Metaphors in the Gospels: “….Red Skies at Night…..”

In other words: if we interpret this passage literally, then what Jesus seems to be implying is that there is some sort of connection between predicting the weather (i.e. meteorology) and spiritual laws…

Since that is clearly not possible, then there are only two other options: 

1)      Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are correct and that BOTH the Old and the New Testaments are total nonsense. Or:

2)       Both the Old and New Testaments are based upon religious symbols and metaphors and, while not literally true, they do indeed contain many spiritual truths

Obviously, I lean towards: “what's behind door number 2”

In previous articles in this series we discussed that, in spite of whatever the rabbis say, Moses was prevented from entering the Promised Land because he provided the people with water, NOT because he struck the stone with his staff.

 In short: we said that: “God’s spirit” is associated with: “dryness” and that: “explanations about God” are associated with “water” and gave three examples to demonstrate this:

a)      God’s spirit floated over the dark waters, but never touched them

b)      The name Mount Horeb (also called: Mount Sinai) means: “dryness”

c)       The waters of the Jordan River receded and the ark of the covenant never touched water (the name: "Jordan" means " to go down")

What is crucial to understand about water is that there are different types of water in the scriptures and that the words of Jesus were mistranslated when he spoke about eating clean and unclean foods. The Old Testament does not speak about clean and unclean foods, it speaks about pure and impure foods. Therefore, when Jesus says what comes into the body does not make us impure, only what comes out of the body, he is talking about “impure teachings” (i.e. “mixed doctrines”). In other words: If I listen to a false teacher, I have the option of rejecting his ideas, forgetting about them and thus, remaining pure. If however, I preach false or impure doctrines, then, of course, not only am I impure, but I am a source of impurity for others. Hence, the Torah says those who eat impure foods should be cut off from the people. In other words: The old saying should not be: “You are what you eat”, but rather: “Your beliefs are based on whatever you ‘swallow whole’”.

So, the crime of Moses was “mixing” two types of waters (doctrines). God provided rain water and then Moses mixed that with water from a stone (i.e. a doctrine based on a very low level of understanding). So, a modern day analogy of just how grave a crime this was would be: Moses mixing God’s Perrier water with tap water!!! ....Oh, the horror, the horror…..

Anyway……Along these same lines, an American commentator: Brad Scott developed what he likes to call: “The Mountain Top” theory of water. The essence of his idea is that the word of God reaches man thru the prophets in its purest form at the top of the mountain. As this message works its way down it gets “polluted” with the ideas of man and by the time it reaches sea level (i.e. the general population); its meaning is so distorted that it no longer “safe”. So remember: the translation of: "the River Jordan" is: "The descending waters" and, after Moses provided people with water from the stone, he screamed out at them: "you fallen ones"....

What is interesting about the statement of Moses, however, is that he is NOT speaking about mountain top water; Moses is talking about rain water (i.e. an even higher level of understanding). In addition, Moses was not talking about a mere rainstorm; Moses was talking about a deluge (well maybe not a deluge exactly, the dictionary says: "driving rain")

Another very important point to consider is that: If the words which come out of the mouth of Moses are like a heavy rain, then this implies that Moses was a cloud. So, in Hebrew, the word for God’s spirit is: “wind”; the word for heaven is: “sky”, the word for ground is: “red” and, as we have just mentioned, words are represented by: “rain” and prophets are: “clouds”.

So, when Jesus says he will meet you in the sky with the clouds, you should not take this literally. What he is saying is that those who hear his voice and follow his teachings will attain a higher level of understanding and, afterwards, the words of the prophets will become comprehensible.

Okay, but let’s take a look at the passage itself: (King James Version)

Hence, the New Testament is actually talking about 3 things:

a)      Letters represent hints about God’s message

b)      Words represent parts of God’s message

c)       Sentence represents God's complete message

In other words: “The Day of the Sentence” is not the end of the world, it is a future time when the meaning of God’s word will become apparent to some people and these people will attain the higher level of understanding called: “The Kingdom of Heaven” and the true meaning of the words of the prophets (including the words of Moses) will be revealed.

So: “a sign from heaven” means: “give us some small indication that you truly understand God’s word”

Then, somewhat incomprehensibly, Jesus says: “when the sky is red at night, you know the weather will be fair in the morning”….

Although we will not discuss this deeply in this article, the important point to understand here is that the song from the movie, or stage production, “Jesus Christ Superstar” is WRONG !!! (i.e. "he's Herod's case; he's Herod's race")

“Red” therefore should be associated with: "low levels of understanding", "materialism" and "literal interpretations of the scriptures".

Thus, if the end of the day is red, then this means that beliefs based in ignorance are beginning to fade and the near future will bring a new source of light.

If, however, in the morning the sky is red, then this means there will be rain and the Hebrew word for “rain” also means “materialism”. So, in my opinion, it is no accident that the words: “red” and “lowering” are grouped together.

The next, very important, point is that in one version of the Gospels Jesus calls the Pharisees and Sadducees “hypocrites”, but in another version he calls them “sycophants”.

The word:  “hypocrites” is easy to understand because the Pharisees and the Sadducees are supposed to carry out their functions in accordance with the words of Moses and, if they were indeed “aligned with Moses”, then they would have immediately recognized his teachings and known that they came from a spiritual source. However, because they did not follow the teachings of Moses, but rather the teachings of the Hillel School and the Talmud, they were unable to comprehend what Jesus was talking about and requested: “a sign based on the physical senses”.

Nevertheless, they claimed and pretended they followed the teachings of Moses and this is what made them hypocrites.

Sycophant is a little bit more complicated because the early definition of a sycophant was: “one who shook the tree in order to get figs”. In the Book of Judges, one of Gideon’s sons gives a parable in which he says: “the fig is a good fruit”. We have shown in practically every article in this series that: “each type of food represents a specific form of knowledge”. Since, “God is good”, this means that: "the fig" represents: "knowledge about God". Knowing this metaphor, the Pharisees who wrote the first books of the Talmud called themselves “The Figs” (i.e. “Ha  Tannim”).

My basic contention is that people, all people not just Jews, don’t have the patience to pray to God and wait for an answer. It is much faster, and certainly much more convenient, to ask your rabbi, priest or minister.

Accordingly: that is the definition of a sychopant, because we have shown numerous times that in the scriptures: “a tree” is a metaphor for “a teacher” and Jesus himself used this image when he called himself a vine and his disciple branches. Hence, people who don’t have patience for God to make the fig fall, shake the tree….

Then Jesus goes on to conclude that the Pharisees are “an adulterous generation” and they shall only receive the sign of Jonah (i.e. three days of darkness in the belly of a fish).

The Old Testament speaks of: “whoring after other God” and the definition of: “adulterated wine” is “wine that has been watered down”. We have already discussed the crime of Moses was “mixing doctrines”. This is adultery and Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because of it. The Pharisees and the Sadducees committed the exact same crime (i.e. they mixed the words of God with the words of man) and, for that reason, they were expelled from the land.

So, who is the big fish? Well, Paul of Tarsus claimed that he was a Pharisee and a student of the teacher Gamaliel. So let’s see what Gamaliel himself says about fish:

A ritually impure fish: one who has memorized everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents

A ritually pure fish: one who has learnt and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents

A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learnt everything, but doesn't know how to respond

A fish from the Mediterranean: one who has learnt everything, and knows how to respond

In other words: Rabbinical students of Gamaliel and the Hillel School are fish (i.e. Jesus is NOT a fish).

Jesus said he was the word of God and he would rise on the third day. Both the Old and New Testaments say: “A day is like a thousand years”.

The implacation is obvious; The Jewish people shall live in darkness for two thousand years following the teachings of the Hillel School, but, on the third day, God’s word will make itself manifest…

BUT !!!

Many will be called, few will be chosen…..