===============================================
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 of 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 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 is unacceptable:
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 created the principal
founding stone of Christianism.
Indeed, as we shall see, the whole edifice of
Christianism has been erected upon the erroneous
term "Son of Man".
Rather to 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
these 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 Matthews 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,
Maupassant, Mann, 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 was assisted by a Specific Domain
of Reason (see Historical Foundations of RD.),
namely Law, emancipated in Rome, 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 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 LORD OF LAW
Such "God's Law" is necessarily revealed, absolute
and dogmatic.
We do not perceive God directly but discover His Law
via perceivable 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 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"
(see "Meaningless Generalities" and "Dogma and Axiom").
This "Virtue" justified the Terror which lasted nine
months and made several thousand victims.
Lenin needed the full blown meaningless, dogmatic
pseudo-hegelian dialectic of Engels 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 Christian-ism 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, if not all atrocities and
genocides committed by our civilization either directly
in the name of Christian-ism, 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 Christian-ism, 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 involvements 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 (see "Foundations in Ontology"). We say there:
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 I have killed
a blackmailer in order to save a family and my Conscience
tells me that I was right.
One may object that such "Rational Religion" is a contradictio
in adiectum, that it is unconceivable and unknown in practice.
We shall answer 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 Béziers 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 somebody playing with shells on the ocean
shore.
Shells represent scientific theories. Ocean represents the unknown
Marvelous from where the Shells came and new ones will come.
It is absurd, like pseudo science does, to restrict the Universe
to a few Shells and to deny the Ocean.
But it is equally absurd, like most religions do, to infer 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 true gist
of Rabbi Yeshua's message.
===============================================