LOGOS

LOGOS

In this video Dr Kevin McCairn PhD neuroscientist has a discussion with E. Michael Jones Catholic writer, former professor at Saint Mary’s College in Indiana and the current editor of Culture Wars magazine concerning consciousness and metaphysics. At the conclusion of the discussion after E. Michael Jones leaves, I join Dr McCairn for a chat. Though I differ on the theology it was refreshing to listen to E. Michael Jones and his rational presentation of metaphysics.

Logos, language, mathematics, and nature

My position is that there is a connection between these abstract concepts which are to a lesser or greater degree focused on nature and on the activity of divine agency in the material world. The following short video has an interesting understanding of the role that language plays:

 

Language is unique in communicating and structuring abstract ideas, crucial to our thought processes and therefore of critical importance to consciousness and metaphysics. It also determines relationships and hierarchical structures. I give my children and my dog a name, they do not name me. When language is combined with mathematics and that is used to describe creation, we are dealing with something uniquely powerful and as far as I can determine this first occurred with the proto-Hebrew language and passed via Phoenician to the Greek language. Below are some initial findings which I hope to express in a separate article, but they demonstrate that Genesis encodes the cyclical nature of the destructive and creative process that was also known to other ancient civilizations. What makes the Semitic approach unique is that it combines language and mathematics (sacred geometry) with revelation resulting in an ontological unfolding of a continuously evolving manifestation of consciousness. The divine name is not just linked with what God is, but with what God will be. Everything lives and moves and has its being in him, ipso fact he is then the source of consciousness and we are nodes in the matrix. The Genesis narrative highlights alienation and existential angst.

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7).

The word naked has the following values: ‘ê-rum-mim (naked) עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם – 360 Standard / 72 Ordinal and 360 x 72 =25,920 years which is the number of years in the Platonic Great Year considered by the ancients (and Newton) to reflect the Precession Cycle. The full Hebrew verse has the standard value 4066 whereas the other verse with the plural form (‘ă·rūm·mîm עֲרוּמִּים   std 366 / 78 ord) in Genesis 2:25 has the value 2,626 (std) and 4,066-2,626 = 1,440 (the minutes in a 24-hour day) which is 2 cycles of 720.  The figures 72 and 144 (or multiples thereof) are found in all the ancient precession cycle calendars from the Babylonian, Mayan, Indian etc. 18 x 1,440 =25,920

(note that both numbers reduce to 9), moreover the sum of the squares of these two numbers (144^2 +72^2) is also 25,920.  The value of the word naked pre-fall (Gen 2:25- 366/78) is different to the value after the fall (Gen 3:7 naked= 360/72). The serpent in Gen 3:1 is described as cunning (crafty, shrewd) with the word cunning having the same values   (366/78  both reduce to 6) as naked in Gen 2:25 (before the fall) with the full verse (as we have seen) reflecting double the yhvh name value (2626) reflecting their primeval innocence with emphasis on both male and female imaging yhvh (And they were both naked the man and his wife and were not ashamed) hence the double 26.

That the word naked can when re-pointed and differentially contextualized (cf. Job 5:12 and Job 15:5 עֲרוּמִ֑ים) take on the negative connotation of crafty (=the serpent) demonstrates that the omniscient narrator already anticipates that the idyllic harmony will be ruined by rebellion. The phrase “were not ashamed” (ולא יתבששו) just happens to have the ordinal value of 101 and 26 x 101 =2626 (the std value reduces to 11=2). We saw previously the mathematics and sacred Geometry connected with Genesis 1:1 –

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1)

Std value =2,701 Ordinal =298      בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

 

There is much more, we are just scraping the surface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The verse triangle can be inscribed in a circle with a radius of 42 units. Adding the seven Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 in different combinations, one will find 23 multiples of the number 37, including a compound figurate square of 23 hexagrams (37 7²) and cubes of hexagrams (37 2³) and (37 3³). Random chance would indicate only about three multiples. Note that each of the seven words is used exactly twelve times in making up the 23 multiples of 37 (i.e., 913 appears twelve times; 203 appears twelve times, and so on). Here are the gematria and order of each of the seven Genesis 1:1 words: 913, 203, 86, 401, 395, 407. And there is much more (reserved for future articles).

The Logos

There is therefore a nexus between language, mathematics and nature resulting in the revelation of what John refers to as the Logos in his prologue. The first verse of the Fourth Gospel builds on the geometry of Genesis 1:1 by adding a plinth to the triangle:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,  καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 

Standard =3627, Ordinal= 605

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Triangular  plinth of 3627 has 12 divisors with a totient of φ = 2160 which happens to be a Platonic month. The value of the first triangle (2701) and plinth (3627) is equivalent to the 112 th triangular number (6328) which also happens to be the length of the base making the perimeter 333 dots and the product of the digit pairs (63 x 28) is the square of 42 as does the ordinal value of both verses, which sums up to the Triangular number of 42 (903).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, we have a direct connection between the Genesis 1:1 and that of the Fourth Gospel with the appearance of Jesus on the scene described in terms of creation. Moreover, the name used for Jesus in the Talmud (וּשֵׁי Yēšū) which is often hostile towards him has the ordinal value 37 which is the same as the Hebrew word for wisdom which is in turn the 37th triangular number (666+37 =703) and Yēšū also has the standard value of 316 which is the mirror of 613 the number of commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah (Tractate Makkot 23b). With the word becoming flesh (καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο : kai o logos sarx egeneto) the word flesh (sarx) in the Greek giving us the value 361 we have the unusual triumvirate of : 316 (Yēšū) 613 (word) 361 (flesh) the sum giving the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11 (from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away…).

LIVE – E. Michael Jones: Consciousness and Metaphysics (3:14)

 

Is the Prologue of John influenced by Platonic, Philonic or Gnostic concepts?

A case can be made that all three strands of thought cross-fertilized each other especially as the Fourth Gospel was written to the church at Ephesus and the Gospel emphasized the superiority of Christ over John the Baptist and the influence of Jewish gnostic sorcery (cf. Acts 19) a church that was made known the manifold wisdom (Sophia) of God (Eph 3:10)….  And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge (gnosis), that ye might be filled with all the fulness (pelorma) of God (Eph 3:19). Ephesians is employing gnostic terminology, the problem was that Gnosticism became “secret knowledge” only available to initiates and it tended to regard the material creation as evil and slip into Docetism, namely that Christ’s body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent. For this reason, early Christianity rejected extreme forms of Gnosticism and the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that the Logos became flesh thus emphasizing his physical body and his human nature.

Many Christians use the Latin word incarnation for the Logos which is derivative from the ecclesiastical Latin verb incarno, itself derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh” as in the Word became flesh in the Latin Vulgate “et Verbum caro factum” understood as  a hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature and pointing to pre-existence, co-substantiality etc. More apropos to Johannine usage would be the term phanerōthē (Greek: φανερωθῇ) carrying the idea of manifestation, a word that occurs frequently in the Greek NT, particularly in the Gospel of John with reference to Jesus’ manifesting to Israel (John 1:31), manifesting glory (John 2:1), manifesting truth and light (John 3:21), manifesting the name (John 17:6), manifesting his risen self (John 21:2,14).  Jesus is seen by John as the ultimate manifestation of the name (I AM) although a lesser manifestation is encountered in the healing of the blind man whose visage was altered that much as to make him unrecognizable to the crowd who questioned his identity to which he replied with the “I AM” formula; “Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I AM “ (John 9:9  Note that he in italics in the KJV is added by the translator). Jesus explicitly says- “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest (phanerōthē) in him” (John 9:3).  In the act of healing the blind man becomes an example of the manifestation of divine power. Moreover, the phrase this is he is the 45 th time that Οὗτος (Houtos) is used in the Fourth Gospel with the other forty-four times referencing Jesus, where it is either translated as this one, or in combination “this man” or as “the same” as in the first occurrence of the gospel; “The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2) with all 45 occurrences reflecting the value of Adam in the Hebrew (45), Jesus is depicted as the last Adam ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ (1 Cor 15:45) the express image (Heb 1:3).

It is thought that the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo merged the Ancient Greek Logos philosophy (the principle of cosmic reason) with the Hebrew concept of Wisdom, God’s companion and intimate helper in creation (See Prov 8 article on wisdom to follow soon). Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, but the concept was already in use in the Hebrew scriptures before it was popularized in Greek philosophy.  Moreover, sacred geometry, higher mathematics and the length of the Great Precession Year was encoded into the language before it appeared in Greece (watch from 16 mins):

 

The fact remains that the concept of LOGOS in the Hebrew Bible was earlier than the Greek philosophers and the remarkable “coincidence” that the translation of John 1:1 having the same value as Psalm 107:20 is remarkable.

 

A rough Timeline demonstrates that the sacred geometry and mathematics in Scripture  is earlier than the Greeks and earlier than  Hermes Trismegistus / Gnosticism.

  • Isaiah-Hezekiah 700 BC -Logos
  • Babylonian Exile 586 BC
  • Pythagoras (570-495 BC)
  • Heraclitus c. (535 – 475 BC)-Logos
  • Plato c. (428-348 BC)
  • Euclid 330 BC
  • Archimedes c. (287 – 212 BC)
  • Hipparchus c. 120 BC Precession year
  • Ptolemy c.170 BC Precession year
  • Legendary Hermes Trismegistus c.170 BC

 

Exposition Johannine prologue

The translation used is the KJV of John 1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Note: The absence of an article in the phrase In the beginning rendering In beginning note also the accusative preposition pros indicates movement towards a destination called THE God differentiated from god by the absence of an article. G. R. S. Mead places the prologue of the Fourth Gospel in a gnostic context and is partly correct as it was at Ephesus that followers of the John the Baptist were found (Acts 19:1-3) and the Mandæans (lit. Gnostics—mandā = gnōsis) of the lower Euphrates who are the only known surviving community of the ancient Gnosis.The Sidrā d’Yahyā (Book of John) deal with the life and teachings of John the Baptizer.  Mead  renders the first verse as; “In Beginning was Mind; and Mind was with GOD” which offers the temptation to substitute mind with “tensor field” or “consciousness” or perhaps translate Logos as “purpose” or “idea” or “reason” until we realize that Logos is translated as Word 208x  and  as saying 50x in Young’s concordance and sending forth the word is idiom for sending an agent (like a prophet) to speak on God’s behalf.  The terms of the Fourth Gospel must be defined by the Johannine corpus because he has his own distinct idiom. Thus, John refers to The Word in three other places, and in each case his allusion is to Jesus the Man. “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1); that is, they heard his preaching, they saw his miracles, they looked upon him crucified, and they handled him when risen from the dead (Lk. 24:39). “Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Even this passage, which at first sight seems to require a different meaning for “the word of God” lines up with the others when it is realised that this is the first of a series of triads which meet the reader in Revelation 1 (compare verses 4b, 5a, 7). In fact, “the testimony of Jesus and all things that he saw” is the exact equivalent of 1 John 1:2. The tentative conclusion concerning “the Word” in John 1:1 would therefore appear to be that it means Jesus the Man, and not Jesus the Idea or Purpose.

The identity of the expression: “In the beginning” with Genesis 1:1 has led many to assume that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the visible creation. But a careful use of the concordance reveals that out of 16 other instances where John speaks of “the beginning”, in no single case does he allude to Genesis 1:1. Admittedly, in two of them he refers to Genesis, but in both instances (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8) the allusion is to the serpent. This, however, is Genesis 3 and not the beginning of creation, when all material things were made by the word of God: “And God said…”

It is impressive to observe that all other occurrences of “the beginning” in John’s writings have to do with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus or the beginning of discipleship or some related idea. A few examples:

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (John15:27).

“And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you” (John 16:4).

‘Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning” (John 8:25).

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (John. 6:64).

“Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:7).

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11).

This list should be conclusive. John 1:1 is speaking about the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Hence, appropriately, the immediate reference to the Baptist: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (v.6), a reference which in the traditional exposition is badly out of place.  Mark’s gospel is now seen to have exactly the same approach: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” (Mk. 1:1,2). And in Luke’s introduction also: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses-and-ministers of the Word” (Lk. 1:1,2). Note here also, that, as in John, “the Word” must be Jesus; the phrase “eyewitnesses and ministers” requires this.

So we see that it is a matter of allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

There is much more that I could say  but the article would become too long.   It is however interesting to note that John the Baptist is and we are explicitly told that he was not that Light (John 1:6-9).  The reason for the emphasis on Lights is because the annunciation of the birth of John occurred (see my commentaries) at the Feast of Lights a Feast that celebrated the cleansing and re-dedication of the temple (cf. John 2:21) after the defilement wrought by Antiochus Epiphenes.  The birth of Jesus who was six months younger than the Baptist would have seen him presented at the temple at Pentecost as the fruit of the Spirit.  The point is that John the Baptist was the forerunner to herald the new temple (Jesus Christ) and the church at Ephesus need to be reminded that despite the unusual circumstances of John’s birth he was not “that light”.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.  And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace (John 1:15-16).

The emphasis is on the superiority of Christ note the use of the word fullness or the Greek pléróma. The Greek pléróma (plērōmatos, πληρώματος) in Gnosticism understands the spiritual universe as the abode of God and of the totality of the divine powers and emanations but a similar phraseology occurs in the Greek version of Isaiah 6:3 (LXX): “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full (πλήρης/plérés) of his glory”. The root (plē-) expresses totality, and implies full quantity (“up to the max”). DNTT (1,733) notes its cognates (plērēs, plēroō, plērōma) all come from the root (plē-/plēthō) meaning “full in quantity.” Thus plḗthō (“to fill or complete”) refers to “that which is complete in itself because of plenitude, entire number or quantity. . . . the whole aggregate,” WS, 395,96). In Christian theology the totality or fullness dwells in Christ denoting that he received the spirit without measure (John 3:34). So, although there is cross fertilization one need not speak of dependence but rather shared motifs, however, once again we see that the Johannine corpus draws on the Old Testament for conceptual language.

Not only is Jesus depicted as superior to John, he is greater than Jacob (John 4:12), has a greater witness than John (John 5:36), is greater than Abraham (John 8:53), he is before John (John 1:15), and before Abraham (John 8:58) he has the fullness and is the I AM and yet the the Father is greater than him (John 14:28) for  he is greater than all (John 10:29). Rater than construct theories to explain these apparent anomalies and contradictions  Christians should examine scriptures where it is explained how Abraham “saw my day”  because in the mount of the LORD it shall be seen (Gen 22:14) and  Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (Gen 22:4 ) and he called the place Yahweh Yireh  or Yah will be seen.  The love of God would be manifest in the place where Jesus was sacrificed.  This is about manifestation and bearing the name.

In John 1:30 the Greek for ‘preferred’ is literally ‘became’ (γέγονεν, gegonen) and the Greek for man (ἀνὴρ,anēr) is very often used to refer to a husband. A literal reading could therefore just as well be, “after me cometh a husband,who has come before me, for he was first of me”. In the case of Redemption by the kinsman redeemer the one that comes AFTER and takes the place of the dead husband comes BEFORE. Jesus born after John took precedence before him because he had come to raise seed to the dead.

 

  • Note that the women praising Ruth say, “… do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem” (Ruth 4:11) and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem from the line Of David and a direct descendant of Ruth.

I could continue writing about the Fourth Gospel but this must suffice with some earlier material on John 1:3-4 and staircase parallelism.

Your web browser doesn’t have a PDF Plug-in. Click to download Covid articles

 

Conclusion

Scripture is multivalent and encoded sacred geometry and mathematics in the language before the Greeks systematized their mathematics and their philosophy. The fact that the encoding operates across the  Hebrew/Greek language barrier with reference to cosmology and astrophysics is remarkable. Scripture can only be understood intertexually and any deviance from proper hermeneutics leads to error. That said, scripture can be read by a child and  the truth can be grasped in a child like manner.

Complexity emerges from simple rules employed iteratively and the outcome of the “causal chain” is the same regardless of the input variables. But who sets those initial rules? As E. Michael Jones inferred, philosophy and rationality will only get you so far as beyond a certain point is unknowable.  At this point the believer falls back on faith which in its outworking becomes as real as “data” and is classed as “evidence” of unseen realities (Heb 11:1) as the consciousness of the believer with the help of God the source of all, calls into being the things that are not as if they were (Rom 4:17).

Jesus was superior to all who came before but by his own admission he was not greater than the Father. No man has seen the Father yet whoever saw Jesus in action had seen the Father (John 14:8-10). Unlike Adam he was the perfect image and the face of Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory (2 Cor 4:6). World without end. Amen.

 

Metaphysics and the Long Con

Metaphysics and the Long Con

In this stream I take part in the open panel discussion on metaphysics hosted by Dr Kevin McCairn the systems neuroscientist.  This is a stream that is nearly seven hours long (7:04). In the first section Dr Kevin McCairn streams with Davey Crocko on the “Real Science Behind the Venom Grift” and that section ends with Kevin tuning into the debate (starts  https://youtu.be/itTRFLQn4jc?t=6468)   between Adam Green and E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. hosted on  #Killstream Saturday Night: Adam Green vs E. Michael Jones (odysee.com)

Adam Green (from Know More News) is regarded as a far-right anti-Semite because he has brought valid criticism against the Talmud and Christian-Zionism.  However, Adam Green has developed his “theology” even further (under the tutelage of Christopher Jon Bjerknes) to the point where he understands all of Christianity as part of a Jewish Conspiracy which I have named the Long Con.

Definition: The Long Con (plural long cons) A scam in which the scammer takes a long period of time (usually weeks, months or longer) to defraud the victim, by first slowly gaining their trust.

This stretches the credibility of Green as he relies on Bjerknes to provide the academic ammunition for his hypothesis.  This is a problem because   Bjerknes is adept at conflating different mythologies, ignoring historical evidence and practicing deeply flawed hermeneutics which I have debunked in the past. [1]   That said, many of Green’s (and CJB’s) criticism regarding Talmudic Judaism and Christian-Zionism are valid.  It is just a pity that it had to be leveraged to extremis.

On the other hand, E. Michael Jones is a Catholic writer who seeks to defend traditional Catholic teachings and stop the damage that he believes Jews are inflicting on the Catholic Church and western civilization.  He is also seen as an antisemite by the ADL (who isn’t?). Although E. Michael Jones makes valid points (about the Logos etc) he is also constrained by his dogma (incarnation rather than manifestation) and the circularity of his primal causation worldview and his understanding of the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as the only means of salvation which carries echoes the Jewish claims of superiority. This should not surprise us as the Roman Church was penetrated by Jewish converts. [2]

So, Dr Kevin McCairn is justified in his criticism of both viewpoints and his critique of Armageddon fetishism is also valid.  All the Abrahamic religions (this includes Islam) expect that catastrophic events will usher in a new world. This plays into the hands of those who would use violence to usher in the new world order.  It was ever thus:

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force (Matt 11:12).

They attempted a violent imposition of the “kingdom of heaven” in the first and second centuries with appearance of false Messiah’s and each time it ended in disaster. [3] They have therefore established a pattern of behaviour.  The nation became unclean, demon possessed like legion and was therefore sent into exile like the scapegoat. [4] The story of the demon possessed man in the synoptic Gospels is an acted parable that depicts how the Jews constantly fall into delusional madness [5] in their attempt to impose order on chaos and take up the position that they see as rightfully theirs.

Did an elite class (priests?) possess knowledge of the timing and frequency of such cataclysms which they could then use to their advantage? Many ancient civilizations had an awareness of cyclical disasters at regular intervals, and it is certainly possible that such knowledge was passed down the generations and that it would confer an advantage when transitioning into a “new age”.  It is also true that survival strategy encouraged in-group preference and saw Jewish power exercised at the top level of every civilization (Egypt, Babylon, Persia etc) as the Bible stories recount and there is no reason to doubt this as we see the same today.

Is it possible that Christianity itself is a Jewish ploy designed to confuse and disinherit the Gentiles (the long con)?    This seems hardly plausible as the Old Testament depicts the Jews in a very unflattering manner.  They are not portrayed as a master race and their progenitor Jacob (later renamed Israel) is depicted as a deceiver and a cheat (see the character in Uncut Gems).[6]  The fact that Christianity is hated with a vengeance and undermined by the Jews (cf. the Bolsheviks) mitigates against the thesis that it is “a Jewish ploy”.

One way or another the Jews are trying to implement their vision of the kingdom of God whether that is through the Chabad Noahide Tikkun Olam concept or New Age (theosophic/luciferian) [7] theology with the added twist of transhumanism where man himself transcends his own humanity with the help of Artificial Intelligence.  In other words, it is the original sin of wanting to become God. The “temptation” of the serpent that man can acquire knowledge and eternal life and become God through his own effort. This is reflected in the current drive towards coupling Artificial Intelligence with Human consciousness which is nothing other than the ultimate mind of the flesh. [8]

While it is true that scripture depicts humans as “gods” (elohim) made in the “image” that does not mean equivalence with God. This is reflected in a Psalm that can be contextualized in the Hezekiah era where the “gods” are the Sanhedrin judges:

I have said, Ye are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men (adam) and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations (Ps 82: 6-8) [9]

The attempt to “become gods” is the sui generis and sui causa of the mythos presented in Eden.  That we can control our destiny through an act of self-determination if only we have enough knowledge.  However, that knowledge only brings fear because we realize that without God, we are naked and vulnerable. We are mortal, fallen creatures that carry the seeds of our own destruction living in a Universe that seems to inflict random chaos and pain on all our attempts to order our existence.

 Jewish lens?

The critique that we are viewing everything through a Jewish lens is a valid one because we do. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman he indicated that salvation comes via the Jews  (John 4:4) but also said that God must be worshiped in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24) although the Pharisees had all the correct doctrines,  yet they were deficient (Matt 23:3) and so it is with many Christians who profess to be doing the will of God (Matt 7:22-23).

Our culture can be considered Judeo-Christian, at least in the West but the influence of that culture is felt globally (even in the East non-Christian countries) through science and media. The Age or Reason was an attempt to break free of religion and to be solely guided by scientific rationality.  How has that worked out?  We face the nightmare of neo- Malthusianism and the death of freewill in subservience to the collective.  We will become slaves to our own technology. The machines are taking over Skynet has become selfaware.  Is eschatology becoming self-fulfilling?  To some extent it is.  

 However, I believe that they will lose complete control.  Kevin refers to this as passively waiting for them to “drop the ball” or “fumble the pass” (a good analogy) and laments that many Christians are using it as an excuse to sit on their hands and do nothing except “turn the other cheek”.  That is a fair criticism because I do believe that the Christian response has been passive, weak and completely missing. We should be fighting and witnessing.  By fighting I mean that we are engaged in a spiritual war (Eph 6:12), a psychological conflict and we need to “armor up” (Eph 6:13) and witness to the truth without fear or favor.   We should not comply and refuse to worship the golden image of the beast (Dan 3:18).  In this case the gold A.I. quantum computers that represent human reasoning and the running amok of science that seeks to dethrone God from his place as creator and sustainer of all life.

 No man is good

The lesson must be learnt that no man is good (Luke 18:19).  We are all fallen creatures and no man can come to God unless he is drawn by him (John 6:44).  It is God who sets the terms and God who chooses. It is the prerogative of the creator to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor (Rom 9:21).  God answers to no one nor should he.  He creates and he destroys.  As the end is known from the beginning who are we to demand answers or justification?

True Christianity is the only belief that teaches that you cannot save yourself.   All other religions and philosophies teach that enlightenment and redemption can be achieved through an exercise of will or self-actualization.    We can transform ourselves. True religion says the opposite.  The Jews believed that the messiah would come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good). The Sabbatian and Frankists reasoned that as the world can never be fully righteous the only way to achieve salvation is to make it fully evil.  The nihilistic Sabbatian and Frankist movements rejected all norms and advocated the “redemption through sin” including sexual rituals and sacred orgies with incest. In their inversion Sin became holy and it was necessary to unmake creation because the material world (compare Gnosticism) is evil.  The “true God” could allegedly be revealed only through a destruction of the social and religious structures created by the “false God,” thus leading to a thorough antinomianism. This is of course insane and probably formed the basis of Satanism such as advocated by Aleister Crowley with the only law being “Do what thou wilt” a recipe for complete societal breakdown. This is what happens when we completely reject God.

Humility

All I see around me is the hubris and arrogance of man. Even as all our paradigms and science fail the test of time we still self-congratulate and narcissistically revel in our greatness like Nebuchadnezzar boasting of his glory before he was turned into a beast (Dan 4:30-32).   And that is how God regards our effort at self-deification.  It has become (like all human Empires) a devouring beast.

Our models of the Universe are all wanting whether that is large scale (dark matter) or small scale (quantum mechanics) only tell part of the story.  The truth is that ‘in him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28) our universe is like a complex brain and ultimately our consciousness is derivative.  We need to be humble in the presence of such awesomeness.  A billion, billion galaxies and our lives are just the blink of an eye.

Here is the Youtube full version (https://youtu.be/itTRFLQn4jc) but the panel discussion starts here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itTRFLQn4jc&t=13415s

This is the Boxcast version and it is also available on the Dojo.

Notes

[1] See Metaphysics and Myth ,  The Cacodemon and Are You being Punked?

[2] The founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola, was a converso, (convert) and so was his successor Diego Lainex. The futurist interpretation of the Apocalypse was written by Jesuit-Jew Ribera thus drawing attention away from any partial first and second century fulfillment that would have a negative impact on the Jews and any interpretation that would involve identifying the church with the harlot or the beast. This covered all bases and pushed the Apocalypse somewhere into the distant future neutralising it as an instrument of criticism. See Jews and Jesuits and St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jews

[3] Simon bar Giora the Idumean (69-70 CE) whose coins bore the legend “Redemption of Zion”, indicating that there was a religious aspect to Simon’s bid for power. This does not prove that he was considered the Messiah, but it is likely. The fact that he wore a royal robe in the Temple is another indication. Simon bar Kokhba, born Simon ben Koseva, (d. 135 AD) who lead the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire.

[4] The Scapegoat and the Jews

[5] There are many intertextual links between the healing of Legion and the witnessing in Revelation 11. The apostle Paul also links Romans 11 with Revelation 11 which strongly suggests that the Apocalypse was already in circulation before Romans was written (therefore dating the Apocalypse early before 70). Take special note of the use of the word torment in Luke 8:28 and Rev 11:10 and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another” which is a characteristic of the Jewish feast of Purim. The two witnesses (prophets) are therefore regarded as enemies by the Jews and murdered. They are raised (vindicated) after three-and-a -half days reminiscent of the resurrection of Jesus.

[6] Review of Uncut Gems

[7] Theosophy

[8] Flesh vs. Spirit

[9] See the use of Psalm 82 by Christ when talking to the Sanhedrin: Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel The historical context of the Psalm is the Hezekiah period contemporary with the prophet Isaiah. The Psalm is a condemnation of the Judges (the seventy or Sanhedrin) otherwise known as the Elohim (gods). Men and rulers referred to as God: Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8,9,28; 23:20,21; Psalms 58:1(?); 97:7; 138:11; 1 Samuel 2:25; 28:13. Psalm 82 (Booker/HAW) and in the commentary on Isaiah (HAW): [p.123] Here God is represented as being busy judging the judges. Those who should have been setting the tone of public life in the nation, themselves needed remonstration, denunciation and discipline. Psalm 82 is marvellously like this passage in phraseology and idea and may well be an Isaiah psalm appropriate to this very time (a Psalm of Asaph because handed over to the Asaph choir in the temple). [p. 259] Psalm 82 is demonstrably another psalm of the reign of Hezekiah, and there verse 7, otherwise rather bewildering, is a clear allusion to Shebna: “Ye shall fall like one of the princes,” that is, the demotion he has experienced will be yours also.