Temple Illuminatus

What Started the Nonsense of “Today”?

     Readers of my prior installments will know that I’ve already elaborated upon why Exodus does not seem to align with “world history” and why the Gospels have most likely undergone manipulation upon seemingly-minor points of “history”. What I have not elaborated upon are certain facts pertaining to theology.

     The following points of reference are items which a Wikipedia article on “The Tower of Babel” mentions:

  1. One source mentions the author’s opinion that Nabopolassar, king of Babylonia (c. 610 BCE), is the source of the account of the Tower of Babel, and that Alexander the Great ordered it demolished circa 331 BCE.
  2. The phrase "Tower of Babel" does not appear in the Bible; it is always "the city and the tower". The 1st-century Jewish interpretation found in Flavius Josephus explains the construction of the tower as a hubristic act of defiance against God ordered by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod. There have, however, been some contemporary challenges to this classical interpretation, with emphasis placed on the explicit motive of cultural and linguistic homogeneity mentioned in the narrative (v. 1, 4, 6).[14] This reading of the text sees God's actions not as a punishment for pride, but as an etiology of cultural differences, presenting Babel as the cradle of civilization. The account in Genesis makes no mention of any destruction of the tower. The people whose languages are confounded were simply scattered from there over the face of the Earth and stopped building their city.
  3. However, in other sources, such as the Book of Jubilees (chapter 10 v.18–27), Cornelius Alexander (frag. 10), Abydenus (frags. 5 and 6), Josephus (Antiquities 1.4.3), and the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 117–129), God overturns the tower with a great wind. In the Midrash, it said that the top of the tower was burnt, the bottom was swallowed, and the middle was left standing to erode over time.
  4. Genesis 11:8–9 implies that God scattered the descendants of Noah listed in Chapter 10 of Genesis (the Table of Nations) over the face of the earth from Shinar only after the abandonment of the city. Some see an internal contradiction between the earlier mention in Genesis 10:5 that "From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with his own language" and the subsequent Babel story, which begins "Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words" (Genesis 11:1). However, this view presupposes a rigid chronological sequence of 10:5 and 11:1, whereas the traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation holds that 10:5 refers to the same later scattering as mentioned more fully in 11:9. An alternative resolution to the apparent contradictory material of Genesis 10:5 and 11:8–9 comes with the documentary hypothesis, which suggests different sources for those verses. Biblical scholars holding to the hypothetical four-source origins of Genesis (J, E, P, D) regard 10:5 as coming from the Priestly (P) text source and 11:8–9 (and actually the entirety of the Babel narrative) as from the Jahwist source (J).
  5. Tradition attributes the whole of the Pentateuch to Moses; however, in the late 19th century, the documentary hypothesis was proposed by Julius Wellhausen.[17] This hypothesis proposes four sources: J, E, P and D. Of these hypothetical sources, proponents suggest that this narrative comes from the J or "Yahwist source". The etiological nature of the narrative (see Genre above) is considered typical of J. In addition, the intentional word play regarding the city of Babel, and the noise of the people's "babbling" is found in the Hebrew words as easily as in English, and is considered typical of the "Yahwist source."


You will note, if you check the Wikipedia entry under “Tower of Babel” for yourself, that the documentary hypothesis “breaks down” upon review. I don’t entirely agree with that, but find it far more likely that the documentary hypothesis is “not entirely de-bugged”. How much of this critical analysis is motivated by a genuine search for the truth, and how much would actually be motivated by one or more individuals who don’t want ANY truth in the Bible at all? While there is a beneficial purpose possible to critical analysis, there is also a potential adverse purpose – the disproving of any truth to it at all.

         While it IS possible that some editing, abridging, and the like occurred, it is not as likely as that some pro-“Christian”, or even atheistic, later proposed these ideas as possible ways to undermine any acceptance of Judaeo-Christian concepts [I am writing this to address the possible motives at work, not to pertain to the actual facts, so let’s pass on “inconsistency, inconsistency”, as this is for the sake of a discussion of motives, thank you]. After all, have you not seen multiple examples in “real” life of people accusing others, when the accusers were actually worse than those they accused? However, I presented them so the reader may examine the evidence for him/herself and decide, in the interests of a fair examination. For the specifics, you’ll need to go do your own research. Perhaps, if you ask me nicely, I’ll even tell you what books I read (if you’re a Facebook friend, all you have to do is look at my wall).


     I had encountered some of these considerations during earlier researching, but had forgotten them (maybe that’s not such a bad thing, sometimes – at least I don’t “miss the forest for the trees”). Actually, the reasons which brought me to search all of this out was that I was encountering hardly anyone but detractors of Christianity. That might not have bothered me all that much, but when that’s ALL that one encounters, except for so-called believers content with a mindless faith, one starts to pay the ideas presented by said detractors more attention. I had encountered various problems with my own application of my beliefs, also. While I don’t have excess ego, it’s not much of a belief if I don’t share it, is it?

     Several years ago, I’d had the point keep nagging at me that a lot of the problems which I’d started to encounter arose from whatever truly occurred at the Tower of Babel. Then, in 2009, I read Carlos Barrios’ book The Mayan Book of Destiny. The Mayans had, in one of their clans, a rather gifted visionary known as Pacal Botan (or Votan?). His “inaugural” vision was that of a tower at which the languages of all the people there became confused (Senor Barrios did not specifically mention the Genesis reference, though).  It’s interesting that Pacal died in 999 CE, and some time later their calendar reference begins the next year with the reference “One Reed Quetzalcoatl” (the plumed serpent god which ordered the discontinuation of human sacrifice in religious practice).

       A book which I’d read previously, entitled The Mayan Factor by Jose Arguelles, places the beginning of the Mayan calendar at Aug. 6, 3,113 BCE. Senor Barrios referred to Senor Arguelles’ book in his book a bit critically upon the motivation(s) of Senor Arguelles, but did not refute the starting point of the Mayan calendar at which Mr. Arguelles arrived. Upon examination, however, it is obvious that Mr. Arguelles shows some inconsistency upon certain occurrences of history in his comparative timeline. Perhaps someone needs to check his math?

       Why would this calendar be needed? For one, the Maya needed to keep track of the seasons, since they seemed to migrate as the seasons turned. If you accept that it wasn’t just for them, and if you’ve ever investigated the accuracy of certain European calendars (the Roman calendars were some of the least accurate), then the reason(s) become(s) obvious. A shortcut for present-day mystery-solvers – but, if that’s really the “divine” reason for it, then the question becomes “does the calendar start date signify the Tower of Babel incident or when the world was divided?” Or did both occur simultaneously? Questions, questions…

       One thing seems sure – present-day accounts (at least as we have them) seem over-simplified. But, assuming that the “texts” were largely unaltered, that seems to imply that what happened at the Tower caused the subdivisions within the human psyche itself into the conscious, sub-conscious, and un-conscious minds (perhaps “psychic subdivisions” might be a better term). If humans indeed lived so long before the Tower and human lifespans shortened to 1/8th of what they were, then the subdivisions are mandated, not just implied. It may be likely that these accounts were “abridged” to shorten the accounting of the involved processes which actually occurred, but that presents other difficulties upon consideration.

       Considering the “theological” factions which contributed to the Bible as we have it today, as itemized earlier, the possibilities are probably more numerous than I had first been willing to consider. But a general précis presented itself to me, which I attribute to Spirit (or Akasha, if you prefer the ancient Sanskrit term).

        Beings came from elsewhere, and primitive humans called them gods and goddesses. These beings intermarried with humans (Greek mythology seems to corroborate this), and from the Book of Enoch I read that they taught their mates their own metaphysical lore as well as some scientific knowledge; hence, the advancement of ancient civilizations in comparison with their neighbors.

Their offspring opposed them (a synthesis of Nordic mythology [Frost Giants vs. the Aesir] and Genesis), giving rise to what truly happened at that “Tower”. Obviously, there seems to be some confusion as to which Tower was the original and which ones were “copies”. One of them had been constructed with various crystals incorporated into its structure – this one was most likely the original (I saw an excerpt of a documentary of what certain scholars believe to be the Tower of Babel, but missed its actual location).

         As for the mates of “those from beyond” (for lack of a better term), they became the first “witches” and/or “warlocks”, “mystics”, “metaphysicians”, and such. If they used what they were taught (which seems likely to me) to give their offspring every advantage possible, this might account for why they were called “giants”. It has been observed, however, that “superior ability breeds superior ambition”, but the interbreeding may have produced certain genetic flaws – a phenomenon which sometimes occurs in any genetic manipulations, necessitating “culling”.

         Actually, what I believe happened is that the “True Creator” observed all of this and finally decided “Maybe I’d better do it myself or these creations will believe anything”, but chose a specific people for Himself/Herself (actually, either term fits for me – that which created both genders would have the properties of both, yes?).

        Unfortunately, one of the main problems which any Creator would encounter is the tendency of the audience to only accept the communiqués in terms of what they wanted to accept (sometimes a problem in transmitting absolute concepts to beings of limited experience and/or capability). Attempting to translate this from the language in which the ideas originated presents another set of problems, as some ideas don’t translate into other languages/cultures well. For an example, are you aware that Greenlandic has no word for “now”? They always live in “now”, so they had no need for the word.

         Then there is that unfortunate tendency which “proto-Hebrews” had to argue over what to believe. When you couple that with their gratitude to YHWH for their liberation from Egypt, instead of simply acknowledging that YHWH had “it’s” (sorry, English has no gender-inclusive pronouns) own reasons for freeing the proto-Israelites, and you get a people who worried way too much about what they OUGHT to believe. Considering the following centuries and how they had all that trouble in keeping it simple, all the resulting captivities from the neighboring countries, empires, and the way their rabbis kept deciding how their teachings were to be applied, and you get a better idea of why such attempts at “thought- and emotion-control” was deemed necessary.

         Unfortunately, they garbled the Creator’s initial intent – only a Masonically-inspired comparison of the major systems of belief can actually yield a truer perception of “what God meant”. There’ve been too many editors attempting to redefine it in terms of “how they wish to believe” – all too often trying to tell others of different beliefs “we’re saved, you’re not”. They missed the intent by forgetting about provisions for those who would attach themselves to Israel, and later “Christianity” (I put it in quotes because many claim it without living it).

         There are a lot of truisms contained within the Bible (Tanakh, for the Jews), but I’ve had to accept that accounts of events prior to the Tower of Babel are to be rendered as allegorical/etiological. Unfortunately, since the Jahvists “won” a lot of the control over the composition of the Torah, they got started on a really bad habit – suppression of different ideas from other factions. This habit repeated in the formation of early Christianity, of which Yeshua warned would occur, but obliquely (I believe so He wouldn’t actually cause it to be, but rather as a tacit acceptance that “history repeats itself”). The early rabbinical councils put too much emphasis on the notion that “names have power”, but that wasn’t supposed to lead to quibbling over labels – not too much, anyway. Even with God, beware gratitude. That is to say, don’t let it make you lose your head – or if you really want to, at least be sure you’re ready to accept the consequences, eh?

          I understand that all of that, especially the subsequent bad track record of what evolved into Roman Catholicism, led to a lot of people today not wanting to believe ANY of it. However, analyze the various factions and their specific agendas, and it eventually surfaces that psychological profiling and recognition that people still, after all this time, don’t seem to understand that power and control are largely illusory, and people who chase after these things all seem to be more miserable than it’s really worth. I usually manage to remember that until I encounter a notion that gets me to wondering “Where the flock did they get THAT idea?” And occasionally, the “beast” tries to push me into folly. Frankly, though at some later time the Revelatory prophecy refers to an actual being, for the most part at present it refers more to the idea of the “collective human unconscious”.

          Once one matures in one’s chosen metaphysical practice, collective memories start to attempt to influence one into remembering things from aeons past. Unfortunately, at least in my instances of this, the recollections are presented in a haphazard fashion – much as a wounded animal will lash out at any approaching aminal (HA), whether it would try to help it or not. It’s been, in my particular case, disjointed, without coherence, and emphasizing only the more-traumatic aspects of many hidden truths. As secrets have a cost, so, too, does the uncovering of secrets have its own cost. Supposedly, this would mean that “Akasha” surmised that I have been too accepting of certain traumatic occurrences and took drastic measures to put me back in touch with my own aminal nature. It had to listen to a lot of railing accusations in the process, though. If it’s going to take that sort of approach with one who would be balanced in all things, I owe it no apology, either.

If it doesn’t like that idea, it ought to remember that I didn’t like what happened to ME, either, so NYAH!

          Ancestral memory, collective memory, and such are actually REAL and valid psychological concepts. If you’ve not experienced it yet, just wait… For some (especially we of the Sang Real), a lot of us will, very likely, need to wring order out of the haphazard presentation by which said “collective human unconscious” afflicts us. Of course, if I saved others the trouble… it is what it is.

It might not have chosen such a haphazard method were it not for the various cosmological aspects of “Satan”, “Ahriman” from the Persian pantheon, “Loki” from the Norse pantheon, etc. You get the picture now, right? Of course, I’m convinced that if I succeeded in that, I couldn’t have done it without the aid of my Savior/ancestor, Yeshua. (No, He didn’t come right out and tell me, that item He left to me to work out. I guess it was His prescription for clearing my mental/emotional pathways.) He had Mary Magdalene (“Pope” Gregory made a false assumption about that, which Webster’s Dictionary perpetuated – probably others, too), His female CO-EQUAL, to help Him right an ancient wrong committed against the last Egyptian king, by ONE of his ancestors (not sure if Mary Magdalene shared that ancestry from Levi, but Jason Maccabeus was Her family’s scion – read the Maccabees accounts – this is my suspicion, anyway). I covered those highlights in earlier installments.

         These points ought to make my stance clear. At this time, further writing doesn’t interest me, I’ve got too many “mundane” projects to occupy my time now. I could not consider the matter settled until I wrote this. Plenty have confused the matters of substance which life itself requires, so I had to make my effort to REMOVE the confusion – Yeshua really just wanted to clarify the First Covenant with the Hebrews, later the Jews (as they were called after the rest of Israel seemed to disappear).

         Aside from recent revisions, I’ve largely left these three installments as initially written, except for the inclusion of a tidbit which I acquired from reading Jeannie Boudreau Richards’ first installment concerning “the rest of the information about the Savior’s life, including that of His ‘Companion’”. Naturally, this caused me to slightly revise a conclusion, or a few of them at which I’d arrived, since I’d forgotten one thing about “the nature of nations”, either fledgling ones and/or small ones. Not a bad accomplishment for one who had to compile a 3P (“possible prime projection”, a term which readers of Frank Herbert will recognize), while simultaneously emerging from a form of madness simultaneously-similar to each of those to which Shalomon and Nebuchadnezzar were respectively subjected – professional/clinical psychologists would find this a subject which might have the potential to vastly expand the popularly-accepted present level to which modern psychology has risen, to date. My own unique case study has given me much opportunity for reflection and review – whether I’d wanted that or not (more often than not, NOT). Ar ar. So I am done for now – at least until more discoveries are achieved. Til then, Shalom and Amen.


Views: 12

Comments are closed for this blog post

Have questions?

Need help? Visit our Support Group for help from our friendly Admins and members!

Have you?

Become a Member
Invited Your Friends
Made new Friends
Read/ Written a Blog
Joined/ Created a Group
Read/ Posted a Discussion
Checked out the Chat
Looked at/Posted Videos
Made a donation this month
Followed us on Twitter
Followed us on Facebook


Please consider a donation to help with our continued growth and site costs


Visit The Temple
on Facebook:


Blog Posts


Posted by Rosey on May 28, 2017 at 5:37pm 0 Comments

Nocturnus's Poetry

Posted by Nocturnus Light on May 28, 2017 at 4:01pm 1 Comment

Dark Tides of Eden

Posted by Edonai on May 27, 2017 at 2:30pm 1 Comment


Posted by Rosey on May 22, 2017 at 3:16pm 0 Comments


Posted by Rosey on May 21, 2017 at 2:59pm 2 Comments

My changes in photos 2

Posted by Skiye )O( on May 20, 2017 at 7:57pm 0 Comments

My changes in photos

Posted by Skiye )O( on May 20, 2017 at 7:55pm 0 Comments

~~this months awareness~~

© 2017   Created by Bryan   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service