PDA

View Full Version : Translated? (Enoch)



george
12-25-15, 04:48 PM
how is "translated" translated?

about enoch was translated into heaven. im looking at this from a john 1:1 perspective right now and I wonder what others here think about this. it may have something to do with the name? a new name maybe?

thanks

allodial
12-25-15, 09:27 PM
3329
Hebrews 11:5 via blueletterbible.org

3330

3331

3332
Verses where the term appears (to show how translated linguistically in those places).

David Merrill
12-25-15, 09:39 PM
how is "translated" translated?

about enoch was translated into heaven. im looking at this from a john 1:1 perspective right now and I wonder what others here think about this. it may have something to do with the name? a new name maybe?

thanks

I think of there being two figures who were transfigured, rather than suffering death to the flesh. Enoch and Elijah. Spiritually I believe that none of us ever die.

I like reference to a New Name. There is a mention that this new name is like a white stone and that I believe refers to juries of old. After hearing testimony and findings of fact the jurists would put one or the other, a white stone or a black stone into a basket to vote on a verdict. Since they had these stones in their hands during deliberations we get a smooth white stone symbolizing acquittal. I have associated this new smooth white stone with the true name for a long time. On the Libel of Review we can see how setting up the evidence repository in the true name (first and middle) distinguishes the man or woman from the TRUST NAME on banking and driver license ID enabling Refusal for Cause in almost all contract presentments.

Studying the Book of Mark reveals how people thought John was channel for Elijah. So in my interpretation I imagine John was a true Prophet of God and the King of Israel's prophet to King Archelaus HEROD. Also there is a Jewish tradition at Passover where Dad will slip out the back, go to the front door and knock. Everybody at the meal will await in anticipation like it is the Prophet Elijah at the door, come to initiate the Messianic Age. When Dad comes in instead the dinner guests say, Maybe next year in Jerusalem!

I have used this model to explain how Elijah is "kosher" as a ghost because he was transfigured. In all other cases resurrection from the dead is considered against the law - necromancy and reanimation are considered against the natural laws of God.

george
12-25-15, 10:42 PM
hi allodial, David,

blueletterbible.org looks to be quite handy for these things. bookmarked it. so it seems "translation" = metathesis which is a bit odd to me but interesting. cant figure out how to get to the hebrew and aramaic functions on that site. is that possible there? still clicking around.

and where did this text come from: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3331&d=1451078998 http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3331&d=1451078998 ?

"distinguishes the man or woman from the TRUST NAME" perhaps, a translation has occurred also?


"Jewish tradition at Passover where Dad will slip out the back, go to the front door and knock. Everybody at the meal will await in anticipation like it is the Prophet Elijah at the door" i guess its not as strange as the santa claus tradition and certainly much older than it.

I dont know enough to comment on most of that David but I sure am perplexed by John 1:1 KJV, and consider if one is to use anothers translation (authority?) and "the word was god" I think it better to de-fine differently or at least re-fine the words.

thos are not my words but if I create my own new words then communication will be difficult with them but not completelt impossible.


thanks

allodial
12-26-15, 05:12 AM
The image is from "Thayer's Lexicon (hayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:)". That image is available via blueletterbible.org.

3333

Re: John 1:1, etc. You might try looking at Young's Literal Translation and comparing it with the KJV.


1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; 2this one was in the beginning with God; 3all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. 4In him was life, and the life was the light of men, 5and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.

Just about every major translation has "the word was god". The Aramaic in English version is somewhat different:


In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.


Word in Greek is "logos".


As Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression "I speak in my heart" for "I think").

The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Hebrews 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Philippians 2:6. (source (http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html))

The typical modern Western culturalist might not be aware of the significance of speech and words although the power of words so the text may seem 'silly' or 'blank'. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". Ask someone who has received a jail sentence or a piece of mail saying they have cancer how 'silly' the idea of word power might be. The power of speech and words was highly regarded in ancient Egypt and in ancient Greece.


Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

Related:

Biblehub John 1:1 textual analysis (ttp://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm)
John 1:1 (multiple versions - biblehub) (http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm)
Should John 1:1 be translated, “The Word was God” or “The Word was a god”? (http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html)
What is the original Greek translation of John 1:1? [duplicate] (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-is-the-original-greek-translation-of-john-11)

george
12-26-15, 09:53 PM
yes, as I suspected, there is a lot more to this and probably a very good direction to take in studies.

I got side tracked a bit on metatron and melchezidek again but only for a few moments.

pheonecian language seems to be the oldest according to the common records available. I wonder has anyone recreated it by voice and if that is available? off to youtube first, maybe we can hear something of it?


thanks for the tips and comments, as always.. good stuff!

george
12-28-15, 12:24 AM
enabling Refusal for Cause in almost all contract presentments.

hey David,

upon another read, this stuck out for me. you write "almost all" and I wonder now what types of contract presentments would be the exception? mainly, in order to get a better view of mechanisms of contracting and how they might differ.

thanks

allodial
01-04-16, 09:46 AM
yes, as I suspected, there is a lot more to this and probably a very good direction to take in studies.

I got side tracked a bit on metatron and melchezidek again but only for a few moments.

pheonecian language seems to be the oldest according to the common records available. I wonder has anyone recreated it by voice and if that is available? off to youtube first, maybe we can hear something of it?


thanks for the tips and comments, as always.. good stuff!

You might surprised or not of the connection between Hebrew, Greek. There was a book called "Hebrew Is Greek" by a Joseph Yahuda ~ 1982 (http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Greek-Joseph-Yahuda/dp/0728900130). The author AFAIK is referring mainly to pre-Homeric Greek. On that note, it has been suggested that after 'Exodus' some wound up where is today called Greece. Note: I don't necessarily agree with the author's conclusions. The point really is to get at a potential of a more meaty and interesting link of Hebrew, Phonecian, Egyptian/Coptic languages. While there might be similarities between Greek and Hebrew I dunno if I'd go as far as Yahuda. What would one expect from languages spoken in close proximity? Maybe a link back to Coptic/Egyptian might be more worthy of study? Afterall, ancient Egyptian words show up in the OT Hebrew--even in the Book of Genesis. The over-emphasis on a Hebrew-Greek seems more like a diversion as opposed to a Hebrew-Chaldee-Phoencian-Egyptian/Coptic study.

3338

Greek was probably influenced by Egyptian languages. Maybe even Akadian?

xparte
01-04-16, 11:35 PM
Con founding a language when did man master the word making his own language enough that biblically it needed a tongue transformation into many or can language be just trusts.That founding language translated Just about every major translation has "the word was god".The confounding practise is to keep the word or the trust. I trust latin is that refounding of the founding language or the new manipulation any one word. God keeps his word in every tongue especially if your not following .

george
01-05-16, 01:06 AM
hi allodial & xparte,

Im more surprised to learn about Hieratic.. so close to heretic LOL Id never heard of it or demotic prior to the youtube audio in the topic I recently posted in words and terms section.

I think he is onto something.

edit: wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieratic "priestly writing"

thanks

allodial
01-06-16, 10:36 AM
Well Hiero-glyphics, hiero-phant. Hier+archy. Hero/Pharoah--shepherd; chauffer.

Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives. The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate, those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity). Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?

Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

Michael Joseph
01-06-16, 01:12 PM
Well Hiero-glyphics, hiero-phant. Hier+archy. Hero/Pharoah--shepherd; chauffer.

Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives. The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate, those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity). Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?

Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

In the Egyptian Hieroglyphs there exists a story of the "Feather of Maat". The idea is that when one died his/her heart was weighed in the balance and if it was lighter than Maat's feather then he/she could pass. Later hieroglyphs showed a priest of AMU holding onto the scales with one hand which in this writers mind indicates that the priesthood had seized upon the concept of Salvation. Such that the priesthood was actively selling their interpretations for money [tithe]. There is nothing new under the sun. Fear of Hell was sold to the masses and the priests took their seat in power and office.

It is a shame that those who are given much to know many times use their knowledge to burden other men. Instead of a life given to service, these becomes parasites. Nevertheless there is a positive and negative sides to all things.

We find that Peter fished all NIGHT long and caught nothing in his own undertakings. But we also find that the Shepherds who watched their flock by Night were the first to see Christ. But at the dawn comes Jesus [enlightenment : water turns to wine] with instruction and then Peter is overwhelmed by the many GREAT FISHES which are truths.

Nevertheless in regard to religion:

Mat 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Is it not the job of the priest to provide food for the people? Instead we see the priests with their hand on the balance. And we read:

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

And hell is apparently, I am told, a place of no escape. And yet:

Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Fear is indeed a powerful toehold on the minds of man. And now there is an annointing that one can receive such that a priest [outwardly] is not needed. Thusly there is no need for those who wold rip off the flocks - Sons of Eli.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The foregoing is the Spiritual inward path = The Way of Matthew 15:32.

george
01-06-16, 10:14 PM
Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives.
I'd rather not.. lol j/k but that is just insane, no? (those people)




The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate,


breech of trust? how did he get the first estate? Im still working on comprehending trusts in general.




those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity).

I read somewhere that the first notions of property and ownership developed out of religions.




Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?


that is a lot to consider.





Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

TBH at this time its hard for me to imagine that any religion is good stuff, and its not for lack of trying either but Im not done yet.



MJ, some have said that Hieratic script was the first cursive writing which would seem to indicate that it was used to hide things or keep secrets. interesting post and I at least agree with "there is a positive and negative sides to all things"

thanks

allodial
01-07-16, 01:02 AM
Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spirtual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? You would call it 'religion'. But where would you be without the light of truth? I'm not talking about perversion of truth for immoral political ends and objectives. Do you want the chaos of the heretical Gnostics where everything goes even murder is OK? Probably not.

As for cursive writing being used to hide something that makes little sense. In my studies it seems that cultures that were highly stratified with a small ruling elite and a large underclass promoted pictographic writing. Consider China (why is it that there is so little talk about the political structure of China in the MSM?), they have thousands of hieroglyphic characters. Typically the wealthy and elite learn them all or most of them or know way more and the 'plebes' who are left with a small and meager vocabulary. In contrast there is phonetics. In the USA, since WWII, there has been a trend to undermine phonetics in education and to instead teach the asinine "word picture" or "whole word" style of reading. The idea of using 'cursive' to hide something makes little sense and to suggest such seems very misleading because there is little difference in uncial and cursive in that they are both fundamentally phonetic. I have studied linguistics for decades. If you look at John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education (http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf) he gets into the phonetics vs. 'word pictures' style of teaching reading. Hiding something would probably tend to focus on pictographics vs phonetics.

A book that gets into development of "Hebrew" (aka Chaldee): Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Hebrew-Phonology-Morphology-Introduction/dp/1575061295) by Joshua Blau.

As for ancient Egyptian in the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths (https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths#P107_27442). Beware of the Babylonians because they have been claiming to be the source "of all things", when that might not be true. They try to claim Babylonian origins of Genesis, etc. when evidence is quite to the contrary--ancient Egyptian words that predate Babylon are found in the text.

Want to hide something with cursive writing? LOL--nonsense. You could make your own language or script instead. Consider this instead (as contrasted with phonetics):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/2230_Kanji.svg


My thesis is that university students, generally speaking, are academically unprepared for a rigorous education because they are victims of the whole-word method of reading instruction. The whole-word method created a crisis of vocabulary. The vocabulary crisis made books inaccessible to students, which then necessitated a drop in content-knowledge levels. This lack of content knowledge made it futile for teachers to expect students to think critically and independently. The system then created a number of ways to cover up this problem. (source (https://mises.org/library/why-do-students-regard-reading-torture))

Word pictures, like hieroglyphics would tend to hide the phonetic nature of speech and etymology of words. If you study linguistics you'll see how its possible to control a people's entire reality through the words you teach them or don't teach them. Understand vs overstand (they left that one out). Consider 'upon' vs 'on' vs. 'in'--in and on are much the same word in other languages. (He was "upon the land", he was "on the land" vs "he was in the land". )

Regarding religion and such: IT WAS (PROGRESSIVE) HORACE MAN "FATHER OF COMMON (COMMUNIST) SCHOOLS" IN AMERICA THAT FIRST ATTACKED PHONETICS AS A METHOD OF TEACHING READING SKILLS. SURPRISE: THE FATHER OF COMMON SCHOOLS (OR PUBLIC EDUCATION) WAS ALSO THE FIRST TO ATTACK A SOUND APPROACH TO READING SKILLS -> IT SEEMS THAT DUMBING PEOPLE DOWN WAS HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE ALONG WITH HIS COHORT JOHN DEWEY.


Horace Mann (1796-1859) has been called the "father of the common schools." I have seen no history book to date that bothered to tell anyone that Horace Mann was a Unitarian, a member of a "Christian" denomination that denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Unitarians, especially in the New England states, were in the front lines of the struggle to implement compulsory public schools.

The Unitarians felt that Christian schools were backward. They felt that education must be concerned with "liberty" and that "liberty" came from the state, not from God. In their eyes, education, to fulfill its calling, had to be government-run. Mr. Mann felt that government-run schools would rid the nation of crime, poverty, sin, etc., within a century. Well, the century has passed, and guess what? To say that Mann's claim was erroneous would be a gross understatement. (source (http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com/2011/10/tenth-point-of-communist-manifesto-part.html))


Horace Mann helped bring about the start of the progressive tide that began to sweep big American cities starting in the 1880s. In many ways the progressives were reactionaries, rebelling against all that was the past: religion, non-centralized society, faith, and a flawed humanity. They were also certain that the new age of industrialization and science was the new path that would help them to help society evolve into what it could be – rational and ultimately perfectible. (source (http://www.publiceddread.com/2010/01/origins-of-whole-language-see-and-say.html))

They attacked that societies weren't overly-centralized and that power wasn't centralized in a few--and they attacked existing religion as part of their objectives.


Horace Mann is the person credited with starting government-run education in the United States in 1839. He learned his techniques {from} Prussia. His motivation was to end education by Christians. Horace Mann was a Unitarian, did not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or the Trinity. Horace Mann's religion was Secularism.'

John Dewey, in the 1920s and 1930s, really established Horace Mann's principles. He introduced the concept of "Humanistic education as a religion." Dewey was President of the American Humanist Association and a signer of the first Humanist Manifesto. He saw Christianity as a huge problem that needed to be solved. Dewey's religion was Secularism.'

Horace Mann visualized a world where no one would be in the prisons, a virtual utopia, if he could just get Christianity out of education. He has largely succeeded, and the result is horrible in terms of teen pregnancies, abortions, assaults, robberies, murders, rapes, vandalisms, and the list goes on. Horace Mann, in his idiocy, predicted utopia, but he got the currently increasingly awful mess. (source (http://www.seekfind.net/HoraceMannJohnDeweyAndTheNEA.html))

"Secularism" ...communism. "State as God". Maybe that's the kind of religion you might prefer instead, george?


The first schoolman to seriously challenge what is known today as phonics was Friedrich Gedike, a disciple of Rousseau, director of a well-known gymnasium in Prussia. In 1791 he published the world’s first look/say primer, A Children’s Reader Without the ABC’s and Spelling. The idea was to eliminate drill. Kids would learn through pictures following suggestions the legendary mystic and scholar Comenius set down in his famous Orbis Pictus of 1657. (source (http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf), PDF-page 89) --The Underground History of American Education (http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf) by John Taylor Gatto



3339 (http://www.amazon.com/Through-Language-Glass-Different-Languages/dp/0312610491)

3340 (http://www.amazon.com/How-Words-Mean-Construction-Linguistics/dp/0199234671/)

Also:

Why Do Students Regard Reading as Torture? (https://mises.org/library/why-do-students-regard-reading-torture)
If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, Why An Egyptian Word for Noah’s Ark? (https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths#P107_27442)
Decrypting Education In America (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?978-Decrypting-Education-in-America)

xparte
01-07-16, 02:46 AM
Spiritual . . . But Not Religious

"Fearlessness is the first requirement of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral." -- Mahatma Gandhi Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spiritual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? Theodore Nottingham: The Knowledge of the Essenes The Essenes were an advanced and highly evolved race of people," Nottingham observes. "Much of their time was devoted to the study of ancient texts, various branches of the healing arts, (and) there were also those who travelled far and wide through the various centers they maintained."

In very modern terms, Nottingham explains how, "(l)ike many of the ancient gnostic groups, the Essenes believed that humankind was made up of three aspects: the body, mind and emotions." "The ultimate goal of the individual," he explains, "was the evolution, not only within him or herself, but also in regards to the planet and universe as a whole. The body was the outer means through which this was expressed, while the mind was seen as the inner manifestation, and creator of thoughts and emotions, which the body then responded to and acted upon. Thought was therefore considered to be the highest, most powerful force in the universe, as it was seen as the instigator of both feeling and action.

"The Essenes," Nottingham points out, "therefore trained themselves to harness this power in a positive way, knowing that each thought effected the lives of everyone on the planet through the vibrations they sent into the collective unconscious." It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth. it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.

george
01-07-16, 04:08 AM
Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spirtual and physical, where would you or anyone else be?

You would call it 'religion'. But where would you be without the light of truth?

thats an interesting thought to ponder actually. with so many truths and insights though things get very confusing. heck just the words we use are confusing once you start to "change the mind" (forget everything we thought we knew and start over. repent?) for instance: "light of truth" not unlike "state of kansas", or the constitution "of" instead of the constitution "for".

not to say that I think you are being deceptive at all allodial, Im grateful you are here and to be able to converse with you about these things! and youre at least part of the reason that i even notice what i might have not before, had you not been posting your truths here and elsewhere.



I'm not talking about perversion of truth for immoral political ends and objectives. Do you want the chaos of the heretical Gnostics where everything goes even murder is OK? Probably not.

TBH it doesnt seem we are too far from that now and in many ways we are there. men acting as cops and soldiers seem to get away with murder often, no? and this is a large part of the reason I now question everything including my own long held beliefs in jesus. its not easy (very few could even deal with the thought of this even) life was much easier prior but this is where im at now and that is subject to change too.

where would we be? a different world, that is near certain.



As for cursive writing being used to hide something that makes little sense.
yes, but i meant not so much the cursive part (but that does have the element of curse it seems) the hieretic but that is all new to me so more investigation needed.



In my studies it seems that cultures that were highly stratified with a small ruling elite and a large underclass promoted pictographic writing. Consider China (why is it that there is so little talk about the political structure of China in the MSM?), they have thousands of hieroglyphic characters. Typically the wealthy and elite learn them all or most of them or know way more and the 'plebes' who are left with a small and meager vocabulary. In contrast there is phonetics. In the USA, since WWII, there has been a trend to undermine phonetics in education and to instead teach the asinine "word picture" or "whole word" style of reading. The idea of using 'cursive' to hide something makes little sense and to suggest such seems very misleading because there is little difference in uncial and cursive in that they are both fundamentally phonetic. I have studied linguistics for decades. If you look at John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education (http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf) he gets into the phonetics vs. 'word pictures' style of teaching reading. Hiding something would probably tend to focus on pictographics vs phonetics.

A book that gets into development of "Hebrew" (aka Chaldee): Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Hebrew-Phonology-Morphology-Introduction/dp/1575061295) by Joshua Blau.



see, this is why Im grateful and thankful to converse with you here. Im just now realizing that linguistics is a key, if not the key needed to unlock a major portion of life's mystery and so having the opportunity to discuss with those who have so much experience is invaluable. Im so glad you are here and share it with us allodial.



As for ancient Egyptian in the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths (https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths#P107_27442). Beware of the Babylonians because they have been claiming to be the source "of all things", when that might not be true. They try to claim Babylonian origins of Genesis, etc. when evidence is quite to the contrary--ancient Egyptian words that predate Babylon are found in the text.

will check that out and probably have more questions too. thanks



Want to hide something with cursive writing? LOL--nonsense. You could make your own language or script instead. Consider this instead (as contrasted with phonetics):

Word pictures, like hieroglyphics would tend to hide the phonetic nature of speech and etymology of words.

yes I see, for the longest time Ive thought that hieroglyphs pre-date written word.



If you study linguistics you'll see how its possible to control a people's entire reality through the words you teach them or don't teach them. Understand vs overstand (they left that one out). Consider 'upon' vs 'on' vs. 'in'--in and on are much the same word in other languages. (He was "upon the land", he was "on the land" vs "he was in the land". )


yes, i agree, it is certainly a worthwhile study.




Regarding religion and such: IT WAS (PROGRESSIVE) HORACE MAN "FATHER OF COMMON (COMMUNIST) SCHOOLS" IN AMERICA THAT FIRST ATTACKED PHONETICS AS A METHOD OF TEACHING READING SKILLS. SURPRISE: THE FATHER OF COMMON SCHOOLS (OR PUBLIC EDUCATION) WAS ALSO THE FIRST TO ATTACK A SOUND APPROACH TO READING SKILLS -> IT SEEMS THAT DUMBING PEOPLE DOWN WAS HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE ALONG WITH HIS COHORT JOHN DEWEY.





They attacked that societies weren't overly-centralized and that power wasn't centralized in a few--and they attacked existing religion as part of their objectives.



thats probably who got rid of teaching parsing. I never even knew what parsing was until discovering David-Wynn: Miller, he mentioned it and why it was stopped from being taught. he has a very unique insight into laguage for sure if not the most unique.



"Secularism" ...communism. "State as God". Maybe that's the kind of religion you might prefer instead, george?


i dont think so, at least not "state as god" and dont know enough about secularism. communism is interesting only becasue I worked with three men from russia for a while who had been through alot over there then made it to america (their dreams come true or so they thought) and had been here for a couple of years and they left to go back to russia with a very bad taste in their mouth from our system. even said that communism sucked but was much better than the ways here because of the nickel and dime to death operations of our governmental system. said they actually had better living circumstances in soviet russia than here in the early 2000s these were good guys too, very intelligent and hard workers so that has always stuck with me and I could relate so much to the nickle and dimed to death, havnt looked at comunism the same since then either but Im not ready to endorse it yet either.




3339 (http://www.amazon.com/Through-Language-Glass-Different-Languages/dp/0312610491)

3340 (http://www.amazon.com/How-Words-Mean-Construction-Linguistics/dp/0199234671/)

Also:

Why Do Students Regard Reading as Torture? (https://mises.org/library/why-do-students-regard-reading-torture)
If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, Why An Egyptian Word for Noah’s Ark? (https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths#P107_27442)
Decrypting Education In America (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?978-Decrypting-Education-in-America)


thanks for the suggestions here and the time and effort youve spent again too. also, please forgive me if I might make you angry or disgusted from time to time, not my intent at all. just trying to learn and not the best writer either.


thanks

edit:



Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths (https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths#P107_27442)

OK, this is an interesting read.. all new to me the egyptian creation stories. what I noticed was that in all these creation stories, the water preexists/wasnt created, no? also, I thought Id read that elohim was plural and that is why some text read "let us create him"

also more aware now of an opposing story, that of the babylonian origin which obviously you dont subscribe to but since im not familiar with it or exactly why one or the other matters, I think I need to look it up now too. if you can further clarify any of this, it would also be helpful.

thanks

allodial
01-07-16, 04:13 AM
Spiritual . . . But Not Religious

"Fearlessness is the first requirement of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral." -- Mahatma Gandhi Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spiritual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? Theodore Nottingham: The Knowledge of the Essenes The Essenes were an advanced and highly evolved race of people," Nottingham observes. "Much of their time was devoted to the study of ancient texts, various branches of the healing arts, (and) there were also those who travelled far and wide through the various centers they maintained."

In very modern terms, Nottingham explains how, "(l)ike many of the ancient gnostic groups, the Essenes believed that humankind was made up of three aspects: the body, mind and emotions." "The ultimate goal of the individual," he explains, "was the evolution, not only within him or herself, but also in regards to the planet and universe as a whole. The body was the outer means through which this was expressed, while the mind was seen as the inner manifestation, and creator of thoughts and emotions, which the body then responded to and acted upon. Thought was therefore considered to be the highest, most powerful force in the universe, as it was seen as the instigator of both feeling and action.

"The Essenes," Nottingham points out, "therefore trained themselves to harness this power in a positive way, knowing that each thought effected the lives of everyone on the planet through the vibrations they sent into the collective unconscious." It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth. it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.


There was more than one sect known as "The Essenes". A most fundamental principle is to do with reaping and sowing (i.e. reaping what one sows). The Bible doesn't tell necessarily tell you that you CANT sow things that would come back and destroy you, instead the good priest and good shepherd encourages those under his care to AVOID doing things that would result in a 'destructive reaping cycle'. Homosexual males hate the idea of someone telling them that engaging in sexual practices can cause disease and destruction. But just because they hate it, it doesn't change the law of reaping and sowing. "ignorance" instead of referring to "lack of knowledge" might be instead referring to active "ignoring or avoiding" any input associated with the truth as a way of avoiding liability (i.e. to practice cluelessness as a lifestyle so as to have a reason for lacking accountability.)

george
01-07-16, 05:25 AM
I impart the obligation is pure of heart.

that of the Essenes? as you have described them here, i think so too.


There was more than one sect known as "The Essenes".

how so?


"ignorance" instead of referring to "lack of knowledge" might be instead referring to active "ignoring or avoiding" any input associated with the truth as a way of avoiding liability (i.e. to practice cluelessness as a lifestyle so as to have a reason for lacking accountability.)

yes, i also think that is what ignorance means and it seems obvious, and in that same way one who lacks knowledge would be twice ignorant i guess since the knowledge was possible.


thanks

allodial
01-07-16, 10:33 PM
thats an interesting thought to ponder actually. with so many truths and insights though things get very confusing. heck just the words we use are confusing once you start to "change the mind" (forget everything we thought we knew and start over. repent?) for instance: "light of truth" not unlike "state of kansas", or the constitution "of" instead of the constitution "for".

There might be many perspectives or observations but I dunno how there can be "many truths" in the sense of two things holding true but conflicting.

On the topic of 'state of Kansas'..."Kansas" (like "Florida" or "Bavaria" or "Belgium") is technically is the name of a nation. The estate they formed was called State of Kansas. "Constitution of the State of Kansas (http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/90272/page/1)" is a title of the document. However "Constitution of the State of Kansas" can also refer to its collective makeup (principles, laws (written and unwritten), etc.). The Federal Government calls its districts states. The Constitution of the United States is a general reference to the jurisprudential makeup of the Federal State known as "the United States". The Constitution for the United States of America refers to a document because that very same document bears such self-reference. That which constitutes --constitution. The by-laws of the State of Kansas set forth by the nation (i.e. the association of People which call their association "Kansas"). Kansas is not the State of Kansas. The (e)state of Kansas comes out of (is 'of') Kansas the nation. First one has to determine what a "Kansas" is...it is a name of a nation--the name of an association of people who associate under or through the name "Kansas" (not much different than a tribe). Federal districts of (associated with) Kansas are regarded to be states also.

IMHO terms like "Kansas Constitution" should be viewed with caution because they don't necessarily mean what they seem to mean. As in "Constitution of the State of Kansas" and "Kansas Constitution" aren't necessarily the same. With "Kansas Constitution", "Kansas" seems to act as a modifier of "Constitution". "citizen of Kansas" and "Kansas citizen" don't strike me as being the same. Similarly, "Constitution of Kansas" is not the title of a document based on the document called "Constitution of the State of Kansas". Constitution of Kansas appears to be a reference to the general makeup of the order, realm, nation, real, state or people associated under the name "Kansas".

The term "state of Kansas" is a generic reference to the estate of the nation called Kansas ("the People of Kansas") which is formally known as "the State of Kansas"--the name of the state as distinct from the state itself. The independent and free state of Missouri (the nation) is stiled "The State of Missouri". What they left out of high school is that Missouri, Florida, Georgia are nations. Missourian is a nationality. "The State of Missouri" is not the same as "the State of Missouri". In the first "The" is not operating as "the". A Missourian is technically foreign to the United States. The People don't necessarily live in the estate they formed. Just because you and I buy land and declare certain areas to be "commons", that doesn't make our private dwellings part of that estate, does it?

Despite all of the progressive thinking, I'm not sure how the United States could be regarded as an organic nation.

Linguistics can be used as a weapon. Attention to detail is an important part of defense IMHO.


TBH it doesnt seem we are too far from that now and in many ways we are there. men acting as cops and soldiers seem to get away with murder often, no? and this is a large part of the reason I now question everything including my own long held beliefs in jesus. its not easy (very few could even deal with the thought of this even) life was much easier prior but this is where im at now and that is subject to change too.

That's militant atheism arising out of heretical gnostic ideas. They will not get away with it. They only seem to, but they are mistaken as to the consequence. The longer it takes the rock to fall....


where would we be? a different world, that is near certain.

Among other things, the evidence is that brown-skinned Christian and fair-skinned Christians tended to get along quite well until the heretical Gnostics started meddling with things. There are rumors suggesting the "Gay Agenda" is an indirect tactic of "White Supremacy"--a tactic to diminish the rights of brown-skinned people by associating with persons who claim cultural affinities based on their sexual fetishes (how does one identify primarily with a sexual fetish and call it a culture?). Or is it a tactic to diminish the rights of everyone? Seriously, as much intelligence and potential a man can have, for one to based his identity on how he sexually pleasures himself seems to be bottom rung. A society of engineers, a society of doctors, a society of seamstresses, makes sense. But a society of buggerists, felatioers or strap-oners? How does that happen? The association of traditional sexual taboos with "Blacks being free" seems to be a type of assault.


3341

Speaking of hieroglyphics, word pictures and art.... ^


...meaning is the “holy grail” not only of linguistics, but also of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience—not to mention more distant domains such as cultural and literary theory. --Foundations of Language by Ray Jackendoff

Speaking of linguistics: there is the use of linguistics as weaponry, subversion through modification of original meaning or intent. Take the term "homophobia" which means fear (phobia) of the same technically but is redefined to mean "hatred of homosexuals". Disgust is redefined by the same Bolshevik politicals as 'hatred'. Because someone might be disgusted should one stick one's finger ones arse and pick one's nose right or because someone suggests doing to same to be disgusting or could make you sick --that is simply disgust and concern. But the politicals behind the Gay Agenda use have been attempting to redefine 'disgust', 'fear' as 'hate'. The same have spent quite a lot of energy to redefine 'gay' from the original meaning of 'happy' to refer to someone who has a penchant for buggery or other associated sexual fetishes.

This gets more to the OP: There are 'occultists' who suggest things like words or letters having power in and of themselves. Perhaps they know the truth and are operationally bent on hiding it. In any case, it seems rather evident to me that words and letters are tools of expressing meaning. The word 'word' itself is similar to the word 'veritas' or 'verdad' (in Espanol): which means truth. But when we say 'word' we mainly are referring to letters assembled to mean something. gay means happy. But to the Gay Agenda psychologists, politicians and spin-doctors: gay refers to men who identify with unhealthy sexual practices. In all honesty, there is really no such thing as a lesbian--at least not among females who have yet to reach menopause.

In warfare, disrupting communications by jamming useable radio frequencies is not an uncommon tactic. Politically or on the PYSOPS level, attempts at the the same kind of jamming or disruption has been carried out through attacking 'meaning'.

Related:
What Is Militant Atheism? (http://martyredintheussr.com/about.html)

xparte
01-09-16, 06:17 AM
It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth.[reaping what you sow ]it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy with reaping what was planted in there head within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.The Bible doesn't tell necessarily tell you that you CANT sow things that would come back and destroy you, instead the good priest and good shepherd encourages those under his care to AVOID doing things that would result in a 'destructive reaping cycle'. Homosexual males hate the idea of someone telling them that engaging in sexual practices can cause disease and destruction. a spiritual destruction is not just a religious taboo all good shepherds prey on ignorance not intellect why a good priest is moral or cowardice is a spiritual choice perversion of truth is a Man,s agenda what section of the essenes that are politically correct is of no spiritual wealth knowing a man thats gay or ig noring all ignorance is still of no spiritual wealth tell a guy not to be gay is who,s ignorance or fetish if millions of christians were spiritual the pedophil priest would never sheperd cowards formless and void thats the spiritual or ritualistic nonsense being slung the moral void is truth not forming it i impart the obligation is pure of heart. we created the void where ever cowards form the greater the void what sect does it for me Christ row 3 section 7 season tickets and ignorance.

BLBereans
01-10-16, 05:31 PM
Harvard's Original Purpose: (https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/10/11/harvard-no-longer-truth-for-christ-and-the-church/)

Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him (Prov. 2:3).

Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoreticall observations of Language and Logick, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require, according to his ability; seeing the entrance of the word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130).

3342

First, you remove God and the notion that we need His revelation in order to transcend our own reasoning and to know "His Way"

3343

Then, you hide the truth by: replacing God's Word with "man's word" and intentionally breeding illiterates through "modern" education controlled by those who hold sway in governmental capacity or through influence therefrom.

Has the agenda changed since the lie in the garden?

xparte
01-10-16, 08:01 PM
But the earth became (or "had become") without form, and void".
“Without form, and void" has been translated from the Hebrew phrase "tohu vav bohu". The words tohu and bohu are also found in Isaiah 34:11, but is there interpreted differently;
Isaiah 34:11 "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu)."
Thus “tohu” can also mean "confused", and “bohu” can mean “empty”. "Confused" and "without form" share in common a lack of order, in a place where there should be order. Perhaps, then, the text could be read as follows; "But the earth was in disarray, and empty".
Jeremiah 4:23-26 also uses the phrase "tohu vav bohu", as follows:
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form (tohu), and void (bohu); and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.”
You will notice that this verse describes the Earth as it would have been at the time of Genesis 1:2;
1. The Earth is described as "formless and void" (or "in disarray and empty")
2. There was no man
3. There were no birds
What is interesting, though, is that it refers to cities, and what's more it seems these cities had received judgment from The Lord - "all the cities thereof were broken down (in disarray) at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger". Perhaps these cities represented the homes of the angels who had fallen.
The word "choshek" has been interpreted as "darkness", and when we read it we assume this is a natural darkness (i.e. before the creation of natural light), but the word "choshek" is also used in Exodus 10:21 to describe the darkness The Lord brought upon Egypt, which was so dark it could be felt. The word "tehown" has been translated as "the deep", but is in fact the same word (Greek abussos – abyss) used to refer to the home of demons and evil spirits, the place from which the anti-Christ emerges.
Thus, again, Genesis 1:2 could be read
"But the earth was in disarray, and empty; and spiritual darkness was upon the face of the demonic realm."The ancient Hebrew seer laments:"In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment" (Isaiah 59:13-15). Learn of the only one who can and will give justice to all.The plain truth website digs up some dirt on formless and void again discovering the truth has more to do with ignorance and education on best how to avoid it and ig noring it.Christ was without tenure or professorship turning tables and education over is political suicide for ignoring upsetting our ignorance thus college Theoretical observations of Language and Logic, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require,a philosophy and philapathy A person feeling philapathy may or may not be right depending on the circumstance. However, philapathy is an imaginative sense nonetheless.A latin mass and a moral confusion a Harvard and a have not. no hidden tuition with Christ be as free as ignorance or as far from it as Christ.good and evil is where ones knowledge is professed.

Michael Joseph
01-10-16, 08:31 PM
But the earth became (or "had become") without form, and void".
“Without form, and void" has been translated from the Hebrew phrase "tohu vav bohu". The words tohu and bohu are also found in Isaiah 34:11, but is there interpreted differently;
Isaiah 34:11 "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu)."
Thus “tohu” can also mean "confused", and “bohu” can mean “empty”. "Confused" and "without form" share in common a lack of order, in a place where there should be order. Perhaps, then, the text could be read as follows; "But the earth was in disarray, and empty".
Jeremiah 4:23-26 also uses the phrase "tohu vav bohu", as follows:
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form (tohu), and void (bohu); and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.”
You will notice that this verse describes the Earth as it would have been at the time of Genesis 1:2;
1. The Earth is described as "formless and void" (or "in disarray and empty")
2. There was no man
3. There were no birds
What is interesting, though, is that it refers to cities, and what's more it seems these cities had received judgment from The Lord - "all the cities thereof were broken down (in disarray) at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger". Perhaps these cities represented the homes of the angels who had fallen.
The word "choshek" has been interpreted as "darkness", and when we read it we assume this is a natural darkness (i.e. before the creation of natural light), but the word "choshek" is also used in Exodus 10:21 to describe the darkness The Lord brought upon Egypt, which was so dark it could be felt. The word "tehown" has been translated as "the deep", but is in fact the same word (Greek abussos – abyss) used to refer to the home of demons and evil spirits, the place from which the anti-Christ emerges.
Thus, again, Genesis 1:2 could be read
"But the earth was in disarray, and empty; and spiritual darkness was upon the face of the demonic realm."The ancient Hebrew seer laments:"In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment" (Isaiah 59:13-15). Learn of the only one who can and will give justice to all.The plain truth website digs up some dirt on formless and void again discovering the truth has more to do with ignorance and education on best how to avoid it and ig noring it.Christ was without tenure or professorship turning tables and education over is political suicide for ignoring upsetting our ignorance thus college Theoretical observations of Language and Logic, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require,a philosophy and philapathy A person feeling philapathy may or may not be right depending on the circumstance. However, philapathy is an imaginative sense nonetheless.A latin mass and a moral confusion a Harvard and a have not. no hidden tuition with Christ be as free as ignorance or as far from it as Christ.good and evil is where ones knowledge is professed.

We know this is not the FIRST ESTATE of man for that would mean there is a grave error in the Bible - Ref Isaiah 45:18. But consider the base nature of man's consciousness - how art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer. Man likes to externalize himself and point the finger at others. But now we see the five aspects of carnality which brought man low into Base Consciousness. Man fell from the Mountain into the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

There was never and will never be a "talking snake". This is the Central Nervous System in man. Man choose to experience this Planet Eden thru this Carnal Nature. A reset thusly was made roughly about 12k years back.

In the Scripture Man is a Title. A Man is one who is Spiritually Conscious. Dominion is therefore granted to Man NOT the beasts of the field - those who walk in base consciousness! Clearly there is a problem with the historical model. Human's today cannot get close to building the structures of yesteryear and some would have that we are at the peak of technology? Hardly.

Nothing leaves the law boundary of the Husbandman! All things are made subject to His Dominion.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

BLBereans
01-10-16, 09:00 PM
We know this is not the FIRST ESTATE of man for that would mean there is a grave error in the Bible - Ref Isaiah 45:18. But consider the base nature of man's consciousness - how art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer. Man likes to externalize himself and point the finger at others. But now we see the five aspects of carnality which brought man low into Base Consciousness. Man fell from the Mountain into the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

There was never and will never be a "talking snake". This is the Central Nervous System in man. Man choose to experience this Planet Eden thru this Carnal Nature. A reset thusly was made roughly about 12k years back.

In the Scripture Man is a Title. A Man is one who is Spiritually Conscious. Dominion is therefore granted to Man NOT the beasts of the field - those who walk in base consciousness! Clearly there is a problem with the historical model. Human's today cannot get close to building the structures of yesteryear and some would have that we are at the peak of technology? Hardly.

I see no error in the first estate of man being Eden. Isaiah 45:18 refers to the notion that God does not create the earth in vain; not to be a wasteland of confusion and shame as is the "end-game" for the idol makers/worshipers He spoke about in earlier verses (context!).

Pointing the finger at others so as to avoid responsibility for one's own actions is one thing, claiming that there are NO external forces in the unseen realm working against us is yet another. You seem to bounce back and forth between denying the literal and accepting it. There does exist a prime entity whose goal is to spread evil; we are NOT God's only creation. There is the Heavenly Host who is His Divine Council in the unseen realm and they too are responsible for their own actions. Some chose to follow the adversary in revolt and rebellion against their Creator since they did not find favor with God's new created family of man whose original estate is earth and who was granted great authority.

The "talking snake" polemic is an old and tired argument. The nachash is obviously NOT a "talking snake"; it is a serpentine-like shining being who obviously did not cause Eve to marvel as to why she was conversing with a "talking snake". The account in scripture makes it clear that she did not find the "serpent" being as unusual in her realm nor a being whose ability to speak was out of the ordinary. Heaven and earth were close and communion between the two realms was normative in Eden. God walked with them daily until the expulsion.

The "structures of yesteryear" were attempts by man to re-create Eden on his own terms (humanism - the lie of the garden) by re-gaining access to the Heavenly realm. I am NOT impressed with said "technology" when the inspiration behind it was for sheer rebellion and the religion of "ME" manifesting by way of assistance and "knowledge" from the fallen members of God's Heavenly Host. Any knowledge gained that is NOT directly from God is an abomination and should be regarded as such.

allodial
01-11-16, 12:29 AM
Unraveling the mystery of the talking snake is rather easy: a humanoid priest or representative of the Cult of Snake Worshipers. If the serpent represents a carnal mind then it can easily be equated with a totally-carnal involved in serpent worship (i.e. the other man's carnal mind and carnal nervous system being the Serpent--devoid of the higher mind). The serpent worshiping occultist 'eats of the dust' the false doctrines quench not thirst. Coincidentally, it comes to mind that mirages are associated with dry desert places.

Regarding Harvard
Kaballists infiltrated the English/British royal courts (~1500) via John Dee. Calvin infiltrated the Protestant movement (i.e. a widespread realization that encouraged the saints of Western Europe to return to original, non-Roman doctrinal roots) bringing usury into Western Europe. Some say it went downhill (in Britain) from there. The American Colonists probably thanks to George III (who was committed to a mental institution probably because he disagreed with the occultists) escaped. Eventually the same occultists would lay siege against the United States and would infiltrate U.S. Government more solidly by the late 1800s.

Re: Eve's Discourse With the Serpent
See above re: attacking meaning. The Gay Agenda is 100% a religious movement--even the blatant use of Sigil Magic is obvious in many Gay Agenda logos. If A is in the original estate and B wants to remove A to B's diminished estate, one trick might be to get A to adopt the meanings and language of the diminished estate. This is exactly what the Gay Agenda proponents are doing. The Gay Agenda is an arm of a religious movement--even if the 'average Joe' gay guy doesn't realize such the truth remains. They are attacking the First Estate using spiritual/mental methods: the attack is on meaning and is a subtle form of subversion. (See also: militant atheism.)

Gay Agenda, Magickal Rites & Political Control
Now there are those who want to run to defend the Gay Agenda but it has nothing to do with effeminate men wanting to get along with everyone. Buggery has been tolerated for a long time in the USA and Europe. The Gay Agenda is a subordinate, satellite movement to a subtle religious agenda. Their objective is to destroy the original estate. The Gay Agenda is in part about attempts to redefined to say 'sodomization of one man by another' to the extent that it is regarded to be the same as solemnization of marriage on the same level as male-female copulation. To push the adoption of the Magickal Rite of Sodomy by the 50 States and to displace the original Roman, Christian or Universal ideals of marriage.

The outward show of the Gay Agenda and the MSM hides the subtle maneuvering aimed at opening the door to institutionalize the ownership of men by men (i.e. sexual and chattel slavery) and to make the act of sodomy into a governmentally institutionalized rite of ownership. Consider a Muslim once told me that it was OK for them to have sex with their slaves wives. So it makes you wonder about slavery in America? Was it Christians? Or was it Islamists all along disguised as Christians? So the idea if you don't get it folks: there are those who claim to own everyone as slaves, and they believe that they have the right to sodomize their male slaves, to sodomize their female slaves, to have sex with their slaves' wives (why do you think they attack marriage and promote divorce?) Of course, since it all about power and control, their ideal is to control and desecrate men (as their crown prize of ownership) through slavery "sealed with the kiss" of sodomy. And ritually they aim to infuse their spirits into the man they sodomize and lay control of him--to make him more susceptible to their 'magnetic influence' (See mesermism). Of course, they aren't going to say this outright in the MSM--but their objective has been made clear by their own confessions and not only that it is easily discernible from a study of the historical record as well as their own texts.

The Hate Is From Them
Those who want to distract from the point will try to massage this into a "message of hate". Believe me, they hate anyone who isn't interested in their Gay Agenda. The hate is toward the innocent or those disinterested in their sex worship and political sodomy agenda. They want to hide the truth that it really isn't about expanding rights in the good sense, its about making a mockery of the rights of others. I have never any more hateful, disgusting and obsessed than gay men who having set their sights upon a man who is politely disinterested in their sexual fetishes, cannot tolerate his disinterest and will use drugs an all kinds of nefarious antics to destroy his life--even relationships with women (even to destroy those women) to get their "dreams". In all fairness, there are plenty of gay men who will leave well enough alone--but there are those who are obsessed and capable of becoming destructively and criminally obsessed with sodomizing their targets. In 15 years of observation, less than 85% of the gay males are interested in leaving others alone. Disinterest is 'hate' for them. What that means when they cry 'hate' is that they hate those who don't agree with them, so they imagine the other to hate them in order to reconcile or justify the hatred they already feel. (See: projection.)

I used to see things a lot more neutrally, but I realize there are some very dangerous people. As a matter of fact, among one Pentecostal congregation's members there were warnings about casual ministering to gay males because they would become very violent should anyone disagree with them. The general idea was to pray for the well-being of others but some you might avoid ministering to them. And that was from back in the mid 90s. Men loving men is natural and normal. However, one a man can love a man or woman without any sexual contact whatsoever being involved.

A gay male took over a coffee shop chain in the South (Caribou Coffee) and made a point to fire any male employees who would not allow themselves to be sodomized. But aren't these supposed to be reasonable, modern men who are for choice and liberty? Not at all. That is hate. If you didn't allow them to sodomize you, you were fired. Workers at the coffee shop said it was like a religion: if you didn't convert you were forced out of a job. And this was the mid to late 90s. But the MSM doesn't tell you this. Even back then, innocent, harmless men would become target of gay men who would stalk them to look for opportunities to spike their drinks or food. If their victim took revenge and beat them, they would call it "gay bashing".

***

The Gay Agenda is mentioned because it is a glaring and obvious example of a movement that is being used as part of another movement to attack and undermine: meaning, purpose and intent. To attack meaning and intent is to attack purpose. If the original directive is to go from point A to B, if they can deceive you into accepting their new definition of B---well you get the idea. I was once taught that although Satan has no formidable, true power, he still has the 'power of the lie'. Redefining meaning is a tactic to get someone to believe a lie.


{BLBereans replying to Michale Joseph}You seem to bounce back and forth between denying the literal and accepting it.

There is this thing called a double bind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind):


A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.[1]

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.[2]

A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in the order of messages and these messages can either be stated explicitly or implicitly within the context of the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.[3][4]

Introduction of a 'student' to two conflicting ideas as a subtil technique to introduce a third maxim typically done secretly (the real objective of some teachers is to introduce someone to something new for the purpose of blanking the mind of the student in order to clear the way for the real implant). The period that the student holds the conflicting ideas is a period of cognitive dissonance. The double bind technique is designed to destroy first two systems to which the conflict pertain while all along the teacher's hidden intent was to establish a third maxim, belief or the like. (As in, the first injection is purposed create a conflict which leaves a hole for the third.) I'm not suggesting MJ to be actively creating double binds but, that kind of back-and-forth brings the double bind and things related to such to mind. Those going back and forth might also be in a period of struggling with inner conflict.

Related:
This is hate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_ant igay_donors_to_prop_8.html

3345

Michael Joseph
01-11-16, 01:50 PM
We know this is not the FIRST ESTATE of man for that would mean there is a grave error in the Bible - Ref Isaiah 45:18. But consider the base nature of man's consciousness - how art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer. Man likes to externalize himself and point the finger at others. But now we see the five aspects of carnality which brought man low into Base Consciousness. Man fell from the Mountain into the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

There was never and will never be a "talking snake". This is the Central Nervous System in man. Man choose to experience this Planet Eden thru this Carnal Nature. A reset thusly was made roughly about 12k years back.

In the Scripture Man is a Title. A Man is one who is Spiritually Conscious. Dominion is therefore granted to Man NOT the beasts of the field - those who walk in base consciousness! Clearly there is a problem with the historical model. Human's today cannot get close to building the structures of yesteryear and some would have that we are at the peak of technology? Hardly.

Nothing leaves the law boundary of the Husbandman! All things are made subject to His Dominion.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.


Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Comment: Here Pilate - lower mind - only sees externally. Thus he only sees labels of people - Jew.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Comment: Carnality is a "land of confusion" - BBL. "Yea though I walk thru the Valley of the Shadow of Death". A place where truth is bound up FROZEN. How can one be baptized in Truth [Water] if said water is frozen [snow]?

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

David Merrill
01-11-16, 02:37 PM
Nebuchadnezzar's trust formed by typical law. In 604 BC he began the invasion of Israel; in 586 BC he took the Temple from the Kingdom (of David/Solomon). Twenty years.

The spiritual kingdom was represented outside Babylon. That is the deliverance promised by Jesus; a return to Israel prior to Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of carnal ego mind. Of course one can register the Kingdom and Crown as completely divine in propagation. But I have looked into it and Jesus was the bastard son of Archelaus HEROD, king of Israel. Then in his early thirties Jesus was re-adopted into the royal family - affiliated again.

Hollywood caught this in Kingdom of Heaven:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNH4N44D28

David Merrill
01-11-16, 02:38 PM
Uncle denies Nephew to redeem his bastard.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgXEvR8UWwI

BLBereans
01-11-16, 10:16 PM
But I have looked into it and Jesus was the bastard son of Archelaus HEROD, king of Israel. Then in his early thirties Jesus was re-adopted into the royal family - affiliated


Well, I guess that settles it then. Case closed everybody, Jesus is NOT the incarnate God as He claimed; he is only the bastard son of Archalaus HEROD.

Who wants to break the news to the rest of Christendom?

I gotta hand it to ya, you gotta way my friend.

David Merrill
01-12-16, 12:26 AM
It robs Jesus of divinity not. I find it refreshing to understand the truth. Jesus said that the Kingdom is at hand and that heaven is within.

David Merrill
01-12-16, 01:03 AM
Interestingly I believe it robbed my post of my point.

george
01-12-16, 01:22 AM
ralf ellis has looked into it too LOL! but seriously, I find what he has to say along those lines fascinating as most of this stuff is. look him up on youtube.

it seems fairly logical to me to say that none of "us" have any first hand knowledge of any of this. would anyone here disagree with that? and also for this reason I cant say anyone of us here is incorrect (or correct) about this stuff.

Im finding now that what Nietzsche was said to have written to be most "pragmatic" myself though but Ive just scratched the surface there and my thoughts are sure to change if nothing else. from what Ive read so far, I seem to have a lot more in common with his thinking than anyone else as far as the most notable philosophers so far but Im kinda taking them in, in the order they were alive (or so we are told) its refreshing to read such insight into Zoro, Plato, etc. for a change too.

but David, look up the ralf ellis videos (4 parts ~ 4hrs) he probably has some new ammo for ya since he has done so much traveling investigation worldwide on that subject. wait till you hear what he has to say about melchezidek.

allodial
01-12-16, 02:20 AM
God or the Godhead As Perpetual and Reliable Witness


My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.... John 10:27
One thing is that an everliving God or Universal Mind would be first hand witness to it all and thusly could bear witness to the truth of anything. The thing is that if you were to step back and assess Jesus and the Bible for what it says and others who decry it, you'll find that the Bible holds consistencies and that sincere, genuine pro-Bible or pro-truth people have consistencies in character while of most of those against it tend to have a propensity for lying or deceiving people. Consider, for example, that certain Talmudist omitted 176 or so years from time just to "prove" Jesus to not be Messiah--that tells you that they know the truth but aren't interested in the truth being told, known or propagated. Why would you do such a thing unless you were hidin something? Even from an outsider looking in, you an widdle down the list of those you can trust.

Logically: Intentional Lying or Concealment Discredits Witnesses
Among Islamists, its "OK to lie to non-Islamists" --with any group that OKs lying to "outsiders" how can you trust ANYTHING that group promotes or says or even tells its members. Of course it would make sense if a religion is really a political system it would only make sense if they would make lying OK for the sake of upholding the political system (or gang) that it really might be. So basically you have those who think that a large gang is a religion. I mean really if you look it. They think 'numbers' makes right.

Compared to the Koran, the Talmud and many other texts, the Bible is a very public, tracked work. The adherence to common law notice and grace is ambient in the Bible. With any text where there is holding back of information, secret laws, etc. Well secret laws aren't laws politically.

A serious investigation tends to favor Jesus' side of things. If you look carefully at what is attacked it will reveal that the adversaries of that system are particular interested a specific thing: building a political system and a large gang at the expense of others. The principles underlying the creation story of Genesis are provable. There are many who want you to join their secret society to know the truth. Plainly, if one side of an argument is constantly lying and killing people to 'prove' themselves to be right, it discredits them.

A Plurality of Gods Makes It Too Obvious, Monotheistic-Pantheism As Stumbling Block (Idolatry: Self-Desecration)
So if it were the case that the primary god of the Bible is not a passive, impersonal 'radiant being' then those who worship a passive, impersonal 'radiant being' could not possibly be worshipping (serving) the same god. That is, a passive god who gives no instruction but "anything goes": how can you serve a god that has no terms or instructions? Worship == service. The simple instructions given by Jesus were straightforward:they were about loving the god he served and loving others and loving oneself. Those laws or instructions take into the mind that Law of Reaping & Sowing. If you do good you will reap good. So if you refrain from eye-for-an-eye you will end the negative kickback. It is so simple. But those who like controlling others cannot tolerate truth like that.

Pilate, Truth, Dominions of Darkness, Dominions of Light
A significance of Pilate asking "What is truth?" is that Pilate is on the record asking what such dominion is there but a dominion of darkness (as in how can you have a dominion like Rome without keeping the subjects in the dark?). The kingdom of God is not about dominion for the sake of dominion afterall dominion is guaranteed, prosperity is most anyone's goal (just like when playing a video game). Edom's (i.e. those who are carnal and and despise spiritual things and hate rules that restrict animal nature) sons and daughters don't want to be subject to rules--but Edom's problem is that Edom not only wants but needs all the good stuff of a civil society thusly they must conceal their real natures and thusly they must have be hosted because they cannot maintain civil society themselves. For example, consider feral women of today as a 'type of Edom' pretend to be civil for the purpose of gaining their personal objectives while secretly they are a deceptive enemy of the very society which feeds them (i.e. they are like unto parasites--they give nothing but headaches and pain -> psychopaths without conscience).

The Ancient Egyptian Argument
As pertains to religions or life doctrines, the general argument or conflict seems to be between [1] those who regard there to be a personal God and [2] those who promote the idea of God as a passive, impersonal being ('sun worship' because the sun doesn't talk, it shines on everyone, it doesn't say that you have to behave a certain way to get its light). From analysis, those who prefer an impersonal god tends to lean toward "Sun worship" or favor a god that is more of a passive, impersonal "radiant being". An impersonal god would be preferred by those who don't like the idea of there being universal moral principles. Those who promote a system of 'universal equal forces of good and evil' (two horns, get it?) would probably lean toward the "radiant passive being" concept. Truth be told, good does not need evil to exist. Tip: evil is a behavior or an attitude not a force.

The Indifferent Sun vs. Active Fathers, Sons & Daughters
On the note of [1] personal, intelligent god vs [2] passive, silent, radiant being god: it may be that most every religion can be categorized into those two categories. And if so you have the preeminence of Ptah or active Proginetor-Creator-Scientist vs the preeminence of the Sun, the Moon and the Stars (silent, 'unknowable' beings of mystery). Genesis shows the suns, the moon and stars as being created--that conflicts with sun worship because that would make the sun, the moon and the stars suboordinate to their creator. Joseph's dream reiterates the preiminance of the Father (to father in the general sense is to create and to continues to nurture, grow and maintain one's creation--a 'father' is class of creator). Thusly you have Islamists who say "god has no sons" (a creator takes no further development or interest in his or her creation neither continues to 'mother' or 'father'--sounds like abandonment, doesn't it?). If Islamists are describing the characteristic of the god that they serve, then they could not possibly be describing the god served by others who has the character of being a fathers his creation. Father == active involvement rather than abandonment.

Re: Nietzsche
Despite Nietzsche's popularity, I suspect anyone who really looks into it will see he was a bit of a hack. In any case, analyzing carnally minded people isn't that difficult: they are carnally minded. But to presume all are carnally minded is error and might be projection on his part.

As for 'bastardy' the secular view to me is meaningless. A child willingly abandoned by his father (adopted father or otherwise) might be the only valid definition secularly speaking--the Bible definition is another thing. Protecting the secular view into the Bible is not recommended by me.

xparte
01-12-16, 10:10 AM
. Killing innocence Dreams were also a part of Israel's prophetic hope (Jl 2:28). ... provision that Jesus would grow up in a home with a father and mother and thus avoid the cruelty and shame of being unjustly called an illegitimate child (Mt 1:19-23). ... Jesus was further protected from jealous King Herod by the dream that told joseph to flee to Egypt with Mary and the child (v 13). ... Finally, God warned joseph to avoid judea, where Herod's evil son Archelaus the bastard reigned, and to settle in Galilee instead (v 22).LB its The irony of the magi's visit is that while even pagan astrologers come to worship the Jewish Messiah, the illegitimate king of the Jews seeks to destroy him. When Joseph is informed in a dream that Herod has died, he returns to Israel. Hearing that Herod's cruel and incompetent son Archelaus is ruling in Judea, illegitimate bastards yet well placed david merrill No one who meets Jesus ever stays the same wise men from the east went to see the truth.

allodial
01-12-16, 01:04 PM
Was he the "Jewish" Messiah? If "Jew" is meant as in "Judean", Jesus/Yeshua/Yesha was expected by all of Israel and they were Hebrews by religion. If Jew is a reference for exuding from the house of Judah, son of Israel, remember, Judah was one of many sons. Judah himself was of Israel. As made plain and clear: the scepter departed from the house of Judah around the time of the birth of Jesus Christ.

On a related, note, some try to say "Christ" to be a type of consciousness (i.e. "Christ consciousness"). Annointed is similar to crowned, empowered and appointed. The creator never abandoned his creation meaning he retained sovereignty and could delegate it. Anyways, how does one manage to have "appointed consciousness", "annointed consciousness" or "elected consciousness"? Make sense of that.

Moses seemed to be convinced that one could choose to worship other gods. If there was only one potential object or recipient of worship then there could there have been any other choice? Just because New Zealand calls their 'prime resident' "Prime Minister" and Australia does the same, doesn't make it the same political system. It doesn't make there "one prime minister". Sure there is one chief executive of Australia and one chief executive of New Zealand, but they are two different beings--same title. Homonyms in titlature doesn't necessarily give rise to unity.

xparte
01-13-16, 06:48 AM
among those who were excluded from entering the congregation, even to the tenth generation, was the bastard. (23:2) The term is not, however, applied to any illegitimate offspring, born out of wedlock, but is restricted by the rabbins to the issue of any connection within the degrees prohibited by the law.jewish law gets a jewish messiah In the Old Testament the rendering of the Hebrew word mamzer', which means "polluted." In Deut. 23:2, it occurs in the ordinary sense of illegitimate offspring. In Zech. 9:6, the word is used in the sense of foreigner. From the history of Jephthah we learn that there were bastard offspring among the Jews (Judg. 11:1-7). In Heb. 12:8, the word (Gr. nothoi) is used in its ordinary sense, and denotes those who do not share the privileges of God's children.The irony of the magi's visit is that while even pagan astrologers come to worship the Jewish Messiah,The Wisdom of the Magi Not Astrological the illegitimate king of the Jews seeks to destroy him.in my "Christ consciousness"words.First THE WORD was corrupted then a night sky that held the words of God it was soon corrupted and finally Christ who is incorruptible just his message has been corrupted a pure heart and clear conscious has divinity we can be internally saved with accepting truth however the biblical franchise and herods dept stores you will enjoy the equivalent one messianic jewish consciousness the illegitimate king or IRISH ITALIAN and Greek Messiah sold out . The suggestion has often been made that the prophecy of Balaam, "There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel" (Nu 24:17), may have been preserved in the East and have furnished the clue upon which the Magi acted. It is a pleasing thought that these devout Gentiles had thus preserved and meditated upon the prophecy given through one who may well have been of an allied order to themselves; but that prophecy can surely not have been sufficient in itself, and some much more direct intimation must have been vouch-safed to them; though the prophecy may have aided their faith and have dictated the form in which they announced their mission to King Herod and the Jews. it seems safer to conclude that the narrative has been purposely left--astronomically--too incomplete for any astronomical conclusion to be drawn from it. One verse more, and that a short one, could have answered all our inquiries, could have told us whether the star was a conjunction of the planets, a comet, or a temporary star; or whether it was a supernatural light like the pillar of fire in the wilderness. But that verse has not been given. The score of additional words which could have cleared up the matter have been withheld, and there can be no doubt as to the reason. The star, whatever its physical nature, was of no importance except as a guide to the birthplace of the infant Jesus. The reticence of the gospel narrative on all points, except those directly relating to our Lord Himself, enforces the truth that the Scriptures were not written to instruct us in astronomy, or in any of the physical sciences, but that we might have life eternal (Jn 17:3).The birth of our Lord was announced in a supernatural manner not only to Jews by the angelic message to the shepherds, but also to Gentiles, for "Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him" (Mt 2:1,2). The word which has been rendered "wise men" in the King James Version and the English Revised Version (the American Standard Revised Version "Wise-men") is "Magi." These, according to Herodotus, were originally a tribe of the Medes (Herodotus i.101) and from their supposed skill in divination the term was applied to the learned and priestly caste among the followers of Zoroaster; they were thus in principle worshippers of one only God, and rejecters of polytheism and idolatry. The simple creed and high morality, which Zoroastrianism in its purest form professed, were well adapted to prepare its faithful disciples to receive a further revelation, and we may reasonably believe that the wise men who had been thus guided to worship the new-born king of the Jews had been faithful to the light afforded to them, for "in every nation he that feareth him (God), and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:35). its God with many chosen people nations and narrowing paths is Christ's light.

allodial
01-13-16, 10:37 AM
Its been a while since I've done word studies and research on the term 'bastard'. But the tendency of secular culture to inject their ideas and meanings into scripture is nothing new. The attack on meaning over the years has concealed some things. For example the mulatto or mixed child was before the 1800s referring to a child of a Christian and a non-believer. The term bastard was an English word pregnant with meaning and is not the same term as mamzer (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4464&t=KJV) which referred to a child born of a believer and a non-believer (i.e. mixed) or a child born out of adultery (i.e. a man tapping another man's wife and bearing a child--this is why the exhortation to let each have his own wife ore wives) or a child born of incest (Moabites). If you take the term mamzer and apply it only to genetics then it would have nothing to do with religion--the offspring of incest would be obviously of the same genetics so that creates a quandry. In the 1700s, term 'mixed marriage' and mulatto referred to a child of a Christian and a non-Christian. It gets back to original meaning, original intent and original purpose.

The exhortation to have one's own wife: [1] encourages marriage which would be carried out according in such a manner as to avoid say a sister marrying a brother of the same mother and father, for example; [2] discourages a man having a child born from his having sex with another man's wife.

The forbidden unions would be between believers and strangers, between a married man and another man's wife. But between the unmarried?!?! It must be kept in mind that bastard had its own meanings and the word pregnant with meaning was used in Bible translation to represent a word that had its own meaning. The fatherless are given special protections throughout the Bible.

Perhaps this gets it right: The child born from a man tapping a man's wife would have been "illegitimate" and of a forbidden union; a child born of incest would be of a forbidden union too. A child orphaned or of a widow but not born from a forbidden union: fatherless.

Of course, it might be worth considering some things are types and shadows of spiritual things. Consider how a political federation between saints and non-believers might be a 'forbidden union'. For some reason, the marked difference between the confederacy The United States of America and the later (territorial) "United States of America" comes to mind. Patrick Henry likely knew what was up.

***

Re: Archaleus
Would be a bit questionable to have Messiah be the offspring of an Edomite king, no? In any case, secular 'bastardy' is of little importance if you're a son of the Father. It may be that, in part, David Merrill is making a similar point: secular meaning is beside the point.

Re: Judah, Jesus, the Saints and the House of David
If Jesus is of the line of Judah, and if Jesus's administration extends the House of Judah, then would it not follow that all of the believer-saints extending from his Administration and Rule and thusly the saints would also be of Judah? Could not the same be said for the House of David (referring to (former king of ancient Israel rather than David Al Roy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alroy) of the ~1100s)? The saints are not Gentiles. If yes, would that not mean that a remarkable sense that the House of Judah and de jure Greater Israel have been spread throughout Africa, Europe and the Americas for over a thousand years--in a post 70 A.D. sense.

For those still under the spell or fog maybe this will make things clear (believers/saints are not Gentiles):


Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 34:50

According to the scriptures above, all those who have beheaded a believer, crucified a believer, swindled a believer, raped a believer, robbed a believer, falsely accused a believer, entrapped a believer, poisoned a believer have done such against Jesus Christ and likely also have done transgressed against the House of Judah and the House of David. 1 John 4:20 reverberates:


If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4:20

In this much is being revealed. Attacks on the Christ's lawful assembly are attacks on the Christ. Hating a brother in Christ is to hate God: to hate brother = hate God. Still not convinced?


But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:50

The 'bloodline' is spiritual. Believe it or not, I have met "Christian" women who have done terrible things to brothers in Christ and they asserted that they felt that they would be forgiven by God and that those they did wrong against had no claims and were insignificant (no apologies or reconciliation needed as far as she was concerned). But then it was explained to her: you did it to Christ but yet you shrug off what you did to your brethren and disregard him as trash. (So what does that say about what she thinks of the Christ?) Its as if these people don't realize that Bible has to do with one's relationships to others rather than with God and themselves alone.


So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27

Related term: imageo dei.

xparte
01-14-16, 01:16 AM
Its as if these people don't realize that Bible has to do with one's relationships to others rather than with God and themselves alone. text is scripture is that secular 'bastardy still without the Jewish Messiah i think Christ was offered this role or/and denied it.as far as relationships go how cyrus the great was The first Jewish Messiah is as clever look at secular bastardy House of Judah was administerd spirtualy scirptualy or secularly KINGSHIP administerd Jewish Messiah Fathering text and the book of the Dead Moses drug outta another wilderness why The saints are not Gentiles.kingdoms come and go what else might the Bible show.Authority and its relationships ended with the Bible or started with the Word.Christ canonized and missionized or Judahized has a profound relationship when dealing with others if he Christ needed better writers or does the bible need a better read . i read nothing into Christ its me Administering myself minus any .punctuation disable what is truth is Administering to the King lodi who needs a king

David Merrill
01-14-16, 02:45 AM
Its as if these people don't realize that Bible has to do with one's relationships to others rather than with God and themselves alone. text is scripture is that secular 'bastardy still without the Jewish Messiah i think Christ was offered this role or/and denied it.as far as relationships go how cyrus the great was The first Jewish Messiah is as clever look at secular bastardy House of Judah was administerd spirtualy scirptualy or secularly KINGSHIP administerd Jewish Messiah Fathering text and the book of the Dead Moses drug outta another wilderness why The saints are not Gentiles.kingdoms come and go what else might the Bible show.Authority and its relationships ended with the Bible or started with the Word.Christ canonized and missionized or Judahized has a profound relationship when dealing with others if he Christ needed better writers or does the bible need a better read . i read nothing into Christ its me Administering myself minus any .punctuation disable what is truth is Administering to the King lodi who needs a king


God! I have missed you posting like that.

allodial
01-14-16, 03:10 AM
Remember, they asked for a king. A king was given with their consent. It wasn't God who suggested the king. Indirection my friend. Didn't the Israelites ask for Moses to be their mediator too? Again, indirection. However, if Jesus came to close the 'indirection loop' then who are those that keep trying to place the Christ's assembly back into pre-70AD and pre-30AD modes? So begs the question: what systems were brought to an end ~70AD with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem? When someone is trying to use religion only to maintain a political system, it gets pretty obvious: they pick and choose and set out to limit the scope of study of scripture to the purpose of promoting their political system.


If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ---Hebrews 12:8

The role of fathers is akin to that of kings. A father can function as both king an priest to his household. The words 'king' and 'queen' are remarkably similar to the word 'cohen' or 'kahuna'. Any corruption in the king's administration would need to be removed. Now if there was a plan to abate the king system put in place and return to the 'plurality royal priesthood' system, such could be accomplished through a specific means.

So you have people looking for the Messiah, for evidence of God's existence, staring his agents, sons and mankind overall in the face: they cant see the Greater Administration that is in place and fully functional. They speak instead of a god that has no sons or a god is unknowable.


If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4:20

Question: he that doesn't listen to the saints whom he hath seen, how will he hearken to whom he hath not seen? The way is revealed and made clear, however, there is one door. There was one door to Noah's Ark. Dismiss the organic Christ's assembly and you just may also be dismissing the Messiah and his administration. The name of the savior was known even in the Old Testament times. If one hates the sons of God, then perhaps the same hates the Father also.

Related:
Yeshua In the Tanakh (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)
(http://www.menorah.org/yeshname.html)

allodial
01-14-16, 07:04 AM
A pertinent addition:


33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures {Psalm 118:22 (http://biblehub.com/psalms/118-22.htm)}, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

If one considers the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the three boys in the fire, it parallels with the parable of the vineyard. A king or set of rulers who get so full of themselves they want to hold people captive as a way of maintaining a political system, failing to get that they are dealing with something far larger they only think of rulership for their own sakes--pure self-service. Nebuchadnezzar failed to realize the limitations of his office, he mistook himself for being other than a trustee with respect to his official duties (i.e he went ultra vires it cost him dearly). When the State or State actors start thinking of themselves to be supreme lord of all without limitation, you are probably seeing the symptoms of the same disease that afflicted Nebuchadnezzar.




The mina is the Word, when we sow seeds, or the word, who reaps the reward? In the parable of the sower, the word falls on different ground and doesn't produce, but one seed on good ground produces a hundred fold. But who reaps our efforts once our seed has been planted on good ground and produces a hundredfold? The Lord will reap at the harvest. Hence, in this parable "...and reap what you did not sow". Or the statement elsewhere in the gospel of Our Lord..."One sows, and another reaps".

"Why did you not put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?" If you couldn't sow the seed, or spread the Word, why not give it to someone else who would have done so on your behalf? source: comment from What Does the Parable of the Ten Minas Mean? (http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/06/09/what-does-the-parable-of-the-minas-mean/)

Re: Relationships With Others
People who will not prosper others because they hate them or because they are niggardly (i.e. stingy on any or every level--stingy with kindness, stingy with money, stingy with patience, etc.) People who lie to others and oppress them for mere carnal political gain or control. Those parables seem to relate to relationship with others. Can you imagine the Communists or Capitalists explaining why they drove societies into the ground "to keep people from prospering too much".

Imagine a parable where a king who has won a realm back from wicked rulers and as part of a great healing and restorative plan for the greater good, he blesses ten men each with 1 or 2 of his beautiful daughters along with orders to prosper, be fruitful and multiple and other such needful instructions and yet returns to find of the five men:

1. two are sodomizing each because they "didn't want to 'defile the precious daughters'" or "afflict them with the pains of childbirth lest the king smite them in anger" and kept the king's daughters in a tower "to protect them and keep them safe" or because "they didn't want them to sin by having too much pleasure" or because "some guru" told them that "in order to remain holy and to avoid being entrapped in the bodily existence they should refrain from obeying the king". The king slays them outright for oppression and rebellion and gives the daughters over to the two prosperous men (#3).

2. One had children with the single daughter that was given him and was very, very abusive to all of them. He grew up poor and despised wealth, despised the king and judged the king according to his own dim scruples and discouraged his own children from doing anything productive or from having a better life than he had growing up. He buried the funds the king gave him too and kept himself, his daughters and children in poverty and was very abusive. He would not hearken to the idea of wealth being a tool. He like the previous two men hearkened to others doctrines rather than to those of the king. Really, he was lazy and untalented and didn't have the sense to place the money in the hands of others who would make use of it. The king upon returning had him executed for oppression and rebellion.

3. Two of the five men produced beautiful, healthy, happy and wise children who themselves had children and they flourished and had a great and well-known farm that flourished and overflowed with plenty. They are appointed as administrators of cities to instruct others as to how to prosper and be fruitful. The king gave the daughters he had given to the other three over to these two allowing the wives to choose which of the two they preferred. The king also sent them specialists to help the daughters and the two men overcome the side effects of psychological or physical abuse. Gladly the king received these two, his daughters and their children and their children's children and appointed them to greater, noble and enjoyable things.

Clearly, the two of the five who produced beautiful healthy children who themselves had children would most greatly please the king upon his return. One who abused and hated the daughter "for trying to ensnare him in pleasure" (in his warped mind) and who only had one child who he also heavily oppressed--he did not please the king at all. These are like unto rulers who oppress and steal from people over whom they have been set and who thwart prosperity and set a very, very bad example: promoting crime and disdainful behavior because of their antics. Oh they will answer for it! Imagine this explanation: "Yes Lord, we kept them in line. We made sure they couldn't do anything. Instead, we did everything and our clique ran all of the business ourselves. We took all of the money out of circulation and forced them to live in high rise cinderblock buildings so they couldn't farm or do anything to hurt the soil. We took all of the gold and precious ore and jewels and such out of the soil so that they could not harm themselves with it. Where mankind lived we rewilded and now wild beasts rule. We locked things down real good. We kept them and everything under lock and key like a mina in a napkin: 'safe and sound'." The king might ask: "Do you know why the planet was made in the first place?"

David Merrill
01-14-16, 12:38 PM
My exposing Christianity Explored as a shadow network for Amway distribution began a cascading mind bomb that functions like a mirror, showing these people how egregious it becomes to use the CHRIST-Mind for profit and gain. I do not attribute fear to God however; it is the guilt when they realize how debt actually has no value but the chaotic delusions they inflict - that is what becomes dangerous.

David Merrill
01-14-16, 12:44 PM
A pertinent addition:



If one considers the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the three boys in the fire, it parallels with the parable of the vineyard. A king or set of rulers who get so full of themselves they want to hold people captive as a way of maintaining a political system, failing to get that they are dealing with something far larger they only think of rulership for their own sakes--pure self-service. Nebuchadnezzar failed to realize the limitations of his office, he mistook himself for being other than a trustee with respect to his official duties (i.e he went ultra vires it cost him dearly). When the State or State actors start thinking of themselves to be supreme lord of all without limitation, you are probably seeing the symptoms of the same disease that afflicted Nebuchadnezzar.

Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael. So you explain why everybody knows them in Christendom to be Meshack, Shadrack and Abednigo?

Yet the Chieftain of the Babylonian Sorcerers and Astrologers retains Daniel PROPHET, and seldom does anybody think of him as Belteshazzar.

I AM David Merrill.

allodial
01-14-16, 04:38 PM
Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael. So you explain why everybody knows them in Christendom to be Meshack, Shadrack and Abednigo?

Yet the Chieftain of the Babylonian Sorcerers and Astrologers retains Daniel PROPHET, and seldom does anybody think of him as Belteshazzar.

I AM David Merrill.

Indeed that is quite an interesting matter: why Daniel keeps his original name in modern retellings but the three boys are known of by their Babylonian rubrics (last names?).


Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. Daniel 1:17

Azariah (Jehovah helps) to Abednego (or Abednebo?) "Servant of Nego/Nebo";
Misheal was renamed Meshach --from "Who is like the Most High" to "Who is like Aku";
Hananiah (Jehovah keeps him or Jehovah is gracious) to Shadrach/Shadaku "Command/Lord of Aku".

The new names were to match the Babylonian religious paradigm. It is suggested that Daniel protested somewhat the change and his protest made its way into the text of the book thusly Abednego was written instead of Abednebo (Daniel protesting the naming after Babylonian gods)--ala William Shea (1988). You might be interested in (which covers the topic): Belshazzar and Bel(te)shazzar: New names and Old Names for Daniel and Friends Belshazzar means Bel protect the King Amil-Marduk, Was He A Believer? (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/dan/belteshazzar.html) The same Daniel who wouldn't eat Nebuchadnezzar's food probably didn't like being called Belteshazzar either.

3346


As the god of wisdom and writing, Nabu was linked by the Greeks with Hermes, by the Romans with Mercury, and by the Egyptians with Thoth. (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabu))


My exposing Christianity Explored as a shadow network for Amway distribution began a cascading mind bomb that functions like a mirror, showing these people how egregious it becomes to use the CHRIST-Mind for profit and gain. I do not attribute fear to God however; it is the guilt when they realize how debt actually has no value but the chaotic delusions they inflict - that is what becomes dangerous.

Interesting, Amway and 'debt money'. Systems posing as ways to freedom but yet are snares. Amway, a scheme to sell books to people until they come to realize attempting to sell dish detergent to one's neighbors some at a price of five times that of local store isn't probably the best idea.

Related:

Nabu (in Biblical Hebrew: Nebo) - Babylonian god of wisdom and writing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabu)
Belshazzar and Bel(te)shazzar: New names and Old Names for Daniel and Friends (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/dan/belteshazzar.html)

george
02-23-16, 09:02 PM
"I was told by Enoch that 'the Light pictographs' will seal the bodies that will be resurrected. Therefore I was told that those anointed through divine pictographs would receive their knowledge through pictographs of light..." - 5:148, quoting J.J. Hurtak, Keys of Enoch

David Merrill
02-23-16, 09:05 PM
Interesting, here are etchings:


The Creation - Book of Enoch (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImZXlUTEozOTBVTHc/view?usp=sharing).

george
03-10-16, 02:06 PM
Richard Feynman wonders about the different ways in which different people think about things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

"Translation Scheme"

short, two part video, both parts very good. a guy gave me a book by this man many years ago but he wrote in such a comical way that I couldnt take him seriously at that time. thought he was too goofy to be taken seriously LOL

some people I can relate to easier in writing and others I find I can only relate to viva voce. its weird.