Wednesday, September 20, 2006:

Proof, how concrete do you want it? Proof depends upon a complete construct of language. Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?" What is proof to you. Pilate at the time was a relativist without being an absolutist about anything. Proof would forever remain a relative thing. What is real? No one can prove the infinite to you if you are in Pilate's frame of reference.

Prove something within the Ptolemaic framework where all heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. Well, they do when one puts the earth in the center. It cannot be disproved. One may place the center of everything anywhere. Think about it. In the infinite, everywhere is the center and nowhere is the center at the same time. This means everything is relative and everything is absolute at the same while nothing is relative and nothing is absolute at the same time. It all depends upon the context of each term. It's all paradoxical yet all reconciled if you will let go and trust, and know in absolute certainty.

That sounds as if Pilate was right, you might think. He was right, half right, which is all wrong relative to the highest level from God's perspective. Jesus on the other hand understood all of this and more—much more.

Prove something within the Newtonian framework. Well, on the human scale, Newtonian physics predicts quite well. However, concerning space-time, it is replaced by the Einsteinian.

Prove something on the scale of the quanta and Quantum Mechanics replaces the Einsteinian as the better mindset.

Different behaviors at different scales is what this shows. Each scale fitting within another and others where the rules of scales is itself a spectrum describable mathematically.

We have seen that physicists have coaxed or forced matter to appear from what they know not, meaning they see nothing from which the matter converted. We have seen that they have shown a transference of information at rates faster than the speed of light while their Einsteinian model tells them that's not possible. We have seen that their prying eyes correlate exactly with the preclusion of the behavior of matter that otherwise occurs.

These things inform us that there are other rules within rules. Can it be proven?

The higher critics of The Bible seek to discover the "true" origins of the text. They want to know whether or not the stories are historically accurate. They want to know.

The way to approach this is the same way to approach the 9-11 Truth Movement. There really is such a thing as a false-flag operation. With undisputed false-flag operations, the question is not whether, it is to what degree. There was infiltration and cooperation in both directions. The questions concerning the five-w's: Who, what, where, when, and why? In undertaking investigations, one must ask whether the framework should remain within a confined scale. How far do we want to go for the truth? Are we willing to get at the root? Are we prepared for the implications?

Well, The Bible can be investigated, but are investigators open to the knowledge that there are rules of which they know nothing? Will they confine themselves to qualified findings, or will they jump to sweeping generalities that preclude the smaller-scale or larger-scale rules?

We have in the theories of the higher critics the idea that the first five books of The Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are a composite of various authors and scribes. This the fundamentalists hold seeks to undermine their tradition that Moses wrote those books or better yet, God dictated them to Moses. Well, this is as a non-starter paradox situation.

Throughout this work, we have seen that words are contextual. That is inescapable. Pinning down the meaning of a word as they say is as nailing fresh Jell-O to the wall. Words are subject to usage, but more importantly for our understanding, words are subject to pejoration. Even the term pejoration can be hemmed in an attempt to preclude the minds of others from perceiving the designs of the selfish spirit at work in reality and unreality.

Do we disagree with everything the higher critics say? No. What we do is reserve judgment. We hold our peace.


Could the higher critics be on to something concerning Deuteronomy ?


Some background is necessary here. Josiah is supposedly the most righteous king of Judah who was killed by Necho II, the Egyptian king (pharaoh) at Megiddo around 609 BC. According to the Biblical account, over a period from 740 to 721 BC, the Northern kingdom called Israel (that was based upon Ephraim's bloodline, Ephraim being the second son of Joseph), was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. Ten tribes of Israel were killed and sent into exile to varying degrees to divers places. They were not allowed to return until recently.


Hezekiah was the king of Judah from 715 to 686 BC by some estimates. He is renown for having destroyed all the idolatry his father had set up. He even destroyed the bronze snake on a pole that had been ordered up and constructed under Moses. (That snake is a foreshadowing of Christ on the Cross—a vary contextually sensitive concept to follow without falling into the dark pits along the path.)

Well, Josiah later followed very much in the footsteps of Hezekiah, his great grandfather. Josiah order the destruction of all the polytheistic and pantheistic and syncretistic-down type worship and symbols, etc., in an attempt to place the focus of the people upon Yahveh in spirit.

During the cleansing and restoration of the Temple, the high priest Hilkiah found a scroll they were unaware of before that. In other words, there was no other copy before that still available to read and study. The scroll supported the reforms being undertaken by Josiah, namely the centralization of Yahveh worship in Jerusalem and the anti-idolatry campaign. It confirmed Hezekiah and Josiah's direction if you will.

That's the Biblical gist.

The higher critics, however, read other things in based upon their subjective interpretation of archeological findings and textual and other criticisms. The critics use the words "author" and "hand" of Moses very literally. That's ironic considering their emphasis upon the figurative value of The Bible. They say that Moses did not write the original Torah or the original from which the found Deuteronomy scroll was a copy as supposed by the finders. That scroll though is accepted as Deuteronomy by the higher and lower critics.

There does appear to be room yet in their criticisms for the scroll being a copy of a copy and so forth with redactions folded in and that it was originally authored by Moses's works and recorded by scribes and oral traditional stories handed down to preserve the teachings and mysteries.

Prophecy is far from anachronistic

What this shows is that one must remain open to speculation while being cognizant of the existence of things outside the known rules. For instance, prophecy itself is subject to the label of being anachronistic. It is now out-of-order or running against the grain of the current modernity. Of course prophecy is anachronistic from the viewpoint of those who don't believe.

Look, religious fanatics withheld and withhold their core beliefs. They guard their secrets and keep them a mystery. Scripture is the author's best presentation of his or her interpretation of reality, for better or worse. It is up to the reader to gauge.

It comes down to which conspiracy theory one follows, unless one sees passed them, through them. The patterns of behavior and outcomes are there. The truth is there in the fruit.

The question is, did the young king and high priest produce a forgery to make their case against rivals for control. The further question though is, even if they did, does that mean that one must throw out everything? In other words, there are conspirators in the world conniving for power and willing to use the people's desire for guidance from above in order that they, the conspirators, may gain power and influence over all the people; but, does that mean that, therefore, there is no real guidance from God?

There is absolutely no doubt that the tribes were rivals. There is no doubt that they pulled fast ones on each other. The Bible is their to show the ruination inherent in such deceitfulness and treachery. Josiah did not repent even as he was repenting. Why? He was still misled by violence.

This is always the difficult spot. You are told to cast your bread upon the waters. You are told to shine your light, but what light? This is the point at which Pontius Pilate posited, "What is truth?" This is also the point where Jesus said, "Few there be who find it."

Overcome the temptation to be tripped up no matter how much those who are competing with selfish intent show themselves. They are all through The Bible on purpose. The Bible is exposing. It is revealing. It shows good and evil. It contains the story of the forbidden fruit, the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil. We see the competition. It reflects what is still on-going. There are agenda in the world to get people to throw out the good with the bad, which leaves the road open for the bad to rush in to takeover.

The forces at work are subtle until one asks what is the fruit of that path.

It must be remembered that the Pharisees were liars but contained followers who were earnestly desirous of the real truth. The Pharisees have a tradition that Moses handed down secret, inside, teachings and knowledge that the Pharisees (their predecessor line) preserved. The Essenes hold the same view towards their Essenic scripture. Which is purest? Is either manufactured wholesale? If either or both is manufactured, did that preclude other lines of scriptural interpretation and preservation of the true facts?

Hezekiah and Josiah thought they were doing the right thing. We aren't subscribing to the all of higher or lower criticism. In fact, there is no way it is all correct since it contradicts itself in ways that defy even duality potential. Neither do we view The Bible in Cecil B. De Mille terms. There is dictation and then there is dictation (inspiration). They can be so close as to be all but indistinguishable. God writing the Ten Commandments with God's finger is valid even if Moses is God's finger.

Jesus was a Yahwist

However, look at the difference between what they brought and what Jesus taught. They were Yahwists. Jesus was a Yahwist also, but Jesus cleared up a ritual mess that included the errors of the Aaronical and the other animal sacrificers that included the earlier Yahwists. You see Jesus doing away with the centralized Temple building worship and telling others that worship would be worldwide in spirit.

All the woes that befell Israel whether Israel was pressing the highly monotheistic bent or the more pantheistic bent resulted from missing the point of the infinite duality of God, infinite to the point where the mono and pan of Yahveh and Elohim are truly one spirit. That's what Jesus said. It is qualified, but he said it.

Multiple potential states that can manifest at once

It's how Jesus can be wholly spirit and man and in heaven and on earth. It's multiple potential states that can manifest at once. That's the truth.

Had Josiah not been about temporal power building, everything would have turned out differently. The prophecy though still had to unfold. The higher critics admit that Isaiah was not influenced by the found scroll after all, and Isaiah speaks of the messiah spirit as being more than just manifesting in king Hezekiah at the time. He points to Jesus who is microcosmically and macrocosmically himself, the nation of Israel, and God as Elohim as close to Yahveh as one can possibly get—infinitely close—one spirit.

Josiah's line was your typical so-called noble family full of intrigue and subterfuge. That doesn't mean that their enemies weren't also. They were. This is why Satan has ruled the earth all this time. This is why Jesus's kingdom was not of this earth, this worldly world, but only the new world order to come, not the new world order still being built by the Satanists, but the real new world order (new earth, new heaven) to follow that one.

You see, there are those of Higher Criticism who seek to dissuade everyone from believing that there is other than science as the means to knowledge. They seek to kill God and replace God with themselves as architects of order out of chaos. They blaspheme the spirit maintaining existence.

The different theories are put forth by egos seeking dominion over each other. Theories quickly move from the theoretical to the legal. All this while those things that clearly ought to be are left undone.

There are two ways to look at mythology. There is the view that none of it has any basis in fact. The other is that embellishments for effect have been superimposed on underlying facts. There is a third view that is that there are occurrences when the supernatural manifests in ways that show that the mundane rules do not always apply. The system of God contains many systems.

In the chapter above, I wrote, "I don't err when I err on the side of The Bible. Look, for centuries, Troy was figured to be a myth. Well, it turned up." Well, the whole of Palestine hasn't been x-rayed so to speak. The digging is still on-going, and clues that potentially undo the naysayers, the higher critics, will be found.

Even now, Eilat Mazar, head archaeologist of Shalem Center Institute of Archaeology, a Biblical archaeologist announced on August 4, 2005, that she believes she has found the palace of David. The jury is still out on this.

Everyone has vested interests one way or the other. That's a shame.

Much of the so-called Higher Criticism will be proved wrong

The Higher Critics claim that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob probably never existed. Joseph never was in Egypt. The Exodus is all pure myth. The Hebrews didn't wander in the wilderness. There was no united monarchy under Saul, David, or Solomon. It was all propaganda made up by Josiah's court including the religious leaders to justify Josiah's empire building ambitions. They say there is no archaeological evidence to refute this case they have made.

Well, we distance ourselves from them.

They have based their arguments upon sweeping allegations that don't bear up. They say camels weren't domesticated in Abrahams time yet the Biblical account say they were. How do they know camels weren't domesticated back then. There are apparently finds that show the contrary. Also, they say there is no evidence of Jews in Egypt at the time of the Biblical accounts. There seems to be plenty of reason not to accept that as a closed case.

Archaeologist Adam Zartal of the University of Haifa found what fits the Biblical description of the sacrifices on Mount Ebal of Joshua 8:30 and Deuteronomy 27:2-8. The actual site matches both Biblical books. That flies in the face of the criticism of Deuteronomy. Who follows up on these things to put such issues to rest? The world is too busy warring over the very things such investigations for pure truth would put to rest.

Jericho too has been located. Destruction has been radiocarbon dated to falling within 1600 BC to 1524 BC. The were numerous other cities in the area destroyed around that time. It is about that time that the Hyksos from Egypt left Egypt. Were the Hykos the Israelites? Some people think so.

Most importantly, when sides line up emphatically, they lose objectivity on purpose. It's transparent. They stop considering the things being put forth on both sides. It becomes a war of attrition rather than a search for truth. The love of truth goes out.

These sides line up on either side on a false spectrum where truth is lost to agenda other than.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Sup4 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.