Thursday, 21 June 2018
Friday, 25 May 2018
The Genitive Effect and Rev 3:14?
The Genitive Effect and Rev 3:14?
The term Arche
occurs over 50 times in the NT and when a genitive expression is connected to
it, Arche without exception has the meaning of “beginning, a commencement,
something that has begun, started…” and Rev 3:14 falls into that category. I
have mentioned in previous comments to readers, that Arche can have the meaning
of “beginning" without being connected to a genitive expression and does
so over 30 times, Revelation also connects Arche with the four corners of the
earth and that leaves nearly a dozen places, where Arche is used to point to
rulership and government and these terms are also associated with authority and
power, and again without exception and notice, no genitive connected or
associated with these expressions!
There is no need
to give every single scripture relating to Arche, but, a few examples should
suffice. If we take the example of Mark 1:1 cited above, that would be a good
starting point, here it is said about Arche, “beginning is a possibility”, I
disagree with the term “possibility”, because to replace beginning with
“source, chief, ruler, and so on would make the sentence absurd and the fact
that Trinitarian translations use the term “beginning” should rule out the term
“possibility”!
Mark 1:1 NASB
“The beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
Notice the
genitive expression, “beginning of”, here the context shows that Mark was
talking about the start, commencement or beginning of something; try replacing
beginning with the other terms and see how ridiculous it sounds!
Another example
is seen in Math 24:7, 8 NET
“For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these things are the beginning of birth pains.”
“For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these things are the beginning of birth pains.”
Here once again,
we see the connecting genitive expression “of” with Arche in v 8, so, would the
above source still say, that such “beginning” was a “possibility”; try
substituting the other terms and see how absurd it would be!
Some example
texts denoting “beginning” with Arche connected to the genitive expression
“of”: Math 24:8; John 2:11; 2 Pet 3:4.
Some example texts denoting “beginning” with Arche not connected to the genitive expression, but, still denote “beginning”: Math 19:4; Mark 10:6; John 1:1, 2; Heb 1:10.
Some example
texts not denoting “beginning” with Arche and not connected to the genitive
expression.
Luke 12:11 NIV
Luke 12:11 NIV
"When you
are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how
you will defend yourselves or what you will say…”
1 Cor 15:24 NLT
1 Cor 15:24 NLT
“After that the
end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having
destroyed every ruler and authority and power.”
Here we see,
that, Arche (rulers, ruler) [other texts read similarly]is connected to the
expressions “authority and power”.
What can be
logically and reasonably concluded from the above?
The fact is,
that, when Arche is connected to a genitive expression (Phil 4:15; Heb 5:12) it
ALWAYS means “beginning…”, as we see in Rev 3:14, when Arche lacks a genitive
expression it can also means “beginning” (Mark 10:6; John 6:64) and when Arche
is used otherwise, it is to point out, “government and rulership” and are
connected, not with a genitive expression, but with such terms as, ”authority
and power”
The Genitive of Rev
3:14 is dealing the genitive of Source/Origin reflected in the subjective and
will show that by insisting on an objective genitive, rather than a subjective
one, Trinitarians make “God”, not the “Amen” (Jesus) out to be an “effect,
result” in other words, the creation of another person and that is why they are
biased and absurd, as it is theology that they cling onto!
What Trinitarians
are doing is to play the grammatical word game, notice in John 5:26; Rev 1:1
and then ask yourself, if, Jesus is truly God, can anyone "grant or
give" God anything, when he is the eternal possessor of such, yet we see,
that with Christ, he has to be "granted or given" such...!
BAGD and Arche?
Rv 3:14, but the meaning
beginning - first created is linguistically possible”. - BAGD pg.112. However,
In the third edition, “linguistically possible,” was updated to “linguistically
probable.” BAGD—page 138.BAGD and Arche?
[Rv 3:14] “The word [arche] properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist ... If it were demonstrated from other sources was in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact.” - Albert Barnes, Notes On The New Testament, one volume edition, p. 1569
(Genesis 49:3)Ρουβην πρωτότοκός μου σύ ἰσχύς μου καὶ **ἀρχὴ** τέκνων μου σκληρὸς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης
(NWT84-Genesis 49:3) “Reu′ben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the **beginning** of my generative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength.
One would need to ask themselves, is Reuben the first-born or “ruler, source or origin” of his brothers?
“The Arians, truly conscious of their unity with the old tradition of the Church, did not fail in establishing the *unscriptural* nature of the new Nicene formula of the homoousia of the Son and his generation from the ousia (substance) of the Father. And they also laid claim to the tradition of the Church on their own behalf and even charged Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, in the first stage of the conflict with having himself first expounded to them the doctrine, for which he was now condemning them.”-The Formation of Christian Dogma [Martin Werner] p 157
Here we see another example of the use of the genitive to denote something about Jesus?
Rev 1:1
“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him…” RSV
“The things that are written in the Book are made known by Jesus Christ.” NLV
“The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him…” Weymouth
“The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him…” NIV
“A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him…” NWT
Revelation 3:14 "the beginning of the creation by God"-New
World Translation
The New World Translation reads
here: ".....the beginning[Gk: ARKHE] of the creation by God."-italics
ours.This clearly shows that that the "Amen......the faithful and true witness", Jesus Christ, is the first one that God created. That Jesus Christ is a creature. Can this rendering be defended? Is this its meaning?
What will be addressed here is:
1) How can the Greek, literally, "of God" be translated as "by God"?
2) What is the meaning of "beginning" in this place- 'beginner,' "origin," "ruler," what?
One well known scholar stated:
"The New World Translation.....is also in error at Rev.3:14, where it makes the exalted Christ refer to himself as "the beginning of the creation by God." The Greek text of this verse[en arche tes kitsews tou theou], is far from saying that Christ was created by God, for the genitive case[tou theou], means "of God" and not "by God"(which would require the preposition [hupo]. Actually the word [arche]translated "beginning," carries with it the Pauline idea expressed in Col.1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of God's creation (compare also John 1:3, "Apart from him not even one thing came into existence.")
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ, Bruce Metzger, Theology Today 10.1(April 1953), pages 79, 80.
Let us see?
It would have been more equitable for the above scholar to concede that the construction we find at Revelation 3:14 does admit of an understanding that Jesus is a creature rather than misleadingly say the Greek " is far from saying" that!
One trinitarian scholar who does not believe that this verse means that Jesus is a creature none the less says, quoted in full at this place:
"he arkhe tos ktisews tou theou," Exactly equivalent to Col. i. 15, as explained by the words that follow: in both places the words are such as might grammatically be used of the first of creatures, but the context there[Col.1:15], and the whole tone of the book here, proves that the writer does not regard Him as a creature at all. But St. John is not here, as in the first verses of his Gospel, describing our Lord's Nature theologically: it might be enough to say that here and in Prov. viii. 22(where the words "the Lord possessed" or "created Me" lend themselves more easily than these[Rev.3:14 & Col.1:15]to an Arian sense), the coming forth of the Word to create is concieved as part of His earthly mission, which culminates in the incarnation, so that in a sense even creation is done by Him as a creature."-Cambridge Greek Testament-The Revelation of S. John the Divine by Rev.W.H.Simcox, revised by G.A.Simcox reprint 1909.-italics ours
So the Greek construction as found in Revelation 3:14
"...might grammatically be used of the first of creatures."-italics our. This would mean that "arche" here is temporal indicating that the subject was the first of God's creatures, yes, the first that God created. As this can be its meaning by understanding the genitive as subjective, a translator can, if he wanted to, make clear that this is its meaning by using the English preposition "by." The Greek says "of God" but that could mean a number of things and in English we could convey that meaning by translating "by God." This would still be a literal translation of the Greek for the two languages do not line up with each other and it would be erroneous for someone to allege that by using the English preposition "by" the New World Translation has not offered a literal translation. It is!
Simcox says that the words of John at Rev.3.14 are "exactly equivalent" to Colossians 1.15. Not that the same words are used but they share the same function. And that function could be that the subject, the Son Jesus Christ, is the first creature God created
(The commentator does not himself take this meaning because he believes that the "whole tone of the book" of Revelation "proves that the writer[John] does not regard Him as a creature." But as he does not offer any 'proof' for this and this discussion is about the NWT's rendering of this verse then whether such a view is correct or not can be left for a another place.
The above commentator also said that Revelation 3:14 is "equivalent to Colossians 1:15." This is correct. On the page(see link below)that discusses this phrase as used by Paul there is evidence given that "the firstborn of all creation" means that the prehuman Christ was the first of God's creatures not only in the sense of time but also as being the one that was uniquely created, by being the only creature that was directly created by God. All other creatures were created by the agency of this "firstborn."
Jehovah's Witnesses believes that the "whole tone" of Colossians 1:15ff shows just that. It should also be noted that if Revelation 3:14 does allude to "Wisdom" personified at Proverbs 8:22 then this also would "lend" the former scripture to a sense of the first that God created. That the "faithful and true witness," Jesus Christ, was a creature. The above commentator almost concedes as much! His only objection to this is his theological understanding.)
We could also quote trinitarian scholar C.F.Moule who conceded:
"A comparable ambiguity of phrase[as in Col.1:15] is found in Rev. iii. 14, where [HO ARKHE THS KTISEWS] could(merely in itself and without taking wider considerations into account) mean 'the first among created things'.- The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 1957, page 63.
Moule by stating that what John wrote could mean Jesus Christ was "the first among created things" means he would disagree with Metzgers' claim that the Greek is "far from saying that"! When Moule says that those words could mean that the subject is shown to be "the first among created things'" and if a translation wished to make that clear then Moule has given the grammatical reason why it can be translated "the beginning of the creation by God" rather than the ambiguous "the beginning of the creation of God."
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the context and "wider considerations" do show that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did have a beginning, was of creation, that he was a creature. One of these "wider considerations" must be what we read about God and the Lamb in Revelation chapters 4 and 5. We will show later that these two chapters make a clear distinction between "God," who is said to alone be the creator and the "Lamb," who is the Son, which makes it an inescapable conclusion that the Son must be a creature albeit the greatest creature, the first of God's Son's whom he brought into existence. This is what John tells us directly here at Revelation 3:14.
So that when Metzger asserts that for the Greek to read, "by God," we would have to need the preposition "hupo" he is just plain wrong! He was also plain wrong in claiming the Greek is "far from saying" this as the above scholars have at least been honest to admit that the Greek itself can be understood in saying just that. If one is to read Metzger carefully he is appealing to the actual Greek to deny a particular translation. He was wrong in this as the Greek itself does allow for it to be translated as "the beginning of the creation by God." There was no need for "hupo which Metzger is insisting upon. He is directly commentating on what the Greek says and he is wrong to claim that the Greek is "far from saying" that the Son was created by God!
It might be pointed out here that "by God" of the Greek "tou theou," word-for-word "of-the God," is just as literal as translating "tou theou" as "from God." See for instance 1 John 4.2. Here "God" is is the genitive of origin and "from God" is a literal translation here of "tou theou." There was no need for the preposition "hupo", "from."
It ought to be recognised that if the New World Translation's rendering precludes any other meaning allowed by the Greek, limiting John's words to mean that Jesus Christ here is a creature and the first that God created then what of those translations that render arche "beginning" as "ruler"(e.g., New International Version)which would also preclude any other meaning including that of Jesus Christ being the first of God's creatures?
Metzger states that "the genitive case[tou theou], means "of God" and not "by God." It is true that the Greek word for "God"(Theou)is in the genitive case. However, the genitive case can mean several number of different relations that the word in the genitive case has to that which it modifies.
A.T.Robertson in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research says:
"The Subjective Genitive. We have the subjective genitive when the noun in the genitive produces the action.being therefore related as subject to the verbal idea of the noun modified...The preaching of Jesus Christ.Rom.16:25.."
Also Dana and Mantey's Greek Grammar: "when the noun in the genitive produces the action."-p.78
If we look at Revelation 1:1 we read from the New International Version, "The revelation of Jesus Christ.... ."
Although in the book of Revelation Jesus Christ as the Word plays a major role, verse one does not have to mean a revelation about or concerning("of") Jesus Christ but a revelation by Jesus Christ, so that some render Rev.1:1 as, "This book is the record of the events that Jesus Christ revealed."-Todays EnglishVersion. Or, "A revelation by Jesus Christ . ." -C.B.Williams The New Testament in the Language of the People.
Rienecker's Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament says at Rev.1:1, "apokalupis...The following gen[itive]could be either obj[ective] i.e., "a revelation of Jesus Christ" w[ith] Him as the object or it could be subjective gen[itive] which fits better here, i.e., Jesus Christ is the One who originates the revelation.."(italics ours)and Raymond Brown agrees in his An Introduction to the New Testament : "The book is announced as the "revelation of Jesus Christ," i.e., the revelation given by Christ....."(The Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1999 edition by BCA in arrangement with Doubleday, printed in England by Clays Ltd, page 780. italics ours)
Other examples of this simple Greek construction are:
Acts 2:11.Gk,"ta megal eia tou theou," "the magnificent things of God." The word for "God" here is in the genitive case. Hence,correctly, the Revised English Bible reads here: "the great things God has done." Or the New American Bible, "what great things God has done." So here the "magnificent things of God," are those things that have been made or done by God.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 has Paul praising believers for their "work of faith and labour of love and steadfastness of hope..". But if treated as subjunctive genitives we could translate these as has the New International Version "your work produced by faith, your labour prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope...". The preposition hupo was not necessary.
So in Revelation 3:14. The word "creation" can be understood in the subjective genitive so that it was the "creation" that was produced by God. So what is being talked of here is the "creation" that does not only belong to God but that is was God who is the origin of "creation" of which the Son was the "beginning" of. We have translations that say, "beginning of God's creation"- English Standard Version and Hugh J. Schonfield's The Original N.T. A Radical Re-interpretation and New Translation. In a footnote Schonfield adds the following, "John....believed that the heavenly Christ was a created being, as did the early Christians."
The translation "the beginning by God," has the same meaning as the translation, "the beginning of God's creation." In each case it would mean that the "Amen.....the faithful and true witness" was a creation of God. The New World Translation makes this meaning clear to the reader whilst the rendering "the beginning of God" can be taken in two ways. But is the New World Translation justified in making the 'meaning' clear? Why not let the reader of this passage in the NWT make up his own mind? To answer this we have to take into account the meaning of the word "arche" in this passage. After doing so we might then understand that the NWTC's decision was a correct one if not absolutely necessary.
As for the word "ARCHE," "beginning," here in this text.
Some take it to mean that Jesus Christ was the primary source of creation or origin of creation, that is creation's origin, not that he was the first that God created.
Greg Stafford writes on this: "...a check of all the occurrences in NT of arkhe followed by a genitive expression...show that it always denotes a beginning or first part of something." Further on he writes, "Thus the use of arkhe in general, and when used with a genitive expression specifically, favors(statistically at least)the meaning "beginning"[rather than originator]in Revelation 3:14." -Jehovah's Witness Defended, An Answer to Scolars and Critics, 1st ed.p.109.
That Revelation could properly indicate that Jesus was indeed a created being,the first that God created is shown by what Albert Barnes stated:
"The word [arche]properly refers to the commencment of a thing, not it's authorship, and denotes primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. The word is not therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence." So this trinitarian did acknowledge(but did not accept on what he thought other scriptures indicated)that, "If it were demonstarted from other sources that Christ was in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact."-Notes on the NT. Vol.1, p.1569.
In agreement with this is the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Arndt and Gingrich (abbreviated as BAGD)which athough defines "arche" in Rev.3:14 as "first cause" also says that it could also have the meaning at this same place as "first created" as a linguistical possibility -p.112,113. However, in the up-dated BDAG (3rd ed.) this was updated to "but the mng. beginning='first created' is linguistically probable." It should be pointed out however that this Greek lexicon does not cite any Biblical passages in support of the meaning "first cause."
There are, though, passages from the Greek translation of the Hebrew, the LXX, that might be mentioned. They are:
Gen.10:10; "beginning of the kingdom of him"-"arche tes basileias autou."
Gen.49:3 ; "first of the children of me"-"arche teknon mou."
Deut.21:17;"first of the children of him"-"arche teknon autou."
Hos.1:2 "beginning of the word ofLord"-"arche logou kuriou."
and from the New Testament:
Mat. 24:8."beginning of pangs of birth-"arche odinon."
Mark1:1 "beginning of the good news"-"arche tou euggeliou."
Phil.4:15 "at the start of declaring of the good news"- "arche tou enaggrliou."
These all contain the word "ARCHE" as does Rev.3:14, and all are in the genitive case.What should be done is not only look at the word "ARCHE" only but we must look at similar constructions which we have above. All the examples above show that the one, ones or events are the results of the action of another one. It is a passive meaning we have here, not in the sense of causing the action/results.They have the meaning of "the start of," or "the first of." Hence we would be on scriptural grounds entirely to say that the meaning of "arche", "beginning," at Rev.3:14 was also with that meaning. He, Jesus Christ, was the "first of" God's creation. Or, as Edward Harwood's translation of 1768 puts it; "The very first Being that the Deity called into existence."
We should note that another place where ARCHE is used of the Son is at Colossians 1.18. As we have shown on the Colossians 1.15 page on this site: "Interestingly in v.18 we have the word ARCHE and PROTOTOKOS with EK TWN NEKRWN together with each other and they are in apposition and hence are synonomous. They are describing the same thing for the Son here. (They are not in apposition with KEFLAH by the way as some might want!) PROTOTOKOS is partitive genitive here, that is, this "firstborn" is part of the group, "from the dead." This argues that ARCHE has the meaning of "beginning" as a partitive genitive with temporal significance. True, the Son is pre-eminent of those who have died but this comes from him being the first of that group to have received a resurrection to the heavens. It is for this reason that the Son has the "first place"(PRWTEUWN) in "everything." His being ARCHE and PROTOTOKOS has both temporal and pre-eminence significance. The latter arises from the former." Hence, the only other place where ARCHE is applied to the Son it means "beginning" not "origin" and certainly not "ruler."
It has been advanced by trinitarian J.Stewart that ARCHE at Mark 1:1 is an example where it has the sense of 'originator' or 'source'. However would anyone advocate that ARCHE here should be rendered as "source," "origin"(in the sense of 'first cause,' 'originator') so that we would read it in English as "The originator of the gospel of Jesus Christ"? Surely not! And in fact not one translation has done so but all read "beginning." As EUANGELION in the 1st century did not refer to a book(this meaning did not come about until the 2nd century C.E.)so Mark here was writing about the "beginning(ARCHE)of the goodnews of Jesus Christ" and so is a reference to the ministry of John the Baptist which begins the "gospel" or "good news" about Jesus Christ. The ministry of John the Baptist was a *part of* this "goodnews" about Jesus Christ. It was its "beginning," not in an active sense, but a passive one. So, this example of ARCHE is another of a genitive where that which is the ARCHE is _not_ outside the category of that which it is the genitive of and so is one which is comparable with Revelation 3:14 where again the word ARCHE has a passive meaning and which has the meaning of "beginning" and not "source" or "origin." In effect then this example is *not* an example where ARCHE is used in the sense of "origin" or "source" (nor "ruler.") In agreement with this is what we can read in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT(cited by Stewart btw), Vol 1, p.482 "d. 'ARCHE...In Mk 1:1 the preaching and baptism of John are the temporal starting point of the evangelical preaching and baptism of Jesus..." Also The NIV Theological Dictionary of N.T. Words says regarding ARCHE at Mark 1:1 " 1.(a) arche...can mean beginning, commencement (Mk.1:1; 13:8; Heb.3:14)...".
Stewart, on a trinitarian apologetics site, also advances the arguement that we have in Revelation 3:14 three "active titles" for Jesus. The “Amen,” the “Faithful and true Witness” and the “The Ruler over God’s creation." That ARCHE here could also mean “Source”. That Ruler and Source are both active titles in this context. Also that “beginning” does not fit the immediate or the wider context. That when Stafford wants “ARCHE” to have a passive use he destroys the parallelism of the titles. Stewart understands the genitive in Rev 3:14 to be objective.
But there is nothing in Revelation 3:14 that indicates grammatically that we are dealing with '3 active titles' requiring ARCHE to be translated as "beginner." As one Jehovah's Witness aptly put it: "How does the noun "Amen" become an "active title"? This is pure speculation and theology, which a person is entitled to if it is labeled as such. Besides if God is the Creator, as ARCH THS KTISEWS *TOU QEOU* says, then Christ could not be the "Beginner." God would have to be the Beginner of "His" creation. Otherwise, it would not be His creation, but Christ's. This means that the *beginning* of *God's creation* would be Christ, through whom He made all else." So, the immediate context does indeed argue for a passive meaning for ARCHE here. See also v.12 where the exalted Christ says "my God" 4 times in quick succession. Just as the ones who "conquers" has a God, a God whom they worship, so does the exalted Christ. Stewart has come up with a "half-baked, poorly reasoned opinion, which he assert strongly as if it were truth". But when you examine this opinion closely, it is evident that it is out of harmony with the Scriptures. If Jesus is the ARCHE of creation in the sense he is the 'beginner' or 'active cause' then this would mean that Paul is at odds with, contradictory to, Rev.3:14. Why? For at 1 Cor.8:6 we are told that God the Father is the 'active cause': "EX OU TA PANTA," and that these "all things", "PANTA", is "DI OU" Jesus Christ. Any reasonable exegesis would have to agree that Jesus cannot be both the active cause aswell as the agent of creation? And, of course, we are specifically told by Paul that the Father is the 'active cause' of "all things" in contrast with Jesus Christ whom were these "PANTA" "through". Hence, ARCHE must have a passive meaning at Rev.3:14? It means that the NWT has not "mistranslated"(your word)ARCHE here and that this scripture indicates that the Christ is a creature, the first of God's creation.
Stewart also gives a list of occurrences in the LXX of ARCHE followed by a genitive expression: Gen. 1:16, 40:20; Ex. 6:25; Psalm 109:3, 136:6; Prov. 17:14; Jer. 22:6; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Amos 6:11; Ob. 20; Mic. 3:1. He then states that from these passages, a genitive expression is not a contextual marker for ARCHE to mean "beginning."
True, one would not translate these occurrences as "beginning" but if one were to look up each and everyone of these occurrences in the LXX one would see that in each and every case where ARCHE is being used that the one or thing being described were not outside of the category denoted by the genitive. So, in fact, all these support the understanding that ARCHE in the genitive expression, as we find in Revelation 3:14, as also not being outside of the category denoted by the genetive.
In Stewart's judgement, Christ as the "Arche" of the creation of God means that He was the agent by which God created. And so was not a part of that creation Himself and that there is a parallel to Christ as "Arche" of creation with the meaning of "First Cause" in Colossians 1:8b: "He (Christ) is the "Arche" , the first-born from the dead" ..."
Here is a contradiction. In one sentence he describes the Christ, in reference to the meaning of ARCHE of Revelation 3:14, as the "agent" by which "God created" and then in the next that ARCHE here has the meaning of "first cause"! If Christ is the beginner, then he is not an intermediate "agent", but the causal agent. If one is intermediate, then someone else is beginning the process through that agent. Col. 1:15-17 does use EN AUTWi, showing the instrumental role of Christ in creation, but this is used together with passive verbs! Hence, again, the beginner is someone other than Christ, who creates "in/through" him. There is nothing that would indicate that Christ is the beginner, but as an intermediate agent. This is not consistent with the idea of "beginner," which rightly is reserved for the causal agent.
The scriptures that Metzger (quoted at the head of this page) believed meant that Jesus Christ could not be saying he was himself created are scriptures that show that creation came about through Jesus Christ. He is not the primary source of creation. Paul clearly show who is when he says that,"..there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are,....and there is one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things are..."-NWT, cp.TEV, NRSV, TNT etc. It is God, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, whom two verses before Revelation 3:14, Jesus calls him his God, the one he obeys, is subordinate to and indeed worships.-Rev.3:12.
From the foregoing the following remark regarding the New World Translation at Revelation 3:14, which is to be found on a site critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be seen to be doubly false: "The altered prepositions[from "of" to "by"]distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being."-italics ours.
But the fact is, as has already been pointed out, Jesus Christ is not the source or "real power" of creation but the Father is. This is clearly seen from 1 Corinthians 8:6 which informs us that : "..for us there is one God, the Father, from[Gk; 'ex'- 'source,' 'out of ']whom are all things and for[Gk; 'eis'] whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through[Gk; 'dia']whom are all things and through[Gk; 'dia']whom we exist."-New Revised Standard Version. This shows that it is the Father who is "the real power of creation" and not the Son, Jesus Christ. Exactly! That is what Revelation 3:14 itself is saying. To consider otherwise is to "distract from the sovereignty" of the Father, the "one God" of us! So, 1 Corinthians 8:6 actually precludes a translation of Revelation 3:14 as "...the origin[in the sense of 'the originator']of the creation of God" for then we would have a conflict, a disagreement with what we are informed at 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Revelation 3:14.
Some believe that Jesus is here referred to as the "ruler" of God's creation. However, ARCWN is the common word for "ruler" in the NT, and, in fact, John uses it in Revelation 1:5, ARCWN TWN BASILEWS THS GHS. Had "ruler" been intended in 3:14 then either John or his translator could have simply used ARCWN. Elsewhere in Revelation ARCH always means beginning. There does not seem to be any grammatical or semantic reason for preferring "ruler" over "beginning" in Revelation 3:14.
One trinitarian has remarked and in reference to the meaning of ARCH at Revelation 3:14: "Should the use of ARCHE in this verse - which at the very least is ambiguous with regard to meaning "first-created" - inform our exegesis of clear statements of Christ's Deity (John 1:1; 1:3; 20:28; Col 2:9)? Or should sound exegetical principles lead us to the opposite conclusion, in which clear declarative statements inform our interpretation of more ambiguous verses, such as this one?" Yet are those texts he cites "clear" declarative statements of Christ's "Diety"[his being 'the God']? Not so if anyone has read on this site about what these texts can and most likely mean! It would be special pleading by this one if he believes that each and every one of these scripture texts has not been understood in ways diametrically opposed to the trinitarian understanding of Jesus being "God." In view of the following "clear declarative statements" namely, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 1: 9,10 and Jude 25 that only the Father is the "one God," the one "Diety," we can see that these same show what isthe true and sound "exegetical principles" that should lead us the proper understanding of ARCHE at Revelation 3:14. Not that Jesus is here the "origin" or "originator" of "God's creation" but he was the "beginning" the "first of" God's creations.
Lastly, if God created a being that was his first creation where are we told of this in scripture? The only language we find that is commensurate with a being that is God's very first, the first one of his creation, is in fact here at Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22. All of which have to do with God's Son, Jesus Christ!
(For a discussion on Revelation 5.13, 14 see here)
Thursday, 19 April 2018
Dagon & the Mitre - Is there a connection?
The Stones Cry out.
The Archaeological record does not lie!
1 Sam. 5:4
"When they got up early in the morning the very day after, there Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of Jehovah, with the head of Dagon and the palms of both his hands cut off, to the threshold. Only the *fish part had been left upon him".
Lit., “Only Dagon,” as the Dagon idol was seemingly half man, half fish.
"...Only the fish part had been left upon him".
Other translations read: torso, stump, fishy part, fish-stump, body.
(above) DagonHalf fish, half man.From Layard's, Babylon and Nineveh, p. 342.
(left)Here you see a stone laver from Assyria which is now in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin. Carved on its sides are depictions of pagan priests that appear to be half sun-fish and half man, that are sprinkling holy water.
(enlarged)
Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians.
Dagon was represented as half man, half fish. The upper part human, the lower part fish. It reminded me of the Greek god Poseidon. Notice the the character to the left of the tree of life (above)and the costume he has on.
The above is from: LAYARD'S Babylon and Nineveh, p. 213. 4th Edit., vol. iii. pt. 4, Plata 27.
It should be noted that when Layard gives his account in his last work, which is here shown to the reader; and anyone who examines this mitre, and compares it with the Pope's as given in Elliot's Horoe just cannot hesitate for a moment that from that, and no other source, has the popes and other clergies mitre been derived. The wide open jaws of the fish that sit on the head of the man at Nineveh are the unmistakable counterpart of the horns of the Pope's mitre at Rome. It was in the East at least five hundred years before biblical Christianity.
It was also similar in Egypt; Wilkinson, speaking of a fish of the species of Siluris, says,
" that one of the Genii of the Egyptian Pantheon appears under a human form, with the head of this fish."
Wilkinson, vol. 5. p. 253.
Here in the West, in a later period, we have proof that the Pagans had seperated the fish-head mitre from the body of the fish, and began to used the mitre alone to beautify the head of this mediating god. On many Maltese Pagan coins, that god, with the well-known characteristics of Osiris, is represented with nothing of the fish save the mitre on his head (see picture above), almost identical in shape/form as the mitre of the Pope, and other bishops.
Now, compare the pictures below and that the connections can be seen. Some may object and say it is just a coincidence. It is no more than a coincidence than that of the cross in it various forms. (Please, cut and paste link below)
http://cross-paganorchristian.blogspot.com/
(left)Note the mitre on the head of this drawing of the goddess Cybele and the striking similarity to the fish head of Dagon. Cybele was worshipped in Rome and was also called the "Magna Mater", or the great queen mother goddess, which evolved into Catholic Mariology. The priesthood of Cybele was composed of castrated males, which parallels the celibate priesthood of Catholicism. The basilica of Saint Peter's, according to some, stands upon the former site of Cybele's main temple in Rome. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill.
Again, here is a similar depiction of a pagan priest wearing a sun-fish, the head with open mouth worn as a mitre and the rest of the fish forming a cloak. These are both illustrations of Dagon, which was the God of Babylon and Philistia and is mentioned several times in scripture in Judges 16:23, 1 Samuel 5:2-7, and 1 Chronicles 1:10. In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, this is the definition for Dagon.
How Chaldean (Babylonian) Religion Survives Today.
Babylon Falls, but Her Religion Survives to Dominate the Nations
Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus the Persian in 539 B.C.E. From this time on, Babylon was no longer a political world power. But what about Babylon’s religion? With the passing of Babylon’s political power and the shift of world control from Semitic to Aryan hands, did Babylon’s religion die with her? By no means.
Why not?
First of all, the foundation for the practice of Babylon’s religion by all nations except the faithful descendants of Shem was laid in their building of the Tower of Babel in Nimrod’s day. The miraculous confusion of tongues scattered the families but they took their false religious ideas with them. Babylon afterward was viewed by pagan nations as the center of religion. Secondly, after Babylon’s fall in 539 B.C.E., her priesthood was driven out by the Persians. But they did not have in mind letting Babylonish religion’s traditional authority and supremacy die out.
Though Babylon lost her political supremacy, her Nimrod-initiated religion maintained itself as a world empire of religion over all except those who held to Jehovah’s true worship at Jerusalem. Under the adroit maneuvering of Satan the Devil it immediately set its eyes on western horizons to establish a new center for its priesthood and the successorship of Belshazzar. In fact, we shall see that its very essence infiltrated later into apostate Christianity, actually getting control over the section of the earth that came to be called Christendom.
BABYLONISH RELIGION SPREADS TO EUROPE
Long before Babylon fell, the ground had been broken to make it possible to accomplish this transplant of the head of Babylonish religion to Italy.
Historian J. H. Breasted, in the book Ancient Times—A History of the Early World, tells us that:
A race of sea rovers called Etruscans, who probably came from Asia Minor, were settled in Italy by 1000 B.C.E. After 800 B.C.E. they stretched far across northern Italy, and Rome became a city kingdom under an Etruscan king, like the other Etruscan cities that stretched from Capua far north to the harbor of Genoa. These kings governed for two centuries and a half. This would make the line of kings of Rome from about 750 to 500 B.C.E. exclusively Etruscan. The traditional founding of Rome not long before 750 B.C.E. would then correspond to its capture and establishment as a strong kingdom by the Etruscans. Archaeological evidence bears this out, though written documents of Rome during this early period are missing. Although these Etruscan kings introduced improvements into Rome, their cruelty and tyranny finally caused a revolt, and about 500 B.C.E. the career of Rome under kings came to an end. But, says Dr. Breasted, the two and a half centuries of Etruscan rule left their mark on Rome, always discernible in architecture, religion, tribal organization, and some other things.
The Encyclopædia Britannica corroborates:
Referring to the historian Herodotus, who recounts that in the reign of Atys, son of Manes, there was a great scarcity of food in all Lydia, which lasted eighteen years. Finally, by the king’s arrangement, his son Tyrrhenus took half of the people down to Smyrna and built ships wherein they set out to seek a livelihood and a country, and after sojourning with many nations they came to the Ombrici in Italy, where they founded cities. Of these people, who (according to Herodotus) no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, the Britannica goes on to say:
“From the character of their earlier remains the date of the first permanent settlement may be placed at the end of the 9th century.” What was the religion of the Tyrrhenians?
The Britannica relates:
That the Etruscans were orientals or semi-orientals is proved by the whole character of their earliest art, and by many details of their religion and worship. It is an art which shows close contact with Mesopotamia, Syria and Cyprus on the one side and with Egypt on the other. The deities and mythological figures on Etruscan gold-work and jewelry of the 7th century are evidently the heroes and deities of Asiatic mythology. . . . In the sphere of ritual and religion there are many details which are taken direct from Mesopotamia, and the whole feeling and atmosphere are purely oriental. The most striking identities are in the practice of divination and augury; for the custom of divining from the livers of sheep or the flight of birds is purely Chaldean. There are models of clay livers from Mesopotamia inscribed in cuneiform which precisely resemble the bronze model of a liver found at Piacenza [in the Province of Emilia, Italy], divided into compartments each of which is labelled in Etruscan with the name of its presiding divinity.
So archaeology clearly indicates that the Etruscans came from some part of Asia Minor, landing on the seacoast of Tuscany. Veii, in Etruria, north of Rome, became one of their chief cities. Etruria was finally swallowed up by Rome. A confederacy of twelve cities existed in the sixth century that held its annual meetings at the shrine of Voltumma above Lacus Volsiniensis (Lake of Bolsena), and it seems likely that the confederation confined itself principally to affairs of religion. All this took place before and up to the time of the fall of Babylon in the sixth century (539 B.C.E.).
So the religion of Babylon gained a strong foothold in Europe, not merely a remote relation from the time of Babel, but a direct-line inheritance. However, we are here mainly interested in the priesthood of Babylon. Just as Satan the Devil had instituted Babylonish religion through Nimrod to oppose true worship, so his spirit motivated the Babylonian priesthood to see to it that the priesthood and the religious successorship to Belshazzar himself should not die out when Babylon was lost as a capital.
Lares and Penates of Cilicia
After Babylon’s defeat, according to the work entitled “Lares and Penates of Cilicia,” by Barker and Ainsworth, chapter 8, page 232, we read:
“The defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor and fixed their central college at Pergamos.” This is the Pergamum or Pergamos mentioned in Revelation 2:12, 13 as the location of a Christian congregation much later on, in the first century C.E.
As to this shifting of the Chaldean headquarters, Dr. Alexander Hislop says:
Phrygia . . . formed part of the Kingdom of Pergamos. Mysia also was another, and the Mysians, in the Paschal Chronicle, are said to be descended from Nimrod. The words are, “Nebrod [Greek for Nimrod], the huntsman and giant—from whence came the Mysians.” (See Paschal Chronicle, volume I, page 50.) Lydia, also, from which [the historian] Livy and Herodotus say the Etruscans [of Italy] came, formed part of the same kingdom. For the fact that Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia were constituent parts of the kingdom of Pergamos, see SMITH’S Classical Dictionary, page 542.
ROME AFFECTED RELIGIOUSLY
This proved to have profound effect on Rome. After the Etruscan cities were overthrown and Rome became a republic (509 B.C.E.), the Romans took over the Etruscan gods, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and others, and each god was now, for the first time, given a human form and a residence in a temple or shrine. They were identified with the Greek gods. Jupiter, the “sky-father” of the Etruscans, became the Roman version of the Greek Zeus-pater. Mars, the god of war, was the favorite deity of the fighting Romans. The Saturnalia were later taken over by the Christians as their Christmas, and given a new significance.
One modern historical work links the Roman practices directly with the Chaldeans:
The Chaldeans made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call “astrology”. Much information has been systematically collected by the Babylonians and from it we have here the beginning of astronomy. The groups of stars which now bear the name “Twelve Signs of the Zodiac” were mapped out for the first time, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known. Since these planets were thought to have special powers over the lives of men, they were named for the five leading gods and goddesses. We refer to these planets by their Roman names, but the Romans had adopted the Babylonian terms and simply translated them into their equivalents in Rome. Thus the planet of Ishtar, the goddess of love, became Venus, and that of the god Marduk was changed to Jupiter.
In 133 B.C.E., King Attalus III, on his deathbed, bequeathed Pergamum and all its territory to the Romans, all of which later became a Roman province under the name of Asia.
This King Attalus had been selected by the Chaldean Magi as the successor to Belshazzar, as Doctor Hislop goes on to say:
The kings of Pergamos, in whose dominions the Chaldean Magi found an asylum, were evidently by them [by the Magi], and by the general voice of Paganism that sympathised with them, put into the vacant place which Belshazzar and his predecessors had occupied. They were hailed as the representatives of the old Babylonian god. This is evident from the statements by Pausanius. . . . Attalus, in whose dominions the Magi had their chief seat, had been set up and recognized in the very character of Bacchus, the Head of the Magi. Thus the vacant seat of Belshazzar was filled, and the broken chain of the Chaldean succession renewed.—The Two Babylons, pages 240, 241.
THE OFFICE OF PONTIFEX MAXIMUS?
In this time when world religions are offering themselves as the hope for world peace, with the Roman Catholic Church taking the lead, we owe it to ourselves next to trace with unbiased mind the origin of the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus.
Doctor Hislop cites history on pages 239, 240 of The Two Babylons:
A colony of Etruscans, earnestly attached to the Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from Asia Minor [where Pergamos was located], others from Greece, and settled in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. They were ultimately incorporated in the Roman state, but long before this political union took place they exercised the most powerful influence on the religion of the Romans. From the very first their skill in augury, soothsaying, and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or soothsayers monopolized, made the Romans look up to them with respect. It is admitted on all hands that the Romans derived their knowledge of augury . . . chiefly from the Tuscans, that is, the people of Etruria, and at first none but natives of that country were permitted to exercise the office of Haruspex which had respect to all the rites essentially involved in sacrifice. . . . the highest of the noble youths of Rome were sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which flourished there.
The college of Pontiffs was founded by Numa Pompilius, second legendary king of Rome, and regarding Numa, Hislop says: “That god was called in Babylon Nebo, in Egypt Nub or Num, and among the Romans Numa, for Numa Pompilius, the great priest-king of the Romans, occupied precisely the position of the Babylonian Nebo.” The Sovereign Pontiff that presided over that college, and that controlled all the public and private religious rites of the Roman people in all essential respects, became in spirit and in practice an Etruscan Pontiff. As to this, Dr. Hislop says:
The true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman empire [which never overran southern Mesopotamia or Chaldea]. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood from Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the seven churches of Asia.
It would be of greatest interest to us in this brief historical consideration to see how this religious connection between Pergamos and Rome, which became the Sixth World Power in the first century B.C.E., was manifested in the office of Pontifex Maximus. It clearly proves that Babylonish religion actually is the source of the office of Pontifex Maximus of the popes of Rome.
The Two Babylons gives us an account:
At first the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; yet, in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself became part and parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III, the last of the kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman people, B.C. 133. . . . When Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also. as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the Roman state, and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as well as the kingdom that Attalus had bequeathed to the Romans, as centring in himself; . . . Then, on certain occasions, in the exercise of his high pontifical office, he appeared of course in all the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar himself might have done, in robes of scarlet, with the crozier of Nimrod in his hand wearing the mitre of Dagon [the fish god] and bearing the keys of Janus [the two-faced god] and Cybele [the “mother” goddess]. . . .
. . . until the reign of [Western Emperor] Gratian, who, as shown by [the historian] Gibbon, was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idolatrous pontifical attire, or to sit as Pontifex. . . .
. . . Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived . . . and was bestowed, with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, . . . all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. . . .
. . . The circumstances in which that Pagan title was bestowed upon Pope Damasus, were such as might have been not a little trying to the faith and integrity of a much better man than he. Though Paganism was legally abolished in the Western Empire of Rome, yet in the city of the Seven Hills it was still rampant, insomuch that Jerome [translator of the Latin Vulgate], who knew it well, writing of Rome at this very period calls it “the sink of all superstitions.” The consequence was, that, while everywhere else throughout the empire the Imperial edict for the abolition of Paganism was respected, in Rome itself it was, to a large extent, a dead letter. . . .
. . . The man [Pope Damasus I] that came into the bishopric of Rome, as a thief and a robber, over the dead bodies of above a hundred of his opponents, could not hesitate as to the election he should make. The result shows that he had acted in character, that, in assuming the Pagan title of Pontifex, he had set himself at whatever sacrifice of truth to justify his claims to that title in the eyes of the Pagans, as the legitimate representative of their long line of pontiffs. . . .
Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:
“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”
. . . The Pope, as he is now, was at the close of the fourth century, the only representative of Belshazzar, or Nimrod, on the earth, for the Pagans manifestly accepted him as such. . . . A.D. 606, when amid the convulsions and confusions of the nations, tossed like a tempestuous sea, the Pope of Rome was made Universal Bishop; and then the ten chief kingdoms of Europe recognized him as Christ’s Vicar upon earth, the only centre of unity, the only source of stability to their thrones.
BABYLON’S RELIGION FINALLY TO PASS AWAY
In this manner Babylon accomplished her conquest of the Western world. Her worldwide religious empire is called in God’s Word “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” (Rev. 17:5) This religious empire ruled over Pergamos and even Rome, but of infinitely greater consequence has been her domination of Christendom.
Her children, “daughters” or religious organizations, are like her, harlots, having illicit relations with the political element of this world. Her doctrines and the course in which she leads the world powers are as detrimental to humankind and as disgusting and death dealing as ancient Babylon herself. Ancient Babylon left a name of contempt to all generations since.
Modern Babylon has led her followers to look to man-made efforts for world peace and has disgusted others with her hypocrisy and corruption, leading the world into a fight against God’s kingdom. The Bible kindly reveals the true picture for our safety and sensible action, and the facts of history verify this picture to the last detail. Why should anyone hesitate to listen to what the Creator of mankind says for his safety? Babylon is exposed, through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness to us.
Then flee from modern-day Babylon the Great and learn the truth about her early destruction and the freedom that it brings to mankind through God’s kingdom rule! (Rev. 18:4, 5, 20) How God made pictorial dramas to guide the escape of honest people, to help them to get out of Babylon, will be considered in issues to follow.
The Greek word for Etruria was used by Latin writers in the form Tyrrenhia; also Tusca from whence the modern Tuscany.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Volume 8, page 783.
Volume 8, edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica 1946, pages 785, 786.
That ancient Pergamos (Pergamum) was a city of considerable wealth and stature in the fifth century B.C.E., is seen in the fact that “it had been striking coins since 420 B.C. at latest.” Before Xenophon (about 430-355 B.C.E.) mentions it in his Anabasis, VII, viii, 8, and Hellenica, III, i, 6, little is known of this cosmopolitan city but mythology.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, edition of 1946, Volume 17, page 507; also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 666, edition of 1911.
The celebrated and much frequented temple of Aesculapius was located in Pergamos. Aesculapius was called the god of Pergamos, and the mythology in connection with his worship smacks of the religion of Babylon. He was worshiped in the form of a living serpent, fed in the temple and being considered as its divinity.
See pages 230, 232 of The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (1940) edition, by R. M. Engberg and F. C. Cole.
The word “college” as used here refers, not to an educational institution, but to a body of not fewer than three, legally constituted under Roman law to carry out a purpose. Our modern-day “corporation” corresponds somewhat to it.
The Two Babylons, by Hislop, page 256.
Ibid., page 240.
Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:
“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”
The Two Babylons, pages 241, 242, 247, 250, 252, 255.
letusreason
The Archaeological record does not lie!
1 Sam. 5:4
"When they got up early in the morning the very day after, there Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of Jehovah, with the head of Dagon and the palms of both his hands cut off, to the threshold. Only the *fish part had been left upon him".
Lit., “Only Dagon,” as the Dagon idol was seemingly half man, half fish.
"...Only the fish part had been left upon him".
Other translations read: torso, stump, fishy part, fish-stump, body.
(above) DagonHalf fish, half man.From Layard's, Babylon and Nineveh, p. 342.
(left)Here you see a stone laver from Assyria which is now in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin. Carved on its sides are depictions of pagan priests that appear to be half sun-fish and half man, that are sprinkling holy water.(enlarged)
Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians.
Dagon was represented as half man, half fish. The upper part human, the lower part fish. It reminded me of the Greek god Poseidon. Notice the the character to the left of the tree of life (above)and the costume he has on.
The above is from: LAYARD'S Babylon and Nineveh, p. 213. 4th Edit., vol. iii. pt. 4, Plata 27.
It should be noted that when Layard gives his account in his last work, which is here shown to the reader; and anyone who examines this mitre, and compares it with the Pope's as given in Elliot's Horoe just cannot hesitate for a moment that from that, and no other source, has the popes and other clergies mitre been derived. The wide open jaws of the fish that sit on the head of the man at Nineveh are the unmistakable counterpart of the horns of the Pope's mitre at Rome. It was in the East at least five hundred years before biblical Christianity.
It was also similar in Egypt; Wilkinson, speaking of a fish of the species of Siluris, says,
" that one of the Genii of the Egyptian Pantheon appears under a human form, with the head of this fish."
Wilkinson, vol. 5. p. 253.
Here in the West, in a later period, we have proof that the Pagans had seperated the fish-head mitre from the body of the fish, and began to used the mitre alone to beautify the head of this mediating god. On many Maltese Pagan coins, that god, with the well-known characteristics of Osiris, is represented with nothing of the fish save the mitre on his head (see picture above), almost identical in shape/form as the mitre of the Pope, and other bishops.Now, compare the pictures below and that the connections can be seen. Some may object and say it is just a coincidence. It is no more than a coincidence than that of the cross in it various forms. (Please, cut and paste link below)
http://cross-paganorchristian.blogspot.com/
(left)Note the mitre on the head of this drawing of the goddess Cybele and the striking similarity to the fish head of Dagon. Cybele was worshipped in Rome and was also called the "Magna Mater", or the great queen mother goddess, which evolved into Catholic Mariology. The priesthood of Cybele was composed of castrated males, which parallels the celibate priesthood of Catholicism. The basilica of Saint Peter's, according to some, stands upon the former site of Cybele's main temple in Rome. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill.
Again, here is a similar depiction of a pagan priest wearing a sun-fish, the head with open mouth worn as a mitre and the rest of the fish forming a cloak. These are both illustrations of Dagon, which was the God of Babylon and Philistia and is mentioned several times in scripture in Judges 16:23, 1 Samuel 5:2-7, and 1 Chronicles 1:10. In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, this is the definition for Dagon.
How Chaldean (Babylonian) Religion Survives Today.
Babylon Falls, but Her Religion Survives to Dominate the Nations
Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus the Persian in 539 B.C.E. From this time on, Babylon was no longer a political world power. But what about Babylon’s religion? With the passing of Babylon’s political power and the shift of world control from Semitic to Aryan hands, did Babylon’s religion die with her? By no means.
Why not?
First of all, the foundation for the practice of Babylon’s religion by all nations except the faithful descendants of Shem was laid in their building of the Tower of Babel in Nimrod’s day. The miraculous confusion of tongues scattered the families but they took their false religious ideas with them. Babylon afterward was viewed by pagan nations as the center of religion. Secondly, after Babylon’s fall in 539 B.C.E., her priesthood was driven out by the Persians. But they did not have in mind letting Babylonish religion’s traditional authority and supremacy die out.
Though Babylon lost her political supremacy, her Nimrod-initiated religion maintained itself as a world empire of religion over all except those who held to Jehovah’s true worship at Jerusalem. Under the adroit maneuvering of Satan the Devil it immediately set its eyes on western horizons to establish a new center for its priesthood and the successorship of Belshazzar. In fact, we shall see that its very essence infiltrated later into apostate Christianity, actually getting control over the section of the earth that came to be called Christendom.
BABYLONISH RELIGION SPREADS TO EUROPE
Long before Babylon fell, the ground had been broken to make it possible to accomplish this transplant of the head of Babylonish religion to Italy.
Historian J. H. Breasted, in the book Ancient Times—A History of the Early World, tells us that:
A race of sea rovers called Etruscans, who probably came from Asia Minor, were settled in Italy by 1000 B.C.E. After 800 B.C.E. they stretched far across northern Italy, and Rome became a city kingdom under an Etruscan king, like the other Etruscan cities that stretched from Capua far north to the harbor of Genoa. These kings governed for two centuries and a half. This would make the line of kings of Rome from about 750 to 500 B.C.E. exclusively Etruscan. The traditional founding of Rome not long before 750 B.C.E. would then correspond to its capture and establishment as a strong kingdom by the Etruscans. Archaeological evidence bears this out, though written documents of Rome during this early period are missing. Although these Etruscan kings introduced improvements into Rome, their cruelty and tyranny finally caused a revolt, and about 500 B.C.E. the career of Rome under kings came to an end. But, says Dr. Breasted, the two and a half centuries of Etruscan rule left their mark on Rome, always discernible in architecture, religion, tribal organization, and some other things.
The Encyclopædia Britannica corroborates:
Referring to the historian Herodotus, who recounts that in the reign of Atys, son of Manes, there was a great scarcity of food in all Lydia, which lasted eighteen years. Finally, by the king’s arrangement, his son Tyrrhenus took half of the people down to Smyrna and built ships wherein they set out to seek a livelihood and a country, and after sojourning with many nations they came to the Ombrici in Italy, where they founded cities. Of these people, who (according to Herodotus) no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, the Britannica goes on to say:
“From the character of their earlier remains the date of the first permanent settlement may be placed at the end of the 9th century.” What was the religion of the Tyrrhenians?
The Britannica relates:
That the Etruscans were orientals or semi-orientals is proved by the whole character of their earliest art, and by many details of their religion and worship. It is an art which shows close contact with Mesopotamia, Syria and Cyprus on the one side and with Egypt on the other. The deities and mythological figures on Etruscan gold-work and jewelry of the 7th century are evidently the heroes and deities of Asiatic mythology. . . . In the sphere of ritual and religion there are many details which are taken direct from Mesopotamia, and the whole feeling and atmosphere are purely oriental. The most striking identities are in the practice of divination and augury; for the custom of divining from the livers of sheep or the flight of birds is purely Chaldean. There are models of clay livers from Mesopotamia inscribed in cuneiform which precisely resemble the bronze model of a liver found at Piacenza [in the Province of Emilia, Italy], divided into compartments each of which is labelled in Etruscan with the name of its presiding divinity.
So archaeology clearly indicates that the Etruscans came from some part of Asia Minor, landing on the seacoast of Tuscany. Veii, in Etruria, north of Rome, became one of their chief cities. Etruria was finally swallowed up by Rome. A confederacy of twelve cities existed in the sixth century that held its annual meetings at the shrine of Voltumma above Lacus Volsiniensis (Lake of Bolsena), and it seems likely that the confederation confined itself principally to affairs of religion. All this took place before and up to the time of the fall of Babylon in the sixth century (539 B.C.E.).
So the religion of Babylon gained a strong foothold in Europe, not merely a remote relation from the time of Babel, but a direct-line inheritance. However, we are here mainly interested in the priesthood of Babylon. Just as Satan the Devil had instituted Babylonish religion through Nimrod to oppose true worship, so his spirit motivated the Babylonian priesthood to see to it that the priesthood and the religious successorship to Belshazzar himself should not die out when Babylon was lost as a capital.
Lares and Penates of Cilicia
After Babylon’s defeat, according to the work entitled “Lares and Penates of Cilicia,” by Barker and Ainsworth, chapter 8, page 232, we read:
“The defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor and fixed their central college at Pergamos.” This is the Pergamum or Pergamos mentioned in Revelation 2:12, 13 as the location of a Christian congregation much later on, in the first century C.E.
As to this shifting of the Chaldean headquarters, Dr. Alexander Hislop says:
Phrygia . . . formed part of the Kingdom of Pergamos. Mysia also was another, and the Mysians, in the Paschal Chronicle, are said to be descended from Nimrod. The words are, “Nebrod [Greek for Nimrod], the huntsman and giant—from whence came the Mysians.” (See Paschal Chronicle, volume I, page 50.) Lydia, also, from which [the historian] Livy and Herodotus say the Etruscans [of Italy] came, formed part of the same kingdom. For the fact that Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia were constituent parts of the kingdom of Pergamos, see SMITH’S Classical Dictionary, page 542.
ROME AFFECTED RELIGIOUSLY
This proved to have profound effect on Rome. After the Etruscan cities were overthrown and Rome became a republic (509 B.C.E.), the Romans took over the Etruscan gods, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and others, and each god was now, for the first time, given a human form and a residence in a temple or shrine. They were identified with the Greek gods. Jupiter, the “sky-father” of the Etruscans, became the Roman version of the Greek Zeus-pater. Mars, the god of war, was the favorite deity of the fighting Romans. The Saturnalia were later taken over by the Christians as their Christmas, and given a new significance.
One modern historical work links the Roman practices directly with the Chaldeans:
The Chaldeans made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call “astrology”. Much information has been systematically collected by the Babylonians and from it we have here the beginning of astronomy. The groups of stars which now bear the name “Twelve Signs of the Zodiac” were mapped out for the first time, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known. Since these planets were thought to have special powers over the lives of men, they were named for the five leading gods and goddesses. We refer to these planets by their Roman names, but the Romans had adopted the Babylonian terms and simply translated them into their equivalents in Rome. Thus the planet of Ishtar, the goddess of love, became Venus, and that of the god Marduk was changed to Jupiter.
In 133 B.C.E., King Attalus III, on his deathbed, bequeathed Pergamum and all its territory to the Romans, all of which later became a Roman province under the name of Asia.
This King Attalus had been selected by the Chaldean Magi as the successor to Belshazzar, as Doctor Hislop goes on to say:
The kings of Pergamos, in whose dominions the Chaldean Magi found an asylum, were evidently by them [by the Magi], and by the general voice of Paganism that sympathised with them, put into the vacant place which Belshazzar and his predecessors had occupied. They were hailed as the representatives of the old Babylonian god. This is evident from the statements by Pausanius. . . . Attalus, in whose dominions the Magi had their chief seat, had been set up and recognized in the very character of Bacchus, the Head of the Magi. Thus the vacant seat of Belshazzar was filled, and the broken chain of the Chaldean succession renewed.—The Two Babylons, pages 240, 241.
THE OFFICE OF PONTIFEX MAXIMUS?
In this time when world religions are offering themselves as the hope for world peace, with the Roman Catholic Church taking the lead, we owe it to ourselves next to trace with unbiased mind the origin of the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus.
Doctor Hislop cites history on pages 239, 240 of The Two Babylons:
A colony of Etruscans, earnestly attached to the Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from Asia Minor [where Pergamos was located], others from Greece, and settled in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. They were ultimately incorporated in the Roman state, but long before this political union took place they exercised the most powerful influence on the religion of the Romans. From the very first their skill in augury, soothsaying, and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or soothsayers monopolized, made the Romans look up to them with respect. It is admitted on all hands that the Romans derived their knowledge of augury . . . chiefly from the Tuscans, that is, the people of Etruria, and at first none but natives of that country were permitted to exercise the office of Haruspex which had respect to all the rites essentially involved in sacrifice. . . . the highest of the noble youths of Rome were sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which flourished there.
The college of Pontiffs was founded by Numa Pompilius, second legendary king of Rome, and regarding Numa, Hislop says: “That god was called in Babylon Nebo, in Egypt Nub or Num, and among the Romans Numa, for Numa Pompilius, the great priest-king of the Romans, occupied precisely the position of the Babylonian Nebo.” The Sovereign Pontiff that presided over that college, and that controlled all the public and private religious rites of the Roman people in all essential respects, became in spirit and in practice an Etruscan Pontiff. As to this, Dr. Hislop says:
The true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman empire [which never overran southern Mesopotamia or Chaldea]. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood from Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the seven churches of Asia.
It would be of greatest interest to us in this brief historical consideration to see how this religious connection between Pergamos and Rome, which became the Sixth World Power in the first century B.C.E., was manifested in the office of Pontifex Maximus. It clearly proves that Babylonish religion actually is the source of the office of Pontifex Maximus of the popes of Rome.
The Two Babylons gives us an account:
At first the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; yet, in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself became part and parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III, the last of the kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman people, B.C. 133. . . . When Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also. as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the Roman state, and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as well as the kingdom that Attalus had bequeathed to the Romans, as centring in himself; . . . Then, on certain occasions, in the exercise of his high pontifical office, he appeared of course in all the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar himself might have done, in robes of scarlet, with the crozier of Nimrod in his hand wearing the mitre of Dagon [the fish god] and bearing the keys of Janus [the two-faced god] and Cybele [the “mother” goddess]. . . .
. . . until the reign of [Western Emperor] Gratian, who, as shown by [the historian] Gibbon, was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idolatrous pontifical attire, or to sit as Pontifex. . . .
. . . Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived . . . and was bestowed, with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, . . . all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. . . .
. . . The circumstances in which that Pagan title was bestowed upon Pope Damasus, were such as might have been not a little trying to the faith and integrity of a much better man than he. Though Paganism was legally abolished in the Western Empire of Rome, yet in the city of the Seven Hills it was still rampant, insomuch that Jerome [translator of the Latin Vulgate], who knew it well, writing of Rome at this very period calls it “the sink of all superstitions.” The consequence was, that, while everywhere else throughout the empire the Imperial edict for the abolition of Paganism was respected, in Rome itself it was, to a large extent, a dead letter. . . .
. . . The man [Pope Damasus I] that came into the bishopric of Rome, as a thief and a robber, over the dead bodies of above a hundred of his opponents, could not hesitate as to the election he should make. The result shows that he had acted in character, that, in assuming the Pagan title of Pontifex, he had set himself at whatever sacrifice of truth to justify his claims to that title in the eyes of the Pagans, as the legitimate representative of their long line of pontiffs. . . .
Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:
“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”
. . . The Pope, as he is now, was at the close of the fourth century, the only representative of Belshazzar, or Nimrod, on the earth, for the Pagans manifestly accepted him as such. . . . A.D. 606, when amid the convulsions and confusions of the nations, tossed like a tempestuous sea, the Pope of Rome was made Universal Bishop; and then the ten chief kingdoms of Europe recognized him as Christ’s Vicar upon earth, the only centre of unity, the only source of stability to their thrones.
BABYLON’S RELIGION FINALLY TO PASS AWAY
In this manner Babylon accomplished her conquest of the Western world. Her worldwide religious empire is called in God’s Word “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” (Rev. 17:5) This religious empire ruled over Pergamos and even Rome, but of infinitely greater consequence has been her domination of Christendom.
Her children, “daughters” or religious organizations, are like her, harlots, having illicit relations with the political element of this world. Her doctrines and the course in which she leads the world powers are as detrimental to humankind and as disgusting and death dealing as ancient Babylon herself. Ancient Babylon left a name of contempt to all generations since.
Modern Babylon has led her followers to look to man-made efforts for world peace and has disgusted others with her hypocrisy and corruption, leading the world into a fight against God’s kingdom. The Bible kindly reveals the true picture for our safety and sensible action, and the facts of history verify this picture to the last detail. Why should anyone hesitate to listen to what the Creator of mankind says for his safety? Babylon is exposed, through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness to us.
Then flee from modern-day Babylon the Great and learn the truth about her early destruction and the freedom that it brings to mankind through God’s kingdom rule! (Rev. 18:4, 5, 20) How God made pictorial dramas to guide the escape of honest people, to help them to get out of Babylon, will be considered in issues to follow.
The Greek word for Etruria was used by Latin writers in the form Tyrrenhia; also Tusca from whence the modern Tuscany.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Volume 8, page 783.
Volume 8, edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica 1946, pages 785, 786.
That ancient Pergamos (Pergamum) was a city of considerable wealth and stature in the fifth century B.C.E., is seen in the fact that “it had been striking coins since 420 B.C. at latest.” Before Xenophon (about 430-355 B.C.E.) mentions it in his Anabasis, VII, viii, 8, and Hellenica, III, i, 6, little is known of this cosmopolitan city but mythology.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, edition of 1946, Volume 17, page 507; also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 666, edition of 1911.
The celebrated and much frequented temple of Aesculapius was located in Pergamos. Aesculapius was called the god of Pergamos, and the mythology in connection with his worship smacks of the religion of Babylon. He was worshiped in the form of a living serpent, fed in the temple and being considered as its divinity.
See pages 230, 232 of The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (1940) edition, by R. M. Engberg and F. C. Cole.
The word “college” as used here refers, not to an educational institution, but to a body of not fewer than three, legally constituted under Roman law to carry out a purpose. Our modern-day “corporation” corresponds somewhat to it.
The Two Babylons, by Hislop, page 256.
Ibid., page 240.
Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:
“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”
The Two Babylons, pages 241, 242, 247, 250, 252, 255.
letusreason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)