How about my intention was to get an answer to my question.
And you got my my answer. I also tend to delve into obscure scholia, like Isaac Newton's
The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (
html) and
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (
pdf); the former lists out chronological errors of a magnitude that puts contemporary attribution of biblical accounts out of date by ~500 years for the Greek histories, whereas the latter denotes scriptural tampering of the NT from its Greek, into its Latin maintenance, to propagate theological changes.
These things are echoed in the transcripts by
18 September 2021 for the former,
(Chu) I have a related one. With all this fudging of history, is it true that there was never any vulgar Latin, and the chronology as it's depicted is wrong?
A: Yes
and
7 November 1994 for the latter.
Q: (L) You have often stated that the Bible is corrupted, I would like to know who, exactly, corrupted the Bible and when and how they did this?
A: Illuminati brotherhood for a thousand earth years.
Q: (L) Does this mean that up until a thousand years ago the Bible was fairly accurate?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that the Catholic church had anything to do with this corrupting influence?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Does the Catholic church have in its possession actual original texts of the Bible that have not been corrupted?
A: No.
Q: (L) Were there ever such texts in existence?
A: No.
Q: (L) Who wrote the book of Matthew?
A: Greek enforcers.
Q: (L) What are Greek enforcers?
A: Like your FBI.
Q: (L) Who wrote the book of Mark?
A: Same.
Q: (L) Luke and John?
A: Same?
Q: (L) Acts?
A: Same?
Q: (L) Are any books of the New Testament written by who they claim to be written by?
A: No. Remember this is 70% propaganda.
Q: (L) Is 30% then the truth or the actual teachings?
A: Close. Enough you must decipher from instinct through meditation.
I am aware of an
Oera Linda Book (
pdf) that posits a non-standard telling of "remote antiquity", which may be interesting to the curious reader -- but I haven't trawled through it just yet -- plus you know how these things go ... quaint and useful materials just pop out of thin air to support the next "agenda". The lost
Palastinabuch harks to such mechanisms.
I found it interesting that it looked as if you did not see yourself as "one of us". I'm not saying that this is so, just that it looked that way to me and so I asked a simple question.
Hmm. It could be so! But then again ... what was that saying ... "If you are not with us, then you are against us?" ... I don't ascribe to factional identities, because such conceptualizations always cause problems. I do however bring myself to others, in order to help with some work. So, I'm not "one of us", but I am "with you"?
------------------------------
Given the history of Hamas having been 'created' and funded by Israel, I'm wondering who this 'Hamas' is that is part of these negotiations.
Wouldn't everyone like to know? Hint-hint, wink-wink..... yes this will turn "
scary", as old inquiries reemerge as pertinent.
From Jewish
scholarship, you get:
The term’s ancient presence underscores its unsettling resonance in today's world.
Furthermore, the term isn't confined to Hebrew; it stretches across languages like Aramaic and Akkadian, emphasizing the ideas of oppression and hardship. Modern Israeli media uses 'anshei Hamas' or 'Hamas people' to describe members of the group. This isn't a new term. In the ancient book of Proverbs, there's a caution against envying a 'man of violence,' or 'ish hamas' (Proverbs 3:31).
“Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence.” (Proverbs 3:31-32)
Peeling back these semantic layers reveals a word soaked in historical and spiritual complexity. Yet, in light of recent atrocities, these definitions are more than academic—they’re descriptive of real-life horrors.
The term "Hamas" goes beyond representing a political or territorial battle; it epitomizes a spiritual struggle dating back to Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael. Viewing it through a Judeo-Christian lens, the word is void of its Arabic nuance, becoming synonymous with the brutal acts perpetrated today.
Furthermore, within the geographical sense of this, applied linguistically, the term Gaza, refers to a type of
fabric, or
gauze in the Greek; the related term gossamer, in the Greek-English transliteration, also includes:
a fine, filmy substance consisting of cobwebs spun by small spiders, seen especially in autumn.
Whereas in the Latin, it also refers to a
treasure,
wealth, and
riches.
The trail would end there, were it not for the fact that
Gaza is also pronounced to be of significant importance in the
Fama Fraternitatis, the first of the two original Rosicrucian manifestos, denoting the entirety of their "treasure".
At that time was already dead, Brother I. O. and Brother D., but their burial place where is it to be found? We doubt not but our Fra. Senior hath the same, and some especial thing layd in earth, and perhaps likewise hidden. We also hope that this our example will stir up others more diligently to enquire after their names (which we have therefore published), and to search for the place of their burial; the most part of them, by reason of their practice and physick, are yet known and praised among very old folks; so might perhaps our GAZA be enlarged, or, at least, be better cleared.
Now, to "clear up" a treasure, which is covered by some fabric of suave spider silk, you must first brush off its covering, so that you might be able to properly inspect if that "treasure" is filled with gold, or that its allure is merely the result of some electroplating process -- and thus fake. The only way to do that, in the days when the texts were published, was in the practice of Alchemical allegory and symbolism, literary reference, and Kaballistic
gematria, or accordingly in Greek
isopsephy -- not to mention Bible study. Both the Fama, and the
Confessio Fraternitatis, refer to spiritual questions and matters, rather than any worldly attainments of wealth, prosperity, or domain.
Accordingly, what you have going on in that part of the world, is a very clear hint pointing me, or anyone else interested, into looking towards those treasures undiscovered, and not into worldly concerns. (
I'm working through several volumes at once, so I don't have anything specific to recommend, but the Internet Sacred Texts Archive has got a bunch on Alchemy, Kabballah, and Rosicrucian things)
... Meanwhile at some Synagogue in Manhattan, New York, New York, United States, you've got a rabbinical interpretation of scripture that is justifying human sacrifice for "progress".
"
The greatest lie humanity tells itself, is that we have outgrown human sacrifice. We call it by different names now, and make our offerings to different Gods. We offer young men we call soldiers, as if the designation means their mothers cry less when they die. We call masses of humanity collateral damage, and turn our eyes away from the pictures of their lifeless bodies as we sip our morning coffee. And the truth is, we don't do it because we are heartless, we do it because we believe that it is necessary for the world to keep running.
We do it because we believe that the Gods whose favor we desperately seek -- freedom, security, prosperity, flourishing -- that they demand blood as the price of their favor. We do it because we cannot see any other choice. And maybe that's why we read the
Akeda, the binding of Isaac on
Rosh Hashanah, because the story of the Akeda isn't about inconceivable obedience.
When Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, he's accepting the same bargain of blood that we still accept today, that some need to die for the world to flourish."
Furthermore, her "interpretation" also flies in the face of "accepted doctrine" regarding the Isaac story.
From the Aforementioned
Link:
In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so. Rabbi Ari Kahn elaborates this view on the Orthodox Union website as follows:
Isaac's death was never a possibility – not as far as Abraham was concerned, and not as far as God was concerned. God's commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be "raised up as an offering," and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable. This is precisely how the sages of the Talmud (Taanit 4a) understood the Akedah. Citing the Prophet Jeremiah's exhortation against child sacrifice (Chapter 19), they state unequivocally that such behavior "never crossed God's mind," referring specifically to the sacrificial slaughter of Isaac. Though readers of this parashah throughout the generations have been disturbed, even horrified, by the Akedah, there was no miscommunication between God and Abraham. The thought of actually killing Isaac never crossed their minds.
---
In Glory and Agony: Isaac's Sacrifice and National Narrative, Yael Feldman argues that the story of Isaac's binding, in both its biblical and post-biblical versions (the New Testament included), has had a great impact on the ethos of altruist heroism and self-sacrifice in modern Hebrew national culture.
As her study demonstrates, over the last century the "Binding of Isaac" has morphed into the "Sacrifice of Isaac," connoting both the glory and agony of heroic death on the battlefield.
----
In Legends of the Jews, Rabbi Louis Ginzberg argues that the binding of Isaac is a way for God to test Isaac's claim to Ishmael, and to silence Satan's protest about Abraham who had not brought up any offering to God after Isaac was born. It was also to show proof to the world that Abraham is a true God-fearing man who is ready to fulfill any of God's commands, even to sacrifice his own son:
When God commanded the father to desist from sacrificing Isaac, Abraham said: "One man tempts another, because he knoweth not what is in the heart of his neighbor. But Thou surely didst know that I was ready to sacrifice my son!"
God: "It was manifest to Me, and I foreknew it, that thou wouldst withhold not even thy soul from Me."
Abraham: "And why, then, didst Thou afflict me thus?"
God: "It was My wish that the world should become acquainted with thee, and should know that it is not without good reason that I have chosen thee from all the nations. Now it hath been witnessed unto men that thou fearest God."
— Legends of the Jews
Jacob Howland has pointed out that "Ginzberg's work must be used with caution, because his project fabricating a unified narrative from multiple sources inevitably makes the tradition of rabbinic commentary seem more univocal than it actually is." Ginzberg's work does not encompass the way in which midrash on 'Akedah mirrored the different needs of diverse Jewish communities. Isaac was resurrected after the slaughter in the version of medieval Ashkenaz. Spiegel has interpreted this as designed to recast the biblical figures in the context of the Crusades.
Strange indeed. 
