Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[Michael Joseph]

The recombining DNA would probably not be such a problem in itself. My Sister is it only used to save Abraham's life and Sarah's virtue or exploitation do we conceal truth from God suffer some boils and find out Take your wife back take the silver back is the temple being rebuilt check with the internal carpenter. Christ is the other gold heist the truth and humility is you're already been caught hiding from the truth.

In my humble opinion - at Genesis 5:2 He called their name Adam.....

Thusly in my estimation Adam/Eve were metaphysically the same being. Adam being the Mind and Eve [Spirit or Emotion]. The Serpent is the Central Nervous System. Thusly in Abram [mind] he would find his 1/2 sister in Sarai [Emotion]. Notice that Abram could not impregnate Sarah. Only Abraham [higher Mind] could get that done. For Sarah is the barren woman of Isaiah 54 [one of them - depends on the tale]. Abraham experienced his Armageddon at the battle of the Kings whereof the lower aspects fell and the Higher came with peace [dove/olive twig].

In Adam - mind always proceeds matter. He's inside you and Me. For the letter of the law is dead - but the Spirit gives light/life.

"The bloody Church of England
in chains of history
requests your earthly presence at
the vicarage for tea.

Confessing to the endless sin
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying till next Thursday to
all the gods that you can count." - Jethro Tull

Musical Interlude....

The children of desolation are born of the lower mind and emotion. The lower mind cannot impregnate Spirit. But when Rachel brought forth for Jacob she produced the Christ type and the son of His Strength [right hand]. And Joseph [Christ type] told Judah [Spirit] bring me the Child - get back to daddy and bring me the Child Benyahmin.

This is true today. For Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me.

MJ - out.

[allodial]

Additional history in the Bible is found at Ezra and Nehemiah. There was an eleven-year civil war when the Jews returned to Israel. The war was between the newly created Jew (Babylon) and the People of the Land - the Israelite. This seems downplayed in current thought. In my understanding among the Christians (we) feel that the only occupant outside the Jews of Israel was Rome. Babylon/Jew had been a foreign occupation for hundreds of years by then. This is why I believe that the Magi visitation was a common commercial oversight. These "kings" were wealthy merchants visiting their colony on the Temple Mount. Tyre, (Tel Aviv) was and maybe still is their coastal colony. This is the essence of METRO (now lately the City of London) - conquer the mind and territorial matters are moot.

The Jews were the conqueror state. The Israelite population lost the war for the Temple Mount. That occupation was too far from Rome so Caesars left it alone, satisfied with a statue or two... and eagle here and there.

Meant to add that I had always had the impression that the Zoroastrians had also picked up a few things from Israel as well, rather than one way around--two way 'rubbing off' you could say. That it wasn't a one-way street, especially considering the 'syncretism as a way of governing' methodology. Afterall, wouldn't Israel's prophecy to his sons about the timing of when the scepter would depart from Judah predate Zoroastrian some thousand+ years (maybe even over 1,500 years?), that could not have been borrowed from someone a thousand+ years before they existed, no? Zoroaster is typically pegged to have lived around 600 B.C. The irony is that all of those writers who suggest "Christians" to have borrowed from the Egyptians are basically admitting the prophecies of the coming Messiah were known of as far back as Israel's time. Perhaps it was the Babylonians that were borrowing things?

Keeping in mind of course, it was kosher for others to borrow from Israel and the Hebrews, but not Kosher for the Hebrews to incorporate 'foreign gods'. Also, unlike Gnostic offshoots, neither true pure Bible saints' doctrines nor that of the ancient Hebrews subscribed to a 'duality' of good and evil equally matched.

Consider also, the significance of Daniel having rejected the 'bread/meat and wine' from the Babylonian king. Consider the parallel between bread and wine, Abraham and Melchizedek (~Genesis 14:18) and the Daniel and company and Babylonian king who was also a priest-king. If the Babylonian system was of the same system as that of Melchizedek when why would Daniel & co. reject it. Were they aware that the bread and wine was from not only from a priest and king (i.e. that Nebuchadnezzar was also a priest), but also from a foreign system? Hmmmm, might there some kind of parallel with Daniel & company's two distinct choices for food and the choice Adam and Eve were given: a choice between the Tree of Life etc. and the Tree Knowledge of Good and Evil? The Tree of Life has been said to be symbolic of a priest or priesthood (the Christ--that is, the Anointed). If the Babylonian king represented a priest-hood, clearly it was not one that Daniel and company recognized as of their own? (~Daniel 1) Remember, that Assyria was likened to a tree in sepher Ezekiel.

IMHO, Daniel 1 is testimony that all gods aren't the same--that are multiple potential gods or objects of worship, though there be only one truly worth such worship. Daniel skids in the face of syncretism and related idolatry. If there were only one god why would Daniel refuse bread/meat and wine from the Babylonian priest-king? CLEARLY DANIEL'S WAS NEITHER A PANTHEISTIC NOR A UNIVERSALIST VIEW! How could food be dedicated to an idol or to a foreign god and be inappropriate if this idea of 'all gods are the same' were true? Is it not evident that the imaginations of men, however elaborate, can become objects of worship? Can one be so sure of Allah, Zoroaster and the God of Israel being one in the the same?

Thank you for such a simple take on R4C!

This is what is helpful to me. To be able to speak truthfully in simple terms and in a short enough time to keep the listener's attention.

The conflict of laws is METRO organization public policy verses constitutions and statutes. Like I brought up about the oaths of office. One might use the emotionalism of cyberspace, social media, to sway the audience to persuade the judge that this is the best thing, NOT to hear the case at all.

So METRO could accurately be described as an admiralty, contract-enforcement venue resulting from 'syncretism' and conflict of laws or the 'resulting venue' ( like a resulting trust) arising out of deep conflict of laws? Interesting, so if a something "rises out of the sea", is that to say it to be a by-product of certain conduct of certain multitudes or 'mixed multitudes'?

So.... could it be that Daniel and company exercised refusal for cause (i.e. right of avoidance) with respect to staving off adverse consequences of conflict of laws by refraining from partaking in the meat/bread and wine of the Babylonian mystery schools--they R4C'd merger of Babylonian mystery school rites with those of the bread and wine of Melchizedek or subordinates thereof? I suspect that if Daniel & co. had participated in the rite, Daniel may not have been of much use as a dream interpreter.

Re: Darius [II] and "the Jews"
It has been suggested that Darius was making political moves by aiming to incorporate Hebrews doctrine into the system he was part of--standard government by syncretism methodology. The "Jews" of the day may have seen it as a positive, Darius ulterior motives being missed.

Judaism was the religion of the Juddin, a syncretic religion for cooperative people set up by the Persians. Yehud was set up as the center of it, and their presence elsewhere was explained by the Babylonian captivity. Few of them wanted to return to a place they had never known, but they accepted Yehud as their origin, the Temple priesthood as their leaders, and the myths planted by the Persians as their own. By the time of the Sassanids, they had forgotten or abandoned the earlier policy of syncretism in the fear that the children were overwhelming the parent. (source) [Warning: slanted site but he gives a very detailed look at how calculating the Persians were in designing their system of rule.]

Oddly enough, the Islamic/Muslim perspective on Christians and Jews is startlingly similar to the Zoroastrian view: tolerated or acceptable helper religions. But where there are those who are free of the syncretism, the nexus is lacking for the 'foreign gods' to latch on. Thusly, jurisdiction is lost. Perhaps this is why they make a stink over doctrinal purism (such an approach throws out their jurisdictional nexus for lack of conflict of laws and for lack of 'strange gods' from the Hebrew/Judean/Messianic perspective)?

Massoume Price in The Iranian confirms that Zoroastrianism made a place for certain foreign gods as helpers of Ahuramazda. The ruling principle was the advancement of reliable communities and the punishment of disloyal ones. Persian kings were ruthless with rebellions, including ones by the Persian satraps and members of the royal household. Groups which rebelled were punished irrespective of race or religion. The Jews were usually loyal and so were prosperous.

Re: New Testament doctrine and Zoroastrianism
Some try to suggest the doctrine of the saints (as distinct from Gnostic 'innovations') to be derived from Zoroastrianism. I wouldn't be so quick to arrive at such a conclusion as some have--which seems possible if one makes lots of presumptions. Some say that baptism (mikveh it is said was practice at least since the time of Moses!), breaking bread, etc. to be Zoroastrian. However, it is clear that Abraham had bread and wine ala Melchizedek, Israel foretold the coming of Jesus over 1,000 years before Zoroaster lived. So many throw Zoroastrianism at the doctrine of the saints when its likely (because Daniel's and Joseph's impression on Egypt and history) that the Babylonians would have borrowed from the Hebrews than vice-versa. Thusly, it seems that Abraham and the Israelites were Hebrews rather than "Jews" in the Darius sense. Judah of course, like Israel, was Hebrew, no?

Also, many seem to speak of the Essense without mentioning the existence of two or more variations.

Related:

• When the Scepter Departed from Judah (Genesis Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled)
• Yehud (Babylonian Province)
• Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)
• Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOT Supplement)
• The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOT Supplement Series)

[allodial]

A link: Jesus and the Pharisees. If Jesus was a Zoroastrian, why was he so very much opposed by the Pharisees/Persians/Farsis who are said to be most Zoroastrian influenced of those around at time? That is because the doctrines of Israel go further back than Darius I, Darius II, Daniel and Babylon. As indicated above the prophecy Israel (fka Jacob) gave to his sons at Genesis 49:10 concerning the scepter departing from Judah (the house of his son named Judah) was over a thousand years before Zoroaster and during Joseph's (Imhotep's) life.

It seems that Babylonian and Persian systems liked to claim to be the origin of the doctrines that they acquired from people they believed that they conquered. Likely, as the result of captivity an exile of Israel, they made the error of believing they took ownership of the God of Israel in consequence of having taken Israel into captivity.

Related:

• If Genesis Was Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, Why An Egyptian Word for Noah’s Ark?
• Meet Joseph aka Imhotep

[David Merrill]

So METRO could accurately be described as an admiralty, contract-enforcement venue resulting from 'syncretism' and conflict of laws or the 'resulting venue' ( like a resulting trust) arising out of deep conflict of laws? Interesting, so if a something "rises out of the sea", is that to say it to be a by-product of certain conduct of certain multitudes or 'mixed multitudes'?

Merovingians - MER - brine, bitter water. of the sea.

The first Merovingian King allegedly was spawned of a sea monster impregnating his mother when she swam in the sea.

Mary MAGDALENE fled to France to preserve the Bloodline.

Jesus fled to Damascus.

Then the Forgiveness and Judgment began in METRO (NY Stock Exchange).

It feels like the death rattle of commercial priestcraft.

[xparte]

The 72hrs three clear day,s Did Christ just evidence this as it was invented before Crucifixion isnt Crucifixion just a bank term bankrupted Thief and bad loans Christ is CEO fine print who does your books

[BLBereans]

Mary MAGDALENE fled to France to preserve the Bloodline.

Jesus fled to Damascus.

[allodial]

I suspect that the Merovingians and such may have been weaving yarns to justify their rule. The Gospels and the OT seem to point to a 'pneumocracy' rather than to a bloodline monarchy. Jesus conferred power on all of the saints not just a handful. The conferring of the kingdom in heaven was on all of the believers. Thusly, if it was a bloodline thing, every single one of them that escaped Jerusalem would have a heaven-royal bloodline. The Templars it is said upon arrival at Jerusalem ~1070 AD (nearly 1,000 years after 70 A.D.) were said to have been surprised at hearing about prophecies that had been fulfilled already--thusly they do not appear to have been 'insiders' especially with a 1,000 year late arrival.



Believe it or not, it was a Rabbi Jonathan/Jonna that observed the attack on Jerusalem from 66 A.D. and wrote about it. His writings are part of the Midrashim. And he himself said that the Glory departed the temple and stood on the Mount of Olives for 3 and 1/2 years (1260 days or so--starting ~66 A.D.) before finally departing from Jerusalem just before Titus and his forces arrived. Ezekiel (11:23), Zechariah (14:4) and Jesus referred to this. The link between the Glory, Christ and the OT is rather obvious. Josephus also wrote of the same thing. The glory departed from the temple and settled upon the Mount of Olives.


From Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

The anointing was given to the saints who had tarried at Jerusalem. All of the saints were given crowns (were annointed) and the kingdom thusly was conferred on them (Ephesians 1 and 2). Jesus did not keep the kingdom exclusively to himself! The royal priesthood was not confined into a single bloodline. Considering the Gospel and historical record, there is little if any evidence to knowledge of Jesus wanting to preserve a special bloodline for himself when his family consists of all of the saints/believers. Now, it might be that certain societies were made aware of this and have acted behind the scenes to see to it that heritage of the saints be preserved. But as for the Merovingians having some exclusive rights or claims to the kingdom, that seems very unscriptural.

On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. Zech. 14:4

One should soberly consider the identity of Jesus the Anointed in view of the foregoing. The method by which the saints escaped is also reminiscent of the Passover in Egypt.

What about Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives, a reference to Zechariah 14:4? Mr. Hunt says this has never happened. This is the passage that futurists use to support their claim that Jesus will return from heaven with his “raptured” saints and touch down on the Mount of Olives and set up His millennial kingdom. Of course, one of the problems in making Zechariah 14:4–5 refer to Christ’s second coming and a millennial reign is that it does not say that Jesus will come out of heaven to stand on the Mount of Olives after a “rapture” of the church, followed by a seven-year tribulation period, and prior to a thousand-year reign of Jesus on the earth, something the Revelation 20 does not say. These ideas have to be read into the text. The verse states simply “in that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.”

The New Testament gives us a hint on when and how this was fulfilled. At the point of Jesus’ death, the veil in the temple “was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51). This event could be seen from the Mount of Olives where Jesus was crucified. Notice the rest of the verse: “and the earth shook and the rocks were split,” the very thing Zechariah predicts.

Earlier Christian writers applied Zechariah 14:4 to the work of Christ in His day as well. Tertullian (A.D. 145–220) wrote: “‘But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.’ For thus had Zechariah pointed out: ‘And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives’ [Zech. xiv. 4].”2 Tertullian was alluding to the fact that the Olivet prophecy set the stage for the judgment coming of Jesus that manifested itself with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 which would once for all break down the Jewish/Gentile division inherent in the Old Covenant (Eph. 2). (source)

A great deception attempted to be foisted on believers is in concealing the facts and truth of history so as to leave as many as possible expecting long-past events to come in the future. The great authority the saints have through prayer and such is unfathomable to many of them because much effort to obscure it by efforts to control the printing presses and Sunday schools. What's worse? The blind leading the blind or the blind leading the sighted?

Again, the identity of Jesus is made clear throughout the historical record even in the Midrashim. Those who rejected Jesus then have endeavored to bury or ignore the historical record and have had to invent a whole new set of yarns to support a futuristic approach to deal with what already happened. In other words, being so sure of him having yet come (rejecting He who has already come) they set to embroil the world in their notion conjuring. If the Good & Worthy Shepard was rejected then according to Zechariah the Worthless Shepherd is what might get. The amount of horror and suffering the twisters-of-truth-and-history have caused planet-wide is unspeakable and more than sad.

Related:

• The Name Jesus (Yeshua/Yesha) In the Old Testament
• Jesus Is Not A Missing Person

[David Merrill]

I wonder how common it is for the visual cortex to become sensitive to auras, or in this story SHEKINAH, the Glory. Pentacost, the Dove at John's Baptism etc.

My rendition is based around the first political act of the new King backfiring. He drove out the moneychangers and disrupted the tax/revenue collection system. Maybe he should have waited it out until next year?

I have not given that the Merovingian Kings were the true Bloodline any real consideration. I read The Guardians of the Grail by CHURCH. Holy Blood, Holy Grail too. There is just no evidence except maybe a birthmark. However your post ties some threads together.

The Templars returning with expensive treasures required a law system to justify the theft. Eleanor of Aquitaine adopted the Laws of Oleron and so the stolen treasures became salvage in admiralty. This I got from Delovio v. Boit 1815.

[allodial]

The Templars returning with expensive treasures required a law system to justify the theft. Eleanor of Aquitaine adopted the Laws of Oleron and so the stolen treasures became salvage in admiralty. This I got from Delovio v. Boit 1815.

That seems to be used to justify theft all around. It is also said that the Templars thought they were seeing the "Jerusalem surrounded" prophecy fulfilled. But yet they didn't realize it had occurred a thousand years prior. The armies under Titus, etc. were said to be have been made up of many different nations not just Romans. The Templars, like many others were in the dark as to prophetic fulfillment. Thusly the idea of them being 'insiders' on some scheme of Jesus seems very unlikely.

I wonder how common it is for the visual cortex to become sensitive to auras, or in this story SHEKINAH, the Glory. Pentacost, the Dove at John's Baptism etc.

It is said that children are capable of seeing ghosts, apparitions, spirits, etc. and that there is an active effort by "PTB" to see to it that such abilities are lost ASAP. It is generally regarded that some entities exist in the infrared. That said, Pentecostal conventions are quite the experience.

Another thing is that it was scientifically proven that the nervous system can actually 'hear' even up to 40 kHz, but there is a system that attenuates those frequencies unless certain conditions are met. Movie theaters for the deaf were designed back in the early to mid 1900s and perhaps even sooner using such technology. Consider that eardrums are 'feeding' physical vibrations to the nervous system. That is, there is more proof that the body, brain or mind are actively throwing away information regarded to be 'in excess' and are capable of detection stimulus outside the 'normal range'.

TUESDAY, May 24, 2011 (HealthDay News) -- Humans possess the ability to hear far higher pitched sounds when underwater than they can while on terra firma.

How can they do it? By "hearing" with their bones rather than through the normal pathways of hearing, U.S. Navy researchers report.

The way in which humans hear above or below water differs; that difference means they only hear between 20 and 20,000 hertz through the air, while they can catch sounds all the way up to 200,000 hertz when submerged. (source)

More than meets the eye..literally.