|
Sons of Shem
Noah’s Semitic Legacy
Origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
The prophets for the new Era
The questions one should ask
How does one respect someone? How to do justice to someone you do
not know? When has a historical period elapsed? How does a doctor tell his patient that it will soon end? A result is solely
really achieved when not only the messenger has been open and honest, but also when the dying
is fully aware. Both the
practitioner and the patient go through stages as denial, anger and acceptance. The doctor will question his research results,
wondering if he has taken all alternatives into consideration, to eventually definitively backing
his inevitable conclusion.
The diseased will not want to believe, perhaps against better judgment, blame his doctor
for his incompetence, to finally face
reality. So with the religions. To be on record as the undertaker of the religions, is not a position which immediately provokes
everyone’s acclaim and the motives of those who do pay homage to the undertaker deserve further investigation. This book is not
religious nor antireligious, but simply announces the end time, the end of the religions.
The death struggle of the religions is
already a long spun out process of which the severity of the acute crisis
nearly has bottomed out. The patient is near death. The greater part of mankind does not
really believe in a God anymore, except by tradition or because in any way
one is dependent on a religious organization.
The largest part of humanity does not truly believe in a God anymore, if they ever genuinely believed in the God of the
religions - people know, a person feels the God of the religions is not the
genuine article. The God of their parents was an imposed God, the God of the rulers. How do people rid themselves of the power of
the ruler, the high priest and the social control, when one is kept ignorant because the doctrine is called secret by the
priests? How does one cope with the fear to leave the traditional path?
Herein the fear to step into -what is perceived as- the godless plays a role, in
past and present. Often this step is taken anyway, but also often people
subsequently cling onto the substitute religion of
the satisfying of
needs that make material life less disagreeable - if one can afford it that is. Whoever cannot afford this
material religion remains
stuck to the old faith.
One has to ponder whether the belief in the one God in ancient times was really widespread. Rulers of temple and state -often
the same- have used politics and religion for centuries to manoeuvre their subjects, to manipulate them, to keep them under
control. Subsequently the question may be put concerning the orthodoxy of the politicians and the clergy. How orthodox is
a rabid politician when he takes action against his professed principles, for example because the economy demands it? How
credible is a cleric who collects money and power to help build huge temples? To counteract any abuse inspired movements
sprang to life yet none of these movements were able to resolve the flaws of religion nor politics. The orthodoxy of the
believer has never really been either, except in a minority of fanatics one can find in each camp. The ordinary man let himself
be intimidated, often out of fear and ignorance, and he usually chose to belong to the group. The group indeed is safer. The
ordinary man knew better, but opted for the dominant religion out of self-preservation.
This approach is best illustrated by the fact that we as consequence still
not live in an ideal and perfect world.
The political and religious developments in the past millennia were necessary to bring society, humanity, as a whole on a
higher level, some say. Perhaps. Indeed, you just not let go of your
children into this world without them educating with the
finer points. Do you do that educating by creating hundreds of rules, prohibitions and commandments? So it went in the past
millennia - rules, commandments and prohibitions are of all time. An enlightened spirit who had visions, saw how
all could
be different, could be improved. An enlightened spirit who proposed himself as
the example, who sought authority and often
found, so he could spread his message. An enlightened mind that at long last had no choice but to float along in the boat
of the ruler who needed him. The most striking example of this mechanism is the conversion of Constantine the Great to
Christendom. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity and Christianity gained the dominant position. Examine any culture
and any religion and similar examples are not hard to find. Power brings forth power. At the same time this power is
impotence or at least semblance power, for while the faithful let themselves prescribe a creed for bread and circuses,
in their hearts they believe not. Each person creates his own faith, although thereby often utilizing the terminology
used by the rulers.
Faith is like war. In the twentieth century, people said, "Suppose it is war and nobody goes there." But they did, forced
by politics, the state. Like this they still go to the house of prayer in any religion, enforced by the religious, as the
result of social control, because of ignorance resulting from fear of eternal damnation. A dead fragile skeleton it is,
faith, barely alive. Not much is needed to divulge the real face of religion as the uninhabitable
condemned building it is. The
time has arrived wherein man cannot be told anymore what he should believe. The time has come wherein man finds in himself
what he needs while being also fully aware of it, needing no material
religion. The time has come so that man for the first time can raise to a higher
plane by not listening to the inspired, but to the inspiration in himself. Although the religions are in denial and though
it still will take some years before the diseased religions finally are deceased, the death process in full swing.
In the times of Abraham and Moses, Jesus and Muhammad it was customary that people
conformed to the prevailing religion, because man was a collective living being. Generally, it did not occur to people
to do anything different. The collective living man was under an authority that united all power - politics, economics,
religion. What a Western or Western- oriented person now sees as naturally acquired and self-evident, even though he may
be not aware of it, was nonexistent until the Enlightenment. No separation of religion and state, no individual autonomy,
no human rights, to mention a few notable differences63). Besides, already mentioned here earlier was that history on the
basis of verifiable facts and source material in biblical times was nonexistent. History was no different from a collection
of stories and traditions that usually were not inscribed - hardly any person could read and write. A captivating and
edifying story around the campfire or in the teahouse, that is what history was. Stories to keep the listener within the
limits of what the ruler allowed. Thus, standards and values were transferred and wise lessons were learned. Then again,
you reader, make an effort to do justice to the people of that time by not criticizing or judging them, but by trying to understand
how influences then were shaped for the intended benefit of the most part of mankind - Jews, Christians and Muslims. Try to see the way of your
ancestors and keep seeing the beauty of the stories and lessons that still
may carry some ancient wisdom.
From the desert a father came
A braham and Moses were the fathers of the first true monotheistic
religion. Perhaps these people actually existed or they may be fictional characters, possibly modelled on real people and put
on the scene by writers and sages with them as protagonists designated to bring their intentions over the floodlights, wanting
to tell a story. Of Abraham it is the most unclear whether he really existed. Abraham himself has written nothing
nor left
behind anything that makes it plausible that he actually lived. Abraham is more a character in the books of Moses, and
his persona functions as a peg from which stories and wisdom could be hung and displayed. For the three religions Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, he is nevertheless the binding person. In the scripture his ancestry goes back to the stories of Noah and he is presented as a forefather
of the Jews through his son Isaac and of the Arabs through his son Ishmael. He is not only regarded as the progenitor of the
Israelites and the Ishmaelites, but also of the Midianites and the Edomites. Through Isaac Christians regard Jesus as a
descendant of Abraham. Muslims regard Muhammad as a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael. The character of Abraham, however,
appears for the first time in the literature only during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century bce, an exile that lasted nearly
fifty years. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II (586 bce) and the Jews were deported to Babylon. The
figure of Abraham at that time was set to the people as an example by the Jewish leaders in their stories to remind
the people of
the covenant God made with them and to let the people believe in and hope for a future after the exile. Much if not most of
the Jewish literature was established in this period of exile, unmistakably influenced by Zoroastrianism, a proto-form of
monotheistic religions64).
In the story as it emerged during the Babylonian exile Abraham was portrayed as a Bedouin in the land of the Tigris and
Euphrates with the home city of Ur. In Bereshit in the Tanakh, Genesis in the Bible, the life story of Abraham is recounted.
Abraham's wife Sarah could not have children. Therefore, she conceded that her servant Hagar became the concubine of Abraham
and she became pregnant by him. From this union came Jishma'el, also named Yishmael or Ishmael. With Keturah, a second concubine,
Abraham got six sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. In a vision God appeared to Abraham and he told him
therein to go to Canaan, where he would find land that was suitable for him and his
 descendants. In addition, he promised to
make Abraham's wife Sarah fertile, so they could give him a son. That son was Yitzhak, also named Isaac. Arrived in Canaan,
God confirmed his covenant with Abraham and through him with the many descendants and nations that would come from him. God
described the land to Abraham that his descendants would inhabit. “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the
Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite
and the Girgashite and the Jebusite’.” (Bereshit/Genesis 15: 18-21). The idea
living in many, that Abraham was given land
by Yahweh that was empty and uninhabited, is not correct. The Israelites occupied land that was inhabited by others, even
though they were wandering tribes, based on a claim that was supported by the almighty. The distinctive sign of God's
covenant with Israel was the circumcision of the male. Abraham and his descendants under this covenant would worship Yahweh
as the only true God. Abraham died 175 years old. Abraham is regarded by Jews as their patriarch and
the founder of the Jewish
religion, by Christians as the perfect Christian avant la lettre, and by Muslims as the first true Muslim. If Abraham indeed
may be considered as the father of the three peoples and three religions, he became a father of a family torn.
The covenant that God made was in the vision of the Jews exclusively with them. God had chosen the Jews his people. “For you
are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to
be his people, his treasured possession.” [Deuteronomy 7:6]. Which meant that a person was Jewish or not Jewish and could
not become one, otherwise than by birth. The only way to be sure of the latter, the inheritance of being Jewish was through
the maternal line. This way heredity was not only governable, but was also very likely the last vestige of the matriarchal
society in the Jewish community, left over from when they formed the underclass in the Canaanite social structure. The status of being chosen,
is another indication that the Jews retained an exclusivity for themselves as a means to acquire an identity among the other
peoples in the Levant. Also, noteworthy in particular is the patriarchal character of the story. Abraham as the patriarch of
his people and also all the nations that sprang from him, Yahweh as patriarch over his chosen people. Circumcision is by
Yahweh commanded as external mark that not only embodies exclusivity. It is also a way to get the people to abide, to bind
them, as a Jew -and later a Muslim- thus undeniably marking them as a Jew; it could not be denied. By this feature one
could not be non-Jew anymore. Thus, a child from his earliest moments was funnelled within a thought pattern it could impossibly
relinquish. A thinking pattern that was not and is not determined by the individual who is inwardly looking for the deepest
truth, but the person who is exhorted to believe, who is programmed from the outside with views on the external and internal
world. A crystal clear example of the Luciwher paradigm, in which authority is imposed from outside instead of the truth
being rediscovered from the inside. In addition, circumcision is an excellent remedy for masturbation, according to reports.
Along with dress codes, regulations regarding food and its preparation, provisions concerning the burial ritual and so on,
these stipulations constituted a straitjacket in which a Jew in his life was steered from moment to moment by the priests,
prescribed in the name of Yahweh. With the return from Babylonian captivity from
538 bce onward the canon of the Tanakh
practically was established. The majority of the Tanakh was written during the Babylonian exile and was determined under
the responsibility of the leaders at that time, Zerubabbel the Prince of David and Joshua the high priest, although the
book of Daniel almost had not met to be included in the canon. That story was incorporated in the Tanakh only after
heavy pressure from the populace that found the story was so wonderful, as a tradition recounts. Thus the literary
history of monotheism began with Abraham, although this story was recorded in the Tanakh only until
some seven hundred years later than the time of Moses. The history of the
Jewish people hence effectively began with Moses.
Like
Abraham, there is no solid evidence for the existence of a historical Moses - Moshe in Hebrew and Musa in Arabic. Some
circumstances, however, indicate a possible historicity of the Moses myth. Canaan was within the Egyptian sphere of influence
and it is therefore obvious that the ethno-social group from which the Israelites would come forth was not only found in
Canaan, but also in Egypt. There too, forming an underclass of servants, workers and undoubtedly
also serfs or slaves. That
a person as Moses could up work socially and was able to get some form of education, possibly even worked at the court of
Pharaoh, shows that the ethno-social group from which he emerged as a collective had no permanent slave status. The story of baby
Moses floating in a wicker basket dredged up by Meritamun, Pharaoh's daughter, from the Nile and so
coming to the court, is a
mythologising to give the Moses of the stories more status, as if kept alive by the hand of God. The myth is otherwise an
exact copy of a Mesopotamian myth about king Sargon. Moses, still assuming he is a historical person, in the context of his
education almost unavoidably got acquainted with the religious writings of Re-Harakhty-Cheper-Aton, Pharaoh Amenhotep
IV who renamed himself to Akhenaten. Thus Moses came in contact with the idea of a monotheistic God who is Love.
Studying the writings of Akhenaten may have resulted in a penalization for Moses, because it was forbidden literature. Akhenaten
himself was struck from the Egyptian record of pharaohs. Moses was then was exiled from Egypt, conceivably for a certain period.
During that period he went to the kingdom of Midian65) where he came in contact with more stories about the God who is alone.
Leastways, in
Midian Moses met Jethro Reuel -he who is the friend of God-, in the Koran called Shu'ayb -he who shows the right path-, the
king-priest of Midian66). Moses married Zipporah, his daughter. The years that Moses spent in Midian, the scriptures speak of
forty years, proved decisively formative for Moses. It was also in Midian that Moses met Yahweh in a burning bush. At the place
where this would have played
The burning bush on Mount Sinai from which Yahweh spoke to Moses.
The traditional Jewish candelabra "Menorah" symbolizes the burning bush
for centuries now is the Catherine monastery67)
with in the courtyard reportedly a descendant of the
bush. Moses and Yahweh had a conversation after which Moses definitively became an adherent of the monotheistic God. In Midian,
Moses met his fellow tribesmen from Canaan who had liberated themselves from service to the Canaanites and had formed the first
Israelite community in the hilly area of the West Bank of the river Jordan. These connections led to the institution of a group around Moses of
like-minded people who formulated the ideas about the one God in a coherent synopsis. Moses was a man of letters and it is
unverifiable whether the Israelites were. It is clear though that the later ancient Hebrew script but has found limited impact
from the Egyptian and was more akin to Aramaic encoding. In itself the spoken Hebrew belongs to the Semitic branch of the
Afro-Asiatic languages and besides Aramaic is also related to Arabic and Akkadian, while to a lesser extent to Egyptian and
Berber. It is therefore more than likely that Moses and his group put the starting Jewish faith into writing, but also that of
these writings now nothing has been preserved. It is to be expected that at this early stage alongside the written wisdom
also an oral tradition existed, whereby the wisdom of the intelligentsia became written record and the wisdom of the people
remained an oral tradition - two forms of wisdom that were complementary rather than contradictory.
The strategic political aspect of the nascent nation of Israel at any time must have held
also that Moses returned to Egypt to serve
his tribe telling of the formation of the Israelite community on the West Bank. Also in Egypt
therefore came an end to the servitude of
the Israelites. Whether the withdrawal from Egypt got the form described in Shemot, Exodus, cannot be confirmed by means of
any historical source and should therefore be questioned. No parting of the Red Sea. The story as in Shemot and Genesis should
be seen as an effort to compare to the other nations, but especially for own use to create an own identity and to give to
Yahweh a superior status in the history of the Jewish people. It is quite possible though that pharaoh sent out his officials,
or perhaps indeed a part of his army to see whereto all the ‘Jews’ migrated. Canaan was indeed within the Egyptian sphere of
influence. Perhaps the pharaoh suffered a tactical setback, but defeats in Egyptian history were not recorded.
What Moses and his editorial group have written all those ages ago in what has become known as the Five Books of Moses, the
Chamisha Chumash Torah, may still be read in the Torah, the first books of the Tanakh
of the Jews and the Old Testament of the Christian
Bible. Everything that was written there and is also related to the person of Abraham is a more recent addition to these books
from
the time of the Babylonian exile. Perhaps Abraham was a legendary character
from the oral tradition. In this way the Jews provided themselves with an even older history and therefore a greater
legitimacy, especially where it concerned the occupation of what was
called the Promised Land. Concerning this older fabled
history in Islam Ibrahim, Abraham, has a special place, not in the last resort because he as the father of Ishmael
is seen
as the ancestor of all Arabs.
The Koran refers to Ibrahim as a "Hanif", a person who before the advent of Islam had devoted
himself to monotheism. Adam and Jesus in the Koran are also "Hunafa". In Islamic belief, the Koran is a continuation of the
message that Ibrahim received
from Allah. The discussion about whether Ibrahim is or is not a Jew, is within Islam is an
absolute non-debate - he was a monotheist, even the father of the monotheistic peoples. The scrolls of Ibrahim, the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim, are seen as manifestations of Islam of which
is spoken with respect. These Scrolls of Ibrahim, possible
these were actually the first writings of the editorial group of Moses, were revealed by God to the prophet and messenger Ibrahim,
but are now considered lost.
Moses is called Musa in the Koran. Musa is a messenger and prophet who was sent by Allah. In more than a third of all Suras
in the Koran Musa and his function to monotheism is recounted. Also about his life in Midian and his return to Egypt, where
his brother Harun, in the Tanakh and the Bible called Aaron, became his spokesman. The Egyptian plagues and the Exodus, the
parting of the Red Sea, all these elements in the Tanakh and the Bible, have a place in the Koran. The story of Musa and
al-Khidr and is unique to the Koran. In the Koran, the wise al-Khidr was renowned and a righteous servant of God. Musa and
al-Khidr spent time together during which al-Khidr tried to teach Musa his
wisdom. They parted both empty-handed [Sura The Cave 60-8].
How many roads lead to the one?
Stripped of mythologising, a major objective of this book, the story
of Moses, Moshe or Musa, remains plausible although further historical evidence for his life seems to be exiguous - in fact it
is not much more than an educated guesses. Clearly, there must have been contact between the Israelites, the group on the West Bank,
and their kinsmen in Egypt, most probably in Midian. Through the visible effects in the literature it is also clear that there
has been a symbiosis between Egyptian and Mesopotamian wisdom with the folk wisdom of the east and southeast of Palestine and
the tribes in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula - the latter most likely the tribes that are marked on Egyptian maps with
the rather cryptic reference "YHVH". The dominant war god Yahweh evolved into what perhaps could be called best a migration god,
the promised land, who in a later development merged with the god El. Whether Abraham has had a function in this all, and thus
whether he really existed, is doubtful, apart from legend. The reason for this doubt is the fact that the story of Abraham is of much later date,
from the time of the Babylonian exile (586-538 bce), than the undertakings of Moses (around 1250 bce). The story of Abraham is
post-Moses immortalized in the Tanakh as a 'prequel'. Moses probably really existed, or else he is a compendium based on real
people, because of his embedding in plausible and verifiable historical events, although the evidence is paper thin. Is
demythologizing and historical verifiability instrumental in bringing back people and events to a less fabled human scale
and to socio-political purposes, the contents of the message that emerged is quite another and important aspect.
What the editorial group around Moses and the wise in exile eventually produce is a
viable identity, but also a socio-psychological
pattern and a dogma, a religion coming from the many roads in the Semitic world forming the
specific amalgamation that is called the
Jewish faith. The laws of Moses are normative within that faith - one should abide to them, or else. The laws of Moses did not
materialize out of thin air, but are a reflection of the oldest known legislative texts displayed on the so-called pillar of
Hammurabi, the Codex Hammurabi.
 Hammurabi was the first king of the Old Babylonian kingdom and his name means "related healer".
The emulation and interpretation of his laws by the editorial group of Moses, mean nothing else than that in the Levant the laws
of Hammurabi were seen as general truth and universally valid68). Some
1789 years later, Roman law was experienced as such,
although obviously not in the Levant, and again about 1789 years later the same was the case in Europe regarding the Napoleonic
Code. The adoption of Hammurabi's laws in the Torah, more than three hundred, not only shows that his laws were regarded as
universal, but also that the Israelites besides cultivating their own identity felt being part of the larger Semitic world
too. Of the Mosaic laws, the ten commandments are generally known69), often also
by nonbelievers in the western world, but there
are also wider ethical laws also relating to murder, theft and adultery. There were social laws pertaining to such as property,
inheritance, marriage and divorce. There were the purity laws that dealt with what a woman was allowed to touch or not when
she had her period. The holidays were regulated by law. And of course the food laws, about what was clean -kosher70)- and unclean,
and about cooking and storing food.
The laws were interpreted and enforced by rabbis, the priests. Who upholds the law also must be prepared to reprove and
punishment invariably was done in the name of Yahweh, the God. A situation that also existed within Christianity until the
Enlightenment in Europe (1630/1687-1789) and still exists in Islamic countries and in countries with strict Islamic movements.
Although in the latter countries, like Britain, it is formally prohibited to administer justice according to the traditional
Sharia -which does not mean it does not happen-. The problem in this is that under these existential restrictions the clergy
is in full control over the individual, and attempts to have the same over his thoughts and feelings. It is quite possible
that in the starting Israelite society the adoption of and the alliance with the monotheistic God Yahweh, besides formulating
an identity, is an act of idealism, perhaps even enlightened idealism. Similarly enlightened was the embracing of the laws of
Hammurabi, who were very modern then - in some ways they still are. The foundation of the modern state of Israel and working
in a collective as the kibbutz arose from idealistic motives also. However, the limitation of the human, his virtual
imprisonment within the Luciwher paradigm, ensures degeneration of
idealism and the infiltration of power politics in the acts of man.
The gazing of man on the importance of the earthly, the material universe, makes him functionally blind to the importance of
the inner, the intangible universe. Every person, every group, every nation that is trying to
be organized based on external
rules and external authority, and thus not on the inner road, will inevitably eventually lose its way.
The holy man by the lake
Jesus of Nazareth after Moses is the second important influence on
Semitic monotheism. To one a dissident Jew, a renegade rabbi perhaps. To the other the Son of the loving God and the Saviour
of humankind. To the next a wise prophet in advance confirming the wisdom of Muhammad. Three times fourteen generations since
the legendary Abraham had passed by, when this controversial person appeared on the stage. For as with Abraham the evidence
for his existence is only circumstantial and what was written is about him, not by him. Although, still one contemporary
historical source exists. “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be permissible to call him a man; for he
was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He appealed to both many of the
Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the
third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe
of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book
18, Chapter 3,371)]
What advocates the authenticity of Josephus is that he was a nigh contemporary of Jesus, as a Sadducee very likely had access
to the primary sources and that he could not be counted to the followers of Jesus or the Christians. Against the historical
accuracy of Josephus argues that his text was not published until sixty years after the death of Jesus, incidentally in
almost the same period that the first Gospels were written.
Whether or not Jesus was a historical person has been the subject of bookcases full of respectable studies.
The life of the real man though is not the foremost aspect of him -whether or not he was married with children or not-,
yet the meaning of his life was
tremendous, including the implications for the Christian version of monotheism. The significance of Jesus for Christianity is
similar to that of Moses for Judaism. With Moses came a change in thinking during the last millennium bce. The old fragmented
tribal thinking -the politics and religion that came with that- was replaced by a philosophy -with
an ensuing religion and politics- which was more centralization minded, which merged an archaic Arab war god and an ancient Canaanite supreme god
in the strict but fair Yahweh. The aim of the Israelites to establish a centralized Jewish empire in the Levant, however,
never became a reality - the religion -ergo, the politics- did have the potential72). Before this
could have become reality the Jews were overrun
by a force that already fully benefited from a central organization, the Romans. The sage Jesus of Nazareth saw both the
potential of a central authority -the domination by the Roman Empire- and the impotence of the centralist idea -the
subjected Jewish kingdom-. Where centralization and organization reign they will ever fail, because it is not the
situation in which justice can be done to each human. Jesus tried to give back man's autonomy by making the relationship
with God the Father a personal relationship73). For precisely this reason Jesus of Nazareth had to die74). After all, who
pursues central government regards a figure such as Jesus an 'anarchist', a threat to authority, especially when his
supporters continued to grow75). At this point the Jewish and Roman authorities found each other, which inevitably led to
the told martyrdom of the charismatic thinker. That the ideas of Jesus the Anointed continued to live, how ironic, is due to
the fact that in the three hundred years after his death they became institutionalized and the resulting religion became
the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Did Jesus really die for his ideas and for humanity?
Were did his ideas originate? About the
origin of the ideas of the founder of the second version of monotheism many and various claims are made. Thus in the sources
the analogy between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus is repeatedly pointed out
 - in iconography, Mary with the infant Jesus
is depicted identical to Isis with the child Horus. In short it can be said that the Egyptian pantheon consisted of indeed a
large amount of gods, but that all these gods, including Osiris, were no other than various aspects, attributes or phases of
Ra, his son Horus was born of Isis. Who reads Yahweh for Ra or Osiris, Jesus and Mary for Isis and Horus, has established the
connection between the Egyptian religion and Christianity. If one also assumes that Horus was not only the son of Ra, but
also an aspect of Ra, as the Egyptians believed, one has also found the origin of the Trinity. Herein Jesus is not only the
son of Yahweh, but also an aspect of Yahweh and part of the trinity with God the Father Yahweh, God the Son Jesus and that
consisted also of the Holy Spirit, in Egyptian terms the Ka76). Another analogy that is
often made, is that between Jesus and Mithras,
the son of Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of Zoroastrianism. Mithras was an among Romans -especially in the army- generally
professed deity. The acceptance of Christianity by the Romans in the fourth century can be partly explained by the fact that
Mithras and Jesus were almost identical. Both were also born of a virgin and
they had the same date of birth. Moreover, these
similarities also applied to the Greek god Dionysus and the hero Perseus, son of Zeus. In modern times the scientific method
applies as a benchmark for the genuineness and truth of knowledge. In the ancient world for gods and godliness obviously
certain features existed that were to serve as a stamp of authenticity77).
Jesus was not without competitors. Appolonius of Tyana and Simon Magus, for example. The distinction between them and Jesus
of Nazareth was not easily made for a simple believer78). Some followers of John the Baptist continued to believe in John as
the Messiah and did not believe in Jesus. These so-named Mandaeans migrated in the second century to the north of present-day
Iraq, where they still reside. Simon bar Kochba like Jesus was a
descendant of King David. He did want to be the king of the Jews and he led them into a revolt against the Romans that
ultimately was
struck down by the Emperor Hadrian with such annihilating force that until 1948 the state of Israel ceased to exist. And then
there is the Nag Hammadi library79). The writings in this library from the third and fourth centuries show a different Jesus than
the Jesus of Nazareth from the traditional Gospels, a Jesus who was a man rather than that he was regarded as divine. This
collection of writings belonging to the so-named Gnostic writings were deleted from the official canon because they were
judged to be contradictory to the accepted gospels. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Judas are not part of
the Nag Hammadi library, but they are authentic writings from the second and third centuries with
also a different view on Jesus.
The practice that emerges from all this is that during the life of Jesus, but even more pronounced after his death, anyone
who had known Jesus or had followed him, or knew someone who had known him or had followed him, retold the stories about Jesus,
most probably with the best intentions, that in a later stage were transcribed. The collection thus created was ambiguous about
the figure of Jesus. The institutionalization of the faith in Jesus and the determination of the canon, culminating in the
Council of Nicaea, did select those writings the leaders could use, while the others were excluded
- burned mostly. This manipulation does not
say anything about the authenticity of the writings, canonical or not. It says something about third and fourth century
Christians and their perspective on Jesus of Nazareth.
The bridge builder
Jesus of Nazareth was and is seen as a wise man with possibly
prophetic gifts and foresight. As much as this can be assumed. Calling him the son of God and saying that he has done
marvels,
at the present day is not seen as a safeguard of true divinity, but as a marketing strategy - also used by the other "sons of
god". Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether he was indeed crucified, as Flavius Josephus and the disciples of Christ
claim,
and that after three days he was resurrected. Perhaps he escaped in time to Cappadocia and has lived there under the name
Appolonius, while back in Jerusalem Jesus Barabbas -son of the father- as yet in his place was on the cross. It is not
important whether the fate of Jesus of Nazareth is true in the biblically way, with miracles and angels, it is important
finding out whether the Biblical truth in the modern era is maintainable. It
is of interest whether in a historic responsible manner can be established
that everything in the New Testament and the Gnostic writings is true. The
only then that really
with reasonable certainty can be determined is that around the beginning of the present era a Jesus of Nazareth existed and
that he was a wise man with perhaps prophetic gifts and foresight. When all theatre around Jesus, with the for his time
required major religious labels, is omitted and when Jesus is detached, almost freed, from the context of the early Christian
sect that in three centuries developed into a state religion, with its political objectives, then there appears a man with
very special ideas for his time. A man with extraordinary ideas. A man. Ecce homo. Consider the man, every man. Each man.
He was and is scourged and scarred by life, he wounds himself to the rawness of life and he is mocked, insulted and crucified when he walks
his path, not in league with the crowd. In that sense, every man is Jesus and Jesus is
each man. Like this each man is a child of God - the son of God, the daughter of God.
The Bedouins who preceded the first monotheism worshipped a tribal god. The leader of the tribe received all worship because
she or he was in contact with the deities. These tribal gods were not significantly different from the gods when man left
Africa more than seventy-five thousand years earlier. Matriarchal and patriarchal deities. Thinkers such as Zarathustra
and Akhenaten and building upon them Moses changed the rules of 'the game'. After Moses and his legendary ancestor Abraham,
the world was a completely different world. A central deity was a reflection not only of a religious experience, but also that of a
political purpose in the wake of the Neolithic revolution - the development of agriculture and the emergence of the first
cities. The focus was on the political objective though, especially where it concerned
the centralization. In the experience of the deity no significant change
came about. Whether it were the nature gods to the African ancestors, tribal
deities of nomadic tribes, polytheistic pantheons as in the Egyptian and
Mesopotamian cultures, it were always gods interacting with humans, gods who
by their actions sealed the fate of man and humanity. As a number of times
this has already been shown, such a steering god cannot be the God who is the foundation of everything that exists. A god who allows
this has goals that are inconsistent with the God who is truth and so is Love. Such a god falls seamlessly within
the Luciwher paradigm and is therefore Luciwher himself. Not evil, as has been amply argued, because
the partition 'good and evil' belongs
to the imaginary dichotomies - dichotomies do not exist, because everything has many nuances.
The Luciwher paradigm
reflects the concerns of Luciwher to abide man and to stop him from discovering the truth, Love. That truth can only
be truly discovered by not leaning on authority and by making the inner journey.
Akhenaten pointed to the one God who is Love. Jesus of Nazareth did likewise
and he also encouraged this by everything he said, which is recorded in the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic writings, in the gospel of his alleged wife Mary Magdalene
and in the Gospel of Judas his alleged betrayer, that is to seek a personal relationship with God. “I do not receive glory
from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not
receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one
another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” [Bible NT, John 5:41-44 esv]. Jesus points out that people
tend to seek the solution and redemption in each other and therefore outside themselves, in authority. He wonders openly how
people may come to an inner self-discovery when they do not seek the Love in themselves. “Jesus said, A grapevine has been
planted outside the father. And because it is not sound, it will be plucked out by the root and will perish.” [Nag Hammadi
Library, The Gospel of Thomas, saying 40]. Any wisdom or truth that is found beyond the truth of God, coming from outside
the human rather than
 found on the inner road, is a semblance truth. That illusory truth cannot bear fruit. “Jesus said,
God loves to see that his servant learns a trade so that he may stand independently of other people, but God hates his
servant who acquires religious knowledge and then practices this as a craft.” [The Muslim Jesus80), saying
122]. A man should
independently find his way in this world and the inner world, because reliance on the -religious- knowledge of others makes
no sense.
These statements are always attributed to Jesus of Nazareth and are invariably equipped with an explanation that emphasizes
the status and the status quo of the context in which the commentator writes. Underscoring so the truth according to
Christianity, the Gnostics, or the Muslim tradition. Here, after each statement the perspective is given from the
principles of this book. It is for the reader to decide for by which he feels best. The argument of this book
is that Jesus broke with a tradition that Moses formulated. That not the centralist absolute ruler God Yahweh determines
what is good for you, and certainly not his servant who practices the religious craft, but man himself who is looking for
God in himself. That Jesus broke with the centralist religion of Moses, is
also illustrated by the following saying of Jesus.
“His students said to him, 'Is circumcision of benefit to us or not?' He said to them,
'If it were of benefit, their
father would have them born from their mother already circumcised'.” [Nag Hammadi Library, Gospel of Thomas, saying 53].
With some good will and relativism the first glimpse of the theory of evolution can even be recognized here. Jesus was
very modern in his time and he also is now when one becomes aware that there are still people who believe that God
created the world in six days and is now a few thousand years old, on which they reject evolution. In the history of man Jesus
as the first steps outside the Luciwher paradigm, and builds the bridge to the inner path. He declares to search the
truth and thus salvation in oneself. The Christian Church thereafter
hijacked Jesus Christ for its own purposes. Two thousand years of
Christianity enclosed Jesus again in the Luciwher paradigm, and that yields
some sad and
sometimes ridiculous and ludicrous representations of Jesus. Look around and you will abundantly find the examples.
Visions of the refugee
 Abā al-Qāsim Mohammed ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hāshim
is the full name of the man everyone knows as the Muhammad -the laudable-, the prophet of Islam. Of him it is virtually
undisputedly clear that he existed. He was born in Mecca in 570 and died in Medina in
632, according to the first biography
that appeared about at around 750 him, a hundred and twenty years after his death81). Within Islam, Muhammad is seen as the perfecter of monotheism, which means that by the Islam he is simultaneously considered the last prophet. The historicity
of Muhammad is not undisputed. The biggest problem is that there are no sources for the pre-Islamic part of his life. The
historicity of Muhammad can only be shown when the sources are not overly critical approached, while under a critical
appraisal of sources his historicity is impossible to determine. As a Cameleer he came into contact with Jews and Christians
and thus with their religion. Besides a merchant, he was a shepherd, at least in his younger years. He had kept the habit
from that time periodically to retreat to a cave to pray and meditate. During this session he received through the angel
Jibril, or Gabriel, his first revelation from God, but started preaching about it only after several years. The core of his
message, that what God said through Jibril, was that only the complete surrender, Islam, to God was acceptable for God.
Moreover, Muhammad declared himself to be a prophet and
 messenger of Allah, in the tradition of the other Islamic prophets
such as Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Yahya and Isa82).
The social aspect of his message to the people had the result that at first especially the lower classes and slaves felt
attracted to his teachings. That meant that the propertied classes felt threatened by the message of Muhammad, which led
to an attempt to murder him. Muhammad fled to Yathrib, a town later renamed Medina. This flight, the hijrah, marks the
beginning of the Islamic era. In Medina, Muhammad developed into a religious leader and into a political and military
leader. In several battles, Muhammad eventually defeated the army of Mecca. In 630 the time had come that Muhammad could
purify the Kaba in Mecca of the 360 gods who were worshipped there and could dedicate the sacred temple exclusively to
Allah. The Koran emphasizes that Muhammad was not the founder of a new religion, but instead made an appeal to return to
the original religion he called "the religion of Ibrahim". God had addressed previously other peoples, but now revealed
himself explicitly to the Arabs, especially to warn for the Day of Judgement.
Muslims view the Koran as the revelation by the angel Jibril of the will of God by order of God. Many islamologists see
the Koran as an Arabic adaptation of the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Bible. There are many similarities between the
books. Within Islam itself Sura 94 Jonas is cited to challenge the opponents of Islam to consult the People of the Book
-Tanakh and Bible- as to understand the truth of the Koran. “If thou wert in doubt As to what We have revealed Unto thee,
then ask those Who have been reading The Book from before thee: The Truth hath indeed come To thee from thy Lord: So be
in no wise Of those in doubt.” The first documented Christian knowledge about Muhammad comes from Byzantine sources.
Therein is indicated that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the "Doctrina Jacobi nuper
baptizati" from 634, two years after the death of the Prophet, Muhammad is described as “misleading [,] because do
prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] You will not hear the truth from the referred to prophet except human
bloodshed.” The main point of contention between Jews, Christians and Muslims, as is often said in the literature,
is the status of Isa, Jesus. According to Muslims he is an important prophet, but to the Jews he is not a prophet at
all, while to the Christians he is more than a prophet, God's son. Jews and Christians never wanted to acknowledge
Muhammad as a prophet. Had they done so, they would have de facto converted to Islam. Jews at long last described
Muhammad as "ha-meshuggah" -the possessed-, a false prophet who seriously damaged the old stories by his retelling
in the Koran. The Christians thought it unthinkable that Muhammad denied the divinity of Jesus and finally saw in
him a false teacher, who was inspired by Satan. “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth
will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not
idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” [2 Peter
2:1-3, English Standard Version]. In the list of Gnostic saints
in the "Ecclesia Catholica Gnostica"83) Muhammad is recorded as one of the saints. According to the Baha'i faith84) Muhammad
is not the last prophet, a view that is shared by the Ahmadiyya Muslims85).
Al-Masjid al-Nabawi, the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina with the Green Dome
on the tomb of Mohammed
By fire and sword
Who is concerned with the questions whether Muhammad really
existed or not and if he has gleaned together the texts of his revelations himself or whether they are indeed God's
messages, is concerned with questions that are irrelevant. The observation that the Islam with its Koran determines
for more than one and a half billion people on earth their lives and offers them guidance in life, is the only relevant.
Muhammad is, the Koran is and Islam is - these are the indisputable data. What role Islam plays is the next question,
to which the answer is far more complicated. Therefore, the entire field must be surveyed, the role that Islam plays in
the world today. To begin with, herein it is important to know how Islam is perceived. For the majority of the Muslims,
who commonly are thoughtful and pious citizens, applies nothing other than for the average Jew or Christian. He works
hard, wants to be happy with his wife and he takes good care of his children. That in Islam relatively many groups
operate that are fanatical and violent, is not inherent to Islam, if the fanaticism can be attributed to the relative
youthfulness of the religion. In a comparable period of Christianity fanaticism and violence was also a means of
religious profiling and prevalence. That goes at least from the first crusade up to and including the Spanish Inquisition.
Also within Judaism a fanatical period occurred, although only an effect of this can be found in the lessons that can be
drawn from the Tanakh and other Jewish literature, while in historical sources nothing can be found; if these still exist.
The assertion that Islam is a reprehensible religion because of the condoning of violence against non-Muslims, therefore
can only be associated with a preconceived notion, often neglecting the own religious history or even ignorance about it.
Fanaticism and blindness are always sad qualities - for the blind fanatic.
That Islam is a violent religion, is subsequently an empty conclusion as if saying that the lion kills a gazelle. Any
system with political ambitions, or at least implications, contains violence. Joshua as Moses' successor conquered the
Promised Land not with summit conferences.
 “Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young
and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.” [Joshua
6:21]. The walls of Jericho came thundering down
- and God helped with that. The fanaticism with which Christianity was spread and defended, the religious wars in Europe
and the defence of the Holy Land against Islam, shows that the followers of Jesus were not nonviolent hippies. The battles
that Muhammad waged against his own people in Mecca, and won, but also a certain interpretation of the term jihad, the
conquests of the Muslim armies in North Africa and Iberia, show that the message of peace only had to be carried out
after the submission. Perhaps all that violence can be explained from the position of oppression where the founders
initially had to deal with. The Jews in relation to the Canaanites and Egyptians, the Christians in relation to the
Romans and the Muslims in Medina in relation to their tribesmen in Mecca. It shows, but this is not a new observation,
that the great monotheistic religions were not pure in the sense of a philosophical and religious ethical system of
thinking, but also -and above all- economic-political systems. Specifically for Islam is that the allegation that it
is a violent religion is invariably countered with the statement that it is fundamentally a peaceful religion, an answer
in which the imperialist political motivations in the response are filtered out. Whichever Islamic wise one hears or
reads, though the message of peace may be true, one usually closes the eyes to the blood that was shed to make Islam a
defining religion in this world. The lioness necessarily satisfies her hunger, but it should not be forgotten that a life
lost its life.
Authority or self-determination
Islam means surrender or submission to God, Allah. This premise
is at odds with the main principles of Isa, Jesus, one of the major prophets of Islam. It is not possible both to find
the truth, love and redemption in yourself, to find Allah by looking deep into your heart, while you submit to Allah.
It is not possible simultaneously to take to two different paths. The required condition of surrender and submission
excludes walking the path of inner discovery, like walking on that path means that outside influences -influence, power,
authority, direction, rules- are no longer relevant phenomena. Who puts salt in his tea, so may no longer make sweet
flavours. The person who is walking the inner path allows only external advisers as he himself seeks external advice
and will only apply this advice when he has internalized. Only when an outside opinion first is translated to own
terms one can find a use for it in ones mind before. When an external advice says to love one another, then each
person must decide for himself and herself what love is, before they can make this advice their own and apply it.
It will also show that determining a content -for example love- through life has further growth, a nuance that each
person applies based on the distance travelled on the inner pathway. It is not conceivable, it is impossible that a
consultant or external authority can make that nuance based on personal development. Isa is understood within Islam
in a specific way, in a way that rather shows the stage of development of Islam, than that it shows how one should
understand Isa.
Also in other religions complete surrender to the god is demanded of the faithful, sometimes even loving surrender. Each
time it appears that apart from surrender and submission also subordination is meant - that is a hallmark of a
hierarchical system. Only one thinks hierarchically within a system and that is man, man as the subject of Luciwher.
Man who is still stuck within the Luciwher paradigm, the conceptual framework within which not the inner is considered
for the solution and the answer to all questions, but only the authority outside man. Man in a hierarchical system is
made insecure to seek the inner truth for deliverance from the pain and the discovery of Love, by the constant bombardment
by authorities. In the words of Isa clues can be found, so that every man can find the way to the inside and no longer
needs to take heed of the words of the sages who stand on shore. If the comparison may be made in which Isa was a
revolutionary who tried to reform Judaism, Islam may be regarded as an attempt at restoration. Muhammad and his followers
returned to the "religion of Ibrahim", Musa actually, and Isa was marginalised by denying his -symbolic- divinity. Why
Isa should be regarded as divine, it was already made clear above, is because we are all children of God. Precisely this
enables a person to find Love and truth through the inner, while for redemption not being dependant on authorities. The
authority is an emissary of Luciwher and should be avoided, if you sincerely want to walk the inner path.
The authority always carries a big stick in case you do not wish to obey the authority. This feature of Luciwher is not
limited to Islam. In the case of Islam Allah addressed, after having spoken to other nations, the Arab nations especially
to warn of the Day of Judgement. As already described, in the Koran is often referred to Yawm ad-Din. Those who have not
observed the rules, will be judged and destroyed, according to the Koran. No worse punishment is imaginable and as a
good Muslim you like to follow the rules, because you want to be with Allah in eternal life. The desire to live forever
in the presence of Allah is a wish that every person has - unless one is a fundamentalist atheist; and then still.
Consider this, the defining characteristic of someone who threatens when you will not stay under his charge, is the
one who has fear to be abandoned. Each time Allah in the Koran promises a negative judgment at Yawm ad-Din, he also
suggests that it is apparently possible to act against his will. Acting contrary to an idea in all likelihood is only
probable when that idea is not the highest truth. A person cannot and does not want to go against the supreme truth,
when he has rediscovered it himself. When the need arises to go against a proclaimed supreme truth, then this proclamation
is obviously not the whole truth. Every person, from the 'humblest' to the most 'illustrious', feels the difference
between the declared and discovered truth deep inside. The given prospect of gloom and doom prevents acting upon it
in the human world. If the truth really lies with Allah, he has no need to threaten with hell and damnation. If the
truth cannot be found there, he can be none other than Luciwher, he who wants to keep the people -his people- with
him to bring his vision to accomplishment. It makes no sense to submit to an incomplete truth, one that misses Love
and Beauty. A person is quite capable of rediscovering the truth in himself.
What can be seen as one sees
Did Muhammad speak truth, or was Muhammad misled, or might
Muhammad have misled? To whom did the prophet listen when he got his messages? What does a person hear when he listens
to his inner voice, when he sets his steps on the inner path? The first steps are the hardest. Each person inevitably
gets black and blue of life and the incarnation in which we are often encourages to find retribution
for this. Healing yourself
and reining the animal, is the very first thing you do on the inner road - the second is in fact results
from the first.
Your healing brings about equilibrium. The healing process is important to learn whether the inner voice is a true voice or
possibly a manifestation of a physical illness. It is a process with a constant feedback. Any answer found is queried.
The inner voice is getting clearer - some call it the conscience, moral guidance, or the ethics handbook, though these
are overlapping notions that collectively do not cover the experience. Becoming aware of one's injuries and the
awareness of one's own deficiencies are characteristic of the inner learning path. On the inner path nobody
is present who
will reproach you for your flaws, there is only helpfulness. Sometimes one must pass through a difficult period, but self-reproach
then is not helpful, because it does not lead to any solution. Knowing that you are not alone is helpful, because
nobody goes through life without getting bruised and battered - we are all
equal in life. Know that your way never ends in this life and that
the wisdom that you build is for you and only for you. It is not your wisdom, but your share in the all-embracing
wisdom. Throw this wisdom in the world of people and immediately it falls prey to the Luciwher paradigm. The only thing
one can do with the inner-found wisdom, the truth and love, is to let it be of consequence for one's actions in this
world, because a person must act - one cannot not-act. The actions of man in the world -from the regained inner wisdom-
is effectively the very quintessence of incarnating. Furthermore, -it sounds sad, but that it is not- you are as lonely
as on the day you were born and again will be on the day you die. No other support exists than the inner support.
Mohammed has waited for two or three years to bring on what he had heard. It is quite conceivable that he discussed his
first experiences within a small circle. Possibly the first time with his wife
 Khadija and his friend Abu Bakr, his cousin
Ali, his adopted son Zaid and another friend Uthman ibn Affan. It cannot be otherwise than that this first group has
encouraged Muhammad, or that Muhammad felt encouraged by their reactions. Possibly also an external factor has played a
role, such as dissatisfaction with the polytheism in the Kaba in Mecca was. Muhammad was attracted, this much is clear,
by what the Jews and the Christians he met on his caravan trips had told him and through his visions he felt called
upon to come to an Arabic version of the faith of Ibrahim. Whether Mohammed was aware of a phenomenon as
the Luciwher
paradigm, is a question difficult to answer. Mohammed is a deceiver if he knowingly has brought his visions into the
world to deter man's inner search for God - this is a strategy of Luciwher, but not exclusively applicable to Muhammad.
Only the most cynical leaders could be accused of such an attitude. It can therefore not be otherwise than that Muhammad
was deceived by the outside influences that came to him - dissatisfaction with the polytheistic religious perception of
his community, his desire letting to prevail the monotheistic faith of Ibrahim, and the acclaim he got this from his
closest friends. One by one external influences that in themselves are laudable, but nonetheless goals that are
irrelevant to what a person is really looking for on the inner road -
external influences distract. That Muhammad was not able to give
shape to his inner change in the concrete world, is made clear as he conducted battles. A person with inner peace would
never have done this and would have moved to Medina to develop there in peace. The choices of Muhammad have determined
the nature of Islam.
!
former chapter
- next chapter
" |
