secularapex-blog

[secularapex-blog]

One Word Changes it all

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/11/2013/first-line-of-beowulf-misunderstood-for-200-years

The first word in the story of Beowolf has been determined to have been misinterpreted for hundreds of years.  By  discovering its true meaning it changes the whole outlook of the opening line of the story.  

Hebrew University has a project running for 50 years now tracking the evolution of words and their meanings in the bible.  Just one word can change the story.  Imagine how many words have been changed in the past 4000 years.

[secularapex-blog]

The Camels Dont Lie

http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=19673

The first camel introduced to the levant wasnt until the 9th century B.C.  Just before the rewriting of the bible and the creation of much of Genesis.  meaning, those who wrote Genesis were accustomed to seeing Camels in Israel and wrote them into the stories.  However, those who lived in Israel before 800 B.C.  had never seen camels before, therefore wouldnt not have been able to write about them.

As time goes, more and more is learned and more and more is proven false about the stories in the bible.  One interesting thing to note is that there has yet to be discovered a rabbit skeleton in the cretacious period.  Meaning...bunnies had to evolve from something that was there during that period!

[secularapex-blog]

Jesus' life after the cross

1) http://www.reviewofreligions.org/6136/jesus-christ-did-not-die-on-the-cross-a-cardiologists-perspective/

2) http://www.reviewofreligions.org/6115/tracing-the-post-crucifixion-footsteps-of-jesus-christas/

If you will read these two articles, it shows us that the crucification was survivable and that jesus' movements through the world afterwards can be traced.

traced even to his final resting place in kashmir.

[secularapex-blog]

4000 year old ark and flood story

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.570484?v=6707A08FCA1841EB22646DD5A4FE50ED This predates the rise of israel record keeping. Written in cuneiform writing and found In Mesopotamia. Gives proof that the story of noah was plagerized from the babylonians.

[secularapex-blog]

Dueteronomistic History

The old testament can be broken down into three sources. The J source, The E source and the P source.  The E source is the oldest of the sources, referring to God as  Elohim, or "gods".  It originates in the Canaanite pantheon, with El being the supreme diety.  The J source is so named as its authors called God Yahweh (jahweh).  This is most likely the set of Gods that Moses worshipped as it has a midianite origin, though still a Canaanite religion.  Both of the earlier sources are heavily polytheistic religions, and archeology and careful study of the bible show that the ancient Hebrew were polytheistic people. It wasn't until the youngest of the sources were introduced into the story that the bible took a turn towards monotheism. 

This source was hand crafted by King Josiah as he led a revolution towards the elimination of all but one God. it was delivered to the people under false pretenses and accepted as the word of God. 

Beyond Josiah the story has been redacted to give hope to a populace held in Babylonian captivity. Elements of the bible are there only to provide a common history and common promise to a people who faced a common enemy. 

[secularapex-blog]

more on a Pre babel language.

http://www.livescience.com/29342-ancient-mother-tongue-reconstructed.html

this study puts a common human language at about 15,000 years ago.  That's about 9,000 years before God created the world, according to the bible.

[secularapex-blog]

More on God's Wife

If you have read some of my earlier articles you will remember that i told you about Asherah.  The wife of God.  You will also remember that i told you about how she was wiped out of the religion.  And then recently i told you of the Samarians being the older more mature religion of the northern kingdom of Israel. 

Well, i can link the two together.  "I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his wife asherah" commonly turns up in archaeology.  These artifacts usually Predate the monotheistic religion we are familiar with today.

The negative connotation of Asherah  we see in the bible today is a result of Judah gaining religious prominance during the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests of the region.  As a people the samaritans just couldnt survive and their beliefs died out with them.   The Judeans were able to shape and mold the history to reflect their monothiestic beliefs.

[secularapex-blog]

Search for Truth

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com

This guy appears to be  doing alot of the same research i am.  I stumbled accross his link and have spent the past few days reading and following up on his citations.

I think he stretches things a bit far in an effort to make the bible a source of fact when it comes to history and his conclusions seem to be counter points to his goal.

He does have a lot of good info compiled.  If you have kept up with this blog, and are researching along with me you should be able to find some useful information.

[secularapex-blog]

Judaism and the Soul

Isaiah 26:14 They are now dead, they live no more; those departed spirits do not rise.

Christianity teaches of the eternal soul, and how when you die your soul goes to heaven.

The early jews did not follow this ideology. The Jews believed that what gave life to man was god breathing into his lungs at the moment of birth, installing the soul inside of him.  This soul was not the eternal vessel for your consciousness but was a little piece of the energy of God that gives you life.  When you lose your soul you lose your life.  God owns your soul and can take it at any time. 

Countless passages in the bible like the one i quoted above refer to the finality of life once the soul has been removed from the body.   And likewise, the prophets and judges and kings made laws banning the belief that the soul continues once the body is dead. 

in the reading of Genesis 3:22 we learn that by eating of the knowledge of good and evil, God fears that we are now like him and through a never ending life may attain knowledge to become as powerful as he, so he bans us from the garden of Eden seperating us also from the tree of life.  From the very beginning of the bible story, God intends for our consciousness not to be immortal.  In order to remain under his control, we must have an end and not be allowed to live on forever.

"Depart from this vain world; leave the body and go to thy Lord among the good" Testament of Abraham

The point of life during the time of the early jews was to die having lived a life of honor and to be righteous in the eyes of the Lord when he comes to reclaims your soul, or life energy.

[secularapex-blog]

We read the bible as the Word of God.  We believe it is infallible.  But is it?  Research is showing that the bible may not be the book we think it is and that the jews were not the originators of the religion.  Ive spoken before of multiple tribes coming together to form what we believe today.   Reseachers in Isreal have found the Temple at Mt Gerizim, which predates solomons temple.  It was built by the Samaratins, who claim they are much older than the jews, and archaeology is proving them right.

With history being re written, so should the bible.

[secularapex-blog]

In a new theory by Thomas De Wesselow, the shroud of turin is proclaimed to be the vision of Jesus post resurrection that appeared to the desciples. 

It is a very interesting postultion and not at all out of the realm of the possible.

This could also be the vision that appeared to Saul of Tarsus and triggered his transformation to Paul.

[secularapex-blog]

"What did he believe and who taught him?"

There has been something of a gap since my last blog.  It's hard to come up with new ideas that do not sound like i am repeating myself.  So much of this info builds on previous knowledge and without explaining an idea over and over the reader becomes lost.  My blog follows a fairly unorganized path as it is, so original content is a bit difficult to provide.

  I have been trying to think of a way to simplify things and lay down a foundation for your own learning and exploration of the subject.   i'd like to take a moment and describe the path ive walked to come to the conclusions i have.

I attended a christian school for grades 5-8.  There we were required to memorize a verse or section of the bible every night.  eventually we covered it from cover to cover.  We studied the highlights and discussed all the main talking points.  This ignited the my flame.  I became somewhat interested in the history of religion.  I began to read and study on my own, no more so than the average christian though.

Through out my self studies and reading, the book of revelation kept bugging me.  There began my journey.  I decided to get to the bottom of why this book bothered me so.  I mean, at the end of a series of stories that were not much more than a collection of geniologies and laws is this vividly detailed book filled with all sorts of horrible imagery.  It just didnt fit.  Why did the writer of this book have such a different style than that of his co authors?  

I wont go into the answers here, we can touch on that later.  But i discovered who the writer was, why he wrote the way he did, what his socio-political influences were.  What was the context of the times he was writing in.  I found that i no longer believed what was in the book of revelation, and to my surprise i found that much of christian scholarship felt the same way.  In fact, some denominations do not even include the book of Revelation in their cannon.

By my senior year in high school, i took a class called Bible History.  This secular class showed me the correlation of the biblical stories to its contempary religions and nations.  I learned how the timeline of the bible fits into the timeline of world history.  Things didnt jive.  And he was born an obsession.

With my curiosities about Revelation already quelled, i decided that was the best place to start.  Moving backwards through the new testament, i studied the authors of each of the books, and what time and setting he/they lived in.  I began to gain an understanding of what they believed, and what they actually wrote.  And the one question i kept asking was "who taught him that?"

"What did he believe and who taught him?" became the formula.  The new Testament ultimately narrows down to "Jesus" as the answer to that question although if you will read my blog on the Pauline Docterine you will find the answer is not a straight forward answer.  The old testament on the surface gives you pretty linear list of the teachings of the Word of God.  But just as the Jesus teachings, you find that the story is not always as it seems.

Ten years after i moved past Revelation i have found my answers to "What did he believe and who taught him?"  i am satisfied with what i know of the credited authors of the bible.  BUT.....i have found a new question to ask.  "who created that character and what did he believe?"

Most say Homer's Illiad and the Epic Cycle are the greatest work of fiction ever written.    Aelxander the great, Xerxes, Hadrian, The Ceasers, The kings of Italy and England, all claim the bloodline of Priam.  Even Mehmet II after sacking constantinople claimed his victory in the name of Troy, destroying the greeks and finally avenging the fallen of the city.  The story has been taken as absolute fact.  But we now know that is not the case.  We know that the events spoken of in the epics did not occur as told.  That the sack of troy was just one small step in a greater campaign by Hattusa, and that it may not have been the greeks attacking Troy at all, but the other way around.   Homer took true events, and real people, and fabricated a mesmerizing story around them.  One that has captured the minds of people for 3000 years.  For it was around 850 BC that homer stitched his bard together.

It is of no coincidence that the bible stories were mapped out in much the same manner around the same time frame(800-600 BC).  The authors of the bible took 3 distinctly different stories and merged them into a single epic tale.   Using names and places already familiar to the people to which it was told.

However, the writers of the bible failed to diligently stitch their story together.  Rather than a seemless flow of continuity, as with homer, the bible is a more of a patch work, with overlapping stories, and people and events taking place in cities that were destroyed long before the authors set the back drop of their story.  They use phrases, and words that should not be in the lexicon of the time.

These little nuances showed me that the bible was not written by the hands of those to whom the stories are credited too.  Take for instance the tale of the exodus in the Torah, the 1st 5 books of the bible. These stories should of taken place some time between 1200 and 900 BC.  The next story after the torah is Joshua, Moses' successor.  It is claimed that he, through the help of God destroyed the walls of Jericho.  The problem is that Jericho's walls fell 1650-1550 BC.  During the time frame in which the story was penned, the rubble of the walls would of been well known to the hebrew people.  The cause would not of been known.  The Authors take credit for the fallen walls through the story of Joshua and use it to show the power of God.

That was just the most obvious of the mistakes made by the sculptors of the story. Homers job was made easy by a united history. He did not have to weave multiple histories together.  The hebrew are a melting pot of caananite cultures and those that mapped out a path to a united history took on a large and cumbersome task.

With this figured out....i could then get back to "what did he believe and who taught him?"   with the addendum of "what was his motive?"

It's been a tough and arduous path, but it has led me to a greater understanding of the bible.  And there is plenty more road ahead.

[secularapex-blog]

God Damn it

Commandment Number Three: Do not take the Lord's name in vain.

Society has this wrong.   Every one gets offended when someone says God damn this or that.  Calling upon the lord to damn, or pass judgement on something is a kin to calling on his name to bless something.

God bless this food, God bless this church, God bless this day, God bless this marriage and so on.  No one thinks twice when calling his name to bless something, why is calling on Him to damn something any different, if you are familiar with the bible, expecially the book of Psalms, you will find the ancient hebrew were not shy about calling on God to pass his judgement on something or someone.

If you remember some of my first blogs, you know that "God" is not the true name of "God".  As far as the bible is Concerned, Yahweh is His name.  God is just his title.  so for starters, saying "God damn it" does not call on his name.  And as far as vain, or empty and pointless use of his name, the phrase is usually provoked by something that has encited anger and you wish to have God pass judgement on that item or event.  Just as with a blessing, you ASKING him to perform and act, damning it or blessing it, it is up to his discretion.  If you are angered such a point, is it really an empty or pointless call?  probably not.   But that's why you are asking God to pass judgement and not judging for yourself.

But, like i said, the hebrew did this quite regularly and without fear of repercussion from God.  So obviously, asking God to pass judgement on and item, event, or person is not prohibited.  So what is God Prohibiting?

"Asherah has proclaimed that the first born of every family must be put to death!"

in this phrase, someone is repeating and order in Asherah's name.  had Asherah not given this order, this person would have used Asherah's name in vain.  Through out canaan and egypt, this was a common practice.  A priest or king giving and order to his people could add a level of authority to his message if he claimed it came from his people's god.

So anyone who claims God has spoken to him when He has not is using the Lord's name in vain.   In the book of Revelation, in atleast 3 places Jesus says that he is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.  Meaning that he is the last prophet, God will no longer speak directly to man.   How many times have you heard a preacher say "God has spoken to me", or someone say "God is speaking through me", or "i heard God's voice"    THESE people are taking God's name in vain, God damn it.

[secularapex-blog]

No Man Can Serve Two Masters

Mathew 6:24 says that No one may serve two masters.  Of course, this is just an allegory meaning that we may not have two gods, But i think it is a fitting title to the blog.  Why?  because in the bible we are given two lineages for the High Priesthood of the hebrew.   Essentially, we are told their are two 1st High Priests, The first being Melchizedek, the second being Aaron. 

Melchizedek being the High Priest of Sodom, a servant of El Elyon, whom we know to be a Canaanite god, and not our Lord.  You may ask "if we know him to be a priest of El Elyon and not of Yahweh, they how can he be the original High Priest before Aaron?".  Because of Psalms 110:4

The LORD has taken an oath and will not break his vow: "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek."

The new testament book of Hebrews repetitively refers to Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchizedek.   The bible clearly establishes Melchizedek as the High Priest, one who commands respect and whose name is known to the people, all the way into the 1st century AD. 

In Genesis 14:18-20, we are given the account of Abram after his defeat of Cherdarloamer.  Melchizedek, King of Salem comes out to offer food and supplies to Abram and his men.  When king Bela of Sodom offered supplies Abram refused to accept them.  It is noted that Melchizedek, King and High Priest of El Elyon blessed the food, and Abram then accepted and was given a tithe collected by the priest from the people of the city.   Abram had just defeated the Elamites, a shared enemy between the Israelites and Salemites.  At this point in history, El Elyon was no the god of the bible, but a Canaanite diety.  Why Abram accepted food with a foreign god's blessing but would not accept the food from Sodom, with no blessing is unexplained.  What else is unexplained is who Melchizedek is and he he came to be the high priest, and why from this point on he is revered by the hebrew people as their 1st high priest.   The likely explanation is that this is the point at which the Cult of Yahweh merged with the cult of El Elyon (God Most High). The verse possibly gives the account of Abram choosing to come under the kingdom of Salem, and not Sodom, both of whom have apparently offered their protection to him.

Interesting to mention, the second book of Enoch give the account of Melchizek's birth and states that he was born of a virgin mother. Enoch gives his lineage hailing from Adam, through methuselah, and then to Nir, but this is a patrilineal description and cannot be taken seriously as his virgin birth means he had no father. It is accepted more widely that Melchizedek is actually Shem, son of Noah.  Ultimately, both priestly lineages (through Melchizedek and Aaron) begin at Adam.  Then again, if you follow the bible, we all come from Adam (except the people with whom Cain went to live, in the land of Nod).

Now, the story of how Aaron became High Priest is interesting, because Moses (and abraham for that matter) had a habit arguing with God.  Abraham's arguements were more sarcastic retorts in response to God's promises but Moses refused orders, or said "let someone else do it".  When the Lord went to appoint Moses high priest, he said give it to his brother Aaron, a much more eloquent speaker and one who has already assumed the role during the desert wanderings.

If you are not familiar with your bible, you may know of the story of the Golden calf, but might not know the Details.  Aaron is responsible for taking up a collection of gold and creating the Golden Calf as a symbol of the God who delivered them out of Egyptian captivity.  We are often led to believe that the jews strayed from the Lord and worshipped Ba'al here in his place.  But the bible is clear that this was not another diety, but an image of the Lord himself.   The people were punished for this. For worshipping God!  True one of the ten commandments is though shalt not make any graven images of anything in heaven or here on earth or beneath the sea (Ex. 20:4) but the commandment wasnt given until after Moses returned from the mountain and saw the calf.  Despite this Aaron was blessed by God to be the high priest and only those in his bloodline from that point on could become High Priests.

 Even after the account of Aaron, there is also a schism that claims a different lineage that the one we are taught.  The Samaratins are the followers of Eli, who leaves the Israelites and sets up his own new priesthood, and say they alone are the true worshippers of God and that the israelites have corrupted their religion.  I think i may dive into this story tomorrow. 

Through Mechizedek and Aaron we have differing stories of the origin of the priesthood, one at roughly 1600BC and the other at 14-1200BC.  The likely explanation is that this is the origin stories of two different cults, that of El Elyon and Yahweh being combined into one story and probably what led to Eli leaving.

[secularapex-blog]

Old Testament Vs New Testament

My last few blogs a have been focused on the new testament.  I do not normally concern myself with the teachings of the new testament. I find enough evidence to support what i believe without needing to open the second half of the Book. However,  It is of interest to me from a historical perspective, as it shows a unique view of the death throws of one cult and emergence of the next great cult from those ashes.  This is the cycle of our religion from the very beginning. It's the core of worship since man figured out the sun sets and rises the following day.  Death and Rebirth.

learning the death and rebirth cycle of jewish/christian traditions can teach us how the Cults of El and Yaweh and the myriad of other canaanite dieties evovled into a single Almighty God.

If you feel the need to continue your search within the pages of the new testament, remember that history is written by the victors.  The true followers of Jesus, the Judeo-christians were over thrown by the christians led by Paul, and past, present, and future were set to paper by the hand of Paul.  If you seek the teachings of Christ, be careful what teachings you attribute to him, and what has been attributed to him by his foes.  I think you will find that to actually follow the teachings of  Christ you will have to step outside of what is written in the new testament.

[secularapex-blog]

Paul: the short version

The Apostle Paul never personally met Jesus, nor heard any of his teachings straight from his Mouth.  Before his vision of jesus, Saul (also called Paul) hated the christians, and went as far as jailing and killing them.  Paul drastically changed christianity. Jesus believed in salvation through good works and following the law, and being a good person.  Paul established salvation through faith in Jesus.  Paul set up and organized the modern Church.

If you are a christian, you most likely are following the traditions of man who probably didnt believe in what he was teaching himself, and most definatly not what Jesus was teaching.

[secularapex-blog]

Saul of Tarsus Vs Paul the Apostle

These two characters play a very substantial role in the creation of Christianity.  While the person is one and the same, the personalites are quite different.  One was the persecutor of the Jews, the other was their leading teacher.   Let us first take a look at Saul.

Paul the Apostle's given name was Saul.  He was born in Tarsus, roman capital of the province of Cilicia.  This made Saul  roman citizen by birth but raised by Jewish leadership. He was taught jewish law by Gamaliel, a jewish politician of great stature in the community, and well respected among his peers.   Gamaliel was a pharisee, the sect to be held most accountable for having Jesus crucified by the Romans.

Saul, coming from this zealot jewish background, picked up a hatred for the newly formed sect of the Christians.  he in fact, took part in the stoning of one of the first martyrs, Stephen, although later he claims to have only guarded the coats of those who were stoning him.  Saul took great delight in publically persecuting the early saints of the Christian church, as he testifies to himself in Acts 22:4

Now, something happens. Some one touched upon Saul's heart and had him convert to that religion which he persecuted so harshly.  Saul claims to have had a vision of Jesus as he walked along the road to Damascus. Saul says he was blinded by the vision of Jesus and sent to damascus to seek a man to give him further orders.

Once in damascus, Ananias is brought to Saul to heal him of his blindness.  Ananais is a christian Living in Damascus, but not one who fled their seeking refuge from persecution.  Ananias, upon receiving orders to visit Saul, initially refused to see him because of his reputation as a persecutor but later ceded his position.

Because of his reputation as Saul the persecutor, he changed his Name to Paul, which in Acts 22 you can see why.  The people were ready to flog him, but being a roman citizen he was protected from them by law. 

So, what actually happened to bring this change in Saul?  In Saul's early life he was jewish Zealot, who believed they were the chosen people of God.  he was essentially a racist. A religious zealot who believed in following the law to its strictest sense, over night throws it all away and radically changed not only his views, but how the world worshipped God.

A few things to note here, Saul was a master orator.  He had a masterful ability to speak and relate to any audience that was put in front of him.  He had an exceptional knowledge of both roman and jewish culture and could relate to either.  However, just as with anyone trying to appeal to ever changing crowds, Saul had  habit of contradicting himself, either on his timelines, or in the story of his conversion.  He claims that his followers saw Jesus and as well and understood him, then he claims they didnt understand Him, and then he claims they did not see  him at all.  But in those days, there was no internet or media to call him out on his fallacies so what ever he said in one town, was believed to be truthful to that town.

Paul enjoyed his roman citizenship very much.  The loss of it's privileges would of been detrimental to his lifestyle. From here im just putting forth conspiracy, but as Some one had to get to Saul.  Possibly a Roman politician seeking to quell a young christian upstart before it gains power.  The Romans had a way of dealing with foreign religions, to change it, adapt it, make it more palatable to the roman citizenry.  Rather than try to crush the christians and start a riot, the romans would of seeked to absorb them into a more romanized version of their religion.  How do you go about changing a religion to suit  your needs?  You hire a man on the inside.  With Sauls oratory powers, and knowledge of both sides he would of made the perfect double agent.   Everything saul did to change the way christians worshipped he did to give power and authority to Rome.  he modeled the political heirarchy of the church after the way the Romans govern their provinces, with a single bishop for each city, that reports back to a high priest, or Pope.  But how do you get a man to change his convictions?  Im not so sure Saul's convictions were as strong as we are led to believe.  Saul, for lack of a better description, "did as the romans do".  He adopted the views of whatever group he was associating with at the time.  When confronted by the Roman threatened with the stripping of his citizenship Saul probably would of been willing to do or say anything to maintain his lifestyle.  Not to mention, as part of the deal, he was to become the highest ranking member of fastest growing religious sect of his time.