Covenant theory, Jews and the Nordics

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I heard a Jordan Maxwell piece that mentions that word British is from 2 Hebrew words, Brit (Covenant) Ish (Man) = Covenant with Man.

The words Bnei Brit = Sons (Bnei) of the Covenant (Brit).

The term Brit Mila (circumcision) = Covenant (Brit) of the word? (Mila)
The agreement between GOD and Abraham.

Although it was mentioned the Romans gave the name Britannia, I found another source that claims is from 2 other Hebrew words, Brit (Covenant) Annia (Ship) = Covenant of the ship? Britain was very strong with its Navy.


Here's a good site explaining both pro and con version:

"...British Israelism is not a sect nor is it a cult in the normal sense of the term. The movement is interdenominational and normally does not try to persuade its members to abandon other beliefs. The movement is loosely organized, being divided into widely scattered groups, therefore there is generally little control over the members. According to John Wilson, British Israelism is "an appendage to orthodoxy, existing on the periphery of what is normally believed. , . ." Not too surprisingly, therefore, British Israelites will often remain members of orthodox churches.
An examination of British Israelism and its dangerous errors will be made in the next issue.

REFERENCES
Pro-British Israel Sources

Armstrong, Herbert W., The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy. Pasadena: Ambassador College Press, 1972 pp.125-35; 1975, pp. 20-24, 37-39.
Hine, Edward. Identity of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel With the Anglo-Celto-Saxons (abridged). New York: Maranatha Publ., nd pp 15; 44-45.
————. England's Coming Glories. New York: James Huggins, publ. 1880, p. 203.
Houghton, Henry D. The New World Coming. Toronto: Commonwealth Publ,, Ltd., 1941, pp. 106-10.
Smith, Worth. The House of Glory. New York: Wise & Co 1939 pp. 70-72."



"...Anti-British Israel Sources

Darms, Anton. The Delusion of British Israelism: A Comprehensive Treatise. New York: Our Hope, n.d., pp. 15, 16; 157,58.
Kellogg, Howard W. British-Israel Identity. Los Angeles: American Prophetic League, n.d., pp. 9, 10, 21.
May, H.G. "The Ten Lost Tribes," Biblical Archaeologist no. 16, Sept. 1943, pp. 55-60.
McQuaid, Elwood. "Who Is a Jew? British-Israelism versus the Bible", Israel My Glory, Dec./Jan. 1977-78, p. 35.
Wilson, John. "The Relation Between Ideology and Organization in a Small Religious Group: The British Israelites," The Review of Religious Research, Fall, 1968, pp. 51-60. "


Source

Here's another great site, although it doesn't tie in the 'covenant' theory, it presents a different origin of the Brit words.


"PHOENICIAN TRIBAL TITLE OF "BARAT" OR "BRIHAT" AND ITS SOURCE OF NAMES "BRIT-ON," "BRIT-AIN" AND "BRIT-ANNIA"

THE title of "Prat" or "Prwt," borne by our colonizing Phoenician Cassi prince on his British monument at Newton, is now seen to be clearly a dialectic form of the patronymic title "Barat" or "Brihat" used by the Aryan Phoenicians as recorded in the Indian epics and in the Vedic Hymns, as cited in the heading, the Phoenicians being, as we have seen, a chief branch of the Barats, or the descendants of King Barat, and they are systematically called "Barat" in the Indian epics and Vedas. And this Aryan Phoenician title of "Barat" or "Brihat" is now disclosed to be the Phoenician source of our modern titles "Brit-on," "Brit-ain," and "Brit-ish."


source

I hope this isn't going OT.

Thank you for reading.




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by quintar
 


Wouldnt your post be making the assumption that two different words from two different languages sound similar?
English and Chinese are two different languages: 'Who' in English is a relative pronoun, but the same sounding word is currently the president of China.
Can this be a conspiracy too, as his premier is also called When (Wen)



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mark Roazhar
1) The Stone of Scone.

Only legend says where it came from and the stone has many legends surrounding it. It would be unethical to single out one and claim without research that this is the truth. One way to confirm this would be to take a test sample of the stone and compare it to local stones from the British Isles and those found in the Middle East.
The stone was returned to Sctoland some years ago amongst quite a lot of pomp and ceremony by the Scots


The stairway in Jacobs dream describes the step pyramids built by Egyptian pharaohs like ladders reaching to heaven - also, doesn't that fact that it's a Hebrew patriarch mean anything to you?









11) clicked the link, did a search. "Phrase not found"


go back to the link copy the entire page paste it on word doc go to Find and put in these words -

God save Queen ELIZABETH.
Long live Queen ELIZABETH.
May the Queen live for ever.


I also believe the Ark of the Covenant is in fact an Egyptian chest, where the dried organs of royal kings and pharaohs were stored, not the 10 commandments. For example, why did you think the Hebrews call their royal chest the Ark of the Covenant - because the name signifies covenants or promises that 'god' made with Abraham, would the Hebrews carry the Ark of the Covenant into battle to kill if it really contained commandments like thou shall not kill? The best explanation is that the Ark contained the remains of their ancestral leader who led them into battle.





[edit on 23-4-2008 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
so from 22 points, we've chipped it down to 2.

1) Stone of Scone:

We're not discussing what Jacob was dreaming, but what he was resting his head on at the time, and until we have a confirmed lab sample and orgin of stone, then this point is mute
As I've stated before, the queen was coronated on a plinth, which allows people from all the congregation to be able to see the events unfolding, which is handy when your in a cathedral the size of St Pauls and taking into effect the fact thats she's sat down. If the plinth is very high, then they require steps to climb up them, otherwise they would require a ladder.
Steps are used all over the world and not copyrighted by Egypt

11) May the queen live forever

Checked it, and the phrase does not appear at any point. Check it yourself if you dont believe me!

Again, if you had done some research, then you would also know her name is Elizabeth and not Elisabeth



I also believe the Ark of the Covenant is in fact an Egyptian chest, where the dried organs of royal kings and pharaohs were stored, not the 10 commandments. For example, why did you think the Hebrews call their royal chest the Ark of the Covenant - because the name signifies covenants or promises that 'god' made with Abraham, would the Hebrews carry the Ark of the Covenant into battle to kill if it really contained commandments like thou shall not kill? The best explanation is that the Ark contained the remains of their ancestral leader who led them into battle.


Canopic jar or you could ignore this point

Considering the fact that at the time of the battles the Hebrews were nomadic, then they wouldnt have had many places to store it, and only certain people were allowed near it, you certainly wouldnt allow the women to be left in charge of it
If the Ark is as powerful as the Bible leads us to believe, then why not use it as a weapon? And they thought the same:
Num. 31
Josh. 6:4-15
When it wasnt used in battle, it led the way
Num. 10:33;
Josh. 3:3, 6
Josh. 3:15-17; 4:10, 11, 18
Could the hebrews have gone into battle if God told them do not kill. Ofcourse they did. This is where religion steps in. God gives you the command do not kill, preacher steps in and says "ah, he didnt mean that lot over there, or if they say the name Jehovah!" cue "Life of Brian - Stoning Scene"




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


I have to say you know your history – though there’s plenty more evidence I can get into for example the similarities between biblical characters and Egyptian pharaohs: King David reigned for 50 years, pharaoh Psusennes also ruled Canaan for 50 years at the same time as the biblical king David – both battled the same enemy called the sea people or philistines. Pharaoh Siamun and King Solomon reigned at exactly the same time and again, fought the same enemies in Canaan called the Matani, the Hittites and the Philistines.

This getting annoying - look between 'XV. The Communion' and 'XIV. The Homage.' It's exactly right above 'XV. The Communion.'

www.statusquo.org...

[edit on 24-4-2008 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


interesting thread
in the scotichronicon, scotia an egyptian princess and her husband gaythelos fled egypt and settled in scotland and ireland
scotia was suppose to be meritaten eldest daughter of akhenaten
the lia fail (wonderful stone) came to ireland with the prophet jeremiah and made tea tephi (zedekiahs daughter heir of the throne of pharez)
ruler she was a celebrated irish queen, the kings of ireland were crowned upon it till 500a.d. till it went to scotland became the stone of scone and then the english stole it around 1296a.d returned to the scots, can the irish have it back please lol!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


I see the problem. I was looking for the word 'forever' which you had used in your OP, and not 'for ever'
So, for a Christian ceremony, for the position of Head of the Church of England, which is Christian, you're crying out conspiracy because they use a reference from the Bible about another coronation?

My responses were never about the possibility of Hebrew and Egyptian patriarchs being the same, which is an interesting theory


craic.n.up, you're right, Ireland has every right to the Stone of Scone as Scotland does. If they claim it as plundered booty, then they have to give it the English back as we plundered it from them.

As for the legend of Princess Scotia (or Scota in some places) that is also an interesting read, but there a handful of different versions of who she was and how she got to Ireland, or even who and what she brought with her.
A brief search reveals her possible fathers as Necho II, (610-595BC) or Neferhotep I (1751–1740BC), bit of a jump. I've tried finding decent pictures of the tomb, but cant find any. How much is truth and how much is weaved fantasy remains to be discovered



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

you're crying out conspiracy because they use a reference from the Bible about another coronation?


Yes and no, that was King Solomon's coronation in the bible, with the evidance of King Solomon being Pharaoh Psusennes, such as both King David and Pharaoh Psusennes had sons with almost identical names Solomon and Siamun, the name of biblical King David’s son Solomon means sun for Sol and omon is an alternative spelling of Amen. The name of Pharaoh Psusennes son Siamun means son of Amen. Pharaoh Siamun’s documented battle with the Philistines in Palestine and his capture of Canaan city of Giza, clearly proves an ancient alliance between the Egyptians and the Hebrews.

The famous King Solomon temple in Jerusalem means - temple of the sun god Amen. The temple was most likely built by Pharaoh Siamun who King Solomon’s fabled character was based on. Today all that remains of the temple is the Wailing Wall, where Israel’s Jews still gather to worship in Jerusalem.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

you're crying out conspiracy because they use a reference from the Bible about another coronation?


Yes and no, that was King Solomon's coronation in the bible, with the evidance of King Solomon being Pharaoh Psusennes, such as both King David and Pharaoh Psusennes had sons with almost identical names Solomon and Siamun, the name of biblical King David’s son Solomon means sun for Sol and omon is an alternative spelling of Amen. The name of Pharaoh Psusennes son Siamun means son of Amen. Pharaoh Siamun’s documented battle with the Philistines in Palestine and his capture of Canaan city of Giza, clearly proves an ancient alliance between the Egyptians and the Hebrews.

The famous King Solomon temple in Jerusalem means - temple of the sun god Amen. The temple was most likely built by Pharaoh Siamun who King Solomon’s fabled character was based on. Today all that remains of the temple is the Wailing Wall, where Israel’s Jews still gather to worship in Jerusalem.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by andre18]


Not quite sure where youre getting your information from,

Solomon is derived from the word Shalom, which is 'Peace'

Pharaoh Psusennes I had 2 children, Amenemope, Istemkheb
Pharaoh Psusennes II had one child called Maatkare

Pharaoh Psusennes II ruled after Siamun

King Davids rule was approx 1007BC, which would coincide with Psusennes I who ruled from 1047-1001BC
But then, there would be Amenemope and Osorkon both ruling for about 15 years before Siamun took the throne 986-967BC
Siamun did form an alliance with King Solomon against the Philistines. This pack was sealed with a marriage of Solomon and the Pharaoh's daughter.
The funny thing is, the Bible only ever refers to her as Pharaoh's Daughter. This could be with the record people refusing to accept a gentile (even converted) into their fold

I think you may find this page of interest, as it speaks of possible Israel/Egypt rulings
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 24-4-2008 by Mark Roazhar]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


Besides the evidence I have already put forth there is evidence connecting biblical Abraham to pharaoh Amenemhet the first. According to Egyptian history pharaoh Amenemhet the first was not of royal blood and his family origin is unknown, Egyptology experts believe he seized the throne of Egypt after murdering Pharaoh Mentuhotep.

Jacob takes his Hebrew clan and migrates from Canaan into Egypt, this Hebrew migration into Egypt closely parallels Egyptian history when the Semitic hyksos migrants overthrew the Egyptian pharaohs and seized the throne of Egypt. One of the Semitic hyksos leaders who became king of Egypt was Yakubher (Jacob)

Historical records show that the Semitic hyksos kings ruled Egypt for over a hundred years. The Egyptian people rebuild against these Semitic kings and pushed them into northern Egypt. By 1500 BC a peace agreement was reached between the Egyptians and the Semitic hyksos, which allowed the hyksos people to leave Egypt peaceably and move to Palestine and Jerusalem in the Egyptian controlled land of Canaan. Their gradual and peaceful migration closely matches the bible story of the Semitic Hebrew exudes from Egypt into Canaan in 1447 BC.

An Egyptian pharaoh ordering the deaths of all Hebrew baby boys, the Hebrew mother of baby Moses tries to save him by hiding him in the Nile River. When baby Moses is found by the princess daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh, the princes decides to raise him as her own son. Moses now has two mothers – a royal Egyptian princess mother and a none royal Hebrew mother. Thutmosis the first and his princess daughter was Hatshepsut. Egyptian history verifies that princess Hatshepsut married her brother named pharaoh Thutmosis the second, but when Hatshepsut couldn’t produce the male air to the throne, her brother husband chose a none royal mistress named Isis to produce the male air and named their son Thutmosis the third, the bible story of Moses closely matches the factual Egyptian story of Thutmosis the third.

In the bible story Moses gives up his big chance to become the richest most powerful ruler in the ancient world to become a lowly poverty stricken Hebrew laborer, but wouldn’t becoming ruler of Egypt and Canaan been the most intelligent way to help his fellow Hebrews? The historical facts show that’s exactly what Thutmosis the third did. Once he grew up to become pharaoh of Egypt, Thutmosis the third organized military campaigns with his mighty armies and chariots and defeated the enemies of the Hebrew hyksos who had settled in Canaan.


[edit on 25-4-2008 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
What we seem to have is a split post

The first part I understand and can see what you refer to which, correct me if I'm wrong, is to do with Hebrew and Egyptian shared history, closer history than the Bible states. OK I understand this and there is a lot of evidence which suggests that this version if not probable has a lot of glimmers of truth hidden inside.

The second part was jump involving Aliens, Egyptians and the Queen of England, which when you look at the history books doesnt add up



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


There's a few verses in the bible that do point to aliens and yeah I know what you’re thinking how far can you count on the authenticity of the bible in the first place – but, because the Ten Commandments came from Moses whom being Thutmosis III then it makes sense how they came to be. The Egyptian Book of the Dead includes a list of things to which a man must swear in order to enter the afterlife

I have done away sin for thee and not acted fraudulently or deceitfully
I have not belittled God
I have not inflicted pain or caused another to weep
I have not murdered or given such an order
I have not used false balances or scales
I have not purloined (held back) the offerings to the gods
I have not stolen
I have not uttered lies or curses

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor
Etc etc….

If this theory really is correct and Moses really was Thutmose III then it stands to reason the content of the bible refers to what the Hyksos Kings believed and experienced. When Abraham made a covenant with god I can only fathom it as a real encounter Amenemhet had with Aliens – mainly the Nordics because of Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Who is ‘us’ as well as ‘image and likeness’ god looks like us humans, who out of the aliens resemble us in appearance – Nordics…



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
How can you with one post point out where the Bible is wrong and then in the next hold it up as an example of being right?

Who is God speaking to when he says 'us' I have no idea.
Another question would be who wrote it down?

Moses is usually credited with the writings of Genesis, so theoretically if he had grown up in the palace he would have been taught what was known to Egyptians and therefore heavily influenced. Therefore he may have been thinking of the Egyptian version of creation. In one version Atum creates himself out of the water, creates a piece of land to stand on (or is the land from the water depending on the version read) and then goes about creating the other gods before man. There is also Khepri who also creates the universe.

A Christian view would be that it could refer to two possibilities either the Trinity (speak to a priest) or the other occupants of Heaven (Angels, Serephin, Dominations etc.)

One of the problems is that the Bible is not complete, there are versions, which contain more and sometimes less information than other versions, omit certain parts as they dont fit with that particular view etc or are translated in a different way. It is also important to remember that.

I'm actually enjoying this banter and have upgraded you to friend

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Mark Roazhar]

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Mark Roazhar]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

How can you with one post point out where the Bible is wrong and then in the next hold it up as an example of being right?


Normally I wouldn’t be using the bible as proof of anything but that can all change if the bible was written by Thutmosis III (a real person) and not Moses (a biblical character) If anyone’s going to believe in this hyksos theory at all, where they were expelled from Egypt and invaded and conquered the land of Canaan and changed the name of the land
from Canaan to Israel and divided the land up into 12 tribal states which they named after the sons of Jacob, then you’re going to be wondering how on earth did the Hebrew throne of ancient Egypt and Canaan end up in Great Britain under Queen Elisabeth II. As I’ve already explained:

“A series of powerful invaders the philistines, the Babylonians and Persians conquered the land of Canaan which the Hebrew people called Israel, the Hebrew tribes of Manesseh and Dan joined forces and became the Macedonians. The tribe of Dan became the Vikings, Danish royalty from the tribe of Dan intermarried and became related to
almost all of the monarchies of Europe, including Queen Elisabeth of England, the bloodline of the tribe of Dan was firmly established in royal power circles.”

Etc etc etc……..So summing up the English Monarch is actually under Jewish rule. It’s quite amazing how much evidence there really is, for example the Egyptians actually called these hyksos people the Hebrews!



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
OK so we have the jumping from Israel again, to Queen Elizabeth and now every monarch in Europe.

Surely the British Monarchy are aware of this?
If they are then why would they persecute Jews from the 13th Century and at various times during other rulers, even driven from England during Elizabeth I reign
If they're in every monarchy in Europe and the Vatican is in on it, how would you explain the Spanish Inquisition who had blessings from Both Rome and Sovereignty of Spain to persecute Jews?

How about the fact that each country in Europe has an elected official acting as either President or Prime Minister, with the sovereign acting as nothing more than a figurehead or in some cases abolished completely?

The tribe of Dan becoming the Vikings? The same group of people who had more than one God therefore ignoring the 10 commandments chief rule of "You shall have no other gods before me"? This certainly wouldn't fit



Thutmosis III (a real person) and not Moses (a biblical character)


Its one thing to point out similarities and another to imply that a major historical figure did not exist without deeper research
Moses did exist if your theory is correct, but was known by one name to the Hebrews and another to the Egyptians, which would be in keeping with your theory about the link. Hebrews had their own form of writings as did the Ancient Egyptians, therefore (without actually learning Ancient Egyptian) it is fairly reasonable to conclude that they pronounced his name different too.



Etc etc etc……..So summing up the English Monarch is actually under Jewish rule. It’s quite amazing how much evidence there really is, for example the Egyptians actually called these hyksos people the Hebrews!


What evidence? The word Hyksos is derived from the word "heka khasewet" which means "ruler of foreign lands" so can refer to anyone that neighbors Egypt, not just the Hebrews. It is not established who the Hyksos were and even one Egyptologist Kim Ryholt says:



there are only vague indications of the origin of the Fifteenth Dynasty

and



we also lack positive indications that any of the rulers of the Fifteenth Dynasty were related by blood, and, accordingly we could be dealing with a dynasty of mixed ethnic origin



"One example is the family of the kings Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin of Larsa. Their father had been the ruler of two Amorite tribes, but both he and their grandfather had Elamite names, while they themselves had Akkadian names, and a sister of theirs had a Sumerian name.


No, I like the idea of linking Bible with Ancient Egypt, but the European connection is just stretching too far and has huge gaping holes in it as listed above and not forgetting the original 22 opening statements which have now been shelved



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Yes i know a little about the Viking history - they named themselves after their six great ancestors, the six Hebrew hyksos kings who once ruled Egypt. Six – Hyksos – kings = VI-Kings. The ‘vi’ in their name is the Roman numeral for 6 – 6 Kings.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by andre18]


I never would have thought to take this so literally but it almost makes sense if the Viking word for "king" was phonetically similar to our. What I find interesting here is that VI is not only a Roman numeral, but that in Latin "vi" is a word implying power, force, masculinity, as seen in words such as vitality, vigor and vicious.

Not sure if that is in any way related, but as a linguistic geek who digs Jordan Maxwell, I have a strong tendency to think words are FAR more powerful and meaningful than most of us ever guess.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Very interesting thread. Im completely down with the whole Jewish Britain thing but thats where it stops for me. I believe there are bloodlines that go way back and are still ruling today and it has been made this way so prophecy will be fulfilled. I also find the whole DC Vatican City of London thing very interesting.

But you lose me with the Aliens. I'm sure it fits all well for you someone who has done thier research into aliens but not with me.

Any chance you could provide a picture of this Nordic alien? I'd love to see one and a Grey and a Reptilian man. I'm not having a go at you I'm just frustrated because one half of your theory seems so good then I get lost with the whole alien thing. Which for all I know could be spot on.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
to say that one is related to a thought and due to a likeness in a particular thought; manifesting physically due to this same thought construct. could all surmise what has been posted.

the people who's symbols have become what is modern speech and words are spoken conveying thoughts that were only comprehended via transmission of symbols; also says much: to the learned and the un.

to say that anyone is physically related to a family who came into existence as is the true belief of those who follow any true KMT thought is foolish. but to surmise that somehow gods people were overan by white people who then left to create monarchies and fraternities; is foolish in my opinion. i do wonder how will life purvey after gods children in america grow beyond the confines of any relationship physical or other.

so the op has a conjecture that the "royal" "family" if i can use those two terms in the same structure of thought expression; are related to the symbols and beliefs that they hold dear to their being. i would say bravely that any being is related to the thoughts they hold dear to their being down to the most subtlest aspect of that said mentioned being.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


When it comes to Jewish rule there are a few things that spring up in modern day - Interestingly enough according to the Talmud, King Solomon used the dark power of his magic ring to conjure up demons to help him build his temple. (Just like Saruman Lord of the Rings) The temple became the center for sexual orgies, the worship of golden idols and for animal and human sacrifices, including the sacrifice of infants and children. The biblical Ark of the Covenant was stored inside King Solomon’s Temple, the Ark had 4 gold rings built into its 4 corners each representing the 4 corners of the earth over which descendants of the biblical Abraham are destined to rule.

I mean think about it, did the Hebrew authors of the bible’s Old Testament really expect readers to believe that Abraham lived to be 175, that his sister wife Sarah gave birth at age 90, that Moses turned staffs into snakes and rivers into blood? The Hebrew authors of the bible covered up the fact that the Hebrews and the Egyptians shared the same royal bloodline, the reason for the cover up was because after the Egyptian people forced the Hebrew hyksos kings out of Egypt, the only way the Hebrews could continue ruling Egypt was to hide their Hebrew identity from the Egyptian people. They did that by changing their Hebrew names to Egyptian names and intermarrying with Egyptian royalty just like the biblical Joseph did.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


When it comes to Jewish rule there are a few things that spring up in modern day - Interestingly enough according to the Talmud, King Solomon used the dark power of his magic ring to conjure up demons to help him build his temple. (Just like Saruman Lord of the Rings) The temple became the center for sexual orgies, the worship of golden idols and for animal and human sacrifices, including the sacrifice of infants and children. The biblical Ark of the Covenant was stored inside King Solomon’s Temple, the Ark had 4 gold rings built into its 4 corners each representing the 4 corners of the earth over which descendants of the biblical Abraham are destined to rule.

I mean think about it, did the Hebrew authors of the bible’s Old Testament really expect readers to believe that Abraham lived to be 175, that his sister wife Sarah gave birth at age 90, that Moses turned staffs into snakes and rivers into blood? The Hebrew authors of the bible covered up the fact that the Hebrews and the Egyptians shared the same royal bloodline, the reason for the cover up was because after the Egyptian people forced the Hebrew hyksos kings out of Egypt, the only way the Hebrews could continue ruling Egypt was to hide their Hebrew identity from the Egyptian people. They did that by changing their Hebrew names to Egyptian names and intermarrying with Egyptian royalty just like the biblical Joseph did.



So you're OK with the idea that Solomon used a magic ring to bring forth demons to build a temple to God as well as a whole host of other magical things he could apparently do according to Rabbinical literature, BUT, have trouble getting to grips with the plagues of Egypt, sticks and snakes, and Men living beyond their years?
Thats a little bit contradictory isn't it?

By the way the four rings on the Ark were so it could be lifted by inserting poles. Touching of the Ark itself meant death as some more guy called Uzza found out
Numbers 7:9; 10:21; 4:5,19, 20; 1 Kings 8:3, 6






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join