Quote:Sanghparivaar:

Quote:The Blue God of Judaism

November 20th, 2009

Source: HPI



USA, November 19, 2009: The God that Jews worship is as blue as the Hindu God Shiva, the supreme being in Shaivism, the oldest sect within Hinduism, says Rabbi Robert dos Santos Teixeira, LMSW.



In some ways, the ancient Hebrews were more similar to modern-day Hindus than Jews. They acknowledged the existence of deities other than YHWH (Yahweh) and, like their neighbors, looked to a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses to satisfy their individual and collective needs; their principal God, however, became and remained YHWH, the fierce warrior who freed them from slavery in Egypt. He once had an effable name, a masculine body, and a female companion.



Examination and discussion of biblical, talmudic, midrashic, and mystical texts reveal that the body of the Lord is blue. The fact that the Hebrew term used to describe the Lord�s blue body comes from Sanskrit, as do other Hebrew terms associated with him, is nothing short of amazing and invites further exploration of the many similarities between Judaism and Hinduism, particularly Shaivism.



Posted in Hindu Press International

[right][snapback]102700[/snapback][/right]

Quote:[color="#0000FF"]Seneca:

"We recognize Zeus as the ruler and guardian of the universe, as the PSYCHE (soul) and the PNEUMA (breath) of the KOSMOS, principally responsible for its creation and to whom all names are fitting. If you wish to refer to Him as MOIRA, you are not wrong. It is He, from whom everything depends, the cause of causes. If you wish to call Him PRONOIA (Providence) you are equally correct. It is He whose SOPHIA (Wisdom) provides for our world. If you desire to call Him PHYSIS (Nature), again you are not mistaken. It is He from whom everything was born and from whose breath we have Life. If you want to call Him Universe, again you are not wrong, as He is all that you see around you, He who exists within everything of the mundane, He who defends Himself and all which is within Him."[/color]

Quote:Few aspects of the Bible seem less relevant to daily life than genealogies. Yet for Gospel writers Matthew and Luke, they were absolutely essential for understanding Jesus.



Genealogies fulfilled multiple purposes in the ancient world. Society was organized around kinship patterns, so every family needed lists that described their ancestral pedigree. Such family trees determined a person's social relationships. For instance, two families planning the marriage of their children would compare family lines to check kinship ties to ensure the two were "compatible." And rulers used genealogies to justify their power, rank, and status.



So why are the genealogical trees in Matthew and Luke so different? Matthew begins his Gospel with Jesus' genealogy, while Luke places it, strangely, between Jesus' baptism and temptation. Matthew has an ascending list, moving from Abraham up to Jesus, while Luke has a descending list, moving from Jesus down to Adam. Matthew's list is partial; Luke's is complete. And most significantly, while the two lists are virtually identical from Abraham to David, they diverge greatly from David to Jesus.



Several solutions have been proposed to explain the differences. Martin Luther said that Matthew gives Joseph's line and Luke Mary's line. Others, such as Tertullian, reversed this. Yet the explanation fails in both directions, because the Gospels clearly state that they are listing Joseph's line (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23). Julius Africanus proposed that Matthew follows Jesus' natural descent and Luke his legal descent. Neither Gospel indicates such an approach, though, and it is best to allow the authors to speak for themselves.

A Closer Look



Examining each genealogy closely reveals the authors' different purposes. Matthew's list resembles those used by rulers to justify their rank and status, and by families to determine connections to a common ancestor. Matthew arranges his genealogy into three groups of 14 names each. In Jewish gematria—a kind of numerology stemming from the fact that letters of the Hebrew alphabet were also numbers—names have numerical value. The three consonants for David add up to 14. So Matthew underscores Jesus' kingly ancestry by working in groups of David, or 14.



Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Savior whose pedigree demonstrates his claim to be the Son of David and royal Messiah.[size="4"] Another unique feature of his genealogy is the presence of four women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Each had a scandalous aspect of her life, thus paving the way for Mary as an unwed mother. And all were (or were married to) Gentiles, foreshadowing the Gentile mission so important in Matthew's gospel.[/size]



Luke, on the other hand, begins his genealogy with "the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (3:23), and concludes with "the son of God" (3:38). At Jesus' baptism, God declares Jesus "my Son" (3:22), and Jesus' temptation begins with Satan recognizing him as "the Son of God" (4:3). Placed between Jesus' baptism and temptation, Luke's genealogy is meant to proclaim that Jesus is, indeed, God's only Son.



Luke does not group the names like Matthew does but provides a simple succession of ancestors. The list contains many more common names (some of which we know nothing about) and seems to underscore Jesus' humanity as well as his divine sonship. Moreover, by going all the way back to Adam (the ancestor of all humanity), Luke maintains a universal thrust, emphasizing that Jesus came for all mankind. The list ends with Adam, and then Luke moves into the story of Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness, in which Jesus rises above temptation as Adam did not. The message is clear: In Jesus, all human beings find their sins overcome.



Are there difficulties in reconciling the genealogies? Can they be harmonized? The answer in both cases is yes. Matthew's and Luke's lists stem largely from Old Testament genealogies (see Gen. 10-11 and 1 Chron. 1-3) and Jewish sources, and the differences between the names occur largely because each evangelist was selective in whom he included.



After Nathan in Luke's account and after Zerubbabel in Matthew's, no names adhere to other biblical passages, but few doubt that both lists are following traditional sources. We may never know whether Jesus' paternal grandfather through Joseph was Jacob (Matt. 1:15) or Heli (Luke 3:23b), and it could well be that they were brothers, with Heli the uncle and legal line of Jesus and Jacob the physical line. Either way, each genealogy reveals something about Jesus.



Grant Osborne is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Quote:White Guilt Fantasy



Avatar is a classic scenario you've seen in Hollywood epics from Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9 and The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.



If we think of Avatar and its ilk as white fantasies about race, what kinds of patterns do we see emerging in these fantasies?



A white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior.

These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations.



The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the "alien" cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become "race traitors," and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed.



This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

Quote:This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

Quote:Mystic Christianity

THE true story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth has never been unfolded to the world, either in the

accepted Gospels or in the Apocrypha, although a few stray hints may be found in some of the

commentaries written by the ante-Nicene Fathers. The facts concerning His identity and mission are

among the priceless mysteries preserved to this day in the secret vaults beneath the "Houses of the

Brethren." To a few of the Knights Templars, who were initiated into the arcana of the Druses,

Nazarenes, Essenes, Johannites, and other sects still inhabiting the remote and inaccessible fastnesses of

the Holy Land, part of the strange story was told. The knowledge of the Templars concerning the early

history of Christianity was undoubtedly one of the main reasons for their persecution and final

annihilation. The discrepancies in the writings of the early Church Fathers not only are irreconcilable,

but demonstrate beyond question that even during the first five centuries after Christ these learned men

had for the basis of their writings little more substantial than folklore and hearsay. To the easy believer

everything is possible and there are no problems. The unemotional person in search of facts, however, is

confronted by a host of problems with uncertain factors, of which the following are typical:

According to popular conception, Jesus was crucified during the thirty-third year of His life and in the

third year of His ministry following His baptism. About A.D. 180, St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, one of

the most eminent of the ante-Nicene theologians, wrote Against Heresies, an attack on the doctrines of

the Gnostics. In this work Irenæus declared upon the authority of the Apostles themselves that Jesus

lived to old age. To quote: "They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that

which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year

only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful of their own

disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary

and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He

excelled all others. For how could He have had His disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He

have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptised, He had not

yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who

has mentioned His years, has expressed it: 'Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,'

when He came to receive baptism); and, (according to these men,) He preached only one year reckoning

from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who

had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,

and that this extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth

year a man begins to decline towards old age, which Our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office

of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John,

the disciple of the Lord, (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained

among them up to the time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles

also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the'(validity of) the

statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never

saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

Commenting on the foregoing passage, Godfrey Higgins remarks that it has fortunately escaped the

hands of those destroyers who have attempted to render the Gospel narratives consistent by deleting all

such statements. He also notes that the doctrine of the crucifixion was a vexata questio among Christians

even during the second century. "The evidence of Irenæus," he says, "cannot be touched. On every

principle of sound criticism, and of the doctrine of probabilities, it is unimpeachable."

It should further be noted that Irenæus prepared this statement to contradict another apparently current in

his time to the effect that the ministry of Jesus lasted but one year. Of all the early Fathers, Irenæus,

writing within eighty years after the death of St. John the Evangelist, should have had reasonably

accurate information. If the disciples themselves related that Jesus lived to advanced age in the body,

why has the mysterious number 33 been arbitrarily chosen to symbolize the duration of His life? Were

the incidents in the life of Jesus purposely altered so that His actions would fit more closely into the

pattern established by the numerous Savior-Gods who preceded Him? That these analogies were

recognized and used as a leverage in converting the Greeks and Romans is evident from a perusal of the

writings of Justin Martyr, another second-century authority. In his Apology, Justin addresses the pagans

thus:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union,

and that He, Jesus Christ, Our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into

heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of

Jupiter. * * * And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different

from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury

is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with

those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated."

From this it is evident that the first missionaries of the Christian Church were far more willing to admit

the similarities between their faith and the faiths of the pagans than were their successors in later

centuries.

In an effort to solve some of the problems arising from any attempt to chronicle accurately the life of

Jesus, it has been suggested that there may have lived in Syria at that time two or more religious teachers

bearing the name Jesus, Jehoshua or Joshua, and that the lives of these men may have been confused in

the Gospel stories. In his Secret Sects of Syria and the Lebanon, Bernard H. Springett, a Masonic author,

quotes from an early book, the name of which he was not at liberty to disclose because of its connection

with the ritual of a sect. The last part of his quotation is germane to the subject at hand:

"But Jehovah prospered the seed of the Essenians, in holiness and love, for many generations. Then

came the chief of the angels, according to the commandment of GOD, to raise up an heir to the Voice of

Jehovah. And, in four generations more, an heir was born, and named Joshua, and he was the child of

Joseph and Mara, devout worshippers of Jehovah, who stood aloof from all other people save the

Essenians. And this Joshua, in Nazareth, reestablished Jehovah, and restored many of the lost rites and

ceremonies. In the thirty-sixth year of his age he was stoned to death in Jerusalem * * *"

Click to enlarge

THE ROUND TABLE OF KING ARTHUR.

From Jennings' The Rosicrucians, Their Rites and Mysteries.

According to tradition, Arthur, when a boy of fifteen, was crowned King of Britain, in A.D. 516. Soon after his

ascension to the throne he founded the Order of the Knights of the Round Table at Windsor. Thereafter the

Knights met annually at Carleon, Winchester, or at Camelot, to celebrate Pentecost. From all parts of Europe

came the brave and the bold, seeking admission into this noble order of British knighthood. Nobility, virtue, and

valor were its requirements, and those possessing these qualities to a marked degree were welcomed to King

Arthur's court at Camelot. Having gathered the bravest and noblest Knights of Europe about him, King Arthur

chose twenty-four who excelled all the others in daring and integrity and formed of them his Circle of the Round

Table. According to legend, each of these Knights was so great in dignity and power that none could occupy a

more exalted seat than another, so when they gathered at the table to celebrate the anniversary of their foundation

it was necessary to use a round table that all might occupy chairs of equal importance.

While it is probable that the Order of the Round Table had its distinctive rituals and symbols, the knowledge of

them has not survived the ages. Elias Ashmole, in his volume on the Order of the Garter, inserted a double-page

plate showing the insignia of all the orders of knighthood, the block set aside for the symbol of the Round Table

being left blank. The chief reason for the loss of the symbolism of the Round Table was the untimely death of

King Arthur upon the field of Kamblan (A.D. 542) in the forty-first year of his life. While he destroyed his bitter

enemy, Mordred, in this famous battle, it cast him not only his own life but the lives of nearly all his Knights of

the Round Table, who died defending their commander.

Quote:Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have made claims such as that the film is “a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people” and reinforces “the white Messiah fable.”



The film’s writer and director, James Cameron, says the real theme is about respecting others’ differences.



In the film (Warning: spoilers ahead) a white, paralysed Marine, Jake Sully, is mentally linked to an alien’s body and set loose on the planet Pandora. His mission: persuade the mystic, nature-loving Na’vis to make way for humans to mine their land for unobtanium — a mineral worth $20 million per kilo back home.



Like Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves and Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai or as far back as Jimmy Stewart in the 1950 Western Broken Arrow, the hero (Sully) switches sides. He falls in love with the Na’vi princess and leads the bird-riding, bow-and-arrow-shooting aliens to victory over the white men’s spaceships and mega-robots.



Adding to the racial dynamic is that the main Na’vi characters are played by actors of color, led by a Dominican, Zoe Saldana, as the princess. The film also is an obvious metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians.



Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as Seven Pounds and Hotel for Dogs, said that Avatar was “beautiful” and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white.



But she said the film, which remained No. 1 at the box office domestically for the fourth straight weekend with $48.5 million and is second among all-time top-grossing films worldwide, still reminded her of Hollywood’s “Pocahontas” story — “the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior.”



“It’s really upsetting in many ways,” said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. “It would be nice if we could save ourselves.”



Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Website io9.com, likened Avatar to the recent film District 9, in which a white man accidentally becomes an alien and then helps save the aliens, and Dune (1984) in which a white man becomes an alien Messiah.



[size="5"]“Main white characters realise that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, aka people of color ... (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed,” wrote Newitz, who is white. “When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?” [/size]

Quote:There are many ways to interpret the art that is Avatar.



What does it mean that in the final, sequel-begging scene, Sully abandons his human body and transforms into one of the Na’vi? Is Saldana’s Na’vi character the real heroine because she, not Sully, kills the arch-villain? Does it matter that many conservatives are riled by what they call liberal, environmental and antimilitary messages?

[size="5"]

Is Cameron actually exposing the historical evils of white colonisers? Does the existence of an alien species expose the reality that all humans are actually one race?[/size]



Although the Avatar debate springs from Hollywood’s historical difficulties with race, Will Smith recently saved the planet in I Am Legend and Denzel Washington appears ready to do the same in the forthcoming Book of Eli.



Bogle, the film historian, said that he was glad Cameron made the film and that it made people think about race.



“Maybe there is something he does want to say and put across” about race, Bogle said. “Maybe if he had a black hero in there, that point would have been even stronger.”

Quote:An Israeli researcher has deciphered the earliest known Hebrew biblical inscription which “proved” that the Bible had been written hundreds of year earlier than thought.



It also testified that the Kingdom of Israel existed in 10th century BCE.



Previously, a wide range of respected academics had insisted that the Bible could not possibly have been written before the 6th century BC due to widespread illiteracy, but Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa in northern Israel proved them wrong.



Prof. Galil, who deciphered the inscription made in ink on a small piece of clay, said: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BC and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”



The earliest known inscription was found in the Elah Valley south of Jerusalem in 2008 but the language used in it could not be deciphered at the time, Jerusalem Post reported.



“This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah (“did“) and avad (“worked“), which were rarely used in other regional languages,” Prof. Galil said.



Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah (“widow“) are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages, the researcher said.



This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognised the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.



Prof. Galil said, the inscription, which was discovered a year and a half ago in a provincial town in Judea, explains that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers.



He said that this inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.



“It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BC, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.”



“The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs,” Prof. Galil explained.



He added that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.