mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Examine the effects the Roman Empire had on Kassite Babylonians(Orthodox Hebrew), Amorite Babylonians(Other Hebrew Denominations) and Egyptian cultures contemporary to the Roman Empire’s longevity?

Amorite Babylonian empire was 1894 to 1595 BC. Kassite Babylonian empire was 1595 to 1155 BC.

Roman empire was 27 BC to etc.

Therefore the effects the Roman Empire had on Kassite Babylonian and Amorite Babylonian empires is zero, they missed each other by more than 1000 years!

Postpocelipse said:

DAVID: Adds up to 1006 in Roman Numerals

A is not a Roman Numeral.

Mollwollfumble’s initial observation I have to discard as disproven. The Romans did very much have effects on each of these peoples if one is aware of who and where they were at the time. The Kassites became the Hebrew and the Amorite remnants are more than likely to have been assimilated into the Egyptian empire as part and parcel of the Canaanite rule and dissolution of the former Babylonian regime.

A is not a Roman numeral, which is an important observation as I will explain through clarification of the following:

Food For Thread Thought DAVID:

Adds up to 1006 in Roman Numerals

A Tuman, including it’s chain of command adds up to 1006 in Mongol Military Management

Collate other factors relative to military conquest either assessable under the number 1006 or the alphabetic reference in the name DAVID?

Food For Thread Thought DAVID:

Adds up to 1006 in Roman Numerals

A Tuman, including it’s chain of command adds up to 1006 in Mongol Military Management
<…….>
<
<
<…….>

This was hardly an idle addition to the original thread. History is inevitably tied together by small observations when it is recognised that often single individuals have been required to process the data everyone else at the time of their living were missing.

I have so far tied together various threads of history through the evaluation of this process of cultural change. I will reveal two simple clues to look for when tracking the philosophical evolution of the Semitic peoples and their tradition of messianic prophesising. Goat herding and dynastically pivotal war-lords. Wherever one has gone the other has followed.

Mollwollfumble raises the point that A is not a Roman numeral which it most certainly is not. The Roman did not create our alphabet so this is largely inconsequential. The Arabic based alphabet and numerals we use are a product of the co-operative efforts represented in the original project of Minoa.

Between their time and the creation of the Arabic script the Greek intervened with their contribution to the philosophical rather than visual description prescribed to a character. Middle Eastern scripts had till then been strongly rooted in Sanskrit and far eastern thinking. To comprehend the contribution of Greek academia to the modern alphabet one only needs to comprehend the concepts of alpha and omega. Instead of an ever-growing complexities of characters within an evolving language one could conceive a beginning and end to a set of characters that form the basis of all written verbal description.

To bring the thread back round to the relative development of record keeping and the Semitic philosophy I will refer to these two factor. Prophets foretold by prophecy were each herders and their were 3 of them of most distinctive note.

The first occurs with Gaddas who provides the Hebrew with the foundational Solomon figure and dynasty. The second is Arkhenaten who becomes a herder by forcefully stripping the nobles of Egypt of their slaves and sending them home to Babylon. My choice for third will raise a significant degree of debate because their is already a dynastic figure who figures at the beginning of the next and Greatest Babylonian dynasty to that of Gaddas’s Kassitic.

This figure is not the herder prophet warlord in that he is not required to undergo the military action that Gaddas initiated. The David figure of Babylonic history stabilises and expands upon the preceding development.

Later on Mohammed comes along and makes his scratches in parchment but still I do not recognise the all-conquering warlord prophet in this man’s accounts. He pulls together a relatively small band of local loitering tribes and impresses them enough they stick together.

The character that most resembles an extreme warlord prophet messiah as prescribed by biblical foretelling does not come along till Ghenghis unites herding tribes of Mongolia and changes the course of history of the entire world.

This factor, that of the development of record keeping, alphabet and numerals and suggestion cue memory reliance I will subsequently examine together as communal human components inevitable to genetic evolution.

Postpocelipse said:

The character that most resembles an extreme warlord prophet messiah as prescribed by biblical foretelling does not come along till Ghenghis unites herding tribes of Mongolia and changes the course of history of the entire world.

To justify this as inevitable and the culmination of the biblical histories I will clarify the reference to Sanskrit. Vedic scripts are recorded as far back as 6000 years ago. It seems logical that this early advanced civilization spread west in migratory fashion to Africa in search of harvest. As this will have been a gradual process heavily mediated by integration with African and middle eastern peoples it will have been overlooked by these developing cultures as of significance to their self image.

As migratory patterns follow tidal ebbs the initial migration can be measured as reaching western peak at the point the Egyptians began making their mark. The return journey of the pendulum ignites the Semitic rejection of “western” dominance and begins it’s slow retreat east.

This reaches eastern pendulum peak with Ghenghis. Wheel turns full circle and two paths are described. Kublai’s consequent Empire represents the second coming of David to Ghenghis’s Solomon.

This does obviously go on to develop back west through Russia to Europe and that is of consequence but a key component of messianic prophetic inevitably must first be examined in context to this analysis. That of the second dynasty of the bible entire in the form of TNT.

This analysis itself may represent an inevitable component of the migrations of Vedic thought throughout the globe and history. It is it’s component of analysis that draws it within the Sanskrit-Semitic context as even the early herders that travelled had to have specific goals in mind to discern which path they might take or which direction they might go.

This culture of differentiation of opportunities and analysis of warning signs marks the compilation of the Semitic sequel to the Vedic epic. The opposing component of this philosophies evolution is the various indigent populations that herders encounter. This grinds into gear with the Greek and finds a path with the Roman and culminates in various contributions to modern wealth.

As opposed to being archaic and defunct, the genuine path of the Sanskrit-Semitic migration turns left at Ghenghis’s Albuquerque and tracks west again through russia as communist philosophy. Their concept of capitalism is only now being tested. Till this has shown it’s fruit the weight of wisdom gathered in this 6000 year flock wheel cannot be reliably measured.

This is possibly the pivotal importance of the nature of our familiarity with the initiating components of TNT. It has provided the now Eurocentric west a bridge to it’s counter culture.

All along the way the west has been nurtured into motion by the influence of Sanskrit philosophies so I will need to begin with some reference to this beginning to appropriately clarify the events that mark the beginning of the current calendar you will check at some point today.

Postpocelipse said:

All along the way the west has been nurtured into motion by the influence of Sanskrit philosophies so I will need to begin with some reference to this beginning to appropriately clarify the events that mark the beginning of the current calendar you will check at some point today.

Maybe this has given us a goat-like nature to their philosophy based on being herded for so long………

T..e-..D said:

You folks feel prepared?

Kassite(Gandas the Bull)Babylon diplomacy analysis

Kassites began as allies of The Sea Peoples with the reign of Ilum-ma-ili (1732BC) coinciding with that of Gandas (1730BC)

Allies of the Canaanite who ruled Egypt from 1720BC.

This alliance provides evidence Minoa was the brainchild of Gandas and the effort of all three. With the diplomatic resource Gandas drew from India it seems evident he saw the advantage in maintaining an outpost only known of by his strongest supporters. He will have been seeking advantage to remove the power of the nobilities of Egypt so as to advance Semitic law there and retrieve those of his peoples in slavery there.

Minoa as the private Temple of Solomon does have apparent credibility within the tale of the minotaur. Gandas was obviously a diplomat with canny insight and foresight and more than likely to have fostered this manner of institutional cohesion between his newly victorious allies.

It is not clear whether the public of The Sea Peoples will have been informed of Minoa’s nature. It is not likely the peoples of Babylon will have had significant awareness of it as it will have retained an Amorite population that represented on ongoing internal threat. Egypt’s nobility are more than likely to have been considered the greatest threat and therefore the least likely to be privy to details.

The period following Gandas’s rule and before 1600BC’s approximate destruction of Minoa represents a significant period of cultural and philosophical development of a fundamentally political inner circle elite class attached to the Semitic allies efforts in Minoa which will most likely have focussed on how to tip the balance of power in Egypt so that rule there could be irrevocable after Gandas’s direct influence passed.

Shortly following the catastrophe the Canaanites lose power in Egypt. This will have been a significant moment for the collective Egyptian psyche and would appear to have not been forgotten 200 years later in Arkhenaten’s time.

Arkhenaten will have decreed all slaves of Egypt to be under his control in order to gather the manpower required to move a city and rebuild it. The manner in which Arkhenaten was remembered by his own people after his passing strong evidence that he had put their lifestyles in jeopardy to domination by the still ruling Kassites, even having gone as far as forming the monotheistic Egyptian theology, which will only have been countenanced by his courtly nobility and priests in the prospect that Egypt would somehow come to dominate the neighbours that had threatened them for so long.

Where Gandas appears to have sown the seed for the Greek and Roman cultures to rise with SMUMT, Arkhenaten provided the Babylonians with a reason to believe in their “foretold” ruling of Egypt and the rest of the world which it is fairly obvious they saw as their final aim, when he released the Kassite slaves and gave them the propaganda of the Moses tale.

The conspiracy turns full circle when the product of Gandas’s foresight evolves to be the Roman Empire and returns to first raze Carthage and then shortly later to rule Egypt and the Hebrews. The Greek and Romans represent the remnants of The Sea Peoples after they were defeated by the Kassites after the destruction of Minoa.

Their defeat at the time will have represented some degree of addressing the problem of gods anger as recorded by the breaking of the covenant with Minoa’s destruction. As they had become a problem to both the Egyptians and the Babylonians the Kassites conquering of them will have allowed a degree of tension to be eased between Egypt and Babylon.

By the time the Romans took Babylon’s territories the Hebrews had come to be ruled by “decadent Persians”. With the references to JC being a shepherd there is a good likelihood a word of mouth and possibly cryptic text tradition had existed with descendants of the Kassite herders and ruling nobilities. This is the greatest reason his claim to the Hebrew throne will have been resented as a threat to those who had managed to retain favour with the current Roman rulers. There will have been a fairly strong rebel memory of Kassite rule and power and the texts of the First Testament evidence a preference for the Kassite lineages as true rulers of Babylon.

So ultimately, Gandas laid the foundation for his people to be rescued from Persian rule in the influence that led to Roman might. As the priests of Judea circa 10BC were agents of the Persian nobility they will have been familiar with and prepared for dealing with claims to the throne.

Comparison of the word of mouth tradition of later Mongol goat herders indicates the scenario that JC was genuinely descended from Gandas and had access to his record is more than likely. The speculation that JC travelled to India in his early years is lent greatest credence in this light considering it is fairly obvious India was crucial to Gandas’s military campaigns.

Solo-Minoan Monoversity Military Mindedness

Language links:

Salaam/Shalom

Gandas/Ghenghis

The Semitic peoples have the longest history of any peoples for being exposed to political intrigue and conspiracy. Amorite, Kassite, Assyrian/Persian dynasties have all contributed cover-ups of their own plots and propaganda against their own factions and the Egyptians.

The name chosen by the first Khan of the Mongols lends even further credence to the strength of word of mouth tradition among herding tribes, if it were chosen for it’s connection to an historical ruler that featured in Temujin’s heirloom bedtime tales. This might be a powerful reason for his particular approach to diplomacy with the middle eastern people at the time. He may have felt that he also had claim as heir to these territories which may be why he showed considerable care in diplomacy until this was twice despised.

This consideration throws a different spotlight on his comment to them “You must be very great sinners if I am here”.

Demographics

It would appear possible that today’s Muslim are largely descendants of the Kassite as when their influence passed the southern influences that had provided them the Amorites as their original foe returned to power over the Hebrew.

Their word of mouth would in this case would view the Hebrew as descendants of pretenders/usurpers of a throne that belonged to them.

The Vedic texts that likely influenced Gandas in his time are quite likely to have featured in Mohammed’s time while instituting the Muslim faith. In these their is the tale of Krishna catching a mountain that was thrown by his enemies. With the apparent evidence of these influences remaining a strong on the goat herding tribes of the mid east it seems more than likely that were Mohammed of lineage and privy to the histories and word of mouth traditions of the goat herders then he could have easily drawn upon these stories in conception of his manipulations of public opinion.

Defining elements of word of mouth tradition

Ghenghis’s mother was an important figure in his life. She is recorded as reprimanding him and will have provided the basis of his verbal tradition.

Temujin’s father stole his mother from another tribe causing the feud between his tribe and theirs. There is nil evidence she had any complaint with his actions however.

Verbal tradition can be assessed against this example. Goat herders being migratory will have required strong verbal tradition to maintain the sense of their own dignity against the various cultures they interacted with over time. The convenience of private heir to heir maintenance of verbal tradition provides significant advantages to publicly recorded information in that it does not require diplomacy in covering up the names of the guilty and events erased from record elsewhere will remain alive in a strongly maintained verbal tradition such as that of the Silk Road Goat Herders………