SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT AUSTRALIA!!!

el kabong wrote:

[img][/img]

Before giving consideration to these findings, it may be worth pointing out that the value of a document may change with time, so that it does not become more or less valuable, but rather valuable in an entirely new way. There is a sense in which Genesis 10 retains its unique worth as the first document to proclaim the unity of Man, just as the Magna Carta was the first document to proclaim the equality of Man. To say, as Thomas did, that the document is valueless, betrays an extraordinary narrowness of vision, by assuming that the only value a document can have is its use as a source of information for the historian. Historical veracity is one kind of value, but there are other values.

It should not for one moment, however, be supposed that we are relinquishing the historicity of this chapter in order to establish its value on another footing. The fact is, as we shall try to show, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 has been found completely accurate - often where, at one time, it seemed most certainly to be in error. This process of steady vindication has served to establish for it a second kind of value, namely, that like every other part of Scripture which has similarly been challenged and vindicated by research, it now contributes its testimony to the dependability of these earlier portions of Genesis, upon the truth of which hangs so much else of our faith.

Moreover, it is very difficult to conceive of the record of Genesis, which carries the thread of history from Adam until well into those ages supplied with monumental documents, without some kind of Table to set forth what happened to Noah's family and how the rest of the world, apart from the Middle East, came to be peopled after the Flood. The Table thus becomes an essential part of Scripture in its earliest portions, not merely for the satisfying of our natural curiosity, but to establish the fact that all men are of one blood, the offspring of the first Adam, and redeemable by the blood of one Man, the Second Adam.

The Table thus serves three purposes. It supplies an essential chapter in the early record of Genesis, rounding out what happened as the world's population expanded. It joins the whole human race into a single family, without giving the least suggestion that any one particular branch had preeminence over another - a notable achievement. Finally, as a purely historical document, it provides insights into the relationships between peoples that are only now becoming obtainable by other means, thereby adding its testimony to the dependability of the Genesis record..

Of the first of these achievements, Dillmann had this to say: (

Egyptians and Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians, even Indians and Persians, had a certain measure of geographical and ethnological knowledge, before more strictly scientific investigation had been begun among the classical peoples. From several of these, such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, surveys of enumerations of the peoples known to them and attempts at maps have come down to us in the written memorials they have left behind. But not much attention was paid, as a rule, to foreigners unless national and trade interests were at stake. Often enough they were despised as mere barbarians, and in no case were they included with the more cultured nations in a higher unity.

It is otherwise in our text. Here many with whom the Israelites had no sort of actual relationship are taken into consideration.

We are apt to be so familiar with the idea of the brotherhood of man, that we assume it to be a concept accepted by all races at all times throughout history. Occasionally, we observe in our own selves a certain hesitancy in according other nations who do not share our cultural values the full measure of humanness which we accord to members of our own society. Such feelings, however, are apt to be concealed as much as possible, since the proper thing nowadays is to support the heroic assumption that "all men are equal." But there are times when we can give vent to our true feelings in the matter, as for example, when we are at war. If the writer of the tenth chapter of Genesis was a Hebrew, it is likely that, for him, the Canaanites were a particularly despised and degraded subsection of the human race. We have an analogy in the status accorded to the Jewish people by the Nazis. To many Germans at that time, the Jews were not really human beings at all. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that in this Table of Nations the Canaanites are given equal standing in this Pedigree of Man with the descendants of Eber, among whom the Jewish people are numbered.

In his commentary, Kalisch (9) points out that even the curse of Canaan seems to have been forgotten, and not the slightest hint of it appears in the record to remind the reader. On the contrary, no other tribe is enumerated with such complete detail as that of Canaan (verses 15-19). As this learned writer says, "Nothing disturbs the harmony of this grand genealogy."

In the face of this, it is really rather extraordinary that Driver should consider the document as a piece of Jewish propaganda.

One further point is worth mentioning. When a civilization reaches a very high level of development, there may come a clearer recognition that all men are blood brothers. However, in a very small, closely-knit community struggling to establish itself, there may tend to be a very different attitude. Among most primitive people, the habit is to call themselves (in their own language, of course)" true men," referring to all others by some term which clearly denies them the right to manhood at all. Thus the Naskapi call themselves Neneot, which means real people. The Chukchee say that their name means "real men." The Hottentots refer to themselves as Khoi-Hoi which means men of men. The Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego (of all places) say that their name means men par excellence. The Andamanese, a people who appear to lack even the rudiments of law, refer to themselves as Ong, meaning men. All these people reserve these terms only for themselves. It is a sign of a low cultural state when this attitude is taken, but then, when a people hold the opposite attitude, it is likely a sign of a high cultural state. Thus, when any people achieve a stage of intellectual development at which they clearly conceive that all people are related in a way which assures them equality as human beings, they are then highly cultured, even though the mechanics of their civilization may appear at a low stage of development. From this we ought logically to gather that the writer of Genesis was a highly cultured individual. Indeed, it seems to me that only with a high conception of God would such a conception of man be possible, and therefore Genesis 10 would seem to bear testimony to a very high order of religious faith. In the final analysis, one might ask whether it is possible at all to sustain a true conception of the equality of man without a true conception of the nature of God. The former stems directly from the latter. The only ground for attaching to all men an equal level of worth is the tremendous fact that all souls have equal value to God. Assuredly, they do not have equal value to society.

Unless the ultimate standard of reference is the value which God attaches to persons, it is quite unrealistic to talk about all men being equal. Consider the drunken sot, wallowing in the gutter, poisoning the air with his foul language, utterly confusing his children, destroying his family life, disgusting his friends, disturbing his whole society - how can such a man possibly be of equal value with, for example, a pillar of the community who is full of neighbourly goodness? Clearly, there is no equality here if the basis of evaluation is man with man, or man with his society.

Any society which evaluates it members by their worth to itself is not attaching value to the individual person at all, but only to his functions. When these functions no longer serve a useful purpose, the man ceases to have any value. This was Nietzsche's philosophy - and Hitler's. It is the logical philosophy of anyone who views man apart from God. It is also the philosophy of education today, emphasizing skill and technology, encouraging men to do rather than be well. Against this tendency of natural man to "de-valuate" himself while supposing he is exalting himself, the Bible could not do anything else but set forth in clear terms these two complementary facts: that God is concerned equally with all men and that all men belong to one family, uniquely related through Adam to God Himself. The argument, so stated, is an argument also for the comprehensiveness of the Table of Genesis 10. Unless it is comprehensive, unless ultimately all mankind is in view here and not just those nations which Israel happened to have cognizance of, it is a chapter out of keeping with its context. Unless the whole human race is intended, the chapter's purpose is in doubt and the message of the Bible is incomplete. We are then left only with Acts 17:26 which, at this point, while assuring our hearts, does not enlighten our minds as to the facts that it gives.

There is a negative side also to the matter of the authenticity of this historical document. Had this Table been designed for propaganda purposes (to establish Israel's position as of equal dignity though not sharing some of the glories of the surrounding peoples) or had it been merely the work of some early historian creating his own data with a comparatively free hand, then almost certainly some device would have been adopted for deliberately setting forth not only the high status of his own ancestors, but the very low status of that of his enemies. With respect to the first tendency, one has only to read modern history books to discern how very easily individuals of little real significance can be presented to us in such a way as to make us take enormous pride in our heritage. There is, in fact, very little written history which is not in part propaganda, although the author himself is often unaware of it. The number of "firsts" claimed by some national historians for their countrymen is quite amazing, and it is usually clear what the nationality of the author himself is. In complete contrast, it would be difficult to prove with certainty of what nationality the author of Genesis 10 was. We assume he was a Hebrew, but if the amount of attention given to any particular line that is traced were used as a clue to his identity, he might have been a Japhethite, a Canaanite, or even an Arab. This is remarkable and shows enormous restraint on the author's part, the kind of restraint which suggests the hand of God upon him.

With respect to the second tendency, the belittling of one's enemies, this chapter most assuredly would have been a wonderful one in which to put the hated Amalekites in their proper place. But the Amalekites are not even mentioned. Of course, it might be argued that the Amalekites did not even exist at the time he wrote, a supposition which I consider highly probable. If this is the case, this is a very early document, not a later one as Driver would have had us believe. In any case, the author could have treated the Canaanites similarly.

One further aspect of the tone of the Table is the modesty of its chronological claims. Whereas Baylonians and Egyptians in the "parallels" which they have preserved for us extend their genealogies to absolutely incredible lengths - in some instances occupying hundreds of thousands of years - there are no such claims made or implied in Genesis 10. The feeling which one has in reading this chapter is that the expansion of population was quite rapid. Certainly, it is all most reasonable. This feature of the Table is ably summed up by Taylor Lewis who remarked: (10)

How came this Hebrew chronology to present such an example of modesty as compared with the extravagant claims to antiquity made by all other nations? The Jews, doubtless, had, as men, similar national pride, leading them to magnify their age upon the earth, and run it up to thousands and myriads of years. How is it, that the people whose actual records go back the farthest have the briefest reckoning of all?

The only answer to this is, that while others were left to their unrestrained fancies, this strange nation of Israel was under a providential guide in the matter. A divine check held them back from this folly. A holy reserve, coming from a constant sense of the divine pupillage, made them feel that "we are but of yesterday," while the inspiration that controlled their historians directly taught them that man had but a short time upon the earth.

They had the same motive as others to swell out their national years; that they have not done so, is one of the strongest evidences of the divine authority of their Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, those "parallels" that do exist elsewhere in the literature of antiquity not only completely lack the sobriety of Genesis 10, but owe their existence rather more to the desire to record notable conquests than to any philanthropic philosophy. As Leupold has aptly said: (11)

No nation of antiquity has anything to offer that presents an actual parallel to this Table of Nations. Babylonian and Egyptian lists that seem to parallel this are merely a record of nations conquered in war. Consequently, the spirit that prompted the making of such lists is the very opposite of the spirit that the Biblical list breathes.

Such records cannot, in fact, properly be classed as "parallels" at all. As Marcus Dods observed, (12) "This ethnographic Table is not only the most ancient and reliable description of the various nations and peoples, but it has no parallel in its attempt to exhibit all the races of the earth as related to one another."

The Structure and Purpose of the Table

The structure of things is normally related to the purpose they are intended to serve. This applies in engineering design, and it applies to physiology. It also applies in literature, whether as novel, poetry, legal document, or history. It applies also to Genesis 10. This document has more than one purpose but is so constructed that all its purposes are served equally well because of the simplicity of its conception.

The method of course, is to present a series of names, whether of individuals, whole tribes, or even places, as though they were "persons" related by birth. This is done in a simple straightforward manner, several lines being traced for several generations, here and there a comment supplying additional information. As a consequence of the particular form in which our sense of "precision" has developed in Western Culture, we find it difficult to accept the idea that if a man founded a city or a tribe, such an aggregate of people could still be summed up in the person of the founder, so that they could with equal propriety be referred to as his offspring. Thus in verse 15, Sidon is spoken of as the firstborn of Canaan: whereas by verse 19, Sidon is now clearly the city of that name. Similarly, Canaan is mentioned in verse 6 as a son of Ham and subsequently in verse 16 as father of several tribes who indeed, in verse 18, are referred to as his families. In the following verses, the name refers to the territory he occupied, which is geographically defined. We think of this as a rather loose employment of the term son, but it is simplicity itself when it comes to establishing origins. As Dillmann put it: (13)

In the representation given of this fundamental idea of the relationship of all peoples and men, each particular people is conceived of as a unity summed up in and permeated by the influence of its ancestor.

Although Dillmann does not elaborate on the implication of his observation regarding the persistence of the character of an individual in his descendants so that the observation appears almost as a chance remark, it will be well in discussing the purpose of the genealogy (in its bearing on its structure) to pursue this implication a little further, before returning to a more detailed examination of the structure per se.

The point of interest here is that there is a sense in which the character of an ancestor may for a short while, and occasionally for a very long time, permeate the characters of his descendants. Sir Francis Galton, (14) and others, first applied statistical analysis for sociological data in an attempt to demonstrate that there is such a thing as hereditary genius. It is not clear today whether such traits are genetically linked or the result of circumstances: for example, a famous lawyer may bias his children to follow in his footsteps and give them a headstart by his accumulated means and technical aids. The same may happen in the practice of medicine. Similarly, circumstances may sometimes result in a long line of great actors. Possibly in the realm of artistic ability we have a larger measure of genetic influence.

The idea that a "father" determines to a significant extent the character of his descendants for several generations underlies a certain class of statements that appear both in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus spoke of his bitterest critics as "Children of Satan," or "Sons of Belial," denying emphatically their claim to be "Children of Abraham." The very term, "the Children of Israel," came to mean something more than the mere descendants of Jacob. The Lord spoke of Nathaniel as "an Israelite indeed," having reference to his character, not to his lineage. It is important, in this context, to guard against the assumption that the "children" of an ancestor will only perpetuate the undesirable elements of his character. I believe history shows that there is such a thing as "national character," (15) which appears distinctly at first in a single individual and reappears in his children and grandchildren, with sufficient force to result in the formation of a widespread behaviour pattern that thereafter tends to reinforce and perpetuate itself as the family grows from a tribe into a nation. Where differences in national character do seem to exist, no implication is intended that there is any intrinsic superiority of one kind or another. We are arguing for the existence of differences, not superiorities. In the sum, we are all much alike. This is of fundamental importance.

The possibility that this idea is not foreign to Scripture was noted by Dr. R. F. Grau, who, over 80 years ago, commented: (16)

The object of the document which we are considering is not so much to call attention by these names to three individuals (Shem, Ham, Japheth) and to distinguish them from one another, as to point out the characteristics of the three races and their respective natural tendencies.

It is customary now to divide the world's present population into three racial stocks, Caucasians (essentially, the White Man), Negroids, and Mongoloids. It is exceedingly difficult to define successfully the distinguishing characteristics of any one of these three, although it might seem quite otherwise. Negroids are presumably black but Australian aborigines are not Negroid, though quite as black. The straight, black hair, the brown "slant" eyes, the epicanthic fold, and other features commonly accepted as characteristically Mongoloid, can be observed frequently among people who are classed as Caucasians. To repeat, although everyone thinks it is a simple matter to distinguish the three groups - and in most cases they can - it is virtually impossible to write down a foolproof description which will clearly mark out what tribe or nation belongs within which group. There is, however, one way in which it could be done - especially if we limit our view to a much earlier period in history when racial mixture had not proceeded very far - and this is to trace representatives of each tribe to their known ancestors and set forth, in some kind of genealogical tree, the relationships of these ancestors. Viewed in this light, the method of Genesis 10 is probably the only valid way to go about it.

In this Table, we again meet three groups of people, the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But these three groups do not correspond with the current classification of races, for in this Table it is apparent that Negroid and Mongoloid are classed as one family, and the trilogy is reconstituted by setting the Semitic peoples in a distinct class by themselves. So then, we have the Japhethites who can be conveniently equated, for our purposes, with the Caucasians, Indo-Europeans, or White Man; the Hamites who are held to encompass the Negroid and Mongoloid branches, i.e., the so-called coloured races; and the Shemites who comprise the Hebrew people (both ancient and modern), the Arabs, and a few once-powerful nations, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians. This is a very sketchy outline, but it will serve for the moment until the details of the Table can be examined more specifically.

The Thesis: The Purpose Elaborated

Now, it is my firm belief that God has endowed these three groups - which we shall henceforth refer to normally as Japhethites, Hamites, and Shemites - with certain capacities and aptitudes which, when properly exercised, have made a unique contribution in the total historical development of mankind and which, when allowed to find full cooperative expression during a single epoch, have invariably led to the emergence of a high civilization.

This subject has been explored at some length by the author and was the basis of an accepted Ph.D. thesis. (17) It is presented in simple outline in Doorway Paper No.28 (and in Vol. I Three Branches), "Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Subsequent World History," and one critical aspect of it is examined in some detail in Doorway Paper No. 43, "The Technology of Hamitic People." (Vol. III, The Second Branch).

In a nutshell my thesis is this: that mankind, considered both as individuals and as the species, Homo sapiens, has a constitution which seeks satisfaction in three directions: physically, intellectually, and spiritually. There are people who live almost entirely for the physical; we often speak of them as "living to eat." There are people who live almost entirely in the intellectual realm, who gladly surrender a meal to buy a book. Then there are people to whom things of the spirit are completely paramount. Such people often go into permanent "retreat" and, for a large part of Christian history, they formed a separate class. Most of us probably live in these three realms with approximately equal emphasis, depending upon circumstances at the time. (18)

A survey of history with this thought in mind, applied to nations or races rather than to individuals, reveals that Japhethites have originated the great philosophical systems; the Shemitic peoples, the great religious systems whether true or false; and, surprising as it may seem to one not familiar with the evidence, the Hamitic people have supplied the world with the basis of almost every technological advance. This is not the time or place to attempt a demonstration of this thesis, since it has been undertaken in the two papers mentioned above. The extent of the evidence is remarkable indeed, although all the more so in that only in recent years has the debt of the white man to the colored man been recognized to any extent. New discoveries are constantly being made as a result of a continuing research into the origin of inventions, and these bear out the above observation in quite unexpected ways.

When the philosophical bent (which originated with the Greeks and the Aryans and successively elaborated by Western Man) was finally wedded to the technical genius of Hamitic peoples in Africa, Asia, and the New World, there arose the modern phenomenon of Science, enormously enlarging the fruits of this marriage. But the tendency, when the union of these two is most fruitful, has always been for a kind of dehumanized civilization to appear. What is necessary if this result is to be avoided, is the spiritual component, this contrbution being supplied initially by the Shemites, and now by the Christian Church. Without the Hamitic contribution, the contribution of Japheth led nowhere - as in Greece. Without the contribution of Japheth, the contribution of Ham stagnated as soon as the immediate practical problems of survival had been sufficiently solved. This kind of stagnation can be illustrated by the history of some of the great nations of antiquity, the Egyptians, for example. These interactions are examined elsewhere, but the important point to underscore at this juncture is that the various contributions of the various nations and peoples do not appear as contributions made by any one "family" unless one has the clue of these family relationships, which Genesis 10 supplies.

Given this clue, and allowing that the Table is a true historical record, these three components for a high civilization - the technological, intellectual, and spiritual - suddenly appear in a new light when it is realized which particular group of people made the most fundamental contribution in each area. The dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem, that is, the occupation by Japheth of a position originally possessed by Shem, the taking away of a kingdom from the latter to give it to the former - all these biblical phrases assume a new significance. In short, Genesis 10, by dividing the whole race into three families (though in a way which does not concord with modern concepts of racial groupings) is not thereby discredited but shown to be based upon a much clearer insight into the framework of history. To my mind, there is no question that when we see history as God sees it in its totality and at the end of time, we shall discover that this Table was a fundamental clue to its meaning. And, we would repeat, it serves this purpose because it has a structure which does not agree with modern attempts to redefine the interrelationships of the world's peoples.

Structure of the Table

Now a few thoughts may be in order with respect to the more mechanical aspects of its structure. First of all, it may be noted that the division of mankind into three basic families was not derived from traditions maintained by nations living around Israel or within their ken, because these nations did not have any such traditions. The Egyptians distinguished themselves from other people on the basis of colour, classing the Asiatics as yellow, the Libyans as white, and the Negroes as black. (19) But, in this Table of Nations, the so-called coloured peoples are not distinguished from one another (for instance, the blacks from the yellows) but are classes, if my understanding of the text is correct, within a single family group. And although it is true that the name Ham, meaning dark, may have reference to skin colour - as the word Japheth may have reference to fair-skinned people - the principle does not hold entirely, for some, at least, of Ham's descendants were fair. Indeed, according to Dillmann, there were, in ancient times, fair-skinned as well as the more familiar black-skinned Ethiopians. (20) There is no indication that the Hittites were black-skinned, and the same is probably true of the descendants of Sidon, etc. On the other hand, the Canaanites and the Sumerians (both descendants of Ham) refer to themselves as "blackheaded" people (21) - a designation which seems more likely to have reference to skin colour rather than colour of hair. Since almost all people in this area have black hair anyway, a hair-colour distinction would be meaningless.

I am aware, however, that it is customary in reconstructions based upon skeletal remains to picture the Sumerians as anything but Negroid. But this is not fatal to our theory for, as we have already noted with respect to the Australian Aborigines, not all black-skinned people are Negroids, and, were we dependent only upon skeletal remains of these Aborigines with no living representatives to guide us, we should have no way of knowing that they were black-skinned at all. The same may apply to the Sumerians and Canaanites. There is little doubt that the people of Sumer and the Indus Valley culture were akin. (22) The descriptions of the Indus Valley people in early Aryan literature indicate that they were Negroid in type. (23) The famous little "Dancing Girl" from the Indus Valley is certainly Negroid, and it is equally evident that genes for black skin still form a large component in the gene pool of the present Indian population. In his Races of Europe, (24) Coon has a section with descriptive materials devoted entirely to many racial types which have contributed to the present population of Europe. In speaking of gypsies and dark-skinned Mediterraneans, he includes two photographs of one young man of clearly "negroid" appearance and comments as follows:

Of much greater antiquity outside of India is a dark-skinned [in the photo, almost black], black-eyed, and straight-haired Mediterranean type which appears with some frequency in southern Iran and along the coasts of the Persian Gulf. This young sailor from Kuwait will serve as an example. The origin and affiliations of this type have not as yet been fully explained.

Interestingly enough, a further illustration from southern Arabia shows a young man who, as Coon puts it, "except for his light unexposed skin colour....could pass for an Australian aborigine." The use of the word unexposed inevitably made me think of Ham's reaction to his exposed father. For, if Ham was dark all over, he may have expected his father to be dark also, and his surprise at discovering otherwise might have so disturbed him as to cause him to be forgetful of his filial duty. At any rate, it is clear that in this area of the world, once occupied by the Sumerians, there still remain "unaccountable" evidences of a very dark-skinned component in the population. All these lines of evidence lend support to the contention that the Sumerians may have themselves been a black-skinned people.

The three families are not predicated on the basis of language, either. Again it is perfectly true that the children of Japheth, in so far as they have given rise to the Indo-Europeans, would seem to be a single linguistic family. The same may be said of the Shemites. But when we come to the descendants of Ham we run into difficulties for it appears that in historic times the Canaanites, Philistines, and many Cushites spoke Semitic languages, while the Hittites (also Hamites, from Heth) may have spoken an Indo-European language. The trouble with linguistic evidence, in this instance, is that it really appears too late in history to be decisive.

It has been suggested that the arrangement of the Table was dictated upon geographical grounds: for example, that the children of Japheth spread in one direction - more or less to the north and west, whereas the children of Ham tended towards the south and east, while the children of Shem stayed more nearly at the centre. This, however, would make the document something of a prophetic statement for such a dispersion did not occur until sometime later - unless, of course, one gives the document a late date, a point to be considered later. There is evidence that the writer knew only that some of Ham's descendants had entered Africa, that a large part of Shem's descendants had settled in Arabia, and that Japheth was still not very far to the north, though spreading along the shorelines of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. In fact, the picture presented indicates a Cush quite close at hand, which was not the same as the Cush later to be found in Ethiopia. Thus, although the Table recognizes, as indeed it had to do, that some dispersion had already taken place in which the members of each family had migrated in more or less the same general direction, this knowledge was not the basis of the threefold division, but rather stemmed from it.

While the writer admits that his genealogy employs not merely the names of persons but also of places and families, even making use at times of language as a guide, it seems pretty clear that the structure of his Table is dependent ultimately upon a true understanding of the original relationships of the founding fathers of each line to their more notable descendants and to one another. To my mind, the very structure of the Table predicates this kind of knowledge of the facts. On no other basis can one account for the circumstance that, for centuries, certain statements have seemed clearly contrary to the evidence. Only as more light appears does the Table prove itself to be correct, where properly tested.

The use of a genealogical tree which does not slavishly demand that individuals only are to be listed, but allows the inclusion of cities they founded, tribes they grew into, and districts they occupied, provides a simple, straightforward, and concise method of setting forth the Origin of Nations.

Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, February 08, 12 (06:54 am)


AH, the fury of the hypocrites since mining magnate Gina Rinehart snapped up more shares in struggling Fairfax.

Hear them, the gibbering Fairfax and ABC journalists, and self-serving Greens.

Anguished voices in the Fairfax newspapers, and on the ABC, groan that
media diversity is in danger now that Australia’s richest person has
12.8 per cent of the company that publishes the Leftist Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

Communications Minister Steve Conroy even claims we need new laws on
media ownership, given what some clown in the Fairfax papers squeals is
Rinehart’s apparent plot to “change the nature of Australia’s media and
politics”.

Her alleged plot: to buy “key media companies (to) impose a Fox
News-style libertarian perspective on Australia where voices like Bolt
can be promoted to influence policy”.

How sinister! God knows what damage I’d do if Rinehart got me a column
in a well-read paper like - er, this one - to turn a million empty
Fairfax minds to thoughts of evil.

Reality check. Here’s what actually happened this week.

Fact: a super-rich boss with strong opinions from the political fringe
now controls a media asset that’s now pumping out the owner’s world
view.

Only note: I’m not talking about Rinehart but Graeme Wood.

Wood is the global warming alarmist who got hugely rich with his
Wotif.com hotel booking site and gave the Greens an astonishing $1.6
million for its campaigns.

He’s now put up at least another $15 million to launch an online newspaper, The Global Mail -
but this time we don’t hear a bat-squeak of protest from journalists
about attempts to buy “political influence” or “change the nature of
Australia’s media”.

The comical opposite. Instead of damning Wood, ABC and Fairfax journalists are lining up to join him.

Yes, his journalists are almost exclusively former Fairfax and ABC employees, 12 in all, including former ABC Media Watch host Monica Attard, ABC TV reporter Ellen Fanning and Fairfax political reporter Mike Seccombe.

Sure, we’re told Wood has no editorial control over his reporters, but he won’t need it, will he?

Not now that he’s got a group-think collective that will, unbidden, take all the standard Left positions.

Check what the Global Mail published this week. There’s three -
three! - pieces lauding the radical Occupy movement, one complaining
that Muslim Australians are “misunderstood” and another defending higher
taxes.

A “warm and relaxed” Julia Gillard gets a sympathetic profile, as does Malcolm Turnbull, the Labor choice for Liberal leader.

And, what should especially thrill Wood, three more articles attack the
mining industry, branding it a “juggernaut” that’s “almost certainly”
causing “permanent damage to the environment” and ruining local
communities.

Not just our own. “The Filthy Rich and The Racists in Mongolia’s Mining Boom”, howls one headline.

All this in a publication in which Gillard is urged to attack Rinehart’s
“ratcheting up of her influence over Australia’s media”.

You’ve got to laugh at journalists complaining that Rinehart might do to
Fairfax what their own boss has already done with them - but in the
green cause and with their full agreement.

• Grim warnings don't stand up Herald Sun, 17 hours ago
  
• Media mining by Gina a fair fact Herald Sun, 5 days ago
  
• Rinehart becomes biggest Fairfax holder Perth Now, 5 days ago
  
• Playing for the money or the box seat? Herald Sun, 6 days ago
  
• Gina can't buy Fairfax voice The Australian, 6 days ago
  

barnacle bill wrote:

el kabong wrote:

[img][/img]

barnacle bill wrote:

barnacle bill wrote:

el kabong wrote:

[img][/img]

true lilly wrote:

• Pictures: Black Caviar's unbeaten run
  
• Superstar mare: Williams: Nothing beyond champ
  
• Ron Reed: Adoring fans hail coming of age
  
• Flemington: Black Caviar to do lap of honour
  
• Caulfield: Black Caviar puts on an Orrsome show
  

barnacle bill wrote:

barnacle bill wrote:

el kabong wrote:

[img][/img]

K-Federino wrote:

barnacle bill wrote:

el kabong wrote:

Andrew Bolt Blog

true lilly wrote:As this following image was put together by the like of
"Ciggy" the mega-bs-artists who's well paid careers
are to shove this sort of bs down the world's throat
via the GLOBAL ANTIsocial Twittering Media,
it would be wrong to leave 'that name', "Ciggy" out of this,
"UP YOURS":

K-Federino wrote:

barnacle bill wrote:

el kabong wrote:

Column -
Open your eyes. Where’s that warming?
223 Comments | Permalink
Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 07:14am

IT’S a bright new year, so let’s see how the great global warming scare is panning out, shall we?

First, the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade—or even 15 years,
according to new temperature data from Britain’s Met Office.

Hmm. That’s not what global warming scientists predicted.

Or look out of your window.

The rain that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said in 2007 “isn’t
actually going to fill our dams and river systems” any more has just
flooded New South Wales and Queensland again.

The Bureau of Meteorology,which three years ago warned “we are just not
going to have that sort of good rain again”, now admits last year was
our third-wettest on record.

The snowfalls that the University of East Anglia in 2000 said would soon
become “a very rare and exciting event” are falling as hard as ever.

The monster hurricanes we were told to expect by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore are coming no more often.

The massive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, that warmist
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg predicted would occur every second year from 2010,
hasn’t hit in years.

Wherever you look it’s the same wake-up-to-yourself story.

Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic
ice has not retreated since 2007, polar bear numbers are increasing,
global crop yields keep rising and now some solar scientists warn not of
warming, but cooling.

So how do the warming activists respond to increasing evidence
contradicting their theory that our carbon dioxide emissions are heating
the world dangerously?

Simple. They close their eyes.

Take Prof Naomi Oreskes, the author of Merchants of Doubt who famously tried to prove that not one scientific paper dissented from the global warming “consensus”.

Last week she complained people still “cling to the idea that it is
reasonable to maintain an open mind”, and insisted: “It isn’t.”

To have an academic demand a closed mind on global warming is a shock.
It shows she’s talking not about science but a faith.

Yet her view is depressingly echoed by much of the media, which for
years has whipped up the warming scare, refusing to report on scientists
who queried it, and demonising the open-minded as “deniers”.

They, too, believe a closed mind—and closed ears—is how to deal with inconvenient truths I’ve listed.

Example?

I once mentioned on the ABC TV’s Insiders that the warming had paused, only to be heckled by one panellist while the other, The Sydney Morning Herald’s David Marr, theatrically buried his head in a newspaper.

Not listening, la la la la la.

What has made the deliberate know-nothingness of such journalists so
damaging is that in no other country has the media spruiked the warming
creed so hysterically.

Warmist researchers from the Centre for Science and Technology Policy
Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder have counted how often
50 papers around the world mentioned “global warming” or “climate
change” and found that in every year from 2006 to 2011 our own beat the
rest.

But see how some of the most obsessed outlets—especially The Age and
ABC—resist reporting evidence that the late 20th century warming blamed
on man’s gases has halted, and few of the catastrophic consequences
predicted have happened.

Man’s gases do affect the climate is some small way, but not necessarily
for the worst and certainly not by as much as natural influences—some
of which may have us heading for cooling.

Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at
Denmark’s National Space Institute, investigates the effects of the sun
and cosmic rays on our climate, and last week said a recent cut in the
sun’s output could soon reverse any man-made warming: “World
temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.”

Who knows if he’s right? Best keep an open mind on this and on man-made warming.

Or, as Harvard University physicist Mike Stopa warned last week: “It is
possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate.”

And he asked: “Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the Earth’s climate.

“How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?”


The great jellyfish scare goes bung, too
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_jellyfish_scare_goes_bung_too/

“The ETS is bust, it’s dead”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ets_is_bust_its_dead/


“How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?”
________________________________________

"will"? our 'Future History' IS WRITTEN,
including the warnings of what we will suffer
for denying and ignoring it.

www.blueletterbible.org

true lilly wrote:Funny, I post this (below),
go to David Icke Official Forums,
and there's "tintin's Thread",
"The NEWS Behind The NEWS,
near the top of the 1st page of "Today's News",
with last post by "dixie d",
and I go to that last page, scroll down and
and it's ALL "tintin's" posts for the last two pages.

So I go back to the last page, still "tintin".
Go back to "Today's News", and "tintin's'
"The NEWS Behind The News" is NOT there,
or the next page, but way down on the 3rd.

"This Post should be cut and pasted on every blog ...EXCELLENT"

Read ALL 3 Pages of the comments:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kiddie_porn_horror/P0/

Les replied to Rock spider
Thu 09 Feb 12 (08:17am)
Abraham (aka Rock Spider) said:
“However what moral absolute, in a society without absolutes,
prohibits rationalising relationships with children?”

ANSWER: A shotgun.


“There are no moral absolutes so I’m doing what’s right by me.”

ANSWER: Me too. Look to the answer above.


“Every person reading this and other blogs will know
there are no moral absolutes in Australia....
Thus is the argument with which many
paedophiles rationalise their depravity.
Accusing them of depravity
will elicit a response of “Depraved for whom?
Morality is relative remember.”

ANSWER: No, it is not. A standard load of double-aught removes the relativity.

As a side note: whether you are Abraham, or Rock Spider -
you have selected the wrong subject to intellectualize.
I think I understand what you are trying to say -
but I am not going to discuss the subject.
The only discussion I am ever going to have
with someone who tries to rationalize paedophilia
or with a paedophile
is in the manner already discussed above.

Laura replied to Rock spider
Thu 09 Feb 12 (02:40pm)
Formerly A Political, Rock Spider has
written a slippery piece on moral relativism.

Paedophiles have a way of writing in code.

They have a way of lumping certain things together
and telling you they’re on your side
as they jumble around with terms
and ask too cute by half questions like;
‘am I being intolerant and judgemental?’

Before you know it, you end up accepting that sixties flower children
belong in the same theoretical category as ‘sexual relationships with children’.

Paedophiles work subtly and sublimely.

They know how to groom children and they appear to know how to groom bloggers.

Do I know absolutely that Rock Spider is a paedophile? Of course not!
But I do recognise something in his writing
because I have read it before
and it’s been written by child rapists
who call themselves ‘boy lovers’.

Read ALL 3 Pages of the comments:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kiddie_porn_horror/P0/

Re: How America made its children crazy



OBERON...and how 'they' FORCE The GREENIE Agenda



truth of sydney (Reply)
Thu 09 Feb 12 (04:07pm)
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kiddie_porn_horror/P40/

Most recent Heiner Affair articles:
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/goss/

true lilly wrote:I won’t peddle the theories, if they don’t peddle the conspiracies
Andrew Bolt – Saturday, February 11, 12 (11:22 am)


Look, if global warmists don’t want sceptics to peddle conspiracy
theories about a “one world government”, it would help a lot if
they didn’t have something like it on the drawing board:
<blockquote>At a closed-door retreat in a Long Island mansion
late last October, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his
topmost aides brainstormed about how the global organization could benefit from a “unique opportunity” to reshape the world, starting with the Rio + 20 Summit on Sustainable Development, which takes place in Brazil in June.

A copy of the confidential minutes of the meeting was
obtained by Fox News. According to that document, the 29-member group,
known as the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for
Coordination (CEB), discussed bold ambitions that stretch for years
beyond the Rio conclave to consolidate a radical new global green
economy, promote a spectrum of sweeping new social policies and build an
even more important role for U.N. institutions “ to manage the process
of globalization better."…

Its members see Rio as the springboard for consolidation of an expanding
U.N. agenda for years ahead, driven by still more U.N.-sponsored global
summits that would, as one participant put it, “ensure that the U.N.
connected with the roots of the current level of global discontent.”

Among other things, the CEB heard Ban’s top organizer, a U.N. Under
Secretary General from China named Sha Zukang, declare that the wish
list for the Rio + 20 meeting, already being touted as a landmark
environmental conclave on the issue of “global environmental
governance,” included making it:
<blockquote> “the catalyst” for solidifying a global economic, social and political agenda, built around “green economy” goals

a means to “reorient public and private decision-making” to make the
world’s poorest people the new economy’s “main beneficiaries,”

a method of also reorienting national decision-making in countries
around the world to put the new agenda “at the heart of national
ministries,”

the occasion to create new bodies, like a U.N. Sustainable
Development Council, similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council, to help
guide the global process further in the years ahead, or give additional
responsibilities to the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the world
body’s chief environmental agency.</blockquote>
Other participants chimed in with additional ideas, including the notion
from one key organizer that “the U.N. in Rio should be the voice of the
planet and its people.”
</blockquote>UPDATE

One World Government? Greens leader Bob Brown would approve:

(Thanks to readers. DERFred, bulmkt and Kathleen.)
42 comments | Permalink

true lilly wrote:http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kiddie_porn_horror/P20/
The Pixie Ear-Wax Rudd has announced the appointment of Qld Governor Quentin

Bryce as the next Governor General to replace Jefferies.

Bryce is supposedly a reformed alcoholic and
former President of The Qld Abuised Child Trust.

When presented with the Lindeberg Petition in relation to the Heiner Affair,
Bryce is known to said “it (The Heiner Affair) represents a boil which
cannot be lanced”.

A copy of the Lindeberg Petition can be obtained from the internet and has
been tabled in the Australian Senate and House of Representatives.

The petition included details of the destruction of the Heiner Documents
including details of the pack rape of “Annette”.

This is far worse than the situation involving the Howard government’s
appointment of Archbishop Hollingsworth.

Hollingsworth at no time was facing the prospect of being charged with a
criminal offence. Bryce on the other hand is facing the prospect of criminal
charges. This matter is currently before the Qld PCMC and by an unamious
decision the committee is believed to have requested a further submission
from Mr Lindeberg’s lawyers in relating to a solution to the grave impasse.

It should be noted that when a House of representatives Committee, chaired
by Bronwyn Bishop, looked at the Heiner Affair, including The Lindeberg
Grievance, it recommended the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry
(Royal Commission) and the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to process
the criminal charges.

Mrs Bryce is believed to be one of the sixty five individuals mentioned in
the Rofe Audit. This report was prepared by David Rofe QC a leading Sydney
barrister for Kevin Lindeberg. Mr Rudd is also one of the sixty five
individuals in the audit.

THE PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF QUENTIN BRYCE TO THE POSITION OF GOVERNOR
GENERAL SHOULD BE SEEN AS AN ATTEMPT BY KEVIN THE PIXIE EAR-WAX RUDD TO
STAVE OFF THE POSSIBILITY OF HIM BEING SACKED AS PRIME MINISTER AFTER HIS
CRIMINALITY IN THE HEINER AFFAIR HAS BEEN EXPOSED

Finally the Liberals will have to bite the bullet and find their balls over
THe Heiner Affair.
tombrown (Reply)
Wed 08 Feb 12 (04:47pm)
Heiner Watcher replied to tombrown
Wed 08 Feb 12 (06:39pm)
All your own work, I see.

Link.

tombrown replied to tombrown
Wed 08 Feb 12 (10:05pm)
No, I cant post links for peanuts,but I sure can cut and paste.Never pretended otherwise.

el kabong wrote:Ahoy!!! You've got two choices lilly; #1: Hold onto the pain and wallow in self-pity or;

#2: Accelerate your healing process and climb to new levels of fulfillment and understanding.

Cause & Effect

Gratitude, realise your 'cup runneth over'...........you have Freewill

The moment you let go of expectations you invoke Freewill, your ego is no longer in control.

el kabong wrote:

true lilly wrote:
Yes, over these years of asking the world to
correct me where I'm wrong, I have made
much more detailed posts on these and related
topics, and rather than being corrected, I've seen
confirmations come with new news of 'discoveries'
of what Is Real In This Whole Real World.
Such as palomino's post on the sea bed near Ache
RISING by 25 meters, fitting God's Word, of the remaining
people of the Lost, Scattered, Mixed and Mingled members
of The Tribes of Israel, Walking DRY SHOD, Back Home,
to OZion.

Let's be honest lilly, Sheikh Snoopsnuffleopagus the Magnificent and Munificent, Slayer of Dragons, Tamer of Tigers and Lions and Keeper of the Wild White Unicorns has corrected you on numerous occassions. You ignore reality and facts seeking to STEAL the Jews Scriptures and reinterpret them to fit your warprd view of reality.

FYI: Zion, in the original Hebrew is spelled Tsiyon, which refutes your contention that Zion is Austarliastan.

Mashiyach tus that whoever wants to be "the greatest" in his Kingdom would be the servant of all. Being a "servant of all" means that a leader opens himself to be used by the Father to reach out to whomever He desires, as opposed to having a his or her own "little flock". The Kingdom of Elohim is represented by Tsiyon (pronounced Tsee-yone or Zion in English), a literal place in Jerusalem, that symbolizes a spiritual place, the seat of Mashiyach's government on this earth. Originally Zion was a small location in Jerusalem, then it became a code name for the whole city of Jerusalem.



For it is said in the Scripture, “Behold, in Tsiyon I lay a chosen and precious stone for the head of the corner; and whoever believes in him will not be ashamed.” On you therefore who believe is this honor conferred: but to them who do not believe “he is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” And they stumble at it because they believe not the Word from where they were appointed. But you are an elect race, officiating as priests of the Kingdom; a Set Apart people, a redeemed congregation; that you should proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness to his precious light: who formerly were not counted as a people but now are the people of Elohim; and also, there were (once) no mercies on you but now mercies are poured out upon you. My beloved, I entreat you as strangers and pilgrims, separate yourselves from all lusts of the body, for they war against the soul. And let your behavior be honorable before all men; so that they who utter evil speeches against you, may see your good actions and may praise Elohim in the day of trial. And be submissive to all the sons of men, for Elohim’s sake; to kings, on account of their authority; and to judges because they are sent by him for the punishment of offenders, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of Elohim, that by your good deeds you may stop the mouth of the foolish who do not know Elohim: As free men, you are not like men who make their freedom a cloak for their wickedness, but as the servants of Elohim. 1 Peter 2:6-16




Throughout Scripture we read of a Kingdom that is not of this earth, but it is shaped from the pattern that is in Heaven. The tabernacle in the wilderness was built according to the specifications that YHWH gave to Moses and within that tabernacle, each of the physical elements are symbols of the spiritual or heavenly Kingdom. It is also interesting to note that Zion is mentioned in 153 verses in the Tanakh... this is the same number of fish the disciples caught in John 21:11. The symbolism is clear, Yeshua taught his disciples how to build the Kingdom of Heaven, as opposed to a religion "about" the Kingdom of Heaven, a very big difference.



We are being trained to know what Tsiyon is, and what it is not. No religion or people's groups have exclusive rights to Tsiyon, it belongs to the people of Mashiyach regardless of religion, race, color or creed. The Government of Tsiyon is on the shoulder of Mashiyach. Mashiyach is returning to the Mount of Olives from whence he departed, but this time round Scripture tells us he will be Mashiyach Ben David a much different scenario than when he first came to earth.

Tsiyon is also the place in our neshama (spirit) where we connect with Mashiyach where our heart receives and gives love for all of Creation, where we can see all others through the eyes of Mashiyach and carry no prejudice towards anyone. The Kingdom is within us, it is not an external government or religion. Over the centuries there have been many Zionist movements who entrapped adherents into a nationalistic or global vision not of spiritual Zion but simply another ploy to gain control and power through labor, politics, wealth and strategies for power. The oligarchs of have big designs on greater and greater world dictatorial power which they borrowed from Nimrod, the original representative of anti-Messiah and anti-Zion.

As anyone can see, the events of the Tanakh/Bible from Shem onwards took place primarily in the Mid east.

Abraham, Joseph; sojourned in Egypt/Mizraim, Moshe/Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt to Canaan. Archaeological evidence proves these historical facts. The Hebrews founded Judah/Israel.

JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm

At the human level, Jesus is like us precisely in this: he did not exist or think or feel or pray in a vacuum, but rather within a continuum, a web of socio-cultural symbolic resonances, a universe of discourse within which deeds, thoughts, and words carried layers of meaning. Orthodox Christians are frightened of letting Jesus belong to a world like this, precisely because we know that if he is like us in belonging to such a world, he will he very unlike us in that his world is not our world. We are therefore, eager to flatten his world out or to declare, it of little relevance, because we want to be able to carry him, his message, and his timeless achievement of salvation across to our world without losing anything in the process. In this eagerness we forget what the NT writers and above all Jesus himself never forgot: that salvation is of the Jews, not in some trivial sense, but in the rich sense that in order to save the world the creator God chose Abraham and said “in your seed all the families of the earth will he blessed.” It is precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of this promise that he is relevant in all times and places. It is precisely because he is The Jew par excellence that he is relevant to all Gentiles as well as Jews. This is the ultimately humiliating move for Gentile and Jew alike, precipitating an epistemology of humiliation whereby all may know this Jesus as the living, saving word of God, as different from us in the way that makes him the same as us, as over against us and therefore relevant to us. God consigned all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all,[29] a comment that is as relevant to epistemology as it is to soteriology.

Out of all this, I have argued in various places that we can, as historians, properly reconstruct Jesus of Nazareth’s sense of vocation. We can study John the Baptist’s vocation, and Paul’s: why should we not study Jesus’? When we do so, we find that dozens and dozens of lines of inquiry converge to produce a well ordered, coherent, historically credible sense of vocation, emerging in central symbolic actions, hinted at in a hundred cryptic and teasing sayings. Jesus believed he was Israel’s Messiah, the one in whom Israel’s history was to be summed up. Jesus believed he would win the messianic victory over the real enemy and would build the true messianic temple through taking Israel’s fate upon himself and going to the cross. Jesus believed that in doing so he was not just pointing to or talking about, but was actually embodying, the return of YHWH to Zion. These, though striking and startling, emerge from the world of Second Temple Judaism like the flower growing suddenly out of the plant. They were not expected, but upon inspection this is where they belonged. All the elements of the package were around somewhere in the culture. They are not, repeat not, a retrojection of later Christian theology, not even of later NT theology, which by and large developed in other legitimate ways. They are only credible, but they are totally credible, as the historically reconstructed mindset of Jesus himself. And they form, not the substance of later atonement and incarnational theology, but its historical starting point.

I have argued elsewhere that a central feature of Jewish expectation, and kingdom expectation at that, in Jesus’ time was the hope that YHWH would return in person to Zion. Having abandoned Jerusalem at the time of the exile, his return was delayed, but he would come back at last. Within this context, someone who told cryptic stories about a king or a master who went away, left his servants with tasks to perform, and then returned to see how they were getting on must—not “might,” must point to this controlling, over-arching metanarrative. Of course, the later Church, forgetting the first century Jewish context, read such stories as though they were originally about Jesus himself going away and then returning in a “second coming.” Of course, cautious scholars noticing this, deny that Jesus would have said such things. I propose that here at the heart of Jesus’ work, and at the moment of its climax, Jesus not only told stories about the king, who came back to Zion to judge and to save. He acted as though he thought the stories were coming true in what he himself was accomplishing. This is the context, at last, in which I think it best to approach the question with which this essay began.

And Jesus seems to have believed it about himself. The language was deeply coded, but the symbolic action was not. He was coming to Zion, doing what YHWH had promised to do. He explained his action with riddles all pointing in the same direction. Recognize this, and you start to see it all over the place, especially in parables and actions whose other layers have preoccupied us. Why, after all, does Jesus tell a story about a yearning father in order to account for his own behavior?[36] It is this that also accounts for his sovereign attitude to Torah, his speaking on behalf of Wisdom, and his announcement of forgiveness of sins.[37] By themselves none of these would be conclusive. Even if they are allowed to stand as words and actions of Jesus, they remain cryptic. But predicate them of the same young man who is then on his way to Jerusalem to confront the powers that be with the message and the action of the kingdom of God and who tells stories as he does which are best interpreted as stories of YHWH returning to Zion, then you have reached. I believe, the deep heart of Jesus’ own sense of vocation. He believed himself called to do and be what in the scriptures only Israel’s God did and was.

What are we therefore saying about the earthly Jesus? In Jesus himself, I suggest we see the biblical portrait of YHWH come to life: the loving God, rolling up his sleeves (Isa 52:10) to do in person the job that no one else could do, the creator God giving new life the God who works through his created world and supremely through his human creatures, the faithful God dwelling in the midst of his people, the stern and tender God relentlessly opposed to all that destroys or distorts the good creation, and especially human beings, but recklessly loving all those in need and distress. “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall carry the lambs in his arms; and gently lead those that are with young” (Isa 40:11). It is the OT portrait of YHWH, but it fits Jesus like a glove.

So Tsiyon/Zion has Metaphysical/Spiritual meaning, Geographical Meaning and Political meaning. Can you comprehend these truths........?


http://www.vbm-torah.org/

"AND I SHALL DWELL IN YOUR MIDST"
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/haftara/37behaal.htm

At this point in Zekharya's prophecy, we reach the section constituting our haftara, which opens with words of consolation. The initial verses are directed toward the nations and constitute a continuation of what had been stated previously regarding the feeling of the nations that God had abandoned and forsaken Israel:


Sing and rejoice, O Daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord. And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day, and shall be My people: and I will dwell in the midst of you, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And the Lord shall inherit Yehuda as his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord: for He has roused himself out of His holy habitation. (2:14-17)


The essential point here is that God has returned to dwell among Israel. This is presented not as a spiritual achievement in and of itself, but as a response to the ideas circulating among Israel and the nations regarding the meaning of the destruction. Therefore, emphasis is placed not only on the idea that "I will dwell in the midst of you" - familiar to us from the Mishkan in the wilderness and from the mitzva to construct the Mikdash based on the command of "And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them" (Shemot 25: - but also on the significance of that idea for Israel's situation, namely, the conclusion that "you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you." The prophet promises not only "inheritance in the holy land," but a renewed and constant selection of Jerusalem.[4]


[Another interesting point that is made in these verses is the impact that Israel's return to Zion will have on the nations who will undergo an inner upheaval and join those who serve God and become part of His people. The expression, "And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day," is very reminiscent of the prophecy of Yeshayahu, who expands upon this idea: "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, every one that keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and all that take hold of My covenant" (Yeshayahu 56:6).]

The Reuniting of the Lost Tribes of Israel in Tsiyon/Zion: by an Actual Rabbi. Lilly, you are not a Rabbi, you do not know your Hebrew.......that is why you are so confused.
http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org/

http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/?page=home&type=1

The Full Restoration Of Israel!Part I of a Series

http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/restoration/?page=1&type=12

In Genesis 13:14-16 Yahuwah our Heavenly Father promised Abram the land of Canaan as well as a promise of physical multiplicity of his zera or his seed (sperm). Abram was told that this promise of physical multiplicity will be so vast and so extensive that the entire earth will literally be full of his zera. Verse 16 reminds us that at the time that this promise is literally and physically brought to pass it will be absolutely impossible for mankind to even count it, or in any way census it, since mankind is totally impotent and unable to count the dust of the earth. This promise is straightforward, needing absolutely no interpretation or explanation. That same seed will inherit the land eventually to be known as Israel.

In Genesis 15 verses 1-6 we see Abram willing to help Yahuwah fulfill the promise of Genesis 13 by prematurely and incorrectly choosing Eliezer, a Gentile, who is not a physical offspring of Abram's own sperm or zera, to be the one through whom that promise would be brought to pass. However Yahuwah rebukes Abram and makes it clear to him that His promise of physical multiplicity that would become a number that man would not be able to number would not come through an adopted Gentile or a second class choice. No! Our Heavenly Father ordained that this promised heir would come from Abram's own body. He would not be adopted but he would be a physical descendent of Abram. It is through this physical descendent that Yahuwah once again promises Abram that his physical offspring will be more than the stars of Heaven. Obviously through modern science we know that our solar system has billions of stars and of course that other solar systems have many more billions. These stars in totality produce a number that mankind cannot even fathom. Yahuwah challenges Abram's lack of ability in counting the stars with the words "if you can" in verse five. It is because of Abram's pure faith and trust in Yahuwah that he receives imputed righteousness as a result of his believing and trusting in Yahuwah's promise. Notice there is only one promise not many promises. Abram was declared righteous by faith in Yahuwah's one promise. Whoever this physical seed would turn out to be it would literally have to be more than the dust particles of the sea and the visible stars of heaven. This promise must be taken extremely and solely on a literal face value. Any tendency to somehow spiritualize this promise is a lack of faith in Yahuwah's literal Word. That would be the very opposite of the faith of Abram himself.

The Rabbis got your number Lilly;
http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/restoration/?page=3&type=12

The hideous falsehood known as replacement theology has been a cancer in theological circles for the past two millennia that just seems to refuse to go away. While replacement theology takes on different applications, and modes, it is a theology originated by the early non Jewish fathers of the so called "Christian Church". It coldly states that a new Rome centered, and Roman based ecclesiastical organization called "the church", is the "new Israel". This new Israel, would now forever replace Jewish Israel, since Yahuwah permanently rejected the Jews for killing their Messiah, His Son. Extreme proponents of replacement theology have even gone so far as to claim that Yahuwah, the mean, and cruel despot, was the Elohim of the Old Covenant Jews, as opposed to Yahshua who is the forever loving, kind, and compassionate Elohim who had REPLACED YAHUWAH AS LORD OF "THE CHURCH" OR THE SO CALLED "NEW ISRAEL". In other words, Yahshua’s people have replaced the Father’s people.

This hideous doctrine is by no means a small theological side issue to be argued in a local pub. It has been at the forefront of antisemitism, Judeo-phobia, and has fully provided fuel for tragic historical events such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Crusades, the ouster of the Jews from every European country, as well as the Nazi holocaust. As history clearly demonstrates, Martin Luther, and other Protestant reformers blueprinted both the call, and the plans for the annihilation of the Jewish nation from Europe, and later the world by providing "so called Christians", with biblical justification to perpetrate genocide on world Jewry. Adolph Hitler knew full well that he could find theological approval, and support from these church folks. The inbred functionalism of this spiritual cancer amongst those that preach Yahshua is so widespread that it cannot be fully reversed, and eliminated until Yahshua’s millennial reign begins shortly when He returns to the earth. Even such seemingly benign church doctrines such as "Kingdom Now" theology or "Dominion" theology, where the so called "church" will christianize the world through the establishment of the bible as a global constitution, and whereby all world powers, and authorities will be won to, and taken over by Christendom, are nothing more than new attempts at replacing the "troublesome Jews". Wasn’t this flawed global christianization program, whereby Yahshua would merely take over a globally loyal populace converted through church efforts, already tried numerous times? Historically they were called the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Pogroms. Was it not the Crusaders who were attempting to take the globe by the sword, and convert, and subdue it by the gospel?

The world is going to experience a Paradigm Shift to Messianic Consciousness, with or without your cooperation........