Gog Magog

As I write this report, I am listening to Richard Hoagland on the Art Bell Show pronouncing sagely upon this wonder. He reiterates over and over how much the face looks like the face on Mars, or a primitive hominid type face, and I'm sorry that I don't see that in it at all. To make my point, here is the Glyph as it appears in the field:

And here is the face after I have used standard, automatic enhancements from my Photo Edit program:

I'm sorry, but the cupid's bow mouth and the deepset eyes suggest a woman's face to me, not a Neanderthal nor the face on Mars. And, in point of fact, on the very night this crop circle appeared, I had a dream.

In this dream was a set of images. The first set was a pair of wavy lines like the symbol of Aquarius. This used to be the symbol of the Great Mother Goddess and it represented water, consciousness, creativity, infinite energy and potential. The second set of images was the same wavy lines that had become serpents. I was puzzled by this transformation, but a voice explained it to me. You see, after the conquest of our reality by the Dominator Male Gods, the Compassionate Mother Goddess was "transmogrified" into a Serpent, or accused of consorting with a serpent. (This is standard Machiavelli: accuse your enemy of what you, yourself, are.) At this point, the worship of the Father and Son took over, paving the way for Male dominated Monotheism and all concepts of cyclic time and rebirth were overlaid with that of linear time and hell-fire and damnation.

This is what the voice told me as I was shown the images of the wavy lines and the serpents:

"The Mother Matrix is the Primal Source of all that exists in your realm. She has two faces - life giving and death dealing - and it is up to you which face you see. Those who gaze upon the Mother Matrix seeking to control her with rituals or domination or restriction in their hearts, will see only serpents - and will experience only destruction. For the Mother is a Mirror. Those who gaze upon her with non-anticipatory love in their hearts, will receive all the bounty of infinite potential."

Click to expand...

I would say that this face is telling us that the mother will soon be showing herself to us, and it is up to us which face ultimately manifests in our realm.

Click to expand...

In Genesis, we read:

10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
10:3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
10:4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Click to expand...

Notice the remark about "isles of the Gentiles."

Click to expand...

Obviously, something was going on in the ancient world that has been recorded in the Bible as the "history of the Jews" (which wasn't), and later turned into "Holy Writ."

In the passage from Ezekiel we notice several of the "sons of Japheth" being named as places:

38:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
38:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal...

Then later, he mentions the land of Magog is in the same breath with "them that dwell carelessly in the isles..."

39:6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles...

Why should people in the "isles of the gentiles" be described as living carelessly? Is that "carelessly" as in "without cares," or is it carelessly as in not taking sufficient care in some way that led to an incident in which such carelessness became a "marker" for these people? Perhaps a famous blunder of some sort?

The only place on the planet that has been called Gog and Magog for any considerable length of time in our history is in England: the Gog Magog hills near Cambridge.

Curiously, crop circles appeared in a field near to these hills exactly two months before the September 11th attacks on New York.

Historians suggest that the Gog Magog hills got their name because of the innumerable human bones that have been found there; evidence of a battle so fierce that it reminded the locals of Ezekiel's passage about Gog, king of Magog.

The earliest reference to this name for these hills is in a decree of 1574 forbidding students to visit them or be fined. Nowadays, they are still a trysting area. A map dating from the end of the 16th century also depicts the Gogmagog Hills.

There is a small problem here, I think. How did the locals know about the prophecy of Ezekiel?

John Wycliff's hand-written manuscripts in the 1380s were the first complete Bibles in the English language. They were obviously not widely available.

William Tyndale printed the first English NEW Testament in 1525/6. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of the forbidden book. Only two complete copies of that first printing are known to have survived. Any Edition printed before 1570 is very rare, most of them were confiscated and burned.

Myles Coverdale and John Rogers, assistants to Tyndale, carried the project forward. The first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.

Considering this timeline, it seems questionable that the locals around the Gogmagog hills should have give such a new name to their hills, or that it would have become commonly known to everyone, such that a decree could be published in less than 40 years regarding same. Considering the fact that having or reading the Bible was a crime for most of those 40 years, it is not likely that the local people would have wanted to reveal their knowledge of the name in this way. One would also think that if ancient battle sites were subject to being renamed in this fashion after the release of the English Bible, many other ancient battle sites would have received Biblical names as well.

Even though there is no proof, it seems to be highly probable that the Gogmagog hills were called that from more ancient times, and for a different reason.

There are two figures of the giants Gog and Magog that strike the hours on a clock at Dunstan-n-the West, Fleet Street, but few people in London seem to know why they are there. Adrian Gilbert writes in his book, The New Jerusalem:

Once more we have to go back to Geoffrey of Monmouth's book, in which there is a story of how, when Brutus and his Trojans arrived in Britain, they found the island sparsley inhabited by a race of giants. One of these, called Gogmagog, wrestled with a Trojan hero called Corineus and was eventually thrown to his death from a cliff- top called in consequense 'Gogmagog's Leap'.

In the 1811 translation into English of Brut Tysilio, a Welsh version of the chronicles translated by the Rev. Peter Roberts, there is a footnote suggesting that Gogmagog is a corrupted form of Cawr-Madog, meaning 'Madog the great' or 'Madog the giant' in Welsh. It would appear that with Gog of Magog, the name of a war leader who the Bible prophesies will lead an invation of the Holy Land at the end of the age.

In another version of the Gogmagog tale, the Recuyell des histories de Troye, Gog and Magog are two seperate giants. In this story they are not killed but brought back as slaves by Brutus to his city of New Troy. Here there were to be employed as gatekeepers, opening and closing the great gates of the palace.

The story of Gog and Magog, the paired giants who worked the gates of London, was very popular in the middle ages and effigies of them were placed on the city gates at least as early as the reign of Henry VI. These were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666, but so popular were they that new ones were made in 1708 and installed at the Guildhall. This pair of statues was destroyed in 1940 during the Blitz, the third great fire of London, when the roof and much of the interior furnishings of the Guildhall were burnt. A new pair of the statues was carved to replace them when the Guildhall was repaired after the war.

We should note that the dates of Henry VI are from well before the English Bible was available.

The prophecies of Ezekiel date from sometime around 695-690 BC, and we would like to consider the question as to where he heard the term "Gog, Magog" and what terrible battle was fought in the past that was used as a model for Ezekiel's prediction to which this name was attached?

As it happens, there are three terms often associated with archetypal battles: Armageddon, Gog Magog, and the Trojan War. Right away, we notice a homophonic similarity between Megiddo and Magog and it seems that we have a clear connection between Gog, Magog, Troy and Britain.

Those of you who have read Who Wrote the Bible might be interested to know that the untimely death of the hero - King Josiah - of the author of most of the Biblical texts - Jeremiah - died in the valley of Megiddo and that was the end of the story. Note also that this tale is actually a doublet of the story of the death of King Ahab who was of "The House of David."

Megiddo also features in the story of the deaths of the sons of Ahab found in II Kings, chapter 9. This chapter chronicles the death of Jezebel as well. The reason I mention these odd little semi-mythical connections is because I am persuaded that careful examination of Biblical texts compared to many other sources, including hard scientific ones, can assist us in forming at least a vague picture of our true history. Those stories did not come into existence in a vacuum and could not have been foisted on the people if there wasn't something in them of truth.

We now want to ask the question: Do these three wars, Armageddon, Gog Magog, and Troy have anything in common?

Click to expand...

Tom Lethbridge said:

The figures appear to show a goddess, with a waning moon above her head, walking her tired horse up a ribbon of white. Behind her a figure waves a sword, but he seems to have been unable to stop her passage and has perhaps been wounded in the attempt. Before the goddess a huge round figure appears above her on the hillside, with rays streaming from his head. He must be the rising sun.

This is surely a remarkable coincidence, for is not this the same story as that of Siva destroying Andhaka in a moonlight festival?

The third figure, with his sword and shield, must be the demon of darkness, who has tried to stop the moonlight and been worsted by the sun. If this is right, then the goddess is the Celtic equivalent of Maha-devi, Siva's wife. ...

[Harold Bayley in his "Archaic England"] has no hesitation in lumping the Meg and mag names of stone circles, together with Magon and explaining her as the Grat Mother, the Great Earth Goddess and a source of fertility.

Once again the coincidence is too great. There are four Meg's or Mag's hills, each of them rounded, breast-like hills, within four miles of our goddess. The hills on which she lies are the Gogmagog Hills and she apparently has four breasts in the picture. She must be Magog. Just as Magog's name seems to have been applied to these breast-shaped hills here; so was that of the the Cailleach, a female deity, in western Scotland. There are two, close together, on either side of Broadford in Skye. They are the breasts of the Great Mother. At the same time, or so it seems to me, she must be Maha, Siva's wife and the sun god must be Gog. Of course, his Celtic name may have been Belenus, or Taranis, and she would certainly have been Diana in Roman times. But the local aboriginal inhabitants, overrun in turn by Celts, Belgae, Romans, Saxons, Norsemen and Normans, knew them by the ancient root-names, common over wide areas of the earth, as Gog and Ma-Gog. ...

Gog is the sun, the rolling, goggling, all-seeing eye, just as Siva is the shinging one. Ma Gog is the moon, under whose pale light the love-making took place and the children were born. The victory of these two light bringers over the power of darkness is what I think these figures symbolized. ...

The Helith figure at Cerne appears to be Gog too. He is Helith, synonym for Hercules; but Hercules is also Ogmius in Roman Gaul. If he is traced a little further afield, the Baal of Hiram, king of Tyre, was represented as Hercules. But Baal was a sun god and his Beltane ceremonies survived in Britain down to the eighteenth century. A doggerel rhyme names the Cerne Hercules as Beelzebub.

Gog and Magog seem to have been the Powers of Light, ... London paid great veneration to Gog and Magog. How Magog came to change her sex, we shall never know.

We seem to have stumbled on widespread evidence of the former worship of the powers of Light and the mythological representation of their war against the powers of Darkness. With the powers of light are also associated the emblems of fertility. Magon is the Great Mother, the Earth Goddess; together with the sun she renewed the seasons and dispelled the winter darkness. ...

The Gaulish Hercules was known as Ogmius, which appears to ve a variant of Gog. The Irish knew him as Ogma Sun-face and also Balor. ...

...the sun myth ... opening the Doors of Heaven after a triumph over the demon of darkness...

The horses... three ancient ones, Bratton, Uffington and Tysoe... Dr. Margaret Murray has drawn our attention to the story of Lady Godiva and the probable connection between her withe horse and the White Horse of Uffington. ...Uffa of Uffington is not derived from some unknown Anglo-Saxon landowner, but related to the Greek Ippos, a horse. Ippos itself is clearly related to the name of the north Gaulish horse goddess, Epona...

Lady Godiva was just taking the place of the goddess at some ritual procession at Coventry in honour of Epona

It was Gog-diva (not Godiva), the holy lady Gog. In other words the rider represented Ma Gog. ...

These ritual processions of nude women on white horses, riding out to confer benefits on the people, are closely related to the Kintyre tradiation. There the struggle with the demon of darkness was actually portrayed in mimic conflict. Godiva at Coventry was veiled in her hair; at Southam she was painted black. The ceremony would have ended in an unveiling, when the New Moon was then revealed. At Banbury she had bells on her toes to scare off the demon. Demons hate noise. That is what the bells are for. ...

Why do the Continental represeantation of Epona show her with a key in her hand? This is usually explained as being the key of the stables; but men do not pay great reverence to a goddess whose only power is to be able to unlock the stable door... they want something for themselves. Epona is holding the Key of Heaven, just as the Long Man of Wilmington appears to be opening the doors. ...

Whatever line of approach you take, you seem to end up at the same point. You appear to come up against traces of a belief, underlying all the little creeds of different tribal godlings, that the powers of light, typified by the sun and moon, waged a perpetual war against the powers of darkness. It was to aid the powers of light in their struggle, to assist the powers of productiveness if you like, that people re-enacted these myths year by year. ...

This must have been a creed that originated in a relatively high latitude. It cannot have been though out in India or Egypt, but in some land where winter and summer were clearly divided. It must have spread in many directions from some common centre where men had time to think things out. Somewhere, at LEAST four thousand years ago, men evolved a belief, which semed so obviously correct at the time that it was accepted wherever it was carried. Its spread must have been one of the great events in the history of the world. ...

Siva, in one of his aspects, is the destfoyer of life: Maha-devi, in her Kali aspect, is also a destroyer. Yet at the same time they are worshipped as the bringers of fertility. This is explained by the belief of their devotees in the transmigration of souls. Transmigration is not quite the same as reincarnation, for it includes the belief in man's rebirth as a lower animal. This belief is presumably the result of the mingling of the reincarnation belief with totemism. Death is just the gate to another bodily existence. But the one thing which made a great impression on many Roman writers, including Julius Caesar, was that the Druids believed also in the transmigration of souls. ...

It looks to me very much as if the transmigration belief is part and parcel of the other and that the Druids were, in fact, the priests of Gog and Magog.

Click to expand...

Lethbridge said:

How Magog came to change her sex, we shall never know.

Click to expand...

The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets said:

Magog
"Mother of Gog," biblical name of the Scythian-Amazonian Goddess and her land in the north, whence came equestrian warriors greatly feared by the Semites, to judge from the prophets' lengthy cursings and invocations for their defeat(Ezekial 38).
Authors of Genesis made Magog a "son" of Japheth (Genesis 10:2), though Japheth himself was not a Hebraic hero but a borrowed form of the titan Iapetus in Greek myth. From this bit of syncretic confusion arose the impression that Magog was a male, and a giant, for a titan's offspring would naturally be another titan.
Though tribes of western Asia continued to worship Magog as a Goddess, in Europe "Gogmagog" was usually envisioned as demonic colossus. "Ma" was merged with the Celtic mac to yeild an interpretation of "Gog, son of Gog." Gog and Magog were commonly used names for any pair of colossal figures, especially figures of pagan deities. Yet, curiously, "Gog and Magog" appeared in Renaissance magic books as two of the Ineffable Names of God.

Click to expand...

Well, let's look at this little problem. In my opinion, there's a real possibility that the "god" that the man around whom the Jesus myth accreted WAS talking about in terms of the "heavenly father" and the "kingdom of god" was "Beelzebul."

In "Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God," Michael L. Humphries analyzes the "Beelzebul controversy" and draws some fascinating conclusions, though he doesn't go as far as I have in the above statement. When reading his analysis, it occurred to me that it was obvious that the god of the real "Jesus" WAS Beelzebul.

Walter Bauer proposes:

Perhaps - I repeat, perhaps - certain manifestations of Christian life that the authors of the church renounce as "heresies" originally had not been such at all, but were the only form of the new religion - that is, for those regions they were simply "Christianity." The possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the majority, and that they looked down with hatred and scorn on the orthodox, who for them were the false believers.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the attitude the Cathars had toward the Catholic Church - that the church was the false religion. They also claimed that the god of the Old Testament - the Jewish Yahweh/Jehovah - was the evil demiurge. We notice that Christianity has adopted this god as the "father of Jesus."

So, clearly, something is wrong with Christianity as we know it.

Norman Perrin wrote:

The central aspect of the teaching of Jesus was that concerning the Kingdom of God. Of this there can be no doubt and today no scholar does, in fact, doubt it. Jesus appeared as one who proclaimed the Kingdom; all else in his message and ministry serves a function in relation to that proclamation and derives meaning from it. The challenge to discipleship, the ethical teaching, the disputes about oral tradition or ceremonial law, even the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins and the welcoming of the outcast in the name of God - all these are to be understood in context of the Kingdom proclamation or they are not to be understood at all.

Click to expand...

Burton Mack writes:

The concept of the kingdom therefore functions like a "skeleton key" whereby all seemingly loose threads are gathered into a unifying whole; and comprehension comes only to the reader who knows this to be true. [...] Crossan effectively argues on behalf of a sapiential or ethical understanding of the kingdom as represented by a first-century Mediterranean Jewish peasantry. The kingdom constitutes a present reality characterized by social and cultural engagement with ruling powers ... resistance against oppression.

Click to expand...

I don't know why it doesn't occur to biblical scholars such as Mack, to consider the hyperdimensional hypothesis and compare Jesus to the Siberian Shaman who has access to the "kingdom."

The Beelzebul controversy has been going on for a long time. Nobody really understands the meaning of the accusation that "He [Jesus] casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons."

The designation of Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons (Satan) is difficult to trace to any other source. According to one scholar quoted by Humphries:

The derivation of the name is disputed, and is in any case unimportant for the meaning of the text, since Beelzebul is simply a popular name for the prince of demons. The name dos NOT occur in Jewish literature, but appears to represent the same figure as Belial in the intertestamental literature. (Marshall)

Click to expand...

Humphries does not agree with this easy tossing away of the importance of the etymology of the name. He points out that Marshall says 1) the name is absent in the Jewish literature, and thus disputed; BUT 2) is said to represent a popular name for the ruler of demons! That is contradictory.

The precise explanation of the name Beelzebul is, apparently, without documentation prior to the composition of the biblical text. It appears later in the writings of Origen, Hippolytus, and "The Testament of Solomon."

The correlation of Beelzebul with the "ruler of demons" (Satan) is actually quite problematic. Hippolytus, in fact, distinguishes between Beelzebul and Satan and Origen makes no connection between the two at all.

The brainwashed type of Bible scholar (the true believers with an agenda) tend to assume that Beelzebul was a well-known lord of demons, but that is, in fact, not the case. It is not established that Mediterranean Jews customarily regarded Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons." This designation only occurs in later Christian literature.

Humphries argues a connection between Beelzebul and the Canaanite-Syrian deity zbl bl ars, or "the prince, lord of the earth".

Beel is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Beel from the Hebrew Baal, meaning "owner," "lord," or "prince." The problem is with the "zebul" part.

The majority of New Testament texts read "Beelzeboul" but the Vulgate and Syrian text cite the alternate: Beelzeboub. This leaves open the possibility that there was an association between Beelzebul(b) and the ancient PHILISTINE deity Ball zebub (Baal muian in the Septuagint "Lord of the flies"). Some scholars propose that Beelzebul and Baalzebub are one and the same. The more likely possibility is that Baalzebub represents a pun ("lord of the flies") on the original name of Baal zebul whose rule was not limited to the region of Philistia.

The reading of this name that seems to be gaining support translates the name as: LORD OF HEAVEN. This thesis was developed by W.E.M. Aitken and Lloyd Gaston. Each took a different approach to analyzing the word ZEBUL, and arrived at the same conclusion that ZEBUL signifies the DWELLING OF GOD, whether heaven or a temple.

This conclusion came from analyzing rabbinic literature. According to Rosh ha-shanah 17a: "There is no zebul except the temple, for it is written: 'I have built thee a beth zebul.'"

In Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, it is said that ZEBUL is the name of one of the SEVEN HEAVENS.

According to Hagigah 12b, ZEBUL is the fifth heaven ...

These reading apparently derive from the saying in 1 Kings 8:13, where BETH ZEBUL represents a parallel expression for Yahweh's eternal dwelling, and from Isaiah 63:15, where ZEBUL designates the heavenly throne of Yahweh. Habakkuk 3:11 uses ZEBUL as the "dwelling place of the Sun and Moon." Aitken draws the conclusion:

This makes it clear that ZEBUL was understood specifically of the dwelling of God, whether that was though of as the temple on earth or the heavens; in later ages when the temple has disappeared it was still used of heaven.

Click to expand...

Additional evidence was provided by another scholar, Gaston, who pointed out that the Septuagint texts of 1 Kings 8:13 and Isaiah 63:15 translate ZEBUL with the Greek OIKOS, meaning "temple."

So, it seems pretty certain that Beelzebul means Lord of Heaven or the one that dwells in the dwelling place of God.

So, how did he come to be known as the Lord of Demons???

One theory suggested is that this was a Jewish thing, a rendering of Baalshamaim, the Jewish name for Zeus Olympios. Baalshamaim was a pagan sky god whose cult was a source of rear and hatred for loyal Palestinian Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes whom the book of Daniel labels the "abomination of desolation." The argument is:

1) since Baalshamaim is a foreign deity, he is a demon ("for all the gods of the nations are demons" psalms 95:5)

2) Since he is the god of heaven, he is the chief rival of Yahweh, and therefore must be Satan, the ruler of demons.

3) Because Yahweh is the only TRUE god of heaven, therefore, no other deity can carry that name - Baalshamaim) and therefore an alternate designation is necessary: ZEBUL replaces SHAMAIM.

It is also thought that the principle target of the text could have been the early Jesus people, keeping in mind that Jesus identified himself with the "master of the house" which they took to be threats toward the Temple.

Of course, all of the above assumes that we are discussing a real, historical event, and it is not really clear that this is the case! The Q document gives no indication of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding his behavior toward the temple. The charge that Jesus sought to destroy the temple is a much later story wrapped around Jesus - the same as the claim that he was the "son of god."

Moreover, there is another possible interpretation for ZEBUL: elevate, exalted, height, glorified.

That, of course, fits better with my notion that what was being discussed as the "kingdom of god" was actually an understanding of hyperdimensional realities.

There is quite a bit of discussion of this word and its possible etymology in the book referenced above.

Bottom line is, to the Jews, all other gods were demons, so, if there was any historical reality to this event, what it means is that the basis of the accusation was that Jesus cast out demons by the power of some foreign god.

As I suggest, maybe he did.

The point is that this was a charge of "deviance." The accusation is saying: "He is not one of us, he is not a Jew, he is not a child of Israel, but a child of Beelzebul." And, since Jesus was said to be a Galilean, from the North, this makes perfect sense. The charge was intended to label Jesus as an outsider: he does not belong.

Jesus retort is introduced with a statement that he is able to discern the strategy of his accusers - that they intend to label him as a deviant. The charge of Black Magic is intended to defame, to diminish, to label Jesus as an outsider and to garner support against him. Being labeled in this way is supposed to draw lines, to create in others the impression of us vs. them.

The response is in two parts.

The first part is his remark about the disasters that befall those who are divided: the charge of demon collusion to cast out demons is absurd because everyone knows that a divided kingdom falls.

This does not, of course, address the deeper charge of deviance; it only attacks the surface logic of the accusation. The accusers are, essentially, caught in a trap for the issue of the unity of the demonic kingdom was not even in their minds.

Since this is a chreia - an elaboration tale that was created to exemplify what Jesus WOULD or MIGHT have said in such a situation - one scholar suggests that it was based on some knowledge of the real Jesus, that it is possible that when Jesus was once reproached for exorcising demons by Beelzebul, he retorted: "Devil against devil? some strategy!" This is a clever bit of sophistry similar to the numerous Cynic chreiai.

However, he does not counter the charge of deviance!!!

What he does is point out that when the accuser's own sons perform exorcisms, they are not charged with demon collusion so, what the accuser grant to their own sons - that they are performing exorcisms by the power of god - must also be granted to Jesus, or the sons will also be held up to question. In other words, the practice of exorcism itself precludes demon collusion.

This does not, of course, necessarily mean that there were Jewish exorcists because we must remember that this is a chreia, not a historical account, but rather a clever story created by later Jewish Christians within a Jewish context. The implication is actually deeper. Humphries writes:

The force of the arguments aims to locate oneself within the Israelite field, to designate and legitimate one's ethos thereby. The discourse is not about distinguishing between valid and invalid exorcisms, but about being for Beelzebul or for Yahweh, for Satan's kingdom or Yahweh's kingdom, an outsider or an insider. [...] It is also quite clear... that Jesus' response turns the tables on his accusers. Insofar as they refuse to recognize the power of the kingdom in his exorcisms, they find themselves in danger of standing outside the kingdom. No one belonging to the kingdom of God could identify Jesus' exorcisms, or any exorcism for that matter, a s satanic. If the accusers do not accept the "quality in common" ... if they do not grant to Jesus what they grant to their own sons, then it is precisely this failure of recognition that renders the accusers themselves as deviant. And so a sharp distinction is indeed established. The exchange between Jesus and his accusers constitutes a battle over who represents the legitimate expression of Israel.

Click to expand...

Clearly, to my mind, the individual writing this story understood himself as an "insider" of Israel and sought to use this method to draw Jesus in as an insider as well. This suggests strongly that Jesus WAS an outsider to Israel, was NOT a Jew, and Beelzebul WAS the name of the deity Jesus "promoted" originally.

Click to expand...

#941020

Q: When did the Aryans invade India?
A: 8243 years ago.
Q: Who was there before that?
A: Asian tribes and number 3 prototype.
Q: What is a number 3 prototype?
A: Known as Neanderthal man.
Q: And what are we?
A: Number 4 types c and d. Translation into English
comprehension.
Q: Were the Aryan/Celts the original giants?
A: No.
Q: What white men were seen in South America and talked
to the tribes there and promised to return one day and were
worshipped as Gods.
A: Egyptians and Atlantean descendants.

Click to expand...

The Basque language is thought to be a genetic language isolate. Thus Basque contrasts with other European languages, almost all of which belong to the large Indo-European language family. Another peculiarity of Basque is that it has been spoken continuously in situ, in and around its present territorial location, for longer than other modern European languages, which have all been introduced in historical or prehistorical times through population migrations or other processes of cultural transmission.

Click to expand...

A widespread belief that Basque society was originally matriarchal seems to conflict with the clearly patrilinear character of known family inheritance structures. There have been attempts to reconcile these points by assuming that the latter represents an innovation. In any case, the social position of women in both traditional and modern Basque society is somewhat better than in neighbouring cultures, and women have a substantial influence in decisions about the domestic economy. In the past, some women participated in collective magical ceremonies, and were key participants in a rich folklore, today largely forgotten.

Click to expand...

Christianisation of the Basque Country has been the topic of some discussion. There are broadly speaking two views. According to one, Christianity arrived in the Basque Country during the 4th and 5th century but according to the other, it did not take place until the 12th and 13th century. The main issue lies in the different interpretations of what is considered Christianisation. Early traces of Christianity can be found in the major urban areas from the 4th century onwards, a bishopric from 589 in Pamplona and three hermit cave concentrations (two in Álava, one in Navarre) were in use from the 6th century onwards. In this sense, Christianity arrived "early".

Pre-Christian belief seems to have centered around a female goddess called Mari. A number of place-names contain her name and would suggest these places were related to worship of her such as Anbotoko Mari who appears to have been related to the weather. According to one tradition, she traveled every seven years between a cave on Mount Anboto and one on another mountain (the stories vary); the weather would be wet when she was in Anboto, dry when she was in Aloña, or Supelegor, or Gorbea. One of her names, Mari Urraca possibly ties here to a historical Navarrese princess of the 11th and 12th century, with other legends giving her a brother or cousin who was a Roman Catholic priest. So far the discussions about whether the name Mari is original and just happened to coincide closely with the Christian name María or if Mari is an early Basque attempt to give a Christian veneer to pagan worship have remained speculative.

Mari's consort is Sugaar. This chthonic couple seem to bear the superior ethical power and also the power of creation and destruction. It's said that when they gathered in the high caves of the sacred peaks, they engendered the storms. These meetings typically happened on Friday nights, the day of historical akelarre or coven. Mari was said to reside in Mount Anboto; periodically she crossed the skies as a bright light to reach her other home at mount Txindoki.

Click to expand...

Strabo's account of the north of Spain in his Geographica (Strabo) makes a mention of 'a sort of woman-rule - not at all a mark of civilization' (Hadington 1992), a first mention of the - for the period - unusual position of women. “Women could inherit and control property as well as officiate in churches. Combined with the issue of lingering pagan beliefs, this enraged the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, perhaps leading to one of its most savage witch-burnings in the Basque town of Logroño in 1610”.
This equality existed well into the twentieth century: “...matrilineal inheritance laws, and agricultural work performed by women continued in Basque country until the early twentieth century. For more than a century, scholars have widely discussed the high status of Basque women in law codes, as well as their positions as judges, inheritors, and arbitrators through pre-Roman, medieval, and modern times. The system of laws governing succession in the French Basque region reflected total equality between the sexes. Up until the eve of the French Revolution, the Basque woman was truly ‘the mistress of the house,’ hereditary guardian, and head of the lineage”.

Click to expand...

Although they are genetically distinctive in some ways, the Basques are still very typically west European in terms of their Mt-DNA and Y-DNA sequences, and in terms of some other genetic loci. These same sequences are widespread throughout the western half of Europe, especially along the western fringe of the continent. The Sami people of northern Scandinavia show an especially high abundance of a Mt-DNA type found at 11% amongst Basques. Somewhat higher among neighbouring Cantabrians, the isolated Pasiegos have a Mt-DNA V haplogroup of wider microsatellite variation than Saami. [24][25][26] Autosomal genetic studies confirm that Basques have a very close relationship with other Europeans, especially with Spaniards - who have a common genetic identity of over 70% with Basques.[27]

It is thought that the Basque Country and neighbouring regions served as a refuge for palaeolithic humans during the last major glaciation when environments further north were too cold and dry for continuous habitation. When climate warmed into the present interglacial, populations would have rapidly spread north along the west European coast. Genetically, in terms of Y-chromosomes and Mt-DNA, inhabitants of Britain and Ireland are closely related to the Basques,[28] [29] reflecting their common origin in this refugial area. Basques, along with Irish, show the highest frequency of the Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1b in Western Europe; some 98% of native Basque men have this haplogroup. The rest is mainly I and a minimal presence of E3b.The Y-chromosome and MtDNA relationship between Basques and people of Ireland and Wales is of equal ratios as to neighbouring areas of Spain, where similar "ethnically Spanish" people now live in close proximity to the Basques, although this genetic relationship is also very strong among Basques and other Spaniards. In fact, as Stephen Oppenheimer has stated in The Origins of the British (2006), although Basques have been more isolated than other Iberians, they are a population representative of south western Europe. As to the genetic relationship among Basques, Iberians and Britons, he also states (pages 375 and 378):

By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory... ...75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples...

In fact, according to a European wide study, the main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% ("Basque") in Spain and more than 60% ("Near Eastern") in the Balkans. [30] [31]

Before the development of modern Genetics based on DNA sequencing, Basques were noted as having the highest global apportion of Rh- blood type (35% phenotypically, 60% genetically). Additionally Basques also have virtually no B blood type (nor the related AB group). These differences are thought to reflect their long history of isolation, along with times when the population size of the Basques was small, allowing gene frequencies to drift over time. The history of isolation reflected in gene frequencies has presumably been key to the Basque people retaining their distinctive language, while more recently arrived Indo-European languages swamped other indigenous languages that were previously spoken in western Europe. In fact, in accordance with other genetic studies, a recent genetic piece of research from 2007 claims: "The Spanish and Basque groups are the furthest away from other continental groups (with more diversity within the same genetic groups) which is consistent with the suggestions that the Iberian peninsula holds the most ancient West European genetic ancestry."[...]

The main theory about Basque origins suggested that they were a remnant of Paleolithic Europeans inhabiting continuously the Franco-Cantabrian region since at least Magdalenian times, and maybe as early as the original colonization of Europe by Homo sapiens. This has been now proven wrong by recent genetic (Mytochondrial-ADN) studies that show a common Celtic ancestry for the people inhabiting northern Spain and western France.

Click to expand...