Thursday, July 4, 2013

Two Philological Questions connected to fallen angels (OK, a few more as I went on)

How is Satan "King of Tyrus"?

Luther and Rob Skiba would say he is not, but a very bad human king was. According to Rob Skiba it is one of the Seven Kings, one of whom returns as the eighth, the end-time Antichrist (Rob Skiba's list has them spaced out since his number 1 was Nimrod and his number 7 was Hitler, I have seen other lists where they immediately succeed each other). Now, a bad king and a king bad enough to fit into the Antichrist List of Kings are obviouly two different things. The latter comes very close to Satan. But the Patristic reading where the King of Tyre is "a fallen lucifer" or "a fallen morning star" in the sense of being a fallen angel or even THE fallen angel is not out of question. Not at all.

I went to a site discussing the probably upcoming advent of Antichrist, and up for discussion was also a novel series by C. S. Lewis. In it Satan or The Bent One is Oyarsa of Earth - not fallen out of orbit into the Sun, but fallen out of decent communication with other Oyerasu. This is of course according to the theory, in my opinion slightly heretical, that Earth orbist the Sun in the Third Heaven above or around it. I. e. according to heliocentrism.

In Geocentrism, Satan on Earth is not an Oyarsa. However, he may very well be former and deposed Oyarsa of Venus, a k a Phosphoros and Hesperos or Lucifer and Vesperus or Morning Star and Evening Star. Now of course Venus would have another Oyarsa.

What is an Oyarsa anyway? Well, in C. S. Lewis' novels (of the Space Trilogy) planets circle the Sun anyway (as modern Newtonian Heliocentrism would have it), the inhabited planets Mars, Earth and Venus have Oyerasu overseeing all their living and even rational bodies, themselves being spirits and directing the Eldila - angels - on those planets. In other words, Satan was once chief angel on Earth, and demons - bent eldila - are those who were loyal to him rather than to the ultimate loyalty, God. The Oyerasu of Jupiter and Saturn and Mercury have other, unknown functions.

And in the older medieval text, Ousiarches of a heavenly body - Ousiarches seems to have been misspelt as Oyarses in one manuscript - is simply the spirit, we Christians would say the angel, that turns or moves a heavenly body in whatever orbit it has.

In the case that the Biblical text applies to Satan rather than a mortal king, Satan could be former ousiarches of Venus. A Count rebels against his King, is exiled to a smaller hamlet, corrupts and emprisons the inhabitants ... he was of course not count of that hamlet. Although he makes himself its tyrant.

Now, is there any case for the text referring to Satan rather than to a very ancient antichrist? Well, a human being would hardly ever have been ousiarches of Venus. And in very many Christian and even Pre-Christian centuries that would have been a very natural reading of the verse.

But what about "king of Tyrus"? Well, some Pagan deities are so much more clearly Satanic than others. With Hercules and Aesculapius you may find it possible there were Greek Pagans who were after death deified. With Caesar and Augustus there is no doubt even. I like to add Odin, Frey* and Thor, possibly other Aesir, as well as Krishna to the Euhemeristic List of Pagan deities. There is also a Mistaken Theology and Philosophy List, such as Zeus as a caricature of the Most High or Helios a bad guess at the character of the ousiarches of the Sun.

But there is also a type of Pagan deities where one can say "that god's name means Satan and nothing else". Apollo (not necessarily Apollo-the-Father-of-Aesculapius, but Apollo of Delphi, Apollo Apollyon, Apollo of the Rats, Apollo of the Flies ... I am not making these up) is one candidate for "Satan showing the horsefoot" as far as Greek religion is concerned. And another one of these is "King-of-the-City" or Melkqart. If a god feeds on human flesh, it is Satan, no doubt about it. And in Tyre the deity known as Melkqart would in the usual semi-biblical context be called Moloch - consonants of Melk, vowels of the pronunciation Bopheth, meaning Excrement. But in Tyre that "gentleman" was known as Melkqart. "King of the City."

Of course that monstrousity can only have become so if some human king made it so. And that human king would of course fit very well into the Antichrist King List of Rob Skiba.

Can people of Nephelim stock be Christians and be saved?

According to Rob Skiba's research, Canaanite giants were there because Nephelim genes were particularly strong in Cham's son Canaan.

According to the legend, St Christopher - whose first name (or the nickname he later gave for his earlier life) was Reprobus, the reprobate, the damned (or heading-for-damnation) - was of uncommon heighth and precisely from Canaan. He started out badly, as could be expected from a Canaanite giant, from one called with some kind of justice Reprobus. He wanted to serve - not bad in itself - but he wanted to serve the mightiest king. Not the most kind to the poor. Not the most just. Not the best scholar nor the wisest. And - fortunately he was no faggot, I think - not the best looking either. But the mightiest.

He found out his king was afraid of Satan, so he decided to serve Satan instead, concluding he was the mightiest. If he had lived back in the days of a king in Tyrus, he might have stayed in that illusion. But someone had raised a cross because of Christ. (I just found out that four letters of God's name mean "hand - praise - nail - praise" - and Christ praised the Father while stretching out His hands to heal and also when stretching them out to have them pierced by nails.) And it so happened that Reprobus - who ceased to be so - saw his lord and master - who also ceased to be so - afraid. Just of a wooden cross or of a cross of stone or metal. "Hey, I thought you were the mightiest! Look on this crucified man, even his dead image scares the shit out of you! It's Him I'll serve, now!" And Satan had no power whatsoever to call Reprobus back.

The giant went to find anyone who could tell him anything about the man on the cross. He found a hermit who baptised him. Possibly his baptismal name was Christopher, since he had carried the cross to the hermit. But he was later to merit the name in another way. You see, although it was a very bright idea to serve Christ instead of Satan, it was hardly one that squeezed for space with lots of other bright ideas in the brain of Christopher.

"I'm afraid giants are very stupid, even those with only one head."

Now, what could he do? Christ was not exactly down on earth giving Christopher orders, as his king had been and as Satan had been. And knowing himself what to do best was not his forte. Hermit kindly suggested that as he was big and strong he could be a ferry man.** And one day the ferry man carried on his shoulder a child. A child whom we celebrate December 25, and the ferry man's martyrdom was one July 25. How did St Christopher know it was the Christ child he had carried?

First of all, the child was heavier than any other man he had carried across that stream. So he wondered and asked. You carried the weight of the sins of the world, said the child. He identified Himself as the lamb of God there. Second, as Christopher was not in a hurry to believe he had received this honour, he asked the giant to plant his dead staff in the ground. It took on branches and leaves and life.

Why I am a traddy trad Catholic.

By the liturgic reform of Paul VI, St Christopher was taken away from the feasts that the Church must celebrate. Same as with St Barbara. I learned this very sad fact from one Barbara who after liturgic reform of Catholic Church (or of what appeared to remain so) went on to become Russian Orthodox.

Did Satan owe anything to St Christopher?

We know that St Christopher owed nothing to Satan after he had discovered Satan's pretence of being the mightiest ws sham. But did Satan owe anything to St Christopher for that?

Well, it seems Satan promised Our Lord kingdoms if Our Lord would adore him. Our Lord refused. Reprobus for a while did not refuse. Reprobus had paid exactly the same price as Nimrod had paid and as Antichrist will have paid, except that he had not continued to do so up to damning himself. Now, Christopher himself was no king. But was he ancestor of kings?

Well, he was a giant. In Anglosaxon the word for giant is eotan. In Swedish it is jette. Both words mean, basically, glutton. Anyone who think Reprobus was chaste while both serving an earthly king and serving satan and on both occasions over eating even considering a giant's need of calories? Not me. And I do not think he was sophisticated or bad enough to "protect himself" against making babies either.

Christian Kingdoms may have come into existance because Kingship was by now owed by Satan to St Christopher and his family. And because as intercessor (under Christ) for his family, he made sure they were eventually Christians. He was himself killed by one King Decius (not necessarily identic to Roman Emperor Decius who persecuted c. anno 250) and as to local kingships under Pagan Roman Empire, we do not know enough to claim this must have been wrong. I am even prepared to say Constantine may well have been grandson and St Helen daughter to King Cole of Colchester.*** So anyway, St Christopher was killed during a still Pagan kingship. But not very long before there were Christian Kings - Ethiopia, Armenia, Rome itself ... Kings all over the place started helping the Apostles' Successors to make disciples of all Nations.

Of course I am not denying that Kingship ultimately belongs to God and to Jesus Christ through both His Divinity and His Humanity as well as His Conquest over Satan. Christian Kingdoms would have been there even without St Christopher and even without his earlier errors. But the exact timing? I do not know.

Can not quite human possible nephelim descendants be Christians?

We do not quite know. If they really do descend from nephelim, they should descend from Adam as well.

Fauns and Centaurs - well, Rob Skiba has made a certain possible argument about their origin - seem to have come in sometimes good behaving individuals. As I spoke of King Decius and of Caesar Decius the persecuting Emperor, that reminds me of St Paul the First Hermit. Who in year 250 fled into the Egyptian desert. When St Anthony wanted to visit him, he met a Centaur who showed the way and a Faun who cried bitter tears after learning about idolatry given by Egyptian or other Pagans to the Fauns.°

Should aliens be regarded as coming from other planets and as having evolved more than we?

No.

Either they are demons outright, or some funny version of the mixed up nephelim theme. But as for "other stars than sun" having around them other planets inhabitable as earth is inhabitable ... to a Geocentric this is science fiction. Or Moon Shine of the worst kind. We have no geometric guarantee for stars being so distant that planets are so big. If we believe stars as well as planets have ousiarchai, we seem to have no physical guarantee that some of the exoplanets exist even.

Gliese 667 C°° may be circled with seven planets (of which Gliese 667 Cb) and be moving funnily because of that, if Heliocentrism and Newton are all right. But if ousiarchai are all right, Gliese 667 C may be moving funnily because that is the way its ousiarches is moving it. So I would not believe aliens claiming to come from there, nor recommend you to do so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Queen St Isabel of Aragon, widow
Died in Estremoz in 1336,
Canonised by Pope Urban VIII
4th of July 2013

Links on Geocentrism:

Geometric possibility, or why trigonometry does not prove light years for a Geocentric:

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications

Physical possibility, or why stars and planets may move except from gravitational and inertial causes:

hanslundahl (livejournal) : Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor

Footnotes:

*Yngwe "Frey" with his father Njord and stepfather Oden is pretty undisputed human ancestor of King St Olaf Tryggvason. My hunch about The Black (the charioteer of Arjoona, known to Hindoos as "Lord" Krishna, "Lord the Black") is that he may well have been some man or nephelim living before the Flood in the Wars of Noah of which Ethiopian Book of Henoch (or some other of them or "Book of Jasher the Midrash") tells more than Genesis does. And that Cham's wife was of his line, so that his descendants in India - Flood minimisers, like Egyptian believers in a merely Atlantis targetted flood - remembered him for that reason.

**Odin had appeared as a ferry-man too, although that might have been so late it was not the man but Satan taking his appearance, so it was poetic justice that if a probably real reprobate of probably nephelim tainted stock was ferry-man, so should the former reprobate of very probably nephelim stock be so.

***As Chesterton pointed out, if other sources claim St Helen was daughter of an innkeeper, what we know about Old King Cole is quite compatible with his being innkeeper as well - either on occasion of his kingship in Colchester or on occasion of some loss of fortune and exile from Colchester. Except that back then it was of course not called Colchester, that is a name it got after him - whatever Cole may have been in Latin or in British. As to English, it was not yet an extant language. And "he called for his bowl and he called for his pipe and he called for his fiddlers three" contains a delicious anachronism in the history of musical instruments.

° "I am such a bad faun" - if you can place that scene. It's in C. S. Lewis, but not the Space Trilogy.

°° In the constellation of Scorpio, btw. Just as the star first observed with "yearly aberration of light" was observed in Draco.

1 comment:

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

I may have been simply wrong about my guesses what "postquam enim" correspond to in Hebrew.

I say this after seeing what Rob Skiba has written about the Hebrew relative conjunction or pronoun asher. (who, when, because ... quite a range of meanings or meaningful translations)