Super Ping

Fresh knowledge of the old astrological notions and progressive computer-based planetary tables may yet spilled new light on the question of what, astronomically speaking, the Star of Bethlehem really was. But before going back in time to explore the feasible answers, one needs to understand the many problems underlying the questions.

Matthew is the only of the four gospels which mentions either the Star of Bethlehem or the magi. The Gospel of Mark, believed by modern text scholars to be the oldest of the Gospels, does not include a nativity narrative or any suggest that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The author of the Gospel of John also appears to be unsuspecting of the Bethlehem nativity narratives. The Gospels often represented Jesus as “of Nazareth,” but never as “of Bethlehem”. Many scholars have resolved that Jesus was in all probability born in Nazareth and that the nativity narratives are determined by the desire of the Gospel writers to portray his birth as a fulfillment a prophecy in the Book of Micah concerning a Bethlehem birth.

Matthew’s description of the miracles and prognostications related to the birth of Jesus can be likened to stories pertaining the birth of Augustus, the first Roman emperor. Joining a birth to the first appearance of a star was agreeable with the representative belief each person’s life was joined to a particular star. Magi and astronomical events were related in the communal mind by the visit to Rome of a delegation of magi at the time of a outstanding appearance of Halley’s Comet in AD 66.

There are legion other elements that impart to the puzzle, including the uncertainty in the actual date of Christ’s birth and the terminology used to describe celestial events during the Stars appearance some 20 centuries ago. For example, any heavenly object bright enough to attract attention was prone to be called a “star.” Meteors, for example, were considered “shooting” or “falling ” stars; comets were “hairy” stars; novae were “new” stars and planets were called “wandering” stars.

Comments Off

Shrouded in mystery, fable and legend, nevertheless the Bible recorded the birth of Jesus Christ and follows His life up to about 12 years old.

To this day Jewish male children undergo Bar Mitzvah at the age of 13. This was not recorded by the Evangelists. Indeed, the life of Jesus is not considered again till the age of 30.

To accept that Jesus was just at home with His family is a plausible explanation, but not in keeping with the Gospels that say at the age of 12, Jesus was at the Temple, and the people marveled to hear Him.

Certainly, after His Bar Mitzvah, He would have been technically a “man” and no longer a boy, and would naturally continue to marvel the people. It would have been His right to speak in the Temple. There is no such record.

There is much speculation, but a lot of recorded incidents and connections. One very important one is Joseph (Saint) of Arimathea. Certain he was a rich man, and certainly he was able to speak (in Greek and /or Latin) to the Roman governor at a very sensitive moment, so he was certainly influential.

He gave his own tomb for the burial of Jesus, and paid for all the necessary burial formalities. There is no question he was close to Jesus, and as a member of the Sanhedrin, would have defended him in that assembly. There were more connections, and many very plausible.

Joseph of Arimathea was certainly wealthy, but how did he amass his wealth? Arimathea, is not a town or district at all, but a Greek compound word meaning Harima Theo (by the Grace of God).

He most likely came from Ramle or another town. He was said to be in the trade of metals; tin precisely. This would have theoretically put him in contact with England, where tin was mined and sent throughout the Roman Empire.

More speculation has Joseph related to Jesus directly. It is been written by early Church fathers that Joseph was the uncle of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Certainly the Gospel has them familiar as when Joseph was burying Jesus in his tomb, he was accompanied by Mary (the mother of Jesus), and Mary Magdalena.

Jesus Himself was familiar with Alexandria in Egypt (where He grew up) and as a major center of learning (the Library was there), Jesus would have also spoken Egyptian.

Since where there is so much smoke there must be fire, the story of the young Jesus being accompanied by Joseph, his uncle, on a journey to England is certainly possible.

The legend records the journey home, but with a diversion to Greece, and then into Asia Minor. There it is said that Jesus and Joseph departed, with Jesus joining another wealthy traveler with his son.

At the time, there were Buddhist missionaries all over Asia Minor, and indeed as far as Rome and Egypt. It is plausible Jesus had encountered one or more, and thus found His interest and way to India.

There are many records from early travelers to India having been shown or heard about Jesus’ time there.

The famous James Churchward in his major work Mu the Lost Continent describes such an encounter. There have been many others including Notovitch in 1888.

Aside from the fantastic speculation, many of the diversions from classic Judaism appear to be oriental in nature, and very specifically Vedic in nature.

Where the Jews were waiting for a Messiah, the Hindus have their belief in Avatars which are human incarnations of God.

So the missing years perhaps saw a journey from the Holy Land to Egypt, to England, passing central Europe into Greece, Asia Minor, and the Hindu Kush all the way to the Himalayas.

There, Jesus would have found the perfect environment to slowly become the world Avatar that He has indeed become.

There is no Hindu which does not accept Him as a divine incarnation.

Here is William Blake’s poem Jerusalem which alludes to such a visit…

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of Desire;
Bring me my Spear; O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of Fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.

There have been many theories on Jesus the missing years and we hope you find our view thought provoking.

More free information

For more thought provoking articles on http://net-planet.org/newage.html visit our website for more articles, features and downloads at:

http://www.net-planet.org

Comments Off

This brief study into a well-known, biblical narrative — the story of David and Goliath — aims to present what might be called in biblical terms, “The uncut version.” By this, I do not mean to suggest that I have found some new extra-biblical text or other that sheds new light on the familiar account. I mean to convey rather, that a much closer study of the text’s details we already know, against the backdrop of the rest of the law of the Lord, reveals quite an interesting “story going on behind the story.”

Specifically, I intend to show that this account portrays a silent victory, not just the obvious one — victory over a Philistine giant at the hand of an underdog — but it aims to show instead to show that young David, a most unlikely candidate for the job, has the heart of a king. David’s star is rising. And it contrasts his faithful heart with that of the then-present king, Saul of Benjamin, who does not have such a heart. It is the account, not of David versus Goliath, but of the beginning of a much longer narrative, of David versus Saul. So then, let us begin the venture. Here is the text from 1 Samuel 17:1-54:

… And the Philistines stood on a mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on a mountain on the other side: and there was a valley between them. And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass. And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders. And the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam; and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him. And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us. And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together. When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.

Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul. And the three eldest sons of Jesse went and followed Saul to the battle: and the names of his three sons that went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next unto him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. …And the Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself 40 days.

And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run to the camp of thy brethren; And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge. Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel, were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines. And David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him … and ran into the army, and came and saluted his brethren. And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them. And all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid. And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel. And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

….And when the words were heard which David spake, they rehearsed them before Saul: and he sent for him. And David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine. And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him. Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God. David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee. …And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine. And the Philistine came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.

And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David, that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him . . .

Notes and Commentary.

1. The first of several points worth scrutinizing in the text comes from noting that the primary job of tackling the giant fell to Saul, for he was king, and the Bible specifies as belonging to the king the task of defending God’s Name and punishing the wicked (see Romans 13). Now surely a king may delegate the task, but it rests with him to get the job done, so that, if no one else comes forward, he must bear the risk himself. In this task, Saul abdicated his role as king, failing to go forward as the champion of Israel against the wicked giant. David took up the slack.

2. Second, let the reader note that, at the first, Saul sought to discourage David from joining the fray because he judged David by mere outward appearance — and Goliath also. But David’s confidence rested in the fact that he had seen that GOD WAS WITH HIM. David thus rehearsed his deeds not to display his own greatness, but a summary of the greatness of God in these words: “The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine.” Having been trained by the Lord Himself, David was a man of great faith because He understood the Lord, and knew His ways.

3. The third point needing attention comes by way of a flashback into the history of Israel. Let the reader take note that in the days of Joshua (son of Nun) and Caleb, Israel had faced a similar problem. God had commanded the armies of Israel — just freed from Egypt — to go up against the giants in the land to face them in battle. God expected them by then to have learned from his many mighty miracles, and especially his power displayed against Pharaoh’s armies — the lesson that David had grasped (namely the importance of God’s covenant refrain: “And I will be with you”).

But Joshua’s contemporaries — jut like David’s — “were sore afraid.” They focused on just what Saul had — outward appearances — size, countenance and training. David — like Joshua and Caleb — regarded only the greatness and overpowering competence of the Lord. At the rebellion in the Sinai desert — God had told the people, Go up and take the land FOR I WILL BE WITH YOU. But they were afraid of Giants like Goliath, so they would not fight. Like Saul’s men, they were sore afraid.

4. God had placed the seven nations of Canaan under the ban for their extreme wickedness, whom Joshua’s generation was commanded to slay. This command to eliminate these nations was transgenerational, meaning the obligation fell to each successive generation in Israel — down to David’s day. And there were then (quite obviously) still giants in the land, like the ones faced in battle and killed by Joshua and Caleb. The Philistines were their descendants, and David was the modern day “Joshua” and Caleb” — two men of whom the Scripture says “whose hearts have fully followed after me.” This is precisely the same sense in which it says of David he “was a man after God’s own heart.”

5. David went up against the giant with God’s blessing, spoken upon him by God’s lawfully appointed civil magistrate, King Saul. Saul had blessed David in the Name of the Lord, as it says, “And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee. …” And so God was with David, for David aimed to obey God’s command to go up and take the land, ridding it of a giant problem. David was doing Saul’s job for him — the job of the king of Israel.

6. The text says that Goliath cursed David by his gods. According to the word of the Lord, this act of blasphemy warranted the death penalty (Numbers 15); especially was this so in the case of cursing David, for David uniquely stood — as we learn later in the text — as a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord’s anointed. Also, the Bible specifies that the king was to see the death penalty carried out by way of stoning. This is precisely what David did. He stoned Goliath to death in the Name of the Lord — precisely fulfilling the duty of the chief civil magistrate. Here, we see in immediate and quite bold relief that David has the heart of a king, for he carries out the Law of God against the wicked to administer justice.

Finally, by way of summary then, since David challenged the blasphemous Philistine in the stead of Saul, and then slew him by stoning — fulfilling the king’s duty twice — the Law of the Lord stipulates that “by the testimony of two or three witnesses is every matter established” (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). This text then recounts that David was the true king of Israel in the place of Saul. Two witnesses had confirmed the matter. Saul would go on to earnestly seek to curse David by imposing the sword against him without just cause, showing that he was really just like Goliath, a man who despised David (i.e. Christ) and transgressed the law with no regard for the lives of the innocent. Saul was — in the end — a Philistine at heart, while David possessed the heart of a king.

David’s star was rising.

Carson Day has written an outrageous number of essays and articles designed to help people in all aspects of life, from bettering their health, to understanding the Bible, and much more. He has broadly studied almost every subject under the sun, but has yet to make a foray into the field of botany because he is of the species florasimus hesitaticus.

To see Carson’s blogsites, go to: http://ophirgold.blogspot.com (The Omniblog) or http://extremeprofit.blogspot.com (Carson’s Day Trading Outpost) or http://ophirgoldcorp.blogspot.com (CD’s Free Web Traffic)

Comments Off

Of a truth, the physical manifestations of God’s answers to our prayers do nto come as quikly/immediately as we ask from Him. Why? God answers our prayers each time we pray to Him, but the manifestation of some of these prayers are delayedat times due to reasons best known to God, some of which He in His infinite mercy Has laid in our heart to share with the people of God to strenght and encourage them to pray., because no prayer goes unanswered, only the TIMING of the manifestation matters.

One of the reasons for this actions of God is not far fetched, man in his nature of sin is bound to be proud, regarding himself as a superhuman or as if it is his holiness ( or because he is better that others),or magnitude of prayer, or time of praying and fasting that have given him attetion before God and made his prayers to be answered. He then consider others who though have prayed but have not received answer as people of lesser faith, prayers, fasting or holiness.

Ihave lots of evidences to drive home this point. Most times when people testify to the goodness of the Lord in their local churches or in revival centres, they are fond of laying much emphasis on their prayers, they will at times say “I preyed and prayed and prayed…” as if it is the magnitude of the prayers that determines the answer they have received fro God.

2005 C Olu Adepetun is the Proprietor and Principal of Scholars Private College, 1 Aguda Close, Opp. Portland Cement, Ondo Rd.,P.O.Box 3698, Akure, Nigeria. Gsm 2348033965428. Visit our website:http://www.scholarscollege.i8.com or E-mail us at sydneyscholars@yahoo.com

Comments Off

Oneness in Marriage (Part 2) [Part 1 — submitted July, 2005]

If “oneness” is one of the primary goals of marriage (”the two
shall become one flesh…”), let’s explore some of the thngs
that thwart or hinder “oneness” in marriage.

There are many reasons why a couple might fail to achieve
oneness: * All of the sins which are rooted in the unholy
trinity, namely, “me, myself, and I.” All of the hypenated
“self” sins, like: selfish, self-centered, self-interest, self-
concern, self-focused, etc. * Various “flesh patterns” and
“coping strategies” which we develop over our lifetimes which
are aimed at “making life work the way we think it should work
or the way we think we deserve it to work” … another way to
say it is, “making life work apart from God and His ways.” *
Failing to deal properly with unmet expectations and differences.

The “self” sins are fairly easy to understand. Anytime I am more
focused on myself and what I want as opposed towhat God wants or
what is best for the marital relationship, I will hinder the
ability to connec t with my spouse.

Flesh patterns and coping strategies are developed over a
lifetime. They grow out of our fears, insecurities and wounds.
An example might be that a man is “passive” in his marriage. If,
as a young man, he was criticized by his parents or if he
believed that he does not know exactly what to do in a given
situation, then instead of moving into the “chaos” of life, he
will choose tobe passive or withdraw. The truth is he may choose
this path of passivity simply because he does not want to risk
rejection and criticism from his wife. He may have an idea of
what to do but he just isn’t willing to take a risk by acting on
his thoughts, ideas, or potential solutions.

Another example of a “flesh pattern” is a woman is when a woman
becomes controlling. Often the root of control in women is FEAR
which they are not conscious of. She is afraid of life in
general and all the things that can go wrong in life. So, she
has convinced herself that if she is in control she can minimize
the amount of hurt that touches her life.

Both of these patterns are not what God desires of a man or
woman in marriage (or even in life in general.) However, the
great thing about God is that He will allow people to use these
faulty, flesh patterns. God ultimately wants these patterns to
be exposed for what they are. God wants every person to be able
to recognize the ways they attempt to make life work and
exchange the sick and faulty ones for His way of doing things.

EXPECTATIONS: An expectation is a desire or mental picture that
is not always communicated and which, when goes unfulfilled,
produces significant emotional distress. We all enter marriage
with certain expectations. Sometimes we express these
expectations and sometimes we are not aware that they exist.

A woman may enter marriage with the expectation that the new
husband will continue to give her the same amount of attention
and care that he gave her during their courtship. A man may have
an expectation that the house will be spotless and that a hot
meanl will be on the table every evening.

Almost every couple has experienced a “season” when their flesh
patterns, coping strategies, differences and diverse backgrounds
and expectations collide. When this happens, it would be good
for the new couple to see it as AN OPPORTUNITY for them to draw
near to God and allow God to expose what is really going on …
what the real, deep dynamics are. However, all too often, each
partner will begin to justify their flesh patterns or will
defend their rights or will excuse their differences, rather
than stepping back and taking a long, hard look at what is root
problem between them.

A good rule-of-thumb is that if I react strongly to someone the
issue is not reallyh about them as much as it is about me.
Something in me is coming to the surface and God is just using
the other person in order to expose this hidden area or thought
or belief or dynamic within me. When we choose to look at it
this way, it explains “marriage is God’s chief sanctifying tool.”

Instead of blaming or attacking each other, consider looking at
the root of the issue. Start with yourself. Ask God to show you
what is going on. Then, bring your issue to Him and/or confess
and repent when necessary. The closer you are to God the more
you will be able to draw near to your spouse and experience the
“oneness” that God desires for you in your marriage.

Exercises: 1. What are some way that you try to make life work
or try to feel good about yourself apart from God? 2. What were
some of the expectations you had when you first got married? 3.
How did you develop these expectations? 4. Have the expectations
proven to be “realistic?” Why/why not? 5. How do you, as a
couple, handle your disappointments and differences?

If you enjoyed this article please visit: www.murphytoerner.com
for more information about Murphy and more articles in general.

Comments Off