Posts by JCanon

65

The Kingom of David never existed!

by 5go in

david and the kingdom of damascus.

the city of damascus is at least 4000 years old.

it is recorded as being conquered by pharaoh tutmosis in the 15th century bc and it became the capital of an aramean kingdom from the 11th century bc.

JCanon

His successor Darius I (522-486) annexed 'India' and Thrace. Xerxes I (485-465) came up against the growing power of Greece.

This is a joke, because Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king! After Xerxes invaded Greece and ran back to Persia in disgrace and a laughingstock, Themistocles ended up fleeing to Persia. He requested a year to learn the language. That comes from a reference in Plutarch, Lives "Themistocles". But that audience with the king of Persia was with XERXES not Artaxerxes! Themistocles likely visited Persepolis where he saw that Xerxes had finished the buildings started by he and his father as "Artaxerxes", the new throne name adopted by Xerxes. There are actual records of a king "Artaxerxes who is called Xerxes" up to year 27. Themistocles was a master of propaganda, especially written propaganda. So he came up wtih the idea to leak his own letter to the king, only this time "Artaxerxes" requesting asylum. This completely contradicts the other historical record where Themistocles with a bounty on head was so afraid to identify himself he insisted he identify himself only once in the presence of the king himself. He certainly would thus not be sending a letter ahead of himself announcing his arrival, a letter that certainly would have been intercepted. At any rate, obviously historians who knew he had come to Xerxes claims Themistocles was lying when he said he fled to Artaxerxes. Of course, he was lying, but it gave Xerxes a new lease on life! They historians never figured out that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king:

Here's the reference from Plutarch, Lives, Themistocles about the controversy, and the historical reference of Themistocles before XERXES!

Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest.

When Themistocles was come to the critical point, he applied himself first to Artabanus, commander of a thousand men, telling him that he was a Greek, and desired to speak with the king about important affairs concerning which the king was extremely solicitous. Artabanus answered him, "O stranger, the laws of men are different, and one thing is honorable to one man, and to others another; but it is honorable for all to honor and observe their own laws. It is the habit of the Greeks, we are told, to honor, above all things, liberty and equality; but amongst our many excellent laws, we account this the most excellent, to honor the king, and to worship him, as the image of the great preserver of the universe; if, then, you shall consent to our laws, and fall down before the king and worship him, you may both see him and speak to him; but if your mind be otherwise, you must make use of others to intercede for you, for it is not the national custom here for the king to give audience to any one that doth not fall down before him." Themistocles, hearing this, replied, "Artabanus, I that come hither to increase the power and glory of the king, will not only submit myself to his laws, since so it hath pleased the god who exalteth the Persian empire to this greatness, but will also cause many more to be worshippers and adorers of the king. Let not this, therefore, be an impediment why I should not communicate to the king what I have to impart." Artabanus asking him, "Who must we tell him that you are? for your words signify you to be no ordinary person," Themistocles answered, "No man, O Artabanus, must be informed of this before the king himself." Thus Phanias relates; to which Eratosthenes, in his treatise on Riches, adds, that it was by the means of a woman of Eretria, who was kept by Artabanus, that he obtained this audience and interview with him.

When he was introduced to the king, and had paid his reverence to him, he stood silent, till the king commanding the interpreter to ask him who he was, he replied, "O king, I am Themistocles the Athenian, driven into banishment by the Greeks. The evils that I have done to the Persians are numerous; but my benefits to them yet greater, in withholding the Greeks from pursuit, so soon as the deliverance of my own country allowed me to show kindness also to you. I come with a mind suited to my present calamities; prepared alike for favors and for anger; to welcome your gracious reconciliation, and to deprecate your wrath. Take my own countrymen for witnesses of the services I have done for Persia, and make use of this occasion to show the world your virtue, rather than to satisfy your indignation. If you save me, you will save your suppliant; if otherwise, will destroy an enemy of the Greeks." He talked also of divine admonition, such as the vision which he saw at Nicogenes` house, and the direction given him by the oracle of Dodona, where Jupiter commanded him to go to him that had a name like his, by which he understood that he was sent from Jupiter to him, seeing that they both were great, and had the name of kings.

The king heard him attentively, and, though he admired his temper and courage, gave him no answer at that time; but, when he was with his intimate friends, rejoiced in his great good fortune, and esteemed himself very happy in this, and prayed to his god Arimanius, that all his enemies might be ever of the same mind with the Greeks, to abuse and expel the bravest men amongst them. Then he sacrificed to the gods, and presently fell to drinking, and was so well pleased, that in the night, in the middle of his sleep, he cried out for joy three times, "I have Themistocles the Athenian."

The Greeks bought this scam hook, line and sinker! Later the Pesians revised their records to make this scam even more invisible. They first added 30 years to the rule of Darius I, removing 26 years of NB Period years to make up for this. Of course, Xerxes ended up with a 21-year separate rule from Artaxerxes I who at his death decided to claim all 41 of his years of rulership, including his first 21 as Xerxes. Later Artaxerxes II employed Xenophon to revise Greek history to allow for yet another 56 years of expanded Greco-Persian history. This distorted the 1st of Cyrus by 82 years, with Artaxerxes II getting a personal perk in the process by his 17-year rule being extended by 30 years to 47 years, making him the longest ruling Persian king.

But these distortions from the Greek Period revisions ended up disturbing the entire timeline back to Solomon when not corrected. That is, the 82-year discrepancy becomes 56 years at the beginning of the NB Period, which carries to the eclipse event which got attached to 763BCE instead of 709BCE, which then carried forth a 54-year discrepancy back to the time of Solomon and David. It is that discprepancy that archaeologists using pottery dating and RC14 coordinated dating are now seeing a discrepancy over. Not understanding the revisionism of the Greco-Persian Period, they have presumed the Bible historians invented Solomon and David essentially, since their exploits do not match well archaeologically to the earlier period. But that's entirely different when you correct the timeline and date Solmon and David 60 years later than they are normally dated. When that happens, Solomon fits the period where archaeologists have found all these great "monumental" palaces and ashlar block palaces at Megiddo at a level that RC14 dating shows destruction c. 871BCE.

But the bigger problem for Finkelstein is not the conspiracy theories from the Greco-Persian Period but the archaeological dating for when the Exodus occurs. Kathleen Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains."

If Jericho falls between 1350-1325BCE, then the earliest date possible for the Exodus 40 years earlier would be 1390BCE. That means the earlist possible year for Solomon's 4th year is 910BCE with his 1st year falling in 914BCE. Solomon's first year is currently dated to 970BCE. This represents a 56-year discrepancy. However, obviously the later-dated Solomon works out for where Finkelstein establishes when the palaces were built which is in the early 9th century BCE (900-875BCE). The Bible agrees with the dating for the fall of Jericho, however, when the Exodus is dated to 1386BCE based upon the 455BCE chronology. This dates the fall of Jericho in 1346BCE which falls within the dates given by Kenyon. So you see, archaeology and the Bible are actually in sync, not at odds!

It is only when this alternative indication for dating David and Solomon is ignored by archaeologists and the preference of using the Assyrian Period fixed dating based upon the 763BCE eclipse that you fall into historical problems with Solomon and David. But it's not the Bible's fault, it's the fault of secular history being manipulated that David and Solomon are appearing at an earlier time that doesn't fit the archaeology.

Further, with so much evidence including RC14 dating that Shishak's invasion occurred c. 871BCE, the Assyrian timeline should have been challenged or questioned. Instead it preempts everything, believing it to be too well established likely, since it is based on the NB Period, also considered to be well established. Thus Finkelstein cops out totally and comes up with a non-Shishak scenario long after the RC14 dating for the destruction of the palace level at Megiddo c. 835 BCE. So Finkelstein at this point has ZERO CREDIBILITY as a historian, though his archaeological dating and comparisons are quite good and quite consistent with the Bible.

Correct the timeline, you correct the controversy.

In the meantime, any references that maintain a separate 21-year rule for Xerxes and does not combine the rule of Artaxerxes I and Xerxes at this point are just incompetent historians and nothing they base their chronology on is relevant. Those references are now completely OUT OF DATE. It's just a matter of time before the new research sinks in and they are forced to recognize the evidence of the original timeline. In the meantime, though, Biblicalists don't have to wait for the anti-Biblical academic world since they can make their own comparisons of dates and events based upon the 1st of Cyrus falling in 455BCE. Finkelstein's claims about a mythological Solomon and David are thus irrelevant if he is not willing to use the strict Biblical timeline for these kings. So he's "harmless" ultimately, taking far too many right turns to get to his conclusions.

JC

65

The Kingom of David never existed!

by 5go in

david and the kingdom of damascus.

the city of damascus is at least 4000 years old.

it is recorded as being conquered by pharaoh tutmosis in the 15th century bc and it became the capital of an aramean kingdom from the 11th century bc.

JCanon

5go:
No, there isn't you are talking about a kingdom that left nothing not even a garbage heap.
To give an example we know small villages exist despite their being no written evidence because they tend to leave refuse around. For some thing the size of what David's kingdom was ( heck just Jerusalem alone which from what we can tell did exist as just a village at the time ) not to leave even a garbage heap is damning to the case of it ever existing.

That's not true. As I noted, things change when you just ajust the Assyrian Period by moving the eclipse down from 763BCE to 709BCE. The 763BCE is misdated. Even Wikipaedia noticed!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC
"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"

The eclipse is supposed to occur in month 3, Sivan (Simanu). The next eclipse in this exeligmos series (54 years 1 month) does occur in month 3, which is July 16, 709BCE. When this dating is used, then all the Solomonic palaces that were found occur around the time of Solomon's corrected rule, which is 910-870 BCE.

Finkelstein in "The Bible Unearthed" describes it perfectly on page 142 where he summarizes: "Essentially, archaeology misdated both "Davidic" and "Solomonic" remains by a full century. The finds dated to the time just before David in the late eleventh century belonged in the mid-tenth century and those dated to the time of Solomon belonged in the early ninth century BCE. The new dates place the appearanc of monumental structures, fortifications, and other signs of full statehood precisely at the time of their first appearance in the rest of the Levant."

Please note that the actual archaeological finds match the Biblical dating. That is David should be moved to the "mid-tenth century BCE" per Finkelstein. That's exactly where the Bible dates David, from 950-910 BCE! And note that the evidence of "full statehood" and all those monumental buildings, quite worthy of the legendary Solomon belong to the "early ninth century". The Bible dates Solomon from 910-870BCE, which indeed is the early 9th century BCE.

So the problem here is entirely MISDATING, not lack of evidence. The evidence is here and dated correctly by archaeology, just not correctly dated historically by the popular historical timeline which becomes FIXED for the Assyrian Period based upon that single eclipse reference dated to 763BCE. But again, as you can see, if you move David and Solomon down by just 60 years you suddenly have compatibility. That is what using the 709BCE eclipse accomplishes.

So all the above arguments comparing the Bible's dating with archaeological dating are just for one secular theory about when to date the Assyrian Period and then piggy-backing quite lazily the dating for David and Solomon based upon the Assyrian dating. This ignores the Bible's own timeline that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE as does Martin Anstey. BUT... for those that do use 455BCE as the better Biblical dating for the 1st of Cyrus, we get Solmon's rule falling between 910-870 BCE, which fits precisely where the archaology is. So it boils down to Finkelstein only having a legitimate argument if he can confirm the 763BCE dating for the Assyrian Period. Once that eclipse becomes flexible, then the dating for Solomon and David become flexible as well. If that dating gets moved down in time, David and Solomon become more and more legitimate. So there's little argument.

Your presentation pits archaeology vs the Bible but does so vicariously by ignoring the NB Period and Pesian Period direct contradictions between the Bible and secular history for this period. When that happens you apply non-Biblical timelines based upon secular records for the David-Solomon period comparisons, claiming the Bible dates these kings too early to be archaeologically credible. When that's just not the case.

Bottom line is, there is no true fight between archaeology and the Bible for the Period of the Exodus down through to the time of Shishak. Both agree completely. But those claiming there is a discrepancy don't use the true Bible timeline or the Egyptian-based timeline but the Assyrian-based timeline which is Biblically challenged and contradicted. So all the arguments against David and Solomon are just a "snow job" for people who are not well informed and it actually is a dishonest and inadquate reference since there are other Biblical timelines in place that have to be considered. Finkelstein makes a specific and narrow comparison to a timeline that serves his purpose well for denying David and Solomon, but its ineffective when you use the strict Biblical dating. His arguments are irrelevant since the Bible doesn't date Solomon as early as he claims.

JC

65

The Kingom of David never existed!

by 5go in

david and the kingdom of damascus.

the city of damascus is at least 4000 years old.

it is recorded as being conquered by pharaoh tutmosis in the 15th century bc and it became the capital of an aramean kingdom from the 11th century bc.

JCanon

The inscription appears to confirm that a chieftain called David was not pure invention yet even so, it contradicts the biblical story that it was Jehu who assassinated the tribal leaders in Jezreel.
"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot ... But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot." – 2 Kings 9:24,27

I think there is room for loose interpretation in this case, since it is clear that Jehovah appointed Hazael and was backing him up and using him at this time. It is possible that Hazael thus saw Jehu as an agent of his in these executions. At this time, Hazael and Jehu were both working on the same team and for Jehovah. What is more pertinent, I think is that this inscription confirms the death of these two kings in the context the Bible does. The fact that Hazael takes personal credit for killing these kings could have a practical explanation that does not necessarily contradict the Bible.

JC

65

The Kingom of David never existed!

by 5go in

david and the kingdom of damascus.

the city of damascus is at least 4000 years old.

it is recorded as being conquered by pharaoh tutmosis in the 15th century bc and it became the capital of an aramean kingdom from the 11th century bc.

JCanon

To shorten it down a bit . There is no evidence of the Kingdom of David period. There is no clear evidence to there ever being an Southern controled Israeli Kingdom much less an Empire. Which is what the bible discribes the Kingdom of David and Solomon being an empire that controling the area entire of palestine, and a great deal of the fetile cresent. There also is no clear evidence out side of bible of the existance of David or Solomon despite their great feats of empireship. None of the other empires or kingdoms of the period ever heard of either David or Solomon, despite Egypt and surrounding kingdoms cleary having dealings with Solomon according to the bible.

5go. This seems such an incredible presumption to me. But perhaps I need a bit more information from you. Could you please comment on the fact that Shalmaneser III at the time of the Battle of Karkar shows a coalition between the Israelites and Syria. The Bible indicates as well a 3-year period of peace between Israel and Syria.

1 Kings 22: 1 "And for three years they continued dwelling without war between Syria and Israel."

So there was periods of war and peace between these two empires, and if I recall, they exchanged some of the same cities. So I doubt Finkelstein would be really able to distinguish for this period just who was occupying the city since these cities were occupied alternatively by both the Syrians and the Israelites. So something seems wrong here. I'm going to read your entire information in detail to make specific comments but so far what you say doesn't make clear sense. Finally, Finkelstein only doubts king David's or Solomon's greatness because he has chosen to use the earlier dated fixed Assyrian timeline, that is, that dates the timeline based upon a mistaked eclipse in 763BCE. That forces David,Solomon and Shishak to an artificially earlier time that does not match the archaeology. But when the correct dating and Biblical dating is used in line with the 709BCE eclipse, then everything lines up. Point being, it would be different is Finkelstein was saying there never was any period in Israel that fit the opulence and greatness of Solomon thus he's a historical myth. That's not the claim here. Archaeology proves this grand period in Israel with several incredibly fabulous palaces being found, etc. Thus the only issue is really the timeline. If you move David and Solomon down in time 54 years, then they become quite credible in line with archaeology. In the meantime, Finkelstein ignores RC14 dating from Rehov that is quite specific in dating when this event took place c. 871BCE. Finkelstein does a complete flip-flop in his arguments related to Shishak's invasion, clearly linking the ashlar block palace levels found at Megiddo with City IV destruction level from Rehov, which thus would match Shishak's invasion and destruction of that level. But 871BCE is far to close to the fixed dating for Shalmaneser III and the Battle of Qarar in 853 BCE, just 18 years later. The archaology fits the 72-year period normally between these two events. Being unwilling to reduce a normally 72-year period down to just 18 years, Finkelstein abandons Shishak entirely in association with the "Solomonic" palace levels at Rehov and Megiddo and comes up with an entirely new theory about how Syria must have destroyed these cities at this level much later c. 834 BCE, which is far later than the RC14 dating is pointing to. Below is where the RC14 dating for the fall of Rehov occurs for City IV of Rehov compared to where Finkelstein wants to move it in order to match a destruction by the Syrians much later, not at all connected with Shishak's invasion, though he had academically linked this previously. Thus he discards scientific evidence when it doesn't fit his own chronology!

"Around 835 and 800 BC the kingdom of Aram-Damascus controlled the upper Jordan valley and significant areas in northeastern Israel – and devastated major Israelite administrative centres in the fertile Jezreel valley as well."(Finkelstein, Silberman, p202)
Dan, Hazor, Jezreel and Megiddo were among the cities destroyed.

From "The Bible Unearthed" page 343 Finkelstein says, page 343 "The surprise was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identifical to the pottery of the city of palaces at Megiddo. But the latter was supposed to have been destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak almost a century earlier!... The city of ashlar palaces at Megiddo was destroyed in the mid-ninth century, probably by Hazael, and not in 926 BCE by Shishak." Now note how Finkelstein shifts "mid-ninth century" down to 835 BCE! Yet the RC14 dating specific for the destruction of the ashlar block palacial level at Megiddo, which is identical to City IV at Rehov is dated by RC14 dating to the early mid half of the 9th century BCE as you see above, with specific high probability based upon short-lived grains found there dated to the destruction level c. 874-867BCE. So Finkelstein totally ignores this dating in attempts to move the destructive level to a time that fits the fixed Assyrian Period dating. But that's the whole problem here. Archaeologists use RC14 dating for the Solomonic Period and Davidic Period getting one set of numbers, but as soon as the fixed chronology of the Assyrian Period comes into focus, the scientific dating is discarded if it contradicts the fixed Assyrian Period dates. Instead, it is clear this should have been the other way around. The scientific dating should have been used to preempt the Assyrian Period dating which is clearly dated too early archaeologically. But Finkelstein does not do this. Instead of presuming the Assyrian Period is based upon revised history, he presumes the Bible is revised instead, and ignores the scientific evidence as spurious as well. So he ends up being a true lightweight when it comes to commentary for this period. He's a good archaeologist but totally out of his depth as a Biblical scholar historian or being well versed in the various alternative chronologies and timelines that need to be compared for the rule of Solomon. Case in point, again, if you use the archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho, which falls between 1350-1325BCE, you automatically get a much later Solomonic period. But this dating is ignored. Problem is, the later dating based on the fall of Jericho cross-matches the RC14 dating for Sishak's invasion. Bottom line, you have a completely anti-Biblical and biased archaeologist here. The least Finkelstein could have done is to compare various theories about the timeline instead of going full forward with his pet theory about the mythology of Solomon and David. He's a great gift as an archaeologist, but borderline incompetent in every other area, unfortunately. Bottom line, all this sounds like a good argument against David and Solomon, but only IF you use the 763BCE fixed dating for the Assyrian Period, which is not the Bible's dating and is not the correct dating. Once you correct both the Assyrian Period using the 709BCE eclipse and/or the Biblical timeline based upon 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus or the Egyptian timline for the Exodus and the fall of Jericho where archaeologists are placing it in connection with the reign of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, then you get the same chronology for the reign of Solomon between 910-870 BCE and the rule of David from 950-910 BCE, quite compatible with the archaeological findings. That is, a clear end of the Palestinian pottery period sometime "well into the 10th century BC" per Finkelstein. Thus it is quite fascinating how David and Solomon are mythical in the fabricated period of 1010-930BCE period compared to the just 60 years later in the 950-870BCE period.

JC

181

OKM 09/07 (english)- Just another brick in the wall...

by metaspy in

jw
friends

ok guys and gals, i (being the assistant to the magazine counter) have acquired the newest okm.. i have uploaded it to imagevenue.com: here.

hopefully that works!.

by the way drew, your translation was very close.

JCanon

WHOA. This means they are losing the battle! They are afraid of research more than ever and don't want too much of what is out there to affect the brothers.

In fact, I heard they have plans for two types of Watchtowers, one for the public and one just for witnesses. So they are becoming more and more cultic than ever. It's as if instead of moving away from being corrupt, they are headlong into blatantly being a corrupt organization.

But I suppose after a while it's just about the money.

The GB was "disfollowshipped" from Jehovah's heavenly organization and favor on November 10, 1992. They were told they would be cast into spiritual darkness and that they fulfill the "evil slave" and the "man of lawlessness" that makes themselves a god in God's own house (2 Thess 2:4). Now that is coming true more than ever. You have to now worship the Faithful and Discreet Slave and not study the Bible on your own or in groups. Obviously, lots of witnesses are ignoring them, so I suppose that is well and good. Truly people see through this and realize how corrupt and phony this organization is. No wonder I can't even stand to go to any meetings any more.

Thanks for posting this. I didn't realize it was getting this bad.

Interesting while they talk out of one side of their mouth encouraging JWs to focus on what the GB only says, they put cryptic subliminal artwork in their publications to communicate with all the active Freemasons in the cult.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/Baphomet2X.JPG

JC

8

144k virgins

by IP_SEC in

who did not defile themselves with women.. the 144000 are all men.

they did not defile themselves with women... unless perhaps john was taking the isle of lesbos into consideration too?.

ok 144k male virgins... no wonder it has taken so long for joehoovah to choose the li'l flock!!.

JCanon

LOL, FOR REAL????????
That is bad news for all those hot JW Christian men and women.
Someone should really warn them to get UGLY now while they still can
I'm not making fun of you, JC, but that sentence made me pause and wonder.

Well, I can't blame you for taking it that way, I was being rather cryptic but "beautiful" was in quotes and in the context of something else more specific I'm avoiding saying. But the principal remains the same, i.e. all snakes got punished for what one snake was involved in. That's an interesting observation of the final outcome of things....I find.

JC

8

144k virgins

by IP_SEC in

who did not defile themselves with women.. the 144000 are all men.

they did not defile themselves with women... unless perhaps john was taking the isle of lesbos into consideration too?.

ok 144k male virgins... no wonder it has taken so long for joehoovah to choose the li'l flock!!.

JCanon

Interesting post IP_SEC.

Who did not defile themselves with women.
The 144000 are all men. They did not defile themselves with women... unless perhaps John was taking the Isle of Lesbos into consideration too?
Ok 144k male virgins... No wonder it has taken so long for joehoovah to choose the li'l flock!!

I wonder what this means? Obviously, there's some literary or interpretive license here since we're dealing with Revelation. But if this is not taken literally, then what could "defiling by women" have a reference to, and what would their being "virgins" have reference to? Hmmmm, I suppose I should check out what the WTS claims is the understanding of this before weighing in. In this context though, Babylon the Great is said to be a "harlot" and elsewhere that those approved by God did not have either the mark of the beast on their hands or their forehead. Thus not being defiled by the wild beast. So I'm wondering if this doesn't have something specifically to do with the "mark of the beast" or connection with defilement by the BTG "Mysteries"? Another hint is at Revelation 2:6 where it notes "Still, you have this, that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nicolaus, which I also hate." So maybe we're missing a fine point of focus here not yet appreciated. These members of Christ's Bride class are undefiled by women and are virgins in some spirtual sense, and I'd say, likely in connection with BTG and the "mysteries." So maybe this is saying they are virgins with respect to some aspects of "The Mysteries"? Hmmmm. THANKS. I know what this likely references about them being virgins. It's great! I hadn't appreciated this before. In fact, now I'm pretty sure what this is talking about. Amazing!!! I won't go into it here, but there's a certain very subtle "corrupting" factor that occurs in connection with the mysteries that I think Christ and Jehovah are taking aim at as an important sub-theme for selecting or excluding members of the kingdom, and I think not being corrupted by this corruption by the beast on the hand or forehead constitutes that they are "virgins" in regard to this specific type of corruption. If my assessment is accurate, then it would mean the exclusion of a certain demographic as part of the Bride Class, which is interesting. But as much has already been implied when the Bible says it is next to impossible for a "rich man" to get into the kingdom, more difficult for him to get into the kingdom than a "camel" (knot/camel hump in the thread) to get through the eye of a needle. That is, once the thread bunches up behind the eye of a needle you can't get it through. The few threads that do get through look like the skinny neck of a camel that get through but are stopped by the larger body. That's what I'm thinking this is another reference to. The "Mysteries" must be seen to corrupt in that sense, creating (for last of a better reference) the "rich-man factor." But here's the thing. There is only one demographic who can be corrupted by the RM factor. I don't want to be rude but there are two types of people in regard to being rich or not rich. This one particular demographic can be converted or corrupted into becoming "rich men" by a lot of money. Those outside that demographic are immune to this corruption. They don't become "rich men" just men with money. So in terms of the 144,000 Bride class, this would suggest that no "rich men" are selected, which is sort of an insider tit-for-tat going on between Jehovah and Satan, since the "Mysteries" are also central to the RM factor. What this translates to on a weird "spiritual level" is similar to what happened in WWI in the US where everybody Japanese were put into internment camps, "just to be safe." Japanese people generally were not Christians, they had another religion, they looked different, there were issues of their ties and loyalties to Japan, etc. So it was complex. So just to be safe, all of them were taken out of the general population just because they were Japanese. What that did was eliminated the need to second-guess US or Japanese loyalties or any inherent conflict therein. There wasn't room for compromise. Another bad example, perhaps is where one member of a team goofs up in the military and then the entire team gets punished by having to run extra laps or do extra pushups or something. That kind of mentality. Where there is "guilt by association". So this particular demographic that Satan likes to target apparently is paying for that by being excluded from the kingdom, which is interesting. Actually, a better term for what this means could be understood as "reverse discrimination" because of Satan. Here's one more example. You know the snake in the Garden of Eden that Satan used? Satan spoke through the snake who would basically have otherwise been an innocent bystander? But because Satan used that snake, through no collaboration of its own, it still got punished! God caused it to lose its legs and to crawl on its belly and to eat dust. But someone might say, "Well, what did the snake do? It wasn't its fault Satan used it." Right. But the point here is, the snake got punished by simple association, sort of spitefully. Not as a message necessarily to the snake but a message to how upset God was with Satan. So it's like an extra little message. So in the big picture, this certain demographic whom Satan tends to focus on, is like Satan's preference for a snake. Since a snake is very cautious and cunning, likely a creature with which Satan identifies with more than others, etc. But because Satan chooses the snake, the snake gets punished because of that choice. So God likewise seems to be excluding this certain demographic because of Satan, much like the snake in Eden. It is as if Satan is so reprehensible in God's eyes and so unclean, that the snake was seen corrupted and ruined by Satan having corrupted it. Further, Satan is called a "woman" at Genesis 3:15. The occult mysteries also understands that Satan is a woman...

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html

So this is HEAVY. This doesn't mean if you have the RM factor you can't get eternal life on the earth though, its just that Christ and Jesus perhaps prefer that exclusion. It's like Moses being excluded from entering the promised land. It doesn't mean he was disapproved by God. The snake paid an extra price because of Satan, which is unfortunate. But regardless, that was God's option to exclude on that basis if he wishes.

So it's sort of like those who have a natural advantage in Satan's world, have an equally natural disadvantage as far as the kingdom. What Satan has chosen to defile, like the snake, is completely excluded so that the Bride Class are completely holy, like virgins, undefiled by "women", meaning the Mysteries/BTG likely.

But still, this is a very good way to illustrate it. Because a person is only a virgin once.

OH! Here's another example I just thought of. JUDAS! Now Christ had to be betrayed, right? It was written. In advance. Everybody knows it. But still, even though someone had to betray Jesus for everything to come together, still it is woe to that person through whom that betrayal occurred. Thus once Judas left, Satan was said to have entered into Judas. Even though Judas felt sorry later, it was too late. He's forever lost.

But being of the anointed, I know what this means now. It's sort of hard to explain but I think you see what direction I'm taking this. Put it this way. In the rebellion in Eden, Satan, Eve, Adam and the snake get punished. Eve was totally deceived and the Snake just was a cautious animal. But because Satan corrupted them, they ended up having to be excluded, just like when something unclean touches something clean. What is unclean makes what is clean unclean. It's not the other way around. But in the big picture, it turns out that being a snake is an ultimate disadvantage in the big picture. It would have been preferable to be something else.

Another concept of this? COLLATERAL DAMAGE. I'm fairly certain this is what is being referred to here.

Never mind! I know what this means. Don't worry about it. It's symbolic. God is excluding those "defile by women" which is a cryptic reference, but this defilement is only possible with a certain natural demographic in the population anyway. It's unfortunate, but it makes sense.

THANKS. Ironically, though I hadn't focussed on this before, just the idea of that exclusion makes me feel better. I'm not entirely sure why.

JC

P.S. Let me put it one more way. Being extremely "beautiful" is advantageous and valuable in Satan's Perfect World. Being extremely beautiful is of no particular value or advantage in Christ's Perfect World. But Jehovah has decided since it is an advantage in Satan's world, to make it a disadvantage in Christ's world. So if you're "beautiful" you can't get in. But that makes all the "ugly Bettys" happy because its a world where there are no vanity issues. All that time with make-up. All that time with hair. All that time trying to find the right clothes. Those things are not factors in a world of ugly Bettys. Of course, a gay man has little use for a beautiful woman, if you get my drift.

Hmm, The New Order: a new world full of ugly Bettys and gay men. Definitely a message in there somewhere....

20

atheism vs anti-theism + God as height vs God as depth

by DeusMauzzim in

sharing some thoughts and questions while reading gott ist anders (honest to god) by john a.t robinson:.

disclaimer: if you are a biblical litteralist you might think: what is all the fuss about?

thesis: the mythological speech of the bible, taken litterally, is simply meaningless to modern scientific man.. examples: god walking in the garden, punishing adam and his children (justice?!

JCanon

However, the story of Adam and Eve is something that might be proven or disproved by science, while theories of good and evil would remain the domain of philosophy, would they not? Also, biblical stories, like that of Lot's wife, what's her name, might also be suggested by scientific research, as you suggest. What other biblical stories does science "prove"? A seeming "worldwide" flood? The sun standing still? The Red Sea parting? Yes, there are geological and astrological and oceanic phenomena that demonstrate some of these things may have occurred, but there is no evidence of any god or creator actuating them, only literary references to punishments for the "losers."

Very true on some of these points. But the fact is SCIENCE does not cover all aspects of fact or investigation. For instance, science can neither prove nor disprove whether or not there was ever a conversation between Abraham and Sarah, or that these people actually existed. ALL science can do is confirm that there were humans in that general area at the time the Bible claims they were, or that the ancient cities mentioned were there, etc. Likewise, if you're looking to photograph the air you're going to be waiting for a long time. Science can answer some things, but other things it is not expected to answer because nobody is asking. BUT... for some of those things that we can have reasonable tangibility as provided by science, that is, in matching what we know historically from both the Bible and extra-Biblical sources and what can be reasonably presumed or dated archaeologically, there is some very fascinating compatibilities. So for those folks who would seriously have a conversation about "Oh, we looked and looked and looked with our electronic telescope all over the universe and never saw any God (hello! God is INVISIBLE!)" you just have to check your calendar and see when you're giving another block party to make sure they get invited. These folks can really liven up a party, but that's about it. I'd never make it through a serious course on atheism, I'd be laughing too hard and too much. JC

6

Barbour denies invisible presence -- PDF from 1880

by cabasilas in

russell and barbour separated in 1879 and in just one short year barbour came to reject the idea that christ had returned invisibly in 1874. i only have one page of a july 1880 issue of the herald of the morning (page 2), but he clearly states:.

and he [jesus] will come back to the church, in like manner as they saw him go; and not in an invisible manner.. he goes on to explain the details of "our mistake.".

a pdf of that page from the july 1880 herald can be downloaded here:.

JCanon

YES! Excellent find! Turns out Barbar was precisely correct per my own understanding as well. That Christ would appear secretly to those who specifically understood his second coming in the flesh.

He is teaching that after 1881, Christ will appear in the flesh secretly, to be seen only by himself and those who believe exactly as he believes.

JC

20

atheism vs anti-theism + God as height vs God as depth

by DeusMauzzim in

sharing some thoughts and questions while reading gott ist anders (honest to god) by john a.t robinson:.

disclaimer: if you are a biblical litteralist you might think: what is all the fuss about?

thesis: the mythological speech of the bible, taken litterally, is simply meaningless to modern scientific man.. examples: god walking in the garden, punishing adam and his children (justice?!

JCanon

Thesis: The mythological speech of the Bible, taken litterally, is simply meaningless to modern scientific man.
Examples: God walking in the garden, punishing Adam and his children (justice?!), airbombing sodom and gomorra, sacrificing his Son (or Himself, whatever :) to appease Himself, the resurrection etc.

OOPS! A bit of Freemasonry-level disinformation here. That is, the use of "modern scientific" man here instead of what is more clearly more philosophical or "modern logic" or even "common sense" analyses.

You see, the term "modern" suggests advanced, educated, up to date, improved, accurate. Positive concepts.

The term "scientic" carries with the positive concept of pragmatic, proven, factual, etc.

Thus the very positive concept of "MODERN SCIENTIFIC" is inappropriately applied to the moral or philosophical issues presented such as God testing and then punishing Adam and Eve. That's not a scientific issue, it's a moral, religious or philosophical one. We don't go to science to answer this type of question but to religious philosophy. Same thing with "airbombing sodom and gomorra", another high-level prejudicial concept of the destruction of Sodom and gomorrow. It is prejudicial since the Bible doesn't say god "airbomed" Sodom and Gomorrah, but that it rained down fire and ash. Now there is a scientific aspect of this, but what happened say to Lot's wife, is confirmed scientifically....

For instance, here is the result of volanic ash that reigned down on Pompei and Heruclaneum when Vesuvius erupted. These bodies clearly were frozen by the ash suddenly, much like Lot's wife was said to turn into a "pillar of salt" instantaneously when she looked back. So scientifically speaking, there is a potential consistency with a volcanic destruction of Sodom and Gomorroah and what was described in regards to Lot's wife.

People frozen suddenly while still alive by volanic ash from Vesuvius at Pompei.

Therefore, the very premise of this challenge is prejudicial, approaching a "straw man's" argument where a false premise is set up at the very beginning to be knocked down later, with little substance to the real question.

However, the nature of this question does give us insight into the person asking the question, in that, its a weak argument from the beginning if one had to resort to a prejudicial setup to deal with this topic in the frist place. If the idea of God is so ridiculous, there would be no need to exaggerate and misrepresent the Biblical record to enhance why it's so illogical.

JC