Posts by JCanon

20

Help please (Leolaia, Narkissos?).

by Awakened07 in

not sure if these are stupid questions or not, but i just thought of it all last night, and would like to have it answered:.

so - the jews around the time jesus came around were apparently expecting a messiah to show up, because of the prophecies in the ot.

so they were waiting for the messiah to 'arrive' at the time.

JCanon

"And concerning what Scripture says, 'In this year of jubilee you shall return, every one of you, to your property' (cf. Leviticus 25:13) ... The interpretation is that it applies to the Last Days and concerns the captives, just as [Isaiah said: 'To proclaim the jubilee to the captives' (cf. Isaiah 61:1) ... just as .... and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods. Then the 'Day of Atonement' shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek ... and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom" (11QMelch 2:2-9).

Above is an interesting quote for sure. It shows how in-depth some were with understanding certain aspects of the appearance of the messiah, especially with respect to prophetic patterns like this jubilee period. A jubilee period is 49 years, with the jubilee occurring in the first year, thus it becomes the 50th year after a jubilee period. Apparently the "Day of Atonement" follows a 490-year period and is associated with Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is associated with the second coming in Christian tradition. Still it is fascinating that the Jews would celebrate a jubilee and be restored to their land during the last jubilee period, that is the 10th jubilee period of a 490-year period. 490 years is ten jubilees. Thus there is evidence here that even those from the 1st century thought that in the end times the Jews would be restored to their homeland during the tenth Jubilee.

Please, note, therefore that this works out quite well when the "70 weeks" are fixed by Jesus' baptism in 29 CE, which marks the 70th week of the 490-year period. This 70-week period would thus be from 455 BCE to 36 CE. But if you count down to our times from 36 CE to determine the future jubilee periods, we find one ends in 1996. That is, 4 x 490 = 1960 years. 1960 plus 36 CE = 1996. Thus the closest 490-year period during our time is from 1506-1996 and the tenth jubilee, the jubilee period that was supposed to see the restoration of the Jews to their homeland would begin 49 years earlier, which is 1947, the very year indeed that the Jews did get restored to their homeland.

Now what is even more fun, is an obvious "week" of jubilees seemed implied. That is, when each 490-year period of 70 weeks becomes one day in a seven-day week of 3430 years. If 1506-1996 is the 7th day of the week, then that week would begin in 1435 BCE. The Exodus occurs in 1386BCE, 49 years after the beginning of this week, but is appropriate as the very first "jubilee" when the Jews are released from bondage. But in that case, where you have seven days of 490 years each, there is a total of 70 jubilee periods, with the very last jubilee fulfilling the 70th jubilee. Thus 1947-1996 fulfills the "70th jubilee" for the Jews.

On the JW level, the concept of these 70 jubilees was also apparent, only they figured there was an extra year inserted between 49-year periods, so their calculation was for a period of 3500 years, which is 70 x 50, and based upon dating they later abandoned and considered erroneous, came up with 1925 as the end of this jubilee period, which I supposed relates more to the "Day of Atonement" which follows the tenth jubilee of the 490-year period.

Also quite interesting, is that Melchidek on the Day of Atonment would "atone the Sons of Light" after 1996. Per Christian doctrine, the natural Jews as "God's chosen people" would be cast out and "spiritual Israel" would then take their place. Thus the Day of Atonement would represent when the Jewish physical Covenant would become focussed on the spiritual temple being built by Christ in the form of the "144,000" (said only in general reference, since 144K represent the natural Jews within the kingdom, making up the "root" of 1/10th of the entire number, but only a technicality here; the actual entire kingdom number is 10 x 144K = 1,440,000).

Still it is a testament to the understanding of scripture that after the tenth jubilee "Melchizedek" would convert the Covenant to a spiritual one and anointed the "sons of light" at that time into the spiritual priesthood, which is pretty much the case. The Covenant was to "remain in force" until the end of the 70th week, meaning up until 1996 only. After that, it was about Melchizedek, a non-Jew becoming the messiah and building spiritual Israel.

Finally, someone mentioned a possible application of the concept of the Day of Atonement in relation to the year the Jews returned to Palestine after captivity in Babylon. Interesting that the return of the Jews in 537 BCE as far as a fulfillment of the "Day of Atonement" is shifted to a 49-year interpretation. That is the 50th year after 49 years of bondage from 587 BCE, the fall of Jerusalem. I see some very obvious problems with this application. For one, the day of Atonement was to occur in the 50th year after the initial "tenth" jubilee. If the Day of Atonement is thus to be fulfilled by the restoration of the Jews in the 1st of Cyrus, then it would have to follow 49 years of the Jews already returned as it would in the case of 1947 marking the jubilee of the Jew's final return and the Day of Atonement occurring 49 years later in 1996.

On the other hand, 1996 does not simply end 49 years of the tenth jubilee, it is also the first year following 490 years. In that sense, the year the Jews returned if it were to fulfill the Day of Atonement, would be fuilfilled if the year the Jews returned was the first year of a new 490-year period. But this is precisely another reason for beginning the 490 years from 455 BCE to 36 CE with the return of the Jews in the 1st of Cyrus, which is the conclusion made popular in 1913 by Martin Anstey in his Romance of Bible Chronology. This meant, of course, an 82-year adjustment in the Persian timeline to do this.

Also arguing against a 49-year fulfillment so that 537 BCE becomes the Day of Atonment For the Jews in relation to their period of bondage is the fact that the last 70 years of Jewish "servitude" per Jewish historical understanding via Josephus is that those last deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar are the ones who served the specific 70 years for Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. That means that the actual final bondage of the entire Jewish nation did not begin in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred 4 years earlier in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So 49 years prior to the return of the Jews from Babylon the entire nation of the Jews would have been in bondage already for 24 years. And mind you, this is not the Biblical interpretation here, but the common Jewish traditional historical history for what happened 70 years before their return:

Antiquities of the Jews, 11.1.1 "
IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus 1 which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon , God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus , and made him write this throughout all Asia : "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem , in the

Of course, you can have the Day of Aontement fulfillment for the year the Jews return from Babylon if it follows a 490-year period, which it would when the 1st of Cyrus is correctly dated to 455 BCE, now confirmed by the VAT4956 astronomical text which includes the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE. So there is no way a Day of Aontement concept would ever work involving the 50th year after 49 years per my interpretation, and that includes Jewish traditional interpretation as well that the Jews last deported served a full 70 years of "servitude." The idea that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE is so completely outdated now it's a JOKE. Even so, it is interesting that some focus on the "tenth jubilee" still gets fulfilled by 1947-1996, since no one argues the ending of the 70 weeks in 36 CE, though they debate over what happened at the beginning of the 70 weeks in 455 BCE, either the 1st of Cyrus or the 20th of Artaxerxes (or the 10th of Artaxerxes per secular chronology).

James Canaan

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF (Jewish Covenant Week Chart)

20

Help please (Leolaia, Narkissos?).

by Awakened07 in

not sure if these are stupid questions or not, but i just thought of it all last night, and would like to have it answered:.

so - the jews around the time jesus came around were apparently expecting a messiah to show up, because of the prophecies in the ot.

so they were waiting for the messiah to 'arrive' at the time.

JCanon

Interesting. But regarding the concept of an expected messiah, particularly in connection with Herod, there is some interesting perceptions we can draw from coinage of all things.

It would seem that Herod included a star in his coins that some interpreted as related to the messiah. Another rare coin found believed to have been mented in 6 BC likewise depicts a ram looking back at a star and was thought to relate to the coming of the "star of Judah" in connection with a coming king. So "messiah" from a religious point of view, as has been noted by others, wasn't the focus Christians have of a personal savior but a coming king of Judah would would conquer the romans and release them from bondage. I think this coin is most significant, therefore, with regard to the focus of these times as being the one in which a "king-messiah" would appear:

Here's the coin with notations: http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/ARIES.GIF

Here's the comment:

alt

How did you find the coin and what did it tell you?
My hobby is collecting ancient Roman and Greek coins that have celestial symbols. In the spring of 1990 I purchased a lovely bronze coin from ancient Antioch which portrayed the zodiacal sign, Aries the Ram looking back at an overhead star. I bought the coin for $50. But the coin turned out to be priceless because I found that this was the sign of the zodiac that represented King Herod’s kingdom. The so-called “bible of astrology” the Tetrabiblos of Claudius Ptolemy explained that Aries the Ram controlled the people of “Judea, Idumea, Samaria, Palestine, and Coele Syria” – lands ruled by King Herod. I think the coin was issued by the Romans of Antioch to commemorate their takeover of Judea in AD 6. (p. 120-121) Maybe that’s not the entire answer to the coin, but the important point about the coin is that it led me to find where any celestial omen about the birth of a king of the Jews had to appear. That would have been in Aries, not the constellations proposed by other investigators. This finding started me to think more about the Star of Bethlehem.
From: http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/

Now the author believes this "star" connected with the coming of a king is related to the "star of Bethlehem" tradition but was actually the planet Jupiter which appeared in 6 BC rather than the phenomenon of the star that appeared to the Magi. I tend to think that the coin minted near the time of Herod's death was because of that star that appeared and the populous hope that it represented the promised "prince" out of the house of Judah who would become the king and take over and release the Jews. This is certainly the concept of the Jewish leaders who were anxious to make Jesus the "King of the Jews" and certainly the context understood even by Pilate to inscribed above Jesus' head on the cross (oops! Did I say "cross"?) that he was the "King of the Jews."

So certainly, the Jews may have not been looking for the "messiah" in the Christian sense but in the political sense, with some concept of the chronology pointing to these times.

Further, Herod seems to certainly have insinuated himself as the "messiah" including associated traditions for what the messiah would do, besides ruling over the Jews, come and rebuild the temple, one of Herod's major and greatest projects. It begs the question whether or not he was identifying himself with the messiah, egged on my chronologists who may have determined his was the time of the coming messiah, particularly when based upon the revised chronology. The people had two chronologies to deal with that was 82 years apart, determining the apperance of the messiah in either 53 BCE or 29 CE, depending. Herod would have fulfilled the messiah for the former chronology.

Whether relevant or not, here is some commentary about coinage during the reign of Herod linked to a star figure above the helmet of Herod:

From: http://members.verizon.net/vze3xycv/HerodHelmet.htm
Michael Grant 3 proposed that the star like object may refer to a star mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 4 and may have been intended by Herod to suggest that he could be the Messiah.

So clearly, different Jews and Idumeans were focussing on the coming of a savior-messiah-king during these times, that is quite clear from the coins alone. They had the details down pat as well, understanding and expecting someone from the tribe of Judah to come and restore Jewish rule. In that sense, the the Jews had no technical problem with Jesus, as long as he was going to cooperate with the local Jews in one way or another and become their leader and king. If he wasn't, it was better he be put to death.

So there seems to be lots of things that suggest different factions of the Jews were generally expecting a king/prince or messiah to arrive during these times, and were applying this to various individuals, likely, including Herod, the Great and even Jesus himself, with some wanting to make him king or considering him "King of the Jews."

JCanon

12

need good information about ice drillings

by the_end_of_eternity in

i am in this discussion with an elderm and it is all about the age of the polar caps, coral reefs etc.

for abvious reasons this is important discussion.. anyway, what is good scientific information proving (or priving not) the age is more then a few 1000 years old.... i know there have been some drillings done etc.

most siytes just give this as a fact, which i do not doubt so much, but of course he wants more prove.. same with the age of the coral islands (atols).. thanks all.. end_of_eternity.

JCanon

AIG (Answersingenesis) always find some interesting things. They are the pro-Biblical anti-evolution detractors. So if there's anything on this topic that throws doubt on the science of it, they likely will have published it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

Personally I was researching the ice cores issues and read what the WTS had said and was reading what others were saying until I came across a reference that said that under all those ice cores in Antartica they found toprical vegetation. So at one time Antartica, before the ice, was a tropical place. At that point I had no further concerns about the ice cores since obviously, regardless of what scientists are calculating by, the vegetation at the very bottom of the ice cores proves there must have been a global flood and that the world at one time was completely tropical globally, which is possible and consistent with the water canopy around the earth prior to the flood. Sooo, since I do personally believe the Bible's chronology is accurate, particularly in relation to the flood, I have to presume there is some "curve" the scientists are missing or are not aware of in their dating process. There are too many specific unknowns. So I apply the usual SIC rule in cases like this (i.e. Science is Clueless).

JCanon

7

Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971

by poki in

hello to all, any of you have the topic over "chronology", from the book "aid to bible understanding" ( perhaps on his original edition of 1971) in the form of a pdf file, or another format?

i m in the corroboration of excerpts of ray franz s book and carls olof johnson s book, when they speak on the real and original text of the "aid" book, and what was his real content, all this, before of the problems of 1975-1980. thanks

JCanon

Yes JCanon, but COJ does not claim to be Christ as you do, so whatever he says immediately is more credible.

It's only more credibile IN CASE I'm not really JC. Something for me to know and for you to find out... Whether somone can count correctly are not isn't always related to how they are dressed. JC

7

Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971

by poki in

hello to all, any of you have the topic over "chronology", from the book "aid to bible understanding" ( perhaps on his original edition of 1971) in the form of a pdf file, or another format?

i m in the corroboration of excerpts of ray franz s book and carls olof johnson s book, when they speak on the real and original text of the "aid" book, and what was his real content, all this, before of the problems of 1975-1980. thanks

JCanon

The current book is no better, in that it is only a watering down of the Aid article and does not declare the complete information contained in its sources.

All the amateur chronologists say that and sweep the details under the rug as if everything is resolved. Fact is, whether the intent was to make excuses for the secular challenges or not, there were some great arguments made in the "Aid" Book that still are good arguments now. And in a way, the "Insight" update has also contributed positively on the pro-Biblical side of things.

On another level, COJ is far more deceptive and manipulative of details than the WTS ever was. Which is another reality in the debate here. That is, usually, including myself, everyone has their own chronology agenda in mind and they bring to the table those facts that support that agenda, while they bash or discredit others who disagree with them. COJ runs from criticism (he refuses to discuss chronology with me any more) just like the WTS does by forbidding members to talk with "apostates." So it's different sides of the same coin. As long as you're discussing a topic with someone who is dumb about that topic, you automatically seem persuasive and intelligent. If someone smart gets into the details, then the name calling starts.

So here's what good about the "Aid" Book with regard to chronology that I benefited from.

1. I believe in page 330 they showed a graphic of Xerxes with Darius accompanied by a quote from an archaeologist whose opinion it was that Xerxes and Darius were actually co-rulers. That one little thing brought out by them, which is necessary for their 10-year adjustment in the Persian Period to bring 455 BCE back to year 20th of Artaxerxes, led me directly to discovering that Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Longimanus were the same king. Few discuss this, and I hvae all the evidence I need now to prove it.

2. The "Aid" Book was great in presenting the basic nature of ancient history as far as chronology is concerned, with the concepts of "relative" and "absolute" chronology. That is a guidepost I continue to need when dealing with chronology.

Finally, in all fairness to COJ, he absolutely is more honest and accurate than the WTS on some other points, like when Daniel came into Babylon in the accession year of Artaxerxes rather than as the WTS claims by playing with the concepts of the rulership years. It's a big mess. Also, COJ brings, indeed, a lot of direct extant texts dealing with chronology that can rarely be found under one cover. But its not completely effective in proving anything because often it is irrelevant. Case in point, as the "Insight" and I believe the "Aid" Book point out, the all-important VAT4956. The WTS claims because it is a late-dated text, over 200 years after the fact (568 vs 320? BCE) that the "historical" information in the text is inaccurate. That is, indeed when the astronomical information was copied onto a new text it was accurately copied for that particular year, but "year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar" was an updated application for that year and not the original king ruling that year. That is absolutely a valid argument, Thus the VAT4956 can be dismissed as a fraudulent or revised text automatically. The WTS is polite in suggesting that the reflection may have simply been due to normal error over time and not direct revisionism or fraud (as I do) but still, the point is made. Anybody can change the king's name on an astronomical text 200 years later if they want to, in order to try and change the chronology.

So you've got pros and cons on both sides of the chronology fence when it comes to COJ, Franz and the WTS' encyclopaedia dealing with chronology in the "Aid" and "Insight" books. Finally, COJ does get a lot of mileage from the "Insight" volume because it introduces the astronomical text, the "Strm. Kambyses 400" (SK400), which the WTS uses to help establish the 607 BCE chronology, while dismissing in the VAT4956, when in fact, both have the same problem of belonging to a time 200 years after the fact. COJ is absolutely right that if you are going to use the SK400 to support chronology from an astronomical point of view, then one would think the VAT4956 would be just as supportive, only since the VAT4956 doesn't support the WTS' chronology with respect to 607 BCE, they dismiss the text as being post-dated. Now that is a good argument, but the same could likewise be applied to the SK400.

The "Aid" Book is still a great thesis to begin learning about chronology, but by all means COJ's GT3 is also a very important chronology resource.

JCanon

14

Ex 32 - The Golden Calf: sources, intertexts, ideology

by DeusMauzzim in

first of all: the feeling i have while typing this, the feeling of coming 'home' to jwd after months of study, bears witness to the greatness of this board.

and you are the board, my friends!

and i brought something back from my journey:.

JCanon

I tend to agree with AlphaOmega in that the golden calf was a compromised version of YHWH since they knew no other. The command not to make any graven images hadn't come down in the Ten Commandments as yet.

But based upon some aspects of Akenaten's sun worship and the association with a bull, I'm wondering if there was some contextual belief that the bull was associated with what they understood to be the comming messiah. After all, they did sacrifices all kinds of animals including sheep and bulls and they all represented/prefigured the coming messiah, not YHWH; it wasn't YHWH being sacrificed but his son. That also thus warrants further investigation of "gods' (plural); that is, did the Israelites become aware of "God's angel" that was considered a god that assisted in bringing them out of Egypt? That is, was there some common thread belief that the bull/sun was associated with a chief son of God? In gospel parables about the second coming a bull is sacrificed (i.e. rather than a lamb). I'm wondering if the god/goddess pantheons were more clearly defined back then.

Another question. Was Baal ever considered to be a calf? In Egypt Horus is associated with he calf and the sun, the son of Isis/Hathor, born every morning at sunrise through her vulva, repesented by two sycamore trees:

...
"The sycamore itself was a tree of particular mythical significance. According to Chapter 109 of the Book of the Dead, twin 'Sycamores of Turquoise' were believed to stand at the eastern gate of heaven from which the sun god Re emerged each day, and these same two trees sometimes appear in New Kingdom tomb paintings with a young bull calf emerging between them as a symbol of the sun. While the cosmic tree could thus take on a male aspect as a form of the solar god Re-Herakhty, the Sycamore was especially regarded as a manifestation of the goddesses Nut, Isis and Hathor- who was given the epithet "Lady of the Sycamore." (p.117, "Tree." Richard H. Wilkinson. Reading Egyptian Art, A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture . London. Thames & Hudson. 1992) Hathor/Nut was at times portrayed in myths not only as the sky giving birth to the Sun, but also in tomb paintings as a Sycamore tree, providing food and drink in the Afterworld to the Righteous Dead. So the rising Sun and Bull-Calf associated with the Sycamore trees in this mural may be alluding to Hathor giving birth to the rising sun and bull-calf. Hathor was also the "Goddess of Turquoise" and honored with shrines at the Copper Mines in the Sinai (the mining camps of Serabit el Khadim and Timna in the Arabah). (cf. p.28, Tomb of Arinefer, Thebes, 20th Dynasty. Robert Boulanger. Egyptian and Near Eastern Painting . New York. Funk & Wagnalls. 1965 [Note: Wilkinson dates this mural to the 19th Dynasty, cf. p.116, Reading Egyptian Art) Yahweh-Elohim as the "Golden Calf" (the rising Sun at dawn, honored by the Egyptians) : Below, a Bronze Bull covered in Gold Leaf, from a Phoenician Temple at Byblos, Phoenicia. The Bull was associated with the Syrian (Ugaritic) gods El, called Bull-El, and Baal, also called Baal-Hadad. Thunderclouds which brought rain, lighting and thunder, were called "Hadad's CALVES". Yahweh- Elohim's manifestation at Mt. Sinai was as a Thundercloud, shortly thereafter Aaron makes a Golden Calffor Israel to adore. (cf. for the photo, p.80. Reader's Digest. The Great People of the Bible and How They Lived. Pleasantville, New York. 1974). Below, a Silver plated over bronze, bull-calf from Ashkelon, Canaan.Literary sources reveal that the bull and calf were attributes of El and Baal, the chief gods of the Ugaritic pantheons..." (p.59. "Chalcolithic and Canaanite Periods." Irene Lewitt, et al. Editors. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. New York. The Vendome Press. 1995. ISBN 0-86565-960-5. Note that Ashkelon WAS NOT a Philistine city ca. 2000-1500 BCE. The Philistines arrived ca. 1174 BCE and destroyed Ashkelon (later rebuilding it), dispossessing the native Canaanites of their lands. I have argued that the Golden Calf is not an Egyptian phenomena so much as a Canaanite god, it being a form of Baal-Hadad and of Yahweh (Hebrew: Egel-yah, "bull-calf Yah"). Yahweh was also called Baal according to Hosea 2:16. I suspect, along with other scholars, that Yahweh absorbed the epithets and characteristics of the Canaanite gods Bull-El and Baal-Hadad. In erecting a Golden Calf in Yahweh's temples at Dan and Bethel, Jeroboam was merely honoring Yahweh as Egeliah, "the bull-calf iah" (as in Hezekiah). Syrian and Canaanite Bull Gods : Illustrations of Genesis 1-9 (Creation to Flood) Yahweh-Elohim's Prototype, the Sumerian god Enki or Ea I understand that Genesis' God, Yahweh-Elohim, is to some degree, a reformatting and transformation of the Sumerian god called Enki, "Lord-Earth," later called by the Babylonians Ea, "House of Water," according to some scholars. Enki/Ea shares several attributes with Yahweh-Elohim: 1) Both are credited with creating man. 2) Both make man naked and leave him in that state for an undetermined period of time. 3) Both place man in their fruit-tree garden to tend and till it. 4) Both create man in a place whose names are similar in sound, Enki makes man in the city of Eridu in edin-the-floodplain, Yahweh in Eden. 5) Both warn a pious man of a Flood which will destroy mankind, telling this individual to save himself, family and animals by building a boat. 6) Both cause the one language of mankind to be transformed into a babel of languages. 7) Both deny man immortality. 8) Both deny man knowledge of right and wrong ("good and evil"). 9) Both provide man with bread to eat. "Enki speaking to the goddess Ninmah: "Of him whom thy hand has fashioned, I have decreed the fate, Have given him bread to eat; Do thou decree the fate of him whom my hand has fashioned, Do thou give him bread to eat." (p. 71. "The Creation of Man." Samuel Noah Kramer. Sumerian Mythology, A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B. C. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1944, 1961, 1972. ISBN 0-8122-1047-6 paperback) Aaron declared at Mount Sinai, after making the Golden Calf, that the morrow would be a celebration to the Lord, which in Hebrew is rendered Yahweh, NOT "the Lord," suggesting he is associated with the calf (Ex 32:4-6). In Mesopotamian hymns the god Enki declares he the first-born of a wild Ox, the supreme god, An or Anu. This suggests to me that Enki may have been envisioned at times as a bull-calf in his being the "first-born" of An the wild ox. Mesopotamian art forms show Enki wearing a crown composed of several layers of bull's horns stacked atop each other. On one seal his foot rests on the back of a recumbant bull. Enki also in some hymns declares himself a mighty bull. So, to the degree that Enki was likened to a bull-calf and a bull, and shares a number of attributes with Genesis' Yahweh-Elohim, I believe the Aaronic association of the Golden Calf with Yahweh is probably correct. Enki, magnifying himself (emphasis mine): "I am the true seed engendered by the GREAT WILD OX, the eldest son of An..." (p. 94. "Enki and the World Order." Samuel Noah Kramer. History Begins At Sumer: Twenty-seven "Firsts" in Man's Recorded History. Garden City, New York. Doubleday Anchor Books. 1959 reprint of 1956 History Begins at Sumer by The Falcon's Wing Press) Kramer later in 1989 re-translated the above verse (emphasis mine): "Lord who walks nobly on heaven and earth, self-reliant, father Enki, engendered by A BULL, begotten by a WILD BULL, prized by Enlil, the Great Kur, Loved by holy An." (p. 39. "Enki and Inanna: The Organization of the Earth and Its Cultural Processes." Samuel Noah Kramer & John Maier. Myths of Enki,The Crafty God. New York. Oxford University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-19-505502-0) Kramer's explanation, below, of how the ancient Sumerians sought to explain the creation of the world and man, _for me_ applies just as well to Genesis' fanciful explanation of the creation of the earth and man: "...modern thinking man is usually prepared to admit the relative character of his conclusions and is skeptical of all absolute answers. Not so the Sumerian thinker; he was convinced that his thoughts on the matter were absolutely correct and that he knew exactly how the universe was created and operated." (p. 82. "Man's First Cosmogony and Cosmology." Samuel Noah Kramer. History Begins At Sumer: Twenty-seven "Firsts" in Man's Recorded History. Garden City, New York. Doubleday Anchor Books. 1959 reprint of 1956 History Begins at Sumer by The Falcon's Wing Press) "The mythographers were scribes and poets whose main concern was the glorification and exhaltation of the gods and their deeds...The aim of the myth-makers was to compose a narrative poem that would explain one or another of these notions and practices in a manner that would be appealing, insipring, and entertaining. They were not concerned with proofs and arguments directed to the intellect. Their first interest was in telling a story that would appeal to the emotions. Their main literary tools, therefore, were not logic and reason, but imagination and fantasy. In telling their story, these poets did not hesitate to invent motives and incidents patterned on human action which could not possibly have any basis in reasonable and speculative thought. Nor did they hesitate to adopt legendary and folkloristic motifs that had nothing to do with rational cosmological inquiry and inference...The mature and reflective Sumerian thinker had the mental capacity of thinking logically and coherently on any problems, including those concerned with the origin and operation of the universe. His stumbling block was the lack of scientific data at his disposal. Furthermore, he lacked such fundamental intellectual tools as definition and generalization, and had practically no insight into the the processes of growth and development, since the principle of evolution, which seems so obvious now, was entirely unknown to him." (pp. 80-81. "Man's first Cosmogony and Cosmology." Samuel Noah Kramer. History Begins At Sumer: Twenty-seven "Firsts" in Man's Recorded History. Garden City, New York. Doubleday Anchor Books. 1959 reprint of 1956 History Begins at Sumer by The Falcon's Wing Press) Below, a cylinder sea impression showing Enki seated on a throne. a king approaches to request on behalf of his people, freshwaters for the irrigation-fed gardens of Lower Mesopotamia. Enki as the god of freshwaters, presents him a pot with a stream of waters and fish . At Enki's feet is a goat-fish, one of his symbols. Enki in myths lived beneath the earth in the abyss called the Abzu or Apsu and sent up via springs and fountains, freshwaters for rivers, which in turn were accessed via canals and irrigation networks for the "gardens of the gods" maintained by man on the gods' behalf, near Sumerian cities. Enki had made man to tend and till the gardens of gods, including his own garden at Eridu in edin-the-floodplain. Enki wears a crown of layered bulls' horns. Behind him, lions guard his portals or doors to his mythical Apsu abode at the city of Eridu (for the photo. cf. p.123. "The Enthroned Enki." Samuel Noah Kramer & John Maier. Myths of Enki,The Crafty God. New York. Oxford University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-19-505502-0) Below, another cylinder sealing showing Enki with two streams gushing from his shoulders (perhaps symbolizing the Tigris and Euphrates ?). In Hymns he is credited as filling these rivers with his sperm which is portrayed as crystal clear water; the hymn likens him in this act as a rampant bull and the Tigris and Euphrates as wild cows eager to be impregnated by him. Other gods are Utu the sun god arising from the mountain of the east with his sword-saw (perhaps the Zagros range), and the goddess Inanna greets him. The two faced god is Isimud, Enki's vizier. The god with bow and arrow might be Ninurta. Note the bull beneath Enki's raised foot. (for the below photo cf. p. 122. "The Cylinder of Adda." Samuel Noah Kramer & John Maier. Myths of Enki,The Crafty God. New York. Oxford University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-19-505502-0) The peoples of the Ancient Near East (Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, Canaan, Egypt) greatly admired the strength and power of mighty bulls and thus in metaphorical language likened their gods and goddesses to these animals. They also likened their kings, queens, princes and princesses to these animals as well. Hence the reason all the gods in the above seal are shown with crowns or helmets consisting of multiple layers of bulls' horns. The goddess Inanna, whose name means "Queen of Heaven" was likened to a "wild cow," (she was associated with the Venus star and called the "fiery torch" of heaven) the sun, called Utu or Shamash, was at times likened to a bull-calf, so too, the moon, called Nanna or Sin.

JCanon

28

experiment# 34

by BIG D in

if we are made in gods image, then we must have at least some of his reasoning ability, and we have many thoughts on why god would punish all mankind and their offspring for 1000s of years, torture and kill many, for the testing of adam and eve, god said it was good, then why do you have to test them, it was all good right?.

i have great kids, but if i put candy in front of them, and i say dont eat this, they will eat that candy, maybe not tday, but it will come up missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

and when it is mising, will i punish them , and all there kids for 6000 years, even torture my oldest son for there candy eating, seems like cruelty, god of love???????????

JCanon

bite me........
other palnets, in solar systems...do you think we are the only inhabited solar system?

Actually, yes. If you consider the really big picture. The only way God could get rid of Satan and the other demon angels who had become corrupt was to create a system where there were Laws that could be broken with the penalty of death. It really wasn't necessary or possible to SIN in heaven. The angels could materialize bodies and have sex with each other for fun or love all they wanted. It was like one big party. Even if they disagreed with God or wanted more than their existence, they just voiced that opinion. There was nothing that could be DONE. I mean, they didn't have the ability to kill another angel. There was no murder or fornication or even homosexuality laws to break. So Satan was basically a lot of talk and a resister of God spoiling the fun. But by simply having a dissenting vote or being unhappy doesn't justify God being able to kill you. So. How do you get rid of the bad apples? Answer. You create the physical world where Laws, sin and DEATH are possible. So that Garden of Eden situation was a trap. Satan was a "manslayer from the beginning" and this was a chance for Satan to kill billions of humans, the crown of God's physical creation, in one fell swoop! How so? By getting them to break a simple Law God put in place not to eat from the Tree of knowledge. Very simple. Very FAIR. They weren't starving. There were plenty of other trees. And God likely intended in time for them to partake of both trees in his own good time, but he had a plan and a schedule for doing that and expected his human children to respect that and be obedient. On the other hand, Satan understood the potential of creating man on the earth. That eventually they would multiply into the billions. All those potential people, all different and individual within Adam's loins. If Satan could get Adam to eat from the tree of Knowledge before he had children, then Satan would force God's hand. Sure Satan knew that it would mean his death as well, but what a juicy death! He was unhappy and wouldn't be going alone. Further he hated God and Christ so much by now to hurt them so deeply was worth it to Satan. He believed in his cause and this was the beginning of his rebellion and how commited he was to it. Obviously this happened very early after Eve was created, since Adam immediately blamed "This woman YOU gave me told me to eat." So Satan didn't waste any time. Eve was brand new and probably hadn't noticed that animals didn't talk. But Adam knew better. At any rate, the TEST worked. Satan fell into the trap. God had not told Satan at that point, nor had Satan likely thought that by God saying that sin would cause death, that God would let Adam have children whom he'd offer the chance for life by means of the ransom sacrifice. That's why Satan is so angry! He thought he was killing all the billions of Adam's children and God cheated him out of this satisfaction by coming up with a means where they could live. So, of course, Satan is desperate to at least influence as many as possible by all kinds of tricks, like the incredibly stupid evolution theory that so many believe in, or apparently flawed scientific tests that claim that man is over a billion years old or something. You know, things nobody without a master's degree in science could really check up on. So Satan is there to maximize his rebellion. That's all he has left! So, ultimately, as vast as the universe is, it is understandable that there are no other people out there or planets with mankind. Think in terms of this being the FIRST planet with mankind, something special, set up to get rid of Satan. Then after Satan is over. When the second Creative Week starts when God says, "I am making ALL things NEW", it is in a world without Satan or any rebel angels. So I think, indeed, going in, God understood if you give people a choice and make them free moral agents that some are going to choose death over life, bad over good. But it is worth it in the end because for those who do choose good and life, they are much happier. They feel less like robots just being manipulated by God. Further, God may decide to populate the rest of the universe. Why not? Only with no Satan around and no need for the Tree of Life and tree of Knowledge scenario. So the universe needn't go to waste. Satan was going to be a problem in the physical universe with many worlds to influence, so best God rid of him right up front, nipping that right in the bud. It worked! Satan took the bait. Too bad. Now Satan is a joke, desperate to kill as many men as possible under the "new rules", while Christ is trying to save the righteous. JCanon

28

experiment# 34

by BIG D in

if we are made in gods image, then we must have at least some of his reasoning ability, and we have many thoughts on why god would punish all mankind and their offspring for 1000s of years, torture and kill many, for the testing of adam and eve, god said it was good, then why do you have to test them, it was all good right?.

i have great kids, but if i put candy in front of them, and i say dont eat this, they will eat that candy, maybe not tday, but it will come up missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

and when it is mising, will i punish them , and all there kids for 6000 years, even torture my oldest son for there candy eating, seems like cruelty, god of love???????????

JCanon

Big D:

if we are made in gods image, then we must have at least some of his reasoning ability, and we have many thoughts on why god would punish all mankind and their offspring for 1000s of years, torture and kill many, for the testing of adam and eve, god said it was good, then why do you have to test them, it was all good right?
i have great kids, but if i put candy in front of them, and i say dont eat this, THEY WILL EAT THAT CANDY, MAYBE NOT TDAY, BUT IT WILL COME UP MISSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and when it is mising, will i punish them , and all there kids for 6000 years, even torture my oldest son for there candy eating, seems like cruelty, god of love??????????? where??????????????
and in all of the planets that exist are we experiment #34, if so i wonder how many others passed the test?????????????
big d

Hi Big D. I think this is an understandable sentiment. But lets look at another scenario with respect to us being very late descendants of Adam. In your scenario about the canby before the children. Let's say your children hadn't eaten in days and they were starving and the candy was the only thing they could eat and you were testing them to see if they would be obedient. How cruel, right? I think so. But what if they had lots of other candy to eat all over the place? They were not starving, not deprived in any way. You told them, very important, not to eat from the candy on the table in the living room because it was poison and it would kill you. You understood that. And further, what if you were now 30 years old like Adam was and was an adult able to make clear choices? And you understood the consequences? What excuse do you have? That was Adam's situation. Eve was "thoroughly deceived". Maybe she would have died and then gotten resurrected the next day. Who knows? But Adam knew the consequences and obviously felt at the moment perhaps much as you do. That God was being cruel and he'd rather die with his wife than continue living. After all, he was probably around 30 years of age and had been alone all this time. So he threw his life away. That's understandable. Love is like that. People feel "I'd rather die than live without you..." Common sentiment. Fine. God shows up. Sees they have eaten from the forbidden fruit and executes them that day and Satan along with them and starts all over again with a new couple. In which case, YOU and I would never have been born. Now. What is God could sort of "bend the rules" a bit in this situation so that you, not having been born and being the wonderful person and great parent that you certainly must be, so that you could live? Wouldn't that be nice? Especially since Satan was part of tricking Eve who didn't know any better, and then Adam was so much in the first flushes of love he just didn't have the integrity. In fact, we know he blames God for what happened because when asked why he ate, he promptly said: "I DID NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" (Oops! I got Adam mixed up with President Clinton, sorry!). Adam said: "This woman YOU gave me told me to eat." At any rate, there was a way to save Adam's unborn children. Would you go for that? The deal was, now that they were imperfect they would die eventually of sickness or old age. Their lives might not be the happiest. They'd have to struggle. But if they could manage to get born, then they could come back on Judgment Day and get life? Wouldn't it be worth it? The pain and suffering of the temporary short life in order to undo what Satan had done? Sure. "God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son..." What a wonderful gift. Now some people appreciate that wonderful gift. And others ask, Oh God, why did you allow me to be born into this horrible, horrible life? I wish you'd killed Adam and Eve in the Garden right there and then so I wouldn't have had to have been born and suffer this cruel existence you've given me. That's sort of how I see it. JCanon

1

WatchTower and the Masons

by bite me in

i was looking randomly on the internet, actually not even for this, and i found this to be quiet interesting.

i have not looked at it in great detail yet, but from what i've seen so far, it appears to be usful information.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7540/the-watchtower-the-masons.

JCanon

There's lots more, of course. Here are two YouTube videos that link JW with the Illuminati/Freemasonry.

There are many others that harp on the Freemasonry pyramid where Russell was buried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73Q2_f4vKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gsnq1qfYLw&NR=1'

In the end, the WTS is abaondoned by Jehovah and Christ as being part of the BTG, which is the Illuminati and Freemasonry, all based upon "The Mysteries" secret society cults going all the way back to Babylon.

JCanon

22

Attn: JW's and Bible Students - Lets Discuss John 1:1

by lovelylil in

this verse came up on the thread about whether or not jesus is michael the archangel.

i wanted to discuss it in further detail on a new thread because i think raised on the other thread was an important point about how jw's and bs translate john 1:1.

1in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.. as we know the nwt adds an "a" to say "and the word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient greek manuscripts.

JCanon

Good point! I agree with "a god" being wrong at John 1:1. But there are too many other issues to contradict that is more simply done than to simply give my own take and explanation on what you present (that is, without a 40-page commentary as I usually do).

As we know the NWT adds an "a" to say "and the Word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In Charles Russells' study of the scripture books, he also adds an (a) when translating John 1:1. Isn't this tampering with the scriptures?

Agreed. I believe John was indicating Jesus "position" rather than his "condition."

How can we add a word into the text to support our own theology? We know the JW's and BS do not believe in the divinity of Christ but believe Christ was a created being; Michael the Archangel. Thus they cannot concede to what John 1:1 is stating for it goes against their theology.

Here is where this comparison gets into trouble. Christ is made the ultimate "god", especially when he returns to heaven, at which time all bow to him, including the other angels in heaven. So "divinity" is a very fluid term. Christ could have been "devine" even as an angel. He becomes more "devine" in another sense when worship to Jesus becomes a requirement of one and all. So being "created" does not exclude Jesus from being "devine". You'd have to be more specific in defining that term. Further, in defense of JWs, they only consider Christ not to be "devine" when he was on the earth as a man. They don't believe he was half angel-half man like others in Christendom. But they do not deny the divinity of Christ when he is in the form of Michael, the archangel. So this comparison likewise, needs to be more specific. JWs do not deny the "divinity" of Christ when he's in heaven. Christ's divinity is thus a "straw man" argument here. It is not relevant.

But, doesn't it create a problem for these groups to say Jesus (the Word) is "a" god? The Bible supports monotheism, belief in One God. It is clear in scripture there is only one true God. So then, is Jesus a lesser false God?

Another straw man's argument here. For in the Bible we read that "there is just one god and one lord" and in another "there are many gods and many lords." So it depends on the context. Satan is called the "god of this system of things" and we know the Bible mentions many other pagan "gods." For some reason some think the use of the term "monotheism" means BELIEF in the existence of only one god, rather than WORSHIP of only one god. You are thus confusing the two. "Monotheism" thus refers to WORSHIP of just one god, not thinking only one god exists. But on that count, once Jesus returns to heaven and God gives him a position higher than the one he has before and requires "every knee shall bend", then, indeed, there are TWO GODS for both angels and men to worship. Jehovah and Christ. So while the Jews could have been considered "monotheistic" by general definition of their formal religion, only worshipping YHWH, with Christ only a very special angel, after Christ returns and he is made an official required god to be worshipped, then everyone worshipping YHWH have to become polytheistic, or I should say, DUOTHEISTIC, worshipping two gods, YHWH and Christ. So "polytheism" is okay now, technically speaking, since Christ is clearly a god worshipped along with YHWH.

Maybe we can discuss in more detail here. I am going to work soon but please give your comments everyone. Will be back to check the thread tomarrow. Peace, Lilly

Nice topic, but it plays on too many words out of context. John 1:1 clearly indicates the "rank" of Jesus in the universe as god, not just "a god" and the only way to express how godly he is, is to use the term "god" along with the mention of the Father. When Christ becomes the ultimate "god" with no one higher than he is, that term can be used to its fullest meaning and extent, with only one exception, that of the Father. So Christ is described as "with the Father" which acknowledges there is a second god besides him.

Think in terms of the title KING. In ancient times the co-ruler son had the same title of "king" as the father-king did. So you had two individuals with the same title and essentially the same absolute power, except the father-king was considered superior. So same with the concept of "god". YHWH and the Word are limited to being described by this one term. It is only modified by the recognition of someone else who also is "god." Thus by saying that the "Word was god" doesn't mean he was also YHWH, the Father. It might have been insinuated that was the case if John just said, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was god", meaning the Word and God were one in the same. But when he clearly adds "and the Word was with God" it lets us know they are not the same person and that there is another "god" besides the Word.

In other words, the POSITION of god, was held by two people only. YHWH and The Word. That's what John was trying to say. John was focussed on the greatness and grandeur and glory in which Christ was created. But later he calls Jesus in verse 18 "the only-begotten GOD in the bosom position of the father." Jesus was completely unique in his divinity and "godship" with only one comparable higher, who was the father. JWs, so afraid of the trinity doctrine, inserts "a god" and, unfortunately misses the point John was trying to make. Fact is, two share the unique title in this context of "god" with no others. Christ is unique in this regard, being the only being directly created by the Father.

And yes, absolutely, Jesus and Michael, the Archangel are the same person.

JCanon