It's been a lovely day and the scene out there is so atmospheric - a fine haze of white, blending into the landscape, with landmarks appearing through it in part. Much warmer today - minus 18 - and a delight to wander about.
Changed my country today. Geographically I haven't but I work directly for the mother country now, which doesn't alter anything for me personally except that things are a bit more exciting. There's something I'd like to write about this evening but for once I'm not sure how to do it.
Two of the most difficult statements ever written were:
1. Psalm 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods;
2. Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Why so fascinating? Because the closer one gets to the action, the truer these two appear to be.
The Psalm was written by a man - look at the style and tone and yet it was quoted by Jesus [if you can accept this for one moment] but what the hell does it mean? As a Psalm - perhaps not a lot but as something selected for comment by the Deity, quite something indeed:
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Uh-huh.
That would have to get you reflecting on the true power of man and would explain why humanism is not only convinced of but knows implicitly that each man has it inside to be a god. But who would have the temerity to try it? Many people - look, for example at the Chinese intention to hold back the heavens so that it won't rain during the Beijing Olympics. Look at Babel. Look at HAARP.
But this attempt, historically, has always comes to naught. Now I wonder why that would be? It seems to suggest someone who can't take no for an answer and will try again and again forever. Someone clinically insane, in other words.
The second quote has been mistranslated in the revisionist RSV and I feel that that's no accident whatsoever. These days it is being taught that it is a sort of earthly wickedness in PMs and Presidents and so on - that man's dark side comes to the fore.
I humbly suggest that that is not what the KJV intended - that the KJV meant precisely what it said. We struggle not against flesh and blood; ipso facto, we struggle against principalities. So, research principalities and there's no ambiguity here, as the term is applied scripturally.
But this is heady stuff.
If you take it through to its logical conclusion, then the enemy in high places is not human. I didn't say it - don't shoot the messenger. But it's definitely written in there. Now this is where those whose interest it is to scorn this notion need only invoke the spectre of Icke's lizards and the logical path stops.
So let's rewind a bit. Read the text yourself. It was written by a fairly austere person according to his other history. So did he suddenly become a nutter for one verse and then go back to being rational once more or was he rational all along?
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he was rational the whole time - then what was he saying? What does he know that we don't? Was he referring to high places in Heaven or on earth? Tell you the truth - I'm not sure. Rulers of darkness of this world. But not flesh and blood. So who the hell are they then?
How about the progeny of the Nephalim? That's pretty ancient history. You say it's rubbish? Fair enough - simply show me which ancient documents conclusively disprove the notion? While you're about it, explain to me the Shardana. How about the Egyptian Sobek? The Book of Jasher perhaps? The Book of Enoch? Bonwick's Irish Druids, 1894? The Kundalini?
I'm not saying it is so - how on earth could I know something which happened so long ago? How could you know it didn't?
And what of the other quote - ye are gods? It's clear how JC was using it in John's gospel but what of the quote itself? If you say it was just a throwaway line, then why was it, specifically, resurrected all those centuries later and by this particular Individual?
I see one explanation. Every head of an organization or section becomes, in a way, a little god but is always subject to a higher god, in a bigger pool. John Buchan, mid WW1, said:
Take any big Teutonic business concern. If you have dealings with it, the first man you meet is Prince von und zu Something, an elegant young man who talks Eton-and-Harrow English. But he cuts no ice.
If your business is big, you get behind him and find a prognathous Westphalian with a retreating brow and the manners of a hog. He is the German business man that gives your English papers the shakes.
But if you're on the biggest kind of job and are bound to get to the real boss, ten to one you are brought up against a little white-faced Jew in a bath-chair with an eye like a rattlesnake. Yes, sir, he is the man who is ruling the world just now.
I can't comment because I have absolutely no clue. But my own experience certainly bears out that even the highest are subject to someone higher. In the end, on earth, the highest of highs is the one who finances your plans. Where did they get the money?
Been in the family for generations. Fair enough. Where did it originally come from? Why did those particular families get it? Why not mine, for example? With such dangerous thoughts as these, I'm going to suddenly stop.
Tags: claude childrens book review avatar wii what is parad usa book news best book this idiocy removing black magic
