Secrets of the Bible
|
|
JOSHUA
At first there is no Prophet having relation, or at least
shouldn’t have any relation with this book. The previous books had to do with
Moses’ writings, but it seems some of his writings that being falsified are
attached even in this book, though he was dead and had nothing to do with the
book of Joshua. Except this, and if we keep in mind how much they mixed up his
writings with their perceptions and pursuits in the other books, then we
understand how much they were enjoying immunity, and what they have done with
this book. Certainly they used to have some information that including with some
other details we may comprehend what was the real truth. It is written that God
"was speaking" to Joshua from the beginning of the book, and after the death
of Moses.
From the beginning of the book of Judges, God also "was
speaking" to some other people, and goes on. The same things as usual, God "was
speaking" by the hours, some times to the one and other times to the other!!
God, they said, spoke to Joshua and told him, be strong and courageous for you
shall give this people possession of the land, which I swore (God swore, to whom
God would swore?) to their fathers. Only be strong and very courageous, be
careful to act according to all the law that Moses My servant commanded you.
This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth. There is no use to
criticize every word that being written. But because they wrote correctly,
(regardless if God spoke to Joshua or not) that God wanted from Joshua to act
according the law; then I ask, what it is written in the law? The law declares
clearly, don’t kill, don’t steal etc.
But it seems for those people, the law was nothing more than
written words. And although they wrote that God told him to act strictly
according the law, according to them, God also told him not to let anyone alive.
And not only in the battle, but not even babies and mothers! So according to
them, God said these words to Joshua. At the verses 10 and 11, of the first
chapter is written that Joshua ordered the "rulers" of the people and said
to them. Speak to the people and tell them to take provisions for three days,
because in three days they would cross the river to inherit the land, which God
would give them.
Now the question is, what kind of provisions they would take,
while, as it is written, were eating manna, and, again according the writing,
were eating manna until after they crossed the river? It is also written, (and
these writings only say the truth), they crossed the river by miracle, they set
stones that symbolize faith, and without any fight they camped at the western
banks of the Jordan River, and for first time after 40 years ate unleavened
bread from the grains of Canaan. Well, where did they find the flour after three
days, before they fight, and before conquered Jericho? As we saw at the previous
subject, if they had destroyed the Canaanites east of Jordan, and, as long Moses
was alive, before they crossed the river, then, why would eat bread for the
first time after they crossed the river, with Joshua as leader? At the chapter
5: 10-12 is written.
(While the sons of Israel camped at Gilgar, they observed
the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the desert
plains of Jericho. And on the day after the Passover, on the very day they ate
some of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. And the
manna ceased on the day after they had eaten some of the produce of the
land, so the sons of Israel no longer had manna.)
So very obviously, before they cross the river, didn’t have
wheat and flour, and as they crossed the river without fight, and in three days,
then how did they find the flour to make unleavened bread? First needed to
capture the cities, defeating their enemies before taking their grain stores. I
repeat again, before they crossed the river, according the writings, and while
they used to eat manna, Joshua gave orders to prepare the people, and told them
to take provisions for three days. And I ask again, what kind provisions they
should take, except food? Their weapons, if they had any, used to hold them on
their hands.
So what kind of other provisions did they take except food?
But they wrote that were eating manna until after crossed the river, and while
crossed without a fight, then where did they find the flour? Perhaps God didn’t
give them manna on those three days? Was perhaps the provisions manna? Well,
they didn’t write something like this. They usually gave too many details, but
didn’t write at all that the provisions were manna, because God didn’t give
manna on those days. They didn’t write also that at those three days, and as
they were marching to Gilgar, they went to mow the farms of the Canaanites, if
of course was time for mowing. They didn’t write also they were carrying foods
and flour while were hungry. They wrote that ate manna for 40 years, and wrote about army that was ready
for war against Jericho. So the Canaanites were in the city and the stores of
grain were in the city, which was protected by walls. Where then did they find
the flour after the Passover to feed the whole army? So again, if the provisions
were manna, then clearly they didn’t have flour to make bread after the
Passover. And if the provisions were flour and other kind of food, then clearly
again, they didn’t eat bread for first time after the Passover at Gilgar. Now,
or there is a lie, or they been confused and didn’t know what they were
writing. It seems, the story with the provisions of food belonged to other
posterior war, and has nothing to do with the previous slaves; rather it
happened some years after Joshua.
But if the provisions were manna, and while they crossed the
river without a fight, then very clearly emerges the conclusion, that the
Canaanites, because of their fear of God, and also because those people were
from desert and considered themselves like brothers, accepted them without a
fight, by offering them food and land to stay on at the western banks of the
river. That seems to be the truth. The wars actually happened in posterior
times, after the death of Joshua. It is written they crossed the river in a
miraculous way; meaning God was leading them by His way. But then why should
Joshua send spies to sound an alarm and cause the people of Jericho to panic?
The supplies, the preparations, the spies, panicking the enemy, etc, are clear
signs of any typical commander. If God "made wars" then certainly the Lord
doesn’t need spies to survey the areas and panic the enemy. But indeed God
guided them His way, for the reason that God liberated them from the slavery of
Egypt. So were moving with faith, and entered Canaan peacefully without
murdering the innocent. The stones they set in the river, symbolize faith.
Therefore were moving by faith and got established at the western banks of
Jordan River.
The story of the prostitute Rahab, who hid the spies, is also
very strange as "accidental" her house "happened" to be on the walls.
Rahab appears in the genealogy of the Lord, and whether she was prostitute or
not, it wouldn’t make any difference. Prostitutes are also daughters of man.
The prostitute is of course a daughter of Adam; she is belonging to any
genealogy, as the saint is belonging, and also the liar, the robber, the legal
exploiter etc. In any case a prostitute is much better in morality than a rich
thief. But the question is, was she really a prostitute? The story of a
prostitute who helped spies probably belongs in another time. It seems that in
the city of Jericho and the other areas of Canaan as well, there used to live
some Hebrew or other Semitic tribes that contributed not to fight against the
formal slaves, and as it was heard that they been protected by God, they offered
them grain, water and land. God took them out of slavery, and God established
them in the Promised Land in a peaceful and holy way, and that make sense.
In the book we can see a lot of mixed up things. We see
symbols and faith to God; we also see traditions, atrocities, crimes,
foolishnesses and "divine wars" by human methods, ambushes, cunning traps
and spies. And only the faith and the symbols match with God. The contradictions
are very observable, and prove that they were posterior wars that were mixed up
with the admission of Israeli people into Canaan. The ancient traditions appear
very clearly. For example it is written that God spoke to Joshua and said.
Make for yourself stone knives and circumcise the sons of
Israel a second time. And after the "second circumcision", God said to
Joshua. Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you. So the name of
that place is called Gilgar to this day. Joshua. 5: 2
Until today and at that time, whoever reads, understands. But
they also wrote very confusingly that the sons of Israel did circumcision and
camped at Gilgar. The name Gilgar means exactly that they did circumcision, and
that is why they called the place Gilgar. They meant by this, that it took away
the reproach because of their slavery to the Egyptians. So they camped at Gilgar,
they did circumcision, Gilgar, and they called the place Gilgar. Well, maybe it
doesn’t mean much. But maybe it means a lot. Maybe the traditions were passing
some information that said; on that place some old tribal leaders used to commit
circumcision, and that is why they used to call the place Gilgar.
But the other question is, how it was possible to roll away
the reproach by cutting the foreskin of the penis? Since when, and how it is
possible for a man to roll away and take away his shame with this kind of act?
What was this circumcision that it had so magical abilities, and how it was
possible for God to ask such things? The Lord Christ said, the circumcision
comes from your fathers, and not from God. The stone knives that are mentioned,
inform us that it was about a tradition of the Stone Age. Obviously, it was a
tradition that started from the Stone Age, and annexed it in the book of Joshua.
According the tradition, the old deified tribal leaders and fathers used to do
circumcision by using stone knives, and so they thought by doing the same thing,
they could role away the reproach of Israel people because of the slavery. So
the circumcision was a tradition that started from the deified ascenders. Those
great ascenders used to emphasize their racial prestige. It was the memory and
the tradition of the great and distant ascenders who performed circumcision with
stone knives, for the simple reason that they used stone tools. The stone as
symbol of faith has nothing to do in this case.
They were talking about shame and prestige, and of course
these things have nothing to do with the cutting of the foreskin. Regardless if
it was stone knives or metal ones. But the traditions stated, the old fathers
used to do circumcision by stone knives, and that is why they remained famous
and unashamed. So they should be like the famous ascenders, and should roll away
the reproach by cutting the foreskin. But of course all these are only human
perceptions. If indeed God would say something, as to roll away the reproach,
then it would be the assurance that all people are equal in front of Him.
Certainly God wouldn’t never ever say that by cutting the foreskin with stone
knives would roll away the reproach.
But let’s see some other things that are written.
It is written that an Angel of God appeared to Joshua, who
was, as they say, the main commander of the war. The first thing the "Angel"
asked Joshua, according to them, was to take off his shoes! They are really
vexing. The Angel of God told him to take out his shoes! And the Angel of God
also helped them in cutting throats of children! It is really vexing, and indeed
you feel like suffocated from indignation. Those people were ready to go and
kill mothers and children, and yes, they used to find out it was a sin to wear
shoes! The killing of children was not a sin, but to wear shoes was a sin!!!
They are indeed very vexing! They are also very vexing and satanic by connecting
their crimes and their nonsense with God and with His Angels.
The snake was in his kingdom. The evil creeping mind of the
creation put them to do and write whatever he wanted. It is also written that
Joshua spoke to the people and told them to protect themselves from the "anathema".
And the anathema was not to take at all from the valued plunders, but all that
anathema treasure had to be kept in the treasury of the Lord. So Lord had a
materialist treasury, and yes, Lord "wanted" the cursed and snatched
plunders for Himself! They used to consider as anathema the people, even their
innocent children, even their animals. They considered anathema the golden and
silver objects, but they offered those cursed objects to God! Well, everyone
understands the cunning of the state rich people, who instead of admitting that
the valued plunders were their own, they said the cursed treasure should be kept
in God’s treasury!
So according to the writings someone with the name Achan had
the unholy audacity to steal from the cursed plunders, and so this unholy act
raised God’s "anger", but obviously, it was the rulers who were very
angry. After the stealing, they started losing in the battles, because God, as
they said, didn’t "fight" with them. What a "holy" and frighten, and
what cunning indignation to steal things that belongs to God! He is Perfect and
Spirit, what need does He have of gold and silver? And yet we see faithful
people offer similar vows to the saints, as payments for some services, and they
still do not understand that God doesn’t trade. Look how they used to warn and
terrorize the people, and yet do it. And although they say God was talking many
times to Joshua, but He didn’t say anything about the stealing. And when
Joshua was desperate and indignant resulting to tear his poor cloths, then he
protested to God saying.
"O Lord God why didst Thou ever bring this people over the
Jordan, only to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? And
when they destroy us what will Thou do with Thy great name?"
In another words, they suggested to the Creator of the world
what were His benefits. And they thought how bad would be for God if they were
destroyed and lost! If they were lost, God would be lost too!! As they wrote
about Moses, here similarly they ask themselves if God acts by "cunning"!!
In continuation we see Achan was arrested after stealing one cursed Babylonian
uniform, two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold of fifty shekels, and
hid them in the earth under his tent. There is no point asking if they even had
tents as were coming from the desert after 40 years of wandering, but they knew
what they wrote, because when the stealing happened they had tents and didn’t
come from the desert! But if indeed was God’s orders, and after all those
things that happened in the desert with killings and revenges—of course
according their writings—how Achan would he dare in doing something like that
after the miracles, and knowing that the "cursed plunders" were the "belonging"
of God? There is no point of this, and certainly the worshippers of the cursed
mammon were not joking. They gathered together Achan, his sons and daughters,
his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that belonged to him, and
after stoning them, they burnt them in fire. They had to give a hard lesson by
warning anybody that would dare in putting his hand on what was considered as
their own. Behold how they wrote about God as a "horrible, unjust and pitiless
avenger".
Who can insist that God the Father of our Lord, the Father of
the holy Christians, the Spring of love and justice, is the same god as those
authors write about? The god of whom they wrote is the darkness,
because when the evil interests talk, it is the darkness that talks. Achan, they
said, stole some plunder, and he should be punished for his action, but even so,
by what kind of logic and with what kind of conscience should they burn his
children even his animals? Although they wrote, after that terrible crime, God
was "satisfied", and blessed them and gave their enemies to their hands.
Glory to our Holy God for His great patience, and for His great forbearance.
Glory to the Highest God and Father.
Of course the story of Achan has nothing to do with Joshua,
and it becomes very observable when we look closely the writings that are
contradictory. They wrote by giving details, and as it is written, the army
crossed the river first followed by their children? The last were the priests.
But they don’t mention at all about passing of flocks too; neither said
anything about donkeys that crossed the river. Did they write anything about
flocks, or donkeys that passed the river? No. We read writings that mention
about a camped army outside the walls of Jericho, and were ready for war
business, but how it was possible to pasture also flocks of cows sheep and
donkeys? How then could they burn Achan’s flocks at that place they said,
while they had no flocks, and of course poor Achan, as a soldier at the war,
couldn’t pasture also flocks!
But the terrible rich rulers, unhesitating in their
interests, the ascenders of secretaries and Pharisees hypocrites were warning
the people with a frightful unscrupulousness, that they would burn anyone who
dared to put his hand upon their treasure. And so, they burnt his children and
anything that belonged to him as an example. And of course all these things
happen in posterior times during the endless wars. They came to the point of
saying that God was throwing stones to kill their enemies, as the old father
gods did in their tradition, and elsewhere they wrote that God stopped the sun
to complete the "God pleasing" slaughter. Although they thought were talking
about God, the Creator of universe, they also say that God couldn’t control
some miserable army the next day, although could stop the sun, and it seems that
it was absolutely necessary to complete the slaughter that day, while the blood
of revenge was boiling, and hate was high. Who knows what might happen tomorrow,
maybe things could change and the enemy could be organized with better martial
methods, and yes, God who could stop the sun, was possible to lose the battle!!!
Well, who was the one who said that stupidity has no relation with wickedness?
He was absolute wrong! Stupidity and wickedness go always together!
So in their ignorance they thought that wrote about God, but
indeed they wrote about some traditional god, who was a miserable and pathetic
tribal leader. Who were those who were throwing stones to kill enemies? Of
course the traditional gods tribal leaders were throwing stones from the hills,
as long were alive. Besides this absurdity, we also see sadistic pleasures. They
hanged the kings on wooden sticks and enjoyed their tortures. Well, they were
felons, but they, who kill babies and mothers, were "holy" and "blessed"
by God. We killed them all, they said, we killed all the residents of the city,
we killed all the men all the women, all the residents of Ai. Israel took only
the cattle and the spoil of that city as plunder for them "according to the
word of the Lord He had commanded Joshua".
So Joshua burned Ai and made it heap up forever, desolation
until this day. Which day are they talking about? And he hanged the kings of Ai
on a tree until evening. Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of
Israel on mount Ebal, "just as Moses had commanded the sons of Israel" etc,
etc. They are really vexing. Although have passed so many thousand years after
those atrocities and sinister crimes that happened in the name of the
Most-gracious God, we feel as suffocated from the indignation and anger.
Glorious is the Highest God for His patience and for His forbearance.
It is also written they demolished the walls of Jericho by
flutes and by the sound of their voices! Of course the lovely ever suffering
people of Israel, at that time, and now, are innocent, they have no relation
with all these things. Besides the people at that time had no other choice, and
whether they wanted or not had to obey orders, and as those orders were, as they
said, divine, what else they would do? Certainly the wars didn’t happen at
that time with Joshua, but the slaughters of the innocent happened, and happened
in the name of God by orders of the rich rulers. So we don’t talk against the
lovely people of Israel, we simply write about those mistrustful ancient rich
rulers and about their servants. In chapter 6 is written they demolished the
walls with their voices and with 7 flutes.
They were going around the walls as spinning tops, and on the
7th day they went around 7 times. On the 7th they trumped the flutes, and
when the people shouted, the walls collapsed!! Now how can we interpret this
paradox, or rather not the paradox, but the paradoxical writings? It is very
observable, or Moses used to write something, or some other Prophet wrote in
relation with the 7 trumpets of the Angels that are mentioned in the book of
Revelation. Certainly it was about some prophecies of some Prophet, and rather
the prophecy was belonging to Moses. It seems the prophecy was mentioning about
the 7 trumpets before the end of the world, and about the domination of the Lord
on the 7th day. And those people thought that the prophecy was talking about
their domination on the other people. It seems they misinterpreted some
prophecies, and attached them falsified to the destruction of Jericho.
Otherwise all those paradoxes have no other meaning. Because
how it was possible to demolish the walls by shouts and flutes? As it is known,
the walls of Jericho had been demolished quit a few times, but of course never
been demolished by flutes. Of course someone would say it happened by a miracle,
but the question is, why God would do this kind of miracle? And if God would
make a miracle, why they needed the flutes? If it were about faith, what kind of
faith would demolish the walls, only to kill the guilty and the innocent? And
beside this, why did they need to panic the people of Jericho, while they would
kill them all any way. Yes of course, God could make a miracle and demolish the
walls, but how it was possible to help felons in cutting children’s throats?
How it was possible to say, love the others but hate the others? To be holy but
unholy, don’t seek revenge, but let free your revenging mania to destroy them
completely.
Don’t steal, but snatch children’s means of life, cut the
breast of the mother, from which the child takes his first meal in his life. Don’t
care about the horror on his innocent little eyes, don’t care about his cry;
don’t be sorry for the little child, be inhuman, become a beast. Don’t kill,
but pierce without a pity, and you "holy" man pierce without compassion,
children’s sweat hearts. That was what the evil devil and his paranoiac
servants used to do and say. And certainly, if God wants to destroy a corrupted
people, then the Lord who is the Master of life can do it. Was it possible,
would God ever ask for help if Lord wanted to take revenge? Would God ever ask
people to kill, when gave them laws, as don’t kill, don’t steal, love the
others as you love your self? But all these terrible acts that happened in the
name of the Highest, provoke curse, provokes aversion of the Highest in front of
the unholy and evil. The unholy and evil that was written as will of the
All-holy and All-good God provokes curse that unties the hands of the devil,
which doesn’t lose opportunity in resulting more terrible sufferings, killings
and desolations.
|
