seriously, (3) so that we learn something about ourselves and show our true colors, (4) to provide an extreme illustration of the harm that comes from false doctrines of men and the hierarchical church. What does your heart tell you?

In my experience, when a person is told that there is an everlasting hell, he or she may exhibit the following negative behaviors: (1) hope that God does not exist, (2) belief that God does not do justice, and (3) preaching the everlasting hell doctrine to others to help share the burden of their own psychological fear.

Truly, the fear of everlasting torture drains you of love. And if you preach it to others, and it actually takes root in that child, it will drain them eventually too. I think it is evil. That is my personal experience.

The “everlasting hell” translation by men of the church serves an earthly purpose - to increase elitist religious power over the populace.   This makes for ‘bad fruit’ from a translation. Isaiah 29:13. Indeed, why would an Authority of mercy punish His creation eternally for finite sins? Does the bible not teach that the Father’s wrath is just? Where in His law has He ever proscribed infinite torture for finite crime? Our Authority is consistent. Isn’t it more likely that, just as the bible and history confirm, certain members of the church engaged in mistranslation? When I read Mark 9:44 (”Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”) I see the Messiah quoting Isaiah 66:24, which refers to the time period (age) of the millennial reign of Christ. During this limited time it appears there is a finite hell for evildoers that none may escape at that time, rather than a place of infinite torture. See also, Revelation 20:14 “And death and sheol were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” Death is repeatedly described in literal-based bibles as extinguishment, not everlasting existence and torture.

And let’s look at some other scriptural examples too. Recall Revelation 9:11 where people who are still alive on earth wish they could die but instead are tortured by lion-headed locusts for five months because they accepted the mark of the beast -- finite torture, not infinite. And recall the information about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 – the text never even suggests the rich man’s torture goes on infinitely, so you would be adding to the bible if you presume everlasting torture. Similarly, you would be subtracting from the bible if you presumed there is no punishment for evil. Fire is many things in the bible - a refining and purifying one (Malachi 3:2), a light to guide us (Deuteronomy 1:33), and a consuming fire designed to extinguish evil (Deuteronomy 4:24).

5. Context Is Key
A. Test the Fruit, And Know That Some Is Not Meant To Be Eaten

Context is very important in original bible languages. In many places, the bible tells us to be very careful with the words of scripture. Recall Matthew 13:3-19 (farmer sows good seed [the gospel], but if it falls by the wayside, Satan snatches it from your heart).

It seems quite logical to me that the farther we are from the original Hebrew and Aramaic words, the greater likelihood we are receiving the words “by the wayside.” Here is another important point - when Paul writes to Timothy that all scripture is good for reproof and correction, we must remember that Paul does not have the power to say we should disobey the Messiah’s command to discern what is true scripture and be vigilant in discerning false prophets (by distinguishing good fruit from bad fruit). Indeed, even Peter warned of the danger of misinterpreting Paul’s letters. And Revelation 2:2 (false apostle who speaks to the Ephesians) gives additional reason for caution about Paul.

I am not saying Paul is a false witness per se, but rather perhaps a misunderstood individual whose importance has been immensely exaggerated. In my experience, most modern church interpretations of Paul’s letters tend to be dangerously illogical and also hypocritical. Accordingly, it’s worth remembering that we are commanded to follow Yahshua the messiah, not Paul the ex-Pharisee turned self-proclaimed Christian. Similarly, don’t follow Constantine the ex-warlord turned self-proclaimed Christian.

There is a Christian spirituality out there that doesn’t require us to pretend we know more than we do. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Messiah counseled for humility. Consider the distinction between these two extremes - intolerance and compromise. Now consider what fundamental humility is. How many indoctrinated Christians and Catholics deny themselves so they can fill themselves with “Jesus,” and then they proceed to tell others “in the name of God” how wrong everybody else is because (insert your own bible translations and traditions here)? Have I successfully made my point yet? There’s also a major difference between preaching common-sense laws, like “don’t steal,” compared to theological matters. It seems arrogant to me when preachers claim to speak “in the name of Jesus,” and proudly thump one bible translation to the exclusion of contradictory translations and even logic itself, which logically gives meaning to translations.

Let’s consider some examples directly from the gospel: See John 7:6-8 for an example where Yahshua describes that his ‘time is not yet finished’ and that the apostles ‘time at all moments is here’. And see also John 5:37, where Yahshua is quoted using the word memthum (mem-mem-tav-waw-mem), which is translated as “ever” in the sentence, “And the Father who sent me, he testifies concerning me, not his voice ever have you heard, nor his appearance you have seen.” Who would claim that Yahshua lacked the vocabulary to describe infinity if he wanted to? Would he not use words like zabna (time) and memthum (ever) and la (not)? So, because he did not use such vocabulary ever to describe infinite time (not even once in the entire gospel), why would churches assume/translate the phrase into the text by mistranslating the word for world/age? What is to be gained by adding leavening to promises about the world/age, or adding fear about a world/age to come? Who has benefitted throughout history from promises of eternal salvation and the threat of everlasting torment unless the soul agrees to give its allegiance to their dogma and pay tithes? Answer: mystery Babylon, and her harlots go by many names - they are all over the globe yet they adhere and pay service to the mother church’s core dogma.

Given how similar ‘hana’ and ‘ana’ would sound to an Aramaic speaker, it helps emphasize that logic would be instrumental in receiving what the Messiah was saying about the world/age and his relationship to it. See for example John 6:47-48 where D'aLEaLaM is immediately followed by ana (aleph-nun-aleph); see also John 9:5. And see John 6:40, where D'aLEaLaM is immediately followed by uana. I don’t think it is an accident that there is mystery here in the gospel. Proverbs 25:2, “The honor of Elohim is to hide a word; and the honor of sovereigns to probe a word.” Matthew 13:52, “And he words to them, because of this, every scribe discipled to the sovereigndom of the heavens is like a man — a lord of the house who ejects from his treasure new and antiquated.”

B. Historical Insights Into Time and Punishment

In reviewing the history of philosophy and religion with regard to ‘time & punishment’, the key thing to recognize is that human philosophers are just guessing. The philosophers who were powerful and wealthy enough to write books and have them widely disseminated in early biblical times were just able to perpetuate their guesses across the ages, even as their nations fell. And those guesses still retained their original character as guesses. What we see, then, is just a long tradition of educated guessing where younger men ever rely upon older men who were also guessing.
Logic is indeed essential to an honest approach to our question of ‘time & punishment’, and certainly more reliable than the lingering words of once wealthy philosophers and priests that just so happened to find the approval of warring kings and communities.
Like the Greek philosophers, I too do not know the answer with 100% certainty – I have no absolute power over space and time in order to both say and enforce my answer! My brain, like yours, is quite limited and susceptible to being fooled regarding reality (as for example by the herb Salvia Divinorum if you need an example). Knowing this, I rationalize that my tools on earth simply help me to assess the relative likelihood of events and concepts subject to my perception. In weighing those likelihoods here, after having researched a great deal of the historical record on this topic, I find it is a smart and defensible risk to trust that everlasting torture is either impossible or else extremely unlikely. And even if I were wrong as to its likelihood, I feel confident logically defending my choice of risk (or risk-analysis) based on the information available to me.
With that said, I recognize the possibility/argument that energy simply exists in the universe, and it could be captured by ‘evil’ or ‘non-sentient pain-inducing’ forces and put to seemingly indestructible uses outside of the time dimension, or on an exponential curve of spacetime that was very ‘long’. And in this hypothetical world, if there were no ‘absolute power’ that adamantly enforced justice, then there would also theoretically be a risk that any type of evil (or again, non-sentient pain-inducing force) could perpetuate itself ad infinitum without checks or balances, and might even be able to cling to a being such as yourself and leave you ‘forgotten’ like a grain of sand in a galaxy on the fringes of the universe – lost and inconsequential, yet still alive in a state that might be described from your hypothetical perspective as everlasting torment. If this state perpetuated for some ‘ungodly’ amount of spacetime, even if ultimately finite, that would seem to be a prima facie injustice. Knowing this, our mind gravitates toward hope (even trust) that there is a power in the universe that helps the suffering, that shepherds the lost, that redeems the sinful, that prevents everlasting torture. Thank goodness for the hope we have in YHVH who searches the dark places, and the biblical messiah chosen to serve as our example of redemption. Right or wrong in hyperdimensional reality, our minds are capable of recognizing this type of hope.
Revelation 21 confirms that this earth will be destroyed at the end of the age, and those who are not saved are also destroyed. I expect there will be some kind of proportional punishment and ultimate destruction (not everlasting torment) for Satan and his armies that lead the charge in the Gog & Magog war at the end of the next age, which is the final age of this earth before the new heavens and new earth are gifted.
With regard to the timeline implications of Revelation 14:9-11, 20:10 and 21:8, I cannot say for certain that some kind of very long punishment is prohibited by the literal text -- I just know that my logic abhors the idea of everlasting punishment, and the literal text of the bible suggests that the consequence of sin is death, not everlasting torment. Even if Satan or some other being had attempted to use energy and power to cause everlasting torment to others, I still do not feel that a fair punishment would be to cause him everlasting torment, even as a deterrent to others.
Revelation chapters 20-22 are insightful. We learn that the One speaking is the “beginning and the completion”, also described as the aleph and the tav (21:6). Does the tav go right back into aleph, like in a torus that has no end in some directions? We learn that death (or the dead) and sheol are tossed into the fire. But we also learn in 22:11 that some who do evil will do evil again. And we learn that on the new earth that murderers will be outside the great city (Rev. 22:15). Why is the second death not referred to as the final death? Another translation for the word “second” in Aramaic is dragon. The phrase ‘dragon death’ makes me think that evil simply becomes identified/associated/connected with the dragon that is dead, or perhaps dead in a state like Ouroboros (constantly eating itself in a never-ending circle?
My human logic invites me to ask -- while it is exceedingly frightening that any supernatural power could wield an absolute power that large, isn’t it necessary that we hope for an absolute power to protect against that very possibility of everlasting torment? This question puzzles me, and perhaps it is destined to be so.
Remember again that the Hebrew noun ‘olam is related to the verb ‘alam, which means “to hide,” “keep secret,” or “obscure.” Knowing that, it helps confirm that this question is meant to be a saga of uncovering something hidden or confusing.

6. Math

Can a finite action produce an infinite reaction in a just universe? I think not. From a physics standpoint, we find countless applications of the mathematical value for infinity. Some of these applications help us build things in the physical world, while some are purely theoretical. Moreover, time is one of those dimensions we can take out of many equations for both practical and theoretical applications.

So then, our question of ‘destruction of a person’ in the logical and biblical sense has a strong interplay with theoretical physics - our question might be understood in terms of ‘destruction of matter’ or ‘transfer of energy’. And as we enter these fields of study, we naturally appreciate how little we really know and understand about the current nature of mass and light, let alone their ultimate creation and destruction.

For example, try to figure out whether a photon is a medium or a messenger or a reality, and consider the nature of its mass, and also how a photon is created and destroyed/transferred. If you think you have ultimate answers here, you are lying to yourself. Consider what happens to a photon when it hits a wall of perfect mirrors compared to imperfect walls… I would suggest Feynman’s classic admonition is appropriate for me here “Shut up and calculate”, but what if a key purpose of our discussion about ‘everlasting life’ is to contrast parallels (whatever we can find) between the mathematics of energy transfer and the logic of word meaning and translation.

I think the goal here is to enthusiastically analyze, rather than dogmatically conclude. Here is a fun article to get you started: http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/enoch-and-elijah-and-einstein/; or consider Bars’ work to describe a six-dimensional universe (4 space dimensions + 2 time dimensions): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

I also think for purposes of moral and logical deduction, it will be just fine for matter to be completely transferred (born again into a new state of being). Whether we claim this makes the human soul eternal or everlasting would then be of little consequence morally, so long as the original state is utterly destroyed/transferred in such a manner that no being of energy (human, angel, or otherwise) can be rationally said to exist in a state of everlasting torment. As we are not physically able to both know and enforce our answer with absolute certainty, we can only decide whether to trust that a righteous answer will be enforced by one(s) with authority. In this, I give my trust to YHVH. It’s a rational choice for me, a smart risk from my limited perspective.

7. Conclusion

Bible translators change scriptures all the time to match their theology. It’s a business that has spawned much division in Christianity and Catholicism. This problem has been so blatant that past monks working in the Vatican have admitted to changing the bible at the request of popes. Frankly, one doesn’t need to be an expert to figure out how insane it is to tell children that they’ll burn for infinity if they don’t follow a particular bible translation. Most people (children included) know little to nothing of the history of mistranslations, edits, book burning, papal dictates, etc., etc.

Shall we ignore these historical experiences? The messiah instructed, as witnessed in the gospel, that he does not want elitism for us here on earth (Matt 23:8-12), but rather, he wants service (Matt 5-7). A bad bible translation serves the same master today as it did in the messiah’s time.

Based on my literal-based bible research, I rationalize that ‘everlasting hell’ is a false and evil doctrine. It is not scriptural, but rather is inherited from the dark minds of evil men.

Take comfort in Revelation 21:5, “Behold, I work all new.”

Base Logic

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:55:49 -0700

Human logic is rooted in sensory experiences known to you as relevant primarily by proximity of events in time and space. From these dimensional bases, the human mind derives parallel conclusions based on as many factors as can be imagined. It’s an open question whether imagination is non-dimensional, but we do know that foundation is key - infancy is fundamental.

Building on this framework of human experience, to maximize parallel processing in the computing world, our transistors would need to categorize information similarly, where relevance is derived first from proximity in time and space, and thereafter, learned from the utility of servicing the senses. Accordingly, a computer will never evolve into a human-like parallel processor without first being able to define the intrinsic needs of its senses.

Humans find it quite natural to categorize by proximity in sensual perception. As an example, if x sounds like y, we recognize strong proximity in the auditory sense.

Interestingly, this system of categorization relates to how much we’re willing to compromise perfection in material identification (i.e., species identification), because the compromises each person makes (perspective itself) are the bases of his analogy. And analogy is a hallmark of logic. So, here we have another example of logic being intimately entwined with experience.

Now imagine time progressing by intervals of a human experience, which allows you to re-program your psychology at every regular interval of self-assessment. Even the number of times you use the refrigerator in a day provides intervals to re-program your psychology. Simply ask yourself every time you open the refrigerator door whether in the interval between your last visit and this one, if you really earned some right to consume what you did, and release the waste you’re sure to release. Just as we are organisms, we are also systems. Our experience is that we cannot live without a living foundation.

A quote from John (Yahchanan) 15:5-8,

“I — I am the vine, you are the branches:
whoever abides in me and I in him
brings much fruit:
because that [which] is not with me
is not able to work whatever.
Unless humanity abides in me,
he is cast outside as a branch that withered:
and they are gathered and cast into the fire to burn.
And if you abide in me,
and my word abides in you
ask all — whatever you will,
and so be it.
Herein is my Father glorified
— that you bring much fruit:
and be my disciples.”

(Literal-based translation by Herb Jahn)

Stimulating Debt

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:08:48 -0800

Barack Obama and Congress are creating economic stimulus laws that will loot Americans’ savings accounts. This sophisticated theft will be accomplished when international financiers succeed in crashing the economy and switching currencies from the dollar to the Amero or something else.

Obama's zeal is impressive, but much evidence shows that his stimulus plans are subterfuge, whether Obama knows it or not (technically though, none of this even depends on Obama, as many politicians in his place would do the same thing; even still, to help understand Obama’s actions, you may want to peruse the Unauthorized Biography of Barack H. Obama and other independent sources that have tracked this politician’s career).

When we put aside all the rhetoric about helping people, the immediate beneficiaries of the stimulus plans are not the middle class or the poor, but rather big capital finance (international banks and investment houses), big pharma and biotech, big foundations, and the like. Answer this question, and you've figured out much - why is the government taking money from the public in order to give it to big beneficiaries just so those big beneficiaries can give it back (stimulation) to the public in the form of loans and jobs that create dependency on the big beneficiaries? Answer: power. You see, whether the stimulus plan succeeds or fails, the result is the same – it is something like a ten-year plan (as Obama admitted in one of his recent speeches), and it begins with a 2-5 year trough of further declines in home, stock, and bond values. That creates dependency.

Oh, how history repeats itself! This is truly about power - the immediate effect of the stimulus plan will transfer money and land into deeper pockets. Most people will figure this out this year, but will remain helpless financially because they refinanced properties that are dwindling in value, and are therefore personally liable to pay big debts. Naturally, when faced with the choice of liquidating the house or liquidating the stocks and bonds, people will keep the house (because they need to live there, and residential properties are selling for dismally low prices), so they'll simply cash out their stocks and bonds to continue paying the mortgage, as they also help bail out their friends and family who lost their jobs. Keep in mind, many people are already bailing out on the stock market. The more this happens the more it leads to panic and therefore a mass exodus of people cashing in their 401k and the like. Given all the factors involved, it’s difficult to make predictions, but some analysts predict the exodus will happen this year, and some say next year, and others have longer-term predictions. The reason for this is that the frightened public has been convinced by the mass media that there is an unprecedented worldwide crisis (even though the stock market is around 1997 levels, and times were bountiful in 1997) - and fear mongering is self-fulfilling, because the dollar is backed on consumer confidence rather than assets (thanks primarily to an active Federal Reserve that capitalized on the prolonged Vietnam War to drain the entirety of American gold reserves, among many other reasons). Beware international events where the mass media shows more war, and more drought and famine. This wags the dog.

As I’ve written in an earlier post (tender branch), the current stock market volatility is a physical sign/symptom of a deeper and systemic problem relating to the value of the dollar itself. It's no secret that the U.S. Treasury is struggling to pay even the interest on massive foreign loans. This is really a key fact, because together with high spending (military, infrastructure, and social programs) and very low tax revenues for 2009 (no end in sight), it creates the ideal recipe for massive investor withdrawal and economic collapse. News reports at www.globalresearch.ca are covering this phenomenon.

If we use history as our guide, the U.S. currency should dovetail before most people know it, which allows the actual value behind the U.S. dollar (e.g., natural resources, intellectual property, human capital) to be transferred to a new currency with the approval of a panicked country seeking to recapture mere cents on the dollar. (Somebody has to absorb the losses - why not the average person with a savings portfolio).

Shall we hope to put Humpty Dumpty back together, or expect the natural course of debt-financed inflation and war? It seems that chief among those 'hoping for the best' are politicians that believe "stimulating" banks and industry with tax-payer financed debt will dig us out of debt. Hmmmm? I suppose it is possible if the public remains confident and complicit, but what worked in 1933 during the New Deal era (when the national debt was around $1 billion, and natural resources were abundant), may not work as well today, as our debt is in the trillions, natural resources are already being exploited heavily, and we're deep into many wars (military conflicts, rather).

So, is there is a realistic possibility that the USA will soon abandon the dollar as a currency and begin using the Amero currency that some researchers say has already been minted and promised to China and other creditors as security for the Obama stimulus plan?

If so, this means that if you have a 401k, kiss it goodbye. You see, that's how America can really fund the stimulus plan, by draining people's savings in order to pay international creditors. Most people don't believe it. They don't appreciate the mechanics of the war for power in the world right now. Just for starters, the way to achieve power is to create dependency (debt, lack) in your subject.

The solution for individuals: Demand that your government enforce criminal and tort laws, which can restore massive sums of money to public budgets all over the world. Demand that your government withdraw from trade organizations and repeal unsustainable subsidy laws. Invest your own money in sustainable enterprises, and stop working for unsustainable enterprises. Protect fundamental rights. Think for yourself, and stop purchasing the propaganda. Realize that when you have personal liberty, and access to natural resources, you can self-empower. Be willing to forgive those who genuinely ask for forgiveness. Seek to understand how the world really works. Identify the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The Chronicles of Narnia ... Connecting Azlan with Newtonian and Quantum Physics

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:34:08 -0800

Newton’s Laws: (1) Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. (2) The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors; in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. (3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Narnia is an allegory symbolically representing the deeper meaning that The Creator (as the first cause) has the ability to promise you that if you have faith that the 'good versus bad' dilemma presented by the mere existence of divinity (namely, the dilemma for man is that the Creator appears outside the laws of physics that we rely on to set the objectivity necessary for a deduction of what is good v. bad and right v. wrong, so, the conundrum for us is whether we can accept that divinity can justly coexist with objectivity) can be resolved, in the context that you fulfill justice by living virtuously or you fail by causing others unnecessary pain, then, the allegory reveals you will be rewarded with "x," which in the case of Narnia is power in Narnia, but when understood in the symbolic context of the Bible, "x" is also life after death for man. I think the most propelling question presented by Narnia is that physics stops allegorically where the Wardrobe's wooden back ends. People want to deduct from physics that "justice simply is," never mind mercy. In the movie, the actions of the supernatural characters (Azlan and the Witch) can be interpreted by questioning the application of justice through natural law. The movie tells us that if you the human have faith that a divine promise exists that virtue will be rewarded with justice and mercy, then the evidence of your virtues will be the proof to objective justice (the rules that make things happen) that you are entitled to a reward from divinity.

Any given rational thinker could argue this is more than just circular reasoning, it is incomplete as the movie ignores the meaning of relativity (that your virtues are also conceivably proven exclusively by physics where physics proves two things: First, one man's justice may not apply to another man because perspective is king (following Einstein's principles of general and special relativity), and Second, how you experience the real world has a logical explanation based purely in biological natural selection).

The main lesson of Narnia is that 'the virtuous human' should dissent from the pure quest for power (e.g., Lucy persuades Mr. Tumnes to dissent) because power's legitimacy is virtue, not absolutism! The proper place for power and absolutism is with The Creator, the first cause. Only by accepting The Creator’s supremacy can a person enjoy hope in humanity. It’s a very uplifting message, which the movie demonstrates persuasively, especially through suspense and fantasy as you think about The Creator and law. If you don't have faith that the 'right v. wrong' dilemma can be resolved with a divine promise that allows you to make an expectation of justice and fulfill it through virtue, then you don't know what to make of the expectations you derive from physics and your imagination, unless you can have faith in the power of objectivity to bring purpose, which presents the following multi-level paradox for the mathematically tooled human trying to illuminate the source of justice: 'Under what authority can justice demand sacrifice from us without first objectively informing us we are taking something unjustly (beyond fair expectation) from something else to which that something rightfully belongs?' Or, why in Narnia does sacrifice prove virtue? To address this paradox, in the context of this allegory, that something could require objective justice from our lives without defining justice first (completely from the human perspective by trumping relativity), we have to understand our mental source of expectation as the derivative of either divinity or physics. So, we analyze it both ways. If it were true that sacrifice can justly prove virtue, such that 'proof' itself has meaning (Azlan had to die to fulfill the virtue), and we are presented with the question of whether divinity affects us, then we ask from whom are we taking so much "life" that objective justice has required us to sacrifice some of that unjustly acquired "life" to 'balance' the universe? In other words, we can ask, 'what entity lives on justice for natural selection like we live on water, whereby that entity's consumption of our virtues brings us justice?' Is it math? The messiah and Azlan both had to exercise the same virtues by which man would ultimately be judged. You are free to believe natural law as a concept on blind faith, but if it's true, then why does man bow to divinity in the movie and in the Bible? How did divinity get more power than man using the same natural laws of morality as man? And if the laws are different, does the inquiry end on the statement – ‘might makes right?’ I expect justice but I don't know any better reason to expect it than that the universe would, if the universe has a cognizable self-interest (this is a key point - if everything in the universe follows the path of least resistance (see Newton's first law of motion) we can assume we are more correct in deducting that divinity does not interfere with us because divinity need not interfere with our perpetually least resistant and perpetually predictable path, but, if the universe elaborately avoids paradoxes and creates unnecessary beauty in the universe, then we assume it is more correct that divinity has left us a sign of divinity's existence through the known violation of that first physical law of motion regarding 'simplicity') be fair mathematically. Ultimately it is helpful to analyze this issue in terms of math because math as logic is the lowest common denomination we can conceptualize in describing our expectations and the observations that represent life in evolution. So, I suggest we can test the paradox by inquiring: As a critical human mind that must evolve toward betterment of the self through natural law, are we forced to choose a way to the conclusion whether divinity exists and can bring us justice? Here are the only two possibilities I can think of: (1) have faith that math represents objective justice through either divinity or physics or both, or (2) deny existence. Here is the essential contention that gives meaning to my point (1) in the preceding sentence: it's ironic that justice can only exist through certainty, that every moment you experience must have a definite conclusion, and that every moment must coherently fit into the whole universe, but math, which is perhaps the best tool we have for recognizing certainty, tells us that, for example, (a) all things but the Omnipotent must be relative and have limited perspectives, like with velocity and position being exclusionary from Heisenberg’s perspective, (b) particles appear to behave like waves, and waves behave like particles depending on your perspective (duality principle), and (c) in between any given arbitrary point "A" and point "B" there are an infinite amount of points conceptually. The universe is highly uncertain in so many ways, the irony of trying to find justice through math is self-evident when you ask the question whether you can use faith (faith is equivalent to making mathematical assumptions to fill in gaps) to test something “real” (known physics) that you need to be certain of in order to make your desired conclusion (here, that justice exists in the laws of physics). Now, further illuminating this paradox (whether it is fair that there must be a conclusion and certainty to every moment from every perspective and also coherency between every moment so that you can have justice, but also that the outcome of math depends on man's faith in his assumptions), math allows you to conclude your observations with 'equal' signs, whereas if you deny existence altogether (which is the only other possibility to finding a way to the conclusion of whether objectivity exists and can bring justice) then you simply conclude things by assuming they never were, which is a dead, and unsatisfying end. In either case, we might conclude that irony shouldn't evidence itself in math if we assume the universe follows the law of motion that things follow the path of least resistance (key point - if we assume irony is unnecessarily complicated, irony suggests divine intervention into physics), so ceteris paribus, regarding life and death for Azlan and Edmund, this 'simplicity' rule could present a paradox unless the goal of the mind is not to follow pure math's demand for 'equals signs', but to follow faith's promise that equality will be judged by the creator of perspective. A compelling counter-argument is that through natural selection, irony has a niche use - end of story - so it does not violate Newton's simplicity law. Under this argument, irony is only a byproduct of the simplest path, so you can't use it for purposes of logical deduction to illuminate whether divinity exists. Through the use of math we can only hope to derive evidence whether divinity has a self-interest to use math and irony together, because, it is only in their joint use that the paradox will dissolve, assuming our mathematical logic correctly allowed us in the first place to deduct that irony and simplicity should be exclusionary. Therefore, my conclusion is a disjunctive one: (1) if you accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math, then man is compelled to deduct that only the Creator of individual perspectives can be the judge of that perspective, so either The Creator creates justice or there is no justice, or (2) if you accept that only physics can prove math such that even The Creator is bound by natural law, then there is no justice if you also believe that (a) irony and the first law of motion are exclusionary, (b) the universe is uncertain, (c) justice demands objectivity, and (d) it is ironic and paradoxical that there would be a reward for a virtue when the tools necessary to define justice show uncertain gaps in perspective in this world defined by perspective.

Knowing this, then, the goal of man should be to discover that free will allows us to define with certainty the uncertainty in the universe, and therefore lead to objective justice, and at the same time, man fulfills the promise of Christ by showing that our free will is unnecessarily beautiful. Therefore, I can now answer the question I set out at the beginning of the paradox ("Why in Narnia does sacrifice prove virtue? Under what authority can justice demand sacrifice from us without first objectively informing us we are taking something unjustly (beyond fair expectation) from something else to which that something rightfully belongs?"). The answer is that man has an incentive to create beauty to create divinity. To quote the gospel, Messiah is the truth, the way, and the life.

Let’s go into greater logical detail on two of the key points above:

One
If you accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math, then man is compelled to deduct that only the creator of individual perspectives can be the judge of that perspective, so either divinity creates justice or there is no justice

Logically, if justice resulted, does it mean that justice was done getting there? This is why you need consistency, continual certainty! Even if the world has a probability factor, man needs to conclude that justice is within the spectrum of possibility.

Math shows that perspective is king whether you like it or not, which almost explains death, because if you have no perspective, there is nothing, but we all take it intuitively that the universe goes on without us. Some pray to The Creator. You can’t stop us, and you wouldn’t want to. A skeptic would argue that The Creator is just one question’s subject among many physics questions, and so when asked the disjunctive question 1 (above), it addresses whether The Creator gave each individual a perspective (by filling in the gaps in math, that is like filling in the spaces of quantum uncertainty with soul or freedom, which gives meaning to my phrase: accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math). So if you stray far enough from math you can find yourself talking about a soul and freedom; but what does math and quantum uncertainty have to do with a person’s moral center?

Because human math shows that perspective is king, and if you assume there is no justice if there is no objectivity, then there is no objectivity if the universe has quantum uncertainty, because quantum uncertainty is inherently not objective from our view. So, assuming quantum uncertainty is a force in the universe, what keeps it in check? Our souls? The Creator? An argument a person could offer is that The Creator is occupying the space where our souls are, and if we were capable of exercising the dimensional capacity we would have an incentive and desire to occupy the space ourselves. But what if in doing so, we became homogenized? What would that look like on Earth? Would we lose free will? What if we did, but we didn’t notice? In one example of such an occurrence, the degree of freewill created by quantum uncertainty could be so small, its total obliteration would go unknown to us, and we’d be left to wonder things for no reason at all. Would that really be probable in a universe, that kind of purposelessness? Ultimately, you can only ask over and over again, is there purpose?… Is there justice? Would justice need purpose? Would purpose need justice? Where is mercy? Or ask, can you have 75% justice? Can you have a 10% purpose without a 90% opposite effect? It’s an awkward question to ask this - How much depravity would exist before you’d see the quantum of mercy you’d like to see in the world?

Even a 2% purpose to life feels like a reason to go for a walk outside, anybody could say.
If you had only 49% purpose to your actions, would Newton’s third law present a paradox – every reaction (here, purpose) has an equal and opposite reaction (the opposite of purpose, whether it’s death or ‘x’). The ‘paradox’ would be that a 49% purpose is not really a purpose at all without coexistence. (I don’t think so.) What violates the law that prohibits something from being twice in the same place at once? Is it reproduction? Consumption? Love? This not a hopeless analogy or an impractical one because we see everywhere in the universe instances where matter’s result requires choice and majorities become too big – world politics… brain hemispheres… particles and waves… an equation with a fuzzy equals sign.

And 75% justice sounds like contradiction. If it would mean that by your mere existence you are causing something ‘else’ 25% injustice, which is categorically unfair unless you (a) somehow acquire another 25% justice fairly (presumably by similar or the same means you got your first 75% - like by showing respect for people and property) and the something ‘else’ (or the entire universe) on whom you have caused 25% injustice was in a position to absorb the 25% debt you owe because it deserved 25% injustice, whether because of the injustice it did to you or others, (b) disappearance, (c) completion of self, or (d) need for mercy. We assume math works in the universe in such a way that when you tug on one end of your moral compass – like increasing your morality rating to 76%, you’ll necessarily go down to 24% in immorality. Whether there is or isn’t perspective shouldn’t change that conclusion. If there were no perspective there would be no incentive, and then there could be no equilibrium in the universe if there weren’t incentives that defined the activity which the equilibrium acts upon or is the evidence of…

There probably aren’t two forms of balance in the universe but semantics says balance can suggest a flat-line if you don’t use it in the sense of “equilibrium” rather than “evenness.”

The only way to bring equality to quantum uncertainty, I can think of, is an outside force that can use the space made fuzzy by the quantum, but that force’s mere existence would render the 'good versus bad' dilemma uncertain enough to lose enough consistency that the moral authority supporting free will comes under attack? Even slight challenges to free will (synonymous with perfect accountability) can dramatically affect moral authority. That’s why Narnia is so comforting when Azlan assures us there are rules. We see that people want friendship and fun, and power justified by virtue. The Edmund character didn’t deserve power until he turned around and chose the right path. So we see why free will needs to be placed in check. There is a reason for The Creator then. Azlan looks like he offers forgiveness, but you don’t have to read it that way. If the witch didn’t die in the story, what would you expect to happen according to natural law, and why would it have happened? The movie doesn’t give you any of the witch’s insights to the natural laws she wants to use, so we assume she seeks only power and ownership. Allegorically, Azlan explicitly shows mercy on Edmund, and suffers himself for it. Azlan shows faith in justice and love’s immortality when he sacrifices himself for Edmund. His sacrifice has a spiritual connection to the conclusion that justice exists and as Azlan lives, so too can Edmund. But will Edmund? How can Edmund’s past be erased with Azlan’s future? That’s the disconnect? I do see the connection that Edmund betrayed and Azlan forgave that betrayal, but that doesn’t cure the disconnect, it only suggests that Azlan was able to even the scales of justice with forgiveness. How does that relate to death if death is not meant to be only symbolic? C.S. Lewis doesn’t rely on the apple of knowledge to prove the point, but the “turkish delight,” which is addiction to power.

I don’t know what else to say about the witch’s intentions. Thank The Creator that’s not the world we live in. Narnia can be a scary place. That’s what Lewis wants you to recognize. Why? So you’ll be good! It is really is the bottom line for beginners to Christ. One beauty of coming to Christ is that when you’ve arrived, when you rightly ask for something, you receive it. Everything seems possible, so you could be 100 years old, mangled, bankrupt, and on top-of-the-world.

Divinity creates justice or there is no justice because justice requires equality and perspective can’t handle the job. Statistical uncertainty in the universe, and micro level disjoinder is a serious attack on moral authority. Imagine all the different kinds of people who don’t believe in free will, but believe in their reasons to be angry. These questions are not abstract!! If you witness even one blatant atrocity in the universe occurring, you have to wonder about the existence of justice, so the fact that Earth has seen such wide-scale horror not only begs the abstract question whether there is justice in the universe, but also the practical question whether we can rationalize its source and stop people right away by using fear to prevent further unnecessary destruction. And, you better have a paradox in your pocket if you ever have to confront the man who doesn’t believe in free will who believes he is destined to interact with you. The Chronicles of Narnia offers at least four helpful examples for how to live properly.

If you didn’t ever have a choice to make over what you wanted, at any level, then you wouldn’t exist, I think, because you wouldn’t need a perspective to appreciate anything, whether subtle or general. A perspective is an inefficient thing to create because it requires you not only to reproduce component parts of the universe, but to occupy a piece of space and thereby exclude the entire rest of the universe from invading you, so the more components parts you have, the more unique is your built-in psychological incentive to be coherently improbable to sharpen your perspective, like physical exercise strengthening your right to exist in the universe to the exclusion of every other object outside your space.

Conclusion to One - Man has an incentive to create divinity because self-interest is inherent in free will and divinity answers questions about the paradox that beauty doesn’t follow the first and third laws of motion. The existence of an incentive assumes a perspective, and that means you avoid the paradox by accepting the ability of perfection to offer both mercy and justice, and to look within yourself for love, and free will fits into that picture because you need it in order to be able to make an offer of anything, and that brings you back to the beginning – The Creator’s creations.
(1) man fulfills the promise of Christ by showing that our free will is unnecessarily beautiful from deviations in probability, and to the extent those deviations cost us justice, we accept mercy, which is pleasing to you if you love Messiah, because Messiah loves mercy, and lives to the ages of the ages, and can therefore give unlimited gifts to counterbalance anyone’s perceived unfairness of sacrifice. Where laws of motion are broken by sacrifice, The Creator’s reversal of physical law is the movie’s edge.
(2) irony and the first law of motion are exclusionary because irony takes an incongruity in the expected, and things are consequential when the expected meaning has a logical connection with the actual meaning. The law of motion is a rule applied to matter. Is Irony? Or is irony such a top level thought that it has no bearing on the laws of motion? In my analysis I assume they are on the same plane.

Two
In my conclusion that there is no justice if physics is the savior of justice and man is forced to assume there is a reason for uncertainty in the universe but he can’t know it, as if the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle and the question of an infinite number of spaces in between point A and point B were fair. “It’s not fair that no one can know!” argues the purely objective thinker. But it is fair that you can only have one perspective, so logically, you can’t know if the universe is fixed, and so you’ll feel free will by the sheer nature of perspective. There are many arguments for why man is drawn to certainty in the universe, and why he values evenness.

So how much does quantum uncertainty affect individual perspective? When you phrase the question this way, you don’t concern yourself with deviations you can’t understand, however small, from equality of experience. Math is all about the equals sign. Without it, how can you have justice? Science in the year 2009 has given us an equals sign with nano-ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

A literalist extremist argument is that a small deviation in certainty and evenness in the universe is all that is necessary to render null all right and wrong. Everything just is, and justice wouldn’t be any more obvious to us, or any less realizable than in a universe in chaos. In my perception on Earth, we are far, far from chaos, and we need to worry about taking care of one another, while simultaneously pondering existence, but without neglecting either. This idea that perspective is king throws chaos in your face. Every individual has a duty to find truth.
If you believe the same truth has to apply to you as to everyone, then how do you achieve by yourself a transfer of information and matter necessary to survival of species? How do you stop everything from eventually evening out and flatness resulting?
The Creator’s promises can bring you back to life, which is what you have to live for. Allegorically circular, Azlan shows life is found in love’s sacrifice.
In the bible, Messiah loved, taught, healed, commanded the elements, and created food. The Father sacrificed him, then resurrected him.

If you could erase history, then you could erase your own immorality, which would be unjust. But would it be impossible because it would be unjust? If yes, then the fact that you can’t go back in time would suggest divinity’s intervention to avoid the injustice? Our proof on Earth would therefore suggest divine intervention. Special relativity is the holder of time via spacetime and general relativity holds space via spacetime. Relativity is our evidence, but only The Creator can say whether The Creator exists. Between logic and evidence, if you knew the answers to The Creator’s questions, you’d understand morality.

A person can argue that man’s appreciation of macro object certainty balances out the small quantum fluctuations that make deviance, and the world is balanced and therefore justice rides in the manner in which we define a genuine appreciation and use of spacetime. People’s smallest problems are what to eat, not whether to manipulate spacetime and dimension to erase history.

“(2d) it is ironic and paradoxical that there would be a reward for a virtue when the tools necessary to define justice show uncertain gaps in perspective in this world defined by perspective.” Ironic because it is unexpectedly circular that you would need certainty for justice in a world characterized by uncertainty (our logic is born from explaining the uncertainties, the gaps that spark the need to leap in the first place) and although we have an incentive to pursue rewards, we don’t know where to find purpose in the pursuit unless we look to The Creator or physics, but the outcome of each inquiry is uncertain by our limited knowledge. Paradoxical because if perspective were king, why would math have to exist at all? How does perspective need math? How does math need perspective? Why is there a balance between perspective and certainty? Where is the dividing line between the justice and goodness relevant to perspective weighed against what is correct and just about certainty. Is free will just a beautiful abstraction, and that’s the most that can be said about this? – Author’s note: this could be said to pretty much end this whole debate in one sentence.

Power's legitimacy is virtue not absolutism! This is the explanation offered by C.S. Lewis for how objective justice can exist for humans, and I offer, also helps explain how you can have justice coexisting with quantum uncertainty, because virtue needs variety to show itself, so uncertainty is necessary for life and therefore well within the category of what is appropriate for life, but still, where is justice?

You can trust man to judge man in the real world because common sense is all you need to put together rules for civil behavior among people. But who gets to eat who in the universe? It sounds stupid to think about aliens consuming us, but think about how callous and decisive we were with our own food chain. We really only have one natural law about what you can’t eat. Other than that, it’s pretty much every man for himself. I wonder what kind of intensity this universe can handle on the macro scales of morality and evil. A parallel: There must be some limit to how cool you can be as a ‘the Creator, ‘because there can’t be an endless supply of morality and justice and fun to make you awesome ! Can the universe have a maximum fun limit? That would make the fluctuation scientist who discovered that fact first the ultimate bearer of bad news as he informs his species of his finding. Einstein rationalized Relativity, Newton used the first law to rationalize fixing an evenness to the universe by things avoiding conflict and maintaining stability, and the third law of motion confirms it with evidence when it says that what you make is equal to what you take. Math is evidence. Math is secondary. Morality is secondary too. What’s primary is fact, and what makes everything secondary come about is the question - what encompasses a higher law than just equal transfer of matter and energy and space if you assume morality needs a purpose beyond achieving balance of matter and justice for all ?

Newton’s 2nd Rule suggests a disjoinder between direction and intensity that creates quantum fluctuations because there is no definite place for something to go if you can have a possibility that it can go anywhere and any intensity, or negative intensity, or nowhere.

If you can give space on one end and take time on the other end, that should be evidence that the universe is fixed, because, the ultimate amount of space and time you put in results in one select spacetime. The counterargument to deducting that the universe is fixed because the ‘give and take’ system only ensures change (it cannot ensure free will) is that your perspective will vary greatly depending on your chosen speed, and because perspective trumps probability, free will exists to the extent of and in the context of that power struggle’s dynamic of all the chemicals in all the possible combinations of speed, spin, concentration, etc.

Two possibilities for conceptualizing this are that the equals sign flows both ways or the homogeneity fluctuations in our string universe flex into locations previously occupied by other strings. Quantum fluctuations in the string or imbalances in the equations prevent perfect equality. Do we seek perfection, or perspectives? The only practical question that comes out of quantum mechanics discussions is whether the uncertainty and probability inherent in our physical world can be used to affect human perspective. I would otherwise laugh in disbelief at the ability of something as small as a Higgs boson operating in quantum mechanics to make a difference, but things like the a-bomb and the strength of carbon nanotubes prove that small things are fundamentally strong and pervasively powerful in certain contexts. So, size and power are related, but character is king, one could argue.

All analysis comes back to the relationship between good and bad. In a world with equality, you can’t preclude the Witch from a life of access to the same rules Edmund benefits from. If you believe the Witch can become as good as Azlan, then that represents your belief that there is no real division between different types of matter in the universe, or even that different types of matter exist, or belief in the prohibition on transfer of matter.

Logic, Faith, and Skepticism

Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:51:09 -0800

A. Skepticism

Theoretically, human faith, logic, and skepticism can all be manipulated beyond human comprehension. So why should we trust our minds? This is a kind of nihilistic question, and it often feels ignorant of experience. By contrast, it feels honest to say that people observe the power to think and tinker, and because humans did not create this world, the Authority that did is showing us something. For an interesting way to verify skepticism objectively, read, There's Nothing Random About the Universe, by Jeffery Meiliken.

Who would ever assume humans can prove the nonexistence of aliens capable of fooling us about existence? Consider hypothetically what aliens could orchestrate through mind control… it is theoretically unlimited from our limited perspectives. When faced with this classic ‘alien powers’ example, we are required to fix our minds in one kind of thing - uncertainty, doubt, speculation, human incapacity to answer - skepticism. So in this example, we find yet another proof that we cannot define “God.”

Should we therefore strive to remain impartial to everything, so that if humans are ever confronted with something perfect, we’ll be more likely to know, and gravitate, and yield to the perfection observed?

When a person cannot logically determine an ultimate answer, he must decide whether he will endeavor to apply another tool capable of seeking the ultimate answer. So, where man’s logic falls short, many people embark on the life-long process of conditioning their minds around the conclusion that faith can prevail, because faith’s circularity is peacefully complete, whereas the process of logic seeks to rely on ever-changing evidence to explain the unexplainable (which would be illogical).

My own conclusion is that there is a logical way to approach faith and nihilism, and an illogical way to approach these ideas as well. Practically, my common sense tells me to simply avoid crime and be fair and humble, and try to practice love appropriately.

When a man believes that faith is accomplished through love, and that God is love, he will give freely his faith to God. He may even accept messengers. Unfortunately, there is a certain part of religion that asks people to follow a dogmatic path of abandoning logic to find truth, under the auspices that this will help them achieve faith, and therefore love, and therefore life. How do men draw the distinction between ‘belief’ and ‘fear of non-belief?’ From one perspective, you can perfect faith in ignorance, but not logic. Have you ever heard a preacher tell you that if you follow your own logic you are not in the life, as the life is light, so you’re in darkness? It may seem to make sense as it is dark inside your skull, and ‘what company does light have with darkness?’ However, why not ask this – what company does light have with the illogical?

Religious people often condition their minds toward faith that the highest authority over man is the omnipotent God they are capable of imagining. As for me, I think mankind will find itself called to answer a more specific question - who can save mankind? And given all the evil in the world, one might logically think the ultimate Authority would indeed come to save us. You might even say that the worse things get here on planet earth, the more likely we are to believe that whoever saves us is someone important. And an analogous phenomenon - ‘the greater the forgiveness, the greater the love.’

I would think that even the ultimate Authority of the universe would question whether it too was a created being. And if so, then this Authority could theoretically manufacture injustice in the universe just to see if there were a greater Authority willing to intercede. Scary!

Now imagine you had the keys to undo all of creation - not only all that will be, but all that ever was. You second-guess yourself before pulling the trigger. You question whether the injustices in the universe are outweighed by the worth of the moments of joy that can only exist through tenuousness. You doubt your own power to destroy everything, because once you do, you have no way to verify the job is complete. Indeed, you would have to have faith in yourself to do the job. Almost hoping you lack the power to erase everything, you rationalize that if everything over which you had the power to erase were actually only a fiction, there would be no injustice. Indeed, if you did erase all the fiction in the world, all that would be left would be reality, such that you would only succeed in erasing the only escape from injustice. Feeling overwhelmed, you decide to play some music.

B. Logic

Many readers of the above section may comment, “So what?” Perhaps you’ve experienced many of these same nihilistic thoughts yourself, and you know them to lead nowhere. With that said, allow me to add that even though humans may lack faith, we do seem to have a decent grasp of our own ability to recognize burdens and benefits in both physical and conceptual matters, and so we stand at least a chance to gravitate toward a benevolent provider and feel good about our choice, or at least feel good about the risk we took even if it turns out we later feel we made the wrong choice.

It’s also been occurring to me that an all-providing heavenly parent would logically be the most likely candidate to receive faith and love from humans. The archetype fills fundamental roles: creator, resource provider, educator, protector, enforcer of justice, and offeror of parental love. As humans, many of us are fortunate enough to know the experience of having caring parents as well as being a caring parent. This experience, along with a sense of the blessing of free will, can help open up our hearts to the possibility of a “parent” coming along, giving us milk and cookies, and telling us that we are their child, and we are loved. Is holding on to human skepticism worth rejecting the opportunity to have a relationship like that, even if it is ultimately with an alien? To the extent we have free will, we may have to make this choice someday.

Humans gravitate toward resources. If a living thing, or even a corporation, gives us valuable resources we tend to respect and honor it. And when those resources are withdrawn, we also withdraw. This archetype dates back to the ancient agrarian societies who worshipped fertility gods. And it continues today, as many choose to give their allegiance to whomever gives them resources, such as the U.S. government, McDonald’s, family, charity, and so on.

Often times we see destruction as the opposite of resources, even though the earth shows us that sometimes the best way to replenish fertility is with a flood, volcano eruption, wildfire, etc. In the Book of Revelation, it is said that many will curse the one who brings destruction and punishment upon the earth, and these men will not repent. Revelation 16:9-11.

C. Faith (and Research)

Comparing Perspectives on Faith & Bible Research

By one view, the ancient and literal bible describes a powerful race of advanced beings in the universe who created earth and go by the name Elohim (Alhym). In this view, the Elohim kingdom would be what is popularly referred to as the kingdom of heaven. But the bible also describes something called the heavens of the heavens, so its beyond me obviously to label it. See e.g., 1 Kings 8:2.

In the more conventional view, YHVH the Father’s power is fundamental to physical creation (even universal creation) by way of an ability to control physical and conceptual phenomena like time and math. See e.g, There's Nothing Random About the Universe, by Jeffery Meiliken.

I don’t know the answer obviously regarding the full extent of Elohim authority. However, the more I research the mathematics of the Book of Revelation and beyond, the more I rationalize the likelihood that YHVH commands fundamental mathematical principles and keeps our entire world in check like a clock (tick tock).

I think it is ambiguous from the literal bible alone whether any individual Elohim is an ‘all-powerful controller of all conceivable universes.’ Again, in one view the bible says the Elohim enjoy a mighty kingdom that includes authority over at least some planets and stars and heavens. I read that El Elyon is translated to mean “the most high El,” which I suppose would make him/her/it/them the ruler of the Elohim. The scriptural evidence is inconclusive to me, and it appears designed to be so according to passages such as Proverbs 25:2

“The honor of Elohim is to hide a word; and the honor of sovereigns to probe a word.”

From my math and physics research, it appears the ways and means of the highest Elohim are staggeringly supernatural and conceptual (i.e., making love with celestial stars). I just don’t know, but I imagine that if earth learning and survival is my example, then I should approach the Elohim carefully, respectfully, and with an attitude of compassion. I think it would probably amount to undesirable pandering if I just bowed down to someone I could not identify and didn’t understand. So I suppose I rationalize it wise to watch, listen, and think rationally. The example set by the messiah is pretty compelling, so I try to follow that example and still retain a degree of logical skepticism. My life is highly imperfect.

To help illustrate the use of names in the bible (by way of analogy), I am Greg the human. I have relative authority over my daughter, Colette the human, and even less authority over my wife Monica the human. Indeed, she has some authority over me too. I think the Alhym with authority over all of us is YHVH the Alhym, the same Alhym who rescued the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery. If I send my daughter on a mission to another planet to educate the creatures there about earth and agriculture, my daughter might tell them that she is doing the work of her father. Likewise, YHVH’s son Yahshua may have come to earth on a specific mission (narrow path) from his father, rather than a mission to explain everything to everyone. John 16:12; Matthew 15:24.

Perhaps YHVH is a son of El Elyon, and it may be that YHVH created earth with other Elohim, including his own sons Yahshua and Satan - referred to as the morning stars. As far as I can tell, I don’t know Satan, but I’ve read that he has chosen an unrepentantly murderous and vice-indulgent lifestyle, and has been experiencing punishment by YHVH. In the book of Job (describing events thousands of years ago), Satan was still in good enough standing to enjoy council with YHVH in heaven, but it is said in the Book of Revelation that he will be expelled from heaven after warring with the arch-angel Mika El (Michael), and some research suggests this has already occurred.

The gospel gives this analogy - Satan plants seeds of sin, and the Father plants seeds of virtue. I like the idea that Yahshua/Immanuel (whose transcribed names mean something like Yahweh saves and El is with us) is the messiah for the forgiveness of many sins, and that his father will do justice on earth.

In a nutshell, the Elohim creators of earth are powerful and worthy of your trust. That’s the faith side, but I don’t think it’s a call for blind faith, because we are provided resources and light on earth to see and test evidence, and also to engage in risk analysis. I consider it likely (and a well-calculated to risk to deduct) that one of the goals of earthlings is to learn from the Elohim, and if you like, strive to gain entrance into their unique culture/kingdom. So this planet is analogous to a classroom or playing field with useful knowledge, resources, protection, and lots of freedom (which evidences our creator loves us?). And your behavior is measurable, such that whatever you measure will be measured back to you. This is popularly referred to as karma.

And on that note, I personally reject much of the bible as erroneous commandments written by wayward priests, and I view the majority of the “new testament” as biblical commentaries (i.e. the letters of Shaul) rather than eye witness accounts. So I do pick and choose verses by using logic and experience, just as I do when walking the earth and choosing what food to eat. We have been given a whole earth (filled with both life-giving and life-destroying substances), just as the bible appears filled/mixed with both life-giving and life-destroying words/commandments. I think we are destined to have a saga of good and evil.

What else might we say the bible provides? Well, although our heavenly father is patient and instructive like a parent or teacher, if you continually and unrepentantly violate any standards he gives you personally (break his key covenants), he’ll kill you or punish you as your covenant requires, because he loves justice more than he loves limitless clemency for his children or creation. Theoretically, this is a good thing because it evidences his righteousness and credibility (or if you prefer – consistent adherence to cause and effect).

A key point - the so-called doctrine of everlasting hell is a man-made fallacy, and is not part of the literal bible. Nor is it logical or just. Click here to read more. Indeed, many excerpts from modern bible translations can be exposed as originating from religious evil doers trying to corrupt spirituality and gain power. So it’s essential to be logical, and to recognize your common sense when it comes to virtues here. The messiah didn’t follow all the bible interpretations of his day, and as far as I can tell, he didn’t teach much about hierarchies among the Elohim. Rather he helped the needy, exposed hypocritical religious teaching by priests (Pharisees), and forgave people. ‘Fundamentals first,’ you might say. Be a student of that example and see where it leads you - probably a more narrow path than carnal freedom, but ultimately more rewarding if you have some faith you can bring to the covenant.

The literal bible and earth history serve as evidence that no other being has trumped YHVH’s will on earth, and that he consistently fulfills his obligations under the covenants he makes with mankind. I’m not sure what to make of the destruction of Canaan, but I suppose that if YHVH ever failed to fulfill one of his own covenants, there might be a higher power or being above him who would intercede, but based on historical experiences and records of mankind, it seems to be deadly unwise to bet that he won’t live up to a covenant with mankind. Thus, YHVH may be the highest power you will ever interact with for this particular sojourn of yours in the universe.

I don’t know, so I suppose either I’m a man of little faith (Matthew 16:8), and/or like a child trying to discover truths without being deceived. I think a key message of the gospel is that because we are like children we need to trust our heavenly father to lead us to truth, and the messiah is inviting us to follow his example on the narrow path.

Analyzing Abraham’s Faith

Mainstream Jews, Muslims, and Christians tend to assume it irrefutable that Abraham was morally righteous for his faith, and also that Abraham actually believed it was proper to offer his son Isaac as a blood sacrifice based on the advice of a messenger.

First, the literal bible does not specify who this messenger was other than to say the messenger was from the Aloah (Eloah). My understanding is that many angelic beings (upright and fallen) are described in the bible as being Aloah (part of the heavenly kingdom with many angels participating in the administration). Even Satan, whom YHVH created, has been described as a son of the Aloah (Elohim) if I am not mistaken. See e.g., Job 1, and then also references in Ezek. 28:14-16, Isaiah 45:7, and Genesis 6.

Personally, I do not think it likely that YHVH spoke with Abraham in this encounter and told him to sacrifice his son. Indeed, I’m reminded of passages like Deut. 12:30-31 and Jer. 19:4-6 where YHVH is said to abhor sacrifices. So I would consider it more likely that Abraham was tempted by one of the darker angels in the kingdom of Aloah (Elohim).

Second, I think that Abraham’s choice was morally wrong, but it may be that the two-way idea of right and wrong are not as fundamental here as the three-way idea of choice combined with action and consequence. I mean to say that from a theological standpoint, it seems more likely to me that Abraham’s actions were not about right and wrong in that one instant of time, but rather about how much Abraham and his descendants could learn about the results of his choice. In this view, I am assuming Abraham had free will and that he made the choice to pursue a human experience that involved sacrificing another human. So he had other choices, and those choices at least theoretically could have unfolded an entirely different human history. Abraham’s choice of attempted sacrifice then received the consequence of a human history where Abraham’s descendants constantly grappled with sacrifices (human & animal) and found both tribulation and meaning in their wake.   To me it is quite obvious that Abraham’s choice was not righteous, let alone inherently good. It was, again, only a choice he made, and his decision had consequences in his lifetime and beyond to the present day. Yahshua the Messiah was a descendant of Abraham in one sense, and his activities (most notably submitting to sacrifice on the cross) would bear witness to Abraham’s choice.

Third, the religious institution of the Pharisees that Yahshua criticized was very invested in sacrifices. That institution grew on its own traditions, and even spawned businesses revolving around breeding, caging and harvesting animals for sacrifices. That institution of sacrifice welcomed the consequence of the decision made by Abraham. In this manner, can we say that ‘bad fruit’ came from Abraham’s decision? I think so, yes. And I shudder to think of the sacrifices that go forth from underground Satanist institutions today that borrow heavily from biblical and occult lore.

Fourth, I don’t think the bible is perfect, nor do I think that all fruit from the bible is bad. I think dark hearts do evil deeds, and darkness has infiltrated bible history. In my own imperfect quest to seek out true history, I tend to think it more likely that YHVH saved Abraham’s heinous act by first stopping it (Genesis 22:11), and then using it as a lesson (opportunity for reform = ‘good fruit’). Abraham’s faith might also be seen in a typological sense of ordaining additional meaning/symbolism in the biblical messiah’s existence and crucifixion. I think these are mysterious matters, and any man who claims to offer hard conclusions or rituals in this area is likely deluding himself, not to mention that he may very well be dangerous if he continues to shed blood sacrifices for the god of his mind.   In Matthew 9:13, the Messiah specifically says he does not want sacrifice, and to go learn what that meant. He also led by example by setting free the animals in the temple that were in cages awaiting sacrifice by priests. John 2:14-16.

If the above four paragraphs do not appear logical to you, or you consider them overly ambiguous, consider this example: Your 4-year old son is a prodigy and he draws for you a picture he drew of a beautiful woman and a deformed man. Putting aside the question of whether you asked him to draw it, you did know he would draw something. The picture has some meaning too – some relative meaning in the universe, unknown from the perspective of the 4-year old. When you receive his picture, it sets in motion a series of events – you show interest in his picture, and engage him in the process of analyzing the picture. This encourages him to draw more. Twenty years later he has created a portfolio of art. Two thousand years later, his descendants (also your descendants) have created libraries across the globe filled with diverse art and derivative works of culture. Some of the art and works are terrible, some interesting, some raunchy, some wholesome. It is not easy to say what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, and perhaps much of the lesson to be learned by you and your descendants is not as simplistic as defining your culture-making and culture-appreciation processes along a two-way continuum of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. It might make more sense to first consider the art & culture in the 3-way continuum of choice, action, and consequence.   In that continuum, somebody important chose to make art, and then he acted to make art, and the consequence was a saga of others following similar choices of art making and art/culture appreciation – perhaps over these hypothetical two thousand years many people were killed in the process of societal misunderstandings from culture discord. The original artist never came to any conclusion or immovable perspective of how this whole process made him feel. At most he only found a defensible perspective of his own risk-appreciating logic at the time of his action. What about you? Do you have conclusive answers when it comes to art, saga, culture building, death? Do you know this four year-old? Can you really claim to know Abraham?

Personally, I would like to feel comforted (physically and spiritually) on this planet filled with creatures vying for resources, and I would like to know that there is meaning and justice built into our very existence and rhythms. It’s just a hope I have, personally. Ritually slitting the throat of another creature does not appeal to me, but not because the action itself and the consequences of such an action have very extreme physical and psychological consequences. I don’t feel that death or life cycles are inherently evil or that extreme behavior by itself is inherently evil. Rather, I simply think these things have large consequences and therefore invite heightened scrutiny by watchful eyes and logic, ready to do the best justice we can. And in the case of ritualistic sacrifice, I feel it does indeed invited scrutiny regarding the meaning of justice, and application for justice. So that is what I have attempted to do here with my words – scrutinize Abraham’s actions for the purpose of both self-reflection and analysis of societal judgments and conscience.

Seeing the world today, I wonder if Abraham would make the same choice twice with young Isaac. In any case, it may be that his choice remains his own separate experience until I take it upon myself to decide upon its value or morality, as I have done here for better or worse. I do not condemn Abraham given the circumstances of angels interfacing with him. All the same, sacrificing another human sure looks like a sin to my logic. I see it is written that we should forgive sins if we wish to have our own sins forgiven. Indeed, even as anger in the heart is its own kind of slaughter, I certainly know that I will need forgiveness…

And yes, this topic of choice, action, and consequence are also supernatural as we consider the origin of the universe and the ability of any life form of consciousness to create an inherent purpose and enforce justice. As empowering as words can be, they are also naturally limiting in our endeavors to discover origin and meaning at universal levels of extreme physics and conceptual logic. Scientifically, we see we can reach out with our tools and describe perceptible materials and concepts for ourselves – almost capture them for ourselves to deem ourselves successful in our thinking. Outside of that, there is the logical possibility that some things may be wholly or partially outside the time and space dimensions that form/limit our very logic, and which are not accessible to scientific brains trying to capture them. This experiential observer problem is that the very act of using a tool to observe a phenomenon may prevent its observation, or may delude oneself out of the opportunity to receive something that simply is – a realm that only faith or total submission can touch.   If it was in this realm that Abraham was ‘righteous’ or seeking righteousness, perhaps a sacrifice with a knife (tool) would do no good whatsoever. In such a hypothetical, would it be relevant then that Abraham was ultimately asked to put down the knife? In that hypothetical, the logical answer is yes.

D. Concluding Thoughts

Faith and skepticism are like legs that walk with balance on the path of physical phenomena. Or...

Logic is like your mind and body walking a path, because logic is grounded in your five senses perceiving the world for your brain. Faith is like the physical reality of the universe creating all paths, because faith is only limited by possibility. And skepticism is like your focus (eyes narrowing) on the reality of your individual path, as skepticism is limited by impossibility (and conversely empowered by perception). You might say faith and skepticism are different degrees of perspective, and logic is a concept that treads all perspectives. Logic and faith in harmony can be a beautiful thing if it focuses your light on good things. And logic and skepticism can also be beautiful, because without it, your light will be unfocused, and therefore vulnerable (outside of your control). If one of the primary goals of life is to promote good and avoid nurturing evil things, we must be careful focusing our light.