The Rise of Humanity

“…you have been designated Godfather of the… of the National Newspaper of Peru (“The Voice of the People… is the Voice of God”)… in merit to your fine virtues and profession of service that you have shown throughout your exemplary life that everybody appreciates, admires, and exalts.

Director, Apolinario Mayta Inga & Manager Rivera Flores, October 7, 2009


The Rise of Humanity





((A Story of: Man, God and his World)
(Religion, Philosophy, Psychology and Viewpoints))


By Dr. Dennis L. Siluk, Ed.D.
Andean Scholar, and Three Times Poet Laureate


Parts in Spanish and English
Index/Contents

Book One


In The Beginning
(A view of the establishment of the world)

Book Two

Humanity

Part One
Man’s Narration

Part Two
The Human Being

Part Three
Are we all Brothers’ among Men?

Part Four
The House of the Reader
(Or the Reader and his thoughts)

Part Five
Live to Live
(Live is short at best, try and be happy…)

Part Six
Man’s Account with Genesis
(Greek or what?)

Part Seven
Creatures of Mind
(Today?)


Appendixes:
Viewpoints/and Supernatural Stories


Appendix A
A Testament to Mary Magdalene
Of a non-canonical gospels status…apocryphal works (Gnostic)

Appendix B
The Coming War with Russia (Article)
(Read by over 50,000-readers worldwide)

Appendix C
Thick Men of War
((Poetic prose) (an anecdote, with figurative language, and intensity))
Dedicated to today’s soldiers

Appendix D
The Judas Iscariot Dilemma (Article)

Appendix E
The Day in the Garden
((a story of the Virgin Mary) (Fall of 1996))
Based on Actual Events

Appendix F
When Two Worlds Collide
((A step back in time…) (a short narrative))
A Story of Christ, Mary, and Visions

Appendix G
In the Very Beginning
The Cave of Treasures
((The Hierarchy Prophecy) (Testament of Adam, between AD 100 to AD 300))

Appendix H
In English & Spanish†

Secret of the Virgin Mary
(Translated into Spanish by Rosa Peñaloza de Siluk)
Article written by Rev., Dennis L. Siluk, Ed.D.
(Ordained Minister, 1993)

Appendix I
In English & Spanish†

Issues around the: Corrida de Toros
Part One: The Bullfighter
Part Two: The Moral Issue

Appendix J
In English & Spanish†

Throats of a Thousand Demons




















Book One

In The Beginning
(A view of the establishment of the World)


There was a time when all living things, living creatures had one language, even the serpent, which could envy and did show such a disposition at tranquility, in a garden God Himself planted, and where he created the first man out of red clay: of spirit, soul and body. And the Red Man was called Adam, and his wife, Eve. And they did not know evil from good, to them, all was wonderful, tranquil, nothing malicious, no such intentions, no taste for such knowledge, until the character of the serpent assured them, they’d no longer be inferior to the very one that created them.
There was at this time, one river and it circled the globe, through the garden, the very garden that was watered by the long river. And then after sin was placed in the garden, so was cloths, for now the two in the Garden, were naked and ashamed, and invented material to cover them. This was also when old age was made-up. And at this point, we see the Red Man, pointing fingers at his wife, and his wife pointing fingers at the snake, and God watching all the pointing of fingers everywhichway (and God was called Elohim, and then Jehovah Elohim; from God, to Lord God). And from this point, the couple was deprived of certain prior privileges, and placed outside the garden in another location.
The Golden Couple had many children besides Cain (the murderer) of Abel, also Seth to name a third, whom was of great virtue, and had a good disposition, he also became a source of wisdom in the heavenly bodies (an astronomer of sorts, perhaps the first unnamed Ph.D.).
Adam predicted the world would be destroyed, once by fire, and once by violence and water. And he made two pillars, one representing a flood to be, the other to remain in Siriad, a reminder to mankind, for the second discover, or awakening—destruction of the earth by fire. And this second pillar remained standing in 100 AD, and still may be standing.

And by mankind making God their enemy, with an abundance of wickedness—angels of God, accompanying them, and their women, and begat sons, all haters of God now, and feeling they had strength enough to appose God, did so, some were giants, and Noah, a man of God, who tried to persuade the evil does to change their behavior—feeling his life threatened, changed his mind quickly leaving the land they populated. And thus, we see the flood, perhaps around 3100 to 3600 BC (at about the autumnal equinox).
(At this juncture, life was reduced to 120-years. The Great Flood, came when Noah was 600-years old, in February—hence, the flood took place, one-thousand six-hundred and fifty-six years from Adam: Adam lived 962-years, thus, about 2621-years from the birth of Adam, to the onset of the food).
The waters came for 40-days (isolation, lasted 150-days) on the 17th day of the 7th month it subsided. And Noah, he sent a raven from the ark, then he sent a dove, and the dove came back covered with mud. ((A part of this ship remains in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans, so it has been written.)(Asia, Minor))
After the flood Noah discovered bands of people living a distance away, and he feared for his life. Who where these men, since God had chosen to destroy mankind; it might be said, God saved these for a second deluge, and Noah spared them by pleading to God, remnants of the flood, to be destroyed, thereafter. So God’s intent was, and heretofore, he had punished the wicked, and thus spared the leftover—but maybe he spared the leftovers, for a reminder of the wickedness they caused, and calamity that came afterwards; and whose to say, perhaps these were residue to suffer even a worse death—a double portion of death for their wickedness—and so they were being used by God, that they should survived the flood only to die with a worse affliction, and to let their children know of the calamity beforehand (I find variables here).
Now we come to the Tower of Babylon, and we have three sons of Noah, born prior to the Flood, God commanded them to populate and cultivate a portion of the world. All this did not turnout as God planned, not at first anyhow; again we find disobedience to the Divine Will. Around this corner we find Nimrod, who changed the government into tyranny. There is always a few of them around isn’t there. And in consequence, he built a tower to the heavens, as if to reach God’s home. It was great and wide and strong, and its height was greater than it looked. It was evident, man had not grown wiser in all his trials, and God caused an uproar in all the workers, and multitude, and in so doing, it produced divers languages; the word Babel, meaning confusion. The tower was destroyed by winds and storms.

Noah’s son, Japheth had seven sons, and some proceeded to the Mountains of Taurus and Amanus, along Asia to the river Tanais and Europe. Magog, one of the seven sons, founded Russia, which the Greeks called Scythians. The children of Ham possessed the land of Syria. Canaan, the forth son of Ham, inhabited the country called Judea (Egypt, Mestre) and named it after him, Canaan.
Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, naming his subjects Assyrians, in which became a powerful nation. From Shem—through his decedents, came Heber, from him the name Hebrews (otherwise Jews) as they were called. Heber had three sons, one being called Joctan, whom had several sons. And we see the Hebrew nation at this point being built. So we see the Jew did not come from Abraham, but from Heber, and if we wish to go back farther, we can call Shem the stem from which the Hebrew nation was born, and Heber the father of the nation, and Abraham its first teacher (Perhaps like Socrates, was to the Greeks).
From this stage, we go to Abram, or forefather who lived in the land called Canaan, and then called Judea. He was seventy-five years old when he went into the land of Canaan. He was the first to announce publicly, there was but one God, the God of the Universe. We also see Abram living in Damascus (perhaps the oldest surviving populated city in the world). And at this juncture the story end, of concerning: “In the Beginning.”

Article, 12-30-2009


Book Two

Humanity

Part One

Man’s Narration


What we know is what we feed on, what we feed on sometimes depends on our appetites, what we thirst for, what we find, this has to do with most everything in life to include: foods, nourishment, knowledge, etc., it is kind of the story of humanity (the rise of humanity): we can add into this once empty pool: curiosity—it is just a matter of life and death, and in the case of humanity, one story is added on top of another to make an outline for civilization (how man has went about his existence).
So what has mankind done to establish his roots? He has made an effort, to humanize the collected ideas and thoughts, and histories of mankind, and center it into an overall narration, of times gone by, from per-history (of which is non-written), into a written report for future man to glance upon. In so doing, he has looked backwards and handpicked certain dominate personalities to create this history or this record of his past, some people have lived for this opportunity alone to be on top of the list, to be in this mass operation, regardless of price.
Every story has a beginning, and everybody writing down these stories and their beginnings—and everyone after them gathering those stories and beginnings, and compiling them for future reverence, will no longer find a short-cut to gathering up its knowledge. After 10,000-years, the show is still going on, and out of the seven billion people of the past, and the 6.5 billion of the present, there is a lot of data to collect and retain, on the once historic thinned skinned, skeleton of mankind.
There need not be any introduction, the invitation was given by a being called God, and when that book was opened—it still remains speculative when He will choose to close it, who’s to say. In a like manner in this story, there is no core, it might be comforting to learn, we just didn’t pop up with one for mankind, by placing him on a leaf with a frog, or in the hay with an egg, or in the deep with the fish, or in the trees with the monkey’s, not in this story anyhow, so we have nothing to be ashamed of to tell you, or our offspring, and for those jealous ones, those who still believe their ancestors once lived on a leaf, we are simply one step ahead of them on the evolutionary line—we have only God to blame for our exclusiveness, no one else. And let us all be grateful to him, and leave such amateurs, such as Darwin, where he lay, in his gave. The cleaver scholar checks and rechecks the balance of things, and somewhere along the line he has to admit, nothing comes from nothing (I think Shakespeare said something along that line).
I am—and everyone must remember this, as I write, I am an imperfect thinker, writer—as everybody is, so whatever I write, is lacking, and so is everyone else’s but God’s word—and we probably have misquoted Him way to much, to get our way, way to much.

We come from a fragmented past, that is to say, a dangerous and undeveloped one, one we had to develop, one that mankind found out he needed to create a self-sufficient government, out of people, to live among people—if that makes sense; then all of a sudden, here religion and culture come in to play. It stretched around the world. I was favored to live in St. Paul, Minnesota, in the United States of America, in 1947, as a Christian, but there was a process.
Like all the times before me, back in the times of Christ, and the glory of Greece, and Hercules, the Homeric times, the times of Troy, and the glory of Rome, Sparta and Athens, when there were dogmas in place, that varied, when science was just being formed, when the world was young and complexity increasing, when men asked the stars while on the seas, which way is which, all the idles of mankind were being solved—it all came from a process.
And God, Himself—during these later days—was being pushed farther and farther back into His own universe to where the astronomers could no longer see him—and happy about that, now they could do at will, whatever their will and head imagined—they no longer had any room for God on earth. That too was a process, because when the so called couple: Adam and Eve, was created, there was now in place: the one God, concept (but to be thinned out in due time, quicker than a clap of an eye.)
This perhaps was when man became proud, once like a small chipper little bird, he now saw the steams of thought brought about by Aristotle, and Plato, the madness of wars between Troy, and Greece, and Sparta and Athens, and after Athens the Romans. And now conduct was in question—it still is. Out of nature man created Civilization, and then he invented law, to keep the civilization he created—iron strong, to keep it motivated, naming good: Good! And, evil: Evil! And power was called power, but what it did was “Control;” then Democracy was born, “Power under Control!” It all had a beginning, and ongoing process: it just didn’t happen.


Socrates, the great thinker, perhaps considered by many, the first of the lot, Plato’s uncle—perhaps the most simplistic of the thinkers of his time, and when I say that I mean it as a compliment, he was one of those happy go lucky birds, free from the political prey of the day, free from Darwinism, free from the motley crowd, military and civilian, he was poor in comparisons to Plato. He was like a sparrow, he didn’t worry about tomorrow, how he’d eat, or find food to eat, he knew God would feed him, not the God’s they don’t feed anybody, but thee God. How did he get fed? The same way Christ did.
Xanthippe, loved to talk and get the wisdom of Socrates, likened to Mary called Magdalene, to Christ, perhaps having quite the dialogues, unrecorded, and given less emphasis than ones of the male disciples. He was not a man of excess, but a man nonetheless: Socrates had said, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.”
In the last interview of Ezra Pound had, I remember reading it, he said the same thing to his interviewer, in 1972. Is this humility, false-modesty, or arrogance? Perhaps they both had more questions than answers, and knowing so, how could they say anything different.
Perchance I could call Socrates the first psychologist: why? Because he was asking—seeking, questions of the mind, he sought definitions, of clear thinking, analysis, asking more, than answering. So what did he give to pile up on top of those piles left behind him, for us to use? “What is the meaning of virtue? (Mark Twain, tried to answer that also and “What is the best state?”)
I could answer those questions, but it would not be the same, and for that, he got death. I would have to call it the Gospel of Socrates. In any case, he believed in one God, in a time of many, that was his big downfall to that present day human mass. It fixed his outcome, in the long run, so if we are looking for philosophers in heaven, he may be one of the few, and he had a muster seed of faith, death would not be his total destruction that he would raise again, so he believed. But he knew theology was not the way to go about running a government—not in Greece anyway. He wanted it separated, like America was in the 1950s, how funny, and how quick things turnaround, now we are likened to the days of Socrates in America, with many God’s that have replace the one true God.
I think Socrates; he tried to place virtue under wisdom. Mark Twain, wrote, “A virtue is not a virtue until tested under fire.”
So what is a virtue? To me it is what I value (and if you violate your values, it is no longer anything worth valuing, thus, no longer a virtue at all.) If you take God out of the equation, and Christianity, it may change drastically—what a virtue is. And back in Socrates’ day, how would he create a desire in someone, unless using psychology, and changing one’s reasoning, to value good morality (which was his virtue I would think). You see, a man of wisdom, or intellect may be more corrupt than an ignorant man, more violent and unsocial man, even more son than a common man. He had a task that offended the people of his times. If he saved anybody, it was himself I do believe. He was akin to John the Baptist of his day.


Article on: “The Rise of Humanity”/12-22-2009



Part Two

The Human Being


Metaphysics, Theology, Anthropology, Archeology, the study of man, as best we can, and I mention the above …ologies, because man is multi layered. To capture the essence of man, you must study him, in the overall design of reality, in the process trying to leave out generalizations, deletions, and distortions (all are little white sins or lies).
We have a three-headed bull here. Life is made up of an event that is one head. In our daily lives, we live in what we assume is reality, that is the bare bones of matter, the second head. Using this word, it is really subjective, more so that objective. It is the inner part of our beings, inside our shell, perhaps our spirit, and our will. It is who you (we) are, the character you made yourself to be; your soul, your mind, or perhaps we can blame society, and say, how we were shaped to be.
Perhaps with this matter, or substance inside of us, we have also created a God that belongs to only us, not one that belongs to everyone. This is done by our power, character or, human nature, our point of view, or attributes. Perhaps God, changes to adjust to or attributes, perhaps he can present Himself with human qualities, why not? No one knows the mind of God, so we speculate, we use our attributes, or matter, and when the events presents itself, we know inside our beings, it is God talking to us. Thus, to live, God has to be a reality. Just as long as we keep in mind, God is not our mind and our body, or mental process, he is who he is. So who is God inside of us?
He created the molecular processes inside of us, keeps us glued together, he has watched us create our laws, but he has also set them in place inside of us, through mental processes, but it would be blasphemy, to conclude: God is not separate from these events and causes, if not it makes us God’s among ourselves.

God Created in the human being, free will. Or did he?
We live in a world—like it or not, where the necessities of survival are often times determined by instinct, and desire, and thought leads to action, thus, decisions are made in the mind, to serve and save accordingly. Free will, abides by cause and effect, or put another way, a perceived out come. If I throw a ball in the air, it goes in the direction I throw it, but it selects its wayward down, as it will, determined by other factors. The point being, free will is not perhaps as free as we would think it to be. We are human beings (not superhuman, and the devil knows this, that we select according to our input, psychology, geometrical forms, and other objectivities.
The question should come up: why am I who I am? Am I a Catholic or Baptist because of free will, or because my family was so I am? You’ve been influenced. Why am I Islamic? If it is because death hangs over your head if you are not, then it is not free will. This is called some one touching a soft spot, an approach.


Part Three

Are we all Brothers’ among Men?


Are we all brothers among men? And if so, should we be? And do we want to be? And was that the original plan? Meaning, was it meant to be? Cuba tried that method where everything belongs to everybody, and nobody took care of anything; I was in Cuba, in 2002, and it looked like an unkempt, un-swept, uncommon piece of property, diluted of responsibility, it is probably why communism has never worked. No room for privacy or maintaining ones virtues.
Like communism, or the old style Greek communes, or even Nazism, people remain jealous, customs remain strong, monogamy retains its solidness, and the moral codes in such areas of marriage, should not be underestimated, that is why the bible warns men not to be caught in bed with another man’s wife, like it or not he does not want to share her with another man, his brother, nor his father, and sometimes not even God. Plato was perhaps the first communist, which led to Marxism, and I do believe Marxism was born from the roots of Plato’s philosophy of “All for one and one for all…” his Utopia, he had no foresight into economic reality, if it was up to him, all cities would be under one city, a worldwide city—global, he actually invented Globalism, we just took a hell of long ride to recognize it in the now 21st Century, but it’s as old as the hells.
In the 1960s and ‘70s, we had commune living, as if it was something, new, Plato started that in Italy, in his day… a Greek colony, where in Sparta also, we see this, small populations, eating together, mating for eugenic ends, like the Germans did in WWII, and selected men to have many wives, the brave and the strong—the heroes, like the Mormons.
What we see here is simple individuals, and Governments and classes, inventing and reinventing through thousands of years, what man knew from the start, you can’t plan a society on those roots, you take away the warmth and meaning out of a man, and you end up with lukewarm water. You take away the honey from the bear, the flower from the bee, and the desire from man. Somewhere along the line, you end up with only political power, and everyone is unhappy with the style and ruling body, and the chance to become an economic power, and wealth, and the drive of man, is no longer a drive at all, just basic motions, Marxism, is the best example of political drain on a middle class.
Governments are learning throughout the world—in the past fifty years, political power alone, is simple a repeat of nations who wish to dry up, sooner than later, it needs to be balanced from time to time with economic forces. Otherwise they forestall the inevitable, revolution, after poverty, or prior to it in fear of it.
So what am I saying? People like governments, need to adjust with ongoing flux and change, which are inevitable. Like China and Russia, they are frightened by the democratic turbulence, going around the world, and should be, these old fogy societies, are jealous of the West, have been, and now are adjusting to the new scientific mind. They do not have an ideal state, but neither does America. But they are adapting to the times, as is Peru and it neighbors.
This kind of government is perhaps adaptable in heaven, where people can perhaps fly, and whose desires are met accordingly; but we are not perfect men, and God knows this, and as we are here on earth, we could never adjust to heaven, for earth is imperfect also. So we cannot act according the perfect state, we act to the imperfect state we are in, with the imperfect law, because we are what we are, imperfect. Again, in heaven we find the perfect state, law, and society, where everyman is a brother and sister to one another, but here on earth, it just doesn’t pan-out in such a way.

Part Four

The House of the Reader
(Or the Reader and his thoughts)


As we learn we take a flame and somewhere along the line of our lives, we hand it to someone else to carry—simply because, our time has come to an end, if we don’t hand it over, it is picked up anyhow, by someone, somewhere, somehow. And we can say down the line, where there was smoke, at one time, there was a fire. And so by trial and error, we form governments, some for the people by the people, mostly for rulers to rule over people. And we find out, through time and events,
Rulers seldom have sympathy with individualism, and had it been to the contrary, man would have had a world unsurpassable in all its forms, culture, art, commercial, you name it, even political, but because of the lack of it, the world has disintegrated in her social order, and now added to that, man has nearly come to exhausting his vital resources, by misleading a demanding populace, into disastrous wars and schemes, and fears of wars and schemes, incompetent politicians perhaps is one of the greatest disastrous plots of the cleaver classes among men; another one being, leading populations into slavery by handing them credit, that binds them for years on end.
The art of living is to love nature and gain wisdom, be at peace with God, man and one’s self. Not bound to a credit card company which holds power and dominion over you worse than a government. Education was suppose to have limited this kind of slavery, this barbarian way of living, but the force of grandeur for the American soul has been to habit forming, too strong to harness, thus, the conquest of the political realm, along with the economic forces of power, has favorably conquered its epic project, unifying a chaotic world to want what America has. As if it was a long tradition of a free ride to Disneyland. In a way, America has subjugated the world at large, conquering it with bitter eloquence, and it has had remarkable success.

Man by reading learned the art of Logic, something Aristotle claims to have invented. He perhaps named it, but if he invented it, he should have taught the Greeks it better for he passed on, thereafter, Greece had its economic decay—for it ended up after his time, in economic, and barbaric darkness. I took logic as a course in college, it taught me one thing and one thing only, to separate and question dogma from within my life that which people try to shove down your throat, and call it fact.
Nevertheless, as far back as I can go, perhaps to Aristotle times, or possibly even to Homeric times, logic and/or reasoning, has constructed wars, laid the bases for battles, calling it the maturity of the mind, finding the genius, among the many, to rule the system, for the few. We call logic the correct way of thinking. The reason logic is called logic, is because by principle, it gives to thought. In counseling, as I did for many years, I used logic; that is to say, I defined my program, my terms on how I expected things to be. I told my clients, this is how the beginning and the end of the evening will be, should be because…; the heart and the soul of the meeting that every turn of events in the meeting was impotent, and it was subjected to my scrutiny.
Let me put it another way. Man is two things. First of all he is a God made creature; and secondly, he is different from all other creatures on earth. Put this together, man is a thinking human being, with intrinsic drops of God given qualities, with genetic fiber, capable of reasoning, clearly for this juxtaposition near, God Himself—no other creature other than man on earth has this quality that resembles the God who created him or her.
This is perhaps a sideline of logic and would be fought by other thinking groups of the world, but that simply goes along with the ceaseless mind of man. I can only criticize Aristotle for his art in bending logic to fit his dogmas. As we perhaps all do. But we must be realist; everything we see just didn’t happen by chance. It would be fare to say, Aristotle, like Plato, both worked with generalities, and abstractions, and called them logic. As he would have said Christians do. But the Grandfather of logic would have gone along with the Christians, Socrates, had Christ walked the earth then.

It might be fare to say, before Socrates, and Homer, and Plato and Aristotle, there was a form of thought, not called philosophy, or theology, but it was universal, or Global, it was supernaturalism. They called them the Gods, but biblical explanations referred to them, as other forms of pre-historic life. Philosophy, tried to eliminate this as psychology tries to demolish Christianity, but this form of thinking had its own logic, perhaps called empirical data. If you saw what you say you saw, and let’s say, you saw the hand of Christ. Some logic would say, it was a mental daydream, or overworked mind; or someone would classify you as mentally disturbed, now they got the answers. But that doesn’t change a thing, you saw what you saw, you were not persuaded by others. But logic says, there is something bigger out there than me, and it is very reasonable, I don’t understand it, but reasonable to understand that I do not understand all the creatures of the sea, how can I understand the heavens, and how they play a part on the masses of civilization.
Heraclitus (530 B.C.) would have agreed with the Pope, or Billy Graham, on the judgment of Hell, had you drawn a picture of it for him, and told him the concept. Even unseen by human eyes, his logic was: everything starts and ends in fire.


Part Five

Live to Live
(Live is short at best, try and be happy…)



I must admit, I read a lot, and I write a lot, but I also have lived a lot. Those who just do one or the other, somewhere along the line, they stop their own process of thinking; they have to, what thought can they produce that actually belongs to them. Life was never meant to be that way. A scholar is only a scholar if indeed he has experienced what he is talking about. Otherwise all he is doing is drawing in the thoughts of others, God forbid, if he does not have his own. I have traveled to sixty-countries, been in a war, attended several colleges, been a karate fighter; life has also been my text book, as well as books. I perhaps have more experience than intellectual knowledge, or maybe it is becoming equal, now in my old age that I have been slowing down, doing more reflection each and every year, while still living, but less in the physical area.
When I was in my early twenties, I crisscrossed the United States, for two years, now for the past ten-years I’ve reflected on it. Life before books, and text before commentary, makes for a good story. The longer I think about it, that is even God’s way. He created the earth, and all that was in it, he experienced it—while in the process, then completed it, then wrote about it, in his commentary called the Bible.
We are what we are, and whatever we become to those around us, is at best little, for at the end of the day, we stand alone—accountable to God Himself, like it or not, and as I have always said, and believe, it doesn’t matter what the other person thinks as long as I am okay with the big man up yonder, that is to say, “Give to Cesar what belongs to him, and to the Lord, what belongs to him.”
The happiness we gather up for ourselves in the meantime, is a byproduct, of what we do for others. But perhaps the greatest of happiness is in itself, how we shape the world inside our minds (we need to be at peace with God, ourselves and mankind). We can be happy with little or much. It is important we keep right with our values, when you violate them, how can you be happy with your surroundings, and with yourself. To be happy I do believe is to be interdependent. That is to say, self-sufficient at times, and interdependent on others at times. It keeps us humble (otherwise God would have created a world for each and everyone of us, alone).
A man is made up of certain intrinsic, perhaps the better word would be: subjective, elements: Psychological, sociological, spiritual, physical, and intellectual. You cannot be a whole person if you lack any one of these elements. Most men never rise above a few of these, that is to say, he is weak in one or the other, or doesn’t qualify in one or the other, hence, there is a gap, misery, he will never rice to freedom. One of those elements lifts the other, until there is an endless stream out of slavery. You’ve heard of phrase: you can lead a horse to water, but you can make him drink it. Well, in a like manner, you can lead a man to the well, but once you intellectualize him (and make him whole), you can’t make him drink from the well, not willingly anyhow. It is why many rulers in the past, and some in the present, would rather keep their citizens in the dark. Thus, it becomes, or remains a painless state for the rulers. These states become the lowest forms of life, dealing with humanity, those without knowledge. Since they cannot control the will, they do the knowledge. The will demands a greater development, if it is to force out the roots of evil. What that awful state wants is (and some households like evil husbands and fathers), they want: is that the will, will not see the object, as it is…once placed in the clearest light, it is lifted, out of darkness…!


Part Six

Man’s Account with Genesis
(Greek or what?)



In times past, we have lived within the Greek mind, the philosophers of old, those I have already mentioned. Along with their interpretations of the order of mankind, we have today’s explanations of the order of nature as well as their assumptions. But between those old philosophers and our new intellectuals, we have a new world, and a good portion of it is Christianized. There was a political dominance for a while by this Christian order, likened to that of the Greek mind. In some cases, there is a significant difference that arises. In other cases, science has tried to harmonize these two schools of thought. So we see a wide spectrum of opinion. And not much room for compromise on either side. Most of this to me is inconsequential. For the sake of discussion, and compactness of this presentation, or commentary: like how many days did it take to make the world? Or, how old is the world? Or Evolution was it involved with the process? Or, were there people before Adam and Eve, or, did people live to be hundreds of years old? Or, was there such a thing as Noah’s Flood, and so forth, all the questions in the book of Genesis, inconsequential in the long range of things and living and life in general.

“What then,” perhaps you are asking, “Is important?”
“Did Jesus Christ exist?” and if He did, “What did he do, and why did he do what he did?” in essence, the Gospels are what is important: why Christ came down, and who was he, and what did he do? These are imminent questions. If Christ did exist, and did walk on water, and heal the sick and lame, who else could have do such things, but a superhuman being, so he must have been who he said he was. And if he came down from his planet called heaven, why? You see, one question leads into the next question, and most people seem to have pushed those questions aside for portraits of the million year old man. Scientifically, we have made enough movies, of aliens, to believe they exist. Why not; now we got one, Christ, who came to visit us. What is so unbelievable about that; and distinctly, we know there is more to what we see.


Part Seven

Creatures of Mind
(Today?)



It seems to me—true or not, truer than not we have simply become, among ourselves, creatures of mechanical law, out of necessity, we use logic, to understand all the things among us, we are forms, shapes, creatures of mind. Meaning, of modern science, stimulated by our environment, be it industry, or physics or some foreign pressure. There was a time not long ago, when thinking men, stopped thinking, I mean, they took thought and buried it, for material things. A lot of this is going on now. Perhaps a negative if not a narrow point of view, but more correct than incorrect I do believe: the glories of the machine, vs. the mind of thought, or thinking. So man took a leap in this area, it is neither right nor wrong, it just happened. The point being, man takes another step. From looking at the moon, to walking on it; if anything, we are the envy of the ancients; nearly self-contained, and resting in a Confucian calm.
Let’s not get this wrong, the mind is one thing, the brain is another. I grant you, one relies on the other, as the heart relies on the flow of blood and with any kind of blockage, we got problems. The brain can produce images, along with the brain producing the choice of reactions, and as Jesus Christ once put it to Mary Magdalene, “…visions are seen and understood in the mind.” So we see an organism, but it must undergo its vicissitudes. This is of course—what we are talking about, is human beings, entirely, not everything that thinks has to have a brain, just every human being has to, to include Christ, he also had one. What is true for us may not be true for other creatures though, or things in God’s ultimate plan of creation. When Christ ascended to heaven, perhaps He didn’t need a brain anymore, but I’m sure he was thinking, and in doing so, in human understanding, it was his mind doing the work.
It would seem, the higher we go, in zoology, the more complex things get, and that perhaps is true in the opposite direction, down hill, it gets less complex. Theoretically, then, anything living, must be mindful, not brain-filled. Inside the chambers of our mind is what we call ‘intellect’ or brainpower, it took mankind a while to develop this, perhaps in this story, it started with the first word, it deals with understanding in our three dimensional world, this so called intellect or brainpower, seems to adjust to our body, environment, as it takes in the think material it will need, it is concerned with life. We have harnessed the eye, and invented something that looks like real life ‘Movies!’ it was done according to our illusions, movements, and how the eye enjoys the movements. This is not reality—is it, but it looks like it. We cannot weave life into them, but we can affect the eye and the heart and the mind with the illusion-movements (called motion).
How did man do it? Mathematics, concepts, science; for the movie it is a matter of space, for you and I, it is a matter of time. So you see we are creatures more of mind than anything else, we have that penetrating flow of ‘shapes, and utters and conditions and positions of the mind’ for myself when I write, I have this unlimited intuition I could never stop if I’d not need to eat or sleep and rest the mind. I can even listen in on my mind; I know its presence—believe it or not. I seldom if ever take note of the brain, I feel no pulse to do so, or have I ever thought it necessary to put the brain above the mind; which has no understanding without the mind anyhow; impulse as instinct perhaps.

A Commentary on Man: Written in December, 2009




Appendixes
Viewpoints/and Supernatural Stories



A


A Testament to Mary Magdalene
((Written between 96 to 180 AD) (Discovered in 1896))


Of a non-canonical gospels status…apocryphal works (Gnostic)

These are works that presented themselves as "authentic" but have not obtained general acceptance from within the churches


The Gospel of Mary, its origins, Ephesus in Asia Minor
(…included are other writings)



1) She, Mary Magdalene, is mentioned as accompanying Jesus on his journeys (Luke 8:2) and is listed in the Gospel of Matthew as being present at his crucifixion (27:56). In the Gospel of John, she is recorded as the first witness of Jesus' resurrection (John 20:14-16); (Mark 16:9 later manuscripts).

2) In the Gospel of Mary it is Peter who is opposed to Mary’s words, because she is a woman…


3) Levi, in his defense of Mary and her teaching, tells Peter "Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us." In the Gospel of Philip, a similar statement is made about Mary Magdalene.

4) Mary comes to fullness, not only as a woman ahead of her times, but as an exemplary disciple, a witness to the Jesus’ ministry, a visionary of the glorified Jesus, and in contest with Peter, in a man’s world. Perhaps it is time, being the 21st Century that one need not longer look at her as they have in the past, but perhaps as the 13th Apostle (the forgotten one).





5) A true look into Mary’s life, we see the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was not a prostitute and for what it is worth—it is a cheap piece of theological fiction, of some jealous madman. It is perhaps, a step to freeze the legitimacy of women’s leadership qualities. That no longer can be frozen. Plus it cheapens the viewer’s look at the first Christians. This was a time the disciples were putting together, the doctrines of Christ’s foundation, and I suppose being in a male orientated world, the disciples were concerned about reliability, how people would accept—mentally being able to accept, a female teacher of God, Jesus Christ as part of the trinity, incarnate.



6) We see in John 20 and, Matthew 28 of Mary Magdalene, wanting to take hold of Jesus’ feet. This has been widely popularized in many dimensions, with critical comments, a point of contention. Let’s straighten this out, now and forever. There is nothing good on this planet earth that Satan and his followers have not tried to corrupt, thus, this simply is a textual corruption. How can one tell? The original text read “fear” rather than “touch” so it should read, “…do not fear me” not “…do not touch me” or perhaps it could have read “…do not fear to touch me” the words “…fear to touch,” are the ones in question, because the words are odd for Jesus’ indentation. It is not the way he spoke. Another point is, later on in the same chapter, John, to Thomas Didymus, Jesus says in so many words: touch my hands and side… Again, it is to Mary’s discredit I do believe such textual corruption was made. I repeat Thomas is actually encouraged to touch. On the other hand, Jesus might have been simply saying in his own way to Mary: I’m really me, here, right now, and you do not need to fear or touch me. Again, Thomas, like Peter, was both a little weak, and perchance, Jesus was trying to say: faith is better than denial or even doubt, the two sins of Thomas and Peter. There are many possibilities here, but the main factor being, he was not scolding her for anything, as the corrupter of the text was trying to install, doubt again.

7) Dialogue: "(Mary) said, ‘I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.’ He answered and said to me: “Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.’ I said to him, ‘So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it the soul through the spirit?’ (From the Gospel of Mary, contained in Berolinensis 8502)

Comments on the Dialogue:

In the conversation, Jesus Christ teaches that the inner self is composed of: the soul, spirit, and mind, and visions are seen and understood in the mind. (Andrew and Peter oppose her…)

The dialogue and context of Mary called, Magdalene, should be viewed I do believe in a broader Christen context. She is if anything, an intriguing glimpse into that long lot and biased past, the ancient years of the past, and into the apostles (and their human nature), and in what they only allowed a look into, some 2000-years ago, one can now see a deeper Christianity, and its identity.

The confrontation between Peter and Mary can also be found in the Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians. It would seem—and understandable so—Peter and Andrew preferred, and represented the orthodox positions of their day, which rejected the authority of women to teach, at near any cost.

It might be noted, psychologically, Peter was heartbroken, because of his denial of Christ, and thus, Christ restored his credibility—or tried to, this never happened to Mary, and this may even have played a roll in Peter’s heavy confrontation with her, she was unspoiled in this area, where he was not. Like it or not, such betrayals, although forgivable, play a roll mentally in self approval, and maybe worth, he wasn’t getting any from Mary. We too often think of the Apostles as superhuman, when in essence, they are humans, although chosen for specific task.

No: 560 (12-28-2009)

B

The Coming War with Russia

((Written in April of 2004) (Reedited, 2-2009, and 11-2009))




In my book, "The Last Trumpet..." I write about prophecy, and World War III, which I wrote about seven-years ago (2002, which came out of, or from my manuscript of which I wrote in, 1984, when I wrote out my visions); thus, I have not wrote much on it since, which I fear, I should have. Many things have happened in the past several years (or two decades), besides me traveling around the world a number of times, and writing book after book, in consequence, World War III has been gearing up; how so? Let me explain. First of all, I was an Ordained Minister, in good standing, in 1993 (I have since left that area, for my own personal reasons); I wrote out the Manuscript, of "The Last Trumpet..." in 1984, sent it to three clergy I knew, and one of those three died, and he had misplaced the manuscript and it was never to be found; and the second clergy, when I went see how he evaluated his copy that I gave him, he said he lost it, and believe it or not, the third clergy, died also, and the manuscript was never to be found; and as for my personal copy, it was misplaced for thirteen-years. Then my mother told me I needed to get the book out no matter what, she died in 2003, I had found the manuscript I had misplaced in 2001, gotten the book out in 2002, so she got her wish. Anyhow, they use it for Bible Study, for prophecy in Haiti, believe it or not, so the pastor wrote me and told me. And it has become a collectable on the internet, especially. Only 400-copies were printed, of which I signed perhaps less than a hundred. And two-hundred and fifty were burnt up. So we have only 150-copies out in the public, of which fifty were sent out to media at the time. But let me get to the premise of this article here.
We are presently, somewhat friendly with Russia (in 2008, this has now changed, and now in 2009, with this second reediting, things are back to a semi normal state), but it will not remain that way. In the book of Ezekiel, prophecy foretold that Israel would (in time) return to their land, and now we see this has come to pass. I do believe Iran will be directly involved with the invasion, as will Russia, as they plan to invade Israel in the near future (as they had planned and did with Georgia). That is one of the reasons we are in Iraq (and even though the war is over, we have over 50,000-troops remaining); believe it or not; we are a buffer ((this is why now in 2009, Israel wants to destroy the nuclear capability in Iran before Russia and Iran become partners, as has a portion in Georgia done so, in the European arena, recently)(and we must not forget they destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability in the 1980s, so they’ve been trying hard to build a nuclear bomb for thirty-years, and they dream, and hope this will come to pass soon, and I hope President Obama doesn’t allow it, note; 2-2009; now eight months later, in 10-2009, nothing has been accomplished in this area, and I don’t expect anything to be, even if the media reports to the contrary)). And now as I reedit this article again, I see were are simply transferring troops from one place to another, meaning, Obama is sending thousands of more American soldiers to Afghanistan—what for? I mean, really what for?
Look into chapter 38, verses 1 and 2, Ezekiel, he mentions Gog, the land of Magog. If you ask a Russian what are the tops of the Caucasus Mountains called, he'd say, "The Gogh."
Magog, with his tribe, left Asia Minor and went to the southern part of the land we now call Russia. As a result, Russia is going to play a major part in the war to come in the Middle East, I mean the big war, everything so far will be considered small in comparison (in the big war, of wars, we will witness more than two billion humans inhabitants of this earth vanish in war.
These are the times, Israel's last Holocaust you could say, is coming (that is, a war, and then the Holocaust). The people to come against Israel will look like a cloud. Two hundred-million, military forces will come against Israel. China can boast that now with their reserves, so it has been written; that is two thirds the population of the United States, at present and, in a like manner, all of the new Russian Federation. Those who have mocked the Bible, look closer skeptics, look at 2 Peter 3:10, there you will find a clear definition of the atomic warfare as is contained in any library. '...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
This is the end, the end times; Russia will hit Israel (once there is an agreement with Iran and Russia) before her last strike; when I say her last strike I'm jumping too far into the future, but not that far. First comes the war with Russia and then the 200-million military force, all pointing to the Battle of Armageddon.
† Updated Number 1: 8-13-2008
I have talked within my original article above on Gog and the land of Magog, which in essence is Russia. Russia, the word has roots, stems from a Finnish word, meaning rowers of a vessel, And ‘Rosh,’ is a Hebrew word meaning ‘boss.’ (Ezekiel Chapter 27).
What comes next in Zech. 14, we see a man trying to lead an army, seize Israel, and this starts a world war.
“…wake up the mighty men, let all men of war draw near: let them come up…” Joel Chapter three, in the Old Testament is talking about future times.
The superpower here is Gog and Magog, (Rev. 20); the invasion of Palestine by the nations will turn out to be in the long run, the last great battle.
God says to Gog and I shall paraphrase it: are you not the one I foretold would come against my people of Israel? Ezek. 38. All Russian leaders should take not of this (but of course they will not. Alexander the Great was not even that foolish, during the time he was conquering the world, the Jewish clergy, showed him scripture, where he was written into it, foretold of his coming, that he was to be confronted, and he was not to try and conquer this holy city of Jerusalem, lest he anger their God. And he left it alone).
†
Update Number 2: 8-15-2008

I do believe Egypt and Libya will join a Middle East Confederation, or conspiracy against Israel. (Jer. 46)
Turkey will be added into this group, although we are really talking now about three groups in the end days (Russia and Iran, the Middle East Confederation, and China, and even Europe).
The Confederation, the Russians, and the European Union, Ezekiel refers to Turkey as Gomer, which is not Germany as many have thought in the past, it is in Asia Minor he points.
The point here is, as Russia and Iran are thinking about the invasion to be, so are these other folks, or groups, the other two groups that is, if Russia fails, and Russia will fail, but at what cost? And how do or will the other parties feel at the time, is the bigger question (America in particular?)
On the other hand, America is strong because whoever helps Israel, that country is blessed by God, and that is biblical.
The question comes up although: will the other groups fail also?

Back to Russia—we see an old prophet has named the nations of the future around Israel, but way? This in itself is a hard task to do two-thousand plus years ahead of time, unless you got God’s notebook. (These will be part of the beast…the warlords.)
The other missing link here is America, the United States, where are they going to be in all this mess? The recent attack, now called “911” proves we are vulnerable, and God can, and has, and may again, do an about-face on America. You see we Americans have forgotten the great blessings we have received from God, like Israel had at one time. To put it in blunt terms, “911” was just a simple warning.

Now who is Magog? It is the beast (Satan’s Armies), as Gog is the individual (or the antichrist that is possessed by Satan). In other words, The Beast is the mass group complex. America must be weakened, or tied up, perhaps after Russia invades, and we attack and help (if indeed this is the scenario); America will be too weak to get involved beyond that. Whatever path America takes, this war will come about, and I assure you.



C


Thick Men of War
((Poetic prose) (an anecdote, with figurative language, and intensity))


Dedicated to the Afghanistan and Iraqi Soldiers
(…that is, the good guys!)



They are all dead now, once thick men, now dead and bloated, a little pale about the face. Their wives and children in rural and suburban homes, not nearly paid for, with long green lawns in which they need mowing.
These hard, lean, thick men, who drank and fought hard, which because their country found a war for them to fight, became dead, was not quite as they had thought, or perhaps heard war would be. That is why this narrative is amalgamated.
Thus, with a brief look, glimpse, one with little depth, no perspective, there they stood in sight, these thick men of war—doing for all what the country could bear, and become in the flash of a weapon pointed at them, somewhere—not perhaps even knowing where, within an instant, became dead.
Whoever, or whatever started these events, that lead to war, those folks that offered their country bodies to carry us for little or nothing—through war, who never saw these thick men wail with solid liveliness, now dead bodies, these men that run around the sides of war, I pray they get bored with it all, and whoever they are and whatever they’ve become, take control of events and end it all.
These same kinds of thick men were with me in Vietnam, as were these other men, who run around the sides of war, called politicians. Back then these thick men, of war, perhaps only having a vocabulary of two-hundred words or so, yet I daresay—was enough to tell: where, how and sometimes ask why—save, that they lived long enough to spit it all out.
That’s the bad thing about war, you just never know.


No: 459/8-28-2009 • •

D

The Judas Iscariot Dilemma

(The Gospel of Judas Iscariot)



In years past, I wrote a few articles on Judas Iscariot, and became more aware of his situation with each passing piece of writing. Did he have a secret? Or was there more to this old story than the eye caught…?

Well, I knew that Judas Iscariot knew, Jesus’ mission, his divinity, perhaps even clearer than anyone at that time on earth, even amongst his kind, the apostles. He also knew ahead of time the sacrifice Jesus was going to make and why (and thereafter his work being done for the time being, on earth anyhow, and he’d be headed back up to the kingdom in heaven, and Judas left to his mission here down on earth).
Also Judas knew, the power Jesus had behind that mortal shell He lived temporarily in; —and to repeat myself he knew His divinity, His immortality, unquestionable knew it, he perhaps was the most intellectual of the disciples, if not in theology, like Paul was, surely in being shrewd, cleaver and downright smart, he handled the money for the sacred group. He was not disbelieving, as perhaps still some of his comrades may have been also.
But that isn’t what I want to tell my story about. There’s a lot of things you’ve got to look at, some psychological, some spiritual, and who’s to say, one might even come to the conclusion: he didn’t know any better—God forbid, but man may have done some dumber things, a few of the apostles remember denied Christ, one by the name of Thomas had to see and touch before believing (Doubting-Thomas), and Peter denied Christ three times. But of course, they are not really part of the premise here, so I shall let it lie where dead lions lie in a moment, but let me say first that Peter is considered to have possessed the keys to the Universal Church to be, so if we condemn Judas, perhaps we need to take another look at who we, or Christ made overall Commander and Chief, if not Commanding General of the Church.
So here was a question I had to answer, it was right in front of me, right in the grandstand, you might say,
“Why then did Judas choose potential self-destruction?”
You know how it is, nobody in their right mind selects this for an ultimatum—I knew that much when I was looking at both sides of the coin, the psychological and spiritual. You see, Judas knew the interconnecting of the Divine Trinity, he wasn’t stuck on himself, to the point of denying this, if anything knowing so put him in a race against time—and this will come out later, but never mind that now.
It is also safe to say, Judas knew Jesus’ self-limitations; he knew the inside of Jesus’ shell of humanity (I hate to say, but it is obvious once looked at, biblically and humanistically), this is a sweaty area for Christendom, or Christology—that being pretty close to the end, for here was a man, and God, and who could by choice, make a decision, and be omnipotent, but didn’t. Perhaps again, I may throw a tidbit into this bowl of crickets, one Judas created: perchance, Judas knowing this, and Christ not using such power, irked him. I’m only telling you this to get everything straight (I don’t want any bent lines here), rather let’s put it out in the open. If you are saying, “Gee whiz,” how can you say such a thing—or such things? We are talking about a human being, Judas, a psychological man, so looking at it from that perception, it is plain to see, he was cleaver, a thinking man’s man, and one who did not tell all his secrets, he was no dope, nor am I blaming him, but who doesn’t want to be on the side of great power, or what man doesn’t? And if that power is not being used according to the Gospel of Judas, just like the power of Julius Cesar, or Alexander the Great, people will lean on that person. Maybe Judas was not so different.
In any case, the question arises, “Why did Judas do what he did?”
Well, again to be frank, what exactly did he do? One person could say, “What a chump—he ran for the gold and ended up hanging from a tree limb,” he was all of that, and he did all of that. Or another could say, “What a traitor,” and so conceivably he might have been! But anyway you look at it, this is surface talk—the situation, the real problem for me is under the exterior, it always is: perhaps this person, flesh and blood, and a psychological individual, was on a power high (as implied earlier on).
When a man goes to war for his homeland, he is in essence doing so for the greater glory of his country, and in the process may have to give up his life for that country, and the people in it. Is this not so? And did not Jesus say in essence: the greatest gift man can give to another is his life, something on that order? Oh yes, He said it loud and clear. This may shed some light on Judas’ humanity, his psychological make up, his act of treason, his reasoning, and perhaps a little bit on his nature, and motive.
Let’s remember, this fellow was no mutt, many a man, or men in his day, would have given their golden teeth to be in his position, I mean, and I’d bet he could had made a million on the side by just introducing Jesus to the local elite. But you know how a fellow is; if there are diamonds hidden in the well, why squander your time on other things, especially when you got the golden goose, who can lay the golden eggs, sitting right next to you (it reminds me of Colonel Parker, who was Elvis Presley’s manager for over twenty years, Mr. Parker gave up all his other interests to manage Elvis, he knew he had his golden goose—a good thing, and didn’t want to lose it).
Anyhow, I don’t want to make a fool of myself, for a slip-up—but the question has come to surface, “Did Judas love Jesus?” To say otherwise, or even think he did not, is an offence—of course he did. But how do you force a person’s hand who is not listening? Remember he is a man of his day. If he didn’t love Jesus, after receiving his thirty pieces of silver, he would not have thrown them away, and then he would not have sunk into a dreadful depression, nor would he have committed suicide by hanging himself. He was not guilty of blasphemy, rather a different offence, perhaps he loved power more than anything, or perhaps he loved the power Jesus could have, and he’d be part of it.
History has sat on a nice sofa chair talking about Judas as if they knew him each and everyone, for years and years, personally, and left out the psychological man, for the spiritual dilemma they put themselves into: and in so doing, bluffed it through, never finding out the real man behind the mask, they’ve been like lame cows.
The mind, Judas labored with his ambition—psychologically and with his spirit— he was of both fibers (perhaps he forgot happiness was or is a byproduct, not a divine attribute), in saying this, the next question that comes up is: “Was Judas trying to force the hand of God?” In essence, was he trying to take charge of the world through his son? Or trying to get a piece of it ahead of time? And if so, who would be Jesus’ right hand man? And did Judas think: ‘Look here, I got a chance to be by the Father and Holy Spirit, the whole Godhead!” Perhaps so, and perhaps to degrees, who’s to say—John’s mother is guilty of that very same sin.
Vanity and self-interest, which are part of the fiber of man, part of the original sin man inherited, is stronger than the whims of the devil himself.

No: 456 ((8-25-2009) (reedited and revised 9-21-2009 for inclusion)) Here is part one of two parts.



E



The Day in the Garden (…and the stone floor))

A Story of the Virgin Mary





So something happened somewhere between that stone little house built over two-thousand years ago, and that special garden-court, on both sides of the road, on the hilltop in the city of Ephesus, this one morning. Except that if I ever really knew, exactly knew what it was, it wasn’t going to be Mary’s fault (if I didn’t tell it right, so why tell it at all?) I mean, I might have know or anyway had a good idea of what took place, happened (as unbelievable as it was)—while the tourist group I was with was walking down the path, the hill after I remained as if frozen in step in the garden that brisk morning—going towards the bus—I knew someday I’d tell it, probably would have to tell it to somebody. Just to get some rest, finality from it.
What I wouldn’t know would be just how it happened because when I come to tell it, I wouldn’t have told it until now—thirteen-years later, thinking it wouldn’t much matter what took place, somebody, anybody reading this story, it wouldn’t much matter because whoever read it would, they would say as they have said in the past “Why you?” Thus, the only one needing or expecting to understand it was me, and now that I look back, it never occurred to me to write this brief story until now.
On the hilltop in the city of Ephesus, after walking in the stone little house I had come to visit, the very house Mary lived in (and Saint John, whom was told by Jesus Christ to take care of, lived in…) prior to her death, and after Christ’s crucifixion, I walked those stone floors, leaned over and touch those stone floors, where once Saint John and Mary walked, and a few other apostles (perhaps even Maria Magdalena).
Three in the sun lit garden one morning in November, of 1996, there I stood alone, everyone had left, and there I stood just far enough to see— unmistakably see, what I saw—perhaps one-hundred and twenty-five feet from what would be a stirring event (or awakening for me), the figure of a woman, in pure white mist—I was near stunned— from the ground up, as if my own will was paralyzing me—not wanting to move, as if the ground, sacred ground I was standing on (in the garden) had tranquilized me to the point of not wanting to move, all this entering every pore of my body. You don’t fully underhand such moments, you simply live them, and try later on to describe them, if indeed one can.
She, Mary (I say Mary because who else would it have been?), understood, because she never had no way of telling me because she didn’t know I saw there (call it instinct, premonition), because she never looked towards me—she was close—but not too close—to the house, in the garden, as if simply tending to whatever, perhaps enjoying the crisp morning due, wondering about.

And I just put this all away until now—or thirteen years later. No, I didn’t forget it I just put it away until later, until the need for it to come up without no more remembering—, for it is as if it happened just today.


Note: Written 12-14-2009 No: 550 ••



F



When Two Worlds
Collide

(A step back in time…))
A Story of Christ, Mary, and Visions





The world’s false gods never really lose forever their people, who follow them with their heart and soul (for those are the ones who do not fight what is within them, and who think it will save them, only to bring forth destruction, and blasphemy upon themselves…). Some have a reckoning, and live through it and have a moment of enlightenment—then the old gods come back, no matter if you want them to or not.
And these people say (church going folk): “We’re not used to visions, and visitations by the supernatural,” and when it takes place, with a friend, acquaintance, or family member, they do not take it seriously: and there was in fact that the family member in question had been for many years a ‘drunk,’ and a roustabout—a great sinner among lesser sinners. They take this holy and sacred experience one brings forth to them as a chronic nuisance. Here is an environment of practical and practicing Christians, who are willing to let in all the bad news regardless, and not stretch out their hands to the sinful healed, of one who claims, proclaims in the very name of their Christian God, he had come home to Him, and in the process (of being: Born Again) had some supranational experiences thereupon, and thereafter.
Can we say this is jealousy, or envy, one such person said “Why Him, why would Jesus appear to him?” What she most likely meant was, when she told this to her sister, “Why not me instead, why your son?”

And that was when the son said what he said, and his mother said what she said, concerning his visions. It might be said, such men and women love the gods of earth, unknowingly just thought that they loved the real God in Heaven, and loved and lost Him somewhere along the way (or perhaps never knew him). Because the son—the person in question, did it, I mean, took his hand to touch the Lord’s hand that come out of a cloud of mist—certainly it wasn’t physical, but why—because it was real.
I thought of that also, a Voice said, “Are you not after my own heart, like King David was?” And the Voice was right.
And he was after God’s heart. As I look back on this, I guess what might have been said, and wasn’t said, for this person had over fifty-visions of end time events (and Biblical Characters, and prehistoric events), back in 1984, of which everyone has come forth, “Could you suggest a better place and time for a Godly visit, or a supernatural experience?”
“But why?” said the Godmother.
If he would have said to her, he was having fifty-demonic nightmares, if he had said that as earnestly as he had said he was having these other visitations and visions (God sent ones), he would not have been expected to defend his assertion I do believe. But what he said in essence was: “I saw Christ on the Cross, deboned like fish, I almost vomited. I also saw Mary with a number of other women that surrounded her, on Calvary. And that wasn’t the first time I saw Christ, but the third. And I had vitiation, a few of them, and even a few demonic encounters.”

Somehow, somewhere for a period of eight months, in 1984-85 (and occasionally thereafter, but quite limited after the first dates), he could for that while, live in two worlds—he could go into the past, the near past and the dark past, and see the truth, and he did, and into the future, and he did. And what he would say thereafter, in brief is the following (which is quite limiting):
“When Christ was on the cross he was naked, he looked deboned, and had dark welts on his body, covered his body…Mary was present, with other women…and I could search the whole area, and no one knew I was there…. And I saw Christ before this, prior to the cross praying on a large rock, he was handsome, not like the pictures I saw of him in museums and so forth, and he didn’t have long hair, he had shorter hair, groomed well, it went over his ears, but nothing as long as a woman’s. And he was pert near paralyzed in thought, deep grounded eyes; his face was lightly covered with a beard, short, and groomed. His nose was Jewish, as was his tone of skin. Mary was nice looking, looked in her mid to late thirties, wore dark clothing. I also visited and saw the Angelic Renegades, those I do believe that appear in the book of Genesis, Chapter 6.”


Note: Written 12-14-2009 No: 551 ••




G

The Cave of Treasures
((The Hierarchy Prophecy) (Testament of Adam, between AD 100 to AD 300))





We see in the testament of Adam, of the Garden of Eve, the order of being: 1) the Archangels (officers, like Captains and Majors), of creation 2) the angels, for human beings (more on the order of Sergeants, the working men, 3) the Powers, the—the control the demons, who try to destroy the works of humans 4) the Authorities, they control the heavenly lights (sun, moon and stars), 5) Seraphim (they serve the inner chamber of the Lord), 6) Cherubim (they carry the throne, and keep the Divine Seal), 7) Man, 8) Satan 9) God.

According to the documents “The Testament of Adam,” the end of the world countdown starts at the time of the Great flood, for 6000-years, and prior to his is the time of Adam, and Enoch, about 1800 to 1900-years. The blood being around 3200 to 3600 BC (making the new world order, of humans, at today’s date, 7500-years old. According to the Jewish calendar, man as we know him dates back about 8000-years, so this would be pretty close to their theory).
Angels are also called thrones, which guard the gates of the holy of holies.


Why is this information important? It perhaps isn’t, but for the curious minded person, it might be, in that it is part of the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, and refers to Psalm 148; and is considered documents among the Pseudepigrapha. And for those who do not know the order of beings, it might be of value. Beyond this, I am not certain of its value; besides having a relationship with the Apocrypha.


No: 578 12-27-2009

H
In English & Spanish†

Secret of the Virgin Mary
(Translated into Spanish by Rosa Peñaloza de Siluk)
Article written by Rev., Dennis L. Siluk, Ed.D.
(Ordained Minister, 1993)

After I finished my BA degree, many, many years ago, I started working on my MA, in counseling, psychology, drugs and alcohol, etc., a combination—then I stopped for a period of time, not really knowing what I wanted to do, so I studied theology, read 400-books in 18-months, listened to over 10,000-hours of tapes from every corner of Christendom, Christology—through theology, even went to Haiti, up in the mountains to do some missionary work, only to find out I was not meant—or cut out—to be a missionary, or priest, or clergy, although I did go to a theological university for six-months, and studied Old Testament Studies, along with several other courses, in particular eschatology. But what bothered me was, I shouldn’t say bothered me, it was neither here nor there for me, not a big issue for the most part, just a thorn in my side you could say, was the controversy around Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Why is there even an issue I asked myself, in that: was Mary a virgin from the day she was born to the day she died? I mean, did she never have sex? Some folks said Jesus had brothers, sisters, and all that kind of stuff. And of course Joseph was a quite and perfect role model as a father in his time—I would think, and I also think his time was short, and there is a reason for that, I believe he was an old man when he married Mary. Had a few children of his own, a widower.
Now we all have opinions, and I can’t prove anything beyond a doubt (nor can anyone else), but I can share what I think, and so I shall, and what my research has surfaced. If I hurt your feelings, don’t take it personal, it is just as it is an assessment, evaluation. We shall venture into Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ lives—quickly, and I shall throw some Bible substance your way, if you like it, do some homework on your own, if you don’t—, file-thirteen it (that’s old Army talk for toss it in the basket). Anyhow, I shall put this to rest once and for all:

1) The book of Mark, Chapter 6…and Matthew (Mt.) Chapter (Ch) 13, we see a Carpenter, Jesus, the son of Mary, and a few brothers: James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. And “Are not his sisters here with us….” We now can check out Mt. Ch. 12 and Mark (Mk) Ch. 3 and Luke, Chapter 8, and John Chapter 7. By all appearance, it looks like Christ had some brothers.
But in Bible reading I have learned you have to check out many things—don’t take anything at face value, the meaning of words, from the Hebrew to the Greek to the English (all translations) which can be, and are in many cases, varying if not unstable, and one must read above and below the point of issue, and there are several other books, canons, not blessed, that can be reviewed in helping to produce a healthy translation; history that was not put into the bible simply because it was not necessary, or so the founding fathers of the bible (s) felt—when the holy scriptures were canonized.

2) Let me point out in the Hebrew text, when it is said: “brother” he means just that: son of the father, as you would expect it to be. Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek and used the word "brother" or to be more exact "adelphos" (adelphos), meaning exactly what I said earlier, or implied: blood related. Now go to John, chapter 20, see what Jesus has to say “…go to my ‘brethrens’ (in some bibles this is referred to as ‘brothers’). He knew what He was saying. When Jesus said brethren, He meant Disciples. Jesus points his brothers and sisters out in Matt: 12, Mark 3; in John Chapter 7, it says, “Even his brothers didn’t believe him.”
So you see, we can get confused with the word brother and brethren, but we shall try to straighten this out—for simplicity sake.

3) The New Testament is pretty upfront about Mary’s character, in that she was a virgin at the time she was born through the conception of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Later acknowledged by the so called Universal Church—that she remained a virgin thereafter; this is part of the controversy, more of the argument that seems to hang over Christendom, that is, after Christ’s birth, in that, “Did she (Mary) remain a Virgin, or was she or was not thereafter?”
I say, it really shouldn’t matter all that much one way or the other (so I feel), but for folks that like poking their nose (like me) into history, it is worth the time. Either way it proves no wrongdoing on Mary’s part. But let not the blind lead the blind, and for the past one-hundred years or so, that is what many of our Christian Scholars have been doing.
When I talk in English to someone, I use the term “My brother…” and then the name “Mike” when we say “brother” we usually mean brother— in English, a male sibling sharing both biological parents, this is no big research finding, just a normal everyday thing that has been going on worldwide for a very long time—but to make a point I must stretch this train of thought out. But to be honest, the term brother has a wider range of meanings, for example: sibling, biological parent, step-brother, male sibling, male sibling adopted, comrade, etc., all depending on the environment, the culture, the social up bringing, and as an issue, one must point this out (some folks in Peru call expect their second cousins, to call them uncles or aunts: by blood this is not possible, but by social acceptance of the meaning, it is. In another corner is the honorary thing, for example, I called my mother’s boyfriend, whom she went with for forty-years, Uncle; in Peru, my wife’s sister who goes with a man who has two kids, the daughter calls me Uncle, there is to semblance in family, neither in blood or social standing, only on a respectful platform does she call me uncle, and out of familiarity and love). For, in everyday life, this is not all that important—in the overall picture that is—but perhaps to a few select, when it becomes an issue, the proper meaning for the word used, must be correct—beyond a doubt. Otherwise what isn’t an issue becomes one, and what is a small issue, becomes a bigger one.

4) So, the question is: “Did Mary remain a virgin?”
Aramaic had a strong influence on the New Testament Bible, one point I did not bring out above was, a word for brother can mean ‘cousin’ the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos), with the new Christians.
We can also look at: were they adoptive brothers, in trying to save Mary’s reputation of being a virgin to her death. This would do it, but I can’t find any evidence to support this. Yet as a counselor, I’ve learned to keep a clear head, look at what is underneath, not the surface, the surface is always the situation, not the problem or issue, and we are getting close to that.

5) It would seem to me, a more likely conclusion anyhow, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage. That is to say, the manuscript known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)—indicates that Joseph was a widower who already had a family prior to his marriage to Mary, and therefore was willing to become the protector, or custodian of a sanctified, and set apart virgin. (He was old at the time they married I do believe, and that is why the bible does not go on with Joseph, to the point of him being around when Christ grew to manhood.)
So did Christ have brothers? Perhaps so, if indeed Jesus was the single son of Mary, and James was the only son of Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, blood brothers that is. When we hear the phrase “brother of Jesus” we must look deep into the well, Matt. 13. You see, the word ‘brother’ meant more than that, or perhaps in this case, less, it did not mean ‘blood’ related ((review the Book of Tobit)(for broader meanings)).

6) Perhaps what Eve did, Mary, the mother of Christ undid. When I look at this issue I also look at who is saying what. The Church Fathers, believed Mary as remaining a virgin throughout her life; when I say Church Fathers I mean, those who could remember her, perhaps had talked to the apostles ((up to the turn of the first century, 100 AD or so)( if indeed Christ died about AD 30, as stated by many scholars)). Also, one should look at what Pope Martin I, AD 659 insisted on at the council, which was: that she, Mary remained “ever-Virgin,” thus she was already considered that ((long before this issue became an issue)(I do see that, in my time, and even a century before—to include the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries—we have a horde of False Prophets out there trying to steer mankind into confusion over doctrine that was set thousands of years prior; everyone’s an expert nowadays)).

7) In any case, another point of contention may be: what did Christ say at Calvary? Did he not say to John in essence ‘…take care of my mother, and take her home with you…’ he entrusted her with him, why not with his blood brothers or sisters that would be the norm (John 19). Matter-of-fact, it was unthinkable for a Jewish mother to go live with a friend after the death of her son, if she had any other children of her own!...

In short, did Mary remain a virgin, after the birth of Christ? And did Christ have brothers and sisters? Which is the premise of this article; I feel, and I think she was a virgin and remained one until the day she died, and I can’t find anything to the contrary. And yes, Christ had brothers and sisters, but to the best of my research and knowledge, I think not blood related.

The Secret is that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ to her death (if indeed that is a secret at all).

Written: 4-8-2007 ((reedited 4-9-2007, and again in 10-2009)(reedited a slightly revised 11-2009))



Spanish Version


El Secreto de la Virgen María


Después de obtener mi grado de Bachiller, muchos, muchos años atrás, comencé a trabajar en mi Maestría en psicología, asesoría, adicciones a las drogas y alcohol, etc., una combinación—después lo dejé por un periodo de tiempo, realmente no sabiendo qué es lo que quería hacer, así estudié teología, leí cuatrocientos libros en dieciocho meses, escuché más de diez-mil horas de cintas de todas las esquinas sobre Cristiandad, Cristología—a través de la Teología, incluso fui a Haití, para realizar algún trabajo misionero en las montañas, sólo para descubrir que mi vocación no era ser misionero, o sacerdote, o clérigo, aunque fui a una universidad teológica durante seis meses y estudié el Antiguo Testamento, junto con varios otros cursos, en particular escatología. Pero lo que me molestaba era—aunque no debería decir molestaba porque me daba lo mismo, no era una cuestión grande, sólo una espina en mi costado—la controversia alrededor de María, la madre de Jesucristo. Por qué existe incluso un problema, me preguntaba a mi mismo, en que: ¿María fue virgen desde el día en que nació hasta el día en que murió? Quiero decir, ¿Nunca tuvo ella sexo? Alguna gente dice que Jesús tenía hermanos, hermanas, y toda esa clase de cosas. Y por supuesto José era un perfecto modelo de padre en su tiempo—yo pensaría, y pienso además que su tiempo fue corto, y hay una razón para ello, yo creo que él era un anciano cuando se casó con María. El tuvo hijos antes de casarse con María, él era un viudo.

Ahora todos tenemos opiniones, y no puedo probar nada más allá de una duda (tampoco nadie más lo puede), pero puedo compartir lo que pienso, y por eso lo haré, y lo que he obtenido con mi investigación. Si hiero tus sentimientos, no lo tomes personal, es sólo lo que es: una evaluación, una investigación. Nos aventuraremos en la vida de José, María, y Jesús rápidamente y mencionaré algunos pasajes de La Biblia en el proceso, si te gusta, realiza tu tarea por tu cuenta, si no archívalo. De todos modos, pondré esto a descansar de una vez para todas:

1) En el Evangelio de Marcos, Capítulo 6…y en el de Mateo, Capítulo 13, vemos a un carpintero, Jesús, el hijo de María, y unos cuantos hermanos: Santiago, José, Judas y Simón. Y “no están sus hermanas aquí con nosotros…” ahora podemos comprobar en Mateo, Capítulo 12, Marcos Capítulo 3, Lucas, Capítulo 8, y Juan, Capítulo 7. Por las apariencias, pareciera como que Cristo tuvo algunos hermanos.
Pero en el estudio de la Biblia he aprendido que tienes que comprobar muchas cosas—no tomes nada literalmente—: el significado de palabras, del hebreo al griego y al inglés (todos traducciones) que pueden ser, y son en muchos casos, variables e inestables, y hay que leer los párrafos anteriores y posteriores del punto en cuestión (el concepto entero), y hay otros varios libros, cánones no benditos, que pueden ser revisados para ayudar a producir una traducción sana; la historia que no fue puesta en la Biblia fue simplemente porque no fue necesario—o eso los padres fundadores de la Biblia lo sintieron—cuando las sagradas escrituras fueron canonizadas.

2) Déjame indicar que el texto hebreo cuando dice: “hermano”, quiere decir solamente eso: el hijo del padre, como tú esperarías que ello fuera. Marcos escribió su Evangelio en griego y usó la palabra “hermano” o para ser más exactos “adelphos”, queriendo decir exactamente lo que impliqué antes: pariente de sangre. Ahora vayamos a Juan, Capítulo 20, veamos lo que Jesús tiene que decir “...anda donde mis hermanos…” Él sabía lo que estaba diciendo; cuando Jesús dijo “hermanos”, Él se refería a sus “discípulos”. Incluso se indica a sus hermanos y hermanas en Mateo, Capítulo 12; Marcos, Capítulo 3; en Juan, Capítulo 7, dice, “Incluso sus hermanos no lo creyeron”.
Entonces tú ves, podemos confundirnos con la palabra hermano, pero trataremos de arreglar esto—por simplicidad.

3) El Nuevo Testamento es bastante claro sobre la naturaleza de María, en el sentido de que Ella fue virgen en el momento de la concepción de Cristo (por el Espíritu Santo). Más tarde reconocido por la llamada Iglesia Universal—que Ella permaneció virgen después; esto es parte de la controversia, más del argumento que parece asirse sobre la Cristiandad, esto es, después del nacimiento de Cristo: ¿Ella permaneció virgen o no lo fue después de esto?
Digo, esto realmente no debería importar mucho de una forma u otra (eso lo siento), pero para la gente que les gusta indagar en la historia (como yo), vale la pena. De cualquier forma esto prueba no crimen en la parte de Maria. Pero no dejemos que el ciego guíe al ciego, y en el siglo pasado, esto es lo que muchos de nuestros eruditos Cristianos lo han estado haciendo.

Cuando hablo en inglés con alguien, uso el término “mi hermano…” y luego el nombre “Miguel”. Cuando decimos “hermano” por lo general queremos decir hermano—varón que comparte a ambos padres biológicos, esto no es ninguna investigación grande, sólo una cosa normal diaria que existe y continúa en el mundo por mucho tiempo—pero para hacer una observación debo estirar estas ideas persistentes. El término hermano tiene una amplia gama de significado, por ejemplo: hermano del padre biológico, el medio hermano, el hermanastro, el hermano adoptado, el amigo, etc. todo dependiendo del ambiente, la cultura, y como una cuestión, uno debe indicarlo (algunas personas en Perú llaman sobrinos a sus segundos-primos (o al hijo del primo), lo cual por la línea sanguínea no es posible, pero por aceptación social del significado si lo es. En la otra esquina está la forma honoraria, por ejemplo, yo le llamaba “tío” al enamorado de mi mamá, con él que ella estuvo por cuarenta años; en Perú, la hermana de mi esposa sale con un hombre que tiene dos hijos, que no son de ella, los hijos de él me llama “tío”; no hay relación familiar, ni de sangre, y sólo es por familiaridad y amor). Porque en la vida diaria, esto no es tan importante—es decir en el cuadro total—pero talvez si para unos cuantos seleccionados, cuando esto se vuelve un problema, el propio significado por la palabra usada, debe ser corregido—más allá de la duda. De otra manera lo que no es un problema se convierte en uno, y lo que es un problema pequeño, se convierte en uno más grande.

4) Entonces, la pregunta es: ¿María permaneció virgen?
El arameo tenía una influencia fuerte sobre el Nuevo Testamento de la Biblia, un punto que no recalqué en los párrafos anteriores, es de que la palabra hermano puede significar “primo”. La palabra Aramea ¡ahá! habría sido dada literalmente con la palabra griega para hermano (adelphos), con los nuevos cristianos.
Podemos decir también que ellos eran hermanos adoptivos, en la tentativa de salvar la reputación de María, de ser virgen hasta su muerte. Esto lo haría, pero no puedo encontrar ninguna prueba para apoyar esto. Pero como psicólogo, he aprendido a mantener una cabeza clara, a mirar lo que está debajo, no a la superficie, la superficie es siempre la situación no el problema o la cuestión, y nos estamos acercando a ello.

5) Me parecería a mí, una conclusión más probable de todas formas, que ellos eran hermanastros: los hijos de José que se convirtieron en hermanos de Jesús por el matrimonio. Es decir, el manuscrito conocido como el ProtoEvangelio de Santiago (120 años después de Cristo) —indica que José era un viudo que ya tenía una familia antes de su matrimonio con María, y por lo tanto estaba dispuesto a convertirse en el protector, o el guardián de un Santificado, y dejar a la virgen de lado. (Él era anciano en el tiempo en que ellos se casaron realmente creo, y es por eso que la Biblia no continúa con José, al punto de no estar él alrededor cuando Cristo pasó a la madurez.)
Entonces, ¿Cristo tuvo hermanos? Quizás, si efectivamente Jesús fue el hijo único de María, y Santiago fue el hijo único de José, entonces Jesús y Santiago no habrían sido literalmente hermanos, hermanos de sangre esto es. Cuando oímos la frase “hermano de Jesús” debemos de mirar profundamente en el pozo, Mateo Capítulo 13. Como ves, la palabra “hermano” significaba más que eso, o quizás en este caso, menos, ésta no significaba “familiar de sangre” (examina el: Libro de Tobit por significados más amplios).

6) Quizás lo que Eva hizo, María, la madre de Cristo lo deshizo. Cuando veo este tema también miro a quién lo dice. Los Padres de la Iglesia, creyeron que María permaneció virgen toda su vida; y cuando digo los Padres de la Iglesia, quiero decir, aquellos que podrían recordarla, quizás los que hablaron con los apóstoles ((hasta aproximadamente el primer siglo, 100 años después de Cristo o algo así) (si efectivamente Cristo murió alrededor del año 30 d.C. como lo afirman muchos eruditos)). También, habría que ver a lo que el Papa Martín I, en el año 659 después de Cristo, insistió en el Concilio, de que María permaneció “Siempre Virgen”, de esta forma ella ya había sido considerada así ((muchísimo antes de que este tema se volviera un problema)(Yo veo que en mi tiempo—e incluso un siglo antes, incluyendo al siglo 19, 20 y 21—tenemos un montón de falsos profetas tratando de confundir a la humanidad sobre una doctrina que fue asentada miles de años atrás; hoy día todos son unos “expertos”)).

7) En todo caso, otro punto de discusión podría ser: ¿Qué dijo Cristo en el calvario? ¿No le dijo Él a Juan en esencia que llevara a su madre a su casa con él? Él confió su madre a Juan, por qué no con sus hermanos o hermanas de sangre que esa sería la norma (Juan Capítulo 19). De hecho, ¡era inconcebible para una madre judía ir a vivir con un amigo después de la muerte de su hijo, si ella tuviera otros hijos propios!...

En resumen, ¿María permaneció virgen, después del nacimiento de Cristo? ¿Y Cristo tuvo hermanos y hermanas? que son las ideas de este artículo. Siento, y pienso que ella fue virgen y permaneció virgen hasta el día en que murió y no puedo encontrar nada de lo contrario. Y sí, Cristo tenía hermanos y hermanas, pero no hermanos(as) de sangre, de acuerdo con lo mejor de mi investigación y conocimiento.

El secreto es que la Virgen María siempre permaneció virgen hasta su muerte (si realmente esto es un secreto).


Escrito: 8 de Abril del 2007 (corregido el 9-Abril 2007)


I
In English & Spanish†

Issues around the:
Corrida de Toros



Part One: The Bullfighter


The bullfight, it is a tragedy, and not a sport, nor a contest between the bull and matador—for the most part. It is, as I said, a tragedy, insofar as, the death of the bull. Yes, there is a dangerous link involving the bullfighter against the bull, but inevitable death for the bull.
The matador, or bullfighter, can measure his own danger by increasing or decreasing his distance and/or his stance towards the bull, that is to say, he can at will fall back from those horns of the bull; he is by and large, in control, not the bull. Of course the bullfighter must be aware of his abilities; such as: reflexes, judgments and so forth; to include, goring or being thrown about like hay by a bull which is most often due to the ignorance (if not by youth and inexperience) then by the lack of agility or quickness on behalf of the matador.
The bulls are not as stupid as many may think; for when you do not study the bull, and the rules of distraction, change and the character of the beast, gaining knowledge of the traits of the bull, learning the techniques of those before you, the bull actually doesn’t look so stupid anymore, it is usually the bullfighter that does (and the unaware observing participant in the Plaza de Toros, or gallery). At my second to last bullfight, the young matador was just that, unaware of the techniques, and not quick enough, and in consequence, got a horn in the armpit, in Mexico City.


Part Two: The Moral Issue

There are of course moral issues on bullfighting, and killing of the bull. Consequently, this issue is more or less resolved in how you see the bullfight, and by whose values and standards you prefer to go or live by. I do not, or prefer not to, defend the bull or bullfighter, or morality in general—I can sleep very well after a bullfight, I only feel horror when I see what man is capable of doing to man, in war, or in some dark alley, or in the open, or in the way the justice system when it is carried out unjustly, and when a judge looks the other way because of gain or profit, because the judicial system is corrupt, unreasonable, and unpredictable.
People seem to be more affected by the bullfight nowadays and unaffected by the abuse of the criminal system they live under—oh yes, publicly they disapprove of it, but secretly they expect corruption at some point in time to assist them somehow. Thus, the very thing that should horrify and disgust them, they overlook and yell at the blood the bull sheds in the bullring—somehow this seems to be displaced anger (meaning if you can’t do anything about the legal system, get your anger out at the people watching the bullfight).


Part Three: The Tragedy and Ritual


I have already proclaimed, there is a tragedy in the bullfight, but there also resides a ritual in the bullfight (which I will go around, rather than explain because I want to look at the art and culture aspect of it).
Either you can see and feel this or you cannot. You might say a man of culture is more aware of this than a person to the contrary. The man of culture may see the art in the bullfight, the person not of culture, if open-minded, may also see this, but most often doesn’t.
When you think of men killing men in war or for pleasure, or vengeance, the bullfight becomes much more civilized. On another note, man has become so proficient in warfare, much more than in bullfighting, which in comparison, is simply a stomp on the big toe. Yet, we justify the war, and criminalize the bullfight. I think somewhere along the line, we got our wires crossed.

Written: 8-4-2009 (Article on Bullfighting)




Spanish Version

Temas acerca de:
La Corrida de Toros


Parte Uno: El Torero


La Corrida de Toros—por lo general—es una tragedia y no un deporte, ni una competencia entre el toro y el torero. Es, como lo dije, una tragedia en el sentido de que el toro muere. Sí, hay una conexión peligrosa involucrando al torero en contra del toro, pero una muerte inevitable para el toro.
El torero, o matador, puede medir su propio peligro, incrementando o disminuyendo su postura y/o distancia hacia el toro; es decir, él puede por su voluntad recurrir a esos cuernos del toro; él está, en general, en control, no el toro. Por supuesto que el torero debe de estar consciente de sus habilidades: como reflejo, juicio, etc. incluyendo, el ser corneado o ser tirado alrededor como un paquete de heno por el toro, lo que a menudo ocurre debido a la ignorancia (o a la juventud o inexperiencia) o por falta de agilidad o rapidez del torero.
Los toros no son tan estúpidos como muchos pueden pensar; porque cuando no estudias al toro y las reglas de distracción, el cambio y el carácter de la bestia, o no adquieres conocimiento de los rasgos del toro, o no aprendes las técnica de aquellos antes que tú, el toro realmente no parece tan estúpido nunca más, es generalmente el torero quien lo parece (y los ingenuos participantes observando en la Plaza de Toros, o arena). En mi última corrida de toros, el joven torero era justo eso, inexperto de las técnicas y no suficientemente rápido; en consecuencia, fue corneado en el brazo; esto pasó en la Ciudad de México.


Parte Dos: El Tema Moral

Hay por supuesto temas morales en la corrida de toros, y en la matanza del toro. Consecuentemente, el tema es más o menos resuelto en cómo ves tú la corrida de toros, y por qué valores y estándares tú prefieres ir o vivir. Yo prefiero no defender al toro o al torero, o la moralidad en general—puedo dormir muy bien luego de ver una corrida de toros—sólo siento horror cuando veo a un hombre ser capaz de hacerle daño a otro hombre, en la guerra, o en algún callejón oscuro, o en las áreas abiertas, o cuando el sistema de justicia es llevado a cabo injustamente y cuando un juez se hace al disimulado por intereses propios, debido a que el sistema judicial es corrupto, poco razonable e impredecible.
La gente parece estar más conmovida por la corrida de toros hoy en día y despreocupada por el abuso del sistema criminal bajo el que viven—oh sí, públicamente ellos lo desaprueban, pero secretamente ellos esperan corrupción hasta cierto punto para que los asistan, de alguna forma, en algún momento. Así, precisamente la cosa que debería horrorizarlos y disgustarlos, ellos lo ignoran y en cambio gritan por la sangre que el toro derrama en la arena.


Parte Tres: La Tragedia y Ritual

Ya he proclamado que hay una tragedia en la corrida de toros, pero también reside un ritual en ésta (el que lo repetiré, en vez de explicar porque quiero ver el arte y aspecto cultural en esto).
Tú puedes ver y sentir esto, o no lo puedes. Tú talvez digas que un hombre de cultura es más consciente de esto que un hombre que no lo es. El hombre de cultura talvez vea arte en la corrida de toros, la persona no de cultura, si tiene una mentalidad abierta, también puede ver esto, aunque frecuentemente no.
Cuando pienses en los hombres matando a otros hombres en la guerra, o por placer, o por venganza, la corrida de toros se vuelve más civilizada. En otra nota, el hombre se ha vuelto tan competente en la guerra, mucho más que en la corrida de toros, que en comparación, es simplemente una patada en el dedo gordo del pie. Aún, justificamos la guerra, y criminalizamos la corrida de toros. Creo que en alguna parte a lo largo del camino, se nos cruzaron los chicotes.

Escrito: 4-Agosto-2009 (Articulo en La Corrida de Toros)




J

In English & Spanish†

Throats of a Thousand Demons



I heard the screams and yelling of a thousand demons, sounds of destruction and immediate death—it all came from the helm of a distant old wooden vessel—but one demon passed through the whole atmosphere around and above me—, never in all my days left on earth shall I forget the increasing agony within my heart’s valves, and its compressing chambers, and the intense pervading terror, to the point the walls of those chambers were about to burst open—; thus, I felt my blood being squeezed through congealing and hardening veins—my skin cold and Goosebumps covering me from head to toe, standing hard and erect, and the voice of the Demon of Nightmares babbling as his hand grabbed my shadow and held it high by its neck, around its throat, the heavy body under it, pulling downward as to decapitate, the neck thinning— as the neck was stretching, my heart utterly being brought to an alarm state.
“You have to see this!” the demon repeated twice, and I looked and sensed I was going into a tumbling, headlong, insensible—state of numbness, should I not quickly escape.
“No!” I said exceedingly apposing the voice. I didn’t want to watch and then, that was when I called out to my wife Rosa, “Wake me up!” whereupon I found myself reviving and bound once again to the waking world— paler than death.

I had nearly been run-down by a wild and loose demon, hailed by his demonic onlookers. Upon feeling my eyes opening, my explanation to my wife was but a few words—I was by all means, rough-looking from the nightly experience. Somehow he had crept into my dreams and it was impossible to avoid coming in contact with him.
My wife asked, “Did you forget your prayers last night?” And I had.
“So, it was then obvious,” she told me, “the demon rode immediately over you—as if without the least perceptible impediment to his progress.”

No: 444 ((Nightmare, 7-28-2009) (written: 7-30-2009)) EAP









Spanish Version

Gargantas de Mil Demonios

(Una pesadilla real)

O í los gritos y rugidos de mil demonios, sonidos de destrucción y muerte inmediata—que venía del timón de un distante buque de madera viejo—pero un demonio pasó a través de la atmósfera alrededor y encima de mi—, nunca, en todos los días que me quedan en la tierra me olvidaré de la agonía creciente dentro de las válvulas de mi corazón, y sus cavidades comprimidas, y el intenso terror impregnado, al punto que las paredes de esas cavidades estaban a punto de estallar—; así, sentí que mi sangre estaba siendo exprimida a través de mis venas endurecidas y sangre coagulada—mi piel estaba fría y estaba cubierto de pies a cabeza con piel de gallina; el Demonio de las Pesadillas, tambaleándose pero erguido, balbuceaba, mientras sus manos agarraban mi sombra y la sostenía en alto a la altura de su cuello, alrededor de su garganta, debajo de su pesado cuerpo, jalándolo hacia abajo como para decapitarlo, mi cuello adelgazándose—mientras mi cuello estaba siendo estirado, mi corazón fue llevado completamente a un estado de alarma.
“Tienes que ver esto”, el demonio repitió dos veces, y miré y sentí que caería de cabeza insensiblemente dentro de un adormecimiento, si no escapaba rápidamente.
“No” dije con mucha dificultad. Yo no quería ver, y entonces fue cuando llamé a mi esposa Rosa, “¡Despiértame!”. A este punto me encontré a mi mismo reanimándome y una vez más en el mundo vivo—más pálido que la muerte.
Casi fui atropellado por un salvaje demonio suelto, convocado por sus espectadores demonios. Al sentir mis ojos abiertos, mi explicación a mi esposa fue sólo unas cuantas palabras—estaba por todos los medios, movido por la experiencia nocturna. De alguna forma él se metió en mis sueños y era imposible evitar venir en contacto conmigo.
Mi esposa preguntó, “¿Te olvidaste de tus oraciones anoche?” Y sí, me había olvidado.
“Entonces, es obvio”, ella me dijo, “que el demonio pasó inmediatamente sobre ti—como si sin el menor impedimento perceptible en su avance”.

# 444 ((Pesadilla, 28-Julio-2009) (Escrito el 30-Julio-2009)) EAP