Explaining The Occult

Muslims regularly have this thing, where they ask Christian apologists - where did Jesus say 'I am God, Worship Me...?'

Well, it's in an occult set of passages in several of the Gospels, but particularly clearly laid out, if not so particularly explained, in Matthew 26: 57+, and in Mark 14: 61-62:

"And Caiaphas the leader of the Sanhedrin said to him - 'I adjure you by the Living God, that you tell us, whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.' And Jesus said to him, ' I am, and you shall see such a one even as a human being coming with power against you from the heavens above.' And Caiaphas rent his clothes, telling the others then that they have heard the blasphemy."

2012 London Olympics opening ceremony...

'Adjure,' means to seriously urge someone UNDER THREAT OF PENALTY.

And the reply was actually too complex for me to explain here. 

But then, the passages themselves go on to say something that has been translated into English as something like 'and Hereafter shall you see...' whatever the implication was. And in different albeit linked passages 'and this generation shall not pass away before...'

Now, the 'Apocalyptic meme' is that there is a 'rider on a white horse' who comes and makes war against the secular powers on Earth, and this is taken to mean 'at the End of the World' (You know, TEOTWAWKI - that thing...).

Well, it's impossible to get it out of the heads of the idiots that abound today, this idea that the Gospels were originally 'written in Aramaic' and that 'Jesus spoke Aramaic.'

Well he may have done. But how would you know? Were you there?

If he spent 14 years growing up in Egypt, in a rich man's mansion, why would he naturally speak a different regional/local to a quite other place, tongue - 'Aramaic??'

Today's opinionated nonentities 'believe this' because he was 'from Galilee' where they simply must have spoken Aramaic...

But look, it doesn't matter to you whether he spoke Aramaic or the Greek in which the Gospels were actually written down in -  it doesn't matter because one of all, some of you don't believe any of this ancient fairy tale talk anyway, and two of all, you will not seriously expect anyone to be 'riding through the clouds on a white horse!'

The true art of the truly occult...
No explanation can be given.

Wouldn't matter if the words were in Aramaic 'riding on a white horse!' It's still a stupid idea.

'Conjure;' the word 'conjure' means to 'have the right along with you' (it's the same as a conspiracy, really - 'to conjure').

Like, if you and the demons you are messing with, are both expecting to go to hell, well then, you and they can 'conjure' together to enable something to happen - they using their power, and you using yours; together, you conjure an event.

Caiaphas had the authority under the law, to use the 'power' of the law (de jure), to threaten the person before him.

And that person, in the instance of the narrative we are talking about, said, 'and I have the authority to exact vengeance against you that you have no means of countering whatsoever, and I will carry it out for ever after. Not - 'at some undefined moment hereafter.' 

The exact word in the Apocalypse (which means something that is to be exposed, revealed by someone far far later on down the track from when it was set down, way back then), is 'Ippo' feminine in Greek, which means 'a massed cavalry' not 'a horse,' and 'ho' means 'who is above, at the head of, leading.' To be 'on the right hand of' means the one who wields the actual dynamic action.

So, when sorcerers conjure together, like say when they did back in 2012, at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics - they are calling together whatever forces they have with them.

To adjure, is something you do if you are quite certain that you can make good on your threat of force.

To conjure, is what you do when you have no such power - that is, to order anyone to do anything... ...because you are relying on the forces that you already have with you, to all work together.

And if those forces all start to fall apart, then you are in trouble.

Of course, not many reading here will be able to 'read the tea-leaves,' as they say -, read the signs, that anyone or anything is in fact, 'falling apart.'

But 'conjuring' is a defensive tactic, and one that implies you are losing and expect to completely lose; it's a 'last stand' tactic.

See, also, if I said: 'I adjure you, not to try this *** stunt, because if you do, I'm going to XYZ...' First of all, you would have to recognize that I have any 'authority' over something that really had the means which could in fact manifest such threats as material happenings.

Neither of those things are absolute outright aggression strategies. In outright warfare, you give no warning, so that the enemy had no way to assess what your capability was, and so perhaps counter it.

Theoretically, in absolute moral systems, warnings are given to innocent bystanders. Only.