Something strange going on or just remarkable coincidences?

Item 1:

Matthew 27: 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (Remember that the mention of “Jeremiah” here is an apparent “error”.)

Jeremiah 38: 10 Then the king commanded Ebed-Melek the Cu#e, “Take thirty men from here with you and lift Jeremiah the prophet out of the cistern before he dies.” 11 So Ebed-Melek took the men with him and went to a room under the treasury in the palace. He took some old rags and worn-out clothes from there and let them down with ropes to Jeremiah in the cistern. 12 Ebed-Melek the Cu#e said to Jeremiah, “Put these old rags and worn-out clothes under your arms to pad the ropes.” Jeremiah did so, 13 and they pulled him up with the ropes and lifted him out of the cistern. And Jeremiah remained in the courtyard of the guard. (The number “thirty” here is either excessive for the task or symbolic. This number is also not found anywhere else in the entire Book of Jeremiah.)

Repeated ideas: hanging, treasury, Jeremiah, thirty.

Item 2:

From Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, Book 7, Chapter 2, paragraph 1:

And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius Rufus who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken.

Mark 15: 17 They put a purple robe on him (Jesus), then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. 21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.

Repeated ideas: Simon, purple cloak/robe, Rufus.

Item 3:

From Life of Josephus, paragraph 75:

“And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.”

2 Samuel 14: Joab son of Zeruiah knew that the king’s heart longed for Absalom. 2 So Joab sent someone to Tekoa and had a wise woman brought from there. He said to her, “Pretend you are in mourning. Dress in mourning clothes, and don’t use any cosmetic lotions. Act like a woman who has spent many days grieving for the dead. 3 Then go to the king (David) and speak these words to him.” And Joab put the words in her mouth.

Repeated ideas: Thecoa/Tekoa, acting like a woman in mourning, an appeal to a high ranking leader. (Titus was the son of Emperor Vespasian and commander of the Roman forces in Judea.)

Item 4:

Revelation 13:3 “And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”

Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 13, paragraph 3:

3. “In the mean time, Josephus, as he was going round the city, had his head wounded by a stone that was thrown at him; upon which he fell down as giddy. Upon which fall of his the Jews made a sally, and he had been hurried away into the city, if Caesar had not sent men to protect him immediately; and as these men were fighting, Josephus was taken up, though he heard little of what was done. So the seditious supposed they had now slain that man whom they were the most desirous of killing, and made there upon a great noise, in way of rejoicing. This accident was told in the city, and the multitude that remained became very disconsolate at the news, as being persuaded that he was really dead, on whose account alone they could venture to desert to the Romans. But when Josephus's mother heard in prison that her son was dead, she said to those that watched about her, That she had always been of opinion, since the siege of Jotapata, [that he would be slain,] and she should never enjoy him alive any more. She also made great lamentation privately to the maid-servants that were about her, and said, That this was all the advantage she had of bringing so extraordinary a person as this son into the world; that she should not be able even to bury that son of hers, by whom she expected to have been buried herself. However, this false report did not put his mother to pain, nor afford merriment to the robbers, long; for Josephus soon recovered of his wound, and came out, and cried out aloud, That it would not be long ere they should be punished for this wound they had given him. He also made a fresh exhortation to the people to come out upon the security that would be given them. This sight of Josephus encouraged the people greatly, and brought a great consternation upon the seditious.”

Ideas repeated: Survival and recovery from an apparent mortal head wound, reaction of people, chapter 13:3.

A possible explanation?:

allusion, in literature, an implied or indirect reference to a person, event, or thing or to a part of another text. Allusion is distinguished from such devices as direct quote and imitation or parody. Most allusions are based on the assumption that there is a body of knowledge that is shared by the author and the reader and that therefore the reader will understand the author’s referent. ...some authors, such as T.S. Eliot and James Joyce, deliberately use obscure and complex allusions that they know few people would understand. Similarly, an allusion can be used as a straightforward device to enhance the text by providing further meaning, but it can also be used in a more complex sense to make an ironic comment on one thing by comparing it to something that is dissimilar. The word is from the late Latin allusio meaning “a play on words” or “game” and is a derivative of the Latin word alludere, meaning “to play around” or “to refer to mockingly.”

"allusion." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 15 Jul. 2013. .

Interesting, but, I'm not getting your point. (If you break up the text into smaller paragraphs it would be easier to read.) I see that you're comparing Josephus to Bible verses, and that you see "allusions" - are you saying that only those 'already in the know' would be able to 'decipher' the WHOs and WHATs and WHENs of what really happened?

Are you saying Josephus was "Jesus"? Or Simon?

I think there could be something there. Plutarch did the same thing in his works, alluding to things written by Luke in his gospel and Acts. Plutarch's Roman name was Lucius, which could be shortened to Luke.

Another interesting coincidence that may link Josephus to Jesus is one of the early church fathers (I think, I can't remember where I read this) referred to Josephus as "Joseph Bar Matheus", which is remarkably similar to Joseph of Arimathea, the guy who took Jesus' body and set it in the tomb. This coincidence could also line up with Josephus saying he saved three people from being crucified.

S&F

luke, plutarch, josephus, joseph, jesus...

all the same person!

research 'roman piso theory'...

this site is intresting link

Originally posted by wildtimes
Interesting, but, I'm not getting your point. (If you break up the text into smaller paragraphs it would be easier to read.) I see that you're comparing Josephus to Bible verses, and that you see "allusions" - are you saying that only those 'already in the know' would be able to 'decipher' the WHOs and WHATs and WHENs of what really happened?

Are you saying Josephus was "Jesus"? Or Simon?

edit on 15-7-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

What I am suggesting is that Josephus buried a hidden history of Christianity in his "tomb" employing the same techniques used by religious writers to conceal their true meanings. Josephus appears in various forms in the Gospel accounts, but most notably he is Joseph of Arimathea and Joseph the "carpenter" (Josephus admits to building many "walls" during his time as a rebel leader.), while his writings seem to have been personified in the character of Peter. Christ is the "Word" and never existed in this world. Simon was a leader of the "Zealots" who was eventually executed for his participation in the "Jewish" Revolt of 66-73CE.

reply to post by swordwords


Ahhh! Very interesting!! And totally plausible, to boot!

Nice dot-connecting there, sword!!

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
luke, plutarch, josephus, joseph, jesus...

all the same person!

research 'roman piso theory'...

this site is intresting link

I do agree with this theory in a few respects, but I would not identify Josephus with Plutarch or Luke simply because I not seen for myself any solid connection that cannot be explained by other means, while I view Jesus only as a metaphor. However, I do identify Josephus with Justus of Tiberius. "O Justus! thou most sagacious of writers, (that I may address myself to him as if he were here present,)..." Life of Josephus Paragraph 65.

I am convinced that many authors used pseudonym's that disquised their true identity, while at the same time presenting an idea that hints at the nature of their writing. So, if someone wrote of topics that had previously been presented by someone called "Paul", he might use the same name to announce to potential readers the nature of his work or someone else might apply it for him.

yah, i don't agree with the conclusions of the piso theory 100%, but the ways that they use to investigate history seem quite valid and seem to hold true even to this day... i like to apply them to current conspiracy theories.

with the way that biblical authors refrence, often incorrectly, old testement scriptures it does make it look like they are either making up the story or perhaps rehashing an older one.

"beating a dead-horse"?
('the horse' being a knickname for arrius piso)

the origins of the jesus story may go back as far as 10,000 b.c.
the irish origions of christianity
and this site from frank collins have some more on that.

don't know if i should trust the irish
any more than i don't the romans or jews.

reply to post by swordwords


I definitely think Rome tampered with the story. Whether Jesus actually existed or he was just a religious movement personified, I don't know, but I tend to believe a man did exist who was killed for what he taught.

I think John the Baptist was actually Jesus and him baptizing Jesus was actually him helping his wife Mary give birth to a baby. Baptism is euphemism for child birth in my opinion, only called baptism to hide the true significance of birth.

After Mary gave birth, her and John went around preaching a message of love and forgiveness and about the true God inside all of us. The apostle John was actually Mary and Jesus was John during their ministry, while the little child that Jesus called to him in Matthew 18:3 was their son.

I don't think they totally made everything up personally, I just think they tampered with the story to fit their needs.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by swordwords

 

I think John the Baptist was actually Jesus and him baptizing Jesus was actually him helping his wife Mary give birth to a baby. Baptism is euphemism for child birth in my opinion, only called baptism to hide the true significance of birth.

Consider what the Gnostics say about “baptism”:

The baptism which we previously mentioned is called "garment of those who do not strip themselves of it," for those who will put it on and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also called "the confirmation of the truth which has no fall." In an unwavering and immovable way it grasps those who have received the restoration while they grasp it. (Baptism) is called "silence" because of the quiet and the tranquility. The Tripartite Trac, Chapter 15.

If this association of baptism with "silence" is correct, then we should think about what it tells us regarding Tacitus (tacit) and Tranquillus (tranquil). In this context "baptism" represents a "cleansing of sins" by censorship and "coverup". This is not to suggest that either Tacitus or Tranquillus were THE John the Baptist, but they were at least baptizers.

When things don't seem to fit together, you should question your context.

reply to post by swordwords


Its pretty tranquil and quiet while you're in the womb I would suppose, so maybe that's what it means? To be conceived and develop in the womb?

I agree some things in my theory don't completely line up, but that's why I consider it a theory and not fact.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by swordwords

 

Its pretty tranquil and quiet while you're in the womb I would suppose, so maybe that's what it means? To be conceived and develop in the womb?

I agree some things in my theory don't completely line up, but that's why I consider it a theory and not fact.

What is a womb? Some refer to it as a "matrix" or an "egg in a basket". What sort of context does this suggest? A world of false realitiy where everyone wears a mask perhaps?

reply to post by swordwords


A womb as in your mother's womb. Guess what the womb is full of? Water, or amniotic fluid. It could also be interpreted as the world we live in.

Mother Earth, Father consciousness, and us. We are a combination of the Mother and Father which creates the Son.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by swordwords

 

A womb as in your mother's womb. Guess what the womb is full of? Water, or amniotic fluid. It could also be interpreted as the world we live in.

Mother Earth, Father consciousness, and us. We are a combination of the Mother and Father which creates the Son.

edit on 15-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

In my view "water" represents "writings" so again we seem to be in two different worlds.

Also, the Gnostics again have a saying that: "The name of the Father is the Son." (The Gospel of Truth) In order to bring the "mother" into this equation, we have to find the feminine in the "name" itself. In other words, "father" is original concept, "mother" is the "name" which disguises the concept, and "son" is the renamed concept. Or we can look at it this way; the "father" is the hidden meaning, the "mother" is the literal meaning, the "son" combines the two.

The Hebrew alephbet letter for 30 is Lamed of the English equal sound of L. It's like the shepherd's crook, and it is directly in the apex of the alephbet. So they took a shepherd's crook worth of people to get the prophet out of the cistern. The Letter Lamed That's the apex of a consciousness.

The second selection was a Roman ritual. Mock worship.

The third item I see some social engineering and street theater.

Fourth one, a stone to the head. Denied! I see that NLP/hypnosis. I'm peeved that you bolded the words you wanted to bold. Go play your Bible magic on someone else. I have survived some of the hardest mind control of the lands where I came from. The hard church programming. The hard military Manchurian candidate occultism. The evil stuff too from sadistic atheists who want nothing more than to gain pleasure from deceiving an innocent Christian.

Trying to persuade people's tops right into troubles with that spell. No; this one shall not be led astray.

I haven't heard this scripture twisting since I listened to a CIA Mason Fundamental Baptist Deacon. Go away with that crap.

reply to post by swordwords


The Mother is literal (physical), the Father is abstract (spiritual), and the Son is us (physical and spiritual).

I don't think we're in different worlds, we just see the same thing in different ways.

Water represents the physical world and in a way, also writings. Writing is the physical form of thoughts, so the Mother (water/writing) is the physical form of the Father (thoughts/spirit), and like I said, we are both physical and spiritual, making us the Son.

reply to post by Sandalphon

Originally posted by Sandalphon
The Hebrew alephbet letter for 30 is Lamed of the English equal sound of L. It's like the shepherd's crook, and it is directly in the apex of the alephbet. So they took a shepherd's crook worth of people to get the prophet out of the cistern. The Letter Lamed That's the apex of a consciousness.

The second selection was a Roman ritual. Mock worship.

The third item I see some social engineering and street theater.

Fourth one, a stone to the head. Denied! I see that NLP/hypnosis. I'm peeved that you bolded the words you wanted to bold. Go play your Bible magic on someone else. I have survived some of the hardest mind control of the lands where I came from. The hard church programming. The hard military Manchurian candidate occultism. The evil stuff too from sadistic atheists who want nothing more than to gain pleasure from deceiving an innocent Christian.

Trying to persuade people's tops right into troubles with that spell. No; this one shall not be led astray.

I haven't heard this scripture twisting since I listened to a CIA Mason Fundamental Baptist Deacon. Go away with that crap.

I don't get it. Are you upset because you only see coincidence, or are you upset because you don't? If you think it is coincidence, then I don't see what is so upsetting. I did not demand acceptance of my idea and I offered an alternative. In my original post, I left my own comments to a minimum so as not to unduly influence the reader. I can only speculate that your apparent anger at me is due to a fear that I might be right.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by swordwords

 

The Mother is literal (physical), the Father is abstract (spiritual), and the Son is us (physical and spiritual).

I don't think we're in different worlds, we just see the same thing in different ways.

Water represents the physical world and in a way, also writings. Writing is the physical form of thoughts, so the Mother (water/writing) is the physical form of the Father (thoughts/spirit), and like I said, we are both physical and spiritual, making us the Son.

edit on 15-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Well, I would put the Father as physical and the Mother as spiritual. (We seem to be on different sides of the mirror.) In the Gospel of Philip the writer states:

"Some said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?"

If the Gnostics saw the Holy Spirit as feminine then the physical must be left to the Father. My own observations from other sources support the idea that the spiritual is feminine. I suspect that the term "Mother Earth" is intended to represent the masculine covered with the feminine, in the same way that "snow" covers the "ground". If we understand Mary as the physical connection of Christ with this world, then I can understand how the associations you hold were formed, but I do not believe that Christ was a physical being, nor that Mary was really a woman. I see the whole story as allegory. The "literal" is a lie and therefore cannot be "physical".

reply to post by swordwords


Do you believe that Jesus' Father was God? If so, how would you explain this verse:

John 4
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.

The Father is the Holy Spirit while the Mother is the body or vessel of the Spirit. The church is not the body nor the Bride of Christ (consciousness), the Earth is the Bride of Christ and it is the body of God (Spirit).

The church is the whore and they stole the role of Mother Earth and erased her role from the Trinity. The real Trinity is Mother, Father, and Son, a.k.a. body, spirit, and mind.

Peter's name was Cephas, which means "rock" in Aramaic. Earth is a rock floating through space. Peter's name is a dead giveaway because he is the one who founded the church. He denied Jesus three times, showing he is a known liar, meaning his church's foundation is lies.