The Holy Trinity and the Desire of Nations

In the Holy Trinity of Christianity there is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are God, Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Many Christians believe all three are equal. But I would say that to believe this would be to break the ten commandments as there should be no god (including Christ) above The Lord (i.e. God/Allah).

Equally, I don’t think that Jesus Christ is the only Son. There is at least two others in my point of view – Solomon and Muhammad. In the three Abrahamic texts (i.e. Bible and Qu’ran) references to “your Lord” and “my Lord” refer to one of The Lord’s Sons.cThe Son could be many people eligible from David’s line. So when “The Lord says unto my Lord” – my Lord is the Son and The Lord is God/Allah.

I has been argued that the problems in Israel and Palestine were caused when the Israelites would not accept Solomon’s son as King. This may be considered correct because Solomon’s line was condemned for him worshipping other gods, the First Testament says. But the situation that exists in that region now – where the leaders are not of David’s line – does not in any way represent the ideal in the Abrahamic texts.

Theologically I think that Christ will come through the body of someone from David’s line – but one which is not from Solomon’s line. Because of the various parts of human nature, The Lord will have to keep the Holy Spirit turning a Son into a Messiah and Son until the point the whole world recognises them as the Desire of Nations by being Messiah, Son and King. So far, Christ and Muhammed have failed. It would not have been necessary for them to have called by The Lord (God/Allah) if Solomon had not worshipped other gods and brought The Lord’s Kingdom on Earth into disrepute. Solomon was once the Desire of Nations, but failed at the job!

An interpretation of Abrahamic texts in relation to the State of Israel, created by Man and not The Lord

This is an interpretation of the Bible in relation to the legitimacy of the State of Israel created by humans in ‘The Lord God’s’ eyes as described in the Abrahamic texts.

The Holy Land and the State of Israel

The Holy Land is not promised to the State of Israel, but to the House of Israel and its King’s subjects. The First Testament says that David’s line shall always be king [2 Samuel 7:12-16, 2 Chronicles 13:5, Psalm 89:20-37]. At the moment Israel does not exist in God’s eyes because it is not led by someone of David’s line. That is the reason Christ has to come again in a form chosen by The Lord God, so The Lord’s ‘Messiah and Son’ can have their rightful place as King of Israel and thus by doing both these things become the ‘Desire of Nations.’

The Rejection of Christ by the Jews

Christ failed to become the Desire of Nations in the Second Testament because even though he was of David’s line and a Messiah and Son, so entitled to be, because he was crucified and not anointed then he failed to become the Desire of Nations of the Holy Land. So in essence, the people in the Holy Land will need to subject themselves to the House of Israel under Christ when he returns to become the Desire of Nations or the Israelites will forever be condemned to be the enemies Christ’s below his feet as they were when he was put on the Cross after they called for his death against The Lord God’s wishes [Matthew 22:44]

The worshipping of Christ and man’s creations

Christ never asked people to worship him. If he had, his line would have been condemned like Solomon’s was. People who worship Christ above The Lord God will be condemned also. The Messiah and Son appointed by The Lord God is the rightful king of Israel – God’s Kingdom on earth.

The Lord God does not recognise of worldly creations – including the recognition of Israel as a earthly State. Whilst the Jews subject themselves to a person who is not not of David’s line then they will forever be the enemies below the feet of Christ, as they were when he was on the cross and they shall never inherit The Lord God’s Kingdom on earth.

The people who worship false idols rather than The Lord God, such as Christians, especially those who idolise Christ will be condemned. Those people, who also condemn the Palestinians whilst worshipping Christ instead of The Lord God, and idolising the State of Israel rather than The Lord God, will be condemned more severely.

The Evilness of the Jews

All those Jews filled with “every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity” who are “full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice,” such as for the Palestinians, yet they know God’s righteous decree that do to these things is wrong will be condemned to death [Romans 1:29].

It is impossible for Jews to make claim to the Holy Land while they are waging war. For the rightful King of Israel to be installed not a bone must be broken. On this basis, The Lord God will not recognise the State of Israel as the rightful heir to his Kingdom on earth, whilst it keeps breaking the bones of all his children.

Those Jews who rob Palestinian temples and those Christians who idolise Christ will be condemned [Romans 2:22]. Such persons will suffer the wrath of The Lord God [Romans 2:5] and each act of violence will be judged by The Lord God based on the harm it caused [Romans 2:6]. By these men doing shameful acts of violence against other men in God’s Kingdom, The Lord God will serve due penalty on them for their error [Romans 1:27]. Equally, those who worship the Israel State, a creation of Man, rather than God, the creator of Man, will be condemned [Romans 1:25].

Those who are Evil who don’t glorify the Lord God

Those Jews who know The Lord God, yet do not Glorify him but their earthly creation of the State of Israel will be sent into sexual impurity so that their direct line from Abraham will be condemned [Romans 1:24]. These Jews will be condemned by The Lord God before the Gentiles [Romans 2:9]. For defending the State of Israel rather than The Lord God, and for worshipping Christ above The Lord God, he shall condemn them to a shameful lust among themselves and the animals, including women, condemning their line [Romans 1:23;1:26]. Those Jews who call for the law to protect them from repression, yet become the repressors themselves shall be condemned [Romans 2:1-4;17-22]. All humans who do evil will be condemned, but the first shall be the Jews [Romans 2:9]. But those Jews who do good, showing peace and tolerance among all shall be rewarded first, but in equal terms to others who do the same [Romans 2:10-11].

Israel’s Got Talent

I recently presented a solution to the constitutional issues that cause the Israel and Palestine conflict. I think there are a number of facts difficult to dispute:

  • Jews are still waiting for the Messiah prophesied in the First Testament;
  • Christians usually think that Jesus Christ was the Messiah;
  • Muslims usually think Christ was a Messiah and often that Mohammed was.

I currently think in a theological context that the Abrahamic texts like the Bible and Qu’ran has ‘Messiahs and Sons’ (i.e. Mashiach ben Davidwho have come in three chosen forms by The Lord (i.e. God):

  • In the First Testament, The Lord chose King Solomon as the first Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David I);
  • In the Second Testament, The Lord chose Jesus Christ as the second Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David II);
  • In the Third Testament, The Lord chose Mohammed as the third Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David III);
  • In a Fourth Testament, The Lord will chose a fourth Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David IV).

This above is my theological interpretation of the Abrahamic texts, which it is unlikely those stuck to the old ways of interpreting them will agree.  The titled of this blog, ‘Israel’s Got Talent’ is a reference to the idea of Reality TV choosing nominations for Eurovision, etc. so it might be that the selection of the first leader of a shared Israel/Palestine state as I describe could be televised. This elected King of Israel may become a Messiah and Son (i.e. Mashiach ben David) and as forecast in Revelations, Desire of Nations. Whether they are the first as Jews might think, the second as Christians or Muslims might think, or the fourth as I think theologically, there is no denying the fact that the Bible says who ever is King of Israel should be of David’s line.

Bishop’s letter to the Giboff and Steve

In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:

My religion is mixed. I have Anglican values and Scientific beliefs, a kind of Gnosticism. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.

From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!

They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a personal code of ethics which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!

I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.

As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.

The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in Christ as Saviour after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Abrahamic Texts, with what I know about science, with what I know about how equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give David’s line legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the Equality Act 2010:

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.

My Christmas Day Truth on Jesus Christ – The Pretended Saviour of the Universe

When one reads religious writings, such as the Abrahamic Texts, in my view they should be treated no differently to any other works. One can analyse or parody Shakespeare, and I wish to do the same with religious texts and religion.

For me it is clear in religious terms that Christ was a prophet – the second Messiah and Son  possibly. He was from the line of King David (who was the first Messiah), which King Solomon (the Second Messiah and first Son), which Mohammed (the Third Messiah and Son) also was. Christ made claims about the origin, nature and future of the planet.

In my self-determined faith/religion I am making up, best called ‘Non Conformist‘ – I have decided to also regard Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking to be prophets like Moses was, but not Messiahs. They made claims which on the basis of current science at the time they made them they were not entirely provable.

In is my view that Christ was not ‘crucified’. I personally think he did a deal with Pontius Pilate to pacify the Jews. Pilate said that Christ had committed no crime, and that he’d ‘wash his hands’ with the Jews.

So, reading the Gospels, there was this part where Doubting Thomas trues to prove Christ has ‘resurrected’ by putting his fingers though his hands. Thomas put his fingers through the centre of Christ’s hands and not his wrists, which proves to me Christ was not crucified the same as the others. Also, it is claimed that Christ spent 40 days in the desert, yet he only lasted a couple of hours on the Cross, so I find it unconvincing from a consistency point of view also.

It is known that the Roman’s ‘auctioned off’ all of Christ’s property between themselves. I think the purpose of this was so that when Christ was meant to have taken part in ‘assentation’, he was propertyless and therefore meek, like all those he said would inherit the earth. If he had not been ‘meek’ when he was ascended into heaven then he would have been a hypocrite.

Now turning to Paul and his conversion from Saul. I think it was Saul who wrote many of the unsigned  letters to the Romans and in fact Paul was a pseudonym used by Christ in the various letters he dictated to others following crucifixion. Christ had to dictate these letters because as he had holes in his hands and couldn’t write from his plams being nailed to the Cross and so Saul and others acted as a reasonable adjustment for him in continuing his good news message. Saul was not the only transcriber in my view, as one can see from Romans 16:22 another person, “Tertius”, transcribed that letter in place of Saul.

My interpretation of Romans 1 and 2 will be controversial from some, but reading them was essential to the inner-peace I find in myself today. In Romans 1, Paul has a complete condemnation on homosexuality, and in Romans 2 he defends it, saying those who condemn homosexuality will become homosexual themselves. I think this was based on Christ’s personal experiences working with Saul.

When I started having thoughts and feelings towards men, I found it completely disturbing. I thought I was becoming gay, and would therefore no longer be attracted to women, whose ‘assets’ I hold dear as desirable adornments to them, especially those which have been Photoshopped in ‘lad-mags’, but for which Photoshopping was not necessary in my first love!

So I became homophobic towards myself, but not towards other homosexuals in the way I treated them. In fact, while I was coming to terms with these experiences, I recruited the first two openly gay members to the Treforest Labour Party, and designed the discussion programme around things I thought they would be interested in, so that they felt more included and willing to participate.

My auto-homophobia didn’t reduce the thoughts they made them more powerful. And then I would have no control over them coming into my mind at times I would not want them. I have now accepted these thoughts.

So it could be that the reason Christ wrote Romans 1, was because he was having thoughts that he didn’t want towards Saul, who he became close to, and this was his way to deal with it. So although his auto-homophobia his thoughts then increased so that he became orientated towards men, which led to him writing Romans 2, where he said condemning homosexuality will make one homosexual also.

So as you can see, I don’t think Christ had any supernatural powers. I am not willing to believe in anything supernatural until the day science can fully explain it so it can become natural. I think Christ was a very advanced psychiatrist of his days. None of his miracles including making those whose legs were amputated grow again. Most of the people he helped had neurological problems that were acute and treatable. Though talking to people at length and knowing which parts of the mind to manipulate he acted like a placebo, giving people a sense of confidence and home they had overcome their problems. Nothing is said in the Abrahamic Texts about whether Christ’s interventions actually had any long-term efficacy. And so called miracles like ‘walking on water’ were actually misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Texts, as in this case it was simply a case of when Chris’s boat approached the seashore that he walked on the wet sands, or something like that so I’m told by a Christian Minister.

I’m convinced that Christianity was created not by Christ, but by the Romans. Many stories in the New Testament have been shown to relate to local folk-law, like the rolling back of the stone to Christ’s resting place. So the Muslims may be right that Christ was not actually crucified, nor may he have ascended into heaven. By being of David’s line, however, he could have be a Son, and also Messiah.