Anna mennä, vätys! Ammennä! Noin! Jes! Jes! käsivarsille, selkään, rintaan, masulle, kaikkialle! Ei syhyttä saunaan, nyt vihdotaan! Suihkikaa, remmit, purkaa mua, reviskelkää mua! Must olis kiva et mun veritipat roiskuis tähtiin asti, särkis luuut, jänteet paljaaxi (tai kenties hermot, antiikissa ei tehty eroa)! Tonkeja, remmiä, piinapenkkiä, sulaa lyijyä! Marttyyreille oli vielä muitakin konsteja! Vai mitä Ammonaria?
ellauri043.html on line 4730: Neith, asioiden alkupää! Ammon, ikuisuuden seniori,
ellauri043.html on line 6168: Mä muistan matkan jonka mä tein Ammonin kanssa, etsimään yxinäistä paikkaa minne perustaa luostareita. Se oli viimeinen ilta, ja me tihitettiin askelia, mumisten hymnejä, vieri vierellä, puhumattomina. Sitä mukaa kun aurinko aleni, meidän ruumiiden 2 varjoa pitenivät kuin 2 obeliskia koko ajan kasvaen ja kulkivat koko ajan meidän mukana. Meidän patonkien kärjillä me istutettiin sinne tänne ristejä merkkaamaan sellin paikkaa. Yö tuli hitaasti, ja mustat varjot laajenivat maassa valtavan roosan värin vielä vallitessa taivasta.
ellauri043.html on line 6182:

Ei, Ammonaria ei ole sitä jättänyt!
ellauri043.html on line 6184:

Missähän se on nyt, Ammonaria?
ellauri043.html on line 6279: Se luulee sitä ensin Ammonariax.
ellauri094.html on line 203: Olen pitänyt esitelmiä yli tuhannen hengen kuulijakunnille Louvressa, Bagdadissa ja Helsingissä, ja Heurekassa vuonna 1995 järjestämäni näyttely “Ninive 612 eKr.” oli yksi tiedekeskuksen menestyksekkäimmistä ja keräsi yli 80000 katsojaa. Helsingin yliopistossa vuonna 1997 pidetty “Studia exotica – Kadonneet kulttuurit” -esitelmäsarja oli myös suuri yleisömenestys. YLEn Elävässä arkistossa julkaistua haastatteluihini perustuvaa 10-osaista “Muinaisen Assyrian suurvallan vaiheita” -sarjaa suosittelee 197 Facebook-fania. Helsingissä kesällä 2001 pidettyyn assyriologikongressiin osallistui lähes 300 tutkijaa ympäri maailmaa. Siellä julkistettu, sumerilaisen reseptin mukaan valmistettu Enkidu-olut toi minulle Sauli Niinistön jälkeen seuraavana Vuoden Vaahtopää -arvonimen, ja sumeriksi kääntämäni Blue suede shoes herätti Doctor Ammondtin tulkitsemana huomiota ympäri maailmaa.
ellauri156.html on line 76: Israel is at war with none other than the Ammonites (verse 1), which may come as a surprise to you as it did to me. (Well, to be honest, I thought they were the cretacean mollusks by the same name.) I thought the Ammonites had been defeated in chapter 10. I was wrong. The author is very clear on this matter. In chapter 8, the author tells how David began to engage his enemies in battle, ending the strangle-hold these surrounding nations had on Israel. David subjected the Philistines (8:1), then the Moabites (8:2), and then he took on the king of Zobah (8:3ff.). In the process, other nations became involved and found Israel too formidable an enemy to oppose again. (Notice the similarity of the situation here to the Yom Kippur War.)
ellauri156.html on line 78: In chapter 10, we find David and the men of Israel deliberately insulted by Hanun, the king of the Ammonites. David had become friends with Nahash, the former king. When he died, David sent a delegation of officials to express David's respect for Nahash and his grief over this king's death. The Ammonites do not seem to wish to continue this peaceful relationship with David and Israel, so they humiliate the men whom David sent. This is how it all happened (Bob omitted this):
ellauri156.html on line 80: When David’s men came to the land of the Ammonites, 3 the Ammonite commanders said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think David is honoring your father by sending envoys to you to express sympathy? Hasn’t David sent them to you only to explore the city and spy it out and overthrow it?” 4 So Hanun seized David’s envoys, shaved off half of each man’s beard, cut off their garments at the buttocks, and sent them away.
ellauri156.html on line 84: This leads to a war between the Israelites and the Ammonites. The Ammonites recruit the Syrians as their allies against David. In their first conflict, the Syrians flee, forcing the Ammonites to retreat to “the city” (10:14; which must be Rabbah -- see 12:26ff.). The Syrians are not content with their defeat and attempt a rematch, but once again they are defeated. This causes them to give up any thought of backing up the Ammonites in their war with Israel in the future.
ellauri156.html on line 86: So you see, the Ammonites were not subjected to Israel in chapter 10, but they were deprived of Syrian assistance. Now they are on their own. The Israelites make the most of this. They ravage the land of the Ammonites and then besiege the capital (royal) city of Rabbah (11:1; see 1 Chronicles 20:1). This city of Rabbah, incidentally, is now the city of Amman, Jordan. It is not until after David's sin is rebuked by Nathan that the Israelites actually take the city (2 Samuel 12:26-31).
ellauri156.html on line 88: The author of our text informs us that it is spring, the time when kings go to war (11:1). Weather has always affected warfare. Battles have been won and lost due to the season. Winter time is not favorable to war. Napoleon found this out in Moscow, The Germans in Stalingrad, and the Russians in the Finnish Winter War.) It is cold and wet, and camping out in the open field (as those who are besieging the city of Rabbah have to do -- see 11:11) hardly is feasible. The wheels of chariots get stuck in the mud, among other problems. And so kings usually sit it out for the winter, resuming their warfare in the spring. It is spring, Israel is still at war with the Ammonites, and it is time to finish the task of subduing them. The army assembles, under the command of Joab and his officers, and “all Israel.” They all go off to complete their victory over the Ammonites, who seem to retreat in their capital and fortress city of Rabbah.
ellauri156.html on line 92: 1 Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that Joab led out the army and ravaged the land of the sons of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem. And Joab struck Rabbah and overthrew it (1 Chronicles 20:1).
ellauri156.html on line 108: What I am pointing out here is that the decision on David's part -- to remain in Jerusalem -- is the beginning of woes for both David and the nation Israel. Why is it wrong for David to stay home while the rest of the men of Israel go to war against the Ammonites? First, leading the nation in war is one of the main tasks of the king:
ellauri156.html on line 209: A second reason may be boredom. Something you my dear remaining readers know by now. It is one thing to fight battles in which the enemy is quickly overcome. But the besieging of Rabbah is a whole different kind of war. This battle will not be won so quickly. It will take time to starve the Ammonites to the point that they surrender. It is not a very exciting kind of war to wage. And while they wait, the Israelite soldiers (which includes David) have to pitch their tents outside the city, living in the open field. This is no picnic, and David knows it. David's attitude seems reflected in the advertising slogan of a major hamburger chain, “You deserve a break today.”
ellauri156.html on line 236: King David makes the mistake of staying in Jerusalem, rather than fighting the Ammonites with his army. He does not stay home to meditate on the Law of Moses or to write another psalm or two; he seems to stay home to stay in bed. We know Uriah went to bed when it was evening (that is, when it got dark), and it is very likely that he got up at first light (see 11:13). With David, it is very different. David does not get up until evening, that is, until it is time for a soldier to go to bed. (As a friend of mine pointed out, this is probably a habit developed over days and not just a one-time event.) It is very unlikely that David is doing any “kingly work” in the wee hours of the night. From all appearances, David is simply indulging himself. Whaddya mean? Fucking maidens is kingly work if anything. Surely he wasn't watching late night shows, since all he had was his TV mama. Sitting up and adjusting the screen until the picture was completely right.
ellauri156.html on line 317: 1 Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem (emphases mine).
ellauri156.html on line 471: Uriah has to understand what the king is suggesting. Who wouldn't want to go home and enjoy his wife after some time of separation, thanks to the war with the Ammonites? Instead, we are told that Uriah never leaves the king's house. He sleeps in the doorway of the king's house, in the presence of a number of the king's servants. I am inclined to understand that at least some of these servants, if not all of them, are the king's bodyguards (compare 1 Kings 14:27-28). Uriah is a soldier. He has been called to his king's presence, away from the battle. But as a faithful servant of the king, he will not enjoy a night alone with his wife; instead, he will join with those who guard the king's life. This is the way he can serve his king in Jerusalem, and so this is what he chooses to do rather than to go home. The irony is overwhelming. The king's faithful soldier spends the night guarding the 50% new life of the king in his wife's womb, the king who has taken his own wife in the night, and who will soon take his life as well. Dramatic irony.
ellauri156.html on line 509: It must be an agonizing night for David, seeing that even drunk Uriah is a better man than he. But not a better pecker! And so in the morning, David acts. He writes a letter to Joab, which will serve as Uriah's death warrant. In this letter David clearly orders Joab to murder Uriah for him. He even tells him how to do so in a way that might conceal the truth of the matter. In so doing, David can honor Uriah as a war hero, and magnanimously take on the duty of being a husband to Uriah's wife, also taking care of the child she is soon to bear. Joab is to put Uriah on the front lines of battle, at the fiercest place of battle, no surprise for a man of his military skills and courage. Joab is to attack and then retreat in such a way as to make Uriah an easy target for the Ammonites, thus assuring his death. There is no mistaking David's orders to Uriah: he wants Uriah killed in a way which makes it look like a simple casualty of war. Joab complies completely with David's orders (why? Is Uriah a creep?), and Uriah is eliminated, no longer an obstacle to David's plans. In giving this order to Joab, David makes him a part of this conspiracy, making him share the guilt for the spilled blood of Uriah. David's sin continues to encompass more and more people, leading to greater and greater sin.
ellauri156.html on line 541: It is characteristic of the rabbinical view of the Bible narratives that Abner, the warrior pure and simple, is styled "Lion King of the Law" (Yer. Peah, l.c.), and that even a specimen is given of a halakic discussion between him and Dog as to whether the law in Deut. xxiii. 3 excluded Ammonite and Moabite women from the Jewish community as well as men. Dog was of the opinion that David, being descended from the Moabitess Ruth, was not fit to wear the crown, nor even to be considered a true Israelite; while Abner maintained that the law affected only the male line of descent. When Dog's dialectics proved more than a match for those of Abner, the latter went to the prophet Samuel, who not only supported Abner in his view, but utterly refuted Dog's assertions (Midr. Sam. xxii.; Yeb. 76b et seq.).
ellauri156.html on line 550: Earlier in this series: David condemned Joab and put him under a curse because he shed the innocent blood of Abner. Now, this same David (well, not really the same David) now uses Joab to kill Uriah and get him out of his way. David's enemy (Joab) has become his friend, or at least his ally. David's enemies (the Ammonites) have become his allies (they fire the fatal shots which kill Uriah). And David's faithful servant Uriah has been put to death as though he were the enemy. Not only is Uriah put to death, but a number of other Israelite warriors die with him. They have to be sacrificed to conceal the murder of Uriah. Uriah's death has to be viewed as one of a group of men, rather than merely one man. Without a doubt, this is the moral and spiritual low-water mark of David's life.
ellauri156.html on line 556: The answer is quite simple, as is evident by Joab's own concerns. The entire mission is a fiasco. The Israelites have besieged the city of Rabbah. This means they surround the city, giving the people no way in or out of the city. All the Israelites have to do is wait them out and starve them out. There is no need for any attack. The mission is a suicide mission from the outset, and it does not take a genius to see it for what it is. Joab has to assemble a group of mighty men, like Uriah, and including Uriah, to wage an attack on the city. This attack is not at the enemy's weakest point, as we would expect, but at the strongest point. This attack provokes a counter-attack by the Ammonites against Uriah and those with him. When the Israelite army draws back from their own men, they leave them defenseless, and the obvious result is a slaughter. How can one possibly report this fiasco in a way that doesn’t make Joab look like a fool (at best), or a murderer (at worst)?
ellauri156.html on line 560: And so in verses 22-25 we are given an account of the messenger's arrival, of his report to David, and of David's response. I must point out that the messenger does not do as he is told, at least the way I read the account. The messenger goes to David and tells the king how the Ammonites prevailed against them as they left the city and pursued the Israelites into the open field. The Israelites then pursued the Ammonites, pushing them back toward the city as far as the city gate. It was here that Uriah and those with him were fighting. It was here that they were within range of the archers, who shot at them and killed a number of servants. And quickly the servant adds, “and your servant Uriah the Hittite is also dead” (verse 14).
ellauri156.html on line 578: Fourth, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Sin snowballs. Sin has not got a snowball's chance in hell. Sin is not stagnant; it is not static. Sin grows. Look at the progression of sin in our text. David's sin starts when he ceases to act like a soldier and (what is way worse) becomes a late sleeper. David's sin grows from staying up late to adultery to murder. His sin begins very privately, but as the story progresses, more and more people become aware of it, and worse yet, more and more people become participants in it. His sin first acted out by his taking another man's wife, and then taking another man's life, and along with his life, his wife, plus the lives of a number of men who must die with him to make his death credible. David's sin blossoms so that it transforms a true and loyal friend (Uriah) to his enemy, and his enemies (the Ammonites, and his other rival Joab) into his allies.
ellauri156.html on line 633: David has become king of both Judah and Israel. He has, in large measure, consolidated his kingdom. He has taken Jebus and made it his capital city, renaming it Jerusalem. He has built his palace and given thought to building a temple (a plan God significantly revises). He has subjected most of Israel's neighboring nations. He has done battle with the Ammonites and prevailed, but he has not yet completely defeated them. The Ammonites have retreated to the royal city of Rabbah, and as the time for war (spring) approaches, David sends all Israel, led by Joab, to besiege the city and to bring about its surrender. David has chosen not to endure the rigors of camping in the open field, outside the city. He has chosen rather to remain in Jerusalem. Sleeping late, David rises from his bed as others prepare to go to bed for the night. David strolls about the rooftop of his palace and happens to steal a look at a beautiful young woman bathing herself, perhaps ceremonially, in fulfillment of the law.
ellauri156.html on line 643: David, on the other hand, does not even bother to go through the pretense of mourning. He does not even try to be hypocritical. When other mighty men of Israel died, David led the nation in mourning their loss. David mourned for Saul and his sons, killed in the battle with the Philistines (2 Samuel 1). David mourned the death of Abner, wickedly put to death by Joab (2 Samuel 3:28ff.). He even sent a delegation to officially mourn the death of Nahash, king of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10). But when Uriah is killed “in battle,” not a word of mourning comes from David's lips. He is not sorry; he is relieved. Instead of instructing others to mourn for Uriah, he sends word to Joab not to take his death too seriously.
ellauri156.html on line 679: Second, note that Nathan is sent to David. Twelve times in the last chapter the word “sent” is employed by the author. A number of these instances refer to David “sending” someone or “sending” for someone. David is a man of power and authority, and so he can “send out” for whatever he wants, including the death of Uriah. Now, it is God who does the “sending.” Herra se on herrallakin. Is David impressed with his power and authority? Has he gotten used to “sending” people to do his work for him (like sending Joab and all Israel to fight the Ammonites)? Let David take note that God is sending Nathan. He is a godsend to Dave.
ellauri156.html on line 753: have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
ellauri156.html on line 766: The evil David commits against others is clear disobedience to the revealed Word of God. David is a “man after God's own heart,” and yet in this instance, David “despised the Word of the Lord.” While David does repent and the guilt of his sin is forgiven, these consequences will not be reversed. These consequences are just; they fit the crime David committed. He used the sword of the Ammonites to kill Uriah, and so the sword will not depart from his house. He took the wife of another man, and so his own wives will be taken by another, another from his own house.
ellauri163.html on line 148: Hulluja lakeja. Ei kuohitun ja raajarikon pidä tuleman herran seurakuntaan. (Hetkinen, Jeppe taisi rikkoa tätä pykälää?) Eikä pidä myös äpäränä tuleman herran seurakuntan, eipä vielä kymmenenteen polveenkaan asti. Isi taisi olla 10. polven Barkmannin äpärä, eli sille oli tie selvä jo. Ammoniitit ja moabiitit ei nekään kelpaa. Entäs Taavetti, joka oli puolimooabiitti? Ehkä se pääsi puoleenväliin sisälle. Nää oli jotain vanhoja kaunoja. Niille ei saa edes päivää sanoa, vaa pahaa toivoa. Vitun pitkävihaisia nää koukkunokat.
ellauri171.html on line 849: Chemosh, possibly one of the sons of El, a god of war and destruction and the national god of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
ellauri171.html on line 879: Milcom, national god of the Ammonites.
ellauri171.html on line 1175: 1 Niinä päivinä, jolloin tuomarit hallitsivat, maassa oli nälänhätä. Niin eräs mies Juudan Betlehemistä muutti vaimonsa ja kahden poikansa kanssa hetkeksi asumaan Moabin maahan. Mooab oli Kuolleen meren itärannalla Jordanian puolella. Siellä Lootin tyttäret antoi isän panna heidät paxuxi. Toisesta epäsikiöstä tuli Moab ja toisesta Ammon. Mutta takaisin tarinaamme! Miehen nimi oli Elimelek, hänen vaimonsa nimi oli Noomi, ja hänen kahden poikansa nimet olivat Mahlon ja Kilion. He olivat efratilaisia ​​Juudan Betlehemistä. Ja he menivät Moabiin ja asuivat siellä. 3 Elimelek, Noomin mies, kuoli, ja hän jäi kahden poikansa kanssa. 4 He menivät naimisiin moabilaisten naisten kanssa, joista toisen nimi oli Orpa ja toisen Ruut.
ellauri185.html on line 113: Shortly thereafter, Saul leads Israel to a victory over Nahash of Ammon. Despite his numerous military victories, Saul disobeys Yahweh's instruction to destroy Amalek: Saul spares the Amalekite ruler and the best portion of the Amalekite flocks to present them as sacrifices. Samuel rebukes Saul and tells him that God has now chosen another man to be king of Israel.
ellauri263.html on line 499: H. P. Blavatskyn päätyö oli teosofinen oppi, johon hiän sulautti valtavasti vaikutteita eri tahoilta. Eniten Blavatskyn ajatteluun vaikuttaneista oppisuunnista, teoksista ja auktoriteeteista voidaan mainita ainakin buddhalaisuus, Bhagavad Gita ja hindulainen tantrismi, Kabbala (erityisesti Eliphas Levi), Raamattu, Zohar ja Talmud, hermetismi, ruusuristiläisyys, gnostilaisuus, zarathustralaisuus, kaldealaiset, vapaamuurarius, spiritismi, mystiikka, Jakob Böhme ja Mestari Eckhart, alkemia ja magia, aikansa tieteellinen kirjallisuus, Robert Fludd, Paracelsus, maailman mytologiat esimerkiksi germaaninen mytologia, Popol Vuh, Ryhmä Hau ja Gilgameš (myös otteita Kalevalasta), antiikin kirkkoisät Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Origenes ja Eusebius, filosofit, etenkin Platon ja uusplatonilaisuus, Porfyrios, Plotinos ja Ammonios Sakkas sekä historioitsijat ja monet muut antiikin kirjailijat kuten Plinius vanhempi, Ovidius, Homeros ja Josefus. Lisäksi hän väitti opiskelleensa huomattavien inkarnaatiolaamojen oppilaana Tiibetissä, Ladakhissa, Nepalissa ja Mongoliassa ja perehtyneensä muun muassa vajrayanan esoterismiin eli Kālacakrayanaan, Nepalin svābhāvikoiden oppiin ja sykretistiseen shamanismiin (puuh).
ellauri272.html on line 400:

Archibald Ammoniitti