and the Chinon Parchment
No Wonder Oliver Cromwell Called it “Magna Farta”
Archived article by Dominic Selwood.
The Salem Witch Trials were not what we have been taught ~ Updated paper from Miles Mathis
As usual, this is just my opinion, based on my personal reading of the facts given to us.
As my best readers will remember, I suggested in a recent paper that the famous witch trials of history may have been faked as cover for Intelligence projects. In this paper, I will show evidence that suggestion is true, at least regarding the Salem event.
In that paper on the Occult, witchcraft in the 17th century in Europe came up as a tangential topic, and through that I was led to remind myself that it was also a topic in this past century (the 20th). I remembered that Arthur Miller debuted his play The Crucible in 1953. This reminded me that the Witchcraft Act in England was repealed in 1951 and that Gerald Gardner started Wicca in 1954. Those close dates seemed more than a coincidence, so I suggested maybe they weren’t. If The Crucible came out at that time as support for current projects, then it was possible that the Salem Witch trials were also a project. I didn’t have time to pursue it in that paper, so I am going to pursue it here.
or in PDF if you prefer.
Vol. 1. On the creation of the world; On the allegories of the sacred laws; On the cherubim, and On the flaming sword, and On the first-born child of man, Cain; Of Cain and his birth; On the sacrifices of Abel and Cain; On the principle that the worse is accustomed to be always plotting against the better; On the posterity of Cain; On the giants; On the unchangeableness of God; On the tilling of the earth by Noah; About the planting of Noah; On drunkenness; On sobriety.
Vol. 2. On the confusion of languages; On the migration of Abraham; On the question, Who is the heir of divine things; On the meeting for the sake of receiving instruction; On fugitives; On the question why certain names in the Holy Scriptures are changed; On the doctrine that dreams are sent from God, Books I [and] II; On the life of the wise man made perfect by instruction, or, On the unwritten law, that is to say, on Abraham; On the life of a man occupied with affairs of state, or, On Joseph.
Vol. 3. On the life of Moses, that is to say, on the theology and prophetic office of Moses, Books I-III; Concerning the Ten Commandments, which are the heads of the Law; On circumcision; On monarchy, Books I [and] II; On the question, What the rewards and honours are which belong to the priests; On animals fit for sacrifice, or, On victims; On those who offer sacrifice; On the Commandment that the wages of a harlot are not to be received in the sacred treasury; On the special laws which are referred to three articles of the Decalogue, namely, the third, fourth and fifth: about oaths, and the reverence due to them, about the holy Sabbath, about the honour to be paid to parents; To show that the Festivals are ten in number; On the festival of the basket of first-fruits; On the honour commanded to be paid to parents; On those special laws which are referrible to two commandments in the Decalogue, the sixth and seventh, against adulterers and all lewd persons, and against murderers and all violence; On those special laws which are contained under and have reference to the eighth ninth, and tenth commandments; On justice; On the creation of magistrates; On three virtues, that is to say, on courage, humanity and repentance; On rewards and punishments; On curses; On nobility; To prove that every man who is virtuous is also free.
Vol. 4. On a contemplative life, or, On the virtues of suppliants; On the incorruptibility of the world; Against Flaccus; On the virtues and on the office of ambassadors, addressed to Caius; Concerning the world; The fragments of the lost works; Fragments extracted from the Parallels of John of Damascus; Fragments from a monkish manuscript; Fragments preserved by Antonius; Fragments from an anonymous collection in the Bodleian Library at Oxford; Fragments from an unpublished manuscript in the library of the French king; A volume of questions, and solutions to those questions, which arise in Genesis; Index to the four volumes
BiblePlaces Blog: 60 minutes on the James Ossuary
Debunking Christianity: Do Ossuaries Claimed for St James and St Peter Prove a Historical Jesus?
Jerusalem Forgery Conference, Special Report.
Biblical Archaeology Society, January, 16-18, 2007.pp. 39-40
Archaeometric overview of the Jehoash Inscription and James Ossuary.
Evidence for the fabled King Solomon of Israel is nonexistent. Biblical historians Thomas L. Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield argue that David and Solomon, and indeed the entire biblical description of the history of Israel, are nothing more than ideological constructs produced by priestly circles in Jerusalem in post-exilic times. Nineteenth- and early 20th-century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon’s legendary temple or palace complex. The king called Solomon is most likely based upon the Assyrian god Shulmanu- Ashared. “Shulmanu” translates as “foremost one.”…….cont’d
NO SHE-DEMON has ever achieved as fantastic a career as Lilith, who started out from the lowliest of origins, was a failure as Adam’s intended wife, became the paramour of lascivious spirits, rose to be the bride of Samael the demon King, ruled as the Queen of Zemargad and Sheba, and finally ended up as the consort of God himself. The main features of Lilith’s mythical biography first appear in Sumerian culture about the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C. What she meant for the Biblical Hebrews can only be surmised, but by the Talmudic period (second to fifth centuries A.D.) she was a fully developed evil she-demon, and during the Kabbalistic age (thirteenth to sixteenth centuries) she rose to the high position of queenly consort at God’s side.
The earliest mention of a she-demon whose name is similar to that of Lilith is found in the Sumerian king list which dates from around 2400 B.C. It states that the father of the great hero Gilgamesh was a Lillu-demon. The Lillu was one of four demons belonging to a vampire or incubi-succubaeclass. The other three were Lilitu (Lilith), a she-demon; Ardat Lili (or Lilith’s handmaid), who visited men by night and bore them ghostly children; and Irdu Lili, who must have been her male
counterpartand used to visit women and beget children by them.’ Originally these were storm-demons,but, because of a mistaken etymology, they came to be regarded as night-demons.2
Lilith’s epithet was “the beautiful maiden,” but she was believed to have been a harlot and a vampire who, once she chose a lover, would never let him go, without ever giving him real satisfaction. She was unable to bear children and had no milk in her breasts.3According to the Sumerian epic Gilgamesh and the Huluppu Tree (dating from around 2000 B.C.) Lilith (Lillake) built her house in the midst of the Huluppu (willow) tree which had been planted on the bank of the Euphrates in the days of creation. A dragon set up its nest at the base of the tree, and the Zu-bird placed his young in its crown. Gilgamesh slays the dragon with his huge bronze axe, whereupon the Zu-bird flees with his young to the mountain, and Lilith, terror-strickent,earsdown her house and escapesto the desert.4
A Babylonian terracotta relief, roughly contemporary with the above poem, shows in what form Lilith was believed to appear to human eyes. She is slender, well shaped, beautiful, and nude, with wings and owl-feet. She stands erect on two reclining lions which are turned away from each other and are flanked by owls. On her head she wears a cap embellished by several pairs of horns. In her hand she holds a ring-and-rodcombination.5
Evidently, this is no longer a lowly she-demon, but a goddess who tames wild beasts and, as shown by the owls on the reliefs, rules by night.
In the course of the ensuing centuries Lilith’s shape changed again. A seventh- century B.C. tablet found at Arslan Tash in northern Syria shows her as a winged sphinx across whose body is written the following inscription in the Phoenician- Canaanite dialect:
￼296 Vol. 77, No. 306 Journal of American Folklore Oct.-Dec., I964
O, Flyer in a dark chamber, Go away at once, O Lili! 6
These lines are part of an incantation text used to help women in childbirth- one of many extant from the period of the Assyrian Empire and the new Babylonian Kingdom-and they show that by that time the myth of Lilith had all the major features which were elaborated to their fill two thousand years later by Kabbalistic Judaism.
One brief reference to Lilith, and a doubtful one at that, is all that is found in the entire Bible. Isaiah, in describing Yahweh’s day of vengeance, when the land will be turned into a desolate wilderness, says:
The wild-cat shall meet with the jackals
And the satyr shall cry to his fellow,
Yea,Lilith shall repose there
And find her a place of rest.7
The Mesopotamian and North Syrian material surveyed above supplies the background to this prophetic allusion. Evidently, Lilith was a well known she-demon in Israel of the eighth century B.C., whose name only had to be mentioned to conjure up the beliefs current about her. That she is said to find a place of rest in the desert seems to tie in with the episode recorded in the Sumerian Gilgamesh fragment- after Lilith the desert,she evidently found repose there.
Related The Lilith Myth from gnosis.org
Available to read here:
Tolkein, One Ring and Paganism. What do they have in common?
Two Messengers of the White Lodge
By H.S. Olcott
[Reprinted from The Theosophist July 1905]; Theosophical Publishing House – Adyar, Chennai (Madras) India
The last paragraph is somewhat ironic 😉
I have thus very briefly, yet in good faith, traced the connection between these two mysterious personages, St-Germain and H. P. Blavatsky, messengers and agents of the White Lodge, as I believe. The one was sent to help in directing the convergent lines of karma that were to bring about the political cataclysm of the 18th century with all its appalling consequences, to let loose the moral cyclone which was to purify the social atmosphere of the world; the other came at a time when materialism was to meet its Waterloo and the new reign of spiritual high-thinking was to be ushered in through the agency of our Society.
Archon (Gr. ἄρχων, pl. ἄρχοντες) is a Greek word that means “ruler” or “lord,” frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-, meaning “to rule,” derived from the same root as monarch, hierarchy, and anarchy.
In ancient Greece the chief magistrate in various Greek city states was called Archon. The term was also used throughout Greek history in a more general sense, ranging from “club leader” to “master of the tables” at syssitia.
In Athens a system of nine concurrent Archons evolved, led by three respective remits over the civic, military, and religious affairs of the state: the three office holders being known as the Eponymos archon (Ἐπώνυμος ἄρχων; the “name” ruler, who gave his name to the year in which he held office), the Polemarch (“war ruler”), and the Archon Basileus (“king ruler”). The six others were the Thesmothétai, Judicial Officers. Originally these offices were filled from the wealthier classes by elections every ten years. During this period the eponymous Archon was the chief magistrate, the Polemarch was the head of the armed forces, and the Archon Basileus was responsible for some civic religious arrangements, and for the supervision of some major trials in the law courts. After 683 BC the offices were held for only a single year, and the year was named after the Archōn Epōnymos. (Many ancient calendar systems did not number their years consecutively.)
After 487 BC the archonships were assigned by lot to any citizen and the Polemarch’s military duties were taken over by new class of generals known as stratēgoí. The ten stratēgoí (one per tribe) were elected, and the office of Polemarch was rotated among them on a daily basis. The Polemarch thereafter had only minor religious duties, and the titular headship over the strategoi. The Archon Eponymos remained the titular head of state under democracy, though of much reduced political importance. The Archons were assisted by “junior” archons, called Thesmothétai (Θεσμοθέται “Institutors”). After 457 BC ex-archons were automatically enrolled as life members of the Areopagus, though that assembly was no longer extremely important politically at that time. (See Archons of Athens.)………cont’d at the link