Having read “The Da Vinci Code”, and having – some twenty-five years ago – written a work for Harper and Row which dealt with both history and prophecy, I have a nature instinct to investigate that which is presented as based on fact.
The idea of the “Blood Royal” and “Blood of Christ” can lead in many direction. Imagine, if you can, that Christ did not die, but rather he was declared dead while alive. The biblical stories then take on a slightly different bent. Add to that the established ancient belief the “Blood Royal”was taken wither to England or France – and we have the possibility that Jesus, after he met Mary on the road and directed her to tell the twelve disciples he had risen, ... we have the possibility that he not only had risen, but was alive and, after delivering his charge to tell the story of his “death” departed for Europe ... the true “Blood Royal”.
Just a thought to note now, and maybe ... some time in the future ... to explore further.
;D
As usual, I digress. I was going to get into my research, and how there are things of interest now which were also of interest in the century after the founding of the Church. Bush 43 represents modern pagan Christianity at its most violent – much like Peter using his sword to take the ear of one who came for Christ. Violence is the founding of western faith – and Bush 43 typifies that violence taken to the extreme.
In opposition we have Osama Bin Laden – also a man of violence; but one whose faith emerges some five hundred years later. But the roots of their teachings are the same – children of the same parent.
Consider these words of an ancient scholar, TERTULLIAN: “Having already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it behoves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription----no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions.”
While we know “the veil” to be an orthodox Muslim custom, this is a man talking of Christian virgins being required to wear the veil. And, from the perspective of a direct observer, he tells his readers: “Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood.”
So we have it that the veil is not a Muslim custom at all – rather it is one that was commonly practiced, and even debated, centuries before the founding of Islam. We also learn from these writing something of great interest: “Of the general , [is woman], the special is virgin , or wife , or widow , or whatever other names, even of the successive stages of life, are added hereto.” The idea of virgin is applied to a woman who has not yet married – not necessarily one who has not had sex.
Of interest is monogamy . Here we see argument that goes against scripture. The biblical – as accepted by the Church canon – states that a man can choose to have TWO wives, but must treat them equally. The philosophical argument sets aside the specific words and resorts to utilizing Adam and Eve based extrapolation to justify monogamy – and infer that, as the numeric count would be the same, sequential wives would also be prohibited. Hence, once widowed, never again married – a concept endorsed by Hindu practice. It really is a small religious world ... or was ... two thousand years ago. In Christian terms, as accepted, or espoused by Tertullian, holds that remarriage of a Christian is prohibited – but a second marriage by a non-Christian after they have converted to Christianity is acceptable.
Now we have some of the doctrine of the most holy church which the Crusader – Bush 43 – would bring to all humanity. Or does Bush 43 denounce the teachings established to be those of the Christian deity to whom he so frequently kneels in pray?
Given four more years, will he bring us further toward the ancient days ... and further away from rational practice and belief?
Given four more years, will we see rights and freedoms erode further – while our enemies grow in numbers?
Given for more years – having taken a $236 billion surplus and converted it into a $415 billion deficit in the first four – will the deficits exceed $650 billion a year?
Given four more years – will the nation once again come to realize it cannot have both guns and butter? There can be no economic growth in times of war – and there can be no tax cuts in times of war. Lessons that Bush 43, and at least 45% of America, has yet to acknowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment