“Shiva” Rising In Tamil Nadu

The Tamil serials these days are full of the images and icons of Shaivism.

An aficionado tells me this is a recent thing.

This is a lazy blog-post in a spare moment. I don’t have the energy to insert the links, but google the Tamil serials, Nandini, Nagini, Mahamayi, Ganga, Keladi Kanmani, and several others whose names elude me.

Cobras slither through them and morph into human beings…usually gorgeous women who do battle with evil.

[Note that in Jewish lore, the female spirit/demon Lilith, supposedly the mate of Adam before Eve, is associated with a half-woman, half-serpent lamia-like figure.]

Goddesses named Amman (mother) abound in contemporary Tamil Nadu cinema.

The trappings of Shaivism from the trishul (trident) to the horizontal ash on the forehead appear everywhere, as well as images of Shiva himself.

Besides Kashmir, Tamil Nadu is the great center of Shaivite worship.

The serials play up the idolatrous, superstitious side of it….presenting it seductively…  Black magic abounds.

The sudden appearance of such imagery this year, along with the (Shiva) bull-centric Jallikattu riots, makes me wonder.

Hollywood has always been a favorite venue for propaganda and the subliminal insertion of memes and imagery into the public consciousness.

There’s nothing to say the same thing is not going on here in TN, where cinema has such a potent hold on the minds of millions of people.

Christianity too has its Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who infused occult and pagan imagery into Christian themes.

But this goes beyond that.

This is more akin to Dungeons and Dragons or Harry Potter.

It is magic for its own sake.

It is an attack on the sober, agamic Hinduism of the aam admi that stresses moral duty.

 

 

 

Blogsplaining myself

Sometimes I look back over old posts and catch things that need explaining.

Last night, I saw a post about feminism, in which I said I was not a femin-ist but a human-ist.

That might confuse readers who note that my other posts are generally written from a Christian perspective, to which “humanism” is opposed.

Humanism refers to the Enlightenment philosophy of human reason as the arbiter of all things.

I am not that kind of humanist.

However,  in that post, I was differentiating myself from feminists. I wanted to be clear that I was concerned for women as human-beings…not as some special gender elevated above men. That was the sense in which I used the word human-ist in the post.

There and elsewhere, a casual reader might get confused by the conflicting view-points  published on this blog.

They’re easily explained.

I publish anything that strikes me as containing an important insight, even if it contradicts my own world-view.

It’s my way of keeping myself honest and not succumbing to ideology.

The second point I wanted to make is that I am not an anti-Semite in the traditional sense, despite my tendency to rummage through white nationalist/so-called anti-Semitic sites.

I consider global government a very bad idea and I see its roots going back to the rabbinical dream of world conquest under a Messiah-King.

Deciphering that project requires plain-speaking…but I am not motivated by hatred for Judaism itself, either Torah-based or Talmudic, although certainly there are things in the latter I dislike intensely.

As to Christianity itself, I used to be a rather liberal and unorthodox Christian, as you can see from earlier writing on the web.

These days, I have moved much closer to a conservative position. That’s a result of extensive research over the last few years.

And personal experience.

I now hold an orthodox faith, but I still differ from orthodox believers in one thing – I do not believe that Christ’s salvation is conferred only on those who profess Christian doctrine. I believe it is conferred on all, regardless of confession. It depends only on what is in the heart.

If a person strives to embody truth and love as Christ practiced it, they are “believers” in the sense Christ meant.

They worship Christ, only without naming him.

There are many practicing “Christians” who are actually idolaters, because their belief is superstitious and a profession of the lips.

There are many practicing “pagans” who are actually Christians, because their belief is in the true god, regardless of what name they’ve chosen to give him.

Christ will draw them to him, one way or other.

This is not an idle conclusion. It’s one I’ve reached after many years of back-and-forth, study, observation, and interaction with people of all faiths.

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists Confirm Lost Continent Of Gondwana Under Mauritius

From Phys.org:

Scientists have confirmed the existence of a “lost continent” under the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius that was left-over by the break-up of the supercontinent, Gondwana, which started about 200 million years ago.The piece of crust, which was subsequently covered by young lava during volcanic eruptions on the island, seems to be a tiny piece of ancient continent, which broke off from the island of Madagascar, when Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica split up and formed the Indian Ocean.“We are studying the break-up process of the continents, in order to understand the geological history of the planet,” says Wits geologist, Professor Lewis Ashwal, lead author on the paper “Archaean zircons in Miocene oceanic hotspot rocks establish ancient continental crust beneath Mauritius”, published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications.

By studying the mineral, zircon, found in rocks spewed up by lava during , Ashwal and his colleagues Michael Wiedenbeck from the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) and Trond Torsvik from the University of Oslo, guest scientist at GFZ, have found that remnants of this mineral were far too old to belong on the island of Mauritius.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-lost-continent-mauritius.html#jCp

 

Durga Devi Molested By Shiva’s Warriors?

The Jallikattu protests get stranger and stranger.

First, there is the whole notion of an uprising around the bull, the animal associated with Shiva.

That takes place just around the time of  the inauguration of Donald Trump, who positions himself as a stud-bull in the china-shop of  emasculated Western politicians.

[We notice that Eric Margolis wrote a short piece at LRC that appeared after this post, calling Trump a “bull in the Middle East china shop.”

And Ron Unz has now come out identifying the female protests against Trump as a color revolution.

Well, you heard it here first..

The protests for the “masculine”  warrior sport (veera villayatu) contrast with the massive feminist dominated protests around the world against Donald Trump.

Then came news that the protests had become hijacked (allegedly) by other more violent protestors, holding up anti-Modi and anti-PETA posters.

These have been lumped together with protestors holding up more provocative posters, of Osama Bin Laden and deceased LTTE leader, Prabhakaran.

The provocations were apparently from extreme-left, Naxal, and secessionist Tamil groups, from several newspaper accounts and the accounts of the organizers of the protests themselves.

Now comes a report that the chief cop on the scene, a head constable by the name of Durga Devi, was molested and attacked at the Ice House Police Station, which was then torched.

Durga is the female consort of Shiva and is also a popular embodiment of the Indian nation. 

[See my posts on Draupadi Vastraharan, to which the custodial rape of Devyani Khobragade was compared, as well as the picture of Durga deployed by pro-nanny demonstrators.]

Just a coincidence? Or one too many to be a coincidence?

The Indian nation (Durga), law and order, and feminism under attack from “Tamil secessionism” (Shiva) and unreconstructed patriarchal masculinity/religion.

There is video available of the outrage. But then so do the protestors have video to support their claims.

Each side claims the other’s video is morphed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Islamic Thinkers Or NWO Operatives?

From the blog of a Muslim sociologist, an analysis of a leading Islamic thinker from Afghan, who turns out to have been a freemason and possibly a British operative:

Jamal ud Din Al Afghani, and Muhammad Abduh are documented to be freemasons in the service of British Government, through their membership in the Oxford freemasons movement established for the purpose of creating Salafi movement in outside Britain under the freemason control which was established by Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Doubts over the relationships between Salafi leaders at the start ( Jama ul Din al Afghani and Muhammad Abdu) and the British government are spelled as documented reports that both leaders were members of the Oxford freemasons which was established in the 1820’s. The group of missionaries was appointed by a combined movement of Oxford University, the Anglican Church, and Kings College of London University, under Scottish Rite Freemasonry, as part of a plot to foster the creation of an occult brotherhood in the Muslim world, dedicated to the use of terrorism on behalf of the Illuminati in the City of London (1)

The leading promoters of the Oxford Movement were Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Palmerston of the Palladian Rite, and Edward Bullwer-Lytton, the leader of a branch of Rosicrucianism that developed from the Asiatic Brethren. The Oxford movement was also supported by the Jesuits. Also involved were the British royal family itself, and many of its leading prime ministers and aides.

Benjamin Disraeli was Grand Master of Freemasonry, as well as knight of the Order of the Garter. It was in Coningsby, that he confessed, through a character named Sidonia, modeled on his friend Lionel de Rothschild, that, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Of the influence of the secret societies, Disraeli also remarked, in Parliamentary debate:

www.hasanyahya.com

“It is useless to deny. . . a great part of Europe ­ the whole of Italy and France, and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries ­ are covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government. They do not want ameliorated institutions; they do not want provincial councils nor the recording of votes; they want. . . an end to ecclesiastical establishments.”(2)

Throughout his forty-year career as a British intelligence agent, Jamal ud al Afghani was guided by two British Islamic and cult specialists, Wilfred Scawen Blunt and Edward G. Browne. E. G. Browne was Britain’s’ leading Orientalist of the nineteenth century, and numbered among his protégés at Cambridge University’s Orientalist department Harry “Abdullah” St. John B. Philby, a British intelligence specialist behind the Wahhabi movement. Wilfred S. Blunt, another member of the British Orientalist school, was given the responsibility by the Scottish Rite Masons to organize the Persian and the Middle East lodges. Al Afghani was their primary agent.

Very little is known of Jamal ud Din al Afghani’s origins. Despite the appellation “Afghani”, which he adopted and by which he is known, there are some reports that he was a Jew. On the other hand, some scholars believe that he was not an Afghan but a Iranian Shiah. And, despite posing as a reformer of orthodox Islam, al Afghani also acted as proselytizer of the Bahai faith, the first recorded project of the Oxford Movement, a creed that would become the heart of the Illuminati’s one-world-religion agenda.”

Until The New Year….

With that Dandachi post, I feel I’ve done my bit for now.

Curtsey     Credit: Pixgood.com

I want to spend some time organizing my posts. They run into the thousands. No use doing the foot-work for other people and not getting my own research into books.

Besides, the ease with which people can be made to take their eye off the ball (Trump! Anti-Semites! #BlackLivesMatter! #WhiteLivesMatterToo!) has got me thinking how much people want to be deceived.

And why that is.

A link back from Graham Hancock, the well-known writer (thank you, sir), has got me thinking.

Time to hibernate and let it all buzz…

Image result for christmas candles

The Deliberate Neglect Of India’s Scientific History

Professor Alok Kumar of the State University of New York, the author of two books on the contributions of Indians to science, points out the deliberate neglect shown to Indian scientific history :

Asserting that modern science would be unrecognisable without the contributions of ancient Indian scientists like Aryabhata and Sushruta, a noted Indian-American scientist has rued that there is a concerted effort to ignore these figures, whose contributions to science is at par, if not more than those of Pythagoras and Aristotle.

“Just imagine erasing the name of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Plato from the current philosophy texts because it is an old past. Will it be just and fair? The answer is no. However, this is exactly the case when we ignore our own heroes, Aryabhata, Kanada, Varahmihir, Brahmgupta, Charaka, and Sushruta, in India unjustly,” Alok Kumar told PTI.

A professor of physics at the State University of New York at Oswego, Kumar, who was born and educated in India, is the author of two books that documents the contribution of ancient Hindu scientist to the modern day science including Sciences of the Ancient Hinduswhich was released last year.

His third book ‘A History of Science in World Cultures: Voices of Knowledge’ is due this year.

“Modern science and medicine would be unrecognisable, and far more primitive, without the immense contribution of the ancient Hindus. They invented everyday essentials such as our base-ten number system and zero as a numeral,” he said.

“The ancient Hindus also developed a sophisticated system of medicine with its mind-body approach known as ayurveda; detailed anatomical and surgical knowledge of the human body, including cataract surgery and the so—called plastic surgery; metallurgical methods of extraction and purification of metals, knowledge of various constellations and planetary motions that was good enough to assign motion to the Earth; and the science yoga,” Kumar said.”

The Humble Genius Behind Sweet Potato Pie

George Washington Carver, one of the greatest scientific geniuses who ever lived, was a poor slave boy, with neither father nor mother. Carver is credited not just with hundreds of inventions stemming from the peanut, but with reviving the southern economy.

Incidentally, he also popularized the use of the sweet potato in the South, a root that has replaced pumpkins on many a Thanksgiving table:

 

You have to be someone to get a National Monument named after you, and George Washington Carver was someone – not in his own estimation, but by universal acclaim.  His own estimation of himself was summed up in his words, “Without my Savior, I am nothing.”  He sought his Creator for guidance in all things, and gave God the credit for all his discoveries.  Rightly does a National Monument deserve to be named for him, because his story is an inspiration to all Americans.  It is one of overcoming odds and serving one’s fellow man, achieving greatness by good works, and devoting oneself to serving others.  It is a great American success story for which black Americans, and all Americans, can justly find inspiration.

For an example of doing science the Genesis way, it would be hard to find a better example than George Washington Carver.  God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).  Liberal environmentalists hate this verse because they misunderstand it.  It does not mean to run roughshod over the land, exploiting it for selfish purposes.  It means to manage it as stewards of the Creator, for He alone is the one who owns “the cattle on a thousand hills … for the earth and its fullness are mine” (Psalm 50:10–12), and “the earth is the Lord’s, and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1).  Carver knew that “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture” (Psalm 100:3).

Since He is the Creator and Owner, we are mere stewards, accountable to Him.  Now it goes without saying that a good steward has to know the state of affairs of what he is managing.  So what does the Genesis Mandate mean?  It means, in effect, “do science.”  Science was the very first occupational career the Creator gave to the only beings He had made in His image, endowed with personality, intellect, will, and emotions.  Science (the understanding of the world) and environmental stewardship (the responsible management of it) are what dominion is all about.  Implicit in this view is that the world is a vast puzzle to solve, an endless store of natural wonders to explore.  It was in this spirit that Carver humbly asked, “Mr. Creator, why did you make the peanut?” then went to discover over 300 uses for it.  But we get ahead of our story.

Carver’s story is all the more remarkable because of the obstacles he had to overcome.  He was born practically a non-person in Civil War times, the nameless son of poor slave parents on a Missouri farm around 1864.  His father had been trampled to death by a team of oxen before young George had any memories of him.  His mother and sister had been taken by slave raiders in the night, never to be seen again.  Barely six months old, the boy and his older brother Jim were adopted by German immigrants, Moses and Susan Carver.  Jim was the stronger one; little George was short, weak, sickly, shy, stuttering and nearly mute.  Who would have expected great things from this unfortunate child?  Yet the Carvers noticed special aptitudes in him – curiosity, keen observational skills, and love of nature.  To this, they added discipline, hard work, and respect for God’s holy book, the Bible.  And they gave him a name to live up to: George Washington.

The Carvers were too poor to give him much more than that, but it proved sufficient; little George was ready to face a world of prejudice and start from the bottom up without complaining.  At age ten, with a silver dollar and eight pennies in his pocket, Carver walked alone the ten miles to the nearest colored boys school in Neosho.  He would find a barn to sleep in at night, and do any odd jobs a neighbor might need, from washing dishes and cooking to planting, to pay for food and tuition.  Abuse from other kids or white folks did not break his spirit.  Carver knew how to pray.  He always sensed the Lord was with him, and he knew that his loving heavenly Father would take care of him and direct his paths.  Besides, the trees and plants were too interesting to make him self-conscious over his own hardships.

Passing each test and scaling each hurdle, George won the hearts of classmates in a Kansas high school.  He developed many interests in which he excelled.  Those who know him primarily for his achievements in agricultural science might be surprised to learn that George Washington Carver was a singer, artist, piano player and debater.  His spiritual aptitude took root in his fellowship with the YMCA.  Throughout his life, he felt the sting of racial prejudice, even witnessing a lynching of another black man by the KKK.  The white folk who knew George stood up for him when racial slurs came at him.  He remained friendly, open, and diligent in everything he did, rising to the top of his class with high grades.  He was accepted to Highland University on a scholarship.

Upon arriving at Highland in Kansas, he was in for another major disappointment.  He entered the President’s office and announced that he was George Washington Carver, the one who had received the President’s own letter of acceptance.  “Young man, I’m afraid there has been a mistake.  You failed to inform us you were colored.  We do not take colored students here at Highland.”  The President would not be moved by the fact that George had spent everything he had to come.  His skin was just not the right color.  The feeling of dejection can only be imagined, as he walked around the strange town wondering what to do next.  He never felt more lonely in his life.  Again, he prayed.  He decided he would find a college that would take him.  He would work, save his money, and he would study hard, and God helping him, he would succeed.

It would not be easy.  He took a homestead in west Kansas and endured a blizzard alone in his cabin, and more loneliness..  Then word of a new college that would take coloreds came to his attention, and at age 26, he spent the ten dollars he made from selling his cabin and land, traveled to Indianola, and entered Simpson College.  The rest is history.  Though now older than most of the students, and seemingly the only black student, George rapidly excelled and made high grades.  He transferred to Iowa State and became the first black man to earn a bachelor’s degree.  Even prejudiced white folk made way for this rising star.  He was invited to teach, and earned a master’s degree in agriculture in 1896.  His work on plants and plant diseases was getting recognized.  It came to the attention of Booker T. Washington.

Booker T. Washington, a friend of Abraham Lincoln, had founded Tuskegee Institute fifteen years earlier as a place to provide blacks an opportunity for higher education.  He gave Carver a strange proposition that a mercenary man would have snubbed with utter disdain:

I cannot offer you money, position, or fame.  The first two you have.  The last, from the place you now occupy, you will no doubt achieve.  These things I now ask you to give up.  I offer you in their place – work – hard, hard work – the challenge of bringing people from degradation, poverty and waste to full manhood.

With a good deal of prayer and soul searching, Carver accepted.

Upon arriving in Alabama, George Carver was stunned to find he had no lab, no books, no equipment, no helpers, and no curriculum.  He would have to build the entire department from scratch.  He was even expected to share a room with another faculty member.  On top of that, he was expected to raise chickens and do other tasks he did not particularly care for, and the students were not that interested in learning what he had to teach.  But Carver had learned to take life as it came and make the most of it.  It was never easy; his relationship with Booker T. was often strained, the latter trying to keep the institution from going broke, and the former more visionary than resources permitted.  But they needed each other, and complemented each other, as iron sharpens iron (a fact George never fully realized till after Booker’s death).

So from the ground up at Tuskegee, George set to work with the equivalent of two loaves and a few fishes, handing them over to the Lord to multiply them.  Improvising a lab with old bottles and spare parts, and a microscope donated by his Iowa friends, he slowly got his balky students on track and began spinning a list of achievements that overflowed by the bushels.  His classes did experiments with sweet potatoes, trying to increase crop yields.  From five bushels an acre to ten, then twenty and thirty … they reached eighty bushels per acre, a feat thought impossible by seasoned farmers.  His all-time record was 266 bushels per acre, with the proper cultivation and fertilization.  Carver’s abilities in agriculture must have seemed like magic.  He experimented with crop rotation and found ways to replenish the soil.  His list of useful products from common crops began to grow, including delicious meals from cowpeas and industrial products from sweet potatoes.  As a ministry of help to poor farmers, he and his students put a classroom on a wagon.  They traveled from farm to farm, showing farmers how they could improve their yields.  George Washington Carver was poised to save the South from the devastation of the Civil War to new dangers on the horizon.

Southern farmers, by tradition, were stuck in a cotton rut.  Carver realized that not only did this deplete the soil, but the devastating boll weevil was slowly working its way east from Mexico and Texas at about 100 miles per year.  He realized its arrival in the South would wipe out the cotton economy.  Peanuts and other legumes, he demonstrated, replenished the soil.  Not only that, they were extremely versatile and healthy.  Grudgingly at first, the farmers took his advice to try growing the silly goobers, doubtful that anyone would buy them.  Carver tried to convince them that peanuts were an ideal food source.  Taking his cue from Genesis, where God had said to Adam and the animals, “I have given every green plant for food” (Genesis 1:29–30, 2:9), he figured there must be more there than meets the eye.  The threat of the boll weevil forced some farmers to take his advice and grow peanuts, but some became angry when they could not find a market for them.  This drove Carver to launch a series of amazing discoveries.

As he would tell the story later, he went out to pray (as was his daily practice), and asked God why He made the universe.  The Lord replied that was a mighty big question for a puny man.  Carver tried a smaller question, why did you make man?  As God kept narrowing the scope of his inquiry, he finally tried, “Mr. Creator, why did you make the peanut?” With that, the Lord was satisfied, and told him to go into his lab and find out.  In a Spirit-filled rush of discovery, Carver separated peanuts into their shells, skins, oils and meats and found all kinds of amazing properties and possibilities.

Most of us have heard this one of Carver’s many claims to fame, that he discovered over 300 uses for the peanut, but have you ever seen the list?  You can find it on websites, but here are a few samples for the pure amazement of what came out of that humble Tuskegee lab: soap, cooking oil, milk, rubber, glue, insecticide, malaria medicine, flour, salve, paint, cosmetics, paper, fertilizer, paving material and (of course) peanut butter, peanut brittle, peanut clusters, and dozens of other food products.  He amazed the faculty and students one day by serving an entire meal – appetizer, main course, side dishes, beverage and dessert – out of peanuts: soup, salad, milk, coffee, bread, mock chicken, peanut ice cream, and a variety of candies and cookies.  His peanut milk was indistinguishable from the dairy kind.  Farmers no longer had to worry about having a market for peanuts!

In 1921, the United Peanut Association of America, now a thriving group of farmers thanks to Carver’s help, sent him to Congress to testify about a tariff bill.  The weary Congressmen, bored from days of other tariff arguments, allotted him ten minutes.  Two hours later, their eyes were still bulging from his displays of products he had made.  His lively and sometimes humorous presentation had them spellbound.  The law passed easily.

Peanuts were just one of many plants Carver’s magic with chemistry transformed into useful products.  He invented 35 products from the velvet bean and 118 from the sweet potato.  How many of these things do you have around the house: adhesive, axle grease, bleach, briquettes, buttermilk, chili sauce, ink, instant coffee, linoleum, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, metal polish, paper, plastic, paint, pavement, peanut butter, shaving cream, shoe polish, synthetic rubber, talcum powder, and wood stain.  These and many other products Carver produced from plant materials.  George Washington Carver became the father of a new branch of applied science called agricultural chemistry or “chemurgy.”  The extent of his discoveries in this field are breathtaking, and unlikely to be surpassed by any one person again.

Just a few of these products could have made a man rich, but Carver made them available freely.  As a servant of God, he felt the Creator should have the credit for putting all this richness into the plants He had made.  Carver did not seek fame, but his work brought him world-wide renown; Teddy Roosevelt visited him at Tuskegee and said, “There’s no more important work than what you are doing right here.”  He never made much money in his 40+ years at Tuskegee.  Driven by the needs of those he served there, he turned down a lucrative offer to work for Thomas Edison.  He gave generously from his meager assets.  Despite a high-pitched voice he inherited from a bout with whooping cough in childhood, he was a popular speaker.  Projecting a visage of integrity, with rhetorical intensity characteristic of a black preacher, Carver inspired the young to rise above their hardships, as he had, and make their life count.

All who knew George Washington Carver were impressed by his spirituality.  Carver would often rise at 4:00 in the morning and go into his favorite woods to pray.  Each day he would ask, “Lord, what do you want me to do today?“ and then do it.  The goodness of God and the richness of creation was often on his lips.  He said, “I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.” 

Millets Preferable To Quinoa In India

There is a craze in India for adopting the organic alternative grains that are fashionable among American consumers.

The problem is that those grains, like quinoa, are mostly imported from central and southern America, regions that are well within the economic reach of well-to-do America, but are a ridiculous form of ostentatious consumption for India.

Living on the other side of the globe, with far less purchasing power, and with many more constraints of  soil, land, technology, and climate, Indians have to be smarter than this.

India already has a whole range of traditional cereals that are far more nutritious and far easier to produce than polished rice:

Alternative.in:

When seeing nicely packaged ragi biscuits in the health section of supermarkets, one could almost get the impression that millets are indeed becoming fashionable again. However, the statistics speak a different language: Changes in consumption trends over the past decades, coupled with state policies that favour rice and wheat, have led to a sharp decline in millet production and consumption.

In the 1950s, the area under millet cultivation in India exceeded the area cultivated under either rice or wheat, and millets made up 40% of all cultivated grains. However, in the early 1970s, rice overtook millets, and in the early 1990s so did wheat. Since the Green Revolution, the production of rice and wheat was boosted by 125% and 285% respectively, and the production of millets declined by -2.4%.

Although India is still the top millet producing country in the world, by 2006, the millet growing area was only half that of rice, and one fifth less than wheat. The share of millets in total grain production had dropped from 40% to 20%. This has dire agricultural, environmental and nutritional consequences.

Not just urban food preferences, state policies also play a major role in the shift of consumption habits. For instance, the Public Distribution System has promoted rice and wheat uniformly across India, completely disregarding local climatic conditions, agricultural traditions and food cultures. Polished rice became the cheapest and most readily available foodgrain, and as a consequence the most popular one. The change in preferences was aggravated by notions of cleanliness, purity and sophistication of refined grains versus the more down-to-earth “coarse” grains.

Millets contain a high amount of fibre, which earned them the derogatory name “coarse grains” and often degrades them to animal feed. However, in a time where urban consumers tend to go overboard on refined products, the extra fibre in millets might just be a great boon. Fibre is essential not just for good digestion and a healthy bowel; it also has a positive impact on blood pressure and blood sugar levels.

Furthermore, millets are richer in several nutrients than rice, wheat or corn. For instance, they are rich in B-vitamins such as niacin, B6 and folic acid, as well as calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, zinc and beta carotene. Each millet variety has a different nutritional profile. The table below compares several millets, wheat and rice with regard to selected essential nutrients. Millets are also ideal for people suffering from gluten-intolerance.

Millets are truly miraculous grains in terms of their nutritional value, and even more so in terms of their humble requirements as agricultural crops. They are ideal for rainfed farming systems – the majority of India’s small and marginal farms. The rainfall requirement of millets is only 30% of that of rice. While it takes an average 4,000 litres of water to grow 1 kg of rice, millets grow without any irrigation. Millets can withstand droughts, and they grow well in poor soils, some of them even in acidic, saline or sandy soils. Traditional millet farming systems are inherently biodiverse and include other important staples such as pulses and oilseeds. They are usually grown organically, as millets do not require chemical pesticides and fertilizer.

Organizations that promote millet cultivation and consumption for security of food, nutrition, fodder, fibre, health, livelihoods and ecology across India are joined in the Millet Network of India (MINI), an alliance of over farmer organizations, scientists, civil society groups and individuals.

Millets are richer in several nutrients than rice, wheat or corn. Pic: Flickr, Creative Commons

Millets are available in organic stores, from organic online retailers, in supermarkets and various other shops. They can easily be integrated into any kind of diet.

Here’s how you can use millets at home:

•Mix millets with other grains or use by themselves like rice
Make soft and tasty idlis from whole jowar
•Add some millets to your dosa batter
•Enjoy puffed jowar as a snack, breakfast cereal or sprinkled on salads for a nice crunch
Use foxtail millet rava for a more nutririous upma
•Add millet flours to rotis; for cakes and raised breads, mix them with wheat flour, as millets do not contain gluten.”

How To Read The News

I’ve been watching the mainstream Western media critically since about 1991, when Gulf War I took place. That’s a total of nearly 25 years.

Including this blog, I’ve written literally tens of thousands of pages about news images and stories. Tens of thousands.

For academic superstars, Marxist professors, State Dept honchos, and intelligence operatives.  They were not fools and none of them took me for a fool.

Here is what I’ve learned:

  1. Don’t be overwhelmed by detail and “noise”. You’ll lose the big picture. The noise is where the propaganda is. Tune it out.
  2. Don’t leap to take the bait. Let things come out on their own and then try to fit the pieces in.  Don’t force the pieces. Instead, change the narrative.
  3. Follow the money.
  4. Follow the money.
  5. Follow the money.
  6. What happened yesterday, happens today, and will happen tomorrow. History repeats itself.  Read history. Fit the politics into the history and not the other way around.
  7. Follow the money.
  8. Everything in the mainstream is suspect.
  9. Everything in the alternative media is also suspect, in a different way.
  10. The truth is not hidden. It’s hiding in plain sight. It’s hidden by fog, noise, and distortion, not by outright concealment.
  11. Listen to outsiders, the unknown, the marginal.
  12. Follow facts, not people. Trust no media figure completely.
  13. Follow the money.
  14. Look inside yourself to understand other people’s motives, responses, and reactions. People are not different.
  15. Look outside yourself to understand other people. People are different.
  16. Embrace cognitive dissonance. Learn to entertain contradictory interpretations in your mind without striving  prematurely for a conclusion.
  17. Learn to live without certainty about many things. Probabilities are good enough, most of the time.
  18. Don’t study any phenomenon in isolation. Study it from as many angles as you can. Connect.
  19. Don’t discount any theory, however outlandish. Reality is much weirder than you think it is…..or can think it is.
  20. Follow the money.

Malhotra Trounces American Professor

Hindu activist Rajiv Malhotra’s brilliant rebuttal of plagiarism charges by an American professor, Andrew Nicholson.

Nicholson, having borrowed liberally – without any acknowledgment whatsoever– from traditional Indian pandits, had called Malhotra a “plagiarist,” even though Malhotra cites him over thirty times in his book:

Dear Andrew Nicholson,

I am glad you have entered the battlefield so we can get into some substantial matters. Since this is an extended article, I want to go about it systematically, starting with the following clarifications: I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra’s Net, hence there was no ill-intention. But I am not blindly obeying you, contrary to your experience with servile Indians; hence your angst that I am ‘distorting’ your ideas is unfounded. My writing relating to your work can be seen as twofold:

  • Where I cite your work.
  • Where it is my own perspectives.

You are entitled to attribution for ‘A’ but not for ‘B’.

Regarding ‘A’, I am prepared to clarify these attributions further where necessary. But, as we shall see below, I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed Indian sources and called it your own original ideas. I am better off going to my tradition’s sources rather than via a westerner whose ego claims to have become the primary source. This Western hijacking of adhikara is what the elaborate Western defined, and controlled system of peer-reviews and academic gatekeepers is meant to achieve, i.e. turning knowledge into the control of western ‘experts’ and their Indian sepoys.

Regarding ‘B’, let me illustrate by using the very same example you cite as my ‘distortion’ of ‘your’ work. You wrote in your book that Vijnanabhikshu unified multiple paths into harmony. This is correct. That comes under ‘A’. But I add to this my own statement that Vivekananda does the same thing also. This is important to my thesis that Vivekananda built on top a long Indian tradition, and not by copying ideas from the West as claimed by the neo-Hinduism camp. This is ‘B’ – my idea. Your complaint is that by asserting this about Vivekananda, I am distorting you. You fail to distinguish between ‘A’ and ‘B’ because you assume that you are the new adhikari on the subject and anything in addition to or instead of your views amounts to a distortion. I see this as a blatant sign of colonialism.

You are carrying the white man’s burden to educate the Indians even about our own culture. Please note that Vijnanabhikshu is an important person in our heritage and there are numerous commentaries on his work. Yours is not any original account of him. You got this material from secondary sources. But by complying by the mechanical rules of ‘scholarship’ you got it into western peer-reviewed publications, and hence you claim to be the new adhikari. Furthermore, nor was Vijnanabhikshu the first to unify Hinduism. I have sources of the unification of various Hindu systems that go back much further in time and you do not seem to be aware of these. My point is that Vivekananda stands on the shoulders of many prior giants within our own tradition. I cited you to the extent it worked for me but did not stop there; I took it further than you have.

Sir Williams Jones started this claim to be the ‘new pandit’ in the late 1700s when he was a top official for the East India Company. Today that enterprise is dead in one sense, but has revived and reincarnated into new forms. You do not seem conscious that your position is not only arrogant but also puts in the parampara of Sir William Jones.

I re-examined your book lately and find too many ideas taken from Indian texts and experts that are cleverly reworded in fancy English. Let’s take a look at bhedabheda Vedanta. My teacher of this system has been Dr Satya Narayan Das, head of the Jiva Institute in Vrindavan, who spent considerable time with me while I was writing Being Different where I first explained my understanding. He is considered one of the foremost adhikaris today in this system, and adhikar in our tradition is not a matter of producing publications (with lots of quotation marks and obedience to other rules), but mainly requires actual experience of what is being said. Without the inner experience of the states of consciousness being discussed, it is at best secondary knowledge.

This experience is not a simple matter for western Indologists who spend hours going through other western interpretations and Sanskrit dictionaries. By complying with the procedural requirements of citations, etc. they suddenly claim to have become the new original and primary source. This system needs to be questioned, and I have written extensively about the syndrome I call the peer-review cartel. (You can read my debate on this a decade back on Rediff.com)

Therefore, I intend to delete most of the references to your book for bhedabheda, because it is clear that you lack the adhikara as per our system. I do wish to credit you in some respects but nowhere close to what you demand. It amazes me that there is nothing original in your explanation of bhedabheda, as your knowledge is obtained from reading Indian texts, western interpretations and sitting at the feet of Indian pandits to learn. Unfortunately, western Indology does not recognize what the pandit teaches you as his work, because it is oral and not written in a peer-reviewed (hence western supervised) publication. So the whole protocol of claiming something to belong to you as the author is a sort of technology of thievery. Fortunately, Indians have started claiming back their bio-heritage such as Ayurveda from such thievery that is being done by westerners claiming that Indians never filed patents as per western rules. It is time to also claim our intellectual heritage back.

Indian pandits know their materials by heart and it is orally transmitted, and they do not have the ego to claim authorship. They are very humble and hence get taken for a ride. They are duped by any ‘good cop’ from the west who comes in Indian dress to talk to them nicely and bamboozle them into believing that he is a friend of the tradition. Westerners can pick their brains freely, without which you would not be able to learn; but then you go back to the West and have the arrogance to call it yours. As per your Western protocol, you thank the pandit in some preface once, and feel that it suffices. But if you want that my 30 references to your work fall short then by the same token, please note that you, too, ought to be acknowledging your pandits and Indian textual sources in every single paragraph, if not every sentence.

Only that portion of your work which you feel gives truly original thoughts can become yours and make you its adhikari. If you would be kind enough to send us a list of what you consider original thoughts in your book, and that I have used these because they are not found anywhere else except in your work, then I would gladly bow to you and thank you profusely. But whatever portions (which is almost the entire book) are merely your rehashing the Indian materials in fancy English, over those I do not grant you the status of ‘ownership’.

….. What frightens your colleagues is that my book will educate our traditional pandits about your methods of exploitation. Let me frighten you even further: All my books are in the process of being translated into Sanskrit, specifically for the purpose of education of young pandits about the issues I raise. So my target reader is not folks like you, but our own pandits and others who claim this as their heritage and practice. I am especially interested in those who did not sell out to western sponsorship, foreign tours, etc. These will comprise my home team. I am only doing a humble service to inform them about the issues and remedies.

This is why more and more Indologists will be asked to come out of the woodwork and defend the old fortress. In the process they will also expose themselves. But that fortress is crumbling and my work merely accelerates the process of India once again becoming the center of Indology and not a subservient satellite of it.

Indian authorities should demand the return back to India of the 500,000 Sanskrit manuscripts that are lying outside India in various Western universities, archives, museums and private collections. These are our heritage just like old statues and should be returned since they were mostly taken by theft during colonial rule. I consider these more precious than the Kohinoor diamond. Right now, it is western Indologists like you get to define ‘critical editions’ of our texts and become the primary source and adhikari. This must end and I have been fighting this for 25 years. Now we finally some serious traction, thanks in part to people like you who attack and give me a chance to make my case more openly. Please note that what happens to me personally is irrelevant, and I am glad if attacks like this awaken more people.

My response to you is nothing personal, but serves to educate my own people. You are a glaring example of what I have called a ‘good cop’, i.e., one who goes about showing love/romance for the tradition. But at some time his true colors come out when he does what I have called a U-Turn. You would make an interesting case study of the U-Turn syndrome, for which we ought to examine where you got your materials from, and to what extent you failed to acknowledge Indian sources, both written and oral, with the same weight with which you expect me to do so.

To suit their agendas, westerners have pronounced theories like ‘nobody owns culture’ and ‘the author is dead’. Our naïve pandits are too innocent to know any of this, but I wish to inform them. The claim that nobody owns a culture makes it freely available to whosoever wants to do whatever they choose to do with it. Hence, Indian cultural capital is being digested right and left. The contradiction is that the west is ultra-protective about its ‘intellectual property’ and your obsession to squeeze more references/citations out of me illustrates this.

By declaring that the ‘author is dead’, the West says the contexts and intentions of the rishis are irrelevant. They are dead and nobody knows what they meant. So ‘we’ (the Western Indologists) must interpret Indian texts by bringing our own theories and lenses. This has been the basis for the Freudian psychoanalysis of Hinduism, and all other Western theories being applied. If the original author is dead, the material does not belong to anyone. It is public domain. So whoever has more funding and powerful machinery will determine how it is interpreted. However, the same ‘nobody owns culture’ principle does not apply to what you consider as your ‘property’. Indians need to wake up to this game.

[This same foul game is played by anti-IP libertarians who operate from the same assumptions of the colonialists, old and new.]

They need to stop funding Western Indology and develop Indian Indology. The ‘make in India’ ideal should also be applied here. Expecting Indologists to change because you dole out money is like feeding a crocodile expecting him to become your friend. For the first 10 years of my work in this area, I gave away a substantial portion of my life savings in an unsuccessful attempt to fund and change the Indologists’ hearts. But they play the good/bad cop game with skill. I learned a great deal because I was acknowledged as the largest funder of western Indology at one time. Then I stopped and became their harshest critic. I have on file a lot of grant correspondence with Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, to name just a few. Naturally, they worry that I am exposing their secrets. One day I will get someone to organize all that material into a publication.”

 

Why Christians Must Defend Their Traditions

The argument is made that Christians best imitate Jesus by not taking offense at insults and attacks on their traditions and icons.

There are many reasons why this is false.

There is the obvious one that Jesus himself did not tolerate the desecration of the Temple.

He actively threw the money-changers out of its precincts, over-turned their tables, chased away their animals, and put them out of business.

Then, there is the invective Jesus used  – “serpents,” “devils,” “liars,” “hypocrites.”

Is this Jesus meek and mild?

No.

There never was a Jesus meek and mild.

That is a concoction of well-bred, middle-class Sunday School misses.

They cannot be blamed for knowing nothing about real men, but we can.

Jesus slept out in the open, with only stones for his pillow.

He went for days without food or sleep.

He preached and healed in sun and rain on the hills and on the lake-shore, in front of sweaty, restless crowds of thousands of peasants.

He worked and lived with illiterate fishermen and carpenters, who drank and swore.

He routinely castigated the lawyers and scribes and the powerful members of the Sanhedrin.

Indeed, the entire Gospel story is the story of the relentless persecution of Jesus by the religious “mafia” that had an iron grip on the spiritual life of the Judeans.

That was the iron grip that Jesus broke on the cross.

So, using Jesus as an excuse for our cowardice doesn’t work.

But there are other reasons.

As the symbols of a tradition are denigrated with impunity, they lose their power over the minds of the young.

Young people don’t yet have the experience or discernment to filter out the abuse and distortion.

The young go by what they are told, not so much in words as in deeds, by their elders and their peers.

When the adults around do not respond to the tidal wave of filth and abuse directed at the Christian tradition, the young do not take Christianity seriously.

They see it only as the butt of jokes. The punch-line of comedy routines.

Faith flourishes with physical persecution. The shedding of blood creates martyrs.

But faith is hard-pressed to survive Saturday Night Live and a moral martyrdom of unending, undefended humiliation.

Jesus Christ will survive it. So will his saints.

But the rabble who perpetrate this barbarism and the cowards who countenance it will not survive with their  humanity intact.

I Feel Dread

I feel dread when I read the news.

The patterns by now are so familiar to me.

The same lies. The same liars. The same events, washing up like dirty spume from relentless waves.

They are waves from far out.

They are shadows cast ahead by something dark and terrible.

I know how it must have felt in the years before the world wars.

One must have smelled in the salty air what the future held.

It is terrible to look back and see how in less than twenty-five years, half of one immigrant’s adult life, a nation could have changed so utterly as this country did.

Even the surface of things doesn’t look the same. Smiles are harder, eyes are emptier, words more shapeless and soiled with overuse.

I can hardly bear to read through opinion in the regular press. I have to have it sifted through congenial websites.

We were free as late as 1984 – that fabled year. We were celebrating the victory of freedom in the world only five years later.

And now, thirty years later, we…the whole world…has wandered in broad daylight into  prison and the gates have been shut.

Semitic Semantics

The word Jew is a very protean term, referring at times to race and at times to culture or religion. The correct term today should be Judaic or Judaist.

This leads to constant confusion, misdirection, and contradiction, to the advantage of the ruling class, which claims the mantle of ancient Israel.

But what we call Jews today are a mixed race people quite different from the Hebrew Israelites, who are now, retroactively and erroneously, equated with them.

The correct term for today’s “Jews” should be Judaics or Judaists.

 

ASHKENAZY JEWS

Most of the people who call themselves Jews today have partial descent from converts from Khazaria, a medieval East European kingdom wedged between the Muslim and the Christian world, which chose the Hebrew faith as a way to survive.

The Khazarians intermingled with Eastern European people in the surrounding regions and later moved into Germany, becoming today’s Ashkenazy (European) Jews.

The Ashkenazim constitute much of modern Jewry (Khazarian Judaists), it is said.

This may or may not be true, because statistics about Jews (Khazarians of Judaist culture) seem to vary wildly.

The Khazarian theory of Ashkenazy origin has been vindicated, according to some people, by the research of Israeli geneticist Elhaik, but it has its detractors.

They claim it is simply an anti-Semitic canard.

Even critics of the theory, however, admit that there is ample European (in the maternal line) and “non-Semitic” Middle-Eastern blood (in the paternal line) in modern Ashkenazy Jews (Khazarian Judaists).

But, shockingly, their maternal descent from Europeans means that the Ashkenazim are irrefutably not ethnic Jewish (Judahites), according to Jewish (Judahite) law.

I repeat, the DNA evidence proves that according to Jewish law, Ashkenazim are not of Jewish (Judahite) descent, because Jewish (Judahite) law requires the mother to be Jewish.

SEPHARDIC JEWS

The rest of the modern Jews (Judaics), a far fewer number, is descended from the Edomites (Idumeans) who were living in Judea at the time of Jesus.

That is why they were called Jews, to begin with.

Jew is simply the short form for the word, Judean or “of Judea.”

The word Judean/Jew thus had nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

It referred simply to people living in the region of Judea.

The Idumeans/Edomites living in Judea were forcibly circumcised and incorporated into the Israelite (Hebrew) religion under John Hyrcanus, in the 2nd century BC.

Their numbers included many of the Pharisees who lived in the time of Jesus, most of whom were killed in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

This was the fate of most of the male population in Jerusalem.

The females were enslaved by the victorious Romans.

The Jewish men who survived the destruction lived on in the land, converting to Christianity and then Islam.

Eventually, they became the people we know today as Palestinians, who are thus also a mixed race, although probably less so than the dispersed Edomites.

The converted Idumeans (including, probably, some Idumean-Israelites) living in Judea were the people whom Jesus claimed in Revelation 3:9  were of the “synagogue of Satan” and were not really Jews (Judahites).

To be clear, in saying this, Jesus was not really referring to the Idumean ethnic heritage.

Some of the Idumeans had mixed with the native Israelites around them by then, so that some of the converts  may actually have been partly descended from the northern Israelite tribes that had been conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC (722 BC) and then dispersed in Assyria, Babylon, and in Israel and Judea.

Credit: keyway.ca

Map Of The Assyrian Empire

These dispersed tribes were the so-called Lost Tribes.

That suggests that some  of the Idumeans too probably had some Israelite or even Judean blood in them.

But Jesus was really talking about the beliefs of the Idumean converts, not their genes.

They followed a mixture of the pure faith taught by Moses and the Prophets with the pagan beliefs of the Canaanites and Hittites, with whom the Edomites, since the days of Esau, had intermarried.

The Idumean (Edomite) converts to Israelite faith were after all descended from Abraham, as they claimed.

But, they were not – and never had been –  descendants of Judah (Judahites).

As I noted earlier, Judahite is one of the two origins of the abbreviated term, “Jew.”

The other is Judean – referring to the area, Judea.

The Idumeans/Edomites  did not follow Jewish customs fully but added pagan beliefs.

These semi-pagan mixed Idumean-Israelites in Judea, along with other Idumean-Israelites in the surrounding regions and in the Hebrew or Israelite diaspora that was settled in Babylon and in Egypt, supposedly emigrated all over the Middle East and into regions of Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, England) in the centuries immediately after Christ. These dispersed tribes became what we call today Sephardic Jews. Sephardic is derived from the old Jewish name for Spain, Sefarad.

Some claim that the Jews were scattered because the Romans dispersed them, although exiling conquered people was not characteristic of the Romans, who usually left some of the vanquished to till the soil.

Of course, is always possible that the Romans made an exception for the Jews, in response to the ferocity with which they resisted conquest.

More likely, the Jews who intermarried with European women in the first and second centuries after Christ were traders who were Levantine converts, rather than original Israelites of any kind.

In any case, it is a fact that the maternal stock of current Sephardic Jews is European, not Near Eastern, and dates back to this Jewish diaspora.

To repeat, Jewishness is traced through the maternal line, and since these diasporic Idumean-Israelites spawned what we call the Sephardic Jews, they too, by Jewish law, are not Jews.

Like the Ashkenazy, but even more so, the Sephardim took with them the pagan lore of Babylon and Egypt.

This religion contradicted the Torah teachings of the Israelites.

It was replete with astrology, gnosticism, ritual practices, esoteric texts, angelology and demonology.

TALMUDIC JEWS VERSUS TORAH JEWS

Now, the Hebrew Bible of the Ashkenazy and Sephardic Jews is called TaNaKh  and it includes the Law, the Prophets, and other writings.

But these are not held in as much veneration as the interpretations of the TaNaKh by the Jewish sages (Rabbis).

The Rabbinical interpretations were codified in the centuries after 200 AD and form the written text (Talmud) of what in Jesus’ time was still oral and referred to as the Tradition of the Elders.

IDUMEAN JEWS OF JESUS’ TIME VERSUS ASKHENAZY JEWS OF TODAY

Jesus felt that the Elders had subverted the original faith in Yahweh with a ritualistic, formulaic legalism that killed the spirit of true faith and substituted notions of racial purity for purity of faith.

Jesus denounced this perversion of the Hebrew faith in the strongest possible terms.

But since the current crop of Ashkenazy Jews is most likely unrelated to the original Idumean-Israelite Judeans whom Jesus denounced, it is quite incorrect to claim that animosity by non-Jews toward the Ashkenazy leadership today (the Rothschild financial cabal) has anything whatsoever to do with the enmity between the Idumean-Edomite Judeans and Idumean-Israelite Judeans, on the one hand and Jesus, on the other.

In short, the accusation that the Gospels are the origin of current “anti-Semitism” is bogus  and an anti-Christian slander.

The current Jews are not the descendants of the Israelite-Idumean mixture whom Jesus cursed.

They were utterly destroyed in 70 AD.

Moreover, the genealogical records necessary to prove genetic descent from any of the tribes of Israel, were destroyed with the Temple at the time.

Without these, any subsequent claims of descent are either tenuous or completely specious.

What Jesus said then to the Judeans and Judahites of his time does not and can not automatically attach to the Ashkenazy and Sephardim today, on the grounds of genetic descent.

Contemporary Judaists are mostly a Euro-Turko-Mongolic people, with, at most (although not certainly), some small admixture of the original Israelite blood.

This is true also of the Sephardic Jews, who have a better claim to a partial descent from the Idumean-Israelite mixture.

They too cannot be blamed for deicide, as it used to be called.

According to the Gospel, in the final destruction of Jerusalem, all of Jesus’ enemies during his ministry were judged for the blood they had shed in their own life-times.

They were judged, as well, for the blood-shed of all past history, from the archetypal crime of Abel’s murder onward to the death of Jesus.

That chapter in history was closed on the cross.

It is finished, as Jesus said.

Neither the current Ashkenazy Jews nor the current Sephardic Jews have anything to do with it.

But, in so far as they adopt attitudes and beliefs that resemble those of the Pharisees, they, as well as all other people of any or no faith, are culpable for their own wrong beliefs and actions.

To sum up, there is very little or no genetic descent of current Jews from the ancient Idumean-Edomites (and Idumean-Israelites) who persecuted Jesus.

There is only the possibility of  spiritual descent.

And that possibility is shared equally by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and anyone else who hurls curses at Jesus Christ.

Spiritual descent is a matter of choice and belief.

It comes about when people adopt the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisaic persecutors of Jesus.

TALMUDIC JUDAISM AND KABBALISM

The writings of the Elders were codified in the Talmud in 200 AD and 500 AD, and thereafter, and to them were added, in the later middle ages, texts like the Zohar and Kabbalah.

The Talmud, Zohar, and Kabbalah explicate, in sometimes mystic, sometimes racial, sometimes moral or legal terms, the TaNaKh, formulated in writing some thousand years earlier (approximately 500 BC) by the Hebrew-speaking people that constituted the ancient nation called Israel.

The Talmud, Zohar, and Kabbalah also add completely new teachings, esoterica, occult texts, and mysticism, some of which is deeply antagonistic to the austere spirit of the Torah.

Some of the Talmud’s and Kabbalah’s teachings are truly amoral and perverse.

Others are profoundly wise and could have been spoken by Jesus himself.

The ancients Israelites included both the Judeans (the Israelite tribes living in Judea, descended from Judah and Benjamin) and the northern tribes (the descendants of the other sons of Israel/Jacob:- Reuben, Naphtali, Dan, Gad, Manasseh, etc.).

Is any of this Hebrew stock to be found among contemporary Jews?

Surely there could be some genetic ties, or, at least, similarities, between both groups.

But, equally surely, these genetic markings are mingled with the genetic markers of many other groups, because of centuries of intermarriage.

Race-mixing was always in the history of the Israelites.

EDOMITES, HITTITES, AND MOABITES

Esau, the brother of Jacob in Genesis, who is the forefather of the nation of Israel, intermarried with the pagan Hittites.

But, so did Jacob’s own descendants, the Israelites.

So did the sons of Judah or the Judahites (Jews, in short form).

Ruth, the ancestress of  Jesus, belonged to the Moabites, one of the deadliest enemies of the Israelites and Judahites.

ABRAHAM’S SEED IS JESUS

Given this history, how can anyone claim that Israelite or Judahite is a term for a pure genetic stock?

Yet, they do.

Many naive Jewish people today – and Christian dupes –  consider modern Jews both a pure ethnicity and a unique religion.

A people set apart and a culture set apart.

The Bible states otherwise.

Abraham and Isaac were counted as righteous, long before Jacob was called Israel and long before Judah sired Judahites and before Israelites ever set foot in Judea.

Righteousness preceded both Israel and Judea, both Judah and the Judahites.

The seed of Abraham in whom the whole world was blessed was not any supposed Master Race of Israelites or Jews, with genetic superiority to the rest of mankind.

This is a toxic carnal and ethnocentric revision of the Hebrew scriptures.

The blessed seed (singular) of Abraham was not a people, but a person – a unique prophet, like Moses.

He was the uniquely begotten and uniquely sacrificed “son,” like Isaac.

The blessed seed was Jesus, to whom all nations were to be gathered, according to the divine covenant with Abraham.

As a matter of record, people of all nations have been gathered into belief in Jesus.

The moral reign of Jesus Christ is visible all around us, despite all the blood-shed and mayhem wrought by those who would erase God from the history of man.

The Good Shepherd who gave his life for his flock is a figure beloved all over the world. 

Christ’s moral reign does not offend anyone but reprobates, no matter what their religion.

Muslims and Hindus accept Jesus as a divine messenger.

Righteous Jews have seen through the calumnies of the Rabbinate and accepted Christ’s moral status.

But there is no nation in the world that would accept without a fight the divine right of a Master Race of Jews to rule as overlords of the earth.

 

 

 

 

4000 Year Old Vishnu Demolishes Aryan Invasion Theory

From IndiaDivine.org:

A recent news report from Vietnam features an exquisite and very ancient sculpture of Lord Vishnu. According to a press release from the Communist Party of Vietnam’s Central Committee (CPVCC) the Vishnu sculpture is described as “Vishnu stone head from Oc Eo culture, dated back 4,000-3,500 years.” Recently the Government of Vietnam, despite its official Communist doctrine, has developed many programs and projects highlighting Vietnam’s ancient religious heritage. Its scholarly and archeological research and investigations are legitimate and its conclusions are authoritative. This discovery of a 4,000 to 3,500 year old Vishnu sculpture is truly historic and it sheds new light upon our understanding of the history of not only Hinduism but of the entire world.

Vishnu

The fact is there are no other ‘officially’ recognized Vedic artifacts that have been dated back to such an early date. This would make Vietnam home to the world’s most ancient Vedic artifact. While there are indeed many other ancient artifacts that represent the same Deity, they are not presented in the ‘Indic’ tradition and cannot be directly recognized as the Vishnu of the Indic Vaishnava tradition……..

The significance of this discovery cannot be overestimated. The entire history of Hinduism and Vedic culture, as taught is the academic institutions of the world, has been built upon a false construct. According to mainstream academia Vedic ‘religion’ or Hinduism did not exist until the alleged ‘Aryans’ invaded India circa 1500 BC. An even later date is given to Vaishnavism which is speculated to have been derived from animist Sun worship. Yet here we have a highly evolved art form depicting Lord Vishnu in the Far South East region of Asia dated to somewhere between 2000 BC to 1500 BC.

[Vaishnavism, with its repeatedly incarnating “savior” Chrish-na thus predates Christianity by some 2000 years and is older than the date of the writing of the Old Testament. ]

This completely undermines the entire historic timeline developed by mainstream academia in regards to the development of both Vedic/Hindu civilization and Indian history.

The region of modern India has always been the epicenter of High Vedic/Hindu Civilization and culture. No one anywhere has ever suggested the region of modern Vietnam to be the origin of Hindu civilization yet it is in Vietnam that we now have the world’s most ancient example of Indic style Vedic Vaishnava art. Thus it stands to reason that if Vedic Vaishnava art, culture and religion flourished 4000 years ago in prehistoric Vietnam it was undoubtedly flourishing in ancient India as well.

Once again science and archeology have confirmed the Vedic conclusion. As the Vedic literature states 5000 years ago India was home to a highly evolved and advanced civilization. This civilization was centered on its sacred traditions. The worship of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Lakshmi and Durga was widespread and in fact spanned the entire globe.

These traditions presented themselves in diverse manners, as seen in modern India, yet among this diversity was a commonality based upon the authority of the Vedic scriptures and traditions. The recognizably Indic forms of the Vedic traditions spanned the globe from the Philippines to the Middle East and Siberia to Australia. Yet the same Divinities were worshiped and the same traditions were practiced throughout the world.

The many recent Vedic discoveries from Vietnam are providing a new and sensational view into the authentic history of the world. Not only this, it presents a challenge to Modern India and its leadership. India is home to many startling and amazing artifacts yet they sit ignored and crumbling. In many cases looters and vandals have destroyed many priceless examples of India’s ancient heritage. India’s leading academics and governing bodies are silent and if they do speak of India’s ancient Hindu heritage it is only to cast doubts and disparage India’s indigenous Vedic culture and Hindu traditions.”

Catholic “Spirit Of Francis” Is Treacle, Not Manna

An excellent piece by Rod Dreher, explaining why he left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Orthodox:

In 2002, when the clerical-sex-abuse scandal broke nationwide, the full extent of the rot within the church became manifest. All that post-Vatican II happy talk and non-judgmentalism had been a facade concealing what then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — later Pope Benedict XVI — would call the “filth” in the church. Many American bishops deployed the priceless Christian language of love and forgiveness in an effort to cover their own foul nakedness in a cloak of cheap grace.

During that excruciating period a decade ago, rage at what I and other journalists uncovered about the church’s corruption pried my ability to believe in Catholic Christianity out of me, like torturers ripping fingernails out with pliers. It wasn’t the crimes that did it as much as the bishops’ unwillingness to repent and the Vatican’s disinterest in holding them to account. If the church’s hierarchy cannot commit itself credibly to justice and mercy to the victims of its own clergy and bishops, I thought, do they really believe in the doctrines they teach?

All this put the moral unseriousness of the American church in a certain light. As the scandal raged, one Ash Wednesday, I attended Mass at my comfortable suburban parish and heard the priest deliver a sermon describing Lent as a time when we should all come to love ourselves more.

If I had to pinpoint a single moment at which I ceased to be a Roman Catholic, it would have been that one. I fought for two more years to hold on, thinking that having the syllogisms from my catechism straight in my head would help me stand firm. But it was useless. By then I was a father, and I did not want to raise my children in a church where sentimentality and self-satisfaction were the point of the Christian life. It wasn’t safe to raise my children in this church, I thought — not because they would be at risk of predators but because the entire ethos of the American church, like the ethos of the decadent post-Christian society in which it lives, is not that we should die to ourselves so that we can live in Christ, as the New Testament demands, but that we should learn to love ourselves more.

Flannery O’Connor, one of my Catholic heroes, famously said, “Push back against the age as hard as it pushes against you. What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is the cross.” American Catholicism was not pushing back against the hostile age at all. Rather, it had become a pushover. God is love was not a proclamation that liberated us captives from our sin and despair but rather a bromide and a platitude that allowed us to believe that and to behave as if our lust, greed, malice and so forth — sins that I struggled with every day — weren’t to be despised and cast out but rather shellacked by a river of treacle.

I finally broke. Losing my Catholic faith was the most painful thing that ever happened to me. Today, as much as I admire Pope Francis and understand the enthusiasm among Catholics for him, his interview makes me realize that the good, if incomplete, work that John Paul II and Benedict XVI did to restore the church after the violence of the revolution stands to be undone. Though I agree with nearly everything the Pope said last week in his interview and cheer inwardly when he chastises rigorist knotheads who would deny the healing medicine of the church to anyone, I fear his merciful words will be received not as love but license. The “spirit of Pope Francis” will replace the “spirit of Vatican II” as the rationalization people will use to ignore the difficult teachings of the faith. If so, this Pope will turn out to be like his predecessor John XXIII: a dear man, but a tragic figure……

There is, of course, no such thing as the perfect church, but in Orthodoxy, which radically resists the moralistic therapeutic deism that characterizes so much American Christianity, I found a soul-healing balance. In my Russian Orthodox country mission parish this past Sunday, the priest preached about love, joy, repentance and forgiveness — in all its dimensions. Addressing parents in the congregation, he exhorted us to be merciful, kind and forgiving toward our children. But he also warned against thinking of love as giving our children what they want as opposed to what they need.“Giving them what they want may make it easier for us,” he said, “but we must love our children enough to teach them the hard lessons and compel them toward the good.”

Martyrdom At Jacob’s Well

The martyrdom in 1979 of Father Philoumenos at the monastery of Jacob’s Well near ancient Samaria:

What a good shepherd he was, more worthy than some of the episcopate! Yet the policies and needs of the patriarchate saw Father Philoumenos assigned to other positions. Whenever Palestinian faithful were scandalized by some unworthy priest, whenever Orthodox neglect or European money drove the faithful to wonder whether they would not receive better pastoral care from Uniates, it was Father Philoumenos that the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent as the true defender of the Faith, a man of more than blameless life, a man from whom no one could even imagine any immodest or improper word, a man whose faith and integrity were a model for all………

Three things were most remarkable about the blessed martyr. The first might have been partly from nature, but assuredly aided by Grace: this was his soft sweet voice, which I can still hear today. The second was a meticulous fidelity to small things, but specifically to the Divine Service. He never omitted one word of any day’s service. When we were alone in some remote monastery, particularly for Matins, he slowly and carefully chanted each word of every psalm and canon. Not even at the Monastery of St. Sabba was the reading done so well. But when there were pilgrims for the Divine Liturgy and vespers, he made the usual abridgements lest the service be too long and some be tempted to leave. Later on, privately, he would read every word that had not been chanted in the church. Those who stayed with him for some time saw the copies of the menaion, horologion, synaxarion, etc. and noticed that the markers were always in place and the volumes never dusty, which earned the Divine Promise, Well done thou good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over little things, I will set thee over great things Enter thou into the joy of the Lord (Matt. 25:21).

Third, and as unobtrusive, almost secret, was his humility. What a perfect patriarch he would have made, and were the election by the Palestinian faith fill he might well have been. Instead, God gave him an eternal crown and throne among the elders who offer incense before the throne of the Lamb (Rev. 5:8)……..

The glorious martyrdom of this servant of God came to pass in November,1979. The week before, a group of fanatical Zionists came to the monastery at Jacob’s Well, claiming it as a Jewish holy place and demanding that all crosses and icons be removed. Of course, our father pointed out that the floor upon which they were standing had been built by Emperor Constantine before 331 A.D. and had served as an Orthodox Christian holy place for sixteen centuries before the Israeli State was created, and had been in Samaritan hands eight centuries before that, (The rest of the original church had been destroyed by the invasion of the Shah Khosran Parvis in the seventh century, at which time the Jews had massacred all the Christians of Jerusalem.) The group left with threats, insults and obscenities of the kind which local Christians suffer regularly. After a few days, on November 16/29, during a torrential downpour, a group broke into the monastery; the saint had already put on his epitrachelion for Vespers. The piecemeal chopping of the three fingers with which he made the Sign of the Cross showed that he was tortured in an attempt to make him deny his Orthodox Christian Faith. His face was cloven in the form of the Cross. The church and holy things were all defiled. No one was ever arrested.

His body was buried on Mt. Zion, and when it was exhumed after four years, as is customary, It was found to be substantially incorrupt…”

Correction: The Israeli government did finally arrest a mentally disturbed Jewish man, who was not a settler, for this and other crimes. However, nothing was done about the dozens of other people who’d called and made violent threats for weeks to the Archimandrite, before his murder.

Is Pope Francis Practicing Talmudism Covertly?

Why did Pope Francis mention Moses and not Jesus in his addresses to the White House and the UN?

Is it because he wanted to cite a figure that would not “offend”?

But Muslims venerate Jesus, even if they do not regard him as the Son of God. They would not be offended.

It follows that Francis avoided Jesus, to avoid giving offense to religious Jews.

Historically, many – but not all – Jews have regarded Jesus as a blasphemer and apostate.

But, if interfaith peace is the goal, why not mention Abraham, who is the fountain-head of all three faiths?

Why Moses?

The answer lies in looking at Jewish texts.

Moses is held up as the greatest of the prophets by Maimonides, one of the most authoritative of Jewish rabbis and the codifier of the Shloshah Asar Ikkarim (“Thirteen Fundamental Principles”), a distillation of the Taryag mitzvoth (613 regulations) binding on orthodox Jews.

From Chabad.org:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.

2. The belief in G-d‘s absolute and unparalleled unity.

This would conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity in orthodox Christianity – that is why Francis praises Chagall’s White Crucifixion – because it effaces the divine Jesus and substitutes the human Jewish rabbi, thereby erasing the core of Christianity.]

3. The belief in G-d’s non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.

[Again, this conflicts with the doctrine of the Incarnation most fundamentally.]

4. The belief in G-d’s eternity.

5. The imperative to worship G-d exclusively and no foreign false gods.

[Maimonides and many great Rabbis saw Jesus as a heretic, sorcerer, and blasphemer.]

6. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.

The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher

[This diminishes Jesus, who is superior to all the prophets, according to Christian teaching.]

8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.

9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.

[Jesus taught that the Mosaic law was given because of the degradation of the people and that it did not fully reflect God’s law, as his perfection of it did.]

10. The belief in G-d’s omniscience and providence.

11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.

12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.

[Christians believe that the Messiah has already arrived. As for the Messianic era, some Christians regard this as heresy and others as true.]

13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.

 

Pope Francis: Public Heresy

Paragraph 247 Pope Francis’ exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

[I have underlined the passages containing explicit heresies.]

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18).

As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9).”

Some Thoughts On Anti-Christian Speech

Thinking about the power elite’s incessant anti-Christian imagery and rhetoric, both covert and explicit, I had some thoughts about how Christians should react to it.

And my thoughts were these:

Anti-Christian speech should make Christians realize how powerful and destructive words can be.

And it should make us recall the powerful and destructive ways in which Christianity itself was used to destroy other people’s beliefs and gods.

Sometimes, this was to the good – when the targets were temple prostitution and child-sacrifice, for instance.

But sometimes, the destructiveness was unwarranted- as when Muslim or Hindu or Jewish prayer is denounced by some Christians as inherently demonic.

So how should Christians react to anti-Christian speech?

Well, Jesus said that all manner of blasphemies by men against the Son of Man (Jesus) would be forgiven them.

But blasphemies against the Holy Spirit would not.

For many powerful Jews and Jewish sympathizers, it seems to be cathartic to denigrate Jesus.

So be it.

Jesus was not injured by such insults then..and he is not injured now. And Christians need not be more offended than Jesus.

But it is a different thing when what is good in the Church is inverted. 

Cursing Jesus Christ is one thing.

Calling what is good evil is quite another.

 

 

 

 

Evangelical Poverty: Not For Everyone

From Tradition in Action, a conservative Catholic blog:

The Church must have differentiated states of perfection:

“There is need in the Church, which is the body of Christ, for the members to be differentiated by various duties, states and grades” (II, II, q.183, a.2, ad 2).

Lila: This is very similar to the Hindu notion of stages of life necessary for most people to go through – Brahmacharya (celibate youth/studentship), Grahastha (married house-holder’s life), Vanaprastha (retirement from active life to the forest) and Sanyasin (renunciation in search of spiritual goals).

In another place he stresses: “Our Lord in proposing the evangelical counsels, always mentions of man’s fitness for observing them. For in giving the counsel of poverty He begins with these words: ‘If thou wilt to be perfect …’” (I, II, q. 108, a. 4, ad 1).

Therefore, the state of perfection is not for everyone, but only to the elite who received such vocation. These counsels must inspire all, but be practiced only by a few, a proportionally small number, just as the head or the heart are small members compared to the whole body.

Hence, these counsels should not be transformed into laws applicable to the whole of society. This is understandable in principle, because given original sin, in a Catholic society only a few seek perfection, while the majority of persons are satisfied to lead an upright life. In practice, moreover, this becomes even clearer, because if one tries to apply the counsels of perfection to everyone, society would be destroyed. Let me demonstrate this point with regard to each of the three counsels.

The easiest to understand is the vow of chastity. As everyone knows chastity, as an evangelical counsel, is to abstain from sexual relations. If you apply chastity to the whole of society, it is doomed to live just for the period of one generation. Since no one would have children, society would disappear.

Some heresies of the past, such as that of the Albigensians, tried to apply chastity to the whole of society. The medieval world would have been defeated by nature if the Church had not condemned their doctrines and stopped their march.

Obedience, as an obligation to do always the will of another under penalty of sin, if applied to the entire society, would create the most radical despotism. It would destroy the natural liberty that the common man possesses in his actions, and would consequently create a whole society of slaves.

In some ways the ephemeral communist republic of Savonarola in Florence was an example of this.

Poverty, understood as a complete abandonment of temporal goods and living from a common burse according to one’s needs, if applied to the whole society destroys any encouragement for progress, levels the competent and the incompetent, and smashes the natural differences of personalities, creating a society of penury.

It appears that some heresies of the past, such as the Fraticelli, attempted to realize this utopia and faced complete failure and the condemnation of the Church.

I believe that this demonstrates that the practice of the evangelical counsels is for a few, not for everyone in society. As a general rule, the various members of society should marry, have property, and enjoy a proportional natural freedom. At the same time, for society to have balance, the example of those who practice the evangelical counsels is indispensable:

For couples to be faithful to one another in their matrimonial duties, for youth to be chaste until marriage, for persons to look to the pleasures of Heaven instead of earth, it is indispensable to know that some men and women live in a state of perfect chastity out of love for God and Heaven.

For subjects to properly accept the orders of their civil superiors, for citizens to not revolt against just laws, for society to respect the highest classes, it is indispensable to know that a few who chose the state of perfection obliged themselves to live in a state of perpetual obedience.

For superiors of all kinds, be they ecclesiastic or temporal, to know that some of their neighbors chose to renounce all earthly power in order to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, gives a good example that helps them moderate their use of power and be clement with their subjects.

For all members of society to know that some of its members renounced their legitimate properties to live in complete poverty, helps them limit and balance the use they make of their own properties and money.

The conclusion is simple and clear. The practice of the evangelical counsels is an extraordinary call to a few members of society. They are not the rule for all, they are the exception. Being an exception, they balance the life of the entire society. However, if someone tries to apply these counsels to all of society, he goes against natural order, he creates a monster, and he is destined to fail.

It seems to me that Fr. Vincent McNabb missed his target. As long as he struggles for evangelical poverty to be applied to all of society, he promotes a utopia. He is proposing something that is impossible and sooner or later alienates his more sensible followers.

To promote such an error as we are seeing Distributists do in the U.S. is just another attempt to mislead traditionalist Catholics toward the long, winding and sinister river of Socialism.”

Dorothy Day: Catholic Saint?

Pope Francis recently paid his respects to four “great Americans.”

They were Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King,  Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton.

I was disappointed but not surprised, as this pope seems to be very much in step with the spirit of the times, something one neither wants…nor expects…from the leader of a two thousand-year-old religious tradition that claims eternal validity.

The pope’s picks are all very political ones.

ARE there no “great Americans” among the millions who lead lives in the private sector, uninterested in politics?

Lincoln was a president; King was a political activist; Day was very political, indeed, a former communist; Merton was the conscience, so it is said, of the non-violent civil rights movement of the 1960s.

I find it disquieting that the Pope could not find at least one great contemplative or visionary or healer or scientist or businessman or scholar or artist outside the realm of politics, among the tens of thousands of Americans born since the inception of the republic.

People like

George Washington Carver,

Herman Melville,

Clara Barton

and Walt Disney.

I fell under the influence of Hegel and (for about 6 weeks) Marx when I was around 12. Then I went to a cartoon festival. The Russian cartoons, if they can be called that, were a revelation.

What kind of a system killed man’s sense of humor so thoroughly?

I was converted to “free markets” by  Tom & Jerry, Mickey Mouse, Beep-Beep, Sylvester & Tweetie bird.

At the very least, Pope Francis shows questionable judgment.

It is poor judgment for someone in such a profoundly influential position to pick political sides and make the Catholic church, which he represents, a partisan actor.

I read that Dorothy Day is being considered for canonization.

Perhaps she deserves it. I don’t know.

But there are some things that need to be considered first:

Day might have converted to Catholicism, but she openly admired the most blood-thirsty communists.

She praised Marx not merely as a theoretician, but as a human being. She considered the murderous Lenin admirable.

I don’t know how representative these statements are.

It’s something to think about though.

Given Pope Francis’ economic and political activism, it is a good guess that there is more to Dorothy Day than meets the eye.

 

 

 

Did Medieval Rabbi Forecast Future Of Jerusalem?

The internet is circulating a prediction about Israel, supposedly made by Judah Ben Samuel, a 12th century rabbi:

Ben Samuel was often called “Light of Israel.” Even bishops came to him for advice. If anyone asked him where his wisdom came from he would answer, “The prophet Elijah, who will precede the Messiah, appeared to me and revealed many things to me and emphasized that the precondition for answered prayer is that it is fueled by enthusiasm and joy for the greatness and holiness of God.”

But to recap the astonishing predictions: In AD 1217 this scholarly and pious rabbi prophesied that the Ottoman Turks would rule over the holy city of Jerusalem for eight Jubilees. Now, keep in mind, he made this prediction 300 years before the Ottoman Turks seized control of Jerusalem in 1517. If indeed 1217 and 1517 were jubilee years as Judah Ben Samuel believed, then his prophecy was exactly right, because exactly 400 years after the Turks took control of Jerusalem they were driven out of the city and the holy land in 1917 by the Allied forces under the command of General George Allenby – on Hanukkah, by the way.

But it gets more interesting still.

The rabbi also prophesied that during the ninth Jubilee Jerusalem would be a “no-man’s land.” This is exactly what happened from 1917 to 1967, due to the fact that the Holy Land was placed under British Mandate in 1917 by the League of Nations and literally “belonged” to no nation.

Even after Israel’s war of independence in 1948-49, Jerusalem was still divided by a strip of land running right through the heart of the city, with Jordan controlling the eastern part of the city and Israel controlling the western part of the city. That strip of land was considered and even called “no-man’s land” by both the Israelis and the Jordanians.

It was not until the Six Day War in 1967 when the entire West Bank of the Holy Land was conquered by the Israeli army that the whole city of Jerusalem passed back into the possession of Israel. So once again the prophecy made by the rabbi 750 years previously was fulfilled to the letter.

It certainly would be significant if both 1917 and 1967 were Jubilee years, considering the significance of what happened in Jerusalem on those years. But it gets even more interesting, because Judah Ben Samuel also prophesied that during the 10th Jubilee Jerusalem would be under the control of the Jews and the Messianic “end times” would begin. If he’s right, the 10th Jubilee began in 1967 and will be concluded in 2017.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/12th-century-rabbi-predicted-israels-future/#3FaZmsvhvW9GtlOy.99

Trying to figure out where and when this “ancient prophecy” emerged as yet another spin-off from Jubilee year prognostications, I came across this skeptical analysis by another end-timer:

Since Jack Van Impe has broadcast this “prophecy”, and has also put his own ending on the “prophecy” for all the world to believe, I thought a little more balance was needed on the Internet about this “prophecy”. Otherwise, the next crop of turnips may just sell the farm and rot on a hilltop waiting for the Rapture.

I am not going to just repeat everything said in the “prophecy” like everyone else. Read the Israel Today article that I linked to if you want to read the original source. Basically, the “prophecy” is based on Jubilees and the land of Israel. The claim of those referring to this “prophecy” is that two prophecies were already fulfilled as written, so the third prophecy falling on 2017 AD would also take place.

The last Jubilee fulfilled is said to be 1967 and the next Jubilee in the prophecy would take place in 2017. We know what happened in 1967, it is when Jerusalem was returned to the Jews. Ludwig Schneider, actually only said in his article, that it is possible that 2017 or 2018 could be a decisive year for Israel. Joseph Farah said he would leave what would happen in 2017 to our imagination. F. M. Riley thought it meant that Jesus would return in 2017 and the tribulation would start in 2010 (apparently we are missing it). Jack Van Impe thinks it means the 70th week of Daniel and tribulation start in 2017. However,  no where in the Israel Today article is the speculation of Riley or Van Impe even suggested.

I have come up with six criticisms of the prophecy and what Van Impe suggests. (I think the criticisms made in the article that I linked to above are better researched and are better than the criticisms that I list, so you might read that article.)

1.  Other than what Schneider wrote, I have no reason to believe that Rabbi Judah Ben Samuel ever even gave such a prophecy. Should I just believe that this Pentecostal pastor even saw and could even translate such a document from the 13th century? Where is the document and any peer review of such a significant fulfilled prophecy?

I would not even be able to translate English properly from 800 years ago, so how does this pastor translate whatever language this was written into modern English with any accuracy? There are over 5000 ancient manuscripts of the Bible, most dating from near the same era and they do not totally agree with each other, but I should just believe that one document from one Rabbi of the 13th century was recorded and has been translated without error?

Why do I have the sneaky feeling that pastor Riley constructed his thesis in hindsight to make whatever it is that he may have read to come out the way he thought it should be? This Pentecostal pastor may have just thought that he had divine help that makes his translation and backdating inerrant. We can’t be sure what was said by Rabbi Judah Ben Samuel, without the documentation, and pastor Riley offers none in his article. I am surprised that Israel Today even published something that could not be documented.

2. We really do not even know that a Jubilee is 50 years. Many scholars believe the Jubilee cycle is 49 years because they believe the 50th year is also the first year of the next Jubilee cycle. If a Jubilee cycle is 49 years all the claims of fulfillment would be false.

3. Why would God reveal to someone who rejects Jesus as the Messiah the prophetic timing of the end? For what purpose? What good will this 13th century “prophecy” do for the Jews living in the past or for the Jews existing just prior to the last seven years? If the “prophecy is for the Church to know the timing of the end, than why use an unbeliever to give revelation to the Church?  It simply is not logical that God would reveal the future to an unbeliever blinded by Satan. And as I implied before, Satan does not know the timings set by God.

4. In one of my searches, I read that Rabbi Judah Ben Samuel claimed to have talked directly with Elijah and he claimed to have received his information from Elijah. I do not know if that is actually documented somewhere or not as coming from Rabbi Ben Samuel, but if Ben Samuel talked to Elijah you would think that this Rabbi would have converted to Christianity. Instead, there is a claim that this Rabbi afterward prevented a child from being baptized into Christianity and that this has been documented by the Roman Catholic Church.

5.  The “prophecy” says that 2017 is a Jubilee. Jack Van Impe says he believes this Jubilee year will start the tribulation. It seems to me that the second coming and the thousand-year reign starts with a Jubilee. Therefore, there cannot be a 2017 Jubilee and just seven years later a 2024 Jubilee as well. The concept of a God determined Jubilee starting the tribulation does not even make sense. Some Jubilee!

6. If Jesus announced a Jubilee year around 26 to 30 AD, with the start of His ministry when he announced the acceptable year of the Lord in the Temple (Lk 4 19-21), how can the dates mentioned in this “prophecy” be Jubilee years? For example, forty Jubilees that are fifty years each from about 26 to 30 AD would be fulfilled about 2026 to 2030 AD, not 2017. Likewise, the prior dates in this “prophecy” also would not fit.

Different Strokes

This past year, I’ve been trying to go to church again.

I used to go to church fairly often in my childhood. Then almost regularly when I was an undergraduate.

Then not at all for a few years.

Later, I went on occasion – at Christmas, Lent and Easter. No more.

Of late, I’ve felt a real desire to go more often.

In the last couple of months, I’ve gone three times. For me, that’s a lot.

One was a Byzantine Rite Catholic church.

Another was Lutheran, which is my family background.

The last was a radical, leftist church.

The leftists had the best music – gospel-type singing and lots of clapping, spontaneous outbursts, and terrific piano-playing. The preacher (pastor?) was funny and referred to his gay partner casually. A woman gave communion. It wasn’t my thing, but it was genuinely infectious and welcoming. No harsh words. The crowd was about 65% gay, a number of black people, some seniors.

The Lutheran church was definitely much more bourgeois and more formal. The priest was stout and cheerful, I remember. The hymns were the old ones and the liturgy was traditional, but not in any way boring. The crowd was mostly white, middle and upper- middle class folk. They went out of their way to talk to me and ask me to come back.

Culturally, they were closest to me.

The Byzantine Rite Catholic church was mostly Eastern European. I understood the service only intermittently by reading the translation. The music was unaccompanied chant and there was a lot of standing and kneeling. My knees hurt. A young man crawled on his stomach the full length from the door to the iconostasis. The women were carefully dressed and their heads were covered. They lifted up the little children so they could kiss the Bible and the crucifix. From every corner,  red candles flickered and the somber faces of ancient saints and angels looked down on the congregation.

 

There was no quick good feeling to be had. No infectious singing.  The chants were spare and medieval.

Yet it was here I was most at home.

Each church offered something.

For those who scoff at foot-thumping, head-nodding services, I say, remember King David.

He danced and sang in exaltation in his worship. He even took off his robes while he sang. Some people pointed the finger and scorned him for it.

For those who mock the stuffy middle-class, remember that Jesus never did. He was at home in the houses of tax-collectors and publicans, drank at their marriage feasts and played with their children.

He didn’t deride their conventions, even when he flouted them. Instead, he kept traditional feasts in the traditional manner.

Tom Sowell: We Need Thought-Control

Thomas Sowell is often a smart guy. But not always.

You shouldn’t discuss inequality, he says.

[Added: I know that title might not have been written by him and I know that he doesn’t tell you in so many words not to discuss inequality in outcomes, but that is the tendency of this piece and several others on the subject he’s written. All inequalities of outcome are not the result of inequalities of opportunity, he says. Fine. Then he cites basketball-playing and university entrance tests. Well, those are specific areas where native abilities can be shown to play a dominating role. However, what Sowell – and many libertarians – then do is to broaden this argument to a generalization that all unequal outcomes must then be the result of differing capacities, and not of other, sometimes malign, factors.
If you read LRC consistently and see when they trot out Tom Sowell , it’s invariably on race-related issues, when the fact that he is a black man gives the argument more weight.

Sowell would prefer people NOT to look at diversities of outcome but to focus on equality of opportunity. But, if malign social factors come into play, attention to opportunity equality is beside the point and Sowell’s argument becomes diversionary and tool used to keep people looking away from what is indeed often (not always) a very powerful indicator of something amiss.

Well, a philosophy of radical egalitarianism is one thing. Discussing inequalities is another.

Apparently Sowell cannot see the difference between natural distributions of wealth and power and unnatural distributions.

And he doesn’t want you to talk about either of them.

Now,there are people who grow taller than others, because of genes.

And then there are others who are wearing 10 inch high boots.

And still others are actually standing on the second floor of the house.

Sowell thinks that differentiating between these people is counter-productive to wealth creation.

Oh really?

How much wealth has Thomas Sowell created, as a think-tank book-writer?

 

 

Hey,Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go!

Remember that famous chant Jesse Jackson led on campus, “Hey,hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go”?

It was directed against the centrality of Western classics in the University curriculum. They were to be replaced by more multicultural texts.

Ever since then, the mud people of the third-world, on whose behalf the meddlesome Jackson claimed to be speaking albeit uninvited, have been blamed for the death of Europe.

No one considered that there was a higher power that had a more malevolent and deep-rooted agenda than a mere revamp of the college canon.

From Jewish Answers:

Whether or not a particular person or nation is a biological descendant of Esau is obviously impossible to determine and not really important; what is essential to understand is that the World view of Esau has been passed down as a cultural inheritance throughout history from Edom, to the Roman Empire, to the Catholic Church, to Modern Europe and most recently to the United States and its ‘empire’ – in other words, Western Civilization as a whole. This World view has obviously been in a constant state of evolution throughout the generations – America, the land founded on tolerance has been a most fertile land for the Jews – Europe, on the other hand, was a nightmare; this dichotomy in Esau’s personality is brought out by our Sages in these two seemingly contradictory sources; on the one hand the Medrash states:

The name Esau has the same numerical value as Shalom (Peace)” (Kalla Rabati,3)

On the other hand, the Talmud analyses a verse in psalms:
‘Do not remove his bit…’(Psalms 140:9) – said Jacob to the Holy One: Master of the Universe – do not allow Esau his hearts desire…this refers to Germany of Edom, for if they were to be allowed loose, they would destroy the world! (Talmud Megilla, 6a-6b)

 

Rabbi: Europe Must Die Before Messiah Comes

Some Rabbis equate Europe, as Christian (at least, in heritage), with Edom, the sworn enemy of Israel in the Old Testament.

This equation is applied especially to Italy and Germany.

Before the Jewish Messiah can arrive, Edom must be destroyed.

The migrant/refugee crisis is the tool to destroy Edom so that the Messiah can establish himself.

Now, one can understand Jade Helm….

 

 

The Return Of The Star Of Bethlehem ?

I missed this while I was away this summer:

CNN, July 1, 2015:

Tuesday night, Jupiter and Venus will culminate a month-long dance with what astronomers say will be a dazzling display, appearing just a fraction of a degree apart from one another in the night sky — a show that some astronomers say could account for the “Star of Bethlehem” mentioned in the Bible.

“To the eye they’ll look like a double star,” Sky & Telescope editor Kelly Beatty said on the magazine’s website.

To see the lineup, look to the west-northwest shortly after sunset.

This isn’t a particularly rare event; such conjunctions are fairly frequent, thanks to how Earth and the two planets line up in the solar system, according to Sky & Telescope.

iReporter Lonna Ours took these photos of Venus and Jupiter on June 21. The two planets are moving closer together throughout the month of June and will eventually appear to converge.

But the combination of how close the planets will appear — one-third of a degree — the viewing angle at many latitudes and the time of day make this a particularly special event that ranks “very highly” among conjunctions, Rice University astronomer Patrick Hartigan wrote on his website.

Although the planets will appear to draw near one another in August and again in October, the next such event to rival Tuesday night’s won’t happen until 2023, he said.”

This report was plastered all over the Internet in July, along with the “Shemitah” judgment on America.

But pay attention to the “wiggle-room” words in the article: “some astronomers says could.….”

Pay attention also to the admission – tucked away deep in the article- that this phenomenon is not uncommon and not extraordinary at all.

That’s also true of the much-hyped “blood- moons,” that, along with the “Shemitah” cycle, is being used to scare American Christians into going along with the various New World Order charades being enacted on the national and international stage.

Even more tellingly, the real Star of Bethlehem that heralded the birth of Jesus, was not simply a Jupiter-Venus conjunction.

The Jupiter-Venus conjunction was only one of many powerful and unusual astrological events that took place in the time before and after  September 11, in 3 BC, when, by the preponderance of historical, astronomical, and prophetic evidence, Jesus was born.

[9/11 – ring a bell?]

Besides a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, there were also multiple conjunctions of Jupiter (the planet of kings) with Regulus (the star associated with rulership) in the constellation of Leo (the sign associated with the House of Judah).  Every one of the planets were involved in some unusual event in the time around Christ’s birth.

The most revealing astrological evidence is actually already in the Biblical text, in the Book of Revelation.

Contrary to the belief of many Christians, Revelation is not solely a prophetic or forward-looking scripture.

It is a prophetic revelation.

Revelation indeed is the meaning of the word, apocalypse (which is the sub-title of the book).

And what is revealed is not only the future, but the past and the present as well.

In Revelation, the birth of Jesus is described in terms of the configuration of the stars (including the planets).

Here is the relevant passage, Rev. 12: 1:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

At the time of the birth of Jesus in the month of September, the constellation of stars on the horizon would have been Virgo, a sign depicted as a young woman.

The sign of Virgo would have been the twelfth part of the zodiac in which the sun would have risen, hence the text says,  “a woman clothed with the sun.”

The woman also has the “moon under her feet” and a crown of twelve stars to give us a more accurate picture of the exact configuration in the sky at the time of Jesus’ birth.

The arguments back and forth about the exact time and date are too many to include here, but there are multiple “signs in the skies,” of overwhelming aesthetic and spiritual significance.

In contrast, the relatively common “Jupiter-Venus”  conjunction that took place at the end of June 2015 is very far from a return of the “Star of Bethlehem.”

 

 

Teachers and Prophets of the East

“A Hymn of Praise For the Teachers and Prophets of the East”

by Saint Nicholas Velimirovich

All the prophets have from the beginning cried out to my soul, imploring her to make herself a virgin and prepare her­self to receive the Divine Son into her immaculate womb;

Imploring her to become a ladder, down which God will descend into the world, and up which man will ascend to God;1

Imploring her to drain the red sea of sanguinary passions within herself, so that man the slave can cross over to the promised land, the land of freedom.2

The wise man of China admonishes my soul to be peaceful and still, and to wait for Tao to act within her. Glory be the memory of Lao–tse, the teacher and prophet of his people!

The wise man of India teaches my soul not to be afraid of suffering, but through the arduous and relentless drilling in purification and prayer to elevate herself to the One on high, who will come out to greet her and manifest to her His face and His power. Glorious be the memory of Krishna, the teacher and prophet of his people!

The royal son of India teaches my soul to empty herself completely of every seed and crop of the world, to abandon all the serpentine allurements of frail and shadowy matter, and then  in vacuity, tranquility, purity and bliss  to await nirvana.  Blessed be the memory of Buddha, the royal son and inexorable teacher of his people!

The thunderous wise man of Persia tells my soul that there is nothing in the world except light and darkness, and that the soul must break free from the darkness as the day does from the night. For the sons of light are conceived from the light, and the sons of darkness are conceived from darkness. Glorious be the memory of Zoroaster, the great prophet of his people!

The prophet of Israel cries out to my soul: Behold, the vir­gin will conceive and bear a son, whose name will be  the Godman.3Glorious be the memory of Isaiah, the clairvoyant prophet of my soul!

O heavenly Lord, open the hearing of my soul, lest she become deaf to the counsels of Your messenger.

Do not slay the prophets sent to you,4 my soul, for their graves contain not them, but those who slew them.

Wash and cleanse yourself; become tranquil amid the turbulent sea of the world, and keep within yourself the counsels of the prophets sent to you. Surrender yourself entirely to the One on high and say to the world: “I have nothing for you.”

Even the most righteous of the sons of men, who believe in you, are merely feeble shadows which, like the righteous Joseph, walk in your shadow. For mortality begets mortality and not life. Truly I say to you: earthly husbands are mis­taken when they say that they give life. They do not give it but ruin it. They push life into the red sea and drown it, and beforehand they wrap it in darkness and make it a diabolical illusion. There is no life, O soul, unless it comes from the Holy Spirit. Nor is there any reality in the world, unless it comes down from heaven.

Do not slay the prophets sent to you, my soul, for killing is only an illusion of shadows. Do not kill, for you can slay no one but yourself.

Be a virgin, my soul, for virginity of the soul is the only semireality in a world of shadows. A semireality  until God is born within her. Then the soul becomes a full reality.

Be wise, my virgin, and cordially receive the precious gifts of the wise men from the East, intended for your Son.

Do not glance back toward the West, where the sun sets, and do not crave gifts that are figmental and false.”

Europe Is Dead, Christ Is Alive

From St. Nicholas Velimirovic, imprisoned at Dachau concentration camp, where he died:

[Lila: I take “Pope” to refer to the worst tendency in Catholicism – which is to be as Nimrod, all powerful; and I take “Luther” to be the worst temptation of the Reformation, which is to be as Faust, all-knowing. Both are attributes only characteristic of God. ]

What is Europe?

It is greed and intelligence. Both human: human greed and thirst for human knowledge. And these two are best embodied by the Pope and Luther.

What is therefore Europe? Pope and Luther. Culmination of human greed and thirst of human knowledge. The Pope is the embodiment of human greed for power. Luther the European human determination to learn all through intelligence; Pope as ruler of the world and the scientist as the master of the world.

This is the essence of Europe. The former means throwing mankind into the fire, the second means throwing mankind into the sea. And both mean the alienation of man from God.

For the first means denial of faith, and the second denial of Christ’s Church. In this way, the evil spirit has manifested in Europe for centuries. Who can it ward off this terrible evil spirit? No one but He who is known in the history of mankind as only power capable to fight against demons. It is Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Saviour of the world, one born of the Virgin, killed by Jews, resurrected by God, showed by heaven, glorified by angels and acknowledged by saints.

As long as Europe has followed Christ, “Sun of Righteousness,” and apostles, martyrs, saints and His innumerable pious and righteous followers, she resembled to the market lit by hundreds and thousands of lights. But when greed and human intelligence opposed Christ as two storms, lights before people faded away and darkness engulfed the market. According to human greed, every nation and every human being seek power, pleasure and glory just after image of the Pope of Rome. According to human intelligence, each nation and every human being consider themselves the most intelligent, saying that they are entitled to all the wealth on earth. How wouldn’t these lead to wars between nations and between people? How wouldn’t these cause madness and anger among people? Or epidemic, drought, floods, disease, revolutions, and wars? And these are supposed to happen, however, as to protrude pus from infected wounds as to disperse the stink of impurity and lawlessness.

Papacy uses politics as a means to gain power. Lutheranism uses philosophy and science, because it believes they will help attain knowledge. So greed started war against knowledge, and knowledge against greed. This is the new Tower of Babylon, this is Europe. But in our time arose a new European generation who brought, through atheism, greed and intelligence together and denied and discarded the Pope and Luther. Now no one hides greed and no one praises intelligence. Human greed and human intelligence are nowadays brought together through one marriage that is neither Catholic nor Lutheran, but clearly an openly satanic. Europe today is neither Papist nor Lutheran. She is outside these and beyond.

She is entirely earthly, without any desire to ascend to heaven. She cannot ascend to heaven by using infallibility “passport” or Protestant intelligence scale. She renounced the journey to heaven. She wants to stay here. She wants its tomb where the cradle was. She has not known the other world. She does not feel the heavenly fragrance. She does not see in her dream angels and saints. She does not want to hear of Mother-of-God. Fornication strengthens the hatred against virginity. The whole market is covered in darkness. All lights are off. Oh, what a terrible darkness! Brothers kill each other believing they are enemies. Father denies his son and the son his father. The wolf is a more faithful friend to wolf than man is to man.

Oh my brothers in Christ, don’t you see this? Didn’t you experienced for yourselves antichristian Europe’s darkness and iniquity? You want to go with Europe or with Christ? With death or with life? Ask yourselves. Lighten up. Decide. Death or life. These two Moses put before his people. And we put before you. Be aware: Europe is death, Christ is life. Choose life, to be alive forever. Amen.

Transl. from www.ortodoxiatinerilor.ro

 

From Analytical Philosophy To Krishna Consciousness..

 

CORRECTION

[I have made one correction to the piece below  – changing Cambridge to Oxford. Mr. Sudduth also informs me that he has now left Vaishnavism for Zen. I will add a link later.]

ORIGINAL POST

Michael Sudduth, an Oxford analytical philosopher, researcher in paranormal phenomena, and devout Christian, on his journey to Vaishnavism and the truth that the paths to God are many:

My movement into Christian inclusivism was partially responsible for my eventual departure from the Calvinistic Baptist tradition around 2004, after 18 years of affiliation with this tradition.  The movement was gradual and actually began shortly after attending Santa Clara University.  While fellow church members “tolerated” my attending a Catholic university (primarily because I had the pastor’s support), criticisms mounted while I was in graduate school.  Many of my fellow church members were suspicious of my course of study.  They were, like most of the Calvinistic Baptists I have met over the years, clearly not fans of philosophy.  But there’s at least one thing worse than philosophy, and that’s Roman Catholicism.  Indeed, I was often under the impression that some Calvinistic Baptists hated philosophy because it was something Catholics did so well.  My increasing positive appraisal of different aspects of Catholic theology and enthusiasm for the work of St. Thomas Aquinas intensified “concerns” about the “spiritual effects” of my education, and these concerns eventually evolved into frequent vicious criticisms that served only to alienate me from this particular theological tradition.

It’s worth noting that the unpleasant dynamics of rigid Christian exclusivism I experienced among Calvinistic Baptists were not a mere local phenomenon.  I found more of the same, and sometimes worse, intolerance and narrow-mindedness towards Catholicism and other forms of Christianity in at least six different Calvinistic Baptist churches I attended between graduate school and the first five years of my teaching career.  The lack of respect for philosophical inquiry, rigid exclusivism grounded in a highly parochial conception of Christianity, distaste for self criticism, and a moral outlook and practical theology that was intractably stuck in a perpetual time warp, circa 18th century New England, each contradicted many of the intuitions forged through my own spiritual experiences and intellectual reflections.  These each alienated me from participating in the life of the tradition, which I terminated around 2004.

The Journey to India

A bolder venture into inclusivism developed after 2004 when my Christian inclusivism evolved into an inclusivism of world religions. The regular teaching of courses in world religions, the nature of religious experience, and philosophy of religion at this point in my career provided me with an opportunity to dig deep into eastern philosophy and religious practices. This exploration resulted in my growing appreciation of eastern approaches to God, as well as an assimilation of aspects of eastern thought to my own developing philosophy of religion.  Never personally detached from matters of intellectual interest, my attraction to eastern spirituality eventually manifested in my own spiritual experiences and practices, which became increasingly oriented towards the mystical and philosophical heritage of the devotional or bhakti traditions of India.

In 2011 I converted to Gaudiya Vaishnavism (also known as Bengali Vaishnavism), an eastern stream of devotional theism that may be traced to the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu in sixteenth-century Bengal and the sacred Vedas of ancient India. On its philosophical axis, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a school of Vedanta, which seeks to systematically elaborate the teachings of the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and Bhagavad Gita –principal sacred texts of the Indic traditions.  On its religious axis, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a monotheistic mystical tradition centered on bhakti (love and devotional service) to Krishna as the Supreme Personality of the Godhead.

My conversion to Gaudiya Vaishnavism gradually emerged over a three-year period as the result of major shifts in my religious and philosophical perspective that were facilitated in part by my more mature reflections on core questions in the philosophy of religion, my deeper engagement with Vedanta philosophy, and my study and teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, one of the great sacred texts of eastern philosophy and spirituality.  My inclusivist attitude helped remove obstacles to understanding other traditions and inspired the pursuit of the wisdom contained in those traditions, but ultimately it was only one element among a variety of interrelated philosophical and experiential factors that led me to the wisdom of India.

After a near fatal automobile accident in March 2011, I experienced a deep personal transformation that drew me closer to the teachings and spiritual practices of the Gaudiya tradition. My associations with Swami Tripurari Maharaja and the devotees at Audarya (the Vaishnava ashram in northern California) provided me with a unique opportunity to more authentically explore the philosophical and spiritual tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.  Most importantly, it served as a catalyst for my own experience of  Krishna consciousness, which brought profound clarity to different aspects of my personal life and spiritual journey. Already long convinced on philosophical grounds that God may be experienced in different ways through diverse spiritual practices and traditions, each yielding its particular form of spiritual attainment and relation to God, I see my movement eastward as the natural development of my personal devotion to God that began in the summer of 1984.  It’s not surprising that devotion should be dynamic and evolve in a way that reflects changes in our psychological dispositions, aesthetic sensibilities, and intellectual outlook.

Now, 37 years later, I reflect on that brief exchange with my mother when I was a young boy. “Which God?” my mother cynically responded, “the God of the Jews? Jesus? Allah?”  “There is only one,” I replied.  I believe the intuition back then was correct. There is only one Absolute being. Indeed, there are philosophical reasons for supposing that there could not be more than one Absolute being.  What I know now theoretically and experientially, and didn’t see back then, is why the One appears as many. “

 

Isis Only Continues What US/UK Did To Iraq

Isis is only continuing what the US and UK did during  Gulf War II when hell was let loose in Iraq and its ancient monuments were plucked, gutted, and burned.

Simon Jenkins at the Spectator.co.uk:

When I protested the dropping of high-explosive bombs near ancient Serbian churches during the Kosovo war of 1999, I was told it was unreasonable to expect the RAF to be pinpoint accurate in its targeting. The heirs of Bomber Harris are not squeamish about the far end of a bomb site, be it a human being or a historic building. There will always be ‘collateral damage’. On this 70th anniversary of the Dresden firestorm at least we say sorry. We did not do so at the time. We saw eliminating an enemy’s heritage and culture as justifiable revenge — as Harris’s apologists still do. That is roughly the Isis approach.

There is no point in the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, declaring the destruction of Nimrud ‘a war crime’, or Unesco declaring it ‘a direct attack against the history of Islamic Arab cities’. There is in place a clear 1954 Hague convention protecting ‘cultural property in the event of armed conflict’. It remains unratified by two states, America and Britain, ‘for reasons of national security’. That is two states, plus the Taleban and Isis. As Robert Bevan has written in The Destruction of Memory (2006), the razing of history has long been the most hypocritical weapon of war.”

“King” Donald & “Cracker” Jesus

 

Donald = Great chief, world ruler.

From the Gaelic or Old Celtic Domhnall.

“Dumno= World +Val = Rule

The name Donald has been borne by a number of early Scottish kings”

Donald Trump says that he is a believing Presbyterian.

But if you look at his public statements about his faith and compare them with his outspoken devotion to Israel, his beliefs seem very non-descript:

In comments about his “Christian” [Presbyterian] faith, this is how Trump postured about his belief in God in front of [Zionist] Christian evangelicals:

Trump, who told CNN earlier that he is both anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage, said people are surprised to learn about his Christian faith.

Trump’s new-found dislike for Planned Parenthood is actually rather ambiguous.

Notice that he also quickly retracted his decision to defund the outfit.

In the past, moreover, he’s been a big supporter of  Planned Parenthood.

This record suggests that Trump is just dissembling to gain the following of ordinary Americans.

Now read what Trumps says after that:

“People are so shocked when they find … out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church,” he said.

Moderator Frank Luntz asked Trump whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions.

“I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

How are such beliefs Presbyterian?

They’re actually closer to a kind of popular deism.

Christianity has a foundational belief that the “natural man” is innately prone to sin and that sin requires confession, repentance and atonement/forgiveness.

While the Old Testament doesn’t have the same belief in original sin, it does require atonement for sins.

Trump said that while he hasn’t asked God for forgiveness, he does participate in Holy Communion.”

To take part in communion while being in unrepented sin is not Christian, whether one is Catholic, Presbyterian, or anything else. It is a gesture of utmost disrespect to Jesus.

Communion is either symbolically or literally the body of Jesus and is taken only when the believer has set his heart right with Jesus.

So that statement tell you that Trump is not Christian in any remotely orthodox sense.

But then again, he is also not an orthodox Jew.

A Torah-following Jew cannot approach God without atonement for sin.

That is why the Jewish high priest had to sacrifice two goats – the sacrificial goat on the altar, as atonement for sin, and the scape-goat in the wilderness, as an emblem of the destruction of the sin itself.

So Trump is making a clear signal of disrespect to Christian belief, and also to Orthodox Jewish belief.

Next, Trump says something quite bizarre:

“When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed,” he said. “I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.'”

It’s wrong to belittle anyone’s honest faith, no matter what their political positions.

But is Trump making a sincere profession here?

If you look at the other signals being sent out in this short passage, it seems not.

Social drinking is very much a part of non-Jewish Christian culture in the West.

Jesus drank wine in his day-to-day life.

But Jews today (and Muslims) do not drink wine at all.

In telling the public that he doesn’t drink at all, Trump is signalling his cultural distance from ordinary Americans and Europeans.

This seems quite peculiar to me, since his whole media performance centers around  identification with the common man in America.

And no, it’s not just a slip. A man who’s been in the lime-light all his life doesn’t make such slips.

The reference to Megyn Kelly’s blood was demonstrably crass innuendo about her period, to which the existence of a globalist “menstruation agenda” is only added proof.

This reference too is intentional.

Of course,  Megyn Kelly, who openly discusses her husband’s private parts with the likes of Howard Stern, is not in in need of our chivalry.

Very likely the entire bogus “incident” was cooked up at some level to drive ratings up.

The worst part of what Trump said was the reference to the communion wafer (or bread) as a “cracker.”

The wafer is the body of Jesus, in literal or symbolic terms.

“Cracker,” as any producer of reality TV like Trump knows, is a vulgar term for a poor white.

It is another way of saying “white trash.”

It is the equivalent of the word “nigger.”

In effect, Trump, the Sanhedrin’s shill, got on national TV and equated the crucified body of Jesus and his audience with a “cracker” (white trash).

And, irony, the “crackers” can’t have enough of him.

The equation of Jesus with trash has been made down the ages by certain Rabbis in dark passages in the Talmud.

It is the Sanhedrin’s fatal obsession.

Blinded by pride, they kick at the pricks to this day.

So when American Christians applaud Trump’s tomfoolery, they do it unaware that they are the punch-line.

But it gets better.

Donald Trump is not only a Judeophile, he has ethnic Jewish ancestry.

Please note that any ethnicity, in and of itself, is not a problem.

I draw attention to it only to show that it is no conspiracy at all to claim that the mouthpieces of the NWO cartel are nearly always either Jewish themselves or culturally emasculated tools.

Why that is so is a subject of some complexity and I cannot get into it here. I’m interested only in showing you what is really going on.

The Trump white Christian nationalist circus is not a dog-and-pony show. It’s a drag-show.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka is married to the Jewish publisher of The New York Observer and wealthy real-estate developer, Jared Kushner.

Ivanka (whose Czech mother is ex-wife Ivana) has converted to Judaism.

Trump’s son Eric is married to the Jewish producer of Inside Edition.

Trump’s sister is married to documentary producer, Jimmy Grau a former employee of the Trump organization.

Grau is identified as a Sephardic Jewish name.

Trump is not just the epitome of the crasser elements of the NY-Miami vice circuit.

He is half-Jewish, as are so many other Western leaders, from Angela Merket to Barack Obama.

Ancestry of Donald Trump

http://genealogy.about.com/od/famous_family_trees/p/trump.htm

By Kimberly Powell, About.com Guide”

A more succinct account below:

Donald’s father, Frederick Christ Trump, was born in New York, to German immigrants. Donald’s mother, Mary Anne (MacLeod), was Scottish, born in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis. Donald’s family’s surname was originally “Drumpf”.

Donald’s paternal grandfather was Friederich/Frederick Drumpf/Trump (the son of Christian Johannes Drumpf/Trump and Katherina Kober). Friederich was German, born in Kallstadt, Pfalz. Christian was the son of Johannes Trump/Drumpf and Susanna Maria Bechtloff. Katherina was the daughter of Johann Jakob Kober and Elisabeth Peter.

Donald’s paternal grandmother was Elizabeth Christ (the daughter of Christian Christ and Anna Maria Rathon). Elizabeth was German, born in Kallstadt, Pfalz.

Donald’s maternal grandfather was Malcolm/Calum Macleod (the son of Alexander Macleod and Anne Macleod). Malcolm was Scottish, born on the Isle of Lewis. Alexander was the son of William MacLeod and Catherine MacLeod. Anne was the daughter of Alexander Macleod and Ann Mackenzie.

Donald’s maternal grandmother was Mary Smith (the daughter of Donald Smith and Mary Macaulay/Macauley). Donald’s grandmother Mary was Scottish, born in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis. Donald Smith was the son of Duncan Smith and Henrietta MacQueen/McSwane. Donald’s great-grandmother Mary was the daughter of John Macaulay and Isabella Murray.

Sources: Genealogies of Donald Trump – http://www.geni.com
http://genealogy.about.com

A little research will reveal that on his father’s side,  Donald Trump has Ashkenazy Jewish ancestry.

His paternal grand-father Christian Drumpf (the German name was anglicized to Trump) was married to Katherine Kober.

Kober is a German Jewish  (Ashkenazy) occupational name derived from the Biblical name Jacob, aka Israel, the patriarch from whom Judahites descend.

Kober means basket-maker.

So Donald’s paternal great-grand-mother Katherine Kober was Jewish and so was her father.

Katherina Kober’s mother was Elizabeth Peter.

The name Peter – despite its use in the New Testament  –  is often used by Jews, including Rabbis.

And what of the mother of Christian Drumpf (Donald’s paternal great-grand-father)?

Christian Drumpf’s mother was Susanna Maria Bechtloff.

I couldn’t find anything about the name, but the name Becht appears as a Jewish name in the Central Zionist Archives for Romania at Ancestry.com.

Bechtel, moreover, is a very common Jewish name.

And Bechtloff could well be a contraction/corruption of Bechtel-ov (off) or  “son of Bechtel.”

Trump’s paternal grand-mother’s parents had the sur-names Christ and Rathon, also from the same area.

Both Christ, amazingly, and Rathon are Sephardic Jewish names.

As for Drumpf, this was the name of a family of wine-growers in the area as far back as 1600s.

Kallstadt is on the German wine-route in the Palatine-Rhineland area.

These Drumpfs (and the related Trumps) appear to be Trump’s ancestors and they descend from an itinerant lawyer Hans Drumpf who came to Kallstadt from elsewhere.

I cannot find anything on the Internet about the origins of the name “Drumpf” which is pronounced to rhyme with “oomph.”

On the other hand, the German name Trump is said to originate with the Middle High German Trumpe, meaning drum.

It could also come from the region Trampe in medieval Pomerania (now Brandenburg).

Trampe was an important name in the early rise of German nationalism.

A Willeke Von Trampe was a Pomeranian knight in the 13th century AD and the name appears prominently in important social and political developments. It originates from East Elbia in Prussia, that is from Prussian nobility.

Trump, Trumpf, and Trumph, and several other similar-looking names appear in avotaynu.com’s consolidated data-base of Jewish names.

These data-bases do include names used by non-Jews who intermarried with Jews, but the data from Jewish cemeteries is confined to Jews.

The name Trump, using the Jewish cemetery data, is not only German, it is Jewish.

But Drumpf doesn’t show up at all.

However, “itinerant lawyer” (Hans Drumpf) doesn’t sound like a  native agriculturalist to me.

Whatever the case, the area of Germany in which the Drumpfs, the Trumps/Trumpfs, the Peters, the Christs, the Rathons, the Bechtloffs,  and the Kobers lived – the Kallstadt, Pfalz – Rhineland-Palatinate area include the specifically Jewish communities of Mainz, Speyer and Worms.

These were centers of  Medieval Jewish life.

They were also centers of the Protestant Reformation.

The Sanhedrin – the Jewish elite – was deeply involved in the Reformation.

Even after the immigrant Drumpf/Trumpf/Trump family of wine-makers had prospered so greatly as to feel they were the cream of the countryside, they were seen by the local aristocracy as loud, coarse arrivistes.

Again, there is the suggestion in all this of an ethnic divide between the locals and the immigrants at Kallstadt.

Fast-forward a couple of centuries to the 1880s.

Now the Drumpfs, well-settled in Kallstadt, move on to the New World.

Donald Trump’s grandfather Friederich Drumpf comes to New York and works as a barber in the city.

Later, he moves out West and runs what is euphemistically called a restaurant. It is in the Yukon at the time of the gold rush.

All reports confirm that the place was in a sleazy part of town and involved the services of unsavory women.

The cold truth is that Fritz Drumpf ran brothels in Alaska (and elsewhere).  Very likely he was mixed up with the opium trade as well.

Whatever the exact nature of his business, Fritz Drumpf did get into some legal trouble over his businesses.

That’s why Trump makes a good elite mouth-piece for rants about illegal immigrants and crime.

His own background is enough to scuttle his credibility immediately.

It is also enough to permanently short-circuit any sensible discussion of immigration and crime.

If Drumpf  is a non-Jewish name, the change to the English version, Trump, can only be understood as a way to cover up his German origins.

But why the cover up, if  Trump was a German Presbyterian?

German Presbyterians are echt Americans. There was not much discrimination against them.

However,  there was discrimination against Jews, from Germany and from anywhere else.

And there were waves of immigration from Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 19th century.

Mostly this was due to economic hardship at home and reports of a booming American economy, especially in the 1880s, with the Gold Rush.

The Palatine-Pfalz area supplied a very high number of such immigrants so that in America there were complaints about the Germanification of whole neighborhoods by the immigrants.

Important German immigrants of the period included Heinz (of Ketchup fame) and Hellman (of Hellman’s Mayonnaise).

Many of the German immigrants were Jewish, but Jews were by no means always welcome in Christian lands.

They were kept out of work, for one thing.

The kind of business in which Drumpf finally landed up suggests that he had found it difficult to get into any other line of work.

That could suggest Jewish ethnicity.

Presidential hopeful, John Kerry, has a similar story.

Despite the Irish-sounding name, there is nothing Irish about “Kerry.”

The name was picked by random by his Austrian-Jewish father (Fritz Kohn) and his Hungarian-Jewish mother (Ida Lowe).

But in Trump’s case, Trump is already a name used by Jews.

So why would the non-Jewish ‘Drumpf’ be changed to the German and Jewish ‘Trump’?

Perhaps, because Trump sounded English and more suitable for English-speaking America.

Frederick Trump, the English-sounding “entrepreneur,” is better than the foreign-sounding Fritz Drumpf, the brothel-keeper and (alleged) opium-dealer.

Now what about Trump’s maternal line?

Jewishness is after all decided by maternal descent.

Trump’s mother, the wife of Fred Trump, was Mary Ann McLeod of the Outer Hebrides island of Lewis, near Scotland.

[The MacLeods of Lewis are said to have no relation to the Clan MacLeod of Scotland.]

Trump’s family line includes the Lewis MacLeods, the Mackenzies, the Macaulays and the Murrays.

Tracing back the crucial maternal line,we get:

Mary MacLeod  (Trump’s mother)

Mary Smith (Mary MacLeod’s mother)

Mary Macauley (Mary Smith’s mother)

Isabella Murray (Mary Macauley’s mother)

Beyond that, it gets difficult to find anything on the web.

However, according to an article in the Daily Mail, both Trump and Hillary Clinton are related through a royal Scottish ancestor of the McLeod line (for him) and the Rodham line, (for her):

“John of Gaunt, a royal in the 14th century, was the son of King Edward III and featured in the Shakespearean play Richard II, named after his nephew.

[Katherine] Swynford was at first Gaunt’s mistress, but they later married and their offspring were legitimized.

Gaunt’s children by [Katherine] Swynford include Trump’s 17th great-grandfather John Beaufort and Clinton’s 17th great-grandmother Joan Beaufort, according to MyHeritage.

The Duke of Lancaster’s son by his first wife Blanche, would later go on to become Henry IV. “

The Beauforts were a very wealthy and powerful family that gave its support to the House of Lancaster during the English War of the Roses.

It was out of that conflict that a relatively obscure scion of the Beauforts emerged to claim the throne of England – Henry Tudor.

The alliance of Donald Trump’s parents now makes perfect sense.

An Ashkenazy plutocrat of Prussian/Teutonic lineage, embedded in the highest levels of government and speculative finance, cemented his social position by marrying the impoverished descendant of England’s most storied royal house – the Tudors.

This lineage convincingly establishes Trump as a major spokesman of the New World Order, which is short-hand for describing the combined interests of the families of the banking/financial elites and the royal houses of Europe.

Trump is the essence of the Anglo-Zionist elite.

This is proved by Trump’s newly legitimized (and much publicized) Scottish coat-of-arms,which bears a double-eagle on the shield, representing the Scottish/Tudor (royal) and Prussian/Ashkenazi (Jewish/priestly) lines that combine in him.

It was from this twin elevation (of blood and money) that Trump made his  contemptuous reference to the “cracker” Jesus.

In doing so he called the body of Christ a lifeless idol (in contrast to his own priest-hood as an Ashkenazy) and low-class trash (in contrast to his own royal descent).

There’s your white nationalist Christian hero, America.

 

 

 

 

Sanatana Dharma Of Jesus

Christian Gospel (John 1:1) :

In the beginning was the Word

And the Word was with God

And the Word was God.

[Written circa 50-100 AD]

Indian Vedas:

Prajapatir vai idam agre asit
Tasya vag dviitiya asit
Vag vai paraman Brahman

In the beginning was Prajapati (Brahman)
With whom was the Word;
And the Word was verily Brahman.

[Lila: Brahman and Prajapati both mean God, the former in his utterly transcendent and immanent form and the latter in his form as creator of the world.]

(Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1; Krishna Yajurveda, Kathakapisthala Samhita, 42.1; Jaiminiya Brahmana II, Samaveda, 2244

Approximate date: 1000-1200 BC, with a strong possibility from internal evidence, of being even earlier.

Chesterton On A World Of Untamed Virtues

G. K. Chesterton, the great Catholic writer, describes what happens when societies are re-engineered:

“The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered…it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”

How Many Church-Going Americans Are There?

I often think about that insightful statement I read somewhere to the effect that America is a nation of Indians under a ruling class of Swedes. (It’s actually from sociologist Peter Berger).

It got me thinking about how different the average American is from the way he/she is portrayed in Hollywood or in the mainstream media.  Church hardly figures in the media except as the object of raised-eyebrows and patronizing smiles, if not outright scorn.

But a large percentage of the population goes to church and goes regularly. One in five goes every single week-end.

That says something. I am a believing Christian but I go only a handful of times in a year, although there are reasons for my lack of attendance that probably don’t hold good for most people.

Anyway, here are the numbers:

Q: What’s the size of U.S. churches?
A: The median church in the U.S. has 75 regular participants in worship on Sunday mornings, according to the National Congregations Study (NCS) http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/ . Notice that researchers measured the median church size — the point at which half the churches are smaller and half the churches are larger — rather than the average (186 attenders reported by the USCLS survey http://www.uscongregations.org/charact-cong.htm ), which is larger due to the influence of very large churches. But while the United States has a large number of very small churches, most people attend larger churches. The National Congregations Study estimated that the smaller churches draw only 11 percent of those who attend worship. Meanwhile, 50 percent of churchgoers attended the largest 10% of congregations (350 regular participants and up).
Want to know more? Check the websites for the National Congregations Study (NCS) at http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/ The US Congregational Life Survey (USCLS) website has statistics about congregations by religious traditions at http://www.uscongregations.org/ The Faith Communities Today national study of churches www.faithcommunitiestoday.org 2010 study also contains size and other congregational findings.

Approximate Distribution of U.S. Protestant and Other Christian Churches by size *based on NCS study
(excluding Catholic/Orthodox)

ATTENDANCE # OF CHURCHES WEEKLY WORSHIPERS PERCENT

7-99

177,000

  9 million 59%

100-499

105,000

25 million 35%

500-999

12,000

  9 million 4%

1,000-1,999

6,000

  8 million 2%

2,000-9,999

1,170

  4 million .4%

10,000-plus

40

  .7 million .01%

TOTALS

approx. 300,000

approx. 56 million 100%

 

upQ: How many people go to church each Sunday?
A: For years, the Gallup Research Organization has come up with a consistent figure — 40 percent of all Americans, or roughly 118 million people, who said they attended worship on the previous weekend. Recently, sociologists of religion have questioned that figure, saying Americans tend to exaggerate how often they attend. By actually counting the number of people who showed up at representative sample of churches, two researchers, Kirk Hadaway and Penny Marler found that only 20.4 percent of the population, or half the Gallup figure, attended church each weekend.
As added proof for the accuracy of this smaller percentage of churchgoers, if 20.4% of Americans (approximately 63 million in 2010) attended the nation’s 350,000 congregations weekly then the average attendance would be 180 people per congregation which is almost exactly the figure that numerous research studies have found.”

Fall Of Jerusalem Was Biblical “End-Times”

Christian Zionists need to study Biblical prophecies in the light of 1st century politics in the Roman Empire, rather than 21st century politics under the American empire.

If they did, they would quickly realize that the textual and historical evidence points overwhelmingly to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the “end-time” and “Day of the Lord.”

From Preterist Central.com:

Let’s survey some of the many passages whose characters and events tie the second coming to the fall of Jerusalem. 

Gen. 49:1, 10“And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days…the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” 

This passage, spoken by the patriarch Jacob upon his deathbed, ties the “last days” to events bound up with Biblical Israel and the coming of Christ. Since the “last days” are tethered by this prophecy to Biblical Israel, when the nation terminated and ceased to exist so did the last days.     Indeed, the “last days” are coterminous with the last end and closing days of the Jewish state. Jacob does not directly describe the destruction of the Jewish nation, but his saying “what will befall you in the last days” certainly carries ominous overtones suggesting that event. In saying that the monarchical power would not depart from Judah until Shiloh (Christ) had come, Jacob alludes to the political end and existence of the nation. With the appearance of Christ, a new dynasty and world epoch would begin, in which the government would devolve upon Christ, who now reigns [sic] earth’s nations from his throne in heaven. In transferring the government to heaven, Christ removed the mantel of authority from national Israel upon earth. And since the Jews murdered Christ and persecuted his church, Jesus sent and destroyed the nation by the armies of Rome.

Num. 24:14-25 – “And now, behold, I go to my people: come therefore, and I will advertise thee what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days…I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but now nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.”

This is Balaam’s prophecy of events that would occur in the latter days. Like Jacob’s prophecy, Christ was to appear in the latter days while Biblical Israel still existed. Jesus is referred to under the imagery of a “Star” and “Sceptre,” and “he that shall have dominion.”     Christ’s “possessing Edom and Seir” should be compared with the prophecy of Amos about the restored tabernacle (house/throne) of David, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom” (Amos 9:11, 12). James said the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled in the apostles’ day, as Christ reigned from heaven and the Gentiles came into the church (Acts 15:16, 17). As Balaam’s prophecy treats of the same events, it too was fulfilled in the first century. The last prediction in Balaam’s prophecy states (Num. 24:24):

“And ships shall come from Chittim and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever.”

The prophet Daniel mentions “Chittim” in a context that makes unmistakable reference to Rome (Dan. 11:30), and is witnessed by the Septuagint version of the Qumran community and the Vulgate in this place, both of which render “Chittim” “Romans.”[1]     “Asshur” is Assyria and represented the extreme eastern border of the Roman Empire. “Eber” was the forebear of Abraham (Gen. 10:21; 11:17, 26), and is believed to be the root of the word “Hebrew.” In saying “he also shall perish for ever,” Balaam’s prophecy becomes the first direct prediction the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Spiritual Israel (the church) would do valiantly and conquer the world, but national Israel would be destroyed.”

200-Yr-Old Body Of Monk Defies Decomposition

From The Siberian Times:

A mummified monk found in the lotus position in Mongolia is ‘not dead’ and is instead one stage away from becoming a real-life Buddha, it has been claimed.

Forensic examinations are under way on the amazing remains, which are believed to be around 200 years old, having been preserved in animal skin. But one expert has insisted the human relic is actually in ‘very deep meditation’ and in a rare and very special spiritual state known as ‘tukdam’.

Over the last 50 years there are said to have been 40 such cases in India involving meditating Tibetan monks.

Dr Barry Kerzin, a famous Buddhist monk and a physician to the Dalai Lama, said: ‘I had the privilege to take care of some meditators who were in a tukdam state.

‘If the person is able to remain in this state for more than three weeks – which rarely happens – his body gradually shrinks, and in the end all that remains from the person is his hair, nails, and clothes. Usually in this case, people who live next to the monk see a rainbow that glows in the sky for several days. This means that he has found a ‘rainbow body’. This is the highest state close to the state of Buddha’.

He added: ‘If the meditator can continue to stay in this meditative state, he can become a Buddha. Reaching such a high spiritual level the meditator will also help others, and all the people around will feel a deep sense of joy’.

Initial speculation is that the mummy could be a teacher of Lama Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov.

Born in 1852, Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov was a Buryat Buddhist Lama of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, best known for the lifelike state of his body.

Mummified monk is ‘not dead’ and in rare meditative state, says expert


 


Ganhugiyn Purevbata, who is the founder and professor of the Mongolian Institute of Buddhist Art at Ulaanbaatar Buddhist University, said: ‘Lama is sitting in the lotus position vajra, the left hand is opened, and the right hand symbolizes of the preaching Sutra.

‘This is a sign that the Lama is not dead, but is in a very deep meditation according to the ancient tradition of Buddhist lamas’.

The mummified remains, which were covered in cattle skin, were found on January 27 in the Songinokhairkhan province of Mongolia.

However, there is more to the story and now police have revealed that the monk had been stolen from another part of the country and was about to be sold off.

An unnamed official said that it was taken from a cave in the Kobdsk region by a man who then hid it in his own home in Ulaanbaatar.

He had then been planning to sell it on the black market at a ‘very high price’, with local media claiming he wanted to take it over the Mongolian border. Police uncovered the plot and quickly arrested a 45-year-old, named only as Enhtor.

According to Article 18 of the Criminal Code of Mongolia smuggling items of cultural heritage are punishable with either a fine of up to 3million roubles ($43,000) or between five and 12 years in prison. The monk is now being guarded at the National Centre of Forensic Expertise at Ulaanbaatar.”

Rabbi’s Shemitah Prophecy Is NWO Fraud

Some Christian web-sites are skeptical of Jonathan Cahn’s Shemitah theory and his attempt to make America the duplicate of ancient Israel:

The Berean Call says:

This imposed Shemitah judgment was very specific and involved  only the nation of Israel . Since no Gentile nations were ever obligated to keep the Shemitah, there is no scriptural basis for suggesting that any other nation would ever experience an imposed Shemitah judgment. Yet, this is precisely what Jonathan Cahn suggests that America has experienced.

Cahn also wrongly implies that the Shemitah is essentially a universal  principle  that is somehow integrated into the order of the universe. Cahn makes the following assertion in his book:

[KAPLAN] “Seven years—the biblical period of time that concerns a nation’s financial and economic realms.” [This and all quotes are taken from: Jonathan Cahn,  The Harbinger  (Lake Mary, FL: Frontline, Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, 2011)]

Although Israel was on a seven-year economic cycle, no biblical passages support Cahn’s idea that natural economic cycles of seven years exist for nations in general. Furthermore, financial experts have not identified any seven-year economic cycle. —http://www.thebereancall.org/content/october-2014-extra-shemitah

If anything happens during The Shemitah (September 2015), it’s not because of God and a connection to Isaiah 9:10, it’s because the Freemasons who control this world are pushing the buttons and they are making things happen (in cycles of 7 as it’s a ‘magic’ number) for their own purposes to further the progress of a New World Order.”

Israeli Rabbi: Jewish Messiah Arriving Sept. 12, 2015

From Breaking Israel News:

After a lifetime of immersing himself in classical Jewish texts, Rabbi Kanievsky’s study partner informed various media sites that the Rabbi is talking about the messiah “all the time.” Since last summer’s war in Gaza, the Rabbi has been spreading this message of imminent return…….

When asked about the timing of the Messiah’s arrival, Rabbi Kanievsky answered, “At the end of the Sabbatical year.” Several people have asked the Rabbi to verify this and he has given the same answer each time. This year is the Sabbatical year and it will be ending on the 29th day of Elul, which, by the Gregorian calendar falls on Saturday, September 12, 2015.

In answer to Rabbi Kanievsky’s call, the Jews of France have begun to arrive in Israel in blessed droves. The impetus is certainly a reaction to increasing anti-Semitic and Islamic fueled violence across Europe……

Last year, 7,000 French Jews made aliyah to Israel, making it the number one country of origin for new immigrants. The Jewish Agency and the Ministry for Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption are expecting more than 3,000 French Jews to immigrate to Israel this summer alone, many of them families with children who want to arrive and integrate before the beginning of the school year.

It should be noted that it is considered a positive trait to always be anticipating the Messiah. The Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a great Torah sage, is  told to have said that any time he heard a loud noise, he would say, “Perhaps the Messiah has arrived?” Similar stories have also been told of the leading Moroccan Kabbalist, the Baba Sali, Rabbi Israel Abuhaseira.”
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/44534/leading-israeli-rabbi-messiah-imminent-jewish-world/#gZQFjwYySQ88p6ii.99

Bloomsbury’s Creed: Cheap Money & Cheap Morals

Nearly every ideology that has corrupted modern life, from the destruction of the economy by the uninhibited printing of money to the articulation of the one-world state, was propagated by a circle of intellectuals in late 19th – early 20th century Britain called the Bloomsbury Circle.

In his conservative classic,“Keynes at Harvard,” Zygmund Dobbs describes how  Bloomsbury master-minded every corrupt trend in the former colonies of the British empire.

Thereafter, their economic and moral enslavement would proceed apace, despite ostensible “independence,” without much serious opposition:

The works of Keynes, Lytton Strachey, and Bertrand Russell have been, and are today, required reading in almost every college and university in the United States and Canada.

[Note: There were other Bloomsbury icons, including Leonard and Virginia Wolf (literature and philosophy, structure of world government); Havelock Ellis (social psychology, public health);  G. E. Moore (philosophy, language); G.L. Dickinson (literary criticism); George Bernard Shaw (literature, cultural criticism); Walter Lippman (media, politics);John Dewey (philosophy, education), and many more.]

From “Keynes at Harvard”:

In the spring of 1905 Keynes and his lavender cohorts had been thrilled by a conference of Russian revolutionaries in London. British Fabians and Joseph Fels, an American soap manufacturer who was also a Fabian, had financed the Russian gathering and furnished them a hall in a Christian church. Key revolutionaries at this London conference included Nikolai Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. The future slaughter of fifty million civilians, and the conquest of one-third of the earth’s surface. rested within the shelter of this gathering. Shivers of excitement rippled down the spines of the socialist homosexuals when they heard that Lenin had openly defended the slaughter of bank guards and stealing of bank funds for the bolshevik coffers. During this time Strachey wrote to one of his intimates: “At this moment Keynes is lying on a rug beside me.”

……..During March of 1917 he [Keynes] confided privately that he supported the bolshevik group among the Russian socialists after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas.

The seizure of power by the bolsheviks in November of 1917 elated Keynes and the rest of the Fabian coterie. At Leftist parties in London, Keynes and his fellow perverts celebrated by dressing in women’s clothes and performing lewd dances. He had as his consort an eighteen-year-old-boy who was ensconced as his assistant in the Treasury Department.

Just before the Bolshevik Revolution, Keynes had made a hurried trip to the United States for the British Government. Here he had a chance to make contact with the American Fabians who were similarly entrenched, via the Frankfurter-Lippmann group, in key positions of the Wilson Administration……

Keynes’ deviate socialist circle was almost completely pro-bolshevik. One month after the Revolution, J.M. Keynes wrote his mother”

“Well, the only course open to me is to be buoyantly bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of civilization is very nearly over.”

On February 22, 1918, Keynes proudly boasted of “being a bolshevik.” Yet the British Government blindly sent Keynes to the Versailles peace talks. There he joined forces with his Fabian American comrade, Walter Lippmann, who was among those representing the equally blind U.S. Government. The ensuing pro-bolshevik and anti-American machinations were largely responsible not only for laying the basis for continuing Red victories, but also for setting off the chain of events that eventually brought Hitler to power.

In 1919 Keynes authored The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, which was promptly acclaimed from Moscow by Nikolai Lenin, himself. The Red dictator declared: “Nowhere has the Versailles treaty been described so well as in the book by Keynes.” A special edition of The Economic Consequences was printed under the label of the Fabian Society; and, Frankfurter and Lippmann brought the manuscript to the United States and arranged with Harcourt and Brace to publish it here. The volume became required reading among American socialists and Communists.

However, Keynes’ value as a hidden Red was in danger. The Fabians had developed the posture of “respectability” to a fine art and the value of Keynes’ book as an “impartial work” was in jeopardy. With Keynes’ future usefulness in upper-class circles at stake, Lenin had personally come to the rescue. He pulled the classic Leftist double-twist, praising Keynes’ book as a model for Communist revolutionaries and at the same time covering for Keynes by labeling him as “anti-bolshevik.” Nikolai Lenin rose before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared:

“I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois….”

Thus was launched the career of Fabian leader Keynes as a “non-Leftist” and “non-Communist.” continued apace…..

[The Fabian socialists were preoccupied with ] sadistic beating of young boys, “compulsive pre-occupation with male reproductive and excretory organs” and voyages to the most depraved dens of perversion throughout Europe, North Africa and Asia.

The Fabian homosexual circle was incredibly successful in gaining influence and control in a wide area of activity. They staked out the entire British Empire and the United States as well. Lytton Strachey wrote to Keynes:

Oh dear me!, when will my heaven be realized? – My Castle in Spain? Rooms, you know, for you, Duncan and Swithin, as fixtures – Woolf of course, too, if we can lure him from Ceylon; and several suites for guests. Can you conceive anything more supreme! I should write tragedies; you would revolutionize political economy, Swithin would compose French poetry, Duncan would paint our portraits in every conceivable combination and permutation, and Woolf would criticize us and our works without remorse.”

This projection was incredibly prophetic. J. M. Keynes became the mastermind behind the economic structure of British and American socialism. Strachey was responsible for writing books that undermined the Christian ethic of the Nineteenth Century and set the tone for the pornographic and depraved literature of today. Leonard Woolf worked out the details of the socialist drive for World Government. He was not only the architect of the League of Nations but outlined the structure of the United Nations.

Others of this perverted group of Keynesians have set the tone in art, music, education, and religion. Today [1971], alas, even the President of the United States says: “I am now a Keynesian in economics.”

Bertrand Russell: The Ghost Of Madness

John Hare, in booksandculture.com, analyses the personality and personal history of the celebrated mathematician and anti-Christian philosopher, Bertrand Russell.

Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian, is a favorite of  many atheists and anti-Christian Hindus.

Note: Most Hindus adhere to the mainstream Hindu tradition of  respect for Jesus as an avatar of God, even while they object to the aggressive conversion tactics and chauvinistic language of some missionaries.

But, as Hare writes, Ray Monk’s outstanding biography of the man, “Bertrand Russell: The Ghost Of Madness,” tears off the mask of genius to show  a deeply immoral, cruel, and mentally unstable man:

What keeps the reader fascinated is the unfolding of this double truth; that one of the century’s brightest, most influential thinkers seems to have been at the same time capable of appalling cruelty and moral blindness……..

Russell’s sense of the hereditary danger was confirmed by his own experience. An informal account of what we would now call a psychopathic personality is the disorder of someone who is amoral, who harbors great rage that he usually hides, who considers almost all others inferior, and who is a pathological liar. Monk gives us evidence of all of these traits in these first 49 years of Russell’s life. I am not trying to say here that Russell was a psychopath, but that he had evidence in his own life to make it reasonable for him to fear that he was predisposed to some such disorder.”

Salient excerpts from Hare’s review of the Monk biography reveal Russell’s moral monstrosity:

[Note: Beatrice Webb (referred to in the first line below) was the wife of Sidney Webb, and, along with him, was one of the founding members of the Fabian Society, which promoted Fabian socialism.

Fabian socialism was a gradualist approach to communism that was inflicted on former colonies, like India.

It had as its own goal the goal of the New World Order – population control through family planning and feminism and through the advocacy of income redistribution]

On Russell’s callous treatment of women (this from someone who championed women’s “liberation”):

Beatrice Webb, after a visit, put it this way, “[Russell] looks at the world from a pinnacle of detachment. What he lacks is sympathy and tolerance for other people’s emotions.” One of the most chilling examples of this trait is the story of Russell’s relationship with Helen Dudley, whom he met in America and persuaded to come to England to live with him. When she arrived, he discovered he was no longer in love with her and got rid of her, as a result of which she suffered a complete and permanent mental breakdown. In his Autobiography, Russell puts it this way: “I had relations with her from time to time . . . and I broke her heart.”

It is not just what Russell did that is chilling, but the fact that he talks about this and other such episodes as though they had happened to somebody else.”

On Russell’s murderous rages and seething hatred (this from a “humanitarian” and “pacifist”):

Russell’s desire to kill people was sometimes quite literal. Indeed, this was one of his fears about his heredity, because of the fate of his Uncle Willy, who had lost his memory and ended up in a workhouse infirmary. As in Plato’s example in the Republic, the police gave Uncle Willy back a knife he owned and with it he went on a murderous rampage. When institutionalized, he continued to be prone to apparently random attacks of rage and violence. Russell had moods in which he hated the whole human race. But he also had to fight against the desire to kill quite specific people, such as his friend Fitzgerald: “On one occasion, in an access of fury, I got my hands on his throat and started to strangle him. I intended to kill him, but when he began to grow livid, I relented. I do not think he knew that I intended murder.”

On Russell’s alienation from, and feelings of superiority to, ordinary people (this from a man who professed that his hatred of religion, especially of Christianity, was based on his love for human freedom):

When I am talking to an ordinary person,” Russell says, “I feel I am talking baby language, and it makes me lonely.” In prison because of his anti-war activities, he reports that “Life here is just like life on an Ocean Liner. One is cooped up with a number of average human beings, unable to escape except into one’s own stateroom.”

On Russell’s pathological lying (this from a philosopher who attacked religion for being based on something other than truth):

He seems to have been a pathological liar. This started very early, with his grandmother. He maintained the outward show of piety, while departing further and further from the Christian faith. It became, however, a recognizable pattern in all his relationships, even those he cared most about. “You simply don’t speak the truth,” said D. H. Lawrence to him. “You simply are not sincere.”

On Russell’s self-loathing, expressed in hatred for  Christianity (the religion of his upbringing), alienation from his own emotions, and constant alternation between rage and guilt (this from someone who claimed to be completely rational):

Later, the sense of sin keeps recurring, as a kind of self-hatred………

..On another occasion Russell found himself on his knees in a church in Verona, praying for strength to subdue his instincts. He does not associate either experience explicitly with God, but what strikes this reader is the echoes of Russell’s grandmother’s piety, which was also a religion of love, duty, and suffering.

A Christian can see these experiences as God trying to break through, as the untiring chase by the hound of heaven. But Russell himself could not interpret them that way, or at least he could not do so for long. My hypothesis about why he could not do so is the one I gave earlier. The experience of God’s presence and his own failure was just too painful for him, and the pain was too close to his fear of madness. One response was the retreat to the surface and to disengagement.”

 

Why Bertrand Russell Was Not A Christian

 

Update:

This post should be understood in the context of my other writings in and around this subject.

Clearly, Bertrand Russell was a Christian in upbringing, as were his ancestors for generations.

Clearly, there is nothing in Torah-based Judaism per se which supports the kinds of positions he took in his life. Russell’s liberal/libertine and atheistic views have nothing in common with either Christian or Jewish orthodoxy. However, central tenets of modernist ideology (by modern, I mean the schools of thought arising out of Darwinian Evolution theory, Freudian psychology and the psycho-social theories associated with the Frankfurt school) were formulated by people whose descent was ethnic Jewish (in the sense in which that term is employed today).

In doing so in no way am I suggesting a biological/genetic component to this ideology of modernism.

I am suggesting instead that biology explains the phenomenon of the converso, who retains ancestral traditions and beliefs, regardless of the conversion.

I am suggesting that a tradition of hostility to the establishment and explicit espousal of revolutionary socio-economic schemes and libertine theories, colors the converso’s new-found faith and renders it only a variant of his old faith, which he, perhaps unconsciously, continues to propagate.

Put more bluntly, Russell could well have been a Sabbatean Frankist (a kabbalist) in everything but name.

Please read the original post by scrolling down below the two updates.

The substance of this post is that the celebrated mathematician Bertrand Russell, who wrote perhaps the most popular denunciation of Christianity, was a cold, cruel and deeply immoral individual in his personal life.

A recent book has also shown that he came from a family-line with a high degree of insanity and psychopathy.

That same line funded the Tavistock Institute and was notable for the propagation of sexual libertinism and population control, twin pillars of the New World Order.

Update 2:

In “Black Terror, White Soldiers,” David Livingstone has the following:

MK-Ultra, the CIA’s infamous “mind control” program, was an extension of the behavior control research conducted by the Tavistock Institute. Formed at Oxford University, London, in 1920 by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), a sister organization to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) created by the Round Table, the Tavistock Clinic became the Psychiatric Division of the British Army during World War II.[1] The clinic took its name from its benefactor Herbrand Russell, Marquees of Tavistock, 11th Duke of Bedford.

The Dukes of Bedford was the title inherited by the influential Russell family, one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain who came to power and the peerage with the rise of the Tudor dynasty.

Herbrand Russell and arch-conspirator Bertrand Russell shared the same great grandfather, John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford. Bertrand Russell was descended from John Russell’s third son, Bertrand’s grandfather, John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, who served twice as Prime Minister of the England in the 1840s and 1860s.

Herbrand Russell’s son, Hastings Russell, Lord Tavistock, the 12th Duke of Bedford, went on to become patron of the British Peoples Party, a far-right political party founded in 1939 and led by ex-members of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. It was he whom Rudolf Hess flew to England to contact about ending World War II.

The basis of the project of the Tavistock Institute was explained by Round Tabler, Lord Bertrand Russell, who is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the twentieth century’s premier logicians.

Russell offered a revealing glimpse into Frankfurt School’s mass social engineering efforts, in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society:

 I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology… Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

…Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.[2]

Update:

The author of numberless anti-Christian statements, toward the end of his life, Bertrand Russell attempted to blunt the force of his singular attack on Christianity by including Hinduism, Confucianism, and other religions, in his criticism.

Notably, he did not include Judaism.

There are two explanations for this: either Russell was aware of the ruling class whose interests he served and feared reprisal, or he actually supported the goals of the ruling class.

The second seems more likely, when one researches Russell’s history.

He came from an aristocratic family line – the Dukes of Bedford – with a long history of subversive activity and “progressive” ideals (women’s liberation, birth-control, free love etc.).

The name Russell/Russel is said to derive from the word “rous.”

Rous was originally a nick-name for a person with red hair and derived from an Old French word for red.

The nick-name might have arisen from the supposed red hair of the Norman conquerors of England.

[Coincidentally, note the following:

1. The “Red Jews” were part of a legendary Jewish nation that can be found in vernacular literature in Germany upto the 1600’s. They were said to be an existential threat to Christendom and were associated with  Gog and Magog who are released in the end-times in the Bible.

2. The name Rothschild is derived from the German for Red Shield.]

A description of the origin of the Russell/Russel clan in Scotland can be found at Wikipedia, which identifies Bertrand Russell as the descendant of one Rufus (which is an alternative name for Russell).

Rufus is a popular Jewish name.

Bertrand Russell was thus apparently of Jewish/crypto-Jewish descent (using the word Jew here in the modern sense to refer to the people known as Ashkenazim).

That might explain how his advocacy of the goals of the NWO became so popular.

It might also explain his anti-Christian animus.

ORIGINAL  POST

Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, philosopher and activist, has had a great deal of popularity among atheists and among anti-Christian Hindus in India, because of a book he wrote attacking Christianity, “Why I Am Not a Christian.”

Russell’s stature as a “peace activist” is such that he is accorded a pass on what it is he actually advocated.

I urge Hindus and atheists who take Russell’s critiques at face-value to delve into the motivations of the man who wrote it.

A closer look shows a deceptive and unsavory supporter of  the key goals of the New World Order.

  1. Russell was a Fabian Socialist from his college days at Cambridge onward. He is thus associated with the pernicious system of thought responsible for the “stealth communism” that has destroyed most of  India’s social and economic fiber.
  2. Even though he was aligned with pacifists in theory, in practice he was in favor of violence, if it was in the cause of overthrowing what he considered unjust governments. Thus, he supported the communist revolution in Russia, but, after its conclusion, distanced himself from it.
  3. He claimed to have held refined views on human relations, but the facts of his own life are at odds with his claims: he betrayed his first wife for a succession of wives and paramours, although his wife continued to be devoted to him to her death; he seduced the bride of the great Christian poet, T.S. Eliot, before her wedding, contributing to the destruction of the marriage. A bi-sexual and an outspoken advocate of “free love” his “consensual cuckolding,” enabled by wife, Dora, created an unstable home for his children that exacerbated the latent insanity in the family leading to more than one case of insanity and suicide.

Russell’s political positions were far from purely humanitarian and seem to have been articulated ultimately for the benefit of the New Order coming into being.

In “Bertrand Russell, Prophet Of The New World Order,” David Peterson writes:

Bertrand lost both father and mother at a very early age. In his sixth year he was placed in the home of his elderly grandmother. In his autobiography Russell complains bitterly about the stifling tyranny and repression he endured while living in her home. Unlike his older brother who rebelled and left home, little Bertie remained her pet, never openly defying his granny. He said he developed an overwhelming rage which, to keep the peace at home, he completely suppressed during his childhood. Whether his grandmother did him any harm is hard to say; however, there is no doubt he developed some serious psychological problems. In his autobiography he speaks about his plan to commit suicide as an adolescent, a plan, which was abandoned when he realized it would mean never learning any more mathematics. Despite his great intellect he displayed the personality of an iconoclast and a misanthrope all his life. The primary motivation of Russell’s intellectual effort was the removal of cultural repression, which he attributed to traditional religion. He set his mind to the task of eliminating the influence of Christianity on Western culture.

Here is a passage from a letter Russell sent to his friend Gilbert Murray, which gives some insight into his tumultuous state of mind as a young man: “I have been merely oppressed by the weariness, tedium and vanity of things lately, nothing seems worth doing or having done. The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world.”

Sexual obsession and lust were a dominant force throughout Russell’s life and underpinned his public advocacy of population reduction and birth control. Lady Ottoline Morrell, Bertrand’s longtime lover and confidante, was the wife of Phillip Morrell. Russell was a notorious libertine whose multiple marriages never prevented him from satisfying his momentary lusts with whomever was at hand and willing. Russell carried out a long series of such affairs after he walked out on his first wife, Alys. With characteristic bluntness, he explained that he left his despondent young wife because he was “bored and disgusted with her.” We could say that, all in all, Bertrand Russell devoted his life to eradicating what is known as the moral order. Nietzsche had pronounced in his writings that “God is dead” and firmly held that the ethical norms taught by Jesus Christ had emasculated the human race. It was Russell who took Nietzsche’s call for the “transvaluation of all values” (reversing the Judeo-Christian moral order) and lent to that project his respectable credentials as a modern scientific thinker.”

At one time or other, Russell became a highly effective public advocate of the pillars of the New World Order – sexual libertinism (the destruction of the family unit, social control through psychology and addiction to drugs, a one-world government, and population control.

Russell’s population-control, like Sanger’s, was an outgrowth of his own eugenecist and racist ideas.

David Peterson:

He was alarmed about the higher fertility of nonwhite women and he demanded that the Asian and black birthrate be drastically curtailed. Otherwise, he felt his own breed (whites) would be overwhelmed, resulting in chaos and disaster. His view on population was made clear in his Prospects for Industrial Civilization: “Population [must be] stationary or nearly so…. The White population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens…the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific….”

Advocating what is now know as Zero Population Growth, Russell wrote:

If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full.” Russell went on, “this state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

As for Russell’s pacifism, David Peterson has the following:

During World War I, Russell described himself as a pacifist and was jailed in England for his antiwar speeches. Later his reputation as “peace maker of his generation” suffered severe damage when, in the early years of the Cold War, Russell signed on as an avid backer of the so-called Baruch Plan. The proposal was billed as a peace offer to the Russians but it might be better described as a bomb hidden in a CARE package. Under the plan, Stalin would be given an ultimatum: the Soviets could join an international peace agency and forgo developing an H-bomb; but if they refused, Moscow and the other major Russian population centers would be instantly obliterated by a nuclear bombardment.

In his defense, Russell told a BBC interviewer, “I thought the Russians would give way but you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.” Certainly this English aristocrat and intellectual was not the only voice that could be heard recommending a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviets, but he was by far the most prominent “pacifist” to do so. Some years later when he was faced with the publication in a New York newspaper of the charge that he had “decided that it would be good morals and good politics to start dropping bombs on Moscow,” Russell contracted a convenient case of amnesia and vehemently denied that he had ever countenanced any such thing.

By the opening of the inaugural meeting of the Pugwash Conference in 1957, Cold War Realpolitik had changed considerably and the Baruch Plan was buried. Russian scientists had developed a Soviet version of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and just as suddenly Russell experienced a change of heart. Miraculously, his former mortal enemies, the Soviets, were now his partners in world peace! Anti-Communism had dissolved in favor of Russell’s new crusade for world peace and nuclear disarmament. Pugwash proposals were imbued with the ideology of the British Fabian Society, calling for a world government (made up of the world’s elites) to enforce a global peace. The plan called for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to be partners in halting the spread of nuclear weapons. The Pugwash Plan, however, went far beyond megatonnage and delivery systems. All nuclear energy and technology were to be centralized in the hands of the existing nuclear states–America, Britain, and Russia.

The antinuclear weapons campaign allowed Russell and his circle to accomplish two of their most important cultural objectives. The first was establishing a command and control center for one-world government. The second was creating a radical ecological movement that was hostile to technology and industrial progress. Pugwash propaganda skillfully equated “nuclear warfare” with “industrialism and technology.” The three terms were linked together and branded as the characteristic “evils of modern capitalism,” three evils which would soon annihilate us, either by nuclear war, by uncontrolled pollution, or by the depletion of our “fixed” resources. Only the Pugwash planners — with the “peace-loving” Soviets as their partners — had the solution. World leaders had to come to their senses and submit to a world government or all humanity was doomed!

Many of the Pugwash initiatives became the bedrock beliefs of Zero Population Growth and the radical ecology movements. The same ideology was disseminated in Western media channels and financed by the donations of hundreds of wealthy corporations, think tanks, and foundations. Much of this philanthropy is subsidized by having tax-free status — which means in effect it is paid in part by U.S. taxpayers.”

Is Jehovah Satan?

Is Jehovah Satan?

That was what many Gnostics, both medieval and modern, believed.

Gnosticism is the idea that liberation from the world of matter (believed to be sinful) is available to someone who cultivates esoteric wisdom that the masses cannot easily grasp.

The particular form of gnosis might vary – it might involve chanting mantras, or contemplating mystical visions, or inquiring into the nature of the self.  The main notion is that liberation from the world of the senses requires some kind of  knowledge inaccessible to the hoi polloi.

The early Gnostics were antagonistic to the early Christians. They thought the religion was simple-minded and ant-intellectual.

Many leading Gnostics were part of the Jewish emigre population in Alexandria, one of the great centers of learning in antiquity.

This was the Syro-Egyptian Gnostic school.

There was also a Persian school, but that was regarded as a distinct religion – Manicheanism.

The Jewish-Christian conflict of those days was reflected in the anti-Gnostic polemics of Church leaders and the Gnostics have had a bad reputation among Christians ever since, sometimes unfairly.

Many beliefs that Christians now regard as heretical, such as, Arianism – the notion that Jesus is not divine, but only a man –  began with the Gnostics.

But Gnosticism is increasingly understood to be rooted not in heretical Christianity but in heretical Judaism.

One of the most typical of the Gnostic beliefs was that from the original creator of the universe who is an impersonal monad, emanations issued, each more remote from divinity than the one before.

Among the lowest of these divine emanations was a demiurge or a lesser/false god, to whom the creation of the physical world is attributed.

The demiurge was seen as imperfect, even evil.

Yaldabaoth, Yahweh in the Bible, Satan, Ahriman (in the Persian tradition) were all regarded as demiurges.

It is this conflation of Satan and Yahweh among the Alexandrian gnostics that was revived in the 18th century by William Blake, the English poet, that underlies the tension of such famous lines as

Tyger, tyger, burning bright
In the forests of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

Blake’s Tiger suggests a darker deity than the benign Father of orthodox Christian belief.

So, when you see  websites springing up all over the Internet, equating Yahweh with Satan, it’s a continuation of this ancient Gnostic and neo-Gnostic error.

Error, because Yahweh is not Satan.

And Satan is not the same as Saturn, despite the visual resemblance of the two words.

Saturn is an Indo-European term.

Satan is Semitic (HaSatan in Hebrew) and it is not a proper but a common noun. It should be translated “the adversary.” From its root (S-T-N), the Arabs get Shai-tan.

A closer equivalent to Satan in the West is the Egyptian Set, the murderous brother of Osiris.

Although at one period considered a “good” God,  Set was later seen as evil, perhaps by association with the Semitic Hyksos rulers of Egypt in the early part of the 2nd millenium before Christ.

The Hyksos linked Set with the Phoenician god, Baal.

[Baal only means “lord” and was used to denote a variety of deities. There was Baal Hadad and there was Baal Hamon, to whom child sacrifices were offered.]

Because Baal is also known as El (Lord, singular), and the term Elohim (plural) is often used to refer to God in the Old Testament, the Gnostics in turn equated Baal with Yahweh.

The Gnostic equation was:

JEHOVAH =  BAAL =JUPITER = SATURN = SATAN

It ought to have read:

SET = BAAL(ZEBUB) = SATAN

 

 

 

Jesus666 Site

Yet another anti-Christian propaganda site replete with fallacious etymologies and the old claim that Jesus (the Greek version of Yehoshuah) is really Gaze-at-Zeus and pagan.  It’s not about accepting the redemptive work of Jesus; no, apparently, if you call God Yahweh, rather than Yeh-weh, you are on the road to perdition.

Google Jesus666 and see how many sites pop up.

This is all rather typical Judaicizing anti-Christ propaganda, common in Messianic and Hebrew Roots circles.

If you cross the bridge, it doesn’t matter what you call it. You’ll reach the other side.

If you don’t cross the bridge, it doesn’t matter what you call it, you’ll stay where you are.

Cross the bridge.

 

Strong’s Concordance

The best way to study the Bible at first hand is to use the King James Version (which is not without its flaws) in conjunction with Strong’s Concordance, which gives the Greek and Hebrew meanings relevant to the text.

(Note: I first linked by mistake to something called Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which at first glance, seems like a highly politicized version of the famous resource. It dispensed the familiar end-times narrative of political Zionism. Stick with the original Strong’s).

The Old Testament texts that Jesus read were in Greek (in the supranational Koine form), because the Greek version (Septuagint or LXX) was the most authoritative one at the time.

Here is an online version of the Septuagint with the Greek text next to the English.

It was called the Septuagint  because, at least anecdotally, 70 (or 72)  of the most important Hebrew scholars  compiled it.

The Septuagint predates Jesus by a couple of centuries and was widely used in Alexandria in Egypt, where there was a very large Jewish diaspora.

This was the text used by the Church fathers when Christian doctrine was formulated in the first few centuries of the millenium.

The other authoritative Old Testament text, the Masora, was compiled over several centuries by Rabbinical scholars (Masoretes)  between the 6th century and 10th century AD (that is, almost a 1000 years after the Septuagint).

It was a product of Rabbinical schools that were actively attacking and responding to Christianity and it should be understood in that light.

[Note: It isn’t necessary to ascribe a malicious motive to the Masoretes, although many Christian scholars do. From the Masoretes’ point of view, the Christians were simply reading things into the Hebrew text and they were taking a more neutral position. Both sides probably had some valid points.]

The Masoretic texts are the Old Testament texts used in the Talmud, which is the Rabbinical commentary on the Bible.

The Talmud, not the Torah, is the true core of modern Judaism.

Since the Talmud in both its Palestinian and its more famous Babylonian version were written down only in 200 AD (Mishnah) and 500 AD (Gemarah), the written records of modern Rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism post-date those of Christianity.

Even the oral traditions of modern Judaism stem only from the Babylonian captivity, around the 6th century BC.

Consider that the earliest manuscript of the Talmud is the 1342 AD Munich Talmud.

By contrast, the first full manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates back to the middle of the 4th century AD or around 350 AD (a thousand years earlier).

In addition, there are fragments of the New Testament that go back much earlier, to the second half of the 1st century AD.

Altogether, there are over 25,000 early copies or fragments of the New Testament, not including quotations by the Church Father.

The New Testament is the most well preserved and well-documented piece of writing from antiquity.

Even so, understanding how the original Hebrew or Greek words have been translated into English is essential to understanding how meanings have been changed, either  accidentally or intentionally.

In that respect, Strong’s Concordance is an invaluable resource.

 

What Did Jesus Really Teach About Divorce?

 

Update 2:

I read a bit more about the Rabbinical context of Jesus’ reference to Adam and Genesis and found this excellent post, which points out other problems in the traditional teaching.

Since stoning was, apparently, the correct Jewish response to adultery, the question of remarriage can have applied only to the non-offending partner; the question of marrying an adulterous woman ought never to have arisen, because she would have been killed by stoning as soon as she was judged adulterous.

That conundrum reinforces both the authors’ argument below that taking Jesus’ words out of context leads to nonsensical conclusions, not profound ones.

Update:

Reading more from Dr. Instone-Brewer, I am uncomfortable with some of his conclusions.

Aligning Jesus with the Shammai Rabbinical school would mean that women who were divorced unfairly could legitimately remarry.

But Jesus’ own words seem to refute that interpretation.

Memo to self: Look at this angle a bit more.

However, the context of the debate between the two Rabbis is still very illuminating.

ORIGINAL POST

I came across a  fascinating description of  how divorce was seen during the time of Jesus’ ministry.

The author, David Instone-Brewer, a Professor of Rabbinic and New Testament Studies at Cambridge, examines actual practices and divorce certificates of the period, as well as the teachings of the two major Rabbinical schools then – that of Shammai (which was stricter) and that of Hillel (which was  more lenient).

He places Jesus’ teaching in the context of a debate between the two.

Instone-Brewer’s conclusions dramatically change the Gospel teaching on this crucial matter.

He argues that Jesus implicitly accepted at least one other ground for divorce besides “porneia” (which means sexual immorality) – failure to provide food, clothing and love (including sex) .

Such a failure would constitute neglect, the extreme variant  of  which is abuse.

The defining words in the Gospel passages on divorce, says the author, are “hard-hearted.”

Of course, no ground was to to be seen as automatically granting divorce, should the offending partner repent, since Jesus also constantly admonished his followers to forgive and be tender-hearted.

But a repeat offender who does not repent is not “tender,” but hard-hearted.

It follows that the person who divorces a repeat offender is not the one at fault, but simply the one legalizing the breach of the marriage inflicted by his partner.

David Instone-Brewer:

 Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage sounds completely different when you listen to him with the ears of a 1st C Jew
– so before I take you to Jesus’ teaching, I have to teach you what a 1st C Jew knew
– and then you can listen to the words of Jesus and hear them as they were heard

Jews relied on the OT to teach them God’s Law. So what did God’s Law say?
– they found 613 commandments in the OT, and five grounds for divorce
– the first commandment gave them the first ground for divorce – see Gen.1.28
“Be fruitful and multiply” – it is expressed as a command, so Jews obeyed it
– this meant that they regarded infertility as a ground for divorce
– it was a command which they tried to get round, but nevertheless a command
– Jesus specifically rejected this by saying that you could be a ‘eunuch’ for the kingdom (Mt.19.12)

[Lila: This argument sounds weak to me.

Mt. 19.12 is about becoming a “eunuch” for the kingdom, not because of a lack of fertility. It is a voluntary and therefore moral renunciation of sexuality, not an involuntary inability to conceive.]

[Instone-Brewer]

– that is, you could remain single, because the command to have children was not for everyone.

[Lila: It was, for married people engaged in lawful sexuality.]

– so infertility is not a ground for divorce, though it is frequently a cause of much grief.

The second ground for divorce they found is one which we do recognise: Immorality, in Deut.24.1
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a cause of indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house…”

– the observant among you will notice that the sentence has not ended

– this is part of a case law – an actual occurrence with complicated circumstances

– it goes on to say that if this woman marries someone else, who also divorces her, and she comes back to her original husband, he may not marry her again.
– why? We don’t know. It is described as an “abomination”, so it is very bad
– but why is it worse to remarry your first husband than to marry a third?
– the best solution I know is that this was outlawing pimping your wife
– ie you divorce her, let her marry a customer for the night, then remarry her
– it is legal and common in some branches of Islam, but it was abominable to Moses

Perhaps that’s what the original case referred to, and perhaps not. It matters little
– the important thing is the principle in it: It allowed divorce for a particular ground
– the ground is “a cause of indecency” which the Jews interpreted as “adultery”

The last three grounds for divorce, the most important, were all found in one text
Ex.21.10f: If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
– OK, this doesn’t make much sense the first time you read it.
– the context is talking about slaves, and about someone who marries a slave.
– these verses tell him how he should treat her if he later marries another wife
– polygamy was allowed in the OT so it wasn’t wrong to marry another wife
– but these verses told him not to neglect his first wife now that he had another
– and, if he did neglect her, she had the right to a divorce and her freedom

This is revolutionary teaching in the Ancient Near East – treating slaves with dignity
– when the Jews came to apply this, they made various deductions, which I agree with
– they said: if a slave wife has these rights, then a free wife must also have these rights
– and if a wife has these rights, then a husband must also have these rights
– this kind of deduction is normal in OT law, which often gives only an example
– the Law says: Do not muzzle the ox, but let it eat the grain it threshes (Deut.25.4)
– Jews said: if this is the right of an ox, it is also the right of any farm worker
– and the NT uses this same method to argue that ministers should be paid (1Co.9.9)
– so I agree that this text gives these same rights to all husbands and wives
– and if they don’t get them, they have the right to divorce and freedom

What does this law say a husband should give to a wife, and wife to a husband?
– “food”, “clothing” and “marital rights”
– what would a lawyer make of this? It all sounds too vague
– and that’s exactly the conclusion of the Pharisees – the Jewish lawyers

– they debated exactly how to define neglect of food and clothing and love
– they defined how much food and clothing preparation the wife had to do
– so that if she fell short of this, the husband could divorce her for neglect
“These are the kinds of labour which a woman performs for her husband: she grinds flour, bakes bread, does laundry, prepares meals, feeds her child, makes the bed, works in wool.” (Mishnah Ketuvah 5.5)

– they also defined how much money for food and clothing the husband had to give:
– “he may not provide for her less than two qabs of wheat or four qabs of barley [per week]…. And he gives her a bed, a cover and a mat. And he gives her a cap for her head, and a girdle for her loins, and shoes from one festival season to the next, and clothing worth fifty zuz from one year to the next. ”  (Mishnah Ketuvah 5.8)
– I did some calculations, and found what this minimum support actually entailed
– for a normal day labourer, the cost of his wife’s clothes was 1/7th of his income!
– and if a husband didn’t support his wife properly, she could get a divorce

[Lila: So,  a bit more than 1/7th of the husband’s income was due to the wife for her upkeep, at a time when women were not earning in the market-place like men. This is far from 1/2, which is what modern feminism-instigated laws seem to demand, even though women are now in a position to contribute just as much or more to the finances of a marriage.]
Marriage was a contract in the Bible, and if you had to keep your side of the bargain
– both sides vowed to supply food, clothing and love, and to be faithful
– and if you didn’t keep your contract, the wronged partner could end the contract
– ie ask for a divorce, because marriage is a contract made before God (Prov.2.17)

We used to think that only men could get a divorce, and women were helpless
– but now we know that it was normal for Jewish women to get a divorce
– in fact half of all the divorce certificates surviving from the 1st 2 centuries are written for wives divorcing their husbands.
– before you stow that away as a useful fact, let me admit this is a statistical trick
– because but actually only two divorce certificates have survived from that time
– and 50% of them, ie one, was written for a woman divorcing her husband

– See more at: http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualsermons/Jesus-Divorce/_Sermon.htm#sthash.fTrPffZy.dpuf

For a refutation of Instone-Brewer’s analysis, see John Piper’s post at Desiring God.

Piper claims that too much of Instone-Brewer’s analysis relies on extra-textual elements and silences in the Biblical texts.

Hell Is Not Eternal Torment

An excellent analysis of the correct meaning of “hell” in Old and New Testament can be found at HellHadesAfterlife.com.

It shows that the traditional Christian teaching on this subject is actually unjust and morally repulsive.

The most important points it makes are the following:

1. Biblical Judaism as enunciated in the Old Testament does not teach that the soul is immortal. That is a Greek and pagan idea.

2. The Bible teaches that the REWARD for salvation is acquiring immortality.

3. The Bible teaches that this eternal life is enjoyed by a resurrected body, not an immaterial entity.

4. Misunderstanding of the differences between the terms “Sheol” (Hebrew), Hades (Greek), Tartarus (Greek), Gehenna (Hebrew), which are all translated as “Hell,” has led to a commingling of Pagan Greek ideas (eternal torture in hell) with Jewish.

As I’ve pointed out in other cases, literalism is the problem. The misunderstanding of the poetic language of the Bible has led to the belief that the damned are tortured forever, whereas all the metaphors used for it (blighted trees or branches, cut grass, burnt waste) indicate finitude.

Damnation in the Bible is essentially destruction. The human being who is not “fruitful” (spiritually alive) is struck down like a blighted tree and destroyed.

That is perfectly logical, even from a scientific viewpoint, because he has remained base and materialistic and therefore must share the fate of the base and materialistic (dust unto dust).

Apart from this, there are also hints in the Bible that at some point this destruction may be undone and even the most evil may be reconciled with God.

There are hints in the Bible of something akin to reincarnation.

 

Yeshua (Jesus) As An Anagram For Esau

 

 

UPDATE:

Going back, I see that I’ve used the Yeshua form myself in at least one post. I’ll correct it when I find it again.  I will make sure to use the form Yehoshua.

Note: These posts on Esau should be read as my thoughts on the subject, from varying angles. I equate Edom/ Esau with a world tyrant/super-state.

Since the only power of that dimension today is political Zionism, I equate the two.

So why do I bring up the view of some influential Rabbis of Jesus and Christians as Esau?

Because it is a history and reality that Christians need to understand.

They should also understand that this is by no means a universal view among Rabbis or Jewish scholars. Many Rabbis considered Jesus as a profound Jewish teacher. Many accepted him as the Messiah.

Also, the “Jews” of Jesus’ time (Idumeans and true Jews) did not reject Jesus en masse, by any means.

A substantial number of the earliest disciples of Christ and the most influential were Jews.

Paul himself was a Pharisee, just as Jesus well might have been. [On the contrary, this blog considers that the suggestion that Jesus was a Pharisee is a meme floated by the Hebrew Roots Movement and is subversive in intention. So also, the idea that the Pharisee Hillel “taught” Jesus or that Jesus plagiarized Hillel.  All these notions seem to diminish Jesus, which, ultimately, seems to be the goal of  the movement.]

Finally, Jesus never founded something called “Christianity.” He created a body of believers in his resurrection and atonement, who instituted a practice of commemorating his death among themselves and committed themselves to obeying his commandments – and those of no other.

He never told these believers to call themselves Christians or to call other people’s faiths false or demonic.

He just told his Apostles to take his message of “Good News” about the availability of salvation through grace to the Gentiles (a word that doesn’t mean non-Jews) and the “nations” so that they would see the light and come to it.

Everything beyond that simple teaching is actually controversial, if not controvertible.

ORIGINAL POST

The name Jesus is the Greek rendering of Yehoshua (in English, Joshua) or Yeh – hoshua or Yah (weh) saves. (Strong’s Hebrew Concordance gives it as the Lord is Salvation).

However, I’ve often seen Jesus referred to as Yeshua, especially on Hebrew Roots websites.

Hebrew Roots is a growing movement among Evangelical Christians that seeks to see the Jewish context of Jesus’ teachings. They see Jesus as a faithful Jew and not the apostate he is often made out to be in Jewish writing.

However, there is a troubling angle. These sites often go beyond pointing out how Jewish Jesus was to imposing Talmudic practices – often from several centuries after Jesus – on non-Jewish believers, thus making “traditions of men” more important than Jesus’ atonement..

On these sites you will often find the familiar Greek words from the New Testament given their Hebrew rendering, something I generally find very helpful and a needed corrective.

However, I’ve always wondered where they got the variant Yeshua from, in place of Yehoshua.

Researching the Jewish view of Edom/Esau, which traditionally is equated with Christianity in Rabbinical texts, I came across a comment on a Noahide site that YESHUA is an anagram for ESAU in Hebrew. The equation of the two is made elsewhere.

[The Islamic name for Jesus, Isa, is also said to be derived from Esau/Esav.]

Jesus is Esau in to many Rabbis and thus by extension Christianity and Christendom is Esau or Edom to them.

.