The Jesus Myth That Will Not Stay Dead

In Jerusalem, archaeologists (the faithful whose knees tremble as they excavate) continue the charade of unearthing what some believe — on extremely slim evidence — to have been the tomb of Jesus.  Excellent reasons exist for dismissing this hoax, another one just like the Christian “Good News,” in addition to what I have posted already on this blog earlier.  Good literary-critical evidence exists, for example, for arguing that the original account of the Gospel story did not include either a baptismal account (as with Mark), or an account of any Judean Ministry.   The original ended with the Petrine confession near Caesarea Phillipi (see Matthew 16, etc), where Jesus ascended into heaven — immediately following the transfiguration — as he went blessing them.  And that was the end of the matter.

In support of this contention – the Galilean ministry-only version of the early Gospel — I could offer the following supporting details:

Luke and Matthew do not agree from just exactly where it was that Jesus ascended up into heaven.  Luke says it was from Bethany (in Judea) and Matthew from Galilee.  Luke’s account has the original details, but not the original location (which Matthew has).  If you place the ascension immediately following the blessing upon Peter, the text then adds quite smoothly another blessing upon all the apostles (where Peter was understood to be speaking for all of them).

The transition of movement from Galilee, down into the south seems completely unsure, and until they reach Jericho, the order of parables spoken, and just what their occasion might have been, proves extremely rocky terrain. An indicator exists in Luke showing that the death of Jesus was imminent as early as Luke 9 (I believe it is verse 53-54) — shortly after the transfiguration, Jesus refers to his death as nearing to the point of immediacy, and then in chapter 10, after certain Samaritans reject him, it says “He set his face toward Jerusalem.”   Then things drone on for quite some time as though these two time markers were part of a much earlier layer of transition — trying to move smoothly from Galilee to Judea, when the Judean ministry was yet in its infancy.  The scribes obviously could not put the two together, creating awkard — even meaningless — references to his death soon approaching, when it proved distant in the literature by the time they finished adding the accretive parts of the Judean ministry and its Jerichoite connective.

Another clear indicator that much literary accretion transpired in layers (extending the original “Gospel” which ended in Galilee with chapter 10 of Luke) derives from the early comparison between Jesus and Melchizedek in Hebrews. It bills (displays the earlier “Galilean”) Jesus as “Without father, without mother”  (Indicating that he arrived on the redemptive scene with no parentage as suggested by Mark’s introduction, but not the later added birth narratives) “Without genealogy” (meaning Matthew 1 and Luke 4 both prove accretive) “without beginning of days” (no birth) “nor end of [mortal] life” — meaning that the passion narratives and attendant resurrection accounts also showed up belatedly.

The profile of Melchizedek shows that the earliest “literary Jesus” looked alot more like Mark’s Jesus than that of the later Gospels, which (almost laughably) forgot that the profiled traits of Melchizedek offered up for comparison with Jesus would falsify later accretions like those just mentioned.

The Trans-National Constitution and World Peace Conference in Miami, FL (2017 – 22?)

As mentioned earlier, the transnational constitution — a kind of super-constitution for any or all nations to sign (creating extraordinary stability and predictability in the global and regional economies — currently continues undergoing its construction and facelift.  Here are some notes I continue to work on (chiseling now a little, then a bit, here and there).

The TNC aims to promote world peace and world prosperity by creating an environment extremely good for business.   How it works?  My constitutional theory runs thus:  history bids us consider that the first flourishing, written constitution caused the meteoric rise of the 13 stumbling colonies to the mightiest economic juggernaut the world has ever seen from 1776 to 1896 — in just 120 years.  Not only did the written constition make this possible, it prove the primary contributing cause to world stability — both political and economic — that eventually turned both the former Soviet Union and China into the fold of free-market nations.   In the mean time, just this ONE constitution,  JUST ONE, caused relative world-wide economic stability and peace.

Now imagine that a group of legal scholars and justices met to ponder all the best legal documents, with their best legal features composing and comprising in excellent order — a best of breed new constitution that takes into consideration all the good of the original and all the advancements since then, from say, the Geneva Convention Protocols and other excellent treaties, charters, trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc), and put all and only the best of the advancements into one document — to bless the world.  Now imagine the that new super-constitution were voluntarily adopted by say 50 to 70 nations looking for better government or political reform (or just enlightened self-interest leading to greater wealth).

The world economy and political situation would utterly flourish if lady historie telleth a faire tale.  This briefly betells one world peace initiative, of which we have hundreds (many of like promise and profit) to consider during the Miami world peace conference.  Other topics range from funding cheap and excellent medical care (with worldwide access), to “good science and bad,” promising, new technologies,  defining Sopic Deism (It is a Deist conference, not a Christian conference), improving our research platform and strategies, funding national infrastructure development for the nations, and the earth-care package, the creation of a new form of math, called “Stochastic Geometry” — designed to enable new and profitable technologies and innovations — and the like.  This includes the reformulation and “smarting up” of both a new kind of ancient (“Deka-“) Greek, and a hellenized English (About 30% of the English language currently hails from the Greek tongue).

Providence permitting, I shall continue writing more upon this topic at a later date.

Update: The Latest Research on the New Greek

The latest update on my research for the newer and most profitable language has taken completely unexpected turns.  It began with the attempt to configure an authoritative thesaurus for the Ancient Greek language — about which I am unaware of any such example in existence. I cannot find an authoritative thesaurus for the Ancient Greek tongue from any university or publisher.  (Help, South Africa?).  I am looking for one which has its Greek taken from the ancient scholars of Alexandria and the Attic historians.

In my attempt to re-create the ancient Greek tongue from its most scholarly (ancient — and [‘reversion-text’] modern) sources, and to cause it to conform more closely to the principles of the light of nature (e.g., necessity, uniformity, profitability, coherence, correspondence, etc) than any other language has, I have rememebered something that completely restructured my efforts.  The light of nature displays what we know as “ideal.”  If one were to create an “ideal” language, it would have to eliminate many features (of, say, English) that we simply take for granted.  All references to vices and evil would disappear from its dictionary.  We hardly consider these ideal.  This leaves us with no references to lying, murdering, etc.  It seems to make it less realistic at some point, intoroducing what seems a unique problem.  How to be both accurate and ideal?  Answer: follow the light of nature, since it remains normative.  And reality exhibits its ideals as principles (not necessarily in the present situation of the cosmos).  Reality conforms over time to language, since the culturally-prominent language primarily constructs one’s culture.

Here I present some of the other features we would need to “shave off” in to promote the ideal tongue —

  1. references to moral evil and vice  (This needs special discussion for legal codes.  But it does in fact remain workable — somewhat surprisingly).
  2. verbs of being (as redundant and having no isolable extralinguistic referents).   I like to call these “etheral space-junk.”
  3. passive voice  (unnecessary)
  4. Non-referential indicators (beware “symbols that point at nothing”) — zero and negative numbers, the long form of Pi, verbs of being, and other words like “Ghost,” “demon,” “Apollo,” “Marduk,” “laziness” (sloth), “ghouls,” “Santa Claus,” etc.  This would also omit literary works of fiction. These also seem quite unnecessary for gaining wisdom.   The light of nature commands us to speak the truth in love toward one another.
  5. Religious curses and cursing, anathemas, etc   These are (for Deists), er, “heretical” — fingernails on chalkboard.   Uh-hum.  We don’t need that screeching, fiery garbage.
  6. REVISION TO EARLIER WORK — ALERT.    I have decided to rewrite this section on negation due to ongoing studies on the topic, which seem to relate negation by different forms of equivalence (i.e. De Morgan’s theorem, commutative property of equality, etc) to simple affirmed propostions.  This means that most forms (though not necessarily all) of negation will have to remain. Some forms of negation, or ways of expressing it, still remain under suspicion however.
  7. We must also work to eliminate low-quality language from the ideal tongue.  Low quality compared to what?  By low-quality, we mean to imply a comparison with other words of like kind.  Shop and compare.   If many words seem to do the job much better than another, dump the slacker.   Do not allow too much of the same talk — chisel away at excessive synonymy — favoring only the very best verbs, adjectives and nouns.  These “paint a picture” in the mind’s eye, according to the master wordsmith, George Orwell.   In other words, say “soar” not just “rise.”  Say “chandelier,” not ” lamp.”  Lousy words contribute little or naught to the mental picture, which should comprise a beautiful painting (streaming video) in the mind’s eye.
  8. I believe we need no more than 60, 000 words in our vocabulary.  The working vocabulary of most people runs no more than some 25, 000 words.  The entire Greek Bible — both testaments — only sports about 11, 000 to 12, 000 unique word forms.  We do not need more than 60, 000.   And this will prove no abitrary figure, though I will show only later at length how I arrived at this number.  It has to do with the construction of the human body, designed by God (We are 30 digits + appendages for each person; and the family requires two persons for reproduction = 60; 1000 forms a non-arbitrary number at 10 to the third power; more about these numbers as chosen by the light of nature at a later time).

This limitation runs up the quality of our writing and speech, and reduces linguistic “drag,” the confusion that results from using poor language — and then from using language poorly.  Remember the principle of the light of nature we observe as “supply and demand.”  Keeping the size of our dictionary thus trimmed, and its content-quality lofty, means that it profits all the more — profitability goes up (UP and AWAY!).   It also makes it both possible, and eventually likely, that one could know every single word in the tongue — and learn to use each skillfully.  Even the most brainiac of Ph.D.’s cannot hope to master even half of the English tongue — now showing off some 600 thousand words and more.  Much of it repeats just the same idea overmuch.

Quality before quantity.

More about this later.  Please ponder this post — and pray for mercy.