Posts by JCanon

18

what is the first lie in the bible and who told it?

by zen nudist in

gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

gen 3:4 and the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: [from eating of the tree].

gen 3:5 for god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

JCanon

WHAT'S THE FIRST PHONE NUMBER IN THE BIBLE?

See below

.

.ADAM 812 (Adam ate one too).

4

Israelite history

by Justin in

taking the bible at face value, we arrive at a particular view of the history of israel.

we start with the age of the patriarchs (abraham, isaac and jacob), then we have the sojourn in egypt, the exodus, the giving of the law at sinai, the wilderness wandering, and the conquest of canaan.

the period of the judges is followed by the reigns of saul, david, and solomon; the split between the northern and southern kingdoms; and finally the exile in babylon and the return.

JCanon

Well, we can't take scholarly comments seriously on issues that involve "miracles" and what not, since they can neither confirm nor dismiss those kinds of things, but there are a few good references that support the Bible that I've found. I'll just list them briefly.

1. AKHENATON, the famous "heretic king" of Egypt who converted to monotheism and even forbade images of his god "Aten" calling all other gods in Egypt "worthless" works well chronologically as the king who ruled right after the Exodus. There's even an eclipse event that can be used to date the 1st of Akhenaton (KTU 1.78) in 1386BCE the Biblical date for the Exodus. So that's a nice comparison looking at the subjective effects of the ten plagues on the psychological behavior of a king.

2. SHISHAK: A record from Shishak (Sheshonq) of conquering some cities in Israel survives and can be matched with the record told in the Bible of his invasion. Lots of debate on the detail, but "Shishak" is th pharoah's name and he did invade those cities and when used in supplement to the Bible it helps fill in some of the details of the story. Some historians find problems with it because they didn't note closely enough in the Bible that though the invasion was dated the 5th year of Rehoboam, Solomon was still ruling and the kingdoms had not been divided yet.

3. RECORDS FROM SHALMANESER III. This is probably the best comparison of pagan records with the Bible I've seen. Shalmaneser III has lots of records surviving but names two Isrealite kings: Ahab at the battle of Karkar and Jehu who was ruling in his 18th year. I say this is an excellent comparison because it only allows for about 12 years from the battle of Karkar to the time of Jehu. WTS and other Biblical apologists try to squeeze in the 1-year rule of Ahaziah plus a 12-year rule of Jehoram into this 12-year period, but it doesn't work. On the other hand, the Bible doesn't date Jehoram becoming sole ruler until his 6th year, the 2nd year of the ruling king of Judah who became king himself in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel. Thus Ahab didn't really die until the 6th year of Jehoram and thus there was a co-rulership. Shalmaneser III's records also mention Ben-hadad and Hazeal and date the death of Ben-Hadad around the 14th year of Shalmaneser III. Since the Bible also dates the death of Ben-Hadad around the 12th year of Jehoram, you have a good comparison of these parallel events shared by Assyria and Israel. But it works only if you introduce the 6-year corulership. Thus if the 14th year of Shalmaneser III is the same as the 12th year of Jehoram, then 8 yars earlier in his sixth year would be the year of Karkar which would fall in the 20th year of Ahab, 2 years before his death. That also means that Jehu is already ruling in his 4th year by the time the 18th year of Shalmaneser III rolls around! Thus the Assyrian records CONFIRM the shortened time period and imply the co-rulership, which when it is acknowledged, there is really great continuity for this period since Assyria was interacting with Israel and neighbors during this period and Shalmaneser III kept good records. Shalmaneser III also provides us with a "photo" of Jehu, thus we can study the national garb of the Israelites back then.

4) PHOTOS OF 4 PROMINENT JEWS SURVIVES IN PAGAN RECORDS: Finally, depending upon who you believe, there are actual surviving graphic representations of up to four prominent Jews that survive in pagan artifacts. They are 1) Joseph, as the official with the multicolored coat (see more about that by searching "David Rohl's New Chronology"). 2) Of Moses himself thought to be one of the pharoah's sons -- I've seen the statue and it looks very "Jewish"!! 3) Of course, Jehu bowing to Shalmaneser III as mentioned above, and 4) Nehemiah, as Prime Minister (Cupbearer) of Persia during the time of Darius and Xerxes co-rulership as seen at Persepolis!

The Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods carry lots of contradictions and discrepancies when compared to the Bible and this is because this period of history was revised. But some basic stuff is confirmed. Nebuchadnezzar records the fight with Pharoah Necho and deportation fo the Judean king in his 7th year (Bible says 8th). Also a record that he invaded Egypt in his 37th year works out well for the Biblical timeline.

THE GLOBAL FLOOD: All archaeologists agree on some aspect of the global flood. One is that it definitely is over since there is lots of dry land now, even deserts. This confirms what the Bible says that the flood waters were removed to allow dry land to appear again. A lack of more written records from other ancient sources regarding the global flood, of course, are lacking because those pagans who would have described it died in the flood before they could write anything down.

JC

18

what is the first lie in the bible and who told it?

by zen nudist in

gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

gen 3:4 and the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: [from eating of the tree].

gen 3:5 for god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

JCanon

Well......

Only because this is a X-JW dub forum do I hasten to remind you that the WTS has it's own idea about this apparent discrepancy.

First of all, of note, it does address this is a potential discrepancy, so it is a text that needs "explanation", thus one would acknowledge, taken verbatim it would seem as though God lied.

But the way the witnesses explain it and it's something most witnesses all know and thus perhaps it's more appropriate to challenge their reply than the Bible itself in this regard, is that "a day with God is 1000 years." (2 Peter 3:8)

Thus when God said "in that day" you will die, did God mean a 24-hour day? or a 1000-year day?

The 1000-year day concept, when you consider a lot of other things (that I won't go into here, least not in this thread) works very well for this scenario since it seems as though man was given just "a day" to live anyway, before dying. That is, the Tree of Life was to extend a man's life past one day of 1000 years. When you think in terms of what the tree of life was about, eternal life as compared to a temporary life, and thus a life at some point that God would end "naturally" just as the animals die, it seems as though 1000 years was that period. That is "confirmed" more or less with the earliest men living past 900 years, as if close to the natural lifespan of the perfect man, though mortal man. In other words, why would Adam need the "tree of life" unless his death weren't already set? Partaking of the tree of life was something that was extra to signify permission to live forever.

So it's like many texts in the Bible where the CONTEXT must be taken into consideration before one considers it a contradiction. I can find in the Bible where it says there is just 'one god and one lord" and in another place where it says "there are many gods and many lords". Is that a contradiction? No.

The other "out" that witnesses teach as far Adam dying in that "day", which is something I don't really don't agree or disagree with, is that symbolically he died in that very day; that is, he was considered to be "dead" in God's eyes from that moment on. I suppose that works, but I prefer the previous reference that in God's mind, mankind was given 1000 years of general life, a day, and God was saying they would not live past their first "day" if they ate from the tree of knowledge.

JC

34

Apostate bastards know more about bible/god history than others.

by gumby in

how many religious people have done a critical examination on the bible/god/religion......more than an ex-dub has?

the mormons possibly.. one only has to read some of the over 1 million posts on this board, to notice how much re-search various ones have done on these subjects after leaving the dubs.

why do you suppose that is?.

JCanon

Skip to end of this post for synopsis if you want to skip this long boring post. I didn't plan it that way, but....you know me!!!

It is rather interesting when you take the Bible into your own hands and start reading it first hand for yourself and getting beyond the WTS. I mean "beyond" because they basically got your study schedule mapped out if you did what they expect, like pre-study for all the meetings and everything. If you've got a job and family there is not a lot of time for in-depth extra "personal study" even though they encourage it in word, but dread it.

It was only when I began to pioneer at around the 8th and 9th grade that I really got interested in the "reality" of the beliefs and then the Bible "became my own" personal belief system beyond the WTS, though they started that direction. Later on that would backfire on the WTS when I started finding contradiction between what they said and what the Bible said. But the research into secular references for me is I think different than more ex-dubs. I tended to take just the opposite from secular references when applied to the Bible than most who I think tend to put the Bible into less of a "sacred"/"God's word" category. I like relating this case in point:

"70 years begins when Jerusalem was desolated." That was drummed into the J-dub constantly because it was connected with 1914 and 607BCE. I accepted the 70 years was accurate because the Bible certainly referenced it and I remember the WTS quoting Josephus as supporting the understanding that the 70 years was a literal period of time following the fall of Jerusalem. Plus in my first research looks into chronology, even Josephus noted there were 70 years from the "conflagration" (common reference to destruction of first temple) until the 1st of Cyrus. So I figured that was a Biblical fact, though contested.

All was well until the WTS came out with the Insight Book and a reference to an astronomical text, the "Strm. Kambyses 400" wherein they noted two ecilpses occurring the same year that could scientifically date year 7 of Kambyses in 523BCE. That was there and I wanted to check it out once I believed the Bible actually dated the 70 weeks prophecy beginning with the 1st of Cyrus when the "word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem". That is, I immediately began to contradict the WTS' chronology which claimed the 70 weeks began with Nehemiah's rebuilding the wall. BUT...my new dates were still off. I thought that if 455BCE was the 1st of Cyrus, then I just knew from the Bible that Jerusalem must have fallen 70 years earlier in 525BCE. To me that was the true Biblical date for the fall of Jerusalem with no options.

But when I checked out the actual astronomy of the SK400 and discovered the second ecilpse event was a total miss for 523BCE, I thought the references would PROVE that 525BCE was year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar and that the references were really to "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar in 537BCE. But when I tried to match it up, it didn't work. I tried matching it up with other kings as well, but no luck. Finally I simply charted every similar eclipse event from 600BCE to 500BCE to see what that gave me and I discovered the precise match-up of the eclipses by timing interval between the two to match 541BCE. I was startled but it still didn't help me. It was four years too early. I tried to make it work with co-rulerships and double-references to the reign and what not, but it just didn't. Here was this text dating year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar in 541BCE which dated the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE, but it was just "wrong" because I KNEW that there was no choice. For the Bible to be true, Jerusalem had to fall in 525BCE, 70 years before 455BCE. It was that simple! I astronomical text was 4 years off.... I didn't know why?

But the research exercises had begun. I became more aware of ancient history and how it impacted upon the Bible and didn't know what to make of the missed astronomical reference. So I didn't lose faith in the Bible but basically gave up trying to match the astronomical text to the Bible. And then, something happened laer on! I discovered Jeremiah 52:30! Only after having become familiar enough with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and this part of the Bible's history did this scripture now stand out! That is, I hadn't really paid attention to the LAST DEPORTATION occurring in the 23rd year! FOUR YEARS after the fall of Jerusalem! Oops! Did this mean that there were still people in Jerusalem after its fall?

The WTS, again, had deceived us! Later research showed the Jews that ran down to Egypt actually returned to Jerusalem before being deported to Babylon and these of the last deportation were the few "reamining ones from the sword" from Egypt who were deported. This was much, much later confirmed by Josephus, but I hadn't gotten to that reference at the time. At any rate, SUDDENLY there was an amazing match-up of this previously contradictory astromical text that provided absolute dating to 541BCE for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar. Why? Because if the 70 years didn't begin until the land was actually empty, and it was not completely empty until the last of the Jewish nation were deported and that did not happen until year 23, then 525BCE was really year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. That meant that Jerusalem must have fallen 4 years earlier in 529BCE. In that case, year 7 fell in 541BCE, the same date that's in the astronomical text!!!

So to make a long story longer...(duhhhhh!) what happened was that BIBLE RESEARCH IMPROVED AND STRENGTHENED MY CRITICAL BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE instead of visa versa! But it still contradicted what the witnesses were teaching.

But it was stil a great moment for me, having rather "blind faith" in the Bible and believing it must be true and looking for some "evidence" of that via science, astronomy and archaeology, to find that I was able to independently date the fall of Jerusalem correctly in 529BCE and the only reason that date didn't match the Biblical date of 525BCE was because I had been taught incorrectly by the WTS!!

So I learned a very good lesson when it comes to research, and that is, many "contradictions" between what is found in secular references and the Bible, can sometimes be due to not fully understanding either the Bible's own reference or somehow misinterpreting the secular reference. So before dismissing the two as contradictory, you have to really, really, really look close! And when you do, many times the problem is resolved and you find great enlignmentment from that.

(Just one more, one more!!) One other instance where this occurred was in doing the critical timeline of the Divided Kingdom. I knew the date of the Exodus from the jubilee cycles was 1386BCE and thus the 4th of Solomon and the first temple was 906BCE. I couldn't change that. But when I did the critical chronology timeline, king by king, co-rulership by co-rulership, I had an overlap!!! The beginning of Rehoboam's reign overlapped the end of Solomon's reign. Oops!!! What is one to do? Presume a co-rulership? Perhaps, but can it be confirmed? YES. Only by needing to prove there was a co-rulership did I look even closer at the Biblical reference and was able to confirm that indeed, at the invasion of Shishak Rehoboam was still ruling over all 12 tribes!! So it worked out.

Bottom line is, I think some people loose faith in the Bible if they take a casual attitude about the details there and don't aggressive try to work out seeming discrepancies or simply make presumptions of error or invention. When you do, and the issues are resolved, then your faith in the Bible grows, your respect for secular references and ancient archaeology grows, but your trust in modern scholars, both on the witnesses side as well as the "scholastic" side takes a nose dive, because both match each other in bias and ineptitude oftentimes.

Blind faith is great but it's nice to be able to defend yourself scholastically from the archaeological and scientific points of view when it comes to what is in the Bible; and that takes a lot of time and a lot of research, but for me, it has paid off. Thanks to secular research I have MORE faith in the Bible than ever before. Unfortunately, with so much jive and bias out there, I think many others experience just the opposite, they tend to find their faith challenged by casual secular research.

My advice is to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. That is, get behind the commentators and see what opposing opinions are saying and investigate everything as much as possible. Some people don't have that much time. But when you do, the Bible is able to maintain its credibility with little problems. And that's great. To be able to leave the Christendom to become a witness is a step forward. But to be able to them leave the witnesses and still maintain your faith in the Bible is even better! Being able to challenge Biblical naysayers with their own research, is the cherry on top of the icing on top of the cake!

JC

(P.S. Why are my posts so loooong! Why couldn't I have just said: "Secular research has helped correct and improve some false Biblical facts I'd inherited from the WTS, so it's been a great experience for me doing research." DUUHHHHHHHHHHH!) Every now and then I think there must be something seriously wrong with me! I know that's difficult for many of you to believe out there, but there comes a time for facing reality, guys!!!)

7

What's the latest on Passover?

by Justin in

no, not the memorial.

i'm talking about the jewish passover.

during the periods of the first and second temples, it was necessary to have the lambs slaughtered as sacrifices at the temple.

JCanon

Waitaminute here.....

Passover apparently became Temple-centered during Second Temple times and previously was an agricultural festival celebrated locally. It was not a harvest festival (that's in fall). Instead Passover itself is thought to have celebrated the birthing of livestock and the Feast of Unleavened Bread celebrated the planting of crops.

I don't quite understand this. Different crops were harvested at different times of the year. The grain harvests were reaped in the spring, the "firstfruits" of barley beginning April 16 and the firstfruits of wheat 49 days later on Pentecost. So, unless I'm missing something, how is this festival not a harvest festival of sorts but one of "planting"? This is the time of the barley harvest.

Would this affect the pagan connection with Reshep? That is, did you confuse this festival with another some other time of the year when planting was actually done?

Thanks.

JC

12

The temptation of Jesus

by Leolaia in

in q 4:1-13 (luke 4:1-13), we have the well-known story of jesus' temptation by the devil, which appears to be a haggadic legend derived largely from texts in deuteronomy 6 and 8. here is a list of parallels provided by dale allison: .

1. jesus is "led" in the wilderness (4:1); israel is "led" in the wilderness (deut.

2. jesus is in the wilderness for 40 days and there tempted (4:2); israel is in the wilderness for 40 years and there tempted (deut.

JCanon

But this doesn't alter the Christian who is constantly faced with nothing and it doesn't change his/her mind. If all the people who had seen an angel or two would have been the only Christians, we would now live in a world of atheists. Blind faith - it must be such a curse.

Answered in a new thread... Thanks, Leolaia.... JC

12

The temptation of Jesus

by Leolaia in

in q 4:1-13 (luke 4:1-13), we have the well-known story of jesus' temptation by the devil, which appears to be a haggadic legend derived largely from texts in deuteronomy 6 and 8. here is a list of parallels provided by dale allison: .

1. jesus is "led" in the wilderness (4:1); israel is "led" in the wilderness (deut.

2. jesus is in the wilderness for 40 days and there tempted (4:2); israel is in the wilderness for 40 years and there tempted (deut.

JCanon

Could God have created the world in six days? He could have done it in the blink of an eye...if he took six days...why not four billion years? The point of the Genesis story isnt' HOW God created but rather THAT God created. Eden...a tool used to show that it was man who caused his own fall by trying to be like God in deciding what was good and what was evil. The flood...more than likely borrowed from the Chaldeans...there were several devastating floods back in the prehistory of man...but never one cataclysmic worldwide flood.

Hi Yeru, thanks for your explanation and so noted. Plus I don't blame someone for having that position if you look at it from a scientific point of view as far as trying to explain miracles, which the Flood was. Of note, the Bible does mention a concentration of the postdeluvian population in Babylon and that's the basis for the religious concepts of the flood and other concepts being spread to many other cultures, thus "Babylon the Great". But I don't mind the opinions of others based upon their perception, after all, I've often quipped that many atheists, for instance, only lack a face-to-face encounter with an angel or two to change their minds about god and the spirit world. But in the absence of that, its reasonable to doubt it I suppose.

The problem with me is I'm DEEP into the prophecies of the Bible and the chronology and am finding these prophecies fulfilled in amazing ways just when predicted. So I don't believe the Bible is just another book from some culture that had reference for a solo Creator. Take for instance the jubilee cycle, a time when the Jews were to celebrate returning home and freedom, basically. 1947 is the year the Jews regained their homeland and left official exile. What a jubilant year for them. But it's exactly, EXACTLY the 50th jubilee after 455BCE. That is, the 70-weeks pattern relating to the Messiah coordinates with the jubilees which are 10 per 70 weeks (490/49=10). So 455BCE was a jubilee, the year the Jews returned from Babylon (a date, by the way I can confirm extra-Biblically thanks to the VAT4956). I'm not quite in a position to consider something like that as an accident.

The Bible also prophesied a time of distress when two-thirds of the Jews were be exterminated just before returning to their homeland. That happened. It was the HOLOCAUST. And the chronology involved requires it during a 70-week period between the 62nd week and the 63rd week, a 7 year period calculatable, if you count the 70 weeks from 36CE, from 1940 to 1947. A coincidence?

Not really. Too many priophecies have come true right exactly when it was said. So when I look out in the night sky and I see this moon, which allegedly simply fell into Earth's orbit by accident and established an elliptical orbit just like that, a perfectly round planet just the right size, and then the rest of the "solar system" with all the planets circling the sun in the same general narrow horizontal plane instead of variant orbits, it's easier to recognize there's a God who planned it.

As far as the days of creation, they were 7,000 years each. Why God took that long, I don't know, but my impression was that it probably didn't really take that long, it's just in God's scheme of things, the eventual plan was to have a Earth's pattern fit into the JUBILEE cycle, so that the creation of man, generally fell during a "rest" period along with 1000 years of God's rule being the 7th day of a 7,000-year long day, and ultimately that same Sabbath milllennium would also be the 49th year leading to the 50th jubilee which began another Creative Week. So I agree with you; probably god could have done everything in a much shorter time, but since he really wanted to establish the pattern of sevens, he drew it out so that man arrived close to the seventh Creative day and man would be 7000 years old when the next Creative Week started.

So, no. The above and other things more personal relating to God puts me in a position to be more "objective" about what the Bible truly is, an exception book from GOD who chose the Jews to provide salvation for mankind, and at one point, he will become "active" enough again to be plainly visible to all who will know the FACTS regarding God. In the meantime, he can observe just who believes the Bible or not, etc as a test and depending upon those who have "faith" and act on it, they get more privileges with respect to the kingdom and the millennium. Then finally, on JUDGMENT DAY, everybody will come back, believers and non-believers, atheists and creationists and then they all will know the REALITY.

Oh well, so much for WHEN we all get to "see" God. Some sooner than others. But one day, everyone.

JC

12

The temptation of Jesus

by Leolaia in

in q 4:1-13 (luke 4:1-13), we have the well-known story of jesus' temptation by the devil, which appears to be a haggadic legend derived largely from texts in deuteronomy 6 and 8. here is a list of parallels provided by dale allison: .

1. jesus is "led" in the wilderness (4:1); israel is "led" in the wilderness (deut.

2. jesus is in the wilderness for 40 days and there tempted (4:2); israel is in the wilderness for 40 years and there tempted (deut.

JCanon

It is a modern conceit that requires biblical stories to all be strictly history. Ancient writers did not clearly seperate history from tradition and folklore as we do today. Some books are more historical than others; 2 Kings is quite annalistic and contains much accurate historical information, the same could be said perhaps regarding 1 Kings, Ezra, 1 Maccabees, etc. But in other works, especially representing older traditions, it becomes increasingly difficult to sift reliable historical information from legendary tradition

Hi Leolaia: You make a good point. The 'Book of Esther" is a good example of where the writer creates a historical work based upon folklore.

What happened was when the Persians revised their chronology and the canonical Ezra/Nehemiah contradicted with it because of the interaction of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes who was now being claimed to be a different king, these works were suppressed and originally replaced with a substitute version of this historical reference called by the name name, no less, "Esdras". But if you compare apocryphal Esdras with Ezra/Nehemiah you'll see the part about Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the walls is left off.

But Nehemiah was a eunuch and Jewish folklore in other writings show him to be extremely effeminate and, in fact, in love with Artaxerxes. One version which I read in a Jewish library at the Holocaust Museum library in Los Angeles which also had other Jewish writings, actually described Nehemiah when he asked to rescue his fellow Jews to be sitting on the lap of Artaxerxes and "batting his eyes" at the king. So the Jews made fun of Nehemiah as a eunuch and being effeminate. Not hard to figure out, therefore, from here where the "Book of Esther" came from and what's it's based upon. Once called "Esdras IV" it was the continuation of Ezra/Nehemiah, only in order to tell the story they divided the history of Nehemiah into two characters, the eunuch side of his character that was folkloricly in love with the king became Esther. Nehemiah's position as the chief cupbearer, which is the same position as the prime minister, was carried my "Mordecai", Nehemiah's actual Babylonian name. They are basically the same story. Both Nehemiah and Esther get bad news from their homeland, panic and use their influence over the king, especially after giving him wine to get a favor in order to save his/her people. Nehemiah's arming the Jews while rebuilding the walls is the basis of the Esther story about the Jews being allowed to take up arms and fight back against their enemies.

Now, here's my question to you. While I agree with you, especially in this case where history and folklore are very definitely combined, but for reasons of historical revisionism, why are the experts more open about these Jewish writings and what they mean instead of simply focussing on the story of Edem or the Flood?

That the problem with these "historical myths" was always an issue with the Jews in later times is noted by 1 Timothy 4:7 which is likely a specific reference to "Esther" when it says: "But turn down false stories which violate what is holy and which old women tell." These false "stories" that old women like to tell, were these popular semi-historic Jewish writings such as the Book of Esther. It "violates what is holy" because the history or other context contradicted the canonical holy writings version of this history. Further, case in point, books like Esther are actually presented as "history" to the casual reader, though actually it is only partially based on history and takes its tone from the folklore of Nehemiah who appears in other works as being in love with Artaxerxes. Of course, it's sure the eunuchs were not having sex with the king (certainly not Nehemiah, anyway) but it seems to suggest these eunuchs traditionally were known to fall in love with their king and thus be quite loyal.

So another part of this problem is why is Biblical scholarship so quick to dismiss the hard to believe historical references, such as the story of the Garden of Eden, belief in Satan and angels and yet they hardly blink an eye at pseudo-historical folklore like the Book of Esther, a book which even got admitted into the canon after a few revisions by the 3rd Century AD (i.e. the NT Bible writers quoted from the OT books they wanted included into the Bible's "internal canon", excluding Esther, Song of Solomon (Canticles) and Ecclesiates).

Just for the record: The flood and Eden are history. Esther is folklore, an example of substitute history in the context of historical revisionism. Where are the scholars when you need them?

JC

42

Gospel of John - Why no Emblems, no Bread and Wine?

by Greenpalmtreestillmine in

since today is the memorial i thought it would be a good time to ask this quesion: why is it that the gospel of john does not include the passing of the bread and wine representing jesus' blood and flesh?

of all the gospels, john's goes into the greatest detail of jesus' last evening with his disciples yet he omits the passing of the covenant emblems.

and of all the gospels you would think john's would include that since his is filled with more symbolic and mystery material than the rest.

JCanon

Hi Leolaia, sorry if you took this personally, I should have been more general:

Saying "Sorry, the NT references to the Messiah are well-founded in the OT tradition" and "NT references to OT ritual related to Christ" just leaves me confused, because I don't see how these vague statements refer to what I actually wrote.

What this means is that the Bible is studied by some and interpreted by them as a religious work, containing many "secrets" and complex meanings. This might conflict sometimes with someone taking it just as a literary work and only taking it for face value for the most part, even though you understand subtle comparison for sure.

But sometimes the religious interpretation of texts limits certain persumptions or contradicts them. Case in point, the global flood. I believe it was real and it happened, but you might not "find sufficient evidence" of it. But you use your own lack of belief in the flood as a literal event to postulate alternative explanations for what the literary work presents. I've tried not to be dogmatic about my position since everybody believes what they want, but the "academic" point remains which marginalizes your position since it's based upon your own presumption there was no literal flood, a presumption that you, from a Biblicalists point of view, are not at option to make, though we understand it. In the meantime, understanding there was a literal flood, introduces an entirely different "school of thought" interpreting the same literary works under consideration. But the criticism remains that an argument is no stronger than it's weakest link.

Same goes with the gospel speculations and how they developed. They sound reasonable from a literary point of view, I suppose, but having a different perspective, experiencing "holy spirit", having spoken directly with God himself and being part of many prophecies being fulfilled (including physical phenomenon such as the "sign of the son of man" which was photographed on a specific day and time, something a bit beyond my mental delusions, right? and the same imagery found in WTS subliminal art. So it's real..), the fact that the Bible requires that Paul and John survive down to our day and not die (the real reason I think the Templars are looking for the "holy grail" they are looking for John, who is the same royal blood line of Jesus) would dismiss your conclusions unequivocably. So I know they are incorrect on that basis.

But, also being a "prophet" of scripture, perhaps being more aware than others how it all fits together, I understand these references are completely consistent with the original concepts of Jewish ritual and the sacrifices and what that meant and ALWAYS meant. The pouring out of blood, the eating of the sacrifices all representing the Messiah and how to partake of him is to gain life. It's FUNDAMENTAL in the fabric of Jewish doctrine. So to suggest that Paul or John are adding or extrapolating, which they might from your point of view, but aren't from mine is where the disadvantage is. You don't have the advantage of seeing past the "process" but I do.

What else can I say. EVERYTHING is going exactly as God planned it, especially the chronology that he provided for certain events.

Paul and John are not extrapolating anything that wasn't already there in the OT as far as I can see and since Eden was a real event that really happened, those stories from Noah are what we're seeing, distorted by Satan (a real person) in pagan tradition but also based upon real events and that is often the similarity you are seeing in Biblical comparison, EXCEPT in Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, which are, indeed, influenced by pagan thought in varying degrees. The NT Bible writers excluded these books for cross-quoting.

Thanks, again, for your research, it's quite interesting.

But, Leolaia: TWO WAVE OFFERINGS. The second is different than the first. There's a reason. That is answered not by literary examination or trying to find some Caananite counterpart. This is ORIGINAL JEWISH prophetic reference to their Messiah at the first and second coming. Something that is currently happening within this secret followers, and thus not having the option to deny much in scripture since they are experiencing these things. We just have more information than you.

Sorry.

JC

42

Gospel of John - Why no Emblems, no Bread and Wine?

by Greenpalmtreestillmine in

since today is the memorial i thought it would be a good time to ask this quesion: why is it that the gospel of john does not include the passing of the bread and wine representing jesus' blood and flesh?

of all the gospels, john's goes into the greatest detail of jesus' last evening with his disciples yet he omits the passing of the covenant emblems.

and of all the gospels you would think john's would include that since his is filled with more symbolic and mystery material than the rest.

JCanon

Hi Leolaia:

I know it seems convenient to claim that NT references to OT ritual related to Christ was a late invention to recover, I suppose, some disappointments of the Jewish Christians regarding the second comnig or something.

But the idea of the Christ being the sacrificial lamb, the whole concept of Passover was already in JEWISH RITUAL. Even the WAVE OFFERINGS of barley and wheat, with the second wave offering WITH LEAVEN from the homes, in contrast with the first that was the unleavened barley associated with UNLEAVENED BREAD of Passover.

This contrast between leavened and unleaved WAVE OFFERINGS, with the SECOND being WITH LEAVEN represents the first and second coming of Christ in the flesh, first sinless as a sacrifice, second, obviously as an ordinary man. This theme is carried out through the NT references for the second coming and supported by OT references that the king-priest Melchizdekian second coming would be of an ordinary man, even one with many sins as Zechariah 3 clearly shows Joshua/priest becoming a king with befouled garments that need to be replaced, those garments representing his many forgiven past sins.

So, sorry, a better informed Biblicalist who sees the consistency between messianic reference in the OT compared with that merely expounded upon by the NT can't be considered a late invention by outsiders.

That is, I can confirm the second coming as different from the first via the OT. THE BREAD of the second wave offering is WITH LEAVEN, unlike the first. Is this an insignfiicant meaning for you? Regardless it's OT reference. Bread means the BODY. BREAD without leaevn clearly a sinless body, bread WITH leaven one of an ordinary sinner.

Sorry, the NT references to the Messiah are well-founded in the OT tradition. Unless you're missing something?

Thanks for your commentary, but it's not sufficiently substantiated.

JC