The Most Revealing Fact in the History of Heliocentrism
In 1910 a German fiction writer Ernest Adler von der Planitz published a number of 5th century Coptic papyri and other ancient fragments found in a tomb at Sakkara and purchased by a certain scholar named Baron von Rabenau. The legends written down in the document entitled The Letter of Benan are an ingenious presentation, in the best folk manner, of the hidden years in the life of Jesus.
A far-famed Egyptian astronomer named Putiphra dispatched the High Priest Ranebchru to the land of the Hebrews (he did not call it Palestine! Interestingly, there is no name Palestine in the Koran either!) to learn the meaning of the appearance of the new star, Siriu, or The Scorching One. In Betlehem he found a child born in a cave the very moment Siriu appeared in the heavens. Ranebchru promised his parents that the child will be raised under the tutelage of the great astronomer Putiphra and Pinehas rabbi of the Jewish temple in nearby On. When Putiphra died 12 years later Jesus returned to his parents in Nazareth. During his visit to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover he lectured in the temple all the learned doctors and rabbis on the principles of heliocentric astronomy and on the interstellar mysteries:
“A learned astronomer was present in the assembly at the temple, and he arose and asked Jesus: ‘What do you know about astronomy?’ Jesus without hesitation or faltering, explained the number of spheres and the heavenly bodies, and the meaning of their numbers; he expounded on their different natures and operations; he defined their aspects, triangular, square or sextile; he interpreted their course, direct or retrograde; he gave the motion of the planets each day, and each hour of the day; and he ended with a commentary on the interstellar mysteries beyond the reach of reason. And the astronomer turned and asked: “Pray, who can that be.” But this stuff was not included in the canonical Gospels.
Let me quote here two verses of the canonical Gospel of Mark 1:21-22 describing this event: “And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day he (Jesus) entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” End of quote.
The story contained in the Letter of Benan is amazingly reminiscent of a similar fact from the biography of Pythagoras. In about 535 B.C. Pythagoras went to Egypt. This happened a few years after the tyrant Polycrates seized control of the city of Samos. There is some evidence to suggest that Pythagoras and Polycrates were friendly at first and it is claimed that Pythagoras went to Egypt with a letter of introduction written by Polycrates. In fact Polycrates had an alliance with Egypt and there were therefore strong links between Samos and Egypt at this time. The accounts of Pythagoras’s time in Egypt suggest that he visited many of the temples and took part in many discussions with the priests. According to Porphyry, Pythagoras was refused admission to all the temples except the one at Diospolis where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing the rites necessary for admission.
In the early 1680s, shortly before publishing the Principia, Newton began work on a treatise which he called The Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology. This argued that Noah had founded the primordial religion – a Gentile theology – which had been free of superstition and had advocated a rational worship of one God. The only commandments were love of God and love of neighbor. Pythagoras had learned about this religion and brought it to the West. Jesus had been one of these prophets sent to call mankind back to the truth, but his pure religion had been corrupted.
Another Greek astronomer of Samos, (like Pythagoras!) Aristarchus also worked out a heliocentric planetary scheme. As Plutarch writes, the hypothesis of Aristarchus was proved (apodeiknumi) by a certain Syrian Seleukos of Seleukia.
Verse 51 of the Syrian version (Peshitta) of Luke 2 elaborates the incident of the Gospel of Mark so that it will be reverberating throughout the following centuries:
“And philosopher who was there present, a skillful astronomer, asked Jesus the Lord whether he studied astronomy. And the Lord Jesus answered him and explained the number of the spheres, and of the heavenly bodies, their nature and operations, their oppositions; their aspects, triangular, square and sextile; their course, direct or retrograde; the twenty-four and sixtieth of twenty-fourths, and other things beyond the reach of reason.” Almost a verbatim copy of the Letter of Benan’s summary of Jesus’ lecture.
Isa 38:7-8 writes: “And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that He hath spoken: behold, I will cause the shadow of the dial, which is gone down on the sun-dial of Ahaz, to return backward ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.”
The ancient heliocentrists and, centuries later, Copernicus contradicted the backward movement of the sun in the Biblical geocentric system by the retrograde (backward) movements of the planets.
There is another contradiction: in the geocentric astronomy of the Hebrew Bible the stars are moving which is stated clearly in Jg. 5:20-21:
They fought from heaven
The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Already the Latin Vulgate negated the biblical geocentrism by having introduced into its translation of the Book of Genesis the heliocentric notion of firmamentum which was a name given by the early astronomers to the orb of the fixed stars and which, obviously, was retained by Copernicus and by the authors of the Masonic Bible i.e. the Authorized King James Version which translated Gen 1: 17 as follows:
And God set them in the
firmament of the heaven
To give light upon the earth.
The term firmament renders the Hebrew term raqi’a which in the Polish version of the Bible was translated as expanse (rozpostarcie) in order to avoid the heliocentric connotation of the Latin firmamentum.
The Iranian, Sufi philosopher Surawardi (executed in Aleppo in 1191) made it his life’s work to link what he called the original “Oriental” religion with Islam, thus completing the project that Ibn Sina (honored by a post stamp in the Soviet Union) had proposed. He claimed that all the sages of the ancient world had preached a single doctrine. Originally it had been revealed to the baboon-shaped Hermes (whom Suhrawardi identified with the prophet known as Idris in the Koran or Enoch in the Bible); in the Greek world it had been transmitted through Plato and Pythagoras and in the Middle East through the Zoroastrian Magi. Since Aristotle, however, it had been obscured by a more narrowly intellectual an cerebral philosophy, but it had been secretly passed from one sage to another until it had finally reached Suhrawardi himself via al-Bistami and al-Hallaj. Who could deny Suhrawardi’s inspiration for Newton’s Gentile Philosophy?
G. Bruno was not a Christian. To say that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ would be putting it too feebly: He despised and detested Jesus, and had a special contempt for the Cross and for any form of mass or the eucharist.
The longest of Bruno’s dialogues Spaccio della bestia tionfante recounts a council among the gods, reminiscent of the Council of Trent, about reforming themselves and the heavens in order to prevent a Goetterdaemmerung impending upon them for the vices of their past conduct. The work is famous for its evocation of the ancient and true Egyptian religion, of which Judaism and Christianity are treated as corruptions; the civic religion of Rome seems to be regarded as its nearest available representative. In other words G. Bruno postulated the same religious heliorevolution as Suhrawardi did. The greatest, posthumous victory of G. Bruno was placement of the eye of Horus on 1 dollar bill.
How Jesus’ lecture on heliocentrism and the lack of thereof in the canonical Gospel of Luke can be explained from historical perspective?
The name Syria derived from the name of the Hindu sun god Surya mirrors adequately the long tradition of the Syrian natural religion as opposed to the historical religion of the Hebrews under personal God YHWH who liberated them from the Egyptian slavery. The Syrian sun god known also under the name of Baal appears as the most potent rival of the God of the Bible. The activity of a certain Marcion, a son of the bishop of Sinope should be contemplated in the context of this centuries-old rivalry between Baal and YHWH. Marcion devised a Christianity totally different from the religion of the earliest apostles.
In his opinion the 12 apostles misunderstood the teachings of Christ, and, holding him to be the Messiah of the Jewish God, falsified his words from that standpoint
Marcion developed his own version of what came to be called Christianity by declaring that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew Bible , was the Demiurge who created the evil material world. He believed that Jesus was the good God who came to end this contamination by destroying YHWH, a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge.
He taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing of the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven, as an alien in the year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his missionary activity in the synagogue of Capernaum. Marcion purported that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, was not born of Mary, was never incarnate, and only appeared in spirit during the time of his ministry.
Though Marcion was branded a heretic by the church, his influence infiltrated the consciousness of the church so that it more and more tended to ignore the historical Jesus in favor of the cosmic Christ, or the Sun of God, one in the long row of solar saviours. As the church gradually denied its Judaic heritage in favor of the concepts of Greco-Roman philosophy (exactly, like Suhrawardi, and after him Newton in his Gentile Theology) and ideas from mystery religions, it became more and more easy to deny the Jewishness of Jesus and to look upon him as a mystic figure, the Christianity.
“How is it that Jesus is hardly thought of as a Jew who lived his entire life in the midst of his fellow Israelis? How is it that we have so many different conceptions of Jesus, including the Nordic, Aryan Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes (or Nietzsche’s blue-eyed, blond beast), the African Jesus with black skin and hair like wool, the oriental Jesus with oriental features? And this is only among Christians. What of the Jesus who is portrayed as a first-rate medium by the consciousness philosophers, who is one of the many incarnations of God in Eastern Monism, who is another of the prophets leading up to the prophet Mohammed in Islam, who is healer of Christian Scientism, who is a Rabbi among many Jews, who is the great moral example in nominal Christianity? Everyone of every religion wants to claim Jesus for himself and to create him in their own image.” (www.restorationfoundation.org/).
Let me remind here, that Newton turned Jesus into gravity. If we are to understand Jesus, however, we must accept the record of the Gospels that place him and his sayings in the historical and cultural milieu in which he was born, lived, died. Otherwise, you votaries of heliocentrism, are killing God with your Syro-Palestinian pseudo-science, like Marcion was trying to do. It came as no surprise to me that they put the blood-thirsty sun god Baal on Palestinian stamps. They hope, he will finish off YHWH of the Bible.
In 1933 the Protestant Reich Church was formed under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The founding of the church was the result of work by the German Christians. It was based on Nazi ideas of creating a “positive Christianity,” namely purifying Christianity of any Jewish elements including even the Old Testament. Marcion’s dream came true.
Marcion’s Sun of God was embraced as the Creator by the founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, (which still exists and has its headquarters in Beirut) Antun Sa’adeh, a Greek Orthodox Syrian who spoke German and whose vision of Greater Syria was definitely influenced by German nationalist writings.
They greet their leaders with a Hitlerian salute; sing their Arabic anthem, “Greetings to You, Syria” to the strains of “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”; and throng to the symbol of the red hurricane (recall the band Johnny and the Hurricanes), a swastika in circular motion.
His anti-Biblical, Marcionite-Pauline creationism found its expression in the party’s emblem on its flag. It shows a red zoub’a (whirl, cyclone, tempest), symbolizing strength and dynamism (Remember Galileo’s slogan Strength Causes Love?), which is nothing else but a variant of swastika, which was always the solar symbol.
Sisyphus, Force 10 or the essence of the Biblical mathematics is coming next. Let’s help Jesus carry his gigantic cross across the heliocentric world.
I’m going to make a few predictions here: you will not see a cogent secularist response to that comment. You will not see a liberal retort that does not stoop to ad hominems or begging of questions. You will not see one treefrog publicly change his mind. You will hear many people ridiculing Mr. Pytel’s sensible analysis for its religious overtones. Not one of the critics or detractors will provide any legitimate evidence that Heliocentrism exists. Not one will prove that the world is round. Not one will disprove the ether, the watery sea in which the disk of the Earth floats.
I am quite confident in making these predictions, because having argued with liberals for well over a month now on these very subjects, I’ve come to understand how liberals think, and don’t think, about certain subjects.
When it comes to science, liberals are even less reliable than they are on other topics. Ever quick to latch onto atheist, secularist lies in school, they now cling to them as if they were precious jewels, overwhelming contrary evidence notwithstanding. They direct all their malice and cynicism outward, refusing to question their sources for even a moment. For example, they love to criticize you for accepting the word of God, the Bible, a text whose validity has been proven time and time again throughout the ages. Yet, get one of them to assume, even arguendo, that NASA is peopled with professional liars just like the rest of the boondoggle surplus government agencies are, and they look at you as if you’d just told them their parents had hatched them from an eggplant. (Actually, considering how most of them believe their grandparents had unnatural carnal relations with monkeys at the zoo, that probably doesn’t sound too far-fetched to them.) Liberals will accept any belief, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it’s either a) anti-Christian, b) anti-American, or preferably, c) both.
Global warming is real, except when it’s 40 degrees in July; then, global warming is super-real, and you should run for the hills to escape the tsunami of drowning polar bears and sweaty walruses and penguins. Your parents are the children of monkeys, and that’s proven by the monkeys themselves, whose parents are the children of 40-foot-tall dinosaurs, whose parents are the children of flounder, whose parents were born of a moldy omelet. Angels are imaginary, and priests are professional liars; yet television repairmen are holy, blameless creatures, to whom you should sacrifice all your worldly wealth if it ensures you yet another hour of television. People who dispute the unobserved roundness of the world are rubes, but people who “prove” its roundness by alleging they wandered about Antarctica shooting penguins in a drunken stupor are the font of all Earthly wisdom.
I could go on, but why bother? Let’s let them write in their comments, and amuse us all by confirming my predictions! Plus, what they say is usually pretty hilarious, too. In the final analysis, we’re right and they’re wrong. We know it, and they know it, but they continue to argue for argument’s sake. Taking the contentiousness out of a liberal is like taking the alcohol out of whiskey. Without it, they wouldn’t even be liberals anymore. They’d be something completely different, just as non-alcoholic whiskey would be sugar water or something.