Site Meter

Screen shot 2014-06-25 at 8.17.37 PM

What if the person who helped for the Church in Rome (yea, THAT church) was a woman? Her name was Junia. Church fathers swore Junia was a man, but anyone who knows anything about Latin knows that the “ia” is gender specific for a woman’s name.

The fresco on the right is a representation of Pederastic couples at a symposium,  from the Greek colony of Paestum in Italy. The Pederastic culture of ancient Greece was about men allowing their sons (until they could shave) to become the lovers of and proteges of men who could help them later in life.  In a way of life that is almost laughingly like the godly patriarchy movement of the godly men of the godly ‘Christian’ patriarchy, the men of ancient Greece enjoyed the company of one another.  They did not allow their wives and daughters to have a leadership role in any part of their world.  Meetings were for men only.  Their life was for men only.  We see the same thing reflected in the uber male meetings of thousands of men, who are waited upon by their godly wives.  We see it in the meetings of various homeschooling leadership groups – men only.  Men only conferences, and men only missions, basically a male only life.  When you have a world where these godly men constantly reiterate how much they hate gays, there can be only one logical explanation.  Like my late friend Leroy said, those who hate the most are the most deeply closeted.

These godly men just love their godly “biblical” patriarchy and the company of hardy, hale, and manly men  – no girls allowed.  They’re afraid of women.

In Jewish, Christian, and even Islam there are three patriarchs: Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The eldest sons in the lineage of Adam are also considered patriarchs, but it is not the same as the big three, who are clearly defined in Exodus 3:6 and Leviticus 26:24. They are very different from the titular heads of a hunter-gather almost pre-historic family hanging onto survival. In Islam, Abraham (Ibrahim) is the father of the prophets. There is though, a marked difference between the patriarch of a small family unit, more like a stone-age tribe, and the patriarchy of the Big Three.

There are logical reason why patriarchy in small family units evolved. It was a necessity. Someone needed to lead. That leadership can be established through several different ways including inheritance of the eldest, murder, battle, or Game of the Thrones nastiness, where way too many people are slaughtered. By establishing the familial leadership rights of the eldest son or even daughter, the basic family unit, almost a military and political unit, was/is preserved. Not survival of the fittest, but survival of the first born. It is so ingrained into our society and into our culture that we see the same basic premise playing out in the UK with Elizabeth, Charles, William and now George – primogeniture.

In terms of a primitive culture, patriarchal leadership is logical. Today though, the family groups who are adopting patriarchy as a system to promote the godly leadership of a godly man who has ultimate control over his wife, daughters, and even his sons is something not seen in the Bible. It is more like a totalitarian authority of a petty dictatorship, in family dynamics that were never envisioned in the Jewish culture. In the Athenian and various Greek cultures, it was very much the norm. Women were absolutely nothing but chattel, property, wombs without views, to give them an heir a couple spares, then she should do her ultimate duty and die. Hebrew women were never treated this way – at least not until the interactions with Athenians and Platonic philosophy after the conquests of Alexander.

The ancient Athenians had a very good reason for keeping their women neither seen, heard, and under total control, never to open their mouths, express themselves, and always to follow the rule of their father. It had nothing to do with religion, culture, or the time in which they lived. It was limited to upper class women of scholarly and manly men. By compelling them to be absolutely nothing, they had more time to spend with the Hetaira, very well educated, very independent women who were also prostitutes. Men of Athens had absolutely no respect for their submissive little wives, but they adored their independent prostitutes and courtesans.

Not only that, but by regulating their wives to no status, they were free to practice their very specific form of a homosexual lifestyle. The lifestyle was so preferable to that of living with one’s submissive little wife, that their sons were given over to their friends to be tutored in how to be a good male lover. There were certain aspects of that life that were also seen in Rome.

“…The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated. This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth….”

The ancient Greeks called it Pederasty, which was a specific way of life for most young boys until they began shaving.

“…The social custom called paiderastia by the Greeks was both idealized and criticized in ancient literature and philosophy; it has no formal existence in the Homeric epics, and seems to have developed in the late 7th century BC as an aspect of Greek homosocial culture, which was characterized also by athletic and artistic nudity, delayed marriage for aristocrats, symposia, and the social seclusion of women. The influence of pederasty was so pervasive that it has been called “the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens.”…”

It is also important to note one additional connection between modern godly patriarchy and the culture of the ancient Greeks.

“…The age-range when boys entered into such relationships was consonant with that of Greek girls given in marriage, often to adult husbands many years their senior. Boys, however, usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate, while marriages for girls were arranged for economic and political advantage at the discretion of father and suitor…”

The ancients, especially the Romans considered homosexual activities forbidden, if a non-slave allowed himself to be the submissive partner.  If both men were to have an equal role in their sexual activities, their relationship – hale and hardy, manly men, they it was acceptable.  It is entirely possible, knowing the Apostle Paul’s admiration for, and abject adoption of Roman culture that this is the homosexual activity he was forbidding.

The patriarchy of the ancient Hebrews had absolutely nothing to do with that of the ancient Greeks.  Indeed, a timeline and knowledge of history easily explains that, at the time of ancient Hebrew patriarchy, the ancient Greeks were far less sophisticated than the Hebrews, than the primo patriarch, Abraham, who was a product of Ur Kaśdim, of Mesopotamia. According to Torah tradition, Abram was far from being just the leader of a small family group, but an extremely well educated prince, priest, scientist, mathematician, and literally the first genius of history.  He was an extremely wealthy leader of a very large group of people who were designed to make the lives of he and is sister (as in incest) Sarah much easier.

As part of the research I’ve done for a book that is now in edits, what I’ve learned about both Abraham and Sarah was fascinating.  Sarah was a high priestess, princess, and a leader of women.  It is entirely possible, when the covenant was established, between Abraham and God, the reason Sarah was not mentioned, nor the role of women mentioned was the fact that women by this time were extremely well established as religious leaders.  The role of the family religion and worship, until the covenant, would have been over-seen by Sarah.  This reflects a cultural history where, in many religious practices of ancient western civilization, women had roles which were as important if not more important than men.  Something that is never mentioned when discussing the patriarchal role men began taking in the ancient Hebrew religion is the fact that it may have been an antidote to what would then be seen as ‘pagan’ religious practices of women (who were in charge). By having taken a leadership role in certain religions which required not only human sacrifice but also the sacrifice of infants, there may have been a very logical cultural reason why women’s roles in religion were suppressed – for a time.  That suppression of women lasted until Jesus of Nazareth literally liberated women and became the first feminist.

Abraham as a patriarch was a man of wealth, letters, property, and science.  According to ancient Jewish tradition, he was literally a genius on the par with a Leonardo, Einstein, or a Hawking.  Legend has it that he wrote, not in the ancient cuneiform of the day, but in mathematical formulas. The same legend states that he was an architect and an engineer whose presence in Ancient Egypt was courted, wined and dined.  As a learned man from Ur he knew how to properly build Ziggurats.

He was also a very insecure man, very much in awe of his amazingly beautiful sister and wife. (The Talmud states that she was the daughter of Abraham’s brother and sister to Lot).  Her fair (blond) beauty was so famous, by the time they reached the boundaries of Egypt, border agents were being told to watch for her.   Abraham told her to tell the authorities that they were brother and sister, not husband and wife.  According to ancient tradition, if she was his niece, there was no incest. Abraham, coward that he was, allowed her to be taken as a harem concubine to the pharaoh of Egypt. As far as modesty, the costume of the era would have suggested that Sarah’s choice of clothing was probably a little bit of transparent linen wrapped around her waist, a heck of a lot of jewelry, and a smile.  The most powerful man in the ancient world, the leader of the kingdoms of the Upper and Lower Nile was so taken with her that he gifted her with one of his daughters, as a slave – Hagar. (Which is why Hagar hated Sarah and her son so much).

Abraham was a stinker.  He eventually ends up married to Hagar after Sarah dies of a heart attack when he goes all patriarchal and tells her God has told him to sacrifice their only son. Issac wasn’t all that happy about it, either.  Now a man in his forties, not the small child, he was so pissed with his father, after discovering that his mother was dead, that he basically kicked him out of his camp.  Abraham was forced to go to Ishmael for help.  Ishmael’s life, thinking he was some homeless bum, kicked him out.  When Ishmael discovered what she had done, he dumped the wife, found his father, and fixed him up with mommy.  They lived happily ever after.

Issac send for a wife.  He was rewarded with Rebecca who presented him with twins.  After Jacob cheated his twin brother out of their patriarchal birthright and blessing, he turned tail and ran away, to get away from a very pissed brother who wanted to kill him. Jacob had a problem with family values.  After marrying Leah, he slept with her younger sisters, then married Rachel.  He basically slept his way through the entire family.  The youngest of the three patriarchs, his family values were so immoral and repulsive, any godly man who refers to managing their family like that of the ancient patriarchs is an uneducated fool.

These are the patriarchs. In many ways, the term ‘patriarch’ does a great dis-service to their actual identities and to their power.  Today, godly men have a tendency to consider them to be the despotic and autocratic leaders of their families.  Nothing could have been farther from the truth.  For one thing, as far as we can tell, there was only one daughter born this entire time.  Sons were a blessing.  That daughter was raped by one of her brothers.  Legend has it she ended up as the wife of Job.  Their households, far from being this weird version of support yourself, were huge. They were more like small kings in their nomadic worlds, with thousands of head of cattle and sheep, the people required to tend to them, and the support staff to handle those people.  They had dozens of servants. Their lives were not lived in the pathetic and historically inaccurate squalor godly television productions tend to show.  They had hundreds of people under their command.  They lived in tents, but those tents were huge, almost like caves, protection from the heat of the desert.  The only reason Jacob would have wanted to cheat Esau out of his inheritance was because of the vast wealth that involved.

They were well educated men with wives who lived like queens, waited on by servants, clad in the finest linen (transparent) with all the jewelry they could possibly want.   These were the patriarchs.

“...R. Johanan claimed that the “Sefer ha-Yashar” was the record of the Patriarchs; and that when Balaam exclaimed, “Let me die the death of the righteous” (= “yesharim”; Num. xviii. 10), he referred to the Patriarchs (‘Ab. Zarah 25a).

The Patriarchs are among the seven with whom God made His covenant: (1) Abraham (Gen. xv. 18), (2) Isaac (ib. xvii. 19), (3) Jacob (Lev. xxvi. 42), (4) Moses (Gen. xxxiv. 27), (5) Aaron (Num. xviii. 19), (6) Phinehas (ib. xxv. 12), and (7) David (Ps. lxxxix. 3). The Patriarchs are also among seven who, in their sepulchers, were not touched by worms or rot (Derek Ereẓ Zuṭa i. 7). Among others, the Patriarchs were not dominated by the evil spirit or by the angel of death. The Patriarchs were given a taste of paradise by being supplied with all the world’s good. Abraham was blessed “in all things” (“ba-kol”; Gen. xxiv. 1); Isaac had eaten “of all” (“mi-kol”; ib. xxvii. 33); and Jacob said “I have enough” (“kol”; ib. xxxiii. 11; B. B. 17a). These words “kol,” “mi-kol,” “ba-kol” were inserted as a blessing in the grace after meals…”

The concept of Biblical Patriarchy died with them.  Today’s version of godly patriarchy has no real relevance to the Bible as anyone knows it.  If anything it is more like the homosexual culture of the ancient Athenians.  This is the first of several parts, examining the history of patriarchy and the heresy which has created today’s godly version of Bill Gothard, ATI, Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, Vision Forum, and now Al Mohler godly patriarchy where the he-man-woman-hater’s club is fabricating history, and literally changing the Bible as we know it, to create an entirely new religion where women are basically reduced to the same position in society as were the women of ancient Greece. History has shown us, one of the main reasons women were put in this position were so that their men could engage in a culture where manly men could enjoy the company of manly men without women.

Yes, the irony that these same manly men express abject hatred of gays if, it weren’t so full of hate, would almost be funny.  There is only one logical reason for their hatred of gayss.  They are so closeted and so afraid that is what they are that they must turn them into objects of hate.

Don’t you just love godly patriarchal culture?


Comments are closed.

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera