War with the Benjaminites, maidens of Jabesh-gilead and the daughters of Shiloh.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

I edited my last comment because I don't find fiction appropriate as a description of the Bible.

I think it is a combination of history and mythology, with an exo/esoteric structure requiring years of experience and study along with a commitment to ever increase in wisdom in order to fully understand.

I feel as a matter of fact that the Holy Spirit is reality,( real not being sufficient to describe) and if you follow the instructions spoken of by Jesus in the 4 Gospels regarding how to enter the Kingdom of God you are doing a very real thing. If you follow the one good example that Solomon set and instead of asking for/expecting Salvation to be a ticket to heaven and request that the Holy Spirit guide you in Wisdom so you may have the eyes that see and the ears that hear, (lest you NOT be saved) then no amount of enlightenment, gnosis or illumination can combine to equal the Wisdom that becomes your destiny courtesy of"The Advocate", "Spirit of Truth" and "Comforter."

When John the Baptist speaks of the Baptism of "Spirit and of fire" it is the only time it is mentioned (fire). But fire represents both Wisdom and purity and is a crucial aspect of Baptism. It goes unnoticed by most but I believe that the water washes away repented sins, the Spirit is in you as emerge from the water and fills you with fire for God. Fire can also be passion.

First you MUST believe though.

So you have all four of the elements the ancients divided everything into. Water, wind(Spirit is like the wind), fire and earth (humans). And four Gospels.

The Shekinah column of cloud/fire and the Holy Spirit descending as tongues of fire at Pentecost are also direct descriptions of the "fire" aspect.

Some Biblical references to Holy Spirit fire: Isaiah 4:4, Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:16-17 & 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

Ahh, never thought of that. The burning bush, the Seraphim's meaning of fiery serpents for their Wisdom. Flaming sword. Could it be that the sword of the Cherub guarding the way to Paradise means Wisdom is all that stands between us and Eden?


And those who are immune to the fire when thrown in are always those who are Wise in the ways of God.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

And the best proof of a second or esoteric message in the old Testament is Jesus himself.

There are no Messianic prophecies about a Messiah who is born of a virgin, establishes a new covenant with God, dies on a cross is resurrected on the 3rd day and ascends to heaven.

Unless you piece together random passages that were never considered Messianic in the first place AND use the Septuagint, because the Hebrew says alma which means young girl AND that isn't a Messianic prophecy either.

Also, theologians often use the term Elohim as proof of the Trinity when it originally meant"Mighty Ones" "GodS" then just "God" in majestic terminology. It is translated God as in God the Father, Yahweh, etc. who makes personal appearances as Elohim that clearly have nothing to do with the Son of God, or ben Elohim would be written.

It just wasn't the reason for the use of the plural Elohim to refer to Yahweh, God, Shaddai or any of his names. There exists a legitimate academic and historic reason for it.

So doing that IS finding esoteric meaning. It is not correct in any way, but WHEN done correctly and not amateurishly or to add legitimacy to something, when it is true and/or was written into the text for that reason, it is a pearl.

Eloihim is the plural for 'elowahh' and both are used for "god". In its plural form it refers to the true God and in its singular form, a false god. A good example of the usage of the word "Elohim" was when Baal (presumably Baal Haddad, the chief Baal) is being challenged by Elijah at Mount Carmel. Elijah issues the challenge "If YHWH is Elohim then follow Him but if Baal is Elohim, follow Him". Here we can see that Elohim is used as the generic word for 'God' and both Baal and YHWH are used as specific identifiers/names.

I am also aware that Isaiah 7:14 doesn't specifically say "virgin", as you said, it said used a more generic term for young woman (not a child but not having been intimate with a man). In Genesis 24:43-44 the woman who would become Isaac's bride is described using the word "alma", she was very specifically to be a virgin so that the word 'alma' does NOT exclude the possibility of interpreting it as having the meaning 'virgin'.

But after the birth of Christ, this passage in Isaiah was revealed to have referred to a virgin birth, which had occurred in Mary's case.

Isaiah 7:14 read in context, was definitely a prophecy and was specifically about the future of the house of David.

The idea of the 'virgin' woman as mother of the Messiah actually starts in Genesis 3:15, where God mentions emnity between "seed of the woman" and "the serpent". The only example of a woman at the time was Eve who, although she was Adam's mate, had not yet borne children (by inference, a virgin).

The Mazzarah (meaning "constellations"), the Jewish equivalent of the Zodiac, tells a story in constellation images and primary star names; the constellation Bethulah (meaning virgin) is figured as 'embracing' the star Tsemech (meaning 'the branch' an epithet used almost exclusively for the Messiah). Although this is not Biblical in a textual form, the idea of the virgin birth of the Messiah is clear in tradition from, at least, the period of the Babylonian captivity.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

And the best proof of a second or esoteric message in the old Testament is Jesus himself.

There are no Messianic prophecies about a Messiah who is born of a virgin, establishes a new covenant with God, dies on a cross is resurrected on the 3rd day and ascends to heaven.

Unless you piece together random passages that were never considered Messianic in the first place AND use the Septuagint, because the Hebrew says alma which means young girl AND that isn't a Messianic prophecy either.

Also, theologians often use the term Elohim as proof of the Trinity when it originally meant"Mighty Ones" "GodS" then just "God" in majestic terminology. It is translated God as in God the Father, Yahweh, etc. who makes personal appearances as Elohim that clearly have nothing to do with the Son of God, or ben Elohim would be written.

It just wasn't the reason for the use of the plural Elohim to refer to Yahweh, God, Shaddai or any of his names. There exists a legitimate academic and historic reason for it.

So doing that IS finding esoteric meaning. It is not correct in any way, but WHEN done correctly and not amateurishly or to add legitimacy to something, when it is true and/or was written into the text for that reason, it is a pearl.

Eloihim is the plural for 'elowahh' and both are used for "god". In its plural form it refers to the true God and in its singular form, a false god. A good example of the usage of the word "Elohim" was when Baal (presumably Baal Haddad, the chief Baal) is being challenged by Elijah at Mount Carmel. Elijah issues the challenge "If YHWH is Elohim then follow Him but if Baal is Elohim, follow Him". Here we can see that Elohim is used as the generic word for 'God' and both Baal and YHWH are used as specific identifiers/names.

Well, Eloah is practically never used, and the definitions I gave for Elohim were all correct. Eloah is probably the feminine generic term for goddess but either way I don't think it was anything that needed a rebuttal. Elohim is a plural word for Gods that developed over time to mean Yahweh. Baal had his own family called Baalim. But, going back to Canaan Baal was still an Elohim. It refers to the entire Pantheon of ancient Canaan under the God El and Goddess Asherah. Baal was El's grandson. If the Israelites incorporated it into their language, like Baal, which can also mean lord or prince, it doesn't change the former meaning.

I am also aware that Isaiah 7:14 doesn't specifically say "virgin", as you said, it said used a more generic term for young woman (not a child but not having been intimate with a man). In Genesis 24:43-44 the woman who would become Isaac's bride is described using the word "alma", she was very specifically to be a virgin so that the word 'alma' does NOT exclude the possibility of interpreting it as having the meaning 'virgin'.

It excludes it in this instance. The definition of Alma, young girl, does not need to exclude the possibility of virginity. It is just in the case you speak of they are talking about a young girl who is also a virgin.

Alma is never used as a word for virgin. It does not mean virgin. It was mistranslated as any Hebrew scholar will confirm. Plus, as I said, that was not a Messianic prophecy to begin with. It would be nice if you work with me and don't try to dismiss what I know to be true already. I'll debate the unproven but not the proven.

But after the birth of Christ, this passage in Isaiah was revealed to have referred to a virgin birth, which had occurred in Mary's case.

Isaiah 7:14 read in context, was definitely a prophecy and was specifically about the future of the house of David.

It was actually a prophecy for the person he is speaking to. The prophecy is going to be witnessed by Ahaz. The sign is that a young woman is currently with child. This child is going to grow to be a danger to Ahaz. It's very clear.

The idea of the 'virgin' woman as mother of the Messiah actually starts in Genesis 3:15, where God mentions emnity between "seed of the woman" and "the serpent". The only example of a woman at the time was Eve who, although she was Adam's mate, had not yet borne children (by inference, a virgin).

See, you just read something allegorically as though it has double meaning!

I applaud you for it, although I can't agree because Judaism and virgin birth were and probably still are like oil and water and not a chance would I assume that the author of Genesis had that in mind. Virgin birth never was and still isn't a Messianic requirement in Judaism. There was a Turkish Jew who was getting so well known as the Messiah that the Monarch of the country gave him the option of conversion to Islam or beheading and he converted. It's in that doc. I gave you.

Point is, he wasn't born of a virgin or the only son of God and they were almost ready to declare him the Messiah.

The Mazzarah (meaning "constellations"), the Jewish equivalent of the Zodiac, tells a story in constellation images and primary star names; the constellation Bethulah (meaning virgin) is figured as 'embracing' the star Tsemech (meaning 'the branch' an epithet used almost exclusively for the Messiah). Although this is not Biblical in a textual form, the idea of the virgin birth of the Messiah is clear in tradition from, at least, the period of the Babylonian captivity.

It has never been part of Messianic tradition to have a virgin birth. Still isn't. It's common in the pagan traditions.

Branch is somehow related to the Nasi, head Nazarene or maybe even the whole sect.

The root of Jesse would be my guess as to what the branch is symbolic of.

It was passed to James who was a die hard and well respected Jew with power and a die hard loyal serious following. Then he embraces Jesus movement late, maybe even post resurrection, and the rulers put a stop to it. If not you would have a Messianic Judaism centered in Israel right now. He would have prevented the 68 rebellion I'd imagine.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, you got me sidetracked. The reason I mentioned the use of the plural Elohim as a name for one God was to show you that Christianity has its own allegorical methods of interpreting the Old Testament.

Pastors all the time say that the reason is because of the Trinity.

But it is allegorically interpreting, which happens to work much better when the author actually meant it.

And the whole Eden story is laced with allegory. You don't think that the tree of knowledge was a real tree that's fruit made you recognize evil do you?

a reply to: chr0naut

Here is a great example of what I mean when I talk of deeper meaning than literal only.

Tongues of fire, cloven tongues. Why tongues, why cloven?

Tongues is obvious, reminiscent of before Babel when everyone spoke the same language, except only some could understand and because of the Spirit. God's tongue is said to be fire in the OT as well.

But why cloven? Serpents have cloven tongues. But why say that?

James 3:6 has something to say: How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. ...it sets on fire the cycle of nature (or wheel of birth), and is itself set on fire by hell.

So the tongue is cloven because it sets the cycle of nature on fire AND is set on fire by hell. Like the serpent the tongue can be wise and evil. And at the same time. If you don't have the Holy Spirit.

Again in 3:9 With it we bless God the Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God.

Now we progress from 2 bad scenarios of the tongue, to 1 good 1 bad and then James states "this ought not to be so."

Finally in 13 the title of the paragraph is Two Kinds of Wisdom. That from above and that from this world.

Now if we take Jesus words "On earth, as it is in heaven." We solve the problem of the cloven tongue, and turn the 2 wisdoms into 1, the above kind.

One who tames the tongue has mastered Wisdom.


See, from a seemingly meaningless phrase like cloven tongues, I have extracted a good and proper meaning by using the fire-tongue connection in James as a clue.

James' words bring the true meaning out of Luke's. Imagine if you increase wisdom to the point no parable could confound you.

And parables. Christ himself states he uses double speak "lest they turn and be saved"
To paraphrase. But a parable is a story with a hidden meaning, a pearl, not for swine.

And the OT is full of them. When I studied with a fundamental church they were trying to tell me this about the OT but the guy couldn't find the word and already knowing what he was going to say(based on his previous words) I said"esoteric" and said "exactly."

And they truly believe it is a true history down to the last detail. Just they believe that since man can master the eso/exoteric concept that God is even better at it and can hide meaning infinite ways if he chooses. He makes it this way for the same reason Jesus used parables.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

you have taken your own thread so far off topic that it is not longer on target.

This is your method. Dismiss, Distract (off topic) and then Demean the 3D's of the disinformationists arsenal.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

If the teaching is allegorical then it can't have a literal. I do believe we are literal beings that were created by this Elohim. If not then we are allegorical, and if so we are not who we think we are and therefore we cannot know ourselves literally but only allegorically. Which means we are living in a fantasy beyond our comprehension because only literal beings can understand an Allegory.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

I love when people have literally nothing better to do than complain about something that is not in any way a problem to or for anyone just because they are bitter about...whatever.

But then turn around and add a pitiful attempt to insult with a corny phrase that wouldn't hurt the feelings of sensitive Susan on her saddest day.

Allegory is an aspect of my thread and so is the Bible.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

But Gnosisisfaith/././././.Szarah/Lenatasatanel

I adddressed your OP and the fact that Jehovah did not approve of the taking of the women by the Bejamites. www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you did not respond to it but once again Dismiss, Distract and demean.

Sorry your OP said nothing about it being allegorical, actually the way your wrote it you interpreted it literally and said Jehovah approved of what was done to the women they took as wives.

Your not being honest

Please remember you can't say that Judges 19 was allegorical and interpret it literally.

Either Judges 19-21 literally happened or it is allegorical. If it did not literally happen so there has to be a interpretation of the Allegorical meaning Israel is something other than Israel, the sons of Benjamin are something other than the sons of Benjamin and Jehovah is something other than Jehovah.

So Rabbit trailing and distraction from truth is your method and always has been. Demeaning is another you are nothing more than a disinformationist and you always have been since you first started way back in Dec and were summary banned in every other ATS User accounts

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Please remember you can't say that Judges 19 was allegorical and interpret it literally.

Can, did, and will again. It's kind of the point and what I have been saying and doing all along.

Either Judges 19-21 literally happened or it is allegorical.

Or it is a combination of both. Literal and allegorical content can easily be combined. I guess I just don't have that simplicity of mind that you do.

So Rabbit trailing and distraction from truth is your method and always has been. Demeaning is another you are nothing more than a disinformationist and you always have been since you first started way back in Dec and were summary banned in every other ATS User accounts

Now you are just talking trash. I haven't demeaned anyone.

You are a disinformationist and have 17 accounts.

I tried it. I don't see what you get out of being such an enormous toolbox but I think you need to stop. Where does your gigantic bitterness come from?

You have lost your saltiness.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

The real point is you made no mention of Judges 19-21 being allegorical in the OP.

And it is not allegorical.

If it was then you not only didn't identify it as such and you failed to give the Allegorical interpretation. But instead gave an Literal interpretation the Jehovah advocated the acts of the sons the Benjamin taking brides by force.

No what you have been doing all along in your many ATS user accts is disinformation about the accuracy of the Bible and the legitimacy of Paul.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

It cant be both or you don't understand literature at all.

No Just go back and reread you went so far off track with Cos that the OP is not even in the subject, That is rabbit trailing.

No bitterness but remember you have already tried that many times with me.

Why don't you just Go away as ATS is getting tired of banning all your user accts and because of your IP mask you are causing others to be banned summarily because of your use of false IP's.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: LenatasataneL

The real point is you made no mention of Judges 20 being allegorical in the OP.

The real point is you are in need of something to complain about and someone to hound.

And it is not allegorical.

Yes it is. Prove otherwise.

.

You are a CIA Jesuit Freemason who sells Kabbalah water when not Mormoning.

While we are making up stuff. Is that what is hip nowadays?

a reply to: LenatasataneL

I already did prove your literal interpretation that Jehovah was compliant with them taking brides.

You are the one now making the accusation is it allegoric.

Now you prove it is by giving the allegorical interpretation.

Otherwise you making a false unverifiable statement (which is against the posting rules) fact are to back up any claim and so far you gave none.

The Benjaminites could actually be viewed as prophecy of the Christians.


They sin, experience great tragedy, and are redeemed by God's mercy and oath of the covenant of Israel.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

First that is too general to be an allegorical interpretation. What you have shared is your private interpretation of the Benjamenites who are under the law as is Israel and try to force them to be Christians today who are not under law according to your understanding of Christianity.

If anything that is a type not an allegory. Like I said earlier you fail to understand literature.

See how Paul uses Hagar and Sarah in the only allegory found in scriptures.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: LenatasataneL

First that is too general to be an allegorical interpretation. What you have shared is your private interpretation of the Benjamenites who are under the law as is Israel and try to force them to be Christians today who are not 8under law according to your understanding of Christianity.

If anything that is a type not an allegory. Like I said earlier you fail to understand literature.

See how Paul uses Hagar and Sarah in the only allegory found in scriptures.

You are going to say something negative no matter what I say.

You see one story. I see a story, within that story is a prophecy that is private interpretation in your eyes because you didn't think of it.

But, brief and general it may seem to you but only because you can not see or recognize profundity, it is accurate and pretty damn awesome. You don't need a million words to drop a pearl of Wisdom.

"... before swine."

a reply to: ChesterJohn

From my perspective you are what I will call a Bible baby.

Now I am going to tell you a few things that means.

1. You at best are familiar with beginner level knowledge of the words themselves. Not the meaning or the inner meaning just basic ability to repeat.

2. You throw verbal temper tantrums whenever someone looks upon the Bible with scrutiny, or just plain disagrees with you. Name calling, false accusations, b.s.

I'm guessing you are a grown man , why did you choose to become a Christian if you can't do the most basic thing and be humble, non judgmental and carefree about the thoughts of people? Christ was not bitter and adversarial.

Why the hell are you?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You asked for an example and I came up with that in 1 minute or less. It works.

Give me an hour, a day, a week...

You can go on believing what you believe and I could not care any less about you being a Christian Freemason.

So why bother me?