Discussion in 'Old Testament - False Dialectic' started by Jerry Russell, Feb 26, 2016.
Just to say... what a great series of articles this is! I enjoy Richard Stanley's sense of humor.
Thanks Mike. I was dreading starting this project, as I wasn't sure how it would all turn out. Jerry and I have been working for some time on our overarching theory of Western History and how such as the OT is so important to its foundation - and acting as both a compass and playbook, with its explicit and frequently stated global ambitions. Unlike some people I have never enjoyed reading these stories for whatever reason, maybe because they seemed to always make me uncomfortable. But in having to examine them closely, and with our new interpretational lens on, it soon becomes apparent that the way it was all taught in Sunday School and from the pulpit is grossly misleading.
I'm really enjoying the series. Not being religious and only every having good experiences with my Jewish friends, until recently I never understood why people hated them, such things like blood liable, and why they are so positioned, individually and as a group, in society. There is still so much to learn, and so much bs to sort through. But, it has become clear to me that they have been used, abused, and profited for being both a stalking horse and scapegoat for imperial interests for thousands of years, at least since the Romans. Your work on the old testament presents the most plausible reading I have seen so far (with old Saturnian concepts mixed in), and makes me wonder if Carol Quigley's model of civilization expansion was at least in part designed to hide this as a major tool of expansion. I don't recall whether Shakespeare's Secret Messiah suggested it or not, but it is now my very strong suspicion that the crown was in on that as an intelligence project directly related to Henry VIII's break from Rome. How that works, I do not know, but Marlow's death would not be inconsistent, as clearly they did not want churches, as opposed to the Pope, to go away. That Shakespeare is still very heavily promoted to this day makes me believe it is still a functional project somehow. Looking forward to the next installment.
Thanks Wolfsire. It all brings new meaning to "all the world's a stage" right? The problem is that the stage has multiple halls of mirrors and lifetime actors.
Last night I just watched a rendition of Richard II where at some point Henry Bolingbroke, the new king, made a reference to Abraham's lineage and divinely granted sacral kingship that becomes so much more resonant via the new interpretation. Richard, a pious dilettante, encouraged by his effete and entitled entourage squanders the riches of his heavy taxations and seeks to recoup more via conquest in Ireland.
Of course, this starts a long schism between the Plantagenet houses of York and Lancaster, brought to a seeming end with the ascension of the Tudors. If the Plantagenet dynasty was brought to an end it was quickly replaced by the schism of the English Reformation, and here we have another hall of mirrors where not everything is what it seems.
Yes, you are correct that the Tudors did not want to get rid of 'churches', as they well understood the social control aspect. Henry VIII had just been lauded as Defender of the Faith by the pope before the odd divorce business (which I think was just a pretext for the schism). Instead one might better see this schism being done for appearance sake, as a clever means to mitigate the possible damages to royal authority by the other underground 'rogue' Protestant movements that were gaining motivation from their interpretation of reading the Bible that was newly available to them. In this regard, the English Church made little substantive changes in church practice beyond replacing the pope with the domestic Crown.
Of course, Richard I (Plantagenet) was famous for his association to the Crusades, which thus links to stories of the Templars seeking buried goodies from the Temple Mount. More halls of mirrors, yet there is formed a contiguous thread that plagues us all today in various manners, via more bogus wars, conquests of lands, resources (for the benefit of the fortunate scions - who seem to have sublimated their prior desires for notoriety in modern times). And because "Perception is Reality", then controlling the perceptions of the masses is of utmost importance.
Those themes seem to be reflected in William Shakespeare, who himself is yet another hall of mirrors, as to things like ultimate allegiances. As such, my current take is that this is all more evidence of divide and conquer propaganda being played out at the highest levels of the day, and as you say it goes on today. This is the operating principle of neo-cons and neo-liberals, subtly promoting one hidden agenda under the banner of respective others who are not awake because they are so focused on their pet causes.
Yes, it's certain that all reforms from the top are some form of damage control- Henry VIII's localization of papal power, so to speak, made defiance to his authority treasonous- Execution was a much more effective threat than excommunication, despite Thomas More's defense- (And what are the odds that that execution actually took place?)
For a new project, one of the events I've been studying is the assassination of the reformer, Tsar Alexander II- His emancipation of the serfs coincides with the influx of rail technology as Russia tried to play catch-up- (Said technology originally brokered for with the Tsar's soul mate, Abe Lincoln, the other great emancipator)- But the Tsar's "assassination" brought back the old abuses under his son, which somehow seems awfully convenient as the Industrial Revolution was gaining traction under foreign investment in resource rich Russia – Not that many ex-serfs got land and I wonder if this was a way to forcibly redirect labor into industrial wage slavery- It certainly helped industry in post slavery America-
(I know I've veered off from the topic, but getting back to the Jews as a weaponized opposition, the ties the Russian/Jewish revolutionaries seem to have had with British Intelligence, especially in the wake of Tsar Alexander III's crack down on security, causing a huge influx of Russian Jews to London's east end, seems like a perfect illustration of how the Jews were used to spearhead radical change and, in this case, take the blame for the Communist revolution rather than the City of London/Wall Street underwriters who designed and paid for it- This schizoid caricature of the Jews as ruthless financiers and also violent socialists has always puzzled me, but these essays are helping to clear up that confusion)-
Great comments Tyrone.
Ann Boleyn's alleged last words before her alleged execution are passing strange as well. And for all these supposed troubles for a male heir, they ended up with the Virgin Queen, who may not have been such.
Yes, imagine what an economic powerhouse Russia would have been at the time, considering its vast resources. Considering the extent to which the various European factions competed over colonial expansion, its not surprising that such would be the fate of the Tsars.
How is this for a father to say about his son's:
Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. (Genesis 49:5-7 KJV)
And in comparison poor Onan was slayed directed by God himself simply for spilling his seed. His older brother, Er, was killed by God, for being generally evil, but apparently being instruments of cruelty and murderers is a different matter altogether. Good decision to 'divide them' then.
What form of transliterational analytical texts or guides do you use Richard when you research for these articles? Strongs, Websters 1828, others? I'm assuming you are using KJV 1611 for foundation start point, if not which bible version are you using?
As for the Bible text itself, I have been using Bible Hub, which has a lot of translations, but more importantly to me is that it has Hebrew (and Greek) transliteration, as well as a lot of bible commentaries which can be very valuable insights. I used to use a bible CD that had some other very nice features, but its use did not survive the migration from Win XP. There are some other online tools as well.
I have chosen to mostly quote the KJV because, for all its downsides has what I consider to be expressions that seem to convey the original intent better, and is more florid to boot. The premier example to me is Isaiah 45:7, which translates to God stating that he is the author of all that is good, ... and all that is evil. But, pretty much every other translation waters this down heavily, as it is not good for the shepherds to have the sheep ponder such. Same for such concepts as Predestination of the Elect.
I have also found Harper's Bible Commentary (1988) to be very helpful in leading me to consider details that I otherwise might have skipped over. The late Cyrus H. Gordon's various works discussing the archaeological and sociological background of the Old Testament is very helpful. He, BTW, was a professor at the Jewish Brandeis University, and had gotten his prior sterling academic reputation marred by lending support to the Diffusionist Theory of a prior global civilization.
However, after having utilized these resources to discover things I had never considered before, or heard about, it started to become much easier to start reading the verses independently and then in amazingly short order all matter of 'revelations' would pop out. Of course, the more background context that you have in your head then the easier it is to see such things.
The Bible Hub links allowed me to get to the Hosea 1 verses that have Hosea mating with the whore Gomer, which alludes to the involvement of non-Semitic peoples, if we (and especially the contemporary Jews) are to take the biblical genealogies as accurate - for the contemporary justification of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and its occupation. Well, they got away with it the first time, so why not try it again?
"I am Joseph, your brother."
The following excerpt below is copied from James Carroll's Constantine's Sword, where, among other things, he lays out the institutional and theological relationship between rabbinical Jews and the Papacy. That is, the controlled opposition. Before the papacy's time, and Constantine, the Jews had a patriarch, the Nasr, who was subservient to 'Caesar'. But I guess, at some point, when the Church and the popes took over the imperial religious office of Pontifex Maximus, the Jews became answerable only to the pope, aka their Joseph - kissing his slipper.
As I discussed in the Isaac post, this is exactly as the tribal structure is laid out at the end of Genesis, with the tribe of Joseph / Ephraim getting the Eternal Blessing, and not Judah, who is subservient to Ephraim. Ephraim was the younger son of Joseph and and the daughter of an Egyptian high priest, chosen by the pharaoh. Joseph and the pharaoh colluded to rig the Egyptian markets and enslave the entire free population of Egypt (Genesis 47).
Roncalli (John XXIII), the former bishop of Venice, announces to the Jews that he "is Joseph" to them. Symbolically, at least, this makes all serial Vicar's (substitutes) of Christ (thus also INRIs in their own right) Josephs as well. I can't believe that this appellation was arrived at lightly.
In skimming through the beginning of the book, I noted that it appears quite likely that Carroll is indeed a descendant of the colonial era Carrolls, the premier American Catholic family along with the Calverts and Whites (as discussed by Tupper Saussy in his Rulers of Evil). It was the land of one of these families that was donated to become Washington D.C.. According to Saussy, that land was originally know as Rome on the Tiber, with the Tiber being a tributary dumping into the Potomac.
Ezekiel 37:16-17 states that "two sticks shall become one:
Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
Twin towers become one- Do the meth...
Sounds more like the beginning of a fasces
That's right, there is now only one tower now. And Francis did visit Ground Zero, the Memorial Bottomless Pit, and announce the new savior (in Spanish) is immanent. Space Jesus?
But do the 'meth'?
Now that's an(other) interesting thought. I wonder if there was a fixed number of sticks in a fasces bundle? Say 12?
I've had a long standing notion that the elite, Sabine Romans were really one and the same as those that assembled the Jewish construct. This forms the false dialectic notion of the gentils (not Gentiles) vs. the Jews (the elites that is) that Jerry and I are advancing. Once one looks at the more likely chronological compressions these mirrored (not parallel) societies can better be seen using the same cultural sources and techniques as described by Moses Hadas in his Hellenistic Culture, with the Egyptian influence even more proximate.
In reading a book about the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, supposedly in 1177 BCE, the only civilization that survived intact was Egypt's, albeit weakened. But what if this is moved much latter in time?
Livy was criticized back in the day that his laws were too Jewish. Livy - Levite? Horace is thought to have had Jewish parents ... meaning ...
Do the math- It's a play on words- Hardeeharhar- Resting....
Makes me think of the sea peoples described by Egypt turning from Greeks, and/or others from the north and east, into the Philistines.
Absolutely, all part of the convoluted mix. However, people don't realize the extent of Semitic peoples in the Mediterranean and even South Europe really were. For instance, one of the 4 tribes of the Spartans was said to have been founded by a Phoenician. Crete/Minos was mostly Semitic, and there are arguments to be made for a significant part of what we think of as early Greece to have been affected by Semites.
Cline's book, 1187 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed, mentions that Egypt actually took in one of the Sea People tribes, which I was not aware of before. I believe that it said that this tribe had been employed previously (to the Sea People period) by the Egyptians as mercenaries. Hmmm This book is supposed to be a compendium narrative including the latest archaeologic findings up to the time of publication.
In the next OT posts, Jerry and I will start introducing more and more evidence of Egyptian influence. And as I discussed in the intro post, this is the real import of such as Freemasonry, not Judaism's supposed influence - a very effective distraction. This is what is critical in making a proper distinction of what Joseph/Ephraim really represents in the transfer of the power center from Egypt to Europe. With all of the slightly veiled references to solar deities, the cyclic role of the Sun, via such as Milankovitch Cycles, drives the 'climatic' rise and fall of civilizations, and the need for the elites to disguise their transfer of power geographically. And to do so you need to create some Chosen People to divert attention from the masses.
I should also add, importantly, to the previous message that one of the primary functions of the 18th Century Romantic Movement was to make the faux scientific claim that Classical Greece was THE foundation of Western Civilization, when clearly the contemporaneous and near contemporaneous commentators of old all said otherwise. (Bernal's Black Athena, Vol. 1 goes into great detail on this aspect despite appearing to have gone a bridge too far in his major thesis for black African responsibility. This aspect is an interesting story in and of itself, including as to why there are black Jews. [Edit] Whoops, I just realized that the story of black Jewishness may be the very best confirmation of Jerry's and my central thesis and the relationship of Judah to Ephraim.)
This is saying that the 18th century, (politicized science - the Political Correctness du jour), elite intellectuals sponsored by the Euro-nobility (the tribe of Ephraim?) knew better than the intelligentsia of yore. Remember that all academic institutions of the period were not secular, but rather were intimately religious and state functionaries. That's how America's Ivy League universities were first established BTW, i.e. as religious institutions.
Today we have the impression that academics (especially via the curious institutional veil of Postmodernism) are independent of such pressure, but this is all a matter of perspective as to just what direction the Hidden Hand wants to move the sheep, without the sheep really knowing who is initiating the 'movement'. Except some are sure that the Hidden Hand belongs to Judah, and I say it belongs to Ephraim. Superficially this appears to be a distinction without a difference, but ... is it?
I've been listening to The Wars of The Jews again, and it occurred to me the rebels, John, Simon, or others directing them probably were agents of Rome or Egyptian bankers to facilitate the slave economy. I think Vespaian was done in Europe and it was time for some fresh meat for the table. So much of those books sound like propaganda, in addition to the riddles Joe found and historical accounts. It also occurred to me that the Dead Sea scrolls were released and not hidden long by Rome.
Josephus's intimate Flavian relationship, like many others, is one reason that I suspect the underlying relationship of elite's, commonly considered Romans versus Jews, was much closer than most realize. And of course, Josephus must be taken as a form of propaganda. Most everything written that survived, that can be seen as historical in nature must be viewed as likely propaganda.
Josephus's early trip to Rome to negotiate with Nero and then his return to Palestine, etc., etc., can be read that he is acting as a form of double agent throughout. His odd capture can be seen as a typological parallel to Saul/Paul's epiphany and conversion to Christianity. Upon Josephus return from Rome he had been made a general of the northern Jews, despite his warning them that their opposition would be all for naught. This period is just like Saul's persecution of the nascent Christians.
In another thread here, I have shown why the typically vaunted Maccabees should really be seen as leaning more to the interests of the Hellenizing Greco-Romans (globalization du jour) than as to the interests of the Judaic 'nationalists'. The latter who had drunk their own 'patriotic' narrative Kool-Aid for centuries.
I have not had the time to confirm this, but I remember an account of the Jewish War that stated that those particular individuals were involved in the last stand at the temple, and at a critical juncture, upon some pre-arranged signal abandoned the battle against the Romans. The idea that they may have been agents as you describe would thus fit, but what leads you to this particular notion?
Robert Feather's book, The Copper Scroll, makes a very good case that the treasure data on the scroll is really a reference to assets that had been at Amarna, and thus detailed as to its amounts and whereabouts upon the sudden abandonment of Amarna. With the possibility of chronological compression, this possibility starts getting even more interesting. And then makes speculation about such as the Essenes, and the nature of the DSS, as you speculate, even more interesting as well. Everything has to be read as to who benefits, and as to what scenario or model best fits the data. The timing of the finding of the scrolls is sure interesting for sure.
But if such as the Copper Scroll, and then the Essenes can be connected back to Egypt, and may have also been linked to the Jerusalem temple then this may form a contiguous link for the monotheistic impulse, as Jerry and I are trying to make a case for.
Separate names with a comma.