Witness of the holy ghost/spirit

There's this term I keep running across, (and no matter how many times I run it over, it still won't die!), "the witness of the holy spirit/ghost".

I'm not really sure why it's called the witness of the holy ghost/spirit, since it is usually described as a "feeling", or as "knowing in your heart".

It's sometimes good, and sometimes bad, depending.

This feeling is evidently how christians "know" when they're on the right track, doing what  G wants them to be doing, and all is right with the world.

Apparently it's a sort of warm fuzzy feeling when they're doing the right thing, (like executing a man in a crowded church), and a cold prickly feeling if they're contemplating doing something the holy ghost regards as wrong, (like not executing a man in a crowded church).

Oh. Sorry. Cheap shot.

OK. How about this.

It's the cold prickly feeling christians experience when they have an evil impulse, like a desire to masturbate, (remember, all fleshly desires are evil!), and the warm fuzzy feeling they get when, instead of masturbating to orgasm,  they haul out their flagellum (thought I was going to say something else didn't you!) and flagellate themselves to orgasm. That way they can feel really good and really bad at the same time! (It's called mortification of the flesh. You should try it! It's great! )

(For those of you unfamiliar with catholicism and it's pathological love of pain and suffering, there is the practice, found within certain holy orders, of the flagellum, (think cat '0 nine tails, or scourge, (like christ, get it?)) called "the discipline". Its application to the bare skin of the back, by oneself, or others, (hard enough to draw blood being optional), is an act of great spiritual merit. I think it's sort of like spinning a prayer wheel, or hanging a prayer flag, except it's effective, unlike those other unholy, satanic, pagan practices!)

The witness of the holy spirit/ghost is also what tells christians when they're interpreting scripture correctly. (Though one would think that an omniscient deity would be capable of conveying his desires to us in a clear, concise, nonfigurative, non-metaphorical manner that would not require warm fuzzy feelings to validate the correctness of his believers interpretations, since Gs perfect crystal clarity would make his desires obvious to everyone, and thus render interpretation either totally unnecessary, at best, or seriously counterproductive, at worst.)

Unless, maybe, G is a strict deconstructionist, (I think I read somewhere that derrida is god, so....), in which case... not even he has any idea what he meant! (G, not derrida... unless derrida is god... in which case... oh the hell with it!) Whatever! It means the rest of us are just S... O... L...!   I think...

But that could just be me.

This witness just seems like an added and unnecessary step. (Unless the holy ghost is like the vp and really has nothing else to do with his time, so this is Gs way of keeping him busy and out of trouble. I mean, don't forget there was that whole lucifer and the fallen angels fiasco!  Oy! What a disaster!)

But I'm not at all sure why they refer to the holy ghost in the singular.

I mean, if there is only one holy ghost, and one god, and one son, and they're all on the same page, and they all want the same thing, and all have the same plan - which they must, because, you know, all their channels of communication are always open, I mean, they have to be, since they are consubstantial, (unless maybe G has some sort of divine dissociative personality disorder or something?) - anyway, given that, why are there so many christian sects/churches/movements? Often disagreeing vehemently with each other, all the while claiming "witness of the holy ghost/spirit" as absolute proof of their rightness! (Implying, it goes without saying, everybody else's wrongness.)

This fact of conflicting witness would seem to indicate a multiplicity of holy spirits. (Unless the holy ghost is just having us on, you know, as a sort of joke?)

But they keep telling me there's only ONE! *

Since it's obvious, (at least to me), that these conflicting witnesses can't all be right, how, exactly, is one to choose? How is one to determine whether or not one has experienced a true witness of the holy spirit/ghost? and that the warm fuzzy feeling one is having is not the result of satan! or the bunch of lunatics one has fallen in with having spiked ones coffee with something psychoactive. (Mmmm. good coffee... wow... I'm feelin kinda funny...  A little... Odd...  Ooooh! Pretty colors! Why yes, I will give you money. How much do you want? Blank check? Sure! Why not. Ooooooh! Pretty! )

(And yes, I know, as far as the catholic church is concerned, it is still the ONLY church, and, barring Gs grace, (which, like his peace, passeth all understanding), all protestants are, at the very least, going to spend a looooooooooong time in purgatory, if G doesn't choose the condemn them to hell for questioning the authority of the pope, who is Gs representative on earth, (at least until the son rises), which makes questioning the pope exactly the same as questioning G. This is catholic doctrine, (just like "it's OK to sacrifice children to protect the church. After all G did it"), it hasn't changed. Theirs was, and is, the only true church. And they have the scars to prove it! ("Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!" Sizzle... Whack!  "Thank you sir! May I have another!")

Apostolic and universal, whose holy faith let us now declare.

Though they don't trumpet it publicly, the basic feeling in the catholic hierarchy regarding protestantism remains  "See what happens when you let any idiot read and interpret the scriptures?"

It's heresy I tell you!

Heresy!

*Until they get their shit together, I'll remain a godless heathen. 

Which Passover?

 Now if ya'll don't believe that the bible is inerrant, then the following won't be a matter of ultimate, or even mild to moderate concern, but, ya know, as a reasonably, (but not excessively), intelligent, (and also, as you can see, extremely modest), general reader, unacquainted with the rube goldberg constructions which I am absolutely CERTAIN that some apologist somewhere has come up with to explain the following conundrum,  I must admit I am puzzled, yea verily! I say unto thee! I am puzzled by the following

According to 2 Chron 30: 1 - 27, Good old great grandfather of josiah, king hezekiah, re-instituted the passover.

(Interesting to me also. verse 16, "They took their accustomed posts according to the law of moses the man of god...." more on this later.)

Though, interestingly enough, hezekiahs passover, which is such a big deal in chronicles that it merits an entire chapter, is not mentioned anywhere among his doings in 2nd kings. (Which doings don't reflect particularly well on him, i.e. begging sennacherib for forgiveness for leading a revolt against the assyrians, and then denuding the house of the lord of its gold and silver in order to bribe sennacherib not to sack Jerusalem. (2  kings 18: 15-16) All the other various and sundry verses singing his praise as a godly king notwithstanding.)

Now, admittedly, the reason for that might be that these books were written by different people for different reasons and -

No they weren't!

What? Who the devil are you? ? And what do you mean by, "No they weren't"?

I am a believer! And those words were written by God himself!

Um... I don't think so....

You don't think so, hmmm? Then who wrote them?

They were written by scribes in the employ of either later priests, or kings, (or possibly both), who were intent on justifying their rule, and those scribes knew perfectly well which side their bread was buttered on!

Well well well, we'll see what you think when you're burning in the LAKE of FIRE for all eternity!

There is no lake of fire, so it is unlikely I'll burn for even a minute, let alone all eternity. Whatever the hell that means.

What are you? One of those damned atheists?

Well, yes.

An unbeliever huh?

Well, it's actually a little stronger than that, given the more or less complete absence of evidence...

Evidence? Evidence!!! What do you call the bible!!!!????

Well, since you asked.

I call it the quasi historical mythology of a minor group of early tribes, and later minor kingdoms, in the middle east, who, (foolish children), had the misfortune to choose to live between egypt and sumer/babylonia/assyria/persia/rome etc etc etc, and, as a result, were consequently overrun, captured, and dragged off into captivity by the big boys, (Sumer, Babylonia, etc, et al), on a fairly regular basis.

I admit, if the bible were our only source of material about the history of the area, one would be inclined to believe the israelites were a major player, and a force to be reckoned with. But, given the fact that we have records from the REAL major players, (see "et al" above), who pretty much never mention the israelites AT ALL, (except on the odd occasion as, "an annoying bunch of hicks, with delusions of grandeur, who don't seem to be able to play well with others", and also as, "a bunch of smelly unwashed goatherds who believe some nonsense about there being only one god", (OMG! Shades of crazy old Akhenaten! Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Such nonsense! I mean seriously!), and who also believe that they are, "gods chosen people"! (Which is also silly! And redundant! Because, as every educated person knows, every tribe is some gods chosen people!) And possibly one mention somewhat along the lines of "Fought some king of the lineage of david here, whupped his ass."  [1]

But as it is, the bible is not evidence of much of anything, except that the judeans had an inflated sense of self, and were piss poor at choosing real estate.

And speaking of poor judgement!

The (someday to be) israelites didn't have to follow avram (aka: abram, and, eventually, abraham) you know. No sirree! Not at all! Nope, they could have STAYED right there, in warm sunny fertile Mesopotamia! Where everything was nice and warm and green and fertile! Fertile I tell you! And those Mesopotamian women? Whew! I... tell... you! Hottest things since, (or would it be before?), Minoan women! Love that Snake Goddess! Hot hot hot!

(There was even a sumerian king who, if I remember rightly, composed a hymn in praise of his queens pussy! She was soooo hot! He said she was a goddess! But do the patriarchs compose hymns in praise of pussy and the joys of sex? (Ok, I'll give you the Song of Solomon, (though it's only a PG-13 at best). But other than that?) I think not! Nope, the patriarchs are all like, ewww! pussy is nasty! unclean! don't touch! don't look! stay away! women are icky! And then, when they're not getting drunk and knocking up their daughters, they're offering them up for rape and murder, or as a human sacrifice to their perverse god, or cutting their concubines up into pieces, and mailing them off to the relatives.... I mean, what is wrong with these people?)

But anyway, do they stay in Mesopotamia? No. Avram has to listen to the damn voice in his head and wander off into the desert, and, since he is the patriarch, you know, everybody has to follow! (Stupid patriarchy.) And all because of some stupid promise from the voice in his head that his descendants "would be a great people, numberless as the stars, yea verily, as the grains of sand on the beach! or in the desert, or something...." [2]

So, G, about that promise?

Still waiting....

(As you can guess, I do not accept the interpretation that christians have, through some sort of covenantal holy legerdemain, mystically become the children of abraham.)

Or, much later, when the israelites finally got a good look at the so called "promised land" after the exodus, and after those forty years wandering in the fricken sinai and all, Joshua could have said to god -

Joshua: Ummm... So, god, let me see if I actually understand you here. You're telling me that this rather dry, barren, and uninviting land, (with absolutely no oil under it, which, I admit, is not a matter of  ultimate concern right now, but... well... you being god and all, well... shouldn't you ought to know that it will be a matter of ultimate concern in a few thousand years. I mean... shouldn't you...? I mean, I'm just sayin...). You're tellin me that the uninviting land over there, across that little tiny river, (jordan, did you call it ?), well not really a river actually, more like a creek, or a brook maybe, is "the promised land"? Umm... You're joking right?...

G: (mumble, mumble, mumble...)

Joshua: Not... not joking...? (pause, throw down aarons rod, then streeeeeetch it out) Sooooooooon of a Biiiiiiiiiiiiitch. (turns)

Joshua: (clears throat, shouts) Hey guys! Yo! Guys! Yeah, all you levites, benjaminites, aaronites... oh fer chrissakes, Yes! ALL you -ites! You tribes! Yeah! I'm talkin to you! C'mere!

I've got some bad news. Looks like Moses did it to us again. Yup. First he drags us out of Egypt and into the desert, and then admits he can't read a map, and won't ask for directions, (imitating moses' voice, in a "neener neener" fashion) "follow the pillar of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night", my ass! He's never heard of GPS? Jeeeeeeeesus Christ! So we have to wander in the desert for forty fricken years... 

(aside to G) And what the hell is it with you and the number FORTY? Forty days, forty years, moses lives to be 120? which is three times forty! This is significant? Should I be writing this down? And then there's number THREE thing! What is it with you and three?! Three, and Forty, and 120, and 360, which are all part of a base 12 number system, which is frickin Babylonian! Babylonian! I don't think they even EXIST yet! So that has got to be post exilic! I mean seriously! What is this? Foreshadowing? Pre-exposition? Jesus! And don't EVEN get me started on you and the number seven thing!!! 

(back to israelites)... wander in the desert for forty frickin years with no Superstores! and no Starbucks! And now this? Yeah. That's what I'm tellin you. G says that this... that... that... this rock strewn wasteland is the land of milk and honey. And guess what? He's not really giving it to us. No. We have to fight for it... No we can't kill Moses!  He's already dead.

What say we go back to egypt?


*     *     *

The israelites were also good at stealing ideas, stories, myths, from the surrounding peoples and claiming they were their own. And what about you? Where's your evidence?

When you have faith you don't need evidence!

Let me know how that works for you the next time you're in court.

Anyway.

According to 2 kings 23: 21 - 23

"The king (josiah) commanded all the people, 'Keep the passover to the lord your god as prescribed in this (just now miraculously discovered) book of the covenant. No such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged israel, even during all the days of the kings of israel and the kings of judah;"

2nd Chron 35: 18  "No passover like it had been kept in israel since the days of the prophet samuel."

Take that Great Grampa!

Now let us quibble.

Perhaps these are two very different things? You know, passover vs "passover", and there's some sort of technical minutiae which I am missing here. (Entirely possible, as I merely hold a BA in theatre and am certainly unqualified to question my betters with more letters.) And since I don't read hebrew, (and have no intention of learning at this late date), I must trust that the same word is used in both cases and has been translated correctly, since I can't imagine why, if two different words are used, the translators would use the word "passover" for both, if the meaning and intent are different. (Unless we're talking about the NIV, in which case, anything goes.) But that's just me. (It's satan, I tell you! Sowing the seeds of discord! (By corrupting G's holy word? Now there's a can of theoepistemological worms!))

Theoepistemology! It's the coming thing! And remember, you read it here first! (Or would it be Epistetheomolology?)

I suppose the argument could be made that even though the old testament authors called hezekiahs celebration "passover", it wasn't, (couldn't be?), a real passover since, at that time, the book of the covenant/law was MIA, (and had been for several hundred years), and therefore, hezekiahs passover might not have been strictly according to the law, and therefore somehow, invalid, perhaps? A faux passover, as it were. Even tho things seem to be pretty much in order according to the description in 2nd chronicles chpt 30 verse 16: "They took their accustomed posts according to the law of moses the man of god...." after all the bible says what it means and means what it says! (Except when it doesn't....) Still, how the devil could they know that it was a kosher passover when the book of the covenant/law was MISSING?

I'm soooo confused.

Anyway, whatever, passover or no passover, during the reign of hezekiah the book of the law was missing, and in it's absence those darn fickle judeans, (and also the israelites), had been merrily sacrificing to allllll sorts of other gods and goddesses, and therefore, I suspect, being a priest of yhwh in the temple of the one god would no longer have been a sinecure. Which would have suckethed.

At least until hezekiah re-instituted the passover, (or not), and temple worship, (or not). Even given the absence of the book of the law.

Or not....

But, whatever was, or was not, going on in the interim, (are you as confused as I am?), according to 2 kings 22: 8 and 2 chronicles 34: 14, the book of the law was "accidentally discovered" during the renovation of the temple during the reign of hezekiahs great grandson, the "godly" king josiah. Who, being a godly king, promptly "re"imposed the six hundred however many laws of the book. He also - when he wasn't busy cutting down asherah, smashing altars, murdering priests, and then burning them, grinding their idols to powder, and scattering the bones and dust on their holy sites in order to desecrate them, (he sounds like a simply charming fellow) - re-instituted the temple sacrifices. (Which guaranteed the Priests all the free meat they could eat! ) [3]

Now while scholars argue over just exactly what "the book of the law" or "the book of the law of the lord given through moses" means, and whether is was the entire pentateuch, or maybe just deuteronomy, I'm going for the simple interpretation, everywhere else in the old testament the book of the law is the pentateuch in it's entirety. So there! [4]

So, to be honest, if I were arguing in a court of law, I believe I could make quite a strong  legal case that it is impossible to prove that "the book of the law" even existed prior to it's "discovery" during the renovation of the temple.

In the words of deep throat "follow the money".

Who stood to benefit most from the "re"imposition of the "law"?

Josiah and, most especially, the Priesthhood.

Nuff said.




[1] It has been a never ending source of annoyance and irritation to christians that the big wigs evidently considered the twelve tribes unworthy of either serious consideration, or notice, and so didn't mention them very often in their histories. Also, one would think that the sumerians and assyrians and various and sundry other peoples worldwide would have noticed things like the sun hanging motionless in the sky, or a planet wide flood - regarding which, please explain to me why there are unbroken written records spanning the time period during which, if the bible is true and the earth but 6,000 years old, the flood must have occurred - and mentioned them in their chronicles. And then there's the question of why the romans, who documented everything, (I mean, good lord, we even know when they took a good shit!), completely fail to mention the darkness at noon, the earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and wandering about the streets of jerusalem talking to people! (I mean, that's newsworthy! Why would they completely fail to mention that? Hmmm... I don't know. Maybe cause it didn't happen??)

[2] starting at gen 15: 5, 17:16 - 22, 29: 13 - 14, 46: 3, and maybe num 23:10

[3] Recent studies of the mummified bodies of egyptian priests show they often suffered from "diseases of affluence" i.e. atherosclerosis, caries, obesity, probably diabetes, etc etc. Priests ate very well since they got to (had to) eat the "leftovers" after the gods had "taken their share". So, even though the israelites didn't mummify their dead, and we therefore have none of their priests bodies to examine, it is absolutely certain the aaronite and levite priests ate very well since it was required by the law. I expect the priests even ate well during famines. At least until the peasants revolted.

[4] Actually, it wouldn't have been the pentateuch, but the quadrateuch, since deuteronomy is a very late addition to the books of the law. It was most likely composed during the reign of josiah himself as a polemic against the polytheism rampant in 6th century judah/israel, and as a divine justification for his brutal repression of the native polytheism of the common people. A divine mandate, shall I say, for his imposition of a remarkably intolerant monotheism, and his concentration of all power in the hands of the king, and the priests of the temple.