The Egyptian Roots of 'Freemasonry', the Inner Cult of the 'Kings'

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 12B (out of order)

(I have made revisions below, in blue to Part 12A on 1/17/17, and in green on 7/21/17, and in teal on 1/22/18.)

Samson - Trump Parallels

  1. Samson is explicitly identified as a Nazarite, yet his attributes are not perfectly suited to the Nazarite regulations found in Numbers 6. Some of the Nazarite injunctions are instead placed upon his mother. This seems to have an echo with the later Helena of Adiabene who moved to Palestine and took the Nazarite vows. A pyramidal shaped tomb of hers is still in Jerusalem, and there is an interesting theory advanced by researcher Ralph Ellis that Helena may have been the true lineage of the real underlying (Nazarite) 'Jesus' via her descent from Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Like Samson, Trump is severely flawed from a moral perspective, including that they both deviate from Nazarite proscriptions.
  2. They both have Nazarite-esque long hair issues, with Trump having dyed his long hair red at one point, and now a Tudor orange. Now the porn star, Stormy Daniels, claims that she asked Trump about cutting his dumb hair and that he told her that if so he would lose his strength. See this link.
  3. They share a lust for foreign women at least. Additionally, both the Philistines (the Peleset Sea Peoples and the Samson's Danites were foreign immigrants. Similar to Samson, Trump is a third generation Bavarian and his current wife is an dubiously illegal immigrant as well).
  4. Samson, at least, is credited with a hidden agenda against the Philistines, while Trump has been something of a political chameleon over the years, albeit he has indeed dabbled as a populist for some time as well, but so far his Presidential policies appear elitist. As for Trump, we gnow that he has been attributed by many with a different personality than the boorish one he is currently displaying for public consumption. Hence he has been groomed for his Lifetime Actor role, as was Samson, whose parents had to ask the divine how he should be raised (obviously not as other children).
  5. Samson presents enigmatic riddles to the Philistines, which his foreign women are used to deliver the pyrrhic solutions to his enemies. Trump is the agent of Chaos, from which his opponents: Dems, Republicans, and foreigners, struggle to penetrate to his true motives. (At least some evangelical Christians (and the Jesuits) understand him.) Covfefe anyone?
  6. As with Samson, Trump will ultimately appear to fail, albeit having moved the hidden agenda along - for the New Age.
  7. As with Samson having used the Jews to deliver him up, Trump has been using the evangelicals (today's new 'sacrificial' Zealots), many of whom see Trump as if he were Samson - or at least a 'type' of Samson.
  8. The opening of the Harper's Bible Commentary on Samson states: "It is frequently observed that Samson does not behave like a judge. He does not lead any Israelite troops into battle but rather engages in personal vendettas against the Philistines. When one considers his wild escapades and sexual liaisons, his character leaves much to be desired." Need I say more? OK, I will. Trump make much of the fact that he is a counter-puncher and takes everything personally.
  9. At the beginning of the adult Samson narrative, it is stated that Samson seeks out "an occasion against the Philistines". It does not state why he wants to seek such an 'occasion' against them, so we are left somewhat flummoxed as with the present situation in the White House. In any case, in more contemporary parlance this can be stated as Samson desired to 'trump' up charges, or to create a pretext against the Philistines from which he could incite further actions, which posthumously would lead to the destruction of the Israelite temple at Shiloh - and the rise of the Davidic monarchy - a new age. [added 7/21/17] Trump has indeed announced his first 'occasion' against the Palestinian 'Philistines' and Islamic Arabs via the plans to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capitol city of Israel, which has been widely claimed will lead to massive religious 'violence' over the 'Holy City' of the three Abrahamic religions.
That Samson engages the Philistines repeatedly, seeming always to risk his life over these inane ruses, Trump repeatedly seems to risk his political life by doing outrageous things that no 'politician' could get away with. Indeed, his berserk nature continues to speak to the frustrations of the forgotten ones.

If we can accept this typology as planned and staged, then Trump will indeed come to a dramatic end, but after how many travails and ruses?

Will he end up in exile at a Hidden (Trump) Resort, like Julius Caesar did? Who will be his Delilah, or Brutus? Could Jared Kushner be Brutus - as JC treated him like a son? Or is Jared actually the new Octavian Augustus?

Revised 6/17/17,
[added 7/21/17]

[added 8/6/17]
[added 1/22/18]
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpted article discusses a new DNA study of ancient elite Egyptians. Unfortunately, the oldest sample is only back to the New Kingdom (1388 BCE), so we can't see if any changes were introduced before that time.

Egyptologists, writers, scholars, and others, have argued the race of the ancient Egyptians since at least the 1970’s. Some today believe they were Sub-Saharan Africans. We can see this interpretation portrayed in Michael Jackson’s 1991 music video for “Remember the Time,” from his Dangerous album. The video, a 10 minute mini-film, includes performances by Eddie Murphy and Magic Johnson.

Reactionaries meanwhile, say that there’s never been any significant black civilizations, an utter falsehood. There were several in fact, highly advanced African empires and kingdoms throughout history. Curiously, some extreme Right groups have even used blood group data to proclaim a Nordic origin to King Tut and his brethren.

The problem, it was thought that mummy DNA couldn’t be sequenced. But a group of international researchers, using unique methods, have overcome the barriers to do just that. They found that the ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant. This is the Eastern Mediterranean which today includes the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The mummies used were from the New Kingdom and a later period, when Egypt was under Roman rule. ...

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know

For some reason a photo of Queen Hatshepsut's (18th Dynasty) wet nurse is provided showing her very red hair:

upload_2017-6-19_13-49-21.jpeg
The mummified remains of Queen Hatshepsut wet-nurse Sitre-In. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. 2007. Getty Images.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpt is the beginning of a longer article, centering on a dig at Jaffa, discussing the heavy Egyptian 'colonial' presence in Canaan, in the very middle of what the Bible terms the period of the 'judges'. The various narratives of the different judges do not depict the Egyptians as having such a role in the Hebrew's Israelite polity, and thus one wonders if many of them could have occurred as presented. As I have mentioned on this thread and elsewhere, the article discusses the impact of the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, and in this regard also mentions the findings of severe droughts in this time.

The beginning of Egyptian rule in Canaan, with that smashing victory at Megiddo, is much clearer than its end. Archaeologists digging the remains of Egyptian sites in Israel and combing through ancient texts carved into temple walls and scratched onto clay tablets have never been able to pinpoint exactly when, or even how, Egypt’s occupation of Canaan expired. Did it decline slowly or end suddenly? Was it an orderly withdrawal or a messy rout? Did it fall in the region-wide cataclysm of the Late Bronze Age or were local factors more to blame?

At the port of Jaffa, on Tel Aviv’s south side, archaeologists Aaron Burke of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Martin Peilstöcker of Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz are finding that the fall of Egypt’s rule came the way Hemingway famously described bankruptcy—gradually, and then suddenly—and was at least partly due to homegrown factors. The Egyptian outpost at Jaffa had an uneasy relationship with the locals, and it apparently met a fiery end. Burke and Peilstöcker have found evidence of two catastrophic blazes, ten years apart, that destroyed Jaffa, the second one occurring in about 1125 B.C. That fire, Burke believes, marked the end of Egypt’s presence not just in Jaffa, but in all of Canaan. “Jaffa was the only Egyptian outpost that was purely military. This was their last line of defense, and once it fell, any remaining Egyptian centers in Canaan would have been cut off from Egypt,” says Burke. He has been excavating the site since 2007, following on digs starting in the 1950s that revealed Jaffa as a walled enclave of pharaonic power whose strained relationship with the surrounding people stood in sharp contrast to the cultural affinity between Egyptians and Canaanites elsewhere. Burke says, “They lived largely at odds with each other. And after the Egyptians left, there is no further trace of their presence here.” ...

http://www.archaeology.org/issues/262-1707/features/5627-jaffa-egypt-canaan-colony
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following excerpted article discusses a new DNA study of ancient elite Egyptians.
This is the same study that was discussed in another thread, here. The authors don't make any claims that the mummies were from elite individuals. On the contrary, they say they represent a cross-section of social classes. Assmann's book "Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt" discusses that access to magic ceremonial practices such as mummification, as well as belief in their efficacy in obtaining eternal life, became gradually more widespread during the course of Egyptian history. Only a few of the mummies in the study were thought to be as old as the New Kingdom.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following excerpt is the beginning of a longer article, centering on a dig at Jaffa, discussing the heavy Egyptian 'colonial' presence in Canaan, in the very middle of what the Bible terms the period of the 'judges'.
If one is inclined to believe the various theories (Freud, Osman, Sabbah brothers, Ellis etc.) claiming that Moses and the Exodus represent events in the wake of Akehaten's monotheistic revolution in Egypt, then this would have occurred also in the middle of the period claimed for the biblical judges. According to the standard chronology, Akhenaten died ~1335 BCE, while Burke dates the fall of Jaffa to 1125 BCE. Floyd Nolen Jones' biblical chronology reckons that the dates of the Judges were 1418 BC to 1101 BC.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
It has recently come to mind that I have incorrectly been referring on the forum to the Nazarite vows or rituals as coming from Leviticus 6 when it is really from Numbers 6. I have amended all such references on the forum.

To follow up more on such as Samson being Nazarites I have the following. To prove that being a Nazarite minimally means a prince, but also later a devotee of the princely line (as claimed for the gospel's Davidic lineage of Jesus - and today's rough equivalent would be the wider term 'monarchist' and/or a traditionalist 'revanchist'), I provide the following from Numbers 7, the immediately subsequent chapter:

upload_2017-6-25_12-56-46.png
From http://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/7-2.htm

See that nə·śî·’ê means 'princes'. And that with this I'm guessing that thus Numbers 7 delimits who undertakes the Numbers 6 rites -- in preparation for becoming the next ruler of his respective tribe. Nothing in Numbers 6 states who can undertake the rite, and so with Numbers 7:2 mentioning the nə·śî·’ê 'princes' seems to strongly infer my suggestion.
Here below is the fuller context of Numbers 7 referring to Moses setting up the tabernacle, and so calling the princes of the tribes to its dedication ceremony. This makes it all pretty central to the Mosaic schema within the establishment of Israel.

Offerings of Dedication

1And it came to pass on the day that Moses had fully set up the tabernacle, and had anointed it, and sanctified it, and all the instruments thereof, both the altar and all the vessels thereof, and had anointed them, and sanctified them; 2That the princes of Israel, heads of the house of their fathers, who were the princes of the tribes, and were over them that were numbered, offered: (Num 7 KJV)

The Nazarite vows are fairly simple and straightforward unless one was an alcoholic or addicted to grapes, that is. There are a few other 'cleanliness' prescriptions, which mandate the shearing of the locks and starting over again, a Nazarite reboot so to speak.

The Nazarite Vow

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: 3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. 4All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

5All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no rasor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.


6All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body. 7He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head. 8All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD. (Num 6 KJV)

Note that the vow includes that a woman can undertake the procedure, and here the only historical reference to a woman doing so was Helena of Adiabene who came to live in Jerusalem. According to author Ralph Ellis, she was actually a descendant of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, and she was indeed buried in a pyramidal capped tomb (still) there. BTW, the Hasmonean 'kings' were reputed by Josephus (a Hasmonean according to himself) to have been buried in mini-pyramidal tombs, but these no longer seem to exist, albeit Simcha Jacobovici thinks he has found remnants of one in an area matching Josephus' description.

Helena supposedly took the vows "for life". This is interesting because the 'vow' ends at some point with the 'initiate', so to speak, ending the vow by cutting off his (or her princess) hair immediately before making some specific offerings at the door of the tabernacle. BTW, only a person of high bearing would be allowed to this position. Interestingly there is no mention of how long the vow must last, and thus how long a respective initiate's hair must become.

Since this was all in preparation for becoming the next tribal head, as a 'prince', then one must take into account that a presumptive crown prince might die before his accession, and therefore his brother or cousin, or such, must then undergo the vow. Maybe this is why there are no time limits given?

I'll end, for now, to add a bit more. But note for now in verse 8 about 'eating nothing from the vine tree'. We are specifically talking about grape 'trees' here, and in Romans 11 we are talking about olive trees and 'branches' as to the grafting onto of the Root of Jesse from Isaiah. The primary economy of Canaan and Israel was from grape and olive vineyards.

And note the curious aspect that the initiate is holy during 'the days of his separation'. Why not after his separation? Or might 'separation' mean something different?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
If we can assume that my analysis is correct, then, Samson is a crypto-monarchist and hence his hidden agenda behind the desire "for an occasion against" the Philistines. He is depicted in the surface narrative as a 'judge' in the period where these judges and their respective people supposedly "have no king". Despite his having collapsed the Philistine temple, killing about 3,000 Philistines, his mission appears to have failed, but he has managed to increase the antagonisms, ultimately resulting in the destruction of the Israelite temple at Shiloh / Bethel, .... and the coming of the Davidic kingship in Jerusalem.

And to reiterate from the Isaac blog page analysis, Bethel (meaning House of El) is the place where Jacob has the bizarre all-night wrestling match with God, the creator of the entire freaking universe. And the result of which is where Jacob is assigned, by God himself, the name of Israel. All of which is to be read cryptically by the enlightened, awake reader, as opposed to literally - as a fundamentalist must do.

Samson's birth from a barren mother, needing assistance from an angel of God is another clear indicator that powerful outside influence that wanted to remain discrete, and maintain plausible deniability, was at work. Furthermore, we now know that the Danites (of which Samson's parents were) were not coming from Egypt with the Exodus 'Hebrews', but were rather a Mediterranean (pre-Classical Greek Danoi) tribe of the Sea Peoples, as were the Philistines themselves. Remember, the Mycenaean Greeks (the supposed victors of the famous Trojan War no less) vanished from Greece at the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. They vanished ... completely. And, let's remember that the Classical Greeks, at least, stated that the Danoi had first come to Greece .... from Egypt (the conflict of the brothers Danaus and Aegyptus).

But if Samson was a monarchist, and the Hebrews had no tradition of such, then where does this impulse come from? The traditional explanation for the Jews wanting a king was that they were jealous of the neighboring regions, especially the Egyptians and the Mesopotamian societies. And besides which, the judges just weren't all that effectual (ignoring here the fact that the Egyptians were really the 'colonial' power in Canaan for much of the Judges Period), so the surface narrative justifies the creation of this kingship's supposed existence. Or at least, existence within the narrative of the cultural backbone of Western Civilization and within Freemasonry to boot.

As discussed in the earlier OT analysis page on Abraham, all these narratives, including the Hebrew patriarchs, are about elite royals, not rude and rustic literal shepherds, despite some attempts to create the latter impression with the likes of Esau and David, for example (even long pre-figuring Postmodernist cant). This is where Samson's impulse came from ... and Egypt, where the monotheistic impulse seems to have been launched as well. The latter was done so, for reasons of political efficiencies in managing the coming imperial expansions which are the earliest manifestations of a global impulse. This globalism expressed repeatedly in the OT and the later NT. Nationalist zealots beware and re-read your Bibles .... more carefully this time. And watch who you vote for. Heads 'they' win, tails you lose.

As I mentioned previously about all the Nazarite business seeming to revolve around royalty, I have elsewhere mentioned that the NZR consonants mean 'prince' from the ancient Egyptian. Let's look at some more from http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5139.htm regarding the root 'nazir':

upload_2017-6-25_20-50-19.png

Note that the Genesis reference strongly alludes to royalty, and in any case, the context is talking about the provision of Abraham's blessing to Joseph's son, Ephraim. Joseph was the distinguished brother, also born from the 'loved' wife of Jacob, Rachel. According to the narrative, Ephraim's mother was selected for Joseph by the pharaoh, she being the daughter of an Egyptian high priest.

And, keep in mind, that we think, similarly to such as the Sabbah brothers and others, that the entire patriarchal narrative construct (and the actual formation of 'Israel') was fabricated by the latter 18th dynasty and 19th dynasty pharaohs of Egypt, to begin with. And ... they did so because they did not want the white sheep (as opposed to black sheep) to gnow of their involvement. Hence Samson's (and Trump's) odd ways.

Untrimmed grape vines? For next installment.

Clue, the grafted olive branches from Romans 11 refer to the "root of Jesse" from Isaiah. Jesse was King David's father.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
If we can assume that my analysis is correct,
I notice that נָזִיר (Strong's 5139, phonetically naw-zeer') is not exactly the same word as נָשִׂיא (Strong's 5387, naw-see'). I don't know whether anyone might find this relevant to the correctness of the analysis.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This might lead to an even better result.
In this regard, it might be more useful and accurate to reframe 'Nazarite' as being an adept follower of the actual leader, the Nasi (or naw-see).

Such Shiite Muslim sects as the Nasari (Ismaili - Assassins) follow a so-called hidden imam. Exoterically one is supposed to think of the hidden leader as one waiting in the ethereal Heaven (with Allah - God no doubt) bidding the proper time to reveal and manifest himself. But, is this really meant to convey such as the Hidden Hand principle?

In trying to resolve the seemingly contradictory behaviors of such 'Nazarites', as discussed below, it might also be helpful to consider that the Numbers 6 text states that one becomes 'holy' upon terminating the ascetic vows.

Also, note the mention of Nazareth in not being mentioned in the OT. My understanding is that there is no mention of Nazareth, external to the NT, until the time of Constantine. With the latter, we should remember that it was Constantine's mother, Helena, who trekked to the Holy Land and 'found' all sorts of Christian relics. Does this evoke the earlier memory of Helena of Adiabene who moved to Jerusalem and took the 'permanent' Nazarite vow? Or just another coincidence?

With Helena of Adiabene, and the claim that she was a descendant of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, we should remember that Cleopatra was a major landholder in Palestine and that Marc Antony had to defend her land claims there, and thus her tax farming and other incomes from that land. This is the traditional practice of 'nobility'. And when Octavian Augustus Caesar defeated Antony and Cleopatra, he became the de jure king (pharaoh - there really was no such term in Egypt) with the entirety of Egypt becoming his personal 'principate' separate from the rest of the empire's 'public' properties. Presumably, Augustus retained the rights to Cleopatra's land holdings in Palestine as well. This begs the question of what Helena was actually doing there, and why she got her little pyramid?

The following is a 2008 excerpt from the Wikipedia page on 'Nazarite':

Nazirites in history

[edit] Nazirite vows in the Hebrew Bible

Two examples of Nazirites in the Hebrew Bible are Samson (Judges 13:5), and Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11). In both cases, their mothers made the vows before they were born, which required them to live an ascetic life, yet in return they received extraordinary gifts: Samson possessed strength and ability in physical battle, while Samuel was a prophet.

Samson appears to break his vows, by touching a dead body (Judges 14:8-9) and drinking wine (he holds a משׁתה, "drinking party", in Judges 14:10). Goswell suggests that "we cannot understand the career and failings of Samson without attention to his Nazirite status."[23]

* Judges 13:6-7 (Judaica Press)

6. And the woman came and said to her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of an angel of God, very awesome; and I did not ask him from where he was and his name he did not tell me.
7. And he said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son; and now do not drink wine and strong drink, and do not eat any unclean (thing), for a nazirite to God shall the lad be, from the womb until the day of his death.'

* Amos 2:11-12 (Judaica Press)

11. And I raised up some of your sons as prophets and some of your young men as nazirites; is this not so, O children of Israel? says the Lord.
12. And you gave the nazirites to drink wine, and you commanded the prophets saying, "Do not prophesy."

[edit] Nazirite vows in the intertestamentary period

This vow was observed into the intertestamentary period. 1 Maccabees 3:49 mentions men who had ended their nazirite vows, an example dated to about 166 BCE. Josephus mentions a number of people who had taken the vow, such as his tutor Banns (Antiquities 20.6), and Gamaliel records in the Mishna how the father of Rabbi Chenena made a lifetime nazirite vow before him (Nazir 29b).

[edit] Nazirites in the New Testament

See also: Historical Jesus

The factual accuracy of this section is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.(March 2008)

The practice of a nazirite vow is part of the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene"[24] that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism (then again, these are the two most frequent offerings prescribed in Leviticus, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn). While a saying in (Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-35) attributed to Jesus makes it doubtful that he, reported to be "a winebibber", was a nazirite during his ministry, the verse ends with the curious statement, "But wisdom is justified of all her children". The advocation of the ritual consumption of wine as part of the Eucharist, the tevilah in Mark 14:22-25 indicated he kept this aspect of the nazirite vow when Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The ritual with which Jesus commenced his ministry (recorded via Greek as "Baptism") and his vow in Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:15-18 at the end of his ministry, do respectively reflect the final and initial steps (purification by immersion in water and abstaining from wine) inherent in a nazirite vow.

Luke the Evangelist clearly was aware that wine was forbidden in ascetic practice, for the angel Luke 1:13-15 that announces the birth of John the Baptist foretells that "he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb", in other words, a nazirite from birth, the implication being that John had taken a lifelong nazirite vow.[25]

Acts of the Apostles is also attributed to Luke and in Acts 18:18, Paul cut off his hair because of a vow he had taken[26] we learn that the early Jewish Christians occasionally took the temporary Nazarite vow, and it is probable that the vow of St. Paul mentioned in Acts 18:18, was of a similar nature, although the shaving of his head in Cenchræ, outside of Palestine, was not in conformity with the rules laid down in the sixth chapter of Numbers, nor with the interpretation of them by the Rabbinical schools of that period. (See Eaton in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Nazarites.) If we are to believe the legend of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius[27], St. James the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Nazarite, and performed with rigorous exactness all the ascetic practices enjoined by that rule of life. and in Acts 21:20-24 Paul was advised to avoid the hostility of the "Jews there are which believe" (believe in Jesus, i.e. the Jewish Christians) in Jerusalem who had heard Paul taught against the law by purifying himself and accompanying four men to the temple who had taken nazaritic vows[28] (so that he might appear "orderly"[29]), a stratagem that only delayed the inevitable mob assault on him. This event brought about the accusation in Acts 24:5-18 that Paul was the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes", and thus provides further verification that the term Nazarene was a mistranslation of the term Nazirite.

What is curious is that Luke does not here mention the apostle James the Just as taking nazirite vows, although later Christian historians (e.g. Epiphanius Panarion 29.4) believed he had, and the vow of a nazirite would explain the asceticism Eusebius of Caesarea ascribed to James (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23), an asceticism that gave James the title "James the Just".

Appeal has been made to "nazirite" rather than "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene" for the origin of these Hebrew/Aramaic epithets for Jesus. This conclusion is based in part on the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 that says of Jesus, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." It is doubtful that the prophets had actually said 'Nazarene', rather than 'Nazirite', because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5-7 concerning Samson's description as "a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death". In addition, there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Furthermore, although Luke 1:13-15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazirite from birth, John implied that Jesus was holier than he in Matthew 3:13-15, which says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him". Thus Jesus was baptized, immersion in water being a fulfillment of the nazirite vow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 13a
Since I'm on the topic of Nazirites, we'll once again go out of order, and talk some about Samuel and more of the transition to the new order of that day, namely Judaic kingship under the eye of Yahweh (and errr Horus).

Unlike with Samson, the Nazirite category is not explicitly claimed but must be inferred by Hannah's, his mother, actions. With another familiar theme, Samuel's father, Elkanah, has two wives and the favorite one is barren. In her distress over not having a son, she goes to the Shiloh temple and promises God that if he'll arrange for her to have a son, she would promise him to his service for life. She commits her unconceived son to the Lord for life, and that no razor will touch his head. With alcohol, she assures that she

9So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the LORD. 10And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore. 11And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head. 12And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth. 13Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. 14And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. 15And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD. 16Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: (1 Samuel 1 KJV)

The high priest at Shiloh at this time is Eli, and his two evil sons, also priests (at the temple that is supposedly dedicated to Yahweh, and where the Ark of the Covenant is located). Curiously, his sons lay with most every woman that comes to the temple, except apparently Hannah. Remember that this god slew Onan outright for merely spilling his XY seed on the ground, and here he was no temple priest.

Special account is made that Hannah not be mistaken for a daughter of Belial. Why would this need be mentioned at all, if the temple is that of the LORD? Meaning, that at this specific time, the LORD is only known as Yahweh, and not by some other handle? Is the name of her husband, El-kanah another clue, considering that El was the heavenly father god of the Canaanites?

19And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. 20Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD. (1 Samuel 1 KJV)

The above is the first such passage where the authors saw fit to explicitly claim that the husband was responsible for the conception, albeit that the Lord was still involved. In this case, Hannah had to go to the temple to horsetrade her son away, in order to have him in the first place. Since the term 'handmaid' has been invoked, as I have previously mentioned the book and the current TV series title, The Handmaid's Tale, the book addresses this general problem by having the 'handmaids' resort to a third party male from time to time, as the 'lord' of the house was sometimes the real cause of the infertility. But who gnows what really happened here, as Hannah had to go to the temple, where Eli's two sons were always 'filling in' so to speak. This text below admits that they had their way with every woman, so who should begrudge our modern day Samson his claimed earthly delights today?

12Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. 13And the priests' custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; 14And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. 15Also before they burnt the fat, the priest's servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. 16And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force. 17Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD.

18But Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod.

21
And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD.

22
Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD'S people to transgress. 25If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. (1 Samuel 2 KJV)
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 13b

The text states that Eli's sons knew not the Lord, yet they were priests and sons of the current high priest, so this seems rather odd. It uses the term 'sons of Belial, yet the Bible commentaries claim that this is NOT a reference to a pagan god, but rather a common phrase merely indicating that one is 'worthless'. The text clearly indicates that Eli knew what they were doing is wrong, and yet they hearkened not, ... the Lord, or rather the Philistines would kill them.

Samuel is girded with an ephod, a symbol of a temple priest, and then curiously the Lord 'visits' Hannah so that she will conceive and bear five more children to ....

Most of this is happening at or outside the temple at Shiloh / Bethel, supposedly hundreds of years after the conquest of the Canaanites, whose chief earthly god was Ba'al, son of El. As such, I suggest that we are seeing a repurposed / redacted narrative, where (along with the prior Judges episodes) we can see the slow transitioning of the Canaanites to that of being Hebrew / Israelites. Eli the priest is even stated a judge (1 Samuel 4:18), but considering that he did not control his priest sons in the way of the Lord, he will (only now) suffer death (albeit in old age) at the doing of the Lord, as will his sons more dramatically so.

27And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? 28And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? 29Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? (1 Samuel 2 KJV)​

The Lord then recites the sins of Eli and his sons and states that he shall raise up a new and faithful priest, Samuel, leaving Eli's 'house' to beg for its priestly position and income. (A slap on the hand, excepting the immediate two sons' fates.)

The moral quality of these kingless judges is falling off, thus justifying what is to come. One can see the origin of all this is explicitly stated as arising in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house, but of course, one can and does spin this variously, normally in opposition to Pharaoh, rather than such as being a controlled opposition.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 14

In reading and researching further into 1 Samuel, I unwittingly came upon mention of a verse that formed the basis for a claim that I had read of the late Cyrus H. Gordon, in one of his books, that back in the day the so-called 'prophets' were literally an organized institution. If I remember correctly, this was one of the occasional times that he did not provide a reference to justify his claim.

In 1 Samuel 3, Samuel is accounted as a prophet near the time of Eli's demise:

19And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. 20And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD. 21And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD. (1 Samuel 3 KJV)
Now most everybody understands that a 'prophet' is one who tells the people of what is to come, as told to him, or her, by God. As we'll see shortly, this matter of what a prophet 'is' gets a little more interesting, and this extra layer of discussion caused me to look at what Strong's has to say, where the Hebrew for 'prophet' is nabi:


As we have just seen, a 'prince' is a nasi, and now a 'prophet' is a nabi. But, even more, we are to learn that nabi also means a 'spokesman' or a 'speaker'. Does a 'spokesman' speak for God, or does he speak for the 'prince'?

In reading further down the above link for nabi I discovered the next gems (see highlighted in yellow), that Gordon was obviously referring to:

upload_2017-7-5_14-40-27.png

Here we see listed the various OT verses that characterize what prophets really are, as opposed to the common notion. They are servants of the 'lord', who are their propagandic spokesmen, or spin doctors for the PTB, in this case, the hidden PTB.

But it get's even more interesting, after Samuel has managed to get the Philistines to cough up the Ark of the Covenant that his evil sons had lost to them. The Israelites have had enough of this ad hoc 'judge' crap and demand to have a king. God tells Samuel to arrange it but to also tell them that they will be sorry. And this is part of what happens along the way to getting King Saul:

3And the asses of Kish, Saul's father, were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses. 4And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

5And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us. 6And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. 7Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we? 8And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way. 9(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.) 10Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was. (1 Samuel 9 KJV)

Verse 9 is rather odd in that it uses ellipses to break into the narrative to inform us that what before was known as a Seer, is now to be referred to as a nabi or 'prophet'. If we remember that we are asserting that the monotheistic paradigm is being imposed upon a pagan people, then the Seer can be a 'seen' be another term we are familiar with today, and that is .. a 'shaman'. This change of title can thus be seen as much akin to the theologically significant changes of names that take place (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul). In reality, under the new paradigm, we see an institutional spin doctor, but the common man yet sees the prophet as receiving messages from their god. The prophets' guild no doubt instructs the prophets on the proper form of delivery, mimicking the ecstatic rantings of the shamanic 'seer'. This is what the people were used to.

As most rational people understand today, most 'prophecy' was 'retrodictive', meaning it was written and delivered, after the fact. This allowed a propagandic spin to be placed on events that had occurred prior, such that God could be accredited with whatever the outcome was, or some similar motivation.

In verse 5, Saul and his servant come to the land of Zuph, in an inanely long search for his father's two asses. Do these lost asses, who Samuel will inform them that they have been found, have some typological linkage to Jesus riding his ass into Jerusalem? In any case, 'Zuph' means 'honeycomb'. Is this merely a coincidence, or does it have anything to do with Samson's odd business with getting honey from the lion that he killed? Zuph is within Ephraim, Ephraim being that tribe with the Blessing of Abraham ... and the close association with 'pharaoh'.

Saul has met up with Samuel and communed with him. After Samuel tells him not to worry about his father's asses, he tells Saul what will happen next.

3Then shalt thou go on forward from thence, and thou shalt come to the plain of Tabor, and there shall meet thee three men going up to God to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a bottle of wine: 4And they will salute thee, and give thee two loaves of bread; which thou shalt receive of their hands. 5After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: 6And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man. (1 Samuel 10 KJV)

On the way to Bethel (aka Shiloh), Saul and his 3 new companions will meet a company of 'prophets' coming out to start 'prophecizing' to the people, presumably that they should expect their desired king. At this time the Philistines have a garrison at Bethel, much like the Romans having a garrison next to the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Saul is turned into another man, yet he keeps his name.

A New Age is dawning.

The temple at Bethel is destroyed, and will be resurrected in Jebus (Jerusalem). At the end of this new millennium, the Jerusalem Temple will be destroyed, and a new one will arise in Rome.

As 'spokeman' Josephus recorded his family leaving for Rome, the company of nabi left Bethel for their new mission.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 15 A

Before we either, proceed further or go back to finish Judges, we must first go back to 1 Samuel 4 and examine a rather remarkable episode with the Philistines, that I believe is quite telling for a number of reasons.

In 1 Samuel 3, we find that God has informed Samuel that he will be taking the place of Eli and his evil sons. Whom, by the way, are also considered to be 'judges' even though the office of 'judge' was not supposed to be hereditary in nature.

After this fairly tame business, ignoring that Samuel is dealing directly with God, that is, chapter 4 starts off immediately by informing us that Israel is going to battle with their overlords, the Philistines. There is absolutely no mention of what has instigated this action, as one must go all the way back to the Samson narrative in Judges to find any friction between the parties. And, let's not forget that it was God in the first place who placed the Philistines over Israel, as the Hebrews were unable to be faithful to God. It was also Samson who sought to create "an occasion" against the Philistines, by emulating one Donald J. Trump no less.

1And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Ebenezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. 2And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about four thousand men. 3And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the LORD smitten us to day before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. 4So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.

5And when the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. 6And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp. 7And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore. 8Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness. 9Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.

10And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. 11And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain. (1 Samuel 4 KJV)

And so, Samuel's very first action as the first 'prophet' is to call Israel to rebellion against their oppressors, whom their God had earlier placed over them.

And what happens? The Israelites get their asses kicked. Maybe this was why Saul's father's asses went missing? Just joking, as it was likely an agent of Samuel who made them 'disappear' as part of a literary pretext to have Saul go marching around in search of them.

The consequence of this loss was that the Israelites were forced to go nuclear, ... and fetch the Ark of the Covenant, which had been allegedly used in the Conquest to demolish their enemies. Apparently in the centuries in between the Israelites had lost the instruction manual for the Ark, and the Ark did not assist them at all. They lost another 30,000 men to the Philistines (including Hophni and Phinehas), and the Philistines made off with said Ark -- like Trojans with a big gift horse. Maybe the Ark refused to work because Hophni and Phinehas were evil? Or maybe that's all part of the literary ruse?

Once news gets back to Shiloh, Eli topples over and breaks his neck, and even Phinehas's pregnant wife croaks after giving birth. All of this is pretty ironic because later in the Samuel narrative we find out that Samuel's two sons are just as evil as Eli's. The death of Phinehas's wife is an element of great contrived drama, where her last words and thoughts are that the "glory of God", the Ark, "has departed Israel".
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 15 B

The jubilant Philistines take the Ark back to their cities, and find they must pass it around like a hot potato:

1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. 2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. 3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. 4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. 5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.

6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. 7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. 8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. 9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts. 10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people. 11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. 12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven. (1 Samuel 5 KJV)

And so after finding the potato was just too hot to handle, they decided to send the Ark back to the Israelites. You'd think after the first incident they might send the Ark back, but no. These Philistines just weren't very bright, remember the incidents with Samson. They kept coming back to find out the secret of Samson's strength, even though they were repeatedly lied to, as Donald J. Trump does today to us Philistines.

Emerods, you ask?

As you can see, God used these 'emerods' to kill some of the Philistines, while merely afflicted others (in their secret parts), causing them to cry up to heaven. Pray tell, what are these fearsome 'emerods'? It seems that 'emerod' is the archaic English word for 'hemorrhoid', and if you've ever had them you know what you need? One needs Preparation H and/or the astringent extract of witch hazel.

Here, I'm going to posit that Dagon, or perhaps a witch (named Hazel?) under Dagon's purvue, was responsible for delivering such 'preparations' for the Philistines. And with the serial deaths of Dagon having supernaturally occurred, then this witch was scared to death, or at least out of preparing more extract. Hence, an epidemic of hemorrhoids, which said Philistines may have been prone to .. from sitting around too much since their last fracas with Samson. And so many people back then rode around on their asses. Walking is much healthier than all those modern lifestyles.

So, what is the bigger point here? A Rube Goldberg means was found, thank God, for the Ark to be set loose amongst the Philistines, where it just so happened to kill Dagon, among other things. The Ark, like the Lord, works in many mysterious ways.

The Philistines are not really killed off completely but rather they come to be part of the Israelite polity, today known as Palestinians. This last point is basically the assertion of Sand in his The Invention of the Jewish People.

I've just added the business about Witch Hazel, whom no doubt is the itchy root of the Judeo-Christian antipathy towards witches. The priests took over medicine and did not like their monopoly interfered with, just like doctors today.

It has also just come to me that, back in the day, likely witches had signs that said w/o itch, meaning 'without itch', because even though they dealt with many issues of human suffering, this was the biggest complaint. Later it just got contracted into 'witch', and the rest is his-tory.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I would be remiss if I did not point out the real-life typology between the above story and that American history discussed by the late Tupper Saussy in his Rulers of Evil.

In RoE, Saussy detailed how the American colonists were all quite happy citizens of the King until some odd and irrational policies were suddenly enacted against them, attributed to the 'crazy' George III. These tax policies turned them against the crown and instigated the Revolution. One might think that the crown, and the British government, was opposed to this revolution, but perhaps they had read Mr. Machiavelli's famous book, or ... the Bible? Yah think?

With the case of the Philistines, we are told that these people, now known to have been a tribe of the infamous 'Sea Peoples', had been placed over Israel ... by God himself. In essence, the Philistines (and the Danoi) were 'colonists', an artifact of the collapse of the Late Bronze Age civilizations of the Western Mediterranean. The Egyptians even recorded that they settled another Sea People tribe in the Nile Delta. As such, I assert that this is an instance of 'controlled opposition', at least within the Biblical narrative, if not reality.

With the American colonists, the major land holdings were royal grants given out to 'loyalists'. After the Revolutionary War, very few of these people were sent packing back to the King. Instead, they became the basis for what became known as the East Coast 'Establishment'. Same as it always was.

So now we have a crazy, faux populist President Samson, and his odd set of advisors. King George III had his Catholic Lords Bute and Baltimore. The Freemasons on both sides broke bread together in between battles. Anything wrong with these pictures?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As the straight man here, let me spell this out and see if I've got it.

Samuel is a nazirite holy man like Samson. According to Samuel's self-aggrandizing propaganda, he presents the Israelites with great symbolic victories: first the asses are promised to be found, and then the Ark of the Covenant smites the Philistines, topples Dagon, and inflicts the pain of "emerods" on them.

But from a more objective point of view, Samuel's reign has been disastrous. The asses are still missing, and the Israelites have suffered a great defeat, losing 4,000 men on the battlefield. Divine retribution has merely tipped over a statue, and given the Philistines an itch in their "private parts". Compared to the Israelite losses, the Philistines have merely been annoyed, and also presumably inspired to fight harder next time. This is similar to Samson, who was always engaging the Philistines in battle, but never delivering anything like a decisive blow.

Samu-el, El-kanah, and El-i's names all point to their real allegiances as worshipers of El, or possibly the Elohim. And, their temple is located in Shiloh, that is, Beth-el. But their function seems to be to turn the Israelites into the hands of their enemies. When they are fully under control of the Philistines, the Israelites will then (belatedly) learn to worship Yahweh.

It all seems overly complex, though. The Egyptians need to employ the Levites, Dan-ites, Ephraim-ites, and Philistines, all to mold the impoverished if not enslaved Habiru into unwitting agents of their designs? Wouldn't it have been easier to just have kept them physically enslaved?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Taking my tongue out of my cheek, are you suggesting that Samuel's assertion to Saul that the asses were found was a fib?

The Ark aspect is more complicated than you suggest. First, when it is brought to the battle, it does nothing for the Israelites, allowing the Philistines to take possession of it, to their ultimate regret. The power of the Ark, and thus Yahweh, topples Dagon, not once but twice. This causes even the priests of Dagon to alter their behavior (meaning they were in on the scam to begin with). The Israelites lost 34,000 total in two separate battles, 30K once the Ark was brought forth. The Philistines were killed via the agency of the Ark, which gave them their emerods in the "secret parts".

In case one might be tempted to think I was merely being flip about the hemorrhoids, here is one translation that uses this very word in place of "emerod":

And the hand of Jehovah was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he laid them waste, and smote them with hemorrhoids, -- Ashdod and its borders. (1 Samuel 5:6 Darby Bible)

I suspect that most all of this fictional, and the employment of the hemorrhoids was meant to invoke revulsion and shame, as a cultural weapon in the conversion process. Who wants to continue to self-identify as a Philistine after this? As well, one might also be tempted to say: "No actual Philistines or asses were physically hurt in the production of this long after-the-fact propaganda".

Just who is being targeted by all this propaganda can certainly be up for interpretational debate. I would suggest that the Philistines, the Danoi, and the Apiru were being employed like tag team professional wrestlers, in the larger effort to convert the indigenous Canaanite (aka Semitic Phoenician) populace to the new monotheistic paradigm. Many of these refused the new globalism efforts and made off for such as what became Carthage, others being forcibly moved. I'm guessing the Habiru were the willing collaborators for the most part. And thus their name was honored with the later 'Hebrew' appellation.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just have kept them physically enslaved?
No, it would not. Remember the words of Goethe, Jerry. This is why cultural "framing" is so critical to any society.

As an approximate example, I once worked on an industrial project in Spain for 5 weeks. Near the end of my time, the replacement from my company showed up for a few days of overlap time. During this time, the Spaniards were very curious about my associate, who was Mexican-American. This because his last name was spelled the Mexican way and not the Spanish way. Yet my friend was so embarrassed that he could not admit to them that he was indeed of Mexican extraction. You'd have thought he had hemorrhoids or something. It was really quite remarkable.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As one can see by the following excerpted article on Trump's rise from a spoiled Daddy's boy, from the wrong side of NYC, he is a Nazarite teetotaler. As well it seems he was something of a voyeur. As for Samson, we never really hear whether he had relations with his wife, the harlot, or Delilah ... as maybe they were all only tools to be used to get his 'occasion' against the Philistines. Remember that Samson was a Danite, supposedly the one tribe that had no territory, allegedly having been displaced by the Philistines. As the full article relates, Trump supposedly has a chip on his shoulder against the NYC elites who have always rejected him for his gauche and low-brow manners and such.

...
For Trump, this beleaguered city was a personal stage as well, a kind of backdrop against which he could shine. Clad in three-piece, flared-leg suits, riding around Manhattan in a limousine with DJT license plates driven by a laid-off cop playing the role of armed-guard chauffeur, Trump preferred East Side bars and hot spots frequented by fashion models—Harper’s and McMullen’s and Maxwell’s Plum, and the sweaty, celebrity-spotting bacchanal at Studio 54, where he “would watch supermodels getting screwed,” he would say later to O’Brien, the biographer, “well-known supermodels getting screwed on a bench in the middle of the room.” Trump wasn’t out to get drunk—he was, and is, a teetotaler—but to be seen. ...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/donald-trump-new-york-city-crime-1970s-1980s-215316
 
Top