Rambling About Theology, Time, Light, Energy, and the Fundamental Existence of God

      One of the concepts which theologians of the past simply could not grasp was the timeless nature of eternity, that is, that eternity exists outside of the flow time which we experience. For them, eternity always meant "always" or "forever" within some kind of flow of time even if it wasn't that which we experienced within our own existence. The reason for this is because the human brain is simply not capable of visualizing something outside of three dimensions of space and one of time. And so this human inability to conceptualize a timeless existence has led to many misconceptions.

     Time is simply another vector of motion like width, depth, and height within a multidimensional universe, and the greater multidimensional, potentially infinite multiverse. According to modern theoretical physics, our reality must exist in at least eleven dimensions, only four of which we experience directly. These dimensions, like the aforementioned four, are also merely vectors of motion as all of creation remains in motion since the beginning.

     Nothing can move faster than light (except perhaps theoretical tachyons, but that's a subject for another discussion), and the speed of light is constant (300,000 kps) and unyielding. This is a well established scientific fact. Another point about light is that an object travelling at the speed of light travels instantaneously from its own point of view, and is therefore at all points in space and time simultaneously. But why is this? Perhaps it is because we are looking at it from the wrong point of view just as we once looked at the sun as revolving around the Earth instead of the Earth revolving around the sun. Perhaps relative to the creation, light itself is absolutely at rest, and everything else is in motion through it, including time. That is, it is the nature of light to be timeless, that is, eternal, and to exist outside of time and space.

     In some ways, this shouldn't be a surprise, as light is a form or manifestation of energy, and energy itself must be infinite, omnipresent in space and time, and eternal (cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore has no beginning and no end) in an infinite multiverse. This is something which is hinted at in the existence of what's called zero-point energy. That is, it is impossible to completely remove all energy from an object or space (usually in the form of heat), because even at the "zero point" Kelvin, particles are seen popping into and out of existence from the background energy upon which creation rests. Light is at absolute rest relative to the rest of creation because the Source of energy itself is at absolute rest relative to the motion of time, space, and all possible dimensional vectors along which the base components or coding of our existence, the frequencies, amplitudes, and spins which form the base sub-atomic particles and bosons, move.

      That Source of energy itself, eternal existing outside of the time and space which move through Him, infinite, omnipresent, immutable, unmovable, and by His very nature of Being, omnipotent and omniscient, is something, someone whom no theologian in time past, and few in time present, could conceive of or conceptualize. All moments to Him are "right now" as He is equally present in every moment at every point in space since time began through to when space and time cease to be. There is no word in any human language which can actually describe His relationship to time as "timeless" simply doesn't do it justice, and "eternal" in English is misleading.

     And this is the Being whom Jesus Christ called His Father, sacrificing His own self-identity so that the Person whom His Father is could be seen shining radiantly through His own human born Person. "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father." And that Person, that Personality whom Jesus Christ displayed was Love incarnate, pure and unadulterated by attachment, jealousy, or fear. And it is this Person, this Personality through Jesus Christ for whom we are to sacrifice our own self-identities so that, through manifesting Jesus Christ, we also manifest His Father. "The one who has the Son has the Father also." So that we too may be incarnations of a sort of God Himself like Jesus was and remains, so that we too might be the Logos become flesh for a time, camping out in a tent within the world.

     There is nowhere one can go where the Father is not. There is no time, no place, no dimensional vector of travel one can run to or along which does not exist within or travel through Him. To Him, all times and all places are right here and right now. Every point along our common timestream is an open book with every page displayed at once, every frame of the film frozen and fully visible. From eternity, there is no such thing as the experience of time passing except to see each page or frame displayed equally. One might enter any point in our timestream equally whether or not it is considered our past or future.

      And that Being's very Person is Love, and the most important things to Him are Love, Kindness, Mercy, Compassion, Joy, Trust, and that we know Him and get to know Him.

More Thoughts on the Authenticity of the Documents of the New Testament

     If you've ever watched the British production of Poirot with David Suchet, you'll know right away that English isn't Poirot's first language. He peppers his sentences, nearly every sentence with "Frankisms," French words, phrases, and pronunciation. In the series, he says he doesn't have to speak that way, but he does it in a calculating way to throw people off their guard so they will be dismissive of him and thus more likely to be careless in what they say or do. But his heavy accent is a perfect example of what I was reflecting on this morning.
     Growing up in Southern California, you're introduced to speakers of other languages at an early age. There's something like 200 different languages spoken in Orange County alone on a daily basis, sixty at my High School alone. The only way anyone could and did communicate was by speaking English, but it was generally very clear when English wasn't the other person's first language, even if they were perfectly understandable. And even if English was technically their first language, their particular accent or dialect was frequently heavily influenced by the first language of their family or close knit community. With Spanish speakers, sometimes an article would be left out, or they would only pronounce English words with the five vowels of Spanish. With Vietnamese, the tones would be weirdly applied to English at times, and several consonants simply couldn't be formed correctly. With Arabic or Semitic language speakers, they might form the possessive using the "for me, for you" construction depending on how familiar they really were with English. Russian speakers form their sentences awkwardly in English. And on and on there are just little tells that, if a person isn't fully aware of them, can pin exactly which language or language family is their first.
     Much has been made of the Aramaicisms which pepper the Greek of the Gospel narratives. From Aramaic metaphors, to vocabulary, to awkward Greek grammar in places. Some have insisted that, because of this, the Gospels and even the New Testament at large was originally written in Aramaic (Classical Syriac to distinguish it from Biblical Aramaic, which is five hundred years older; the suggestion that they were originally written in Hebrew, a dead language in the first century, is laughable). But if these works had originally been written in Aramaic, why would the translator, presumably fluent in Greek himself, have not used regular Greek vocabulary, grammar, and syntax in rendering it throughout?
     Rather, the Aramaicisms in the text, in my opinion, more reflect the authentic originality of the Greek texts in that they were recorded, either written themselves or dictated to an amanuensis in the cases of those who were illiterate, with the same kind of heavy accent and cultural influence you would expect from those for whom Greek was a second language, and not their first or their family's first. John in particular speaks with these Aramaicisms, and all of the Gospels record Jesus speaking with a heavy Syriac accent. Paul rarely if ever uses them, Luke virtually never. Other authors use them to varying degrees. There is no real uniformity of language use between the authors, also arguing for the originality of the Greek text by each author and none of them being a translation.
     There are a number of people now who talk about the New Testament, and the Bible in general, having only come about or been written in the fourth century by the Church, three hundred years after the events they describe. Any honest examination of the language of the text will reveal that is absolute nonsense. Each document of the New Testament reads exactly as you would expect it to read if they were written by the kinds of people you would expect in those dialects, in that language, in that culture, in that region, and in that time period they were purported to have been written. If these documents had been written three hundred years later by theologians, they would be radically different, uniform in language, and anachronistic in content in lockstep with the theology and culture of the fourth century.
    A comparison might be made with the Book of Mormon, purported to be a translation of an ancient American text from the seventh century written in a language descended from Hebrew and Egyptian, and written by multiple authors. Even a cursory reading of this text by someone familiar with both ancient American culture and languages and ancient Middle Eastern/Egyptian culture and languages will tell them that this is complete nonsense, and that this text reflects the period and religious language and landscape of 1820s American Protestantism, is completely uniform in language usage, and reflects a single author who was fluent in the American dialect of English in the early 1800s. They will also tell you that the purported examples of this ancient language's vocabulary, person and place names as well as names of weights and measures (excluding the obvious Biblical names), do not reflect or represent any ancient American or Middle Eastern language. This is in addition to the startling number of anachronisms.
     Whatever one might believe about the content of the documents of the New Testament, all internal evidence reinforces that they were written by whom they say they were, when they say they were, and where they say they were. Anyone who says otherwise either has not done the research and is ignorant of what they're saying, or is deliberately trying to malign the New Testament for their own reasons.

Reflections on "Muscle Testing"

 Over the last several years, my family and I have learned how to "muscle test" questions, and in particular questions of a health related or medical nature. It began when Heidi was still struggling through trying to recover from her bad Multiple Sclerosis flare. We were both skeptical about it at first, but after running a few tests we realized that there was definitely something to it and it could be used with a high degree of reliability. Through using this technique, Heidi, having had her diet growing more and more restrictive over the years because of the seizures that would result if she was wrong, was able to accurately test which foods might be safe for her to ingest and which weren't. With the assistance of this newfound tool, Heidi was able to not only get the M.S. flare under control, but was able to reverse and eliminate the plaques on her brain and spine altogether.
      The idea behind muscle testing is based on the body having its own energy field, sometimes referred to as "chi" or "qi" which reacts with the energy fields of other things either positively or negatively. In addition, the body's energy field will react to a truth or untruth positively or negatively either being strengthened or literally pulled towards the truth, or being weakened and literally repulsed by the untruth. In this way, it is possible to ask and receive answers to yes or no questions with a high degree of reliability.
     There are however some caveats we've learned about this technique, sometimes the hard way, which are well worth reflecting on and pondering. The major caveat to it is that you cannot get a reliable answer to a question where you have an attachment to the answer you get. Your own subconscious will interfere and skew the results to whatever you either think it should be, or whatever you're afraid it might be.
     If you are in a state of fear, conscious or unconscious, or aggression your answers become unreliable and the muscle testing will start delivering gibberish responses where "yes" can be "no" and vice versa. In other words, if you are engaged with or in submission to your own malfunctioning survival responses, the muscle testing doesn't work right and itself malfunctions. Any emotional state which is ultimately rooted in fear or aggression such as despair, anger, or pride results in unreliable answers. In order to receive reliable answers, fear has to be let go of and the practitioner has to shift in the direction of courage, reason, joy, compassion, and ultimately love (not of the romantic variety but of the agape variety). The closer one is to agape (and the farther one is from fear), the more accurate and reliable the answers become.
     And what I have been reflecting on is how much this is similar to what I have been writing about submitting to and cooperating with the Spirit of Christ. The more one does this, the more Jesus Christ manifests within that person, but in order to do this one must disengage from one's own fear, aggression, and bodily cravings. So in the same way, perhaps where muscle testing is concerned, one is not asking the questions of the energy of one's body per se, but one is connecting to the Energy or Spirit of Christ in order to receive information about a thing. And then when one disengages and reverts to the fear and aggression responses of their flesh, they only get wrong or unreliable answers because they have disconnected themselves. And maybe it works this way whether or not one understands the mechanism accurately because every human being has been joined as one with the Spirit of Christ through His birth, death, burial, and resurrection.
     Regardless, it's clear to me at this point that the best path and practice is that of letting go of one's attachments and the fear and aggression they can generate. By letting them go, one can sense and communicate with the Truth more freely, and be able to allow that Truth to express Himself freely through you. The best thing we can do is to remove all obstructions to Him doing this.

On Whether Jesus and His Disciples Actually Taught If He was the Son of God

      There is a persistent teaching floating around progressive Christianity and New Age circles which, at its most innocent is a simple ignorance or misunderstanding of history and the historical documents of Christianity, and at its worst is a pernicious falsehood. Like the Reformers reaction and rejection of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings because of its abuses, sometimes throwing out the baby with the bathwater, this too is a reaction against the abuses of modern Christianity, and it too is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This teaching is that Jesus wasn't taught to be either Christ or God until the Great Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 CE, almost three hundred years after His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. A related teaching is that the documents of the New Testament originated at this Council. Both are simply not true. While this Council and its succeeding Councils sought to codify and set in stone the theology which had always been universally accepted (to a greater or lesser degree of success), they were not attempting to invent anything which had not already been taught and accepted by the churches at large. They themselves were going off of the writings of their predecessors from both the New Testament authors and the writings of the bishops and church leaders that had come before them. Whether or not one agrees with their conclusions, their methodology and decisions were at least credible and well intended to reflect the historical belief system of their spiritual ancestors.

     The first century historicity and authorship of the documents of the New Testament is well attested in a number of different ways. First, the internal language is reflective of the various dialects and modes of speech reflected in first century Common Greek. In addition, it's very clear that those documents ascribed to Paul were all written by a single author, those written by Luke were written by a single author, and so were those written by John. Those authors who only wrote a single document within the New Testament also reflect their own unique modes of speech and dialect distinct from the others. Second, the writings of the late first and early second century all cite various sections and passages from these primary New Testament documents, suggesting heavily that these documents had not only already been written long before the second century writings, but had been copied so many times that they were in widespread circulation. Third, it's clear that they were in widespread circulation by at least 120 CE when they were translated into Syriac in what is known as the Peshitta. Thus, while the Great Council in 325 CE may have acknowledged the twenty seven documents we now know as the New Testament as canon, they did not originate there, and they only chose these documents and not others because these were the ones everyone tended to use and agree on. Were there others? Yes, but not everyone agreed on them, and they were focused on canonizing what had been universally accepted, not what had only been accepted by a minority.

     The Divinity of Jesus Christ likewise is a teaching which is found in not only the documents of the New Testament, but also in the earliest extant documents of the leaders of the church dating easily to the late first and early second century. First, Jesus Himself said in no uncertain terms, "I am the Son of God" in the Gospel of John. Further, John's writings go to great lengths in ways the other Gospel writers do not to not only equate Jesus with God, but to reinforce His divine parentage as Jesus refers to Himself as God's one of a kind Son, refers to God as His Father numerous times unambiguously, and of course, the very opening lines of John's Gospel declare, "At the start was the Logos, and the Logos was with  God, and the Logos was God. ... And the Logos became flesh and camped out among us, and we looked at His glory, the glory as of the one of a kind Son of the Father..." It's clear from the context of the Gospel and John's first letter that He is referring to Jesus as the Logos become flesh. And it's also clear from first century understanding of the term "Logos" as used in John's writings that He is referring to the Logos in the same understanding as the Stoics and other philosophers would use the word, that is, the operating divine principle through which the world was created and continues to operate. It carries a similar understanding to the eastern concept of Tao, as well as the Hindu Om. You simply cannot read John's writings and come to the conclusion that neither Jesus nor the author believed that He was God, the Son of God, or Divine in some way. The same is true of Paul's writings, where Paul is explicit that the world was created through Him, and calls Him "our God and Savior." Peter's writings as well reflect this. This same understand continue on in the writings of Ignatius who was the Bishop of Antioch at the turn of the second century and was martyred by being thrown to lions in 105 CE. This understanding peppers the writings of the church fathers all the way through the second century and beyond. Even just the authors of the New Testament calling Jesus "Lord," that is, "kurios," was a kind of acknowledgement of His Divinity, being the same word used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate the Divine Name, and at the very least was a declaration that they were owned by Him as it literally means "owner or master."

     Wherever someone might land in terms of whether or not Jesus is in fact the virgin born Son of God, it is clear from what documents we do have from the period prior to the councils that this is what the first disciples and their immediate successors came to believe and understand, and this is what Jesus Himself said He was according to what they wrote.

What is The Kingdom of God?

 The kingdom of God doesn’t come with empirical observation, neither will they say, “Look, here!” or “There!” Because look! The kingdom of God is inside of you. - Luke 17:20b-21

Because the kingdom of God isn’t eating and drinking but a state of right being and peace and joy by means of the Holy Spirit; because the person being enslaved to Christ with this is a delight to God and proven to human beings. - Romans 14:17-18

And saying that, “The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at this point in time; change your mind and trust in the Gospel.” - Mark 1:15

     What do Jesus and the New Testament authors mean by the twin phrases, “The kingdom of God” and “The kingdom of Heaven”? These can be some of the most misunderstood terms when studying what the Scripture says because they invoke the imagery of a political entity, a nation with territorial boundaries, and the imagery of a literal kingdom on earth with the Messiah as its head of state subjugating all other nations through force. It is this kind of kingdom that the Judeans in the first century were taught to look for, the restoration of a Davidic king on the throne in Jerusalem bringing all of Israel’s enemies to their knees. And when we see all other pretenders to the Messianic title in the first century, this is exactly what they attempted to bring about, culminating in Rome losing their patience and destroying the temple, razing Jerusalem, and hunting every last “ZELΩTHC” down that they could. As Jesus predicted this would happen if they didn’t listen to Him and turn around, clearly, this isn’t what He was talking about.

     The kingdom of God, as the New Testament understands it, is made up of all those who choose to submit to and cooperate with the Spirit of Christ. By so doing, they maintain their connection to Jesus Christ Himself like members of the body to their Head. By so doing they acknowledge and commit to the absolute authority of the Spirit of Christ, the absolute authority of God Himself over their words, actions, behaviors, and lives thus acknowledging Jesus Christ as their “king” in this kingdom. It is a kingdom without borders or boundaries. It is a kingdom that, like the mustard seed, begins small inside you and then grows immensely large. It is a kingdom that, in order to really obtain it, one must say goodbye to everything to which they are attached. It is a kingdom where some are enslaved to the Spirit of Christ, and some are enslaved to their own flesh and it is hard to sort out who is who until the end. It is a kingdom whose citizens are not of this world, do not live enslaved to their own malfunctioning flesh, and realize they are merely passing through. It is a kingdom for whom God Himself is their home, their king, and their security. It is a kingdom that cannot fall to any earthly attack, because its citizens are one with God Himself.

     One cannot bring the kingdom of God about on earth through political or military action because these things only serve to incite the malfunctioning flesh to fear and aggression, thus pulling back control from the Spirit of Christ. One cannot force someone to submit to and cooperate with the Spirit of Christ. This has always been and always will be expressly voluntary. He will not force Himself on anyone. Attempting to enforce “God’s Law” by political, military, or other violent means cannot further the growth of the kingdom of God because these means are diametrically opposed to its nature, and any attempt to do so will only result in the same self-destruction which happened to Judea in the first century. One might be able to create a fear stricken population of religious zealots, but one will not and cannot build the kingdom of God using these means. One can only build the kingdom of God by making disciples of the Way of Jesus Christ, and this is done by teaching them to submit to and cooperate with the Spirit of Christ, not by teaching them to keep rules and laws.

     One also cannot bring the kingdom of God about on earth in any other meaningful way because Jesus Christ already did it in the only way that is meaningful. One can only build the kingdom further by being a disciple themselves and teaching others how to be disciples, make their home in Him, and walk as He walked, manifesting Him in their words and actions.

     At some point in the future, sooner rather than later I suspect given the direction everything is heading, humanity will have driven this planet and themselves to such a brink of self-destruction that our only salvation as a species will be invasion and military and political occupation by Heaven’s forces. But don’t mistake this for the kingdom of God which Jesus and the Apostles preached. This is Heaven sending relief and peacekeeping forces to keep us from finishing the job much like Pompey occupied Judea to keep the Judeans from destroying themselves through their civil war. This is Heaven saying “enough is enough,” while still not forcing the Spirit of Christ on anyone. This is last resort for our survival as a species and the survival of our world until the completion of everything. The only way we keep ourselves from reaching this point is by being disciples ourselves and building the kingdom of God as Jesus taught us to do.

Love and Support for the Jewish People Does Not Equal Support for the Modern State of Israel's Government

      I'm going to say something that shouldn't be controversial, but is. The modern State of Israel is not the ancient Kingdom of Israel. The ancient Kingdom of Israel ended with Jeconiah's reign. The ancient Kingdom of Israel not only failed to keep the Contract they signed with Yahweh, they completely ignored and blew it off. Because of this, Yahweh kept His terms of the contract and the ancient Kingdom was invaded and sold into slavery. Those who returned were not the ancient kingdom, but a remnant that were never really self-governing ever again. Yes, there was a brief period of independence with the Maccabees for maybe a hundred years until Pompey intervened to stop them from destroying themselves with civil war.

     The modern State of Israel is neither ruled nor bound by the Mosaic Covenant. It is a secular State governed by a constitution, parliamentary body, president, and prime minister. The modern State of Israel has no divine mandate to commit genocide upon the "Canaanites" or drive them from the land. The Canaanites were a people who practiced child sacrifice, and as such, cannibalism, as well as practicing the molestation and rape of travelers. The Canaanites who were in the land at the time of the Covenant were completely wiped out by the time Israel was sold into slavery. 

     The modern Palestinians are not Canaanites. Most are Muslim. A smaller percentage are Orthodox Christian. There is some debate about their origins, but it can be certain that they are not of the people that were under the ban in the Mosaic Covenant being 3500 years removed in time, language, and culture.

     One can be supportive of the Jewish people without being supportive of the Prime Minister or government of the State of Israel or their actions or decisions. One can love the Jewish people without being supportive of the current Israeli government's policies of displacement and extermination of Palestinians. One can support and love the Jewish people without supporting and loving Israel's corrupt and dictatorial leadership. Consider the aforementioned Civil War which Pompey put an end to. Consider the rule of the Herods which prompted such an outcry from the Jewish people themselves that Rome had to intervene and take direct control in order to restore order. Consider all of the deranged kings of Israel and Judah even under the Covenant, David, Hezekiah, Solomon, and those few others notwithstanding.

     Love and support for the Jewish people does not necessitate love and support for the Israel government, its policies, or its leadership.

      The Mosaic Covenant was rendered null and void with the New Covenant according to the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. As Paul wrote many times, who is the true descendant of Abraham? The one who shares the trust in God which Abraham displayed, not necessarily the one who shares his bloodline (and, if we're really honest, if we were to include everyone who shares Abraham's DNA, his literal descendants, it would probably be almost a quarter of the globe); the child of the promise, not the child of the flesh. Those who justify the current actions and policies by the State of Israel's government based on the text of the Mosaic Covenant neither understand the basic premise of the New Covenant, the history of the Old Testament (especially the Histories and the Prophets) or post-exilic Judea, or the New Testament in general.

Understanding Paul's Mind in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

     There is a great incongruence in taking what Paul writes in his letters as commands to be followed. Paul himself is very explicit in his letters that those who are disciples are not to be trying to follow commands or "laws" but are to be submitting to and cooperating with the Spirit of Christ, and that it is the Spirit of Christ who is to be acting and speaking through you. This is the bedrock for understanding Paul's mind when he gives instruction in his letters.

     When Paul talks about "inheriting the kingdom of God," he's not talking about going to heaven when one dies, he's talking about a person manifesting Jesus Christ in their words, actions, and even demonstrations of power. That is, when one is "walking in the Spirit," they "inherit" everything that Jesus Christ is as they submit to and cooperate with His Spirit. So when Paul says that someone behaving in a certain way will not inherit the kingdom of God, he's talking about when someone's behavior clearly indicates that they are functioning from their own devices, their own fear, aggression, or bodily cravings. And this, when you understand the bedrock of Paul's thinking, makes perfect sense. 

     If one is not submitted to and in cooperation with the Spirit of Christ, it's not going to be Jesus Christ acting and speaking through that person. They're not going to be "inheriting" His person, power, or attributes as long as they are submitted to their own ego/mind/identity produced by their own malfunctioning neurology. They've unplugged, so to speak. They're not "making their home in Him." They're not "walking in the Spirit," and as such are not going to produce the fruit of the Spirit as Jesus Himself said, "without Me you can't do anything at all."

     In the light of this understanding, let's look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which reads, "Or don't you know that behaving in the wrong way will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be led astray; neither male whores nor idolaters nor adulterers nor weak, self-indulgent people nor those committing pederasty nor thieves nor avaricious, not alcoholics, not slanderers, not plunderers will inherit the kingdom of God." Virtually everything here listed can be ascribed to one of these three survival responses (malfunctioning in human beings) in some way: fear, aggression, and bodily cravings, all of which indicate disconnection from the Spirit of Christ. It is not a matter of any of these practices automatically damning someone to hell, but that the person is submitting to their own flesh rather than the Spirit of Christ. Further, it is clear from Paul's other writings that he never intended this list or any other he wrote to be additional rules or commandments for Christians to try and keep, but rather a practical instruction that one cannot be in submission to the root causes of these behaviors and manifest Christ at the same time. No one can be enslaved to two masters, and no one can be enslaved to one's malfunctioning responses of fear, aggression, or bodily cravings and be enslaved to the Spirit of Christ at the same time. It just isn't possible.

*(It should here be noted that the word "malakos" is frequently translated as either "catamite" or "homosexual" in modern translations. The word itself means "soft, gentle, delicate, self-indulgent, morally weak, faint-hearted, or cowardly." The word "arsenokoites" is frequently translated "sodomite" and this is technically the correct usage, but it is my understanding based on other early Christian writings that what was meant was the practice of pederasty, that is, older men sodomizing younger boys, which was a common cultural practice in ancient Greece and Rome. Finally, the word "pornos," frequently translated as "fornicator" actually means male whore, specifically such as might be found in pagan temple worship, but could be applied more generally as a pejorative as well.)