Secrets of the Bible
|
|
To clear out
something: This critique
is against some writings of the Bible, which according my opinion blaspheme God.
IS NOT
against the people of Israel. I am a friend not an enemy of people of Israel!
Jacob and Esau
Let us see closely now the story of the two brothers and the famous plate
of lentils. According the writings Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, the sons
of Isaac and Rebecca. The name Jacob means Supplanter; one who wrongfully or
illegally seizes and holds the place of another. Esau's name was changed into
Edom
that meant red, as he "was born with lots of red hair". Jacob came from his
mother belly second, by holding Esau's heel. So obviously, these writings, which
is true writings of Moses, speak comparative and symbolic language, as
for example, Jacob was holding Esau's heel, something there is no way to
interpret it literal. Therefore, these writings have no literal relation with
the sons of Isaac.
It is totally unreasonable to maintain the baby Jacob from a position
like this to hold his brother heel! So,
undoubtedly, the writings speak allegorical and comparative language about the
story of two brothers, (not about the sons of Isaac), and these
writings, that obviously is scattered,
belong to Moses. As we will
realize, there are a lot of other writings about this story that mostly
reflect the pursuits of the posterior rich rulers. They also reflect painful
conditions, and the turbulent relations between the Israelites and Edomites.
Sometimes there was peace among them, due
to the fear that imposed some friendly
coexistence, and other times hatred used to break fence causing conflicts and
nightmares.
It also reflects irritation because of the first-born rights. This
unwritten law of the old tribal leaders (gods) that faulty remained as a law of
God, it mainly concerned the land-owners and slave-owners,
and of course the small or great Hebrew owners existed long
after Moses. The previous slaves, who were wandering in the desert were
not owners of land, and of course had no
properties for the first-born to inherit. This traditional and unwritten law
concerned mostly the children of the rich rulers, and those people had nothing
to do with the desert. But although they were not rich people in the desert, the
unwritten law of the first-born rights existed, and it was a big social problem
of every time.
So almost certainly Moses wrote or taught some thing about this
problem. We also realize that the traditional laws, and customs, as sacrifices,
circumcision, unleavened bread, the first-born rights etc, for various social
reasons and necessities, and other secret and strategic reasons related with the
salvation of people, and about some indirect rights of the
reptilian mind, (of the devil) it was not the
time to be abolished.
So it seems rather clearly Moses wrote comparatively about a story
of twin brothers, and associated the story with the sons of
Isaac,
Israel
and Esau. Apart from other messages he wanted to pass
by the names Jacob
and
Israel, especially by the name
Israel, he also wanted to teach that the brothers are always brothers, and shouldn't
let the personal interests and the first born rights to
divide them. People
should realize progressive the brothers are equal to each other; they should have love
and shouldn't let any thing to come between them.
It seems this comparison declared, the one brother was born a few minutes after
the other, so they should be equal, and must have the same rights on the
property of their father. That is why it is written, the second was holding the
heel of the first, which means they were born at almost the same time, and
should have equal rights. The story also would say the
one who was born a few minutes before, considered
himself as first-born, and did not
recognize equal rights for his brother. Their father also was unjust with his
blessing, because he was attached to the traditional law of the first-born
rights, and only their mother could distinguish it was unjust.
So according the comparison, she advised her other son how to use side
ways to take the first-born rights. But because he used side ways, the other
people around called him underrated Sup-planter, Jacob. They could see only that
Jacob went against the law, but couldn't distinguish that the law was also
unjust. So the Sup-planter came into a big conflict with his brother, and
instead of loving each other, they hated each other. In those years the blessing of
the father was like a settlement, and when gave
it, couldn't
withdraw it. We also see the first-born son gave up his rights for one plate of
lentils, because if someone is in condition of starving or if his life is in
danger, he is unable to estimate first-born rights, or any other treasure.
He is
ready (like a king of
England
) to give up his kingdom for a horse, or even become a thief for a loaf of
bread. Moses used the plate of lentils, and it was like saying to them, you are
brothers, and instead of loving each other, you fight and hate each other for
ridicules things? Repeating again, and regardless the comparison, the unwritten
law of the first-born rights started from far back time when people used to live
by hunting. The first son was following his father, learning from him all the
secrets of the hunting. So when the father died, the
first-born son had the right to inherit his position and weapon, and
become leader of the family, but there was nothing else to inherit.
So it seems Moses created this dramatic comparison, or maybe it was a
traditional one. The comparison mentioned about a hunter, to whom his old father
couldn't go hunting any longer, and asked his first son to bring tasting
hunting to eat. The other son who also was first-born but a few minutes second,
was staying home with his mother. So the mother who could distinguish the
unjust, advised her son how to take the blessing of the father, and also the
position of the first-born, and whatever they used to have.
Moses used the plate
of lentils to show how unworthy were the first-born rights, comparing with the
love of the brothers. He wanted to show and teach what little and unworthy
things caused hatred between the brothers. They used to exchange the treasures
of their souls with a plate of lentils, they used to exchange the love and
brotherhood for very cheap things, while love and brotherhood are so great
treasures that there is no prize for them. (Well, these words apply also to
every human, because we all, less or more, sale and exchange our spiritual
treasures that God gave us, for very cheap things, for a plate of lentils).
Moses' comparison mentioned also that the father was blind. Moses said
this because from the one hand he wanted to explain how the second son deceived
his father, and also to teach the blessing of the father, who did
not recognize
equal rights to his sons, was a blind blessing, it was unjust, and God rejected
it. But as we distinguish the "blessing" is consecrated, and yes, it speaks
about people and nations! So Moses associated this comparison with the two sons
of Isaac. At the end the story would
say, the two brothers fought, but the second had repented for his action to
deceive his father and brother, and asked God to forgive him. His brother
attacked him, and as the second was not very strong, he asked help from God, and
God gave him strengthening to win his brother.
And because God gave him power,
Moses called him (in the comparison)
Israel. The name means, the one who became stronger by the help of God, and Moses
identified the son of the comparison with the second son of Isaac. So Jacob of
the comparison who repented for his bad behaviour, was forgiven and justified by
God, and because at the unequal fight he asked help from God, and God gave him
power, he was called
Israel. So those two names identified with the second son of Isaac, to whom the
name was Israel indeed.
Besides, his name couldn't be Jacob,
while it means
Sup-planter. Certainly Isaac wouldn't call his son
Sup-planter from his first years. Why would he do that? Supposed the fight for the first-born rights
happened when were adults, and until then, what was his name?
Well, it is written that his name was Jacob because during their birth, Jacob
was holding his brother heel, but of course this is only allegorical reference.
So it is rather
sure his first name was
Israel. But and the justified name Jacob (because in the comparison the son repented
and asked for forgiveness) was identified also with him, it
was identified with
real son of Isaac who was indeed pious and just, and never deceived any body. So
he remained known mostly as Jacob. The justified by God, Jacob, and the
reinforced by
God,
Israel
.
But in the comparison, the other brother had also right, so the second
brother won the fight, because repented and asked help from God, but he
couldn't go away unwounded from the right of his brother. From that time
Israel
walks with a limp. And Moses means here the people of
Israel, warning them, and
telling them in the unfair fights with their brothers,
always they will limp. The wars always make people psychic lame and general
bodily crippled! He also taught them if they were "wrestling"
with God, meaning if they are pious and just, God will be with them at their
fair struggle, and would give them power, and so, would be worthy to be called
Israel. These meanings come out of the writings of the holy Prophet that some of
them are missing and other are scattered here and there, and among mountains of
additions and misunderstandings.
Let us see now some other writings that reflect other
"smart" wishes
and pursuits. We see the "blessing of the father" the way it is written does
not belong of course to the pious and just Isaac, and certainly not to Moses
either. We see very clearly it reflects other posterior times when Moses was
long dead. It reflects the wishes of the rich rulers for conquering lands,
wishes of converting people, even brothers into slaves. The "blessing" says;
people to work for you, and nations to worship you, to be the master of your
brothers, and the children of your mothers to worship you.
(!!!)
And after he was enforced to bless the other son, said. You will live
without roof and under the coolness of the sky!! What else did he want? You will
live with your knife and for your brother you will work, but when you are very
powerful you will break free from the oppression of your brothers. Well, the
"blessing" was also somewhere hopeful, because as it is understandable,
those rich rulers wouldn't care much what would happen after their death.
So we distinguish the "blessing of the father" speaks about people
and nations, who should be slaves to Jacob and worship him. We also notice the
"blessing" was
consecrated as will of God, and therefore they said, God
and the holy fathers were blessing the injustice, even the enslaving of brothers
with all the terrible results. But because they also wrote about Jacob himself,
what people used to be his slaves, and which nations did
worship him? No one. The
opposite happened, we read Jacob was very poor, and that comes out clearly from
the other writings (of Moses) that speak a different language.
His children were starving,
and went to
Egypt
to survive. So who were those who wanted people to be their slaves, and nations
to worship them? The posterior rich rulers were those who had those
"blessed" wishes, they wanted to have slaves and nations to worship them. We
also are reminded here the law of the holy inspired Prophet. The Lord your God
you will worship only, and only Him you will adore.
How then it was possible for Moses to consecrate this
"blessing" with
the slaves and the worshipping as the will of God and as the blessing of the
pious Isaac? And how was it possible for Moses who wrote according the Will of
God, to consecrate the injustice and the enslaving of brothers? Behold the
proofs.
But let us see some other parts of the literal story of Jacob or
Israel
and Esau, as it is written. We read that Isaac sent Jacob to
Syria
to marry a woman belonging to their family. Jacob left with just a stick, he
crossed
Jordan River
and returned some years later with his wives and children and some property in
flocks as well. He worked very hard to make this property and was as a slave
under his father in law for 14 years. We don't see what he inherited from his
father and what the reason could have been to endanger his life by blackmailing
Esau. But not even Esau inherited anything from his father. So what happened to
all that wealth of Isaac, where were that rich inheritance and the first born
rights? What happened to Abraham's wealth, and
what happened to his slaves and his silver and gold and sheep and cows, that
been inherited to Isaac?
Well, all these existed only in the minds of the rich
people, and as they were
rich they also presented Abraham as rich, and by doing so justified themselves
as God's blessed, as it was Abraham. It is written that Jacob returned from
his father in law with many slaves, but also according the writings, Jacob used
to send his sons to pasture their flocks and work on
farms and regardless whether rented it or not, they don't mention if he also sent his slaves
together with his sons. They
used to pasture and work without slaves, while organized secretly to kill Joseph and later
sold him. You see, they had not reasons of interests everywhere to put
additions, and no one was there to check what they were writing.
In those allegorical writings of Moses, the Prophet Hosea also mentioned
about in chapter 12: 3, 4. Moses used a symbolic comparison of two brothers for the
reasons I already mentioned, but the posterior writers mixed up every thing. It
is written that Jacob after the fight asked the other what was his name. The
other asked him, why do you ask? And he blessed Jacob there. According to them,
Jacob called that place Peniel, because, again according to them, Jacob said,
for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Gen. 32: 29, 30. In
another words they ended up writing that Jacob was "wrestling" with God!
At the chapter 33: 10, we read that Jacob said to Esau. Please receive my
present from my hands, inasmuch as I have seen your face as one sees the face of
God, and you have received me favourably. Now whom did he see, and with whom was
he wrestling? Did he see God and was he
"wrestling" with God, or did he see his
brother as god, and in his dream he was wrestling with his "god" brother? They mixed up
everything.
The way to explain this paradox, with Jacob who was "wrestling" with
God, and he also saw his brother as god, is as follows. Certainly there was a
place that was called Peniel. Peniel meant, someone who saw the face of
a god, but
of course did not see God the Creator, but some other
"god", a spirit, a
ghost. In another words yes, there was a place, and rather
not only one, for which they used to say that someone or some people saw
some god, meaning the spirit of a dead. Imaginations of course, as usually
happen in similar cases. Simply there was a place,
which according to some rumours someone saw the face of a god, and attached this
rumour in the comparison of Moses. Who knows how many in the line used to put
their hands on his writings, and mixed them up so much, that almost every
meaning of his teaching was lost.
Now as for Jacob who saw his brother as god
(of course because of the mixed up) it was simply about an ordinary dream that
been attached it in the same story. The word god, original
meant the dead tribal leader, but yet they were not liberated from those old
traditional perceptions. When someone saw in his dream another man, as usually
happens, he wouldn't see him of course by flesh and bone, saw him as an
immaterialist image, and whatever if the person at the image
was alive or dead,
it was the same as if he was god.
We also distinguish, in those circumstances of ignorance, and through
their interests used to misinterpret everything. They misunderstood the meaning
Israel, and adapted it to be according the pursuits and the wishes of the rich rulers.
In another words, they used to imagine that God reinforces someone, makes one
Israel, so may act unjustly towards the others, and when it happened to win
battles, and plundered properties and converted other people into slaves, they
were saying, God gave us the victory, and God gave us slaves!
They didn't
understand, or because of interests they did not want to understand that God's
desire is for the just and pious human, who does not plunder and does
not
enslave their brothers and other people. They did not understand that God's
people, are of course the pious Israelites, but are also all those who belong to
every tribe and nation, or they belong to no one; those who hear the Word of God
and try to get close to Him by overcoming tribes and nations. Were perhaps all
those secretaries and Pharisees, the hypocrites and killers God's people
because were descendents of the pious Abraham?
Does God have tribes and nations; does God make discernment where people
come from? Or do we think that God changes His decisions? Not
of course. If someone is not
racist, it means he siphons virtue from God and comes closer to God, and the
opposite, he becomes evil and matches the devil. So what does God mean by the
name
Israel
and by the meaning of people of
Israel? The people of
Israel
are the pious Israelites, and also all those who get power from God by their
own will and endeavour and stream power to stand and win by love and justice.
This is the people of God; this is the
Israel
of the holy inspired Prophet. And this pious and just
Israel, not the faked one of the greedy rich rulers, was also the son of the other
pious and just Isaac. God revealed Himself by the words, I Am that I Am, I
Am the God of Abraham of Isaac and Jacob. I Am the God of pious and just human,
wherever he comes from.
I must make clear that when in the following subjects I use harsh
language against the unreasonable rich and their wicked interests, this
does not mean of course that I am against the lovely people of Israel, who
suffered so much as no other nation in the world has ever suffered. Everyone is
responsible for his own deeds and certainly not for the deeds of others who
lived thousands of years ago.
I think it is also worthy to see closer the
story of the three sons of Judah. It is written that Judah (son of Jacob) gave
to his first son Er a wife, to whom the name was Tamar. When Er died the second
son Onan married Tamar. When he also died the third son to whom his name was
Shelah should take also Tamar for his wife. But didn't. His father Judah delayed
to marry them. Tamar didn't like this delay, and so attempted to take "revenge"!
She masqueraded herself pretending as prostitute, inducing Judah to have sexual
relation with her.
I
think this traditional type of marriage, the next brother to marry the same
woman when the other die, refers to a far back ("primitive") previous type of
marriage in which all brothers had in common their wives. And it seems some
times the father also used to participate but breaking the unwritten rules.
So, all the children of the brothers were considered as brothers, while no one
would know who is his son. The children of the sisters were considered cousins
to the children of the brothers.
This
type of marriage gave progressively its position to another type of marriage, in
which the next brother would marry the same woman, but after the death of the
first brother. So it remained as tradition, to call brothers the children of
brothers. At the time of the Lord some asked Him to whom wife would be in the
Kingdom of God, while the brothers had the same wife. Of course the Lord said,
in the Kingdom of God do not get marry. What I am trying to say is, the brothers
of the Lord perhaps were not really brothers. Maybe they were not children of
His Mother, but maybe children of some Joseph's brothers. It is written in what
they call "Apocrypha", (which "Apocrypha" are unworthy of credit indeed), that
His brothers were not really His brothers. The rather false "gospel" of Jacob
says the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph from previous marriage. But
whether the Lord had physical brothers or not, is not our concern at all.
|
