Friday, August 01, 2014

"great multitudes followed him" - Shakespeare Assassinated

A Summer City Festival with Miniature Shrines around Tokyo

Shakespeare Assassinated

Put simply, in my theory, William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was assassinated because he was found to be a dangerous Catholic though hidden.

It should be noted that the cause of death of Shakespeare has not been definitely identified.
How Did Shakespeare Die? 
The cause of Shakespeare's death is a mystery, but an entry in the diary of John Ward, the vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Stratford (where Shakespeare is buried), tells us that "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting and it seems drank too hard, for Shakespeare died of a fever there contracted." Ward, a self-proclaimed Shakespeare fan, wrote his diary fifty years after Shakespeare died and most historians agree it appears to be a baseless anecdote. It should be noted though that a serious outbreak of typhus, known as the "new fever", in 1616 (the year Shakespeare died), lends credibility to Ward's story.

C. Martin Mitchell, in his insightful biography of Shakespeare's physician and son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, presents the following hypothesis: "I have formed the opinion that it was more likely than not in the nature of a cerebral hemorrhage or apoplexy that quickly deepened and soon became fatal.

Unfortunately, Shakespeare's death at the age of fifty-two will almost surely remain a mystery. 
There are some studies on what Shakespeare believed in to conclude that he was a Catholic.
Author: Peter Milward 
Shakespeare, who wrote at the beginning of the long period in which the Catholic faith as violently suppressed in the British Isles, has long enjoyed an iconic status. Some readers have interpreted him as an early agnostic, expressing modern angst about whether anything exists besides "this mortal coil" that seems to be merely "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." In recent years, however, thanks largely to the work of Peter Milward, close study of Shakespeare's plays has raised the question: Was Shakespeare in fact a believing Catholic? To this question, which radically changes the way that Shakespeare's plays should be read, Milward here offers, in his definitive study of the topic, a resounding "Yes."
Shakespeare retired to Stratford around 1613 at age 49 after writing The Tempest.
Retirement from all work was uncommon at that time. Shakespeare continued to visit London during the years 1611–1614.
One thing sure is that Shakespeare did not think he would soon die after retirement.  But he was assassinated, probably, with poison.  It could be even sensed from the words engraved on his tomb.
Shakespeare was buried in the chancel of the Holy Trinity Church two days after his death.[79] The epitaph carved into the stone slab covering his grave includes a curse against moving his bones, which was carefully avoided during restoration of the church in 2008:

Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare,
To digg the dvst encloased heare.
Bleste be man that spares thes stones,
And cvrst be he  moves my bones.
There must be some evidence of assassination on his dead body.  So, somebody must have made up this fake curse to conceal the crime.  It should be also noted that there is no evidence that this epitaph was written by Shakespeare himself.

As I mentioned before, Shakespeare was trusted by King James.  Shakespeare, most probably, joined the translation of the Bible and helped create the King James Version, though secretly.  To confirm it, we had better check where the two words, "shake" and "spear," appear in the King James Version of the Bible, especially with a focus on Psalms.
Psalms 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake (16th) the head, saying, 
Psalms 35:3 Draw out also the spear (5th), and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. 
That is, Shakespeare in 1605!
In 1605 Shakespeare was trusted by King James, but in 1613 he was a kind of forced to retire.  And in 1616, he was killed with poison.

Indeed it was still in an era of assassinations, machinations, and betrayals concerning status of religion and politics in England and Europe that Shakespeare lived.  In each of his works, Shakespeare must have put his life on the line, literally.


In this era of the latter phase of the religious reformation, even a Pope recommended an assassination of the queen of England.
Pope Gregory XIII on Queen Elizabeth I
This position became more extreme as powerful monarchs left the Roman church.  Assassinations were ordered and carried out (Henry of Navarre comes to mind, as well as the Gunpowder plot in England), and this was a consistent product of the Roman doctrine.  It is important to note that this was not some accidental phenomena carried out by confused followers, but rather it was the Roman position on civil authority.  Here is a quote from the Cardinal of Como, speaking on behalf of Gregory XIII’s papacy, written to the papal ambassador in Spain and meant to inspire Spanish hostilities against England: 
Since that guilty woman (Elizabeth) … is the cause of so much injury to the Catholic faith… There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit, especially having regard to the sentence pronounced against her by Pius V of holy memory.  And so, if those English gentlemen decide actually to undertake so glorious a work, your lordship can assure them that they do not commit any sin.
This is a breathtaking quote, but quite understandable within the Roman system.  This also shows you something of how the Reformation actually occurred and definitely explains why King James thought that the militant Presbyterians were Romanizers.
This Gregory was the same pope who celebrated the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre by ordering a Te Deum to be sung in its commemoration.

Accordingly, it is no wonder that somebody in the British royal court at the time came to suspect that Shakespeare was Catholic and find a needs to remove him.

Most probably William Shakespeare wrote his plays as messages to show sympathy to Catholics in England under pressure from the non-Catholic regime and  encourage them to keep faith in the Roman church.  His intention and hidden motives were well concealed for a long time in his career as a professional dramatist.

But when King James assumed the throne, eventually some politicians, noblemen, or officials in the British royal court must have discovered those hidden messages or codes in Shakespeare's plays.  Hence, Shakespeare was forced to retire and finally killed with poison.

*** *** *** ***

Mat 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Mat 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

"he came unto the sea of Galilee" - Ancestors of Abraham

Around Tokyo

Ancestors of Abraham

History repeats itself sometimes.

It is well known that Alexander the Great marched to the region on the Indus River around 330 BC.

It is thought that a group of Malays sailed from Borneo Island to Madagascar around the first century.

Taking into these facts into consideration, it is no wonder if some indigenous Indians sailed and moved to the Persian Gulf and as far as to ancient Mesopotamia to found the Sumerian civilization.

The types of  both the languages of Sumerians and Dravidians are the agglutinative language. And the two ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia and Indus Valley had a trade tie between them.

The point at issue is that Abraham and his clan look like having had their roots in Sumerians.  When the last Sumerian kingdom fell around 2000 BC, Abraham and his clan left the city Ur in Mesopotamia.  It is rather unthinkable that such a glorious man Abraham was just a nomad.  Such an accepted theory apparently lacks respect for Abraham.  Though the language Hebrews later adopted was Semitic, originally Abraham must have been from Sumerians.
Although the earliest forms of writing in the region do not go back much further than c. 3500 BCE, modern historians have suggested that Sumer was first permanently settled between c. 5500 and 4000 BCE by a non-Semitic people who may or may not have spoken the Sumerian language....
 Reliable historical records begin much later; there are none in Sumer of any kind that have been dated before Enmebaragesi (c. 26th century BC).

And Sumerians most likely came from India.  Their relatives in India built the Indus River Civilization.  So, ancestors of Abraham must have been a kind of the Dravidian.   But where were Dravidians from?    
There are two explanations currently accepted for anthropological discussion.
First, that Dravidians originally represented a wholesale migration from the north-west, from eastern and southern Europe. BUT then were forced en masse into the southern part of India by later migrations, famines, geological disturbances and so on. So now, all Dravidian-origin peoples are located in southern India.

Second, that they arrived from "nearby" territories; such as the horn of Africa and/or the South East Asia archipelago.

At the moment, there is no agreement on this matter and both theories have their adherents.  Politically, many Dravidians seem to wish to have originated in eastern and southern Europe.  Ethnically, there is now a cultural movement to align Dravidians with the "black" races of Africa and Asia.;_ylt=A0SO8x09WtpTYAUA6WtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbWE0NWtxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ3NV8x?qid=20130622083539AAoGFj1

So, there is a theory that around 5300 BC ancestors of Drvidians sailed from North East Africa on the Indian Ocean.  And they built the Indus Valley Civilization around 2600 BC.

However there is one noteworthy feature of the Indus Valley Civilization: it was from the beginning at a very advanced level.  It was as though some people with higher civilization immigrated into the Indus Valley to build cities with stones.  Their cities did not show incremental advancement.  They appeared from the beginning in a complete form.

So, other tribe must have joined Dravidians to establish the Civilization, since such people from Africa do not seem to have had such skills and knowledge to build Indus Valley cities.

Then where did the true builders of the Indus Valley Civilization came from?  I think it was Jericho.
Jericho is a city located near the Jordan River in the West Bank.  
The city may be the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. 
By about 9400 BCE the town had grown to more than 70 modest dwellings.[citation needed] Estimates put the population as high as two to three thousand people and as low as two to three hundred.[20] Most strikingly, this early town featured a massive stone wall over 3.6 metres (12 ft) high and 1.8 metres (5 ft 11 in) wide at the base. Inside this wall stood a tower over 3.6 metres (12 ft) high, containing an internal staircase with 22 stone steps.[12][21] The wall and tower have no known precedent in human culture, and would have taken a hundred men more than a hundred days to construct.  
After a few centuries the first settlement was abandoned. A second settlement, established in 6800 BCE, perhaps represents the work of an invading people who absorbed the original inhabitants into their dominant culture. Artifacts dating from this period include ten plastered human skulls, painted so as to reconstitute the individuals' features.[12] These represent the first example of portraiture in art history,[dubious – discuss] and it is thought that they were kept in people's homes while the bodies were buried. 
A succession of settlements followed from 4500 BCE onward, the largest constructed in 2600 BCE.
So, like Alexander the Great, some people moved from Jericho to the Indus Valley to build the civilization.  They mingled with Dravidians.  And some of them sailed to the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia to be called Sumerians like a group of Malays sailed from Borneo Island to Madagascar.

In summary, ancestors of Abraham traveled from Jericho to the Indus Valley to be mingled with Dravidians and then sailed to Mesopotamia to become Sumerians.

This theory sounds good, since it shows full respect for Abraham, the most glorious human ancestor of Christ Jesus.

Archeological excavations reveal that Jericho was violently destroyed sometime toward the end of the Bronze Age.

An Indus Valley Civilization City: Persian-gulf seal was found at Lothal—it is a button seal.

In the case of Ur, habitation here lasted c. 4000 years, from the fifth to the mid-first millennium BC.

Now we can consider the history of Israelis or Judaists and even Christians in the span of  10,000 years but not mere 4,000 years since we can now identify ancestors of Abraham in Jericho of about 7,000 BC, though 2600 BC looks like a key year for Jericho, the Indus Valley and Sumer.

*** *** *** ***

Mar 7:31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
Mar 7:32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
Mar 7:33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
Mar 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
Mar 7:35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.
Mar 7:36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
Mar 7:37 And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

"the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God"

Summer Fireworks Display around Tokyo

*** *** *** ***

Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Luk 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
Luk 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

"for I am from him" - The Views on the Apocalypse in Columbus' Era

Around Tokyo

The Views on the Apocalypse in Columbus' Era

How was the Apocalypse painted by notable artists in the era of Columbus?
Hans Memling (also spelled Memlinc; 1430 – 1494) was a German-born painter who moved to Flanders and worked in the tradition of Early Netherlandish painting. He spent some time in the Brussels workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, and after Rogier's death in 1464, Memling was made a citizen of Bruges, where he became one of the leading artists, painting both portraits and diptychs for personal devotion and several large religious works, seamlessly continuing the style he learned in his youth.

Above Memling's picture of the Apocalypse is rather peaceful.  Probably it is because he died before 1500.  Indeed opposite feeling is expressed by another artist who succeeded in his profession after 1500.  Truly situations seems to have drastically changed after 1500, though Columbus reached the New World in 1492.
Albrecht Dürer (1471 – 1528)[2] was a German painter, engraver, printmaker, mathematician, and theorist from Nuremberg. His high-quality woodcuts (nowadays often called Meisterstiche or "master prints") established his reputation and influence across Europe when he was still in his twenties, and he has been conventionally regarded as the greatest artist of the Northern Renaissance ever since. His vast body of work includes altarpieces, religious works, numerous portraits and self-portraits, and copper engravings. The woodcuts, such as the Apocalypse series (1498), retain a more Gothic flavour than the rest of his work. His well-known prints include the Knight, Death, and the Devil (1513), Saint Jerome in his Study (1514) and Melencolia I (1514), which has been the subject of extensive analysis and interpretation.

The era of Columbus is directly linked to the era of Martin Luther (1483-1546).  Let's see Luther's view on the Apocalypse.
Archives / 1951 / December

RESEARCH: Martin Luther and the End of the World
 Daniel Walther
Luther was so impressed by the precarious- ness of the times in 1528 that he expected the end to come before he had time to finish the translation of the Old Testament...

The imminence of the end was indeed uppermost in his mind: "Things are going toward their end." And he added, "I hope the last day will not be long delayed, not over a hundred years..."

He shared the usual very old view that the world would stand six thousand years. Since it took seven days for the creation of the world, and since a day is like a thousand years, the world would stand six thousand years before the seven-thousandth year, which .was to be the millennium, a period of rest. But then, Luther was so impressed by the impending doom that he opined that the end might come in the midst of the sixth millennium. According to Luther's computation, the world was 5,500 years old in the year 1540, which was to be about the right time for the end of all things to occur...

Many of his sermons dealt directly with the end of the world and the coming of the Lord, such as the one on "the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." In 1544, shortly before his death, he wrote to a friend that he had nothing else to say than that he was hoping for Christ's return that same year...
Lastly, let us mention Luther's particular idea of Antichrist, whose "raging was a definite Sign of the end." Who was that Antichrist in Luther's mind? Interestingly, the Antichrist is applied to both the Pope and the Turk! "The person of the Antichrist is at the same time the Pope and the Turk. Every person consists of a body and a soul. So the spirit of the Antichrist is the Pope, his flesh is the Turk. The one has infested the Church spiritually, the other bod ily. However, both come from the same Lord, even the devil."

According to Luther's calculation, the world is now 6,000 years old.  It seems reasonable to think that the Second Coming of Christ is in the early 21st century or before 2100 or Newton's 2060.

*** ***

As I wrote before, the Second Advent of Christ Jesus has started around 2010.  Let's review how it was calculated so.
Newton focused on  the year 800 when he calculated the year of the Second Advent, finally obtaining 2060 (= 800 + 1260).

Yet, from a global point of view, it is not 800 but 750 that should be the starting year of Newton's calculation. So, the Second Advent of Christ Jesus already started around 2010 (= 1260 + 750). 
Under the Abbasids, Islamic civilization flourished in the "Islamic Golden Age" (c. 750 CE - c. 1258 CE), with its capital at the cosmopolitan city of Baghdad.  
Although the city (Pella in Palestine where early Christians fled) was still inhabited as late as the tenth Century CE, it was the deadly earthquake of CE 747 that ended its long history as a city of major influence in the region 
 720 - The second oldest exisiting imperial chronicle and myth of Japan called Nihon Shoki (Record of Japan) was compiled following an imperial order. This book has become one of major documentary resources for shintoism. 
752 - The world's largest bronze statue of the Buddha, called "Daibutsu" in Japanese, was built in Heijyo-kyo (Nara City), following an imperial order.
"(Islamic) Golden Age" (750–1258)
The Battle of Talas (or Battle of Artlakh in 751 AD between the Arab Abbasid Caliphate and the Chinese Tang Dynasty, resulting in transfer of paper production technology from China to Europe.

*** *** *** ***

Joh 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
Joh 7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
Joh 7:31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

Monday, July 28, 2014

"the people were astonished at his doctrine" - Early Christians and Judaists in the Roman Empire

Around Tokyo

Early Christians and Judaists in the Roman Empire

It is a big mystery how Christianity spread in the Roman Empire.

This map from ‘A History of Christianity’ (Lion Handbook) shows the growth of the Church over the first 300 years. This is stark evidence that the early Church had indeed captured Christ's vision of a 'movement,' which Luke had so powerfully articulated in his writings!

We have to also refer to a map showing where Judaists lived in the Roman Empire.

The Jewish Diaspora
By the end of the first century BCE, Rome had taken over the eastern Mediterranean and the Jewish population was spread through many cities of the east. In the third and fourth centuries CE there were substantial Jewish settlements in most major eastern cities and many western provinces as well.

So, comparing the two maps with each other, we can find that where Judaists were Christians also emerged in the Roman Empire till the Third Century.

But what was the Jewish population at the time?
Jews in Roman Empire:
25% of Roman population in Eastern Mediterranean
10% of entire Roman Empire 
48 C.E. Roman census: 7 million Jews (mostly in Judea, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Babylon, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia) for an estimated total of 8 million world wide.
So then, what was the Christian population in the Roman Empire?
The Growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire 
The Christian population grew by 40 percent a decade, from about 1,000 Christians in the year 40 to 7,530 in 100 to a little over six million in 300 and 33 million in 350
— growing, in the hundred years between 250 and 350, from about two percent of the population to slightly over half. 
By the time Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in 313, the empire was already heavily Christianized. By the year 300 perhaps 10 percent of the people were Christians, and by the middle of the century, Christians may well have been a majority of the citizens, 33 million Christians in an empire of 60 millionpeople. So Constantine did not so much ensure Christianity’s success as acknowledge it.

In summary, it seems that presence of Judaists around helped many Roman citizens and dwellers in the Empire accept the teaching of Christianity, even though only a small number of Judaists converted to Christianity.

Probably, in a typical case, a Roman citizen saw Judaists in his community to be interested in the world depicted in the Gospels.  Then he found that the teaching of Jesus transcended time and space or history and environment.  Christianity appealed to the Roman citizen regardless of a difference in the race, tradition, and other backgrounds, since Jesus' teaching was universal.

So long as Judaists played such an important role in the early stage of acceptance of Christianity by Roman citizens, those Roman-citizens-turned Christians would not hate, attack, or try to kill those Judaists.  But as time went by, when the Vatican consolidated its authority and people came to believe in Christianity without communications with Judaists, Judaists must have been isolated from Christians.  It must have become a cause of later friction and clashes between Christians and Judaists.  

*** *** *** ***

Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.