The Christian missionary may preach the gospel to the poor naked heathen, but the spiritual heathen who populate Europe have as yet heard nothing of Christianity. Carl Jung
Is God having a mother? Yes, this is well documented. And confusing if one keeps the thinking process inside the box. Because you cannot explain the creation or evolution of a given reality if all you do is measuring it from the inside. Or worse, if you deem this reality as the ultimate. Assuming that there is an ultimate. As it ought to be.
If Jesus is the son of Mary, and few seem to contest this historical fact, but Mary would have been no virgin when giving birth, then where should we look for a way out of this box? Considering those who want out, at least, are interested in the outcome of this question. Where could we find the special, other-worldly, divine and heavenly births of infants with enough potential to get us out of the box?
“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”
― Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings
A myth or a metaphor in a given context, or box, can be the forsaken history of another eon. By her numerous names, Astarte is a female archetype, created as a flesh and blood extraterrestrial entity.
Who created her? In lack of any solid evidence (so far) that would point us to her creator, we may only speculate. Knowing that such goddess is unlikely to happen at random, to evolve out of a primordial soup, or to assemble herself by herself, knowing that code — as in written syntax or spoken words — is the engine required to bring a person into existence, let’s say that a coder, an architect of beings, a maker of matters, has spoken her into reality. As a person.
Was this God? The direct architect of this creature? There is no evidence to answer this question. Although all things — as in all that is — are made by God, the iPhone is made by Apple, and Apple was made by some guys, and those guys are sons of sons of Adam – who had been made by God.
By the way, the name god means many things. To clarify, when writing it with a capital G, as in God, then we mean the One in Whom we believe: in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen. The Ever-Living.
Other gods and goddesses roam the Bible, numerous other sacred scriptures, the streets of Vegas and boulevards of Sunset. Astarte is one of them.
Out of haste, or some other haste-like feeling that tumbled out of primordial vocabularies, Astarte has imagined what ‘would’ her god ‘should’ look like. Presuming, her mind conceived an iffy being inside her apparatus. Which she birthed and called her son and her god and soon enough her prince and husband and lord. Mother and wife of Nonsense. Moments around what the current academia calls the Big Bang – so we bring this to some context. Within some box.
Hasty humans of latter times have an innate propensity to invent religions. The imaginative mind is such a powerful thing. In nature, power is the rate of doing work. A unit of work divided to a unit of time. Power makes no sense out of time, it exists only under time.
Eternity begins where time ends. So let’s switch to the more serious spiritual aspects of existence.
The Ever-Living, creating persons and realities, seems to enjoy the silent company of Wisdom.
And wisdom was with thee: which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right in thy commandments. — Wisdom of Solomon 9:9 (see also Ekstatic Intellects).
The same Wisdom that has made Mariam, or Maryām, listen and converse with the Messenger.
And in the sixth month was the messenger Gabriel sent by God, to a city of Galilee, the name of which is Nazareth,
to a virgin, betrothed to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house of David, and the name of the virgin is Mary.
And the messenger having come in unto her, said, ‘Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;’
and she, having seen, was troubled at his word, and was reasoning of what kind this salutation may be.
And the messenger said to her, ‘Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God;
and lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus;
he shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father,
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.’
And Mary said unto the messenger, ‘How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’
And the messenger answering said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;
and lo, Elisabeth, thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her who was called barren;
because nothing shall be impossible with God.’
And Mary said, ‘Lo, the maid-servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to thy saying,’ and the messenger went away from her.
It is Wisdom saying ‘let it be to me according to thy saying.’ It is Wisdom transcending the female archetype. It is Wisdom that will get you, the reader, out of this box. Wisdom as Mariam, the Godgate.
The sacred feminine is a well documented myth. In modern context this myth permeates secular feminism. From Astarte to Mary, many religions have the sacred feminine as a common denominator. Depleted of epic bang, modern feminism is already diluting into refashioned urban myths, from Astarte to Mary.
But Mariam, the Godgate, needs no myth to back her raison d’être – which descends from eternity, through the box, listening instead of lecturing, treasuring instead of being treasured, showing you the Way, the Truth, the Life.
She’s not even getting mad when seeing how her earthly worshippers taint her silence and purity with Astartic cults. Wisdom won’t get mad. Wondering how ashamed are those extraterrestrial entities, such as Astarte or Kronos, when seeing this blasphemous circus down on Earth.
thou — thou dost believe that God is one; thou dost well, and the demons believe, and they shudder! –James 2:19
The devils are blushing because of our collective doings and beliefs. Nice.
We’re at least getting those demons to blush who are capable of this faculty. Let’s see what happens where there is a lack of this faculty altogether. Please read Ruddy’s study below.
The Meaning of the Word Antikhrist
by Ruddy Adam
Etymology is the study of word meanings by understanding the parts used to create a word, or the study of a word’s historical usage and how —and if—those meanings have changed since the creation of that word. Etymology also takes into account how a word is used in its “context of usage,” because the way a word is used in writing and speech may be quite different from its core meaning.
Take the word bad in English. Its core meaning is the opposite of good, which would mean it has a negative connotation. But in usage it may mean just the opposite, as is, “He’s a bad cat.” This may mean the fellow mentioned is smart or spiffy or classy, and that usage would give the word bad a positive connotation. Quite simply put, the word bad would mean good in that particular “context of usage.”
Some words in usage may take on human meanings when their core meaning initially had nothing to with human beings. Take the word cool in English. Its core meaning informs us something about the weather. But in usage it can take on an entirely different meaning, as in, “She’s a cool cat.” The word cool in this “context of usage” describes the personality of a human being, and has a positive connotation. Yet, it has nothing at all to do with the weather.
We can easily see by the above examples how the “context of usage” must reign when studying word meanings, especially in the Scriptures. Breaking words down by the smallest units (morphs) that it takes to create those words is the best way of discovering their meaning when the language is transparent, as are most Biblical Hebrew and Greek words. We then apply that meaning to the “context of usage” (as it is used in the Bible) to obtain our final meaning for the word.
In the case of the Antikhrist, we have a very transparent word, though its usage is somewhat complex. Antikhrist is merely a transliteration of the Greek word, antikhristos. It is made up of two words that are easily traceable: anti, which is a preposition that means instead of, in exchange for, in place of, or in opposition of, according to its “context of usage.”
For example, we read the following in James 4.15: “Instead-of (anti) of your saying etc.” And in I Thessalonians 5.15: “See that no one impart evil in-exchange-for (anti) evil etc.” And in Matthew 2.22: “But hearing that Archelaus ruled over Judea in-place-of (anti) his father Herod etc.”
The Greek preposition (anti) moved into Latin, taking on a similar meaning, such as before or in-front-of. It is used twenty times in the New Contract Scriptures and always has one of these three meanings and never opposed-to, although the Biblical linguist Moulton states that “opposite is the obvious starting-point in all the twenty usages“ in the New Contract. Moulton further states “that antikhristos does not mean `an opponent of Khrist'”; but on the contrary, he states that the word means “one who assumes the guise of Khrist in order to seduce His people.” (Moulton, James Hope. Grammar of N.T. Greek, 297.)
That is an excellent definition, and one coming from an experienced Biblical linguist. That definition we shall certainly take into account when we make our final definition of the word, Antikhrist.
When, however, anti is prefixed to make another word in Biblical Greek, it at times most definitely takes on the meaning of against or opposed-to. As a result of that fact, I checked every word listed in Walter Bauer’s Greek lexicon that has the anti or sometimes anth or ant prefix. I found that when the prefix causes a word to have either an instead-of type of meaning or an opposed-to type of meaning, that slightly more opposed-to type of words are used in the Bible.
Moulton uses the word anthypatos as an example of the prefix anth having a meaning other than opposed-to. Anthypatos is one who holds the power in-place-of a consul, thus a proconsul, and it is used in Acts 13.7 and 18.12. Other non-Biblical Greek words exist that have this type of meaning, for example, antibasileus (instead-of a ruler), and antideipnos (a person who fills in in-the-place-of an absent guest).
The base of the word Antikhrist is, of course, Khristos (Khrist), and the base word means the Anointed-One, obviously speaking of Yasu Khrist. We today, however, think more of it as meaning savior, and for our purposes the modern meaning will suffice.
Finally, it is a fundamental fact of Scripture that the negative side to every Biblical pairing always comes first. Kain before Abel, Esau before Yakob, the False Khrist before the True One, etc. The principal example is that at Khrist’s First Advent He was humiliated, rebuked, rejected, and consequently murdered, though many thousands of true Yasrealites and Yudahites did receive Him. But the nation ruled at that time by our enemies did not accept Him, and hence murdered Him.
Khrist at His First Advent was the humble, sacrificial Lamb—who willing went to the slaughter for the sake of His people, whom He loves beyond our comprehension. But at His Second Advent He arrives as Victor and King, having complete authority, the Master Who shall rule over His slaves with an iron rod, so to speak. And we know the Antikhrist arrives first.
I therefore conclude that the word Antikhrist is similar in respect to the way we must take the meaning of many other Biblical words in that it connotes several shades of meanings. We may thus resolve the meaning of the word Antikhrist in this manner: The Antikhrist is the one who comes in-the-place-of and arrives before the true Khrist, stands in opposition to Him, and the whole civilized world will receive him instead-of the true Khrist!
As Moulton’s sagacious definition states, in gnome form: The Antikhrist comes in the guise of Khrist to seduce His people into deserting Yasu, Who is the true Khrist—and bowing to him, the false Khrist.
Our prayers, as always, are for those the Scriptures call the Separated-Ones, for they are the ones who will stand against the Antikhrist, and they are the ones whom the Lord shall use to announce His true Message to the entire civilized world when they are taken before the Beast for the crime of not bowing to him.