"The book "Babel" by Rebecca Kuang has a fascinating premise. Set in 1828, a Cantonese orphan is brought to London by a mysterious professor and taken under strict tutelage in Latin, Greek and Mandarin. He enters Oxford’s Royal Institute of Translation, commonly known as Babel."
[This is quite interesting] .... continuing:
"There he learns to imbue "silver bars" with magical properties by inscribing "words on opposing sides" where the meaning is lost in translation, doesn’t quite mean the same. The silver does the work of making the transition, exhibiting the related quality. It completes the juxtaposition, makes the leap."
--- The silver is a metaphor for the wealth of the people in a society that only has a functional knowledge of half the language; the Linguistic Infiltration causes the root meaning of "Words" to be Occulted. When Language is only half known, the people who use it are sandwiched between the "Outward" Facing meaning and the power exercised in secret, by the "Occulted" root Meaning.
"Through the extraction of silver and languages, London has amassed wealth and power."
Hasn't it ever?
The City of London is in actual control of nearly ALL Franchise Corporate Governments. But the regular public has no knowledge of this, they still think they are living in National Republics, or Parliamentarian Democracies. This is the True Tower of Basel -- er Babel.
On the Silver Bricks; Words on opposite sides = the Dual Facing Heraldry -- Lawful vs Legal -- Fiat vs Money -- Public / Private arrangement of Power.
Having the Silver sandwiched between two sides of this double an-tantra = Extraction of True Wealth from everyone because it is squeezed between the outward and the hidden.
Extraction of Languages = "The Linguistic Infiltration," I have mentioned this many times, was the first theft along with Name Stealing.
Tereza, I'm curious what you think of this:
Tower of Babel always seemed to be a metaphor in story form about how to build a Collective out of a society of Individuals. King Nimrod, a hunter of men went to collect people to build a Tower to Heaven, by making Bricks.
Not noticing the people making them and forming the Tower were all Individuals, not identical like bricks but unique of different shapes like Round River Stones; as a metaphor to unique Languages. So, when the Lord mixed up the languages, this was in similar context to the failure of Centralizing; people could no longer get along, so the Tower failed to reach "Heaven," and fell. Forming a Centralized Collective Society, has the seeds of it's own destruction.
Those are two very interesting ideas, Nef. I like the silver as a metaphor for the wealth of people with only half-knowledge of the words, hiding the true meaning of their wealth and where it comes from even from themselves.
And yes, the centralizing myth that everyone is like one more brick to be baked 'thoroughly.'
Yes Hannah, you have that exactly correct. This whole thing we are talking about IS the original Linguistic Infiltration that essentially "extracted the language." The ancient Cone Headed ancestors of the Ashkenazi used the language to "trap" "Meaning" inside of "Definitions." I am planning on doing a post on this topic. If you can read Ancient Egyptian, the symbolism found in the language is really quite deep. First method to take over a culture is to start creating definitions for What things are, that's a "Prison of Law." In more ways than one these are true Parasites; linguistically, culturally, spiritually, socially and of course politically and economically. They are the Architects of Arbitrary Hierarchy, which nature abhors.
You and I do see eye to eye on quite a few things.
I'll be talking about Moses at another time but, as always, I think the story is inverted so that the heroes become the villains, the villains the heroes, the victims are made out to be the aggressors and the aggressors become the victims.
To put Moses in context, Exodus is immediately preceded by the story of Joseph that closes Genesis. Joseph becomes the Pharaoh's right hand man, taking the seed stock of the Egyptian farmers to store in the Pharaoh's 'siloes' as the pyramids were figuratively called. It induces a famine where the self-reliant farmers have to sell Pharaoh their land, their livestock, themselves and their families as slaves.
Only Joseph's family, the Hebrews, are spared by their connection to him. This parallels Josephus saving the Davidic line of rulers when the Judeans who had claimed their sovereignty are destroyed by the Roman Empire. So how do they become slaves in the opening scene of Exodus? They don't. They're the rulers who are being kicked out by the rebellion of the people. That's why they have enough gold to make a statue of a cow.
I got so wrapped up in other thoughts, I forgot to thank you for sharing the map and my comments:) The lies abound, and it's so hard to make real sense of them. Most of the time, I feel like I'm reaching out in darkness, trying to find my way.
Anyway, I've often questioned the story about Ham, Canaan, and Noah, b/c Leviticus 18 states this: "7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."
There's no mention of Noah's wife's name, so perhaps shame was brought upon her b/c when Ham saw his father's nakedness, he actually had sex with his mother, who then bore Canaan, making him Noah's son. Noah was probably drunk and passed out. They inserted Canaan's name before he was born to perhaps cover up the incest b/c they put too much emphasis on him, rather than Ham. They could have just said Ham and his offspring would be cursed. We've got to read between their li(n)es.
Oh and I linked the full comment to the excerpt, so I hope people will go to that. Particularly Nef and Hannah, who both seem to have the interest in deciphering words that you and I share.
I've heard that theory (spectacle ;-) about Ham having sex with Noah's wife but it seems like another way to blame the victim. What we know is that Ham loses the inheritance and Canaan is cursed to be a race of slaves (although they didn't seem to pay much attention to it since the land of Canaan is so thriving it's considered the Promised Land all the way through Abram to Exodus).
It seems more evident to me that Noah raped Canaan and Canaan told Ham, who talked about it. That keeps the blame on the patriarch who would then curse his descendants to be slaves. Why make Ham or Canaan into villains when Noah has already shown who he really is? I think that whole theory is a way that those who believe in the heroes and villains of the Bible are trying to justify, in absentia, the hateful act of Noah while still believing he's, not just a good guy, but THE ONLY righteous person who lived at the time. Bleah! What arrogance! Don't buy into it.
Oh wow! I never thought about Noah raping Canaan but that does make a lot more sense. He was probably a pedophile, as well, esp. in light of what I've more currently learned, in regard to the Talmud. I also found it strange that Abram's name was changed to Abra-Ham, as well. Like mentioned before, I saw Arab-Ham.
Something else I noticed when reading the 1851 Septuagint, was that when Jacob and his sons supposedly moved to the best land in Egypt, Goshen, (KJV), the Septuagint states they moved to "Gesem of Arabia." It further says that "Judas" met Joseph in the "city of Heroes, into the land of Ramesses," and goes onto to state that Joseph told the Pharaoh his family was in "Gesem," meaning Heroes, the land of Ramesses, and Gesem were the same place.
This may be my mind working overtime, but something else I saw with the name Judas, is if reading in reverse, it shows Saduj / Sadju, which reminded me of Sadducees. When saying Sadducees, it also sounds like Sad-ju-cees / Sad-Jew-Sees.
OMfG. You're so right. So remember, the two founders of the zealot movement were Judas and Saduc or Zadok. Judas was the political leader and Saduc was the Pharisee who was the founder of the Sadducees. I remember someone saying some mnemonic device that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus and that's why they were sad, you see.
What the Hasidic Rabbi said on one of my episodes is that they rejected the Torah. So they rejected the right of the Shemitic dynasty to rule over them and Judas rejected the right of the Roman Empire to rule over them. I still suspect that Jew and Judean means follower of Judas.
Glad I didn't sound like I was going off the deep end:) It is very odd, esp. when you make better connections than I understand. Btw, I liked "they were sad, you see." Some of what you have been teaching, esp. about the Sadducees, is starting to sink in. I went back and listened to several of your videos, some for the second time, so I could better grasp what you're teaching. It definitely makes sense that the true Jews and Judeans were followers of Judas. But how do you see King David and Solomon fitting into that equation? Were they even real?
Something else to add, is from my studies of psychology, the psychopath cinches their victim by making them fall in love with themselves, like Narcissus, using what is called "love bombing." In a sense, it's similar to making them also feel chosen and special, like what Christianity does, where if they believe in Jesus, then they are chosen, and heaven bound. Anyone else that doesn't believe isn't special or chosen. Once the psychopath has fully conditioned their victim, then they will start using and abusing them in various ways, such as draining their bank accounts. The good, believing Christian will turn their cheek, and give unto Ceasar, the banks, etc. Jesus said, I will make thee "Fishers = His Serf" of men, and "Christians = His Narcist." There was definitely a motive for Christianity - to dupe them and make them compliant.
Yes, page 127...Gen. 46:28. Also, if you search the text, Judas is used 24 times in the book of Gen. Here's the link where all the individual books are listed. https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-Brenton/
Tereza, in case you are not already familiar with this scholarly/rabbinic article, I think it might help inform your work on this topic: “Noah, Ham and the Curse of Canaan: Who Did What to Whom in the Tent?” (https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent). It’s written by Professor Rabbi David Frankel, who has this concept of “theologies of territory” with regard to Israelite/Jewish history. I am not that familiar with Frankel’s work, but one of his books is in my reading (or at least “scanning”) queue. It’s called *The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible*. I’m hoping and expecting that it helps explain the modern Zionist perspective relevant to the current events in Gaza
Just to inject a gnostic take on this topic, I find the way the Hebrew Bible sometimes textually personifies what we today think of as ancient nation-states—e.g., Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Canaan—very much similar to the concept of Aeons in gnostic texts. Aeons—often simplistically thought of as gods in a pantheon (especially by modern Bible scholars)—have this interesting characteristic of being both places (realms) and divinities. If you read John Lash Lamb, he equates Sophia not only with the Aeon Wisdom, but also with Gaia/Earth. We also find this perspective in the more ancient forms of astrology, in which, for example, Saturn is not just a planet, but a being.
In this same spirit, what if Egypt or Israel is not just a territory? We moderns can barely think of any place on the planet that we do not mentally associate with the political boundaries of a nation-state on a map. But what if, in the perspective of the ancients who wrote/edited the Hebrew Bible, the lands of Egypt, Israel, Canaan, were more importantly and meaningfully manifestations of different and unique divinities? Perhaps all geographical territory (and the rest of material consensus reality) maps to a divinity.
More and more in recent days, I’ve been thinking of America, Russia, and Israel in this context, and I find it useful. (As an aside, in my own mind, Ukraine does not rise to this level of Aeonic identity.)
That's very interesting, Jack. I think it's the opposite of Frankel, and what we see as women represent territories. Women were beneath mention.
I'll be citing this in an upcoming article. He comes right out and says, "On the other hand, he did not want to present Canaan as subject of Egypt. The edited form of the story allows for the reidentification of Canaan’s master as Shem/Israel, rather than Egypt: “May Canaan be the slave of Shem!” We are the divinely destined masters of the Canaanites, proclaimed the editor, and not the Egyptians.[10] Further, Noah’s curse of Canaan and blessing of Shem shows that our mastery over the Canaanites is anything but an immoral abrogation. It is a fulfillment of a destiny foretold long ago."
Flipping the blame from the drunk naked Noah as raping Canaan to Canaan as raping Ham or Noah is such a classic. Frankel assumes that Ham or Canaan must have done SOMETHING to deserve being made slaves with all their descendants. And he even throws in Lot's daughters as getting him drunk and raping him. Let me ask you, can a man be so drunk he doesn't recognize his daughters and still get it up, not once but twice? Lot clearly raped them and shifted the blame, and Reuben is another example I'll be going into.
Interesting theory, Jack, on the Aeons. Thanks for reading and drawing my attention to this.
My head has exploded. I will certainly be looking up Ms Kuang’s books (which I have found on OceanofPDF)
On a flippant note – has anyone looked at the ‘unfinished’ EU Parliament building recently?
On another flippant note … not bad for a 600+-year-old.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the point of transition from 600 or 800-year-olds to the 80 to 100-year-olds that we are more familiar with in modern lifespans.
James Ussher would have factored the biblically documented Noah’s age into his famous chronology.
“The most definitive study [into the age of creation] was carried out by James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in his “The Annals of The World” (1650).”
From his bio …
“James Ussher was one of the greatest scholars and theologians of his time. In his enduring search for knowledge he travelled widely in Britain and Europe, seeking the earliest available manuscripts, buying those he could, and copying others. After his death, his extensive and valuable library, formed the nucleus of the great library of Trinity College, Dublin.
James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, was the pre-eminent figure in the contemporary Church of Ireland, and a leading patron of scholarship at Trinity College, Dublin.
Despite his success as a churchman, Ussher is perhaps most famous for having dated the start of the creation to the evening before 23rd October, 4004 B.C. Ussher calculated this timing in his Annals, a work of biblical chronology which he published in Latin in 1650 … and which was translated into English in 1658.”
I don't know if I can draw @wildrhody 's attention to your comment but she has some definite thoughts. She adds all those ages together and it comes to some occult number, I forget the details. But like everything, they're loaded with symbolism. Literally, I'd give them the same credence as the flood that destroyed all the bad people except for the child rapist slave-cursing righteous drunk, Noah.
I am still chuckling hours after reading that – I just had to add another anecdote …
In the following, from around 24:00 Professor Tony Marin gets on to the core topic of the role of Jews in the African slave trade.
But the most fascinating section is when he is quoting from Harold Brackman, PhD (“The Ebb and Flow of History”). Fom 31:00-ish describes the Talmudic (and hence sequela biblical/Jewish Torah) teachings regarding the ‘Hamitic myth’ (aka “The Curse of Ham”). Some mind-numbing insights from there on…
• Dr Tony Martin: “The role of Jews in African slavery”
But in the spirit of Babylon Bee, you’ll love “Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch” by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Especially the first page of the chapter titled “Eleven years ago” which reads:
“Archbishop James Ussher (1580-1656) published “Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti” in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 BC. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 BC, at exactly 9:00 a.m., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour.”
There is a wonderful book called Sailing to Byzantium. The name given to Constantinople.
Constantine broke from the Orthodox Church, which held beliefs closest to that Christ guy. He must have figured if you can't beat them join them, like the Anastazi adopting Judaism, unfortunately with a Babylonian Talamud, kind of Satanic stuff.
Rome abolished the Christian belief in reincarnation. May have given them more power and fear to bring about heaven and hell. Guess worship of the Madonna replaced Isis and Venus and Athena the woman warrior who sprang from the head of Zeus. Role for women was more distinct for the Greeks.
Story has it that Joseph was killed by his brothers. Guess he was not as special as his colored coat and dream interpretation.
Cross in the sky us called the Northern Cross. Gods no longer of the earth, fecundity, agriculture, female, but warriors.
Christ replaced the herding class with agriculture. His sacrifice was bread and wine. He had to be killed. Too much money lost to selling sacrificial animals in the thousands on Passover. He was an economic threat too.
Profound (my new word for: absolutely genius) extrapolation of what we're dealing with and where it's possibly coming from, as suspected a bunch of self prophesies all fighting for ownership of things that are freely provided through not much effort by the living Earth to all living beings and such.
Using deception to create a false narrative indoctrinated from birth to believe in. The best part of any religion books are teaching morals and values to at the very least instill some common respect for self and others. Otherwise we get a bit carried away in interpretations of everything written by those tricksters apparently. Like sacrifices and the cultist phenomenon.
Back to the future now and in America, we see there are some connections to JW and the new world order phenomenon and apparently somehow this all connects to an excuse of power to a few over many.
According to a comment I read here of many on this profound essay, we discover that God himself never intended his children to be ruled. And that's good enough for me! And it will be challenging, it will be difficult because that's what life is all about. So of course God wouldn't want to add to this factor by allowing it. Putting effort into life is not suggesting suffering for others betterment or "the greater good".✓🤩
What a lovely comment, Orion, I'd say it warms the cockles of my heart but I've never understood what that means. What are cockles and how did they get in the heart?
Your second paragraph got me thinking about the episode I'm working on now, responding to the Isha/ Gita from the perspective of the Course. Something they have in common is that they don't have a moral code. At the same time I'm reading young adult fiction (one of my favorite genres) called The Bad Muslim Discount. It's an interesting illustration of how those moral codes get weaponized and used to impose rule by superiority and domination, including violence. So I wonder if that is a good thing about religion.
What is JW? Totally agreed on God not wanting his children to be ruled. And if we are actually only One, what would it mean to have parts of ourSelf bossing the other parts around? Totally Self-defeating.
Hi Tereza. That's what it's all about "cockles"! That's silly, your wisdom is showing.
Tereza-darling, the Religious and Bible thumpers think they have a purpose because they're lost and search for meaning and purpose, I conclude, Morals are fruit to be picked by the wicked, posing as moral supporters of their actual "subjects" to be sacrifices. Much like the sacrificial "lamb's" etched in the Bible. Those ways are misguided at best. Nature is nature and cannot be tamed entirely. Because we are made of flesh, doesn't constitute being treated like deranged animals or worse: breasts of burden.
Surely robots and automation technology will squelch the need for freethinking beasts. And we're at that point in time where leadership is at the crossroads or fork. Correct?
Problem is religion has replaced reality as the way to move through. Do we really want more lamb's slaughtered? Eventually there'll be none left for the "canine's" and they'll have to sacrifice themselves anyway. Not exactly a recipe for eternity. It makes for complicated nonsense, only to hide the reality that they are us and we are them, as one. As it should be. Many but one, one but many. And I believe we all, here, are on the right paths and need to meet together, including "Gail" and "Jonathan" and whatever else is perpetuating insanity as it attempts to coral Nature itself.
I'm a Human Being and that's perfectly fine with me.
The sun may have been in the sign of Taurus, ergo the Golden calf. Egyptians were very advance astromical. It move into a different sign every two thousand years, ergo the lion 🦁in the Shinx.
Christ said that you will know his followers in town when you see two strangers carrying water. (Aquarius) while the original sign of Chritianity was the Fish, Pisces ♓. Later the cross when it arrived in Italy.
Joseph read the pharaohs dreams and wore a many colored coat, killed by his brothers.
Constantine made Jesus worship into the imperial religion based on his vision of the cross in the sky with the banner "In this sign, conquer." He also worshipped Apollo and merged the two. So there are definitely astrological symbols, which are harmless. What isn't harmless is the imperial agenda that the right to rule the world passed to Constantine and that his military might was backed by divine decree. So everything that assumes some people are better than others (for instance, the notable absence of women) is a way that power is claimed and reinforced by everyone who 'believes' in the 'scripture.'
I don't think that the words Jesus and Christ should be used interchangeably. If you're talking about the figure in the gospels, that would be Jesus. It's only within that story that he's claimed to be the Christ. And on Joseph, the multicolored coat could be like the seamless cloth, interweaving truth with lies. He didn't just read the Pharaoh's dream, he went around with soldiers forcing the farmers to give him their seed. And when the famine hit, he didn't 'save them' by giving it back. He used it to extract everything they had and turn them into indentured servants. Surely one of the most horrible acts imaginable, unless you're a power-hungry Pharaoh. And a darn good reason he and his family would be hated and driven out by popular rebellion, if Exodus is really reversed and it was the rulers they drove out.
The barbarian is you. So filled with hatred. Perhaps you should read Huxley’s “ Eyeless In Gaza”. The title is derived from a Milton poem about Samson and the Philistines. You might learn something.
Who is it that you think I hate? If a scripture says that some people are cursed to be slaves, and you love that scripture, does that mean you hate the people it curses? I don't hate any people but I absolutely reject the idea that God has blessed some to have the right to rule and cursed others to be their slaves. Don't you reject that idea?
Jesus Christ as God and man (and descendant of Shem) does have a right to rule. All was fulfilled in him. Whether we reject it or not is irrelevant to the fact that it’s true.
What you're saying is really important, Jonathan, and missed by most Jesus worshippers. The genealogy of who has the right to rule everyone else goes from Shem to Abram, or from Semites to Hebrews, as I show in this piece. From there it goes to David. After the siege and slaughter of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, Josephus preserves the scholars of the Torah AND the Davidic line of rulers. And then he writes the story of Jesus, as is undeniable for anyone who's looked at the actual evidence. This happens ~70CE when Josephus himself is the son of God, as Caesar was called at that time, and both the Hebrew scriptures and gospels were 'preserved' under his direct permission, the latter in Greek as the original language, since the quotes from 'Jesus' don't work in Aramaic.
So the gospels transfer the right to rule the world to the descendants of Caesar, who Josephus told that he was the Messiah they'd been waiting for. This mantle is taken on by Constantine and becomes the Holy Roman Empire, combining the military force of the empire with the religious imperative to conquer and convert.
That's why what we call Christianity, which I refer to as Jesus worship, is a further evolution and refinement of the right to rule, not by an invisible person in the sky, but by the earthly powers who claim to have inherited that right from 'Peter'.
There two scriptures you missed. God did not wish for Israel (the Hebrews) to have a king. They demanded one. Look at these references.
Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
1 Samuel 8:4-18
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
You're using the Bible as self-referential, Jonathan. It must be right because it says it's right. If anything in it contradicts what you know to be right and wrong, the whole thing has to be questioned. And I don't know about you but, to me, believing some are born to be slaves because they're cursed by God is absolutely, irrefutably, unconditionally wrong.
No you are missing my point. The Bible supports your opinion that man wasn’t meant to be ruled. God didn’t want his followers to have a King. Judges and juries to settle disputes was all they needed. But they WANTED a king. They were warned of the risks and yet persisted. Humans really aren’t that smart. A few of us agree that one human has no authority to rule over another but we are in the minority. Freedom scares most of them.
I get it Jonathan, but do we take into consideration the parents whose children weren't taught, because the parents weren't taught? Possibly intentionally by Samuel, knowing the process of passing knowledge and not, would create a bothersome generation to that point.
A theory to justify such a new order of things as described in the passages that which describes the self anointing Kingdom and King and essentially a God on Earth, as Henry the 8th proclaimed himself, rather than a leader or let's say a Jesus.
Is God and Man magically separate? What are Rights? And how is it that a physical bloodline based descendant of a specific group get to be so exhalted, they think they are Chosen, or of "Select" Status. Are they so exhalted they really believe that they can murder thousands of Palestinians, who could never have done that false flag on Oct 7th?
The Ashkenazi are NOT Semitic, I don't actually care who thinks they have "Power" ---- There are no protected groups; ironically the Globalists Ashkenazi who own and control the Franchise called Israel are performing a "Holocaust" on the defenseless Semitic population that were the majority people of Palestine, prior to 1897; the date of the first Zionist Congress. The leader of that congress Theodore Herzl wrote that "Zionism" is founded on antisemitism. Power only exists inside, that's Self determination. There are No Rulers. There are No Slaves. God doesn't exist outside of the inner self. Each Human Being is Sovereign.
"Man is created. God is creator." --- Consciousness, the inner individuated self is what causes the outer self. The inner "Formless is the cause of the outer Form." This is what makes sense. But there are zero people who have a divine "right" to rule over others. There never will be. Equal Mindedness is really what rules over chaotic mindedness.
Maybe you are trying to say the same thing, just from a biblical point of view; and that's alright. Human constructed Arbitrary Hierarchy is despised by "God," if we can agree that God is on the inside. There is no Individuated expression of God that chooses to be Ruled or Crushed by another Individuated expression of God.
I guess I am trying to translate Abrahamic ideas so that I can relate them.
If every person was then under the rule only of their inner voice, connected to the divine, I would agree with you. But the right to rule is only enforced by actual people. So someone is usurping that right, yes? Someone assumes that they are the interpreter of Jesus and his divine right to rule. Otherwise, a divine right without an earthly enforcer would have no consequences.
Was Jesus really a "Man?" Or is he a persona of Man? Symbolism is in everything; literal-ism is a lie.
Yeshua is an altered pronunciation of Neshua (meaning king in ancient Egyptian, personal tense) The transliterated form of "Yanak" (meaning Lord) is spelled "Janak."
We clearly disagree on some things; that's OK, we'll have that once in awhile.
Consciousness IS the creator. People who are used to thinking in a dualistic way, that is, God is magically separate from Man, tend to view everything in separate multiples.
There is only One thing and that is Consciousness.
Gail, if the story is even real, and I highly doubt it with the long hair giving him strength, Samson was first responsible for destroying the Philistines' country and slaying many of them, (Judges 16:24). And what were they supposed to do? Just say "oh well, you win some you lose some." If someone did that today, they'd probably get the death penalty, whereas Samson only lost his eyes. But with that said, and if it even happened, it would have been at least a few thousand years ago. So, the murders of Palestinian children today, warrants the revenge of Samson? You sound like Madeline Albright stating it was worth murdering 500,000 Iraqi children.
Perhaps you'd learn something by reading Dr. Martha Stout's book, The Sociopath Next Door, where she states that her patients frequently asked her how to know if they were dealing with a sociopath, (a sociopath is made, and a psychopath is born). She said her answer always surprised them, as they play the victim. The psychopath strikes you and then cries out in pain. Most of the Bible is about god-complex psychopaths, suffering from entitlement, pathological lying, rape, child abduction and trafficking, murder, etc., all the while, playing the victim. But worst of all is that people like you really believe that the Bible comes from a Spiritual Supreme Creator. To believe that is the worst kind of blasphemy!
You wrote:
"The book "Babel" by Rebecca Kuang has a fascinating premise. Set in 1828, a Cantonese orphan is brought to London by a mysterious professor and taken under strict tutelage in Latin, Greek and Mandarin. He enters Oxford’s Royal Institute of Translation, commonly known as Babel."
[This is quite interesting] .... continuing:
"There he learns to imbue "silver bars" with magical properties by inscribing "words on opposing sides" where the meaning is lost in translation, doesn’t quite mean the same. The silver does the work of making the transition, exhibiting the related quality. It completes the juxtaposition, makes the leap."
--- The silver is a metaphor for the wealth of the people in a society that only has a functional knowledge of half the language; the Linguistic Infiltration causes the root meaning of "Words" to be Occulted. When Language is only half known, the people who use it are sandwiched between the "Outward" Facing meaning and the power exercised in secret, by the "Occulted" root Meaning.
"Through the extraction of silver and languages, London has amassed wealth and power."
Hasn't it ever?
The City of London is in actual control of nearly ALL Franchise Corporate Governments. But the regular public has no knowledge of this, they still think they are living in National Republics, or Parliamentarian Democracies. This is the True Tower of Basel -- er Babel.
On the Silver Bricks; Words on opposite sides = the Dual Facing Heraldry -- Lawful vs Legal -- Fiat vs Money -- Public / Private arrangement of Power.
Having the Silver sandwiched between two sides of this double an-tantra = Extraction of True Wealth from everyone because it is squeezed between the outward and the hidden.
Extraction of Languages = "The Linguistic Infiltration," I have mentioned this many times, was the first theft along with Name Stealing.
Tereza, I'm curious what you think of this:
Tower of Babel always seemed to be a metaphor in story form about how to build a Collective out of a society of Individuals. King Nimrod, a hunter of men went to collect people to build a Tower to Heaven, by making Bricks.
Not noticing the people making them and forming the Tower were all Individuals, not identical like bricks but unique of different shapes like Round River Stones; as a metaphor to unique Languages. So, when the Lord mixed up the languages, this was in similar context to the failure of Centralizing; people could no longer get along, so the Tower failed to reach "Heaven," and fell. Forming a Centralized Collective Society, has the seeds of it's own destruction.
Those are two very interesting ideas, Nef. I like the silver as a metaphor for the wealth of people with only half-knowledge of the words, hiding the true meaning of their wealth and where it comes from even from themselves.
And yes, the centralizing myth that everyone is like one more brick to be baked 'thoroughly.'
I think you'd like the book.
Yes Hannah, you have that exactly correct. This whole thing we are talking about IS the original Linguistic Infiltration that essentially "extracted the language." The ancient Cone Headed ancestors of the Ashkenazi used the language to "trap" "Meaning" inside of "Definitions." I am planning on doing a post on this topic. If you can read Ancient Egyptian, the symbolism found in the language is really quite deep. First method to take over a culture is to start creating definitions for What things are, that's a "Prison of Law." In more ways than one these are true Parasites; linguistically, culturally, spiritually, socially and of course politically and economically. They are the Architects of Arbitrary Hierarchy, which nature abhors.
You and I do see eye to eye on quite a few things.
Hannah, I feel like I made a wrong turn, as well, and I notice what you're speaking about. It's terrifying!
History is written by the victors who controlled the scribes. Even with today's media. Moses was an Egyptian shaman.
He threw a staff on the ground which turned into a snake and unsprung water.
Seems like a metaphor for the Indian Chakra. Ancient stories can be great rabbit holes to unify the slaves.
I'll be talking about Moses at another time but, as always, I think the story is inverted so that the heroes become the villains, the villains the heroes, the victims are made out to be the aggressors and the aggressors become the victims.
To put Moses in context, Exodus is immediately preceded by the story of Joseph that closes Genesis. Joseph becomes the Pharaoh's right hand man, taking the seed stock of the Egyptian farmers to store in the Pharaoh's 'siloes' as the pyramids were figuratively called. It induces a famine where the self-reliant farmers have to sell Pharaoh their land, their livestock, themselves and their families as slaves.
Only Joseph's family, the Hebrews, are spared by their connection to him. This parallels Josephus saving the Davidic line of rulers when the Judeans who had claimed their sovereignty are destroyed by the Roman Empire. So how do they become slaves in the opening scene of Exodus? They don't. They're the rulers who are being kicked out by the rebellion of the people. That's why they have enough gold to make a statue of a cow.
I got so wrapped up in other thoughts, I forgot to thank you for sharing the map and my comments:) The lies abound, and it's so hard to make real sense of them. Most of the time, I feel like I'm reaching out in darkness, trying to find my way.
Anyway, I've often questioned the story about Ham, Canaan, and Noah, b/c Leviticus 18 states this: "7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."
There's no mention of Noah's wife's name, so perhaps shame was brought upon her b/c when Ham saw his father's nakedness, he actually had sex with his mother, who then bore Canaan, making him Noah's son. Noah was probably drunk and passed out. They inserted Canaan's name before he was born to perhaps cover up the incest b/c they put too much emphasis on him, rather than Ham. They could have just said Ham and his offspring would be cursed. We've got to read between their li(n)es.
I also find it strange that he was named Canaan, as it's too similar to Cain's name. In this article, it's hypothesized that Noah's wife was descended from Cain. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/who-was-noahs-wife/
Oh and I linked the full comment to the excerpt, so I hope people will go to that. Particularly Nef and Hannah, who both seem to have the interest in deciphering words that you and I share.
I've heard that theory (spectacle ;-) about Ham having sex with Noah's wife but it seems like another way to blame the victim. What we know is that Ham loses the inheritance and Canaan is cursed to be a race of slaves (although they didn't seem to pay much attention to it since the land of Canaan is so thriving it's considered the Promised Land all the way through Abram to Exodus).
It seems more evident to me that Noah raped Canaan and Canaan told Ham, who talked about it. That keeps the blame on the patriarch who would then curse his descendants to be slaves. Why make Ham or Canaan into villains when Noah has already shown who he really is? I think that whole theory is a way that those who believe in the heroes and villains of the Bible are trying to justify, in absentia, the hateful act of Noah while still believing he's, not just a good guy, but THE ONLY righteous person who lived at the time. Bleah! What arrogance! Don't buy into it.
Oh wow! I never thought about Noah raping Canaan but that does make a lot more sense. He was probably a pedophile, as well, esp. in light of what I've more currently learned, in regard to the Talmud. I also found it strange that Abram's name was changed to Abra-Ham, as well. Like mentioned before, I saw Arab-Ham.
Something else I noticed when reading the 1851 Septuagint, was that when Jacob and his sons supposedly moved to the best land in Egypt, Goshen, (KJV), the Septuagint states they moved to "Gesem of Arabia." It further says that "Judas" met Joseph in the "city of Heroes, into the land of Ramesses," and goes onto to state that Joseph told the Pharaoh his family was in "Gesem," meaning Heroes, the land of Ramesses, and Gesem were the same place.
https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-Brenton/eng-Brenton_GEN.pdf
Those are really interesting references. Do you have a page number for Judas meeting Joseph?
This may be my mind working overtime, but something else I saw with the name Judas, is if reading in reverse, it shows Saduj / Sadju, which reminded me of Sadducees. When saying Sadducees, it also sounds like Sad-ju-cees / Sad-Jew-Sees.
OMfG. You're so right. So remember, the two founders of the zealot movement were Judas and Saduc or Zadok. Judas was the political leader and Saduc was the Pharisee who was the founder of the Sadducees. I remember someone saying some mnemonic device that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus and that's why they were sad, you see.
What the Hasidic Rabbi said on one of my episodes is that they rejected the Torah. So they rejected the right of the Shemitic dynasty to rule over them and Judas rejected the right of the Roman Empire to rule over them. I still suspect that Jew and Judean means follower of Judas.
Wow!
Glad I didn't sound like I was going off the deep end:) It is very odd, esp. when you make better connections than I understand. Btw, I liked "they were sad, you see." Some of what you have been teaching, esp. about the Sadducees, is starting to sink in. I went back and listened to several of your videos, some for the second time, so I could better grasp what you're teaching. It definitely makes sense that the true Jews and Judeans were followers of Judas. But how do you see King David and Solomon fitting into that equation? Were they even real?
Something else to add, is from my studies of psychology, the psychopath cinches their victim by making them fall in love with themselves, like Narcissus, using what is called "love bombing." In a sense, it's similar to making them also feel chosen and special, like what Christianity does, where if they believe in Jesus, then they are chosen, and heaven bound. Anyone else that doesn't believe isn't special or chosen. Once the psychopath has fully conditioned their victim, then they will start using and abusing them in various ways, such as draining their bank accounts. The good, believing Christian will turn their cheek, and give unto Ceasar, the banks, etc. Jesus said, I will make thee "Fishers = His Serf" of men, and "Christians = His Narcist." There was definitely a motive for Christianity - to dupe them and make them compliant.
Yes, page 127...Gen. 46:28. Also, if you search the text, Judas is used 24 times in the book of Gen. Here's the link where all the individual books are listed. https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-Brenton/
Tereza, in case you are not already familiar with this scholarly/rabbinic article, I think it might help inform your work on this topic: “Noah, Ham and the Curse of Canaan: Who Did What to Whom in the Tent?” (https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent). It’s written by Professor Rabbi David Frankel, who has this concept of “theologies of territory” with regard to Israelite/Jewish history. I am not that familiar with Frankel’s work, but one of his books is in my reading (or at least “scanning”) queue. It’s called *The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible*. I’m hoping and expecting that it helps explain the modern Zionist perspective relevant to the current events in Gaza
Just to inject a gnostic take on this topic, I find the way the Hebrew Bible sometimes textually personifies what we today think of as ancient nation-states—e.g., Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Canaan—very much similar to the concept of Aeons in gnostic texts. Aeons—often simplistically thought of as gods in a pantheon (especially by modern Bible scholars)—have this interesting characteristic of being both places (realms) and divinities. If you read John Lash Lamb, he equates Sophia not only with the Aeon Wisdom, but also with Gaia/Earth. We also find this perspective in the more ancient forms of astrology, in which, for example, Saturn is not just a planet, but a being.
In this same spirit, what if Egypt or Israel is not just a territory? We moderns can barely think of any place on the planet that we do not mentally associate with the political boundaries of a nation-state on a map. But what if, in the perspective of the ancients who wrote/edited the Hebrew Bible, the lands of Egypt, Israel, Canaan, were more importantly and meaningfully manifestations of different and unique divinities? Perhaps all geographical territory (and the rest of material consensus reality) maps to a divinity.
More and more in recent days, I’ve been thinking of America, Russia, and Israel in this context, and I find it useful. (As an aside, in my own mind, Ukraine does not rise to this level of Aeonic identity.)
That's very interesting, Jack. I think it's the opposite of Frankel, and what we see as women represent territories. Women were beneath mention.
I'll be citing this in an upcoming article. He comes right out and says, "On the other hand, he did not want to present Canaan as subject of Egypt. The edited form of the story allows for the reidentification of Canaan’s master as Shem/Israel, rather than Egypt: “May Canaan be the slave of Shem!” We are the divinely destined masters of the Canaanites, proclaimed the editor, and not the Egyptians.[10] Further, Noah’s curse of Canaan and blessing of Shem shows that our mastery over the Canaanites is anything but an immoral abrogation. It is a fulfillment of a destiny foretold long ago."
Flipping the blame from the drunk naked Noah as raping Canaan to Canaan as raping Ham or Noah is such a classic. Frankel assumes that Ham or Canaan must have done SOMETHING to deserve being made slaves with all their descendants. And he even throws in Lot's daughters as getting him drunk and raping him. Let me ask you, can a man be so drunk he doesn't recognize his daughters and still get it up, not once but twice? Lot clearly raped them and shifted the blame, and Reuben is another example I'll be going into.
Interesting theory, Jack, on the Aeons. Thanks for reading and drawing my attention to this.
My head has exploded. I will certainly be looking up Ms Kuang’s books (which I have found on OceanofPDF)
On a flippant note – has anyone looked at the ‘unfinished’ EU Parliament building recently?
On another flippant note … not bad for a 600+-year-old.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the point of transition from 600 or 800-year-olds to the 80 to 100-year-olds that we are more familiar with in modern lifespans.
James Ussher would have factored the biblically documented Noah’s age into his famous chronology.
“The most definitive study [into the age of creation] was carried out by James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in his “The Annals of The World” (1650).”
From his bio …
“James Ussher was one of the greatest scholars and theologians of his time. In his enduring search for knowledge he travelled widely in Britain and Europe, seeking the earliest available manuscripts, buying those he could, and copying others. After his death, his extensive and valuable library, formed the nucleus of the great library of Trinity College, Dublin.
James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, was the pre-eminent figure in the contemporary Church of Ireland, and a leading patron of scholarship at Trinity College, Dublin.
Despite his success as a churchman, Ussher is perhaps most famous for having dated the start of the creation to the evening before 23rd October, 4004 B.C. Ussher calculated this timing in his Annals, a work of biblical chronology which he published in Latin in 1650 … and which was translated into English in 1658.”
Related reading … (No, I have not read it!)
• Annals of the World by James Ussher
https://archive.org/details/AnnalsOfTheWorld/page/n3
more to come, maybe …
I don't know if I can draw @wildrhody 's attention to your comment but she has some definite thoughts. She adds all those ages together and it comes to some occult number, I forget the details. But like everything, they're loaded with symbolism. Literally, I'd give them the same credence as the flood that destroyed all the bad people except for the child rapist slave-cursing righteous drunk, Noah.
“… child rapist slave-cursing righteous drunk, Noah” 😊
I am still chuckling hours after reading that – I just had to add another anecdote …
In the following, from around 24:00 Professor Tony Marin gets on to the core topic of the role of Jews in the African slave trade.
But the most fascinating section is when he is quoting from Harold Brackman, PhD (“The Ebb and Flow of History”). Fom 31:00-ish describes the Talmudic (and hence sequela biblical/Jewish Torah) teachings regarding the ‘Hamitic myth’ (aka “The Curse of Ham”). Some mind-numbing insights from there on…
• Dr Tony Martin: “The role of Jews in African slavery”
https://archive.org/details/Dr.TonyMartinTheJewishOnslaught/David+Irving+%26+Tony+Martin+++The+Jewish+Role+In+The+Trade+In+African+Slaves.mp4
… particularly from 33:00 where Martin quotes Brackman explaining why Africans have curly hair and fat lips et cetera …
😊 😊
Oh, I'll look forward to listening to that in a couple of days, when I get settled. Thanks for sending!
But in the spirit of Babylon Bee, you’ll love “Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch” by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Especially the first page of the chapter titled “Eleven years ago” which reads:
“Archbishop James Ussher (1580-1656) published “Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti” in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 BC. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 BC, at exactly 9:00 a.m., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour.”
Read on for fun … 😊
http://e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/100BBCbooks/GoodOmens.pdf
But it appears that Ussher may have been more than just 15 minutes out …
• The Lion Man: an Ice Age masterpiece
https://blog.britishmuseum.org/the-lion-man-an-ice-age-masterpiece/
Oh I've read Good Omens, it is great fun! Both Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett are terrific.
And the Lion Man is fascinating. From a mammoth tusk! Wow! Thanks for sending me there.
There is a wonderful book called Sailing to Byzantium. The name given to Constantinople.
Constantine broke from the Orthodox Church, which held beliefs closest to that Christ guy. He must have figured if you can't beat them join them, like the Anastazi adopting Judaism, unfortunately with a Babylonian Talamud, kind of Satanic stuff.
Rome abolished the Christian belief in reincarnation. May have given them more power and fear to bring about heaven and hell. Guess worship of the Madonna replaced Isis and Venus and Athena the woman warrior who sprang from the head of Zeus. Role for women was more distinct for the Greeks.
Story has it that Joseph was killed by his brothers. Guess he was not as special as his colored coat and dream interpretation.
Cross in the sky us called the Northern Cross. Gods no longer of the earth, fecundity, agriculture, female, but warriors.
Christ replaced the herding class with agriculture. His sacrifice was bread and wine. He had to be killed. Too much money lost to selling sacrificial animals in the thousands on Passover. He was an economic threat too.
Profound (my new word for: absolutely genius) extrapolation of what we're dealing with and where it's possibly coming from, as suspected a bunch of self prophesies all fighting for ownership of things that are freely provided through not much effort by the living Earth to all living beings and such.
Using deception to create a false narrative indoctrinated from birth to believe in. The best part of any religion books are teaching morals and values to at the very least instill some common respect for self and others. Otherwise we get a bit carried away in interpretations of everything written by those tricksters apparently. Like sacrifices and the cultist phenomenon.
Back to the future now and in America, we see there are some connections to JW and the new world order phenomenon and apparently somehow this all connects to an excuse of power to a few over many.
According to a comment I read here of many on this profound essay, we discover that God himself never intended his children to be ruled. And that's good enough for me! And it will be challenging, it will be difficult because that's what life is all about. So of course God wouldn't want to add to this factor by allowing it. Putting effort into life is not suggesting suffering for others betterment or "the greater good".✓🤩
🥰
What a lovely comment, Orion, I'd say it warms the cockles of my heart but I've never understood what that means. What are cockles and how did they get in the heart?
Your second paragraph got me thinking about the episode I'm working on now, responding to the Isha/ Gita from the perspective of the Course. Something they have in common is that they don't have a moral code. At the same time I'm reading young adult fiction (one of my favorite genres) called The Bad Muslim Discount. It's an interesting illustration of how those moral codes get weaponized and used to impose rule by superiority and domination, including violence. So I wonder if that is a good thing about religion.
What is JW? Totally agreed on God not wanting his children to be ruled. And if we are actually only One, what would it mean to have parts of ourSelf bossing the other parts around? Totally Self-defeating.
Hi Tereza. That's what it's all about "cockles"! That's silly, your wisdom is showing.
Tereza-darling, the Religious and Bible thumpers think they have a purpose because they're lost and search for meaning and purpose, I conclude, Morals are fruit to be picked by the wicked, posing as moral supporters of their actual "subjects" to be sacrifices. Much like the sacrificial "lamb's" etched in the Bible. Those ways are misguided at best. Nature is nature and cannot be tamed entirely. Because we are made of flesh, doesn't constitute being treated like deranged animals or worse: breasts of burden.
Surely robots and automation technology will squelch the need for freethinking beasts. And we're at that point in time where leadership is at the crossroads or fork. Correct?
Problem is religion has replaced reality as the way to move through. Do we really want more lamb's slaughtered? Eventually there'll be none left for the "canine's" and they'll have to sacrifice themselves anyway. Not exactly a recipe for eternity. It makes for complicated nonsense, only to hide the reality that they are us and we are them, as one. As it should be. Many but one, one but many. And I believe we all, here, are on the right paths and need to meet together, including "Gail" and "Jonathan" and whatever else is perpetuating insanity as it attempts to coral Nature itself.
I'm a Human Being and that's perfectly fine with me.
excellent article. thank you!
The sun may have been in the sign of Taurus, ergo the Golden calf. Egyptians were very advance astromical. It move into a different sign every two thousand years, ergo the lion 🦁in the Shinx.
Christ said that you will know his followers in town when you see two strangers carrying water. (Aquarius) while the original sign of Chritianity was the Fish, Pisces ♓. Later the cross when it arrived in Italy.
Joseph read the pharaohs dreams and wore a many colored coat, killed by his brothers.
Much hidden symbolism in biblical myths.
Constantine made Jesus worship into the imperial religion based on his vision of the cross in the sky with the banner "In this sign, conquer." He also worshipped Apollo and merged the two. So there are definitely astrological symbols, which are harmless. What isn't harmless is the imperial agenda that the right to rule the world passed to Constantine and that his military might was backed by divine decree. So everything that assumes some people are better than others (for instance, the notable absence of women) is a way that power is claimed and reinforced by everyone who 'believes' in the 'scripture.'
I don't think that the words Jesus and Christ should be used interchangeably. If you're talking about the figure in the gospels, that would be Jesus. It's only within that story that he's claimed to be the Christ. And on Joseph, the multicolored coat could be like the seamless cloth, interweaving truth with lies. He didn't just read the Pharaoh's dream, he went around with soldiers forcing the farmers to give him their seed. And when the famine hit, he didn't 'save them' by giving it back. He used it to extract everything they had and turn them into indentured servants. Surely one of the most horrible acts imaginable, unless you're a power-hungry Pharaoh. And a darn good reason he and his family would be hated and driven out by popular rebellion, if Exodus is really reversed and it was the rulers they drove out.
The barbarian is you. So filled with hatred. Perhaps you should read Huxley’s “ Eyeless In Gaza”. The title is derived from a Milton poem about Samson and the Philistines. You might learn something.
Who is it that you think I hate? If a scripture says that some people are cursed to be slaves, and you love that scripture, does that mean you hate the people it curses? I don't hate any people but I absolutely reject the idea that God has blessed some to have the right to rule and cursed others to be their slaves. Don't you reject that idea?
Jesus Christ as God and man (and descendant of Shem) does have a right to rule. All was fulfilled in him. Whether we reject it or not is irrelevant to the fact that it’s true.
What you're saying is really important, Jonathan, and missed by most Jesus worshippers. The genealogy of who has the right to rule everyone else goes from Shem to Abram, or from Semites to Hebrews, as I show in this piece. From there it goes to David. After the siege and slaughter of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, Josephus preserves the scholars of the Torah AND the Davidic line of rulers. And then he writes the story of Jesus, as is undeniable for anyone who's looked at the actual evidence. This happens ~70CE when Josephus himself is the son of God, as Caesar was called at that time, and both the Hebrew scriptures and gospels were 'preserved' under his direct permission, the latter in Greek as the original language, since the quotes from 'Jesus' don't work in Aramaic.
So the gospels transfer the right to rule the world to the descendants of Caesar, who Josephus told that he was the Messiah they'd been waiting for. This mantle is taken on by Constantine and becomes the Holy Roman Empire, combining the military force of the empire with the religious imperative to conquer and convert.
That's why what we call Christianity, which I refer to as Jesus worship, is a further evolution and refinement of the right to rule, not by an invisible person in the sky, but by the earthly powers who claim to have inherited that right from 'Peter'.
There two scriptures you missed. God did not wish for Israel (the Hebrews) to have a king. They demanded one. Look at these references.
Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
1 Samuel 8:4-18
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
You're using the Bible as self-referential, Jonathan. It must be right because it says it's right. If anything in it contradicts what you know to be right and wrong, the whole thing has to be questioned. And I don't know about you but, to me, believing some are born to be slaves because they're cursed by God is absolutely, irrefutably, unconditionally wrong.
No you are missing my point. The Bible supports your opinion that man wasn’t meant to be ruled. God didn’t want his followers to have a King. Judges and juries to settle disputes was all they needed. But they WANTED a king. They were warned of the risks and yet persisted. Humans really aren’t that smart. A few of us agree that one human has no authority to rule over another but we are in the minority. Freedom scares most of them.
Peter never made any such claims...and Roman Catholicism has very little in common with the followers of Christ.
Matthew 7:20-21
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Claims to be Christian are worthless if not backed by actions.
I get it Jonathan, but do we take into consideration the parents whose children weren't taught, because the parents weren't taught? Possibly intentionally by Samuel, knowing the process of passing knowledge and not, would create a bothersome generation to that point.
A theory to justify such a new order of things as described in the passages that which describes the self anointing Kingdom and King and essentially a God on Earth, as Henry the 8th proclaimed himself, rather than a leader or let's say a Jesus.
Is God and Man magically separate? What are Rights? And how is it that a physical bloodline based descendant of a specific group get to be so exhalted, they think they are Chosen, or of "Select" Status. Are they so exhalted they really believe that they can murder thousands of Palestinians, who could never have done that false flag on Oct 7th?
The Ashkenazi are NOT Semitic, I don't actually care who thinks they have "Power" ---- There are no protected groups; ironically the Globalists Ashkenazi who own and control the Franchise called Israel are performing a "Holocaust" on the defenseless Semitic population that were the majority people of Palestine, prior to 1897; the date of the first Zionist Congress. The leader of that congress Theodore Herzl wrote that "Zionism" is founded on antisemitism. Power only exists inside, that's Self determination. There are No Rulers. There are No Slaves. God doesn't exist outside of the inner self. Each Human Being is Sovereign.
Man is created. God is creator. Ashkenazi are not Hebrews and nobody claims they are. It’s irrelevant anyways. They aren’t descendants of Shem.
"Man is created. God is creator." --- Consciousness, the inner individuated self is what causes the outer self. The inner "Formless is the cause of the outer Form." This is what makes sense. But there are zero people who have a divine "right" to rule over others. There never will be. Equal Mindedness is really what rules over chaotic mindedness.
Maybe you are trying to say the same thing, just from a biblical point of view; and that's alright. Human constructed Arbitrary Hierarchy is despised by "God," if we can agree that God is on the inside. There is no Individuated expression of God that chooses to be Ruled or Crushed by another Individuated expression of God.
I guess I am trying to translate Abrahamic ideas so that I can relate them.
There is one “man” with a divine right to rule; Jesus Christ. All other’s are imposters.
If every person was then under the rule only of their inner voice, connected to the divine, I would agree with you. But the right to rule is only enforced by actual people. So someone is usurping that right, yes? Someone assumes that they are the interpreter of Jesus and his divine right to rule. Otherwise, a divine right without an earthly enforcer would have no consequences.
Was Jesus really a "Man?" Or is he a persona of Man? Symbolism is in everything; literal-ism is a lie.
Yeshua is an altered pronunciation of Neshua (meaning king in ancient Egyptian, personal tense) The transliterated form of "Yanak" (meaning Lord) is spelled "Janak."
We clearly disagree on some things; that's OK, we'll have that once in awhile.
Without a creator there is no consciousness.
Consciousness IS the creator. People who are used to thinking in a dualistic way, that is, God is magically separate from Man, tend to view everything in separate multiples.
There is only One thing and that is Consciousness.
Gail, if the story is even real, and I highly doubt it with the long hair giving him strength, Samson was first responsible for destroying the Philistines' country and slaying many of them, (Judges 16:24). And what were they supposed to do? Just say "oh well, you win some you lose some." If someone did that today, they'd probably get the death penalty, whereas Samson only lost his eyes. But with that said, and if it even happened, it would have been at least a few thousand years ago. So, the murders of Palestinian children today, warrants the revenge of Samson? You sound like Madeline Albright stating it was worth murdering 500,000 Iraqi children.
Perhaps you'd learn something by reading Dr. Martha Stout's book, The Sociopath Next Door, where she states that her patients frequently asked her how to know if they were dealing with a sociopath, (a sociopath is made, and a psychopath is born). She said her answer always surprised them, as they play the victim. The psychopath strikes you and then cries out in pain. Most of the Bible is about god-complex psychopaths, suffering from entitlement, pathological lying, rape, child abduction and trafficking, murder, etc., all the while, playing the victim. But worst of all is that people like you really believe that the Bible comes from a Spiritual Supreme Creator. To believe that is the worst kind of blasphemy!