New post 'Isaac and the Fortunate Scions' on the Postflaviana front page

Wolfsire

Member
?... but what leads you to this particular notion?
Nothing in particular in Wars, though much of the text is suspicious, probably much more than I have noticed. Some text seems to have clues of falsity, like professions of truth.

But before the thought was formed, I was thinking of John as functioning like Al-Quada and Isis; Quigley' book Evolution of Civilizations focusing the economic drive for expansion; and in Wars, Agrippa's speech telling the Jews that that the are too late to now rebel, which probably firmed their resolve and, perhaps emphasized that many were not yet in chains. Kicking around in that mix was an idea the Egypt may have been managing the Punic Wars. I can't see the Jews being fully understood without considering that dialect. I have not heard what went unto the post war mop up/consolidation other than salting Carthage.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Those all seem like plausible propositions, excepting I'm not sure what you mean about Carthage (as to what time frame and such)?

I've not read any of Quigley's books, unfortunately. But Jerry and I have in the past discussed such a premise, where there are cycles of colonization, consolidation and then once the complacent settled population becomes too much for their region then the cycle must start anew. This happens either organically be external stimulus or by the doings of the competing members of ruling class. The external factors include such as short term climate cycles (droughts and such) as described by Brian Fagan's The Long Summer, and in the Joseph narrative cycle in Egypt found in Genesis.

I wonder if Quigley discussed the global imperatives mentioned in the OT, the NT, and in the pagan Roman corpus (e.g. the goddess Victory standing astride the conquered 'globe')? This is our culture after all.

In Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People he has an important discussion of why the Flavians and later did not fully depopulate Palestine of the Jews. Obviously, the Flavians did not do so, else there could not have been later Jewish rebellions (e.g. bar Kochba). They simply could not afford to do so, in terms of disrupting the economy, tax farming issues, etc.. Thus the population left there, of those reckoned not to be militant, were left to operate the economy. And they stayed there until even today. Once overran by Islam they eventually tired of paying the (non)Islamic tax and thus converted - ironically becoming today's (noticeably non-Ashkenazi) Palestinians.
 

Wolfsire

Member
On YouTube you can listen to The Evolution of Civilizations, the only Quiggly I have, in 1 hrs chapters. 1/3 the size of T&H, which so far has prooved too daunting, though I hear there is a new summary. One of his points was that the Palestinians, and Jews, are ethnically the Phoenician Canaanites. Jewish culture is a remanents of that civilization, not a separate one. Rome took Carthage's littoral empire about 200 years before the Flavians. What happened to them residing in and outside the homeland? Could it be other than Diaspora the Flavians were worried about? If not how and why did they all switch from Baal, and variants, along with the rest of the pantheon, to YHWH? It occurs to me now that it had to have been the Temple.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The view that the Jews are essentially Phoenician Canaanites appears fairly common, and as a generality I tend to agree. However, the bible narrative points to the insertion of an elite polity, at some point. This is portrayed as occurring during the time of the Conquest, but perhaps actually occurring later on. What I am referring to is the biblical depiction of the Levites being placed into sole control of the largest 48(?) cities of Canaan. And this also included the surrounding pasture lands of each city so as to allow the Levites to control their own food supplies, so as to not have to depend upon their supposed Hebrew cousins (from the 12 sons of Jacob). I have to admit that I was pretty stunned when I read this for the first time.

The Levites were distributed so, across Judah and Israel, whereas the other 11 'tribes' were granted their own respective territories. In some cases, archaeologists consider that some of these tribes were indeed the original Canaanites of those respective regions.

As with Ephraim (the son of Joseph), the Levites have a narrative connection, at least, to the Egyptian power structure. This while Judah was made to pay obeisance to Joseph for having sold him into slavery, and thus to provide service to Ephraim for generations, till the 'two sticks are made one again'.

As such, YHWH seems to have been the most convenient of the pre-existing regional gods to bear the new mantle of monotheistic god, as the Egyptian Aton entity could not be risked to be placed into use again. If for no other reason it would expose the Egyptian interests as being the sponsors. Besides, it was probably determined that the new god needed to be fearsome and violently jealous.

The claimed Solomonic temple is a key component of all this, including giving a better clue as to who really runs the different variants of Freemasonry, and to just what purpose. As with YHWH, Freemasonry, writ large, is just a convenient veil, and 'honey pot' for the ignorant, to allow the true shepherds to control the masses (and importantly to invisibly steer their 'culture' one direction or the other). As one example, when the pope in the 19th century warned against secret societies, like FM, this was the biggest boon to FM membership via Protestants. A second example is Napoleon, perhaps the most famous of those posed with the "Hidden Hand'. He was of ancient Roman nobility, like Julius Caesar, and his family was under the 'protection' of a Catholic cardinal. Of course, Christ Augustus, was the first of the Roman 'pharaoh's (king really), and the popes carried on with the Egyptian regalia and such as obelisks.
 

Wolfsire

Member
Exodus is where we hear about the Arc of the Covenant, which had been part of Egyptian culture, as was probably much else. Miles Mathis think Napoleon was probably Jewish, http://mileswmathis.com/napoleon.pdf, but that does not negate being from ancient Roman nobility, though perhaps not through St. Veronica, despite her efforts. ;-)
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Exodus is where we hear about the Arc of the Covenant, which had been part of Egyptian culture, as was probably much else.
Absolutely. Did you know the OT has 3 mutually exclusive descriptions of the Arc? The one most commonly referred to is the one that matches the Egyptians'.

I think I have posted on another thread that the tabernacle description has been found to be that of a typical pharaoh's traveling shrine 'tent'.

The story of Moses (an Egyptian name meaning 'son' - as in Tuth-moses) and Aaron (both Levites BTW) outdoing the magic of Pharaoh is hilarious. Pharaoh's magicians turn the Nile red, and Moses and his magic snake turn the Nile ... red. Only thing is that the narrative never tells us that the river has somehow reverted back to non-red, so that Moses and Aaron can turn it back to red. I originally thought this was just some shortsighted omission in the redaction or the original account. But, after having become accustomed to this manner of analysis, I think this is another inside joke, signalling the transfer of whatever the Egyptians were trying to do here. In this case, I think it was the monotheistic legacy of Akhenaton.

Thus, all this 'transference' of magic Egyptian mumbo-jumbo and symbology into the Temple worked brilliantly as a form of mass psychological 'transference' to allow everyone to constantly focus on 'Jews' as the carriers of all this stuff. Their assigned 'job' was to not deny it. There is some incredible evidence of all this, all presented by Jewish authors BTW. The next OT posts will be presenting this material.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
For some reason I had gotten it in my mind that I might have confused the Stone of Destiny with some other stone, but no I got it right to begin with. Part of my confusion may be likely that it is also known as the 'Stone of Jacob', the Stone of Scone, and the 'Westminster Stone'. The latter link discusses some of the theories about the true nature and provenance of the stone, with the result, IMHO that their never was a real stone imported there to begin with; another whopper just like Jacob having a wrestling match with God. It's all political propaganda, which is what religion is in the first place.

From my original text:

The metaphor of a ladder is similar to a Stairway to Heaven found in relation to other ancient temples such as ziggurats with external stairways. Importantly, for us, the prior Hittite name of Bethel (House of God) was that of Luz, which in a PIE context translates to “light”. Here we curiously see that Jacob not only gives his name to the ladder, but he has the honor of renaming Luz to Bethel. And also, as people do later with hotel robes and other items, he makes off with the stone pillow he had slept and dreamt upon. This allegedly becoming the famous Stone of Destiny in Scotland, .. or is that England?
http://postflaviana.org/isaac-the-fortunate-scions/
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how my admission of being correct above was a mistake, but I have made plenty of mistakes before, as part of being human. I try to own up to them, and correct them whenever possible.

I should have double checked the above first and then added some comments and the links in a digression box in the article, but fewer things are getting possible these days.
 
Some thoughts:

Cannanites could not be "thrown out of the Semitic family tree" as Canaan was the son of Ham, not Shem. Also, as has been suggested by others, the implication seems to be that Canaan sodomized a drunken Noah while Ham watched and laughed, certainly a reason to be cut out of Grandpa's will.

As for the divine prescience vs. free will question: I (and C.S. Lewis) would contend that physics holds the answer. God inhabits eternity, e.g. simply "Is" outside of time and space, and views "SpaceTime" as a temporal simultenaety; meaning that events which occupy, from our perspective, a position called "future" (or past for that matter) are from God's perspective "present". This does not give God "forekowledge", since he is not a passenger on the timestream, looking further downstream than his position. He knows events AS they occur, but to him they all occur "at once", without categories of future or past.

So God did not "know in advance" that Abraham would do the deed, He knew it as Abraham did the deed. Until the act, the event was in flux,; as Dr. Who (who fictionally claims a similar perspsective on the cosmos) would say,"It's a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey sort of thing".

While I'm hoeing this row, omnipotence is not what superstitious fools and snarky atheists think either. It means all the authority, ability, and energy there is (a finite amount mo matter how great) is available to perform the set of things which are possible. Here C.D. Lewis may be invoked as well as Benny Hill: "He tried the thing that could not be done--AN' 'E COULDN'T BLOODY DO IT!!" The punch line being that, by definition, it "could not be done".

Jesus is not magic, he cannot microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it (after it reaches a certain temperature it is no longer a burrito), Nor can God create a mountain so heavy he cannot lift it (a mountain is a teeny bump on a planet, which is a tiny speck in a cosmos in whch "heaven and earth cannot contain" its ostensible Creator, so yeah He could lift it more easily than you lift an irregularity on a dust particle). Non entities and non sequiturs are by definition impossible, no matter the potency of the actor. And science and reason exist to tell us what those are and are not.

Just sayin'...
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Cannanites could not be "thrown out of the Semitic family tree" as Canaan was the son of Ham, not Shem.
The trouble here is that the Canaanites were indeed Semites. Ironic since most people today who self-identify as Ashkenazi cannot possibly be literally of the tribe of Judah, or even of the other Abrahamic tribes, since Genesis says the Ashkenazim descend from Japheth via Gomer. Long prior to the adoption of Judaism by the Khazars (Ashkenazim) Hosea 1 even humorously relates that Hosea needed to repopulate the land by his marrying the whore Gomer.

What is with all these hookers in the divine mix. Of course, I understand that back in the day, before all of our apex moralizing, prostitution was an accepted institution, albeit not usually so great for the woman when she was usually coerced into it. But, the Abrahamic world is a (white) Man's World, right? The OT even has laws regarding proper prostitution, where one is not allowed to prostitute his mother or daughter. So there was nothing particularly salacious in Judah getting with Tamar, but it is rather odd in light of Yahweh killing poor Onan for spilling his seed. Maybe he didn't like Tamar, but you gotta do what traditional society demands, and in this case its follow the Levirate marriage contract (an Arya practice BTW).

Also, as has been suggested by others, the implication seems to be that Canaan sodomized a drunken Noah while Ham watched and laughed, certainly a reason to be cut out of Grandpa's will.
Is it acceptable for you, or these 'others', to draw such naughty inferences on one's own? In any case, is it really Hoyle that all the subsequent descendants be slaves because of this alleged act? It seems clear to me that this was written to justify Judaic treatment of those recalcitrant Canaanites (Semites) who did not want the new culture paradigm being imposed upon them. Religion is the right hand of governance.

Enough for now, have to go.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The trouble here is that the Canaanites were indeed Semites.
This might need a little explanation. Richard is referring to the concept of "semites" here in a scientific sense, as a culturally, linguistically & genetically distinct human population. During Biblical times, these "semites" generally lived in the region of Palestine, northern Egypt, and the Arabian peninsula, and spoke languages of the Semitic family, which includes Hebrew, Canaanite languages, Aramaic, and Arabic.

The Generations of Noah, also known as the Table of Nations, functionally seems to be an attempt to classify the world's peoples into racial and cultural categories. In general, the sons of Japheth are the white (caucasian) Europeans; sons of Ham are black Africans; and sons of Shem are Asians. (Native Americans and Polynesians were left completely out of the system, presumably because the Old Testament authors didn't know anything about them.)

Iron Age Canaanites were genetically and culturally indistinguishable from the Hebrews. However, they were classified as African Negroes by means of their alleged descent from Ham.

So, Michael, are you with us here? This is a transparently obvious propaganda device, not a real genealogy.

It should also be obvious that the "Generations of Noah" is a metaphor at best. If the human family shares common origins, the date of such an ancestral bottleneck tribe is at least 200,000 years ago, or about 8,000 generations.

Also, as has been suggested by others, the implication seems to be that Canaan sodomized a drunken Noah while Ham watched and laughed, certainly a reason to be cut out of Grandpa's will.
You are writing as if you believe this actually happened; not to mention that you seem to believe that the sociological consequences of the story are fully justified in accordance with your God's will. Am I reading you correctly?

If so -- what can I say? Such a belief system stands in defiance of historical and scientific reality, has poisonous consequences, and is opposed to everything we stand for here at this website. I don't see that we have much basis for dialog.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As for the divine prescience vs. free will question: I (and C.S. Lewis) would contend that physics holds the answer. God inhabits eternity, e.g. simply "Is" outside of time and space, and views "SpaceTime" as a temporal simultenaety; meaning that events which occupy, from our perspective, a position called "future" (or past for that matter) are from God's perspective "present". This does not give God "forekowledge", since he is not a passenger on the timestream, looking further downstream than his position. He knows events AS they occur, but to him they all occur "at once", without categories of future or past.
meaning that events which occupy, from our perspective, a position called "future" (or past for that matter) are from God's perspective "present".

So what you are saying then, is that Yahweh/Adonai/Adonis (please do not denigrate the Divine Entity as if you named a dog: "Dog"), does indeed know the future events (from our perspective at least). Else you are also denying that prophecy exists like Jerry and I do. BTW, you are also arguing against yourself, and apparently C.S.Lewis.

BTW, our name for The Big It is Dogod, because Big It expressly approved this appellation in a dream revealed to Jerry some time ago, and I believe him.

Don't you think that Dogod could have come up with a less deranged means of testing Abraham's loyalty?

Perhaps you would be better off considering the various OT patriarchal narratives, which were mostly cribbed from older cultures, as, at best, object lessons for the new society's members, who had been typical pagans before their forced and bloody conversion to Yahweh worship. If they were not typical pagans there would be no need for Moses laws, which are mostly cultural inversion (whatever they do, we wont).

Jesus is not magic, he cannot microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it (after it reaches a certain temperature it is no longer a burrito), Nor can God create a mountain so heavy he cannot lift it (a mountain is a teeny bump on a planet, which is a tiny speck in a cosmos in whch "heaven and earth cannot contain" its ostensible Creator, so yeah He could lift it more easily than you lift an irregularity on a dust particle). Non entities and non sequiturs are by definition impossible, no matter the potency of the actor. And science and reason exist to tell us what those are and are not.
Then how did the Sun temporarily stop moving around the Earth (to humor Giles) or the Earth temporarily stop rotating? Are you saying that somebody was stretching the Truth? Are you saying that all things are not possible through Dogod?

In any case, if Jesus did microwave a burrito such that it became too hot, and hence was no longer a burrito, then Jesus would indeed not be able to eat that burrito. Correct? So, I am confused once again.

BTW, there are some early heretical church traditions, where according to some non-Romans variants, Jesus was just an ordinary man, albeit enlightened somewhat like Buddha. But Imperial Rome and their Maccabee friends (like Josephus) needed a God-man for their Platonic savior, the permanent avatar to supplant the ever changing divine emperors.
 
The trouble here is that the Canaanites were indeed Semites. Ironic since most people today who self-identify as Ashkenazi cannot possibly be literally of the tribe of Judah, or even of the other Abrahamic tribes, since Genesis says the Ashkenazim descend from Japheth via Gomer. Long prior to the adoption of Judaism by the Khazars (Ashkenazim) Hosea 1 even humorously relates that Hosea needed to repopulate the land by his marrying the whore Gomer.

What is with all these hookers in the divine mix. Of course, I understand that back in the day, before all of our apex moralizing, prostitution was an accepted institution, albeit not usually so great for the woman when she was usually coerced into it. But, the Abrahamic world is a (white) Man's World, right? The OT even has laws regarding proper prostitution, where one is not allowed to prostitute his mother or daughter. So there was nothing particularly salacious in Judah getting with Tamar, but it is rather odd in light of Yahweh killing poor Onan for spilling his seed. Maybe he didn't like Tamar, but you gotta do what traditional society demands, and in this case its follow the Levirate marriage contract (an Arya practice BTW).


Is it acceptable for you, or these 'others', to draw such naughty inferences on one's own? In any case, is it really Hoyle that all the subsequent descendants be slaves because of this alleged act? It seems clear to me that this was written to justify Judaic treatment of those recalcitrant Canaanites (Semites) who did not want the new culture paradigm being imposed upon them. Religion is the right hand of governance.

Enough for now, have to go.
"Uncovering someone's nakedness" is a common OT euphemism for sexual inappropriateness. And the punishment or curse of humiliation in exchange for humiliation seems quite fair, even if they were laughing at Noah's bare ass not putting anything into it. Honoring your parents is the "first commandment with promise", of longevity and prosperity, e.g. "he who curses father or mother his lamp shall be but out in obscure darkness".

And if you define Semites as "descendants of Shem", then no, they weren't Semitic. By your definition Japanese are "Semitic" in that they are Asiatic, so I guess Hitler wasn't a total anti-Semite. But Jews who dislike Asians would be ...

And yes, the European "Jews" who infest the Holy Land" are Gentile converts to the religion "Judaism" not Hebrews, that's probably why they persecute the actual Jews native to the Holy Land.

As for bronze-age social constructs, they are just that. Just because God communicated with/to these people does not constitute a divine endorsement of all that they think or do. I once had an atheist ask me how a loving God could tell the Israelites how to beat their slaves; I responded that this is like finding a glass half full of ice water in the Sahara and asking "Why is this glass half empty!?" The Israelites, alone among cultures of the time, were not allowed to rape/fornicate with, blind, maim, murder, or permanently own a slave (without his acquiescence), or have one from among their own people, or kidnap someone to enslave him (the death penalty under the Mosaic law). Why not? Because YHWH told them how NOT to "beat the slaves". Certain things could only be mitigated not eliminated. (E.G. the modern prohibition against child pornography: it does not constitute moral endorsement on the part of government or society of a six-way gang bang with an 18-year old girl and five 50-year old men; we simply know we can't stop "consenting adults" from wallowing in degeneracy, but we can mitigate degeneracy if we punish them when they corrupt and pervert children.) The same principle applies in other affairs such as "hookers in the (Israelite, not Divine) mix".

And also to Genesis: it is theological messaging about how things (sun, moon, stars, sky, sea, etc.) are not "gods" but things, set in Egyptian and Mesopotamian motifs in order to refute them, not a scientific treatise on the origin of the cosmos, or a divine endorsement of the bronze age "flat earth" perception. But those things aren't gods according to science either, now are they...
 
Last edited:
meaning that events which occupy, from our perspective, a position called "future" (or past for that matter) are from God's perspective "present".

So what you are saying then, is that Yahweh/Adonai/Adonis (please do not denigrate the Divine Entity as if you named a dog: "Dog"), does indeed know the future events (from our perspective at least). Else you are also denying that prophecy exists like Jerry and I do. BTW, you are also arguing against yourself, and apparently C.S.Lewis.

BTW, our name for The Big It is Dogod, because Big It expressly approved this appellation in a dream revealed to Jerry some time ago, and I believe him.

Don't you think that Dogod could have come up with a less deranged means of testing Abraham's loyalty?

Perhaps you would be better off considering the various OT patriarchal narratives, which were mostly cribbed from older cultures, as, at best, object lessons for the new society's members, who had been typical pagans before their forced and bloody conversion to Yahweh worship. If they were not typical pagans there would be no need for Moses laws, which are mostly cultural inversion (whatever they do, we wont).


Then how did the Sun temporarily stop moving around the Earth (to humor Giles) or the Earth temporarily stop rotating? Are you saying that somebody was stretching the Truth? Are you saying that all things are not possible through Dogod?

In any case, if Jesus did microwave a burrito such that it became too hot, and hence was no longer a burrito, then Jesus would indeed not be able to eat that burrito. Correct? So, I am confused once again.

BTW, there are some early heretical church traditions, where according to some non-Romans variants, Jesus was just an ordinary man, albeit enlightened somewhat like Buddha. But Imperial Rome and their Maccabee friends (like Josephus) needed a God-man for their Platonic savior, the permanent avatar to supplant the ever changing divine emperors.
Since you think tbe "Big It" is a bigot, why not call him "Bigot"? But Adonis is the Grecianised version of Tammuz the bastard son of Semiramis, the "whore of Babylon" and wife of Nimrod. Hence the "weeping for Tammuz" on the part of Canaanite women, and the reference to the god that is the "desire of women" in Daniel; a handsome youth, cut down in his prime by a "hunting accident", no doubt arranged by his jealous, power-hungry mother, and was "deified" posthumously. No relation to YaHuWaH, sorry. But God=Elohim, meaning Mighty One, more like calling a dog "Killer" or "Champ" if you insist on the canine to divine analogy.

As for prophecy: that is when God tells someone in the position termed "present" by Temporals about events in a position called "future" by Temporals. Like a traffic reporter in a helicopter telling someone stuck in traffic (who can only see the taillights of the vehicle in front of him) about an overturned semi five miles ahead OF HIM on the road. The HELICOPTER is not "on the road", you see. It has SIGHT not "foresight"; foresight would be x-ray,/telescopic vision on the part of the driver, which is what fortune tellers and psychics claim. This is why Scripture, which is rife with prophecy, condemns divination/prognostication.

As for derangement, it was on the part of the culture, not God. If I talk to a baby, I talk baby talk. If I talk to an ignorant black American dropout crackhead gang member, I don't quote Shakespeare. God deals with people where they are at, because that's what ya DO. As well there may have been more to the test than "Is your son your god--the Most Important Thing To You-- or is God?" Part of it could have been : "Do you, unlike everybody else around here (the followers of the thousand-faces-of-Nimrod deities) get that God don't dig human sacrifice?" Gerald L. Schroeder suggests this may be the case, since after the incident God had no further personal encounters with Abraham, it was always by angelic messenger. Quite a downgrade from facetime with The Boss to dealing with a go-fer. He seems to have gotten a B minus at best.

As for the Burrito Question: my point was, Jesus can still be omnipotent by a rational definition of the term and STILL be unable to microwave a burrito so hot that He could not eat it--because bursting into flames and being reduced to ash means it is no longer a burrito. (If this is "below your head" it is a Simpsons reference wherein Otto the stoner school bus driver rephrases Epicurus' equally absurd test for omnipotence.to uber-Christian Ned Flanders.) Science and reason tells you the act is by definition impossible, so it is not a test of power, any more than being unable to smell the number seven means you have no nose.

But of course Jesus could "resurrect" the burrito (just as he can suspend physical "laws" not binding upon tbe Creator's actions, to make the sun "stand still") and then eat it--but it would no longer be at the temperature which makes it "not a burrito", e.g. "so hot that He can't".

As for "a violent and bloody conversion to Yahweh worship"-- huh? The Canaanites were driven out, not subjected to an Inquisition. The Israelites were YHWH worshippers by definition. But of course before them, everyone had been "pagan" since the tower of Babel when YHWH disinherited mankind and set the 70 Sons of God over the major national groups, and the 70 got uppity and started accepting worship instead of babysitting as was their assignment.

As for the "hetetical writings" of a Shirley Mclaine Christ, that is Gnosticism, the work of the "many anti-Christs" excoriated in the NT. Not that Catholic Solar Apollo-Jeezus is any better, but he's not in the NT either.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
"Uncovering someone's nakedness" is a common OT euphemism for sexual inappropriateness. And the punishment or curse of humiliation in exchange for humiliation seems quite fair, even if they were laughing at Noah's bare ass not putting anything into it. Honoring your parents is the "first commandment with promise", of longevity and prosperity, e.g. "he who curses father or mother his lamp shall be but out in obscure darkness".
That may well be the case, albeit that the entire Noah narrative is cribbed from older Mesopotamian sources, as is ubiquitous throughout the OT and the NT. But here, you dodge the moral question of whether the descendants of Canaan should be eternally condemned to slavery. And, as you know Christians expanded this to the descendants of Ham, who were declared to be the blacks of Africa. Obviously, you are a 'true believer' who is critical of those who deviate in the name of your god, however, it is clear to those unburdened with such hysterical superstition that Christianity and Judaism are merely cynical veils for the elite "shepherds" of humanity to fatten their flocks before fleecing them and/or taking them to market for slaughter.

As for commandments, even these were cribbed from earlier sources, just like Psalms 104 is clearly the Hymn to the Aten.

And if you define Semites as "descendants of Shem", then no, they weren't Semitic. By your definition Japanese are "Semitic" in that they are Asiatic, so I guess Hitler wasn't a total anti-Semite. But Jews who dislike Asians would be ...

And yes, the European "Jews" who infest the Holy Land" are Gentile converts to the religion "Judaism" not Hebrews, that's probably why they persecute the actual Jews native to the Holy Land.
And if you define Semites as "descendants of Shem", then no, they weren't Semitic.

This is what I would term "special pleading". The Arabs, supposedly descended from Ishmael, are acknowledged to be Semites and they speak a Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew, and Phoenician (Canaanite). The latter's heavenly god, over their Earthly pantheon, was named El. This El was then purposely conflated with his son Yahweh, one god of indigenous Canaanite localities. Yahweh had a wife named Asherah.

I know plenty of Ashkenazi Jews and they are no better or worse than the rest of humanity. Shame on you for such racism. They are merely and unfortunately playing out the cultural identity roles that were foisted on their ancestors, just like the original Jews.

That's not to say that certain elements of this Holy Land population are not complicit in what is going on today, but you of all people should thank them for it, as the second Third Temple must be built, so that it can be gloriously destroyed by Jesus? As revealed by Black in his The Transfer Agreement, the Jabotinskyites (today's Likud) colluded with the Nazis in the formation of Israel, which was also abetted by the Rothschilds, The Jewish Agency, Britain, and the Vatican. All in the service of your god and his mysterious globalizing ways. No modern Israel, no Futurist Apocalypse.

By the same token the indigenous peoples of the world might claim the same infestation is going on globally via rapacious white Christians and the hofjuden. Look at the trillion dollar mineral exploitation plan of Afghanistan that Erik Prince has proposed, modeled upon the British East India Company. The Conquest of the Americas, was even modeled upon the OT Conquest, however, like you they took the narrative literally in that the new 'Canaanites' should indeed be exterminated wherever possible. And they did so under the watchful aegis of the Euro-royals, who played the same general role as the pharaohs did to the original Conquest. I know, I know, your Bible denies this and propagandizes that the Israelites were rebels. So spare us the sanctimony.

As you are probably aware, some people believe that Hitler was 1/4 Rothschilds, Bubba Clinton was an illegitimate Rockefeller, and Donald J. Trump is also such a low branch member of the descended Hasmonean "priestly family" as Barbiero terms it. But in any case, Canaanites were Semites, no ifs, ands, or butts. The Danites were the displaced Greek Danoi, and Shlomo Sand, in his The Invention of the Jewish People argues well that the original 'Jews' (as opposed to Israelite Canaanites) were the Peleset Philistines, who we now know as the Palestinians.

As for bronze-age social constructs, they are just that. Just because God communicated with/to these people does not constitute a divine endorsement of all that they think or do.
Agreed. I address this in my first article in my OT series where it is well known that religion has gone through several stages of evolution, in conjunction with the development of civilizations from hunter-gatherers (Old School Preppers IMHO) to the imperial (expansionist) Persians and Romans, and what developmentally flowed from them till today. Thus we generally go from animism, to polytheism, pantheism, and monotheism(s), each becoming successively intolerant of 'the other' as suited the needs of the respective temporal rulers du jour whose related priests foisted these religions on us (as revelation), including yours. And now the new revelation (aka apocalypse) is unfolding upon us. The nonconformists to the new global paradigm will be cleansed from the Earth and everyone else will live happily ever after, singing kumbaya. Till the next comet strike that is.

The Israelites, alone among cultures of the time, were not allowed to rape/fornicate with, blind, maim, murder, or permanently own a slave (without his acquiescence), or have one from among their own people, or kidnap someone to enslave him (the death penalty under the Mosaic law). Why not? Because YHWH told them how NOT to "beat the slaves".
Indeed slavery of old, yet even before Israel was different. In Sumeria one became bonded due to the exigencies of life, and one could buy their way out, and even own their own home during bondage. The Bible states that an Israelite must treat his enslaved brother better than the other slaves, but I don't think it says anything about an enslaved sister.

BTW, do you support the reinstition of Biblical slavery?

And also to Genesis: it is theological messaging about how things (sun, moon, stars, sky, sea, etc.) are not "gods" but things, set in Egyptian and Mesopotamian motifs in order to refute them, not a scientific treatise on the origin of the cosmos, or a divine endorsement of the bronze age "flat earth" perception. But those things aren't gods according to science either, now are they...
Well, if you want to 'believe' this, then OK. But it all begs the question of exactly what a 'god' is, or was, in the first place. The later pagan priesthoods, at least, would laugh at most contemporary characterizations of them, as only the hoi polloi then might have grant them such a nature. The narrative actions of the gods of such as Greek mythos explained the forces of the natural world and the cosmos. These people understood metaphor, and now we are stuck under the tyranny of the literalists.

But, ironic that the Hellenized Jews of the Maccabee era, at least, became highly involved with Zodiacal astrology. Oh yes, and that Ezekiel guy.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Michael,

I am curious as to whether you believe that God is still talking to humans today. Is he is giving any advance notices of future events, aka "prophecies"? Or, handing down any new land grants? If so, who are the favored recipients of said communications?
 
Top