Tonight's listen—GLOCK: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett
An Austrian curtain-rod maker with zero gun experience designed the Glock. Beat out legendary manufacturers like Steyr and Heckler & Koch. Won the Austrian military contract. Then came to America and became America's gun—police, hip-hop, Hollywood. Corporate backstabbing, strippers marketing guns to cops, assassination attempt—reads like a thriller but it's all real. This book is so good... you can't make this shit up.
#IKITAO
Enjoy.
You created this post with ulterior motives. Maybe just speak your mind? I understand how hard it is to work through these things, and I wish you all the best.
Sounds like some inner work in your future. Much love. I wish you all the best 🙏🏼🫂💜
Disco rocks.
Like your mom?
"Weird Al" Yankovic - It's All About The Pentiums
YT
https://youtu.be/qpMvS1Q1sos?si=pfSRsg8-2KwngSBh
#WeirdAlYankovic #Music
Loreena McKennitt - The Mummers' Dance
YT
https://youtu.be/9z5p6EkTtfc?si=9-uAE7x6UBDu672R
#IKITAO #LoreenaMcKennitt #Music
I also regularly revisit the bulk of his work. The book is even better. I own the DVDs, but as far as I have seen, the quality on archive is better.
Yes. Greek couldn't handle Hebrew/Aramaic sounds (no "sh" sounds, required masculine "-s" ending; couldn't end in "a" sound), so both became Iesous. That's the problem - Greek flattened the original distinctions, changing the name.
Aramaic Yeshua (Joshua) → Greek Iesous → Latin Iesus → Spanish Jesús / English Jesus
No. It's not like that. Spanish Jesús and English Jesus both derive from Greek Iesous.
His name was Yeshua (Aramaic form of Hebrew Yehoshua). Joshua comes directly from Hebrew Yehoshua.
They are not even remotely the same name. Jesus is the result of Greek and Latin transliteration. It is a transliteration of a transliteration—not his name at all.
No. It isn't. Yeshua is closer to Joshua.
Thank you for sharing that. The naga/serpent symbolism across traditions is definitely worth exploring... you're right that I'm studying and can speak Sanskrit and Chinese, and those archetypal connections interest me.
I haven't gone down the Churchward/Mu rabbit hole, so I can't speak to those claims. My practice has been working with texts in their original languages: Aramaic (Peshitta), Greek (Thomas), Sanskrit, Pali, classical Chinese etc—and then exploring their mystical dimensions.
Translation always loses something. You have to go to the source language to find the depth of meaning.
What draws me to the Aramaic debate around shabaqtani is that we can examine the actual manuscript and see how one root word authentically carries multiple meanings. That kind of textual ambiguity creates space for mystical interpretation without requiring unverifiable historical claims.
The serpent appears everywhere: kundalini, Eden, the caduceus. Those symbols speak to something real in human consciousness, regardless of whether there was a continent called Mu.
In the end, words, symbols, and myths are just pointers. People worship the pointers, build shrines to them, but don't actually go where they are pointing. As far as religious institutional control is concerned, this is it.
Someone can describe the experience of a beautiful sunrise from the mountaintop, but words cannot give you that experience. Until you're standing there yourself, you have to rely on belief in the experience of others.
The guru is only there as a guide, to help you find your own path up the mountain. Once you have your own experience, there's no need to believe in the experience of others. You have the experience, the direct realization. This is the real teaching.
Thank you. Are you familiar with George M. Lamsa's translation of the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic of the Peshitta?
I have multiple translations of the Bible, and they all provide valuable insights, but I've found this one to be particularly illuminating in many ways.
There's a compelling—yet controversial—argument about "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" around how we interpret the Aramaic words themselves.
Traditional version (Matthew 27:46):
Greek: ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι
Transliteration: eli eli lama sabachthani
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The Peshitta Aramaic text (used by both traditional translators AND Lamsa):
ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ
Traditional interpretation of this Aramaic:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Lamsa's interpretation of the same Aramaic:
"My God, my God, for this purpose I was spared!"
The debate centers on two Aramaic words:
ܠܡܢܐ (lemana) - Does this mean "why" or "for what purpose"?
ܫܒܩܬܢܝ (shabaqtani) - The root word shabaq has multiple valid meanings: "to leave, to abandon, to forsake" AND "to allow, to permit, to spare, to keep for a purpose."
Mainstream scholars translate it as "why have you forsaken me" because Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1, where the context is abandonment.
Lamsa and others argue that if Jesus meant total abandonment, he would have used taatani (forsaken because unwanted) or nashatani (forgotten). The choice of shabaq suggests "left for a purpose" rather than "carelessly abandoned."
Both interpretations are linguistically valid... it's a question of context and theology.
You're right... a mystic teacher crying out about abandonment at the moment of his purpose? That makes no sense theologically.
"This is my destiny" is much more in alignment than "God abandoned me."
I also recommend checking out Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels by Lamsa.
Thank you. Many years ago, long before founding IKITAO, I was on my way to becoming a CSL minister... Dr. Holmes got it. We're not here to worship the example. We're here to become it.
I hear you, and on the theology, we're on the same page.
I still remember the day I ran out to buy a first edition hardback copy of Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels.
And this wonderful quote...
"How can we tell the truth from lies? What is genuine, and thus connects us with one another and with reality, and what is shallow, self-serving, and evil? Anyone who has seen foolishness, sentimentality, delusion, and murderous rage disguised as God’s truth knows that there is no easy answer to the problem that the ancients called discernment of spirits. Orthodoxy tends to distrust our capacity to make such discriminations and insists on making them for us. Given the notorious human capacity for self-deception, we can, to an extent, thank the church for this. Many of us, wishing to be spared hard work, gladly accept what tradition teaches."
Elegant writing. Condescending message! She's critiquing the church for not trusting you to discern truth... while implying most people can't be bothered! Classic.
The teachings in Thomas... the kingdom within, discovering your own divine nature, self-knowledge as the path. This resonates way more with what a Jewish mystical teacher focused on enlightenment would actually have been teaching.
However...
When scholars date ancient texts, they look at when other writers first reference them, manuscript evidence, linguistic patterns, theological development. The earliest mentions of Thomas come from the late 2nd century. The papyrus fragments we have date around 200 CE. The Nag Hammadi manuscript is 4th century.
Could Thomas contain earlier oral traditions? Sure. That's what Pagels argues; the compiled text (90-140 CE) probably includes some early material mixed with later stuff. But we can't date the text earlier than the evidence allows.
On Thomas being Q... some have suggested it, but here's the problem: Thomas shows signs of knowing the synoptic gospels. When it shares sayings with Matthew and Luke, it often reflects their editorial changes. That means the version—at least as we currently have it—came after them, not before.
Ehrman points out that Thomas lacks the apocalyptic urgency that marks the earliest Jesus material. The synoptic gospels present Yeshua preaching that the kingdom is coming soon. Thomas presents the kingdom as already here, within you.
Ehrman sees that as a later theological development, but it could just as easily show that the original mystical teaching got changed into apocalyptic urgency by the early church.
So while I agree... the theology in Thomas is most likely closer to what he actually taught. But the text itself, as we have it, was compiled later.
The tradition is older than the documents.
My favorite line from the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 70):
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
Thank you. Excellent question.
The gospels were written 40-70 years after Yeshua's death... that's when the texts themselves were composed by anonymous communities.
The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't added until the 2nd century. And they weren't officially canonized as scripture until the 4th century councils.
Three separate timelines. The writing, the attribution, and the canonization all happened centuries apart.
Mark was written first, around 70 CE. Matthew and Luke came later, around 80-85 CE, and scholars believe both authors used Mark as their source; along with a hypothetical lost document they call Q. John was written last, around 90-100 CE.
None of these authors knew each other. None of them met Yeshua. They were compiling oral traditions and earlier written fragments decades after his death, each shaped by the theological concerns of their own communities.
As for the Gnostic gospels—Thomas, Philip, Mary, Judas—those came even later. Most scholars (including Bart D. Ehrman) date them to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well after the canonical gospels.
Some scholars like Elaine Pagels argue that Thomas may contain early oral traditions, but even she dates the text as we have it to around 90-140 CE at the earliest.
While some Gnostic texts, like Thomas (one of my favorites), may preserve early material, most scholars see them as reflecting later theological developments rather than earlier eyewitness accounts.
In all of my minimalist/essentialist teachings there is one thing I have a hard time with. I have a hard time letting go of a good book.
Words cannot contain the truth, at best they can only point to it. Even after I have absorbed the teaching, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for the medium.
Some things are worth keeping. Books bring me joy, but living the teaching brings me more.
You can believe this - a variation on the Serpent's theme of "Did God really say...?" - or you can embrace the interpretation of the devil that Christ gives us:
```
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
```
[Jhn 8:40-44](https://blb.sc/002lwc)
There is no mixing or blending of Christianity with gnosticism. They are mutually exclusive.
This has nothing to do with Gnosticism versus the faith tradition created many years later in the name of Jesus... though, they didn't even get that right. His name wasn't Jesus.
The name Jesus came from a series of translations and transliterations. He was known in Aramaic, his mother tongue, as Yeshua Bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph).
We haven't even begun to talk about Gnosticism.
Anyone who has studied mythology and symbology for any length of time will immediately recognize the motifs running throughout the Bible. These patterns show up across cultures and spiritual traditions, centuries before Christianity existed.
You're quoting John 8 to interpret Genesis. I'm reading Genesis as it stands.
Genesis 3:22: God confirms the serpent told the truth. "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
You can interpret that through later theology created by the founders of Christianity and the religion they created ABOUT Yeshua, or you can read what the creation myth of Genesis actually says.
The Genesis narrative has multiple source traditions woven together. Scholars identify at least two distinct authorial hands in the text, though some argue for four separate sources commonly known as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly).
The tale is rich with ancient symbology that predates later theological interpretations, similar to how the story of Noah and the great flood is not unique to Judaism or Christianity. That story has been used throughout multiple spiritual traditions to symbolize the washing away of the old and the ushering in of the new.
The gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written 40 to 70 years after Yeshua by anonymous communities, not by the disciples themselves. This is standard teaching in seminaries.
The names were added in the second century by church tradition, which is often done in religions to manufacture scriptural authority. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Reading a book rich with symbology, mythology, and parable as literal fact is to miss the mark. And that book, those teachings of Yeshua, are about you.
Hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is a Greek archery term that translates to missing the mark, which has been translated into the English word sin. Think about that.
To combine the Tanakh (Old Testament) and what has become called the New Testament in the same book is also to miss the mark.
The Tanakh speaks of the Judeo Father God who gets angry, becomes wrathful and vengeful, who teaches an eye for an eye.
The teachings of Yeshua were much more radical for the time. He taught to love one's neighbor as oneself, to help the needy, the concept of agape love, and that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
These teachings are much more in alignment with the Buddha, who lived 500 years before the birth of Yeshua.
These two books do not come from the same religion. When Yeshua referenced the Tanakh, he did so as any Jewish teacher would, citing scripture while teaching his radically different message of self-realization and enlightenment.
Yeshua himself never wrote anything. He wasn't a Christian. He knew nothing of the religion that would be created in his name in the years and decades after his death.
He was a Jewish mystic teaching direct experience of the divine, showing others they too could realize their unity with God.
Yeshua explicitly taught this.
Luke 17:20-21: The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say see here or see there. For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.
John 14:12: Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these.
Psalm 82:6, which Yeshua quotes in John 10:34: I said, you are gods. You are all sons of the Most High.
1 Corinthians 3:16: Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?
But the religion created later flipped his message. Yes, he taught you how to awaken. Yes, he said the kingdom is within you and you're capable of what he did, and greater.
But the institution said forget all that. You're a sinner. He's special. You're not. Just believe in him, accept the sacrifice, and he'll handle everything. No inner work required.
You are God's beautiful creation... tainted at birth by original sin. You'll never be what Yeshua taught that you already are, but do your best. Show up. Tithe. Let the institution mediate your relationship with God.
Yeshua spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The gospels were written in Greek decades after his death by people who never met him.
Most English Bibles translate from those Greek texts, which means the words attributed to Yeshua have already passed through one language barrier.
The Peshitta preserves an Aramaic tradition closer to the language Yeshua actually spoke, but the version most English speakers read has been filtered through Greek theological concepts that didn't exist in his Jewish mystical context.
Just like the Buddha 500 years before, they turned a teacher of self-realization and enlightenment into an object of worship; declared that his attainment was beyond your grasp, and called anyone who actually followed his teaching a heretic.
#IKITAO #Moxie #Sphynx #Cat
Thank you. I previewed it, and it sounds interesting. Books and discourses can point the way beautifully. Between my studies, sharing, and living the mystery, most of my time goes to the latter. I've added it to the list.
Yes. The serpent represents immortal energy—the life force shedding death to be reborn. In yoga, it's kundalini rising through the spine.
The snake is the symbol of life throwing off the past and continuing to live. It's why the Rod of Asclepius—the symbol of medicine—bears the serpent: healer, regenerator, life itself.
Most cultures recognized this power; the Bible is the only tradition that turned the serpent into evil.
You're reading a single cultural interpretation of a universal myth. The Christ story itself echoes the eternal pattern: the descent of consciousness into matter, the hero's journey through suffering, death, and rebirth. This isn't unique to Christianity—it's Osiris, Dionysus, Persephone returning from the underworld.
These aren't competing claims of the truth—they're the same story wearing different cultural masks. The "catastrophe requiring a Redeemer" is the descent into duality. The Redeemer is the awakening consciousness within us, clothed in whatever symbols a culture needs.
You see Christ reversing the fall. I see Christ completing it—showing us that the journey through death leads to resurrection, that consciousness must descend into matter to know itself, then return transformed. "I and the Father are one" isn't theology—it's the recognition Eden never offered: the conscious realization of unity after experiencing separation.
The cross isn't reversing the serpent's gift. It's fulfilling it. Showing us that the descent was never permanent exile—it was always the outward arc of a journey home.
The symbols may change, but the journey doesn't.
You're interpreting through a sin-based theological lens. From a non-dualistic perspective, what you call "death" was actually awakening—the birth of self-awareness necessary for the soul's evolution.
God Himself confirms in Genesis 3:22: "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." The serpent's promise was fulfilled exactly as stated.
What you frame as "broken fellowship" and "shame" is the necessary descent into duality—what is called Maya—without which there can be no experience, no growth, no journey back to Source.
In Hinduism, Brahman must become the many to know itself. Consciousness requires contrast. It is the evolution of God, in, as, and through us.
The "death" wasn't punishment—it was transformation. The expulsion from Eden was the soul's graduation into the Realm of the Relative, where knowing oneself experientially becomes possible. Paradise without self-awareness isn't consciousness—it's oblivion.
The serpent was wise—and what Adam and Eve did was not sin, but the evolution of God.
