Kekal. Gnostic Christians, no longer BM.

So I've heard that Kekal are now gnostic Christians now.
And not BM anymore.
Gotta say, if they'd remained BM but still embraced gnostic christianity....that woulda been a pretty cool diversity of thought within Christian metal.
Anyone heard their newer material? What do you think of it?

Link?

wintersdawn wrote:Link?

The wikipedia article about Kekal mentions it, as well as they're being anarchists.
They include links in there.

And I think I also came acrossed an interview a week or two ago with them talking about it.
Just can't recall where. I'll look around for it.

I've been getting Kekal's newsletter emails for a while and always thought they were weird. Seemed like a lot of conspiracy theory talk mixed with questionable spirituality stuff. Eventually on one of their music videos for the newest album I saw "#gnosis" in the description and realized what was going on.

Wikipedia summarizes this really well. It looks like Kekal should never really have been considered a Christian metal band the whole time, despite having releases on labels like Fear Dark, unless the band now (which, who does it even consist of these days, besides Jeff Arwadi himself?) is intentionally misrepresenting its past. I haven't really looked into their old lyrics much but I do now want to read through that stuff and see if it is...actually orthodox or not.

Their first four albums and some of the stuff that came after was some really fantastic music. Deeper Underground had a pretty neat sound too, but it's sad that Kekal's music is so ideologically objectionable at this point.

I love it personally. After all gnostic christianity was one of the first forms of the faith to exist, came up alongside the early Catholics Christian sect(actually existed prior to Constantines conversion to christianity)...many centuries before protestantism.
Along with the essenes and a couple others...before rome coopted the faith and imposed its version on everyone for the next what 12, 13 centuries..till protestantism came along.
In my mind it's one of the purest, truest forms of the religion, certainly....one of the first subsects.

Imo true christianity really isn't about sects and their varied differing interpretations of certain non-essential. True and false Christians exist in every subsect...including amongst the gnostic ones.
Its about simply following the CORE teachings of Joshua/Yeshua/Jehoshua(the one titled as *christ*) and his basic EXAMPLE ...nothing less or more.
I think too many Christians of every subsect(especially in modern days) miss that point.
Christian just means to be a follower of Yeshua called christ or *little christ*(in the example of *christ*...or Yeshua) ...*like christ*(like yeshua).
I don't think Yeshua meant for all these competing subsects to rise up and pronounce each other heretics based on their own sectarian doctrine differences and claim monopoly on him and his teachings and his example and add all this other non essential dogmas on top of his direct teachings and example.
To me, none of the subsects are actually truly following him...they're following apostles or later sect denoms creators and their interpretations of writings that are by other men and teachings from other men other than he himself.
But genuine *christlike* Christian's exist in every subsect. But the heresy finger pointing at each others subsects stuff....I think those are all completely missing Yeshuas point...the spirit he was embodying(to obsessed by the letter and not enough about the spirit of it...Something Yeshua castigated the pharisees and saducees for doing...he pointed out that they missed the point entirely...I think all these subsects and their heresy hunting finger pointing at each other....and expecting the nonchristian world to embrace this heresy obsessed nonsense also miss his point entirely).
But, that's just me.

I'm nor Christian of any sect or at all. Except to say...it is one of my influences, and like the enlightenment deists(from Voltairw to Paine and Jefferson, etc) I respect Yeshua the man...and most(not all though) of his teachings...and his heretical contrarian ways...for which he was killed over. Much admiration for that.

But...I respect your right to disagree and I do have an understanding of where you are coming from.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I've been getting Kekal's newsletter emails for a while and always thought they were weird. Seemed like a lot of conspiracy theory talk mixed with questionable spirituality stuff. Eventually on one of their music videos for the newest album I saw "#gnosis" in the description and realized what was going on.

Wikipedia summarizes this really well. It looks like Kekal should never really have been considered a Christian metal band the whole time, despite having releases on labels like Fear Dark, unless the band now (which, who does it even consist of these days, besides Jeff Arwadi himself?) is intentionally misrepresenting its past. I haven't really looked into their old lyrics much but I do now want to read through that stuff and see if it is...actually orthodox or not.

Their first four albums and some of the stuff that came after was some really fantastic music. Deeper Underground had a pretty neat sound too, but it's sad that Kekal's music is so ideologically objectionable at this point.

Interesting... and disappointing.  I've been meaning to pick up their discography but I think I'll pass now...  Anarchy and conspiracy-theories I don't mind so much, but Gnosticism isn't too compatible for me.

This is the first song I looked at (the last track off of their first album) and it's pretty explicitly Christian.

Kekal - My Eternal Lover wrote:Remembering the day when you were crucified
Hung and nailed to the cross, a sacrifice for mankind
Your precious blood wash away the sin
More than just a hero, you are my savior

Remembering the day when you were arose from the dead
A total victory, banish away the stain of death
Your precious love lasting eternally
More than just a hero, you are my savior

I feel the warmth of your love embraces me
Through the last days of imperfect life, there's a hope

Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly O Lord Jesus
Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly, giver of hope

You are the only truth, all praise and glory to you
Lord, I am waiting for your second coming

Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly O Lord Jesus
Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly, my eternal lover
(x2)

Kerrick wrote:

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I've been getting Kekal's newsletter emails for a while and always thought they were weird. Seemed like a lot of conspiracy theory talk mixed with questionable spirituality stuff. Eventually on one of their music videos for the newest album I saw "#gnosis" in the description and realized what was going on.

Wikipedia summarizes this really well. It looks like Kekal should never really have been considered a Christian metal band the whole time, despite having releases on labels like Fear Dark, unless the band now (which, who does it even consist of these days, besides Jeff Arwadi himself?) is intentionally misrepresenting its past. I haven't really looked into their old lyrics much but I do now want to read through that stuff and see if it is...actually orthodox or not.

Their first four albums and some of the stuff that came after was some really fantastic music. Deeper Underground had a pretty neat sound too, but it's sad that Kekal's music is so ideologically objectionable at this point.

Interesting... and disappointing.  I've been meaning to pick up their discography but I think I'll pass now...  Anarchy and conspiracy-theories I don't mind so much, but Gnosticism isn't too compatible for me.

This is the first song I looked at (the last track off of their first album) and it's pretty explicitly Christian.

Kekal - My Eternal Lover wrote:Remembering the day when you were crucified
Hung and nailed to the cross, a sacrifice for mankind
Your precious blood wash away the sin
More than just a hero, you are my savior

Remembering the day when you were arose from the dead
A total victory, banish away the stain of death
Your precious love lasting eternally
More than just a hero, you are my savior

I feel the warmth of your love embraces me
Through the last days of imperfect life, there's a hope

Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly O Lord Jesus
Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly, giver of hope

You are the only truth, all praise and glory to you
Lord, I am waiting for your second coming

Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly O Lord Jesus
Come quickly, come quickly,
come quickly, my eternal lover
(x2)

Those lyrics sentiments are shared by gnostic Christians btw.

Kerrick wrote:Interesting... and disappointing.  I've been meaning to pick up their discography but I think I'll pass now...  Anarchy and conspiracy-theories I don't mind so much, but Gnosticism isn't too compatible for me.

Yeah I have to draw lines at some point too. Gnosticism, along with Mary-worship and other blatant heresies, is a no for me as well.

Those lyrics you posted do sound good. They make clear reference to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to atone for sins, as well as His resurrection and second coming, all of which are important tenets of true Christian orthodoxy. I can't pretend to know everything about gnosticism, but I know that they emphasize some sort of enlightenment, an attainment of some sort of hidden knowledge, as the essence of salvation, which is obviously a false gospel. The essence of salvation is union with Christ. We receive by faith His righteousness imputed to us, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and our great high priest. He took the penalty for our sins and has reconciled us with God. May all of us stand firmly upon this foundation and never compromise to the evil heresies of the world. God always preserves a remnant who are faithful to Him.

Gnostic christianity was one of the first forms of christianity, even before Constantine created the catholic church.
Existing nearly 14 to 15 centuries before protestantism.
For all those centuries christianity was basically Catholicism and gnostic christianity(predated only by a couple other sects- the esseenes along with I cant remember the label for them but the original non-Christians for example, though gnostic christianity grew up alongside them...all predating roman Catholicism...and all along with Catholicism predating protestantism by over a dozen to 15/16 centuries)...for all that time....that WAS Christianity.
I'm not sure how protestants...which came about so much later in recent history can point the finger of *heresy* at them? Unless they want to suggest that true Christianity didn't even exist for all that time until the protestant reformation.

One of gnostic christianity's major tenets is panentheism, to live the example of Yeshua through being like him...christlike, and thereby achieve direct communion with Gods spirit.
Which is exactly what Yeshua taught and exampled.
Yeshua was himself never teaching the worship of himself Yeshua/Joshua the man... but when he spoke of gaining communion with God through him...he meant through the christ energy or spirit which he embodied or was an avatar of, Yeshua spoke in mystical metaphors or *parables* ...when he spoke that way he was not Yeshua the man... but at those times directly in communion with God through the mystical state of the christ conciousness. And he taught many things to the apostles when they were alone, it would be naive to think he didn't...that everything he had to say and teach is only what he taught publicly to the crowds that is chronicled in the synoptic gospels...in the 3 years of his ministry...that would logically constitute only a small fraction of the things he said, taught, and did in all that time.
And it would be naive to think he didn't teach his 12 apostles and inner circle things in private that he didnt to others. What do you think he was saying to them in all that time when they were alone?
The gnostic Christians are based in both the synoptic gospels but also the gnostic gospels as well...which arent contrary to what he said and examples in the synoptic gospels...but merely add further context and detail, things he taught his inner circle in private chronicled.

There's of course more to gnostic christianity than what I've outlined above...but that's the core of it.

...and it was one of the earliest forms or subsects of the faith, before roman Catholicism or coming up with it at latest, and well over a dozen centuries before the protestant revolution and its numerous subsects were birthed.

It is one of the original sects of christianity.

Roman Catholicism on the other hand was pretty much Roman polytheistic paganism combined with christianity. That's how they coopted and enforced it for so long...they retained Romes spirit and form of power hierarchy(and its pope-dom ...a church leader taking the place of christ )and elements of its polytheism while embracing the outward appearance of christianity.
That's not to say that there are not Roman catholics who are not genuine Christians.
Its interesting though, I'd say gnostic christianity is certainly a truer, purer form of the religion than roman Catholicism. And at least as true as some forms of protestantism(and even moreso than some of them).
But as I said before, true christ-one-anity is not a sectarian thing, it's an individual thing, and there are true(christlike)and false(unchristlike)Christians in all sects of the religion...and even some nonchristians(or people who don't take on that label specifically) who are truer christ-ians(christlike) than many people who use and espouse that label and/or the various subsects labels.
Something that many *Christians* seem to miss Yeshuas/Jehoshuas points on entirely(or at least in part)...being caught up in labels and sectarian terms and sectarian doctrines, and obsessed with heresy hunting each other(let alone the nonchristian world)...the letter...not the spirit....

Gnosticism is not Christianity and it never was. It is true that it arose quite early, but so did those who taught and believed the pure doctrine of truth, like Paul. The heresies of the gnostics were not taught by the apostles, and the whole system that you just described goes directly against God's Word.

Protestantism is not the only form of Christianity, but you are pretending like the gospel that I believe, the gospel taught in the Word of God, did not exist until the 16th century, and that is simply false. These fundamental truths, the things contained in creeds like the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, have been believed by Christians from the very beginning. And yes, the non-canonical gospels do contradict the four that are part of God's Word.

There is no secret knowledge. God's Word is sufficient for all of us.

One of the most important questions each person has to answer for themselves is what they think about Jesus. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks His disciples what other people are saying about who He is. “And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” Then Jesus asks them the same question. “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament. All of history revolves around this man who is also God. In Adam all die, but God chose before He laid the foundation of the world to redeem sinners through the blood of Jesus Christ. The whole Bible is ultimately about this. Any other gospel, any other means of salvation, is heretical. I implore anyone reading this, do not be lead astray by false doctrines from men who claim to be wise but are cunning and deceitful. Read God's Word and trust in Jesus. Trust that He died for you, to pay for your sins, and that He rose again and is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, interceding for all Christians, who have now been adopted by God as sons and daughters and sealed by the Holy Spirit, who have an inheritance which is undefiled and reserved in heaven for them. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

I think you summed it up yourself Crimson.
*protestantism is not the only form of christianity* - that's what I'm saying.
And...*but you arw pretending the gospel I believe did not exist until the 16th century...that is false*.
No it is historically true, the protestant interpretation did not exist in it's current form until the 16th century.
That is not to say that many of the ideas in protestantism are not genuine christianity or concurrent with original christianity, to my understanding it would be closest to I think the essenes I could be incorrect on that, but nonetheless some of it would not be recognized by even those early sects, as for the apostles creed and nicene creed, sorry to point it out...but those did not exist in that form in early christianity...they were instituted and written up by the Roman Catholic church(let that sink in).
Anyways, ok, you have your subsect, you'd interpretation of your sect, and that is fine, you have a right to that. Who am I to argue you do not?
However your point could be also argued by the gnostics whom you accuse of not being true Christians, heretics, a gnostic Christian could just as validly argue to you *but, by pointing the finger of accusation of HERETIC ...FAKE CHRISTIAN at me...you are pretending like the gospel I believe-the gospel taught in the word of god, is false*. See how that works?

ME, I'm not pretending anything. I'm not a Christian of any type. I'm merely pointing out the double standards applied in the reasoning of heresy hunting finger pointing at the gnostic Christians, your arguments, which they could just as well make towards your sects.
And that it appears to me that if Christians want to be the example of christ to the nonchristian world and influence them to embrace the faith...this heresy hunting finger pointing at each others subsects of the faith is counter productive and doesnt help inspire nonchristian to want to embrace it and be *saved* into its fractious heresy hunting of other sects of itself fold, it only scares them away from the faith.
It seems to me that if Christians want to *reach* the world for christ...this ain't the best way to go about it.

Anyways. That's all I have to say about it. I've said my piece, made my points...and you have made yours.
Rather then get into a tiff w/each other about it...I think I will leave it at that.
I respect your right to your view, and respectfully disagree is all.

But no harsh feelings, leta agree to disagree I guess before this blows up any further(if you want to make one final point...the floor is yours, have the final say if you'd like)...I shake your hand in friendly disagreement. Cool?

I will add one more thing here. I haven't gone back on the research I did years ago on gnostic christianity, and just did tonight. I made a couple mistakes in my explanation of it.
One being that I think I moreso described ths theology of the modern liberal Christian sects, though I believe there is SOME influence from gnostic christianity in SOME liberal Christian sects, though most are more based in simply a panentheist interpretation of mainstream protestantism. Secondly I forgot that the early gnostic Christians generally had a belief that Yahveh...the old testament god was not the father of Yeshua/christ...but an evil demiurge, that Christs heavenly father was an ineffable sin soph type transcendent god beyond the demiurge who is said to have created the universe or the world and the world of matter, whereas spirit is the creation of the ineffable father. Their theology or cosmology is more dualistic than I recalled above. The goddess Sophia also is a part of some gnostic Christian sects and individuals...though not neccaserily all.
Though , to strip their mythological personified beings...the demiurge and Sophia away and make it more simple...they were worshippers of a Panendeistic god...but also believers in a quasi polytheistic idea of the demiurge(Yahweh/Jehovah, Yaldabaoth ,also sometimes Samael and sometimes ascribed other names as well)...but I will also point out that trinitarianism is also quasi polytheistic.
And I believe many believed/believe in a kind of aesthetic lifestyle and one of purity since they view matter and the physical body as inherently evil....created by the evil demiurge.

So yeah, I kinda confused gnostic christianity and simple modern liberal christianity a bit.

Anyways. More on gnostic christianity in this link below.
https://iep.utm.edu/gnostic/#SH2b

And, a little on the gnostic gospels. Some of which can be read on the page or are linked to as well as references to books written that contain them.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

I apologize for any confusion I may have cause due to my accidental conflating of gnostic christianity and liberal christianity.

That is all.

One more.
Here a modern gnostic Christian explains his or her/the faith in a few short, witty paragraphs for any wishing to know and understand what a modern gnostic Christian believes.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/519053-ask-gnostic-christian.html

Fair enough.
I personally do think it's a valid form, I have my reasons, but rather not get into a larger debate right now about it, since the debates been had already and I don't wish to offend or get into a tiff about it.
I respect your right to your views.

To appropriate Isaiah 1:18; “Come, let us reason together”
I am by no means a scholar but I have a few thoughts regarding Gnosticism.
Lets remember that just because something is earlier doesn’t mean its truer. Likewise, just because something is newer doesn’t mean its truer (see Progressive Christianity, but that’s a different discussion).
There is no one consistent Gnosticism, but broadly speaking its a mix of Neo-Platonic philosophy using the Christian “myth.” Western thought has an emphasized bifurcation between soul and body, this is not so for the Jews. The Hebrew word that gets translated to “soul” is “Nephesh” which (according to Wikipedia) means more like “living being” this includes mind/spirit AND body intertwined. For the Greeks, the immaterial spirit/soul was the purest version of self, objects and ideas. Something like “Out there in the aether is the original most perfect triangle and any representation of that on earth is imperfect.” For the Gnostic, the body was a dirty and distorted imitation of the purest form of self. The Gnostic Christians believed that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a spiritual resurrection not a bodily one. This is a problem because one of the reasons why the Apostles risked their lives to spread the Gospel (and were brutally martyred) was because they witnessed Jesus dying and coming back in the body.
If you read John chapter 20 you will notice a lot of words referring to body, touch and holding. Especially the “Doubting Thomas” story [John 20:24-29] Thomas put his finger in the wound of Jesus and then believed. The Israeli born Apostles wouldn't believe and risk their lives over an abstract analogy.
I’ll admit, Gnostic ideas can be interesting. It does have a secret society feel which is always fun to imagine. I think some of the names are cool like “The Demiurge” and “The Logos” and so on. Wicked ideas for Metal songs! There is nothing inherently wrong with a devout Christian exploring and playing with these ideas. So long as they know where ideas come from and where they might lead.

Bullion Dross wrote:I’ll admit, Gnostic ideas can be interesting. It does have a secret society feel which is always fun to imagine. I think some of the names are cool like “The Demiurge” and “The Logos” and so on. Wicked ideas for Metal songs! There is nothing inherently wrong with a devout Christian exploring and playing with these ideas. So long as they know where ideas come from and where they might lead.

The only sense in which an orthodox Christian should interact with these ideas is in refuting them. There is nothing "cool" about believing that God the Father is an "evil demiurge".

Technically Crimson, the gnostic Christians weren't/aren't saying God the father is an evil demiurge. They still believe in God the father....they just equate Yeshuas God tge father as/with a ineffable, unnamed transcendent divine source....the Ain Soph or De Profundis(etc). They just believed Yahweh/Jehovah is the evil demiurge...also called by them Yaldabaoth or Samael...amongst other names.

Until now I'd never really studied gnostic Christianity in much depth.
Though there was a time I identified with a form of gnosticism(or had some influence/inspiration therefrom)...but gnostic luciferianism and gnosticism from the perspective of Thelema, etc.
Sort of. I never really bought the idea of an evil demiurge, my Pan-Deist view didn't allow me to perceive or interpret the polytheisfic notion of gnostic aeons/middle gods as anything other than a symbolic representation of symbolically personified forces of nature.
For me its always been belief only in the one divine mind/God(Pan-Deus)...I've always though of the rest as interesting or inspiring only in the symbolic or psychological archetypes sense, but beyond that....a distraction from the worship of the ONE God/divine mind.
Though I'm fine w/using multiple terms for Natures God/divine mind from any culture/religion so long as it is of a deistic/PanDeistic principle/nature(Brahman, Tao, Air Soph, De Profundis, Phi- the mathematical transcendent number from which all other numbers...which form creation...are emanated or born from/of, The grand architect/Mathematician, the monad or singularity, Oroborous, infinity/eternity, alpha a d omega, If I were speaking to a Muslim who only or mostly speaks Arabic I might use the word Allah, if I were speaking to a Satanist I might use the term Sat and Tan- satan ...sat and tan are sanscrit/vedantic words...or as the black/hidden flame, or to any occultist Bapnomet, if I were speaking to an aboriginal who is a practitioner of their traditional native religion i might call it the great spirit, and many more terms/descriptors/titles. All just limited words or DESCRIPTORS/titles for the same Deistic/PanDeistic principle. In some ways like Paul said *all things to all people*...only for Deism/PanDeism)...Though I usually just prefer the nonsectarian simple terms/descriptors- God, Divine mind, Creator/Emanator, the all one. Etc.

to me no human words capture it, and God has no proper NAME(or genders or anthropomorphism/centrism), but is ineffable. Each descriptor/title only captures a portion of what it/God IS, like Paul said...seeing through a glass dimly- beyond and above us and our limiting/limited words. Or like that old the truth(in this case God)is an elephant described by several blind men

My point still stands. God is not evil. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament.

Crimson Warrior.
I originally wrote a few paragraphs here in response but decided out of respect to just erase it all and move the comments to the thread *Deism(and Deology)* in the theology forum. If interested in reading or responding to those comments...go check that threads latest entries out. Or not...up to you.

Read the above^^^^^