Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
BACK TO LITERATURE,ESSAYS,POLITICS
BACK TO SITE PLAN
SON 0F MAN
Fraudulent bedrock of our civilization.
PROLOG
The term "Son of Man" appears frequently in the New
Testament as the favorite self-designation of Christ.
We are convinced that:
1."Son of Man" is a translation error,
2.it is a purposeful error, i.e. a fraud,
3.implications of this fraud determined to a large extent
our civilization.
We shall justify this conviction in following Sections:
ERROR
FRAUD
IMPLICATIONS
NOTE: argumentation and conclusions of this essay apply as
well to Christ being a historical person as to Him being a
fictitious character invented by authors of New Testament.
Indeed, once created, a personage compels the author to
describe his behavior in harmony with his personality and to
quote him consistently with respect to the language he is
supposed to speak.
ERROR
As Christ spoke Aramaic, "Son of Man" is obviously a
translation of Aramaic "Bar Nasha" and obviously an
erroneous translation. The error consists in "etymological
confusion", in taking etymology for meaning. Etymology of
"Bar Nasha" is indeed "Son of Man", but its meaning at
Christ's time was "Man".
You DON'T translate "Baise-en-ville" as "Fuck downtown"
(etymology), but as "overnight bag" (meaning in current
French);
you DON'T translate "cul-de-sac" as "ass-of-bag", but as
"blind alley";
you DON'T translate "bistro" as "hurry up!" (Russian
etymology), but as "French bar";
you DON'T translate French "vasistas" as "what's that?"
(German etymology) but as "fanlight" (current French
meaning);
you DON'T translate Russian "vaksal" as "Vauxhall" (English
etymology), but as "railway station" (current Russian
meaning).
You DON'T translate "BAR NASHA" as "SON OF MAN" (etymology),
but as "MAN" (current Aramaic meaning at Christ's time).
Unless you make an error, an involuntary blunder, or a
purposeful fraud.
Fraud option will be discussed in the next Section.
Here we shall state that:
1."Son of Man" is an error.
It is an etymological confusion in translating Aramaic "Bar
Nasha" which, at Christ's time meant clearly and
exclusively "Man".
2.SoM is not particular to KJV or any other Western version
but appears in original Greek Gospel texts as "uoios tou
anthropou", which shows clearly that the error was
committed directly by the Evangelists.
We shall limit Gospel quotations to a single parable
Matthew 12:1-13, KJV: 1 All implications of this parable
apply to other instances of "Son of Man" in the New
Testament.
Matthew 12:1-13, KJV: 1
(Seeing His disciples accused of not observing sabbath
Christ answered:)
6 But I say to you, that a greater than the temple is here.
...
8 For the Son of man, is lord of the sabbath.
One often hears the argument that Evangelists CALLED Christ
"Son of Man" in order to assert the interpretation of His
supernatural and messianic nature. However, this argument
does not hold: They did not CALL Him, but QUOTED Him. They
could call Him "Son of Sky", or anything, as long as it was
their responsibility. But QUOTING must be true and exact, or
it is a lie. When Christ referred to Himself as to "Bar
Nasha", this reference can only be correctly QUOTED as "Man".
So, "Son of Man" is beyond any doubt an error. In the next
Section we shall see if it was just a blunder or a
purposeful fraud.
FRAUD.
To interpret SoM error as blunder we would have to admit:
1.That four educated Aramaic speakers by chance ignored the
meaning of the same common word "Bar Nasha" and committed
by coincidence the same translation error.
2.That, again by extraordinary coincidence, this accidental
blunder became the principal cornerstone of Christianism.
Indeed, as we shall see, the whole edifice of Christianism
has been erected upon the erroneous term "Son of Man".
Rather too many coincidences and the blunder story would not
have a leg to stand on in any court. Still, you may consider
that the evidence is only circumstantial and may like the
idea of Christianism being founded upon a blunder.
But you would be alone. To the best of our knowledge all
Christian Bible experts agree that Jesus called Himself
"Bar Nasha", that it means "Man", that the Evangelists knew
it, but translated it into SoM as interpretation, hinting
that Jesus referred to the messianic SoM of the Old
Testament (Ezechiel 2,1 and Daniel 7,13.).
Here we have a material proof of fraud.
Indeed, in original, i.e. Hebrew, or Aramaic Old Testament
SoM does not appear and could not possibly appear for the
simple reason that Ezechiel, writing in Hebrew, used the
term Ben-Adam, that Daniel, writing in Aramaic, used the
Chaldean origin term Bar-Enash and that both those terms
mean clearly and exclusively "Man". (Bar-Enash is a synonym
of Bar-Nasha with a bit of highbrow touch, like English
"human" (noun) is synonym of "man".)
(BTW the Hebrew "ben-adam" does not even have the etymology
of "Son of Man", but that of "Son of Soil". "Adama" means
in Hebrew "soil", which explains the name of the "First Man"
being "Adam".)
Consequently we are convinced that Evangelists committed
this fraud, but that they committed it in good faith, as
result of being manipulated by some "Inventors of
Christianism" who pulled the ropes behind the scene in the
time between Christ's death and Matthew's Gospel.
Indeed, with a bit of literary experience, you can tell if
a writer sounds sincere. Sholohov or Erenburg, in spite of
their talent sound like cracked pots; you feel that they are
sold to Gulag. On the contrary, Solzenicyn, Orwell, Mann,
Maupassant, Huxley, Camus, whether you aggree or not with
their vision. give clear, harmonious sound.
And so do the Evangelists.
A cracked pot would not become the bestseller of all times,
would not captivate billions, would not found the largest
civilization of human history.
Admitting good faith of the Evangelists we directed our
investigation towards the real crooks, the "Inventors of
Christianism" and looked for appearance of SoM in some
religious literature prior to Gospels.
We found it in the Similitudes of Enoch.
It is true that they are preserved only in an Ethiopic
translation from Greek but it is universally admitted that
SoM appeared for the first time as "uoios tou anthropou" in
the Greek version of the Similitudes.
Thus, the Evangelists had the term prefabricated and ready
for use. But who prefabricated it? Who was strong and
persuasive enough to impose it? And, first of all, what was
his motivation?
Investigating a fraud, one starts by asking to whom it is
beneficial. And a name jumps to the mind: Paul, the
acknowledged Inventor of Christianism under whose name we
englobe all other eventual co-inventors whose names did not
come down to our own day.
Rome was amid a revolution. But each revolution carries with
its flood some capos intending to subjugate it and to grab
absolute, tyrannical power. They need some dogmatic,
undisputable ideology in order to constitute a bandwagon, to
convince those that they chose not to exterminate.
So, the market was there and Paul created the product:
dogmatic Christianism rooted in the SoM fraud.
IMPLICATIONS
Progress of technology made slavery obsolete and required
its replacement with some social model substituting slaves
with laborers having more competence, responsibility and
motivation. This adjustment of society to the state of
technology coincided with the philosophical Domain of Reason
emancipated in Rome as Law, suffocating under tyranny and
aspiring to a new order based upon a legal Social Contract.
This aspiration had to externalize itself as usually through
an ideology. Christ's teaching of love, of equality and of
justice expressed it perfectly and the to-be Christianity
became the ideology of Roman revolution.
As we saw, the correct translation of Matthew's parable is
"8 For the man, is lord of the sabbath",
which means, admitting that "sabbath" symbolizes the Law:
MAN IS THE LORD OF LAW.
This would put the new order under Law determined, judged
and amendable by humans, under a Human Law.
However, as we said above, each revolution carries with its
flood some capos intending to subjugate it and to grab
absolute, tyrannical power. They need some dogmatic,
undisputable ideology in order to constitute a bandwagon,
to subdue those that they chose not to exterminate.
The fraudulent translation of the parable supports perfectly
such dogmatic ideology. Indeed, with SoM denoting the
(incarnated) God, the distorted parable
("... the Son of man, is lord of the sabbath",)
gets the meaning:
GOD IS THE LORD OF LAW
Such "God's Law" is necessarily revealed, absolute and
dogmatic.
We do not perceive God directly but discover His Law via
allegedly perceived phenomena, "Revelations" such as signs,
symbols, and statements reported by some "God's spokesmen".
One's decision to consider some phenomenon as Revelation is
based on arbitrary, irrational belief void of any factual
justification.
Thus for instance the Pope, God's spokesman and lawmaker of
"God's Law" could delegate part of his absolute power to a
king making him executive of God's will. Disobedience was
raised from infraction to a capital sin and "God's Law"
revealed itself as absolute tyranny. Simplest to justify and
to implement of all tyrannies.
Indeed, Robespierre needed a long harangue to corrupt the
original Social Contract ideology of the French Revolution
with a meaningless, dogmatic "Virtue". This "Virtue" justified
the Terror which lasted nine months and made several thousand
victims.
Lenin needed the full blown meaningless, dogmatic Hegel-Engels
dialectic to corrupt the original marxist ideology. It justified
the Gulag which in 50 years made 100 million victims.
Yet, Paul needed just to distort a single term in order to
corrupt the to-be Christianity, and to transform it into the
dogmatic, inhuman Christianism which determined our
civilization, which ruled absolutely over thousand years and
whose sequels are still the strongest social motivation at
our own days. Its victims are innumerable, as its crimes
encompass most principal atrocities and genocides committed by
our civilization either directly in the name of Christianism,
or indirectly, as reaction to its excesses.
Directly: Inquisition, religious wars, crusades, persecution
of heretics and closer to us Nazi cohorts perpetrating their
crimes under the device "Gott Mit Uns".
Indirectly: let's just mention the Russian Revolution
clearly provoked and triggered by the holy tsarist tyranny.
How would our civilization look if it were determined not by
fraudulent Christianism, but by true Christianity based
upon the correct translation and understanding of Matthew's
parable:
"8 For the man, is lord of the sabbath".
which means MAN IS LORD OF LAW and which replaces the
fraudulent "God's Law" with "Human Law"?
Only conjectures are, of course, possible, so let us soften
our rigorous approach and follow the guidance of imagination.
We have seen that "God's Law" is based in arbitrary
assertions of God's spokesmen. What would be the base of
the "Human Law"?
Christ was a Jewish Rabbi, so He doubtless considered the
Decalogue as synonym of "Law".
Now, whatever one may say about the Commandments, they are
an ordered set: one speaks about the first, second, etc.
And in every ordered set the order carries some essential
meaning: first is first because in some way it founds,
supports, orders or justifies its followers.
The exact structure of the Decalogue is not precisely known;
there are three Hebrew versions, and in one there are 22
Commandments rather than ten. However, leaving all historic,
stylistic and folkloric aspects aside, one thing is certain:
the structure encompasses two parts, first talking about
some Absolute and second defining rules of social behavior
such as "Thou shalt not kill".
The first, usually composed of three Commandments boils down
to:
1."Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
2."Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".
3."Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".
Taking into account that it has been destined for simple
analphabets and leaving, as we said, all folklore aside,
it means:
1.There is only one Absolute,
2.Absolute may not be represented.
3.Absolute may not be symbolized.
Now, so described Absolute is equivalent to Awareness
understood as ontological foundation of our Relativistic
Dialectic. We say that:
1."Awareness is the unique Absolute recognized by RD",
2."I ... see only upon the background of my Awareness of ...
seeing". i.e. while I'm (being aware of) seeing a car,
my Awareness of seeing it does not become this car, nor
anything else than "my being aware of ...".
Thus, Awareness may not be represented.
3."...by virtue of the Generalized Principle of Relativity
we cannot formulate any meaningful proposition about
Awareness,"
Thus, Awareness may not be symbolized.
We may conclude that correctly translated Matthew's parable
founds a humane "Rational Religion" and "Rational Ethics".
Rejecting metaphysical revelations they are entirely based
in Awareness, or Conscience, its moral synonym. Behavioral
precepts are thumb rules for daily practice, always
overruled by Conscience when in conflict.
"Thou shalt not kill", but under Nazi occupation the writer
of these lines has killed a blackmailer in order to save a
family and his Conscience tells him that he was right.
One may object that such "Rational Religion" is a
contradictio in adiectum, that it is unconceivable and
unknown in practice. We shall retort that two major
religions fall exactly under this pattern: the Buddism and
the original Judaism.
Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef min Natzeret seems to have been
condemning the dogmatic, corrupted Priesthood and preaching
the return to the original humane Judaism which could become
the base of equally humane Christianity.
But He was crucified and this to-be humane Christianity was
turned by a cunning translation fraud to the inhumane
Christian-ism.
History saw several trials of liberation from the the SoM
tyranny. One of them was the establishment of the Cathar
Occitane State at the feet of Pyrenees. Based upon humane
Christianity it was the most humane and tolerant state in
the European history, extremely successful in agriculture,
handicrafts and arts. Scared by its humanity and success,
Rome ordered the unique crusade within Europe. When Beziers
fell, its entire population was murdered, with exception of
a thousand escaped to the cathedral, most claiming to be of
Roman faith. The Cardinal, spiritual leader of the crusade
gave in the name of Son of Man the famous order: "Kill them
all. God will recognize His children".
Closer to us, one of the giants of rational thought, Newton,
compared a scientist to a child playing with shells on the
ocean shore.
-Shells represent concepts and theories.
-Ocean represents the unknown Marvelous wherefrom the Shells
had emerged and new ones will turn up.
It is absurd to restrict, in keeping with pseudo-science,
the Universe to a few Shells and to deny the Ocean.
But it is equally absurd to infer, in keeping with religions,
the details of the Marvelous, to shut It in a Shell and to
dissect It as if It were an oyster.
One seems to recognize, dressed in different terms, the gist
of Rabbi Yeshua's message.
