Frog & Scorpion: Daniel 11:40-45 & Revelations 9, 13 &16

Chapter 11:40-45 of the Book of Daniel describes a conflict between the "king of the North" and the "king of the South"; whereas the Revelation of John includes a Prophecy of a "beast of the sea" and a "beast of the earth"; which, as previously explained, symbolizes, respectively, the consciousness of the "self" and the political establishment; and the consciousness of the 'thinker' and the monotheistic religious establishment...

All of which is reminiscent of a story about a scorpion (a 'beast' of the earth) and a frog (a 'beast' of the sea) told to me by my Hebrew teacher almost 30 years ago:

A scorpion was wanting to get across a river. So he yells at a frog swimming in the river, asking him if he will give him a ride to the other side.

"Not on your life", the frog responds; scorpions and frogs being mortal enemies. "As soon as we get to the middle of the river you will sting me to death."

"Be reasonable," the scorpion responds. "Why on earth would I do something so stupid? It would make no sense; it is not in any way logical. If I sting you, then we both die."

After 'thinking' about it for awhile; the frog becomes convinced by the scorpion's argument; and the scorpion crawls onto the frog's back.

As soon as the frog gets to precisely the middle of the river, the scorpion stings him.

Plaintively, the frog says to the scorpion "Why? Why did you do this?"

The scorpion replies: "You forgot: this is the Middle East."

Both the dualistic consciousness of the "self" and the dualistic consciousness of the 'thinker' are fundamentally suicidal. Freud referred to it as the "death instinct".

It is only the third dimension of consciousness--the non-dualistic consciousness, the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'--which is NOT suicidal.

The problem here is that the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is what has power on this planet.

The problem here is that the manifestation of these dimensions of consciousness--the political officials and the religious 'authorities'--are precisely those people who are asserting their control over the events in the Middle East; pushing this civilization into the horrors of Armageddon.

Of course, it makes no logical sense whatsoever. It is an exercise in mutual annihilation.

But that is what the Middle East is all about.

And, for those who are interested, "scorpions" are mentioned in Revelations 9:10; whereas "frogs" are mentioned in Revelations 16:13.

According to Revelations 13:11 (this is echoed in Sura 27:82 of the Quran), the "beast of the earth", consciousness of the 'thinker', monotheistic religious establishment--these are the "scorpions"--"speaks with the voice of the dragon"; the "voice of the dragon" being the duality which originates in the 'movement' of self-reflection that the "dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan" symbolizes. That duality is the sting of the "scorpions".

And, in Revelations 16:13, the "demon spirits" coming out of the mouth of the "dragon"-media, the "beast"-politicians and diplomats, and the "false prophet"-monotheistic religious 'authorities'--which are inciting the Battle of Armageddon--are referred to as looking like "frogs".

These "demon spirits" conveyed by the media are both the threats of war against Iran, threats of conflict if the "peace process" does not succeed (propagated by the "beast" politicians and diplomats), and the denials, perversions and contradictions of Revealed Truth by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities'...

Which the "dragon"-media officials of the mainstream, alternative, and Internet print and broadcast media simply WILL NOT ALLOW to be contradicted
.
Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Your analogy between the scorpion-frog story and the two sets of figures in Revelation breaks down on the detail.
There is no suggestion in Revelation that the "beast from the sea" and the "beast from the land" are at war with each other.
Again, there is no suggestion that the scorpion-stinged locusts mentioned at in ch9 and the frogs mentioned in ch16 are at war with each other. There's no sign of any kind of relationship between them

I find it very suggestive that the experience of the victims of the scorpion-stings, as described by John, is also the experience described by Job.
"In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death will fly from them"- Revelation ch9 v6
While Job complains; "Why is light given to him that is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul
Who long for death and it comes not, and dig for it more than for hid treasures.?"- Job ch3 vv20-21
This resemblance, found under the "fifth trumpet" is not a coincidence, because a very similar resemblance can be found under the "fifth bowl";
"Men gnawed their tongues in anguish, and cursed the god of heaven for their pain and sores"- Revelation ch16 v11
While Job is afflicted with loathsome sores, and his wife says to him "Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God, and die".-Job ch2 v9

The trumpets and the bowls are parallel sequences (the bowls, it seems to me, are intended to be understood as the climax and conclusion of the process begun by the trumpets).
So the fifth trumpet and the fifth bowl can be taken together.
They seem to imply that humanity undergoes a collective "Job" experience, in which they feel overwhelmed by their troubles, and feel a sense of despair. This despair is apparently of such intensity that it is equivalent, in comparison with normal despair, to a state of wanting to die and not being able to.

If your pride will allow you to accept an interpretation based on reasoned examination of the text, you ought to be able to make use of that one in your own homilies.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Your analogy between the scorpion-frog story and the two sets of figures in Revelation breaks down on the detail.

Of course I know that you 'think' that.

But that is the difference between the thoughts of a 'thinker' and Revelations received from God. (You might want to look at the Book of Isaiah 55:9 in regards to this. But I doubt it.)

I am still very 'religious', by the way, in not even so much as reading any of the nonsense that you write on your threads about the Revelation of John. But the implication of what you are saying on this thread is that I am lying in my explanation. That is an accusation vomitted out by the "dragon" against anyone who tells the Truth.

There is no suggestion in Revelation that the "beast from the sea" and the "beast from the land" are at war with each other.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha..

Of course there isn't.

Not in the 13th chapter anyway.

Read this very carefully: I DON'T CARE.

There is also no specific evidence in the Book of Daniel 11:40-45 which indicates that the conflict between the "king of the North" and the "king of the South" is a MUTUALLY ANNIHILATING conflict. But, nevertheless, it is.

Just WAIT.

In addition, the conflict of the "beast of the sea" against the "beast of the earth" and vice versa is covered very precisely, if cryptically, in Revelations 17:16. But you would NOT understand that, even if I were to explain it to you, which you could not pay me enough money to do.

Hope you don't mind if I just delete all of the other nonsense you have written here.

If you want to write that on one of your threads of nonsense about the Revelation of John, go ahead.

I won't even read it, much less interfere.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


It is a wonderful post and well thought out. I am not all that certain you are on the mark but with issues relating to the Bible....there are so many ways of translating - Some parts are a little like deciphering the quatrains of Nostradamus. If you are looking for a prophecy, you will find or interpret one every time, weaved in among the words.

When I first heard the Scorpion and Frog story it went like this:

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back. Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream. "Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?" "Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly. "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!" Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!" "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!" "Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog. "Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!" So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current. Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs. "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?" The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back. "I could not help myself. It is my nature." Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

allaboutfrogs.org...

The moral is not to trust your enemies.
I think using the phrase "your enemies" is a little misleading.

The moral is never to trust or expect some people (enemies or not) to change.

This is their nature and YOU are the fool for expecting a different result, when you already know their nature

I compare it like this.
There are wild and woolly mammals that would sooner eat you, as look at you.
Think lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

However these animals can be trained to be trusted.
You can reach across and be-friend this supposed enemy. They have a side to their nature you may reach. A side you MAY (with perhaps a great deal of patience, time, empathy and understanding) be able to touch, affect and reason with. You CAN make it so he/she/it is no longer a threat to you, and your existence.

They do not maneuver like (reptiles) or thoughtless killing machines.

They are sentient, at heart -compassionate creatures who bear live young (not eggs they walk away from) and they stay with their children for a good deal of their growing up.

Doing so they understand and embrace COMPASSION - if only for their own young.

This seed of compassion and understanding can be nurtured and trained to flourish.

This (inherent capacity for) compassion can be expanded upon
to include others,
who the creature may decide to trust and cooperate with
to their mutual benefit.

They are ABLE to OVER RIDE their original natures.
They can go against their instincts to kill you.

There are some OTHER creatures, more rigid and inflexible. Think shark, alligator or crocodile.

There is another frog and crocodile tale very similar which points out a similar misunderstanding.

If the person or being does not illustrate a capacity for compassion, love and understanding or show a willingness to BEND even in the case of their own children - (think about a mother who wants her child to be a suicide bomber, for a cause) They WILL NEVER learn to BEND to reason, learn or show any compassion for you, who may not necessarily be their enemy, but forced into a position where you must trust them.

Forget about it.

You can never trust someone cold blooded and heartless at their core.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
But the implication of what you are saying on this thread is that I am lying in my explanation. That is an accusation vomitted out by the "dragon" against anyone who tells the Truth.

Thank you for confirming that I am one who tells the Truth.
For you have, on more than one occasion, explictly denounced me as a liar.
As you observe in the quoted statement, the charge "You are a liar" is the accusation made by the dragon against anyone who tells the Truth.
That accusation has been made against me (by your good self).
Therefore I must be one who tells the Truth. Q.E.D.

In my own comments, I was not accusing you of lying. I was just accusing you of not thinking through your ideas properly.

the conflict of the "beast of the sea" against the "beast of the earth" and vice versa is covered very precisely, if cryptically, in Revelations 17:16.

Not so, because the Harlot is a third party, not to be identified with either of the Beasts.
Identify her with the "beast from the land"? But she is described as "sitting on the waters"
Identify her with the "beast from the sea"? But the ten-horned beast from the sea is the one who is attacking her.

Hope you don't mind if I just delete all of the other nonsense you have written here.

Don't you just wish you could?
That nonsense was fully on-topic, discussing the meaning of the texts mentioned in your title

Originally posted by rusethorcain reply to post by Michael Cecil
It is a wonderful post and well thought out. I am not all that certain you are on the mark but with issues relating to the Bible....

Well, there is, in fact, a very specific reason why I wrote this thread.

It has to do with the fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of John.

Now, it is, of course, accurate to say that there is, initially, an alliance between the "beast of the sea"-consciousness of the "self" (and the politicians), and the "beast of the earth"-consciousness of the 'thinker' (and the religious 'authorities').

But what we are talking about here is something collectively referred as as WTSHTF...

And people are looking around for someone to BLAME for the coming horrors.

That is when this alliance is going to break down.

At the level of consciousness, however, the issue is somewhat more complex; having to do with the emergence of the third dimension of consciousness out of the context of the conflict between the "beast of the sea" and the "beast of the earth".

In the Book of Daniel 11:40-45, this is described as the conflict between, respectively, the "king of the North" and the "king of the South", for reasons which I won't go into right now.

And, if you read the Gospels, you will notice that Jesus makes reference to the "queen of the South".

And what is the "queen of the South"?

It is a metaphor for the Vision of the "Son of man", also for reasons which I won't go into right now. This is that third dimension of consciousness which emerges Phoenix-like out of the mutually annihilating conflict between the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker', "beast of the sea"/"beast of the earth"/"king of the North"/"king of the South".

The Book of Daniel 12:1, then, is a micro-iteration of this fractal Prophecy; a Prophecy which has already been fulfilled on the micro-iteration level and awaits fulfillment at the level of a macro-iteration.

Mi cha el

reply to post by DISRAELI

Now, Sir, you are just being rude.

I mean really.

You have the freedom to say anything you want to say about the Revelation of John on any of the threads that you start. You can ridicule what I say to your heart's content on those threads and I will not read them at all or, certainly, interfere in any way.

Why?

Because I want you to have as much rope as you desire to HANG yourself.

It makes no difference if that rope is 5 feet or 5 miles or 10,000 miles long. Eventually, it will run out. And, the longer that rope is, the more you will be seduced by the illusion that it will never run out...

Which is why it will be such a surprise when it does.

You have no Knowledge at all about what you are writing; but, apparently, you 'think' that you do and you have the opportunity to mislead as many people as you want.

But the reason you have chosen to interfere on this particular thread is the same reason that the media has chosen to interfere in the publicizing of this information: they simply cannot TOLERATE the unfettered explanation of the Truth.

This is also why the Albigensians had to be slaughtered and their writings destroyed; and why the Sadducees and the Pharisees could not simply ignore the Teaching of Jesus on the "resurrection".

Remember, it is you who are trespassing on a thread that I have started on the basis of the belief that you have Knowledge about what you are writing.

On the other hand, I don't even have a temptation to interfere on your threads because the Knowledge I have is not a matter of belief at all.

So, let me make a suggestion, rather than muddling up this thread with all of your nonsense, why not just quote what I am saying on this thread and take it over to a thread that you start and continue your argument there?

I won't read it.

I won't respond or interfere.

And all of your loyal but gullible followers will be able to look upon you as the 'riding-on-a-white-horse-out-of-the-sky' 'Savior' of Christian theology, waging an ever-valiant battle against all of the "demons from hell"/Sons of Darkness on the threads that I start.

Deal?

Mi cha el

A couple of quotes come to mind regarding theological disputes. This is addressed to no one person in particular, but as a general warning for those that think they've got it all figured out.

Hosea 4:5 - "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Exodus 33:20 "And he (God) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried,
-"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain,"
quoth he, "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-- John Godfrey Saxe

reply to post by Michael Cecil


how is a frog a representation of a beast of the sea

frogs are amphibians, land AND water dwellers, not water dwellers and certainly there are no frogs in the SEA

and if anything scorpians used to be 6 feet long and live in the ocean, either during or before the dinosaurs possibly both i forget exactly, but my point is that the symbology is incorrect to me

Originally posted by Smack A couple of quotes come to mind regarding theological disputes. This is addressed to no one person in particular, but as a general warning for those that think they've got it all figured out.

Hosea 4:5 - "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

The crucial word in this Prophecy is the word "Knowledge" rather than "belief".

There is mention of the "Vision of Knowledge" in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Those who have received that Vision know that it is symbolized in Genesis 3:24 as the "Tree of Life", in the Book of Daniel as the Vision of the "Son of man", and in the Quran as the "Night Journey" of Mohammed.

And, in opposition to and rejection of that Knowledge, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' and their hundreds of millions of gullible followers have chosen to pursue not Knowledge, but belief in the doctrines concocted by the consciousness of the 'thinker' in opposition to that Knowledge.

The fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Book of Daniel 12:1 will be a very direct consequence of the rejection of the Knowledge Revealed through not only the "Vision of Knowledge" but also the Revelation of the "resurrection".

But, according to the Prophecy of Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of Knowledge"--and for the fact that, when Knowledge was presented to them, they rejected it in favor of the doctrines of the theologians.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by indigothefish how is a frog a representation of a beast of the sea frogs are amphibians, land AND water dwellers, not water dwellers and certainly there are no frogs in the SEA

The language of the Revelation of John is not the language of a 'thinker', which is the source of the oh-so-eminently reasonable objections that you are raising here.

It is the language of symbolism which is much more amorphous and closer to poetry.

For a better understanding of the meaning of such symbolism, you might want to read some Jungian or archetypal psychology, rather than Freudian psychology.

It sort of reminds me of a conversation I had with a Freudian psychologist many, many years ago.

He was relating an experience he had counseling a paranoid schizophrenic at a nearby psychiatric hospital; a patient who described himself as a "dead frog". This Freudian psychologist was almost rolling on the floor laughing at this statement, emphasizing over and over that this person genuinely believed this statement as a description of his identity.

I was not at all amused.

The patient needed a Jungian analyst to flesh out the meaning of such a statement.

There are many, many different symbols for different aspects of the psyche in Jungian psychology; but, in order to understand what is going on, those categories must be understood as more amorphous and fluid than the sharply differentiated concepts of the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So, let me make a suggestion, rather than muddling up this thread with all of your nonsense, why not just quote what I am saying on this thread and take it over to a thread that you start and continue your argument there?
Deal?

No deal, because ATS doesn't work like that.
These are mixed opinion threads, rather than "adherents only" thread.
I am allowed to express my opinion on the OP, just as much as others will, and you are allowed to argue back.
I made my point about an apparent flaw in the OP argument; I think that concludes my business, but I'm not going to consider myself barred from contributing another time.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


i see thnx

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So, let me make a suggestion, rather than muddling up this thread with all of your nonsense, why not just quote what I am saying on this thread and take it over to a thread that you start and continue your argument there?
Deal?

No deal, because ATS doesn't work like that.
These are mixed opinion threads, rather than "adherents only" thread.
I am allowed to express my opinion on the OP, just as much as others will, and you are allowed to argue back.
I made my point about an apparent flaw in the OP argument; I think that concludes my business, but I'm not going to consider myself barred from contributing another time.

(Sigh)

I did not bar you from this thread, Sir.

What I am saying is that there is a fundamental incommensurability between the Knoweldge received through Revelation and the thoughts of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. This is what is being referred to in the Book of Isaiah 55:9

What I am saying is that I could go through each and every one of your nonsensical interpretations of the Revelation of John and present a counter-argument originating in Knowledge; and, similarly, you could go over every one of the things that I say about the Revelation of John and present a counter-argument based upon the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

Will you ever convince me that the thoughts of the 'thinker' are equivalent to Revelations from God?

No.

Will I ever convince you that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is NOT 'God'?

Unlikely.

So, what would be the point of either one of us interfering with the other?

I mean, really?

What would be the point?

If you want to convince your 'home-boys' or 'home-girls' that you are on the side of the Sons of Light and I am on the side of the Sons of Darkness, go ahead.

And, for those very, very, very few people who are willing to acknowledge that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is NOT God, there are things that I have to say as well.

Is it not possible to reduce this conflict in some way, or do you have this obsession to demonstrate to everyone that I simply cannot be right and that you simply cannot be wrong?

The ultimate consequence of such an obsession is conflict and violence.

Or do you not see that?

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
The ultimate consequence of such an obsession is conflict and violence.

Or do you not see that?

The conflict arises when you litter this site with your nonsense, then refuse to address any of the issues raised by your critics, attack said critics, rather than admit your error, and now you demand that criticism by moved to its own thread so that you don't need to be bothered with it. Seems like the conflict is between you and reality, more than anything else, though I do wonder who you're threatening with that "violence" bit.

However, I do have to admit that your accusing DISRAELI of being rude gave me the biggest laugh of the day, thank you for that bit of clueless amusement.