Posts Tagged ‘Jewish influence on India’

The Book of Esther Revisited: Is it God’s Word?

While studying Buddhism again, after being harassed by a Buddhist and Gandhi-supporter named “jaspoet”, who childishly contested a quote I used from Buddha (stupidly assuming that I took it out of context, while ironically confirming that I used it correctly, showing how stupid this person was), I noticed a part of his sayings that sounded like a rip of of verses from the book of Job. I already knew that certain of his sayings were very close to certain things Moses said, so it made me wonder if he had been in contact with Jews. I learned in my research that he may have been born much earlier than is usually claimed, and that he was instead more likely to have been born in 1887 B.C. as is worked out here. Then in my research I discovered that the earliest known Judean presence in India, came much later, around 485-465 B.C., when Xerxes ruled ancient India.Buddha’s father, who was a king, or Buddha himself may have sent out people to explore the world for him and bring back information as to what they learned, or some Judean traders may have, while trading with India, given information about their laws, which eventually were learned by Buddha, pieces of it at least. Then I was curious about Esther again, wondering if it was God’s word, and after reading more information about it from a few websites, and maybe a pdf or two, and again read that it was devoid of any religious promotion that would indicate it was God’s word. I contested this as a reason to reject it in my previous post on the B.O.E., saying that the Bible didn’t need to constantly refer to God for it to be understand that it was his word, for example saying after every sentence, “This is God’s word” or “said God”. I was also trying to find where I had read that it was nonsensical that Esther or someone had requested that the day of the hanging of the Agagites and those who tried to aid them against the Jews, be celebrated the day after, and wondered if perhaps it was because of an existing holiday (and now that I write this, perhaps some royal person’s birthday) on the day of the hanging (which would have made it confusing for some or awkward), and so I started reading it from the beginning. Soon I came to a verse (and a second, which is one of the main lines of the story I just realized, which makes it stand out even more) which made me realize for certain that it was God’s word, and thought it strange that it hadn’t been mentioned in the evidences that is was his word:

“Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, ‘There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom.  Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them.'” – Esther 3:8. And a first part of the next verse is,

“If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed“.

It reminded me at first of the current situation of Christians. The Bible prophecies will one day happen to them: an attempt by prominent persons – the AntiChrist, False Prophet and the Beast – to destroy them all, and while writing this am reminded of past attempts to kill all the Christians, like the polythiest pagans of Rome tried to do over hundreds of years, in brutal ways, who later converted to Catholics, becoming even worse and trying to forcefully convert other kinds of Christians, and torturing or mass-murdering the ones who wouldn’t at various times.

And so, contrary to the claims that Esther is devoid of mention of God or religious references, ironically, it’s indirectly mentioned, implied as being one of the main reasons Haman used to try and get the king to kill the Judiates.

Esther 3:8 also makes it obvious why Mordecai had Esther hide her race as mentioned in one verse, and the verse in which Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman combined with the verse that Haman was an Agagite (part of race that were enemies of the Jews as mentioned earlier in the Bible), is evidence that Esther was a continuation of the Agagite vs. Judeans/Israelites storyline (which symbolically represents the unsaved world (which includes demons) vs. Christians and their God.

I wrote a little book on the similarities between God’s word and Buddha’s sayings (the verses in the Old Testament I refer to are much older than even the latest date of when Buddha was born), which you can read here hopefully.

Note: at about 4:25 A.M. I found that that saying of Buddha that reminded me of something that Job said, was hardly similar, and that when I carefully read what Buddha said, or at least the translation, saw that it was obviously wrong, destructive and stupid. It is:

“Your evil thoughts and words hurt but yourself, and not another; nothing so full of victory as patience, though your body suffer the pain of mutilation.” Since when do evil words never hurt anyone? How is it “full of victory” to merely have patience? So if I have the patience to torture someone in a certain way or abuse them, that’s “full of victory”? And since when does your body have to be mutilated if you have patience for something? Clearly, Buddha was a liar. I also found hours ago that he was probably the source of the New Age self-affirmation nonsense, in which you tell yourself that you are something or have some quality and that by doing so it’s true, though it may also have come from the warped interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that if you have even a very tiny amount of faith in him, that you can then command a mountain to go into the sea.

Update 6/19/2010, 2:57 P.M.

I learned that I made a mistake in what was considered an evidence against Esther being God’s word: I thought an argument was that Esther asked king Xerxes to make it a holiday after Haman had been killed, but then I checked around this time and remembered the argument was that it was nonsensical that she had asked for Haman and his ten sons to be hanged after they had been killed. The claim that it is nonsense/illogical is baseless as no illogicality is demonstrated. Just because the reason isn’t obvious or given right away doesn’t mean it is without a reason. The reason is obvious to me, and I’m sure many others. Whoever it’s not obvious to must be “new” to life and not that thoughtful, since everyone knows that putting a dead person on display is meant to be a message of warning or to provoke fear. Esther’s motive (if she was saved) would have been to try and put terror of God “of the Judeans”  into those who saw their enemies of Judeans hanged. Also, the verses after Esther 9:13 also indicate that the Jews had other enemies in Xerxes’ kingdom that she wanted killed, and so the hanging would have been used as a battle/war tactic to frighten their enemies, to remove their their pride and courage to fight back, or at least fight back well. And the use of putting bare bones on stakes or allowing bodies of some sort to dissolve into dry bones or making bare crossbones as warning and fear-provoking signs is common, but no one argues, “That makes no sense to hang things that are dead and don’t even have the flesh on them anymore”. So it’s obvious those who argue over the timing of the hanging are blind because of their hate or deliberately being hateful. I just realized I may have remember incorrectly again the argument over the hanging, and that the argument was that Esther nonsensically asked for it to be done the next day (after Haman and his sons were killed) rather than on the same day, which is the oddity, which ever argument it is neither explains why it is nonsensical. If she asked for it to be done the next day, it might have been to give the king time to think about it, rather than rushing him and perhaps angering him over being asked to make a rash decision like putting dead people hanging in public. Also if she asked for it to be done right away, and not knowing well Xerxes’ personality, he may have thought Esther and other Judeans to be people who flippant about displays of morbidness or sadistic. In other words, Esther implied with request, “Consider for a day whether or not to hang them”, and Xerxes may have not realized she was being polite and considerate. It may also be that Esther truly did want for a delay of a day so that everyone in general would not think her or Jews to be sadistic or flippant about displays of death. On top of that, the delay would give time for people to be made aware that such a shocking and long display of gruesome death was going to be shown in public, and so that those with children could prevent their children from seeing such a thing if that was their wish. In other words, Esther didn’t may have been showing politeness and consideration by avoiding offending those with children and those who didn’t want to see such a thing as they travelled. Obviously though she did want them to be seen in public by at least a large number of people willing to see such a thing, so that news about the success of the Judeans over their direct enemies would spread.

Also, the Bible says that those who are hanging on a tree (or some object made mostly of a tree), are cursed for having done wrong and that everyone who has done wrong is to be hanged on a tree (or some object made mostly of a tree). Judas was one of the most evil people the Bible implies, and his hanging came early, and was so evil you could say, that he took his life into his own hands and hung himself on a tree. But that that wasn’t the ultimate hanging, is perhaps evidenced by another verse in the Bible which implies that the rope he hung himself on snapped and that he fell and died in an even worse way. If it’s true that all who don’t repent are to be hung, then on the Day of Judgment, billions of people will, at the very least, be bound to a log or stake, and left there to hang for some time. It seems fitting to me that they would be “thrown” into Hell while still on that stake or log, and that they would serve as perpetual fuel for the “fire” there. I didn’t realize what the tree was supposed to represent till writing that previous sentence, and would have finished saying that I didn’t know, but I think it may represent “fuel for the fire”.