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

[Michael Wagner]

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?

Doubtful. He said what he us going to say and "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" is just that, it reveals the last of what we need to know and is the key to understanding the rest. New "revelations" are what got us from sanity to "88 reasons the Rapture Will Occur in 1988".

As for any "land grants", those are imaginary, the Holy Land is just that: it belongs to God. If you live there, you must obey the house rules or he boots you out, as the Canaanites, Israelites, and Jews can all tell you. Orthodox (Torah) Jews therefore had the decency to excoriate Zionism and Israeli statehood, claiming they should still be dispersed until Messiah leads a purified flock back.

 

[Michael Wagner]

Whos cribbing from whom is a matter of perspective. After all if the poly/henotheistic deities really are just "b'nai elohim" gone rogue and accepting/demanding worship in defiance of the Uncreated Creator, wouldn't their propaganda be that he is just their "daddy", not their ontological superior? Wouldn't he want to clarify? Put another way: if you say my mother pays for sailors, and I say it was just that one guy and he was a commissioned officer who showed up for free, am I cribbing from you because my account appears at a later date? Maybe a Navy man was involved, just not the way you say? And a gd is an "elohim", i.e. "any inhabitant of the spirit world". An Israelite would say "YHWH is an elohim, but no other elohim is YHWH"; akin to saying, "Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a mammal, but no other mammal is Homo Hapiens Sapiens.' In english the idea gets garbled into Smurf language: "God is a god, but no other god is God." All true even if ancient exoteric polytheism was a mask for an esoteric order of those who believed the enlightened could achieve divinity through gnosis, Zeus/Satan was laughing at them for believing the same load he sold Eve.


No, I don't approve of slavery in any form or age, therefore if God apoeared to me in a burning iPhone or something, He would not have to meet me halfway on the subject to deal with me at all, any more than he would have to worry about artificially advancing me to the Space Age by shattering my illusion that the earth is flat (or prevent me from building a skyscraper in Iraq lest I find out on my own and consequently "nothing I propose to do shall be witheld from me"). As for extending "cursed be Canaan" to all Hamites, it says "cursed be CANAAN" , those slavers should learn to read. And as for fairness, such a crime against the literal savior (and type if the Savior) and Patriarch of humanity certainly deserves a generational curse. But then God gave them a chance to get out from under it didn't he? While Israelites languished in slavery in Evypt, they inhabited he promised land where Melchizidek the quasi-immortal priest of the High Elohim (Who later revealed his name to be YaHuWaH), who sone think was a theophany of Logos/Christ, dwelt. They could have learned the true way, but worshipped the "hero with a thousand faces"/masks of Nimrod, indulged in beastiality, incest, sodomy, and some vile though disputef ritual involving pasing either live or dead infants "through the fire", so that "the land vomited them out of its own accord".

As for Ashkenazi and other infestations, I feel mo differently about the Europeans. "Amarucca" was not named after a European explorer but after the Serpent in his western hemisphrre manifestation, and the new world was colonized precisely to bring about the btave new world/new Atlantis new world order of the secret societies. They then aided and abetted other Europeans, nominal "Jews" in invading the Holy Land as part of their quasi-apocalypse (which just might blow up in their faces and become real). I am not a (pure) futurist or Christian Zionist or rapturist (I don't even believe in the immortality of the soul), I stated at the outset that either something like Orthodox preterism or post-Flavianism must be true, and Occam's Razor alone tells me it ain't post Flavianism. I'm going to stop replying and *read more deeply into your work* and see if ANYTHING you have to offer convinces me otherwise. I've been wrong before, I was once a Bush supporter for crap's sake! I changed when I knew I was wrong, I am not the Fonz, I CAN say it if the need arises.

IF.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Since you think tbe "Big It" is a bigot, why not call him "Bigot"?

You are projecting here, but perhaps this is Freudian? However, the "It" in Big It does indeed point to the important question as to how your sole god can be a male, of which it takes two to tango, so to speak.

And if Jesus was Big It's only begotten son, then of course the other (Genesis) sons that you mention came from asexual non-begetting right? Why didn't the Big It have any daughters? Why were the sons of Big It left to only get with the daughters of men? This doesn't seem very natural on several levels.

The Big It walked, talked, and dined with Abraham, he wrestled all night with Jacob cum Israel, he personally killed Onan, all the while his present is our past, present, and future. He rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorah, stopped the rotation of the Earth, and granted Moses and Aaron magical powers. Adam and Eve's son's had to beget with ... who?

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.

Well, it seems you do know your gods. Except that Elohim actually is the plural for 'god'. You are merely repeating a common conceit of the apologists in covering up that El was originally the Canaanite heavenly god, co-opted into the new paradigm since the Canaanites cum Israelites were already familiar with 'him'.

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.

This is more self-delusion.

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.

Yet a little down the road Big It has an epic wrestling match with Jacob and changes his name to Israel. If Big It didn't dig human sacrifices so much, why didn't he slay the sacrificers, like he slew Onan, and the people of Sodom and Gomorah? This is just more rationalization to justify that Big It exists, as y'all claim.

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".

So you are saying that Jesus could eat a microwaved burrito that was just under the temperature of flame ignition? In any case, would he be advised to forgo the cheese? What if a solar oven was used? Would this make any difference considering Christianity's Platonic/Pythagorean vectors? In this vein, what if one made similar fish sandwiches from the 153 fishes in the net?

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.

If you credulously believe everything you read then, of course, you'll come to your above conclusion and continue rowing in circles. Unfortunately the wider emerging facts on the ground are telling a different story.

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.

Shirley Mclaine Christ?

So, are you a Nicene Creed Christian or no? Through what path did you receive the form of your Bible? Considering all the known redactions to the NT, as with the OT, how do you know which way is up?

As for the Gnostics, I am always reminded of Isaiah 45:7 KJV.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

And that gets us to the clue in the same chapter, about Judeo-Christian messiahs:

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; (Isaiah 45:1 KJV)
​

and:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. (Ezra 1:2 KJV)​

In these cases you don't even need to read between the lines.

 

[Michael Wagner]

Well now you're just being sarcastic, which elevates you in my estimation. Again my point is "omnipotent" does not mean "capable of doing things which are by rational definition impossible". Some things *seem* impossible, because they are highly "irregular" (transcend observed regularities which we presume to be "laws"); these are "miracles". You make the "rules", you can make exception to them; but the exceptions prove the rule, and the Ruler. (And God often just plain changes the rules, new covenant, new creation not subject to decay or death, etc. Lots of people still.playing checkers while He has moved on to 3-D chess.)

As for not slaying the sacrificers, that is what he sent Israelites to do to the Canaanites, about which you complain. Are you suggesting God should just kill everybody on tbe planet? Tried it once, didn't take, so he embarked on a more salvationy approach and here we are.

As for "godly" questions: matter/energy/time/space came from spirit (even if we deny it by calling it "quantum fluctuations in imaginary non-space".) Spirit can manifest as matter. The personal theophanies that did things like have dinner with Abraham or take afternoon walks in Eden were tbe Word/Logos taking on a temporary physical form. (When it speaks of prophets in terms of "the Word of the LORD came to so-and-so", this means a Theophany of the Logos of YHWH.; this is why a young Samuel for example was described as "knowing not the Lord"--he was not impious, he simply had not encountered such a Theophany yet, so if he met one he wouldn't recognize it.) Jesus was, properly translated, "the UNIQUE Son of God", unique in that he was part of the Godhead, not part of the created order such as angelic "sons of God" or Adam who was described in Christ's genealogy as "the son of God". But they certainly formed a "Divine Council" or bureaucratic entourage for YHWH, of which he was the head. Then he set them to babysit humanity, which became idolatry, and now he is getting rid of them (Psalm 82) and replacing them with a new Divine Council of those who become sons of God through the redemptive work of the Unique Son of God. That's what Christianity is all about, Charlie Brown--despite the"commercial racket" run by the "big eastern syndicate" that operates in its name, which you mistake for its origins.

But yes there is a feminine principle, God the Mother if you will, Creation as opposed to Creator. Idolatry is defined as "they worshipped the creation rather than the Creator". Listen to Dad, no matter what Mom says, He wears the pants in the family, junior. In fact Genesis seems to say the first human was a hermaphrodite "male AND female created He him"), later split into two genders (God takes Adams "side" not rib, and makes two complete male and female beings out of the resulting halves). Comparitive religion reveals similar tales among South Sea Islanders and even the Greeks whose "gods" split the original entity in two to keep potential human rivals busy always chasing "their other half". So a divine dichotomy I grant. As for rebel angels, well they saw the daughters of men as "fitting extensions" for them--a way to gain a genetic foothold in the material world which they covet, just as humans are tempted to "be as gods"; the grass, and sometimes the ass, is always greener on the other side of the fence...

And yes God is responsible for both good and evil, because he exists above the moral plane, "wholly other" and accountable to no one. That is why when someone acts indifferently to right and wrong, or lives by their own rules, we say "Who do you think you are, God?" In fact mankind's original sin was to attempt to transform their consciousness to enable them to usurp the Divine/Divine Council prerogative of the discernment of good and evil" to occupy this position above the moral plane. But whatever you intend for evil, God intends for good; "evil" is the unsuccessful attempt to thwart divine intent, while ultimately actualizing it in ones own despite; all things work together for good to them that love God, that are called according to his purpose. (There, I just solved the "problem of evil" for you; you're welcome.)

As for Onan, Gid killed him for literally backing out of his agreed upon responsibilities not for where he jizzed per se.

 

[Richard Stanley]

As for not slaying the sacrificers, that is what he sent Israelites to do to the Canaanites, about which you complain. Are you suggesting God should just kill everybody on tbe planet? Tried it once, didn't take, so he embarked on a more salvationy approach and here we are.

Sounds to me like Donald Trump would fire the Big It.

As for Onan, Gid killed him for literally backing out of his agreed upon responsibilities not for where he jizzed per se.

Good thing for Trump that he hasn't met Gid. Therefore, Trump should fire Gid before they meet.

Do you think that Gid approved of Levirate marriage, and if not, is this why he now mandates marriage between one man and one woman? If Gid didn't approve of Levirate marriage, then perhaps It should have celebrated what Onan did instead? Maybe Onan was in love with another woman?

Which gets to this degenerate 'modern' cultural notion of romantic Love, which I assert is Pure Satanic (Liberal) Evil (even though I don't believe in Satan). Before the troubadours started pushing Chivalry and such in the royal courts, it was a man and woman's duty to marry who they were told by their parents. I think this is how Gid wants it, don't you? The purpose is to churn out a gaggle of rugrats, where a woman should have a baby per year until she can no longer do so. And now these uppity baby factories are telling men what to do, and even driving cars. WTF? I have to imagine that Gid is not giddy about all this.

As for rebel angels, well they saw the daughters of men as "fitting extensions" for them--a way to gain a genetic foothold in the material world which they covet, just as humans are tempted to "be as gods"; the grass, and sometimes the ass, is always greener on the other side of the fence...

Who didn't see this cumming? Gid. Again, this is why Trump should fire him ... err IT.

 

[Michael Wagner]

I apologize for my ridiculous typographical error (small phone, big fingers, bad eyes). But not for my assertions.

Of course YHWH (which even I can't misspell as "Gid") "approved" of Levirate marriage, he killed Onan for backing out of one! (Not for simply letting his ejaculate hit the ground as generations of prudes have claimed.) Pure monogamy is largely relatively modern "apex moralizing" response to liberal libertinism. The emphasis in biblical sexual morality (at least in OT times) is on not putting asunder what God has joined at the hairy groboignik and made one flesh, or polluting your neighbor's wife with YOUR groboignik.

Having several wives and being faithful to them was apparently not a huge deal. Witness God's response to David indirectly murdering Uriah so he could "take care" of the widow: "Don't you have enough broads!? If not, you coulda asked Me for more, ya didn't have to pull this crap and make Me look bad!" God is not as uptight as the average fornicating televangelist or"celibate" priest would have you think. Otherwise Solomon would have burst into flames when he got near the Temple, as opposed to building it.

Even Jesus when he talks about "cleaving unto your wife" is remonstrating against divorce; and adds an interesting caveat excepting "eunuchs born" from this obligation. He does not say "go actively participate in homoerotic behavior", but he obviously would not approve of persecuting those who feel they are "born that way" (factually, a tiny fraction of homosexual practitioners). So still less uptightness from Jesus.

As for"courtly love" that consists largely of banging guy's wives when they are off at war, and reducing men to worshipping women reversing the natural order wherein mean lead (read some Dorothy L. Sayers essays). As for arranged marriage I don't see the harm; it depends on the motive. Would you tell your daughter "marry this fat bald rude slob cause he has money and connections"? But you might not want her marrying a random parolee with 500 tattoos? A happy medium is the key. And don't you have to "learn to love" whoever you marry, wheter you begin by being romantically entranced by them or not? Isn't the 50% divorce rate the result of expecting "romantic love" to last forever? Doesn't it need to be recreated by effort even in relationships with which it began? Why not have a quality mate chosen for you by conscientious, empathetic (not money or power hungry) an kindle that fire once you have the ingredients?

And what in Lucifer's beard has serial divorcee and aspiring pussy grabber Trump to do with it?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Why do I get the impression that you are some form of Mormon?

The Levirate marriage practice was specially for the protection of the woman, in case she became widowed. Albeit, she was only betrothed to one brother at a time, and then to the father-in-law if she ran out of the brothers. Obviously, many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, but as you had said earlier, this was the custom of the day, generally widespread except for places like Egypt (ignoring the pharaoh of course).

Which, BTW, I believe that Solomon et al. were really pharaohs, as claimed by author Ralph Ellis. And, this is why the Mormons have all that Egyptian temple stuff. Ellis also argues that the 'real' Jesus was the last of the Egyptian line of pharaohs. He was the son of Helena of Adiabene, the Nazarite, the granddaughter and also great-grandaughter of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Thus when Jesus' fig tree was barren, and his claim to rule the empire of the extended elite family corporation failed, the Romans had made their gentil graft onto the Root of Jesse. And, as prophesied, Esau had reclaimed the blessing of Abraham for the new order (initiated by Augustus, the Prince of Peace). You can still see Helena's famous pyramid topped tomb in Jerusalem. BTW, Josephus claimed that the Maccabee rulers buried themselves in pyramidal tombs. Not so curious when you understand Postflavianism.

As for"courtly love" that consists largely of banging guy's wives when they are off at war, and reducing men to worshipping women reversing the natural order wherein mean lead (read some Dorothy L. Sayers essays). As for arranged marriage I don't see the harm; it depends on the motive. Would you tell your daughter "marry this fat bald rude slob cause he has money and connections"? But you might not want her marrying a random parolee with 500 tattoos? A happy medium is the key. And don't you have to "learn to love" whoever you marry, wheter you begin by being romantically entranced by them or not? Isn't the 50% divorce rate the result of expecting "romantic love" to last forever? Doesn't it need to be recreated by effort even in relationships with which it began? Why not have a quality mate chosen for you by conscientious, empathetic (not money or power hungry) an kindle that fire once you have the ingredients?

Some people that still practice arranged marriages claim that it works for them, but I suspect there are many unhappy campers. In India, for instance the woman usually ends up in flames.

But in any case you are conflating romantic love with sexual lust. The troubadours claimed that they were promoting unrequited love, but who knows. Obviously married men and women have been fooling around forever. Individuals have different sex drives, based upon respective endocrine levels. Such Biblical proscriptions are, at best, a crude way of mitigating problems with no clear cut solution. And in any case this leads to many interpretations, of which you have some rather interesting variations.

Why not have a quality mate chosen for you by conscientious, empathetic (not money or power hungry) an kindle that fire once you have the ingredients?

Human mating 'chemistry' is more complicated than that. If there is no 'chemistry', then no amount of kindling will suffice. And some people are just crappy lovers (boinkers), period. Some people are great boinkers, but lousy in other aspects.

But Jesus, didn't even get married, how is that for setting a bad example? And said he was there to uphold the Law. Or did he marry the Magdalene? If the Roman Church said she was a hooker then this means she wasn't, right?

And what in Lucifer's beard has serial divorcee and aspiring pussy grabber Trump to do with it?

This is why one needs Faith. You spend too much time trying to justify matters that aren't supposed to make sense. Only atheists and agnostics have such luxury. But to humor you, Trump claims (incorrectly) that he is good at firing people. So, when Gid has his next theophany, Trump can fire him, and, ipso facto, Evil can no longer exist. But this is also why Trump will not fire Gid.

 

[Michael Wagner]

I"m no Mormon, I was just playing "devil's advocate" with polygamy/arranged marriage, in that they solve (and create) as many problems as romance/monogamy do. Obviously human sexuality is complex.

As for the Magdalen, tradition not the NT identifies her as "the woman taken in adultery" Jesus saves from stoning. As for Christ being married, who knows? The old argument from omission. Then again why marry if you know you are dead by 33? We know the apostles had unnamed wives because Paul mentions it in contrast to his bachelorhood, and though Peter's wife is not named, his mother-in-law Dorcas is.

 

[Michael Wagner]

As for the Pyramid: it may more sacred than Egyptopagan or Masonic. Much is said in new age hooey about ",pyramid power, but there is evidence that tetrahedral geometry influinces spacial vortices that affect health or creative power. Rob Skiba makes a case that the complex at Giza may have originated in commemoration of the location of the Creation of man, who was later stationed in "a garden eastwatd in Eden" (e.g. the Holy Land). Of course Skiba thinks the earth is flat because bronze agers saw it that way, so consider the source. And a case can be made that the New Jerusalem imagery in Revelation is depicting a pyramid. Pagans and occultists merely criibbed all this from primordial monotheism.

None of which makes Jesus a Pharaoh...

 

[Richard Stanley]

Then again why marry if you know you are dead by 33?

Because if he had started at age 13, he should have pollinated 20 or so rug rats, that's why.

And a case can be made that the New Jerusalem imagery in Revelation is depicting a pyramid.

Or it might be a memory of Ecbatana.

None of which makes Jesus a Pharaoh...

And none of which doesn't make Jesus a pharaoh. Of course, you might then properly tell me there were no 'pharaohs'. This term comes from the Septuagent, created by the 70 Jews that Ptolemy hired to translate from the Hebrew Masoretic, which had more properly called them 'kings' (melek or something like that).

There is only one human who controlled land that is ascribed to Solomon's domains, and had such wealth and pussy. That would be one pharaoh ... errr Egyptian king. The Queen of Sheba narrative is likely cribbed from the older narrative of Queen Hatsetshup's legendary trip to Punt (see Velikovsky).

And Augustus, and Claudius at least, were official pharaohs ... oops Egyptian kings BTW.

What is your source that the Flat Earth was a Bronze Age Construct (of whom exactly)? If so, the later pagans clearly corrected this, only to have the Roman Church assert that it was flat (again?).

What is your source for "primordial monotheism"? Or are you playing Devil's Advocate again?

 

[Michael Wagner]

Bronze age people had no jets, rockets, satellites or even a way to climb a mountain of significant height, so their perception (rather than divine revelation) was that it was a round flat disc. If later pagans corrected this, the Catholics paid no attention and clung to tbe bronze age 'spatial geometry" employed in the Bible. (Surely you aren't a flat earther, who are too "rational" to be a monotheist?

As for "primordial monotheism", cultural anthropologists have long noted that all the major origin stories are similar to Genesis, and that many gods is a later concept. The OT narrative of celestial "babysitters gone bad" is the explanation that fits this best.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I have some idea whether they did or not, but still where is your proof of this assertion about Bronze Age beliefs?

Besides Eratosthenes much later accurate measurement of the spherical circumference of the Earth by measuring the delta of the angle of the Sun at the summer solstice, between Syene and Alexandria, the dimensions and ratios of the Great Pyramid reveal a human knowledge of the spherical Earth long before, in the Bronze Age at least.

As for "primordial monotheism", cultural anthropologists have long noted that all the major origin stories are similar to Genesis, and that many gods is a later concept. The OT narrative of celestial "babysitters gone bad" is the explanation that fits this best.

You forgot to say that most anthropologists today reject this notion. Not even the anthro-apologists.

By the 1950s, the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism was rejected by the academic establishment, so its proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased it to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original theism" (Ur-Theismus, as opposed to non-theistic animism), with a concept of Hochgott ("High God", as opposed to Eingott "Single God"). Christian apologetics in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory of revelation" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling of redemption" or virtuous paganism unconsciously anticipating monotheism.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urmonotheismus​

Such a "High God" would be El, the Heavenly father god of the Canaanites, later to become distilled and merged with son Yahweh.

Surely you aren't a flat earther, who are too "rational" to be a monotheist?

Technically, I am an agnostic who knows that the entire Judeo-Christian schema is a fictive scheme, just like all its predecessors. But, even many 'religious' Jews, Christians, and Muslims have come to the proper understanding that these Bible stories were indeed attempts to explain aspects of Reality, without being literally true.

Like Moses' inversion of pagan cultural norms, the Judaic version even politically inverts the notion of who the good guys are versus the bad compared to the Mesopotamian version. That is, nomadic shepherds versus the agrarians (who necessarily had to live adjacent to the town or city).

However, you might do better by considering the notion of a prior global civilization (or more than one), that was destroyed, yet long before the Biblical chronology allows for. This is why Semitic related peoples are found around the spherical world. Kahuna in Hawaii means the same as the Semitic general term for a priest, cohen.

BTW, the number for Syene, which sits on the Tropic of Cancer, is 666. As David Fideler well demonstrates in his Jesus Christ, Sun of God, such related 'sacred' numbers are part of a sophisticated geometry and cosmology as part of Pythagorean numerology, in this case a solar reference. This is where the 153 fishies and the 5,000 came from. The fish and anchor, the prior main symbol of Xianity before the cross, derived from the dolphin (the king of the fishes) and anchor.

And, as you know (now), the fish and anchor was the sign of the Flavians. The dolphin was related to Delphi and the Omphalos stone (the navel of the Earth), and was salvicly related to Castor and Pollux, the Greco-Romans twin saviors (especially to mariners) before the advent of Iesous. The symbol of the twins was a twin upright cross, carried before troops just like the Xian cross. And, of course, Paul sailed to Rome, from Malta, on the ship named the Castor and Pollux.

How many times must the cock adoodle my friend?

 

[Michael Wagner]

The Romans did not create the stars or the Elohim to which they relate or their signatory meaning. But the Lesser Elohim (as opposed to the High Elohim who is both El and YHWH--*Baal* was the son of El and the "Lord" of the henotheistic Ugarit pantheon from which the Cannanite/Phoenician pantheon descends with a side trip through Babel) have both motive and opportunity to reassign meanings...and reappropriate sacred geometry. Magick is just sacred geometry perverted, an island of Dr. Moreau as opposed to a garden of Eden. And Baal is simultaneously the "son" of El who became what we term the devil, to whom nonetheless all authority on earth was given--and a mask for Nimrod the would be king of the world, his greatest instrument of old.

So that primal theism equates to monotheism-- the Most High God to whose priest Abraham gave a tithe, later identifies himself as YaHuWaH, This is not replacement any more than ones employer identifying himself by name instead of "The Boss". Remember: prior to Moses, any body asked for the Name, including favored son Jacob, they were told "Nunya Bizness".

The parallells you draw cut both ways and in no way prove your conspiracy. In the OT YHWH is called the Cloud-Rider, specifically to insult "Baal", by assigning his alleged attributes in verity to YHWH.
(Think of the old SNL spoof of televangelists where one advises "don't do drugs to get high, get with the Lord, that's Heaven-high!!") If an emissary of the true Savior travels on a vessel named after the Roman "savior", it's more of the same.

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to actually read the articles to see if anything here might cause me to reevalute my position, which is why I came to this fakakta site anyway, not to engage in an antagonistic correspondence. After all I used to be a dyed in the wool evangelical-fundamentalist-futurist until facts caused me to reevalute my opinions.

 

[Michael Wagner]

Though I should have added: the biblical chronology properly understood, can allow for at least 100,000 years of human civilization(s) which of course come and go, with one of them having gone in a giant flood, and when they do people have to rebuild. If it took them a while to get back to a spherical earth, it took Europe a while to get back to classical sculpture and architecture after Rome fell. (Only sweaty Baptists with an eighth grade education cling to that 4000 B.C. b.s.)

 

[Richard Stanley]

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to actually read the articles to see if anything here might cause me to reevalute my position, which is why I came to this fakakta site anyway, not to engage in an antagonistic correspondence. After all I used to be a dyed in the wool evangelical-fundamentalist-futurist until facts caused me to reevalute my opinions.

I'm not stopping you from reading, in fact the last time you said this you immediately came back with more. If you think this is antagonistic, you haven't seen anything. I am having fun at least.

Don't give up on Futurism, the Jesuits invented it for a reason. This is why they now occupy so much of the White House, the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the right and left talking heads today, in the once WASP dominated nation.

When you come up for air, we can talk about Joseph's explicitly admitted collusion with 'Pharaoh' to enslave all of Egypt by manipulating the markets, and then papa Jacob (Israel) granting Joseph's son Ephraim the divine blessing. And that the tabernacle and its mishkan are perfect descriptions of a typical 'pharaoh's' military campaign tent and security perimeter. And that the tabernacle was situated in Shiloh, adjacent to Bethel, in the center of the territory of Ephraim. Ephraim was the son of the daughter of an Egyptian high priest, selected by pharaoh in an arranged marriage with Joseph.

Rome never fell, you're living in its current vanguard. Before you come up for air, please read Tupper Saussey's Rulers of Evil, which is an area that you and I can agree upon the origins of matters, despite your fundamental superstition in the metaphorical Satan. We have a link to a free pdf copy of the book, which is now out of print and expensive to obtain.

And thanks for indirectly answering, that at least once you were a Nicene Christian, a witting or unwitting agent of Rome.

Trump and his Jesuit cabal are further converting your evangelical fundamentalist 'patriots' of the Low Church into the next Zealots modeled typologically on the Jewish ones of the Flavian period. So as to properly ring in the new age and its new paradigm.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to actually read the articles to see if anything here might cause me to reevalute my position,

Please do be our guest, we appreciate when people read our articles as well as the discussion threads.

which is why I came to this fakakta site anyway, not to engage in an antagonistic correspondence.

I had to look up 'faktakta'. From yiddish farkakte, means shitty or crappy. Gosh, why would you want to spend time reading our shitty and crappy materials? I might speculate, on the contrary, that you intended from the beginning to do exactly what you're doing.

Whatever. If you want to bring the antagonistic correspondence to a close, I suggest you let Richard have the last word.

 

[Richard Stanley]

In the following video Ralph Ellis makes an interesting argument that the mandrake discussed in Genesis 30 is yet another word game, in this case meant to disguise that Rachel could have sex with nephew Reuben (the 'mandrake') in trade for 'hated wife' Leah being able to get with Jacob once more. More disguised pharaoh stories.

 

[Seeker]

We know that Reuben slept with his father's concubine Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid) from Gen. 35:22- "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it.", and also in Gen. 49:3-4 Jacob (Israel) accuses Reuben of defiling his father's bed (no name mentioned here)-
"Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch."
Could this mean Bilhah also, or perhaps Rachel?

 

[Seeker]

IF Joseph was indeed the actual son of Reuben, as Ellis postulates, then he would have secretly been the eldest son of the eldest son of Jacob (Israel), while officially being a younger son. Biologically speaking then, Joseph and his descendants would be the Numero Uno tribe, ahead of all of the others, including Judah.