Translated? (Enoch)

[David Merrill]

Interestingly I believe it robbed my post of my point.

[george]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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 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 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]

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]

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]

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)