Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[allodial]

...That opinion would also be of the ilk who would suggest that there no difference between a leopard who kills by basic animalistic instinct and man who kills for the purpose of sacrifice because he believes His Creator would find him unacceptable otherwise, however misguided that thought process may be.

To knowledge, the Romans saw war as a ritual of sacrifice (sacrificing the enemy). AFAIK, capital punishment among the Romans or others was seen as the same. It seems worth concerning that the Judean leadership turned Jesus over to the Romans. Since the scepter had departed from Judah, their authority had diminished--they didn't even have power to execute capital punishment at that point. This written about in the Bible too. That means that they willingly turned him over to the Roman sacrifice ritual. This is explained moreso here: When the Scepter Departed from Judah.

Clearly they wanted him dead-dead-dead, so the idea of him 'escaping' is hmmmm. So could we just as easily say that everyone that was ever allegedly martyred or allegedly killed by rogues really didn't die (JFK, MLK, John Lennon). The real question, I suspect, is: Why is it so important to someone or someones* for Jesus to have NOT died?

P.S. Perhaps nobody explained this survival to Jesus. Sedated by hyssop, fainting in pain with a vinegar sponge bath on his cuts, then you awaken a day or two later in a tomb by yourself. Since you were expecting all along that you would be assassinated and revived somehow three days later - the Worthless Shepherd prophecy can you blame Jesus for thinking he was alive because of Resurrection?

There was a time a young man (21 years old) was injured so terribly--my investigation dug up some guys had been put up to it but they had lied and said that a "Black guy" punched him--so badly was he injured the paramedics were afraid to move him from the pavement--they managed to fix a neck brace and left him there. It was clear that he was near death. Even I was wholly convinced he wouldn't make it past a few hours. I made it verbally known my assessment. As I stood there looking at him lay there, the sense I got was that he was fading rapidly--maybe he wouldn't even make it an hour. Someone discerning or overhearing this, cried out "It is not his time dear Lord." They prayed a prayer of intervention, nearly in tears for someone they did not even know. The boy's body all of a sudden jerked. It was the first motion I had seen since I arrived on the scene. It was like all of his muscles tensed his body into an arch. I saw it. For a moment I could have sworn I saw out of the corner of my eye something like light drop from the sky above his body and his body reacted to it. The boy survived. Whenever my forensic assessment has come up against doctors: the chief medical staff have always agreed with me (as in my assessment they proved).

Intercessory prayer is in the OT and the NT. The saints are here for that reason among others. Those with purely sinister intents know this thusly they would like the saints to leave the planet. Consider saints as those with direct link to call "airstrikes" from Heaven and the real reason the enemies of God want them massacred becomes clearer.

Someone else I came across did blind remote viewing session. After the session was said and done, they drew a scene of three trees and a crowd, etc. Unknown to him/her, their target was the crucifixion.

Related:

• The Resurrection - Fact Or Fiction?
• The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus

[David Merrill]

While you might be right to associate "Christianity" in the sense of Simonianism or Gnostic Spindoctoring that is posed as "Christian" (i.e. of the Anointed of God) for hundreds of years as "guilt-oriented". Cain and his progeny used religion as a political tool--to make people controllable and feel guilty. Ergo your observations.

As for the true saints these days from what I have learned the very same OT doctrines are in the NT. The saint's religion isn't about guilt but about GUILT AVOIDANCE and the Blood of the Lamb has an identifying factor ala atonement. The Blood of the Lamb impedes witchcraft and sorcery which in my observation a foundational factor for disdain for the saints: that something or something "dares exist" that cannot be overcome or controlled (SUCH 'INSOLENCE'!) by the mere psychic emanations of those who regard errantly themselves to be God--well it pisses them off or they see a 'challenge' failing to realize the terrible danger they place themselves in by waging war against the Divine. That is because the Divine Mind is supernatural and it is supercarnal.

Since this was my point, I simply agree. I am having fun with the discussion. This perspective of a monk, so that the beast rubs his nose or charges around instead of through... Enjoyable.

I watched a doe who had befallen one of the nasty charro cactus and had these baseball-size cactus in her fur. Another doe was trying to remove them from her with a very painful process as you can imagine and I have always wished that I had grabbed a tong from the kitchen drawer and assisted... I presumed they both would have run away.

To knowledge, the Romans saw war as a ritual of sacrifice (sacrificing the enemy). AFAIK, capital punishment among the Romans or others was seen as the same. It seems worth concerning that the Judean leadership turned Jesus over to the Romans. Since the scepter had departed from Judah, their authority had diminished--they didn't even have power to execute capital punishment at that point. This written about in the Bible too. That means that they willingly turned him over to the Roman sacrifice ritual. This is explained moreso here: When the Scepter Departed from Judah.

Clearly they wanted him dead-dead-dead, so the idea of him 'escaping' is hmmmm. So could we just as easily say that everyone that was ever allegedly martyred or allegedly killed by rogues really didn't die (JFK, MLK, John Lennon). The real question, I suspect, is: Why is it so important to someone or someones* for Jesus to have NOT died?



There was a time a young man (21 years old) was injured so terribly--my investigation dug up some guys had been put up to it but they had lied and said that a "Black guy" punched him--so badly was he injured the paramedics were afraid to move him from the pavement--they managed to fix a neck brace and left him there. It was clear that he was near death. Even I was wholly convinced he wouldn't make it past a few hours. I made it verbally known my assessment. As I stood there looking at him lay there, the sense I got was that he was fading rapidly--maybe he wouldn't even make it an hour. Someone discerning or overhearing this, cried out "It is not his time dear Lord." They prayed a prayer of intervention, nearly in tears for someone they did not even know. The boy's body all of a sudden jerked. It was the first motion I had seen since I arrived on the scene. It was like all of his muscles tensed his body into an arch. I saw it. For a moment I could have sworn I saw out of the corner of my eye something like light drop from the sky above his body and his body reacted to it. The boy survived. Whenever my forensic assessment has come up against doctors: the chief medical staff have always agreed with me (as in my assessment they proved).

Intercessory prayer is in the OT and the NT. The saints are here for that reason among others. Those with purely sinister intents know this thusly they would like the saints to leave the planet. Consider saints as those with direct link to call "airstrikes" from Heaven and the real reason the enemies of God want them massacred becomes clearer.

Someone else I came across did blind remote viewing session. After the session was said and done, they drew a scene of three trees and a crowd, etc. Unknown to him/her, their target was the crucifixion.

Related:

• The Resurrection - Fact Or Fiction?
• The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus

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.

In my pondering this arises as very important when understanding exactly what the Kingdom of David was. In the Jewish mind, Israel had been under conquest since about 522 BC. - When the Jews of Babylon conquered the Temple Mount as found in Nehemiah Chapter 10. This is when they read the Laws of Moses aloud and adopted signed curse - oaths of office by Constitution.

[allodial]

Since this was my point, I simply agree. I am having fun with the discussion. This perspective of a monk, so that the beast rubs his nose or charges around instead of through... Enjoyable.

I'm not a secular-city person (I am tending toward believing that the idea of a city in ancient times wasn't the same as that of today). Cities can be good and fun and might serve a purpose or two. But these days they more and more seem to be psycho-economic traps. I favor the country which is one reason I'm not to fond of HOAs and their municipal-dead-entity law extending themselves so far beyond the city limits. Somewhat related side-note: when St. Louis City and St. Louis County split, for some reason the Roman Catholics chose to remain in the mainly-municipal City leaving the Protestants in the county. St. Louis City is also a county but The City of St. Louis (the municipalities official name) extends to the external borders of that county.

I watched a doe who had befallen one of the nasty charro cactus and had these baseball-size cactus in her fur. Another doe was trying to remove them from her with a very painful process as you can imagine and I have always wished that I had grabbed a tong from the kitchen drawer and assisted... I presumed they both would have run away.

Earlier, I almost also typed a story I had heard about a wild cat that followed a man. The man eventually realized the cat had somehow bitten through its own lip and could not mange to get the tooth free. The man pulled the lip free and the cat happily went back to doing cat things--no doubt after a bit of healing.

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.

One might do well to suspect that such is downplayed because those that wish to promote the syncretism and see it as "progress" do not wish to reveal the syncretism's effects on Israel and Judah (it is exactly syncretism which led to divine judgement repeatedly). Consider the heretical Gnostic who "starts a church" thinking he is doing everyone a favor with spotty dust doctrine, making everyone feel guilty for everything until they 'come to the light' and are 'initiated' into the 'mysteries' (i.e. a 'door' for a secret society or mystery school). He thinks himself to be doing them a favor when really he is leading them into captivity and causing them to misidentify themselves (i.e. he is obstructing others from entering where he can't).



[Sun worship might actually be preferred by those who prefer an impersonal kind of god. Whereas, consider the idea of Joseph's dream where the sun and the moon bowed down to him as affirming the notion of P'tah having created the Sun, the Moon and the Earth.]

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Matthew 15:14

Thusly, Jesus did save Israel, he led them out of the city (eretz Jerusalem) before it was destroyed leaving those who chose identify with the syncretisic system to their own devices. Thus the relevance of the terms "Great Harlot" or 'harlot' to syncretism and her behavior which led her into to trouble vis-a-vis conflict of laws.

The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. They worshiped the LORD, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought. --2 Kings 17:30-33

To this day there are those who praise Solomon (and his alliance with Hiram Abiff) and laud him yet seem to fail to mention his fall into apostasy due taking strange wives (again, syncretism).

Its worth noting that syncretism may always have been an Empire management tool for Rome.

In my pondering this arises as very important when understanding exactly what the Kingdom of David was. In the Jewish mind, Israel had been under conquest since about 522 BC. - When the Jews of Babylon conquered the Temple Mount as found in Nehemiah Chapter 10. This is when they read the Laws of Moses aloud and adopted signed curse - oaths of office by Constitution.

Interestingly, I had this in mind earlier. A Freemason once told me: "A man cannot commit adultery". Of course, inwardly, the Spirit disagreed. Though polygyny may be lawful, a man can perpetrate adultery by going after strange gods (but I suspect that in order to be an infidel you have to first be a fidel). The model of history is that David perpetrated adultery by placing his desire for a man's wife over the law and his relationship with God. Solomon took so many wives to himself (did he violate the king's obligation to refrain from using his office to gather wives to himself?) he took 'strange wives' which led to his apostasy: spiritually and mentally incorporating their ideologies into his world bringing harm to his relationship with the God of his fathers.

Uncanny: adultery rhymes with idolatry (go figure!).

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 Magi visitation is quite interesting. I have a similar take in that, to get it one has to go back to Darius or the Babylonian exile period generally. But of course, modern Babylon doesn't want to reveal itself to Christians since such might scare them off.

But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Once upon a time, when prompted, I shared with a school teacher my interpretation in that that Daniel & co. rejecting the Babylonian royal bread and wine food paralleled rejection of a Babylonian education or indoctrination (much like modern public education)--she did not like that (i.e. Daniel did not wish to study the Babylonian mysteries with a view to incorporating them into his reality as truths). Thusly, Daniel and co. steered away from the syncretism though others may have gone headfirst into it.

You might find this interesting: The Third Temple of YHVH. He makes an interesting reference to Rev. 21:22:

"I did not see a temple in the city, because the (sons of) YHVH Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." --from site

On Sunday I occasionally visit a sanctuary to watch as through the same hypnosis - mass displacement hysteria - a typical imagination disorder people allow the worship crew, the praise band and the pastor and worship leader in prayer still and subdue the active minds of the congregants and elevate the egregore Jesus CHRIST to a God-Form. Then pass the Collection Plate and instill that guilt so that they will be back next Sunday for the Weekly Glimpse.

You see, the way the Worthless Shepherd prophecy works its way into that kind of thing is the counterfeit doesn't necessarily bring deliverance. Empty pockets? Guilt? Maybe. Deliverance? Not necessarily. Though some might find an aha in the counterfeit or "false christ", the de jure remains valid.

Conflict of laws also rears its head with things like International Building Code and administrative law. I suppose it really does come down to identity.



In Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Johnny Depp plays a CIA agent in Mexico. Conflict of laws and identity issues all rolled into one film. Notably, there are 31 states of Mexico (some, if not all, predate the existence of Mexico) and a Federal District.

Related:

• The Woman Atop the Beast
• The Subtle Sin of Syncretism

[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)